View Single Post
02-25-2013, 01:29 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 741
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by tazzy19 View Post
But that's just it. I would love to see a valid argument for Lemieux having a better prime than Gretzky, but so far I haven't seen one. If we are to give Lemieux the "what ifs" and pro rate his best seasons, then we must also do the same for Gretzky. And this is where the argument on the Lemieux side falls apart. Gretzky scored 153 points in 51 (consecutive) games in 83-84. Then he got injured. He had 3 PPG over those 51 games, and many experts thought he'd finish the year at around 240 points (my guess is he would have finished around 230 points, as it's harder to maintain that kind of production over 29 more games). But when he came back from his injury, his PPG average dipped substantially (by his standards), and he finished with "only" a 2.77 points per game average over the full season (74 games) -- which still would have given him 221 points in 80 games! But had Gretzky not been injured, he was on pace for a 240 point season (in 80 games) -- which obviously would have blown any pro rated Lemieux season out of the water. Now, what if Gretzky had not been injured in 1988 for 16 games when he blew Lemieux out of the water in PPG average? That would have given him easily another scoring title (pro rated 186 points to Lemieux's actual 168), and won him his 9th straight Hart Trophy (making it 10 straight the following year in LA). Speaking of LA, what if Gretzky had not been traded? And what if Coffey had not been traded either? Now it gets scary if it wasn't already scary enough....

lol...and yet, some delusional fans believe crosby is in the same league.

ot92s is offline