Why isn't Gretzky considered the best goalscorer ever?

[Cursed Lemon]

First of all, he has a higher adjusted AND non-adjusted GPG in the given time frames.

Secondly, and for the thousandth time, the question is who is the best goal scorer, not who is the most resilient.

 

[BraveCanadian]

First of all, he has a higher adjusted AND non-adjusted GPG in the given time frames.

If you cherry pick the best games by Lemieux but extend Gretzky out to 10 seasons sure.. cause he played 2+ seasons extra games in there.

Pick Gretzky's best 590 games roughly in a row and I bet he is right there.

80-87 gets you close at 553 games with Gretzky humming along at .89 GPG.

Secondly, and for the thousandth time, the question is who is the best goal scorer, not who is the most resilient.

Being resilient is part of being the best goal scorer because if you're watching the game from the team box you aren't scoring much.

 

[Cursed Lemon]

If you cherry pick the best games by Lemieux but extend Gretzky out to 10 seasons sure.. cause he played 2+ seasons extra games in there.

Well done.

Pick Gretzky's best 590 games roughly in a row and I bet he is right there.

Except Gretzky stopped being an otherwordly goal-scoring force after 1985 - four years before I stopped counting.

And as far as this whole "Lemieux was a better goal-scorer as he aged" nonsense, Lemieux's career after 1997 (when he was 31) was 77 goals in 170 games, spread out over five seasons. In 1989, when I stopped counting for Gretzky, he was 29.

Being resilient is part of being the best goal scorer because if you're watching the game from the team box you aren't scoring much.

Uh-huh.

Mike Gartner.

 

[Joedaman55]

First of all, I don't think you know what the word "subjective" means.

Secondly, it falls right in line with what you are trying to peddle. Mike Gartner was there, on the ice, playing the game of hockey and scored more goals than Mario Lemieux, so ergo he's a better goal scorer.

Prove that it's a straw man.

Lol, you trying to show my lack of understanding of the term subjective by trying to use the term straw man is classic. I stated the way you are measuring GPG is a flawed argument. You've shown in your argument style that you a pro-Lemeiux; so, you are trying to adjust stats to fit your argument.

Secondly, I never introduced Mike Gartner and I never said total goal totals is the end all metric (that was you getting sidetracked in a conversation and not listening). Dominance against peers should carry the most weight, where in this argument, Gretzky clearly holds the advantage over Lemieux.

It would be helpful for you to maximize your reading comprehension skills and think about what people are saying or trying to say before introducing some random thoughts that have nothing to do with the conversation.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Except Gretzky stopped being an otherwordly goal-scoring force after 1985 - four years before I stopped counting.

That is why you did it that way.

Interesting though that Gretzky got more done in those years than Lemieux did in 10, though, isn't it?

And as far as this whole "Lemieux was a better goal-scorer as he aged" nonsense, Lemieux's career after 1997 (when he was 31) was 77 goals in 170 games, spread out over five seasons. In 1989, when I stopped counting for Gretzky, he was 29.

All the more reason we shouldn't be giving Lemieux the benefit of the doubt automatically.

Uh-huh.

Mike Gartner.

You're really going to compare Mike Gartner to Wayne Gretzky?

Be my guest.


These arguments have been beaten to death 1000 times here and sure, Lemieux is in the running as one of the best goal scorers of all time. If you put a gun to my head I would have trouble picking between them at their best.

However the only way Lemieux stacks up to Gretzky's resume is if you give him all the benefit of the doubt. It is always adjust this, on pace that..

 

[Cursed Lemon]

You've shown in your argument style that you a pro-Lemeiux; so, you are trying to adjust stats to fit your argument.

I'm a ****ing Wings fan. As far as I'm concerned I hate Lemieux.

Dominance against peers should carry the most weight, where in this argument, Gretzky clearly holds the advantage over Lemieux.

In. Raw. Totals.

Which is an indicator of how often he was on the ice, not that he was more proficient at putting the puck in the net per-60.

 

[Cursed Lemon]

That is why you did it that way.

Interesting though that Gretzky got more done in those years than Lemieux did in 10, though, isn't it?

Wtf are you talking about? That doesn't help your argument, it hurts it.

All the more reason we shouldn't be giving Lemieux the benefit of the doubt automatically.

Benefit of the doubt of what?

In their best 10-year stretches (which is meant to show that sample sizes are not aberrations), Lemieux was a better goal scorer in every conceivable metric except raw totals, which shows nothing except how many games they played.

You're really going to compare Mike Gartner to Wayne Gretzky?

Be my guest.

No, I'm comparing him to Lemieux.

He scored more career goals that Lemieux, therefore he's a better goal scorer, as per you. So are Dionne, Messier, and Yzerman...again, as per your argument.

However the only way Lemieux stacks up to Gretzky's resume is if you give him all the benefit of the doubt. It is always adjust this, on pace that..

I'm not giving Lemieux Richard trophies. I'm saying that when they were on the ice, Lemieux was a better goal scorer, full stop.

 

[BraveCanadian]

In their best 10-year stretches (which is meant to show that sample sizes are not aberrations), Lemieux was a better goal scorer in every conceivable metric except raw totals, which shows nothing except how many games they played.

Surely, you jest.

I'm not giving Lemieux Richard trophies. I'm saying that when they were on the ice, Lemieux was a better goal scorer, full stop.

If you could some how have 593 game 10 year average Lemieux vs. 774 game 10 year average Gretzky out there, I might agree with you. At their bests, I'm not so sure.

 

[Cursed Lemon]

Surely, you jest.

Riiight.

In every single season of Lemieux's 10-year stretch, he would've undoubtedly deflated his goal totals had he played those extra games, and DEFINITELY never would've potentially increased them.

And as I said to Panther, Lemieux was obviously taking time off to just reduce the wear and tear on his body so he could pad his per-game stats...you know, instead of dealing with real and major injuries.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

 

[Joedaman55]

I'm a ****ing Wings fan. As far as I'm concerned I hate Lemieux.



In. Raw. Totals.

Which is an indicator of how often he was on the ice, not that he was more proficient at putting the puck in the net per-60.

Yes, raw totals as it compares to your peers for a given period of time (MUST be a similar time comparison or you cannot compare objectively). As it has been pointed out, you cannot score if you're not on the ice.

Also, ice time does not neccessarily mean a person will have better raw totals (you are making incorrect assumptions again).

 

[Joedaman55]

In their best 10-year stretches (which is meant to show that sample sizes are not aberrations), Lemieux was a better goal scorer in every conceivable metric except raw totals, which shows nothing except how many games they played.
QUOTE]

This is simply untrue when you compare them to their peers.

 

[Joedaman55]

Riiight.

In every single season of Lemieux's 10-year stretch, he would've undoubtedly deflated his goal totals had he played those extra games, and DEFINITELY never would've potentially increased them.

And as I said to Panther, Lemieux was obviously taking time off to just reduce the wear and tear on his body so he could pad his per-game stats...you know, instead of dealing with real and major injuries.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

It doesn't matter what he took time off for, the point is he did and you have to measure for that. Would he have put up more points? Maybe, maybe not; you shouldn't penalize Lemieux for this and at the same time you cannot reward him for this with this GPG argument.

Again, one cannot assume what would have happened because as seen in the real world, those predictions are often wrong even if you use the best logic.

 

[Mr Positive]

Gretzky was the best goal scorer of all time. If you look at that huge chunk of years where he was in his prime, there is no contest and that is fair considering we are talking about prime athletes here. I think Gretz played longer than he should just so he could retire in '99

I know there are lots of context factors that put the value of Gretzky's 1980s production into some doubt, but the sheer massive volume of it over a big span of time cannot be denied. Arguments for other players than Gretz will always depend on hypotheticals, subjective opinion, or coming up with some massaged stats that are ancillary to goal scoring

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Goaltending in 92-93 was far better than the early 80's. They also had bigger equipment and didn't just flip around everywhere

tim cheveldae finished 4th in vezina voting in '92. you're not going to tell me that goaltending mysteriously jumped leaps and bounds between '92 and '93 are you? for the sake of comparison, dan bouchard was 4th in vezina voting in '82, felix potvin in '93.

and finally, the "gordie howe/ray bourque" argument: grant fuhr was 6th in vezina voting in '84 (when gretzky put up his highest goals/game ratio), and 6th in vezina voting in '96 (when mario came just short of posting a goal/game against supposedly evolutionary super goalies).

.....

 

[Cursed Lemon]

Yes, raw totals as it compares to your peers for a given period of time (MUST be a similar time comparison or you cannot compare objectively). As it has been pointed out, you cannot score if you're not on the ice.

Also, ice time does not neccessarily mean a person will have better raw totals (you are making incorrect assumptions again).

This is only a reasonable conclusion if you have a way of convincingly arguing that Lemieux's production would've dropped off in all of those 10 seasons.

Which I'm pretty sure you don't have.

Again, this is 593 games we're talking about. Not 60.

This is simply untrue when you compare them to their peers.

And over a 10-year period, you will not find a single peer in existence that has a better GPG than Mario Lemieux.

It doesn't matter what he took time off for, the point is he did and you have to measure for that. Would he have put up more points? Maybe, maybe not; you shouldn't penalize Lemieux for this and at the same time you cannot reward him for this with this GPG argument.

Again, one cannot assume what would have happened because as seen in the real world, those predictions are often wrong even if you use the best logic.

Then throw the whole thing out because we can't compare players under any circumstance unless their numbers are LITERALLY identical, apparently.

 

[Joedaman55]

This is only a reasonable conclusion if you have a way of convincingly arguing that Lemieux's production would've dropped off in all of those 10 seasons.

Which I'm pretty sure you don't have.

Again, this is 593 games we're talking about. Not 60.



And over a 10-year period, you will not find a single peer in existence that has a better GPG than Mario Lemieux.



Then throw the whole thing out because we can't compare players under any circumstance unless their numbers are LITERALLY identical, apparently.

Yes, you can compare them relative to their peers for a single season for total goals and/or a sum of those seasons over a period x long. Again, GPG does not matter because it is a "what if" statistic; it didn't happen, so you can't use it in an argument for a players benefit.

Again, I don't know if Lemieux's production would have went up or down; you cannot prove it one way or the other so you cannot use it in an argument, if you do your argument is flawed.

Again, you can compare players if they are measured the same and have no omitted variables; not because their numbers have to be identicle. Take a basic statistics class if you need assistance on how to have statistics measure a result.

 

[Cursed Lemon]

Yes, you can compare them relative to their peers for a single season for total goals and/or a sum of those seasons over a period x long. Again, GPG does not matter because it is a "what if" statistic; it didn't happen, so you can't use it in an argument for a players benefit.

Again, I don't know if Lemieux's production would have went up or down; you cannot prove it one way or the other so you cannot use it in an argument, if you do your argument is flawed.

No, it's only a flawed statistic if I decide to pro-rate Lemieux out to a full season and start saying he deserves scoring titles over Gretzky. Lemieux's scoring rate is not a what-if, it is exactly what he accomplished. You guys are throwing out the what-ifs by saying that his incomplete seasons invalidate his per-game rate, which is BS.

Again, you can compare players if they are measured the same and have no omitted variables; not because their numbers have to be identicle. Take a basic statistics class if you need assistance on how to have statistics measure a result.

Except I'm not omitting any variables. Per 60, Lemieux is the better goal scorer without fudging any numbers.

 

[Copmuter*]

It isn't the sample size but the context.

Lemieux scored .75 GPG over his 915 game career. But he didn't play nearly as many sunset seasons as Gretzky.

Cut off Gretzky's career at roughly the same point and have a look at his GPG then..

1979-80 to 1990-91 is 925 games for Gretzky and he comes in with a .78 GPG...

There's a flaw in your formula there...

You're counting games that Lemieux played up until he was 40 years old, yet only counting Gretzky's GPG up until what... 30 or so?



Lemieux in his first 788 games (through his age 35 season) averaged .82 GPG

Gretzky in his first 774 games (through his age 28 season) averaged .82 GPG




Now take a look at the league's yearly SV%...

http://www.hockey-reference.com/leagues/stats.html

When Gretzky was setting the goal scoring standard the league's SV% was around .870 - .875%

When Lemieux scored 69 goals in 70 games the league's SV% was .898%

When a 35 year old Lemieux lead the NHL in GPG the league's SV% was .903%




And yet despite the statistics there are still some who say...

In no objective argument can Lemieux be considered a better goal scorer unless the person is evaluating by "how pretty" a goal looks.

 

[shazariahl]

There's a flaw in your formula there...

You're counting games that Lemieux played up until he was 40 years old, yet only counting Gretzky's GPG up until what... 30 or so?



Lemieux in his first 788 games (through his age 35 season) averaged .82 GPG

Gretzky in his first 774 games (through his age 28 season) averaged .82 GPG




Now take a look at the league's yearly SV%...

http://www.hockey-reference.com/leagues/stats.html

When Gretzky was setting the goal scoring standard the league's SV% was around .870 - .875%

When Lemieux scored 69 goals in 70 games the league's SV% was .898%

When a 35 year old Lemieux lead the NHL in GPG the league's SV% was .903%




And yet despite the statistics there are still some who say...

But, as has already been pointed out countless times before, in Lemieux's best seasons he enjoyed ridiculous numbers of PP opportunities. If evidence pointed to Lemieux being somehow responsible for that, then great. But it doesn't. As has already been shown, the Pens enjoyed roughly the same number of PPs with him active and without him.

Regardless, IMO it's pretty close between them. I do think Lemieux should get credit for being better at an older age. And SV% were slightly better in Lemieux's best seasons, which also helps his case. But Gretzky was far more consistent. And, at the end of the day, he still holds all the single season records. I've seen you ask repeatedly why Gretzky didn't score more past his mid 20's if he was really the greatest. But I question why Lemieux didn't beat any of Gretzky's single season records if he really were. Especially with an extra 150 PPs to work with.

 

[bobholly39]

But, as has already been pointed out countless times before, in Lemieux's best seasons he enjoyed ridiculous numbers of PP opportunities. If evidence pointed to Lemieux being somehow responsible for that, then great. But it doesn't. As has already been shown, the Pens enjoyed roughly the same number of PPs with him active and without him.

Regardless, IMO it's pretty close between them. I do think Lemieux should get credit for being better at an older age. And SV% were slightly better in Lemieux's best seasons, which also helps his case. But Gretzky was far more consistent. And, at the end of the day, he still holds all the single season records. I've seen you ask repeatedly why Gretzky didn't score more past his mid 20's if he was really the greatest. But I question why Lemieux didn't beat any of Gretzky's single season records if he really were. Especially with an extra 150 PPs to work with.

He came up short in 1989. No excuses, he just flat out came out short. It's the first year where he truly was "at that level". Which is fine. Gretzky had like 5-6 yrs together, he didn't hit all the records in year 1 right.

And then - he never got another fair shot. 92-93 he might have, but ended up only playing 60 games. It's not till 96 and 97 that he again got a chance to string together a somewhat full season, and again he wasn't 100% then and he was also ~30 yrs old. All of his "best" years in his prime were cut short due to injury.


This isn't even me saying "well - without injuries, Lemieux 100% beats all the single season records Gretzky attained and so we have to consider Lemieux a better player overall". Not at all.

But i think it's only fair to believe he would have had a good chance at them. Don't you?

 

[blogofmike]

The more games playdd in a sample, the more it regresses to the mean. Play fewer games and itis easier to maintain a high average. It's why 88-89 Mario actually outscored 92-93 Mario through 60 gp, but by playing more games, his scoring average was lower.

Also Gretzky was the better ES scorer of the two. PP success was not an issue in Lemieux's totals, as Gretzky was just as effective. It was raw PPO. Lemieux getting more PPO in his 2 best seasons than Gretzky got in his 3 best seasons is a cartoonish difference.

 

[VanIslander]

What's more dangerous for a goaltender than a shooter with a wicked slapshot who is even better at dishing off a pass?

**** the **** do you do?



I feel sorry for nearly every 1000+ NHL successful goal shots against goalie he beat.

(playoffs included, because why the heck not include the more significant playoff goals?).

Is there a more dangerous goal scorer than the one who scores more than others yet dishes off twice as often?

No one is the equal of Gretzky, offensively.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

It's also interesting to note that gretzky never had a playoff over a gpg

Lemieux had 16 in 15 in 92
And 12 in 11 in 89

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

What's more dangerous for a goaltender than a shooter with a wicked slapshot who is even better at dishing off a pass?

**** the **** do you do?



I feel sorry for nearly every 1000+ NHL successful goal shots against goalie he beat.

(playoffs included, because why the heck not include the more significant playoff goals?).

Is there a more dangerous goal scorer than the one who scores more than others yet dishes off twice as often?

No one is the equal of Gretzky, offensively.

True. Is anyone denying that?

But this is about best goal scorers.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

did you guys see this goal jannik hansen scored this week?



i mean, omg, he must be a mario level goalscorer to beat a 2015 goalie clean with a shot from the outside right?