The 5th best player ever is a goalie.

[Michael Farkas]

Mario and his video game numbers seem to partially blind some to the fact that he didn't really tilt the ice in so far as winning games as his legacy makes him out to be.

I don't know specifically what's being referenced here. But are these "tilt" numbers relative to the all time greats or relative to the on-the-aggregate poorer rosters that Lemieux was on...?

 

[MadLuke]

This assumes that Canadian players' numbers are not influenced by the presence of non-Canadians or a lack of their presence. This opens up a whole can of hypothetical worms; or a partial can depending on what narrative you want to be true.

You make it sound like we aren't talking about slim margins of talent level between the top hockey talent in the world. You remove Jagr and Kucherov from the league and it isn't a Canadian AHLer taking their spot; it is a 2nd liner moving up who likely sees a boost in their points due to more PP time.

There is still way more good spot for Canadian than in Howe time too, everything can be said for the Canadian player of the time, the player that would have played on the Red Wings first line would not of those 2 would also have benefited. In a 32 teams league, would compete for a top 5 spot if not of being buried in the roster will get rarer than before.

+15 in 16 gp is not a +1 pergame

Yes and ....999 pts in 1000 games is not a ppg.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

I think the simple explanation is that the baby boomers were controlling the media narrative and it has stuck to a certain extent.

Also all 3 of these guys really stood out head and shoulders from the competition in some areas.

I think the baby boomers were more likely to tout Howe, Hull, Richard, since that's who they grew up watching (and what they grew up watching established the baseline to which they compare everything else).

And if you look at the lists promulgated when they were "controlling the media narrative", those players (and others) rated more highly than they do now (with my generation - who grew up watching Gretzky/Lemieux/Roy/Hasek - driving the media).

 

[wetcoast]

I think the baby boomers were more likely to tout Howe, Hull, Richard, since that's who they grew up watching (and what they grew up watching established the baseline to which they compare everything else).

Sure but the baby boomers also were the people watching Gtezky, Mario, Hasek and Roy in real time and occupied sports commentary positions that promoted viewpoints.

And if you look at the lists promulgated when they were "controlling the media narrative", those players (and others) rated more highly than they do now (with my generation - who grew up watching Gretzky/Lemieux/Roy/Hasek - driving the media).

I'm not saying that it's the only thing, video game numbers and other factors are at play here.

 

[Voight]

Re: The Big Four (and #5)

I don't think the Big 4 exists any longer, amongst the people who are now sitting around and talking about these things. There's really a Big 3 (Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr). And Gretzky is so far ahead that you could actually just put him alone at the top.

Howe is falling and he definitely won't survive McDavid, who's career is as long as Orr's already. Multiple generations already have McDavid in the top 4, and soon all will.

Gretzky, Lemieux, and McDavid are much better scorers than Howe was, and that's the main reason Howe will continue to slowly move down.

Even though individuals and groups will continue to rank Howe higher, the consensus is moving him out of the top four.

This is a pretty awful take.

As time passes Howe may become less relevant among the general populace, but his dominance is in the history books for eternity. In this day and age everyone (in general) has a what have you done for me lately mentality which hurts guys like Howe who were dominant well before the majority of the worlds population was born and its much harder to find videos online of his play, compared to the other 3.

 

[wetcoast]

This is a pretty awful take.

As time passes Howe may become less relevant among the general populace, but his dominance is in the history books for eternity. In this day and age everyone (in general) has a what have you done for me lately mentality which hurts guys like Howe who were dominant well before the majority of the worlds population was born and its much harder to find videos online of his play, compared to the other 3.

I think if anything Mario is the weakest link in the top 4 and Howe might have a stronger case for 2 than 4.

 

[Staniowski]

Only Gretzky matched Howe's dominance over his peers. You can't go by raw totals across multiple eras (for example, Bernie Nicholls is a better scorer than Howe by that method).

Not to mention Howe had 6x Ross, 20x Top 5 in points, 5x Rocket and 6x leading the playoffs in scoring

Not even close to being true.

Lemieux and McDavid are both much more dominant scorers than Howe was. Howe was a great scorer but he wasn't in the same league as Lemieux.

If Howe and Lemieux were close to the same age, Howe would have zero Art Ross Trophies (assuming equal health).

 

[Golden_Jet]

Not even close to being true.

Lemieux and McDavid are both much more dominant scorers than Howe was. Howe was a great scorer but he wasn't in the same league as Lemieux.

Ya comparing equipment and technology today , isn’t even close. Wonder how the others would manage with a straight wooden stick, or floppy leather skates.

 

[wetcoast]

Ya comparing equipment and technology today , isn’t even close. Wonder how the others would manage with a straight wooden stick, or floppy leather skates.

I hear this all the time but has anyone watched the video of 2 of the best teams in the NHL in the late 70s in the Habs and Bruins.

Everyone had wooden sticks and the same skates and there was far less structure defensively in the game and the goalie pads are less protective in terms of safety as well.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Not even close to being true.

Lemieux and McDavid are both much more dominant scorers than Howe was. Howe was a great scorer but he wasn't in the same league as Lemieux.

If Howe and Lemieux were close to the same age, Howe would have zero Art Ross Trophies (assuming equal health).

Right, the guy who retired with the most goals, assists and points in league history is the worse player

 

[The Panther]

Lemieux and McDavid are both much more dominant scorers than Howe was. Howe was a great scorer but he wasn't in the same league as Lemieux.

It's quite likely, or even certain (in my own view), that Lemieux was the more offensively gifted player. Lemieux certainly has three or four seasons (1988, 1989, 1993, probably 1996) that go beyond the offensive peak-ability of Gordie Howe, at least in as much as we can speculate with cross-era comparisons.

But "wasn't in the same League"...?? No, that's silly. The scoring environment in Howe's peak years --- say, autumn 1950 to spring 1955 or so (you could stretch it to 1957) --- was not only far lower than in Lemieux's best seasons, it was one of the lowest-such in NHL history. In Howe's (probably) very best season, 1952-53, he finished with 95 points, and the next non-Howe linemate in scoring was legendary Hall of Famer Rocket Richard with 61 points. Howe outscored the Rocket in 1953 by 45%, a ridiculous amount. I don't think there was any season where Lemieux outscored the next-best Canadian forward (non-linemate, or otherwise) by that much, even if you delete Gretzky and even if you project his 1993 totals to a full season.

During the four seasons 1950-51 to 1953-54, Howe outscored linemate Ted Lindsay 348 to 261 (by 25%), and again if you delete Lindsay then he outscored the next player (Richard) 348 to 238 (by 32%).

It's tricky to do this with with Lemieux because (a) Gretzky and (b) injuries, but if we pick 1987-88, 1988-89, 1989-90, 1991-92 and 1992-93 (which seems to me the fairest way to compare five seasons in a row or almost in a row), and then ignore Gretky and isolate only Canadian competition, it comes out with Lemieux scoring 781 points in 317 games, or 2.46 PPG, or 984 points if he'd played the full five seasons. The next (non-Gretzky) player in production is Yzerman at 1.62 PPG, or 648 points if he'd played the full five seasons. Thus, Lemieux's points lead (projected) over Yzerman in five years would be 984 to 648 (by 52%).

So, as I would expect, Lemieux's (projected) lead over the next Canadian player is a large margin of 52% to 32%, considerably larger than Howe's.

However, as we all know, it's tough to compare with Howe over longer samples. I'm too lazy to run the numbers right now (having started this post seven hours ago and was taken away by family duties), but my guess is that if I did it over a ten-year or a twelve-year sample, the two players would be very close.

So, in conclusion:
-- when looking at a one-year peak, Howe's lead over non-linemate players is larger than Lemieux's.
-- when looking at best five years in a row (or almost in a row, in Mario's case), Lemieux's lead over non-Gretzky Canadian players is considerably larger than Howe's.
-- (I'm guessing that) when looking at a longer sample of 10 or 12 years, Howe's lead over non-linemate players is comparable to Mario's.

And of course, we're just looking at points here, which is only part of the story.

 

[VanIslander]

9 or 99.

There is no other worthy number.

This is the first place, first thread i ever heard Lemieux over Howe. I'm only 54 years old. I might hear it again.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

9 or 99.

There is no other worthy number.

This is the first place, first thread i ever heard Lemieux over Howe. I'm only 54 years old. I might hear it again.

You've been here and active since 2004 - this can't possibly be true.

 

[MadLuke]

Depends on how you define league, Lemieux-Gretzky being on their own league, Jagr-Howe in a different one below could make sense.

In Howe's (probably) very best season, 1952-53, he finished with 95 points, and the next non-Howe linemate in scoring was legendary Hall of Famer Rocket Richard with 61 points. Howe outscored the Rocket in 1953 by 45%, a ridiculous amount. I don't think there was any season where Lemieux outscored the next-best Canadian forward (non-linemate, or otherwise) by that much, even if you delete Gretzky and even if you project his 1993 totals to a full season.

Because there was not that many players having elite season, doing versus the best of that very year method can be quite noisy back in the days.

Before Beliveau get activated there a bit of a low moment during Howe peak and if Beliveau was in the league having a great 78 pts season should it change how we see Howe 95 pts ? No, it should have very little impact on it.

It is an utter domination 51-53 Howe outscore the top 2-3-4-5 scorer average ppg by 43% !, post peak Lemieux did it by 47% to peak Jagr-Sakic-Fosberg and Ron Francis in 95-96.

From 89-93

HIs 2.31 ppg was 47% higher than Gretzky-Yzerman-Hull-Oates average ppg, even if we take the Mario competition was the exact same caliber than the 50-53 nhl

In 70-71, Phil Esposito outscored the closest non teammate, Legendary HOF Bobby Hull by 58%! Significantly more than Howe outscored the Rocket in 1953 and do not seem to get half the mileage Howe do from it.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

9 or 99.

There is no other worthy number.

This is the first place, first thread i ever heard Lemieux over Howe. I'm only 54 years old. I might hear it again.

I'm guessing you don't watch tsn or read the hockey news then

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

The fact that lemieux was able to slay the great one in his prime by 31 points tells enough. That's all you need to know when discussing how good of a player Mario was. Howe wouldn't have a chance.

 

[Overrated]

It's quite likely, or even certain (in my own view), that Lemieux was the more offensively gifted player. Lemieux certainly has three or four seasons (1988, 1989, 1993, probably 1996) that go beyond the offensive peak-ability of Gordie Howe, at least in as much as we can speculate with cross-era comparisons.

But "wasn't in the same League"...?? No, that's silly. The scoring environment in Howe's peak years --- say, autumn 1950 to spring 1955 or so (you could stretch it to 1957) --- was not only far lower than in Lemieux's best seasons, it was one of the lowest-such in NHL history. In Howe's (probably) very best season, 1952-53, he finished with 95 points, and the next non-Howe linemate in scoring was legendary Hall of Famer Rocket Richard with 61 points. Howe outscored the Rocket in 1953 by 45%, a ridiculous amount. I don't think there was any season where Lemieux outscored the next-best Canadian forward (non-linemate, or otherwise) by that much, even if you delete Gretzky and even if you project his 1993 totals to a full season.

During the four seasons 1950-51 to 1953-54, Howe outscored linemate Ted Lindsay 348 to 261 (by 25%), and again if you delete Lindsay then he outscored the next player (Richard) 348 to 238 (by 32%).

It's tricky to do this with with Lemieux because (a) Gretzky and (b) injuries, but if we pick 1987-88, 1988-89, 1989-90, 1991-92 and 1992-93 (which seems to me the fairest way to compare five seasons in a row or almost in a row), and then ignore Gretky and isolate only Canadian competition, it comes out with Lemieux scoring 781 points in 317 games, or 2.46 PPG, or 984 points if he'd played the full five seasons. The next (non-Gretzky) player in production is Yzerman at 1.62 PPG, or 648 points if he'd played the full five seasons. Thus, Lemieux's points lead (projected) over Yzerman in five years would be 984 to 648 (by 52%).

So, as I would expect, Lemieux's (projected) lead over the next Canadian player is a large margin of 52% to 32%, considerably larger than Howe's.

However, as we all know, it's tough to compare with Howe over longer samples. I'm too lazy to run the numbers right now (having started this post seven hours ago and was taken away by family duties), but my guess is that if I did it over a ten-year or a twelve-year sample, the two players would be very close.

So, in conclusion:
-- when looking at a one-year peak, Howe's lead over non-linemate players is larger than Lemieux's.
-- when looking at best five years in a row (or almost in a row, in Mario's case), Lemieux's lead over non-Gretzky Canadian players is considerably larger than Howe's.
-- (I'm guessing that) when looking at a longer sample of 10 or 12 years, Howe's lead over non-linemate players is comparable to Mario's.

And of course, we're just looking at points here, which is only part of the story.

Howe wasn't all that dominant compared to other star players though. He might have scored "32%" more than 30+ year old Richard but how much more would he score compared to prime Richard?

Beliveau's PPG during his prime (55/56 --> 60/61) was 1.26. Howe's was 1.19 in his (50/51 --> 56/57). Scoring was roughly 12% lower in the early 50s so in adjusted Gordie takes the lead. If I only consider Gordie's best three season he is at 1.27 vs Beliveau's 1.32. If we do the adjusting mumbo jumbo (which I am not necessarily against but it's not the only thing that should be considered) Gordie is ahead again. It's not a huge disparity though. It wouldn't be out of place to assume that due to the post war boom the league was quite a bit tougher in the late 50s compared to the early 50s. Switch their birth dates and I doubt there would be any significant difference. Howe would likely be just slightly ahead.

I do rate Howe above Beliveau and Hull but only very slightly.

 

[VanIslander]

I'm guessing you don't watch tsn or read the hockey news then

You're right. I was born yesterday.

 

[Fatass]

The fact that lemieux was able to slay the great one in his prime by 31 points tells enough. That's all you need to know when discussing how good of a player Mario was. Howe wouldn't have a chance.

Prime Gordie was one mean player. I rank Mario behind 99 and 4, but Howe was not far off those three. As for number five it could be Hasek, but I’d go with Lidstrom.

 

[BraveCanadian]

People always focus purely on scoring when comparing Lemieux to Howe which overlooks that, unlike Lemieux, Howe brought a lot that didn’t show up on the scoreboard.

Offensively, I’d take Lemieux too, but ranking them as players always has Lemieux settle in at 4 for me.

 

[wetcoast]

I don't know specifically what's being referenced here. But are these "tilt" numbers relative to the all time greats or relative to the on-the-aggregate poorer rosters that Lemieux was on...?

I'm talking about more his ESGF/ESGA and R-on-R-off numbers and sure while these things aren't an exact science Mario didn't tilt the ice 5 on 5 like his numbers would suggest.

Of course we have the flip side that he was without equal on the PP but part of those number are also era driven as the top seasons seem to be centered in the late 80s and early 90s for the most part.

I recall also watching Mario and while he was more skilled than Gretzky he didn't have the same type of drive to be the best and part of that changed after the 87 CC for sure but often we see glimpses of him not being as dominant as it looks.

Also his first foray into the WC in 85 didn't really stand out and sure his team wasn't the greatest but Mario only had 3 points in 3 games at the memorial cup

You also allude to his poor teams which is true but in 95-96 he was on a very good team and didn't tilt the ice at ES compared to his teammates and that's the idea that I'm trying to get across here.

At the end of the day even with the really poor teams one would think playing with Paul Coffey he would have tilted the ice more than he did at ES and I think he is one of those players that teams sort of follow his lead and Mario couldn't outscore his defensive deficiencies all that well in an all time sense.

The other Big 4 guy in bobby Orr was the exact opposite in his impact and thus clearly ahead of Mario all time.

Wayne is just Wayne and while part of me thinks Howe can get over rated his elite longevity is simply amazing.

 

[The Panther]

People always focus purely on scoring when comparing Lemieux to Howe which overlooks that, unlike Lemieux, Howe brought a lot that didn’t show up on the scoreboard.

That was kind of my point, above, but I didn't delve into it.

I think most of us feel Lemieux was the superior player in terms of offense. But it's one of those things: If one player is 95% about offense (which is basically Lemieux for most of his career), and another player --- with vastly superior longevity and ability to stay in the lineup --- provides 4/5 of that better offensive player's offense, but offense is only 70% of his total package and the other 30% involves physical domination and ES ice-tilting (so to speak), do we prefer the 95% offense guy?

It's kind of the same reasoning by which NHL players and writers determined Messier to be more valuable than Gretzky or Lemieux in 1990 and 1992.

 

[The Panther]

I recall also watching Mario and while he was more skilled than Gretzky...

I don't see Mario as more skilled than Gretzky. "Skilled" isn't only about beating guys one-on-one.

Gretzky in his prime is easily the most skilled player, ever, in terms of puck control, stickhandling, vision, and manipulation of all players on the ice.

That said, when you factor in Mario's size and reach, I would say that Lemieux (when he was healthy) is the quintessential hockey body. He had the size, strength, speed, control, shot, stickhandling, and of course IQ off the charts (albeit not quite as off-the-charts as Gretzky). But Wayne could never compare to Mario, physically, in terms of size and reach.

 

[daver]

Howe wasn't all that dominant compared to other star players though. He might have scored "32%" more than 30+ year old Richard but how much more would he score compared to prime Richard?

Beliveau's PPG during his prime (55/56 --> 60/61) was 1.26. Howe's was 1.19 in his (50/51 --> 56/57). Scoring was roughly 12% lower in the early 50s so in adjusted Gordie takes the lead. If I only consider Gordie's best three season he is at 1.27 vs Beliveau's 1.32. If we do the adjusting mumbo jumbo (which I am not necessarily against but it's not the only thing that should be considered) Gordie is ahead again. It's not a huge disparity though. It wouldn't be out of place to assume that due to the post war boom the league was quite a bit tougher in the late 50s compared to the early 50s. Switch their birth dates and I doubt there would be any significant difference. Howe would likely be just slightly ahead.

I do rate Howe above Beliveau and Hull but only very slightly.

Far too many assumptions being made to deny the statistical argument that Howe was on another level offensively.

And you cannot pick and choose which "adjusting" or context should be considered (e.g. the age of Howe's competition counts but league scoring levels aren't that important).

What about the fact that Montreal had two other Art Ross players on their team? Yes, Howe had Lindsay too but then he was 25% ahead of a prime Lindsay during his peak. And Lindsay and Richard stayed relevant during the "tougher" late '50s.

- Howe was best offensive player in his era followed by Hull/Beliveau

- Wayne and Mario were the best of their era with a bigger gap between them and the best of the rest than Howe had over his peers.

- Crosby, Jagr and McDavid are the best of their era with a similar statistical gap over their peers as Howe had over his peers.

- We can reasonably say that the gap between Mario and Jagr was clear but would say that Jagr was better than the "best of the rest" of Wayne/Mario's era.

 

[Overrated]

And you cannot pick and choose which "adjusting" or context should be considered (e.g. the age of Howe's competition counts but league scoring levels aren't that important).

That is why I considered both and reached the conclusion Beliveau was quite close to Howe. In fact even if we only consider league scoring levels and ignore everything else Beliveau and Howe aren't that far apart either.

- Crosby, Jagr and McDavid are the best of their era with a similar statistical gap over their peers as Howe had over his peers.

- We can reasonably say that the gap between Mario and Jagr was clear but would say that Jagr was better than the "best of the rest" of Wayne/Mario's era.

Here you are comparing Howe to Crosby Jagr and McDavid which I would agree with. I just don't agree with the notion he was anywhere close to Gretzky Lemieux and Orr.