99's peak

[Henkka]

Gretzky's legend/magic is actually starting to hurt him in these debates, because people tend to over-exaggerate the "he scored 200 points without good skating/shooting/size" angle.

In reality he had plus skating, generational agility and - for a 4 year period with the Oilers - one of the deadliest slapshots in the history of the game.

I watched those legendary '87 Canada Cup games from youtube and did a scoring chance data of it.

It's phenomenal how crazy good Gretzky is in those games. There wasn't enough paper to collet his created chances for linemates.

Makarov from the opposite side comes near and Lemieux was the 3rd best player. Still, Mario was more of the product of Wayne, even though he could have lived on his own.

Canada was pretty weak as a team without Wayne, it's crazy to say that when seeing the talent overall.

But chances between these teams were almost equal and Sovjets had more balanced scoring. Canada was all Wayne.

 

[authentic]

Based on what? And Mario played during the "highflying" '80s yet was not able to put up a season worthy of your claim.

Actually, I just remembered you show no willingness for an objective discussion so forget about it.

Does 1988-89 ring a bell? Lemieux didn't enter his prime until a bit later, and once he did he was every bit as good as Gretzky was. It's also a common opinion that the early to mid 90s was at an all time high for elite talent, makes sense considering the influx of Russian and European talent, the improvement of goaltenders and, oh yeah, let's not forget the eye test. The improvements in the game and skill level is noticeable from the 80s to the 90s, probably the biggest decade to decade improvement all things considered. Considering this a 1989-1996 Lemieux was simply a better player.

Lol, You just remembered I show no willingness for an objective discussion? Not sure if you're just mistaking me for someone else, maybe yourself?

 

[VoluntaryDom]

hes called the great one for a reason

 

[Lindberg]

If you have to do mathematical gymnastics to make an argument for why another player is better you're doing it wrong.

 

[The Panther]

In terms of the prime Gretzky vs. prime Orr debate (say, 1980-1988 vs. 1967-1975), I can see the arguments both ways (I say this never having seen Orr play).

But I think the Orr camp tends to rely on the fact that Orr went +124 once and had a greater degree of influence on the direction of play while he was on the ice than did Gretzky. Those are indeed facts.

However, if you compare their plus/minuses over their primes, they're almost exactly even -- Orr does not have a significant advantage over Gretzky in that category. Then, when you consider that Orr almost certainly had more ice-time, it becomes even less of a factor, if not Gretzky's advantage.

I do think Orr had a greater individual influence on his team's fortunes, on the ice (his Corsi would have been off the charts). But, again, that's basically because he was a defenceman and the quarterback of the team. It's different for forwards who don't control the play from the back end.

Both players stepped right into the NHL as 18-year-olds and had enormous impacts, though I think Gretzky's was greater in his first two seasons (although I concede that is partly due to era difference -- Orr entered for one season in the Classic-6 era, which would have been harder for anyone to dominate in at 18).

Neither player, in his salad days, had the strongest 'strength-of-competition' in NHL history, but I think Gretzky's was a harder NHL to dominate than Orr's, especially after about 1984.

They're very close in their prime years. But I think Gretzky's larger stash of records, awards, Stanley Cups, and statistical dominance of peers puts him over the top.

 

[Ultimate Bandwagon]

Here's a good one:

Gretzky reached 1,000 points faster than any other player in history in just 424 games.
Lemieux did it in 513 games.
But wait it gets better. Gretzky scored his 2nd 1,000 points in the following 433 games.
It's pretty remarkable that his pace barely slowed down for 2,000 straight points. That's a pretty serious prime.

I think Mario had the more iconic build of a hockey player in the sense that he was big and imposing. But Gretzky didn't need those things, he was just always one step (maybe more than one) ahead of the play. That's where Gretzky's greatness lies, he was able to think the game much better than anyone else.

 

[blood gin]

Here's a good one:

Gretzky reached 1,000 points faster than any other player in history in just 424 games.
Lemieux did it in 513 games.
But wait it gets better. Gretzky scored his 2nd 1,000 points in the following 433 games.
It's pretty remarkable that his pace barely slowed down for 2,000 straight points. That's a pretty serious prime.

I think Mario had the more iconic build of a hockey player in the sense that he was big and imposing. But Gretzky didn't need those things, he was just always one step (maybe more than one) ahead of the play. That's where Gretzky's greatness lies, he was able to think the game much better than anyone else.

Yes of course. I mean sometimes it looks like he exhibited telepathy on the ice. But his actual physical talents sometimes gets diminished because people always talk up his hockey IQ.

He was a very good skater, outstanding top end speed. His shot velocity wise was good but his accuracy in hitting whatever corner he needed to from everywhere was amazing.

 

[daver]

Does 1988-89 ring a bell? Lemieux didn't enter his prime until a bit later, and once he did he was every bit as good as Gretzky was. It's also a common opinion that the early to mid 90s was at an all time high for elite talent, makes sense considering the influx of Russian and European talent, the improvement of goaltenders and, oh yeah, let's not forget the eye test. The improvements in the game and skill level is noticeable from the 80s to the 90s, probably the biggest decade to decade improvement all things considered. Considering this a 1989-1996 Lemieux was simply a better player.

Lol, You just remembered I show no willingness for an objective discussion? Not sure if you're just mistaking me for someone else, maybe yourself?

Pretty convenient for Mario to wait until later to reach his peak so you can make your '90s > '80s argument. If Mario was truly better than Wayne, he would of been putting up better numbers prior to 88/89 even if he hadn't reached his peak yet.

The eye test shows 92/93 to be an incredibly high scoring season that saw many a player who were dominated by Wayne in the '80s putting up big numbers.

The majority accept that Mario, at his best, rivaled Wayne but did not show conclusively that he could put up the multiple peak seasons that Wayne could. And this was not necessarily all due to injuries.

 

[blogofmike]

As even strength scorers go, Lemieux was as close to Gretzky as anyone (though Guy Lafleur has the best non-99 ES Point season). But it wasn't all that close.

Since this thread is Peak Gretzky:

Gretzky 1982-87: 473 GP, 827 Even Strength Points
Lemieux 1985-97: 745 GP, 833 Even Strength Points

 

[The Panther]

If you want to get really technical about it, Gretzky's insane scoring pace started around January 1981 (mid-way through 1980-81) and continued, unabated and with no time off, until May 1988. (And this only slightly slowed during his first three years with Los Angeles.)

If you were talking more specifically about his goal-scoring, his specific peak period would encompass October 1981 through January 1987. During that 5.5 season period, he scored about 415 goals in about 394 games (he scored about 40 goals in the first 40 games in 1986-87, and after that hugely slowed down), which is insane over that long of a period.

But really what's most amazing is his 5-on-5 dominance during his prime, and how little he depended on man-advantage situations for goals and points. During 1980-81 through 1986-87, here is how many goals + assists = points he scored each season, deleting all points scored on the power-play:
1981: 40 + 72 = 112 (tied 5th in scoring)
1982: 74 + 81 = 155 (1st in goals and 1st in points, 4th in assists)
1983: 53 + 89 = 142 (1st in assists and 1st in points)
1984: 67 + 93 = 160 (1st in goals, 1st in assists, 1st in points -- despite missing 6 games)
1985: 65 + 100 = 165 (2nd in goals [to linemate], 1st in assists, 1st in points)
1986: 41 + 121 = 162 (1st in assists and 1st in points)
1987: 49 + 88 = 137 (1st in assists and 1st in points)

So, yeah. This means that Gretzky had the 4 highest-scoring NHL seasons in history if he had never played a shift on the power-play during his prime.

It also means he probably would have won 6 Hart trophies in a row if his coach had never let him play the power-play for six years.

 

[blogofmike]

True about Gretzky beginning to ascend higher in January 1981, but for the "slow" parts of his prime (1979-80 to 1991-91) he was a 100 ES point player 10 times, and no one else has gotten there twice. In the two seasons he missed time (87-88, 89-90) he still cracked 90 ES points and led the league in ES points.

That's why post-91 Gretzky is an entirely different player. He immediately drops from 103 in 1991 to 63 in 1992.

 

[authentic]

Pretty convenient for Mario to wait until later to reach his peak so you can make your '90s > '80s argument. If Mario was truly better than Wayne, he would of been putting up better numbers prior to 88/89 even if he hadn't reached his peak yet.

The eye test shows 92/93 to be an incredibly high scoring season that saw many a player who were dominated by Wayne in the '80s putting up big numbers.

The majority accept that Mario, at his best, rivaled Wayne but did not show conclusively that he could put up the multiple peak seasons that Wayne could. And this was not necessarily all due to injuries.

I'm not talking about scoring levels, the league was much better in the 90s and that's a fact.

 

[daver]

I'm not talking about scoring levels, the league was much better in the 90s and that's a fact.

Again, this makes no sense as Mario had plenty of opportunity to tear up the inferior '80s regardless whether he had reached his peak or not. It is not reasonable.

Tell you what. Go to this thread http://hfboards.mandatory.com/threads/the-big-4.2425163/
and make your case. If the majority agree with you then I will agree.

 

[Blue and Green]

Gretzky's career in total is on its own level and speaks for itself. There is nothing like it.

Orr's final six seasons before his bad knee totally gave out are absolutely on the same tier as Gretzky's six best.

Lemieux's ongoing issues made his availability to play such a hit-and-miss proposition that he has no stretch of comparable seasons in terms of actual achievements, and thus he cannot be put on the same level as Gretzky in the full picture. But his best seasons on a pro-rated, era-adjusted basis are as good as Gretzky's. 1988-89, 1992-93, 1995-96 (at age 30, no less) are phenomenal. It is illogical to compare Gretzky's points totals from the mid-80's straight up to Lemieux's in 1995-96 when scoring had dropped by 20%.

 

[daver]

Gretzky's career in total is on its own level and speaks for itself. There is nothing like it.

Orr's final six seasons before his bad knee totally gave out are absolutely on the same tier as Gretzky's six best.

Lemieux's ongoing issues made his availability to play such a hit-and-miss proposition that he has no stretch of comparable seasons in terms of actual achievements, and thus he cannot be put on the same level as Gretzky in the full picture. But his best seasons on a pro-rated, era-adjusted basis are as good as Gretzky's. 1988-89, 1992-93, 1995-96 (at age 30, no less) are phenomenal. It is illogical to compare Gretzky's points totals from the mid-80's straight up to Lemieux's in 1995-96 when scoring had dropped by 20%.

Scoring by the elite offensive players in 95/96 and 92/93 was very comparable to scoring by the elite offensive players in the '80s and I believe Mario was skipping the 2nd game of back to backs or something in 95/96 so it is not reasonable to pro-rate that particular season.

Not that this changes much in terms of your evaluation but some try to position Mario has being better based on unreasonable adjusting of his seasons.

 

[IamNotADancer]

All the math and comparison of different generation players is completely useless. You can always bend math and truth to support your narrative. What you can't however not change is the gap between the best player and the second best player in every said season.

All you need to do to know just HOW great Gretzky was is compare him to the second best players every season. That's all the answer you need.
Nobody came ever close to him and it is likely that no one ever will

 

[The Panther]

But [Lemieux's] best seasons on a pro-rated, era-adjusted basis are as good as Gretzky's. 1988-89, 1992-93, 1995-96 (at age 30, no less) are phenomenal. It is illogical to compare Gretzky's points totals from the mid-80's straight up to Lemieux's in 1995-96 when scoring had dropped by 20%.

Of course those three seasons (you could add 1987-88, too) are phenomenal for Lemieux, and certainly one by one they're more-or-less on par with some of Gretzky's best seasons. (Aside from 5-on-5 success, in which Mario lags really far behind.)

But two points: 1) team success and 2) consistency/volume, enormously favor Gretzky. With Gretzky, we can pick or choose four or five or six seasons as his best, and he had about 10 in a row that were superhuman. With Lemieux, we're looking at his putting maximum two elite and full seasons in a row together (1987-88 and 1988-89). That's it -- two. Of course, it's not exactly his fault that he got injured frequently after that, but even in 1989-90 (when he might otherwise have had his third superhuman season in a row) and prior to his injury, his scoring pace was already noticeably below that of the season before, he fell to -18, and his team missed the playoffs. (He also fell off that pace further -- in fact, below 30-year-old Gretzky's pace -- in the few games he played in the following year, 1990-91). His scoring was actually slowing down as his team and teammates were getting stronger. This evidence doesn't suggest to me that injuries were what kept Lemieux from consistently putting up numbers to match Gretzky's best.

Likewise, the next time he played two full seasons in a row, from 1995-96 to 1996-97, his pace also fell dramatically in the second season, although in fairness by then he was getting a bit worn down and the lower-scoring NHL was emerging.

I don't think you'll get very far with the era-superiority arguments, when Lemieux was all of 4 years younger than Gretzky and retired before he did. Also, in Lemieux's most productive season (1988-89), four NHL players scored 150 or more points, something that had never happened prior during Gretzky's peak (in fact, three had never happened prior). Likewise, in 1992-93, more players scored 100+ points than any season before in history -- two scored 76 goals apiece (one a rookie).

You're probably correct that 1995-96 is the best example of Mario's era-defying statistical scoring, certainly in terms of NHL-average scoring levels. But then again, the Penguins that season scored a whopping 362 goals, 104 more than the League average and about the same amount the Gretzky-Oilers were scoring in 1987 and 1988 (when Gretzky scored at a 184 point-pace). Lemieux would have matched that approximate level if he'd played 10 or 12 more games that season, but the difference here might be that he was +10 to Gretzky's +70. (His team also suffered a collapse against Florida in round three, which seemed to suggest that Lemieux's winning the battle against Scotty Bowman had helped the offensive players' stats but not the team's success.)


But anyway, my point is not about total points scored -- who really cares? There are two players in history who could score 160+ points in a season. Whether one scored 175 or 200, I don't really care. What impresses me more is dominance over peers + consistency, year in and out.