Howe or Lemieux

Wetcoaster

Guest
Lemieux had everything going for him except a wonky body that would fall apart on him, but I still take him and his minus 1000 game career over 26 years of Howe just because he was so dominant offensively. Sometimes I wonder how much more amazing he would have been if he had had a true mean streak and would actually punish guys.
Howe was as dominant (or moreso) offensively and over a longer period of time but could also play defense.

He was triple shifted on ocassions and some reports have him playing 45 minutes plus per game in the early and mid-1950's. He had an incredible recovery rate and oxygen uptake.
 

Hockey Outsider

Registered User
Jan 16, 2005
9,056
13,987
All-time goals per game. #1 Mike Bossy. #2 Mario Lemieux. Howe? 26.
All-time points per game. #1 Wayne Gretzky. #2 Mario Lemieux. Howe? 27.

Howe was clearly better? Really?

Lemieux played in an era when there were 7.5 goals per game; Howe played in an era when there were 5.5 goals per game. Comparing their raw numbers is less than useless, it's misleading. Kent Nilsson, Bernie Nicholls and Pat Lafontaine scored more points per game than Howe. Are they better players, or is it because they played in a higher-scoring era?

Lemieux had everything going for him except a wonky body that would fall apart on him, but I still take him and his minus 1000 game career over 26 years of Howe just because he was so dominant offensively.

I want to address the issue of whether Lemieux or Howe was more dominant in their primes. I've compared how many points they scored, relative to the rest of the league, during each of their six Art Ross victories. Note that this is the most favourable possible comparison for Lemieux; if I expanded this and included more years, Howe's significant edge in longevity would become apparent.

Here's how Lemieux did in his six best years, relative to the league:

Name GP G A Pts
Mario Lemieux 423 387 554 941 1.00
Wayne Gretzky 423 189 513 702 1.34
Steve Yzerman 468 276 401 677 1.39
Mark Messier 448 213 373 586 1.61
Luc Robitaille 468 253 305 558 1.69
Adam Oates 446 142 405 547 1.72
Doug Gilmour 467 174 365 539 1.75
Pierre Turgeon 474 210 328 538 1.75
Brett Hull 443 282 241 523 1.80
Pat LaFontaine 384 233 287 520 1.81

During his best six years, Lemieux outscored the nearest competitor by 34%. Of course, that's not exactly a fair comparison. Gretzky is the greatest scorer ever. Omitting Gretzky, we see that Lemieux outscored the next-best player, Yzerman, by 39%. After that, there's a big drop. Lemieux outscored the rest of the players on this list by 61% to 81%. All of them except Turgeon are HOFers. So, Lemieux fares extremely well. Let's see how Howe does.

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

I think this should permanently end any doubts about whether Howe was really dominant in his prime. He didn't just outscore the rest of the league, he obliterated them. Howe finished an incredible 53% ahead of the next-best player (this is by a higher amount than Lemieux's margin of victory over Yzerman). The next best player was Howe's linemate, Ted Lindsay. The fact that Howe was able to outscore his full-time linemate, who's one of the top 20 forwards of all time, is a testament to his dominance.

Howe's dominance doesn't end there. Every player on this list is a HOFer. He outscored them by 76% to 142%. Those numbers are matched in history only by Gretzky. When a player can DOUBLE what every other player in the league has scored (except for Lindsay, Richard and Kelly!) over a six year span, they've achieved a historic accomplishment that will never again be achieved.

These numbers conclusively demonstrate that Howe was at least as dominant offensively as Lemieux; in fact, Howe was probably better. When you consider the intangibles (defense, physical play, leadership), it's an easy decision in favor of Howe.
 
Last edited:

Wetcoaster

Guest
We are all entitled to our opinion. I too have seen all these players in their prime. I consider Orr to be in a whole different class. In the next tier are Howe, Lemieux & Gretzy (ny rank) and right behind them is Bobby Hull.
I put Orr number 1 as well and but for his wonky knees I do not think there would be any argument. Pure talent at both ends of the ice and he could throw 'em when need be. IIRC he did not lose a fight in the NHL. In terms of speed he hand another gear that other players did not possess and when he put it into overdrive he just literally blew by opposing players.

Similarly I rank Howe #2 for the same talent reasons as Orr but his longevity and ability to maintain such a high standard over his career is astonishing. Howe had an amazing ability to play in a crowd and come out with the puck. He also had a very hard and heavy shot - ask Bobby Baun's ankle.

Gretzky was not as accomplished as defensive player as Orr or Howe but then he was never really required to play that role. His vision on the ice and his ability to make players around him better was superlative as were his offensive skills which i rate as the best of the three.

As I have said before when you get into ranking the Big Three it is dependant upon how you weight your criteria.

But for the WHA I think your ranking of Hull makes sense. I saw him in his prime at two training camps and he was unbeleivable. I would rank him, Horton and Howe as the three strongest players I ever saw.
 

Masao

Registered User
Nov 24, 2002
11,052
401
masaohf.atspace.com
PPG is worse than useless. It is an incidious stat that implies prediction rather than relying on that which actually occured. All that matters when judging a player is what actually happened.



But saying that no one beat him when healthy is a direct implication that he would have won those other years. You aren't outwardly saying he would have won in 93-94. But you are indirectly saying it.

Fact: Mario Lemieux won the scoring title in 87-88, 88-89, 91-92, 92-93, 95-96 & 96-97.

You're misquoting me again, and nowhere did I contradict the point you're making about PPG and all, and I even agree with it to a certain point when it's overused. But you're making me say things I never said or even meant. Just think, at the All Star Game in 1995-96, ML was on pace for about 200 points, and his PPG fell WAY down from then on to the end of the season, it was down something like 30-40% less than before. Why? Because you get to the end of the season and teams play more defensively, the games are tighter and more difficult. Nowhere did I say something like, he got 123 in 59 games which means he'd have gotten 167 in 80. He might have gotten 140, he might have gotten 190, whatever, it's all speculation. Some people do that. I don't, because the season is not one October after another.

The years he didn't win the AR, I'm not acting as if he would have won or as if would have lost, I'm acting as if those years never happened, because during those years only once did he even get as much as 30 games, so it's almost as if he didn't play at all except for like a month when he gets on the ice only on the PP and stays on the bench the rest of the game and never even practices with the team.

We don't know what would have happened had he really played, so I'm just saying those years as far as Lemieux goes it's like if nothing happened, because that's pretty much was going on. So I still don't see where the what if is. When he was able to survive 60 games, he was never beaten. The other years he could barely stay for two months. It just didn't happen, he didn't participate, it's a big gaping mystery all those games he missed. You say, "It is an incidious stat that implies prediction rather than relying on that which actually occured," and that's the only thing I'm pointing out.

The other years, he's there for like a month and that's it, except for 89-90 where he played until January then missed the rest of the season to have a back surgery that degrated in a bone disease. How can any argument even be made in a situation like this? When he played 60 games he was ahead of everyone in the scoring race, that's what happened, that's a fact hard as rock and there's no what if in there, there's no projection of anything. The other years, who the hell knows he wasn't even there 70% of the time. What's the point of calculating a season where he gets 22 games on 84 or something? He might as well not have played at all, because what he did in 20-so games counts about as much as how many times he deked past Larry Murphy in scrimmage games. We can only use the facts we have, that's what I'm doing, and somehow that's what you're saying I'm not doing.
It's sad beause I have to argue with you when I agree with you that it's stupid to pretend that Lemieux would have done something if that or that would have happened, yet somehow you think I'm contradicting you on that when in fact I'm not. I'm agreeing with your point and we're arguing about it!

Beh this is getting tiring, dunno why I'm even typing this. This thread like the Orr/Gretzky one and 99% of threads about how the best ever is, is just one sophism after another from both sides, with one-liner replies, illogical arguments and guys saying that people let Gretzky score all the goals he wanted because they were afraid to hit him (Gary Suter probably didn't hear the word or something), with some great and thought out posts here and there like Hockey Outsider's. If you take note, I didn't even vote on the poll, because in my mind you can make extremely good arguments for and against both players, so in any way whoever you chose IMO you're right and wrong on some aspects.
 

pappyline

Registered User
Jul 3, 2005
4,587
182
Mass/formerly Ont
Howe was as dominant (or moreso) offensively and over a longer period of time but could also play defense.

He was triple shifted on ocassions and some reports have him playing 45 minutes plus per game in the early and mid-1950's. He had an incredible recovery rate and oxygen uptake.
I have my doubts about the triple shifting but believe the 45 minutes a game. I picked up a complete 1965 7th game semi final Chi/Det game recently & I swear Howe & Hull barely left the ice. Hull in his prime was the dominant player but an older Gordie was the second best on the ice. Interesting that Hull & Howe were matched up. I felt sorry for the other RW for Det & LW fo Chi as they didm't see much ice.
 

pappyline

Registered User
Jul 3, 2005
4,587
182
Mass/formerly Ont
I put Orr number 1 as well and but for his wonky knees I do not think there would be any argument. Pure talent at both ends of the ice and he could throw 'em when need be. IIRC he did not lose a fight in the NHL. In terms of speed he hand another gear that other players did not possess and when he put it into overdrive he just literally blew by opposing players.

Similarly I rank Howe #2 for the same talent reasons as Orr but his longevity and ability to maintain such a high standard over his career is astonishing. Howe had an amazing ability to play in a crowd and come out with the puck. He also had a very hard and heavy shot - ask Bobby Baun's ankle.

Gretzky was not as accomplished as defensive player as Orr or Howe but then he was never really required to play that role. His vision on the ice and his ability to make players around him better was superlative as were his offensive skills which i rate as the best of the three.

As I have said before when you get into ranking the Big Three it is dependant upon how you weight your criteria.

But for the WHA I think your ranking of Hull makes sense. I saw him in his prime at two training camps and he was unbeleivable. I would rank him, Horton and Howe as the three strongest players I ever saw.
I agree pretty much with your assessment of Orr, Howe. & Gretzy. I recently saw some old Howe games & was really impressed with his offensive skills. However, I would insert Lemieux ahead of Gretzy. Mario could do everything Gretzy could do, only better. Mario had better size & better hands & was just as smart. The pass through to Kariya in the Olympics was pure genius.

A little off topic but I am curious about your comment "But for the WHA I think your ranking of Hull makes sense". What does this mean? I can't see wjere jumping to the WHA after 15 great NHL seasoms hurts Hull's ranking whatsoever?
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
I have my doubts about the triple shifting but believe the 45 minutes a game. I picked up a complete 1965 7th game semi final Chi/Det game recently & I swear Howe & Hull barely left the ice. Hull in his prime was the dominant player but an older Gordie was the second best on the ice. Interesting that Hull & Howe were matched up. I felt sorry for the other RW for Det & LW fo Chi as they didm't see much ice.
I have read the triple shifting comment in several different places over the years.

The 45 minutes per game is in his bio at the HHOF and it notes the average at the time was 25 minutes.
He often played 45 minutes of a game when the average total was 25. Observers noticed that when his exhausted line returned to the bench, Howe was the first to recover and raise his head, ready for another shift.
To play that amount of time he would have to be triple shifted sometimes, do you not agree?
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
I agree pretty much with your assessment of Orr, Howe. & Gretzy. I recently saw some old Howe games & was really impressed with his offensive skills. However, I would insert Lemieux ahead of Gretzy. Mario could do everything Gretzy could do, only better. Mario had better size & better hands & was just as smart. The pass through to Kariya in the Olympics was pure genius.

A little off topic but I am curious about your comment "But for the WHA I think your ranking of Hull makes sense". What does this mean? I can't see wjere jumping to the WHA after 15 great NHL seasoms hurts Hull's ranking whatsoever?
If he had played through the WHA seasons in the NHL I think he would have been more highly rated. I was remarking upon why he is not often more highly rated - BTW I agree with your assessment.

The WHA was and is considered a step below the NHL by many and therefore his accomplishments less valued. YMMV.

Gordie finished in the top five in league scoring an incomprehensible 20 straight seasons, that is amazing.

I rank Gretzky ahead of Lemieux for a couple of reasons. Gretzky had a true passion and dedication that Lemieux did not develop until later in his career. Also Gretzky had that rare quality that elevated the play of all the players around him and his hockey sense was uncanny. The closest I have seen to gretzky thus far is Crosby who seems to possess the same attributes.

I simply do not put Lemieux in the same class as Orr, Howe and Gretzky. Lemieux was amazing but not in their class.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

pappyline

Registered User
Jul 3, 2005
4,587
182
Mass/formerly Ont
I have read the triple shifting comment in several different places over the years.

The 45 minutes per game is in his bio at the HHOF and it notes the average at the time was 25 minutes.
To play that amount of time he would have to be triple shifted sometimes, do you not agree?
I misunderstood your meaning of triple-shifted. I thought you meant 3 checkers at the same time, not throughout the game. Of course, you are correct.
 

pappyline

Registered User
Jul 3, 2005
4,587
182
Mass/formerly Ont
Lemieux played in an era when there were 7.5 goals per game; Howe played in an era when there were 5.5 goals per game. Comparing their raw numbers is less than useless, it's misleading. Kent Nilsson, Bernie Nicholls and Pat Lafontaine scored more points per game than Howe. Are they better players, or is it because they played in a higher-scoring era?



I want to address the issue of whether Lemieux or Howe was more dominant in their primes. I've compared how many points they scored, relative to the rest of the league, during each of their six Art Ross victories. Note that this is the most favourable possible comparison for Lemieux; if I expanded this and included more years, Howe's significant edge in longevity would become apparent.

Here's how Lemieux did in his six best years, relative to the league:

Name GP G A Pts
Mario Lemieux 423 387 554 941 1.00
Wayne Gretzky 423 189 513 702 1.34
Steve Yzerman 468 276 401 677 1.39
Mark Messier 448 213 373 586 1.61
Luc Robitaille 468 253 305 558 1.69
Adam Oates 446 142 405 547 1.72
Doug Gilmour 467 174 365 539 1.75
Pierre Turgeon 474 210 328 538 1.75
Brett Hull 443 282 241 523 1.80
Pat LaFontaine 384 233 287 520 1.81

During his best six years, Lemieux outscored the nearest competitor by 34%. Of course, that's not exactly a fair comparison. Gretzky is the greatest scorer ever. Omitting Gretzky, we see that Lemieux outscored the next-best player, Yzerman, by 39%. After that, there's a big drop. Lemieux outscored the rest of the players on this list by 61% to 81%. All of them except Turgeon are HOFers. So, Lemieux fares extremely well. Let's see how Howe does.

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

I think this should permanently end any doubts about whether Howe was really dominant in his prime. He didn't just outscore the rest of the league, he obliterated them. Howe finished an incredible 53% ahead of the next-best player (this is by a higher amount than Lemieux's margin of victory over Yzerman). The next best player was Howe's linemate, Ted Lindsay. The fact that Howe was able to outscore his full-time linemate, who's one of the top 20 forwards of all time, is a testament to his dominance.

Howe's dominance doesn't end there. Every player on this list is a HOFer. He outscored them by 76% to 142%. Those numbers are matched in history only by Gretzky. When a player can DOUBLE what every other player in the league has scored (except for Lindsay, Richard and Kelly!) over a six year span, they've achieved a historic accomplishment that will never again be achieved.

These numbers conclusively demonstrate that Howe was at least as dominant offensively as Lemieux; in fact, Howe was probably better. When you consider the intangibles (defense, physical play, leadership), it's an easy decision in favor of Howe.
Nice analysis. How does Howe's 6 best compare to gretzy's 6 best.Particulary interested to the calibre of opponents.
 

Hockey Outsider

Registered User
Jan 16, 2005
9,056
13,987
Nice analysis. How does Howe's 6 best compare to gretzy's 6 best.Particulary interested to the calibre of opponents.

Thanks. For Gretzky, I looked at every season from 1982-1987. (One could argue that some of his other seasons might qualify as his "best" six, but I chose six in a row for simplicity). Here are the results:

Name GP G A Pts
Wayne Gretzky 473 437 782 1,219 1.00
Mike Bossy 445 332 366 698 1.75
Peter Stastny 450 236 445 681 1.79
Jari Kurri 445 322 355 677 1.80
Denis Savard 462 229 416 645 1.89
Paul Coffey 458 200 437 637 1.91
Dale Hawerchuk 479 268 363 631 1.93
Marcel Dionne 465 255 365 620 1.97
Michel Goulet 454 312 293 605 2.01
Bryan Trottier 454 212 359 571 2.13

I must admit, I'm surprised by how similar Howe's numbers are to Gretzky's. Howe was 53% better than the next-best player and scored double what all but three players scored. Gretzky was 75% better than the next-best player and scored double what all but seven players scored. Overall, looking at all the numbers, Gretzky had a wider margin of victory over his closest competitors. However, the farther you go down the scoring list (ie 7th through 10th), the more Howe dominated.

The quality of the opposition is close overall. Howe faced the best two players in Rocket Richard and Red Kelly; however, he also faced the weakest three scorers (Smith, Olmstead & Harvey). Howe has two teammates in the top ten; Gretzky has 2 in the top ten and 4 in the top thirteen. Propp and Federko, a fairly sizable step down from the players listed, are the next best players Gretzky faces if you don't include his teammates.

I'm amazed Howe was able to basically keep up with Gretzky for his six best years... but Gretzky has to be the top offensive player overall, as he still has a bunch more Art Rosses.
 

Ogopogo*

Guest
Thanks. For Gretzky, I looked at every season from 1982-1987. (One could argue that some of his other seasons might qualify as his "best" six, but I chose six in a row for simplicity). Here are the results:

Name GP G A Pts
Wayne Gretzky 473 437 782 1,219 1.00
Mike Bossy 445 332 366 698 1.75
Peter Stastny 450 236 445 681 1.79
Jari Kurri 445 322 355 677 1.80
Denis Savard 462 229 416 645 1.89
Paul Coffey 458 200 437 637 1.91
Dale Hawerchuk 479 268 363 631 1.93
Marcel Dionne 465 255 365 620 1.97
Michel Goulet 454 312 293 605 2.01
Bryan Trottier 454 212 359 571 2.13

I must admit, I'm surprised by how similar Howe's numbers are to Gretzky's. Howe was 53% better than the next-best player and scored double what all but three players scored. Gretzky was 75% better than the next-best player and scored double what all but seven players scored. Overall, looking at all the numbers, Gretzky had a wider margin of victory over his closest competitors. However, the farther you go down the scoring list (ie 7th through 10th), the more Howe dominated.

The quality of the opposition is close overall. Howe faced the best two players in Rocket Richard and Red Kelly; however, he also faced the weakest three scorers (Smith, Olmstead & Harvey). Howe has two teammates in the top ten; Gretzky has 2 in the top ten and 4 in the top thirteen. Propp and Federko, a fairly sizable step down from the players listed, are the next best players Gretzky faces if you don't include his teammates.

I'm amazed Howe was able to basically keep up with Gretzky for his six best years... but Gretzky has to be the top offensive player overall, as he still has a bunch more Art Rosses.


As usual, good work Outsider. So many people underestimate Gordie Howe. He was a DOMINANT force in this league, 2nd most dominant career to Gretzky based on my research.
 

Stonefly

Registered User
Jan 29, 2007
1,032
3
As usual, good work Outsider. So many people underestimate Gordie Howe. He was a DOMINANT force in this league, 2nd most dominant career to Gretzky based on my research.

I know this isn't really the thread for this but...
I have to ask how you define dominant. I've read similar statements in your other posts so I just want to be sure. I'm pretty sure you are basing your definition on scoring statistics. Correct?
 

Ogopogo*

Guest
I know this isn't really the thread for this but...
I have to ask how you define dominant. I've read similar statements in your other posts so I just want to be sure. I'm pretty sure you are basing your definition on scoring statistics. Correct?

Scoring is only a part of my research. Eyewitness accounts are heavier weighted than are goals and assists.
 

Nalyd Psycho

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
24,415
14
No Bandwagon
Visit site
You're misquoting me again, and nowhere did I contradict the point you're making about PPG and all, and I even agree with it to a certain point when it's overused. But you're making me say things I never said or even meant. Just think, at the All Star Game in 1995-96, ML was on pace for about 200 points, and his PPG fell WAY down from then on to the end of the season, it was down something like 30-40% less than before. Why? Because you get to the end of the season and teams play more defensively, the games are tighter and more difficult. Nowhere did I say something like, he got 123 in 59 games which means he'd have gotten 167 in 80. He might have gotten 140, he might have gotten 190, whatever, it's all speculation. Some people do that. I don't, because the season is not one October after another.

Just thought I'd mention, the line about PPG wasn't directed at you. That's why I put it ahead of the quote, sorry that that wasn't clear.

Anyways, I agree that this discussion is complete. Thank you.
 

#66

Registered User
Dec 30, 2003
11,585
7
Visit site
Name GP G A Pts
Mario Lemieux 423 387 554 941 1.00
Wayne Gretzky 423 189 513 702 1.34
Steve Yzerman 468 276 401 677 1.39
Mark Messier 448 213 373 586 1.61
Luc Robitaille 468 253 305 558 1.69
Adam Oates 446 142 405 547 1.72
Doug Gilmour 467 174 365 539 1.75
Pierre Turgeon 474 210 328 538 1.75
Brett Hull 443 282 241 523 1.80
Pat LaFontaine 384 233 287 520 1.81



Name GP G A Pts
Gordie Howe 420 254 269 528 1.00
Ted Lindsay 347 142 204 346 1.53
Maurice Richard 316 167 133 300 1.76
Red Kelly 410 98 191 289 1.83
Bernie Geoffrion 296 131 111 242 2.18
Alex Delvecchio 323 78 152 230 2.30
Sid Smith 350 116 110 226 2.34
Bert Olmstead 326 72 149 221 2.39
Doug Harvey 413 33 185 218 2.42
I've always loved your stats evener. Any chance of finding out when a Lemieux linemate comes in on that list?
 

Hockey Outsider

Registered User
Jan 16, 2005
9,056
13,987
As usual, good work Outsider. So many people underestimate Gordie Howe. He was a DOMINANT force in this league, 2nd most dominant career to Gretzky based on my research.

Thanks. It seems like a lot of people on the main boards think that Howe just scored a lot of points because he was healthy and consistent. A lot of people don't appreciate that he was as dominant as Gretzky, Lemieux and Orr. (Fortunately, that hasn't been a problem in this thread.)

I've always loved your stats evener. Any chance of finding out when a Lemieux linemate comes in on that list?

Thanks. Adjusting statistics, with any method, will always be limited and imperfect. But I firmly believe it's an improvement over not doing any adjustments at all.

Here's how Lemieux did relative to his teammates:

Mario Lemieux 423 387 554 941 1.00
Wayne Gretzky 423 189 513 702 1.34
Steve Yzerman 468 276 401 677 1.39
Mark Messier 448 213 373 586 1.61
Luc Robitaille 468 253 305 558 1.69
Adam Oates 446 142 405 547 1.72
Doug Gilmour 467 174 365 539 1.75
Pierre Turgeon 474 210 328 538 1.75
Brett Hull 443 282 241 523 1.80
Pat LaFontaine 384 233 287 520 1.81
Ron Francis 461 153 362 515 1.83 (1992, 1993, 1996, 1997)
Dale Hawerchuk 446 153 353 506 1.86
Vincent Damphousse 481 180 297 477 1.97
Joe Sakic 364 173 282 455 2.07
Paul Coffey 398 91 353 444 2.12 (1988, 1989, 1992)
Bernie Nicholls 387 166 276 442 2.13
Dave Andreychuk 457 208 230 438 2.15
Ray Bourque 440 114 323 437 2.15
Dino Ciccarelli 444 221 215 436 2.16
Phil Housley 458 124 303 427 2.20
Jari Kurri 464 168 257 425 2.21
Mike Gartner 473 233 183 416 2.26
Rick Tocchet 396 201 212 413 2.28 (1992, 1993)
Kirk Muller 445 175 236 411 2.29
Denis Savard 411 133 275 408 2.31
Jaromir Jagr 296 175 232 407 2.31 (1992, 1993, 1996, 1997)
Craig Janney 400 100 306 406 2.32
Brendan Shanahan 439 204 201 405 2.32
Pat Verbeek 460 191 207 398 2.36
Al MacInnis 435 102 290 392 2.40

Francis finishes just outside of the top ten (#11). Coffey, Tocchet and Jagr are all in the top thirty. However, Lemieux only played 2-4 seasons with each of these players. I realize I'm saying nothing new here, but Lemieux was able to produce regardless of the quality of his teammates.
 

Masao

Registered User
Nov 24, 2002
11,052
401
masaohf.atspace.com
I realize I'm saying nothing new here, but Lemieux was able to produce regardless of the quality of his teammates.

Ah, I don't think that's really true. Sure, it's true in numbers, but not so much in reality. You see, Lemieux was at his peak physically from about 87 to 90 and could not really dominate the game the way he used to after his surgery and bone disease in 1990. Yet, his numbers were not that much affected because, his loss of physical ability coincided with the Penguins becoming a much better team so his production was balanced out that way. His play on the ice from shift to shift in the early 90s was nothing like what he had been doing a few years before, and it becomes quite apparent after you watch 20 or so games from both periods and see the completely different pattern to how he played on five on five or shorthanded situations.

I'm quite convinced that the Mario Lemieux from 1992-93 would never have scored 160 in 60 games with the 1988-89 team that was essentially him, Coffey, and bunch of matryoshka dolls. He could still dominate the game, but it wasn't what it used to be.
 

Ogopogo*

Guest
Lemieux was able to produce regardless of the quality of his teammates.

Glad you mentioned that, Outsider, it is another myth that needs debunking on these boards. Great players put up huge numbers no matter who is on their team.

People love to say that Gretzky only accomplished what he did because of the team around him. They forget that he broke the single season points record on a bad Oilers team where the second leading scorer had 75 points.

There are countless examples of great players putting up huge numbers on bad teams. Hawerchuk, Bathgate, Dionne, Lemieux...

The greats produce no matter who is on their line, no matter what team they are on, no matter what the circumstance.
 

Stonefly

Registered User
Jan 29, 2007
1,032
3
Glad you mentioned that, Outsider, it is another myth that needs debunking on these boards. Great players put up huge numbers no matter who is on their team.

People love to say that Gretzky only accomplished what he did because of the team around him. They forget that he broke the single season points record on a bad Oilers team where the second leading scorer had 75 points.

There are countless examples of great players putting up huge numbers on bad teams. Hawerchuk, Bathgate, Dionne, Lemieux...

The greats produce no matter who is on their line, no matter what team they are on, no matter what the circumstance.

While i agree that great players will be great no matter what, i also believe that the players around them can and do make a significant difference. A perfect example is Hull and Oates. Hull had his three highest goal scoring seasons the three years he played with Oates. Oates left and he dropped by 20 goals a season. He was still scoring 50 goals a season but not up where he could have been had he had a great setup man like Oates. The players around you will always have an effect positively or negatively.
 

Nalyd Psycho

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
24,415
14
No Bandwagon
Visit site
Glad you mentioned that, Outsider, it is another myth that needs debunking on these boards. Great players put up huge numbers no matter who is on their team.

People love to say that Gretzky only accomplished what he did because of the team around him. They forget that he broke the single season points record on a bad Oilers team where the second leading scorer had 75 points.

There are countless examples of great players putting up huge numbers on bad teams. Hawerchuk, Bathgate, Dionne, Lemieux...

The greats produce no matter who is on their line, no matter what team they are on, no matter what the circumstance.

I strongly disagree. Chemistry is hugely important.

It's not so much the quality of teammates as it is the connection between teammates.
 

TheSniper26

Registered User
Oct 2, 2005
4,782
687
Youngstown
This debate is sort of surprising to me honestly. Other than longevity and grit, Howe had nothing about his game that was ahead of Lemieux. Lemieux, on the other hand, was capable of numerous things, offensively, that Howe couldn't touch. Skating, shot accuracy, puck handling, vision, passing. Lemieux was vastly superior in all of these. Now I'm sure some will counter with "Those are all offensive attributes. Howe was better at both ends!". And yes that's true. But these guys are forwards folks. Defensive ability is a nice little bonus but the reality is that their primary function is offense. Why is it that if two guys are competing for the Selke, one who is great defensively and puts up points, and the other is just great defensively, the award will always go to the guy with points? Why is that the case if the award is about being the best defensive forward? Because as a forward, your primary job every time you step on the ice is still to attack offensively. The same thing applies to defensemen. A guy like Sergei Gonchar, no matter how many points he may put up, will never win the Norris. Why? Because as a defenseman, the primary focus, at the root, is still defense. Offense is only a great plus. Players are put into positions for a reason. And it's because they have attributes that apply to the expectations of that particualr position. Thus, when comparing two forwards, offensive ability should be the primary focus. And Lemieux was worlds ahead.

And the longevity argument is silly to me. Players should be judged on what they were capable of at their best. It amazes me that people, in regards to all sports, put so much weight on numbers. Numbers tell very little. If longevity and numbers were such a factor, would we all be calling Howe better than Bobby Orr? Messier better than Lemieux? I really doubt that.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
This debate is sort of surprising to me honestly. Other than longevity and grit, Howe had nothing about his game that was ahead of Lemieux. Lemieux, on the other hand, was capable of numerous things, offensively, that Howe couldn't touch. Skating, shot accuracy, puck handling, vision, passing. Lemieux was vastly superior in all of these.
Having seen both play I disagree. Howe's offensive skills matched or bettered Lemieux's.

Howe finished in the top five in scoring in the NHL for 20 straight seasons. That is prettty clearly offensive skills.
 

Ogopogo*

Guest
This debate is sort of surprising to me honestly. Other than longevity and grit, Howe had nothing about his game that was ahead of Lemieux. Lemieux, on the other hand, was capable of numerous things, offensively, that Howe couldn't touch. Skating, shot accuracy, puck handling, vision, passing. Lemieux was vastly superior in all of these. Now I'm sure some will counter with "Those are all offensive attributes. Howe was better at both ends!". And yes that's true. But these guys are forwards folks. Defensive ability is a nice little bonus but the reality is that their primary function is offense. Why is it that if two guys are competing for the Selke, one who is great defensively and puts up points, and the other is just great defensively, the award will always go to the guy with points? Why is that the case if the award is about being the best defensive forward? Because as a forward, your primary job every time you step on the ice is still to attack offensively. The same thing applies to defensemen. A guy like Sergei Gonchar, no matter how many points he may put up, will never win the Norris. Why? Because as a defenseman, the primary focus, at the root, is still defense. Offense is only a great plus. Players are put into positions for a reason. And it's because they have attributes that apply to the expectations of that particualr position. Thus, when comparing two forwards, offensive ability should be the primary focus. And Lemieux was worlds ahead.

And the longevity argument is silly to me. Players should be judged on what they were capable of at their best. It amazes me that people, in regards to all sports, put so much weight on numbers. Numbers tell very little. If longevity and numbers were such a factor, would we all be calling Howe better than Bobby Orr? Messier better than Lemieux? I really doubt that.

You must be relatively young. It sounds like you know very little about Howe. Start your research by looking at the scoring races for 1950-1953. That alone should tell you that Howe was more dominant than Lemieux.
 

Luigi Lemieux

Registered User
Sep 26, 2003
21,438
9,059
Ah, I don't think that's really true. Sure, it's true in numbers, but not so much in reality. You see, Lemieux was at his peak physically from about 87 to 90 and could not really dominate the game the way he used to after his surgery and bone disease in 1990. Yet, his numbers were not that much affected because, his loss of physical ability coincided with the Penguins becoming a much better team so his production was balanced out that way. His play on the ice from shift to shift in the early 90s was nothing like what he had been doing a few years before, and it becomes quite apparent after you watch 20 or so games from both periods and see the completely different pattern to how he played on five on five or shorthanded situations.

I'm quite convinced that the Mario Lemieux from 1992-93 would never have scored 160 in 60 games with the 1988-89 team that was essentially him, Coffey, and bunch of matryoshka dolls. He could still dominate the game, but it wasn't what it used to be.
i agree. most people think lemieux was in his prime from 1990-96, but at that point he couldn't carry the puck up the ice as well or beat defenders one on one as well as he could from 1987-90. he relied on his linemates a lot more than he did in the 80s. the back injury in 1990 left him less explosive imo. that's why it's a shame we never saw what a completely healthy mario could do with a stacked team. i think he wouldve beaten gretzky's 215 pt record at some point in the early 90s. he was on pace for 224 in 92-93 even with the injuries and cancer.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->