Why isn't Gretzky considered the best goalscorer ever?

[bobholly39]

I think we saw Gretzky's best.

his 200 point seasons, his 92 goal seasons....this was him at his best. Could he have done a bit better? If the Goal-scoring record was 93, did Gretzky have it in him to hit 94? or 216 points? Sure. But overall, i think it's a pretty valid statement to say that the numbers Gretzky hit were his best. And mostly - he hit those targets consistently for a few years.


Mario never had the consistency Gretzky did. He might have been a bit more consistent with no injuries at all - but honestly, even if he had hit 200 points in 89 and had no injuries after, i just don't thikn he'd have consistently hit as high numbers for 5-6 years straight. It just doesn't happen, even in the very best of "what if" scenarios. He likely has a few rlly awesome seasons, and a few a bit less awesome, but he wouldn't have the top end consistency Gretzky managed.



What Mario might have done is beat Gretzky's single point and goal records in a season. If he's 100% healthy, and plays full years between 89 and say 94? I think there's an extremely high chance at least one of those years Lemieux can beat 92, and possibly even 215. I also think with perfect health - Lemieux maintains his goal scoring at a much higher and consistent rate than Gretzky did throughout his career (as he did, though mostly through partial seasons), and is comfortably seen as the better overall goal scorer.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Is that quote confirmed from Gretzky. I ask this cause my fiancee knows I'm a huge hockey fan and she just had a print of that quote framed for our study and I've been thinking if it's something he actually never said. Which would pretty much make the print stupid. (Which it might be no matter what )

your print is safe to hang.

a quick google search reveals:

First quoted in an interview he did with Bob MacKenzie (then editor of the Hockey News) in 1983

The full quote is
"You miss one hundred percent of the shots you don't take. Even though there is only a 1-5% probably of scoring"

The quote was in response to the question "You have taken a lot of shots this year"

At the time, Gretzky was on pace to record 400 SOG, the second person in league history to do so (he didn't do it)


January 16, 1983 edition of the Hockey News (and I have it right in front of me)

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101214161331AApijuo

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Wasn't that rule changed back in 92-93?

Which was the year where more players hit 50 goals thAn any season in history, regardless of GPG levels.

It officially came back in 93-94

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

I think we saw Gretzky's best.

his 200 point seasons, his 92 goal seasons....this was him at his best. Could he have done a bit better? If the Goal-scoring record was 93, did Gretzky have it in him to hit 94? or 216 points? Sure. But overall, i think it's a pretty valid statement to say that the numbers Gretzky hit were his best. And mostly - he hit those targets consistently for a few years.


Mario never had the consistency Gretzky did. He might have been a bit more consistent with no injuries at all - but honestly, even if he had hit 200 points in 89 and had no injuries after, i just don't thikn he'd have consistently hit as high numbers for 5-6 years straight. It just doesn't happen, even in the very best of "what if" scenarios. He likely has a few rlly awesome seasons, and a few a bit less awesome, but he wouldn't have the top end consistency Gretzky managed.



What Mario might have done is beat Gretzky's single point and goal records in a season. If he's 100% healthy, and plays full years between 89 and say 94? I think there's an extremely high chance at least one of those years Lemieux can beat 92, and possibly even 215. I also think with perfect health - Lemieux maintains his goal scoring at a much higher and consistent rate than Gretzky did throughout his career (as he did, though mostly through partial seasons), and is comfortably seen as the better overall goal scorer.

When lemieux hit 199 he was 23. So everyone probably figured he had a lot of time to try to match gretzky. Then his back fell apart and he never got to play healthy as a 24-29 year old. Those are a players prime years and we never got to see lemieux then.

What we know is that lemieux did threatned Gretzkys goal records and point records twice.

160 points in 60 games comes to 224 points in an 84 game season.

There's no doubt in my mind that lemieux hits at LEAST 210 points that season with 85-95 goals

Also by this time goalies had improved from the early 80's. No longer were shots from the blue line a big threat to score. Goalies started using butterfly. Also as I've said before lemieux didn't have the benefit of 4 on 4 play when he was chasing Gretzkys records.

All in all at their peaks I have lemieux over gretzky or any player in history for that matter.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

When lemieux hit 199 he was 23. So everyone probably figured he had a lot of time to try to match gretzky. Then his back fell apart and he never got to play healthy as a 24-29 year old. Those are a players prime years and we never got to see lemieux then.

What we know is that lemieux did threatned Gretzkys goal records and point records twice.

160 points in 60 games comes to 224 points in an 84 game season.

There's no doubt in my mind that lemieux hits at LEAST 210 points that season with 85-95 goals

Also by this time goalies had improved from the early 80's. No longer were shots from the blue line a big threat to score. Goalies started using butterfly. Also as I've said before lemieux didn't have the benefit of 4 on 4 play when he was chasing Gretzkys records.

All in all at their peaks I have lemieux over gretzky or any player in history for that matter.

okay so imagine that mario is completely healthy in '93 and scores, say, 97 goals and 224 points. those would be his totals over 84 games, if we prorated his GPG and PPG numbers.

if, at the same time, we prorated gretzky's 92/80 games and 215/80 games to 84, we would get... 97 goals and 226 points.

their goals/game ratios are, in fact, identical.

but of course, one guy actually did it over 80 and the other guy didn't. everything else being equal, that's a pretty solid tie-breaker, no?

EDIT: more solid, anyway, than the strength of goalies canard. i mean, tim cheveldae finished 4th in vezina voting in '92. you're not going to tell me that goaltending mysteriously jumped leaps and bounds between '92 and '93 are you? for the sake of comparison, dan bouchard was 4th in vezina voting in '82, felix potvin in '93.

and finally, the "gordie howe/ray bourque" argument: grant fuhr was 6th in vezina voting in '84 (when gretzky put up his highest goals/game ratio), and 6th in vezina voting in '96 (when mario came just short of posting a goal/game against supposedly evolutionary super goalies).

 

[shazariahl]

okay so imagine that mario is completely healthy in '93 and scores, say, 97 goals and 224 points. those would be his totals over 84 games, if we prorated his GPG and PPG numbers.

if, at the same time, we prorated gretzky's 92/80 games and 215/80 games to 84, we would get... 97 goals and 226 points.

their goals/game ratios are, in fact, identical.

but of course, one guy actually did it over 80 and the other guy didn't. everything else being equal, that's a pretty solid tie-breaker, no?

But you're forgetting that when Gretzky scored all those points in 84, he was facing weak goalies from the early 80's. Then by the time Lemieux started playing (also in 84, but somehow in a totally different era), he was facing super awesome goalies who were totally not the exact same guys that Gretzky was facing.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

But you're forgetting that when Gretzky scored all those points in 84, he was facing weak goalies from the early 80's. Then by the time Lemieux started playing (also in 84, but somehow in a totally different era), he was facing super awesome goalies who were totally not the exact same guys that Gretzky was facing.

Goaltending in 92-93 was far better than the early 80's. They also had bigger equipment and didn't just flip around everywhere

 

[Joedaman55]

The question is who is the better scorer of goals, not who is the Iron Man.

Unless you can prove that Mario's goal scoring prowess was a consistent series of flukes (and good luck with that), it doesn't matter. The man scored just short of 700 goals in 900-something games.

Okay, that still doesn't surpass Gretzky.

I've seen this weak argument "well Lemieux had x GPG, if he would have continued at this pace he would have scored this." Guess what, he didn't and there are reasons for that. The first argument were that the goalies were much poorer and that's the reason Gretzky scored so much (a top 5 comparison of leading goal scorers busted that argument). Now some people are trying to use this GPG metric which is about as weak as the +/- and bionic superheroes of today argument by flashing some shirtless hockey player.

In no objective argument can Lemieux be considered a better goal scorer unless the person is evaluating by "how pretty" a goal looks.

 

[Cursed Lemon]

Now some people are trying to use this GPG metric which is about as weak as the +/-

What

 

[Joedaman55]

What

That's right, the GPG metric is the silliest metric I have seen since the +/- metric. It is the biggest "what if" stat I have seen and when other variables are factored in such as strength of opponents it becomes useless.

 

[Cursed Lemon]

That's right, the GPG metric is the silliest metric I have seen since the +/- metric. It is the biggest "what if" stat I have seen and when other variables are factored in such as strength of opponents it becomes useless.

Mario Lemieux scored 690 goals in 915 games.

There is no "what if" there.

 

[McGuillicuddy]

I think it's fair to say that later in the season, when players are tired/slightly injured (and maybe coaches start to dial down icetime to save for the playoffs), it's not unlikely for GPG/PPG to suffer somewhat in the last 1-2 months of the season. Not sure if data backs this up or not, but for the moment let's say it does.

With that in mind, shouldn't GPG calculations for Gretzky only include the first 60 or so games per season similar to what are being used in Lemieux GPG calculations? This would eliminate any fatigue/nagging injury-based bias which may creep into late-season data that are in Gretzky's totals but not Lemieux's.

Lemieux averaged 59.9 (so 60) games per season for his first 10 years in the league. Should we not then consider the first 60 games per season of Gretzky's first 10 years if we truly want to make the comparison apples-to-apples? Or maybe even take exactly the game totals that Lemieux played in his first 10 years and apply those to Gretzky's stats (e.g. 73 GP in 1st year, 79 GP in 2nd year, 63 GP in 3rd year, and so on...)?

In summary, are we unfairly punishing Gretzky in GPG/PPG stats by including the extra 20+ games per season that Lemieux didn't have to suffer through? Maybe Gretzky's scoring rates were consistent enough throughout the season that it would not affect the data significantly, but I think it's worth looking at for anybody who has the time (unfortunately not me...).

 

[Joedaman55]

Mario Lemieux scored 690 goals in 915 games.

There is no "what if" there.

What's your point? Gretzky scored 894 goals in 1487 games.

Are you really trying to prove that one player who had a significant break of time between his peak and downside of his career should be compared to a player who played his whole career (peak and downturn) on a GPG metric. By that logic, all good players should just retire at their peak because their GPG is through the roof and there would be no way that would decrease.

I watched Eichel just score a goal yesterday, with a GPG of 1.00 he is certainly a better goal scorer than Gretzky and Lemieux who had a lower GPG. Kid should just retire and wait for his HOF induction.

 

[Joedaman55]

I think it's fair to say that later in the season, when players are tired/slightly injured (and maybe coaches start to dial down icetime to save for the playoffs), it's not unlikely for GPG/PPG to suffer somewhat in the last 1-2 months of the season. Not sure if data backs this up or not, but for the moment let's say it does.

With that in mind, shouldn't GPG calculations for Gretzky only include the first 60 or so games per season similar to what are being used in Lemieux GPG calculations? This would eliminate any fatigue/nagging injury-based bias which may creep into late-season data that are in Gretzky's totals but not Lemieux's.

Lemieux averaged 59.9 (so 60) games per season for his first 10 years in the league. Should we not then consider the first 60 games per season of Gretzky's first 10 years if we truly want to make the comparison apples-to-apples? Or maybe even take exactly the game totals that Lemieux played in his first 10 years and apply those to Gretzky's stats?

In summary, are we unfairly punishing Gretzky in GPG/PPG stats by including the extra 20+ games per season that Lemieux didn't have to suffer through? Maybe Gretzky's scoring rates were consistent enough throughout the season that it would not affect the data significantly, but I think it's worth looking at for anybody who has the time (unfortunately not me...).

This is assuming that players start a season x games in at a consistent GPG rate among Gretzky and Lemieux (may be true for these two, I don't know). Players have better starts or better finishes in an 82 game season which makes this comparison not quite apples to apples on an aggregate NHL level. One could use a minimum qualifier like the MLB does with batting average if people wanted to make it a reputable statistic, though I don't know if people would rank that higher than a persons accumulated total over a season.

 

[McGuillicuddy]

This is assuming that players start a season x games in at a consistent GPG rate among Gretzky and Lemieux (may be true for these two, I don't know). Players have better starts or better finishes in an 82 game season which makes this comparison not quite apples to apples on an aggregate NHL level. One could use a minimum qualifier like the MLB does with batting average if people wanted to make it a reputable statistic, though I don't know if people would rank that higher than a persons accumulated total over a season.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. I'm only saying that there is fair reason to believe that the extra 20 games each season that Gretzky played are likely to reduce is GPG stats in a way that makes a straight aggregate GPG comparison unfairly biased in Mario's favour.

For an extreme example, in the first 39 games of 1981-82 Gretzky had 1.28 GPG, and much less in the last 20 games of that season which dragged down the final GPG for that season. If Gretzky only played 63 games in that season (as Mario did in his 3rd season) then Gretzky's GPG would be much higher. This would be reflected in the comparisons made above which compare the GPG in first 5/10 seasons. I suspect Gretzky would come out considerably ahead of Lemieux with this adjustment, which I think is fair.

 

[Cursed Lemon]

What's your point? Gretzky scored 894 goals in 1487 games.

Are you really trying to prove that one player who had a significant break of time between his peak and downside of his career should be compared to a player who played his whole career (peak and downturn) on a GPG metric. By that logic, all good players should just retire at their peak because their GPG is through the roof and there would be no way that would decrease.

I watched Eichel just score a goal yesterday, with a GPG of 1.00 he is certainly a better goal scorer than Gretzky and Lemieux who had a lower GPG. Kid should just retire and wait for his HOF induction.

Like I keep telling Panther (who keeps ignoring it), if you think 915 games is a small sample size, that's your problem.

But maybe you're right, maybe Mike Gartner is a better goal scorer than Lemieux.

 

[Joedaman55]

Like I keep telling Panther (who keeps ignoring it), if you think 915 games is a small sample size, that's your problem.

But maybe you're right, maybe Mike Gartner is a better goal scorer than Lemieux.

No, you keep using this GPG argument without context; that is a poor argument. GPG is a flawed statistic unless you can get universal agreement on what a minimum requirement is for GPG to be measured based on a season. A career has far different variables (as mentioned between these two players). I get you think Lemieux is the better goal scorer but you have made no objective argument for him over Gretzky besides this subjective, weak GPG career argument. That is not my problem, that is just a poor argument and is deservingly being criticized as such.

 

[Joedaman55]

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. I'm only saying that there is fair reason to believe that the extra 20 games each season that Gretzky played are likely to reduce is GPG stats in a way that makes a straight aggregate GPG comparison unfairly biased in Mario's favour.

For an extreme example, in the first 39 games of 1981-82 Gretzky had 1.28 GPG, and much less in the last 20 games of that season which dragged down the final GPG for that season. If Gretzky only played 63 games in that season (as Mario did in his 3rd season) then Gretzky's GPG would be much higher. This would be reflected in the comparisons made above which compare the GPG in first 5/10 seasons. I suspect Gretzky would come out considerably ahead of Lemieux with this adjustment, which I think is fair.

Yeah, I'm not advocating either player in a GPG argument. I'm saying GPG is a tough metric to use because certain players play better during certain periods of time. Can't think of any off the top of my head but I know there are cases where players come into a season more prepared and have better starts than others (i.e. start the season in better condition, adjust to the pace quicker, etc). It is so hard to make an apples to apples comparison based on these variables.

If you do a GPG comparison without correcting for variables such as these your argument would have a serious case of omitted variable bias (this discredits many scholarly research papers if you make a conclusion without noting those).

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

I've noticed that raw totals are only the be end all when it comes to lemieux vs gretzky. Any comparison between other players and raw totals are not the only thing that matters.

 

[Fantomas]

But you're forgetting that when Gretzky scored all those points in 84, he was facing weak goalies from the early 80's. Then by the time Lemieux started playing (also in 84, but somehow in a totally different era), he was facing super awesome goalies who were totally not the exact same guys that Gretzky was facing.

You're exaggerating a little bit, but generally the quality of overall NHL play role into the late 80s. Which is why I think Lemieux is sometimes a bit underrated.

 

[Fantomas]

* should say "NHL play rose".

 

[Cursed Lemon]

No, you keep using this GPG argument without context; that is a poor argument. GPG is a flawed statistic unless you can get universal agreement on what a minimum requirement is for GPG to be measured based on a season. A career has far different variables (as mentioned between these two players). I get you think Lemieux is the better goal scorer but you have made no objective argument for him over Gretzky besides this subjective, weak GPG career argument. That is not my problem, that is just a poor argument and is deservingly being criticized as such.

First of all, I don't think you know what the word "subjective" means.

Secondly, it falls right in line with what you are trying to peddle. Mike Gartner was there, on the ice, playing the game of hockey and scored more goals than Mario Lemieux, so ergo he's a better goal scorer.

Prove that it's a straw man.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Like I keep telling Panther (who keeps ignoring it), if you think 915 games is a small sample size, that's your problem.

It isn't the sample size but the context.

Lemieux scored .75 GPG over his 915 game career. But he didn't play nearly as many sunset seasons as Gretzky.

Cut off Gretzky's career at roughly the same point and have a look at his GPG then..

1979-80 to 1990-91 is 925 games for Gretzky and he comes in with a .78 GPG...

I've noticed that raw totals are only the be end all when it comes to lemieux vs gretzky. Any comparison between other players and raw totals are not the only thing that matters.

I've noticed that you aren't paying attention.

 

[Cursed Lemon]

It isn't the sample size but the context.

Lemieux scored .75 GPG over his 915 game career.

Cut off Gretzky's career at roughly the same point and have a look at his GPG then..

1979-80 to 1990-91 is 925 games for Gretzky and he comes in with a .78 GPG...

Look at my post right on the last page.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Look at my post right on the last page.

The one where Gretzky played two full seasons more games?

And that was adjusted by league average scoring alone when we've already established how many more PPOs Lemieux got in his big seasons etc.?

Not buying.

Here is the funny thing about your post.

You do all that work to show Lemieux has a higher adjusted by average GPG but look at the placings and the percentages:

Lemieux
1, 1, 1, 3, 3, 3, 7, 9, <10, <10
Gretzky
1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 4, 4, 5, 6, <10

Lemieux
125,121,111,96,91,87,63,63,28,22
Gretzky
155,144,108,107,103,91,81,76,64,57

Yeah.. playing games matters. Lemieux may have aged better as a goalscorer but Gretzky got it done.