Peak/Prime Lemieux vs. Gretzky - Adjusted

[Capitaine Subban*]

This isn't a full season, but this is playing on the same team -- sometimes on the same line -- with (and against) the best players in the world:




Amazing highlights, aren't they? Gretzky would have tied Lemieux for the tournament scoring title with his assists alone if he had not scored a single goal (of course that didn't happen, and Gretz won the Canada Cup scoring title just as he always did in his prime by scoring some goals). And if you look at the one game where Gretz and Mario played on the same line (game 2 vs Russia), Gretz outscores him 5 points to 3 (all 3 of Lemieux's points were goals assisted by Gretzky).

Gretzky couldnt do that

 

[LeBlondeDemon10]

^^^No he couldn't. He didn't play that way. 66 had some unique gifts as did 99. Comparing them based on one aspect of their skill-sets is really moot.

 

[Plural]

If we were to run a scientific experient. Complete with Time machines, genetic cloning and NHL dictatorship and all that fun stuff. Said expirement would have:

Gretzky and Lemieux at their absolute peak (pick whatever age that is for either).
0 injuries sustained - they play full season at full health
SAME TEAM - SAME Linemate, same opposition, etc
SAME year (so, run the expriement with Gretzky, use time machine and swap him for Lemieux and redo)

With everything else constant. I would expect Mario Lemieux to outscore (points, not just goals) Gretzky. I'm fairly confident too that a lot of the posters on this thread who are arguing Gretzky > Lemieux would also pick Lemieux above Gretzky. But it's close.


If you look at actual facts though - peak, prime, career - Gretzky is ahead of Lemieux in every category. Not by a lot, but definately ahead. And it's a testament both to Lemieux's bad luck (injuries, etc), but also to Gretzky's abilitiy to overcome the odds and compete and be the best no matter what, so more power to him.

It speaks volumes about the difference between Gretzky and Lemieux when you have to create a scenario that has many pre-set conditions. Heck, you have to chance the laws of physics in order to make a case for Lemieux > Gretzky.

In my opinion, that example above does not prove Lemieux to be better than Gretzky. On the contrary, it makes Gretzky even more dominant. The amount of jumps people are willing to make in order to pump up Lemieux is something that is not done to any other player in the history of this game. I mean this in the warmest and nicest way. You are not the only one to do so and not the last one. But you all are wrong.

 

[tazzy19]

Gretzky couldnt do that

Of course he couldn't. I don't really understand the point? Gretzky didn't have to beat guys that way. He knew what the opposition was going to do before they knew what they were going to do. You'd think he was about to shoot - but then he'd pause for an instant, and you'd think he was making a pass….only to shoot anyway. Or he'd do the opposite. You just never knew. He'd change his mind in the middle of making a brilliant play only to make an even more brilliant play. He was the only guy I'd ever seen who could change his mind in the middle of execution…and have it come off like it was the plan all along. His brain just processed the information that quickly. Faster than a computer. Like the matrix. Booom.

 

[Copmuter*]

It speaks volumes about the difference between Gretzky and Lemieux when you have to create a scenario that has many pre-set conditions. Heck, you have to chance the laws of physics in order to make a case for Lemieux > Gretzky.

In my opinion, that example above does not prove Lemieux to be better than Gretzky. On the contrary, it makes Gretzky even more dominant. The amount of jumps people are willing to make in order to pump up Lemieux is something that is not done to any other player in the history of this game. I mean this in the warmest and nicest way. You are not the only one to do so and not the last one. But you all are wrong.

That was just his way of saying --- ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL --- he believes Lemieux would outproduce Gretzky

I happen to agree

 

[Plural]

That was just his way of saying --- ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL --- he believes Lemieux would outproduce Gretzky

I happen to agree

I know that's what he is saying. And I disagree with the idea that it somehow makes Lemieux look better.

One thing to be noted, when talking about ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, it's always Lemieux who gets the adjustment. Never Gretzky. Can you tell me if there is another player in the history of this sport who gets so much adjustment? I don't mean this as an aggressive way. But just wan't to point out the ridiculousness of the lengths people go to find ways to put Lemieux on par with Gretzky.

For brief periods of time Lemieux probably was about as good as Gretzky was at his best. But he never was that good for extended period of time. I find it funny that creating an impossible scenario with multiple pre-set conditions somehow "proves" Lemieux was as good/better than Gretzky. If it would be done to any other player in hockey people would be all over on how stupid that is.

 

[Irato99]

Gretzky couldnt do that

Lemieux couldn't do that

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

all things being equal, asking mario to be healthy is like asking gretzky to have a 6'4 wingspan.

 

[tazzy19]

That was just his way of saying --- ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL --- he believes Lemieux would outproduce Gretzky

I happen to agree

Ok, if we are going to give Mario the "what ifs" then let's do the same for Gretzky: let's start with no back injuries to get the ball rolling, and see where things end up. I'll see you on the other side of those 1000 goals and 3300 points, and we can discuss it then

 

[bobholly39]

If we were to run a scientific experient. Complete with Time machines, genetic cloning and NHL dictatorship and all that fun stuff. Said expirement would have:

Gretzky and Lemieux at their absolute peak (pick whatever age that is for either).
0 injuries sustained - they play full season at full health
SAME TEAM - SAME Linemate, same opposition, etc
SAME year (so, run the expriement with Gretzky, use time machine and swap him for Lemieux and redo)

With everything else constant. I would expect Mario Lemieux to outscore (points, not just goals) Gretzky. I'm fairly confident too that a lot of the posters on this thread who are arguing Gretzky > Lemieux would also pick Lemieux above Gretzky. But it's close.


If you look at actual facts though - peak, prime, career - Gretzky is ahead of Lemieux in every category. Not by a lot, but definately ahead. And it's a testament both to Lemieux's bad luck (injuries, etc), but also to Gretzky's abilitiy to overcome the odds and compete and be the best no matter what, so more power to him.

So i'm going to look extremely stupid doing this. But i'm here quoting my own post, and i'm going to disagree with myself :/

With everything else constant, i don't think Lemieux *would* certainly outscore Gretzky and that everyone would agree with me like i first posted.

I will say however that Lemieux *might* outscore Gretzky - and I think everyone will agree with THAT. Agree that it's a toss up, they're close enough that either/or might end up on top.

Can you say that about anyone else in the history of hockey? All other things being equal, Lemieux is the only one who can give Gretzky a run for his money, and very possible outproduce him.

I think that's a much more sensible statement. Does anyone dare disagree with this?

 

[Thenameless]

That was just his way of saying --- ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL --- he believes Lemieux would outproduce Gretzky

I happen to agree

So do I.

 

[bobholly39]

I know that's what he is saying. And I disagree with the idea that it somehow makes Lemieux look better.

One thing to be noted, when talking about ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, it's always Lemieux who gets the adjustment. Never Gretzky. Can you tell me if there is another player in the history of this sport who gets so much adjustment? I don't mean this as an aggressive way. But just wan't to point out the ridiculousness of the lengths people go to find ways to put Lemieux on par with Gretzky.

For brief periods of time Lemieux probably was about as good as Gretzky was at his best. But he never was that good for extended period of time. I find it funny that creating an impossible scenario with multiple pre-set conditions somehow "proves" Lemieux was as good/better than Gretzky. If it would be done to any other player in hockey people would be all over on how stupid that is.

This wasn't meant to make Lemieux look good/better/or worst.

Lemieux at his best matched Gretzky, or close enough, didn't he?

And Lemieux at his best, had his career considerably shortened. And despite injuries and many returns, he seemed to want/be able to continue at the same pace as his career advanced, so it's certainly plausible to speculate that without injuries he could have done that much more.

I think it's fun to try and speculate just how good Lemieux could have been. It's not meant to try to make Gretzky look bad - I think Gretzky fans are too defensive in that regard. I don't think it's possible to make Gretzky look bad.

If the roles were reversed and Gretzky somehow missed 50% of games between 82-86 and then ended up retiring early - I would think we'd be having this exact same argument about Gretzky.

 

[tazzy19]

So do I.

Based on what? Lemieux would have to score at a HIGHER PPG average over a larger number games (which almost never happens). It's extremely difficult to even maintain a high PPG average over more games played, forget about increasing it. Lemieux's best PPG average was when he scored 160 points in 60 games. How many points did Gretzky score in his best 60 games (from the start of a season)? 175 points in 1983-84. How can you say Lemieux would beat Gretzky's totals if Gretzky's has two seasons with a better PPG average than Lemieux's best season?

 

[Fred Taylor]

Based on what? Lemieux would have to score at a HIGHER PPG average over a larger number games (which almost never happens). It's extremely difficult to even maintain a high PPG average over more games played, forget about increasing it. Lemieux's best PPG average was when he scored 160 points in 60 games. How many points did Gretzky score in his best 60 games (from the start of a season)? 175 points in 1983-84. How can you say Lemieux would beat Gretzky's totals if Gretzky's has two seasons with a better PPG average than Lemieux's best season?

Lemieux's two best adjusted points per game averages are slightly higher than Gretzky's, so it's not that outlandish of an opinion to have.

I think if you give them both full health, start them both at the same time period, and give them the same length of career, and equal linemates, you would see Lemieux top Gretzky by about 200 goals, but Gretzky on the other hand would top Lemieux by about 400 assists. Then if one places greater value on goals than assists (I don't, btw) you could argue Lemieux being his equal or perhaps even his superior.

 

[Copmuter*]

Ok, if we are going to give Mario the "what ifs" then let's do the same for Gretzky: let's start with no back injuries to get the ball rolling, and see where things end up. I'll see you on the other side of those 1000 goals and 3300 points, and we can discuss it then

That's career stuff right there...

This thread is about peak/prime

 

[shazariahl]

Lemieux's two best adjusted points per game averages are slightly higher than Gretzky's, so it's not that outlandish of an opinion to have.

I think if you give them both full health, start them both at the same time period, and give them the same length of career, and equal linemates, you would see Lemieux top Gretzky by about 200 goals, but Gretzky on the other hand would top Lemieux by about 400 assists. Then if one places greater value on goals than assists (I don't, btw) you could argue Lemieux being his equal or perhaps even his superior.

The biggest problem with that is Lemieux was never healthy for a full season. Ever. I'm not just talking about cancer and back injuries, I'm talking about the fact he played 17 seasons in the NHL and never once completed a full schedule. He was always missing games here and there with different things and that's not even including the major stuff (which was major - I'm not trying to make light of it at all).

OTOH, Gretzky played through that stuff. He played when he was sick, or banged up. He didn't sit out the 2nd of back to back games or decide not to go on long road trips like Lemieux did some seasons. During his 6 year prime, he missed 6 games total - all from the same shoulder injury. Despite only playing 3 seasons less than Gretzky, Lemieux played 7 seasons worth of hockey less because he missed so much time when he was playing.

Going by adjusted stats, which aren't really 100% accurate to begin with and tend to penalize 1st line players during the 80's, plus pro-rating everything to same number of games is kind of ridiculous. The fact is Lemieux didn't play those games. He wasn't on the ice helping his team win those games. Gretzky was. Asking us to imagine a Lemieux that was never hurt and 100% healthy (or nearly so) is asking us to imagine a player that never existed. You may as well ask us how many points Gretzky would have scored if he'd been 6'5" tall.

 

[shazariahl]

That's career stuff right there...

This thread is about peak/prime

In their primes, Gretzky played more games, scored more goals, more assists, more points, won more championships, Art Ross trophies, and Harts. He had better GPG, APG, and PPG averages. By every conceivable measurement, Gretzky was better.

But I'm sure Lemieux could probably out eat him.

 

[Cawz]

Lemieux's two best adjusted points per game averages are slightly higher than Gretzky's, so it's not that outlandish of an opinion to have.

I think if you give them both full health, start them both at the same time period, and give them the same length of career, and equal linemates, you would see Lemieux top Gretzky by about 200 goals, but Gretzky on the other hand would top Lemieux by about 400 assists. Then if one places greater value on goals than assists (I don't, btw) you could argue Lemieux being his equal or perhaps even his superior.

Remember that Gretzky's totals would increase if you gave him full health as well.

Gretzky scored 92 goals and 212 points while his next 3 highest teammates scored 105, 89 and 88 points.

Lemieux scored 85 goals and 199 points while his next 3 highest teammates scored 115, 113 and 94 points.

Can we give Gretzky better linemates that season as well?

 

[The Panther]

This "adjusted stats" thing is really a crock of s***. It's marginally useful for broad comparisons of players from the 20s and the 50s to today, but trying to justify its use to make a peak-1993 player look better than a peak-1985 player is ludicrous.

Let's all remind ourselves -- ADJUSTED STATS ARE NOT REAL STATS.


Finally, I think we can all agree that Wayne had better hair. I mean, he went through three of four major styles in the 80s alone.

 

[tazzy19]

That's career stuff right there...

This thread is about peak/prime

Ok, then let's talk peak year then. It's hard to pick Gretzky's best peak year, but let's pick 1983-84, when he scored 153 points over a record 51 straight games during his scoring streak. That's exactly 3 points per game, which blows Lemieux's 160 points over 60 games out of the water. Now what exactly would have happened if Gretzky hadn't hurt his shoulder and sat out for 6 games after game 52? He had been on pace for 240 points over 80 games…..which obviously destroys any of Lemieux's "on pace" seasons. Again, if you give Lemieux the "what ifs", you have to do the same for Gretzky. This is just one example. There are countless others. If we go down this road, just be prepared - as Gretzky's make believe seasons are even better than Mario's make believe seasons - just as they are in real life.

 

[BraveCanadian]

That's career stuff right there...

This thread is about peak/prime

You have to give Lemieux the benefit of the doubt by prorating or blindly adjusting (especially the outlier '93 season) or both if you want him to compete at peak too.

 

[Uncle Rotter]

Let's all remind ourselves -- ADJUSTED STATS ARE NOT REAL STATS.

Amen to that.

 

[Plural]

This wasn't meant to make Lemieux look good/better/or worst.

Lemieux at his best matched Gretzky, or close enough, didn't he?

And Lemieux at his best, had his career considerably shortened. And despite injuries and many returns, he seemed to want/be able to continue at the same pace as his career advanced, so it's certainly plausible to speculate that without injuries he could have done that much more.

I think it's fun to try and speculate just how good Lemieux could have been. It's not meant to try to make Gretzky look bad - I think Gretzky fans are too defensive in that regard. I don't think it's possible to make Gretzky look bad.

If the roles were reversed and Gretzky somehow missed 50% of games between 82-86 and then ended up retiring early - I would think we'd be having this exact same argument about Gretzky.

Yeah, you have a point. It is fun to think about different scenarios and there is nothing wrong with that. I was being bit too aggressive. Sorry for that.

I just don't find a lot of merit in a comparison where we need to fix a large number of conditions in advance. Mainly cause it creates so much variables that the outcome becomes nothing more than a crap shoot.

The idea you have that Lemieux might have outscored, or at least matched Gretzky had he had the same opportunities is not likely. We saw both guys going for the insane numbers without much support from team- mates. We know that Gretzky can score 210+ points without the hall of fame cast around him. (Well those guys were around, but they were not hall of famers at that point). We saw that Lemieux could make a run for 200+ points with little help.

The thing with Mario is, that he was wildly inconsistent. I know it doesn't seem that way, since he was so far ahead of his competition. But his offensive consistency was lacking. So, in order for us to think that Lemieux might have outscored Gretzky, we would have to not only give Lemieux perfect health. We would have to assume that he picks up his scoring pace from the partial seasons he had. Which is really, really stretching it.

Let's compare the what "what really happened" and try to find out what would need to happen for Lemieux to outscore Gretzky in his prime.

Gretzky's prime started at his 2nd season in the league. It lasted until his 11th season. This is strictly based on PPG. In order for Lemieux to tie/edge Gretzky in his prime, Lemieux will need as long prime as Gretzky had. I will include Lemieux and Gretzky in their first 9 seasons and their first 11 seasons in the league. Mario did not play a single game in the 94-95 season so his first 11 seasons he was one year older in the last season. That is also the reason for a cutoff like that. Also, to be noted is that this include's Lemieux's season where he sat out back-to-back games.

Name|Games|Goals|Assists|Points|G/G|A/G|P/G
Lemieux first 9|562|451|660|1111|.86|1.25|2.11
Gretzky first 9|695|586|1114|1700|.84|1.60|2.45
Lemieux first 11|672|570|824|1394|.85|1.23|2.07
Gretzky first 11|846|667|1338|2005|.79|1.58|2.37

Now, I know and everyone else knows that the difference on scoring levels was starting to show at the tail-end of Lemieux prime. So, those numbers need context. But I am just doing this purely on statistical standpoint so that we could get a grip on the actual difference there was between these two.

These calculations are based on 80 games/season.
From purely statistical standpoint. Difference on 9 first seasons:
-Gretzky averaged 65 more points per season
-Gretzky averaged 15 more games per season
-Gretzky had .34 edge on PPG

If we give Lemieux perfect health, he would then play all the possible games:

Healthy Lemieux first 9|720|619|900|1519

This magically healthy Lemieux is still 181 points behind prime Gretzky. More than 20 points/season.
So, in order for Lemieux to tie Gretzky in scoring he would need to up his per season production by 20. That is an awful big assumption, especially after we gave Lemieux perfect health.

Difference on 11 first seasons:
-Gretzky averaged 55 more points per season
-Gretzky averaged 16 more games per season
-Gretzky had .3 edge on PPG

Again:

Healthy Lemieux first 11|880|742|1082|1821

This magically healthy Lemieux is still 184 points behind prime Gretzky. Almost the exact same difference we saw in the first 9.

Now, the scoring levels wen't down for Lemieux. So, even if you stated yourself that you don't believe in context in that matter I do. The difference is probably not that big. But one main thing here is, that we don't assume Gretzky stays perfectly healthy. Give #99 the same benefit of a doubt and this is what happens:

Name|Games|Goals|Assists|Points
Healthy Lemieux first 9|720|619|900|1519
Healthy Gretzky first 9|720|605|1152|1764
Healthy Lemieux first 11|880|742|1082|1821
Healthy Gretzky first 11|880|695|1390|2085

So, healthy Gretzky is 250 points ahead of healthy Lemieux. Now, I would like to see where those 250 points are coming from. Some of them will come for the league wide scoring levels. But I have hard time believing the difference would be that big.

This is all done in a way that heavily favors Lemieux and penalizes Gretzky. Sorry, but in my mind there is no such parallel universe where Lemieux would be considered as good as Gretzky. For short period of time, sure. But not for prime nor career.

 

[Copmuter*]

In their primes, Gretzky played more games, scored more goals, more assists, more points, won more championships, Art Ross trophies, and Harts. He had better GPG, APG, and PPG averages. By every conceivable measurement, Gretzky was better.

But I'm sure Lemieux could probably out eat him.

During Gretzky's prime, goaltenders still had their pads stuffed with horsehair

 

[Sprague Cleghorn]

During Gretzky's prime, goaltenders still had their pads stuffed with horsehair

So was Lemieux's?