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.

Does Gretzky or Lemieux Benefit More if the Other Never Existed?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-17-2014, 03:14 PM
  #76
feffan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Malmö
Country: Sweden
Posts: 1,141
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Exactly like that actually. Guy was pure unadulterated instinct. He did his best when he was moving at top speed and just reacting.
I think one of his quotes was, "If I don't know what I'm going to do next, how is anyone else supposed to be prepared for it?"
I remember Lanny McDonald saying something simular about Salmings shot. Part a joke about that it was good because it always kept his team mates focused. Something like: "He donīt know where itīs going, so we donīt know where itīs going - and most important, the goalie has no idea where itīs going...".

feffan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-17-2014, 03:36 PM
  #77
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,813
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Kent Nilsson and Jagr (or Patrick Kane for a modern obvious example) were both puck possession type of guys, neither are considered defensive players and most coaches and other hockey people, heck even fans would agree.

The whole puck possession thing being considered with great defensive players really doesn't wash.

One could look at your comments in the current Selke thread to see this is more likely the case than the view you are presenting here.
Who said anything about being defensive players?
That‘s not what we were talking about and it‘s not even remotely close to what I was talking about in the Selke thread. I was talking about all out def first players.
What I said here was that there is more to team defense than backchecking and def zone play.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-17-2014, 03:38 PM
  #78
Beerfish
Registered User
 
Beerfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 13,005
vCash: 500
In the traditional good defensively line of thinking neither was that great. Also it didn't matter at all even remotely if they were or not, they are two of the top 3 players of all time in my books.

For every good offensive player that doesn't play enough defense there is a defensive player that will not play enough offense, never take a risk, never get up into the play, 1st one back but last one into the zone.

Beerfish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-17-2014, 05:48 PM
  #79
LeBlondeDemon10
BlindLemon Haystacks
 
LeBlondeDemon10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,176
vCash: 500
Orr gets a ton of love for his puck possession game and I think 99 and 66 were on a similar level so I think they deserve similar credit. Gretzky was great for intercepting passes in the neutral zone and in his own end. I think the Selke was created with players like Bob Gainey in mind; he was the prototype actually. A player that does not score a whole lot but works his butt off to stop scoring chances from the other team. Offensive players were not really considered in the very early years of the Selke. The perception of the award has changed over the years and sometimes from year to year. A lot of the perception comes from how successful the team was as well. Early Gretzky could very well have been a candidate with today's thinking, but Gretzky as a King looked not as competent defensively. Yet compare the early-mid 80's Oilers to the late 80's early 90's Kings and there is a significant difference in team performance. Its not always just because of one player. Even Orr had his ordinary moments in 71 and 74. One could argue the Selke is a team award with one player standing out among the rest.

LeBlondeDemon10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-17-2014, 05:58 PM
  #80
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 9,556
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeBlondeDemon10 View Post
Orr gets a ton of love for his puck possession game and I think 99 and 66 were on a similar level so I think they deserve similar credit. Gretzky was great for intercepting passes in the neutral zone and in his own end. I think the Selke was created with players like Bob Gainey in mind; he was the prototype actually. A player that does not score a whole lot but works his butt off to stop scoring chances from the other team. Offensive players were not really considered in the very early years of the Selke. The perception of the award has changed over the years and sometimes from year to year. A lot of the perception comes from how successful the team was as well. Early Gretzky could very well have been a candidate with today's thinking, but Gretzky as a King looked not as competent defensively. Yet compare the early-mid 80's Oilers to the late 80's early 90's Kings and there is a significant difference in team performance. Its not always just because of one player. Even Orr had his ordinary moments in 71 and 74. One could argue the Selke is a team award with one player standing out among the rest.
I don't think so.

Dennis Bonvie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-17-2014, 09:52 PM
  #81
Lafleurs Guy
Moderator
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,548
vCash: 500
Saw Gretzky quite a few times live. He didn't really play defense... but he didn't really have to.

He'd let other players fight for the puck and he'd wait near the blueline in his own end. And there'd be another player stuck to him there like glue.

So... was he good defensively? No. Not in the traditional sense. But other clubs had to have a guy on him at all times no matter where he was. He was always waiting for the lead breakout pass.

When you can put up 200 points, your defensive game really doesn't matter.

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-17-2014, 11:01 PM
  #82
DisgruntledGoat
Registered User
 
DisgruntledGoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,511
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Kent Nilsson and Jagr (or Patrick Kane for a modern obvious example) were both puck possession type of guys, neither are considered defensive players and most coaches and other hockey people, heck even fans would agree.

The whole puck possession thing being considered with great defensive players really doesn't wash.

One could look at your comments in the current Selke thread to see this is more likely the case than the view you are presenting here.
There's a big difference between Kane and Nilsson (and even Jagr) and Mario. Or Gretzky.

This seems suspiciously like a set-up for you to start raving about Fedorov and Datsyuk and co.

DisgruntledGoat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-18-2014, 01:16 AM
  #83
VanIslander
Hope for better 2015
 
VanIslander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 19,741
vCash: 500
Gretzky was an effective penalty killer because he was positionally sound.

Mario? He never impressed when the other team had the puck (except for his abilty to recover lose pucks around the crease).

VanIslander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-18-2014, 03:52 AM
  #84
VMBM
Registered User
 
VMBM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,142
vCash: 500
The Oiler defenseman Risto Siltanen did once say something like this: "Gretzky, well, he did not play defense at all". But I guess he meant it in the narrow sense of the word. I don't know if any other dmen have 'complained' about his commitment (on defense).

BTW, Sergei Makarov on a breakaway = a sure goal

VMBM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-18-2014, 09:44 AM
  #85
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 9,556
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Saw Gretzky quite a few times live. He didn't really play defense... but he didn't really have to.

He'd let other players fight for the puck and he'd wait near the blueline in his own end. And there'd be another player stuck to him there like glue.

So... was he good defensively? No. Not in the traditional sense. But other clubs had to have a guy on him at all times no matter where he was. He was always waiting for the lead breakout pass.

When you can put up 200 points, your defensive game really doesn't matter.
Correct. Like Mario.

Hard to argue if they were or were not good defensively when for large parts of their career's they simply didn't do it.

Dennis Bonvie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-18-2014, 02:54 PM
  #86
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,521
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Who said anything about being defensive players?
That‘s not what we were talking about and it‘s not even remotely close to what I was talking about in the Selke thread. I was talking about all out def first players.
What I said here was that there is more to team defense than backchecking and def zone play.
Well the thread post is titled Were Gretzky/Lemieux good defensively.

One would think we would be discussing their defensive games right?

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-18-2014, 03:00 PM
  #87
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,521
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DisgruntledGoat View Post
There's a big difference between Kane and Nilsson (and even Jagr) and Mario. Or Gretzky.

This seems suspiciously like a set-up for you to start raving about Fedorov and Datsyuk and co.
In terms of offensive players sure, although Jagr is up there but the tread is about defesnvie players, merely being a possession guy doesn't make a forward great defensively or even average as that possession is more accurately described as an offensive attribute IMO.

Funny you would mention Feds and Dats though as they are both guys who were elite defensively.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-18-2014, 05:42 PM
  #88
Lafleurs Guy
Moderator
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Bonvie View Post
Correct. Like Mario.

Hard to argue if they were or were not good defensively when for large parts of their career's they simply didn't do it.
Lemieux I'd put in the category of a Robitaille in terms of defense. Yes, he'd go in the corners but he wasn't particularly great there. He wouldn't stand at the blueline the way Gretzky did. But nobody would've confused him with Carbonneau.

Again, these guys scored a bazillion points a year. Who really cares about their D?

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-18-2014, 08:09 PM
  #89
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 9,556
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Lemieux I'd put in the category of a Robitaille in terms of defense. Yes, he'd go in the corners but he wasn't particularly great there. He wouldn't stand at the blueline the way Gretzky did. But nobody would've confused him with Carbonneau.

Again, these guys scored a bazillion points a year. Who really cares about their D?
Actually, he did exactly that quite often.

Dennis Bonvie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-18-2014, 11:00 PM
  #90
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,519
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Bonvie View Post
Actually, he did exactly that quite often.
Seconded.

At least in Gretzky's case (while playing for the Oilers) when he was doing that it was part of their strategy with Kurri coming back instead.

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-20-2014, 10:02 AM
  #91
tazzy19
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,855
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
Seconded.

At least in Gretzky's case (while playing for the Oilers) when he was doing that it was part of their strategy with Kurri coming back instead.
Exactly. When Gretzky was skating figure 8s around center and the blue line, it was designed to force the opposition up ice to cover him, thereby giving room for Paul Coffey and others to rush up the ice unhampered. Then Gretzky would follow up from the side, the puck would be dropped for him at the offensive blue line, and then.....well, let the magic begin.

tazzy19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2014, 09:58 PM
  #92
Randomtask68
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Burlington, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 539
vCash: 500
Does Gretzky or Lemieux Benefit More if the Other Never Existed?

Sorry if this has been asked before, which I would be surprised if it hadn't, but between Gretzky and Lemieux, which player would have benefited more if the other simply never existed? Other than the player not existing, everything in the NHL unfolds as it did historically, although each player's teammates will be effected to varying degrees but for now I'm mainly focusing on the individuals. Also I'm ignoring Gretzky's influence on Lemieux during the '87 Canada Cup. Regardless of whom you choose, both of their numbers become absolutely mind boggling without the other to serve as any sort of comparable.

Gretzky: Although the vast majority consider him the best offensive player to play the game, there are still Gretzky vs. Lemieux arguments every so often where some contend that Mario was the superior player. Regardless, in this scenario there would be no one even remotely close to Gretzky statistically. Without Lemieux's 199 point season, the second highest non-Gretzky point total would have been Steve Yzerman at 155. That's a 60 point gap between Yzerman's best and Gretzky's best, and Gretzky had 9 seasons that topped Yzerman's best. Also, Gretzky came in 2nd to Lemieux in the '88 and '89 Art Ross races, so he gains 2 more Art Rosses, giving him 12* total, twice as many as Gordie Howe. He retires with a considerable gap in terms of PPG with 1.921 and Bossy 2nd at 1.497, and the only player to score 40+ points in the playoffs, which he did 3 times.

*Realized that in the 91-92 season when Gretzky finished 3rd in the Art Ross race, Kevin Stevens of Pittsburgh finished 2nd, so you could argue that Stevens doesn't finish above Wayne without Lemieux as a teammate.

Lemieux: In a similar fashion, while not as impressive, Lemieux would have been by himself statistically. His 199 points would be 44 points better than Yzerman's total, to go along with his three separate 160+ point seasons. He would have been the only player to score 40+ points in the playoffs. I was a little shocked that he technically only wins 1 more Art Ross, which would give him 7 to Howe's 6, but he does gain 3 additional seasons where he leads the league in assists with Gretzky gone. He also moves into first place in terms of PPG with 1.883, Bossy is second at 1.497. And although there's no way of knowing how Messier's numbers are effected by having no Gretzky, but Messier finished his career with 1887 points and Lemieux with 1723, so Lemieux definitely looks better in that regard as well.

I don't think there is a clear cut answer, but I might go with Gretzky because the only thing, if there is any, that hurts Gretzky is that Lemieux was in his neighborhood statistically and injuries/illness is what stopped Lemieux from getting closer to Gretzky's numbers. Without Lemieux, Gretzky wins 11, possibly 12, straight Art Ross trophies, just adding to the ridiculous legend of his career. I don't think Lemieux dominated his peers as well as Gretzky, and his 7-6 Art Ross edge over Howe isn't close to Wayne's 12/13-6 edge.

Randomtask68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2014, 10:35 PM
  #93
Ogie Goldthorpe
Piloted Ogre Hog
 
Ogie Goldthorpe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: NS via BC
Posts: 2,840
vCash: 500
I'd say Gretzky... without Lemieux there'd be no other forward within light years of him and Orr would remain where he is generally placed today, solidly 2nd.

Lemieux, on the other hand might be considered the best player ever without Gretzky... but Howe and Orr would be hot on his heels and the group of contrarians that rated them higher would be a larger and more vociferous subset.

Ogie Goldthorpe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2014, 10:36 PM
  #94
Wrath
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,667
vCash: 500
Lemieux would probably be helped more by this than Gretzky.

He would be the Bobby Orr of forwards. The fact that Gretzky exists is a big impediment to Lemieux's GOAT argument because Gretzky put up better numbers for a longer period of time. The only peg Lemieux really has to stand on is era, but their careers overlapped so much that even that is hard to argue.

Now whether he'd be considered #1, #2, or #3 all time is hard to say, but certainly his argument for #1 is much stronger without Gretzky in the way.

Wrath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2014, 01:49 AM
  #95
TAnnala
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Oulu
Country: Finland
Posts: 16,845
vCash: 50
Lemieux would benefit more. Without a doubt. Everything Lemieux did, Gretzky did better and for longer. So it kind of takes away all the arguments for Lemieux being the greatest of all-time.

TAnnala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2014, 03:12 AM
  #96
Darth Yoda
Registered User
 
Darth Yoda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Grovebranch's Crease
Country: Sweden
Posts: 3,172
vCash: 931
I'll tell you what without Gretzky Lemieux would be more fairly treated when it comes to dominance over his peers: Since Gretzky had no Lemieux during his best years, while Lemieux had Gretzky during his. It's no good Gretzky dominating the likes of Peter Stastny in the scoring race while Mario had Wayne racking up the assists. This is no attempt at ranking the two, just an observation regarding people bringing up Gretzkys 80 point leads in the scoring race or whatever, when it is not really fair to Lemieux.

Darth Yoda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2014, 03:24 AM
  #97
TAnnala
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Oulu
Country: Finland
Posts: 16,845
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Yoda View Post
I'll tell you what without Gretzky Lemieux would be more fairly treated when it comes to dominance over his peers: Since Gretzky had no Lemieux during his best years, while Lemieux had Gretzky during his. It's no good Gretzky dominating the likes of Peter Stastny in the scoring race while Mario had Wayne racking up the assists. This is no attempt at ranking the two, just an observation regarding people bringing up Gretzkys 80 point leads in the scoring race or whatever, when it is not really fair to Lemieux.
Well, without Gretzky:

Lemieux point lead over 2nd without Gretzky:
87-88: Lemieux 168pts. Savard 131pts. 38pts. lead.
88-89: Lemieux 199pts. Yzerman 155pts. 44pts. lead.
91-92: Lemieux 131pts. Stevens 123pts. 8pts lead.
92-93: Lemieux 160pts. LaFontaine 148pts. 12pts. lead.
95-96: Lemieux 161pts. Jagr 149pts. 12pts. lead.
96-97: Lemieux 122pts. Selanne 109pts. 13pts. lead.

Gretzky factored surprisingly little on the scoring dominance over peers by Lemieux. In fact, only two times was Gretzky the runner-up to Lemieux. 87-88 and 88-89. But those were the years where Lemieux did amass incredible point lead over next.

It was Mario's health that prevented the big dominance over peers. Not Wayne.

TAnnala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2014, 03:39 AM
  #98
Darth Yoda
Registered User
 
Darth Yoda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Grovebranch's Crease
Country: Sweden
Posts: 3,172
vCash: 931
Quote:
Originally Posted by TAnnala View Post
Well, without Gretzky:

Lemieux point lead over 2nd without Gretzky:
87-88: Lemieux 168pts. Savard 131pts. 38pts. lead.
88-89: Lemieux 199pts. Yzerman 155pts. 44pts. lead.
91-92: Lemieux 131pts. Stevens 123pts. 8pts lead.
92-93: Lemieux 160pts. LaFontaine 148pts. 12pts. lead.
95-96: Lemieux 161pts. Jagr 149pts. 12pts. lead.
96-97: Lemieux 122pts. Selanne 109pts. 13pts. lead.

Gretzky factored surprisingly little on the scoring dominance over peers by Lemieux. In fact, only two times was Gretzky the runner-up to Lemieux. 87-88 and 88-89. But those were the years where Lemieux did amass incredible point lead over next.

It was Mario's health that prevented the big dominance over peers. Not Wayne.
True although at least I always take Lemieux's pace into consideration, as do most, maybe not you.

And regarding Gretzky's dominance over his peers?

Darth Yoda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2014, 03:46 AM
  #99
TAnnala
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Oulu
Country: Finland
Posts: 16,845
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Yoda View Post
True although at least I always take Lemieux's pace into consideration, as do most, maybe not you.

And regarding Gretzky's dominance over his peers?
I do definitely take his pace in to consideration. Absolutely. I think he would have definitely hit 200+ mark in 92-93 had he not been dealing with, well you know. But Gretzky wasn't the factor who made Lemieux miss the crazy "number over peers" that Gretzky did hit. It was his health.

What do you mean about "regarding Gretzky's dominance over his peers"?

TAnnala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2014, 04:23 AM
  #100
Darth Yoda
Registered User
 
Darth Yoda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Grovebranch's Crease
Country: Sweden
Posts: 3,172
vCash: 931
Quote:
Originally Posted by TAnnala View Post
I do definitely take his pace in to consideration. Absolutely. I think he would have definitely hit 200+ mark in 92-93 had he not been dealing with, well you know. But Gretzky wasn't the factor who made Lemieux miss the crazy "number over peers" that Gretzky did hit. It was his health.
I should have been more alert during this hour that is true, i should have said that i never use single season margins to the next player in a vacuum when promoting someone. Obviously some PEAK seasons from a third party(Jagr in 1995/96) could also to some extent make "so and so many points ahead of his peers", void. But i was thinking about 1987/88, 1988/89 and 1989/90 as examples of seasons where the perception of Lemieux's dominance over his peers is in different ways severely hampered by Gretzky's existance in the league at the time.
It is true that 1992/93 and 1995/96 is examples of seasons where Gretzky was not hindering lemieux's dominance of his peers, in those seasons, it was all becouse of injury to Mario.

Quote:
What do you mean about "regarding Gretzky's dominance over his peers"?
I mean what would happen if Lemieux's prime years occured during Gretzkys PEAK years. Gretzky peaked very early for some reason, while Lemieux peaked later.


Last edited by Darth Yoda: 07-26-2014 at 04:34 AM.
Darth Yoda 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 06:42 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. Đ2015 All Rights Reserved.