Is there really a case for Lemieux as the GOAT?
- Thread starter Professor What
- Start date
-
HF Sportsbook has been reset for the new season - Click here to play.
Video Nasty
Registered User
- Mar 12, 2017
- 5,602
- 9,780
His case relies heavily on “what if he did what Gretzky did 10-12 times?”
To me, that automatically disqualifies him from contention.
To me, that automatically disqualifies him from contention.
norrisnick
The best...
- Apr 14, 2005
- 31,122
- 16,447
Yeah, to many ifs with Lemieux, or Orr for that matter, to bump him up over the 1 and 2 (Gretzky and Howe) that actually did it.
DitchMarner
TheGlitchintheSwitch
I think the most common argument is that he is most physically gifted and talented player in League history and that he would have the best career if not for health problems.
Not that I necessarily agree with any of those opinions, but that's basically the case for him as the GOAT of hockey.
Not that I necessarily agree with any of those opinions, but that's basically the case for him as the GOAT of hockey.
DitchMarner
TheGlitchintheSwitch
I'd like to add that to me it seems that perhaps his case falls apart logically when certain factors are considered:
1. What if he and Orr had both had fully healthy careers? Would Lemieux's definitely be better? Furthermore, is it a given that he was more talented and/or dominant relative to the other top players in the game when he played than Orr was during his time?
2. If you want to make the argument, 'Lemieux played in a better, more evolved, more competitive League," then can't you argue that a current player should be considered better and/or more talented in a technical sense (ie Crosby or McDavid)?
1. What if he and Orr had both had fully healthy careers? Would Lemieux's definitely be better? Furthermore, is it a given that he was more talented and/or dominant relative to the other top players in the game when he played than Orr was during his time?
2. If you want to make the argument, 'Lemieux played in a better, more evolved, more competitive League," then can't you argue that a current player should be considered better and/or more talented in a technical sense (ie Crosby or McDavid)?
In a nutshell the argument for Mario being the GOAT of all time ultimately fails for the above reason and others.
Orr even after his injuries and sure it's a small sample but he still tilted the ice 5 on 5 for the Black Hawks, Mario much less so than any of the other in the Big 4.
For #1? Don't think so. #2 is the highest.
1. You can argue him over Howe if you prefer peak to longevity (I personally do so)
2. You can argue him over Orr by looking at overall offense, Forward vs D and era (they have similar longevity'ish). This one is a bit harder, but defenseman and forwards are apples to oranges, so you can get there too.
The problem is Gretzky. Gretzky and Lemieux is very much apples to apples. Two offense first forwards, both centers, both played in similar era (few years apart) - and Gretzky simply accomplished so much more, peak, prime, career, playoffs, etc.
Goals? Gretzky has mopre
Playoffs? Gretzky did better, and despite only 2 smtyhes, could have had 4 or 5 easy
Regular season? Gretzky did 200 points multiple times, Lemieux only hit 199 once
# of elite seasons? Gretzky
etc
There's no way to argue Lemieux over Gretzky all-time, unless you're extremely biased and not objective.
Some might still argue Lemieux peaked slightly higher - but Gretzky's extreme advantage in quantity would counter that tiny advantage of peak Lemieux.
Some might argue Lemieux was more talented, and could have done even better if....but that's a hypothetical - and we don't rank all-time based on hypotheticals.
I have Lemieux #3 behind Orr - I've had him as high as #2, certainly see the case for him at #4 too - but #1, I just don't see it.
1. You can argue him over Howe if you prefer peak to longevity (I personally do so)
2. You can argue him over Orr by looking at overall offense, Forward vs D and era (they have similar longevity'ish). This one is a bit harder, but defenseman and forwards are apples to oranges, so you can get there too.
The problem is Gretzky. Gretzky and Lemieux is very much apples to apples. Two offense first forwards, both centers, both played in similar era (few years apart) - and Gretzky simply accomplished so much more, peak, prime, career, playoffs, etc.
Goals? Gretzky has mopre
Playoffs? Gretzky did better, and despite only 2 smtyhes, could have had 4 or 5 easy
Regular season? Gretzky did 200 points multiple times, Lemieux only hit 199 once
# of elite seasons? Gretzky
etc
There's no way to argue Lemieux over Gretzky all-time, unless you're extremely biased and not objective.
Some might still argue Lemieux peaked slightly higher - but Gretzky's extreme advantage in quantity would counter that tiny advantage of peak Lemieux.
Some might argue Lemieux was more talented, and could have done even better if....but that's a hypothetical - and we don't rank all-time based on hypotheticals.
I have Lemieux #3 behind Orr - I've had him as high as #2, certainly see the case for him at #4 too - but #1, I just don't see it.
quietbruinfan
Salt and light
Bingo. I have him as #3: THe list is Gretzky, Orr, Lemieux, Howe. But given his health, you could place him at 2. The other argument for him is hearsay, but I think Orr thinks of Mario as the most talented. He was explaining Mario stickhandling through own feet one night he explained the move, just shook his head and smiled and said "that move was very difficult." Perhaps Orr was just showing typical modesty.
Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
I don't subscribe to it necessarily, but you kind of answered your own question here.
If you really, really rate talent highly in your recipe and are really good at evaluating talent, it's not hard to have Lemieux at 1. Again, that's not for me, because I still have to respect the limitations that existed on his career achievements.
Bobby Orr in 1970 is the greatest player I've ever seen...but Bobby Orr 1970 didn't play for 12 years. Other Bobby Orrs combined to play for like a week and a half....if 1970 Orr played for 12 years, I'd have him #1.
MadLuke
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2011
- 10,641
- 6,154
He has case for best, most talented, i.e. but greatness will tend to come from legendary actual accomplishment.
Some non Gretzky players have GOAT arguments, Hasek, Orr, Howe, Euros-Soviet player that did not had the chance to proove themselve they could have done what Gretzky did.
Lemieux was maybe greater than all of them but has an offensive forward in the similar era that did less he gets disqualified much easier. Unlike Hasek-Howe-Orr it would be harder to find something Lemieux did that Gretkzy didn't do just has well but longer and-or better.
Some non Gretzky players have GOAT arguments, Hasek, Orr, Howe, Euros-Soviet player that did not had the chance to proove themselve they could have done what Gretzky did.
Lemieux was maybe greater than all of them but has an offensive forward in the similar era that did less he gets disqualified much easier. Unlike Hasek-Howe-Orr it would be harder to find something Lemieux did that Gretkzy didn't do just has well but longer and-or better.
Staniowski
Registered User
If comparing him to Howe, Orr, and Gretzky...
Howe is the easiest argument....even though Howe is a much more complete player than Lemieux (or Gretzky), and there would certainly be lots of situations where Howe would be better suited, Lemieux was a much better scorer than Howe....both a more elite goal-scorer and playmaker. If they started their careers at the same time, it's unlikely Howe would ever come close to scoring as much as Lemieux in any season where Lemieux was healthy.
Gretzky....we probably never saw Lemieux at his best, which probably would've happened in that '90 to '94 or so period without the back injuries. Nevertheless, there's an argument that Lemieux was better overall at his best than Gretzky was. Gretzky has his advantages, but Lemieux is probably the best goal-scorer ever and the 2nd-best playmaker ever....I also think Lemieux is a bit better suited to best-on-best play, even though we only really saw Lemieux once (in '87). And Lemieux's game is, overall, perhaps a little more adaptable than Gretzky's. Lemieux might have been able to win 15 scoring titles with relatively good health.
I think versus Orr is the most difficult argument. Nobody else matches up to Lemieux as strongly in so many areas. Orr was a better skater, more intense, more savvy, and much better defensively. And Orr was great offensively too, even though Lemieux would easily outscore him. They were both great with the puck.
Howe is the easiest argument....even though Howe is a much more complete player than Lemieux (or Gretzky), and there would certainly be lots of situations where Howe would be better suited, Lemieux was a much better scorer than Howe....both a more elite goal-scorer and playmaker. If they started their careers at the same time, it's unlikely Howe would ever come close to scoring as much as Lemieux in any season where Lemieux was healthy.
Gretzky....we probably never saw Lemieux at his best, which probably would've happened in that '90 to '94 or so period without the back injuries. Nevertheless, there's an argument that Lemieux was better overall at his best than Gretzky was. Gretzky has his advantages, but Lemieux is probably the best goal-scorer ever and the 2nd-best playmaker ever....I also think Lemieux is a bit better suited to best-on-best play, even though we only really saw Lemieux once (in '87). And Lemieux's game is, overall, perhaps a little more adaptable than Gretzky's. Lemieux might have been able to win 15 scoring titles with relatively good health.
I think versus Orr is the most difficult argument. Nobody else matches up to Lemieux as strongly in so many areas. Orr was a better skater, more intense, more savvy, and much better defensively. And Orr was great offensively too, even though Lemieux would easily outscore him. They were both great with the puck.
Last edited:
GMR
Registered User
In terms of peak he probably was. That 95/96 season was likely the historical peak of competitive hockey. Just look at the top10 in points that year. All legends.
Orr's and Gretzky's best years were in the expansion era when the NHL wasn't anywhere close to what it eventually became.
Orr's and Gretzky's best years were in the expansion era when the NHL wasn't anywhere close to what it eventually became.
Nick Hansen
Registered User
- Sep 28, 2017
- 3,140
- 2,678
To me he is the most visually talented player of all time, closely followed by Orr. It is just ridiculous what he could pull off while being that huge. It's like something you create in that player creator thingy in the NHL games (if that still exists?). More or less the biggest guy in hockey while also being the most skilled one... how often has that happened in any sport ever?
I think that is where the case is but unfortunately luck/history would have it that he (and Orr) just missed a lot of time.
I think that is where the case is but unfortunately luck/history would have it that he (and Orr) just missed a lot of time.
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
- Jan 16, 2005
- 9,430
- 15,574
Semi-off topic - I've seen several people argue over the past few months that Lemieux never won anything unless he was on a team with seven other Hall of Fame players. Literally true, but completely misleading.
For one thing, there was a lot of turnover on the team. Recchi was there in 1991 only. Coffey was there in 1991 only (and missed half that playoff run). Mullen was there both years, but missed more than 30% of the games. That works out to about 5.5 HOF'ers on average. Still a lot, of course, but it's not like he was playing with seven HOF'ers each game (I count eight such games, out of 45).
More importantly, whether a player makes the Hall of Fame is based on their overall career. Just because someone is in the Hall, it doesn't mean they were a great player at a specific point in time. Bryan Trottier is in the Hall because he was (arguably) the NHL's best player after Gretzky for a span of about five years. Yes he provided the Pens some veteran leadership, but he was 34/35 years old (ancient in the early 90's) and, at that point, was merely an adequate 4th line centre. Joe Mullen (in addition to missing 30% of their games), scored under 0.70 PPG (nothing special for the high-scoring early 1990's). Jaromir Jagr, of course, would go on to become one of the greatest forwards in NHL history (maybe even the 2nd best RW). He was good in 1992, but in 1991 he wasn't close to playing at a HOF level (he got some assists but he finished the playoffs with one goal in his last 18 games).
Lemieux's "7 Hall of Fame teammates" is really like 5.5 HOF'ers, on average. Trottier wasn't close to playing at a HOF level in either year, neither was Mullen, and Jagr wasn't close to playing at a HOF level in 1991.
Basically we're left with Larry Murphy (a good player, but he's in the Hall more for his longevity rather than a great peak), Ron Francis (a great player - but also one who's career value is much higher than his peak value), 12 games of Paul Coffey, and one good run each for Jagr and Recchi. It's still a strong supporting cast, of course, just that it's not nearly as strong as some people make it seem.
(Ironically, you can argue that Lemieux's two best teammates - based on their actual level of performance at the time - were Tom Barrasso and Kevin Stevens, neither of whom is in the Hall, so they get excluded from this type of discussion).
For one thing, there was a lot of turnover on the team. Recchi was there in 1991 only. Coffey was there in 1991 only (and missed half that playoff run). Mullen was there both years, but missed more than 30% of the games. That works out to about 5.5 HOF'ers on average. Still a lot, of course, but it's not like he was playing with seven HOF'ers each game (I count eight such games, out of 45).
More importantly, whether a player makes the Hall of Fame is based on their overall career. Just because someone is in the Hall, it doesn't mean they were a great player at a specific point in time. Bryan Trottier is in the Hall because he was (arguably) the NHL's best player after Gretzky for a span of about five years. Yes he provided the Pens some veteran leadership, but he was 34/35 years old (ancient in the early 90's) and, at that point, was merely an adequate 4th line centre. Joe Mullen (in addition to missing 30% of their games), scored under 0.70 PPG (nothing special for the high-scoring early 1990's). Jaromir Jagr, of course, would go on to become one of the greatest forwards in NHL history (maybe even the 2nd best RW). He was good in 1992, but in 1991 he wasn't close to playing at a HOF level (he got some assists but he finished the playoffs with one goal in his last 18 games).
Lemieux's "7 Hall of Fame teammates" is really like 5.5 HOF'ers, on average. Trottier wasn't close to playing at a HOF level in either year, neither was Mullen, and Jagr wasn't close to playing at a HOF level in 1991.
Basically we're left with Larry Murphy (a good player, but he's in the Hall more for his longevity rather than a great peak), Ron Francis (a great player - but also one who's career value is much higher than his peak value), 12 games of Paul Coffey, and one good run each for Jagr and Recchi. It's still a strong supporting cast, of course, just that it's not nearly as strong as some people make it seem.
(Ironically, you can argue that Lemieux's two best teammates - based on their actual level of performance at the time - were Tom Barrasso and Kevin Stevens, neither of whom is in the Hall, so they get excluded from this type of discussion).
Last edited:
dr robbie
Let's Go Pens!
I've been a Lemieux fan since day 1 and I have always acknowledged that Gretzky is and should be ranked higher. If you remove all of the question marks from his career, he MAY have been as good as Gretzky, but Gretzky actually did it.
I personally see Gretzky and Lemieux as very similar in terms of talent level. Gretzky's career is what it looks like when all of the stars align where he came into the league at the perfect time, got the perfect teammates, and was relatively healthy throughout his career. Lemieux is the similar talent, but goes through the path burdened with adversities, health issues, and everything else.
I personally see Gretzky and Lemieux as very similar in terms of talent level. Gretzky's career is what it looks like when all of the stars align where he came into the league at the perfect time, got the perfect teammates, and was relatively healthy throughout his career. Lemieux is the similar talent, but goes through the path burdened with adversities, health issues, and everything else.
No.
You cannot deny what Gretzky actually did, as compared to what Mario 'might' have done if he'd been healthy.
He's the greatest GOAT in all of professional sports.
You cannot deny what Gretzky actually did, as compared to what Mario 'might' have done if he'd been healthy.
He's the greatest GOAT in all of professional sports.
Name another sport with a clear and obviously GOAT like The Great One?That is a rather bold statement.
Professor What
Registered User
The minority shouldn't effect the overall stats that show that no player has dominated the sport as much, for as long, as Wayne Gretzky.
Which again, brings me back to my original post, which is no player has dominated their sport for such a length of time as Wayne did in hockey.
In what way is Messi the clearer GOAT?
His stats are far and above greater than anyone elses?
He has never won the single greatest trophy in his own sport.....
He JUST won his first major trophy while playing for his country....
C'mon now, that is just absurd.
Ad
Upcoming events
-
Florida Panthers vs Dallas Stars - Nokia Arena, Tampere, FinlandWagers: 3Staked: $415.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
-
-