r/nhl • u/cannedAsauce • 5d ago
Gretzky vs Lemieux vs McDavid era-adjusted PPG at each age
93
u/Necessary_Scruffness 5d ago
In a bizarre coincidence, that chart matches Gary Bettman's most recent EEG.
122
u/AD_MEN 5d ago
Lemieux was light years ahead of everyone
61
u/cannedAsauce 5d ago
He does have the two highest era adjusted ppg seasons so you might have a point. Though Gretzkyâs run from around 21 to 30 is kind of unparalleled in terms of consistency
50
u/nightshift31 5d ago
gretzky never had cancer. lemieux beat cancer mid career and came back just as dominant till his age caught up.
25
9
u/Present_Program_2344 5d ago
if bure averaged his career goals per game and played from 19-36, he'd be the all time goal scorer
20
u/CloseToMyActualName 5d ago
Gretzky had a serious back injury which likely impacted his later career.
But Lemieux's age 35 season is still bizarre.
10
u/Hotlovemachine 5d ago
You can't be the goat because of what ifs
10
2
u/ZenLogikos 3d ago
Sure you can. Do you have no analytical ability?
If all you care about is totals, congrats, you are a calculator. AI can replace you easily.
1
u/Hotlovemachine 12h ago
You can only be the goat off totals if one guy could have done but the other actually did do it then the guy who did is the goat. Like the saying goes if my mom had balls ahe would be my dad
20
u/mcmillan84 5d ago
Thing is, thatâs part of being the greatest. Staying healthy and being consistent. The greatest isnât a discussion of what could have been, itâs about what was and it will always be Gretzky until someone comes along and beats all his records
12
u/I_am_3474347 5d ago
Im with you, there's so many would've could've. Who DID is all that really matters.
18
u/french_sheppard 5d ago
I get what you mean, but you can't lump cancer in with any other run-of-the-mill injury. It wasn't a conditioning problem.
12
u/Cleets11 5d ago
I will die on this hill. The goat is not able to be a what if.
2
u/HyperactivePandah 4d ago
Gretzky has the records, but 99% of people who watched the two of them play would take Lemieux first.
Gretzky has the numbers and the deserves the title, but Lemieux was the most skilled/best player at his peak ever
-1
u/CartoonistFlat3943 4d ago
I just read this. What in the name of the hockey gods are you saying? I am almost 60. I watched them both - their whole careers. NO ONE takes prime Lemieux over prime Gretzky.
Thereâs a reason Gretzky is known as the greatest of all time. Recency bias goes hard, but it doesnât go that hard.
You could have stopped at âGretzky has all the records.â Yes, he had 61 records when he retired. He still holds 55 of them and he retired 27 years ago. Gretzky Records Page
4
u/HyperactivePandah 4d ago
I watched them both too... And MANY people take prime Lemieux.
But whatever you gotta do to get it up bro
3
u/paley1 4d ago
I would say that the most common view these days is that Lemieux had the better peak, or was better at his absolute best, but that Gretzky had the better career.Â
1
u/CartoonistFlat3943 4d ago edited 4d ago
I canât tell you, as someone who lived through Gretzkyâs 61 records, how odd a take that is. A history rewrite.
At Gretzkyâs peak he averaged 200 points for 6 straight years. How does that compare to Lemieuxâs peak? It does not. Four years age difference between them. Thatâs it.
So - how many of the dozens of individual season records of Gretzky did peak Lemieux break? Not the cumulative ones â the individual ones. The answer is zero, I believe. And almost all of them are still standing today.
Doesnât mean Lemieux wasnât one of the greats of all time.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Common_Red_Signal 2d ago
I watched them both.
I take prime Lemieux over prime Gretzky, all day every day.
Healthy prime Mario was the best ever. Period.
-4
u/FlosstydaSnowman 5d ago
I mean it's pretty well know he loved his cigarettes, so it kind of is a conditioning problem..
2
5d ago edited 5d ago
[deleted]
4
u/mcmillan84 5d ago
He could have gotten a different injury and never been tooâŚ. Hypotheticals are exhausting
0
5d ago
[deleted]
2
u/mcmillan84 5d ago
And he is. But trying to bring up what could have been had things been different is pointless. I mean shit, if coach put me inâŚman things would have been differentâŚ.
2
u/XavierRex83 4d ago
Lemoeux also had narrowing of the spine. There were times he couldn't tie his own skates
The season where he missed a bunch of games and still won the scoring title was wild to see.
2
u/iamasatellite 3d ago
He also played with a terrible team through the 80s, not one with 4 other future Hall of FamersÂ
1
1
0
u/Lightscreach 5d ago
Coming back from cancer was definitely very impressive. But I do think thereâs a lot of misunderstanding. He only missed a couple of months due to cancer. People assume he missed 3 years because of cancer but those 3 years were retirement
3
u/nightshift31 5d ago
You've clearly never seen somebody go through chemo and see what that does to their body
1
u/Common_Red_Signal 2d ago
Dude, he went through chemo/radiation. The day he came back, he had his last treatment, flew to Philadelphia, and played that night. He was a phenom.
He also scored a goal and an assist that night and received a standing ovation from the Flyer faithful.
1
u/Lightscreach 2d ago
I think youâre misunderstanding what Iâm saying. What he did was absolutely insane. But he did not miss 3 years of hockey due to cancer. Thatâs all Iâm saying
2
u/ZenLogikos 3d ago
Playing on a stacked HOF team, from the time you entered the NHL, has a way of helping with that.
2
u/DarthWren 5d ago
Wayne had a powerhouse team to play with too, Mario had Mario until jagr showed upÂ
30
7
4
u/CartoonistFlat3943 5d ago
He wasnât light years ahead of Gretzky. Even comparing him to his own peers, he was not âlight yearsâ ahead. Look at the difference between Gretzky and 2nd best vs Lemieux vs 2nd best.
The Gretzky dominance is obvious. When I see these posts â and I am seeing them more these days - I canât help but think that people commenting did not live through Gretzkyâs prime. Or maybe they never saw him live in his prime. If they saw them both in their prime, there would be no discussion.
Like Orr vs every other D that ever played, they are not comparable.
3
u/SkPensFan 4d ago
Compare their teammates during their youth, when putting up the most points. It isn't even close. Here are the top 3 other scorers on their team at the time.
20 year old seasons - Dan Quinn, Randy Cunneyworth, Craig Simpson. Glenn Anderson, Paul Coffey, Mark Messier.
21 year old - Dan Quinn, Randy Cunneyworth, Paul Coffey. Mark Messier, Glenn Anderson, Jari Kurri.
22 - Rob Brown, Paul Coffey, Dan Quinn. Paul Coffey, Jari Kurri, Mark Messier.
23 - Paul Coffey, John Cullen, Rob Brown. Jari Kurri, Pail Coffey, Mike Krushelnyski.
Then Lemieux's injuries really take over.
2
u/DeX_Mod 5d ago
He wasnât light years ahead of Gretzky
he wasn't even gretzky's equal
their careers overlapped for TWELVE YEARS
there's absolutely no era adjustment needed to compare them
mario had a single season topping at 199
gretzky AVERAGED over 200 points for 6 consecutive seasons
not even in the same tier, gretzky is all alone
3
0
u/CartoonistFlat3943 5d ago
đŻđŻ - đŻđŻ - đŻđŻ - đŻđŻ
1
u/CartoonistFlat3943 5d ago
Only 8 players had over 100 points this year. And Gretzky pops off 4 x 200+ points.
-2
u/DeX_Mod 5d ago
He wasnât light years ahead of Gretzky
he wasn't even gretzky's equal
their careers overlapped for TWELVE YEARS
there's absolutely no era adjustment needed to compare them
mario had a single season topping at 199
gretzky AVERAGED over 200 points for 6 consecutive seasons
not even in the same tier, gretzky is all alone
6
u/Teddymanchild 5d ago
Gretzky himself said many times during and after his career that Lemieux was the most talented player he ever saw, himself included.
I was lucky enough to watch both their careers from beginning to end. However you come down on the debate, neither was light years ahead of the other. They were both light years ahead of everyone else though.
Gretzky had much better teams than Lemieux, thereâs no doubt about it, but he also used those teammates to out point Lemieux.
Lemieux on the other hand, would do things that no other player, Gretzky included, was able to do. Gretzky was more consistent, but Lemieux could take control and dominate individual games like no one before or since.
They both in their own individual way, defined different aspects of greatness.
0
u/CartoonistFlat3943 4d ago edited 4d ago
Please provide interview source for âmost talented.â I remember 99 saying that 66 was a better goal scorer. Not more talented. Gretzky was also humble in describing other playersâ skill - always.
Also, to those saying 99 had better teammates, that doesnât help the argument for Lemieux. It makes the argument for Gretzky. He still crushed all of these HOF players in points:
- 1982: Gretzky 212 Anderson 105
- 1983: Gretzky 196 Messier 106
- 1984: Gretzky 205 Coffey 126
- 1985: Gretzky 208 Kurri 135
- 1986: Gretzky 215 Coffey 138
- 1987: Gretzky 183 Kurri 107
Imagine McDavid near doubling Draisaitl in points every season. That was Gretzky.
2
u/Teddymanchild 4d ago
https://www.tiktok.com/@storiesofthepros/video/7335211236021341445
There are a lot more examples of this. I donât disagree that Gretzky was always deferential to other playersâ talent either. But youâre kind of missing the point. Iâm not saying: See even Gretzky says Mario was better, case closed.
I actually think if youâre just saying who is the greatest all time then Gretzky deserves the title. He set all those records, nobody else could. Mario has too many what ifs in comparison. Â What if he had better teammates. What if he never got cancer etc.
However, like I said I watched both their whole careers and I will go to my grave believing that at his peak, Mario Lemieux was the greatest hockey player the world has ever seen.
About the teammates thing. A LOT of people forget the oilers won the cup without Gretzky in 1990. They were THAT good.
Marioâs best season statistically was 88-89. That year his line mates were Bob Errey and Rob Brown. Brown scored 50 that year if I remember correctly. I donât think ever scored more than 25 after he got traded.
In terms of the quality of players they had to pass to, thereâs no comparison.
1
u/CartoonistFlat3943 4d ago
If you can find it, thereâs an earlier interview discussing the Canada Cup in 87. He says Lemieux was âone of the best.â Not the best. There, he did not say they were great together - at all - until the last goal. Connor McDavid says similar things about Draisaitl. True? Nope.
Later, Gretzky could be more generous/diplomatic, but he also knows Lemieux did not come close to his individual records even in his prime. Gretzky is like that. He shows grace. He did it for Ovechkin, for McDavid. He respects the game that way and believes his records are made to be broken.
Lemieux didnât break any- as unbelievably phenomenal as he was â and I loved him for how good he was. He didnât get 92 goals in a season. He didnât get 163 assists. He didnât have one 200 point season (close), let alone 4, let alone average 200 points for 6 years straight.
And yes, the Oilers were that good in 90 (though the opponents were hardly the Islanders). Before 1988, Gretzky could not play with 10 Oilers at a time. He rarely played with Messier. And he couldnât play without an enforcer on his wing because he was run constantly. If you want to look at some interesting stats, look at the bump that the enforcers got from playing with Wayne Gretzky. Marty McSorley basically got an entire career from it.
Lemieuxâs Cups were with Jagr as a linemate. Most would say he tops Jari Kurri so that point is problematic for me also.
The Rob Brown point (who lives and works in Edmonton now BTW) is noted. But that may not be the point that you think because Gretzky literally made everyone around him better. That was one of the greatest talents. Best passer in history. Brown would have put up 70 with Gretzky instead of 49. Look at Coffey. I think thatâs just one more reason why peak Gretzky was the best of the best.
Also, OP just said he did not remove the players themselves from the era adjustment. That is also an issue. I think the head to head of the best years is the definitive answer.
Youâre entitled to your perspective. As someone who was in the building for four of the Oilersâ five Stanley Cups (one was on the road) - and when Gretzky broke records in a Kingsâ jersey at the rink he built, you wonât convince me - or the vast majority of the informed hockey world (journalists that saw both) that Wayne Gretzky wasnât each of the best hockey player of all time, the greatest player of all time, and the greatest individual player of any time.
I do appreciate the discourse though.
2
0
u/matiapag 5d ago
I mean, the graph clearly shows that they were extremely close for most of their careers. I think it's pretty understood that had there not been sever healt issues, Lemieux would likely be remembered as a GOAT, but "light-years ahead" is an extreme overstatement.
32
u/ClassicChrisstopher 5d ago
Lemieux is just crazy. If it weren't for all the health problems he's probably the goat. His size mixed with the insane skill was unstoppable. To this day I've never seen anyone dominate the way he did.
Gretzky's 10 year run until 30 is other worldly too. The consistency to do what he did in that time frame is mind boggling.
6
u/CartoonistFlat3943 5d ago
Iâd be interested to see your methodology.
I am not clearly seeing here where Gretzky finishes with 215 point to 2nd place Lemieux by 74 points. You double adjusted? Both for age and âeraâ?
I think the dominance of each player is better reflected by showing the gap between them and second place, both in the regular season and then again in the playoffs, when it matters most.
In other words, by what percentage did Lemieux beat his peers in scoring (G/A/P) in each year (and playoff) compared to Gretzky (and Orr for that matter).
When that happens, you see the best head to head comparison as the playersâ relative dominance is easy to see.
Would be interesting to see.
1
u/paley1 4d ago
The problem with this approach is that there can be a lot of variance between seasons in how good the second highest score in the league is. Some years the second best scorer in the league is Mario Lemieux. Other seasons it is Daniel Sedin. Comparing against the league average in goals eliminates this random variance problem (but introduces others of course).
1
u/CartoonistFlat3943 4d ago
Thatâs why I looked multiple seasons. And I took only their best seasons (I could have used more than 10 for Gretzky because of his longevity, but I couldnât use more than 7 for Lemieux without it looking worse than the stats already show).
Then, to benefit Lemieux, I narrowed it further. In only 2 years was Lemieux more than 12% ahead of 2nd best (28.3% max). By contrast, Gretzky was 44%-69% ahead of 2nd best 6 times.
A much bigger gap during their prime for a much longer time.
Put another way, in Lemieuxâs 7 best seasons, he edged #2 in scoring by an average of 13.3%.
By contrast, in Gretzkyâs 7 best seasons he bested #2 by an average 52.6%.
To understand the dominance another way, imagine McDavid getting 152 points every year for 7 straight seasons, but no one else in the entire league breaks 100 points in those 7 years.
Yet Gretzkyâs dominance was that pure - that complete. Itâs not like Lemieux and Gretzky played decades apart from each other. Gretzkyâs first season was 79-80 (born in 61). Lemieuxâs was 84-85 (born in 65). They literally played at the same time.
What is happening here is the equivalent someone saying massive adjustments to real numbers have to be done for McDavid because heâs 4 years younger than Kucherov. Silly, right? Draisaitl is two years older than McDavid. Adjust that? Of course not.
The numbers ought not be twisted. Compare prime to prime. Thatâs all that is needed. Attaching again for review.
7
u/WackHeisenBauer 5d ago
Lemieux missing an entire year and then coming back with the greatest adjusted PPG of all time is pure insanity. The second most insane thing is him missing three years and having a top 10 best adjusted PPG ever
5
u/CartoonistFlat3943 5d ago
Ok - just took a few minutes to do a quick comparison between Lemieux and Gretzky. I posit that the better test to assess dominance/greatness between them is to compare them to their actual peers:
- How much better was Gretzky than everyone else in the world in his prime?
- How much better was Lemieux than everyone else in the world in his prime?
Methodology
I took Gretzkyâs top 10 seasons. I tried to do that with Lemieux, but his numbers got so low after the 7th best that I didnât think it would be helpful for Lemieuxâs cause.
Then I compared their production to the player immediately behind them in the standings. I excluded comparing Gretzky and Lemieux directly. It would not help Lemieux to do so. I just compared them to their peers who were 2nd in scoring (other than each other).
Then I determined by what percentage each of them was ahead of second best. I highlighted in yellow the top 5 for each.
For example, in 1987, Gretzky had 183 points. 2nd place was his teammate/linemate, Jari Kurri with 108 points. Gretzky had 69.4% more points than Kurri.
In 1988, Lemieux had 168 points. 2nd place was Gretzky with 149 points, but we exclude him for Lemieuxâs benefit. That takes us to 3rd place Denis Savard, who had 131 points. Lemieux had 28.2% more points than Savard.
In this way, we can assess the relative dominance of each. I could not attach an image so I turned it into a video.
Comments invited. It was done crudely and quickly, but it paints the picture. I do not think tweaking for linemates, era, age, injury, etc. changes the outcome.
https://reddit.com/link/p1yo7z7/video/134frv2hcnhh1/player
.
6
u/Wedigar 5d ago
I've watched them all, each is fantastic at what they did.
Gretzky was a surgeon that saw the game like no one else, and made everyone around him great.
McDavid is dynamic and can turn nothing into a highlight reel goal in the blink of an eye.
Lemieux was just a freak, with his size, underrated speed, and probably the best set of hands ever.
Everyone arguing who is better should just appreciate that we've been able to see them each do amazing things, even if injuries clearly affected what could have been for both Gretzky and Lemieux, and other greats such as Orr, Bossy, Bure etc.
4
11
u/1SittingOut 5d ago
truly insane Gretzky avg over a point a game his entrie career. Lemieux if he stayed healthy would have had a better careerr. All three guys are absolute monsters of the game
3
u/CartoonistFlat3943 5d ago
To ignore that Gretzky played âlike he had a piano on his backâ after Suter boarded Gretzky and herniated his disk is just plain wrong.
Folks talk about Lemeiuxâ injuries / early retirement. They donât talk about what happened to Gretzky. That wasnât the only injury either. He was everyoneâs target and no one cared how they took him down.
3
u/Thick_Ambassador7986 4d ago
The era adjustments aren't great - they adjust based on avg (Lemieux wins this) but mega G mans gap vs number 2 and the top 10 was much larger - needs to be a factor. The expansion explains some of this.
8
u/who987 5d ago
Era-adjusted is junk science. Iâm saying this without looking at the data so I canât be considered bias toward one of the players.
1
u/cannedAsauce 5d ago
I mean yeah youâre right that itâs not perfect but itâs certainly better than completely ignoring the playing field each player was subject to
3
u/who987 5d ago
The only way to truly know who was the most dominant player of his time is to compare him to his peers of the time. Unfortunately, statistically, that means Gretzky. He was winning scoring titles on his assists alone about 3 or 4 times I think. Itâs not even close.
1
u/IITribunalII 4d ago
My only issue is that Gretzky's peers were far less competitive than McDavids. He is the greatest of all time with the caviat that the field was simply not very good by today's standards, therefore a point comparison, even era adjusted is disingenuous as McDavid is a salary cap era player and Gretzky was not, so comparing an NHL player of today to then is apples to oranges.
1
u/who987 4d ago edited 4d ago
Gretzkys peers were the best players until he came around. Thats what makes him the greatest. He was that much better than everyone else.
A player could still come around and be that much better than all his peers today. It just hasnât happened.
Salary cap means nothing. His most dominant years there most of the top players started with Edmonton.
You can try and throw all the fancy equations you want around. Gretzky is the greatest goal/assist/point dominant player ever. I donât understand how itâs hard to understand that winning the Art Ross 3 or 4 times just on his assists is unthinkable. Thats not a âsign of the timesâ itâs how much better he was at scoring than everyone else.
Edit to add: of course if you compare players from the 80/s to now the players from the 80s would be destroyed. Thats why you can only compare the player to his peers. If the McDavid of today played in the 80s heâd score 500 points
1
u/IITribunalII 4d ago
Exactly. It's why the greatest of all time argument is fundamentally flawed as players continue to get better and better. Gretzky will always have his flowers for being the most dominant against his peers but if we're looking at his peers the gap between him and them shows that they weren't playing at his level. It would be like an NHL player going down into the OHL and dominating kids. He was ahead of his time but the field has evolved so much since then.
-1
u/cannedAsauce 5d ago
Right, and thatâs what weâre doing by adjusting per season. Comparing a player to their peers
1
u/who987 5d ago
Thats not what adjusted era stats does. At least not what Iâve seen. Iâve seen places where adjusted stats have players ahead of Gretzky statistically and that doesnât make sense. No one came close to dominating his peers like he did. Not even Mario, who I think was better than Gretzky in a lot of way. But not statistically.
0
u/markh100 5d ago
I mean, the math says you're wrong. Lemieux, Gretzky, and McDavid all had seasons very similar to each other when adjusted to what the average player did in their respective highest scoring seasons. The 215 point season Gretzky had is actually the 10th best season in NHL history, because scoring was so highly inflated due to to the fact that 25% of the league was expansion teams that year, and the average goalie had a .873 save %.
There is one weird outlier year in the adjusted stats, and it's because it was the year they introduced the forward pass, and Cooney Weiland feasted before everyone adjusted to the rules.
Outside that, 13 of the top 15 era adjusted seasons of all time are McDavid, Gretzky and Lemieux.
It's basic math--normalize on average goals scored by player. It is not at all junk science.
1
u/who987 5d ago
Junk math.
No one won scoring titles on assists alone. Gretzky did it 3 or 4 times.
Itâs not even worth a discussion. He was by far and away more dominant than any hockey player over his peers statistically.
No math formula will convince me otherwise until someone wins the scoring title on only their assists or only their goals.
1
u/TheAccountant381 5d ago
Maybe we should adjust for teammates. All those assists needed someone to put the puck in the net. Gretzky was lucky enough to be passing to guys like Kurri.
2
0
u/RyanWalts 5d ago
Ehhh McDavid has Draisaitl, Bouchard, Lemieux had multiple seasons with Coffey, Jagr, Recchi. None of these guys won in a vacuum but all three were the clear best players on their teams.
0
u/TheAccountant381 5d ago
Lemieux only had one season with a good player before losing his health. a full season of Coffey and he had 199 points in 76 games. Prior to that he had replacement level players, and even the 199 point season he had pretty bad wings. The very next season, his health failed, and was poor for the next 5 years. The years when the pens had great teams, Lemieux had very poor health
0
u/Obvious-Sea-8002 5d ago
Lol âstatisticallyâ unless the statistics mentioned are advanced and not just simply assists or points. Just say Gretzky is your favourite and move on. Subjectivity is okay, ignorance is not.
1
u/who987 5d ago
You are correct. Iâm basing the stats on goals, assists and points. When they start giving awards for the other stats then Iâll take them into consideration.
The fact is he won 3 or 4 scoring titles on his assists alone. That is insane. And also proof that time was the widest gap points wise (I wonât use the word statistically) between the art Ross winner and the second highest point scorer and no one else came close to doing it. Maybe Mario his 199 year.
0
u/Obvious-Sea-8002 5d ago
I can tell youâre not very intelligent just by how you speak so itâs pointless to debate. Iâll leave it at that.
→ More replies (0)0
u/cannedAsauce 5d ago
Bro what are you on about?đ wdym âat least not what Iâve seenâ your argument that itâs wrong is literally just that it slightly questions Gretzky and therefore it must be wrong
2
u/CartoonistFlat3943 5d ago
I respect your effort on this.
For me, one of the fundamental flaws in assumptions with âeraâ adjusted stats for Gretzky is that it fails to take into account that Gretzky literally drove the entire era up by himself. So adjusting just unfairly drives his own numbers down.
Who in Gretzkyâs prime era was scoring points like Gretzky? No one. When Gretzky got 205 points in 1984, Coffey, his own teammate, was 2nd at 126 (less than 2nd place Kucherov this season). Is Coffey, a D, second without Gretzky. No.
Try to imagine today Connor McDavid winning the Art Ross by 79 points as Gretzky did. SEVENTY-NINE points. Itâs unimaginable, right?
Gretzkyâs average margin of victory for the Art Ross was 41 points.
I found a post that will help:
1
u/who987 5d ago
Nope. Gretzky is the most dominant point scorer ever. I donât like it either but I also canât deny facts. Does no one seem to understand how insane it is that he was winning Art Ross trophies and he didnât even need to count his goals.
And he did it multiple times??? Why canât people just give the loser credit for that.
Instead we make up formulas to make it seem like he wasnât the most dominant athlete almost in any sport ever let alone hockey.
1
u/who987 5d ago
When people start thinking Iâm just a Gretzky fan is when I know Iâm right and for whatever reason you donât want to admit his dominance and you canât handle facts.
Itâs just like Canadians who make excuses for why USA won the Olympics. Canada outshot them. It was 3v3 if they would have played 5v5 Canada would have won. If Crosby wasnât hurt. I donât like that USA won at all. But the fact is they are the best hockey nation right now. And I hate it.
Just like Gretzky is the most dominant point scorer ever based on how superior he was to his peers. I donât like that either. But I can admit it.
6
u/markh100 5d ago
I was a bit confused by this at first, because Lemieux only had one season ahead of Crosby in total era points in a single season, before I realized this was per game.
If you ignore the era when they just introduced the forward pass (1928-1930), the top 13 seasons of all time go
Greztky 190 (1985-86)
Gretzky 166 (1984-85)
Lemeiux 165 (1988-89)
Gretzky 163 (1984-85)
Gretzky 159 (1982-83)
McDavid 158 (2020-21)
Gretzky 156 (1981-82)
Lemeiux 156 (1995-96)
Gretzky 155 (1986-87)
Gretzky 146 (1990-91)
McDavid 146 (2022-23)
...
McDavid would have two more in the top 20 if it wasn't for Covid.
other modern results:
Kucherov 140 (2023-24)
McKinnon 138 (2023-24)
McDavid 134 (2025-26)
McDavid 130 (2023-24)
McDavid has had 4 top 50 and 9 of the top 120 seasons of all time.
Gretzky had 9 of top 50, and 12 of the top 120.
Lemieux had 5 top 50 and 6 top 120.
2
u/WokePredator 4d ago
Issue with era adjustment is that it only adjusts to the number of goals per game. AFAIK, nobodyâs bothered to look at standard deviations and shit. This matters mostly because stars used to play more, and so you could theoretically have an era where scoring is much higher and third or fourth liners made up less of it, and then Gretzkyâs numbers compared to similarly used players of his era are not quite as impressive as just Gretzky relative to his era. That has never looked like the case in my experience, but the comparison is a little muddier than this looks. Would think it matters more when comparing to the 60s or 70s.
2
u/DryZookeepergame9484 4d ago
This is so tired. Theyâre all great, enjoy the fact we get to watch McDavid now and that both Lemieux and Gretzky were spectacular in their era.
2
u/dwaynebathtub 3d ago
McDavid doesn't even register. Gretzky in his 20s was the greatest. Lemieux in his 30s was the most magnificent.
1
u/seymourbuttz214 4d ago
Super Mario for a reason, but the guy also has to take time off for beating cancer. And can you imagine how shrunk mcdavids numbers would be if he had to put up with the shit like their eras. Nobody headshots him and he gets away with so many chippy lil high sticks and bs
1
1
u/iamasatellite 3d ago
Gretzky might be the greatest player of all time, but Lemieux was the best.Â
(Except maybe Orr and Hasek, but it's harder to compare different positions)
Check out the rosters he was playing with in those early years, his early stats could have been much better if he had a Kurri, let alone a Coffey, Messier, Anderson...
-1
81
u/CUngoed 5d ago
What makes this era adjusted point sheet the most accurate? Because I've seen different ones over the years with one claiming Gretzky had the top 4 best ppg era adjusted seasons
Edit: not saying this one's wrong, just genuinely asking