SportsAndLady;618244 wrote:We're not talking about how great they could have been..the argument is who was better.
rock_knutne;618245 wrote:Believe that Lemieux shatters those records? Yes I do, IF he stays healthy.
I don't understand why you can't have an opinion on something, especially when it would not be out of the realm of possibility.
rock_knutne;618249 wrote:Lemieux was better IMO, as I mentioned before, he had it all.......speed, size, strength and ridiculous skills. I'll wait for another response as to why I'm wrong.:rolleyes:
SportsAndLady;618251 wrote:You can have an opinion on something (obviously) but to use those opinions as facts to support your argument is a fallacy.
Yeah and that is you. You're argument has IFs, while the others bring facts. Yet you act like others are crazy when they disagree with you.rock_knutne;618245 wrote:Believe that Lemieux shatters those records? Yes I do, IF he stays healthy.
I don't understand why you can't have an opinion on something, especially when it would not be out of the realm of possibility.
Automatik;618256 wrote:Yeah and that is you. You're argument has IFs, while the others bring facts. Yet you act like others are crazy when they disagree with you.
Time to move on.
rock_knutne;618257 wrote:What's crazy is your logic!
Look above, I edited my post.Automatik;618260 wrote:How so?
Dude, did you hit a reset button in your head? No one is going to start the entire argument over again and throw out the numbers of how much Gretzky dominated him by. You're biased and it's obvious.rock_knutne;618249 wrote:Lemieux was better IMO, as I mentioned before, he had it all.......speed, size, strength and ridiculous skills. I'll wait for another response as to why I'm wrong.:rolleyes:
Raw Dawgin' it;618262 wrote:Dude, did you hit a reset button in your head? No one is going to start the entire argument over again and throw out the numbers of how much Gretzky dominated him by. You're biased and it's obvious.
rock_knutne;618261 wrote:Look above, I edited my post.
Automatik;618268 wrote:Wow....big fucking deal. How do you know he would have produced at said rate IF he could have played in those games? YOU DON'T KNOW.
Raw Dawgin' it;618267 wrote:I'm outta here! Time for the weekend! ROCK maybe the Wizard will bring you a new brain for the new year, one that can process the knowledge that was dropped on it today.
I'm not the one that said Lemiex is better or would have "shattered" Gretzky's records. The only way to measure their careers is stats and Lemieux fall short....by a lot.rock_knutne;618270 wrote:And neither do you or anyone else! That's why it's opinionated on both sides!
Automatik;618281 wrote:I'm not the one that said Lemiex is better or would have "shattered" Gretzky's records. The only way to measure their careers is stats and Lemieux fall short....by a lot.
Hockey GOAT:
Gretzky
Lemieux
End of story.
lhslep134;618723 wrote:I guess objectively you could look at pts per game, that would equalize the sheer amount of game differential.
Gretzky: 2857 pts/1487 games = 1.92 pts/game
Lemiuex: 1723 pts/915 games = 1.88 pts/game
Very close.
lhslep134;618723 wrote:I guess objectively you could look at pts per game, that would equalize the sheer amount of game differential.
Gretzky: 2857 pts/1487 games = 1.92 pts/game
Lemiuex: 1723 pts/915 games = 1.88 pts/game
Very close.
The_Crosby_Show;619039 wrote:Before the 2005-2006 season, Lemieux did have over a career PPG of over 2.
Laley23;619128 wrote:What was Gretzky at before his decline at the end of his career?
