Mario is great, no doubt, and I would choose him over Wayne if selecting a team, but Wayne is the icon as far as the NHL is concerned.  He essentially put the game on the map, especially with the trade to LA and the ability to market the game to the US around him there.  I think retiring the jersey league wide is something special that should be reserved for just Wayne.

Posted by Russian Rocket on 12/15/09 at 09:35 AM ET

Well, I really don’t want this turning into a Wayne vs. Mario argument, but in Mario’s defense, allow me to present just a couple of stats, since many will look at the numbers:

In Wayne’s 21 seasons, he missed 235 games….

Mario played four fewer years with 17, plus missed 479 games, which equate to nearly six seasons out of the lineup because of chronic back injuries, as well as cancer…. Include the three years missed after he decided to retire, that’s nine seasons….. Who knows what his stats end up being….

I’m not diminishing Wayne’s stats at all, he was an incredible player…. But I think there is absolutely no doubt that any discussion regarding Gretzky’s status as an all-time great must also include Lemieux right up there….

My .02….

Posted by Tony from Virginia Beach, VA on 12/15/09 at 09:45 AM ET

My gut feeling is, “Yes, absolutely!”

The only issue is when you start to analyze (and probably over-analyze it), you have to consider all the other players of that ilk—Orr, Howe, and Richard, for starters.

Mario has done so much for hockey, but specifically, he’s done a lot for hockey in Pittsburgh. Wayne certainly impacted every team he played for, but the trade to LA, the subsequent (albeit moderate) success, setting records in LA, etc. It all impacted the league as a whole because it was the game’s best player in the second-largest market in the U.S., so it took on a national appeal.

Posted by Nathan from the scoresheet! on 12/15/09 at 09:48 AM ET

Who knows what his stats end up being….

I’m not a fan of these arguments.  They can make any player seem deserving of a Nobel Prize. 

I voted yes.
BUT - That’s it for retiring numbers.

Posted by MarkK from Maryland on 12/15/09 at 09:50 AM ET

Gretzky’s retirement was less about stats and records as much as being a face. He was a marketable machine (like Russian Rocket said). #66 is a burgh legend and his number is hanging in the appropriate place. League wide is silly. I don’t really like that they retired Gretzky’s league wide. It’s about as silly as the Avs hanging Bourque’s number or the Habs hanging all prime numbers or whatever their scheme is for retiring numbers.

Posted by redxblack from Akron Ohio on 12/15/09 at 10:02 AM ET

Let me expand a bit on what I said.

Certainly, Wayne benefits here because of his circumstance. But it is what it is, we can’t change it.

There are lots of players that have had a major impact on a single team, and deserve major credit for that. This is the case with Yzerman in Detroit, Modano in Minnesota/Dallas, Hull in St. Louis, and Mario in Pittsburgh. Had any one of those players landed in L.A., Chicago, or New York during their careers, and fueled the similar runs of success, then they might have been what Wayne was when it came to spreading the game west of Chicago and south of the border. All those players are definite legends for their respective clubs, but none came close to having the national impact Wayne in LA had.

The statistical arguments are way too open-ended. Heck, I do agree that as far as on-ice talent, while Mario was different, he was just as good as Wayne (or Howe, Orr, etc.). As good as the game has ever seen. The difference between he and Wayne is circumstance. Wayne went to LA, Mario stayed in Pittsburgh. And let’s be honest, for a sport with no better than a regional fanbase, you don’t grab attention from middle-America and the west coast playing in Pittsburgh (or Detroit… that wasn’t an attack on Pittsburgh).

Even then, you could get into debates about personality and media savvy. Had Mario been put in Wayne’s shoes, would he have handled it well? How would he have fared being traded in the biggest and most shocking trade in NHL (or sports) history? The team he played and grew up with, in his home country, to the biggest circus city in the world? I’m not saying Mario wouldn’t have done it with grace. I’m just saying that Wayne DID do it with grace, and that’s all we know.

Posted by Nathan from the scoresheet! on 12/15/09 at 10:17 AM ET

No number should ever be retired across the league, in my opinion.

Posted by false_cause from DC on 12/15/09 at 10:37 AM ET

If we’re talking about stats then that opens up a can of worms.  There are many players, Howe for one, that would deserve to get a league wide retirement.  Gretzky got it, if we’re talking stats, because he would still be the number one all time scorer by one hundred points even if he never scored a goal.

If we’re talking about what he meant to the game, well again that’s debatable.  I’m not saying he wasn’t great.  He was.  He was a warrior that played through pain for his last couple seasons.  But, how many people in the world know the name Mario Lemieux vs how many people know the name Wayne Gretzky.  It could be argued that the name Wayne Gretzky is the most well known name the sport of hockey has ever seen.

It could also be argued that without Wayne, there wouldn’t be any teams south of Chicago and west of Pittsburgh.  It depends on the person if that’s a good thing or bad thing…

If were talking about how they represented the sport and the kind of person they are/were for the game than I know at least two teams worth of fans that would like to see a league wide retirement of the number 19.

I think Mario Lemieux is just too close to too many other greats to have a league wide retirement justified.  Again, I’m not saying he wasn’t one of the greatest, but compared to Wayne Gretzky overall…I can see why one gets the retirement and the other doesn’t.

Posted by AvsRock from My timeshare in insanity... on 12/15/09 at 10:43 AM ET

Damn it!  I forgot one thing.

It may not be official, but I doubt anyone will have the guts to wear a 66 anyway.  I guess we can say it will be an un-official league wide retirement.

Posted by AvsRock from My timeshare in insanity... on 12/15/09 at 10:44 AM ET

Avsrock, some AHL doucher from the Leafs wore 66 into the Igloo for a preseason game this year. Needless to say, he was booed every time he touched the ice.

I don’t like the Idea of retiring 66 league wide, because then you get people crying about why their team’s superstar wasn’t retired. Some things are just better left untouched. Keep it at Gretzky alone and forget about it. (Although IMO Mario was the better player AND did more for the game and the community)

Posted by Kstewty16 on 12/15/09 at 10:54 AM ET

Against 66 being retired by the NHL, but not because Lemieux is not as deserving as Gretzky, but because it is a bad idea to retire a number across the entire league in all circumstances.  I don’t believe in merit based on marketing, so once 99 was retired why wasn’t 9 or 4?

The one thing I think the Maple Leafs actually do right is to honour the player and his number, but leave the number in the rotation. I think that by hanging a number in the rafters to never be used again it just creates a relic that is forgotten over time. It is a lot more interesting to compare a player of today with a legend that wore the same number than to see it in motthballs.

Posted by Hockey1919 from Montreal on 12/15/09 at 11:03 AM ET

The argument that Mario would have had equal or greater numbers than Gretzky had he not been injured/ill are irrelevant, because he was.  I do believe he is as good as the game had ever seen, but Gretzky was not only the face of the NHL, he was also the one responsible for smashing the records, putting hockey on the front page of SI, etc.  Anyone old enough to remember the early 80’s will tell you that what he was doing was insane compared to both history but also his contemporaries.  Yes, Mario almost had 200 points, but by that point it had been done (several times). I love Mario, but Gretzky was a unique player with a once in history situation. When Tavares starts breaking the 270 point barrier regularly, we may be able to discuss it as relevant to what Gretzky did.

Posted by dip on 12/15/09 at 11:06 AM ET

No, but nobody would dare wear it anyway.

Posted by Jarick on 12/15/09 at 11:16 AM ET

Someone in Montreal will HAVE to wear 66 sooner or later. They’re running out of possible sweater numbers. They’ll probably have to go to license plate letter-number combos soon enough.

Posted by redxblack from Akron Ohio on 12/15/09 at 11:33 AM ET

Avsrock, just curious, what other greats is Lemieux close to?  Total numbers stats wise I hear you, but when you look at total numbers and games played there is only one comparison and that is Gretzky.  I think we all agree that Yzerman was a great player with comparable stats to Lemieux but he had 500+ games to compile the same numbers.

I dont think that 66 should be retired across the league because I would love to see a player with the nads to put it on.

Posted by spike on 12/15/09 at 11:36 AM ET

(Although IMO Mario was the better player AND did more for the game and the community)

Posted by Kstewty16 on 12/15/09 at 10:54 AM ET

Care to explain?

Outside of Pittsburgh, Mario’s impact is small in comparison to 99’s.

Again, a lot of it just has to do with circumstance and timing, but those aren’t things we can change. Certainly, Mario’s story is more inspirational. To beat cancer like that, and return to play in the NHL at an epic level… very great stuff, to be sure. Then, to fight through the chronic back issues, and again return in the form he did… incredibly impressive. But all these things happened a few years after Gretzky had already been traded to LA, and they happened in a (relatively) tiny media market.

I’m not saying it’s “fair” or that it’s “just.” I’m saying that’s what happened, and it can’t be changed. Everyone knows who Gretzky is because he came first, played in a bigger market, and broke all the records before Lemieux had a chance. It’s all down to timing. Frankly, even if Lemieux had come first, had played in NYC, or LA, or Chicago, I’m not sure it would’ve made a difference, because Gretzky would’ve come along right after, healthier, and smashed his records.

Posted by Nathan from the scoresheet! on 12/15/09 at 11:39 AM ET

Agree with those above who say retiring any number league-wide is a poor idea, except for Jackie Robinson.  And sorry, despite the good Gretzky did for the game of hockey, his contributions should never be mentioned in the same breath as Robinson’s.

Also, given the sorry state of many of the franchises Wayne is given credit for spawning, his contributions ain’t what they used to be.  I think that has to be admitted at this point. 

So even though I am a big admirer of Mario’s and think he probably doesn’t get the credit that he deserves (not that I imagine he cares) no on the league-wide number retirement.

And it was HILARIOUS how the Igloo crowd booed that idiot from Toronto who had the temerity to don 66 in a preseason game.  Classic.

Posted by Caliphate on 12/15/09 at 12:38 PM ET

And it was completely not HILARIOUS how the Igloo crowd booed that poor kid from Toronto who had the temerity to don 66 after it was assigned to him in a preseason game. Classic example of moronic behavior by Pens fans who think the universe rotates around Mario’s navel.

(Fixed.)

In answer to the original question…No. And 99 should not have been retired league-wide either.

Just another example of why Gary Bettman runs neck and neck with Bud Selig for the title of World’s Worst Professional Sports Commissioner.

Posted by YzermanZetterberg on 12/15/09 at 01:59 PM ET

Uh, how about no? It’s ludicrous that 99 was retired league-wide.

Jackie Robinson makes some sense, but no hockey player has ever meant to this sport what Robinson meant to baseball.

Posted by Josh from Whitehorse on 12/15/09 at 03:13 PM ET

Uh, how about no? It’s ludicrous that 99 was retired league-wide.

Jackie Robinson makes some sense, but no hockey player has ever meant to this sport what Robinson meant to baseball.

Posted by Josh from Whitehorse on 12/15/09 at 03:13 PM ET

Well, I’d actually argue that Roberto Clemente’s “21” should be retired as well…. Clemente put up with the racism as well as the language barrier….

But let’s stick to Mario for now….

Posted by Tony from Virginia Beach, VA on 12/15/09 at 03:17 PM ET

Why retire #66 for Mario?

How about number 9 across the board for Howe, Hull, Bucyk, Richard, Bathgate, and Kennedy…..that take care of the Original 6, all with their names on the Stanley Cup.  The add Lannie McDonald, Clarke Gilles and Adam Graves.

How about #4 for Orr, Beliveau, Hap Day, Scott Stevens and Red Kelly, all with their names also on the Cup.

Mario was very good, but not worthy of the permanent #66 retirement.

Posted by Nosmo King from Boston on 12/15/09 at 03:34 PM ET

Not to throw a bone in anyone’s arguments about why “66” shouldn’t be retired if other superstars numbers aren’t ... but why not step outside and ask a non-fan if they know who Mario Lemieux is; who he played for.

Then ask the same person who Yzerman is. Or Modano. Or Hull. Or Howe. Or Orr ... or anyone who is not currently/in recent years an NHL posterboy.

I think that for countless people across the U.S., across Canada, across the world, Lemieux IS hockey—as much if not more than Gretzky.

For this reason, and for his undeniable talent, “66” should be retired—and let it be the last NHL-wide number retirement.

But, in the same sense, I totally agree with Nathan up there: Show me the player that has the balls to wear 66 by choice ... but if you have already set a precedent for the Great One, you better make room in the league’s rafter for the greater one.

Posted by Nick Jr. from Raleigh, NC on 12/15/09 at 03:46 PM ET

Nosmo King, I accidently deleted your request for KK membership.

If you see this, can you please re-submit and I will approve it quickly.

Thanks,

Paul

Posted by Paul from Motown Area on 12/15/09 at 04:14 PM ET

Yes, retire it like 99 was retired. I think Gretzky 99 and Lemieux 66 and Jordan 23 are the three most iconic numbers in all of sports (well American sports at least). Not because each of the players wearing the number meant so much to their sport (or more than any other players in the sport) but because even non fans of those sports know Gretzky was #99 and Lemieux was 66. My mom doesn’t follow Hockey much beyond team names yet knows Lemieux wore 66. I think the average non-hockey fan would know who Gordie Howe and Maurice Richard are but don’t know what number they wear.

Personally i can’t see or think of the numbers 66 without immediately thinking Mario Lemieux.

Go Devils!

Posted by Eitan from California on 12/16/09 at 01:18 AM ET

Absolutely not; in fact, 99 shouldn’t have been retired league-wide. When you do something like that, people are going to question (rightly so): why not 9? Why not 4? etc.

It’s something that teams do to honor their great players. It’s not something the league needs to concern themselves with.

Posted by Theophany on 12/16/09 at 01:29 AM ET

I have to say, as a fairly new fan to hockey, that I had no idea who the hell Mario Lemieux was until the post-lockout frenzy in Pittsburgh, so I think calling 66 “iconic” isn’t a credible argument. Has he made incredible contributions to hockey in Pittsburgh? Yes. Did he make incredible contributions to the League the way Wayne did? No. And is he a recognizable name, nation-wide, outside of Pittsburgh? Nope. And for those same fans that maybe know who Howe, Orr, Hull, etc. are but don’t know their numbers… I think you can add Lemiuex to that list.

Posted by Ashley from NYC on 12/16/09 at 01:37 AM ET

if gretzky wore a more common number his would never be retired.

Posted by slutnuts on 12/16/09 at 11:55 AM ET

I don’t think jersey numbers should be or should have been retired by the league.
It is enough that is is done by the team. The team serves them greater respect anyhow, by placing the number in the arena’s where roughly 15,000 people can see daily.

Posted by duff on 12/21/09 at 01:02 PM ET