Is there really a case for Lemieux as the GOAT?

[K Fleur]

There is a case but it’s probably the weakest of the “big 4”.

For me it’s: 1. Gretzky 2. Howe 3. Lemieux 4. Orr with Howe closer to Gretzky than he is too Lemieux and with Orr/Lemieux flip flopping spots depending on what mood I’m in.

 

[Overrated]

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).

I don't seem to understand why should I just use the Canadian only field. Canada was very strong all throughout the 80s so no wonder there was basically no or little difference in the quality among the Canadian players. Aren't we comparing Wayne's and Mario's performances within the NHL? Then it's the whole league they are playing against not just the Canadian part.

 

[MadLuke]

I feel that Lemieux case could be even weaker than Hasek and some others players despite being arguably better than all the others with a case (and maybe even of Wayne)

When you build Hasek case versus Gretzky, you do not encounter the Greztky scored more than Hasek more often, did more on the International scene, etc...

A bit like a superb sport car could have an weaker argument and harder to make than a good pick-up truck, Howe-Orr-Hasek are way more indirect comparison. And Hasek pro career was like 30 year's long instead of being shorter.

I don't seem to understand why should I just use the Canadian only field. Canada was very strong all throughout the 80s so no wonder there was basically no or little difference in the quality among the Canadian players. Aren't we comparing Wayne's and Mario's performances within the NHL? Then it's the whole league they are playing against not just the Canadian part.

Depends what you are trying to do, if you are trying to evaluate who was the best offensively, trying to compare to the most similar competition would be the best.

For season both playing in, it is not needed obviously. The fact that there would be little difference among Canadian players during a large window, while the top end talent Euros explode between 1984 and 1996, making using Canadian only players more fair to compare players during those 2 season imo. And I am not sure of the arguments against that way of doing it.

 

[Cruor]

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.)

This explanation pops up fairly frequently, but it looks like it's not the case. It seems it was a largely divisional difference in PPO:

The 1989 Hart Trophy

The biggest joke of all was Gretzky beating Lemieux by 74 points (including setting the new points and assists record with a ridiculous 163 assists), and STILL losing the Pearson to Lemieux. That one takes the cake. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

forums.hfboards.com

 

[GMR]

Why is Orr usually ranked higher than Lemieux? Their careers have many similarities, except Lemieux had that 2001 comeback where he dominated in his mid 30's after three years away. Otherwise, both put up insane numbers in their prime, had crazy physical skills, won two Stanley Cups, and had their careers shortened by injuries/illness.

Obviously Gretzky did it first and Orr didn't have a peer. However, that should be more relevant to comparing Gretzky to Lemieux than comparing Lemieux to Orr.

 

[Big Phil]

I think there is just too much that Gretzky did, year after year after year, to put Mario ahead of him because he may have done it. Look at the 1993 season, an excellent year, his best I think. It still is is below two other years of Gretzky's from a PPG perspective. This isn't a knock on Mario, it is just an example of just how dominant Gretzky was, and how often.

 

[Video Nasty]

Why is Orr usually ranked higher than Lemieux? Their careers have many similarities, except Lemieux had that 2001 comeback where he dominated in his mid 30's after three years away. Otherwise, both put up insane numbers in their prime, had crazy physical skills, won two Stanley Cups, and had their careers shortened by injuries/illness.

Obviously Gretzky did it first and Orr didn't have a peer. However, that should be more relevant to comparing Gretzky to Lemieux than comparing Lemieux to Orr.

I think there's many reasons to rank Orr firmly ahead of Lemieux. You covered:

1. Gretzky doing everything Lemieux is only projected to have done, first, better, and quicker.
2. Orr was peerless and we still haven't that level of domination at his position since.

Both points are valid and stand.

Also to elaborate on point 2:

2a.) We haven't seen defensemen contend for Art Rosses since.
2b.) We've seen one defenseman (Pronger) win the Hart by a single vote over the runner up (Jagr) because his competitor missed 19 games, didn't score 100 points because of it, and there was no insane goalie season to give it.

While Orr had his career essentially come to an end by the time he was 27, he still managed to have accomplish what he did, first, better, and quicker.

First 9 years, he still managed to play all but 67 games. In 5 seasons, he missed 4 or less games in each season (0 missed, 0, 0, 2, and 4).

9 seasons:

First Norris nomination and then 8 consecutive Art Rosses
3 consecutive Hart wins, surrounded by 4 nominations
2 Art Rosses. Sandwiched in between are scoring finishes of 2, 2, 3 (3 points behind Clarke for 2nd yet again despite playing 15 less games), and 2. A Pearson. Likely has a retro Pearson for 1968-1969. 2 Cups. 2 Smythes.

The heroics. Scored the Cup clinching goal in each of their 2 Cup wins. Scored the game winning goal in each of the Bruins 2 wins against the Flyers in a 3rd SCF appearance. Played 16 SCF games and scored 4 GWG in 10 wins. That's an insane rate.

His career came to about as abrupt an end as you can imagine. Think about it. He wins his final Hart, Pearson, and Art Ross, then has his 4th surgery on his knee, comes back and plays 10 games, and has his 5th surgery on the same knee. Boom, never plays a game with Boston again. All that happened in the span of only 18 months. Then plays 26 games over the course of 3 years real time with Chicago that probably no one alive for it even remembers and is officially done forever.

Quite a different level of dominance than Lemieux, a much different storyline, and a much quicker rate of racking up accolades.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Why is Orr usually ranked higher than Lemieux? Their careers have many similarities, except Lemieux had that 2001 comeback where he dominated in his mid 30's after three years away. Otherwise, both put up insane numbers in their prime, had crazy physical skills, won two Stanley Cups, and had their careers shortened by injuries/illness.

Obviously Gretzky did it first and Orr didn't have a peer. However, that should be more relevant to comparing Gretzky to Lemieux than comparing Lemieux to Orr.

Because he was the better hockey player.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

I think there's many reasons to rank Orr firmly ahead of Lemieux. You covered:

1. Gretzky doing everything Lemieux is only projected to have done, first, better, and quicker.
2. Orr was peerless and we still haven't that level of domination at his position since.

Both points are valid and stand.

Also to elaborate on point 2:

2a.) We haven't seen defensemen contend for Art Rosses since.
2b.) We've seen one defenseman (Pronger) win the Hart by a single vote over the runner up (Jagr) because his competitor missed 19 games, didn't score 100 points because of it, and there was no insane goalie season to give it.

While Orr had his career essentially come to an end by the time he was 27, he still managed to have accomplish what he did, first, better, and quicker.

First 9 years, he still managed to play all but 67 games. In 5 seasons, he missed 4 or less games in each season (0 missed, 0, 0, 2, and 4).

9 seasons:

First Norris nomination and then 8 consecutive Art Rosses
3 consecutive Hart wins, surrounded by 4 nominations
2 Art Rosses. Sandwiched in between are scoring finishes of 2, 2, 3 (3 points behind Clarke for 2nd yet again despite playing 15 less games), and 2. A Pearson. Likely has a retro Pearson for 1968-1969. 2 Cups. 2 Smythes.

The heroics. Scored the Cup clinching goal in each of their 2 Cup wins. Scored the game winning goal in each of the Bruins 2 wins against the Flyers in a 3rd SCF appearance. Played 16 SCF games and scored 4 GWG in 10 wins. That's an insane rate.

His career came to about as abrupt an end as you can imagine. Think about it. He wins his final Hart, Pearson, and Art Ross, then has his 4th surgery on his knee, comes back and plays 10 games, and has his 5th surgery on the same knee. Boom, never plays a game with Boston again. All that happened in the span of only 18 months. Then plays 26 games over the course of 3 years real time with Chicago that probably no one alive for it even remembers and is officially done forever.

Quite a different level of dominance than Lemieux, a much different storyline, and a much quicker rate of racking up accolades.

And then for good measure he went out on 2 dead knees after his career was essentially ended and put up 9 points in 7 games winning the 76 Canada Cup MVP

 

[TheBeard]

I actually think Lemieux was a better all-around hockey player than Gretz. He had less to work with (unless you truly think Rob Brown and Kevin Stevens were world-beaters) and was a much more physical presence.

With that said, I still think Orr is the best player of all time.

 

[The Panther]

I actually think Lemieux was a better all-around hockey player than Gretz. He had less to work with (unless you truly think Rob Brown and Kevin Stevens were world-beaters) and was a much more physical presence.

With that said, I still think Orr is the best player of all time.

Lemieux was not a better all-around player than Gretzky. In his prime, Gretzky was much more dogged in pursuit of pucks, regularly killed penalties, and worked harder. In their respective primes, they were even in goal-scoring (Gretzky with greater peer domination), and Gretzky had far higher assists and far better even-strength results.

People need to give up on the "better teammates" argument. The two players entered the NHL in very similar circumstances, with very similar(ly poor) teams and teammates. In these first two seasons, Gretzky's point finishes were 1, 1 and Lemieux's were 13, 2. Gretzky scored 106 goals, and Lemieux 91. Gretzky went +55 and Lemieux -41.

During their overlap (1984-85 to 1990-91), the one and only time during Gretzky's prime when Lemieux notably out-performed him during a season was 1988-89... during which they were equal in even-strength points and Gretzky was starting his life/career over on a new team.

Finally, higher-scoring teammates doesn't necessarily mean higher scoring star player. Lemieux's scoring pace declined in 1989-90, 1990-91, and 1993-94 from his 1988-89 physical peak, despite way better teammates. 1992-93 is the one season when the Penguins were at a peak in power and when Lemieux put it all together... except for his illness and missed games.

Also, Gretzky won 5 scoring titles without a great cast of teammates (1980, 1981, 1990 1991, 1994).

 

[Stephen]

The argument usually follows that if you extrapolated the tantalizing peak of Lemieux's career across whatever time horizon, by good health or whatever, you could plausibly build a cause for him being better than Gretzky.

The other side of this coin is Gretzky's brand of greatness could be boring. A fully realized, consistently excellent, high level career free of drama and setback can be somewhat uninteresting to follow compared to the what could have been's. Look at Martin Brodeur and Nicklas Lidstrom. High level cruise control, won championships on great teams, collected individual awards decade after decade, set some records here and there. You just become a bit immune to it. You put them beside someone at their position that was briefly great or had to overcome something or suffered some premature decline? That other guy seems maybe a little more interesting.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I love Lemieux, but no.

All the arguments for him are coulda, woulda, shoulda. Everything he did, Gretzky did - but better and more often.

I do think that if I could pick one player of all time (at their best) to save the galaxy on one breakaway chance.. I'd probably pick him, though.

 

[TheBeard]

I love Lemieux, but no.

All the arguments for him are coulda, woulda, shoulda. Everything he did, Gretzky did - but better and more often.

I do think that if I could pick one player of all time (at their best) to save the galaxy on one breakaway chance.. I'd probably pick him, though.

Well, Lemieux had a higher Goals Per Game average, trailing only Mike Bossy by .01, so no, Gretzky was not a more prolific scorer. Gretz and Lemieux were only separated by .04 in points per game and when you factor in the loss of two prime seasons (minus 17) games sandwiched between two 70 goal/160 point seasons, there's no reason to think he'd have actually ended up with a higher ppg average. Also, factor in the Anemia from radiation treatment and the crippling back injury and he very easily could have ended his career with 2000 points in just over 1000 games.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Well, Lemieux had a higher Goals Per Game average, trailing only Mike Bossy by .01, so no, Gretzky was not a more prolific scorer. Gretz and Lemieux were only separated by .04 in points per game and when you factor in the loss of two prime seasons (minus 17) games sandwiched between two 70 goal/160 point seasons, there's no reason to think he'd have actually ended up with a higher ppg average. Also, factor in the Anemia from radiation treatment and the crippling back injury and he very easily could have ended his career with 2000 points in just over 1000 games.

Please don't use career per game arguments when one guy played wayyyy more games after his peak than the other.

And hey, while we're going with the fantasies, what if Gretzky didn't have his back destroyed by Suter and an arthritic shoulder? He could have easily ended his career with 4000 points.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Well, Lemieux had a higher Goals Per Game average, trailing only Mike Bossy by .01, so no, Gretzky was not a more prolific scorer. Gretz and Lemieux were only separated by .04 in points per game and when you factor in the loss of two prime seasons (minus 17) games sandwiched between two 70 goal/160 point seasons, there's no reason to think he'd have actually ended up with a higher ppg average. Also, factor in the Anemia from radiation treatment and the crippling back injury and he very easily could have ended his career with 2000 points in just over 1000 games.

Coulda woulda shoulda

 

[MadLuke]

Gretzky scored his 2000 nhl regular season point in his 857th game I think. The could superbe scenario is about someone doing it in more than 1,000, i.e. Gretzky actual compete really well with the fantastic best case scenario of a Lemieux.

After 857 games Gretzky had 684 goals, 2000 points, +574, his career average was on a 82 games season pace

82games, 65.4 goals, 125.9 assists, 191.4 points +55

His assists career pace was better 12 assists than the highest non Gretzky season, +55 would be amount the good all time season for a forward, more than 170 pts was done one time.

 

[overpass]

Adjusted points, stronger league and all, it’s hard to rate Mario’s 95-96 as his peak when his season ended with 7 points in 7 games against the Florida Panthers.

 

[Jaulie Poyce]

People always bring up the fact that Mario played with much less talented players.

That's correct but it doesn't bring into account how much Gretzky influenced his teammates to achieve a higher level of play.

I have always maintained this position, it didn't matter if Gretzky was playing in the preseason, the regular season or in the playoffs, he always played the SAME! That was to dominate and make his teammates better.

 

[MessierII]

The only argument for Mario involves what ifs. It’s a good argument because Mario was that good but what ifs just aren’t enough.

 

[PrimumHockeyist]

To me, these goaty conversations are limited by how difficult it is to compare players from one era to another, so I would be especially reluctant to grade Lemieux against Howe, but feel that I could compare Lemieux against Orr and Gretzky.

I've said in the past that there are four players that I could entertain an argument for as the greatest player in history, and Mario Lemieux is one of those four. I think that without doubt he's one of the top four players of all time, but I've long considered him to be the #4 guy, as I think most here probably do as well. Lately, I've been thinking about how he compares to the other three of the big four though, and I'm not so sure that I can really see the argument for him to top the list. What is the argument for Lemiuex? I can entertain the idea that peak Lemieux might have been ever so slightly better than peak Gretzky, but is that really enough? I think I'd question that even if it were a given that at their peaks Lemieux was slightly better, but can there really be an argument that rests on the "might?"

Anyway, it's just something I've been thinking about, and I'm very interested in what the other minds of this board make of it.

Personally, I don't think there is any fair way to make Lemieux 4th because Howe and Gretzky basically played healthy their entire career, but I get what people are thinking. Lemieux and Orr did not. Could Lemieux be argued as the 'best' player, so far as potential is concerned? I would say so, definitely, but that the same could be said of the three others too.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

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.

this is a good point.

i brought up the same thing not too long ago when someone (almost certainly also in a gretzky vs mario debate) brought up gretzky having the advantage of 4-on-4 points. they created offsetting penalties in, i believe, mario's second year. but i said, well if you take away gretzky's 4-on-4 points, you have to give him some of those back in 5-on-5 points. he wouldn't just not score at ES.

ditto mario and the extra PPs.

Why is Orr usually ranked higher than Lemieux? Their careers have many similarities, except Lemieux had that 2001 comeback where he dominated in his mid 30's after three years away. Otherwise, both put up insane numbers in their prime, had crazy physical skills, won two Stanley Cups, and had their careers shortened by injuries/illness.

Obviously Gretzky did it first and Orr didn't have a peer. However, that should be more relevant to comparing Gretzky to Lemieux than comparing Lemieux to Orr.

orr is ranked higher than mario because he was every bit as impactful offensively as mario was, but also was in the top handful of guys defensively. that is absolutely unprecedented by anyone who has ever played this game.

by impactful offensively, i mean that while orr obviously scored fewer total points than mario did, he was responsible for at least as many goals. and you can just look at boston's monster goals totals, and orr's outsized +/-, to verify that.

The other side of this coin is Gretzky's brand of greatness could be boring. A fully realized, consistently excellent, high level career free of drama and setback can be somewhat uninteresting to follow compared to the what could have been's. Look at Martin Brodeur and Nicklas Lidstrom. High level cruise control, won championships on great teams, collected individual awards decade after decade, set some records here and there. You just become a bit immune to it. You put them beside someone at their position that was briefly great or had to overcome something or suffered some premature decline? That other guy seems maybe a little more interesting.

was he boring? i was too young to follow gretzky's peak, but honestly i feel like he kept it interesting.

the meteoric rise must have been something else. tying for the league lead in scoring as a teenage rookie (the youngest player in the league, a week younger than messier, a month younger than bourque, but half a year or more younger than everybody else). then breaking the assist and points records in year two. then absolutely destroying all three records in year three, including 50 in 39.

and then if running up 70 goals/200 pts every year was boring, he did switch things up on you by going for two assists a game. i mean again, i wasn't there but it feels a little like if steph curry decided, hey this year i'm only going to shoot threes with my left hand and free throws with my eyes closed.

People always bring up the fact that Mario played with much less talented players.

That's correct but it doesn't bring into account how much Gretzky influenced his teammates to achieve a higher level of play.

I have always maintained this position, it didn't matter if Gretzky was playing in the preseason, the regular season or in the playoffs, he always played the SAME! That was to dominate and make his teammates better.

i think this is the best thing about gretzky's case. insofar as coffey, messier, and kurri were all very special all time players, they all majorly overachieved on what anyone thought they were capable of.

with mario, i think you give him credit for jagr in that respect. obviously, he also contributed majorly to kevin stevens' success, and he made rob brown as well as a bunch of briefly high scoring plumbers, but jagr is the only one that really means something at this level.

and with jagr, i was impressed that later in his career everywhere he went (other than new jersey, who had no talented young forwards) someone ended up completely blowing the roof off their ceiling. claude giroux and jake voracek, jamie benn, brad marchand, sasha barkov and jonathan huberdeau, and johnny gaudreau.

before jagr got there, did anybody think giroux was capable of finishing 2nd in scoring and 3rd two other times? did anybody see jake as a top five scorer? jamie benn winning an art ross and being a runner up the year later? marchand peaking as an annual top five scorer? huberdeau and gaudreau tying for 2nd in scoring? barkov scoring in the top ten while contending for the selke?

some of those might be coincidences, but not all of them. i think the old man jagr effect must have been real.

 

[Michael Farkas]

People always bring up the fact that Mario played with much less talented players.

That's correct but it doesn't bring into account how much Gretzky influenced his teammates to achieve a higher level of play.

I have always maintained this position, it didn't matter if Gretzky was playing in the preseason, the regular season or in the playoffs, he always played the SAME! That was to dominate and make his teammates better.

Well, of course someone saying that "Mario played with much less talented players" wouldn't talk about Gretzky being (allegedly) better at it. No one aims for second place in a binary argument...

We got Warren Young (not a point per game player as a senior in college, sub-point per game player in the CHL in the mid 80's in his prime (!)) - got a season with Mario: Scored 40 of his 49 career NHL goals as a 29 year old. Out of the league 100 games later. Back to being a sub-point per game player in the AHL and IHL where Alain Lemieux is working people over.

Doug Shedden, back to back 35 goal seasons with Mario as a 23/24 year old...traded for a fading Ron Duguay, Shedden scores 16 goals the rest of his career...

Quadruple-A player Robbie Brown is always the go-to example...

You got luminaries like Moe Mantha and a teenaged Doug Bodger making outlet passes to him...fine players, but not amazing puck carriers or particularly inspiring talents.

Gretzky had to deal with - what - McDonald and Brett what's his ass for two years tops...and at least one of them was productive in that glorified minor league for a while before jumping ship...

Lemieux dealt with rejects and never-rans at wing, at defense, and at coach for most of his formative years...

I'm not trying to have a pity party for Mario here, but they are unmistakenly at polar opposites of the luck spectrum in basically every tangible way basically until Jagr...

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

I'm not trying to have a pity party for Mario here, but they are unmistakenly at polar opposites of the luck spectrum in basically every tangible way basically until Jagr...

maybe a little earlier than that. they added coffey in the fall of 1987, three years before jagr's first game. and the guy they traded to get coffey, craig simpson, mario had a pretty decently productive partnership with and obviously simpson went on to show that he could thrive without mario.

mark recchi is interesting to me. this was obviously a super talented guy, as evidenced by him keeping pace with sakic and fleury in the WHL and then scoring at a pace that would have led the AHL over a full season before forcing his way into the NHL. but he wasn't as naturally talented as rob brown, who made a complete and absolute mockery of the WHL on the same team at a younger age. did being around mario help recchi lift his ceiling from a donald audette to a guy who averaged 110 pts over a four year peak?

or does recchi's track record at every lower level show that he was always going to be a star scorer in the NHL regardless of his size?

 

[TheBeard]

The only argument for Mario involves what ifs. It’s a good argument because Mario was that good but what ifs just aren’t enough.

I don’t know if he should be knocked down a peg for having cancer.