Jump to content

Would You Take Gretzky or Lemieux?


ScottM

Who would you choose?  

12 members have voted

  1. 1. Who would you choose?

    • Wayne Gretzky
      6
    • Mario Lemieux
      6


Recommended Posts

On 12/19/2016 at 5:07 PM, RJ8812 said:

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

 

You get penalized for hitting people in the NHL these days. Lindros would knock a few guys over, get suspended a few times, and before you know it he would be removed from the league for being too violent. :ph34r:

 

Although... if other players can't hit him back, that would mean he would stay healthy and could put up monster numbers in today's NHL.

 

Interesting paradox.

:beer:  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply
On 17/12/2016 at 4:12 PM, radoran said:

Gretzky is a product of his era and the points the same way. I still think his vision  and feel for the game is unsurpassed, but he would never score 200 today.

 

Lemieux would still be a force today so game and under those rules I take him every time.

What a preposterous statement, especially considering half of Lemieux's prime was in that exact era Gretzky was outscoring him in.

 

Gretzky would absolutely be a force in todays game if you are to say the same for Lemieux.

 

In his late 30s, Gretzky lead the league in assists, tied with a prime Jagr.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, JagerMeister said:

What a preposterous statement, especially considering half of Lemieux's prime was in that exact era Gretzky was outscoring him in.

 

Gretzky would absolutely be a force in todays game if you are to say the same for Lemieux.

 

In his late 30s, Gretzky lead the league in assists, tied with a prime Jagr.

 

I remember when Jagr came into the league and Mario took him under his wing. Funny how 26 years later he's STILL playing, and putting up points. 

 

And STILL about 1000 points behind Gretzky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, flyercanuck said:

 

I remember when Jagr came into the league and Mario took him under his wing. Funny how 26 years later he's STILL playing, and putting up points. 

 

And STILL about 1000 points behind Gretzky.

He can do it. Just 20 more years of 50 points.

 

 

 

 

Disregarding the fact that he still hasnt peaked yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, flyercanuck said:

 

I remember when Jagr came into the league and Mario took him under his wing. Funny how 26 years later he's STILL playing, and putting up points. 

 

And STILL about 1000 points behind Gretzky.

 

The gap between Gretzky and Jagr is the same as the gap between Jagr and 104th (Orr) all-time.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, JagerMeister said:

What a preposterous statement, especially considering half of Lemieux's prime was in that exact era Gretzky was outscoring him in.

 

Gretzky would absolutely be a force in todays game if you are to say the same for Lemieux.

 

In his late 30s, Gretzky lead the league in assists, tied with a prime Jagr.

 

And he had 90 points, not 200. And in 95-96 he "outscored Lemieux" with 102 points to Lemieux's 161. Heck, in 88-89 he "outscored" him 168 to 199. Between those two years Mario didn't play more than 64 games in a season.

 

I said specifically Gretzky's vision for the game is unsurpassed and he would be a top player but not score 200.

 

Don't know what it is you're reading, but you might want to check you prescription.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, radoran said:

 

And he had 90 points, not 200. And in 95-96 he "outscored Lemieux" with 102 points to Lemieux's 161. Heck, in 88-89 he "outscored" him 168 to 199. Between those two years Mario didn't play more than 64 games in a season.

 

I said specifically Gretzky's vision for the game is unsurpassed and he would be a top player but not score 200.

 

Don't know what it is you're reading, but you might want to check you prescription.

You insinuated Gretzky wouldnt be a force in modern era hockey.

 

Sure. You got me there, not "half" but they were extremely close in the late 80s with Lemieux's prime starting and Gretzky in his late prime years. Both beneffited immensely from a highscoring era (Gretzky moreso) and neither would be reaching 160 pointd in todays league.

 

Point is, if Lemieuxs dominating, Gretzky will be.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Avg goals per game in the 80's (one team): ~3.8

Avg goals per game in the last decade (one team): ~2.8

 

Difference factor: ~1.36x higher in the 80's or 73.7% as high today as it was back then.

 

Gretzky's point total: 2857 x 0.737 =~ 2106 points.

 

If you eliminate the Oilers dynasty and spread the talent around like in our salary cap era today, one would think that 2106 figure would plummet even lower. Kind of narrows the gap, and shows how Gretzky would do in today's NHL. Jagr wouldn't be far behind. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

Avg goals per game in the 80's (one team): ~3.8

Avg goals per game in the last decade (one team): ~2.8

 

Difference factor: ~1.36x higher in the 80's or 73.7% as high today as it was back then.

 

Gretzky's point total: 2857 x 0.737 =~ 2106 points.

 

If you eliminate the Oilers dynasty and spread the talent around like in our salary cap era today, one would think that 2106 figure would plummet even lower. Kind of narrows the gap, and shows how Gretzky would do in today's NHL. Jagr wouldn't be far behind. :)

 

Even when adjusting for offensive environment, Jagr has played 176 more games than Gretzky, and is still 400 points behind him.

 

http://www.hockey-reference.com/leaders/points_adjusted_career.html

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JR Ewing said:

 

Even when adjusting for offensive environment, Jagr has played 176 more games than Gretzky, and is still 400 points behind him.

 

http://www.hockey-reference.com/leaders/points_adjusted_career.html

 

 

I agree. I'm just saying it narrows the gap dramatically, even more than you might think. :)

 

Jagr's case is somewhat unique because he left for the KHL for 3 seasons and came back to the NHL at an age when most players (Gretzky included) would have been retired. 

 

Jagr also lost 2 full seasons worth of NHL games due to lockouts. Gretzky's career was interrupted only by the 1995 lockout. Jagr has been affected by 3 lockouts. 

 

If you gave Jagr the ~164 games that he lost when he was closer to his prime, and you removed the later "compiler" years that he is having now (which are still good but not like he was when he was winning Art Ross trophies), then I think you'd see Jagr's numbers eclipse 2000 points, putting him only slightly behind a modern-day Wayne Gretzky. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/22/2016 at 5:20 AM, JagerMeister said:

What a preposterous statement, especially considering half of Lemieux's prime was in that exact era Gretzky was outscoring him in.

 

On 12/22/2016 at 4:00 PM, JagerMeister said:

You insinuated Gretzky wouldnt be a force in modern era hockey.

 

Sure. You got me there, not "half" but they were extremely close in the late 80s with Lemieux's prime starting and Gretzky in his late prime years. Both beneffited immensely from a highscoring era (Gretzky moreso) and neither would be reaching 160 pointd in todays league.

 

Point is, if Lemieuxs dominating, Gretzky will be.

 

 

The first part is not true, and the second is debatable. If you look back, it seems pretty clear that Lemieux surpassed Gretzky as the game's best player in 1987-88, and he won six scoring titles in the next nine seasons, only failing to when he missed significant time due to injuries. That season was only Lemieux's fourth. So, no. Gretzky wasn't outscoring Lemieux for half of his prime. When Lemieux hit his prime, he quickly started outscoring Gretzky.

 

Now, that said, as @radoran and I discussed earlier in the thread, he and I aren't in complete agreement on what that would mean if you moved them into different eras. No, Gretzky wouldn't be putting up 200 points. The era he did it in, and that Lemieux came close was the only era in which it was possible. I think if we're all going to be intellectually honest, we'd have to agree on that. It seems safe to say that neither would reach 160 either, though depending on how each of them translated into today's game, one or both might get closer than you might think.

 

I am in agreement with radoran that Gretzky would be more affected by the change of style if he were moved into today's era than Gretzky, I just don't think he'd fall off as much. So, whether Gretzky dominates while Lemieux is depends on how much of an asset Lemieux's physical play is. If it would allow him to noticeably set himself apart from Gretzky in today's era, like I feel it would, I don't really know that you could say Gretzky would "dominate."

 

But, as @JR Ewing stated earlier in the thread, there's no real wrong answer to this. We're talking about two of the most elite talents in the history of the game, and there are plenty of reasons to choose either in this scenario.

 

1 hour ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

I agree. I'm just saying it narrows the gap dramatically, even more than you might think. :)

 

Jagr's case is somewhat unique because he left for the KHL for 3 seasons and came back to the NHL at an age when most players (Gretzky included) would have been retired. 

 

Jagr also lost 2 full seasons worth of NHL games due to lockouts. Gretzky's career was interrupted only by the 1995 lockout. Jagr has been affected by 3 lockouts. 

 

If you gave Jagr the ~164 games that he lost when he was closer to his prime, and you removed the later "compiler" years that he is having now (which are still good but not like he was when he was winning Art Ross trophies), then I think you'd see Jagr's numbers eclipse 2000 points, putting him only slightly behind a modern-day Wayne Gretzky. 

 

I don't really think Jagr fits in here all that well. I'm not bashing him, because I'm leaning more and more toward believing that he has eclipsed Richard for a spot in the top five, but there's a very large gap between the top four and anyone in the next tier. I do agree with you that it's not as large as most make it out to be (after all, as I've said in the past, people who try to make it sound like there's no case for anyone but Gretzky as the GOAT drive me crazy), but again, it's very large.

 

As I said earlier in this thread, if I were going for a GOAT thread rather than a specific comparison in this thread, Orr and Howe would fit in, but I don't really think there's a scenario in either conversation that I could view Jagr as a viable option.

 

On 12/22/2016 at 7:07 AM, JR Ewing said:

The gap between Gretzky and Jagr is the same as the gap between Jagr and 104th (Orr) all-time.

 

Which is ironic since I think the gap between Gretzky and Jagr and the gap between Orr and Jagr is similar in another respect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, ScottM said:

 

 

The first part is not true, and the second is debatable. If you look back, it seems pretty clear that Lemieux surpassed Gretzky as the game's best player in 1987-88, and he won six scoring titles in the next nine seasons, only failing to when he missed significant time due to injuries. That season was only Lemieux's fourth. So, no. Gretzky wasn't outscoring Lemieux for half of his prime. When Lemieux hit his prime, he quickly started outscoring Gretzky.

 

Now, that said, as @radoran and I discussed earlier in the thread, he and I aren't in complete agreement on what that would mean if you moved them into different eras. No, Gretzky wouldn't be putting up 200 points. The era he did it in, and that Lemieux came close was the only era in which it was possible. I think if we're all going to be intellectually honest, we'd have to agree on that. It seems safe to say that neither would reach 160 either, though depending on how each of them translated into today's game, one or both might get closer than you might think.

 

I am in agreement with radoran that Gretzky would be more affected by the change of style if he were moved into today's era than Gretzky, I just don't think he'd fall off as much. So, whether Gretzky dominates while Lemieux is depends on how much of an asset Lemieux's physical play is. If it would allow him to noticeably set himself apart from Gretzky in today's era, like I feel it would, I don't really know that you could say Gretzky would "dominate."

 

But, as @JR Ewing stated earlier in the thread, there's no real wrong answer to this. We're talking about two of the most elite talents in the history of the game, and there are plenty of reasons to choose either in this scenario.

 

 

I don't really think Jagr fits in here all that well. I'm not bashing him, because I'm leaning more and more toward believing that he has eclipsed Richard for a spot in the top five, but there's a very large gap between the top four and anyone in the next tier. I do agree with you that it's not as large as most make it out to be (after all, as I've said in the past, people who try to make it sound like there's no case for anyone but Gretzky as the GOAT drive me crazy), but again, it's very large.

 

As I said earlier in this thread, if I were going for a GOAT thread rather than a specific comparison in this thread, Orr and Howe would fit in, but I don't really think there's a scenario in either conversation that I could view Jagr as a viable option.

 

 

Which is ironic since I think the gap between Gretzky and Jagr and the gap between Orr and Jagr is similar in another respect.

I cant post the statistics because im on my phone and my desktop hasnt been functioning. However I do recall Gretzky actually led in ppg twice when Lemieux outproduced Gretzky in the 80s. 

 

Anyways, I dont see how Gretzky would transition to the league worse than lemieux. There are among numerous small framed high iq players and some are the best players in the game (Kane and Gaudreau to name a few)

 

Also, correct me if im wrong but wasnt Lemieux not in optimal shape in the 80s? I heard his conditioning was insufficient. That would be more evident modern era than it ever was in the 80s. 

 

 

I still maintain the belief both would dominate everyone else. Both of them in their mid to late 30s were still among the best offensive forces in the game. Lemieux in the 2000s leading the league in ppg and Gretzky in his late 30s tying jagr for most assists in the league.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, JagerMeister said:

I cant post the statistics because im on my phone and my desktop hasnt been functioning. However I do recall Gretzky actually led in ppg twice when Lemieux outproduced Gretzky in the 80s. 

 

Anyways, I dont see how Gretzky would transition to the league worse than lemieux. There are among numerous small framed high iq players and some are the best players in the game (Kane and Gaudreau to name a few)

 

Also, correct me if im wrong but wasnt Lemieux not in optimal shape in the 80s? I heard his conditioning was insufficient. That would be more evident modern era than it ever was in the 80s. 

 

I still maintain the belief both would dominate everyone else. Both of them in their mid to late 30s were still among the best offensive forces in the game. Lemieux in the 2000s leading the league in ppg and Gretzky in his late 30s tying jagr for most assists in the league.

 

I'm not going to continue the debate of who was in prime when, because I think it's ultimately inconsequential to the discussion aside from establishing that they were in their primes in slightly different time frames.

 

I don't think we're going to see eye to eye here, which is perfectly fine considering the type of thread this is, but I do maintain that I think Lemieux would translate better. Would they be the two best players in the game if we could move them? Yes, they would, but I think the gap would be big enough in my mind for me to set Lemieux up as the winner here.

 

Btw, I don't think I'd frame Gretzky in the Kane/Gaudreau mold in order to make his case. Kane has been the game's best player in a grand total of one season, and while we're a long way from seeing where Gaudreau will end up, it seems unlikely that he'll often be the game's best player in any given season, if at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More food for thought:

 

In my opinion (based on watching highlights past and present, nothing more), I think goalies have improved by leaps and bounds, defencemen next, and forwards last.

 

That is to say, modern day forwards don't really do anything that we haven't already seen from forwards in the past, except they're faster skaters today and they generally shoot harder.

 

Defencemen do a LOT more today than they did in the past. They are vital components on offence (basically every defenceman today is asked to be like Bobby Orr) and of course they have to play defence as well. Once upon a time, your defencemen contributed nothing offensively. So a sea change happened here.

 

Finally, goaltenders are an order of magnitude better today than they were in the past, and I don't think it's even a debate. Yes, the goalies are bigger and so is the equipment, but goalies today (even without wearing pads) would stop more pucks than goalies from the 80's because they're 10x more mobile in net and their positioning (cutting down angles, playing away from the net) gives them an insurmountable advantage. It is something that was never done in the past. 

 

When I watch Gretzky or Lemieux highlights, I ask myself if that would have worked on a modern day goaltender. More often than not, I say no. It would be an easy save. Skating into the slot and flicking the puck at the net gets you zero goals in today's NHL, because the goalies don't fall down as they move side to side. You can't step over the blueline and fire a slapshot for a goal any more. Goalies stop those every time. 

 

Bottom line: If the goalie can see the shot today, you're not going to score on them unless you're within 20-25ft and it's a perfect shot. The days of "skate in, fire slapshot from the side boards, score, rinse, repeat" are gone. So if we're looking critically at players like Gretzky and Lemieux and how they'd do today, basically delete all of those goals from slapshots. Delete all the goals where the goalie falls sideways trying to stack the pads (and fails miserably). None of those types of goals work today. Gretzky and Lemieux would have to get their points on breakaways, one-timers, deflections, rebounds, etc.

 

:)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

As great as Wayne was and will always be, I gotta go with Mario. 

A healthy Lemieux at his peak can do all the things Gretzky can, 

rivals, matches, or exceeds his production; plus, he's got more

size and overall skill. 

 

:):):) 

 

And he could punch out at least some of his attackers before a 

teammate could make it over to help or defend him. 

 

:haha2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/23/2016 at 8:47 PM, WordsOfWisdom said:

More food for thought:

 

In my opinion (based on watching highlights past and present, nothing more), I think goalies have improved by leaps and bounds, defencemen next, and forwards last.

 

That is to say, modern day forwards don't really do anything that we haven't already seen from forwards in the past, except they're faster skaters today and they generally shoot harder.

 

Defencemen do a LOT more today than they did in the past. They are vital components on offence (basically every defenceman today is asked to be like Bobby Orr) and of course they have to play defence as well. Once upon a time, your defencemen contributed nothing offensively. So a sea change happened here.

 

Finally, goaltenders are an order of magnitude better today than they were in the past, and I don't think it's even a debate. Yes, the goalies are bigger and so is the equipment, but goalies today (even without wearing pads) would stop more pucks than goalies from the 80's because they're 10x more mobile in net and their positioning (cutting down angles, playing away from the net) gives them an insurmountable advantage. It is something that was never done in the past. 

 

When I watch Gretzky or Lemieux highlights, I ask myself if that would have worked on a modern day goaltender. More often than not, I say no. It would be an easy save. Skating into the slot and flicking the puck at the net gets you zero goals in today's NHL, because the goalies don't fall down as they move side to side. You can't step over the blueline and fire a slapshot for a goal any more. Goalies stop those every time. 

 

Bottom line: If the goalie can see the shot today, you're not going to score on them unless you're within 20-25ft and it's a perfect shot. The days of "skate in, fire slapshot from the side boards, score, rinse, repeat" are gone. So if we're looking critically at players like Gretzky and Lemieux and how they'd do today, basically delete all of those goals from slapshots. Delete all the goals where the goalie falls sideways trying to stack the pads (and fails miserably). None of those types of goals work today. Gretzky and Lemieux would have to get their points on breakaways, one-timers, deflections, rebounds, etc.

 

:)

 

They could and did adapt to the times as goalies got better and clutch and grab became prevalent.

 

Sure a goalie could "See and stop" the shots they took back then. But the goalies were usually blindsided by the perfect passes these two made through traffic to teammates like they had Xray vision.

 

A 36 and 37 year old Gretzky with a bad back, worse linemates and slower less shifty skating was still 3rd and 4th in scoring against the Peter Forsbergs and Pavel Bure's of the next generation vs the new age goalies and defensive systems. And Lemieux in his comeback year 2003 was STUPID good. 35 goals and 76 points in 43 games?  Keep in mind defense and goalie equipment and strategies were even more stingy than what you see today during the end of the dead puck era. Skill players were not able to use their skill without guys literally holding them just enough so they would not fall, but to slow them down so their teammates could catch up.

 

 

Imagine Lemieux and Gretzky with no red line? Those two line passes you see now were illegal in their day because of men like them. Their anticipation and interception skills would still wreck havoc and create more odd man rushes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going Gretzky. I think his vision, playmaking, etc. put him in Crosby territory in the current NHL. 

 

I think Lemieux would be great today, too, but the exercize is to pick one, so... 

 

And I think size is being a bit overvalued in some of the pro-Lemieux arguments.   So, going with Gretzky. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...