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

[Overrated]

Yes, it does mean something. It means you are ignoring what I am saying, and continuing to return to numbers adjusted to average scoring while completely disregarding the context around those numbers or the problems of looking at the top (outlier) players while doing so.. carry on, I don't have time to waste on the 10,000th prop up Mario thread here.

That is alright. Adjusted PPG scoring is not even the main reason I'd put Mario's peak at the top but it's a nice way to compare players in different eras with something tangible and it's something I only learned about upon joining this forum. The main reason for me personally is the fact that I consider the 90s as significantly more competitive and difficult to stand out in yet he did it as much as Gretzky had done in a softer era. Hey, you might disagree with me but I don't think it's totally unreasonable to think what I think.

 

[daver]

That is alright. Adjusted PPG scoring is not even the main reason I'd put Mario's peak at the top but it's a nice way to compare players in different eras with something tangible and it's something I only learned about upon joining this forum. The main reason for me personally is the fact that I consider the 90s as significantly more competitive and difficult to stand out in yet he did it as much as Gretzky had done in a softer era. Hey, you might disagree with me but I don't think it's totally unreasonable to think what I think.

The same "softer era" that Mario produced his best career season? Or did the "softer era" just happen to stop in 1988?

I do seem to recall there was a sense a nostalgia the in 87/88 season as the league formally ended "the softer era" and was introducing the "significantly more competitive era" in 88/89.

 

[Overrated]

The same "softer era" that Mario produced his best career season? Or did the "softer era" just happen to stop in 1988?

I do seem to recall there was a sense a nostalgia the in 87/88 season as the league formally ended "the softer era" and was introducing the "significantly more competitive era" in 88/89.

I'd say the league was getting more competitive and harder every year since 1980 until about the mid 90s. No need to create a ridiculous strawman which claims it all happened within a single year. The 5 team expansion till the last real Mario's superseason in 95/96 did partially offset it but not enough to not see a significant improvement of the league between 1980 and 1996. If I had to guess I'd say the NHL talent pool near doubled in that period.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Using a sum of 20 to 35 year olds (16 birth years), for Canadians. Representative of Canadian strength.

Canadian talent peaks in 1987, followed by 1986 and 1988. 1978 through 1998 all have 3 million+ Canadian NHL aged males. Number hits 3 million again in 2015, only to dip down again.

The 3 peak years have 3.5 million+.

Lowest 3 years post 1978 are 2004, 2003, 2005. All around 2.85 million.

The spike throughout the 60s is insane. 1966 is first year at 2 million. 1925 through 1966 are all in the 1.5 to 2 million range.

So, the number has been between 2.5 million and 3.5 million between 1973 and today.

If you are basing it purely on Canadian demographic strength, the Canadian talent pool peaked in 1986-1988.

 

[authentic]

Power-play opportunities league wide were still lower than in the 92/93 season though and on par with the 91/92 season. Purely statistically it's the most impressive season. Of course there are different factors and it's entirely possible Mario was not at his absolute best anymore. There are so many factors that come to play. Who was drawing these penalties? Since that was the first season of Jagr's real peak I bet he was drawing a big chuck of those too. Unfortunately this important statistic is something I've never been able to find however if you're drawing the penalties yourself then you're at least partially responsible for all of the points scored in those PPs. Hypothetically if Mario drew significantly more penalties than Wayne throughout his prime him scoring more points on PPs can't be used against him.

Powerplay opportunities were higher for everyone in Mario's peak, this explains a lot of the gap in their powerplay and ES scoring. However Wayne was still the best ES player overall and Mario was still the best powerplay scorer, but OP already adjusted ES and PP rates specifically and Mario has the best ES and PP points per game season adjusted while Gretzky has the best SH.

I'd say the league was getting more competitive and harder every year since 1980 until about the mid 90s. No need to create a ridiculous strawman which claims it all happened within a single year. The 5 team expansion till the last real Mario's superseason in 95/96 did partially offset it but not enough to not see a significant improvement of the league between 1980 and 1996. If I had to guess I'd say the NHL talent pool near doubled in that period.

Not only this, but goalies and defensive structure and physical play got a lot better. By physical play I don't just mean Messier or some goons trying to take your head off but more players finishing their checks in an increasingly faster paced game.

 

[daver]

I'd say the league was getting more competitive and harder every year since 1980 until about the mid 90s. No need to create a ridiculous strawman which claims it all happened within a single year. The 5 team expansion till the last real Mario's superseason in 95/96 did partially offset it but not enough to not see a significant improvement of the league between 1980 and 1996. If I had to guess I'd say the NHL talent pool near doubled in that period.

Are you saying Wayne did not peak in the early '80s when he hit 200 points?

 

[authentic]

Using a sum of 20 to 35 year olds (16 birth years), for Canadians. Representative of Canadian strength.

Canadian talent peaks in 1987, followed by 1986 and 1988. 1978 through 1998 all have 3 million+ Canadian NHL aged males. Number hits 3 million again in 2015, only to dip down again.

The 3 peak years have 3.5 million+.

Lowest 3 years post 1978 are 2004, 2003, 2005. All around 2.85 million.

The spike throughout the 60s is insane. 1966 is first year at 2 million. 1925 through 1966 are all in the 1.5 to 2 million range.

So, the number has been between 2.5 million and 3.5 million between 1973 and today.

If you are basing it purely on Canadian demographic strength, the Canadian talent pool peaked in 1986-1988.

So basically including every other nation Lemieux easily faced a larger overall talent pool in the 90s

Are you saying Wayne did not peak in the early '80s when he hit 200 points?

He's saying the league got better overall and more competitive progressively from 1980 until the mid 90s

 

[jigglysquishy]

So basically including every other nation Lemieux easily faced a larger overall talent pool in the 90s

In 1986, 51 players had 74 or more points. 14 were not Canadians. 72.5% of top 50 were Canadian. 101 players had 59 or more points. 72 were Canadian. 71 % were Canadian.

1993, 51 players had 81 or more points. 33 were Canadian or 64.5%. 100 players had 62 or more points. 63 were Canadian or 63%.

Let's use 72.5% as x and 64.5% as y.

3,508,354/72.5% = 4,839,109 player pool
3,362,494/64.5% = 5,213,169 player pool

So deeper, but not by much.

Now, there are a lot of assumptions here. If you use 20-30 instead of 20-35 the numbers jump to 1986 being a deeper year.

 

[daver]

In 1986, 51 players had 74 or more points. 14 were not Canadians. 72.5% of top 50 were Canadian. 101 players had 59 or more points. 72 were Canadian. 71 % were Canadian.

1993, 51 players had 81 or more points. 33 were Canadian or 64.5%. 100 players had 62 or more points. 63 were Canadian or 63%.

Let's use 72.5% as x and 64.5% as y.

3,508,354/72.5% = 4,839,109 player pool
3,362,494/64.5% = 5,213,169 player pool

So deeper, but not by much.

Now, there are a lot of assumptions here. If you use 20-30 instead of 20-35 the numbers jump to 1986 being a deeper year.

Generally speaking, the # of teams in the league has expanded as the player pool expanded but the relative strength of the league stays the same. I.e. a standout player from 80 years ago would stand out today.

 

[Overrated]

Using a sum of 20 to 35 year olds (16 birth years), for Canadians. Representative of Canadian strength.

Canadian talent peaks in 1987, followed by 1986 and 1988. 1978 through 1998 all have 3 million+ Canadian NHL aged males. Number hits 3 million again in 2015, only to dip down again.

The 3 peak years have 3.5 million+.

Lowest 3 years post 1978 are 2004, 2003, 2005. All around 2.85 million.

The spike throughout the 60s is insane. 1966 is first year at 2 million. 1925 through 1966 are all in the 1.5 to 2 million range.

So, the number has been between 2.5 million and 3.5 million between 1973 and today.

If you are basing it purely on Canadian demographic strength, the Canadian talent pool peaked in 1986-1988.

There is also another factor. The participation and popularity of hockey. From 78 to 98 it could be around equal but it's safe to assume the game didn't reach its full popularity by 1960 so the growth was even more meteoric. Likewise due to more youth of immigrant background which often prioritize other sports and modern technology making sports less popular hockey is likely way less popular today despite relatively high potential talent within Canada.

Btw what is the talent pool depth for the seasons 80/81 and 95/96 according to your calculations? If you have the numbers written somewhere could you write out the numbers for each season within this period?

 

[jigglysquishy]

Generally speaking, the # of teams in the league has expanded as the player pool expanded but the relative strength of the league stays the same. I.e. a standout player from 80 years ago would stand out today.

Disagree with the former, agree with the latter.

Combining demographic data with the decline of hockey's popularity in Canada, it's hard to argue against the early 90s being the strongest time in the sport's history. The rise of the KHL too has removed many depth players from the NHL that would have been NHLers in 1995.

Yet, the NHL has grown from 24 teams to 32.

The best of the best will stand out. We grow the number of Tanner Glasses faster than we grow the number of Wayne Gretzkys.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Btw what is the talent pool depth for the seasons 80/81 and 90/95 according to your calculations? If you have the numbers written somewhere could you write out the numbers for each season within this period?

1981: 3,303,520 Canadian NHL aged males
1996: 3,126,942 Canadian NHL aged males
1981: 43 of top 50 are Canadian (86%)
1996 26 of top 50 are Canadian (52%)

1981 talent pool : 3,840,000
1996 talent pool: 6,013,000

 

[Hockey Outsider]

In 1986, 51 players had 74 or more points. 14 were not Canadians. 72.5% of top 50 were Canadian. 101 players had 59 or more points. 72 were Canadian. 71 % were Canadian.

1993, 51 players had 81 or more points. 33 were Canadian or 64.5%. 100 players had 62 or more points. 63 were Canadian or 63%.

Let's use 72.5% as x and 64.5% as y.

3,508,354/72.5% = 4,839,109 player pool
3,362,494/64.5% = 5,213,169 player pool

So deeper, but not by much.

Now, there are a lot of assumptions here. If you use 20-30 instead of 20-35 the numbers jump to 1986 being a deeper year.

This is a clever approach. This seems to be a pretty good way of estimating the global talent pool (at least as a ballpark estimate).

 

[Overrated]

1981: 3,303,520 Canadian NHL aged males
1996: 3,126,942 Canadian NHL aged males
1981: 43 of top 50 are Canadian (86%)
1996 26 of top 50 are Canadian (52%)

1981 talent pool : 3,840,000
1996 talent pool: 6,013,000

on a per team basis
1980/1981: 3,840,000/21 = 182,857
1995/1996: 6,013,000/26 = 231,269

That is ~26.5% increase leaguewide and that's in the best case scenario for 1980/81 because that would make the birth years eligible for your calculations to be 1945 to 1960. Participation among the youth likely grew:


In 1958, over 150,000 “youngsters” across the country were playing in CAHA-affiliated leagues; by 1962,
that number was more than 200,000. The Toronto Hockey League alone had more than 25,000 players, ages eight to eighteen.

During the 1960s, the league was more popular than ever. Teams set attendance records, and Hockey Night in Canada was at the top of the ratings. And participation continued to grow. By the end of the decade, more than a half-million boys were playing organized hockey in Canada.

A federal study looked at Canadian hockey in a different light, asking who played the sport. Researchers found that the national game wasn’t all that national. During the winter of 1978–79, one million Canadian males played organized hockey, in a country of just under twenty-five million. Participation rates were equal among English and French households, although there were regional disparities: Ontario had the highest rate of participation, the Atlantic provinces the lowest. The bulk of these players—nearly six hundred thousand— were boys, ages five to fourteen. These minor hockey players were most likely to live in urban areas and to come from middle-class households.

These three paragraphs come from three different pages within The Fastest Game in the World. Of course I don't exactly know whether these numbers were counted the same way it's fair to say that at least during the 50s and the 60s the game was growing rapidly and that a big chunk of guys who would reach the ages from 20 to 35 in 1980 weren't participating as kids but that would be progressively a much smaller group as the 1980s went by.

 

[jigglysquishy]

This is a clever approach. This seems to be a pretty good way of estimating the global talent pool (at least as a ballpark estimate).

It's a blunt instrument and maybe ages 20-30 is more appropriate than 20-35 if we are looking at top scorers.

It's hard to gauge interest level. There are less NHL aged males in Germany or Switzerland or Denmark today than in 1990, but the hockey programs are larger today.

Inversely, how do we bring in the explosion of non hockey sports in Canada? Or that 50% of births are non white while 90% of incoming NHLers are white?

Maybe the demographic stuff can all be mathed out. But I don't know how to quantify the kid that plays high school basketball today, but would have played in the CHL in 1985.

~5% of the NBA is Canadian today. That number was below 0.5% until the early 80s. There are ~50 Canadians playing pro soccer at some level, while 30 years ago that was basically 0. Non hockey sports are the most popular they've ever been in Canada. It is crucial to weigh that in the hockey pool discussion.

 

[Overrated]

It's a blunt instrument and maybe ages 20-30 is more appropriate than 20-35 if we are looking at top scorers.

It's hard to gauge interest level. There are less NHL aged males in Germany or Switzerland or Denmark today than in 1990, but the hockey programs are larger today.

Inversely, how do we bring in the explosion of non hockey sports in Canada? Or that 50% of births are non white while 90% of incoming NHLers are white?

Maybe the demographic stuff can all be mathed out. But I don't know how to quantify the kid that plays high school basketball today, but would have played in the CHL in 1985.

Well a number of hockey players is of course much better to use than the number of males in Canada and it would account for the whole non-white/immigrant issue but it's way harder to find.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Yes, it does mean something. It means you are ignoring what I am saying, and continuing to return to numbers adjusted to average scoring while completely disregarding the context around those numbers or the problems of looking at the top (outlier) players while doing so.. carry on, I don't have time to waste on the 10,000th prop up Mario thread here.

N this is what I was referring too.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

It's a blunt instrument and maybe ages 20-30 is more appropriate than 20-35 if we are looking at top scorers.

It's hard to gauge interest level. There are less NHL aged males in Germany or Switzerland or Denmark today than in 1990, but the hockey programs are larger today.

Inversely, how do we bring in the explosion of non hockey sports in Canada? Or that 50% of births are non white while 90% of incoming NHLers are white?

Maybe the demographic stuff can all be mathed out. But I don't know how to quantify the kid that plays high school basketball today, but would have played in the CHL in 1985.

~5% of the NBA is Canadian today. That number was below 0.5% until the early 80s. There are ~50 Canadians playing pro soccer at some level, while 30 years ago that was basically 0. Non hockey sports are the most popular they've ever been in Canada. It is crucial to weigh that in the hockey pool discussion.

Yes, definitely a blunt instrument. But it's also a step in the right direction. (And more useful than pretending that the talent pool is 30x bigger than it was in 1980 by virtue of adding Canada's population to that of Russia and the US).

 

[authentic]

Yes, definitely a blunt instrument. But it's also a step in the right direction. (And more useful than pretending that the talent pool is 30x bigger than it was in 1980 by virtue of adding Canada's population to that of Russia and the US).

Who's pretending it's 30x bigger? Even a 10-20% increase is something worth considering when two players are this close are their peaks.

 

[barbu]

Going from the aggregate data that is my eye test, they were not much distinction between the two if at all during their peak. Gretzky 's peak lasted longer of course, in games played.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

Quite frankly, I think the people who think Mario had the best peak ever don't seem to show any understanding of the actual timing of the influx of elite European talent to the NHL. It strikes me as an argument of convenience to support their confirmation biases more than anything else.

Here's the entire list of European forwards who scored more than 500 points in the NHL, with their career point totals, sorted by year of birth:

1956: P. Stastny 1239, Nilsson 686, Gradin 593
1957: None
1958: Gustafsson 554
1959: A. Stastny 636, Naslund 634
1960: Kurri 1398, Steen 817, Larionov 644
1961: Sundstrom 588
1962: None
1963: None
1964: Sandstrom 856, Klima 573
1965: Tikkanen 630
1966: Pivonka 599, Kamensky 501
1967: Dahlen 655
1968: Bondra 892
1969: Fedorov 1179, Mogilny 1023, Khristich 598
1970: Selanne 1457, Zhamnov 719, Lang 703
1971: Sundin 1349, Bure 779, Nedved 717, Reichel 630, Rucinsky 612
1972: Jagr 1921, Alfredsson 1157, Kozlov 853, Straka 717, Palffy 713, Nylander 679, Stumpel 677
1973: Kovalev 1029, Forsberg 885, Naslund 869, Yashin 781, Holmstrom 530, Lehtinen 514

Summary:
9 from 1956-1960 (only 3 over 700 points, 3 HOFers)
8 from 1961-1968 (only 2 over 700 points, 0 HOFers)
24 from 1969-1973 (17 over 700 points, 7+ HOFers)

Key takeaways:

1. It is incredibly obvious that as a guy born in 1961, Wayne Gretzky had to deal with much, much stronger European scoring competition in the 5 year cohort ahead of him than Mario Lemieux (born in 1965). Lemieux's similar-age competition was actually almost completely non-existent, which defies the narrative in this thread about his peak coming in a supposedly so much more competitive league.

2. The group of European scorers born from 1961-68 was historically awful. These are players that were mostly age 21-27 in 1988-89, and 25-31 in 1992-93, meaning their prime years overlapped almost perfectly with peak Mario.

3. As a result, suggesting that the 1988-89 to 1992-93 period was significantly harder because of European competition really has no evidence to back it up. It's obvious that the 1969-1973 birth group of Europeans would change the NHL landscape forever, but that group wasn't making any impact at all in 1988-89 and even by 1992-93 was still very much on the upswing.

4. There were only 8 Europeans in the top 50 in scoring in 1992-93. Compare that to 9 Europeans in the top 50 in scoring in 1984-85, for example. Of those 8 in '92-93, 4 of them were in their age 21 or younger seasons, and 3 more were 22-23. In other words, the prime age European scoring talent in 1992-93 was an absolute black hole (as we'd expect from the breakdown by birth year above):

Europeans aged 24 or older in the top 100 in scoring, 1992-93:
37. Jari Kurri, age 32
57. Alexander Semak, 26
70. Nikolai Borschevsky, 28
71. Ulf Dahlen, 26
72. Michal Pivonka, 27
77. Dmitri Kvartalnov, 26
79. Thomas Steen, 32

5. On the other hand, all 9 Europeans in the top 50 in scoring in 1984-85 were born between 1956 and 1960, meaning they were all in their age 24-28 seasons.

6. There was significant turnover among European star players, especially elite Swedish players, around 1990 with stars like Loob, Naslund, Gustafsson, Sundstrom, Jonsson, Salming, etc. leaving the league, mainly because of the elite 1956-60 group aging out, or deciding to leave North America in an era where Europeans were more likely to return home early than they are today. It would take at least 4-5 years until the next wave made up for these losses, which again blatantly contradicts the oft-presented theory that there was a steady gradual improvement in the talent pool from 1980 to 1996.

7. The trend for elite American scorers was similar. There was an obvious wave of talent entering the league in the early to mid-'90s, but that group was still very much on the way up in 1992-93. If you look at the group of elite forward talent that would drive the 1996 World Cup success, for example, the only forwards on that roster older than age 22 in their 1992-93 seasons according to Hockey Reference were Brett Hull (28), John LeClair (23), Pat LaFontaine (27), Scott Young (25), Joel Otto (31) and Shawn McEachern (23).

That's a guy developed in Canada, a player who hadn't broken out yet as of 1992-93, one legit American-trained player who was an actual star in 1992-93, and three depth guys who all scored between 52 and 61 points in 1992-93.

8. Another often-advanced argument is that goalies were much better in 1992-93 than earlier, but I honestly don't see that much evidence to support that either. European goalies hadn't really made any significant inroads in 1992-93, that would only really start to happen in 1993-94. There was increased American depth, but there were also increased jobs from expansion. Potvin and Fiset had broken into the league as youngsters at the leading edge of the post-Roy Quebec butterfly revolution, but the rest of the troops hadn't yet arrived. Once again, people seem to be treating 1992-93 as equivalent to later seasons with the international talent pool had both deepened and matured.

9. The only areas you could maybe make an argument about a significant increase in depth from European players is among second-liners and second-pairing defencemen, but is that really what we're talking about when we talk about a much stronger league? That also has to be adjusted for in the context of there being extra jobs available from expansion.

10. In summary, while it is fair to say that there was some increased depth in 1992-93 because of the influx of Americans and Europeans, that impact is massively overrated because it doesn't account for how young most of the key players still were at that point in time, as well how much of a hit the league took in terms of elite import talent in the late '80s as the elite 1956-60 European cohort moved on without being replaced because the 1961-67 group was so weak.

If you're going to try to promote Mario's peak as the greatest ever, at least try a good argument rather than some vague gesture to international talent pools. The reality is that Mario's peak was actually perfectly timed to exploit the worst cohort of elite European scoring talent in modern NHL history.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Quite frankly, I think the people who think Mario had the best peak ever don't seem to show any understanding of the actual timing of the influx of elite European talent to the NHL. It strikes me as an argument of convenience to support their confirmation biases more than anything else.

Here's the entire list of European forwards who scored more than 500 points in the NHL, with their career point totals, sorted by year of birth:

1956: P. Stastny 1239, Nilsson 686, Gradin 593
1957: None
1958: Gustafsson 554
1959: A. Stastny 636, Naslund 634
1960: Kurri 1398, Steen 817, Larionov 644
1961: Sundstrom 588
1962: None
1963: None
1964: Sandstrom 856, Klima 573
1965: Tikkanen 630
1966: Pivonka 599, Kamensky 501
1967: Dahlen 655
1968: Bondra 892
1969: Fedorov 1179, Mogilny 1023, Khristich 598
1970: Selanne 1457, Zhamnov 719, Lang 703
1971: Sundin 1349, Bure 779, Nedved 717, Reichel 630, Rucinsky 612
1972: Jagr 1921, Alfredsson 1157, Kozlov 853, Straka 717, Palffy 713, Nylander 679, Stumpel 677
1973: Kovalev 1029, Forsberg 885, Naslund 869, Yashin 781, Holmstrom 530, Lehtinen 514

Summary:
9 from 1956-1960 (only 3 over 700 points, 3 HOFers)
8 from 1961-1968 (only 2 over 700 points, 0 HOFers)
24 from 1969-1973 (17 over 700 points, 7+ HOFers)

Key takeaways:

1. It is incredibly obvious that as a guy born in 1961, Wayne Gretzky had to deal with much, much stronger European scoring competition in the 5 year cohort ahead of him than Mario Lemieux (born in 1965). Lemieux's similar-age competition was actually almost completely non-existent, which defies the narrative in this thread about his peak coming in a supposedly so much more competitive league.

2. The group of European scorers born from 1961-68 was historically awful. These are players that were mostly age 21-27 in 1988-89, and 25-31 in 1992-93, meaning their prime years overlapped almost perfectly with peak Mario.

3. As a result, suggesting that the 1988-89 to 1992-93 period was significantly harder because of European competition really has no evidence to back it up. It's obvious that the 1969-1973 birth group of Europeans would change the NHL landscape forever, but that group wasn't making any impact at all in 1988-89 and even by 1992-93 was still very much on the upswing.

4. There were only 8 Europeans in the top 50 in scoring in 1992-93. Compare that to 9 Europeans in the top 50 in scoring in 1984-85, for example. Of those 8 in '92-93, 4 of them were in their age 21 or younger seasons, and 3 more were 22-23. In other words, the prime age European scoring talent in 1992-93 was an absolute black hole (as we'd expect from the breakdown by birth year above):

Europeans aged 24 or older in the top 100 in scoring, 1992-93:
37. Jari Kurri, age 32
57. Alexander Semak, 26
70. Nikolai Borschevsky, 28
71. Ulf Dahlen, 26
72. Michal Pivonka, 27
77. Dmitri Kvartalnov, 26
79. Thomas Steen, 32

5. On the other hand, all 9 Europeans in the top 50 in scoring in 1984-85 were born between 1956 and 1960, meaning they were all in their age 24-28 seasons.

6. There was significant turnover among European star players, especially elite Swedish players, around 1990 with stars like Loob, Naslund, Gustafsson, Sundstrom, Jonsson, Salming, etc. leaving the league, mainly because of the elite 1956-60 group aging out, or deciding to leave North America in an era where Europeans were more likely to return home early than they are today. It would take at least 4-5 years until the next wave made up for these losses, which again blatantly contradicts the oft-presented theory that there was a steady gradual improvement in the talent pool from 1980 to 1996.

7. The trend for elite American scorers was similar. There was an obvious wave of talent entering the league in the early to mid-'90s, but that group was still very much on the way up in 1992-93. If you look at the group of elite forward talent that would drive the 1996 World Cup success, for example, the only forwards on that roster older than age 22 in their 1992-93 seasons according to Hockey Reference were Brett Hull (28), John LeClair (23), Pat LaFontaine (27), Scott Young (25), Joel Otto (31) and Shawn McEachern (23).

That's a guy developed in Canada, a player who hadn't broken out yet as of 1992-93, one legit American-trained player who was an actual star in 1992-93, and three depth guys who all scored between 52 and 61 points in 1992-93.

8. Another often-advanced argument is that goalies were much better in 1992-93 than earlier, but I honestly don't see that much evidence to support that either. European goalies hadn't really made any significant inroads in 1992-93, that would only really start to happen in 1993-94. There was increased American depth, but there were also increased jobs from expansion. Potvin and Fiset had broken into the league as youngsters at the leading edge of the post-Roy Quebec butterfly revolution, but the rest of the troops hadn't yet arrived. Once again, people seem to be treating 1992-93 as equivalent to later seasons with the international talent pool had both deepened and matured.

9. The only areas you could maybe make an argument about a significant increase in depth from European players is among second-liners and second-pairing defencemen, but is that really what we're talking about when we talk about a much stronger league? That also has to be adjusted for in the context of there being extra jobs available from expansion.

10. In summary, while it is fair to say that there was some increased depth in 1992-93 because of the influx of Americans and Europeans, that impact is massively overrated because it doesn't account for how young most of the key players still were at that point in time, as well how much of a hit the league took in terms of elite import talent in the late '80s as the elite 1956-60 European cohort moved on without being replaced because the 1961-67 group was so weak.

If you're going to try to promote Mario's peak as the greatest ever, at least try a good argument rather than some vague gesture to international talent pools. The reality is that Mario's peak was actually perfectly timed to exploit the worst cohort of elite European scoring talent in modern NHL history.

Completely false. In the 80s in Wayne's prime the only European player regularly finishing top 10 in scoring was Stastny. Besides him every year all the top 10 in scoring was virtually 100 percent all canadian. By the mid 90s while lemieux was still in his prime it was to the point where 5 of the top 10 scorers were European with lemieux having two direct rosses with two of the greatest offensive Europeans ever. Selanne n jagr.
Your using top 50 and top 100 like that's relevant. There are 4 Europeans that appeared in the top 10 in scoring at least once in the 80s. It's not even close compared to the 90s

 

[markymarc1215]

Kudos for having the discipline to publish this thesis. I am sure this is a terrific statistical analysis with a definitive answer. But on paper and to the eye test, it is Gretzky closely followed by Mario

 

[authentic]

Kudos for having the discipline to publish this thesis. I am sure this is a terrific statistical analysis with a definitive answer. But on paper and to the eye test, it is Gretzky closely followed by Mario

Not too sure about that one

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

Completely false. In the 80s in Wayne's prime the only European player regularly finishing top 10 in scoring was Stastny. Besides him every year all the top 10 in scoring was virtually 100 percent all canadian. By the mid 90s while lemieux was still in his prime it was to the point where 5 of the top 10 scorers were European with lemieux having two direct rosses with two of the greatest offensive Europeans ever. Selanne n jagr.
Your using top 50 and top 100 like that's relevant. There are 4 Europeans that appeared in the top 10 in scoring at least once in the 80s. It's not even close compared to the 90s

Are you trying to prove me right with this response?

My entire post was talking about how Lemieux fans love to pretend that the competitive situation at his peak was the same as later periods in the '90s where European competition was obviously increased. Your attempt to bring stats from 1995-96 into an explicit discussion about Lemieux's peak (1988-89 to 1992-93) is exactly the kind of misrepresentation I'm talking about.

I completely agree that European scoring was much stronger in 1995-96, it's an obvious conclusion from the evidence presented about the strength of the 1969-1973 European scoring cohort. And yet that is at the same time irrelevant in a discussion about Lemieux's performance in 1992-93, when that cohort was not yet established.

If you want to bring up top 10, fine let's talk about the top 10, it certainly doesn't prove me wrong:

Top 10 Scoring Non-Canadians During Lemieux's Peak:
1988-89: 1 European, 2 Americans
1989-90: 0 Europeans, 1 American
1990-91: 0 Europeans, 1 Americans
1991-92: 0 Europeans, 3 Americans
1992-93: 2 Europeans, 1 American

Top 10 Scoring Non-Canadians During Gretzky's Peak:
1980-81: 2 Europeans, 0 Americans
1981-82: 1 European, 0 Americans
1982-83: 2 Europeans, 0 Americans
1983-84: 2 Europeans, 0 Americans
1984-85: 1 Europeans, 0 Americans
1985-86: 3 Europeans, 1 American
1986-87: 1 European, 0 Americans
1987-88: 2 Europeans, 1 American

Average non-Canadians per season for Gretzky: 2.0
Average non-Canadians per season for Lemieux: 2.2
Average non-Canadians per season, 1993-94 to 1998-99: 5.5

If you want to pretend that a Canadian-born son of a Canadian NHLer who played most of his minor hockey in Canada is American just to pad the stats here then feel free, but I'm certainly not going to as I think anyone with any sense understands that guy would be a prospective NHLer in any era.

I continue not to see the argument for Lemieux facing a way stronger set of elite scorers based on the presence of non-Canadians (again at his absolute peak). Sure, there were more Americans in the top 10 by the early '90s, and non-Canadians would certainly largely take over as the decade progressed, but people really don't seem to recognize how much European scorers fell off a cliff there until the 1970s birthdates started rolling through.