Best Peak: Gretzky vs Lemieux vs Orr

[TheStatican]

There's so many inaccurate takes in this thread I don't even know where to begin with.

Yep. Never surpassed Gretzky. It’s wild to think he did based on a stat line where he didn’t.

Yeah let's just go by raw totals and assume they tell us everything we need to know about a player and a season. The difference between Lemieux's 88-89 season and Gretzky's 83-84 season amounts to 6 points but Gretzky got to play on a team with peak Kurri, Coffey, Anderson and Messier. Lemieux got a 5 year older version of Coffey and Rob freak'in Brown. Oh but Lemieux had "all that powerplay time" yeah, and he also had all that shorthanded time too.

Paul Coffey is a horrible example to use in this cherry picked list. You know, considering he played with Lemieux when Lemieux had his best season and all.

Gretzky had the younger, better version of Coffey, Coffey lost a a bit of a step after the back injury in 86-87.

Somewhat of a disingenuous take when you look at the competition Lemieux dominated in 1992-93 and 1996. Was Gretzky going to be that much better than a peak Lafontaine, Selanne, Mogilny, Lindros, Sakic, Forsberg, Jagr, etc.? Those were faster and more skilled players than Gretzky faced which were mostly Canadians and also goalies and defense were better, this why Lemieux was not only arguably as good but possibly better.

Exactly. The high end talent pool was deeper in the 90's than it was in the 80's - and how could it not? The league was missing the ENTIRE Russian talent pool. Gretzky's scoring margins would not have been nearly be as large had the second best player in the world at the time - Sergei Makarov been playing in the NHL, or if Lemieux happened to have been born a little sooner.

Furthermore the game was much, much better by the early 90's. One just needs to watch a single game from 81-82 and 92-93 and compare them, its WORLDS apart. Gretzky was leagues ahead of everyone to be sure, but he picked apart a bush league.

Considering he scored 199 points in 76 games that comment is wild

And really only 74 games and change since he missed almost two entire games worth of ice time in addition to the 4 full games he missed.

In his best three seasons ('89, '93, '96), Lemieux may have been close to Gretzky's peak level of play or equaled or slightly surpassed it. However, Gretzky had about eight seasons at a ridiculously high level whereas Lemieux's fourth-best season isn't really close to any of his three best.

Absolutely, Gretzky did it far longer and more consistently than Lemieux did. That's why he's the goat and it speaks to his longevity and greatness as a whole. I don't see anyone debating that - but this is about peak. Just because someone does something for longer it does not make their absolute best better.

In 93 he comes back from cancer and wins the scoring title - probably the best season ever.

Best post I've ever seen you make on this site.

Didn't broken down way past his peak Gretzky dominate the ross race in 93/94? Sorry, there is no argument for Lemieux.

Hull was never a point producer he was a goal scorer, it's incredible that he even came within about 30 points of Gretzky. And I don't know about "dominate" the scoring race in 93-94. He barely managed to hold of Fedorov the entire way through, who clearly had a far better season overall.

All that is entirely beside the point, we're talking about peak here people.

Guys like Lafontaine and Selanne weren't better than guys like Bossy and Kurri who Gretzky absolutely destroyed.

And Yzerman and Oates and Gilmour and Sakic and Hull and Francis and Robitaille and Recchi etc, etc. There is no argument for there being a greater pool of talent in the 80's verses the early to mid 90's. It's a fact that the NHL DID NOT have all the available talent in the world in the 80's but it did by the 90's.

No, you don't agree? Then tell me where was Makarov and the other top Russian stars? You know those players who somehow nearly managed to take down team Canada itself in a best on best tournament, which was only saved from defeat by the combined strength of Lemieux and Gretzky.

Lemieux doesn't belong in the poll because everything he did Gretzky did better, faster, more often, etc.

Lemieux literally did it just as "good" and as "fast" as Gretzky did. The only thing that you said that was even remotely accurate was "more often".

 

[Mike C]

I see you and where your coming from... You just can't be the best if you didn't have a sick and snazzy nickname like Gretzky did


Awesome, great chat. You had me convinced at "Its", Master P.


Honestly I'm not sure why you even posted this on the main boards OP? I hope you weren't expecting an actual in depth and serious conversation on the matter. This is nothing more than a popularity contest.

That's one way to look at it. Another approach is that you can't be the best unless you're better than the guy you're being compared to

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Yep. Never surpassed Gretzky. It’s wild to think he did based on a stat line where he didn’t.

Yzerman>McDavid. Joe thornton>ovechkin and crosby

 

[Coffee]

Yep. Never surpassed Gretzky. It’s wild to think he did based on a stat line where he didn’t.

I guess Joe Thornton is better than Crosby then by your logic

 

[Tad Mikowsky]

I guess Joe Thornton is better than Crosby then by your logic

Totally comparable. Looks like you don’t get it.

Yzerman>McDavid. Joe thornton>ovechkin and crosby

Gretzky won more cups too than the pace merchant. Why doesn’t that factor in?

It’s because your “arguments” are Lemieux and Crosby are the bestest ever no matter what.

 

[Coffee]

Totally comparable. Looks like you don’t get it.



Gretzky won more cups too than the pace merchant. Why doesn’t that factor in?

It’s because your “arguments” are Lemieux and Crosby are the bestest ever no matter what.

How come you’re not trying to explain it to me then? Instead of just saying I’m ignorant.

Classy look and I was genuinely curious

 

[Tad Mikowsky]

How come you’re not trying to explain it to me then? Instead of just saying I’m ignorant.

Classy look and I was genuinely curious

Because we’re comparing in this thread the greatest player who played and a guy who gets propped up with every what if and pace to even be in the conversation.

If you’re “genuinely” curious, you don’t compare Thornton and Crosby who are irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[The Grim Reaper]

We gotta change this pic to Nathaniel Skywalker

View attachment 753311

Holy shit, I made that years ago. I lost the link to it and thought it was gone forever lol. Thanks mate.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Totally comparable. Looks like you don’t get it.



Gretzky won more cups too than the pace merchant. Why doesn’t that factor in?

It’s because your “arguments” are Lemieux and Crosby are the bestest ever no matter what.

You got caught. Accept it you have no rebuttal. McDavid simply can't match Yzermans peak

 

[Tad Mikowsky]

You got caught. Accept it you have no rebuttal. McDavid simply can't match Yzermans peak

Got caught for what?

I’m just using your type of shitty arguments.

 

[Coffee]

You got caught. Accept it you have no rebuttal. McDavid simply can't match Yzermans peak

Got caught for what?

I’m just using your type of shitty arguments.

i say just leave it, this convo won’t go anywhere.

 

[Video Nasty]

The point is Gretzky got to play with a first ballot HOFer on his wing (granted not his first NHL season) while Lemieux turned a minor leaguer into a 40 goal scorer and that Gretzky’s 180+ scoring seasons included both Kurri and Coffey. It’s a team game.

So instead of taking your medicine, you’re going to instead run down the hallway screaming you didn’t do it?

 

[FunkySeeFunkyDo]

So instead of taking your medicine, you’re going to instead run down the hallway screaming you didn’t do it?

 

[x Tame Impala]

Yeah, Gretzky and Lemieux are at least debatable as far as offensive peak. And I wouldn’t be shocked if another player entered that discussion at some point.

But who’s the closest comparison to peak Orr? Denis Potvin? Being the best player on both ends of the ice is something else. And, no, he wasn’t the best at both ends his whole career, but he was for at least a couple years.

I know everyone says “I didn’t see him…”. Well, go watch some old Bruins games and see what you think!

The comparisons get difficult because unless you were watching it live it lacks a lot of context. It’s difficult to make genuine conclusions because you weren’t around when the game was at that current state so it’s more challenging to see how significant certain players/teams/moments really were.

Often coming down to which narrative people choose to follow.

 

[Voight]

Holy shit, I made that years ago. I lost the link to it and thought it was gone forever lol. Thanks mate.

Thank you for your service , I saw it in some random thread a while back didn't know you were the genius behind it

You got caught. Accept it you have no rebuttal. McDavid simply can't match Yzermans peak

If you're talking offensively that makes zero sense. He literally scored 153 points last season, which is 2 off Yzermans career high. Hes been 1st or 2nd in points every year except his rookie season, & I'm not sure Yzerman matches that even if you eliminate Gretzky & Lemieux from the equation.

(at least peak wise from 1988-1993)

 

[McPoyle]

I'm sure its a complete coincidence that the majority of Lemieux boosters in this thread have Pens players as their avatars.

 

[Senor Catface]

The bare minimum for forwards to make the HOF is usually 1000 points.

Gretzky had 1036 points in 5 seasons.

Add the next season, where he got 183 points, that's 1219 points. So in 6 seasons, he would have ranked 45th all-time in points. That's a peak.

 

[ijuka]

Really you think so? That 161 points in 70 games which is 189 in 82 game in a 6.29 gpg league very similar to 05-06 and last years gpg league wide. This was when goalies had good sized pads and weren't flopping like fishes like the early 80s. The game had evolved tremendously and that season is the highest adjusted season in history.

Season adjustment is bogus, though. It doesn't accurately reflect the scoring difference between star players. Keep in mind that in 95-96, Jagr at #2 had 149 points and in 83-84, Coffey at #2 had 126 points. Star player scoring in 95-96 was actually higher than in 83-84.

Also, Lemieux had 12 more points than Jagr. In 83-84 Gretzky had 79 more points than Coffey.

Top 10 in scoring in 83-84:
205
126
121
119
118
116
113
111
107
105

Top 10 in scoring in 95-96:
161
149
120
119
116
115
108
108
107
107

Can you see that top-player scoring is actually almost identical? Don't use season adjustment as a crutch. It might be relevant when comparing middle-six players. But not for star players.

 

[Senor Catface]

Gretzky doesn't break 175 between Brown and Errey.

In 1980-1981, Gretzky had 164 points as a 19-year-old. The next player on the team had 75, less than half of what Gretzky had.

He played a lot with Callighen, MacDonald, and a rookie Kurri. Murderer's row this ain't.

 

[Coffee]

In 1980-1981, Gretzky had 164 points as a 19-year-old. The next player on the team at 75, less than half of what Gretzky.

He played a lot with Callighen, MacDonald, and a rookie Kurri. Murderer's row this ain't.

@BigEezyE22 I mean, you can’t argue against that. Even I didn’t know that and agreed with you initially

 

[bobholly39]

Totally comparable. Looks like you don’t get it.



Gretzky won more cups too than the pace merchant. Why doesn’t that factor in?

It’s because your “arguments” are Lemieux and Crosby are the bestest ever no matter what.

Your arguments in this thread are absolutely asanine.

1. Let's compare raw stats 6 years apart with 0 context/adjustment.
2. Let's cup count.

There are reasons to pick Gretzky (I voted for him), but those aren't the arguments.

 

[Conspiracy Theorist]

Your arguments in this thread are absolutely asanine.

1. Let's compare raw stats 6 years apart with 0 context/adjustment.
2. Let's cup count.

There are reasons to pick Gretzky (I voted for him), but those aren't the arguments.

I used to do the same. Edmonton was obviously good enough to win a cup without Gretzky. You can't say the same about Penguins. Until Crosby and Malkin showed up that is.

 

[Fatass]

99, 4, 9, 66

 

[Tad Mikowsky]

Your arguments in this thread are absolutely asanine.

1. Let's compare raw stats 6 years apart with 0 context/adjustment.
2. Let's cup count.

There are reasons to pick Gretzky (I voted for him), but those aren't the arguments.

I’m just using the same arguments as a certain penguins fan boy.

 

[Midnight Judges]

I used to do the same. Edmonton was obviously good enough to win a cup without Gretzky. You can't say the same about Penguins. Until Crosby and Malkin showed up that is.

The Penguins were a first place team in '94 with Lemieux barely playing and a second place team that won a playoff series in '95 without Lemieux at all.

They weren't the Oilers but they were still pretty good in that time frame.