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 and 200 point season

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-24-2013, 11:24 AM
  #26
shazariahl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by alko View Post
Mario Lemieux was almost the second player in the history of NHL with 200 point in one season. Almost. In season 1988/1989 he collected 199 points. And here is the question.

Isn't it possible, that he really had 200 points? The statistics were made by a human and as we know, nobody is perfect. There is a possibility, that someone forgot to write him second assists, or maybe some goal was written to another guy as Lemieux.
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?

shazariahl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2013, 11:42 AM
  #27
Darth Yoda
Registered User
 
Darth Yoda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Grovebranch's Crease
Country: Sweden
Posts: 2,904
vCash: 500
Quote:
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?
You are mostly right but unfortunately it does not matter. Mario was every bit as good as Gretzky at his best, he showed that in 1988-89, 1992-93, 1995-96, 2000-01, playoffs in 1991 and 1992. Us Lemieux'ians like to think, that Mario showed there, that he was the best of the lot. Then some career obesessed guys makes another call, that we all have to live with. But at the end of the story, we all have to recognise that both Gordie Howe and Bobby Orr could very well put these two centres to third and fourth all time, no matter the order.


Last edited by Darth Yoda: 10-24-2013 at 11:58 AM.
Darth Yoda is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2013, 08:51 PM
  #28
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,543
vCash: 500
You know, there is a flip side to this. Mario's 199th point of the year was an overtime goal (or an empty net goal) on the last game of the year. In other words, how close was he to getting 198 for the season? Pretty close in my mind. But does this change much? Is 198 still not a gaudy number?

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2013, 10:19 PM
  #29
tazzy19
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,728
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Yoda View Post
You are mostly right but unfortunately it does not matter. Mario was every bit as good as Gretzky at his best, he showed that in 1988-89, 1992-93, 1995-96, 2000-01, playoffs in 1991 and 1992. Us Lemieux'ians like to think, that Mario showed there, that he was the best of the lot. Then some career obesessed guys makes another call, that we all have to live with. But at the end of the story, we all have to recognise that both Gordie Howe and Bobby Orr could very well put these two centres to third and fourth all time, no matter the order.
If you want to talk peak, Lemieux was only on par with Gretzky during the regar season. He hardly ever peaked as high as Gretz during the playoffs, if ever. Lemieux had 44 points in 23 games one time. Had Gretz played 23 games in the '85 playoffs, he would have been on track for 60 points. Lemieux was not really close at all. Gretz scored 47 points in only 18 games. Then in 1988 (only 3 seasons before Lemieux's 44 point playoff), Gretz scored 43 points in only 19 games WITHOUT Paul Coffey. Say what you want about the regular season, but come playoff time--when it mattered the most--no one peaked as high as #99.

tazzy19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2013, 10:31 PM
  #30
Wizeman*
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,624
vCash: 500
I think the Gretzky Lemieux debate is going to go on for another 50 years. Its good discussion.

Soon we can have Ovechkin vs Crosby vs Malkin debates

Wizeman* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-24-2013, 10:35 PM
  #31
Curtinho
YNWA
 
Curtinho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,301
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogaine View Post
I think the Gretzky Lemieux debate is going to go on for another 50 years. Its good discussion.

Soon we can have Ovechkin vs Crosby vs Malkin debates
There isn't much a debate there.

Curtinho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-25-2013, 03:04 AM
  #32
alko
Registered User
 
alko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Slovakia
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 1,924
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shazariahl View Post
I don't really understand why 200 is such an important number for people.
Yeah, its not life important. But as a statistic freak, the number 200 is something special. I really hate prices like 3,99 or 99,99 . So i hate also 199.

alko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-25-2013, 04:39 PM
  #33
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,275
vCash: 500
Lemieux was never really on par with Wayne‘s peak. Lemieux was always more reliant on the PP than Gretz was. Limit your penalties, you could limit Mario. It really didn‘t matter what you did with Gretzky, he would burn you. Even when Edmonton took a penalty, Gretzky would still destroy you.
There were seasons where Gretzky had more SH points than most first line players had PP points, it was ridiculous.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-25-2013, 06:07 PM
  #34
tazzy19
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,728
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Lemieux was never really on par with Wayne‘s peak. Lemieux was always more reliant on the PP than Gretz was. Limit your penalties, you could limit Mario. It really didn‘t matter what you did with Gretzky, he would burn you. Even when Edmonton took a penalty, Gretzky would still destroy you.
There were seasons where Gretzky had more SH points than most first line players had PP points, it was ridiculous.
So true. Another thing is Edmonton had the fewest power play opportunities in the league while Gretzky was there. I find that rather strange, but it's true. If you actually look at Gretzky's powerplay percentage, it was right up there with Lemieux's.

tazzy19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-25-2013, 09:39 PM
  #35
Crosbyfan
Registered User
 
Crosbyfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 7,764
vCash: 500
Quote:
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?
People have 10 fingers and 10 toes...totalling 20...

...did I mention 10 toes? 20 X 10 is 200...it all stems from that...some caveman came up with it while cleaning his feet...

Crosbyfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2013, 12:55 PM
  #36
tazzy19
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,728
vCash: 500
Quote:
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
Old
10-26-2013, 12:58 PM
  #37
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,618
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tazzy19 View Post
So true. Another thing is Edmonton had the fewest power play opportunities in the league while Gretzky was there. I find that rather strange, but it's true. If you actually look at Gretzky's powerplay percentage, it was right up there with Lemieux's.
Surely Lemieux deserves credit for drawing more penalties than Gretzky.

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2013, 01:13 PM
  #38
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,419
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
Surely Lemieux deserves credit for drawing more penalties than Gretzky.
Do we know that is the case?

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2013, 02:13 PM
  #39
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,618
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
Do we know that is the case?
No, just an educated guess based on the fact that 1. Lemieux's teams tended to have more power plays than Gretzky's teams, and 2. Lemieux's style of play would tend to lend itself to drawing penalties more than Gretzky's did.

Someone said limit your penalties and you could limit Mario. Easier said than done - sometimes holding, hooking, or slashing him was the alternative to conceding a goal against, and sometimes it still wasn't enough.

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2013, 08:08 PM
  #40
siegeofshanghai*
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 191
vCash: 500
Lemiuex was the better player in history. Gretzky barely had any injury problems in his career while Mario battled cancer, back problems, and still scored almost 200 points.

I also heard stories that Mario was extremely lazy with workouts and had bad eating habits. Imagine if he workout like todays nhlers. Guy was a freak of nature.

siegeofshanghai* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2013, 10:06 PM
  #41
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,275
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by siegeofshanghai View Post
Lemiuex was the better player in history. Gretzky barely had any injury problems in his career while Mario battled cancer, back problems, and still scored almost 200 points.

I also heard stories that Mario was extremely lazy with workouts and had bad eating habits. Imagine if he workout like todays nhlers. Guy was a freak of nature.
1) Mario's 199 point season was before his major health issues.

2) Don't confuse Mario's more "direct" play as automatically superior to Gretzky's much more "subtle" play. Just because Mario could beat 2 guys at once that were hanging off him, you have to remember that most of the time Gretzky was beating 5 guys at once and no one would even be within 10' of him.
Don't get me wrong either, Mario had his share of subtle genius on the ice but not near to the amount and degree that Gretzky did.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2013, 10:15 PM
  #42
Cruor
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 452
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Mario had his share of subtle genius on the ice but not near to the amount and degree that Gretzky did.
It's interesting to note that Gretzky himself thought Lemieux was the player that closest resembled his own style of play. With the reach and physical difference, obviously. And in the end, even that wasn't enough to overcome Gretzky. That speaks volumes to Gretzky's genius on the ice

Cruor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2013, 10:22 PM
  #43
#66
Registered User
 
#66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 10,352
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Lemieux was never really on par with Wayne‘s peak. Lemieux was always more reliant on the PP than Gretz was. Limit your penalties, you could limit Mario. It really didn‘t matter what you did with Gretzky, he would burn you. Even when Edmonton took a penalty, Gretzky would still destroy you.
There were seasons where Gretzky had more SH points than most first line players had PP points, it was ridiculous.
I have no problem with people saying Gretz is better but stop with the 5 on 5 stuff. There's a little difference between Tik, Kurri and Errey, Brown.

I remember Ubriaco sitting Lemieux the second to the last game of the season and then Lemieux hitting the post twice in his final game back in '89.

#66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-26-2013, 11:16 PM
  #44
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,494
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by #66 View Post
I have no problem with people saying Gretz is better but stop with the 5 on 5 stuff. There's a little difference between Tik, Kurri and Errey, Brown.

I remember Ubriaco sitting Lemieux the second to the last game of the season and then Lemieux hitting the post twice in his final game back in '89.
Not sure if sitting means scratched or just not playing as much but he did have an assist on the 4th goal of a 3-1 game.

Edit: and if posts meant something they would count them...

Edit 2: not trying to take anything away from Mario...200pts is an arbitrary cutoff...it was an all time great season

Hawkey Town 18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-27-2013, 12:51 AM
  #45
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,275
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by #66 View Post
I have no problem with people saying Gretz is better but stop with the 5 on 5 stuff. There's a little difference between Tik, Kurri and Errey, Brown.

I remember Ubriaco sitting Lemieux the second to the last game of the season and then Lemieux hitting the post twice in his final game back in '89.
Why would I stop with the "5 on 5 stuff".
Credit where credit is due. Mario was IMO the best and most dangerous player on the powerplay in the history of the game.

Mario's 199 point season, 102 ES points, 79 PP points
Gretzky's 212 point season, 147 ES points, 57 PP points
Gretzky's 196 point season, 132 ES points, 54 PP points
Gretzky's 205 point season, 135 ES points, 47 PP points
Gretzky's 208 point season, 146 ES points, 44 PP points
Gretzky's 215 point season, 143 ES points, 54 PP points
Gretzky's 183 point season, 124 ES points, 46 PP points

Like I said, credit where credit is due.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-27-2013, 06:39 AM
  #46
Darth Yoda
Registered User
 
Darth Yoda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Grovebranch's Crease
Country: Sweden
Posts: 2,904
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Why would I stop with the "5 on 5 stuff".
Credit where credit is due. Mario was IMO the best and most dangerous player on the powerplay in the history of the game.

Mario's 199 point season, 102 ES points, 79 PP points
Gretzky's 212 point season, 147 ES points, 57 PP points
Gretzky's 196 point season, 132 ES points, 54 PP points
Gretzky's 205 point season, 135 ES points, 47 PP points
Gretzky's 208 point season, 146 ES points, 44 PP points
Gretzky's 215 point season, 143 ES points, 54 PP points
Gretzky's 183 point season, 124 ES points, 46 PP points

Like I said, credit where credit is due.
Hey what you at least could do is to present them in adjusted stats. Obviously it will not bring Marios even strenght numbers up to Waynes anyway, but what it will do, is make both Marios 199 season, and his elite seasons after that, up to a very much more impressive total. Lets not forget that Wayne had his peak in partly another scoring era.

Darth Yoda is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-27-2013, 08:08 AM
  #47
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,275
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Yoda View Post
Hey what you at least could do is to present them in adjusted stats. Obviously it will not bring Marios even strenght numbers up to Waynes anyway, but what it will do, is make both Marios 199 season, and his elite seasons after that, up to a very much more impressive total. Lets not forget that Wayne had his peak in partly another scoring era.
Partly another scoring era? Seriously? It was only 2 freakin years previous and the last year I presented for Gretzky (86/87) was an even lower scoring year than Mario's (88/89).

Give your head a shake, the scoring average over the 6 years I presented for Gretzky was 7.78 GpG, 88/99 was 7.48 GpG.

There is absolutely no reason for reducing these numbers into Adjusted Stats, NONE WHAT SO EVER!!!

Just so Gretzky's 85/86 year can show 115 ES points to Mario's 85 ES points in 88/89 instead of 143 - 102?

Gimme a break, especially considering that the whole point of what I posted was to show the difference in the amounts and ratio that each player scored at ES and on the PP.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-27-2013, 08:23 AM
  #48
Darth Yoda
Registered User
 
Darth Yoda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Grovebranch's Crease
Country: Sweden
Posts: 2,904
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Partly another scoring era? Seriously? It was only 2 freakin years previous and the last year I presented for Gretzky (86/87) was an even lower scoring year than Mario's (88/89).

Give your head a shake, the scoring average over the 6 years I presented for Gretzky was 7.78 GpG, 88/99 was 7.48 GpG.

There is absolutely no reason for reducing these numbers into Adjusted Stats, NONE WHAT SO EVER!!!

Just so Gretzky's 85/86 year can show 115 ES points to Mario's 85 ES points in 88/89 instead of 143 - 102?

Gimme a break, especially considering that the whole point of what I posted was to show the difference in the amounts and ratio that each player scored at ES and on the PP.
I know what you wanted to do. But you also now brought up one single season for Gretzky that was during a lower scoring year than Lemieux:s 1988/89, besides 1986/87 that in my mind does not compare to Lemieux:s season in question. That's all you had to come with in terms of Gretzky not playing in a higher scoring era. But guess what, he mainly DID. And why do you compare Lemieux:s one season with a whole row of Gretzky seasons, why did you not also bring Lemieux:s 1992/93 and 1995/96 into play? I saw a very interesting post in the center project-thread btw; Did'nt Lemieux through his way of play simply draw more penalties from the opposition than Gretzky did?


Last edited by Darth Yoda: 10-27-2013 at 08:36 AM.
Darth Yoda is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-27-2013, 08:40 AM
  #49
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,275
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Yoda View Post
I know what you wanted to do. But you also now brought up one single season for Gretzky that was during a lower scoring year than Lemieux:s 1988/89. That's all you had to come with in terms of Gretzky not playing in a higher scoring era. But guess what, he mainly DID. And why do you compare Lemieux:s season with a whole row of Gretzky seasons, why did you not also bring Lemieux:s 1992/93 and 1995/96 into play?
Dude, you can not come on here and seriously make the argument that Gretzky's 6 most Elite seasons were in a "higher scoring Era" than Mario's 2 most Elite seasons.

81/82 8.03
82/83 7.73
83/84 7.89
84/85 7.77
85/86 7.94
86/87 7.34

88/89 7.48
92/93 7.25

I'm sorry but when we're talking about an average difference of 138 - 102, an average GpG of 7.78 to an average of 7.37 is not going to change much and I even showed you what Adjusted Stats would bring it to, 115 - 85 for Gretzky's best year vs Mario's best year, STILL a whopping 30 point difference!
Different scoring era...gimme a freakin break!


Quote:
I saw a very interesting post in the center project-thread. Did'nt Lemieux through his way of play simply draw more penalties than Gretzky did?
And it's a damned good thing that Mario did draw those extra penalties because if he didn't, he wouldn't have been able to hold Gretzky's jock strap production wise.


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 10-27-2013 at 08:46 AM.
Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-27-2013, 09:25 AM
  #50
shazariahl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by siegeofshanghai View Post
Lemiuex was the better player in history. Gretzky barely had any injury problems in his career while Mario battled cancer, back problems, and still scored almost 200 points.

I also heard stories that Mario was extremely lazy with workouts and had bad eating habits. Imagine if he workout like todays nhlers. Guy was a freak of nature.
How does any of that make Lemieux the better player? If I have to choose between 2 guys who, at their best were pretty close but:

Player 1 scored nearly as many points on PPG basis, looked better on film, but had more injury problems, more health issues, and played way fewer games in his career. Often looked like he would beat all the major records but never could. Even in his best seasons didn't quite match the PPG pace of player 2.

Player 2 scored more points overall, more on PPG basis, had a longer and healthier career, broke all the major records, won twice as many championships, 3x as many MVP awards, more scoring titles, was better in the playoffs, but just didn't look as impressive on Youtube...

How can I honestly say that I'd pick player 1? Are Youtube highlights REALLY more important than everything else Gretzky accomplished over and above Lemieux? At their best they were close, but Gretzky was at his best longer, more consistently, and frankly still better even peak vs peak, let alone the chasm between their career values.

shazariahl 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 06:48 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.