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

[GlitchMarner]

Honestly I don't know of a single person in real life who believes Gretzky would score more against modern defenses and goaltending than Lemieux would, because he wouldn't. It's a fantasy that seems easy to project on paper but doesn't hold up in reality.

So why couldn't he outscore him head-to-head (or come close to doing so) when they actually hit the ice together? See blogofmike's post above.

 

[GlitchMarner]

In actual 60 minute, 5 on 5 games of NHL hockey Gretzky had more impressive seasons and a better head-to-head record. More goals, assists, points. More assists than Lemieux has points.

		Lemieux				Gretzky
Date	Result	G	A	PTS	+/-	G	A	PTS	+/-
06-Nov-84	Oilers 3 @ Pens 3		1	1	1	1		1	-1
12-Jan-85	Oilers 3 @ Pens 4	2		2	Even		3	3	Even
26-Jan-85	Pens 3 @ Oilers 6	1		1	-1	3	1	4	2
22-Jan-86	Pens 7 @ Oilers 4		4	4	Even	1	1	2	-2
07-Mar-86	Pens 3 @ Oilers 5		1	1	-1		2	2	2
26-Mar-86	Oilers 8 @ Pens 3		1	1	-2	1	3	4	3
05-Dec-86	Oilers 4 @ Pens 2			0	-2		3	3	2
24-Jan-87	Pens 2 @ Oilers 4		1	1	Even	1	3	4	3
24-Feb-87	Oilers 2 @ Pens 5			0	Even		1	1	-2
20-Nov-87	Pens 1 @ Oilers 4		1	1	-2		2	2	1
19-Feb-88	Pens 3 @ Oilers 7		1	1	Even			0	Even
12-Nov-88	Pens 2 @ Kings 7	1	1	2	-3		1	1	Even
07-Mar-89	Pens 2 @ Kings 3 (OT)	1	1	2	2		2	2	Even
31-Oct-89	Kings 8 @ Pens 4		2	2	-3	3	3	6	4
10-Feb-90	Kings 6 @ Pens 7		1	1	-1		1	1	Even
26-Feb-91	Pens 2 @ Kings 8		1	1	-3		3	3	1
07-Mar-91	Kings 2 @ Pens 3		2	2	2	1	1	2	1
07-Mar-92	Pens 3 @ Kings 5		1	1	-2	1	2	3	3
11-Mar-93	Kings 3 @ Pens 4	1	3	4	2	1	1	2	Even
06-Nov-93	Pens 3 @ Kings 8		2	2	-2		4	4	3
26-Mar-96	Blues 4 @ Pens 8	5	2	7	3		1	1	-2
16-Oct-96	Pens 1 @ NYR 8			0	-2		2	2	2
16-Nov-96	NYR 8 @ Pens 3		1	1	-1	1	1	2	Even
25-Jan-97	NYR 7 @ Pens 4			0	-2		3	3	1
24-Mar-97	Pens 0 @ NYR 3			0	-1	1	1	2	2
	Total (25 games)	11	27	38	-18	15	41	56	23
	Oilers-era (11 games)	3	10	13	-7	7	15	22	8
	Post-Oilers (14 games)	8	17	25	-11	8	26	34	15

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

I find it surprising Lemieux scored more than 45% of the goals he scored in head-to-head games against Gretzky in one game.

 

[blogofmike]

I find it surprising Lemieux scored more than 45% of the goals he scored in head-to-head games against Gretzky in one game.

I think that's the game they want to pick against the aliens.

Of course the aliens wouldn't put Jon Casey in net. That's like putting Craig Ehlo to defend Michael Jordan. Or Ralph Branca to strikeout Bobby Thomson. Or thinking the great Empty Net wouldn't stop Stefan...

 

[The Panther]

It's a well established and consensus opinion even among people on this board that defense and goaltending got much better from 1980-late 90s

Whether or not goaltending and defense got better is completely irrelevant.

Comparisons between elite players are about degree of sustained domination of peers, not about comparisons of raw numbers.

Gretzky could have peaked at 110 points per season, and I'd still be arguing he was better than Lemieux if he dominated his peers by the same amount.

Finally, if goaltending and defense were so much worse in 1985, 1986, and 1987 (as compared to, say, five or ten years later), then why did Lemieux score only 43, 48, and 54 goals these seasons, while Gretzky scored 73, 52, and 62? Wait, I know your answer -- his teammates were better!! Okay, so why did Gretzky score 51, 55, and 92 his first three seasons?

Finally, let's pause to remember that Mario is 4 years younger than Wayne. Their age difference is the same as that between Crosby and Taylor Hall.

 

[The Panther]

Honestly I don't know of a single person in real life who believes Gretzky would score more against modern defenses and goaltending than Lemieux would, because he wouldn't. It's a fantasy that seems easy to project on paper but doesn't hold up in reality.

I've got news for you -- today's NHL is not the peak and end of evolution. Imagine a bunch of Montreal fans sitting around a cafe in 1947, arguing that there's no way Howie Morenz could score as much as Elmer Lach today, and therefore Elmer Lach is better. Because 1947's NHL is the peak of everything. The game will never improve. That's what you're doing.

How players from the past, taking a time machine, would score (or not) today is the single stupidest position from which to base an opinion on players from across eras. PLAYERS BELONG TO THEIR OWN ERAS. Period.

 

[Pominville Knows]

In actual 60 minute, 5 on 5 games of NHL hockey Gretzky had more impressive seasons and a better head-to-head record. More goals, assists, points. More assists than Lemieux has points.

		Lemieux				Gretzky
Date	Result	G	A	PTS	+/-	G	A	PTS	+/-
06-Nov-84	Oilers 3 @ Pens 3		1	1	1	1		1	-1
12-Jan-85	Oilers 3 @ Pens 4	2		2	Even		3	3	Even
26-Jan-85	Pens 3 @ Oilers 6	1		1	-1	3	1	4	2
22-Jan-86	Pens 7 @ Oilers 4		4	4	Even	1	1	2	-2
07-Mar-86	Pens 3 @ Oilers 5		1	1	-1		2	2	2
26-Mar-86	Oilers 8 @ Pens 3		1	1	-2	1	3	4	3
05-Dec-86	Oilers 4 @ Pens 2			0	-2		3	3	2
24-Jan-87	Pens 2 @ Oilers 4		1	1	Even	1	3	4	3
24-Feb-87	Oilers 2 @ Pens 5			0	Even		1	1	-2
20-Nov-87	Pens 1 @ Oilers 4		1	1	-2		2	2	1
19-Feb-88	Pens 3 @ Oilers 7		1	1	Even			0	Even
12-Nov-88	Pens 2 @ Kings 7	1	1	2	-3		1	1	Even
07-Mar-89	Pens 2 @ Kings 3 (OT)	1	1	2	2		2	2	Even
31-Oct-89	Kings 8 @ Pens 4		2	2	-3	3	3	6	4
10-Feb-90	Kings 6 @ Pens 7		1	1	-1		1	1	Even
26-Feb-91	Pens 2 @ Kings 8		1	1	-3		3	3	1
07-Mar-91	Kings 2 @ Pens 3		2	2	2	1	1	2	1
07-Mar-92	Pens 3 @ Kings 5		1	1	-2	1	2	3	3
11-Mar-93	Kings 3 @ Pens 4	1	3	4	2	1	1	2	Even
06-Nov-93	Pens 3 @ Kings 8		2	2	-2		4	4	3
26-Mar-96	Blues 4 @ Pens 8	5	2	7	3		1	1	-2
16-Oct-96	Pens 1 @ NYR 8			0	-2		2	2	2
16-Nov-96	NYR 8 @ Pens 3		1	1	-1	1	1	2	Even
25-Jan-97	NYR 7 @ Pens 4			0	-2		3	3	1
24-Mar-97	Pens 0 @ NYR 3			0	-1	1	1	2	2
	Total (25 games)	11	27	38	-18	15	41	56	23
	Oilers-era (11 games)	3	10	13	-7	7	15	22	8
	Post-Oilers (14 games)	8	17	25	-11	8	26	34	15

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

While i'm both aware of their head-to-head games overall personal scoring, as well as the question about the Power Plays that arises, you can't just subtract special team scoring and be of the belief that it is a fair metric to judge a players offensive skill by. When a goal is scored, be it on the power play or not that team often find themselves in a situation of protecting a lead. That as long as you don't play on a team that tries to run up the score, just becouse they can.

 

[Pominville Knows]

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.

The talent was obviously there, but they just started working out better and became better than themselves 5-10 years prior. This the rest of the league did too though, although its depth could still theoretically have been different.

The goalie revolution seems rather clear though in terms of the personel.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Whether or not goaltending and defense got better is completely irrelevant.

Comparisons between elite players are about degree of sustained domination of peers, not about comparisons of raw numbers.

Gretzky could have peaked at 110 points per season, and I'd still be arguing he was better than Lemieux if he dominated his peers by the same amount.

Finally, if goaltending and defense were so much worse in 1985, 1986, and 1987 (as compared to, say, five or ten years later), then why did Lemieux score only 43, 48, and 54 goals these seasons, while Gretzky scored 73, 52, and 62? Wait, I know your answer -- his teammates were better!! Okay, so why did Gretzky score 51, 55, and 92 his first three seasons?

Finally, let's pause to remember that Mario is 4 years younger than Wayne. Their age difference is the same as that between Crosby and Taylor Hall.

Point could be made and sustained
that given their low SC championship totals and first place finish number, even by conference, Neither Gretzky nor Lemieux dominated their peers but were dominated rather handily at times.

 

[daver]

88-89 isnt peak Gretzky and i never said it was and even have argued against it repeatedly. This is at least the 2nd time recently i see you respond to me with "well what i say is stupid but what he said was even stupider!"

My mistake. I thought you were in that camp.

 

[The Panther]

Point could be made and sustained
that given their low SC championship totals and first place finish number, even by conference, Neither Gretzky nor Lemieux dominated their peers but were dominated rather handily at times.

Respectfully, that's completely absurd.

Regardless of anything, how is 4 Stanley Cups, 3 wins in best-on-best international tournaments, and 7 first-place NHL finishes in a 21 team League allowing the possiblity of Gretzky "being dominated"? That's ridiculous.

Lemieux, likewise, when we consider the management of his team from before he arrived until about 1990, which was incompetent.

Individuals cannot win championships in hockey, as you should know.

I'm quite sure, however, that if Henri Richard had played for the Leafs in the 80s he would have retired with 11 Stanley Cups.

 

[daver]

Back on topic.

A 120 point season last year would be a sign of clear domination over everyone else. Don't care about any ES vs. PP point breakdown. Don't care that it would not be as statistically dominating as Wayne or Mario. Do care that a solid 2-way game accompanies it.

 

[bobholly39]

I find it surprising Lemieux scored more than 45% of the goals he scored in head-to-head games against Gretzky in one game.

Saying a player is great (and maybe the best) in a 1vs1 situation isn't the same as saying his team would do good head to head against another player's team.

Regardless of which side you're on - you're arguing apples and oranges. I don't get the logic....

Finally - isn't Lemieux easilly better in 1vs1? 1vs1 shootout against a goalie, or 1vs1 against a defenseman...do you think that's something Gretzky was better at than Lemieux?

Whether or not goaltending and defense got better is completely irrelevant.

Comparisons between elite players are about degree of sustained domination of peers, not about comparisons of raw numbers.

Gretzky could have peaked at 110 points per season, and I'd still be arguing he was better than Lemieux if he dominated his peers by the same amount.

Finally, if goaltending and defense were so much worse in 1985, 1986, and 1987 (as compared to, say, five or ten years later), then why did Lemieux score only 43, 48, and 54 goals these seasons, while Gretzky scored 73, 52, and 62? Wait, I know your answer -- his teammates were better!! Okay, so why did Gretzky score 51, 55, and 92 his first three seasons?

Finally, let's pause to remember that Mario is 4 years younger than Wayne. Their age difference is the same as that between Crosby and Taylor Hall.

Everytime there's a Gretzky vs Lemieux argument you try to embellish things for Gretzky and get super defensive. So here goes countering some of your points once again:


- Lemieux didn't start out his career as strong as Gretzky. So looking for "peak" Lemieux in his first 3 seasons isn't gonna happen. In 85, 86 and 87 he was great, but he definitely reached another level after that. So no it's not about teammates. Now if you put peak Lemieux on the Oilers teams from the 80s (so Lemieux from 89-93) - that's a more interesting question. Does he surpass all of Gretzky's single season records? None of them? Some of them? I'd guess he might surpass some of them. I'm not exactly sure why that hypothetical holds so much importance for some though.

- Actually the 110 point example is stupid. I know you're just trying to make your point by giving an extreme example - but still. Gretzky's raw totals are a HUGE component of his domination. Domination over peers fluctuates greatly year to year and isn't always super indicative of true domination, or at least representative of the level of domination.

I think when people argue that goaltending and defense in general got better in the 90s than it was in the 80s - 1996 is a good example. Lemieux still scored 69 goals in 70 games in a much more competitive league when it comes to goalies/defense and even parity to an extent.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Respectfully, that's completely absurd.

Regardless of anything, how is 4 Stanley Cups, 3 wins in best-on-best international tournaments, and 7 first-place NHL finishes in a 21 team League allowing the possiblity of Gretzky "being dominated"? That's ridiculous.

Lemieux, likewise, when we consider the management of his team from before he arrived until about 1990, which was incompetent.

Individuals cannot win championships in hockey, as you should know.

I'm quite sure, however, that if Henri Richard had played for the Leafs in the 80s he would have retired with 11 Stanley Cups.

Fantasy based argument that you provide only applies if reality is ignored.

NHL during Gretzky's and Lemieux's time offered four first place finishes per season, one per conference.

After 1991 Gretzky basically went to one final,no wins. no first place finishes.



Howe, in a league offering one first place per season, was part of a first place team 8 of his first 9 season, then added 1 in 1964-65. In his thirties carried a weak team to 4 SC finals, despite incompetent Red Wing management post 1955.

Lemieux was weaker overall.

 

[daver]

- Lemieux didn't start out his career as strong as Gretzky. So looking for "peak" Lemieux in his first 3 seasons isn't gonna happen. In 85, 86 and 87 he was great, but he definitely reached another level after that. So no it's not about teammates. Now if you put peak Lemieux on the Oilers teams from the 80s (so Lemieux from 89-93) - that's a more interesting question. Does he surpass all of Gretzky's single season records? None of them? Some of them? I'd guess he might surpass some of them. I'm not exactly sure why that hypothetical holds so much importance for some though.

You realize that you are supporting the other's poster contention right?

The point is that any version of Mario should have been equalling or beating Wayne if, as the other posters is trying to argue, Mario was the clearly better talent because he hit Wayne-like numbers in a harder league.

This argument only holds water if we assume that Mario wasn't remotely close to his peak thru his first four years, then, as the other posters is trying to argue, there is a fundamental shift in the league in the 88/89 season and Mario takes a huge step in his production once league strength is factored in.

The other conclusion is Mario was an obvious generational talent who took a couple of more years than Wayne did to hit his peak; a peak that almost everyone accepts as being on the same level as Wayne's statistically when measured vs. his peers.

 

[GlitchMarner]

Saying a player is great (and maybe the best) in a 1vs1 situation isn't the same as saying his team would do good head to head against another player's team.

Regardless of which side you're on - you're arguing apples and oranges. I don't get the logic....

Finally - isn't Lemieux easilly better in 1vs1? 1vs1 shootout against a goalie, or 1vs1 against a defenseman...do you think that's something Gretzky was better at than Lemieux?

I wasn't making a statement about one on one ability...

 

[blogofmike]

Back on topic.

A 120 point season last year would be a sign of clear domination over everyone else. Don't care about any ES vs. PP point breakdown. Don't care that it would not be as statistically dominating as Wayne or Mario. Do care that a solid 2-way game accompanies it.

And if there were a 120 point season and a 115 point season, would it matter if the guy with 120 points had an extra 2 PPO per game?

 

[The Panther]

Everytime there's a Gretzky vs Lemieux argument you try to embellish things for Gretzky and get super defensive.

Actually, I don't. I have no issue whatsoever if everyone thinks Lemieux was a better player than Gretzky. I have no argument for that, and I don't disagree with anyone's considered, informed opinion.

What bothers me is when posters resort to "alternative facts" in order to support their opinions. That's when I respond.

 

[blogofmike]

Fantasy based argument that you provide only applies if reality is ignored.

NHL during Gretzky's and Lemieux's time offered four first place finishes per season, one per conference.

After 1991 Gretzky basically went to one final,no wins. no first place finishes.



Howe, in a league offering one first place per season, was part of a first place team 8 of his first 9 season, then added 1 in 1964-65. In his thirties carried a weak team to 4 SC finals, despite incompetent Red Wing management post 1955.

Lemieux was weaker overall.

This is a team game and you have selected to look at team metrics. Saying Gretzky and Lemieux have low SC totals is like saying Howe and Orr have low SC totals.

For 99 and 66 there was increased competition for their teams. As "soft" as their era may have been to you, they couldn't build a dynasty by beating losing teams, as the 50s Habs did for the majority of their playoff series wins in the 5 Cup years.

 

[The Panther]

After 1991 Gretzky basically went to one final,no wins. no first place finishes.

Howe, in a league offering one first place per season, was part of a first place team 8 of his first 9 season, then added 1 in 1964-65. In his thirties carried a weak team to 4 SC finals, despite incompetent Red Wing management post 1955.

Okay, then, let's do the math here:

Howe spent 26 seasons in the NHL. For 21 of them, there were six teams, meaning a 17% odds every year of finishing 1st overall. For 3 of them, there were 12 teams, meaning a 8.3% chance of finishing 1st overall (though actually it was higher, since half the teams were expansion teams). For 1 of them, there were 14 teams, meaning a 7% chance of finishing 1st overall. And in his final season there were 21 teams, meaning there was a 4.8% chance of finishing 1st overall.

As you helpfully pointed out, Howe finished in 1st overall 9 times in 26 seasons. His "odds of 1st overall success" therefore were 2.29%.

Meanwhile, Gretzky spent 12 seasons in a 21-team League, meaning a 4.8% chance of finishing 1st overall. He spent 1 season in a 22-team League, meaning a 4.5% chance of 1st overall. 1 season in a 24-team League, meaning a 4.2% chance of 1st overall. 5 seasons in a 26-team League, meaning a 3.8% chance of 1st overall. Finally, 1 season in a 27-team League, meaning a 3.7% chance of finishing 1st overall.

Gretzky's teams finished 1st overall three times (2nd overall three times, and the Kings once had the best goal-differential in the NHL, but we'll ignore those). Therefore, Gretzky's "odds of 1st overall success" were 3.4%, actually better than Howe's when the "real" odds are calculated.

So much for your wonky theory.

That's not to say, of course, that Howe's Wings wouldn't have finished 1st overall in a larger League in 1953 or whatever, but you can't just compare the difficulty of 1st overall in a 6-team League to a 22-team League.

And by the way, why are we talking about finishing 1st overall, which isn't of any importance? How about we compare Stanley Cups, or records, or peer domination, or...?

(Again, I have absolutely no issue with anyone who thinks Howe was greater than Gretzky. At times, I am of that opinion myself. I simply can't accept the use of "alternative facts" to make points.)

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

All Lemieux had in 89 was Coffey and he put up 199 points. Imagine him on the high scoring hof 80’s oilers. A peak healthy Lemieux on that team would have been devastating. 57.4% of his teams goals in 89. Gretzky never approached those numbers at any point of his career. And the magnificent one was still jobbed for the hart.

 

[Michael Farkas]

The NHL is not a fair dice/fair chance game...it's not a lottery to see who finishes first, so the pure odds posted above are completely irrelevant.

Good teams made of good players generally finish first.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Okay, then, let's do the math here:

Howe spent 26 seasons in the NHL. For 21 of them, there were six teams, meaning a 17% odds every year of finishing 1st overall. For 3 of them, there were 12 teams, meaning a 8.3% chance of finishing 1st overall (though actually it was higher, since half the teams were expansion teams). For 1 of them, there were 14 teams, meaning a 7% chance of finishing 1st overall. And in his final season there were 21 teams, meaning there was a 4.8% chance of finishing 1st overall.

As you helpfully pointed out, Howe finished in 1st overall 9 times in 26 seasons. His "odds of 1st overall success" therefore were 2.29%.

Meanwhile, Gretzky spent 12 seasons in a 21-team League, meaning a 4.8% chance of finishing 1st overall. He spent 1 season in a 22-team League, meaning a 4.5% chance of 1st overall. 1 season in a 24-team League, meaning a 4.2% chance of 1st overall. 5 seasons in a 26-team League, meaning a 3.8% chance of 1st overall. Finally, 1 season in a 27-team League, meaning a 3.7% chance of finishing 1st overall.

Gretzky's teams finished 1st overall three times (2nd overall three times, and the Kings once had the best goal-differential in the NHL, but we'll ignore those). Therefore, Gretzky's "odds of 1st overall success" were 3.4%, actually better than Howe's when the "real" odds are calculated.

So much for your wonky theory.

That's not to say, of course, that Howe's Wings wouldn't have finished 1st overall in a larger League in 1953 or whatever, but you can't just compare the difficulty of 1st overall in a 6-team League to a 22-team League.

And by the way, why are we talking about finishing 1st overall, which isn't of any importance? How about we compare Stanley Cups, or records, or peer domination, or...?

(Again, I have absolutely no issue with anyone who thinks Howe was greater than Gretzky. At times, I am of that opinion myself. I simply can't accept the use of "alternative facts" to make points.)

Not overall but first in a division, since a division during Gretzky's NHL tenure comprised 4 to 6 teams.

During Howe's post 1967 tenure division or conference conflated at times.

So Gretzky actually had it easier to finish first in a division.

 

[blogofmike]

Not overall but first in a division, since a division during Gretzky's NHL tenure comprised 4 to 6 teams.

During Howe's post 1967 tenure division or conference conflated at times.

So Gretzky actually had it easier to finish first in a division.

By that logic it was also harder to finish last, but a 50s Red Wings team did, so a 30-year old Howe was easy to dominate, or somehow to blame? Seems off.

But I'm going on the assumption that most of what you've been saying is irrelevant since guys with more division titles aren't in the Big 4.

 

[GlitchMarner]

Not overall but first in a division, since a division during Gretzky's NHL tenure comprised 4 to 6 teams.

During Howe's post 1967 tenure division or conference conflated at times.

So Gretzky actually had it easier to finish first in a division.

lol Ovechkin's team's finished first in the eight team Metro four seasons in a row and you were calling him a "luxurious compiler" or whatever not too long ago.

 

[The Panther]

The NHL is not a fair dice/fair chance game...it's not a lottery to see who finishes first, so the pure odds posted above are completely irrelevant.

I agree. I merely did the math (above) to show that the supposed claim of Howe's team finishes being superior to Gretzky's was a mathematically wonky supposition. But the goal-posts have now been moved to 'divisions' instead of overall, so I give up...