What would it take for a player of today to challenge for a spot in the big 4?

[The Panther]

Lemieux was a better player. Gretzky had a better career.

Except Gretzky had higher peaks in everything and also won three times as much, in addition to having the better career. But okay.

 

[daver]

It does change the actual results (to me at least). Players by and large don't control how many PP opportunities their team gets. So not only might player A score more points than player B because his team gets more PP chances, but player A might also score more points than some player C two decades later because player C plays in a league where fewer penalties in general get called.

I mean surely you'd think it wouldn't be fair to compare two goalies' stats without looking at how many powerplays they face?

I'm not saying that PP ability shouldn't or doesn't count. But there's certainly an argument to be made that powerplay production isn't worth the same as EV production; or comparing between eras isn't as transferable

All I care about are the results first and foremost. This is getting into speculation that a player's ES/PP point ratio would not adjust depending on circumstances. In a Mario vs. Wayne debate, I don't care that Mario's PP points were a big reason for him hitting 199 points vs. Wayne's ES heavy 200 point seasons. How many PP did Mario draw himself?

I don't think an argument that a player's talents were more or less transferable is a very strong one. Mario took advantage of his skills on the PP unlike any other player in history. It arguably allowed him to be a more productive player than Wayne later into his career.

As I said, I don't think Mario deserves credit for anything other than what his numbers showed despite speculation about his injury-shortened years. It took him him longer to hit his peak than Wayne did as his PP production did not peak until his 88/89 season. That's a statistical fact. IMO, it doesn't change the value of his 88/89 season though.

 

[Neutrinos]

It's been mentioned that Pittsburgh had a lot of power play opportunities

Didn't Edmonton have the benefit of playing 4 on 4 at times because of penalties?

 

[Pominville Knows]

All I care about are the results first and foremost. This is getting into speculation that a player's ES/PP point ratio would not adjust depending on circumstances. In a Mario vs. Wayne debate, I don't care that Mario's PP points were a big reason for him hitting 199 points vs. Wayne's ES heavy 200 point seasons. How many PP did Mario draw himself?

I don't think an argument that a player's talents were more or less transferable is a very strong one. Mario took advantage of his skills on the PP unlike any other player in history. It arguably allowed him to be a more productive player than Wayne later into his career.

As I said, I don't think Mario deserves credit for anything other than what his numbers showed despite speculation about his injury-shortened years. It took him him longer to hit his peak than Wayne did as his PP production did not peak until his 88/89 season. That's a statistical fact. IMO, it doesn't change the value of his 88/89 season though.

I seem to remember someone had a look at Lemieux drawing penalties but i am fuzzy about that person's conclusion. Anyhow, when a team takes the lead on the PP they then start to defend more thus limiting not the least further ES scoring. I think the Oilers often lacked that philosophy though, piling up the score just becouse they could. This can be seen in Gretzky's relatively low number of game winning goals.
Lemieux's dangling i would presume led to some hookings here and there on him, while Gretzky was harder to reach.

 

[authentic]

All I care about are the results first and foremost. This is getting into speculation that a player's ES/PP point ratio would not adjust depending on circumstances. In a Mario vs. Wayne debate, I don't care that Mario's PP points were a big reason for him hitting 199 points vs. Wayne's ES heavy 200 point seasons. How many PP did Mario draw himself?

I don't think an argument that a player's talents were more or less transferable is a very strong one. Mario took advantage of his skills on the PP unlike any other player in history. It arguably allowed him to be a more productive player than Wayne later into his career.

As I said, I don't think Mario deserves credit for anything other than what his numbers showed despite speculation about his injury-shortened years. It took him him longer to hit his peak than Wayne did as his PP production did not peak until his 88/89 season. That's a statistical fact. IMO, it doesn't change the value of his 88/89 season though.

His ES scoring was amazing in 1993 despite all the powerplays that year.

 

[authentic]

Except Gretzky had higher peaks in everything and also won three times as much, in addition to having the better career. But okay.

If you're looking at totally raw numbers then sure. Their peaks were similar but when Lemieux had his best years defense and goaltending was atleast remotely comparable to what it became in the dead puck era and afterwards. Lemieux proved he could score a lot at an older age after tons of damage to his body on huge modern style goaltenders (which has proven infinitely more effective) and tough defensive systems. He battled through physical abuse that Gretzky never (not literally never but you get my point) had to sustain and fought his own battles. Gretzky with his skillset would've had a tough time outscoring Lemieux beyond the early 90s if they were both at their best, in my honest opinion. That holds a lot of weight for me but I'm not expecting to change anyones mind here, enough people believe Lemieux was better that I don't feel like I'm making a wildly outlandish claim by stating that. The more I go back and watch of these two the more I'm certain Lemieux was the best offensive talent of all time, better than anyone before or since. If his health held up I doubt anyone wins scoring titles from 89-2000 or so.

 

[Pominville Knows]

If you're looking at totally raw numbers then sure. Their peaks were similar but when Lemieux had his best years defense and goaltending was atleast remotely comparable to what it became in the dead puck era and afterwards. Lemieux proved he could score at lot at an older age after tons of damage to his body on huge modern style goaltenders (which has proven infinitely more effective) and tough defensive systems. He battled through physical abuse that Gretzky never (not literally never but you get my point) had to sustain and fought his own battles. Gretzky with his skillset would've had a tough time outscoring Lemieux beyond the early 90s if they were both at their best, in my honest opinion. That holds a lot of weight for me but I'm not expecting to change anyones mind here, enough people believe Lemieux was better that I don't feel like I'm making a wildly outlandish claim by stating that. The more I go back and watch of these two the more I'm certain Lemieux was the best offensive talent of all time, better than anyone before or since. If his health held up I doubt anyone wins scoring titles from 89-2000 or so.

I agree with a lot of this but i gotta say that Gretzky nowadays could have matched Lemieux in points, his playmaking is hard to dismiss more than that, taking the Art Ross sometimes even if 66 is comparably healthy. He will double the amount of goals in the assist column also during his peak years though.
Lemieux does not possess that level of playmaking in any era, but on the other hand has the advantage in shooting since he could thread the needle from any position, angle and not the least at any blink of an eye in time.

 

[authentic]

I agree with a lot of this but i gotta say that Gretzky nowadays could have matched Lemieux in points, his playmaking is hard to dismiss more than that, taking the Art Ross sometimes even when 66 is comparably healthy. He will have double the amount of goals in the assist column also during his peak years though.
Lemieux on the other hand has the advantage in shooting, he could thread the needle from any angle and not the least at any blink of an eye in time.

Honestly the more old footage I see of Gretzky, especially clips from later in his career the better I think he could do today. Lemieux was just something else though, he had the physical size and skillset of modern players (better even, no one until this day has his combination of reach and hands) then to top it off his hockey sense was closer to Gretzky's than it was to any other player, infact I don't believe it was much worse at all. The fact that Lemieux had the same amount of assists as Gretzky in the 1988-89 season but scored 31 more goals (in 2 less games) says more than most are willing to admit. Gretzky was 27/28 that season, an athletes literal physical peak. There was no noticeable decline in his ability, he had not sustained a serious injury until that point, he simply went to a worse team and Lemieux got help from the back end which turned the tides a bit. The real decline of Gretzky began after the Suter hit, but Lemieux was comfortably the better player before then when he was healthy and still would've been if both were the same age IMO.

 

[Pominville Knows]

Honestly the more old footage I see of Gretzky, especially clips from later in his career the better I think he could do today. Lemieux was just something else though, he had the physical size and skillset of modern players (better even, no one until this day has his combination of reach and hands) then to top it off his hockey sense was closer to Gretzky's than it was to any other player, infact I don't believe it was much worse at all. The fact that Lemieux had the same amount of assists as Gretzky in the 1988-89 season but scored 31 more goals (in 2 less games) says more than most are willing to admit. Gretzky was 27/28 that season, an athletes literal physical peak. There was no noticeable decline in his ability, he had not sustained a serious injury until that point, he simply went to a worse team and Lemieux got help from the back end which turned the tides a bit. The real decline of Gretzky began after the Suter hit, but Lemieux was comfortably the better player before then when he was healthy and still would've been if both were the same age IMO.

Players peak years came earlier back then though, and 99 had some serious mileage by that point, including numerous long playoffs.
One tangent reason amongst other not so valid ones(31 overall points more) that 66 got neither the Hart or Lindsay that year was his many more Power Play points than 99 and Yzerman.

 

[authentic]

Players peak years came earlier back then though, and 99 had some serious mileage by that point, including numerous long playoffs.

I mean that depends, in most cases the scoring decline of superstar players that people use as an example when they say this (like Crosby for example) has more to do with the league scoring dropping and other factors than it does with age or wear and tear before the age of 28. Ovechkin is the only case of a very elite player that I've seen noticeably decline before 25. Gretzky played tons of hockey until that point I'll give him that, and had just finished winning 2 more Cups, but he did not really sustain serious physical punishment to the extent of Lemieux even by that point in time, even if Lemieux was only 23. He already had back trouble before and during that season IIRC.

31 more goals and the same amount of assists in 2 less games, that is a drastic difference. Lemieux was not only by far the better goal scorer but he was also a better playmaker by virtue of still putting up the same assist totals while scoring far more goals, in a few less games to boot.

 

[Pominville Knows]

I mean that depends, in most cases the scoring decline of superstar players that people use as an example when they say this (like Crosby for example) has more to do with the league scoring dropping and other factors than it does with age or wear and tear before the age of 28. Ovechkin is the only case of a very elite player that I've seen noticeably decline before 25. Gretzky played tons of hockey until that point I'll give him that, and had just finished winning 2 more Cups, but he did not really sustain serious physical punishment to the extent of Lemieux even by that point in time, even if Lemieux was only 23. He already had back trouble before and during that season IIRC.

31 more goals and the same amount of assists in 2 less games, that is a drastic difference. Lemieux was not only by far the better goal scorer but he was also a better playmaker by virtue of still putting up the same assist totals while scoring far more goals, in a few less games to boot.

But you know, playing elite sports do burn your body out. That is why science say that elite sports is not fully healthy.
Back then they upon that did not train good enough either, after 25 things do not come as automatic anymore. With ultimate training and being injury free you can only sustain the physique for a while, not better it.

 

[authentic]

But you know, playing elite sports do burn your body out. That is why science say that elite sports is not fully healthy.
Back then they upon that did not train good enough either, after 25 things do not come as automatic anymore. With ultimate training and being injury free you can only sustain the physique for a while, not better it.

I realize that, but my point was the gap in their points that season can not be explained by a decline alone. He was 27/28, not past 30. I get your point though. Look at Lemieux at 27 in 1992-93, he thoroughly dominated, and in 1995/96 he was 30 and had already almost retired due to cancer and back problems. Gretzky hit his peak a bit earlier and Mario aged better despite more injury troubles and a more evolved league. Gretzky was the most dominant hockey player over his peers but Lemieux's peers were better and he was injured far more. I do not think the state of the league even in the 90s would've allowed for Gretzky to be as dominant as he was just a decade before.

 

[bobholly39]

If you're looking at totally raw numbers then sure. Their peaks were similar but when Lemieux had his best years defense and goaltending was atleast remotely comparable to what it became in the dead puck era and afterwards. Lemieux proved he could score a lot at an older age after tons of damage to his body on huge modern style goaltenders (which has proven infinitely more effective) and tough defensive systems. He battled through physical abuse that Gretzky never (not literally never but you get my point) had to sustain and fought his own battles. Gretzky with his skillset would've had a tough time outscoring Lemieux beyond the early 90s if they were both at their best, in my honest opinion. That holds a lot of weight for me but I'm not expecting to change anyones mind here, enough people believe Lemieux was better that I don't feel like I'm making a wildly outlandish claim by stating that. The more I go back and watch of these two the more I'm certain Lemieux was the best offensive talent of all time, better than anyone before or since. If his health held up I doubt anyone wins scoring titles from 89-2000 or so.

I don't think it's outlandish to suggest Mario Lemieux is the most talented player of all time. I think a lot of Gretzky supporters would even say so. But talent only counts for so much - execution, will, drive, consistency and performance also have to kick in, and Gretzky is unrivaled in many of those.

Also - you seem to be arguing in your other posts that Lemieux would be more adaptable today's eras (or other eras) than Gretzky would. Maybe - maybe not - but i don't think that's necessarily a valid criteria in assessing a player's ranking all time. You evaluate them based on their actual career, not in terms of how transferable their skillset might or might not be to another era.

My opinion has always been - in a perfectly healthy world Lemieux could have surpassed many of Gretzky's records. I think he gets the most career goals, most career art rosses - and has a chance at his single season record (points and goals - not assist of course) - whether he gets those or not is 50/50, he'd need a perfect storm of a season, but possible. But Gretzky was much more consistent and driven earlier in his career than Lemieux - and even with perfect health Lemieux wouldn't have surpassed Gretzky all time. Gretzky simply worked harder at it imo.

 

[The Panther]

"Gretzky's peak was only better if you look at the raw numbers."
No...no. Gretzky's peak was better in every conceivable way, not only the raw numbers. Gretzky led the NHL in goals more times than Lemieux did. He led in assists way more times than Lemieux did. He led in points way more times than Lemieux did. He led the playoffs in scoring way more times than Lemieux did. He 'won' all of these things by far greater margins than Lemieux did. He won scoring titles by 80 points per season... over a teammate. He also elevated his teammates more and won more than Lemieux did.

"Lemieux would have beaten Gretzky if healthy"
Lemieux was perfectly healthy (and a giant in size and reach compared to Gretzky) from 1984 to 1990 and didn't even approach a single one of Gretzky's records. The one time he did approach Gretzky's best scoring levels -- 1992/93 -- was the easiest season ever for high-scorers, and Lemieux's season ended with the Pens on a 18-game undefeated streak, which obviously inflated his per-game stats (as proof, see how he couldn't maintain that pace in the playoffs).

"Lemieux was easily the better player from the start of the 90s"
Was he? For me, Gretzky was by far the better player from 1984 to 1988. Then, I'd rank them about equal from 1988 to 1991. After Gretzky's 'Sutering' and other issues in autumn 1991, Lemieux for me takes over as the clear #1 player... even if he needed to rest for two years between seasons.

In 1988-89, I agree Mario was better (not a lot better, when you look at ES points, which are about equal... but better). But I love how much mileage the Lemieux-apologists get from the 1988-89 season, as if that's typical of Mario's career. Let's just ignore the fact that Wayne had just been sent to play on a crappy new team, and focus on that one season as the perfect time to compare them head to head!

As for 1989-90, the Kings were struggling (as was Pittsburgh, to an extent). Here's how the scoring looked on January 1st, 1990:, after each player had played 38 games:
1. Gretzky 80 points
2. Lemieux 76 points
Hmm, now why isn't Mario running away with it since he had 199 points the year before, he's now "clearly the best player", Gretzky's on a bad tea, and Mario's perfectly healthy?? Did Gretzky ever get approached or surpassed in scoring this late in a season during his prime years? No, he didn't, not even close. (It wasn't until February 1990, when Mario went on a hot streak, coinciding with the worst-'slump' of Gretzky's career after his best-chum Nicholls was traded, that allowed Mario to surpass Wayne in scoring... although Wayne ended up winning the scoring race anyway.) Despite his point totals, Mario somehow ended up -18.

What about 1990-91? Mario apologists don't like to check this regular season, as it doesn't support their theory of Lemieux's Godlike nature. Mario barely played, but put up 45 points in 26 games (1.73 PPG), which means it's the second year in a row his point-production has fallen far off his 1989 peak. (Did Gretzky's point production ever significantly fall after his big 1981-82 spike? No, it didn't.) Meanwhile, Gretzky scored 163 points in 78 games (2.09 PPG), had a far better ES record than Mario, and his team finished in 1st place.

Then the Mario-apologists will go on about Lemieux's 43 points in the '91 playoff run -- "the second highest total ever!". Yes, it was... and it was achieved in 23 games. Gretzky scored 47 points in 18 games (and went +27). Gretzky scored 21 points in 9 games. 38 points in 16 games. 35 points in 19 games. 43 points in 19 games. 40 points at age 32.

Speaking of playoffs, how were Mario's after age 26? Not very impressive. Gretzky's? Very good, esp. later in his career in '93, '96, and '97.

Mario was the better player starting from October 1991 (except in the playoffs). Not before.

 

[daver]

I don't think it's outlandish to suggest Mario Lemieux is the most talented player of all time. I think a lot of Gretzky supporters would even say so. But talent only counts for so much - execution, will, drive, consistency and performance also have to kick in, and Gretzky is unrivaled in many of those.

Also - you seem to be arguing in your other posts that Lemieux would be more adaptable today's eras (or other eras) than Gretzky would. Maybe - maybe not - but i don't think that's necessarily a valid criteria in assessing a player's ranking all time. You evaluate them based on their actual career, not in terms of how transferable their skillset might or might not be to another era.

My opinion has always been - in a perfectly healthy world Lemieux could have surpassed many of Gretzky's records. I think he gets the most career goals, most career art rosses - and has a chance at his single season record (points and goals - not assist of course) - whether he gets those or not is 50/50, he'd need a perfect storm of a season, but possible. But Gretzky was much more consistent and driven earlier in his career than Lemieux - and even with perfect health Lemieux wouldn't have surpassed Gretzky all time. Gretzky simply worked harder at it imo.

It really is. Had he put up one season that could be considered better than Wayne's best, this statement could be reasonable.

And Wayne was simply better early in career, primarily because he was wracking up ES points. Mario hit stride when his PP production hit it's stride.

 

[authentic]

The Mario-Mad-Hatters are strong in this one.


"Gretzky's peak was only better if you look at the raw numbers."
No...no. Gretzky's peak was better in every conceivable way, not only the raw numbers. Gretzky led the NHL in goals more times than Lemieux did. He led in assists way more times than Lemieux did. He led in points way more times than Lemieux did. He led the playoffs in scoring way more times than Lemieux did. He 'won' all of these things by far greater margins than Lemieux did. He won scoring titles by 80 points per season... over a teammate. He also elevated his teammates more and won more than Lemieux did.

"Lemieux would have beaten Gretzky if healthy"
Lemieux was perfectly healthy (and a giant in size and reach compared to Gretzky) from 1984 to 1990 and didn't even approach a single one of Gretzky's records. The one time he did approach Gretzky's best scoring levels -- 1992/93 -- was the easiest season ever for high-scorers, and Lemieux's season ended with the Pens on a 18-game undefeated streak, which obviously inflated his per-game stats (as proof, see how he couldn't maintain that pace in the playoffs).

"Lemieux was easily the better player from the start of the 90s"
Was he? For me, Gretzky was by far the better player from 1984 to 1988. Then, I'd rank them about equal from 1988 to 1991. After Gretzky's 'Sutering' and other issues in autumn 1991, Lemieux for me takes over as the clear #1 player... even if he needed to rest for two years between seasons.

In 1988-89, I agree Mario was better (not a lot better, when you look at ES points, which are about equal... but better). But I love how much mileage the Lemieux-apologists get from the 1988-89 season, as if that's typical of Mario's career. Let's just ignore the fact that Wayne had just been sent to play on a crappy new team, and focus on that one season as the perfect time to compare them head to head!

As for 1989-90, the Kings were struggling (as was Pittsburgh, to an extent). Here's how the scoring looked on January 1st, 1990:, after each player had played 38 games:
1. Gretzky 80 points
2. Lemieux 76 points
Hmm, now why isn't Mario running away with it since he had 199 points the year before, he's now "clearly the best player", Gretzky's on a bad tea, and Mario's perfectly healthy?? Did Gretzky ever get approached or surpassed in scoring this late in a season during his prime years? No, he didn't, not even close. (It wasn't until February 1990, when Mario went on a hot streak, coinciding with the worst-'slump' of Gretzky's career after his best-chum Nicholls was traded, that allowed Mario to surpass Wayne in scoring... although Wayne ended up winning the scoring race anyway.) Despite his point totals, Mario somehow ended up -18.

What about 1990-91? Mario apologists don't like to check this regular season, as it doesn't support their theory of Lemieux's Godlike nature. Mario barely played, but put up 45 points in 26 games (1.73 PPG), which means it's the second year in a row his point-production has fallen far off his 1989 peak. (Did Gretzky's point production ever significantly fall after his big 1981-82 spike? No, it didn't.) Meanwhile, Gretzky scored 163 points in 78 games (2.09 PPG), had a far better ES record than Mario, and his team finished in 1st place.

Then the Mario-apologists will go on about Lemieux's 43 points in the '91 playoff run -- "the second highest total ever!". Yes, it was... and it was achieved in 23 games. Gretzky scored 47 points in 18 games (and went +27). Gretzky scored 21 points in 9 games. 38 points in 16 games. 35 points in 19 games. 43 points in 19 games. 40 points at age 32.

Speaking of playoffs, how were Mario's after age 26? Not very impressive. Gretzky's? Very good, esp. later in his career in '93, '96, and '97.

Mario was the better player starting from October 1991 (except in the playoffs). Not before.

Nothing said here IMO invalidates anything I said above. Gretzky had the better career, but for the reasons I stated I believe Lemieux was better even if some of it is speculation.

 

[daver]

If you're looking at totally raw numbers then sure. Their peaks were similar but when Lemieux had his best years defense and goaltending was atleast remotely comparable to what it became in the dead puck era and afterwards.

So 88/89 saw a fundamental shift in defense and goaltending which produced the "real" Wayne yet the two highest non-Wayne/Mario point totals of the '80s happened that season.

This could be the biggest fallacy on HF.

 

[bobholly39]

It really is. Had he put up one season that could be considered better than Wayne's best, this statement could be reasonable.

And Wayne was simply better early in career, primarily because he was wracking up ES points. Mario hit stride when his PP production hit it's stride.

More talented is not the same as better player. I said saying Mario is more talented than Gretzky is very defensible - doesnt make him the better player tho.

Surprised you're actually responding in this way tbh.

 

[bobholly39]

The Mario-Mad-Hatters are strong in this one.


"Gretzky's peak was only better if you look at the raw numbers."
No...no. Gretzky's peak was better in every conceivable way, not only the raw numbers. Gretzky led the NHL in goals more times than Lemieux did. He led in assists way more times than Lemieux did. He led in points way more times than Lemieux did. He led the playoffs in scoring way more times than Lemieux did. He 'won' all of these things by far greater margins than Lemieux did. He won scoring titles by 80 points per season... over a teammate. He also elevated his teammates more and won more than Lemieux did.

"Lemieux would have beaten Gretzky if healthy"
Lemieux was perfectly healthy (and a giant in size and reach compared to Gretzky) from 1984 to 1990 and didn't even approach a single one of Gretzky's records. The one time he did approach Gretzky's best scoring levels -- 1992/93 -- was the easiest season ever for high-scorers, and Lemieux's season ended with the Pens on a 18-game undefeated streak, which obviously inflated his per-game stats (as proof, see how he couldn't maintain that pace in the playoffs).

"Lemieux was easily the better player from the start of the 90s"
Was he? For me, Gretzky was by far the better player from 1984 to 1988. Then, I'd rank them about equal from 1988 to 1991. After Gretzky's 'Sutering' and other issues in autumn 1991, Lemieux for me takes over as the clear #1 player... even if he needed to rest for two years between seasons.

In 1988-89, I agree Mario was better (not a lot better, when you look at ES points, which are about equal... but better). But I love how much mileage the Lemieux-apologists get from the 1988-89 season, as if that's typical of Mario's career. Let's just ignore the fact that Wayne had just been sent to play on a crappy new team, and focus on that one season as the perfect time to compare them head to head!

As for 1989-90, the Kings were struggling (as was Pittsburgh, to an extent). Here's how the scoring looked on January 1st, 1990:, after each player had played 38 games:
1. Gretzky 80 points
2. Lemieux 76 points
Hmm, now why isn't Mario running away with it since he had 199 points the year before, he's now "clearly the best player", Gretzky's on a bad tea, and Mario's perfectly healthy?? Did Gretzky ever get approached or surpassed in scoring this late in a season during his prime years? No, he didn't, not even close. (It wasn't until February 1990, when Mario went on a hot streak, coinciding with the worst-'slump' of Gretzky's career after his best-chum Nicholls was traded, that allowed Mario to surpass Wayne in scoring... although Wayne ended up winning the scoring race anyway.) Despite his point totals, Mario somehow ended up -18.

What about 1990-91? Mario apologists don't like to check this regular season, as it doesn't support their theory of Lemieux's Godlike nature. Mario barely played, but put up 45 points in 26 games (1.73 PPG), which means it's the second year in a row his point-production has fallen far off his 1989 peak. (Did Gretzky's point production ever significantly fall after his big 1981-82 spike? No, it didn't.) Meanwhile, Gretzky scored 163 points in 78 games (2.09 PPG), had a far better ES record than Mario, and his team finished in 1st place.

Then the Mario-apologists will go on about Lemieux's 43 points in the '91 playoff run -- "the second highest total ever!". Yes, it was... and it was achieved in 23 games. Gretzky scored 47 points in 18 games (and went +27). Gretzky scored 21 points in 9 games. 38 points in 16 games. 35 points in 19 games. 43 points in 19 games. 40 points at age 32.

Speaking of playoffs, how were Mario's after age 26? Not very impressive. Gretzky's? Very good, esp. later in his career in '93, '96, and '97.

Mario was the better player starting from October 1991 (except in the playoffs). Not before.

I know you're very passionate about this topic but isnt it inherently dishonnest to ignore Lemieuxs back issues in 90 and 91 and so on?

Yes Lemieuxs numbers were a big letdown vs 89 but wasnt his back in really bad shape by then? Without that hed have been scoring at a much higher clip i expect

 

[DitchMarner]

Nothing said here IMO invalidates anything I said above. Gretzky had the better career, but for the reasons I stated I believe Lemieux was better even if some of it is speculation.

Do you have any objective proof that the quality of play in the NHL improved drastically after the 1980s?

Bourque, MacInnis, Stevens and Chelios were notable defensemen in the 1980s and they were among the best at the position in the 1990s.

Furthermore, Stevens won the Conn Smythe in 2000, Chelios finished second in Norris voting in 2002 and MacInnis finished second in Norris voting in 2003.

 

[Canadiens1958]

So 88/89 saw a fundamental shift in defense and goaltending which produced the "real" Wayne yet the two highest non-Wayne/Mario point totals of the '80s happened that season.

This could be the biggest fallacy on HF.

Describe in detail this fundamental shift in defence and goaltending that you claim.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Describe in detail this fundamental shift in defence and goaltending that you claim.

He's on your side in this argument, for what it's worth.

 

[smokingwriter]

Except Gretzky had higher peaks in everything and also won three times as much, in addition to having the better career. But okay.

Gretzky put up his best point totals in the flaccid early, middle-1980s when there were a bunch of poor teams and poor players. He also played on a team that was significantly better than any team of which Lemieux was a part (in the NHL, anyways). Soft division, soft conference, lopsided, top-heavy NHL, high-scoring era (still more than a few retreads and mediocrities from the WHA floating around) equals bloated offensive stats.

Funny how Orr never gets a pass because of his era, but Gretzky - who benefited from a perfect storm (team, coach, era), and had his best years before the age of 27 - is always painted with this halo around his head.

 

[psycat]

Gretzky put up his best point totals in the flaccid early, middle-1980s when there were a bunch of poor teams and poor players. He also played on a team that was significantly better than any team of which Lemieux was a part (in the NHL, anyways). Soft division, soft conference, lopsided, top-heavy NHL, high-scoring era (still more than a few retreads and mediocrities from the WHA floating around) equals bloated offensive stats.

Funny how Orr never gets a pass because of his era, but Gretzky - who benefited from a perfect storm (team, coach, era), and had his best years before the age of 27 - is always painted with this halo around his head.

"Orr never gets a pass for his era"? Literally the only thing I see in threads such as this is people trying to downplay Gretzky's accomplishments by attributing them to the 80s while I rarely, if ever, see the same argument made against Orr.

Heck the argument usually goes like "Orr played D in a way nobody at the time or before did". Surely it would be easier to be the best at something that nobody else is even trying to do?

 

[blogofmike]

Gretzky put up his best point totals in the flaccid early, middle-1980s when there were a bunch of poor teams and poor players. He also played on a team that was significantly better than any team of which Lemieux was a part (in the NHL, anyways). Soft division, soft conference, lopsided, top-heavy NHL, high-scoring era (still more than a few retreads and mediocrities from the WHA floating around) equals bloated offensive stats.

Funny how Orr never gets a pass because of his era, but Gretzky - who benefited from a perfect storm (team, coach, era), and had his best years before the age of 27 - is always painted with this halo around his head.

The year Gretzky went +100 the Smythe featured the #2, #3, and #6 offenses in the NHL in the Flames, Jets, and Kings (all of whom had winning records). By his time, the opponents were capable of hitting back.

Feel free to look, but I don't think you'll find that there were AHL calibre teams that Gretzky ran up the score on, in the same manner that Orr 70 was a +54 (with +50 against expansion 6 teams) or a +80 in 1975, with a +20 against the hapless Caps, pushing him ahead of Clarke's +79 since Clarke was only +3 against Washington.