Is Mario Lemieux a bit overrated?

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Krutov and Makarov weren't even on Bossy's level so what's your point?

There's at least an argument that Makarov was.

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

There's at least an argument that Makarov was.

I just don't see it. There really wasn't any point in the time Makarov was in the NHL that he showed he could score at anything approaching Bossy's level. His career high was 30 goals and it's not like he was playing in the DPE, far from it.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Phil, I guess you could say that if you only look at offensive stats, but seriously Wayne wasn't very good at ESGF/ESGA in 91 and his overall game and impact pales to what Sid's is in 13.

Heck even take Sid's last 4 seasons and compare them to Wayne's 91,90 and it's not even close you take Sid and his game if you want to win games, injuries aside.

The Sid straw man also applies to the Dats comp.

Either you don't have a proper appreciation for Dats game of you are really overvaluing Wayne's impact in 91 and how both players stack up ages 28-30.

Wayne is the greatest player of all time, not for all time, ie his game and impact lowered around the age of 28 pretty plain and simple.

Heck even Hart voters could see that Wayne was still elite in his old age, winning the scoring title in 94 with 130 points and received zero votes for the Hart trophy.

It's pretty obvious that certain people have a hard time distinguishing between the great Wayne, in terms of overall impact (aged 28 and before) and the aging Wayne who was still a great fantasy pick but not so great in building a team to win around in the regular season.

Both Mario and Wayne can get over rated at times, mainly because their tends to be too much focus on their offensive talents and not their entire games.

Their elite offensive skills were useful, especially in younger days and probably more so for Wayne, but Maybe that's team driven a bit, but both of their offensive advantage slipped much earlier than the raw counting stats indicate IMO.

Actually, I think it's more about some people having trouble distinguishing between their own revisionism and what actually happened.
And you can keep bringing up post Suter hit Gretzky stats and seasons till you're blue in the face, it really doesn't mean anything what so ever. You're just the only one that doesn't understand that.

The effect Gretzky had in LA in 88/89 and 90/91 is beyond anything you could argue against.
89/90 was an off year with well documented injuries and games played by Gretzky that he really shouldn't have been playing.

Just because he wasn't at his absolute peak anymore in his first 3 years in LA, he was still ahead of anyone not named Mario at the time and anyone short of Jagr's peak since.

Something Phil mentioned earlier stuck in my head. He said that he could rank Crosby's play the last 3 seasons with Gretzky's play from 89-91.
I think that's being a little too generous to Crosby, although I can see the argument for it and at worst, Crosby is not far behind.
HOWEVER!!! Crosby has still only played in 47% of his games over that span and his teams completely embarrassing First round exit last year, during this span, GREATLY diminishes any reasonable criteria for holding him up to a 89-91 Gretzky.

I mean all Wayne did from 89-91 was win a Hart and 2 Art Ross.
Losing 1 Hart to some guy named Mario and the other, in his off year, to Bourque (screw Messier ).
He lost the other Art Ross to that Mario guy.

I'll tell you one thing for damned sure, he most certainly wasn't losing both the Art Ross and the Hart to a Sedin in a healthy season

As far as Crosby's supposed "impact" for winning games...PROVE IT!!!
I don't see the Pens hurting very much without Crosby for over 50% of the last 3 seasons.
Nor did we see that "impact" when it mattered most in last years Playoffs or ESPECIALLY in the '10 Playoffs during their 2nd round exit to the Habs.

 

[Pominville Knows]

Krutov and Makarov weren't even on Bossy's level so what's your point?

How do you know that? Plus, it does'nt exactly matter if the russians program had'nt evolved as much then as now. Fact is Malkin is here.
Stamkos had almost 50 percent more goals than the pack after Malkin, Gretzky had 80-90 goals when a guy like Bossy scored 60-70.

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

How do you know that? Plus, it does'nt exactly matter if the russians program had'nt evolved as much then as now. Fact is Malkin is here.
Stamkos had almost 50 percent more goals than the pack after Malkin, Gretzky had 80-90 goals when a guy like Bossy scored 60-70.

And this is a problem how? Gretzky was lapping the field against the best players in the world. Stamkos is not lapping the field against the best players in the world.

And personally I'd take Bossy over Malkin every trip of the train.

 

[Pominville Knows]

And this is a problem how? Gretzky was lapping the field against the best players in the world. Stamkos is not lapping the field against the best players in the world.

You're saying that Stamkos did not lead the best goalscorers last season by almost 50 percent, when removing a player like Malkin who's predecessors was behind the iron wall. Please, pick up a calculator. You replied to a post of mine where i did say that i was not trying to say Stamkos was a better player than Gretzky, but last season he in fact did lap the field in goals at least as much as Gretzky ever did.

And personally I'd take Bossy over Malkin every trip of the train.

And this is relevant in what way? I was simply saying that there were no russians in the league when Gretzky did his megaseasons.

Did i lie?

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

You're saying that Stamkos did not lead the best goalscorers last season by almost 50 percent, when removing a player like Malkin who's predecessors was behind the iron wall. Please, pick up a calculator. You replied to a post of mine where i did say that i was not trying to say Stamkos was a better player than Gretzky, but last season he in fact did lap the field in goals at least as much as Gretzky ever did.

There's the problem with your math: You keep adding that caveat of "if you take Malkin out of the equation". Gretzky didn't need to take anyone out in order to blow away the competition.

And this is relevant in what way? I was simply saying that there were no russians in the league when Gretzky did his megaseasons.

Did i lie?

The problem isn't that what you said was a lie, but rather what you said was irrelevant. I don't care two shakes what the ethnic makeup of the league was and is.

 

[Mc5RingsAndABeer]

WTF? People are saying that Crosby impacts the game more than Gretzky? You guys must be teenagers to think that.

The eras are definitely different, but if you compare Gretzky to his peers or Gretzky/Crosby to common players who spanned both eras, it becomes obvious that Gretzky was on another level.

 

[Pominville Knows]

There's the problem with your math: You keep adding that caveat of "if you take Malkin out of the equation". Gretzky didn't need to take anyone out in order to blow away the competition.

You do know that the reason Gretzky did'nt need to "take anyone out" is becouse Malkin would'nt have been in the league in the beginning of the eighties?

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

You do know that the reason Gretzky did'nt need to "take anyone out" is becouse Malkin would'nt have been in the league in the beginning of the eighties?

Irrelevant as even had he been he still would have been inferior to Mike Bossy. It hasn't even been established that Malkin is better than Peter Stastny who WAS in the league in the early '80s.

 

[Pominville Knows]

Irrelevant as even had he been he still would have been inferior to Mike Bossy. It hasn't even been established that Malkin is better than Peter Stastny who WAS in the league in the early '80s.

Since when is Peter Stastny a russian? I'm talking about that the overall talent pool in the NHL in the early eighties was smaller becouse there where no russians there. Please let Malkin play out his career first before saying he's inferior to anybody. Thus far he seem to stack up pretty good to Bossy adjusted, a little bit uneven but there have been some injuries involved. At his best though, he dont seem inferior to Bossy what-so-ever.

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

Since when is Peter Stasty a russian?

Still someone who by your lights wouldn't have been playing in the league as he's from behind the iron curtain.

I'm talking about that the overall talent pool in the NHL in the early eighties was smaller becouse there where no russians there.

And there are 9 more teams in the league effectively diluting the talent right back down to '80s levels. Try again.

Please let Malkin play out his career first before saying he's inferior to anybody.

Please let Malkin play out his career first before you imply he's superior to anybody Gretzky played against.

Thus far he seem to stack up pretty good to Bossy adjusted, a little bit uneven but there have been some injuries involved. At his best Malkin though, dont seem infeior to Bossy whatsoever.

I saw Mike Bossy. I watched Mike Bossy play. Malkin is no Mike Bossy even at his best. Malkin is not on Bossy's level sorry.

 

[Pominville Knows]

Still someone who by your lights wouldn't have been playing in the league as he's from behind the iron curtain.

Where were the russians? Malkin is here.

And there are 9 more teams in the league effectively diluting the talent right back down to '80s levels. Try again.

Quite the contrary. It gives the larger talent pool the quality time on ice that is needed to produce to their potential.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Quite the contrary. It gives the larger talent pool the quality time on ice that is needed to produce to their potential.

Nope, all the best players from behind the Iron Curtain were already in the NHL by '92.

I have asked the following question a few times now...if the remaining best of the best from behind the Curtain had already arrived by '92, who filled the 200+ spots that were opened up when the League expanded by another 8 teams?

AGAIN, it was mostly tier III and tier IV players with a couple of perceived defective tier II's here and there getting another chance.

Also AGAIN, there is absolutely no proof of a relationship between the amount of players in the League and the amount of very top elite players in the league.

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

Where were the russians? Malkin is here.

Who cares? This isn't ethnic bean counting. I couldn't care less if Gretzky played against a league full of Samoans: The best players in world are the best players in the world and their accident of birth is irrelevant.

Quite the contrary. It gives the larger talent pool the quality time on ice that is needed to produce to their potential.

Lets see. 21 vs 30 teams. Sorry pal, but there aren't 9 teams worth of elite players being produced by the expanded talent pool. I've seen arguments made that the expansion of the league has actually out-paced the expansion of the talent pool and that the talent is even MORE diluted than it was in the '80s.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

KEEP THE "PLAYERS TODAY ARE BETTER THAN PLAYERS OF BEFORE" talk out of this thread.

I don't mean to curse, but I am irritated right now.

 

[Pominville Knows]

Adjusted stats are not perfect no, but that is no news on this subforum.

Here, have a look, although not perfect Gretzky nor Bossy was as dominant goal scorers as your precious memories of them makes you claim they were.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/leaders/goals_adjusted_season.html

KEEP THE "PLAYERS TODAY ARE BETTER THAN PLAYERS OF BEFORE" talk out of this thread.

I don't mean to curse, but I am irritated right now.

Is this aimed at me? Tell me what kind of money Malkin would have made from ice hockey in 1984. Tell it to Tretiak who i believe really wanted to play for Montreal back in the days.

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

Adjusted stats are not perfect no, but that is no news on this subforum.

Here, have a look, although not perfect Gretzky nor Bossy was as dominant goal scorers as your precious memories of them makes you claim they were.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/leaders/goals_adjusted_season.html

If it's no news why are you using a list based on a metric you yourself are admitting is flawed? A list compiled using a bogus metric is worthless.

 

[Pominville Knows]

If it's no news why are you using a list based on a metric you yourself are admitting is flawed? A list compiled using a bogus metric is worthless.

BOGUS is hardly the word i would use to describe straight up adjusted stats, no.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

If your post has nothing to do with Mario Lemieux, do NOT post it in this thread.

Thank you.

 

[Rhiessan71]

BOGUS is hardly the word i would use to describe straight up adjusted stats, no.

They are when you're trying to impose an average on an outlier player like Mario, who was as far away from the average as you could get.
The concept that it would be just as hard for Mario to maintain his production as it would be for a Chris Nilan to maintain his in a lower scoring league is just plain ludicrous.

All the tiers experienced a reduction but the highest tier wasn't affected to the same degree as the second tier scorers were, they in turn, not as affected as the third tiers were and them not as much as the fourth tiers were.

Suffice to say, there is NOT this nice equal decline across the board for all tiers like AS's tries to present.


Mario is not only a tier 1 but an outlier to boot. Trying to use adjusted stats to quantify him is going to fail.

AS's can be a rough guide but because of the very nature of the players we mostly talk about around here (Tier 1's and better), AS's are not going to provide a very accurate picture.

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

They are when you're trying to impose an average on an outlier player like Mario, who was as far away from the average as you could get.
The concept that it would be just as hard for Mario to maintain his production as it would be for a Chris Nilan to maintain his in a lower scoring league is just plain ludicrous.

All the tiers experienced a reduction but the highest tier wasn't affected to the same degree as the second tier scorers were, they in turn, not as affected as the third tiers were and them not as much as the fourth tiers were.

Suffice to say, there is NOT this nice equal decline across the board for all tiers like AS's tries to present.

Exactly. That's why AS works when comparing TEAMS (or even goaltenders) across eras but not when comparing individual scorers.

 

[Rhiessan71]

And the first thing that someone is going to say is...so what if it's out by a measly amount like 4-5%.
Well that 4-5% doubles into 8-10% the second you compare Mario from '89 to Crosby from '10.
Mario gets that 4-5% as a penalty while Crosby receives that 4-5% as a bonus.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Actually, I think it's more about some people having trouble distinguishing between their own revisionism and what actually happened.
And you can keep bringing up post Suter hit Gretzky stats and seasons till you're blue in the face, it really doesn't mean anything what so ever. You're just the only one that doesn't understand that.

The effect Gretzky had in LA in 88/89 and 90/91 is beyond anything you could argue against.
89/90 was an off year with well documented injuries and games played by Gretzky that he really shouldn't have been playing.

Just because he wasn't at his absolute peak anymore in his first 3 years in LA, he was still ahead of anyone not named Mario at the time and anyone short of Jagr's peak since.

Something Phil mentioned earlier stuck in my head. He said that he could rank Crosby's play the last 3 seasons with Gretzky's play from 89-91.
I think that's being a little too generous to Crosby, although I can see the argument for it and at worst, Crosby is not far behind.
HOWEVER!!! Crosby has still only played in 47% of his games over that span and his teams completely embarrassing First round exit last year, during this span, GREATLY diminishes any reasonable criteria for holding him up to a 89-91 Gretzky.

I mean all Wayne did from 89-91 was win a Hart and 2 Art Ross.
Losing 1 Hart to some guy named Mario and the other, in his off year, to Bourque (screw Messier ).
He lost the other Art Ross to that Mario guy.

I'll tell you one thing for damned sure, he most certainly wasn't losing both the Art Ross and the Hart to a Sedin in a healthy season

As far as Crosby's supposed "impact" for winning games...PROVE IT!!!
I don't see the Pens hurting very much without Crosby for over 50% of the last 3 seasons.
Nor did we see that "impact" when it mattered most in last years Playoffs or ESPECIALLY in the '10 Playoffs during their 2nd round exit to the Habs.

We covered the part in bold with how the Karlssonless Sens are doing this year.

If you really think that Wayne ahd more overall impact the last 3 years, aside from injuires than Wayne did in his 89-91 3 year span then you are only looking at one side of the equation which in offense.

Wayne's ESGF to ESGA is mediocre over that 3 year span period.

Things like the focus on offensive stats is how guys like Wayne and Mario can get over rated, thanks for proving my point.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Neither here nor there. Getting Hart votes playing on a team like LA compared to getting votes on a team like Det doesn't happen. Switch the teams and Sergei sees no votes either.

Give me a break, Sergei still wins his Hart if he has his Hart year in Detroit and Wayne was the scoring leading in Detroit and had the same year.