He
was untouchable.
Let's look at how much better he was than everyone else for a long time:
1980-1981: Gretzky had 164 points, 29 more than the 2nd place finisher.
1981-1982: Gretzky had 212 points, 65 more than the 2nd place finisher.
1982-1983: Gretzky had 196 points, 72 more than the 2nd place finisher.
1983-1984: Gretzky had 205 points, 79 more than the 2nd place finisher.
1984-1985: Gretzky had 208 points, 73 more than the 2nd place finisher.
1985-1986: Gretzky had 215 points, 74 more than the 2nd place finisher (Lemieux).
1986-1987: Gretzky had 183 points, 75 more than the 2nd place finisher.
That is SEVEN straight seasons of not only being the best player in the league, but being the best player by a massive distance.
Lemieux did overtake Gretzky as the points leader in 1988 and 1989, besting him by 19 and 31 points, paltry margins when compared to what Gretzky was doing prior, but by the next season, Gretzky was back on top, leading the league again in points in three of the next five seasons.
If I were starting a team and had my choice of either of them in their prime I'd take Lemieux.
See, I don't get this. Gretzky's prime was better than Lemieux's prime, but just about any measure you look at. Again, 66's best season would have been 99's 5th best season (and their careers mostly overlapped enough to where it's not like comparing players from completely different eras, like how QBs nowadays obliterate the stats QBs put up 20-30 years ago in football), and 66 never lapped the competition when he was at his best like 99 did. I am sorry to tell you this, my fellow St. Louisan, but if you would choose 66 over 99, that is choosing poorly.