HOH Top 100 - Round 2, Vote 1

[reckoning]

Don't have time to go in depth about my choices tonight, but I will say that I'm pleased with the 10 players chosen for this level. They were the same 10 I had in my top 10. I'm pleasantly surprised that Plante made it. He deserves to be the top-ranked goalie, but I was expecting Roy or Brodeur to finish higher.

A couple of questions:

1) How do we send the votes? E-mail or PM? EDIT: Nevermind. I just noticed that it said PM in the OP

2) It's entirely possible that somebody may have missed the first round for a good reason. If somebody drops by who we can all agree knows what they're talking about and isn't a bilros, could they be allowed to vote as well? I'm just worried that a lot of people may have been intimidated by the task of creating a top 100 list, but could probably add a lot now that the choices are shorter and more manageable.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

2) It's entirely possible that somebody may have missed the first round for a good reason. If somebody drops by who we can all agree knows what they're talking about and isn't a bilros, could they be allowed to vote as well? I'm just worried that a lot of people may have been intimidated by the task of creating a top 100 list, but could probably add a lot now that the choices are shorter and more manageable.

If this were the case, I'd love to participate going forward (especially after seeing how well it's being conducted).

The largest reason for me not submitting a top 100 was that I was in Peru for more than a week of the process, and between that, trying to get all of my work done before going, and trying to catch up after returning, the task was too daunting all at once. But in bite-sized chunks, I'd love to lend whatever help I can.

 

[FissionFire]

2) It's entirely possible that somebody may have missed the first round for a good reason. If somebody drops by who we can all agree knows what they're talking about and isn't a bilros, could they be allowed to vote as well? I'm just worried that a lot of people may have been intimidated by the task of creating a top 100 list, but could probably add a lot now that the choices are shorter and more manageable.

This issue was addressed in this post.

 

[God Bless Canada]

I actually have Gordie Howe as No. 2 on my list. I don't think he has the sheer offensive ability or the hockey sense of a Gretzky, or the unmatched combination of size and skill of a Lemieux. But I think Howe, when you look at all he brings to the game, and to a team, should be rated ahead of Gretzky and Lemieux. An in-his-prime Gordie Howe, playing in the run-and-gun 80s, with the way the game was played, the added dimension of the defencemen, and the lower calibre of goaltending compared to the 50s and 60s, probably goes for about 150-175 points per year.

I'm not one of those "Bobby Clarke is better than Wayne Gretzky because Clarke did it all, while Gretzky was all-offence" types. (And let's face it, Wayne Gretzky was offence only). But Wayne Gretzky, scoring 200 points per year, is more valuable than Clarke at 120 per year. But Gretzky at 200, versus what Howe would have done if he had the advantages of being an impact player in the 80s? Give me Howe.

I'll put Richard at 5 and Beliveau at 6. And it's not just a Cups thing. It's a how they won their Cups thing. If I'm entering a Game 7 situation, Richard is likely the player I want on my team more than anyone else. Ever. The fiery competitiveness, the big-game mentality, the ability to carry his team on his back when it mattered most. Beliveau, for my money, is the best leader ever, and if it makes any sense, the best intangibles player ever. He had the size, skill and grace, but he also had that mean streak. Beliveau is actually a member of a very exclusive club: one of few to lead his team in goals, assists, points and PIMs in the same season. Wasn't the competitor that Richard was, and wasn't quite the big-game guy that Richard was, but Beliveau still rates as one of the best post-season performers ever.

In terms of regular season, Hull would be ahead of Beliveau, and definitely ahead of Richard. (There are quite a few guys I'd rate ahead of Richard). But playoffs push Richard and Beliveau over the top.

I'm glad to see Plante crack the top 10, but I think he's definitely the throw-in for the top 10, if you will. Based on what I've seen through the years on HF, with this section and the ATD, there is a consensus top 9, and then the fun really begins at No. 10. And based on what I've read, from those who would be part of this, I'm not surprised Plante would be the No. 1 goalie.

 

[MXD]

I think you underestimate Howe's dominance. He was a first team allstar 12 times with competition like Richard, Geoffrion, and Bathgate. He won 6 scoring titles, 6 Hart's, and played a ferocious all around game. He was consistently winning scoring races by 20 points in his prime. That's a dominant feat even today, but this was in such a low scoring era that he was often winning them by 25% (something that hasn't happened since Gretzky in the 80's).

I'd say he's CLEARLY more dominant than anyone but Orr, Gretzky, and Lemieux. And he's in the conversation with any of them.

Remember the part : other players benefitted from the "vendetta" against Richard. Nobody benefitted more than Gordie.

And I still have him 4th.

 

[canucksfan]

So far it looks like this is going quite well. I wish I could have participated in it but I am far too busy with work and life in general. I thought if I couldn't comitt 100% then I shouldn't do it.

I know it doesn't matter but I do believe Howe gets underrated by some people. There isn't a flaw in his career and play. Like Orr he could do it all but he had the longevity Orr didn't have. If I did my list I might be the only one to have Howe at number 2.

Well when I was writing my post GBC posted and he has Howe at 2 so I wouldn't be the only one.

 

[pappyline]

One thing I am not clear on. When we submit our rankings are we only to submit the top 5 or do you want to see rankings for all 10?

 

[Hockey Outsider]

One thing I am not clear on. When we submit our rankings are we only to submit the top 5 or do you want to see rankings for all 10?

For this round, please vote only on the top five. However, we've listed the top ten simply to facilitate the discussion.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I think that Howe gets underrated by a lot of people, ironically due to his longevity. People seem to remember him as the guy that played for 26 years. What they forget is that he was just as dominant as Mario Lemieux, probably even more so.

I think I debunked the "Lemieux was a better scorer than Howe" myth in this post. I compare the relative offensive performance of Howe and Lemieux during their six Art Ross victories; even if we exclude Gretzky, Howe performs far better than Lemieux. To quote myself: "I think this should permanently end any doubts about whether Howe was really dominant in his prime. He didn't just outscore the rest of the league, he obliterated them. Howe finished an incredible 53% ahead of the next-best player (this is by a higher amount than Lemieux's margin of victory over Yzerman)". This doesn't even take into account Howe's clearly superior physical play and defensive play.

I showed in the link above that aside from Rocket Richard and two teammates, Howe doubled the offensive output of every other player in the league during his six best years. I don't have the exact number handy but there were over a dozen players who were that close (relatively speaking) to Lemieux's production. And, again, that analysis was only based on Lemieux's healthy seasons--just think about how one-sided it would be if I included all of Howe's healthy years.

Howe is still tied with Gretzky for one of the most important scoring records of all-time: most times leading the NHL playoffs in scoring (six). He did this even more than top rivals like Beliveau and Richard that played on even greater dynasties.

Let's also consider that Howe has as many Hart trophies as Lemieux and Orr combined. Obivously injuries has a lot to do with that, by why penalize Howe for being healthy?

Ultimately, I put Howe second, though I could understand an argument for first or third. But I think my research shows that Howe was not only healthier/more consistent than Lemieux, he was better even during their respective primes.

 

[maxpowers]

1. Gretzky
2. Orr
3. Lemieux
4. Howe

5. Beliveau

I think the top 4 are a cut above everyone else. Gretzky has the highest peak and the best career of the four. He also lost a few scoring titles and awards from competing directly with Lemieux. Though some people may be hesitant to crown an unphysical player the best of all time, I think he's just too far ahead of other three to hold him back on this aspect.

Orr had the second highest peak IMO. He could do everything and I doubt we'll ever see a defenceman win the scoring title again. His career was too short however which puts him below Gretzky.

Lemieux had the potential to be number one and likely would have taken the top spot had he been healthy for his full career. He is arguably the most talented player to ever play the game and had a peak that could be rated higher than Gretzky. However he just couldn't sustain it for long enough. Lemeiux also lost out on some scoring titles and awards due to playing at the same time as Gretzky.

Howe had the lowest peak out of the top 4, but had the longest career. Yes he was physical, which may make him a more complete player than Gretzky or Lemieux, but not better. I also don't understand why some people give him so much credit for being a slightly dirty player as well. So he was known for his elbows? I don't think this makes a big difference.

For fifth it was between Beliveau and Hull. Both have 2 Harts though Hull was probably considered the more talented player and had more scoring titles. I have to go with the 10 cups over the 1 though. Yes its a team game and the Habs were pretty stacked, but Beliveau was the one captaining these HHOFers for half of their victories. Hull was never an NHL captain, though I have no idea why he was never chosen. Intangibles are important in hockey and I think this gives Beliveau the edge over Hull.

 

[reckoning]

So this means that next round will be the five who don't make it from this group, plus #11-15 from the original lists?

Sorry about being confused, I originally thought we were choosing 10 at a time. I just don't want to start talking about why I have my #7 choice ahead of my #8 choice if it's not relevant until the next round.

Doing 5 at a time will take 20 weeks. I hope everyone is willing to stick with this for that long if that's the procedure.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I have Gretzky as my number one. I'll bring playoffs into the equation here. Gretzky only has two Conn Smythe's, and I don't think that does his playoff dominance justice. He lead the playoffs in scoring six times, and was in the top seven 10 times in 16 playoff years, sometimes despite only making it two rounds deep. I think the Conn Smythe is the one trophy that being Wayne Gretzky actually hurt his chances of winning it. If somebody else stepped up their game big time, the voters were more inclined to give it to that player simply because they gave Gretzky nearly every other award he was eligible for.

You could aregue that he was Smythe worthy in 1983 despite being on the losing team, as he was 10 points clear of the nearest Islander. But non-goaltenders from the losing team very rarely win or even get consideration, so this was no surprise. (Billy Smith was the winner for the record)

In 1984 it was Messier getting the trophy. Gretzky out-goaled him 13-8, and out-pointed him 35-26. I can't ever recall a player being that much better (at least statistically speaking) than a teammate and not winning the award.

Gretzky's totals (17-30-47) were simply too much to ignore in 1985, but a lot of people were still thinking Paul Coffey (who was absolutely outstanding) could have won it.

In 1987 they gave it to Ron Hextall from the losing Flyers, and I won't argue with that. Hextall (and Fuhr) were both huge in the final, but Gretzky did lead the playoffs in points, nearly equalling his own record for assists.

1988, for my money, is the best I have ever seen a player play, period. To be fair, I wasn't alive to see Orr, Howe, and Richard dominate the playoffs, so I'm completely open to the possibility that it had occured before, this is just the best that I have been able to witness.

1993 is not far off 1988, and Wayne himself has said that is the best he ever played. Despite Roy's brilliance, I think any player other than Gretzky gets the Conn Smythe that year if they're in the same position. 15 points ahead of his nearest teammate, and the epic Game 7 against Toronto.

Has any other player done more in the post-season with less fanfare? I think Gretzky is the greatest regular season player ever. When it comes to the playoffs and other big games, I think he manages to actually widen that gap, contrary to a lot of people's perceptions.

This is getting long winded already, so I'll simply state that I have Orr, Howe, and Lemieux as my 2-3-4, and move on to fifth.

I have Eddie Shore at fifth. Hull and Richard both make a strong case for fifth, but it's tough to argue with Shore's four Hart's. I'd say his degree of dominance was clearly larger than any other remaining cadidate.

 

[maxpowers]

I think that Howe gets underrated by a lot of people, ironically due to his longevity. People seem to remember him as the guy that played for 26 years. What they forget is that he was just as dominant as Mario Lemieux, probably even more so.

I think I debunked the "Lemieux was a better scorer than Howe" myth in this post. I compare the relative offensive performance of Howe and Lemieux during their six Art Ross victories; even if we exclude Gretzky, Howe performs far better than Lemieux. To quote myself: "I think this should permanently end any doubts about whether Howe was really dominant in his prime. He didn't just outscore the rest of the league, he obliterated them. Howe finished an incredible 53% ahead of the next-best player (this is by a higher amount than Lemieux's margin of victory over Yzerman)". This doesn't even take into account Howe's clearly superior physical play and defensive play.

I showed in the link above that aside from Rocket Richard and two teammates, Howe doubled the offensive output of every other player in the league during his six best years. I don't have the exact number handy but there were over a dozen players who were that close (relatively speaking) to Lemieux's production. And, again, that analysis was only based on Lemieux's healthy seasons--just think about how one-sided it would be if I included all of Howe's healthy years.

Howe is still tied with Gretzky for one of the most important scoring records of all-time: most times leading the NHL playoffs in scoring (six). He did this even more than top rivals like Beliveau and Richard that played on even greater dynasties.

Name GP G A Pts
Gordie Howe 420 254 269 528 1.00
Ted Lindsay 347 142 204 346 1.53
Maurice Richard 316 167 133 300 1.76
Red Kelly 410 98 191 289 1.83
Bernie Geoffrion 296 131 111 242 2.18
Alex Delvecchio 323 78 152 230 2.30
Sid Smith 350 116 110 226 2.34
Bert Olmstead 326 72 149 221 2.39
Doug Harvey 413 33 185 218 2.42

I remember you posted a similar table a while ago though it seems you used different years in this one. As I mentioned before in that thread, you have to look at Howe's games played. He played over 100 more games than Richard, Geoffrion, and much more than most of the players on the list. Where is Beliveau? I'm pretty sure he was scoring at a pace fairly similar to Howe. Obviously this is a testament to Howe's durability and that can only work in his favour. But it appears that the only reason he does so well on your chart is because he played WAY more than anyone else there.

Let's also consider that Howe has as many Hart trophies as Lemieux and Orr combined. Obivously injuries has a lot to do with that, by why penalize Howe for being healthy?

Ultimately, I put Howe second, though I could understand an argument for first or third. But I think my research shows that Howe was not only healthier/more consistent than Lemieux, he was better even during their respective primes.

Lemieux lost out on 2 Hart trophies due to the fact he was directly competing with Gretzky. In 85-86 and 88-89 he finished 2nd in voting. Howe had some great competition, but no one on Gretzky's level. Had Gretzky not been playing Lemeiux would have finished with 5 Harts which puts him about even to Howe. Had he been healthy for the majority of his career he would have likely won a lot more.

 

[Dark Shadows]

I will discuss and reply to other people's posts later. For now, ill just say my piece and give my list.

I base my voting on several factors in various strengths and weaknesses. Peak, Longevity, Durability, the team they had with them, Clutch play, awards, etc

I watched all players in my top 5, but missed several of Beliveau and Howe's most dominant years, or was too young to truly appreciate it at age 6.

The top 4 are so close that it is hard to pull them apart at all. I used to only think this of the top 3, but several people here changed my opinion on Howe, and just how Dominant he was. I now consider it the big 4, not the big 3.

After the top 4, there are about 10 or so guys that blend very closely together. Its hard to pinpoint anything with talent this excellent.

#1 Wayne Gretzky: This was an easy choice for me. While I do not think he was the most purely skilled offensive player ever(Lemieux), or the best leader, his career totals, hockey mind, and just plain dominance speaks for itself. As Seventies said, his offense was so good, the rest of his game didn't matter. His longevity is what pushes him just ahead of Orr. 9 Hart trophies, 10 Art Ross trophies, 2 Conn Smythe's and he holds virtually every record imaginable.

#2 Bobby Orr: He was part Artist, part Magician. He transformed the position known as defenseman. 8 Norris trophies in a row, 3 Hart's as a Defenseman, 2 Conn Smythe's and the only Defenseman ever to win the scoring title, and he shattered several records in his day. He could stickhandle you out of your shoes, Speed past you like few others, make plays and blind passes like Gretzky or Lemieux, Kill penalties through simple puck possession, and even play goalie if needed If not for the Longevity/Durability issues that arose due to his style of play, he is #1 all time.

#3 Mario Lemieux: Easily the most naturally talented player of all time. His style, running through traffic at top speed, and Deking through players led to injury filled collisions. Poor luck was as much a factor as anything(Cancer). Had he been paired with the linemates Gretzky had for his early years, he likely shatters the goal scoring, and points total in a season records. He put up 199 points with pure AHL garbage on his line, and only Paul Coffey Feeding him. Like Orr, his career is more peak and award based than guys like Howe, who was the Longevity leader.

#4 Gordie Howe: Other people have already stated what I feel about Howe. I don't hold him in the same regard as the top 3, or didn't rather, before a few long conversations here. I do feel certain aspects of Howe get overrated. His dominance to me, while great, was not as pronounced as Gretzky's or Lemieux's in comparison to other forwards except for 1 year in my eyes, despite members attempts here at changing my mind(And no defenseman compares to Orr's dominance). It kind of bothered me that he never won a cup after Red Kelly was traded away.
His primary strength is his longevity and durability while putting up superstar numbers. His 1951-54 years were

#5 Jean Beliveau: Was not a hard choice for me. This guy was the man. Despite all the press that rocket Richard gets, Beliveau was a shade better. Had the trophy been around when he was playing his first 12 years, he likely would have several more Conn Smythe trophies. He was putting up numbers akin to Howe's in early days. Dominant numbers.


Anyways, il keep track of this thread and participate as I can. I can see several long conversations breaking out as a result of this thread

 

[pitseleh]

I have Hull in the five spot for a couple of reasons:

- He's the best goal-scorer of all time. His 54 goals in 65/66 is arguably a bigger feat than Gretzky's 92 goal season. He finished with nearly 70% more goals than second place. He was consistently well ahead of the rest of the league in goal scoring.

- He put up the numbers without a great supporting cast. Mikita was a great player but from what I understand the two didn't spend a lot of time together.

- Considering the era, I'd say that his two Harts are nearly as impressive as Shore's four. Hull had two runner-ups while competing against Howe, Plante, Beliveau and Harvey during his peak. Shore won four trophies, but did so over Bill Cook, Charlie Conacher, Paul Thompson and Hooley Smith - great players, no doubt, but not quite the same caliber of competition that Hull faced.

 

[amnesiac*]

Do we send our final 1-5 votes now or in 5 days (after the discussions)?

 

[pappyline]

#5 Jean Beliveau: Was not a hard choice for me. This guy was the man. Despite all the press that rocket Richard gets, Beliveau was a shade better. Had the trophy been around when he was playing his first 12 years, he likely would have several more Conn Smythe trophies. He was putting up numbers akin to Howe's in early days. Dominant numbers.

The only year Beliveau put up "Dominant" numbers was 55-56. He put up some good numbers in other years but never won another AR. Not saying he wasn't a great player but he didn't have near the dominance of Howe & Hull who were his peers.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Do we send our final 1-5 votes now or in 5 days (after the discussions)?

After the discussion I assume. That's basically the point of it. It will be pretty tough to sway people's opinions when discussing the top 5, as most of us are quite firmly entrenched. But in the later stages, convincing areguments were certainly swing votes.

 

[amnesiac*]

The only year Beliveau put up "Dominant" numbers was 55-56. He put up some good numbers in other years but never won another AR. Not saying he wasn't a great player but he didn't have near the dominance of Howe & Hull who were his peers.

Though you have to admit, being the #1 centre of a team that won 10 Cups has a lot of merit. Even though Im not a big fan of putting someone that much higher because of his team's success (a la Kurri or Cournoyer), I think Jean was probably theyre most important player (as many #1 centres are).

 

[Dark Shadows]

I have Hull in the five spot for a couple of reasons:

- He's the best goal-scorer of all time. His 54 goals in 65/66 is arguably a bigger feat than Gretzky's 92 goal season. He finished with nearly 70% more goals than second place. He was consistently well ahead of the rest of the league in goal scoring.

- He put up the numbers without a great supporting cast. Mikita was a great player but from what I understand the two didn't spend a lot of time together.

- Considering the era, I'd say that his two Harts are nearly as impressive as Shore's four. Hull had two runner-ups while competing against Howe, Plante, Beliveau and Harvey during his peak. Shore won four trophies, but did so over Bill Cook, Charlie Conacher, Paul Thompson and Hooley Smith - great players, no doubt, but not quite the same caliber of competition that Hull faced.

His 65-66 year was huge and ridiculously good, no doubt. But to compare it to Gretzky's 92 goal year? Longshot. I don't care if he had 70% more goals than the next closest player that year. Richard's 50 in 50 was more impressive.


Yes, his goal scoring feats were crazy at the time, but not to the level of Gretzky's 92 goals. In all honestly, I think Lemieux is the greatest goal scorer of all time. He has just around 200 less goals than Gretzky and he played in around 600 less game, with AHL caliber talent for his first 6 years in his prime. Cancer ruined the year he would have broken both goals and Points a season.

My memory must be going too, because I could have sworn I saw Hull and Mikita playing together much of the time. Then again, the blackhawks were the team I followed the least of the 6 when I was young, although I watched them all as often as permitted.

The only year Beliveau put up "Dominant" numbers was 55-56. He put up some good numbers in other years but never won another AR. Not saying he wasn't a great player but he didn't have near the dominance of Howe & Hull who were his peers.

I think with Howe, I agree with you, but Not Hull unless talking about goal scoring only and not playmaking.

 

[overpass]

Hi all.

I’m not a regular poster here, but I came across your project here and I’m very happy to be included. It should be a lot of fun.

When I’m rating the top players, I look for a few different things, but probably the most important is “What is the player’s highest established level of play?†The length of time that the player maintains a high level of play is also important.

I try to reward everything that a player does to help his club win games, so defensive play counts for forwards, not just points compiled.

Accomplishments such as Cup wins and scoring titles are nice, but I only reward them as far as the player helped his team win on the ice.

Enough intro, here’s my top 10.

1. Bobby Orr

Quite simply an incredible offensive and defensive peak maintained over several years. Without a doubt the player I would pick for one game or one season.

2. Gordie Howe

I generally don’t reward longevity too highly, but Gordie Howe was the best or among the best players in the game for 20 years. I think only Ray Bourque comes close to maintaining such a high level of play for so long.

At the same time, Gordie was so much more than a long career. As mentioned by others, he was a dominant offensive force at his peak, and he didn’t give anything away his own end. The NHL only kept +- statistics for the last 5 years of his NHL career, but he finished a combined +75 over this time. Compare to the last 5 years of Gretzky’s career (-55).

3. Wayne Gretzky

Almost certainly the greatest offensive player ever. The numbers are incredible, and they still don’t do his genius justice.

He falls below Orr and Howe for me because of his defensive failings. His team’s goals-against when he was on the ice is consistently very high through his career. That may have been a product of the all-out offensive style he played, but it also meant that he didn’t help his team win as much as Orr or Howe did.

4. Mario Lemieux

I hate to put Mario fourth, as I think in a “Who do you want for Game 7?†question he would be the second player I’d pick, behind only Orr. He dominated the deepest talent pool the NHL ever saw for over a decade. Unfortunately for all hockey fans, he played too few games over this stretch, especially when compared to Gretzky’s reliability over his first decade in the league.

5. Eddie Shore

This is a very close pick, but I think that Shore’s all-around dominance takes the 5th spot. Unlike the players after him, he was clearly the best player in the world for a few years (although the talent pool wasn’t as deep.)

6. Bobby Hull.

I think impact players in hockey come at centre and D more often than at wing, but Bobby Hull was certainly one of the great exceptions. He may be the greatest goal scorer ever, and he’s probably the player I wish I could have watched live the most. Too often his WHA years are forgotten.

7. Doug Harvey

Seven Norris trophies make a great case for him. I’m just not sure he was ever the best player in hockey, unlike Shore or Hull.

I’m always a little suspicious of players on great teams, as you wonder how much their teammates made them look better, and who was really responsible for the team’s success. This applies to all of the players on the rest of the list to a certain extent, but I think they all belong around this ranking.

8. Maurice Richard

I think he was a little more dominant in his time than the man ranked below him. His playoff performance gives him a boost.

9. Jean Beliveau

Beliveau was a great all-round player, one with really no weaknesses as far as I can tell. I just don’t think he was quite as great as the few players above him.

10. Jacques Plante.

Not the first goalie I would have put here, but IMO the best of his time. One of the hardest things in evaluating hockey players for me is separating the goalie’s performance from the team’s. Plante’s excellent play in his 40s away from the Montreal dynasty really supports the reputation he gained on those great Montreal teams, at least in my view.

 

[pappyline]

His 65-66 year was huge and ridiculously good, no doubt. But to compare it to Gretzky's 92 goal year? Longshot. I don't care if he had 70% more goals than the next closest player that year. Richard's 50 in 50 was more impressive.


Yes, his goal scoring feats were crazy at the time, but not to the level of Gretzky's 92 goals. In all honestly, I think Lemieux is the greatest goal scorer of all time. He has just around 200 less goals than Gretzky and he played in around 600 less game, with AHL caliber talent for his first 6 years in his prime. Cancer ruined the year he would have broken both goals and Points a season.

My memory must be going too, because I could have sworn I saw Hull and Mikita playing together much of the time. Then again, the blackhawks were the team I followed the least of the 6 when I was young, although I watched them all as often as permitted.



I think with Howe, I agree with you, but Not Hull unless talking about goal scoring only and not playmaking.

That is an interesting perception but doesn't jive with the facts. Hull was a better playmaker then generally given credit for. You don't win the AR without playmaking skills.In the 14 seasons that Hull & Beluveau were in the league together Hull had more assists than Beliveau 6 times and a 7th time they were tied. As far as goals & total points go Hull was completely dominant. Having more goals 11 times and more total points 10 times.

Don't get me wrong, I think Beliveau is a great player & a legitimate top 10 or 11 but I have yet to see a logical argument to place him ahead of Hull. I have seen good arguments for the Rocket, Shore & Harvey but with Beliveau it always comes down to being on a team that won a lot of cups.

 

[FissionFire]

I'm very suprised at some of the comments against Gordie Howe.

First, I'm curious as to why his longevity seems to be viewed as a mark against him by some. The best hockey player doesn't mean the best peak only. I'd think a man maintaining dominance well into his 40s would be more proof that he's one of the greatest ever since either age has no effect on the man or his skills and smarts were so elite that he was able to adjust and continue to be one of the best in the game even as his physical body began to decline. That's something Mario Lemieux and Bobby Orr couldn't do. It's also something Wayne Gretzky did to a lesser extent.

Secondly, I think it's unfair to say Howe's fame is a product of his longevity. Like Chris Chelios today, I think his longevity overshadows how great he was in his prime. If the first thing you think of when you hear Gordie Howe is his longevity it's possible that you haven't fully understood how great he was. I know Mr. Hockey is just a gimmick name, but it was given to him and nobody argued it. He played in the era against some of the best right wings in history and he came out being viewed as the greatest hockey player in history until Orr and Gretzky entered the debate. Children wanted to be Gordie Howe. Even one of his chief rivals in this debate, Wayne Gretzky, idolized the man growing up and he chose 99 as a tribute to Gordie.

I know stats are generally frowned upon in this forum, but I feel in this case they are necessary because some of the comments about Howe make me wonder if his dominance during his prime is really understood.

He was top 5 in NHL scoring for 20 straight seasons. TWENTY SEASONS, in an era where a 20 year career was a rarity. Unlike Gretzky, Lemieux, or Orr he was also ambidextrous. He used no curve and shot forehand both ways. How many players can say that? In his time he was larger and stronger than most or all of his peers and dominated physically. Even as an 18tr old rookie he created a buzz throughout the league when he stepped up to a Maurice Richard challenge and knocked him unconcious with one punch. If Eddie Shore was mean, Gordie Howe might have been meaner still. This is a guy who got a fighting major in the All-Star game in '48. He might be the most competative player ever. He changed his game over the years and took fewer penalties. He came back from a life-threatening injury when he fractured his skull trying to check Ted Kennedy in a playoff game. His stamina was widely accepted to be among the best and in an era where top players generally played 20-30 minutes a night, he would often play 45 or more. Even Wayne Gretzky never eclipsed Howe's career goals mark when you combine NHL and WHA. Howe scored an incredible 975 between the leagues to Gretzky's 931. He played the final 7 years of his career with severe arthritis in his wrist that led to his first retirement after the 1970-71 season. He scored at a PPG clip in the Summit Series in 1974-75.

* First or second team All-Star every season from 1949-1970 except for 1955, or 21 times in the NHL in 22 seasons
* Had his best statistical season at the age of 40 (44-59-103 +45)
* Top 5 in points in the NHL 20 times (1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969)
* Top 5 in goals in the NHL 13 times (1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1963, 1965, 1968, 1969)
* Top 5 in assists in the NHL 17 times (1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1969)
* Top 5 in PIM in the NHL 1 time (1954)
* 6 Art Ross Trophies (1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1957, 1963)
* 6 Hart Trophies (1952, 1953, 1957, 1958, 1960, 1963)
* Lester Patrick Trophy (1967)

Very impressive list for sure, but it's the level that he dominated those scoring races that sets him apart:

1950-51: 23.26% scoring margin (86 to 66) Age: 22
1951-52: 19.75% scoring margin (86 to 69) Age: 23
1952-53: 23.26% scoring margin (95 to 71) Age: 24
1953-54: 17.28% scoring margin (81 to 67) Age: 25
1956-57: 4.49% scoring margin (89 to 85) Age: 28
1962-63: 5.81% scoring margin (86 to 81) Age: 34

That wasn't against weak competition either. That was against players who are all-time greats and likely to be in our final top 10 to top 50. That's a level of dominance only Gretzky can rival, and that margin only gets larger if you compare it you take out his linemates.

Wayne Gretzky
1980-81: 17.68% scoring margin (164 to 135) Age: 19
1981-82: 30.66% scoring margin (212 to 147) Age: 20
1982-83: 36.73% scoring margin (196 to 124) Age: 21
1983-84: 38.54% scoring margin (205 to 126) Age: 22
1984-85: 35.10% scoring margin (208 to 135) Age: 23
1985-86: 34.42% scoring margin (212 to 141) Age: 24
1986-87: 40.98% scoring margin (183 to 108) Age: 25
1989-90: 9.15% scoring margin (142 to 129) Age: 28
1990-91: 19.63% scoring margin (163 to 131) Age: 29
1993-94: 7.69% scoring margin (130 to 120) Age: 32

How do Lemieux and Orr compare?

Mario Lemieux
1987-88: 11.31% scoring margin (168 to 149) Age: 21
1988-89: 15.58% scoring margin (199 to 168) Age: 22
1991-92: 6.11% scoring margin (131 to 123) Age: 25
1992-93: 7.50% scoring margin (160 to 148) Age: 26
1995-96: 7.45% scoring margin (161 to 149) Age: 29
1996-97: 10.66% scoring margin (122 to 109) Age: 30

Bobby Orr
1969-70: 17.50% scoring margin (120 to 99) Age: 21
1974-75: 5.93% scoring margin (135 to 127) Age: 26

Lemieux's never had a season where he dominated his peers from a scoring perspective the way Gretzky and Howe did. The argument that he had to compete with Gretzky is moot since Gretzky had to compete with him and many of his season Wayne wasn't even the #2 scorer in the NHL. Orr had that first Art Ross season at a level where only two players have ever gone, but it's not fair to compare him with Howe and Gretzky directly since as a defenseman his accomplishments are even more staggering. Just a quick look over the scoring leaders in the NHL that the only players other than Howe and Gretzky to have at least a 20.00% scoring margin in a season were Bill Cowley (1940-41 @ 29.03%), Howie Horenz (1927-28 @ 23.53%), and Phil Esposito (1972-73 @ 20.00%).

Comparing the competition levels would seem to favor Gretzky and Lemieux, but does it really? They mainly competed with each other for a short time before Wayne's age began to take a toll into his mid 30's. By then, Lemieux was competing mainly against himself and his health. In fact, Lemieux never played every game in any single season in his entire career, topping out at 79 games in his sophomore season and reaching the 70 games margin on 6 times. He was great, but he was brittle even in his early years. Part of greatness in my opinion is the ability to be able to play when called upon and Lemieux could never be counted upon for a full schedule. Gordie Howe, by contrast, missed only 35 games from 1949-50 until his first retirement after the 1970-71 season, and 15 of those games were in his final year as a 41 year old. He didn't miss a single regular season game the year after nearly dying when he fractured his skull in the 1949-50 playoffs. He not only had longevity, he had durability. Gretzky's main competition were Lafleur, Dionne, Bossy, and Peter Stastny early then Lemieux, Messier, and Yzerman later. Lemieux competed early with Gretzky, Messier, and Yzerman and later with Jagr, Sakic, and Selanne. Howe's early competition were Richard, Lindsay, Believeau, Max Bentley, Schmidt, Geoffrion, Abel, and Delvecchio early then Dickie Moore, Beliveau, Bathgate, Bobby Hull, Mikita, Mahovlich, and Henri Richard later. I'd give the edge in competition to Howe here. He not only dominated, he dominated against players who will be highly ranked on this list, 3 of which are likely to be top 10.

Now you look at Howe's WHA career where he was already in his mid-to-late 40s. The competition level wasn't as high but he still won won the MVP award his first season as a 45 year old (after which the league renamed the MVP trophy to Gordie Howe Trophy in his honor). It wasn't just a gift trophy either, he finished 3rd in scoring that season and had 100 points, 5 more than Bobby Hull. He led Houston to consecutive Avco World Trophy titles in his first two seasons before being swept by Hull's Winnepeg team in the 1975-76 finals. He put up another 100+ point season that year at the age of 47, the last time he reached triple digits. He went to the New England team in the 1977-78 season and again led them to the finals only to once again lose to Hull and the Jets in a sweep. When the league folded after the 1978-79 season, Howe was the 7th leading scorer in league history with 508pts in 419 games, all done from the ages of 45 through 50 on a severly arthritic wrist. He played his final season, at 51, for the Hartford Whalers and didn't miss a single game while average a bit over 0.5ppg and was a plus player at +9. As a 51 year old he still able to compete at an NHL level and was tied for 3rd in playoff scoring on the team that season.

I'm probably rambling now, but I just feel that the accomplishments of Gordie Howe aren't fully appreciated by everyone, so this is my attempt to change your opinion. Sure, he played for a long time but he played at an elite level for a long time, not as a scrub or someone who simply piled up numbers because he hung on.

 

[Pwnasaurus]

Though you have to admit, being the #1 centre of a team that won 10 Cups has a lot of merit. Even though Im not a big fan of putting someone that much higher because of his team's success (a la Kurri or Cournoyer), I think Jean was probably theyre most important player (as many #1 centres are).

Beliveau would argue that Harvey was.

 

[maxpowers]

Very impressive list for sure, but it's the level that he dominated those scoring races that sets him apart:

1950-51: 23.26% scoring margin (86 to 66) Age: 22
1951-52: 19.75% scoring margin (86 to 69) Age: 23
1952-53: 23.26% scoring margin (95 to 71) Age: 24
1953-54: 17.28% scoring margin (81 to 67) Age: 25
1956-57: 4.49% scoring margin (89 to 85) Age: 28
1962-63: 5.81% scoring margin (86 to 81) Age: 34

That wasn't against weak competition either. That was against players who are all-time greats and likely to be in our final top 10 to top 50. That's a level of dominance only Gretzky can rival, and that margin only gets larger if you compare it you take out his linemates.

1980-81: 17.68% scoring margin (164 to 135) Age: 19
1981-82: 30.66% scoring margin (212 to 147) Age: 20
1982-83: 36.73% scoring margin (196 to 124) Age: 21
1983-84: 38.54% scoring margin (205 to 126) Age: 22
1984-85: 35.10% scoring margin (208 to 135) Age: 23
1985-86: 34.42% scoring margin (212 to 141) Age: 24
1986-87: 40.98% scoring margin (183 to 108) Age: 25
1989-90: 9.15% scoring margin (142 to 129) Age: 28
1990-91: 19.63% scoring margin (163 to 131) Age: 29
1993-94: 7.69% scoring margin (130 to 120) Age: 32

How do Lemieux and Orr compare?

Mario Lemieux
1987-88: 11.31% scoring margin (168 to 149) Age: 21
1988-89: 15.58% scoring margin (199 to 168) Age: 22
1991-92: 6.11% scoring margin (131 to 123) Age: 25
1992-93: 7.50% scoring margin (160 to 148) Age: 26
1995-96: 7.45% scoring margin (161 to 149) Age: 29
1996-97: 10.66% scoring margin (122 to 109) Age: 30

Lemieux's never had a season where he dominated his peers from a scoring perspective the way Gretzky and Howe did. The argument that he had to compete with Gretzky is moot since Gretzky had to compete with him and many of his season Wayne wasn't even the #2 scorer in the NHL.

I don't know how you can not take into account the fact that Gretzky and Lemieux played during the same time period when comparing them to Howe. As good as Howe's competition was, there was no one near the level of 99 or 66. To reflect this Lemeiux's scoring margin should be adjusted so that he is compared against the next highest scorer.

Mario Lemieux
1987-88: 22.02% scoring margin (168 to 131) Age: 21(77 GP)
1988-89: 22.11% scoring margin (199 to 155) Age: 22 (76 GP)
1991-92: 6.11% scoring margin (131 to 123) Age: 25 (64 GP)
1992-93: 7.50% scoring margin (160 to 148) Age: 26 (60 GP)
1995-96: 7.45% scoring margin (161 to 149) Age: 29 (70 GP)
1996-97: 10.66% scoring margin (122 to 109) Age: 30 (76 GP)

As you mentioned Lemieux never played a full year, yet he was still winning scoring titles. If you look at his 92-93 season his 7.50% 'scoring margin' might not look too impressive, but that was one of the greatest seasons in history. Games played is a big factor in this and can't be ignored especially when using these stats. A guy winning scoring titles while missing 10+ games of the year is amazing.

Howe on the other hand rarely missed a game unlike the majority of his competition. He had great durability and longevity, but I can't see how you can say he was a more dominant scorer than Lemieux.