Is there really a case for Lemieux as the GOAT?

[The Panther]

Yeah, I don't get the Lemieux-throng going back to 1992-93 as if it was a better season than Gretzky's best. It wasn't.

First of all, you have to be skeptical of a 60-game player/season. Being Mario Lemieux, we know he was more than capable of scoring 200 points or whatever at his peak on a strong team like the 1992-93 Pens. But there is no certainly whatsoever -- and, I would argue, a very low chance -- that a fully healthy Lemieux that season breaks any Gretzky peak records (at least not without an asterisk for the 84-game season).

Projections for Lemieux's scoring in 1992-93 always get inflated because of the Pens' 17-game winning streak down the stretch. The reality is, every top player puts up huge stats during a 17-game winning streak. The Pens weren't going to win all 24 games that Lemieux missed. His pace per 60-games would almost certainly have been lowered if he'd played the missing 24 games that season.

Here's a comparison of Gretzky's top seasons in his first-40-games and Lemieux's first-40-games in 1992-93. The Gretzky-stats in blue are ones that beat Lemieux's 1992-93 numbers through 40 games:

Gretzky 1981-82
50G + 58A = 108PTS (+36) ESP = 75
Gretzky 1983-84
43G + 74A = 118PTS (+50) ESP = 76
Gretzky 1984-85
42G + 73A = 115PTS (+67) ESP = 80
Gretzky 1985-86
28G + 75A = 103PTS (+25) ESP = 65
Gretzky 1986-87
40G + 58A = 98PTS (+43) ESP = 62
Lemieux 1992-93
39G + 65A = 104PTS (+32) ESP = 59

Where Lemieux's stat-line went all-time great in 1992-93 (all time, that is, in Gretzky-comparison terms) was in the second half of the season, during which the Pens won the aforementioned 17 straight games. Lemieux appeared in only 20 more games after these first 40, and he put up this crazy stat line in those 20 games:
30G + 26A = 56PTS (+23) ESP = 37

So, if you're making an argument that Lemieux peaked higher than (choose any one of six seasons by) Gretzky, you're doing so basically based on this 20-game sample only. Which is silly. I'm pretty sure there are multiple 20-game stretches by Wayne Gretzky where he scored 56 points, if not more.

By the way, we shouldn't forget that Lemieux actually played 71 games total in 1992-93, because the Pens appeared in 11 playoff games. In other words, 60 RS games plus 11 playoffs. So, how would Mario's stat-line in his full 1992-93 season compare to some equivalent Gretzky seasons? Let's see:

Lemieux 1992-93: 60 RS games + first 11 playoff games:
77G + 101A = 178PTS (+57) ESP = 104
Gretzky 1981-82: final 66 RS games + first 5 playoff games (Oilers eliminated in 5 games):
76G + 104A = 180PTS (+68) ESP = 123
Gretzky 1982-83: final 60 RS games + first 11 playoff games:
68G + 114A = 182PTS (+65) ESP = 118
Gretzky 1983-84: final 60 RS games + first 11 playoff games:
80G + 112A = 192PTS (+74) ESP = 127
Gretzky 1984-85: final 60 RS games + first 11 playoff games:
62G + 120A = 182PTS (+82) ESP = 129
Gretzky 1985-86: final 61 RS games + first 10* playoff games (Oilers eliminated in 10 games):
46G + 145A = 191PTS (+63) ESP = 130
Gretzky 1986-87: final 60 RS games + first 11 playoff games:
50G + 106A = 156PTS (+63) ESP = 114
Gretzky 1987-88: final 60 RS games + first 11 playoff games:
44G + 119A = 163PTS (+46) ESP = 98

Now, in fairness, I think comparing Lemieux's 1992-93 to Gretzky's 1981-82 (above) is wonky because Wayne appeared in only 5 playoff games. So, scratch that one if you like. But we're still left with four seasons in a row where Wayne's comparable games to Lemieux puts him on top in points (and five seasons in a row in ES points).

So, no, there was no higher peak for Lemieux over Gretzky, whether you want to measure it by one season, two seasons, three seasons, or whatever.

 

[tabness]

2. No doubt Lemieux was a big game performer, but he also only has a 9 game sample size for SCF appearances.

And let’s be real. Quality of opponents for Gretzky’s first 9 SCF games were the 4 time champion dynasty Islanders and the 53 win/113 point #1 Flyers. A bit different than the 68 point North Stars and fellow 87 point Blackhawks for Lemieux and the Penguins. The numbers are not much different for Gretzky’s first 9 SCF games and he of course has 3.5 times the overall sample size with his 31 games in 5 appearances.

Simply put, Mario’s argument for being the strongest SCF performer of the Big Four isn’t super compelling.

I think your point of Lemieux having easier opponents in the finals generally stands, Gretzky's Oilers got to do the dream thing of toppling one dynasty to start theirs which is amazing.

But I'll go to bat for the Norris division North Stars and Blackhawks being way better than their point totals indicate, since early nineties Wings and early nineties in general is my favorite hockey, I've gotten to see quite a lot of both these teams. The Norris was the laughing stock of the league for much of its existence, but at the very end by the early nineties which is the timeframe in question, hard to say there was a division in hockey better than it!

This comparison is a lot closer than it seems. It's as you say, a bit different, but literally just a bit.

The Blackhawks don't need too much lobbying from me, early nineties Hawks were (and still are generally thought to be) one of the best teams in the league at the time. Had guys in Chelios and Belfour who have very strong cases as the best at their positions, and if not that, right up there with the best. Roenick doesn't get the love he got back then or deserves now, but I've posted a lot on him on this forum, he was their best player (after 1992, Hockey Digest straight up ranked him only behind Lemieux for centers and this is pretty much the golden era for centers is it not?) and that says a lot given how good Chelios and Belfour were. The team was deep as hell too. The Steves are underrated as hell, Larmer is kinda known for what he brings, but people don't remember how good Steve Smith was, he was always on those top defensive defenseman things in hockey magazines at the time. You had savvy old veteran Michel Goulet who still had some miles left in him at the time. Depth forwards included roleplaying stars like Dirk Graham and Brent Sutter. Last but not least, this was a Keenan built and coached team through and through, and while Keenan's reputation has fallen massively since, you go back then and he was always considered among the best coaches if not the best, the tactics were more acceptable back then (still unacceptably way too far of course, and I say this fully hating how soft and entitled things are now lol).

But those North Stars man, they just put it together down the stretch that year. It's been discussed here before so I'll just link to some topics:

The Minnesota North Stars 1990-91

I wasn't following hockey yet in 91. Why the team was so bad during the regular season. Anyone here recall that season well?

forums.hfboards.com

Why were the 90-91 North Stars so bad during the regular season?

I look at this team and it's baffling how they went 27-39-14 (68 points). At one point they were sitting there at 12-28-8 and just a total non entity. To me they looked like a team that should've easily finished right around .500 In 89-90 they were 36-40-4 for 76 points and lost and extremely...

forums.hfboards.com

Mark Tinordi can be seen as a microcosm of that team's transformation into a contender. While Probert is usually the answer for best player among true enforcers/goons, I'd have to say it goes to Mark Tinordi in the early nineties instead, before freak injuries destroyed his career.

Lastly, even disregarding team strength differences, in looking up Conn Smythe talk and voting since the Islanders dynasty, there was a huge difference between Gretzky in 1984 and 1985 and Lemieux in 1991 and 1992. Lemieux was the runaway winner both times, aside from Barrasso, nobody else even got in the conversation it seems. Gretzky on the other hand didn't factor in the top candidates in 1984. In 1985 it was close between him and Coffey, and the Flyers had a lot to say about Coffey themselves (keep in mind Coffey was injured badly in game four against the Jets with the slash on the foot that still bothered him that summer - before that slash, he was the pretty clear frontrunner as MVP of the Oilers playoffs in 1985).

 

[Mike C]

I guess it depends on your definition of "greatest", but I've always interpreted it to mean the most accomplished

Babe Ruth
Michael Jordan
Tom Brady
Wayne Gretzky


With that said, I think Lemieux was better than Gretzky, Howe & Orr

I think Orr and Gretzky are the best. Look at Orr's numbers. He was a D and had his last healthy season at age 26. Had 6 straight seasons of 100 pts and a +/- of 124 one season. He changed the way the game is played. Gretzky was a phenom. Scored TWO HUNDRED pts FOUR separate times

Behind them, Bobby Hull needs to be strongly considered then pick whoever you like as the 4th

 

[Space umpire]

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.

No he didn’t. Orr was not “himself” for the Hawks.

 

[MadLuke]

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.

Obviously possible for Lemieux to do that less than 3 of the best ever (or has you even maybe argue the 3 best ever) to do it.

Lemieux has missed so many game during his prime that it give a little bit of a window of his impact on a team.

From 91-92 to 92-93, Lemieux missed a lot but also played a good amount of games during that period of time, the Penguins scored 4.64 goals a games, without Lemieux they were scoring 3.38 goal a game.

He was scoring 0.82 Power play points a game and 1.52 non power play points, the penguins were scoring .23 more power play goal a game and 1.03 more non power play goals a game when he was on the roster. And going from memory surprisingly not giving up more goals

Far from perfect, but if the proxy is good, that a whole goal more scored at 5v5, that really a giant amount.

 

[Neutrinos]

I think Orr and Gretzky are the best. Look at Orr's numbers. He was a D and had his last healthy season at age 26. Had 6 straight seasons of 100 pts and a +/- of 124 one season. He changed the way the game is played. Gretzky was a phenom. Scored TWO HUNDRED pts FOUR separate times

Behind them, Bobby Hull needs to be strongly considered then pick whoever you like as the 4th

Make the case for Bobby Hull being better than Lemieux

The floor is yours...

 

[Mike C]

Make the case for Bobby Hull being better than Lemieux

The floor is yours...

different eras and styles of play in the league need to be factored in. not really saying hull is better but certainly should be considered in the conversation and is probably more on par than many realize. his numbers are diminished because of his time in WHA( 6 seasons total, 5 full, 1 only 34 games)...he won 2 MVP, 3 Art Ross, and came in 2nd 3 times....led league in goals 7 times, was first to score more thn 50 and scored 50 five times in an era where that was unheard of. 10 time 1st team all star LW 2 times 2nd team all star LW. won a lady bing and would have had better stats than he already amassed if not for the 6 seasons in the WHA

no slight to mario, he was a great great player. my position is more pro hull than anti lemieux. i think they are both deserving of being in the same conversation

 

[Staniowski]

I can buy Lemieux 92-93 is just as great as Gretzky at his best.

That's interesting because Lemieux was playing injured the entire '92-'93 season. He had back surgery after the season.

He was injured and not playing when he was diagnosed with cancer.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Yeah, I don't get the Lemieux-throng going back to 1992-93 as if it was a better season than Gretzky's best. It wasn't.

First of all, you have to be skeptical of a 60-game player/season. Being Mario Lemieux, we know he was more than capable of scoring 200 points or whatever at his peak on a strong team like the 1992-93 Pens. But there is no certainly whatsoever -- and, I would argue, a very low chance -- that a fully healthy Lemieux that season breaks any Gretzky peak records (at least not without an asterisk for the 84-game season).

Projections for Lemieux's scoring in 1992-93 always get inflated because of the Pens' 17-game winning streak down the stretch. The reality is, every top player puts up huge stats during a 17-game winning streak. The Pens weren't going to win all 24 games that Lemieux missed. His pace per 60-games would almost certainly have been lowered if he'd played the missing 24 games that season.

Here's a comparison of Gretzky's top seasons in his first-40-games and Lemieux's first-40-games in 1992-93. The Gretzky-stats in blue are ones that beat Lemieux's 1992-93 numbers through 40 games:

Gretzky 1981-82
50G + 58A = 108PTS (+36) ESP = 75
Gretzky 1983-84
43G + 74A = 118PTS (+50) ESP = 76
Gretzky 1984-85
42G + 73A = 115PTS (+67) ESP = 80
Gretzky 1985-86
28G + 75A = 103PTS (+25) ESP = 65
Gretzky 1986-87
40G + 58A = 98PTS (+43) ESP = 62
Lemieux 1992-93
39G + 65A = 104PTS (+32) ESP = 59

Where Lemieux's stat-line went all-time great in 1992-93 (all time, that is, in Gretzky-comparison terms) was in the second half of the season, during which the Pens won the aforementioned 17 straight games. Lemieux appeared in only 20 more games after these first 40, and he put up this crazy stat line in those 20 games:
30G + 26A = 56PTS (+23) ESP = 37

So, if you're making an argument that Lemieux peaked higher than (choose any one of six seasons by) Gretzky, you're doing so basically based on this 20-game sample only. Which is silly. I'm pretty sure there are multiple 20-game stretches by Wayne Gretzky where he scored 56 points, if not more.

By the way, we shouldn't forget that Lemieux actually played 71 games total in 1992-93, because the Pens appeared in 11 playoff games. In other words, 60 RS games plus 11 playoffs. So, how would Mario's stat-line in his full 1992-93 season compare to some equivalent Gretzky seasons? Let's see:

Lemieux 1992-93: 60 RS games + first 11 playoff games:
77G + 101A = 178PTS (+57) ESP = 104
Gretzky 1981-82: final 66 RS games + first 5 playoff games (Oilers eliminated in 5 games):
76G + 104A = 180PTS (+68) ESP = 123
Gretzky 1982-83: final 60 RS games + first 11 playoff games:
68G + 114A = 182PTS (+65) ESP = 118
Gretzky 1983-84: final 60 RS games + first 11 playoff games:
80G + 112A = 192PTS (+74) ESP = 127
Gretzky 1984-85: final 60 RS games + first 11 playoff games:
62G + 120A = 182PTS (+82) ESP = 129
Gretzky 1985-86: final 61 RS games + first 10* playoff games (Oilers eliminated in 10 games):
46G + 145A = 191PTS (+63) ESP = 130
Gretzky 1986-87: final 60 RS games + first 11 playoff games:
50G + 106A = 156PTS (+63) ESP = 114
Gretzky 1987-88: final 60 RS games + first 11 playoff games:
44G + 119A = 163PTS (+46) ESP = 98

Now, in fairness, I think comparing Lemieux's 1992-93 to Gretzky's 1981-82 (above) is wonky because Wayne appeared in only 5 playoff games. So, scratch that one if you like. But we're still left with four seasons in a row where Wayne's comparable games to Lemieux puts him on top in points (and five seasons in a row in ES points).

So, no, there was no higher peak for Lemieux over Gretzky, whether you want to measure it by one season, two seasons, three seasons, or whatever.

Your just looking at raw stats n disregarding the difference in the quality of the league. f*** it. Joe thornton Is better than Crosby ovechkin n mcdavid. Cause 125 points>

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

that analogy is pretty disrespectful to the group of discussants here who obviously think in extremely nuanced ways about how to contextualize and interpret raw numbers in a useful way

i don’t know that you deserved a response tbh

 

[wetcoast]

No he didn’t. Orr was not “himself” for the Hawks.

He wasn't peak Boston Bobby Orr but he still tilted the ice 5 on 5, just look at his ESGF/ESGA on that team.

Obviously possible for Lemieux to do that less than 3 of the best ever (or has you even maybe argue the 3 best ever) to do it.

Lemieux has missed so many game during his prime that it give a little bit of a window of his impact on a team.

From 91-92 to 92-93, Lemieux missed a lot but also played a good amount of games during that period of time, the Penguins scored 4.64 goals a games, without Lemieux they were scoring 3.38 goal a game.

He was scoring 0.82 Power play points a game and 1.52 non power play points, the penguins were scoring .23 more power play goal a game and 1.03 more non power play goals a game when he was on the roster. And going from memory surprisingly not giving up more goals

Far from perfect, but if the proxy is good, that a whole goal more scored at 5v5, that really a giant amount.

I haven't checked the numbers but my bet is that the Pens probably also gave up a lot of goals when Mario was playing as well in that time period.

Either way for a member of the big 4 his impact in tilting the ice when he was out there 5 on 5 or at ES is simply lacking compared to the other 3 guys.

Some people think that his PP excellence is enough to overcome that but I don't.

 

[MadLuke]

I haven't checked the numbers but my bet is that the Pens probably also gave up a lot of goals when Mario was playing as well in that time period.

Looking it up because from memory it was a bit less (could be puck possession, could be getting more powerplays, could be small sample size and Mario missing game not equally between seasons, etc...), the Penguins stats from 90-91 to 92-93

With Mario
150 games, 93 W, 15 T, 42 L, .670 team, 56% GF
GF: 4.62
GA: 3.57
PPG: 1.23
SH: 0.273

Without:
94 games, 43 W, 7 T, 44 L, .495 team, 51% GF
GF: 3.82
GA: 3.67
PPG: 1.09
SH: 0.075

Obviously the 3 other guy would also have impressive value of the sorts would they have missed games and it is always dangerous to look the with-without of a star to judge them, how a team react, who step up and so on, but the 2 cups + super 92/93 teams had a losing record without Mario playing and were scoring like the Rangers.

 

[Reindl87]

If Pittsburgh wins the Cup in 1993 and makes it to the Stanley Cup Finals in 1996 it certainly would change the perception of Lemieux. We can forget all the other what if no injurees scenarios. Had Lemieux lead his team to wins in those game 7, the penguins of the 90s would be considered one of the goat teams and for sure the goat offensive team. Lemieux still would not be Gretzky but the gap would shring highly significantly.

 

[Video Nasty]

If Pittsburgh wins the Cup in 1993 and makes it to the Stanley Cup Finals in 1996 it certainly would change the perception of Lemieux. We can forget all the other what if no injurees scenarios. Had Lemieux lead his team to wins in those game 7, the penguins of the 90s would be considered one of the goat teams and for sure the goat offensive team. Lemieux still would not be Gretzky but the gap would shring highly significantly.

But what does really that mean? It’s just another what if which also ignores the possibility that if everything stays the same in the 1993 playoffs, Lemieux and the Penguins would have matched up against Gretzky and the Kings…and if they could lose in the second round to the Islanders, it’s certainly possible Gretzky leads the Kings to victory. It would almost be unfair to have a head to head matchup to point out where Gretzky wins yet again.

If anything, your comments make me irrationally resent Lemieux and the Penguins blowing series leads (do they even beat Roy and Montreal that year) and potentially robbing us of extremely entertaining Finals in both 1993 and 1996.

In the end, the 1993 Penguins were a team that won 7 games in the playoffs and blew series 2-1 and 3-2 against a team that finished 32 points behind them in the regular season and that was with Mario missing 24 games. That’s one of the biggest “what ifs” I’ve heard surrounding him considering how it requires winning 3 more playoff rounds than what reality dictated.

As for 1996, Mario scoring 1 goal in 7 games against Florida and blowing another 3-2 series lead is another funny one. About as in control of a situation as you could hope for.

I guess I’m just scratching my head about these what ifs that are not really compelling and in once case, is a huge leap to assume anything about.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

If Pittsburgh wins the Cup in 1993 and makes it to the Stanley Cup Finals in 1996 it certainly would change the perception of Lemieux. We can forget all the other what if no injurees scenarios. Had Lemieux lead his team to wins in those game 7, the penguins of the 90s would be considered one of the goat teams and for sure the goat offensive team. Lemieux still would not be Gretzky but the gap would shring highly significantly.

this never occurred to me before but who coached the 1993 islanders? al arbour nearing the end of his comeback

who built and presided over the '96 panthers? bill torrey

and who was a veteran teach-'em-how-t-win ringer on the '91 and '92 pens but retired after the second cup? bryan trottier

all to say, in mario's four best shots at the cup, it was one of pillars of the dynasty islanders either helping him win or massively upsetting him

weird, right? potvin also would have been florida's colour guy in 1996

 

[authentic]

I think Orr and Gretzky are the best. Look at Orr's numbers. He was a D and had his last healthy season at age 26. Had 6 straight seasons of 100 pts and a +/- of 124 one season. He changed the way the game is played. Gretzky was a phenom. Scored TWO HUNDRED pts FOUR separate times

Behind them, Bobby Hull needs to be strongly considered then pick whoever you like as the 4th

Bobby Hull over Lemieux and Howe?

 

[Mike C]

Bobby Hull over Lemieux and Hull?

I posted somewhere my case for Hull consideration. I think he's at least worthy of the consideration

 

[norrisnick]

I posted somewhere my case for Hull consideration. I think he's at least worthy of the consideration

Not over Howe or Lemieux, no.

Unless, what do mean by consideration? Just asking the question, looking at their resumes, and saying "yeah, my bad. Bobby isn't better than Gordie or Mario."? Then, yeah we can do that.

 

[Mike C]

Not over Howe or Lemieux, no.

Unless, what do mean by consideration? Just asking the question, looking at their resumes, and saying "yeah, my bad. Bobby isn't better than Gordie or Mario."? Then, yeah we can do that.

posted above #132 my feeling on hull

 

[cupcrazyman2]

What if Gretzky never became a Oiler but a Jet WHA/NHL ?
What if Gordie stays in the NHL & never plays in the WHA ?
What if Orr never had terrible knees & retires early ?
What if Lemieux never had his health struggles ?

 

[bobholly39]

What if Gretzky never became a Oiler but a Jet WHA/NHL ?
What if Gordie stays in the NHL & never plays in the WHA ?
What if Orr never had terrible knees & retires early ?
What if Lemieux never had his health struggles ?

1. Doesn't change much. Gretzky was destined for success - and made those around him better. He still wins cups

2. Doesn't change much. Howe was already old when he left and passed his peak. Maybe he adds a bit (NHL > WHA) but it doesn't move the needle much on his already amazing career

3. Huge difference. Gretzky declined big time in 2nd half of his career. Would Orr have too? If he ages better, legitimate chance he's #1 all time. Flipside is - if he did decline, a lot, maybe it takes some of his mystique away

4. Also huge difference. With health he owns the following records easily: most career goals, most career art ross trophies. He also makes a run at 215 points and 92 goals. Does he surpass Gretzky all time? Hard to say - maybe, it'd probably be a flip a coin scenario between the 2. I think he'd be right behind him

 

[The Panther]

The "What if Lemieux never had his health struggles?" question is interesting, of course, but it needs to be said that Lemieux didn't have significant health struggles until late in the 1989-90 season. So, he had six years to try to keep pace with Gretzky, and he wasn't even close in any category.

Of course, at this point, the Mario-apologist will say, "But look at how bad his teams were! Gretzky played on a Dynasty!" Okay, so let's compare Mario's first six seasons with Gretzky's first two Edmonton seasons + first three seasons with L.A. (two winning clubs, three losing clubs) and then project each's sum to an 80-game season:

Gretzky
160 PTS (+22)
Lemieux
157 PTS (-4)

I mean, this is giving Lemieux every possible advantage (we're eliminating Gretzky's entire 7-year peak here), and Gretzky still comes out ahead in scoring and ES-goal differential.

Speaking of Even Strength:

Most ES points in one season:
1. 147 - Gretzky (Edm.)
2. 146 - Gretzky (Edm.)
3. 143 - Gretzky (Edm.)
4. 135 - Gretzky (Edm.)
5. 132 - Gretzky (Edm.)
6. 124 - Gretzky (Edm.)
7. 104 - Lafleur (Mon.)
8. 104 - Gretzky (Edm.)
9. 103 - Gretzky (L.A.)
10. 102 - Lemieux (Pitt.)
11. 101 - Yzerman (Det.)
12. 101 - Kurri (Edm.)
13. 100 - Gretzky (Edm.)
14. 100 - Gretzky (L.A.)
15. 100 - Bossy (NYI)

I mean, c'mon....


Besides stat-comparison with Gretzky, there is one big thing missing from Mario's legend, which is: He never dominated an NHL season and then won the Cup as leading scorer / best player / whatever. I mean, he never put it all together in one season. Gretzky did this at least three times, possibly four. Howe did it. Orr did it twice. Lafleur at least twice? Lemieux never did it. It's not necessarily his fault of course (injured in 1990-91 and 1991-92), but he never did it.

 

[tabness]

Besides stat-comparison with Gretzky, there is one big thing missing from Mario's legend, which is: He never dominated an NHL season and then won the Cup as leading scorer / best player / whatever. I mean, he never put it all together in one season. Gretzky did this at least three times, possibly four. Howe did it. Orr did it twice. Lafleur at least twice? Lemieux never did it. It's not necessarily his fault of course (injured in 1990-91 and 1991-92), but he never did it.

Well, Gretzky did lead scoring in the playoffs and win the Conn Smythe in 1985, but it was hardly a runaway win like Lemieux's wins. The one year Gretzky did win the Conn Smythe going away was in 1988, where of course, he missed games during the regular season and lost out the awards and whatever to Lemieux. You can say Gretzky maybe did this one time (1985) if you're holding him to the same standard as Lemieux.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Well, Gretzky did lead scoring in the playoffs and win the Conn Smythe in 1985, but it was hardly a runaway win like Lemieux's wins. The one year Gretzky did win the Conn Smythe going away was in 1988, where of course, he missed games during the regular season and lost out the awards and whatever to Lemieux. You can say Gretzky maybe did this one time (1985) if you're holding him to the same standard as Lemieux.

Gretzky could (should?) have won the CS 3-5 times based on his performances and no one would have batted an eye.

 

[tabness]

Gretzky could (should?) have won the CS 3-5 times based on his performances and no one would have batted an eye.

I mean, OK, sure, and maybe Lemieux could have cleaned up the regular season awards in 1992 as well. But he didn't, and so by the standard being set...

What are we doing here guys? Let's be consistent in what's being applied. If you wanna go straight by the awards voting to say Lemieux didn't dominate the 1991-1992 season because he wasn't even close to the Hart/Pearson/first team all star, well then do the same for the Conn Smythe.

From this topic: Where can I find voting records for the Conn Smythe Trophy?

1984:

Unfortunately, couldn't find anything specific on the voting or runners up. Before game 5, Fuhr and Lowe were named alongside Messier, Fuhr being called the early favorite but of course got hurt in the finals. I know this is also one of those years that most of what people see are stats and wonder why Gretzky didn't win, but he doesn't seem to register much in the candidate sentiment. Then again, you can clearly find the typical "not a winner" sentiment against Gretzky at this period of time.

Kevin Lowe definitely got love in the form of votes. From a Jim Matheson article (his/him referring to Messier):

1985:

Close vote between Gretzky (winner) and Coffey (runner up) with Fuhr getting love too. One source can be read to state that the voting was 47-37, but this is much more likely an ambiguity with the grammatical construction of the phrase with them noting the difference between Gretzky's and Coffey's actual points lol

Oilers Rout Flyers, Get a Matching Set of Stanley Cups, 8-3

Fans in the cheap seats in the upper deck of the Northlands Coliseum were drinking red wine from a brass replica of the Stanley Cup before Thursday night's fifth game of the Stanley Cup finals.

www.latimes.com

Gretzky won the Conn Smythe Trophy, which goes to the Most Valuable Player in the playoffs. He beat out teammates Paul Coffey, Jari Kurri and Grant Fuhr for the award.

“Winning the Conn Smythe Trophy is a great thing,” Gretzky said. “From my heart I wish I could put Paul’s (Coffey) name next to mine. It must have been the closest vote in the history of the award.

1987:

Again, very tough to get anything concrete on voting. A bunch of names were called out as deserving, Gretzky, Fuhr, Messier, Kurri from the Oilers, and even Tocchett and Propp on the Flyers got a mention, but it seemed that Hextall was the frontrunner during the finals, and there was even an article on if his slash on Nilsson would be held against him in the media voting before game 7. There was of course, one direct voting tidbit that I found lol (didn't mention the first two):

1988:

It was "no surprise" that Gretzky won it. Runners up seem to be Fuhr and Messier. Both Messier and Fuhr seemed to have much more media sentiment entering the finals though.

1991: Lemieux also "runaway" winner. Can't find much explicitly, but it seems Barrasso would have been runner up to Lemieux. Funny anecdote to remind us not to take these awards votes too seriously lol: