Lemieux vs Gretzky - who had the Highest Offensive Peak? A thorough statistical analysis

[Michael Farkas]

A) Obviously wasn't serious
B) The question in your conclusion, that you answered with "so what", is exactly the goal.

10 years is just as arbitrary as 1.75 years. But regardless, this isn't my fight...

 

[The Panther]

Lemieux's team was also much worse than Gretzky's

This is also entirely false. Gretzky's team as it entered the NHL in 1979 was just as bad (if not worse) than Lemieux's awful Pens' team in 1984.

The Pens in Mario's 2nd year had a better record than the Oilers in Wayne's 2nd year.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Stop...the Pens were basically an expansion team for four or five years...and even after winning Cups were a clown organization. Top six forwards and almost nothing else after 1994...

 

[bobholly39]

Well:
1980-81 = 164 points (first full season of Gretzky's prime)
1990-91 = 163 points (last season of Gretzky's prime)

So, it would seem so.

1981 92 goals 212 points
1990 41 goals 163 points

Not quite...

 

[The Panther]

1981 92 goals 212 points
1990 41 goals 163 points

Not quite...

1981-82 and 1983-84 are atypical goal-scoring seasons in Gretzky's career, as you surely know. They're not even typical of his peak years, roughly 1981 to 1987. For most of his prime years, Gretzky was around a 60-goal scorer. The 87 (on a 93-pace) and 92 goal-scoring seasons were oddities in his career, not his standard.

1980-81 first 40 games = 21 goals (18th)
1985-86 first 40 games = 28 goals (5th)
1990-91 first 40 games = 25 goals (4th)

As Gretzky was a primarily a playmaking center, it would be daft to measure his offensive ability purely by his raw goal-scoring. We can see many occasions in his career --- including in his prime; and including in his peak years --- where his goal-scoring waxes and wanes, depending on various conditions with his teams.

It's equally obvious that Gretzky took far fewer shots on goal after the 1980s, roughly speaking. Of players with 100+ shots on goal, Wayne was 17th in shot-percentage in 1990-91, and he had more ES goals than 12 of the 16 ahead of him on that list, meaning he was probably (at a guess) around 5th in the NHL in ES shooting percentage.

He was 97th in shooting percentage in 1985-86. 43rd in 1993-94.

 

[Boxscore]

I think for me the biggest knock on Lemieuxs 93 season is that - as horrible as it sounds - his cancer contributed to it. If he plays all year with no major injury - not sure he matches/exceeds his per game pace. It probably goes down a bit.

I'm not sure about that. I mean, let's consider that fatigue played a part in Mario discovering he had Hodgkin's. So he was playing at an elite level while not feeling his best for a period of time.

Then the time off.

Then the emotional rollercoaster that comes with it.

Granted, he came back with tremendous drive the way only Mario could do, but I really think a healthy Mario breaks 220 that year.

 

[authentic]

I'm not sure about that. I mean, let's consider that fatigue played a part in Mario discovering he had Hodgkin's. So he was playing at an elite level while not feeling his best for a period of time.

Then the time off.

Then the emotional rollercoaster that comes with it.

Granted, he came back with tremendous drive the way only Mario could do, but I really think a healthy Mario breaks 220 that year.

Plus didn't his back problems kick in halfway through the 1988-89 season when he had like 130 something points in under 50 games?

 

[Boxscore]

Plus didn't his back problems kick in halfway through the 1988-89 season when he had like 130 something points in under 50 games?

Mario dealt with a sore back for years prior. He couldn't even lift his carry on bag above his head on the airplane.

 

[TheStatican]

It's kind of shitty how many posters are making fun of the length of posts. I wouldn't usually expect that on HOH.

Thank you, appreciate that. I'm a little surprised too, would have expected that in the general hockey section but not in the HOF section. Though it's also possible that some were reacting to the tone I took at times. After a re-read I can see how I might have came across as trying to push across some points a little too forcefully and with that in mind I've made some edits to be more conciliatory.

I think for me the biggest knock on Lemieuxs 93 season is that - as horrible as it sounds - his cancer contributed to it. If he plays all year with no major injury - not sure he matches/exceeds his per game pace. It probably goes down a bit.

He was on an absolute mission when he came back and i think thats part of it. If somehow the season extended to 20 more games at the end of 93 (so somehow 104 regular season games with Mario playing 80 total) i think he keeps his per game pace - but if he had played the games in between, he probably doesnt finish season quite as strong.

I think i have his 92-93 season as the greatest season ever, because of the comeback.

Absolute best ever? I don't know i go back and forth. Gretzky and Orr are definitely up there too.

All fair points, the NHL season is long and it's difficult for anyone to maintain a steady pace the whole way though. An extra 20 or whatever games may have indeed lead to fatigue factors, though in Mario's defense up until at least the half way point of the season he had shown no signs of fatigue; 50 points in his first 18, held scoreless for one then 54 in his next 19. Potting 56 in his last 20 is not really the dramatic surge in production over the norm for him that some are making it out to be. On a goal scoring front absolutely he surged (1.5 goals per game is in no way sustainable) but I think he clearly changed his approach to be more aggressive for the express purpose of scoring more goals and less focused on his passing game during that stretch. Sort of like how Gretzky decided to be more of a play maker in his 85-86 season.


His consistency really shows through when breaking down each season into 20-game intervals;

​	WG 81-82​	WG 82-83​	WG 83-84​	WG 84-85​	WG 85-86​	WG 86-87​	ML 87-88​	ML 88-89​	ML 92-93​	ML 95-96​
Games 1-20​	44​	45​	57​	54​	45​	45​	​	60​	52​	57​
Games 21-40​	64​	50​	60​	61​	58​	53​	​	53​	52​	47​
Games 41-60​	48​	52​	58​	52​	59​	51​	​	49​	​	32​
Games 61-80​	56​	49​	30 in 14​	41​	53​	34 in 19​	​	37 in 16​	56​	25 in 10​

There could be some unusual variances that lead to that stability in those exact game counts but the 20-game rolling average I posted earlier more or less corroborates it as well;

Not sure comparing his seasons to any of the others has any merit but for what it's worth there's a couple things to consider. Both of their first peak seasons feature wild fluctuations in performances compared to later ones. Only makes sense that a younger players would be less consistent. Gretzky trailed off late in '84, '85 & '87 though there are suggestions that '87 was purposeful in order to save himself for the playoffs. Lemieux hit a bit of a wall in the 3rd quarter of the '96 season as well but that's an older Lemieux out of his physical peak plus there were some extenuating circumstances which didn't help; the loss of his primary wingers Sandstrom & Naslund and the reemergence of those dreaded back problems all at around the same point. After a little bit of a weak start in '86 Gretzky was strong the rest of the way while Lemieux's 92-93 and Gretzky's 82-83 seasons were very stable throughout them.


All things considered I don't think Lemieux would have trailed off by much in the third quarter. I've been trying to not get into hypotheticals and only talk about what actually did occur rather than would could have which is what Lemieux proponents are always called out for, but for whatever predictive value it's worth(probably not much) I did an analysis of what opponents he would have faced. List of the strength of those teams and the numbers he posted against them that season;

Overall Rank​

Defensive Rank​

Gm #​

Team​

​

H/R​

Result​

Score​

​

PTS​

PTS%​

GF​

GA​

SRS​

SOS​

GF/G​

GA/G​

PPA​

PPOA​

PK%​

​

GP​

G​

A​

PTS​

18​

11​

42​

Minnesota North Stars​

​

​

L​

3​

6​

82​

0.488​

272​

293​

-0.21​

0.04​

3.24​

3.49​

81​

455​

82.2​

​

1​

1​

2​

3​

9​

9​

43​

Calgary Flames​

​

​

W​

3​

2​

97​

0.577​

322​

282​

0.25​

-0.22​

3.83​

3.36​

83​

492​

83.1​

​

X​

​

​

​

12​

18​

44​

Winnipeg Jets​

​

@​

L​

2​

3​

87​

0.518​

322​

320​

-0.20​

-0.23​

3.83​

3.81​

80​

437​

81.7​

​

1​

1​

2​

3​

2​

3​

45​

Boston Bruins​

​

@​

L​

0​

7​

109​

0.649​

332​

268​

0.74​

-0.03​

3.95​

3.19​

70​

413​

83.1​

​

3​

2​

2​

4​

23​

23​

46​

Ottawa Senators​

​

​

W​

6​

1​

24​

0.143​

202​

395​

-2.10​

0.20​

2.40​

4.70​

115​

460​

75.0​

​

2​

3​

1​

4​

7​

6​

47​

Vancouver Canucks​

​

@​

W​

5​

2​

101​

0.601​

346​

278​

0.60​

-0.21​

4.12​

3.31​

97​

452​

78.5​

​

1​

1​

2​

3​

20​

20​

48​

Edmonton Oilers​

​

@​

L​

1​

2​

60​

0.357​

242​

337​

-1.19​

-0.06​

2.88​

4.01​

106​

464​

77.2​

​

1​

1​

0​

1​

9​

9​

49​

Calgary Flames​

2nd​

@​

W​

4​

3​

97​

0.577​

322​

282​

0.25​

-0.22​

3.83​

3.36​

83​

492​

83.1​

​

X​

​

​

​

10​

10​

50​

Washington Capitals​

​

​

W​

6​

3​

93​

0.554​

325​

286​

0.57​

0.11​

3.87​

3.40​

74​

433​

82.9​

​

4​

8​

5​

13​

14​

13​

51​

New York Islanders​

​

​

L​

2​

5​

87​

0.518​

335​

297​

0.56​

0.11​

3.99​

3.54​

77​

375​

79.5​

​

5​

3​

7​

10​

17​

17​

52​

Philadelphia Flyers​

​

​

W​

4​

2​

83​

0.494​

319​

319​

0.20​

0.20​

3.80​

3.80​

95​

421​

77.4​

​

6​

9​

10​

19​

10​

10​

53​

Washington Capitals​

2nd​

@​

T​

2​

2​

93​

0.554​

325​

286​

0.57​

0.11​

3.87​

3.40​

74​

433​

82.9​

​

4​

8​

5​

13​

2​

3​

54​

Boston Bruins​

2nd​

​

W​

4​

0​

109​

0.649​

332​

268​

0.74​

-0.03​

3.95​

3.19​

70​

413​

83.1​

​

3​

2​

2​

4​

19​

16​

55​

New York Rangers​

​

@​

W​

3​

0​

79​

0.47​

304​

308​

0.10​

0.15​

3.62​

3.67​

84​

446​

81.2​

​

6​

10​

3​

13​

3​

1​

56​

Chicago Blackhawks​

​

​

W​

4​

1​

106​

0.631​

279​

230​

0.58​

-0.01​

3.32​

2.74​

81​

490​

83.5​

​

1​

1​

1​

2​

15​

12​

57​

Buffalo Sabres​

​

@​

L​

4​

7​

86​

0.512​

335​

297​

0.41​

-0.04​

3.99​

3.54​

72​

437​

83.5​

​

3​

2​

7​

9​

20​

20​

58​

Edmonton Oilers​

2nd​

​

L​

4​

5​

60​

0.357​

242​

337​

-1.19​

-0.06​

2.88​

4.01​

106​

464​

77.2​

​

1​

1​

0​

1​

14​

13​

59​

New York Islanders​

2nd​

@​

L​

2​

4​

87​

0.518​

335​

297​

0.56​

0.11​

3.99​

3.54​

77​

375​

79.5​

​

5​

3​

7​

10​

21​

22​

60​

Hartford Whalers​

​

@​

W​

4​

3​

58​

0.345​

284​

369​

-0.93​

0.08​

3.38​

4.39​

107​

493​

78.3​

​

2​

3​

2​

5​

13​

14​

61​

New Jersey Devils​

​

​

L​

1​

3​

87​

0.518​

308​

299​

0.26​

0.15​

3.67​

3.56​

79​

425​

81.4​

​

8​

6​

15​

21​

23​

23​

62​

Ottawa Senators​

2nd​

@​

L​

1​

2​

24​

0.143​

202​

395​

-2.10​

0.20​

2.40​

4.70​

115​

460​

75.0​

​

2​

3​

1​

4​

22​

19​

63​

Tampa Bay Lightning​

​

​

T​

3​

3​

53​

0.315​

245​

332​

-0.96​

0.08​

2.92​

3.95​

101​

395​

74.4​

​

1​

2​

0​

2​

10​

10​

64​

Washington Capitals​

3rd​

@​

W​

4​

2​

93​

0.554​

325​

286​

0.57​

0.11​

3.87​

3.40​

74​

433​

82.9​

​

4​

8​

5​

13​

13.0​

12.6​

​

​

​

​

​

72​

68​

80.7​

0.480​

​

​

-0.08​

0.02​

3.55​

3.65​

87.0​

441.7​

19.70%​

​

64​

78​

79​

157​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

3.13​

2.96​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

1.04​

5.26​

​

​

​

1.22​

1.23​

2.45​

12.5​

12.5​

​

Overall league averages​

​

​

​

​

​

84​

0.500​

​

​

0​

0​

3.63​

3.63​

1.03​

5.28​

19.57%​

​

​

​

​

​

In aggregate those teams were slightly below average overall and more or less exactly average defensively across the board. 11 home games 12 road games, the Penguins only averaged 3.13 goals a game against them which is lower than what those teams normally allowed(3.65) and much lower than their average of 4.87 with Lemieux. His scoring averages were 1.22-1.23-2.45 slightly higher in goals, lower in assists and points than his overall rates. This prorates to 28-28-56, added to his season totals gives 97-119-216 in 83 games(1.17gpg 2.60ppg) Of course the problem is that projection implies that his actual final 20 games would have gone exactly the same way which is unlikely to happened.

Still that's a 2.45ppg rate, average of 49 points in 20 games which is a notch lower than his seasonal rate in the first half. Imo I think that's more than a reasonable expectation, this would have given him 160 points in 63/64 games. Think about it, if your Lemieux and this is your first healthy season in 5 years with no guarantees of another within the rest of your peak wouldn't you go all out in those final 20 games? If what I'm saying is correct - that he was playing fewer minutes during the third period of a significant number of games up to that point and it was starting to look like the records might be in reach then would you not make it your absolute mission to go after them?

 

[daver]

Nothing you've said seems to indicate you've debunked me. Whether he was better at 18 or worse is irrelevant. Jagr scored 57 points in his first season yet he peaked higher than Ovechkin or Crosby. And Lemieux didn't really have a slow start he just wasn't as good as he eventually became. That can be said about plenty of players. It's the same across sports. Messi didn't score as much as Mbappe in his first 4 seasons but he peaked significantly higher.

I personally believe Lemieux's peak was higher as he did it against a much better opposition with better goaltending. If we use adjusted PPG Lemieux gets the best adjusted season and also 3 seasons in the top 4 seasons and that's just taking the inflated scoring across the league into consideration and not the other important fact which is that he did it in a tougher era.

You have said or shown literally nothing to back up your claim other than to play the "we just don't know, so I am going to look at the glass being half full for Mario while being half empty for Wayne" card nor a willingness to engage in a reasonable discussion.

E.g. "Mario wasn't at his peak in his 4th season so there is zero information we can glean from it. It matters not that he, at best, was equal with a post-peak Wayne that year, we should only start looking at Mario in 88/89."

Mario's PPG improved by 21% from his 4th year to his 5th year. His average PPG improvement from his rookie year to his 4th year was 20% per season. This is pretty much the expected % growth we see from generational talents from their first season (s) to their peak as we saw from Howe, Wayne, Crosby and McDavid.

If the league was that much harder to score and goalies were better in the "Mario peak" era, why weren't there considerably less PPG scorers in the league in 88/89 and in 92/93 than there was in Wayne's peak?

Here are the number of PPG scorers among the Top 50 scorers:

1980/81 - 36

1981/82 - 46

1982/83 - 40

1983/84 - 47

1984/85 - 40

1985/86 - 42

1987/88 - 44

1988/89 - 44

1989/90 - 41

1990/91 - 30

1991/92 - 33

1992/93 - 48

1993/94 - 34

1994/95 - 26

1995/96 - 38

1996/97 - 26

Absolutely zero pattern of the scoring environment for the league's best scorers getting progressively harder from the start of the 80s thru to 88/89, then a noticeable decline starts in 89/90 until '92/93 sticks out as a clear anomaly that coincides with Mario's other peak season. Then coincidentally, there is another anomaly in 95/96 when Mario happens to put up his best post-peak season.

What we also do not see is a clear downturn in playoff scoring as the scoring in the regular season decreases after 88/89. Wayne's five Cup run PPG from '83 to '88 matches Mario's Cup run PPG, and stands out more from his peers than Mario's did.

 

[TheStatican]

I agree that Gretzky appears to have gotten more "garbage time" points during his prime, than Lemieux did in 1993. Without posting all the calculations, the difference works out to (roughly) one extra point every 20 games. Is it worth considering if we're going to obsess (I mean that in a good way) about every detail? Yes - but an extra ~4 points over the course of the season isn't significant when we're talking about ~200 point paces.

When it comes to his legacy for sure it doesn't move the needle, that's certainly not what I'm implying. A few less points in those seasons wouldn't change how Gretzky is viewed. It's really only of relevance for specific questions like this.

It's true that the 1993 Penguins had fewer blowout wins than Gretzky's Oilers - because Lemieux missed a quarter of the season. Comparing the 1993 Penguins when Lemieux was in the lineup to the Oilers shows that they had blowout wins at (more or less) the same rates.

Based on the numbers you posted, the Oilers (across those six seasons) won by 3+ goals 36% of the time. The 1993 Pens did that 40% of the time when Lemieux was playing (24 of 60 games) vs only 25% when he wasn't (6 of 21 games).

Even considering only the games they played in it doesn't change the point I was making. The numbers do show the Penguins of '93 won around the same number of games by 3+ goals but look at what happened after they got to that point.

Since the discussion has mostly narrowed down to 83-84 vs 92-93 I'll just post the chart of those two seasons using only the games they played in, both teams having virtually identical winning %

	WG 83-84​	ML 92-93​
Team Points	117 in 74​	95 in 60​
Team winning %	0.790​	0.792​
Blowout wins by 3+ goals	31​	25​
Blowout wins by 4+ goals	20​	14​
Blowout wins by 5+ goals	12​	6​
Blowout wins by 6+ goals	8​	3​
Blowout wins by 7+ goals	8​	1​
wins by 3+ goals % of games	41.9%​	41.7%​
wins by 4+ goals % of games	27.0%​	23.3%​
wins by 5+ goals % of games	16.2%​	10.0%​
wins by 6+ goals % of games	10.8%​	5.0%​
wins by 7+ goals % of games	10.8%​	1.7%​

Just dug up even more corroborating evidence;

Lemieux didn't even play in that one game they lost while leading by the end of the second. Their record was 39-0-3 when leading by the end of the second and 2-4-1 when trailing (0-9-0 without him). So clearly whatever strategy it was that they were employing in the third period had no detrimental effect where it mattered most - winning games.


Essentially both teams were equally as dominate in the 1st and 2nd periods. But then in the third...
'84 Oilers

'93 Pens

The Penguins were without a doubt the best team in the league in 92-93 and they played like in the 1st and 2nd periods easily leading the league in scoring. Then suddenly their scoring rate drops down in the third period to 14th in the league? They we even outscored in the period with only 6 teams having a worse goals for/against ratio. The 5 worst teams in the league; Whalers(58 points), Sharks(24 points), Oilers(60 points), Lighting(53 points), Senators(24 points) and the mediocre Blues(85 points).

These are the numbers in the games Lemieux played in, not as horrible but still shows a clear pattern; the team scored at rates 30% higher in the first and 45% higher in the second than in the third.

​	Goals For​	For G% by Period​	Goals Against​	Ratio For/Against​
1st Period​	100​	34.2%​	53​	1.9​
2nd Period​	112​	38.4%​	71​	1.6​
3rd Period​	77​	26.3%​	71​	1.1​
OT​	3​	10.3%​	0​	​

We don't have the TOI numbers but here's the next best thing, the period to period scoring stats for the team;

Most of the team did their scoring in the first and second, there were only two players on the entire team who scored more of their points in the third then in the first two; Ulf & Kjell Samuelsson. Three others scored more than 30% in the third; McEachern, Loney & Needham and 4 others scored a higher % than the team average in the third; Jagr, Mullen, Peak & Errey.


The evidence couldn't be more clear and obvious. I mean what's the more logical explanation as to what happened here?

A) It's some weird anomaly and the powerhouse, back-to-back championship winning, best in the league Penguins just suddenly forgot how to play with a lead?
OR
B) Having out scored their opponents by over 100 goals by the end of the second period; 267 to 166(even the Oilers never outscored their opposition by that much entering the third, their highest was +93 goals in 85-86) they let off the gas rather than continue to pile the scoring on choosing to instead nurse those big leads by giving their more defensive minded players a greater share of minutes in the final 20.

Is there anyone who seriously thinks it's A??

This is not one of those "WHAT IF" scenarios - we have the stats that prove Lemieux was out-pacing Gretzky (these are unadjusted figures) all the way until VERY late in the third period when Gretzky suddenly explodes scoring at rates that equate to 5 or 6 points per game thanks largely to stats he put up in blowout wins

PPG;	WG 81-82	WG 82-83	WG 83-84	WG 84-85	WG 85-86	WG 86-87		ML 88-89	ML 92-93	ML 92-93
by end of the 2nd period	1.58	1.56	1.89	1.64	1.78	1.48		1.64	1.98	1.51
through to 50 mins	2.09	2.01	2.22	2.05	2.20	1.84		2.13	2.30	1.90
through to 55 mins	2.28	2.21	2.42	2.30	2.41	2.01		2.33	2.50	2.14
through to 57.5 mins	2.46	2.30	2.53	2.48	2.45	2.13		2.39	2.55	2.23

 

[Overrated]

E.g. "Mario wasn't at his peak in his 4th season so there is zero information we can glean from it. It matters not that he, at best, was equal with a post-peak Wayne that year, we should only start looking at Mario in 88/89."

It was a season where he was already better than Gretzky with a significantly higher goal production while playing on a team which didn't make the play offs while Edmonton cooked Boston 4-0 in the finals. Definitely part of his prime. Maybe even the start of his peak.

If we look at adjusted PPG Mario takes 3 out of the best 4 seasons ever and that's in a harder era.

I think that is a good enough of an argument. I am not saying Lemieux had a better career, just a higher peak.

If the league was that much harder to score and goalies were better in the "Mario peak" era, why weren't there considerably less PPG scorers in the league in 88/89 and in 92/93 than there was in Wayne's peak?

The overall scoring per game dipped slightly from about 7.9 from the first half of the 80s to about 7.4 in the second. In the early 90s it averaged about 7.1. It's not a massive dip but I think much of that could be attributed to the changes in goaltending. Whether there are more PPG scorers or whether there are more goals scored on average not is irrelevant to the quality of the game. The AHL had years with less scoring than the NHL after all.

 

[The Panther]

It was a season where he was already better than Gretzky with a significantly higher goal production while playing on a team which didn't make the play offs while Edmonton cooked Boston 4-0 in the finals. Definitely part of his prime. Maybe even the start of his peak.

If we look at adjusted PPG Mario takes 3 out of the best 4 seasons ever and that's in a harder era.

He wasn't objectively better than Gretzky in 1987-88 -- that's silly:

Mario
168 points in 77 games (+23)
Wayne
192 points in 83 games (+49)

Gretzky's totals here include 19 (actually 18) playoff games, including series against the #1, #4, and #5 clubs in the NHL... and he still comes out ahead.

I don't know where you're getting your adjusted stats from. None of these adjusted things are accurate, obviously, but according to Hockey Ref., the top (post-1920s) adjusted seasons are:
1. Gretzky
2. Gretzky
3. Lemieux
4. Gretzky
5.. Gretzky

Also, what does "harder era" have to do with anything when the stats are already being adjusted?

Also, how is it a harder era when Lemieux and Gretzky played in the same era?

Also, why are some people so fixated on arguing for one guy's "peak" that they'll turn a definition of "peak" into "60 regular season games, except we'll ignore the final five minutes of games to give our guy a microscopic advantage in this tiny and largely meaningless sample." I mean, this doesn't strike you as a bit desperate?

 

[Overrated]

He wasn't objectively better than Gretzky in 1987-88 -- that's silly:

Mario
168 points in 77 games (+23)
Wayne
192 points in 83 games (+49)

Gretzky's totals here include 19 (actually 18) playoff games, including series against the #1, #4, and #5 clubs in the NHL... and he still comes out ahead.

Goals on average have a higher value than assists. Same in CC87. He was a better player there too and I don't care about the MVP voting. They even voted Krutov ahead of Makarov after that performance what a joke.

I don't know where you're getting your adjusted stats from. None of these adjusted things are accurate, obviously, but according to Hockey Ref., the top (post-1920s) adjusted seasons are:
1. Gretzky
2. Gretzky
3. Lemieux
4. Gretzky
5.. Gretzky

You're wrong. You're looking at overall points. Not PPG. Mario always missed 10-20 games due to injuries cancer etc. In adjusted PPG he has 3 seasons in the top 4.

Also, what does "harder era" have to do with anything when the stats are already being adjusted?

The adjusting has nothing to do with the difficulty of the era but is based on the average goals scored. It has more to do with the current meta of the league. You yourself said the first expansion was long overdue yet the scoring in the mid-60s was higher than in the late-40s. The mid-60s were obviously more skilled and talented than let's say 1948/49 but the adjusting will actually bring down the mid-60s numbers.

So these are two different factors. The difficulty of the era is set by the size of the talent pool and is not taken into consideration at all whatsoever in the subsequent "adjusting".

Also, how is it a harder era when Lemieux and Gretzky played in the same era?

This whole thread is about the peaks of the two players. Hello? Gretzky peaked in the early mid 80s and Lemieux in the late 80s early 90s. So yes they played in the same era but peaked in a pretty different environment.

 

[daver]

It was a season where he was already better than Gretzky with a significantly higher goal production while playing on a team which didn't make the play offs while Edmonton cooked Boston 4-0 in the finals. Definitely part of his prime. Maybe even the start of his peak.

If we look at adjusted PPG Mario takes 3 out of the best 4 seasons ever and that's in a harder era.

Adjusted stats are inherently flawed as their only use is confirmation of bias.

Look no further than the 92/93 season that saw the most players ever in the Top 50 at a PPG or above despite a lower GPG than all ten seasons of the '80s.

Or how Mike Bossy's 140 point season in '81/82 season "adjusts" to 6th place in 98/99.

I have no doubt that the adjusted numbers showing Mario ahead are "good enough for you".

 

[Overrated]

Look no further than the 92/93 season that saw the most players ever in the Top 50 at a PPG or above despite a lower GPG than all ten seasons of the '80s.

So if the top50 scored more but the league overall scored less that means the top50 was much stronger than in an era where the top50 scored less but the league overall scored more. So yeah that proves Lemieux played in a better league with more outliers whereas Gretzky peaked when the average top player was much closer to the median player.

 

[daver]

So if the top50 scored more but the league overall scored less that means the top50 was much stronger than in an era where the top50 scored less but the league overall scored more. So yeah that proves Lemieux played in a better league with more outliers whereas Gretzky peaked when the average top player was much closer to the median player.

Again, confirmation bias. Sometimes the bottom six scored more than in other eras hence a higher league GPG, sometime PP calls were way up hence a lower GPG but still high PPGs by the first PP unit players.

You are trying to convince us that Mario underperformed relative to his peak talent in the years he was head to head with peak, or just after peak Wayne, while playing in the same scoring environment that allowed Wayne to hit 200 points year after year. But then takes an usually large jump in 88/89.

The statistical evidence points to this being a very unreasonable subjective take.

 

[MadLuke]

So if the top50 scored more but the league overall scored less that means the top50 was much stronger than in an era where the top50 scored less but the league overall scored more. So yeah that proves Lemieux played in a better league with more outliers whereas Gretzky peaked when the average top player was much closer to the median player.

And the adjusting metric does not take taht into account it use wide league scoring even if Lemieux was in an easier to be outlier and more above the median than in Gretzky days.

Because of the ads break and mostly the powerplay heavy year.

 

[authentic]

You have said or shown literally nothing to back up your claim other than to play the "we just don't know, so I am going to look at the glass being half full for Mario while being half empty for Wayne" card nor a willingness to engage in a reasonable discussion.

E.g. "Mario wasn't at his peak in his 4th season so there is zero information we can glean from it. It matters not that he, at best, was equal with a post-peak Wayne that year, we should only start looking at Mario in 88/89."

Mario's PPG improved by 21% from his 4th year to his 5th year. His average PPG improvement from his rookie year to his 4th year was 20% per season. This is pretty much the expected % growth we see from generational talents from their first season (s) to their peak as we saw from Howe, Wayne, Crosby and McDavid.

If the league was that much harder to score and goalies were better in the "Mario peak" era, why weren't there considerably less PPG scorers in the league in 88/89 and in 92/93 than there was in Wayne's peak?

Here are the number of PPG scorers among the Top 50 scorers:

1980/81 - 36

1981/82 - 46

1982/83 - 40

1983/84 - 47

1984/85 - 40

1985/86 - 42

1987/88 - 44

1988/89 - 44

1989/90 - 41

1990/91 - 30

1991/92 - 33

1992/93 - 48

1993/94 - 34

1994/95 - 26

1995/96 - 38

1996/97 - 26

Absolutely zero pattern of the scoring environment for the league's best scorers getting progressively harder from the start of the 80s thru to 88/89, then a noticeable decline starts in 89/90 until '92/93 sticks out as a clear anomaly that coincides with Mario's other peak season. Then coincidentally, there is another anomaly in 95/96 when Mario happens to put up his best post-peak season.

What we also do not see is a clear downturn in playoff scoring as the scoring in the regular season decreases after 88/89. Wayne's five Cup run PPG from '83 to '88 matches Mario's Cup run PPG, and stands out more from his peers than Mario's did.

A lot of this is explained in OP. It's not like it was easier to score in those seasons than the early to mid 80s.

Also there were more teams and elite players in 1992-93. More players to stand out from.

 

[authentic]

Adjusted stats are inherently flawed as their only use is confirmation of bias.

Look no further than the 92/93 season that saw the most players ever in the Top 50 at a PPG or above despite a lower GPG than all ten seasons of the '80s.

Or how Mike Bossy's 140 point season in '81/82 season "adjusts" to 6th place in 98/99.

I have no doubt that the adjusted numbers showing Mario ahead are "good enough for you".

There were 4 more teams and the addition of all the European and Russian players, the talent pool was also bigger for Canadians and American's by this point. Surely this had some effect, no?

 

[daver]

And the adjusting metric does not take taht into account it use wide league scoring even if Lemieux was in an easier to be outlier and more above the median than in Gretzky days.

Because of the ads break and mostly the powerplay heavy year.

He wasn't. It was about the same in terms of gap between him and the other Top 10, 20, 50 scorers. The irony is that Mario dominated at ES that year unlike his other seasons.

 

[The Panther]

There were 4 more teams and the addition of all the European and Russian players, the talent pool was also bigger for Canadians and American's by this point. Surely this had some effect, no?

Also, the pool of AHL-level players was larger with the new expansion teams.

Are you just going to ignore that 1992-93 was the easiest season ever to score 100+ points in when you're barking about "harder era"?

Are you adjusting Gretzky's points-per-game also when adjusting Lemieux's?

Is all of this really purposeful to form a statistically negligible conclusion about a 60-regular-season game stretch from the ancient past?

 

[Overrated]

Also, the pool of AHL-level players was larger with the new expansion teams.

Are you just going to ignore that 1992-93 was the easiest season ever to score 100+ points in when you're barking about "harder era"?

Are you adjusting Gretzky's points-per-game also when adjusting Lemieux's?

Is all of this really purposeful to form a statistically negligible conclusion about a 60-regular-season game stretch from the ancient past?

92/93 season had less average scoring than any of the years of Gretzky's peak. The only way then for this argument to have any validity is basically claiming that the talent pool diluted so much that the league became softer. Kind of like the league in the early 70s did when the league tripled in size in a few short years whereas the talent pool obviously didn't triple in a span of 5 years.

The problem here is that when Gretzky had his insane 87 goal in 74 games season the league was just 14% smaller than in 92/93. So are you saying that the NHL hockey talent pool didn't grow more than 14% in those 9 years? Despite the fact that the talent pool of the US almost doubled in that period, the entire Eastern Bloc invasion where by the way the league mostly got only the upper end of the talent pool as the Canadian coaches would always prefer a North American 4th liner to a European of equal skill fearing they wouldn't adjust to the different way of playing. And I am not even taking into consideration the pool of talent within Canada was slightly deeper in 92/93 as well.

I call bs on the idea that 92/93 was the softest year to score 100+ points. All of the 1970s and 1980s were easier to accomplish this,

 

[authentic]

Also, the pool of AHL-level players was larger with the new expansion teams.

Are you just going to ignore that 1992-93 was the easiest season ever to score 100+ points in when you're barking about "harder era"?

Are you adjusting Gretzky's points-per-game also when adjusting Lemieux's?

Is all of this really purposeful to form a statistically negligible conclusion about a 60-regular-season game stretch from the ancient past?

This has been addressed in OP(s). It wasn't really the easiest, it was one of them though along with several seasons in the 1980s.

 

[daver]

92/93 season had less average scoring than any of the years of Gretzky's peak. The only way then for this argument to have any validity is basically claiming that the talent pool diluted so much that the league became softer. Kind of like the league in the early 70s did when the league tripled in size in a few short years whereas the talent pool obviously didn't triple in a span of 5 years.

But the PPGs of the first line/Top 6 forwards was just as high or higher than seasons during Wayne's peak because PP opportunities were at their 3rd highest rate ever: NHL League Averages | Hockey-Reference.com Compare the PP points by the top forwards in 90/91 to 93/94 and you will see 92/93 clearly sticks out as an anomaly.

Again, you keep throwing out theories as facts in the face of statistical evidence.

Your are basically arguing for a revisionist history to try to make your argument reasonable. Noone was questioning Wayne's greatness as, after being the original child prodigy, he obliterated scoring records and won four Cups.

He was outstanding on a bad Oilers team in his rookie season tying for first in league scoring, then at age 20, broke the NHL scoring record, again on a bad Oilers team.

In 81/82, he sets the all-time record for goals while, again, noone on the Oilers is within 50% of his point totals. The Oilers have improved to #2 in the league as the defense improves and future NHL stars start to come into their own.

In 82/83, the Oiler start their first of five SCFs in six seasons with Wayne doing exactly what you expect of him, continuing to put up video game numbers the whole time.

He continues with 200 point plus season seasons until 85/86 then drops down to 180 point pace seasons the next two years. He wins two more Cups during this time and has his 2nd highest playoff point total in 1988.

You can also throw in a legendary Canada Cup performance in 1987.

Noone looks at this resume after the 1988 season and starts digging deeper to see if it is should not be taken completely as face value. Noone is questioning that if Wayne played on any other team, he doesn't do exactly what he did; put up video game numbers and win championships.


What do you think? Is there anything in this summary that you want to dispute?