Who needed to play a full season the most? Lemieux (92-93) or Crosby (10-11)

[frisco]

Actually, a healthy full season Lemieux in 89-90 might make a bigger difference. Adds another 170 point season, another Art Ross (from Gretzky), probably Hart (instead of Messier), and likely the point streak record. Also, first team All-Star. That and the Pens make the playoffs with him healthy and from there you never know what damage he does.

My Best-Carey

 

[Pominville Knows]

Actually, a healthy full season Lemieux in 89-90 might make a bigger difference. Adds another 170 point season, another Art Ross (from Gretzky), probably Hart (instead of Messier), and likely the point streak record. Also, first team All-Star. That and the Pens make the playoffs with him healthy and from there you never know what damage he does.

My Best-Carey

If we want to go down that route i say 1993/94. I bet you that if that back surgery in the summer of 1993 "had gone better" he would not have finished with no 143 points as his 22 games average that year suggests, even if that number would also have taken an Art Ross from Gretzky. Considering the year he had after resting in 1994/95 this guy could have had 200 points in 1993/94.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

I wonder what a healthy Lemieux in 90-91 would have did. Came back after months out and put up 44 points in 23 playoff games.

 

[TheGuiminator]

If we want to go down that route i say 1993/94. I bet you that if that back surgery in the summer of 1993 "had gone better" he would not have finished with no 143 points as his 22 games average that year suggests, even if that number would also have taken an Art Ross from Gretzky. Considering the year he had after resting in 1994/95 this guy could have had 200 points in 1993/94.

If we go further than that, Mario likely wins every Art Ross from 87-88 to 96-97 being healthy every seasons. That would cancel Gretzky’s Art Ross win from 90,91, 92,94 and Jagr’s from 95.

11 consecutive Art Ross wins would give Lemieux a strong case being the GOAT

 

[Beukeboom]

If we want to go down that route i say 1993/94. I bet you that if that back surgery in the summer of 1993 "had gone better" he would not have finished with no 143 points as his 22 games average that year suggests, even if that number would also have taken an Art Ross from Gretzky. Considering the year he had after resting in 1994/95 this guy could have had 200 points in 1993/94.

You are dwelling deep in "what if" land now. Extrapolating 22 games and speculating in 200 points. I have highlighted something important for you.

Resting helps. Gretzky came back from injury in the 92/93 playoffs and actually had a slightly higher ppg than Lemieux, despite Lemieux's monster regular season.

And to the poster above. If playing that game; A healthy Gretzky would likely have won the 1987/88 one. 91/91 his ppg was also lower than Wayne's. So not sure why that would be a given win?

 

[Pominville Knows]

You are dwelling deep in "what if" land now. Extrapolating 22 games and speculating in 200 points. I have highlighted something important for you.

Resting helps. Gretzky came back from injury in the 92/93 playoffs and actually had a slightly higher ppg than Lemieux, despite Lemieux's monster regular season.

And to the poster above. If playing that game; A healthy Gretzky would likely have won the 1987/88 one. 91/91 his ppg was also lower than Wayne's. So not sure why that would be a given win?

This thread is about what ifs. 200 points would have taken a full season no doubt but i think you are unaware just what kind of back problems Lemieux played with in 93/94, the season before he rested a full year becouse of them.

 

[Beukeboom]

This thread is about what ifs. 200 points would have taken a full season no doubt but i think you are unaware just what kind of back problems Lemieux played with in 93/94, the season before he rested a full year becouse of them.

But the "what ifs" on the 92-93 season, are at least based on 60 games not 22.

I don't mind some "what ifs" but one thing joining Crosby and Lemieux, is that their fans are always unable to account for increasing amount of games = dropping ppg.

For instance; Lemieux in 95/96 had an absolutely amazing season. 161 points in 70 games. You'd expect him to land around 180-190. The thing is that he had 100 points after 38 games. Can you imagine if he had been injured there and then? His fan base would have taken for granted he would have breached 200 points that season and challaged Wayne's record. This, I'm as close to 100% sure about. The real truth might have been that those last 12 games would be the toughest, and Mario would have landed at 175. An amazing feat, but still 40 points off Wayne's record. Being injured helps in a "what if" game.

That's why I think Crosby would have gained the most from actually proving he could transcend the others. 120 is great but not even on par with Thornton's season a year prior, and only 6 points more than Joe that season. Crosby would have to reach levels of 135+ to fully seal himself in to another tier from Ovechkin. This he never fully got the chance to gun for.

Lemieux already had proven 200 point capacity. (199 in 76 is good enough for me).

 

[Pominville Knows]

But the "what ifs" on the 92-93 season, are at least based on 60 games not 22.

I don't mind some "what ifs" but one thing joining Crosby and Lemieux, is that their fans are always unable to account for increasing amount of games = dropping ppg.

For instance; Lemieux in 95/96 had an absolutely amazing season. 161 points in 70 games. You'd expect him to land around 180-190. The thing is that he had 100 points after 38 games. Can you imagine if he had been injured there and then? His fan base would have taken for granted he would have breached 200 points that season and challaged Wayne's record. This, I'm as close to 100% sure about. The real truth might have been that those last 12 games would be the toughest, and Mario would have landed at 175. An amazing feat, but still 40 points off Wayne's record. Being injured helps in a "what if" game.

That's why I think Crosby would have gained the most from actually proving he could transcend the others. 120 is great but not even on par with Thornton's season a year prior, and only 6 points more than Joe that season. Crosby would have to reach levels of 135+ to fully seal himself in to another tier from Ovechkin. This he never fully got the chance to gun for.

Lemieux already had proven 200 point capacity. (199 in 76 is good enough for me).

You know this is not an absolute truth dont you? In Lemieux case, during most of his prime, he was even when on the ice hampered physically to a varying degree bordering insanity.
Most lesser talents would not be able to play at all if that injured, simply becouse they would not be able to perform good enough.

 

[frisco]

Reducing things down to the question we're eventually going to end up with: "Who has a better career if both were completely healthy"? I'll take Mario with no disrespect to Gretz.

My Best-Carey

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

You are dwelling deep in "what if" land now. Extrapolating 22 games and speculating in 200 points. I have highlighted something important for you.

Resting helps. Gretzky came back from injury in the 92/93 playoffs and actually had a slightly higher ppg than Lemieux, despite Lemieux's monster regular season.

And to the poster above. If playing that game; A healthy Gretzky would likely have won the 1987/88 one. 91/91 his ppg was also lower than Wayne's. So not sure why that would be a given win?

Do some reading on Lemieuxs 90-91 season and you’ll realize why his ppg was so low.

 

[Voight]

Crosby AINEC.

Lemieux's legacy was already sealed up in 92/93... while I don't think he would have beat Gretzkys record, he was still a complete maniac that year scoring at will.

 

[daver]

Reducing things down to the question we're eventually going to end up with: "Who has a better career if both were completely healthy"? I'll take Mario with no disrespect to Gretz.

My Best-Carey

There is really no evidence to suggest that Mario could have reeled off 200 points, season after season, like Wayne did.

It took Mario two years longer to hit his peak, then had partial season where his PPG was below his peak. All we know is that Mario, at his peak, was similarly productive, but it is not reasonable to think he plays at, or close to his peak, year after year.

 

[frisco]

There is really no evidence to suggest that Mario could have reeled off 200 points, season after season, like Wayne did.

It took Mario two years longer to hit his peak, then had partial season where his PPG was below his peak. All we know is that Mario, at his peak, was similarly productive, but it is not reasonable to think he plays at, or close to his peak, year after year.

The evidence is Lemieux's points/game is virtually the same as Gretzky. Considering that Lemieux's production was hindered by playing way below full health would lead one to believe that a completely healthy Lemieux would be superior to Gretzky. Not to mention that Gretzky got a few years in at a higher scorer era in the early 80's and didn't play as much Dead Puck hockey as Mario, had a superior supporting cast for the majority of his career (coaching and management included), and it's pretty easy to see a scenario where Mario has the better career. It's all "what if" and sort of an old argument, but still very credible.

My Best-Carey

 

[daver]

The evidence is Lemieux's points/game is virtually the same as Gretzky. Considering that Lemieux's production was hindered by playing way below full health would lead one to believe that a completely healthy Lemieux would be superior to Gretzky. Not to mention that Gretzky got a few years in at a higher scorer era in the early 80's and didn't play as much Dead Puck hockey as Mario, had a superior supporting cast for the majority of his career (coaching and management included), and it's pretty easy to see a scenario where Mario has the better career. It's all "what if" and sort of an old argument, but still very credible.

My Best-Carey

That is no evidence whatsoever. Wayne clearly played more games outside of his peak/prime than Mario including a more games when scoring started to regress from 93/94 onwards.

So that is two of your arguments eliminated.

Mario's two peak seasons were just as high scoring as any of Wayne's and it would be intellectually dishonest to try to point to league GPG to dispute this.

A healthy Mario had two chances in 86/87 and 87/88 to match Wayne's ascendancy to his peak but failed to do so. A healthy Mario matched Wayne's peak in 88/99 then regressed in 89/90 and 90/91.

I don't see any credible arguments for Mario reeling off peak season after peak season. It is much more credible to believe he would have had more valleys than Wayne.

 

[The Panther]

Considering that Lemieux's production was hindered by playing way below full health would lead one to believe that a completely healthy Lemieux would be superior to Gretzky. Not to mention that Gretzky got a few years in at a higher scorer era in the early 80's...

This is all nonsense. Lemieux had from 1984 to 1990 in perfect health, with a bigger, stronger body than Gretzky, in a higher-scoring period than Gretzky's first two seasons, to try to match him... and he failed in every category.

Sure, the Pens had poor management, but the Oilers were screwed over by the NHL when they entered the League. Didn't stop Gretzky from having the highest PPG in the NHL his rookie season.

I tire of these 'fantasy' scenarios. Either you did it, or you didn't.

 

[bobholly39]

This is all nonsense. Lemieux had from 1984 to 1990 in perfect health, with a bigger, stronger body than Gretzky, in a higher-scoring period than Gretzky's first two seasons, to try to match him... and he failed in every category.

Sure, the Pens had poor management, but the Oilers were screwed over by the NHL when they entered the League. Didn't stop Gretzky from having the highest PPG in the NHL his rookie season.

I tire of these 'fantasy' scenarios. Either you did it, or you didn't.

Gretzky is a bum who couldn't hack it when real goalies showed up.

In 1992-1993 a rookie selanne scored 76 goals and Gretzky doesn't even pace for 30 goals over 84 games. He's lucky he got all those goals against 80s goalies who couldn't play goalie - he certainly wasn't able to score goals against real goalies.

It's as you say - I tire of these "fantasy" scenarios too. Either you can score goals against good goalies, or you can't. Gretzky clearly couldn't - he sucks.

 

[K Fleur]

The whole purpose of this thread is to pick a fantasy scenario. It's clear from the title.

Why someone would click on this thread so they could be annoyed reading fantasy scenarios is beyond me.

 

[The Panther]

My previous post was in response to (and was quoting) frisco's post. It had nothing to do with the general thread topic.

(frisco, incidentally, is a good poster whose comments I greatly enjoy.)

 

[Pominville Knows]

This is all nonsense. Lemieux had from 1984 to 1990 in perfect health, with a bigger, stronger body than Gretzky, in a higher-scoring period than Gretzky's first two seasons, to try to match him... and he failed in every category.

Sure, the Pens had poor management, but the Oilers were screwed over by the NHL when they entered the League. Didn't stop Gretzky from having the highest PPG in the NHL his rookie season.

I tire of these 'fantasy' scenarios. Either you did it, or you didn't.

'A big body' is not an advantage when around 20 years old in the NHL. That said, there's probably some truth about the Canada Cup story about Lemieux learning good habits from Gretzky. In that case not the least becouse 99 was the only player he knew was his peer. Unfortunately a bit too late for him, perhaps. No wonder his back went when that tall and not training it enough.

 

[frisco]

A healthy Mario matched Wayne's peak in 88/99 then regressed in 89/90 and 90/91.

Basically, the entire point of my post was IF LEMIEUX WAS HEALTHY during his peak he may matched or exceeded Gretzky as a what if. I mean in 89-90 he was close to what Gretzky did at his peak despite, a) Being severely injured with a back that would cause him to miss almost all of the last 25 games. He was not near 100% even when he played that season, b) Lesser linemates than Gretzky in his prime, c) on a lousier team coached by Gene Ubriaco vs. a Stanley Cup Oiler squad full of Hall of Famers on the ice and coaching. Again, the thread itself is entirely a what if. I maintain a ceteris paribus, all things equal, Mario has the better career than Wayne without outside factors (i.e. injuries) getting in the way.

My Best-Carey

 

[Voight]

A healthy Mario had two chances in 86/87 and 87/88 to match Wayne's ascendancy to his peak but failed to do so. A healthy Mario matched Wayne's peak in 88/99 then regressed in 89/90 and 90/91.

I don't see any credible arguments for Mario reeling off peak season after peak season. It is much more credible to believe he would have had more valleys than Wayne.

He didn't match Gretzkys peak in 88-89. came close but was 16 points short.

Matching would make it seem like he was a couple points behind his peak of 216. 199 is no small feat tho, we will never see someone come close to that.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

He didn't match Gretzkys peak in 88-89. came close but was 16 points short.

Matching would make it seem like he was a couple points behind his peak of 216. 199 is no small feat tho, we will never see someone come close to that.

199 in 76 is 209 in 80. He came close

 

[Thenameless]

I'm more of a Lemieux guy.

Having said that, I certainly do believe that had things gone as well for Mario as they did for Wayne, he was capable of matching or exceeding Wayne's best years. When I say "had things gone as well", I mean generally perfect health playing 80 games per season, and maturing with his great linemates. One of Wayne's greatest strokes of luck (and obviously he can't be faulted for this) was coming into the league at nearly the same time as his best teammates - Messier, Anderson, Kurri, and Coffey. There was a great chemistry with these guys, that gave them the confidence to come back from 3 goal deficits in the 3rd period. If somehow, Lemieux had been able to skate with Francis, Jagr, Mullen, Stevens, and Tocchet (or Recchi) at a much younger and closer age, things could have been a lot better for him.

Now, when I first mentioned this before, The Panther did point out that it is also highly likely that Gretzky's best year was also curtailed by injury - in his 83-84 season Gretzky scored 205 in 74, which translates to 221 or 222 for an 80 game season. And considering he was injured, this could push the theoretical maximum even higher. And at these stratospheric levels each point becomes exponentially more difficult.

In a perfect world for both, I still do believe that Lemieux would have edged him out in a best season scenario , but I also do believe that Gretzky is the more consistent performer between the two, and would still retire with more career assists and points. He gave it his all every regular season, playoff, and international game. If the Oilers were up 6-2, he didn't take his foot off the gas. Ovechkin would have zero chance of catching a Lemieux that played 17-20 healthy seasons, in career goals.

 

[The Panther]

Having said that, I certainly do believe that had things gone as well for Mario as they did for Wayne, he was capable of matching or exceeding Wayne's best years. When I say "had things gone as well", I mean generally perfect health playing 80 games per season, and maturing with his great linemates. One of Wayne's greatest strokes of luck (and obviously he can't be faulted for this) was coming into the league at nearly the same time as his best teammates - Messier, Anderson, Kurri, and Coffey.

No evidence supports this. Anderson, Kurri, and Coffey were nowhere to be seen in 1979-80, but Gretzky was 1st in PPG (Messier was such a factor as a rookie that at one point he was demoted to the minors). Messier, Anderson, Kurri, and Coffey were all present, more-or-less, in 1980-81, but none were All Stars yet, and yet Gretzky had the highest scoring season in history.

So, my question is: Since in 1984-85 and 1985-86 Lemieux had perfect health (minus a few games missed as a rookie), why couldn't he do this also? Things were "go[ing] just as well for Mario as they did for Wayne" those two seasons, so if Mario was better, why didn't he match Wayne then?:

Gretzky first 2 seasons
Goals = 106 / GPG = 0.67
Assists = 195 / APG = 1.23
Points = 301 / PPG = 1.89
Plus/Minus = plus 55
Team winning record = .447
NHL team GPG = 3.68

Mario first 2 seasons
Goals = 91 / GPG = 0.60
Assists = 150 / APG = 0.99
Points = 241 / PPG = 1.59
Plus/Minus = minus 41
Team winning record = .403
NHL team GPG = 3.90

By Mario's third season (1986-87), his overall production actually decreases a bit per-game (whereas Gretzky's exploded), but I think we can partially chalk that up to The Pens' incompetence and team regression that difficult third season. But there are no excuses the first two seasons.

 

[LeBlondeDemon10]

Gretzky is a bum who couldn't hack it when real goalies showed up.

In 1992-1993 a rookie selanne scored 76 goals and Gretzky doesn't even pace for 30 goals over 84 games. He's lucky he got all those goals against 80s goalies who couldn't play goalie - he certainly wasn't able to score goals against real goalies.

It's as you say - I tire of these "fantasy" scenarios too. Either you can score goals against good goalies, or you can't. Gretzky clearly couldn't - he sucks.

Really Bob? Really?