Does Gretzky or Lemieux Benefit More if the Other Never Existed?
View Single Post
07-28-2014, 12:30 PM
Join Date: Aug 2006
Originally Posted by
I don't agree.
Hm, maybe, but what are two seasons?
Let's see -- the stats for scoring title domination show Howe beating Lemieux.
The stats for PPG domination show Lemieux just
beating Howe, given that Gretzky, Stevens, and Jagr don't exist. (I mean,
And yet, of course, Lemieux is better because he's the guy you saw play.
You're right, but a couple of points for those 4 years:
1) Howe played with the best offensive defenseman the world ever saw until Bobby Orr came along.
2) Howe also played with the man who was easily the best LW in hockey at the time.
3) Howe also played in front of peak Terry Sawchuk; and in a 6-team league, that means Detroit players were the only ones who didn't have to face Sawchuk for 20% of their games
Do we know why Howe fell back to earth after those 4 years? (And by "Earth," I mean regularly competing for the Art Ross for the next decade and a half but not being far and away better than anyone else). I don't think he was injured, right?
I mean, I don't really think Howe was as good as Mario Lemieux in terms of strictly offense, but he's closer than anyone else not named Gretzky. And he does bring that strong all-round game (though I don't think Howe was exceptional defensively until later in his career, he was still responsible and always very physical).
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by TheDevilMadeMe