Gretzkys Difficulties in Scoring Goals against Good Defenses after the Mid 1980s

[Staniowski]

Very doubtful. If they started their careers at the same time, Gretzky's drive to be the best would have buried Lemieux.

Lemieux would still need to be healthy...but he would very likely outscore Gretzky most of the time if the two of them started their careers at the same time. I think this is fairly obvious. Lemieux ultimately had more high-end skills than Gretzky.

But Gretzkys the 2nd-best scorer in the history of hockey.

 

[authentic]

Lemieux would still need to be healthy...but he would very likely outscore Gretzky most of the time if the two of them started their careers at the same time. I think this is fairly obvious. Lemieux ultimately had more high-end skills than Gretzky.

But Gretzkys the 2nd-best scorer in the history of hockey.

Post 1995 hockey I don’t see how Gretzky seriously competes with Lemieux based on the skillsets they had. I really don’t think it would’ve been too close either the further along you got into the 2000s and 2010s when the game sped up after the lockout, but I could be wrong and it could be something like a Kucherov and MacKinnon today.

I just think all that time and space afforded back then along with poor defensive coverage benefits a ‘right place at the right time’ type of player with that anticipation and vision on another level more so than it does in a more defensive and physically demanding league. The only thing is Lemieux has those attributes as well as all the skill and size in the world along with being a tremendous skater, really I don’t think a healthy Lemieux gets approached by anyone in the history of the game in a scoring race 1995-present day.

 

[Crosby2010]

Some players benefit more from beating up on terrible competition. Gretzky is one of those players. The way he scored many of his goals during his peak would no longer be possible as the competition improved. That's why his goal scoring fell off a cliff while Lemieux's production remained more consistent. It's also like with using performance enhancing drugs. Some benefit from it more than others. Lance Armstrong won 7 Tour de France even though everyone in cycling was doping. Gretzky, with his skillset, saw greater gains facing terrible competition than Lemieux did.

Maybe it is on this thread, I can't remember, but there was this idea that Gretzky "beat up" on the so called weaker Smythe division opponents like the Kings, Canucks and even Jets. I can vividly remember looking season after season with him in the 1980s where he had at least as high of a PPG against the rest of the NHL if not better, than his Smythe division rivals. I don't think it matters who you play when you are that good. He scored so much against Richard Brodeur because they played the Canucks a ton of times. I'll continue to ask the obvious question until I get a good answer from it, but in the 1980s if Gretzky only did what he did because it was easy then I can name a lot of great goal scorers who didn't do what he did:

Mike Bossy, Michel Goulet, Marcel Dionne.

Why did Bossy never hit 70? Why did neither Dionne or Goulet hit 60?

 

[Crosby2010]

Post 1995 hockey I don’t see how Gretzky seriously competes with Lemieux based on the skillsets they had. I really don’t think it would’ve been too close either the further along you got into the 2000s and 2010s when the game sped up after the lockout, but I could be wrong and it could be something like a Kucherov and MacKinnon today.

I just think all that time and space afforded back then along with poor defensive coverage benefits a ‘right place at the right time’ type of player with that anticipation and vision on another level more so than it does in a more defensive and physically demanding league. The only thing is Lemieux has those attributes as well as all the skill and size in the world along with being a tremendous skater, really I don’t think a healthy Lemieux gets approached by anyone in the history of the game in a scoring race 1995-present day.

If you watch Gretzky at almost any time in his career, and Lemieux falls into this category too, they create their own space. Both were able to control the pace of the game. Gretzky was always an east-west type of puckhandler. That's hard to defend. Bobby Clarke stated that at least with Bobby Orr you would see him coming from the other end, but with Gretzky he was just so smart he fooled you. I don't know how that doesn't transcend into being great in any era. In the 1987 Cup final Gretzky assisted on Kurri's overtime goal in Game 2. He comes into the zone, hangs onto it, basically the Flyers surrounding him have no idea what to do. Coffey streaks in, Gretzky hits him, then Coffey shovels it to Kurri who scores. For 3-4 seconds Gretzky is just hanging onto the puck and makes it look so casual despite being surrounded by Flyers. This is what he did all of the time. He controlled the pace of the game. And this was a year where led the NHL in goals and had more assists than anyone else had points. I'm sorry, but we saw what a young Jagr did in the 1990s. He had raw talent but still didn't have Gretzky's level of play. Why doesn't a young Gretzky dominate the NHL in the 1990s as well? He still led the NHL in points in the 1990s as a guy in his 30s.

 

[The Panther]

Lemieux would still need to be healthy...but he would very likely outscore Gretzky most of the time if the two of them started their careers at the same time. I think this is fairly obvious. Lemieux ultimately had more high-end skills than Gretzky.

Wow, what nonsense. When their careers overlapped from 1984 to 1991, Gretzky destoyed Lemieux. (That ended when Wayne's prime decisively ended in Sept. 1991.)

Gretzky also destoyed Lemieux head-to-head, both in the 1980s and in the 1990s, when he was past his prime.

When they played on the same club at Canada Cup '87, Gretzky was MVP, not Lemieux (who scored 11 goals, about 7 of which were on Gretzky passes).

Gretzky aged 30 to 36 in the playoffs (1990s):
70GP: 33G + 65A = 98 PTS / 1.40 PPG (+10)
Lemieux aged 27 to 35 in the playoffs (1990s + 2001):
58GP: 32G + 43A = 75 PTS / 1.20 PPG (+1)

So... here we have a younger Lemieux, playing on vastly higher scoring / more talented teams (with the co-best player in the world, Jagr), in his prime... and meanwhile post-prime, bad teams' Gretzky, in the same scoring environment (mid-1990s), still outscores Mario when the games matter. Now, imagine, if Wayne had been in his prime in the 1990s...

But Gretzkys the 2nd-best scorer in the history of hockey.

You're always good for a laugh!

 

[The Panther]

Post 1995 hockey I don’t see how Gretzky seriously competes with Lemieux based on the skillsets they had.

You're wrong, but even if you were right, it doesn't matter in terms of which players are better.

Players play in their own eras. Their greatness isn't determined by being transferable to different eras that aren't their own.

 

[The Panther]

By the way, Ray Bourque --- who was French-Canadian (like Lemieux), played in the East vs. Pittsburgh, played against Lemieux regularly his entire career, lost to Lemieux in the playoffs twice, and whose team had more defensive success vs. Gretzky than any team --- said Gretzky was the best.

 

[authentic]

You're wrong, but even if you were right, it doesn't matter in terms of which players are better.

Players play in their own eras. Their greatness isn't determined by being transferable to different eras that aren't their own.

Hmmm. You sure about that? How exactly could you know that for certain?

It’s not exactly a far fetched conclusion to come to, and it’s an opinion held by many people, and for good reason. I also am not determining their greatness this way, obviously Gretzky is the greatest player ever with by far the best career.

No one approached Lemieux once defense and goaltending improved though, and yes that actually is useful for deciding who the better player is when both were so close at their peaks!

 

[authentic]

By the way, Ray Bourque --- who was French-Canadian (like Lemieux), played in the East vs. Pittsburgh, played against Lemieux regularly his entire career, lost to Lemieux in the playoffs twice, and whose team had more defensive success vs. Gretzky than any team --- said Gretzky was the best.

Well that settles it then

(Bourque really going out on a limb here eh?)

 

[authentic]

Wow, what nonsense. When their careers overlapped from 1984 to 1991, Gretzky destoyed Lemieux. (That ended when Wayne's prime decisively ended in Sept. 1991.)

Gretzky also destoyed Lemieux head-to-head, both in the 1980s and in the 1990s, when he was past his prime.

When they played on the same club at Canada Cup '87, Gretzky was MVP, not Lemieux (who scored 11 goals, about 7 of which were on Gretzky passes).

Gretzky aged 30 to 36 in the playoffs (1990s):
70GP: 33G + 65A = 98 PTS / 1.40 PPG (+10)
Lemieux aged 27 to 35 in the playoffs (1990s + 2001):
58GP: 32G + 43A = 75 PTS / 1.20 PPG (+1)

So... here we have a younger Lemieux, playing on vastly higher scoring / more talented teams (with the co-best player in the world, Jagr), in his prime... and meanwhile post-prime, bad teams' Gretzky, in the same scoring environment (mid-1990s), still outscores Mario when the games matter. Now, imagine, if Wayne had been in his prime in the 1990s...

You're always good for a laugh!

Imagine Wayne scoring at a goal per game pace against Hasek, Brodeur, and the advanced goaltending and defense of the mid 1990s-2000s. You actually bring forth good arguments here, I just don’t see the need to imply it’s a fact that Gretzky would be better than Lemieux in modern hockey. I really do think it’s very debatable and much more likely Lemieux would be better at his best, but it’s definitely fun to imagine and discuss with no right or wrong answer.

 

[authentic]

If you watch Gretzky at almost any time in his career, and Lemieux falls into this category too, they create their own space. Both were able to control the pace of the game. Gretzky was always an east-west type of puckhandler. That's hard to defend. Bobby Clarke stated that at least with Bobby Orr you would see him coming from the other end, but with Gretzky he was just so smart he fooled you. I don't know how that doesn't transcend into being great in any era. In the 1987 Cup final Gretzky assisted on Kurri's overtime goal in Game 2. He comes into the zone, hangs onto it, basically the Flyers surrounding him have no idea what to do. Coffey streaks in, Gretzky hits him, then Coffey shovels it to Kurri who scores. For 3-4 seconds Gretzky is just hanging onto the puck and makes it look so casual despite being surrounded by Flyers. This is what he did all of the time. He controlled the pace of the game. And this was a year where led the NHL in goals and had more assists than anyone else had points. I'm sorry, but we saw what a young Jagr did in the 1990s. He had raw talent but still didn't have Gretzky's level of play. Why doesn't a young Gretzky dominate the NHL in the 1990s as well? He still led the NHL in points in the 1990s as a guy in his 30s.

Of course it transcends, I’m talking about him being better than Mario Lemieux in modern hockey though. Most definitely he would be better than everyone else.