| Author |
 Topic  |
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
 Posted - 05/15/2007 : 06:56:12
|
Guest 9910 had stated in another thread that Gordie doesn't belong in the same category as Gretzky, Lemieux and Orr. Thoughts?
My ranking for these four guys is
Orr
Howe
Lemieux
Gretzky
"You are not your desktop wallpaper"
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 07:29:38
|
My rankings would be:
1. Gretzky
2. Orr
3. Lemieux
4. Messier/Howe
Not sure if I would put him ahead or behind Messier, but my top three are set. |
 |
|
|
PuckNuts
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2414 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 07:37:12
|
Mine:
1.) Gretzky
2.) Lemieux
3.) Orr
4.) Howe
Lead, follow, or get out of the way... |
|
|
|
leafsfan_101
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1530 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 08:43:30
|
1). Gretzky
2). Orr
3). Lemieux
4). Howe
Thats how I see it.
When life gives you lemons throw them at the Ottawa Senators and their fans and hope it gets them in the eyes ;) |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 09:28:57
|
Wow, ok, here's a refresher.
Year Team GP G A Pts Pim
1946-47 Detroit Red Wings 58 7 15 22 52
1947-48 Detroit Red Wings 60 16 28 44 63
1948-49 Detroit Red Wings 40 12 25 37 57
1949-50 Detroit Red Wings 70 35 33 68 69
1950-51 Detroit Red Wings 70 43 43 86 74
1951-52 Detroit Red Wings 70 47 39 86 78
1952-53 Detroit Red Wings 70 49 46 95 57
1953-54 Detroit Red Wings 70 33 48 81 109
1954-55 Detroit Red Wings 64 29 33 62 68
1955-56 Detroit Red Wings 70 38 41 79 100
1956-57 Detroit Red Wings 70 44 45 89 72
1957-58 Detroit Red Wings 64 33 44 77 40
1958-59 Detroit Red Wings 70 32 46 78 57
1959-60 Detroit Red Wings 70 28 45 73 46
1960-61 Detroit Red Wings 64 23 49 72 30
1961-62 Detroit Red Wings 70 33 44 77 54
1962-63 Detroit Red Wings 70 38 48 86 100
1963-64 Detroit Red Wings 69 26 47 73 70
1964-65 Detroit Red Wings 70 29 47 76 104
1965-66 Detroit Red Wings 70 29 46 75 83
1966-67 Detroit Red Wings 69 25 40 65 53
1967-68 Detroit Red Wings 74 39 43 82 53
1968-69 Detroit Red Wings 76 44 59 103 58
1969-70 Detroit Red Wings 76 31 40 71 58
1970-71 Detroit Red Wings 63 23 29 52 38
1979-80 Hartford Whalers 80 15 26 41 42
NHL Totals 1767 801 1049 1850 1685
Then there are his WHA totals as well.
418 GP, 174 Goals, 334 Assists, 508 Points.
He started in the WHA at 44 Years of age and finished at 50.
Trophies
Art Ross Trophy - 6 (1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1957, 1963)
Hart Memorial - 6 (1952, 1953, 1957, 1058, 1960, 1963)
Championships
Stanley Cup - 4 (1950, 1952, 1954, 1955)
In his fourth NHL season, 1949-50, Howe began one of hockey's most amazing streaks. The the next 22 years, Howe scored over 20 goals a year.
As a 41 year old in 1968-69, he scored 44 goals and added 59 assists for a career high 103 points.
He finished in the top 5 for scoring in the league for 20 years. That is absolute dominance.
Howe dominated the league offensively as well as being the toughest player on the ice, a great defensive player and a huge physical force. He is the best forward ever. Bar none.
Howe deserves more respect around here.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
Edited by - willus3 on 05/15/2007 09:37:51 |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 09:49:47
|
Willus, I have a lot of respect for Gordie Howe. He was one of the pioneers to the game's evolution. And his performance over such a long period of time will never be broken. Most players don't play 22 years let alone having 20+ goals a year for 22.
Although, his 6 Art Ross Trophies and 6 Hart Trophies are not as impressive to me. He won all of those in a period where there were 6 teams in the league. So, he was the best among about 120 players. After 78, there were 4 times that number of players in the league. To me, it is more impressive to be the best of 400+ players than 120 player.
And I have to wonder some times, you talk about Howe not getting respect, and you use facts like he was the top 5 in the league in scoring for 20 years. Again, the vast majority of that was in the Original 6 era. He only played what 6 NHL years after 67?? Again, is it harder leading 120 player or leading 440 players??
And how is it ok to say that Howe needs more respect because of all this trophies, this productivity over a long period of time, and a record of 22-20+ goals seasons, yet if people bring up stats about another specific all time great, they are discounted??
I'm not following you these days. Not saying Howe is not deserving of a top 5 position, but to say he is the best forward in history, bar none?? I would think there are many that would have an arguement there. |
Edited by - Beans15 on 05/15/2007 09:53:49 |
|
|
|
tctitans
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
931 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 10:38:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
Howe deserves more respect around here.
More respect? So far everyone has him in their top 5 - that's a pretty good show of respect!
Howe was a great talent and was perhaps the best all-around player ever, but no, he didnt have that special once a generation talent. He was a talented rugged tough bastard with tremendous longevity and I'd have him on my top 5 list anyday. |
|
|
|
PuckNuts
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2414 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 10:47:44
|
Darn I thought I was the stats guy...
How they finish in scoring
Howe
1946 - 1947 not top 10
1947 - 1948 not top 10
1948 - 1949 not top 10
1949 - 1950 3
1950 - 1951 1
1951 - 1952 1
1952 - 1953 1
1953 - 1954 1
1954 - 1955 5
1955 - 1956 2
1956 - 1957 1
1957 - 1958 4
1958 - 1959 4
1959 - 1960 6
1960 - 1961 5
1961 - 1962 3
1962 - 1963 1
1963 - 1964 5
1964 - 1965 3
1965 - 1966 5
1966 - 1967 5
1967 - 1968 3
1968 - 1969 3
1969 - 1970 9
1970 - 1971 not top 10
1979 - 1980 not top 10
Gretzky
1979 - 1980 1
1980 - 1981 1
1981 - 1982 1
1982 - 1983 1
1983 - 1984 1
1984 - 1985 1
1985 - 1986 1
1986 - 1987 1
1987 - 1988 2
1988 - 1989 2
1989 - 1990 1
1990 - 1991 1
1991 - 1992 3
1992 - 1993 not top 10
1993 - 1994 1
1994 - 1995 not top 10
1995 - 1996 not top 10
1996 - 1997 5
1997 - 1998 4
1998 - 1999 not top 10
Lead, follow, or get out of the way... |
Edited by - PuckNuts on 05/15/2007 11:09:01 |
|
|
|
Saku Steen
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1102 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 11:43:54
|
| He would be number 4 on my list. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 11:52:07
|
And to add to Pucknuts stats, Howe did that in a league with 6 teams as Gretzky did it in a league of 20+ teams.
Howe being near the top of the league in scoring is the same as a guy today being near the top of his division. |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 12:01:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
And to add to Pucknuts stats, Howe did that in a league with 6 teams as Gretzky did it in a league of 20+ teams.
Howe being near the top of the league in scoring is the same as a guy today being near the top of his division.
Uhhh... no.
As we have discussed in the Parity Thread, Gretzky won his races in the era with the least parity. It is not a greater achievement.
Howe faced a higher level of competition as he was up against the cream of the crop in the original six.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 12:10:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
And I have to wonder some times, you talk about Howe not getting respect, and you use facts like he was the top 5 in the league in scoring for 20 years. Again, the vast majority of that was in the Original 6 era. He only played what 6 NHL years after 67?? Again, is it harder leading 120 player or leading 440 players??
And how is it ok to say that Howe needs more respect because of all this trophies, this productivity over a long period of time, and a record of 22-20+ goals seasons, yet if people bring up stats about another specific all time great, they are discounted??
I'm not following you these days. Not saying Howe is not deserving of a top 5 position, but to say he is the best forward in history, bar none?? I would think there are many that would have an arguement there.
It is harder to lead 120 great to excellent players than 440 pylons to excellent players.
I use the stats as a great many people require them. They are a part of the equation when evaluating a player. I have never said otherwise. But they are part of the equation, not all of it.
Of course you can argue it. These things are just my opinion. I've never written any gospels. Well,except the gospel of Willus. It's excellent. You should read it. 
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
|
|
|
tctitans
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
931 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 12:15:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
And to add to Pucknuts stats, Howe did that in a league with 6 teams as Gretzky did it in a league of 20+ teams.
Howe being near the top of the league in scoring is the same as a guy today being near the top of his division.
Uhhh... no.
As we have discussed in the Parity Thread, Gretzky won his races in the era with the least parity. It is not a greater achievement.
Howe faced a higher level of competition as he was up against the cream of the crop in the original six.
There are valid points on both sides of this argument in this case. It is really hard to compare the 2 eras, but my opinion is that there is not a need to. We are talking completely different players here with completely different styles. Gretzky had elite skill and talent, and Howe had talent and would run you over. Howe's accomplishments and worth have little to do with him finishing atop the points standings. Howe had no where near the offensive gifts that Gretzky had, and Gretzky couldnt touch Howe's all-around game. These are 2 quite different players and it's an odd choice to try and compare the two - perhaps on a impact or MVP type analysis might make sense, but dont try to compare these guys based solely on offense abilities, as it is no contest.
To answer the original question specifically, I personally dont think that Howe should be discussed in the pure offensive talent discussions with the likes of Gretzky, Lemieux, or Orr. Best player of all time discussions, sure, but not this one.
Well.. I just reread the original question and it really doesnt specify 'offensive player' - I guess I just assumed that since Gretzky, Lemieux, and Orr were stated. So the real answer depends on the clarification of the real question. :) |
Edited by - tctitans on 05/15/2007 12:19:51 |
|
|
|
tctitans
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
931 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 12:25:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
It is harder to lead 120 great to excellent players than 440 pylons to excellent players.
There was certainly not 120 great-excellent players and certainly not 440 pylons, but I understand that you are trying to over-dramatize your position to make a point.
As great as I think Howe was, I think that it's a losing battle to try and use the original 6 vs new era fact as a basis to support his side, when in the end it really supports your opposition.
Again, on 'pure offensive talent' there is no contest here.
Again, on 'all around game' there is no contest here either. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 12:31:17
|
Willus, are you saying that there were not at least 120 excellent players out of the 440 in the league?? I would suggest that there were that many, if not more.
I think you also have to factor in travel and lengths of the seasons. Howe in Detroit never had to travel more than 720 miles to a game. Gretzky in Edmonton has only one team they played within 720 miles. Howe didn't have to deal with Jet lag or being in Edmonton tonight and playing in Montreal two nights later.
And on lengths of the seasons, the very most that an original 6 team could play in a year was 84 including playoffs. That is only 4 game short of the reg. season in the 80's. I'll use Messier as an example as I think Howe and Messier compare very well together. Messier played an average of 80 games per year through his career. Howe played 65 per year on average. That is a huge difference.
Anyway, I've rambled on long enough. Just another difference of opinion between me and the Prophet Willus! |
|
|
|
Guest9910
( )
|
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 13:08:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
Guest 9910 had stated in another thread that Gordie doesn't belong in the same category as Gretzky, Lemieux and Orr. Thoughts?
My ranking for these four guys is
Orr
Howe
Lemieux
Gretzky
"You are not your desktop wallpaper"
I thought you weren't going to debate me until I became a member, and here you are debating one of my posts by starting an entire thread?!?! Too funny.
Anyway, tctitans pretty much nailed it on the head at the end of his 2nd post: we need to clairify the question, because Willus has completely taken my original post out of context. Here's what I had stated in the other thead Willus is now debating:
Depends on your idea of "better". I'd put Messier in the Howe category. Tough, strong skater, good offensively, won a few cups...in short, well rounded player with a lot of skill and determination. Gretzky, I'd put in the Lemieux and Orr category. These are special players (specially gifted). They come around once or twice every generation in every sport.
Not once did I ever say that Howe isn't top 5 material, did I? When Willus here says I didn't put him in the same category, he is assuming I meant he isn't won of the greatest players. Wrong assumption. Read my original post again. What I am saying is this: he does not belong in the same category of specially gifted offensive players as Lemieux, Gretzky and Orr. I was discussing their God given talent Now, debate that if you like -- since you didn't wait for me to become a member ;) -- but at least now you know the the real "category" of which you have taken out of context. |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 14:09:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by PuckNuts
Darn I thought I was the stats guy...
You still are PuckNuts. In fact could you post the stats for Howe's Art Ross winning seasons and show the runner ups stats as well. Then do the adjustments. Then do the same for Gretky's highest output years and adjust. I think it's something people need to see.
Will you accept the challenge?
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 14:44:47
|
[/quote]
I thought you weren't going to debate me until I became a member, and here you are debating one of my posts by starting an entire thread?!?! Too funny.
Anyway, tctitans pretty much nailed it on the head at the end of his 2nd post: we need to clairify the question, because Willus has completely taken my original post out of context. Here's what I had stated in the other thead Willus is now debating:
Depends on your idea of "better". I'd put Messier in the Howe category. Tough, strong skater, good offensively, won a few cups...in short, well rounded player with a lot of skill and determination. Gretzky, I'd put in the Lemieux and Orr category. These are special players (specially gifted). They come around once or twice every generation in every sport.
Not once did I ever say that Howe isn't top 5 material, did I? When Willus here says I didn't put him in the same category, he is assuming I meant he isn't won of the greatest players. Wrong assumption. Read my original post again. What I am saying is this: he does not belong in the same category of specially gifted offensive players as Lemieux, Gretzky and Orr. I was discussing their God given talent Now, debate that if you like -- since you didn't wait for me to become a member ;) -- but at least now you know the the real "category" of which you have taken out of context.
[/quote]
You like semantic games. So be it.
I have yet to debate YOU on this subject.
And here is your original post in it's entirety:
"Depends on your idea of "better". I'd put Messier in the Howe category. Tough, strong skater, good offensively, won a few cups...in short, well rounded player with a lot of skill and determination. Gretzky, I'd put in the Lemieux and Orr category. These are special players (specially gifted). They come around once or twice every generation in every sport. Babe Ruth, Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan, Wayne Gretzky.... Now, with consistent work ethic and achievement (over an entire career), these special players go down in history as great players -- and belong with the afformentioned greats. Gretzky no doubt has all of that going for him, and, no, he doesn't belong in the same category as Mark Messier...not by a long shot. But, like I said, if "special player" is not your bag, then you'd probably vote for Messier."
Read my original post in this thread and tell me if it actually twists your words as you imply. It doesn't. In your comments above you have added the word "offensive" so it appears I took your comment out of context. The comment in quotes above clearly says you don't believe Howe belongs in the same category the other three are in. Perhaps what you meant and what you typed are two different things. Had you wrote what you did in your last post you might have had a case.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
|
|
|
Guest9910
( )
|
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 15:47:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
I thought you weren't going to debate me until I became a member, and here you are debating one of my posts by starting an entire thread?!?! Too funny.
Anyway, tctitans pretty much nailed it on the head at the end of his 2nd post: we need to clairify the question, because Willus has completely taken my original post out of context. Here's what I had stated in the other thead Willus is now debating:
Depends on your idea of "better". I'd put Messier in the Howe category. Tough, strong skater, good offensively, won a few cups...in short, well rounded player with a lot of skill and determination. Gretzky, I'd put in the Lemieux and Orr category. These are special players (specially gifted). They come around once or twice every generation in every sport.
Not once did I ever say that Howe isn't top 5 material, did I? When Willus here says I didn't put him in the same category, he is assuming I meant he isn't won of the greatest players. Wrong assumption. Read my original post again. What I am saying is this: he does not belong in the same category of specially gifted offensive players as Lemieux, Gretzky and Orr. I was discussing their God given talent Now, debate that if you like -- since you didn't wait for me to become a member ;) -- but at least now you know the the real "category" of which you have taken out of context.
[/quote]
You like semantic games. So be it.
I have yet to debate YOU on this subject.
And here is your original post in it's entirety:
"Depends on your idea of "better". I'd put Messier in the Howe category. Tough, strong skater, good offensively, won a few cups...in short, well rounded player with a lot of skill and determination. Gretzky, I'd put in the Lemieux and Orr category. These are special players (specially gifted). They come around once or twice every generation in every sport. Babe Ruth, Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan, Wayne Gretzky.... Now, with consistent work ethic and achievement (over an entire career), these special players go down in history as great players -- and belong with the afformentioned greats. Gretzky no doubt has all of that going for him, and, no, he doesn't belong in the same category as Mark Messier...not by a long shot. But, like I said, if "special player" is not your bag, then you'd probably vote for Messier."
Read my original post in this thread and tell me if it actually twists your words as you imply. It doesn't. In your comments above you have added the word "offensive" so it appears I took your comment out of context. The comment in quotes above clearly says you don't believe Howe belongs in the same category the other three are in. Perhaps what you meant and what you typed are two different things. Had you wrote what you did in your last post you might have had a case.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper"
[/quote]
You still have failed to show which part of my entire post says that I don't believe Howe belongs in the top players of all time list. You seem to be ignoring the part where I say How doesn't belong in the same category as the other three "specially gifted" players: "These are special players (specially gifted)." I think we all should know what "specially gifted" means. Hockey analysts have been using the term, "special" for years when discussing phenoms like Lemieux, Gretzky, and now Crosby. That term was never used in describing Howe's talent, nor was it used in describling players like Messier, despite the fact that both of these players are arguably in the top five or six players of all time. I feel like I shouldn't have to spell this out. A bit of an exercise in redundency, is it not?
Regardless, there is not one aspect of my post that implies that I don't believe Howe is not in the pantheon of hockey legends.... I even went so far as to say that Messier would be a better player than Gretzky if "special player" is not your cup of tea. What more do you want than that?
Furthermore, in the same thread, I posted this response to another poster (which you have conveniently ignored):
I agree wtih you that Howe was great. I wouldn't call put him in the Lemieux and Orr category of specially giftend players, however. I would Gretzky. We disagree. That's fine.
Now if you want to debate whether or not Howe was a specially gifted player, then go ahead. But you still haven't shown that you didn't take my post out of context. By the way, I find it revealing that you suggest I was implying you twisted my words when I never actually accused you of that. It was you who said it, not me.
Happy debating. |
|
|
|
Guest9910
( )
|
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 15:56:13
|
EDIT: ignore the above post. It's too much of a hogposh to sift through.
My response, Willus:
You have still failed to show which part of my entire post says that I don't believe Howe belongs in the top players of all time list. You seem to be ignoring the part where I say How doesn't belong in the same category as the other three "specially gifted" players: "These are special players (specially gifted)." I think we all should know what "specially gifted" means. Hockey analysts have been using the term, "special" for years when discussing phenoms like Lemieux, Gretzky, and now Crosby. I have never heard that term used to describe Howe's talent, nor was it ever used in describling players like Messier, despite the fact that both of these players are arguably in the top five or six players of all time. I feel like I shouldn't have to spell this out. A bit of an exercise in redundency, is it not?
Regardless, there is not one aspect of my post that implies that I don't believe Howe is not in the pantheon of hockey legends.... I even went so far as to say that Messier would be a better player than Gretzky if "special player" is not your cup of tea. What more do you want than that?
Furthermore, in the same thread, I posted this response to another poster (which you have conveniently ignored):
I agree wtih you that Howe was great. I wouldn't call put him in the Lemieux and Orr category of specially giftend players, however. I would Gretzky. We disagree. That's fine.
Now if you want to debate whether or not Howe was a specially gifted player, then go ahead. But you still haven't shown that you didn't take my post out of context. By the way, I find it revealing that you suggest I was implying you twisted my words when I never actually accused you of that. It was you who said it, not me.
Happy debating.
|
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 16:34:17
|
Guest 9910 I haven't failed to show it. I think perhaps you have selective reading.
You describe Gretz, Lemieux and Orr as Specially gifted and then Howe as a well rounded player with a lot of skill and determination. In my post I said you didn't put them in the same category, and you didn't.
quote:
Regardless, there is not one aspect of my post that implies that I don't believe Howe is not in the pantheon of hockey legends....
And nowhere did I say you did.
quote:
But you still haven't shown that you didn't take my post out of context. By the way, I find it revealing that you suggest I was implying you twisted my words when I never actually accused you of that. It was you who said it, not me.
By saying I took your comment out of context implies I twisted your words.
I am done arguing with you about this. It isn't about hockey and has become a he said / she said word fest and it is ridiculous. I will not be goaded into any further comments. You are free to type whatever you like now, as I'm sure you will.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
|
|
|
Guest9910
( )
|
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 17:04:43
|
Then, Willus, it would have been nice if you had added a little context to this thread by stating how I don't think Howe belongs in the same category -- ie, that he was not in the same category of specially gifted players. By leaving that crucial part of the sentence out, you make it seem like I'm saying he doesn't belong among the other three greats....(which I would say he does, by the way). As for who the greatest of all time is, now that's another thread.
If you bring me into another thread, I think it is completely fair of me to defend my position if it has been taken out of context, I'm sure any reasonable person would agree.
|
|
|
|
PuckNuts
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2414 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 17:37:29
|
This is a list for each year that Howe, and Gretzky won their scoring races.
Howe
Year - Pts - Tot Pts - Av - 1-2 - %1-2 - 1-10 - %1-10 - %Top 10
1950-51 - 86 - 617 - 62 - 20 - 23.26% - 35 - 40.70% - 16.20%
1951-52 - 86 - 600 - 60 - 17 - 19.77% - 36 - 41.86% - 16.73%
1952-53 - 95 - 584 - 58 - 24 - 25.26% - 51 - 53.68% - 19.43%
1953-54 - 81 - 553 - 55 - 14 - 17.28% - 35 - 43.21% - 17.16%
1956-57 - 89 - 685 - 69 - 4.0 - 4.494% - 37 - 41.57% - 14.93%
1962-63 - 86 - 710 - 71 - 5.0 - 5.814% - 24 - 27.91% - 13.78%
Totals-- - 75 - 536 - 54 - 12 - 13.70% - 31 - 35.56% - 14.03%
Gretzky
Year-- - Pts - Tot Pts - Av - 1-2 - %1-2 --- 1-10 - %1-10 - %Top 10
1979-80 - 137 - 1108 - 111 - 0.0 - 0.000% - 41.0 - 29.93% - 14.11% Tied Dionne
1980-81 - 164 - 1187 - 119 - 29 - 17.68% - 61.0 - 37.20% - 16.03%
1981-82 - 212 - 1325 - 133 - 65 - 30.66% - 106 - 50.00% - 19.05%
1982-83 - 196 - 1192 - 119 - 72 - 36.73% - 92.0 - 46.94% - 19.68%
1983-84 - 205 - 1241 - 124 - 79 - 38.54% - 100 - 48.78% - 19.79%
1984-85 - 208 - 1252 - 125 - 73 - 35.10% - 106 - 50.96% - 19.92%
1985-86 - 215 - 1306 - 131 - 74 - 34.42% - 110 - 51.16% - 19.71%
1986-87 - 168 - 1221 - 122 - 19 - 11.31% - 62.0 - 36.90% - 15.95%
1989-90 - 142 - 1162 - 116 - 13 - 9.155% - 40.0 - 28.17% - 13.92%
1990-91 - 163 - 1157 - 116 - 32 - 19.63% - 62.0 - 38.04% - 16.40%
1993-94 - 130 - 1094 - 109 - 10 - 7.692% - 31.0 - 23.85% - 13.49%
Totals-- - 176 - 1204 - 120 - 42 - 21.90% - 73.7 - 40.17% - 17.09%
Totals** - 180 - 1214 - 121 - 47 - 24.09% - 77.0 - 41.20% - 17.39%
Pts = The number of points they had that year
Tot Pts = Total Points of the top ten players that year
Av = The Average points of the top ten players
1-2 = The point gap between 1st and 2nd place
% 1-2 = The percentage of the gap between 1st and 2nd place
1-10 = The point gap between 1st and 10th place
% 1-10 = The percentage of the gap between 1st and 10th place
% Top 10 = The percentage of points they had of the top ten points
Totals-- = The averages for each column
Totals** = The averages for Gretzky less the year he and Dionne tied
Howe never won the scoring race until his fifth season
Gretzky tied for first in his rookie season, and won the scoring race in his second season
Lead, follow, or get out of the way... |
Edited by - PuckNuts on 05/15/2007 17:38:30 |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 18:28:25
|
Very nicely done PuckNuts!! Glad to see you included the top 10 stats. I feel it's more indicative of the dominance as the 1 - 2 comparison can give an inaccurate impression.
Thanks.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
Edited by - willus3 on 05/15/2007 18:44:13 |
|
|
|
Guest0776
( )
|
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 18:44:07
|
Gretzky
Yzerman
Howe
Lemieux
|
|
|
|
GOWINGS19
Rookie
USA
232 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 20:35:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest0776
Gretzky
Yzerman
Howe
Lemieux
i'm a tad biased on that one haha i like the way you think at least 0776...but i'm not positive that yzerman was better than howe AND lemieux...but they are all amazing talents...i'd rather leave them unranked...Howe is without a doubt as most of you have said a top 5 behind gretzky lemieux and orr i'd say...maybe tied with orr but not in front of...they were both awesome
"I don’t need to score the goal. I need someone to start thinking about me and forgetting about scoring goals." -Vladmir Konstantinov |
|
|
|
Guest0776
( )
|
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 22:10:13
|
| Yzerman was in my mind better than lemieux based on hear, same with Sakic, but he still has a year left, and ye Lemiex had cancer, i still hink he could have done alot more, |
|
|
|
99pickles
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
671 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2007 : 01:07:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest9910
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
I thought you weren't going to debate me until I became a member, and here you are debating one of my posts by starting an entire thread?!?! Too funny.
Anyway, tctitans pretty much nailed it on the head at the end of his 2nd post: we need to clairify the question, because Willus has completely taken my original post out of context. Here's what I had stated in the other thead Willus is now debating:
Depends on your idea of "better". I'd put Messier in the Howe category. Tough, strong skater, good offensively, won a few cups...in short, well rounded player with a lot of skill and determination. Gretzky, I'd put in the Lemieux and Orr category. These are special players (specially gifted). They come around once or twice every generation in every sport.
Not once did I ever say that Howe isn't top 5 material, did I? When Willus here says I didn't put him in the same category, he is assuming I meant he isn't won of the greatest players. Wrong assumption. Read my original post again. What I am saying is this: he does not belong in the same category of specially gifted offensive players as Lemieux, Gretzky and Orr. I was discussing their God given talent Now, debate that if you like -- since you didn't wait for me to become a member ;) -- but at least now you know the the real "category" of which you have taken out of context.
You like semantic games. So be it.
I have yet to debate YOU on this subject.
And here is your original post in it's entirety:
"Depends on your idea of "better". I'd put Messier in the Howe category. Tough, strong skater, good offensively, won a few cups...in short, well rounded player with a lot of skill and determination. Gretzky, I'd put in the Lemieux and Orr category. These are special players (specially gifted). They come around once or twice every generation in every sport. Babe Ruth, Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan, Wayne Gretzky.... Now, with consistent work ethic and achievement (over an entire career), these special players go down in history as great players -- and belong with the afformentioned greats. Gretzky no doubt has all of that going for him, and, no, he doesn't belong in the same category as Mark Messier...not by a long shot. But, like I said, if "special player" is not your bag, then you'd probably vote for Messier."
Read my original post in this thread and tell me if it actually twists your words as you imply. It doesn't. In your comments above you have added the word "offensive" so it appears I took your comment out of context. The comment in quotes above clearly says you don't believe Howe belongs in the same category the other three are in. Perhaps what you meant and what you typed are two different things. Had you wrote what you did in your last post you might have had a case.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper"
[/quote]
You still have failed to show which part of my entire post says that I don't believe Howe belongs in the top players of all time list. You seem to be ignoring the part where I say How doesn't belong in the same category as the other three "specially gifted" players: "These are special players (specially gifted)." I think we all should know what "specially gifted" means. Hockey analysts have been using the term, "special" for years when discussing phenoms like Lemieux, Gretzky, and now Crosby. That term was never used in describing Howe's talent, nor was it used in describling players like Messier, despite the fact that both of these players are arguably in the top five or six players of all time. I feel like I shouldn't have to spell this out. A bit of an exercise in redundency, is it not?
Regardless, there is not one aspect of my post that implies that I don't believe Howe is not in the pantheon of hockey legends.... I even went so far as to say that Messier would be a better player than Gretzky if "special player" is not your cup of tea. What more do you want than that?
Furthermore, in the same thread, I posted this response to another poster (which you have conveniently ignored):
I agree wtih you that Howe was great. I wouldn't call put him in the Lemieux and Orr category of specially giftend players, however. I would Gretzky. We disagree. That's fine.
Now if you want to debate whether or not Howe was a specially gifted player, then go ahead. But you still haven't shown that you didn't take my post out of context. By the way, I find it revealing that you suggest I was implying you twisted my words when I never actually accused you of that. It was you who said it, not me.
Happy debating.
[/quote]
You know, even though this person has some reasonable points in their debate with Willus, I don't seem to be able to read it very well besause they DON'T HAVE AN IDENTITY ! All I see is "blah blah blah blah blah" and then something intelligent from willus, and others. When I finally had something to say, I bucked up and registered and even included my last name in my identity. Quite frankly, I have no respect whatsoever for a lurking interloper that hides behind... well, nothing but a few nonsensical ravings. Aside from all that, this person is mis-arguing a losing battle with several meaningful posters who, themselves, don't necessarily agree 100% of the time.
My god, why am I even promoting this person by responding?? Oh yeah, I have a hard time deciding the criteria for my ranking of the top couple of players of all time. I used to be so hard-core Gretzky in my younger days that there wasn't even room for debate - not even a possibility. But the digestion of time has put things in perspective and the vast amounts of historical hockey reading I have done in the last few years has made me comfortable in my personal ranking...
1) Howe
1) Orr
1) Gretzky
4) Yzerman
5) Lemieux |
|
|
|
BigShow
Rookie
177 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2007 : 09:07:32
|
Not grouping Howe with the other special talents is an insult.
My preference would be :
Gretzky
Howe
Orr
Lemiuex
However, besides comparing Gretzky to Lemiuex, i don't think the others can be fairly compared. To much was different in the league, not to mention that Orr played a different position.
Willus i think you put far too much value on the skill of the original/older teams. I agree that there has been some mudflation, particularly after any expansion, but that doesn't last long. |
|
|
|
BigShow
Rookie
177 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2007 : 09:11:04
|
Small add on:
Further proof that Howe is above the average superstar; Gretzky thinks he is the best player to have played the game. |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2007 : 10:23:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by BigShow
Not grouping Howe with the other special talents is an insult.
My preference would be :
Gretzky
Howe
Orr
Lemiuex
However, besides comparing Gretzky to Lemiuex, i don't think the others can be fairly compared. To much was different in the league, not to mention that Orr played a different position.
Willus i think you put far too much value on the skill of the original/older teams. I agree that there has been some mudflation, particularly after any expansion, but that doesn't last long.
How long would you say it lasts?
The league expanded too rapidly in the last half of the 70's. The expansion combined with the WHA merger was just too much. It seemed the league was watered down for almost a decade before things caught up. That's how it seemed to me anyway.
I don't know that I put too much value in the skill of the original six. I feel I give the respect deserved. Many people underestimate just how good the talent was. If people dug into things more and sought to learn more about the history of this great game (I'm not targeting you BigShow, just in general) some opinions might be different.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
|
|
|
tctitans
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
931 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2007 : 13:18:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
I don't know that I put too much value in the skill of the original six. I feel I give the respect deserved. Many people underestimate just how good the talent was. If people dug into things more and sought to learn more about the history of this great game (I'm not targeting you BigShow, just in general) some opinions might be different.
That is your opinion Willus and that is completely valid. I feel that you are being a little pretentious however (perhaps it's just the way that you write things that is misleading, so I'm not saying that it's intentional!) that if people don't share your opinion, that it's because they have not "dug into things more and sought to learn more about the history of this great game". As a matter of fact, I have watched and studied this great game for a very long time and have formulated all (most) of my opinions on sheer facts and first-hand observations. That all being said, I personally don't know how others 'underestimate' the talent level of the original 6, but I think that there were a lot of talented players, and a lot of not so talented players.
|
|
|
|
jbraiter
PickupHockey Pro
577 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2007 : 13:19:58
|
1.) Gretzky
2.) Lemieux
3.) Orr
4.) Howe
|
|
|
|
BigShow
Rookie
177 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2007 : 13:24:08
|
| Just my opinion, but i would say that the mudflation generally lasts a year per expansion team plus an extra year or so per wave of new teams. I think it was a little less effective in the 90s, because of the accepted clutch and grab style. |
|
|
|
BigShow
Rookie
177 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2007 : 13:33:47
|
Willus, I don't take stuff on web boards personally, don't worry about any disagreements we may have. Opinions are like asses, everyone has one, and no one wants to hear anyone else's.
While i am not old enough to remember anything before the Islanders dynasty, i have watched a lot of older games and highlights. While i think that the elite players of yesteryear were extremely talented, i think they would have done far better playing now. By the same token, i think the players that play now are better athletes generally.
I think the elites would have been as talanted as any we have seen recently, but the 'filler' would have been signifigantly less than now, because of the overall change in how one becomes a professional athlete now.
|
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2007 : 13:37:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by tctitans
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
I don't know that I put too much value in the skill of the original six. I feel I give the respect deserved. Many people underestimate just how good the talent was. If people dug into things more and sought to learn more about the history of this great game (I'm not targeting you BigShow, just in general) some opinions might be different.
That is your opinion Willus and that is completely valid. I feel that you are being a little pretentious however (perhaps it's just the way that you write things that is misleading, so I'm not saying that it's intentional!) that if people don't share your opinion, that it's because they have not "dug into things more and sought to learn more about the history of this great game". As a matter of fact, I have watched and studied this great game for a very long time and have formulated all (most) of my opinions on sheer facts and first-hand observations. That all being said, I personally don't know how others 'underestimate' the talent level of the original 6, but I think that there were a lot of talented players, and a lot of not so talented players.
Of course it's my opinion. Everything that gets said on here with the exception of a posted factual stat is opinion. Why do you feel you must constantly point out the obvious by saying so? It's a given.
I certainly do not write to mislead or to be pretentious. It's the problem with written word. It's hard to get feeling or nuance from it. To be honest, your posts generally seem condescending. Whether you mean it that way or not, it's how i perceive them at times.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
|
|
|
tctitans
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
931 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2007 : 15:12:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
quote:
Originally posted by tctitans
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
I don't know that I put too much value in the skill of the original six. I feel I give the respect deserved. Many people underestimate just how good the talent was. If people dug into things more and sought to learn more about the history of this great game (I'm not targeting you BigShow, just in general) some opinions might be different.
That is your opinion Willus and that is completely valid. I feel that you are being a little pretentious however (perhaps it's just the way that you write things that is misleading, so I'm not saying that it's intentional!) that if people don't share your opinion, that it's because they have not "dug into things more and sought to learn more about the history of this great game". As a matter of fact, I have watched and studied this great game for a very long time and have formulated all (most) of my opinions on sheer facts and first-hand observations. That all being said, I personally don't know how others 'underestimate' the talent level of the original 6, but I think that there were a lot of talented players, and a lot of not so talented players.
Of course it's my opinion. Everything that gets said on here with the exception of a posted factual stat is opinion. Why do you feel you must constantly point out the obvious by saying so? It's a given.
I certainly do not write to mislead or to be pretentious. It's the problem with written word. It's hard to get feeling or nuance from it. To be honest, your posts generally seem condescending. Whether you mean it that way or not, it's how i perceive them at times.
You are probably right. I'm sure we would have different views and impressions if we were sitting debating over a beer, rather than trying to get our points across prosing here in our spare time. |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2007 : 15:24:49
|
Mmmmmmmmmmm beeeeeeeeer.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
|
|
|
Guest9910
( )
|
Posted - 05/16/2007 : 20:03:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by 99pickles
You know, even though this person has some reasonable points in their debate with Willus, I don't seem to be able to read it very well besause they DON'T HAVE AN IDENTITY ! All I see is "blah blah blah blah blah" and then something intelligent from willus, and others. When I finally had something to say, I bucked up and registered and even included my last name in my identity. Quite frankly, I have no respect whatsoever for a lurking interloper that hides behind... well, nothing but a few nonsensical ravings. Aside from all that, this person is mis-arguing a losing battle with several meaningful posters who, themselves, don't necessarily agree 100% of the time.
My god, why am I even promoting this person by responding?? Oh yeah, I have a hard time deciding the criteria for my ranking of the top couple of players of all time. I used to be so hard-core Gretzky in my younger days that there wasn't even room for debate - not even a possibility. But the digestion of time has put things in perspective and the vast amounts of historical hockey reading I have done in the last few years has made me comfortable in my personal ranking...
1) Howe
1) Orr
1) Gretzky
4) Yzerman
5) Lemieux
My name is Michael Griffiths. I'm from Kelowna, British Columbia, but now live in Playa dle Carmen, Mexico. Excuse me for clarifying my original point which was re-written without the qualification of "speciallly gifted" player attached, which totally changed the implication of its meaning. I shouldn't have to apologize for that. |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2007 : 20:24:32
|
There's a hockey town. Playa del Carmen.
I was there a couple months ago actually. Beautiful.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
|
|
|
Guest9910
( )
|
Posted - 05/16/2007 : 20:31:47
|
Oh, my top 5:
1. Wayne Gretzky
2. Bobby Orr
3. Mario Lemieux
4. Gordie Howe
5. Steve Yzerman
6. Mark Messier
I wish I had got to see Maurice Richard and Jean Beliveau play...same with Tretiak. Throw in Doug Harvey and Ken Dryden as well. I only inlcude Bobby Orr and Gordie Howe because I've read and seen so much about them to know they fit in very high on the list. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Gordie Howe Ranking 
