Lemieux vs. Orr: The two greatest injury-stunted careers

[bobholly39]

Of course nothing's impossible, but Lemieux's pre-diagnosis play in 1992-93 was actually at the pace of 104 points in 40 games. Mathematically, this projects to an 80-game (Gretzky's highest total) point total of 208, while in the full 84 games to 218.

The thing is, did Lemieux normally sustain his pace in the second half as in the first half? My point is that he didn't, aside from his rookie year, for obvious reasons. In 1985-86, he scored at exactly the same pace in the second half as in the first. In 1987-88, he had 87 points in 40 games, and then 81 in 37 -- those are exactly the same pace. In 1988-89, he had 113 points in the first 40 games (2.83 PPG) and then 86 in 36 (2.39 PPG), a significant drop. In 1989-90, he had 80 points in 40 games (2.00 PPG), and then 43 in 19 (2.26 PPG), but that's too small a sample size for me to really rely on it (he went down to injury in the second half and came back for the last game). In 1995-96, he had 104 points in 40 games (2.60 PPG), and then 57 points in 30 games (1.9 PPG). In 1996-97, he had 70 points in 40 games (1.75 PPG) and then 52 points in 36 games (1.44 PPG). Famously, in 2002-03 he had 68 points in the first 40 games (1.70 PPG), and then 23 points in 27 games after that (0.85 PPG).

Two seasons are exceptions to this rule: 1991-92 and 1992-93. The common factor in each is that he got injured, had time off, and came back.

In 1991-92, he had 75 points in 38 games before injury (1.97 PPG), and then 56 points in 26 games after injury (2.15 PPG). And, as we've (sort of) noted, in 1992-93, he had 104 points in 40 games up to his diagnosis (2.60 PPG), and then 56 points in 20 games after (2.80 PPG). Strange as it sounds, it seems as if Lemieux produced at a higher rate after extended rests... even due to injury.

At no time during his "healthy" seasons did Lemieux increase his pace in the second half over the first half. Therefore, I see no logical reason to guess that a healthy Lemieux in 1992-93 would have increased his pace of 2.60 PPG to reach 230-240 points (though, of course, anything's possible). Indeed, we saw his scoring pace slow down immediately once the Pens' crazy winning streak ended at the end of the season, and through the playoffs.

It's all guessing and speculation. And you may be right as what you say is logical - but as you acknowledge the opposite could also be true and he could have hit 230+ that year.

The greatest shame with Lemieux is how when he was at his best in terms of ability - he got so few (did he get any? maybe 1989) full seasons worth to show what he could do. Both Orr and Gretzky had multiple of those.

 

[The Panther]

It's all guessing and speculation. And you may be right as what you say is logical - but as you acknowledge the opposite could also be true and he could have hit 230+ that year.

The greatest shame with Lemieux is how when he was at his best in terms of ability - he got so few (did he get any? maybe 1989) full seasons worth to show what he could do. Both Orr and Gretzky had multiple of those.

Yes, it's a shame, I suppose. As far as regular season goes, we saw Lemieux at his best in 1987-88 and 1988-89, and maybe the first 2/3 of 1989-90 (though he actually "slumped", relatively, at the beginning of that season). Then, again, when dressed in 1991-92 and 1992-93, and finally a full season (almost) in 1995-96. By 1996-97 he was slowing down, as per League scoring.

But the one thing Lemieux never did in his career is to combine a dominant, full regular season with a dominant playoffs. I guess the closest is 1991-92, but he appeared in only 64 games and, in fact, his scoring pace that season is a bit below his very best years.

 

[bobholly39]

Yes, it's a shame, I suppose. As far as regular season goes, we saw Lemieux at his best in 1987-88 and 1988-89, and maybe the first 2/3 of 1989-90 (though he actually "slumped", relatively, at the beginning of that season). Then, again, when dressed in 1991-92 and 1992-93, and finally a full season (almost) in 1995-96. By 1996-97 he was slowing down, as per League scoring.

But the one thing Lemieux never did in his career is to combine a dominant, full regular season with a dominant playoffs. I guess the closest is 1991-92, but he appeared in only 64 games and, in fact, his scoring pace that season is a bit below his very best years.

I've never been one to care too much about playoff/regular season combo in the same year.

It's extremely important to me to have playoff success. So Lemieux without his 91 or 92 playoff run (worthy of his stature as a player and arguably as 2 of the very best playoff runs ever) - would lose a lot of stock in my book. But i don't mind as much that he never combined reg season and playoff in same year.

Also the seasons between 1990 and 1995 or so he had chronic back pains and such - so i don't know how much of that was him at his best, even in the partial seasons of greatness.

 

[Iron Mike Sharpe]

My apologies, Vanislander. I was a little short on time earlier, but wanted to throw my two cents in. I can expand a little bit more now, although most of the points I would make have already been covered by other posters. I typically don't care for "what ifs," but I'm procrastinating on doing some much needed housekeeping (shows you how much I really don't want to do it).

Both players have two Stanley Cup championships. Both have two Conn Smythe awards. Pretty even there. Lemieux has six Art Ross awards to Orr's two. However, since Orr is a defenseman, I think the fact he has even one Art Ross on his resume is more impressive since no other defenseman has had one. Has another defenseman even finished number two in scoring? If so, my money would be on Paul Coffey. I digress...

I guess I'm going to make my stand based on one series. That would be the infamous 1979 "Too Many Men on the Ice" series against the Canadiens. I was four years old at the time, so I don't remember it. I had other priorities and it was on past my bedtime.

Anyway, the Bruins battled the mighty dynastic Canadiens to an absolute standstill and it took a colossal Bruins blunder and the greatest goal ever scored by Guy Lafleur for Montreal to win the series. As it stands, it is in my opinion the greatest series in NHL history. I despise the result, but for drama, I can't think of a better series ever.

So what happens if a healthy Bobby Orr (still playing for Boston) plays in that series in an alternate timeline?
I have to believe that a healthy Orr would have been the difference in Game 7.

Lets assume that Coach Cherry still replaces Cheevers with Gilbert after Game Two.

In our universe, Games One; Two; and Five were decided by two; three; and four goals respectively. In the alternate universe, I'll assume that Montreal still wins those games - but with the addition of Bobby Orr, the scores are much closer.

I'll also assume that the Bruins win Games Three, Four, and Six at home just as they did in our timeline. In our universe, Games Three and Four were decided by one goal. Game Six was decided by three goals. The Bruins were gaining momentum.

Which brings us to Game Seven. History as we know it has the Bruins losing 5-4 in overtime.

But with Orr and Park on defense together, once the Bruins built their lead, they would more likely than not add to it, or at least maintain it. But how would Orr do offensively? There really IS no way of knowing. What I did was take Orr's career playoff stats and average them out like he was in a bowling league. In 74 career playoff games, Orr averaged .351 goals per game; .891 assists per game; and 1.243 points per game. So, over this seven game series, lets say he had a line of 3-6-9. I did a little rounding up to make some of the numbers work. I don't think that's a bad line for this series. It puts Orr behind Guy Lafleur's 12 points and ties Jean Ratelle's 9 points for the series. Very good for a defenseman, I think.

I believe that Orr sets up at least one more Boston goal in regulation and the Bruins survive the Montreal onslaught in the third period. The too many men on the ice penalty becomes a footnote as the Bruins hold on for a 5-4 win in regulation and easily dispose of the Rangers in the Finals.

So, what's my point? My point is that Orr earns a signature playoff triumph against a dragon he was never able to slay in our timeline. What is or would be Mario's? This wasn't trouncing the expansion St. Louis Blues in a four game sweep. This was a hockey donnybrook that resulted in a 15 round knockout. Yes, Orr still has his iconic 1970 Cup-clincher, but he never had a series like this one. Only the 2004 ALCS triumph of the Red Sox over the Yankees could compare to the '79 Semi-Final had it gone the Bruins' way. It paves the way for a THIRD Stanley Cup championship for Orr; possibly a third Conn Smythe (however, I think Gilles Gilbert gets it); and makes Orr a hero in a bitterly contested series for the ages. Orr's Bruins even take a nice big bite out of the Montreal dynasty to boot. Even had Mario Lemieux remained healthy, would he EVER have faced anyone as fearsome as the 1979 Canadiens? No. No way in hell.

This one game in this one series changes so much for Bobby Orr. Leaving 1979 aside for a moment - could there have been other Stanley Cup championships? Maybe. More scoring and bigger stats? Absolutely. The whole structure of the NHL changes with a healthy Orr skating for the Boston Bruins.

My two cents.

Okay, but I'm guessing that even in an alternate universe, the Bruins don't trade for Park if Orr is healthy. Which means they likely have 79 Esposito, who actually did make the Finals with the Rangers.

 

[rfournier103]

Okay, but I'm guessing that even in an alternate universe, the Bruins don't trade for Park if Orr is healthy. Which means they likely have 79 Esposito, who actually did make the Finals with the Rangers.

Mayhaps, but I chose to change only that one variable. I’m sure there’s somewhere else in the multiverse where Orr was healthy AND the Bruins didn’t trade for Park, but I was trying to keep it as close to the reality that we know as possible.

 

[Iron Mike Sharpe]

Mayhaps, but I chose to change only that one variable. I’m sure there’s somewhere else in the multiverse where Orr was healthy AND the Bruins didn’t trade for Park, but I was trying to keep it as close to the reality that we know as possible.

Okay... then if Orr & Park are both on the Bruins, that is four years playing together at that point... but they still only edge the Habs in the 79 Finals. How does an Orr-Park Bruins do in 76, 77 & 78? Do we still have a Habs Dynasty at all? Do the Bruins with Orr, Park & Bourque in the early 80s act as a spoiler for the Isles Dynasty? Does Grapes go on to have a long coaching career a la Scotty Bowman?

 

[rfournier103]

Okay... then if Orr & Park are both on the Bruins, that is four years playing together at that point... but they still only edge the Habs in the 79 Finals. How does an Orr-Park Bruins do in 76, 77 & 78? Do we still have a Habs Dynasty at all? Do the Bruins with Orr, Park & Bourque in the early 80s act as a spoiler for the Isles Dynasty? Does Grapes go on to have a long coaching career a la Scotty Bowman?

Great questions!

What do you think?

Edit: Orr’s health tumbles a lot of dominos, and each of these questions could spawn threads of their own. I’d love to answer these but I do have to do SOME work today...

 

[Troubadour]

Of course nothing's impossible, but Lemieux's pre-diagnosis play in 1992-93 was actually at the pace of 104 points in 40 games. Mathematically, this projects to an 80-game (Gretzky's highest total) point total of 208, while in the full 84 games to 218.

The thing is, did Lemieux normally sustain his pace in the second half as in the first half? My point is that he didn't, aside from his rookie year, for obvious reasons. In 1985-86, he scored at exactly the same pace in the second half as in the first. In 1987-88, he had 87 points in 40 games, and then 81 in 37 -- those are exactly the same pace. In 1988-89, he had 113 points in the first 40 games (2.83 PPG) and then 86 in 36 (2.39 PPG), a significant drop. In 1989-90, he had 80 points in 40 games (2.00 PPG), and then 43 in 19 (2.26 PPG), but that's too small a sample size for me to really rely on it (he went down to injury in the second half and came back for the last game). In 1995-96, he had 104 points in 40 games (2.60 PPG), and then 57 points in 30 games (1.9 PPG). In 1996-97, he had 70 points in 40 games (1.75 PPG) and then 52 points in 36 games (1.44 PPG). Famously, in 2002-03 he had 68 points in the first 40 games (1.70 PPG), and then 23 points in 27 games after that (0.85 PPG).

Two seasons are exceptions to this rule: 1991-92 and 1992-93. The common factor in each is that he got injured, had time off, and came back.

In 1991-92, he had 75 points in 38 games before injury (1.97 PPG), and then 56 points in 26 games after injury (2.15 PPG). And, as we've (sort of) noted, in 1992-93, he had 104 points in 40 games up to his diagnosis (2.60 PPG), and then 56 points in 20 games after (2.80 PPG). Strange as it sounds, it seems as if Lemieux produced at a higher rate after extended rests... even due to injury.

At no time during his "healthy" seasons did Lemieux increase his pace in the second half over the first half. Therefore, I see no logical reason to guess that a healthy Lemieux in 1992-93 would have increased his pace of 2.60 PPG to reach 230-240 points (though, of course, anything's possible). Indeed, we saw his scoring pace slow down immediately once the Pens' crazy winning streak ended at the end of the season, and through the playoffs.

Oh, I really overestimated his pace, probably based on the sample from the other thread. Still, the chance is pretty decent a healthy Lemieux would have broken Gretzky's 215 point record. By what margin, we can only guess.

The fact Lemieux' pace usually seemed to decrease over the course of the season might as well be the result of his shaky health.

While rest would no doubt do him good, radiation probably didn't. So if a post-radiation Mario had the ability to increase his scoring pace, a fully healthy Mario definitely had even more of the potential to carry his first-half pace over to the second half of the season.

You would have a much easier time convincing me the cancer battle gave him something to prove and some sort of psychological boost than making me believe rest did him good to a greater extent than the radiation caused him malaise.

EDIT: I forgot to mention one important thing.

Lemieux's pre-diagnosis play in 1992-93 was actually at the pace of 104 points in 40 games.

That was Mario with cancer.

The rest of the season was Mario post-radiation.

Once you connect those two pieces for what they were, the potential for what could have been that particular crazy year seems insane.

 

[Conspiracy Theorist]

Both better than Gretzky.

 

[bobholly39]

Both better than Gretzky.

Gretzky won and excelled at every single level without fail, every single time he played without fail.

I love Lemieux and I think if he had better health he would have given Gretzky a run for his money on some records.

But Gretzky made the playoffs almost every year. He won scoring championships every year without fail. He led playoff points every year. He led offensive points in every international tournament he played, ever. He broke every record he set his sights on, by a lot.

Nobody else was as consistently elite as he was. not Lemieux, not Orr. Look at their playoff or international record compared to Gretzky. Not in terms of team success - but in terms of individual contributions. Gretzky is untouchable in his prime.

He did decline in the 90s. That's the only opening. Maybe with better health Orr/Lemieux overtake him somewhat in the long run in the best case scenario if they don't decline as much - but no one was touching him in his prime.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Nobody else was as consistently elite as he was. not Lemieux, not Orr.

I disagree vehemently. Mario came back from retirement and was still dominant. Orr never had a bad season (you can't count his Chicago stint when he only played about a dozen games).

 

[bobholly39]

I disagree vehemently. Mario came back from retirement and was still dominant. Orr never had a bad season (you can't count his Chicago stint when he only played about a dozen games).

I meant outside of the regular season. Playoffs, tournaments, etc. When it mattered - Gretzky always found a way to shine as the very best/mvp. Both Orr and Lemieux had their moments (among the best moments ever) - but Gretzky i feel like he did it everytime without fail on a big stage, which is pretty awesome.

Orr was super consistent regular season, no question, same category as Gretzky i'd say. It's a pure guessing game as to whether he would have declined at the age his injuries hit or whether he could have maintained that pace (or somehow improved?) for a few more years.

Lemieux never quite had that consistency though. He started out his career slower than Gretzky - and by the 90s it's all injury plagued, so it's hard to extrapolate any type of consistency when there's no way to gauge exactly how much of an impact injuries had every season. Him coming back out of retirements was spectacular and suggests he could have lasted longer than Gretzky at a high level before declining - but it's also plausible that him not having as much wear and tear on his body as Gretzky helped with that (and still possible on top of that that his history of health/injuries hurts him even more than Gretzky - which is even more impressive). Pure guessing game/speculation imo.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

I meant outside of the regular season. Playoffs, tournaments, etc. When it mattered - Gretzky always found a way to shine as the very best/mvp. Both Orr and Lemieux had their moments (among the best moments ever) - but Gretzky i feel like he did it everytime without fail on a big stage, which is pretty awesome.

Orr was super consistent regular season, no question, same category as Gretzky i'd say. It's a pure guessing game as to whether he would have declined at the age his injuries hit or whether he could have maintained that pace (or somehow improved?) for a few more years.

Lemieux never quite had that consistency though. He started out his career slower than Gretzky - and by the 90s it's all injury plagued, so it's hard to extrapolate any type of consistency when there's no way to gauge exactly how much of an impact injuries had every season. Him coming back out of retirements was spectacular and suggests he could have lasted longer than Gretzky at a high level before declining - but it's also plausible that him not having as much wear and tear on his body as Gretzky helped with that (and still possible on top of that that his history of health/injuries hurts him even more than Gretzky - which is even more impressive). Pure guessing game/speculation imo.

Lemieux had much more wear and tear on his body and mind then Gretzky did.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I meant outside of the regular season. Playoffs, tournaments, etc. When it mattered - Gretzky always found a way to shine as the very best/mvp. Both Orr and Lemieux had their moments (among the best moments ever) - but Gretzky i feel like he did it everytime without fail on a big stage, which is pretty awesome.

Orr was super consistent regular season, no question, same category as Gretzky i'd say. It's a pure guessing game as to whether he would have declined at the age his injuries hit or whether he could have maintained that pace (or somehow improved?) for a few more years.

Lemieux never quite had that consistency though. He started out his career slower than Gretzky - and by the 90s it's all injury plagued, so it's hard to extrapolate any type of consistency when there's no way to gauge exactly how much of an impact injuries had every season. Him coming back out of retirements was spectacular and suggests he could have lasted longer than Gretzky at a high level before declining - but it's also plausible that him not having as much wear and tear on his body as Gretzky helped with that (and still possible on top of that that his history of health/injuries hurts him even more than Gretzky - which is even more impressive). Pure guessing game/speculation imo.

His injuries hit at age 18. He ended his rookie season on crutches.

 

[Pominville Knows]

I'm one of those Penguins fans that also say Orr. I even even did so back in the day when i did my best to argue that Lemieux's factual best was marginally better than Gretzky's.

 

[bobholly39]

Lemieux had much more wear and tear on his body and mind then Gretzky did.

Maybe but that's not as easily calculated as counting points and goals.

Playing less games helps your body heal - playing more games hurts your body. Advantage Lemieux
Suffering through worth health/injuries hurts your body - suffering through less helps your body. Advantage Gretzky

how do you equate those?

Unless we're going to get into some advanced medical discussion - the point is Lemieux's best and career will always be open to questions marks. Maybe more wear and tear on his body slows him down in the long run - or maybe it gives him a chance to shine for much longer/and even higher than what we saw if he avoids health issues. Pure speculation.

I don't think it's speculation with Orr. We saw Orr - he just had to stop early.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Maybe but that's not as easily calculated as counting points and goals.

Playing less games helps your body heal - playing more games hurts your body. Advantage Lemieux
Suffering through worth health/injuries hurts your body - suffering through less helps your body. Advantage Gretzky

how do you equate those?

Unless we're going to get into some advanced medical discussion - the point is Lemieux's best and career will always be open to questions marks. Maybe more wear and tear on his body slows him down in the long run - or maybe it gives him a chance to shine for much longer/and even higher than what we saw if he avoids health issues. Pure speculation.

I don't think it's speculation with Orr. We saw Orr - he just had to stop early.

we saw Orr, but we didn't

He had his 1st major knee injury in his 2nd year. He played his entire career on a variety of ongoing knee injuries. He essentially never really had a season at 100%

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Maybe but that's not as easily calculated as counting points and goals.

Playing less games helps your body heal - playing more games hurts your body. Advantage Lemieux
Suffering through worth health/injuries hurts your body - suffering through less helps your body. Advantage Gretzky

how do you equate those?

Unless we're going to get into some advanced medical discussion - the point is Lemieux's best and career will always be open to questions marks. Maybe more wear and tear on his body slows him down in the long run - or maybe it gives him a chance to shine for much longer/and even higher than what we saw if he avoids health issues. Pure speculation.

I don't think it's speculation with Orr. We saw Orr - he just had to stop early.

We saw Lemieux take a run at several Gretzky records. 215 points/ 51 game point streak. He just had to stop due to cancer

 

[streitz]

But the one thing Lemieux never did in his career is to combine a dominant, full regular season with a dominant playoffs. I guess the closest is 1991-92, but he appeared in only 64 games and, in fact, his scoring pace that season is a bit below his very best years.

He still won the scoring title in those 64 games. If that's not dominant I don't know what is.

 

[DannyGallivan]

we saw Orr, but we didn't

He had his 1st major knee injury in his 2nd year. He played his entire career on a variety of ongoing knee injuries. He essentially never really had a season at 100%

Speaking from experience, a bad knee at a young age wears out over time. So, he may have had his original speed for a few years after the first injury. But the more cartilage and miniscus damage (and we know there was lots), his knee eventually wore down to nothing.

I was never a professional athlete, but I ripped up my knee (two severed ligaments and accompanied cartilage damage) just before my 17th birthday. I was able to play sports for almost 20 more years, but the last year I was actually able to run was when I was 36.

 

[bobholly39]

He still won the scoring title in those 64 games. If that's not dominant I don't know what is.

Dominant? Sure

Dominant for Gretzky/Lemieux level? Nope. Higher standard for them - and that regular season was definitely nothing special for Lemieux

 

[streitz]

Dominant? Sure

Dominant for Gretzky/Lemieux level? Nope. Higher standard for them - and that regular season was definitely nothing special for Lemieux

Nearly 2 points per game 'isn't special'?


Do you guys just post this stuff to make edgy narratives in your heads? lol

 

[The Panther]

Nearly 2 points per game 'isn't special'?


Do you guys just post this stuff to make edgy narratives in your heads? lol

The point we're making is that Lemieux never had one of his very best and full regular seasons combined with a successful playoffs. It doesn't mean Lemieux's a bum, but it's just something that Howe, Orr, and Gretzky all did at least twice. We're not saying Lemieux wasn't great in 1991-92. Howe, Orr, and Gretzky not only did it twice (or more) each, they also did it on teams that finished in 1st place, which Lemieux didn't.

 

[streitz]

The point we're making is that Lemieux never had one of his very best and full regular seasons combined with a successful playoffs. It doesn't mean Lemieux's a bum, but it's just something that Howe, Orr, and Gretzky all did at least twice. We're not saying Lemieux wasn't great in 1991-92. Howe, Orr, and Gretzky not only did it twice (or more) each, they also did it on teams that finished in 1st place, which Lemieux didn't.

First I'm not Mario Lemieux I don't take things like this personally and I don't care about 'burns' on him.



I just don't understand how scoring 2 ppg and winning the Ross after missing 16 games then following up with a more then 2 ppg conn smythe performance isn't exceptional.

Also to nitpick Orr's 2nd cup (73) he was second in scoring with 117 points and only +83. Looking at all his other regular seasons I'd say that was his 4th or 5th best regular season all things considered.

Also to nitpick again for Wayne's second best playoff run (88) he had an off year where he was banged up and only had 149 points and didn't win the ross for the first time since his 2nd year. All things considered probably his worst regular season in Edmonton aside from maybe his Rookie year.

 

[The Panther]

First I'm not Mario Lemieux I don't take things like this personally and I don't care about 'burns' on him.

The word I wrote was " b u m ".

I just don't understand how scoring 2 ppg and winning the Ross after missing 16 games then following up with a more then 2 ppg conn smythe performance isn't exceptional.

No one has said it wasn't exceptional.

Also to nitpick Orr's 2nd cup (73) he was second in scoring with 117 points and only +83. Looking at all his other regular seasons I'd say that was his 4th or 5th best regular season all things considered.

(Actually it was 1972.) Okay, think about what you're saying -- a defenseman was 2nd in the scoring race, led the NHL in assists, was +83. If it was only his fourth or fifth best regular season, it means Orr had at least five FULL regular seasons that good.

Also to nitpick again for Wayne's second best playoff run (88) he had an off year where he was banged up and only had 149 points and didn't win the ross for the first time since his 2nd year. All things considered probably his worst regular season in Edmonton aside from maybe his Rookie year.

He didn't have an off-year at all. He played in only 64 games, and for the ninth year in a row had the best PPG in the NHL and also the highest "plus/minus" per game. (Note 149 points in 64 games compared to Lemieux's 131.) His per-game output without Coffey was actually marginally higher than the year before.

Anyway, you seem to be missing the key point I'm making, which was "full" and dominant regular season plus dominant playoff. We can argue about whether that matters or not, but I'm just saying it's something Lemieux never did.