Your 2012 National Hockey Lockout Thread

[charger77]

He never said he'd stop at 2 000. His points-per-game is 4 one-hundredths of a point lower than Gretzky's with all the troubles he faced. Put him in 99's shoes, and he could very well score 3 000.

For Lemieux to have scored 3000 points he would have to continue that 1.88 points per game average for 1595 games, not very likely. Regardless, he still finished 1,125 points behind Gretzky that would require an additional 10 seasons at 112 points just to tie him. For the record, the NHL record for most 100 straight seasons would be Gretzky at 12.

Its not a knock on Lemieux at all, and I am not a better stats equals better player kind of fan but when one player's sats are light years ahead of the next it is hard to ignore. Hell, look at the Art Ross and Hart disparity between the two.

Yes, but you'd have to think, his PPG average would be higher had he not dealt with injuries and if he was surrounded by the talent Gretzky had during his entire career. While he may not have been able to sustain such a high PPG over 1 400-odd games, it's hardly a stretch to think that an injury-free career would rise it up by a mere 0.04 points. Remember, before he came out of retirement, he averaged 2 points a game on the nose.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda... the facts are the facts, Gretz had more points, and they are both Hall of Famers.

His overall points mean nothing. He played in way more games. No s--t he had more points.

You can't have a Lemieux/Orr/Bossy/Bure debate without hypothesizing what would have happened had they been blessed with good health. The entire argument revolves around that "if". Had both players played in more or less the same circumstances, who would have come out on top?

I don't think anyone's trying to turn this into a heated debate or a "pissing match". The hypothesizing is just part of the argument. We're just saying "Had there been a different set of circumstances, who would have the better stats?". The first half of this discussion didn't even revolve around an "if"; I just brought up their averages, which later became "Put (X) in (Y) circumstances and he'll end up with (Z) stat".

If were using the "if Lemieux was heathy" theory, if we were to employ the "If the Oilers were not broken up" theory its safe to assume that Gretzky would have easily had over 3,500

[HedleyLamarr]

Who had the higher goals-per-game average? Career-long, in their "peak years", etc.

I'm not saying they're completely useless, but I've always put goal-scoring above assists. Not only can you have two assists per goal (even though Gretzky didn't benefit too much from them), but every assist is contingent on the recipient of the pass scoring the goal....or else they become "passes" and "scoring chances". You can score goals without assists, but you can't rack up assists without a goal being scored.

One can certainly argue that Gretzky's assist numbers simply resulted from his Oilers teammates being better goal-scorers than Lemieux's teammates were.

[NJTank]

That wont work with the NHL romancing Seattle

[StevenGrant94]

Here's something to add to the Gretzky vs Lemieux debate:

Before Lemieux's first retirement in 1997 he had played 745 games and scored 1494 points. That's an average of 2.005 points per game.

In Gretzky's first ten season's (closest to Lemieux's amount of games as I could get), he played in 774 games and scored 1837 points. That's an average of 2.373 points per game.

I know Gretzky had better team-mates and was less injured, but I think that's too big of a difference to say that Lemieux was better.

(P.S. These were my own calculations, so it's possible there was a calculating error.)

[BigBubba]

You can't have a Lemieux/Orr/Bossy/Bure debate without hypothesizing what would have happened had they been blessed with good health. The entire argument revolves around that "if". Had both players played in more or less the same circumstances, who would have come out on top?

I don't think anyone's trying to turn this into a heated debate or a "pissing match". The hypothesizing is just part of the argument. We're just saying "Had there been a different set of circumstances, who would have the better stats?". The first half of this discussion didn't even revolve around an "if"; I just brought up their averages, which later became "Put (X) in (Y) circumstances and he'll end up with (Z) stat".

If were using the "if Lemieux was heathy" theory, if we were to employ the "If the Oilers were not broken up" theory its safe to assume that Gretzky would have easily had over 3,500

The purpose of the "If Lemieux was healthy..." debate is part of the question "Had the playing field been even, who would have shown to be better?", which, while not necessary to be included in a GoAT debate, is something that is often brought up and is basically what the debate boils down to.

Who had the higher goals-per-game average? Career-long, in their "peak years", etc.

I'm not saying they're completely useless, but I've always put goal-scoring above assists. Not only can you have two assists per goal (even though Gretzky didn't benefit too much from them), but every assist is contingent on the recipient of the pass scoring the goal....or else they become "passes" and "scoring chances". You can score goals without assists, but you can't rack up assists without a goal being scored.

One can certainly argue that Gretzky's assist numbers simply resulted from his Oilers teammates being better goal-scorers than Lemieux's teammates were.

Indeed.

Anyways,

Gretzky: 0.754 GPG (first all-time)

Lemieux: 0.601 (fourth all-time)

[IceCap]

Bubba, if you're going to bring up Lemieux's hypothetical greatness had he been healthy then you need to at least consider the possibility that Gretzky would have benefited from the Oilers not being broken up.

I mean if you're going to consider one possibility that never happened why not consider other possibilities? Hell, lets discuss what would have happened if Eric Lindros went to Quebec instead of Philadelphia and ended up on the Avalanche powerhouse of the mid/late 90s-early 2000s.

At a certain point the "what if?" debate becomes rather pointless because at a certain point you just start making stuff up. So on that front Gretzky's records mean a lot. Not just the assist record (which is mind blowing, especially considering he didn't benefit from double assists for most of his career), but his scoring records as well.

If you want to bring up something else besides the hard numbers then you have to look at the way Gretzky played the game. The guy saw every play develop two to three steps ahead. He always knew where to be or where his team mates would be. The guy's "game vision" was something else entirely. If you want to compare Gretzky and Lemieux without comparing their stats then I've got an observation regarding the way Gretzky actually played the game. You just have a "what if?" scenario.

No one's saying Mario Lemieux wasn't a great player. Of course he was. I'd even say he's #2 on the list of all time greats, if I had to produce such a list. I just don't think he was better then Gretzky.

[Kramerica Industries]

Hell, lets discuss what would have happened if Eric Lindros went to Quebec instead of Philadelphia and ended up on the Avalanche powerhouse of the mid/late 90s-early 2000s.

Well, I'll take the immediate bait:

Eric Lindros being on those Avs teams of the '90s means Peter Forsberg isn't there. And Forsberg was an exceptional centreman in his own right.

[charger77]

Hell, lets discuss what would have happened if Eric Lindros went to Quebec instead of Philadelphia and ended up on the Avalanche powerhouse of the mid/late 90s-early 2000s.

Well, I'll take the immediate bait:

Eric Lindros being on those Avs teams of the '90s means Peter Forsberg isn't there. And Forsberg was an exceptional centreman in his own right.

Also if Lindros wasn't traded, perhaps Quebec doesn't move. If Quebec doesn't move Roy doesn't get traded to Quebec. If Quebec doesn't move and Roy doesn't go to Colorado Detroit likely wins more Cups in that 1996-2003 span.

Thank God for Lindros! lol

[BigBubba]

Bubba, if you're going to bring up Lemieux's hypothetical greatness had he been healthy then you need to at least consider the possibility that Gretzky would have benefited from the Oilers not being broken up.

The entire point of bringing up the possibility of a healthy Lemieux is to say "Had the playing field been even, would Lemieux have produced the same way as Gretzky?", not "Had he been able to produce to his maximum...". Imagining Gretzky playing with Messier and co. for 20 years doesn't accomplish that. While it's fairly obvious Gretzky's production would have benefited with an extra 10 years among those Oilers teams, thinking about that doesn't do anything for the debate, because it adds another advantage over the other side (Mario) as opposed to evening the field, taking out all variables/advantages. I could argue that a healthy Lemieux for 20 years on those Oilers teams would score 3 500, but I won't because it does nothing for the sake of the GoAT discussion. The only reason a "What if..." is present is because it takes out all variables/advantages such as healthy of the players and the quality of the talent surrounding them. As I mentioned above, that is not necessary to have in a GoAT discussion.

I never got to watch either of the two during their primes, so I can't comment on their ability to control a game and whatnot during their peak years.

----------

Since this debate seems to be getting stale, I'll chip in some current insight: the Leafs simply aren't getting into the playoffs unless they acquire another top-six forward and a veteran goaltender. Kulemin is too big of a question mark and JVR at centre if all but a guarantee. If the latter doesn't pan out, Bozak will have to be the No. 1 C, which you can't have if you want to be playoff bound. Scrivens/Reimer can be a good tandem, but God help the Leafs if they're putting all their eggs in that basket. As was shown last year, putting your playoff hopes on the shoulders of two extremely inexperienced and unproven goalies is a terrible terrible idea. If they did happen to squeak into eighth, both would crumble under the playoff pressure. Evn if those two holes are filled, you're still relying on the D (namely Komisarek, Fanson, and Phaneuf) to improve from last year. I understand that there's still plenty of time to make a move, but it's never smart to enter training camp (whenever that may be) with such huge question marks in your lineup.

[RedRenesis]

He never said he'd stop at 2 000. His points-per-game is 4 one-hundredths of a point lower than Gretzky's with all the troubles he faced. Put him in 99's shoes, and he could very well score 3 000.

For Lemieux to have scored 3000 points he would have to continue that 1.88 points per game average for 1595 games, not very likely. Regardless, he still finished 1,125 points behind Gretzky that would require an additional 10 seasons at 112 points just to tie him. For the record, the NHL record for most 100 straight seasons would be Gretzky at 12.

Its not a knock on Lemieux at all, and I am not a better stats equals better player kind of fan but when one player's sats are light years ahead of the next it is hard to ignore. Hell, look at the Art Ross and Hart disparity between the two.

Yes, but you'd have to think, his PPG average would be higher had he not dealt with injuries and if he was surrounded by the talent Gretzky had during his entire career. While he may not have been able to sustain such a high PPG over 1 400-odd games, it's hardly a stretch to think that an injury-free career would rise it up by a mere 0.04 points. Remember, before he came out of retirement, he averaged 2 points a game on the nose.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda... the facts are the facts, Gretz had more points, and they are both Hall of Famers.

His overall points mean nothing. He played in way more games. No s--t he had more points.

You can't have a Lemieux/Orr/Bossy/Bure debate without hypothesizing what would have happened had they been blessed with good health. The entire argument revolves around that "if". Had both players played in more or less the same circumstances, who would have come out on top?

I don't think anyone's trying to turn this into a heated debate or a "pissing match". The hypothesizing is just part of the argument. We're just saying "Had there been a different set of circumstances, who would have the better stats?". The first half of this discussion didn't even revolve around an "if"; I just brought up their averages, which later became "Put (X) in (Y) circumstances and he'll end up with (Z) stat".

If were using the "if Lemieux was heathy" theory, if we were to employ the "If the Oilers were not broken up" theory its safe to assume that Gretzky would have easily had over 3,500

When Lemieux retired after '97 he had a higher PPG then Gretzky. I believe the number was 2.04 PPG, it wasnt until he came back that the number slid down to where it is now.

Also, if someone wants to take a look, pull up the leading NHL scorers of all time, and look at how many games Lemieux played, then see how far you have to go down the list to find the next player who played under 1000 games.

[IceCap]

I never got to watch either of the two during their primes, so I can't comment on their ability to control a game and whatnot during their peak years.

Me neither, but it's not hard to find their old games.

The way Gretzky saw the ice was something else. Mario could certainly make a play happen too, but Gretzky was just this much better, in my opinion. Though ultimately you're cutting a very fine line when you debate who the best was out of the top two.

[charger77]

Alfredsson will be back next season.

[spartacat_12]

Alfredsson will be back next season.

Great news! All of the young players will benefit from another year under Alfie's leadership, especially Silfverberg and Zibanejad. Still doesn't guarantee the Sens a playoff spot, but gives them a much better chance. With Carolina improving and Montreal, Buffalo, and Tampa Bay likely bouncing back from off-years the east looks like it will be very competitive.

[The_Admiral]

It's hard to be "an NHL fan" the way one can be "an NBA fan" or "an NFL fan." Chalk this up to a weakness in the fantasy sports department, or the weak national contract making it hard to get a feel for the whole league, or the lack of singular stars who transcend the game like the NBA has, or (my theory) that hockey fans tend to be the most geographically provincial and the most passionate about their respective teams

More from the "NHL fans are incorrigible homer doofuses" bureau here, as Flyers blog Broad Street Hockey did an interesting survey: http://www.broadstre...nhl-bias-survey

NHL fans are huge homers.

Almost nobody thinks the league gives their team preferential treatment, but almost everybody thinks the league gives other teams preferential treatment. Similarly, fans are roughly ten times more likely to say the NHL hates their favorite team than other fans around the league are.

However, among the minority who think the NHL is biased against a team other than their favorite, it is nearly universal that team is the Flyers.

While this provides league-wide support to those who feel there is a bias against the Flyers, the support is provided primarily by those who believe in an NHL bias against their own team.

It is rather obvious that NHL fans view the worst suspension decisions with a heavy slant on offenses against their favorite teams -- 84.8 percent of Red Wing fans mentioned the Weber-on-Zetterberg decision; 75 percent of Coyote fans mentioned the Torres suspension; 36.4 percent of Canuck fans mentioned Keith-on-Sedin; 30.2 percent of Flyers fans mentioned Neal's suspension/non-suspension and 26.0 percent mentioned Giroux's suspension.

Largely, all of this information is intuitive: Fans are passionate about their teams. They care about what happens to their teams, not what happens to the Coyotes or Sabres or Canucks or Flyers.

Almost everyone is a homer.

Favorite Blackhawks persecution complexes include that the refs (especially now-retired Bill McCreary) conspire against the Hawks because Dollar Bill criticized them and tried to bust their union, because they're playing against the ever-favored Red Wings, and because non-hockey lifer John McDonough is president of the organization, in which capacity he dared to fire definite hockey lifer Dale Tallon for incompetence.

[maz]

Arguing between Gretzky and Lemieux is exactly like the Crosby/Ovechkin debate..... They're two different kinds of players who were the best at what they did.

[zpqmaowl]

[bigbean24]

Its great to be a Wild fan.

[The_Admiral]

Is it? They're not an elite team yet. They're mired in the same turtle derby as the rest of the conference. Moreover, they spent all this money on two players so they could have a team about as good as the San Jose Sharks, just in time for ownership to cry poor for CBA negotiations and demand that teams stop being allowed to offer and sign the very contracts they just offered and signed, which will lead to a labor impasse that will likely stop the newly-pseudo-competitive Wild from even fielding a team this year in the first place. If I were a Wild fan, I wouldn't be all that happy, but of course I'm never all that happy about anything with hockey.

[charger77]

Is it? They're not an elite team yet. They're mired in the same turtle derby as the rest of the conference. Moreover, they spent all this money on two players so they could have a team about as good as the San Jose Sharks, just in time for ownership to cry poor for CBA negotiations and demand that teams stop being allowed to offer and sign the very contracts they just offered and signed, which will lead to a labor impasse that will likely stop the newly-pseudo-competitive Wild from even fielding a team this year in the first place. If I were a Wild fan, I wouldn't be all that happy, but of course I'm never all that happy about anything with hockey.

[bigbean24]

Is it? They're not an elite team yet. They're mired in the same turtle derby as the rest of the conference. Moreover, they spent all this money on two players so they could have a team about as good as the San Jose Sharks, just in time for ownership to cry poor for CBA negotiations and demand that teams stop being allowed to offer and sign the very contracts they just offered and signed, which will lead to a labor impasse that will likely stop the newly-pseudo-competitive Wild from even fielding a team this year in the first place. If I were a Wild fan, I wouldn't be all that happy, but of course I'm never all that happy about anything with hockey.