Peak/Prime Lemieux vs. Gretzky - Adjusted

[Morgoth Bauglir]

So was Lemieux's?

Yeah, I was going to say: For the first 7-8 years of his career Lemieux was facing goaltenders in those same horsehair stuffed pads

 

[shazariahl]

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

So was Lemieux's?

Yeah, I was going to say: For the first 7-8 years of his career Lemieux was facing goaltenders in those same horsehair stuffed pads

Ya, I always wonder about those kinds of arguments. Some people act like Gretzky was playing in the 30's or something; him and Lemieux overlapped for most of their careers. They faced the same goalies, in the same era, in the same gear. I know Lemieux was bigger and stronger and looks way cooler on youtube, but Gretzky simply had more heart, a better work ethic, and was far better at bringing out the best in his teammates and making them better.

I'm sure in a game of 1 on 1, Lemieux would probably be the better player. But hockey isn't a game of 1 on 1, and Gretzky was far better at everything that actually mattered. Including staying healthy.

 

[The Panther]

Some people act like Gretzky was playing in the 30's or something

I've noticed this, too. Get some perspective, people!

Players who played with/against Gretzky before or during his final scoring title (1993-94 or earlier) include:
Dominik Hasek
Jaromir Jagr
Mats Sundin
Martin Brodeur
Nik Lidstrom
Teemu Selanne
Chris Pronger

So, yeah, those guys all played before color TV was invented.

Hell, Ovechkin was only drafted 5 years after Gretzky retired.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Ya, I always wonder about those kinds of arguments. Some people act like Gretzky was playing in the 30's or something; him and Lemieux overlapped for most of their careers. They faced the same goalies, in the same era, in the same gear. I know Lemieux was bigger and stronger and looks way cooler on youtube, but Gretzky simply had more heart, a better work ethic, and was far better at bringing out the best in his teammates and making them better.

I'm sure in a game of 1 on 1, Lemieux would probably be the better player. But hockey isn't a game of 1 on 1, and Gretzky was far better at everything that actually mattered. Including staying healthy.

I agree with our overall point, but you really do yourself a disservice by saying Gretzky was "far better" at everything that matter. I think Gretzky was decisively better, but at his best, Mario was definitely close. Okay, Gretzky was far better at staying healthy, but that isn't everything.

 

[Pegi90*]

I agree with our overall point, but you really do yourself a disservice by saying Gretzky was "far better" at everything that matter. I think Gretzky was decisively better, but at his best, Mario was definitely close. Okay, Gretzky was far better at staying healthy, but that isn't everything.

gretzky's style of play fitted better on the 80s and early 90s compared to mario but if it was late 90s, 00s or 2010-2014, im pretty confident that mario would have outscored gretzky.

 

[bobholly39]

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.

I really enjoy looking at stats so thank you for taking the time to post all of that.

There is one pretty huge "intangible" i believe you might be overlooking. Mario Lemieux *was* injured. A lot, and often.

Did this slow him down? Because of all the injuries he sustained and all the time missed, was Mario ever truly at 100% in his prime, and for long periods of time?

I've often heard people talk down about Mario's season where he used to skip every game 2 of a double header. Well, sure, you can maybe make the argument that "look Mario had the easier schedule". But I think on the flip side you can make the argument that - there's no way Lemieux was healthy in those years, and it's what made him have to miss so much time, and *despite* not being 100% healthy he managed crazy impressive numbers.

To come back to your statistics. Adjusting for point totals, you have Lemieux roughly 200 points behind Gretzky over a 9-11 year period. But - had Mario been full health during those years isn't it plausible to believe his PPG total might have gone up? Do you really think 200 points over 10 years for Lemieux is not reachable?

During his best years, Lemieux did match Gretzky (no one else in history ever came CLOSE). I agree, you have to cherry pick only 2-3 seasons of Lemieux against maybe 6-8 of Gretzky's to have Lemieux match Gretzky. So there's no question that Gretzky managed to sustain a higher pace for a longer period, but isn't there room for speculating that Lemieux being injured actually hurt his numbers when he *did* play?

Finally - I do agree that whenever we make these comparisons or hypotheticals, it sounds like Gretzky gets the shaft. Because, even though Gretzky played a full career, he did have injuries too and given even better circumstances he might have produced even more than he did. So if you adjust for Lemieux, you probably have to adjust for Gretzky too - but the adjustement for Mario would probably be quite a bit bigger

 

[shazariahl]

I agree with our overall point, but you really do yourself a disservice by saying Gretzky was "far better" at everything that matter. I think Gretzky was decisively better, but at his best, Mario was definitely close. Okay, Gretzky was far better at staying healthy, but that isn't everything.

Ok, "far better" at everything was not literally what I meant. But my point was that Gretzky was better at making everyone around him better. And considering Lemieux's best season for assists is tied with Gretzky's 8th best season, I think "far better" is a valid choice of words for the point I was making. People can't even use the team excuse, because Gretzky had seasons with the Kings where he had more assists than Lemieux ever had.

Gretzky took the Kings from 4th worst to 4th best in 1 season; despite gaudy personal stats Lemieux's Pens continually missed the playoffs (5 of his first 6 seasons). Lemieux simply didn't elevate people the way Gretzky did, and in a team sport that's one of the most important characteristics a player can display.

And, as we both agree, he was far better at staying healthy.

 

[Copmuter*]

Ok, "far better" at everything was not literally what I meant. But my point was that Gretzky was better at making everyone around him better. And considering Lemieux's best season for assists is tied with Gretzky's 8th best season, I think "far better" is a valid choice of words for the point I was making. People can't even use the team excuse, because Gretzky had seasons with the Kings where he had more assists than Lemieux ever had.

Gretzky took the Kings from 4th worst to 4th best in 1 season; despite gaudy personal stats Lemieux's Pens continually missed the playoffs (5 of his first 6 seasons). Lemieux simply didn't elevate people the way Gretzky did, and in a team sport that's one of the most important characteristics a player can display.

And, as we both agree, he was far better at staying healthy.

Team accomplishments have no place in this discussion...


EDIT: In '89, Lemieux tied Gretzky for the league lead in assists with 114, despite playing in 2 less games

Rob Brown was 2nd on the Penguins in scoring that year with 49 goals/115 points in 68 games

Second on the Kings in scoring that year was Bernie Nichols with 150 points

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Team accomplishments have no place in this discussion...

He wasn't simply listing team accomplishments, he was talking about the ability of a player to elevate his teammates. Feel free to disagree with his point, but it certainly has a place in this discussion and should not simply be dismissed as "team accomplishments"

Edit: Rob Brown seems like a good counter-example to the opinion that "Gretzky made his teammates better more than Lemieux did."

 

[Cawz]

Ya, I always wonder about those kinds of arguments. Some people act like Gretzky was playing in the 30's or something; him and Lemieux overlapped for most of their careers.

To put things in perspective, the start of their careers are the same as Crosby and Hall.

 

[blogofmike]

Gretzky was far better at scoring at even strength.

Year | Team | Player | GP | ESG | ESA | ESP | ESG/G | ESA/G | ESPPG
'81-'82 | EDM | Gretzky | 80 | 68 | 79 | 147 | 0.85 | 0.99 | 1.84
'84-'85 | EDM | Gretzky | 80 | 54 | 92 | 146 | 0.68 | 1.15 | 1.83
'85-'86 | EDM | Gretzky | 80 | 38 | 105 | 143 | 0.48 | 1.31 | 1.79
'83-'84 | EDM | Gretzky | 74 | 55 | 80 | 135 | 0.74 | 1.08 | 1.82
'82-'83 | EDM | Gretzky | 80 | 47 | 85 | 132 | 0.59 | 1.06 | 1.65
'86-'87 | EDM | Gretzky | 79 | 42 | 82 | 124 | 0.53 | 1.04 | 1.57
'80-'81 | EDM | Gretzky | 80 | 36 | 68 | 104 | 0.45 | 0.85 | 1.30
'90-'91 | LA | Gretzky | 78 | 33 | 70 | 103 | 0.42 | 0.90 | 1.32
'88-'89 | PIT | Lemieux | 76 | 41 | 61 | 102 | 0.54 | 0.80 | 1.34
'88-'89 | LA | Gretzky | 78 | 38 | 62 | 100 | 0.49 | 0.79 | 1.28
'79-'80 | EDM | Gretzky | 79 | 37 | 63 | 100 | 0.47 | 0.80 | 1.27
'92-'93 | PIT | Lemieux | 60 | 47 | 49 | 96 | 0.78 | 0.82 | 1.60
'89-'90 | LA | Gretzky | 73 | 26 | 70 | 96 | 0.36 | 0.96 | 1.32
'87-'88 | EDM | Gretzky | 64 | 26 | 65 | 91 | 0.41 | 1.02 | 1.42
'96-'97 | PIT | Lemieux | 76 | 32 | 47 | 79 | 0.42 | 0.62 | 1.04
'85-'86 | PIT | Lemieux | 79 | 31 | 44 | 75 | 0.39 | 0.56 | 0.95
'91-'92 | PIT | Lemieux | 64 | 28 | 46 | 74 | 0.44 | 0.72 | 1.16
'87-'88 | PIT | Lemieux | 77 | 38 | 36 | 74 | 0.49 | 0.47 | 0.96
'95-'96 | PIT | Lemieux | 70 | 30 | 43 | 73 | 0.43 | 0.61 | 1.04
'89-'90 | PIT | Lemieux | 59 | 28 | 43 | 71 | 0.47 | 0.73 | 1.20
'86-'87 | PIT | Lemieux | 63 | 35 | 34 | 69 | 0.56 | 0.54 | 1.10
'84-'85 | PIT | Lemieux | 73 | 32 | 35 | 67 | 0.44 | 0.48 | 0.92
'96-'97 | NYR | Gretzky | 82 | 19 | 46 | 65 | 0.23 | 0.56 | 0.79
'91-'92 | LA | Gretzky | 74 | 17 | 46 | 63 | 0.23 | 0.62 | 0.85
'93-'94 | LA | Gretzky | 81 | 20 | 42 | 62 | 0.25 | 0.52 | 0.77
'97-'98 | NYR | Gretzky | 82 | 17 | 43 | 60 | 0.21 | 0.52 | 0.73
'02-'03 | PIT | Lemieux | 67 | 14 | 32 | 46 | 0.21 | 0.48 | 0.69
'95-'96 | LA | Gretzky | 62 | 10 | 34 | 44 | 0.16 | 0.55 | 0.71
'00-'01 | PIT | Lemieux | 43 | 18 | 25 | 43 | 0.42 | 0.58 | 1.00
'92-'93 | LA | Gretzky | 45 | 14 | 24 | 38 | 0.31 | 0.53 | 0.84
'98-'99 | NYR | Gretzky | 70 | 6 | 26 | 32 | 0.09 | 0.37 | 0.46
'90-'91 | PIT | Lemieux | 26 | 12 | 19 | 31 | 0.46 | 0.73 | 1.19
'94-'95 | LA | Gretzky | 48 | 8 | 15 | 23 | 0.17 | 0.31 | 0.48
'93-'94 | PIT | Lemieux | 22 | 10 | 12 | 22 | 0.45 | 0.55 | 1.00
'01-'02 | PIT | Lemieux | 24 | 4 | 13 | 17 | 0.17 | 0.54 | 0.71
'95-'96 | STL | Gretzky | 18 | 6 | 4 | 10 | 0.33 | 0.22 | 0.56
'05-'06 | PIT | Lemieux | 26 | 4 | 3 | 7 | 0.15 | 0.12 | 0.27
'03-'04 | PIT | Lemieux | 10 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 0.10 | 0.40 | 0.50

Lemieux was far better at playing for a team that had a historic number of PPO in historic PPO seasons (87-88, 88-89, 92-93, 95-96).

Rk | Season | PPO
1 | 2005-06 | 5.85
2 | 1987-88 | 5.46
3 | 1992-93 | 5.28
4 | 1995-96 | 5.04
5 | 1988-89 | 5.04

 

[shazariahl]

Team accomplishments have no place in this discussion...


EDIT: In '89, Lemieux tied Gretzky for the league lead in assists with 114, despite playing in 2 less games

Rob Brown was 2nd on the Penguins in scoring that year with 49 goals/115 points in 68 games

Yes, that was Lemieux's best season, that I referenced. It was the only time he ever broke the 100 assist mark. He tied Gretzky, who at that point was playing on the Kings. Gretzky had 120 assists with the Kings another year, which beats Lemieux's best. Gretzky had 3 consecutive 100+ assist seasons with the Kings. Lemieux had 1 in his entire career. That's not even including all his incredible seasons with the Oilers, that most would agree was his peak. So a past-peak Gretzky in his Kings years was a better playmaker than Lemieux was in his best seasons.

Lemieux at his best was close to Gretzky overall, but was less consistent, less healthy, and IMO just seemed to have less passion for the game. Talent + hard work is better than just talent.

 

[Killion]

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

Yeah, I was going to say: For the first 7-8 years of his career Lemieux was facing goaltenders in those same horsehair stuffed pads

... so what? What does that have to do with the price of anything? Gretzky breaks in during Pure Stand~Up, Lemieux on the verge of Butterfly & full~cycle game. Dont feel sorry for us Goalies. You skaters are the Losers. We'll beat you either way. Absolutely nothing, zero wrong with Cooper GP 59's or Keneskys', light weight synthetics and full knee & toe caps. Shooters a shooter. Our J.O.B. is to stop you. Merely reacting to how the games Coached & played in front of us. Problem?... old saying in the Goaltender Union--- your all suckers on the mid-way. Carnyland. Take your best shot Punk. Ha?... gimme... lets see what ya got... and thats damn straight.

 

[Fred Taylor]

Gretzky was far better at scoring at even strength.

Year | Team | Player | GP | ESG | ESA | ESP | ESG/G | ESA/G | ESPPG
'81-'82 | EDM | Gretzky | 80 | 68 | 79 | 147 | 0.85 | 0.99 | 1.84
'84-'85 | EDM | Gretzky | 80 | 54 | 92 | 146 | 0.68 | 1.15 | 1.83
'85-'86 | EDM | Gretzky | 80 | 38 | 105 | 143 | 0.48 | 1.31 | 1.79
'83-'84 | EDM | Gretzky | 74 | 55 | 80 | 135 | 0.74 | 1.08 | 1.82
'82-'83 | EDM | Gretzky | 80 | 47 | 85 | 132 | 0.59 | 1.06 | 1.65
'86-'87 | EDM | Gretzky | 79 | 42 | 82 | 124 | 0.53 | 1.04 | 1.57
'80-'81 | EDM | Gretzky | 80 | 36 | 68 | 104 | 0.45 | 0.85 | 1.30
'90-'91 | LA | Gretzky | 78 | 33 | 70 | 103 | 0.42 | 0.90 | 1.32
'88-'89 | PIT | Lemieux | 76 | 41 | 61 | 102 | 0.54 | 0.80 | 1.34
'88-'89 | LA | Gretzky | 78 | 38 | 62 | 100 | 0.49 | 0.79 | 1.28
'79-'80 | EDM | Gretzky | 79 | 37 | 63 | 100 | 0.47 | 0.80 | 1.27
'92-'93 | PIT | Lemieux | 60 | 47 | 49 | 96 | 0.78 | 0.82 | 1.60
'89-'90 | LA | Gretzky | 73 | 26 | 70 | 96 | 0.36 | 0.96 | 1.32
'87-'88 | EDM | Gretzky | 64 | 26 | 65 | 91 | 0.41 | 1.02 | 1.42
'96-'97 | PIT | Lemieux | 76 | 32 | 47 | 79 | 0.42 | 0.62 | 1.04
'85-'86 | PIT | Lemieux | 79 | 31 | 44 | 75 | 0.39 | 0.56 | 0.95
'91-'92 | PIT | Lemieux | 64 | 28 | 46 | 74 | 0.44 | 0.72 | 1.16
'87-'88 | PIT | Lemieux | 77 | 38 | 36 | 74 | 0.49 | 0.47 | 0.96
'95-'96 | PIT | Lemieux | 70 | 30 | 43 | 73 | 0.43 | 0.61 | 1.04
'89-'90 | PIT | Lemieux | 59 | 28 | 43 | 71 | 0.47 | 0.73 | 1.20
'86-'87 | PIT | Lemieux | 63 | 35 | 34 | 69 | 0.56 | 0.54 | 1.10
'84-'85 | PIT | Lemieux | 73 | 32 | 35 | 67 | 0.44 | 0.48 | 0.92
'96-'97 | NYR | Gretzky | 82 | 19 | 46 | 65 | 0.23 | 0.56 | 0.79
'91-'92 | LA | Gretzky | 74 | 17 | 46 | 63 | 0.23 | 0.62 | 0.85
'93-'94 | LA | Gretzky | 81 | 20 | 42 | 62 | 0.25 | 0.52 | 0.77
'97-'98 | NYR | Gretzky | 82 | 17 | 43 | 60 | 0.21 | 0.52 | 0.73
'02-'03 | PIT | Lemieux | 67 | 14 | 32 | 46 | 0.21 | 0.48 | 0.69
'95-'96 | LA | Gretzky | 62 | 10 | 34 | 44 | 0.16 | 0.55 | 0.71
'00-'01 | PIT | Lemieux | 43 | 18 | 25 | 43 | 0.42 | 0.58 | 1.00
'92-'93 | LA | Gretzky | 45 | 14 | 24 | 38 | 0.31 | 0.53 | 0.84
'98-'99 | NYR | Gretzky | 70 | 6 | 26 | 32 | 0.09 | 0.37 | 0.46
'90-'91 | PIT | Lemieux | 26 | 12 | 19 | 31 | 0.46 | 0.73 | 1.19
'94-'95 | LA | Gretzky | 48 | 8 | 15 | 23 | 0.17 | 0.31 | 0.48
'93-'94 | PIT | Lemieux | 22 | 10 | 12 | 22 | 0.45 | 0.55 | 1.00
'01-'02 | PIT | Lemieux | 24 | 4 | 13 | 17 | 0.17 | 0.54 | 0.71
'95-'96 | STL | Gretzky | 18 | 6 | 4 | 10 | 0.33 | 0.22 | 0.56
'05-'06 | PIT | Lemieux | 26 | 4 | 3 | 7 | 0.15 | 0.12 | 0.27
'03-'04 | PIT | Lemieux | 10 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 0.10 | 0.40 | 0.50

Lemieux was far better at playing for a team that had a historic number of PPO in historic PPO seasons (87-88, 88-89, 92-93, 95-96).

Rk | Season | PPO
1 | 2005-06 | 5.85
2 | 1987-88 | 5.46
3 | 1992-93 | 5.28
4 | 1995-96 | 5.04
5 | 1988-89 | 5.04

Yikes, that really puts things in perspective doesn't it. Is it possible though that the reason Pittsburgh had so many powerplays during Lemieux's prime years was because Lemieux himself was responsible for drawing a lot of penalties, and then making teams pay for it?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Yikes, that really puts things in perspective doesn't it. Is it possible though that the reason Pittsburgh had so many powerplays during Lemieux's prime years was because Lemieux himself was responsible for drawing a lot of penalties, and then making teams pay for it?

I think that's part of the reason, yes. Gretzky avoided contact; Mario played through it, which resulted in getting fouled.

I would guess that the referee's reluctance to give powerplays to the team in the lead probably resulted in Edmonton receiving fewer PPs than normal, too.

 

[Copmuter*]

Before the rule change, how many of Gretzky's even strength goals were scored during 4 on 4?

 

[Uncle Rotter]

Before the rule change, how many of Gretzky's even strength goals were scored during 4 on 4?

Not quite the same as a power play, is it?

 

[Uncle Rotter]

Yikes, that really puts things in perspective doesn't it. Is it possible though that the reason Pittsburgh had so many powerplays during Lemieux's prime years was because Lemieux himself was responsible for drawing a lot of penalties, and then making teams pay for it?

Not really, it was league wide.
League average per team per game:

79-80 3.5
80-81 4.3
81-82 4.0
82-83 3.9
83-84 4.2
84-85 4.0
85-86 4.6
86-87 4.3
87-88 5.5
88-89 5.0
89-90 4.6
90-91 4.6
91-92 5.0
92-93 5.3

 

[Hot Water Bottle]

Yikes, that really puts things in perspective doesn't it. Is it possible though that the reason Pittsburgh had so many powerplays during Lemieux's prime years was because Lemieux himself was responsible for drawing a lot of penalties, and then making teams pay for it?

Is "drawing penalties" a polite way of saying "diving"?

 

[LCLM]

Not really, it was league wide.
League average per team per game:

79-80 3.5
80-81 4.3
81-82 4.0
82-83 3.9
83-84 4.2
84-85 4.0
85-86 4.6
86-87 4.3
87-88 5.5
88-89 5.0
89-90 4.6
90-91 4.6
91-92 5.0
92-93 5.3

I know this was discussed above, so I'll just add that I noticed something interesting in your stats.

In all of the years where the team average penalties > 5.0 (87-88, 88-89, 91-92, and 92-93), Lemieux won the scoring title. In every other year on your list, Gretzky won or tied for the scoring title.

It seems clear how volume of power plays affected the careers of both men....

 

[LCLM]

Something else to consider.....

Lemieux 5 best seasons for plus-minus were as follows:

92-93 +55
88-89 +41
91-92 +27
96-97 +27
87-88 +23

Compare that to Gretzky's 5 best plus-minus seasons:

84-85 +98
81-82 +81
83-84 +76
85-86 +71
86-87 +70

Neither of these great players was renowned for his defensive play. That being said, this is a pretty lopsided difference.

I would argue that each was the other's equal offensively. Lemieux did it on pure physical skill and a style where players knew where he was at all times and still couldn't stop him. Gretzky was also skilled, but he was cerebral; he skated like a swooping hawk where players couldn't figure out where he was going, and you were left scratching your head as to how he saw to make the plays he made.

But this stat illustrates, IMO, that while they were each other's equal offensively, the nod goes to Gretzky in other areas of the game.

 

[Copmuter*]

Something else to consider.....

Lemieux 5 best seasons for plus-minus were as follows:

92-93 +55
88-89 +41
91-92 +27
96-97 +27
87-88 +23

Compare that to Gretzky's 5 best plus-minus seasons:

84-85 +98
81-82 +81
83-84 +76
85-86 +71
86-87 +70

Neither of these great players was renowned for his defensive play. That being said, this is a pretty lopsided difference.

I would argue that each was the other's equal offensively. Lemieux did it on pure physical skill and a style where players knew where he was at all times and still couldn't stop him. Gretzky was also skilled, but he was cerebral; he skated like a swooping hawk where players couldn't figure out where he was going, and you were left scratching your head as to how he saw to make the plays he made.

But this stat illustrates, IMO, that while they were each other's equal offensively, the nod goes to Gretzky in other areas of the game.

Gretzky was minus 5 during his career with the Kings (539 games)

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

Gretzky was minus 5 during his career with the Kings (539 games)

Entirely on the basis of his last two years there when the Kings were losing games hand over fist. Lemieux posted some crappy +/- years with the Penguins too.....but unlike Gretzky he spent his entire career with the team he posted his big +/- years with.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Yikes, that really puts things in perspective doesn't it. Is it possible though that the reason Pittsburgh had so many powerplays during Lemieux's prime years was because Lemieux himself was responsible for drawing a lot of penalties, and then making teams pay for it?

I think that's part of the reason, yes. Gretzky avoided contact; Mario played through it, which resulted in getting fouled.

That is the often offered postulation but it isn't the case.

Season|Pittsburgh PPO|Average Team PPO|Difference|Notes
83-84|357|336|+21|Year before Lemieux
84-85|311|322|-11|Lemieux rookie season
96-97|339|335|+4|Lemieux retires
97-98|407|380|+27|No Lemieux

Looking at some consecutive seasons where he played more and less games:

Season|Pittsburgh PPO|Average Team|Difference|Notes
88-89|491|403|+88|Lemieux 199 season
89-90|403|367|+36|Lemieux 59 games
90-91|388|366|+22|Lemieux 26 games
91-92|423|401|+22|Lemieux 64 games
92-93|440|443|-3|Lemieux 60 games
93-94|404|409|-5|Lemieux 22 games
95-96|420|413|+7|Lemieux 70 games
96-97|339|336|+6|Lemieux 76 games

I don't see a lot of impact on the PPO from Lemieux playing or not playing there.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

That is the often offered postulation but it isn't the case.

Season|Pittsburgh PPO|Average Team PPO|Difference|Notes
83-84|357|336|+21|Year before Lemieux
84-85|311|322|-11|Lemieux rookie season
96-97|339|335|+4|Lemieux retires
97-98|407|380|+27|No Lemieux

Looking at some consecutive seasons where he played more and less games:

Season|Pittsburgh PPO|Average Team|Difference|Notes
88-89|491|403|+88|Lemieux 199 season
89-90|403|367|+36|Lemieux 59 games
90-91|388|366|+22|Lemieux 26 games
91-92|423|401|+22|Lemieux 64 games
92-93|440|443|-3|Lemieux 60 games
93-94|404|409|-5|Lemieux 22 games
95-96|420|413|+7|Lemieux 70 games
96-97|339|336|+6|Lemieux 76 games

I don't see a lot of impact on the PPO from Lemieux playing or not playing there.

Strange. There goes that theory. I think that Edmonton receiving fewer PPs because they often had the lead is true, but I have no idea why Pittsburgh generally received more than most teams if it wasn't due to Lemieux getting fouled.