Why Mario Lemieux was better than Wayne Gretzky.

[Long_Long_Name]

One of the most frequently asked questions in any competitive sport is the following: who’s the best player ever? For most team sports, it’s nearly impossible to find such an answer, as they frequently feature different roles, making it an uneven playing field to determine who is the best ever. Hockey is a sport that follows that rules, as different positions have different roles, and it can be hard to compare goaltenders, defensemen and forwards, as their contribution to the game of hockey are quite different. Mario Lemieux’s recent retirement is an excellent opportunity to dust off the fundamental question as to who’s the best hockey player ever. Although it can be hard to compare Lemieux to preeminent players of the defensive side (Roy, Plante, Orr, Bourque, Harvey, etc.), this article will try to demonstrate that Mario Lemieux was the best forward ever to play hockey by comparing him to the only player whose value even comes close, Wayne Gretzky, who’s generally considered to be the best forward ever to play hockey.

I make it look all official, but it's not. It's really amateur, and whatever. It's a PDF, but I wrote it, so be kind .

[What!]

Nice article very good read

My question is in your oppinion what percentage of canadieans actually believe Lemieux was better than Gretzky? I know Gretzky is a legend and Lemieux was not very well liked over there at least early on in his career.

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by What!

Nice article very good read

My question is in your oppinion what percentage of Canadians (or Canadiens if you're from Quebec) actually believe Lemieux was better than Gretzky?

Fixed that for you.

Originally Posted by What!

Lemieux was not very well liked over there at least early on in his career.

Don't know where you get that idea from, he was very well liked up here right from the beginning, especially in his native Quebec.

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by What!

My question is in your oppinion what percentage of Canadians actually believe Lemieux was better than Gretzky?

Most Canadians will tell you that Gretzky was better by a slim margin. Personally I believe they were pretty much equal. Numbers don't tell you everything.

As to who the greatest player of all time is, I'm one of those who believes it's not possible to compare players of different eras, namely because numbers don't tell the whole story. I think you can name the best player of a certain era, but not of all time.

Note - I'm not saying Gretzky and Lemieux played in different eras, just saying that there are other players who were the greatest of other eras.

[What!]

Originally Posted by BruceM

Fixed that for you.




Don't know where you get that idea from, he was very well liked up here right from the beginning, especially in his native Quebec.

Thx for the fix

I dont got a source that says it just rumors (hate to say but from talk radio mostly and several pittsburgh articles from a back pre-lemieux olympics). I know they always liked him in Quebec but im talking about before he played in the olympics for Canada especially from the Gretzky lovers. It seems to me that he became more popular after he came back from retirement. Maybe more liked not respected enough for accomplishments.

[The Playmaker]

Originally Posted by Long_Long_Name

One of the most frequently asked questions in any competitive sport is the following: who’s the best player ever? For most team sports, it’s nearly impossible to find such an answer, as they frequently feature different roles, making it an uneven playing field to determine who is the best ever. Hockey is a sport that follows that rules, as different positions have different roles, and it can be hard to compare goaltenders, defensemen and forwards, as their contribution to the game of hockey are quite different. Mario Lemieux’s recent retirement is an excellent opportunity to dust off the fundamental question as to who’s the best hockey player ever. Although it can be hard to compare Lemieux to preeminent players of the defensive side (Roy, Plante, Orr, Bourque, Harvey, etc.), this article will try to demonstrate that Mario Lemieux was the best forward ever to play hockey by comparing him to the only player whose value even comes close, Wayne Gretzky, who’s generally considered to be the best forward ever to play hockey.

I make it look all official, but it's not. It's really amateur, and whatever. It's a PDF, but I wrote it, so be kind .

Have to disagree here. My general problems with your analysis:

1. You imply that durability means nothing which simply isn't the case. Because of the durability factor, Gretzky had more assists than Mario had points. That's an awful lot to overlook. IMO, it's like saying Tony Conigliaro should be in the Hall of Fame because it wasn't his fault that baseball drilled him in the eye. And we can assume he would have been a likely candidate for 500 or so home runs without getting beaned.

In fact, if anything you seem to hold Gretzky's durability against him. In the chart where you normalized for the lively puck era, I comapred the stats to the age of 32, where Mario then shut it down for a few seasons. While you note Mario has 1.715 career PPG average, I note that he was 1.75 to age 32 and 1.55 afterwards. Gretzky by comparison, was 1.84 to age 32 and 1.19 afterwards. So yea, Mario does come out ahead because you counted 80% of his games in the PPG comparison while he was at his peak, and only 66% of Gretzky's games.

2. You completely ignore the playoffs, where once again Gretzky beat Mario by about 200 points, and his PPG averages were substantially better. He still put up 130 points or so in 88 games after he left the Oilers for about 1.47 (and 1.84 for his career) points per game which compares favorably with Mario's 1.61 for his entire career. I'd also note that Gretzky was the MVP of the 1987 Canada Cup, where he picked up 21 points to Mario's 18 when they played on a line together.

3. Gretzky 4 stanley cups and two more trips to the finals. Mario - 2 stanley cups

4. Wayne Gretzky has more Hart, Art Ross, and Lester B Pearson awards.

Mario could have been the better player had he been healthy but he wasn't. And for that reason, in your 18 year old draft analogy, the guy who picked #2 would have had 77 games per year from Gretzky and about 54 games from Mario. That alone is enough to tip the scales.

[matskralc]

1) He isn't making a HoF argument or a "who had the better career" argument. He's arguing "which guy played the game of hockey better during the time he actually played?".

2) Why should Mario be penalized for having worse teammates?

3) Why should Mario be penalized for having worse teammates?

4) And Zoilo Versalles has more MVP awards than Albert Belle. So?

[tim_uwrf]

Originally Posted by matskralc

4) And Zoilo Versalles has more MVP awards than Albert Belle. So?

Quit raggin' on Zoilo. He da man!

[bigphesta]

Gretsky was better

[UngratefulDead]

Such a nuanced counter-argument.

[ihatenames]

I pretty much agree with LLN

[Long_Long_Name]

Originally Posted by The Playmaker

Have to disagree here. My general problems with your analysis:

1. You imply that durability means nothing which simply isn't the case. Because of the durability factor, Gretzky had more assists than Mario had points. That's an awful lot to overlook. IMO, it's like saying Tony Conigliaro should be in the Hall of Fame because it wasn't his fault that baseball drilled him in the eye. And we can assume he would have been a likely candidate for 500 or so home runs without getting beaned.

In fact, if anything you seem to hold Gretzky's durability against him. In the chart where you normalized for the lively puck era, I comapred the stats to the age of 32, where Mario then shut it down for a few seasons. While you note Mario has 1.715 career PPG average, I note that he was 1.75 to age 32 and 1.55 afterwards. Gretzky by comparison, was 1.84 to age 32 and 1.19 afterwards. So yea, Mario does come out ahead because you counted 80% of his games in the PPG comparison while he was at his peak, and only 66% of Gretzky's games.

2. You completely ignore the playoffs, where once again Gretzky beat Mario by about 200 points, and his PPG averages were substantially better. He still put up 130 points or so in 88 games after he left the Oilers for about 1.47 (and 1.84 for his career) points per game which compares favorably with Mario's 1.61 for his entire career. I'd also note that Gretzky was the MVP of the 1987 Canada Cup, where he picked up 21 points to Mario's 18 when they played on a line together.

3. Gretzky 4 stanley cups and two more trips to the finals. Mario - 2 stanley cups

4. Wayne Gretzky has more Hart, Art Ross, and Lester B Pearson awards.

Mario could have been the better player had he been healthy but he wasn't. And for that reason, in your 18 year old draft analogy, the guy who picked #2 would have had 77 games per year from Gretzky and about 54 games from Mario. That alone is enough to tip the scales.

Mats did a good job answering, but I'll reply anyway.

1. I'm not discounting the importance of Gretzky's durability. I say two or three times in the article that I believe Gretzky had a far better career than Lemieux. I was demonstrating that Lemieux was a better player, not that his career was better.

2. I consciously avoided the playoffs, for many reasons. First, it's not a fair comparison, as Mario had some godawful teams in the 80's and 2000's, while Gretzky had much better teams. Second, Gretzky's playoff runs were in the lively puck era while Lemieux's playoffs years were during the decline of that era. Third... sample size makes it hard to make decent comparisons. I honestly didn't look at playoff stats at all - maybe Gretzky's better, maybe Lemieux's better, I don't know and I don't think it's very relevant. I also don't care that Gretzky was the arbitrary selection of the 1987 Canada Cup MVP, nor that he accumulated THREE more points than Lemieux in a short tournament. I mean, it does matter, like the playoffs, but it's so much more insignificant. Three points in an international tournament is enough to declare who the best player in a 25-year span was?

3. There are 19 guys on a hockey team. It's not an individual sport. I tried to isolate the players' performace from their teammates', not enhance it, and considering team success is contrary to the point I was trying to make.

4. I don't care for arbitrary awards. They show nothing. As for Art Ross trophies, the only of the three you cited that is statistically significant, but even then it doesn't tell the whole story. I think that the statistical analysis I put forth is a stronger argument than saying that Gretzky got the most points in a season more often than Lemieux. It is significant, but it's not enough. For example, Mario entered the league in 84 - Gretzky had already played 5 seasons of Lemieux-free hockey. After 1999, the year Gretzky retired, Lemieux only played more than half a season once. It's hard to take advantage of your main rival's absence when you can't play more than half a year. If you really want to compare point totals, in the years where both Lemieux and Gretzky played in the NHL, they each have 6 years better than their opponent - and I should once again mention team strength (injuries aren't as important as Lemieux trashed Gretzky after recovering from cancer) in this analysis. As for the rookie analogy, well, how would you know that Gretzky was more durable than Lemieux? You wouldn't be able to, and quite franky I think you'd go with Lemieux as the most durable, given his bigger size and more physical style of play than the smaller Gretzky. So yeah, you just have no way of knowing who'd be in shape - it's just obvious to me that Gretzky isn't as good a player as Lemieux was, although he did turn out to have the better career, and it's not even close.

Thanks for taking the time to comment, though .

[Long_Long_Name]

Originally Posted by bigphesta

Gretsky was better

Well, these three words surely destroy my 5-page argument - especially with lack of punctation and misspelling of one of the players concerned's name.

[Spielman]

Originally Posted by Long_Long_Name

Mats did a good job answering, but I'll reply anyway.

1. I'm not discounting the importance of Gretzky's durability. I say two or three times in the article that I believe Gretzky had a far better career than Lemieux. I was demonstrating that Lemieux was a better player, not that his career was better.

Yes, but you ignored his most salient point, which is that you're penalizing Gretzky's points per game relative to Lemieux because he played a bigger chunk of his career in his decline phase than Lemieux did. When your whole argument is constructed around point per game, that's pretty important.

[Spielman]

Dola...
Looking at the numbers, this flaw is offset somewhat by the fact that Mario has no decline phase, unless you want to include the final 36 games of his career. While Gretzky clearly drops off after the age of 32, Mario was still going strong.

[Long_Long_Name]

Originally Posted by Spielman

Dola...
Looking at the numbers, this flaw is offset somewhat by the fact that Mario has no decline phase, unless you want to include the final 36 games of his career. While Gretzky clearly drops off after the age of 32, Mario was still going strong.

I was going to mention that. Not having a decline phase is an asset, isn't it? Penalizing Mario for having no decline period would seem somewhat weird to me. I mean, if Gretzky clearly had a better peak, I'd agree, but it seems as though Lemieux also had the better peak.

[Spielman]

Originally Posted by Long_Long_Name

I was going to mention that. Not having a decline phase is an asset, isn't it? Penalizing Mario for having no decline period would seem somewhat weird to me. I mean, if Gretzky clearly had a better peak, I'd agree, but it seems as though Lemieux also had the better peak.

Good point. However, you disrespected Gordie Howe, (Don't try to wriggle out of it; you did.) and therefore I am obligated to hate you forever and oppose you in all your hockey-related posts from this time forward and even forevermore.

In all seriousness, to me, the question of who was best really comes down to who had the best career. By the definition you choose, Lemieux wins, I guess, though I don't think it's quite as clear-cut as you do. But I don't agree with the definition.

[johnnyshaka]

Originally Posted by BruceM

Don't know where you get that idea from, he was very well liked up here right from the beginning, especially in his native Quebec.

Lemieux was never as media savy as Gretzky was, and it was a knock on him early on in his career. He also had a rep of being somewhat of a whiner, not that he didn't have a reason to complain, as he was often a victim of constant clutching and grabbing.

LLN...I'll preface this by saying that I'm a HUGE Gretzky fan, so there is some obvious bias here, but at the same time, I think I'd be part of the majority when if I said that Gretzky was the better player.

Before either of these guys ever stepped onto the ice, if I were asked which guy I wanted on my team, I'd obviously say Lemieux. He is a physical specimen, especially compared to Gretzky. Lemieux is bigger, stronger, and faster than Gretzky...no doubt about it. Now, with that said, given what God gave them to work with...Gretzky far exceeded what anybody thought he could do and I'd probably say that Lemieux never reached his full potential. To me, that is why Gretzky is the better hockey player. Sure, it is strictly my opinion, but, to me, just seems like common sense.

One other issue I'd like to raise is how much better Gretzky was compared to his competition during his peak years. Have a look at the leaderboards for those crazy 6 or 7 years and you'll notice that he outscored the rest of the league by about 70 or 80 points each year...Lemieux never dominated the league like that. Ok, I understand that during some of Lemieux's peak seasons he was hurt and that he probably would've outscored his opponents by similar margins, but the fact remains that he DIDN'T. Durability has to count for something. Afterall, hockey is a team sport and you can't help your team if you're up in the pressbox more often than not.

[matskralc]

Originally Posted by johnnyshaka

Ok, I understand that during some of Lemieux's peak seasons he was hurt and that he probably would've outscored his opponents by similar margins, but the fact remains that he DIDN'T. Durability has to count for something. Afterall, hockey is a team sport and you can't help your team if you're up in the pressbox more often than not.

Once again, LLN is purposefully discarding questions of "durability". His question is "when on the ice, which player was better?" Bringing "durability" up does nothing to answer this question, but instead fundamentally alters the question he is asking.

[Long_Long_Name]

Originally Posted by johnnyshaka

Lemieux was never as media savy as Gretzky was, and it was a knock on him early on in his career. He also had a rep of being somewhat of a whiner, not that he didn't have a reason to complain, as he was often a victim of constant clutching and grabbing.

You're right in saying that Lemieux was never as media savvy as Gretzky. However, many journalists would say that Lemieux was as classy as they get, that he never complained about anything, despite having multiple reasons to. But that has nothing to do with who is the best.

LLN...I'll preface this by saying that I'm a HUGE Gretzky fan, so there is some obvious bias here, but at the same time, I think I'd be part of the majority when if I said that Gretzky was the better player.

When I was a kid, my favorite player was Wayne Gretzky. I had his posters all over my walls. However, it appears to me that Mario Lemieux is a better hockey player, so I won't let my personal preferences interfere with that, or else I'll say that Marquis Grissom and Kirk Rueter are the best baseball players of the past 15 years.

You're problably also right when you say that most people would claim Gretzky is better than Lemieux. If they can back it up with some sort of statistical analysis that beats mine, I'll have no problem with it, and I'll change my opinion. However, when the reasons that make him better are durability and trophies, or simply "he looked better on the ice", it's not that serious a position, and I have a hard time respecting it. Popular opinion is not always right - I'm sure that if you asked Yankees fan whether Jeter or Rodriguez is the better player, Jeter would get a much bigger share than he deserves.

Destroying the "myth" that Gretzky is better is partly why I wrote that article. I'd very like to hear an argument demonstrating that Gretzky is a better player - however, nothing appears to me as such, and the reasons that make Gretzky a better candidate for "best player ever" in most people's mind are rather shallow, or so it appears to me.

Before either of these guys ever stepped onto the ice, if I were asked which guy I wanted on my team, I'd obviously say Lemieux. He is a physical specimen, especially compared to Gretzky. Lemieux is bigger, stronger, and faster than Gretzky...no doubt about it. Now, with that said, given what God gave them to work with...Gretzky far exceeded what anybody thought he could do and I'd probably say that Lemieux never reached his full potential. To me, that is why Gretzky is the better hockey player. Sure, it is strictly my opinion, but, to me, just seems like common sense.

Lemieux was bigger than Gretzky, but that wasn't realy part of my argumentation. I did bring their physical attributes up, but that wasn't an argument - IIRC, I write that if anything, Mario's size would make it seem as thouh he'd be more durable.

Let's take Major League Baseball. Let's pretend that next season, the Yankees win the AL East by 2 games over the Devil Rays. Well, the Devil Rays far exceeded all the expectations people had in them, and the Yankees were somewhat weaker than people thought they would be. However, even in such a situation, even if the Yanks were disappointing and the Devil Rays were playing well above expectations... the Yankees were still the better team (assuming that wins reflect a team's performance). You can like the Devil Rays more, you can claim that they did more than were expected against an opponent that would seem to be a prime candidate to crush them, you can claim they did better than they should have, but the Yankees were still the better team. Mario Lemieux might've been much bigger than Gretzky, he might've not played to his full potential (which is a scary prospect), and Gretzky might not have had the same physical size as Lemieux (which might have advantaged him, considering he had a killer on his team to protect him while people just wailed away at Lemieux), he might've surpassed what one can expect from a "smaller" player, but despite that, his performance on the ice wasn't as good as Lemieux's, in absolute terms. I tried to make abstraction of all intangibles and impressions to make an factual analysis.

One other issue I'd like to raise is how much better Gretzky was compared to his competition during his peak years. Have a look at the leaderboards for those crazy 6 or 7 years and you'll notice that he outscored the rest of the league by about 70 or 80 points each year...Lemieux never dominated the league like that. Ok, I understand that during some of Lemieux's peak seasons he was hurt and that he probably would've outscored his opponents by similar margins, but the fact remains that he DIDN'T. Durability has to count for something. Afterall, hockey is a team sport and you can't help your team if you're up in the pressbox more often than not.

Durability, as Mats stated, is something I tried to discount. It does count for something - and that's something I try my hardest to eliminate, as it has absolutely no place in finding out who the best player was. If anything, durability is probably the biggest obstacle to evaluating who was the best of the two. As I said before, many times, Gretzky did play longer, and that is totally relevent to evaluating who had the best career - and Gretzky completely kills Lemieux in that regard. However, that's not what I was trying to demonstrate. I was trying to find out who, when he played, was the best. I'm not discounting Gretzky's domination during the early 80's - he absolutely crushed his opposition during these years, and my father just can't get enough of telling me how they'd systematically remove him from hockey pools in these years. Gretzky was a great player, that's for sure, but if we era-adjust (which diminishes the margins during Gretzky's years), only one of Gretzky's early 80's seasons were as good as Lemieux's 3 best seasons in terms of PPG - and only one of these three seasons showed Lemieux missing a significant amount of games (he played 59). Domination over the second-ranked player does have some value, but not as much as domination over the entire league.

Also, in terms of durability... Lemieux's decline only came at age 40, while Gretzky started to fall in his late 20's. It's something worth considering if you take durability into account, which I don't.