That's what made Wayne so great. Nobody took the game more seriously than he did both on and off the ice. The fact that he voluntarily is a huge spokesperson and ambassador for the league speaks volumes to how serious his love for the game is.
Mario Lemieux - Minus Injuries - Discussion Thread
- Thread starter bobholly39
- Start date
That's what made Wayne so great. Nobody took the game more seriously than he did both on and off the ice. The fact that he voluntarily is a huge spokesperson and ambassador for the league speaks volumes to how serious his love for the game is.
Obviously the guy who won just as many cups as the other two combined and the same number of smythe's as the other two is much less clutch. Watch the penguins vs islanders in 93 for a true clutch performance.
Who said that the Rocket wasn't clutch? One of the clutchiest if not the clutchiest player of all time.
He was awesome, but still he wasn't as good as Gretzky, Orr, Howe and Lemieux.
drganon
Registered User
- Jun 24, 2014
- 912
- 26
Henkka
Registered User
Not so fast...
I think Lemieux would have had three more Art Rosses and he "did lost" those on seasons where he didn't play at all.
1994-95
1997-98
1999-00
1989-90 is debatable, and if we want to give extra games and points for Mario on that season, we should also keep on mind that also Gretzky had an injury. So it's still Gretzky's Art Ross.
On 1993-94 season Mario scored 1.68 points per game. With 85% games played it would have mean 71 games, 55 goals and 64 assists = 119 points. Gretzky scored 130 points for Art Ross.
1994-95 would have been quite sure for Mario. As 29-year-old he was definitely still on his prime and unbeatable. 85% of played games (41 games) estimation with 93-94 & 95-96 average production (2.15 P/game) would have resulted 39 goals and 48 assists = 87 points. Jagr and Lindros got 70 points on that season to split the Art Ross.
1997-98 wit 85% of games and 1.7 estimated point production would have netted 50 goals and 69 assists to have 119 point to beat Jagr for the Art Ross. But at next season, Jagr would have benefitted about Mario's existence to win the Art Ross by himself.
1999-00 would have been Mario's Art Ross again, if he plays 85% of games (70) and will end to +110 points again. Jagr lost 19 games for an injury, but won the Art Ross with only 96 points.
2000-01 Jagr would have been the winner, because Jaromir would have benefited Mario's existence again.
From 2001 until Mario's career end, 85% of games and his point/game rate on those latest seasons would not have been enough to win Art Rosses. he would have been on the race, but not win it.
Estimated Art Ross history, when Mario plays 85% games per season:
1988-89 - Lemieux, 199p
1989-90 - Gretzky, 142p (Lemieux 85% of games estimation 141,7p)
1990-91 - Gretzky, 163p
1991-92 - Lemieux, 130p
1992-93 - Lemieux, 160p
1993-94 - Gretzky, 130p (Lemieux 85% of games estimation 119p)
1994-95 - Lemieux, 87p (41 game estimation, Jagr and Lindros had 70 points to win Art Ross)
1995-96 - Lemieux, 161p
1996-97 - Lemieux, 122p
1997-98 - Lemieux, 119p (70 game estimation, Jagr had 102 points to win Art Ross)
1998-99 - Jagr, 127p (Mario 117p in 85% of games)
1999-00 - Lemieux, 114p (70 game estimation, Jagr had 96 points to win Art Ross)
2000-01 - Jagr, 121p (Lemieux 85% game estimation would have mean 124 points in 70 games, but Jagr would have scored +130 points if he had played almost full season with Mario.)
2001-02 - Iginla, 96p (Mario 90p in 85% of games)
2002-03 - Forsberg, 106p (Mario 95p in 85% of games)
2003-04 - St. Louis, 94p (Mario 63p in 85% of games)
2005-06 - Thornton, 125p (Mario 59p in 85% of games)
With this 85% of games per season estimate, Lemieux lost 548 games, 330 goals and 521 assists on his career. Being able to play 85% of games on every season would have pushed him over 1000 goals (690 + 330 = 1020 total goals) and over 2500 points (1723 + 851 = 2574p).
Last edited:
Well then learn to read, because I said that both Lemieux and Gretzky were clutch, I never said that one was more clutch than the other.
About the total amount of cups, remember that cups are won by a team. The Oilers won a cup a year after Gretzky went to LA. The pens were nowhere close without Lemieux, and the Bruins were nowhere close without Orr. Does that mean that they were better than Gretzky? No. It just means that they were in different situations. Using the total amount of cups as an argument is bad when you consider that these players were playing in different context.
It really is a legitimate question. There is nothing wrong about asking this type of question, analysing his play and try to see what he could have done. It's not like he missed a few games here and there. One of the top 4 players of all time, arguably one of the top 2 most talented player of all time had his best years basically cut in half because of cancer and injuries, and he retired really young, only to come back 3 years later and still outproduce everyone while out of shape.
Same with Orr. I don't understand why it is fine to discuss about what would have been Orr career if he didn't get his knee problems and end up playing more healthy seasons, but it isn't to discuss about Lemieux? Don't worry, nobody is gonna take away what Gretzky did, and nobody here is saying that what Lemieux end up doing put him ahead of Gretzky. You can sleep fine, we are not taking down your idol, since he is ours too.
It summarizes my last paragraph really good. This thread is a discussion about what Lemieux could have done (we all know he didn't) if he was more healthy. It is not a knock on Gretkzy. Take it easy fanboys.
drganon
Registered User
- Jun 24, 2014
- 912
- 26
I was responding to your post that was talking about Lemiuex, Gretzky, and Orr. I don't know where you're getting Richard from.
Last edited:
I wrote about all four. Still, you used my post to make a sarcastic message as if I was saying that Lemieux was more clutch than Gretzky (which I didn't), and using the total amount of cups as an argument, which I replied to in my previous post.
The reason I thought you were talking about Richard is because I did talk about him, and he is the only one that I would put ahead of the other 3 in terms of clutchiness.
This is a side question, related to Mario's junior career. In the clinching game of the 1984 QMJHL championship, Laval (Mario's team) won 17-1. That's freaking insane. Now Laval was stacked and won a lot of 10-1, 9-1, 7-2 games, but 17-1 is a bit nuts. Is there a story behind that final game? Did the other goalie have the mumps or something?
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2007
- 28,836
- 19,601
in a vacuum, a healthy mario should have been able to win the art ross every season between '89 and '97. even with jagr (and francis) doing the heavy lifting toward the end, mario still did what mario did, which is amass numbers, at a higher level than jags.
however, the cumulative toll from full season to full season probably makes nine straight scoring titles unlikely. if we grant mario a clean (or, in any event, a normal) bill of health, it's hard not to think that he would have been wiped out in '94. that's not to say that cancer and radiation didn't play their parts in his substandard (for him) PPG that year, which they obviously did, but he also played 10 playoff rounds in the previous three years, and you also have to add the miles from the '91 regular season that he missed most of and 10-20 extra games in '90, '92, and '93, plus probably also an extra playoff round in '93 bringing the total to 11 in three years. that's certainly not as many as potvin or messier played during their dynasty stretches, but let's be honest: even a healthy mario is a fraction of the horse that those guys were. very hard to see mario putting up more than 130 there.
which is to say, you can look at any individual season and say "yeah a healthy mario would have won that one," in the same way that you can look at any of the last four basketball seasons individually and say "lebron should win the title here." but if you consider those nine years as a total and continuous stretch, i think the '94 art ross was gretzky's, back woes or no back woes.
however, the cumulative toll from full season to full season probably makes nine straight scoring titles unlikely. if we grant mario a clean (or, in any event, a normal) bill of health, it's hard not to think that he would have been wiped out in '94. that's not to say that cancer and radiation didn't play their parts in his substandard (for him) PPG that year, which they obviously did, but he also played 10 playoff rounds in the previous three years, and you also have to add the miles from the '91 regular season that he missed most of and 10-20 extra games in '90, '92, and '93, plus probably also an extra playoff round in '93 bringing the total to 11 in three years. that's certainly not as many as potvin or messier played during their dynasty stretches, but let's be honest: even a healthy mario is a fraction of the horse that those guys were. very hard to see mario putting up more than 130 there.
which is to say, you can look at any individual season and say "yeah a healthy mario would have won that one," in the same way that you can look at any of the last four basketball seasons individually and say "lebron should win the title here." but if you consider those nine years as a total and continuous stretch, i think the '94 art ross was gretzky's, back woes or no back woes.
Last edited:
You might very well be right. The toll of full season wears on Lemieux and maybe he slows down on a per game basis because of it
But hypotheticals can go both ways too. Maybe his lack of back injuries dont hold him back and slow him down as much and maybe his per game numbers actually go up
Plural
Registered User
- Mar 10, 2011
- 33,802
- 5,242
It's all possible. That's why it gets so murky when we try to give a player with injury history a free pass.
Sens Rule
Registered User
- Sep 22, 2005
- 21,251
- 77
You seriously have these other players well past peak years and end Gretzky at 1991? How? Lafleur till 1983 and not Gretzky till 1998? Gretzky at least until 1994. When he was best playoff non-goalie in 1993 and Ross winner in 1994! Among the top scorers and the Assist leader till 97/98. At least be fair in comparing them.
Plural
Registered User
- Mar 10, 2011
- 33,802
- 5,242
Semantics. My point was the same. It's so much what ifs that the accuracy is almost like a crap shoot. It's still fun though.
The Panther
Registered User
Not sure what you're getting at here. Lafleur was still a way-above-PPG player until 1983. Still scoring at a 100-point pace until 1982. His early 80s' production is not that far off his late-70s' production.
This is not comparable to Gretzky in 1998.
130 > 100
215 > 90
Not quite a fair comparison!
Gretzky was still very good and at times brilliant circa spring '93 and 1993/94, but he was only a shadow of his mid-80s self.
Never saw a prime Lemieux play a full game until I watched a replay of him playing in game 4 of the 1992 Stanley Cup Finals. Holy, could that man play hockey. Never seen a hockey player singlehandedly create that many scoring chances in one game. Hasek had his number, but looked like Lemieux could have easily racked up another 4-6 points in that game with all the open looks he created for himself and his teammates.
A few memorable chances from Lemieux that Hasek foiled:
A few memorable chances from Lemieux that Hasek foiled:
Last edited:
Never saw a prime Lemieux play a full game until I watched a replay of him playing in game 4 of the 1992 Stanley Cup Finals. Holy, could that man play hockey. Never seen a hockey player singlehandedly create that many scoring chances in one game. Hasek had his number, but looked like Lemieux could have easily racked up another 4-6 points in that game with all the open looks he created for himself and his teammates.
A few memorable chances from Lemieux that Hasek foiled:
Man you really missed out, Then again I never got to see Mario play a game live in person, Whenever they came to DC he was either hurt,sick, Kicking cancer's ass, or retired.
My only regreat, I got to see plenty of prime JJ/Straka/Lang/Kovy/ Sid in his 2nd year and Malkin and Staal in their rookie years.Was at this one
Purely subjective, of course, but Orr could have won 6 straight Harts before injuries derailed his career
'75, for example, Orr finished 3rd in Hart voting despite leading the league in assists, points and +/-
El Nino 22
Registered User
Never saw a prime Lemieux play a full game until I watched a replay of him playing in game 4 of the 1992 Stanley Cup Finals. Holy, could that man play hockey. Never seen a hockey player singlehandedly create that many scoring chances in one game. Hasek had his number, but looked like Lemieux could have easily racked up another 4-6 points in that game with all the open looks he created for himself and his teammates.
A few memorable chances from Lemieux that Hasek foiled:
Yeah its always a treat to watch him play in a full game. I was born in 1998 so I never really got to watch in his prime. I've watched a handful of his full games on the internet though.
Tweed
Registered User
- Jun 25, 2006
- 4,028
- 1,215
Just to p*** off the Mario fans, how about I start a few threads like: "Would Gretzky have been even better if _____?"
Oh! fill in the blank game! I love that game. Let me, let me!
"Would Gretzky have been even better if he had Lemieux's injury history?"
"Would Gretzky have been even better if he hadn't played most of his prime surrounded by All-Star calibre Hall of Famers on a Dynasty team?"
The Panther
Registered User
Two points to consider:
1) Gretzky came in the NHL with a WHA-goaltender and Dave Semenko. That's all the Oilers had. And he had the best-PPG in the NHL in his rookie year, despite this. Lemieux could only have dreamt of doing that, despite entering older and bigger than Gretzky, with a proven 40-goal scorer on his wing, and in a higher-scoring period than when Gretzky entered.
2) Gretzky proved that he could score 160+ point seasons in 1980-81 (three years pre-dynasty with no other All Star on his team) and in 1988-1991 in Los Angeles. Lemieux couldn't score that many points when very healthy and at the same age as Gretzky in 1986 (or 1987). Lemieux proved he could score that many points only in his 4th season after Paul Coffey joined him, and then he did it again in 1989. Otherwise, he never put together consistent Gretzky-level seasons two years in a row.
I love Lemieux, by the way. Some of us just get tired of these "Let's give Mario every conceivable advantage and wildly speculate" threads.
Pominville Knows
Registered User
I think that during many of these seasons he actually lost on playing very few games. Had he been able to be significatly more healthy, i think he would sweep post-peak-Gretzky during the nineties. I think one could investigate it season by season and find that Lemieux even when he played very often was more or less hampered by injury and loss of stamina and sharpness.
I like what ifs, especially with Mario.
However, i think we shouldn't focus on illness and injurees in the first place. They simply happened, not really anything could have been done about it.
The more interesting what if is the following.
What if Lemieux led the 93 and 96 penguins to the title?
IN 93 the Pens were arguably the best team and in 1996 they were also capable of winning it all.
It could have been possible had they been a little bit more lucky and had Mario been even a little more magnific in the deciding playoff series.
So if Mario had led the Pens to 4 titles albeit all his injurees i am sure he would universaly bee considered the 2nd best player of all time and many would even consider him greater than Gretzky.
However, i think we shouldn't focus on illness and injurees in the first place. They simply happened, not really anything could have been done about it.
The more interesting what if is the following.
What if Lemieux led the 93 and 96 penguins to the title?
IN 93 the Pens were arguably the best team and in 1996 they were also capable of winning it all.
It could have been possible had they been a little bit more lucky and had Mario been even a little more magnific in the deciding playoff series.
So if Mario had led the Pens to 4 titles albeit all his injurees i am sure he would universaly bee considered the 2nd best player of all time and many would even consider him greater than Gretzky.
Plural
Registered User
- Mar 10, 2011
- 33,802
- 5,242
Not a chance. I doubt hid legacy would be much effected at all. Unless those four titles come with a Coon Smythe on historical level of excellence.
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest posts
-
-
Prospect Info: Draft 2025 - Everyone is trading up, but no one seems to be trading down edition (41 Viewers)- Latest: Empoleon8771
-
-
-