Mario Lemieux vs Today's NHL

[Rick Kehoe]

But none of the average 90's era players could match up to the 60's average NHLers. Having only six teams, when compared to 30 teams, means a second line player has no roster spot. From the 30-team league only the top line players would crack the roster of a 6-team league. And a top line player could still be a healthy scratch. 72 available roster spots for forwards. You'd need to be what today gets called "a superstar" to even make the team. Then to be a superstar you'd need to be a superstar among superstars.

Of course, back in the 60's the training and equipment held them back a little compared to today. But on raw talent alone, that's the scale we're dealing with.

In 70 years, in 2088, the equipment and training has again evolved, but I don't think the human species has evolved in that short a time at all, so we're again dealing with raw talent of 2018 getting short-changed because everyone thinks there were no good hockey players back in 2018.[/QUOTE]


I think you're overlooking the population increase, and advent of the Eastern European player when comparing the 1960s with the 1990s. The goalies of the 1960s, with their smaller equipment, would have to deal with a player they haven't had to deal with in their era. Even with the increased physicality, Lemieux would absolutely dominate those Original Six teams.

 

[psycat]

Wouldnt rule out 170 pts seasons for a peak Lemieux in todays league, breaking 150 a couple of times is imo a given.
McDavid doesn't really compare but obviously no shame in that and he could still get better, I mean Mario himself started out somewhat "slow"- atleast compared to Gretzky.

 

[Cubs2024WSChamps]

Lemieux would be one of the best he would not put up 150 points but he might win some scoring titles. I think McDavid would absolutely tear up the league back in the day as well tho. He's already a cut above everybody else in a league where EVERYONE can skate really good. Imagine Mcdavid coming down on a Darian Hatcher or a Darias Kasparitis, they wouldn't stand a chance.

Lol wut?

Hatcher, Kasparitis, Stevens, Marchment, Chelios, etc, would make McDavid cry.

Mario in this era would be unfair.
McDavid back then would get smashed.

Ulf in the playoffs would knee on knee McD in the first game. He's lucky he plays now.

 

[Bouboumaster]

This is Lemieux, stomping one of the top 5 best d-men to ever play the game.

 

[Bank Shot]

But none of the average 90's era players could match up to the 60's average NHLers. Having only six teams, when compared to 30 teams, means a second line player has no roster spot. From the 30-team league only the top line players would crack the roster of a 6-team league. And a top line player could still be a healthy scratch. 72 available roster spots for forwards. You'd need to be what today gets called "a superstar" to even make the team. Then to be a superstar you'd need to be a superstar among superstars.

Of course, back in the 60's the training and equipment held them back a little compared to today. But on raw talent alone, that's the scale we're dealing with.

You also didn't have any Russians, or Finns, or Swedes in the league in the 60's and there weren't as many players from the US.

The talent pool was way smaller.

Also kids played when the ice was frozen and then did other sports in the summer.

Nowadays you have plenty of kids playing almost year round hockey from the youngest ages, and attending all kinds of skill development camps.

The skill level of the stars is relatively the same, but the skill level of depth players now is much better than it was 20 or 30, 0r 60 years ago.

It's not even close.

 

[pitcher]

He would be by far the best player in the NHL today, winning art rosses by a fair margin over anyone of this era, including prime Crosby, Malkin and Ovechkin. He would probably have been giving pretty good competition year after year to Ovechkin for the Rocket. I have zero doubt that at a bare minimum his best seasons would be around 160 points.

I think some younger people in here just don't realize how dominant he and Gretzky were. Mario, with his size and strength and grace and incredible skill level would dominate in any era. There is no way in hell that Mario Lemieux come even close to lose a scoring title to some of the players Crosby lost to even while healthy. Lemieux was winning titles while unhealthy and missing alot of games. In full healthy season? Come on. If Crosby, Thornton and Jagr could all score 120+ while all playing in the league at the same time, just to even think that Lemieux wouldn't be able to get 150+ today is a joke. It happened folks, all 3 of Thornton, Jagr AND Crosby scored 120+ within 2 consecutive years, in the same league, yes, all playing at the same time, you know, on the same planet. It was both Thornton and Crosby highest scoring years. Even in their highest scoring year, a 33-34 years old Jagr managed to score just as much as them. The same Jagr who, in his best scoring year in his career, at his peak at 24 years old, scored 149 in 82 games, while an older Lemieux, 1 year before retiring the first time, after beating cancer and while playing through intense pain, managed to score 161 in 70. PPG wise, Mario, definitely not in his best year, was 26.6% more productive than Jagr in his best year... and that is not considering the impact that Lemieux had on Jagr numbers.

Ok, so just to recap, Jagr could score 123 points at 33-34 years old while Sidney Crosby was in the league, only 1 year before Crosby had his most productive healthy year of 120 points, and the same Jagr was at his very peak outscored by 26.6% by a older and beat up Lemieux on the edge of his first retirement. If Mario would outscore Jagr in 2005-2006 by the same percentage, he would have scored 156. That would have been a after peak, post-cancer, playing through intense pain version of Mario Lemieux. Now, consider that the 26.6% difference came from comparing to peek Jagr, not 33-34 years old Jagr... a 24 years old Jagr might have scored 130, or even 140 in 2005-2006. And lastly, now consider how much a healthy and younger peek Lemieux would have outscored Jagr in 95-96... put 2 and 2 together.

We're not comparing Joe Malone to Ovechkin here. We're talking about careers that intersect. We're talking about a guy who got out of retirement after 3 years, came back out of shape, definitely much slower, and still managed to outproduce a less than 30 years old art ross winning Jaromir Jagr by 18.3% (that would have put him at 146 points in 2005-2006 VS Jagr 123 points.........).

As someone said earlier, he would be a Malkin on steroid. Try to picture god mode Malkin. That would be Mario below average, unclutch mode. Now consider that Mario would better than that at average, and that he too could go in god mode. We're talking about exponential god mode Malkin here. A bigger, taller, faster, more skilled, more intelligent and more consistent Malkin. Now take that ridiculous player, and make him a much, much better goal scorer. Here you go, you have Mario Lemieux.

 

[DFC]

A lot of the players Mario dominated (as an old man) retired not too long ago. There's no era he wouldn't dominate. I think 130-150 points in a healthy year for this current era.

 

[Bank Shot]

Ok, so just to recap, Jagr could score 123 points at 33-34 years old while Sidney Crosby was in the league, only 1 year before Crosby had his most productive healthy year of 120 points, and the same Jagr was at his very peak outscored by 26.6% by a older and beat up Lemieux on the edge of his first retirement. If Mario would outscore Jagr in 2005-2006 by the same percentage, he would have scored 156. That would have been a after peak, post-cancer, playing through intense pain version of Mario Lemieux. Now, consider that the 26.6% difference came from comparing to peek Jagr, not 33-34 years old Jagr... a 24 years old Jagr might have scored 130, or even 140 in 2005-2006. And lastly, now consider how much a healthy and younger peek Lemieux would have outscored Jagr in 95-96... put 2 and 2 together.
We're not comparing Joe Malone to Ovechkin here. We're talking about careers that intersect. We're talking about a guy who got out of retirement after 3 years, came back out of shape, definitely much slower, and still managed to outproduce a less than 30 years old art ross winning Jaromir Jagr by 18.3% (that would have put him at 146 points in 2005-2006 VS Jagr 123 points.........).

Mario would have thrived in 05/06 no question. It's a different period now though. Scoring is down.

What might hurt Mario a bit in today's game is that PP opportunities are at an all time low, and Mario was a guy that did a tonne of damage on the PP.

For instance in 95-65 Mario scored 161 points. 79 points on the PP.
This year Mcdavid scored 108. 20 points on the PP.
McDavid actually outscored Mario at even strength despite having 50+ less points overall.

 

[pitcher]

Mario would have thrived in 05/06 no question. It's a different period now though. Scoring is down.

What might hurt Mario a bit in today's game is that PP opportunities are at an all time low, and Mario was a guy that did a tonne of damage on the PP.

For instance in 95-65 Mario scored 161 points. 79 points on the PP.
This year Mcdavid scored 108. 20 points on the PP.
McDavid actually outscored Mario at even strength despite having 50+ less points overall.

He would have thrived in any era. Are we already to the point where Crosby is too old and distant to compare his peak years to the new god McDavid???

Crosby too in his top years had alot of points on the pp, and yet alot of people here still consider that peek Crosby was better than McDavid was this year. The minutes not spent on the powerplay are still available to be played at even strength, they don't just disappear. Tbh, I think that McDavid just played with a bad team with a bad powerplay. Alot of the top scorers this year had around 40 points on the PP, double of what McDavid had, including Crosby and Malkin. Based on that, I believe that McDavid on a good team with a good PP this year could have scored around 130.

Now, if McDavid this year was roughly around the level of peek Crosby (maybe a bit worse, maybe a bit better), that Crosby at his best scored 120 1 year after 33-34 years old Jagr scored 123, that you factor in how much better peek Lemieux was than peek Jagr, that you consider that McDavid just had an off year on the PP (he also had a slow start of the season, I doubt 108 is his close to his peak potential in this era), also consider that Lemieux was really good on the PP like you just said and probably wouldn't have had 50% less power play points than Crosby and Malkin had this year... he would have capitalized on his PP chances... is it really out of the question that Lemieux could have scored 150+ this year? I don't think so.

That's the thing. He was just that good. Take all of the preconception you have about what the best player in the world have been in the last 2 decades, and throw them out of the window. Lemieux was not a 1 or 2 Art Ross type of player who lose to a Sedin or a Benn, or barely outscore a Giroux or a Kutcherov. He was the type of player who just win the Art Ross every single year that he his healthy, by a solid margin, and even some year when he isn't and miss games. There was no question of who was better between him and his contemporaries, he would not be in a situation like Crosby where people think that he's the best, but still consider that Ovechkin is pretty close or better in his prime, that Malkin might have had a better year, that McDavid might surpass him, etc. If you take out Gretzky out of the equation, and even if you don't (since Gretz peak years happened before Mario's), in his playing years, there was not even a single ounce of a doubt that Mario was by far the best player over the Jagrs and the Messiers and the Yzermans and the Lindros and the Forsbergs of his era.

 

[The Red Helmet]

He would be the best player in the league besides Matthews.

 

[geoo9]

Mario said that at his days game was easy because most of players literally did not know how to properly skate

 

[Bank Shot]

He would have thrived in any era. Are we already to the point where Crosby is too old and distant to compare his peak years to the new god McDavid???

Crosby too in his top years had alot of points on the pp, and yet alot of people here still consider that peek Crosby was better than McDavid was this year. The minutes not spent on the powerplay are still available to be played at even strength, they don't just disappear. Tbh, I think that McDavid just played with a bad team with a bad powerplay. Alot of the top scorers this year had around 40 points on the PP, double of what McDavid had, including Crosby and Malkin. Based on that, I believe that McDavid on a good team with a good PP this year could have scored around 130.

Yeah the minutes don't disappear if there are less PPs, but they are much more difficult to score in if you are playing at ES vs PP.
To pretend like taking a bunch of PP time away from a guy who was a prolific PP scorer like Lemieux and say that it wouldn't hurt him at all in scoring numbers is not realistic.

Now, if McDavid this year was roughly around the level of peek Crosby (maybe a bit worse, maybe a bit better), that Crosby at his best scored 120 1 year after 33-34 years old Jagr scored 123, that you factor in how much better peek Lemieux was than peek Jagr, that you consider that McDavid just had an off year on the PP (he also had a slow start of the season, I doubt 108 is his close to his peak potential in this era), also consider that Lemieux was really good on the PP like you just said and probably wouldn't have had 50% less power play points than Crosby and Malkin had this year... he would have capitalized on his PP chances... is it really out of the question that Lemieux could have scored 150+ this year? I don't think so.

You can't just compare Crosby and Jagr's 120 point seasons in 2005/2007 straight across to 2018. The difference in PP opportunities is massive.

I think 150+ points would be pretty far fetched for anyone in 2018.

Highest PP producer this season was Kessel at 42 points.
Lets give Mario 60 PP points. Completely laps the field.
So he needs 90 non-PP points to hit 150 points.
In Mario's best season in the 1980's he put up 100 non-PP points.

You think he would come close to that in 2018?
I doubt it.
Guys aren't shooting 25% on the season anymore regularly like they were when Mario put up those totals.

 

[Fig]

I laugh a lot at the idea that Mario Lemieux would struggle because of the higher talent in the league. I totally disagree. I'd almost believe he could show up in 80s gear and find his way to 50 points in a season even with that insane disadvantage solely by utilizing his hockey IQ and line mates.

If Jumbo Joe could score tons of goals bouncing pucks off random wingers, I think Lemieux would make a guy like Joe Colborne a 40-60 goal player just by bouncing pucks off him and into the net all day long. While it might be true that it's harder to score in the league today, Lemieux doesn't have to torch the league solo with no preparation. He can take advantage of modern wingers to round out his weaknesses. He just has to be dangerous enough to give line mates room and flip easy goals to his wingers who are already accustomed to scoring in the modern league. I find it hilarious that some posters will try to bury Lemieux by discussing the change in talent in the modern NHL, yet forget that Lemieux's team mates likely cancel out that disadvantage. This isn't 80s Lemieux and 80s team brought to the modern NHL to be torched space jam style. Lemieux with a modern NHL team to utilize would neutralize the opposing team's advantage.

And yet, the scary part is that he is no slouch in a 1:1 situation. Rewatch his highlights. His puck protection is easily on par if not superior to Jagr's who was still using it effectively in this league a few seasons ago. His hands are silky and he could stick handle at close quarters amazingly well. He was pretty damn good at takeaways.

IMO, if I had to peg Mario's floor against a modern player that he could potentially be similar to (due to perceived disadvantages between the two eras), I would choose Mark Stone. Slower speed vs peers but with size, skill and IQ. Heck, I'd even imagine games lost to injury would be similar, and by floor I'm imagining the lazy smoking Lemieux shows up. Obviously Lemieux would still be superior to Stone who on his own is a fantastic player. I don't need to repeat what others have said about Lemieux's ceiling, but there's definitely no reason to think he wouldn't be a titan in the league.

 

[Bustedprospect]

But none of the average 90's era players could match up to the 60's average NHLers. Having only six teams, when compared to 30 teams, means a second line player has no roster spot. From the 30-team league only the top line players would crack the roster of a 6-team league. And a top line player could still be a healthy scratch. 72 available roster spots for forwards. You'd need to be what today gets called "a superstar" to even make the team. Then to be a superstar you'd need to be a superstar among superstars.

Of course, back in the 60's the training and equipment held them back a little compared to today. But on raw talent alone, that's the scale we're dealing with.

In 70 years, in 2088, the equipment and training has again evolved, but I don't think the human species has evolved in that short a time at all, so we're again dealing with raw talent of 2018 getting short-changed because everyone thinks there were no good hockey players back in 2018.

The NHL was almost an amateur league until the 80s or so and extremely diluted in 70s. Hell, even the average referee needs to be an athlete today you cannot really get away being unfit and an alcoholic.

In the 60s there were low salaries, players were going by bus and train for a long time compared to other leagues in North America. Compared to many other leagues the talent pool was really bad and only drawn from Canada and even in Canada people from remote would not have been found. So we are talking about a pool of about 15-16 million people here. In North America today there are more than 350 million people. In Europe and Russia, there are a lot more.

While humanity hasn't changed in 60 years scouting, talent pool, genetic selection and the opportunity to play have changed a lot. The genetic freaks are found today all over the world and this will just improve the league.

Great players will always dominate. But i don't think the 2nd or 3rd liners of the past would cut it in this league.

 

[Sentinel]

All I know is that the League would do away with 3-on-3 OT and even 4-on-4 OT if Mario was in the League. Those would be automatic Penguins wins.

 

[Sentinel]

I'd like to point out that the year lemeieux put up 199 points Nicholls oates lafontaine and yzerman all had 140 + points.

These players are nowhere near Crosby McDavid ovechkin or even malkin. Maybe the picture is more clear now. Yes Mario is better then anyone today but not by these ridiculous gaps ppl claim put up in a completely different era. Who after Crosbys second season thought he would finish behind a 5th round pick Jamie benn two years running?

Yzerman is nowhere near Malkin? Guess again.

 

[DannyGallivan]

You also didn't have any Russians, or Finns, or Swedes in the league in the 60's and there weren't as many players from the US.

The talent pool was way smaller.

Also kids played when the ice was frozen and then did other sports in the summer.

Nowadays you have plenty of kids playing almost year round hockey from the youngest ages, and attending all kinds of skill development camps.

The skill level of the stars is relatively the same, but the skill level of depth players now is much better than it was 20 or 30, 0r 60 years ago.

It's not even close.

It's all relative. And one of the reasons why fourth liners "seem" so much closer to third and second liners today is the salary cap. In the old days, you had a couple of loaded lines because you didn't have to pay your stars very much so you could afford it. Then you had the "depth" players and energy guys do their thing. Now, you have a few good players that you pay through the nose to keep on your team, and you fill out the rest of the roster with guys "in the middle" ability wise.

It's similar to the way Vegas built a team. Few stars, but many capable players.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Yzerman is nowhere near Malkin? Guess again.

Maybe, just maybe, there were actually more supertars in the 70's, 80's and early 90's than there are today. Back when NHLers who played in those eras were growing up, you didn't have the coach of an 11 or 12 year-old team teaching "systems". You let the kids play and develop creativity, puck handling and speed. Bobby Orr said it best... he developed his skill by playing with 30 kids, one puck and no adults. You needed to develop skill just to stay in the game.

Thankfully, the powers that be are returning (slowly) to a more "creativity-based" way to teach the game, and to teach skills.

I'm confident in saying that when comparing eras, you can assume the Bobby Orr of 1971 or the Guy Lafleur of 1977 would be just as dynamic today, all things being equal (in other words, they benefit from the same equipment, training, nutrition, etc. that modern players do). Especially in today's world, where smaller players (like McDavid, Gaudreau or Ehlers) are being allowed to showcase their skills

 

[Stealth JD]

Lemieux could probalby put up 50-points TODAY as a 52-year old. Absolutely nothing suggests that he'd not be the best player in the league if you dropped a healthy 26-year old Lemieux from 1992 into today's game. He'd win the Art Ross by 25 points, playing in 70 games.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

Yeah the minutes don't disappear if there are less PPs, but they are much more difficult to score in if you are playing at ES vs PP.
To pretend like taking a bunch of PP time away from a guy who was a prolific PP scorer like Lemieux and say that it wouldn't hurt him at all in scoring numbers is not realistic.




You can't just compare Crosby and Jagr's 120 point seasons in 2005/2007 straight across to 2018. The difference in PP opportunities is massive.

I think 150+ points would be pretty far fetched for anyone in 2018.

Highest PP producer this season was Kessel at 42 points.
Lets give Mario 60 PP points. Completely laps the field.
So he needs 90 non-PP points to hit 150 points.
In Mario's best season in the 1980's he put up 100 non-PP points.

You think he would come close to that in 2018?
I doubt it.
Guys aren't shooting 25% on the season anymore regularly like they were when Mario put up those totals.

With prime-Lemieux in the league, powerplays either go up (for his team) because he draws a ton of them, or the other team doesn't take penalties and he just skates through them.

 

[Midnight Judges]

This is Lemieux, stomping one of the top 5 best d-men to ever play the game.

Bourque or not, that was pathetic defense.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Kinda like how Ovechkin scores his ES goals?

Sure, "defense was trash." Lidstrom (who beat every last one of today's "star" defensemen for Norris while being on his last legs), Bourque, Coffey, Leetch, etc. are trash. Son, don't watch hockey again.

Oh, and I am a lot younger than 50

You don't have to trash the older generations to acknowledge that defensive systems in the NHL have evolved and tightened up over time.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Bourque or not, that was pathetic defense.

It's someone getting totally undressed by a legend (and I'm not talking about my dating history!)

 

[Laineux]

It's almost like players are human beings capable of adapting to a changing environment and evolving with the game.

 

[Paperbagofglory]

He would have loved hockey post 2004 lockout with its free flowing and minimal obstruction. Its too bad his health was not good enough near the tail end of his comeback, if he was 5 years younger he would have ruled this league.