| Author |
 Topic  |
|
GOWINGS19
Rookie
USA
232 Posts |
 Posted - 05/04/2007 : 20:19:41
|
i know this is a pure hockey nerd manuever but yeah if mario had played the same amount of games as gretzky and stayed on the points pace that he held through 915 games (1.88; gretzky was like 1.9 or so) he'd have still came up 59 points shy of the mighty great one but yeah i still hold mario in high regard but gretzky is...and probably always will be the great one
"I don’t need to score the goal. I need someone to start thinking about me and forgetting about scoring goals." -Vladmir Konstantinov |
 |
|
|
Guest5221
( )
|
Posted - 05/05/2007 : 10:38:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by GOWINGS19
i know this is a pure hockey nerd manuever but yeah if mario had played the same amount of games as gretzky and stayed on the points pace that he held through 915 games (1.88; gretzky was like 1.9 or so) he'd have still came up 59 points shy of the mighty great one but yeah i still hold mario in high regard but gretzky is...and probably always will be the great one
"I don’t need to score the goal. I need someone to start thinking about me and forgetting about scoring goals." -Vladmir Konstantinov
Thats because you forgot the biggest If:
If Mario had a THOUSAND more even strength goals against and played in the no defence West and had easy opponeents in teh playoffs, he would have scored 10,000 points.
Players in the East generally "saved" themselves for the gruelling playoff series, whereas Gretzky was jumping around scot free all season into his dmans arms scoring 5 goals (and coming out of the game a +1).. |
|
|
|
Guest4462
( )
|
Posted - 05/05/2007 : 10:56:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest5221
quote:
Originally posted by GOWINGS19
i know this is a pure hockey nerd manuever but yeah if mario had played the same amount of games as gretzky and stayed on the points pace that he held through 915 games (1.88; gretzky was like 1.9 or so) he'd have still came up 59 points shy of the mighty great one but yeah i still hold mario in high regard but gretzky is...and probably always will be the great one
"I don’t need to score the goal. I need someone to start thinking about me and forgetting about scoring goals." -Vladmir Konstantinov
Thats because you forgot the biggest If:
If Mario had a THOUSAND more even strength goals against and played in the no defence West and had easy opponeents in teh playoffs, he would have scored 10,000 points.
Players in the East generally "saved" themselves for the gruelling playoff series, whereas Gretzky was jumping around scot free all season into his dmans arms scoring 5 goals (and coming out of the game a +1)..
IF Gretzky played against some of those weaker eastern teams more (Pens included), and IF Gretzky didnt play injured 1/2 his career, and IF Gretzky had a bit more talent around him after the oiler years, and IF Pocker didnt rip his heart out, he would have surely been over the 5,000 point mark. |
|
|
|
Guest5221
( )
|
Posted - 05/06/2007 : 08:33:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4462
quote:
Originally posted by Guest5221
quote:
Originally posted by GOWINGS19
i know this is a pure hockey nerd manuever but yeah if mario had played the same amount of games as gretzky and stayed on the points pace that he held through 915 games (1.88; gretzky was like 1.9 or so) he'd have still came up 59 points shy of the mighty great one but yeah i still hold mario in high regard but gretzky is...and probably always will be the great one
"I don’t need to score the goal. I need someone to start thinking about me and forgetting about scoring goals." -Vladmir Konstantinov
Thats because you forgot the biggest If:
If Mario had a THOUSAND more even strength goals against and played in the no defence West and had easy opponeents in teh playoffs, he would have scored 10,000 points.
Players in the East generally "saved" themselves for the gruelling playoff series, whereas Gretzky was jumping around scot free all season into his dmans arms scoring 5 goals (and coming out of the game a +1)..
IF Gretzky played against some of those weaker eastern teams more (Pens included), and IF Gretzky didnt play injured 1/2 his career, and IF Gretzky had a bit more talent around him after the oiler years, and IF Pocker didnt rip his heart out, he would have surely been over the 5,000 point mark.
What are you smokin' pal?
That Gretzky had an injured back is the biggest myth in hockey.
|
|
|
|
GOWINGS19
Rookie
USA
232 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2007 : 21:25:37
|
Or...he was the Great One and your some jealous, grudge holding guest in a forum  sad thought eh 5221
"I don’t need to score the goal. I need someone to start thinking about me and forgetting about scoring goals." -Vladmir Konstantinov |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2007 : 09:30:40
|
| It is very obvious that 5221 is Mr. Chooch. Don't even try to get into a debate with him. It is pointless. |
|
|
|
tctitans
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
931 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2007 : 10:02:39
|
*THUMP* *WHACK* *WHACK* ... Neeeiiiighhhh!
*WHACK* *SMACK* *WHIP* ... Nickkker!
*SMACK* *WHUMP* *SLAP* ... Snorrrrt!
*WHACKKA* *WHACKKA* ...
*WHACKKA* *WHACKKA* ...
*WHACKKA* *WHACKKA* ...
|
Edited by - tctitans on 05/07/2007 11:23:46 |
|
|
|
fly4apuckguy
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
834 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2007 : 22:28:59
|
Gretzky by a little more than a nose. A nose and a chin.
Lemieux was awesome, but Greztky was a genius on skates.
You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. - Gretz |
|
|
|
99pickles
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
671 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2007 : 17:47:22
|
Obviously both were amazing. I've always summed it up as this : Lemieux had slightly more god-given talent (that surely he honed and developed his whole life)
But Gretzky, through otherworldly vision was able to be a slightly better player despite physical shortcomings. It is amazing that such a small guy was arguably the best of all-time in any contact sport. Ironic that it was his intelligence that put him over the top in such a physical sport !
On a side-note when arguing between any 2 players, I hate it when people throw in the caveat "if he was healthy his whole career ...." because staying healthy is part of it. Nikolai Borschevsky could have been a great Russian player of his era if he wasn't made of porcelain. I am NOT discounting Lemieux's amazing battle against lymphoma (sp) but in the end it means he simply didn't play as many games.
It seems that an advantage that Gretz has in this argument is that Lemieux came in behind him - think for a minute if it was the other way around. If Gretz had to follow in Lemieux's wake. I don't want to use stats as an argument, but 92 goals, 50 in 39, 215 pt season. Those performances, it would seem, might overtake Mario. Methinks this argument would be more lopsided in this scenario.
Either way, you'd be safe taking one over the other, right ? I vote Gretzky. |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2007 : 17:38:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by 99pickles
But Gretzky, through otherworldly vision was able to be a slightly better player despite physical shortcomings. It is amazing that such a small guy was arguably the best of all-time in any contact sport. Ironic that it was his intelligence that put him over the top in such a physical sport !
He may have been on the ice, but HE was by no means playing a contact sport. More like no touch.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
|
|
|
Guest7418
( )
|
Posted - 05/14/2007 : 17:42:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
quote:
Originally posted by 99pickles
But Gretzky, through otherworldly vision was able to be a slightly better player despite physical shortcomings. It is amazing that such a small guy was arguably the best of all-time in any contact sport. Ironic that it was his intelligence that put him over the top in such a physical sport !
He may have been on the ice, but HE was by no means playing a contact sport. More like no touch.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper"
Completely off topic.
Gretzky WAS the best player. EVER. All other discussions are imaginary dreams of Gretzky haters. Yes, there are a few that are close and worth debating... Debating/discussing is interesting, but the end result is always the same. |
|
|
|
Guest7418
( )
|
Posted - 05/14/2007 : 17:43:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by tctitans
*THUMP* *WHACK* *WHACK* ... Neeeiiiighhhh!
*WHACK* *SMACK* *WHIP* ... Nickkker!
*SMACK* *WHUMP* *SLAP* ... Snorrrrt!
*WHACKKA* *WHACKKA* ...
*WHACKKA* *WHACKKA* ...
*WHACKKA* *WHACKKA* ...
That's hilarious!  |
|
|
|
tctitans
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
931 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2007 : 17:47:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest7418
quote:
Originally posted by tctitans
*THUMP* *WHACK* *WHACK* ... Neeeiiiighhhh!
*WHACK* *SMACK* *WHIP* ... Nickkker!
*SMACK* *WHUMP* *SLAP* ... Snorrrrt!
*WHACKKA* *WHACKKA* ...
*WHACKKA* *WHACKKA* ...
*WHACKKA* *WHACKKA* ...
That's hilarious!
7418, you may be the only person that got it.  |
|
|
|
admin
Forum Admin
Canada
2338 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2007 : 18:05:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by tctitans
quote:
Originally posted by Guest7418
quote:
Originally posted by tctitans
*THUMP* *WHACK* *WHACK* ... Neeeiiiighhhh!
*WHACK* *SMACK* *WHIP* ... Nickkker!
*SMACK* *WHUMP* *SLAP* ... Snorrrrt!
*WHACKKA* *WHACKKA* ...
*WHACKKA* *WHACKKA* ...
*WHACKKA* *WHACKKA* ...
That's hilarious!
7418, you may be the only person that got it.
Do share...  |
|
|
|
Guest6431
( )
|
Posted - 02/02/2008 : 19:27:36
|
| I was close to Mario Lemieux when he was playing at his prime. What I can add to this discussion is that Mario often rely on a trainer to lace his skate before games because his back is hurting so much that bending to this himself was too much. He showed up and play the game everytime he could. Gretzky play many more games at 100% than Mario did in his carreer. Also it is a fact easy to check that team in teh east were tougher than in the west. My vote goes to Lemieux |
|
|
|
Datsyuk 1
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
333 Posts |
Posted - 02/02/2008 : 23:54:43
|
| Gretzky kind of needed someone to play because he is a playmaker and Lemieux was just a pure goal scorer end to end I just had to say Mario |
|
|
|
Datsyuk 1
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
333 Posts |
Posted - 02/03/2008 : 11:01:21
|
| It is tight although Gretzky probably takes it. He has quite a bit of points. |
|
|
|
Guest9909
( )
|
Posted - 02/07/2008 : 15:36:40
|
To answer the original question of this thread, if you are looking at PEAK value, Gretzky takes it. Gretzky was more of a clutch player during his peak than Lemieux was. Just look at his playoff record vs. Lemieux's. Many people point to Lemieux's teammates vs. Gretzky's Oilers, but their playoff contributions aren't even close. Gretzky dominated almost every playoffs he played in, even when he was well passed his peak. Lemieux on the other hand had a few not so memorable postseasons.
I don't know how you can judge peak value of offensive players without looking at statistics. During Lemieux's 44 game point scoring streak, he didn't really come that close to hitting 3 points per game. During Gretzky's 51 game point streak, he scored over 3 a game. 153 points in 50 games is ludicrous.
|
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2008 : 03:21:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest9909
To answer the original question of this thread, if you are looking at PEAK value, Gretzky takes it. Gretzky was more of a clutch player during his peak than Lemieux was. Just look at his playoff record vs. Lemieux's. Many people point to Lemieux's teammates vs. Gretzky's Oilers, but their playoff contributions aren't even close. Gretzky dominated almost every playoffs he played in, even when he was well passed his peak. Lemieux on the other hand had a few not so memorable postseasons.
Early Saturday morning thought on the above:
Kids - don't believe the misleading stuff up there! Not so memorable? Lemieux's post-seasons in the two years the Pens won the Cup were of course outstanding (one might even describe them as LUDICROUS), and I believe none other than Scotty Bowman was quoted as saying they were the most dominant performances he has ever seen. If that was Mario's "peak", he sure looked pretty "memorable" to me. And even if you think Wayne had the better peak value, in the playoffs those two years Mario was, at the very least, "close" to Gretzky's peak.
So, in that sense boys and girls, the paragraph above is, simply put, completely wrong. Moreover, it is yet another unfortunate example of the "Nothing compares to Gretz - Let's make even less space for all the other greats at the HHOF in favour of the Great One" cultish way of thinking.
|
|
|
|
Guest4076
( )
|
Posted - 02/09/2008 : 09:22:42
|
I believe that Great was the better player for their prospective careers, even though my favorite player of all time is #66. I only say this becasue Mario was so injury prone. Had Mario been healthy and played with the type of players the Great did, then ya I would say Mario would have been the better player. Wayne did have the "no touch" rule assosiated with his #99.
I also believe that the Great worked harder than Mario and maybe thats why Mario wasnt as successful, well cancer you cant really help prevent :S.
So if i had to start a team now with 1 player, both healthy, and right in their primes I'd take #66 Mario LEMIEUX!!! |
|
|
|
Guest9976
( )
|
Posted - 02/09/2008 : 15:11:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
quote:
Originally posted by Guest9909
To answer the original question of this thread, if you are looking at PEAK value, Gretzky takes it. Gretzky was more of a clutch player during his peak than Lemieux was. Just look at his playoff record vs. Lemieux's. Many people point to Lemieux's teammates vs. Gretzky's Oilers, but their playoff contributions aren't even close. Gretzky dominated almost every playoffs he played in, even when he was well passed his peak. Lemieux on the other hand had a few not so memorable postseasons.
Early Saturday morning thought on the above:
Kids - don't believe the misleading stuff up there! Not so memorable? Lemieux's post-seasons in the two years the Pens won the Cup were of course outstanding (one might even describe them as LUDICROUS), and I believe none other than Scotty Bowman was quoted as saying they were the most dominant performances he has ever seen. If that was Mario's "peak", he sure looked pretty "memorable" to me. And even if you think Wayne had the better peak value, in the playoffs those two years Mario was, at the very least, "close" to Gretzky's peak.
So, in that sense boys and girls, the paragraph above is, simply put, completely wrong. Moreover, it is yet another unfortunate example of the "Nothing compares to Gretz - Let's make even less space for all the other greats at the HHOF in favour of the Great One" cultish way of thinking.
LOL, read the post again, Andyhack. It doesn't state that Lemieux didn't have any memorable postseasons. It states he had a few not so memorable ones. To assume the post says otherwise could be construde as being in favour of the anti-Gretzky cultish way of thinking, afterall ;)
|
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2008 : 20:25:33
|
Yes, Guest-san, but I was questioning the words "not so memorable" to describe Mario's VERY memorable playoffs in the early 90s. I'll say it again - that description is completely wrong. As was the reference to Mario's peak not being "close" to Wayne's.
By the way, the only cult I will readily admit to being a member of is the cult which bombards us every day via TV, magazines, etc. with commands that we must feel a very strong sense of lust every time we see a sexy beautiful woman. That cult brainwashed me a long time ago! And despite being happily married, I can't deny that it still has a pretty good hold of me.  |
|
|
|
Guest9943
( )
|
Posted - 02/13/2008 : 17:22:46
|
Andyhack, I was not describing the back to back cup wins in the early 90s in which Lemieux played outstandingly well. When I said he had a few not so memorable postseasons, I was referring to the ones that were not so memorable!
And again, Gretzky peaked in the playoffs to an even greater degree than did Lemieux. Gretzky scored 47 points in 18 playoff games once, which shatters Lemieux's PPG average in 1991 when he scored 44 points in 23 games. I'll repeat: not even close! |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2008 : 20:33:56
|
Guest - okay, it was a bit hard at first from your earlier wording to see what you were saying, but I'm glad to hear that you acknowledge Mario was memorable in those years.
Statistically Wayne has the edge if you compare their best playoffs, yes, but I really don't think the approximate .7 PPG difference is anywhere near as significant as you believe (Mario is at a PPG of about 1.9 and Wayne is at about 2.6 - both undeniably amazing facts).
People shouldn't always assume that because a guy produces more points he reached a better level than another guy especially when we are talking about this level of offensive excellence. I return to a point I've made before about the law of diminishing returns applying to a certain extent when it comes to offensive numbers. There is a certain point where amazing offense is just amazing offense - where the significance of the point difference becomes less I believe.
Think of it this way. If you are a general manager looking for pure offense and have a choice between a player who produces a PPG of 1 vs a player who produces PPG of .3 then I can understand why you might jump to get the player with PPG of 1. But if presented with these two guys with these amazing PPGs and this .7 difference, I think the choice becomes more difficult. I don't think you would want to base your decision on JUST that statistical difference.
Anyway, as mentioned much earlier in this thread, from what I saw of those two playoffs, as amazing as Wayne was, Mario was slightly more amazing in my view. But here's the main point. My opinion that Mario's peak was higher or your opinion that Wayne's peak was higher are just different perspectives of two hockey fans. That is fair enough. But when you say things like "not even close", it seems more than a bit extreme to me because when I think back to Mario in those years I find it very hard to imagine even some future offensive superduperstar who can produce over 3 points per game reaching THAT much of a higher peak.
|
Edited by - andyhack on 02/13/2008 20:35:31 |
|
|
|
Guest9961
( )
|
Posted - 02/14/2008 : 18:00:56
|
| I respect your opinion, Andyhack, but .7 points per game higher is quite significant. It's almost a full point more per game. That's almost one extra goal per game in the playoffs, which, especially in the playoffs, is a huge difference. To accomplish the same margin of increase in the regular season would be much easier to do, and would be like scoring well over a point per game more. |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2008 : 22:30:45
|
Guest 99 - I respect your opinion too. But I think if one just focuses on numbers in a debate like this, you fall into a trap of letting the numbers rule your thinking as opposed to just asking yourself, "who reached the higher peak". I think this question requires more than just saying something like, "Gretzky was .7 PPG higher and that is almost a point a game". The answer should be based both on what you saw and also on an analysis of what may have contributed to the final numbers. Some factors that perhaps should be considered for instance would be the teammates the two guys had as well as the point I am about to make below (which I know Gretzky guys hate!).
Take a look at the links below - I'd like to check out the details a little more but when I look at the playoff teams Edmonton played in the '85 playoffs (particularly the first three rounds), my guess is that Wayne and the superstar-filled Oilers probably feasted off some of those teams, in particular the not so defensively sound Jets and Kings. Mario and the very good but, I think it's very fair to say, not as star-filled Penguins, on the other hand, played defensive-minded teams like the Devils, Caps and Bruins. I mean look at the GA totals of the teams in question during the regular seasons for example - the Jets and Kings of 84-85 were far from defensive teams. Even the surprise '91 North Stars presented the Pens with more in terms of defensive competition than most of the Oilers opponents in '85.
I don't know if you were around for our old friend Chooch who used to go on and on about Gretzky having it easy in the West, but I think one of Chooch's big mistakes was that he exaggerated his arguments way too much, to the point that otherwise possibly valid points sounded silly. Here, for instance, I think there may be indeed be a valid point in the difference in competition and type of hockey played by the opposition. I'm not saying it necessarily makes up for the full .7 difference, but I think it could explain at least a chunk of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984-85_NHL_season
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990-91_NHL_season
Edit - With my Friday morning coffee in hand I'm reading the above link on 1984-85. Take a look at the paragraph which describes the Campbell Conference Final between the Oilers and the Black Hawks. It was an incredibly high scoring series, severely lacking in defense on both sides (I vaguely remember it - pretty wild stuff). This series is a good representaive of what I'm trying to say here, both in terms of the law of diminishing returns when it comes offense (8-2, 9-2 or 11-2 - all are very good and not all that different in meaning) and in terms of the Oilers playing teams that were relatively weak defensively (as great as Gretzky and the Oilers were, I don't think you can write off all of that crazy offense to their incredible skills - they generally didn't put up numbers like that against the more defensively-oriented Flyers in the final). |
Edited by - andyhack on 02/15/2008 05:27:03 |
|
|
|
Guest9936
( )
|
Posted - 02/17/2008 : 17:33:47
|
| Fair enough, Andyhack. I do remember watching Gretzky completely dismantle the defending teams in those 85 playoffs in a way that I have never seen any other player do, however. The way he was flying in the series against Philly for example was simply jaw dropping. I remember one behind the back pass he made to Paul Coffey at full speed that defied the laws of physics. So, yes, Lemieux did do similar things, but in the end it comes down to who dazzled you more. For you it was Lemieux. For me it was Gretzky. I don't see how any player other than Gretzky could have scored 47 points in only 18 games in those 1985 playoffs, including Mario Lemieux. |
|
|
|
Guest2598
( )
|
Posted - 02/20/2008 : 07:58:44
|
I love these Gretzky vs Lemieux debates. But as a poster above essentially said, except perhaps stats-wise, it's wrong to put Gretzky in the same league as Lemieux. In my experience, Ontarians put Gretzky above, as well as uninitiated people (because of stats). Others chose Lemieux.
Dont get me wrong, I think Gretzky was awesome. But Lemieux.... was supernatural.
Lemieux had over 2 PPG before his return at age 35 in the trap era, but let's give Gretzky a chance for a second and pretend they had similar PPG over their careers (around 1.90).
Lemieux thus produced at the same pace than Gretzky despite :
- huge health problems which need not be described
- playing with last place teams with AHL linemates for the best parts of his career (as opposed to playing with the 80's Oilers and Kurri, Messier, Coffey, Anderson); take a good laugh by checking Lemieux's 85-86's team : http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/leagues/seasons/teams/0000501986.html
- being hooked, grabbed, slashed (remember Adam Graves?) as opposed to playing alone in a bubble
- playing in the tight-checking East as opposed to playing in the all-offense West
- playing more in the trap era (Gretzky played mostly before 95)
Gretzky was still good after being moved from the Oilers, which shows that he was above the pack. But he did not dominate the game in the late 90's and when older. Lemieux, on the other hand, was the league's best right after a 44 month absence in his late 30's and was on his way to win the scoring championship at age 37 in 2002-2003, only to lose it at the end because of health.
Gretzky's last dominant season was 93-94 at age 32-33 (Lemieux played only 22 games that season).
Gretzky elevated the play of his linemates but never really had the "opportunity" to play with Dan Quinns, Warren Youngs or Rob Browns on his line, who Lemieux turned into 40-50 goal scorers!
So really, Gretzky has the stats that will make him a comparison option with Lemieux for the rest of time, but Lemieux was just out of this world.
Imagine him playing healthy (or not) with the 80's Oilers... |
|
|
|
ThorntonisTHEMAN
PickupHockey Pro
499 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2008 : 08:31:50
|
I would say that the fact that Gretzky was healthy for his career is just another form of showing his dominence. Lemieux was a great player. No question about it! But Gretzky was better. His points and records prove it! And health cannot be an argument to say that Gretzky was not the dominating player that Lemiuex was. That's like saying that Martin Havlet is as great a player as Marian Hossa. Sure, Havlet is a great player when healthy, but he is constantly getting hurt. However Hossa is a great player altogether and stays healthy too. So which one is better? Definitly Hossa! Lemieux was constantly getting hurt. He put up great numbers when he was healthy, no doubt about it. But Gretzky put up great numbers and he stayed healthy! So Gretzky definitly had the better career value.
As for peak value? Gretzky was putting up 200 points a season! Yes, that was on a insane Oilers team, but even on the lowly LA Kings, he was putting up 170 points! so as for peak value, i have to go with Gretzky as well.
"I'm not dumb enough to be a goalie."
Brett Hull. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2008 : 08:40:55
|
Of course, I am going to have an arguement to this last post.
1) Lemieux played on a weak team for the first few years of his career. No one can argue that. Just out of curiousity. Who did Gretzky play with early in his career?? Blair MacDonald, Stan Wier, and Brent Callighen?? Everyone remembers the great Oiler teams, but everyone forgets that for the first 2 years of Gretzky career, the Oilers were a sub.500 team and there were only a few guys playing with the Oilers at even 1 point a game while Gretzky was averaging 2 or more. Even the great players like Messier, Kurri, and Anderson did not have great campains for their first year or two.
2) Did Gretzky not have a better PPG average over his career??
Lemieux - 915 games - 1723 points = 1.88
Gretzky - 1487 games - 2857 points = 1.92
Even looking at your before 35 comment on Lemiuex. Lemiuex turned 35 in Oct. 2000. His PPG before that was 2.01 (745 games - 945 points) Gretzky turned 35 in Jan. 1996. His PPG before that was 2.10 (1173 games - 2506 points). I am failing to see the point a little.
3) The whole arguement about Lemieux playing in a tougher conference or getting hit more or whatever else. That is purely opinion and I completely disagree. I firmly agree that if you put Gretzky on a team in the east for his whole career, he might not have had such huge sucess, he still would have been the most productive player in the history of the NHL.
4) I totally agree that Lemieux was a completely out of this world players and I don't ever think someone is crazy for putting Lemieux ahead of Gretzky. I just have an issue when people bring up things to make Lemieux early teams look so much worse than those early Oiler teams and bring up stats that are not correct.
|
|
|
|
Guest2598
( )
|
Posted - 02/20/2008 : 09:22:29
|
1) Well as you say, Oilers were sub-.500, not last place, and that was only for Gretzky's first 2 years, not 5-6.
2) Lemieux was still dominant after 35. Gretzky was not.
3) I regret that you disagree about the getting hit or not issue, but you're right to say that it's only a matter of opinion.
Perhaps something that is being overlooked is to compare them in comparable situations.
International play :
Looks really close to me. 87 Canada Cup - Gretzky 21 pts to Lemieux 19 pts, both in 9 games. Lemieux was not as mature as Gretz then, but still it counts.
Gretzky had tremendous individual results in other international tournaments early in his career (84, 87, 91 Canada Cups) while slowing down afterwhile (96 World Cup and 98 Olympics). Lemieux had great runs at 87 CC, 2002 and 2004 Olympics, winning each despite hightened adversity from other countries than Russia.
Honestly, I think they were quite comparable at the international level.
All star games :
Gretzky 25 pts / 18 games
Lemieux 23 pts / 10 games
For whatever it may mean...! :)
|
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2008 : 15:34:16
|
1) I didn't say that Lemieux's teams in the early part of his career were anywhere as good as Gretzky's. I was just bringing up the point that the early Oiler teams were not power houses.
2) You say that Lemieux still dominated after he was 35 while Gretzky didn't??
Gretzky after turning 35 - 234 games, 249 points (1.06 PPG)
Lemieux after turning 35 -127 games, 153 points (1.20 PPG)
So, in the grand scheme of things, Lemieux got one more point every 5 games than Gretzky after they were the age of 35.
I don't see that as overly dominating myself.
3) Your comments on interational play is interesting. If I recall, they played a lot together after 87 during interational competitions. They both benefited from each other.
In all of your information, I still don't see a glaring different between the two. My point?? I just don't see it cut and dry that Lemieux was better than Gretzky. I can agree they are very close, but my money goes on Gretzky. Yours on Lemieux?? Who's right, and does it really matter??
|
|
|
|
Guest9286
( )
|
Posted - 03/17/2008 : 18:57:55
|
Okay Girls this is what makes a hockey player a hockey player.
Gretzky was a great player but Lemieux was a MAGNIFICANT
player.Gretzky did not match Lemieux's PPG ratio of 1.99/game
If Lemieux had played the same amount of games and the same
amount of seasons, Lemieux would have been NUMBER 1
ALL TIME POINTS LEADER.Lemieux DID NOT have the same
kind of team mates that Gretsky was fortunate to have back
than.Lemieux did not have a body guard to protect him.
Lemieux was just a smart of a player and could also see how the game
would unfold just as good as Gretzky.If I had to choose what palyer
to have on my team,it would be hands down Lemieux by a mile. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2008 : 20:54:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest9286
Okay Girls this is what makes a hockey player a hockey player.
Gretzky was a great player but Lemieux was a MAGNIFICANT
player.Gretzky did not match Lemieux's PPG ratio of 1.99/game
If Lemieux had played the same amount of games and the same
amount of seasons, Lemieux would have been NUMBER 1
ALL TIME POINTS LEADER.Lemieux DID NOT have the same
kind of team mates that Gretsky was fortunate to have back
than.Lemieux did not have a body guard to protect him.
Lemieux was just a smart of a player and could also see how the game
would unfold just as good as Gretzky.If I had to choose what palyer
to have on my team,it would be hands down Lemieux by a mile.
I will not go through everything I have already said, all I will say is that I think it is ignorant to say that Gretzky is better than Lemieux by a mile, or that Lemieux was better than Gretzky by a mile. They are a lot closer to each other.
And let's make sure we have our facts straight before we post. Gretzky has always had a higher PPG over his career than Lemiuex has.
PPG number of both Lemieux and Gretzky (number in brackets included playoff points)
Lemiuex - 1.88ppg (1.85ppg)
Gretzky - 1.92ppg (1.91ppg)
|
|
|
|
Guest9902
( )
|
Posted - 03/19/2008 : 17:22:58
|
Beans15,
The counter argument is always that Lemieux had more a higher PPG average the first time he retired.
The counter argument to that is Lemieux only played 12 seasons the first time he retired.
So let us compare Gretzky's first 12 years PPG average with Lemieux's first 12 years PPG average. That's when the first counter argument loses any perceived weight.
To consider that Gretzky ended up with a higher PPG average over 20 years is simply mind boggling. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 03/19/2008 : 21:50:30
|
You can look at the PPG you suggested two ways. Games played or seasons.
12 Season Comparison
Lemieux - 745 games - 1494 points. 2.01 PPG
Gretzky - 925 games - 2142 points. 2.31 PPG
Games Comparison
Lemiuex - 745 games - 1494 points. 2.01 PPG
Gretzky(ten seasons) - 774 - 1837 points. 2.37 PPG
As I said, it does not matter how you look at it. Compare any point in their careers and Gretzky has a higher PPG. In fact, if you look at is season by season, there is on one season where Gretzky had a lower PPG that Lemieux. |
|
|
|
Guest4523
( )
|
Posted - 03/23/2008 : 19:19:01
|
Huge ranger fan....but please
Lemieux is better than gretzky and i think that gretzky is too overshadowed about being the best all time because of the numbers. its all a number game. it gets annoying after a while. but if you wanna talk about numbers?
Gretzky played a full 20 seasons and Super Mario played his 13 year career and started after gretzky. Mario even played in the era of the rule changes and the tighter defensive tactics. So, with mario having cancer and missing out the 7 years, are you still gonna bulls*** and say that he couldnt notch 2-300 goals in that span and hit 1k opposed to gretzkys almost 900? you cant. he really would have hit the mark. so yeah, if 66 wouldnt have hit 1k, he wouldve passed gretzky and been over 900, definitely. no matter who he played with, opposed to who gretzky played with. mess, anderson and coffey like some other guy said in the topic.
Mario has 7 seasons in hand to catch up on like 200 goals and god knows how many assists, but then again god knows how much he wouldve notched. lol.
Bottom line, mario isnt the best player of all time im saying, hes TECHNICALLY the best player of all time, meaning, in my book hes the best skater to ever step onto the rink.
Mario Lemieux, #66, in pittsburgh uniform, the best skater of all time |
|
|
|
Guest4523
( )
|
Posted - 03/23/2008 : 19:25:29
|
Also, mario made his goals look like they were cake and were a natural highlight.
gretzky? pretty much the majority of them were garbage goals right at the net.others he just had to put his shaft on towarsd the open net because the oiler dynasty skaters were such efficient passers, lol |
|
|
|
Guest9929
( )
|
Posted - 03/24/2008 : 13:56:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4523
Huge ranger fan....but please
Lemieux is better than gretzky and i think that gretzky is too overshadowed about being the best all time because of the numbers. its all a number game. it gets annoying after a while. but if you wanna talk about numbers?
Gretzky played a full 20 seasons and Super Mario played his 13 year career and started after gretzky. Mario even played in the era of the rule changes and the tighter defensive tactics. So, with mario having cancer and missing out the 7 years, are you still gonna bulls*** and say that he couldnt notch 2-300 goals in that span and hit 1k opposed to gretzkys almost 900? you cant. he really would have hit the mark. so yeah, if 66 wouldnt have hit 1k, he wouldve passed gretzky and been over 900, definitely. no matter who he played with, opposed to who gretzky played with. mess, anderson and coffey like some other guy said in the topic.
Mario has 7 seasons in hand to catch up on like 200 goals and god knows how many assists, but then again god knows how much he wouldve notched. lol.
Bottom line, mario isnt the best player of all time im saying, hes TECHNICALLY the best player of all time, meaning, in my book hes the best skater to ever step onto the rink.
Mario Lemieux, #66, in pittsburgh uniform, the best skater of all time
Again, forget about the totals. Look at the points per game average. Gretzky has the higher points per game average, season and career...and most importanly, the playoffs, season and career. Every way you slice it. You really shouldn't use stats to argue against Gretzky.
As for the dead puck argument, Gretzky played longer in the dead puck era than Lemieux did...and played 7 more seasons...and STILL managed to pull out a higher points per game average...how about that! |
|
|
|
Guest9929
( )
|
Posted - 03/24/2008 : 13:59:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4523
Also, mario made his goals look like they were cake and were a natural highlight.
gretzky? pretty much the majority of them were garbage goals right at the net.others he just had to put his shaft on towarsd the open net because the oiler dynasty skaters were such efficient passers, lol
Did you ever watch Gretzky play in his prime? The majority were garbage goals? Funny stuff... |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Gretzky vs Lemieux 
