HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Better offensively: Jagr vs. Howe

View Poll Results: Who's Better Offensively?
Jaromir Jagr 29 37.66%
Gordie Howe 48 62.34%
Voters: 77. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-30-2014, 01:24 AM
  #51
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,852
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beau Knows View Post
So if you remove non-Canadians from the scoring leaders Jagr should be able to match Howes dominance right? But he doesn't. If your argument is that Jagr had to face European goalies and dmen, that shouldn't really matter since the other Canadians in the league also did.
The Canadian talent pool was still a lot deeper during Jagr's era than Howe's, at least judging by the Canadian population of hockey age during their respective peaks.

However, it's less certain just how close the competition levels were at the very top at forward, since there's a lot more margin for error there. Still, population data would suggest that it's much more likely that Jagr faced more Canadian competition at the top than Howe did.

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2014, 01:26 AM
  #52
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,852
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Point is that Jagr wasn't particularly close to them, while nobody who ever played the game before Gretzky was ever close to Howe. (Unless you take an uncritical look at Esposito's stats - then he's somewhat close to Howe and above Jagr).

I'm talking strictly offense
And one would expect the best player back in the stone age to have an even larger margin over his competition.. because of the limited population. This wouldn't necessarily mean he was better than those that followed much later than him.

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2014, 02:24 AM
  #53
shazariahl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,583
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by livewell68 View Post
Jagr's % would have been even larger in 2000 had he not missed 19 games. He still won the Art Ross by 2 Pts though, he was projected to score 125 Pts in 82 games and would have won the Art Ross by 31 Pts.
Although I will probably vote for Howe in this poll, I do think this sometimes gets overlooked. Jagr's season here was one of the best non-Gretzky/Lemieux seasons in a long time, and is pretty comparable to many of Howe's best. He did it in an era with more international competition, which is a plus IMO. Unfortunately for Jagr though, he did it less often. This was really his most "Howe-like" dominance, and it was a season shortened by injury. But Howe had several seasons that were like this, except they were full seasons.

Still, we shouldn't overlook it. Mario gets a lot of credit for some ridiculous partial seasons (as he should - some of them were incredible), but Jagr tends to get punished for his. But even saying all that, I don't think it's enough to swing things in Jagr's favor (just like Lemieux's 92-93 season was incredible, but not enough to put him over Gretzky).

shazariahl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2014, 03:26 AM
  #54
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 41,896
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
And one would expect the best player back in the stone age to have an even larger margin over his competition.. because of the limited population. This wouldn't necessarily mean he was better than those that followed much later than him.
Let me guess, the "stone age" of hockey is everything that happened before Czech Your Math started watching?

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2014, 03:55 AM
  #55
Tam O Shanter
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 246
vCash: 500
pfffff, I'm not going to vote on this. I don't want to get into the cross-generational stuff too much on here. Visually, new players look better, the league is deeper, training regimes, etc. But then you have to admit the old guys would have improved to some degree had they been raised into a newer league..... and back and forth we go. I think, due to it being a history board, one must respect dominance of peers to a fair degree, and I don't think Jagr can really bridge that gap.

As I was thinking about this, I went through all the Art Ross winners to check something I had never thought about, and maybe hasn't been brought up here before (likely has though) -

How many fellas lead the league in goals and assists for the same season? Not won the Ross and Richard, but actually dominated enough to collect the most of each in the same year. Quite a damned offensive accomplishment when you really start to think about it.....

Anyways, I only went back as far as the Ross itself, so it starts just before Howe:

Gretzky - 5 times
Howe&Lemieux - 2 times each
Esposito - 1

I think that's it, although its late and I'm going off a tired short term memory.

Tam O Shanter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2014, 04:56 AM
  #56
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 41,896
vCash: 500
Awhile back, I made this thread about the greatest margins of victory for the Art Ross Trophy: http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh....php?t=1537825. The top 6 are all Wayne Gretzky (lol). In the top 20 margins of victory, Gretzky appears 8 times and Howe appears 4 times. No other player appears in the top 20 more than once. If it was so much easier to win scoring titles by large margins back then, why did no player other than Howe manage to repeat the feat?

And those are just raw margins of victory. Howe's nearest "competition" was often his own linemate Ted Lindsay. In years when Howe finished 20% above Lindsay, but Lindsay was in 2nd place anyway... I think it's much more likely than not that Lindsay was seeing his stats inflated by playing with Howe. The "lets remove all the Euros" thing has some merit to equalize competition, but shouldn't we also look at whether a generational talent's nearest "competition" was really a linemate who (while an all-time great player in his own right) was getting his stats inflated by that generational talent?


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 07-30-2014 at 05:03 AM.
TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2014, 05:02 AM
  #57
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 41,896
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tam O Shanter View Post
pfffff, I'm not going to vote on this. I don't want to get into the cross-generational stuff too much on here. Visually, new players look better, the league is deeper, training regimes, etc. But then you have to admit the old guys would have improved to some degree had they been raised into a newer league..... and back and forth we go. I think, due to it being a history board, one must respect dominance of peers to a fair degree, and I don't think Jagr can really bridge that gap.

As I was thinking about this, I went through all the Art Ross winners to check something I had never thought about, and maybe hasn't been brought up here before (likely has though) -

How many fellas lead the league in goals and assists for the same season? Not won the Ross and Richard, but actually dominated enough to collect the most of each in the same year. Quite a damned offensive accomplishment when you really start to think about it.....

Anyways, I only went back as far as the Ross itself, so it starts just before Howe:

Gretzky - 5 times
Howe&Lemieux - 2 times each
Esposito - 1

I think that's it, although its late and I'm going off a tired short term memory.
Howie Morenz did it in 1927-28 (before the official Art Ross). I believe that is the complete set in terms of the NHL. 5 times for Gretzky (lol), 2 each for Howe and Lemieux, once each for Morenz and Esposito.

In other words, Gretzky, then Lemieux/Howe, then Orr's finisher/the greatest player from back when seasons were half as long*

*shorter seasons = more chance for random variation or hot or cold streaks to affect the end of year results


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 07-30-2014 at 05:11 AM.
TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2014, 05:35 AM
  #58
Regal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,025
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Awhile back, I made this thread about the greatest margins of victory for the Art Ross Trophy: http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh....php?t=1537825. The top 6 are all Wayne Gretzky (lol). In the top 20 margins of victory, Gretzky appears 8 times and Howe appears 4 times. No other player appears in the top 20 more than once. If it was so much easier to win scoring titles by large margins back then, why did no player other than Howe manage to repeat the feat?

And those are just raw margins of victory. Howe's nearest "competition" was often his own linemate Ted Lindsay. In years when Howe finished 20% above Lindsay, but Lindsay was in 2nd place anyway... I think it's much more likely than not that Lindsay was seeing his stats inflated by playing with Howe. The "lets remove all the Euros" thing has some merit to equalize competition, but shouldn't we also look at whether a generational talent's nearest "competition" was really a linemate who (while an all-time great player in his own right) was getting his stats inflated by that generational talent?
I made mention of this in the "if there were no Gretzky/Lemieux thread" regarding Howe and Lemieux, but I think using margins of victory are flawed when talking solely about offensive ability. Howe was able to play full season in those years, which is valuable in itself, but this method devalues years like '00 when Jagr was far above everyone offensively, but only won the Art Ross by 2 points because he was hurt for a quarter of the year. Just looking at margins of victory conflates durability and offensive ability.

Regal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2014, 05:36 AM
  #59
steve141
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 671
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
I would contend that Howe's era was unusually weak.
This interests me. Do you have any data to back it up the claim that Howe's era was weaker than the eras that came before and after him?

In orther words, allow me to check your math. :-)

steve141 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2014, 07:16 AM
  #60
livewell68
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,382
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shazariahl View Post
Although I will probably vote for Howe in this poll, I do think this sometimes gets overlooked. Jagr's season here was one of the best non-Gretzky/Lemieux seasons in a long time, and is pretty comparable to many of Howe's best. He did it in an era with more international competition, which is a plus IMO. Unfortunately for Jagr though, he did it less often. This was really his most "Howe-like" dominance, and it was a season shortened by injury. But Howe had several seasons that were like this, except they were full seasons.

Still, we shouldn't overlook it. Mario gets a lot of credit for some ridiculous partial seasons (as he should - some of them were incredible), but Jagr tends to get punished for his. But even saying all that, I don't think it's enough to swing things in Jagr's favor (just like Lemieux's 92-93 season was incredible, but not enough to put him over Gretzky).
Except Jagr the 2 seasons before won the Art Ross by 11 Pts (over Forsberg in 1997-98) and by 20 Pts (over Selanne in 1998-99).

He would have had 3 consecutive double digit Art Ross wins and although not quite at Gretzky or Lemieux' level, considering the era he did it in, is very good in itself.

livewell68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2014, 07:29 AM
  #61
Corto
Faceless Man
 
Corto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Braavos
Country: Croatia
Posts: 13,097
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Let me guess, the "stone age" of hockey is everything that happened before Czech Your Math started watching?
He made a comparison to argue his POV on the subject, no need to be snide about it.


As far as his point goes, I actually agree with him.
(I'm gonna bring in Shore and Lidstrom into this as they were the focus of a thread here not long ago)

Comparing guys like Shore to Lidstrom or Howe to Jagr doesn't work.
Howe played in an era where the quality of competition and the sheer number of players was simply inferior compared to today, and Shore even more so.

Now, eras aside, for me, Howe>Jagr and Lidstrom >>>>>> Shore, but arguing about it is completely ridiculous since very few people watched Howe play and basically nobody here watched Shore play, AND since a huge number of people ignore the differences between the eras.

Again, IMO, Howe > Jagr.

But ignoring the eras they played in is just silly.

Corto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2014, 07:43 AM
  #62
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 41,896
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Regal View Post
I made mention of this in the "if there were no Gretzky/Lemieux thread" regarding Howe and Lemieux, but I think using margins of victory are flawed when talking solely about offensive ability. Howe was able to play full season in those years, which is valuable in itself, but this method devalues years like '00 when Jagr was far above everyone offensively, but only won the Art Ross by 2 points because he was hurt for a quarter of the year. Just looking at margins of victory conflates durability and offensive ability.
You have a point in general, but in this case, when Howe has a 4-1 margin over every other player not named Gretzky (in terms of Art Rosses won by a somewhat arbitrarily defined "wide margin)," I don't think it really even matters to look into it that closely.

But either way, the PPG numbers vs the competition were posted recently and Howe still looks awfully close to Mario Lemieux, even if you just look at it per-game.

Edit: Here's a fun fact: Gordie Howe himself actually lost an Art Ross due to an injury. He led the league in points-per-game 7 times, but "only" won 6 Art Rosses due to missing games in 1957-58.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 07-30-2014 at 07:56 AM.
TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2014, 07:51 AM
  #63
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 41,896
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corto View Post
He made a comparison to argue his POV on the subject, no need to be snide about it.


As far as his point goes, I actually agree with him.
(I'm gonna bring in Shore and Lidstrom into this as they were the focus of a thread here not long ago)

Comparing guys like Shore to Lidstrom or Howe to Jagr doesn't work.
Howe played in an era where the quality of competition and the sheer number of players was simply inferior compared to today, and Shore even more so.

Now, eras aside, for me, Howe>Jagr and Lidstrom >>>>>> Shore, but arguing about it is completely ridiculous since very few people watched Howe play and basically nobody here watched Shore play, AND since a huge number of people ignore the differences between the eras.

Again, IMO, Howe > Jagr.

But ignoring the eras they played in is just silly.
Your The argument basically boils down to "Jagr is better offensively than Howe because he played in this era and this era is the best."

Anyway, if Howe dominated his peers just a little bit more than Jagr did, I would agree with you, but it wasn't a little bit. It was a ton - more than Mario Lemieux dominated his peers. Now I would take Lemieux offensively over Howe by just a little bit, largely because of the difference in eras that you talk about. But Jagr just didn't come close to Howe in terms of dominating his peers. And again, I'm talking strictly offense.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 07-30-2014 at 09:23 AM.
TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2014, 08:17 AM
  #64
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,852
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Let me guess, the "stone age" of hockey is everything that happened before Czech Your Math started watching?
I think you missed the concept for the most part, and just assumed I was dismissing Howe's era as the stone age. As long as hockey age population increases in Canada, and/or other countries become a significant part of the talent pool, the competition would be expected to increase in proportion to such.

I don't have a problem with those who believe Howe was better than Jagr... even just offensively... even just offensively at his peak. It's those who think he was better offensively at his peak "AINEC to being close" and such that I would dispute greatly.

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2014, 08:21 AM
  #65
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,852
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Your argument basically boils down to "Jagr is better offensively than Howe because he played in this era and this era is the best."

Anyway, if Howe dominated his peers just a little bit more than Jagr did, I would agree with you, but it wasn't a little bit. It was a ton - more than Mario Lemieux dominated his peers. Now I would take Lemieux offensively over Howe by just a little bit, largely because of the difference in eras that you talk about. But Jagr just didn't come close to Howe in terms of dominating his peers. And again, I'm talking strictly offense.
Again, you seem to have missed the point made by the poster, because you are so incensed by the conclusion you believe he made. He was simply saying he agreed that comparing such things as % margin over second place, and similar metrics, isn't really useful across eras that are several decades apart.

I'm not exactly sure what his conclusion was on peak offense, but he clearly said twice in his post that he thought Howe > Jagr.

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2014, 08:34 AM
  #66
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,852
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tam O Shanter View Post
pfffff, I'm not going to vote on this. I don't want to get into the cross-generational stuff too much on here. Visually, new players look better, the league is deeper, training regimes, etc. But then you have to admit the old guys would have improved to some degree had they been raised into a newer league..... and back and forth we go. I think, due to it being a history board, one must respect dominance of peers to a fair degree, and I don't think Jagr can really bridge that gap.

As I was thinking about this, I went through all the Art Ross winners to check something I had never thought about, and maybe hasn't been brought up here before (likely has though) -

How many fellas lead the league in goals and assists for the same season? Not won the Ross and Richard, but actually dominated enough to collect the most of each in the same year. Quite a damned offensive accomplishment when you really start to think about it.....

Anyways, I only went back as far as the Ross itself, so it starts just before Howe:

Gretzky - 5 times
Howe&Lemieux - 2 times each
Esposito - 1

I think that's it, although its late and I'm going off a tired short term memory.
It's not that simple, because Howe didn't have to compete with Lemieux or a significant number of non-Canadian players.

As far as Jagr:

1996
2nd to Lemieux in goals, 3rd to Lemieux and his own linemate in assists

1999
2nd to a European in goals, led in assists by 16 (21 over nearest Canadian)

2000
Nolan was only Canadian to finish above him in goals (by 2), and he was 3rd in assists (9 from first), despite missing 19 games

2001
Sakic was only Canadian to finish above him in goals (by 2), and he tied for lead in assists

So I don't see this impossibly large gap in ability to be at or near the very top of similar competition in both goals and assists in the same season.

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2014, 08:36 AM
  #67
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,852
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by steve141 View Post
This interests me. Do you have any data to back it up the claim that Howe's era was weaker than the eras that came before and after him?

In orther words, allow me to check your math. :-)
There is no data which can prove anything, only educated guesses based on the population of hockey age in each respective era, and the fact that Jagr had to compete against a large % of elite non-Canadian talent. You can say the 50s was the toughest era ever, and it would be nearly impossible to disprove that. However, I think common sense has to come into play at some point.

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2014, 08:48 AM
  #68
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,485
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
He'd still be significantly behind two contemporary Canadians
So what, Howe would be as well, Jagr isn't being compared to Mario and Wayne here and neither is Howe, all players peak are less than those 2 guys.

the "historical perspective" must also account for the difference in the league, simply taking scoring finishes or top 5,10 finishes don't mean alot on the surface with the significant differences in the 2 players NHL.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2014, 09:23 AM
  #69
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 41,896
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
Again, you seem to have missed the point made by the poster, because you are so incensed by the conclusion you believe he made. He was simply saying he agreed that comparing such things as % margin over second place, and similar metrics, isn't really useful across eras that are several decades apart.

I'm not exactly sure what his conclusion was on peak offense, but he clearly said twice in his post that he thought Howe > Jagr.
To be honest, when he ended his post with the typical strawman argument of the "newer is better" crowd ("ignoring the eras they played in his just silly," despite the fact that nobody in this thread actually did that)*, I must have assumed that he was taking a stronger position than he actually was. I should have read his post more carefully (as he should have read my posts more carefully before accusing me of ignoring the eras they played in).

*Here is an example:

Quote:
the "historical perspective" must also account for the difference in the league, simply taking scoring finishes or top 5,10 finishes don't mean alot on the surface with the significant differences in the 2 players NHL.
I do stand by what I said that the only argument I have seen in this this thread for Jagr over Howe offensively does boil down to "Jagr is better offensively than Howe because he played in this era and this era is the best." Even the "remove the Europeans" thing doesn't look to bring Jagr to Howe's level of dominance.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 07-30-2014 at 09:33 AM.
TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2014, 09:25 AM
  #70
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 41,896
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
So what, Howe would be as well, Jagr isn't being compared to Mario and Wayne here and neither is Howe, all players peak are less than those 2 guys.
Do you have a response to the posts that actually compare Gordie Howe's prime to Mario Lemieux's?

And the point is that it seems awfully strange that the guy who was - by a wide margin - the greatest offensive talent the world had every seen for what is still the majority of the NHL's history could be inferior to a guy who was both well behind two more-or-less contemporaries and not nearly as far ahead of the rest of the pack.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 07-30-2014 at 09:32 AM.
TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2014, 09:36 AM
  #71
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 41,896
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
I think you missed the concept for the most part, and just assumed I was dismissing Howe's era as the stone age. As long as hockey age population increases in Canada, and/or other countries become a significant part of the talent pool, the competition would be expected to increase in proportion to such.

I don't have a problem with those who believe Howe was better than Jagr... even just offensively... even just offensively at his peak. It's those who think he was better offensively at his peak "AINEC to being close" and such that I would dispute greatly.
Just to get back to this and the bolded, nothing you say is new here and I 100% agree with the bolded. Fact is that the hockey-age native-born population of Canada has barely increased since Howe's time - the large majority of the overall increase in Canadian population is due to immigration (mostly from non-hockey countries) and aging. So I do think you are exaggerating the increase in talent. Obviously, the fact that the league is half non-Canadian is important.

But again, it comes down to this big picture question:

Gordie Howe: For the first 2/3 of the NHL's existence, no other player came close to his offensive dominance.
Jaromir Jagr: A distant third best for the last 1/3 of the NHL's existence and didn't necessarily distinguish himself from a few others.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 07-30-2014 at 09:42 AM.
TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2014, 09:41 AM
  #72
unknown33
Registered User
 
unknown33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Europe
Country: Marshall Islands
Posts: 3,557
vCash: 500
Points made in favour of Jagr aren't wrong per se, but more about a general point of view how to compare players across eras than actually Howe vs. Jagr in particular.

Taking full population and demographic changes into account would make lists and comparisons not 'historic' enough imo.

unknown33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2014, 09:55 AM
  #73
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 41,896
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by unknown33 View Post
Taking full population and demographic changes into account would make lists and comparisons not 'historic' enough imo.
Personally, I disagree with your view on the talent pool. IMO, it's probably about 2-3 times stronger now, based mostly on the influx of non-Canadian talent. No, I don't think the Canadian talent pool has changed all that much since the late 50s.

Which wouldn't really come close to explaining why a player who is, at best, a distant 3rd since the expansion, and who really didn't separate himself at his peak from several others would be considered better offensively than a guy who dominated the sport in a way that nobody before Bobby Orr did.

I mean, a 40 year old Gordie Howe was 3rd in NHL scoring in 1968-69. That season, Bobby Orr won his 2nd Norris Trophy. I don't think Howe's accomplishments are as "ancient" as some posters are portraying.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2014, 10:17 AM
  #74
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,974
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
Yes, just two ordinary, run of the mill Canadians, about typical of any decade of hockey.... certainly no better than the competition which Howe had during the 50s.
Howe finished near the top in the scoring race against a prime Maurice Rocket Richard, Bobby Hull and Bobby Orr over 20 straight years of being top 5 in scoring.

He also won some of his scoring titles by huge margins. None of those guys were typical, run of the mill Canadians either.

Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2014, 10:23 AM
  #75
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,852
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I do stand by what I said that the only argument I have seen in this this thread for Jagr over Howe offensively does boil down to "Jagr is better offensively than Howe because he played in this era and this era is the best." Even the "remove the Europeans" thing doesn't look to bring Jagr to Howe's level of dominance.
As far as removing non-Canadians... that still doesn't account for the larger Canadian talent pool during Jagr's time. I guess I believe Sakic, Lindros, Kariya, post-peak Gretzky, etc. trump players like Richard and Max Bentley as peak regular season scorers. I can't prove that, nor can one prove the other side, so as expected we're at a standoff on this important issue of context and quality of competition.

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:24 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.