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.

Round 2, Vote 1 (HOH Top Centers)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-22-2013, 06:44 PM
  #101
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,743
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Bonvie View Post
Scoring goals, for one thing.
I would agree that Mario Lemieux was a more impressive looking goalscorer. He had every shot selection, pin point accuracy and great patience with the puck.

But at the end of the day he wasn't a better goalscorer when they tallied them up.

I can't explain why, either. Which is why Gretzky is perpetually underrated on the boards.

Gretzky just got it done.


Quote:
Hard to compare results in team sports. They were in different situations. It could be argued Mario would have been more prolific a scorer than Gretzky if he could have played for the 80s Oilers.
I guess we'll have to rank them based on what they did, then.


Quote:
Mario also seemed less effected by the defensive (dead puck?) era than Gretzky. In the heart of the dead puck era Lemieux still dominated offensively like no one else and at an advanced age.
Once the dead puck era was coming into full swing, Mario dropped off substantially and then took 3 years of it off.

Admittedly after three years of rest and sitting out the dead puck, he had an incredible half season playing with a guy who was dominating the era like no one else. (obviously they helped one another)

Then at a similar age to what Gretzky was when he had played in the dead puck era, they were both 90-100ish point players (very impressive for their ages mind you, I reference these seasons by both of them all the time) even if you prorate Lemieux (108 I believe and a hefty minus which I know you love).

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2013, 07:10 PM
  #102
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,309
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Bonvie View Post
Scoring goals, for one thing.

Hard to compare results in team sports. They were in different situations. It could be argued Mario would have been more prolific a scorer than Gretzky if he could have played for the 80s Oilers. Mario also seemed less effected by the defensive (dead puck?) era than Gretzky. In the heart of the dead puck era Lemieux still dominated offensively like no one else and at an advanced age.
As he advanced in age he became more like an Espostio guy in that he scored a lot of points but was also pretty average in 5-5 play and was more a PP specialist.

The game is still about winning and Mario after 93 was more of an impact in fantasy circles than in terms of real actual overall impact in the NHL.

His real lack of defense, is there anyone, well maybe Phil, worse defensively on this round of voting, and actual small number of games (or playing time compared to the rest of the guys here) puts him at #4 IMO behind Wayne, Jean and Stan.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2013, 07:36 PM
  #103
Darth Yoda
Registered User
 
Darth Yoda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Grovebranch's Crease
Country: Sweden
Posts: 2,836
vCash: 593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
His real lack of defense, is there anyone, well maybe Phil, worse defensively on this round of voting, and actual small number of games (or playing time compared to the rest of the guys here) puts him at #4 IMO behind Wayne, Jean and Stan.
You do know that Mario would trash Mikita one on one?

Darth Yoda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2013, 07:48 PM
  #104
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,309
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Yoda View Post
You do know that Mario would trash Mikita one on one?
Sure, so would Kent Nilsson and Kovalev or Yashin on a good day so what?

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2013, 07:58 PM
  #105
Mike Farkas
Hockey's Future Staff
Moron!
 
Mike Farkas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 5,040
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
It's only a recent phenomenon that the sports media or even home teams press has taken a critical or more subjective view on players, in past days the media room was full of free booze and food, "reporters" didn't upset the gravy train.
I'm not sure I see it that way, personally. As someone who has been a credentialed media member for hockey events and have had the privilege of being an award voter below the NHL level before.

You can tell in the coverage of NHL events though that the knowledge and understanding of the game is limited vs. what it was like in the pre-expansion era. I'd suggest that is in large part due to necessity - lack of television exposure (and prior to that, radio exposure) meant that the description of game events was disseminated by newspaper only (minus the some odd thousand patrons in attendance). Thus, the fuller explanations of events right down to the quality of the ice in some cases.

Today, it's tougher, more teams, more overlapping games, larger rosters, more advanced coaching techniques, etc. But few in the media actually have a grasp and even fewer yet are critical of players in any meaningful fashion. Some members of the media can - without context usually - identify a player who is "loafing it" or going through the motions, but they can't identify who is playing well or playing poorly without consulting the first few columns of the scoresheet you get handed to you at every intermission.

Politics are involved to...if [local beat reporter John] calls out Dion Phaneuf for his lack of hockey sense, his inability to repeat his offensive exploits for earlier in his career, for how bad he is in prolonged defensive shifts, for how much face he has to wash, etc. You think Dion is going to be eager to give him the quote needs to finish off his article? You think some of the other guys aren't going to hear about that?

Players aren't immune to criticism, but you can't sit there and grill players the way they need to be grilled sometimes. You won't be allowed in the locker room.

One of the few TV guys that actually calls it the way it is and criticizes players when they do stupid bad plays is Ray Ferraro from TSN. He's the closest thing we have to a soccer announcer...that's one of the few reasons I like watching soccer is for the color commentary, "boy, that was a bad ball and then he bailed out defensively...what a school boy *****, huh?"

It's great. You don't see that in hockey nearly enough. Mostly because the media doesn't watch nearly as much hockey and they understand even less of it. If you don't have hockey sense, you don't know if someone else does - it's the great divide between those "in the know" and those that are just staring at the game. It's responsible for a good deal of draft busts too.

You can see it in this discussion already.

Quote:
But at the end of the day he wasn't a better goalscorer when they tallied them up.

I can't explain why, either.
That's usually a sign of the player in question having above the mark hockey IQ. Players that are above the sum of their parts/skill level. It keeps players in the league that otherwise wouldn't be there. Conversely, not having it keeps players that are skilled enough to be in the league out of it.

So, what happens when you combine a terrific amount of skill with an obscene level of hockey sense? You get 1000 points ahead of every other player that's ever played.

Mike Farkas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2013, 07:59 PM
  #106
Darth Yoda
Registered User
 
Darth Yoda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Grovebranch's Crease
Country: Sweden
Posts: 2,836
vCash: 593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Sure, so would Kent Nilsson and Kovalev or Yashin on a good day so what?
And that a line consisting of Hull-Lemieux-Howe would thrash one of Hull-Mikita-Howe?

Darth Yoda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2013, 09:03 PM
  #107
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,007
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
One would also think that centers are better players than wingers (...generally speaking, of course), so a 1st AST on RW isn't necessarily better than a 2nd AST at C.

Unless you did so in the first half of the fifties.
True.

This is more for when we're doing offensive comparisons between a player who was always a (center/winger) with one who was also sometimes a (winger/center).

Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
If he was really a better player, wouldn't that be reflected in the results?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Bonvie View Post
By results you mean what?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
Anything other than looking good?

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2013, 09:22 PM
  #108
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,007
vCash: 500
I think the argument could be made that, at their absolute peaks (let's say three best seasons), after adjusting for era (using HR's poor adjustment system) and accounting for the help they each had, Lemieux was a slightly better regular season goal scorer on a per game basis.

Lemieux: 196 adjusted goals in 204 games for 0.96 per game (1989, 1993, 1996)
Gretzky: 195 adjusted goals in 234 games for 0.83 per game (1982, 1984, 1985)

....I guess that's an argument in Lemieux's favour??


Last edited by seventieslord: 10-22-2013 at 09:32 PM.
seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2013, 09:48 PM
  #109
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,743
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
I think the argument could be made that, at their absolute peaks (let's say three best seasons), after adjusting for era (using HR's poor adjustment system) and accounting for the help they each had, Lemieux was a slightly better regular season goal scorer on a per game basis.

Lemieux: 196 adjusted goals in 204 games for 0.96 per game (1989, 1993, 1996)
Gretzky: 195 adjusted goals in 234 games for 0.83 per game (1982, 1984, 1985)

....I guess that's an argument in Lemieux's favour??
I thought H-R's adjusted stats were prorated to 82 games? Or does it only do it based on schedule and still account for GP? nvm it does it based on schedule only it looks like

In any case these guys lit it up.

One thing I can never wrap my head around is how many PP opportunities Pittsburgh was getting compared to the dynasty Oilers.

If you look at these three years you have chosen, Pittsburgh has hundreds of extra opportunities.


Last edited by BraveCanadian: 10-22-2013 at 09:59 PM. Reason: nvm
BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2013, 10:24 PM
  #110
VanIslander
17/07/2014 ATD RIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 18,038
vCash: 500
Who was the fourth best center ever? Each of the three 'M's has a case (it's no slam dunk) and comparisons between them would be appreciated.

Note: I don't discount Mikita because of his size disadvantage because this ain't the hypothetical competition of the ATDs but instead a reflection on history and what he actually did was be the best center of the 1960's, hands down.

Mikita does trail Morenz and Messier in terms of playoff performance, finishing third on his team in the only cup he had won. The greatness of players is often forged and reinforced by how they do on the road to the Stanley Cup.

Morenz is often a bit overrated because of his untimely death. History books sure do spend as much time on that as they do his play.

VanIslander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2013, 10:47 PM
  #111
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,007
vCash: 500
I think it's Mikita. He is the 3rd most dominant offensive center of all-time (yes, a little more than Beliveau and Morenz) and I think it's up in the air which of them was better defensively. He gets the nod from me but I'm not saying it's not close.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2013, 10:50 PM
  #112
VanIslander
17/07/2014 ATD RIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 18,038
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
I think it's Mikita. He is the 3rd most dominant offensive center of all-time (yes, a little more than Beliveau and Morenz) and I think it's up in the air which of them was better defensively. He gets the nod from me but I'm not saying it's not close.
Yeah. I had Mikita 4th on my initial list but it was a hard decision and I am open to being convinced otherwise through reasoning.

VanIslander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2013, 10:53 PM
  #113
ted1971
History Of Hockey
 
ted1971's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: south jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 1,479
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by intylerwetrust View Post
who benefitted the most from their linemates:

Trottier had one of the greatest scorers of all-time in Bossy.

Esposito had Orr.

Did Mikita play with Hull that much 5 on 5, or were they mostly together on the PP?

Beliveau had Richard for several years.

Messier I assume was only mostly with Wayne on the PP only. Won the Hart without Wayne, and carried the Rangers to their Cup in 94.

Clarke had Leach.

Morenz.... did he play with Lalonde?
As I stated in an earlier thread, look at Clarke's & Leach's numbers. After the 2nd cup season, Leach started a heavy decline.

ted1971 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2013, 10:57 PM
  #114
VanIslander
17/07/2014 ATD RIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 18,038
vCash: 500
Mikita did not play on the same line as Hull as they famously did not gel.
Messier played on his own line behind Gretzky.
Morenz played with Joliat on his wing.

VanIslander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2013, 11:00 PM
  #115
ted1971
History Of Hockey
 
ted1971's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: south jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 1,479
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jigglysquishy View Post
My top four (and I'm sure many others) is identical to yours. I have Esposito at 5 (I can't overlook his statistical dominance and his play in the 72 SS). After that it's really a crapshoot. I have Messier as the last in the bunch as I feel he had the lowest peak out of himself, Mikita, Clarke and Trottier. For all the talk of his longevity, I don't see his peak being high enough to beat those guys out.

That being said, I'm totally willing to change and when I submitted my list I almost had Messier over Trottier.

I find Mikita, Clarke and Nighbor to be hard to rate as so much of their legacy is based on their defensive play. If anyone has a writeup/stats for these guys I'd love to see them.


Edit: For all the talk of Messier carrying his team to the cup in 94: Are we all forgetting just how good Brian Leetch was?
Agreed. Leetch was probably more important then Messier was to that team as was Mike Keenan. Just the year before the NYR won the cup, They finished out of the playoffs with Roger Neilson & Ron Smith. I think that the myth that Messier carried that team is strongly overstated. Also, those Rangers also don't win the cup without Edmonton & Chicago east when guys like Anderson, Lowe, Noonan, Matteau, Larmer, Tikkanen come over right before the deadline. It was Mike Keenan insisting that Neil Smith make those moves that won that cup, alongside Brian Leetch. Messier was 3rd on that team in importance.

ted1971 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2013, 11:09 PM
  #116
ted1971
History Of Hockey
 
ted1971's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: south jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 1,479
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Yoda View Post
Okey then, i must have misunderstood you. It sounded like you where one of the new-old guard, becouse beside the gaining knowledge, or perhaps the understanding of the knowledge concerning Beliveau much just like Howe compared to the other Big-4, there seem to be people taking it all like Lemieux has fallen, while it in fact it is Beliveau that has gained.
No problems from My end. For Me the top 3 were very easy except for the order of #2 & #3. Beliveau was extremely close at getting the 2nd spot and He still could if I can be swayed any more.

ted1971 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2013, 11:11 PM
  #117
ted1971
History Of Hockey
 
ted1971's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: south jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 1,479
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Yoda View Post
Okey then, i must have misunderstood you. It sounded like you where one of the new-old guard, becouse beside the gaining knowledge, or perhaps the understanding of the knowledge concerning Beliveau much just like Howe compared to the other Big-4, there seem to be people taking it all like Lemieux has fallen, while it in fact it is Beliveau that has gained.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
I'm not sure that the wear and tear playing Isles hockey is the same as Oilers during that period but, regardless of that, Messier's longevity is definitely one of his stronger points.

In my opinion Trottier peaked higher than Messier all around though.. so they get really hard to pick between.




It is true that a lot of players of that time seemed to burn out quickly.

I'm not sure anyone has figured out a good reason for it.
Playing in the East was a lot harder then playing out West during Trottier's & Messier's time. The game was much more physical and more of a physical tool then the games played out West. Each game in the East was a war, while only games here & there were played that way.

ted1971 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2013, 11:15 PM
  #118
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,971
vCash: 500
Howie Morenz

Quote:
Originally Posted by VanIslander View Post
Who was the fourth best center ever? Each of the three 'M's has a case (it's no slam dunk) and comparisons between them would be appreciated.

Note: I don't discount Mikita because of his size disadvantage because this ain't the hypothetical competition of the ATDs but instead a reflection on history and what he actually did was be the best center of the 1960's, hands down.

Mikita does trail Morenz and Messier in terms of playoff performance, finishing third on his team in the only cup he had won. The greatness of players is often forged and reinforced by how they do on the road to the Stanley Cup.

Morenz is often a bit overrated because of his untimely death. History books sure do spend as much time on that as they do his play.


Exactly what aspect of Morenz game gets overrated? Offense, defense, physicality, something else?

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-23-2013, 12:21 AM
  #119
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,309
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Farkas View Post
I'm not sure I see it that way, personally. As someone who has been a credentialed media member for hockey events and have had the privilege of being an award voter below the NHL level before.

You can tell in the coverage of NHL events though that the knowledge and understanding of the game is limited vs. what it was like in the pre-expansion era. I'd suggest that is in large part due to necessity - lack of television exposure (and prior to that, radio exposure) meant that the description of game events was disseminated by newspaper only (minus the some odd thousand patrons in attendance). Thus, the fuller explanations of events right down to the quality of the ice in some cases.

Today, it's tougher, more teams, more overlapping games, larger rosters, more advanced coaching techniques, etc. But few in the media actually have a grasp and even fewer yet are critical of players in any meaningful fashion. Some members of the media can - without context usually - identify a player who is "loafing it" or going through the motions, but they can't identify who is playing well or playing poorly without consulting the first few columns of the scoresheet you get handed to you at every intermission.

Politics are involved to...if [local beat reporter John] calls out Dion Phaneuf for his lack of hockey sense, his inability to repeat his offensive exploits for earlier in his career, for how bad he is in prolonged defensive shifts, for how much face he has to wash, etc. You think Dion is going to be eager to give him the quote needs to finish off his article? You think some of the other guys aren't going to hear about that?

Players aren't immune to criticism, but you can't sit there and grill players the way they need to be grilled sometimes. You won't be allowed in the locker room.

One of the few TV guys that actually calls it the way it is and criticizes players when they do stupid bad plays is Ray Ferraro from TSN. He's the closest thing we have to a soccer announcer...that's one of the few reasons I like watching soccer is for the color commentary, "boy, that was a bad ball and then he bailed out defensively...what a school boy *****, huh?"

It's great. You don't see that in hockey nearly enough. Mostly because the media doesn't watch nearly as much hockey and they understand even less of it. If you don't have hockey sense, you don't know if someone else does - it's the great divide between those "in the know" and those that are just staring at the game. It's responsible for a good deal of draft busts too.

You can see it in this discussion already.



That's usually a sign of the player in question having above the mark hockey IQ. Players that are above the sum of their parts/skill level. It keeps players in the league that otherwise wouldn't be there. Conversely, not having it keeps players that are skilled enough to be in the league out of it.

So, what happens when you combine a terrific amount of skill with an obscene level of hockey sense? You get 1000 points ahead of every other player that's ever played.
I agree with you on Razor he is a great commentator and calls it like it is, although to be fair hockey maybe be behind baseball in terms of objective or critical journalism or maybe it's just a mattera of taste and opinion.

I just know that in days gone past, and I don't have an exact timeline of it, reporters where given food and drink in the press box and the "objectivity" maybe isn't what it could be.

Hockey IMO is the hardest sport to judge any players impact, outside of actual scoring when compared to the other big 3 sports (sorry not a basketball fan here but it might apply there as well) but if you take away the actual scoring plays one can get a better idea of which team won the game in both football and baseball more so than in hockey.

Combine that with a reporters wanting to keep a good thing going and I say for days gone past to take some comments and reports with a grain of salt, in fact one should always test or at least think about any comments and see how plausible they might actually be.

At the end of the days our evaluations will be subjective but we should apply as objective a test as we possibly can to any research or comments about players and their context.

A recent example was people's reluctance to criticize Scotty Bowman's outrageous list of top 100 Canadians out of respect to him. I dare say if I for example had posted such a list the feedback would have been an avalanche and both lists would hve been the same.

Something to think about at lest going forward.

Maybe Morenz was the best player in hockey up untli 1950, but I doubt his edge was as great as that vote of the Canadian Press made it out to be is my point, for reasons listed above, among others, and in the previous post.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-23-2013, 12:31 AM
  #120
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,309
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Yoda View Post
And that a line consisting of Hull-Lemieux-Howe would thrash one of Hull-Mikita-Howe?
Sure but that line never existed so we can't judge it just like 1-1 hockey isn't what actually happened either.

It's better to stick to the actual facts and part of Mario's resume is 916 regular season games and that's it.

We should judge him on the strength and weaknesses in that sample of games, plus playoff and international as well and that's pretty much it

There isn't a 917th game with him playing 1-1 on with Mikita or 3-3 with the guys you mentioned.

Two other guys coming up later played on the same team, one guy was injured a lot but was the better player in the games they played in together but the guy with the larger elite sample will get ranked by almost everyone here higher and for good reason, more games at an elite level should count more right?

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-23-2013, 12:38 AM
  #121
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,309
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Exactly what aspect of Morenz game gets overrated? Offense, defense, physicality, something else?
Well for one, no one has ventured as to why he only ever lead the league in any scoring category 4 times (3 of those times in the same year), in a pretty small league, if he was so dominant a force in hockey up until 1950.

Was it simply bad luck?

For a guy some want to rank 4th of all time and with great longevity for the era one would expect more 1st place finishes right?

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-23-2013, 02:03 AM
  #122
shazariahl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,460
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
The argument for Lemieux over Gretzky, in a nutshell:

1) The eye test. At one point in my life, I would have told you that Lemieux was a better hockey player than Gretzky. He just looked THAT good, on an aesthetic level in my mind with Muhammad Ali, Pele and Barry Sanders as jaw-droppingly, sublimely talented athletes who simply did whatever the hell they wanted against world-class competition. Grace and power in motion, at a level that maybe Bobby Orr could match.

2) The "what-if?" game. I think we've all been around this block a few times already. Gretzky played on a dynasty during his youth, while Lemieux basically carried the Pens on his back and won Cups as soon as they gave him something to work with. Lemieux made Kevin Stevens and Rob Brown into 50-goal scorers. Lemieux was passing to Brown when he reached the 200-point range, whereas Gretzky was passing to Kurri. What happens to those point totals if they swap wingers? Also, Lemieux's longevity was severely affected by injury and by cancer -- considering he came back and dominated at age 40, is it really fair to say he had less staying power than Gretzky?

3) The "Gretzky is overrated" angle. Wayne was the ultimate right-place-right-time story, as the playmaking center on a firewagon team during the highest-scoring period in history. Several of his teammates went on to Hall of Fame careers, and would have done so regardless whether they played with Wayne or not. Had he played primarily in the 1990s, when goalies were larger and more fundamentally sound, and opposing teams were far more willing to take liberties with slightly-built superstars, perhaps Gretzky's numbers come back down to earth a bit. Lemieux certainly never showed a lack of ability to score at will on 1990s goalies and to fight through 1990s obstruction, but Gretzky looked a bit less impressive as time wore on. It's common to hear from fans who were young in the 1990s that they were astonished by Lemieux and underwhelmed by Gretzky.

What the argument boils down to is that Lemieux was simply a better player than Gretzky, a force of nature that went largely to waste due to not being in the right time and place. That if you were drafting a team to win it all, you would be well served to take Mario #1.



^ I hope I represented that argument accurately. I think all the major points are in there.
I realize you aren't actually saying Lemieux was better, just summarizing the usual arguments. But I'll try to refute them anyways:

1. No argument. Lemieux looked better. That's actually what 90% of the debate comes down to, when you really get past the rhetoric.

2. Gretzky's first 200 pt season (212 pts, 92 goals) he spent most the year playing with Dave Semenko and Dave Lumley, not Kurri. I'd say Gretzky had no advantage that year in linemates, and put up more goals, assists, and points than Lemieux did at any point in his career. Lemieux also had time later with Jagr (not usually same line, but they were sometimes, and were together regularly on PP) and couldn't beat his own 199 pt season, let alone Gretzky's 215. Not saying Lemieux couldn't have done better with a better team, but this board has shown many times that linemates don't affect generational talents as much as generational talents affect their linemates.

3. Lemieux also looked better in the 90's because he was younger and played on a better team by then. If we are going to use Lemieux's poor team as a bonus for him at the start of his career, it seems strange to then not factor in that he was on a much better team in the 90's. He also played way less hockey, and Gretzky suffered a major injury in 91. Agreed that Gretzky's scoring was already dropping, but the "what if" game shouldn't only apply to Mario.
There is no denying that Gretzky's numbers were in a slow decline before the Suter hit, then plunged after it. It accelerated what should have been a slow decline into a much more rapid one. I do agree that Lemieux seemed better at an advanced age, but he also played the equivalent of 7 less seasons of hockey. He also took much longer to hit his stride than Gretzky did, who in his 2nd season broke records for most assists and points in a season, and in his 3rd broke both those records again, + goals as well. By his 3rd season he had broken every major scoring record there is. Lemieux never really came close (Gretzky is 1-4th in scoring, 1 & 2nd in most goals in a season, and 1-7th and then tied with Lemieux at 8th in assists. Even if we take out Gretzky's best seasons for each, he still holds every record.) Point is, while Lemieux may have been better late in their careers, he was not as good early in their respective careers. I'd say it balances out, except that Lemieux missed so much time late in his career that even this is probably not in his favor.

Gretzky was also better in the post season. Combined with longevity, his statistical dominance, his dominance in awards (yes, trophy counting isn't always accurate, but when it's that lopsided it has to mean something), and he even dominated in head to head matchups (even after leaving Edmonton). The points in favor of Lemieux usually require one to prorate stats for Lemieux only, ignore injuries for Lemieux only, and give unreasonable weight to the last 5 years of their careers, rather than what each accomplished during the span of their careers.

As someone else mentioned, if Lemieux were truly better, it should have shown up somewhere in the stats. The truth is, he just looks better on youtube. But so does Kovalchuk, and he's not better than Gretzky either.


Last edited by shazariahl: 10-23-2013 at 02:12 AM.
shazariahl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-23-2013, 08:03 AM
  #123
ted1971
History Of Hockey
 
ted1971's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: south jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 1,479
vCash: 500
Adjusted Goals & Assists & Points vs Actual Goals & Assists & Points

Wayne Gretzky:
Actual : 894 Goals, 1963 Assists , 2857 Points
Adjusted: 758 Goals, 1729 Assists, 2487 Points

Mario Lemieux:
Actual: 690 Goals ,1033 Assists, 1723 Points
Adjusted: 616 Goals, 930 Assists, 1546 Points

Jean Beliveau:
Actual: 507 Goals ,712 Assists, 1219 Points
Adjusted: 575 Goals, 810 Assists, 1385 Points

Howie Morenz:
Actual: 271 Goals, 201 Assists, 472 Points
Adjusted: 501 Goals, 728 Assists, 1229 Points

Bobby Clarke:
Actual: 358 Goals , 852 Assists, 1210 Points
Adjusted: 312 Goals, 754 Assists, 1066 Points

Phil Esposito:
Actual: 717 Goals, 873 Assists, 1590 Points
Adjusted: 671 Goals, 841 Assists, 1512 Points

Stan Mikita:
Actual: 541 Goals, 926 Assists, 1467 Points
Adjusted: 541 Goals, 940 Assists, 1481 Points

Bryan Trottier:
Actual: 524 Goals, 901 Assists, 1425 Points
Adjusted: 428 Goals, 753 Assists, 1181 Points

Mark Messier:
Actual: 694 Goals, 1193 Assists, 1887 Points
Adjusted: 628 Points, 1109 Assists, 1737 Points

Actual Points:
1. Gretzky
2. Messier
3. Mario
4. Esposito
5. Mikita
6. Trottier
7. Beliveau
8. Clarke
9. Morenz

Adjusted Points:
1. Gretzky
2. Messier
3. Mario
4. Esposito
5. Mikita
6. Beliveau
7. Morenz
8. Trottier
9. Clarke

Actual PPG:
1. Gretzky 1.92
2. Mario 1.88
3. Esposito 1.24
4. Trottier 1.11
5. Beliveau 1.08
6. Messier: 1.07
7. Clarke 1.06
8. Mikita 1.05
9. Morenz 0.86


Adjusted PPG:
1. Morenz 2.23
2. Mario 1.68
3. Gretzky 1.67
4. Beliveau 1.23
5. Esposito 1.17
6. Mikita 1.06
7. Messier 0.98
8. Clarke 0.93
9. Trottier 0.92

PPG Difference:
1. Morenz +1.37
2. Beliveau +.15
3. Mikita +.01
4. Esposito -.07
5. Messier -.09
6. Clarke -.13
7. Trottier -.19
8. Mario -.20
9. Gretzky -.25

ted1971 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-23-2013, 08:33 AM
  #124
VanIslander
17/07/2014 ATD RIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 18,038
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ted1971 View Post
Adjusted Points:
1. Gretzky
2. Messier
3. Mario
4. Esposito
5. Mikita
6. Beliveau
7. Morenz
8. Trottier
9. Clarke

Adjusted PPG:
1. Morenz 2.23
2. Mario 1.68
3. Gretzky 1.67
4. Beliveau 1.23
5. Esposito 1.17
6. Mikita 1.06
7. Messier 0.98
8. Clarke 0.93
9. Trottier 0.92
The two lists are flipped in terms of order of relative performance of the big three 'M's.

VanIslander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-23-2013, 09:06 AM
  #125
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 20,813
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
I agree with you on Razor he is a great commentator and calls it like it is, although to be fair hockey maybe be behind baseball in terms of objective or critical journalism or maybe it's just a mattera of taste and opinion.

I just know that in days gone past, and I don't have an exact timeline of it, reporters where given food and drink in the press box and the "objectivity" maybe isn't what it could be.

Hockey IMO is the hardest sport to judge any players impact, outside of actual scoring when compared to the other big 3 sports (sorry not a basketball fan here but it might apply there as well) but if you take away the actual scoring plays one can get a better idea of which team won the game in both football and baseball more so than in hockey.

Combine that with a reporters wanting to keep a good thing going and I say for days gone past to take some comments and reports with a grain of salt, in fact one should always test or at least think about any comments and see how plausible they might actually be.

At the end of the days our evaluations will be subjective but we should apply as objective a test as we possibly can to any research or comments about players and their context.

A recent example was people's reluctance to criticize Scotty Bowman's outrageous list of top 100 Canadians out of respect to him. I dare say if I for example had posted such a list the feedback would have been an avalanche and both lists would hve been the same.

Something to think about at lest going forward.

Maybe Morenz was the best player in hockey up untli 1950, but I doubt his edge was as great as that vote of the Canadian Press made it out to be is my point, for reasons listed above, among others, and in the previous post.
Wasn't Lorenz dead by the vote !?

MXD 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 05:22 AM.

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.