Gretzky 81-82 vs Lemieux 92-93 vs Ovie 07-08

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Best season: Gretzky
Best Player : Gretzky


Lemieux falls short. Lemieux shatters jack shit. Nothing indicates he would surpass Gretzky. The season Lemieux racked up 160 points. The league was full of garbage expansion teams and 23 100 + point players of which 6 had over 130 ! The year Gretzky netted his best there were 10 to 13 100 point scorers.

Go wash those hands bud.

Hopefully one day mcdavid passes 128 points or Kucherov will forever be the better player

 

[Video Nasty]

7.3 gpg vs 8 gpg. That is a difference but it is usually ignored when it comes to Lemieux vs Gretzky. A 93 lemieux in a 8 gpg league shatters 212

Nah, despite Gretzky being the one to actually do it all, it's not really ignored because detractors try to explain away his accomplishments every chance they get.

It's easy to just look at average GPG and simply project, but let's look at some real life examples of where league wide GPG didn't seem matter.

Lemieux himself with comparable seasons.

1987-1988 (age 22): 168 points in 77 games (Average GPG: 7.33)
1995-1996 (age 30): 160 points in 70 games (Average GPG: 6.18)

Difference of 1.15 GPG between the seasons.

Surely if Lemieux put up 160 in 70 at age 30 in an environment where scoring was well over a goal lower than 8 years prior, he should have put up 220+ points?

A lesser player like Sakic:

1995-1996 (age 26): 120 points in 82 games (Average GPG: 6.18)
2000-2001 (age 31): 118 points in 82 games (Average GPG: 5.41)

Difference of 0.77 GPG between the seasons.

Surely, he should have put up more than 2 points (and 3 less goals) in a scoring environment difference higher than your example at a younger age? Yet he didn't.

Or putting up almost the same season at age 37 as he did at age 20 in a much lower scoring environment.

If you just project based on average GPG, it doesn't make a lick of sense really. It's not that simple and there's too many examples where the same player proved that higher or lower league wide scoring made little difference in some of their best seasons.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Agreed - you need to look at more than just the total goals per game when comparing different seasons.

It was easier for top players to score more points in 1993 compared to 1982. That's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact. There were 21 players who scored 100+ points in 1993, and only 13 in 1982. There were 10 players who scored 120+ points in 1993, and only 5 in 1982. Pick whatever cut-off points you want and you'll see this pattern holds true.

Why was it easier for players to record big totals in 1993, despite the league-average goals per game being higher in 1982? Three reasons explain this:

1. There were far more powerplays in 1993 compared to 1982. The average team had 38% more PP opportunities in 1993 compared to 1982. In 1993, the Flyers had 399 PP opportunities - worst in the league. That would have ranked them 3rd most in 1982. The numbers back this up. You had a similar number of players with 70 ES points both years (11-10). The reason players were higher scoring 1993 is due to PP scoring - 31 players scored 40+ PP points in 1993, only 10 did that in 1982. Or using 30 PP points as a cut-off, you have 70 such players in 1993, 36 in 1982.
2. The NHL expanded rapidly leading up to the 1993 season (adding three teams in two years). These three teams collectively went 44-195-13 (14 wins, 63 losses, 4 ties over an 82 game season). They allowed an average of 4.53 goals per game. Top players were able to feast on the weaker competition. Many of the players who had huge years got a nice boost against these teams. LaFontaine scored 27 points in 11 games. Yzerman had 26 points in 11 games. Oates had 23 points in 11 games. Bure had 23 points in 12 games. Recchi had 19 points in 7 games. Fedorov had 23 points in 11 games. I can keep giving examples, but the point is - there were three awful teams that stars beat up on.
3. The schedule was 4 games longer (84 games vs 80 games). Not a huge factor, but that's an extra ~10 points for Gretzky.

In summary - if we take the scoring environment into account, this only helps boost Gretzky's 1982 campaign farther ahead of Lemieux's 1993 campaign than it already is.

 

[Regal]

7.3 gpg vs 8 gpg. That is a difference but it is usually ignored when it comes to Lemieux vs Gretzky. A 93 lemieux in a 8 gpg league shatters 212

League wide GPG is not a proper measure of '93 scoring

Edit: nevermind, I see it's been covered

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Nah, despite Gretzky being the one to actually do it all, it's not really ignored because detractors try to explain away his accomplishments every chance they get.

It's easy to just look at average GPG and simply project, but let's look at some real life examples of where league wide GPG didn't seem matter.

Lemieux himself with comparable seasons.

1987-1988 (age 22): 168 points in 77 games (Average GPG: 7.33)
1995-1996 (age 30): 160 points in 70 games (Average GPG: 6.18)

Difference of 1.15 GPG between the seasons.

Surely if Lemieux put up 160 in 70 at age 30 in an environment where scoring was well over a goal lower than 8 years prior, he should have put up 220+ points?

A lesser player like Sakic:

1995-1996 (age 26): 120 points in 82 games (Average GPG: 6.18)
2000-2001 (age 31): 118 points in 82 games (Average GPG: 5.41)

Difference of 0.77 GPG between the seasons.

Surely, he should have put up more than 2 points (and 3 less goals) in a scoring environment difference higher than your example at a younger age? Yet he didn't.

Or putting up almost the same season at age 37 as he did at age 20 in a much lower scoring environment.

If you just project based on average GPG, it doesn't make a lick of sense really. It's not that simple and there's too many examples where the same player proved that higher or lower league wide scoring made little difference in some of their best seasons.

161 points in 70 games in a 6.29 gpg league is incredible. That’s 189 points. In a 8.00 gpg league easily over 200. 6.29 is essentially the 05-06 season.

 

[Cup or Bust]

Can't go wrong with either Gretzky or Lemieux, but I am going with Lemieux.

 

[Video Nasty]

161 points in 70 games in a 6.29 gpg league is incredible. That’s 189 points. In a 8.00 gpg league easily over 200. 6.29 is essentially the 05-06 season.

Is it really 189 points though? There's zero evidence for it. 161 in 70 projects to 189 sure...but consider the following:

It's funny because for all the what ifs that people bring up with Lemieux (and Crosby), I don't see what I'm about to bring up too often. In 1995-1996, Lemieux had 109 points in his first 41 games.

He had 40 points in his first 12 games.
He had 64 points through 22 games.
He had 76 points through 28 games (he started the season on a 28 game point streak).
He had 109 points through 41 games.

That means he finished with 52 points in his final 29 games. 31 points in his final 16 games of that season, which included a 7 point game and a 5 point game. According to you and anyone who uses pace, adjusted stats, projections, etc, he should have had 218 points that year in a scoring environment of 6.18 which means he would get 300+ in a 8.00 GPG league. If you were told he would play 70 games, you would project him to 186 points. But in reality, he had 161.

Of course it's incredible. Lemieux is enshrined for life as no worse than a top 3 forward. But as brilliant and proven as he was, I don't trust any player other than Gretzky to be a lock for paces because he did it year after year after year. But even Gretzky, when he started with 153 points in 51 games did not maintain 3.0 ppg for the entire season, because scoring almost always drops by season's end.

Point of the post is that nothing is guaranteed. Lemieux proved he could get 160+ in any era, whether GPG was 6, 7 or higher.

How did someone like Sakic put up essentially the same season in a higher scoring environment than he did 5 seasons later in a lower scoring environment at an older age? Shouldn't he have hit 140 instead of 120 in 1995-1996 according to anyone who uses this very flawed projection method?

How could Lemieux put up 109 in his first 41 of 1995-1996 at age 30 in a 6.18 GPG league and "only" 5 points more for 114 in his first 41 of 1988-1989 at age 23 in a 7.33 GPG league?

Adjusted stats and speculations are cute and fun, but mean little realistically.

 

[ManwithNoIdentity]

Ovechkin being here is just utter silliness

 

[bobholly39]

Is it really 189 points though? There's zero evidence for it. 161 in 70 projects to 189 sure...but consider the following:

It's funny because for all the what ifs that people bring up with Lemieux (and Crosby), I don't see what I'm about to bring up too often. In 1995-1996, Lemieux had 109 points in his first 41 games.

He had 40 points in his first 12 games.
He had 64 points through 22 games.
He had 76 points through 28 games (he started the season on a 28 game point streak).
He had 109 points through 41 games.

That means he finished with 52 points in his final 29 games. 31 points in his final 16 games of that season, which included a 7 point game and a 5 point game. According to you and anyone who uses pace, adjusted stats, projections, etc, he should have had 218 points that year in a scoring environment of 6.18 which means he would get 300+ in a 8.00 GPG league. If you were told he would play 70 games, you would project him to 186 points. But in reality, he had 161.

Of course it's incredible. Lemieux is enshrined for life as no worse than a top 3 forward. But as brilliant and proven as he was, I don't trust any player other than Gretzky to be a lock for paces because he did it year after year after year. But even Gretzky, when he started with 153 points in 51 games did not maintain 3.0 ppg for the entire season, because scoring almost always drops by season's end.

Point of the post is that nothing is guaranteed. Lemieux proved he could get 160+ in any era, whether GPG was 6, 7 or higher.

How did someone like Sakic put up essentially the same season in a higher scoring environment than he did 5 seasons later in a lower scoring environment at an older age? Shouldn't he have hit 140 instead of 120 in 1995-1996 according to anyone who uses this very flawed projection method?

How could Lemieux put up 109 in his first 41 of 1995-1996 at age 30 in a 6.18 GPG league and "only" 5 points more for 114 in his first 41 of 1988-1989 at age 23 in a 7.33 GPG league?

Adjusted stats and speculations are cute and fun, but mean little realistically.

I agree with a lot of this.

1. There's no perfect method of adjusting stats in a vacuum. If you use some formula to compare 1989 and 1996 based on all the context in the world to make it the most fair comparison possible - odds are if you try to use that same method to compare 1982 to 1989 it completely changes, because context is different. Simply can't do it in a vacuum.

2. League average goals per game is a good indication of offensive level but hardly an exact correlation. It's absolutely true that if Lemieux scored 161 points in 96 in a 6.18 GPG league he would score more in an 8.0 GPG league if he was performing at the same level that year - but there's no direct mathematical correlation to guess the exact outcome.

Nonetheless - in regards to Lemieux - he 100% proved he could score at those insane rates. He scored 199 points in 1989. He scored 160 in 60, and 161 in 70 in lower scoring league. So - it's not like he only hit those level once in a ~25 game sample where you could say "there's no proof he could maintain that pace". The truth is - Lemieux had very few healthy seasons when at his peak level between 1988 to 1996. And the scoring levels were mostly down vs the 80s.

To use your dreaded "what if" question - if Lemieux had been 100% fully healthy and played every full season from 1990 through to 1996 - I'm certain he'd have approached that 200 plateau more than once. Every season in a row like Gretzky did? Probably not. Would he surpass 215? Not sure - maybe in 1993. Were conditions in the league different, which renders raw statistics comparisons to other seasons in the 80s imperfect? Absolutely.

Also - I suspect that for every example of Lemieux and Gretzky's pace going down as season progresses - there's probably a counter example for their pace going up later in the season. It fluctuates. So in regards to a season like 1996 - it's true that you can't say that 161 points in 70 games would have ended up as 189 points if he had played all 82 games. Maybe his pace goes up and he surpasses 189, maybe it does down and he lands closer to ~180.

If we look at 1996 specifically - I'd say Lemieux's pace would have gone down if he played all games. He was 30 years old, and I think he sat out a few back to back games, which likely helped him. In almost any other season though - more games might mean higher ppg or lower ppg - you can't just assume it goes down. Same idea for Crosby from 2011-2013 for what it's worth.

 

[amnesiac]

Ovechkin being here is just utter silliness

Was only fair to put the "best" season by any player from the past 25 years or so.

But I also just wanted to see how many people would vote for him....

 

[DANTHEMAN1967]

Gretzky definitely pumped up his totals playing in the horrible Smythe Division.

 

[wetcoast]

Oh god

Pretty much and as bad as 5.4% voting for Ovi we have to consider a higher % of Americans think the moon landing was faked and that Elvis is still alive so the 5.4% is really a good thing in a wacky kinda way...

 

[McFlash97]

Hopefully one day mcdavid passes 128 points or Kucherov will forever be the better player

lol

your living in some alternate reality, I can't quite get there man.

also

Gretzky at 20 years of age with a chalk full of teenagers with 92 goals and 212 points for a full season versus 27 year old Mario with a much more mature lineup , playing in just 60 games with players in their primes. I say Gretzky's season was better.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Is it really 189 points though? There's zero evidence for it. 161 in 70 projects to 189 sure...but consider the following:

It's funny because for all the what ifs that people bring up with Lemieux (and Crosby), I don't see what I'm about to bring up too often. In 1995-1996, Lemieux had 109 points in his first 41 games.

He had 40 points in his first 12 games.
He had 64 points through 22 games.
He had 76 points through 28 games (he started the season on a 28 game point streak).
He had 109 points through 41 games.

That means he finished with 52 points in his final 29 games. 31 points in his final 16 games of that season, which included a 7 point game and a 5 point game. According to you and anyone who uses pace, adjusted stats, projections, etc, he should have had 218 points that year in a scoring environment of 6.18 which means he would get 300+ in a 8.00 GPG league. If you were told he would play 70 games, you would project him to 186 points. But in reality, he had 161.

Of course it's incredible. Lemieux is enshrined for life as no worse than a top 3 forward. But as brilliant and proven as he was, I don't trust any player other than Gretzky to be a lock for paces because he did it year after year after year. But even Gretzky, when he started with 153 points in 51 games did not maintain 3.0 ppg for the entire season, because scoring almost always drops by season's end.

Point of the post is that nothing is guaranteed. Lemieux proved he could get 160+ in any era, whether GPG was 6, 7 or higher.

How did someone like Sakic put up essentially the same season in a higher scoring environment than he did 5 seasons later in a lower scoring environment at an older age? Shouldn't he have hit 140 instead of 120 in 1995-1996 according to anyone who uses this very flawed projection method?

How could Lemieux put up 109 in his first 41 of 1995-1996 at age 30 in a 6.18 GPG league and "only" 5 points more for 114 in his first 41 of 1988-1989 at age 23 in a 7.33 GPG league?

Adjusted stats and speculations are cute and fun, but mean little realistically.

Because Lemieux was 30 years old in 96. A 27 year old Mario would keep it up

 

[LongWayDown37]

I often lean towards Lemieux over Gretzky for talent, but not here. That year from Gretzky, era considered and all, was absurd. Just absurd.

Ovi is an all time great and this was a great season. But he doesn’t belong here.