Gordie: lets be honest

Status
Not open for further replies.

KOVALEV10*

Guest
JCD said:
In terms of popularity and what they brought to the sport off the ice, there is no comparison. Gretzky was the Face of hockey. Non-fans around the world who had no clue how many 'quarters' the NHL played, knew who Gretzky was.

Orr was a stud, arguably a better hockey player. Certainly on the same level at the very least, but he is known in hockey circles. The NHL was a forgotten issue in non-NHL cities. Your average Joe on the street could run Orr over and not know who he was. That isn't a slight on Orr, just an observation on who the media and public latched on too. Gretzky caught the public-at-larges eye, Orr did not.

Mario is behind both of them. Since he sat out so often in his career and treated hockey more like a job than a passion, he didn't get the 'love' the other two did. No slight on his talent either, I think he is on the same plateau as Orr and Wayne as well. Point being, he didn't grow the sport like Wayne did. He put Pittsburgh on the map, Gretzky put hockey on the map for most of the US.

Put it this way, the popularity of the NHL at large follows very closely with Gretzky's career. Off hand, in the last 30+ years, I would guess the highwater mark for hockey's popularity would be the mid- to late-80's and early 90's. That wave of enthusiasm sparked the expansion in southern markets. (note: these refer primarily to the US, Canada already knew what they had; this are also just my subjective observations).

Wayne was glamourized in a way no other hockey player has been. Saturday Night Live appearances. Breakfast cereals. Saturday Morning Cartoons. He is the only player to approach Ruth-esque popularity. Call that unfair if you like, but it remains true.

Combine that off-the-ice popularity with his on-the-ice dominance and he earns the title of 'The Great One'. Orr, Mario and Hull may compare (though not neccesarily exceed) Wayne on the ice, but none can touch him off-the-ice.

I guess we could thank Gretzky for the lockout too then...
 

Quiet Robert

Registered User
Feb 3, 2005
5,261
0
chooch said:
ps more teams is what got him the records. NHL expanded by 25% right before 99's peak years.

I guess more teams is what made Bobby Orr great. The NHL doubled the number of teams right before Bobby Orr's prime...

Lemieux only joined the league 6 years after Gretkzy, they're pretty much in the same era.

Gretzky's best year: 1985-86

Lemieux's best year: 1988-89

Seems both of them benefitted from 'more teams.'

Just so we don't go through this again, I'm not knocking any of these guys, I just think you're really grasping at straws, so what if the NHL expanded right before 99's time? Seriously, who cares, the exact same thing happened to Orr, Lafleur, Espo etc...but I don't hear you knocking them. You could even argue going from 6 to 12 is more drastic than 17 to 21.

I get that you don't think Gretzky is that good and everyone's entitled to their opinions, it's just that to me, these arguments aren't really convincing against Gretzky's greatness.
 

KOVALEV10*

Guest
Quiet Robert said:
I guess more teams is what made Bobby Orr great. The NHL doubled the number of teams right before Bobby Orr's prime...

Lemieux only joined the league 6 years after Gretkzy, they're pretty much in the same era.

Gretzky's best year: 1985-86

Lemieux's best year: 1988-89

Seems both of them benefitted from 'more teams.'

Just so we don't go through this again, I'm not knocking any of these guys, I just think you're really grasping at straws, so what if the NHL expanded right before 99's time? Seriously, who cares, the exact same thing happened to Orr, Lafleur, Espo etc...but I don't hear you knocking them. You could even argue going from 6 to 12 is more drastic than 17 to 21.

I get that you don't think Gretzky is that good and everyone's entitled to their opinions, it's just that to me, these arguments aren't really convincing against Gretzky's greatness.

Well Gretzky did benefit from playing in a higher scoring era more then Lemieux. When did Gretzky have all his 160 plus seasons? The 80-s. Lemieux came in 85 and his prime started in 87-88 so he only had 3 seasons in a high scoring era to put up numbers, Gretzky had 10.
 

Bring Back Bucky

Registered User
May 19, 2004
9,997
3,071
Canadas Ocean Playground
KOVALEV10 said:
Well Gretzky did benefit from playing in a higher scoring era more then Lemieux. When did Gretzky have all his 160 plus seasons? The 80-s. Lemieux came in 85 and his prime started in 87-88 so he only had 3 seasons in a high scoring era to put up numbers, Gretzky had 10.


Is it necessary to hijack yet another thread to try to diminish Wayne Gretzky's accomplishments??
 

Quiet Robert

Registered User
Feb 3, 2005
5,261
0
KOVALEV10 said:
Well Gretzky did benefit from playing in a higher scoring era more then Lemieux. When did Gretzky have all his 160 plus seasons? The 80-s. Lemieux came in 85 and his prime started in 87-88 so he only had 3 seasons in a high scoring era to put up numbers, Gretzky had 10.

The high scoring era didn't end in 1990. The scoring decreased, but imo, the puck dead era only began after the 1994-95 strike, that's when you see numbers decrease. (Although 1995-96 saw some big numbers)

There was still some people putting up some big numbers in the early 1990's.

All I'm saying is that Lemieux came in 5 years after Gretzky, we're not talking about a generational difference. Would Lemieux have put up Gretzky like numbers between 1979-80 to 1984-85? Maybe, but we have no way of knowing. What we do know if that in that both of them benefitted from high scoring between 1984 to around 1993.
 

Hockey Outsider

Registered User
Jan 16, 2005
9,056
13,985
KOVALEV10 said:
Well Gretzky did benefit from playing in a higher scoring era more then Lemieux. When did Gretzky have all his 160 plus seasons? The 80-s. Lemieux came in 85 and his prime started in 87-88 so he only had 3 seasons in a high scoring era to put up numbers, Gretzky had 10.

Gretzky had a slight advantage over Lemieux by playing, overall, in a higher-scoring era, but the difference is small and Gretzky still comes out ahead.

Gretzky's Adjusted-for-Era Stats:
1980 79 51 86 137 -- 81 45 73 118
1981 80 55 109 164 -- 82 45 85 129
1982 80 92 120 212 -- 82 72 88 159
1983 80 71 125 196 -- 82 60 101 161
1984 74 87 118 205 -- 76 73 93 166
1985 80 73 135 208 -- 82 62 107 170
1986 80 52 163 215 -- 82 43 129 172
1987 79 62 121 183 -- 81 56 103 159
1988 64 40 109 149 -- 66 36 91 127
1989 78 54 114 168 -- 80 48 94 142
1990 73 40 102 142 -- 75 36 86 122
1991 78 41 122 163 -- 80 39 109 149
1992 74 31 90 121 -- 76 29 80 109
1993 45 16 49 65 -- 44 14 39 53
1994 81 38 92 130 -- 79 37 83 120
1995 48 11 37 48 -- 82 20 64 84
1996 80 23 79 102 -- 80 24 76 99
1997 82 25 72 97 -- 82 28 75 102
1998 82 23 67 90 -- 82 28 77 105
1999 70 9 53 62 -- 70 11 60 71
1979 80 46 64 110 -- 82 39 51 90


Lemieux's Adjusted-for-Era stats:
1985 73 43 57 100 -- 75 36 45 81
1986 79 48 93 141 -- 81 40 73 113
1987 63 54 53 107 -- 65 49 45 93
1988 77 70 98 168 -- 79 63 82 144
1989 76 85 114 199 -- 78 75 94 169
1990 59 45 78 123 -- 60 40 65 106
1991 26 19 26 45 -- 27 18 23 41
1992 64 44 87 131 -- 66 42 77 119
1993 60 69 91 160 -- 59 60 73 133
1994 22 17 20 37 -- 21 16 18 34
1996 70 69 92 161 -- 70 71 88 159
1997 76 50 72 122 -- 76 55 75 130
2001 43 35 41 76 -- 43 41 44 84
2002 24 6 25 31 -- 24 7 28 36
2003 67 28 63 91 -- 67 34 70 103
2004 10 1 8 9 -- 10 1 9 10

They both have five 50 goal seasons, and they both have four 60 goal seasons.

Lemieux has zero 100 assists seasons; Gretzky has five. Lemieux has three 80 assist seasons; Gretzky has 13.

Lemieux has nine 100 point seasons; Gretzky has 16. Lemieux has two 150 point seasons; Gretkzy has six.

Gretzky's career stats: 1,625 gp, 844 goals, 1,765 assists, 2,609 points
Lemieux's career stats: 900 gp, 648 goals, 908 assists, 1,556 points

Gretzky's best 5 years: 64.6 goals, 110.0 assists, 165.8 points
Lemieux's best 5 years: 64.7 goals, 83.1 assists, 147.1 points

The last set of numbers show that in their primes, they were equally good goal-scorers, but Gretzky was a significantly better passer.

If you're basing your arguments strictly on numbers, Gretzky comes out ahead for just about every relevant stat.
 
Last edited:

KOVALEV10*

Guest
Hockey Outsider said:
Gretzky had a slight advantage over Lemieux by playing, overall, in a higher-scoring era, but the difference is small and Gretzky still comes out ahead.

Gretzky's Adjusted-for-Era Stats:
1980 79 51 86 137 -- 81 45 73 118
1981 80 55 109 164 -- 82 45 85 129
1982 80 92 120 212 -- 82 72 88 159
1983 80 71 125 196 -- 82 60 101 161
1984 74 87 118 205 -- 76 73 93 166
1985 80 73 135 208 -- 82 62 107 170
1986 80 52 163 215 -- 82 43 129 172
1987 79 62 121 183 -- 81 56 103 159
1988 64 40 109 149 -- 66 36 91 127
1989 78 54 114 168 -- 80 48 94 142
1990 73 40 102 142 -- 75 36 86 122
1991 78 41 122 163 -- 80 39 109 149
1992 74 31 90 121 -- 76 29 80 109
1993 45 16 49 65 -- 44 14 39 53
1994 81 38 92 130 -- 79 37 83 120
1995 48 11 37 48 -- 82 20 64 84
1996 80 23 79 102 -- 80 24 76 99
1997 82 25 72 97 -- 82 28 75 102
1998 82 23 67 90 -- 82 28 77 105
1999 70 9 53 62 -- 70 11 60 71
1979 80 46 64 110 -- 82 39 51 90


Lemieux's Adjusted-for-Era stats:
1985 73 43 57 100 -- 75 36 45 81
1986 79 48 93 141 -- 81 40 73 113
1987 63 54 53 107 -- 65 49 45 93
1988 77 70 98 168 -- 79 63 82 144
1989 76 85 114 199 -- 78 75 94 169
1990 59 45 78 123 -- 60 40 65 106
1991 26 19 26 45 -- 27 18 23 41
1992 64 44 87 131 -- 66 42 77 119
1993 60 69 91 160 -- 59 60 73 133
1994 22 17 20 37 -- 21 16 18 34
1996 70 69 92 161 -- 70 71 88 159
1997 76 50 72 122 -- 76 55 75 130
2001 43 35 41 76 -- 43 41 44 84
2002 24 6 25 31 -- 24 7 28 36
2003 67 28 63 91 -- 67 34 70 103
2004 10 1 8 9 -- 10 1 9 10

They both have five 50 goal seasons, and they both have four 60 goal seasons.

Lemieux has zero 100 assists seasons; Gretzky has five. Lemieux has three 80 assist seasons; Gretzky has 13.

Lemieux has nine 100 point seasons; Gretzky has 16. Lemieux has two 150 point seasons; Gretkzy has six.

Gretzky's career stats: 1,625 gp, 844 goals, 1,765 assists, 2,609 points
Lemieux's career stats: 900 gp, 648 goals, 908 assists, 1,556 points

Gretzky's best 5 years: 64.6 goals, 110.0 assists, 165.8 points
Lemieux's best 5 years: 64.7 goals, 83.1 assists, 147.1 points

The last set of numbers show that in their primes, they were equally good goal-scorers, but Gretzky was a significantly better passer.

If you're basing your arguments strictly on numbers, Gretzky comes out ahead for just about every relevant stat.

No... in points per game Gretzky's is 1.61 and Lemieux 1.73.
 

tom_servo

Registered User
Sep 27, 2002
17,139
5,978
Pittsburgh
Gretzky's best 5 years: 64.6 goals, 110.0 assists, 165.8 points
Lemieux's best 5 years: 64.7 goals, 83.1 assists, 147.1 points

The last set of numbers show that in their primes, they were equally good goal-scorers, but Gretzky was a significantly better passer.

Well, those totals don't reflect the fact that Lemieux reached the 80-game mark only once (during an adjusted season; none in real life). Taking their entire "adjusted" careers into account, there's not much evidence to suggest that Gretzky was a significantly better passer (although I acknowledge you specified their best five seasons only).

Adjusted numbers per game, career:

Gretzky - .51 goals per game, 1.08 assists per game
Lemieux - .72 goals per game, 1.00 assists per game

Of course, these numbers are merely food for thought and aren't intended to prove a thing.
 

Hockey Outsider

Registered User
Jan 16, 2005
9,056
13,985
tom_servo said:
Well, those totals don't reflect the fact that Lemieux reached the 80-game mark only once (during an adjusted season; none in real life). Taking their entire "adjusted" careers into account, there's not much evidence to suggest that Gretzky was a significantly better passer (although I acknowledge you specified their best five seasons only).

Adjusted numbers per game, career:

Gretzky - .51 goals per game, 1.08 assists per game
Lemieux - .72 goals per game, 1.00 assists per game

Of course, these numbers are merely food for thought and aren't intended to prove a thing.

I see your point. I definitely agree that if Lemieux was healthy, things would have been much closer. The fact that he's close to Gretzky despite missing so many games shows how talented he was. And to be honest their assists per game are much closer than I thought. But at the same time I consider Gretzky's consistency an asset and his lead in 80+ and 100+ assist seasons is incredible.

Lemieux does have a better ppg ratio. That's an important stat to consider, but it's not the only thing to look at. Dale Hawerchuk has a higher ppg than Gordie Howe and Rocket Richard, but that doesn't mean he's better.

In case I wasn't clear, I wasn't trying to diminish Lemieux's accomplishments. He's the second-best offensive player ever, and the two of them are far ahead of the competition. And for what it's worth I found Lemieux more entertaining to watch than Gretzky.
 

JCD

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
14,523
2
Visit site
KOVALEV10 said:
Well Gretzky did benefit from playing in a higher scoring era more then Lemieux. When did Gretzky have all his 160 plus seasons? The 80-s. Lemieux came in 85 and his prime started in 87-88 so he only had 3 seasons in a high scoring era to put up numbers, Gretzky had 10.

Gretzky also suffered by playing more games in the dead puck era as well.

Mario played a bulk of his career in the same higher-scoring era as Wayne.
 

Ogopogo*

Guest
chooch said:
I read somewhere that he was in the top 5 in scoring 21 straight years.
He had multiple 30 plus goal seasons after 39 years of age. And fought his own battles. (hint hint)

Wonder what a one on one v. Orr was like.


I saw him as a Whaler. Anyone care to give an honest opinion.

Gordie is the 2nd greatest player of all time. See this for his scoring prowess:

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=140072

and, where he ranks in terms of greatness:

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=140085
 
Last edited by a moderator:

revolverjgw

Registered User
Oct 6, 2003
8,483
19
Nova Scotia
Gyaagh, why doesn't anyone factor in PLAYOFFS when the always fun statistics-whoring comes up!

Gretzky- 1.83 PPG
Lemieux- 1.60 PPG

Clearly, Lemieux is, at best, a 3rd line plugger who could chip in a little offense once in a while.

Anyway, on topic, I'd say Gordie fits comfortably in the 4th position, and sometimes I even want to put him 2nd, just because his combo of dominance/longetivity is so lethal. 2nd best career ever. Imagine if he didn't retire and then go to the WHA for all those years, what his career totals would be. Gordie's the prototype real-man's hockey player.
 

Ogopogo*

Guest
revolverjgw said:
Gyaagh, why doesn't anyone factor in PLAYOFFS when the always fun statistics-whoring comes up!

Gretzky- 1.83 PPG
Lemieux- 1.60 PPG

Clearly, Lemieux is, at best, a 3rd line plugger who could chip in a little offense once in a while.

Anyway, on topic, I'd say Gordie fits comfortably in the 4th position, and sometimes I even want to put him 2nd, just because his combo of dominance/longetivity is so lethal. 2nd best career ever. Imagine if he didn't retire and then go to the WHA for all those years, what his career totals would be. Gordie's the prototype real-man's hockey player.

Good point. I am going to revamp things and make playoffs a larger part of my rating systems. Gordie will likely end up #2 no matter how you slice it. He was that good.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
chooch said:
Ok a bit of an exagerration ;)

Let me restate though the Babe Ruth comparison to 99 (funny enough considering that 66 had similar seasons!) - and I'm going off memory here:

Babe's home run total of 59 in 1921 was more than all the other teams home run totals except one.
And this was almost 2 1/2 times the previous record of 21 homers in a season. Name one record that 99 shattered by that much.

In other words its as if 99 had scored roughly 300 goals in a season! And his Left handed pitching from 1914 to 1920 when he became a full time outfielder was as if 99 was a Norris trophy calibre defenceman for the first 6 years of his career.

Well, he was actually only a full time starter for 3 yrs (1915-17). He still holds the record for the highest winning percentage in MLB history (min 100 decisions) 94-46 0.671 - one of my all time favorite BB trivia questions. And his World Series piching record: 3-0, 2 CG, 1 shutout and a 0.87 ERA.

Given the nature of the position, the better comparison would be a Vezina winning goalie who just went 2-0 w/ a shutout in the cup finals and won the Conn Smythe.

Give him back those 3+ seasons as an outfielder and his HR total is well over 800 and neither Aaron or Bonds would even be in the same conversation.

It's easy to diss the Babe because he looks like John Goodman, but he was an amazing athlete.

He stood head and shoulder above his contemporaries even more so than did no 99.
 

chooch*

Guest
kdb209 said:
And this was almost 2 1/2 times the previous record of 21 homers in a season. Name one record that 99 shattered by that much.



Well, he was actually only a full time starter for 3 yrs (1915-17). He still holds the record for the highest winning percentage in MLB history (min 100 decisions) 94-46 0.671 - one of my all time favorite BB trivia questions. And his World Series piching record: 3-0, 2 CG, 1 shutout and a 0.87 ERA.

Given the nature of the position, the better comparison would be a Vezina winning goalie who just went 2-0 w/ a shutout in the cup finals and won the Conn Smythe.

Give him back those 3+ seasons as an outfielder and his HR total is well over 800 and neither Aaron or Bonds would even be in the same conversation.

It's easy to diss the Babe because he looks like John Goodman, but he was an amazing athlete.

He stood head and shoulder above his contemporaries even more so than did no 99.
No question- he' s the Babe on and off the field. He would have helped old timers get their just pensions.

He looked superb physically speaking when he pitched; remember that in his big season of 1927 he was already 33.
 

Ogopogo*

Guest
kdb209 said:
And this was almost 2 1/2 times the previous record of 21 homers in a season. Name one record that 99 shattered by that much.



Well, he was actually only a full time starter for 3 yrs (1915-17). He still holds the record for the highest winning percentage in MLB history (min 100 decisions) 94-46 0.671 - one of my all time favorite BB trivia questions. And his World Series piching record: 3-0, 2 CG, 1 shutout and a 0.87 ERA.

Given the nature of the position, the better comparison would be a Vezina winning goalie who just went 2-0 w/ a shutout in the cup finals and won the Conn Smythe.

Give him back those 3+ seasons as an outfielder and his HR total is well over 800 and neither Aaron or Bonds would even be in the same conversation.

It's easy to diss the Babe because he looks like John Goodman, but he was an amazing athlete.

He stood head and shoulder above his contemporaries even more so than did no 99.

Agreed. Babe is the greatest athlete in the history of the "Big 4" North American sports.

Gretzky is #2.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->