This one gave me a laugh

[Hardyvan123]

Far, far too many unfounded and unprovable assumptions on your part and many of them simply don't fit with what we knew of Gretzky and Lemieux.

At the heart of it, you are pretty much saying there is no possible way they could of maintained their almost inhuman production while adapting to the changes in the game and once again the actual evidence supports the extreme opposite.

What actual evidence are you talking about?

And just because I can;t give you an exact amount on how the changes would have affected Wayne and Mario, we are just going to assume that they would dominate like they did in the 80's in Wayne's case and the late 80's (which were Mario's peak) and to a lesser extent the mid 90's where his best season of dominance would be 93 but ya he missed 20 games so maybe it's another season depending on the criteria.

In both cases Wayne and Mario hit their peak seasons before the average player or superstar does (Mario at 23 and some of his lesser stats are due to injuries no doubt)(Wayne's peak is at 25 and drops slightly then has a gradual decline to normal superstar stat wise after the age of 30) and it indicates that scoring was going down both for them and as a league in general, which ironically has continued till today (which you seem to ignore or pass over).

Some have indicated in other posts that Wayne would score 160-170 points in today's NHL.

Where exactly would that happen?

Lets be generous and put Wayne on the best scoring team in the 2000's (Washington last year with 318 goals).

Maybe Washington scores more with Wayne at his peak, maybe not in today's game (Washington is on pace for a mere 246 goals this season so maybe this season he could have bumped it up some, they do need another top 6 center))

His highest scoring rate was just over 50% of his team's totals in Edmonton in the 80's which works out to a shade under 160 points.

That's assuming he could work his magic at the same rate in today's NHL. AO on that team scored at a 34% rate.

Maybe Wayne could do it in the perfect season but on a regular basis is highly doubtful. Empty net points are hard to come by, teams get shutout more often and most players are asked to play a more complete team game rather than the one dimensional one that Wayne played.

BTW Sid got a point tonight and his streak is at 25 for what it is worth.

 

[Rhiessan71]

What actual evidence are you talking about?

Mario himself proves it, Jagr proves it, Yzerman proves it, Sakic proves it, Bourque proves it!
How many more names do you need to make the era comparisons easier for you?

And just because I can;t give you an exact amount on how the changes would have affected Wayne and Mario, we are just going to assume that they would dominate like they did in the 80's in Wayne's case and the late 80's (which were Mario's peak) and to a lesser extent the mid 90's where his best season of dominance would be 93 but ya he missed 20 games so maybe it's another season depending on the criteria.

In both cases Wayne and Mario hit their peak seasons before the average player or superstar does (Mario at 23 and some of his lesser stats are due to injuries no doubt)(Wayne's peak is at 25 and drops slightly then has a gradual decline to normal superstar stat wise after the age of 30) and it indicates that scoring was going down both for them and as a league in general, which ironically has continued till today (which you seem to ignore or pass over).

Some have indicated in other posts that Wayne would score 160-170 points in today's NHL.

Where exactly would that happen?

Lets be generous and put Wayne on the best scoring team in the 2000's (Washington last year with 318 goals).

Maybe Washington scores more with Wayne at his peak, maybe not in today's game (Washington is on pace for a mere 246 goals this season so maybe this season he could have bumped it up some, they do need another top 6 center))

His highest scoring rate was just over 50% of his team's totals in Edmonton in the 80's which works out to a shade under 160 points.

That's assuming he could work his magic at the same rate in today's NHL. AO on that team scored at a 34% rate.

Maybe Wayne could do it in the perfect season but on a regular basis is highly doubtful. Empty net points are hard to come by, teams get shutout more often and most players are asked to play a more complete team game rather than the one dimensional one that Wayne played.

This is the whole point isn't it.
You have absolutely no proof of anything past the drop in league scoring and no one is even arguing that.

It is funny you like mentioning this so often yet forget that in 95/96 when scoring was only slightly higher than Crosby's first season in 05/06, 6.29 to 6.05 and a hell of a long way from the almost 8.00 goals a game during Gretzky's 200+ point seasons.
That Mario managed 161 points in just 70 games, an almost 190 point pace.
That is almost 40 points ahead of the pace set by second place Jagr and almost 70 ahead of the third place pace of Sakic.
Should also note some of the other top 10 finishers included Lindros, Forsberg, Fedorov, Selanne and Kariya so you can keep your "weak competition" crap at the door if you don't mind

As far as your "math" goes....Gretzky's Oilers were out scoring every other team in the league by at least 15% and blowing away the league average by 35-40% and more.
Once again you come up with a flawed solution due to inaccurate or lacking imput.

BTW Sid got a point tonight and his streak is at 25 for what it is worth.

It was a goal actually and came with less than 4 minutes left.
Amazing to keep it going for sure.

 

[lextune]

What actual evidence are you talking about?

Mario himself proves it, Jagr proves it, Yzerman proves it, Sakic proves it, Bourque proves it!
How many more names do you need to make the era comparisons easier for you?

Exactly....but you left out Gretzky himself!

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Mario himself proves it, Jagr proves it, Yzerman proves it, Sakic proves it, Bourque proves it!
How many more names do you need to make the era comparisons easier for you?


This is the whole point isn't it.
You have absolutely no proof of anything past the drop in league scoring and no one is even arguing that.

It is funny you like mentioning this so often yet forget that in 95/96 when scoring was only slightly higher than Crosby's first season in 05/06, 6.29 to 6.05 and a hell of a long way from the almost 8.00 goals a game during Gretzky's 200+ point seasons.
That Mario managed 161 points in just 70 games, an almost 190 point pace.
That is almost 40 points ahead of the pace set by second place Jagr and almost 70 ahead of the third place pace of Sakic.
Should also note some of the other top 10 finishers included Lindros, Forsberg, Fedorov, Selanne and Kariya so you can keep your "weak competition" crap at the door if you don't mind

As far as your "math" goes....Gretzky's Oilers were out scoring every other team in the league by at least 15% and blowing away the league average by 35-40% and more.
Once again you come up with a flawed solution due to inaccurate or lacking imput.



It was a goal actually and came with less than 4 minutes left.
Amazing to keep it going for sure.

They didn't prove anything. All the points Hardyvan123 has brought up surely have more of a point than, but these guys were still the best when they were old!

For the thousandth time during Lemieux's comeback year where he had 76 points in 43 games, Jagr had 77 points in those same 43 games, more of an even strength factor, and 7 more points in 2 games without Mario after he came back. Fast forward to the playoffs that year, Lemieux was just under a ppg. How is that possible for someone who was supposedly still as dominant as you guys say was while being flanked by Jagr? Would that even be possible with Crosby after a regular season he dominated? Even after one he hadn't I don't think so and most certainly not if he was playing next to Jagr, and was allowed to abandon any serious defensive effort (Lemieux was outstanding defensively during his cup runs, not so much here, I've seen enough games of each of those playoffs to be sure of that). Then you take Crosby's superior defense into account, linemates etc. and Crosby is almost on par with prime Lemieux as a playoff performer.

Also, not only are people not outscoring people by nearly the same margins anymore, there hasn't been a consecutive Art Ross winner in 10 straight years, is this just all a funny coincidence? Absolutely not.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Also, not only are people not outscoring people by nearly the same margins anymore, there hasn't been a consecutive Art Ross winner in 10 straight years, is this just all a funny coincidence? Absolutely not.

No it isn't a coincidence. It is because no one has established themselves as being separated from the pack. Sidney Crosby might start a reputation of being ahead of the pack if he can maintain his pace this year, but even then it won't be a large margin offensively.

The best players right now are roughly as good offensively as Jagr was when well past his prime years.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

From 1980-2001 3 people shared the Art Ross. Since then no one has won it twice, no one has won it by significant margin's, and coincidentally during this time period I believe hockey got more noticeably better from year to year than it did in years previous. Technology, training, talent pool all reaching new heights etc. So either those 3 were gods, and despite advances in everything and 5 times a population pool to choose from we haven't found one since, or the league just got a whole lot better (quite obvious from watching a late 90's game compared to a recent game).

I share Hardvyvan123's opinion that if Lemieux got to spend healthy prime years in this current NHL there's a very real possibility that he'd be outscoring current day Crosby, but arguable if he'd be overall the better player. I don't think Gretzky's game would translate as well today, and it's not likely he'd dominate if he adapted. He'd without a doubt be an elite player today, just possibly not even the best let alone by huge margins. This doesn't mean I rate Crosby higher on an all time list, if he does what he's doing now for 5 straight years (I could see it), or possibly improves upon his current domination combined with all the factors mentioned then there's a chance he's literally better than Gretzky and I'd be inclined to rate him as such.

As it stands now, current day Crosby is much closer to the level of the big 4, than he is to the rest.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

No it isn't a coincidence. It is because no one has established themselves as being separated from the pack. Sidney Crosby might start a reputation of being ahead of the pack if he can maintain his pace this year, but even then it won't be a large margin offensively.

The best players right now are roughly as good offensively as Jagr was when well past his prime years.

Jagr was 33, physically stronger than he ever was, lost weight and regained a ton of speed from before the lockout, added a one timer to his arsonal of offensive weapons, and in the absolute sense was most definitely at his best that year, should have won the Hart over Thornton.

 

[Rhiessan71]

They didn't prove anything. All the points Hardyvan123 has brought up surely have more of a point than, but these guys were still the best when they were old!

For the thousandth time during Lemieux's comeback year where he had 76 points in 43 games, Jagr had 77 points in those same 43 games, more of an even strength factor, and 7 more points in 2 games without Mario after he came back. Fast forward to the playoffs that year, Lemieux was just under a ppg. How is that possible for someone who was supposedly still as dominant as you guys say was while being flanked by Jagr? Would that even be possible with Crosby after a regular season he dominated? Even after one he hadn't I don't think so and most certainly not if he was playing next to Jagr, and was allowed to abandon any serious defensive effort (Lemieux was outstanding defensively during his cup runs, not so much here, I've seen enough games of each of those playoffs to be sure of that). Then you take Crosby's superior defense into account, linemates etc. and Crosby is almost on par with prime Lemieux as a playoff performer.

Also, not only are people not outscoring people by nearly the same margins anymore, there hasn't been a consecutive Art Ross winner in 10 straight years, is this just all a funny coincidence? Absolutely not.

You missed the point though.
It isn't that Mario was blowing every one else away and was only as good as Jagr.
The point was that even at 36 and as worn as he was after his ordeals, long past his prime years was still blowing every one else away and still as good as a prime Jagr.

The ONLY possible conclusion you can come away with is that a prime #66 would blow every one away, Jagr included and since it still remains to be seen if Sid can even match Jagr.....that's the point here.

Also, saying that Gretzky's "game" wouldn't translate well today is ridiculous considering that even in his late 30's with horrible back problems in years where league scoring was actually as low or lower than it is now and he was still pretty much a 100 point player and that's without the enforced rules limiting interference of today.

Sorry, that simply makes no sense.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

You missed the point though.
It isn't that Mario was blowing every one else away and was only as good as Jagr.
The point was that even at 36 and as worn as he was after his ordeals, long past his prime years was still blowing every one else away and still as good as a prime Jagr.

The ONLY possible conclusion you can come away with is that a prime #66 would blow every one away, Jagr included and since it still remains to be seen if Sid can even match Jagr.....that's the point here.

No that's not the ONLY possible conlusion you could come to. Like we've explained, he could still be the best, but not by far, which is our main point. Not by far better than Crosby at the very least, that's for certain in my eyes. Once again, we're surely not going to agree.

 

[Rhiessan71]

No that's not the ONLY possible conlusion you could come to. Like we've explained, he could still be the best, but not by far, which is our main point. Not by far better than Crosby at the very least, that's for certain in my eyes. Once again, we're surely not going to agree.

Hey, what ever floats your boat man.
If you feel a broken 36 year old Mario is only a little better than a prime 25 year old Mario, so be it, you're more than welcome to your opinion.
As long as everyone knows exactly what you're saying.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Hey, what ever floats your boat man.
If you feel a best shape of his life 35 year old Mario is only a little better than a prime 25 year old Mario, so be it, you're more than welcome to your opinion.
As long as everyone knows exactly what you're saying.

Fixed that for you. The rest of the post is just rather funny. If you can't see what I'm saying by now, or have this idea like my opinion is outlandish and based on no logic whatsoever, you're too far gone to help. Dream on kid.

 

[lextune]

No that's not the ONLY possible conlusion you could come to. Like we've explained, he could still be the best, but not by far, which is our main point. Not by far better than Crosby at the very least, that's for certain in my eyes. Once again, we're surely not going to agree.

Utter nonsense.

As Rhiessan71 just pointed out, you are basically saying that an old, broken, slow Mario, (basically scoring on brains alone as opposed to brains and physical dominance), is only slightly below Mario at his prime.

Total drivel.

I've said it before in other threads, but I'll say it again. It is not only how many goals are being scored in any given era. But also the "types of goals".

With the way clutching/grabbing/obstruction penalties are being called nowadays a prime Mario, (whose entire career I saw), would absolutely rip this league to pieces.

His numbers would be even better than they were in his day. Hyperbole aside, I have no doubt he would break 200 points.

The general talent level overall in the league has increased, but not nearly to the point were the 199 point Mario could be slowed down. Not even close. And he put up those 199 points getting absolutely brutalized. Today it would be let him score or penalize him, (...and he was a powerplay monster).

 

[lextune]

Fixed that for you. The rest of the post is just rather funny. If you can't see what I'm saying by now, or have this idea like my opinion is outlandish and based on no logic whatsoever, you're too far gone to help. Dream on kid.

Ha!
If you think that any athlete can be in better shape at 25 than at 35 then you are either under 35 and/or, to quote yourself, "too far gone to help".

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Utter nonsense.

As Rhiessan71 just pointed out, you are basically saying that an old, broken, slow Mario, (basically scoring on brains alone as opposed to brains and physical dominance), is only slightly below Mario at his prime.

Total drivel.

I've said it before in other threads, but I'll say it again. It is not only how many goals are being scored in any given era. But also the "types of goals".

With the way clutching/grabbing/obstruction penalties are being called nowadays a prime Mario, (whose entire career I saw), would absolutely rip this league to pieces.

His numbers would be even better than they were in his day. Hyperbole aside, I have no doubt he would break 200 points.

The general talent level overall in the league has increased, but not nearly to the point were the 199 point Mario could be slowed down. Not even close. And he put up those 199 points getting absolutely brutalized. Today it would be let him score or penalize him, (...and he was a powerplay monster).

Once again Lemieux was in the best shape of his life and played next to Jagr who outscored him in those same games. These are facts.

Go look up how many penalties are being called now compared to years previous. I believe last year there were less overall powerplays than there's been in over 15 years or so. Go look at Lemieux's prime years, far more powerplay opportunites than today, and his team also got more powerplay's than anyone in the league numerous seasons, and even 2nd most a few times. Go look it up, I know everything there is to know about Lemieux, he's been by far my favourite player since I can remember.

The bolded part of your post just made you lose all credibility as far as I'm concerned. One of the most idiotic things I've read for sure.

And to your last point I never said Lemieux would be slowed down today, he just wouldn't dominate nearly as much.

Get a clue please before talking down to my post.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Ha!
If you think that any athlete can be in better shape at 25 than at 35 then you are either under 35 and/or, to quote yourself, "too far gone to help".

Awesome man.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Fixed that for you. The rest of the post is just rather funny. If you can't see what I'm saying by now, or have this idea like my opinion is outlandish and based on no logic whatsoever, you're too far gone to help. Dream on kid.

Yeah, you tried the "best shape of his life" argument before and it didn't go over so well then either.

Calling me kid is quite funny in this instance, ironic really considering unlike you, I personally know the difference between being 25 and 36.
It doesn't matter how good your cardio is or what % your body fat is at.
Your body itself has slowed down, your reflexs are slower, recovery longer and ache's and pains come much more readily.

By all means though, please continue to tell ME what it's like to get old

 

[lextune]

Ha!
If you think that any athlete can be in better shape at 25 than at 35 then you are either under 35 and/or, to quote yourself, "too far gone to help".

And note that I am saying "athlete". We don't need to hear about your fat uncle who couldn't touch his toes at 25 and is now running marathons.

Mario at 25 was a physical wonder. 6'4" 230 pounds of forward impetus, with a center of balance in about his ankles....
....Add to that the ability to stickhandle in a phone booth, and you have a one-on-one force that has never been equaled.

Please note that if you point out him smoking, and eating fast food at 25 as evidence of him being "in better shape" as a 35 year old, I will not be able to stop laughing at you long enough to point out how wrongheaded that is, lol.

 

[lextune]

The bolded part of your post just made you lose all credibility as far as I'm concerned. One of the most idiotic things I've read for sure.

Then we are now sure you never actually saw Mario in his prime, and you are basically just trying to "crunch numbers".

No one with a brain in their head can honestly believe that a 35 year old professional athlete is better suited to his sport than a 25 year old professional athlete.

It is beyond mere ignorance and just demonstrable stupid.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Yeah, you tried the "best shape of his life" argument before and it didn't go over so well then either.

Calling me kid is quite funny in this instance, ironic really considering unlike you, I personally know the difference between being 25 and 36.
It doesn't matter how good your cardio is or what % your body fat is at.
Your body itself has slowed down, your reflexs are slower, recovery longer and ache's and pains come much more readily.

By all means though, please continue to tell ME what it's like to get old

Idiotic. That's a fact. The sooner you accept that the closer to will be to realizing the truth. That goes for all of you who share his opinon. Seriously.

 

[lextune]

By all means though, please continue to tell ME what it's like to get old

Exactly.




....the very fact that he attempts to make the argument, (repeatably no less), ends any semblance of credibility.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Then we are now sure you never actually saw Mario in his prime, and you are basically just trying to "crunch numbers".

No one with a brain in their head can honestly believe that a 35 year old professional athlete is better suited to his sport than a 25 year old professional athlete.

It is beyond mere ignorance and just demonstrable stupid.

LOL


Everyone listen up. According to this genius, because I don't think Lemieux could get over 200 points today, I've never actually seen him play and I'm just trying to crunch numbers.

Once again.

LOL

I'm sorry but that actually deserved that.

 

[lextune]

Idiotic. That's a fact.

No. It is an impossibility.

And for those that witnessed Mario's entire career, laughable, and demonstrably false.
(Not that witnessing his career is required to note the insanity of the statement).

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Exactly.




....the very fact that he attempts to make the argument, (repeatably no less), ends any semblance of credibility.

The fact that you think Lemieux would still be scoring over 200 points today shows you know nothing about the game of hockey! Plain and simple!

 

[Infinite Vision*]

No. It is an impossibility.

And for those that witnessed Mario's entire career, laughable, and demonstrably false.
(Not that witnessing his career is required to note the insanity of the statement).

 

[Rhiessan71]

Exactly.




....the very fact that he attempts to make the argument, (repeatably no less), ends any semblance of credibility.

Best to just leave it alone Lex.
Arguing with "LOL" posts are not worth your time and I'm quite sure Doc will be around later to clean it up.