Wayne Gretzky overrated

[Staniowski]

when he had his famous 76 points in 43 games at age 35, he was out-scored in that period by Jagr

Jagr did win the AR that season, yes, but Lemieux outscored Jagr (as he always did, except for his last 2 seasons at the ages of 38 and 40) in PPG by a substantial margin, and Lemieux would have easily won the scoring title had he played the full season.

There is no way you can give 1993-94 to Lemieux, based on 22 games!

I'm not giving Lemieux anything, I'm saying that Lemieux would definitely have won several additional ARs if he had played all those games and seasons he missed. No reasonable person would argue otherwise. From 1988 to 2003, Lemieux led the NHL in PPG almost anytime that he played. To suggest that he wouldn't have done at least as good (and presumably much better) if he were actually healthy is to suggest something that's not believable.

I mean, we're talking about a guy for whom the NHL was too difficult, so he quit at age 31.

I think you're being hard on the guy - he underwent a lot of cancer treatments, and had several back surgeries, etc.

The point is, some Lemieux apologists seem to think we should give Mario extra credit for missing all those games

I'm not a Lemieux apologist - he was never among my favourites. I don't know what you mean by "extra credit". I merely think people should acknowledge was is obviously true - that Lemieux was one hell of a special hockey player (as Gretzky also was), and that if you want to rank Gretzky ahead of him, that's fine, but it's not by much, and Lemieux was a better player than Gretzky for quite a long period of time while they were playing at the same time (with only 4 years age difference between them).

 

[The Panther]

Jagr did win the AR that season, yes, but Lemieux outscored Jagr (as he always did, except for his last 2 seasons at the ages of 38 and 40) in PPG by a substantial margin, and Lemieux would have easily won the scoring title had he played the full season.

Not in the games they played together. The evidence suggest that Jagr would have beaten Lemieux in scoring had they played the full 2000-01 season together (which shouldn't be surprising -- Jagr is one of the greatest players of all time, and Mario was getting old then).

What I'm saying is: 1996-97 is the last time Lemieux won the scoring title outright, at age 31. There is no evidence that he would have won anymore after 1997. We can speculate, but the 2000-01 season suggests Jagr, not Lemieux, was the winner. (Incidentally, Gretzky's last scoring title was age 33, older than Lemieux's... although I concede that it's unlikely Wayne would have beaten Mario had Lemieux been healthy.)

I'm not giving Lemieux anything, I'm saying that Lemieux would definitely have won several additional ARs if he had played all those games and seasons he missed.

In other words, you're giving him trophies he didn't actually win.

Well, what else would he have won if healthy? Let's see:
1990-91: Gretzky has this one, not Lemieux
1993-94: Lemieux, probably
1995: Lemieux, maybe?
For me, that's it. But as someone said, if we're gonna do this for Mario, we also have to give 1980 and 1988 Art Rosses to Gretzky. So, the running total now is:
Gretzky - 12 scoring titles (final at age 33)
Lemieux - 8 scoring titles (final at age 31)

I don't think I'm being hard on Lemieux, no. He is one of my favorite players. I'm merely not giving people credit for things they didn't do. You can't simply add on three seasons to a guy's career and assume he'd be healthy and fully productive.

 

[bobholly39]

If Lemieux had been healthy he would have won every art ross trophy during seasons in which he played post 1989 up until....a certain year. 2001? 1997? 2003? Hard to say exactly when he'd have declined in this hypothetical. If I had to guess it would have been till at least 2000 or 2001, but who knows.

He was simply a step above everyone else in the league offensively, by a lot in that time period.

Does Lemieux not have the best track record when it comes to consistency, work ethic and drive? Sure, maybe. So unlike Gretzky he wouldn't have gotten full 100% points in terms of consistency and work ethic. So no he probably was never destined to have 5 straight 200+ point seasons like Gretzky did for example.

But all we're talking about here is the Art Ross. A lemieux playing at 80% of his potential (or less) in mostly full seasons wins the art ross every year in the 90s (until whichever year you want to assume he declines).

I'm sorry but arguing otherwise is silly.

Do you really think if Lemieux had played a full season in 1993-1994 he doesn't win the Art Ross? That would be similar to going back in time and pretending that Gretzky sat out all of the 1982-1983 season due to injury, and someone then saying "yeah well if Gretzky had played in 1983, i still think Peter Stasny wins the Art Ross".

 

[daver]

If you put a rookie Mario against a rookie Wayne, and assume perfect health, how does Wayne not win the battle for the Art Rosses. He wins the first four handily, and then it's a battle of peak vs. peak for what the next ten years?

 

[bobholly39]

If you put a rookie Mario against a rookie Wayne, and assume perfect health, how does Wayne not win the battle for the Art Rosses. He wins the first four handily, and then it's a battle of peak vs. peak for what the next ten years?

Yup. I'd agree with that. Doesn't change my point above.
from 1989+ Lemieux wins every single art ross in (mostly) full/healthy seasons he plays, up until whatever year you want to say you think he'd decline. I personally think it wouldn't be till at least 2000 or 2001.

 

[Irato99]

If Lemieux had been healthy he would have won every art ross trophy during seasons in which he played post 1989 up until....a certain year. 2001? 1997? 2003? Hard to say exactly when he'd have declined in this hypothetical. If I had to guess it would have been till at least 2000 or 2001, but who knows.

He was simply a step above everyone else in the league offensively, by a lot in that time period.

Does Lemieux not have the best track record when it comes to consistency, work ethic and drive? Sure, maybe. So unlike Gretzky he wouldn't have gotten full 100% points in terms of consistency and work ethic. So no he probably was never destined to have 5 straight 200+ point seasons like Gretzky did for example.

But all we're talking about here is the Art Ross. A lemieux playing at 80% of his potential (or less) in mostly full seasons wins the art ross every year in the 90s (until whichever year you want to assume he declines).

I'm sorry but arguing otherwise is silly.

Do you really think if Lemieux had played a full season in 1993-1994 he doesn't win the Art Ross? That would be similar to going back in time and pretending that Gretzky sat out all of the 1982-1983 season due to injury, and someone then saying "yeah well if Gretzky had played in 1983, i still think Peter Stasny wins the Art Ross".

Not a guarantee, Gretzky scored at a similar rate and he played a full season, not just 22 games, also he was not 100%, had back problems, and played on a bad team, while the Pens finished 3rd in the league without Lemieux.

 

[Sentinel]

Fully healthy Gretzky beats fully healthy Lemiuex 8 times out of 10.

 

[bobholly39]

Fully healthy Gretzky beats fully healthy Lemiuex 8 times out of 10.

If they're the same age, sure maybe. But Lemieux was 4 years younger. Lemieux wouldn't ever be competing against a Gretzky at his best, or just about.

Fully healthy Lemieux beats a fully healthy Gretzky whose 4 years older 9 times out of 10, at least. Doesn't make him better - it just means that with health and full seasons he arguably could have had more art ross trophies overall.

 

[bobholly39]

Not a guarantee, Gretzky scored at a similar rate and he played a full season, not just 22 games, also he was not 100%, had back problems, and played on a bad team, while the Pens finished 3rd in the league without Lemieux.

In 1994 Mario Lemieux was a much better hockey player than Wayne Gretzky. If you give him good health, he outscores Gretzky.

 

[Sentinel]

If they're the same age, sure maybe. But Lemieux was 4 years younger. Lemieux wouldn't ever be competing against a Gretzky at his best, or just about.

Fully healthy Lemieux beats a fully healthy Gretzky whose 4 years older 9 times out of 10, at least. Doesn't make him better - it just means that with health and full seasons he arguably could have had more art ross trophies overall.

Let's agree to disagree. After 1991 Gretzky was never fully healthy but before that Lemieux beat Gretzky exactly once.

 

[bobholly39]

Let's agree to disagree. After 1991 Gretzky was never fully healthy but before that Lemieux beat Gretzky exactly once.

That's not true. Before 1991 he beat him twice (1988, 1989). He also had him beat in 1990 in terms of PPG, but only played 59 games. And before 1988 he was 21. No question at 21 years old (vs 26 for Gretzky) Lemieux wasn't as good as Gretzky. 21 year old Gretzky is also quite better than 21 year old Lemieux. But they didn't play head to head at the same age, Gretzky was older. And after Lemieux hit 22 (and Gretzky was 27) - Lemieux was the better overall scorer.

If both players were (mostly) fully healthy post 1991. Lemieux wins every art ross (up until whatever year he declines and Jagr catches him).

Gretzky - unsure. It's very possible Gretzky declines less and finishes #2 above everyone else every year if he didn't also have health issues for a few seasons. It's even possible he beats out Lemieux one of those years where Lemieux is a bit off and Gretzky has a strong year. But for the most part, Lemieux wins all of them, or just about.

 

[Staniowski]

That's not true. Before 1991 he beat him twice (1988, 1989). He also had him beat in 1990 in terms of PPG, but only played 59 games. And before 1988 he was 21. No question at 21 years old (vs 26 for Gretzky) Lemieux wasn't as good as Gretzky. 21 year old Gretzky is also quite better than 21 year old Lemieux. But they didn't play head to head at the same age, Gretzky was older. And after Lemieux hit 22 (and Gretzky was 27) - Lemieux was the better overall scorer.

If both players were (mostly) fully healthy post 1991. Lemieux wins every art ross (up until whatever year he declines and Jagr catches him).

Gretzky - unsure. It's very possible Gretzky declines less and finishes #2 above everyone else every year if he didn't also have health issues for a few seasons. It's even possible he beats out Lemieux one of those years where Lemieux is a bit off and Gretzky has a strong year. But for the most part, Lemieux wins all of them, or just about.

Yes, in 87-88, Gretzky had a slightly higher points per game. The following 2 seasons, 88-89 and 89-90, Lemieux had the higher points per game.

Most observers at the time believed that a then fully healthy Lemieux had surpassed a then fully healthy Gretzky, probably sometime in the 87-88 season but certainly by 1988. Nobody in the hockey world at that time would have taken Gretzky over Lemieux, certainly not in 89 or 90 or 91. Lemieux was at his best, and was universally considered the best player in the world. This happened well before Gretzky's injury.

The Gretzky injury talk is a bit strange because Lemieux obviously had much more serious health problems than Gretzky did, and he still was the better player for the remainder of their careers (whenever they both were playing). In any event, Lemieux had already surpassed Gretzky in everybody's eyes well before Gretzky's injury.

 

[Staniowski]

Fully healthy Gretzky beats fully healthy Lemiuex 8 times out of 10.

Other than the fact that this is not what happened.

When they were both fully healthy and both in their prime (87-88, 88-89, 89-90), Lemieux beat Gretzky in PPG 2 out of 3 times. And Lemieux was widely regarded as the better player during (most of) this period.

Lemieux suffered his first major back injury in 1990, after which he was never again fully healthy in his career.

 

[Asheville]

If your argument hinges on "what ifs," you have no argument.

 

[The Panther]

Most observers at the time believed that a then fully healthy Lemieux had surpassed a then fully healthy Gretzky, probably sometime in the 87-88 season but certainly by 1988. Nobody in the hockey world at that time would have taken Gretzky over Lemieux, certainly not in 89 or 90 or 91.

This is completely false.

 

[KMart27]

In Gretzky's sixth season Lemieux entered the league. Lemieux never had a player of his calibre enter the league while he played. The closest he had was Jagr who was obviously great but not at the same level as Lemieux and he was Lemieux's teammate. Gretzky gets to his mid to late 20s and has to compete with the second best offensive player of all time at his peak for Art Ross trophies. Lemieux gets to his mid 20s and he competes with Gretzky now in his 30s and has Jagr alongside him.

When you are talking about the absolute greatest players of all time, they all played at an extremely high level for a significant period of time and they all accomplished great things. Lemieux deserves and gets the credit for what he did. What he did just didn't reach what Gretzky did. That's not taking anything away from Lemieux, it is just the reality.

 

[Sentinel]

This is completely false.

I came here to say that.

 

[Bustedprospect]

Fully healthy Gretzky beats fully healthy Lemiuex 8 times out of 10.

Health is also something you create yourself by the way you play the game and how you live your life outside the rink. Wayne simple worked harder, had a better diet, was more mature. I also believe Wayne simply loved the game more and that got he motivated when he only competed against himself for large parts of his career. Wayne also reinvented his game many times in his career and in my opinion played smarter to avoid situations where he could hurt himself.

I think Wayne's approach to the game is one of the most overseen factors of his career.

 

[brachyrynchos]

Gretzky overrated?
Ranked 1st in goals-894 1st in assists-1963 1st in points-2857
If Gretzky never had a single assist, he would rank 111th in points
Most even strength goals-617, if he never scored a ppg (204 ranked 17th) and shorthanded (73 ranked 1st), only 16 players would have more goals all time.
If he never scored a single goal, he would still have the most points.
I don't know how he could be considered overrated, when he retired he held 61 nhl records, he currently holds 60. Most of which probably won't get close to being broken, the guy was amazing.
His 51 game point streak in 83-84, 61 goals and 92 assists, he averaged 3 points a game. If he didn't play another game that season, he still would've won the scoring title by 27 points.
Not overrated at all, his dominance and numbers and records show that.

 

[Asheville]

To those critical of Gretzky, I ask:

What more could he have done?

 

[Staniowski]

This is completely false.

(In response to my post where I stated that Lemieux was the best player in the world in the late '80s and early '90s)

Completely false? That's funny, because you've already stated in this thread that Lemieux was the better player in 88-89, and I noticed you said in another thread that Lemieux was the best player in the world from 88 to 90.

So, I'm not following your logic. You've stated that Lemieux was the best player in the world in 1988, 1989, and 1990. So, obviously you would have to believe that Lemieux had surpassed Gretzky, and that Gretzky was not the best player in the world when he was 27, 28, and 29 years old (and healthy, and in his prime).

Seems like this is basically the same thing I said. Seems like we agree.

 

[Staniowski]

Gretzky gets to his mid to late 20s and has to compete with the second best offensive player of all time at his peak for Art Ross trophies. Lemieux gets to his mid 20s and he competes with Gretzky now in his 30s and has Jagr alongside him.

That's true that there wasn't another player of the caliber of Gretzky or Lemieux following Lemieux, and this would obviously help Lemieux (and Gretzky) in scoring races. But, similarly, when Gretzky entered the league, he didn't have anybody of their elite talent to compete against either. And without Gretzky, Lemieux would have, everything else being equal, won additional scoring titles earlier in his career, as he finished 2nd in PPG (behind Wayne) in his 2nd, 3rd, and 4th seasons.

Wouldn't it be nice to have more players like Gretzky and Lemieux!

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

To those critical of Gretzky, I ask:

What more could he have done?

Played defense.

And I don't mean as a defenseman.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Gretzky overrated?
Ranked 1st in goals-894 1st in assists-1963 1st in points-2857
If Gretzky never had a single assist, he would rank 111th in points
Most even strength goals-617, if he never scored a ppg (204 ranked 17th) and shorthanded (73 ranked 1st), only 16 players would have more goals all time.
If he never scored a single goal, he would still have the most points.
I don't know how he could be considered overrated, when he retired he held 61 nhl records, he currently holds 60. Most of which probably won't get close to being broken, the guy was amazing.
His 51 game point streak in 83-84, 61 goals and 92 assists, he averaged 3 points a game. If he didn't play another game that season, he still would've won the scoring title by 27 points.
Not overrated at all, his dominance and numbers and records show that.

No one is saying Gretzky's offensive numbers are overrated. Inflated by era, sure, but not overrated.

What seems to be obvious from this thread is that most Gretzky backers feel there is no one close to him as a hockey player. Any criticism is attacked and any extreme is taken to make an argument against that criticism. (He wasn't bad defensively, really)

 

[The Panther]

I noticed you said in another thread that Lemieux was the best player in the world from 88 to 90.

What I think or said is irrelevant to what you posted (above), which I described as "completely false". Try to stay on topic. Your post (above) isn't about me, it's about what other hockey people thought.