View Single Post
10-26-2013, 11:55 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,749
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by shazariahl View Post
I don't really understand why 200 is such an important number for people. It's not like Gretzky's record was for scoring 200 pts, and Lemieux was 1 away from tying it. If Mario had scored 1 more point, would that actually change anything? For Lemieux fans who think he was better than Gretzky, they think that regardless, whether he hit 200 or not. For Gretzky fans, they'd just say "Gretzky had 4 of them, Lemieux had 1". It wouldn't change the way people view those 2 players.

Maybe it would have mattered to the media? Perhaps 200 pts is enough for him to win the Hart over Gretzky that year, but unlikely. They loved the Gretzky turns the Kings around story and if 199 pts couldn't win him the Hart, 200 probably wouldn't do it either.

Sure it's a nice round number, but Lemieux missed 4 games that year. Had he not, he clearly would have broken 200 pts. Does that make him better than Gretzky? Not in my opinion. And for those who already have that opinion, they have it w/o him hitting 200. It would be like asking "what if Gretzky got 1 more point his rookie year?" That would have given him 11 Art Ross trophies instead of 10. Would it really matter though? If 10 wasn't enough, would 1 more based on scoring 1 more point really matter to people?
While I totally see what you are saying, 200 points is significant for the same reason 100 points is significant: people love milestone numbers. 200 points has the added bonus of being a milestone that no one else has ever reached, which makes it even more significant. Not even the most physically talented player ever could score just one extra point to reach it. That just shows how difficult it is. To think that a player did it 4 times is bordering on the absurd.

tazzy19 is offline   Reply With Quote