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

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,820
5,710
Visit site
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

You are being intellectually dishonest.

He was pretty healthy in 84/85 and was 9th in PPG. Not close to Wayne's rookie year. He was healthy in 85/86 and, all things considered, was closer to Wayne than his rookie year, but still not as good. He missed time in 86/87 but before his injury, was not remotely close to showing a pace close to Wayne's 3rd year pace. He was healthy in 87/88 and was not close to Wayne's 4th year. He was healthy in 88/89 and did out up a year comparable to Wayne's peak. After that it seems that anything Mario did has to be qualified with inury and/or illness.

He did not produce at a pace in any year other than 92/93 that was comparable to Wayne.

So we are left either unreasonably speculating that Mario could have hit a level higher than he actually did and/or Mario cranking out seasons at his peak, year after year, which there is no evidence to support.

Or if you want to play the "Mario was never in perfect health" card we are left with the reality that unlike players like Orr or Crosby, Mario was never going to be in perfect health and was always going to miss time in his prime regardless.
 

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,820
5,710
Visit site
And 88-89 (as you mentioned). But your overall point still stands.

I meant in the part of his career where injuries/illness/not playing all could have an effect on his numbers making the range of speculation very wide.

You can make an argument, and I think this is what the pro-Mario crowd exclusively relies on, that his 92/93 season proved he was actually better than his numbers but you can also argue that his not playing full seasons helped him prior to that season and to the 95/96 season and 00/01 season.

Neither one is particularly believable but that it is simply possible gives enough fuel for the narrative to keep going.
 

bobholly39

Registered User
Mar 10, 2013
22,078
14,589
You are being intellectually dishonest.

He was pretty healthy in 84/85 and was 9th in PPG. Not close to Wayne's rookie year. He was healthy in 85/86 and, all things considered, was closer to Wayne than his rookie year, but still not as good. He missed time in 86/87 but before his injury, was not remotely close to showing a pace close to Wayne's 3rd year pace. He was healthy in 87/88 and was not close to Wayne's 4th year. He was healthy in 88/89 and did out up a year comparable to Wayne's peak. After that it seems that anything Mario did has to be qualified with inury and/or illness.

He did not produce at a pace in any year other than 92/93 that was comparable to Wayne.

So we are left either unreasonably speculating that Mario could have hit a level higher than he actually did and/or Mario cranking out seasons at his peak, year after year, which there is no evidence to support.

Or if you want to play the "Mario was never in perfect health" card we are left with the reality that unlike players like Orr or Crosby, Mario was never going to be in perfect health and was always going to miss time in his prime regardless.

Mario didn't hit his "Gretzky-like" level at the NHL until 1988. He still had arguably the 2nd best first 3 years in NHL history (or if it's not 2nd best - it's still really good) because of how good a player he was - but his 84-85, 85-86, and 86-87 seasons simply aren't on Gretzky level. Development isn't linear - and Lemieux in those 3 seasons aren't on Gretzky's level. We need to stop comparing those.

1987-88 and especially 88-89 and on is when he hit another level. The special things Lemieux did include:

88, 89 season, 91 & 92 playoffs, 93 season - 96 season. All "Gretzky level" stuff.

As far as I know - throughout 1988 to 1996 he had massive health issues. Very severe back pain (and of course the cancer) that impeded his play even in games/seasons played. So for example, 1992 season 64 games 131 points Ross - that's not Gretzky level. But is this due to Lemieux's suffering through bad health and playing through it - or lack of consistency? I'm guessing health played a big role, but maybe it's a mix of both.

I think it's very reasonable to claim that there's absolutely no guarantee that even with perfect health Lemieux can match Gretzky's consistency. I don't know that he had it in him to hit 200+ points every year as consistently as Gretzky. But - he might have. Or - he might have done better than Gretzky in 1-2 years, then not as good other years, and fluctuated a bit more. Or maybe he comes very close a few years but ultimately falls a bit short of any of the big records.

Impossible to say.

I do think Lemieux aged better than Gretzky. Past age 30-31 Gretzky was still great, but nowhere near peak Gretzky. His goal-scoring dipped a lot also. I don't think that's true for Lemieux. Again - is it because Lemieux aged better and would have taken over Gretzky in the long-run in a full career? Or is it because Lemieux missed so many games/seasons and got the luxury of rest which allowed him to stay in top form - something Gretzky didn't. Impossible to say
 
  • Like
Reactions: overg and frisco

bobholly39

Registered User
Mar 10, 2013
22,078
14,589
Going back to the OP. To me the absolutely biggest hypothetical ever for Mario Lemieux has nothing to do with 1992-1993. That was a fantastic season, even with only 60 games. If you want to mount a legitimate argument that Mario Lemieux is better than Wayne Gretzky - the huge hypothetical that could make this valid would be:

What if Mario Lemieux played 1993-1994 fully healthy?

That's the season that makes or breaks it. Does he pace for 200+ points again? Top it? Does he show his consistency issues and come back down to 140-150 only? He was at his absolute best in terms of ability around that time i'd expect. If you don't like 93-94, you can probably replace it with 91-92 or 90-91 too. Full health. Just 1 season.
 

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,820
5,710
Visit site
Mario didn't hit his "Gretzky-like" level at the NHL until 1988. He still had arguably the 2nd best first 3 years in NHL history (or if it's not 2nd best - it's still really good) because of how good a player he was - but his 84-85, 85-86, and 86-87 seasons simply aren't on Gretzky level. Development isn't linear - and Lemieux in those 3 seasons aren't on Gretzky's level. We need to stop comparing those.

1987-88 and especially 88-89 and on is when he hit another level. The special things Lemieux did include:

88, 89 season, 91 & 92 playoffs, 93 season - 96 season. All "Gretzky level" stuff.

As far as I know - throughout 1988 to 1996 he had massive health issues. Very severe back pain (and of course the cancer) that impeded his play even in games/seasons played. So for example, 1992 season 64 games 131 points Ross - that's not Gretzky level. But is this due to Lemieux's suffering through bad health and playing through it - or lack of consistency? I'm guessing health played a big role, but maybe it's a mix of both.

I think it's very reasonable to claim that there's absolutely no guarantee that even with perfect health Lemieux can match Gretzky's consistency. I don't know that he had it in him to hit 200+ points every year as consistently as Gretzky. But - he might have. Or - he might have done better than Gretzky in 1-2 years, then not as good other years, and fluctuated a bit more. Or maybe he comes very close a few years but ultimately falls a bit short of any of the big records.

Impossible to say.

I do think Lemieux aged better than Gretzky. Past age 30-31 Gretzky was still great, but nowhere near peak Gretzky. His goal-scoring dipped a lot also. I don't think that's true for Lemieux. Again - is it because Lemieux aged better and would have taken over Gretzky in the long-run in a full career? Or is it because Lemieux missed so many games/seasons and got the luxury of rest which allowed him to stay in top form - something Gretzky didn't. Impossible to say

I agree, it is impossible to say, which is a far different tone than what the other poster is stating.

I do have to question his 95/96 season as being Wayne-like though. It was not quite a 200 point pace but maybe that season was not quite as high scoring as the 80s/early 90s period but that is not my issue. He purposely sat out games during the season rather than missing one big chunk which should be viewed as advantageous to his peers and to Wayne who played full seasons without sitting out.

I don't see a big issue with your aged opinion but Wayne did seem to be affected by the Suter hit/injuries himself so that should open the door to what a "healthy" Wayne does after age 30/31. Or maybe how Wayne does after not playing so much more hockey than Mario in his '20s.

I would say that this is secondary to the primary discussion though and should not influence the primary discussion of what Mario could have done in peak/prime i.e. that he "aged" better is not relevant.
 

bobholly39

Registered User
Mar 10, 2013
22,078
14,589
I agree, it is impossible to say, which is a far different tone than what the other poster is stating.

I do have to question his 95/96 season as being Wayne-like though. It was not quite a 200 point pace but maybe that season was not quite as high scoring as the 80s/early 90s period but that is not my issue. He purposely sat out games during the season rather than missing one big chunk which should be viewed as advantageous to his peers and to Wayne who played full seasons without sitting out.

I don't see a big issue with your aged opinion but Wayne did seem to be affected by the Suter hit/injuries himself so that should open the door to what a "healthy" Wayne does after age 30/31. Or maybe how Wayne does after not playing so much more hockey than Mario in his '20s.

I would say that this is secondary to the primary discussion though and should not influence the primary discussion of what Mario could have done in peak/prime i.e. that he "aged" better is not relevant.

Regarding 95-96 - yes Lemieux sat out back to back games. And it was 100% the right call and absolutely should have happened. Remember the "goal" isn't to beat records and top statistics, but rather give the best value to the team, and considering how unlucky he had been until then with health this was very smart. I'm sure it did have a positive effect on him - impossible to say how much though. And i'm calling this season "Gretzky-like" because of scoring being down compared to some seasons in the 80s, yes.

I agree 100% with the Gretzky health question for the record. I have no idea how much the Suter hit/injuries slowed him down. Maybe that's the primary reason why he scored a ton less in the 2nd half of his career vs the first half. Or maybe it's because with age he simply slowed down. But it's possible that without that injury he carries on near top of league pacing Lemieux or close throughout the early 90s.
 

shazariahl

Registered User
Apr 7, 2009
2,030
59
To bring things back on topic, I think Sid would have benefited more. I don't really think a full season for Lemieux really changes things much. Those who think Lemieux was the best still think that even w/o the full season. Those who think Gretzky was better are unlikely to have been persuaded by 1 Lemieux season being in the 200+ club.

On the other hand, Crosby might have (or might not, who knows) had a career year, which could have worked to improve his standing by quite a bit. When we look at what Crosby has actually accomplished, he's way behind the big 4. Like... way behind. His spot in the top 10 is even pretty questionable on a lot of lists. But a career year and a bunch more trophies could have gone a long way towards securing him a top 10 spot for certain, and maybe even top 6 or 7. One big year would not have been enough to catch the Big 4, but it would make ranking guys like Hull, Mikita, and Richard above him a lot more questionable.
 

frisco

Some people claim that there's a woman to blame...
Sep 14, 2017
3,553
2,643
Northern Hemisphere
You are being intellectually dishonest.

He was pretty healthy in 84/85 and was 9th in PPG. Not close to Wayne's rookie year. He was healthy in 85/86 and, all things considered, was closer to Wayne than his rookie year, but still not as good. He missed time in 86/87 but before his injury, was not remotely close to showing a pace close to Wayne's 3rd year pace. He was healthy in 87/88 and was not close to Wayne's 4th year. He was healthy in 88/89 and did out up a year comparable to Wayne's peak. After that it seems that anything Mario did has to be qualified with inury and/or illness.
Two points that seem to be purposely ignored by the anti-Lemieux crowd. One, is that Lemieux's peak as a player came later in his career than Gretzky. So to just compare Wayne's first three years with Mario's isn't really a peak-to-peak comparison. The other is that Lemieux was severely hampered by chronic injuries, even when he was in the lineup, so that his actual production was diminished. The what if really is how much more could've Lemieux produced had he been 100% healthy. So you just can't look at his points/game as is, the speculation would be how much higher his points/game would've been had he not been playing games at 30-70% of capabilities.

Another related point is guys are saying Lemieux had the advantage of "resting". I don't know if lying flat on your back recovering from back surgery or receiving radiation treatments HELPED him. These were obviously at best hindrances and more accurately huge impediments to his play.

My Best-Carey
 

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,820
5,710
Visit site
Two points that seem to be purposely ignored by the anti-Lemieux crowd. One, is that Lemieux's peak as a player came later in his career than Gretzky. So to just compare Wayne's first three years with Mario's isn't really a peak-to-peak comparison. The other is that Lemieux was severely hampered by chronic injuries, even when he was in the lineup, so that his actual production was diminished. The what if really is how much more could've Lemieux produced had he been 100% healthy. So you just can't look at his points/game as is, the speculation would be how much higher his points/game would've been had he not been playing games at 30-70% of capabilities.

It is not ignored, it is a sign that Mario could have yoyoed from peak seasons to not-peak seasons throughout his prime. If the possibility that he could have been better than Wayne is on the table, the fact that Wayne hit his peak earlier in his career is relevant. Why didn't Mario reach that level sooner if he hypothetically had more talent?

Or maybe Wayne could have also hit a higher peak than he did if we give him the same amount of hypothetical leeway. Maybe by year 4 he wasn't motivated to do anything else in the regular season; it was all about winning the Cup.

To your claim that Mario never played above 70% capabilities ever in his career, then we should not even be discussing a "healthy" Mario because he never existed.
 

bobholly39

Registered User
Mar 10, 2013
22,078
14,589
It is not ignored, it is a sign that Mario could have yoyoed from peak seasons to not-peak seasons throughout his prime. If the possibility that he could have been better than Wayne is on the table, the fact that Wayne hit his peak earlier in his career is relevant. Why didn't Mario reach that level sooner if he hypothetically had more talent?

Or maybe Wayne could have also hit a higher peak than he did if we give him the same amount of hypothetical leeway. Maybe by year 4 he wasn't motivated to do anything else in the regular season; it was all about winning the Cup.

To your claim that Mario never played above 70% capabilities ever in his career, then we should not even be discussing a "healthy" Mario because he never existed.

There are hypotheticals with every player. Such as Bobby Orr.

Orr is different though. The intriguing part about Orr is - what could he have done over the long run. But for prime/peak - he had many full consecutive seasons, and we saw him at his best. Gretzky - also.

Lack of motivation isn't really a hypothetical - it's part of who they are. Otherwise you're just asking whose the most talented player ever - and I think Lemieux surpasses Gretzky. Heck Alexei Kovalev might make top 5 all time for raw talent. Drive, passion, work ethic, effort - all of those things have to go hand in hand with talent.

We never got to see Lemieux have full, healthy seasons when at his best. He really hit his "best" in 1989, during a full season. Great year. When was his next mostly full/healthy season? 1996. He had none in between. He did something crazy in 1992-1993 despite not perfect health (and only 60 games) - but when his abilities were arguably at their best between 89 and 96 - he never had a full season.

If this had happened to Gretzky instead - it would translate to roughly:

212 points, 92 goals in 1982. Then between 1983-83 all the way to 197-88 he plays an average of ~50 games per year, with pretty significant injuries/health concerns throughout, and it not being very clear when he's at 100% or not. Than in 1988-89 he's traded to LA - has the Hart and 168 point season. This is pretty much what happened to Lemieux - we saw glimpses of a fantastic Lemieux, but we're missing the "meat" in between.

No guarantee he does as good and as consistently as Gretzky. But that's why it's a big hypothetical- we didn't see it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: frisco

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,820
5,710
Visit site
On the other hand, Crosby might have (or might not, who knows) had a career year, which could have worked to improve his standing by quite a bit. When we look at what Crosby has actually accomplished, he's way behind the big 4. Like... way behind. His spot in the top 10 is even pretty questionable on a lot of lists. But a career year and a bunch more trophies could have gone a long way towards securing him a top 10 spot for certain, and maybe even top 6 or 7. One big year would not have been enough to catch the Big 4, but it would make ranking guys like Hull, Mikita, and Richard above him a lot more questionable.

I don't think 40 more games played in 10/11 puts him any closer to the Big 4 than he is now. Maybe puts him only behind Hull and Beliveau perhaps but I think almost everyone acknowledges he hit a level that is up there with the best of any other player outside the Big 4.
 

Voight

#winning
Feb 8, 2012
40,373
16,655
Mulberry Street
I don't think 40 more games played in 10/11 puts him any closer to the Big 4 than he is now. Maybe puts him only behind Hull and Beliveau perhaps but I think almost everyone acknowledges he hit a level that is up there with the best of any other player outside the Big 4.

Up there with Ovechkin pre-2010 Olympics as well.
 

Voight

#winning
Feb 8, 2012
40,373
16,655
Mulberry Street
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

To be fair a lot of those health issues were self caused by his excessive smoking (at least a pack a day IIRC), his lack of conditioning and his all around lifestyle. He didnt exactly make an great effort to keep himself in tip top shape, which is common in people who are born with immense talent.
 

The Panther

Registered User
Mar 25, 2014
19,115
15,573
Tokyo, Japan
We never got to see Lemieux have full, healthy seasons when at his best. He really hit his "best" in 1989, during a full season. Great year. When was his next mostly full/healthy season? 1996. He had none in between. He did something crazy in 1992-1993 despite not perfect health (and only 60 games) - but when his abilities were arguably at their best between 89 and 96 - he never had a full season.

If this had happened to Gretzky instead - it would translate to roughly:

212 points, 92 goals in 1982. Then between 1983-83 all the way to 197-88 he plays an average of ~50 games per year, with pretty significant injuries/health concerns throughout, and it not being very clear when he's at 100% or not. Than in 1988-89 he's traded to LA - has the Hart and 168 point season. This is pretty much what happened to Lemieux - we saw glimpses of a fantastic Lemieux, but we're missing the "meat" in between.
The problem I have with this hypothetical (aside from its being hypothetical) is that we DID see Lemieux playing long stretches of games between 1989 and 1995-96. For example, in 1989-90 he played most of the season before going down to injury (and, I think, coming back right at the end). But in 1989-90 he wasn't even close to matching what he had done in 1988-89. In terms of scoring and in terms of 5-on-5 results (I think he was -18 although the Pens were getting better), he was already regressing, one or two years after hitting his peak. In 1990-91, I can understand that maybe he didn't play enough games to really draw any conclusion, but not only was he way behind Gretzky's peak paces, he was also behind Gretzky's pace that very season (Wayne's 12th year). Same again in 1993-94.

What we see with Mario between 1989 and 1995 is small glimpses of genius, with long spells in between due to injury or to rest. He put up insane numbers over 60 games in 1992-93... but that's the most inflated scoring season for elite forwards, ever, and Mario slowed down a lot once the Pens' 17-game winning streak was over, which again doesn't convince me he could have kept it up over a full season.

Now, is it possible that Lemieux was hampered by his injuries from his full level of performance during 1989-1995? Yes, it's possible, but I don't think so. I think when we saw him, we saw him at his best. That's why he needed to take all that time off -- to recover. I certainly don't think he was playing at 50% of his level. Otherwise, he would have been able to play 82 games per year.
 

bobholly39

Registered User
Mar 10, 2013
22,078
14,589
The problem I have with this hypothetical (aside from its being hypothetical) is that we DID see Lemieux playing long stretches of games between 1989 and 1995-96. For example, in 1989-90 he played most of the season before going down to injury (and, I think, coming back right at the end). But in 1989-90 he wasn't even close to matching what he had done in 1988-89. In terms of scoring and in terms of 5-on-5 results (I think he was -18 although the Pens were getting better), he was already regressing, one or two years after hitting his peak. In 1990-91, I can understand that maybe he didn't play enough games to really draw any conclusion, but not only was he way behind Gretzky's peak paces, he was also behind Gretzky's pace that very season (Wayne's 12th year). Same again in 1993-94.

What we see with Mario between 1989 and 1995 is small glimpses of genius, with long spells in between due to injury or to rest. He put up insane numbers over 60 games in 1992-93... but that's the most inflated scoring season for elite forwards, ever, and Mario slowed down a lot once the Pens' 17-game winning streak was over, which again doesn't convince me he could have kept it up over a full season.

Now, is it possible that Lemieux was hampered by his injuries from his full level of performance during 1989-1995? Yes, it's possible, but I don't think so. I think when we saw him, we saw him at his best. That's why he needed to take all that time off -- to recover. I certainly don't think he was playing at 50% of his level. Otherwise, he would have been able to play 82 games per year.

To the bolded. I don't know. I'm not as knowledgeable as a lot of others around here are about the specific health issues he had season by season. My high level understanding is that he had major back issues throughout those years, and of course the cancer. I'm sure people who researched this more, or read autobiographies or interviews could speak to those years specifically. So I won't try to claim for a fact that in every single one of those seasons - even in those where he played ~60 games - he was never at or close to 100% in those stretches.

I do believe he wasn't though - which is the point. If we get back on track to the OP - and compare him to Sidney Crosby. Sidney Crosby missed a lot of time at his peak which is disappointing because who knows what he could have done - but for the games/seasons Crosby *did* play - he was always at/or-close-to 100% health-wise. Lemieux is a completely different story. Again - that's the point.

I think if it turns out that in 1989-90 (59 games), or 1991-92 (64 games) he was mostly healthy - than yes those numbers are very disappointing for him. But i don't think this was the case, which is why Lemieux peak/prime is such a huge hypothetical.

For what it's worth - if I had to guess what Lemieux would do in a perfectly health situation from 89 to 96 - I don't think he'd have rattled off 200 point seasons as consistently as Gretzky. I can see him fluctuating a bit more - up and down. So I could see a few ~180 point seasons, but then I could also see him surpassing 215/92 goals a couple of times in a great year too.

I think he *definitely* falls short of Gretzky for playoffs. Both for lack of opportunity (dynasty Oilers helps) - but also because Gretzky is simply irreproachable in playoffs, and imo couldn't be topped.

And to continue the hypothetical - the other huge question mark if things play out this way is how Lemieux ages. He aged quite a bit better than Gretzky did in reality on a per game basis. Is it because he rested so much and so could play at top form for longer? Maybe. Or - is it the contrary, is the fact that he managed to play so well late in his career despite all the injuries he suffered even more difficult/remarkable? Or do both cancel each other out? Impossible to say.

There's really so many questions.
 

bobholly39

Registered User
Mar 10, 2013
22,078
14,589
I don't think 40 more games played in 10/11 puts him any closer to the Big 4 than he is now. Maybe puts him only behind Hull and Beliveau perhaps but I think almost everyone acknowledges he hit a level that is up there with the best of any other player outside the Big 4.

There was a post/thread somewhere here not too long ago discussing a hypothetical Crosby without *any* major injuries. So not just 2010-2011, but also 2011-2012, 2012-2013, and maybe even 2008 where he missed a lot of games.

I think if this happens for Crosby and if those seasons play out....in a realistic manner - I think Crosby has a very good case to be as good/better than Howe through age 31. He still lacks the explosive peak of Orr/Lemieux/Gretzky (Howe does too imo even if some disagree) - but outside of that his resume stacks up to the big 4 better than any player in history most likely.

This is of course if you look at his missed seasons in a "glass half full" light and assumes he wins those art rosses (i'm thinking 3, not 4) with high scoring - glass half empty could argue there's no guarantee, and he could fall short all 4 years.

To be fair a lot of those health issues were self caused by his excessive smoking (at least a pack a day IIRC), his lack of conditioning and his all around lifestyle. He didnt exactly make an great effort to keep himself in tip top shape, which is common in people who are born with immense talent.

That is true. From what I know I think playing with Gretzky in the Canada Cup in 87 helped Lemieux tremendously. Lemieux was always more talented than Gretzky - but it's all about work ethic and drive and will to win, etc. Lemieux had a lot to learn early on in his career I think.

Crosby is very similar to Gretzky in that sense. Not necessarily the most talented player ever (many will say even Malkin is more talented) - but work ethic/drive/passion helped him have such a full career, and better than most.

I've heard others argue before that Lemieux never would have been healthy because of the way he trained/played etc - and so those hypothetical (full health) have no real merit. They're not entirely wrong - some of Lemieux's health issues probably aren't simply due to bad luck (that's much more true for Crosby than Lemieux) - it's more about who he was/how he trained/played, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Voight

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,820
5,710
Visit site
There was a post/thread somewhere here not too long ago discussing a hypothetical Crosby without *any* major injuries. So not just 2010-2011, but also 2011-2012, 2012-2013, and maybe even 2008 where he missed a lot of games.

I think if this happens for Crosby and if those seasons play out....in a realistic manner - I think Crosby has a very good case to be as good/better than Howe through age 31. He still lacks the explosive peak of Orr/Lemieux/Gretzky (Howe does too imo even if some disagree) - but outside of that his resume stacks up to the big 4 better than any player in history most likely.

This is of course if you look at his missed seasons in a "glass half full" light and assumes he wins those art rosses (i'm thinking 3, not 4) with high scoring - glass half empty could argue there's no guarantee, and he could fall short all 4 years.



That is true. From what I know I think playing with Gretzky in the Canada Cup in 87 helped Lemieux tremendously. Lemieux was always more talented than Gretzky - but it's all about work ethic and drive and will to win, etc. Lemieux had a lot to learn early on in his career I think.

Crosby is very similar to Gretzky in that sense. Not necessarily the most talented player ever (many will say even Malkin is more talented) - but work ethic/drive/passion helped him have such a full career, and better than most.

I've heard others argue before that Lemieux never would have been healthy because of the way he trained/played etc - and so those hypothetical (full health) have no real merit. They're not entirely wrong - some of Lemieux's health issues probably aren't simply due to bad luck (that's much more true for Crosby than Lemieux) - it's more about who he was/how he trained/played, etc.

I don't think it is unreasonable to rate players by talent, and what they did with that talent.

Howe certainly maximized was he did with his talent; Crosby certainly lost out on the opportunity to show what he could do. He is perhaps the best player to never play a full season at his peak.

Howe vs. Crosby is becoming an interesting comparison that should not be ignored just because Howe will always be ahead (barring the unlikely, but not impossible, prospect that Crosby keeps his prime going for another 5 to 6 years.)

Crosby is challenging Howe's length of prime, the length of time that both were, or in the conversation for, the league's best player. I know we are on the same page as to treating Howe's Top 5 finishes post 62/63 as a being comparable to a Top Tenish placing in the current league.

All that being said, pacing out more than one year, which has limited leverage to begin with, gets into a completely alternative universe where we have no idea how players perform or if other injuries occur. I think motivation from missing time or a bad year plays a big role in propelling players to their peak.
 

The Panther

Registered User
Mar 25, 2014
19,115
15,573
Tokyo, Japan
[Lemieux] aged quite a bit better than Gretzky did in reality on a per game basis.
I'm not sure about that. If we take Gretzky's 1990-91 (aged 29-30) as equivalent to Lemieux's 1995-96 (aged 30), they're about even at that age. In the following season, both took a large hit in production by about 40 points off their previous late-primes. Then, Lemieux quit playing. (He came back, as usual, to play only partial seasons.)
 

Nathaniel

Registered User
Oct 18, 2013
13,603
4,969
The problem I have with this hypothetical (aside from its being hypothetical) is that we DID see Lemieux playing long stretches of games between 1989 and 1995-96. For example, in 1989-90 he played most of the season before going down to injury (and, I think, coming back right at the end). But in 1989-90 he wasn't even close to matching what he had done in 1988-89. In terms of scoring and in terms of 5-on-5 results (I think he was -18 although the Pens were getting better), he was already regressing, one or two years after hitting his peak. In 1990-91, I can understand that maybe he didn't play enough games to really draw any conclusion, but not only was he way behind Gretzky's peak paces, he was also behind Gretzky's pace that very season (Wayne's 12th year). Same again in 1993-94.

What we see with Mario between 1989 and 1995 is small glimpses of genius, with long spells in between due to injury or to rest. He put up insane numbers over 60 games in 1992-93... but that's the most inflated scoring season for elite forwards, ever, and Mario slowed down a lot once the Pens' 17-game winning streak was over, which again doesn't convince me he could have kept it up over a full season.

Now, is it possible that Lemieux was hampered by his injuries from his full level of performance during 1989-1995? Yes, it's possible, but I don't think so. I think when we saw him, we saw him at his best. That's why he needed to take all that time off -- to recover. I certainly don't think he was playing at 50% of his level. Otherwise, he would have been able to play 82 games per year.
You really need to read up on Lemieux.
 
  • Like
Reactions: frisco

JackSlater

Registered User
Apr 27, 2010
18,042
12,664
Wait, what?

It's a convoluted, and very poor, attempt to elevate Crosby to the level of the big four that's been floated out since at least last summer. It's extremely unlikely that Crosby will match Howe's longevity, and we know that he didn't match Howe's peak, so it seems that a much more creative approach was needed.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->