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.

Holy crap! (re: Gretzky)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-09-2007, 11:02 AM
  #26
JCD
Registered User
 
JCD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country:
Posts: 14,686
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by familyguyman View Post
Lemieux had a higher PPG than Gretzky before he came back to help his Pens...
As has been noted before, this is only due to Mario sitting out for so many seasons. Mario only (temporarily) took over the PP/G crown during Gretzky's final season.

JCD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2007, 11:03 AM
  #27
JCD
Registered User
 
JCD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country:
Posts: 14,686
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reilly View Post
Plenty of players scored more than Lemieux.

It's the only arguement Betzky fans have in the great debate.

If you're going to say Betzky is better than Lemieux because he scored X more points, fine. It's a good arguement. Hell, it's so good it can't even be debated.

But then you have to apply that same arguement to every player to ever play the game, in which case, you'll look very dumb.
OK lets just use single-season records rather than career.

Oh...

Gretzky has all those too.

JCD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2007, 11:14 AM
  #28
Weztex
Registered User
 
Weztex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,305
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cup 2008 Sens Rule View Post
Orr is ranked top 3 by almost everyone on the basis of what he actually did not what he could have done.
Very true

Weztex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2007, 11:26 AM
  #29
Reilly*
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,867
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malefic74 View Post
But every team in the league knew that Gretzky was the key to beating the Oilers. He had a target on his back every time he stepped on the ice. And yet he only played less than 70 games a couple of times in his entire career. In a game as physical as hockey that is remarkable.

It was illegal to touch Betzky. That's why he had goons and thugs with him where ever he went.

Reilly* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2007, 11:31 AM
  #30
Sens Rule
Registered User
 
Sens Rule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,814
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reilly View Post
It was illegal to touch Betzky. That's why he had goons and thugs with him where ever he went.
Saying Betzky makes you look an idiot. No one is going to take you seriously.

Sens Rule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2007, 11:43 AM
  #31
cupcrazyman
Chex Lemeneux
 
cupcrazyman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Leafland
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,393
vCash: 500
Gretzky #1. you can use the COULD OF,SHOULD,IF ONLY,excuses for every other player that played in the NHL.stats don't lie,on ice performance is there for all of us to see.

cupcrazyman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2007, 11:48 AM
  #32
arrbez
bad chi
 
arrbez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,936
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to arrbez
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cup 2008 Sens Rule View Post
People need to keep saying "What would Mario have done......". He did a ton. He had a phenominal career. He retired at over 40 years old.

There is no what if's there is what was, and what was is good enough for Mario to definately be on every top 4 list of NHL players ever if not 3rd on some or 2nd on some or 1st on some of them.

Orr is ranked top 3 by almost everyone on the basis of what he actually did not what he could have done.
The issue with Lemieux is that he missed so much of his prime years, and playing till age 41 doesn't make up for that. He would be the best player in the world, miss a year or two, and then still be the best player in the world when he came back. I personally don't think it's a huge leap of faith to believe he would have been the best in those off years as well if he was healthy enough to skate. When you break it down, it's easily within the realm of possibility (and I must say, downright likely) that Lemieux would have more scoring titles than Gretzky if he had had even average health. And this isn't just a wild guess, it's based on a little bit of research and a lot of common sense. During what should be a player's prime years (age 25-34 or so), Lemieux played less than half the games available to him. He topped 60 games just 4 times during that span, and won the scoring title by a wide margin every time.

As I've said before, the "should have, would have" excuse is no problem for me, when a player is by far the best in the world before AND after their time off. Lemieux is one of the few (maybe the only) players I can think of that this reasoning works for. But it's pretty logical, when you think about it.


Last edited by arrbez: 11-09-2007 at 11:53 AM.
arrbez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2007, 12:06 PM
  #33
Sens Rule
Registered User
 
Sens Rule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,814
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arrbez View Post
The issue with Lemieux is that he missed so much of his prime years, and playing till age 41 doesn't make up for that. He would be the best player in the world, miss a year or two, and then still be the best player in the world when he came back. I personally don't think it's a huge leap of faith to believe he would have been the best in those off years as well if he was healthy enough to skate. When you break it down, it's easily within the realm of possibility (and I must say, downright likely) that Lemieux would have more scoring titles than Gretzky if he had had even average health. And this isn't just a wild guess, it's based on a little bit of research and a lot of common sense. During what should be a player's prime years (age 25-34 or so), Lemieux played less than half the games available to him. He topped 60 games just 4 times during that span, and won the scoring title by a wide margin every time.

As I've said before, the "should have, would have" excuse is no problem for me, when a player is by far the best in the world before AND after their time off. Lemieux is one of the few (maybe the only) players I can think of that this reasoning works for. But it's pretty logical, when you think about it.
Thing is who cares about what Lemieux would have done in the regular season. To me it is about the playoffs. IF Mario had kept playing could he have got the Pens back into the finals?

To me it is about 2 Cups for Mario and 2 finals and 4 Cups for Gretzky and 6 finals. Sure they had different players and different talent levels on their teams. But the fact is Gretzky won 4 Cups as the best player on his team and he went to 2 more finals. Mario had a very good team to play around.... and he didn't HAVE TO retire. It was a choice. He did have to miss a lot of games but he could have taken 60 games off or one season instead of 3.5 seasons. The fact he came back and was so great while obviously overweight shows he could have come back, far, far earlier than he did come back. That is on Mario.... if he wanted to play he could have added at least 2 or 3 more seasons in his prime but he chose not to play. And he could have played with Jagr and Francis and other very good players the Pens still had after he retired.

Orr won 2 Cups...... and he was on a powerhouse team for 6 or 7 years that were not at all disimilar from the 80's Oilers. The Bruins were outstanding - full of huge scorers, tough players, good goaltending. But they won only 2 Cups. Sure they had the Flyers and Habs as strong rivils for parts of their 6 or 7 years of domination but so did other teams.

Other players have won more but Gretzky won 4 Cups to Orr's 2 and Mario's 2. That is a decisive factor in me taking Gretzky. Orr had the team to win more. Mario could have played 2 or 3 more year in his prime on a still relatively strong Pens team but chose not to do so.


Last edited by Sens Rule: 11-09-2007 at 12:12 PM.
Sens Rule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2007, 12:13 PM
  #34
Stonefly
Registered User
 
Stonefly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,032
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cup 2008 Sens Rule View Post
Orr won 2 Cups...... and he was on a powerhouse team for 6 or 7 years that were not at all disimilar from the 80's Oilers. The Bruins were outstanding - full of huge scorers, tough players, good goaltending. But they won only 2 Cups. Sure they had the Flyers and Habs as strong rivils for parts of their 6 or 7 years of domination but so did other teams.

Other players have won more but Gretzky won 4 Cups to Orr's 2 and Mario's 2. That is a decisive factor in me taking Gretzky. Orr had the team to win more. Mario could have played 2 or 3 more year in his prime on a still strong Pens team but chose not to do so.
You've got to be kidding.
Gretzky won four cups all by himself? Orr won two cups all by himself?
Nothing else contributed to it at all? Cups are not about one player.

Stonefly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2007, 12:16 PM
  #35
arrbez
bad chi
 
arrbez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,936
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to arrbez
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cup 2008 Sens Rule View Post
Thing is who cares about what Lemieux would have done in the regular season. To me it is about the playoffs. IF Mario had kept playing could he have got the Pens back into the finals?

To me it is about 2 Cups for Mario and 2 finals and 4 Cups for Gretzky and 6 finals. Sure they had different players and different talent levels on their teams. But the fact is Gretzky won 4 Cups as the best player on his team and he went to 2 more finals. Mario had a very good team to play around.... and he didn't HAVE TO retire. It was a choice. He did have to miss a lot of games but he could have taken 60 games off or one season instead of 3.5 seasons. The fact he came back and was so great while obviously overweight shows he could have come back, far, far earlier than he did come back. That is on Mario.... if he wanted to play he could have added at least 2 or 3 more seasons in his prime but he chose not to play. And he could have played with Jagr and Francis and other very good players the Pens still had after he retired.

As for Mario's health...the guy couldn't even tie his own skates by the end of 1997. Sure, he could have stuck around...but is it really fair to him for blaming him for wanting to live a semi-normal life? Bobby Orr and Cam Neely could have stuck around too, but I don't think any reasonable person blames them for retiring.

Orr won 2 Cups...... and he was on a powerhouse team for 6 or 7 years that were not at all disimilar from the 80's Oilers. The Bruins were outstanding - full of huge scorers, tough players, good goaltending. But they won only 2 Cups. Sure they had the Flyers and Habs as strong rivils for parts of their 6 or 7 years of domination but so did other teams.

Other players have won more but Gretzky won 4 Cups to Orr's 2 and Mario's 2. That is a decisive factor in me taking Gretzky. Orr had the team to win more. Mario could have played 2 or 3 more year in his prime on a still strong Pens team but chose not to do so.
Basing a player's value on a team accomplishment is...dumb. Honestly. Wouldn't the logical progression from this be that Gretzky could ONLY win on a ridiculously stacked team? His team in Edmonton was apparently god enough to win the cup without him. Why put any value in those cup wins at all? Hell, the 1993 Habs are one of the more mediocre cup winners in recent memory, why couldn't he beat them playing, by his account, the best hockey of his career? Could it be that one single player can't win a championship by themselves? You need a great team around you and a little luck to go with it.


Last edited by arrbez: 11-09-2007 at 12:22 PM.
arrbez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2007, 12:22 PM
  #36
Stonefly
Registered User
 
Stonefly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,032
vCash: 500
Those who make the comments that Gretzky was smart enough to stay healthy and Lemieux's injuries were due to his style of play need to do a little research. Yes Lemieux did have some injuries caused by the physical play. However the majority of the time missed by Lemieux was not caused by the game.
He had a congenital condition called spinal stenosis. It's a narrowing of the spinal canal.
He also had a condition called spondylolysis. Small stress fractures of the vertebrae.
Arthritis.
A herniated disk.
A rare infection in his spine.
3 back surgeries.
And the cherry on the cake, Hodgkins Disease.

Considering the fact that Lemieux played so much of his time at less than 100 percent healthwise and in considerable pain, I don't think it's as Arrbez says 'outside the realm of possibility' that he could very easily have put up better offensive statistics than Gretzky.

Stonefly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2007, 12:22 PM
  #37
JCD
Registered User
 
JCD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country:
Posts: 14,686
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arrbez View Post
Basing a player's value on a team accomplishment is...dumb. Honestly. Wouldn't the logical progression from this be that Gretzky could ONLY win on a ridiculously stacked team? His team in Edmonton was apparently god enough to win the cup without him. Why put any value in those cup wins at all? Hell, the 1993 Habs are one of the more mediocre cup winners in recent memory, why couldn't he beat them playing, by his account, the best hockey of his career? Could it be that one single player can't win a championship by themselves? You need a great team around you and a little luck to go with it.
Are you seriously trying to use Gretzky's 93 play-off run AGAINST him?

That is just... dumn. Honestly.

Gretzky's performance in the year that the Habs won may be the greatest singular effort by one player in the post-season. Ever. Kings were a marginal team that Gretzky carried on his back all the way to the Cup.

JCD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2007, 12:24 PM
  #38
arrbez
bad chi
 
arrbez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,936
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to arrbez
Quote:
Originally Posted by JCD View Post
Are you seriously trying to use Gretzky's 93 play-off run AGAINST him?

That is just... dumn. Honestly.

Gretzky's performance in the year that the Habs won may be the greatest singular effort by one player in the post-season. Ever. Kings were a marginal team that Gretzky carried on his back all the way to the Cup.
That's my point entirely...I think you need to re-read it. I was responding to the poster who said Gretzky is better than Orr and Lemieux simply because he won more cups. It's stupid to base a player's success on how many championships he wins. One single player (gretzky, orr, and lemieux included) can't win it by themselves.

arrbez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2007, 12:26 PM
  #39
JCD
Registered User
 
JCD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country:
Posts: 14,686
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arrbez View Post
When you break it down, it's easily within the realm of possibility (and I must say, downright likely) that Lemieux would have more scoring titles than Gretzky if he had had even average health.
That just doesn't add up. Mario wasn't keeping pace with Wayne even before injuries mounted.

Wayne at his peak was better than Mario at his peak.

JCD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2007, 12:35 PM
  #40
Sens Rule
Registered User
 
Sens Rule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,814
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arrbez View Post
Basing a player's value on a team accomplishment is...dumb. Honestly. Wouldn't the logical progression from this be that Gretzky could ONLY win on a ridiculously stacked team? His team in Edmonton was apparently god enough to win the cup without him. Why put any value in those cup wins at all? Hell, the 1993 Habs are one of the more mediocre cup winners in recent memory, why couldn't he beat them playing, by his account, the best hockey of his career? Could it be that one single player can't win a championship by themselves? You need a great team around you and a little luck to go with it.
That isn't what I am saying at all. But the measure of greatness is playoff success. In the 2nd and 3rd year of Mario's retirement the Pens made the 2nd round. He couldn't have come back for those seasons? Mario could have made them that much stronger. He could have made another final or won the Cup.

The fact is if you look at if and buts with Mario you can't take away the fact that he CHOSE to retire. And he CHOSE to come back. Orr kept trying to come back and in the end it was impossible. Lindros kept playing even after he kept getting injured. Mario retired after a season where he played 76 games. The previous season he played 70 games. He did not have to retire. He chose to retire. Yzerman played on one knee for years and led a team to the Cup. Gretzky played through a bad back for the last half dozen years. Forsberg is always trying to return from some painful foot problem. Mario totally played through injuries and obviously played through a ton of pain. He had every right to retire when he did and come back when he did.

But the fact remains that he chose to retire after he played a full season. He came back and played a full half season after 3.5 years and 18 playoff games. So he was not injured in such a way that he could not play but he chose not to play for 3.5 years. One can count the time he missed for cancer or do to injuries but the 3.5 year retirement was due to a personal choice not because he could not play. And that is why lamenting what Mario could have done in those years is especially pointless becuse he could have done them.

Mario - if his overwhelming desire was to catch Wayne Gretzky in regular season points or scoring championships or to win another Cup could have kept playing. He chose to relax and play golf. That is a fine choice, I probably would have made it too if I was in his position. But it kinda shows Mario did not want to prove he was better than Gretzky. He didn't care. Gretzky cared. He announced his retirement right after he scored the goal that gave him the final (and most important) personal record. Most goals ever playoff/regular season WHA/NHL. Wayne scored one more goal than Howe, then announced his retirement as he played out his 20th season. Mario I think didn't care if he had records or whatever. And that is fine and not a mark against him. But is part of the reason Gretzky was better. He really wanted to be the best. Individually and as a team. Mario wanted to play hockey and win. He didn't care nearly as much about records and stuff.

Why should we now diminish what Gretzky earned by saying Mario could have done it too or moreso when Mario himself in his prime walked away and didn't care to try to earn the records, or the greatest ever title?

Sens Rule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2007, 12:46 PM
  #41
Stonefly
Registered User
 
Stonefly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,032
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cup 2008 Sens Rule View Post
Mario - if his overwhelming desire was to catch Wayne Gretzky in regular season points or scoring championships or to win another Cup could have kept playing. He chose to relax and play golf. That is a fine choice, I probably would have made it too if I was in his position. But it kinda shows Mario did not want to prove he was better than Gretzky. He didn't care. Gretzky cared. He announced his retirement right after he scored the goal that gave him the final (and most important) personal record. Most goals ever playoff/regular season WHA/NHL. Wayne scored one more goal than Howe, then announced his retirement as he played out his 20th season. Mario I think didn't care if he had records or whatever. And that is fine and not a mark against him. But is part of the reason Gretzky was better. He really wanted to be the best. Individually and as a team. Mario wanted to play hockey and win. He didn't care nearly as much about records and stuff.

Why should we now diminish what Gretzky earned by saying Mario could have done it too or moreso when Mario himself in his prime walked away and didn't care to try to earn the records, or the greatest ever title?
This is exactly what bothers me most about Wayne Gretzky. He was first and foremost concerned about his personal achievements.

Stonefly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2007, 12:56 PM
  #42
arrbez
bad chi
 
arrbez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,936
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to arrbez
Quote:
Originally Posted by JCD View Post
That just doesn't add up. Mario wasn't keeping pace with Wayne even before injuries mounted.
Actually, it does (and Mario was beating Wayne regularly when he wasn't injured). Wayne has 10 Art Ross's, Lemieux has 6.

-In 1989 Lemieux had beaten Gretzky by 30 points in 2 fewer games. The following season, Lemieux was on pace to beat him by quite a bit again, but played only 59 games to Wayne's 73. Lemieux was the better offensive player by the time the 90's hit. He outscored him every season he topped 60 games. But we'll give Wayne the benefit of the doubt on this one and in 1991 when Mario only played 20 or so games.

-However, there's not a shadow of a doubt in my mind that Lemieux would have won the Art Ross instead of Gretzky in 1994. He was a far more dominant player at that point in their careers. 130 points would not have cut it against a healthy Lemieux, for whom 150 points was very a conservative estimate at the time.

Gretzky 9, Lemieux 7

-In 1995 Jaromir Jagr won the scoring race in a season that Lemieux didn't play. Lemieux returned the next season (1996) and destroyed the scoring race. His linemate Jagr was the only player within 40 points of him. He would have won it in 1995, no doubt. He outscored Jagr badly in the next two seasons.

Gretzky 9, Lemieux 8

-after two more scoring titles in 1996 and 1997, Lemieux retires because of a back and spine condition so bad that he can't even tie his skates or practice. Lemieux returns after 3.5 years away from the game, and scores at a pace that would hand him the scoring title by over 20 points. If he was around 20 points better than everyone else in 1997, and still around 20 points better than everyone else in 2001, then I don't think it's too crazy to believe he would have added at least two more scoring titles during that span.

Whether or not you think the Art Ross's matter, that's up to you. I'm not saying that this is what makes Mario better than Gretzky. It's just something to think about for those basing their arguments entirely on hardware.

arrbez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2007, 01:15 PM
  #43
Sens Rule
Registered User
 
Sens Rule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,814
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by willus3 View Post
This is exactly what bothers me most about Wayne Gretzky. He was first and foremost concerned about his personal achievements.
It didn't in any way impede his teams winning. It helped every single player he played with and every team he ever played with.

Gretzky recognized that team success is far, far more important than individual success.

Are you calling Gretzky a selfish player? Because that would be irony at it's finest.

Gretzky, I think didn't want records to impress anyone else. He didn't want to have all the career records so others would think he was the best. He did it for his own personal desire to be the best. That is not selfishness or ego (in a bad way). Gretzky wanted to be the best and he showed by any possible measure that he had the greatest career of any hockey player and pretty much any North American pro athlete. Why do I think he did it? Because he knew deep done he could do it and to do anything less would not have been his best.

When has Gretzky ever said he was the best? He kept saying Howe and Lafleur and Orr and Mario were the best. He said Crosby could possibly best him. But Gretzky knows inside that he was the best. Doesn't need to flaunt it or hype what is self evident.

Sens Rule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2007, 02:12 PM
  #44
McDeepika
Registered User
 
McDeepika's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,875
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arrbez View Post
Actually, it does (and Mario was beating Wayne regularly when he wasn't injured). Wayne has 10 Art Ross's, Lemieux has 6.

-In 1989 Lemieux had beaten Gretzky by 30 points in 2 fewer games. The following season, Lemieux was on pace to beat him by quite a bit again, but played only 59 games to Wayne's 73. Lemieux was the better offensive player by the time the 90's hit. He outscored him every season he topped 60 games. But we'll give Wayne the benefit of the doubt on this one and in 1991 when Mario only played 20 or so games.

-However, there's not a shadow of a doubt in my mind that Lemieux would have won the Art Ross instead of Gretzky in 1994. He was a far more dominant player at that point in their careers. 130 points would not have cut it against a healthy Lemieux, for whom 150 points was very a conservative estimate at the time.

Gretzky 9, Lemieux 7

-In 1995 Jaromir Jagr won the scoring race in a season that Lemieux didn't play. Lemieux returned the next season (1996) and destroyed the scoring race. His linemate Jagr was the only player within 40 points of him. He would have won it in 1995, no doubt. He outscored Jagr badly in the next two seasons.

Gretzky 9, Lemieux 8

-after two more scoring titles in 1996 and 1997, Lemieux retires because of a back and spine condition so bad that he can't even tie his skates or practice. Lemieux returns after 3.5 years away from the game, and scores at a pace that would hand him the scoring title by over 20 points. If he was around 20 points better than everyone else in 1997, and still around 20 points better than everyone else in 2001, then I don't think it's too crazy to believe he would have added at least two more scoring titles during that span.

Whether or not you think the Art Ross's matter, that's up to you. I'm not saying that this is what makes Mario better than Gretzky. It's just something to think about for those basing their arguments entirely on hardware.
Look at my post on the 1st page. I took the pace of both of their 1st 12 seasons and projected it to an 80 game season. Lemiuex would outscore him 2 times while Gretzky outscored him 10 times, and some times by a stupid amount.

Gretzky would have had 2222 points in his 1st 12 years if he played every game and Lemiuex would have had 1900 if he played every game. So the if he was healthy argument doesn't really work either.

It's a lot more fair to look at their 18 year old seasons against each other rather then their 93-94 season against each other because Gretzky was older.

McDeepika is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2007, 02:17 PM
  #45
CanadianJariKurriFan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: St. Catharines
Country: Canada
Posts: 117
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reilly View Post
It's the only arguement Betzky fans have in the great debate.
Using the name "Betzky" is something I would expect from someone in public school.
Seriously, try a little harder.

CanadianJariKurriFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2007, 02:20 PM
  #46
CanadianJariKurriFan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: St. Catharines
Country: Canada
Posts: 117
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arrbez View Post
So that's why many feel he was better than Gretzky. No matter which side of the fence you're on, everyone should at least concede that it's extremely close.

Well said!

CanadianJariKurriFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2007, 02:25 PM
  #47
JCD
Registered User
 
JCD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country:
Posts: 14,686
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arrbez View Post
Actually, it does (and Mario was beating Wayne regularly when he wasn't injured). Wayne has 10 Art Ross's, Lemieux has 6.

-In 1989 Lemieux had beaten Gretzky by 30 points in 2 fewer games. The following season, Lemieux was on pace to beat him by quite a bit again, but played only 59 games to Wayne's 73. Lemieux was the better offensive player by the time the 90's hit. He outscored him every season he topped 60 games. But we'll give Wayne the benefit of the doubt on this one and in 1991 when Mario only played 20 or so games.

-However, there's not a shadow of a doubt in my mind that Lemieux would have won the Art Ross instead of Gretzky in 1994. He was a far more dominant player at that point in their careers. 130 points would not have cut it against a healthy Lemieux, for whom 150 points was very a conservative estimate at the time.

Gretzky 9, Lemieux 7

-In 1995 Jaromir Jagr won the scoring race in a season that Lemieux didn't play. Lemieux returned the next season (1996) and destroyed the scoring race. His linemate Jagr was the only player within 40 points of him. He would have won it in 1995, no doubt. He outscored Jagr badly in the next two seasons.

Gretzky 9, Lemieux 8

-after two more scoring titles in 1996 and 1997, Lemieux retires because of a back and spine condition so bad that he can't even tie his skates or practice. Lemieux returns after 3.5 years away from the game, and scores at a pace that would hand him the scoring title by over 20 points. If he was around 20 points better than everyone else in 1997, and still around 20 points better than everyone else in 2001, then I don't think it's too crazy to believe he would have added at least two more scoring titles during that span.

Whether or not you think the Art Ross's matter, that's up to you. I'm not saying that this is what makes Mario better than Gretzky. It's just something to think about for those basing their arguments entirely on hardware.
You attempted that argument before. It didn't work out then, still doesn't work out now:
http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=440263&page=2

Side-by-side, Wayne beats Mario 10-1 to start their careers. It is only after that period where Mario starts to win regularly.

JCD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2007, 02:26 PM
  #48
JCD
Registered User
 
JCD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country:
Posts: 14,686
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by willus3 View Post
This is exactly what bothers me most about Wayne Gretzky. He was first and foremost concerned about his personal achievements.
Huh?!!?

And Mario wasn't?

JCD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2007, 02:41 PM
  #49
BNHL
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 17,242
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arrbez View Post
Basing a player's value on a team accomplishment is...dumb. Honestly. Wouldn't the logical progression from this be that Gretzky could ONLY win on a ridiculously stacked team? His team in Edmonton was apparently god enough to win the cup without him. Why put any value in those cup wins at all? Hell, the 1993 Habs are one of the more mediocre cup winners in recent memory, why couldn't he beat them playing, by his account, the best hockey of his career? Could it be that one single player can't win a championship by themselves? You need a great team around you and a little luck to go with it.
I think Edmonton would have won just as many Cups with Orr,Lemieux,or Dionne for that matter instead of Gretzky.

BNHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2007, 02:53 PM
  #50
Stonefly
Registered User
 
Stonefly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,032
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cup 2008 Sens Rule View Post
It didn't in any way impede his teams winning. It helped every single player he played with and every team he ever played with.

Gretzky recognized that team success is far, far more important than individual success.

Are you calling Gretzky a selfish player? Because that would be irony at it's finest.

Gretzky, I think didn't want records to impress anyone else. He didn't want to have all the career records so others would think he was the best. He did it for his own personal desire to be the best. That is not selfishness or ego (in a bad way). Gretzky wanted to be the best and he showed by any possible measure that he had the greatest career of any hockey player and pretty much any North American pro athlete. Why do I think he did it? Because he knew deep done he could do it and to do anything less would not have been his best.

When has Gretzky ever said he was the best? He kept saying Howe and Lafleur and Orr and Mario were the best. He said Crosby could possibly best him. But Gretzky knows inside that he was the best. Doesn't need to flaunt it or hype what is self evident.
Wow, I think you might be being a little overly sensitive. But I'll answer your questions.

Was he a selfish player? In what way? If you're reasoning is that he had so many assists he can't be selfish, well that would be overly simplistic.

Not sure if he has ever said he was the best. What does that mean? It just means he is smart enough not to say it. He knows it would bring a negative reaction from people.
You can read between the lines when he says things. Read his body language. It's all a very nice facade but I don't buy the humble pie bs. I think he's an arrogant person trying very hard not to come across that way.
I'm not trying to hack on the guy, but you asked and that's how I feel.

Stonefly 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 01:31 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2017 All Rights Reserved.