Lemieux had more points per game 7 out of the 12 seasons they spent together in the NHL.
When did Gretzky become the GOAT
- Thread starter Ctrain2k
- Start date
Lemieux had more points per game 7 out of the 12 seasons they spent together in the NHL.
TheGuiminator
I’ll be damned King, I’ll be damned
- Oct 23, 2018
- 1,999
- 1,708
True, but Lemieux was 5 years younger, It does make a difference when a player is 25 and the other 30
The Panther
Registered User
I count six: 1989, 1990 (barely), 1992, 1993, 1996, and 1997.
Of course, Gretzky was past his prime in four of these six.
Fantomas
Registered User
- Aug 7, 2012
- 13,302
- 6,635
Also 1994 Lemieux was ahead, that might not be included in some listings because he only played 22 games due to his back injury and cancer treatment.
Personally, I do not think that 1994 should count. 22 games is just too short. I count 1990 as unknown, as it is hard to tell what would happen if Mario had to play the rest of the games. While we are playing what if, we should consider what if he slowed down if he had to play more games. Wear and tear during the interminable season must be considered, and would very probably reduced per/game production.
What a great shame to never know what he could have done! Maybe he could have passed Howe, or even Orr. Never quite the GOAT, he still found ways to be in the discussion.
What a great shame to never know what he could have done! Maybe he could have passed Howe, or even Orr. Never quite the GOAT, he still found ways to be in the discussion.
NyQuil
Big F$&*in Q
I get all the old people who like Orr but it’s not close IMO.
People who vote otherwise are trying to be contrarian and hipster different.
People who vote otherwise are trying to be contrarian and hipster different.
The Panther
Registered User
Generally even the most reluctant will give their due after retirement. I imagine not everyone credited him with being the greatest till the 2000s.
The Panther
Registered User
As far as the best player ever goes, I can see legitimate arguments for
-- Gretzky
-- Howe
-- Orr
I don't see an argument for Mario simply because everything he did, Gretzky had already done faster, bigger, and better. Gretzky also led his teams to three times' more Finals appearances, twice as many Cups, and more first place finishes. As both players were basically offensive, it's not like Lemieux brings any special intangibles to the table, either; If anything that all goes in Gretzky's favor as well, as he was more mature faster.
I do see the argument for Orr and (esp.) for Howe. But with Orr, if we're looking at his nine years with Boston, we should compare that with Gretzky's nine years with Edmonton. In such a comparison, the hardware, record-setting, and Cup counting all goes in Gretzky's favor.
I have no argument with anyone positing Howe as the greatest.
With contemporary players, it's not only difficult to historically rank them because they're contemporary (which is always the case), but it's very hard in recent years because players no longer dominate peers to the degree they once did. We will have to wait years after today's players retire to properly evaluate Crosby, Ovechkin, McDavid, etc.
blood gin
Registered User
- Jan 17, 2017
- 4,174
- 2,203
Howe was very good for a freakish amount of time. But he was never otherwordly good in terms of ability and standing out on the ice like Orr and Gretzky. He was enormously talented. But the other two at times looked like the NHL was too easy for them.
It's the longevity and love of the game with Howe. But his actual skill set was a cut below generational
The Panther
Registered User
12 first-team All Stars at right-wing says otherwise. Howe also led the NHL in PPG seven times, the same as Mario Lemieux, while bringing outstanding checking skills and a physical element that Wayne and Mario didn't have.
BobbyAwe
Registered User
As for Gretzky vs. Orr, comparing a forward with a defenseman is TOO far from an "exact science". The only way I can look at it is to imagine 5 "Gretzky's" vs. 5 "Orr's" with equal goaltending, and I don't see the "Gretzky's" winning that one?
McGuillicuddy
Registered User
- Sep 6, 2005
- 1,296
- 198
Yes, I've always found this to be a somewhat ridiculous criterium. It obviously breaks down pretty bad for goalies and really isn't any much more relevant for anybody else. One might be able to make a good argument that 5 Zdeno Charas would beat 5 Gretzkys, but the line of people who would call Chara the GOAT is probably pretty short (that line should include his wife and children, and nobody else
).
Last edited:
From my perspective, any attempt to compare five of one player versus five of another player illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the game. Hockey is not singles tennis or even golf for that matter. I think the question to be posited is, "which individual in the comparison is able to elevate four imaginary replacement-level linemates to the furthest degree?" After all, hockey is played as a team game. That's the critical comparison to made because, in my humble opinion, the ability to elevate average linemates beyond their potential is the actual differentiator in this imaginary scenario. The additional brilliance of the Orr and Gretzky-level players lies in their ability to incorporate much lesser talent into their game rhythm.
Many exceptional talents do this to varying degrees and therein lies their ability to tilt the proverbial ice for their linemates and, consequently, their team as a whole. There are also many players with high-end talent who are unable to do this and we are left scratching our heads as to why they are performing below their apparent skill level. The reason why is, they can be isolated and they can't think the game fast enough to incorporate their linemates, which generally commands the respect of their opponents for the requisite time and space to increasingly dictate the gameplay.
BlueBull
Habby Man
When he had both the career and single-season records for goals, assists, and points.
That’s what did it for me.
That’s what did it for me.
Sentinel
Registered User
Fourier
Registered User
Personally, I had no doubt he was the best of all time almost from the beginning. Certainly by the end of his third year. Watching him game in and game out you could see him do things over and over that no other player could even dream of. But it was much later when I think the majority of hockey people would have admitted that he was the best because it takes time for the record to catch up. In this respect I would say that the 1987 Canada Cup was the point where he really showed the world what he was all about.
These things are of course quite subjective. What does "best" even mean. For example I am 100% of the opinion that McDavid is already the second best player to wear the Oiler Jersey. But when will his complete record be enough to bypass the other Hall of Famers.
The Panther
Registered User
That's quite true. When Gretzky was spanking the Habs in '81 and tearing the League a new one in 1981-82, one of his (many) detractors was Maurice Richard, who said something to the press alone the lines of, "Gretzky is all right, but there's no way he could succeed in my era", or whatever. About a year later, Richard changed his tune, and said, "I have now seen Gretzky enough to say that in whatever decade he played, he would've been the scoring champion."
That's right, also. It takes time for players to prove themselves. After his second season, I'd have ranked McDavid in the Oilers top-10, but outside the top five or six. Now, I'd probably rank him number three or four, behind only Gretzky and Messier (and possibly Kurri). Even though he's a better player already than Messier ever was (possible exception being the first half of 1989-90), he hasn't played a long time, won Cups, proven it in the playoffs, etc.
Regarding Gretzky, here is an excellent Sports Illustrated article from late 1982, in which Orr, Dryden, Esposito, and Hull all comment on young Gretzky:
GREATNESS CONFIRMED
(One inaccuracy here is that the article says Wayne had played 38 minutes [!] a game during 1981-82, which clearly is false.)
Some highlights from the article:
His speed was average, his size and strength below average, but his coordination and aptitude for his sport were so advanced that by the time he was 19 he had proved himself to be the best hockey player in the world.
Gretzky now holds 27 individual NHL records. (This was by age 21)
Orr: "To me what makes Wayne different is the little things. Not big technical things. His strengths are fundamental."
While Esposito needed 550 shots to score 76 goals, Gretzky got his 76th on his 287th shot. He scored his 92 goals on just 369 shots for an accuracy percentage of 24.9%. Broken down, 22 of Gretzky's goals were scored in the first period, 30 in the second and 40 in the third—a testament to his remarkable stamina.
Dryden: "When he comes down the ice, there's a point when the defenseman thinks: He's going to commit himself one way or the other now. When that moment passes and Gretzky still hasn't committed, the whole rhythm of the game is upset. The defenseman is unprepared for what might come next."
Gretzky sets up Kurri for a shorthanded goal, and later he assists Pat Hughes on a power-play goal. [Bobby] Hull is laughing. "See what he did?" he says. "He gave it to Hughes before he ever saw Hughes. He knows where everyone is at all times. I could kick in 25 goals a year if I played with Gretzky."
SeanConn
Registered User
SeanConn
Registered User
Probably when he became the all time points leader? or maybe just the first time he broke 200 points. There's no good argument against Gretzky being the GOAT... come on now.
