Mario Lemieux circa 1988-89 = 65 goals and 88 assists for 153 points in 2022

[Johnny Cakes]

So I only today digested an old thread from 2017 - it had 1,000 replies! - around the topic of how good Wayne Gretzky really was. The thread was incredibly entertaining, and I got a lot out of it. Didn't care too much for the idea that #99 would have been a 70-80 point guy in today's game - as if he wouldn't have (like today's players) also been on a blue-ribbon diet and fitness regimen. He 1000% would have.

I have a spreadsheet that I created a number of years ago that contains league average goals per game, assists per game, PiM per game etc. for every professional hockey season going all the way back to 1886 - and including the NHL, NHA, PCHA and WCHL, ECAHA, ECHA, CAHL and AHAC.

I have been tinkering around with a cross-translation/NORMALIZED statistical formula for many years, and have along the way come to admit that it's a very inexact science. However, assessments can be made - and a lot can be revealed when you have two ingredients: (1) Reliable estimated ice time for a player, and (2) Their goals, assists & penalty minutes.

Anyway, long story short, the long thread about Gretzky touched on some excellent points and inspired me to do some calculations - basically to see how some of the greats from yesteryear stack up in a cross-era comparison to some of the dudes who currently haunt the dreams of NHL goaltenders (Kucherov, for example). Check it out (below) and let me know what you think.

Player............................Season....................GP....G......A.....Pts.......Ice Time.....(Estimated Ice Time)
Mario Lemieux 1988-1989 80 65 88 153 20:00 (23:00)
Wayne Gretzky 1984-1985 80 51 98 149 20:00 (23:00)
Howie Morenz 1927-1928 80 48 90 138 20:00 (43:00)
Peter Forsberg 2002-2003 80 37 99 136 20:00 (19:20)
Nikita Kucherov 2018-2019 80 42 89 131 20:00 (19:58)
Guy Lafleur 1976-1977 80 52 77 129 20:00 (20:00)
Evgeni Malkin 2011-2012 80 59 69 128 20:00 (21:01)
Duke Keats 1921-1922 80 31 90 121 20:00 (55:00)
Patrick Kane 2015-2016 80 51 67 118 20:00 (20:25)
Frank Boucher 1928-1929 80 21 96 117 20:00 (38:00)
Jaromir Jagr 1998-1999 80 40 76 116 20:00 (25:51)
Gordie Howe 1952-1953 80 56 59 115 20:00 (26:00)
Joe Thornton 2006-2007 80 23 92 115 20:00 (20:19)
Sergei Fedorov 1993-1994 80 53 61 114 20:00 (20:00)
Joe Sakic 2000-2001 80 52 62 114 20:00 (23:01)
Alex Ovechkin 2007-2008 80 63 45 108 20:00 (23:06)
Bobby Hull 1965-1966 80 59 48 107 20:00 (23:00)
Martin St. Louis 2003-2004 80 43 64 107 20:00 (20:35)
Sidney Crosby 2013-2014 80 37 69 106 20:00 (21:58)
Steve Yzerman 1992-1993 80 43 59 102 20:00 (22:00)
Milt Schmidt 1939-1940 80 39 62 101 20:00 (24:00)
Maurice Richard 1950-1951 80 59 40 99 20:00 (20:00)
Pavel Bure 1999-2000 80 59 37 96 20:00 (24:23)

I know some of you would think #99 played more than "just" 23 minutes a game, but one of the posters on the Gretzky thread I referred to earlier demonstrated quite to my satisfaction that 23 minutes is a reasonable guess. Of course there are going to be games where a player plays more, and other games where he plays less; but for #99 I set the guess at 23 minutes of ice.

Items of interest:

* Forsberg ended up with 99 "translated" assists - one more than the Great One!
* Lemieux 1988-89 "Super Mario" ended up with four more points than Gretzky and two more goals than Ovechkin. I suspect Brett Hull would end up with more than Mario's 65 if I were to apply my method to his sick 1990-91 stat line.
*Rocket Richard, Bobby Hull and MALKIN tied with 59 translated goals apiece

Click to read more...

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

I firmly believe that Mario would actually be better in todays game than he was back then.

He had guys hanging off him. With the no obstruction rules of today he’d be unstoppable. As an old man he came back and dominated. In his prime with todays rules he’d be the best ever. Just an insanely good player.

The 89 season he was on pace to absolutely destroy Gretzky’s record. But his back got mangled and his pace dropped off. He had guys tying his skates it was so bad. Without the obstruction he’d have been a lot healthier and drawn a crap ton of penalties. I just don’t see what teams could’ve done against him.

 

[Deas]

I firmly believe that Mario would actually be better in todays game than he was back then.

He had guys hanging off him. With the no obstruction rules of today he’d be unstoppable. As an old man he came back and dominated. In his prime with todays rules he’d be the best ever. Just an insanely good player.

The 89 season he was on pace to absolutely destroy Gretzky’s record. But his back got mangled and his pace dropped off. He had guys tying his skates it was so bad. Without the obstruction he’d have been a lot healthier and drawn a crap ton of penalties. I just don’t see what teams could’ve done against him.

That's not not interesting, but it should be pointed out that Gretzky also had other seasons with even higher P/G than his record years, or had 50 games stretches of that before something happened. I agree with you though that Gretzky and Lemieux would do excellent in today's game, which some people somehow don't think.

On the OP and these discussions in general:

I think comparing players scoring paces vs their own competition is more relevant and accurate than attempts at adjusted stats which become more speculative and often do cherry picking in order to do a confirmation bias in the sought after direction. Gretzky is the man, and all attempts at poking holes at that are weak.

 

[Johnny Cakes]

I think comparing players scoring paces vs their own competition is more relevant and accurate than attempts at adjusted stats which become more speculative and often do cherry picking in order to do a confirmation bias in the sought after direction. Gretzky is the man, and all attempts at poking holes at that are weak.

Cherry-picking? How so? In the exercise I took each player's best statistical season. As to a confirmation bias, I'm not entirely sure what you're driving at. Are you saying I don't want #99 to be seen, post statistical analysis, as indeed the greatest ever? If so, well, then I'm afraid you'll be disappointed. I love Gretzky. But Mario Lemieux was his equal, and if healthy, #66 would have rewritten the record books in many categories, starting with "Most Points in a Season" and fanning out from there. Sorry, it may be a bitter pill for devoted Gretzkyites to swallow, but it's the truth. Look up and down the list of translated stats I posted and tell me you seriously think my calculations are off. Hint: you won't be able to. The only guesswork is the estimated ice, and in most cases that will only be off by a minute or two, if at all. Deas, I'm afraid you're going to have to refine your definition of "poking holes," at least when it comes to statistical normalization. Or are you one of that unfortunate group that thinks Gretzky in fact did not enjoy an insane advantage in playing at a time when "D" and goalies were horrid?

 

[Statto]

Adjusted points are the biggest load of BS in hockey stats. I say that as someone that spent 20 years doing advanced stats, much of it at a pro level before they were called ‘advanced stats’.

 

[Zirakzigil]

I firmly believe that Mario would actually be better in todays game than he was back then.

He had guys hanging off him. With the no obstruction rules of today he’d be unstoppable. As an old man he came back and dominated. In his prime with todays rules he’d be the best ever. Just an insanely good player.

The 89 season he was on pace to absolutely destroy Gretzky’s record. But his back got mangled and his pace dropped off. He had guys tying his skates it was so bad. Without the obstruction he’d have been a lot healthier and drawn a crap ton of penalties. I just don’t see what teams could’ve done against him.

This this this!

Also, someone brought up another excellent point on the Pens board recently, modern medicine would have done wonders to extend Mario's career. He was almost unstoppable while crippled and having 2 or 3 guys hanging off him. In todays league he would be impossible to stop and a heck of a lot healthier.

 

[Deas]

Cherry-picking? How so? In the exercise I took each player's best statistical season. As to a confirmation bias, I'm not entirely sure what you're driving at. Are you saying I don't want #99 to be seen, post statistical analysis, as indeed the greatest ever? If so, well, then I'm afraid you'll be disappointed. I love Gretzky. But Mario Lemieux was his equal, and if healthy, #66 would have rewritten the record books in many categories, starting with "Most Points in a Season" and fanning out from there. Sorry, it may be a bitter pill for devoted Gretzkyites to swallow, but it's the truth. Look up and down the list of translated stats I posted and tell me you seriously think my calculations are off. Hint: you won't be able to. The only guesswork is the estimated ice, and in most cases that will only be off by a minute or two, if at all. Deas, I'm afraid you're going to have to refine your definition of "poking holes," at least when it comes to statistical normalization. Or are you one of that unfortunate group that thinks Gretzky in fact did not enjoy an insane advantage in playing at a time when "D" and goalies were horrid?

Cherry-picking - My post was more about this discussion in general over the years, but you now give me a good example. Mentioning that Lemieux could’ve topped 215 points in a couple of his injury shortened seasons without mentioning that Gretzky could’ve topped it even more in one of his injury shortened seasons is cherry picking, yes.

Assumption - I’m a Swedish Penguin fan and Lemieux is my all time favorite player together with Jagr and Forsberg. I also used to present these Lemieux-cases. They aren't weak, but when you treat both players the same way there's no way to overall rank him higher than Gretzky (the case is there for longevity as goal scorer though, where Lemieux was better). I'm not going to call it a second assumption to think that I disregard the difference of scoring level in different eras, as you phrase it as a question, but that factor is at a very basic level that of course anyone older than 14 should include in any reasoning.

Your approach for this analysis - You haven't exactly explained what you've done here. Regardless, I don't think there's a better and more relevant take than comparing a players production rate compared to his own peers. And doing so with P/G as not to punish Lemieux or other injury riddled players (provided a solid number of a games was played of course*). I give this take significantly more merit than some version of adjusted stats, which is more speculative. Comparing how players did vs their own competition is looking at reality, what actually happened, and it eliminates the era scoring difference-factor. Even if it's true Lemieux's numbers one season multiplied with the scoring increase another season leads to an amazing number that could be irrelevant. Something can be true but still irrelevant, or a less nuanced take on something.

The most dominant seasons point production wise (these are the 9 occurrences of a player with a win margin in P/G of 30% or more, ranked from highest to lowest):


83/84 Wayne Gretzky 56.85% more productive than Jari Kurri

92/93 Mario Lemieux 51.36% more productive than Pat Lafontaine

85/86 Wayne Gretzky 50.59% more productive than Mario Lemieux

82/83 Wayne Gretzky 48.22% more productive than Peter Stastny

81/82 Wayne Gretzky 44.18% more productive than Mike Bossy

84/85 Wayne Gretzky 40.62% more productive than Jari Kurri

86/87 Wayne Gretzky 36.4% more productive than Mario Lemieux

52/53 Gordie Howe 33.83% more productive than Ted Lindsay

27/28 Howie Morenz 33.8% more productive than Dick Irvin

6 out of the 7 is Gretzky. Even if Lemieux's only appearance is close to the 1st place it's not as high, and the difference in how many time they were this dominant is huge of course.

*which number exactly often leads to another discussion so let's not go there now.

 

[rogu]

So I did only today digested an old thread from 2017 - it had 1,000 replies! - around the topic of how good Wayne Gretzky really was. The thread was incredibly entertaining, and I got a lot out of it. Didn't care too much for the idea that #99 would have been a 70-80 point guy in today's game - as if he wouldn't have (like today's players) also been on a blue-ribbon diet and fitness regimen. He 1000% would have.

I have a spreadsheet that I created a number of years ago that contains league average goals per game, assists per game, PiM per game etc. for every professional hockey season going all the way back to 1886 - and including the NHL, NHA, PCHA and WCHL, ECAHA, ECHA, CAHL and AHAC.

I have been tinkering around with a cross-translation/NORMALIZED statistical formula for many years, and have along the way come to admit that it's a very inexact science. However, assessments can be made - and a lot can be revealed when you have two ingredients: (1) Reliable estimated ice time for a player, and (2) Their goals, assists & penalty minutes.

Anyway, long story short, the long thread about Gretzky touched on some excellent points and inspired me to do some calculations - basically to see how some of the greats from yesteryear stack up in a cross-era comparison to some of the dudes who currently haunt the dreams of NHL goaltenders (Kucherov, for example). Check it out (below) and let me know what you think.

Player............................Season....................GP....G......A.....Pts.......Ice Time.....(Estimated Ice Time)
Mario Lemieux 1988-1989 80 65 88 153 20:00 (23:00)
Wayne Gretzky 1984-1985 80 51 98 149 20:00 (23:00)
Howie Morenz 1927-1928 80 48 90 138 20:00 (43:00)
Peter Forsberg 2002-2003 80 37 99 136 20:00 (19:20)
Nikita Kucherov 2018-2019 80 42 89 131 20:00 (19:58)
Guy Lafleur 1976-1977 80 52 77 129 20:00 (20:00)
Evgeni Malkin 2011-2012 80 59 69 128 20:00 (21:01)
Duke Keats 1921-1922 80 31 90 121 20:00 (55:00)
Patrick Kane 2015-2016 80 51 67 118 20:00 (20:25)
Frank Boucher 1928-1929 80 21 96 117 20:00 (38:00)
Jaromir Jagr 1998-1999 80 40 76 116 20:00 (25:51)
Gordie Howe 1952-1953 80 56 59 115 20:00 (26:00)
Joe Thornton 2006-2007 80 23 92 115 20:00 (20:19)
Sergei Fedorov 1993-1994 80 53 61 114 20:00 (20:00)
Joe Sakic 2000-2001 80 52 62 114 20:00 (23:01)
Alex Ovechkin 2007-2008 80 63 45 108 20:00 (23:06)
Bobby Hull 1965-1966 80 59 48 107 20:00 (23:00)
Martin St. Louis 2003-2004 80 43 64 107 20:00 (20:35)
Sidney Crosby 2013-2014 80 37 69 106 20:00 (21:58)
Steve Yzerman 1992-1993 80 43 59 102 20:00 (22:00)
Milt Schmidt 1939-1940 80 39 62 101 20:00 (24:00)
Maurice Richard 1950-1951 80 59 40 99 20:00 (20:00)
Pavel Bure 1999-2000 80 59 37 96 20:00 (24:23)

I know some of you would think #99 played more than "just" 23 minutes a game, but one of the posters on the Gretzky thread I referred to earlier demonstrated quite to my satisfaction that 23 minutes is a reasonable guess. Of course there are going to be games where a player plays more, and other games where he plays less; but for #99 I set the guess at 23 minutes of ice.

Items of interest:

* Forsberg ended up with 99 "translated" assists - one more than the Great One!
* Lemieux 1988-89 "Super Mario" ended up with four more points than Gretzky and two more goals than Ovechkin. I suspect Brett Hull would end up with more than Mario's 65 if I were to apply my method to his sick 1990-91 stat line.
*Rocket Richard, Bobby Hull and MALKIN tied with 59 translated goals apiece

I firmly believe Gretzky had once in a lifetime talent in the hardest qualitative trait to measure.

I know Football (soccer) references are frawned upon here.
But Gretzky like Messi had the ability to see and evaluate the highest probability on how the play will develop ahead of time, thus allowing them to be in the right position at the right time. While others might rely on athleticism and physical attributes to get there before others (Ronaldo).

Players with this ability could also see where empty spaces will form if the puck is moved here or there and utilize these pockets to create extra time for themselves. Basically they can foresee, if they move into a certain direction, the opposing players will adjust in a certain manner. They can then make plays in the opposite direction of the natural flow of play. Putting the opposing players off and creating extra time for themselves to make plays.

I therefore think measuring statistics cross eras don't do Gretzky justice. Because I think the real genius in his game (in addition to his other talent) was how he moved to create time and space for himself and others and how his passes could create time and space for others.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

That's not not interesting, but it should be pointed out that Gretzky also had other seasons with even higher P/G than his record years, or had 50 games stretches of that before something happened. I agree with you though that Gretzky and Lemieux would do excellent in today's game, which some people somehow don't think.

On the OP and these discussions in general:

I think comparing players scoring paces vs their own competition is more relevant and accurate than attempts at adjusted stats which become more speculative and often do cherry picking in order to do a confirmation bias in the sought after direction. Gretzky is the man, and all attempts at poking holes at that are weak.

The non-obstruction rules of today would have benefitted Lemieux more than Gretz. He was so big and players would just grab onto him and the refs allowed it. Gretz didn't suffer as much from the clutch and grab.

As for other seasons... in my mind, Lemieux's 93 year where he was Hodgkins, misses 20 games, wins the scoring title and paces for something like 213 points and 90+ goals is the greatest season by any player ever. 160 points while missing 20 games because of cancer is absolutely insane.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Cherry-picking - My post was more about this discussion in general over the years, but you now give me a good example. Mentioning that Lemieux could’ve topped 215 points in a couple of his injury shortened seasons without mentioning that Gretzky could’ve topped it even more in one of his injury shortened seasons is cherry picking, yes.

Assumption - I’m a Swedish Penguin fan and Lemieux is my all time favorite player together with Jagr and Forsberg. I also used to present these Lemieux-cases. They aren't weak, but when you treat both players the same way there's no way to overall rank him higher than Gretzky (the case is there for longevity as goal scorer though, where Lemieux was better). I'm not going to call it a second assumption to think that I disregard the difference of scoring level in different eras, as you phrase it as a question, but that factor is at a very basic level that of course anyone older than 14 should include in any reasoning.

Your approach for this analysis - You haven't exactly explained what you've done here. Regardless, I don't think there's a better and more relevant take than comparing a players production rate compared to his own peers. And doing so with P/G as not to punish Lemieux or other injury riddled players (provided a solid number of a games was played of course*). I give this take significantly more merit than some version of adjusted stats, which is more speculative. Comparing how players did vs their own competition is looking at reality, what actually happened, and it eliminates the era scoring difference-factor. Even if it's true Lemieux's numbers one season multiplied with the scoring increase another season leads to an amazing number that could be irrelevant. Something can be true but still irrelevant, or a less nuanced take on something.

The most dominant seasons point production wise (these are the 9 occurrences of a player with a win margin in P/G of 30% or more, ranked from highest to lowest):


83/84 Wayne Gretzky 56.85% more productive than Jari Kurri

92/93 Mario Lemieux 51.36% more productive than Pat Lafontaine

85/86 Wayne Gretzky 50.59% more productive than Mario Lemieux

82/83 Wayne Gretzky 48.22% more productive than Peter Stastny

81/82 Wayne Gretzky 44.18% more productive than Mike Bossy

84/85 Wayne Gretzky 40.62% more productive than Jari Kurri

86/87 Wayne Gretzky 36.4% more productive than Mario Lemieux

52/53 Gordie Howe 33.83% more productive than Ted Lindsay

27/28 Howie Morenz 33.8% more productive than Dick Irvin

6 out of the 7 is Gretzky. Even if Lemieux's only appearance is close to the 1st place it's not as high, and the difference in how many time they were this dominant is huge of course.

*which number exactly often leads to another discussion so let's not go there now.

Lemieux's early prime overlaps Gretzky's late prime though. He's not as high because he's got another guy producing crazy points. If their primes overlapped completely then Gretzky wouldn't appear as many times as he does because Lemieux would be right there with him or just behind.

 

[kevsh]

Too bad adjusted stats can't realistically account for how much different the game was played in previous decades, not just in terms of skill (the "stand up" goalie that literally did not bend his knees in one example) but as mentioned the obstruction, the rules (offsides, no touch icing, etc.), no video replay, penalties/fighting (Tie Domi's 2000+ PIM is an untouchable Leafs record) and therefore powerplays, and more.

So while I appreciate the effort of OP to normalize and therefore compare the greats of different eras I prefer to just marvel at their greatness on its own. Lemieux, Gretzky, Howe, Crosby, McDavid have or will all go down in history as the best of the best. So how do we agree on who was better, or the best? We don't, it will always be a personal choice based on our own criteria.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I appreciate the effort but there are a few things that seem questionable in the results. Could you provide explanations?

- I don't understand how Peter Forsberg could have possibly had the 4th best offensive season in NHL history (136 adjusted points). That's inconceivable. He finished 2 points ahead of Markus Naslund and 3 points ahead of Joe Thornton. This would imply that Naslund and Thornton at their peak were significantly better at producing points than Jagr, Ovechkin and Crosby (who top out at 116, 108 and 106 adjusted points).

- it's clearly unrealistic that Forsberg could have more points than Jagr. Forsberg scored 106 points (but that gets translated to 136 points). Jagr scored 127 points (but that gets translated to 116 points). The seasons were just four years apart, there were minimal changes in the scoring environment, but Forsberg's production gets boosted 28% while Jagr's production gets cut 9%. So on a relative basis, Forsberg's production is boosted close to 40% relative to Jagr's, even though it was just a few years apart - why?

- Steve Yzerman was only the 4th highest scoring player from 1993, but he's the only player on this list from that season. Why is that?

- I'm familiar with Frank Boucher and of course he's an all-time great player. But you're giving him credit for the 10th highest scoring season for 1928-29. He was only 6th in scoring in that particular year (and none of the players who finished ahead of him are listed higher). Boucher never led the NHL in scoring, and the one year he finished runner-up, he was way behind leader (Cooney Weiland in 1929-30, who isn't on the list either).

 

[MDCSL]

These always seem silly to me, Gretzky is the greatest of all time - full stop. Lemieux could have been the goat if he was healthier, but he wasn’t.

 

[SeanMoneyHands]

#66 and #99 today would be putting up 300pts yearly. They would leave McDavid in the dust.

 

[The Grim Reaper]

I firmly believe that Mario would actually be better in todays game than he was back then.

He had guys hanging off him. With the no obstruction rules of today he’d be unstoppable. As an old man he came back and dominated. In his prime with todays rules he’d be the best ever. Just an insanely good player.

The 89 season he was on pace to absolutely destroy Gretzky’s record. But his back got mangled and his pace dropped off. He had guys tying his skates it was so bad. Without the obstruction he’d have been a lot healthier and drawn a crap ton of penalties. I just don’t see what teams could’ve done against him.

3" taller and 40lbs heavier than McDavid, for comparison. Mario would be unstoppable in todays league. Jagr would be too.

 

[Johnny Cakes]

Adjusted points are the biggest load of BS in hockey stats. I say that as someone that spent 20 years doing advanced stats, much of it at a pro level before they were called ‘advanced stats’.

Would you care to provide more than two sentences to support your opinion? Honestly .. I'm curious.

 

[Johnny Cakes]

Cherry-picking - My post was more about this discussion in general over the years, but you now give me a good example. Mentioning that Lemieux could’ve topped 215 points in a couple of his injury shortened seasons without mentioning that Gretzky could’ve topped it even more in one of his injury shortened seasons is cherry picking, yes.

The "big six" for #99 and #66:

1981-82 21 EDM NHL 80 92 120 212
1982-83 22 EDM NHL 80 71 125 196
1983-84 23 EDM NHL 74 87 118 205
1984-85 24 EDM NHL 80 73 135 208
1985-86 25 EDM NHL 80 52 163 215
1986-87 26 EDM NHL 79 62 121 183
Total loss of games due to injury = 7 games

1985-86 20 PIT NHL 79 48 93 141
1987-88 22 PIT NHL 77 70 98 168
1988-89 23 PIT NHL 76 85 114 199
1991-92 26 PIT NHL 64 44 87 131
1992-93 27 PIT NHL 60 69 91 160 (84)
1995-96 30 PIT NHL 70 69 92 161 (82)
Total loss of games due to injury = 60 games

And yet you write "Mentioning that Lemieux could’ve topped 215 points in a couple of his injury shortened seasons without mentioning that Gretzky could’ve topped it even more in one of his injury shortened seasons is cherry picking, yes." How curious. Other than 1983-84, where Gretz missed a mere six games, I don't know what you're talking about.

I'm afraid you're going to have a difficult time explaining away two Lemieux seasons in particular:

1988-89 - Lemieux playing in extreme pain - Not able to tie up skates - Nonetheless, 199 points in 76 games, which, without any normalization becomes 209 if he plays the full 80 games. That's ignoring the fact that he was playing in extreme pain .. playing with the likes of Rob Brown, Bob Errey, and Randy Cunneyworth. Compare that to #99's fellow forwards - Jari Kurri, Mark Messier, Glenn Anderson, etc.

1992-93 - Lemieux with frickin' CANCER - Likely feeling like crap all season long, until he has to take time off to get CHEMO! - Ends up with 160 points in a mere 60 games - Without normalization that works out to 213+ points over 80 games - This is Mario Lemieux with CANCER, for God's sake.

So let's give Lemieux his full 80 games - even with crippling back pain and then cancer - and look at the top five seasons from these two men:

GRETZKY 1983-84 23 EDM NHL 80 94 128 222
GRETZKY 1985-86 25 EDM NHL 80 52 163 215
LEMIEUX 1992-93 27 PIT NHL 80 92 121 213 *WITH CANCER
GRETZKY 1981-82 21 EDM NHL 80 92 120 212
LEMIEUX 1988-89 23 PIT NHL 80 89 120 209 *WITH CRIPPLING BACK PAIN
GRETZKY 1984-85 24 EDM NHL 80 73 135 208

#66 and #99 today would be putting up 300pts yearly. They would leave McDavid in the dust.

Not sure about 300, bro - but easily in 130 to 150 per season range. Which, yes, would leave the McDavids and Draisaitls and Kucherovs down on the second tier.

These always seem silly to me, Gretzky is the greatest of all time - full stop. Lemieux could have been the goat if he was healthier, but he wasn’t.

I suppose that's what we end up at every time. If if if. As my late father used to say about "if:"

"Awww if if if!!!! If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle. Who cares?"

 

[StumpyTown]

Today's game would have been a field day for Lemieux. There really has never been a player who had the toolset that Mario had. Size, speed, strength, hands, vision, IQ. He was off the charts. He almost scored 200 points in a league where he basically was hacked, whacked, and held on every shift. His body would not have broken down the way it did if he played in today's NHL.
With Gretzky it's the same thing.
Everyone wants to say goaltending was so bad in the 80's and I agree that scoring was slightly up because of that, but not to the extent that all these normalization formulas are applying to it. Give Ovechkin a wooden stick and the accuracy and power in his shot would be diminished somewhat as well. Add to that the fact that he wouldn't have been left to stand in his office in the 80s like he is now and his numbers would probably end up balancing to something similar to what they have been now.
Are the players in general much better than they were in the 80s? Sure, but that is because of advances in technology, coaching, and lifestyle. Take that away and the players today wouldn't be any better than the players were in the 80s, and vice versa give the 80s players access to all the advantages the guys today have and they would have been better than they were too. At the end of the day the only thing we can use to compare players from different eras is the way players dominated their competition in their given eras.
No one has dominated their peers more than Gretzky, Lemieux, and Orr. Those guys revolutionized the game and changed the way it was played.

 

[authentic]

So I did only today digested an old thread from 2017 - it had 1,000 replies! - around the topic of how good Wayne Gretzky really was. The thread was incredibly entertaining, and I got a lot out of it. Didn't care too much for the idea that #99 would have been a 70-80 point guy in today's game - as if he wouldn't have (like today's players) also been on a blue-ribbon diet and fitness regimen. He 1000% would have.

I have a spreadsheet that I created a number of years ago that contains league average goals per game, assists per game, PiM per game etc. for every professional hockey season going all the way back to 1886 - and including the NHL, NHA, PCHA and WCHL, ECAHA, ECHA, CAHL and AHAC.

I have been tinkering around with a cross-translation/NORMALIZED statistical formula for many years, and have along the way come to admit that it's a very inexact science. However, assessments can be made - and a lot can be revealed when you have two ingredients: (1) Reliable estimated ice time for a player, and (2) Their goals, assists & penalty minutes.

Anyway, long story short, the long thread about Gretzky touched on some excellent points and inspired me to do some calculations - basically to see how some of the greats from yesteryear stack up in a cross-era comparison to some of the dudes who currently haunt the dreams of NHL goaltenders (Kucherov, for example). Check it out (below) and let me know what you think.

Player............................Season....................GP....G......A.....Pts.......Ice Time.....(Estimated Ice Time)
Mario Lemieux 1988-1989 80 65 88 153 20:00 (23:00)
Wayne Gretzky 1984-1985 80 51 98 149 20:00 (23:00)
Howie Morenz 1927-1928 80 48 90 138 20:00 (43:00)
Peter Forsberg 2002-2003 80 37 99 136 20:00 (19:20)
Nikita Kucherov 2018-2019 80 42 89 131 20:00 (19:58)
Guy Lafleur 1976-1977 80 52 77 129 20:00 (20:00)
Evgeni Malkin 2011-2012 80 59 69 128 20:00 (21:01)
Duke Keats 1921-1922 80 31 90 121 20:00 (55:00)
Patrick Kane 2015-2016 80 51 67 118 20:00 (20:25)
Frank Boucher 1928-1929 80 21 96 117 20:00 (38:00)
Jaromir Jagr 1998-1999 80 40 76 116 20:00 (25:51)
Gordie Howe 1952-1953 80 56 59 115 20:00 (26:00)
Joe Thornton 2006-2007 80 23 92 115 20:00 (20:19)
Sergei Fedorov 1993-1994 80 53 61 114 20:00 (20:00)
Joe Sakic 2000-2001 80 52 62 114 20:00 (23:01)
Alex Ovechkin 2007-2008 80 63 45 108 20:00 (23:06)
Bobby Hull 1965-1966 80 59 48 107 20:00 (23:00)
Martin St. Louis 2003-2004 80 43 64 107 20:00 (20:35)
Sidney Crosby 2013-2014 80 37 69 106 20:00 (21:58)
Steve Yzerman 1992-1993 80 43 59 102 20:00 (22:00)
Milt Schmidt 1939-1940 80 39 62 101 20:00 (24:00)
Maurice Richard 1950-1951 80 59 40 99 20:00 (20:00)
Pavel Bure 1999-2000 80 59 37 96 20:00 (24:23)

I know some of you would think #99 played more than "just" 23 minutes a game, but one of the posters on the Gretzky thread I referred to earlier demonstrated quite to my satisfaction that 23 minutes is a reasonable guess. Of course there are going to be games where a player plays more, and other games where he plays less; but for #99 I set the guess at 23 minutes of ice.

Items of interest:

* Forsberg ended up with 99 "translated" assists - one more than the Great One!
* Lemieux 1988-89 "Super Mario" ended up with four more points than Gretzky and two more goals than Ovechkin. I suspect Brett Hull would end up with more than Mario's 65 if I were to apply my method to his sick 1990-91 stat line.
*Rocket Richard, Bobby Hull and MALKIN tied with 59 translated goals apiece

What was it about the adjustment that led Lemieux to have that edge on Gretzky in goals? And do you have their stats for other seasons as well? I would like see that entire spreadsheet lol

 

[authentic]

Too bad adjusted stats can't realistically account for how much different the game was played in previous decades, not just in terms of skill (the "stand up" goalie that literally did not bend his knees in one example) but as mentioned the obstruction, the rules (offsides, no touch icing, etc.), no video replay, penalties/fighting (Tie Domi's 2000+ PIM is an untouchable Leafs record) and therefore powerplays, and more.

So while I appreciate the effort of OP to normalize and therefore compare the greats of different eras I prefer to just marvel at their greatness on its own. Lemieux, Gretzky, Howe, Crosby, McDavid have or will all go down in history as the best of the best. So how do we agree on who was better, or the best? We don't, it will always be a personal choice based on our own criteria.

Why would we need to agree? Sounds like this discussion just isn't for you then.

I appreciate the effort but there are a few things that seem questionable in the results. Could you provide explanations?

- I don't understand how Peter Forsberg could have possibly had the 4th best offensive season in NHL history (136 adjusted points). That's inconceivable. He finished 2 points ahead of Markus Naslund and 3 points ahead of Joe Thornton. This would imply that Naslund and Thornton at their peak were significantly better at producing points than Jagr, Ovechkin and Crosby (who top out at 116, 108 and 106 adjusted points).

- it's clearly unrealistic that Forsberg could have more points than Jagr. Forsberg scored 106 points (but that gets translated to 136 points). Jagr scored 127 points (but that gets translated to 116 points). The seasons were just four years apart, there were minimal changes in the scoring environment, but Forsberg's production gets boosted 28% while Jagr's production gets cut 9%. So on a relative basis, Forsberg's production is boosted close to 40% relative to Jagr's, even though it was just a few years apart - why?

- Steve Yzerman was only the 4th highest scoring player from 1993, but he's the only player on this list from that season. Why is that?

- I'm familiar with Frank Boucher and of course he's an all-time great player. But you're giving him credit for the 10th highest scoring season for 1928-29. He was only 6th in scoring in that particular year (and none of the players who finished ahead of him are listed higher). Boucher never led the NHL in scoring, and the one year he finished runner-up, he was way behind leader (Cooney Weiland in 1929-30, who isn't on the list either).

He takes ice-time into account, all the points are based on the players playing 20 minutes a game.

 

[Johnny Cakes]

I appreciate the effort but there are a few things that seem questionable in the results. Could you provide explanations?

- I don't understand how Peter Forsberg could have possibly had the 4th best offensive season in NHL history (136 adjusted points). That's inconceivable. He finished 2 points ahead of Markus Naslund and 3 points ahead of Joe Thornton. This would imply that Naslund and Thornton at their peak were significantly better at producing points than Jagr, Ovechkin and Crosby (who top out at 116, 108 and 106 adjusted points).

- it's clearly unrealistic that Forsberg could have more points than Jagr. Forsberg scored 106 points (but that gets translated to 136 points). Jagr scored 127 points (but that gets translated to 116 points). The seasons were just four years apart, there were minimal changes in the scoring environment, but Forsberg's production gets boosted 28% while Jagr's production gets cut 9%. So on a relative basis, Forsberg's production is boosted close to 40% relative to Jagr's, even though it was just a few years apart - why?

- Steve Yzerman was only the 4th highest scoring player from 1993, but he's the only player on this list from that season. Why is that?

- I'm familiar with Frank Boucher and of course he's an all-time great player. But you're giving him credit for the 10th highest scoring season for 1928-29. He was only 6th in scoring in that particular year (and none of the players who finished ahead of him are listed higher). Boucher never led the NHL in scoring, and the one year he finished runner-up, he was way behind leader (Cooney Weiland in 1929-30, who isn't on the list either).

I'm all for providing my method, which is no great method at all & smth I would love for some of the stat heads on here to poke holes in & help tighten up:

Step 1: If ice time is not available, estimate it using a combination of three pieces:

(a) The NY Times' 1927-28 full season statistics, including shots and ice time (see full record below) as a relative marker (i.e., "If top-line players were getting between X and X minutes of ice per game in 1928, and in the modern era are getting between X and X minutes of ice per game, then...............");

(b) A visual inspection of the team roster on which X player played. At this stage era will be important. For example, in a modern four-line scenario, ice time would run roughly 20-16-14-10; in a three-line era it would run more along the lines of 26-20-14; in a bona fide two-line era it would become something like 38-22; and before that, in the pre-NHL leagues, you're looking at a 55-minutes-per-game for players with subs or (particularly going back even further) a full 60 with no subs.

(c) Any anecdotal evidence lying around in various old SIHR publications, books, or online.

Okay, so you arrive at a reasonable estimation of ice time for X player. Moving right along...

Step 2: So let's at this point say we're going to use Gordie Howe's monster 1952-53 season:

70

49

46

95

At this point, with his 26 minutes of estimated ice time in hand, we do the following:

1) We bring his numbers up to our "base" season - or the season we're going to "normalize" his stats to. In this case, let's go with last season 2021-22, in which each team played 82 games:

82

57.4

53.9

111.3

From here, we find our league averages for both 1952-53 and 2021-22 (goals per game, assists per game, PiM per game):

1952-1953

NHL

4.79

7.20

19.16

2021-2022

NHL

6.20

10.48

17.24

(And yes, I know these averages include the player being normalized, and this will provide a very slight skew; in the future I intend to have rough numbers, subtract players from the total, and calculate fresh league averages per exercise.....when I find more time lol)

Okay, so now we divide both Gordie Howe's goals and assists by the respective 1952-53 average (goals or assists per game) and then multiply these numbers by the 2021-22 averages. That leaves us with:

82

74.3

78.5

152.8

Final step is to take the above numbers and bring them to 2021-22 terms (focusing on ice time). In this instance, we have Howe's estimated 26 minutes a game. We divide both his goals and assists into 26 minutes and bring it down to a more 2022-like 20 minutes per game. That leaves us with our final numbers:

82

57

60

117

Where does that put Howe in 2021-22? Here:

Connor McDavid EDM C 80 44 79 123
Gordie Howe DET RW 82 57 60 117
Johnny Gaudreau CGY LW 82 40 75 115
Jonathan Huberdeau FLA LW 80 30 85 115
Leon Draisaitl EDM C 80 55 55 110

A perfect science? Far from it. No merit whatosever? Far from it. I think the best way to look at this is as a means of arriving at a rough snapshot of just how good the old players were. It makes me sick that players from yesteryear are all but forgotten. I mean, we hear so much about the big stars of the expansion era, but what about guys like Frank Frederickson or Fred "Cyclone" Taylor or Frank Nighbor or Duke Keats or Russell "Dubbie" Bowie? These guys would have been great in any era, and thanks to normalization exercises like this one, we can splash a little colour on what is otherwise a very dry, black-and-white picture. What's the harm in doing that?

BTW, here below is the full 1927-28 NY Times statistical record. Isn't it fascinating?


Team(s) Player Pos GP G A Pts S ToI

MtlC Howie Morenz C 43 33 18 51 387 1840
MtlC Aurele Joliat LW 44 28 11 39 418 1761
Det George Hay LW 42 22 13 35 191 1451
NYR Frank Boucher C 44 23 12 35 202 1674
MtlM Nels Stewart C 41 27 7 34 252 1561
MtlC Art Gagne RW 44 20 10 30 251 1614
NYR Bun Cook LW 44 14 14 28 318 1646
Tor Bill Carson C 32 20 6 26 167 1150
Ott Frank Finnigan RW 38 20 5 25 203 1407
NYR Bill Cook RW 43 18 6 24 267 1630
Chi-Det Duke Keats C 37 14 10 24 178 1181
Ott Hec Kilrea LW 43 19 4 23 322 1762
Pit Hib Milks C 44 18 3 21 275 1674
Chi Mickey MacKay C 36 17 4 21 161 1291
Det Johnny Sheppard C 44 10 10 20 115 1170
Bos-Tor Jimmy Herberts C 43 15 4 19 213 1273
MtlM Hooley Smith C 34 14 5 19 209 1552
NYA Normie Himes C 44 14 5 19 224 1437
Bos Harry Oliver RW 43 13 5 18 267 1619
Det Carson Cooper RW 43 15 2 17 275 1243
NYA Lionel Conacher D 35 11 6 17 180 1563
Bos Eddie Shore D 43 11 6 17 152 2339
Tor Hap Day LW/D 22 9 8 17 126 1087
MtlM Babe Siebert LW/D 39 8 9 17 200 1786
Det Larry Aurie RW 44 13 3 16 298 1551
NYR Ching Johnson D 42 10 6 16 136 2319
Tor Butch Keeling C/LW 43 10 6 16 242 1326
Pit Harold Darragh RW 44 13 2 15 281 1620
Tor Danny Cox LW 41 9 6 15 131 1067
Ott King Clancy D 39 8 7 15 297 1867
MtlC Sylvio Mantha D 43 4 11 15 79 1552
Bos Frank Fredrickson C 41 10 4 14 168 1466
Det Reg Noble LW/D 44 6 8 14 109 1979
Ott Alex Smith D 44 9 4 13 125 1325
MtlM Joe Lamb C/RW 21 8 5 13 55 366
MtlC Albert Leduc D 42 8 5 13 81 1038
Ott Frank Nighbor C 42 8 5 13 187 1985
MtlM Red Dutton D 42 7 6 13 139 2029
Chi Charley McVeigh RW 43 6 7 13 184 995
NYA Billy Burch C 32 10 2 12 242 1146
MtlM Jimmy Ward RW 42 10 2 12 172 1379
Pit Baldy Cotton LW 42 9 3 12 196 1193
Tor Ace Bailey RW 43 9 3 12 274 1534
Bos Dutch Gainor LW 42 8 4 12 125 948
MtlM Merlyn Phillips RW 40 7 5 12 178 1179
Tor Art Duncan D 43 7 5 12 132 2037
Ott George Boucher D 43 7 5 12 230 2406
Tor Gerry Lowrey C 25 6 5 11 108 509
Bos Percy Galbraith LW 42 6 5 11 256 1625
Chi-Tor Eddie Rodden 42 3 8 11 171 1152
MtlM Russell Oatman C 43 7 4 11 150 866
Pit-Tor Bert McCaffrey D 44 7 4 11 96 1581
Bos Harry Connor LW 42 9 1 10 124 726
NYR Murray Murdoch C/LW 44 7 3 10 115 849
Pit Herb Drury LW 44 6 4 10 171 1154
Chi-MtlC Ty Arbour LW 39 5 5 10 194 1362
Chi Cy Wentworth D 43 5 5 10 87 1968
NYA Leo Reise D 43 8 1 9 123 1872
Det Frank Foyston C/LW 23 7 2 9 126 775
Chi Dick Irvin C 12 5 4 9 78 478
MtlC Leo Gaudreault C 32 6 2 8 60 652
Tor Art Smith D 15 5 3 8 54 397
Pit Duke McCurry LW 44 5 3 8 88 1052
Bos Lionel Hitchman D 44 5 3 8 194 2295
NYR Paul Thompson LW 42 4 4 8 112 715
NYR Leo Bourgeault D/RW 37 7 0 7 114 1525
NYR Alex Gray C 43 7 0 7 138 878
NYA Red Green LW 40 6 1 7 177 1227
MtlM Dunc Munro D 43 5 2 7 94 1882
NYA Billy Boucher RW 43 5 2 7 200 1000
MtlC Herb Gardiner D 44 4 3 7 92 2112
Pit Tex White RW 44 5 1 6 152 1142
Chi-Det Gord Fraser D 41 4 2 6 130 964
NYA Alex McKinnon RW 43 3 3 6 235 1719
Pit John McKinnon D 43 3 3 6 52 832
Det Jack Walker C 43 2 4 6 75 1053
Chi Corb Denneny C 18 5 0 5 95 462
MtlC Pit Lepine C 20 4 1 5 80 476
Bos Dit Clapper RW/D 40 4 1 5 73 478
Ott Punch Broadbent RW 43 3 2 5 129 1034
Bos Fred Gordon F 43 3 2 5 69 755
MtlC Gizzy Hart LW 44 3 2 5 88 717
NYR Bill Boyd RW 43 4 0 4 95 546
MtlC Wildor Larochelle RW 40 3 1 4 66 517
Det Percy Traub D 44 3 1 4 97 1626
Bos Sprague Cleghorn D 37 2 2 4 20 288
Det Pete Palangio LW 14 3 0 3 20 202
Ott Cy Denneny LW 44 3 0 3 144 682
Pit-MtlC Marty Burke D 46 2 2 4 111 1913
NYA Clarence Boucher D 36 2 1 3 55 1008
Det Clem Loughlin D 43 1 2 3 82 953
Ott Len Grosvenor C 43 1 2 3 62 568
Chi Cecil Browne LW 13 2 0 2 25 336
Chi Eddie McCalmon RW 23 2 0 2 55 521
NYA Joe Simpson D 24 2 0 2 100 981
Det Stan Brown D 24 2 0 2 13 311
MtlM Bill Touhey LW/C 29 2 0 2 23 208
Chi-MtlC Leo Lafrance C/LW 29 2 0 2 25 441
Det Frank Sheppard C 8 1 1 2 2 44
Chi Earl Miller LW 21 1 1 2 32 449
Chi Ralph Taylor RW 22 1 1 2 22 584
Chi Amby Moran D 23 1 1 2 37 506
Tor-MtlC George Patterson RW 28 1 1 2 37 313
Chi Bob Trapp D 38 0 2 2 49 1134
Tor Beattie Ramsay D 43 0 2 2 59 1235
NYA Marty Barry C 9 1 0 1 14 112
Chi Nick Wasnie RW 14 1 0 1 26 223
MtlM Fred Brown D 19 1 0 1 3 34
Chi Ted Graham D 19 1 0 1 9 393
Bos Hago Harrington LW 22 1 0 1 22 182
NYA Edmond Bouchard LW 39 1 0 1 151 835
Pit Rodger Smith D 43 1 0 1 57 748
Ott Al Shields D 7 0 1 1 3 16
MtlM Hap Emms LW/D 10 0 1 1 4 87
Chi Val Hoffinger D 18 0 1 1 36 554
Tor Ed Gorman D 19 0 1 1 20 330
MtlM Frank Carson RW 21 0 1 1 21 204
NYR Clarence Abel D 23 0 1 1 32 612
NYR Laurie Scott LW 23 0 1 1 26 193
Chi Barney Stanley F 1 0 0 0 1 16
Chi Bobby Burns LW 1 0 0 0
MtlM Flat Walsh 1 0 0 0 0 6
Tor Joe Primeau C 2 0 0 0 0 10
Pit Odie Cleghorn C 2 0 0 0 0 22
Bos Martin Lauder D 3 0 0 0 7 42
Pit Mickey McGuire D 4 0 0 0 0 23
Bos Nobby Clark D 5 0 0 0
Ott Gene Chouinard D 8 0 0 0 0 1
Chi Babe Dye RW 10 0 0 0 20 84
MtlC Marty Burke D 11 0 0 0 111 1913
Ott Milt Halliday F/D 13 0 0 0 2 48
NYA-Pit Sam Rothschild D 17 0 0 0 52 271
Ott Sam Godin W 24 0 0 0 9 60
NYR Patsy Callighen D 36 0 0 0 37 602
Pit-MtlC Charlie Langlois D 40 0 0 0 30 799

Team(s) Goalie GP Mins W L SO Sv SA Pct
Tor Joe Ironstone 1 1 44 44 1.000
NYA Normie Himes 1 9 9 1.000
Tor Ace Bailey 1 1 1 1.000
MtlC George Hainsworth 44 1371 1419 .966
Ott Alex Connell 44 1401 1458 .961
Pit Roy Worters 44 1635 1711 .956
Bos Hal Winkler 44 1399 1469 .952
NYR Lorne Chabot 44 1542 1621 .951
Det Hap Holmes 44 1381 1460 .946
Tor John Ross Roach 43 1522 1610 .945
MtlM Flat Walsh 1 17 18 .944
MtlM Clint Benedict 44 1273 1349 .944
NYA Earl Miller 28 1085 1162 .934
NYA Jake Forbes 16 714 765 .933
Chi Charlie Gardiner 40 1372 1486 .923
Chi Hugh Lehman 4 125 145 .862

 

[Johnny Cakes]

Today's game would have been a field day for Lemieux. There really has never been a player who had the toolset that Mario had. Size, speed, strength, hands, vision, IQ. He was off the charts. He almost scored 200 points in a league where he basically was hacked, whacked, and held on every shift. His body would not have broken down the way it did if he played in today's NHL.
With Gretzky it's the same thing.
Everyone wants to say goaltending was so bad in the 80's and I agree that scoring was slightly up because of that, but not to the extent that all these normalization formulas are applying to it. Give Ovechkin a wooden stick and the accuracy and power in his shot would be diminished somewhat as well. Add to that the fact that he wouldn't have been left to stand in his office in the 80s like he is now and his numbers would probably end up balancing to something similar to what they have been now.
Are the players in general much better than they were in the 80s? Sure, but that is because of advances in technology, coaching, and lifestyle. Take that away and the players today wouldn't be any better than the players were in the 80s, and vice versa give the 80s players access to all the advantages the guys today have and they would have been better than they were too. At the end of the day the only thing we can use to compare players from different eras is the way players dominated their competition in their given eras.
No one has dominated their peers more than Gretzky, Lemieux, and Orr. Those guys revolutionized the game and changed the way it was played.

Normalization, by its very nature, measures performance "above average," and so satisfies this criteria that a player be judged according to how much (or how little) he dominated his competition.

 

[Kamus]

If my mom was my father would I be my own brother?

 

[Johnny Cakes]

I firmly believe Gretzky had once in a lifetime talent in the hardest qualitative trait to measure.

I know Football (soccer) references are frawned upon here.
But Gretzky like Messi had the ability to see and evaluate the highest probability on how the play will develop ahead of time, thus allowing them to be in the right position at the right time. While others might rely on athleticism and physical attributes to get there before others (Ronaldo).

Players with this ability could also see where empty spaces will form if the puck is moved here or there and utilize these pockets to create extra time for themselves. Basically they can foresee, if they move into a certain direction, the opposing players will adjust in a certain manner. They can then make plays in the opposite direction of the natural flow of play. Putting the opposing players off and creating extra time for themselves to make plays.

I therefore think measuring statistics cross eras don't do Gretzky justice. Because I think the real genius in his game (in addition to his other talent) was how he moved to create time and space for himself and others and how his passes could create time and space for others.

How does my cross-era exercise not do #99 justice? He and Lemieux end up 1(a) and 1(b)? That seems like plenty of justice to me - that even when put through the rigours of this exercise, Gretz still ends up the best, or sharing that "best ever" title with another phenomenal talent in big #66.

If my mom was my father would I be my own brother?

Only you can answer such lofty questions, grasshopper. Look inside your soul for the answer.

 

[Kamus]

How does my cross-era exercise not do #99 justice? He and Lemieux end up 1(a) and 1(b)? That seems like plenty of justice to me - that even when put through the rigours of this exercise, Gretz still ends up the best, or sharing that "best ever" title with another phenomenal talent in big #66.


Only you can answer such lofty questions, grasshopper. Look inside your soul for the answer.

Exactly so why are people keep talking about hypotheticals that never happened/ or will happen.

Lemieux was great but we should only base his accomplishments on what he accomplished not some hypothetical argument