Is 150pts today as good as 200 pts in the 80's

I myself cannot bring myself to beleive that is. 200 points when I think about it is just incredible, but when I stop and really think about it, 150 points today I think is equally impressive if not more impressive than 200 points in the mid to late 80's. My reasons are:

1: Goaltending - Goalies are so much bigger, better and much much more athletic than that area. Goaltending as a whole was not very good. Todays goalies have much bigger equipment and most importantly the craft of goaltending has changed so much

2: Talent - There is alot better talent all the way around than there was back then. Guys are so much bigger, faster, stonger than before which makes it much harder to create offense and find space. I think most of todays 4th line centers probably could have played on the second line and be effective on some of the teams of the past.

3: Style of Play - Todays game is more system oriented and not as much free for all. There are many more systems in place today than in the past it seems. The 80's game was offense first while today is defense first.

In no way am I diminshing what Gretzky has done. His 200 pts seasons where disgusting and will never be duplicated, I just wanted to through this out there because there are alot of hockey purest on this board with great opinions.

I think it's debatable.

Just compare the total scoring between these 2 eras and youll have your answer, without checking I'd say it's close.

Well, since this is basically going to turn into Sid Vs Gretzky just keep in mind Gretzky was outscoring the rest of the field by about 35% by his mid 20s..and at 23 he beat out the next guy, Paul Coffey, by 39%

.

Well, since this is basically going to turn into Sid Vs Gretzky just keep in mind Gretzky was outscoring the rest of the field by about 35% in his prime. I heard the Oilers were an immensely stacked and talented team in Gretzky's prime.

No.

How many players have ever gotten 200 points? One. How many have even gotten close to that? Two.

Gretzky and Lemieux are just better than any player ever in the history of hockey.

2: Talent - There is alot better talent all the way around than there was back then. Guys are so much bigger, faster, stonger than before which makes it much harder to create offense and find space. I think most of todays 4th line centers probably could have played on the second line and be effective on some of the teams of the past.

You have that part wrong - most of the 4th line centres today might not have made the AHL affiliate of a 21 team league. Contract 9 teams from the league today and suddenly the talent level per team increases nearly 30%.

I heard the Oilers were an immensely stacked and talented team in Gretzky's prime.

Gretzky put up the numbers no matter what team he was on.

I heard the Oilers were an immensely stacked and talented team in Gretzky's prime.

Absolutely, you heard correct. He outscored his next highest scoring teammate by 40% at 23 years old. Coffee put up ridiculous numbers...and Gretzky made it look like nothing.

Well, since this is basically going to turn into Sid Vs Gretzky just keep in mind Gretzky was outscoring the rest of the field by about 35% by his mid 20s..and at 23 he beat out the next guy, Paul Coffey, by 39%

.

Oh. You can do math, but can you read? As I said "the field" back then was not as near as competitive as it is now. Would you agree?

Oh. You can do math, but can you read? As I said "the field" back then was not as near as competitive as it is now. Would you agree?

It was pretty competitive if you take Gretzky out of the equation.

You have that part wrong - most of the 4th line centres today might not have made the AHL affiliate of a 21 team league. Contract 9 teams from the league today and suddenly the talent level per team increases nearly 30%.

Very fair point, although the number of Russians/Europeans playing in the NHL is now considerably higher than the 80s (I'm going based on memory without looking at stats), which has increased the talent level these days. Still, 9 less teams does make a huge difference. Lots of factors really make the comparison difficult.

I myself cannot bring myself to beleive that is. 200 points when I think about it is just incredible, but when I stop and really think about it, 150 points today I think is equally impressive if not more impressive than 200 points in the mid to late 80's. My reasons are:

1: Goaltending - Goalies are so much bigger, better and much much more athletic than that area. Goaltending as a whole was not very good. Todays goalies have much bigger equipment and most importantly the craft of goaltending has changed so much

2: Talent - There is alot better talent all the way around than there was back then. Guys are so much bigger, faster, stonger than before which makes it much harder to create offense and find space. I think most of todays 4th line centers probably could have played on the second line and be effective on some of the teams of the past.

3: Style of Play - Todays game is more system oriented and not as much free for all. There are many more systems in place today than in the past it seems. The 80's game was offense first while today is defense first.

In no way am I diminshing what Gretzky has done. His 200 pts seasons where disgusting and will never be duplicated, I just wanted to through this out there because there are alot of hockey purest on this board with great opinions.
Whoa whoa whoa, no.
Half the guys playing in bottom six roles in the league today wouldn't even have a sniff of the NHL in the 80's. The talent pool is so diluted with the extra 9 teams today that the NHL is the least consistently talented it has ever been in its history

You have that part wrong - most of the 4th line centres today might not have made the AHL affiliate of a 21 team league. Contract 9 teams from the league today and suddenly the talent level per team increases nearly 30%.

very good point.
Technology is better for all players. The goalies are a lot more talented now, tho. I don't know. I think it is debatable.

Whoa whoa whoa, no.
Half the guys playing in bottom six roles in the league today wouldn't even have a sniff of the NHL in the 80's. The talent pool is so diluted with the extra 9 teams today that the NHL is the least consistently talented it has ever been in its history

That is debatable, but athletes today are such freaks of nature. Athletes of yester-year trained rearly and drank and smoked often. My point was that the players of today are harder to play against

You have that part wrong - most of the 4th line centres today might not have made the AHL affiliate of a 21 team league. Contract 9 teams from the league today and suddenly the talent level per team increases nearly 30%.

This is a fair point i still think youre wrong tho, i mean players are so much bigger, faster, and stronger today due to health/fitness advances that if you took even a 4th liner from today and somehow sent him back in time he would probably be a great player since he would be so hard to contain. No one back then would match their speed/power.

And like has been said while we have more teams we also have bigger world wide pool of players.

Indeed; the NHLers today are a lot more athletic than a majority of past NHLers...

You have that part wrong - most of the 4th line centres today might not have made the AHL affiliate of a 21 team league. Contract 9 teams from the league today and suddenly the talent level per team increases nearly 30%.
No, you are wrong. They are better by virtue of being bigger, faster, and stronger.

I think the best way to measure things is to see how much Crosby/Gretzky won the scoring title by. If Crosby puts up 160 pts and the next person puts up 110 then that must be pretty close to what Gretzky did i would think.

I know this argument is often used, but you have to look at who Crosby is playing with in Pittsburgh, along with the era he's playing in.

In my opinion, he would be up there if he gets 150.

200 points is 200 points, doesn't matter what era. Gretzky was a freak

200 points is 200 points, doesn't matter what era. Gretzky was a freak

Unaware of league-wide scoring statistics?

I think the best way to measure things is to see how much Crosby/Gretzky won the scoring title by. If Crosby puts up 160 pts and the next person puts up 110 then that must be pretty close to what Gretzky did i would think.

This :)

It's not just the numbers. It's the difference to the rest.


Although looking at Lemieux's comeback numbers in teh dead puck era.... I'm not so sure. 76 points in 43 games in a lower scoring era is godlike. A fit young Mario might've gotten beyond 170 still?

I think the best way to measure things is to see how much Crosby/Gretzky won the scoring title by. If Crosby puts up 160 pts and the next person puts up 110 then that must be pretty close to what Gretzky did i would think.

That is ridiculous.

If the top scorer's ability is best measured by comparing him to the runner up, this logic requires the assumption that the Art Ross runner-up is of equal ability every year.

That is debatable, but athletes today are such freaks of nature. Athletes of yester-year trained rearly and drank and smoked often. My point was that the players of today are harder to play against

Players today don't have to endure the grabbing and checking there was in the past, defensemen are not allowed to cross-check in front of the net like they used to. Maybe you should watch a complete game of the 80s (not just highlights), especially in the playoffs, it was definitely not easier back then.

Whoa whoa whoa, no.
Half the guys playing in bottom six roles in the league today wouldn't even have a sniff of the NHL in the 80's. The talent pool is so diluted with the extra 9 teams today that the NHL is the least consistently talented it has ever been in its history

LMFAO... let's not get stupid here. There's a huge pool of talent from Europe in today's NHL that simply wasn't available to NHL teams in 1980. Not only that, but the pool of talent in Canada and the US has grown much larger -- Canada had 44% more people in 1987 than it did in 1960. Therefore, the pool of Canadian hockey talent has grown 44% since Gretzky was 23, while the number of teams has only grown 42%.

Some people's vision of the past is too clouded with nostaglia

Players today don't have to endure the grabbing and checking there was in the past, defensemen are not allowed to cross-check in front of the net like they used to. Maybe you should watch a complete game of the 80s (not just highlights), especially in the playoffs, it was definitely not easier back then.

Yeah your right. I never watched a game in the 80's. Your a clown. How many teams in the 80's did you see playing a versions of the trap. My point was the players today are so much more athletic, bigger, faster and stronger. Just because defensman cant cross check anymore doesnt mean its easy to stand in front of the net. Clutching and grabbing didnt start until the 90's, atleast it didnt make the game unwatchable and uninteresting until the 90's

Players today don't have to endure the grabbing and checking there was in the past, defensemen are not allowed to cross-check in front of the net like they used to. Maybe you should watch a complete game of the 80s (not just highlights), especially in the playoffs, it was definitely not easier back then.

He said players of today are harder to play against... not the game is harder. If you took a player from today and let him play back then he would be bigger faster and stronger AND be allowed to grab and cross check. So yes players of today are harder to play against... The game might not be harder, but the players are.

LMFAO... let's not get stupid here. There's a huge pool of talent from Europe in today's NHL that simply wasn't available to NHL teams in 1980. Not only that, but the pool of talent in Canada and the US has grown much larger -- Canada had 44% more people in 1987 than it did in 1960. Therefore, the pool of Canadian hockey talent has grown 44% since Gretzky was 23, while the number of teams has only grown 42%.

Not just that, but minor hockey programs have gotten a lot better too. Particularly in the United States. There is more opportunity for kids to develop the talent to become NHL-caliber players.

No.

How many players have ever gotten 200 points? One. How many have even gotten close to that? Two.

Gretzky and Lemieux are just better than any player ever in the history of hockey.

ALong with Bobby Orr.

I think 170+ would be closer. Too many people put down Gretzky's accomplishments, its not even funny.

Not just that, but minor hockey programs have gotten a lot better too. Particularly in the United States. There is more opportunity for kids to develop the talent to become NHL-caliber players.

yes, competition is much tighters nowadays.

The difference between Gretzky and the worst NHLer in his day is smaller than the difference between Crosby and the worst NHLer nowadays. And that's not just because Gretzky>Crosby

Yeah your right. I never watched a game in the 80's. Your a clown. How many teams in the 80's did you see playing a versions of the trap. My point was the players today are so much more athletic, bigger, faster and stronger. Just because defensman cant cross check anymore doesnt mean its easy to stand in front of the net. Clutching and grabbing didnt start until the 90's, atleast it didnt make the game unwatchable and uninteresting until the 90's

You say clutching and grabbing didn't start until the 90's, well it's obvious you never watch a game in the 80's. Players today might be more athletic, but they're not allowed to play defense like in the past and they play against more athletic players, so it's easier to score today.

Given how much the game of hockey has evolved from the 1980's until today, it is literally impossible to compare the skill levels and scoring ability of Gretzky/Lemieux/Orr to the players of today.

For all we know, Gretzky might be be held to no more than a point per game in today's game. Or maybe, he'd be able to put up 200 points with today's equipment and rules. Maybe Lemieux and Orr would be able to stay healthy with today's sports medicine technology.

The game is totally different and it's not just a matter of the level of the competition either. The game has become more systematic and tactical, and less free. Whether players like Gretzky would be stifled or flourish in this environment is impossible to determine.

I think people are too quick to assume that Gretzky/Lemieux/Orr are leaps and bounds above today's players. Meanwhile, other people are too quick to assume that Gretzky/Lemieux/Orr wouldn't be able to adapt to today's game and be just as dominant.

No.

How many players have ever gotten 200 points? One. How many have even gotten close to that? Two.

Gretzky and Lemieux are just better than any player ever in the history of hockey.

This.

That is ridiculous.

If the top scorer's ability is best measured by comparing him to the runner up, this logic requires the assumption that the Art Ross runner-up is of equal ability every year.

No it is not ridiculous. If Gretzky scored 30-40 % more points then the pack behind him then if Crosby manage to do the same then I think it is fair to compare the accomplishments. It is the most scientific way to compare two players from different time periods.

And people must keep in mind that yes, the athletes are better trained today in almost all sports but if the players from the past would some how play in the present then they would of course benefit just as much them self from being in better shape. Good players in the 50´s would be good players in todays game and vice versa.

Its funny how you guy believe hockey now is way better than in the '80, Crosby season so far is incredible but Lemieux yeah the same Lemieux where some believe his number where high because of the area he play, got 35 goals 41 assist in 43 games in the NEW area (2001) in his comeback year after missing 3 full season at the age of 36y. ;)

Yup.

Crosby is garbage compared to wayne and mario!

For the record Gretz didn't hang em up in '89. He was over a ppg in the middle of the dead puck era on a crap team with a bad back in his mid to late 30's.

[QUOTE=MONEYMO;29848430]I think 170+ would be closer. Too many people put down Gretzky's accomplishments, its not even funny.

I would think 170-175 points would be close to Gretzkys 215 point season. I dont think anyone is trying to put down Gretzkys accomplishments. I mean i highly doubt anyone is going to even score a 150 in todays game. Crosby maybe would get close but still would only get close once. I believe 150-155 points is about 200 in the 80's. But for Crosby to even get mentioned in the same breath as Gretzky he would have to probably get:

5 seasons between 150-170 points (resembling Gretzkys (5)196-215 point seasons)
6 seasons between 125-145 points (resembling Gretzkys (6)142-183 point seasons)

Of course these numbers arnt science. But look Im lowering the numbers significantly and Crosby will most likely never get a season between 150-165 and might get 2-3 in the 125-140 point range. He will be a ways off from Gretzky. So yes Gretzkys numbers are god like but you would be only kidding yourself if you didnt think 150 was at least close to 200.


As for the dilution of talent because of 9 more teams today......thats a joke. The worlds population has increased, canada's and more specifically the united states hockey population has increased. Alot of eruopean talent in todays game. Hockey programs are better. All of this easily cancels out 9 extra teams and it probably does so 2-3 times over. Gretzky might be the greatest ever but the overall talent of the league is the greatest in todays game.

But just think about the numbers. Lets imagine if he did what I pointed out the numbers he would have to put up to be considered in the same breath as Gretzky
18- 102
19- 120
20- 72
21- 103
22- 109
23- 150
24- 163
25- 170
26- 164
27- 155
28- 145
29- 143
30- 138
31- 134
32- 129
33- 127
Then a few more seasons around 90-115. Lol those to me are Gretzky like numbers. Is it going to happen? god no. Dont worry Gretzky is king. Crosby might be able surpass guys like Sakic, Messier, Yzerman. But he will not be in the same league as Orr, Gretzky and Mario and that has nothing to do with the era hes in, it has to do with simply that these guys are better than Crosby. But if some guy in the future puts up numbers that I just showed, I would consider it close but probably not even quite there

God, this again...

The "bigger, faster, stronger" thing is just a testament to how much people talk out of their ass. Bigger? No. Stronger? No. Faster? Yeah, I'll give you that one.

But do people think that players in the 80s were frail or even weaker than today's? Just because they didnt train the same way as the guys of today doesnt mean they weren't fit or in shape. It's such an ignorant thing to say.


And then we have the logical argument to disprove anyone who downplays Gretzky's achievement: Jaromir Jagr was able to outscore the superstars of today. He proved that if he wasnt equal to Crosby and Ovechkin (at the age of 35), then he was at least very close (in a bigger, faster, stronger league!).

The very same Jaromir Jagr who played Robbin to Lemieux's Batman. And the same Lemieux who was unable to ever beat Gretzky.

People dont realize just how freaking good Lemieux and Gretzky were. It was almost disgusting.

I agree that with the speed of today's game, Gretzky probably couldnt break 200, but I definitely think that with his hockey sense and his unparalleled vision, he would be getting 180 points. He was that good. I never watched him. I was about 15 years too late to watch him in his prime, but I can use logic and common sense to see how he stacks up to today's best. It amazes me that not many others can do that.

Outside of Gretzky and Lemieux the closest someone has got to 200 points in a season in NHL history is Yzerman in 88-89 with 155. That's 60 points less than Gretzky's 215 record. Do you realize just how ridiculous that is?

No it is not ridiculous. If Gretzky scored 30-40 % more points then the pack behind him then if Crosby manage to do the same then I think it is fair to compare the accomplishments. It is the most scientific way to compare two players from different time periods.

And people must keep in mind that yes, the athletes are better trained today in almost all sports but if the players from the past would some how play in the present then they would of course benefit just as much them self from being in better shape. Good players in the 50´s would be good players in todays game and vice versa.

It's not scientific at all. It's quite the opposite of scientific. Your method is like comparing object A's weight on Earth to object B's weight on the moon.

Suppose, that it took a lot more to score 40% more points than Ovechkin or Stamkos than it did to score 40% more than Coffey or Stastny... Or vice versa. How the hell can you say that this is an accurate method to compare two players of different era's?

If you were to compare them to the average goals-per-game of their respective seasons, I would be more inclined to agree with you there. Comparing to the runner-up is downright ridiculous.

Gretzky won the art ross by 73 points when he was 23.

Crosby is on pace to win it by 25.

Crosby is clearly the best player of his era. Still not close to Gretzky.

Also consider that Crosby's ridiculous point streak is up to 25 games. Thats still only half way ot what Gretzky did.

God, this again...

The "bigger, faster, stronger" thing is just a testament to how much people talk out of their ass. Bigger? No. Stronger? No. Faster? Yeah, I'll give you that one.

But do people think that players in the 80s were frail or even weaker than today's? Just because they didnt train the same way as the guys of today doesnt mean they weren't fit or in shape. It's such an ignorant thing to say.


And then we have the logical argument to disprove anyone who downplays Gretzky's achievement: Jaromir Jagr was able to outscore the superstars of today. He proved that if he wasnt equal to Crosby and Ovechkin (at the age of 35), then he was at least very close (in a bigger, faster, stronger league!).

The very same Jaromir Jagr who played Robbin to Lemieux's Batman. And the same Lemieux who was unable to ever beat Gretzky.
.

You are wrong, the players today are bigger, stronger and faster. I show some averages sizes from early 80´s and compare them with the averages sizes of today teams. Players are 1 or 2 inches taller today and also heavier.

Flyers average height and wight early 80´s.
80-81, Av Ht: 185.27 cm | Av Wt: 87.91 kg
81-82, Av Ht: 184.32 cm | Av Wt: 87.36 kg
82-83, Av Ht: 182.7 cm | Av Wt: 86.8 kg

Flyers average height and weight today.
08-09, Av Ht: 184.87 cm | Av Wt: 90.32 kg
09-10, Av Ht: 185.83 cm | Av Wt: 90.53 kg
10-11, Av Ht: 186.42 cm | Av Wt: 91.35 kg


Boston average height and wight early 80´s.
80-81, Av Ht: 180.32 cm | Av Wt: 85.05 kg
81-82, Av Ht: 180.75 cm | Av Wt: 85.85 kg
82-83, Av Ht: 182.45 cm | Av Wt: 86.85 kg

Boston average height and weight today.
08-09, Av Ht: 184.66 cm | Av Wt: 91.24 kg
09-10, Av Ht: 185 cm | Av Wt: 91.5 kg
10-11, Av Ht: 185.22 cm | Av Wt: 91.78 kg

Toronto average height and wight early 80´s.
80-81, Av Ht: 181.57 cm | Av Wt: 85.79 kg
81-82, Av Ht: 183.06 cm | Av Wt: 86.85 kg
82-83, Av Ht: 182.03 cm | Av Wt: 86.41 kg

Toronto average height and weight today.
08-09, Av Ht: 184.81 cm | Av Wt: 92.25 kg
09-10, Av Ht: 186.24 cm | Av Wt: 92.82 kg
10-11, Av Ht: 185.68 cm | Av Wt: 91.16 kg

Gretzky won the art ross by 73 points when he was 23.

Crosby is on pace to win it by 25.

Crosby is clearly the best player of his era. Still not close to Gretzky.

Also consider that Crosby's ridiculous point streak is up to 25 games. Thats still only half way ot what Gretzky did.

Could this possibly imply that Stamkos is that much better than Stastny?

This might make some of your little heads explode but I figured I'd give it a shot anyway...

You are wrong, the players today are bigger, stronger and faster. I show some averages sizes from early 80´s and compare them with the averages sizes of today teams. Players are 1 or 2 inches taller today and also heavier.

Flyers average height and wight early 80´s.
80-81, Av Ht: 185.27 cm | Av Wt: 87.91 kg
81-82, Av Ht: 184.32 cm | Av Wt: 87.36 kg
82-83, Av Ht: 182.7 cm | Av Wt: 86.8 kg

Flyers average height and weight today.
08-09, Av Ht: 184.87 cm | Av Wt: 90.32 kg
09-10, Av Ht: 185.83 cm | Av Wt: 90.53 kg
10-11, Av Ht: 186.42 cm | Av Wt: 91.35 kg


Boston average height and wight early 80´s.
80-81, Av Ht: 180.32 cm | Av Wt: 85.05 kg
81-82, Av Ht: 180.75 cm | Av Wt: 85.85 kg
82-83, Av Ht: 182.45 cm | Av Wt: 86.85 kg

Boston average height and weight today.
08-09, Av Ht: 184.66 cm | Av Wt: 91.24 kg
09-10, Av Ht: 185 cm | Av Wt: 91.5 kg
10-11, Av Ht: 185.22 cm | Av Wt: 91.78 kg

Toronto average height and wight early 80´s.
80-81, Av Ht: 181.57 cm | Av Wt: 85.79 kg
81-82, Av Ht: 183.06 cm | Av Wt: 86.85 kg
82-83, Av Ht: 182.03 cm | Av Wt: 86.41 kg

Toronto average height and weight today.
08-09, Av Ht: 184.81 cm | Av Wt: 92.25 kg
09-10, Av Ht: 186.24 cm | Av Wt: 92.82 kg
10-11, Av Ht: 185.68 cm | Av Wt: 91.16 kg
Fair enough. I'll concede, and I'll say that I was ignorant to make claims with no proof.

Could I ask where you got these numbers though? I'd be curious to see other numbers.

It's not scientific at all. It's quite the opposite of scientific. Your method is like comparing object A's weight on Earth to object B's weight on the moon.

Suppose, that it took a lot more to score 40% more points than Ovechkin or Stamkos than it did to score 40% more than Coffey or Stastny... Or vice versa. How the hell can you say that this is an accurate method to compare two players of different era's?

If you were to compare them to the average goals-per-game of their respective seasons, I would be more inclined to agree with you there. Comparing to the runner-up is downright ridiculous.

Actually it is more scientific my way. If object A weight X on the moon and object B weight X on the earth it is hard to compare. But if you also have similar object C, D, E, F and G on the moon you can compare those to object A and see how much difference in weight there is between the objects. Then back to earth and compare object B with similar objects H, I, J, K, L and M and get an idea on how much heavier object B is to the other earthly objects. After doing this it is much easier to evaluate just how much heavier object A is to its other moon objects compared to how much heavier object B is to other similar earth objects. If object A is 30-40 % heavier then objects C, D, E, F and G and object B is also 30-40 % heavier then objects H, I, J, K, L and M then it is fair to say that in relation to their surrounding objects A and B is just as heavy.

Fair enough. I'll concede, and I'll say that I was ignorant to make claims with no proof.

Could I ask where you got these numbers though? I'd be curious to see other numbers.

http://www.eliteprospects.com/

Scroll down and you find the NHL teams. Then click on one and then look at "past rosters" then scroll down and look at the bottom of the roster.

1980's gas $1.59
2000's gas $3.10

Therefore Crosby needs 400 points to match for inflation.

LMFAO... let's not get stupid here. There's a huge pool of talent from Europe in today's NHL that simply wasn't available to NHL teams in 1980. Not only that, but the pool of talent in Canada and the US has grown much larger -- Canada had 44% more people in 1987 than it did in 1960. Therefore, the pool of Canadian hockey talent has grown 44% since Gretzky was 23, while the number of teams has only grown 42%.

So? What you stated is well beside my point.
Top 6 and top 4's are definitely affected by the influx of European talent, but the teams have been so diluted by virtue of expansion that there are players playing now that would have never been in the league 20 years ago.
If you can honestly tell me that Boogard, Shelly, Ivanan's, Staois, Vandameer, Strudwick would be in the league in the 80's, you're insane.
You can teach a player defense, not talent.

In 1985-86, the average number of goals in a game was 7.94, while to date in 2010-11 the average is 5.61. I think it's absolutely fair to adjust point totals in light of the fact that there are more than 2 goals less being scored in any given game.

In terms of amazing seasons, how about Jaromir Jagr's 127 points scored in 1998-99 at the height of the dead puck era (5.27 gpg)? Lemieux had already retired at that point, for the record.

Actually it is more scientific my way. If object A weight X on the moon and object B weight X on the earth it is hard to compare. But if you also have similar object C, D, E, F and G on the moon you can compare those to object A and see how much difference in weight there is between the objects. Then back to earth and compare object B with similar objects H, I, J, K, L and M and get an idea on how much heavier object B is to the other earthly objects. After doing this it is much easier to evaluate just how much heavier object A is to its other moon objects compared to how much heavier object B is to other similar earth objects. If object A is 30-40 % heavier then objects C, D, E, F and G and object B is also 30-40 % heavier then objects H, I, J, K, L and M then it is fair to say that in relation to their surrounding objects A and B is just as heavy.

...

The earth/moon analogy obviously flew over your head. I'll just leave you with this. Read it over and over until you understand how ridiculous it is.

Wayne Gretzky is ~70 points better than Peter Stastny.
Sidney Crosby is ~25 points better than Steven Stamkos.
70 is 45 more than 25.
Therefore, Gretzky is ~45 points better than Crosby.

...

The earth/moon analogy obviously flew over your head. I'll just leave you with this. Read it over and over until you understand how ridiculous it is.

Wayne Gretzky is ~70 points better than Peter Stastny.
Sidney Crosby is ~25 points better than Steven Stamkos.
70 is 45 more than 25.
Therefore, Gretzky is ~45 points better than Crosby.

:shakehead That is NOT what I said. Read my example once more and you might get it right.

No, you are wrong. They are better by virtue of being bigger, faster, and stronger.
So you're saying someone like Tim Jackman still makes the NHL (hell, even the AHL) if the NHL contracted and went back to a 21 team league?

My point wasn't to compare the players of today to the players of 30 years ago. My point was that if there were only 21 teams today, and add the Soviet Bloc players (Czechs, Slovaks, Russians, Ukranians, etc) the talent pool increases significantly - to the point where 60+ goals and 150+ points would become commonplace again.

I really hate these kinds of discussions.....a goal is a goal and a point is a point.....look...these days you get an point just for tying....you didnt get that back in the day,so are we gonna beat that dead horse too? next thing you know Selannes rookie goal record is gonna get dropped down to 40 or something like that........get over it.....

Ah! The NHL before it became a league people outside of Canada cared about or even took seriously.

Unaware of league-wide scoring statistics?

denial typical

I really hate these kinds of discussions.....a goal is a goal and a point is a point.....look...these days you get an point just for tying....you didnt get that back in the day,so are we gonna beat that dead horse too? next thing you know Selannes rookie goal record is gonna get dropped down to 40 or something like that........get over it.....

Who is arguing that a goal isn't a goal and a point isn't a point? If someone scores 200+ points nowadays it is far and away more impressive than Gretzky's 215 point season. In fact, it wouldn't even really be that close. a 40 goal scorer nowadays is much more impressive than a 40 goal scorer 25 years ago. These discussions are meant to put things into perspective. The league has changed

I'd say yeah. I'm pretty sure this is brought up because maybe Sid could hit 150, while thats true, he most likely wont be having multiple 150+ point seasons like Gretzky.

I would say it is, if not, it's close. The closest anyone has come to 150 points in the past decade is 127 and in the "new" NHL the closest is 125

Considering league-wide scoring is considerably lower than the 80s, 3rd/4th liners in the modern NHL are better than those from the past, there's been major changes to goaltending, etc, it's hard to argue that 150 points in a season would not be Gretzky-esque. It's a 30% difference between first and second place(using the average amount of points by Art Ross winners of the "new" NHL), which is extremely impressive regardless of what era it occured in

For those you saying "a point is a point no matter what", stats mean nothing without some sort of context.

The best way to measure, is against peers in the same era. So if a player had 150 points, and the 3rd and 4th guys had 90 points...then ya I said they are about equal.

Being a Gretzky fan.. and having the pleasure of following him from day 1..
I may be biased on my opinions..
but when you compare eras it's not that easy..
there's simply too many intangibles..

As someone else pointed out ... many of those years Gretzky won the scoring title by wide margins..

to answer.. I would say that it's subjective for everyone..
for me.. 200pts is 200pts.. no matter what era..
so is 150pts today as good as 200pts from the 80's? my answer would probably be a NO..
but that's just my opinion..


Go Wings Go!!

The best way to measure, is against peers in the same era. So if a player had 150 points, and the 3rd and 4th guys had 90 points...then ya I said they are about equal.

you can't use the same separation though. Using percentage is better

Being a Gretzky fan.. and having the pleasure of following him from day 1..
I may be biased on my opinions..
but when you compare eras it's not that easy..
there's simply too many intangibles..

As someone else pointed out ... many of those years Gretzky won the scoring title by wide margins..

to answer.. I would say that it's subjective for everyone..
for me.. 200pts is 200pts.. no matter what era..
so is 150pts today as good as 200pts from the 80's? my answer would probably be a NO..
but that's just my opinion..


Go Wings Go!!

You don't think it's harder to score nowadays than in the 80s?

How can anyone say 200 pts is 200 pts in any era? Are people seriously that oblivious to scoring era differences? Drives me crazy.

In 1985-86, the average number of goals in a game was 7.94, while to date in 2010-11 the average is 5.61. I think it's absolutely fair to adjust point totals in light of the fact that there are more than 2 goals less being scored in any given game.

In terms of amazing seasons, how about Jaromir Jagr's 127 points scored in 1998-99 at the height of the dead puck era (5.27 gpg)? Lemieux had already retired at that point, for the record.

If you don't think that lesser point totals are comparable to the point totals of yesteryear you're delusional. If you look at old tapes of plays from the 80's the goalies probably covered half of what todays goalies cover and they are not athletic in the slightest sense of the word.

Like, all you had to do to score in the 80's was hit the net and you had a 95% chance of scoring, you didn't really have to 'beat' the goalie like you do in todays game.

Watch this video

s_gwhydEOT8

Look how the goalies are absolutely terrible. If a goalie like that played in todays game he'd have about 20 goals put by him per game.

I figure the best way to compare scoring in the different eras is to compare the scoring to the average goals per game.

85 compared to present: 7.94/5.61 = 1.42
85 compared to deadpuck: 7.94/5.27 = 1.51

So scoring was 1.42 and 1.51 times more prolific in the scoring prime compared to the two other eras. So if you take the point total of the deadpuck era and the projected total to crosby this year and scale them up you can get an idea as to whether or not they are comparable to the gretzky total.

jagr's total was 127, scaled it's 127*1.51 = 192
crosby's projected total is 137 (as of now), scaled it's 137*1.41 = 193

And finally to determine what point total in todays game would correspond to the 215pt season we need to scale down the 215pts.

so.... 215/1.41 = 152

Suppose, that it took a lot more to score 40% more points than Ovechkin or Stamkos than it did to score 40% more than Coffey or Stastny... Or vice versa. How the hell can you say that this is an accurate method to compare two players of different era's?

What? That doesn't make any sense at all. You can correct for annual GPG all you want, but that doesn't in any way impact the amount by which Gretzky out-scored his opponents. To use the planet example, if I can lift 10% more mass than you on the moon, I'm going to be able to lift 10% more mass than you on every other planet.

Even if we take Gretzky's most pedestrian season of the 80s- 183 points in 86-87- he still led the next-nearest player (teammate Jari Kurri) by 59%.

Let's apply that to today's #2 place scorer. Assuming Stamkos remains at his current pace, he'll finish with 115 points. Crosby would have to hit 165 points to match Gretzky's output- and that's just one season. 70%+? Forget it.

First off, I consider what Gretzky did season to season amazing, but it's not one single season that I find truly offensively perfect. It's 1981-1986. He had over 1000 points.

People go on and on how much easier it was to put up points but quickly forget how no one else was even remotely close to what he was doing. It would be if a player today was putting up 150 points and the next guy had 90 to 100.

In five seasons he put up an equal amount of points to what people consider Hall of Fame worthy numbers. In 394 games he had 375 goals and 661 assists for 1036 points.

I swear people who talk about the 80's like it was a ****ing breeze never saw Gretzky play.

You don't think it's harder to score nowadays than in the 80s?

I can see that scoring is not the same as the 80's but in my opinion there's too many intangibles to say whether it is or it isn't easier to score now compared to back then..
For arguments sake, as some have said.. the league has bigger, faster players.. newer technology plays a part whether it's with equipment or using the instant replays for goals etc..
At the same time one can argue that the league has been diluted with 30 teams now..

As I said.. that's just my opinion..
I do agree that the league is scoring less compared to the 80's, but at the same time, I believe if Gretzky was playing in this era, he would still be able to get 200pts.. :) (I would even think Mario could do it as well)

I can see that scoring is not the same as the 80's but in my opinion there's too many intangibles to say whether it is or it isn't easier to score now compared to back then..
For arguments sake, as some have said.. the league has bigger, faster players.. newer technology plays a part whether it's with equipment or using the instant replays for goals etc..
At the same time one can argue that the league has been diluted with 30 teams now..

As I said.. that's just my opinion..
I do agree that the league is scoring less compared to the 80's, but at the same time, I believe if Gretzky was playing in this era, he would still be able to get 200pts.. :) (I would even think Mario could do it as well)

The league was clearly more diluted than now. There were no European players and and the interest in hockey in the United States has grown immensely since then. Canada's population has grown, as has the whole worlds. The talent pool that is used nowadays is far greater in size than that of the 80s. Even despite the fact that there are 30 teams now, besides 21, the NHL is still a lot less diluted than it was.

A simple look at the GPG statistics will tell you that it is much harder to score nowadays

Its funny how you guy believe hockey now is way better than in the '80, Crosby season so far is incredible but Lemieux yeah the same Lemieux where some believe his number where high because of the area he play, got 35 goals 41 assist in 43 games in the NEW area (2001) in his comeback year after missing 3 full season at the age of 36y. ;)

this. I think the game has gotten tougher, and the talent pool has gotten bigger. But Bobby Orr, Gretz, and Lemieux are almost untouchable talents. Mario especially could have transfered his skill to the new game. Hell, if he was born 20 years later, maybe his health would have been better and he could have played 1300+ games.

Gretzky would have too. He would have still kept up with the insane assists totals, he just might not have reached 92 goals, or scored 50+ 60+ goal seasons as often because he was a smaller guy. But he would have won multiple multiple scoring titles regardless of when he played.

Orr changed the game. Gretzky changed it again, and Mario just flat out dominated the game whenever he played.

Can you compare Ovi, Sid, Jagr, Yzerman or even Selanne into the discussion about other top forwards, yes. but none have proven themselves to be into league of the Gretzky, Orr or Lemieux.

You talk about a diluted talent pool? My response, you throw Jagr,Yzerman, Forsberg, Selanne, Kariya, Bure, Fedorov, Borque, Lidstrom, Sakic, Shanny, ect ect. back into today's league in their primes (I figured names like this would work, since you seem to think players from the 80's played a different game)

Ovi and Crosby would not dominate the scoring titles and Sedin never would have won the art Ross scoring 29 goals.

Crosby and Ovi aren't yet higher up than any of those guys I just listed, who today aren't the topic of "better than Gretzky" discussions, but were the center of such discussions in the late 90's, early 2000's.

so if we can't come to a decisions about Crosby vs Yzerman Ovi vs Jagr yet, let's save the vs Gretzky and Lemieux discussions for a time when you read up on your hockey history.

I have a huge bias for players from the 90's because that's who i grew up watching. no one has ever come close to being as good as Lemieux during the 90's. Jagr needed his help and training to win his many scoring titles.

150 points today > 200 points in the 80s. I'm not sure how that can even be debated. Sid, Ov, Malkin would average 200 points in the 80s.

150 points today > 200 points in the 80s. I'm not sure how that can even be debated. Sid, Ov, Malkin would average 200 points in the 80s.

If they were born in 1960, they wouldn't. But I agree if you are simply teleporting them

The league was clearly more diluted than now. There were no European players and and the interest in hockey in the United States has grown immensely since then. Canada's population has grown, as has the whole worlds. The talent pool that is used nowadays is far greater in size than that of the 80s. Even despite the fact that there are 30 teams now, besides 21, the NHL is still a lot less diluted than it was.

A simple look at the GPG statistics will tell you that it is much harder to score nowadays


But to say that the league was diluted back then.. why was there no other player even remotely close to Gretzky in scoring?
The argument would hold true if others achieved such heights.. but there was no other, until Mario..

Gretzky was just that special.. to have watched him play was just something too surreal..

The numbers he put up were mind boggling..

If you compared the next scorer to him back then, you would have to say they wouldn't have scored as much now compared to before.. but to me, I believe that many of those players then, comparably would still score just as much now, as they did then..

If they were born in 1960, they wouldn't. But I agree if you are simply teleporting them

Yea, I'm talking about teleporting them.

But to say that the league was diluted back then.. why was there no other player even remotely close to Gretzky in scoring?
The argument would hold true if others achieved such heights.. but there was no other, until Mario..

Gretzky was just that special.. to have watched him play was just something too surreal..

The numbers he put up were mind boggling..

If you compared the next scorer to him back then, you would have to say they wouldn't have scored as much now compared to before.. but to me, I believe that many of those players then, comparably would still score just as much now, as they did then..

If Crosby were to ever score 150 points, he would win the Art Ross by a pretty big margin too. Next best would probably be 115ish. No one is saying that Crosby is greater than Gretzky. They are saying that 150 points today would be comparable to 200 points in the 80s. But noone has scored 150 points today and Crosby isn't even on pace to do it this season.

If Crosby were to ever score 150 points, he would win the Art Ross by a pretty big margin too. Next best would probably be 115ish. No one is saying that Crosby is greater than Gretzky. They are saying that 150 points today would be comparable to 200 points in the 80s. But noone has scored 150 points today and Crosby isn't even on pace to do it this season.


I do understand and see what you mean.. and agree for the most part..
But as I have said.. it's purely my opinion and perhaps I'm biased with arguments comparing what Gretzky accomplished..
I still believe and I said this before that I think if Gretzky or Mario was playing in this era they would still score their 200pts.. :)

Yes.. this is all subjective and we are all entitled to an opinion..
That's what this forum is all about..

Good points made by everyone..
Cheers.. Take care all and Happy New Year!!!

Go Wings!!

I do understand and see what you mean.. and agree for the most part..
But as I have said.. it's purely my opinion and perhaps I'm biased with arguments comparing what Gretzky accomplished..
I still believe and I said this before that I think if Gretzky or Mario was playing in this era they would still score their 200pts.. :)

Yes.. this is all subjective and we are all entitled to an opinion..
That's what this forum is all about..

Good points made by everyone..
Cheers.. Take care all and Happy New Year!!!

Go Wings!!

I can see where some people would think that Gretzky and Mario's production would transcend eras. I still think it would take at least a bit of a hit, but this argument is really impossible to prove conclusively either way. Who knows....

Anyways, Go Wings!

Doesn't really have to do with Crosby but I remember when Ovi had his 65 goal season, someone did an era adjustment against average league GPG totals and then prorated, and Lemeiux's 92-93 season was statistically the most impressive despite the ridiculous point totals in that season.

200 is 200 and 150 is 150. At the end of the day, eras don't matter, the only thing thats remembered is the number.



*If they implement larger nets or if they put in that crafty new goal net that was posted here a week or so ago, then I may retract that statement.

Yea, I'm talking about teleporting them.

So Lemieux would average less PPG than Crosby in today's game? Before you answer, keep in mind that Mario had a better PPG less than a decade ago despite being 36 and at the end of a career besieged by injuries.

1980's crappy goalies, smaller equipment, different style of game, better players now, bigger ,faster, stronger. More defensive play now, wide open then.

Gretzky played on an all-star team. Coffey, Kurri, Messier Anderson etc.

Lemieux was a more skilled offensive player than Gretzky playing with inferior teammates.

Definitely 150 point now equals 200 then. Without a doubt.

Just take a look at how much were the goals per game in the 80's and take the GPG that we have today.

Gretzky reached the 200 points mark 4 times between 1980-81 and 1985-86,they had a GPG of 7.84 during these years.

During the last five years not including the first season after the lockout because of the inflation in GPG due to players adapting to new rules, the GPG are 5.72

So going by these numbers, 200 points back then would equal a 145 pts season in today's NHL.

http://www.dropyourgloves.com/Stat/LeagueGoals.aspx

200 is 200 and 150 is 150. At the end of the day, eras don't matter, the only thing thats remembered is the number.



*If they implement larger nets or if they put in that crafty new goal net that was posted here a week or so ago, then I may retract that statement.

Eras do matter, that's why Gordie Howe's scoring exploits are considered much more impressive than Peter Stastny's, even though Stastny had much higher point totals and points-per-game.

Eras do matter, that's why Gordie Howe's scoring exploits are considered much more impressive than Peter Stastny's, even though Stastny had much higher point totals and points-per-game.

The reason Howe is considered more impressive than Stastny has almost nothing to do with era and everything to do with how he dominated his peers.

Howe- 1st in goals 5 times
Stastny- 1st in goals 0 times

Howe- 1st in points 6 times
Stastny- 1st in points 0 times

So? What you stated is well beside my point.
Top 6 and top 4's are definitely affected by the influx of European talent, but the teams have been so diluted by virtue of expansion that there are players playing now that would have never been in the league 20 years ago.
If you can honestly tell me that Boogard, Shelly, Ivanan's, Staois, Vandameer, Strudwick would be in the league in the 80's, you're insane.
You can teach a player defense, not talent.

Yes, the NHL has expanded by 9 more teams than it had 20 years ago, may have an effect at diluting the talent. Yet going back to the 80's, then 20 years before that their were only 6 teams in the NHL. Are you sure you want to talk about diluted talent? I also seem to recall the likes of Bob Probert and Basil McRae being in the league back then.

I feel the OP's statement is fair.

If not, watch a game of the 80ies... they move SOOOO slow... and their hockey sense? Soooo bad.

I can easily say 150 would be amazing.

150 points today > 200 points in the 80s. I'm not sure how that can even be debated. Sid, Ov, Malkin would average 200 points in the 80s.

But none of them have scored 150. So basically you're saying 110 ish points today would be the same as 200 in the 80's, which makes no sense.

Does that mean Sedin would have had a 200+ pt season in the 80's with his season last year? What about Thornton's Art Ross season? Or St Louis? Are you saying basically every top player in the league today would have been good for 200ish points? That makes no sense, given the examples others have already given of players like Jagr who dominated many of today's stars (winning 5 Art Ross trophies, outscoring Ovechkin both years they played in the NHL together, etc). As someone pointed out, Jagr wasn't as good as Lemieux, and Lemieux couldn't beat Gretzky's records. I find it impossible to believe that Henrik Sedin would have been a threat to Wayne Gretzky's Art Ross totals.

If players are so much bigger, faster, stronger, and better, then why have players like Bourque, Chelios, and even Lidstrom been so dominant on defense for so long against them? I mean, if players today are that much better, these defenders should who couldn't contain Gretzky or Lemieux should have been left utterly powerless against the stars of today. Instead, the first two had 20+ year careers, with Lidstrom close to matching that (and still going). Bourque was still a first team all-star his final year in the league. Lidstrom is a front runner (the front runner?) for the Noris this season.

The "players today are better because its today" myth doesn't hold up in the face of actual evidence. It sounds great on paper and fits the midset that the past is the past and doesn't matter, while whatever is happening now is somehow the most important thing in history. But when we look at players who spanned 2 or 3 decades of play and were still dominant, there is strong evidence that players would have adapted to changes in the game, with no evidence to prove they couldn't. Certainly a player like Gretzky would have been the best in this era, just like he was the best in his (or any other, for that matter).

How would 150p in the Dead Puck era compare?

The reason Howe is considered more impressive than Stastny has almost nothing to do with era and everything to do with how he dominated his peers.

Howe- 1st in goals 5 times
Stastny- 1st in goals 0 times

Howe- 1st in points 6 times
Stastny- 1st in points 0 times

And he was able to lead the league with lower raw numbers because he played in a lower scoring era. If Stastny could put up the same numbers in Howe's day that he did in the 80s, he'd pretty much be the undisputed best offensive player ever.

The reason Howe is considered more impressive than Stastny has almost nothing to do with era and everything to do with how he dominated his peers.

Howe- 1st in goals 5 times
Stastny- 1st in goals 0 times

Howe- 1st in points 6 times
Stastny- 1st in points 0 times

We were just talking raw numbers. Eras matter when you're comparing raw numbers. Howe's raw numbers aren't impressive if looked at out of context.

200 is 200 and 150 is 150. At the end of the day, eras don't matter, the only thing thats remembered is the number.



*If they implement larger nets or if they put in that crafty new goal net that was posted here a week or so ago, then I may retract that statement.

So eras don't matter, but you may change your mind if... We enter a higher scoring era.

Comparing "eras" of sports is an endless topic. For every reason you say an era is "weaker" there are two to say otherwise. Do you really think players like Crosby or Ovechkin could survive back in the old days? Let alone put up numbers.
All of these issues will swirl around and no one who hasn't already decided what they think will be changing. It boils down to, if under 25ish they normally pick the new school, if over and are more of lifelong hockey fans will pick based on more variables then just 3 reasons for a difference in stats.

How would 150p in the Dead Puck era compare?

150 from the deadpuck era would only be about 160 now, however it would be approximately equivalent to 230 back in the 80's.

It's not like 150 points was the norm back then. I believe other than Lemieux and Gretzky only Steve Yzerman and Bernie Nichols(who played with Gretzky) has scored 150 points.

But none of them have scored 150. So basically you're saying 110 ish points today would be the same as 200 in the 80's, which makes no sense.

Does that mean Sedin would have had a 200+ pt season in the 80's with his season last year? What about Thornton's Art Ross season? Or St Louis? Are you saying basically every top player in the league today would have been good for 200ish points? That makes no sense, given the examples others have already given of players like Jagr who dominated many of today's stars (winning 5 Art Ross trophies, outscoring Ovechkin both years they played in the NHL together, etc). As someone pointed out, Jagr wasn't as good as Lemieux, and Lemieux couldn't beat Gretzky's records. I find it impossible to believe that Henrik Sedin would have been a threat to Wayne Gretzky's Art Ross totals.

If players are so much bigger, faster, stronger, and better, then why have players like Bourque, Chelios, and even Lidstrom been so dominant on defense for so long against them? I mean, if players today are that much better, these defenders should who couldn't contain Gretzky or Lemieux should have been left utterly powerless against the stars of today. Instead, the first two had 20+ year careers, with Lidstrom close to matching that (and still going). Bourque was still a first team all-star his final year in the league. Lidstrom is a front runner (the front runner?) for the Noris this season.

The "players today are better because its today" myth doesn't hold up in the face of actual evidence. It sounds great on paper and fits the midset that the past is the past and doesn't matter, while whatever is happening now is somehow the most important thing in history. But when we look at players who spanned 2 or 3 decades of play and were still dominant, there is strong evidence that players would have adapted to changes in the game, with no evidence to prove they couldn't. Certainly a player like Gretzky would have been the best in this era, just like he was the best in his (or any other, for that matter).


nicely put.. thank you..
I would also want to know if they truly believe Sedin is also better than Gretzky.. and would score 200pts in the 80's as well?
because by all logic Sedin was the best scorer last year...





It's not like 150 points was the norm back then. I believe other than Lemieux and Gretzky only Steve Yzerman and Bernie Nichols(who played with Gretzky) has scored 150 points.

That's what I tried to say as well.. lol
from what many have said.. the wide open era that Gretzky played in.. when he was putting those 200pts seasons.. by their argument, others should have been scoring at a higher level as well, but from what I recall, he was not just 50pts above others, but in the neighbourhood of 70-80pts on average above everyone else.. that puts the second leading scorer to about 120-130pts.. which is what is expected of, elite players.. (now you can't tell me there weren't great/elite players back then.. see Bossy Trottier Lafleur Hawerchuk Dionne, Yzerman, oh and a few of Gretzky's friends.. Messier, Kurri)
Simply put .. it only shows how incredible Gretzky's achievements are compared to all, in any era..

Another point for those who don't know this..
Bernie Nicholls.. before "the trade" that sent Gretzky to LA
Nicholls averaged 36G+47A=83pts in 6 seasons (I took out his rookie year when he played 22games)
The first year with Gretzky in LA
Nicholls scored 70G+80A=150pts..
the following year he played
47games with LA scoring 27G+48A=75pts and traded to NYR.. 32games scoring 12G+25A=37pts year total 39G+73A=112pts
he would never hit 75pts after..

Dave Lumley remember him? in the year he played on Gretzky's wing 66games 32G+42A=74pts when you take out that year, he averages 6G+10A=16pts in 7yrs

Blair MacDonald 46G+48A=94pts played on Gretzky’s right side in the Oilers 1st yr.. he left the league 3 years later..
Mike Krushelnyski scored 43G playing with Gretzky one year

point is.. This is what Gretzky did..
it wasn't because it was the scoring era.. but because of Gretzky..
I agree the scoring in the 80's were high.. but has anyone ever thought to attribute that to the Oilers and Gretzky taking the game to that level???

and lastly in Gretzky's 2nd last season in NY, as a 36 yr old, he scored 90pts... tied for 3rd in scoring that year...Jagr 102 (25yrs old), Forsberg 91 (24yrs old), and Bure 90 (26yrs old)..
so yeah.. he would still have scored in this era in his prime the way he did in the 80's...

but again that's just my opinion..
just as I said before, it's all subjective and everyone is entitled to their opinions.. for the most part.. just too many intangibles to make a comparison especially when dealing with stats and eras..

Take care and Happy New Year everyone..


Go Wings!!!

200 points is as good as 200 points
nothing less

200 is 200 and 150 is 150. At the end of the day, eras don't matter, the only thing thats remembered is the number.



*If they implement larger nets or if they put in that crafty new goal net that was posted here a week or so ago, then I may retract that statement.

Do you seriously not see the hypocrisy in your statement?

Due to an increase in goal equipment the net has essentially shrunk over the last 2 decades. Do you not think scoring would go through the roof if you forced goalies to wear the same pads Fuhr had in the 80?

So Lemieux would average less PPG than Crosby in today's game? Before you answer, keep in mind that Mario had a better PPG less than a decade ago despite being 36 and at the end of a career besieged by injuries.

No Lemieux wouldn't. He would average more than Crosby.


Lemieux is a freak who would dominate anytime or anywhere.


However if you teleported Crosby, Ovechkin, or Malkin to 1984 they would score 200 points that season and pretty much every season in the 80s.

I think 150p now would be equal to 200+p in the 80s. Both are basically the very best season possible for a generational player.

I'd be very surprised if anyone accomplishes 150 points without some significant rule changes in the future.

No Lemieux wouldn't. He would average more than Crosby.


Lemieux is a freak who would dominate anytime or anywhere.


However if you teleported Crosby, Ovechkin, or Malkin to 1984 they would score 200 points that season and pretty much every season in the 80s.

Actually no they wouldn't because in the 1980's there was still a red line rule, goons were more rampant, all around defensively teams were a bit stronger and the rules were significantly different.
You think Crosby would get away with fighting the weakest guy on the ice in the '80s? doubtful. You think Ovechkin and Malkin are going to get those long passes if the 2 line rule is still in effect?

You put a Prime Gretzky, Lemieux, Hawerchuk and others in this current game, you see a difference.
Gretzky and Lemiuex without a redline in their prime with the current defensive players in the NHL? lol

So Lemieux would average less PPG than Crosby in today's game? Before you answer, keep in mind that Mario had a better PPG less than a decade ago despite being 36 and at the end of a career besieged by injuries.

This is sort of off topic, but this is reason #1 why I consider Lemieux the greatest to ever play. Gretzky may have had the superior numbers due to better health/teammates, but when the high flying 80's ended, so did Wayne's dominance to an extent. Don't get me wrong, he was still great, but he looked a lot more in line with the other top stars around the league during the last 8-9 years of his career. But Lemieux's dominance spanned the 80's, 90's and 00's and almost the entirety of his career. The fact that he was still the best player in the league at 36 after a three year layoff is ridiculous. The guy was just scary talented and it translated to any era.

As far as the topic at hand, when judging the greatness of today's players, I really don't think the actual numbers matter as much as the gap between the top guys and the second tier guys does. Relationship to one's peers really should be the defining aspect of judging a player's greatness. The game is changing every year. Training changes, sports medicine changes, equipment changes, etc. The numbers, from era to era, will never match up.

This :)

It's not just the numbers. It's the difference to the rest.


Although looking at Lemieux's comeback numbers in teh dead puck era.... I'm not so sure. 76 points in 43 games in a lower scoring era is godlike. A fit young Mario might've gotten beyond 170 still?

No, Jagr had 77 points in those same 43 games, and 7 more in 2 games without Lemieux that year.

In 2003 Lemieux had 55 points in 28 games, then finished the season with 91 in 67.

I'll mail you my life savings if Crosby finishes this season with as many or more points than he's on pace for to further illustrate my point.

Actually no they wouldn't because in the 1980's there was still a red line rule, goons were more rampant, all around defensively teams were a bit stronger and the rules were significantly different.
You think Crosby would get away with fighting the weakest guy on the ice in the '80s? doubtful. You think Ovechkin and Malkin are going to get those long passes if the 2 line rule is still in effect?

You put a Prime Gretzky, Lemieux, Hawerchuk and others in this current game, you see a difference.
Gretzky and Lemiuex without a redline in their prime with the current defensive players in the NHL? lol

Please please tell me you're joking

200 points in 1985 is about the equivalent of 150 points today, in proportion of the league goals for average.

You think Ray Bourque, Paul Coffey, Al Macinnis, Garth Butcher, Al Iafrate, Scott Stevens, Rod Langway, Doug Wilson, Denis Potvin, Dave Babych, Kevin Lowe, Randy Carlyle, Chris Chelios, Larry Robinson, Rob Ramage, Mark Howe, Gary Suter are no better than todays defencemen?

goaltending is different based on equipment and rules.

you think in the '80s with the rules they had Crosby would be walking around these guys?

you can't be serious.

nicely put.. thank you..
I would also want to know if they truly believe Sedin is also better than Gretzky.. and would score 200pts in the 80's as well?
because by all logic Sedin was the best scorer last year...







That's what I tried to say as well.. lol
from what many have said.. the wide open era that Gretzky played in.. when he was putting those 200pts seasons.. by their argument, others should have been scoring at a higher level as well, but from what I recall, he was not just 50pts above others, but in the neighbourhood of 70-80pts on average above everyone else.. that puts the second leading scorer to about 120-130pts.. which is what is expected of, elite players.. (now you can't tell me there weren't great/elite players back then.. see Bossy Trottier Lafleur Hawerchuk Dionne, Yzerman, oh and a few of Gretzky's friends.. Messier, Kurri)
Simply put .. it only shows how incredible Gretzky's achievements are compared to all, in any era..

Another point for those who don't know this..
Bernie Nicholls.. before "the trade" that sent Gretzky to LA
Nicholls averaged 36G+47A=83pts in 6 seasons (I took out his rookie year when he played 22games)
The first year with Gretzky in LA
Nicholls scored 70G+80A=150pts..
the following year he played
47games with LA scoring 27G+48A=75pts and traded to NYR.. 32games scoring 12G+25A=37pts year total 39G+73A=112pts
he would never hit 75pts after..

Dave Lumley remember him? in the year he played on Gretzky's wing 66games 32G+42A=74pts when you take out that year, he averages 6G+10A=16pts in 7yrs

Blair MacDonald 46G+48A=94pts played on Gretzky’s right side in the Oilers 1st yr.. he left the league 3 years later..
Mike Krushelnyski scored 43G playing with Gretzky one year

point is.. This is what Gretzky did..
it wasn't because it was the scoring era.. but because of Gretzky..
I agree the scoring in the 80's were high.. but has anyone ever thought to attribute that to the Oilers and Gretzky taking the game to that level???

and lastly in Gretzky's 2nd last season in NY, as a 36 yr old, he scored 90pts... tied for 3rd in scoring that year...Jagr 102 (25yrs old), Forsberg 91 (24yrs old), and Bure 90 (26yrs old)..
so yeah.. he would still have scored in this era in his prime the way he did in the 80's...

but again that's just my opinion..
just as I said before, it's all subjective and everyone is entitled to their opinions.. for the most part.. just too many intangibles to make a comparison especially when dealing with stats and eras..

Take care and Happy New Year everyone..


Go Wings!!!

Excellent post.

You think Ray Bourque, Paul Coffey, Al Macinnis, Garth Butcher, Al Iafrate, Scott Stevens, Rod Langway, Doug Wilson, Denis Potvin, Dave Babych, Kevin Lowe, Randy Carlyle, Chris Chelios, Larry Robinson, Rob Ramage, Mark Howe, Gary Suter are no better than todays defencemen?

goaltending is different based on equipment and rules.

you think in the '80s with the rules they had Crosby would be walking around these guys?

you can't be serious.

:thumbu:

No. The way to measure players from different eras is to see how much ahead they were of their peers. Orr, Gretzky and Lemieux were simply from a different planet compared to the other guys. Crosby is doing great at the moment, but he's got nothing on those guys.

No. The way to measure players from different eras is to see how much ahead they were of their peers. Orr, Gretzky and Lemieux were simply from a different planet compared to the other guys. Crosby is doing great at the moment, but he's got nothing on those guys.

In that era, i compare Crosby to Yzerman.

In no way can anyone be compared to Lemieux or Gretzky other than Lemieux or Gretzky

This is sort of off topic, but this is reason #1 why I consider Lemieux the greatest to ever play. Gretzky may have had the superior numbers due to better health/teammates, but when the high flying 80's ended, so did Wayne's dominance to an extent. Don't get me wrong, he was still great, but he looked a lot more in line with the other top stars around the league during the last 8-9 years of his career. But Lemieux's dominance spanned the 80's, 90's and 00's and almost the entirety of his career. The fact that he was still the best player in the league at 36 after a three year layoff is ridiculous. The guy was just scary talented and it translated to any era.

As far as the topic at hand, when judging the greatness of today's players, I really don't think the actual numbers matter as much as the gap between the top guys and the second tier guys does. Relationship to one's peers really should be the defining aspect of judging a player's greatness. The game is changing every year. Training changes, sports medicine changes, equipment changes, etc. The numbers, from era to era, will never match up.

While I more or less agree I think you also have to factor in the size of the talent pool to the equation, otherwise you're going to be giving a heavy handicap to older teams. Simply put with more teams and more guys playing the game you're going to have a lot more peers, and a much harder time standing out against them.

Now this doesn't really apply to Gretzky & Lemieux as much, considering the amount they stood out and that they played in a league with a lot of teams, but I'm more looking back to the original six days. 30 teams today, 6 back then. If you remove talent saturation for the sake of simplicity (obviously this heavily favours the original 6 at it's end but it's probably close somewhere in the middle), just by numbers alone you would figure for every elite original six talent relative to their peers there are six equivilent talents today. Yet take any publications Top 50-100-whatever list and era's are representate on an almost 1-1 bases.

I don't claim to know where the answer lies, I'd just like to see better unbiased information in this regard. For all the silly kids saying that todays players would crush the competition of yesterday there's old timers that can't overlook their nostalgia and heavily favour yesterdays players. Personally, I've been playing video games for 25 years or so, I know full well the effects nostalgia can have on my judgement and how to temper it. I doubt you can say the same for older journalists and fans who are the only ones that can give us a first hand account of the time and compare it to today.

Todays goalies are better than during the 80-ies, so I think its tougher to score today, but how much more is impossible to say really.

Everyone has been making some good points on both sides. However before reading posts like this since I joined HF I actually thought Crosby and Ovechkin were closer to WG and ML than they actually were. This is what I think tho:

1) This post has turned into Crosby vs Gretzky/Mario which is not the point
2) I dont see how anyone can realistically deny that it is way harder to get points in todays NHL than in the 80's and early 90's. Therfore saying 200 points is 200 points is so off base.
3) 150-160 points has to be close to 200 points in the 80's. Like I mean just think about it.
4) Anyone who says the talent was better then is crazy.
5) you cant judge wayne by his peers and Crosby by his peers because other than Mario. Crosby's peers are way better than Waynes. (once again im not saying Crosby is better because he is not but this is a terrible way of judging the runner up of the art ross)
6) Dilution of talent theory with more teams is insane because think of when there were 6 teams. World populations have increased. Hockey USA is way bigger, European talent etc. There is no Denying this. Im sure all of this has compensated for 180 more players a few times over.
7) I dont know why people are getting so offended and backing up Wayne so much. I know its because Crosby has entered the thread but dont worry even if your wrong and 150 points is equal 200 points, Crosby is no where near that. Crosby will be lucky if he scores 1-2 seasons over 130 points. If Crosby were to be mentioned along Gretzky he would have to have 5 seasons between 150-165 points and another 6 seasons around 125-140. Then 5-6 more between 90-115. Is he going to do this. LOL noooooo way in hell. But ask your self this. Would you not consider this at least in the same league as Gretzky, Mario and Orr?

Would someone who doesnt agree with 150 points or who is a huge Gretzky supporter please comment on this theoretical career. Would you consider this in the same league as Gretzky? This theorteical career is going to basically resemble Gretzkys career on the 150 point theory.

Age Points
19 103
20 123
21 159
22 147
23 154
24 156
25 161
26 137
27 112
28 126

I looked at only Gretzkys first 10 years as this is when goals were the higest. Would you really not consider this at least in Waynes league. 1378 points in the first 10 years in todays game close to the same as Gretzkys 1837 points in the 80's? It might not be exact but I think it would warrant Gretzky/Mario/Orr status. lol but look no one in todays game can put up numbers like that. no way


Since this has slightly turned into a Crosby thread Ill give you my take on him. When his career his done he will be in a league of his own. Now before you piss your pants I dont mean he will be ahead of Gretzky/Orr/Mario I mean quite the opposite. I think with his training he will remain relatively elite in his 30's and will score 2000 points. Therofore the tiers of players will follow as :

Tier 1
Gretzky/Orr/Mario/Howe

Tier 2
Crosby

Tier 3
Messier/Yzerman/Jagr/Sakic/Dionne/Esposito/Coffey/Hull/Hull


Of course I didnt name everyone that could be in Tier 3 but I mean these types of players. I think other than those top 4 players he can establish himself as number 5. Who knows if Crosby could get 2000 career points he might be in the same category as Howe. But I still think he will fall short of him

Todays goalies are better than during the 80-ies, so I think its tougher to score today, but how much more is impossible to say really.

take a peek at the size of equipment in general today, the construction of it and look back at what other goalies had.
To say a goalie today is better isn't necessarily true. Who do you think would adjust better todays goalies in old equipment or old goalies in todays equipment?
Goalies like Roy are great examples of the evolution of equipment, his save % and GAA got stronger as equipment got better and became better suited to his style of play. Same thing can be said for alot of goalies who played during the development years of equipment.

The new game for a goaltender isn't just equipment based, but hopefully you understand what i'm saying

the goalies just stood around int he 80s and there was far less shot blocking, the defense is tighter nowadays, on the other hand the sticks weren't as nice back in the day and the equipment as heavier, but i think 200 points now would just shatter 200 points in the 80s

Everyone has been making some good points on both sides. However before reading posts like this since I joined HF I actually thought Crosby and Ovechkin were closer to WG and ML than they actually were. This is what I think tho:

1) This post has turned into Crosby vs Gretzky/Mario which is not the point
2) I dont see how anyone can realistically deny that it is way harder to get points in todays NHL than in the 80's and early 90's. Therfore saying 200 points is 200 points is so off base.
3) 150-160 points has to be close to 200 points in the 80's. Like I mean just think about it.
4) Anyone who says the talent was better then is crazy.
5) you cant judge wayne by his peers and Crosby by his peers because other than Mario. Crosby's peers are way better than Waynes. (once again im not saying Crosby is better because he is not but this is a terrible way of judging the runner up of the art ross)
6) Dilution of talent theory with more teams is insane because think of when there were 6 teams. World populations have increased. Hockey USA is way bigger, European talent etc. There is no Denying this. Im sure all of this has compensated for 180 more players a few times over.
7) I dont know why people are getting so offended and backing up Wayne so much. I know its because Crosby has entered the thread but dont worry even if your wrong and 150 points is equal 200 points, Crosby is no where near that. Crosby will be lucky if he scores 1-2 seasons over 130 points. If Crosby were to be mentioned along Gretzky he would have to have 5 seasons between 150-165 points and another 6 seasons around 125-140. Then 5-6 more between 90-115. Is he going to do this. LOL noooooo way in hell. But ask your self this. Would you not consider this at least in the same league as Gretzky, Mario and Orr?

Would someone who doesnt agree with 150 points or who is a huge Gretzky supporter please comment on this theoretical career. Would you consider this in the same league as Gretzky? This theorteical career is going to basically resemble Gretzkys career on the 150 point theory.

Age Points
19 103
20 123
21 159
22 147
23 154
24 156
25 161
26 137
27 112
28 126

I looked at only Gretzkys first 10 years as this is when goals were the higest. Would you really not consider this at least in Waynes league. 1378 points in the first 10 years in todays game close to the same as Gretzkys 1837 points in the 80's? It might not be exact but I think it would warrant Gretzky/Mario/Orr status. lol but look no one in todays game can put up numbers like that. no way


Since this has slightly turned into a Crosby thread Ill give you my take on him. When his career his done he will be in a league of his own. Now before you piss your pants I dont mean he will be ahead of Gretzky/Orr/Mario I mean quite the opposite. I think with his training he will remain relatively elite in his 30's and will score 2000 points. Therofore the tiers of players will follow as :

Tier 1
Gretzky/Orr/Mario/Howe

Tier 2
Crosby

Tier 3
Messier/Yzerman/Jagr/Sakic/Dionne/Esposito/Coffey/Hull/Hull


Of course I didnt name everyone that could be in Tier 3 but I mean these types of players. I think other than those top 4 players he can establish himself as number 5. Who knows if Crosby could get 2000 career points he might be in the same category as Howe. But I still think he will fall short of him

I seriously doubt that Crosby will become the 5th greatest player of all time, at least not by such a margin your implying. You had some pretty good points though.

It's impossible to tell and making predictions and debating this is futile. I also have to say I hate what this thread has turned into.

take a peek at the size of equipment in general today, the construction of it and look back at what other goalies had.
To say a goalie today is better isn't necessarily true. Who do you think would adjust better todays goalies in old equipment or old goalies in todays equipment?
Goalies like Roy are great examples of the evolution of equipment, his save % and GAA got stronger as equipment got better and became better suited to his style of play. Same thing can be said for alot of goalies who played during the development years of equipment.

The new game for a goaltender isn't just equipment based, but hopefully you understand what i'm saying

Also, the butterfly style wasn't really there in the 80s. They employed the "stand up" style which didn't really work all too well. The combination of the increased size of equipment and the butterfly style only further proves the fact that it is much harder to score nowadays than it was in the 80s. 150 point in the 00s=200 points in the 80s

You think Ray Bourque, Paul Coffey, Al Macinnis, Garth Butcher, Al Iafrate, Scott Stevens, Rod Langway, Doug Wilson, Denis Potvin, Dave Babych, Kevin Lowe, Randy Carlyle, Chris Chelios, Larry Robinson, Rob Ramage, Mark Howe, Gary Suter are no better than todays defencemen?

goaltending is different based on equipment and rules.

you think in the '80s with the rules they had Crosby would be walking around these guys?you can't be serious.

macinnis for sure he was a weak defender first 10 years of his career

1985-1986 Season

3 Bob Froese .909
4 Kelly Hrudey .906 1 2,563:00
5 Marc D'amour .897 0 560:00
6 Clint Malarchuk .895 4 2,657:00
7 Doug Soetaert .895 3 1,215:00
8 Richard Wamsley .894 1 2,517:00
9 Glen Hanlon .893 0 1,170:00
10 Donald Beaupre .892 1 3,073:00
11 Allan Jensen .890 2 2,437:00
12 Andy Moog .889 1 2,664:00
13 Gregory Millen .887 1 2,168:00
14 Roberto Romano .886 2 2,684:00
15 Robert Sauve .886 0 2,099:00
16 Jacques Cloutier 1985-1986 .886 1 872:00
17 Wendell Young 1985-1986 .886 0 1,023:0


2008-2009 Season

4 Tuukka Rask .931 5 2,562:11
5 Ryan Miller .929 5 4,047:10
6 Jason LaBarbera .928 0 927:53
7 Tomas Vokoun .925 7 3,695:01
8 Jimmy Howard .924 3 3,740:15
9 Jaroslav Halak .924 5 2,629:56
10 Yann Danis .923 0 467:19
11 Alexander Pechurskiy .923 0 35:31
12 Evgeni Nabokov .922 3 4,194:07
13 Henrik Lundqvist .921 4 4,203:49
14 Ty Conklin .921 4 1,451:11
15 Ilya Bryzgalov .920 8 4,084:27
16 Miikka Kiprusoff .920 4 4,235:19
17 Chad Johnson .919 0 280:43
18 Jonas Hiller .918 2 3,337:44

This is amazing to me. Two goaltenders in the 85-96 season had a save % above .900 and it was just barely above

macinnis for sure he was a weak defender first 10 years of his career

a solid +/- practically every season he played says your wrong

Also, the butterfly style wasn't really there in the 80s. They employed the "stand up" style which didn't really work all too well. The combination of the increased size of equipment and the butterfly style only further proves the fact that it is much harder to score nowadays than it was in the 80s. 150 point in the 00s=200 points in the 80s

Butterfly was there, just not used as much due to how equipment was. Pads weren't designed for it until you see the evolution of equipment. Does it make goaltenders worse or better for making do without some of the same innovations. Standup style worked fine for the goalies who lived with it. Also back then Gretzky could chack up over 100+ assists because of the red line rule and Goalies were easier to beat side to side. Nowadays goalies are easier to beat up top.


I feel goalies back in the 80s had skill that didn't depend on equipment exploitations.

The game nowadays is also very different as well. Gretzky could take almost 400 shots per season where Crosby takes under 300.

1985-1986 Season

3 Bob Froese .909
4 Kelly Hrudey .906 1 2,563:00
5 Marc D'amour .897 0 560:00
6 Clint Malarchuk .895 4 2,657:00
7 Doug Soetaert .895 3 1,215:00
8 Richard Wamsley .894 1 2,517:00
9 Glen Hanlon .893 0 1,170:00
10 Donald Beaupre .892 1 3,073:00
11 Allan Jensen .890 2 2,437:00
12 Andy Moog .889 1 2,664:00
13 Gregory Millen .887 1 2,168:00
14 Roberto Romano .886 2 2,684:00
15 Robert Sauve .886 0 2,099:00
16 Jacques Cloutier 1985-1986 .886 1 872:00
17 Wendell Young 1985-1986 .886 0 1,023:0


2008-2009 Season

4 Tuukka Rask .931 5 2,562:11
5 Ryan Miller .929 5 4,047:10
6 Jason LaBarbera .928 0 927:53
7 Tomas Vokoun .925 7 3,695:01
8 Jimmy Howard .924 3 3,740:15
9 Jaroslav Halak .924 5 2,629:56
10 Yann Danis .923 0 467:19
11 Alexander Pechurskiy .923 0 35:31
12 Evgeni Nabokov .922 3 4,194:07
13 Henrik Lundqvist .921 4 4,203:49
14 Ty Conklin .921 4 1,451:11
15 Ilya Bryzgalov .920 8 4,084:27
16 Miikka Kiprusoff .920 4 4,235:19
17 Chad Johnson .919 0 280:43
18 Jonas Hiller .918 2 3,337:44

This is amazing to me. Two goaltenders in the 85-96 season had a save % above .900 and it was just barely above


Give them bigger pads, puffier lighter equipment that protects better and you see those 80s goaltenders even out.
Also size of player is a bit different now too

I think people are grossly underrating the complete life style change professional
players of today have gone through in comparison to their predecessors.

They essentially are groomed from age 3 onward. There really is no life outside of hockey for the Crosby's of the world.

That, and the influx of global talent I think have perpetuated the need to start early and stay intensely committed.

Has anyone considered during all of these your era vs mine that they may be so fundamentally different trying to compare them is essentially flawed in every conceivable way?

All you guys are looking to hard into all of this......it isnt gonna change a damn thing at all.....like i said in a post along time ago,......a goal is a goal and a point is a point........it ISNT gonna change

I think people are grossly underrating the complete life style change professional
players of today have gone through in comparison to their predecessors.

They essentially are groomed from age 3 onward. There really is no life outside of hockey for the Crosby's of the world.

That, and the influx of global talent I think have perpetuated the need to start early and stay intensely committed.

Has anyone considered during all of these your era vs mine that they may be so fundamentally different trying to compare them is essentially flawed in every conceivable way?


I agree to a point in that. People i grew up with started playing at 3-4 years. That hasn't really ever gone away nor has it become some new thing.
The training is however way better nowadays.
I think comparing the 2 era's is just impossible without having both era's switch shoes, and that's not gonna happen.

I agree to a point in that. People i grew up with started playing at 3-4 years. That hasn't really ever gone away nor has it become some new thing.
The training is however way better nowadays.
I think comparing the 2 era's is just impossible without having both era's switch shoes, and that's not gonna happen.

Thats what I mean exactly.

I'm talking about total committment to hockey at young ages. I started playing at 5. By 10, I had friends who were spending their summers away in hockey camps while playing year round and practicing multiple days after school. Lest we mention the absolutely committed (somewhat insane) parents who spend, literally thousands every year having their kid workout and skate with a private trainer.

Its nuts.

I think people are grossly underrating the complete life style change professional
players of today have gone through in comparison to their predecessors.

They essentially are groomed from age 3 onward. There really is no life outside of hockey for the Crosby's of the world.

That, and the influx of global talent I think have perpetuated the need to start early and stay intensely committed.

Has anyone considered during all of these your era vs mine that they may be so fundamentally different trying to compare them is essentially flawed in every conceivable way?

This guy is right. The only way to compare players is their dominance over their peers in their own particular era. Any other method is unfair and flawed.

No.

How many players have ever gotten 200 points? One. How many have even gotten close to that? Two.

Gretzky and Lemieux are just better than any player ever in the history of hockey.What?? This isn't even an argument.

Thats what I mean exactly.

I'm talking about total committment to hockey at young ages. I started playing at 5. By 10, I had friends who were spending their summers away in hockey camps while playing year round and practicing multiple days after school. Lest we mention the absolutely committed (somewhat insane) parents who spend, literally thousands every year having their kid workout and skate with a private trainer.

Its nuts.


Having the benefit of living in Canada as a kid and growing up playing hockey and going to camps and schools and instruction...in the 70's and 80's i can say the instruction is more vaired now, where you had limited schools.
now there are facilities for training for hockey positionally.
Is the instruction better? it's more intense.

Nothing to do with the argument really since I have never really watched Gretz play, only seen the unbelievable highlights.

But imagine Sid in the 80's with the equipment and work ethic he has, he'd probably get 300 points.

I'm not starting an argument, I'm just interested to see what it would be like haha.

Nothing to do with the argument really since I have never really watched Gretz play, only seen the unbelievable highlights.

But imagine Sid in the 80's with the equipment and work ethic he has, he'd probably get 300 points.

I'm not starting an argument, I'm just interested to see what it would be like haha.

Obviously he would hit a large amount of points if he had better equipment than everyone else in the league..

If present day crosby was placed into the 1980's nhl he'd probably score about 600 goals in a season.

Having the benefit of living in Canada as a kid and growing up playing hockey and going to camps and schools and instruction...in the 70's and 80's i can say the instruction is more vaired now, where you had limited schools.
now there are facilities for training for hockey positionally.
Is the instruction better? it's more intense.

Absolutely.

Easy to understand though that guys who grew up in the 80s instead of playing professionally at that point would have the advantage and would have gone through more of a lifestyle change. Shoot, Crosby was born in '87, so you can bet that he has devoted pretty much his whole life, probably twice as much time as his predecessors, to getting better through training at every stage of his career from year 1 to now.

If it was so easy to get 150-200pts in the 80's, then why was it only Gretzky that was doing it consistently?

People need to be reminded about just how dominant Gretzky was:

77-78: Lafleur 132pts, Trottier 123pts, Sitter 117pts
78-79: Trottier 134pts, Dionne 130pts, Lafleur 129pts

79-80: Gretzky 137pts, Dionne 137pts, Lafleur 125pts
80-81: Gretzky 164pts, Dionne 135pts, Nilsson 131pts ... +29pts
81-82: Gretzky 212pts, Bossy 145pts, Stastny 139pts ... +67pts
82-83: Gretzky 196pts, Stastny 124pts, Savard 121pts ... +72pts
83-84: Gretzky 205pts, Goulet, 121pts, Stastny 119pts ... +84pts
84-85: Gretzky 208pts, Kurri 135pts, Hawerchuk 130pts ... +73pts
85-86: Gretzky 215pts, Lemieux 141pts, Kurri 131pts ... +74pts
86-87: Gretzky 183pts, Kurri 108pts, Lemieux 107pts ... +75pts

87-88: Lemieux 168pts, Gretzky 149 (186 pro-rated)pts, Savard 131pts
88-89: Lemieux 199pts, Gretzky 168pts, Yzerman 155pts
89-90: Gretzky 142pts, Messier 129pts, Yzerman 127pts
90-91: Gretzky 163pts, Hull 131pts, Oates 115pts

91-92: Lemieux 131pts, Stevens 123pts, Gretzky 121pts
92-93: Lemieux 160pts, Lafontaine 148pts, Oates 142pts
93-94: Gretzky 130pts, Fedorov 120pts, Oates 112pts
94-95: Jagr (116pts), Lindros (116pts), Zhamnov (108pts)
95-96: Lemieux 161pts, Jagr 149pts, Sakic 120pts
96-97: Lemieux 122pts, Selanne 109pts, Kariya 99pts

Today: Crosby (136pts), Stamkos (115pts), St. Louis (106pts)


Gretzky seperated himself from the rest of the league so greatly in those early years, that it's safe to say that there will only be one Gretzky.

Even in Lemieux's great years, he didn't have the seperation Gretzky had.

Gretzky paved the way for Lemieux, Yzerman and others. But then the players strike happened, Lemieux and Gretzky got old and the league went to hell.

Crosby right now is around as good as Gretzky was in his rookie season or sophomore season. He is not seperating himself from the pack like Gretzky did and i doubt he ever will.


As for the OP's thought, the league's overall performance depends on the players in the league. It was Gretzky's dominance that impacted the league, not the other way around.

Crosby and Ovechkin are great, but they ain't impacting the league nearly enough to be compared to The Great One.

Do you seriously not see the hypocrisy in your statement?

Due to an increase in goal equipment the net has essentially shrunk over the last 2 decades. Do you not think scoring would go through the roof if you forced goalies to wear the same pads Fuhr had in the 80?

And it's not only because of the goalies equipment, it's mostly because the game has evolved defensively over the last 25 years. Add the defensive systems in the NHL today to the bigger goalie equipment and better golatender techniques and this is why you will never see a player get close to 150 points. To reach that mark you will need to average 1.83 points per game which is impossible in the NHL today.

Absolutely.

Easy to understand though that guys who grew up in the 80s instead of playing professionally at that point would have the advantage and would have gone through more of a lifestyle change. Shoot, Crosby was born in '87, so you can bet that he has devoted pretty much his whole life, probably twice as much time as his predecessors, to getting better through training at every stage of his career from year 1 to now.

Twice as much time as his predecessors? Gretzky practiced 8-12 hours a day, even dropping out of school to play hockey. He moved away from home at 14 to play in Toronto, and at 16 signed in the WHA. Its not really possible to train twice as much as that.

The Soviets trained all-year round, and Gretzky consistantly proved he was better than any of them too. Gretzky is the only player in history to have competed in 4 straight international tournaments and to have led the entire tournament in scoring all 4 times. That was by the 87 Canada Cup. Considering he led the entire tournamanet in scoring in the 91 Canada Cup as well, I imagine that also makes him the only player to do it 5 times.

To get things on topic, yes 150-160 pts is probably about what Gretzky's equivalent would have to do today. But no one is close to that. Those thinking Crosby is at that level need to re-read the many posts about Bourque, Chelios, Lidstrom, Jagr, Lemieux's 2000's comeback, etc and come up with a logical arguement why all these players who spanned 2 or 3 decades were still so great even recently, after things had supposedly "changed" so much that someone like Gretzky wouldn't be competative.

If the league changed, all those players adapted with it. I see no reason Gretzky wouldn't have as well.

What?? This isn't even an argument.

And yet we have a number of bright bulbs proclaiming Ovechkin/Crosby/Malkin would "consistently" score 200 in the 80s.

I think people are grossly underrating the complete life style change professional
players of today have gone through in comparison to their predecessors.

They essentially are groomed from age 3 onward. There really is no life outside of hockey for the Crosby's of the world.

That, and the influx of global talent I think have perpetuated the need to start early and stay intensely committed.

Has anyone considered during all of these your era vs mine that they may be so fundamentally different trying to compare them is essentially flawed in every conceivable way?

You can also make the argument that the increase in structured training from an earlier and earlier age sucks the creativity out of the player.

I've seen more then one quote from Bobby Orr lamenting the fact that kids today aren't allowed to have fun and be creative.

He believes that is the reason you don't see more creative offensive defenseman now like the Coffey's, Bourque's, MacInnis, Leetch's and Potvin's that followed in his trail initially, for example.

From the eyeball test I'd say that somewhere around 160-170 would probably be in the ballpark today compared to 200 in the 80's. And even if Crosby maintains his pace he won't be anywhere close to that.

It may be that the average player today is better but the same training and systems coaching that make the average player better ends up putting reins on the best players and holds them back from reaching the Gretzky/Lemieux/Orr type of crazy dominance over their peers.

Or maybe we just haven't seen a talent like that in a while. It is like winning the lottery.

Twice as much time as his predecessors? Gretzky practiced 8-12 hours a day, even dropping out of school to play hockey. He moved away from home at 14 to play in Toronto, and at 16 signed in the WHA. Its not really possible to train twice as much as that.

The Soviets trained all-year round, and Gretzky consistantly proved he was better than any of them too. Gretzky is the only player in history to have competed in 4 straight international tournaments and to have led the entire tournament in scoring all 4 times. That was by the 87 Canada Cup. Considering he led the entire tournamanet in scoring in the 91 Canada Cup as well, I imagine that also makes him the only player to do it 5 times.

To get things on topic, yes 150-160 pts is probably about what Gretzky's equivalent would have to do today. But no one is close to that. Those thinking Crosby is at that level need to re-read the many posts about Bourque, Chelios, Lidstrom, Jagr, Lemieux's 2000's comeback, etc and come up with a logical arguement why all these players who spanned 2 or 3 decades were still so great even recently, after things had supposedly "changed" so much that someone like Gretzky wouldn't be competative.

If the league changed, all those players adapted with it. I see no reason Gretzky wouldn't have as well.


I think you may have lost sight of the fact that this wasnt intended to be a pro v con Gretzky thread. My assumption based on experience and through knowing others tells me that professional players en masse these days start younger, train harder, and dedicate more time on the whole, where as Gretzky, like many of the very elite, legendary players had some sort of unique qulality to them that made them stand above their peers. I have no doubt that Gretzky did train all those hours, and look at the result. Same can be applied for Lemiuex, Howe, Orr, Crosby, Ovechkin, Datsyuk.

Theres this sense that because Crosby and Ovechkin and Malkin and Datsyuk and (insert who you think) arent truly elite because they dont dominate their peers on the stats sheet, but thats just it. Points maybe harder to come by given the influx of global talent and the dedication to training and fitness that EVERYONE, not just the greatest players have, becoming sort of the status quo for becoming a professional. Safe to say, atleast for me, when you watch a guy like Crosby or Datsyuk, theres really no question that they are the best players on the ice any night you observe them.

Again, if people are saying that Gretzky wouldnt have been very competitive thats misinformed. I do hesistate though to think he would still be outscoring the likes of Crosby, Malkin, Ovechkin etc by 80 some odd points. I believe a healthy, young Lemieux would stand a greater chance in that respect, but would still not distance himself to the truly absurd degrees that these two did back in the day.




You can also make the argument that the increase in structured training from an earlier and earlier age sucks the creativity out of the player.

I've seen more then one quote from Bobby Orr lamenting the fact that kids today aren't allowed to have fun and be creative.

He believes that is the reason you don't see more creative offensive defenseman now like the Coffey's, Bourque's, MacInnis, Leetch's and Potvin's that followed in his trail initially, for example.

From the eyeball test I'd say that somewhere around 160-170 would probably be in the ballpark today compared to 200 in the 80's. And even if Crosby maintains his pace he won't be anywhere close to that.

It may be that the average player today is better but the same training and systems coaching that make the average player better ends up putting reins on the best players and holds them back from reaching the Gretzky/Lemieux/Orr type of crazy dominance over their peers.

Or maybe we just haven't seen a talent like that in a while. It is like winning the lottery.

I could certainly see that being the case (Orr's comments) but realistically this training most certainly leads to more well rounded, better teams. Look at the depth the Flyers and Blackhawks had last year? Remarkable if you ask me, a development that maybe wasnt there 25 years ago.

It all depends on the structure of a given team. If you can surround your stars with good, complimentary players, guys who can win battles and play smart accountable hockey, the stars could theoretically be able to branch out in their strongest areas. As I said in another thread, look at Datsyuk. Not many teams could sustain a guy who I think we all can agree is more than capable of putting up higher than ~80 points a year, even with his superb skills on the forecheck and in his own zone. He may be expected out of necessity to concentrate all his efforts on putting the puck in the net, but instead, Detroit has built a deep team that allows Datsyuk to play a unique game that ultimately benefits them. If they didnt have a Zetterberg or Franzen though to pick up some slack, who knows.

Good thread guys. Digging it.

I think you may have lost sight of the fact that this wasnt intended to be a pro v con Gretzky thread. My assumption based on experience and through knowing others tells me that professional players en masse these days start younger, train harder, and dedicate more time on the whole, where as Gretzky, like many of the very elite, legendary players had some sort of unique qulality to them that made them stand above their peers. I have no doubt that Gretzky did train all those hours, and look at the result. Same can be applied for Lemiuex, Howe, Orr, Crosby, Ovechkin, Datsyuk.

Theres this sense that because Crosby and Ovechkin and Malkin and Datsyuk and (insert who you think) arent truly elite because they dont dominate their peers on the stats sheet, but thats just it. Points maybe harder to come by given the influx of global talent and the dedication to training and fitness that EVERYONE, not just the greatest players have, becoming sort of the status quo for becoming a professional. Safe to say, atleast for me, when you watch a guy like Crosby or Datsyuk, theres really no question that they are the best players on the ice any night you observe them.

Again, if people are saying that Gretzky wouldnt have been very competitive thats misinformed. I do hesistate though to think he would still be outscoring the likes of Crosby, Malkin, Ovechkin etc by 80 some odd points. I believe a healthy, young Lemieux would stand a greater chance in that respect, but would still not distance himself to the truly absurd degrees that these two did back in the day.





I could certainly see that being the case (Orr's comments) but realistically this training most certainly leads to more well rounded, better teams. Look at the depth the Flyers and Blackhawks had last year? Remarkable if you ask me, a development that maybe wasnt there 25 years ago.

It all depends on the structure of a given team. If you can surround your stars with good, complimentary players, guys who can win battles and play smart accountable hockey, the stars could theoretically be able to branch out in their strongest areas. As I said in another thread, look at Datsyuk. Not many teams could sustain a guy who I think we all can agree is more than capable of putting up higher than ~80 points a year, even with his superb skills on the forecheck and in his own zone. He may be expected out of necessity to concentrate all his efforts on putting the puck in the net, but instead, Detroit has built a deep team that allows Datsyuk to play a unique game that ultimately benefits them. If they didnt have a Zetterberg or Franzen though to pick up some slack, who knows.

Good thread guys. Digging it.

Solid post, agree with everything in it, especially the bolded parts.

God, this again...

The "bigger, faster, stronger" thing is just a testament to how much people talk out of their ass. Bigger? No. Stronger? No. Faster? Yeah, I'll give you that one.

But do people think that players in the 80s were frail or even weaker than today's? Just because they didnt train the same way as the guys of today doesnt mean they weren't fit or in shape. It's such an ignorant thing to say.


And then we have the logical argument to disprove anyone who downplays Gretzky's achievement: Jaromir Jagr was able to outscore the superstars of today. He proved that if he wasnt equal to Crosby and Ovechkin (at the age of 35), then he was at least very close (in a bigger, faster, stronger league!).

The very same Jaromir Jagr who played Robbin to Lemieux's Batman. And the same Lemieux who was unable to ever beat Gretzky.

People dont realize just how freaking good Lemieux and Gretzky were. It was almost disgusting.

I agree that with the speed of today's game, Gretzky probably couldnt break 200, but I definitely think that with his hockey sense and his unparalleled vision, he would be getting 180 points. He was that good. I never watched him. I was about 15 years too late to watch him in his prime, but I can use logic and common sense to see how he stacks up to today's best. It amazes me that not many others can do that.

Players are bigger and stronger today, it isn't even debatable. Players take maybe 4 weeks off a year, the rest is training and playing. Go back and read quotes from guys like Gretzky, Esposito and Coffey, they have all said that they were not in the shape or the physical specimens that players are today when they were playing. I played rec with a player from the Jets and after every game there would be barrels of beer in the middle of the room, the whole mentality is different now, players eat right, have personal trainers, drink gatorade after games and train hard year round. Training camps are rank physical tests of squats, benchpress, etc.... they didnt even have that stuff back then.......

200 points is as good as 200 points
nothing less



$1000 now is as good as $1000 in the 1800's.

Ovechkin, Crosby and Malkin would consistently score 200 in the 80's.

Players are bigger and stronger today, it isn't even debatable. Players take maybe 4 weeks off a year, the rest is training and playing. Go back and read quotes from guys like Gretzky, Esposito and Coffey, they have all said that they were not in the shape or the physical specimens that players are today when they were playing. I played rec with a player from the Jets and after every game there would be barrels of beer in the middle of the room, the whole mentality is different now, players eat right, have personal trainers, drink gatorade after games and train hard year round. Training camps are rank physical tests of squats, benchpress, etc.... they didnt even have that stuff back then.......

I already said that I misspoke on the "bigger" comment. Stats have been posted to disprove that. But "stronger", I still disagree with.

Just because they werent working lifting weights 7 days a week or drinking protein shakes doesnt mean they werent in tremendous shape. There are many ways to "get big", and people are naive if they think there werent massive players back in Gretzky's time. Even before that. Ever seen a picture of Bobby Hull? Do you think he got that way because he was in the weight room daily?

And now today...what about Ovechkin? He doesnt lift weights every day, but he's still one of the physically strongest players on the ice. Do you really not think that existed back then? There are more ways to get strong than just modern ideas. If you're strong, you're strong, it doesnt matter how you got that way.

Now, the average hockey player today is stronger than the average hockey player in the 80s. That much is fairly obvious. However, the strongest hockey players of today are NOT stronger than the strongest hockey players in the 80s, and that's what I was trying to get at.

I already said that I misspoke on the "bigger" comment. Stats have been posted to disprove that. But "stronger", I still disagree with.

Just because they werent working lifting weights 7 days a week or drinking protein shakes doesnt mean they werent in tremendous shape. There are many ways to "get big", and people are naive if they think there werent massive players back in Gretzky's time. Even before that. Ever seen a picture of Bobby Hull? Do you think he got that way because he was in the weight room daily?

And now today...what about Ovechkin? He doesnt lift weights every day, but he's still one of the physically strongest players on the ice. Do you really not think that existed back then? There are more ways to get strong than just modern ideas. If you're strong, you're strong, it doesnt matter how you got that way.

Now, the average hockey player today is stronger than the average hockey player in the 80s. That much is fairly obvious. However, the strongest hockey players of today are NOT stronger than the strongest hockey players in the 80s, and that's what I was trying to get at.

I still disagree, players today are stronger, there are players benching 300+ lbs, you could maybe count a few guys that did that in the 80's, I know that players don't lift weights all year, but what I said was that they barely take any time off and train hard all summer. The game evolves and so do the players.....you mentioned Ovechkin and some mentioned Crosby, well they are both in better shape then Gretzky or Lemieux ever were.....When Lemieux came into the league he said that he never even touched a weight in his life, but now the kids come in to the league after hitting the weights and trying to pack muscle on, why??..because they game has evolved and you need to be not only gifted with talent or strenghth, but be in tremendous shape

If it was so easy to get 150-200pts in the 80's, then why was it only Gretzky that was doing it consistently?

People need to be reminded about just how dominant Gretzky was:

77-78: Lafleur 132pts, Trottier 123pts, Sitter 117pts
78-79: Trottier 134pts, Dionne 130pts, Lafleur 129pts

79-80: Gretzky 137pts, Dionne 137pts, Lafleur 125pts
80-81: Gretzky 164pts, Dionne 135pts, Nilsson 131pts ... +29pts
81-82: Gretzky 212pts, Bossy 145pts, Stastny 139pts ... +67pts
82-83: Gretzky 196pts, Stastny 124pts, Savard 121pts ... +72pts
83-84: Gretzky 205pts, Goulet, 121pts, Stastny 119pts ... +84pts
84-85: Gretzky 208pts, Kurri 135pts, Hawerchuk 130pts ... +73pts
85-86: Gretzky 215pts, Lemieux 141pts, Kurri 131pts ... +74pts
86-87: Gretzky 183pts, Kurri 108pts, Lemieux 107pts ... +75pts

87-88: Lemieux 168pts, Gretzky 149 (186 pro-rated)pts, Savard 131pts
88-89: Lemieux 199pts, Gretzky 168pts, Yzerman 155pts
89-90: Gretzky 142pts, Messier 129pts, Yzerman 127pts
90-91: Gretzky 163pts, Hull 131pts, Oates 115pts

91-92: Lemieux 131pts, Stevens 123pts, Gretzky 121pts
92-93: Lemieux 160pts, Lafontaine 148pts, Oates 142pts
93-94: Gretzky 130pts, Fedorov 120pts, Oates 112pts
94-95: Jagr (116pts), Lindros (116pts), Zhamnov (108pts)
95-96: Lemieux 161pts, Jagr 149pts, Sakic 120pts
96-97: Lemieux 122pts, Selanne 109pts, Kariya 99pts

Today: Crosby (136pts), Stamkos (115pts), St. Louis (106pts)


Gretzky seperated himself from the rest of the league so greatly in those early years, that it's safe to say that there will only be one Gretzky.

Even in Lemieux's great years, he didn't have the seperation Gretzky had.

Gretzky paved the way for Lemieux, Yzerman and others. But then the players strike happened, Lemieux and Gretzky got old and the league went to hell.

Crosby right now is around as good as Gretzky was in his rookie season or sophomore season. He is not seperating himself from the pack like Gretzky did and i doubt he ever will.


As for the OP's thought, the league's overall performance depends on the players in the league. It was Gretzky's dominance that impacted the league, not the other way around.

Crosby and Ovechkin are great, but they ain't impacting the league nearly enough to be compared to The Great One.

Agreed, Crosby is **** compared to Wayne. Anyone who thinks otherwise is crazy.

I still disagree, players today are stronger, there are players benching 300+ lbs, you could maybe count a few guys that did that in the 80's, I know that players don't lift weights all year, but what I said was that they barely take any time off and train hard all summer. The game evolves and so do the players.....you mentioned Ovechkin and some mentioned Crosby, well they are both in better shape then Gretzky or Lemieux ever were.....When Lemieux came into the league he said that he never even touched a weight in his life, but now the kids come in to the league after hitting the weights and trying to pack muscle on, why??..because they game has evolved and you need to be not only gifted with talent or strenghth, but be in tremendous shape
But that's exactly my point. Lemieux may have never touched a weight in his life, but he was so physically dominant in spite of that.

I mean...do you realize that Lemieux was on pace for a 100 point season in 2003 as a 38 year old?

If you want to be in the kind of physical shape that you are talking about, it does not take a lifetime of lifting weights. It might take a dedicated year, and then the commitment to stay at that level for the rest of your career.

The "stronger players" thing is extremely overused. It's possible to be just as strong as a guy who benches 300 lbs even if you've never picked up a weight in your life. There are MANY ways to stay in tip top shape. The most efficient is obviously to train like players do nowadays, but that doesnt mean it's the only way.

I'll go back to the Bobby Hull thing...how did he get so strong? It wasnt from lifting weights at the gym every day. My point is that these people existed in the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s and obviously in the 2000s. Muscular players didnt just pop into existence at the turn of the century...

But that's exactly my point. Lemieux may have never touched a weight in his life, but he was so physically dominant in spite of that.

I mean...do you realize that Lemieux was on pace for a 100 point season in 2003 as a 38 year old?

If you want to be in the kind of physical shape that you are talking about, it does not take a lifetime of lifting weights. It might take a dedicated year, and then the commitment to stay at that level for the rest of your career.

The "stronger players" thing is extremely overused. It's possible to be just as strong as a guy who benches 300 lbs even if you've never picked up a weight in your life. There are MANY ways to stay in tip top shape. The most efficient is obviously to train like players do nowadays, but that doesnt mean it's the only way.

I'll go back to the Bobby Hull thing...how did he get so strong? It wasnt from lifting weights at the gym every day. My point is that these people existed in the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s and obviously in the 2000s. Muscular players didnt just pop into existence at the turn of the century...

ya, I never said that there wasn't any strong players back then, I know that Bobby Hull was in decent shape, but he was 5'10" and played at 195lbs and looked huge, Crosby is bigger than that, the hole point that I was trying to make is that players on average are bigger, faster and stronger based purely on the size of the players on average and how the 18 year olds can come in a play so well because of their althletic ability and the fact they have been training so hard. Lemieux and Hull didn't need to lift wieights because they were bigger and better than half the players that they played against. Like i said the players simply train a lot harder now because you have to in order ti get an edge. Also talking about Lemieux and his points at 38 is irrelevant, he is one the greatest players to ever play the game, even with his chronic back problems and his fight with cancer. If you watch what kind of exercises these guys do, its insane, Chris Chelios was an animal in the gym and is a huge reason how he could play so long, he stated that he never did that stuff earlier in his career....the skills the players have is always there, but combined with strength and doing explosive type workouts get them that much better on the ice....Anyways, agree to disagree I guess.............

I thought what Mario had to say was interesting in rellevant to this thread, if we can all look past the fact that he is talking about Crosby and relate his opinions of the game today and the subject at hand. Do you think its Mario being humble or he truely honest


Lemieux, the Penguins' greatest player and co-owner, commented on several topics:

• On whether current captain Sidney Crosby is playing at Lemieux's level of his prime: "Absolutely. I think it's much tougher to dominate the league now, the way it's set up. For him to go out there and do the things he does every night, every shift, it's incredible. His toughness is unbelievable, his training, his shooting ability has gotten better the past couple years ... what he's doing now is much more impressive than what I did years ago."

• On what makes Crosby special: "I don't think he worries too much about the opposition. It's all about his game and his preparation for the game. He's basically hockey 24 hours a day. He sleeps hockey, it seems like. His work ethic, preparing himself, doing the same thing every day . . . I don't think what the opposition does really bothers him. He goes on the ice, knows what he needs to do and tries to do it every shift."

• On Crosby's 25-game points streak, which ended Wednesday: "Ever since he came into the league, he's gotten better and better every year. He's an incredible player, an incredible person, and what he just did for those 25 games, all those points, that's pretty hard to do in this day and age. It's not the same as 20 years ago with the good goalies and defensive schemes that are there now."

• On whether Crosby and Washington star Alexander Ovechkin are comparable to what Lemieux and Wayne Gretzky once did: "They've got two different styles from Gretzky and myself. Of course, Ovechkin is very physical, has a great shot. Sid is more about controlling the play and using his strength. It's a little different. Gretz was more about finesse and curling and making plays to buy some time, and you can't do that anymore with all the back pressure. So, different styles, different eras."



Read more: http://www.postgazette.com/pg/10365/1114665-100.stm#ixzz19jhT9jmb

I thought what Mario had to say was interesting in rellevant to this thread, if we can all look past the fact that he is talking about Crosby and relate his opinions of the game today and the subject at hand. Do you think its Mario being humble or he truely honest

I'm going to have to go with: humble.

He and Gretzky always have good things to say about pretty much anyone they are asked about.

That's why hockey players are awesome.

Is 150pts today as good as 200 pts in the 80's
.
No. /thread

The 200 point mark is always going to be a bit mystical, but you can't say 150 is the same no. It's the most elite club in the NHL IMO.

I thought what Mario had to say was interesting in rellevant to this thread, if we can all look past the fact that he is talking about Crosby and relate his opinions of the game today and the subject at hand. Do you think its Mario being humble or he truely honest


Lemieux, the Penguins' greatest player and co-owner, commented on several topics:

• On whether current captain Sidney Crosby is playing at Lemieux's level of his prime: "Absolutely. I think it's much tougher to dominate the league now, the way it's set up. For him to go out there and do the things he does every night, every shift, it's incredible. His toughness is unbelievable, his training, his shooting ability has gotten better the past couple years ... what he's doing now is much more impressive than what I did years ago."

• On what makes Crosby special: "I don't think he worries too much about the opposition. It's all about his game and his preparation for the game. He's basically hockey 24 hours a day. He sleeps hockey, it seems like. His work ethic, preparing himself, doing the same thing every day . . . I don't think what the opposition does really bothers him. He goes on the ice, knows what he needs to do and tries to do it every shift."

• On Crosby's 25-game points streak, which ended Wednesday: "Ever since he came into the league, he's gotten better and better every year. He's an incredible player, an incredible person, and what he just did for those 25 games, all those points, that's pretty hard to do in this day and age. It's not the same as 20 years ago with the good goalies and defensive schemes that are there now."

• On whether Crosby and Washington star Alexander Ovechkin are comparable to what Lemieux and Wayne Gretzky once did: "They've got two different styles from Gretzky and myself. Of course, Ovechkin is very physical, has a great shot. Sid is more about controlling the play and using his strength. It's a little different. Gretz was more about finesse and curling and making plays to buy some time, and you can't do that anymore with all the back pressure. So, different styles, different eras."



Read more: http://www.postgazette.com/pg/10365/1114665-100.stm#ixzz19jhT9jmb

Good arguable points, but what else is Mario going to say really? He is clearly being humble and rightly propping his own guy up.

I think the best way to measure things is to see how much Crosby/Gretzky won the scoring title by. If Crosby puts up 160 pts and the next person puts up 110 then that must be pretty close to what Gretzky did i would think.

I agree. This is how I think it would work. Gretzky's numbers were so much higher than the rest of the players out there. It wasn't like he had 208 points and Kurri had 190 and Coffey 185. It was Gretzky at 208 and the rest of his team down below 140 - sort of like Crosby last year where he had such a huge percentage higher than his nearest teammate (which is why I think he would have been MVP).

If Crosby can get 150 or 160 and the next highest player 110, then I think he needs to be considered in this elite company, at least if he can keep that up for many seasons. I don't want to jump the gun because I know this is just one season, but the way he is playing now, he seems so far ahead of the rest of the league.

I'm going to have to go with: humble.

He and Gretzky always have good things to say about pretty much anyone they are asked about.
That's why hockey players are awesome.

That is one thing that always annoyed me about Gretzky - to him, every player he played with was the best and every competitor he faced was the best he ever faced, etc., etc., etc. Some of his teammates had to be dogs. Well, at least he did call the Devils a Mickey Mouse organization, so he did have ONE bad thing to say in his career.

Crosby is arguably the best player today. Gretzky isn't arguably the best player ever. He is the best player ever. I realize it's hard to wrap your heads around that fact, but that is a fact. Crosby only gets this much pimping by teenies who have never seen anyone but Crosby play. That's ok. We don't think you can handle the truth any more than you could absorb it.

200 points is 200 points, doesn't matter what era. Gretzky was a freak

I love and respect Wayner as much as the next guy, but watching goal after goal go in past these tiny goalies flopping all over the place all I can think is 'goalie...you suck' or 'goalie you have no chance.'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPuBKLkrhYU

Crosby is arguably the best player today. Gretzky isn't arguably the best player ever. He is the best player ever. I realize it's hard to wrap your heads around that fact, but that is a fact. Crosby only gets this much pimping by teenies who have never seen anyone but Crosby play. That's ok. We don't think you can handle the truth any more than you could absorb it.

How Ironic your statement is.

Various polls have been done around here on who the best player ever was, and I'll tell you one thing, there was NEVER a consensus on Gretzky. Mario and Orr had strong arguments for them as well.

Skipped some pages so this may have been mentioned already, but bear with me.



In the twilight of his career, after going through multiple injuries, cancer, at age 36, after being away from the game for 3 years, Mario Lemieux scored at a 67-goal, 145-point pace. In the dead puck era.


Mario didn't even [technically] register a 200-point season in his PRIME.
And there's no way he was better as a 36-year old than he was at his peak.

How Ironic your statement is.

Various polls have been done around here on who the best player ever was, and I'll tell you one thing, there was NEVER a consensus on Gretzky. Mario and Orr had strong arguments for them as well.

Of course there is a debate, but show me one halfway respected list of best players that doesn't have #99 as number 1 at the end of the day.

Sure, on a per game basis or even on some single seasons, you can argue Mario or Bobby were better.

However, on a career basis, Wayne blows them out of the water because he played hundreds more games than they did.

How Ironic your statement is.

Various polls have been done around here on who the best player ever was, and I'll tell you one thing, there was NEVER a consensus on Gretzky. Mario and Orr had strong arguments for them as well.

HOH Top 100 List (2009 Version) (http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=669817)

How Ironic your statement is.

Various polls have been done around here on who the best player ever was, and I'll tell you one thing, there was NEVER a consensus on Gretzky. Mario and Orr had strong arguments for them as well.

Various polls? On here, it's Gretzky. In fact, every poll I have seen has been Gretzky. There will always be some who think Orr. I haven't seen many that thought Mario was the greater player, just a greater talent. For what that's worth I suppose. Still have to beat the best to be the best. The arguments on here are ridiculous, but it's nice that you choose to be incredulous to them in order to make a point about your own "poll". I guess having some people think Sean Avery, by virtue of being in better shape and playing now, must also be better is fine by you. I'll be sure next time to include footnotes to general consensus.

Crosby is arguably the best player today. Gretzky isn't arguably the best player ever. He is the best player ever. I realize it's hard to wrap your heads around that fact, but that is a fact. Crosby only gets this much pimping by teenies who have never seen anyone but Crosby play. That's ok. We don't think you can handle the truth any more than you could absorb it.

It's a fact if all you're doing is looking at the stats without acknowledging some of the variables behind them(health, teammates, era, etc). I'd rather base my judgement on what I saw when I watched these guys play. And frankly, an injury riddled Lemieux could do things on the ice that Gretzky couldn't even dream of in his best game. Gretzky may have had the most successful career in terms of numbers/championships, but only someone who doesn't know the game very well would say he was inarguably a better player than Lemieux. Put a healthy Lemieux on that Oilers team in the early/mid 80's and, well, maybe we're discussing the 230 or 240 point mark right now. Gretzky himself has acknowledged many times that Mario was the better player of the two and that he likely would have surpassed many of his records had he stayed healthy.

Gretzky himself has acknowledged many times that Mario was the better player of the two and that he likely would have surpassed many of his records had he stayed healthy.

Big surprise there

It's a fact if all you're doing is looking at the stats without acknowledging some of the variables behind them(health, teammates, era, etc). I'd rather base my judgement on what I saw when I watched these guys play. And frankly, an injury riddled Lemieux could do things on the ice that Gretzky couldn't even dream of in his best game. Gretzky may have had the most successful career in terms of numbers/championships, but only someone who doesn't know the game very well would say he was inarguably a better player than Lemieux. Put a healthy Lemieux on that Oilers team in the early/mid 80's and, well, maybe we're discussing the 230 or 240 point mark right now. Gretzky himself has acknowledged many times that Mario was the better player of the two and that he likely would have surpassed many of his records had he stayed healthy.

I'm glad you skipped my next post. It makes this one seem oh so special

I'm glad you skipped my next post. It makes this one seem oh so special

Another condescending and dismissive post that brings absolutely nothing to the discussion. Your defensive/confrontational demeanor regarding Gretzky(coming in here telling people they can't wrap their heads around the "fact" that he's the best ever) is... bizarre. But by all means, keep doing what you're doing. This forum has already gone to hell and we have guys like you and your inability to maintain a civil, adult discussion, to thank for it.

Great thread. Happy New Year to everyone! Friend and foe alike. It's 1:39 PM in this place I live so you must all be heavily into making New Year's resolutions by now! I'm working on breaking all mine. Why put off the inevitable eh? :D

Talent. If Gretzky was born the same day as Crosby, he'd have changed the game in some way and be heads and tails above everyone else just as he was when he played. He'd have or be approaching the same number of assists as Crosby has points and his winger would be among the leader in goals scored if not the leader.

That's how Gretzky's talent manifested itself with respect to stats. He'd likely have around 20+goals and around 65 assists. But then Gretzky made everyone around him better, even other talents in the League. So probably Crosby would have more points than he does today and hence so would Gretzky. It must also be taken into account that they play a few more games today too. More points for Gretzky. No centre line? The league would never do such a thing while Gretzky played. Indeed the league brought in a rule or two to level the playing field because of Gretzky.

No 160 points today does not equal 200 point back when. It's not about percentages from league scoring averages, strength, fitness, rules, systems, equipment, size or training. It's about talent and how that talent manifested itself on the ice.

If Gretzky were around today he'd still put up 200 points. Occasionally. Crosby would likely be pushing 150. Occasionally.

If Gretzky were around in Howe's era he would have done the same thing. If Howe won an Art Ross with 86 points you can pretty sure Gretzky would have had around 86 assists and 30+ goals to go along with it.

As another poster said the league scoring average was higher because of Gretzky not the other way around. That's probrably true in any era.

200 points is 200 pts and so too 92 goals is what it is. It can't be meaningfully bell curved across eras. More or less games played would obviously have an effect.

A lot of variables change over the years but not talent.

What? That doesn't make any sense at all. You can correct for annual GPG all you want, but that doesn't in any way impact the amount by which Gretzky out-scored his opponents. To use the planet example, if I can lift 10% more mass than you on the moon, I'm going to be able to lift 10% more mass than you on every other planet.

Even if we take Gretzky's most pedestrian season of the 80s- 183 points in 86-87- he still led the next-nearest player (teammate Jari Kurri) by 59%.

Let's apply that to today's #2 place scorer. Assuming Stamkos remains at his current pace, he'll finish with 115 points. Crosby would have to hit 165 points to match Gretzky's output- and that's just one season. 70%+? Forget it.

This means little to nothing. All this may mean is that Stamkos is substantially better than Kurri. I'm not saying that's true, but looking at the two eras and saying if Gretzky beat his opponents by 50% Sid must do the samething to match is a ridiculous notion.

Maybe, just maybe the runner up nowadays are much better than runners up in the 80's. No one will ever know and to applying a bunch of simplistic math calculations will never ever tell the truth. There are way too many variables not being accounted for.

Great thread. Happy New Year to everyone! Friend and foe alike. It's 1:39 PM in this place I live so you must all be heavily into making New Year's resolutions by now! I'm working on breaking all mine. Why put off the inevitable eh? :D

Talent. If Gretzky was born the same day as Crosby, he'd have changed the game in some way and be heads and tails above everyone else just as he was when he played. He'd have or be approaching the same number of assists as Crosby has points and his winger would be among the leader in goals scored if not the leader.

That's how Gretzky's talent manifested itself with respect to stats. He'd likely have around 20+goals and around 65 assists. But then Gretzky made everyone around him better, even other talents in the League. So probably Crosby would have more points than he does today and hence so would Gretzky. It must also be taken into account that they play a few more games today too. More points for Gretzky. No centre line? The league would never do such a thing while Gretzky played. Indeed the league brought in a rule or two to level the playing field because of Gretzky.

No 160 points today does not equal 200 point back when. It's not about percentages from league scoring averages, strength, fitness, rules, systems, equipment, size or training. It's about talent and how that talent manifested itself on the ice.

If Gretzky were around today he'd still put up 200 points. Occasionally. Crosby would likely be pushing 150. Occasionally.

If Gretzky were around in Howe's era he would have done the same thing. If Howe won an Art Ross with 86 points you can pretty sure Gretzky would have had around 86 assists and 30+ goals to go along with it.

As another poster said the league scoring average was higher because of Gretzky not the other way around. That's probrably true in any era.

200 points is 200 pts and so too 92 goals is what it is. It can't be meaningfully bell curved across eras. More or less games played would obviously have an effect.

A lot of variables change over the years but not talent.


No. Coudnt have said it worse myself

No way Gretzky puts away 200 pts today. If one disregards the training etc. and just look at tactics and goalies I just cant see it happen. The game of today is much more defense oriented and back checking is mandatory. How often do you see break aways today compared to the 80s? Its a big difference! And the goalies are WAY better with e.g. equipment, butterfly etc. If a goalie in the 80s would go down in butterfly it would have left ridiculous big holes to put the puck away.

Just my opinion. But I do think Gretzky would have won as many Harts and Art Ross trophies. He is probably the best player ever.

/Cheers

1983-84 NHL Scoring Leaders

Name/Team/Games/Goals/Assists/Points

Wayne Gretzky Edmonton Oilers 74 87 118 205
Paul Coffey Edmonton Oilers 80 40 86 126
Michel Goulet Quebec Nordiques 75 56 65 121
Peter Stastny Quebec Nordiques 80 46 73 119
Mike Bossy New York Islanders 76 51 67 118
Barry Pederson Boston Bruins 80 39 77 116
Jari Kurri Edmonton Oilers 64 52 61 113
Bryan Trottier New York Islanders 68 40 71 111
Bernie Federko St. Louis Blues 79 41 66 107
Rick Middleton Boston Bruins 80 47 58 105

Gretzky outscored most of the other players in the top 10 by about 90-100 points that year. And that top 10 list is filled with Hall of Famer's. The scary thing is he did this most years in his prime. He usually won the scoring race on his assists alone... AND he would score 70-90 goals on top of that.

* Notice how all of the players behind Gretzky are clustered closely together, none really asserting themselves as dominant players, very similar to today's NHL. Then Gretzky goes completely berserk and put up 87 goals and 205 points. It's like he was a grown man playing against kids. He basically did whatever he wanted on the ice.

Crosby right now is around as good as Gretzky was in his rookie season or sophomore season. He is not seperating himself from the pack like Gretzky did and i doubt he ever will.


What Crosby is doing this year is pretty special; let's not take anythring away from that. I would say it's accurate to compare it to Gretzky's 2nd year (a big compliment to Crosby).

Tbh, i think 100 pts is tough mountain for anyone to climb. Scoring in the nhl is way harder today. When Sid was on his streak he was projected to get like 140pts. I personally think he'll reach it this year. But Sid's only like 23, and hes still got another 4-5 where hes gunna keep on improving. Getting 140pts today would be incredible, and tbh i think Sid could get close to 200 in the future but **** me, hes gunna have to be amazing. Whereever or not he would reach 200 pts, i have no idea, i just cant see it. But, you never know it's possible.

Lastly, if Sid plyed in Gretzky's era he would definatley be a 200 pts player, so would Geno and Ovi. Stamkos would get close, but not quite.

If Gretzky broke into the NHL today, the chances of him being a 200 point player are very slim.

The highest point total I could honestly see either of Sid and gretzky get in today NHL would be 170pts but, Sid can always keep improving, we dont know how good he can be.

Tbh, i think 100 pts is tough mountain for anyone to climb. Scoring in the nhl is way harder today. When Sid was on his streak he was projected to get like 140pts. I personally think he'll reach it this year. But Sid's only like 23, and hes still got another 4-5 where hes gunna keep on improving. Getting 140pts today would be incredible, and tbh i think Sid could get close to 200 in the future but **** me, hes gunna have to be amazing. Whereever or not he would reach 200 pts, i have no idea, i just cant see it. But, you never know it's possible.

Lastly, if Sid plyed in Gretzky's era he would definatley be a 200 pts player, so would Geno and Ovi. Stamkos would get close, but not quite.

If Gretzky broke into the NHL today, the chances of him being a 200 point player are very slim.

The highest point total I could honestly see either of Sid and gretzky get in today NHL would be 170pts but, Sid can always keep improving, we dont know how good he can be.

Sidney Crosby is never going to score 200 points, barring some major rule changes..

Sidney Crosby is never going to score 200 points, barring some major rule changes..

Never said he will. But he could, you never know.

Yeah I agree Sid would get 200 points, 300 even in the 80's. Gretzky would be a 3rd line grinder if he had to face good defences

Yeah I agree Sid would get 200 points, 300 even in the 80's. Gretzky would be a 3rd line grinder if he had to face good defences

:shakehead

Gretzky was still a PPG player in 1999.
Lemieux was still a 100 point player in 2003.
Jagr got 125 points in 2006.


But Gretzky would be a third liner today....

Gretzky would be the best player in the NHL today easily. Even if he was just teleported here from 1985.

I would say roughly 170 would be equivalent. If you look at the season totals for the top players outside of Gretzky and then Lemieux it isn't massively far off from the players of today.

I agree. This is how I think it would work. Gretzky's numbers were so much higher than the rest of the players out there. It wasn't like he had 208 points and Kurri had 190 and Coffey 185. It was Gretzky at 208 and the rest of his team down below 140 - sort of like Crosby last year where he had such a huge percentage higher than his nearest teammate (which is why I think he would have been MVP).

If Crosby can get 150 or 160 and the next highest player 110, then I think he needs to be considered in this elite company, at least if he can keep that up for many seasons. I don't want to jump the gun because I know this is just one season, but the way he is playing now, he seems so far ahead of the rest of the league.

I agree that winning the scoring race by a large margin would be a good argument for Crosby to be compared to Gretzky. But what is the correct margin? Gretzky won by 79 points one year, but obviously Crosby shouldn't be expected to do that in today's era. You're proposing 40-50 points, which I think could be argued is still too high an expectation.

Reason being the pool of hockey talent the NHL drafts from is twice as large now as it was in the early 80s (population growth + more players from Europe). A gap of 50 points accounts for adjusting scoring downwards for the modern era. But the larger talent pool also means there are more offensively gifted players putting up high numbers of points. If there were ten players who put up 100 points in 198x, then there are something like twenty players now who are that good. This results in more parity on the leaderboard.

The effect of increased competition is offset somewhat by expansion from 21 -> 30 teams, but not entirely. For me, personally, accounting for both the lower scoring in today's game and increased parity among the top scorers, I'd consider winning the Art Ross by a margin of 30-40 points to be comparable to what Gretzky did.

Gretzky would be the best player in NHL, if we just took him from the 80s, but, he wouldnt be as 'great' imo. Him and Sid would rack up 170pts i think at the max. 200 cant see it

As for 300pts lol, that'll never happen lol

I agree that winning the scoring race by a large margin would be a good argument for Crosby to be compared to Gretzky. But what is the correct margin? Gretzky won by 79 points one year, but obviously Crosby shouldn't be expected to do that in today's era. You're proposing 40-50 points, which I think could be argued is still too high an expectation.

Reason being the pool of hockey talent the NHL drafts from is twice as large now as it was in the early 80s (population growth + more players from Europe). A gap of 50 points accounts for adjusting scoring downwards for the modern era. But the larger talent pool also means there are more offensively gifted players putting up high numbers of points. If there were ten players who put up 100 points in 198x, then there are something like twenty players now who are that good. This results in more parity on the leaderboard.

The effect of increased competition is offset somewhat by expansion from 21 -> 30 teams, but not entirely. For me, personally, accounting for both the lower scoring in today's game and increased parity among the top scorers, I'd consider winning the Art Ross by a margin of 30-40 points to be comparable to what Gretzky did.

He should probably finish the season by winning the Art Ross, not losing it to Sedin, Malkin, Ovechkin, or Thornton. Then he can worry about separating himself from the pack. That being said, he's certainly looking to take care of business so far this year. I just meant he needs to finish as strong as he's started.

Never said he will. But he could, you never know.

nahh it's impossible in this day and age. Maybe someone else could, but that person would probably have to be the best player to ever play the game.

As another poster said the league scoring average was higher because of Gretzky not the other way around. That's probrably true in any era.

200 points is 200 pts and so too 92 goals is what it is. It can't be meaningfully bell curved across eras. More or less games played would obviously have an effect.

A lot of variables change over the years but not talent.

/facepalm

This is easily debunked by looking at scoring levels both before Gretzky came into the NHL (~7.0 goals per game), and in the late 80s and early 90s when Gretzky was still in the league and in his prime (again, around ~7.0 goals per game).

Scoring only spiked to 8.0 goals per game for a few seasons in the early 80s, which probably had as much to do with expansion from 17 -> 21 teams as it did with Gretzky.

I'm sure Orr fans would happily claim he was responsible for a huge increase in scoring too, although again there just coincidentally happened to be a large expansion of the league around the time he entered the league.

Perhaps Mario Lemieux fans can claim he was responsible for the dead puck era. After all, scoring dropped sharply when he entered the league, and then again as he was in his prime. No doubt he changed the game by forcing teams to learn defensive systems like the trap, because there was no other way to stop him. Right?

Again, let me ask you... if Gretzky "changed the game" so much that he was single handedly responsible for 2-3 more goals per game league wide, how do you explain the fact that offense had *already* risen hugely just before he came into the league, and then fell right as Gretzky reached his peak?

In yet *another* coincidence, scoring went up by a goal per game the year Crosby entered the league. In twenty years when Crosby is retired, I'm quite sure that there will be people like you who claim this rise in scoring was because he "changed the game", as opposed to the post-lockout rule changes.

The idea that a single player can influence the game that much is ridiculously exaggerated. Bobby Orr is probably the only player who can reasonably be seen to have single handedly revolutionized the game (and maybe Roy or whoever you want to credit for popularizing the butterfly style of goaltending). But I doubt that even the big changes Orr inspired had more of an effect on league wide offense than expansion.

nahh it's impossible in this day and age. Maybe someone else could, but that person would probably have to be the best player to ever play the game.

Your probs right but, no disrespect to Gretzky he was a great player and is the greatest to play the game but, if he broke into the NHL today, he wouldnt seem so incredible to me. He just started his career at the perfect moment...the offensive boom of the 80s, thats why his numbers are so great.

Gretzky would be the best player in NHL, if we just took him from the 80s, but, he wouldnt be as 'great' imo. Him and Sid would rack up 170pts i think at the max. 200 cant see it

As for 300pts lol, that'll never happen lol

Gretzky would be a totally different player had he been brought up in todays game. He'd probably look and play a lot like Sid. Doubtful that he'd be a better player than Crosby. They'd be the two best in the league, no doubt. What kind of team does Gretzky come up with? Doubtful he has the help he had with Edmonton. Crosby, Ovechkin, Stamkos are as good as the 80's stars in my mind. These guys are the first crop of young superstars the NHL has seen since the early 80's.

He just started his career at the perfect moment...the offensive boom of the 80s, thats why his numbers are so great.

Everybody else in the 80's were "there at the right time", too, and yet Gretzky scored circles around all of them. Completely obliterated them.

Based on this AND what I saw Lemieux and Gretzky do in the deadpuck era far past their prime, I'm pretty comfortable saying they're better than Crosby. But I do agree that Gretzky wouldn't dominate today like he did back then... lapping the field today would be a lot harder than lapping it back then. Crosby is better than anybody Gretzky competed with in the early 80s.

I believe 100+ points today is equivalent to about 160+ points in the 80s. Lemieux even said that Crosby's 25 game point streak is more impressive than the streaks that he had back then because of how much the game has changed and how the league is built today compared to back then.

You also have to consider that in the 80's the rinks were five miles long and uphill both ways.

Gretzky would be a totally different player had he been brought up in todays game. He'd probably look and play a lot like Sid. Doubtful that he'd be a better player than Crosby. They'd be the two best in the league, no doubt. What kind of team does Gretzky come up with? Doubtful he has the help he had with Edmonton. Crosby, Ovechkin, Stamkos are as good as the 80's stars in my mind. These guys are the first crop of young superstars the NHL has seen since the early 80's.

Gretzky was ridiculous before he had any legitimate help from his Edmonton teamates.

For example:

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/leagues/seasons/teams/0000411982.html

Gretzky was doubling the production of his teammates.

Funny how people are really trying to compare Sid and OV to Lemieux.

Lemieux scored at a higher pace than either as an old man in the DPE.

Whoa whoa whoa, no.
Half the guys playing in bottom six roles in the league today wouldn't even have a sniff of the NHL in the 80's. The talent pool is so diluted with the extra 9 teams today that the NHL is the least consistently talented it has ever been in its history

This isn't even debateable. Bottom six guys today are much better athletes. Their average TOI has gone up considerably... talent pool dilution could be used to talk about the spread of superstars and how some teams have none (NYI, TOR, etc).

EDIT: Oh, and to answer the original question, I'd say 160 points today would be the equivalent of 200 points in the high-scoring 80's. Something that will remain out of reach for a long time and IMO, only a healthy Crosby playing 24 TOI/a with 2 superstar wingers and an allstar defenseman could accomplish in the modern era.

:shakehead

Gretzky was still a PPG player in 1999.
Lemieux was still a 100 point player in 2003.
Jagr got 125 points in 2006.


But Gretzky would be a third liner today....

Gretzky would be the best player in the NHL today easily. Even if he was just teleported here from 1985.

Ummm, you do know that teleportation doesn't exist yet, right?

What Crosby is doing this year is pretty special; let's not take anythring away from that. I would say it's accurate to compare it to Gretzky's 2nd year (a big compliment to Crosby).

Yes what Crosby is doing to date is special, Tavares too. It's like Gretzky and Lemieux lite from a couple of young players. It's great to see.

Now imagine Crosby and Tavares with an even bigger lead on their competition and you'll have a better appreciation of just how special those two were.

And hopefully an appreciation of how silly it is to bell curve their achievements.

No. Coudnt have said it worse myself

Thanks for posting.

No offense to anyone, but ...

Search the History of Hockey board. Those guys live and breathe this stuff, and know way more about it than me. Maybe more than you too.

Tbh, i think 100 pts is tough mountain for anyone to climb. Scoring in the nhl is way harder today. When Sid was on his streak he was projected to get like 140pts. I personally think he'll reach it this year. But Sid's only like 23, and hes still got another 4-5 where hes gunna keep on improving. Getting 140pts today would be incredible, and tbh i think Sid could get close to 200 in the future but **** me, hes gunna have to be amazing. Whereever or not he would reach 200 pts, i have no idea, i just cant see it. But, you never know it's possible.

Lastly, if Sid plyed in Gretzky's era he would definatley be a 200 pts player, so would Geno and Ovi. Stamkos would get close, but not quite.

If Gretzky broke into the NHL today, the chances of him being a 200 point player are very slim.

The highest point total I could honestly see either of Sid and gretzky get in today NHL would be 170pts but, Sid can always keep improving, we dont know how good he can be.

If Crosby, Ovi, Malkin, Stamkos played when Gretzky played they wouldn't be as good as they are today. Things were different back then. Kids didn't grow up on the ice 24/7 365 like they do now. Their off season training was well non existent. Training camp was used to get into shape. Equipment was so much worse. Players today have soooo many advantages over the players of the 80's.

If Gretzky was breaking into the league today of course he wouldn't get 200 points because that would be like putting up 284 points in the 80's

Gretzky's best season was 215 points in 85-86 where their was 7.94 GPG in an 80 game season. So he had 2.68 PPG which meand he was in on 33.84% of the goals scored each game. Put that in today's game where their are 5.64 GPG (last years stat) and that would be 1.909 PPG, and over 82 games would be 157 Points.

If Crosby can Break 150 points I think it would be comparable to Wayne's 215, as long as the GPG for this season ends up being close to 5.64

/facepalm

This is easily debunked by looking at scoring levels both before Gretzky came into the NHL (~7.0 goals per game), and in the late 80s and early 90s when Gretzky was still in the league and in his prime (again, around ~7.0 goals per game).

Scoring only spiked to 8.0 goals per game for a few seasons in the early 80s, which probably had as much to do with expansion from 17 -> 21 teams as it did with Gretzky.

I'm sure Orr fans would happily claim he was responsible for a huge increase in scoring too, although again there just coincidentally happened to be a large expansion of the league around the time he entered the league.

Perhaps Mario Lemieux fans can claim he was responsible for the dead puck era. After all, scoring dropped sharply when he entered the league, and then again as he was in his prime. No doubt he changed the game by forcing teams to learn defensive systems like the trap, because there was no other way to stop him. Right?

Again, let me ask you... if Gretzky "changed the game" so much that he was single handedly responsible for 2-3 more goals per game league wide, how do you explain the fact that offense had *already* risen hugely just before he came into the league, and then fell right as Gretzky reached his peak?

In yet *another* coincidence, scoring went up by a goal per game the year Crosby entered the league. In twenty years when Crosby is retired, I'm quite sure that there will be people like you who claim this rise in scoring was because he "changed the game", as opposed to the post-lockout rule changes.

The idea that a single player can influence the game that much is ridiculously exaggerated. Bobby Orr is probably the only player who can reasonably be seen to have single handedly revolutionized the game (and maybe Roy or whoever you want to credit for popularizing the butterfly style of goaltending). But I doubt that even the big changes Orr inspired had more of an effect on league wide offense than expansion.

Gretzky's first season in the NHL was the 1979-80 season. You admit that NHL scoring went up at that time yet write an awful lot to say it didn't.

Confused much?

How do you define early 80's? Could that include the first half of the decade when Gretzky recorded his four 200 point seasons and a 194 point one? The last time Gretzky did that was the 1985-86 season.

Gretzky broke every single season scoring record including Orr's assists record by his third season in the NHL. Then he broke his own records. More than once in some cases.

That's talent. That's why the NHL retired his number, that's why everybody selects him as number 1 of all time. And those who don't are not taken seriously. Just like anyone here who tries to bell curve Gretzky's stats.

If 160=200 then what does 92 goals equal?, 163 assists?, 215 points?

How about his career stats? GP 1487 Gls 894 As 1963 Pts 2857?

Bell curve Gordie Howe's stats.

Perhaps adding four teams was responsible but adding 9 isn't? There weren't any Euros in the NHL maybe? Kurri was from Poughkeepsie NY? Salming? Or do we only count the Russians as Euros?

92 gls, 163 As and 215 points are what they are. Gretzky is what he is. He'd do it again today.

Talent.

Bell curve that.

Gretzky versus ... ??? Take it to the HoH forum, where they know what the hell they're talking about.

But meanwhile ...

I was never a Gretzky "fan", but I was always well aware of where he stood in terms of talent. In the HoH they speak of "peak" and "length of peak".

Nobody peaked higher than Gretz, and nobody peaked longer. Not even close. Case closed.

This means little to nothing. All this may mean is that Stamkos is substantially better than Kurri. I'm not saying that's true, but looking at the two eras and saying if Gretzky beat his opponents by 50% Sid must do the samething to match is a ridiculous notion.

Maybe, just maybe the runner up nowadays are much better than runners up in the 80's. No one will ever know and to applying a bunch of simplistic math calculations will never ever tell the truth. There are way too many variables not being accounted for.
It's not simple math, it's actually based rather well researched statistical studies.

Advanced baseball statistical analysis has shown that the relative differences in talent in a sport (as measured by production) across the entire population pool for any given year remain fairly constant. Essentially, what that means is that if you make a bell curve representing the production of each year's population (very few very very bad or very very good players, significantly more very bad or very good players, and then significantly more again average-ish players) and then analyze it statistically, the shape of the distribution tends to remain fairly constant even though the absolute production values might shift up and down as the game evolves over the years. In other words, even though today's athletes are bigger, faster, and stronger on average than those in previous years, the relative differences between the generational talents, the HOFers, the very good players, the average players, the below average players, and the very bad players any given year tends to remain fairly constant over time.

The entire player population derives benefits from advances in nutrition, technique, training, etc. so those things don't tend to help a player outperform his peers. The things that help players outperform their peers are things like vision, coordination, balance, dexterity, etc. that can vary greatly from individual to individual and that can only be improved incrementally. These gifts are largely natural...they're a product of genetics, which is (on a grand scale) an exercise in probability/variance. As far as humans go, the relative distribution of these values tend to remain fairly constant even across differing races, nationalities, and cultures. (For example, natural 20-20 vision is the universal standard of the human race, and 20-15 is both rare and universally excellent. To the best of my knowledge, there is no race, culture, or nationality that has significantly better natural vision on average than any other.)

Given the size of the sporting populations in play, it's no surprise that these things might tend to even out into relatively stable distributions from year to year (the genetic evolution of the things we're talking about isn't exactly volatile in nature)...and that's exactly what we observe when we analyze the data.

That's why measuring an athlete's performance relative to his peers is the best measure we have of his dominance, and why it's one of the better ways we have to compare athletes across the ages. It's why baseball developed statistics like OPS+ and ERA+, etc...and believe me when I say that baseball is on the cutting edge of statistical analysis when it comes to sports.

What we call "generational talents" are, statistically speaking, extreme outliers relative to their peers. Gretzky was, obviously, the most extreme outlier ever in hockey. If you took his genetic gifts and allowed him the advantages of today's nutrition, technique, training, etc. (the things that all players have access to) he would still dominate in today's league because the gifts that made him such an outlier back then relative to his peers are still gifts that 99.99% of the hockey population simply can't physically replicate.

^^^ This. It's all over but the crying.

Post 999. My happen-stance tribute to the great one.

:wave:

Yes it is because the goalies in the 80s were a joke.

Yes it is because the goalies in the 80s were a joke.

Patrick Roy played in the 80's.

Patrick Roy played in the 80's.

Yes, but there was also some brutal goalies mind you, but you also can't cast aside the superiority of Gretzky, Lemieux, etc.

Yes and no, leaning a little more towards yes.

Yeah I agree Sid would get 200 points, 300 even in the 80's. Gretzky would be a 3rd line grinder if he had to face good defences

For sure, I agree. Solid post.

For sure, I agree. Solid post.

Lol did you just quote yourself and then agree with yourself?

:laugh:

It's a fact if all you're doing is looking at the stats without acknowledging some of the variables behind them(health, teammates, era, etc). I'd rather base my judgement on what I saw when I watched these guys play. And frankly, an injury riddled Lemieux could do things on the ice that Gretzky couldn't even dream of in his best game. Gretzky may have had the most successful career in terms of numbers/championships, but only someone who doesn't know the game very well would say he was inarguably a better player than Lemieux. Put a healthy Lemieux on that Oilers team in the early/mid 80's and, well, maybe we're discussing the 230 or 240 point mark right now. Gretzky himself has acknowledged many times that Mario was the better player of the two and that he likely would have surpassed many of his records had he stayed healthy.

Gretzky's performances in the playoffs throughout his career were far superior to Lemieux's which is why I'll always believe Gretzky was the greater player of the two.

Not only stats wise did Wayne have a higher PPG with more games played than Lemieux (playoffs, not to mention regular season) but if you actually watch them both play, Gretzky turned it up another level in the most important time of a hockey season several times and I didn't see that from Mario nearly as often.

Yes it is because the goalies in the 80s were a joke.

they why didn't everyone put up 200 points????? If the goalies were so bad It should have been easy.

I agree that goalies are far superior now, but that doesn't take away the fact that Gretzky had no one even close to him in points for many years.

they why didn't everyone put up 200 points????? If the goalies were so bad It should have been easy.

I agree that goalies are far superior now, but that doesn't take away the fact that Gretzky had no one even close to him in points for many years.

That's the question..Gretzky was superior and put up 200 points, a player today would need to be equally superior to hit 150 points. Players are not even sniffing it at the moment and we have a couple of players with the best point/game average of all time playing at the moment.

I will say about equal, leaning towards yes.

Gretzky's performances in the playoffs throughout his career were far superior to Lemieux's which is why I'll always believe Gretzky was the greater player of the two.

Not only stats wise did Wayne have a higher PPG with more games played than Lemieux (playoffs, not to mention regular season) but if you actually watch them both play, Gretzky turned it up another level in the most important time of a hockey season several times and I didn't see that from Mario nearly as often.

lol, go watch game 1 against the Hawks in 1992 and game 2 against the North Stars in 1991...

By the way, Mario played with a back injury throughout the playoffs in 1991 and played with a broken bone in his wrist in 1992 after the New york series and he was still dominant.