How high would you rank this hypothetical player all time? (Made from the gap between Gretzky and Lemieux)
- Thread starter WalterLundy
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
HockeyVirus
16/34/88/91/44 - Pathetic losers
- Nov 15, 2020
- 20,994
- 32,058
Sasha Orlov
Lord of the Manor
- Jun 22, 2018
- 9,601
- 22,793
DitchMarner
TheGlitchintheSwitch
Wouldn't a player that good win more than a single Ted Lindsay?
If he didn't, that might turn some people off, along with his lack of longevity. There would be talk that he scored a lot but didn't play "winning hockey" (despite the two Cups) and his peers recognized that and held other players in higher regard.
Not saying such talk would be sensible, but it would exist.
If he didn't, that might turn some people off, along with his lack of longevity. There would be talk that he scored a lot but didn't play "winning hockey" (despite the two Cups) and his peers recognized that and held other players in higher regard.
Not saying such talk would be sensible, but it would exist.
WalterLundy
Registered User
That’s a good observation and good question to ask given all of this. The hypothetical player here is great but there is a reason the 1 Ted Lindsay doesn’t match the 6 Harts. This player only plays 7 seasons worth of games and nearly 4 full postseasons worth of playoff games yet has these statistics and resume.
The reason is because this isn’t just a hypothetical player but rather just the difference between Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemieux’s career statistics and certain accomplishments that wouldn’t give it away. I’ve always been curious about what it would look like on paper and finally got around to it today. You went at it from an approach with no knowledge of that and it’s on me. I should have put this in the poll description.
- Oct 10, 2007
- 27,941
- 15,497
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
Is he mid-career and still adding? Or is this his career total after some catastrophic injury at like 26 or so?
In any case, 6 Hart trophies would be laps around everyone other than Gretzky and Howe. But there’s something weird about him only being a 1st team all star at his position 3 times — meaning three times he was the Hart winner but not the best player at his own position? And likewise, only won 1 Lindsay award in the processs?
Similarly — two playoff scoring leads and 4 Stanley Cups for a player of this caliber, but no Conn Smythe?
The Harts alone would suggest this guy is easily a Big Five type of player and challenging Gretzky/Orr as a common choice for GOAT. But there are some weird smoke signals around his award record, suggesting maybe he’s poaching cheap points from a firewagon offense or something? It’s hard to read. But absent any other information, I’d say he’s a top-3 player based on his scoring and Harts.
In any case, 6 Hart trophies would be laps around everyone other than Gretzky and Howe. But there’s something weird about him only being a 1st team all star at his position 3 times — meaning three times he was the Hart winner but not the best player at his own position? And likewise, only won 1 Lindsay award in the processs?
Similarly — two playoff scoring leads and 4 Stanley Cups for a player of this caliber, but no Conn Smythe?
The Harts alone would suggest this guy is easily a Big Five type of player and challenging Gretzky/Orr as a common choice for GOAT. But there are some weird smoke signals around his award record, suggesting maybe he’s poaching cheap points from a firewagon offense or something? It’s hard to read. But absent any other information, I’d say he’s a top-3 player based on his scoring and Harts.
nowhereman
Registered User
The 1 Ted Lindsay to 6 harts is off, but the 3 1st team all-stars to 6 harts is even worst.
There could be some rationale to winning hart but not Lindsay. But 1st team all star is a much lower bar. How many hart winners in history haven't been a 1st team all star? I wouldn't be shocked if the all-time number is lower than 5.
But - ignoring those 2 things...
Deinfitely top 5 all-time. Especiallty if this is in today's era, vs the 80s.
Does the player retire young/injured, or what? He might push for #1 all-time if so.
There could be some rationale to winning hart but not Lindsay. But 1st team all star is a much lower bar. How many hart winners in history haven't been a 1st team all star? I wouldn't be shocked if the all-time number is lower than 5.
But - ignoring those 2 things...
Deinfitely top 5 all-time. Especiallty if this is in today's era, vs the 80s.
Does the player retire young/injured, or what? He might push for #1 all-time if so.
- Feb 10, 2010
- 14,653
- 11,762
It's basically a better Bobby Orr.
In real life, the lack of longevity is an enormous downside. Hockey fans often neglect longevity to the point where it is worth practically nothing. This is a mismatch with actual reality-based player value.
On the spectrum of the major sports, Hockey is extremely random - anything can happen in a playoff series. Therefore, the more times you can roll the playoff dice, the more likely you are to win a cup. Rolling those dice is tremendously valuable.
A generational player with a 20-year career and solid durability is available to help his team in 18-20 postseasons. The player in the OP appears to be available to help their team in a little over 1/3 of those playoff runs (7 out of 20). So you've got 7 (maybe 8?) postseasons where this player is presumably great, and 12-13 postseasons where they are worth precisely nothing. What does that average out to?
So yeah, putting this player anywhere near the Gretzky tier is objectively incorrect (as is the case with Bobby Orr).
Virtually everyone in this poll is getting it wrong IMO.
In real life, the lack of longevity is an enormous downside. Hockey fans often neglect longevity to the point where it is worth practically nothing. This is a mismatch with actual reality-based player value.
On the spectrum of the major sports, Hockey is extremely random - anything can happen in a playoff series. Therefore, the more times you can roll the playoff dice, the more likely you are to win a cup. Rolling those dice is tremendously valuable.
A generational player with a 20-year career and solid durability is available to help his team in 18-20 postseasons. The player in the OP appears to be available to help their team in a little over 1/3 of those playoff runs (7 out of 20). So you've got 7 (maybe 8?) postseasons where this player is presumably great, and 12-13 postseasons where they are worth precisely nothing. What does that average out to?
So yeah, putting this player anywhere near the Gretzky tier is objectively incorrect (as is the case with Bobby Orr).
Virtually everyone in this poll is getting it wrong IMO.
Last edited:
- Feb 10, 2010
- 14,653
- 11,762
I agree that factoring in the scoring environment moves the needle here.
Did this happen in the 1980s or the 2010s? -It's a very different achievement.
Did this happen in the 1980s or the 2010s? -It's a very different achievement.
Last edited:
What’s the league Avg GPG during his time? Kind of very important
WalterLundy
Registered User
I edited the original. This “player” was made of the gap between Gretzky and Lemieux. That’s the reason some of it doesn’t make sense. Adding in
2 regular season goal leads, 13 regular season assist leads, 4 playoff point scoring leads, 5 playoff assist leads would have made it even more bizarre and obviously not work given the games played.
Was always curious to see what this looked like on paper but never got around to it. Should have put this in initially.
2 regular season goal leads, 13 regular season assist leads, 4 playoff point scoring leads, 5 playoff assist leads would have made it even more bizarre and obviously not work given the games played.
Was always curious to see what this looked like on paper but never got around to it. Should have put this in initially.
Last edited:
Weird results sometimes. Gretzky won the Art Ross (by miles) and Hart 8 years in a row (well....not Art Ross 1 of those years on technicality....tied for lead as rookie)....but in those 8 years, he only won Lindsay/Pearson 5 times.
Sometimes there are headscratchers. For example. In 1980-81 Gretzky won the Hart and won scoring title by 30pts, but Mike Liut won the Pearson. Liut didn't win Vezina though, he was 13th in GAA, 8th in SV%, 4th in GP, 2nd in wins....kind of bizzare for him to win Pearson.
In 1985-86, Gretzky won the scoring title by 74pts, won the Hart, but not Pearson...that went to Lemieux....probably because he was a new guy, fresh face, 2nd year and he outscored his teammates so much. You could look at Gretzky winning Hart in 1988-89 over Lemieux as weird as well.....then Yzerman winning Pearson that year...again, perhaps people looking for fresh faces
Golden_Jet
Registered User
- Sep 21, 2005
- 28,146
- 15,024
