| Author |
 Topic  |
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
 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 |
Edited by - andyhack on 04/24/2007 15:56:58 |
 |
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
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!" |
|
|
|
PuckNuts
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2414 Posts |
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... |
|
|
|
tctitans
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
931 Posts |
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... |
|
|
|
tctitans
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
931 Posts |
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. :) |
Edited by - tctitans on 04/24/2007 19:03:47 |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
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!" |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
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
|
|
|
|
tctitans
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
931 Posts |
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'.
|
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
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!" |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
PuckNuts
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2414 Posts |
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... |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
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!" |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
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.
|
Edited by - andyhack on 04/25/2007 18:50:43 |
|
|
|
fly4apuckguy
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
834 Posts |
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 |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 04/25/2007 : 20:00:01
|
Would it be safe to say you revere him? 
"Go chase headlights!" |
|
|
|
tctitans
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
931 Posts |
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.
|
Edited by - tctitans on 04/25/2007 20:08:16 |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
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) |
Edited by - andyhack on 04/25/2007 20:37:08 |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
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!" |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
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) |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Lemieux Hypothetical (Sorry Beans!) 
