- Jan 22, 2007
- 14,439
- 7,205
Nobody in their right mind could argue with this. There will never be another Gretzky from this standpoint.
If Lemieux & Gretzky played the same # of games (the best comparison I've ever seen)
- Thread starter tazzy19
- Start date
Nobody in their right mind could argue with this. There will never be another Gretzky from this standpoint.
Killion
Registered User
- Feb 19, 2010
- 36,763
- 3,215
Note that the op said "anyone Ive ever seen"? Now, not to detract nor in anyway take anything away from Gretzky but the history of the sport is peppered throughout with seminal generational talents who like Gretzky not only served as an inspiration to their team mates but so too raised their games to far greater heights in overachieving, pushing the envelope. To state empirically that "there will never be another Gretzky from this standpoint" is to dismiss those who came before him, some of those who came after and shutters the mind. It stifles, puts up a wall in terms of mans ability to dream of future generational talents, one bereft of phenoms' ever being born & taking up the game equal to & better than Wayne Gretzky. This is simply not the case. Now, will anyone ever come along & break every record Gretzky ever set? Doubtful, as the games evolved beyond the perfect environment in which Gretzky lived & played. However, if by chance there is some sort of reverse Darwinian like evolution of how the games played to an all-out offensive style as it was in the 80's, then sure. Records are made for being broken.
Trottier
Very Random
I mentioned that Mario was at his best in the early '90s (though I never used the word "peak" nor did I imply that he wasn't a prolific scorer prior). So I'll respond:
Back in the '80s, he was doing it on a bottom feeder relatively speaking. In the early '90s, he was doing it on the best team on the planet (and the 2nd greatest offensive machine ever, IMO), and in the biggest games. Dominantly so.
Just me, but, for example, literally toying with Ray Bourque one-one-one down the ice in a playoff game is more impressive than doing same, say in a regular season game among two last place teams in April '86. Context matters.
I recognize that my post makes not a single reference to a offensive stat (horrors!). But you get the point. Gretzky's out of this world decade of the '80s led directly to historic team success. Mario's out of this world offensive domination led to multiple Cups in the early 90s. (Cue the: "But there were other good players on the Oilers and Pens too!" cry.
) That impresses those of us who believe that players (and their performance) exist to win games.Hence, I have always been more impressed with Mario's work in the early '90s.
Just my opinion.
tony d
Registered User
Completely healthy Lemieux gains traction for the age-old GOAT argument.
Then account for injuries for Gretzky and it's not close again.
Then account for injuries for Orr and that's a ginormous new can of worms opened.
I guess Howe gets the short end of the stick here, getting punished for being insanely durable whilst still playing an immense physical game.
Then account for injuries for Gretzky and it's not close again.
Then account for injuries for Orr and that's a ginormous new can of worms opened.
I guess Howe gets the short end of the stick here, getting punished for being insanely durable whilst still playing an immense physical game.
redbull
Boss
- Mar 24, 2008
- 12,593
- 654
excellent post. Reminds me of that "standing on the shoulders of giants" Einstein quote that I love - but hockey version!
I think what's lost on a lot of HF folks, especially the younger ones that never had the chance to see players like Lafleur, Dionne, Stastny, Trottier and Bossy play in the late 70s and THEN watch Gretzky and the Oilers, is how much of the era was changed BY GRETZKY and the way he specifically played the game.
Gretzky is often "punished" in a sense, for the high-scoring 80s with the saddest irony is that it was him to changed the game, defined the era.
Just like Orr revolutionized the role of the defenseman, paving the way for guys like Potvin, Robinson, Bourque, Coffey, Mike Green
99 played a HUGE role in actually creating the high-scoring 80s. And yes, scoring was high, but Gretzky scored almost 2000 points in the 80s, Stastny/Kurri/D.Savard scored just over 1000 - so, almost DOUBLE. Which is beyond absurd by comparison.
I wouldn't say Mario "defined" his era the way Gretzky did. But Mario was pretty dominant in his own right. From 1987-88 until 1996-97, Mario's best years, he scored 1146pts in just 530 games, Lafontaine had 755 in 571 games, much closer to Mario than anyone was to Gretzky.
In terms of comparison to peers, over the same core timeframe/era, Gretzky's pure statistical numbers are beyond what's reasonable. Can it happen again? I hope so.
Stats aside, it's impossible for anyone to say with any certainty "who's better" because it's so subjective and biased, but it was impossible to watch a game and not see how much better 99 and 66 were above their superstar peers. That separation just doesn't exist in this era so it's hard for many (who never saw them) imagine.
But rewatching the 87 Canada Cup and understanding that the "other" 40-ish players on the ice were the best in the world, there are so many shifts and plays that Gretzky displayed that are a perfect indication of the type of game he played ALL THE TIME. He was just as good in mid-week November games against Winnipeg as he was in the Cup finals. (Except 1983-84, when he was totally schooled by Billy Smith, Denis Potvin, Bryan Trottier - only time ever)
excellent post. Reminds me of that "standing on the shoulders of giants" Einstein quote that I love - but hockey version!
I think what's lost on a lot of HF folks, especially the younger ones that never had the chance to see players like Lafleur, Dionne, Stastny, Trottier and Bossy play in the late 70s and THEN watch Gretzky and the Oilers, is how much of the era was changed BY GRETZKY and the way he specifically played the game.
Gretzky is often "punished" in a sense, for the high-scoring 80s with the saddest irony is that it was him to changed the game, defined the era.
Just like Orr revolutionized the role of the defenseman, paving the way for guys like Potvin, Robinson, Bourque, Coffey, Mike Green
Which is beyond absurd by comparison.
I wouldn't say Mario "defined" his era the way Gretzky did. But Mario was pretty dominant in his own right. From 1987-88 until 1996-97, Mario's best years, he scored 1146pts in just 530 games, Lafontaine had 755 in 571 games, much closer to Mario than anyone was to Gretzky.
In terms of comparison to peers, over the same core timeframe/era, Gretzky's pure statistical numbers are beyond what's reasonable. Can it happen again? I hope so.
Stats aside, it's impossible for anyone to say with any certainty "who's better" because it's so subjective and biased, but it was impossible to watch a game and not see how much better 99 and 66 were above their superstar peers. That separation just doesn't exist in this era so it's hard for many (who never saw them) imagine.
But rewatching the 87 Canada Cup and understanding that the "other" 40-ish players on the ice were the best in the world, there are so many shifts and plays that Gretzky displayed that are a perfect indication of the type of game he played ALL THE TIME. He was just as good in mid-week November games against Winnipeg as he was in the Cup finals. (Except 1983-84, when he was totally schooled by Billy Smith, Denis Potvin, Bryan Trottier - only time ever)
Great post, but I can only assume you meant 1982-83 (regarding being schooled by those Islander players). You are definitely right that Gretzky changed the style of play in the 80s. He was the model of that era; he was the example everyone tried to follow -- whether by choice or by submission. The very early 80s were lower scoring than the late 80s....and that was because of how Gretzky (and his Oilers) pushed the game open.
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates Of Arda
One might even say that he created his very own Perfect Storm
Indeed! Rather than being a product of a "perfect storm", Gretzky WAS the "perfect storm".
PhilJets
Winnipeg is Good
Yup Mario would have gotten closer, he will be about 1000 points closer instead of the difference now.
Thats how good Gretzky was.
Kinda off topic...But I seem to recall that if you add Gretzky, Hull & Howe's NHL + WHA totals , they're pretty much in a dead heat ( way too lazy to check ! )
I could definitely see Super Mario ( who took a little longer than Wayne to hit his stride...Big Men often do ) putting up Gretzky-esque totals , if healthy throughout his career...After all, didn't he get like 160 pts in 60 odd games when still battling back woes, etc?
The Panther
Registered User
Yes, he did, which is amazing.
But where I'm 'suspicious' (if that's the right word) about Lemieux's likelihood of matching Gretzky's career stats is the issue of year-to-year, month-to-month consistency.
Looking at Lemieux's (utterly stellar) NHL career, there are 6 seasons of Gretzky-like 2.0+ points-per-game. At most, however, he managed that in only 3 consecutive seasons (no mean feat, obviously), though in the last of the 3 he missed 1/4 of the season. His other 3 seasons at that ultra-elite offensive level come with 2 in a row, then a year's break, then the last 1.
Now, before anyone jumps all over me -- yes, I'm aware that Lemieux's not missing games and staying 100% healthy is the premise of this thread. But still... he didn't reach the 2.0+ points-per-game level until he was 22, and his last such season he was 30.
In Gretzky's case, he reached the 2.0+ points-per-game in his second season when he was still coming out of his teens, and he maintained it completely until age 30 as well (with the slight blight of 1989-90, when he dropped to 1.95).
What this means is that Lemieux would likely, at maximum, have had 9 seasons at that super, ultra-elite scoring level. Gretzky actually had 10 and then another at 1.95.
It's only a difference of one or two seasons at that level, but I think when you add in Gretzky's eleven-year peak being more consistent then Lemieux's stats -- which even in per-game are kind of all over the place -- I think Gretzky would come out ahead of a healthy Mario.
I just think that eliminating games-played as a factor, the guy who is more consistent and brings it every single night is going to be the 'winner'.
- Jan 22, 2007
- 14,439
- 7,205
Back woes and, let's not forget, cancer. Mario's dominance in 1992-93 is the most remarkable season I've ever seen in any of the 4 majors because of the ailments he had to fight. To go through those struggles and still dominate at a level that has only be matched by a healthy Gretzky is just not human IMO. For my money, it's the most remarkable, individual "all things considered" feat in sports history.
Sentinel
Registered User
What's your argument here? That Gretzky only beat his closest linemate by 70 points?
You can give Mario all his games with good health and not do the same for Gretzky in the 90's and Gretzky still comes out ahead. It's not nearly as close as many like to believe.
Ohashi_Jouzu*
Registered User
Richard
Registered User
- Feb 8, 2012
- 2,902
- 2,023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NISIaN889eI
Clip after his first hip surgery. Still had decent wheels.
Clip after his first hip surgery. Still had decent wheels.
Hockeypete49
How you like me now!
I always felt that Mario was the better player if he had stayed healthy. What a goal scorer!
I'm not even going to read this thread, as I have read enough on here about Gretzky to fill me to the top with bile. That said, he's still the greatest offensive player ever, and a better two-way guy than Mario - more energy and hustle, more puck interceptions.
Anyways, as for the thread, even if Mario were healthy, and played the same career length, he would have been a good bit behind in points. Most of this is due to era. Gretzky, and not because he had to endure an actual bodycheck in the numbers once in his career, saw his numbers dipping greatly into the beginnings of the DPE. Age was a factor, but EVERYONE's numbers did the exact same. Lemieux actually was suited to still produce in that era, but he wouldn't have had a shot at ever hitting anything close to 200 points after 1995. No one would have, at any point in their careers, magically transported to the late 90's... right until today.
So no, Mario, I don't think - could ever have done it, even healthy. At his very best, 199points, which would have been around 215 if healthy, he still doesn;t have 3 more years close enough to 200 like Gretzky had OVER 200, and then the high scoring era ending, he couldn't possibly.
Start him in 1979, and give them the same careers/health, and he still doesn't - but I think its close, and I think he ends up with more goals. Gretzky had the better supporting cast when he was going over 200, and Lemieux was only a very good, young points getter. Lemieux's supporting cast was great when he finally started threatening 200points, and couldn't stay healthy enough. And i think that's the bottom line, really. Gretzky was clearly better at doing it without a great supporting cast, even though Mario was second best ever in this regard.
All things equalized - Gretzky = more points by something in the neighbourhood of nearly 10%, and Lemieux, I feel, would have a slight goal advantage.
Anyways, as for the thread, even if Mario were healthy, and played the same career length, he would have been a good bit behind in points. Most of this is due to era. Gretzky, and not because he had to endure an actual bodycheck in the numbers once in his career, saw his numbers dipping greatly into the beginnings of the DPE. Age was a factor, but EVERYONE's numbers did the exact same. Lemieux actually was suited to still produce in that era, but he wouldn't have had a shot at ever hitting anything close to 200 points after 1995. No one would have, at any point in their careers, magically transported to the late 90's... right until today.
So no, Mario, I don't think - could ever have done it, even healthy. At his very best, 199points, which would have been around 215 if healthy, he still doesn;t have 3 more years close enough to 200 like Gretzky had OVER 200, and then the high scoring era ending, he couldn't possibly.
Start him in 1979, and give them the same careers/health, and he still doesn't - but I think its close, and I think he ends up with more goals. Gretzky had the better supporting cast when he was going over 200, and Lemieux was only a very good, young points getter. Lemieux's supporting cast was great when he finally started threatening 200points, and couldn't stay healthy enough. And i think that's the bottom line, really. Gretzky was clearly better at doing it without a great supporting cast, even though Mario was second best ever in this regard.
All things equalized - Gretzky = more points by something in the neighbourhood of nearly 10%, and Lemieux, I feel, would have a slight goal advantage.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
If I had to start a franchise I would take prime Mario over prime Wayne but its real close.
Mario had the better scorers touch in my opinion.
Mario had the better scorers touch in my opinion.
Barnum
Registered User
What? So, what you're saying is, any game the Pens lost during the Mario era was because Mario decided that game was not worthy of winning. Okay then, thanks for the insight.
Barnum
Registered User
Exactly, if you do it for Mario, than you have to do it for everyone. These arguments are silly. Basically and unfortunately, injuries are apart of sports and they have to be taken into account. It is what it is. Mario and other players did what they did and any amount of straying from that is conjuncture and make believe.
PhilJets
Winnipeg is Good
Gretzky is the GOAT, dont understand why people say Lemiuex is better.
Besides all the statistical evidence and awards, Gretzky:
revolutionized the Game
put NHL from probably not going anywhere to Southern and West Coast State. He increased the fan base.
his skill level is off the chart, Mario looks beautiful doing it, no doubt about it but skill for skill? Gretzky
Same like Michael Jordan, this is not just about stats, thought they kill both leagues. Both of them save their league.
People knows Wayne Gretzky in the Philippines not Mario Lemiuex :@)
Futile arguments...
You cannot argue for someone who has done it to someone who might have done it, IF.
Even if you try to find an arguement againts Gretzky's worst season with Lemiuex, Jagr, Crosby, etc... is insane
You don't compare someones worst season to anothers best season?
Gretzky played well above and beyond his peers, thats the best way to compare it not because it year 2010 or its dead puck era.
Gretzky is the man..
Besides all the statistical evidence and awards, Gretzky:
revolutionized the Game
put NHL from probably not going anywhere to Southern and West Coast State. He increased the fan base.
his skill level is off the chart, Mario looks beautiful doing it, no doubt about it but skill for skill? Gretzky
Same like Michael Jordan, this is not just about stats, thought they kill both leagues. Both of them save their league.
People knows Wayne Gretzky in the Philippines not Mario Lemiuex :@)
Futile arguments...
You cannot argue for someone who has done it to someone who might have done it, IF.
Even if you try to find an arguement againts Gretzky's worst season with Lemiuex, Jagr, Crosby, etc... is insane
You don't compare someones worst season to anothers best season?
Gretzky played well above and beyond his peers, thats the best way to compare it not because it year 2010 or its dead puck era.
Gretzky is the man..
