Peak/Prime Lemieux vs. Gretzky - Adjusted

[Infinite Vision*]

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

Do you not get my point though? I think you do.

 

[habsjunkie2*]

Who was on Mario's Line when he scored 199 points again?

Try a little harder. This isn't working for ya. Who was the other player to score 200+ points 4 times?

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

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.

I have a lot more respect for Gretzky's opponents than you do. If they could have gotten physical with him they would have. The guy was destroying the league in the scoring.

 

[KingGallagherXI]

Try a little harder. This isn't working for ya. Who was the other player to score 200+ points 4 times?

I think his point was that Gretzky scored 200+ points with better linemates and that Lemieux scored 199 points with worse linemates.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

I have a lot more respect for Gretzky's opponents than you do. If they could have gotten physical with him they would have. The guy was destroying the league in the scoring.

Wait, so either I'm blind or I'm making stuff up, along with literally countless others who share my same opinion. Not likely. Also, with that post, I am not trying to get at anything, it's meant to be taken exactly as I typed it.

 

[habsjunkie2*]

I think his point was that Gretzky scored 200+ points with better linemates and that Lemieux scored 199 points with worse linemates.

I think his point does very little to defend his argument, you?

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Wait, so either I'm blind or I'm making stuff up, along with literally countless others who share my same opinion. Not likely. Also, with that post, I am not trying to get at anything, it's meant to be taken exactly as I typed it.

There have been multiple threads on this board that have debunked the "No one ever tried to hit Gretzky" myth. Feel free to try to find them.

 

[plusandminus]

Career wise, I think Gretzky is nr 1, followed by probably Orr and Mario. (I know too little about time before 1960, regarding Gordie Howe.)

Peak wise, I think the three are close, and that it's not obvious who gets the edge. I do sometimes tend to think of Mario as the best offensive player, having a slightly better offensive peak than even Gretzky, but they are basically inseperable. Defensively, my impressions are that Gretzky was probably better than Mario. Orr is a bit hard to compare as he was a defenceman. Overall, I think the three are pretty close peak wise.

 

[habsjunkie2*]

How? Lemieux scored 199 points in 76 games. Easily on pace for 210+ with Rob Brown and Bob Errey. Lemieux at his best>Gretzky anyday.

On pace for, Gretzky, that guy you all like to ignore already topped 210+ twice. So best anyday is wrong, Lemieux scored more than 150 points 4 times, gretzky did it 9 times. Lemieux had one year, 1, that matches many Gretzky had.

That's how.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

How? Lemieux scored 199 points in 76 games. Easily on pace for 210+ with Rob Brown and Bob Errey. Lemieux at his best>Gretzky anyday.

In 1983-84 Gretzky scored 153pts in 51 games. Easily on pace for 240+.

See, I can just pick an arbitrary number of games and do that too.

 

[danincanada]

"He's the best player I've seen since I got into the league in '67. I've always said he's the most complete player I've seen because he can score, he can make plays, he's got the reach and, when you need defense, he can provide it." -Scotty Bowman

http://ca.askmen.com/celebs/men/sports/34_mario_lemieux.html

This link doesn't have the whole quote - only part of it. I remember Bowman also stating how impressed he was with Lemieux's all around game when they went on the Cup run in '92. He didn't always bring that element and often floated IMO but the potential to dominate all over the ice was obviously there.

Is this a case of Bowman choosing Lemieux over Gretzky and Orr because he coached him in Pittsburgh? Possibly, but I tend to agree with him. Lemieux had all the tools Gretzky had except he was much bigger and stronger and his reach made goalies look completely vulnerable. Orr was great but the NHL was a better league when the other two played IMO.

 

[85highlander]

Anyone would be lucky to have any of those mentioned on their team, but I would always choose Bobby Orr for the following reasons:

1. Three Zone Dominance -- Because of winning both the Norris and Art Ross trophies, Orr has been recognized by his sport as excelling as the top player in both offensive and defensive categories. He is the only player to achieve this status. To reverse this, could you picture Gretzky playing Norris level defense?

2. Mario is closer to Gretzky than the #2 defenseman is to Orr, imo.

3. Orr's +/- (while discounted by many here) is more than DOUBLE over the next closest player on a per game basis (+1.01 per game).

4. Orr's percentage over his positional peers at the defense position towers over anything the others did at their positions. In fact, Phil Esposito has the highest % over his positional peers at center for a season (even better than Gretzky's best season when looking at adjusted stats) when he potted 76 g -- 76 a.

5. The physical nature of Orr's play, while not a positive for some, was another aspect the other two lacked (Bobby Orr played in far less games and had more fights (657 games with 47 fights) than Howe, Gretzky, and Lemieux combined (4669 games with 39 fights).

*Anecdotal: 6 on 6 - 6 Orr's vs 6 of anyone else....who wins? Hypothetical yes. But because of Orr's three zone dominance, it would be hard to see him losing a game because of his skill set. Again, this argument is for projection purposes only and would be impossible to implement (unless cloning techniques advance quickly enough)...

 

[habsjunkie2*]

Only one season? I quess his 160 points in 60 games and 161 points in 70 games in the 90's don't count. Please Lemieux was on Gretzky level with severe health issues.

160 points in 60 games is great, it's not 215 in 80, or 212 in 80, 208 in 80, 205 in 75, 196 in 80 and on and on. For every great season Lemieux has had, Gretzky has had 3.

I don't reward players for missing games or being sick.

 

[habsjunkie2*]

Anyone would be lucky to have any of those mentioned on their team, but I would always choose Bobby Orr for the following reasons:

1. Three Zone Dominance -- Because of winning both the Norris and Art Ross trophies, Orr has been recognized by his sport as excelling as the top player in both offensive and defensive categories. He is the only player to achieve this status. To reverse this, could you picture Gretzky playing Norris level defense?

2. Mario is closer to Gretzky than the #2 defenseman is to Orr, imo.

3. Orr's +/- (while discounted by many here) is more than DOUBLE over the next closest player on a per game basis (+1.01 per game).

4. Orr's percentage over his positional peers at the defense position towers over anything the others did at their positions. In fact, Phil Esposito has the highest % over his positional peers at center for a season (even better than Gretzky's best season when looking at adjusted stats) when he potted 76 g -- 76 a.

5. The physical nature of Orr's play, while not a positive for some, was another aspect the other two lacked (Bobby Orr played in far less games and had more fights (657 games with 47 fights) than Howe, Gretzky, and Lemieux combined (4669 games with 39 fights).

*Anecdotal: 6 on 6 - 6 Orr's vs 6 of anyone else....who wins? Hypothetical yes. But because of Orr's three zone dominance, it would be hard to see him losing a game because of his skill set. Again, this argument is for projection purposes only and would be impossible to implement (unless cloning techniques advance quickly enough)...

Coffey may have done the same thing if it weren't for Wayne Gretzky standing is his way. Winning the norris and Art Ross in the same year is a wonderful story, but it doesn't really mean anything when discussing who is the best alltime.

Consider if Orr played during Gretzky or Lemieux's time, he'd also have no Art Ross trophies.

BTW, I'm not comparing Orr and Coffey, I'm disproving point number 1 as being the mind blowing thing you think it is.

To reverse this, could you see Orr playing Gretzky level offence

 

[canucks4ever]

Coffey may have done the same thing if it weren't for Wayne Gretzky standing is his way. Winning the norris and Art Ross in the same year is a wonderful story, but it doesn't really mean anything when discussing who is the best alltime.

Consider if Orr played during Gretzky or Lemieux's time, he'd also have no Art Ross trophies.

BTW, I'm not comparing Orr and Coffey, I'm disproving point number 1 as being the mind blowing thing you think it is.

To reverse this, could you see Orr playing Gretzky level offence

Dit Clapper and Red Kelly got much higher numbers when they played forward instead of D, but you are suggesting that Orr wouldn't?

I also have to disagree that Orr would have no chance of winning an art ross. In 1990, Messier and Yzerman produced 80% of Gretzky and Mario's offense. In 1992, Pat lafontaine produced 80% of Mario's offense. In 1997, Lindros, Jagr, Selanne and Kariya were all within a hair of producing Mario's offense. If these guys could come within distance of Lemieux, you would have to be a fool to think Orr wouldn't. Heck in 1988, Denis Savard was only 37 points away from Mario, Savard ain't in Orr's league. Orr could have easily challenged the 1980 and 1981 Gretzky, you know the one before Coffey, Kurri and Messier.

Orr would not outscore the 1989, 1993 or 1996 Mario. But for the rest of his career, he was a human, quit overrating him. Orr was on pace to score 144 points in 1975-76, in the 1980's that would be a 170 point season, and this is from defense, not playing up front by cherry picking.

 

[habsjunkie2*]

Dit Clapper and Red Kelly got much higher numbers when they played forward instead of D, but you are suggesting that Orr wouldn't?

I'm suggesting getting 70 points or more on regular basis most likely wouldn't have happened, you can feel free to disagree.

You could also argue that Orr's rushing game was his best asset and being a dman greatly increased his ability to show off that skill. Sure I think his numbers would be higher as a forward, but he wasn't and they weren't, so no, I don't think Orr was as good as Gretzky offensively speaking, not at all actually.

 

[canucks4ever]

I'm suggesting getting 70 points or more on regular basis most likely wouldn't have happened, you can feel free to disagree.

You could also argue that Orr's rushing game was his best asset and being a dman greatly increased his ability to show off that skill. Sure I think his numbers would be higher as a forward, but he wasn't and they weren't, so no, I don't think Orr was as good as Gretzky offensively speaking, not at all actually.

He doesn't need to be as good offensively, his plus minus numbers are much better. Kovalchuk outscores Lidstrom by 25% on a yearly basis, only a moron would say kovalchuk is better.

 

[habsjunkie2*]

Dit Clapper and Red Kelly got much higher numbers when they played forward instead of D, but you are suggesting that Orr wouldn't?

I also have to disagree that Orr would have no chance of winning an art ross. In 1990, Messier and Yzerman produced 80% of Gretzky and Mario's offense. In 1992, Pat lafontaine produced 80% of Mario's offense. In 1997, Lindros, Jagr, Selanne and Kariya were all within a hair of producing Mario's offense. If these guys could come within distance of Lemieux, you would have to be a fool to think Orr wouldn't. Heck in 1988, Denis Savard was only 37 points away from Mario, Savard ain't in Orr's league. Orr could have easily challenged the 1980 and 1981 Gretzky, you know the one before Coffey, Kurri and Messier.

Orr would not outscore the 1989, 1993 or 1996 Mario. But for the rest of his career, he was a human, quit overrating him. Orr was on pace to score 144 points in 1975-76, in the 1980's that would be a 170 point season, and this is from defense, not playing up front by cherry picking.

I don't agree that 144 points in 75-76 is equal to 170 in the 80's, nor did he reach 144 to begin, nitpicking, mind you, but it never happened. Where does that leave us now?

 

[habsjunkie2*]

He doesn't need to be as good offensively, his plus minus numbers are much better. Kovalchuk outscores Lidstrom by 25% on a yearly basis, only a moron would say kovalchuk is better.

I never said he had to be in order to be considered, only that he wasn't.

We're talking about Wayne Gretzky here, not Lidstrom or Kovalchuk.

 

[canucks4ever]

I don't agree that 144 points in 75-76 is equal to 170 in the 80's, nor did he reach 144 to begin, nitpicking, mind you, but it never happened. Where does that leave us now?

It could mean less to me if you disagree, scoring was up by more than 25% in the 80's, I judge offense by context of era, not by raw numbers. If Yzerman can score 155 points in the high flying 80s, I know Beliveau, Richard, Orr, Hull, Mikita and Howe would pull it off, could care less if you don't agree with that assumption. Yzerman is a lower calibre player and he came within 8% of Gretzky's offense.

Orr produced 80% of Gretzky's offense while being vastly superior defensively and playing 10 more minutes per game, his plus minus numbers on a per game basis are nearly 3x times better, Orr is the superior player.

 

[canucks4ever]

I never said he had to be in order to be considered, only that he wasn't.

We're talking about Wayne Gretzky here, not Lidstrom or Kovalchuk.

I am talking about differences in percentage based on offense. There are many forwards that produced within 25% of Gretzky's offense. How many defenseman have come within 25% of Orr's offense? I'll give you all day to answer that.

 

[habsjunkie2*]

It could mean less to me if you disagree, scoring was up by more than 25% in the 80's, I judge offense by context of era, not by raw numbers. If Yzerman can score 155 points in the high flying 80s, I know Beliveau, Richard, Orr, Hull, Mikita and Howe would pull it off, could care less if you don't agree with that assumption. Yzerman is a lower calibre player and he came within 8% of Gretzky's offense.

Orr produced 80% of Gretzky's offense while being vastly superior defensively and playing 10 more minutes per game, his plus minus numbers on a per game basis are nearly 3x times better, Orr is the superior player.

Where are you coming up with 80%? lmao, cherry pick much, since when was 139 80% of 215? It isn't.

 

[canucks4ever]

Where are you coming up with 80%? lmao, cherry pick much, since when was 139 80% of 215? It isn't.

Since when is 7.7 goals per game equivalent to 6.24. On that basis I guess denis markuk in the early 80's outpeaked crosby and ovechkin due to his raw numbers?

 

[habsjunkie2*]

Since when is 7.7 goals per game equivalent to 6.24. On that basis I guess denis markuk in the early 80's outpeaked crosby and ovechkin due to his raw numbers?

No, obviously not, but coming up with the numbers you did for Orr aren't reality.

Orr also had many things to his advantage too, basically playing in the weakest NHL period.

 

[habsjunkie2*]

Since when is 7.7 goals per game equivalent to 6.24. On that basis I guess denis markuk in the early 80's outpeaked crosby and ovechkin due to his raw numbers?

Did you ever consider that the increase in scoring was in large part to do with Wayne Gretzky? Of course not, only that he benefited from these times and not the other way around.