Gretzky's ability to read the play put together with the elimination of two line passes would mean a huge number of breakaways if he has a decent d-man to pass him the puck. There will also be an increase in 2 on 1s, which for Gretzky was almost a gimme goal/assist like Lemieux on a breakaway.
Hockey reference's adjusted goals which make sense mathematically but ignore the changing role of star players in relation to their team and end up giving you wacky results where the top 10 scorers from the late 90s are all better than any non-Gretzky player in the 80s
Exactly, Mike Bossy barely making the top 50 is a travesty, these adjusted stats are to be taken with a big grain of salt...
Exactly, Mike Bossy barely making the top 50 is a travesty, these adjusted stats are to be taken with a big grain of salt...
Not exactly a "big grain of salt" BUT they are only supposed to a be a guide, not a final answer.
Everyone thinks that I do not like Adjusted Stats or as I refer to them once in a while as Adjusted Craps.
The reality though, is that I don't have an issue with them, I just have an issue with how they are used far too often, by far too many people. Especially in regards to the top 1% scorers.
They are a normalization based on the average and common sense should allow people to realise that, in a harder to score environment, the lower tier players are going to have even more trouble scoring than the average player and the top tier players are going to have less trouble scoring than the average player.
If the scoring average is down 20% for example, the lower tier players might be down 40% while the top tier might only be down 10% compared to the average.
This is where relation to their peers, real player to player comparisons over many years, eyeball tests and any other factor can and should be applied to arrive at a reasonable yet always debatable conclusion.
Hockey reference's adjusted goals which make sense mathematically but ignore the changing role of star players in relation to their team and end up giving you wacky results where the top 10 scorers from the late 90s are all better than any non-Gretzky player in the 80s
The math hasn't changed though, in terms of the value of a goal. It's difficult comparing the 80s and 90s. The study I did showed that the better forwards had a more difficult time in the 80s scoring adjusted PPG than in the 90s. However, top forwards also seemed to have more difficulty staying healthy in the 90s compared to the 80s, so I wonder how much this balances out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71
Not exactly a "big grain of salt" BUT they are only supposed to a be a guide, not a final answer.
Everyone thinks that I do not like Adjusted Stats or as I refer to them once in a while as Adjusted Craps.
The reality though, is that I don't have an issue with them, I just have an issue with how they are used far too often, by far too many people. Especially in regards to the top 1% scorers.
They are a normalization based on the average and common sense should allow people to realise that, in a harder to score environment, the lower tier players are going to have even more trouble scoring than the average player and the top tier players are going to have less trouble scoring than the average player.
If the scoring average is down 20% for example, the lower tier players might be down 40% while the top tier might only be down 10% compared to the average.
This is where relation to their peers, real player to player comparisons over many years, eyeball tests and any other factor can and should be applied to arrive at a reasonable yet always debatable conclusion.
I agree, but it's best to have a mathematically sound starting point (relative value of goals/points). They eye test varies dramatically from person to person. Performance in comparison to peers is important, but it's even more prone to error if the amount of competition is not considered. Gordie Howe's dominance in the 50s is frequently cited, but it's rarely mentioned by most that his competition at the top was likely vastly inferior to more recent decades. If his peak directly coincided with Beliveau, Hull and Mikita, things might have looked a lot different. If he played in the last 30 years, he probably doesn't win several Rosses, nor by landslide margins.
There are certainly differences between the 80s and today's NHL. Some of these may hurt Gretzky disproportionately and some may help him more than others from that era. Edmonton actually got fewer PPOs than average in many season. In 1986, they had 75 less PPOs than the avg. team. Now he would likely get as many or more than the avg. team, which would help his totals.
Again, it depends on which post-lockout seasons you are talking about, as 2006 and 2012 did not have the same scoring environments. If you're talking about 2012, then perhaps Gretzky tops out at 145-150 points. If you mean 2006, the adjusted numbers suggest it would be much higher. Still, whether one looks at simple adjusted numbers or uses a % of team's goals, Gretzky's best two goal seasons are in the same range as Ovechkin's 2008 and Stamkos' 2012 seasons.
We all know that 06 was an aberration hangover from the lockout and things have been pretty steady since. The PP opportunities are interesting but Wayne didn't benefit as much from the PP as a guy like Mario and PK % is way up from the 80's as well. It's probably a wash.
I think the most interesting point is which actual team he would be on and how his role and team play would be?
If it's for Hitch then forget about 150 points, if it's for Vancouver and he gets used in a strictly offensive role, ie offensive zone starts and his coach allows him to play run and gun then it's another matter but man there are tons of variables and teams are just so much better at stopping scoring post lockout.
1) This affects all players, and is one of the reasons scoring is down. Unless there is a specific reason this would affect Gretzky to a much higher degree than everyone else, there's no reason to think Gretzky's numbers wouldn't be somewhere near what adjusted stats say they would be.
2) Again, this is something that affects all players and is one of the other reasons league-wide scoring is down. But again, this is taken into account by adjusted scoring. Unless again there is a specific reason Gretzky would suffer to an abnormal degree, I don't see why this would really matter. Again, none of us are saying he scores 92 goals in today's NHL. I think most of us feel that 60 or 65 is still doable though.
3) This might affect him, but who knows? He was always a step or two ahead of everyone else. Having less time might not be such a huge disadvantage to him as it is to others. Either way, its something again that affects everyone in the league, but goals still get scored.
4) I agree that his playmaking would translate better, but that's because he's the greatest playmaker of all time. We still saw him leading the league in assists even in the twilight of his career with all the health and age issues while playing on some bad teams. But just because he'd still be the best playmaker doesn't mean he wouldn't be able to break 50 goals. He broke 70 four different times, 80 twice, and 90 once. Is it really impossible that he hits 50 at least once?
5) Gretzky still won 3 scoring titles on an LA team that wasn't super deep. He had seasons with the Oilers where he more than doubled any of his teammates. He scored 92 goals and 120 assists with Dave Lumley and Dave Semenko as his linemates for most the season. Obviously having great players on his team helped, but I think he proved he could score no matter who he was with. I think that, even in today's cap era, he'd be fine. He wouldn't be stuck with someone like Semenko as a regular winger, that's for certain.
I haven't done the game by game breakdown but do you honestly think he scored most of those goals and points with Lumely and Semenko on the ice?
Lumley sure but he only played in 66 games and Gretzky helped him reach career highs and Semenko played in 59 games scoring 24 points.
As for the adjusted stats his goal scoring goes like this
69, 68,58,57,52,45 and as much as I admire Wayne I don't see him reaching those heights in his prime in a post lockout NHL.
349 goals, that's an average of 58 goals per season.
Here is the list of what goal leaders have been scored in the 7 post lockout seasons.
I could see him getting 100 plus assists over a 6 season stretch in his prime post lockout but while it's a greater possibility it's not certain either.
IMO you are simply brushing over the changes form 80s to today too lightly.
I agree it does affect all players even Wayne, or outliers as some like to call certain players.
Quote:
#4 is pure opinion, there's no way to really back it up, or refute it for that matter.
Sure it's an opinion but I also think revolverjgw has some interesting thoughts on how Wayne's goal scoring would translate and I think many of them are valid.
This entire thread is about opinion and in alot of ways is a waste of time while being interesting in kind of a bi polar way.
Quote:
#5 is bizarre. Teams today don't try to outscore their opposition? That's the entire point of an NHL hockey game, to outscore your opponent.
But I suppose you might mean that his teams went all-out on offence? Maybe no team does that today because no team has Wayne Gretzky? If you had him, in his prime, you would build your team around what he can do.
I maybe didn't put it in the best way but Wayn'e Oilers and the Kings simply didn't put goal prevention ahead of scoring goals, they tried to outscore their opposition and today many teams try to prevent and pick their spots, much like in soccer where a less skilled team can hang with a better team.
Points 1-3 make this strategy more likely for less skilled teams to win and harder for anyone even with a guy like Wayne to play a style that the Oilers employed in the early 80's IMO.
You mean condescending like "But you will soon find out that what you see with your two eyes is not very meaningful to many posters in this forum. Only statistical mumbo jumbo really matters."?
You have it completely backwards, of course. The video that exists is cherry-picked, and the people making the argument that Gretzky would not dominate today are not relying on stats, just their opinions.
So you think looking at numbers is better than actually watching a player when determining their ability?
Points 1-3 make this strategy more likely for less skilled teams to win and harder for anyone even with a guy like Wayne to play a style that the Oilers employed in the early 80's IMO.
Can you name a team that has a "guy like Gretzky"?
I agree, but it's best to have a mathematically sound starting point (relative value of goals/points). They eye test varies dramatically from person to person. Performance in comparison to peers is important, but it's even more prone to error if the amount of competition is not considered. Gordie Howe's dominance in the 50s is frequently cited, but it's rarely mentioned by most that his competition at the top was likely vastly inferior to more recent decades. If his peak directly coincided with Beliveau, Hull and Mikita, things might have looked a lot different. If he played in the last 30 years, he probably doesn't win several Rosses, nor by landslide margins.
Yea, you have to use everything. It should be a long process with many variables.
Far too often though, it's used as the start AND finish. And that is just as wrong, at the opposite spectrum, as only using raw stats.
It's like when people try and tell me that Lidstrom is close to Bourque offensively because of adjusted stats.
Running a PP, sure, then it's not a huge margin between the two but at even strength and for overall offensive instincts and ability...Bourque really is head and shoulders above Lidstrom and it's certainly by a lot more than just a 7 or so average per season that adjusted stats works it out to be IMO.
I maybe didn't put it in the best way but Wayn'e Oilers and the Kings simply didn't put goal prevention ahead of scoring goals, they tried to outscore their opposition and today many teams try to prevent and pick their spots, much like in soccer where a less skilled team can hang with a better team.
Points 1-3 make this strategy more likely for less skilled teams to win and harder for anyone even with a guy like Wayne to play a style that the Oilers employed in the early 80's IMO.
The Oilers generally gave up the same or fewer than avg. GA and ESGA. Gretzky's adjusted plus-minus shows how many more goals his team scored than gave up while on the ice. This data is not so favorable in his years with the Kings, but we're talking about a peak/prime Gretzky. The Gretzky you describe is the one after he left Edmonton.
Revolver was talking about Gretzky's peak goal scoring. Why did that dropoff so dramatically when he played? Before that is answered, it seems impossible to try to determine how it would translate into today's game.
As far as those implying the 90s superstars were overrated by adjusted stats... maybe their PPG is a bit high, but there GP were a bit low, so they should mostly offset each other. All I know is that players like Jagr, Selanne, Sakic... heck, even Ray Whitney... had some great years post-lockout, when they were past their prime and way past their peaks... despite this being a "newer, faster" NHL. All the rest of the best players from the clutch and grab era (Lindros, Forsberg, Kariya, Bure, etc.) were basically done due to injuries by that point. Kariya still had some solid years, although he was past his prime and he had his share of injuries before that.
This focus on defensive systems has been going on since the 90s. It didn't stop Lemieux, Selanne, etc. from still having great adjusted years, even after injuries. I want to know at what point did it become so much more difficult for players from a couple/few years earlier to keep up?
So you think looking at numbers is better than actually watching a player when determining their ability?
Define "actually watching."
I watched about 7 or 8 St. John's Ice Caps games live this season, which means I got to see their regular players play 100-150 minutes of hockey each. Unless you're a hardcore Oilers fan born before 1970 (and you might be, I dunno), there's no way you've watched that much Gretzky hockey from any one particular season, or even his career. Also, I didn't choose when to watch the Ice Caps - I saw them when I could get tickets. When you watch highlight packages, you choose to see (Gretzky, Forsberg, Mario, Wade Belak) at his best only.
Take Carl Klingberg as an example - the first 3 or 4 games I saw him, he was the best player on the ice, hard on the forecheck and backcheck, and a great skater for a big guy. In the last few games, he looked lazy. What can I get from that? That he had 3 bad games? If you looked at his statistics, however, you would see that he was leading the team in scoring early on and trailed off as the season went on.
Now, if you only looked at the statistics, you wouldn't know whether he got lucky and scored some fluke goals early on - he didn't, I saw him play and he's a really good player. Taking everything into account, it seems a reasonable conclusion to draw that a 20 year-old European player just got tired playing a long North American schedule.
So yeah, "actually watching" a player will tell you some things, and stats will tell you other things. I don't consider highlight packages "actually watching" in any meaningful capacity, but there's a lot to be gained from looking at footage if you realize the limitations of sample size.
I maybe didn't put it in the best way but Wayn'e Oilers and the Kings simply didn't put goal prevention ahead of scoring goals, they tried to outscore their opposition and today many teams try to prevent and pick their spots, much like in soccer where a less skilled team can hang with a better team.
Points 1-3 make this strategy more likely for less skilled teams to win and harder for anyone even with a guy like Wayne to play a style that the Oilers employed in the early 80's IMO.
This was far more true of the early 80's than it was from say 83-84 onward. WRT GA they were 10th (83-84), 8th (84-85), 13th (85-86) [but only 26th goals out of 5th], 10th (86-87), 8th (87-88). And of course one needs to factor in the Flames being the second highest scoring team during much of this run.
The true firewagon hockey actually ended much earlier than people often believe becase the team actually learned what it took to win. Of course they were still offensively dominant. But their ability to win low scoring games is really under rated. That team could beat you anyway you wanted including in the alley.
WRT the above post, for what it is worth I saw virtually ever game Gretzky played in an Oiler uniform live. I still say that if you want to know how good he really was you had to see him live because so much of what made him truly great happened away from the play.
I watched about 7 or 8 St. John's Ice Caps games live this season, which means I got to see their regular players play 100-150 minutes of hockey each.
Furthermore, this is only the potential time you could have watched a particular player. But you can't watch every player on the ice at the same time, even just those from a single team.
This was far more true of the early 80's than it was from say 83-84 onward. WRT GA they were 10th (83-84), 8th (84-85), 13th (85-86) [but only 26th goals out of 5th], 10th (86-87), 8th (87-88).
It was rather difficult for their opponents to score when Gretzky always had the puck.
Can you name a team that has a "guy like Gretzky"?
No I can't because each player is unique but AO played an all out offensive style and they changed things up when they couldn't get past the playoff hump.
Washington is probably the best example of it.
Pittsburgh might be a comparisons with Sid, Malkin and Letang.
But even in junior hockey we see teams that can hang with much more skilled teams based on systems, it's not only an NHL trend but one that is in general in hockey.
BUt the team was much better defensively than they are often given credit for.
As soon as the playoffs hit, after '83, definitely. During the regular season though...they pretty much just went hog wild trying to score as many goals as they could. Defense be damned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math
This focus on defensive systems has been going on since the 90s. It didn't stop Lemieux, Selanne, etc. from still having great adjusted years, even after injuries. I want to know at what point did it become so much more difficult for players from a couple/few years earlier to keep up?
The Oilers generally gave up the same or fewer than avg. GA and ESGA. Gretzky's adjusted plus-minus shows how many more goals his team scored than gave up while on the ice. This data is not so favorable in his years with the Kings, but we're talking about a peak/prime Gretzky. The Gretzky you describe is the one after he left Edmonton.
Style wise it's the same Wayne but he had a much better team in Edmonton with Fuhr in net as well.
What alot of people forget is that as great as Wayne was, the Oilers had a great young set of talented players and some very good role players as well to give them a perfect mix to ahve that dynasty.
The gap between them and the rest of the league , in their prime (Wayne's prime as well) was much greater than it is from the number 1 team today (which fluctuates) because their is greater parity post lockout due to a variety of reasons.
The cap is a whole other issue were teams like the Black Hawks had to move some key pieces after their Cup win and haven't recovered back to that level.
It's not entirely related but Wayne and the Oilers alos really beat up, and ran up their stats, agasint the weak Vancouver, Winnipeg and LA teams in the early 80's.
Put Wayne on a team, say Columbus, post lockout in the same division as Detroit, Chicago, Nashville and St. Louis those easy games disappear.
That's why I asked R71 that question and he seems to think that it wouldn't matter, something I disagree with.
...the team was much better defensively than they are often given credit for.
... ya, their "team defence" wasnt bad, wasnt the greatest but it wasnt bad & they generally only put forth a serious effort in that department leading up to & into the playoff's. Didnt really matter, not when your controlling the puck & the play for about 70% of the game on the rush.
This was far more true of the early 80's than it was from say 83-84 onward. WRT GA they were 10th (83-84), 8th (84-85), 13th (85-86) [but only 26th goals out of 5th], 10th (86-87), 8th (87-88). And of course one needs to factor in the Flames being the second highest scoring team during much of this run.
The true firewagon hockey actually ended much earlier than people often believe becase the team actually learned what it took to win. Of course they were still offensively dominant. But their ability to win low scoring games is really under rated. That team could beat you anyway you wanted including in the alley.
WRT the above post, for what it is worth I saw virtually ever game Gretzky played in an Oiler uniform live. I still say that if you want to know how good he really was you had to see him live because so much of what made him truly great happened away from the play.
They finished 1st in GF 82-88 when they were 2nd and Wayne played in 64 games and Coffey was gone.
One would descirbe those Oilers as a team that tried to outscore other teams and played offensive hockey compared to many other teams both then and now.
As soon as the playoffs hit, after '83, definitely.
After '82, presumably. Their GAA in the regular season and playoffs in 1983 were 3.86 and 3.00, and then in 1984 they were 3.85 and 2.93. Remarkably similar. I think most people figure it started in 1984 because that's the first year they won the Cup and it's a popular idea that defence win championships.
Ironically 1981/82 was their best defensive regular-season finish in Gretzky's years, 7th in the league. But they allowed over 5 goals per game in the playoffs, over only five games of course.
All I know is that players like Jagr, Selanne, Sakic... heck, even Ray Whitney... had some great years post-lockout, when they were past their prime and way past their peaks... despite this being a "newer, faster" NHL. All the rest of the best players from the clutch and grab era (Lindros, Forsberg, Kariya, Bure, etc.) were basically done due to injuries by that point. Kariya still had some solid years, although he was past his prime and he had his share of injuries before that.
This focus on defensive systems has been going on since the 90s. It didn't stop Lemieux, Selanne, etc. from still having great adjusted years, even after injuries. I want to know at what point did it become so much more difficult for players from a couple/few years earlier to keep up?
I'd also love to see an answer to this question and line of reasoning.. obviously they won't want to because this will show how irrational they are being.
Those players all being contemporaries of Gretzky who couldn't hold a candle to him during his best years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71
As soon as the playoffs hit, after '83, definitely. During the regular season though...they pretty much just went hog wild trying to score as many goals as they could. Defense be damned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion
... ya, their "team defence" wasnt bad, wasnt the greatest but it wasnt bad & they generally only put forth a serious effort in that department leading up to & into the playoff's. Didnt really matter, not when your controlling the puck & the play for about 70% of the game on the rush.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123
They finished 1st in GF 82-88 when they were 2nd and Wayne played in 64 games and Coffey was gone.
One would descirbe those Oilers as a team that tried to outscore other teams and played offensive hockey compared to many other teams both then and now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe
After '82, presumably. Their GAA in the regular season and playoffs in 1983 were 3.86 and 3.00, and then in 1984 they were 3.85 and 2.93. Remarkably similar. I think most people figure it started in 1984 because that's the first year they won the Cup and it's a popular idea that defence win championships.
Ironically 1981/82 was their best defensive regular-season finish in Gretzky's years, 7th in the league. But they allowed over 5 goals per game in the playoffs, over only five games of course.
Yeah, basically I wouldn't read much of anything into how the Oilers played defense during the regular season.
They played one way in the regular season - basically having fun and coasting a lot of the time in the dynasty years - and bore down more and more as need be during the playoffs.
That's why I asked R71 that question and he seems to think that it wouldn't matter, something I disagree with.
And you seem to only hear answers that you want to hear.
I said straight up that it doesn't matter what team Gretzky were to play for today. He would dominate on any of them. It would only affect the margin of that dominance. For example, maybe he only gets 150-160 points today playing for Columbus or Edmonton but gets 170-180 playing for Vancouver or Detroit.
Either way, he would still have HUGE gap between him and anyone else in the league today.
THAT was my answer and it is actually a pretty good one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe
After '82, presumably. Their GAA in the regular season and playoffs in 1983 were 3.86 and 3.00, and then in 1984 they were 3.85 and 2.93. Remarkably similar. I think most people figure it started in 1984 because that's the first year they won the Cup and it's a popular idea that defence win championships.
Ironically 1981/82 was their best defensive regular-season finish in Gretzky's years, 7th in the league. But they allowed over 5 goals per game in the playoffs, over only five games of course.
I said after '83 because it was right after the Oilers lost to the Isles in the finals and a group of them including Gretzky and Lowe were going by the Isles locker room. They were expecting to see celebrations and partying but instead all they saw was a bunch of guys sitting back relaxing and nursing all manner of bruises and scraps.
To a man, the Oilers that saw that, all said that was the moment they saw what it took to win and just scoring goals wasn't enough.
