Mario Lemieux - Minus Injuries - Discussion Thread

[bobholly39]

I've been arguing a lot for Lemieux in other threads, and was hoping to get some feedback from other posters on a few ideas.

Please keep in mind - this thread isn't meant to be a comparison of Lemieux to others and how he ranks vs them. This is meant purely to discuss Lemieux himself, and what he may or may not have achieved under different circumstances. I fully agree we cannot grant Lemieux brownie points for games missed in career value, and am in no way trying to mount an argument against Gretzky, so let's try to keep this about Lemieux.


Here are some main points of discussion i'd like to hear people's opinions on:


1. Could Lemieux have played his career injury free? 85%+ of all games? How much of his injuries were bad luck/fortune - and how much of it is simply expected because of either his style of play, his lack of training, his fragility, etc?
i.e.: If a time machine were built and u go back in-time to replay his career, is there a very high expectation he sustains many injuries, or more likely it averages out with the average player's amount of injuries?


2. If Lemieux had had no major injury/sickess (he plays 85%+ of all games - missing no full seasons).

A. Can he win the Art Ross + highest PPG per season in every year from 1989 to 1997? If not - in which years do you think he's beaten and by whom?

B. If no injury and he doesn't retire in 97 and instead plays through to 2002 - can he lead the league every year in PPG/Art Ross in that stretch? If not - how would you expect his production to compare to others?


3. If Lemieux doesn't have major injuries - how do his career numbers look at the end of his career? Points, Goals, Assists? Assuming he plays full-time until 2002 or 03 and retires (or until whichever year you feel he would have retired in such a scenario, whether before or after 2003)

Logically speaking - if your answer to question #1 is 100% no - that there is no way Lemieux could ever have avoided injuries in his career - you don't have to also answer the rest of questions. Rather, it would be nice to hear feedback on why you think that is - and if the amounts of games he played is really the best that could have been expected of him.

Please note again - I am not trying to disrespect any other player like Gretzky, Howe or whoever else by projecting numbers for Lemieux that didn't happen. However - Lemieux is probably my favorite player of all-time and I always enjoy looking at his career and trying to predict what he might have been capable of under different circumstances.

Feel free to share any and all opinions - and to answer all of my points or just some.

Thanks for your thoughts!

 

[Hardyvan123]

as with all if question the answer can be anything really, if Mario scored the smot points every year and had stayed healthy then yes but that's a big if and didn't happen.

As for the 90's we all saw a huge increase in the # of elite players being injured and missing significant parts of seasons, it's not unreasonable that Mario would have suffered the same fate as other star players in that decade one would think.

I haven't run the numbers but my guess is that a significant # and % of any year in the 90's top 20 scorers missed more man games the next season than in any other decade, even when the # games in the schedule is adjusted.

Kariya, Lindros, Foppa, Yzerman, Jargr, LaFontaine, Sellane, Bure and Mario (just off the top of my head and many others missed many games in the decade.

 

[Jumptheshark]

but there were so many injuries and the retirement that it is hard to have the discussion

 

[The Panther]

Mario Lemieux vs. Harold Snepts!

Cast your votes now.

 

[Plural]

It's Snepsts.

1. No. He could have not. Since he didn't. It's impossible to say how much of it was due to luck. How much was due to him not taking care of himself. How much of it was due to genetics. I'm not sure if I understand your point about the time machine. If we go back in time and re-play Marios career, why doesn't it go the same way? Do you mean that the injuries that happened due to luck, we would kind of "roll the dice" again in those situations? In that case, the variables become way too complex to even try to have an educated guess.

But for the sake of conversation, lets pretend I answered yes to the first question.

2.

A. The years he would get beaten are, 89-90 by Gretzky. I expect Lemieux to experience a dip in his production as the season advances. 90-91 by Gretzky. 93-94 by Gretzky (I expect the PPG of Lemieux to remain close to the same it was. 1.68 against Gretzky with 1.60 but Mario would miss more games and lose the Art Ross) So, Lemieux gets 5 scoring titles.

B. He could not. Lemieux would not have the mental capacity to hold himself on top of the hockey world for so long.

3. He retires in 02-03. He plays roughly 85% of the available games.

1050 GP 700G 1100A 1800P

 

[bogart]

...I fully agree we cannot grant Lemieux brownie points for games missed in career value...

Why not? 90% of the Crosby posts on HF do this.

 

[bobholly39]

It's Snepsts.

1. No. He could have not. Since he didn't. It's impossible to say how much of it was due to luck. How much was due to him not taking care of himself. How much of it was due to genetics. I'm not sure if I understand your point about the time machine. If we go back in time and re-play Marios career, why doesn't it go the same way? Do you mean that the injuries that happened due to luck, we would kind of "roll the dice" again in those situations? In that case, the variables become way too complex to even try to have an educated guess.

But for the sake of conversation, lets pretend I answered yes to the first question.

2.

A. The years he would get beaten are, 89-90 by Gretzky. I expect Lemieux to experience a dip in his production as the season advances. 90-91 by Gretzky. 93-94 by Gretzky (I expect the PPG of Lemieux to remain close to the same it was. 1.68 against Gretzky with 1.60 but Mario would miss more games and lose the Art Ross) So, Lemieux gets 5 scoring titles.

B. He could not. Lemieux would not have the mental capacity to hold himself on top of the hockey world for so long.

3. He retires in 02-03. He plays roughly 85% of the available games.

1050 GP 700G 1100A 1800P

Regarding the time machine analogy - yes that's what i mean.

ie: a player who gets injured by getting a puck in the throat and have to miss a season for surgery is bad luck - that likely doesn't happen again if we "redo" his career. In comparison - a player reknown for fighting, who gets multiple concusions in his career due to his fighting - u would say it's bound to happen with his style of play, even if you "re-do" his career.

Where does Lemieux fit in there?

 

[ozzie]

If Mario was a product of todays NHL, training, expectations and culture - I don't think he would be a 2 pack a day smoker. He would most likely have trained and taken his career more seriously, with offseason training.

Players take their training and careers (majority of) more seriously and train all year around, none of this 2 week training camp to get in shape.

All I know is an old broken down Mario dominated the NHL in 2000/01 like it was nobody's business. I can only imagine what a prime peak healthy Mario could do.

Not sure what he could have done about his back and cancer.

But getting rid of the smoking and proper off season training, you'd expect overall he would just be more of a force when he was healthy.

Also his retirement was partially due to his health issues, but he took shots at the league and what was happening, he was not a fan of the dead puck era.

Take away his retirement for those 3 years and he probably scores another 300-400 points if remains somewhat healthy.

Honestly I think if his health was only marginally better and no retirement he becomes the first and only 1000 goal player and finishes as the 2nd highest scorer, only behind Gretzky. At least he is probably the only player who could have done it, and at the very least he becomes the top goal scorer and passes Gretzky.

With decent health after the lockout, playing with Crosby, Malkin. A half broken down Mario is still going to get you 30 or more goals a year with power play time, and be a PPG player.

In a perfect career, with Lidstrom type durability. He scores 1000g, 2600 or so points.

 

[shazariahl]

I've been arguing a lot for Lemieux in other threads, and was hoping to get some feedback from other posters on a few ideas.

Please keep in mind - this thread isn't meant to be a comparison of Lemieux to others and how he ranks vs them. This is meant purely to discuss Lemieux himself, and what he may or may not have achieved under different circumstances. I fully agree we cannot grant Lemieux brownie points for games missed in career value, and am in no way trying to mount an argument against Gretzky, so let's try to keep this about Lemieux.


Here are some main points of discussion i'd like to hear people's opinions on:


1. Could Lemieux have played his career injury free? 85%+ of all games? How much of his injuries were bad luck/fortune - and how much of it is simply expected because of either his style of play, his lack of training, his fragility, etc?
i.e.: If a time machine were built and u go back in-time to replay his career, is there a very high expectation he sustains many injuries, or more likely it averages out with the average player's amount of injuries?


2. If Lemieux had had no major injury/sickess (he plays 85%+ of all games - missing no full seasons).

A. Can he win the Art Ross + highest PPG per season in every year from 1989 to 1997? If not - in which years do you think he's beaten and by whom?

B. If no injury and he doesn't retire in 97 and instead plays through to 2002 - can he lead the league every year in PPG/Art Ross in that stretch? If not - how would you expect his production to compare to others?


3. If Lemieux doesn't have major injuries - how do his career numbers look at the end of his career? Points, Goals, Assists? Assuming he plays full-time until 2002 or 03 and retires (or until whichever year you feel he would have retired in such a scenario, whether before or after 2003)

Logically speaking - if your answer to question #1 is 100% no - that there is no way Lemieux could ever have avoided injuries in his career - you don't have to also answer the rest of questions. Rather, it would be nice to hear feedback on why you think that is - and if the amounts of games he played is really the best that could have been expected of him.

Please note again - I am not trying to disrespect any other player like Gretzky, Howe or whoever else by projecting numbers for Lemieux that didn't happen. However - Lemieux is probably my favorite player of all-time and I always enjoy looking at his career and trying to predict what he might have been capable of under different circumstances.

Feel free to share any and all opinions - and to answer all of my points or just some.

Thanks for your thoughts!

I honestly think he has roughly the same career. Lemieux didn't just have the back injury and the cancer - he was always injured. His first couple seasons he was relatively healthy, but even from his 3rd season on he misses so much time. He was constantly being hurt - shoulder injuries, hip injuries, etc. Part of it was just the league he played in at that time was pretty rough and violent. Gretzky avoided a lot of contact, and that was one of the main reasons he was able to stay fairly healthy. Lemieux would just go through defenders, but that also attributed to his body wearing down the way it did.

If Mario was a product of todays NHL, training, expectations and culture - I don't think he would be a 2 pack a day smoker. He would most likely have trained and taken his career more seriously, with offseason training.

Players take their training and careers (majority of) more seriously and train all year around, none of this 2 week training camp to get in shape.

All I know is an old broken down Mario dominated the NHL in 2000/01 like it was nobody's business. I can only imagine what a prime peak healthy Mario could do.

Not sure what he could have done about his back and cancer.

But getting rid of the smoking and proper off season training, you'd expect overall he would just be more of a force when he was healthy.

Also his retirement was partially due to his health issues, but he took shots at the league and what was happening, he was not a fan of the dead puck era.

Take away his retirement for those 3 years and he probably scores another 300-400 points if remains somewhat healthy.

Honestly I think if his health was only marginally better and no retirement he becomes the first and only 1000 goal player and finishes as the 2nd highest scorer, only behind Gretzky. At least he is probably the only player who could have done it, and at the very least he becomes the top goal scorer and passes Gretzky.

With decent health after the lockout, playing with Crosby, Malkin. A half broken down Mario is still going to get you 30 or more goals a year with power play time, and be a PPG player.

In a perfect career, with Lidstrom type durability. He scores 1000g, 2600 or so points.

I've never heard about Lemieux being a 2 pack a day smoker. Are you certain you don't have him confused with LaFleur?

 

[Pominville Knows]

Modern training would have made his 6'5" body a world of good. I have to think that coaches back then did not know how much training it takes to a body of that size to hold up.

 

[LeBlondeDemon10]

Modern training would have made his 6'5" body a world of good. I have to think that coaches back then did not know how much training it takes to a body of that size to hold up.

True, but modern training would apply to everyone then during his era. Therefore the gap remains the same. There have been a select group of players prior to, oh let's say 1990, that actually trained significantly or outside the norm during and in the off season.

 

[Dark Shadows]

I honestly think he has roughly the same career. Lemieux didn't just have the back injury and the cancer - he was always injured. His first couple seasons he was relatively healthy, but even from his 3rd season on he misses so much time. He was constantly being hurt - shoulder injuries, hip injuries, etc. Part of it was just the league he played in at that time was pretty rough and violent. Gretzky avoided a lot of contact, and that was one of the main reasons he was able to stay fairly healthy. Lemieux would just go through defenders, but that also attributed to his body wearing down the way it did.



I've never heard about Lemieux being a 2 pack a day smoker. Are you certain you don't have him confused with LaFleur?

Lemieux was a heavy smoker and fast food eating machine early on. He coasted on his talent. Playing with Gretzky and many other superstars in the Canada cup and seeing just what it took to be the best....the effort, hard work and practice these guys put in, turned a corner in his career.

 

[Thenameless]

1. Sure, he could have played the bulk of his career injury-free. Cancer is a roll of the dice and can afflict anyone - even those with very health conscious lifestyles. Bad backs tend to affect taller people more, and this was certainly exacerbated by Lemieux's lazy training regimen. In a perfect world, he follows a conditioning guru like Gary Roberts after his first signs of lower back pain, and the problem never gets that big. So, yes, let's give him 85% of games, as people still will be injured 15% of the time.

2A. He can definitely win the Art Ross in those years if healthy, and would even be likely the favourite.

2B. This could be where Lemieux's mental toughness/hunger/desire could hurt him. As the game gets harder, and he gets older, I could see him getting beat in some of these years. However, if he's kind of close in the last 20 games, I would expect Lemieux to beat the snot out of anyone in the final run - let's call it "Lafontaining" the competition.

3. I would expect Lemieux to be just behind Gretzky in goals at the end of this career, and a solid second all-time in points. However, he might be close enough to break the career goals record if he attempted a comeback in the Crosby/Malkin era, but still a long way with regard to assists and points. I could see him being very motivated to go after the goals record playing with the new generation of superstars, and being relatively healthy.

Fun to dream.

 

[billybudd]

It's Snepsts.

1. No. He could have not. Since he didn't. It's impossible to say how much of it was due to luck. How much was due to him not taking care of himself. How much of it was due to genetics. I'm not sure if I understand your point about the time machine. If we go back in time and re-play Marios career, why doesn't it go the same way? Do you mean that the injuries that happened due to luck, we would kind of "roll the dice" again in those situations? In that case, the variables become way too complex to even try to have an educated guess.

But for the sake of conversation, lets pretend I answered yes to the first question.

2.

A. The years he would get beaten are, 89-90 by Gretzky. I expect Lemieux to experience a dip in his production as the season advances. 90-91 by Gretzky. 93-94 by Gretzky (I expect the PPG of Lemieux to remain close to the same it was. 1.68 against Gretzky with 1.60 but Mario would miss more games and lose the Art Ross) So, Lemieux gets 5 scoring titles.

B. He could not. Lemieux would not have the mental capacity to hold himself on top of the hockey world for so long.

3. He retires in 02-03. He plays roughly 85% of the available games.

1050 GP 700G 1100A 1800P

So you're subtracting 36 games and 8 goals at the end of his career (03-04, 05-06).

Then you're adding 179 games in the middle, but only expecting him to score 18 goals in those 179 games?

Seems unlikely. He scored goals at twice that clip in his last season and he was awful in his last season.

 

[Plural]

So you're subtracting 36 games and 8 goals at the end of his career (03-04, 05-06).

Then you're adding 179 games in the middle, but only expecting him to score 18 goals in those 179 games?

Seems unlikely. He scored goals at twice that clip in his last season and he was awful in his last season.

I didn't put too much thought on the numbers. I just reduced his GPG number a bit due to more games played. Remember, he does not play the exact same games in this scenario. Lemieux will have full seasons where I expect wear and tear to put his numbers lower.

But I admit it, I just threw those number out of nowhere. So feel free to adjust them if you wish.

 

[BladesofSTEELwFIRE]

Lemieux was a heavy smoker and fast food eating machine early on. He coasted on his talent. Playing with Gretzky and many other superstars in the Canada cup and seeing just what it took to be the best....the effort, hard work and practice these guys put in, turned a corner in his career.

I saw what Ozzie wrote too and do you guys have a link that says he smoked 2 packs a day and loved fast food?

I have a book on Lemieux and in there it says he was in such bad shape when he showed up at Pens training camp as a rookie he couldn't even bench 180 lbs.. A guy who is 6'4" and 200 lbs.! Also he couldn't even finish a 3 mile run and dropped out after a mile and a half!

To give you some perspective at most every JUNIOR HIGH in America you can find someone who can bench 180 or close to it! There are elementary school kids who can run 2 to 3 miles! So Super Mario was clearly in awful shape at the start of his career.

I'm sure much of the smoking problem is cultural. Just like how smoking rates are a lot higher in France I'm sure they're higher among French Canadians.

 

[ozzie]

Look, I don't have links on hand. I could probably spend a few minutes and find some around, where he himself discusses the lack of proper training and health.

The 2 packs a day thing is probably stretching it, and I used it as a dramatic effect. But he was a heavy smoker and his diet was pretty unhealthy back in his QMJHL days.

 

[BladesofSTEELwFIRE]

I do remember reading how his mom Pierrete used to stuff Lemieux with hamburgers! LOL..I guess she considered that healthy and Lemieux continued the bad habit when was on his own.

It would be interesting to know if Lemieux was still smoking and eating McDonald's during his amazing 1988-99 season when he got 199 points. The first 10 games of that season he was on pace for around 300 points!

 

[El Nino 22]

If he played atleast 85% of his games he would likely have won every art ross from 89-2003 with a few exceptions. What Gretzky was to the 80's Lemieux would have been to the 90's.

 

[Sens Rule]

Mario if "lucky" was capable of every scoring title from 1989-2003. I would say he was the best offensive player in the world the entire time, retired or not. However he did retire and get injured all the time.

I don't care about training. Frankly I think it is very overrated (when talking of actual all-time greats). I will say. If Mario played his whole career post 2005... After the dead puck era... And people cross checking his back and abusing him... It is possible he does not suffer from his back nearly as bad. The current era is way easier on backs. Might have more concussions and such but less back injuries. Mario did play in kind of a "garbage" hockey league for a player of his ilk... Getting abused by big, untalented players a lot. In almost any other era... Before or after... He might not have nearly had so much abuse in his back. I am guessing his back issues are from repeated abuse and not genetic. Who knows? The cancer is irrelevant... It wrote off just a relative handful of games over a career. The incidental hip, shoulder... Are injuries everyone can get. It is all about his back. As much as Orr was all about the knees. So in the same era he did play... The back could be inevitable. In another era, maybe his back does not get as abused and cause him such pain and consequence.

 

[Rebuilt]

Mario Lemieux vs. Harold Snepts!

Cast your votes now.

Snepts played more games. He wins.

The Lemuiex fans will never stop whining that if they just take away this or add this that he was as good as Gretzky. Its been going on for a long time and isnt going to end anytime soon.

 

[The Panther]

Snepts played more games. He wins.

Did you the highlights on YouTube, or do you remember the game, of Detroit @ Edmonton, March 14th 1986? The Oilers win 12 - 3. What's amazing about that game is that I've never seen a player have a worse night than old Harold did. He seems to be on the ice for every Oiler goal, and he even loses a fight for good measure.

The Lemuiex fans will never stop whining that if they just take away this or add this that he was as good as Gretzky. Its been going on for a long time and isnt going to end anytime soon.

Basically, yes.

There is no way Lemieux was beating Gretzky in scoring in 1990-91, so scratch that one. (1989-90 is also up for debate.)

In 1989 (obviously), and from 1992 through 1997 (though barely in '97), Lemieux was the NHL's best per-game scorer.

But did he do it consistently? Nope.
Year-after-year? Nope.
Did he set any significant scoring records? Nope.
Did he show great courage and resilience? Yes.
Did he exhibit class and grace? Nope. (whining about the League and losing awards; retiring at 31)


Although Lemieux is clearly the 2nd-best per-game offensive producer in NHL history, I personally rate him no higher than 6th best player overall. That's no small potatoes, of course...

 

[Plural]

Just out of curiosity, Panther. Who are the 5 players ahead of Lemieux? I'm guessing Roy slots there? so:

Gretzky
Howe
Orr
Roy
?

 

[K Fleur]

There is no way Lemieux was beating Gretzky in scoring in 1990-91, so scratch that one.

Debatable, and certainly not "no way was he beating him". But I agree that Gretzky likely wins.

(1989-90 is also up for debate.)

Nope, not debatable. Lemieux was playing better hockey than Gretzky that season.

Did he exhibit class and grace? Nope. (whining about the League and losing awards; retiring at 31)

In both instances of "whining" that you mentioned Lemieux was 100% correct. This has no relevance to the discussion.

 

[The Panther]

Nope, not debatable. Lemieux was playing better hockey than Gretzky that season.

That's a bold claim of "not debatable" based his pace to outscore Gretzky by a whopping 10 points... while going -18.

In both instances of "whining" that you mentioned Lemieux was 100% correct. This has no relevance to the discussion.

Whether he was correct or not, the fact that he did things like that bothers me somewhat, and lessens his ranking in my eyes. I don't think the kind of player who leads a team and keeps his head in tough times is the guy who whines to the media, ala "I should have won the Hart Trophy.. boo-hoo... this is a garbage league". Lemieux suffered a bit of the Lindros downfall, which was that he was so physically gifted that when people started catching up to him, he reacted badly.