| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Guest5221 |
Posted - 05/12/2007 : 08:54:10
It was Wayne Gretzky - the most GA in history, also the most ESGA.
I know people say these figures are 8 % of the total because there are 12 players on the ice.
ok so divide the totals by 12!
Its still Gretzky.
Also, must be just a coincidence that those other 11 players arent on any of the top lists for GA or ESGA. Except for Coffey.
So make it Gretzky and Coffey as the worst ever.
I guess that puts an final end to those ridiculous Gretzky- Michael Jordan comparisons since Jordan was also the best defensive player in NBA history.
Ther's a big difference between best and worst - like ALL the other players in history.
|
| 40 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| PuckNuts |
Posted - 05/30/2007 : 17:20:05
Worst all-time +/- since 1968
quote:
Originally posted by PuckNuts
Worst all-time +/- since 1968, no filtering...
Rnk _ PLAYER __________ GP __ +/- _ ES Dif/G
1 _ STEWART, BOB ______ 575 _ -260 _ -0.452
2 _ LEVER, DON ________ 1020 _ -240 _ -0.235
3 _ CROTEAU, GARY _____ 684 _ -227 _ -0.332
4 _ BABYCH, DAVE ______ 1195 _ -223 _ -0.187
5 _ CHARRON, GUY ______ 734 _ -208 _ -0.283
6 _ HUBER, WILLIE _______ 655 _ -203 _ -0.310
7 _ CIRELLA, JOE ________ 828 _ -201 _ -0.243
8 _ LYNCH, JACK ________ 382 _ -197 _ -0.516
9 _ BOLDIREV, IVAN _____ 1052 _ -190 _ -0.181
10 _ SILLINGER, MIKE _____ 908 _ -181 _ -0.174
11 _ BUCHBERGER, KELLY _ 1182 _ -177 _ -0.150
12 _ DAIGLE, ALEXANDRE __ 616 _ -176 _ -0.286
13 _ PETIT, MICHEL _______ 827 _ -172 _ -0.208
14 _ RAMAGE, ROB ______ 1044 _ -171 _ -0.164
15 _ DeBLOIS, LUCIEN _____ 993 _ -170 _ -0.171
16 _ GILBERTSON, STAN ___ 428 _ -168 _ -0.393
17 _ LIBETT, NICK ________ 982 _ -167 _ -0.170
18 _ JOLY, GREG ________ 365 _ -163 _ -0.447
19 _ NEUFELD, RAY ______ 595 _ -163 _ -0.274
20 _ KEARNS, DENNIS _____ 677 _ -158 _ -0.233
21 _ McBAIN, ANDREW ____ 608 _ -151 _ -0.248
22 _ MIKKELSON, BILL _____ 147 _ -147 _ -1.000
23 _ MULLER, KIRK _______ 1349 _ -146 _ -0.108
24 _ HICKE, ERNIE ________ 520 _ -145 _ -0.279
25 _ PAIEMENT, WILF ______ 946 _ -140 _ -0.148
Is this the Mike Sillinger that never has a chance to unpack his suitcase before he is on the move again...
Lead, follow, or get out of the way...
I don't necessarily agree with everything I say.
- - Marshall McLuhan
|
| PainTrain |
Posted - 05/29/2007 : 20:32:39
Bill Mikkelson holds the record for worst plus/minus in a season with -82. Givin' he was on the Washington Capitals when they just blew.
1968 Elmer Vasko, Minnesota -36
1969 J.P. Parise, Minnesota -44
1970 Bill McCreary, St. Louis -44
1971 Doug Roberts, California -56
1972 Gil Perreault, Buffalo -40
Real Lemieux, Los Angeles -40
1973 Bill Mikkelson, NY Islanders -54
1974 Reggie Leach, California -61
1975 Bill Mikkelson, Washington -82
1976 Larry Johnston, Kansas City -61
1977 Al Cameron, Detroit -43
1978 Brad Maxwell, Minnesota -57
1979 Rick Green, Washington -45
1980 Steve Sullivan, Winnipeg -45
1981 Dave Babych, Winnipeg -61
1982 Dwight Foster, Colorado -53
1983 Doug Sulliman, Hartford -57
1984 Pat Boutette, Pittsburgh -58
1985 Doug Shedden, Pittsburgh -51
1986 Randy Ladoucer, Detroit -54
1987 Grant Ledyard, Los Angeles -40
1988 Brian MacLellan, Minnesota -44
1989 Tom Fergus, Toronto -38
1990 Bryan Fogarty, Quebec -47
1991 Vincent Damphousse, Toronto -31
1992 Paul Fenton, San Jose -39
1993 Neil Wilkinson, San Jose -50
Rob Zettler, San Jose -50
Doug Zmolek, San Jose -50
1994 Gord Dineen, Ottawa -52
1995 Chris Dahlquist, Ottawa -30
1996 Craig Janney, San Jose -35
1997 Alexandre Daigle, Ottawa -33
1998 Paul Ysebaert, Tampa Bay -43
1999 Darcy Tucker, Tampa Bay -34
2000 Yannick Tremblay, Atlanta -42
2001 Patrice Brisebois, Montreal -31
2002 Tyler Wright, Columbus -40
2003 Wayne Primeau, Pittsburgh -30
2004 Rico Fata, Pittsburgh -46
2006 Mark Recchi, Carolina -36
That's the worst plus/minus in each year. Can't find the worst in a career.
But it's hard to say who is the worst, they're are a lot of good ones and a lot of bad deffensive players. |
| willus3 |
Posted - 05/29/2007 : 20:02:27
quote:
Originally posted by Guest0956
quote:
No serious team wanted gretzky when he wanted out of Edmonton or out of LA. Rememeber those ESGA and long shifts standing catching his breath.
Thanks for the laugh! I somehow think teams would want to have a 2 time Conn Smythe Trophy winner and owner of practically every playoff record there is. I guess no one wanted Michael Jordon before he left the Bulls either. Or maybe it's more like no one could afford either of them except for a handful of teams. I think people remember Gretzky's highest ever ESGF more than his ESGA. Has something to do with having a career +503...one of the highest ever, incidentally.
See, this is what I'm talking about. You'll use the stat when it supports your cause but dismiss it when it doesn't.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
| Guest0956 |
Posted - 05/29/2007 : 19:43:02
quote:
No serious team wanted gretzky when he wanted out of Edmonton or out of LA. Rememeber those ESGA and long shifts standing catching his breath.
Thanks for the laugh! I somehow think teams would want to have a 2 time Conn Smythe Trophy winner and owner of practically every playoff record there is. I guess no one wanted Michael Jordon before he left the Bulls either. Or maybe it's more like no one could afford either of them except for a handful of teams. I think people remember Gretzky's highest ever ESGF more than his ESGA. Has something to do with having a career +503...one of the highest ever, incidentally. |
| stastnysforever |
Posted - 05/27/2007 : 18:57:02
no there was actually another time today when somebody wrote something hilarious to my sister on msn and I was laughing so hard I thought I would just die rite there
what do Calgary and a tea bag have in common- they're both only good for one cup |
| stastnysforever |
Posted - 05/27/2007 : 18:54:59
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
quote:
Originally posted by 99pickles
issue. It is the exact opposite of hypocritical. (is there a word for that ??javascript:insertsmilie(' ')
Smile
Interestingly, there is such a word Pickles-san. The word is "lacitircopyh".
And may I say on behalf of all members here that, whether this thread is "lacitircopyh" or not, it is clearly one of the longest and most CONFUSING threads on this site (especially NOT RECOMMENDED for a guy with a toothache!)!
I've never actually laughed out loud because of something someone wrote in a conversation until this
what do Calgary and a tea bag have in common- they're both only good for one cup |
| Guest7022 |
Posted - 05/27/2007 : 17:54:08
quote:
Originally posted by Guest0956
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
quote:
Originally posted by Guest9995
We have no way of knowing for sure what was inside of Gretzky's head, whether he was sacrificing his defensive game just to break records, but I do know this much.... When asked during his retirement press conference why he didn't play one or two seasons more and break the 3000 point barrier, her was his response: He said, simply, "Because in all my discussions with my wife on whether to continue playing or not, points and records never came up. The only concerns have been team concerns...winning the Stanley Cup."
Now, if records were so important to him, then why did he not want the most unthinkable record of all, 3000 points? That's 3 one thousand point careers rolled into one. Unbelievable. Yet he passed on it because he cared more about winning.
I don't buy the argument that Gretzky had a bad plus/minus because he wanted to score goal number 802. That is a flawed argument for so many reasons. Here's a couple of them: One, Gretzky would have broken that record the year after anyway even if he had only scored 20 goals per season. Secondly, Gretzky broke records almost every year of his entire career, so naturally his bad plus/minus years would overlap his record breaking years....so I don't understand the point. Thirdly, Gretzky had several dazzling plus minus years (+98 one year) where he broke far more records. Fourthly, take a look at the rest of Gretzky's teammates' plus/minus stats in 1994. I think his bad plus/minus was more a reflection of the team than his individual play.... The list goes on, but I cannot buy this argument about goal number 802 being the reason for his poor plus/minus. A huge stretch of the imagination would be an understatement.
I believe his quote about as much as I believe his wife is innocent in the betting scandal. He's smart enough to know what he should and shouldn't say to put the proper spin on things.
What about the countless times he said his goal was to break this record or that record.
And he passed on the 3000 point record but I guess he passed on the chance for more Cups too then didn't he.
As for your last paragraph, you're right, you don't get the point.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper"
No one ever said Gretzky didn't want to break records. Did I say that? I said I doubt he valued them over winning, as simple as that, which explains why he retired before hitting 3000 points when he could have easily done so. Your point about him passing on winning more cups is off base. The Rangers missed the playoffs for how many years in a row? His last two seasons and how many after? Didn't look like a cup winning team to Gretzky or anyone else....so he didn't exactly pass on any opportunity. In fact, Gretzky even stated that had the Rangers made any effort to win (by getting some good players like Pavel Bure or Jagr), he would have stayed.
As for your last sentence, I don't understand why you are being so condescending and rude. I suppose that is easier than refuting the actual points expressed in that last paragraph you dismiss so readily.
No serious team wanted gretzky when he wanted out of Edmonton or out of LA. Rememeber those ESGA and long shifts standing catching his breath.
Keenan was quoted as saying that 99 didnt keep himself in shape when he was with the Blues. |
| Guest0956 |
Posted - 05/27/2007 : 14:55:29
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
quote:
Originally posted by Guest9995
We have no way of knowing for sure what was inside of Gretzky's head, whether he was sacrificing his defensive game just to break records, but I do know this much.... When asked during his retirement press conference why he didn't play one or two seasons more and break the 3000 point barrier, her was his response: He said, simply, "Because in all my discussions with my wife on whether to continue playing or not, points and records never came up. The only concerns have been team concerns...winning the Stanley Cup."
Now, if records were so important to him, then why did he not want the most unthinkable record of all, 3000 points? That's 3 one thousand point careers rolled into one. Unbelievable. Yet he passed on it because he cared more about winning.
I don't buy the argument that Gretzky had a bad plus/minus because he wanted to score goal number 802. That is a flawed argument for so many reasons. Here's a couple of them: One, Gretzky would have broken that record the year after anyway even if he had only scored 20 goals per season. Secondly, Gretzky broke records almost every year of his entire career, so naturally his bad plus/minus years would overlap his record breaking years....so I don't understand the point. Thirdly, Gretzky had several dazzling plus minus years (+98 one year) where he broke far more records. Fourthly, take a look at the rest of Gretzky's teammates' plus/minus stats in 1994. I think his bad plus/minus was more a reflection of the team than his individual play.... The list goes on, but I cannot buy this argument about goal number 802 being the reason for his poor plus/minus. A huge stretch of the imagination would be an understatement.
I believe his quote about as much as I believe his wife is innocent in the betting scandal. He's smart enough to know what he should and shouldn't say to put the proper spin on things.
What about the countless times he said his goal was to break this record or that record.
And he passed on the 3000 point record but I guess he passed on the chance for more Cups too then didn't he.
As for your last paragraph, you're right, you don't get the point.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper"
No one ever said Gretzky didn't want to break records. Did I say that? I said I doubt he valued them over winning, as simple as that, which explains why he retired before hitting 3000 points when he could have easily done so. Your point about him passing on winning more cups is off base. The Rangers missed the playoffs for how many years in a row? His last two seasons and how many after? Didn't look like a cup winning team to Gretzky or anyone else....so he didn't exactly pass on any opportunity. In fact, Gretzky even stated that had the Rangers made any effort to win (by getting some good players like Pavel Bure or Jagr), he would have stayed.
As for your last sentence, I don't understand why you are being so condescending and rude. I suppose that is easier than refuting the actual points expressed in that last paragraph you dismiss so readily. |
| 99pickles |
Posted - 05/27/2007 : 11:09:19
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
quote:
Originally posted by 99pickles
You missed the point there willus, if you read the last sentence it is there.
I got what you were saying Pickles. It was sarcasm to make your point that stats can be made to say anything.
My comment was made in jest.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper"
Understood |
| Guest2356 |
Posted - 05/27/2007 : 10:21:36
the guy I would least like on the ice would have to be Breeze-bois, MTL then Colorado |
| willus3 |
Posted - 05/27/2007 : 07:08:51
quote:
Originally posted by 99pickles
You missed the point there willus, if you read the last sentence it is there.
I got what you were saying Pickles. It was sarcasm to make your point that stats can be made to say anything.
My comment was made in jest.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
| 99pickles |
Posted - 05/27/2007 : 00:36:05
You missed the point there willus, if you read the last sentence it is there. |
| willus3 |
Posted - 05/26/2007 : 21:22:26
quote:
Originally posted by 99pickles
quote:
I was RESPONDING (as it says in the paragraph) to the earlier statement that said something along the lines of "and Gretzky had the most points, so to have so many ESGA means he was even worse defensively" The rest of my comment on that clearly stands : whether you scored 5 points in a season, or 155 pts. in a season, it has NO bearing (could I be Not using Gretzky's offensive numbers any more than that ?!?) because ESGA has nothing to do with how many points you or your teammates/linemates score. It is a gross stat, not a net stat - so to try and use Gretzky's offense AGAINST him on this issue is also moot. That is why I am arguing AGAINST using Gretzky's offensive stats on this ESGA thing. Otherwise we would then be arguing Plus/Minus.
Ok, I misunderstood what you were saying.
quote:
"Isn't it funny though that to measure a players offensive abilities people will immediately point to their point production to support their claim of who they like. But when trying to determine the defensive value, well you can't use the stats because they are flawed." - willus
That is why I am saying you CANNOT use Gretzky's, Lemieux's - or ANY player's for that matter - offensive output against them on this issue. It is the exact opposite of hypocritical. (is there a word for that ??javascript:insertsmilie('')
Smile And I admit that this stat is only one half of plus minus (a suspect stat) In no way can it , on its own, indicate any player's overall defensive ability. Not any more than saying that ESGFor says the opposite with no room for discussion.
I wasn't saying use their offensive stats to say they weren't good defensively. I was referring to the career esga and esga per game stats to say that and that people just dismiss those stats because they feel they are flawed.
quote:
Willus, do you admit that Lemieux is, therefore, the 2nd worst defensive player of all time by a .02 whisker ?
Yes i would say Lemieux was very close to Gretzky in this category.
quote:
You know what else is interesting about this stat? The personal PPG of many of those guys on that list outways (significantly in many cases) their ESGA/Game. So I guess that means they could singlehandedly defeat teams. Did I just make a statistic say something untrue I guess they can do that sometimes
Well this doesn't actually make sense but I know what you are trying to say.
But see, there you go bringing in the offensive numbers to deflect attention away from the poor defensive play.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
| willus3 |
Posted - 05/26/2007 : 19:14:28
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
quote:
Originally posted by 99pickles
issue. It is the exact opposite of hypocritical. (is there a word for that ??javascript:insertsmilie('')
Smile
Interestingly, there is such a word Pickles-san. The word is "lacitircopyh".
And may I say on behalf of all members here that, whether this thread is "lacitircopyh" or not, it is clearly one of the longest and most CONFUSING threads on this site (especially NOT RECOMMENDED for a guy with a toothache!)!
Now can you pronounce it?
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
| 99pickles |
Posted - 05/26/2007 : 16:40:09
Andy, that is the most enjoyable post I've seen in some time ! My wife jumped when I laughed out loud.
Unfortunately, this has gone into a couple of different directions but there are some interesting comments though. It is also a good way to learn about fellow posters too !! I need to look some things up due to this thread ! |
| andyhack |
Posted - 05/26/2007 : 16:18:11
quote:
Originally posted by 99pickles
issue. It is the exact opposite of hypocritical. (is there a word for that ??javascript:insertsmilie('')
Smile
Interestingly, there is such a word Pickles-san. The word is "lacitircopyh".
And may I say on behalf of all members here that, whether this thread is "lacitircopyh" or not, it is clearly one of the longest and most CONFUSING threads on this site (especially NOT RECOMMENDED for a guy with a toothache!)! |
| 99pickles |
Posted - 05/26/2007 : 11:58:19
quote:To willus: If Nicholls led this ESGA stat, I would be scratching my head in disbelief and shock. I would immediately investigate how this was so.
But you aren't scratching your head that Gretzky leads this list? Why is that? -willus
I would be scratching my head about Nicholls because it would have been soo random. I am not scratching my head about Gretzky because, as I've said, Lemiux and others are up there too.
"Remember, we weren't measuring the players overall worth in this thread. We're determining the worst defensive player. So bringing in offensive stats has little relevance. I understand the best defense is a good offense theory but we are looking strictly at defensive play here." - willus
I was RESPONDING (as it says in the paragraph) to the earlier statement that said something along the lines of "and Gretzky had the most points, so to have so many ESGA means he was even worse defensively" The rest of my comment on that clearly stands : whether you scored 5 points in a season, or 155 pts. in a season, it has NO bearing (could I be Not using Gretzky's offensive numbers any more than that ?!?) because ESGA has nothing to do with how many points you or your teammates/linemates score. It is a gross stat, not a net stat - so to try and use Gretzky's offense AGAINST him on this issue is also moot. That is why I am arguing AGAINST using Gretzky's offensive stats on this ESGA thing. Otherwise we would then be arguing Plus/Minus.
"Isn't it funny though that to measure a players offensive abilities people will immediately point to their point production to support their claim of who they like. But when trying to determine the defensive value, well you can't use the stats because they are flawed." - willus
That is why I am saying you CANNOT use Gretzky's, Lemieux's - or ANY player's for that matter - offensive output against them on this issue. It is the exact opposite of hypocritical. (is there a word for that ??javascript:insertsmilie('')
Smile And I admit that this stat is only one half of plus minus (a suspect stat) In no way can it , on its own, indicate any player's overall defensive ability. Not any more than saying that ESGFor says the opposite with no room for discussion.
Like I said, let's put up the leaderboard of ESGF of careers and call that list the BEST defensive players of all time. What names would be there ??
Willus, do you admit that Lemieux is, therefore, the 2nd worst defensive player of all time by a .02 whisker ?
You know what else is interesting about this stat? The personal PPG of many of those guys on that list outways (significantly in many cases) their ESGA/Game. So I guess that means they could singlehandedly defeat teams. Did I just make a statistic say something untrue I guess they can do that sometimes |
| willus3 |
Posted - 05/26/2007 : 09:10:01
quote:
Originally posted by 99pickles
quote:
To willus: If Nicholls led this ESGA stat, I would be scratching my head in disbelief and shock. I would immediately investigate how this was so.
But you aren't scratching your head that Gretzky leads this list? Why is that?
quote:
But it is Gretzky AND Lemieux who lead this category by a large margin.So to say that they are the 2 worst defensive players of their era (you can't say just Getzky now - Lemieux's there too) because of this stat (plus other great players on this list) to me discredits it substantially. Unfortunately, ESGA is only half the story. Why don't we look at the ESGF category and call the leaderboard of that list the GREATEST defensive players of all-time. Will someone please post THAT list ?? Why not ?!? OHHH, right, because that is crazy talk.
It is the net result, +/-, that most correctly indicates a player's relative value or ability. Even then, many people (including myself) don't put too much overstock in that stat. Why? Even mediocre teams with no players above Even +/- have some solid defensive players. To me this is a team stat.
Keep a couple other things in mind : It cannot be argued that players with extremely high point totals that also have high ESGA must be even worse defensively because ESGA is a gross stat that doesn't even include whether you scored 5 points or 155 points yourself. Not to mention that a team's highest point scorer has many PP points that aren't even part of ESGA or +/- anyways.
Remember, we weren't measuring the players overall worth in this thread. We're determining the worst defensive player. So bringing in offensive stats has little relevance. I understand the best defense is a good offense theory but we are looking strictly at defensive play here.
Isn't it funny though that to measure a players offensive abilities people will immediately point to their point production to support their claim of who they like. But when trying to determine the defensive value, well you can't use the stats because they are flawed. Funny when dissected though that they all point to the same conclusion. If you want to go the stats are flawed route, the points stats are flawed as well. Gretzky played on quite possibly the most offensive team in history during the 80's with a watered down league, awful defense and goaltending and the highest goal scoring era ever. All of this served to inflate his offensive stats. All of his 200 point seasons came in the 6 or 7 years after the expansion and league merger.
So what. He is still the most offensive player ever.
But don't use the defensive stats that over his entire career point to the same thing. Weak defensive play.
Quite the double standard you guys have.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
| 99pickles |
Posted - 05/26/2007 : 03:50:37
I forgot two things - I believe earlier in this thread I called Nikolai Borschevsky the player with, possibly, the worst defensive play ever. I also made a crack at his expense somewhere else too. Why don't Leaf fans ever defend THAT guy ?!?
TCTitans beat me to the punch here : the worst defensive player ever ? Probably a sea of guys that lasted only a couple games due to their lack of...drumroll...wait for it....Defensive play !! |
| 99pickles |
Posted - 05/26/2007 : 03:41:57
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
As I recall, Bernie was not very good defensively (either ) but I don't think he beats Pavel Bure for this honor.
More importantly, I think you are not giving Bernie enough credit, 99pickles (are you a pickle fan by the way - new dill or old?).
Sorry, food distraction - but take a look at his pre-Gretzky numbers below:
1983-84 78 41 54 95
1984-85 80 46 54 100
1985-86 80 36 61 97
1986-87 80 33 48 81
1987-88 65 32 46 78
He was no slouch offensively even before Wayne arrived. The fact that he went up to 150 points with Wayne of course had a lot to do with Wayne, but give Bernie some credit for "rising to the occasion" on his own.
Kind of reminds me of when Steffie Graf won everything in sight after Monica Seles was stabbed by that maniac. Some people held it against Graf. But what was she supposed to do - not try to win? Similarly, what was Bernie supposed to do when he was getting more chances due to Gretzky, not try to score?
Pickles - you seem like a good guy and therefore I think you'll agree with me that Nicholls deserves more than being labelled a guy "who only had a career" cause of Gretzky.
Hey - I am just spiffballing some ideas to the nature of the thread "who was the worst defensive player ever" without it becoming just another Anti-Gretzky/Pro-Gretzky thread. I just picked a guy that people pile onto just to kickstart things. I feel a little bad for the guy now However, after his 1 1/2 seasons with Wayne (yep that's right - he was his teammate for only 127 games and both of them missed a couple of those) his numbers dropped to a lower level OVERNIGHT. But... his pre-Gretzky totals are very strong numbers. I should not have suggested he only had a career due to the Great One. Especially when I wanted to get AWAY from any connections to Gretzky anyways.
Now, I want to address a couple things here...
To Guest 5294: Nicholls did in fact play on Gretzky's line. Bernie is a centre/right wing (not just a centre) and due to line shuffling and injuries they played together, and they were on the top PP unit together. I don't think he magically skyrocketed from 78 to 150 points playing behind Gretzky and not with him.
To willus: If Nicholls led this ESGA stat, I would be scratching my head in disbelief and shock. I would immediately investigate how this was so.
But it is Gretzky AND Lemieux who lead this category by a large margin.So to say that they are the 2 worst defensive players of their era (you can't say just Getzky now - Lemieux's there too) because of this stat (plus other great players on this list) to me discredits it substantially. Unfortunately, ESGA is only half the story. Why don't we look at the ESGF category and call the leaderboard of that list the GREATEST defensive players of all-time. Will someone please post THAT list ?? Why not ?!? OHHH, right, because that is crazy talk.
It is the net result, +/-, that most correctly indicates a player's relative value or ability. Even then, many people (including myself) don't put too much overstock in that stat. Why? Even mediocre teams with no players above Even +/- have some solid defensive players. To me this is a team stat.
Keep a couple other things in mind : It cannot be argued that players with extremely high point totals that also have high ESGA must be even worse defensively because ESGA is a gross stat that doesn't even include whether you scored 5 points or 155 points yourself. Not to mention that a team's highest point scorer has many PP points that aren't even part of ESGA or +/- anyways.
(and, ohhh yes - I am a big pickle fan. i am finding it very difficult to find good crunchy dills here in the south though ! Thanx andyhack. |
| willus3 |
Posted - 05/25/2007 : 14:15:53
quote:
Originally posted by Guest9995
We have no way of knowing for sure what was inside of Gretzky's head, whether he was sacrificing his defensive game just to break records, but I do know this much.... When asked during his retirement press conference why he didn't play one or two seasons more and break the 3000 point barrier, her was his response: He said, simply, "Because in all my discussions with my wife on whether to continue playing or not, points and records never came up. The only concerns have been team concerns...winning the Stanley Cup."
Now, if records were so important to him, then why did he not want the most unthinkable record of all, 3000 points? That's 3 one thousand point careers rolled into one. Unbelievable. Yet he passed on it because he cared more about winning.
I don't buy the argument that Gretzky had a bad plus/minus because he wanted to score goal number 802. That is a flawed argument for so many reasons. Here's a couple of them: One, Gretzky would have broken that record the year after anyway even if he had only scored 20 goals per season. Secondly, Gretzky broke records almost every year of his entire career, so naturally his bad plus/minus years would overlap his record breaking years....so I don't understand the point. Thirdly, Gretzky had several dazzling plus minus years (+98 one year) where he broke far more records. Fourthly, take a look at the rest of Gretzky's teammates' plus/minus stats in 1994. I think his bad plus/minus was more a reflection of the team than his individual play.... The list goes on, but I cannot buy this argument about goal number 802 being the reason for his poor plus/minus. A huge stretch of the imagination would be an understatement.
I believe his quote about as much as I believe his wife is innocent in the betting scandal. He's smart enough to know what he should and shouldn't say to put the proper spin on things.
What about the countless times he said his goal was to break this record or that record.
And he passed on the 3000 point record but I guess he passed on the chance for more Cups too then didn't he.
As for your last paragraph, you're right, you don't get the point.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
| Guest9995 |
Posted - 05/25/2007 : 13:51:02
We have no way of knowing for sure what was inside of Gretzky's head, whether he was sacrificing his defensive game just to break records, but I do know this much.... When asked during his retirement press conference why he didn't play one or two seasons more and break the 3000 point barrier, her was his response: He said, simply, "Because in all my discussions with my wife on whether to continue playing or not, points and records never came up. The only concerns have been team concerns...winning the Stanley Cup."
Now, if records were so important to him, then why did he not want the most unthinkable record of all, 3000 points? That's 3 one thousand point careers rolled into one. Unbelievable. Yet he passed on it because he cared more about winning.
I don't buy the argument that Gretzky had a bad plus/minus because he wanted to score goal number 802. That is a flawed argument for so many reasons. Here's a couple of them: One, Gretzky would have broken that record the year after anyway even if he had only scored 20 goals per season. Secondly, Gretzky broke records almost every year of his entire career, so naturally his bad plus/minus years would overlap his record breaking years....so I don't understand the point. Thirdly, Gretzky had several dazzling plus minus years (+98 one year) where he broke far more records. Fourthly, take a look at the rest of Gretzky's teammates' plus/minus stats in 1994. I think his bad plus/minus was more a reflection of the team than his individual play.... The list goes on, but I cannot buy this argument about goal number 802 being the reason for his poor plus/minus. A huge stretch of the imagination would be an understatement. |
| willus3 |
Posted - 05/25/2007 : 11:23:26
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
I perceive it differently. His job was to be responsible defensively and focus on offensive. By saying he's sub par, are you not saying he was irresponsible defensively?? If so, what made him irresponsible?? I don't remember him turning the puck over in his end or making poor passes out of his zone, do you?? He did the exact defensive job he was asked to do, therefore he was average at least. If his job was to be more defensive, I would agree that he was sub-par. However, I feel he did exactly what was asked of him, so he is average at the very least.
And I don't recall a single playoff series the Oilers lost because of poor defensive play by Gretzky. It's not what could have happened, what did happen?? What play off series did Gretzky's defensive play negatively influence??
I Love your Kids, IHC is the man, and The Oilers Rule. Does that make me insane??
I think you're letting his legend grow beyond reality. You don't remember him turning the puck over or making a bad pass? This is what I mean when I say some people are fabricating their memories. Let me assure you he turned the puck over and not all of his passes hit their mark. And when it happened when he was behind the net (his office), he basically had no chance of getting back with the play. Even when it happened elsewhere on the ice he just didn't give a whole lot of effort to backcheck. In that game i just recently watched that I mentioned earlier I noticed it several times where he could have skated hard back with them and backchecked but didn't.
He may not have cost the Oilers any series. The oilers were an offensive juggernaut though and had guys like Messier and Tikkanen playing good two way hockey to cover
I do think he very well could have cost his other teams series and games though. While with LA for instance, his offense alone wasn't getting the job done because other teams were consistently beating them. He was putting up great numbers but that wasn't winning them games. So like I said before, maybe if he and the rest of his team had played better two way hockey the could have won more. Despite what many around these parts think, defense can and does win hockey games. I honestly believe that he was more concerned about breaking records than he was about doing whatever it took to win games.
In 94 Gretzky wins the scoring race with 130 points while being a -25, with 109 ESGA and LA comes nowhere near the playoffs. It's also the year he scored #802. Sort of shows where his focus was.
Yzerman was a completely one dimensional player for the first part of his career. But he realized he needed to do more to help his team win (which they did) and he became an excellent two way player.
The only reason Gretzky wouldn't play that way is because he was too concerned with personal records. That is what I believe. I will agree to disagree with you on this though Beans. We can't all agree on everything. It would be a mighty boring world if we did.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 05/24/2007 : 17:22:52
I perceive it differently. His job was to be responsible defensively and focus on offensive. By saying he's sub par, are you not saying he was irresponsible defensively?? If so, what made him irresponsible?? I don't remember him turning the puck over in his end or making poor passes out of his zone, do you?? He did the exact defensive job he was asked to do, therefore he was average at least. If his job was to be more defensive, I would agree that he was sub-par. However, I feel he did exactly what was asked of him, so he is average at the very least.
And I don't recall a single playoff series the Oilers lost because of poor defensive play by Gretzky. It's not what could have happened, what did happen?? What play off series did Gretzky's defensive play negatively influence??
I Love your Kids, IHC is the man, and The Oilers Rule. Does that make me insane?? |
| willus3 |
Posted - 05/24/2007 : 16:15:40
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Willus, to answer your question about Messier.Yes, Messier had less ESGA than Gretzky with the Oilers. However, all that tells me is that they didn't play together much. Messier's role until Gretzky left was to be an offensive threat on an energy/grinding line. Gretzky's role was to flat out put points on the baord. IF Messier had played with Gretzky, his numbers would have been different as would have Gretzky's. You did post Messier's numbers (0.87/game) and Gretzky's (1.24). The difference is one ESGA every two games. Does that make it a huge sway?? Really?? Over a career it does. But in the midst of a game or playoff series, could you say that Gretzky's ESGA stat was a negative impact to his team??
I just don't see how this stat proves anything towards a player's defensive ability. Like I had said previously, if you were to put up a poll asking who was a better defensive player between Gretzky and Lemieux, Mario would win by a landslide. However, statistically, they were virtually the same on ESGA. Same thing for Glen Anderson. He had a lower ESGA/game than Messier did. I would never agree that Anderson was a better defensive player than Messier, but this ESGA stat shows otherwise. This ESGA doesn't prove a thing in my books.
And, to throw in my two cents, I agree fully with tctitans. Gretzky's job was never to play defensively. But that also proves nothing towards his defensive ability. He did the job defensively he was asked to do. He was responsible defensively. Not a stand out, but not a slouch. Again. not the worst of his era or any other era.
I Love your Kids, IHC is the man, and The Oilers Rule. Does that make me insane??
I'm not referring to his defensive abilities. I'm referring to the effort he put into being any part of defense. There were many many players whose sole job it was to score but they still put the effort in to play some defense. Michel Goulet for instance. Or Gilbert Perreault. Even Mike Bossy.
And yes the difference between Messier and Gretzky's numbers is very significant. 1 goal every two games is huge. In terms of a playoff series it could mean the series. It only takes one goal.
And while tc doesn't say he's the worst, he did say he was sub-par defensively. I'd say sub-par = slouch.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 05/24/2007 : 15:25:42
Willus, to answer your question about Messier.Yes, Messier had less ESGA than Gretzky with the Oilers. However, all that tells me is that they didn't play together much. Messier's role until Gretzky left was to be an offensive threat on an energy/grinding line. Gretzky's role was to flat out put points on the baord. IF Messier had played with Gretzky, his numbers would have been different as would have Gretzky's. You did post Messier's numbers (0.87/game) and Gretzky's (1.24). The difference is one ESGA every two games. Does that make it a huge sway?? Really?? Over a career it does. But in the midst of a game or playoff series, could you say that Gretzky's ESGA stat was a negative impact to his team??
I just don't see how this stat proves anything towards a player's defensive ability. Like I had said previously, if you were to put up a poll asking who was a better defensive player between Gretzky and Lemieux, Mario would win by a landslide. However, statistically, they were virtually the same on ESGA. Same thing for Glen Anderson. He had a lower ESGA/game than Messier did. I would never agree that Anderson was a better defensive player than Messier, but this ESGA stat shows otherwise. This ESGA doesn't prove a thing in my books.
And, to throw in my two cents, I agree fully with tctitans. Gretzky's job was never to play defensively. But that also proves nothing towards his defensive ability. He did the job defensively he was asked to do. He was responsible defensively. Not a stand out, but not a slouch. Again. not the worst of his era or any other era.
I Love your Kids, IHC is the man, and The Oilers Rule. Does that make me insane?? |
| willus3 |
Posted - 05/24/2007 : 14:34:14
How about worst of his era who played over 1000 games then?
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
| tctitans |
Posted - 05/24/2007 : 14:29:19
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
Ok, sorry, I know you want to drop it, but...
If because he was so focused on offense that the defensive part of his game "suffered severely" I would take that to mean "sub-par". Suffered moderately maybe not sub-par. Suffered severely has to be sub-par. I'm probably just finding fault with your phrasing though.
Nope. I agree. Sub-par.
quote:
Again, I'm not saying he was the worst ever, but I think a case can be made for worst of his era.
I still don't agree with this. :)
quote:
Out of curiosity who do you say is the worst of Gretzky's generation and worst ever?
My view here is that the worst of Gretzky's generation (or ever) were probably some nonames that we don't remember since they were horrible defensive players and their offensive abilities never developped as expected to counteract this so they didnt have long careers. |
| willus3 |
Posted - 05/24/2007 : 14:01:16
quote:
Originally posted by tctitans
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
I thought that we already all agreed that Gretzky's defensive play left a lot to be desired (based on numerous other things - excluding these stats)? He may have not have had sub-par defensive abilities (that's a different debate ;)), but his game was entirely focused on offense and the defensive part of his game did suffer severely because of this.
The debate we are having now (at least what I thought) was if he was the worst defensive player ever (which I don't believe for 1 minute) and how him leading the ESGA list correlates into being the worst defensive player ever (which I really don't see a strong correlation here myself but I do agree that it's obviously not a positive, and it's not necessarily a list that anyone wants to be on).
That's it! :)
Ok, sorry, I know you want to drop it, but...
If because he was so focused on offense that the defensive part of his game "suffered severely" I would take that to mean "sub-par". Suffered moderately maybe not sub-par. Suffered severely has to be sub-par.
I'm probably just finding fault with your phrasing though.
Again, I'm not saying he was the worst ever, but I think a case can be made for worst of his era.
Out of curiosity who do you say is the worst of Gretzky's generation and worst ever?
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
| tctitans |
Posted - 05/24/2007 : 13:35:17
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
I know what you're saying TC and by no means am I just basing my opinions on these stats. But to me they reinforce my thought that he was weak defensively. Why must there be another correlation? Cheating a bit for instance is cherry picking, which is playing weak defensively. Look at the difference too between Wayne, Mario and everyone else. It's a significant gap to Peter Stastny. So it's not like the stats are even close. If they were then I think it would be a different argument for sure.
I'm not in any way trying to be rude or derogatory. I'm just pointing out what I saw and what I think these stats support.
I think many just don't want to admit it for some reason. It's as if it will diminish him in some way.
I thought that we already all agreed that Gretzky's defensive play left a lot to be desired (based on numerous other things - excluding these stats)? He may have not have had sub-par defensive abilities (that's a different debate ;)), but his game was entirely focused on offense and the defensive part of his game did suffer severely because of this.
The debate we are having now (at least what I thought) was if he was the worst defensive player ever (which I don't believe for 1 minute) and how him leading the ESGA list correlates into being the worst defensive player ever (which I really don't see a strong correlation here myself but I do agree that it's obviously not a positive, and it's not necessarily a list that anyone wants to be on).
That's it! :) |
| willus3 |
Posted - 05/24/2007 : 12:47:36
quote:
Originally posted by tctitans
Look at some of these names we are talking about here:
Name GP ESGA Per Game
Wayne Gretzky 1487 1838 1.24
Mario Lemieux 879 1072 1.22
Peter Stastny 977 1041 1.07
Mike Rogers 484 504 1.04
Bernie Federko 1000 1019 1.02
Marcel Dionne 1348 1368 1.01
Dale Hawerchuk 1188 1202 1.01
Phil Esposito 1047 1040 0.99
Rick Martin 685 676 0.99
Dennis Maruk 888 865 0.97
Kent Nilsson 553 538 0.97
Bernie Nicholls 1127 1094 0.97
Gilbert Perreault 1191 1154 0.97
Rick Vaive 876 844 0.96
Pierre Larouche 812 779 0.96
All were very talented offensive players (some of the best ever!) and got tons of ice time. There must be another correlation here than just saying that they are sucked defensively. Perhaps since they were the leaders of their teams offensively, they were coached to take more chances? cheat a bit? I don't really know, and I don't have the answer. It does seem very strange to me to look at this list by itself and come to any specific conclusions.
I know what you're saying TC and by no means am I just basing my opinions on these stats. But to me they reinforce my thought that he was weak defensively. Why must there be another correlation? Cheating a bit for instance is cherry picking, which is playing weak defensively. Look at the difference too between Wayne, Mario and everyone else. It's a significant gap to Peter Stastny. So it's not like the stats are even close. If they were then I think it would be a different argument for sure.
I'm not in any way trying to be rude or derogatory. I'm just pointing out what I saw and what I think these stats support.
I think many just don't want to admit it for some reason. It's as if it will diminish him in some way.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
| tctitans |
Posted - 05/24/2007 : 11:40:52
Look at some of these names we are talking about here:
Name GP ESGA Per Game
Wayne Gretzky 1487 1838 1.24
Mario Lemieux 879 1072 1.22
Peter Stastny 977 1041 1.07
Mike Rogers 484 504 1.04
Bernie Federko 1000 1019 1.02
Marcel Dionne 1348 1368 1.01
Dale Hawerchuk 1188 1202 1.01
Phil Esposito 1047 1040 0.99
Rick Martin 685 676 0.99
Dennis Maruk 888 865 0.97
Kent Nilsson 553 538 0.97
Bernie Nicholls 1127 1094 0.97
Gilbert Perreault 1191 1154 0.97
Rick Vaive 876 844 0.96
Pierre Larouche 812 779 0.96
All were very talented offensive players (some of the best ever!) and got tons of ice time. There must be another correlation here than just saying that they are sucked defensively. Perhaps since they were the leaders of their teams offensively, they were coached to take more chances? cheat a bit? I don't really know, and I don't have the answer. It does seem very strange to me to look at this list by itself and come to any specific conclusions. |
| willus3 |
Posted - 05/24/2007 : 10:26:26
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Willus, in all honesty, I would still balk at it. ESGA and +/- has far too much room for misinterpretations. A player on a bad team for a number of years will more than likely have a very poor ranking in this stat. This is more based on team than it is individual, so it really doesn't matter what player would top the list. Just like Bourque being on the top 5 worst. We have almost all agreed that Bourque was a fine defensive player. So, how could his stat hold water in gauging a player's defensive ability?
And I notice Chooch has re-appeared to through in his ignorant two cents. I'm glad I could make you laugh. Be certain that everything you say makes me roll on the floor in laughter as well.
I Love your Kids, IHC is the man, and The Oilers Rule. Does that make me insane??
I believe you Beans.
Can you tell me though, why the difference in Messier's and Gretzky's esga per game while they were on the oilers with relatively equal ice time? I understand that Gretzky put up larger offensive numbers, but that's not what we're discussing here. Did I post Messiers numbers? Maybe I didn't. I can if you like.
Now as for Bourque being on there. Take a look at the number of games played and also the ice time logged. Both significantly larger numbers than Gretzky. Per game Bourque is .90, Gretzky is 1.24 in the same era. Again, a significant difference.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 05/24/2007 : 09:38:01
Willus, in all honesty, I would still balk at it. ESGA and +/- has far too much room for misinterpretations. A player on a bad team for a number of years will more than likely have a very poor ranking in this stat. This is more based on team than it is individual, so it really doesn't matter what player would top the list. Just like Bourque being on the top 5 worst. We have almost all agreed that Bourque was a fine defensive player. So, how could his stat hold water in gauging a player's defensive ability?
And I notice Chooch has re-appeared to through in his ignorant two cents. I'm glad I could make you laugh. Be certain that everything you say makes me roll on the floor in laughter as well.
I Love your Kids, IHC is the man, and The Oilers Rule. Does that make me insane?? |
| willus3 |
Posted - 05/24/2007 : 09:36:08
Just for perusal. Lots of guys in here playing in the same era as Gretz by the way.
Worst GPG By Forwards (min. 200 gp)
Name GP ESGA Per Game
Wayne Gretzky 1487 1838 1.24
Mario Lemieux 879 1072 1.22
Blaine Stoughton 526 564 1.07
Peter Stastny 977 1041 1.07
Doug Shedden 416 434 1.04
Mike Rogers 484 504 1.04
Bernie Federko 1000 1019 1.02
Dale McCourt 532 540 1.02
Marcel Dionne 1348 1368 1.01
Dale Hawerchuk 1188 1202 1.01
Wilf Paiement 946 957 1.01
Miroslav Frycer 415 416 1.00
Dennis Hextall 684 682 1.00
Phil Esposito 1047 1040 0.99
Rick Martin 685 676 0.99
Nelson Pyatt 296 292 0.99
Guy Charron 734 715 0.97
Dennis Maruk 888 865 0.97
Kent Nilsson 553 538 0.97
Merlin Malinowski 282 274 0.97
Bernie Nicholls 1127 1094 0.97
Gilbert Perreault 1191 1154 0.97
Ivan Boldirev 1052 1015 0.96
Rick Vaive 876 844 0.96
Pierre Larouche 812 779 0.96
Here are some notable players:
Alyn McCauley 320 110 0.34 x
Kris Draper 657 236 0.36 x
John Madden 320 117 0.37 x
Jere Lehtinen 510 224 0.44 x
Doug Jarvis 964 446 0.46 x
Bobby Holik 942 472 0.50 x
Michael Peca 546 289 0.53 x
Craig Ramsay 1070 567 0.53 x
Guy Carbonneau 1318 712 0.54 x
Bobby Clarke 1144 629 0.55 x
Bob Gainey 1160 648 0.56 x
Clark Gillies 958 561 0.59 x
Steve Shutt 930 560 0.60 x
Yvan Cournoyer 774 475 0.61 x
Sergei Fedorov 908 564 0.62 x
Bill Barber 903 561 0.62 x
Markus Naslund 712 451 0.63 x
Jacques Lemaire 853 556 0.65 x
Jeremy Roenick 1062 702 0.66 x
Esa Tikkanen 877 590 0.67 x
Dave Andreychuk 1515 1038 0.69 x
Peter Bondra 907 635 0.70 x
Mike Modano 1025 721 0.70 x
Brendan Shanahan 1186 836 0.70 x
Stan Mikita 845 596 0.71 x
Bryan Trottier 1279 920 0.72 x
Theoren Fleury 1084 784 0.72 x
Pat Verbeek 1424 1049 0.74 x
Mike Bossy 752 556 0.74 x
Guy Lafleur 1126 834 0.74 x
Trevor Linden 1079 806 0.75 x
Steve Larmer 1006 752 0.75 x
Doug Gilmour 1474 1125 0.76 x
Dave Keon 824 631 0.77 x
Vincent Damphousse 1296 1021 0.79 x
Eric Lindros 639 506 0.79 x
Alexander Mogilny 919 733 0.80 x
Tim Kerr 655 524 0.80 x
Rod Brind'Amour 1031 830 0.81 x
Cam Neely 726 585 0.81 x
Denis Savard 1196 982 0.82 x
Glenn Anderson 1129 930 0.82 x
Luc Robitaille 1286 1080 0.84 x
Mats Sundin 1005 848 0.84 x
Michel Goulet 1089 925 0.85 x
Brett Hull 1183 1014 0.86 x
Teemu Selanne 801 688 0.86 x
Mark Recchi 1091 941 0.86 x
Mike Gartner 1432 1236 0.86 x
Mark Messier 1680 1455 0.87 x
Alexei Yashin 663 576 0.87 x
Ron Francis 1651 1454 0.88 x
Dino Ciccarelli 1232 1091 0.89 x
Jaromir Jagr 950 851 0.90 x
Pavel Bure 702 630 0.90 x
Jari Kurri 1251 1126 0.90 x
Adam Oates 1277 1170 0.92 x
Steve Yzerman 1378 1265 0.92 x
Joe Sakic 1074 996 0.93 x
Darryl Sittler 1096 1025 0.94 x
Pat LaFontaine 865 810 0.94 x
Gilbert Perreault 1191 1154 0.97 x
Bernie Nicholls 1127 1094 0.97 x
Phil Esposito 1047 1040 0.99 x
Dale Hawerchuk 1188 1202 1.01 x
Marcel Dionne 1348 1368 1.01 x
Bernie Federko 1000 1019 1.02 x
Peter Stastny 977 1041 1.07 x
Mario Lemieux 879 1072 1.22 x
Wayne Gretzky 1487 1838 1.24 x
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
| willus3 |
Posted - 05/24/2007 : 07:12:15
Just a thought/question. Had it been Bernie Nicholls who topped the list for career ESGA would you all still balk at it? This is a rhetorical question as I know that no one would answer honestly anyway.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
| Guest5294 |
Posted - 05/22/2007 : 16:52:40
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
. He won more than his share of battles against the boards and he won the puck and skated it out of his end on countless occasions.
Thats the funniest line I ever read. Thanks for the laughs.
You never saw him play did you. |
| Guest5294 |
Posted - 05/22/2007 : 16:51:07
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
More with the Bernie tangent (sorry admin guys).
Here are Bernie's post Gretzky numbers - they too show that he could produce fairly decently offensively. Also, according to what I just read, he also became better defensively in his latter years.
1989-90 32 12 25 37
1990-91 71 25 48 73
1991-92 1 0 0 0
1991-92 49 20 29 49
1992-93 46 8 32 40
1992-93 23 5 15 20
1993-94 61 19 27 46
1994-95 48 22 29 51
1995-96 59 19 41 60
1996-97 65 12 33 45
1997-98 60 6 22 28
1998-99 10 0 2 2
I suppose one could argue too that Gretzky screwed up Bernie's career a bit. Now he is known as "the guy that Gretzky made into a 70 goal scorer". Had he never played with Gretzky and continued his very solid pre-Gretzky pace, he would have been far more respected in the end.
How's that for a non-Gretzky camp member (I carry my card by the way) finding new and innovative ways to find fault in the Legend of the Great One!
Anyway, I think I'll start a "Lets respect Bernie Nicholls a little more" Club. Maybe Wayne would sponsor me. They were good buddies as I remember. Maybe he feels guilty for ruining the guy's reputation.
Gretzky Guys!!!!! Relax!!!!! I'm kidding.
sort of
Considering that Nichols didnt even play on Gretzkys line; they were centers. You 99ers! |
| andyhack |
Posted - 05/21/2007 : 18:36:13
More with the Bernie tangent (sorry admin guys).
Here are Bernie's post Gretzky numbers - they too show that he could produce fairly decently offensively. Also, according to what I just read, he also became better defensively in his latter years.
1989-90 32 12 25 37
1990-91 71 25 48 73
1991-92 1 0 0 0
1991-92 49 20 29 49
1992-93 46 8 32 40
1992-93 23 5 15 20
1993-94 61 19 27 46
1994-95 48 22 29 51
1995-96 59 19 41 60
1996-97 65 12 33 45
1997-98 60 6 22 28
1998-99 10 0 2 2
I suppose one could argue too that Gretzky screwed up Bernie's career a bit. Now he is known as "the guy that Gretzky made into a 70 goal scorer". Had he never played with Gretzky and continued his very solid pre-Gretzky pace, he would have been far more respected in the end.
How's that for a non-Gretzky camp member (I carry my card by the way) finding new and innovative ways to find fault in the Legend of the Great One!
Anyway, I think I'll start a "Lets respect Bernie Nicholls a little more" Club. Maybe Wayne would sponsor me. They were good buddies as I remember. Maybe he feels guilty for ruining the guy's reputation.
Gretzky Guys!!!!! Relax!!!!! I'm kidding.
sort of
|
| Guest0956 |
Posted - 05/21/2007 : 14:57:22
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
As I recall, Bernie was not very good defensively (either) but I don't think he beats Pavel Bure for this honor.
More importantly, I think you are not giving Bernie enough credit, 99pickles (are you a pickle fan by the way - new dill or old?).
Sorry, food distraction - but take a look at his pre-Gretzky numbers below:
1983-84 78 41 54 95
1984-85 80 46 54 100
1985-86 80 36 61 97
1986-87 80 33 48 81
1987-88 65 32 46 78
He was no slouch offensively even before Wayne arrived. The fact that he went up to 150 points with Wayne of course had a lot to do with Wayne, but give Bernie some credit for "rising to the occasion" on his own.
Kind of reminds me of when Steffie Graf won everything in sight after Monica Seles was stabbed by that maniac. Some people held it against Graf. But what was she supposed to do - not try to win? Similarly, what was Bernie supposed to do when he was getting more chances due to Gretzky, not try to score?
Pickles - you seem like a good guy and therefore I think you'll agree with me that Nicholls deserves more than being labelled a guy "who only had a career" cause of Gretzky.
I agree with you that Nicholls would have had a pretty good hockey career without Gretzky. He did score 100 points once without him afterall. However, Nicholls scored 70 goals with Gretzky! He went from scoring 32 goals to 70! More than double in one season. That is staggering. And I'd be interested to see how many he scored after Gretzky!
"Similarly, what was Bernie supposed to do when he was getting more chances due to Gretzky, not try to score?"
The funny thing is, this is exactly how I feel when people denounce Gretzky's abilities by saying he was a product of luck, his linemates, and his era, etc, etc. It's almost like he would have been viewed in a better light had he not won scoring titles by January. It's one of those odd cases where the more points he scored, the less people believed in him. If he had had 300 point seasons, I honestly think people would have denounced his abilities just as much, if not more! When a player puts up numbers like that, people don't trust it. Literally, it's unbelievable. And so they have to make up excuses. "He sucks. He's protected. He's lucky. He's a product of his era. He must be doing it with mirrors. He has to be.... He has to be getting away with something. I don't believe the numbers...." It's funny how Gretzky got away with it and lucked out for 10 seasons in a row! Must be the luckiest human being ever to walk the Earth.
Anyway, excuse the rant.
|
|
|
