Peak/Prime Lemieux vs. Gretzky - Adjusted

[hitman9172]

Make a Coherent and Persuasive Argument As to Why Lemieux or Orr > Gretzky(read first

Had an argument with a friend at work, who stubbornly refused to believe that Lemieux or Orr could even touch Gretzky when I asked him who he would take to start a team...Lemieux, Orr, or Gretzky. His exact reponse was laughter followed by ''are you serious, Gretzky easily". FWIW he's a huge fanboy of forwards who put up high point totals(ie. Ovechkin >>> Crosby, Semin >>> Kane, Laich >>> Jordan Staal) and nothing else. Seeing as how many of you HOH posters know tons about the past greats, I thought who better to make a coherent and persuasive argument as to why Lemieux or Orr should be considered greater than Gretzky. Personally, I think Lemieux was the most talented player to ever play, followed by Orr/Gretzky. I don't want to see this turn into a Gretzky vs. Orr. vs Lemieux fanboy argument, but rather want to see the best cases Pro-Lemieux and Pro-Orr fans can make for their respective superstar. Gretzky fans please refrain from jumping all over the Lemieux and Orr posters. So, pick one of Orr or Lemieux and give me a clear, rational argument as to why he should be considered the greatest (or better than Wayne Gretzky).

Click to read more...

 

[canucks4ever]

its tough to argue Lemieux is better but for orr thats not very hard at all.

Orr produced 77-80% of gretzky's offense based on adjusted stats, while being a million times better defensively.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I have Orr slightly ahead of Gretzky, as do many, many others.

It's a close call between them every time with Gretzky usually pulling out a very close victory.

Gretzky is the smartest player to ever play the game, Lemieux the most purely talented and Orr is not far behind in either category, while playing superbly in both ends of the rink.


Lemieux usually ends up behind Howe though in the 4 spot, also where I have him all-time.

Either way, all 4 of them have legitimate claims at the #1 spot.

 

[BSHH]

Just for the sake of argument, one could mention that Edmonton one a Cup in 1990 without Gretzky, although neither Carson nor Gelinas could cope with the expectations. The Oilers' dynasty core practically won another Cup with the Rangers in 1994.

Without Orr/Lemieux, the Bruis/Penguins never came close to winning, until a new generation of players arrived. Unlike in Edmonton, both dynasties seemed to rely heavily on their respective generational player. One might think that this displays some upper level of contribution - I would disagree, by the way.

Gruß,
BSHH

 

[Canadiens1958]

Talent

In terms of the various physical hockey skills, offensively and defensively Orr was better or equal to Gretzky or Lemieux. However Orr was by far the best skater of the three and the most physical.

In terms of thinking the game Gretzky had a slight edge especially when it came to using the complete rink to generate offense.

 

[Jumptheshark]

Here is the thing--you have three players with three different style of play

 

[tjcurrie]

I would agree that Lemieux is the most talented ever.

If you're gonna argue him up against Gretzky, you could say that for Lemieux's first few seasons, he wasn't exactly surrounded by talent.

He made 29 year old "rookie" Warren Young a 40 goal scorer in his own rookie season.

In 1988-89 he made Rob Brown an All-Star, helping him to 49 goals and 115 points.

The only thing that ever stopped Lemieux was his health.

In 1992-93 he scored 69 goals and 160 points in just 60 games:
-On pace for 213 points in 80 games. Gretzky played exactly 80 when he recorded his 212 point season and 80 when he recorded his 215. So Lemieux was right there.

-On pace for 92 goals. Exactly Gretzky's record.

When he returned to action in the 2000-01 season at age 35 after not playing a game for nearly 4 years, he recorded 35 goals and 76 points in just 43 games. On pace for 67 goals and 145 points in 82 games. In the low scoring 2000s.

When Gretzky was 35 he recorded 15 goals and 81 points in 62 games. On pace for 20 goals and 107 points in 82 games. The last time Gretzky reached 140 points was in 1990-91 at age 30 ( though he recorded 130 in 1993-94 ) and the last time he reached 60 goals was 1986-87 at age 26 in the high scoring 80s.



Gretzky did have a lot more help through the years, at least if you count each players first few seasons anyways.

Had Lemeiux been healthy his entire career, he could have at least threatened Gretzky's records.

 

[tjcurrie]

I dont agree that Gretzky had alll that much more help..He had Blair McDonald, Bill Flett Doug Hicks,Brett Callaghan and Messier before Messier learned to shave...more than Mario, sure but not a great group.

Ya you're right. At the very beginning anyways. But a couple years in the Oilers had Kurri, Coffey, the new Messier, and Anderson. Lemieux went 6 or 7 years before any real talent came along excluding Coffey. Gretzky went a couple. Definitely a difference.

 

[sarge88]

I dont agree that Gretzky had alll that much more help..He had Blair McDonald, Bill Flett Doug Hicks,Brett Callaghan and Messier before Messier learned to shave...more than Mario, sure but not a great group.

I think in his prime Gretzky had much better talent around him.

In the end, I'd say Lemieux was the most talented and his size helped make him a little more difficult to defend.

Orr was probably the most important to the game as he revolutionized the position but Gretzky had a better career than either of them.

If I were starting a team and all three were 18 years old, I'd probably take Orr first because as a d-man he'd play about 28-30 minutes per game.

I'd take Lemieux 2nd, primarily due to his size and immense skill leaving Gretzky third.

But ask me tomorrow and I'd probably have them in a different order.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Gretzky
Howe
Orr
Lemieux

Longevity and being able to be counted on game after game, year after year matters. A lot.

The Orr/Lemieux arguments always begin with an "if".

If his knees, if his back, if he didn't get cancer, if he had the surrounding talent ....

They are the 4 best players to ever okay the game, no argument there.

Two of then were able to sustain that excellence for 20 years. Two were not.

 

[Up the Irons]

the "Orr was better defensively" argument doesn't hold water with me. Like, duh? he was a defenseman... pretty sure defense is part of the job description.

Gretzky's job was to produce goals. In that light, it is obvious that 99 did his job CONSIDERABLY better than any player that has ever laced up the blades.

Neither Lemieux or Orr were better than Gretzky. they didn't accomplish nearly as much and accomplishment is the MOST significant prowess (IMO).

I respect that others give more weight to `what could have been`(Orr fans) or `dazzling individual talent` (Lemieux fans), but I do not. What the player actually did will always win the day for me.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Ya you're right. At the very beginning anyways. But a couple years in the Oilers had Kurri, Coffey, the new Messier, and Anderson. Lemieux went 6 or 7 years before any real talent came along excluding Coffey. Gretzky went a couple. Definitely a difference.

This is true, but all it does is explain why Gretzky had more team success than Lemieux. In terms of personal numbers, when Gretzky set records of 92 goals (never broken) and 212 points (only passed once by Wayne) in 1981-82, Glenn Anderson was the 2nd best Oiler with 105 points. Paul Coffey was the 3rd best Oiler with 89 points.

Gretzky clearly didn't need help from his teammates to put up points. In fact, he regularly led the NHL in the % of his team's goals that he had personal points on (this is in a thread on this board somewhere but the search function has been nuked). Lemeiux does have the "record" in this stat, but he led the NHL fewer times than Gretzky and really wasn't that far "ahead" when he did have the mark.

If you want to say Gretzky only won Cups with great teammates, you are correct. But the 2 Pens teams Lemieux led to Cups were totally stacked too!

 

[tjcurrie]

Gretzky
Howe
Orr
Lemieux

Longevity and being able to be counted on game after game, year after year matters. A lot.

The Orr/Lemieux arguments always begin with an "if".

If his knees, if his back, if he didn't get cancer, if he had the surrounding talent ....

They are the 4 best players to ever okay the game, no argument there.

Two of then were able to sustain that excellence for 20 years. Two were not.

But in Lemieux's case, he returned in his mid 30s and proved he could still play. Longevity counts, but having all the problems those guys had is a lot different than just losing it or not being able to tough it out for 15+ years.

But you're right that they're the top 4, and I believe they can be placed in any order and you'd be right.

 

[Hardyvan123]

its tough to argue Lemieux is better but for orr thats not very hard at all.

Orr produced 77-80% of gretzky's offense based on adjusted stats, while being a million times better defensively.

If one was going to start a team, rather than look at the totality of their careers, both Orr and Lemieux are close enough to Wayne in the talent department to make the argument and Orr was a defensman but a million times better might be overdoing it.

Heck on a pure skill level there are plenty of guys we could start a team with Potvin being the 1st one that comes to mind for me.

For current NHL players Crosby and Datysuk are ones that I would want to build a team around.

 

[tjcurrie]

This is true, but all it does is explain why Gretzky had more team success than Lemieux. In terms of personal numbers, when Gretzky set records of 92 goals (never broken) and 212 points (only passed once by Wayne) in 1981-82, Glenn Anderson was the 2nd best Oiler with 105 points. Paul Coffey was the 3rd best Oiler with 89 points.

Gretzky clearly didn't need help from his teammates to put up points. In fact, he regularly led the NHL in the % of his team's goals that he had personal points on (this is in a thread on this board somewhere but the search function has been nuked). Lemeiux does have the "record" in this stat, but he led the NHL fewer times than Gretzky and really wasn't that far "ahead" when he did have the mark.

If you want to say Gretzky only won Cups with great teammates, you are correct. But the 2 Pens teams Lemieux led to Cups were totally stacked too!

As far as personal stats, I don't believe Gretzky "needed" those guys to set records, but it helped him be as consistently unreal I believe.

 

[BraveCanadian]

If you're talking about starting a team while knowing how their careers will turn out.. it is Gretzky easy simply because of his longevity.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Two mario myths have been debunked many times in gretzky vs. Lemieux threads:

1. Mario's 93 season was on pace to beat 215-- gretzky had a season where he hit 200 but missed a few games that was even higher in ppg than mario in 93.

2. Oilers won w/o gretzky-- after adam graves took mario out of the patrick finals in 92 the penguins kept steamrolling the opposition w/o him.

I rank orr as the GOAT but a persuasive and rational case can be made that gretzky's amazing longevity trumps the small edge in peak that orr has.

But for me, orr played at a level that no one else ever reached and sustained it for years. There is no calculation or hedging for longevity that trumps orr's six year peak.

 

[Breakfast of Champs]

Lemieux has the record for % of teams pts in a season and also has only a microscopically lower pts per game than Gretzky in an era with less goals on a team with less offensive power. (1.88 to 1.92). Its hard to make a case that Lemieux had the better career, but if you could have a player for 1 game completely healthy I'm sure a lot of people would take lemieux over Gretzky

 

[RabbinsDuck]

The only argument you can make is that you value players solely by their absolute peak - the best they ever played - and that's it. Prime, career, playoffs mean nothing - just solely what they did in their best year or two.

Even with that mindset I believe you would still have trouble with Mario over Wayne, but you could definitely have Bobby over Wayne.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Lemieux has the record for % of teams pts in a season and also has only a microscopically lower pts per game than Gretzky in an era with less goals on a team with less offensive power. (1.88 to 1.92). Its hard to make a case that Lemieux had the better career, but if you could have a player for 1 game completely healthy I'm sure a lot of people would take lemieux over Gretzky

For one game only, in perfect health, for all the marbles....Orr without question!


In regards to all four of these guys, there is no wrong choice.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Gretzky
Howe
Orr
Lemieux

Longevity and being able to be counted on game after game, year after year matters. A lot.

The Orr/Lemieux arguments always begin with an "if".

If his knees, if his back, if he didn't get cancer, if he had the surrounding talent ....

They are the 4 best players to ever okay the game, no argument there.

Two of then were able to sustain that excellence for 20 years. Two were not.

This is exactly the order I have them, and I really believe it is a no-brainer.

I can see Howe over Gretzky before I can see Lemieux over Orr.

 

[shazariahl]

Two mario myths have been debunked many times in gretzky vs. Lemieux threads:

1. Mario's 93 season was on pace to beat 215-- gretzky had a season where he hit 200 but missed a few games that was even higher in ppg than mario in 93.

2. Oilers won w/o gretzky-- after adam graves took mario out of the patrick finals in 92 the penguins kept steamrolling the opposition w/o him.

I rank orr as the GOAT but a persuasive and rational case can be made that gretzky's amazing longevity trumps the small edge in peak that orr has.

But for me, orr played at a level that no one else ever reached and sustained it for years. There is no calculation or hedging for longevity that trumps orr's six year peak.

While I agree about Orr's 6 year peak, I think that Gretzky's 6 year peak was comparable. He averaged over 200 pts a year for 6 years. He averaged over 180 for 10 years. Lemieux broke 180 once ever, no one else has come close, and Gretzky AVERAGED that for 10 years (basically the length of Orr's career, if we discard a few injury riddled seasons at the end).

Note: I'm not saying Gretzky's peak was better, but I have a hard time thinking that Gretzky's wasn't at least as good. 9 Hart trophies, 10 Art Ross trophies, he owned an entire decade like no other player ever has. 4 Canada Cups, 4 times leading the tournament in points. 3 golds there, 1 silver, 2 MVPs. Really, I don't think Gretzky could have accomplished more in his career unless he'd stayed in Edmonton and won a few more cups.

Orr's peak was tremendous; its so great I put him above everyone except Gretzky. But Gretzky had a similar peak, with more longevity. Also, while Gretzky wasn't known for his defense, he was better than people give him credit for. He did have 2 Selke nominations (though he got 1 3rd place vote the 1st year, and only 1 2nd place vote the other, so not like he was a serious contender). Still, 2 nominations for someone who put up that many points is hard to ignore.

My only real complaint about Orr, and its a small one, is that aside from the longevity, a lot of his records were actually beaten by Coffey, and those that weren't beaten were seriously challenged. That's not to say Coffey was better - we all know otherwise (or at least we better, lol). That Orr put up even more points while playing great D is staggering, but the fact is if Orr had been a purely defensive Dman, he'd be heralded as great, but no one would have him in the running against Gretzky or Lemieux. Winning 2 scoring titles, setting numerous scoring records for Dmen all while posting a staggering +124 is what catapults him to the top of these lists. The fact is though, Coffey did beat some. Robinson nearly caught Orr's +/- record. All his records have been seriously challenged.

No one has ever managed to really challenge Gretzky's records. You can say Lemieux was on pace to do it, but being on pace isn't the same as doing it. Gretzky has the 4 highest point totals ever recorded, then 6th as well. He's 1st and 2nd for goals in a season. He's 1-7th for assists, and tied with Lemieux for 8th as well. Nearly 100 goals ahead of any other player, more assists than anyone else has points.

 

[canucks4ever]

While I agree about Orr's 6 year peak, I think that Gretzky's 6 year peak was comparable. He averaged over 200 pts a year for 6 years. He averaged over 180 for 10 years. Lemieux broke 180 once ever, no one else has come close, and Gretzky AVERAGED that for 10 years (basically the length of Orr's career, if we discard a few injury riddled seasons at the end).

Note: I'm not saying Gretzky's peak was better, but I have a hard time thinking that Gretzky's wasn't at least as good. 9 Hart trophies, 10 Art Ross trophies, he owned an entire decade like no other player ever has. 4 Canada Cups, 4 times leading the tournament in points. 3 golds there, 1 silver, 2 MVPs. Really, I don't think Gretzky could have accomplished more in his career unless he'd stayed in Edmonton and won a few more cups.

Orr's peak was tremendous; its so great I put him above everyone except Gretzky. But Gretzky had a similar peak, with more longevity. Also, while Gretzky wasn't known for his defense, he was better than people give him credit for. He did have 2 Selke nominations (though he got 1 3rd place vote the 1st year, and only 1 2nd place vote the other, so not like he was a serious contender). Still, 2 nominations for someone who put up that many points is hard to ignore.

My only real complaint about Orr, and its a small one, is that aside from the longevity, a lot of his records were actually beaten by Coffey, and those that weren't beaten were seriously challenged. That's not to say Coffey was better - we all know otherwise (or at least we better, lol). That Orr put up even more points while playing great D is staggering, but the fact is if Orr had been a purely defensive Dman, he'd be heralded as great, but no one would have him in the running against Gretzky or Lemieux. Winning 2 scoring titles, setting numerous scoring records for Dmen all while posting a staggering +124 is what catapults him to the top of these lists. The fact is though, Coffey did beat some. Robinson nearly caught Orr's +/- record. All his records have been seriously challenged.

No one has ever managed to really challenge Gretzky's records. You can say Lemieux was on pace to do it, but being on pace isn't the same as doing it. Gretzky has the 4 highest point totals ever recorded, then 6th as well. He's 1st and 2nd for goals in a season. He's 1-7th for assists, and tied with Lemieux for 8th as well. Nearly 100 goals ahead of any other player, more assists than anyone else has points.

You make some good points, but I need to respond to a few of these.

Paul Coffey put up his numbers in an era where the league averaged 1.5 to 2 more goals per game. Coffey had to play with either gretz or mario to record those numbers. Orr only played with esposito, heck if Orr played with better players like Howe, Mikita, Richard, Beliveau, or Hull, his numbers would have probably been even better, considering that those guys have more independent success than Espo. Heck in 1975-76 season, when espo left orr, mikita produced a better ppg than espo, so what if mikita or hull were the ons playing with orr fom 68-75, it makes logical sense to assume his numbers would have hit over 140.

Larry Robinson put up his plus/minus on arguably the best team ever in the post expansion era, they still would have been great without him. Take Orr off the 71 Bruins and they become mediocre.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

You make some good points, but I need to respond to a few of these.

Paul Coffey put up his numbers in an era where the league averaged 1.5 to 2 more goals per game. Coffey had to play with either gretz or mario to record those numbers. Orr only played with esposito, heck if Orr played with better players like Howe, Mikita, Richard, Beliveau, or Hull, his numbers would have probably been even better, considering that those guys have more independent success than Espo. Heck in 1975-76 season, when espo left orr, mikita produced a better ppg than espo, so what if mikita or hull were the ons playing with orr fom 68-75, it makes logical sense to assume his numbers would have hit over 140.

Larry Robinson put up his plus/minus on arguably the best team ever in the post expansion era, they still would have been great without him. Take Orr off the 71 Bruins and they become mediocre.

The Bruins minus Orr were far from mediocre. They are still an offensive powerhouse without him - something like Top 5 of the Top 10 scorers, even without Orr.

In all honesty, I am shocked the Bruins only won 2 Cups with Orr.

 

[Fish on The Sand]

Lemieux has the record for % of teams pts in a season and also has only a microscopically lower pts per game than Gretzky in an era with less goals on a team with less offensive power. (1.88 to 1.92). Its hard to make a case that Lemieux had the better career, but if you could have a player for 1 game completely healthy I'm sure a lot of people would take lemieux over Gretzky

I would argue that Lemieux's ppg are highly inflated by all the time he missed from 1997-2000, and even when he did return its not like he played in enough games to really say he was doing all his damage in a lower scoring era.