It is impossible to say how many points they would get. I think with the current NHL 150 points would be out of this world, fully comparable to the 215 point season Gretzky had. What we can know is that both a Gretzky and a Lemieux at his peak would be the best player in the league today, but not as dominant as they once were. Teams have gotten much better at eliminating stars.
Realistically, the best scorer in the NHL will have just above 100 points this season, perhaps 110. I don't think the new goalie equipment rule will make a noticable difference.
I think if you took Lafleur or Dionne and subjected them to same training schedule, equiptment, nutrition, and supplements that todays athletes have, they'd do just fine. Similarly if Thorton had the training schedule of a hockey player from the 70's (that is, almost none) he would still be good, but not as dominant as you think.
I agree with you that the game is faster and players are bigger and stronger and have better reaction times, but that is largely due to the better science of today both biological and technological, as well as the year round dedication of todays athletes IMHO. Today's athletes do not have more "pure ability" than the oldies, they're just in better shape and have better equiptment.
Well, that's exactly what I'm saying... if you take guys like Thornton or Iginla the way they are currently with today's training schedule and everything and just throw them on the ice in the 70s they'd have a much, much easier time than right now... I wasn't saying if they were born 30 years earlier and brought up like the others of that time. Same for Lafleur or Dionne, take them in their 1970s mid-season shape and throw them in the game today and they would struggle a lot.
Well, that's exactly what I'm saying... if you take guys like Thornton or Iginla the way they are currently with today's training schedule and everything and just throw them on the ice in the 70s they'd have a much, much easier time than right now... I wasn't saying if they were born 30 years earlier and brought up like the others of that time. Same for Lafleur or Dionne, take them in their 1970s mid-season shape and throw them in the game today and they would struggle a lot.
Ok gotcha. Didnt realize that's where you were coming from, I agree.
There is a very big fundamental flaw in your logic.
Yes, players today are better trained, better coached and better conditioned than ever before.
The flaw is thinking that players of yesteryear wouldn't benefit from that additional training, coaching and conditioning as today's athletes do.
If Gretzky was a rookie today, who is to say that he wouldn't be a 210 pound mass of muscle from a lifetime of physical dedication? He certainly had the drive to do what it took to succeed.
You have to factor that in as well. A player from a past generation playing today wouldn't use that past generation's techinuques. They would be playing, training and practicing like any modern player.
Same goes in reverse. Chuck Iginla or Thornton back 30 years, and they would have the benefit of modern conditioning or strength training. Heck, go back far enough and they might not have the advantage or proper nutrition.
You to factor in the standards of the era into any of these comparisons. A standards today are not what they were even 10 years ago. Guys like Gretzky and Orr went above and beyond what was the standard of their era, so there is no reason to believe that they wouldn't go above and beyond what that standard is today.
OK, take two TV sets. In one of them play a Boston game from 1972. In the other, a Calgary Flames game from 2002.
Now, cut out Iginla from the 2002 game and put him in the 1972 game right out of the box, just there, bang. That's what I meant, in the same way as you could cut out 1976 Guy Lafleur and throw him in the 2003 Habs as-is, without giving him time to adapt.
And speaking of Gretzky, I don't think he'd be as effective as he was with a 210 pounds frame... he was a player who used his speed and agility more than anyone I can remember. Turning, spinning, stopping, deking, changing directions, etc... he'd switch between gears at a lighting-fast space, accelerate full stride in less than a second and burn the other team with his speed.
It could be a bit hard to do at 210 pounds... but then again if he was to play today it could be necessary. But such a frame would have to change the way he played.
Yes because he had that 6th sence or whatever they call it that allowed him to see the game so much better thatn the other players. And just like when he played they would have had a McSorley or a Semenko to look after him. His overall numbers may go down a bit but he would still win Art Ross Trophies. Also that incredible hockey sence allows him to avoid big hits at times.
In short the " Great one" would still be the "Great one" Hell he was the best player on the ice most nights he ever played just like any of the all time greats were.
Wayne and Mario, as talented as they may be, have produced generations of "I'll just camp on the blue line or set up shop behind the net"-type players and fans of such, that reflect the self-centered greed representative of the '80's and early '90's that value record numbers and dollars above team concept and sportsmanship. Lady Byng? or Lady cha-Ching?
Who else but Wayne Gretzky could get away with cross-checking Doug Gilmour to the ice from behind, to score a game tyer, sending a conference finals game into overtime, instead of going to the penalty box for a Toronto power play? Imagine what a Montreal-Toronto series in the '90's would have done to the ratings.
For what other player than Wayne, would they stop a regulation game for 20 minutes mid-period in front of a crowd full of celebrities against Vancouver, to have an awards presentation during a loss?
Who other than Mario, would retire because he did not get the same clutching and grabbing penalties called against his opponents that Wayne did, and then return after he decided that the league was reverting back to his "style" of play?
Mario retired due to health problems you say. That never stopped Bobby Clarke from playing with diabetes, Shayne Corson from playing with Crohn's disease, or Saku Koivu from returning from cancer. None of these players complained that their performance was hampered by the way they were calling or not calling the rules. The trap is ruining hockey? I guess that is why so many teams are implementing it with success.
I wonder if Pittsburgh would have tanked the remainder of their season, if the lottery system were in place before Mario was drafted? Jealous New Jersey fan you say?
No, thank you. I'll take the "2.5" Cups earned by the blue-collar efforts of Ken Daneyko, who won his first Cup alongside two-way forwards with work ethics such as John MacLean, Neal Broten, Randy Mckay, etc., at the conclusion of the NHL's first labor strike-shortened season because they loved the game enough to show up in game-shape despite their layoff; over the record numbers and money chasers with inflated salaries that threaten another work stoppage where the ultimate loser is the fan, anyday. (-5 for run-on sentence)
Scott Stevens may never win as many Cups as Wayne Gretzky, and Ken Daneyko's name may be engraved less frequently on Lord Stanley than Claude Lemieux, but as a player, Daneyko will always have won more Cups than Mario.
I don't know about that Thornton/Iginla timewarp theory.. I'm pretty sure there would be a number of players would have "chopped" Thornton/Iginla down to size.. I don't think many players in today's NHL could have handled the rough and tumble style of play in the 70's..You just can't compare different ages of hockey.
I think it was JCD who posted that Gretzky's numbers were not the result of playing during that time. I wish I had saved the post, it was a good one. Hosted the goals/game average before, during, and after Gretzky's career. He said that the GPG now is very similar to the numbers before Gretzky. There was a lot more to it and I'm probably not doing it any justice. I think he concluded saying that the high scoring era of the 80s and early 90s was because of Gretzky, not the other way around.
Also with medicine and regimes, he'd (everyone really) have that to take advantage of. I think Gretzky would do just as well, and maybe even produce at a high clip for a longer amount of time.
high scoring era of the 80s and early 90s was because of Gretzky, not the other way around.» Very good observation Tacks.
When Gretzky left NHL only 5 years ago, he was still amooung the best scorers in his late years and he was far far far away from his prime time. He would easily be the best scorer now in his prime time... along Lemieux. This latter was a challenger for the scoring title last year. He is not 50% from 10, 15 years ago and he still mange to be amoung the leaders, with a poor team and playing just 67 games!!! That says all.
Well, Wayne got 90 points in a low-scoring 97-98 season, WAY past his prime, on a horrible Rangers squad, setting up stone-handers like Sundstrom and old dogs like Kevin Stevens/John Maclean. Heatley/Modano/Fedorov/Kariya/Hossa... these guys haven't done that in today's NHL, Gretzky has (97-98 was maybe the first year where goal scoring was totally smothered).
This was tied for 3rd in the league, only Forsberg and Jagr beat him. And even in his last year, he was on pace for 73 points in an injury plagued year on an awful team. More than Brendan Morrison/Saku Koivu/St. Louis/Sundin/etc scored this year!
A young Gretzky with competent linemates would light the league on fire... an old Gretzky was doing it.
Are you telepathic he was great one when he played tell me one player right now way ahead of everybody else, it was one of those great NHL moments when he played those 200 plus point seasons, just because NHL doesn't have ultimate star doesn't mean no one can come out, right now we have many 50 goal scorers but thats all we have, I'm hoping NHL can see someone like him in near future, wouldn't you want to see legend play live??.
I hate to correct grammer, but the use of a period here and there in your post would make it so much easy to understand what you are saying.
