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

[Johnny Cakes]

In the case of Lemieux vs. Gretzky [...] One was mauled and the other was largely left untouched.

^^^THIS is a huuuuuuuuuuuge point

 

[Johnny Cakes]

The other point about ice time is you need to consider the type of ice time. For example, Joe Sakic played 23:01 in 2001, but he was playing 2:01 per game on the PK, because he was a good two-way forward. Joe Thornton played 20:19 per game in 2007, but he was only playing 27 seconds per game on the PK. The method, as it currently exists, is showing that Sakic played 13% more per game than Thornton. But backing out time on the penalty kill, the difference is only about 6%. Sakic shouldn't get his offense downgraded because he played so much on the PK. The method has Thornton ahead 115-114 but, after any reasonable adjustment, Sakic would come out ahead. (The method would also hurt other good two-way players who were deployed on the PK - Gordie Howe and Sergei Fedorov are two names that really jump out).

Thank you very much for this. It has got me to thinking that, in order to make this formula somehow "richer," there needs to be slight handicap applied to players whose ice time was entirely or almost entirely ES and PP. You're totally right - guys like Howe and Fedorov (and Stan Mikita and Bobby Clarke and Darryl Sittler etc etc) are hurt by the fact that some of their ice time is PK. Again, I would say the handicap applied should be slight, but should be there nonetheless. Thanks again for making me think harder about this. This is the marrow for me - what I was really after in beginning this thread; I want to refine the hell out of the normalization formula. Posts like yours above help greatly in that regard.

 

[kevsh]

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

We don't need to, but as it is a public forum I am allowed to offer my opinion on the analysis OP is suggesting right?

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

True, but that's just one factor I listed and there are plenty more. The puck has changed, sticks have changed, goalie equipment, video analysis, analytics, just to name a few more. Compared to the other major sports like basketball, football, baseball clearly comparing players in different eras is a lot more difficult, which is evident in the very simple metric of the widely varying GPG over the years.

 

[Johnny Cakes]

It's a bit of a strained comparison for many reasons, but he gives me Phil Kessel vibes. Polarizing player who will more likely be over/underrated than properly rated.

Keats and Kessel? No, I don't think so. Duke Keats was an absolute beast - a TERROR - this huge, beefy, thundering presence - a steam locomotive on ice, according to the newspaper game accounts of the day. Kessel is nothing like that. Sure he's like a fat little engine, skates well, has a great shot, etc.; but he's not intimidating like Keats was - certainly not a leader like Keats. Take a look at some of those old photos of the guy. Take note of his stature - 5-11 to 6 feet tall, 195 to 205 pounds - at a time when most players were 5-7 and 5-8 and 150-175 lbs. Keats, with a modern diet and training regimen from childhood, would likely have been a lot bigger - A Cam Neely type player with an even meaner streak, fast as the wind, who was good for at least 30 goals and 70 assists every season.

I always thought Duke Keats was really underrated

1000000%

 

[Johnny Cakes]

I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong, but 20 minutes per game seems low for Maurice Richard. He was being rolled in even shifts with the other 2 RWs, while outscoring them by 2x-3x and nearly winning the Hart? Seems more likely that Richard would be well over 20 minutes and the 3RW would be well under.


edit: Just noticed the same thing with Guy Lafleur.

edit: Just noticed that you've already addressed this so I'm just padding the post count in the thread

Richard yes, but Lafleur's 20 I would stand by. The guy did zero PK, and the Canadiens 1976-77 had on right wing: Lafleur....Yvan Cournoyer....Rejean Houle...Mario Tremblay. This would fit in nicely with the 20-16-14-10 ice time format I mentioned earlier in this thread. I don't see any evidence, watching old game footage, of Lafleur being double- and triple-shifted. Like...not ever. And from 1981 on, when Lafleur's production appeared to have tanked, it was in fact his ice time being cut by coaches like Claude Ruel, Bob Berry and Jacques Lemaire, with the organization as a whole taking a decidedly defensive path. In time it became crystal clear that Lafleur was passe in Montreal - he was told to change his freewheeling ways or ship out. It was head-butting time, and it would eventually lead to the Flower's departure from Montreal - after at least a long stretch of 2nd line ice time. But......20 minutes for Lafleur in his prime? To me it seems accurate given how much talent the Habs dynasty teams of the 70s had - it was hardly the Flower Show. There was a lot of talent even just down the right side - like.....the Roadrunner? PLUS Houle and Tremblay? 40 minutes of ice between these three seems dead on the mark.

 

[authentic]

We don't need to, but as it is a public forum I am allowed to offer my opinion on the analysis OP is suggesting right?



True, but that's just one factor I listed and there are plenty more. The puck has changed, sticks have changed, goalie equipment, video analysis, analytics, just to name a few more. Compared to the other major sports like basketball, football, baseball clearly comparing players in different eras is a lot more difficult, which is evident in the very simple metric of the widely varying GPG over the years.

Sure it's more difficult, I don't think that means you shouldn't try at all.

People always say comparison to peers is the best but I think you have to look at everything as level of competition, talent pool and league parity have not been constant through time either. All the things you listed are things we can't really say for sure what effect they would have. Maybe Ovechkin would be worse with old sticks, maybe he would be even better? Maybe Gretzky would be better with new skates, maybe he wouldn't stand out as much as he did in old ones on a relative basis? You can only really try to account for the mathematical aspects like stats, league scoring levels and time on ice. Chances are all these players would adapt fairly well to all the other eras anyway.

 

[Salsa Shark]

Yea, calling Lemieux a PP specialist is the real sign of knowing what you’re talking about

60% facetious but look up the numbers. The man destroyed on the Powerplay. Lemieux scored 40% of his career points on the man advantage, Gretz just 31.2.

 

[Salsa Shark]

Oh yes, yes ... Salsa Shark is, I wager, a real hockey expert and historian.

Nope just a fan.

You created a username today to make a thread in which you try to prove the fourth best offensive season in hockey history is Forsberg's 02-03 and I don't understand hockey ? Sounds about right

 

[Homesick]

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.

Maybe if he put down the smokes guys wouldnt have been able to hang off of him

 

[Johnny Cakes]

60% facetious but look up the numbers. The man destroyed on the Powerplay. Lemieux scored 40% of his career points on the man advantage, Gretz just 31.2.

This is an interesting fact, actually.

 

[Salsa Shark]

This is an interesting fact, actually.

Thanks, lol I've been barking up this tree for years. Of the 15x a skater has scored 100+ at even strength, Gretzky has 10. Lemieux does have 1 to be fair

 

[Johnny Cakes]

Nope just a fan.

You created a username today to make a thread in which you try to prove the fourth best offensive season in hockey history is Forsberg's 02-03 and I don't understand hockey ? Sounds about right

I tried to prove no such thing. I have barely even scratched the surface for players - I just grabbed 20 or so off the top of my head. I'm sure there are many more players who would/will crack the top 5-10 (Espo for one). You may not like Forsberg but the guy was an absolute animal - and he put up nutso numbers playing 18 to 20 minutes a game - for YEARS - while your Gretzkys and Hulls and Jagrs were on the ice for 23 to 25 minutes a game. In a normalization exercise such as the one before you, Forsberg, with under 20 minutes of ice time played but putting up ridiculous numbers, does not get dinged in the final step (reducing ice time to 20:00). You may not like the results but your not liking it doesn't really mean jack.

Forsberg was an absolute machine. If you've forgotten how good he was, well, I guess that's on you.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Maybe if he put down the smokes guys wouldnt have been able to hang off of him

Even if he were Guy Lafleur - one has zero to do with the other.

 

[Salsa Shark]

I tried to prove no such thing. I have barely even scratched the surface for players - I just grabbed 20 or so off the top of my head. I'm sure there are many more players who would/will crack the top 5-10 (Espo for one). You may not like Forsberg but the guy was an absolute animal - and he put up nutso numbers playing 18 to 20 minutes a game - for YEARS - while your Gretzkys and Hulls and Jagrs were on the ice for 23 to 25 minutes a game. In a normalization exercise such as the one before you, Forsberg, with under 20 minutes of ice time played but putting up ridiculous numbers, does not get dinged in the final step (reducing ice time to 20:00). You may not like the results but your not liking it doesn't really mean jack.

Forsberg was an absolute machine. If you've forgotten how good he was, well, I guess that's on you.

Forsberg was a fine player & not unlike Mario he gets put on a pedestal for missing games. The "what if" clouds our judgement IMO. Looking back yes his 03 campaign is a top 10% offensive season I may have been hasty in my reply

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Forsberg was a fine player & not unlike Mario he gets put on a pedestal for missing games. The "what if" clouds our judgement IMO. Looking back yes his 03 campaign is a top 10% offensive season I may have been hasty in my reply

Mario gets put on a pedestal became he was a next level player. There will always be a ‘what if’ element to his career as there is with Bobby Orr. But there’s no denying the production he had. He’s more than the ‘might’ve been’ that say Lindros is.

Lindros’ story is downright tragic.

 

[authentic]

Thanks, lol I've been barking up this tree for years. Of the 15x a skater has scored 100+ at even strength, Gretzky has 10. Lemieux does have 1 to be fair

This is probably my favourite Gretzky stat that I just found out about a few days ago.

 

[authentic]

I tried to prove no such thing. I have barely even scratched the surface for players - I just grabbed 20 or so off the top of my head. I'm sure there are many more players who would/will crack the top 5-10 (Espo for one). You may not like Forsberg but the guy was an absolute animal - and he put up nutso numbers playing 18 to 20 minutes a game - for YEARS - while your Gretzkys and Hulls and Jagrs were on the ice for 23 to 25 minutes a game. In a normalization exercise such as the one before you, Forsberg, with under 20 minutes of ice time played but putting up ridiculous numbers, does not get dinged in the final step (reducing ice time to 20:00). You may not like the results but your not liking it doesn't really mean jack.

Forsberg was an absolute machine. If you've forgotten how good he was, well, I guess that's on you.

Many posters on this board have a massive hate on him for some odd reason. He's 5th all time in playoff points per game among players with 100 or more games played (so it's impossible to use the small sample or injury excuse for his points per game here) and this is despite playing a large portion of his playoff career during seasons where the average goals per game was under 5 in the playoffs and everyone ahead of him played in seasons where it was 7 or 8 (Gretzky, Lemieux, Messier and Kurri). He's ahead of Crosby, Malkin, Ovechkin and Kucherov who only has 90 games played and he's a known elite playoff performer in a higher scoring era.

So not only did he play less ice time he played in a really low scoring era, and was an elite two-way player on top of it. He also has more goals per game in the playoffs than several elite goal scorers such as Stamkos, Selanne, Kovalchuk, Malkin, Crosby, Jagr and Fedorov.

 

[Salsa Shark]

This is probably my favourite Gretzky stat that I just found out about a few days ago.

Kurri, (the criminally underrated) Bossy, Lafleur, Mario, and Yzerman the others

 

[authentic]

Mario gets put on a pedestal became he was a next level player. There will always be a ‘what if’ element to his career as there is with Bobby Orr. But there’s no denying the production he had. He’s more than the ‘might’ve been’ that say Lindros is.

Lindros’ story is downright tragic.

Actually I think more than anything I want to know how Crosby's 3 shortened seasons would've turned out. I think we more or less know what Lindros was at his best, with Crosby it's harder to tell if he was going to finish a few seasons with 60 goals and 120 points or just end up around 50 and 110 by the end of the season.

Kurri, (the criminally underrated) Bossy, Lafleur, Mario, and Yzerman the others

Pretty sure Lemieux would've had a few more if not for injury and cancer though. He had 96 in only 60 games in 1992-93 for instance including 47 ES goals.

 

[Rybo]

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.

Not quite as good maybe but Id have loved to see an 18yo Crosby come in the 2023 draft!

 

[tarheelhockey]

Keats and Kessel? No, I don't think so. Duke Keats was an absolute beast - a TERROR - this huge, beefy, thundering presence - a steam locomotive on ice, according to the newspaper game accounts of the day. Kessel is nothing like that. Sure he's like a fat little engine, skates well, has a great shot, etc.; but he's not intimidating like Keats was - certainly not a leader like Keats. Take a look at some of those old photos of the guy. Take note of his stature - 5-11 to 6 feet tall, 195 to 205 pounds - at a time when most players were 5-7 and 5-8 and 150-175 lbs. Keats, with a modern diet and training regimen from childhood, would likely have been a lot bigger - A Cam Neely type player with an even meaner streak, fast as the wind, who was good for at least 30 goals and 70 assists every season.


1000000%

This is what I meant by it being a strained comparison from the get-go… I was pointing less toward their specific playing styles, and more toward the way people tended to have strong opinions about them either positively or negatively. Both of them were stat-machines who didn’t necessarily fit the “ideal” of their respective eras, and so aren’t remembered in quite the same light as statistically similar players.

 

[Nasti]

There‘s a decent argument to be made that Lemieux’s back issues wouldn’t have been as bad today with less obstruction and better medical staff and technology. This is what today‘s fans don’t get. Yeah, there were advantages for scorers in those days but there are also plenty of advantages today that the old timers didn’t have.

 

[authentic]

Sorry Forsberg is 6th all time in playoff points per game among players with 100+ games ^, I forgot Bossy (who also played in the highest scoring era ever)

 

[Johnny Cakes]

Actually I think more than anything I want to know how Crosby's 3 shortened seasons would've turned out. I think we more or less know what Lindros was at his best, with Crosby it's harder to tell if he was going to finish a few seasons with 60 goals and 120 points or just end up around 50 and 110 by the end of the season.

Let's look:

2007-08 20 PIT NHL 80 40 78 118 20:00
2010-11 23 PIT NHL 80 65 68 133 20:00
2012-13 25 PIT NHL 80 37 100 137 20:00
2021-22 34 PIT NHL 80 36 62 98 20:00

These are Crosby's four shortened seasons normalized to 80 games and 20:00 of ice in the 2021-22 season. Not sure what you can deduce from this - in 2010-11 it looks like Esposito numbers while the next season he looks like more of a Joe Thornton PLUS. This is definitely one of the shortcomings of doing this kind of thing. You get skews here and there. Someone once suggested the only way to truly capture a player in an historical context is to take his top 2-3 seasons, squash them together into one, and normalize that; the person who said that (some other forum connected to SIHR) said doing such a thing would help (1) flatten down flukes, and (2) make the player prove himself beyond one season; a greater sample size always being more legit than a smaller one. But I digress.

 

[jigglysquishy]

There‘s a decent argument to be made that Lemieux’s back issues wouldn’t have been as bad today with less obstruction and better medical staff and technology. This is what today‘s fans don’t get. Yeah, there were advantages for scorers in those days but there are also plenty of advantages today that the old timers didn’t have.

In the same vain, Gretzky could have made a full recovery from his back breaking.

Orr could have had successful knee surgery.

Lindros and Kariya would have recovered from their concussions.

Morenz wouldn't have died from a hockey injury.