If you have to pick one for a healthy career: Orr or Lemieux?

[Midnight Judges]

Lemieux missed 250 games when he was averaging 2-2.5 points per game (1990-96, age 24-30). Even when he played he was in debilitating back pain. Lemieux's adjusted ppg would likely go up if he were fully healthy.

Yeah but he missed 400 games in his thirties through age 38 (which is how long Gretzky played). And even if he was fully healthy, his PPG likely goes down in the years he plays full seasons relative to playing fully rested pieces here and there.

 

[Kunta Kinte]

Chemo had nothing to do with 1997. Lemieux kept crying about how physical the league was getting. No one cared about his temper tantrums so he retired like a baby.

It's not surprising why Jagr and Crosby (early in his career) were such babies too because they learned from Lemieux.

Upon his first retirement, Lemieux became the only player to retire from the NHL with a greater than 2 points per game average (1494 points in 745 games)

Lemieux was better than Gretzky.

 

[koyvoo]

Upon his first retirement, Lemieux became the only player to retire from the NHL with a greater than 2 points per game average (1494 points in 745 games)

Lemieux was better than Gretzky.

And if Gretzky had retired at 31 years old?

 

[Hockey Outsider]

And if Gretzky had retired at 31 years old?

Gretzky averaged over 2 points per game through the end of the 1996-97 season, with more than 1,300 regular season games under his belt, through age 36.

The fact that people are complaining that Lemieux's per-game average dropped because he played 170 games after age 31 (while saying nothing about Gretzky playing 488) shows you the double standard.

 

[KoozNetsOff 92]

Gretzky averaged over 2 points per game through the end of the 1996-97 season, with more than 1,300 regular season games under his belt, through age 36.

The fact that people are complaining that Lemieux's per-game average dropped because he played 170 games after age 31 (while saying nothing about Gretzky playing 488) shows you the double standard.

Lemieux fanboys love to live in fantasy land.

 

[KoozNetsOff 92]

Upon his first retirement, Lemieux became the only player to retire from the NHL with a greater than 2 points per game average (1494 points in 745 games)

Lemieux was better than Gretzky.

1494/745 = 2.00 PPG

Gretzky after 774 GP: 1837pts, 2.37 PPG.

More games and a way better PPG. Cherry pick any time frame you want, Gretzky shits on Lemieux all day, every day.

 

[Hynh]

Bobby Orr so that there would be Orr vs Gretzky games.

Upon his first retirement, Lemieux became the only player to retire from the NHL with a greater than 2 points per game average (1494 points in 745 games)

Lemieux was better than Gretzky.

Gretzky beat Lemieux to every point milestone.

Fastest to reach milestones from 100 points to 2000 points

 

[koyvoo]

Bobby Orr so that there would be Orr vs Gretzky games.


Gretzky beat Lemieux to every point milestone.

Fastest to reach milestones from 100 points to 2000 points

Those numbers for Gretzky are the definition of mind boggling. The type of thing that wouldn’t be believable if it didn’t actually happen.

 

[bobholly39]

Gretzky averaged over 2 points per game through the end of the 1996-97 season, with more than 1,300 regular season games under his belt, through age 36.

The fact that people are complaining that Lemieux's per-game average dropped because he played 170 games after age 31 (while saying nothing about Gretzky playing 488) shows you the double standard.

It's always like that in Lemieux/Gretzky debates. So much double standard and posturing on both sides.

Flipside is - Gretzky fans refuse to acknowledge that Lemieux could have made a run at the goal and point single season records in the early 90s with no health issues, or the all-time goal scoring record.

 

[bobholly39]

Yeah but he missed 400 games in his thirties through age 38 (which is how long Gretzky played). And even if he was fully healthy, his PPG likely goes down in the years he plays full seasons relative to playing fully rested pieces here and there.

If Lemieux hadn't been injured/missed so much games/seasons in the early 90s, his career ppg is more likely to go up, then down. He was clearly at his best/peak in those years, and scoring at rates above his scoring averages.

It's the Crosby math all over again. If Crosby is healthy in 2011-2013, his career ppg goes up, not down. You could say his ppg for the 2011-2013 stretch might go down with more games, but it would still be higher than his average career ppg, thus career ppg goes up.

Unlike Crosby - Lemieux's ppg is likely to go up even higher though, since when he did play in the early 90s, he wasn't at 100% and his play suffered (whereas Crosby in 2011-2013 was pretty great when he played). So not only does Lemieux's career ppg go up, his ppg from ~89-95 also would go up with better health.

Now if Lemieux had continued playing past ~97 without retiring and until age ~35 or so - then sure, in those seasons past 97 and as he got older, his overall career ppg would start to go down. Like it did with Gretzky

 

[bobbyking]

Take the guy that destroyed jagr in scoring races

 

[Future GOAT]

Uh Lemieux... He may have been the best player to ever live, was top 2 even with Cancer, back problems and smoking cigs between periods...

 

[InfinityIggy]

Orr. Not sure he would’ve had the better career. However, ‘what if Orr didn’t have bum knees?’ Has gotta be one of the greatest what ifs in hockey.

I’d choose Lindros over Lemieux for this reason as well, just the curiosity factor.

 

[InfinityIggy]

Lemieux.

Orr continuing post-injury is like Gretzky after the "trade". Can he keep it up longer? Can he maybe do "a bit better" than what he's already done even? Certainly some exciting stuff, but for the most part, you already got to see full seasons of Orr at his best, and it was grandiose.

Lemieux is like Gretzky if after his season of 212 points/92 goals in 1982, instead of spending the next 4-6 seasons also averaging ~200+ points a season, he got injured in every year, had cancer, had debilitating back problems so that even when he *did* play - he wasn't exactly at his best. Skip a few years - and you get post 91-92 Gretzky (or Lemieux) playing a few seasons again.

Basically - we never really got to see Lemieux at his best. He clearly hit another "gear" starting around 1988 and 1989. 1989 was a great season. Than injuries, health. He got the 2 smythes (amazing performances) but he wasn't 100%. Even 1992-1993, his historic season, he only played 60 games and everyone knows what was going on.

To be clear - I'm not saying Lemieux would have beaten all/any of Gretzky records in those years (~1989-1995) had he been healthy - I just would have loved to see him attempt to, to see what he could have accomplished.

Orr - we pretty much already saw full healthy seasons of his in his prime/peak. I know he had knee issues, but i don't think those affected his best seasons as much as Lemieux was impacted with his issues.

I do think that - full healthy & long career, Orr has much better chances than Lemieux to top Gretzky all time. Defensemen typically age better. But it's the "peak" that excites me, and we saw peak Orr, we barely saw peak Lemieux.

We never saw peak Orr though, his knee issues started at 19.

 

[Trap Jesus]

I'm shocked to see these results. The whole argument against Orr is about longevity due to injuries, even in relation to Lemieux (Lemieux played more than 250 more games than Orr). This is the type of gap that Orr had on his peers, it's unlike anything in league history:

NHL.com - Stats

 

[Thenameless]

I'm shocked to see these results. The whole argument against Orr is about longevity due to injuries, even in relation to Lemieux (Lemieux played more than 250 more games than Orr). This is the type of gap that Orr had on his peers, it's unlike anything in league history:

NHL.com - Stats

That's an obscene gap. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Syrinx]

I'm shocked to see these results. The whole argument against Orr is about longevity due to injuries, even in relation to Lemieux (Lemieux played more than 250 more games than Orr). This is the type of gap that Orr had on his peers, it's unlike anything in league history:

NHL.com - Stats

People aren't saying Lemieux is better. The question is purely opinion on which you'd rather see for a healthy career. There isn't a right or wrong answer. The question again: "If you have to pick to pick one to have a healthy career missing no more then 5 game per season so you could see what they would of done who would you of picked?"

Bobby Orr was insanely remarkable and changed the role of defensemen with his skating and his puck control. Lemieux was the most exciting player I've ever seen - when he had the puck, I was instantly on the edge of my seat.

I picked Lemieux because I'd rather have had more of the latter. It doesn't mean I think he was better and it has nothing to do with Gretzky...

 

[Ignatius]

Lemieux would be a dominant player in any era, Orr IMO was dominant because of the era he played in.

 

[amnesiac]

Lol 1 stat, congrats. Don't forget to mention that Gretzky had 8+ seasons worth of extra wear and tear on his body. He didn't run away and retire like a baby when the game got tough like Lemieux did in 97.

Chemo had nothing to do with 1997. Lemieux kept crying about how physical the league was getting. No one cared about his temper tantrums so he retired like a baby.

It's not surprising why Jagr and Crosby (early in his career) were such babies too because they learned from Lemieux.

Wow, ignorance at its best right here ^^^

You really just spew garbage out day after day here. COngrats.

 

[Trap Jesus]

People aren't saying Lemieux is better. The question is purely opinion on which you'd rather see for a healthy career. There isn't a right or wrong answer. The question again: "If you have to pick to pick one to have a healthy career missing no more then 5 game per season so you could see what they would of done who would you of picked?"

Bobby Orr was insanely remarkable and changed the role of defensemen with his skating and his puck control. Lemieux was the most exciting player I've ever seen - when he had the puck, I was instantly on the edge of my seat.

I picked Lemieux because I'd rather have had more of the latter. It doesn't mean I think he was better and it has nothing to do with Gretzky...

All we can really use to judge that is what we've seen from each of them though if the question is the hypothetical situation of having a healthy career. There's just so much more potential that Orr flashed that I don't see any other player competing with.

Even though Orr had been playing with knee issues since his sophomore year, he broke the points record for D-men his 3rd season, then went on to double that point total in his 4th, beginning arguably the greatest 6-year stretch in league history. And then after that it immediately transitioned into the significant injuries that essentially ended his career right away (only played a handful of games his last 3 seasons).

 

[canucks4ever]

I choose Gretzky over Lemieux, but didn't Wayne also get to peak when scoring was at its absolute highest. 1981 to 1986 are the 6 highest scoring years ever and that is when Wayne was at his absolute peak. Scoring dropped from 1987 to 1993, then it took another nosedive from 1994 and onwards. Their adjusted stats are essentially even.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

We’re looking at a 220+ scorer. Sorry Orr.

 

[psycat]

Picked Mario because of entertainment value, not so sure he was the better player though.

 

[Leafidelity]

Gonna go with the defenseman that was winning scoring titles

 

[NoMessi]

Im in Mario camp all the way. He was like the player you create on the EA games. Bigger than the power forward, 99 rating dangler, Aimbot of a shot, Ninja IQ (99 rating aswell, Gretzky was above 99 somehow) and only played for 1 team, even buying it after his career.

Gretzky is the greatest, but I cant see anyone else than Mario being the best.