If Lemieux & Gretzky played the same # of games (the best comparison I've ever seen)

Sentinel

Registered User
May 26, 2009
12,860
4,711
New Jersey
www.vvinenglish.com

That Pittsburgh team had some amazing star power: Lemieux, Jagr, Lang, Straka, Kovalev, Morozov... I still can't believe they never won anything. Defense and goaltending have something to do with it though...

Isn't this another good argument for Gretzky? I mean, how much better was Fuhr than Wregget / Barasso? Yet Gretzky's Oilers were a dynasty, and late 90s-early 00s Pens won zilch.
 

Black Gold Extractor

Registered User
May 4, 2010
3,083
4,900
Gretzky was so good the Oilers won a Cup without him.

In fairness though, there are plenty of teams that won Stanley Cups without Howe, or Orr, or Gretzky, or Lemieux while those 4 were playing, and those 4 were (by miles) the best skaters that the NHL had ever seen.
 

tazzy19

Registered User
Mar 27, 2008
2,268
116
Gretzky was so good the Oilers won a Cup without him.
Gretzky was so good that he left a dynasty team for the 4th worst team in the NHL, and beat his old dynasty team in the first round of the playoffs later that very season. That pretty much seals it for me.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,982
Brooklyn
It certainly is an interesting factoid that none of Gretzky, Howe, Orr, or Lemieux was able to win a Cup on anything but an incredibly stacked team. Gretzky probably came the closest in 1993.
 

BladesofSTEELwFIRE

Registered User
Feb 15, 2010
1,570
3
Mario scored 199 with quinn and brown, would be very interesting if messier was on his left wing and kurri was on his right wing.

EXACTLY! Even ESPN' S Bill Clement said Mario could've gotten 300 points if you put Lemieux on those Edmonton glory teams instead of Gretzky! I know it's hyperbole but you get the idea!
 

Black Gold Extractor

Registered User
May 4, 2010
3,083
4,900
EXACTLY! Even ESPN' S Bill Clement said Mario could've gotten 300 points if you put Lemieux on those Edmonton glory teams instead of Gretzky! I know it's hyperbole but you get the idea!

At some level, skill is a limiting factor... but once your linemates pass a certain point in talent, they don't have to solely rely on you on offense. That's why Gretzky and Lemieux never really passed their high points even after their teams (and linemates) steadily improved. Both seemed to top off at a 210-ish point pace.
 

tazzy19

Registered User
Mar 27, 2008
2,268
116
At some level, skill is a limiting factor... but once your linemates pass a certain point in talent, they don't have to solely rely on you on offense. That's why Gretzky and Lemieux never really passed their high points even after their teams (and linemates) steadily improved. Both seemed to top off at a 210-ish point pace.
Exactly correct. The only ways I see Gretzky or Lemieux scoring more than they did is under brief stretches or significantly less than 80 games (ie, Gretzky scoring 3 PPG over 51 straight games in 83-84), or (and this is the main point as it pertains to your post), if they played with another player as good - or almost as good - as they were (in other words, if they played on the same line together during their primes). This is the only way they would have broken the law of diminishing returns. These guys didn't need star talent as much as the star talent needed them. That's why Gretzky was able to crack 200 points when he didn't have even an 86 point linemate....and Kurri was off the radar (for him). One would think that once Gretzky had linemates that were cracking 130 points, he would be scoring 250 points. But no, this was not the case. Gretzky could help them score more, but they couldn't really help him score that much more. Different levels. Had Gretzky played with someone on his level, then you'd see some serious damage.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad