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

[daver]

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.

I always wonder to what end is this is relevant?

I don't see any indications that Wayne specifically took an unusual career path post-peak than what would have been expected; that there is any evidence that makes one wonder if Wayne would not have been as dominant if he started his career five years later.

After 1988 until 1992, he scored at a 160 point clip, a bit below Mario and still well above a peak Yzerman and the best of the rest.

NHL Stats

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

www.nhl.com

He then puts up his 3rd 40 point playoff run in 1992/92.

For all this talk about talent pools etc.., I have not seen one example of a player whose career supposedly encompassed significantly different competitive eras where it is obvious that their relative dominance over their peers was clearly affected.

Talent pool discussions are interesting but to apply them to "adjust" stats or put context on a player's career? Not to the extent where we start moving players up or down levels.

As I pointed out earlier, I don't mind placing Mario's PPG dominance in 92/93 on a higher level due to the increase in the number of overall players in the league but that only brings it in line with Wayne's peak and Mario's 88/89 season.

Generally speaking, I can see giving a player with a similar offensive resume an edge over another once reasonable context is applied to eras.

I am more impressed with players from the post WWII era than pre-WWII given the numbers of teams that were joining and dropping out every season.

WWII stats certainly need some context.

The 25 year expansion period starting 66/67 where the league increased in size by almost five times and saw video game numbers being put up by 3 of the Big 4 and Esposito certainly needs context. I think Wayne and Mario still clearly dominate any era but their relative dominance is not as high over their peers.

 

[bobholly39]

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

I think even the most ardent Gretzky supporters usually claim Lemieux looks a lot more impressive to the eye test. This is an unusual take you have - curious to hear your rationale?

 

[Michael Farkas]

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?

It most certainly is a major part of it. See: The WHA being a famous minor league. Sure, it had some nice pieces at the top. But a league has to have quality depth. I was wondering if you were gonna get to this in the analysis about top 50 scorers and all that (which is certainly valid too)...but look at, say, high school/junior/even college level hockey...why do teams with one or two dominant players work over their leagues? Because there's no one around that can stop that guy. I've coached in a lot of one-line and two-line leagues over the years, the drop off is massive. Any time that you can put a plus third line out there, you basically automatically win haha

Same thing in football at lower levels.

 

[BraveCanadian]

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.

Good post. People bring up the talent pool increase as a matter of fact constantly on the boards here but, as I have pointed out many, many, times in the debates here, as soon as you scratch the surface and do a little research the premise tends to fall apart quickly.

It is difficult to pin down but I don't think the talent feeding into the NHL is significantly better than in the past on a per team basis, and most signs point to the peak being late 80s-to early-mid 90s.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

It most certainly is a major part of it. See: The WHA being a famous minor league. Sure, it had some nice pieces at the top. But a league has to have quality depth. I was wondering if you were gonna get to this in the analysis about top 50 scorers and all that (which is certainly valid too)...but look at, say, high school/junior/even college level hockey...why do teams with one or two dominant players work over their leagues? Because there's no one around that can stop that guy. I've coached in a lot of one-line and two-line leagues over the years, the drop off is massive. Any time that you can put a plus third line out there, you basically automatically win haha

Same thing in football at lower levels.

I agree that this is certainly relevant and something that did happen in the mid-'90s, but that's not what everyone is talking about here. I also think it's important to be as precise as possible about these things.

If you want to look at purely depth, we can set a very generous cutoff (say, 50 or more GP in that season) and look at the raw counts of non-Canadian skaters from the major hockey-playing countries:

Skaters By Country of Birth From NHL.com With 50+ GP:

Season	USA	Sweden	Finland	Czech	Slovak	Russia	TOTAL
1981-82	29​	16​	7​	3​	3​	0​	58​
1982-83	41​	20​	9​	8​	4​	0​	82​
1983-84	41​	23​	7​	4​	3​	0​	78​
1984-85	41​	22​	8​	4​	4​	0​	79​
1985-86	47​	18​	9​	3​	4​	0​	81​
1986-87	48​	15​	8​	4​	3​	0​	78​
1987-88	53​	18​	8​	4​	3​	0​	86​
1988-89	55​	16​	9​	6​	2​	0​	88​
1989-90	63​	13​	10​	6​	1​	5​	98​
1990-91	63​	12​	6​	13​	1​	8​	103​
1991-92	72​	10​	5​	13​	2​	13​	115​
1992-93	76​	14​	7​	14​	3​	30​	144​
1993-94	83​	17​	6​	15​	3​	38​	162​
1994-95	83​	19​	6​	18​	3​	35​	164​
1995-96	86​	21​	9​	21​	6​	35​	178​
1996-97	78​	26​	10​	16​	5​	35​	170​
1997-98	78​	28​	11​	19​	7​	33​	176​
1998-99	78​	30​	13​	29​	9​	40​	199​
1999-00	87​	31​	15​	38​	12​	41​	224​

The way most people seem to portray it, the curve is a lot steeper throughout the '80s, and there is an inflection point somewhere in the late '80s that makes Mario's peak seem more impressive than Gretzky's just a few years prior. Again, I think that's pretty clearly a false narrative, unless it can proven to have been driven by sweeping changes in the Canadian talent pool (and the standard claim is nearly always about an "international league"). I do think it's fairly easy to make the case that the league was more defensive overall starting in 1986-87 because of improved team systems, but again that's a different argument.

The American depth was gradually growing, but European depth took a step back throughout the decade (both of which actually track pretty closely with the trends observed among the elite players only). Based on the non-Canadian talent pool, 1988-89 does not look significantly different than any of the prior 6 seasons.

From a depth perspective, there were more international skaters in 1992-93, that is undeniable. I do think though that a lot of them were young rookies or skaters having their first experiences in a different environment, and that the quality of that talent pool would continue to grow not just in numbers, but from internal improvement. For the most part the numbers tell the same story whether you're looking at depth or elite talent, but 1992-93 is a season that seem to diverge a bit, as a result of elite depth lagging the depth farther down the lineup. The way scoring exploded among top players in 1992-93 again doesn't fit the narrative of a league with greatly increased quality depth, where we'd expect to see the opposite (e.g. 1986-87, where teams played better defensively and scoring dropped among top players). Finally, if we're talking about the distribution of quality around the league, we also have to factor in that two of the worst teams of all-time were active in that season, plus a third expansion team. It was a substantially different situation in terms of parity after the expansion teams had taken a couple of seasons to settle in.

Again, I have no problem with someone claiming that the international talent pool in 1995-96 created a substantially different environment than 1985-86, but that doesn't mean that can be retroactively applied to all of the intervening seasons.

 

[daver]

I agree that this is certainly relevant and something that did happen in the mid-'90s, but that's not what everyone is talking about here. I also think it's important to be as precise as possible about these things.

If you want to look at purely depth, we can set a very generous cutoff (say, 50 or more GP in that season) and look at the raw counts of non-Canadian skaters from the major hockey-playing countries:

Skaters By Country of Birth From NHL.com With 50+ GP:

Season	USA	Sweden	Finland	Czech	Slovak	Russia	TOTAL
1981-82	29​	16​	7​	3​	3​	0​	58​
1982-83	41​	20​	9​	8​	4​	0​	82​
1983-84	41​	23​	7​	4​	3​	0​	78​
1984-85	41​	22​	8​	4​	4​	0​	79​
1985-86	47​	18​	9​	3​	4​	0​	81​
1986-87	48​	15​	8​	4​	3​	0​	78​
1987-88	53​	18​	8​	4​	3​	0​	86​
1988-89	55​	16​	9​	6​	2​	0​	88​
1989-90	63​	13​	10​	6​	1​	5​	98​
1990-91	63​	12​	6​	13​	1​	8​	103​
1991-92	72​	10​	5​	13​	2​	13​	115​
1992-93	76​	14​	7​	14​	3​	30​	144​
1993-94	83​	17​	6​	15​	3​	38​	162​
1994-95	83​	19​	6​	18​	3​	35​	164​
1995-96	86​	21​	9​	21​	6​	35​	178​
1996-97	78​	26​	10​	16​	5​	35​	170​
1997-98	78​	28​	11​	19​	7​	33​	176​
1998-99	78​	30​	13​	29​	9​	40​	199​
1999-00	87​	31​	15​	38​	12​	41​	224​

The way most people seem to portray it, the curve is a lot steeper throughout the '80s, and there is an inflection point somewhere in the late '80s that makes Mario's peak seem more impressive than Gretzky's just a few years prior. Again, I think that's pretty clearly a false narrative, unless it can proven to have been driven by sweeping changes in the Canadian talent pool (and the standard claim is nearly always about an "international league"). I do think it's fairly easy to make the case that the league was more defensive overall starting in 1986-87 because of improved team systems, but again that's a different argument.

The American depth was gradually growing, but European depth took a step back throughout the decade (both of which actually track pretty closely with the trends observed among the elite players only). Based on the non-Canadian talent pool, 1988-89 does not look significantly different than any of the prior 6 seasons.

From a depth perspective, there were more international skaters in 1992-93, that is undeniable. I do think though that a lot of them were young rookies or skaters having their first experiences in a different environment, and that the quality of that talent pool would continue to grow not just in numbers, but from internal improvement. For the most part the numbers tell the same story whether you're looking at depth or elite talent, but 1992-93 is a season that seem to diverge a bit, as a result of elite depth lagging the depth farther down the lineup. The way scoring exploded among top players in 1992-93 again doesn't fit the narrative of a league with greatly increased quality depth, where we'd expect to see the opposite (e.g. 1986-87, where teams played better defensively and scoring dropped among top players). Finally, if we're talking about the distribution of quality around the league, we also have to factor in that two of the worst teams of all-time were active in that season, plus a third expansion team. It was a substantially different situation in terms of parity after the expansion teams had taken a couple of seasons to settle in.

Again, I have no problem with someone claiming that the international talent pool in 1995-96 created a substantially different environment than 1985-86, but that doesn't mean that can be retroactively applied to all of the intervening seasons.

At the end of the day, all this means is a handful of Canadian players, if that, lost their jobs to non-Canadians each season. Or more specifically, an even lesser amount of Canadian players got pushed down lower on the depth chart when the Bures, Jagrs and Mogilnys started playing in the NHL.

This is my biggest complaint with "Canadian player" only comparisons, and to a lesser extent the point being brought up here. We have no idea what Canadian steps up their game and production if the Euros do not take their place on the first line and on the first PP unit.

 

[Michael Farkas]

@CG

Yeah, I think that's all very fair. More international players doesn't necessarily mean a better league. There was 90 Russians in the NHL in 1999, there's like 28 now or whatever...is the league worse now because Roman Oksuita types are staying home these days...? I don't think so.

I think another key adjustment - and I think you're kind of winking at it with the "more defensive league", "better team systems" - is the development model.

Not only did the league hyper-expansion in a short period of time (plus the fly-by-night WHA, which was eventually absorbed, in part, of course), but the sponsorship era ended with the dawn of the amateur draft. So as players attritioned out that had been developed in better environments, worse minor league/junior systems (19 yr old -> 18 yr old draft, various roster/rule changes, more pro spots for unready players, etc.) were spitting out more half-baked players...combine that with the influx of a glorified minor league and you get..........the early 1980's NHL. League wasn't that bad since the WWII era from my viewings.

Year - # of 20U players in NHL - # of 35+ players in NHL
1980 - 53 - 15
1981 - 81 -14
1982 - 99 - 8
1983 - 80 - 8
1984 - 94 - 3
1985 - 83 - 5
1986 - 75 - 2
1987 - 61 - 7
1988 - 63 - 4
1989 - 63 - 8
1990 - 50 - 8
1991 - 40 -6
1992 - 47 - 9
1993 - 39 - 10
...
2003 - 31 - 56 (!) + 10 goalies

Now, obviously this is blunt, a better person than me would put a games played threshold in here, they'd also probably weight that person's impact or at least games played as they transition into other eras, but I'm simply not a better person...

The overarching idea is that the unsettledness of pro hockey manifests itself into lower leagues more often than people realize and the effects can be really misunderstood. Why did scoring hardly move at all when we doubled the amount of teams in 1967? Because the structure was in place, the depth was already there, and this was just a pressure valve release that allowed a lot of really good players into a very strong league.

The WHA being absorbed in 1979 was taking a very weak league and applying it to a league that was in - at best - a speed wobble. That's why all that goofy stuff happens in like a 5-7 year window before everyone else could catch up (all of the 200 point seasons in history, Dennis Maruk, all those 100 point guys that washed out of the league by 1986, 19 playoff series wins in a row by a team with strong organizational leadership and a real plan, etc.).

It's because you had a bunch of unready, underdeveloped players combined with a bunch of older players extending their careers because they could...Barrasso walked out of high school right into a Vezina Trophy at 18...? Yeah, all right, sounds good...

Notice how when teams take the time to develop players and don't force them in, the game quality improved, there was less oddities, etc. etc. A lot of people ("many such people...the best people") think that the 1990's was the absolute best...it was the response to/catching up of the talent pool, the development system, team structure, coaches, officials (until 2000), etc. that made that happen.

I also noted 2003 in there...the game went from inexperienced, one-way young players in the early 80's and transitioned into an old man's game...slower, more defensive, players were more well-rounded, it was an arms race in a lot of ways to stock up ox-men...there was almost no youth in the league, every player in the league had been in the league yesterday in 2003. Barrett Jackman and Andrew Raycroft winning Calders in that time isn't a valid point, but man is it fun to say now that I'm on a roll. I mean, Barrett Jackman...and his, what, 9 points that year won a Calder? That's another guy who was drafted for his veteran leadership...

Anyway, eventually the league got too old and too slow and a significant change was needed and I don't need to tell anyone what happens next...

 

[MadLuke]

More international players doesn't necessarily mean a better league. There was 90 Russians in the NHL in 1999, there's like 28 now or whatever...is the league worse now because Roman Oksuita types are staying home these days...?

There was about 50 relevant Russian skater in 1999 and 2 goaltenders
In 2023, 8 goaltenders and about 24 skaters.

In 1999 the #34 Russian playing the most by game was Karaparaitis playing 16 minute a night for the Penguins, it is not like the extra players after the first 30 were Roman Oksuita type.

Feel trivial that for skaters yes, it necessarily mean the league would be better with more relevant Russian skaters, Russia society collapse of 1993 was certainly bad for the league.

I do not mean that haivng 90 RUssians in 1999 mean that the league was better than now, I mean would there were only 30 Russians in the NHL in 1999 because their society full collapse happen in 1973 instead of 1993, sure the nhl in 1999 would have been weaker by their absence.

 

[authentic]

Good post. People bring up the talent pool increase as a matter of fact constantly on the boards here but, as I have pointed out many, many, times in the debates here, as soon as you scratch the surface and do a little research the premise tends to fall apart quickly.

It is difficult to pin down but I don't think the talent feeding into the NHL is significantly better than in the past on a per team basis, and most signs point to the peak being late 80s-to early-mid 90s.

So Lemieux's peak then

 

[TheStatican]

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 we just going to continue to ignore the fact that there were 4 extra games played that season? When you remove those 4 games from every players totals that season it gives us 15 100-point scores. A high total no doubt but within the same range of several seasons in the 80's and below 1984-85's 16.

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?

Your the one going off on a tangent. This entire trend is about absolute single season peak and yet here you are blabbering on about an 8 year span. NO ONE is disputing Gretzky's accolades or his status as the GOAT.

Was 1992-93 an anomaly relative to the previous few seasons? Absolutely, which is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Did Gretzky have a peak season between 90-92? No. What matters is how 1992-93 compares to Gretzky's peak seasons and in that regard 92-93 season featured between 0.01 and 0.14 more powerplay goals per game by team, hardly a huge disparity and a difference that the top players would have easily made up for during even strength play considering how much higher EV scoring rates were at the time.

Season​	GPG​	EV/gm​	PP/gm​	EV goal difference​	PP goal difference​
1992-93​	3.626​	2.439​	1.032​	-0.54​	0.00​
1988-89​	3.742​	2.529​	1.058​	-0.45​	0.03​
1986-87​	3.670​	2.636​	0.903​	-0.34​	-0.13​
1985-86​	3.968​	2.807​	1.021​	-0.17​	-0.01​
1984-85​	3.887​	2.858​	0.891​	-0.12​	-0.14​
1983-84​	3.945​	2.877​	0.924​	-0.10​	-0.11​
1982-83​	3.865​	2.862​	0.889​	-0.12​	-0.14​
1981-82​	4.013​	2.980​	0.917​	0.00​	-0.12​

Also, it has never, ever been proven that linemates affect a superstar player's point totals. Literally nowhere. It is very clearly evident that a superstar linemate will inflate their lesser linemates' scores, but not the inverse.

Are you for real? Wow, I don't even have words...
Ok now that I've recovered maybe I do. Linemates don't effect affect a superstar player's point totals eh, the explain the following;

When Lemieux and Jagr were put on the same line in 96-97;

Lemieux
before; 9 goals 27 points in 21 games 1.29ppg
playing together; 30 goals and 62 points in 30 games 2.07ppg
with Jagr out; 7 goals 19 points in 14 games 1.36ppg
together again; 4 goals 12 points in 8 games 1.50ppg

Jagr
before; 19 goals 26 points in 22 games 1.18ppg
playing together; 25 goals 59 points in 31 games 1.90ppg
playing injured; 1 goals 2 points in 4 games
after returning; 2 goals 8 points in 6 games 1.33ppg

Or what happened to the stats of the best/or second best player in the world after Lemieux's 2000-01 comeback;
Jagr 00-01
before; 19 goals 37 points in 36 games 1.03ppg
after; 33 goals 84 points in 45 games 1.87ppg

Think this doesn't effect Gretzky? How about when Anderson was put on the Oilers top line?

January 16 to February 24 in 1982 - look at the game logs and tell me their not playing at even strength together here

Gretzky
before; 56 goals 123 points in 46 games 2.67 ppg
playing together; 23 goals and 53 points in 18 games 2.94 ppg
after; 13 goals 36 points in 16 games 2.25 ppg

Anderson
before; 19 goals 57 points in 46 games 1.23 ppg
playing together; 12 goals and 32 points in 18 games 1.78 ppg
after; 7 goals 16 points in 16 games 1.00 ppg

Kurri
before; 16 goals 39 points in 38 games 1.03 ppg
playing together; 11 goals and 29 points in 17 games 1.71 ppg
after; 5 goals 18 points in 16 games 1.13 ppg

Are you really going to stick to the idea that the above is simply mere coincidence or some 'random variance'. Then show some actual proof where getting more talented linemates reduced the production of Gretzky, Lemieux or any other player who was considered the best in the game in a given season.

I wonder if people ever consider how impressive Gretzky's performances were coming off year after year of lengthy playoff runs (and subsequent shorter off-seasons and rest) whereas Lemieux's first half of his career was marked by year after year of no playoff games (and subsequent long off-season and rest). I think this gave Lemieux a decided advantage when putting together seasons comparable to Wayne's best statistical years.

I think it's entirely reasonable to assume Wayne would would have put up even more impressive seasons than his best years AND there would have been even more of those 200 point seasons had he had the advantage of missing the playoffs for the first 4 years of his career and no lengthy playoff runs until his 6th year like Lemieux. All those extra months of rest and less wear and tear on the body no doubt played a role increasing Lemieux's stats.

Ok but the first 2 of Gretzky's top 5 seasons came after short playoff runs and Lemieux's 92-93 season came right after a long playoff run.

As it stands, Wayne's playoff performances put him head and shoulders above Lemieux and places a greater separation between the two when just factoring in regular season performances.

Sure no doubt Gretzky has many more great playoff performances than Lemieux - he also played on better teams which had a far greater chance of going deeper into the playoffs. Look at the strength of the Oilers and the competition they faced before the Stanley cup finals. Here's the 4 best teams in the conference season-by-season over a 7 year span for each player;

1981-82
111 point Oilers
94 point North Stars
80 point Jets
77 point Canucks
75 point Flames

1982-83
106 point Oilers
104 point Hawks
96 point North Stars
78 point Flames
75 point Canucks

1983-84
119 point Oilers
88 point North Stars
82 point Flames
73 point Canucks
73 point Jets

1984-85
109 point Oilers
96 point Jets
94 point Flames
86 point Blues
83 point Hawks

1985-86
119 point Oilers
89 point Flames
86 point Hawks
85 point North Stars
83 point Blues

1986-87
106 point Oilers
95 point Flames
88 point Jets
79 point Blues
78 point Wings

1987-88
105 point Flames
99 point Oilers
93 point Wings
77 point Jets

And this is the Penguins and their competition;

1987-88
103 points Canadians
94 points Bruins
88 points Islanders
85 points x3 teams
81 Penguins 9th

1988-89
115 points Canadians
92 points Capitals
88 points Bruins
87 points Penguins

1989-90
101 points Bruins
98 points Sabers
93 points Canadians
72 points Penguins 9th

1990-91
100 points Bruins
89 points Canadians
88 points Penguins
85 points Rangers

1991-92
105 points Rangers
98 points Capitals
93 points Canadians
87 points Penguins

1992-93
119 points Penguins
109 points Bruins
104 points Nordiques
102 points Canadians

1995-96
103 points Flyers
102 points Penguins
96 points Rangers
92 points Panthers

Honestly the Oilers should have made the finals in 6 of those 7 seasons - they actually slightly under achieved in that regard with two shocking upsets in 81-82 and 85-86. Sure they didn't have the playoff pedigree in 81-82 but they lost to a team 48 points below them in the standings. Of course they obviously made up for that by winning 4 out of their 5 final appearances. The Penguins similarity had two shocking upsets in 1992-93 and 1995-96. But they never had even close to the same period of sustained success that the Oilers did which obviously had a profound effect on how many long playoff runs Lemieux could have possibly had.

But all this isn't relevant to the point of the thread. Again this is not a GOAT debate, for the purpose of this thread it's basically come down to a Gretzky 83-84 vs Lemieux's 92-93 debate.

In that regard both of them had shorter off seasons coming into those seasons. Gretzky had 138 days off(May 19th to Oct 5th) that offseason while Lemieux had 126 (June 1st to Oct 6th) in his, so Gretzky actually had a little more 'rest'. In fairness his previous season was longer overall 96 vs 79 games however Lemieux was older with significantly more games played overall to that point in his career; He was 27 years old(exactly) at the start of the season with 517 games played entering while Gretzky was 22 years, 252 days old with a total of 319 games played. Perhaps there might be a fatigue argument for Gretzky in 86-87 and later years or even 85-86, but there's no way you can honestly believe that fatigue was a factor for an age 22-23 Gretzky with just a single long post season run to his name up to that point in time.

Finally, if we're talking about the distribution of quality around the league, we also have to factor in that two of the worst teams of all-time were active in that season, plus a third expansion team. It was a substantially different situation in terms of parity after the expansion teams had taken a couple of seasons to settle in.

I know your response was to an unrelated argument but you alluded to something that clearly needs to be addressed. It's SO incredibly easy for people to say that Mario somehow massively benefited playing against the expansion teams in 1992-93 without providing any actual facts or data to back that claim up. No offense but without the actual corroborating data that claim is incredibly disingenuous. Thankfully we do have that data, AND MORE.

Lemieux scored at a 3.60 ppg rate against those 3 teams. On face value that certainly makes it sound like he really exploited playing against those teams... until you see that he played just 5 total games against them. He scored 18 points in those games which contributing a mere 11.3% towards his season total.

Gretzky meanwhile played 19 games against 3 even worse defensive teams in 83-84 and racked up a staggering 57 points against them, amounting to a massive 27.8% of his total points.

The numbers are in their splits(links for which are attached to their names). And by lining those numbers up with the defensive rating of each team we can see which of the two truly exploited playing against the weaker defensive teams.

Gretzky 83-84

Rk​

​

PTS​

PTS%​

GA​

GA/G​

PP GA/G​

Gm​

G​

A​

PTS​

​

​

1​

Washington Capitals*​

101​

0.631​

226​

2.83​

0.50​

2​

3​

6​

9​

​

​

2​

Buffalo Sabres*​

103​

0.644​

257​

3.21​

0.63​

3​

0​

4​

4​

​

​

3​

Boston Bruins*​

104​

0.650​

261​

3.26​

0.70​

2​

0​

2​

2​

​

​

4​

New York Islanders*​

104​

0.650​

269​

3.36​

0.83​

2​

1​

2​

3​

​

​

5​

Quebec Nordiques*​

94​

0.588​

278​

3.48​

0.88​

3​

3​

7​

10​

​

​

6​

Philadelphia Flyers*​

98​

0.613​

290​

3.63​

1.06​

2​

1​

3​

4​

​

​

7​

Montreal Canadiens*​

75​

0.469​

295​

3.69​

0.70​

3​

2​

3​

5​

​

​

8​

New York Rangers*​

93​

0.581​

304​

3.80​

0.95​

3​

5​

2​

7​

​

​

9​

Chicago Black Hawks*​

68​

0.425​

311​

3.89​

0.93​

3​

1​

4​

5​

​

​

10​

Calgary Flames*​

82​

0.513​

314​

3.93​

0.79​

7​

7​

11​

18​

​

​

11​

Oilers​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

12​

St. Louis Blues*​

71​

0.444​

316​

3.95​

1.15​

3​

5​

6​

11​

​

​

13​

Hartford Whalers​

66​

0.413​

320​

4.00​

0.85​

2​

3​

1​

4​

​

​

14​

Detroit Red Wings*​

69​

0.431​

323​

4.04​

0.96​

3​

7​

6​

13​

​

​

15​

Vancouver Canucks*​

73​

0.456​

328​

4.10​

0.93​

8​

9​

15​

24​

​

​

16​

Minnesota North Stars*​

88​

0.550​

344​

4.30​

1.11​

3​

6​

6​

12​

​

​

17​

New Jersey Devils​

41​

0.256​

350​

4.38​

1.04​

3​

4​

8​

12​

​

​

18​

Winnipeg Jets*​

73​

0.456​

374​

4.68​

1.08​

8​

16​

11​

27​

​

​

19​

Los Angeles Kings​

59​

0.369​

376​

4.70​

1.03​

8​

4​

15​

19​

​

​

20​

Toronto Maple Leafs​

61​

0.381​

387​

4.84​

1.28​

3​

4​

1​

5​

​

​

21​

Pittsburgh Penguins​

38​

0.238​

390​

4.88​

1.08​

3​

6​

5​

11​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

4.09​

0.94​

​

​

​

​

GPG​

PPG​

​

Top 10​

​

​

​

​

​

30​

23​

44​

67​

0.77​

2.23​

​

Bottom 10​

​

​

​

​

​

44​

64​

74​

138​

1.45​

3.14​

Lemieux 92-93

Rank​

Team​

PTS​

PTS%​

GA​

GA/G​

PP GA/G​

GP​

G​

A​

PTS​

​

​

1​

Chicago Blackhawks*​

106​

0.631​

230​

2.74​

0.96​

1​

1​

1​

2​

​

​

2​

Toronto Maple Leafs*​

99​

0.589​

241​

2.87​

0.82​

2​

2​

1​

3​

​

​

3​

Boston Bruins*​

109​

0.649​

268​

3.19​

0.83​

3​

2​

2​

4​

​

​

4​

Penguins​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

5​

St. Louis Blues*​

85​

0.506​

278​

3.31​

0.83​

2​

3​

5​

8​

​

​

6​

Vancouver Canucks*​

101​

0.601​

278​

3.31​

1.15​

1​

1​

2​

3​

​

​

7​

Montreal Canadiens*​

102​

0.607​

280​

3.33​

0.92​

3​

2​

5​

7​

​

​

8​

Detroit Red Wings*​

103​

0.613​

280​

3.33​

0.94​

2​

3​

2​

5​

​

​

9​

Calgary Flames*​

97​

0.577​

282​

3.36​

0.99​

0​

​

​

​

​

​

10​

Washington Capitals*​

93​

0.554​

286​

3.40​

0.88​

4​

8​

5​

13​

​

​

11​

Minnesota North Stars​

82​

0.488​

293​

3.49​

0.96​

1​

1​

2​

3​

​

​

12​

Buffalo Sabres*​

86​

0.512​

297​

3.54​

0.86​

3​

2​

7​

9​

​

​

13​

New York Islanders*​

87​

0.518​

297​

3.54​

0.92​

5​

3​

7​

10​

​

​

14​

New Jersey Devils*​

87​

0.518​

299​

3.56​

0.94​

8​

6​

15​

21​

​

​

15​

Quebec Nordiques*​

104​

0.619​

300​

3.57​

1.01​

3​

2​

7​

9​

​

​

16​

New York Rangers​

79​

0.470​

308​

3.67​

1.00​

6​

10​

3​

13​

​

​

17​

Philadelphia Flyers​

83​

0.494​

319​

3.80​

1.13​

6​

9​

10​

19​

​

​

18​

Winnipeg Jets*​

87​

0.518​

320​

3.81​

0.95​

1​

1​

2​

3​

​

​

19​

Tampa Bay Lightning​

53​

0.315​

332​

3.95​

1.20​

1​

2​

0​

2​

​

​

20​

Edmonton Oilers​

60​

0.357​

337​

4.01​

1.26​

1​

1​

0​

1​

​

​

21​

Los Angeles Kings*​

88​

0.524​

340​

4.05​

1.36​

1​

1​

3​

4​

​

​

22​

Hartford Whalers​

58​

0.345​

369​

4.39​

1.27​

2​

3​

2​

5​

​

​

23​

Ottawa Senators​

24​

0.143​

395​

4.70​

1.37​

2​

3​

1​

4​

​

​

24​

San Jose Sharks​

24​

0.143​

414​

4.93​

1.35​

2​

3​

9​

12​

​

​

3.63​

1.00​

GPG​

PPG​

​

Top 10​

​

​

​

​

​

19​

23​

25​

48​

1.21​

2.53​

​

Mid 3​

​

​

​

​

​

16​

11​

29​

40​

0.69​

2.50​

​

Bottom 10​

​

​

​

​

​

25​

35​

37​

72​

1.40​

2.88​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Top half​

​

​

​

​

​

22​

25​

32​

57​

1.14​

2.59​

​

Middle team (NYI)​

​

​

​

​

​

5​

3​

7​

10​

0.60​

2.00​

​

Top half +mid ranked team​

​

​

​

​

​

​ 27​

​ 28​

​ 39​

​ 67​

1.04​

2.48​

Bottom half +mid ranked

38​

44​

59​

103​

1.15​

2.71​

​

Bottom half​

​

​

​

​

​

33​

41​

52​

93​

1.24​

2.82​

The divergence in production is shocking, 83-84 Gretzky scored at a far higher level verse weaker competition than against stronger teams(particularly when it came to goal scoring) compared to Lemieux;

Gretzky 83-84​	GPG​	PPG​	rate vs seasonal GPG​	rate vs seasonal PPG​
Vs Top half of teams​	0.77​	2.23​	65.0%​	80.6%​
Vs Bottom half of teams​	1.45​	3.14​	123.3%​	113.2%​
seasonal scoring rates​	1.175​	2.77​	​	​
​	​	​	​	​
Lemieux 92-93​	​	​	​	​
Vs Top half (+mid ranked team)​	1.04​	2.48​	90.4%​	92.9%​
Vs Bottom half of teams​	1.24​	2.82​	107.8%​	105.6%​
seasonal scoring rates​	1.15​	2.67​	​	​

Not only that, the goals per game average of the teams the Oilers faced in 83-84 was actually notably worse than the overall league wide goals per game i.e. they had a weak schedule. Where as the Penguins schedule - by defensive metrics, was more or less league average(and actually slightly better defensively on the penalty kill). This only includes the team games each played in.

​	​ League wide​	​	​ Teams Opponents​	​	​ Difference from the norm​	​
​	GPG​	PP/Gm​	GPG allowed​	PP/Gm allowed​	GPG​	PP/Gm​
83-84 Oilers​	3.94​	0.89​	4.09​	0.94​	0.15​	0.05​
92-93 Pens​	3.63​	1.03​	3.63​	1.00​	0.00​	-0.03​

Opinions are fun to argue, but facts are definitive.


Edit* just noticed this was my 1000th post, probably taken me more time to write up my last 100 than my first 900 lol

 

[daver]

Are we just going to continue to ignore the fact that there were 4 extra games played that season? When you remove those 4 games from every players totals that season it gives us 15 100-point scores. A high total no doubt but within the same range of several seasons in the 80's and below 1984-85's 16.


Your the one going off on a tangent. This entire trend is about absolute single season peak and yet here you are blabbering on about an 8 year span. NO ONE is disputing Gretzky's accolades or his status as the GOAT.

Was 1992-93 an anomaly relative to the previous few seasons? Absolutely, which is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Did Gretzky have a peak season between 90-92? No. What matters is how 1992-93 compares to Gretzky's peak seasons and in that regard 92-93 season featured between 0.01 and 0.14 more powerplay goals per game by team, hardly a huge disparity and a difference that the top players would have easily made up for during even strength play considering how much higher EV scoring rates were at the time.

Season​	GPG​	EV/gm​	PP/gm​	EV goal difference​	PP goal difference​
1992-93​	3.626​	2.439​	1.032​	-0.54​	0.00​
1988-89​	3.742​	2.529​	1.058​	-0.45​	0.03​
1986-87​	3.670​	2.636​	0.903​	-0.34​	-0.13​
1985-86​	3.968​	2.807​	1.021​	-0.17​	-0.01​
1984-85​	3.887​	2.858​	0.891​	-0.12​	-0.14​
1983-84​	3.945​	2.877​	0.924​	-0.10​	-0.11​
1982-83​	3.865​	2.862​	0.889​	-0.12​	-0.14​
1981-82​	4.013​	2.980​	0.917​	0.00​	-0.12​

The point was that looking at league GPG is flawed to the point of being useless. It's only use is confirmation bias. In this case it is, "Based in league GPG, I think the the league was harder in 92/93 therefore Mario's 200 point pace is better than Wayne's" This is despite the fact he did not separate himself from the rest of the league quite as much as peak Wayne nor the fact that Mario did not dominate the same "weaker" era in his first four seasons.

 

[daver]

Think this doesn't effect Gretzky? How about when Anderson was put on the Oilers top line?

January 16 to February 24 in 1982 - look at the game logs and tell me their not playing at even strength together here

Gretzky
before; 56 goals 123 points in 46 games 2.67 ppg
playing together; 23 goals and 53 points in 18 games 2.94 ppg
after; 13 goals 36 points in 16 games 2.25 ppg

Anderson
before; 19 goals 57 points in 46 games 1.23 ppg
playing together; 12 goals and 32 points in 18 games 1.78 ppg
after; 7 goals 16 points in 16 games 1.00 ppg

Kurri
before; 16 goals 39 points in 38 games 1.03 ppg
playing together; 11 goals and 29 points in 17 games 1.71 ppg
after; 5 goals 18 points in 16 games 1.13 ppg

Are you really going to stick to the idea that the above is simply mere coincidence or some 'random variance'. Then show some actual proof where getting more talented linemates reduced the production of Gretzky, Lemieux or any other player who was considered the best in the game in a given season.

Are you saying that based on this 18 game sample, Wayne doesn't hit 200 points if he doesn't play with talented linemates?

First of all, it was 18 games, literally Wayne scored five more points over that stretch in order to raise his PPG from 2.67 to 2.94. Hardly evidence to put context on his other 700 games over that stretch.

Secondly, he just broke the NHL scoring record at the age of 20 the year as much on his "own" as any other GOAT had done during their prime. He was an offensive machine by then.

Thirdly, Wayne was at a 2.67 PPG thru 46 games with 89 ES points that Kurri shared with 20 points and Anderson 8 points.

From Jan, 16th Feb. 24, Wayne was at a 2.94 PPG with 41 ES that Anderson shared with 19 points and Kurri shared 14 points.

Not sure we can say that Kurri was on the top line line as much as you want to believe before Jan. 16 or else he was more of a passenger than a contributor. Therefore, we can say that Wayne was producing at his 200 point pace "on his own" before Jan. 16.

And fourthly, unless a team is full of beer leaguers, the best offensive players will play together, it makes no sense to not. What we saw from Wayne was clearly an ability to get his points regardless of what other Top 6 forwards were on the ice with him.

 

[daver]

Are you for real? Wow, I don't even have words...
Ok now that I've recovered maybe I do. Linemates don't effect affect a superstar player's point totals eh, the explain the following;

When Lemieux and Jagr were put on the same line in 96-97;

Lemieux
before; 9 goals 27 points in 21 games 1.29ppg
playing together; 30 goals and 62 points in 30 games 2.07ppg
with Jagr out; 7 goals 19 points in 14 games 1.36ppg
together again; 4 goals 12 points in 8 games 1.50ppg

Jagr
before; 19 goals 26 points in 22 games 1.18ppg
playing together; 25 goals 59 points in 31 games 1.90ppg
playing injured; 1 goals 2 points in 4 games
after returning; 2 goals 8 points in 6 games 1.33ppg

Or what happened to the stats of the best/or second best player in the world after Lemieux's 2000-01 comeback;
Jagr 00-01
before; 19 goals 37 points in 36 games 1.03ppg
after; 33 goals 84 points in 45 games 1.87ppg

What is the context that this is being brought up in regards to the OP?

Are you saying that we now should look at other seasons by Mario and Jagr with a critical eye to see if their numbers are inflated by "talented linemates" (i.e. talented beyond what one would reasonably expect for a Top 6 forward)?

 

[CokenoPepsi]

...umm can I get a one sentence summary?

 

[Cursed Lemon]

Then show some actual proof where getting more talented linemates reduced the production of Gretzky, Lemieux or any other player who was considered the best in the game in a given season.

Well considering I never said that, no I don't think I will.

 

[The Panther]

Are we just going to continue to ignore the fact that there were 4 extra games played that season? When you remove those 4 games from every players totals that season it gives us 15 100-point scores. A high total no doubt but within the same range of several seasons in the 80's and below 1984-85's 16.

It's been a while since I posted, but I think what I was asking you to explain was why 1992-93 was a "harder era" (didn't know sixty games was an 'era') than 1985, 1986, 1987....? I presume you mean harder for an individual scoring star to dominate.

What's that opinion based on?

 

[The Panther]

It's not about "peak" or a statistical analysis (sorry OP), but I think Ray Bourque sums up my opinion on the tired Wayne vs. Mario thing well:

 

[Albatros]

Not sure we can say that Kurri was on the top line line as much as you want to believe before Jan. 16 or else he was more of a passenger than a contributor.

The lines changed a lot but before that it was typically something like:

Semenko - Gretzky - Lumley
Messier - Hagman - Anderson
Kurri - Weir - Callighen

 

[TheStatican]

The point was that looking at league GPG is flawed to the point of being useless. It's only use is confirmation bias. In this case it is, "Based in league GPG, I think the the league was harder in 92/93 therefore Mario's 200 point pace is better than Wayne's" This is despite the fact he did not separate himself from the rest of the league quite as much as peak Wayne nor the fact that Mario did not dominate the same "weaker" era in his first four seasons.

By what measure VsX? VsX is a flawed metric because it doesn't take into consideration the level of overall talent in the league. Obviously determining the level of talent in any given year is not something that can easily be quantified and can be debated on end.

But nonetheless here are the VxS numbers based on points per game(min 40gm) which is a more accurate metric than point totals as the raw total do not take into consideration injuries to superstar level players.

​	2nd place​	3rd place​	5th place​	10th place​	20th place​
WG 80-81​	21.3%​	25.0%​	28.1%​	49.6%​	72.3%​
WG 81-82​	44.0%​	52.3%​	64.6%​	90.6%​	112.0%​
WG 82-83​	48.5%​	58.1%​	70.1%​	87.0%​	114.9%​
WG 83-84​	56.5%​	57.4%​	69.9%​	100.7%​	127.0%​
WG 84-85​	40.5%​	59.5%​	68.8%​	91.2%​	108.0%​
WG 85-86​	51.1%​	53.7%​	67.1%​	93.5%​	122.3%​
WG 86-87​	36.5%​	66.9%​	77.1%​	84.1%​	105.3%​
WG 87-88​	6.9%​	42.1%​	54.3%​	73.9%​	95.8%​
WG 90-91​	10.6%​	24.4%​	48.2%​	58.3%​	85.0%​
​	​	​	​	​	​
ML 88-89​	21.9%​	35.1%​	55.0%​	100.0%​	122.0%​
ML 91-92​	25.0%​	25.8%​	37.6%​	58.9%​	81.4%​
ML 92-93​	51.7%​	58.0%​	63.8%​	79.2%​	111.9%​
ML 95-96​	26.4%​	45.6%​	57.5%​	71.6%​	91.7%​

When it comes to vs the 2nd place holder Gretzky's 83-84 indeed comes first but not vs 3rd or 5th. Lemieux's 92-93 is close in all ranks to this season except for 10th(but actually higher vs 3rd). Gretzky's 86-87 season is easily the best vs 3rd and 5th ranked players and yet not a single person has ranked this season as the greatest offensive season of all time despite it argueably being the most impressive when it comes to near peer separation. When ranked to 10th and 20th place Lemieux's 88-89 season is basically on par with Gretzky's 83-84, almost identical at 10th rank and within a few percentage points at 20th.

But this all presumes that the the level of talent in the league was identical across all seasons, that for instance the 20th ranked player was just as good in relation to his peers in 1983-84 as the 20 ranked player was in 1992-93. Not sure how you can say this is the case when there were more top line players 72 vs 63(14% more) total players in the league overall 921 vs 790(16% more) in 92-93. It would make absolutely no sense at all to compare say Howe's VsX against the 20th ranked player in 1952-53 in a league of 158 players vs Gretzky's VsX in 1983-84. Likewise it doesn't make any sense to compare his VsX vs Connor McDavid and the 20th ranked player in 2022-23 with 962 players in the league.

Are you saying that based on this 18 game sample, Wayne doesn't hit 200 points if he doesn't play with talented linemates?

Not saying that at all. The point was solely about better linemates raising a player production. Playing with Anderson didn't raised Gretzky production by a huge amount but it did rasie it by an amount which can't be simply be hand waved away by coincidence or random variance. That's far from the only stretch where they played together and in which there was at least a noticable uptick in production, though it seems to be the longest continuous stretch.

Well considering I never said that, no I don't think I will.

Ok sure, you didn't say 'reduced' you said 'no effect' to which I just provided 3 examples where it clearly did have an effect and not just for a superstar level talent but a generational level talent.

 

[Cursed Lemon]

Ok sure, you didn't say 'reduced' you said 'no effect' to which I just provided 3 examples where it clearly did have an effect and not just for a superstar level talent but a generational level talent.

I said that superstar players produce at roughly the same rate regardless of their linemates (this is probably not true regarding power plays), while non-superstar players have their point totals inflated by playing with better linemates.

 

[daver]

By what measure VsX? VsX is a flawed metric because it doesn't take into consideration the level of overall talent in the league. Obviously determining the level of talent in any given year is not something that can easily be quantified and can be debated on end.

But nonetheless here are the VxS numbers based on points per game(min 40gm) which is a more accurate metric than point totals as the raw total do not take into consideration injuries to superstar level players.

​	2nd place​	3rd place​	5th place​	10th place​	20th place​
WG 80-81​	21.3%​	25.0%​	28.1%​	49.6%​	72.3%​
WG 81-82​	44.0%​	52.3%​	64.6%​	90.6%​	112.0%​
WG 82-83​	48.5%​	58.1%​	70.1%​	87.0%​	114.9%​
WG 83-84​	56.5%​	57.4%​	69.9%​	100.7%​	127.0%​
WG 84-85​	40.5%​	59.5%​	68.8%​	91.2%​	108.0%​
WG 85-86​	51.1%​	53.7%​	67.1%​	93.5%​	122.3%​
WG 86-87​	36.5%​	66.9%​	77.1%​	84.1%​	105.3%​
WG 87-88​	6.9%​	42.1%​	54.3%​	73.9%​	95.8%​
WG 90-91​	10.6%​	24.4%​	48.2%​	58.3%​	85.0%​
​	​	​	​	​	​
ML 88-89​	21.9%​	35.1%​	55.0%​	100.0%​	122.0%​
ML 91-92​	25.0%​	25.8%​	37.6%​	58.9%​	81.4%​
ML 92-93​	51.7%​	58.0%​	63.8%​	79.2%​	111.9%​
ML 95-96​	26.4%​	45.6%​	57.5%​	71.6%​	91.7%​

When it comes to vs the 2nd place holder Gretzky's 83-84 indeed comes first but not vs 3rd or 5th. Lemieux's 92-93 is close in all ranks to this season except for 10th(but actually higher vs 3rd). Gretzky's 86-87 season is easily the best vs 3rd and 5th ranked players and yet not a single person has ranked this season as the greatest offensive season of all time despite it argueably being the most impressive when it comes to near peer separation. When ranked to 10th and 20th place Lemieux's 88-89 season is basically on par with Gretzky's 83-84, almost identical at 10th rank and within a few percentage points at 20th.

But this all presumes that the the level of talent in the league was identical across all seasons, that for instance the 20th ranked player was just as good in relation to his peers in 1983-84 as the 20 ranked player was in 1992-93. Not sure how you can say this is the case when there were more top line players 72 vs 63(14% more) total players in the league overall 921 vs 790(16% more) in 92-93. It would make absolutely no sense at all to compare say Howe's VsX against the 20th ranked player in 1952-53 in a league of 158 players vs Gretzky's VsX in 1983-84. Likewise it doesn't make any sense to compare his VsX vs Connor McDavid and the 20th ranked player in 2022-23 with 962 players in the league.

The presumption that the relative talent in the league is similar across eras is a reasonable one. As the raw number of players with NHL caliber talent grew so do did the league.

For sure make some adjustments for league size can be made but to what extent is reasonable? Automatically discount Art Ross wins from the 06? Automatically place Art Ross wins from the last ten years higher?

I think it is reasonable to give an edge to a player who was statistically as dominant as another if they did in a larger league. Crosby has similar Top 3, 5, 10 PPG finishes as Hull and Beliveau but is clearly closer to Howe in per game dominance over his peers. It is generally more impressive to finish in the Top 3, 5, and 10 in the current era vs. the O6 when you look at % behind the #1 and #2 scorer they were.

That being said, Mario's 92/93 season happened in a bit of a larger league so perhaps we should move it up on par with his 88/89 season and with the best of Wayne's. Given his age, no reason to think he was not in peak form.

That Mario's peak was clearly superior to Wayne's simply does not pass the smell test.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Jesus Christ

 

[daver]

Not saying that at all. The point was solely about better linemates raising a player production. Playing with Anderson didn't raised Gretzky production by a huge amount but it did rasie it by an amount which can't be simply be hand waved away by coincidence or random variance. That's far from the only stretch where they played together and in which there was at least a noticable uptick in production, though it seems to be the longest continuous stretch.

It can be when it is statistically insignificant. I am certain I could find an 18 game stretch where he didn't play with Anderson that he hit the same PPG or better.

And it appears he may have played with Anderson at ES until March 2nd which drops his PPG to 2.86. So Wayne scores 3 more more points over a 21 game stretch and we are supposed to treat that as statistically significant?

 

[Pominville Knows]

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.


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.


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".


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.

He means Pro-rated to 82 games, or perhaps even more properly Pace per-82).

 

[authentic]

Are we just going to continue to ignore the fact that there were 4 extra games played that season? When you remove those 4 games from every players totals that season it gives us 15 100-point scores. A high total no doubt but within the same range of several seasons in the 80's and below 1984-85's 16.


Your the one going off on a tangent. This entire trend is about absolute single season peak and yet here you are blabbering on about an 8 year span. NO ONE is disputing Gretzky's accolades or his status as the GOAT.

Was 1992-93 an anomaly relative to the previous few seasons? Absolutely, which is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Did Gretzky have a peak season between 90-92? No. What matters is how 1992-93 compares to Gretzky's peak seasons and in that regard 92-93 season featured between 0.01 and 0.14 more powerplay goals per game by team, hardly a huge disparity and a difference that the top players would have easily made up for during even strength play considering how much higher EV scoring rates were at the time.

Season​	GPG​	EV/gm​	PP/gm​	EV goal difference​	PP goal difference​
1992-93​	3.626​	2.439​	1.032​	-0.54​	0.00​
1988-89​	3.742​	2.529​	1.058​	-0.45​	0.03​
1986-87​	3.670​	2.636​	0.903​	-0.34​	-0.13​
1985-86​	3.968​	2.807​	1.021​	-0.17​	-0.01​
1984-85​	3.887​	2.858​	0.891​	-0.12​	-0.14​
1983-84​	3.945​	2.877​	0.924​	-0.10​	-0.11​
1982-83​	3.865​	2.862​	0.889​	-0.12​	-0.14​
1981-82​	4.013​	2.980​	0.917​	0.00​	-0.12​

Are you for real? Wow, I don't even have words...
Ok now that I've recovered maybe I do. Linemates don't effect affect a superstar player's point totals eh, the explain the following;

When Lemieux and Jagr were put on the same line in 96-97;

Lemieux
before; 9 goals 27 points in 21 games 1.29ppg
playing together; 30 goals and 62 points in 30 games 2.07ppg
with Jagr out; 7 goals 19 points in 14 games 1.36ppg
together again; 4 goals 12 points in 8 games 1.50ppg

Jagr
before; 19 goals 26 points in 22 games 1.18ppg
playing together; 25 goals 59 points in 31 games 1.90ppg
playing injured; 1 goals 2 points in 4 games
after returning; 2 goals 8 points in 6 games 1.33ppg

Or what happened to the stats of the best/or second best player in the world after Lemieux's 2000-01 comeback;
Jagr 00-01
before; 19 goals 37 points in 36 games 1.03ppg
after; 33 goals 84 points in 45 games 1.87ppg

Think this doesn't effect Gretzky? How about when Anderson was put on the Oilers top line?

January 16 to February 24 in 1982 - look at the game logs and tell me their not playing at even strength together here

Gretzky
before; 56 goals 123 points in 46 games 2.67 ppg
playing together; 23 goals and 53 points in 18 games 2.94 ppg
after; 13 goals 36 points in 16 games 2.25 ppg

Anderson
before; 19 goals 57 points in 46 games 1.23 ppg
playing together; 12 goals and 32 points in 18 games 1.78 ppg
after; 7 goals 16 points in 16 games 1.00 ppg

Kurri
before; 16 goals 39 points in 38 games 1.03 ppg
playing together; 11 goals and 29 points in 17 games 1.71 ppg
after; 5 goals 18 points in 16 games 1.13 ppg

Are you really going to stick to the idea that the above is simply mere coincidence or some 'random variance'. Then show some actual proof where getting more talented linemates reduced the production of Gretzky, Lemieux or any other player who was considered the best in the game in a given season.



Ok but the first 2 of Gretzky's top 5 seasons came after short playoff runs and Lemieux's 92-93 season came right after a long playoff run.


Sure no doubt Gretzky has many more great playoff performances than Lemieux - he also played on better teams which had a far greater chance of going deeper into the playoffs. Look at the strength of the Oilers and the competition they faced before the Stanley cup finals. Here's the 4 best teams in the conference season-by-season over a 7 year span for each player;

1981-82
111 point Oilers
94 point North Stars
80 point Jets
77 point Canucks
75 point Flames

1982-83
106 point Oilers
104 point Hawks
96 point North Stars
78 point Flames
75 point Canucks

1983-84
119 point Oilers
88 point North Stars
82 point Flames
73 point Canucks
73 point Jets

1984-85
109 point Oilers
96 point Jets
94 point Flames
86 point Blues
83 point Hawks

1985-86
119 point Oilers
89 point Flames
86 point Hawks
85 point North Stars
83 point Blues

1986-87
106 point Oilers
95 point Flames
88 point Jets
79 point Blues
78 point Wings

1987-88
105 point Flames
99 point Oilers
93 point Wings
77 point Jets

And this is the Penguins and their competition;

1987-88
103 points Canadians
94 points Bruins
88 points Islanders
85 points x3 teams
81 Penguins 9th

1988-89
115 points Canadians
92 points Capitals
88 points Bruins
87 points Penguins

1989-90
101 points Bruins
98 points Sabers
93 points Canadians
72 points Penguins 9th

1990-91
100 points Bruins
89 points Canadians
88 points Penguins
85 points Rangers

1991-92
105 points Rangers
98 points Capitals
93 points Canadians
87 points Penguins

1992-93
119 points Penguins
109 points Bruins
104 points Nordiques
102 points Canadians

1995-96
103 points Flyers
102 points Penguins
96 points Rangers
92 points Panthers

Honestly the Oilers should have made the finals in 6 of those 7 seasons - they actually slightly under achieved in that regard with two shocking upsets in 81-82 and 85-86. Sure they didn't have the playoff pedigree in 81-82 but they lost to a team 48 points below them in the standings. Of course they obviously made up for that by winning 4 out of their 5 final appearances. The Penguins similarity had two shocking upsets in 1992-93 and 1995-96. But they never had even close to the same period of sustained success that the Oilers did which obviously had a profound effect on how many long playoff runs Lemieux could have possibly had.

But all this isn't relevant to the point of the thread. Again this is not a GOAT debate, for the purpose of this thread it's basically come down to a Gretzky 83-84 vs Lemieux's 92-93 debate.

In that regard both of them had shorter off seasons coming into those seasons. Gretzky had 138 days off(May 19th to Oct 5th) that offseason while Lemieux had 126 (June 1st to Oct 6th) in his, so Gretzky actually had a little more 'rest'. In fairness his previous season was longer overall 96 vs 79 games however Lemieux was older with significantly more games played overall to that point in his career; He was 27 years old(exactly) at the start of the season with 517 games played entering while Gretzky was 22 years, 252 days old with a total of 319 games played. Perhaps there might be a fatigue argument for Gretzky in 86-87 and later years or even 85-86, but there's no way you can honestly believe that fatigue was a factor for an age 22-23 Gretzky with just a single long post season run to his name up to that point in time.




I know your response was to an unrelated argument but you alluded to something that clearly needs to be addressed. It's SO incredibly easy for people to say that Mario somehow massively benefited playing against the expansion teams in 1992-93 without providing any actual facts or data to back that claim up. No offense but without the actual corroborating data that claim is incredibly disingenuous. Thankfully we do have that data, AND MORE.

Lemieux scored at a 3.60 ppg rate against those 3 teams. On face value that certainly makes it sound like he really exploited playing against those teams... until you see that he played just 5 total games against them. He scored 18 points in those games which contributing a mere 11.3% towards his season total.

Gretzky meanwhile played 19 games against 3 even worse defensive teams in 83-84 and racked up a staggering 57 points against them, amounting to a massive 27.8% of his total points.

The numbers are in their splits(links for which are attached to their names). And by lining those numbers up with the defensive rating of each team we can see which of the two truly exploited playing against the weaker defensive teams.

Gretzky 83-84

Rk​

​

PTS​

PTS%​

GA​

GA/G​

PP GA/G​

Gm​

G​

A​

PTS​

​

​

1​

Washington Capitals*​

101​

0.631​

226​

2.83​

0.50​

2​

3​

6​

9​

​

​

2​

Buffalo Sabres*​

103​

0.644​

257​

3.21​

0.63​

3​

0​

4​

4​

​

​

3​

Boston Bruins*​

104​

0.650​

261​

3.26​

0.70​

2​

0​

2​

2​

​

​

4​

New York Islanders*​

104​

0.650​

269​

3.36​

0.83​

2​

1​

2​

3​

​

​

5​

Quebec Nordiques*​

94​

0.588​

278​

3.48​

0.88​

3​

3​

7​

10​

​

​

6​

Philadelphia Flyers*​

98​

0.613​

290​

3.63​

1.06​

2​

1​

3​

4​

​

​

7​

Montreal Canadiens*​

75​

0.469​

295​

3.69​

0.70​

3​

2​

3​

5​

​

​

8​

New York Rangers*​

93​

0.581​

304​

3.80​

0.95​

3​

5​

2​

7​

​

​

9​

Chicago Black Hawks*​

68​

0.425​

311​

3.89​

0.93​

3​

1​

4​

5​

​

​

10​

Calgary Flames*​

82​

0.513​

314​

3.93​

0.79​

7​

7​

11​

18​

​

​

11​

Oilers​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

12​

St. Louis Blues*​

71​

0.444​

316​

3.95​

1.15​

3​

5​

6​

11​

​

​

13​

Hartford Whalers​

66​

0.413​

320​

4.00​

0.85​

2​

3​

1​

4​

​

​

14​

Detroit Red Wings*​

69​

0.431​

323​

4.04​

0.96​

3​

7​

6​

13​

​

​

15​

Vancouver Canucks*​

73​

0.456​

328​

4.10​

0.93​

8​

9​

15​

24​

​

​

16​

Minnesota North Stars*​

88​

0.550​

344​

4.30​

1.11​

3​

6​

6​

12​

​

​

17​

New Jersey Devils​

41​

0.256​

350​

4.38​

1.04​

3​

4​

8​

12​

​

​

18​

Winnipeg Jets*​

73​

0.456​

374​

4.68​

1.08​

8​

16​

11​

27​

​

​

19​

Los Angeles Kings​

59​

0.369​

376​

4.70​

1.03​

8​

4​

15​

19​

​

​

20​

Toronto Maple Leafs​

61​

0.381​

387​

4.84​

1.28​

3​

4​

1​

5​

​

​

21​

Pittsburgh Penguins​

38​

0.238​

390​

4.88​

1.08​

3​

6​

5​

11​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

4.09​

0.94​

​

​

​

​

GPG​

PPG​

​

Top 10​

​

​

​

​

​

30​

23​

44​

67​

0.77​

2.23​

​

Bottom 10​

​

​

​

​

​

44​

64​

74​

138​

1.45​

3.14​

Lemieux 92-93

Rank​

Team​

PTS​

PTS%​

GA​

GA/G​

PP GA/G​

GP​

G​

A​

PTS​

​

​

1​

Chicago Blackhawks*​

106​

0.631​

230​

2.74​

0.96​

1​

1​

1​

2​

​

​

2​

Toronto Maple Leafs*​

99​

0.589​

241​

2.87​

0.82​

2​

2​

1​

3​

​

​

3​

Boston Bruins*​

109​

0.649​

268​

3.19​

0.83​

3​

2​

2​

4​

​

​

4​

Penguins​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

5​

St. Louis Blues*​

85​

0.506​

278​

3.31​

0.83​

2​

3​

5​

8​

​

​

6​

Vancouver Canucks*​

101​

0.601​

278​

3.31​

1.15​

1​

1​

2​

3​

​

​

7​

Montreal Canadiens*​

102​

0.607​

280​

3.33​

0.92​

3​

2​

5​

7​

​

​

8​

Detroit Red Wings*​

103​

0.613​

280​

3.33​

0.94​

2​

3​

2​

5​

​

​

9​

Calgary Flames*​

97​

0.577​

282​

3.36​

0.99​

0​

​

​

​

​

​

10​

Washington Capitals*​

93​

0.554​

286​

3.40​

0.88​

4​

8​

5​

13​

​

​

11​

Minnesota North Stars​

82​

0.488​

293​

3.49​

0.96​

1​

1​

2​

3​

​

​

12​

Buffalo Sabres*​

86​

0.512​

297​

3.54​

0.86​

3​

2​

7​

9​

​

​

13​

New York Islanders*​

87​

0.518​

297​

3.54​

0.92​

5​

3​

7​

10​

​

​

14​

New Jersey Devils*​

87​

0.518​

299​

3.56​

0.94​

8​

6​

15​

21​

​

​

15​

Quebec Nordiques*​

104​

0.619​

300​

3.57​

1.01​

3​

2​

7​

9​

​

​

16​

New York Rangers​

79​

0.470​

308​

3.67​

1.00​

6​

10​

3​

13​

​

​

17​

Philadelphia Flyers​

83​

0.494​

319​

3.80​

1.13​

6​

9​

10​

19​

​

​

18​

Winnipeg Jets*​

87​

0.518​

320​

3.81​

0.95​

1​

1​

2​

3​

​

​

19​

Tampa Bay Lightning​

53​

0.315​

332​

3.95​

1.20​

1​

2​

0​

2​

​

​

20​

Edmonton Oilers​

60​

0.357​

337​

4.01​

1.26​

1​

1​

0​

1​

​

​

21​

Los Angeles Kings*​

88​

0.524​

340​

4.05​

1.36​

1​

1​

3​

4​

​

​

22​

Hartford Whalers​

58​

0.345​

369​

4.39​

1.27​

2​

3​

2​

5​

​

​

23​

Ottawa Senators​

24​

0.143​

395​

4.70​

1.37​

2​

3​

1​

4​

​

​

24​

San Jose Sharks​

24​

0.143​

414​

4.93​

1.35​

2​

3​

9​

12​

​

​

3.63​

1.00​

GPG​

PPG​

​

Top 10​

​

​

​

​

​

19​

23​

25​

48​

1.21​

2.53​

​

Mid 3​

​

​

​

​

​

16​

11​

29​

40​

0.69​

2.50​

​

Bottom 10​

​

​

​

​

​

25​

35​

37​

72​

1.40​

2.88​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Top half​

​

​

​

​

​

22​

25​

32​

57​

1.14​

2.59​

​

Middle team (NYI)​

​

​

​

​

​

5​

3​

7​

10​

0.60​

2.00​

​

Top half +mid ranked team​

​

​

​

​

​

​ 27​

​ 28​

​ 39​

​ 67​

1.04​

2.48​

Bottom half +mid ranked

38​

44​

59​

103​

1.15​

2.71​

​

Bottom half​

​

​

​

​

​

33​

41​

52​

93​

1.24​

2.82​

The divergence in production is shocking, 83-84 Gretzky scored at a far higher level verse weaker competition than against stronger teams(particularly when it came to goal scoring) compared to Lemieux;

Gretzky 83-84​	GPG​	PPG​	rate vs seasonal GPG​	rate vs seasonal PPG​
Vs Top half of teams​	0.77​	2.23​	65.0%​	80.6%​
Vs Bottom half of teams​	1.45​	3.14​	123.3%​	113.2%​
seasonal scoring rates​	1.175​	2.77​	​	​
​	​	​	​	​
Lemieux 92-93​	​	​	​	​
Vs Top half (+mid ranked team)​	1.04​	2.48​	90.4%​	92.9%​
Vs Bottom half of teams​	1.24​	2.82​	107.8%​	105.6%​
seasonal scoring rates​	1.15​	2.67​	​	​

Not only that, the goals per game average of the teams the Oilers faced in 83-84 was actually notably worse than the overall league wide goals per game i.e. they had a weak schedule. Where as the Penguins schedule - by defensive metrics, was more or less league average(and actually slightly better defensively on the penalty kill). This only includes the team games each played in.

​	​ League wide​	​	​ Teams Opponents​	​	​ Difference from the norm​	​
​	GPG​	PP/Gm​	GPG allowed​	PP/Gm allowed​	GPG​	PP/Gm​
83-84 Oilers​	3.94​	0.89​	4.09​	0.94​	0.15​	0.05​
92-93 Pens​	3.63​	1.03​	3.63​	1.00​	0.00​	-0.03​

Opinions are fun to argue, but facts are definitive.


Edit* just noticed this was my 1000th post, probably taken me more time to write up my last 100 than my first 900 lol

Very nice. This certainly puts to rest any idea that Lemieux had an easier time scoring points in 1992-93.