Peak/Prime Lemieux vs. Gretzky - Adjusted

[Infinite Vision*]

- Lemieux has a better adjusted career points per game

- Lemieux has the best single season adjusted points per game

- Lemieux has an equal adjusted playoff points per game

- Lemieux scored 80+ goals against butterfly goaltenders, Gretzky no more than 70

- Gretzky never scored more than 50 goals after the age of 29, Lemieux scored 35 in 43 games at the age of 35 after not playing for 4 years

- Assuming Lemieux never had serious health issues, he almost certainly would have more Art Ross trophies (considering he has 6, missed significant time in multiple years in his prime, and if he doesn't retire 98, 99, 00, and 01 are givens, even 02 and 03 aren't out of the question based on how he performed on a per game basis those years)

- Lemieux made Rob Brown score at a higher pace than Gretzky ever made Kurri score

- Lemieux averaged over .8 goals in a season in 3 different decades. Gretzky only a span of 6 years.

- Lemieux was on pace to dominate a deeper more talented group of players to the same extent as Gretzky in 93, and 96.

- Lemieux was much more dominant with the puck, and just very obviously more skilled.

- Lemieux took physical abuse Gretzky could never have imagined

- Lemieux played practically crippled (most of what you hear is not exaggerated) and still managed to produce like he did

- Take each of them at their peak, fully healthy, put them on equal teams and there's a good bet Lemieux outscores Gretzky

 

[Rhiessan71]

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.

There were only 2 years where you would of called the Bruin's an actual offensive powerhouse where they left everyone else in the dust and they weren't even back to back, they were years apart.
I mean sure, they finished in the top 3-5 the other years but that's not a powerhouse.

Either way, without Orr they were just a good offensive team and an average defensive team.
Besides, the whole point in picking Orr is what he did for his team in both ends of the ice as his absolutely ridiculous on the ice vs off the ice numbers more than prove.
He ran about 2 to 1, on the ice for 22 goals for, for every 11 goal against.
Perpective:
Lidstrom runs about 14 for, for every 12 against.
Gretzky about 15 to 11 (and that is just trying to put Gretz's 10 best years up, he is 12 to 10 for his entire career. Lidstrom's 10 best don't change much from his career average, which really shouldn't surprise anyone)



I think it still gets lost on people just how truly damned incredible it is to not only have a D-man win an Art Ross (let alone two of them) but to also be one of the top defensive players at the same time.
And he didn't win those Art Ross's by just a point or two either, margins of 21 and 8. 34 and 14 if you eliminate his own teammate from the equation.
We're not talking about beating chumps here either, we're talking about Mikita, Dionne and Lafleur.

Basically, that would be the equivalent of Lidstrom scoring 115-120 points last year. Mind boggling really.

 

[canucks4ever]

There were only 2 years where you would of called the Bruin's an actual offensive powerhouse where they left everyone else in the dust and they weren't even back to back, they were years apart.
I mean sure, they finished in the top 3-5 the other years but that's not a powerhouse.

Either way, without Orr they were just a good offensive team and an average defensive team.
Besides, the whole point in picking Orr is what he did for his team in both ends of the ice as his absolutely ridiculous on the ice vs off the ice numbers more than prove.

Also, another very impressive thing about Orr is that in the 1968 and 1969 seasons combined, his plus minus is vastly superior to the rest of the league. This is before he started putting up monstrous numbers and when Bobby Hull, Stan Mikita, Jean Beliveau and Gordie Howe wee still playing high quality hockey.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Also, another very impressive thing about Orr is that in the 1968 and 1969 seasons combined, his plus minus is vastly superior to the rest of the league. This is before he started putting up monstrous numbers and when Bobby Hull, Stan Mikita, Jean Beliveau and Gordie Howe wee still playing high quality hockey.

Maybe I am alone, but I personally believe Lemieux and Orr had enough talent around them to win more than 2 Cups.

 

[shazariahl]

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.

Oh agreed - and I'm not for a moment suggesting that either Coffey or Robinson are anywhere near as good as Orr. Robinson may have a slight edge defensively, but no where near as good offensively. Coffey was fairly close offensively (I'd say close in the same sense that Lemieux was "close" to Gretzky... so kinda in the ball park, but still noticably behind, IMO) but no where near as good defensively. As I said, Orr is far and away the better player. And Coffey's numbers are clearly helped by playing with Gretzky and in the 80's.

But regardless, Coffey's peak offensive numbers are close, and sometimes still better. You can't really say the same about Gretzky's. I realize that Gretzky also benefited from playing in the 80's, but actually the early 90's were even higher scoring than most the 80's and no one managed to beat his records still. Granted, that's a small window (I'd say 90-94 ish?) so there was less time to beat his records (Coffey had a decade and a bit to make a run at Orr's during more favorable times; Lemieux had a smaller window and the difference in scoring was also a lot less noticable). Still, I see people compare Orr's 139 pts or his +124 season to Hall's 500+ consecutive starts, or Gretzky's 163 assists and say those will never be beaten. They could be right, but Coffey was only 1 pt short of Orr's points record and Robinson was a +120. No one's come close to 163 assists in a season, not even Gretzky again.

 

[canucks4ever]

Maybe I am alone, but I personally believe Lemieux and Orr had enough talent around them to win more than 2 Cups.

The goalies from 73-75 were generally mediocre for the bruins, also in 68, 69 and 71 they got eliminated by the habs. Orr didnt get eliminated by teams like the 93 islanders or 96 panthers.

Those habs teams had two excellent goalies like worsley and vachon splitting duties, tremblay, lapierre and savard on defense, beliveau, cournoyer, lemaire, richard, duff and rousseau on offense. Asking bobby to beat the 1968 and 1969 habs is kind of unreasonable.

 

[Rhiessan71]

but actually the early 90's were even higher scoring than most the 80's

No, they weren't actually....

1979 7.00
1980 7.03
1981 7.69
1982 8.03
1983 7.73
1984 7.89
1985 7.77
1986 7.94
1987 7.34
1988 7.43
1989 7.48
1990 7.37
1991 6.94
1992 6.96
1993 7.25
1994 6.48
1995 5.97
1996 6.29
1997 5.83
1998 5.28
1999 5.27
2000 5.49
2001 5.51
2002 5.24
2003 5.31
2004 5.14
lockout
2006 6.05


I do however agree with you about how Gretzky, he was the greatest offensive player ever. Just that he did what he did without the kind of talent level that Lemieux had is remarkable.

The way I have always looked at it is that Gretzky had the smarts, Lemieux had the talent and Orr had both.

 

[Rhiessan71]

The goalies from 73-75 were generally mediocre for the bruins, also in 68, 69 and 71 they got eliminated by the habs. Orr didnt get eliminated by teams like the 93 islanders or 96 panthers.

Those habs teams had two excellent goalies like worsley and vachon splitting duties, tremblay, lapierre and savard on defense, beliveau, cournoyer, lemaire, richard, duff and rousseau on offense. Asking bobby to beat the 1968 and 1969 habs is kind of unreasonable.

Those late 60's Bruin teams were above average at best.

...and you forgot rookie goalie, Kenny Dryden coming out of no where to absolutely rob the Bruin's in '71

 

[shazariahl]

- Lemieux has a better adjusted career points per game

- Lemieux has the best single season adjusted points per game

- Lemieux has an equal adjusted playoff points per game

- Lemieux scored 80+ goals against butterfly goaltenders, Gretzky no more than 70

- Gretzky never scored more than 50 goals after the age of 29, Lemieux scored 35 in 43 games at the age of 35 after not playing for 4 years

- Assuming Lemieux never had serious health issues, he almost certainly would have more Art Ross trophies (considering he has 6, missed significant time in multiple years in his prime, and if he doesn't retire 98, 99, 00, and 01 are givens, even 02 and 03 aren't out of the question based on how he performed on a per game basis those years)

- Lemieux made Rob Brown score at a higher pace than Gretzky ever made Kurri score

- Lemieux averaged over .8 goals in a season in 3 different decades. Gretzky only a span of 6 years.

- Lemieux was on pace to dominate a deeper more talented group of players to the same extent as Gretzky in 93, and 96.

- Lemieux was much more dominant with the puck, and just very obviously more skilled.

- Lemieux took physical abuse Gretzky could never have imagined

- Lemieux played practically crippled (most of what you hear is not exaggerated) and still managed to produce like he did

- Take each of them at their peak, fully healthy, put them on equal teams and there's a good bet Lemieux outscores Gretzky

This is from hokcey-reference.com and their adjusted stats:
Gretzky:
79-80: G 43 A 74 Pts 117 Adj PPG: 1.48
80-81: G 42 A 85 Pts 127 Adj PPG: 1.59
81-82: G 68 A 88 Pts 156 Adj PPG: 1.95
82-83: G 57 A 102 Pts 159 Adj PPG: 1.99
83-84: G 69 A 94 Pts 163 Adj PPG: 2.20
84-85: G 58 A 108 Pts 166 Adj PPG: 2.08
85-86: G 41 A 129 Pts 170 Adj PPG: 2.125
86-87: G 52 A 103 Pts 155 Adj PPG: 1.96
87-88: G 33 A 91 Pts 124 Adj PPG: 1.94
88-89: G 45 A 94 Pts 139 Adj PPG: 1.78
89-90: G 34 A 86 Pts 120 Adj PPG: 1.64
91-92: G 37 A 109 Pts 146 Adj PPG: 1.87

Thats probably a big enough sample size. He also has a few really good years after this (119 pts in 93-94, 101 pts in 96-97, and 103 pts in 97-98) but he's clearly back among normal superstars of today's generation by the mid-late 90's. So that's about 12 years that are unbelievable, then 3 or 4 that are elite, and the rest are all pretty decent still (some are low because of injury).

These are Lemieux's, taken from that same site:
84-85: G 34 A 45 Pts 79 Adj PPG: 1.08
85-86: G 37 A 73 Pts 110 Adj PPG: 1.39
86-87: G 46 A 45 Pts 91 Adj PPG: 1.44
87-88: G 59 A 82 Pts 141 Adj PPG: 1.83
88-89: G 71 A 94 Pts 165 Adj PPG: 2.17
89-90: G 38 A 65 Pts 103 Adj PPG: 1.745
90-91: G 17 A 23 Pts 40 Adj PPG: 1.54
91-92: G 39 A 77 Pts 116 Adj PPG: 1.81
92-93: G 56 A 73 Pts 129 Adj PPG: 2.15
93-94: G 15 A 18 Pts 33 Adj PPG: 1.50
95-96: G 67 A 89 Pts 156 Adj PPG: 2.23
96-97: G 52 A 75 Pts 127 Adj PPG: 1.67

For some reason the 94-95 season isn't listed. Lemieux also has a couple decent years after this, but nearly all are shortened. Even many of the seasons listed above are very shortened (90-91 was 26 games, 93-94 was 22 games, nearly all were less than 65). He only breaks 100 adjusted points 1 more time though, that being 2002-3 with 102 pts.

As you mentioned, Lemieux has the best peak season for adjusted PPG of the two (2.23 vs 2.20), but Gretzky is FAR more consistant. Gretzky goes 7 straight seasons where his lowest PPG is 1.90 or better. Lemieux only has 2 seasons that equal that or better in total, and not consecutively either. Even his 2.23 season was shortened due to injury - had he been healthy he may not have kept up that pace.

Even looking at the adjusted stats I'd favor Gretzky. He was way healthier, produced much higher point totals (6 straight seasons at 150+ points vs Lemieux's 2 total) and his PPG average is actually much higher through their prime years in general. Of course, all this is asuming that adjusted stats are even valuable; IMO they are just 1 tool of many worth using, but hardly definative in and of themselves. At the end of the day, Gretzky accomplished more in the real world and that's what matters more to me.

As always, the arguement for Lemieux is based on what could have been, not on what actually happened. Its always adjusted stats, projected stats, and the belief that scoring "at pace" is somehow just as valuable as actually scoring. And the idea that Lemieux wouldn't had more Art Ross trophies if not for injuries goes both ways - Lemieux won his first when Gretzky had a better PPG but missed time due to injury. Gretzky also was never quite the same after the Gary Suter hit and his PPG dropped immediately. He also tied Dionne his first season in the NHL, but played 1 less game. Had he been healthy that game, there's every possibility he could have managed 1 pt for another Art Ross.

 

[shazariahl]

No, they weren't actually....

I stand corrected. That's what I get for going from memory instead of verifying before I type.

 

[Rhiessan71]

This is from hokcey-reference.com and their adjusted stats:
Gretzky:
79-80: G 43 A 74 Pts 117 Adj PPG: 1.48
80-81: G 42 A 85 Pts 127 Adj PPG: 1.59
81-82: G 68 A 88 Pts 156 Adj PPG: 1.95
82-83: G 57 A 102 Pts 159 Adj PPG: 1.99
83-84: G 69 A 94 Pts 163 Adj PPG: 2.20
84-85: G 58 A 108 Pts 166 Adj PPG: 2.08
85-86: G 41 A 129 Pts 170 Adj PPG: 2.125
86-87: G 52 A 103 Pts 155 Adj PPG: 1.96
87-88: G 33 A 91 Pts 124 Adj PPG: 1.94
88-89: G 45 A 94 Pts 139 Adj PPG: 1.78
89-90: G 34 A 86 Pts 120 Adj PPG: 1.64
91-92: G 37 A 109 Pts 146 Adj PPG: 1.87

Thats probably a big enough sample size. He also has a few really good years after this (119 pts in 93-94, 101 pts in 96-97, and 103 pts in 97-98) but he's clearly back among normal superstars of today's generation by the mid-late 90's. So that's about 12 years that are unbelievable, then 3 or 4 that are elite, and the rest are all pretty decent still (some are low because of injury).

These are Lemieux's, taken from that same site:
84-85: G 34 A 45 Pts 79 Adj PPG: 1.08
85-86: G 37 A 73 Pts 110 Adj PPG: 1.39
86-87: G 46 A 45 Pts 91 Adj PPG: 1.44
87-88: G 59 A 82 Pts 141 Adj PPG: 1.83
88-89: G 71 A 94 Pts 165 Adj PPG: 2.17
89-90: G 38 A 65 Pts 103 Adj PPG: 1.745
90-91: G 17 A 23 Pts 40 Adj PPG: 1.54
91-92: G 39 A 77 Pts 116 Adj PPG: 1.81
92-93: G 56 A 73 Pts 129 Adj PPG: 2.15
93-94: G 15 A 18 Pts 33 Adj PPG: 1.50
95-96: G 67 A 89 Pts 156 Adj PPG: 2.23
96-97: G 52 A 75 Pts 127 Adj PPG: 1.67

For some reason the 94-95 season isn't listed. Lemieux also has a couple decent years after this, but nearly all are shortened. Even many of the seasons listed above are very shortened (90-91 was 26 games, 93-94 was 22 games, nearly all were less than 65). He only breaks 100 adjusted points 1 more time though, that being 2002-3 with 102 pts.

As you mentioned, Lemieux has the best peak season for adjusted PPG of the two (2.23 vs 2.20), but Gretzky is FAR more consistant. Gretzky goes 7 straight seasons where his lowest PPG is 1.90 or better. Lemieux only has 2 seasons that equal that or better in total, and not consecutively either. Even his 2.23 season was shortened due to injury - had he been healthy he may not have kept up that pace.

Even looking at the adjusted stats I'd favor Gretzky. He was way healthier, produced much higher point totals (6 straight seasons at 150+ points vs Lemieux's 2 total) and his PPG average is actually much higher through their prime years in general. Of course, all this is asuming that adjusted stats are even valuable; IMO they are just 1 tool of many worth using, but hardly definative in and of themselves. At the end of the day, Gretzky accomplished more in the real world and that's what matters more to me.

As always, the arguement for Lemieux is based on what could have been, not on what actually happened. Its always adjusted stats, projected stats, and the belief that scoring "at pace" is somehow just as valuable as actually scoring. And the idea that Lemieux wouldn't had more Art Ross trophies if not for injuries goes both ways - Lemieux won his first when Gretzky had a better PPG but missed time due to injury. Gretzky also was never quite the same after the Gary Suter hit and his PPG dropped immediately. He also tied Dionne his first season in the NHL, but played 1 less game. Had he been healthy that game, there's every possibility he could have managed 1 pt for another Art Ross.

First off, using adjusted stats that extensively and as the sole basis of any argument is ridiculous.

Second, why go to all the trouble of using them in the first place here. We're not trying to compare two players that played in the league a decade apart or more. Lemieux was born all of 4 years after Gretzky.
A lot of us watched them play against and even with each other many times. In fact, it's quite probable that if Mario had not of played with Wayne in the '87 CC, he would not seen what it really takes and means to be the best and wouldn't of become the player that he was.


"They were in their prime and I was just a young guy (of) 22 learning the game. Being in the Canada Cup and playing with Gretzky gave me a lot of confidence going back and playing in Pittsburgh. It gave me an opportunity to start my career and really learn what it meant to be a champion and the best in the game."
- Mario Lemieux recalls how the 1987 Canada Cup tournament became a turning point in his career.

 

[plusandminus]

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.

That is correct.
PtsPerc=Pts divided by own team's GF.
PtsPerc2=Pts divided by own team's GF+GA. Gives an indication of how much a player dominated on the scoring sheets (among all goals scored by both teams)
PtsPercO=Pts divided by own team's GA. Shows how many points a player scored for each goal the opponents scored.
In this case, I'm always looking at whole seasons. So, for example, Crosby's pts this year is divided by Pittsburgh's GA during whole season, despite Crosby missing half the season. Since mentioning Crosby, I can add that he was on .52 after 39 games (before the hits).

Seas|Seas2|t|Team|Pos|Name|GP|G|A|Pts|+/-| PtsPerc |PtsPerc2|PtsPercO
1988|1989|1|PIT|C|Mario Lemieux|76|85|114|199|41|0.5734870|0.2859195|0.5702005
1987|1988|1|PIT|C|Mario Lemieux|77|70|98|168|23|0.5266457|0.2645669|0.5316455
1998|1999|1|PIT|R|Jaromir Jagr|81|44|83|127|17|0.5247933|0.2719486|0.5644444
1984|1985|1|EDM|C|Wayne Gretzky|80|73|135|208|98|0.5187032|0.2975679|0.6979865
1981|1982|1|EDM|C|Wayne Gretzky|80|92|120|212|81|0.5083932|0.2977528|0.7186440
1985|1986|1|EDM|C|Wayne Gretzky|80|52|163|215|71|0.5046948|0.2921195|0.6935483
1980|1981|1|EDM|C|Wayne Gretzky|80|55|109|164|41|0.5000000|0.2503816|0.5015290
1998|1999|1|ANA|R|Teemu Selanne|75|47|60|107|18|0.4976744|0.2541567|0.5194174
1988|1989|1|DET|C|Steve Yzerman|80|65|90|155|17|0.4952076|0.2464228|0.4905063
2005|2006|1|NYR|R|Jaromir Jagr|82|54|69|123|34|0.4920000|0.2668112|0.5829383
1986|1987|1|EDM|C|Wayne Gretzky|79|62|121|183|70|0.4919354|0.2789634|0.6443661
2002|2003|1|PIT|C|Mario Lemieux|67|28|63|91|-25|0.4814814|0.2049549|0.3568627
1990|1991|1|LAK|C|Wayne Gretzky|78|41|122|163|30|0.4794117|0.2744107|0.6417322
1979|1980|1|LAK|C|Marcel Dionne|80|53|84|137|35|0.4724137|0.2271973|0.4376996
2007|2008|1|WAS|L|Alex Ovechkin|82|65|47|112|28|0.4705882|0.2408602|0.4933920
1998|1999|1|ANA|L|Paul Kariya|82|39|62|101|17|0.4697674|0.2399049|0.4902912
1974|1975|1|DET|C|Marcel Dionne|80|47|74|121|-15|0.4671814|0.2037037|0.3611940
1994|1995|1|PHI|C|Eric Lindros|46|29|41|70|27|0.4666666|0.2482269|0.5303030
1982|1983|1|EDM|C|Wayne Gretzky|80|71|125|196|60|0.4622641|0.2652232|0.6222222
1990|1991|1|QUE|C|Joe Sakic|80|48|61|109|-26|0.4618644|0.1847457|0.3079096
1995|1996|1|ANA|L|Paul Kariya|82|50|58|108|9|0.4615384|0.2245322|0.4372469
1987|1988|1|CHI|C|Denis Savard|80|44|87|131|4|0.4612676|0.2140522|0.3993902
2005|2006|1|WAS|L|Alex Ovechkin|81|52|54|106|2|0.4608695|0.2000000|0.3533333
2000|2001|1|FLO|R|Pavel Bure|82|59|33|92|-2|0.4600000|0.2062780|0.3739837
1983|1984|1|EDM|C|Wayne Gretzky|74|87|118|205|76|0.4596412|0.2697368|0.6528662
2006|2007|1|BOS|C|Marc Savard|82|22|74|96|-19|0.4571428|0.1939393|0.3368421
1997|1998|1|NYR|C|Wayne Gretzky|82|23|67|90|-11|0.4568527|0.2102803|0.3896103
1979|1980|1|EDM|C|Wayne Gretzky|79|51|86|137|15|0.4551495|0.2199036|0.4254658
1985|1986|1|PIT|C|Mario Lemieux|79|48|93|141|-6|0.4504792|0.2281553|0.4622950
1976|1977|1|LAK|C|Marcel Dionne|80|53|69|122|10|0.4501845|0.2382812|0.5062240
2006|2007|1|PIT|C|Sidney Crosby|79|36|84|120|10|0.4494382|0.2366863|0.5000000
1997|1998|1|PIT|R|Jaromir Jagr|77|35|67|102|17|0.4473684|0.2451923|0.5425531
1988|1989|1|LAK|C|Wayne Gretzky|78|54|114|168|15|0.4468085|0.2362869|0.5014925

Note that Mario only played 76, 77 and 67 games in his "best" seasons here. (Lindros played 46, but that was in the shortened season.)
Edit: Regarding duos, Kariya and Selanne of 1998-99 had highest percentage, with .9674418. That Anaheim team also ranks highest if taking percentages of the 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, 1-6 or 1-7 top scorers of a team. Taking the percentage of the 1-8 highest scorers, they are 2nd, with 2010-11 Anaheim leading.
I have only looked at seasons from 1960-61, and hope I've made the coding correctly.

 

[lextune]

Lemieux took physical abuse Gretzky could never have imagined

You realize that is a knock against Mario right?

"Trying to hit Gretzky was like trying to hit a rope"

 

[habsjunkie2*]

No, they weren't actually....

1979 7.00
1980 7.03
1981 7.69
1982 8.03
1983 7.73
1984 7.89
1985 7.77
1986 7.94
1987 7.34
1988 7.43
1989 7.48
1990 7.37
1991 6.94
1992 6.96
1993 7.25
1994 6.48
1995 5.97
1996 6.29
1997 5.83
1998 5.28
1999 5.27
2000 5.49
2001 5.51
2002 5.24
2003 5.31
2004 5.14
lockout
2006 6.05


I do however agree with you about how Gretzky, he was the greatest offensive player ever. Just that he did what he did without the kind of talent level that Lemieux had is remarkable.

The way I have always looked at it is that Gretzky had the smarts, Lemieux had the talent and Orr had both.

Well you look at it with blinders on and nothing will ever convince you otherwise. I'm sick and tired of hearing how Gretzky only did what he did because of his smarts. Not only does he easily have the most hockey sense/vision of any player ever, he was immensely talented as well. He did difference things though, things that aren't necessarily as appealing to the eye, but imo he was equally as talented as Orr, Lemieux if not more so.

To me there is no rational debate to put Orr or Lemieux ahead of Gretzky and to think that there are posters on here who for one game would pick anyone other than Wayne Gretzky is kinda hard to fathom, considering in 4 best on best tournaments he led them in scoring every time, won 2 mvps and basically did so until Gary Suter's cross check. I see all these posts about if Lemieux/Orr stayed healthy bla bla bla, if not for Gary Suter, Wayne Gretzky would be even further ahead of both.

All the what ifs and could of beens actually happened with Gretzky, the only one who has a realistic argument over Gretzky is Howe imo.

Gretzky
Howe
Orr
Lemieux

 

[habsjunkie2*]

At there Absolute Best. With nothing holding them back. Lemieux>Gretzky.

Prove it, when they actually played together at their best, Gretzky still out produced him while being better defensively.

This is all fine to have that opinion, prove it.

 

[habsjunkie2*]

When arguments boiling down to adjusted stats, ppg based a career with over 500 less games and +/- it is clear to me there isn't much of a case at all.

 

[shazariahl]

First off, using adjusted stats that extensively and as the sole basis of any argument is ridiculous.

Second, why go to all the trouble of using them in the first place here. We're not trying to compare two players that played in the league a decade apart or more. Lemieux was born all of 4 years after Gretzky.
A lot of us watched them play against and even with each other many times. In fact, it's quite probable that if Mario had not of played with Wayne in the '87 CC, he would not seen what it really takes and means to be the best and wouldn't of become the player that he was.


"They were in their prime and I was just a young guy (of) 22 learning the game. Being in the Canada Cup and playing with Gretzky gave me a lot of confidence going back and playing in Pittsburgh. It gave me an opportunity to start my career and really learn what it meant to be a champion and the best in the game."
- Mario Lemieux recalls how the 1987 Canada Cup tournament became a turning point in his career.

I used them in response to IV's post about how Lemieux had the better adjusted stats. I think I showed quite adequately that he really didn't. Sure he had a slightly better peak season, though it was shortened, but Gretzky actually had far better adjusted stats even. Since that was 3 different points in his post, I figured it was worth showing that even adjusted, Gretzky was the better player. Since my post wasn't in response to you, you can feel free to ignore adjustments all you want. IV was using them, so I thought it was worth addressing them, with him.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

You realize that is a knock against Mario right?

"Trying to hit Gretzky was like trying to hit a rope"

Agree. Gretzky being just as productive (really more productive) without having to put his body in harms way nearly as much as Lemieux is a plus for Gretzky, and it showed over time as he was able to play A LOT more games in his career.

 

[KingGallagherXI]

Lemieux and Gretzky dominated in different ways.

Gretzky dominated mostly through is intelligence and spatial awareness (though he also had excellent skating abilities, good hands and an accurate shot, those are not the primary reasons for his success).

Lemieux was probably the second most intelligent forward to have played the game, but he wasn't on Gretzky's level. His domination mostly came from a mix of intelligence/offensive awareness and supreme physical attributes. He is probably the most powerful skater of all time (you could hook him, grab him, climb on his back, and he would still deke the goalie and score a goal) and had the best hands of his era. His shot was also superior to Gretzky, his snap and wrister were both powerful and accurate.

The most dominant player 1 vs 5 is Lemieux hands down. He's the only player ever who could beat everyone on the ice and score as frequently as he did, not just once or twice in his career, but many times per season. He's also the perfect player in a clutch, hook, grab and trap setting, or if you give him crappy wingers. Gretzky is the better player for firewagon hockey, or if you give him quality wingers.

I must admit I have a mancrush on Lemieux because of his highlight reel plays & tribute videos that I feel are much superior to Gretzky's, but I do realize that Gretzky was less flashy and slightly more efficient in his absolute peak, although I personally think this efficiency has more to do with goaltending and team composition than superior individual value.

1. Lemieux
2. Gretzky
3. Orr
4. Howe

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Prove it, when they actually played together at their best, Gretzky still out produced him while being better defensively.

This is all fine to have that opinion, prove it.

When they played together in 87 Lemieux had not entered his actual prime yet. That was the following season, and people can say what they want about Gretzky "teaching Lemieux what it took to win" and try and credit Gretzky with the player Lemieux became, but Lemieux just actually improved his skills immensely. I saw part of a taped game from Lemieux in 89 recently, and I own the 87 Canada Cup DVD, and Lemieux was just a lot more skilled. Skills that Gretzky sure didn't teach him I'll say that much.

Anyways, I thought the point of this thread was to help convince this guys friend that Lemieux and Orr were better than Gretzky? Arguing back almost defeats the purpose of that, lol.

 

[tjcurrie]

Gretzky credits Bobby Clarke for teaching him how to play from the corners and behind the net. Does that mean Clarke was better than Gretzky ?

 

[Dark Shadows]

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.

This post sums up what I was thinking.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

You realize that is a knock against Mario right?

"Trying to hit Gretzky was like trying to hit a rope"

Well, of course you could say that. It's arguably not though, I think bigger/stronger players in general tend to get more physical abuse, especially ones that skilled. There's just so many plays where Lemieux is dragging a defender on his back, and literally simultaneously deking the other players followed by the opposing goaltender in an unbelievably impressive sequence of power and skill.

Players who are not physical at all tend to not recieve nearly as much physical contact. Gretzky was less physical than anyone, had the best hockey sense, and a quick first step, all the ingredients of not recieving much physical contact. My only questions seem to be points in games, and there's no point in arguing this because I can simply go watch it, where they clearly could have hit Gretzky, but didn't. Times where they had him cornered along the boards, where he was basically standing still. So many times he would just get rubbed off the puck and not actually hit, it's just odd, especially in the 90's part of his career where he was clearly not one of the best skaters in the league anymore due to him regressing and the majority of the league improving. I think in the 80's there was more dodging going on, and in the 90's there was more respect going on. That's just my opinion.

So it can be argued that not only were a lot of Lemieux's points more impressive, he was basically equal with Gretzky as far as producing at his peak. Lemieux had more quality, with roughly equal quantity is the argument I suppose.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Gretzky credits Bobby Clarke for teaching him how to play from the corners and behind the net. Does that mean Clarke was better than Gretzky ?

No, it means he followed the blueprint Clarke had laid out and then perfected it beyond anyone's wildest dreams.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

When they played together in 87 Lemieux had not entered his actual prime yet. That was the following season, and people can say what they want about Gretzky "teaching Lemieux what it took to win" and try and credit Gretzky with the player Lemieux became, but Lemieux just actually improved his skills immensely. I saw part of a taped game from Lemieux in 89 recently, and I own the 87 Canada Cup DVD, and Lemieux was just a lot more skilled. Skills that Gretzky sure didn't teach him I'll say that much.

Anyways, I thought the point of this thread was to help convince this guys friend that Lemieux and Orr were better than Gretzky? Arguing back almost defeats the purpose of that, lol.

It's not "people" saying it, it's Lemieux himself.