You guys might also want to check out how many (or I should say how few) games Lemieux played when he won the scoring title in 1992-93. Did I mention that his scoring pace for that season meant that had he managed to stay healthy and maintained that pace, he might have obliterated Gretzky's single season records for both goals and points?
Gretzky was healthier longer and his (much) better supporting cast helped his numbers a ton as well. Peak Lemieux however takes a back seat to nobody.
Obviously Lemieux and that particular season (as well as his entire career) was wildly impressive. I don’t get what youre trying to say with your first point though. Gretzky had scoring titles on lock by the time the All Star break hit (and realistically you knew he was going to win every time before the season started). So sure, it’s impressive that Lemieux won the scoring title with 160 points in 60 games. His “pace” because of an 84 game season was 97 goals and 224 points. Gretzky did 92 and 215 in 80 games....project his totals to 84 games (since everyone loves giving free games and full credit to Lemieux) and we’re looking at 97 goals and 226 points. In no way would Lemieux have obliterated any records, real or projected. It’s also more likely that if Mario actually played those games, he would have fallen a little short (he likely would have gotten to Gretzky’s standard 200 points for the first and only time).
Gretzky consistently put up his video game numbers over whole seasons, there’s very little projecting to be had. Mario’s health should not be used as something to prop up his case, other than having an incredible season in between sessions of chemo which is truly remarkable. Overall it should be a knock just like how Gretzky’s health and actually producing what he did in actuality should be seen more as a strength. We shouldn’t just give free goals and points out and just assume that one guy could have done what only one player ever did for so long and so consistently.
The Oilers won 4 Cups with Gretzky and 1 without him (impressively). But you’re crazy if you don’t think that team still had Gretzky’s DNA all over it and there wasn’t some burning desire to show they could win without him. It’s a perfect storm we’ll never know about otherwise. He contributed to them developing into those players that won that Cup. This argument has always been lazy because almost everyone just looks at its surface level result (they won a cup and Gretzky wasn’t on the team)...I’ve seen very few argue the cause and effect of having Gretzky at the beginning of that Dynasty until the near end.
It reminds me of the Bulls in a way. Sure they didn’t win the Finals without Jordan, but they got damn close to making it without him and then who knows what happens then. But with Jordan they are a dynasty. With Gretzky, they’re in the argument for greatest dynasty in the sport. Without him, they win a cup and are an interesting sort of footnote that allows this argument some room to breath. Would the Oilers have dispatched the Flames the same way Gretzky’s Kings did in the first round that opened the door for any other team in the West to have the chance to get to the Finals?
