Red Mosquito

philpritchard wrote:And if you think Lemieux had injury problems, you may want to keep in mind that Bobby Orr's career was essentially over before he turned 27. He only played 36 games from that point on.

Also, Orr put his numbers up playing D.

Guys, all I said was that Mario seemed more likeable....as a person. Of course Gretzky was better!

southp wrote:Guys, all I said was that Mario seemed more likeable....as a person. Of course Gretzky was better!

I have always found him extremely unlikable.

This is the other thing I think Lemiuex had going for him, as it relates to public opinion. He was the underdog. Gretzky's Oilers teams were SO dominant, you couldn't help but root for the guy trying to unseat them.

I mean hell, didnt they get rid of the 4 on 4 and replace them with the whole coincidental minor penalties just because the Oilers were so ridiculous?


RE: Stevens. The numbers you're pointing too also coincide with Stevens prime, his age 25-28 seasons, and he was the essentially the first "power forward" of that wave. As defenses started to figure out how to deal with that type of player, and he started to deal with his own significant injury problems, of course his production went down. So while Mario gets a ton of credit for making him better, there were a lot of other factors that went into his decline. But jesus christ his 91-92 is absolutely insane- 123 pts, 54 goals AND 254 Penalty Minutes? Dude spent more than 4 games in the box, and still put up those numbers.

and not to belabor the longevity point, but an 1100 point difference has to play a role. Shit, Gretzky has almost a 1000 points more than 2nd place. (i did not realize how large that gap had gotten by the end of his career.)

Thejambi wrote:

southp wrote:Guys, all I said was that Mario seemed more likeable....as a person. Of course Gretzky was better!

I have always found him extremely unlikable.

I still find this opinion hard to understand.

philpritchard wrote:

Thejambi wrote:

southp wrote:Guys, all I said was that Mario seemed more likeable....as a person. Of course Gretzky was better!

I have always found him extremely unlikable.

I still find this opinion hard to understand.

He's handsome

Im not sure i am digging this whole "phil sharing opinions before running day nine" nonsense.

It's like when BRL posts gifs and memes when it's his pick.

Here's one of my favourite hockey moments.



500th career goal. While shorthanded. To complete the hat-trick. In overtime.

What else do we want to talk about?

Day 9 Results!

Toronto Maple Leafs @ Dallas Stars
Game 1 - http://whatifsports.com/nhl/boxscore.as ... teamfee=-1

Spoiler: show

Toronto Maple Leafs - 3
Dallas Stars - 7

Three Stars
1. Dal – Bobby Smith
2. Dal – Dino Ciccarelli
3. Dal – Ed Belfour

Game 2 - http://whatifsports.com/nhl/boxscore.as ... teamfee=-1

Spoiler: show

Toronto Maple Leafs – 5 (OT)
Dallas Stars - 6

Three Stars
1. Dal – Dino Ciccarelli
2. Dal – Neal Broten
3. Tor – Charlie Conacher

Detroit Red Wings @ Pittsburgh Penguins
Game 1 - http://whatifsports.com/nhl/boxscore.as ... teamfee=-1

Spoiler: show

Detroit Red Wings - 7
Pittsburgh Penguins - 5

Three Stars
1. Det – Gordie Howe
2. Det – Mickey Redmond
3. Pit – Sidney Crosby

Game 2 - http://whatifsports.com/nhl/boxscore.as ... teamfee=-1

Spoiler: show

Detroit Red Wings - 7
Pittsburgh Penguins - 6

Three Stars
1. Det – Sergei Fedorov
2. Det – Gordie Howe
3. Det – Carl Liscombe

St. Louis Blues @ Boston Bruins
Game 1 - http://whatifsports.com/nhl/boxscore.as ... teamfee=-1

Spoiler: show

St. Louis Blues - 3
Boston Bruins - 5

Three Stars
1. Bos – Adam Oates
2. Stl – Joe Mullen
3. Stl – Doug Gilmour

Game 2 - http://whatifsports.com/nhl/boxscore.as ... teamfee=-1

Spoiler: show

St. Louis Blues - 3
Boston Bruins – 2 (OT)

Three Stars
1. Stl – Roman Turek
2. Bos – Tiny Thompson
3. Stl – Alex Pietrangelo

Edmonton Oilers @ Chicago Blackhawks
Game 1 - http://whatifsports.com/nhl/boxscore.as ... teamfee=-1

Spoiler: show

Edmonton Oilers - 6
Chicago Blackhawks - 5

Three Stars
1. Edm – Risto Siltanen
2. Chi – Stan Mikita
3. Edm – Mike Comrie

Game 2 - http://whatifsports.com/nhl/boxscore.as ... teamfee=-1

Spoiler: show

Edmonton Oilers - 5
Chicago Blackhawks - 8

Three Stars
1. Chi – Stan Mikita
2. Chi – Jonathan Toews
3. Chi – Pierre Pilote

Quebecorado Nordalanche @ Buffalo Sabres
Game 1 - http://whatifsports.com/nhl/boxscore.as ... teamfee=-1

Spoiler: show

Quebecorado Nordalanche - 3
Buffalo Sabres - 7

Three Stars
1. Buf – Gilbert Perreault
2. Buf – Phil Housley
3. Buf – Miroslav Satan

Game 2 - http://whatifsports.com/nhl/boxscore.as ... teamfee=-1

Spoiler: show

Quebecorado Nordalanche - 1
Buffalo Sabres - 3

Three Stars
1. Buf – Dominik Hasek
2. Que – Semyon Varlamov
3. Buf – Daniel Briere

Montreal Canadiens @ New York Islanders
Game 1 - http://whatifsports.com/nhl/boxscore.as ... teamfee=-1

Spoiler: show

Montreal Canadiens - 2
New York Islanders - 3

Three Stars
1. NYI – Derek King
2. Mtl – Steve Shutt
3. Mtl – Larry Robinson

Game 2 - http://whatifsports.com/nhl/boxscore.as ... teamfee=-1

Spoiler: show

Montreal Canadiens - 2
New York Islanders - 5

Three Stars
1. NYI – Brent Sutter
2. NYI – Tomas Jonsson
3. NYI – Bryan Trottier

Trottier having a nice season so far

philpritchard wrote:

- 2nd in points per game (Gretzky is 1st)*

- 2nd in goals per game (min. 500 games)(Gretzky is 4th)

- 2nd in assists per game (Gretzky is 1st)*

- 1st in goals per game in playoffs (Gretzky is 2nd)

If this is meant to show how Lemieux is better, I'm not sure it does a very good job.

Except you left out the asterisks...

Only when Lemieux came back in his late thirties to prop up a dying franchise did his per game numbers drop below Gretzky's. Through the end of the 2002-2003 season (the third year of his final comeback, and when he was about the same age Gretzky was when he retired), he still had a higher points per game average. And that's without having the benefit of having played between the ages of 31 and 35. And having missed nearly two whole seasons in his prime (ages 28-29). He won back-to-back scoring titles going into that period and then won back-to-back scoring titles coming out of it, so it's not a stretch to think he would've easily put up a pair of 160+ point seasons in there. In fact, from the point where Gretzky was entering his physical prime (age 27), the only scoring titles he won from then on came in seasons where Lemieux played less that 30 games. From age 22 through his second retirement (at 31), Lemieux won the scoring title in every season where he played at least 30 games except for one, and that was in an era when the NHL was packed to the brim with top flight scoring talent in their primes.

philpritchard wrote:And if you think Lemieux had injury problems, you may want to keep in mind that Bobby Orr's career was essentially over before he turned 27. He only played 36 games from that point on.

I called Gretzky the third best ever (behind Lemieux and Orr) in my initial post, and later posted that I wouldn't put up any sort of argument against someone who wanted to say Orr was the greatest player ever.

Phil, I'm curious as to why Varlamov over Roy?

Lament wrote:

philpritchard wrote:

- 2nd in points per game (Gretzky is 1st)*

- 2nd in goals per game (min. 500 games)(Gretzky is 4th)

- 2nd in assists per game (Gretzky is 1st)*

- 1st in goals per game in playoffs (Gretzky is 2nd)

If this is meant to show how Lemieux is better, I'm not sure it does a very good job.

Except you left out the asterisks...

Only when Lemieux came back in his late thirties to prop up a dying franchise did his per game numbers drop below Gretzky's. Through the end of the 2002-2003 season (the third year of his final comeback, and when he was about the same age Gretzky was when he retired), he still had a higher points per game average. And that's without having the benefit of having played between the ages of 31 and 35. And having missed nearly two whole seasons in his prime (ages 28-29). He won back-to-back scoring titles going into that period and then won back-to-back scoring titles coming out of it, so it's not a stretch to think he would've easily put up a pair of 160+ point seasons in there. In fact, from the point where Gretzky was entering his physical prime (age 27), the only scoring titles he won from then on came in seasons where Lemieux played less that 30 games. From age 22 through his second retirement (at 31), Lemieux won the scoring title in every season where he played at least 30 games except for one, and that was in an era when the NHL was packed to the brim with top flight scoring talent in their primes.

philpritchard wrote:And if you think Lemieux had injury problems, you may want to keep in mind that Bobby Orr's career was essentially over before he turned 27. He only played 36 games from that point on.

I called Gretzky the third best ever (behind Lemieux and Orr) in my initial post, and later posted that I wouldn't put up any sort of argument against someone who wanted to say Orr was the greatest player ever.

And I want to say Lemieux is third. So... do we fight now, or...?

Mecca wrote:Phil, I'm curious as to why Varlamov over Roy?

Roy had a couple bad games early and WhatIf seems to love Varlamov.

Also, it's taken very little time for me to start not caring about what happens to my teams in this.

philpritchard wrote:

Mecca wrote:Phil, I'm curious as to why Varlamov over Roy?

Roy had a couple bad games early and WhatIf seems to love Varlamov.

Also, it's taken very little time for me to start not caring about what happens to my teams in this.

Spoken like a true leafs fan in the post-lockout era

Mecca wrote:

philpritchard wrote:

Mecca wrote:Phil, I'm curious as to why Varlamov over Roy?

Roy had a couple bad games early and WhatIf seems to love Varlamov.

Also, it's taken very little time for me to start not caring about what happens to my teams in this.

Spoken like a true leafs fan in the post-lockout era

At least I have confidence in the Leafs' future right now (for the first time in a long, long time). I'm pretty sure my team in this tournament is just going to be more of the same the rest of the way.