Gretzky & Lemieux against other centers
- Thread starter Maag80
- Start date
For starters, I disagree with the premise that Messier, Sakic, Yzerman, and Lindros were “at roughly the same level”, regardless of whether we are looking at peak play or career greatness.
That aside, Gretzky and Lemieux were quite ahead of those 4 in my opinion. Several levels ahead, in fact. You’ve got guys like Beliveau and Crosby on the next tier of centers after 99 and 66. Then probably Morenz and Nighbor. Oh, and McDavid is probably here too at this point. And then maaayybbbeee you start getting to a couple of the guys you mentioned, but even that feels a little too high for them.
Gretzky and Lemieux were just too good. We often use the term "video game stats", but watching them dominate almost felt like watching a video game, in that they were so good. They're way above the 4 players you mentioned (and those 4 aren't on the same level to one another fyi).
Troubadour
Registered User
- Feb 23, 2018
- 1,179
- 896
Slightly controversial (take it with a pinch of salt): how they performed against subpar competition, because that's where the majority of gaudy numbers come for most superstars. And it's hard to entertain the idea someone like Fedorov belongs in such a conversation. A skill without results is like pasta without cheese.
But if we take Fedorov, who is a reputed reg season floater, and compare how he did against other elite players h2h, it pretty much proves he showed up even in the regular seaons -- to make other superstars look bad.
In games against Lemieux, Forsberg, Jagr, Messier, Lindros, Gretzky, he posted a whopping 145 points in 113 games, he was a +45 and he outscored every single one of them. Forsberg lagged by a point only and he was a 0. No small feat against Feds, as only Jagr managed to be a plus (1, lol). In total, these all time greats scored just 120 points against Fedorov's teams and they were, swallow, a -45.
So to answer, I believe, there is not that much difference between the elite of the elite, and quite often, Gretzky, Lemieux and many other superstars got outplayed by guys we, maybe not quite fairly, perceive as lesser talents.
Of course, everyone has something, vision, hands, speed, grit, power, shot. Yet maybe all these more or less physical atributes kinda level each other out. Maybe it's the ability to motivate oneself against a lesser competition that creates an abyss in long term results and, consequently, how we perceive the players' talent/skill.
But if we take Fedorov, who is a reputed reg season floater, and compare how he did against other elite players h2h, it pretty much proves he showed up even in the regular seaons -- to make other superstars look bad.
In games against Lemieux, Forsberg, Jagr, Messier, Lindros, Gretzky, he posted a whopping 145 points in 113 games, he was a +45 and he outscored every single one of them. Forsberg lagged by a point only and he was a 0. No small feat against Feds, as only Jagr managed to be a plus (1, lol). In total, these all time greats scored just 120 points against Fedorov's teams and they were, swallow, a -45.
So to answer, I believe, there is not that much difference between the elite of the elite, and quite often, Gretzky, Lemieux and many other superstars got outplayed by guys we, maybe not quite fairly, perceive as lesser talents.
Of course, everyone has something, vision, hands, speed, grit, power, shot. Yet maybe all these more or less physical atributes kinda level each other out. Maybe it's the ability to motivate oneself against a lesser competition that creates an abyss in long term results and, consequently, how we perceive the players' talent/skill.
Care to elaborate on that post? How are those 4 not roughly at the same level if you have Crosby another tier than Morenz and McDavid?
Oh, wow. Do you have these results individually for Lemieux, Gretzky, Lindros, Messier, Forsberg and Jagr? (Also obviously Gretzky was in the back half of his career by that point but still). This does not surprise me at all, as Fedorov, just by watching him at his best, looked as though he could get the best of any matchup when he was playing 100%, and he was just so dominant both ways and with all the speed and skill in the world… See this is what irks me when people say players like Lindros, Forsberg and Fedorov were overrated, you mean the players who literally dominated the best offensive players most of the time they were on the ice while also outscoring them and physically punishing them?
Troubadour
Registered User
- Feb 23, 2018
- 1,179
- 896
JackSlater
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2010
- 18,169
- 15,784
First off I will agree that Messier, Yzerman, Sakic, and Lindros are roughly on the same level.
It's hard to get into that much detail on how much better Gretzky and Lemieux were. Any of those first four guys could outplay Gretzky or Lemieux in a game or a series. If you took them all at their peaks and put them into the same regular season, similar level of support around them, everyone plays 80 games, etc. Gretzky and Lemieux would handily outscore the other four. It would not be close. Off the top of my head I'm thinking something like.... 40% more points for Gretzky and Lemieux. Each of the other four brought more outside of offence than either Gretzky or Lemieux did though, so the gap isn't quite that large.
It's hard to get into that much detail on how much better Gretzky and Lemieux were. Any of those first four guys could outplay Gretzky or Lemieux in a game or a series. If you took them all at their peaks and put them into the same regular season, similar level of support around them, everyone plays 80 games, etc. Gretzky and Lemieux would handily outscore the other four. It would not be close. Off the top of my head I'm thinking something like.... 40% more points for Gretzky and Lemieux. Each of the other four brought more outside of offence than either Gretzky or Lemieux did though, so the gap isn't quite that large.
The Panther
Registered User
I dunno, not a great take. All of Fedorov's games vs. Gretzky, for example, are past Gretzky's prime, and when Gretzky was on (mostly) bad / middling clubs and Fedorov on a super-team.
The fair comparison here is to see how older-Gretzky and older-Fedorov did from age 30/31 to age 37/38 against other top teams:
Overall scoring Rank:
Gretzky -- 2nd
Fedorov -- 43rd
Gretzky vs. Top-5 1992-1999 (Detroit, Pittsburgh, Jersey, Colorado, Philly):
123 points in 97 games
(104 points / 82 GP)
Fedorov vs. Top-5 2001-2008 not-counting-Detroit (Ottawa, Jersey, Dallas, Colorado, San Jose):
70 points in 98 games
(59 points / 82 GP)
I'm not sure how it works for all the guys on your list, but I'm sensing some funny math here.
The Panther
Registered User
I think it's very clear that Gretzky and Lemieux are the two most dominant and super-skilled offensive / attacking players of all time (certainly in the NHL, anyway).
Given reasonably good health and full seasons, Gretzky probably would have had 13-straight seasons of 160+ points (as it was, he had 7 such in a row, and would have had 11 for certain if not for injury). Lemieux would have had 7 in a row for sure, then the work-stoppage season, and then he probably would have had at least a couple more (hard to say after '97 when scoring drops so much).
Between them, under healthful circumstances, probably 22 seasons of 160+ points. Not one other player in history has ever done that even once, and they'd have done it 22 times. (And yes, we can probably project that a peak-level Jagr or McDavid on a decent team in 1986 or whatever might have posted 160 points... but we don't know that. A lot of things have to go right for that to happen, even once.)
Of course, Lemieux was a big man who didn't use his body very much in a 'physical' sense, and Gretzky completely avoided all physical contact, to a rather amazing degree. Neither can be said to be a defensively accountable player in the traditional sense, though both could contribute very well in puck-possession and clearing the zone when needed to (in big games, or in playoffs). Both killed penalties, both took face-offs.
So, there are limitations to what they could do as overall players, maybe, but their almost-entirely offensive roles was probably determined by their extreme offensive genius. It's like, what coach has a Picasso and forces him to paint by numbers?
Given reasonably good health and full seasons, Gretzky probably would have had 13-straight seasons of 160+ points (as it was, he had 7 such in a row, and would have had 11 for certain if not for injury). Lemieux would have had 7 in a row for sure, then the work-stoppage season, and then he probably would have had at least a couple more (hard to say after '97 when scoring drops so much).
Between them, under healthful circumstances, probably 22 seasons of 160+ points. Not one other player in history has ever done that even once, and they'd have done it 22 times. (And yes, we can probably project that a peak-level Jagr or McDavid on a decent team in 1986 or whatever might have posted 160 points... but we don't know that. A lot of things have to go right for that to happen, even once.)
Of course, Lemieux was a big man who didn't use his body very much in a 'physical' sense, and Gretzky completely avoided all physical contact, to a rather amazing degree. Neither can be said to be a defensively accountable player in the traditional sense, though both could contribute very well in puck-possession and clearing the zone when needed to (in big games, or in playoffs). Both killed penalties, both took face-offs.
So, there are limitations to what they could do as overall players, maybe, but their almost-entirely offensive roles was probably determined by their extreme offensive genius. It's like, what coach has a Picasso and forces him to paint by numbers?
MadLuke
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2011
- 9,496
- 6,907
Sport team and all that, but end of the day, combined they won "just" 6 cups (and 8 finals I think), so not completely unstoppable force. And thats without ever eliminating each other's from the playoff.
When they were together in 87 they won by a single goal, showing they were ahead of everyone doing so, but still won by a single goal (how big of gap versus the best soviet could it have been then...). While a Lemieux was offensively a big gap above every no Gretzky, in total of his games, maybe a peak Messier having a good playoff series was not that far a prime Lemieux, very peak Lemieux going on was hard to beat but did not happen that often.
When they were together in 87 they won by a single goal, showing they were ahead of everyone doing so, but still won by a single goal (how big of gap versus the best soviet could it have been then...). While a Lemieux was offensively a big gap above every no Gretzky, in total of his games, maybe a peak Messier having a good playoff series was not that far a prime Lemieux, very peak Lemieux going on was hard to beat but did not happen that often.
I feel Gretzky against young Trottier-Stastny-Hawerchuck-Yzerman-Lemieux-etc... would be more natural than against a Forsberg those would be 1995-1997 games, late Gretzky era Kings-Blues-Rangers vs Avalanche powerhouse.
Last edited:
Sure- I think Sakic and Yzerman are on another level than Messier, who is, in turn, pretty clearly on another level (probably several levels) than Lindros. Maybe if Lindros had stayed healthy this would be different, but he didn't, and there are a lot of centers over history who did more over the balance of their careers.
And then I have Messier a touch lower than Yzerman and Sakic because of his (relative) lack of offense. Yeah, he brought the physicality that the other two didn't, but not enough for me to overlook the offensive gap.
With so many good centers, I don't see how you put those four on the same level, unless your levels are absolutely massive. Where is Trottier in relation to the four? Clarke? Esposito, Mikita, Schmidt, Taylor, Boucher, Forsberg, etc?
I should add that I think McDavid is probably going to pass Crosby in terms of greatness at some point. I personally don't think he's there yet, but I wouldn't look sideways at a list that has McDavid over Crosby right now.
voyageur
Grizzled
- Jul 10, 2011
- 9,767
- 13,353
pnep
Registered User
You’re talking about career. In the context of this thread, I was expecting more of a peak/prime discussion. I see where you’re coming from now.
- Jun 24, 2020
- 66
- 12
Thanks for all the answers!
I understand that putting these for together can upset some but I meant from roughly the sand era and I mean compared to Lemieux and Gretzky.
I know some put Lindros above maybe but in his prime i mean he was very productive.
And as Yzerman and Sakic are very similar of course Messier had a totally other style but my point is as someone write, would they produce 40% more points theoretically if you consider allover level over the prime years.
Always hard to compare like this but thanks for all the inputs!
I understand that putting these for together can upset some but I meant from roughly the sand era and I mean compared to Lemieux and Gretzky.
I know some put Lindros above maybe but in his prime i mean he was very productive.
And as Yzerman and Sakic are very similar of course Messier had a totally other style but my point is as someone write, would they produce 40% more points theoretically if you consider allover level over the prime years.
Always hard to compare like this but thanks for all the inputs!
The Panther
Registered User
pnep
Registered User
HHOF-ers and "2017 100 Greatest NHL Players of All Time" (REG. and PO Seasons: 1917-18/2023-24)
HHOF_AND_100_2024
4.82 MB file on MEGA
Last edited:
BraveCanadian
Registered User
- Jun 30, 2010
- 14,603
- 5,741
I think it is close but Yzerman was better in my books.
Messier beats him out for gooning and two-way play at their offensive peaks though I think.
Gerulaitis
Registered User
- Mar 20, 2025
- 131
- 117
That's if you take Canadian centers only..
Fedorov and Forsberg should be in this conversation, too.
For the Canadian players:
Gretzky ~ Lemieux
√
√
√
Messier ~ Sakic
√
Yzerman
√
Lindros
The Panther
Registered User
Yzerman 1986-87 through 1999-00 (14 seasons):
Per 82 GP: 105 PTS (+16)
Messier 1982-83 through 1996-97 (15 seasons):
Per 82 GP: 107 PTS (+21)
Now, you might argue that this isn't fair, as Yzerman gets in three more seasons here in the 'dead-puck era'. And that's true. So, let's shift it a bit just to seasons where their prime-eras overlapped for a direct comparison of point production:
Yzerman 1986-87 through 1996-97 (11 seasons):
RS -- Per 82 GP: 113 PTS (+17)
Playoffs -- Per 82 GP: 79 PTS (-12)
Messier 1986-87 through 1996-97 (11 seasons):
RS -- Per 82 GP: 108 PTS (+18)
Playoffs -- Per 82 GP: 104 PTS (+10)
So, there's no big difference here... except in the playoffs, where Messier easily beats Yzerman. Messier and Yzerman were very equal, offensively.
One could perhaps make the argument that Yzerman 'adapted' better to the DPE, as he was still a very productive player in 1998 (+Cup), 1999, 2000, etc... but I think Mess just aged out in 1997. At that exact moment, Messier went to possibly the worst team in the League while Yzerman was playing for the Cup champions, so...
Per 82 GP: 105 PTS (+16)
Messier 1982-83 through 1996-97 (15 seasons):
Per 82 GP: 107 PTS (+21)
Now, you might argue that this isn't fair, as Yzerman gets in three more seasons here in the 'dead-puck era'. And that's true. So, let's shift it a bit just to seasons where their prime-eras overlapped for a direct comparison of point production:
Yzerman 1986-87 through 1996-97 (11 seasons):
RS -- Per 82 GP: 113 PTS (+17)
Playoffs -- Per 82 GP: 79 PTS (-12)
Messier 1986-87 through 1996-97 (11 seasons):
RS -- Per 82 GP: 108 PTS (+18)
Playoffs -- Per 82 GP: 104 PTS (+10)
So, there's no big difference here... except in the playoffs, where Messier easily beats Yzerman. Messier and Yzerman were very equal, offensively.
One could perhaps make the argument that Yzerman 'adapted' better to the DPE, as he was still a very productive player in 1998 (+Cup), 1999, 2000, etc... but I think Mess just aged out in 1997. At that exact moment, Messier went to possibly the worst team in the League while Yzerman was playing for the Cup champions, so...
WarriorofTime
Registered User
- Jul 3, 2010
- 28,279
- 25,389
Would be fun to imagine the hypothetical matchup if they had played head to head against the golden age of two-way center play in the mid 2010s
You seem like you have your mind set, so I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise. "In reality" I think you can make the argument that Lindros had the best peak of the 4. But I also think that "in reality" you could have others depending on what you value and what you define as a player's peak (best game? best season? best 3 seasons?).
Career-value wise, Lindros is the clear-cut bottom of the 4.
Latest posts
-
-
Pre-Game Talk: 2025 NHL Playoffs - Round 1: Tampa Bay Lightning vs. Florida Panthers (10 Viewers)- Latest: DFC
-
-
Player Discussion How many goals will Cole Caufield score this season? (8 Viewers)- Latest: Lafleurs Guy
