This one gave me a laugh

[Infinite Vision*]

You keep on making these "laughing and insulting" posts to people who take the extremist view of Mario or Gretzky being able to still produce 200 points today.

At the same time however, you take the opposite extremist view that they wouldn't even be the top players today.

The reality is that neither view is very accurate but can you please let up on the childish bull**** posts soon?

That crap might get you points on the main boards but it will only hurt your credibility here and I would be willing to bet a lot of frequent History section posters already can no longer see your posts, if you know what I mean.
I'm about 1 post away from joining them.

 

[Wet Sprocket]

Well then if that's true then how the hell is it such a guarantee that Gretzky or Lemieux would crack 200+ points let alone even be the best players today?

...

Anyways none of you seem to care to investigate and properly rate players all you do is defend old ones.

{Edit} I know this post is kind of long, at least longer than I had initially intended. Also please note that I'm not coming from a condescending place. I'm not picking on you or trying to devalue your opinion or even trying to prove it wrong. This all just kind of ties back into the topic of the thread.

Now here goes...If you have a problem with how players are judged on this forum, give a compelling argument (something you can back up) as to why. Don't be lazy. We all can agree that we are hockey fans, and due to the nature of fandom, we get passionate, and at times that comes out in our posts. There is nothing wrong with that, as long as what you're saying is truthful. The beautiful thing is that if someone challenges your view, you can blow them away if not shut them entirely by proving them wrong.

What the article in the OP touches on is that its too soon to judge whether or not Crosby can even be compared to the likes of Gretzky. And not because "OMG! Gretzky is the best and yesterdays players were better and tougher than todays!!!!111." Sid appears to have pulled away from the current pack. He has a Hart, a Rocket, an Art Ross, a Stanley Cup and an Olympic Gold medal winning OT goal. That's some impressive hardware! I think based off this its easy to make the arguement that's his career and current possition within the NHL is more impressive than LeBron James' is in the NBA.

Comparisons with Gretzky and others elite past players though is difficult for 2 reasons. First, Crosby is (hopefully) only in the first quarter of his career. His position within the league is coming into focus, but what he does these next 5 years will determine his legacy, as he's entering the meat of his career; his prime years. Secondly, the post lockout era is only 5 years old, so its hard to get an accurate read on how it compares to eras past. Once we're a decade out, we can really get a clearer picture of how today's version of the NHL compares to that of the past. I know this isn't a sexy conclusion. Its scientific and its nerdy. But this is also a History forum... so its appropriate.

I think that we can all agree with your point that scoring goals is tougher today than it was during Gretzky and Lemieux's days. I also believe that we agree with you in that for a variety of reasons, its more difficult for today's stars to pull ahead from the pack, at least when measured in points, goals and assists. I don't think anyone really can refute this, and there is ample evidence to support it within this thread and throughout this board even supported by those you claim don't respect modern players. Its the matter of degree though, that is murky.

Crosby's place in the game will be defined better within the next 5 years. Its extremely unlikely that he will put up Gretzky's career points, assists or single season goal numbers, but he can make a case for his place amongst the legends in other ways. Gretzky's goal scoring for instance tailed off during the second half of his 20s, and after age 30, he was no longer a 40 goal scorer. His career goals record is probably his most "brake-able" one. Sidney doesn't actually have to break any of Wayne's records, but if he keeps developing his scoring game, while keeping his assists high, all the while leading a contending Cup team consistently, this will only help his case. Winning another Cup for instance within the next few years would be a huge boost, especially considering how little offensive support he's receiving in comparison to other elites like Ovechkin, Stamkos and Thornton (not sure he still qualifies, but you get the point).

Of course I'm just using Crosby as an example because the article was written about him; this could apply to Stamkos, Ovechkin, or any of the other new stars. Guys like Lidstrom, Broudeur, and to a lesser extent Pronger; we have a better idea of their place, because, although their story is still being written, their bulk years have passed. You can gauge not only where they rank but how far ahead or behind they are with their contemporaries, which is one of the most important factors when rating players against those of the past. With players like Crosby and Ovechkin, you know they are at the top of the current heap, but how far ahead and how long they stay there is still to be determined.

I hope you took this extremely long winded post to heart, and I hope you can contribute to this board and most of all that you don't continue down that path that leads to you having an * after your name.

 

[lextune]

Coming from the guy who has no doubt Lemieux would top 200 points today.

That is my opinion.

You may disagree with it, but it is just that. And I have facts and analysis that I use to defend it.

You, on the other hand, are making demonstrably false statements.

I.E. - "none of you seem to care to investigate and properly rate players"

You may not agree with what we are doing here, but the idea that we don't "care to investigate" is stupid on it's face.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

That is my opinion.

You may disagree with it, but it is just that. And I have facts and analysis that I use to defend it.

You, on the other hand, are making demonstrably false statements.

I.E. - "none of you seem to care to investigate and properly rate players"

You may not agree with what we are doing here, but the idea that we don't "care to investigate" is stupid on it's face.

Which once again illustrates you have no clue how the game of hockey has been played for the past 10-15 years, which is a decent chunk of History.

So to say you are next to clueless about 15 percent of the NHL's history, is a very accurate statement.

You're clearly stuck in the past.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

I stand by that. Search my thousands of posts, (and learn of my hatred for Claude Julien, lol), you won't find one.

I approach my public posting far differently than replying to a private, hateful, attack on my person.

The newness of such an affront left me, unsurprisingly, unwilling to bother proof reading my reply.


EDIT:

I would like to congratulation "Infinite Vision" for sending me the lamest n00b thing we ever see in the history section. Right out of the newbie thread:

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=140503

"A reminder that this forum is not the place for "Evolution of Hockey" threads, where people who have experienced the "blinding flash of the obvious" come to the conclusion that all players today are better than any players in history"

...and his PM:



What more could I ask for? Lol.

Call me crazy for believing you were one of the idiots not aware of this obviousness.

It's just when you say things like he would be scoring even more than in his day, and you have no doubt in your mind, one may get that impression.

I know most people here are aware of this, it just seems like you and a few others, literally didn't know that to be the case.

 

[Big Phil]

Call me crazy for believing you were one of the idiots not aware of this obviousness.

It's just when you say things like he would be scoring even more than in his day, and you have no doubt in your mind, one may get that impression.

I know most people here are aware of this, it just seems like you and a few others, literally didn't know that to be the case.

If you read post #99 you'd know one thing. Mario never did hit 200 points. He was close at 199 though. That being said I'm puzzled why you think there is "no chance" they'd hit close to those numbers. For starters I can't prove they would, and you can't prove they wouldn't. The truth is we haven't seen an offensive machine like Gretzky or Lemieux since then, not Jagr and not Crosby.

So........here are some advantages they would have in today's NHL:

- the red line is removed. If you watched Lemieux play forgive me for chuckling as to how he would have peeled that advantage apart
- the hooking/holding is called tighter. Yes defensive schemes are all the rage, but the one complaint Mario had was that a defenseman could water ski on him without a call
- every power play starts in the opposing end. Maybe not a big deal, but up until 2004 a power play started at the place of the infraction. How many times has a faceoff been in the opposing zone only to have a faceoff win and an immediate goal. Add 3-4 points extra a year for that if you'd like

So there are advantages don't fool yourself. Also remember this, a 37 year old Gretzky led the NHL in assists in 1998. This is at the height of the dead puck era when Gretzky was skating like an old tractor. The crease rule was still in effect and the Rangers had no support for him either. He had more assists than Forsberg, and as many as Jagr.

Lemieux came back as a 35 year old in 2000-'01. In 43 games he had 35 goals and 76 points. Had he played the whole year he was on pace for a 67 goal 145 point season which is slightly better than what Crosby is on pace for..........this year. For those that saw a prime Mario, you'll know that he was good when he returned but not the same player from 2000-'06 that he was in his prime. So you have a 35 year old Lemieux who would have run away with the scoring title in 2001 and an ancient Gretzky who still mustered 90 points in his 2nd to last year. Do you still think they wouldn't have scored much today?

 

[lextune]

Which once again illustrates you have no clue how the game of hockey has been played for the past 10-15 years, which is a decent chunk of History.

So to say you are next to clueless about 15 percent of the NHL's history, is a very accurate statement.

You're clearly stuck in the past.

Ha!

Give it up. You are out of your league here.

I am semi-retired and I watch hundreds upon hundreds of games every year. Just as a start; I have essentially seen every Bruins game since the late 60's right up to tonight, (Go B's!).

I have seen virtually every playoff game by nearly every team since the early 80's.

I have essentially seen every NHL game Crosby has played.

I have seen Ovechkin play hundreds of times. On and on and on.

You may have seen as much hockey as I have in the last 15 years, but it is well nigh impossible for you to have seen more than me....

....I'm cutting edge kid. Cutting edge.

Lemieux came back as a 35 year old in 2000-'01. In 43 games he had 35 goals and 76 points. Had he played the whole year he was on pace for a 67 goal 145 point season which is slightly better than what Crosby is on pace for..........this year. For those that saw a prime Mario, you'll know that he was good when he returned but not the same player from 2000-'06 that he was in his prime. So you have a 35 year old Lemieux who would have run away with the scoring title in 2001 and an ancient Gretzky who still mustered 90 points in his 2nd to last year. Do you still think they wouldn't have scored much today?

Exactly.

These simple demonstrable facts are what started this whole ridiculous debate. He is apparently unable to grasp them, but thanks for reiterating them BPhil. I would only add to it that the old broken Mario put up those numbers in a lower scoring era than today too....

I'll sum it all up succinctly:

ME: "An old, broken 35 year old Mario put up points at a pace like Crosby is this year, in a lower scoring era than today."

HIM: "OMG!1! He was in the best shape of his life! Don't you guys even watch hockey today! The average junior player today is better than Gretzky ever was, or ever could be!"

 

[Hardyvan123]

That is my opinion.

You may disagree with it, but it is just that. And I have facts and analysis that I use to defend it.

You, on the other hand, are making demonstrably false statements.

I.E. - "none of you seem to care to investigate and properly rate players"

You may not agree with what we are doing here, but the idea that we don't "care to investigate" is stupid on it's face.

Like Phil said, Mario never scored 200 points back then and scoring has become more difficult.

IMO you are really standing out there on an island proclaiming, with any degree of certainty, that Mario could get 200 points in any seasons in the 2000's NHL.

Lemiux for the record only scored at a 200 point pace in terms of PPG (2.43) 2 times in his entire career in 89 and 93.

His 3rd and 4th best years ever rate out to 182 and 179 points over a whole season.

Given the nature of the way teams play defense today it's debatable that Mario could have reached his average in his career which is 154 points, never mind 200 in a season IMO.

 

[Big Phil]

Like Phil said, Mario never scored 200 points back then and scoring has become more difficult.

IMO you are really standing out there on an island proclaiming, with any degree of certainty, that Mario could get 200 points in any seasons in the 2000's NHL.

Lemiux for the record only scored at a 200 point pace in terms of PPG (2.43) 2 times in his entire career in 89 and 93.

His 3rd and 4th best years ever rate out to 182 and 179 points over a whole season.

Given the nature of the way teams play defense today it's debatable that Mario could have reached his average in his career which is 154 points, never mind 200 in a season IMO.

Over a full season, no doubt in my mind, NO DOUBT, that Mario hits 154 points. 200 is another story I will admit. But like my other post said, a 35 year old Lemieux was on pace for 145 points in 2001 and we had half a season to work from so it isn't as if he played 10 games and got 20 points. A prime Lemieux would still destroy the NHL and would even outpoint Sid by a clear margin if not a substantial margin.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Over a full season, no doubt in my mind, NO DOUBT, that Mario hits 154 points. 200 is another story I will admit. But like my other post said, a 35 year old Lemieux was on pace for 145 points in 2001 and we had half a season to work from so it isn't as if he played 10 games and got 20 points. A prime Lemieux would still destroy the NHL and would even outpoint Sid by a clear margin if not a substantial margin.

My thoughts exactly.
200 would be tough today. I will not say impossible though, a perfect season by Gretzky or Lemieux might still do it.

That's not the issue here, Gretzky or Lemieux getting 200 is irrelevant.
What is relevant and what there is actually evidence of is both of them would still be leaving everyone else in the dust today and it wouldn't be by only a mere 10-20 points.

 

[lextune]

What is relevant and what there is actually evidence of is both of them would still be leaving everyone else in the dust today and it wouldn't be by only a mere 10-20 points.

This has been my main point all along obviously. And they one that began the whole silly debate.

But I still feel confidant that with the rules as they are now, Mario would score more than he ever did.

It goes back to something I brought up earlier, it is not only how many goals are being scored, (though as we have pointed out Mario scored at Crosby's current pace as an "old man" in a lower scoring era than today), but also to the type of goals being scored.
The rules favor the highly skilled player more now than ever before.

 

[Big Phil]

My thoughts exactly.
200 would be tough today. I will not say impossible though, a perfect season by Gretzky or Lemieux might still do it.

That's not the issue here, Gretzky or Lemieux getting 200 is irrelevant.
What is relevant and what there is actually evidence of is both of them would still be leaving everyone else in the dust today and it wouldn't be by only a mere 10-20 points.

Considering Mario did not score 200 points in his day I'm often inclined to believe he would not today, yet he'd be close. But Gretzky is a different story on the other hand. We actually DID witness him scoring 200 points on 4 different occasions. It goes without saying but his highest point totals are: 215, 212, 208, 205 and then 196. Gretzky proved the doubters wrong then too yet he still kept piling on the points. Scoring has gone down since the 1980s, but there is also new rules put in place that help the insanely offensive talented. My question is would scoring have gone down that much to take away 16 points for Gretzky? Because he would need that much of a drop to NOT get 200 points.

I'm not sure, and nobody should be really sure either. I would project that Gretzky at his peak would be constantly flirting with 200 points though. People say the game is faster and etc. now, well, let me tell you people doubted Gretzky WHILE he was putting up these points. It is in our nature as humans to by cynical. If you watch Gretzky's game carefully he would always dictate the pace of the game. He was the smartest person to ever play the game and when you have that kind of hockey sense you can be put in any era and dominate. Plus let's not forget Gretzky himself would be a little faster if he played today if we are going to give credit to the "average" guy getting faster

 

[Gobo]

If Lemeiux can do this (Goal that occurs 53-58 seconds in) then im pretty sure in a league where he doesn't have to deal with that and in his prime at roughly 25 years of age, there is no doubt in my mind he would be the best player in the league, bar none and he may be eclipsing 200 points.

EDIT: Also how about we let Crosby win more than one Hart trophy before he's compared to the Lemeiux and Gretzky's of the world.

 

[Big Phil]

If Lemeiux can do this (Goal that occurs 53-58 seconds in) then im pretty sure in a league where he doesn't have to deal with that and in his prime at roughly 25 years of age, there is no doubt in my mind he would be the best player in the league, bar none and he may be eclipsing 200 points.

EDIT: Also how about we let Crosby win more than one Hart trophy before he's compared to the Lemeiux and Gretzky's of the world.

exactly. Roofing the puck top corner while two Maple Leaf defenseman are water skiing on you. That might be a penalty shot today, but certainly a penalty. Was it Marc Fortier that was holding him from the opposing blueline to the goal on that other similar goal Mario scored? I count about 5 penalties to occur in 2011. Yes I agree people forget Mario would benefit greatly from the lack of obstruction today which in my opinion practically offsets how the game is more sound defensively

 

[danincanada]

Sure, Lemieux would draw more penalties now with the way they call it. But look at some of the midget goalies who were at total mercy of Mario's reach. Generally we don't have the Vernon's, Pang's and Vanbeisbrooks's anymore as most goalies are over 6' and many are 6'2" or taller. Goalies today are superior and not just due to equipment but they are also so much bigger and more athletic. Mario was hardly ever stopped on breakaways in his prime and it was almost comical watching a goalie who is 5'8" trying to stop him.

The other thing is all the "fronting" that is done these days. It's so much harder to get shots though cause everyone is trying to "front" and play to take the shot away. Defensive schemes are much better now and it's obviously much harder to score than in Mario's hay day.

People can bring up his 00'-01 season all they want but he couldn't keep it up come playoff time when things got even tighter (only 17 pts in 18 games) and those were the last playoffs he ever played in which may say something about his overall effectiveness later on.

Personally I think Mario Lemieux was the greatest offensive player ever because he was like a 6'4" version of Gretzky. At the same time I don't see him getting 199 points in todays NHL. Maybe 150 or 160 at best cause the league has simple gotten better. It has evolved like everything else in life.

 

[lextune]

People can bring up his 00'-01 season all they want but he couldn't keep it up come playoff time when things got even tighter (only 17 pts in 18 games)

....which brings us full circle. Right back to him being far past his prime, 35, and at the end of a 19 year road; littered with injury and illness.

 

[danincanada]

....which brings us full circle. Right back to him being far past his prime, 35, and at the end of a 19 year road; littered with injury and illness.

It still shows that Mario could not dominate as much as he did 10 years earlier, which is what you and others are trying to portray. Even with a prime Jagr to team up with Mario could not dominate the same way once the playoffs came and teams focused more on him in a series.

I don't think you have much of a case for the NHL not evolving and becoming more competitive over the years. It's rather obvious and all you need to do is look at how much stronger other nations have become at hockey. Even Germany and Switzerland are producing good players now; not to mention the American program, the Wall tumbling down in '89 and the population explosion. The players now are better than ever. It's a slow process but it's still present.

 

[lextune]

I don't think you have much of a case for the NHL not evolving and becoming more competitive over the years

Who exactly is trying to make that case? Because it certainly isn't me. In fact in more than one post in this thread alone I have said the exact opposite.

 

[Hardyvan123]

It still shows that Mario could not dominate as much as he did 10 years earlier, which is what you and others are trying to portray. Even with a prime Jagr to team up with Mario could not dominate the same way once the playoffs came and teams focused more on him in a series.

I don't think you have much of a case for the NHL not evolving and becoming more competitive over the years. It's rather obvious and all you need to do is look at how much stronger other nations have become at hockey. Even Germany and Switzerland are producing good players now; not to mention the American program, the Wall tumbling down in '89 and the population explosion. The players now are better than ever. It's a slow process but it's still present.

I think the process of the evolution of the game was happening slowly in the 80's (in terms of players from Europe then it accelerated to the state where it is now where virtually all of the top players in the world come to play in the NHL (during their peak years).

the point of it is that it becomes much harder, even for a healthy Lemieux who is arguably the best offensive player ever, to dominate under current NHL conditions than during his playing days.

 

[Hardyvan123]

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/l/lemiema01/gamelog/1989/

This is a game log of Lemieux in his 199 point season just scroll down on some of the bigger games on look at the Defense men that he had big nights against and try to tell me that there is any D as bad as a group in the NHL today.

It's not even really close.

Of the big 3 games 8,8 and 7 points against Edmonton probably had the best group of Dmen led by Lowe, Smith and Huddy but some weak spots as well.

I haven't found a box score for that game but the strength of D men on the teams in the 3 games listed is extremely weak compared to any roster in the NHL today where forwards actually front and help out a lot more on D then back in 89.

 

[Big Phil]

Sure, Lemieux would draw more penalties now with the way they call it. But look at some of the midget goalies who were at total mercy of Mario's reach. Generally we don't have the Vernon's, Pang's and Vanbeisbrooks's anymore as most goalies are over 6' and many are 6'2" or taller. Goalies today are superior and not just due to equipment but they are also so much bigger and more athletic. Mario was hardly ever stopped on breakaways in his prime and it was almost comical watching a goalie who is 5'8" trying to stop him.

The other thing is all the "fronting" that is done these days. It's so much harder to get shots though cause everyone is trying to "front" and play to take the shot away. Defensive schemes are much better now and it's obviously much harder to score than in Mario's hay day.

People can bring up his 00'-01 season all they want but he couldn't keep it up come playoff time when things got even tighter (only 17 pts in 18 games) and those were the last playoffs he ever played in which may say something about his overall effectiveness later on.

Personally I think Mario Lemieux was the greatest offensive player ever because he was like a 6'4" version of Gretzky. At the same time I don't see him getting 199 points in todays NHL. Maybe 150 or 160 at best cause the league has simple gotten better. It has evolved like everything else in life.

So we've ignored the entire idea - no, not an idea it was actual proof, it happened - that as a 35 year old he was on pace for a 145 point season? Just say the word and I'll never mention it again. I'd hate to see facts get in the way of a good story. It doesn't make you wonder how much more he'd have scored had he been 25 in 2000-'01? We saw what he did in a clutch and grab-low scoring era of hockey when he was past his prime. I'm sorry I just can't ignore that no matter how I try and dress it up. Your excuse is that he "only" had 17 points in 18 playoff games? Did you mention that Jagr had only 12 points - a prime Jagr - and the only time he got stopped was against the defending champs who took another trip to the final? Should we ignore the idea that a 35 Lemieux was the reason the Pens even moved onto the semis? His tying goal in the last minute of Game 6 was the definition of clutch.

If "every" goalie was 5'8" explain Ron Hextall. Lemieux had a 5 goal and 8 point night in the 1989 playoffs against him. Hextall was 6'4". Mike Vernon is a borderline Hall of Fame goalie and your main issue with him is that he was 5'9"? You brought up Darren Pang? He was 5'5". Okay he played in 81 career games all in Chicago, a team that Mario seldom played. If you listen to Pang to this day he even mocks himself about how shoddy of a goalie he was. He was NOT an elite goalie. Contrary to popular belief there were good goalies then too.

Again we have the same theory. "Players are better today". I can agree with that. But here is my question. The average player is quicker and bigger right? But for some reason no one thinks the superstars would be? It doesn't make sense. You probably didnt watch much of Mario if you really believe a shot blocker would stop him from scoring goals. This is probably the best goal scorer in the history of the game and you have him pegged as a guy who would just put his arms up in surrender. I don't.

Lastly I will say this again. The burden of proof is on the critic who thinks Mario couldn't score in today's game. I'll enter my proof:

1988-'89 - 199 points (projected for 209)
1992-'93 - 160 points (projected for 213 in 80 games)
1995-'96 - 161 points (projected for 189 points)
2000-'01 - 76 points (projected for 145 points)
2002-'03 - 91 points (111 points would have won the Art Ross)

The last two years Mario was 35 and 37 years old. He suffered injuries in the last selected year and played on a dirt poor team yet would have beaten the field for the Art Ross. The last two are in very low scoring eras and he was old. Basically what I have done is prove to you that Mario could score at near the same pace in any era. In fact he actually did that I don't have to prove it.

So even just to speculate we have to wonder one thing. If he is on track for 145 points in a low scoring era at 35 years old why can't we assume he'd be flirting with 180-200 as a prime 25 year old today? The numbers say he would.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/l/lemiema01/gamelog/1989/

This is a game log of Lemieux in his 199 point season just scroll down on some of the bigger games on look at the Defense men that he had big nights against and try to tell me that there is any D as bad as a group in the NHL today.

It's not even really close.

Of the big 3 games 8,8 and 7 points against Edmonton probably had the best group of Dmen led by Lowe, Smith and Huddy but some weak spots as well.

I haven't found a box score for that game but the strength of D men on the teams in the 3 games listed is extremely weak compared to any roster in the NHL today where forwards actually front and help out a lot more on D then back in 89.

Could we admit that the best defenseman in the game was probably Ray Bourque? In the three games against Boston Mario was 1-4-5. Still good. Chelios won the Norris that year and in two games against the Habs Mario had 4 points. He torched Vernon for 5 points one night against Calgary. You might have heard of a guy named MacInnis on their team too. I won't even bother bringing up what he did against Chicago (Doug Wilson) or Washington (Scott Stevens, Rod Langway) because it won't help your cause. So I am giving you a break there, thank me later.

My question is what is your point? How is this any different than today? Can you imagine how he'd tear apart the Islanders defense today? Or can you imagine Mario against a free flowing team like Washington? Or playing shinny against the Leafs? Or Edmonton for that matter? I just mentioned 4 teams right there that aren't exactly strong defensive teams. Is this any different than 20 years ago?

All you have to look at is when Lemieux undressed Bourque in the 1992 playoffs. Also, was it not Mark Tinordi that he undressed on that famous goal in the 1991 final? Do you really think the best 1-on-1 player of all-time really needs charity?

 

[danincanada]

So we've ignored the entire idea - no, not an idea it was actual proof, it happened - that as a 35 year old he was on pace for a 145 point season? Just say the word and I'll never mention it again. I'd hate to see facts get in the way of a good story. It doesn't make you wonder how much more he'd have scored had he been 25 in 2000-'01? We saw what he did in a clutch and grab-low scoring era of hockey when he was past his prime. I'm sorry I just can't ignore that no matter how I try and dress it up. Your excuse is that he "only" had 17 points in 18 playoff games? Did you mention that Jagr had only 12 points - a prime Jagr - and the only time he got stopped was against the defending champs who took another trip to the final? Should we ignore the idea that a 35 Lemieux was the reason the Pens even moved onto the semis? His tying goal in the last minute of Game 6 was the definition of clutch.

If "every" goalie was 5'8" explain Ron Hextall. Lemieux had a 5 goal and 8 point night in the 1989 playoffs against him. Hextall was 6'4". Mike Vernon is a borderline Hall of Fame goalie and your main issue with him is that he was 5'9"? You brought up Darren Pang? He was 5'5". Okay he played in 81 career games all in Chicago, a team that Mario seldom played. If you listen to Pang to this day he even mocks himself about how shoddy of a goalie he was. He was NOT an elite goalie. Contrary to popular belief there were good goalies then too.

Again we have the same theory. "Players are better today". I can agree with that. But here is my question. The average player is quicker and bigger right? But for some reason no one thinks the superstars would be? It doesn't make sense. You probably didnt watch much of Mario if you really believe a shot blocker would stop him from scoring goals. This is probably the best goal scorer in the history of the game and you have him pegged as a guy who would just put his arms up in surrender. I don't.

Where to start...you put a lot of words in my mouth; statements that I never even wrote. Show me where I said "every" goalie was 5'8". I didn't yet you actually quoted me as doing so. Manny Legace might be the last midget goalie we ever see because there are no short goalies like that in the league right now and there were plenty in Mario's prime. That's what I stated. I didn't say there weren't any good goalies back then either but don't you agree that goalies are generally better now? That's what I stated. Disagree if you wish.

When things got tough Jagr often packed it in so it's not all that surprising that he scored less than Lemiuex in those playoffs. My point stands and Mario did not put up the huge numbers he did prior to those playoffs. Sure it had to do with his age and health but is it not possible that it also got tougher to score for him? He did after all decide to come out of retirement so just maybe he felt pretty good about his health and conditioning at that time?

I grew up watching Mario's magic so I agree that if anyone could find some ways around "fronting" it would be him, but it would still bring his numbers down.

Lastly I will say this again. The burden of proof is on the critic who thinks Mario couldn't score in today's game. I'll enter my proof:

1988-'89 - 199 points (projected for 209)
1992-'93 - 160 points (projected for 213 in 80 games)
1995-'96 - 161 points (projected for 189 points)
2000-'01 - 76 points (projected for 145 points)
2002-'03 - 91 points (111 points would have won the Art Ross)

The last two years Mario was 35 and 37 years old. He suffered injuries in the last selected year and played on a dirt poor team yet would have beaten the field for the Art Ross. The last two are in very low scoring eras and he was old. Basically what I have done is prove to you that Mario could score at near the same pace in any era. In fact he actually did that I don't have to prove it.

So even just to speculate we have to wonder one thing. If he is on track for 145 points in a low scoring era at 35 years old why can't we assume he'd be flirting with 180-200 as a prime 25 year old today? The numbers say he would.

You have shown that his on pace numbers dropped. How is that proof for your point, exactly? Where is the mathematical equation showing on pace for 145 points in his mid 30's equals 199 points at 25?

I agree he would be winning the Art Ross if he played today in his prime. What I disagree with is that he would score 199 points today because offense is down and it's more difficult to score for everyone.

 

[lextune]

Where is the mathematical equation showing on pace for 145 points in his mid 30's equals 199 points at 25?

I'm not sure I would call it an equation, but the facts line up quite interestingly.

145 point pace in a lower scoring era than today, way past his prime.

Put him in a higher scoring era like today = Points go up a bit.
Put him in his prime = Points go up a lot.

145+a bit+a lot = a number noticeably larger than 145.

I'd say "seems pretty obvious", but since it keeps getting repeated over and over and over and people still keep missing the point I won't.

 

[lextune]

I agree he would be winning the Art Ross if he played today in his prime. What I disagree with is that he would score 199 points today because offense is down and it's more difficult to score for everyone.

Offense may be down from his 199 point season, but it is up from his 145 pace season, when he was old and broken....

...and the rules favor skilled players far more now than they did during either of those seasons.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I'm not sure I would call it an equation, but the facts line up quite interestingly.

145 point pace in a lower scoring era than today, way past his prime.

Put him in a higher scoring era like today = Points go up a bit.
Put him in his prime = Points go up a lot.

145+a bit+a lot = a number noticeably larger than 145.

I'd say "seems pretty obvious", but since it keeps getting repeated over and over and over and people still keep missing the point I won't.

Some pretty big leaps in logic here

Offense may be down from his 199 point season, but it is up from his 145 pace season, when he was old and broken....

...and the rules favor skilled players far more now than they did during either of those seasons.

Okay let's assume Mario could have kept up his 145 point pace if he had played in 82 instead of 43 games, if you adjust it for era it comes out to 156 points.

Sid is on pace adjusted this year for 144 with a 72-72 line if we want to go that route.

Mario also had some decent help and well Sid's team is pretty weak except when Malkin decides to play and even then they usually don't play together.

Wayne is an even better example of how the ability to dominate changed since he didn't have the same injury woes that Mario had.

Wayne's last godlike season was in 86 when he was 25 and scored at a 2.69 PPG pace after that it dropped to 2.32, 2.33, 2.15 and 1.95 in his age 29 season.

Did Wayne get any worse as a player in those year?

Did he suddenly develop a 2way game?

No I suggest that the league became slightly harder to score in and this was still only in year 90 and the full impact of top flight players from Europe still had not reached it's climax.

Maybe Wayne or Mario would still lead in the NHL scoring race if it were today but it is more likely that it would be by 10-20 points rather than any flirtation with 200 points like has been repeatedly argued for in this thread.

and even if Wayne and Mario were scoring 10-20 points more than the pack it would still be arguable that they would win the hart with guys like Crosby and Datsyuk playing 2 way hockey and scoring pretty well.

the 80's and very early 90's were night and day to the NHL today and even in the history section we should realize this and try to make some objective comparison between players from the eras IMO.