| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| SlowShot |
Posted - 05/21/2007 : 11:08:39
Do you think gretzky would be the point leader if he played in the modern NHL? |
| 40 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| andyhack |
Posted - 12/16/2007 : 17:27:04
Okay Alex, let's try it at 2.5 then (1.5 assists plus the goal being 2.5).
Gretzky's percentage of total Oiler points in '83/84 is: 205/(446 X 2.5) = 18.4%
So, now for the big question, how many goals in today's game does Gretzky's team get? Guest-san seems to be pointing to the highest scoring team now and is projecting 283 as that figure. Beans-san seems to be imagining a scenario where Gretzky is still playing with Coffey, Messier etc, and is projecting 360 as that figure (and as mentioned in my last post Beans-san isn't factoring in the possibility that even the '80s powerhouse Oiler team ain't gonna be scoring quite so much more than the others because of increased parity in the league).
As we really have no idea, as a compromise, let's split the difference between 280 and 360 and call it 320 goals for Gretzky's 2007-2008 team (which coincidentally is pretty close to the 327 figure which I mentioned in my last post after multiplying today's average offence by 1.42 to guess at what the '80s Oilers might score today - as the Oilers were 42% above average back then).
So, using 320 goals and 1.5 assists per goal, here is what we get:
.184 X (320 X 2.5) = 147 points
147 points. And that would seem to have an assumption built into it that Wayne is playing on a significantly more offensive team than today's Wings, let alone a team like Crosby's Penguins.
Is 147 points amazing? YES
Is 147 points "substantially" lower than 200? YES - But I guess it depends on your definition of "substantially". Whatever way you want to describe it though, it's more than just a few points lower. It's enough of a difference to mention and to stay within the realm of logic. |
| Alex |
Posted - 12/16/2007 : 14:56:44
No, I am saying, let's look at all the goals Gretzky had no part in. Now, assume they have an average of 1.5 assists, not two, and see how his percentage goes though the roof
Habs get number 25 this year |
| Guest7007 |
Posted - 12/16/2007 : 14:08:54
Hey Alex, this is an intelligent discussion. What are you doing posting in here? Go congratulate yourself on another topic.
1. Since points are both goals and assists and it was easier to make the assumption than to go back game by game to figure out how many points Gretz had based on the possible assists given out for each Oiler goal.
2. It all comes out in the wash (sort of). By including both assists you would bring down Gretzky's % of points per points available. That is 205/(446*x). If x is less than 3, then the % would be higher. However, when you re-multiply with the current possible points available (283*x) his total current points would be lower. It almost comes out in the wash, I'd say +/- of a couple of percentage points of the real numbers.
|
| Beans15 |
Posted - 12/16/2007 : 13:17:35
Andy,
I used the "Oiler were average or a bit above" based off what happened when Gretzky lefted and the impact on both Edmonton and LA. The last year Gretzky played in Edmonton, the Oilers were the 2nd highest scoring team in the league and were 66 goals above the league average. That same year, LA was 5th in the league and were 25 goals above average.
The next year, with Gretzky in LA, they became the highest scoring team in the league and were 77 goals above league average. The Oilers were 4th but only 25 goals above the league average.
Hence my comment that Gretzky in his prime would make the "average" scoring team the highest scoring team in the league. That would hold true today no??
And of course there are tons of other factors involved. Such as Messier or Coffey on the team. I was simply argueing the math of the guest.
I still don't think it is unreasonable to think that Gretzky would or could not have beat the next closest guy by 70sih points like he did in his crazy scoring days. Just looking at that, if Crosby has 124 points last year, Gretzky could have gotten 190+.
Wayne or Bobby?? How about both!!! |
| Alex |
Posted - 12/16/2007 : 05:43:59
Gust8372
First of all, not every goal has two assists. Right off the bat, Wayne's percentage skyrockets. You are being far too conservative.
Secondly, by your formula, apply it to Crosby and see what you get. You have presented us with a narrow one sided picture. In any case, hockey is not math. If it was, Wayne is the obvious leader. If not, Wayne is the abvious leader.
Habs get number 25 this year |
| andyhack |
Posted - 12/16/2007 : 05:12:08
Beans - Four points.
1) In figuring out the GAP between the '80s Oilers and the rest of the league today, you seem to have just added 131 to the current pace average of 230 goals. I don't think that is the correct way to do it. In 83/84, the Oilers were about 42% above the average so I think the proper way to guess at the Oilers goal total in today's game would be to take 230 and multiply it by 1.42 which come out to about 327.
2) Forgetting the above point for a second, you're assuming the GAP between the Oilers of the 80s and the rest of the league would be the same today in terms of goals scored. With significantly more parity in the NHL now, I wonder about that. I think it needs to be factored down a bit in light of parity. My guess is by 10-20%. At 15%, for example, even if we use what I believe to be your incorrect 360 goal, the Oilers goal total goes down to 306 goals. Assuming Gretzky's share of the offense is 16.3% *, that comes out to about 150 points for Wayne (306 X 3 X .163)**. And again, this is based on your questionable 360 goal total (ignores the math point I make in Number 1 above).
* I just took the middle point between the 15.3% and 17.29% figures in your post as a compromise
** Remember too that with the Guest's math we are assuming two assists on every goal - let's not forget that doing so is a somewhat favorable way of calculating this for those arguing Wayne would get close to 200 points
3) Your comment about the Oilers producing just "a little better than average" without Gretzky needs to be qualified a bit. That is, they were also without Coffey in the years to which you are referring. What I'm getting at is that to produce your 186 point figure, or for that matter even my 150 point figure, there is kind of a built-in assumption that one of the best offensive defensemen ever is on the same team as him again in today's game.
4) Unless I'm mistaken your analysis also kind of ignores what I'll call the "wave after wave breakdown effect on opponents" which having one of the best and most intimidating players ever in Messier on the "other line" produced in terms of points for Gretzky in the mid-80s. Take that away, and his point totals go down a notch (by far not the main reason, but I would argue part of the reason they went down in L.A.)
So, where are we with this? Who knows? You could be right. Maybe parity wouldn't have as big an effect on the GAP as I guess above. But I could be right on that too. Again, who knows?
And so I come back to the starting point. It is not illogical to guess that a prime Gretzky might get substantially less points (such as 50 or more) in today's game (and it is certainly not illogical to think so if we put him on an ordinary team, like, hmmm, like the Penguins of today ). |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 12/14/2007 : 16:07:29
I think you are not taking something into consideration. Looking at the average from 83/84, it was 315 team goals. The Oilers had 446, being 131 points higher than the average. That being said, if your math is correct and the average this year ends up to be 230, the Oilers more than likely would have had 360ish points. 360*3=1080. If he got 15.3% of those points, it would be 165.
That is just looking at 83/84. If you look at Gretzky's years with the Oilers(which I think we can all agree was his prime) his high season using this crazy math was 17.29% of the teams points. That being said, if you took this year, the average team with 230 goals and the Oilers team having in the range of 360, Gretzky would have been in the mid 180's. 186 if you want to call it an exact science.
So, I guess what this tells me is that IF Gretzky in his prime played today he could have achieved seasons of nearly 190 points. I know you will argue that it's because Gretzky played with the Oilers. However, if you look back through the 80's, the Oilers produced "average" without Gretzky's goals. Considering that Gretzky was mostly a set up man, I think it's reasonable to conclude that the Oiler offensive production would have been at average or a little better, but not 131 points ahead of the pack. So if a 20 year old Gretzky was plunked down into say, Minnesota?? That team would more than likely increase production my 100 goals a year at least, putting them at the top of the league.
A Gretzky in his prime on today's "average" team becomes the highest scoring team in the league.
Wayne or Bobby?? How about both!!! |
| Guest8372 |
Posted - 12/14/2007 : 11:48:32
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
My point, although I agree that a 200 points season would be tougher to get today than in the 80's, it's not totally unreasonable. And it's not really logical in my eyes to say that Gretzky would get "substantially" less points. I would say that he would have 170+ and 190 would not be a stretch.
Considering lately the amount of high scoring games, I think your projection may be a tad too high.
I'm only using 83/84 season as an example, you can do the same with 84/85 or 85/86 seasons where Gretz averaged over 200 points per season.
Current project scoring pace, in a 82 game season , no team is projected to score more than 300 goals. The projected highest team scoring is Detroit at 283 goals and the lowest is the Islanders at 189. The league average is 229.5 goals per team.
In the 83-84 season, only 7 teams did not break the 300 goals barrier. The highest was Edmonton with 446 goals and the lowest was the Penguins with 254 goals. The league average was 315 goals per team.
The biscuit went in the basket more often back then. Gretzky's point total that year was 205. So out of the possible 446 goals, a possible 1338 points could have been distributed to an Edmonton player. Let's assume that all goals were given 2 assists even if they weren't for sake of simplified math. That would mean that Gretz had 15.3% of the total points possible.
Take this 15.3% and apply it to current Red Wings projected 283 goals. Doing the reverse calculation from the above gives 130 points. If Gretzky played with an average scoring team he would only have 105 points.
So my guess is that his yearly point total would be somewhere around 110-140 range. You could argue that Gretz would change the game so much that the league and team scoring would increase to a higher level but for now based on the current set of data, 170-190 points is a little high. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 12/13/2007 : 17:27:47
Andy-san.
Take a look at the top 9 players from last year in points:
Crosby 120
Thornton 114
Lecavalier 108
Heatley 105
St. Louis 102
Hossa 100
Sakic 100
Jagr 96
Savard 96
Now, consider the top 9 players behind Gretzky in 1982-83 when Gretzky had 196 points.
Stastny 124
Savard 121
Bossy 118
Pederson 107
Dionne 107
Messier 106
Goulet 105
Anderson 104
Kurri 104
It's not as far apart as people think. Consider that if Gretzky played today, he would be the top scorer, the next 9 are what I am looking at. The top 9 players behind Gretzky in 82/83 scored an average of 111 points/year. The top 9 players last year average 105 points. 6 points/year is peanuts as a difference.
My point, although I agree that a 200 points season would be tougher to get today than in the 80's, it's not totally unreasonable. And it's not really logical in my eyes to say that Gretzky would get "substantially" less points. I would say that he would have 170+ and 190 would not be a stretch.
Wayne or Bobby?? How about both!!! |
| andyhack |
Posted - 12/13/2007 : 16:26:07
Actually, I don't think it's illogical at all to suggest that Gretzky would get substantially less points today. Flyguy covered this pretty well. What happened to Flyguy anyway?
Gretzky would lead the league in points today in my opinion. His point totals would be very high but I don't think it is outrageous at all to suggest that he wouldn't get anywhere near 200 points. 40 or 50 away from 200 - I don't call that near, BUT I do call, for example, 150 points for the season, verrry impressive. It is very possible to answer this question with an easy YES, Gretzky would be the point leader, but at the same time also with an easy NO, he wouldn't be getting 200 points (particularly if he is not on an '80s Oilers-like team). |
| Alex |
Posted - 12/13/2007 : 15:58:25
Hockey sense takes it all guys, he got over 2000 points, no ways that would go down so much. Logically it doesn't make sense. He was the best.
Habs get number 25 this year |
| Axey |
Posted - 12/13/2007 : 08:11:09
I suspect Gretzky would not get as much points as he did then, but non the less would be the best player in the league and probably get about 130-150 points a season (in his prime). I think because of how goaltending and defense has changed that the game is not as opened as it was then, but one could also argue that the new rules about stick contact and such would carry his game along to the same level. But you can't really compare since these are two different era's of hockey, thats my opinion anyways. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 12/12/2007 : 16:23:31
Just thought I would throw this out.
1985/86(I think, could have been 84/85)- Through 34 games, Wayne Gretzky has 100 points.
200708 - Through 31 games, Lecavalier(league leader) has 45 points.
Three games from now Lecavalier may have 1/2 of what Gretzky had.
That kind of talent, just like others such as Lemiuex, Orr, Messier, Bossy, Richard, the list goes on, transends through any era in hockey. Sure, the 200+ point seasons may not happen, but he still would have been the best offensive player in the game. If Bobby Orr played today he would still be the fastest and best defenseman in the game.
Modern Day, Old Days, 70's, 80's, 90's, doesn't matter. The G.O.A.T are still the G.O.A.T.
Wayne or Bobby?? How about both!!! |
| PuckNuts |
Posted - 12/12/2007 : 14:00:44
He may not get the 200 point seasons, but he would be 20-30 ahead of the best scorer now...as he was when he played in the 80's...
I don't necessarily agree with everything I say.
- - Marshall McLuhan
|
| Alex |
Posted - 12/12/2007 : 13:54:35
The game has changed so much. It is not offensively minded. He would not have the same teammates. Not as good means in comparison to the 210 point seasons. He could still own the league. Maybe not be the all time leader though. In the new NHL, no one will ever top Gretzky.
Habs get number 25 this year |
| PuckNuts |
Posted - 12/12/2007 : 13:51:39
quote:
Originally posted by Alex
Ya but Gretzky in my opinion would not be as good in today's NHL.
Why not...
I don't necessarily agree with everything I say.
- - Marshall McLuhan
|
| nashvillepreds |
Posted - 11/18/2007 : 06:02:09
Wow, that would've been exciting
GO PREDATORS GO |
| pensfan17 |
Posted - 11/17/2007 : 19:37:51
imagine if gretztky was on the rangers right now and it was him versus crosby 8 times a year. |
| willus3 |
Posted - 11/17/2007 : 07:48:07
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
quote:
Originally posted by fly4apuckguy
I'm not arguing that a guy like the Rocket, had he been born in 1987, could be at the top of the league right now. But he wasn't.
I guess that's the question Willus is focusing on. What if he was?
Correct me if I am wrong Willus-san (given how doped up I am, I very well could be), but is this not the type of comparison you are aiming for?
And, sorry those who are sick of this, but having come this far, I have to put it out there now - the best player of the bunch in my imaginary world is *********? Say Sid plays in it too.
You are correct Andy.
The answer to your question is Bobby Orr. He had the athletic gifts in addition to the mind.
"I'm a man of principle... or not. Whatever the situation calls for." - Alan Shore |
| willus3 |
Posted - 11/17/2007 : 07:41:08
quote:
Originally posted by fly4apuckguy
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
Running a mile is not the same thing as playing a game that requires you to think and make plays. Which leads to the most important difference in the all time greats. The mind is the single largest gift.
I actually think the greats of any sport have a lot more similarities than you are giving them credit for.
It's the intelligent players of any sport that excel (in combination with ability, training, equipment, coaching, etc. etc. etc..
Roger Bannister became a distinguished neurologist and Master of Pembroke College, Oxford, England. He was educated at the City of Bath Boys' Grammar School, Beechen Cliff School, University College School, London, Exeter College and Merton College, Oxford, and at St Mary's Hospital Medical School.
I got that off of Wikipedia. Doesn't sound like a 4 minute mile running dumb guy to me.
Sports? I didn't reference any other sport but running and hockey. Not giving credit for? That was my whole point. The mind is the largest contributor to the talent possessed.
And I didn't say Bannister was dumb. He would have had great concentration skills and an amazing ability to focus. I just don't feel the mind work involved in running approaches the level involved in hockey. I was involved with both hockey and running heavily. I understand the difference.
"I'm a man of principle... or not. Whatever the situation calls for." - Alan Shore |
| fly4apuckguy |
Posted - 11/16/2007 : 21:58:19
quote:
And, sorry those who are sick of this, but having come this far, I have to put it out there now - the best player of the bunch in my imaginary world is *********? Say Sid plays in it too.
Wayne Gretzky.
I believe he was born with the most God-given hockey knowledge and ability. If they all have the same starting point, he is the best ever.
|
| andyhack |
Posted - 11/16/2007 : 21:11:33
quote:
Originally posted by fly4apuckguy
I'm not arguing that a guy like the Rocket, had he been born in 1987, could be at the top of the league right now. But he wasn't.
I guess that's the question Willus is focusing on. What if he was?
Sid was born August 7, 1987 in the real world. Bobby, Wayne, Mario, Gordie and the Rocket were born August 8, 1987 in my doped-up imaginary world (and they all grew up playing with these bigger, faster guys, with better-equipped goalies and so on). Let's say they all play on so-so teams similar to this year's Penguins.
Correct me if I am wrong Willus-san (given how doped up I am, I very well could be), but is this not the type of comparison you are aiming for?
And, sorry those who are sick of this, but having come this far, I have to put it out there now - the best player of the bunch in my imaginary world is *********? Say Sid plays in it too.
|
| fly4apuckguy |
Posted - 11/16/2007 : 20:50:54
On a side note, you have to love a message board where the topic is "Gretzky Modern Day", and I spend my time researching and describing the education of Roger Bannister. Sorry, mods, but that's actually what I love about this board most of all.
Good arguments, boys. |
| fly4apuckguy |
Posted - 11/16/2007 : 20:45:25
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
Running a mile is not the same thing as playing a game that requires you to think and make plays. Which leads to the most important difference in the all time greats. The mind is the single largest gift.
I actually think the greats of any sport have a lot more similarities than you are giving them credit for.
It's the intelligent players of any sport that excel (in combination with ability, training, equipment, coaching, etc. etc. etc..
Roger Bannister became a distinguished neurologist and Master of Pembroke College, Oxford, England. He was educated at the City of Bath Boys' Grammar School, Beechen Cliff School, University College School, London, Exeter College and Merton College, Oxford, and at St Mary's Hospital Medical School.
I got that off of Wikipedia. Doesn't sound like a 4 minute mile running dumb guy to me.
|
| willus3 |
Posted - 11/16/2007 : 20:19:26
I'm not saying training isn't making the players better. I'm saying the training isn't what separates the greats of the game from the rest. It's the natural talent that does that.
So drop Richard in 2007 with the equipment and training these guys get today and he would be one of the very best in the league just as he was back in his day.
My guess would be that Bannister with today's training would be right in the hunt for the record as well. But let's be clear here too. Running a mile is not the same thing as playing a game that requires you to think and make plays. Which leads to the most important difference in the all time greats. The mind is the single largest gift.
"I'm a man of principle... or not. Whatever the situation calls for." - Alan Shore |
| fly4apuckguy |
Posted - 11/16/2007 : 19:40:06
Do you actually think I don't believe the Rocket was talented? I mean, come on dude. That's not what I am saying. He was extraordinarily talented. Just not a hockey player who could be dropped into 2007.
To steal from PuckNuts a bit...take Roger Bannister, the guy who broke the 4 minute mile barrier. No one believed it could be done. He broke it, and set a mark that people thought was unreachable.
I looked this up - the record is now 3:43:13.
Am I saying Roger Bannister sucks and was a slowpoke? NO! I'm saying that, for a variety of external reasons, the runners are better now. If Roger Bannister was in his prime right now, and dropped into a race, he'd finish almost 20 seconds behind the world's best. Was he just not born with "it"??? By what you are saying, willus, training doesn't matter. Roger Bannister, with his pathetic 4 minute mile, was lacking "a natural gift"???
If you think it is all about inborn talent, with no outside factors, explain the evolution of the four minute mile to me. Were people less talented at running back then, or are there advantages that a guy now has that was not available to him 50 years ago? Training, food supplements, better running shoes, etc.
I'm not arguing that a guy like the Rocket, had he been born in 1987, could be at the top of the league right now. But he wasn't. He just wasn't. Sidney is a product of our time, just like those guys were products of their time.
And if Gordie had made a move, I would have went right for the legs. Knock a 65 year old man down on the ground, and even I have a shot.
|
| willus3 |
Posted - 11/16/2007 : 18:44:42
quote:
Originally posted by fly4apuckguy
If your point is to compare talent man for man...Crosby vs Maurice Richard, for example...playing in any era based not on their dominance at the time, but as a talent, as an individual...then anyone who thinks the Rocket is a "better player" is sadly misguided and hanging onto the past.
If I drop Sid into 1944-45, he gets 150 goals in 50 games. If I take 1944 Maurice Richard (with all his equipment he had at the time, etc.) and drop him into 2007, he gets run over, and is a pylon on the ice.
I get the romantic notion of the heroes of yore, you guys...I feel it, too.
But above all, I am a realist. I love Gordie Howe, but I stood beside the guy. I'm not that big, and he looked like a dwarf next to me (and I'm not THAT big). Yes, he was 65 at the time, but he was known as the scoring enforcer of his day. Can you imagine what 2007 Iginla with his one-piece composite stick and lightweight pads would do to 1950 Gordie Howe with his old twig and wet leather shoulder pads?
It's not a slight against Gordie the man...it's just progress. Remember...realism...
Why would you impair Richard with his old equipment or give Sid the advantage with his new equipment when doing the comparison? That makes zero sense. If you are comparing talent the playing field has to be equal.
I haven't said much regarding this argument yet but I think it's time.
Training is not what makes a great hockey player. Talent makes a great hockey player. Talent is a gift of natural ability combined with the mind to know how to use the natural ability. You can train a guy as much as you want but if he doesn't have the natural gift he will never be an all time great. Why were Gretzky and Orr and Lemieux so much better than the rest of their peers? It most certainly wasn't the training. They had the same access to training everyone else did. They were on equal footing. What made them great was their natural gifts. It's the same today with Crosby. They all train. The difference is his natural abilities.
Lastly, you may have been bigger than Howe but I would bet money that even at 65 he could have dropped you like a hot potatoe. 
"I'm a man of principle... or not. Whatever the situation calls for." - Alan Shore |
| fly4apuckguy |
Posted - 11/16/2007 : 17:15:45
quote:
Originally posted by Guest2918
Sids in his 3rd year now and Its not over and he is not dominant. Lot of dominant players this year. He is not a man above boys, as Gretzky has been refered to by other great dominent players. And yes I am comparing Sid the Kid to Bure, Daigle and Kariya. All Suppose to be the next Great one's (the Dominant player's of our era).
Funny, I don't recall Kariya, Bure or Daigle becoming the youngest scoring champ in professional sports history.
Oh, that little point...I know, what an annoyance I am. |
| Guest2918 |
Posted - 11/16/2007 : 16:13:08
Sids in his 3rd year now and Its not over and he is not dominant. Lot of dominant players this year. He is not a man above boys, as Gretzky has been refered to by other great dominent players. And yes I am comparing Sid the Kid to Bure, Daigle and Kariya. All Suppose to be the next Great one's (the Dominant player's of our era). |
| fly4apuckguy |
Posted - 11/16/2007 : 16:06:20
quote:
Originally posted by PuckNuts
No one going to argue with you about the old days.
Just take a look at athletics records. Athletes are trained better, work harder, eat smarter, and most have personal physicians.
How many players in the 50, or 60's lifted weights, or rode a bike for 1/2 hour after a game, most were in the local pub within the 1/2 hour.
The guys that were raised on a farm seem to be quite strong, and could dominate based on their strength from baling hay...
I don't necessarily agree with everything I say.
- - Marshall McLuhan
Whether or not you agree with me on my man-love of Sid the Kid....thank-you for at least acknowledging what I have been trying to say about athletes of the present. That's the only point I'm really trying to make. You probably did a better and more concise job than I did.
You said no one will argue with me about that point...actually, many are! |
| fly4apuckguy |
Posted - 11/16/2007 : 16:03:37
quote:
Originally posted by Guest2918
OK, now you gonna say Sid for 150 in 50. You guys need to think drop Sid in the 70's against Philly or Boston. What did they do to "Superstars" They whack and hack, punch and kick, bite and cross check. He'd be done in 5 games the way the game was played in those era's. Look at the way the game was played then. Take the way the cheap shots, open ice hits in the 80's, the clutching and grabbing out of the 90's. Great players are the one's talked about for a decade or a century. Not in their Sophmore year. Gretzky has been and will be talked about for decades to come. Not like Kariya, Bure, Daigle. Sorry to throw Daigle in the mix.
Crosby is in his third year, not second.
You are the one comparing him to Daigle and Kariya, not me. |
| PuckNuts |
Posted - 11/16/2007 : 16:02:29
No one going to argue with you about the old days.
Just take a look at athletics records. Athletes are trained better, work harder, eat smarter, and most have personal physicians.
How many players in the 50, or 60's lifted weights, or rode a bike for 1/2 hour after a game, most were in the local pub within the 1/2 hour.
The guys that were raised on a farm seem to be quite strong, and could dominate based on their strength from baling hay...
I don't necessarily agree with everything I say.
- - Marshall McLuhan
|
| Guest2918 |
Posted - 11/16/2007 : 16:01:53
OK, now you gonna say Sid for 150 in 50. You guys need to think drop Sid in the 70's against Philly or Boston. What did they do to "Superstars" They whack and hack, punch and kick, bite and cross check. He'd be done in 5 games the way the game was played in those era's. Look at the way the game was played then. Take the way the cheap shots, open ice hits in the 80's, the clutching and grabbing out of the 90's. Great players are the one's talked about for a decade or a century. Not in their Sophmore year. Gretzky has been and will be talked about for decades to come. Not like Kariya, Bure, Daigle. Sorry to throw Daigle in the mix. |
| fly4apuckguy |
Posted - 11/16/2007 : 15:50:32
quote:
Originally posted by OILINONTARIO
quote:
Originally posted by fly4apuckguy
A couple things...
No I don't think Gretzky would wildly outscore Crosby now.
Put it this way, I'm watching the Pens game tonight (in between periods), and Errey just said that Crosby could legitimately have had 12 shots on net in the first period alone because of his speed and ability to find the holes.
In 1982, he might have.
I'm not here to slam 1982 hockey, because personally, I found it far more entertaining than today's over-eqipped, over-systemmed, over-coached era. I have nothing but love for 1982 hockey.
But....
Watch a game of 1982 hockey. Gretzky was Crosby then, and everyone else is a bunch of AHL hockey players (or worse). Many can't skate very well, the goalies let in shots from the top of the circles routinely, the defence fall when skating backward. Some of the fourth liners look wobbly on their skates. WOBBLY!!
You can argue that this was due to poorer equipment, less training, bad coaching....whatever.
Does this extrapolate as we go back to the 70's, 60's, 50's? Or are you basing this on the talent pool shallowing with expansion? Or both? With your previous rationalization, should we also impugn the acheivements of Orr, Howe, Richard, et al?
Can we not agree that the NHL has showcased dozens of unbelievable talents, but only a few that can transcend generations. Gretzky. Orr. Howe. A few others, too, probably. Crosby. Let's wait and see.
The Oil WILL make the playoffs.
This does not impugn the achievements of anyone. As Pierre Maguire would say, those guys were the monsters of their generations. Thier achievemnts cannot, and will not be taken away.
The question was about Gretzky in the modern-day NHL...I think I've covered that. |
| fly4apuckguy |
Posted - 11/16/2007 : 15:42:34
If your point is to compare talent man for man...Crosby vs Maurice Richard, for example...playing in any era based not on their dominance at the time, but as a talent, as an individual...then anyone who thinks the Rocket is a "better player" is sadly misguided and hanging onto the past.
If I drop Sid into 1944-45, he gets 150 goals in 50 games. If I take 1944 Maurice Richard (with all his equipment he had at the time, etc.) and drop him into 2007, he gets run over, and is a pylon on the ice.
I get the romantic notion of the heroes of yore, you guys...I feel it, too.
But above all, I am a realist. I love Gordie Howe, but I stood beside the guy. I'm not that big, and he looked like a dwarf next to me (and I'm not THAT big). Yes, he was 65 at the time, but he was known as the scoring enforcer of his day. Can you imagine what 2007 Iginla with his one-piece composite stick and lightweight pads would do to 1950 Gordie Howe with his old twig and wet leather shoulder pads?
It's not a slight against Gordie the man...it's just progress. Remember...realism... |
| OILINONTARIO |
Posted - 11/16/2007 : 15:35:24
quote:
Originally posted by fly4apuckguy
A couple things...
No I don't think Gretzky would wildly outscore Crosby now.
Put it this way, I'm watching the Pens game tonight (in between periods), and Errey just said that Crosby could legitimately have had 12 shots on net in the first period alone because of his speed and ability to find the holes.
In 1982, he might have.
I'm not here to slam 1982 hockey, because personally, I found it far more entertaining than today's over-eqipped, over-systemmed, over-coached era. I have nothing but love for 1982 hockey.
But....
Watch a game of 1982 hockey. Gretzky was Crosby then, and everyone else is a bunch of AHL hockey players (or worse). Many can't skate very well, the goalies let in shots from the top of the circles routinely, the defence fall when skating backward. Some of the fourth liners look wobbly on their skates. WOBBLY!!
You can argue that this was due to poorer equipment, less training, bad coaching....whatever.
Does this extrapolate as we go back to the 70's, 60's, 50's? Or are you basing this on the talent pool shallowing with expansion? Or both? With your previous rationalization, should we also impugn the acheivements of Orr, Howe, Richard, et al?
Can we not agree that the NHL has showcased dozens of unbelievable talents, but only a few that can transcend generations. Gretzky. Orr. Howe. A few others, too, probably. Crosby. Let's wait and see.
The Oil WILL make the playoffs. |
| fly4apuckguy |
Posted - 11/16/2007 : 15:31:53
Gretzky video:
Check out Rejean Lemelin's (I think it's Lemelin - Flames) pads early in the video. They look like Sears catalogies taped to his legs. Look at the Flyer defense and how much room he gets in the slot...and they were a very good team!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48Ve2oF2Dyo
Now Crosby...
Sorry about the Foreigner music.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8ZJy7A2cak
|
| fly4apuckguy |
Posted - 11/16/2007 : 15:24:10
The question, I believe, was "Do you think Gretzky would be the point leader if he played in the modern NHL?'
I answered it, and then was told I can't compare eras. That ain't fair.
If the question was, "Is Wayne a better hockey player in his era than Sid is in his era?"...I pick Gretzky in a walk. Not even close. A million times better, just like Orr was amillion times better than anyone in his era, and a billion times better than any defenseman.
But when you want to bring 1985 Gretzky into the 2007 NHL, things get trickier.
I challeng any man on here to go to youtube and click on the best plays of Gretzky's career, and then the finest moments of Sid's.
What you will see is two unbelievable players with God-given AND hard-earned talent that dazzle the mind and amaze the senses.
You will also see something else. Gretzky scoring a lot of goals from over twenty feet. Gretzky skating around all five players, some of whom have fallen on their asses, and shooting it past a goalie with teeny-tiny little pads.
Crosby has to get through five guys relentlessly hanging off of him and find a corner the size of a grapefruit to put the puck past the left goalie pad, which is bigger than Billy Smith's two combined in 1981.
I appreciate the loyalty to the Great One. I really do. The guy is an ambassador of the game, and has been on every level since he was old enough to walk and skate on that backyard rink. But for those of you clinging to that, you really need to watch those videos.
Greztky-Crosby in a one-on one match-up (in their respective primes) would be a heck of a sight. Close...really close.
But I'm not talking about those two. I'm talking about the other guys on the ice....and the distance that Gretzky was greater than his competition was not solely because of his abilities...but the relative lack of everyone else's compared to today's players.
Does anyone out there listen to oldtimers talk...they always, without question, talk about how players now are bigger, stronger, faster, and in better shape. It's not a slam of those older guys. They had worse ice, worse equipment, worse coaching.....why are we so afraid to admit the truth?
The average player is MUCH better now than he was in 1985. Go watch the videos if you think I am wrong. |
| Guest2918 |
Posted - 11/16/2007 : 15:18:38
Since your stats machine working so well why dont you look at stats between 88-93. 150 per season average in his 30's except 93 season where he had 65 points in 45 games due to injury. Post 93 is era in hockey where hold me tight and slash where the rule of hockey to diminish stars such as Gretzky. Ask Mario! I do believe Hockey Hall of Fame needs to include stars such as Messier, Kurri, Anderson, Coffey and Fuhr. Not taking anything away from them, but thier stats where elevated by the Great one and Comparing him to a player with a great sophmore season is a horrible comparision. Its like saying Pavel Bure belongs in the hall of fame because of his sophmore season. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 11/16/2007 : 14:46:57
OK, I really don't want to start this debate again, but let's make sure we are clear on the facts.
Gretzky as an Oiler:
696 games, 583 goals, 1086 assists, 1669 points, +551, 2.40 PPG, 4 Cups
Gretzky after the Oilers
791 Games, 311 goals, 877 assists, 1188 points, -33, 1.50 PPG, Zero Cups
There was only one year as an Oiler that Gretzky did not average 2 PPG. After he left the Oilers, he only did it twice.
And you gave me Messier. Thanks. What about Coffey's 2 Cups, 1 Norris Trophy, and a PPG average after the Oilers??? What about Fuhr and the fact that he has twice as many wins on teams without Gretzky as with Gretzky?? And Kurri, he was a far better player than anyone gives him credit for. A lot like Jagr with Lemiuex.
All I am saying that Gretzky didn't get those guys into the Hall of Fame. They would and could have done it without him. Together, they helped each other and were one of the best teams in NHL history. But please don't tarnish those other great players by saying Gretzky carried them. He didn't, they helped each other.
Wayne or Bobby?? How about both!!! |
|
|
