| Author |
 Topic  |
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
 Posted - 04/21/2007 : 18:15:02
|
Poll Question:
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
|
|
Edited by - andyhack on 04/21/2007 18:29:32
|
|
|
leafsfan_101
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1530 Posts |
Posted - 04/21/2007 : 18:20:51
|
I think he would have come pretty close. Its quite a streach to think that he could've beat Gretz, but it is plausible.
When life gives you lemons throw them at the Ottawa Senators and their fans and hope it gets them in the eyes ;) |
Edited by - leafsfan_101 on 04/21/2007 18:26:31 |
 |
|
|
PainTrain
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1393 Posts |
Posted - 04/21/2007 : 18:25:21
|
| He would have come close, he would have been over 2000 points and probably have the most goals but not the most points. |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 04/21/2007 : 18:45:57
|
I did the math on this awhile back. Had he played full seasons and the three years he retired he would have ended up with over 3000 points. I believe i used his PPG from the year before he retired for the last time to calculate the numbers too. They are essentially equals in terms of point production.
"Go chase headlights!" |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 04/21/2007 : 19:35:01
|
I think he would have come close, but not quite there. The game in the late 90's was too much clutch and grab for him to do what he or Gretzky did in the mid 80's.
We have to remember that Gretzky was breaking all those records without any real competition to his throne. I think that Lemieux and Gretzky starting both in 79 and both being healthy, I think they both would have had over 3000 points. Gretzky was the ultimate competitor. Ask anyone who played with him, coached him, or played against him. No one worked harder or practiced harder than Gretzky. If he would have had that competition through his entire career, wow. That would have been great to watch.
And although I don't disagree with Willus' theory on points, I took a look at PPG. If you were to take Lemiuex's actual PPG for each of his seasons and prorated them to 82 games seasons, he would have finished his 17 seasons with 2454 points. Gretzky, in his 21 seasons would have had 3206 points. If you backed out Gretzky's last 4 seasons to equate the 17 seasons, he would have had 2850 points.
Or, if you look at the seasons they actually played at the same times, being 84-85 to 96-97 and using the same prorated PPG for 82 game seasons, Gretzky has 2087 points and Lemieux had 1949.
All show Gretzky as the most points.
I voted No, but close.
|
Edited by - Beans15 on 04/21/2007 19:35:25 |
|
|
|
Guest0828
( )
|
Posted - 04/22/2007 : 06:46:51
|
Lemieux would never have passed Gretz. Not with the Penguins anyways.
"If life hands you a Leaf, just kick it..."
|
|
|
|
PuckNuts
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2414 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2007 : 07:26:24
|
Lets settle this once and for all...
Gretzky played 20 seasons in the NHL, he had 2857 points in 1487 games. That is a Point/Game average of 1.92131809.
Lemieux played 17 seasons in the NHL, he had 1723 points in 915 games. That is a Point/Game average of 1.883060109.
So no mater how many games that either player played Wayne had a higher points per game average than Mario, therefore Wayne would always be ahead if they played the same number of games...
We can always try to manipulate the numbers so our favourite player will be ahead...But why bother facts are facts...
Lead, follow, or get out of the way... |
Edited by - PuckNuts on 04/22/2007 14:17:11 |
|
|
|
PuckNuts
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2414 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2007 : 07:48:11
|
player years - points - Games - P/G
Wayne Gretzky (1979-1999) - 2857 - 1487 - 1.921
Mario Lemieux (1984-2006) - 1723 - 915 - 1.883
Marcel Dionne (1971-1989) - 1771 - 1348 - 1.314
Jaromir Jagr (1990-2007) - 1528 - 1191 - 1.283
Phil Esposito (1963-1981) - 1590 - 1282 - 1.240
Joe Sakic (1988-2007) - 1589 - 1319 - 1.205
Dale Hawerchuk (1981-1997) - 1409 - 1188 - 1.186
Steve Yzerman (1983-2006) - 1755 - 1514 - 1.159
Denis Savard (1980-1997) - 1338 - 1196 - 1.119
Jari Kurri (1980-1998) - 1398 - 1251 - 1.118
Bryan Trottier (1975-1994) - 1425 - 1279 - 1.114
Gilbert Perreault (1970-1987) - 1326 - 1191 - 1.113
Brett Hull (1985-2006) - 1391 - 1269 - 1.096
Paul Coffey (1980-2001) - 1531 - 1409 - 1.087
Guy Lafleur (1971-1991) - 1353 - 1251 - 1.082
Mark Messier (1979-2004) - 1887 - 1756 - 1.075
Adam Oates (1985-2004) - 1420 - 1337 - 1.062
Stan Mikita (1958-1980) - 1467 - 1394 - 1.052
Gordie Howe (1946-1980) - 1850 - 1767 - 1.047
Ron Francis (1981-2004) - 1798 - 1731 - 1.039
Pierre Turgeon (1987-2007) - 1327 - 1294 - 1.026
Jean Beliveau (1950-1971) - 1219 - 1195 - 1.020
Mats Sundin (1990-2007) - 1243 - 1231 - 1.010
Mark Recchi (1988-2007) - 1333 - 1338 - 0.996
Points per Game of the top 25 NHL Point leaders...
Lead, follow, or get out of the way... |
Edited by - PuckNuts on 04/22/2007 07:48:43 |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2007 : 19:27:44
|
Pucknuts - okay, but for Lemieux to have attained Gretzky's point per game ratio Lemieux only would have needed another 35 points (to reach the 1758 point total which would have produced the same ratio in Lemieux's 915 games). Remember, in this hypothetical, which I know you all love, Lemieux is playing all of those 915 games, and the additional hypothetical ones, with a much healthier body. I think his chances of getting the extra 35 points would have been fairly good without the major health problems he had. Beans and others from the HFAHA ("Hockey Fans Against Hypotheticals Association") must be falling over now!
I'm not a Lemieux fan in particular - certainly he is nowhere near my top 25 favorite players. More importantly, I'm not really a statistics guy! My main point here though is that for all the amazing stats Gretzky put up, with a better set of health cards, Lemieux almost certainly would have come close, and maybe would have surpassed Gretzky's total. And I'm not trying to put Gretzky down by saying that. I just think it is interesting and something that the guys who do refer to stats a lot should consider. |
Edited by - andyhack on 04/22/2007 19:42:48 |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2007 : 19:40:00
|
Well put Andy, well put.
"Go chase headlights!" |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2007 : 19:44:43
|
| Thanks Willus - See you at the next Hypotheticals Seminar |
|
|
|
PuckNuts
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2414 Posts |
Posted - 04/23/2007 : 05:33:14
|
Okay lets try this again…
Gretzky’s 10 best seasons from 1980-81 to 1990-91 Point/Game is 2.41
Lemieux’s 10 best seasons from 1985 to 2000-01 Points/Game is 2.09
Still not fair as Wayne played during the early 80’s a goal scoring frenzy…
Lemieux and Gretzky’s careers overlap from 1984-85 to 1996-97.
Mario missed 1 season during that time (1994-95) the strike year.
Total of 12 played seasons.
Lets take 8 of their best seasons while they are playing together and at the same age.
For Wayne 1984-85 to 1991-92 when he is 23 to 30.
For Lemieux 1987-88 to 1995-96 when he is 22 to 30 (missed 1994-95).
Points/Game for Wayne is 2.22
Points/Game for Mario is 2.16
These totals are very close but as you can see Wayne still comes out on top, not by much…
So for an 82 game schedule during that era:
Wayne = 180 points
Mario = 177 points
As you can see it would have been a close race, but Wayne wins it…
Oh, and not to forget that this is Hypothetical, Gretzky missed 97 games, so if he was averaging 1.9 points/game then you would need to add another 184 points to Waynes career, just to make things fair, then Lemieux would have to get more than 3041 points...
Lead, follow, or get out of the way... |
Edited by - PuckNuts on 04/23/2007 08:52:25 |
|
|
|
PuckNuts
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2414 Posts |
Posted - 04/23/2007 : 09:25:13
|
Ok ,and again…
Different idea.
Mario missed many games, so lets take his point average for each season and multiply that by the games he missed in that season. 709 points.
He missed the 1994-95 season so I will take the P/G the year before and the year after and average them for 1994-95. 96 points.
Then he missed 3 seasons 1997-98 to 1999-00, I will take the P/G the year before and the year after and average them for 1997-98 to 1999-00. 138 * 3 = 414 points.
Mario’s Total Points 1723 + 709 + 96 + 414 = 2942 points in 21 seasons.
Wayne missed some games in his career also, so lets take his point average for each season and multiply that by the games he missed in that season. 164 points.
Wayne’s Total Points 2857 + 164 = 3021 points in 20 seasons.
Conclusion: even if Mario played all the seasons he missed, all the games he missed in each season he would have played 21 seasons, and not amassed enough points to pass Wayne (if he played all the games he missed) who by the way only played 20 seasons…
I think this may better answer your question…
Lead, follow, or get out of the way... |
Edited by - PuckNuts on 04/23/2007 09:36:47 |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 04/23/2007 : 09:43:01
|
| I agree PuckNuts. I don't think there is a way to look at it that doesn't show Gretzky ahead. I think Mario would have come much closer, but never got there. |
|
|
|
tctitans
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
931 Posts |
Posted - 04/23/2007 : 09:44:53
|
| There is no point to these 'what ifs', and they *are* getting tiring. What if Gretzky didnt catch that 12 day flu that season (which he did), would he have gotten 10-15 more points? What if Gretzky didnt meet Janet in 1984 where he couldnt stop thinking about her - is that worth another 50 points in his career? What if Gretzky was bigger, stronger, faster, and had a 100mph slapshot? how much is that worth??? |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 04/23/2007 : 10:22:51
|
Tctitans - in my opinion, hypotheticals serve a function as a tool of analysis. I strongly disagree that there is "no point" to them. Obviously there are good hypotheticals and not so good hypotheticals. I think we all have enough common sense to differentiate between the type of ones you said about Gretzky and the type of major "what ifs" we are talking about with Lemieux. Besides, this hypothetical was simply focused on Lemieux (as creator of the hypothetical in question, I am asserting my rights under the Hypotheticals Act!) . If you wish though, we can subtract 12 days from Lemieux for the flu for the purposes of this analysis (I know - you just want us to stop talking about this fffing topic!!!! -  sorry, just having fun ) .
I actually can understand you getting tired of talking about Gretzky-Lemieux cause the conversation has been going on for a while. As far as I am aware though, this exact question has not been posed here, and I thought it raised some interesting analytical points (if the exact question has been posed before though, I apologize). |
Edited by - andyhack on 04/23/2007 10:43:04 |
|
|
|
tctitans
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
931 Posts |
Posted - 04/23/2007 : 10:35:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
Tctitans - in my opinion, hypotheticals serve a function as a tool of analysis. I strongly disagree that there is "no point" to them. Obviously there are good hypotheticals and not so good hypotheticals. I think we all have enough common sense to differentiate between the type of ones you said about Gretzky and the type of major "what ifs" we are talking about with Lemieux. Besides, this hypothetical was simply focused on Lemieux (as creator of the hypothetical I am asserting my rights under the Hypotheticals Act!) . If you wish though, we can subtract 12 days from Lemieux for the flu for the purposes of this analysis (I know - you just want us to stop talking about this fffing topic!!!! - sorry, just having fun ) .
I actually can understand you getting tired of talking about Gretzky-Lemieux cause the conversation has been going on for a while. As far as I am aware though, this exact question has not been posed here, and I thought it raised some interesting analytical points (if the exact question has been posed before though, I apologize).
Hypotheticals are good for two things, dicussion and analysis - neither of which ends up with facts. It's not hyptotheticals that bother me, I always enjoy a good discussion/debate and these hyptotheticals can certainly foster some good ones. What bothers me is that we are all just rehashing basically the same arguments we've already discussed and there is not going to be a new conclusion. Sure it's fun to discuss the same subject the first few times, but it gets tiring. Yes, I understand, "If I dont like it, I don't have to even open up this thread", and I understand and agree with that too. :) |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 04/23/2007 : 10:39:44
|
Great analysis Pucknuts (and I am not being sarcastic)! You are clearly qualified for the postion of the Official Analyst of Hypotheticals advertised in the Globe & Mail this morning.
One point though - you need to somehow account for Lemieux being a healthier Lemieux in this hypothetical. That should close the gap between 2.22 and 2.16 at least a little I think.
Either way though, very impressive analysis! Nothing like a good hypothetical to bring it about, eh! |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 04/23/2007 : 10:57:00
|
Tctitans - maybe this is selfish, but I have learnt a lot from this thread. I really didn't realize just HOW productive Lemieux was during his career. Thanks to Pucknuts, I have a much clearer picture now. Maybe others out there got something out of it too.
Also, I don't think a discussion has to reach a conclusion. If it gets people thinking, that in and of itself is good. I will admit though, that it is my hope that this thread has at least a tiny affect on a guy from the Gretzky camp who uses stats, stats and more stats to support his arguments for Gretzky being unquestionably the all-time greatest. My hope is that such a person may think, "Hold it a second, if that's all I got, Lemieux is pretty close so maybe I better come up with some clips, comments, etc which show all the great things about Gretzky rather than just spouting off stats". That admittedly was on my mind. But even if that was not accomplished, I think just the question itself is kind of fun. Also, you gotta remember that new guys are joining here all the time.
Back to work now! |
Edited by - andyhack on 04/23/2007 10:58:27 |
|
|
|
tctitans
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
931 Posts |
Posted - 04/23/2007 : 11:26:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
Tctitans - maybe this is selfish, but I have learnt a lot from this thread. I really didn't realize just HOW productive Lemieux was during his career. Thanks to Pucknuts, I have a much clearer picture now. Maybe others out there got something out of it too.
As said, I don't mind people having a debate, it can always be enlightening. I'm glad you learned somethign from this thread (seriously), but there really isnt any new information here than in previous threads. Perhaps it's because I've been here a tiny bit longer (is that true?) and been involved in more of the Gretzky/Lemieux threads up until now, but I havent seen any new arguments from either the Lemieux or Gretzky camps for quite a while.
I also havent heard many people from the Gretzky camp arguing that Mario wasnt close - usually the opposite actually (rightfully so).
quote:
I will admit though, that it is my hope that this thread has at least a tiny affect on a guy from the Gretzky camp who uses stats, stats and more stats to support his arguments for Gretzky being unquestionably the all-time greatest. My hope is that such a person may think, "Hold it a second, if that's all I got, Lemieux is pretty close so maybe I better come up with some clips, comments, etc which show all the great things about Gretzky rather than just spouting off stats".
Actually, I believe that these discussions do the exact opposite on this board. Since the board seems to have a 'lower average-age subscriber base', most people are much more aware of Lemieux best years than Gretzky's. I think that a lot of the threads on this in the past have enlightened a lot of people here on what Gretzky did before they really got into watching hockey and saw only the tail end of his career.
-tc
|
Edited by - tctitans on 04/23/2007 11:31:32 |
|
|
|
PuckNuts
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2414 Posts |
Posted - 04/23/2007 : 12:11:56
|
I am curious, how much does an "Official Analyst of Hypotheticals" make in a year...
We all have our favourites, and we all think they are the best. If you ever watch the legends of hockey you will hear from some of the old fellas that players like the Rocket, Orr, Hull, or even Howe, just to name a few were the best they ever saw.
Some of them never lived long enough to see Gretzky, Lemieux or Coffey in their prime.
My son is 23 and he thinks the Sun shines from Lemieux's ***...When I tell him that Gretzky is better he says no way, and comes up with the same what if he was not sick, unfortunately he was, and all the analysis and thinking can't change it...
We all have our opinions, that is why I try to base most of my answers on facts. Even with all the facts some opinions can not be changed...
By the way I think Gretzky is the greatest, next to Sittler...
Lead, follow, or get out of the way... |
Edited by - PuckNuts on 04/23/2007 12:17:57 |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
tctitans
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
931 Posts |
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. |
Edited by - tctitans on 04/23/2007 13:15:06 |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
fly4apuckguy
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
834 Posts |
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 |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
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!
|
|
|
|
PuckNuts
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2414 Posts |
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... |
Edited by - PuckNuts on 04/23/2007 17:56:37 |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
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!" |
|
|
|
tctitans
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
931 Posts |
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". |
|
|
|
PuckNuts
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2414 Posts |
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... |
Edited by - PuckNuts on 04/24/2007 06:32:47 |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
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.
|
|
|
|
tctitans
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
931 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
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!" |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
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. |
Edited by - andyhack on 04/24/2007 15:49:44 |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
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.
|
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
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??
|
|
|
|
admin
Forum Admin
Canada
2338 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
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!" |
|
|
|
PuckNuts
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2414 Posts |
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... |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
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
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2414 Posts |
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... |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Lemieux Hypothetical (Sorry Beans!) 
