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

[Beef Invictus]

I don't think he passes him in points, but possibly in goals.

 

[Trottier]

^ And I also think Mario scores 96 goals in 1992-93 which breaks Wayne's record.

That truncated and ridiculous '92-'93 season of his left this observer shaking his head in amazement then...and still doing same some 20 years later.

Under any other circumstances, Patty Lafontaine had a memorable season. Mario returns...and passes him like a comet. Mind boggling how prolific he was in the early '90s, in particular, IMO. Truly living out the cliché about a man among boys.

(And the above is no slight toward #99 whatsoever. Greatness is greatness, by any name.)

 

[Iain Fyffe]

^ And I also think Mario scores 96 goals in 1992-93 which breaks Wayne's record.

In four more games. Asterisk! Asterisk!

 

[Plural]

Because in 88-89 when Mario scored 199 he pretty much turned a fire plug like Rob Brown into a 49G/115Pt "scorer." In 1992-93 when Lemieux was (or should have been peaking) he actually had some legit talent around him (Stevens and Tocchet on his line) and he was scoring at a 213 point pace. And that's with missing time with cancer treatments. This statistical dominance by a professional athlete, during such physically-taxing circumstances, is nothing short of amazing. I don't think anything in sports history comes close to be honest.

When you look at Gretzky's big years, he was playing with Kurri who was scoring 65+ goals and 130 points. Yes, Gretzky made Kurri a better player, but Kurri himself was many tiers above Rob Brown. Both players had the luxury of playing with Coffey (Gretzky got him at his peak). But during his big year(s), Wayne was surrounded by Kurri, Messier, Anderson, etc. Mario had guys like Brown, Errey, Quinn, Cullen - no comparison.

I get the idea what you are going for. I am just not sure I agree with it. I realize that Mario was going through tough times with his cancer and the treatment. But we are not talking about some miracle that could only be portrayed by Mario. Koivu wen't through cancer and missed 70+ games and was able to jump in pretty much the same as he was. How about Kessel?

Supporting-cast aside, how do you figure that 199 was not peak-Mario when he played one of the best hockey he ever has. His 2nd highest PPG in a season and the third highest is .32 lower. Saying that this was not Mario peaking sounds wrong.

 

[Mrb1p]

The biggest knock on Lemieux is that he played a lot of games in the DPE.

 

[Plural]

Fair enough with 81-82. Let's take a look at 1985-86 during Gretzky's top year...

Wayne, 215
Coffey, 138 with 48 goals!
Kurri, 131 with 68 goals
Anderson, 102 with 54 goals

We can also look at 1984-85 when Gretzky put up 208...

Wayne, 208
Kurri, 135 with 71 goals!
Coffey, 121 with 37 goals!

And Mario certainly didn't get Coffey "in his peak years" as you suggest. Coffey's peak was...

1983-84: Edmonton, 126 points
1984-85: Edmonton, 121 points
1985-86: Edmonton, 138 points

To be clear, nobody in their right mind is discrediting Gretzky for his amazing accomplishments. He played with the talent he was blessed to have around him. My point is, Gretzky was fortunate enough to be surrounded by elite talent during many of his monster years and Lemieux wasn't. That's not a knock on Gretzky, it's just a fact. Once Mario was hitting his peak (and the Pens added elite level talent around him) he was unfortunately crippled by an awful back and had to battle cancer. That is just a terrible misfortune and hockey fans were robbed of seeing the best hockey in Mario's career. In the process I truly believe he would have broken Wayne's 215 and 92 by a hair. He also would have had a peak as powerful as Gretzky, making a case that he is on par with Wayne (or better than him) as the greatest offensive weapon in NHL history.

So, it is OK to use the one season where Mario scored 199 as an example, but somehow when Gretzky does it you refute it?

Gretzky showed, just like Mario, that despite the players they play with they can be in the 200-range. Gretzky barely improved his totals. I doubt Mario would have either.

 

[Boxscore]

In four more games. Asterisk! Asterisk!

I actually made my calculations on 80 gp projections, not 82 or 84.

 

[Boxscore]

So, it is OK to use the one season where Mario scored 199 as an example, but somehow when Gretzky does it you refute it?

I didn't mean to do that. IMO Gretzky peaked at a young age. That's not a bad thing, it's just when he was at his very best offensively. A large portion of that peak also coincided with him being part of an offensive machine in Edmonton - granted, where he was the main cog by far. I'll never strip Gretzky of an ounce of credit. The guy played a preseason game with the same passion of a playoff contest. He was amazing. I'm not "taking away" from Gretzky here - I'm "adding" to Lemieux.

My point was, that the 199 point season for Mario was the turning point of his career, but in my heart I believe he didn't peak yet, although he was about to. I guess we could say it was the "launching pad" of his peak, the same way 1981-82 was for Wayne. The early-to-mid-90s were the greatest the Pens ever were in their history and Mario was struggling through serious injuries and cancer during a good portion of that. If he wasn't hurt or had cancer, I think he easily trumps his 199 point season twice during those early-90s years.

Gretzky showed, just like Mario, that despite the players they play with they can be in the 200-range. Gretzky barely improved his totals. I doubt Mario would have either.

That's a valid point, although debatable IMO. I've been watching this game since the late-70s and the stuff Gretzky did was on another planet until 1992-93. What Mario did that year has never been matched in pro sports IMO. Prior to that, he lead the Pens to B2B Cups and put up insane points while not even being able to tie his own skates or place his carry on bag in the overhead compartment during team travel. Remove the severe back pain and cancer during those years and I'm convinced Mario improves on his 199 season. Unfortunately we'll never know for certain.

 

[Plural]

Fair enough. It is a lot of speculation. But that is not unheard of with Mario. Maybe he would have improved his 199. In fact, I am fairly certain he hits 200+ if he plays the whole 92-93 season. At his peak, he was offensively comparable to Gretzky. Not as good playmaker, but bit better goal-scorer.

Even without injuries, I doubt he would still be ranked ahead of Gretzky. He would have more support for it tough.

 

[Fred Taylor]

I agree with you totally Boxscore, how was Lemieux ever supposed to really improve if he couldn't play and practice with a healthy body? He was the most physically skilled player ever, who never got to use his physical capabilities to their full potential. Sadly we'll never really know how much better he could have been.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

I actually made my calculations on 80 gp projections, not 82 or 84.

I know. I actually made my comment in jest.

 

[Boxscore]

Fair enough. It is a lot of speculation. But that is not unheard of with Mario. Maybe he would have improved his 199. In fact, I am fairly certain he hits 200+ if he plays the whole 92-93 season. At his peak, he was offensively comparable to Gretzky. Not as good playmaker, but bit better goal-scorer.

Even without injuries, I doubt he would still be ranked ahead of Gretzky. He would have more support for it tough.

We pretty much feel the same way. Mario was the better goal scorer and Gretzky was definitely the better passer. Although in both instances the separation is rather slim. Both had uncanny hockey IQs and creativity but 99 was the more cerebral player and 66 was more physically impressive (due to hulking size, reach and one-on-one deking ability). Durability and fortune aside, Gretzky was the better ambassador and perfect face. He was also the most important player in NHL history IMO.

Strictly in terms of offensive ability, these guys are very close as is, although Gretzky has the edge at the end of the day. But in this hypothetical, the gap closes even more and the difference is as close as a toss up. Gretzky probably still wins out with more overall points but it would be a 55/45 split, let's say, instead of an 80/20 that I suspect it currently is.

 

[Boxscore]

I agree with you totally Boxscore, how was Lemieux ever supposed to really improve if he couldn't play and practice with a healthy body? He was the most physically skilled player ever

Mario was jaw-dropping brilliant. Gretzky accomplished more and at the end of the night you were like, "man, Gretzky factored in on 6 goals!" But when watching Lemieux, the greatness was more visible due to his size, physical skill and the artistic style in which he played the game. Gretzky was a master chess player and Mario was flamboyant artist. Nobody "looked as good" performing on the ice as 66.

 

[tazzy19]

Mario was jaw-dropping brilliant. Gretzky accomplished more and at the end of the night you were like, "man, Gretzky factored in on 6 goals!" But when watching Lemieux, the greatness was more visible due to his size, physical skill and the artistic style in which he played the game. Gretzky was a master chess player and Mario was flamboyant artist. Nobody "looked as good" performing on the ice as 66.

Great description, though when Gretzky was in his prime, he was also quite the artist. Here's probably the best Gretzky highlight package (showcasing his artistry) I've seen on youtube:

 

[shazariahl]

Fair enough with 81-82. Let's take a look at 1985-86 during Gretzky's top year...

Wayne, 215
Coffey, 138 with 48 goals!
Kurri, 131 with 68 goals
Anderson, 102 with 54 goals

We can also look at 1984-85 when Gretzky put up 208...

Wayne, 208
Kurri, 135 with 71 goals!
Coffey, 121 with 37 goals!

And Mario certainly didn't get Coffey "in his peak years" as you suggest. Coffey's peak was...

1983-84: Edmonton, 126 points
1984-85: Edmonton, 121 points
1985-86: Edmonton, 138 points

To be clear, nobody in their right mind is discrediting Gretzky for his amazing accomplishments. He played with the talent he was blessed to have around him. My point is, Gretzky was fortunate enough to be surrounded by elite talent during many of his monster years and Lemieux wasn't. That's not a knock on Gretzky, it's just a fact. Once Mario was hitting his peak (and the Pens added elite level talent around him) he was unfortunately crippled by an awful back and had to battle cancer. That is just a terrible misfortune and hockey fans were robbed of seeing the best hockey in Mario's career. In the process I truly believe he would have broken Wayne's 215 and 92 by a hair. He also would have had a peak as powerful as Gretzky, making a case that he is on par with Wayne (or better than him) as the greatest offensive weapon in NHL history.

I agree with some of what you say, but Gretzky also more than doubled any of his teammates the year before too (164 pts, next highest was Kurri with 75, then Messier with 63. He outscores his nearest teammate by 89 points. Gretzky's 55 goals outscores all but 3 teammates for their totals points on the season, and his 109 assists gives him the team scoring title by 34 points - just on assists. This was the year before Gretzky started breaking 200 points regularly.

Quite easily. Wayne Gretzky was the greatest point producer in NHL history and he was light years better than most - only Lemieux and Orr can even be mentioned in the same breath offensively IMO. Gretzky deserves all the credit in the world. I just think he was more fortunate than Lemieux, both from a "quality of teammates" standpoint as well as a "health and durability" standpoint (especially during their respective peaks). All I'm saying is if Mario was granted the same fortune by the hockey gods, he would have broken some of Wayne's records and would have had a peak equally as great.

It's possible he would have - but it's also possible he wouldn't have. Despite Lemieux's goal scoring prowess, he never beat 50 in 39 or 50 in 42 - both done by Gretzky. So while it's possible he beats the single season or career goal scoring records, it's hardly a guarantee. OTOH, Gretzky scored 120 assists with the Kings, which is more than Lemieux ever scored in a single season ever no matter who he played with. He never came close to 163. Lemieux broke 100 assists once ever, Gretzky did it 11 times in a row. Obviously if healthy, Lemieux probably does it a couple other times (he came close), but it wouldn't challenge Gretzky's superiority in playmaking. In other words, at best he MIGHT have beaten some Gretzky goal records, but even then probably not all. And he doesn't beat any of the assists records.

I didn't mean to do that. IMO Gretzky peaked at a young age. That's not a bad thing, it's just when he was at his very best offensively. A large portion of that peak also coincided with him being part of an offensive machine in Edmonton - granted, where he was the main cog by far. I'll never strip Gretzky of an ounce of credit. The guy played a preseason game with the same passion of a playoff contest. He was amazing. I'm not "taking away" from Gretzky here - I'm "adding" to Lemieux.

My point was, that the 199 point season for Mario was the turning point of his career, but in my heart I believe he didn't peak yet, although he was about to. I guess we could say it was the "launching pad" of his peak, the same way 1981-82 was for Wayne. The early-to-mid-90s were the greatest the Pens ever were in their history and Mario was struggling through serious injuries and cancer during a good portion of that. If he wasn't hurt or had cancer, I think he easily trumps his 199 point season twice during those early-90s years.



That's a valid point, although debatable IMO. I've been watching this game since the late-70s and the stuff Gretzky did was on another planet until 1992-93. What Mario did that year has never been matched in pro sports IMO. Prior to that, he lead the Pens to B2B Cups and put up insane points while not even being able to tie his own skates or place his carry on bag in the overhead compartment during team travel. Remove the severe back pain and cancer during those years and I'm convinced Mario improves on his 199 season. Unfortunately we'll never know for certain.

I do agree with most of that. And something a lot of Lemieux fans overlook when they talk about how Lemieux adjusted to the 90's and Gretzky "couldn't", is that Gretzky wasn't just older, he also peaked early. Lemieux peaked later, and was younger. So of course there was going to be a more pronounced difference later in their careers. I do think Lemieux's 199 point season was part of his peak though. To argue otherwise is like saying Gretzky's 196 pt season isn't part of his, since he didn't break 200. Did he have even better seasons? Yes. But that doesn't mean it wasn't part of his peak.

Great description, though when Gretzky was in his prime, he was also quite the artist. Here's probably the best Gretzky highlight package (showcasing his artistry) I've seen on youtube:

Some of those are awesome.

 

[Boxscore]

Awesome Gretzky vid. Enjoy some Mario!

 

[Pominville Knows]

Just wanted to add that finding 50 in 39 or 175 in 60 is not really fair to Mario in this type of thread. Wayne had many more games to notch such lofty and great stretches in, and probably the differing scoring eras could be considered as well although this "healthy Mario Lemieux guy" is still just theoretic so i dont know how to treat his possible additional stretches of this kind, since i dont know what they would read.

 

[El Nino 22]

This would be Lemieux's point totals each season he played if he scored at the same pace for an 80 game season. It doesn't account for the years he missed but it gives us an Idea what he could have done.

84/85: 110 Pts
85/86: 142 Pts
86/87: 136 Pts
87/88: 174 Pts
88/89: 209 Pts
89/90: 166 Pts
90/91: 138 Pts (He only played 26 games)
91/92: 164 Pts
92/93: 213 Pts
93/94: 134 Pts (He only played 22 games)
94/95: DID NOT PLAY
95/96: 184 Pts
96/97: 129 Pts
00/01: 141 Pts
01/02: 103 Pts (24 games)
02/03: 130 Pts
03/04: 72 Pts (10 games)
05/06: 68 Pts (26 games)

In the years he played he would have racked up 2173 points had he scored on the same pace. He missed 4 whole years not including the lockout if he scored 100 points a year in 98, 99, and 00 which is not unreasonable there would be another 300. if he played in the 48 game 95 season he would have likely won the Art ross over Jagr and Lindros so well say 75 for that season. 2173+375= 2548. He wouldn't have passed Gretzky in points but would have made it a very strong argument that he was better. Gretzky started in 1980 and peaked during the high scoring 80's whereas Lemieux didn't start till 85 and didn't peak till the start of the 90's and very end of the 80's. He also would have been dominant in the dead puck era too, which would have helped the argument. I think we all know who the "better" hockey player was but injuries stop him from a chance at being the "greatest"

 

[Irato99]

This would be Lemieux's point totals each season he played if he scored at the same pace for an 80 game season. It doesn't account for the years he missed but it gives us an Idea what he could have done.

84/85: 110 Pts
85/86: 142 Pts
86/87: 136 Pts
87/88: 174 Pts
88/89: 209 Pts
89/90: 166 Pts
90/91: 138 Pts (He only played 26 games)
91/92: 164 Pts
92/93: 213 Pts
93/94: 134 Pts (He only played 22 games)
94/95: DID NOT PLAY
95/96: 184 Pts
96/97: 129 Pts
00/01: 141 Pts
01/02: 103 Pts (24 games)
02/03: 130 Pts
03/04: 72 Pts (10 games)
05/06: 68 Pts (26 games)

In the years he played he would have racked up 2173 points had he scored on the same pace. He missed 4 whole years not including the lockout if he scored 100 points a year in 98, 99, and 00 which is not unreasonable there would be another 300. if he played in the 48 game 95 season he would have likely won the Art ross over Jagr and Lindros so well say 75 for that season. 2173+375= 2548. He wouldn't have passed Gretzky in points but would have made it a very strong argument that he was better. Gretzky started in 1980 and peaked during the high scoring 80's whereas Lemieux didn't start till 85 and didn't peak till the start of the 90's and very end of the 80's. He also would have been dominant in the dead puck era too, which would have helped the argument. I think we all know who the "better" hockey player was but injuries stop him from a chance at being the "greatest"

Actually if that was reality Gretzky would be considered the best even more, because when you're removing injuries and missed time for Mario, you're removing most of the arguments people have for him today.

 

[tazzy19]

This would be Lemieux's point totals each season he played if he scored at the same pace for an 80 game season. It doesn't account for the years he missed but it gives us an Idea what he could have done.

84/85: 110 Pts
85/86: 142 Pts
86/87: 136 Pts
87/88: 174 Pts
88/89: 209 Pts
89/90: 166 Pts
90/91: 138 Pts (He only played 26 games)
91/92: 164 Pts
92/93: 213 Pts
93/94: 134 Pts (He only played 22 games)
94/95: DID NOT PLAY
95/96: 184 Pts
96/97: 129 Pts
00/01: 141 Pts
01/02: 103 Pts (24 games)
02/03: 130 Pts
03/04: 72 Pts (10 games)
05/06: 68 Pts (26 games)

In the years he played he would have racked up 2173 points had he scored on the same pace. He missed 4 whole years not including the lockout if he scored 100 points a year in 98, 99, and 00 which is not unreasonable there would be another 300. if he played in the 48 game 95 season he would have likely won the Art ross over Jagr and Lindros so well say 75 for that season. 2173+375= 2548. He wouldn't have passed Gretzky in points but would have made it a very strong argument that he was better. Gretzky started in 1980 and peaked during the high scoring 80's whereas Lemieux didn't start till 85 and didn't peak till the start of the 90's and very end of the 80's. He also would have been dominant in the dead puck era too, which would have helped the argument. I think we all know who the "better" hockey player was but injuries stop him from a chance at being the "greatest"

Can we remove all the injuries and missed games for Gretzky, too? Because if we did, Gretzky would have 10 straight Hart Trophies, over 1000 goals, and about 3500 points. The problem of giving Lemieux all the "what ifs" is we have to give Gretzky all the "what ifs" as well.....and that's when we see that Gretzky would dominate the make believe world even more than the real world. And that's when the "what if" argument for Lemieux completely falls apart....because it isn't just Lemieux who has the much better make believe world.

 

[LeBlondeDemon10]

Can we remove all the injuries and missed games for Gretzky, too? Because if we did, Gretzky would have 10 straight Hart Trophies, over 1000 goals, and about 3500 points. The problem of giving Lemieux all the "what ifs" is we have to give Gretzky all the "what ifs" as well.....and that's when we see that Gretzky would dominate the make believe world even more than the real world. And that's when the "what if" argument for Lemieux completely falls apart....because it isn't just Lemieux who has the much better make believe world.

Indeed. Let's end another of these 66 could have threads. Every player in history has had to deal with injuries to some extent. As far as I'm concerned, 99 played far more intense hockey as his teams went deeper into the playoffs consistently. That is not a knock on Lemieux, but simply a reality that Gretzky had far more mileage on him when 66 was still scoring at high ppg.

 

[tazzy19]

Awesome Gretzky vid. Enjoy some Mario!

Great Mario video. It's baffling to me that our generation witnessed both of these talents (#66 and #99) at the same time. These are two guys that would normally come around once every 100 years (honestly, I don't know how many years)…..and they came during the same era. Unbelievable.

 

[Mogo]

Mario would have gotten more goals for sure

 

[The Panther]

What is this recurring idea that Lemieux's peak started in the early 90s?

No, his peak started early in the 1987-88 season, which is to say it started in 1987. Or, you could say his peak started in September 1987 at the Canada Cup.

(For Gretzky, his peak started halfway through the 1980-81 season.)

 

[shazariahl]

This would be Lemieux's point totals each season he played if he scored at the same pace for an 80 game season. It doesn't account for the years he missed but it gives us an Idea what he could have done.

84/85: 110 Pts
85/86: 142 Pts
86/87: 136 Pts
87/88: 174 Pts
88/89: 209 Pts
89/90: 166 Pts
90/91: 138 Pts (He only played 26 games)
91/92: 164 Pts
92/93: 213 Pts
93/94: 134 Pts (He only played 22 games)
94/95: DID NOT PLAY
95/96: 184 Pts
96/97: 129 Pts
00/01: 141 Pts
01/02: 103 Pts (24 games)
02/03: 130 Pts
03/04: 72 Pts (10 games)
05/06: 68 Pts (26 games)

In the years he played he would have racked up 2173 points had he scored on the same pace. He missed 4 whole years not including the lockout if he scored 100 points a year in 98, 99, and 00 which is not unreasonable there would be another 300. if he played in the 48 game 95 season he would have likely won the Art ross over Jagr and Lindros so well say 75 for that season. 2173+375= 2548. He wouldn't have passed Gretzky in points but would have made it a very strong argument that he was better. Gretzky started in 1980 and peaked during the high scoring 80's whereas Lemieux didn't start till 85 and didn't peak till the start of the 90's and very end of the 80's. He also would have been dominant in the dead puck era too, which would have helped the argument. I think we all know who the "better" hockey player was but injuries stop him from a chance at being the "greatest"

Lemieux may have been more of an individual talent, but that doesn't make him better than Gretzky. Wayne had the ability to lift his teammates more than anyone I've ever seen. It wasn't just the crazy assist totals - those were simply the result of his ability - it was also clear when the Oilers needed big games. It was clear in team Canada, where he led all 4 Canada Cups he competed at in scoring. Even when his team lost, you could rarely point at Gretzky and say it was his fault. Hockey isn't a series of one-on-one drills, it's a team sport. And Gretzky did more as a team player and team leader. He made his team better than Mario did in comparison.

He elevated Lemieux in the 87 Canada Cup; did the same with guys who never would have made the HoF without him (like Anderson), helped guys like Nichols to shatter career best seasons by nearly 50% more points (and did the same with Lumley, etc). He wasn't just a great player, he inspired everyone he was with too. Lemieux spent way more time pouting, complaining to the media, and bemoaning his luck when guys like Gretzky won the Hart instead of him.

Gretzky took a weak Kings team and helped turn them into the 4th best team in the league the next season, and knocked the defending cup champion Oilers out of the playoffs in the first round (a team still good enough to win another cup a season later). He carried them to a cup finals in 5 years, with a team that had missed the playoffs 3 of the 4 previous seasons to him joining (in a 21 team league, where only 5 teams missed the playoffs, no less). Lemieux took years to turn the Pens around, and even when he did it was because they surrounded him with other talent. Despite gaudy individual point totals, they still missed the playoffs regularly after drafting him. He was a lot more selfish than Gretzky, and it showed in the way he played (all offense, not even trying to come back to his own end many times).

If I needed a big goal in a shootout, I would choose Lemieux. If I needed a guy to build a team around, I would choose Gretzky 10 times out of 10.