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

[bobholly39]

Really Bob? Really?

There was clearly no sarcasm implied in my post.

 

[frisco]

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?:

Well, if you look at Wayne's second pro season (Edmonton 79-80) and Mario's second pro season (Pittsburgh 85-86) Gretzky was 1.73 p/g and Lemieux was 1.79 p/g. I don't really know if Gretzky has him beat there. In their first pro seasons Wayne was 1.38 in the WHA and Lemieux 1.37 but in the NHL. So, I don't see the first two seasons Gretzky was better argument.

Just looking at their careers Lemieux seemed to age better. Lemieux was 1.35 p/g at ages 35-40, Gretzky was 1.12 p/g from 35-38. Don't know if this adds to the argument or what the argument actually is but I thought it was interesting.

My Best-Carey

 

[The Panther]

Well, if you look at Wayne's second pro season (Edmonton 79-80) and Mario's second pro season (Pittsburgh 85-86) Gretzky was 1.73 p/g and Lemieux was 1.79 p/g. I don't really know if Gretzky has him beat there. In their first pro seasons Wayne was 1.38 in the WHA and Lemieux 1.37 but in the NHL. So, I don't see the first two seasons Gretzky was better argument.

Well, this is a new hot take I haven't seen yet! (Credit where it's due.) So now, Gretzky at 17 in the WHA is his rookie season, and not their respective first years against actual NHL competition?

However, you want to slice it, against actual NHL competition, Gretzky at 18.5 and 19.5 years old was spanking Lemieux at 19 and 20 years old, and Lemieux joined an established team in a higher-scoring period than Gretzky.

What's Lemieux's excuse?

 

[The Panther]

Just looking at their careers Lemieux seemed to age better. Lemieux was 1.35 p/g at ages 35-40, Gretzky was 1.12 p/g from 35-38. Don't know if this adds to the argument or what the argument actually is but I thought it was interesting.

Lemieux did age better statistically, after the age of 30 (Gretzky after 1991 and Mario after 1995).

Of course, it helped that Lemieux had way less mileage on him by that age, and that he took years off to rest, and then came back and sat out back-to-back games.

 

[Voight]

199 in 76 is 209 in 80. He came close

Thats assuming he keeps pace, which is a good possibility but not a certainty.

Anyways the fact is he didnt match 99's peak, which isnt a negative.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Thats assuming he keeps pace, which is a good possibility but not a certainty.

Anyways the fact is he didnt match 99's peak, which isnt a negative.

It’s 4 games were prorating here. And it’s Lemieux so. Idk I’m tired of arguing. Lemieux had a 2.62 ppg and Gretzky had 2.69 ppg in his 215 year. Not to mention the 86 oilers were a dynasty and scoring was higher but w.e

 

[bobholly39]

Well, this is a new hot take I haven't seen yet! (Credit where it's due.) So now, Gretzky at 17 in the WHA is his rookie season, and not their respective first years against actual NHL competition?

However, you want to slice it, against actual NHL competition, Gretzky at 18.5 and 19.5 years old was spanking Lemieux at 19 and 20 years old, and Lemieux joined an established team in a higher-scoring period than Gretzky.

What's Lemieux's excuse?

Why does he need an excuse? Its always the same thing with you

Someone says: "Peak lemieux ~ Peak gretzky"

You say "oh yeah how come gretzky first 2 seasons >> Lemieuxs 2 seasons"

I say "lemieux didnt start as strong as Gretzky. He didnt hit his peak form till ~88. 88 onwards is very similar to Gretzky level"

You "no comment"

Until the next thread someone brings up peak vs peak and you again try to change the subject to first 3 years.

Just because Lemieux didnt start out as strong as Gretzky it doesnt mean that he didnt eventually reach his level - and that if we want to indulge hypotheticals, that lemieux couldn't come close to matching his prime with no health issues 88 onwards.

 

[Thenameless]

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?:

There's no question that Gretzky started better than Lemieux. Lemieux hit his stride later in his career than did Gretzky. The fact remains, however, that his highest scoring year was not done with his best teammates. And then when his best teammates finally arrived, he was ravaged with back injuries/cancer. Regardless, there is certainly a greater "what if" factor with Lemieux, than with Gretzky.

 

[frisco]

Well, this is a new hot take I haven't seen yet! (Credit where it's due.) So now, Gretzky at 17 in the WHA is his rookie season, and not their respective first years against actual NHL competition?

However, you want to slice it, against actual NHL competition, Gretzky at 18.5 and 19.5 years old was spanking Lemieux at 19 and 20 years old, and Lemieux joined an established team in a higher-scoring period than Gretzky.

What's Lemieux's excuse?

Gretzky had the advantage of "playing up" in a higher league (WHA) which IMO enhanced his NHL-readiness. Lemieux had to adjust from the Q right to the NHL. Also, Lemieux did join an established NHL team. However, that team was notoriously bad. One of the worst non-expansion teams of the last 40 years. Gretzky's Oilers had Sather and were decent (playoffs) their first year and dominant by his third year. I don't think you can discount the fact that Gretzky's peak years were with maybe the most talented group in NHL history including a superior coaching staff, in a extremely high scoring era, in very good health, in a league which had just expanded. That was the perfect storm and you can probably say no elite player had it so good.

My Best-Carey

 

[Thenameless]

Lemieux did age better statistically, after the age of 30 (Gretzky after 1991 and Mario after 1995).

Of course, it helped that Lemieux had way less mileage on him by that age, and that he took years off to rest, and then came back and sat out back-to-back games.

I'm not sure if he aged better as a playmaker, but it does certainly look like he was better at scoring goals at an advanced age. Thus, my comment about Ovechkin having no chance of catching a fully healthy Lemieux in goals if he plays a 17-20 year career.

 

[Voight]

Gretzky had the advantage of "playing up" in a higher league (WHA) which IMO enhanced his NHL-readiness. Lemieux had to adjust from the Q right to the NHL. Also, Lemieux did join an established NHL team. However, that team was notoriously bad. One of the worst non-expansion teams of the last 40 years. Gretzky's Oilers had Sather and were decent (playoffs) their first year and dominant by his third year. I don't think you can discount the fact that Gretzky's peak years were with maybe the most talented group in NHL history including a superior coaching staff, in a extremely high scoring era, in very good health, in a league which had just expanded. That was the perfect storm and you can probably say no elite player had it so good.

My Best-Carey

Gretzky's team was better at scouting, drafting and developing than Lemieux's team was. Thats neither of their faults.

Also a lot of that group was talented because they played with Gretz. Coffey doesnt hit the scoring totals he did if he had been drafted elsewhere. Fuhr doesnt rack up wins and performs the way he did if Gretzky doesnt score 3/4 points every game. Likewise with Kurri, and you could also argue Tikkanen never comes to North America/the Oilers without Kurri being there and succeeding - because of Gretzky.

Messier doesnt score as much without Gretzky as his center, and later on without teams putting their best players on 99, opening up the offence for him, and Anderson as well.

 

[frisco]

Gretzky's team was better at scouting, drafting and developing than Lemieux's team was. Thats neither of their faults.

Also a lot of that group was talented because they played with Gretz. Coffey doesnt hit the scoring totals he did if he had been drafted elsewhere. Fuhr doesnt rack up wins and performs the way he did if Gretzky doesnt score 3/4 points every game. Likewise with Kurri, and you could also argue Tikkanen never comes to North America/the Oilers without Kurri being there and succeeding - because of Gretzky.

Messier doesnt score as much without Gretzky as his center, and later on without teams putting their best players on 99, opening up the offence for him, and Anderson as well.

That all might be well and true. But in the end, Gretzky's supporting cast (including coaching and management) was superior to Lemieux in his prime Edmonton years. I don't think that can be disputed. Guys like Messier, Anderson, Coffey et al, all thrived in their careers when not playing with Wayne.

My Best-Carey

 

[The Panther]

That all might be well and true. But in the end, Gretzky's supporting cast (including coaching and management) was superior to Lemieux in his prime Edmonton years. I don't think that can be disputed. Guys like Messier, Anderson, Coffey et al, all thrived in their careers when not playing with Wayne.

My Best-Carey

The very fact that Lemieux scored 199 points before he was surrounded by Hall of Famers (sans Coffey) and that Gretzky had the most points in history (in 1981, while still eligible for junior hockey) before there was a single other NHL all star on his team kind of sinks your argument that "Great teammates equals more points". Did Yzerman's totals go through the roof when the Red Wings became a powerhouse from 1992 or so? Nope, he never scored more than in 1987-1989.

More to the point, Mario Lemieux's scoring totals did not increase when he was surrounded by great players. If your theory were true, he should have been pacing for 240 points in every season starting in 1990-91, but he didn't. Only in (the scoring inflated) 1992-93 did he pace higher than 1989's pace, and that was mainly because the season ended with a Pens' 17-game winning streak that inflated his averages (he came down to earth in the playoffs).

You can speculate 'til you're blue in the face that Lemieux mighta-coulds-woulda done this or that (and, knowing the school of Lemieux-apologia, you will), but there is no evidence that would hold up in court that Lemieux would have reeled off 200-point seasons with perfect health and/or superior teammates.

In 1986-87 (his third year), Lemieux's scoring pace was lower than the previous season. How do you explain this? And how is he going to reel off 200-point seasons if he's already slowing down in year three, in perfect health?

By 1989-90 (before his injury), Lemieux's pace and scoring were also way down from the year before. Coffey, Cullen (on a 100-point pace), Rob Brown, Kevin Stevens, and Mark Recchi are all his teammates by now, but he was slowing down. How do you explain this? The previous season, he scored 199 points in 76 games. But in 1989-90 he started "slowly" with 21 points in the first 13 games. He ended up pacing for 165-170 points or whatever, an amazing offensive season by any standard, but also 40 points behind his pace of the previous season. This isn't a Lemieux with a bunch of injuries -- this is Lemieux, aged 24, in his physical prime, now surrounded by good teammates (one year from a Stanley Cup). And he's slowing down.

You can't have a 200-point season if you have even one bad month. You have to be dialed in, ready to go, ready to play every night, with no excuses for injuries or fatigue or teammates. You can't sit out because you're tired or your back is sore. You can't drop 40 points off the pace of a year ago.

By the logic you're using, I could just as easily make the argument that Bernie Nicholls could have reeled off 160-point seasons every year if only he'd been on a better team and had Gretzky as a teammate.

 

[frisco]

Mario Lemieux averaged 1.88 points/game. Gretzky was 1.92/game. He played the majority of his career with severe back problems (including 89-90--he was not "healthy" nor in his "physical prime"). He sat out a season mid-career after fighting cancer, anemia, and back problems. He retired for 3.5 seasons only to come back and play until his was 40. Yes, it is a what if but it is not a stretch to say, if you wipe the massive health challenges away and replace them with perfect health, he might have been better than Gretzky. That's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

I don't know how somebody could ignore or dispute the fact that player's supporting cast and coaching can have some positive or negative effect on their numbers. That if one guy has Rob Brown and the other Jari Kurri as a linemate that there isn't some kind of advantage. Or being taught the game by Glen Sather and John Muckler in one's formative years is not a superior than being coached by Gene Ubriaco or Eddie Johnston.

My Best-Carey

 

[The Panther]

Mario Lemieux averaged 1.88 points/game. Gretzky was 1.92/game.

Right, and Mario played how many (regular season) games past the age of 31? I'll tell you -- 170 games. Gretzky played how many games past the age of 31? 519 games. What were their scoring levels prior to turning 32?:
Mario: 2.01 (+142)
Wayne: 2.20 (+595)

Yes, it is a what if but it is not a stretch to say, if you wipe the massive health challenges away and replace them with perfect health, he might have been better than Gretzky.

He had perfect health from 1984 - 1990. He wasn't better than Gretzky in any way.

I don't know how somebody could ignore or dispute the fact that player's supporting cast and coaching can have some positive or negative effect on their numbers. That if one guy has Rob Brown and the other Jari Kurri as a linemate that there isn't some kind of advantage. Or being taught the game by Glen Sather and John Muckler in one's formative years is not a superior than being coached by Gene Ubriaco or Eddie Johnston.

There is no doubt that The Pens had incompetent management c.1984 to 1987, as they seemed to have no idea how to build around Mario. But again, if better teammates were the key to the differences between Gretzky / Lemieux, why didn't Lemieux surpass everything Gretzky did c.1990 to 1996? He certainly had the teammates, and the ample power-play opportunities (a lot more than Gretzky ever had), to do so. But he didn't. Nor did he surpass Gretzky's playoff totals, or performances.

Also, how do you account for 1990-91? Lemieux is on the Cup winner, and had a 1.73 PPG, while Gretzky is playing with Granato and Sandstrom (when healthy) and had a 2.09 PPG. During the Pens' two Cup years, Lemieux played 90 RS games and scored 1.96 PPG. (Gretzky was at 1.87 the same two seasons, including the latter one which is past his prime.) Since, during 1990-1992, Lemieux is now on a Cup team with superstar teammates, should he not -- according to your theory -- be outscoring Gretzky's prime? Because he's not even close. In fact, he's barely outscoring Gretzky 1990-1992 with L.A., when Gretzky himself had a bad back and was getting old.

 

[daver]

Right, and Mario played how many (regular season) games past the age of 31? I'll tell you -- 170 games. Gretzky played how many games past the age of 31? 519 games. What were their scoring levels prior to turning 32?:
Mario: 2.01 (+142)
Wayne: 2.20 (+595)

I really hope that this shuts down that argument but I doubt it will.

He had perfect health from 1984 - 1990. He wasn't better than Gretzky in any way.

Ditto

 

[bobholly39]

I really hope that this shuts down that argument but I doubt it will.



Ditto

Crosby has perfect health the past 3 seasons. Mcdavid has outscored him every year. Clearly McDavid >> Crosby.

Or "ditto" if you prefer.

 

[daver]

Crosby has perfect health the past 3 seasons. Mcdavid has outscored him every year. Clearly McDavid >> Crosby.

Or "ditto" if you prefer.

This is a bit below your usual standard. You know full well that Mario and Wayne's careers overlapped much more so than Crosby and McDavid. But overlap is not even relevant. Not all players hit their peak seasons multiple times like Wayne did. Everyone's peak is different.

We really have no idea what Mario would have done if not for injuries other than to look at what he did when he was healthy. We know he had the ability to hang with Wayne for a couple of seasons and a couple of playoff runs but we can also say that about Malkin and OV in comparison to Crosby or Beliveau, Mikita, Richard and Hull in comparison to Howe.

You are taking the extreme position on the speculation one can make for a player who lost many opportunities to put up full seasons in their primes. IMO, him taking five years vs. Wayne's three to hit his peak is the biggest piece of evidence we have in which to speculate. Wayne was easily ahead of Mario in the progression of their careers from seasons 1 to 4.

I mean the premise of the thread is to presume their best partial season could be reasonable paced out. To expand to pacing out other partial seasons where his PPG was not at a 200 point pace gets into a different space.

 

[bobholly39]

This is a bit below your usual standard. You know full well that Mario and Wayne's careers overlapped much more so than Crosby and McDavid. But overlap is not even relevant. Not all players hit their peak seasons multiple times like Wayne did. Everyone's peak is different.

We really have no idea what Mario would have done if not for injuries other than to look at what he did when he was healthy. We know he had the ability to hang with Wayne for a couple of seasons and a couple of playoff runs but we can also say that about Malkin and OV in comparison to Crosby or Beliveau, Mikita, Richard and Hull in comparison to Howe.

You are taking the extreme position on the speculation one can make for a player who lost many opportunities to put up full seasons in their primes. IMO, him taking five years vs. Wayne's three to hit his peak is the biggest piece of evidence we have in which to speculate. Wayne was easily ahead of Mario in the progression of their careers from seasons 1 to 4.

Mario hit his peak around 1988.

The argument put forth by some is Mario ~ Wayne for peak. When people speak hypotheticals its usually along the lines of "i wonder what would happen for peak Lemieux if health"

The counter thats been thrown multiple times (mostly by 1 user) in this thread is "84-90 he was healthy!"

How is that different than comparing Crosby and Mcdavid and ignoring that the past 3 years arent peak Crosby? 84-90 isnt peak Lemieux

 

[daver]

Mario hit his peak around 1988.

The argument put forth by some is Mario ~ Wayne for peak. When people speak hypotheticals its usually along the lines of "i wonder what would happen for peak Lemieux if health"

The counter thats been thrown multiple times (mostly by 1 user) in this thread is "84-90 he was healthy!"

How is that different than comparing Crosby and Mcdavid and ignoring that the past 3 years arent peak Crosby? 84-90 isnt peak Lemieux

If one is looking for evidence that a healthy Mario puts up peak, or close to peak seasons, year after after year:

1. that he did not reach his peak until 2 years after Wayne is a plus for Wayne in a head to head comparison

2. that in looking at the very best players of all-time, the majority of them had less seasons at their peak, or close them, than Wayne did* thus making it a lot less believable that Mario puts up peak seasons like Wayne did

* Howe had one peak season and three season that rivaled the peaks of the next group of forwards (Beliveau, Mikita, Richard and Hull who themselves had one peak season

You could argue that players like Lafleur and Esposito had a number of peak seasons like Wayne but then they also had not even remotely close to peak seasons before and after

My gut feeling is a healthy Mario puts up 3 of 4 peak seasons and a handful more of not quite peak seasons if he had perfect health after his 88/89 season. I think there is an inner drive factor here that I feel Wayne had a bit more of although Mario obviously responded in a legendary manner to his adversity but that is a bit different.

 

[bobholly39]

If one is looking for evidence that a healthy Mario puts up peak, or close to peak seasons, year after after year:

1. that he did not reach his peak until 2 years after Wayne is a plus for Wayne in a head to head comparison

2. that in looking at the very best players of all-time, the majority of them had less seasons at their peak, or close them, than Wayne did* thus making it a lot less believable that Mario puts up peak seasons like Wayne did

* Howe had one peak season and three season that rivaled the peaks of the next group of forwards (Beliveau, Mikita, Richard and Hull who themselves had one peak season

You could argue that players like Lafleur and Esposito had a number of peak seasons like Wayne but then they also had not even remotely close to peak seasons before and after

My gut feeling is a healthy Mario puts up 3 of 4 peak seasons and a handful more of not quite peak seasons if he had perfect health after his 88/89 season. I think there is an inner drive factor here that I feel Wayne had a bit more of although Mario obviously responded in a legendary manner to his adversity but that is a bit different.

I probably agree with a lot of this but its still irrelevant to what i said

I said Mario ~ Wayne for peak and if we want to indulge in hypotheticals (ps if you dont want to - you shouldn't be in this thread) we need to try and gauge what Lemieux could have done after 1988 with full health

Development isnt linear and he didnt start his career as strong. Going back to "but he had full health 84-89 and didnt top Wayne" is as lazy as me saying "Crosby full health 17-19 and McDavid outscores him so hes the better player"

The correct response to both is "No - because those arent that Pittsburgh players peak years - we should consider those instead"

 

[daver]

I probably agree with a lot of this but its still irrelevant to what i said

I said Mario ~ Wayne for peak and if we want to indulge in hypotheticals (ps if you dont want to - you shouldn't be in this thread) we need to try and gauge what Lemieux could have done after 1988 with full health

Development isnt linear and he didnt start his career as strong. Going back to "but he had full health 84-89 and didnt top Wayne" is as lazy as me saying "Crosby full health 17-19 and McDavid outscores him so hes the better player"

The correct response to both is "No - because those arent that Pittsburgh players peak years - we should consider those instead"

Development not being linear is certainly a hypothetical that can be added to the discussion but what evidence is there that Mario could have gone even higher than 88/89? There really is nothing concrete to apply which is different from the two seasons mentioned in the OP. Both players had full seasons in which to gauge how those two partial seasons could reasonably have played out. It is reasonable to think that Mario has another peak year at 200 plus points and that Crosby hits the 120 -125 point range.

IMO, it would be unreasonable to think they keep up their respective partial season PPGs which is how I view the premise that Mario could have hit 200 points at the same, or even better, rate that Wayne hit them.

The big unknown is how much Mario was affected by illness and injuries and how much he was affected by not playing 80 games year after year. Is it outside the realm of possibility that Mario could have peaked higher than Wayne? No, simply because he never had the chance to show that he could or couldn't. You could say the same about Crosby; that he could have peaked higher than any other player than Wayne or Mario (depending on how you view Howe's peak) because he simply never had the chance to. Are both reasonable to the point where it is accepted narrative like the post I originally responded to? I don't think so.

 

[bobholly39]

Development not being linear is certainly a hypothetical that can be added to the discussion but what evidence is there that Mario could have gone even higher than 88/89? There really is nothing concrete to apply which is different from the two seasons mentioned in the OP. Both players had full seasons in which to gauge how those two partial seasons could reasonably have played out. It is reasonable to think that Mario has another peak year at 200 plus points and that Crosby hits the 120 -125 point range.

IMO, it would be unreasonable to think they keep up their respective partial season PPGs which is how I view the premise that Mario could have hit 200 points at the same, or even better, rate that Wayne hit them.

The big unknown is how much Mario was affected by illness and injuries and how much he was affected by not playing 80 games year after year. Is it outside the realm of possibility that Mario could have peaked higher than Wayne? No, simply because he never had the chance to show that he could or couldn't. You could say the same about Crosby; that he could have peaked higher than any other player than Wayne or Mario (depending on how you view Howe's peak) because he simply never had the chance to. Are both reasonable to the point where it is accepted narrative like the post I originally responded to? I don't think so.

Honestly I don't even understand what you're arguing anymore.

I took issue with people saying "Peak Lemieux couldn't beat peak Gretzky because healthy lemieux from 84-90 isn't as good as peak Gretzky"

I think that's a BS statement because Lemieux didn't hit his peak until around 88. If you want to talk peak vs peak dont look at Lemieux before his peak.

But just because im saying this - it doesn't mean i'm arguing that peak lemieux from 88 to ~ 97 in a perfectly healthy world would definitely have surpassed peak Gretzky. It's possible, maybe. And we can talk more about that if you want.

But i stand by what i said earlier that it's ridiculous to talk about Lemieux 84-90 as if it was his peak - because it wasn't.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Right, and Mario played how many (regular season) games past the age of 31? I'll tell you -- 170 games. Gretzky played how many games past the age of 31? 519 games. What were their scoring levels prior to turning 32?:
Mario: 2.01 (+142)
Wayne: 2.20 (+595)

He had perfect health from 1984 - 1990. He wasn't better than Gretzky in any way.

There is no doubt that The Pens had incompetent management c.1984 to 1987, as they seemed to have no idea how to build around Mario. But again, if better teammates were the key to the differences between Gretzky / Lemieux, why didn't Lemieux surpass everything Gretzky did c.1990 to 1996? He certainly had the teammates, and the ample power-play opportunities (a lot more than Gretzky ever had), to do so. But he didn't. Nor did he surpass Gretzky's playoff totals, or performances.

Also, how do you account for 1990-91? Lemieux is on the Cup winner, and had a 1.73 PPG, while Gretzky is playing with Granato and Sandstrom (when healthy) and had a 2.09 PPG. During the Pens' two Cup years, Lemieux played 90 RS games and scored 1.96 PPG. (Gretzky was at 1.87 the same two seasons, including the latter one which is past his prime.) Since, during 1990-1992, Lemieux is now on a Cup team with superstar teammates, should he not -- according to your theory -- be outscoring Gretzky's prime? Because he's not even close. In fact, he's barely outscoring Gretzky 1990-1992 with L.A., when Gretzky himself had a bad back and was getting old.

Omg Lemieux was no where close to healthy in 90-92

 

[frisco]

He had perfect health from 1984 - 1990. He wasn't better than Gretzky in any way.

Perfect health? He missed chunks of time in every season. In 89-90 his back was so bad he needed surgery that would cost him 60 games the next season. I doubt if he was at 50% for that season.

The "what if" with Lemieux in this thread isn't just taking points/game when he was in the lineup and doing statistical extrapolation. It is, with good health, how much better would he have been? The clear understanding that he spent seemingly the majority of his career (even when in the lineup) severely hampered by injury and ailment which reduced his productivity. Is it not understandable that a player can be in the lineup but still have diminished skills due to injury? That's what I'm saying.

My Best-Carey