Orr vs. Lemieux for 20 Healthy Seasons?

[Jets4Life]

This is true, I am still waiting on @Jets4Life and @The Panther to give their explanation. It has not happened yet.

Know what else has never happened? Lemieux putting up 200 points in a healthy season.

 

[Jets4Life]

Taking a step back, if both Orr and Lemieux played under Lidstrom-like health, I think not only would Orr be known as the greater player, but the gap would be so large there wouldn't be a debate.

Lemieux might end up with greater single-season totals than Gretzky for goals and points and could rival him in Art Ross or Hart trophies. For forwards, it would turn into a 1A/1B type situation.

By 1988, Lemieux had arguably taken over as the games #1 player, especially when it game to PPG. With a healthy Lemiuex, Gretzky would ahve never came close to winning the Art Ross Trophy again.

By 1981, when we start to see peak Gretzky, Orr is so far ahead of Howe as the consensus best hockey player ever he never seriously makes it a debate. As it was, Orr was 13th all-time in points at the end of 1974-75. With the additional health, there's a good chance Orr is 3rd in points all-time upon the Gretzky explosion (behind Howe and a boosted Esposito). For a player who would spend a decade as the premier defensive defenseman in the world.

[/QUOTE]

Even if Orr was healthy up until 1981, there is no guarantee that the general consensus would be that Orr the best player ever, ahead of Howe. This was only one season removed from Howe's retirement, where he played in 32 seasons. Let's not forget that Howe won more Hart Trophies.

If he retires ~1986, he would do so as the second highest scoring player ever (potentially first) , while adding 12+ Norris Trophies, and having the consensus best peak in hockey history.

There is absolutely no chance this happens. Orr would have likely finished in the top 5 in scoring if he was healthy until 1986, but he would have never eclipsed Howe. Esposito would have still had more career points, and Dionne would have likely eclipsed Orr by 85.

We can guess and debate the playoff difference, or the Art Ross difference, or the Hart difference. But the extra ~800 games of prime healthy Orr would close the debate.

Orr was 27 when he started missing considerable tim with knee injuries. Orr would ahve done well for the remainder of the 70s, but by the time he was in his 30s, Orr would have been on the decline, and it would ahve been unlikely that he scored 100 points in his final 5 seasons.

see: Lafleur, Guy

 

[Gorskyontario]

Know what else has never happened? Lemieux putting up 200 points in a healthy season.

That never happened but that's not the premise of this thread. What about this confuses you?

Orr was 27 when he started missing considerable tim with knee injuries. Orr would ahve done well for the remainder of the 70s, but by the time he was in his 30s, Orr would have been on the decline, and it would ahve been unlikely that he scored 100 points in his final 5 seasons.

I would like you to prove that Bobby Orr if healthy would have missed time in the 80's regardless. Prove it right now, thank you.

 

[Jets4Life]

That never happened but that's not the premise of this thread. What about this confuses you?

OK, i'll bite.

Lemieux could have put up over 100 goals and 100 assists, like he did in his last season in the QMJHL

Then again, Ryan Leaf could have become a Hall of Fame QB, if he was not so unmotivated, without the attitude problems, and sober..

I would like you to prove that Bobby Orr if healthy would have missed time in the 80's regardless. Prove it right now, thank you.

This is a hypothetical thread.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Then again, Ryan Leaf could have become a Hall of Fame QB, if he was not so unmotivated, without the attitude problems, and sober..

First of all, no. Second of all, do you actually find an equivalence there between a guy who had a 14 TD/36 Int career hypothetical vs. the guy who literally is shown scoring a 200th point that didn't count because video review wasn't a thing yet, so therefore had 199?

 

[Gorskyontario]

This is a hypothetical thread.

Literally everyone on this thread disagrees with you. What exactly are you trying to say? You admit this is a hypothetical thread about Lemieux and Orr being injury free, then insert them being injured into your hypothesis?

What exactly is the point you are trying to make? Spell it out for everyone, please. Because I am completely lost and confused in your logic right now.

 

[Jets4Life]

Except he wouldn't even be playing blackjack; he'd be doing straight bets on roulette. For someone who doesn't understand or care about odds the only distinction between the two would be the payout.

For a guy who has repeatedly said that lemieux would have broken Gretzky's all time single season scoring record, I would not be casting stones. If Gretzky had not been injured for 6 games (7 if one is to include the game he was injured and ended his record 51 game point streak), at the beginning of February 1984, there was a very real chance that Gretzky would have finished with over 3.00 PPG, and hit the 240 point mark.

At his absolute best, Lemieux would not have beaten out a prime Wayne gretzky.

 

[MadLuke]

If Gretzky had not been injured for 6 games (7 if one is to include the game he was injured and ended his record 51 game point streak), at the beginning of February 1984, there was a very real chance that Gretzky would have finished with over 3.00 PPG, and hit the 240 point mark.

And what can this has to do if in the 92-93 environment Lemieux beat Gretzky record or not, I doubt anyone say would have done anything, but say a certain likelyhood for it to happen no ?

There is obviously no set result here.

 

[Jets4Life]

And what can this has to do if in the 92-93 environment Lemieux beat Gretzky record or not, I doubt anyone say would have done anything, but say a certain likelyhood for it to happen no ?

There is obviously no set result here.

Lemieux's best PPG season in 1992-93 was 2.66. this is inferior to Gretzky in 1983-84 (2.77) and 1985-86 (2.69). In fact, if we look at the top 10 PPG leaders in an NHL season, Gretzky has 7 spots to Lemieux's 3.

 

[MadLuke]

Lemieux's best PPG season in 1992-93 was 2.66. this is inferior to Gretzky in 1983-84 (2.77) and 1985-86 (2.69). In fact, if we look at the top 10 PPG leaders in an NHL season, Gretzky has 7 spots to Lemieux's 3.

Yes, but there is more games in 92-93 than during Gretzky days and without cancer who knows what happen.

Without any ppg boost, 2.66*84 = 223 points, more than the 215 pts record.

With that 2.66 pace Lemieux need 81 games out of 84.

Lemieux in 92-93 a year their teams when his team get 440 powerplay, 84 instead of 80 games, play expansion teams, get tv ads break and so on, maybe he beat 215. That would not make him a better player than Gretzky, 92-93 was arguably the highest scoring season ever for top power play players.

You over-interpret what is being said here, the fact you point out that Lemieux ppg was high enough to beat Gretzky point record in what seem a message saying that it would be impossible for him to break it.... feel like you are talking about a different point than the one you respond too, like if Gretzky > Lemieux.

 

[Gorskyontario]

At his absolute best, Lemieux would not have beaten out a prime Wayne gretzky.

Stop dodging questions and answer. Why do you keep inserting Mario Lemieux's actual career into this hypothetical thread?

To me it seems you are clearly trying to derail discussion with some type of agenda.

 

[bobholly39]

Well I did say almost assured. Perhaps that's a bit too confident, but the probability of it was greater than 50%.


Of course, I naturally agree that things wouldn't unfold exactly as they did. However, the notion that he was accumulating points at a significantly higher rate than usual upon his return is simply not correct. Lemieux amassed 104 points in 39 games before his cancer sabbatical(he left after the first period of his final game due to a reoccurrence of back pain). That's a points per game rate of 2.67 or 2.60 for those who insist on using that one-period game. After his return, he scored 56 points in 20 games, equating to a PPG rate of 2.80 This represents a statistically insignificant difference of just 5% or 7%. What saw an elevation beyond the norm was his goal-scoring rate. However, the true greats accumulate points through various means, whether by scoring themselves or by setting up others. A perfect example is Gretzky, who transitioned from scoring 92 goals to just 52, yet he scored points at the same rate. Another example is McDavid this year, who will likely score 30-something less goals than the year prior and yet his point totals are projected to decrease by only half that amount and that decrease can largely be contributed to an early-season team wide slump and possibly some kind of moderate injury, which he didn't have to deal with the year prior.

Perhaps even more importantly, and directly relevant to the focus of this discussion, Lemieux was forced to leave games on no less than 6 occasions that season due to back pain. It's abundantly clear that he wasn't operating at full capacity. I won't speculate on the exact percentage of his capabilities he was playing at, that would be mere conjecture, but what we can safely say is that is was something less than 100%. This fact further diminishes the likelihood of him scoring at a reduced rate under the assumption of not being impaired by the back condition.


We can safety dismiss the notion that a healthy Lemieux would only score 180 points that season. As previously mentioned, Lemieux tallied 104 points in 39 games, a per game rate of 2.67, in essentially what amounted to the first half of the season. For him to score only 180 points would imply that he managed just 76 more points over the remaining 45 games, a PPG of just 1.69, which represents a staggering scoring rate decline of 36.6%!

Here's a compelling statistic: Not a single player who has scored 130 or more points in a season has EVER experienced such a drastic decline in production during the second half of their season. Throughout NHL history, there have been fifty instances of players achieving 130-point seasons, and the highest scoring rate drop in any of those instances was 35% by Marcel Dionne in the 1979-1980 season. The reasons for which are abundantly clear - both of his line mates: Dave Taylor and Charlie Simmers, suffered injuries which cost them nearly a quarter of the season in the second half and the Kings of that time had a serious lack of players talented enough to fill their void, they are after all perhaps the most infamous one-line team of all-time. That's not to say Dionne would have maintained his impressive scoring pace throughout the entire season had they not gotten injured. But he certainly would not have experienced such a pronounced decline in scoring. Unlike Dionne, Lemieux was renowned for his ability to generate offense even without the support of top-tier linemates, as demonstrated by his performances with the talent-devoid Penguins teams of the 1980s. But in any csae, the potential absence of Lemieux's regular linemates, Stevens and Tocchet, due to injury would not have posed a significant issue for the Penguins in the 1992-1993 season. This is because the team was equipped with an abundance of top-tier talent capable of adequately filling any gaps in the lineup caused by injuries.

So, why would a peak, 27 year old Lemieux - considered by most to be the most physically gifted offensive player of all time - suffer the most significant decline in offensive production among top scorers in history? While 180 points can't be ruled out with absolute certainty, the probability of that is akin to flipping a coin and having it land on heads 10 times in a row i.e. it's extremely unlikely to the point where it's not even a serious consideration.


I don't think you realize how marginal the differences in players' scoring rates have historically been from the 3/4 mark of the season to the final tally. Let's examine all seasons with over 160 points scored and compare the scoring rates from 20 games prior to the end of the season to their final totals:

Gretzky​	Gm#​	PTs 20gm left​	PPG 20gm left​	Final Pts​	Final PPG​	Divergence​
'81​	60​	114​	1.90​	164​	2.05​	7.9%​
'82​	60​	156​	2.60​	212​	2.65​	1.9%​
'83​	60​	147​	2.45​	196​	2.45​	0.0%​
'84​	54​	158​	2.93​	205​	2.77​	-5.3%​
'85​	60​	167​	2.78​	208​	2.60​	-6.6%​
'86​	60​	162​	2.70​	215​	2.69​	-0.5%​
'87​	59​	147​	2.49​	183​	2.32​	-7.0%​
'89​	58​	135​	2.33​	168​	2.15​	-7.5%​
'91​	58​	113​	1.95​	163​	2.09​	7.3%​
Lemieux​	​	​	​	​	​	​
'88​	57​	121​	2.12​	168​	2.18​	2.8%​
'89​	56​	154​	2.75​	199​	2.62​	-4.8%​
'96​	50​	120​	2.40​	161​	2.30​	-4.2%​

The largest variance observed was between 7.9% and -7.5%. Lemieux's scoring rate would have had to plummet by double the largest amount seen for him to end up with just 199 points on the season.

Additionally, Lemieux was not historically prone significant declines in scoring. Here's the numbers for all seasons of 59 or more games played during his prime:

​	Gm#​	Pt's 20gm left​	PPG 20gm left​	Final Pts​	Final PPG​	Divergence​
'85​	53​	74​	1.40​	100​	1.37​	-1.9%​
'86​	59​	110​	1.86​	141​	1.78​	-4.3%​
'87​	43​	76​	1.77​	107​	1.70​	-3.9%​
'88​	57​	121​	2.12​	168​	2.18​	2.8%​
'89​	56​	154​	2.75​	199​	2.62​	-4.8%​
'90​	39​	78​	2.00​	123​	2.08​	4.2%​
'92​	44​	83​	1.89​	131​	2.05​	8.5%​
'93​	40​	104​	2.60​	160​	2.67​	2.6%​
'96​	50​	120​	2.40​	161​	2.30​	-4.2%​
'97​	56​	96​	1.71​	122​	1.61​	-6.4%​

Hence, I pose the question once again: Why assume that he would suffer such a drastic decline, especially with the consideration of good health and at the peak of his abilities? Can I assert with absolute certainty that he would have surpassed the 200-point mark? No, certainly not(few things can be). However, the scenarios you are proposing, are amongst the less probable outcomes based on the balance of probabilities.

I think your whole post is focusing a bit too much on the wrong point.

I was just allowing for the possibility that in a perfectly healthy world, 1992-1993 doesn't play out exactly as it did for Lemieux, which means his scoring rate in that hypothetical might go up, but it also might go down. ~180 to 220+ points seemed like a big range. I wasn't necessarily arguing for 180 points.

But...just to lay it out anyways as a possibility....few reasons why sub-200 in 1992-1993 is actually possible in this thread:

In my opinion - if Lemieux is 100% healthy in his career, but especially after 1989, he would have a "peak" in his career of ~6 seasons that rival Gretzky (better or worst is anyone's guess, but definitely close). This would be 1988-1989 to 1993-1994. With 94-95 being a shortened lockout season, and by 96 he's still great and in his prime, but probably not quite as good as at his peak. So it's really that 6 year stretch where he'd be at his best.

So under this premise....

1988-1989 plays out exactly as is, 199 points. To me 100% healthy doesn't even mean playing every single game, it just means no major injury. 76 games feels close enough to me. If you want to nitpick the thread premise and give him the full 80 games, he certainly tops 200 points, maybe closer to ~210 or so.

Then there's 1989-1990, 1990-1991, and 1991-1992. In reality - Lemieux played all 3 years but this is when he suffered the most from back issues. He was nowhere near 100% in ability even in games played. If he is 100% healthy instead, to me all three of these seasons would rival 1988-1989 for Lemieux. Does he outright pass 85 goals and 199 points all 3 years? In any of the 3 years? I don't know...but again I would estimate he'd probably score in the vicinity of ~70+ goals each year, and 180+ points each year....could probably go up to a 100 goal season in a perfect storm season, and 220 points as well. How each season actually plays out specifically beyond that is just a guess.

Which brings me to 1992-1993. As per this thread's premise - come 1992-1993, Lemieux would have just had 4 straight peak seasons. He also would have won back to back cups/smythes. So in this scenario - 1992-1993 plays out completely differently than it did in reality.

- Lemieux may have a bit more of a cup hangover and start out slower
- Even with no cup hangover, depending on how "all out" he went in previous seasons, he might actually take foot off gas slightly in this season (he'd probably be chasing 3rd cup the most, and maybe coast a bit during season)
- Also - in reality, Lemieux had an insane stretch in the last month of the season. In the last 17 games, he had 29 goals and 50+ points. Why? Because he was super motivated after his comeback from cancer to win the scoring race and prove to all and himself he was still the best. Without this dynamic under this thread's premise....does Lemieux finish this season as strong?

So all I'm saying is...with 100% full health, 1992-1993 plays out completely different for Lemieux.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Lets not forget lemieux lost 2 harts (robbed of 89) to gretzky. Orr lost multiple mvps to esposito a poor mans wayne. Lemieux with 5 harts and 6 rosses probably garners much more respect than he already does. Bare minimum lemieux should have 4 harts n 6 rosses

 

[TheStatican]

For a guy who has repeatedly said that lemieux would have broken Gretzky's all time single season scoring record, I would not be casting stones. If Gretzky had not been injured for 6 games (7 if one is to include the game he was injured and ended his record 51 game point streak), at the beginning of February 1984, there was a very real chance that Gretzky would have finished with over 3.00 PPG, and hit the 240 point mark.

Gretzky played the entire game against Calgary February 24, 1984. He didn't miss any additional play time within games in '84 as Lemieux did in both '89 and '93. Lemieux left multiple games early during those seasons, missing additional play time beyond what is commonly attributed to his games played number, meaning they are an underestimation of his actual scoring rates.

I acknowledge there's an argument that his shoulder injury may have slowed his production down after that point in '83-'84, but likewise, the same argument exists for Lemieux's back injury, impeding his production at various points during the '92-'93 season, not to mention the detrimental effects of cancer treatments.

Know what else has never happened? Lemieux putting up 200 points in a healthy season.

It is indeed normal to presume that there is some added significance to round numbers like 50, 100 or 200. This tendency stems from the human inclination toward simplicity and a preference for easy of comprehension. However, in reality, the difference is minimal, amounting to a 0.5 percent variance. Let's consider this scenario: one person has $1,000,000 in their account, while another has $995,000. Does this make the first person rich and the other poor? Certainly not; there would be no discernible difference in their quality of their lives. Any sensible individual would recognize that the perceived difference is purely psychological, and the actual disparity is inconsequential. Yet here you are essentially trying to troll the person who has $995,000 in his account for not being a millionaire.

 

[TheStatican]

I think your whole post is focusing a bit too much on the wrong point.

I was just allowing for the possibility that in a perfectly healthy world, 1992-1993 doesn't play out exactly as it did for Lemieux, which means his scoring rate in that hypothetical might go up, but it also might go down. ~180 to 220+ points seemed like a big range. I wasn't necessarily arguing for 180 points.

But...just to lay it out anyways as a possibility....few reasons why sub-200 in 1992-1993 is actually possible in this thread:

In my opinion - if Lemieux is 100% healthy in his career, but especially after 1989, he would have a "peak" in his career of ~6 seasons that rival Gretzky (better or worst is anyone's guess, but definitely close). This would be 1988-1989 to 1993-1994. With 94-95 being a shortened lockout season, and by 96 he's still great and in his prime, but probably not quite as good as at his peak. So it's really that 6 year stretch where he'd be at his best.

So under this premise....

1988-1989 plays out exactly as is, 199 points. To me 100% healthy doesn't even mean playing every single game, it just means no major injury. 76 games feels close enough to me. If you want to nitpick the thread premise and give him the full 80 games, he certainly tops 200 points, maybe closer to ~210 or so.

Then there's 1989-1990, 1990-1991, and 1991-1992. In reality - Lemieux played all 3 years but this is when he suffered the most from back issues. He was nowhere near 100% in ability even in games played. If he is 100% healthy instead, to me all three of these seasons would rival 1988-1989 for Lemieux. Does he outright pass 85 goals and 199 points all 3 years? In any of the 3 years? I don't know...but again I would estimate he'd probably score in the vicinity of ~70+ goals each year, and 180+ points each year....could probably go up to a 100 goal season in a perfect storm season, and 220 points as well. How each season actually plays out specifically beyond that is just a guess.

I understand the premise of this thread is hypothetical so things could played out in any which way. But going by your premises we could just as easily say things like - do the Pens even win the cup in 91-92? Maybe they win in 89-90 instead. Maybe they don't draft Jaromir Jagr. Maybe they don't trade Paul Coffey and Mark Recchi. See what I'm getting at? We're just entering too much into the realm of speculation. Where as we actually have a good amount of data for 3 of those 5 seasons and I simply think it's much fairer to make assessments based on known data and extrapolate further from that.

Your also not making any considerations for perhaps the most important aspect of all - scoring rates. We all understand why the single season totals put up by Crosby and Ovechkin don't come anywhere near the greatest single season totals in history. Now while the drop in scoring wasn't anywhere that as high during the early 90's, there was a notable drop, specifically in '91, '92 & '94. The odds are against Lemieux having a career best season in any of those years for that reason alone. It's what happened to Gretzky afterall, it's hardly mere coincidence that his 3 best seasons happened in the 3 highest(post war) scoring years of all time or that his scoring rates ebbed and flowed exactly inline with league scoring rates.

92-93 was the ideal season for a career year from and my focus is on it for three reasons:
A) A substantial amount of actual corroborating data exists to support the notion that it would have been his career year and that he could have scored a record points total.

B) It was one of the most ideal environments for a player to pursue such a record, much better than the three preceding seasons. It's not just that scoring rates were up; it's that scoring rates for top players were up even more. I've always said that the only seasons in which any player could have been expected to scored at a 200-point pace were 80-86, 87-90, and '93. Gretzky wasn't at his peak yet in 80-81; he only missed in '83 & '88 and Lemieux wasn't at his peak yet in '88 and was injured in '90.

C) Why does everyone keep dismissing or not acknowledging the four extra games 92-93 had as if they don't make a difference? 92-93 featured a record number of players hitting 100 points - 21, but that number was only reached because of those four extra games. Without them, we'd only have 15 100-point scorers. All of Sakic, Hull, Fleury, Francis, Tocchet, and Juneau only reached the plateau thanks to game #'s 81 to 84.

Which brings me to 1992-1993. As per this thread's premise - come 1992-1993, Lemieux would have just had 4 straight peak seasons. He also would have won back to back cups/smythes. So in this scenario - 1992-1993 plays out completely differently than it did in reality.

- Lemieux may have a bit more of a cup hangover and start out slower
- Even with no cup hangover, depending on how "all out" he went in previous seasons, he might actually take foot off gas slightly in this season (he'd probably be chasing 3rd cup the most, and maybe coast a bit during season)

But he did just win back to back cups/smythes and showed zero indications of having a cup hang over or lack of motivation throughout that regular season. He had 104 points in 39 games before injury which put him in position to challenge the record in an 80-game schedule never mind a 84-game one.

- Also - in reality, Lemieux had an insane stretch in the last month of the season. In the last 17 games, he had 29 goals and 50+ points. Why? Because he was super motivated after his comeback from cancer to win the scoring race and prove to all and himself he was still the best. Without this dynamic under this thread's premise....does Lemieux finish this season as strong?

And you don't think Lemieux would be super motivated if he was chasing the point record instead of the Art Ross?

 

[OrrNumber4]

Hockey sense, size, strength, and skill don't fade as much with age like speed and skating.

Orr was wonderfully talented, but his unparalleled speed and skating was his trump card. As that declined, he'd no doubt have adjusted; he had elite hockey sense and skill as well. But, he wouldn't be a legendary talent anymore, and I think he'd have gotten more exposed defensively.

He's also from a generation of players that often fell off a cliff around age 30...

 

[RR44]

The two biggest what ifs in hockey, now let's debate them with real world surroundings.

This means Orr plays through the 86-87 season and Lemieux plays his missed seasons and retires in time for the 04-05 lockout. Fill in the blank for missed time in other seasons and how that affected the teams.

My biggest juice is seeing more of Jagr and Lemieux together while seeing Orr and Bourque (which....insane).

For Orr or more importantly Boston...it can be argued they put a stop to Montreal's 4 in a row 1975-76 to 1978-79 and win a SC one of those years (ie: 1978-79 knock off Montreal in the semi-finals). Orr likely kills off the game in Montreal game 7 and the too many men penalty likely doesn't happen given you stick Orr out whenever Lafleur hits the ice.

For Pittsburgh...their biggest what if or "WTF" to be frank is losing to the Islanders in the 1993 and Florida in the 1996 playoffs. While there is no guarantee they move past Montreal in the 1993 semi-final, they'd have stood a much better chance to defeat Montreal given they'd been heavy favorites and facing the Pens vs Islanders would have been a tough ask for the Habs. In 1996, they really should have steamrolled the Panthers but again they found a way to lose that series that in reality should have gone 5 games tops. Does Pittsburgh then beat Colorado...I'd say they'd have stood a much better chance given Sakic, Forsberg, Roy and company would have been alot more worried facing #66, #68, #93 than a lunch pail collection that Florida had.

 

[klefbombs shoulder]

How exactly is a "healthy season" defined? Does this assume all 80/82/84 games are played? No nagging injuries that a player can play through? What about aging curves? A player will still slow down as they age. How does one differentiate between normal aging/wear and tear and an injury? And should additional wear and tear be considered as these players will have hundreds of additional games played?

For example I will bring up Wayne Gretzky. He is widely seen to have had a pretty healthy career all things considered. He played nearly 1500 regular season games and 200+ playoff games on top of that. However he was dealing with a back injury from 1992 onwards (8 NHL seasons). He missed significant portions of the 1984, 1988, and 1990 seasons as well. So 11 of his 20 seasons were at least somewhat affected by injury.

Another example is Ovechkin, who is one of the healthiest players in NHL history IMO. He has still had 4 NHL seasons where he missed significant time with injury.

I understand the point of the exercise is to play the what if game, but ultimately its a fools errand in a very physically demanding sport. Assuming perfect health for 20 years is absurdly optimistic, and its no surprise that there are many overly optimistic projections for Orr and Lemieux career's with "20 healthy seasons".

 

[MadLuke]

Another example is Ovechkin, who is one of the healthiest players in NHL history IMO. He has still had 4 NHL seasons where he missed significant time with injury.

Before becoming really old there was only 2009-2010, seasons Ovechkin missed more than 1 games due to injury:

2020-2021	11​
2009-2010	10​
2022-2023	9​
2021-2022	5​
2013-2014	4​
2011-2012	4​
2023-2024	3​
2015-2016	3​
2010-2011	3​
2008-2009	3​

How does one differentiate between normal aging/wear and tear and an injury? And should additional wear and tear be considered as these players will have hundreds of additional games played?

People will speculate, about impossible to know how high mileage affect Orr-Mario without major injury. One can say work ethic of the Chelios-Jagr was significantly higher than Mario I do not see him aging like those, that seem valid, people saying the men still score 160 in 70 in years of retirement shape, does not matter much for him... also have a point (or that constant training became just the norm during his career anyway and he would have picked it up).

 

[blogofmike]

No, he shouldn't.

The best player should be the one who scores most points (strictly looking at offense). Sometimes, that means said player gets more points on the powerplay, sometimes at even strength - sometimes both. But in the end - total points matters, that's literally it.

If Gretzky had scored 215 points in 1986, all on the power, or none on the power play - the season's accomplishments are exactly the same.

A point is a point.

If you want to start assigning different values to points - you're better off starting by differentiating how important is a point to a victory - ie a point in 1 or 2 goal lead/deficit vs a blowout? That probably holds more importance than even strength vs power play points.

I feel like you'd watch the movie Moneyball and think Brad Pitt was the bad guy.

 

[VanIslander]

The two biggest what ifs in hockey, now let's debate them...

Debate them vs each other? K.

No way no hell against Howe, Gretzky, Bourque, etc. (Greatness for decades isn't just 'luck' or 'injuries off' mode)

 

[MadLuke]

A point is a point.

A point has no value in the sport of hockey, the 1984 Oilers scored 1182 points, that no relevance, only the 446 goals matter.

If Gretzky would have scored 215 pts without playing asingle minute on the powerplay that year, the Oilers would have scored more goals.

 

[Gorskyontario]

Debate them vs each other? K.

No way no hell against Howe, Gretzky, Bourque, etc. (Greatness for decades isn't just 'luck' or 'injuries off' mode)

Bobby Orr accomplished significantly more then Ray Bourque in less than half the time. Your post literally makes zero sense.