Is there really a case for Lemieux as the GOAT?

[Eco]

Gretzky never won the Olympics either. Messi won the greatest club trophy the "Champions League" 4 times. And yes his stats are far and above everyone else's, especially once we start taking assists into consideration.

Olympics isn't the greatest trophy in hockey though, and in fact, even when NHL players 'could' play in it, a lot opted out because in the world of hockey, the Stanley Cup is King.

Now, in Soccer, that is clearly the World Cup, which Messi hasn't won. Their local Copa America, he JUST won for the first time and he's 35.

So you say his stats are far and wide better?

In Goals he is behind CR7, so again, he isn't 'far and above' everyone else.

Yes, he is the king of assists, and an incredible player, but he never won the biggest trophy in the sport, and doesn't have the most goals.

He might be the GOAT, but he definitely isn't so far ahead that there is absolutely not debate whatsoever.

 

[Professor What]

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.

The majority aren't as educated on the sport's history as the population of this board either. And raw stats are about as misleading as anything. Without context, there's no way to translate across eras, which is something we do here often, and by necessity because of what we discuss.

Anyway, point is, trying to say that there's no argument for anyone but Gretzky simply isn't true. The question is, is Lemieux among the group for which there is an argument?

 

[Eco]

The majority aren't as educated on the sport's history as the population of this board either. And raw stats are about as misleading as anything. Without context, there's no way to translate across eras, which is something we do here often, and by necessity because of what we discuss.

Anyway, point is, trying to say that there's no argument for anyone but Gretzky simply isn't true. The question is, is Lemieux among the group for which there is an argument?

I'll say this because I do think you bring up a very valid point.

I historically hate rating players from vastly different eras (Rocket vs Gretzky, Plante vs Roy), but also I hate comparing players that I never actually witnessed, because I think the game evolves so much, that you really have to understand the game in that time to get a feel for just how good a player is.

I got to see both Mario and Wayne, although it was the end of Wayne's career and I was young. But I still don't think Mario is on Wayne level just because of the injuries and the lack on longevity. To me, that means something.

 

[Overrated]

Olympics isn't the greatest trophy in hockey though, and in fact, even when NHL players 'could' play in it, a lot opted out because in the world of hockey, the Stanley Cup is King.

Now, in Soccer, that is clearly the World Cup, which Messi hasn't won. Their local Copa America, he JUST won for the first time and he's 35.

There have been many players who won more cups than Gretzky. The World Cup means nothing. It's also a super random BO1 tournament which takes place every 4 years. It's not like you're playing 7 games or anything. You're also playing with a quickly assembled team with players from many different leagues. It's just very sentimental to win it for your own nation. Also if you're not from a country big on the football map you have pretty much 0% chance of winning it. It's a purely an emotional trophy. Champions League is the greatest trophy every great player competes for every year.

So you say his stats are far and wide better?

In Goals he is behind CR7, so again, he isn't 'far and above' everyone else.

Yes, he is the king of assists, and an incredible player, but he never won the biggest trophy in the sport, and doesn't have the most goals.

Messi has the higher GPG though. Cristiano is older and has played more games. That is like saying T.J. Oshie is better than McDavid because he has scored more goals.

He might be the GOAT, but he definitely isn't so far ahead that there is absolutely not debate whatsoever.

I don't wanna derail the post with way too many pics but it's needed to illustrate the point:

Scoring:

Passing:

Dribbling:

There is also a man of the match award after every game. This is the list since 2009 (the season CR7 joined La Liga)

and a random trivia about the one tournament you mentioned

Pele was the first superstar but he played in a completely non competitive era and his stats were still worse. Maradona is mostly famous for his life story and his against all the odds accomplishments. He is the Muhammed Ali of soccer. He also became a washed up drug addict by 30. Ronaldo Fenomeno is probably the closest but had crazy injuries early on in his career and by his late 20s he was a fatass who himself admitted only trained when he had to. CR7 is entirely a manufactured rival by Real Madrid in order to make money. He was never even close. So yeah it actually is that clear.

 

[Eco]

There have been many players who won more cups than Gretzky. The World Cup means nothing. It's also a super random BO1 tournament which takes place every 4 years. It's not like you're playing 7 games or anything. You're also playing with a quickly assembled team with players from many different leagues. It's just very sentimental to win it for your own nation. Also if you're not from a country big on the football map you have pretty much 0% chance of winning it. It's a purely an emotional trophy. Champions League is the greatest trophy every great player competes for every year.


Messi has the higher GPG though. Cristiano is older and has played more games. That is like saying T.J. Oshie is better than McDavid because he has scored more goals.


I don't wanna derail the post with way too many pics but it's needed to illustrate the point:

Scoring:

Passing:

Dribbling:

There is also a man of the match award after every game. This is the list since 2009 (the season CR7 joined La Liga)

and a random trivia about the one tournament you mentioned

Pele was the first superstar but he played in a completely non competitive era and his stats were still worse. Maradona is mostly famous for his life story and his against all the odds accomplishments. He is the Muhammed Ali of soccer. He also became a washed up drug addict by 30. Ronaldo Fenomeno is probably the closest but had crazy injuries early on in his career and by his late 20s he was a fatass who himself admitted only trained when he had to. CR7 is entirely a manufactured rival by Real Madrid in order to make money. He was never even close. So yeah it actually is that clear.

I'll be honest, I quit reading when you said the 'World Cup means nothing'.

In soccer, the World Cup is everything.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Can you remind me again why we're arguing about two non hockey players in a thread about hockey?

 

[Overrated]

I'll be honest, I quit reading when you said the 'World Cup means nothing'.

In soccer, the World Cup is everything.

You read the whole thing but you realized your entire argument got trashed to the point where you couldn't comeback in any way whatsoever. A pretty weak cop out tbh.

 

[Eco]

You read the whole thing but you realized your entire argument got trashed to the point where you couldn't comeback in any way whatsoever. A pretty weak cop out tbh.

Ha, I replied right after you posted it.

Not 5 minutes, not 10 minutes, but right after.

But sure, you tell yourself that the World Cup doesn't matter. In fact, I bet you think the Super Bowl and Stanley Cup don't matter.

Can you remind me again why we're arguing about two non hockey players in a thread about hockey?

@Overrated started talking Messi in a hockey thread so...

 

[tabness]

It can be as simple as just watching Lemieux play and thinking to yourself "man this guy seems like as perfect of a hockey player as I've seen so far"

Accomplishments like awards and stats depend quite a bit on external factors, and there is always the incommensurability of comparing between different years/contexts and so at least for some like me, they just don't matter much at all.

Then again, someone like Gretzky has a cultural factor that isn't just a matter of how good the player is, same thing with Howe I guess.

In any case, I've always felt that people take ranking players way too seriously to begin with.

 

[BenchBrawl]

His only case is the eye-test. He had the most complete/talented arsenal of offensive weapons; puck control, dangling, shot power/accuracy/variety, breakaways, playmaking & passing accuracy, unpredictability, creating space, catching passes, unlimited selection of moves, etc.

Even Gretzky and Orr didn't have that many weapons offensively.

Though, having those weapons doesn't necessarily mean he was the greatest player, but some people may think so.

 

[tarheelhockey]

It can be as simple as just watching Lemieux play and thinking to yourself "man this guy seems like as perfect of a hockey player as I've seen so far"

His only case is the eye-test.

Came here to say more or less the same.

Lemieux’s case is mainly aesthetic. Watching the guy play, even in retrospect, I couldn’t imagine anyone else doing the things he did. Sometimes it really did feel like he was on another plane than the opponents, which is sometime people also said about Bobby Orr.

It’s almost a “you had to be there and see it for yourself” kind of thing. It’s really hard to quantify the experience of watching someone casually toying with the best players in the world.

 

[jimmysheva]

Do Messi and Ronaldo have a case against Pele and Maradona who actually have won the World Cup? Maradona also took a nothing team like Napoli to two Italian championship and a UEFA cup while Messi and Ronaldo played for powerhouse teams most of their career.

 

[The Panther]

There is no case for Lemieux as the greatest of all time, no.

Mario was probably the best individual physical specimen of a hockey player that combined uber-elite skill, speed, size, and IQ. However, hockey is not played by individuals.

The best player of all time is the one who elevates his teammates the most while also distancing himself from competition by the highest of degrees, and does it consistently for many years in a row.

As far as the 'Big Four' go, I would probably rate them like this:

PEAK
1) Gretzky 1981 to 1986
2) Orr 1969 to 1972
3) Lemieux 1987 to 1993
4) Howe 1950 to 1954

PRIME
1) Gretzky 1979 to 1991
2) Orr 1968 to 1975
3A) Lemieux 1985 to 1996
3B) Howe 1949 to 1969

CONSISTENCY DURING PRIME YEARS
1) Gretzky
2) Orr
3) Howe
4) Lemieux

LENGTH OF PRIME YEARS
1) Howe
2A) Gretzky
2B) Lemieux
4) Orr

POSITIVE IMPACT ON TEAMMATES
1) Gretzky
2) Orr
3A) Howe
3B) Lemieux

If you were to look at the "winning" results here (more of a team accomplishment), I think Gretzky would have to win again, with four Cups (six Finals), all as leading scorer, and three Canada Cups, all as leading scorer. I guess Howe would be second, with Orr and Lemieux tied for third?

Anyway, the one stain on Gretzky's rule here is his October 1991 to April 1999 career, which is largely unimportant to his legacy (would have been different if not for McSorley's illegal stick). He played about 7.5 years past his prime, which is far longer than Howe (2 years maybe, before 1971 retirement), Orr (pretty much retired still in prime), Lemieux (several years after prime, but only about three-four seasons worth of play) did.

I also think Lemieux is the #1 goal-scorer in hockey history, with apologies to Ovechkin.

Lemieux’s case is mainly aesthetic. Watching the guy play, even in retrospect, I couldn’t imagine anyone else doing the things he did. Sometimes it really did feel like he was on another plane than the opponents, which is sometime people also said about Bobby Orr.

It’s almost a “you had to be there and see it for yourself” kind of thing. It’s really hard to quantify the experience of watching someone casually toying with the best players in the world.

This is true, but how many games were there in Mario's prime where he was "casually toying with the best players in the world" vs. games where he wasn't a big factor? That is, which of these guys showed up and made a difference the most games out of the season, year after year?

 

[DFC]

Most talented/skilled player I ever saw, but didnt have the best career of all. Would have had a case if he had been healthier in the 90s. His mid-to-late 30s strengthen that case.

What he did in his comeback was frankly unbelievable. Entirely different era and for a couple of seasons he was still a tier above the next best guy.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Came here to say more or less the same.

Lemieux’s case is mainly aesthetic. Watching the guy play, even in retrospect, I couldn’t imagine anyone else doing the things he did. Sometimes it really did feel like he was on another plane than the opponents, which is sometime people also said about Bobby Orr.

It’s almost a “you had to be there and see it for yourself” kind of thing. It’s really hard to quantify the experience of watching someone casually toying with the best players in the world.

begs the inevitable question about why people largely concede that mario is (visually) the greatest ever.

is it just that there's so much more video of mario than there is of orr? because i saw most of mario's career and i never thought he looked (visually) greater than orr.

when i was a kid, it was basically gospel that orr was the (visually) greatest player we'd ever see. but he retired before i was born and looking back i acknowledge that i only saw the video of him that someone thought was worth saving and re-airing over and over. whereas i saw mario in real time. i saw full games. i watched him play dogshit defence, i watched him coast, i watched get frustrated and whine and pout and stop trying. of course i also saw him dominating top competition like he was an NHLer playing against a bunch of third graders.

but i wonder whether a lot of mario supporters now never saw him in real time. and if you only see his highlights or best games well of course he seems like the perfect hockey player.

 

[tarheelhockey]

This is true, but how many games were there in Mario's prime where he was "casually toying with the best players in the world" vs. games where he wasn't a big factor? That is, which of these guys showed up and made a difference the most games out of the season, year after year?

All I know is, it felt like every time I saw the guy play healthy, he did something that I couldn’t imagine anyone else doing. There’s something special about knowing that a player is going to do it, kind of like when you see Ovechkin set up on the PP and you know he’s going to score even though everyone sees the shot coming, or when you know Hasek isn’t letting in any more goals halfway through a game. Mario was like that but with dekes and dangles, it was pretty much a sure thing he would do something before the end of the night that would make the fans stand up… even if the puck didn’t necessarily end up in the net.

But if I want to tear Mario down, I start with the amount of “quit” in his game. He was a soft player compared to the rugged/violent league he played in. Stars like Gretzky and Crosby get a lot of disdain for being whiners, but in Mario’s case it was true. He was petulant, and that led to a lot of times where it seemed his heart wasn’t in it. So yeah, you end up with him making some fancy dangles but not playing with the kind of fire that leads teams and wins games. Very different from a Howe or Orr. Maybe not quite so different than Gretzky, which is part of why that debate was able to run so hot for such a long time.

 

[tarheelhockey]

begs the inevitable question about why people largely concede that mario is (visually) the greatest ever.

is it just that there's so much more video of mario than there is of orr? because i saw most of mario's career and i never thought he looked (visually) greater than orr.

when i was a kid, it was basically gospel that orr was the (visually) greatest player we'd ever see. but he retired before i was born and looking back i acknowledge that i only saw the video of him that someone thought was worth saving and re-airing over and over. whereas i saw mario in real time. i saw full games. i watched him play dogshit defence, i watched him coast, i watched get frustrated and whine and pout and stop trying. of course i also saw him dominating top competition like he was an NHLer playing against a bunch of third graders.

but i wonder whether a lot of mario supporters now never saw him in real time. and if you only see his highlights or best games well of course he seems like the perfect hockey player.

I’m sure the amount of national broadcasts had a lot to do with it. Mario’s peak coincided with the ESPN era where you had the Pens all over National Hockey Night and ESPN2, and top billing on FOX all through the season and playoffs. There were just tons of opportunities to see him even if you lived anywhere in North America, which we can’t really say about the prime of any prior superstar.

 

[tabness]

However, hockey is not played by individuals.

The best player of all time is the one who elevates his teammates the most

This is a great point that I had to split apart from the rest of your point (sorry just not really with distancing from competition being very meaningful because of incommensurability with other distancing from competion lol).

I remember Bernie Nicholls talking about just the shot of confidence that Gretzky joining the Kings had on the team in general, and him in particular, beyond just playing with him directly (same Bernie who had publicly called Gretzky a slur earlier in his career). A guy like Mark Messier probably doesn't become nearly as good as he was without the presence of Gretzky. Steve Smith's own goal is just the kind of thing that can destroy a young player's confidence, but Gretzky gave him the cup first the next year, and Smith went off to be a very good defensemen (underrated nowadays). Not to say Lemieux didn't have this same sort of presence on his team and teammates (so Jagr probably owes a lot of how great he was to Lemieux), but it just seems even more with Gretzky, as much as that is worth from a complete outsider perspective lol

I also get the knocks on Mario for being a "quitter" or "floater" and so on, though I think it was also due to just a matter of being publicized a bit more (so for example I've looked up Gordie Howe's career in some depth, you can definitely find some similar sentiments at times in the Detroit papers with a guy like Howe).

 

[The Panther]

I'm kind of on the fence with the "Lemieux-as-whiner" thing. Mario said some dumb stuff around 1984-85 ("the Penguins don't want me badly enough"; "They told me I don't have to play defence", etc.), but I ascribe that to (a) French-Canadian awkwardness with the language, and (b) the Pens' incompetent team management / team planning in those early years with Mario. In other words, I don't blame him.

And later in his career, when Mario said those things about it being a "garbage league" and so on... I think he was right! Nailed it.

The one really poor faux pas on Mario was when someone shoved a microphone in his face after the 1989 NHL awards and he said "Every year they give the Hart to the guy with the most points" and "Nothing in this league makes sense", etc. That was kind of poor form. He should have known better after 5 years in the League than to say stuff like that.

Gretzky was quite a good whiner his first few years in the NHL, but only on the ice.

 

[Video Nasty]

Same people who go gaga over the short careers of Mario and Orr would go absolutely bananas in an alternate reality where Gretzky retired after his Edmonton years.

We see it in other areas of life, particularly when someone talented dies young. When you only have people in their prime like Marilyn Monroe, James Dean, Cobain, Tupac, Biggie, and the many who died before we saw them become a shell of their former selves, they get heavily romanticized as if they would stay that way forever (it’s unrealistic to think this and immature to think less of them when they do; we all fade out in time).

It’s not different with athletes, whether it’s dying young, being injury plagued when young, and being forced to retire. If you don’t see them in the twilight of their career, the average person thinks they’re invincible forever.

Mario was special and he’s my second favorite hockey player. But it’s disturbing how much people live in fairy tale what if land with some of these players.

 

[tabness]

Same people who go gaga over the short careers of Mario and Orr would go absolutely bananas in an alternate reality where Gretzky retired after his Edmonton years.

We see it in other areas of life, particularly when someone talented dies young. When you only have people in their prime like Marilyn Monroe, James Dean, Cobain, Tupac, Biggie, and the many who died before we saw them become a shell of their former selves, they get heavily romanticized as if they would stay that way forever (it’s unrealistic to think this and immature to think less of them when they do; we all fade out in time).

It’s not different with athletes, whether it’s dying young, being injury plagued when young, and being forced to retire. If you don’t see them in the twilight of their career, the average person thinks they’re invincible forever.

Mario was special and he’s my second favorite hockey player. But it’s disturbing how much people live in fairy tale what if land with some of these players.

I think you're mostly just arguing with yourself here man, or memories of previous interlocutors maybe? Has anyone even bought a "what if" here lol?

 

[Video Nasty]

I think you're mostly just arguing with yourself here man, or memories of previous interlocutors maybe? Has anyone even bought a "what if" here lol?

You’re telling me that after a few Pumpkin Ales, I’m not even sure what subsection I’m posting in?

 

[The Panther]

Same people who go gaga over the short careers of Mario and Orr would go absolutely bananas in an alternate reality where Gretzky retired after his Edmonton years.

We see it in other areas of life, particularly when someone talented dies young. When you only have people in their prime like Marilyn Monroe, James Dean, Tupac, Biggie, and the many who died before we saw them become a shell of their former selves, they get heavily romanticized.

It’s not different with athletes.

I would go more bananas if Wayne had retired in 1991, after the Canada Cup (while we're at it, could Gary Suter not 'Suter' him in game two, and then he'd certainly have been series MVP again?).

These would be Gretzky's final career stats if he'd retired in early autumn 1991, aged 30:

NHL regular season:
925GP: 718G + 1424A = 2,142 PTS (+606) (2.32 PPG) (1,485 non-PP PTS)
Per 80 games (over 12 years), that's: 62G + 123A = 185PTS (+52)

NHL playoffs:
150GP: 93G + 206A = 299 PTS (+81) (1.99 PPG) (207 non-PP PTS)
Per 80 games (over 12 years), that's: 50G + 110A = 160PTS (+43)

Canada Cups (x 4):
31GP: 17G + 40A = 57 PTS
Three tournament victories, and leading scorer in all four.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Same people who go gaga over the short careers of Mario and Orr would go absolutely bananas in an alternate reality where Gretzky retired after his Edmonton years.

We see it in other areas of life, particularly when someone talented dies young. When you only have people in their prime like Marilyn Monroe, James Dean, Cobain, Tupac, Biggie, and the many who died before we saw them become a shell of their former selves, they get heavily romanticized as if they would stay that way forever (it’s unrealistic to think this and immature to think less of them when they do; we all fade out in time).

It’s not different with athletes, whether it’s dying young, being injury plagued when young, and being forced to retire. If you don’t see them in the twilight of their career, the average person thinks they’re invincible forever.

Mario was special and he’s my second favorite hockey player. But it’s disturbing how much people live in fairy tale what if land with some of these players.

Normally I agree with you, but Orr truly is a different case.

Orr's last real season he was only 26 (he played 36 total games in 3 years after this). For reference, Auston Matthews is 25. Orr's career is like saying Matthews is retiring after next season.

His final season he won the Ross with 135 points, Pearson, Norris and was +80.

Again, by age 26 he had:

3x Hart
2x Ross
8x Norris
2x Cup
2x Smythe
Calder

 

[Michael Farkas]

Mario didn't elevate his teammates...? We don't need to drudge up the linemates he had in the 80s and their WOWY stats, right...? He was playing with non-NHL players in his athletic prime and still making a huge dent...