| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| andyhack |
Posted - 04/21/2007 : 18:15:02
IF Mario Lemieux had played basically full seasons from 1984 through 2006, would he have surpassed Gretzky's point total?
Edit: for this question, assume there was no cancer and no back problems
|
| 40 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| andyhack |
Posted - 04/26/2007 : 08:36:44
Well, okay, I just read your response now. I am proud of you Beans! You were able to FINALLY bring yourself to put out the word, "possible", which I know was really difficult for you. I also know you were dying to add "But who cares?" and refrained from doing that. Gretzky guys, you have made a step forwards, congrats!
p.s. I was talking about Lemieux's years in the early '90s - I just think he would have put up absolutely incredible numbers for a few years there - some in years where he hardly played, some in years where he played more (I think he would have put up even more incredible numbers than he did even in those years) |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 04/26/2007 : 08:10:31
Andyhack, I do not disagree with you that it would have been POSSIBLE for Mario to catch Wayne. But not PROBABLE.
And I have to question your logic on Mario's early years and him being healthier. I wasn't aware his back injury occured prior to him starting in the NHL. The injury started in 89-90 did it not?? So I agree that he did play the majority of his career with the injury and his best seasons were primarily in those early years. Those first 4 seasons were great for him, and he was at a 1.96 PPG during that time. So for him to finish his career overall at 1.88 played 14 partiale years injured is amazing. No question about it.
So, I agree that it was POSSIBLE that he could have caught Gretzky, but not PROBABLE for all the reasons I cited before.
And I don't think my thoughs of a full healthy season diminishing his history stature as a symptom of my thoughts of Gretzky being superior as much as it is towards my thoughts I don't think Mario could have maintained the 1.92+ PPG pace through the late 90's.
If we were to hypothetically say that Gretzky and Lemieux both started in 79 and Lemieux was healthy, I think I would have a much tougher arguement. |
| willus3 |
Posted - 04/25/2007 : 20:58:48
quote:
Just because I pick and choose where to use my imagination, doesnt make me wrong and you right. I just choose to use it where appropriate, not to mix fact and fantasy.
Does this mean that I don't use my imagination where appropriate and that I'm wrong and you're right? Seems like that's what you're saying.
And what is a hypothetical situation but a theory based on fact and imagination(fantasy)?
Till we meet again TCT....
PS The world i live in is in colour, with shades of gray. And there are purple and orange striped cows that make strawberry milk, strange little elf type creatures that play tiny violins and....
"Go chase headlights!" |
| andyhack |
Posted - 04/25/2007 : 20:26:24
fly4apuckguy - Although of course we can't discard the possibility that Gretzky too had back problems to the same degree as Mario or that he had a greater threshold for pain (as discarding "possibilities' is not something we should do - Hi Beans and TC  ), from everything we've heard and read, frankly, can't we doubt it big time? Even if you are right about the back issue, there is then the question of the effect cancer had on Mario - very difficult to measure but I personally think we gotta give Lemieux the benefit of the doubt in that calculation, however we may do it. But let me ask you, do you really, sincerely, believe that Gretzky had back problems to the same degree as Lemieux, or anywhere near the degree for that matter?
As for your comment about Gretzky calling the juniors, maybe the other guys don't do that but maybe they do other great things. I don't think Gretzky has a special place above Orr or Hull or Lafleur or many others in the "doing great things" area.
p.s. totally unrelated note but I've always admired Mike Modano (read your battle with IHC on that MVP thread) |
| tctitans |
Posted - 04/25/2007 : 20:06:17
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
TC, if you choose to live your life in black and white with no shades of gray and without imagination, that's up to you. Your hypotheticals here are exaggerated to the absurd and the point of them was to mock the original post. Andyhacks hypothetical is completely in the realm of possibility. There are players who have been healthy for most of their careers. So the point was to imagine what Lemieux could have done if he had a healthy career.
So like admin said, if you don't like hypotheticals then don't join the discussion. If you want to rip on hypotheticals perhaps you could start another thread and discuss it.
Ok Willus3, you live your life in the shade of grey that you choose, live life in your imaginary world, and image it the way you want it.
Just because I pick and choose where to use my imagination, doesnt make me wrong and you right. I just choose to use it where appropriate, not to mix fact and fantasy.
I'll leave this thread to the ones that prefer to delve in this world. Enjoy. 
|
| willus3 |
Posted - 04/25/2007 : 20:00:01
Would it be safe to say you revere him? 
"Go chase headlights!" |
| fly4apuckguy |
Posted - 04/25/2007 : 19:17:22
I found the comment about Lemieux's pain threshold very interesting. While he often gets praise for coming back from cancer (as he should), I wonder how bad that back was all those years. Presumeably, quite bad.
HOWEVER...in 1991 Gretzky was creamed from behind in the Canada Cup tournament by Gary Suter of the USA (I've hated Suter ever since for that). Anyone else remember that hit? He was quite a ways from the boards, and it could have killed him, really. Back then it was still semi-legal to hit a guy from behind, though.
Gretzky did miss some time that next season with an ailing back, but I often wonder how much it bothered him day in and day out in the rest of his career.
Maybe the only difference between Gretz and Mario is that Gretz had a higher pain threshold, and played through it, while Mario had a guy travel with the team to tie his skates.
Also...Mario did not always answer the call when Hockey Canada needed him. If you are wondering why he is not as revered to this day in Toronto and the HoF, that's one of the biggest reasons. As a Canadian, I know it kept me from idolizing him like I did the Great One, who always answered the call.
Gretzky is probably as loved in Canada for what he did (and does) internationally as what he did in the NHL. Few Americans understand that, I think.
For example, every year, Gretz phones the Canadian Junior players and wishes them well in the World Tourney. I doubt Mario, or even Messier or Orr do that. It's that kind of stuff that makes him so special.
You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. - Gretz |
| andyhack |
Posted - 04/25/2007 : 17:43:26
Beans, I accept your point that it wouldn't have been easy to achieve a 1.92 PPG given that the NHL was in a defensive mode for a time. But still, I don't think you are giving Mario enough credit. Here's why.
If I just did my math correctly, Mario's actual figures in the seven year period we are talking about (1996 to 2003) were as follows:
210 games played
320 points scored
PPG of 1.52
By the way, you started in '96 rather than '95 for this defensive period. In '95 Mario had 161 points so if I were to go back to that year obviously his PPG would go up, but, because I am a very generous guy, I'll just give you your chosen '96 to '03 seven year period.
So, EVEN with the bad back, and EVEN with Lemieux in the latter half and then twilight of his career, he had a PPG of 1.52. Just looking at the games he played in that period then (for the moment Beans for the moment - we'll get to the other games), Lemieux would have needed to get 403 points to achieve the 1.92 PPG in those 210 games. That is 83 more points then he got. A healthy back to me means he COULD, POSSIBLY, have made up those 83 points over those 210 games played in that defensive era (it would only have taken an extra point in every 2.5 games or so).
NOW, I know you are going to raise the question - could Mario keep up such a pace if he would have been playing near full seasons in that clutch and grab period? Some, not me by the way, would say absolutely no problem in response to that question. Others, like Beans-san, would say no way he keeps up that pace if he is playing nearly full seasons. So lets do a Great Canadian Compromise and split the difference! He doesn't reach 1.92 but he goes up half way from his actual 1.52 figure. Thats 1.72, which isn't 1.92 but it ain't bad either.
Now remember, we are only talking about the seven year defensive clutch and grab NHL period. Presumably, if much healthier, he would have been much closer to 1.92, maybe even over 1.92 in his younger years when the NHL wasn't quite as clutch and grab. The regular season he missed quite a lot of in '91 for just one example, I don't think it's unrealistic to imagine that it could have been an absolutely HUGE year for Mario - 200 points plus.
So, though your point about the clutch and grab years is understood, I still think it is possible that Lemieux could have surpassed Gretzky's totals, even with the clutch and grab.
As for your point that a healthy Lemieux would have actually had a diminished stature beside Gretzky, well, I just think you are again showing symptoms of the "No way anyone can imagine that Wayne is not Number 1" disease.
|
| willus3 |
Posted - 04/25/2007 : 13:35:40
quote:
Originally posted by PuckNuts
No offence taken guys...
I changed my picture for the playoffs...
Lead, follow, or get out of the way...
Totally threw me off. I will always associate you with Sundins large round head.
"Go chase headlights!" |
| PuckNuts |
Posted - 04/25/2007 : 12:25:47
No offence taken guys...
I changed my picture for the playoffs...
Lead, follow, or get out of the way... |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 04/25/2007 : 11:00:52
I wanted to reply to Andyhack's last post about the elusive 35 extra points. I really don't think this has as much bearing on the if he was healthy comment. If he was healthy, he would not have missed as many games. He would have had to keep up the pace of 1.92 or more points a game for the hypothetical time he would have played if healthy. That would have been very very hard to do in the years between 1996-2003 when the league was clutch and grab and hook, etc.
To have a 1.88 PPG average over 915 games it not comparable to 1.92 over 1487 games. When you break those games down to full 82 game seasons, it's 11.1 for Mario and 18.1 for Wayne. Do you think a healthy Mario could have maintained a 1.92 PPG average for another 7 seasons worth of games, and those being in the lowest scoring time of the modern NHL?? I don't. Not at all.
I actually think that if he was healthy it would have diminished his stature beside Gretzky. He would have been hindered by playing in a more defensive, lower scoring time through the 90's and Pittsburgh wasn't the powerhouse in the late 90's either. He would have had more points, but I think his PPG would have been lower for his career. So I think the fact that he wasn't healthy and missed the number of games he did actually helps his historic credibility. It creates these questions about "what if."
And PuckNuts, I too apologize for missing the Hypothetical in your post. You changed your pic and I didn't pay attention to the name. I thought it was some rookie pulling a seagull move. You know, fly in, crap on stuff, and fly away. |
| willus3 |
Posted - 04/25/2007 : 06:09:29
TC, if you choose to live your life in black and white with no shades of gray and without imagination, that's up to you. Your hypotheticals here are exaggerated to the absurd and the point of them was to mock the original post. Andyhacks hypothetical is completely in the realm of possibility. There are players who have been healthy for most of their careers. So the point was to imagine what Lemieux could have done if he had a healthy career.
So like admin said, if you don't like hypotheticals then don't join the discussion. If you want to rip on hypotheticals perhaps you could start another thread and discuss it.
"Go chase headlights!" |
| tctitans |
Posted - 04/24/2007 : 22:31:30
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
Tctitans - I don't know. Maybe I am missing something but it seems to me there is an obvious distinction between the, "what if Gretzky had hired a yoga yogi berra" hypothetical, and the "what if Lemieux had significantly better health" hypothetical? There are times when sarcasm works to make a point, but here your (I'm sorry but I gotta say this) somewhat silly examples are just pointing out clearly the relative merit of this thread's hypothetical.
I also want to respond to this, "facts are the only things that we have to truly base our opinions on" line. Again, I don't know. Call me a mad revolutionary but I am going to throw some common sense and, yes, when it comes to hypotheticals, also a bit of imagination, into the mix when forming my opinions. I am not going to say to the kids and younger guys on this site, don't question the background to facts, don't think beyond what we know happened, don't try to imagine things that would have happened but for this and that, etc
Obviously we are in disagreement. The fact was that Lemieux WASNT 100% healthy his entire career, period. No argument. We can speculate all we want, but NOONE knows what would have happend if he was completely healthy. Even a WORSE career is in the reasonable realm of possibility. The butterfly effect is a more powerful thing than people give it credit for. We just dont know, so for me, my examples are just as credible as 'What-if Lemieux was 100% healthy'.
|
| andyhack |
Posted - 04/24/2007 : 20:12:39
Tctitans - I don't know. Maybe I am missing something but it seems to me there is an obvious distinction between the, "what if Gretzky had hired a yoga yogi berra" hypothetical, and the "what if Lemieux had significantly better health" hypothetical? There are times when sarcasm works to make a point, but here your (I'm sorry but I gotta say this) somewhat silly examples are just pointing out clearly the relative merit of this thread's hypothetical.
I also want to respond to this, "facts are the only things that we have to truly base our opinions on" line. Again, I don't know. Call me a mad revolutionary but I am going to throw some common sense and, yes, when it comes to hypotheticals, also a bit of imagination, into the mix when forming my opinions. I am not going to say to the kids and younger guys on this site, don't question the background to facts, don't think beyond what we know happened, don't try to imagine things that would have happened but for this and that, etc
|
| willus3 |
Posted - 04/24/2007 : 19:28:35
quote:
Originally posted by tctitans
quote:
Originally posted by PuckNuts
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
quote:
Originally posted by PuckNuts
Hypotheticaly speaking Mario Lemieux's pain threshold was very low.
Am I the only one that got PuckNuts humor the first time? I thought it quite obvious.
I am embarrassed. When I first read it and replied to it I didn't even see the word hypothetical. I don't know if it was a Freudian thing and I didn't want to see it or....
Anyway, sorry Pucknuts, missed the humour entirely.
"Go chase headlights!" |
| tctitans |
Posted - 04/24/2007 : 19:02:15
quote:
Originally posted by Guest5259
Chooch here.
Gretzky couldnt do much without a bodyguard or weak West opponents to play.He woudl have lasted 5 seasons in the east.
Bossy lasted 9, Mario same, Orr same, Lafleur 10, etc etc,
Name Howe's bodyguard. Rockets? Lafleurs? Lemiuex'?
Point is - stats are for dummies - anyone who saw both play saw 1 guy dominate like no other except maybe Orr and the other stand behid the net flicking dumb passes which were intercepted by the other team half the time.
You want a stat - most even strength goals against - by far its Wayne.
We've gone all through this Chooch. Your points have all been discussed, broken down, disproven, and dismissed in other threads. You may have your opinion, and you are certainly welcome to it, but dont state it as fact, for which it is not.
Or come up with some new points. :) |
| tctitans |
Posted - 04/24/2007 : 18:59:28
quote:
Originally posted by PuckNuts
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
quote:
Originally posted by PuckNuts
Hypotheticaly speaking Mario Lemieux's pain threshold was very low. He missed games that he should have played in because he felt back spasms. Other players played through the same pain Mario felt and never missed any games.
How do you know how much pain he was in? When you can't tie your own skates and still play I'd say you are playing through some real, palpable pain.
I've heard players say the same kinds of things about Mario as they did about Orr and his knees. They didn't know how they played through the pain that they did.
I know that is why I put "Hypotheticaly speaking" the only person that knows how much pain he was in is Mario...
Am I the only one that got PuckNuts humor the first time? I thought it quite obvious.
To me he was just having fun and interjecting another somewhat off-the-wall 'hypothetical' that just goes to prove that facts are the only things that we have to truely base our opinions on. We can come up with 100 more hypotheticals that do the same thing.
If the Lemieux camp wants to start thinking hypotheticals about Mario's health, then the Gretz camp must do the same about his health, then we must analyze who had the better diet and what if each of them had a nutritiionist that meal-planned and gave them more energy on game days, and of course dont count out the what-if they had hired a proper yoga and meditation yogi to help them mentally prepare, relax, and focus for each game. I'd say that these alone are worth another 300 or so points for their careers.
What-if Gretzky wasnt beaten as a boy? That's probably worth another 500 points right there... |
| PuckNuts |
Posted - 04/24/2007 : 16:33:30
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
quote:
Originally posted by PuckNuts
Hypotheticaly speaking Mario Lemieux's pain threshold was very low. He missed games that he should have played in because he felt back spasms. Other players played through the same pain Mario felt and never missed any games.
How do you know how much pain he was in? When you can't tie your own skates and still play I'd say you are playing through some real, palpable pain.
I've heard players say the same kinds of things about Mario as they did about Orr and his knees. They didn't know how they played through the pain that they did.
"Go chase headlights!"
I know that is why I put "Hypotheticaly speaking" the only person that knows how much pain he was in is Mario...
Lead, follow, or get out of the way... |
| willus3 |
Posted - 04/24/2007 : 16:28:31
quote:
Originally posted by PuckNuts
Hypotheticaly speaking Mario Lemieux's pain threshold was very low. He missed games that he should have played in because he felt back spasms. Other players played through the same pain Mario felt and never missed any games.
How do you know how much pain he was in? When you can't tie your own skates and still play I'd say you are playing through some real, palpable pain.
I've heard players say the same kinds of things about Mario as they did about Orr and his knees. They didn't know how they played through the pain that they did.
"Go chase headlights!" |
| andyhack |
Posted - 04/24/2007 : 15:48:48
Beans - I've been trying to make that point (the one Willus made) but maybe I didn't make it as clearly as Willus did. But you'll see in my earlier post referring to Lemieux's 915 games, etc (the one in response to Pucknuts analysis yesterday I believe) that this "Lemieux would have done better in the games he did in fact play" has been exactly the point I have been talking about - and that is what I am referring to with the extra 35 points. I'm talking about in the games that he did in fact play in - he gets those 35 points and he has the same ppg as Gretzky.
Pucknuts-sama (term of extra respect in Japan). You are nothing if not tenacious. My sense is that any guy who went in the corners with you, paid the price! I like that but I gotta disagree with your assessment on the effect of Lemieux's health problems on the games he did play in. Take the health problems away and I think he has a great shot at getting an extra point here and an extra point there, and he doesn't need a lot of "here and there" to make up the 35 points. By the way, not to get in a big discussion about it, but I think you have to account for the effect of cancer on him a lot more than just the actual games missed.
Willus3 (and Admin guy) - thanks for the endorsement - this is a great site and I'm just having fun - I enjoy your comments too |
| PuckNuts |
Posted - 04/24/2007 : 15:03:34
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
And I disagree that Mario had a low pain tolerance. How can you measure that??
I know that is why I put "Hypotheticaly speaking" the only person that knows how much pain he was in is Mario...
Lead, follow, or get out of the way... |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 04/24/2007 : 14:52:44
Willus that is a really good point, and also very hard to prove.
And I disagree that Mario had a low pain tolerance. How can you measure that?? I have known people with back injuries, some to the point where they had to get sections of their spine fused. It is extremely painful. No one really knows how painful it was for Mario except for Mario.
However, I do agree that part of him staying out for 3 full years had to do with his dislike for the clutch and grab game.
And that is another reason he would not achieved a huge increase in points because the game in the 90's was not a scorer's league. |
| PuckNuts |
Posted - 04/24/2007 : 14:47:01
Hypotheticaly speaking Mario Lemieux's pain threshold was very low. He missed games that he should have played in because he felt back spasms. Other players played through the same pain Mario felt and never missed any games.
In the 1992-93 season he missed a total of 24 games, that is all he missed in his career because of cancer...
He missed three seasons because he did not like the clutching and grabing, not because of injury.
So due to injury, and illness did he really miss that many games...
Some of the points are fact some are opinion...
Lead, follow, or get out of the way... |
| willus3 |
Posted - 04/24/2007 : 14:18:07
Beans the problem with just using the stats as you have there is that it doesn't take into account how much better Mario could have been if he wasn't in pain for all of the games he played while injured. Surely his point production rises.
Oh yeah and....
I LOVE this Guy ---> Andyhack
What a post Andy. Fantastic. And quite possibly one of the longest ever here.
"Go chase headlights!" |
| admin |
Posted - 04/24/2007 : 13:12:24
It is interesting how the people who don't like hypotheticals are ususally the first guys to jump into the debate 
If you don't like hypotheticals simply don't debate them. If you do, then join in the poster's discussion. Personally I think hypotheticals are interesting and give an opportunity for each side to learn a bit...if they are willing.
Good topic AndyHack. One that I am sure will rage on for decades if not centuries. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 04/24/2007 : 12:49:03
OK Andyhack, let me give my rebuttal to your 35 points. In the end, 35 points to either of these guys is about 20 games. That is definately something that Lemiuex could have reached or out done if he would have been healthy. But I think it's irrelavant, and let me explain why.
I think that the way that I looked at it from the start if the most objective way. If you take their PPG for each year, and pro-rate that into a 82 game season, it gives a very accurate number to compare. The challenge in looking at it this was is that Mario missed 3 complete seasons plus the strike year. So how does one try to figure what he would have done during those years?? Well, I took an average of what his PPG was the season before and the season after the time he missed. So, for the strike shortened season of 94-95, I took his 1.68 from 93-94 and 2.30 from 95-96 to get 1.99 as a potential for the season he missed. Same for the time between 97-98 and 99-00 to get 1.69. So, his outcome would have looked like this.
PPG Prorated Points
84-85 1.37 112
85-86 1.78 146
86-87 1.70 139
87-88 2.18 179
88-89 2.62 215
89-90 2.08 171
90-91 1.73 142
91-92 2.05 168
92-93 2.67 219
93-94 1.68 138
94-95 1.99 163
95-96 2.30 189
96-97 1.61 132
97-98 1.69 139
98-99 1.69 139
99-00 1.69 139
00-01 1.77 145
01-02 1.29 106
02-03 1.36 111
03-04 0.90 74
05-06 0.85 69
Totals 1.76 3033
Again, doing the same thing for Gretzky.
Year PPG Protated Points
79-80 1.73 142
80-81 2.05 168
81-82 2.65 217
82-83 2.45 201
83-84 2.77 227
84-85 2.60 213
85-86 2.69 220
86-87 2.32 190
87-88 2.33 191
88-89 2.15 177
89-90 1.95 160
90-91 2.09 171
91-92 1.64 134
92-93 1.44 118
93-94 1.60 132
94-95 1.00 82
95-96 1.28 105
97-98 1.18 97
98-99 1.10 90
99-90 0.89 73
Totals 1.90 3108
So now the issue is that if Mario would have not missed any time, he would have played one more complete season than Gretzky. So, in the end it shows that Lemieux, even totally healthy and playing one more season, would not have caught Gretzky. In the words of Joey on friends, it's a Cows point of view. It's a moo point.
Thoughts??
|
| Beans15 |
Posted - 04/24/2007 : 11:35:18
Well I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one. I think that regardless of the Hypothetical, it is just that, hypothetical. We can argue all we want about what actually did happen. But as soon as any hypothetical questions come into to play, it's all fair game.
I don't see a difference in saying, "What would have happened if he was healthy" compared to "What would have happened if he were stronger, bigger, faster?" Both are hypothetical, and neither really have validity to reality.
|
| andyhack |
Posted - 04/24/2007 : 11:32:57
Beans - I didn't answer for three reasons:
1) as mentioned, I think it is a bad hypothetical - hypotheticals are more appropiate for things which happen to people, rather than things which people were born with
2) even if it were a good hypothetical, I think it belongs in another thread cause this thread was focused on the Lemieux hypothetical - if you look at the Official Hypothetical Guidelines, you will see under Rule 66 that one cannot answer a hypothetical with another hypothetical ------ 2 hypothetical minutes in the hypothetical box for Beans!
3) my last post was PAINFULLY long - your part was last and so I made it relatively short to spare all of you from any more of my ramblings!
BUT, despite the above, I will answer your question (and do some quick rambling) now.
The quick answer is, yes, sure, I think Gretzky would have been better with Orr's Skating ability and yes, maybe, he would have been better with Lemieux's size. I am less sure about the size thing cause I wonder how that would have affected his elusiveness.
The above is an aside though. This thread actually posed a simple question and the reaction from the Gretzky Gang is telling. Why is it so hard to come to terms with the POSSIBILITY (not fact, I'll admit, but POSSIBILITY) that but for a bad set of health cards, Mario Lemieux may have been the all-time leading point getter now. I know - you admit he would be close, and I give you credit for that, but the comments that come from you Gretzky guys seem to reveal a kind of overly-defensive way of thinking when it comes to Gretzky, in my opinion.
What about my comment about the 35 points for instance? I am still waiting for one of you Gretzky guys to come forward, without bashing hypotheticals or reaching for any Gretzky hypotheticals, and just say something like, "You know what, had Lemieux been healthier he MAY (I repeat, MAY) have been at or higher than Gretzky's point per game ratio." But you Gretzky guys don't seem comfortable with making comments like that. And this goes back to one of my very first posts on this site which is that Gretzky guys generally take his claim to the throne VERY SERIOUSLY. To even imagine that people would consider that say, Lafleur, could possibly have been "greater" or more valuable to the Habs - let alone Orr, Lemieux or Messier, actually makes you Gretzky guys shake, turn red and start blowing smoke out of your nose a bit, I think (correct me if I am wrong on any of those symptoms though )
By the way, this is for another thread I guess but what's funny about all this is that, if looking at career value, not peak value, I actually would probably take Gretzky ahead of Lemieux.
Anyway Beans - a while back you said something like you enjoy debating with me - been meaning to thank you for the kind words. And vice-versa too. |
| willus3 |
Posted - 04/24/2007 : 11:28:57
quote:
Originally posted by tctitans
quote:
Take Lemiuex out of his 6'4" 235 lbs frame and put him into a 6'0" 185 lbs frame and he is not as good of a player.
As I was trying to clarify earlier, this statement (and others lke it) do not make any valid points. 
It's like saying "Take away Gretzky's vision and hockey sense, put in Dave Lumley's brain, and he is not as good of a player"
These just dont make any reasonable points. Gretzky's vision and Mario's size were part of who they were and what made them great.
Agreed. Andyhack touched on this earlier too when he said the hypotheticals should be things that happened or could have happened. Saying something like "add size and skating ability to Gretzky and what happens" is not the same idea as saying "what could Lemieux have done in a healthy body". Injuries and sickness are not the same as magically empowering someone with abilities they weren't originally blessed with.
"Go chase headlights!" |
| tctitans |
Posted - 04/24/2007 : 11:02:32
quote:
Take Lemiuex out of his 6'4" 235 lbs frame and put him into a 6'0" 185 lbs frame and he is not as good of a player.
As I was trying to clarify earlier, this statement (and others lke it) do not make any valid points.
It's like saying "Take away Gretzky's vision and hockey sense, put in Dave Lumley's brain, and he is not as good of a player"
These just dont make any reasonable points. Gretzky's vision and Mario's size were part of who they were and what made them great. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 04/24/2007 : 08:17:40
Andyhack, you have proven my point again. People do not answer hypothetical questions about Gretzky but use them to defend Lemiuex.
And to answer your question, if Lemiuex had Gretzky's vision and elusiveness, he would have absolutely been the best player ever. However, my point was about physical talents.
Take Lemiuex out of his 6'4" 235 lbs frame and put him into a 6'0" 185 lbs frame and he is not as good of a player.
|
| PuckNuts |
Posted - 04/24/2007 : 06:29:13
There have been 31 posts including this one so far.
16 are discussions on some of the other posts, or on if this should be a topic, and do Hypothetical's mean anything.
8 are based on I think, I guess, in my opinion, with nothing to back up their comment.
6 are based on a manipulation of stats to show if Lemieux could have passed Gretzky. None I see prove he would have been ahead.
1 is based on stats and opinion. More of a defense for Gretzky.
At no time does anyone say YES Lemieux would be ahead of Gretzky.
When someone comes up with a hypotheitical situation it is best to prove it wrong, and if you can not find one thing to say that it is wrong then it must be right.
I only see that everyone thinks Lemieux would have played better if he was healthy, with nothing to back it up, although it makes sense...
Lead, follow, or get out of the way... |
| tctitans |
Posted - 04/23/2007 : 22:43:11
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
I mean, look at all the space Gretzky gets at the HOF in Toronto (at least the last time I was there). Let's put Orr aside for a second. Does Gretzky really deserve THAT MUCH more space than say, Lafleur, for example? Messier, for another example? More, maybe, but THAT MUCH more?
Yes, he does deserve that much more. Now, before anyone jumps on me, let me clarify that it has nothing to do with how good he was, or was not. He deserves it because the HHOF is a business, and people want to see Gretzky paraphernalia. Basic Economics 101, Supply and Demand.
On a side-note I completely agree with Andyhack and Willus3 that stats alone dont paint the appropriate picture. They certainly tell a tale, but the whole story is taking those facts and surrounding them with the analysis. Stats alone can certainly be taken out of context and paint an inaccurate picture. That all being said, I personally believe, after my own 27 years of watching Gretzky and analyzing the facts, that his stats 'in general' paint a very accurate picture to me and he was the greatest offensive player ever. I myself have never argued that Lemieux was anything but a very very close second to Gretzky, and certainly close enough to initiate the "who's really the best of all time debate". |
| willus3 |
Posted - 04/23/2007 : 18:59:33
The problem here is that the stats don't explain how the stats came to be stats. There are many variables that affect how many points a player gets. In this hypothetical question, the stats alone don't give you the whole picture.
"Go chase headlights!" |
| PuckNuts |
Posted - 04/23/2007 : 17:54:41
Stats are facts, they are in writing, and in history, and not based on any feelings ,or era of life.
Two hundred years from now ask the same question, what will people look at to come to a conclusion, stats, or opinions in history books, maybe both...
I assessed and analyzed the stats, and came up with an unbiased answer to the question.
We can all guess if Lemieux could have beat Gretzky's record for points if he had no cancer or back problems, but no one will ever know, unless someone has a time machine...
Lead, follow, or get out of the way... |
| andyhack |
Posted - 04/23/2007 : 17:30:31
PUCKNUTS - The hypothetical salary for that hypothetical position is very high, hypothetically speaking.
Anyway, I guess we just have different approaches. You base most of your answers on stats which you call "facts". I base most of my answers on my assessments of those facts, which sure, you can call "opinions". Whatever we call these things, I prefer to always be assessing, questioning, analyzing... I am not saying this is a better approach to yours - but to say, as I think you maybe were saying (correct me if I am wrong) that some people won't change their opinions even when presented with the facts, seems to be suggesting that one should give up with analyzing etc and just let the stats do the talking. Again, correct me if you were not suggesting this, but if you were, I respectfully disagree.
TCTITANS - Maybe not on this site, but overall I think it is safe to say that a large percentage of people, including the younger generation, would almost automatically respond "Of course Gretzky" to the greatest ever question, and then many would quickly turn to numbers to support their point. More importantly though, a large percentage would then question how one could think otherwise. My 19 year old nephew is a good example, his Dad being the major influence. He thinks I'm crazy for even bringing up the topic. That attitude is definitely out there. Guys like Willus and I are BY FAR in the minority and often ridiculed by the Gretzky camp guys. The guys here are usually more reasonable but, even here, the general response is to bash hypotheticals rather than say something like, "hmmm 35 points and Lemieux has the same point per game ratio as Gretzky - interesting, wonder if a healthier Lemieux could have gotten those 35 points".
I mean, look at all the space Gretzky gets at the HOF in Toronto (at least the last time I was there). Let's put Orr aside for a second. Does Gretzky really deserve THAT MUCH more space than say, Lafleur, for example? Messier, for another example? More, maybe, but THAT MUCH more?
So in my opinion there is an overall bias in Gretzky's favour in terms of public perception. For this reason, I think threads like this, though understandably tiring to you, serve a purpose - to show the other side of the coin.
BEANS - I'll start with my aside - Gretzky's vision and elusiveness were natural talents that cannot be dismissed. We could do your question in reverse - what if Lemieux would have also had some of Gretzky's special talents to the same degree as Gretzky.
Now my main point, which is basically forget the above aside! As mentioned to Tctitans earlier, there are good hypotheticals and bad hypotheticals. A hypothetical about physical abilities/size/skating abilities is, I think, a bad hypothetical. On the other hand, I think a hypothetical about non-natural things, unfortunate events which happened to the players involved, is a good hypothetical.
And so ends my longest post ever!
|
| fly4apuckguy |
Posted - 04/23/2007 : 16:36:14
Great job by the guy who did the PPG stats. That's proof enough for me. Lemieux was a great player, no doubt, but he wasn't Gretzky. Now, put them on the same team, same era, and then you'd have a real case. The fact is it didn't happen.
Here's the funny thing about what-if's....Eric Lindros was actually number three in PPG up until a couple of years ago. Could he have passed Gretzky had he stayed healthy?
Uh, no.
You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. - Gretz |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 04/23/2007 : 13:27:47
I hear you tctitans. My entire point is that Gretzky was that good in spite of his physical shortcomings compared to others considered to be all time greats.
It's just that one must use a hypothetical situation to explain a point to people who use hypothetical situations. |
| tctitans |
Posted - 04/23/2007 : 13:12:05
quote:
What do you think Gretzky would have accomplished with size, speed, and gifted hands that Mario Lemieux possessed??
Actually, I made the statement solely to make a point about hypothetical discussions.
Just like other theoretical discussions, I don't think this one has that much merit either. Gretzky wasnt the biggest, fastest, or had hte most gifted hands - but that's all moot. Size, Speed, Skill, Mental toughness, hockey sense, ... are all attributes that make up a players ability. A players size is an asset to them if they use it properly, and they are a better player because of it. There is no point to ask "How good would Cam Neely have been if he was 5'11" and 175lbs?". He wasnt. He had size and strength and that was a big part of what made him as good as he was.
I'm not sure I'm making my point clearly here. ;) I just wanted to say that Gretzky's stature didnt make him a better or worse player than he was, because he was who he was! .. Ok, now maybe i'm confusing everyone. ;/
A good point would be to suggest how good Wayne was in spite of his physical attributes, and that might give someone a sense how how good his other attributes were. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 04/23/2007 : 12:12:16
I hear what tctitans is saying on the fact that hypotheticals are useless. I rather talk facts, and that is something that is hard to do when comparing a player in a team game and players who played in different eras or circumstances. The Lemieux-Gretzky debate with rage on for years to come. Hypotheticals do help that debate, but they are still not facts.
And to defend the Gretzky Camp, as I am more then likely the President of the Pickup Hockey Forums chapter, I want to throw something out. It is easy for people, especially many on this site who were not of the age to see Gretzky in his prime, to throw stats out. That is not the reason I think Gretzky is superior. The way he played the game and the domination he had over the league for such a long time is what I think makes him the best. The stats are the facts that back up that opinion. The most common rebuttal to the stats are Lemieux was sick and/or hurt, Lemieux played in a tougher conference, and Gretzky had a better supporting cast. All of these are thrown out in hypotheticals. However, I find that many from the Lemiuex camp do not answer hypotheticals regarding Gretzky. I have said it many times on here, Gretzky did not have any above average physical talents yet he was the most prolific scorer in NHL history. So, since we are talking about Hypotheticals, I would appreciate as many answers to this as possible.
What do you think Gretzky would have accomplished with size, speed, and gifted hands that Mario Lemieux possessed??
And
What do you think Mario Lemiuex would have accomplished with Gretzky's physical abilities???
This is above all the reason I think Greztky is the best ever. As tctitans stated, what if Gretzky had speed, size, strength, and a huge shot??? He had really none of those things and look what he accomplished.
There's one to provoke some hypothetical discussions. |
|
|
