If comparing them was beating a dead horse... I'm guilty of mutilation.

Discussion in 'The History of Hockey' started by Granlund2Pulkkinen*, Jun 11, 2007.

  1. But I decided to take Lemieux numbers and adjust them to the GP for gretzky ever season.

    What I did was I took the PPG for lemieux and multiplied it by the number of games that corrisponds with the year for gretzky (ie Mario's first year gets together with Gretzky's first year)

    Here it goes

    Here's Marios unadjusted numbers

    Year#-GP-Pts-ppg
    01. 73 100 1.37
    02. 79 141 1.78
    03. 63 107 1.70
    04. 77 168 2.18
    05. 76 199 2.61
    06. 59 123 2.09
    07. 26 45 1.73
    08. 64 131 2.05
    09. 60 160 2.67
    10. 22 37 1.68
    11. 70 161 2.30
    12. 76 122 1.61
    16. 43 76 1.77
    17. 24 31 1.29
    18. 67 91 1.36
    19. 10 9 0.90
    20. 26 22 0.85

    Total: 1723

    (Mario didn't play his 13-15th seasons)

    Mario's points with Gretzky's GP per season (GP/PTS)
    01. 72 99
    02. 79 141
    03. 80 136
    04. 80 224 :sarcasm:
    05. 80 209
    06. 74 155
    07. 80 138
    08. 80 164
    09. 79 211
    10. 64 108
    11. 68 156
    12. 73 118
    16. 81 143
    17. 48 62
    18. 80 109
    19. 82 74
    20. 82 70

    Total: 2317

    Why I did this was to show the career potential of Lemieux. As you can see, Lemieux was substantially more talented, but when it comes down to it Gretzky just still racked up more points. Lemieux hypothetically could have put up that 224 point season but the most important fact is HE DID NOT PUT UP THAT SEASON. Gretzky is the better player and will always be the better player, because not only talent but the ability to be healthy is what can dictate how good a player is.

    There is no doubt Lemieux is the more talented of the 2, but Gretzky, all around is the better hockey player.
     
  2. it's 9am, summer just started, I have to work in 3 hours and I'm bored so just cut me some slack ;)
     
  3. CH

    CH Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2003
    Messages:
    690
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    76
    Home Page:

    I think this number is a math error. Lemieux at 2.18 points per game would take 102.67 games to get this many points. I am pretty sure Gretzky never has a 102 + games played season (unless we include playoffs for some odd reason)
     
  4. slade

    slade Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,515
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    finance
    Location:
    18 Winspear Ltd.
    we all appreciate your efforts. :handclap:


    cue bruins fans to come in and speak of the fantasy land where bobby orr has magical knees and he can replicate himself 5 times over to defeat all evildoers.



    :sarcasm:
     
  5. Rexor

    Rexor Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2006
    Messages:
    1,291
    Likes Received:
    78
    Trophy Points:
    101
    Location:
    Brno
    Lemieux had a much weaker supporting cast than Gretzky in first years of his
    career, and was playing half-injured good amount of his games in the 90's;
    well known facts that your adjusted stats don't (and can't) take into account.
     
  6. Ogopogo*

    Ogopogo* Guest

    Let this debate die.

    Gretzky had the greater career. Period.

    All of the weak arguments about supporting cast have been debunked many times on these boards, PPG is a flawed argument as well. I will not re hash all of those discussions again.

    Let it die!
     
  7. arrbez

    arrbez bad chi

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Messages:
    13,224
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Location:
    Toronto
    Gretzky obviously had the better career, but some of the things that Lemieux did while injured are jaw-dropping. Coming back from cancer to obliterate the scoring race in only 60 games? For my money, that's the most impressive thing anyone's ever done in the NHL.

    This kind of thing can't be measured, so it really comes down to who you think the better player was, having seen them both.
     
  8. Bear of Bad News

    Bear of Bad News HFBoards Escape Goat

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    Messages:
    5,984
    Likes Received:
    960
    Trophy Points:
    139
    Location:
    Windsor
    Let's play Match Game! Fill in the blank:

    There is no doubt that when someone around here says "there is no doubt", _____________________.
     
  9. Sens Rule

    Sens Rule Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    23,032
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    116
    What do adjusted points do in showing Mario was more talented than Gretzky?

    It simply does nothing of the kind. Video of one on one situations could arguably show Mario was more talented. But a bunch of made up projected numbers does nothing of the kind.

    Mario was undeniably stronger, taller, bigger and faster than Gretzky. Gretzky was better in reality. He played more, got more done in the games he played and hold virtually every record.

    The logical deduction is that Gretzky was a better player and more talented.

    If Gretzky was smaller, weaker, shorter and yet still was better than Mario then he must be more talented.

    1 on 1 Mario was better. 5 on 5, 5 on 4, 5 on 3, 4 on 4, 4 on 3. Gretzky was better. Hockey is a team game not a 1 on 1 game so Gretzky was better and more talented at the sport.
     
  10. DrVanntastic

    DrVanntastic Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2006
    Messages:
    1,911
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    84
    Location:
    Wentzville, MO
    They're most likely wrong?
     
  11. mrhockey193195

    mrhockey193195 Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2006
    Messages:
    5,242
    Likes Received:
    158
    Trophy Points:
    111
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    My thoughts exactly.

    I also dislike it when people compare Gretzky to Orr and say that "well, if you took 5 Orrs and 5 gretzkys, the team of Orrs would win, therefore he's a better player."

    First of all, we don't know that (though chances are it's true). Secondly, how is that a measure of how good a player is? gretzky was capable of turning even the most mediocre players in scoring whizzes. Heck, Bernie Nichols (not to say he was mediocre) gor 70 goals and 150 points playing behind Gretz. Doesn't that account for something?

    I'm not saying this b/c I personally believe Gretzky is the greatest ever. Believe me, I appreciate the debate, and believe it is a debatable subject. People have some great arguments as to why Orr or Lemieux should be considered greater than gretzky (not to say I personally agree with them).

    But to throw in hypothetical situations and just assume they would play out a certain way doesn't constitute as good evidence for proving ones point.


    That being said, good work by the original poster. Those stats are indeed very intriguing, and worth discussing. However, people shouldn't use these stats as a basis for "proving" gretzky's superiority.
     
  12. I kinda did it to 'see what came out of it'

    That's what I do... I take what if's and make them 'so that's what could have happened'
     
  13. Luigi Lemieux

    Luigi Lemieux Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2003
    Messages:
    17,237
    Likes Received:
    1,214
    Trophy Points:
    169
    160 pts in 60 games is 2.67 points per game. He was on pace for 224 pts in 84 games that season.

    Lemieux was the best powerplay player ever. Those pens teams hold the records for best powerplays ever, and lemieux was the qb. He had about 40% of his points on the pp.
     

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"