Orr vs. Lemieux for 20 Healthy Seasons?

[TheStatican]

As I already showed, in 1989-90 Gretzky led the NHL in scoring at the end of October, at the end of November, and at the end of December. After 51 games played apiece, he and Lemieux were tied for 1st in scoring. So, yeah, not exactly like Huberdeau and McDavid -- a ridiculous assertion which you should be ashamed of yourself for making.

What does scoring at the end of October have anything to do with anything??? Do you know who was tied for 37th in scoring in scoring by the end of October of this year? Connor McDavid. And do you know who still wasn't anywhere near the leaders at the end of November and at the end of December? Connor McDavid. But ya, McDavid was playing 'hurt' to start the year while Lemieux was just 'slumping'.

Not like there's any corroborate evidence that Lemieux was playing hurt during that time...

Penguins 4, Rangers 3 - UPI Archives

Paul Coffey scored twice and set up two other goals, including the game-winner by Troy Loney at 3:33 of overtime, Wednesday night to lead Pittsburgh to a 4-3...

www.upi.com

"Lemieux, who has endured a herniated disc and arthritis through the second-longest streak in NHL history, was unable to finish the game"

‘He had tears in his eyes’: On the night Mario Lemieux’s back stopped him from catching Wayne Gretzky

On the night Mario Lemieux couldn't play through the pain any longer.

theathletic.com

"Sometimes he’d even miss the first five minutes of the game."

"He had played sparingly in some games leading up to that night in New York, the pain limiting him to power play work and occasional shifts. By February, he was noticeably limited on the ice."

"His only shifts that period were a 54-second shift to start the period and then two power plays. During a break in action midway through the second period, he skated to the Penguins’ locker room and never returned."

Injury Ends Lemieux's Streak - UPI Archives

Pittsburgh Penguins center Mario Lemieux, succumbing to the pain of his herniated back, failed to collect a point for the first time in 3 months and was...

www.upi.com

"It's a continuous deterioration of his back injury,' Thayer said during the third period. 'He was just so sore today. He's uncomfortable to the point that he's not mobile."

Btw that Huberdeau fellow you'd like to so easily dismiss was actually ahead of McDavid in scoring after game 75 with less than 2-weeks to go in the season nevermind tied at game 51 and he was the one who actually caught up to McDavid, before Connor finally pulled ahead again at the very end. Very different from Lemieux catching up to and blowing past Gretzky in '90 before being shut down
NHL Stats


In 1989 Lemieux had a horrible start to the season thanks to a nagging injury and also playing under a completely incompetent coach, Gene Ubriaco. Sound familiar? I would think anyone who's an Oilers fan would know a thing or two about having a poor start because a similar scenario just played itself out right before our very eyes this year. Not being an Oilers fan I don't know what the problem with Woodcroft was but I can tell you about Ubriaco. This joke of a coach was - "constantly shuffling his lines and no apparent system for playing positions". How many times have we ever heard players offering that level of damning of criticism of a coach?? It's a complete embarrassment to be described as such and it's little wonder that ol' Genie would never coach again in the NHL after being fired by the Pens.

Lemieux was so far behind the 8-ball at the start of that season compared to his normal pace that the only year in which he had a worse pace was his rookie campaign:

This is NOT like Lemieux. If there's one thing did better than literally anyone in NHL history, including Gretzky, it's starting off a season hot. It's thanks to that start that Lemieux sat in 8th place, 7 behind the leader(in less games through) by the end of October;

Which is actually a lot better than it looked for McDavid this year who found himself tied for 37th, 9 points behind the leader. After October until the end of his season, Lemieux completely dominated over all players, Gretzky included;

After his late winter mini-slump that lasted 9 games or so, Wayne had 34 points in 15 games into the latter part of March when he got injured with a pretty severe back injury. If he had maintained that scoring level for the final 8 complete games (which is extremely likely, as it was below his career average), he'd have finished the season with 159 points. Lemieux paced for 167 overall, and he only reaches that 'pace' after a 23 points-in-9 games push before his back seized up, which means his per-game average is likely overstated by projecting him to 167 points. But even so, we're looking at, if both players were healthy, Lemieux scoring around 165-170 points (minus player) and Gretzky 160 (plus player).

Wow... that's one heck of a false equivalency. So let me get this straight, when Lemieux scores at a pace faster than his season average before his season concludes, it's dismissed as an unsustainable hot streak, but when Gretzky does the same... it's considered business as usual?
I have nothing more to say about that analysis.

Furthermore their respective injuries are hardly comparable. Was Gretzky's back injury so severe that it retroactively affected his performance leading up to it? Unlike Gretzky, Lemieux battled a chronic condition all season long that consistently hindered his performance, and yet he still managed to well outpace Gretzky once he hit his stride.

Also using plus minus is a near meaningless metric as a determining factor for anything. We've been through this before Panther;
Was there a time in their careers when Mario was better than Wayne?
Nearly ALL of Lemieux's minus that season was from short-handed goals scored against while he was on the powerplay. Maybe Lemieux's defense while on the man advantage was indeed poor that year, not like it's a team-wide metric or anything, but go ahead and make that argument. It still has little to do with how well he did or didn't tilt the ice at even strength which is what you're implying.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

20 years of healthy mario takes us right up to the 2005 lockout. but assuming jagr sticks around because mario is there and assuming that pittsburgh still has the money issues and the league is inclined to keep them alive to avoid non-usa-to-can relocation at all costs, wouldn’t it be something if old mario stuck around post-lockout to kick it with still prime jagr and rookie crosby?

otoh, the bourque pick was LA’s. boston got it in a trade for ron grahame. so orr, older park, and young bourque also is a definite possibility. i just don’t see how you could beat a top four of orr-mccrimmon, park-bourque.

 

[Stephen]

Not sure how literally you want to take the comparisons, but the problem with taking the Lemieux timeline is the Penguins financial problems in the late 90s and early 2000s, stripping his supporting cast, so other real world constraints would enter into the whole dynamic...

 

[The Panther]

What does scoring at the end of October have anything to do with anything???

End of October... end of November... and end of December; i.e., about halfway through the season with Gretzky in the scoring lead. (Lemieux took over in mid-January, went out with injury in February.) In sum, while they were head to head, Gretzky led Lemieux (and the NHL) in scoring in 1989-90 for about 50% of the season, Mario for about 20% of the season.

In case you forgot what we're arguing about, it's your assertion that Gretzky & Lemieux were NOT equal in 1989-90 and 1990-91.

So, again, the simple facts (sorry to other posters who are growing tired of this), since by your own admission you don't get what I'm saying:
-- October, November, December 1989 = Gretzky leads Lemieux in scoring
-- January, February 1990 = Lemieux takes over the scoring lead
-- In the end, the two players have similar PPG, but a lead for Lemieux (2.08 to 1.95).
-- In 1990-91 Lemieux barely plays, but Gretzky has his best LA season and rates a notably higher PPG than Lemieux (2.09 to 1.73) , while winning his second straight Art Ross.
-- Overall, in 1989-90 and 1990-91 combined, Gretzky has a superior PPG to Lemieux (and a superior plus/minus).

From this, your conclusion is that Lemieux is clearly the superior player, as you continually double down on. Which is absurd, based on any objective statistical / historical analysis.

The purpose of my entering this thread in the first place was to counter an opinion expressed by another poster (not you) that Lemieux, if healthy, would have won every scoring title from 1987 to 2004 (or something), which I have argued was extremely wishful thinking and probably highly unrealistic. An opinion I have not changed.

In 1989 Lemieux had a horrible start to the season thanks to a nagging injury and also playing under a completely incompetent coach, Gene Ubriaco. Sound familiar? I would think anyone who's an Oilers fan would know a thing or two about having a poor start because a similar scenario just played itself out right before our very eyes this year. Not being an Oilers fan I don't know what the problem with Woodcroft was but I can tell you about Ubriaco. This joke of a coach was - "constantly shuffling his lines and no apparent system for playing positions".

Lemieux may indeed have had a nagging injury, but are you now arguing that his excuse for dropping from 70 points in the first 26 games in 1988-89 to 51 points in the first 26 games of 1989-90 was... the exact same head coach as the year before when he had his career season?

 

[MadLuke]

A lot of the what if change, do they win the Crosby lottery with their different ranking (even if they end up last....), do the Jagr-Lemieux penguins win more, get more playoff revenues, (even regular season tickets and tv) and get less into money trouble, do they take some reasonable contract and-or team ownership if the money problem arrive, etc...

Never reached the finals post 1992, missed the playoff in 02-03-04, things can be vastly different with Mario, hard to imagine Constantine and d oriented coaching happening much.

70s-80s hockey with Orr Bruins could be quite the different affair has well.

One thing with the healthy Mario scenario, the cups until Avalange-Wings-Dallas-Devils really start up can be open.

Healthy Mario with that 93 squads, win it all ? what about 1990 and 1994 and 95 ?

 

[TheStatican]

In case you forgot what we're arguing about, it's your assertion that Gretzky & Lemieux were NOT equal in 1989-90 and 1990-91.

My last post was responding to your claim that they we even in 1989-90.

	GPG	PPG
Lemieux	0.76	2.08
Gretzky	0.55	1.95
Advantage for Lemieux by:	+38%	+7%

When you consider goal scoring, that is not "even". It's not a massive edge, and never did I say that it was, but it is a very clear edge. As for the two year time period of 1989-90 and 1990-91, the edge is indeed more narrower than it is in 89-90 alone, as the numbers show;

Gretzky	Gm	G	A	Pt	GPG	PPG
Gretzky	170	89	241	330	0.52	1.94
Lemieux	108	80	132	212	0.74	1.96

Point per game scoring is even, though Lemieux still has the significant edge in goal scoring. I know that according to you, when it's Jagr and Lemieux we're comparing the difference in goal scoring should matter, but when it's Gretzky and Lemieux it shouldn't, but that of course is illogical.

Lemieux may indeed have had a nagging injury, but are you now arguing that his excuse for dropping from 70 points in the first 26 games in 1988-89 to 51 points in the first 26 games of 1989-90 was... the exactly same head coach as the year before when he had his career season?

Intriguing how McDavid was able to score 27 points in his initial 13 games under Woodcroft last season, only to follow it up with 13 points in 13 games under the same coach this season. It's almost like something changed! As I said I don't know what happened with Woodcraft, nor do I care to know, but I do know what happened with Ubriaco and something did in fact change between the two years.

Lemieux didn't have the best of linemates in 88-89, but they were at least consistent. Ubriaco changed his approach in 89-90 and started mucking about with the lines apparently in an effort to reassert his control over the team as he felt he had given them too much leeway in 88-89. It it might of made actual sense if he tried Lemieux with Recchi or Stevens, but the moron instead threw him out there more often with the likes of Randy Gilhen Andrew McBain and Jock Callander(!) to begin the season.

Also did you miss the whole injured back part? Because it seems like you did.
Lemieux was never going to score at a near 3 point a game pace in '89 with his back as f***ed up as it was. But neither would he have scored at a sub 2 pace without Ubriaco's irrational early season lineup decisions. Once Lemieux was paired up more constantly with better linemates his scoring rate was comfortably over 2 per game.

End of October... end of November... and end of December; i.e., about halfway through the season with Gretzky in the scoring lead. (Lemieux took over in mid-January, went out with injury in February.) In sum, while they were head to head, Gretzky led Lemieux (and the NHL) in scoring in 1989-90 for about 50% of the season, Mario for about 20% of the season.

This has got to be the most irrelevant stat I've ever heard of.

It's akin to awarding the Art Ross based on who was leading the league in points for a longer period of time. Following this line of thought, if for instance, Kucherov were to finish third in scoring by this season's end, as his current pace after tonight has him finishing, according to your reasoning he should still be deemed as being equally proficient as those who have surpassed him even if they finished 10 or more points ahead of him solely because he held the top position in scoring for the longest portion of the year. This consideration, which has never been considered to be noteworthy, prompts the question: Why are you attempting to suddenly elevate something that has been historically irrelevant, to relevance?

Up to just before the Rags game where he played maybe a one periods worth of ice time in, this is how the compared to each other:

Lemieux was ahead by 14 points and 15 goals in the exact same number of games. The above point totals encompass the cumulative value of ALL preceding events, rendering Gretzky's leading position at the end of October, November, and December as relatively insignificant in the overall context. Gretzky's initial lead was entirely due to the events of a single month: October. Lemieux, on the other hand, outscored Gretzky in November, December, January, and February, when they were both actively competing, establishing his dominance in four out of the five months.

Once again, what you're suggesting is that Kucherov should be considered as being more productive than McDavid this season solely because he's been leading the scoring race for about 90-95% of the year! - And the other 5-10% MacKinnon has lead, not McDavid. And no, for the most part that hasn't been just due to either of them having playing more games than McDavid, as they both were ahead in points per game until very recently. Clearly, this distinction of monthly leadership is completely inconsequential, especially when longer sample sizes are available for comparison. Attributing any substantial value to monthly leadership is irrational in the face of that.

 

[The Panther]

My last post was responding to your claim that they we even in 1989-90.

	GPG	PPG
Lemieux	0.76	2.08
Gretzky	0.55	1.95
Advantage for Lemieux by:	+38%	+7%

When you consider goal scoring, that is not "even". It's not a massive edge, and never did I say that it was, but it is a very clear edge. As for the two year time period of 1989-90 and 1990-91, the edge is indeed more narrower than it is in 89-90 alone, as the numbers show;

Gretzky	Gm	G	A	Pt	GPG	PPG
Gretzky	170	89	241	330	0.52	1.94
Lemieux	108	80	132	212	0.74	1.96

Point per game scoring is even, though Lemieux still has the significant edge in goal scoring. I know that according to you, when it's Jagr and Lemieux we're comparing the difference in goal scoring should matter, but when it's Gretzky and Lemieux it shouldn't, but that of course is illogical.


Intriguing how McDavid was able to score 27 points in his initial 13 games under Woodcroft last season, only to follow it up with 13 points in 13 games under the same coach this season. It's almost like something changed! As I said I don't know what happened with Woodcraft, nor do I care to know, but I do know what happened with Ubriaco and something did in fact change between the two years.

Lemieux didn't have the best of linemates in 88-89, but they were at least consistent. Ubriaco changed his approach in 89-90 and started mucking about with the lines apparently in an effort to reassert his control over the team as he felt he had given them too much leeway in 88-89. It it might of made actual sense if he tried Lemieux with Recchi or Stevens, but the moron instead threw him out there more often with the likes of Randy Gilhen Andrew McBain and Jock Callander(!) to begin the season.

Also did you miss the whole injured back part? Because it seems like you did.
Lemieux was never going to score at a near 3 point a game pace in '89 with his back as f***ed up as it was. But neither would he have scored at a sub 2 pace without Ubriaco's irrational early season lineup decisions. Once Lemieux was paired up more constantly with better linemates his scoring rate was comfortably over 2 per game.


This has got to be the most irrelevant stat I've ever heard of.

It's akin to awarding the Art Ross based on who was leading the league in points for a longer period of time. Following this line of thought, if for instance, Kucherov were to finish third in scoring by this season's end, as his current pace after tonight has him finishing, according to your reasoning he should still be deemed as being equally proficient as those who have surpassed him even if they finished 10 or more points ahead of him solely because he held the top position in scoring for the longest portion of the year. This consideration, which has never been considered to be noteworthy, prompts the question: Why are you attempting to suddenly elevate something that has been historically irrelevant, to relevance?

Up to just before the Rags game where he played maybe a one periods worth of ice time in, this is how the compared to each other:
View attachment 831029

Lemieux was ahead by 14 points and 15 goals in the exact same number of games. The above point totals encompass the cumulative value of ALL preceding events, rendering Gretzky's leading position at the end of October, November, and December as relatively insignificant in the overall context. Gretzky's initial lead was entirely due to the events of a single month: October. Lemieux, on the other hand, outscored Gretzky in November, December, January, and February, when they were both actively competing, establishing his dominance in four out of the five months.

Once again, what you're suggesting is that Kucherov should be considered as being more productive than McDavid this season solely because he's been leading the scoring race for about 90-95% of the year! - And the other 5-10% MacKinnon has lead, not McDavid. And no, for the most part that hasn't been just due to either of them having playing more games than McDavid, as they both were ahead in points per game until very recently. Clearly, this distinction of monthly leadership is completely inconsequential, especially when longer sample sizes are available for comparison. Attributing any substantial value to monthly leadership is irrational in the face of that.

Okay, I apologize again to the forum for continuing with this insane line of discussion. I thought I was done with this two posts ago, but as @TheStatican keeps making nutty and wild assertions about my posts, I'm obliged to keep responding.

I'll keep this short, and then I'll be done with this point of discussion (Lemieux and Gretzky) in this thread, I promise:

-- You have suddenly added in playoff point totals to regular season point totals in 1989-90 and 1990-91 to attempt to make Lemieux look better on a per-game basis. All my analysis preceding is based on regular seasons (you know this, but are pretending otherwise). In those two seasons combined, Gretzky had a higher PPG than Lemieux. I know you don't want to admit this, but nothing is going to change it, so just accept it, please.

-- Adding to the above, you said: "Once Lemieux was paired up more constantly with better linemates his scoring rate was comfortably over 2 per game." Yes, he managed about 30 games (of 80) at over 2.00 PPG. Meanwhile, 46-47 games into the season (at the All Star break), Gretzky was at 2.09 PPG and Lemieux at 2.00 PPG.

-- Nowhere did I state or suggest that Gretzky (or anyone) should be rewarded or awarded an Art Ross for leading the League in scoring part-way through the season, so you can give up that straw-man. The point I'm making (which you, again, pretend to keep missing) is that Gretzky and Lemieux were equal in the mid-1989 to mid-1991 time period. The fact that Gretzky led the NHL in scoring through the first half of 1989-90 is important because it refutes the revisionist idea that Mario Lemieux had somehow "taken the crown" in undisputed fashion during 1988-89. As I've also shown, if both players had played 80 games, it's probable-but-far-from-certain that Lemieux would have won the Art Ross. Even if he had done so, it would have been with a very small margin. Which supports my thesis (they were equal) and counters yours. Then, Gretzky was clearly better than Lemieux in the 1990-91 regular season by a large margin, based on the games Lemieux actually played.

-- I have no idea why the hell you keep bringing up Connor McDavid. You've mentioned him about 18 times in this discussion. It's irrelevant.


Okay! I'm done with the back-and-forth's with @TheStatican , and we can get back to "Orr or Lemieux"!! (Forum takes a deep sigh of relief...) I'm sure my sparring partner will get in the last word, probably with some very impressive graphs, so I'll leave that to him...

 

[klefbombs shoulder]

As for the two year time period of 1989-90 and 1990-91, the edge is indeed more narrower than it is in 89-90 alone, as the numbers show;

Gretzky	Gm	G	A	Pt	GPG	PPG
Gretzky	170	89	241	330	0.52	1.94
Lemieux	108	80	132	212	0.74	1.96

Where exactly are you getting these numbers? Gretzky had an edge on Lemieux in PPG for this two year stretch:

 

[Midnight Judges]

Lots of imaginations running wild here.

 

[klefbombs shoulder]

Lots of imaginations running wild here.

Definitely very optimistic guesses. Orr winning 12 straight norris trophies, Lemieux winning 17 straight art ross...

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Definitely very optimistic guesses. Orr winning 12 straight norris trophies, Lemieux winning 17 straight art ross...

Is it though?

Orr won 8 straight and his final real season was his 2nd best statistically at 46-89-135, +80 and at age 26. Is it that crazy to say he wins 4 more from ages 27 to 30? It's literally the middle of his prime

 

[klefbombs shoulder]

Is it though?

Orr won 8 straight and his final real season was his 2nd best statistically at 46-89-135, +80 and at age 26. Is it that crazy to say he wins 4 more from ages 27 to 30? It's literally the middle of his prime

I would say your initial scenario is very optimistic yes.

In this scenario you're looking at:

12-15 Norris trophies
4-5 Harts
3 or 4 Cups (at a minimum they win in 79)
4-6 Ross trophies
1,700-1,900 points

Especially him somehow winning 2-4 more art ross trophies and 1-2 more harts and 800-1000 more points when past his prime.

 

[Crosby2010]

Wow, what a luxury to choose. If I recall 1989 was around the time Lemieux's back flared up. Obviously he was still dominant because he was great afterwards, but it is scary to think that he could have been even better and more unstoppable. I think he was the best player in 1997, just like Orr was the best player in 1975, his last great year. But like Lemieux, how much of a gap was there at that time? Orr is the best in 1975 and I'd say the best in the 1976 Canada Cup, but he has others that are getting close to him. Clarke, Lafleur, Perreault, Dionne, Potvin, Robinson come to mind. Trottier and Bossy aren't far off and Gretzky enters the league in the fall of 1979. The question is when does Orr lose his crown if not as the best player but also the best defenseman? I think they give the Habs a lot more fits in the 1970s and even against the Isles in the 1980s. Maybe Boston beats them in 1980 and 1983. Orr and Park is just mouth watering to think about.

As for Mario, I think he is the best player in 1997. But it is narrowing. Jagr, Lindros, Kariya, Forsberg, etc. are closer than even a year earlier. Can he keep winning the scoring title? I think he wins in 1998 because 102 points for Jagr was tops that year. But when Jagr hits that extra stride in 1999 and 2000 I am not sure. Eventually age has to catch up to even Lemieux. But even during his comeback there were certainly moments where you might have figured Lemieux was the best player in the NHL. 2001 comes to mind perhaps, 2003 he had such a hot start to the season it was almost embarrassing for everyone else. Even how he played in the 2002 Olympics and 2004 World Cup. If you take a guy like Sakic over him at this point then that's fine, but man, Mario still makes everyone better just by being on the ice. He was still very good in 2004.

You might take Orr on this one, simply because Mario played more and we saw more of him where as there is more of a "what if" with Orr than Mario. For example how many Norrises does he win? Those big years Potvin and Robinson have does Orr surpass them or does voter fatigue set in?

 

[TheStatican]

I'm obliged to keep responding.

And I'll continue to press you until you explain your contradictory arguments. Did you or did you not post the following quote about Jagr in regards to the 96-97 season, or perhaps your account was hacked?

a better goal scorer per game than Lemieux

You are asserting here that Jagr should be considered superior to Lemieux based on him being the better per-game goal scorer that season. And yet you continue to complete avoid this factor in regards to Lemieux and Gretzky where the difference in their goal scoring was even more dramatic.

-- You have suddenly added in playoff point totals to regular season point totals in 1989-90 and 1990-91 to attempt to make Lemieux look better on a per-game basis. All my analysis preceding is based on regular seasons (you know this, but are pretending otherwise). In those two seasons combined, Gretzky had a higher PPG than Lemieux.

It's illogical to draw meaningful conclusions from a 26-game sample size. While many understand the limited value of such small samples, it seems you do not. Anyone attempting to use Crosby's 22-game sample from 2011-2012 as a projection for a full season has been widely criticized and rightfully so. Most of us recognize the limited value of such small sample sizes, particularly when they deviate significantly from a player's usual performance, as Crosby's 11-12 season did. Yet, here you are attempting to do the same with Lemieux's 26-game sample from 1990-1991, which likewise deviates significantly from his norm. When it is known that players regress to the mean in larger sample sizes regardless of whether the deviation was positive or negative. We do in fact possess a more substantial dataset for that season - Lemieux's 23-game playoff run, which commenced just three days after the regular season ended. Typically, playoff runs constitute a much smaller fraction of a player's season, but in this instance, it represents nearly half the sample size. Put simply, a 49-game sample size provides a far better insight into a player's performance compared to a sample size half as long.

-- Adding to the above, you said: "Once Lemieux was paired up more constantly with better linemates his scoring rate was comfortably over 2 per game." Yes, he managed about 30 games (of 80) at over 2.00 PPG. Meanwhile, 46-47 games into the season (at the All Star break), Gretzky was at 2.09 PPG and Lemieux at 2.00 PPG.

What's with the blatantly lies? Did you forget the data exists to disprove your assertions?
Lemieux was comfortably over 2 per game after his linemate situation stabilized for more than half a season

-- Nowhere did I state or suggest that Gretzky (or anyone) should be rewarded or awarded an Art Ross for leading the League in scoring part-way through the season, so you can give up that straw-man. The point I'm making (which you, again, pretend to keep missing) is that Gretzky and Lemieux were equal in the mid-1989 to mid-1991 time period. The fact that Gretzky led the NHL in scoring through the first half of 1989-90 is important because it refutes the revisionist idea that Mario Lemieux had somehow "taken the crown" in undisputed fashion during 1988-89.

Your "thesis" ignores goal scoring rates, but only when it isn't convenient to you. And your usage of smaller sample sizes than available is a deliberate attempt to shift the goalposts, as the larger and more meaningful sample size counters your argument of equivalency.

Then, Gretzky was clearly better than Lemieux in the 1990-91 regular season by a large margin, based on the games Lemieux actually played.

-- I have no idea why the hell you keep bringing up Connor McDavid. You've mentioned him about 18 times in this discussion. It's irrelevant.

It's entirely relevant because the exact same scenario has played out this season and yet you refuse to provide an answer because it completely contradicts your argument.

Kucherov has been leading the scoring race for most of the season, does that fact alone have any baring as to whether or not his season has been better than McDavid's? YES or NO. It's simple question, but we all know why you refuse to answer it.

 

[TheStatican]

Where exactly are you getting these numbers?

It includes playoffs. Exactly how much utility does a 26-game regular season provide towards this discussion? As previously noted, Crosby's 22-game 11-12 season is widely recognized as possessing restricted utility due to its diminutive sample size and marked deviation from the expected performance norms. Similarly, the exact same limitations apply to Lemieux's 90-91 regular season. Although certain individuals may argue otherwise, citing the negative deviation from the norm as a point of contention, such distinctions are irrelevant in the context of statistical regression towards the mean. Furthermore, Lemieux's 90-91 season offers another immensely significant dataset derived from an extended playoff run which nearly doubles the length of the original sample. This provides a more comprehensive and statistically robust dataset for analysis which ultimately allows for a more valid estimation of what his performance would be like over the course of a full season.

 

[MadLuke]

Especially him somehow winning 2-4 more art ross trophies and 1-2 more harts and 800-1000 more points when past his prime.

When past his prime would start here ? 1982 ? 1984 ? I would imagine the predicted Art Ross would all be before the end of his prime, if you are not Gretzky-Lemieux you do not win an Art Ross past your prime, obviously not while playing defense.

 

[WingsFan95]

Not sure how literally you want to take the comparisons, but the problem with taking the Lemieux timeline is the Penguins financial problems in the late 90s and early 2000s, stripping his supporting cast, so other real world constraints would enter into the whole dynamic...

I think the idea is the Pens are at least farther away from bankruptcy if Lemieux is healthy and doesn't retire the first time. I tend to agree especially with the Eastern Conference those days. Devils, Panthers, Flyers, Caps?

 

[wetcoast]

I would say your initial scenario is very optimistic yes.


Especially him somehow winning 2-4 more art ross trophies and 1-2 more harts and 800-1000 more points when past his prime.

For points I think you are skipping over stuff like the healthy part.

Here are the additional points he would have assuming he plays full season his first 9 years


66-67 6 more
67-68 19 more
68-69 8 more
69-70 none
70-71 none
71-72 3 more
72-73 24 more
73-74 4 more
74-75 none

that's an extra 64 points right there and while he didn't start the 75-76 season he was dominant in the 10 game stretch he did play in early November and very well could have surpassed Lafleur for the Art Ross

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

furthermore this is all after Phil Esposito gets traded to the NYR but sure Park is there in Boston but they aren't playing together as even strength.

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

I can see a potential Hart trophy and art ross this season as well, if 100% healthy.

But let's only do the first 9 years and skip over this one which is pro rated at 144 points.

Orr has 934 points in his first 9 seasons based on 100% healthy scoring rates for each season.

Maybe he doesn't get 144 points if he plays all year in 75-76 but he is getting well over 100 and probably for the rest of the decade as well then the high scoring 80s begin.

So while additional Art Ross trophies might be exaggerated Orr hitting 800-1000 more points if healthy over 20 full season is probably conservative really.

I'm not sure if Orr plays 9 more games in his rookie season if he wins the Norris but Howell won it so maybe he does.

 

[wetcoast]

I would say your initial scenario is very optimistic yes.


Especially him somehow winning 2-4 more art ross trophies and 1-2 more harts and 800-1000 more points when past his prime.

The Art Ross trophies are optomistic yes but 12-15 Norris probably not as had he played in the full season his rookie year he very well might have won and almost certainly in 75-76 given how good he was when he did play and in 76-77 with a really crappy Black Hawks team for 20 games and already suffering from his injuries.

Potvin won the Norris in 75-76 but a full season Orr wins it hands down.

76-77 Larry Robinson wins it but Orr has more pro rated points on the Black Hawks and Orr's ESGF/ESGA of 22-16 on a team with a combined -288 including Orr suggests that even post peak knees shot Orr was a formidable force.

12-15 Norris trophies could have been possible assuming full health.

 

[tinyzombies]

In 1989-90 and 1990-91 combined, Gretzky outscored Lemieux.

However, from mid-1991 to spring 1996, Lemieux was indisputably the best player in the world (5 years).

Was Lemieux the best player in 1996-97? Probably, but by now Jagr is a better goal-scorer, is beating Lemieux in ES scoring, and is matching him in point production.

I guess if both were playing, Jagr replaces Lemieux as the league's best player from 1997-98. (Head to head in 2000-01, Jagr outscored Lemieux.)

Lemieux was not the best player in 2001-02.

The answer to the thread question is, of course, it depends on what your team needs.

After Suter crosschecked him... that happened right in front of me... he probably should have gotten jailtime for that, and I'm not kidding.

 

[Gorskyontario]

Okay! I'm done with the back-and-forth's with @TheStatican , and we can get back to "Orr or Lemieux"!! (Forum takes a deep sigh of relief...) I'm sure my sparring partner will get in the last word, probably with some very impressive graphs, so I'll leave that to him...

This thread is about a hypothetical scenario where Mario Lemieux is healthy for 20 seasons. Literally nobody on here understands what your point is when you keep going on about his scoring rates in injury plagued seasons in relation to healthy Gretzky seasons.

Please, explain what on earth is the point you are trying to make?

 

[bobholly39]

This thread is about a hypothetical scenario where Mario Lemieux is healthy for 20 seasons. Literally nobody on here understands what your point is when you keep going on about his scoring rates in injury plagued seasons in relation to healthy Gretzky seasons.

Please, explain what on earth is the point you are trying to make?

That's like the 7th time he's called out on this. He simply won't respond.

 

[bobholly39]

Wow, what a luxury to choose. If I recall 1989 was around the time Lemieux's back flared up. Obviously he was still dominant because he was great afterwards, but it is scary to think that he could have been even better and more unstoppable. I think he was the best player in 1997, just like Orr was the best player in 1975, his last great year. But like Lemieux, how much of a gap was there at that time? Orr is the best in 1975 and I'd say the best in the 1976 Canada Cup, but he has others that are getting close to him. Clarke, Lafleur, Perreault, Dionne, Potvin, Robinson come to mind. Trottier and Bossy aren't far off and Gretzky enters the league in the fall of 1979. The question is when does Orr lose his crown if not as the best player but also the best defenseman? I think they give the Habs a lot more fits in the 1970s and even against the Isles in the 1980s. Maybe Boston beats them in 1980 and 1983. Orr and Park is just mouth watering to think about.

As for Mario, I think he is the best player in 1997. But it is narrowing. Jagr, Lindros, Kariya, Forsberg, etc. are closer than even a year earlier. Can he keep winning the scoring title? I think he wins in 1998 because 102 points for Jagr was tops that year. But when Jagr hits that extra stride in 1999 and 2000 I am not sure. Eventually age has to catch up to even Lemieux. But even during his comeback there were certainly moments where you might have figured Lemieux was the best player in the NHL. 2001 comes to mind perhaps, 2003 he had such a hot start to the season it was almost embarrassing for everyone else. Even how he played in the 2002 Olympics and 2004 World Cup. If you take a guy like Sakic over him at this point then that's fine, but man, Mario still makes everyone better just by being on the ice. He was still very good in 2004.

You might take Orr on this one, simply because Mario played more and we saw more of him where as there is more of a "what if" with Orr than Mario. For example how many Norrises does he win? Those big years Potvin and Robinson have does Orr surpass them or does voter fatigue set in?

I've made a few posts in this thread so far about Mario vs Jagr projections - but it's really hard, because everything changes.

Mario Lemieux 100% can and almost surely would have scored more than 102 points in 1997-1998 if he played. I think that's the easy part. What's harder is....how much does Jagr score if Lemieux is playing? Jagr's own totals would rise from 102 right? And to how much?
And does Jagr still get injured in 2000? Still start slow in 2001?

The Jagr vs Lemieux hypotheticals for Art Rosses in late 90s is all guess work. It could go any which way, from either one of the two players winning all Art Rosses to them splitting them in half.

And also - even after 2001 season. Does Jagr still get traded, and still have down years in 2002 and 2003, in a world where Lemieux never gets injured/misses time? Jagr himself could still be in Pittsburgh having extra "peak" years and winning Rosses in 2002 and 2003 under these circumstances (or - helping Lemieux add more Art Rosses).

To me - the certain years are 1988 to 1997. Lemieux wins all of those Art Rosses if he's healthy (tiny chance he falls short to Gretzky in 1991, since 163 points is a lot - but I doubt it, I think healthy Lemieux blows past that). Outside of 1991 - Lemieux can play at barely ~80% of his best any year and still win easily.

Mario Lemieux could hypothetically win 0 more Art Rosses from 98 to 2003 (6 years), or up to all 6 art rosses. It's probably most likely he wins some, but who knows how many.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

The Art Ross trophies are optomistic yes but 12-15 Norris probably not as had he played in the full season his rookie year he very well might have won and almost certainly in 75-76 given how good he was when he did play and in 76-77 with a really crappy Black Hawks team for 20 games and already suffering from his injuries.

Potvin won the Norris in 75-76 but a full season Orr wins it hands down.

76-77 Larry Robinson wins it but Orr has more pro rated points on the Black Hawks and Orr's ESGF/ESGA of 22-16 on a team with a combined -288 including Orr suggests that even post peak knees shot Orr was a formidable force.

12-15 Norris trophies could have been possible assuming full health.

For the Ross trophies.

He no doubt wins it in 76 if healthy, his 135 in 75 were 10 more than Lafleur's 125 in 76. The Ross winners from Orr in 75 to the start of Gretzky were 125, 136, 132, 134, 137. Giving a healthy Orr 2 of those isnt a stretch.

Also in this scenario Orr stays in Boston. A 100% healthy Orr doesn't leave, regardless of the tricks Eagleson pulled, the Bruins would move Heaven and Earth to keep him

 

[Cursed Lemon]

Orr retired at the age where some defensemen blossom into their best forms. Hard to argue with that.