If Orr started playing in todays NHL

[Dalton]

I'm sorry but the size of the net compared to the size of the goalie equipment does matter, a great deal in fact.

Take the old leather pads Dryden used to wear, you know those huge ones since he was 6'4", they would soak up moisture through the game, there is no way today's goalie's could be as affective in stopping the puck using that old equipment. To suggest that it doesn't affect every single player trying to scorejust doesn't make any sense at all, just look at what shooters see today compared back in the 70's and 80's.

And it's just not the goaltending that has changed in the last 40 years either the influx of players from Europe and the emergence of the United states a s feeder to the NHL has made the level of play more competitive and more difficult to score in for everyone.

I'm in my early 40's and watched and remember all of Wayne and Mario's career, Bobby's not as much so. I will be the 1st to agree that they were all extremely talented, the best in their time but really the players they were up against did make it easier for the 3 of them compared to the 21st century.

This fact does not diminish what they did and how great they were but it's a reality that none of them could dominate in the same way or even really close to it in 2010. The game has really changed that much.

The time and space factor and the overall skill level, at least in defensive terms is as much of a difference between the NHL and the top Jr leagues today. this also affected how each of these 3 dominated as well as their natural skill, abilities and compete levels.

Sweaty Shins? More players in a bigger league? And still your arguing genetic inferiority or systemic bias.

The game is geared towards offence and you think the games three biggest offensive stars would do worse if born and raised today.

I am in my 50's and did see Orr play. I find it hard to fathom that anyone could have seen Gretzky and Lemieux and not get that they would rip this league apart.

The best shooters had lasers and finesse. The goalie equipment size would only hinder the less talented shooters. I can't believe you've watched hockey all those years. I can't believe this stuff has to said. i can't believe you can't just agree to disagree and move on.

 

[Dalton]

I saw Orr play, not as much as Wayne or Mario though, and he was the best player in his time but it was not all about him being that great, the NHL he played in wasn't really all that great and in a lesser league it is easier to dominate.

I know that it's a difficult concept for many to grasp but the facts that the league was worse and that all 3 players were special talents are not mutually exclusive concepts, it's not a either or, it really can be both and probably is.

The fact these greats were very intelligent, talented hockey players and would be so today is also a subtle concept. Fortunately there is precedent in looking to other areas of life and seeing that greater minds than us have no problem placing an Archimedes among the greatest mathematical minds ever yet you can't grasp that the same concept can exist in hockey.

You continue to argue genetic inferiority or systemic bias. It's getting you nowhere and hasn't changed a single mind in this thread. Lets just agree to disagree.

 

[Hardyvan123]

The fact these greats were very intelligent, talented hockey players and would be so today is also a subtle concept. Fortunately there is precedent in looking to other areas of life and seeing that greater minds than us have no problem placing an Archimedes among the greatest mathematical minds ever yet you can't grasp that the same concept can exist in hockey.

You continue to argue It's getting you nowhere and hasn't changed a single mind in this thread. Lets just agree to disagree.

So just to clarify, you actually think there is very little difference in the NHL in the years 1972, 1982 and 1993 and 2010 or are we watching different games out there?

The pace of the game, changes in goalie equipment and the quality and compete level of the players (inclusion new talent pools from the USA and Europe) are just some of the factors here, don't cloud the issue by setting up the straw man of genetic inferiority or systemic bias.

Or maybe all that time and space created by the big 3 back in their day was some hocus pocus that memorized the opposition in becoming slower and pylon like?

 

[Rhiessan71]

So just to clarify, you actually think there is very little difference in the NHL in the years 1972, 1982 and 1993 and 2010 or are we watching different games out there?

The pace of the game, changes in goalie equipment and the quality and compete level of the players (inclusion new talent pools from the USA and Europe) are just some of the factors here, don't cloud the issue by setting up the straw man of genetic inferiority or systemic bias.

Or maybe all that time and space created by the big 3 back in their day was some hocus pocus that memorized the opposition in becoming slower and pylon like?

Tell me, who builds the straw man here, the guy who has no proof and all theory or the guy that has the proof and generation gap players to draw comparisons from?

We are all still waiting and have been for pages now, for you to explain how if it was so much easier to stand out and dominant when Orr, Gretzky and Lemieux played, why they are the only 3 to truly and consistently do it out of 1000's of players in the last 40 years.

By all means though Scarecrow, continue accusing everyone else of building strawmen.

Also, answer me this, if how fast you can skate, how hard you can shoot the puck and how big you are is the ultimate measure of how good of a hockey player you are, why wasn't Al Iafrate one of the best ever?
I guess to someone that doesn't seem to know any better or doesn't WANT to know any better that intelligence, craftiness and misdirection would be hocus pocus.

Gretzky must of put magnets in the puck so it always came to his metal stick or something because there's no other way that the puck should of followed him around like it did or always seem to end up where he was standing right

 

[Killion]

The pace of the game, changes in goalie equipment and the quality and compete level of the players (inclusion new talent pools from the USA and Europe) are just some of the factors here, don't cloud the issue by setting up the straw man of genetic inferiority or systemic bias....Or maybe all that time and space created by the big 3 back in their day was some hocus pocus that mesmorised the opposition in becoming slower and pylon like?

Yepp, "Hocus Pocus" Hardyvan. The intangibles these guys brought to the game was nothing short of that & Id wager Orr would do the same in todays game. Ditto Gretzky. Lemieux not so much, and though an entirely different animal, I rank him a notch or 2 below Gretzky & several below Orr. Relying on stats alone is a big, big mistake IMO. Again, IMO, if Orr was playing todays Mach 3 Game, he'd be moving around out their at Mach 1. Gretzky would just be Gretzky, a freak, a Magician, whose talent was ethereal & would easily transcend the generational changes in the game.

 

[Sens Rule]

So just to clarify, you actually think there is very little difference in the NHL in the years 1972, 1982 and 1993 and 2010 or are we watching different games out there?

The pace of the game, changes in goalie equipment and the quality and compete level of the players (inclusion new talent pools from the USA and Europe) are just some of the factors here, don't cloud the issue by setting up the straw man of genetic inferiority or systemic bias.

Or maybe all that time and space created by the big 3 back in their day was some hocus pocus that memorized the opposition in becoming slower and pylon like?

Gretzky and Mario were so incredibly superior to everyone else in their prime that the increase of the quality level of players, the increased talent from Europe are irrelevant. I did not see Orr but I assume he is like Gretzky and Mario in being just on another level from everyone else.

Mario would school Ray Bourque one on one. There is no one today that is as good or better than a prime Ray Bourque.

The rules vastly favour talent and PPs being called as compared to Gretzky, Orr or Mario's prime or entire careers. The increased level of general talent and execution in the league would be mitigated to a large degree by no redline, more PPs being called etc.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Gretzky and Mario were so incredibly superior to everyone else in their prime that the increase of the quality level of players, the increased talent from Europe are irrelevant. I did not see Orr but I assume he is like Gretzky and Mario in being just on another level from everyone else.

Mario would school Ray Bourque one on one. There is no one today that is as good or better than a prime Ray Bourque.

The rules vastly favour talent and PPs being called as compared to Gretzky, Orr or Mario's prime or entire careers. The increased level of general talent and execution in the league would be mitigated to a large degree by no redline, more PPs being called etc.

See my earlier post in this thread. The talk of more powerplays and use of the redline is such a myth, I honestly can't wrap my head around this being the most commonly used reason they would dominate to the same degree today, outweighing all other factors such as a deeper talent pool in a league with more teams, salary cap, advances in technology and training which have helped the average NHLer come a long way as everyone agrees, so therefore in such a league their same statistical dominace would not stand, even if grown up with these same advantages.

I don't see how it's logical to think they would dominate to the same extent today, let alone see any reason for people to get defensive and try to make someone feel like an idiot for saying otherwise. It's more obvious than many want to admit I bet.

 

[Blades of Glory]

Mario Lemieux scored 91 points (ranked 8th) and had a 1.36 PPG (2nd) at age 37 on a team that finished with 65 points. That was in 2002-03. At the height of the dead puck era. Good luck explaining why a prime Lemieux wouldn't dominate the league today. Contrary to many of today's hockey fans, technology and fitness actually became a part of the NHL prior to the 2004-05 lockout, which has become the de facto beginning of time for some fans. Mario Lemieux would make a mockery out of the NHL scoring race if he was healthy and in his prime. If you don't believe that, you never saw Lemieux in his prime.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

See my earlier post in this thread. The talk of more powerplays and use of the redline is such a myth, I honestly can't wrap my head around this being the most commonly used reason they would dominate to the same degree today, outweighing all other factors such as a deeper talent pool in a league with more teams, salary cap, advances in technology and training which have helped the average NHLer come a long way as everyone agrees, so therefore in such a league their same statistical dominace would not stand, even if grown up with these same advantages.

I don't see how it's logical to think they would dominate to the same extent today, let alone see any reason for people to get defensive and try to make someone feel like an idiot for saying otherwise. It's more obvious than many want to admit I bet.[/

Mario Lemieux scored 91 points (ranked 8th) and had a 1.36 PPG (2nd) at age 37 on a team that finished with 65 points. That was in 2002-03. At the height of the dead puck era. Good luck explaining why a prime Lemieux wouldn't dominate the league today. Contrary to many of today's hockey fans, technology and fitness actually became a part of the NHL prior to the 2004-05 lockout, which has become the de facto beginning of time for some fans. Mario Lemieux would make a mockery out of the NHL scoring race if he was healthy and in his prime. If you don't believe that, you never saw Lemieux in his prime.

That's what I'm talking about right there. Like, for real?

 

[Hardyvan123]

To expand on that, 2 of them came in the 05-06 season where scoring was higher, and Crosby's came the year after, and half his points were on the powerplay.

Only three players have cracked 110 since the 07-08 season, and Ovechkin is the only one to do it twice.

Also to everyone who thinks Lemieux would take advantage of all these powerplays today, look at how many penalty minutes were called in Pittsburgh games in 2000-01 compared to any team last year. Just choose whatever year you want to see here from 97-98 and on.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/app

1573 penalty minutes were called in Pittsburgh games in 2000-01 the year of Lemieux's comeback, and the top team last year had 1357.

How many years did Lemieux's team get the most powerplay opportunities in the league? I know that's not the first because I've seen a list before that surprised me, and thought it was very likely that Pittsburgh recieved the most that year so I checked to see.

Seems like you beat me to the punch here as I was going to quote your post, some guys just can't acknowledge the changes that have taken place and how it affects everyone and would affect anyone who would play today.

Mario Lemieux scored 91 points (ranked 8th) and had a 1.36 PPG (2nd) at age 37 on a team that finished with 65 points. That was in 2002-03. At the height of the dead puck era. Good luck explaining why a prime Lemieux wouldn't dominate the league today. Contrary to many of today's hockey fans, technology and fitness actually became a part of the NHL prior to the 2004-05 lockout, which has become the de facto beginning of time for some fans. Mario Lemieux would make a mockery out of the NHL scoring race if he was healthy and in his prime. If you don't believe that, you never saw Lemieux in his prime.

So Mario scored at an excellent pace for a 29th place team. He was hardly near the MVP of the league that year, not that it should be expected for a 37 year old guy.

Look Mario was the best talent I have ever seen but he reached his peak at age 23 with his 2.62 PPG pace in 89 (his 199 point season).

Injuries might account for him missing games over time but when he played he was still never as dominant as that one year (60 games in 93 are the outlier here Stevens and Tocchet both had career years and possibly helped Mario as well).

A great player still but the league changed and it did affect his scoring.

Here are his PPG from season to season and how they play out over a whole season as well.

From his peak season at age 23 rated over 82 games he would have had 214, 171, 142,168,219,138,189,132,145,106, and 112 points in his final dominate Mario season at age 37.

If we adjust for era , and yes I know people don't like it because it hurts their arguments and impressions about Wayne and Mario, he tops out at 165, which is pretty damn impressive still in my books.

Not a perfect science but a hell of a lot better just looking at raw stats and dominance of peers at an easier time to do so and just simply translating past greatness to current play.

Yes I do realize that Bobby, Wayne and Mario were exceptional talents who were hands down the best players in their day but two things remain quite clear still.

Part of that dominance was due to the easier conditions to do so at that time and some guys like Rhiessan71 can't even acknowledge arguments that are contrary to his opinion.

(Just to note my beef is not with the poster per say but his posts on the topic, if i am out of line here please advise em and I will make my arguments a little less personal looking as it's the argument that I'm referring to as i do not know the guy at all)

Heck no one should ever agree with everything I'm saying, I re evaluate and think about my opinions and alter them over time but he seems to have a hard time reading and comprehending arguments that are contrary to his.

Some comment like 40 posts and nothing said says more about his reading and comprehension skills than anything else IMO.

It's great to honor past players and to even say that they would be great in todays NHL but to say they would dominate in the same way, or very close to it is frankly disrespectful to the guys who play the game today IMO and to dis regard context, of any player and his league and when he played in it, in such great terms is very baffling to me.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Also to Blades of Glory, yeah Lemieux was 2nd in ppg in 2002-03 at the age of 37, it doesn't mean he'd be destroying everyone in today's league. Selanne this year at the age of 40 is 10th in the league in points per game, and Lemieux at 40 while still impressive was nowhere close to what Selanne is now, does this mean Selanne would be dominating all these guys if he was in his 20's? No it doesn't. The simple fact is, age doesn't matter as much as you guys seem to think. There's multiple players who had already amazing careers who improved upon themselves after the age of 28, Forsberg, Datsyuk, Sedin's, Lidstrom, Alfredsson, Sakic, Neidermayer, Modano, Sundin, even Jagr and Selanne had a resurgence as well as Lemieuxs comeback. The problem is how you guys view these players at their older ages and just assuming they would dominate if they were younger is a very flawed assumption. If this is true then all the greatest players existed yesterday and there's nothing people can do about it. Doesn't seem likely given the increased talent pool to draw from today to go along with advances in every aspect of hockey worldwide and the increasing popularity of hockey in the states overall to add to the increase in an already huge Canadian and European talent pool.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Yes I do realize that Bobby, Wayne and Mario were exceptional talents who were hands down the best players in their day but two things remain quite clear still.

Part of that dominance was due to the easier conditions to do so at that time and some guys like Rhiessan71 can't even acknowledge arguments that are contrary to his opinion.

What do you want me to acknowledge?
That it's harder to stand out today...did that already.
That it's harder to score today...did that too.
That the game is faster today...ahhh yep.
That Gretzky wouldn't score 200 points...dito.

So what am I not acknowledging?

We're not talking about whether a young Yzerman, Bossy or Hawerchuk would have a harder time standing out today.
We're talking about only 3 players here, 3 of the very best that have ever played the game period.
Guy who stood out above the superstars, guys who DOMINATED the other superstars.
You keep talking about how Gretzky wouldn't have as much time, when in his day he would have an actual shadow on him 24/7 and still get 5 points.
My only major point to this whole thing is that it was what Gretzky had between his ears that made him great, not how fast he could skate, how big he was or how hard he could shoot the puck.

(Just to note my beef is not with the poster per say but his posts on the topic, if i am out of line here please advise em and I will make my arguments a little less personal looking as it's the argument that I'm referring to as i do not know the guy at all)

Heck no one should ever agree with everything I'm saying, I re evaluate and think about my opinions and alter them over time but he seems to have a hard time reading and comprehending arguments that are contrary to his.

Some comment like 40 posts and nothing said says more about his reading and comprehension skills than anything else IMO.

I don't take anything personally, nor should you.
I would like to know which "point" or I should say, theory of yours that I'm not comprehending or haven't responded to and pretty much countered at some point.
I guess if you actually responded to my counter points instead of just repeating your original points most of the time, it would move the arguments along further.

It's great to honor past players and to even say that they would be great in todays NHL but to say they would dominate in the same way, or very close to it is frankly disrespectful to the guys who play the game today IMO and to dis regard context, of any player and his league and when he played in it, in such great terms is very baffling to me.

It's not every past player, IT'S JUST THE 3 GREATEST PLAYERS IN THE LAST 40+ YEARS that we're talking about.

What's truly disrespectful is to unduly elevate Crosby and OV to the level of Gretzky, Lemieux and Orr AND then to use the play of Sid and OV to restrict them.
THAT is ridiculous! Once again, just because they are the best playing in the league now, doesn't mean jack.
Losing the Art Ross to Sedin....gimme a break.

 

[Blades of Glory]

Mario Lemieux spent two months of a season undergoing chemotherapy, came back in March trailing Pat Lafontaine by 12 in the scoring race, and won the Art Ross Trophy by 12 points. He scored 160 points in 60 games that year. Now, judging by the fact that you are referencing the career years of Rick Tocchet and Kevin Stevens as something that aided his point totals, it is fair to say that you probably don't know much about Mario Lemieux. But I am going to assume you know enough about the radiation treatments involved with chemotherapy to understand that there is nothing in the world that is more taxing on a person's body than what Lemieux was subjected to several times a week in January and February of 1993. They destroy a person's energy level so completely that it takes weeks to regain the energy just to do every-day things. Regaining the energy to play a professional sport would take months. Mario Lemieux returned to the Penguins, and suited up to play the Flyers, on the night of his last radiation treatment. He had a goal and an assist. He played 20 games after he returned. In those 20 games, the Penguins went 17-2-1, including winning 17 in a row. Lemieux scored 56 points in those 20 games.

Don't tell me that the NHL has changed so much that a player who once spent two months undergoing chemotherapy, returned to the ice on the day of his final treatment, and scored 56 points in his final 20 games to win the Hart and Art Ross Trophies would not dominate. It's one thing to argue about Pavel Datsyuk vs. Mike Modano. This is Mario Lemieux.

The obsession with the "change" that has supposedly occurred in the NHL is incredible. The game has changed a lot over the years. The great players do not. Joe Sakic and Jaromir Jagr, two of Lemieux's contemporaries in the 1990's, seemed to do just fine in the post-lockout era. I believe a 35 year old Jagr scored 123 points in 2006. A 38 year old Sakic scored 100 points in 2008. Neither of them is Mario Lemieux. Mario Lemieux dominated the high-scoring era. He dominated the dead puck era. He would dominate this era. Lemieux, Gretzky, and Orr are transcendent athletes. They transcend their sport and are widely regarded as three of the very greatest athletes in the history of professional sports.

 

[Sens Rule]

See my earlier post in this thread. The talk of more powerplays and use of the redline is such a myth, I honestly can't wrap my head around this being the most commonly used reason they would dominate to the same degree today, outweighing all other factors such as a deeper talent pool in a league with more teams, salary cap, advances in technology and training which have helped the average NHLer come a long way as everyone agrees, so therefore in such a league their same statistical dominace would not stand, even if grown up with these same advantages.

I don't see how it's logical to think they would dominate to the same extent today, let alone see any reason for people to get defensive and try to make someone feel like an idiot for saying otherwise. It's more obvious than many want to admit I bet.

Watch Highlights of Mario who was the most recent of the "BIG THREE" and who played against and with many current players. He is literally seen skating with guys draped over him. He would have got 10 penalty shots a year or more if the rules were called the way they are now just in regards to penalty shots.

The reason why Those THREE would dominate today like they did in the past (not necessarily the same # of raw points) is because they were that much better than all the other stars and superstars at that time or today. The rules would be a large factor in increasing their success today and mitigate against the fact that the average player is significantly better.

The NHL actually used to make rules that tried to CURTAIL SCORING. The dead puck era with the crease rule and ridiculously oversized goalie equipment, changing the PP rules first beccause of the 1950's Habs Dynasty later because of the 80's Oilers.
Now the NHL is making rules to INCREASE OFFENCE AND SCORING. No redline (who would benefit more than Mario, Gretzky and Orr with this rule? Not many players) Actually calling every penalty, calling far more penalty shots. 4 on 4 in OT, reducing the size of the equipments goalies can use and on and on. The fact that the NHL has rules that encourage offence now would CLEARLY AND OBVIOUSLY be to the benefit of the very best offensive players of all time.

 

[Sens Rule]

Seems like you beat me to the punch here as I was going to quote your post, some guys just can't acknowledge the changes that have taken place and how it affects everyone and would affect anyone who would play today.



So Mario scored at an excellent pace for a 29th place team. He was hardly near the MVP of the league that year, not that it should be expected for a 37 year old guy.

Look Mario was the best talent I have ever seen but he reached his peak at age 23 with his 2.62 PPG pace in 89 (his 199 point season).

Injuries might account for him missing games over time but when he played he was still never as dominant as that one year (60 games in 93 are the outlier here Stevens and Tocchet both had career years and possibly helped Mario as well).

A great player still but the league changed and it did affect his scoring.

Here are his PPG from season to season and how they play out over a whole season as well.

From his peak season at age 23 rated over 82 games he would have had 214, 171, 142,168,219,138,189,132,145,106, and 112 points in his final dominate Mario season at age 37.

If we adjust for era , and yes I know people don't like it because it hurts their arguments and impressions about Wayne and Mario, he tops out at 165, which is pretty damn impressive still in my books.

Not a perfect science but a hell of a lot better just looking at raw stats and dominance of peers at an easier time to do so and just simply translating past greatness to current play.

Yes I do realize that Bobby, Wayne and Mario were exceptional talents who were hands down the best players in their day but two things remain quite clear still.

Part of that dominance was due to the easier conditions to do so at that time and some guys like Rhiessan71 can't even acknowledge arguments that are contrary to his opinion.

(Just to note my beef is not with the poster per say but his posts on the topic, if i am out of line here please advise em and I will make my arguments a little less personal looking as it's the argument that I'm referring to as i do not know the guy at all)

Heck no one should ever agree with everything I'm saying, I re evaluate and think about my opinions and alter them over time but he seems to have a hard time reading and comprehending arguments that are contrary to his.

Some comment like 40 posts and nothing said says more about his reading and comprehension skills than anything else IMO.

It's great to honor past players and to even say that they would be great in todays NHL but to say they would dominate in the same way, or very close to it is frankly disrespectful to the guys who play the game today IMO and to dis regard context, of any player and his league and when he played in it, in such great terms is very baffling to me.

Mario was essentially at his peak from his 3rd year until he retired for those 4 seasons. Gretzky from his rookie year until the 1993 playoffs. They may have varied in their greatness but for all that period they were freaking dominant and much better than every other player except each other (when healthy).

If you really want to class Mario's 23 year old season as some kind of peak for him and him declining the rest of his career, might want to look at the 2 playoffs the years he won the Cup.

Mario and Gretzky were so far beyond other absolutely top echlon HHOFers like Messier, Coffey, Dionne, Stastny, Yzerman, Bourque that overlapped their careers that if you can't get how ridiculously better they were than everyone else you never will. Of course they would be the best today. It is freaking obvious to anyone that watched them play.

 

[Sens Rule]

Also to Blades of Glory, yeah Lemieux was 2nd in ppg in 2002-03 at the age of 37, it doesn't mean he'd be destroying everyone in today's league. Selanne this year at the age of 40 is 10th in the league in points per game, and Lemieux at 40 while still impressive was nowhere close to what Selanne is now, does this mean Selanne would be dominating all these guys if he was in his 20's? No it doesn't. The simple fact is, age doesn't matter as much as you guys seem to think. There's multiple players who had already amazing careers who improved upon themselves after the age of 28, Forsberg, Datsyuk, Sedin's, Lidstrom, Alfredsson, Sakic, Neidermayer, Modano, Sundin, even Jagr and Selanne had a resurgence as well as Lemieuxs comeback. The problem is how you guys view these players at their older ages and just assuming they would dominate if they were younger is a very flawed assumption. If this is true then all the greatest players existed yesterday and there's nothing people can do about it. Doesn't seem likely given the increased talent pool to draw from today to go along with advances in every aspect of hockey worldwide and the increasing popularity of hockey in the states overall to add to the increase in an already huge Canadian and European talent pool.

Alfredsson was BETTER at 33 or 34 than he was in his 20's. I watched him play. Most others would share a similar viewpoint. Mario was not even remotely close to as good in 2002/03 as he used to be. He was visibly far slower and far heavier. He was not nearly the player he was in his 20's, not even close. Yet after 4 years off he was the best offensive player in the NHL. Not the best player but the best offensive player, as a mere shadow of his prime self.

That does tell you something.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Also to Blades of Glory, yeah Lemieux was 2nd in ppg in 2002-03 at the age of 37, it doesn't mean he'd be destroying everyone in today's league. Selanne this year at the age of 40 is 10th in the league in points per game, and Lemieux at 40 while still impressive was nowhere close to what Selanne is now, does this mean Selanne would be dominating all these guys if he was in his 20's? No it doesn't. The simple fact is, age doesn't matter as much as you guys seem to think. There's multiple players who had already amazing careers who improved upon themselves after the age of 28, Forsberg, Datsyuk, Sedin's, Lidstrom, Alfredsson, Sakic, Neidermayer, Modano, Sundin, even Jagr and Selanne had a resurgence as well as Lemieuxs comeback. The problem is how you guys view these players at their older ages and just assuming they would dominate if they were younger is a very flawed assumption. If this is true then all the greatest players existed yesterday and there's nothing people can do about it. Doesn't seem likely given the increased talent pool to draw from today to go along with advances in every aspect of hockey worldwide and the increasing popularity of hockey in the states overall to add to the increase in an already huge Canadian and European talent pool.

Alfredsson was BETTER at 33 or 34 than he was in his 20's. I watched him play. Most others would share a similar viewpoint. Mario was not even remotely close to as good in 2002/03 as he used to be. He was visibly far slower and far heavier. He was not nearly the player he was in his 20's, not even close. Yet after 4 years off he was the best offensive player in the NHL. Not the best player but the best offensive player, as a mere shadow of his prime self.

That does tell you something.

Yeah I know... did you even read what I wrote?

My point is if all these guys got even better after that age, why did Gretzky and Lemieux get worse? The best players of all time that would dominate to the same degree in any era? The state of the league has a lot more to do with it than you'd like to think. Basically you guys are just telling us stories of Lemieux we already know about and not acknowledging any factors such as, in any league that scoring is lower, it is harder to stand out statistically, not just in terms of raw point totals but percentages! That would go for anyone. I've already acknowledged that I think a prime Lemieux could score between 130-150 today being able to play the same all out offensive game, and he did after his comeback so I think that would still hold true in today's game, although I still think he'd be forced to play a bit more defense even on the most offensive teams in the league.

When he came back he wasn't the best offensive player in the league once again, in the games after Lemieux's return in 2000-2001 regular season and playoffs combined, Lemieux had 93 points in 61 games, and Jagr had 96 points in 61 games and an even bigger gap in even strength points. As pointed out already, unless Lemieux was able to cause a 200+ penalty minute increase to the current team with the most powerplays called for them today, assuming he'd be on that team, then no he's not seeing any increases in powerplays or taking advantage of this two-line pass. If you actually watch some hockey games (please) you will see it was much easier to generate offense through that neutral zone in their time than it is even today. Not arguable IMO. Also it was 3 years off then trained extensively for 6 months then played on a line with the current best offensive player in the league on a team that saw more powerplay opportunities than any in the NHL. I shouldn't kid myself though he would do exactly the same in any situation, in any year, regardless of the league or time he played in, he would dominate exactly the same.

Give him today's training and the no two line pass and he might even dominate more.

This idea that just because they're the greatest players ever, that they would magically dominate to the same degree in any era, is monumentally flawed and does a disservice to today's superstars. If people can't recognize that even they themselves would not dominate to the same degree today, why should we expect someone else to dominate more to be considered better? I'd say at the very least everyone should be able to rationally agree that a player who could dominate to a slightly lesser extent today than they did in their time should be considered on their level, but I think it's a bit more than slightly. Gretzky was dominating his peers statistically by 60-75% in his prime I believe? I'd say change that to 30-40% today, and for 5 or 6 seasons rather than 7 or 8.

That bolded part isn't my conclusive opinion, I will do a bit more research.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Mario Lemieux spent two months of a season undergoing chemotherapy, came back in March trailing Pat Lafontaine by 12 in the scoring race, and won the Art Ross Trophy by 12 points. He scored 160 points in 60 games that year. Now, judging by the fact that you are referencing the career years of Rick Tocchet and Kevin Stevens as something that aided his point totals, it is fair to say that you probably don't know much about Mario Lemieux. But I am going to assume you know enough about the radiation treatments involved with chemotherapy to understand that there is nothing in the world that is more taxing on a person's body than what Lemieux was subjected to several times a week in January and February of 1993. They destroy a person's energy level so completely that it takes weeks to regain the energy just to do every-day things. Regaining the energy to play a professional sport would take months. Mario Lemieux returned to the Penguins, and suited up to play the Flyers, on the night of his last radiation treatment. He had a goal and an assist. He played 20 games after he returned. In those 20 games, the Penguins went 17-2-1, including winning 17 in a row. Lemieux scored 56 points in those 20 games.

Don't tell me that the NHL has changed so much that a player who once spent two months undergoing chemotherapy, returned to the ice on the day of his final treatment, and scored 56 points in his final 20 games to win the Hart and Art Ross Trophies would not dominate. It's one thing to argue about Pavel Datsyuk vs. Mike Modano. This is Mario Lemieux.

The obsession with the "change" that has supposedly occurred in the NHL is incredible. The game has changed a lot over the years. The great players do not. Joe Sakic and Jaromir Jagr, two of Lemieux's contemporaries in the 1990's, seemed to do just fine in the post-lockout era. I believe a 33 year old Jagr scored 123 points in 2006. A 37 year old Sakic scored 100 points in 2008. Neither of them is Mario Lemieux. Mario Lemieux dominated the high-scoring era. He dominated the dead puck era. He would dominate this era. Lemieux, Gretzky, and Orr are transcendent athletes. They transcend their sport and are widely regarded as three of the very greatest athletes in the history of professional sports.

Off topic but since you mentioned it for the past 4 years Datsyuk has been playing at a level that Modano never reached, never. He'll be considered the better player in 5 years mark my words.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Tell me, who builds the straw man here, the guy who has no proof and all theory or the guy that has the proof and generation gap players to draw comparisons from?

We are all still waiting and have been for pages now, for you to explain how if it was so much easier to stand out and dominant when Orr, Gretzky and Lemieux played, why they are the only 3 to truly and consistently do it out of 1000's of players in the last 40 years.

By all means though Scarecrow, continue accusing everyone else of building strawmen.

Also, answer me this, if how fast you can skate, how hard you can shoot the puck and how big you are is the ultimate measure of how good of a hockey player you are, why wasn't Al Iafrate one of the best ever?
I guess to someone that doesn't seem to know any better or doesn't WANT to know any better that intelligence, craftiness and misdirection would be hocus pocus.

Gretzky must of put magnets in the puck so it always came to his metal stick or something because there's no other way that the puck should of followed him around like it did or always seem to end up where he was standing right

See bolded part, It's one thing to disagree but you are clearly stating that I have not put forth an argument on why those 3 guys stood out.

I have stated numerous times that it was due to a combination of talent and the time they played in. I have further made numerous arguments on why it was easier then and harder now to score.

The other side just argues that these 3 were great, look at how they dominated their competition then come back to my arguments lamenting my use of stats which is incredibly ironic IMO.

The Iafrate comp is a wonderful example of your sue of a straw man, you would look better using Kent Nilsson, who was much more talented but didn't have the drive or compete level to succeed that Wayne especially had and Orr and Lemiuex as well.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Mario Lemieux spent two months of a season undergoing chemotherapy, came back in March trailing Pat Lafontaine by 12 in the scoring race, and won the Art Ross Trophy by 12 points. He scored 160 points in 60 games that year. Now, judging by the fact that you are referencing the career years of Rick Tocchet and Kevin Stevens as something that aided his point totals, it is fair to say that you probably don't know much about Mario Lemieux. But I am going to assume you know enough about the radiation treatments involved with chemotherapy to understand that there is nothing in the world that is more taxing on a person's body than what Lemieux was subjected to several times a week in January and February of 1993. They destroy a person's energy level so completely that it takes weeks to regain the energy just to do every-day things. Regaining the energy to play a professional sport would take months. Mario Lemieux returned to the Penguins, and suited up to play the Flyers, on the night of his last radiation treatment. He had a goal and an assist. He played 20 games after he returned. In those 20 games, the Penguins went 17-2-1, including winning 17 in a row. Lemieux scored 56 points in those 20 games.

Don't tell me that the NHL has changed so much that a player who once spent two months undergoing chemotherapy, returned to the ice on the day of his final treatment, and scored 56 points in his final 20 games to win the Hart and Art Ross Trophies would not dominate. It's one thing to argue about Pavel Datsyuk vs. Mike Modano. This is Mario Lemieux.

The obsession with the "change" that has supposedly occurred in the NHL is incredible. The game has changed a lot over the years. The great players do not. Joe Sakic and Jaromir Jagr, two of Lemieux's contemporaries in the 1990's, seemed to do just fine in the post-lockout era. I believe a 35 year old Jagr scored 123 points in 2006. A 38 year old Sakic scored 100 points in 2008. Neither of them is Mario Lemieux. Mario Lemieux dominated the high-scoring era. He dominated the dead puck era. He would dominate this era. Lemieux, Gretzky, and Orr are transcendent athletes. They transcend their sport and are widely regarded as three of the very greatest athletes in the history of professional sports.

Just to point out both of years of Sakic and Jagr of 100 and 123 points were outliers of what they both did before and after those years and by quite a margin. Injuries, age and compete level, at least for Jagr might account for part of this but maybe also the league really was harder to score in as well?

There is also no doubt that Lemiuex helped both Tocchet and Stevens have career years but the latter 2 guys really were forces in their own that year as well.

As for the cancer and injuries Lemieux had, it makes for a great story but bottom line we hear everyday about some people that experience any kind of adversity differently and all I can assume is that Lemieux was cleared to play and in his own mind was able to play in the games he did.

Maybe if he never got sick he might have scored at a higher PPG rate over his career, maybe not.

 

[JackSlater]

As for the cancer and injuries Lemieux had, it makes for a great story but bottom line we hear everyday about some people that experience any kind of adversity differently and all I can assume is that Lemieux was cleared to play and in his own mind was able to play in the games he did.

Maybe if he never got sick he might have scored at a higher PPG rate over his career, maybe not.

I'm pretty shocked to see this posted to be honest. If part of your argument is now that Lemieux may have actually been helped by getting cancer and chemotherapy treatments during the season, it's probably time to move on to something else.

 

[Rhiessan71]

See bolded part, It's one thing to disagree but you are clearly stating that I have not put forth an argument on why those 3 guys stood out.

I have stated numerous times that it was due to a combination of talent and the time they played in. I have further made numerous arguments on why it was easier then and harder now to score.

The other side just argues that these 3 were great, look at how they dominated their competition then come back to my arguments lamenting my use of stats which is incredibly ironic IMO.

The Iafrate comp is a wonderful example of your sue of a straw man, you would look better using Kent Nilsson, who was much more talented but didn't have the drive or compete level to succeed that Wayne especially had and Orr and Lemiuex as well.

Hey, I'm sorry if it seems funny to me that you can admit that there was something more to Gretzky, Lemieux and Orr then just talent. That the 3 of them had something special.
Then turn around and say that special something would mean very little in today's "new" NHL.

Made even funnier to me when I think of how Lemieux WAS in the league such a short time ago and still making everyone else look silly.
I mean you have tried to break Mario's comeback down, slice him up and demean his abilities but the reality is that the guy was old, had medical issues and hadn't played in years yet he comes back and puts up numbers that 20 something year old Sid and OV can only dream about.

You're right though, your theories have shown us all how wrong we are

 

[Dark Shadows]

Hey, I'm sorry if it seems funny to me that you can admit that there was something more to Gretzky, Lemieux and Orr then just talent. That the 3 of them had something special.
Then turn around and say that special something would mean very little in today's "new" NHL.

Made even funnier to me when I think of how Lemieux WAS in the league such a short time ago and still making everyone else look silly.
I mean you have tried to break Mario's comeback down, slice him up and demean his abilities but the reality is that the guy was old, had medical issues and hadn't played in years yet he comes back and puts up numbers that 20 something year old Sid and OV can only dream about.

You're right though, your theories have shown us all how wrong we are

Yep, and this is where the magnificent hockey sense of the truest greats differs from others.

An older slower Lemieux with a bad back who was nowhere near as good or agile and healthy at this point as he was in his prime years, in a much more clutch and grab era vs huge pads and defensive systems all around, still managed to make everyone else look inferior to him by scoring at a ridiculous pace(Goals and assists)

Orr would have been no different as far as I am concerned.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I'm pretty shocked to see this posted to be honest. If part of your argument is now that Lemieux may have actually been helped by getting cancer and chemotherapy treatments during the season, it's probably time to move on to something else.

Where did i suggest that he was helped by those treatments?

Let me clarify so that it is perfectly clear here.

The poster i was responding to seemed to imply that if Mario was totally healthy that he would have been more dominant and I'm not sure we can say one way or the other on how much different it would have been had he had Wayne's health except to say this,

I'm pretty sure that if Mario had enjoyed the health that Wayne did that he still would have had a PPG drop off from his peak at age 22 but his PPG would not have been as erratic as it was with his less than healthy seasons after that.

I'll get back to my overall point here in that even the best of the best had their peak seasons (Wayne, Bobby and Mario) and some fluctuations and drop off for various reasons including, aging, injuries and the changing nature of the league they played in as well.

both Wayne and Mario peaked earlier stat wise than woudl be expected and some of this is due to the changing nature of the NHL they played in.

Why is that so hard to see?

Does it take away from how great they were?

Not in my mind and I'm not sure why it seems to offend so many people in this forum.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Hey, I'm sorry if it seems funny to me that you can admit that there was something more to Gretzky, Lemieux and Orr then just talent. That the 3 of them had something special.
Then turn around and say that special something would mean very little in today's "new" NHL.

Made even funnier to me when I think of how Lemieux WAS in the league such a short time ago and still making everyone else look silly.
I mean you have tried to break Mario's comeback down, slice him up and demean his abilities but the reality is that the guy was old, had medical issues and hadn't played in years yet he comes back and puts up numbers that 20 something year old Sid and OV can only dream about.

You're right though, your theories have shown us all how wrong we are

See my post before this one and if you can't read I'll say it once again, Mario was the most offensively gifted and skilled guy I have ever seen.

To say that and to suggest that maybe he would score 150 points in todays NHL and not be considered the best player (Sid and his 130 pace and 2 way game might be considered more valuable in today's game)does not take away from Mario's legacy in his time, but let's just keep it into some perspective as well..

There is a reason why a guy like Johnathan Toews is seen as more valuable than a guy like Joe Thorton in today's game.

The same would apply to even a guy like Lemieux supposing the 150-130 point example listed above IMO.

As for your last comment it's not about right or wrong or black or white but how credible an argument is and how much water it holds and frankly it very subjective to say that even the past big 3 would be able to dominate in any way near how they did back in their day and hard to quantify given the change in the landscape of the NHL in 2010.