Is there really a case for Lemieux as the GOAT?

[tabness]

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.

For me, Gretzky's strongest statistical argument, is road even strength points. It's pretty shocking how well he does as compared to Lemieux.

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

Now, a rejoinder would be early/mid eighties vs later, and to be honest, I'm with that a myself, generally the early eighties looks like seventies hockey (not a compliment), the late eighties look closer to nineties hockey (the biggest compliment lol), and it was clear even at the time that by the late eighties the league had strengthened, as Gretzky's Hockey Scouting Report 1990-91 entry (after 1989-1990) calls out:

but then Gretzky even hangs well in this time period as compared to Lemieux...

Obviously special teams is important, home play is important, but home/road splits can tell you a lot about scoring when things are the least advantageous...

 

[bobholly39]

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...

Yeah I noticed that comment too and was about to post a similar response to yours....very very silly argument.

If you want to say "didn't elevate his teammates as much as Gretzky did" - fine, I agree. I'd probably have Gretzky #1 all time in that regards - but Lemieux isn't exactly very far behind.

 

[Conspiracy Theorist]

The big four can be argued in any order I think. If Gretzky had played on a bad team in his prime, I think it's possible he would be ranked 4th.

 

[Moose Head]

Even extrapolating to what could have been without injuries, I think Orr would have the better argument. Or even Gretzky if not for the back injuries in the early 90’s that slowed him down and cost him a shot at over 1000 goals, 2000 assists. Unfortunately of the big 4 only Howe had would could be called a healthy career.

 

[NordiquesForeva]

Personally I can't get him above Orr or Howe, let alone Gretzky. He's firmly and clearly at #4 for me though, with #5 (whoever that is - Beliveau, Hasek, Hull, Crosby, whoever) not particularly close to him.

 

[Voight]

The thing is, when he was healthy he hit 199 points. He was never able to match Gretzky.

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.

Babe Ruth comes close with his play from 1919 to 1931. No, he did not win as many awards, but he surpassed 10 fWAR nine times in that span and obviously won championships.

Jordan would probably match him if he hadn't taken a hiatus, his run from 87-98 is something else.

 

[Overrated]

The thing is, when he was healthy he hit 199 points. He was never able to match Gretzky.



Babe Ruth comes close with his play from 1919 to 1931. No, he did not win as many awards, but he surpassed 10 fWAR nine times in that span and obviously won championships.

Jordan would probably match him if he hadn't taken a hiatus, his run from 87-98 is something else.

His era adjusted PPG was higher though. He also played against better opposition.

 

[jigglysquishy]

His era adjusted PPG was higher though.

Did he?

In 1992-93, his PPG was 151% of 2nd place, 164% of 5th place, and 179% of 10th place.

In 1983-84, Gretzky's PPG was 156% of 2nd place, 170% of 5th place, and 201% of 10th place.

Assuming a full 80 games, the HF adjusted formula comes to

83-84 Gretzky - 176 points
88-89 Lemieux - 174 points
92-93 Lemieux - 172 points
85-86 Gretzky - 170 points

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Even extrapolating to what could have been without injuries, I think Orr would have the better argument. Or even Gretzky if not for the back injuries in the early 90’s that slowed him down and cost him a shot at over 1000 goals, 2000 assists. Unfortunately of the big 4 only Howe had would could be called a healthy career.

healthy is a huge understatement though. howe was so incredibly durable/resilient that he played for two careers worth

i mean if the goalpost for a healthy no what-ifs career is howe, then nobody has ever had a healthy career other than him and patrick marleau.

all to say, yes gretzky had a mid-career altering injury but at that pt he was due for one—it’s a contact sport. up to the suter cheapshot, he had played over 96% of his games over twelve seasons. that’s the entire hall of fame careers of steve shutt and jacques lemaire.

 

[Jaulie Poyce]

Coulda, woulda shoulda and the same goes for Orr.

Gretzky was the best and he proved it time and time again. Simply more consistent, managed to stay healthy and was always the best of the best. His resume speaks for itself.

 

[Dissonance Jr]

I usually say Gretzky > Lemieux in these debates, but to play devil’s advocate… if you wanted to make the case for Lemieux as a better player at his best, you could reasonably argue that the 1988-89 and 1989-90 seasons were the “fairest” side-by-side comparisons we ever got of the two. Gretzky wasn’t playing on an Oilers superteam anymore, Lemieux didn’t yet have his own Pittsburgh superteam, both players were in their prime and relatively healthy (until Lemieux’s back started breaking down in 1990) and surrounded by comparable supporting casts.

And Lemieux seemed pretty clearly the superior offensive player in those two seasons, by a fair margin.

Of course there are ways to quibble with this — Gretzky was older and had played a lot of hockey by that point so maybe he wasn’t “really” in his prime anymore, Lemieux had Coffey at that point who presumably had a big effect (it’s notable that in 1987-88, Gretzky still had a higher PPG than Lemieux even though Coffey had moved to Pittsburgh, though of course he still had a great Edmonton team around him whereas Lemieux had… Dan Quinn and Randy Cunneyworth).

I dunno, those two seasons are always the hardest for me to explain away. Maybe others can!

 

[jigglysquishy]

I don't think there was any gap between Lemieux and Gretzky in those two seasons.

1988-89
Lemieux - 102 EVP (107 EVP pace)
Gretzky - 100 EVP (103 EVP pace)

The total point gap can largely be explained with the Penguins have the most powerplays in the league, and 89 more than the Kings.

89-90
Lemieux - 71 EVP (96 EVP pace)
Gretzky - 96 EVP (105 EVP pace)

Gretzky was neck-and-neck at even strength with Lemieux right until the Suter hit.

 

[JackSlater]

You can make the case that he's the best player ever. If you're just comparing resumes he will never come close to getting past Gretzky and in terms of what most people consider "greatest" Gretzky will always be ahead. Maybe the most talented player ever, certainly one of the very best players ever at his best, not the best career ever by any stretch.

 

[tabness]

I don't think there was any gap between Lemieux and Gretzky in those two seasons.

1988-89
Lemieux - 102 EVP (107 EVP pace)
Gretzky - 100 EVP (103 EVP pace)

The total point gap can largely be explained with the Penguins have the most powerplays in the league, and 89 more than the Kings.

89-90
Lemieux - 71 EVP (96 EVP pace)
Gretzky - 96 EVP (105 EVP pace)

Gretzky was neck-and-neck at even strength with Lemieux right until the Suter hit.

Would have to be noted that Pittsburgh being a lot more on the powerplay would obviously cut into even strength time for Lemieux, though I think the general point still is there, Gretzky was real close at even strength.

 

[Dissonance Jr]

I don't think there was any gap between Lemieux and Gretzky in those two seasons.

1988-89
Lemieux - 102 EVP (107 EVP pace)
Gretzky - 100 EVP (103 EVP pace)

The total point gap can largely be explained with the Penguins have the most powerplays in the league, and 89 more than the Kings.

89-90
Lemieux - 71 EVP (96 EVP pace)
Gretzky - 96 EVP (105 EVP pace)

Gretzky was neck-and-neck at even strength with Lemieux right until the Suter hit.

That seems fair. Although one thing I wonder here is to what extent Lemieux’s teams got more power plays because Lemieux himself drew far more penalties. (Given their styles of play this doesn’t seem crazy but I’ve never seen it quantified and might be hard to do.)

 

[Overrated]

Did he?

In 1992-93, his PPG was 151% of 2nd place, 164% of 5th place, and 179% of 10th place.

In 1983-84, Gretzky's PPG was 156% of 2nd place, 170% of 5th place, and 201% of 10th place.

Assuming a full 80 games, the HF adjusted formula comes to

83-84 Gretzky - 176 points
88-89 Lemieux - 174 points
92-93 Lemieux - 172 points
85-86 Gretzky - 170 points

Wasn't his 95/96 season the highest in adjusted points per game? I couldn't find the numbers again. Nevertheless the league was a lot tougher in the early/mid 90s than in the early/mid 80s. Hockey as a sport was still growing like crazy throughout the 80s and the 90s also brought the Eastern Europeans into the league.

 

[Midnight Judges]

There is no case what-so-ever for Lemieux over Gretzky as the GOAT. It's 9 MVPs to 3. Gretzky has more career assists than Lemieux has points, and Gretzky is #1 in goals.

The best you can do is change the question into something completely different (and far less important) and ask if Lemieux's best season is better than Gretzky's best season. That is a case you can make.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Right. I get your whole schtick. But if Lemieux can put up the best season, then there's at least a claim that he was the best hockey player, and if he was the best hockey player, there's a claim that he's the greatest.

Again, not that I subscribe to that. But folks that are admitting this and then dismissing it because it doesn't fit into their criteria are not realizing how obvious the claim (and thread) is...

 

[Beau Knows]

Right. I get your whole schtick. But if Lemieux can put up the best season, then there's at least a claim that he was the best hockey player, and if he was the best hockey player, there's a claim that he's the greatest.

Again, not that I subscribe to that. But folks that are admitting this and then dismissing it because it doesn't fit into their criteria are not realizing how obvious the claim (and thread) is...

Agreed. Gretzky is the GOAT in my mind, but picking Lemieux for that reason isn't exactly insane.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Let's not kid ourselves, if Mario had a demonstrably higher peak he would be a common answer. As it stands now, you can maybe sort of argue he peaked higher than Gretzky, but it's close. And Gretzky has multiple seasons in peak form.

But if Lemieux doesn't get cancer in 93, and puts up something absurd like 110 goals 160 assists, then threepeating the Smythe, he'd be a much more common pick at 1. Even if his 94-06 career is identical. You could point to that season and say, Gretzky was never at that level. The gap in Harts and Art Rosses and longevity would still come up here, but the average casual fan would point to the peak.

He didn't do it. He wasn't at that level. But if we could all point to Lemieux peaking clearly higher than Gretzky all the other details behind background noise.

 

[Overrated]

Let's not kid ourselves, if Mario had a demonstrably higher peak he would be a common answer. As it stands now, you can maybe sort of argue he peaked higher than Gretzky, but it's close. And Gretzky has multiple seasons in peak form.

But if Lemieux doesn't get cancer in 93, and puts up something absurd like 110 goals 160 assists, then threepeating the Smythe, he'd be a much more common pick at 1. Even if his 94-06 career is identical. You could point to that season and say, Gretzky was never at that level. The gap in Harts and Art Rosses and longevity would still come up here, but the average casual fan would point to the peak.

He didn't do it. He wasn't at that level. But if we could all point to Lemieux peaking clearly higher than Gretzky all the other details behind background noise.

What about the facts that A) the early mid 90s, albeit still high in scoring, were lower in scoring than the early/mid 80s and B) the level of competition has increased by quite a bit?

You mentioned the 83/84 season and the top10. These were the guys

now the 95/96 season

that is a lot stiffer competition.

 

[MadLuke]

What about the facts that A) the early mid 90s, albeit still high in scoring, were lower in scoring than the early/mid 80s and B)

Was it lower scoring for the players on the first PP Units ? In 1984 you have an average of 4.2 PPO, 95-96 it was 5.04 the 5th most in the history of the league.

Has you see in that Top 10 remove Gretzky-Lemieux and it look quite similar, if we assume Jagr goes down to say 132 points and Coffey to 110 or something. the question being was Francis playing with Jagr not facing a team that focus specially on him and on that PP a big point producer than Stastny was, Forsberg than a 84 Bossy, or Kariya over Kurri, etc...

But just looking at the number, very similar scoring environment. If we look at what they did against just the Canadian players to take away a bit of the were the Fedorov-Selanne, Mogilny, Forsberg, Jagr bigger comp than Gretzky euro, adjusted PPG between season look like this.

players	season	Game played	Adjusted ppg
Wayne Gretzky	19831984	74	2.63
Wayne Gretzky	19851986	80	2.62
Mario Lemieux	19921993	60	2.58
Mario Lemieux	19881989	76	2.54
Mario Lemieux	19951996	70	2.5
Wayne Gretzky	19841985	80	2.48
Wayne Gretzky	19861987	79	2.46
Wayne Gretzky	19821983	80	2.45
Wayne Gretzky	19811982	80	2.4

Considering the game Lemieux missed in 95-96 were not completely random (but 2 night in a row type from memory), Gretzky and Lemieux peak were arguably over 95-96 Lemieux even just in pure production over league peers let alone overall play, which would make sense, has Lemieux did not get better by age 30 with weaker wingers than 92-93 or near peak physical shape of 89.

Looking at league wide scoring for a season that skew scoring on the league top players with such a special amounts of powerplays would be misleading, specially for what could be the best PP player of all time.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Was it lower scoring for the players on the first PP Units, in 1984 you have an average of 4.2 PPO, 95-96 it was 5.04 the 5th most in the history of the league.

Has you see in that Top 10 remove Gretzky-Lemieux and it look quite similar, if we assume Jagr goes down to say 132 points. the question being was Francis playing with Jagr not facing a team that focus specially on him and on that PP a big point producer than Stastny was, Forsberg than a 84 Bossy, or Kariya over Kurri, etc...

But just looking at the number, very similar scoring environment.

Agreed.

There seems to be a growing trend where folks are starting to view the early 90s as more like the dead puck era than they really were. The early 90s were still high flying offense, at worst a baby step below the early 80s. It's not some massive gap that requires adjusted stats like comparing early 2000s scoring to the early 80s

 

[Overrated]

Was it lower scoring for the players on the first PP Units ? In 1984 you have an average of 4.2 PPO, 95-96 it was 5.04 the 5th most in the history of the league.

Has you see in that Top 10 remove Gretzky-Lemieux and it look quite similar, if we assume Jagr goes down to say 132 points and Coffey to 110 or something. the question being was Francis playing with Jagr not facing a team that focus specially on him and on that PP a big point producer than Stastny was, Forsberg than a 84 Bossy, or Kariya over Kurri, etc...

But just looking at the number, very similar scoring environment. If we look at what they did against just the Canadian players to take away a bit of the were the Fedorov-Selanne, Mogilny, Forsberg, Jagr bigger comp than Gretzky euro, adjusted PPG between season look like this.

players	season	Game played	Adjusted ppg
Wayne Gretzky	19831984	74	2.63
Wayne Gretzky	19851986	80	2.62
Mario Lemieux	19921993	60	2.58
Mario Lemieux	19881989	76	2.54
Mario Lemieux	19951996	70	2.5
Wayne Gretzky	19841985	80	2.48
Wayne Gretzky	19861987	79	2.46
Wayne Gretzky	19821983	80	2.45
Wayne Gretzky	19811982	80	2.4

Considering the game Lemieux missed in 95-96 were not completely random (but 2 night in a row type from memory), Gretzky and Lemieux peak were arguably over 95-96 Lemieux even just in pure production over league peers let alone overall play, which would make sense, has Lemieux did not get better by age 30 with weaker wingers than 92-93 or near peak physical shape of 89.

Looking at league wide scoring for a season that skew scoring on the league top players with such a special amounts of powerplays would be misleading, specially for what could be the best PP player of all time.

I posted the top10s not to illustrate lower scoring but the quality of opposition. Even in the HFBOARDS TOP200 which in my view underrates the 90s stars and overrates the earlier stars it really shows. From the top30 top scorers (excluding Mario in the 95/96 sample and Wayne in the 83/84) there are:

In the 95/96 sample
12 in the top100
17 in the top200

In the 83/84 sample
8 in the top100
13 in the top200

Mario's season was against a tougher field.

 

[MadLuke]

Mario's season was against a tougher field.

Yes for sure, but not necessarily a much tougher Canadian field (of those in their prime):

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

vs

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

Prime 23 year's old Mark Messier being the 10 scorer in 84, old Dionne Perreault at #20, around #30 you have young Francis-Andreychuck

in 96 you see out of prime Yzerman at #10, Coffey at 20 and Benoit Hogue at 30

Which is why I tend to use only Canadian players, which should be a much more constant over time field than the whole league (with some adjustment for male Canadian hockey age population size that does not apply much, historically peak of over 3 millions from 1981 to 1997).

And for all the 84 Wayne vs 96 Mario conversation, I doubt 1984 Gretzky on a solid playoff team end up with a +10 season and that Mario was so much better on the PP to make up for that difference. Specially that Mario was at least +9 from the penalty kill that year