Mario Lemieux and 200 point season

[shazariahl]

Mario Lemieux was almost the second player in the history of NHL with 200 point in one season. Almost. In season 1988/1989 he collected 199 points. And here is the question.

Isn't it possible, that he really had 200 points? The statistics were made by a human and as we know, nobody is perfect. There is a possibility, that someone forgot to write him second assists, or maybe some goal was written to another guy as Lemieux.

I don't really understand why 200 is such an important number for people. It's not like Gretzky's record was for scoring 200 pts, and Lemieux was 1 away from tying it. If Mario had scored 1 more point, would that actually change anything? For Lemieux fans who think he was better than Gretzky, they think that regardless, whether he hit 200 or not. For Gretzky fans, they'd just say "Gretzky had 4 of them, Lemieux had 1". It wouldn't change the way people view those 2 players.

Maybe it would have mattered to the media? Perhaps 200 pts is enough for him to win the Hart over Gretzky that year, but unlikely. They loved the Gretzky turns the Kings around story and if 199 pts couldn't win him the Hart, 200 probably wouldn't do it either.

Sure it's a nice round number, but Lemieux missed 4 games that year. Had he not, he clearly would have broken 200 pts. Does that make him better than Gretzky? Not in my opinion. And for those who already have that opinion, they have it w/o him hitting 200. It would be like asking "what if Gretzky got 1 more point his rookie year?" That would have given him 11 Art Ross trophies instead of 10. Would it really matter though? If 10 wasn't enough, would 1 more based on scoring 1 more point really matter to people?

 

[Pominville Knows]

I don't really understand why 200 is such an important number for people. It's not like Gretzky's record was for scoring 200 pts, and Lemieux was 1 away from tying it. If Mario had scored 1 more point, would that actually change anything? For Lemieux fans who think he was better than Gretzky, they think that regardless, whether he hit 200 or not. For Gretzky fans, they'd just say "Gretzky had 4 of them, Lemieux had 1". It wouldn't change the way people view those 2 players.

Maybe it would have mattered to the media? Perhaps 200 pts is enough for him to win the Hart over Gretzky that year, but unlikely. They loved the Gretzky turns the Kings around story and if 199 pts couldn't win him the Hart, 200 probably wouldn't do it either.

Sure it's a nice round number, but Lemieux missed 4 games that year. Had he not, he clearly would have broken 200 pts. Does that make him better than Gretzky? Not in my opinion. And for those who already have that opinion, they have it w/o him hitting 200. It would be like asking "what if Gretzky got 1 more point his rookie year?" That would have given him 11 Art Ross trophies instead of 10. Would it really matter though? If 10 wasn't enough, would 1 more based on scoring 1 more point really matter to people?

You are mostly right but unfortunately it does not matter. Mario was every bit as good as Gretzky at his best, he showed that in 1988-89, 1992-93, 1995-96, 2000-01, playoffs in 1991 and 1992. Us Lemieux'ians like to think, that Mario showed there, that he was the best of the lot. Then some career obesessed guys makes another call, that we all have to live with. But at the end of the story, we all have to recognise that both Gordie Howe and Bobby Orr could very well put these two centres to third and fourth all time, no matter the order.

 

[Big Phil]

You know, there is a flip side to this. Mario's 199th point of the year was an overtime goal (or an empty net goal) on the last game of the year. In other words, how close was he to getting 198 for the season? Pretty close in my mind. But does this change much? Is 198 still not a gaudy number?

 

[tazzy19]

You are mostly right but unfortunately it does not matter. Mario was every bit as good as Gretzky at his best, he showed that in 1988-89, 1992-93, 1995-96, 2000-01, playoffs in 1991 and 1992. Us Lemieux'ians like to think, that Mario showed there, that he was the best of the lot. Then some career obesessed guys makes another call, that we all have to live with. But at the end of the story, we all have to recognise that both Gordie Howe and Bobby Orr could very well put these two centres to third and fourth all time, no matter the order.

If you want to talk peak, Lemieux was only on par with Gretzky during the regar season. He hardly ever peaked as high as Gretz during the playoffs, if ever. Lemieux had 44 points in 23 games one time. Had Gretz played 23 games in the '85 playoffs, he would have been on track for 60 points. Lemieux was not really close at all. Gretz scored 47 points in only 18 games. Then in 1988 (only 3 seasons before Lemieux's 44 point playoff), Gretz scored 43 points in only 19 games WITHOUT Paul Coffey. Say what you want about the regular season, but come playoff time--when it mattered the most--no one peaked as high as #99.

 

[Wizeman*]

I think the Gretzky Lemieux debate is going to go on for another 50 years. Its good discussion.

Soon we can have Ovechkin vs Crosby vs Malkin debates

 

[YNWA14]

I think the Gretzky Lemieux debate is going to go on for another 50 years. Its good discussion.

Soon we can have Ovechkin vs Crosby vs Malkin debates

There isn't much a debate there.

 

[alko]

I don't really understand why 200 is such an important number for people.

Yeah, its not life important. But as a statistic freak, the number 200 is something special. I really hate prices like 3,99 or 99,99 . So i hate also 199.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Lemieux was never really on par with Wayne‘s peak. Lemieux was always more reliant on the PP than Gretz was. Limit your penalties, you could limit Mario. It really didn‘t matter what you did with Gretzky, he would burn you. Even when Edmonton took a penalty, Gretzky would still destroy you.
There were seasons where Gretzky had more SH points than most first line players had PP points, it was ridiculous.

 

[tazzy19]

Lemieux was never really on par with Wayne‘s peak. Lemieux was always more reliant on the PP than Gretz was. Limit your penalties, you could limit Mario. It really didn‘t matter what you did with Gretzky, he would burn you. Even when Edmonton took a penalty, Gretzky would still destroy you.
There were seasons where Gretzky had more SH points than most first line players had PP points, it was ridiculous.

So true. Another thing is Edmonton had the fewest power play opportunities in the league while Gretzky was there. I find that rather strange, but it's true. If you actually look at Gretzky's powerplay percentage, it was right up there with Lemieux's.

 

[Crosbyfan]

I don't really understand why 200 is such an important number for people. It's not like Gretzky's record was for scoring 200 pts, and Lemieux was 1 away from tying it. If Mario had scored 1 more point, would that actually change anything? For Lemieux fans who think he was better than Gretzky, they think that regardless, whether he hit 200 or not. For Gretzky fans, they'd just say "Gretzky had 4 of them, Lemieux had 1". It wouldn't change the way people view those 2 players.

Maybe it would have mattered to the media? Perhaps 200 pts is enough for him to win the Hart over Gretzky that year, but unlikely. They loved the Gretzky turns the Kings around story and if 199 pts couldn't win him the Hart, 200 probably wouldn't do it either.

Sure it's a nice round number, but Lemieux missed 4 games that year. Had he not, he clearly would have broken 200 pts. Does that make him better than Gretzky? Not in my opinion. And for those who already have that opinion, they have it w/o him hitting 200. It would be like asking "what if Gretzky got 1 more point his rookie year?" That would have given him 11 Art Ross trophies instead of 10. Would it really matter though? If 10 wasn't enough, would 1 more based on scoring 1 more point really matter to people?

People have 10 fingers and 10 toes...totalling 20...

...did I mention 10 toes? 20 X 10 is 200...it all stems from that...some caveman came up with it while cleaning his feet...

 

[tazzy19]

I don't really understand why 200 is such an important number for people. It's not like Gretzky's record was for scoring 200 pts, and Lemieux was 1 away from tying it. If Mario had scored 1 more point, would that actually change anything? For Lemieux fans who think he was better than Gretzky, they think that regardless, whether he hit 200 or not. For Gretzky fans, they'd just say "Gretzky had 4 of them, Lemieux had 1". It wouldn't change the way people view those 2 players.

Maybe it would have mattered to the media? Perhaps 200 pts is enough for him to win the Hart over Gretzky that year, but unlikely. They loved the Gretzky turns the Kings around story and if 199 pts couldn't win him the Hart, 200 probably wouldn't do it either.

Sure it's a nice round number, but Lemieux missed 4 games that year. Had he not, he clearly would have broken 200 pts. Does that make him better than Gretzky? Not in my opinion. And for those who already have that opinion, they have it w/o him hitting 200. It would be like asking "what if Gretzky got 1 more point his rookie year?" That would have given him 11 Art Ross trophies instead of 10. Would it really matter though? If 10 wasn't enough, would 1 more based on scoring 1 more point really matter to people?

While I totally see what you are saying, 200 points is significant for the same reason 100 points is significant: people love milestone numbers. 200 points has the added bonus of being a milestone that no one else has ever reached, which makes it even more significant. Not even the most physically talented player ever could score just one extra point to reach it. That just shows how difficult it is. To think that a player did it 4 times is bordering on the absurd.

 

[overpass]

So true. Another thing is Edmonton had the fewest power play opportunities in the league while Gretzky was there. I find that rather strange, but it's true. If you actually look at Gretzky's powerplay percentage, it was right up there with Lemieux's.

Surely Lemieux deserves credit for drawing more penalties than Gretzky.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Surely Lemieux deserves credit for drawing more penalties than Gretzky.

Do we know that is the case?

 

[overpass]

Do we know that is the case?

No, just an educated guess based on the fact that 1. Lemieux's teams tended to have more power plays than Gretzky's teams, and 2. Lemieux's style of play would tend to lend itself to drawing penalties more than Gretzky's did.

Someone said limit your penalties and you could limit Mario. Easier said than done - sometimes holding, hooking, or slashing him was the alternative to conceding a goal against, and sometimes it still wasn't enough.

 

[siegeofshanghai*]

Lemiuex was the better player in history. Gretzky barely had any injury problems in his career while Mario battled cancer, back problems, and still scored almost 200 points.

I also heard stories that Mario was extremely lazy with workouts and had bad eating habits. Imagine if he workout like todays nhlers. Guy was a freak of nature.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Lemiuex was the better player in history. Gretzky barely had any injury problems in his career while Mario battled cancer, back problems, and still scored almost 200 points.

I also heard stories that Mario was extremely lazy with workouts and had bad eating habits. Imagine if he workout like todays nhlers. Guy was a freak of nature.

1) Mario's 199 point season was before his major health issues.

2) Don't confuse Mario's more "direct" play as automatically superior to Gretzky's much more "subtle" play. Just because Mario could beat 2 guys at once that were hanging off him, you have to remember that most of the time Gretzky was beating 5 guys at once and no one would even be within 10' of him.
Don't get me wrong either, Mario had his share of subtle genius on the ice but not near to the amount and degree that Gretzky did.

 

[Cruor]

Mario had his share of subtle genius on the ice but not near to the amount and degree that Gretzky did.

It's interesting to note that Gretzky himself thought Lemieux was the player that closest resembled his own style of play. With the reach and physical difference, obviously. And in the end, even that wasn't enough to overcome Gretzky. That speaks volumes to Gretzky's genius on the ice

 

[#66]

Lemieux was never really on par with Wayne‘s peak. Lemieux was always more reliant on the PP than Gretz was. Limit your penalties, you could limit Mario. It really didn‘t matter what you did with Gretzky, he would burn you. Even when Edmonton took a penalty, Gretzky would still destroy you.
There were seasons where Gretzky had more SH points than most first line players had PP points, it was ridiculous.

I have no problem with people saying Gretz is better but stop with the 5 on 5 stuff. There's a little difference between Tik, Kurri and Errey, Brown.

I remember Ubriaco sitting Lemieux the second to the last game of the season and then Lemieux hitting the post twice in his final game back in '89.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

I have no problem with people saying Gretz is better but stop with the 5 on 5 stuff. There's a little difference between Tik, Kurri and Errey, Brown.

I remember Ubriaco sitting Lemieux the second to the last game of the season and then Lemieux hitting the post twice in his final game back in '89.

Not sure if sitting means scratched or just not playing as much but he did have an assist on the 4th goal of a 3-1 game.

Edit: and if posts meant something they would count them...

Edit 2: not trying to take anything away from Mario...200pts is an arbitrary cutoff...it was an all time great season

 

[Rhiessan71]

I have no problem with people saying Gretz is better but stop with the 5 on 5 stuff. There's a little difference between Tik, Kurri and Errey, Brown.

I remember Ubriaco sitting Lemieux the second to the last game of the season and then Lemieux hitting the post twice in his final game back in '89.

Why would I stop with the "5 on 5 stuff".
Credit where credit is due. Mario was IMO the best and most dangerous player on the powerplay in the history of the game.

Mario's 199 point season, 102 ES points, 79 PP points
Gretzky's 212 point season, 147 ES points, 57 PP points
Gretzky's 196 point season, 132 ES points, 54 PP points
Gretzky's 205 point season, 135 ES points, 47 PP points
Gretzky's 208 point season, 146 ES points, 44 PP points
Gretzky's 215 point season, 143 ES points, 54 PP points
Gretzky's 183 point season, 124 ES points, 46 PP points

Like I said, credit where credit is due.

 

[Pominville Knows]

Why would I stop with the "5 on 5 stuff".
Credit where credit is due. Mario was IMO the best and most dangerous player on the powerplay in the history of the game.

Mario's 199 point season, 102 ES points, 79 PP points
Gretzky's 212 point season, 147 ES points, 57 PP points
Gretzky's 196 point season, 132 ES points, 54 PP points
Gretzky's 205 point season, 135 ES points, 47 PP points
Gretzky's 208 point season, 146 ES points, 44 PP points
Gretzky's 215 point season, 143 ES points, 54 PP points
Gretzky's 183 point season, 124 ES points, 46 PP points

Like I said, credit where credit is due.

Hey what you at least could do is to present them in adjusted stats. Obviously it will not bring Marios even strenght numbers up to Waynes anyway, but what it will do, is make both Marios 199 season, and his elite seasons after that, up to a very much more impressive total. Lets not forget that Wayne had his peak in partly another scoring era.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Hey what you at least could do is to present them in adjusted stats. Obviously it will not bring Marios even strenght numbers up to Waynes anyway, but what it will do, is make both Marios 199 season, and his elite seasons after that, up to a very much more impressive total. Lets not forget that Wayne had his peak in partly another scoring era.

Partly another scoring era? Seriously? It was only 2 freakin years previous and the last year I presented for Gretzky (86/87) was an even lower scoring year than Mario's (88/89).

Give your head a shake, the scoring average over the 6 years I presented for Gretzky was 7.78 GpG, 88/99 was 7.48 GpG.

There is absolutely no reason for reducing these numbers into Adjusted Stats, NONE WHAT SO EVER!!!

Just so Gretzky's 85/86 year can show 115 ES points to Mario's 85 ES points in 88/89 instead of 143 - 102?

Gimme a break, especially considering that the whole point of what I posted was to show the difference in the amounts and ratio that each player scored at ES and on the PP.

 

[Pominville Knows]

Partly another scoring era? Seriously? It was only 2 freakin years previous and the last year I presented for Gretzky (86/87) was an even lower scoring year than Mario's (88/89).

Give your head a shake, the scoring average over the 6 years I presented for Gretzky was 7.78 GpG, 88/99 was 7.48 GpG.

There is absolutely no reason for reducing these numbers into Adjusted Stats, NONE WHAT SO EVER!!!

Just so Gretzky's 85/86 year can show 115 ES points to Mario's 85 ES points in 88/89 instead of 143 - 102?

Gimme a break, especially considering that the whole point of what I posted was to show the difference in the amounts and ratio that each player scored at ES and on the PP.

I know what you wanted to do. But you also now brought up one single season for Gretzky that was during a lower scoring year than Lemieux:s 1988/89, besides 1986/87 that in my mind does not compare to Lemieux:s season in question. That's all you had to come with in terms of Gretzky not playing in a higher scoring era. But guess what, he mainly DID. And why do you compare Lemieux:s one season with a whole row of Gretzky seasons, why did you not also bring Lemieux:s 1992/93 and 1995/96 into play? I saw a very interesting post in the center project-thread btw; Did'nt Lemieux through his way of play simply draw more penalties from the opposition than Gretzky did?

 

[Rhiessan71]

I know what you wanted to do. But you also now brought up one single season for Gretzky that was during a lower scoring year than Lemieux:s 1988/89. That's all you had to come with in terms of Gretzky not playing in a higher scoring era. But guess what, he mainly DID. And why do you compare Lemieux:s season with a whole row of Gretzky seasons, why did you not also bring Lemieux:s 1992/93 and 1995/96 into play?

Dude, you can not come on here and seriously make the argument that Gretzky's 6 most Elite seasons were in a "higher scoring Era" than Mario's 2 most Elite seasons.

81/82 8.03
82/83 7.73
83/84 7.89
84/85 7.77
85/86 7.94
86/87 7.34

88/89 7.48
92/93 7.25

I'm sorry but when we're talking about an average difference of 138 - 102, an average GpG of 7.78 to an average of 7.37 is not going to change much and I even showed you what Adjusted Stats would bring it to, 115 - 85 for Gretzky's best year vs Mario's best year, STILL a whopping 30 point difference!
Different scoring era...gimme a freakin break!

I saw a very interesting post in the center project-thread. Did'nt Lemieux through his way of play simply draw more penalties than Gretzky did?

And it's a damned good thing that Mario did draw those extra penalties because if he didn't, he wouldn't have been able to hold Gretzky's jock strap production wise.

 

[shazariahl]

Lemiuex was the better player in history. Gretzky barely had any injury problems in his career while Mario battled cancer, back problems, and still scored almost 200 points.

I also heard stories that Mario was extremely lazy with workouts and had bad eating habits. Imagine if he workout like todays nhlers. Guy was a freak of nature.

How does any of that make Lemieux the better player? If I have to choose between 2 guys who, at their best were pretty close but:

Player 1 scored nearly as many points on PPG basis, looked better on film, but had more injury problems, more health issues, and played way fewer games in his career. Often looked like he would beat all the major records but never could. Even in his best seasons didn't quite match the PPG pace of player 2.

Player 2 scored more points overall, more on PPG basis, had a longer and healthier career, broke all the major records, won twice as many championships, 3x as many MVP awards, more scoring titles, was better in the playoffs, but just didn't look as impressive on Youtube...

How can I honestly say that I'd pick player 1? Are Youtube highlights REALLY more important than everything else Gretzky accomplished over and above Lemieux? At their best they were close, but Gretzky was at his best longer, more consistently, and frankly still better even peak vs peak, let alone the chasm between their career values.