Would You Take Gretzky or Lemieux?

[J0e Th0rnton]

 

[TropicalFruitGirl26]

@J0e Th0rnton

 

LOL...going by today's NHL rules, I saw about 4 or 5 penalties being committed in that highlight!

 

But yea, that clip clearly exemplifies Super Mario's strength, speed and skill.

Blowing by that D-man (who was that defenseman by the way?), then skating while having that same D-man hacking and hanging all over his back, but still skilled enough to NOT lose the puck.

 

I will need yet ANOTHER shot of Pepto after this next post.....but yea, Penguin lifer Mario Lemieux on my team for 82 games in 2016-17 please!

Now...excuse me....

[WordsOfWisdom]

57 minutes ago, JR Ewing said:

-Calling Lemieux "not a good skater" and "slow" is a travesty.

 

Skating was not his asset. He was agile and elusive, but much of Lemieux's game centered around his reach and his puck handling skills which were simply the best in the game (right there with Gretzky). You couldn't take the puck away from him. 

 

27 minutes ago, TropicalFruitGirl26 said:

-People are talking as though Gretzky and Lemieux played in completely different eras, rather than 99 starting in the 1980 season, 66 in 1985.

 

The game changed a lot in that time. Scoring was in a steep decline.

 

1 hour ago, JR Ewing said:

-Adjusting for era, Gretzky scored almost 1,000 more points than Lemieux.

 

He also played 500? 600? more games?

 

1 hour ago, JR Ewing said:

McDavid speeds the game up to a pace that others have trouble matching, while Wayne slowed it down to a chess match

 

The game ran slow in Gretzky's mind, but he didn't play the game slow. He was a good skater and extremely agile.

 

35 minutes ago, TropicalFruitGirl26 said:

Now, if you will excuse me, I need another shot of Pepto....

 

[WordsOfWisdom]

57 minutes ago, J0e Th0rnton said:

 

 

This clip perfectly emphasizes my points made on Lemieux:

 

The other player had no trouble catching up to him, but Lemieux's puck handling skills, size, and reach made it impossible to get the puck off him.

 

[ScottM]

51 minutes ago, JR Ewing said:

-Calling Lemieux "not a good skater" and "slow" is a travesty.

 

Truth be told, I'd take Lemieux's skating over Gretzky's. I had a friend try to argue me down one day that Gretzky is the best skater in history. It was funny how he started calling every fact I gave him "opinion" after I gave him a long list of guys that could skate circles around Gretzky.

 

53 minutes ago, JR Ewing said:

-Re: the mentioning of McDavid and Crosby showing us what Gretzky was like. No. Crosby plays a puck control game down low, using power along the boards. Not Gretzky: he played an elusive style to creates mismatches. McDavid speeds the game up to a pace that others have trouble matching, while Wayne slowed it down to a chess match.

 

That's the thing that made Gretzky so great. He used the incredible talents he did have to turn the game into something that suited his skill set. As I said before, I get so tired of people making Gretzky out to be a Superman who was better at everything than everybody. Why can't we just appreciate him for what he really was, considering how few players in history have had the ability to mold a game the way he could.

 

1 hour ago, JR Ewing said:

So... You have one season, and can choose Wayne Gretzky or Mario Lemieux? There's not a wrong answer, and nobody could be derided for their choice.

 

Exactly. Which is why I thought this conversation would be a fun one. I find it interesting to see who values which aspects of each player's game the most.

[ScottM]

55 minutes ago, TropicalFruitGirl26 said:

I will need yet ANOTHER shot of Pepto after this next post.....but yea, Penguin lifer Mario Lemieux on my team for 82 games in 2016-17 please!

Now...excuse me....

 

Would it help if he were playing for the Bolts? Lol

[WordsOfWisdom]

 

 

 

 

 

[BluPuk]

I would take Gretzky every time over a full season. Orr would be my first choice...... 

[JR Ewing]

9 hours ago, TropicalFruitGirl26 said:

 

And while Wayne Gretzky always had a 'bodyguard' helping to create space for him (McSorley, Graves, Buekeboom come to mind right away), Lemieux largely created his OWN space with his own strength and speed......though having guys like Ron Francis and Jaromir Jagr as linemates certainly didn't hurt either!

 

I'm sorry, but no. Legend has grown over the years about how Wayne always had a tough guy permanently sutured to his side, but it's simply not the case. Glen Sather would sometimes give Dave Semenko some spot time with 99, but it was rare, and the numbers back that up all the way. During their years as teammates, the Oilers scored 1621 goals for while Wayne was on the ice, 270 during Semenko's time out there. If Wayne was playing 20 minutes that night, he probably only spent about 1 of them with Save Semenko. During those years, his most regular linemate was Kurri, with a different cast of LW, but none were the bodyguard sort: Brett Calighen, Dave Lumley, Pat Hughes, Jaroslav Pouzar, Mike Krushelnyski, and finally Esa Tikkanen. The Grate One was obnoxious, but most definitely not a bodyguard-type player.

 

Marty McSorley was a defenseman, and Sather smartly almost never put them out together, though the Kings did more often. Still, they were smart enough to play Steve Duchene, old man Larry Robinson, Rob Blake, Paul Coffey, and Alexei Zhitnik him much more often than anybody else.

 

Finally, after Wayne Gretzky had scored 2,795 NHL points, Adam Graves played as his regular left winger in 99's final season. 'Nuff said on that one.

 

 

The funniest thing about watching Wayne Gretzky play hockey was seeing the number of opposition players he would have spun around, facing the wrong direction. Elusive and shifty.

 

Wayne Gretzky created space for Wayne Gretzky

 

9 hours ago, TropicalFruitGirl26 said:

Again, not trying to discount The Great One, but still, in my mind, Lemieux is the guy to have on your team today if you are assured full health for 82 games.

 

That's just it. Life isn't fair, and a bet in favor of Mario's health was one against the house.

 

 

9 hours ago, TropicalFruitGirl26 said:

Now, if you will excuse me, I need another shot of Pepto....

 

Don't I know it.

[JR Ewing]

10 hours ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

 

Skating was not his asset. He was agile and elusive, but much of Lemieux's game centered around his reach and his puck handling skills which were simply the best in the game (right there with Gretzky). You couldn't take the puck away from him. 

 

Mario suffered from the same syndrome so many big men with a good stride have: they don't look as fast smaller players who chop at the ice with their skates. He blew by a lot of players with ease for a guy who wasn't a good skater.

 

 

10 hours ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

 

The game changed a lot in that time. Scoring was in a steep decline.

 

No. Goals per Game, during the seasons in question:

 

1979-80 thru 1983-84: 7.76 GPG

1984-85 thru 1988-89: 7.59 GPG

 

 

10 hours ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

 

He also played 500? 600? more games?

 

 

Right... So what? As it turns out, players who don't dress end up contributing very little offense.

 

 

10 hours ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

The game ran slow in Gretzky's mind, but he didn't play the game slow. He was a good skater and extremely agile.

 

 

 

I agree with you. What I'm saying is that Gretzky didn't play a game which was about pushing the pace to insane amounts, ala Connor McDavid. His was much more start-stop-start again, changing speeds and direction. I've never seen another player who could have as many opposition players turned around and not facing the play like he could.

 

[WordsOfWisdom]

45 minutes ago, JR Ewing said:

Mario suffered from the same syndrome so many big men with a good stride have: they don't look as fast smaller players who chop at the ice with their skates. He blew by a lot of players with ease for a guy who wasn't a good skater.

 

I think people would say that he was "fast for a big man" (which is a complimentary way of saying that other players his size were about as mobile as pylons during that time).

 

50 minutes ago, JR Ewing said:

No. Goals per Game, during the seasons in question:

 

1979-80 thru 1983-84: 7.76 GPG

1984-85 thru 1988-89: 7.59 GPG

 

Gretzky's career was played in a higher scoring era. Gretzky's prime was the entire decade of the 80's. Lemieux joined the party when it was half over. Gretzky retired by 1999. Lemieux played into the early 2000's during the clutch and grab, dead puck era.

 

53 minutes ago, JR Ewing said:

Right... So what? As it turns out, players who don't dress end up contributing very little offense.

 

The dude battled cancer!  

 

55 minutes ago, JR Ewing said:

I agree with you.

 

Awesome!  

 

56 minutes ago, JR Ewing said:

I've never seen another player who could have as many opposition players turned around and not facing the play like he could.

 

Agreed.

 

How do I get sucked into these debates anyway?  

[Polaris922]

28 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

 

I think people would say that he was "fast for a big man" (which is a complimentary way of saying that other players his size were about as mobile as pylons during that time).

 

 

Gretzky's career was played in a higher scoring era. Gretzky's prime was the entire decade of the 80's. Lemieux joined the party when it was half over. Gretzky retired by 1999. Lemieux played into the early 2000's during the clutch and grab, dead puck era.

 

 

The dude battled cancer!  

 

 

Awesome!  

 

 

Agreed.

 

How do I get sucked into these debates anyway?  

 

I don't think you saw enough of Lemieux then.  He was very fast on his feet and made it look effortless.  He blew by many defenders on a regular basis.  Hall of Fame defenders as well.  His stride was long though and many confused it for being slow, but he still broke away tons.  

 

Miss for the video clip, you'd catch him too with your stuck between his legs  

[JR Ewing]

2 hours ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

Gretzky's career was played in a higher scoring era. Gretzky's prime was the entire decade of the 80's. Lemieux joined the party when it was half over. Gretzky retired by 1999. Lemieux played into the early 2000's during the clutch and grab, dead puck era.

 

 

Lemieux barely played after 1997, and was finished as an everyday player at almost the exact same time as Gretzky, playing only 170 games between 31 and 40. The dead puck era held him back far less than his health. What great difference would it have made if offense had been higher, when he barely played anyway?

 

Quote

The dude battled cancer!  

 

 

Yes, and it's a huge part of the reason he couldn't contribute as much as Gretzky. Who's taking anything from him by mentioning that gap?

 

 

[WordsOfWisdom]

30 minutes ago, JR Ewing said:

Yes, and it's a huge part of the reason he couldn't contribute as much as Gretzky. Who's taking anything from him by mentioning that gap?

 

Exactly.

 

All I'm saying is that a healthy Lemieux playing his career during exactly the same time period as Gretzky, and playing on the Oilers (which were a slight dynastic upgrade over the early 90's Penguins), finishes his career with the same point total as Gretzky.

 

That's why I say: Gretzky = Lemieux

 

If you had to pick between the two (knowing they were both healthy and both at their peak), it's a coin toss.

 

If you dig into the numbers you find that Gretzky had a slight edge in playmaking, but Lemieux had a slight edge in goal scoring. So I'd concede that Gretzky was a slightly better passer than Lemieux, but Lemieux was a slightly better goal scorer than Gretzky, so it evens out in the end. 

 

[JR Ewing]

10 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

 

Exactly.

 

All I'm saying is that a healthy Lemieux playing his career during exactly the same time period as Gretzky, and playing on the Oilers (which were a slight dynastic upgrade over the early 90's Penguins), finishes his career with the same point total as Gretzky.

 

That's why I say: Gretzky = Lemieux

 

Here's where we part again. You would take IF statements and give them much more weight than do I. And really, there's no end to them.

 

-What if Mario had been healthy?

-What if the Red Sox didn't sell off Babe Ruth?

-What if Alex Higgins hadn't been such a miserable drunk?

-What if Roy Campanella didn't have that car crash?

-What if Mike Tyson hadn't gone with Don King?

-What if Dick Allen hadn't been perhaps the most selfish and immature player in baseball history?

 

And so on and so on...

 

Reasonable: things would surely have been different. How different? Can't say for sure.

Unreasonable: attempting to extrapolate with any sort of exactness to say they would have done THIS or THAT.

 

What if questions are fun, entertaining, and ultimately unconvincing as any sort of proof beyond guesswork.

 

 

10 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

If you had to pick between the two (knowing they were both healthy and both at their peak), it's a coin toss.

 

If you dig into the numbers you find that Gretzky had a slight edge in playmaking, but Lemieux had a slight edge in goal scoring. So I'd concede that Gretzky was a slightly better passer than Lemieux, but Lemieux was a slightly better goal scorer than Gretzky, so it evens out in the end. 

 

 

I don't think that anybody would disagree with that.

 

[TropicalFruitGirl26]

@JR Ewing

 

Don't forget...

"What if Rome never fell?"

 

In that case, we'd all be sitting at home in our togas watching gladiatorial games instead of the NHL...

[WordsOfWisdom]

1 hour ago, JR Ewing said:

Here's where we part again. You would take IF statements and give them much more weight than do I. And really, there's no end to them.

 

-What if Mario had been healthy?

-What if the Red Sox didn't sell off Babe Ruth?

-What if Alex Higgins hadn't been such a miserable drunk?

-What if Roy Campanella didn't have that car crash?

-What if Mike Tyson hadn't gone with Don King?

-What if Dick Allen hadn't been perhaps the most selfish and immature player in baseball history?

 

And so on and so on...

 

Well, the only real IF statement here is the first one. The only thing that stopped Lemieux from putting up Gretzky's numbers was his health. Given the sample size that we have, and the fact that he was productive from beginning to end, there's no reason to think that he wouldn't have put up similar numbers. I'm not saying he would have broke Gretzky's point record, but he'd be right there with him at the top, close enough that it would be splitting hairs to find any quantifiable difference between the two. 

 

And as mentioned previously, I think Lemieux would have beat Gretzky's all time goal record, but fallen short of Gretzky's assist record. So they wind up with the same number of points, but distributed slightly different.

 

2 hours ago, JR Ewing said:

I don't think that anybody would disagree with that.

 

Amen!  

 

[WordsOfWisdom]

1 hour ago, TropicalFruitGirl26 said:

@JR Ewing

 

Don't forget...

"What if Rome never fell?"

 

In that case, we'd all be sitting at home in our togas watching gladiatorial games instead of the NHL...

 

A toga might be a bit nippy in the winter!  

[dwayne97]

I would take gretzky.

[RJ8812]

In today's NHL, I'd take Lindros over anyone. He would be unstoppable 

[FD19372]

Gretzueix.

[SpikeDDS]

On December 17, 2016 at 8:03 PM, ScottM said:

 

I could have included both Howe and Orr, but as I said above, I found this particular question to be the most interesting one-on-one comparison, which is what I was aiming for. I even said above that I'd take Howe over either of these guys if he were in the discussion. So, no, I don't think there's an injustice.

Well then you shouldn't have contested it with the GOAT discussion. Just make it about Gretzky vs. Lemieux, period.

 

Since it is one season, and we are talking about those two, I say Lemieux. I like his size and it is my opinion that Gretzky had more around him to share offensive threat; more great players to whom to dish. I think Lemieux, on his own, had more ability to create for himself; something out of nothing. It is not a gaping difference, but still a difference.

[SpikeDDS]

On December 17, 2016 at 11:12 PM, WordsOfWisdom said:

 

This clip perfectly emphasizes my points made on Lemieux:

 

The other player had no trouble catching up to him, but Lemieux's puck handling skills, size, and reach made it impossible to get the puck off him.

 

 

I was watching closely, but I thought I MIGHT have seen a hook in there somewhere. 

[ScottM]

2 hours ago, SpikeDDS said:

Well then you shouldn't have contested it with the GOAT discussion. Just make it about Gretzky vs. Lemieux, period.

 

I didn't. If you go back and check, you'll see that the post quoted was in response to a post saying it was an injustice to leave out Howe. My mentions of Howe and Orr have been made after someone else mentioned one of them to point out why I didn't include them, and to make the point that while they would be included in a GOAT thread, that's not what I'm looking for here, since this is a purely hypothetical thread.

[WordsOfWisdom]

2 hours ago, SpikeDDS said:

 

I was watching closely, but I thought I MIGHT have seen a hook in there somewhere. 

 

Referee circa dead puck era: "I didn't see anything. Did you see anything? Nope. Didn't see anything."