Unpopular opinions

[Gregor Samsa]

What are your unpopular opinions on past players, teams, etc?

Click to read more...

 

[Dale53130]

Mike Smith was a better GM in Winnipeg than people in Winnipeg seem to think.

I remember looking this up a while ago, but over his 6 (or so) years as the GM from ~'88 to '94, only the Red Wings and Nordiques drafted better (how could they miss!); and maybe the Rangers. People seem to give John Paddock too much of a free pass, because the team was constantly being mentioned as a team that would be relocated, so his hands were tied. But, the Jets leaving Winnipeg if they didn't get a new arena, goes back to the '80s. Mike Smith's hands were tied just the same.

He had to get creative. He drafted a number of older European/Eastern Bloc-types, likely (IMO), because the Jets weren't exactly a developmental team (in Moncton). People will fairly point out the Bautin pick, but... I can't help but feel that Smith knew that the Red Wings had interest in Bautin as well, which is why he (unnecessarily) drafted him so high. The Red Wings would eventually get Bautin with Essensa for Chelveldae & Drake trade in '94.

* Edited to add that I'm assuming that Mike Smith and the Detroit front office were on a similar wavelength as far as drafting went. Smith would have to be more resourceful to overcome the Jets' financial difficulties. I'd be very curious as to what Detroit GMs Jim Devellano and (later on) Bryan Murray - thought of Mike Smith's scouting and drafting, and vice versa.

I also truly wonder about the fallout that Mike Smith had with Phil Housley after the '92-'93 season. He takes the fall for that, but did Smith reneg on a handshake agreement (to renegotiate a contract), or was that ownership's decision?

Smith certainly had his flaws. Grooming. Lack of people skills I would imagine. John Ferguson would write that he was stabbed twice in the back by Smith, with the Jets of course, but years before that with the Rangers too.

Smith was eccentric, probably hockey's version of (baseball's) Mike Gimbel; which comes with minuses.

 

[Hobnobs]

Mike Smith was a better GM in Winnipeg than people in Winnipeg seem to think.

I remember looking this up a while ago, but over his 6 (or so) years as the GM from ~'88 to '94, only the Red Wings and Nordiques drafted better (how could they miss!); and maybe the Rangers. People seem to give John Paddock too much of a free pass, because the team was constantly being mentioned as a team that would be relocated, so his hands were tied. But, the Jets leaving Winnipeg if they didn't get a new arena, goes back to the '80s. Mike Smith's hands were tied just the same.

He had to get creative. He drafted a number of older European/Eastern Bloc-types, likely (IMO), because the Jets weren't exactly a developmental team (in Moncton). People will fairly point out the Bautin pick, but... I can't help but feel that Smith knew that the Red Wings had interest in Bautin as well, which is why he (unnecessarily) drafted him so high. The Red Wings would eventually get Bautin with Essensa for Chelveldae & Drake trade in '94.

* Edited to add that I'm assuming that Mike Smith and the Detroit front office were on a similar wavelength as far as drafting went. Smith would have to be more resourceful to overcome the Jets' financial difficulties. I'd be very curious as to what Detroit GMs Jim Devellano and (later on) Bryan Murray - thought of Mike Smith's scouting and drafting, and vice versa.

I also truly wonder about the fallout that Mike Smith had with Phil Housley after the '92-'93 season. He takes the fall for that, but did Smith reneg on a handshake agreement (to renegotiate a contract), or was that ownership's decision?

Smith certainly had his flaws. Grooming. Lack of people skills I would imagine. John Ferguson would write that he was stabbed twice in the back by Smith, with the Jets of course, but years before that with the Rangers too.

Smith was eccentric, probably hockey's version of (baseball's) Mike Gimbel; which comes with minuses.

The problem with Mike Smith is that, yes while he had little money to work with, he never got real value back and also traded his young players for nothing.

Draper for a dollar, Barnes to reaquire Gilhen, Ward for Yzebeart, Tabaracci for a lesser goalie and a pick, Elynuik for Druce and a 4th... When you have no money and you're GM for a young promising team, you don't dismantle that. Thats basically GMing 101 and he failed at it.

I understand why it's an unpopular opinion

 

[Dale53130]

The problem with Mike Smith is that, yes while he had little money to work with, he never got real value back and also traded his young players for nothing.

Draper for a dollar, Barnes to reaquire Gilhen, Ward for Yzebeart, Tabaracci for a lesser goalie and a pick, Elynuik for Druce and a 4th... When you have no money and you're GM for a young promising team, you don't dismantle that. Thats basically GMing 101 and he failed at it.

I understand why it's an unpopular opinion

Wikipedia

"Mike Smith was mainly responsible for dismantling a young, and promising Winnipeg Jets team. By the time Smith was relieved of his Managing duties in January 1994, the Jets were last in the Western Conference."

On the other hand, he didn't dismantle a young promising team. The promise was coming to fruition with the core of Selanne, Tkachuk, and Zhamnov. The Barnes, Romaniuk, and Draper grouping that came in the year prior, were an afterthought by comparison. Doesn't quite a bit of this, also fall on Paddock, since he decides who's playing?

I think Smith had to draft well, to flip those picks for players (on friendlier contracts) who could help address a specific need. Pretty much every one of those moves that you'd mentioned, lead up to the Selanne, Zhamnov, and Tkachuk timeline, and building off of that. But, he was given the boot less than a year after their rookie season!

I hated the Barnes for Gilhen trade. I remember that they needed someone who could win faceoffs; which was drastic IF that was actually the reason; and it may have in fact been (but I'm skeptical that was the reason). Gilhen is also almost 10 years older than Barnes, and Barnes was on the same timeline as Selanne, Tkachuk, and Zhamnov. So, again, I hated it then, and I hate that move even more today.

Having said that, while Draper, Barnes, and Romaniuk were all promising draft picks, they were quite underwhelming in the '91-'92 season, and didn't exactly do much once Selanne and Zhamnov came along in '92, not to mention the test-run for Tkachuk at the end of the '91-'92 season. I was all for a complete overhaul of young players (then), but they still had promising young players in the pipeline if we look at the summer of '93 going forward. You can't keep everyone. And over the years, you're not going anywhere if you're team is loaded with just young guys; say for Gretzky's Oilers.

Elynuik for Druce (and a 4th), IMO, was more about having Davydov and adding Selanne on top of that in '92. There's some redundancy there, or a luxury you no longer need, and Elynuik was a nice secondary scorer. I didn't actually mind that trade, as Druce had more grit and could play the 2nd line, or drop down. Yes, it didn't really work out though, I'll agree. But having Elynuik around going forward, wasn't necessary either. I'm also considering what the front office saw in Davydov when he got to showcase his skills at the end of the '91-'92 season; though his team IQ would eventually reveal itself in '92-'93 as being close to non-existent. I would imagine that Druce's contract vs what Elynuik was making was also a key factor for Smith making that move.

That Elynuik trade never really stung, because of how '92-'93 unfolded for the Jets, not to mention that his career petered out pretty quickly. And Selanne, Zhamnov, and Tkachuk were so good in '92-'93 (going forward), that barely anyone noticed that Druce and Davydov were no longer on the roster by '93-'94.

I didn't care about losing Draper for $1 at the time; whoops, my bad!!! I was never a Tabaracci-guy, so he could have been traded for .01 cent for all I cared.

I also liked the Ysebaert trade at the time, seeing how he came off back-to-back 30 goal seasons; which I always found to be interesting since he (and/or Jimmy Carson) played quite a bit on Detroit's 3rd line. He was still only 27 years old at the time; without heavy mileage. I think he had a bit of a reputation of being a 2-way player. Steen was always missing time, and he was getting up there. Darrin Shannon was a sneaky nice trade that Smith made, he would only turn 24 by the beginning of the '93-'94 season, I think on paper, that could potentially be a nice mix with he, Ysebaert (who could slide over to the wing), and Steen.

Losing Ward sucked. I remember him being compared to Scott Stevens when he was drafted, so I would have held out on that to come to fruition. He had a solid career. I thought the Jets really could have used a player like Bryan Marchment too.

Smith also made a number of good trades as well. I really like that trade with Buffalo for Darrin Shannon. I've always been a big Hawerchuk-guy, hated the trade for Housley, but... Enjoyed watching Housley (especially that 1 year with Selanne), also swapped 1st round pick with Buffalo was Tkachuk, and sort of a sidechain-esque trade that was made later on, swapping Fenton and Ellett for Olczyk and Osbourne was fine (for the time). The Olczyk for Domi and King was a very good trade then, which addressed a need.

I know that Smith was the GM for part of the '93-'94 season, but I have a hard time believing that he was responsible for making that Dave Manson trade. Same with the Olausson one too. I'd also add that Barnes and Olausson were healthy scratches a number of times - especially Olausson - before they were traded.

What makes everything look worse, is that the Jets didn't build off of '92-'93. They sort of sucked the following two seasons. Talented players who didn't do enough of the little things, mixed-in with players who were too willing to drop the gloves at any moment, and a real lack of high IQ players who could bridge the two styles and make it work.

You have to also at least consider that other GM's around the league, knew that the Jets had very little leverage, putting Smith in a compromising position.

 

[daver]

That you cannot reasonably apply "strength of league" arguments broadly in player comparisons and rankings.

 

[Crosby2010]

I have never been a fan of the netting behind the nets. Yes I know why they put it in, but I think it separates the fans from the players. There was always a fun aspect of catching a puck in the stands. It still happens, but if I were to guess this has dropped 75% over the years of pucks coming over the glass.

I think Pat Burns wore out his welcome faster than people like to remember on the teams he coached. Mike Keenan deserves the Hall of Fame more than him.

I always liked Mike Babcock and thought he should have never been fired by the Leafs as they have not done any better. I also hate the pampered athlete mentality nowadays, evidenced by his firing in Columbus

Paul Bissonette (Biz Nasty) irritates me. I have no idea why that guy has a popular podcast.

I'm okay with Gerry Cheevers in the Hall but have my reservations with Vernon just getting in (is that unpopular?)

I think Alex Lafreniere is not used properly in New York and has more talent to show. I am not totally sure what internally is stopping him from bursting out.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Thinking Martin Brodeur was way overrated.

Orr and Howe both better than Gretzky and Mario.

Eddie Shore is a top 10 player all-time.

Pavel Bure drastically underrated. As well as Dave Keon.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Wikipedia

"Mike Smith was mainly responsible for dismantling a young, and promising Winnipeg Jets team. By the time Smith was relieved of his Managing duties in January 1994, the Jets were last in the Western Conference."

On the other hand, he didn't dismantle a young promising team. The promise was coming to fruition with the core of Selanne, Tkachuk, and Zhamnov. The Barnes, Romaniuk, and Draper grouping that came in the year prior, were an afterthought by comparison. Doesn't quite a bit of this, also fall on Paddock, since he decides who's playing?

I think Smith had to draft well, to flip those picks for players (on friendlier contracts) who could help address a specific need. Pretty much every one of those moves that you'd mentioned, lead up to the Selanne, Zhamnov, and Tkachuk timeline, and building off of that. But, he was given the boot less than a year after their rookie season!

I hated the Barnes for Gilhen trade. I remember that they needed someone who could win faceoffs; which was drastic IF that was actually the reason; and it may have in fact been (but I'm skeptical that was the reason). Gilhen is also almost 10 years older than Barnes, and Barnes was on the same timeline as Selanne, Tkachuk, and Zhamnov. So, again, I hated it then, and I hate that move even more today.

Having said that, while Draper, Barnes, and Romaniuk were all promising draft picks, they were quite underwhelming in the '91-'92 season, and didn't exactly do much once Selanne and Zhamnov came along in '92, not to mention the test-run for Tkachuk at the end of the '91-'92 season. I was all for a complete overhaul of young players (then), but they still had promising young players in the pipeline if we look at the summer of '93 going forward. You can't keep everyone. And over the years, you're not going anywhere if you're team is loaded with just young guys; say for Gretzky's Oilers.

Elynuik for Druce (and a 4th), IMO, was more about having Davydov and adding Selanne on top of that in '92. There's some redundancy there, or a luxury you no longer need, and Elynuik was a nice secondary scorer. I didn't actually mind that trade, as Druce had more grit and could play the 2nd line, or drop down. Yes, it didn't really work out though, I'll agree. But having Elynuik around going forward, wasn't necessary either. I'm also considering what the front office saw in Davydov when he got to showcase his skills at the end of the '91-'92 season; though his team IQ would eventually reveal itself in '92-'93 as being close to non-existent. I would imagine that Druce's contract vs what Elynuik was making was also a key factor for Smith making that move.

That Elynuik trade never really stung, because of how '92-'93 unfolded for the Jets, not to mention that his career petered out pretty quickly. And Selanne, Zhamnov, and Tkachuk were so good in '92-'93 (going forward), that barely anyone noticed that Druce and Davydov were no longer on the roster by '93-'94.

I didn't care about losing Draper for $1 at the time; whoops, my bad!!! I was never a Tabaracci-guy, so he could have been traded for .01 cent for all I cared.

I also liked the Ysebaert trade at the time, seeing how he came off back-to-back 30 goal seasons; which I always found to be interesting since he (and/or Jimmy Carson) played quite a bit on Detroit's 3rd line. He was still only 27 years old at the time; without heavy mileage. I think he had a bit of a reputation of being a 2-way player. Steen was always missing time, and he was getting up there. Darrin Shannon was a sneaky nice trade that Smith made, he would only turn 24 by the beginning of the '93-'94 season, I think on paper, that could potentially be a nice mix with he, Ysebaert (who could slide over to the wing), and Steen.

Losing Ward sucked. I remember him being compared to Scott Stevens when he was drafted, so I would have held out on that to come to fruition. He had a solid career. I thought the Jets really could have used a player like Bryan Marchment too.

Smith also made a number of good trades as well. I really like that trade with Buffalo for Darrin Shannon. I've always been a big Hawerchuk-guy, hated the trade for Housley, but... Enjoyed watching Housley (especially that 1 year with Selanne), also swapped 1st round pick with Buffalo was Tkachuk, and sort of a sidechain-esque trade that was made later on, swapping Fenton and Ellett for Olczyk and Osbourne was fine (for the time). The Olczyk for Domi and King was a very good trade then, which addressed a need.

I know that Smith was the GM for part of the '93-'94 season, but I have a hard time believing that he was responsible for making that Dave Manson trade. Same with the Olausson one too. I'd also add that Barnes and Olausson were healthy scratches a number of times - especially Olausson - before they were traded.

What makes everything look worse, is that the Jets didn't build off of '92-'93. They sort of sucked the following two seasons. Talented players who didn't do enough of the little things, mixed-in with players who were too willing to drop the gloves at any moment, and a real lack of high IQ players who could bridge the two styles and make it work.

You have to also at least consider that other GM's around the league, knew that the Jets had very little leverage, putting Smith in a compromising position.

the early 90s jets to me felt a little like the jim benning canucks in that they perceived the team to be lacking old school intangibles and routinely overpaid for it

young stu barnes for randy gilhen, who was a good 4C for the first penguins cup, then on the presidents trophy ranger the year after

paul ysebaert, a fast and versatile two way guy with good scoring numbers when pinned to fedorov and shawn burr for two years, but on his own was revealed to be pulling less weight on that line at both ends of the ice than previously thought

sacrificing 30 goal eddie olczyk for domi and kris king

that team kept looking for final pieces of the puzzle but they were so far from finishing it made no sense

 

[frisco]

--Adjusting scoring over multiple seasons and eras is best done by simply taking the ratio of goals/game in each season as your base. All other factors (number of powerplays, etc.,) are already baked into these numbers.

For example, someone scored 90 points in a year where goals per game were 7.00. If you wanted to compare that season to one where there were 6.50 goals/game, you would just multiply 90 by 6.50 and then divide by 7.00.

--Between the two I'm not sure, but Peter Forsberg and Pavel Bure are the most overrated players of the last 40 years.

--1984 Canada Cup Semi-Final between the USSR and Canada was the best hockey game ever played.

--Doug Harvey is not a top 20 all-time NHLer.

--Although they were swept, the Lakers would've beaten the Pistons in the 1989 Finals had Magic and Byron Scott not been injured.

My Best-Carey

 

[MadLuke]

--Adjusting scoring over multiple seasons and eras is best done by simply taking the ratio of goals/game in each season as your base. All other factors (number of powerplays, etc.,) are already baked these totals.

I know the goal is saying things no one would agree, but I feel if you try to do this for Joe Malone 17-18 season you would also disagree with yourself and rapidly see why not all factors are baked in these totals.

2.2 goal per game / 4.75 league average goal per game = 0.463

Ovechkin 65 goals season, .793 / 2.78 = .285

3 other players that season alone would adjust for more goals per game than peak Ovechkin (Denneny-Lalonde-Noble) and Denney-Lalonde by a giant amount has well.

It will seem obvious that if there is barely no line change and Defenceman are not involved a lot in offense, the number of expected goal for a forward that play relative to the total number of goal team score will jump a lot.

This is just an extreme case where it is undeniable and obvious, but it is always there in very similar way between seasons just usually less obvious than that.

 

[Crosby2010]

--Adjusting scoring over multiple seasons and eras is best done by simply taking the ratio of goals/game in each season as your base. All other factors (number of powerplays, etc.,) are already baked these totals.

For example, someone scored 90 points in a year where goals per game were 7.00. If you wanted to compare that season to one where there were 6.50 goals/game, you would just multiply 90 by 6.50 and then divide by 7.00.

--Between the two I'm not sure, but Peter Forsberg and Pavel Bure are the most overrated players of the last 40 years.

--1984 Canada Cup Semi-Final between the USSR and Canada was the best hockey game ever played.

--Doug Harvey is not a top 20 all-time NHLer.

--Although they were swept, the Lakers would've beaten the Pistons in the 1989 Finals had Magic and Byron Scott not been injured.

My Best-Carey

I am paraphrasing a bit here I think, but I believe it was Jay Greenberg, once a somewhat comedic sports journalist in "The Hockey News" that said something along the lines of:

"Take me now Lord, I have just witnessed the greatest game of all-time."

Which, you could argue he was right. Still very much could be although I think the 1987 Canada Cup games surpass it. But sentimentally, I wouldn't doubt if there is a soft spot for that game by some

 

[Overrated]

The 1990s were by far the strongest era and thus its players are all underrated.

 

[daver]

The 1990s were by far the strongest era and thus its players are all underrated.

Which players?

 

[psycat]

A large reason for players looking better today than in, say, the 70s is better tv-production the other factors are mostly equipment.

Nutrition is quite overrated when it comes to people in their early 20-mid 30s as long as they train/play hockey alot of the time. See Michael Phelps, rather infamous, diet for example.

Longveity in a player is less impressive now than in the past due to advancements in medicine/rehablitation. So a 15 year career at a high level now might be equal to a 10 year one in the 50s(just ballpark of course).

Game is less entertaining today than in the 90s, players are treating eachother as colleagues more than opponents for the most part and a "higher level" of play across the board(if one buys into that) doesn't mean a better product in terms of entertainment.

Staying away from opinions on individual players since I already vented them enough.

 

[Overrated]

Which players?

Jagr, Hasek, Lindros, Bure, Fedorov, Mogilny, Selanne, Forsberg. Even Lemieux imo. What he did in the 90s was much harder than what Gretzky did in the early 80s. I think had he peaked in the late 70s early 80s he would have been getting consecutive 100 goal seasons.

 

[daver]

Jagr, Hasek, Lindros, Bure, Fedorov, Mogilny, Selanne, Forsberg. Even Lemieux imo. What he did in the 90s was much harder than what Gretzky did in the early 80s. I think had he peaked in the late 70s early 80s he would have been getting consecutive 100 goal seasons.

Going back to the statistical smoking gun argument. Why didn't Mario outperform Wayne in the "easier 80s" then? Wayne was just 4 1/2 years older.

Let me guess, Mario hadn't hit his peak yet so you cannot make that comparison.

Or another oldie but goodie, Mario didn't have the team support to put up his peak season until 88/89; Wayne had support from the get go.

Or 92/93 was in the middle of the decline league scoring of the league.

It is statistically unreasonable to claim that Mario does any better or Wayne does any worse if they started their careers at different times. Mario should have been closer to Wayne in his 3rd and 4th season if he was truly better than Wayne.

And no, pointing out population growth or naming international players is not a statistical argument, it is data that is open to subjective interpretation.

Another example of a lack of a statistical smoking gun:

What can be pointed to is Wayne still holding his own after he turned 30, an age when a player starts to decline. By your reasoning, he should have shown a bigger decline as the league got harder.

 

[Overrated]

Going back to the statistical smoking gun argument. Why didn't Mario outperform Wayne in the "easier 80s" then? Wayne was just 4 1/2 years older.

Let me guess, Mario hadn't hit his peak yet so you cannot make that comparison.

Or another oldie but goodie, Mario didn't have the team support to put up his peak season until 88/89; Wayne had support from the get go.

Or 92/93 was in the middle of the decline league scoring of the league.

It is statistically unreasonable to claim that Mario does any better or Wayne does any worse if they started their careers at different times. Mario should have been closer to Wayne in his 3rd and 4th season if he was truly better than Wayne.

And no, pointing out population growth or naming international players is not a statistical argument, it is data that is open to subjective interpretation.

Another example of a lack of a statistical smoking gun:

What can be pointed to is Wayne still holding his own after he turned 30, an age when a player starts to decline. By your reasoning, he should have shown a bigger decline as the league got harder.

Mario didn't hit his prime particularly late. By 22 he was a 70 goal per season scorer. It was also around the time when goalie pads were getting larger and larger and in general goaltending was improving. He scored 85 goals the following season at 24. The 92/93 season had 84 games. Mario was on pace of 97 goals that season. I think it's not that much of a stretch that he'd have scored a 100 had he peaked in 1980. Him being consistently ranked below Orr and Howe on this forum makes him imo underrated. Not as underrated as the European players though. Mogilny didn't even make the top200 list if I remember correctly.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Why didn't Mario outperform Wayne in the "easier 80s" then

Lemieux didn't play in the early 80's.

 

[daver]

Lemieux didn't play in the early 80's.

Going back to the statistical smoking gun argument. Why didn't Mario outperform Wayne in the "easier 80s" then? Wayne was just 4 1/2 years older.

I am presuming you misread my post.

 

[Michael Farkas]

No, not at all. You're just presenting a strawman argument, which now I'll presume - intentionally with the intent to distract from what many people suggest because you don't agree with some aspect of it.

 

[bobholly39]

Going back to the statistical smoking gun argument. Why didn't Mario outperform Wayne in the "easier 80s" then? Wayne was just 4 1/2 years older.

Let me guess, Mario hadn't hit his peak yet so you cannot make that comparison.

Or another oldie but goodie, Mario didn't have the team support to put up his peak season until 88/89; Wayne had support from the get go.

Or 92/93 was in the middle of the decline league scoring of the league.

It is statistically unreasonable to claim that Mario does any better or Wayne does any worse if they started their careers at different times. Mario should have been closer to Wayne in his 3rd and 4th season if he was truly better than Wayne.

And no, pointing out population growth or naming international players is not a statistical argument, it is data that is open to subjective interpretation.

Another example of a lack of a statistical smoking gun:

What can be pointed to is Wayne still holding his own after he turned 30, an age when a player starts to decline. By your reasoning, he should have shown a bigger decline as the league got harder.

The two bolded are definitely true.

Gretzky peaked earlier than Mario. Which is cool - good for him, net differentiator when looking at career to career if one player can hit his peak earlier. But if you want to do peak vs peak comparisons, you don't pick years of a player before his peak (ie Lemieux).

Also - Mario had a crappy team for a lot longer than Gretzky did. True that at their very best, the cup winning teams of Pittsburgh were fantastic and probably close to Edmonton - but overall Gretzky benefited from stronger team/teammates more than Mario Lemieux did.

 

[The Panther]

Jagr, Hasek, Lindros, Bure, Fedorov, Mogilny, Selanne, Forsberg. Even Lemieux imo. What he did in the 90s was much harder than what Gretzky did in the early 80s. I think had he peaked in the late 70s early 80s he would have been getting consecutive 100 goal seasons.

Yeah, it's too bad Connor McDavid didn't peak in 1918 or he'd have been getting 45 goals per game.

 

[The Panther]

Also - Mario had a crappy team for a lot longer than Gretzky did. True that at their very best, the cup winning teams of Pittsburgh were fantastic and probably close to Edmonton - but overall Gretzky benefited from stronger team/teammates more than Mario Lemieux did.

I'm not sure it's right that "overall Gretzky benefited from stronger team/teammates more than Mario Lemieux did". I think Gretzky benefitted more in his young, physically-peak years. That is, from age 20 to 27 he was benefitting from the strong core of young talent build around him and taking their cues from him. Lemieux didn't have a particularly good core until maybe fall1990 when he was turning 24.

But thereafter, Mario's core of talent (when he was healthy and playing) was pretty spectacular. I would argue that from autumn 1990 to Mario's first retirement in 1997, and also again in 2000-01 (maybe to 2002), his core of teammate talent was higher than Gretzky's was from 1988 to 1999 (and from 1979 to 1981).

 

[bobholly39]

I'm not sure it's right that "overall Gretzky benefited from stronger team/teammates more than Mario Lemieux did". I think Gretzky benefitted more in his young, physically-peak years. That is, from age 20 to 27 he was benefitting from the strong core of young talent build around him and taking their cues from him. Lemieux didn't have a particularly good core until maybe fall1990 when he was turning 24.

But thereafter, Mario's core of talent (when he was healthy and playing) was pretty spectacular. I would argue that from autumn 1990 to Mario's first retirement in 1997, and also again in 2000-01 (maybe to 2002), his core of teammate talent was higher than Gretzky's was from 1988 to 1999 (and from 1979 to 1981).

I was refering specifically to the first half of their careers, where these comparisons usually get made.

Obviously I agree that in the 90s, Gretzky ended up playing on some weaker teams.

 

[daver]

The two bolded are definitely true.

Gretzky peaked earlier than Mario. Which is cool - good for him, net differentiator when looking at career to career if one player can hit his peak earlier. But if you want to do peak vs peak comparisons, you don't pick years of a player before his peak (ie Lemieux).

Also - Mario had a crappy team for a lot longer than Gretzky did. True that at their very best, the cup winning teams of Pittsburgh were fantastic and probably close to Edmonton - but overall Gretzky benefited from stronger team/teammates more than Mario Lemieux did.

So pre-peak Mario < peak (arguably post-peak) Wayne before 88/89? And Mario took longer than Wayne to hit his peak. (I agree with this).

But we then supposed to believe that Mario then takes an usually large step at age 23 in 88/89 where he elevates above peak Wayne.

How is a crappy teams identified? Is one where noone on your team can get within 100 points of you a crappy team?