You have got to be kidding me! You screwed up and got owned.
Your whole argument here is that "an ever changing league" is what facilitated Gretzky's decline. His raw production dropped for that one year because he got injured and missed time, NOT because the league suddenly figured out how to stop him. His PPG was the same as the year before.
Yes it was 2.33 PPG which was around 2.32 the year before which was quite a drop from 2.69, 2.60 ect...
Were have i ever said that the only reason is that the league figured him out? I will repeat that each and every season is different and will address this further after your bell curve.
Quote:
What!!!
If what you said were true, that an ever changing league was to blame for Gretzky's decline, then it also would of affected his playoff scoring!
IT DIDN'T, therefore you are wrong!
playoff scoring are smaller and specific samples, we don't use Forsbergs goal scoring in the playoffs to define him as a player he was a playmaker 1st and foremost and sure he did score at a higher rate of goals in the playoffs but no one is defining his career that way.
Quote:
I have never minimized it. He had more talent to work with in Edmonton. Who would ever deny that?
I'm guessing that all of your current day projections are based on the "best case scenario" then right?
Quote:
Once again, here's the pretty chart detailing Gretzky's production. By all means, show us where his production took this hit you keep talking about. Show us where it was sustained and no longer looks like a bell curve!
You can't do it and for the record, this is the second time you have tried to pull this crap using his shortened 64 game season to make up some phantom drop off.
Also for the record...this is the second time you got owned trying it.
Sure and how many players peak in production at the age of 25? Isn't it usually later for points?
That's the part you are missing his bell curve isn't natural in the sense that he peaked really early (25 years and before) which is unusual for the superstar players isn't it?
I'm not going to say it was only one thing but part of the reason surely lies in the makeup of the league and the team he was playing for don't you think?
The whole point of my response to the OP is that we can guess at best but we have to take into account that different factors affect everyone even the great one himself or did he suddenly not become as dominant at the young age of 25?
In the regular season it's quite clear that Wayne had a noticeable drop at age 25 (sure he was still the best but it's a noticeable drop look at your graph) which is quite a bit earlier than one would expect for a superstar player like him.
Of course when you adjust Wayne's stats to league scoring his bell curve lengthens to a more natural one that we would expect.
But that doesn't fit your line of thinking does it?
so the game was twice as easy for Gretzky as it was for the other players playing the same game, on the same team (or others), at the same time? Peter Stastny and Bryan Trottier would be among Mikail Grabovski and Thomas Plekanec.
I'm not even sure what you mean here, I never implied that the game was twice as easy for Wayne than for the two guys you mention. I'm guess that you are getting hung up purely on stats maybe?
Quote:
On the contrary, I believe it's your lack of respect for a player who actually accomplished what he did, suggesting that he wouldn't be able to do it today. The burden of proof is on YOU.
Okay we saw his PPG dip quite a bit after his age 25 season, which isn't the normal trend for a superstar so yes I'm suggesting very strongly and almost certain that he would not be able to score over a GPG or over 200 points in any situation in the post lockout era.
I'll go out on a limb and say that he probably has an upper limit of 70-130-170 in the most absolute of positive circumstances but the probability is 50-60-100-110-150ish IMO and that's with favorable circumstances.
I'm going to try and refrain from going in circles here as it's obvious some posters ahve vastly different opinions on this and I suggest they stop looking at stats and go back and actually watch a cross section of games from the 2 different time periods.
[QUOTE]On Orr/Howe, I never saw them play in their prime but I suggest that the ones that DID see them in their prime, and ALSO saw 99, 66 - and everyone since - well, their opinion matters more than mine or yours.
If someone tells me that Orr was better than Wayne, I won't say they're wrong, but I will say that Orr must have been a heck of a player.[QUOTE]
Well since some of the all times greats no one has ever seen an education guess and some reasoned thought can go along way too.
Quote:
Possibly. But I maintain that when it comes to Gretzky (to a lesser extent, Mario), it's less about the "golden era" and more about the fact that these guys were very special and very rare.
I agree that we agree to disagree
You've got as much fight in you as Rocky...can't wait for part 7.
Both of these were indeed special that's why most people, including myself, have them in the top 3 or 4 of all time but it doesn't mean we have to exaggerate their greatness either, which unfortunately some people seem to do simply by looking at stats..
Last edited by Hardyvan123: 03-04-2012 at 06:27 PM.
that's an easy and somewhat lazy inference if one only looks at the stats. If you watch the actual game between the early 80's and post lockout your eyes will tell you that the game has changed substantially and that Wayne and Mario would not be as successful playing all out offensive hockey in todays game.
They still would be among the top players and probably the biggest stars but their lack of dominance at their previous levels would also be almost a total probability.
Your view shows a lack of respect for todays game and player IMO or ignorance and I say that respectfully because there are others who say Bobby Orr or Geordie Howe are the best of all time.
Some peoples opinions are a result of their version of the "golden era of hockey" IMO or other factors.
It would appear that we agree to disagree on this.
Yes it was 2.33 PPG which was around 2.32 the year before which was quite a drop from 2.69, 2.60 ect...
Lets just ignore the facts like the changing of the 4 on 4 rule and the loss of Coffey for 1/4 of that season followed by the trade of Coffey prior to the next season.
You know, things that actually happened that directly impacted Gretzky's point totals.
Just to emphasize this again, the 4 on 4 rule change or as it was known at the time, "The Edmonton rule", was quite easily the biggest factor in Gretzky going from averaging over 200 points a season to around 185 a season.
The amount of points the Oilers and Gretzky produced 4 on 4 was just down right insane.
How much would you wanna bet that if the 4 on 4 rule stayed as is for for another season or two, that Gretzky would of had another 1-2 200+ point seasons?
The league doesn't make a rule change like that unless it is getting horribly abused and just like the Habs teams from the 50's that forced the league to change the penalty expiration rule, they had to do the same for 4 on 4.
To sum up, Gretzky had 3 distinct seasons where his points dropped.
First when the 4 on 4 rule was changed.
Second when he was traded to LA.
Third when Suter nailed him.
Without those outside factors, I guarantee you his production would of been smoother without the bumps.
Quote:
I'm guessing that all of your current day projections are based on the "best case scenario" then right?
To a degree, for sure they are. No one is saying that Gretzky would be scoring 160-180 points for 10 straight seasons but doing it for a few years in a row today during his peak...I have no problem believing that, no problem at all.
Quote:
Sure and how many players peak in production at the age of 25? Isn't it usually later for points?
A hell of a lot more than are playing full 80 game professional seasons at 17 freakin years old.
Saying that he peaked from age 21-25 is very misleading considering at 21, it was already his 4th full professional season.
A player having his main peak from seasons 4 to 9 is actually very common.
I cut the rest of your post cause it was jibber-jabber and attempts at back tracking.
I love how you say that I'm the one moving the goal posts heh.
Have you followed where your goal posts have been over the course of the last 3-4 pages heh.
My goal posts have been in the same spot going back to every ridiculous Gretzky thread that you have chosen to argue with me in.
Unlike you, I tend to not use small sample sizes and one hit wonders as the basis for my arguments.
Sure in partial seasons and even in his best season gamewise(this century) he was minus 25 and part of the reason the team sunk low enough to grab two studs high in the draft in Malkin and Crosby.
Personally I think winning was more important to Wayne than padding stats which is all Mario was doing at that point of his career.
Someone else brought up how Wayne would have adjusted had he came up from the juniors in the late 90's ect and with all of the training but failed to point out that he would almost forsure would have had to learn to play a two way game when he reached the NHL or at least took on some defensive responsibility.
What would make you think that Gretzky would have to play a two way game or adjust at all to the game?
Players like Gretzky change the game for everyone else, they don't adapt, because they are too busy defining how to play and dictating to the rest of the league / players.
Has anyone stopped to think that when Gretzky played just the fact he was in the league affected the run and gun styles and the types of players that were successful?
Just as the dead puck era was due to massive, slow players slowing everyone down?
It's the players that effect the style of the league per generation, not the other way around.
Possibly. But I maintain that when it comes to Gretzky (to a lesser extent, Mario), it's less about the "golden era" and more about the fact that these guys were very special and very rare.
That's pretty much what it comes down to. We go through such long gaps in between these truly generational talents that we constantly dumb down what they accomplished in between the years we don't have one. In all honesty, who knows, maybe Crosby would have been the next one?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123
And he was caught stealing 117 times he wasn't even an average baserunner.
Oh ya and he played in a white only league as well in a time where negro teams had quite the winning record against MLB teams in exhibition games for what it is worth.
Not the best example you are using here Phil.
Also about youtube clips, I watched a ton of hockey in the 80's and it was just plain easier of all players to score for a variety of reasons which become evident if you watch enough games between the 2 different time periods.
One such example is the number of players and the number of blocked shots increasing but quite a large amount between the two times.
Ruth also won 100 games as a pitcher and owned the World Series record for consecutive scoreless innings until Whitey Ford beat it in 1961. Just saying, there is more to the guy than people think. And 123 stolen bases still shows me that he COULD run alright even if he did get caught stealing. Interesting trivia, who has more career triples, Ruth or Rickey Henderson? You'd be surprised.
So why am I saying this? Because sports don't change that much at all. In 30 years we'll question if Malkin would even crack 70 points in the NHL. Well, I won't, but some will. The point is that if baseball players with a little (ahem) weight on them can crank out home runs (Ortiz, Fielder, Mo Vaughan, Albert Belle) and are/were stars in the game then why wouldn't Ruth adjust? Take into account how Ruth or Mickey Mantle would have done in the steroid explosion and it makes your mind cease to exist.
So if the same thing applies to Ruth who starred in the 1920s, then why not Gretzky who starred in the 1980s?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123
Who is penalizing him?
I'm just pointing out the fact that even the best scorer in the history of the game scored at different rates in different parts of his career.
Some of his regressions was natural but some was based on other factors.
Part of those factors when he played was a changing league and a change of teams and even team composition as well.
Some people in this thread don't seem to acknowledge that everyone in hockey is affected by the changes and factors of the game, even the great one himself.
i know that any speculation on how any player would do from one era to another is very subjective but let's at least get a grip of Wayne's actual career.
He has a definite peak and then a decline that happened well before the Suter hit.
Since the mid 90ish era basically all minor league players coming up, even the most skilled ones are coached to play a more complete game at some point of their careers as well.
We can argue as to the degree of it but it was much more prevalent for skilled players to have less responsibilities in the early 80's than say the post lockout era.
The game after all is about winning and quite simply the early 80's style that Edmonton employed wouldn't have as much chance of success today as it did back then for a number of reasons.
The 2010 Capitals kind of tore the league apart offensively. 318 goals with the next highest being Vancouver at 272. The Caps also led the NHL in points with 121 - by far the most. What stopped them was a lack of goaltending and an inhumane performance by Halak. Not to mention they didn't have Fuhr in net and their best offensive talent was Ovechkin, not Gretzky. So in reality, it CAN work in today's NHL.
To the players who all learn a great two-way game right from junior, I am not so sure. Lots of players today don't play great defense. Kovalchuk, Ovechkin, Bure, Crosby took a while before he learned, not to mention Jagr never had to perform well on defense. I don't think Stamkos is great defensively either. Neither is/was Selanne. And none of these guys had Gretzky's offense. So like I said before, I am pretty sure a smart coach would let a guy like Gretzky do his thing knowing that most of the time his offense-first mentality will win you far more games than the other way around.
And yes, like any other player in NHL history, his point totals started to drop a bit. But the difference is when Gretzky's totals "dropped" they went to 168. He had 163 in his last truly dominant season, which was 1991. The NHL hadn't even caught up to him by then other than Lemieux. There is a reason for it.
Also let's keep one thing in mind, a 35 year old Lemieux scored 76 points in 43 games in 2000-'01. Pro-rated that works out to a 68 goal 145 point season over 82 games. I will admit it would have been hard for him to keep up that pace, but just to be fair I'll make Mario slump a lot in the remaining games. Over a full season even with a big drop in production in the other 39 games at a point per game you'd see Mario with a 115 point year. I think he does better than that so I would give him no worse than a 125 point season that year. He would have mustered out 49 points in the other 39 games and easily another 15 goals. So that means he's a 50 goal scorer 125 point man at 35 years old. These guys were just freaks of nature and every argument against them seems to be stuffed everytime
Sure and how many players peak in production at the age of 25? Isn't it usually later for points?
Crosby, Orr, Ovechkin, Lemieux, Jagr, Hawerchuk, Coffey, Lafleur, Yzerman, Trottier, Lindsay, H. Richard, Selanne, Sundin, Kurri, Goulet, Perreault, Fedorov, Kovalchuk, Bure, Mogilny, and you got guys like Howe, Beliveau and Hull who reached their peak dominance at a young age though had career highs later as scoring ballooned... it's more typical than unusual for guys to peak at that age, especially back in Gretzky's era. And many of these players peaked way before 25, actually.
Some of these guys may have their stats affected by changing scoring levels and other factors, but the same applies to Gretzky... considering the era Gretzky came up in, the huge drop in league scoring as he aged, the timing of his injures, the huge amount of high-level hockey he played at a young age, etc, his career arc looks great to me
Crosby, Orr, Ovechkin, Lemieux, Jagr, Hawerchuk, Coffey, Lafleur, Yzerman, Trottier, Lindsay, H. Richard, Selanne, Sundin, Kurri, Goulet, Perreault, Fedorov, Kovalchuk, Bure, Mogilny, and you got guys like Howe, Beliveau and Hull who reached their peak dominance at a young age though had career highs later as scoring ballooned... it's more typical than unusual for guys to peak at that age, especially back in Gretzky's era. And many of these players peaked way before 25, actually.
Some of these guys may have their stats affected by changing scoring levels and other factors, but the same applies to Gretzky... considering the era Gretzky came up in, the huge drop in league scoring as he aged, the timing of his injures, the huge amount of high-level hockey he played at a young age, etc, his career arc looks great to me
To me one of the most overlooked things when discussing old players. Itīs not the years, itīs the mileage. Gretzkys body was probably wore down at an much earlier stage than the average NHL-player. Even before the Suter-hit. Being on the Oilers squad of the 80īs is probably why for example Kurri suddenly declined so fast. And as many of the Islanders dynasty. Playoff hockey is played when your body already is beaten up and the hockey played could probably, with the stress surrounding and the more physical play, be accounted for wearing down your body at least three times that of a regular season game. Maybe not a first round game, but the toll certainly increases dramatically the deeper you get.
And I would think physical decline would be one of the main reasons players decrease in the goalscoring department. Goals often demands more "direct" physic (speed, strength...) to get than assists. Not taking anything away from playmaking, that for example I would say demands more composure and smartness. The smart players are able to change, "take a step back" and concentrate on other roles.
That's pretty much what it comes down to. We go through such long gaps in between these truly generational talents that we constantly dumb down what they accomplished in between the years we don't have one. In all honesty, who knows, maybe Crosby would have been the next one?
Ruth also won 100 games as a pitcher and owned the World Series record for consecutive scoreless innings until Whitey Ford beat it in 1961. Just saying, there is more to the guy than people think. And 123 stolen bases still shows me that he COULD run alright even if he did get caught stealing. Interesting trivia, who has more career triples, Ruth or Rickey Henderson? You'd be surprised.
So why am I saying this? Because sports don't change that much at all. In 30 years we'll question if Malkin would even crack 70 points in the NHL. Well, I won't, but some will. The point is that if baseball players with a little (ahem) weight on them can crank out home runs (Ortiz, Fielder, Mo Vaughan, Albert Belle) and are/were stars in the game then why wouldn't Ruth adjust? Take into account how Ruth or Mickey Mantle would have done in the steroid explosion and it makes your mind cease to exist.
So if the same thing applies to Ruth who starred in the 1920s, then why not Gretzky who starred in the 1980s?
The 2010 Capitals kind of tore the league apart offensively. 318 goals with the next highest being Vancouver at 272. The Caps also led the NHL in points with 121 - by far the most. What stopped them was a lack of goaltending and an inhumane performance by Halak. Not to mention they didn't have Fuhr in net and their best offensive talent was Ovechkin, not Gretzky. So in reality, it CAN work in today's NHL.
To the players who all learn a great two-way game right from junior, I am not so sure. Lots of players today don't play great defense. Kovalchuk, Ovechkin, Bure, Crosby took a while before he learned, not to mention Jagr never had to perform well on defense. I don't think Stamkos is great defensively either. Neither is/was Selanne. And none of these guys had Gretzky's offense. So like I said before, I am pretty sure a smart coach would let a guy like Gretzky do his thing knowing that most of the time his offense-first mentality will win you far more games than the other way around.
And yes, like any other player in NHL history, his point totals started to drop a bit. But the difference is when Gretzky's totals "dropped" they went to 168. He had 163 in his last truly dominant season, which was 1991. The NHL hadn't even caught up to him by then other than Lemieux. There is a reason for it.
Stick to hockey as your baseball analogy is really really off for sooo many reasons.
As for Gretzky, your last part makes the most sense and it's nothing that I ahve argued against, it's the impossibly high even godlike praise and assertions that he could score close to what he did in those perfect and vastly different 80's conditions.
As for the reasons why no one has scored that many points there are many of which the main one is that he is hands down the best offensive player of all time but even he was affected by changes in the league and perhaps to a greater degree than some like R71 are trying to lead us to believe.
Dont forget Gretzky had played a ton of hockey by the time he moved from Edmonton. 5 deep playoff runs, 3 Canada Cups, and a WHA season at 17. For a guy who was not a physical specimen in the usual sense of the term, that is a lot of wear and tear.
Crosby, Orr, Ovechkin, Lemieux, Jagr, Hawerchuk, Coffey, Lafleur, Yzerman, Trottier, Lindsay, H. Richard, Selanne, Sundin, Kurri, Goulet, Perreault, Fedorov, Kovalchuk, Bure, Mogilny, and you got guys like Howe, Beliveau and Hull who reached their peak dominance at a young age though had career highs later as scoring ballooned... it's more typical than unusual for guys to peak at that age, especially back in Gretzky's era. And many of these players peaked way before 25, actually.
Some of these guys may have their stats affected by changing scoring levels and other factors, but the same applies to Gretzky... considering the era Gretzky came up in, the huge drop in league scoring as he aged, the timing of his injures, the huge amount of high-level hockey he played at a young age, etc, his career arc looks great to me
Agreed. Mileage counts in hockey.
Hockey superstars seem to peak in their early twenties. How many players lead the NHL in goals after playing 633 games (including playoffs), like Gretzky did in 1987?
Yes, Gretzky declined after his age 25 season from 2.6 to 2.3 PPG. In addition to the loss of Coffey and rule changes, scoring dropped to 3.67 GPG from 3.97 GPG. The Oilers went from a 1st place 426 goals to a first place 372. Gretzky's 183 points still gave him a 75 point lead in 1987.
Gretzky's still has the highest single season point total for any player his age or older through his age 30 season when he was injured. He's second to Espo at age 31 and first again at age 31 and 32.
Stick to hockey as your baseball analogy is really really off for sooo many reasons.
Not hard to see the comparisons between sports, but whatever.
Quote:
As for Gretzky, your last part makes the most sense and it's nothing that I ahve argued against, it's the impossibly high even godlike praise and assertions that he could score close to what he did in those perfect and vastly different 80's conditions.
As for the reasons why no one has scored that many points there are many of which the main one is that he is hands down the best offensive player of all time but even he was affected by changes in the league and perhaps to a greater degree than some like R71 are trying to lead us to believe.
You can be affected by things no matter who you are. However, look at Gretzky's points per game in his career. It peaks and drops at just the times you would expect it to drop. His peak is 2.77 in 1984 and it stays up there at 2.6, 2.69 and then down to 2.32 in 1987. Honestly, should we stop the presses there? To be able to maintain well over two points per game that long is incredible. And is it much of a drop from 2.69 to 2.33? I really don't think it is. What changed in the NHL from 1986 to 1987? Players figured him out? Hardly. He stayed above 2 pts. a game until 1989-'90 where he was at 1.95. Then back to 2.09 in 1991. Then after that the Suter hit and the natural drop in production a player over 30 takes started to set in. It went 1.64, 1.44, 1.60 and then the rest of his career hovering anywhere from 1.00 to 1.30. Gretzky was an old man in the mid 1990s. You have to assume he would drop a little but he still had a 100 point season in 1996 and almost that two years in a row afterwards.
Where is the proof that Gretzky could have maintained a high PPG in the 1990s had he been younger? A 30 year old Lemieux as late as 1996 averaged 2.30 PPG and 0.99 GPG. How about the fact that a 37 year old Lemieux in 2002-'03 had 1.36 PPG. This guy was battered and bruised and playing on one of the worst teams too. Compared to how we normally viewed Mario, he was washed up and yet he still put up those numbers. If a prime Lemieux puts up 2.62, 2.6 and 2.32 PPG at his best then what is honestly stopping him from doing it in a league where they can't hook or hold you anymore?
I'll leave with this: The best finishers of points per game since the lockout are as follows:
Crosby 2011 - 1.61
Thornton 2006 - 1.54
Crosby 2007 - 1.52
Ovechkin 2010 - 1.51
Jagr 2006 - 1.50
Malkin 2012 - 1.40
The best goals per game are:
Ovechkin 2008 - 0.79
Crosby 2011 - 0.78
Stamkos 2012 - 0.73
Ovechkin 2009 - 0.71
Ovechkin 2010 - 0.69
Can we agree that none of those players could match the production by Gretzky or Lemieux? Because I still see both players consistently season after season being over the 2.00ppg range. I see both doing what Ovechkin did in 2008 on a regular basis. When you look at it the more you study it, the more you realize these two guys were freaks of nature and would have no trouble with any NHL, in any era.
Hockey superstars seem to peak in their early twenties. How many players lead the NHL in goals after playing 633 games (including playoffs), like Gretzky did in 1987?[/B]
Yes, Gretzky declined after his age 25 season from 2.6 to 2.3 PPG. In addition to the loss of Coffey and rule changes, scoring dropped to 3.67 GPG from 3.97 GPG. The Oilers went from a 1st place 426 goals to a first place 372. Gretzky's 183 points still gave him a 75 point lead in 1987.
Gretzky's still has the highest single season point total for any player his age or older through his age 30 season when he was injured. He's second to Espo at age 31 and first again at age 31 and 32.
Not really a fair question but Hull lead a very mature league (for the last 2 years of the 06) in goal scoring 4 years in a row aged 26-30 (66-69).
In 72 at age 33 he scored 2nd in goals, although the league was watered down a bit by then.
Not really a fair question but Hull lead a very mature league (for the last 2 years of the 06) in goal scoring 4 years in a row aged 26-30 (66-69).
In 72 at age 33 he scored 2nd in goals, although the league was watered down a bit by then.
I don't think Hull was as good of a goal scorer in 1972 as he was in 1966 though. 50 goals is still pretty, but he also took a little bit of a drop in production compared to his peers as he aged. Then again, if Stamkos is anywhere near Hull's prowess, kudos to him. But that kid has worlds to travel before he's there
