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

[Machinehead]

I think clutch and grab is still a lot more prevalent now than it's made out to be.

It's not 05-06 anymore.

 

[Machinehead]

In the case of Lemieux vs. Gretzky though there is a massive difference in how they were played by the opposition. Literally every full game of these two in existence will paint a pretty clear picture there if you need to see it for yourself. One was mauled and the other was largely left untouched.

Gretzky was left untouched because he played the game at an unfathomable speed.

He's wasn't a burner with his skates but he didn't need to be. With his instincts and hands he was already playing three seconds ahead of everyone on the ice.

It's not like Gretzky's era wasn't rife with inference.

 

[North Cole]

Just applied the formula to four McDavid seasons:

2020-21 24 EDM NHL 80 46 100 146 20:00
2021-22 25 EDM NHL 80 40 72 112 20:00
2018-19 22 EDM NHL 80 38 71 109 20:00
2017-18 21 EDM NHL 80 39 64 103 20:00

Wow, crazy. And the guy's only 26. Will be interesting to see where McDavid lands when he retires.

SIDE NOTE: McDavid 100 assists. Of course it must be borne in mind that Gretzky put in a full season with his 98 normalized assists in 1984-85 while McDavid's 2020-21 campaign was only 56 games long. Which makes #99's 98 assists "purer" in a sense, and reveals one basic shortcoming of the entire exercise, which is that it can and often does help those who played less games (knowing, as we do, that a full 80-game grind will wear down a player more - i.e., their numbers will often not be as sparkling by season's end as they were halfway through, when they had yet to really contend with the fatigue factor of a long season).

This also seems to be true for ice-time though. This method pulls up points for people playing 16 minutes a game and retracts points like it did for Howe, for players that play 25 minutes a game. McDavid is also in that boat. I don't get the logic that you are okay pointing out how this method helps McDavid in his 56 game season but then hedge the narrative for Lemieux. A lower games played is a lower games played, regardless if it was because the league shut down or because a player was sick/injured. Method helps them both.

Additionally it implies all the minutes are the same, when they aren't. Why are we taking points away from Howe? You can't assume he the same opportunity to score points in his >20 minutes that a guy like Forsberg will have in his <20 minutes. Howe played everywhere on the ice and in all situations. Seems very punitive if a player has PK time and gets docked points he didn't score during that time because that time brought his total minutes over 20 causing him to be normalized.

Maybe you have taken into account ES/PP/PK time in the 20, but it didn't seem clear from the explanation in your other post. Additionally, wouldn't more minutes also cause wear and tear and see diminishing returns? You have no idea what kind of points a player playing 16 minutes a night would be scoring if you jammed him with 10 more minutes a night for 80 games. For all we know he just breaks down and gets injured.

 

[authentic]

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.

I agree with this. The thing about Crosby is he was never the same after that 2010-11 season, he was really just starting to hit his peak halfway through the 2009-10 season and during 2010-11 he had that 25 game point streak with 26 goals and 24 assists. He never played infront of the net with the same intensity again but was still able to pile up points until his wrist injury in 2014 that apparently hampered his play until last season.

Gretzky was left untouched because he played the game at an unfathomable speed.

He's wasn't a burner with his skates but he didn't need to be. With his instincts and hands he was already playing three seconds ahead of everyone on the ice.

It's not like Gretzky's era wasn't rife with inference.

I know but we can go back and see the games and see players had plenty of opportunity to play him rougher, and sometimes they did. It was just really rare. You just can't pretend the players treated him the same way as Lemieux who was big and strong enough to fight his own battles. Players let up on Gretzky a lot and that's not really debatable.

 

[Panthaz89]

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.

Could of should of would of are always funny. Maybe give credit to the guys who actually play the games its so silly to play these arguments out.

 

[Uncle Rotter]

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

Adjusted Stats don't take power play time into account. For example, the 1988-89 Penguins had 196 more power plays than the 1985-86 Oilers, nearly 2.5 per game. I've calculated before that if the Oilers of that season had the same amount of PPO as the Penguins did, Gretzky would have come very close to 240 points.

 

[Johnny Cakes]

Adjusted Stats don't take power play time into account. For example, the 1988-89 Penguins had 196 more power plays than the 1985-86 Oilers, nearly 2.5 per game. I've calculated before that if the Oilers of that season had the same amount of PPO as the Penguins did, Gretzky would have come very close to 240 points.

I would love to see your work laid out for all to see. Any chance you can cut 'n' paste it here?

 

[PatrikBerglund]

The game is SO much faster and organised today.

Goalies are also 10 times better than during the 80s. Watch the goals that were scored back then....

 

[authentic]

Adjusted Stats don't take power play time into account. For example, the 1988-89 Penguins had 196 more power plays than the 1985-86 Oilers, nearly 2.5 per game. I've calculated before that if the Oilers of that season had the same amount of PPO as the Penguins did, Gretzky would have come very close to 240 points.

This argument works for Gretzky and Lemieux but not for Matthews against Ovechkin lol

 

[PaulD]

The game is SO much faster and organised today.

Goalies are also 10 times better than during the 80s. Watch the goals that were scored back then....

With todays sticks everyone is shooting bullets...........including almost all the beer league hacks out there. ha!

 

[PaulD]

The game is SO much faster and organised today.

Goalies are also 10 times better than during the 80s. Watch the goals that were scored back then....

Guesss you missed Murray on Tuesday night and Telbot vs Smith last night. And what zamboni driver was in net for the Canucks last night? It was 4-0 Bolts before fans could sit back down after the national anthem.

 

[PaulD]

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.

And Mario plus others would have adjusted perfectly to all those changes to which all hockey players love and benefit from.

The best in 91 would be among the best in 2021.

 

[kevsh]

Guesss you missed Murray on Tuesday night and Telbot vs Smith last night. And what zamboni driver was in net for the Canucks last night?

There were bad goalies then, there are bad goalies now. What a revelation.

The point the poster was clearly making was, well, just go and watch goalies back then compared to now. It's not even close.

 

[Statto]

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.

Thank you. Somebody else gets it, I’ve long argued this. Nobody has ever been remotely as dominant as Gretzky. He’s an outlier of historical proportions and that applies across all sports, not just hockey. If not for his back issues his numbers would have been even more dominant over his career. It almost never gets mentioned that for last few years (dating back to LA) he could barely shoot the puck. People forget how good his shot was.

 

[Statto]

With todays sticks everyone is shooting bullets...........including almost all the beer league hacks out there. ha!

Yep. These are the things adjusted stats don’t factor in. With wooden sticks there was little to no margin of error technically but it’s never been easier to shoot the puck than it is today. Then there’s the weight of the equipment, massively inferior skates etc. People look at the goalies and say ‘scoring was easier’ completely ignoring the other factors. Then there is the 2 line pass couple with massively increased physical play and literal head hunting.

 

[Uncle Rotter]

I would love to see your work laid out for all to see. Any chance you can cut 'n' paste it here?

Basically, 196 extra power plays would have netted the Oilers another 50 goals, and Gretzky had points on 2/3 of Oilers power play goals that season. He averaged 2 PPG at even strength and shorthanded. Those extra power plays would amount to around 4 minutes per game, which means subtracting around two minutes per game for Gretzky and the points he would have scored.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Gretzky was left untouched because he played the game at an unfathomable speed.

He's wasn't a burner with his skates but he didn't need to be. With his instincts and hands he was already playing three seconds ahead of everyone on the ice.

It's not like Gretzky's era wasn't rife with inference.

No doubt that Gretzky was fast and he was able to avoid hits. But the league sent a very loud message on hitting him. He got smoked by Bill McCreary and McCreary never played another shift.

Meet the rookie who 'crushed' Wayne Gretzky in 1981

"Some of the guys on the bus gave me a pat and said, 'Nice hit kid, but you probably shouldn't have done that.'"

theathletic.com

Lemieux was big and the league left him to fend for himself. The playoffs vs Kasparitis was a freaking joke.

Again, in today's league... without being able to mug Lemieux, nobody would be able to stop the guy. He'd put up insane numbers now.

 

[authentic]

Thank you. Somebody else gets it, I’ve long argued this. Nobody has ever been remotely as dominant as Gretzky. He’s an outlier of historical proportions and that applies across all sports, not just hockey. If not for his back issues his numbers would have been even more dominant over his career. It almost never gets mentioned that for last few years (dating back to LA) he could barely shoot the puck. People forget how good his shot was.

Are you sure about that one? Look at his shot here in New York.

He had a clapper from the point in a game I saw a while back from 1998 that looked like a Kovalchuk light. His shot was better later in his career probably in large part due to the sticks and he was also probably stronger.

1:04

The main thing Gretzky lost was agility.

 

[Uncle Rotter]

No doubt that Gretzky was fast and he was able to avoid hits. But the league sent a very loud message on hitting him. He got smoked by Bill McCreary and McCreary never played another shift.

Meet the rookie who 'crushed' Wayne Gretzky in 1981

"Some of the guys on the bus gave me a pat and said, 'Nice hit kid, but you probably shouldn't have done that.'"

theathletic.com

Lemieux was big and the league left him to fend for himself. The playoffs vs Kasparitis was a freaking joke.

Again, in today's league... without being able to mug Lemieux, nobody would be able to stop the guy. He'd put up insane numbers now.

Then why did Gretzky's Oilers get so few power plays, and Lemieux's Penguins get so many?

 

[authentic]

His agility was also probably the most valuable physical trait he had for his playstyle

Then why did Gretzky's Oilers get so few power plays, and Lemieux's Penguins get so many?

Because Edmonton was destroying the other team, they didn't need the extra calls. Pittsburgh got those powerplays even when Lemieux wasn't playing.

Think of it this way, it took until the early 90s for the Penguins to become a great team. That was also when Lemieux had his best ES scoring season with 96 points and 47 goals in 60 games. Early in his career and later the team wasn't nearly as good, and he played a ton on the powerplay. I think there's a good chance the tables would've been turned quite a bit if they switched places for their careers but Gretzky was still the better ES player (though a lot of that is probably due to Lemieux's health being a factor as well)

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Then why did Gretzky's Oilers get so few power plays, and Lemieux's Penguins get so many?

Whether this is true or not... I don't think it matters.

 

[Regal]

Basically, 196 extra power plays would have netted the Oilers another 50 goals, and Gretzky had points on 2/3 of Oilers power play goals that season. He averaged 2 PPG at even strength and shorthanded. Those extra power plays would amount to around 4 minutes per game, which means subtracting around two minutes per game for Gretzky and the points he would have scored.

If the Oilers had more PPs though, the opposition would also have more PPs, because refs always try to even things out. Having the same as the Pens would mean another 73 PPOA. So over 3 more PPs combined for both teams per game. All that extra PP time and PK time though is going to cut into their ES time, and decrease Gretzky’s ES points, which also needs to be accounted for.

I think that’s one thing that kind of gets overlooked with Lemieux when he gets dismissed for his PP splits. The PPs might have helped his totals overall, but they also decreased his ES production.

 

[morehockeystats]

No doubt that Gretzky was fast and he was able to avoid hits. But the league sent a very loud message on hitting him. He got smoked by Bill McCreary and McCreary never played another shift.

From Wiki:
The myth that McCreary never played another shift in the NHL is false – the January 3 game was McCreary's second game in his 12-game NHL career.

 

[PaulD]

There were bad goalies then, there are bad goalies now. What a revelation.

The point the poster was clearly making was, well, just go and watch goalies back then compared to now. It's not even close.

Players didn't shoot like they do now either.
Put Lindros, Hull, Bossy,Mario, Jagr, and everyone else out there with these new sticks and that are filling the net on these goalies just like they did all those "great" goalies of yesterday
Eddie Belfour would be the Leafs number one today.
Roy would be the Habs number one.
Marty B would be Devils number one. Cujo would be the Oilers number one. Richter could be the Flames number one. Luongo would be the Wings number one today. Hasek would be the Sabres number one. I could go on.
The best of yester year would also be anong the best today. All things considered.
.

 

[morehockeystats]

Players didn't shoot like they do now either.
Put Lindros, Hull, Bossy,Mario, Jagr, and everyone else out there with these new sticks and that are filling the net on these goalies just like they did all those "great" goalies of yesterday
Eddie Belfour would be the Leafs number one today.
Roy would be the Habs number one.
Marty B would be Devils number one. Cujo would be the Oilers number one. Richter could be the Flames number one. Luongo would be the Wings number one today. Hasek would be the Sabres number one. I could go on.
The best of yester year would also be anong the best today. All things considered.
.

"Nostalgia isn't what it used to be"