Pominville Knows
Registered User
Lemieux was Not having Hollywood look's. That's about the only thing with him you can call average.
Lemieux vs Gretzky - who had the Highest Offensive Peak? A thorough statistical analysis
- Thread starter TheStatican
- Start date
TheStatican
Registered User
- Mar 14, 2012
- 1,737
- 1,516
I didn't say that it was a harder era only that it was a similar one for top level scoring players but overall the talent pool was larger. Hockey Outsider is working on an interesting thread which shows that it was possibly larger by around a million in 1993 than in 1984 (4,372,762 vs 5,325,272).
Also a BIG part of why superstar scoring was higher in 92-93 was thanks to those expansion teams - a benefit that every single superstar player in league took advantage of much more so than Lemieux did as he only played 5 games against the 1st and 2nd year expansion teams. Most of the other superstars played about a dozen games against these teams. And this wasn't just because of the games missed due to cancer treatments, by virtue of the conference he was in, even if he played in all games he would have only faced those teams 8 times. Lemieux was first in overall points but only tied for 14th in points vs the expansion teams, possibly lower as I only looked at the stats of the top 21 point scorers.
Player | Games | G | A | PT |
Yzerman | 13 | 12 | 16 | 28 |
Lafontine | 11 | 10 | 17 | 27 |
Fleury | 14 | 9 | 18 | 27 |
Gilmour | 16 | 8 | 19 | 27 |
Selanne | 14 | 15 | 9 | 24 |
Oates | 11 | 5 | 18 | 23 |
Bure | 12 | 13 | 10 | 23 |
Francis | 13 | 5 | 17 | 22 |
Robitalle | 12 | 11 | 9 | 20 |
Roenick | 12 | 10 | 10 | 20 |
Sakic | 12 | 10 | 10 | 20 |
Recchi | 7 | 7 | 12 | 19 |
Andreychuk | 12 | 8 | 11 | 19 |
Lemieux | 5 | 8 | 10 | 18 |
Mogilny | 9 | 11 | 7 | 18 |
Shanahan | 9 | 7 | 11 | 18 |
Hull | 12 | 8 | 10 | 18 |
Janney | 12 | 5 | 13 | 18 |
Sundin | 14 | 9 | 9 | 18 |
Stevens | 8 | 7 | 10 | 17 |
Juneau | 11 | 4 | 12 | 16 |
Turgeon | 7 | 8 | 7 | 15 |
If people are using simple GPG adjustments in this thread they are they are indeed wrong. My analysis however was made with full consideration for higher powerplay scoring levels by superstar level players in the late 80's and certain years of the 90's by adjusting for EV and PP scoring levels separately.
Disagree, 25% of a season isn't insignificant.
Jan 16 to Feb 24
without; 69 goals 162 points in 62 games 1.11gpg 2.61 ppg
with; 23 goals and 53 points in 18 games 1.28gpg 2.94 ppg
or
Jan 16 to Mar 2
without; 66 goals 155 points in 59 games 1.11gpg 2.63 ppg
with; 26 goals and 60 points in 21 games 1.24gpg 2.86 ppg
Anyways this point is hardly material to the current discussion so I'm not sure why your so focused on it. It was in response to a claim that 'linemates have no effect' at all on superstar level players. And the only season that this is of any concern about is Lemieux's 1988-89 season. Even if you don't agree that Gretzky's linemates improved his performance I've shown that it did make a difference in Lemieux's. The point of that being is if he had better linemates in 88-89 his production would have been higher.
I'm not claiming that Lemieux's seasons is massively superior, only that it is slightly ahead when you factor in all the evidence and not solely the one or two items while completely ignoring the rest of the available data;
Evidence that supports Gretzky's 83-84 game seasons as being superior;
1) 14 extra games played which allowed him to accumulate higher raw totals
2) A 2% higher higher GPG rate and 4% higher PPG rate, really only 1% GPG and 3% PPG when factoring overtime and Lemieux playing in just the first period of his 40th game.
WG 83-84 | ML 92-93 | |
| OT Game time | 35:51 | 33:19 |
| OT extra games | 0.60 | 0.56 |
| Actual 'gms' | 74.6 | 59.89 |
| True GPG | 1.166 | 1.152 |
| True PPG | 2.748 | 2.671 |
3) A notable higher VsX vs the 10/20 rank players(in league with 14% less teams and 16% less players).
Evidence that supports Lemieux 92-93 game seasons as being superior
1) 7% or 3% higher GPG rate(depending on the year you use) and 3% higher PPG rate when adjusting for both Even Strength AND Powerplay Scoring levels(plus SH)
Adjusted to 1983-84 scoring levels
Adjusted to 1992-93 scoring levels
2) Lemieux's VsX was reduced because he played just 5 games against the worst defensive teams in the league while his peers had the benefit of playing around a dozen games against these teams on average.
3) The 83-84 Oilers played against weaker opposition as seen by their strength of schedule with weaker defensive metrics vs the average team in 83-84, while the 92-93 Pens strength of schedule was at around the league average.
League wide | | Team Opponents | | | Variance from norm | ||
GPG | PPG/Gm | Pts/winning% | GPG allowed | PPG/Gm allowed | GPG | PP/Gm | |
| 83-84 Oilers | 3.94 | 0.89 | 75.18/0.470 | 4.09 | 0.94 | 0.15 | 0.05 |
| 92-93 Pens | 3.63 | 1.03 | 84.02/0.500 | 3.63 | 1.00 | 0.00 | -0.03 |
4) Lemieux dominated stronger defensive teams more while Gretzky cherry picked against the weaker ones
| 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% |
| Lemieux 92-93 | ||||
| Vs Top half (+ the mid ranked team) | 1.04 | 2.48 | 90.4% | 92.9% |
| Vs Bottom half of teams | 1.24 | 2.82 | 107.8% | 105.6% |
5) Gretzky massively stat padded late in blowout games while Lemieux didn't
Points in the | WG 83-84 | ML 92-93 |
last 10 min of the 3rd | 22 | 9 |
last 5 min | 16 | 3 |
last 150 seconds | 13 | 1 |
last 60 seconds | 9 | 1 |
Scoring rate relative to their normal season-long rates;
WG 83-84 | ML 92-93 | |
| 1st period | 91.6% | 96.8% |
| 2nd period | 115.4% | 129.2% |
| 3rd period | 93.2% | 74.1% |
| 3rd last 10 mins | 122.4% | 84.4% |
| 3rd last 5 mins | 155.2% | 76.7% |
| 3rd last 2.5 mins | 215.0% | 107.4% |
The reason for that is because the Penguins went into a defensive shell scoring at rates 30% lower than in the first and 45% lower than in second in the third which isn't surprising considering Scotty Bowman was always considered a defensive-minded coach.
WG 83-84 | ML 92-93 | |
| Team Points | 117 in 74 | 95 in 60 |
| Team winning % | 0.790 | 0.792 |
| Blowout wins by 3+ goals | 31 | 25 |
| Blowout wins by 4+ goals | 20 | 14 |
| Blowout wins by 5+ goals | 12 | 6 |
| Blowout wins by 6+ goals | 8 | 3 |
| Blowout wins by 7+ goals | 8 | 1 |
| wins by 3+ goals % of games | 41.9% | 41.7% |
| wins by 4+ goals % of games | 27.0% | 23.3% |
| wins by 5+ goals % of games | 16.2% | 10.0% |
| wins by 6+ goals % of games | 10.8% | 5.0% |
| wins by 7+ goals % of games | 10.8% | 1.7% |
| 92-93 Pens | Goals For | GF% by Period | Goals Against | Ratio For/Against |
| 1st Period | 100 | 34.2% | 53 | 1.9 |
| 2nd Period | 112 | 38.4% | 71 | 1.6 |
| 3rd Period | 77 | 26.3% | 71 | 1.1 |
| OT | 3 | 1.3% | 0 |
Period to period scoring stats for the team has a strong correlation with TOI, Lemieux also stat padded less because he just wasn't out there as much in the third period of his games in 92-93. Players like Ulf & Kjell Samuelsson, McEachern, Loney & Needham were logging more game minutes.
6) Cancer recovery.
Quite unbelievable that Lemieux was able to perform at such a high level after coming back from cancer treatments. Obviously chasing down the scoring title was the driving force that gave him his motivation. I don't know why some people believe its outrageous to think that he wouldn't likewise have sustained a higher pace at the end of the season had he not gotten cancer and instead it was the Scoring record that was seen within his reach.
That sums it up about as short as I can get it lol
Last edited:
And the league had expanded by that time too so the relative talent can be viewed as similar.
But regardless, where are the clear examples of a player's production being affected by an increase in the talent pool?
There are tons of examples of players not being affected. Mario, Jagr, and Howe both stood out 15 to 20 years apart in stretches where one would think the league got more harder for a player to stand out than in previous seasons.
There were 32% more PPs called in 92/93 thus giving the high end scorers more prime scoring time than they would have gotten in the '80s.
This thread is gold. It's a perfect reminder for me to always trust my eye test first and foremost. Lemieux looked like a better player than Gretzky at his best mainly because he was.
Perhaps I’m missing something, but the mathematical gymnastics needed to prop up Lemieux here are ridiculous.
The difference between comparing 60 games to 80 games was brought up early, and when using Gretzky’s first 60 games from 1983-84, the house of cards couldn’t hold up and the calculation flipped the other way.
It’s fine to look at ES/PP/SH separately, but…
Using league averages creates results that led to the creation of things like VsX because a downstream effect of all this phantom point math is that now we have to question if any 80s superstar is any good at all – and this includes a young Mario Lemieux. 92-93 and 95-96 are the “easiest” seasons to score 100 adjusted points. While Wayne Gretzky’s adjusted point total from either 1982-83 or 1983-84 would lead the league in 1995-96, no other player from those seasons would crack the Top 10. 1986 Lemieux would be tied for 6th place with 95-96 Eric Lindros – who ties Lemieux despite playing in 6 fewer games.
Adjusting for PP points by league averages completely misses the point about Lemieux’s PP chances. It’s not the league, it’s the Penguins and the Oilers. Lemieux’s Pens had more powerplay chances in his 2 highest scoring seasons than the Oilers did in Gretzky’s 3 200 consecutive 200-point years. In the 6 year span you’ve highlighted, the Oilers were 20th (of 21) in PP chances with 3.85 PPO per game. Lemieux’s Pens had 6.14 chances in 88-89, and 5.24 chances per game in 92-93. Yet, we’ve found a need to adjust his PP scoring upwards. (Although if we’re going down to calculating OT minutes, perhaps we can look at Lemieux’s higher PP usage? Lemieux was out for as many as 98% or so of his team PP goals in 88-89, which is basically all but when he was wasn’t playing.)
And SH scoring has the same problem, but perhaps a bit magnified. If you put them in 1988-89, sure Gordie Howe is good, but unsung hero of 1952-53 was apparently 10th place scorer Jim McFadden, who had 4 SH points in a league that scored 27 total SH goals. I believe the method in the OP would give McFadden something like 10 SH goals and 13 SH points – these adjustments in the OP probably make the 10th place scorer climb up the list so that he’s higher than 10th…
--------
Team situations account for a lot, but it’s often tough to measure. As luck would have it, when Gretzky left the Oilers, he swapped places with a 50-goal/100 point scorer who was 9th in ES points. When given the chance to play on the mighty Oilers, this dude remained a 50- goal/100 point scorer and was 8th in ES points. Meanwhile the Oilers, who had dominated ES goal scoring for years, fell off by about the difference between a 100 ES point scorer and a 60 ES point scorer, and the Kings went up by about the same amount, staying at #1 in ES goal scoring for three seasons, until the 100 ES point seasons were gone after Canada Cup 1991.
While Jimmy Carson didn’t really change much, when Lemieux missed a year from the middle of 1990 to the middle of 1991, the Penguins tapped another relatively average player to be the #1 centre. The result was:
NHL Leading Scorers
Top Offensive Teams
And in case anyone thought Mario Lemieux drew penalties by magic, here’s some more evidence that he didn’t:
Maybe Mario Lemieux’s situation wasn’t so bad for helping a guy score points. John Cullen would leave Pittsburgh, and finish in a 6-way tie for 33rd in scoring in his first full year in Hartford, and that was as notable as he ever was outside of the run in Pittsburgh.
---------
And of course, there’s the playoffs. Why would we exclude the playoffs when discussing the best peak of all time? In 1984-85 Gretzky does the following:
The difference between comparing 60 games to 80 games was brought up early, and when using Gretzky’s first 60 games from 1983-84, the house of cards couldn’t hold up and the calculation flipped the other way.
It’s fine to look at ES/PP/SH separately, but…
Using league averages creates results that led to the creation of things like VsX because a downstream effect of all this phantom point math is that now we have to question if any 80s superstar is any good at all – and this includes a young Mario Lemieux. 92-93 and 95-96 are the “easiest” seasons to score 100 adjusted points. While Wayne Gretzky’s adjusted point total from either 1982-83 or 1983-84 would lead the league in 1995-96, no other player from those seasons would crack the Top 10. 1986 Lemieux would be tied for 6th place with 95-96 Eric Lindros – who ties Lemieux despite playing in 6 fewer games.
Adjusting for PP points by league averages completely misses the point about Lemieux’s PP chances. It’s not the league, it’s the Penguins and the Oilers. Lemieux’s Pens had more powerplay chances in his 2 highest scoring seasons than the Oilers did in Gretzky’s 3 200 consecutive 200-point years. In the 6 year span you’ve highlighted, the Oilers were 20th (of 21) in PP chances with 3.85 PPO per game. Lemieux’s Pens had 6.14 chances in 88-89, and 5.24 chances per game in 92-93. Yet, we’ve found a need to adjust his PP scoring upwards. (Although if we’re going down to calculating OT minutes, perhaps we can look at Lemieux’s higher PP usage? Lemieux was out for as many as 98% or so of his team PP goals in 88-89, which is basically all but when he was wasn’t playing.)
And SH scoring has the same problem, but perhaps a bit magnified. If you put them in 1988-89, sure Gordie Howe is good, but unsung hero of 1952-53 was apparently 10th place scorer Jim McFadden, who had 4 SH points in a league that scored 27 total SH goals. I believe the method in the OP would give McFadden something like 10 SH goals and 13 SH points – these adjustments in the OP probably make the 10th place scorer climb up the list so that he’s higher than 10th…
--------
Team situations account for a lot, but it’s often tough to measure. As luck would have it, when Gretzky left the Oilers, he swapped places with a 50-goal/100 point scorer who was 9th in ES points. When given the chance to play on the mighty Oilers, this dude remained a 50- goal/100 point scorer and was 8th in ES points. Meanwhile the Oilers, who had dominated ES goal scoring for years, fell off by about the difference between a 100 ES point scorer and a 60 ES point scorer, and the Kings went up by about the same amount, staying at #1 in ES goal scoring for three seasons, until the 100 ES point seasons were gone after Canada Cup 1991.
While Jimmy Carson didn’t really change much, when Lemieux missed a year from the middle of 1990 to the middle of 1991, the Penguins tapped another relatively average player to be the #1 centre. The result was:
NHL Leading Scorers
| GP | G | A | Pts | |
| Wayne Gretzky | 63 | 38 | 87 | 125 |
| John Cullen | 71 | 32 | 76 | 108 |
| Brett Hull | 71 | 70 | 29 | 99 |
Top Offensive Teams
| GP | Goals | GF/G | |
| Flames | 70 | 305 | 4.36 |
| Kings | 71 | 285 | 4.01 |
| Pens | 72 | 288 | 4.00 |
| Blues | 71 | 274 | 3.86 |
| NY Rangers | 73 | 281 | 3.85 |
And in case anyone thought Mario Lemieux drew penalties by magic, here’s some more evidence that he didn’t:
| PP Opp / GP | |
| Pens | 5.08 |
| Flames | 5.07 |
| Whalers | 5.06 |
| Canucks | 4.99 |
| Oilers | 4.93 |
Maybe Mario Lemieux’s situation wasn’t so bad for helping a guy score points. John Cullen would leave Pittsburgh, and finish in a 6-way tie for 33rd in scoring in his first full year in Hartford, and that was as notable as he ever was outside of the run in Pittsburgh.
---------
And of course, there’s the playoffs. Why would we exclude the playoffs when discussing the best peak of all time? In 1984-85 Gretzky does the following:
- Leads the 1984 Canada Cup in scoring
- Leads the Regular Season in Goals, Assists, Points, and Plus/Minus
- Oilers with Gretzky on-ice: +100, without: +5
- Has at least one 3-point game against every team in the NHL during the regular season.
- Scores 2.0+ Points Per Game against 17 of 20 NHL teams. Near misses with 15 points in 8 games against weaker opponents in VAN (21st in GA), 5 in 3 against NYR (17th in GA), and a wider miss with 4 in 3 vs a good MTL team (4th in GA). Scores at 187 point pace against the Top 5 defensive teams (15 GP, 12-23-35)
- In 7 games without Jari Kurri, he is 8-14-22, +8, playing largely with Napier/Krushelnyski
- Has as many assists as 2nd place scorer Paul Coffey
- Has enough ES points to lead the league without scoring a single PP or SH point
- 65 non-PP goals, which beats everyone but his own 2 best goal scoring seasons.
- Has 44 PP points (2nd) on 293 PP chances. Is on ice for 82.4% of team PP goals, because he doesn’t need to monopolize PP minutes as much as Lemieux.
- Leads NHL with 11 SH Goals and 18 SH points.
- While playing against only winning teams in the playoffs, scores 17-30-47, +27. All are NHL records except goals (19) which he helps his linemate, Kurri, match.
- 2.611 PPG keeps Dennis Maruk out of the playoff record book for his 13 points in 5 games the following year, thus saving us all from Maruk fans from using the logic of this thread to declare him as the man with the highest offensive peak in playoff history.
- Oilers are +27 with Gretzky, +15 without. That injured Messier fellow from the regular season usually shows up in the spring.
- 35 Even Strength Points in the Playoffs. Just under 2 per game in the playoffs is an unbelievable pace. The next best playoff year is Brayden Point with 26 in the extended 2020 playoffs, and a tie at 25 with Gretzky 84 and Coffey 85, followed by Kurri 85/Middleton 83/Gretzky 93/McDavid 2022 at 24.
- In beating the #1 overall Flyers (3rd in GA) scores 7-4-11, +4 in the Finals,2 points shy of his 1988 record for points.
- Hat Trick in Game 3 of the Finals is capped off by being called on to win a defensive zone faceoff at the end of the game, and recovering the puck after Huddy loses it on the boards and clearing the zone to close out the win. (He was probably hoping Kurri would score.)
- In an effort to win an obscure message board debate 38 years later, scores almost no 3rd period points in the Finals. The lone exception is a PP goal to make Game 4 5-3 Oilers, about 4 minutes into the 3rd period. It’s his second goal in a row to cap a comeback from an early 3-1 Flyers lead.
- Choosing this season means the best offensive season of all time ends with Wayne Gretzky lighting up the best team in the league to win the Stanley Cup, instead of David Volek.
Hey you present a good case but you can't ignore scoring levels either. Lemieux's best playoff run adjusts slightly ahead of Gretzky's in points per game. Not saying it isn't without flaws but once again Lemieux at his best = Gretzky at the very least and him scoring over a goal per game twice in a few of his best playoff runs makes me inclined to say Lemieux over Gretzky at his best in the playoffs as well.
Last edited:
BraveCanadian
Registered User
- Jun 30, 2010
- 15,545
- 4,957
The Panther
Registered User
This may be the greatest post in the history of HOH....
I don't get this, what does this mean? I mean how did you just prove Mario wasn't drawing more penalties than Gretzky by posting these numbers?
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
- Jan 16, 2005
- 9,552
- 16,026
In 1993 the Penguins averaged 5.32 PP opportunities per game in the 60 games Lemieux played and 5.04 in the 24 games where he didn't.
So if we assume that 100% of the difference is due to Lemieux's penalty-drawing abilities (as opposed to random variance), that works out to about an extra 23 PP opportunities per season ((5.32 - 5.04) * 84).
During Gretzky's time in Edmonton, the Oilers averaged 319 PP opportunities per season, with only a single season above 350. The 1993 Penguins (in just the games Lemieux didn't play) were on pace for over 420 PP opportunities. A part of that could be due to Lemieux's penalty-drawing ability, but that doesn't explain the majority of the difference.
Last edited:
Those are the games between February 15, 1990 (day after Lemieux's point streak ends and he takes time off) and January 25, 1991 (Lemieux's first game of the 90-91 season).
So Pittsburgh was swimming in PP chances even without Lemieux playing.
Here's the first half of the 1989-90 season, with the Pens, non-Pens PP leader, and median team:
| Rank | Team | PP Opp / GP |
1 | Rangers | 5.41 |
4 | Penguins | 4.97 |
11 | Sabres | 4.41 |
Here's the stretch he missed Feb 15/90 - Jan 25/91:
| PP Opp / GP | ||
1 | Penguins | 5.08 |
2 | Flames | 5.07 |
11 | Stars | 4.69 |
Here's the PP chances after (Lemieux plays 26 of 30 games).
1 | Rangers | 5.68 |
9 | Penguins | 4.57 |
11 | Flames | 4.42 |
Pittsburgh was a high PP chance team in this era. One of the reasons suggested for this is that Lemieux was drawing a ton of penalties, but that's been debunked. The Penguins draw more penalties with Lemieux gone in the above tables. I wouldn't say that's all on Lemieux - I'd say he had little impact either way. Although the Penguins have "low" PP chances (peak Gretzky's Oilers were at 3.85 PPO / GP, this is still a lot) it might partially explain Lemieux's relatively low regular season output, and why he turned it up in the playoffs (Playoff Pens: 5.71 PPO/GP).
Stars draw penalties, and we've seen that, but overall that doesn't seem to move the needle significantly, if at all. We probably just don't care to remember the vast number of penalties that just happen.
The Pens were a high PP chance team with Lemieux or without him.
For example Randy Carlyle wins the Norris in 1980-81 in part because a team with 400 PP chances (2nd in NHL, +60 PP chances over average.)
Here's the Penguins vs Gretzky's teams from 1981 - 1998:
1981 | Team | PP Opp | PPO over NHL Avg |
1 | Stars | 408 | 68 |
2 | Pens | 400 | 60 |
8 | Oilers | 347 | 7 |
1982 | |||
1 | Caps | 418 | 98 |
2 | Pens | 404 | 84 |
6 | Oilers | 341 | 21 |
1983 | |||
| T-1 | Pens | 358 | 48 |
| T-1 | Caps | 358 | 48 |
| T-14 | Oilers | 294 | -16 |
1984 | |||
1 | Leafs | 383 | 47 |
11 | Pens | 340 | 4 |
15 | Oilers | 315 | -21 |
1985 | |||
1 | Kings | 370 | 49 |
2 | Pens | 363 | 42 |
19 | Oilers | 293 | -28 |
1986 | |||
1 | Pens | 425 | 55 |
2 | Nordiques | 423 | 53 |
21 | Oilers* | 295 | -75 |
| * Last in NHL | |||
1987 | |||
1 | Kings | 389 | 45 |
2 | Devils | 382 | 38 |
3 | Pens | 378 | 34 |
4 | Rangers | 375 | 31 |
| T-6 | Flyers | 355 | 11 |
| T-6 | Capitals | 355 | 11 |
12 | Isles | 337 | -7 |
18 | Oilers | 318 | -26 |
1988 | |||
1 | Pens | 500 | 63 |
2 | Rangers | 491 | 54 |
3 | Devils | 479 | 42 |
6 | Caps | 469 | 32 |
8 | Flyers | 461 | 24 |
16 | Oilers | 402 | -35 |
18 | Isles | 387 | -50 |
1989 | |||
1 | Pens | 491 | 88 |
2 | Devils | 466 | 63 |
3 | Rangers | 457 | 54 |
4 | Caps | 443 | 40 |
11 | Kings | 395 | -8 |
16 | Isles | 378 | -25 |
18 | Flyers | 367 | -36 |
1990 | |||
1 | Rangers | 442 | 77 |
2 | Caps | 412 | 45 |
4 | Pens | 403 | 36 |
17 | Kings | 343 | -24 |
19 | Flyers | 338 | -29 |
20 | Devils | 337 | -30 |
21 | Isles | 330 | -37 |
1991 | |||
1 | Whalers | 403 | 37 |
4 | Kings | 391 | 25 |
7 | Pens | 388 | 22 |
21 | Isles | 317 | -49 |
1992 | |||
1 | Hawks | 467 | 65 |
6 | Pens | 423 | 21 |
| T-10 | Kings | 411 | 9 |
1993 | |||
1 | Hawks | 510 | 67 |
2 | Kings | 507 | 64 |
14 | Pens | 440 | -3 |
1994 | |||
1 | Leafs | 459 | 52 |
2 | Kings | 444 | 37 |
16 | Pens | 404 | -3 |
1995 | |||
1 | Oilers | 259 | 40 |
7 | Pens | 221 | 12 |
| 20* | Kings | 200 | -9 |
| * Last in West | |||
1996 | |||
1 | Sabres | 477 | 64 |
11 | Pens | 420 | 7 |
18 | Kings | 401 | -12 |
1997 | |||
1 | Oilers | 406 | 70 |
11 | Pens | 339 | 3 |
26 | Rangers* | 287 | -49 |
| * Last in NHL | |||
1998 | |||
1 | Oilers | 483 | 103 |
4 | Pens | 407 | 27 |
24 | Rangers | 351 | -29 |
The Pens were getting 5 PP chances per game in almost any scenario, when Lemieux played a little or a lot, or like in 1998, not at all. The only time they didn't have a ton of chances and Lemieux played was in 1997. As I've posted elsewhere: Mario "relying on the PP"?
We'd see how that table looks here, but I can't figure out how to get the colours to work. In short Lemieux really liked high PPO environments, he had a lot of them, and even though he's just as good a scorer in 1996-97 as he is in 1995-96, his PP Pts fall of a cliff, and that's in part due to Lemieux being in the closest thing to a low PPO environment as he's seen. Which probably explains why he thinks it's a garage league all of a sudden.
The Patrick Division may have had something to do with it at the height of the PP chances in the 1980s, although the refs sure don't like the New York Islanders. Makes sense for them to be last in the mid 80s but keeping them at the bottom through the early 90s is just unfair.
Gretzky's in a much lower PP environment for almost his entire career. He misses a huge PP chance bonanza in 1993 by being injured for half the year, and being used less on the PP by Melrose after he returns (he's on for 65% on team PP goals scored after he returns). He makes up for it a little in the 1993 playoffs though, and uses his next best opportunity to steal one last scoring title in 1993-94. Then he stops being a star who draws calls or something and the Kings fall to last place in the West in PP chances in a year with no inter-conference play.
Disparity in PP chances has a huge effect on play. I pointed out Carlyle before, but another one is Dennis Maruk. One point I disagree with Mike Farkas is that Maruk's 136 points isn't a sign of the NHL being terrible - it's a sign he was fed PP chances like he was Mario Lemieux. As a result a guy who's tied for 7th in ES scoring with John Tonelli, also ties Wayne Gretzky for 1st in PP points with 57.
Maruk was a good (not great) scorer on terrible teams (any Barons fans disagree?) who was underused on the PP (pre merger ES point finishes: 11th, 14th, 12th). After an injury year in 1980, he's up to 9th and 7th in ES scoring on better Caps teams. But he almost doubles his next best season in PP points because Maruk has high PP usage for the only time in his career, and it comes in a year where only the Pens are within 50 PP chances of Washington and the Caps have almost 100 more PP chances then the average team. The highly used Maruk is out for 73 PPGF, 30 goals above his next best year. He's basically Pierre Turgeon in 1993 - but Maruk was the only one playing like it was 92-93.
It's a very exhausting post and it does imply quite a bit although I actually thought it was recorded and it could be somehow dug out who exactly drew penalties. So even though Pittsburgh had a lot of PPs without Mario it doesn't necessarily prove Mario wasn't drawing a disproportional amount of penalties. It's still possible Mario drew more than the difference between when he was playing and when he wasn't.
I don't think there's any value in Mario drawing penalties that would have been called anyways, and we don't actually know if he did draw any.
That penalty data's only available since 2010. In that data the guys who draw a lot of penalties per minute tend be agitator/grinder/goon types, and there's a lot of variance from year-to-year. Just about any scorer can draw 0.8 to 1.2 penalties per 60 mins, simply by existing. But even then, there's a ton of variance.
NHL Stats
The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.
www.nhl.com
It would also seem like Connor McDavid is the only star scorer who consistently draws an above average number of penalties (currently at 1.31 this season, down from 1.70 last year). Kucherov is at 1.52 - but he was down at 0.88 in his 128 point year. You'd think Crosby would be good at drawing them, but he's down at 0.67 this year and peaked at 36 drawn penalties in 2010, tying his less utilized teammate Matt Cooke.
Brad Marchand consistently draws calls almost as well as McDavid, but he also gives them back by taking penalties.
Which I suppose brings us to another Gretzky advantage - he's the only one in the Big 4 who didn't have a lot of penalties. In the 61 games of his 3 40-point playoff years he took 7 minors - one less than Lemieux took in the 1991 playoffs alone. He had 2 minor penalties in 18 games in 1985, vs the 5 minors Lemieux took in 11 games in the 93 playoffs.
I don't think there's any value in Mario drawing penalties that would have been called anyways, and we don't actually know if he did draw any.
That penalty data's only available since 2010. In that data the guys who draw a lot of penalties per minute tend be agitator/grinder/goon types, and there's a lot of variance from year-to-year. Just about any scorer can draw 0.8 to 1.2 penalties per 60 mins, simply by existing. But even then, there's a ton of variance.
NHL Stats
The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.
It would also seem like Connor McDavid is the only star scorer who consistently draws an above average number of penalties (currently at 1.31 this season, down from 1.70 last year). Kucherov is at 1.52 - but he was down at 0.88 in his 128 point year. You'd think Crosby would be good at drawing them, but he's down at 0.67 this year and peaked at 36 drawn penalties in 2010, tying his less utilized teammate Matt Cooke.
Brad Marchand consistently draws calls almost as well as McDavid, but he also gives them back by taking penalties.
Which I suppose brings us to another Gretzky advantage - he's the only one in the Big 4 who didn't have a lot of penalties. In the 61 games of his 3 40-point playoff years he took 7 minors - one less than Lemieux took in the 1991 playoffs alone. He had 2 minor penalties in 18 games in 1985, vs the 5 minors Lemieux took in 11 games in the 93 playoffs.
You don't think think that had anything to do with a lot more penalties being called in those games though? Overall I'm not denying he was the least physical or scrappy player.
The playoff minor penalties?
I can't find the PPO/GP by season, but 1988 was a ridiculously high penalty year, and 1993 was decently high, although I prefer to side with Kerry Fraser and say that it wasn't high at all...
TheStatican
Registered User
- Mar 14, 2012
- 1,737
- 1,516
Not sure why your mentioning stats from 1987-88 as it isn't even in the discussion here. As for 1988-89, clearly you don't understand something important about having a high powerplay usage. A higher powerplay usage means more powerplay minutes and less even strength minutes which in turn both reduces his scoring rate on the powerplay and increased his scoring rate at even strength. Do you understand now? Meaning he wasn't as dependent on powerplay points as you think he was.
Your argument is no where near as strong as you perceive it to be because of these factors;
1) If you reduce Lemieux's powerplay time do you think he would just be sitting on the bench during those lost minutes? Obviously he would've been playing more minutes at even strength and therefore he his even strength totals would've been higher. Ok but this would only give him a few extra points, 2 or 3 maybe right? Not even close. People assume that it would've only amounted to a couple extra ES points because of his high number of powerplay points and because they assume his ES scoring rates would be similar to the scoring rates of star players in recent years. In actuality this increased EV time alone would offset about two thirds to half of his lost power points.
2) people penalize Lemieux for his excessive powerplay opportunities but they don't compensate him for the excessive amount of shorthanded situations he played in as well. In Lemieux's 76 games the Pens were shorthand just as much as they were on the powerplay(actually slightly more). And guess who was the teams primary penalty killer? Lemieux. With less SH time he naturally would've had more ES time and more ES points to go along with it. But he scored so many SH point that season, so surely it wouldn't have made a big different. While he did score a high number of SH points his per 60 scoring rate at even strength was much higher than his shorthanded scoring rate. And lastly,
3) Lemieux's powerplay usage was very high in 88-89 but it wasn't as high as 95-96's because unlike 95-96 we know he wasn't out there for every single powerplay goal the team scored. The question is why and the answer should be obvious. In 88-89 the Penguins averaged 6 PPO's per game which is an huge amount of powerplay time. In total the team had 486 PPO's, this was the 3rd highest total ever to that point in NHL history and remains the 5th highest total by a team outside of the anomaly that was 2005-06. As for the 95-96 Penguins while they also had a high number of PPO's it was no where near as high as 88-89, they averaged almost 1 PPO less per game. Being only the ice for the entirety of 6.0 PPO's per game is simply too much for any one player. But if you reduced that amount to 5.0 PPO's Mario's usage would almost assuredly be higher as it was in 95-96. Meaning he doesn't lose as many powerplay points as some think he does.
Considering just the first two factors Lemieux would've had something like 1 to 3 less points in 1988-89 which means he ends up with with between 196 and 198 points instead. So yes your right in that technically he "loses points" but the difference is VERY marginal.
I provide all the evidence, facts and calculations explaining exactly how I came to that conclusion in this thread;
Debunking the narrative that Lemieux's 1988-89 season was powerplay driven
There continues to be a misunderstanding that Lemieux's performance in 1988-89 was largely powerplay driven, specifically due to his team receiving a high number of powerplay opportunities than the norm that season. However this assumption is a flawed one as it does not consider two important...
ALL that said I don't even consider Lemieux's 88-89 season to be the best offensive season anyways. The only major contention I've had with anyone on this thread regarding that season up until your post was a statement that having better linemates wouldn't have made any difference in his stats, which is a preposterous supposition. What makes it interesting is that compared to the others Lemieux clearly had the worst supporting cast of any of the seasons being discussed. But since there's no way to quantify exactly what the difference in having better teammates would have made there's not much point in further analyzing it or making claims about it being superior to Gretzky's best. It's more of a 'what if' scenario and I have no intent on starting any more 'what if' Lemieux scenarios in the thread. But what you said was just so blatantly wrong and off that mark that I couldn't help but respond to it.
Last edited:
TheStatican
Registered User
- Mar 14, 2012
- 1,737
- 1,516
Seems like it, which statistics are you having difficulties with exactly?
Have to say what I find it interesting that years ago when adjusted total were first being discussed the counterpoint to them was that they were a flawed metric because they didn't consider powerplay scoring levels. Now that powerplay scoring levels have been accounted for suddenly the argument has shifted once again.
Honestly guys, I've posted the stats and stated this many times in the thread before; THERE WERE 4 EXTRA GAMES PLAYED IN 1992-93.
Sakic, Tocchet, Hull, Francis Juneau, Fleury. All of them reached 100 points in their teams 81st to 84rd games. None would've hit 100 if not for those 4 extra games, which did not exist in any season in 80's. Look it up if you don't believe me(their game logs). Without those extra games there would've been fifteen 100-point scorers. Meanwhile the 1884-85 season had sixteen 100-point scorers with in 80 team games.
As for 1995-96, it had twelve 100 point scorers and seeing as how it's almost universally regarded as being the pinnacle of high end talent in the league I fail to see what's so outrageous about that sum.
Due to less games played.
After EV/PP/SH adjustments on a per game rate 82-83 Stastny would be in top 10 and in 83-84 both Bossy and Kurri would be in the top 10. Also no one thinks(or at least I hope not) that the league had more superstar level players in 82-83 or 83-84 than it did in 1995-96.
So second year pre-peak 20-year old Lemieux playing on a mediocre team with the likes of Terry Ruskowski and Doug Shedden as his linemates matches absolute peak Lindros playing on one of the 4 best teams and on what was probably considered the best overall line in the NHL. Umm, pretty sure that sounds about right actually.
I'm not exactly a big fan of Lindros but I have to say it's shocking how people continually underestimate how good he was at his very best. I don't think it's unrealistic at all to say that Lindros in his best season matched Lemieux's production in what was his 7th best season especially considering their respective team situations.
As for the others ahead of him; we have Lemieux himself in what was the greatest single season powerplay performance in NHL history. Followed by peak Jagr and a rejuvenated HHOF level center in Francis, playing together on a line that was in contention with the Legion of Doom for being the NHL's best overall and almost certainly the best offensive line in the league. All three of whom also played on a powerplay unit that is widely considered to be in the discussion for the greatest of all time(imo it WAS the greatest PP unit in NHL history but I'll save that argument from another thread). And lastly peak level Sakic and Forsberg. All of whom played on 3 of the 4 best teams in the leagues in what is considered to be the deepest season ever for high end talent ever.
Exactly who in that group should 20 year only Lemieux have been ranked above? Who is the outliner, the 'weakest link' so to speak? Peak season Lindros? 'Old man' Francis? Who centered the best offensive line in hockey and on his owns rates among the best forwards ever for anchoring the point on the man advantage, playing on one of the greatest powerplay units of all time. Is it Forsberg? Sakic? The 95-96 season probably isn't either of their best... Likely 'Berg's 3 or 4th best and Sakic's 2nd. In isolation I might agree that it doesn't sound right, that either of them would be ranked ahead of Lemieux's Pearson winning '86 season(really he shouldn't have won that in '86). But then again the Avalanche were essentially be the best team in the league.
I mean ask yourself, do you seriously think that 20 year old Lemieux playing on a mediocre Pens team transplanted to 95-96 would have scored 141 points that year? Or even 130?? You do know the save % was .898(with fewer shots too) and the average powerplay efficiency of 17.94% in 1995-96 while in 1985-86's it was .874 and 22.1% right?
I'm prepared to agree that maaaaybe Lemieux's 7th best season should adjust a little higher than 115 points in 95-96, BUT NOT BY MUCH. 120 points would sound about right imho and this is coming from someone who's a Lemieux fan.
But if those are the biggest flaws you've found with adjusting by EV/PP/SH levels separately then I'd say the conversion is working pretty well.
Not sure what those stats from 1990 or 1991 have to do with the 1988-89 season but ok?
John Cullen was a rookie in 88-89 who scored 12 goals. He contributed a decent amount to the penguins offense that season but he wasn't exactly a major contributor. His progression over the next couple years was substantial. Also that '91 Penguins teams had some players called Mark Recchi, Jaromir Jagr, Kevin Stevens and Joe Mullen that the '89 team didn't(save for 24 games from a rookie Stevens). You may or many not of heard of them before, but all combined I have it under good advice that they made a pretty substantial impact to the make up of the team, but maybe I'm wrong.
Well then by all means vote for 1984-85 as the best offensive season of all time. I'm actually also under the opinion that is was one of Gretzky's two best seasons. It's the one peak season where he didn't stat pad liek crazy and of course there's that playoff run. But there is also hidden secret to Gretzky's performance that season that nobody talks about. I'm going to bring that up shortly, but I'm still working on that thread.
That may be true for the average star player but you have done absolutely nothing to prove that was the case for Lemieux. You make reference to the higher than average number of PPO's Lemeiux had with exactly zero understanding of what that actually means for his scoring rates and how he went about accumulating his point totals that season. Well I just wrote a dissertation that shows exactly how wrong you are about Lemieux "depending" on having a very high number of PPO's to get his points and I am VERY MUCH looking forward to seeing your response to it.
I might not be a fancy, big city statican, but as a simple, country blogger, I'll do what I can.
I don't think you accounted for PPO. Looking at your "dissertation," it seems you responded to a charge of doing mathematical gymnastics to prop up Lemieux, by doing even more mathematical gymnastics to prop up Lemieux. You accounted for 88-89 Lemieux playing in an ultra high PP environment by imagining a season where he goes from 6 PPO/GP to 5 PPO/GP. From ultra high to very high.
It might be a fine adjustment for comparing 88-89 Lemieux against 88-89 competition. But it seems patently unfair to peaks from Gretzky, Howe, McDavid, Lafleur, etc., who never played in such bountiful PPO environments (remember there are other players, and calculations should be made to try to reasonably assess as many of them as possible, not just for to benefit people with a yellow 66 on their back.) Perhaps a reasonable course of action would be to figure out what everyone looks like in a 250 PPO environment (which is a nice round number and basically the PPO levels we've seen in recent history).
Also, doesn't Iain Fyffe already have breakdowns of ES/PP/PK ice time somewhere?
Okay, well looking at the year by year Top 10 on hockey reference, it seems that Mark Recchi was 10th place in 1992-93 with 123 points. Any other years with 10 123-point scorers out there? Or 10 117-point scorers, if you want to adjust for 80 games.
In the Top 10, we see career highs for Lafontaine, Oates, Selanne, Turgeon, Mogilny, Gilmour, Robitaille and Recchi. 8 career highs, plus a PPG high for Lemieux. Only Yzerman ever beat his 1993 score, and his 137 points are as close to his 88-89 peak as he ever got, and far better than what he had been doing in the 2 previous seasons. So many top scorers are scoring like they've never scored before and never would again, yet you don't see any red flags? How many other years have career highs from so many people who suddenly obliterate their 2nd best year?
While Gretzky and Lemieux are least affected by adjusted points disparities (they scored the most, and Lemieux comes into the decade late) it gets goofier the further down we go. It seems that 6th place 73 game Lindros year is better than any 80 game season season Mike Bossy ever had, and would be good enough to steal an Art Ross from Guy Lafleur. Heck, Pierre Turgeon tied for 17th in 1995-96, but apparently that level of play would be good enough to be a top 5 scorer in multiple years in the 1980s or to steal an Art Ross or two from Bobby Hull. At least, according to adjusted points.
They did make an impact. The guys who helped Lemieux in 92-93 helped Cullen too. John Cullen isn't outscoring Brett Hull unless he's put in a VERY advantageous position to score points - and that's what Pittsburgh apparently gave to it's #1 centre.
Um, no, you haven't shown anything of the sort. Mario Lemieux never played in a low PPO environment. Even in your reworking of the stats, you reset him to 403 - over 5 per game and over 100 more than Gretzky's Oilers saw in some years.
I haven't got the time to analyze your TOI breakdown, but if you want a greater understanding - run those numbers to see how each of the Gretzky and Lemieux seasons in your poll fare in a 250 PPO environment.
I don't think you accounted for PPO. Looking at your "dissertation," it seems you responded to a charge of doing mathematical gymnastics to prop up Lemieux, by doing even more mathematical gymnastics to prop up Lemieux. You accounted for 88-89 Lemieux playing in an ultra high PP environment by imagining a season where he goes from 6 PPO/GP to 5 PPO/GP. From ultra high to very high.
It might be a fine adjustment for comparing 88-89 Lemieux against 88-89 competition. But it seems patently unfair to peaks from Gretzky, Howe, McDavid, Lafleur, etc., who never played in such bountiful PPO environments (remember there are other players, and calculations should be made to try to reasonably assess as many of them as possible, not just for to benefit people with a yellow 66 on their back.) Perhaps a reasonable course of action would be to figure out what everyone looks like in a 250 PPO environment (which is a nice round number and basically the PPO levels we've seen in recent history).
Also, doesn't Iain Fyffe already have breakdowns of ES/PP/PK ice time somewhere?
Okay, well looking at the year by year Top 10 on hockey reference, it seems that Mark Recchi was 10th place in 1992-93 with 123 points. Any other years with 10 123-point scorers out there? Or 10 117-point scorers, if you want to adjust for 80 games.
In the Top 10, we see career highs for Lafontaine, Oates, Selanne, Turgeon, Mogilny, Gilmour, Robitaille and Recchi. 8 career highs, plus a PPG high for Lemieux. Only Yzerman ever beat his 1993 score, and his 137 points are as close to his 88-89 peak as he ever got, and far better than what he had been doing in the 2 previous seasons. So many top scorers are scoring like they've never scored before and never would again, yet you don't see any red flags? How many other years have career highs from so many people who suddenly obliterate their 2nd best year?
While Gretzky and Lemieux are least affected by adjusted points disparities (they scored the most, and Lemieux comes into the decade late) it gets goofier the further down we go. It seems that 6th place 73 game Lindros year is better than any 80 game season season Mike Bossy ever had, and would be good enough to steal an Art Ross from Guy Lafleur. Heck, Pierre Turgeon tied for 17th in 1995-96, but apparently that level of play would be good enough to be a top 5 scorer in multiple years in the 1980s or to steal an Art Ross or two from Bobby Hull. At least, according to adjusted points.
They did make an impact. The guys who helped Lemieux in 92-93 helped Cullen too. John Cullen isn't outscoring Brett Hull unless he's put in a VERY advantageous position to score points - and that's what Pittsburgh apparently gave to it's #1 centre.
Um, no, you haven't shown anything of the sort. Mario Lemieux never played in a low PPO environment. Even in your reworking of the stats, you reset him to 403 - over 5 per game and over 100 more than Gretzky's Oilers saw in some years.
I haven't got the time to analyze your TOI breakdown, but if you want a greater understanding - run those numbers to see how each of the Gretzky and Lemieux seasons in your poll fare in a 250 PPO environment.
tabness
be a playa 🇵🇸
- Apr 4, 2014
- 3,023
- 5,410
First of all, I can't be the only one who finding it ironic that people with thousands (or tens of thousands) of posts are chirping @TheStatican for long posts right lol?
OK, so so I haven't read through everything obviously, skimmed most of it, but is my summary below of the original case and then further discussion correct?
• Peak performance matters (not simply best season)
• Gretzky got more help from better teammates
• Gretzky got more garbage points
and then there's also the further discussion
• Scoring levels/adjusted stats
• Quality of league in the early eighties during Gretzky's best years was weaker than Lemieux's best years in the late eighties/early nineties
• Gretzky has better even strength scoring than Lemieux
I agree with @TheStatican in the general point about peak performance being something distinct from best season and quite frankly more important than best season for the purposes of determining better player at best. It's obvious, hockey is played shift by shift
Gretzky getting more help from teammates is trickier though. Yes, all these years later Gretzky's teammates are all hall of famers and have had storied careers, but going back to peak performance, Kevin Stevens looks real good and could easily be argued as right up there against basically any of Gretzky's teammates except maybe Coffey, and I say that as a guy who still thinks Jari Kurri is one of the most underrated players generally and Coffey seems to be real underrated here on this board. Plus a good line is so much more than just the players in isolation, Stevens • Lemieux • Tocchet was a great line and more than the sum of its parts. Then again, the dynasty Oilers in a sense were the same, the way they played broke hockey for a bit.
Garbage points though, this one is interesting, and the data presented is very detailed, nice work. I remember running the numbers in the Bossy better goalscorer than Gretzky topic, and it was clear that Gretzky scored a lot of blowout goals and the percentage of "important" goals (defined as tying/go ahead) was definitely lower than other superstars (still ended up with better numbers than Bossy because Bossy himself had a lot of blowout goals and Gretzky scored so much than even shaving off a lot leaves you with a lot left).
Ran score effect points for both guys throughout their careers. Haven't looked too much in detail but eyeballing in terms of percentage, yeah Gretzky has more blowout points for sure.
• blowout: point on goal scored means leading by 4 or more
• insurance: point on goal scored means leading by 2 or 3
• go ahead: point on goal scored means leading by 1
• tie: point on goal scored means game tied
• comeback: point on goal scored means trailing by 1
• rally: point on goal scored means trailing by 2 or more
• first: point on first goal of the game
• second: point on second goal of the game
Scoring levels and adjusted stats and what not have been discussed to death, I'm personally not a fan of any of the formulaic ways stats are compared across eras, so I got nothing more to add.
Quality of the league I think is obvious just watching, also it was recognized back then how the quality of the league improved drastically from the early to late eighties, from Gretzky's Hockey Scouting Report entry after 1989-1990 (the book was generally quite hard on Lemieux at this time too as he hadn't won and all that):
The even strength scoring though is interesting. I'm the first to point out that obviously more powerplay time means less even strength time generally. More powerplays means less need to score at even strength to win the game as well. I should also point out that many of Lemieux's best years (though not 1992-1993) were under the Oilers coincidental penalty rule period reducing 4 on 4 time.
All that said, Gretzky still in the late eighties seems to be a better even strength scorer than Lemieux in terms of naively looking at stats. My pet stat of road even strength points also continues to favor Gretzky even just looking at say 1986-1987 onward until Gretzky really tails off in the early nineties.
some of this might be chalked up to the powerplay opportunity difference of course but the fact that Gretzky in the late eighties is still right there with peak Lemieux is worth thinking about no?
OK, so so I haven't read through everything obviously, skimmed most of it, but is my summary below of the original case and then further discussion correct?
• Peak performance matters (not simply best season)
• Gretzky got more help from better teammates
• Gretzky got more garbage points
and then there's also the further discussion
• Scoring levels/adjusted stats
• Quality of league in the early eighties during Gretzky's best years was weaker than Lemieux's best years in the late eighties/early nineties
• Gretzky has better even strength scoring than Lemieux
I agree with @TheStatican in the general point about peak performance being something distinct from best season and quite frankly more important than best season for the purposes of determining better player at best. It's obvious, hockey is played shift by shift
Gretzky getting more help from teammates is trickier though. Yes, all these years later Gretzky's teammates are all hall of famers and have had storied careers, but going back to peak performance, Kevin Stevens looks real good and could easily be argued as right up there against basically any of Gretzky's teammates except maybe Coffey, and I say that as a guy who still thinks Jari Kurri is one of the most underrated players generally and Coffey seems to be real underrated here on this board. Plus a good line is so much more than just the players in isolation, Stevens • Lemieux • Tocchet was a great line and more than the sum of its parts. Then again, the dynasty Oilers in a sense were the same, the way they played broke hockey for a bit.
Garbage points though, this one is interesting, and the data presented is very detailed, nice work. I remember running the numbers in the Bossy better goalscorer than Gretzky topic, and it was clear that Gretzky scored a lot of blowout goals and the percentage of "important" goals (defined as tying/go ahead) was definitely lower than other superstars (still ended up with better numbers than Bossy because Bossy himself had a lot of blowout goals and Gretzky scored so much than even shaving off a lot leaves you with a lot left).
Ran score effect points for both guys throughout their careers. Haven't looked too much in detail but eyeballing in terms of percentage, yeah Gretzky has more blowout points for sure.
• blowout: point on goal scored means leading by 4 or more
• insurance: point on goal scored means leading by 2 or 3
• go ahead: point on goal scored means leading by 1
• tie: point on goal scored means game tied
• comeback: point on goal scored means trailing by 1
• rally: point on goal scored means trailing by 2 or more
• first: point on first goal of the game
• second: point on second goal of the game
Code:
player name:
wayne gretzky
start season:
1980
end season:
1999
1980 137 total
blowout: 17 12.41%
insurance: 36 26.28%
go ahead: 26 18.98%
tie: 26 18.98%
comeback: 20 14.6%
rally: 12 8.76%
first: 10 7.3%
second: 15 10.95%
1981 157 total
blowout: 23 14.65%
insurance: 39 24.84%
go ahead: 42 26.75%
tie: 24 15.29%
comeback: 13 8.28%
rally: 16 10.19%
first: 24 15.29%
second: 12 7.64%
1982 210 total
blowout: 34 16.19%
insurance: 67 31.9%
go ahead: 50 23.81%
tie: 36 17.14%
comeback: 16 7.62%
rally: 7 3.33%
first: 19 9.05%
second: 25 11.9%
1983 196 total
blowout: 32 16.33%
insurance: 51 26.02%
go ahead: 51 26.02%
tie: 25 12.76%
comeback: 19 9.69%
rally: 18 9.18%
first: 17 8.67%
second: 17 8.67%
1984 205 total
blowout: 46 22.44%
insurance: 72 35.12%
go ahead: 40 19.51%
tie: 22 10.73%
comeback: 12 5.85%
rally: 13 6.34%
first: 17 8.29%
second: 15 7.32%
1985 205 total
blowout: 29 14.15%
insurance: 65 31.71%
go ahead: 60 29.27%
tie: 30 14.63%
comeback: 14 6.83%
rally: 7 3.41%
first: 24 11.71%
second: 21 10.24%
1986 211 total
blowout: 36 17.06%
insurance: 77 36.49%
go ahead: 47 22.27%
tie: 33 15.64%
comeback: 11 5.21%
rally: 7 3.32%
first: 21 9.95%
second: 25 11.85%
1987 177 total
blowout: 22 12.43%
insurance: 71 40.11%
go ahead: 38 21.47%
tie: 26 14.69%
comeback: 10 5.65%
rally: 10 5.65%
first: 13 7.34%
second: 21 11.86%
1988 148 total
blowout: 17 11.49%
insurance: 58 39.19%
go ahead: 38 25.68%
tie: 18 12.16%
comeback: 11 7.43%
rally: 6 4.05%
first: 17 11.49%
second: 23 15.54%
1989 164 total
blowout: 20 12.2%
insurance: 43 26.22%
go ahead: 51 31.1%
tie: 32 19.51%
comeback: 8 4.88%
rally: 10 6.1%
first: 16 9.76%
second: 19 11.59%
1990 138 total
blowout: 21 15.22%
insurance: 31 22.46%
go ahead: 40 28.99%
tie: 21 15.22%
comeback: 13 9.42%
rally: 12 8.7%
first: 23 16.67%
second: 12 8.7%
1991 160 total
blowout: 19 11.88%
insurance: 56 35%
go ahead: 44 27.5%
tie: 17 10.62%
comeback: 16 10%
rally: 8 5%
first: 26 16.25%
second: 18 11.25%
1992 117 total
blowout: 6 5.13%
insurance: 40 34.19%
go ahead: 30 25.64%
tie: 23 19.66%
comeback: 8 6.84%
rally: 10 8.55%
first: 15 12.82%
second: 22 18.8%
1993 63 total
blowout: 7 11.11%
insurance: 18 28.57%
go ahead: 19 30.16%
tie: 11 17.46%
comeback: 3 4.76%
rally: 5 7.94%
first: 8 12.7%
second: 7 11.11%
1994 128 total
blowout: 11 8.59%
insurance: 27 21.09%
go ahead: 38 29.69%
tie: 21 16.41%
comeback: 17 13.28%
rally: 14 10.94%
first: 13 10.16%
second: 15 11.72%
1995 48 total
blowout: 3 6.25%
insurance: 9 18.75%
go ahead: 13 27.08%
tie: 12 25%
comeback: 6 12.5%
rally: 5 10.42%
first: 6 12.5%
second: 10 20.83%
1996 102 total
blowout: 9 8.82%
insurance: 26 25.49%
go ahead: 33 32.35%
tie: 13 12.75%
comeback: 14 13.73%
rally: 7 6.86%
first: 17 16.67%
second: 11 10.78%
1997 95 total
blowout: 11 11.58%
insurance: 26 27.37%
go ahead: 28 29.47%
tie: 17 17.89%
comeback: 7 7.37%
rally: 6 6.32%
first: 17 17.89%
second: 18 18.95%
1998 89 total
blowout: 2 2.25%
insurance: 22 24.72%
go ahead: 32 35.96%
tie: 18 20.22%
comeback: 11 12.36%
rally: 4 4.49%
first: 14 15.73%
second: 13 14.61%
1999 62 total
blowout: 13 20.97%
insurance: 15 24.19%
go ahead: 12 19.35%
tie: 15 24.19%
comeback: 1 1.61%
rally: 6 9.68%
first: 7 11.29%
second: 12 19.35%
Code:
player name:
mario lemieux
start season:
1985
end season:
2006
1985 98 total
blowout: 1 1.02%
insurance: 14 14.29%
go ahead: 30 30.61%
tie: 20 20.41%
comeback: 18 18.37%
rally: 15 15.31%
first: 14 14.29%
second: 9 9.18%
1986 135 total
blowout: 21 15.56%
insurance: 27 20%
go ahead: 46 34.07%
tie: 23 17.04%
comeback: 10 7.41%
rally: 8 5.93%
first: 21 15.56%
second: 18 13.33%
1987 106 total
blowout: 12 11.32%
insurance: 22 20.75%
go ahead: 28 26.42%
tie: 27 25.47%
comeback: 11 10.38%
rally: 6 5.66%
first: 13 12.26%
second: 13 12.26%
1988 162 total
blowout: 6 3.7%
insurance: 51 31.48%
go ahead: 47 29.01%
tie: 30 18.52%
comeback: 18 11.11%
rally: 10 6.17%
first: 17 10.49%
second: 21 12.96%
1989 182 total
blowout: 22 12.09%
insurance: 53 29.12%
go ahead: 49 26.92%
tie: 24 13.19%
comeback: 13 7.14%
rally: 21 11.54%
first: 21 11.54%
second: 18 9.89%
1990 122 total
blowout: 7 5.74%
insurance: 35 28.69%
go ahead: 25 20.49%
tie: 25 20.49%
comeback: 9 7.38%
rally: 21 17.21%
first: 17 13.93%
second: 14 11.48%
1991 45 total
blowout: 3 6.67%
insurance: 13 28.89%
go ahead: 13 28.89%
tie: 6 13.33%
comeback: 5 11.11%
rally: 5 11.11%
first: 5 11.11%
second: 4 8.89%
1992 131 total
blowout: 25 19.08%
insurance: 37 28.24%
go ahead: 31 23.66%
tie: 19 14.5%
comeback: 13 9.92%
rally: 6 4.58%
first: 19 14.5%
second: 15 11.45%
1993 155 total
blowout: 22 14.19%
insurance: 60 38.71%
go ahead: 45 29.03%
tie: 21 13.55%
comeback: 6 3.87%
rally: 1 0.65%
first: 24 15.48%
second: 19 12.26%
1994 37 total
blowout: 2 5.41%
insurance: 11 29.73%
go ahead: 11 29.73%
tie: 8 21.62%
comeback: 3 8.11%
rally: 2 5.41%
first: 6 16.22%
second: 9 24.32%
no player mario lemieux in season 1995
1996 155 total
blowout: 25 16.13%
insurance: 47 30.32%
go ahead: 45 29.03%
tie: 18 11.61%
comeback: 9 5.81%
rally: 11 7.1%
first: 21 13.55%
second: 14 9.03%
1997 121 total
blowout: 9 7.44%
insurance: 42 34.71%
go ahead: 30 24.79%
tie: 19 15.7%
comeback: 9 7.44%
rally: 12 9.92%
first: 12 9.92%
second: 17 14.05%
no player mario lemieux in season 1998
no player mario lemieux in season 1999
no player mario lemieux in season 2000
2001 75 total
blowout: 4 5.33%
insurance: 19 25.33%
go ahead: 27 36%
tie: 16 21.33%
comeback: 7 9.33%
rally: 2 2.67%
first: 12 16%
second: 10 13.33%
2002 31 total
blowout: 2 6.45%
insurance: 11 35.48%
go ahead: 7 22.58%
tie: 7 22.58%
comeback: 3 9.68%
rally: 1 3.23%
first: 4 12.9%
second: 6 19.35%
2003 85 total
blowout: 7 8.24%
insurance: 25 29.41%
go ahead: 31 36.47%
tie: 12 14.12%
comeback: 7 8.24%
rally: 3 3.53%
first: 18 21.18%
second: 16 18.82%
2004 9 total
blowout: 0 0%
insurance: 0 0%
go ahead: 2 22.22%
tie: 3 33.33%
comeback: 2 22.22%
rally: 2 22.22%
first: 2 22.22%
second: 2 22.22%
2006 22 total
blowout: 1 4.55%
insurance: 3 13.64%
go ahead: 5 22.73%
tie: 5 22.73%
comeback: 2 9.09%
rally: 6 27.27%
first: 2 9.09%
second: 4 18.18%Scoring levels and adjusted stats and what not have been discussed to death, I'm personally not a fan of any of the formulaic ways stats are compared across eras, so I got nothing more to add.
Quality of the league I think is obvious just watching, also it was recognized back then how the quality of the league improved drastically from the early to late eighties, from Gretzky's Hockey Scouting Report entry after 1989-1990 (the book was generally quite hard on Lemieux at this time too as he hadn't won and all that):
The even strength scoring though is interesting. I'm the first to point out that obviously more powerplay time means less even strength time generally. More powerplays means less need to score at even strength to win the game as well. I should also point out that many of Lemieux's best years (though not 1992-1993) were under the Oilers coincidental penalty rule period reducing 4 on 4 time.
All that said, Gretzky still in the late eighties seems to be a better even strength scorer than Lemieux in terms of naively looking at stats. My pet stat of road even strength points also continues to favor Gretzky even just looking at say 1986-1987 onward until Gretzky really tails off in the early nineties.
some of this might be chalked up to the powerplay opportunity difference of course but the fact that Gretzky in the late eighties is still right there with peak Lemieux is worth thinking about no?
TheStatican
Registered User
- Mar 14, 2012
- 1,737
- 1,516
His super bountiful PPO's amounts
to 72 powerplays an increase of 18.8% from the norm. Reduce his powerplay points by that amount and that gives you 66 or 67 powerplay points, a loss of 12 to 13. So what happens to those 72 powerplays worth of time? Lemieux would not just be sitting on his butt watching the game from the bench during that time. Obviously he's out there playing shifts at even strength instead. All one needs to know is what his EV & PP per 60 rates were. You also seem to think that his EV scoring rate was somehow low, which is strange... how many players are out there getting 102 EV points in 76 games? In a high powerplay season to boot. How could that possibly make him a bad ES scorer? If you follow the math you'll see that his ES rate could not possibly have been much lower than his PP rate that season because of how much time he was playing on the PP and PK. Even if he was playing a ridiculous 30 minutes a game it, which is unlikely as increased special teams time has zero correlation with total ice time, he would score 1 EV Pt per 1.6 PP Pt which means he makes up at least 8 of those lost powerplay points. You don't have to trust me, just simply follow the math that's what the numbers will tell you.
Also did you miss the part about how the Pens had to deal with just as many bountiful PKO's as they had powerplays? Lemieux was the Pens primary Penalty Killer meaning he was out there for a large portion of his ice time playing in a situations where scoring rates are much lower than at even strength. When you normalize his PK numbers to the league average that increases his point totals so that in the end he doesn't lose very few points or none at all.
It's not just the extra 4 games, there was more top end talent in the league and expansion and an abnormally high amount of star players were healthy that season. More games + good health and high number of games against defensively weak expansion teams = more players having career seasons.
Here's the thing about that; many of the numbers that were put up in '93 may have been inflated but that doesn't mean Lemieux's were because he benefited a disproportionally smaller amount than every single one of the top 22 scorers. Every single one of them benefited substantially more than Lemieux did - he only got to play 5 games against those teams, while the rest had close to a dozen.
If Lemieux had got to play against the expansions teams as much as some of the others did he could have had 170 points in 60 that season. I've added a link to all of their player pages showing their splits in case there is any doubt about the numbers below.
Player | Games | Points |
13 | 28 | |
16 | 27 | |
14 | 27 | |
11 | 27 | |
14 | 24 | |
Bure | 12 | 23 |
11 | 23 | |
13 | 22 | |
12 | 20 | |
12 | 20 | |
12 | 20 | |
12 | 19 | |
7 | 19 | |
14 | 18 | |
12 | 18 | |
Hull | 12 | 18 |
9 | 18 | |
5 | 18 | |
11 | 16 | |
8 | 16 | |
7 | 15 | |
8 | 10 |
Taking it one step further, this is how many points the top 22 players would've had if we take away those 4 extra games plus the games against the expansion teams and then prorate their remaining totals to 80. No adjustments for scoring levels.
| | gm | G | A | PT |
1 | Lemieux | 60 | 64 | 91 | 155 |
2 | Lafontine | 80 | 47 | 87 | 134 |
3 | Oates | 80 | 45 | 84 | 129 |
4 | Selanne | 80 | 71 | 53 | 125 |
5 | Gilmour | 79 | 30 | 92 | 122 |
6 | Turgeon | 79 | 51 | 70 | 121 |
7 | Yzerman | 80 | 51 | 70 | 121 |
8 | Mogilny | 73 | 72 | 47 | 118 |
9 | Robitalle | 80 | 57 | 56 | 113 |
10 | Sundin | 76 | 42 | 69 | 111 |
11 | Recchi | 80 | 48 | 60 | 108 |
12 | Stevens | 68 | 52 | 48 | 100 |
13 | Tocchet | 76 | 46 | 54 | 100 |
14 | Janney | 80 | 21 | 79 | 100 |
15 | Roenick | 80 | 43 | 54 | 97 |
16 | Bure | 79 | 52 | 42 | 94 |
17 | Hull | 76 | 50 | 44 | 94 |
18 | Sakic | 74 | 42 | 53 | 94 |
19 | Juneau | 80 | 30 | 63 | 93 |
20 | Andreychuk | 79 | 52 | 39 | 91 |
21 | Francis | 80 | 22 | 67 | 89 |
22 | Fleury | 79 | 27 | 54 | 81 |
We all know Hockey References adjusted totals are not an accurate method of comparison.
Not once have I referred to their adjustment system for any of the numbers I've posted.
Lets look at all these players and the real reason why most of them had career years.
Expansion - LaFontaine -Naturally you'd expect him to hit his peak around age 26-27 so no surprise that 91-92 & 92-93 were his best seasons. The only difference from the season prior was he was fully healthy and added scoring against the expansion teams with 27 points in 11. Take that away and he has 121 in 73 = 1.66ppg pretty much the same pace he had the year before at 1.63 - while battling injuries! But his goal scoring was much higher in 91-92. In 92-93 he ended up with 53 goals in 84(pace of 49 w/o expansion gms) while he was on pace for 68 goals(projected to 84gm) in 91-92. It's clearly 92-93 was a career season thanks to being healthy and the expansion team games. Afterwards his career was completely derailed by injuries and he was never the same.
NO - Oates - Not actually his peak season, his production was higher in 90-91; 1.89 vs 1.69 points per game in a lower scoring season, the real difference was he was just healthy in 92-93 Additionally he had 23 pts in 11 against expansion, 119 in 73 otherwise. But look at the goal total right? Well he scored more because he shot more; went from a little over 2 shots a game to 3, somebody had to score for the Bruins.
NO - Yzerman - Clearly not his career season, 88-89 blows it out of the water. 87-88 is also right there with '93, it's just the injury that prevented him from putting up the same numbers. His stats were likewise also Inflated thanks to all those games and points against the expansion teams - 13 games in total, that's almost 3 times as many that Lemieux got and with that he lead the league with 28 points against them. Without these games this season would've been only his 4th best by ppg.
Due to DPE - Selänne - Sure, a career season for him in raw numbers. But only because his peak came in a very low scoring era. I mean what did you expect? Him to score 130 points in the dead puck era??
YES - Turgeon - Peak season no doubt, but it's normal to expect at least few star players to have a peak season every year.
TIED (+expansion factor) - Gilmour - Helped out by playing the most games amongst the top player against the expansion teams; 16 of them. When adjusted for PP/EV/SH scoring levels he matches his totals the following year. The point being; he doesn't have abnormally higher points this year after adjusting for scoring levels and scoring against expansion teams.
TIED (+expansion factor) - Mogilny - Same deal as with Gilmour expect his matching season was 95-96 instead. Also playing with three HHOF's on the top line and powerplay probably helps out a guys point totals out a little bit. People don't realize that he was scoring at almost the same level the season before once he teamed up with LaFontaine & Andreychuck. Everyone seems to continently forget Mogilny broke his freaking leg and up tore his ankle ligaments in the post season in '93, those ARE NOT light injuries to recover from. Add to that when he did play in 93-94 & 94-95 he was without both LaFontaine(most of the time) & Andreychuck. But he came back in 95-96 with a season almost just as good.
Hockey Reference's basic adjustments say both seasons are equal in points;
62-41-103 vs
53-50-103
When adjusted by ES/PP/SH to 95-96 scoring levels 92-93 still come out on top by a little
66-44-110 vs
55-52-107
The difference is entirely due to expansion games, having scored 11 goals & 20 points in 9 gm
TIED (+expansion factor) - Robitaille - Career year sure, was also his age 26 season you'd expect him to peak. Once again expansion teams came to his rescue, especially on the goal scoring front with 11 in 12. Minus expansion and prorate to 80 he's at 57-56-113 basically matched that in 87-88 with 53-58-111
NO - Recchi - Was just as productive in 90-91 which was a lower scoring season to boot - playing 6 more games is what made the difference Also while he only played 7 games against the expansion teams he milked his chances against them the most of anyone scoring 2.7 points per game against them, more than double his pace against the rest 104 in 77.
Without those factors this is how the seasons compare;
90-91 78 40-73-113
92-93 80 48-60-108
Due to DPE - Sundin - Same as Selanne, had the misfortune of playing most of his career in the DPE otherwise there's a good could have bested this year.
NO - Stevens - No better than the year before when he had the same ppg in a lower scoring season. Also his age 26 and 27 seasons i.e his expected prime. If it was so much easier to score why didn't he improve his per game pace as much as Lemieux did?
NO - Bure - Only a career year because he played 7 more games, higher gpg & ppg next year in a lower scoring season and likely beats it multiple times later if not for the crappy dead puck era. Goal scoring also a little inflated by scoring 13 in 12 vs expansion teams 47 in 71 otherwise.
Without those factors this is how the two seasons compare;
92-93 79 52-42-94
93-94 76 60-47-107
Inline with increase - Tocchet - Marginally better on a per game pace than earlier years, very much in line with the marginal increase in scoring. Big difference in point totals simply because he was healthy for the entire season for once in his career lol. Playing with Mario also helps
NO - Roenick - Just as good the in both the year before and the next year. Worse when simply removing expansion and games played, remember this is with no adjustments for scoring levels!
91-92 80 53-50-103
92-93 80 43-54-97
93-94 84 46-61-107
Inline with increase - Janney - Marginally better ppg in line with the slightly higher scoring levels vs several other years + Being healthy/extra games
Tied - Juneau - Slightly more productive in a slightly higher scoring year, perfectly inline with expectations for age 25-26 seasons + Being healthy and extra games
NO - Andreychuk Just as good the following year and the year prior in a lower scoring seasons
NO - Sakic - Much more productive in future seasons
NO - Hull - Way less productive than previous seasons
NO - Fleury
NO - Francis
Who's numbers do you think I used? Fyffe's. I have a link to his 1988-89 page posted in the thread.
Who said anything about 1992-93 in regards to Cullen? My first response to you was about Lemieux's situation in 1988-89 not 1992-93. Vastly different seasons with vastly different supporting casts.
Reducing the number of powerplay opportunities doesn't change anything. You have to remember if that season had a lower number of PPO's that means it also had a lower number of PKO's. In turn Lemieux loses both PP and PK time.
Playing in a ridiclous 30 minutes a game his scoring rates would be something like this
| Overall | EV | PP | SH | |
| TOI per game | 30:00 | 16:20 | 7:54 | 5:46 |
| plays in PPO's/PKO's | 400ish of 455 | 270ish of 456 | ||
| Total mins | 2280 | 1241.3 | 600.4 | 438.3 |
| Points | 199 | 102 | 79 | 18 |
| Points per 60 | 5.27 | 4.93 | 7.89 | 2.46 |
EV/SH ratio of 2.0 to 1
He plays in about 180 less powerplays and loses points at a ratio of 1 to 1.6
But he also plays in 120 less PKO's and gains twice the number of points at even strength
Run the nunbers and see what happens. You can just continue to ignore the second part of that equation.
Last edited:
The Panther
Registered User
(I thought I was done reading this tired thread, but somehow I got pulled back in....)
A few thoughts:
-- You seem a bit over-focused on the "early 80s" as if Gretzky's prime ended in 1984 or something, and not in 1991 as in reality (and only then with injury advancing it). Gretzky was the most dominant athlete in hockey, if not in the world, in 1985, 1986, and 1987. He was also the best player in 1988, and won scoring titles on 1990 and 1991 (and 1994, but by then he was way past his prime). We're now 10 years past the "early 80s", so I'm not sure why you're interring Gretzky in that era, which he clearly transcended.
-- "Gretzky's teammates are all Hall of Famers" is just a slight over-statement. We pause here to remember that Gretzky had the highest-scoring season in NHL history when he was still eligible for junior hockey and when he had exactly ZERO all-star teammates (1980-81), You may want to dismiss that by saying "early 80s", but Gretzky also scored 163 points (78 games) in 1991, a decade later, including 103 even strength points.
Mario had two Gretzky-like even strength points seasons, which were of course 1988-89 and 1992-93. If we project the ES points totals from after 1985 (as you dismiss the "early 80s", and so the two players' careers start at the same time) to 80-game seasons, we get this:
143 - Gretzky 1986
128 - Lemieux 1993 (didn't actually play full season)
126 - Gretzky 1987
114 - Gretzky 1988 (didn't actually play full season)
107 - Lemieux 1989
106 - Gretzky 1991
105 - Gretzky 1990
103 - Gretzky 1989
The only season here where Gretzky had the fully stacked line-up of productive Oilers' is 1986. Essentially, there were four other Oilers who consistently helped Gretzky score points -- Kurri, Messier, Coffey, Anderson. In 1987, Anderson was in decline and Coffey injured and having an off-season. In 1988 Coffey was long gone, Kurri and Anderson not as dominant. And you'll note positions 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 on the above list are all Gretzky seasons in Los Angeles.
So, how does this (half of Gretzky's prime) compare with Lemieux's two (and only two) dominant ES points seasons? I personally doubt he hits 128 in 1993 in an 80-game season, but let's say 125 for an even number. Okay, so that's an utterly fabulous ES points season, at the all-time elite (Gretzky) level. Now, let's check which teammates were helping Lemieux score that season:
- Stevens, Tocchet, Francis, Jagr, Murphy (Mullen arguably)
The Pen's 1993 line-up of offensive players easily matches and probably beats any line-up the Oilers of the 1980s ever assembled (with the possible exception of spring 1987, a brief three-month period when the Oilers added Nilsson and Ruotsalainen... during which Gretzky's stats went down, not up). So, this idea that Lemieux did a Gretzky-like season with lesser teammates certainly doesn't hold up as far as 1992-93 goes (the focus of this thread, more or less).
From this perspective, I have always maintained that 1988-89 was Lemieux's best season and was his physical prime. His ES points production, though, is no better than Gretzky's in 1991 on the Kings, a club that scored (slightly) fewer goals than the 1988-89 Penguins. The 1989 Penguins could score, but Lemieux was the straw that stirred the drink, and they went as far as he took them only.
So, you keep going on about the "early 80s", but the record shows that Gretzky outscored Lemieux from 1986 to 1991, and massively outscored him at even strength even while in Los Angeles, with the notable exception of 1992-93, though we'll never know how that season would have ended if Mario had played 80 games. And that season, the Penguins were a great team with or without Lemieux.
tabness
be a playa 🇵🇸
- Apr 4, 2014
- 3,023
- 5,410
I'm still reading the first 4 posts here, hope to finish and have a response February 26th 2032.
TheStatican
Registered User
- Mar 14, 2012
- 1,737
- 1,516
Thank you, I appreciate your insightful post there. The breakdown in the numbers by situation is something I hadn't come across before so that's quite interesting to look through.
Ad
Latest posts
-
GDT: Latvia Vs Canada | 7:30PM | Group A - Canadian Tire Centre- Latest: Oilslick941611
-
-
