Anyone have Gretzky vs. Lemieux head-to-head game stats?

[zackmak]

Does anyone have a link to how each of these players did against each other, per game?

How many times did they actually go head-to-head (regular season;All-Star)?

It would be nice if the results also included which team won the game.


I'm only really interested in the games BOTH players were in the lineup - not the games where one was scratched/missing due to injury, etc.

Click to read more...

 

[Rebuilt]

Its not often you run across a guy who waited 4 years to finally post after joining.

It would an interesting comparison but I wouldnt draw too much from it.

 

[Huggy]

Alternate universe:

91 for pittsburg is 84 for oilers

who wins

 

[Plural]

You can probably get your answer from HoH board. I remember someone shoving those stats few years back.

Welcome "new" poster. 4 years and now you made your first post.

 

[BraveCanadian]

blogofmike has posted them a few times over the years..

I am not sure if these are totally up to date but here is one of the posts:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=30042557&postcount=21]

Not flattering for Lemieux to be honest. Even post-Oilers Gretzky is dominant in their head-to-head games.

 

[zackmak]

Thanks for the help! Yeah, originally I signed up because I was looking for authentic Gretzky jerseys to buy from a 'selling' thread that was listed, and that's it. I would just PM, when interested.

Ever since the 'buy/sell' thread disappeared, my focus went elsewhere.

This is a great site, though, now that I'm revisiting it! Kudos to those members that provide insightful posts, stats and facts, and continue to do so (as just proven). Although I'm not one to post, I like sifting through the boards for interesting topics.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Gretzky dominated Lemieux in every possible way: head to head matchup stats, more cups, more goals, more assists, more points, more scoring titles, more Hart Trophies, more records and more respect from the hockey world.

All the Mario camp has is more excuses.

 

[kdfsjljklgjfg]

Gretzky dominated Lemieux in every possible way: head to head matchup stats, more cups, more goals, more assists, more points, more scoring titles, more Hart Trophies, more records and more respect from the hockey world.

All the Mario camp has is more excuses.

Gretzky's prime and peak predated the dead puck era, played on arguably the most dominant dynasty in NHL history, and Lemieux missed several years due to cancer.

They're pretty good excuses.

It's easy to make things sound good without context.

 

[McRpro]

Gretzky's prime and peak predated the dead puck era, played on arguably the most dominant dynasty in NHL history, and Lemieux missed several years due to cancer.

They're pretty good excuses.

It's easy to make things sound good without context.

Do you measure years in months?

 

[Jacob]

Do you measure years in months?

He missed 1 full season and 2 months from his cancer and its treatment.

 

[tazzy19]

It's crazy that Gretzky out scores Lemieux with his assists alone -- whether we look at Oilers or post Oilers, or combined -- and still scores more goals than him, too. Gretzky pretty much destroyed Lemieux head to head.

 

[McRpro]

He missed 1 full season and 2 months from his cancer and its treatment.

That's several years?

 

[Rebuilt]

This is how I view the Gretzky v Lemiuex never ending (non) debate.

Gretzky fans never bring this debate up. They dont need to. The guy holds 50 NHL records give or take and has more assists than anyone else does points. The entire league retired his number.

The Mario fans come along and see how good their hero was and how close he really did come (in stretches) to Gretzky and wonder what would have happened if this or that or the other thing.

They cant just compare the two. Lemieux never broke any of Gretzkys records so they have to introduce a bunch of caveats into the argument.

In other words, since the actual facts do not help Lemieux approach Gretzky, lets just change all the rules using caveats.

My first thought was to list the most well known caveats but in the end they are just that. Caveats.

If you need 'caveats' to prove your case, then you might want to re think why you believe your guy to be better in the first place.

 

[Ryker]

Do you measure years in months?

By the way, you should've asked whether he measures months in years, so you goofed up anyway.

 

[zackmak]

If you need 'caveats' to prove your case, then you might want to re think why you believe your guy to be better in the first place.

This is VERY true. With Gretzky, his number #1 position across the board is always 'reality'; with Lemieux, it's always 'yeah, but what if?"

Gretzky was so far ahead of his class, that he was in a class of his own throughout his prime years...and also his ENTIRE playing years (when looked at collectively). It's only natural in sports to want to compare the best with other athletes - or better yet, find a comparable equal for the sake of good old fashioned debate. There's no way any strong argument could be made between '3rd place' and lower players (like Yzerman, Sakic, Jagr, etc), because the distance - and CONSISTENCY year in, year out - between them in numbers and records was simply not there.

Along comes Mario and he's an anomaly who was much, much better than the '3rd place' players, so therefore, a legitimate rivalry is born with Gretzky. Many times Lemieux was even showing signs he was just as great or greater than Gretzky at a specific given moment in a game/season. In retrospect though, when all was said and done and you're comparing everything each player has done in their career, Mario had a shorter and less dominating spread of greatness, when looking at it from a numbers game. And the 'numbers game' is usually how comparisons work in sports to rank, defend, compare players.

After that, adjustments, assumptions, and altered views come into play. And I don't mind that at all. They are fun to look at.

Over the years, listening in and reading about who is better, one thing always stands out: Gretzky believers sit pretty and don't have to fudge or alter anything to state their case, while Lemieux believers give reasons/excuses as to why Lemieux never achieved the things Gretzky did, and ask Gretzky believers (and anyone, really) to look at stats in an altered way, outside the standard.

Just let Wayne be 'great', and Mario be 'magnificent', and be comfortable with the pure, statistical obvious.

 

[GrkFlyersFan]

Anyone who says Mario was better than Gretzky is into what-ifs. That being said, points per game, which is THE what-if stat still goes Gretzky's way. Gretzky=best, Mario=one of the best

 

[Jacob]

That's several years?

It's more than the "months" that you suggested.

 

[shazariahl]

Gretzky's prime and peak predated the dead puck era, played on arguably the most dominant dynasty in NHL history, and Lemieux missed several years due to cancer.

They're pretty good excuses.

It's easy to make things sound good without context.

Lemieux's prime also predated the dead puck era, unless people think 89-96 was the dead puck era.

 

[GrkFlyersFan]

Not only that, but Gretzky at 37 years old still put up 90 points in the heart of the dead puck era behind only Jagr and Forsberg who were in their primes!

 

[Worraps]

In the interest of fairness, hockey pools used to break out Gretzky's goals and his assists as separate players. No one ever did the same for Lemieux.

That pretty much settles the argument for me.

 

[Luigi Lemieux]

Lemieux's prime also predated the dead puck era, unless people think 89-96 was the dead puck era.

I concede Gretzky is the best player ever, but Lemieux is closer than most want to admit. People say Lemieux's ppg is high because he didn't play much after his prime, but fail to acknowledge that he missed hundreds of games during his prime as well. A time when he was putting up 2+ppg and would've increased his overall ppg. Between 1988 and 1996 he missed 217 games.

 

[KMart27]

It's more than the "months" that you suggested.

The year that he missed was also the lockout shortened year so it really ended up being more like half a year he missed.

I concede Gretzky is the best player ever, but Lemieux is closer than most want to admit. People say Lemieux's ppg is high because he didn't play much after his prime, but fail to acknowledge that he missed hundreds of games during his prime as well. A time when he was putting up 2+ppg and would've increased his overall ppg. Between 1988 and 1996 he missed 217 games.

Missing games lowers point totals, it doesn't lower ppg. I'm not sure why you think that Lemieux's ppg would have increased by playing more games.

 

[Ryker]

Missing games lowers point totals, it doesn't lower ppg. I'm not sure why you think that Lemieux's ppg would have increased by playing more games.

Because he said those missed games were in his prime, i.e. when a player's PPG is at its peak.

Regardless, I think games missed are a poor argument. They are reality and the fact of the matter is that he did miss those games. A scrub that can play fourth line duty is worth more to a team than a broken superstar. So if the question is who was better, then during those months when he missed the games, Lemieux wasn't any good at all.

 

[KMart27]

One would have to imagine that if Lemieux is healthy enough to play those games during his prime he would also play more games past his prime which would help to even the ppg out.

It's just more ifs and maybes with Lemieux.

 

[ManofSteel55]

It's more than the "months" that you suggested.

It's 14 months, not counting offseason. Which means it is more accurate to claim months than years.