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
Notices

The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Will we ever see a better player than Gretzky? Will we know it?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-02-2013, 08:19 PM
  #226
Hardyvan123
[email protected]
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by metalfoot View Post
Post Suter-hit Gretzky was never the same.
Same as what?

He was already in decline.

This point gets so overblown it's ridiculous sometimes.

Hardyvan123 is offline  
Old
03-02-2013, 08:37 PM
  #227
tazzy19
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,104
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Same as what?

He was already in decline.

This point gets so overblown it's ridiculous sometimes.
Same as his 2+ PPG average he had in the 3 years in LA prior to that hit. But I guess he dropped 40 points a year just by coincidence, and not the herniated disc he suffered, right?

tazzy19 is offline  
Old
03-02-2013, 08:41 PM
  #228
Hardyvan123
[email protected]
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tazzy19 View Post
I guess you don't remember a little season called 1981-82, in which Gretzky beat everyone's point total on his team (besides Anderson) with his 92 goals alone, and even beat 2nd place Anderson with his assists alone -- and more than DOUBLED anyone on his team in points (2nd place Anderson had 105 to Gretzky's 212!). I've never seen Mario Lemieux ever do that before.
Wayne was no doubt IMO the better player but part of that 82 season had to do with Wayne being at his peak already while his team mates were still quite young (both in terms of age and professional experience).

An exceptional feat no doubt but a bit of a perfect storm and events lining up for him and Mario had some more established guys on his teams that could score.

Hardyvan123 is offline  
Old
03-02-2013, 08:49 PM
  #229
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Angband via Utumno
Posts: 3,628
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
.2 GPG/team is going to ahve a larger affect that most people think, over 80 games that's 40 goals and the affect is greater for the top teams as the stat is for every team.
Uh no. Check your math: .2 over 80 games is 16 goals.....per TEAM.

80x0.2=16

Morgoth Bauglir is offline  
Old
03-02-2013, 09:03 PM
  #230
habsfanatics*
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 5,017
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tazzy19 View Post
So true. He went from scoring 160-170 points a year to scoring 120-130 points a year OVERNIGHT after that hit. His PPG average went from 2.0+ per season to 1.6 per season. But some people still have you believe it was the goaltending and defensive systems that magically got better over that summer in 1991.....and not his herniated disc.
You don't remember the same goalies from 91 turning into super humans that became too difficult for Gretzky in 92, come on.

Most people that make these claims never seen wayne at his peak. You tube doesn't do wayne justice like it does Pavel Bure and Peter Forsberg.

habsfanatics* is offline  
Old
03-02-2013, 09:07 PM
  #231
Hardyvan123
[email protected]
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tazzy19 View Post
Same as his 2+ PPG average he had in the 3 years in LA prior to that hit. But I guess he dropped 40 points a year just by coincidence, and not the herniated disc he suffered, right?
Well his 3 seasons in LA were

(28) 78-54-114-168 last 50 goal season with Bernie Nicholls
(29) 73-40-104-145 47 games with Nicholls
(30) 78-41-122-163 Sandstrom's best PPG year
(31) 74-31-90-121 Sandstrom injured and off year
(32) 45-16-49-65 Luc has his 84-62-63-125 best season, go figure
(33) 81-38-92-130
(34) 48-11-37-48


Looks alot like natural aging to me and his age 32 playoffs came after the Suter hit, go figure.

Wayne was getting older, less of a threat to score goals (was taking 70-100 less SOG/season than in his 1st year in LA) relied more on his team mates finishing, which fluctuated and wasn't constant.

People talk like he was a lock for 165 points a year until age 35 if the Suter hit didn't happen which was extremely unlikely regardless of the hit.

Players age, their team and league situations change, even to the best player of all time.

Hardyvan123 is offline  
Old
03-02-2013, 09:25 PM
  #232
Hardyvan123
[email protected]
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
Uh no. Check your math: .2 over 80 games is 16 goals.....per TEAM.

80x0.2=16
you are right, I had .5 stuck in my head but the whole of the elague is still dragging your numbers down.

I looked at how many goals the top scoring teams scored in the 80's, here they are

83 Edmonton 424, Mont 350, Quebec 343
84 Edmonton 446, Quebec 360, NYI 350
85 Edmonton 401, Calgary 363, Winn 358
86 Edmonton 426, Calgary 354, Chic 351
87 Edmonton 372, Calgary 318, LA 318
88 Calgary 397, Edmonton 363, Detroit 322, Pitt 319
89 LA 376, Calgary 354, Pitt 347,
90 Calgary 354, LA 338, Toronto 337, Pitt 318

so as we can see the difference among the top scoring teams is a lot more than the 16 goals per season that you were implying (from early 80's-later 80's).

Hardyvan123 is offline  
Old
03-02-2013, 09:27 PM
  #233
seeweed
Registered User
 
seeweed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 329
vCash: 500
if the league gets its head out of its (you know what) and finally allows the superstars to be virtually untouchable again, then yes.

seeweed is offline  
Old
03-02-2013, 09:32 PM
  #234
Long Duk Dong
Sammich King
 
Long Duk Dong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Beaver Falls, PA
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 3,200
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tazzy19 View Post
So true. He went from scoring 160-170 points a year to scoring 120-130 points a year OVERNIGHT after that hit. His PPG average went from 2.0+ per season to 1.6 per season. But some people still have you believe it was the goaltending and defensive systems that magically got better over that summer in 1991.....and not his herniated disc.
While Lemieux was still DOMINATING when he had to have someone else TIE his own skates, or get RADIATION treatments.

Stat wise, Wayne wins. Simple as that, and I'm not arguing that at all. Gretzky had the best career in probably all of sports.

But this thread is about a better hockey player. Regarding Wayne and Mario, Wayne had a better work ethic (compared to early Mario) and playmaking, but to me, that doesn't trump Lemieux's abilities.

Lemieux, Lindros, Jagr were "better" players. It's what happens when the game evolves. I still think Wayne showed up at the perfect time on the perfect team. And that isn't a slight on him in the least, but does anyone think he'd score the way he did if he played for say Detroit or the Rangers in his prime?

Long Duk Dong is offline  
Old
03-02-2013, 09:50 PM
  #235
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Angband via Utumno
Posts: 3,628
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
you are right, I had .5 stuck in my head but the whole of the elague is still dragging your numbers down.

I looked at how many goals the top scoring teams scored in the 80's, here they are

83 Edmonton 424, Mont 350, Quebec 343
84 Edmonton 446, Quebec 360, NYI 350
85 Edmonton 401, Calgary 363, Winn 358
86 Edmonton 426, Calgary 354, Chic 351
87 Edmonton 372, Calgary 318, LA 318
88 Calgary 397, Edmonton 363, Detroit 322, Pitt 319
89 LA 376, Calgary 354, Pitt 347,
90 Calgary 354, LA 338, Toronto 337, Pitt 318

so as we can see the difference among the top scoring teams is a lot more than the 16 goals per season that you were implying (from early 80's-later 80's).
You can cherry-pick teams 'til you're blue in the face but it doesn't change the fact that the overall scoring environment was only a difference of 0.2gpg per team. Notice the team at the top of 83-86? Now what do those 4 teams have in common? Now let me see. Oh right! Those 4 teams had a peak Gretzky! Think maybe THAT had something to do with the difference between the top teams? Naw, that COULDN'T have anything to do with it

Morgoth Bauglir is offline  
Old
03-02-2013, 10:02 PM
  #236
Riddum
Registered User
 
Riddum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,235
vCash: 1145
I would take a Prime Healthy Lemieux over a Prime Healthy Gretzky in any era. Simply because Lemieux is the better player. Lemieux was better when the league became better, the players started getting bigger, the defense became tighter and the goaltenders became much better. Le Magnifique> The Great One.

Hell, even Scotty Bowman thinks that Lemieux>Gretzky. I think he knows a bit more about hockey than any of us, therefore my argument has weight.

Yes, Gretzky has insane vision, but even he would say that Lemieux's passing ability and anticipation of the play were pretty much as good as his. Gretzky knows that Lemieux is by far the better goal scorer. He said it himself.

The goalies were a joke in the early 80s

Gretzky could not do that in a million years


Quote:
Originally Posted by metalfoot View Post
Post Suter-hit Gretzky was never the same.
Overblown hit vs Cancer. What's worse? Also, I'm not saying that Gretzky sucks, I'm just saying that he's the second G.O.A.T.


Last edited by Riddum: 03-02-2013 at 10:12 PM.
Riddum is offline  
Old
03-02-2013, 10:13 PM
  #237
tombombadil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: West Kelowna, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,029
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Same as what?

He was already in decline.

This point gets so overblown it's ridiculous sometimes.
I'm having my first drink in a month and a half, so I may not express this correctly.

The Suter hit, and the guys on here, drives me crazy.

There is a double standard for #99 on here. His ability to not get hit will be endlessly praised, and then all of his numbers after that one hit are completely excused.

Meanwhile, Lindros is an idiot for not having his head up. Forsberg is a 'oh ya, he was pretty good, but staying healthy is part of being a good hockey player".... many, many more examples.

If we want to play what-ifs, then it should go both ways. Why is Gretzky's physical inability to take a hit in the numbers not seen as a negative? Nearly every single star in the game has taken worse than that, over and over and over. Maybe he, and we, were all lucky that a hit like that didn't happen in 1981. Maybe the only guys who aren't lucky for that are Mike Bossy and Peter Stastny, because if Gretzky can't take a hit in the back, if it really destroyed his entire game that badly, they would have been battling for Hart's and Ross' until Mario came along.

The truth is - his drop in numbers coincided perfectly with A) removal from the Oilers, a team that won a Cup without him, and B) the emergence of truly good goaltenders, the Trap, and real physical conditioning among all 4 lines of NHL player. ie - everyone's numbers dropped!! 175lb guys don't bull through 220lb defensemen who are allowed to tackle, and are no longer in B+ level conditioning.

tombombadil is offline  
Old
03-02-2013, 11:18 PM
  #238
Hardyvan123
[email protected]
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
You can cherry-pick teams 'til you're blue in the face but it doesn't change the fact that the overall scoring environment was only a difference of 0.2gpg per team. Notice the team at the top of 83-86? Now what do those 4 teams have in common? Now let me see. Oh right! Those 4 teams had a peak Gretzky! Think maybe THAT had something to do with the difference between the top teams? Naw, that COULDN'T have anything to do with it
I didn't cherry pick the teams at all, It's simply a list of the top 3 scoring teams, and 4th in some cases to show where Pitt was, from 83 to 90.

I know it was a peak Oilers team and the style they played, look at the other numbers in the other years, ie the Teams without Wayne.

Hardyvan123 is offline  
Old
03-02-2013, 11:36 PM
  #239
Long Duk Dong
Sammich King
 
Long Duk Dong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Beaver Falls, PA
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 3,200
vCash: 500
I miss these arguments when they were playing. That was good hockey when it was skill and not dump and chase football crap.

Long Duk Dong is offline  
Old
03-02-2013, 11:41 PM
  #240
edog37
Registered User
 
edog37's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Pittsburgh
Country: United States
Posts: 3,137
vCash: 500
already saw such player....Lemieux.

edog37 is offline  
Old
03-02-2013, 11:50 PM
  #241
Jag68Sid87
Nothing Else Maattas
 
Jag68Sid87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 32,503
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by metalfoot View Post
Post Suter-hit Gretzky was never the same.
I was at that game. I could have killed Suter with my bare hands that night. It still upsets me to this day.

Jag68Sid87 is offline  
Old
03-02-2013, 11:57 PM
  #242
Kane One
Global Moderator
 
Kane One's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Brooklyn, New NY
Country: United States
Posts: 34,176
vCash: 1425
I absolutely believe there will be a player better than Gretzky. What's the average span of someone being the best player of all time?

A question I have is what will a player have to do to become the best player? Break Gretzky's records? That wouldn't be as fair as it sounds. If Gretzky was in his prime today, would he score as much as he did during the '80s? Since many of you might say "No" to that answer, why would it be fair to say they would have to break Gretzky's records?

Babe Ruth is almost unanimously called the greatest baseball player of all time. Does he hold all of MLB's records? How about Jordan in the NBA?

__________________


Glass from Girardi is practically a mathematical impossibility. I'm glad to have witnessed this great Rangers moment. -Bob Richards
I'd hate to know what the toilet facilities look like after a game with the way this team aims... -Megustaelhockey
Kane One is offline  
Old
03-03-2013, 12:03 AM
  #243
Jag68Sid87
Nothing Else Maattas
 
Jag68Sid87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 32,503
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker McDonald View Post
I absolutely believe there will be a player better than Gretzky. What's the average span of someone being the best player of all time?

A question I have is what will a player have to do to become the best player? Break Gretzky's records? That wouldn't be as fair as it sounds. If Gretzky was in his prime today, would he score as much as he did during the '80s? Since many of you might say "No" to that answer, why would it be fair to say they would have to break Gretzky's records?

Babe Ruth is almost unanimously called the greatest baseball player of all time. Does he hold all of MLB's records? How about Jordan in the NBA?
I think Gretzky would score as much today. Everybody says the players today are better. But so would he. And his hockey brain has never been matched, and never will be.

Gretzky created the 80's scoring explosion, he wasn't a product of it. He also made everybody he played with better around him, so if the players today are better than they used to be, he would make even those guys better players...which would lead to the numbers he used to put up in his prime.

In other words, if he were around today, we'd be seeing the Gretzky era (and all its explosiveness) now instead of 1981.

Jag68Sid87 is offline  
Old
03-03-2013, 12:30 AM
  #244
shazariahl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,880
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Wayne was no doubt IMO the better player but part of that 82 season had to do with Wayne being at his peak already while his team mates were still quite young (both in terms of age and professional experience).

An exceptional feat no doubt but a bit of a perfect storm and events lining up for him and Mario had some more established guys on his teams that could score.
How is being the only accomplished player the perfect storm for a 212 pt season, while having established guys on your team that can score is somehow a disadvantage?

shazariahl is offline  
Old
03-03-2013, 12:46 AM
  #245
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 13,271
vCash: 500
If Sidney Crosby had Steven Stamkos on his wing, Erik Karlsson feeding him the puck, and the Penguins played in the Southeast division....

He would break 150 points I think.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
03-03-2013, 12:46 AM
  #246
shazariahl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,880
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by UCantHandleMyRiddum View Post
I would take a Prime Healthy Lemieux over a Prime Healthy Gretzky in any era. Simply because Lemieux is the better player. Lemieux was better when the league became better, the players started getting bigger, the defense became tighter and the goaltenders became much better. Le Magnifique> The Great One.

Hell, even Scotty Bowman thinks that Lemieux>Gretzky. I think he knows a bit more about hockey than any of us, therefore my argument has weight.

Yes, Gretzky has insane vision, but even he would say that Lemieux's passing ability and anticipation of the play were pretty much as good as his. Gretzky knows that Lemieux is by far the better goal scorer. He said it himself.

The goalies were a joke in the early 80s

Gretzky could not do that in a million years



Overblown hit vs Cancer. What's worse? Also, I'm not saying that Gretzky sucks, I'm just saying that he's the second G.O.A.T.
1. Bowman coached Lemieux, so he's hardly a neutral party. I'm sure if you asked Sather, he'd say Gretzky was the best. Actually, he did say so in many interviews. Bowman also put the Rocket ahead of both of them, which is pause-worthy in and of itself.

2. Lemieux was better when the league became better - then why wasn't he better when the league was worse? Fact is, different players follow different career curves. Gretzky was much better than Lemieux early in his career; his first 5 seasons blow Lemieux's first 5 seasons away (during the middle of the high-scoring 80's while Wayne was putting up 200 pt seasons). And I'll be the first to admit that Lemieux was better late in his career than Gretzky was at the same stage of his career. But people need to stop comparing them when Lemieux was in his prime vs a Gretzky that had already played 10 yrs of hockey. A lot of great players like Bossy and Orr only LASTED 10 yrs total, and yet people seem to hold it against Gretzky that Lemieux eventually passed him. Who cares? Gretzky was better when he first entered the league, Lemieux was better when he left. But overall, Gretzky accomplished way more, set more records, won more championships and awards, and played 500 more games of hockey, helping his teams to more success overall.

3. If Lemieux's passing and vision was "pretty much as good" as Gretzky's, his assist numbers would be "pretty much as good" as Gretzky's. They aren't. Not in career totals, season totals, or even APG. Not even close. Gretzky had 11 straight seasons with 100+ assists, Lemieux did that once. Gretzky has more 100+ assist seasons with the Kings than Lemieux had his whole career - and that includes playing with Jagr.

4. If goaltending in the 80's was such a joke, and Lemieux was the better goal scorer, why didn't he beat 92 goals? Oh, he couldn't stay healthy? Well, he must have had stretches where he was healthy for 39 games, why couldn't he beat 50 in 39? Why couldn't he beat Gretzky's 1.18 GPG season average he set? You act like Lemieux came in during the DPE, not 1984. He had half a decade of "joke" 80's goaltending and yet Gretzky still holds all the records. Gretzky's even 2nd with 87 goals in 74 games.

5. In response to your video, there's tons of things Gretzky could do that Lemieux couldn't. Like set 61 NHL records.

shazariahl is offline  
Old
03-03-2013, 01:06 AM
  #247
shazariahl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,880
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tombombadil View Post
I'm having my first drink in a month and a half, so I may not express this correctly.

The Suter hit, and the guys on here, drives me crazy.

There is a double standard for #99 on here. His ability to not get hit will be endlessly praised, and then all of his numbers after that one hit are completely excused.

Meanwhile, Lindros is an idiot for not having his head up. Forsberg is a 'oh ya, he was pretty good, but staying healthy is part of being a good hockey player".... many, many more examples.

If we want to play what-ifs, then it should go both ways. Why is Gretzky's physical inability to take a hit in the numbers not seen as a negative? Nearly every single star in the game has taken worse than that, over and over and over. Maybe he, and we, were all lucky that a hit like that didn't happen in 1981. Maybe the only guys who aren't lucky for that are Mike Bossy and Peter Stastny, because if Gretzky can't take a hit in the back, if it really destroyed his entire game that badly, they would have been battling for Hart's and Ross' until Mario came along.

The truth is - his drop in numbers coincided perfectly with A) removal from the Oilers, a team that won a Cup without him, and B) the emergence of truly good goaltenders, the Trap, and real physical conditioning among all 4 lines of NHL player. ie - everyone's numbers dropped!! 175lb guys don't bull through 220lb defensemen who are allowed to tackle, and are no longer in B+ level conditioning.
So we should punish Gretzky for the frailty of his body, but praise Lemieux for playing 500 less games than Gretzky and generally being way less durable than Wayne was? Fact is Gretzky took a hit so serious doctors thought he'd never play again. People have linked the doctors statements on this board numerous times saying they'd never seen any player in any professional sport come back from a condition like Gretzky's.

I'm not saying it was worse than Cancer - I think if we're comparing who had to deal with more there, Lemieux had it worse. But it's not just the cancer - Lemieux was always missing games for medical reasons. In his 17 yr career he had 7 seasons where he played 70+ games, and 7 where he played less than 26. Statistically, he was as likely to miss 65% of the season as he was to play 75% of it almost.

Every argument for Lemieux comes down to "if this, if that". Truth is, a healthy Lemieux MIGHT have accomplished what Gretzky already did. But even when he did have his best seasons, he never equaled him, let alone surpassing his numbers.

Sooner or later, I'd think people would stop making excuses. "If he stayed healthy, if he started in 1979/80 like Gretzky, if he played for a better team earlier, if if if if if." What about 87 Canada Cup when he played on the same team but Gretzky outscored him and won MVP? Are we going to blame his lack of team depth when he was playing on Team Canada?

I have to chose between 2 players, one who looks better on video highlights but couldn't stay healthy enough to play even one full season in his career, vs a player who statistically defeats him in every single category, wins more championships, awards, has more international success, and also plays 7 seasons worth of games more there's no justification for choosing the player who looks better but accomplished so much less. At least not to me.

shazariahl is offline  
Old
03-03-2013, 03:28 AM
  #248
tombombadil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: West Kelowna, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,029
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=shazariahl;60841763]So we should punish Gretzky for the frailty of his body, but praise Lemieux for playing 500 less games than Gretzky and generally being way less durable than Wayne was?

No. Because that would also be a double-standard.

tombombadil is offline  
Old
03-03-2013, 03:43 AM
  #249
Eisen
Registered User
 
Eisen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Eugene
Country: United States
Posts: 10,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tombombadil View Post
I'm having my first drink in a month and a half, so I may not express this correctly.

The Suter hit, and the guys on here, drives me crazy.

There is a double standard for #99 on here. His ability to not get hit will be endlessly praised, and then all of his numbers after that one hit are completely excused.

Meanwhile, Lindros is an idiot for not having his head up. Forsberg is a 'oh ya, he was pretty good, but staying healthy is part of being a good hockey player".... many, many more examples.

If we want to play what-ifs, then it should go both ways. Why is Gretzky's physical inability to take a hit in the numbers not seen as a negative? Nearly every single star in the game has taken worse than that, over and over and over. Maybe he, and we, were all lucky that a hit like that didn't happen in 1981. Maybe the only guys who aren't lucky for that are Mike Bossy and Peter Stastny, because if Gretzky can't take a hit in the back, if it really destroyed his entire game that badly, they would have been battling for Hart's and Ross' until Mario came along.

The truth is - his drop in numbers coincided perfectly with A) removal from the Oilers, a team that won a Cup without him, and B) the emergence of truly good goaltenders, the Trap, and real physical conditioning among all 4 lines of NHL player. ie - everyone's numbers dropped!! 175lb guys don't bull through 220lb defensemen who are allowed to tackle, and are no longer in B+ level conditioning.
His numbers were still pretty impressive even after the decline. Perhaps the hit took a step out of him. That's still contending for best player in the league.

Eisen is offline  
Old
03-03-2013, 12:52 PM
  #250
Riddum
Registered User
 
Riddum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,235
vCash: 1145
Quote:
Originally Posted by shazariahl View Post
1. Bowman coached Lemieux, so he's hardly a neutral party. I'm sure if you asked Sather, he'd say Gretzky was the best. Actually, he did say so in many interviews. Bowman also put the Rocket ahead of both of them, which is pause-worthy in and of itself.

2. Lemieux was better when the league became better - then why wasn't he better when the league was worse? Fact is, different players follow different career curves. Gretzky was much better than Lemieux early in his career; his first 5 seasons blow Lemieux's first 5 seasons away (during the middle of the high-scoring 80's while Wayne was putting up 200 pt seasons). And I'll be the first to admit that Lemieux was better late in his career than Gretzky was at the same stage of his career. But people need to stop comparing them when Lemieux was in his prime vs a Gretzky that had already played 10 yrs of hockey. A lot of great players like Bossy and Orr only LASTED 10 yrs total, and yet people seem to hold it against Gretzky that Lemieux eventually passed him. Who cares? Gretzky was better when he first entered the league, Lemieux was better when he left. But overall, Gretzky accomplished way more, set more records, won more championships and awards, and played 500 more games of hockey, helping his teams to more success overall.

3. If Lemieux's passing and vision was "pretty much as good" as Gretzky's, his assist numbers would be "pretty much as good" as Gretzky's. They aren't. Not in career totals, season totals, or even APG. Not even close. Gretzky had 11 straight seasons with 100+ assists, Lemieux did that once. Gretzky has more 100+ assist seasons with the Kings than Lemieux had his whole career - and that includes playing with Jagr.

4. If goaltending in the 80's was such a joke, and Lemieux was the better goal scorer, why didn't he beat 92 goals? Oh, he couldn't stay healthy? Well, he must have had stretches where he was healthy for 39 games, why couldn't he beat 50 in 39? Why couldn't he beat Gretzky's 1.18 GPG season average he set? You act like Lemieux came in during the DPE, not 1984. He had half a decade of "joke" 80's goaltending and yet Gretzky still holds all the records. Gretzky's even 2nd with 87 goals in 74 games.

5. In response to your video, there's tons of things Gretzky could do that Lemieux couldn't. Like set 61 NHL records.
1. You're wrong. Then why is Yzerman so low on his list?

2. Because Gretzky was in his prime while Lemieux was just starting out. Also, Gretzky had a MUCH deeper team. Why is it that Gretzky was never able to win the cup without the Oilers when the Oilers did it without him?

3. Again, if you're a great passer and you're playing with pure finishers, you're bound to have more assists. Gretzky said it himself, when speaking of Lemieux "Our passing was pretty much equal, but he was a much better scorer".

4. Why couldn't Gretzky come close to doing any of that when he didn't have the deep roster that managed to win without him? Plenty of factors can be why Lemieux didn't do it. Lemieux started his career in the mid 80s. His team sucked. Gretzky was in an ideal situation at the perfect time.

5. Of course, he didn't have the type of roster that Gretzky had, and he battled cancer. You don't seem to realize the type of toll cancer treatment takes on one's body. Before his cancer, he was not only on pace to destroy his personal record, but he was on pace to beat Gretzky's single season records.

Oh and the 1989 Hart trophy that went to Gretzky was a pure joke. That year, Lemieux murdered him by 31 goals in 2 less game.

Riddum is offline  
Closed Thread

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 07:20 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2016 All Rights Reserved.