The Prodigy said:Talent-wise, Lemieux was better than Howe, far better in fact.
Both are legends, but Lemieux did things witht the puck only Valeri Kharmalov could do, and that's saying something.
Daryl Shilling said:This is the same issue for me here, with Lemieux and Howe. Mario's ability notwithstanding, if Howe had retired after 15 years, then he and Lemieux would have about equal career value. However, Howe was good enough to play (and play well) for a lot longer afterwards, adding more value to his career.
Daryl
CH said:But how much did Gordie Howe really contribute when he hung on well beyond his prime? Was Gordie really that great a player after the sixties ended? His entire comeback is protected by the fact he was in the weak WHA - he he been in the NHL in the 70's he would have been exposed as a has been very quickly and probably forced into retirement. But in the talent starved WHA, Gordie and sons was a travelling road show and people came out to see them. It didn't matter that Gordie was a shell of what he used to be.
There is a difference between hanging on and padding your numbers and being a legitimate impact player.
Ogopogo said:What a foolish question to ask.
Howe by a wide margin.
Even at their peaks, Howe was ahead. Gordie won two scoring titles by MORE THAN 25%. Lemieux never won a scoring title by that margin.
Daryl Shilling said:I wasn't suggesting that Howe was great in the 1970s. Even if he finished his career after 1971, that's still a 23 year career, which is huge.
Going by the fifteen year phase that I spoke about, Howe would have retired after the 1962 season... Looking also at years 1963 thru 1971, that's a 23 career if he stays retired at that point, and doesn't proceed to the WHA. Still an extremely long career.
Year by Year, with age, and if he finished in Top 10 in category:
1963 (35): G-1, A-3, PTS-1, Hart Trophy
1964 (36): G-6, A-4, PTS-6
1965 (37): G-3, A-2, PTS-3
1966 (38): G-8, A-4, PTS-5
1967 (39): G-7, A-5, PTS-6
1968 (40): G-3, A-8, PTS-3
1969 (41): G-5, A-3, PTS-3
1970 (42): PTS-8
1971 (43): Didn't finish in top 10 in any category
1980 (52): Scores 15-26-41 playing about 10 minutes per night
If Howe had played a 23 years career, ending after 1971, he was extremely relevant. If he just hung around and popped 20 goals and was nowhere near the league lead, I think it could be fairly said that he was just padding his numbers. However, since he was among the top 10 in every category except for 1970, when he "only" finished 8th in points, I don't think it's a fair tag to put on him. 1980, that's a stats-padding season, but not his NHL seasons before that.
Daryl
KOVALEV10 said:Well Lemieux was one of those players who comes once in a lifetime and dominates the game of hockey. Same could be said about Howe. However Lemieux has the highest point per game as well as goals per game average in history and a lot better then Howe. Lemieux was clearly ahead in goal scoring whereas both were great playmakers. I dont know honestly who was better as I've not seen Howe play that much.
CH said:I tend to argue that dominance over a period of a few years is more important (but would definitely rule the other way in certain cases - for example Dave Andreychuk was a better player than Kevin Stevens).
Further, is there an "era adjustment"? Was hockey better in Lemieux's day then it was in Howe's day? I would say yes. By how much?
In the end, I pick Lemieux. He was more dominant relative to his peers while playing in an NHL that was attracting players from several countries in the world over Howe who was a very good player for a long time, but not the clear number one guy in the NHL for as long as Lemieux and not my the margin Lemieux was while playing in an NHL that drew its players from Canada alone (nearly alone anyway). Further, I'd argue Howe played in a less physical NHL which made long careers easier to have then in Lemieux's day.
It would be nice to have a firm sabermetrics answer to these questions - and I know you have tried - but hockey doesn't lend itself well enough to those problems. I think you could do a numerical study and show either of Lemieux and Howe was better - just depends on what you put into it. If we use career numbers as important Howe wins. If we say that dominance over the league in your best 3 or 5 (or some similar number of seasons) is important Lemieux wins. If we try to correct for the quality of opposition Lemieux wins.
Crosbyfan said:!974 TEAM CANADA(WHA)vs TEAM SOVIETS
Howe played Kharmolov even. (same points). Howe had less ice time and was 46 years old. Kharmolov was in his prime.
Dark Metamorphosis said:the topic says "who was better?" not "who had a better career?". and to that question, i don't think howe ever reached the levels that lemieux did. there's a reason the press keep clamoring for crosby to be the next gretzky or lemieux, and not the next howe ; people want to see the next great offensive star with elite hockey sense.
i looked at his stats, and there are a lot of 80-95 pts in 70 games. i'm certain that was great for his time, but mario put up seasons of 160 pts in 60 games, 161 pts in 70 games, and 199 pts in 76 games. There's no way scoring was that much less in gordie's era for their totals to be similar. Goals per game would have to be 3-4.Ogopogo said:You need to do a little research on Howe. He DOMINATED his era to a greater degree than Lemieux did. If Lemieux had been fully healthy his whole career, perhaps he would have done the same. But, what ifs are worthless.
People think that Howe just played a long time to put up huge numbers. Remember, he played during a more defensive era than Lemieux with less games on the schedule. The man was DOMINANT. Research it, he was amazing.