HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Mario Lemieux vs Bobby Orr?

View Poll Results: Who was the better player?
Mario Lemieux 51 27.13%
Bobby Orr 137 72.87%
Voters: 188. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-29-2013, 07:44 PM
  #76
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,304
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Well, for starters unless Mario ran into a knob like Ken Hitchcock there isn't a coach in the free world that would do anything else but let Mario do his thing. Conventional wisdom would tell you that this player will win you more games on his talent alone than the other way around. That isn't to say that there can't be pressure to play responsible defensively either. Bowman ensured Lafleur didn't float around on the ice. But you just simply let a guy like this play his game, regardless of era.

Defensive awareness was not Mario's strength. However, it didn't have to be. It wasn't why he was on the ice in the first place. We saw Malkin last year score 50 goals and 109 points and there were times when he just simply took a shift or a game over. A smart coach lets a player like that do this. Malkin is not Mario either it is worth noting. So I think Mario would translate just fine in today's game.
Malkin isn't Mario but he is a lot closer than the stats would suggest.

I think as we watch Malkin play his career out we will see this.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-29-2013, 11:27 PM
  #77
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TAnnala View Post
Well he definitely was close to Gretzky's peak.
Adjusted stats give them 5 point difference in the best season in Hockey-Reference.com
170 to Gretzky and 165 to Lemieux. I remember them being relatively close in their peak. Gretzky had the longer peak and accomplished more but when both were on their best behavior they were close. So was Orr.

I think Gretzky had the best peak followed by Orr then Lemieux. But is am not going to pretend that they were not close.
No, he was not. Gretzky won scoring titles by as much as 69%. Lemieux won by a maximum of 18%.

Adjusted stats are skewed by rule changes, ice time, powerplay time and other era factors. Level of dominance over peers is a constant. Gretzky dominated the NHL to a much greater extent than Lemieux ever did. Not close at all, really.

Ogopogo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2013, 12:41 AM
  #78
TAnnala
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Oulu
Posts: 10,089
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo View Post
No, he was not. Gretzky won scoring titles by as much as 69%. Lemieux won by a maximum of 18%.

Adjusted stats are skewed by rule changes, ice time, powerplay time and other era factors. Level of dominance over peers is a constant. Gretzky dominated the NHL to a much greater extent than Lemieux ever did. Not close at all, really.
I agree that Gretzky had higher peak. I also agree that it is pretty clear he had higher peak. But I disagree with the statement that peak Mario was nowhere close Gretzky in terms of dominance. He's peak was shorter and not as high as Gretzky's but it was in the same ballpark.

Level of dominance over peer's should also be noted in the strength of competition. Lemieux's finishes would look much more dominant without Jagr and Gretzky. Still i think Gretzky was better and he is pretty clearly ahead of Mario but on their best games Mario was the only forward comparable to Gretzky.

I don't see how that is not true.

If we take a look of the best PPG season's since both of these guys came to the league first 12 of those are Mario/Wayne season's. Wayne having twice as many top 12 seasons as Lemieux and 1st and 2nd spot. Lemieux has 3rd and 5th spot. The difference between 1st and 3rd spot is 0.1 PPG which is pretty small. Granted Gretzky had more games played. But the thing is, only competition Gretzky ever had for the best forward is by Lemieux. And whatever some try to say to me, the competition was there and it was real.


Last edited by TAnnala: 01-30-2013 at 12:47 AM.
TAnnala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2013, 12:42 AM
  #79
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,304
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo View Post
No, he was not. Gretzky won scoring titles by as much as 69%. Lemieux won by a maximum of 18%.

Adjusted stats are skewed by rule changes, ice time, powerplay time and other era factors. Level of dominance over peers is a constant. Gretzky dominated the NHL to a much greater extent than Lemieux ever did. Not close at all, really.
Level over peers isn't constant over time, it's season specific and subject to the other factors you mentioned.

Finishing 1st (or in top 3,5,10 ect) is more important than the level of dominance, or lack of it. Everything is subject to context.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2013, 01:13 PM
  #80
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Level over peers isn't constant over time, it's season specific and subject to the other factors you mentioned.

Finishing 1st (or in top 3,5,10 ect) is more important than the level of dominance, or lack of it. Everything is subject to context.
Level of dominance must be considered in addition to top 10 finishes. Marcel Dionne's scoring title in 1980 is not the same as Wayne Gretzky's in 1987. 1st by 69% is much more significant than 1st by virtue of more goals than #2.

Ogopogo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2013, 01:20 PM
  #81
Doctor No
Retired
 
Doctor No's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 23,350
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo View Post
Level of dominance must be considered in addition to top 10 finishes. Marcel Dionne's scoring title in 1980 is not the same as Wayne Gretzky's in 1987. 1st by 69% is much more significant than 1st by virtue of more goals than #2.
How can you say that it's a constant, though?

Doctor No is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2013, 01:20 PM
  #82
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TAnnala View Post
I agree that Gretzky had higher peak. I also agree that it is pretty clear he had higher peak. But I disagree with the statement that peak Mario was nowhere close Gretzky in terms of dominance. He's peak was shorter and not as high as Gretzky's but it was in the same ballpark.

Level of dominance over peer's should also be noted in the strength of competition. Lemieux's finishes would look much more dominant without Jagr and Gretzky. Still i think Gretzky was better and he is pretty clearly ahead of Mario but on their best games Mario was the only forward comparable to Gretzky.

I don't see how that is not true.

If we take a look of the best PPG season's since both of these guys came to the league first 12 of those are Mario/Wayne season's. Wayne having twice as many top 12 seasons as Lemieux and 1st and 2nd spot. Lemieux has 3rd and 5th spot. The difference between 1st and 3rd spot is 0.1 PPG which is pretty small. Granted Gretzky had more games played. But the thing is, only competition Gretzky ever had for the best forward is by Lemieux. And whatever some try to say to me, the competition was there and it was real.
Lemieux never had to compete with a Bossy, Trottier or Lafleur in their prime, either. Heck, even take Gretzky out of the mix during Lemieux's career and his best finish over the 3rd place guy is 28% - nothing remotely close to Gretzky's 69%. But it is a moot point - there are star players across every era, being the best - by a wide margin - is significant. Trying to split hairs and say that Yzerman was better than Trottier or some other foolish argument is irrelevant.

Being the best in the NHL is being the best in the NHL. Period. You can't hold it against a player that X didn't play in his era. Irrelevant because Y did play in his era.

Ogopogo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2013, 01:23 PM
  #83
Doctor No
Retired
 
Doctor No's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 23,350
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo View Post
Being the best in the NHL is being the best in the NHL. Period. You can't hold it against a player that X didn't play in his era. Irrelevant because Y did play in his era.
What about the many times when A, B, and C were playing in another top league, or off fighting a war?

Competition against peers isn't constant.

Doctor No is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2013, 01:24 PM
  #84
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taco MacArthur View Post
How can you say that it's a constant, though?
How is it not. If a player is 69% better than every other player in the league, that means 76 points in 1987 or it might mean far less in 1927. The percentage of separation over the rest of the NHL shows how great a player is. Being 1st to such an extreme level is significant in any era. Percentages are always constant.

Ogopogo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2013, 01:27 PM
  #85
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taco MacArthur View Post
What about the many times when A, B, and C were playing in another top league, or off fighting a war?

Competition against peers isn't constant.
Holding things like that against a player is a bigger crime than giving them credit for what they did accomplish. It is like the "what if" game people play with Lemieux. "What is" is far more important than "What if". If a player beats the best the NHL can offer, he deserves his accolates - not questions about "what if" some other guy played that year or was injured or was at war. "What if" is garbage. "What is", is everything.

Ogopogo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2013, 01:28 PM
  #86
Doctor No
Retired
 
Doctor No's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 23,350
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo View Post
How is it not. If a player is 69% better than every other player in the league, that means 76 points in 1987 or it might mean far less in 1927. The percentage of separation over the rest of the NHL shows how great a player is. Being 1st to such an extreme level is significant in any era. Percentages are always constant.
I agree that performance relative to one's peers is important. That doesn't make the metric neutral across all eras, however.

Doctor No is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2013, 01:29 PM
  #87
Doctor No
Retired
 
Doctor No's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 23,350
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo View Post
Holding things like that against a player is a bigger crime than giving them credit for what they did accomplish. It is like the "what if" game people play with Lemieux. "What is" is far more important than "What if". If a player beats the best the NHL can offer, he deserves his accolates - not questions about what if. "What if" is garbage. "What is", is everything.
Fair enough.

But it's still not constant.

Doctor No is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2013, 01:35 PM
  #88
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taco MacArthur View Post
Fair enough.

But it's still not constant.
It is a constant if you consider the NHL player pool as a whole the best competition that is available at the NHL level. You can split hairs forever and spin our wheels, discrediting legends as we go. If we play the "what if" game, Lemeiux's 1988 scoring title should be stripped from him because Gretzky missed 16 games that year.

I don't believe in discounting the talent pool from one era or another. Whoever wins the scoring title this season deserves the same credit as Joe Malone's in 1918 - depending on their margin of victory as expressed in a percentage.

Ogopogo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2013, 02:29 PM
  #89
Doctor No
Retired
 
Doctor No's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 23,350
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo View Post
It is a constant if you consider the NHL player pool as a whole the best competition that is available at the NHL level.
Yes, it's constant if (and only if) you define it to be constant (as you just did).

Doctor No is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2013, 02:42 PM
  #90
Regal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,936
vCash: 500
It's not just the talent pools, it's how players perform in a particular year. Injuries and down years by star players hurt year to year comparisons. St. Louis' win in '04 against a typical Kovalchuk year (which has never got him back in the top 5 in scoring), and a older Sakic is not the same as Jagr winning against Sakic's best season in '01. We know when players are performing up to par because we watch them, but this isn't considered on the stat sheet. Top ___ finishes have their flaws due to this fact, and percentage leaders are extremely skewed by it to the point where I think they're mostly useless unless there are massive leads. I think large percentage wins are telling, but you have to not only look at it in context, but look at it more in general terms than absolutes. A 40% win say shouldn't necessarily be considered better than a 30% win just because it's a larger percentage. They're both massive leads. You take that fact and start to look beyond.

Looking at Lemieux's 199 point year, not only is he competing with Gretzky, but Yzerman's best season which was amazing, as well as a crazy out of the blue season by Nicholls. That is not a typical year by year comparison. There's not going to be massive changes in year to year scoring, yet if Lemieux has that season the following year, he leads Gretzky by 40% and third place Messier by 54%, and if he has it the previous year, he leads Gretzky by 34% and third place Savard by 52%. When you're looking at over 50% leads, I don't think there's a ton of difference. I think adjusted points is misleading when looking at different eras, but within the same eras, it's a lot more telling than point percentage leads.

Regal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2013, 02:43 PM
  #91
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,996
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo View Post
It is a constant if you consider the NHL player pool as a whole the best competition that is available at the NHL level. You can split hairs forever and spin our wheels, discrediting legends as we go. If we play the "what if" game, Lemeiux's 1988 scoring title should be stripped from him because Gretzky missed 16 games that year.

I don't believe in discounting the talent pool from one era or another. Whoever wins the scoring title this season deserves the same credit as Joe Malone's in 1918 - depending on their margin of victory as expressed in a percentage.
That's still overly dependent on how good the #2 scorer was. It doesn't account for the scenario where there are two players clearly ahead of the rest. The #1 gets discounted by having a low margin of victory compared to what he'd usually have, and the #2 gets discounted by having a 2nd place finish when against usual competition it would have been a 1st.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2013, 02:48 PM
  #92
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,971
vCash: 500
Balance

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
That's still overly dependent on how good the #2 scorer was. It doesn't account for the scenario where there are two players clearly ahead of the rest. The #1 gets discounted by having a low margin of victory compared to what he'd usually have, and the #2 gets discounted by having a 2nd place finish when against usual competition it would have been a 1st.
Balance the comparison. Margin over the 2nd thru 5th and the margin over the league average.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2013, 02:48 PM
  #93
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Regal View Post
It's not just the talent pools, it's how players perform in a particular year. Injuries and down years by star players hurt year to year comparisons. St. Louis' win in '04 against a typical Kovalchuk year (which has never got him back in the top 5 in scoring), and a older Sakic is not the same as Jagr winning against Sakic's best season in '01. We know when players are performing up to par because we watch them, but this isn't considered on the stat sheet. Top ___ finishes have their flaws due to this fact, and percentage leaders are extremely skewed by it to the point where I think they're mostly useless unless there are massive leads. I think large percentage wins are telling, but you have to not only look at it in context, but look at it more in general terms than absolutes. A 40% win say shouldn't necessarily be considered better than a 30% win just because it's a larger percentage. They're both massive leads. You take that fact and start to look beyond.

Looking at Lemieux's 199 point year, not only is he competing with Gretzky, but Yzerman's best season which was amazing, as well as a crazy out of the blue season by Nicholls. That is not a typical year by year comparison. There's not going to be massive changes in year to year scoring, yet if Lemieux has that season the following year, he leads Gretzky by 40% and third place Messier by 54%, and if he has it the previous year, he leads Gretzky by 34% and third place Savard by 52%. When you're looking at over 50% leads, I don't think there's a ton of difference. I think adjusted points is misleading when looking at different eras, but within the same eras, it's a lot more telling than point percentage leads.
The point is, the very next season the NHL environment was different and he would never have come close to 199, playing a full year. His pace over 59 games was 167 points and that doesn't even account for late season fatigue.

% margin over #2 is the best measure.

Ogopogo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2013, 02:50 PM
  #94
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
That's still overly dependent on how good the #2 scorer was. It doesn't account for the scenario where there are two players clearly ahead of the rest. The #1 gets discounted by having a low margin of victory compared to what he'd usually have, and the #2 gets discounted by having a 2nd place finish when against usual competition it would have been a 1st.
Very rarely in NHL history have the top 2 scorers been significantly ahead of the rest of the pack. But, if that bothers you - use the average of 2 through 5 if you must.

Ogopogo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2013, 02:59 PM
  #95
dr robbie
Let's Go Pens!
 
dr robbie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: St. Louis
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,446
vCash: 500
I've been hearing and debating about the top 4 since I started following hockey about 20 years ago. I know it's my personal list and probably biased, but my top four are:

1. Gretzky
..
..
2. Lemieux
3. Orr
..
4. Howe

It's honestly really hard to compare Lemieux and Orr. I sometimes switch the order between the two because they are so close. Two completely different styles of game, different positions, and two completely different eras. People try to talk about how Orr would dominate in any era - try putting Lemieux back in the 70s. Could you imagine how much bigger, faster, danglier, and more talented he would be compared to ANYONE on the ice? It would be a freak show hockey clinic for the entire NHL.

Don't get me wrong, Orr was freaking amazing at what he did. I've never seen him play live, but I've seen many videos and the guy was a complete player. He did pinch a lot and he was good at providing offense while still making sure the Defense was being taken care of. But if I honestly had to take one of the two players, I would go with Lemieux.

dr robbie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2013, 03:59 PM
  #96
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,996
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Balance the comparison. Margin over the 2nd thru 5th and the margin over the league average.
Right. I agree. Adjusted points and the percentage system (outliers removed) will both yield similar results that give appropriate credit for actual dominance and not just the binary "was he first or not?" Question.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2013, 06:08 PM
  #97
ushvinder
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,431
vCash: 500
If we use margin of victory over 2nd through 5th, that would make Orr's 1970 season seem even more ridiculous considering he was a defenseman. Orr puts up 120, 2nd place-99, 3rd place 86, 4th place-78, 5th place-77. That is insane for a defenseman!

ushvinder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2013, 06:53 PM
  #98
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 7,827
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr robbie View Post
I've been hearing and debating about the top 4 since I started following hockey about 20 years ago. I know it's my personal list and probably biased, but my top four are:

1. Gretzky
..
..
2. Lemieux
3. Orr
..
4. Howe

It's honestly really hard to compare Lemieux and Orr. I sometimes switch the order between the two because they are so close. Two completely different styles of game, different positions, and two completely different eras. People try to talk about how Orr would dominate in any era - try putting Lemieux back in the 70s. Could you imagine how much bigger, faster, danglier, and more talented he would be compared to ANYONE on the ice? It would be a freak show hockey clinic for the entire NHL.

Don't get me wrong, Orr was freaking amazing at what he did. I've never seen him play live, but I've seen many videos and the guy was a complete player. He did pinch a lot and he was good at providing offense while still making sure the Defense was being taken care of. But if I honestly had to take one of the two players, I would go with Lemieux.
Mario wanted to quit in the 90s because he had enough with the "rough stuff" in the game. Could you imagine how much he would have had to put up with in the 70s?

Dennis Bonvie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2013, 07:00 PM
  #99
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,971
vCash: 500
Youth Hockey

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo View Post
Very rarely in NHL history have the top 2 scorers been significantly ahead of the rest of the pack. But, if that bothers you - use the average of 2 through 5 if you must.
Sounds like you have some experience with evaluations in youth hockey.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2013, 07:09 PM
  #100
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,101
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Bonvie View Post
Mario wanted to quit in the 90s because he had enough with the "rough stuff" in the game. Could you imagine how much he would have had to put up with in the 70s?
Bobby Clarke anyone?

Morgoth Bauglir is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:56 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.