HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Will we ever see a better player than Gretzky? Will we know it?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-25-2013, 12:39 AM
  #151
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,084
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Gretzky and Mario would.

And you seem to have forgotten James Neal, he's not exactly what one would call chopped liver.
He's a big guy that makes room for his linemates and is a pretty good trigger man.
Not in post lockout NHL, give your head a shake

But then again you like to discount the huge differences in the game.

Don't bother bringing up the 43 Mario sample again as some sort of evidence as it's weak and doesn't show anything except what a superstar could do in 43 games, with some pretty good offensive players, thinking only about offense as well. It also comes in between a larger sample were he has 122 points at age 31 and a smaller less impressive sample.

Neal was a good player in Dallas and playing with Malkin has bumped up his stats to be sure but very few were predicting his offensive breakout in Dallas, it's retaliative.

Hardyvan123 is offline  
Old
02-25-2013, 01:27 AM
  #152
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pacific NW
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,209
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
... give your head a shake..
I wouldnt worry about it HV. Better players WILL be born. No mistake about that. A lot better than Gretzky, all we've seen.

I'll be long gone, dead, but ya, I would bank on it.

Killion is offline  
Old
02-25-2013, 02:08 AM
  #153
Darth Yoda
Registered User
 
Darth Yoda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Grovebranch's Crease
Country: Sweden
Posts: 2,783
vCash: 593
I guess an injury free Mario would score around 155 points today, when at his best. Many goals of course, something like 70+85, yeah i think that is a fair ratio if i shall be contempt with 155 points. Maybe a premiere linemate could push those numbers though.

Darth Yoda is offline  
Old
02-25-2013, 06:27 AM
  #154
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Not in post lockout NHL, give your head a shake

I'm not saying Gretz and Mario would be scoring 200 points but they WOULD still be blowing everyone else away!

Even if all they could do was top out today at 150-160 points in a full season, that's STILL blowing everyone else away heh


Yeah, Mario only had 122 points at age 31.
Let's just ignore the fact that he still blew away his next closest competition by 13 points or a full 12%.
Should I also mention that a full half of the top 10 scorers that year were non-Canadians
Lets also forget that Mario's "small sample" from '01 where he dominated was smack dab in the middle of the lowest scoring years in the last 40.
I also love how you like to try and dismiss Mario's '01 but love to harp on Crosby's '10.
You seem to think they should be treated the same...well, you're wrong!
The difference is that Mario had not only reached but also maintained that kind of production previously. Crosby has not!
Mario gets the benefit of the doubt for his '01 season.
Crosby's, until he actually proves otherwise, is an anomaly.


Me give my head a shake. Take your own advice their bud if you actually believe that Gretz or Mario today would be "fighting it out" with the likes of Crosby, Malkin, Vanek or Giroux.
Joke!


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 02-25-2013 at 06:34 AM.
Rhiessan71 is offline  
Old
02-25-2013, 08:58 AM
  #155
jigglysquishy
Registered User
 
jigglysquishy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Regina, Saskatchewan
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,384
vCash: 492
Lemieux also greatly exceed that pace.

The year he had 122 he was quite literally on his last legs. His health had deteriorated to the point that he could no longer play. And he was still th he best player. Plus, he missed 6 games, which brings him to a 133 point pace.

jigglysquishy is offline  
Old
02-25-2013, 09:09 AM
  #156
MuckOG
The Brodin Effect
 
MuckOG's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Right behind you....
Country: United States
Posts: 6,132
vCash: 50
Of course, there will be a better player than Gretzky...we may not see it, but it's gonna happen.

I'm sure alot of NHL fans asked the same question about the Rocket and Bobby Orr after they left the game...then Gretzky came along...same thing will happen eventually.

Was Lemiuex better than Gretzky? I guess than can be debated, but I'll still go with Gretzky, his run with the Oilers in the 80's was just freakin incredible and so much fun to witness...even for this teenage (at the time) North Stars fan.

MuckOG is offline  
Old
02-25-2013, 10:08 AM
  #157
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MuckOG View Post
I'm sure alot of NHL fans asked the same question about the Rocket
Fans didn't ask it about the Rocket. He had already been handily surpassed before he retired. Howe was doing things Richard never could.

pdd is offline  
Old
02-25-2013, 11:07 AM
  #158
tazzy19
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,617
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ot92s View Post
absolutely, he was a freak about it. zero mercy.

here's the famous mickey mouse game....lol, wayne puts up 8 points then talks smack after the game... led to a bunch of turnover in new jersey...
Just look at what Gretzky does at 10:08 (start watch around 10:00 to see the entire play). RIDICULOUS finesse move. Unbelievable. And people say he wasn't one of the best stick handlers? Gretzky was the best stick handler I've ever seen besides Mario. I think Gretzky was actually perhaps trickier than Mario in some ways.

tazzy19 is offline  
Old
02-25-2013, 12:10 PM
  #159
tazzy19
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,617
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BROOKLYnKNIGHTS View Post
To me Lemieux is the only guy close to the Gretzky. If i was starting a team tomorrow Super would be the first pick. I think Mario was better in his healthy prime then Wayne. The Great One had a much longer career so he gets probably the greatest of all time tag.
To me this isnt like baseball or basketball. Ruth and jordan without a thought.
But the answer is simply No. Lifetime talents in a much higher scoring era cannot be matched in the future. That is only my opinion/prediction.
Wow, this is a bold claim. Sure, Mario was amazing in his prime. But Gretzky's prime? I'll let the results speak for themselves. Mario doesn't even crack the top 4 point seasons of all time, or the top 7 assist seasons of all time (all of those belong to Gretzky in either case). Goals? Mario doesn't even crack the top 3 (Gretzky owns the top 2). PPG over a season? Gretzky owns the top 2 as well. Mario's fabled 160 point season in 60 games? Gretzky had 175 in 60 games in 83-84. How about 8 straight MVP awards (and 9 in 10 years)? That's a pretty nifty prime, I would say. And let's not talk about the playoffs....cause then it just gets out of hand in Gretzky's favour.

tazzy19 is offline  
Old
02-25-2013, 12:37 PM
  #160
ryanwb
Registered User
 
ryanwb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Country: Canada
Posts: 863
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tazzy19 View Post
Wow, this is a bold claim. Sure, Mario was amazing in his prime. But Gretzky's prime? I'll let the results speak for themselves. Mario doesn't even crack the top 4 point seasons of all time, or the top 7 assist seasons of all time (all of those belong to Gretzky in either case). Goals? Mario doesn't even crack the top 3 (Gretzky owns the top 2). PPG over a season? Gretzky owns the top 2 as well. Mario's fabled 160 point season in 60 games? Gretzky had 175 in 60 games in 83-84. How about 8 straight MVP awards (and 9 in 10 years)? That's a pretty nifty prime, I would say. And let's not talk about the playoffs....cause then it just gets out of hand in Gretzky's favour.
Of course Gretzky had a more successful prime than Lemieux. Anyone can plainly see that. I think his point is that Lemieux, individually, in his prime was a better player than Gretzky.

You can certainly make a valid argument one way or the other. Lemieux didn't have the same amount of talent surrounding him Gretzky had, and couldn't stay healthy, so there are and always will be the "what if" scenarios. Gretzky however, actually accomplished what Lemieux only "could" have done when placed under different circumstances.

5 In-Their-Prime Lemieuxs on the ice vs. 5 In-Their-Prime Gretzkys, the end result is likely a close (very, very high scoring ) game.

You take Gretzky if you're starting a team tomorrow? Personally I'd take Lemieux. It's closer than you make it out to be, and I can't say a bad thing about your choice. Wayne's results do indeed clearly speak for themselves. It just comes down to personal preference I suppose.

ryanwb is offline  
Old
02-25-2013, 01:19 PM
  #161
tazzy19
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,617
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryanwb View Post
Of course Gretzky had a more successful prime than Lemieux. Anyone can plainly see that. I think his point is that Lemieux, individually, in his prime was a better player than Gretzky.

You can certainly make a valid argument one way or the other. Lemieux didn't have the same amount of talent surrounding him Gretzky had, and couldn't stay healthy, so there are and always will be the "what if" scenarios. Gretzky however, actually accomplished what Lemieux only "could" have done when placed under different circumstances.

5 In-Their-Prime Lemieuxs on the ice vs. 5 In-Their-Prime Gretzkys, the end result is likely a close (very, very high scoring ) game.

You take Gretzky if you're starting a team tomorrow? Personally I'd take Lemieux. It's closer than you make it out to be, and I can't say a bad thing about your choice. Wayne's results do indeed clearly speak for themselves. It just comes down to personal preference I suppose.
But that's just it. I would love to see a valid argument for Lemieux having a better prime than Gretzky, but so far I haven't seen one. If we are to give Lemieux the "what ifs" and pro rate his best seasons, then we must also do the same for Gretzky. And this is where the argument on the Lemieux side falls apart. Gretzky scored 153 points in 51 (consecutive) games in 83-84. Then he got injured. He had 3 PPG over those 51 games, and many experts thought he'd finish the year at around 240 points (my guess is he would have finished around 230 points, as it's harder to maintain that kind of production over 29 more games). But when he came back from his injury, his PPG average dipped substantially (by his standards), and he finished with "only" a 2.77 points per game average over the full season (74 games) -- which still would have given him 221 points in 80 games! But had Gretzky not been injured, he was on pace for a 240 point season (in 80 games) -- which obviously would have blown any pro rated Lemieux season out of the water. Now, what if Gretzky had not been injured in 1988 for 16 games when he blew Lemieux out of the water in PPG average? That would have given him easily another scoring title (pro rated 186 points to Lemieux's actual 168), and won him his 9th straight Hart Trophy (making it 10 straight the following year in LA). Speaking of LA, what if Gretzky had not been traded? And what if Coffey had not been traded either? Now it gets scary if it wasn't already scary enough....

tazzy19 is offline  
Old
02-25-2013, 01:29 PM
  #162
ot92s
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 737
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tazzy19 View Post
But that's just it. I would love to see a valid argument for Lemieux having a better prime than Gretzky, but so far I haven't seen one. If we are to give Lemieux the "what ifs" and pro rate his best seasons, then we must also do the same for Gretzky. And this is where the argument on the Lemieux side falls apart. Gretzky scored 153 points in 51 (consecutive) games in 83-84. Then he got injured. He had 3 PPG over those 51 games, and many experts thought he'd finish the year at around 240 points (my guess is he would have finished around 230 points, as it's harder to maintain that kind of production over 29 more games). But when he came back from his injury, his PPG average dipped substantially (by his standards), and he finished with "only" a 2.77 points per game average over the full season (74 games) -- which still would have given him 221 points in 80 games! But had Gretzky not been injured, he was on pace for a 240 point season (in 80 games) -- which obviously would have blown any pro rated Lemieux season out of the water. Now, what if Gretzky had not been injured in 1988 for 16 games when he blew Lemieux out of the water in PPG average? That would have given him easily another scoring title (pro rated 186 points to Lemieux's actual 168), and won him his 9th straight Hart Trophy (making it 10 straight the following year in LA). Speaking of LA, what if Gretzky had not been traded? And what if Coffey had not been traded either? Now it gets scary if it wasn't already scary enough....

lol...and yet, some delusional fans believe crosby is in the same league.

ot92s is offline  
Old
02-25-2013, 01:52 PM
  #163
ryanwb
Registered User
 
ryanwb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Country: Canada
Posts: 863
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tazzy19 View Post
But that's just it. I would love to see a valid argument for Lemieux having a better prime than Gretzky, but so far I haven't seen one. If we are to give Lemieux the "what ifs" and pro rate his best seasons, then we must also do the same for Gretzky. And this is where the argument on the Lemieux side falls apart. Gretzky scored 153 points in 51 (consecutive) games in 83-84. Then he got injured. He had 3 PPG over those 51 games, and many experts thought he'd finish the year at around 240 points (my guess is he would have finished around 230 points, as it's harder to maintain that kind of production over 29 more games). But when he came back from his injury, his PPG average dipped substantially (by his standards), and he finished with "only" a 2.77 points per game average over the full season (74 games) -- which still would have given him 221 points in 80 games! But had Gretzky not been injured, he was on pace for a 240 point season (in 80 games) -- which obviously would have blown any pro rated Lemieux season out of the water. Now, what if Gretzky had not been injured in 1988 for 16 games when he blew Lemieux out of the water in PPG average? That would have given him easily another scoring title (pro rated 186 points to Lemieux's actual 168), and won him his 9th straight Hart Trophy (making it 10 straight the following year in LA). Speaking of LA, what if Gretzky had not been traded? And what if Coffey had not been traded either? Now it gets scary if it wasn't already scary enough....
I'm not saying Lemieux had a better prime than Gretzky. It is quite evident from the stats that he didn't. But if you don't think that Lemieux MAY have had a similar impact statistically if he swapped places with Wayne on those Oilers teams then we likely aren't watching the same Lemieux. Case in point: I for one think the 88-89 season was Lemieux's best, when he scored 199 points. 2nd leading scorer on that team? Rob Brown who scored over 26% of his career points that singular season playing with Lemieux. The 3rd leading scorer is admittedly the same Paul Coffey who was amazing with Gretz and co., but the rest are borderline plugs. Lemieux was at the top of his game and the rest of the roster is average to marginal at best. I'd imagine having a guy like Kurri on Lemieux's wing for a whole year might improve those totals to 200 points, at the least? Or maybe not.

The guy is the only forward (I don't think Howe is close. Its Gretzky/Lemieux....then Howe...then everyone else) who can even come close to sniffing Gretz's jockstrap in the discussion of greatest offensive player of all time. That's all. That doesn't mean he had a better prime though. Just that he might have been a better individual player during their respective primes, regardless of what the statistics say. And that's just my personal opinion. I might be wrong, but I think it is definitely possible.

Unfortunately we can never know for sure. We just have the fact that Gretzky is the Great One, and Lemieux will always be a what if. Would have loved to see a Cup Finals between their two teams...

ryanwb is offline  
Old
02-25-2013, 04:05 PM
  #164
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,149
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Bonvie View Post
Just trying to say he didn't play much defense. That's all.
He didn't really have to. The game revolved around him while he was on the ice. He was like a surgeon out there. The ice was tilted in his favour because he often had the puck. He was a player you didn't want to see sacrifice his offense for anything. Glen Sather was smart enough to know that he had a gem in his hands and he didn't screw it up. Dan Byslma, not a bad coach himself, allows Crosby and Malkin to do their thing knowing that they'll win him the game more often than not playing their style.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Well the post I was responding to mentioned 2 Sedins so that's why the Mario mention, injured years to both guys.

We don't know what a "Wayne" would do in 10 exactly do we?

You, like most people, think he would do just as well or close to it when the game has obviously changed and even the best offensive guys coming into the NHL in the 2000's can't play all out offensive like Wayne and Mario did back in the day.

I think that unless people acknowledge the magnitude of these changes then we aren't going to get anywhere in this discussion.
The game has changed, but the basics are the same. Watch a full game in the 1980s. The same things happen. The puck gets dumped in, a defenseman grabs it, the other team changes it up. A two-on-one ensues, etc. So things like the equipment and such have changed, the size of the players and even the speed. However, Gretzky wasn't big or overly fast in his day either and he did what he did. I think it is very relevant to bring up Sedin because he isn't any better of a player than Peter Stastny. He was a contemporary of Gretzky and wasn't even in the same universe. We saw that with our own eyes, a full blown legit HHOFer was miles behind Gretzky. The league knew that, the fans knew that and I would guess even Quebec fans at that time would acknowledge it.

The closest we've seen to Mario and Gretzky since has been Jagr. In the dead puck era he didn't pretty good by getting 127 points and 96 points in 63 games (projected to 125). Jagr was a beast and we can't argue that. However, in 2000-'01 we saw a glimpse of the Mario of old when he came back at 35 years old. Here are the PPG leaders:

Lemieux - 1.77
Jagr - 1.49
Sakic - 1.44
Forsberg - 1.22

Now I know we can take into account the fact that Lemieux played half a season. That's fine. And he was refreshed. That's fine too. But we are talking about an old Lemieux in the dead puck era on pace for 145 points in a full season. You don't think he does it, then fine I'll be generous and assume he slows down a bit and gets a 120 point year. That is still incredible. You see, I think the first thing you need to do is realize that these guys themselves are exceptions to the rule. Gretzky and Lemieux were not the typical superstars who were just good at that time. They would be good at ANY time. We only have enough evidence from their playing days but in my opinion there is enough there to show just how they could still dominate from era to era.

Gretzky dominated the NHL in the 1980s. Yet he still led the NHL in points in the 1990s. Think about that for a second. Gretzky found a way to do it all the time. We can only go as long as he played. His second to last season he led the NHL in assists. Don't ask who he was feeding on the 1998 Rangers because I don't know either. So we can work with the evidence we have and make a fair projection on it for how he would do today.

Gretzky had 90 points in 1998. Bure had 90 points. Forsberg, who is hardly any worse than a 2010 Sedin had 91. Gretzky was 37 years old with a bad back and a sad sack team and he kept up with Forsberg and even Jagr (102 points) as good as a prime Crosby kept up with Sedin who had 3 more points than him. Doesn't that tell you all you need to know about Gretzky right there? Can you imagine what he does at 25 years old in this game today considering we saw what he did at 37?

Big Phil is offline  
Old
02-25-2013, 04:14 PM
  #165
SaintPatrick33
Conn Smythe Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,044
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
He didn't really have to. The game revolved around him while he was on the ice. He was like a surgeon out there. The ice was tilted in his favour because he often had the puck. He was a player you didn't want to see sacrifice his offense for anything. Glen Sather was smart enough to know that he had a gem in his hands and he didn't screw it up. Dan Byslma, not a bad coach himself, allows Crosby and Malkin to do their thing knowing that they'll win him the game more often than not playing their style.
Spot on.

I'm noticing lately that with children of the DPE the worst indictment you can make towards a player is to say "they don't play defense" or "they're an offense first player". I just shake my head

SaintPatrick33 is offline  
Old
02-25-2013, 04:30 PM
  #166
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goalsfordinner View Post
I could sworn Crosby scored 120 in 79 before. 125 point pace. So he HAS done it before
Mario 00/01 76 in 43 = 1.77PpG or 145 points/82 (NHL goal average: 5.51GpG)
Crosby 10/11 66 in 41 = 1.61PpG or 132 points/82 (NHL goal average: 5.59GpG)

Mario's scoring in 00/01 while better than anyone else today at that pace is still below his career average.
Crosby's scoring in 10/11 is higher than his career average.

Again, Mario gets the benefit of a doubt, Sid's is an anomaly until proven otherwise.

Rhiessan71 is offline  
Old
02-25-2013, 04:32 PM
  #167
tazzy19
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,617
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryanwb View Post
I'm not saying Lemieux had a better prime than Gretzky. It is quite evident from the stats that he didn't. But if you don't think that Lemieux MAY have had a similar impact statistically if he swapped places with Wayne on those Oilers teams then we likely aren't watching the same Lemieux. Case in point: I for one think the 88-89 season was Lemieux's best, when he scored 199 points. 2nd leading scorer on that team? Rob Brown who scored over 26% of his career points that singular season playing with Lemieux. The 3rd leading scorer is admittedly the same Paul Coffey who was amazing with Gretz and co., but the rest are borderline plugs. Lemieux was at the top of his game and the rest of the roster is average to marginal at best. I'd imagine having a guy like Kurri on Lemieux's wing for a whole year might improve those totals to 200 points, at the least? Or maybe not.

The guy is the only forward (I don't think Howe is close. Its Gretzky/Lemieux....then Howe...then everyone else) who can even come close to sniffing Gretz's jockstrap in the discussion of greatest offensive player of all time. That's all. That doesn't mean he had a better prime though. Just that he might have been a better individual player during their respective primes, regardless of what the statistics say. And that's just my personal opinion. I might be wrong, but I think it is definitely possible.

Unfortunately we can never know for sure. We just have the fact that Gretzky is the Great One, and Lemieux will always be a what if. Would have loved to see a Cup Finals between their two teams...
I agree with you that Mario is the only player in history that ever sniffed at playing in the same galaxy as Wayne - offensively speaking. He just couldn't maintain it due to health mostly. I will also concede that Mario was a better individual performer. Put Wayne and Mario on a poor team, and Mario will beat Wayne in scoring 9 times out of 10 (see 1988-89). But put them both on a great team, and Wayne beats Mario in scoring 9 times out of 10 (see the 1987 Canada Cup). Wayne was better at using top end talent than Mario. Mario was better at doing it by himself.

Wayne did however prove he could score 212 points without much help in 1981-82. He more than DOUBLED the next best scorer on his team (Anderson), and out scored him with assists alone (and out scored the rest of his teammates with his GOALS alone!). I've never seen Mario do that, even during his 199 point season.

At the end of the day, Mario may have looked prettier one on one, but I prefer the player who had the better peak, and, since hockey is a team game, who utilized great players better.


Last edited by tazzy19: 02-25-2013 at 04:43 PM.
tazzy19 is offline  
Old
02-25-2013, 04:53 PM
  #168
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,149
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Mario 00/01 76 in 43 = 1.77PpG or 145 points/82 (NHL goal average: 5.51GpG)
Crosby 10/11 66 in 41 = 1.61PpG or 132 points/82 (NHL goal average: 5.59GpG)

Mario's scoring in 00/01 while better than anyone else today at that pace is still below his career average.
Crosby's scoring in 10/11 is higher than his career average.

Again, Mario gets the benefit of a doubt, Sid's is an anomaly until proven otherwise.
We can even go as far as this:

Mario in 2002-'03 - 91 points in 67 games for 1.36 PPG. That's on pace for 111 points. Now, I know you have to give the edge to Sid here but this was a 37 year old Mario on one of the worst teams in the league and it was as evident as possible that he wasn't the Mario of 10-12 years earlier. Yet he was dominating the NHL in the first half of the season and I think if you take Mario's first 41 games of that year you'll see how comparable it is to Crosby's:

Mario 2002-'03 first 41 games: 68 points
Crosby 2010-'11 first 41 games: 66 points

A couple things, I know Crosby had that 25 game point streak which was phenomenal but keep in mind one thing too, Mario was thrashing the NHL at least at the same pace as Crosby early on. Mario had 46 points in his first 22 games. I really don't think people appreciate just how dominant he was those first couple of months. He slowed down eventually because he just couldn't do it with his age and injuries anymore like he used to, but if you want to really see a glimpse of what Mario actually DID at an old age in the NHL then there it is. It still more or less equals a prime Crosby. That's just insane.

This is certainly not supposed to downgrade Crosby because he is a great player. But there is tons of evidence that Mario dominated at the beginning and end of his career. Gretzky probably would have done even better than he did in the 1990s if not for his back being injured by the Suter hit but I think he still did alright:

Points in the 1990s:
Gretzky - 1020
Oates - 927
Yzerman - 918

I'll leave with this thought. The people who watched Gretzky and Lemieux play knew they weren't normal superstars at the time. We also know that players since then haven't been in their ballpark either. I have to ask, what more would these guys have to do to convince people they'd still dominate in the NHL in 2013?

Big Phil is offline  
Old
02-25-2013, 05:29 PM
  #169
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 7,646
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
He didn't really have to. The game revolved around him while he was on the ice. He was like a surgeon out there. The ice was tilted in his favour because he often had the puck. He was a player you didn't want to see sacrifice his offense for anything. Glen Sather was smart enough to know that he had a gem in his hands and he didn't screw it up. Dan Byslma, not a bad coach himself, allows Crosby and Malkin to do their thing knowing that they'll win him the game more often than not playing their style.


The game has changed, but the basics are the same. Watch a full game in the 1980s. The same things happen. The puck gets dumped in, a defenseman grabs it, the other team changes it up. A two-on-one ensues, etc. So things like the equipment and such have changed, the size of the players and even the speed. However, Gretzky wasn't big or overly fast in his day either and he did what he did. I think it is very relevant to bring up Sedin because he isn't any better of a player than Peter Stastny. He was a contemporary of Gretzky and wasn't even in the same universe. We saw that with our own eyes, a full blown legit HHOFer was miles behind Gretzky. The league knew that, the fans knew that and I would guess even Quebec fans at that time would acknowledge it.

The closest we've seen to Mario and Gretzky since has been Jagr. In the dead puck era he didn't pretty good by getting 127 points and 96 points in 63 games (projected to 125). Jagr was a beast and we can't argue that. However, in 2000-'01 we saw a glimpse of the Mario of old when he came back at 35 years old. Here are the PPG leaders:

Lemieux - 1.77
Jagr - 1.49
Sakic - 1.44
Forsberg - 1.22

Now I know we can take into account the fact that Lemieux played half a season. That's fine. And he was refreshed. That's fine too. But we are talking about an old Lemieux in the dead puck era on pace for 145 points in a full season. You don't think he does it, then fine I'll be generous and assume he slows down a bit and gets a 120 point year. That is still incredible. You see, I think the first thing you need to do is realize that these guys themselves are exceptions to the rule. Gretzky and Lemieux were not the typical superstars who were just good at that time. They would be good at ANY time. We only have enough evidence from their playing days but in my opinion there is enough there to show just how they could still dominate from era to era.

Gretzky dominated the NHL in the 1980s. Yet he still led the NHL in points in the 1990s. Think about that for a second. Gretzky found a way to do it all the time. We can only go as long as he played. His second to last season he led the NHL in assists. Don't ask who he was feeding on the 1998 Rangers because I don't know either. So we can work with the evidence we have and make a fair projection on it for how he would do today.

Gretzky had 90 points in 1998. Bure had 90 points. Forsberg, who is hardly any worse than a 2010 Sedin had 91. Gretzky was 37 years old with a bad back and a sad sack team and he kept up with Forsberg and even Jagr (102 points) as good as a prime Crosby kept up with Sedin who had 3 more points than him. Doesn't that tell you all you need to know about Gretzky right there? Can you imagine what he does at 25 years old in this game today considering we saw what he did at 37?
There is no comparison on the defensive end between Gretzky and Crosby.

Dennis Bonvie is offline  
Old
02-25-2013, 06:18 PM
  #170
SnowblindNYR
Registered User
 
SnowblindNYR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 17,218
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tazzy19 View Post
Just look at what Gretzky does at 10:08 (start watch around 10:00 to see the entire play). RIDICULOUS finesse move. Unbelievable. And people say he wasn't one of the best stick handlers? Gretzky was the best stick handler I've ever seen besides Mario. I think Gretzky was actually perhaps trickier than Mario in some ways.
Don't want to really derail this thread, but you used the "f word", finesse. Would I be right in saying that over the years it has become a taboo word? Seems like something people use now to call a team soft. "They're a finesse team". I'm a guy that's more interested in skill than muscle and I think it's disappointing that a word that just basically means "skill" has become a curse word for people.

SnowblindNYR is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 12:15 AM
  #171
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,084
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
I'm not saying Gretz and Mario would be scoring 200 points but they WOULD still be blowing everyone else away!

Even if all they could do was top out today at 150-160 points in a full season, that's STILL blowing everyone else away heh
Are they making Kunitz and Dupuis 100 point guys? I think not, that was the question.


Quote:
Yeah, Mario only had 122 points at age 31.
Let's just ignore the fact that he still blew away his next closest competition by 13 points or a full 12%.
Let's also ignore that Sakic, Forsberg, Lindros, Kariya and his team mate Jagr played in the 60-high 60 game range as well.

Quote:
Should I also mention that a full half of the top 10 scorers that year were non-Canadians

Well at least someone is noticing the league was different eh?

Quote:
Lets also forget that Mario's "small sample" from '01 where he dominated was smack dab in the middle of the lowest scoring years in the last 40.
I also love how you like to try and dismiss Mario's '01 but love to harp on Crosby's '10.
If you look at both players years before and after the 40ish game sample we see 2 different things don't we?


Quote:
You seem to think they should be treated the same...well, you're wrong!
The difference is that Mario had not only reached but also maintained that kind of production previously. Crosby has not!
Mario gets the benefit of the doubt for his '01 season.
Crosby's, until he actually proves otherwise, is an anomaly.
What exactly is your point here? Mario is a better pure offensive player than Sid who played with better offensive teammates in a more offensive time, we should expect better results in that time period.

Extrapolating it to post lockout is just plain ridiculous


Quote:
Me give my head a shake. Take your own advice their bud if you actually believe that Gretz or Mario today would be "fighting it out" with the likes of Crosby, Malkin, Vanek or Giroux.
Joke!
no one, not Mario or Wayne is getting the 150-160 points you referred to earlier in this thread and certainly not replacing Crosby on that Pittsburgh team with that lineup.

This is Vanek 1st time in the top scoring and he is fading faster than your arguments.

Giroux has one year, it's hard to even see what your point is any more.

It's obvious that you either rate a couple of the guys from the 80's too highly or can't see the differences in the game, especially goaltending which is ironic considering you are one.

Hardyvan123 is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 12:25 AM
  #172
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,084
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Mario 00/01 76 in 43 = 1.77PpG or 145 points/82 (NHL goal average: 5.51GpG)
Crosby 10/11 66 in 41 = 1.61PpG or 132 points/82 (NHL goal average: 5.59GpG)

Mario's scoring in 00/01 while better than anyone else today at that pace is still below his career average.
Crosby's scoring in 10/11 is higher than his career average.

Again, Mario gets the benefit of a doubt, Sid's is an anomaly until proven otherwise.
Context also matters.

Mario is playing with a prime Jagr, Kovalev, Straka, Lang on the PP (not sure who his regular line mates were).

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/PIT/2001.html

Crosby is playing Letang, Kunitz, Dupuis, Kennedy, Malkin for a bit.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/PIT/2011.html

Heck Sid in 41 games still led that Pens team in scoring by 16 freaking points.

Sure he is 23 and Mario is 35 but he is also playing a more complete game while Mario isn't.

But then again you gave your analysis away as you are giving Mario the benefit of the doubt.

Sid's partial season stands out way more than Mario's it's not even funny.

Hardyvan123 is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 12:35 AM
  #173
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,084
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
He didn't really have to. The game revolved around him while he was on the ice. He was like a surgeon out there. The ice was tilted in his favour because he often had the puck. He was a player you didn't want to see sacrifice his offense for anything. Glen Sather was smart enough to know that he had a gem in his hands and he didn't screw it up. Dan Byslma, not a bad coach himself, allows Crosby and Malkin to do their thing knowing that they'll win him the game more often than not playing their style.
He didn't have to you are right especially not with those stacked Oilers teams (relatively speaking to the rest of the league) and for a while in LA but that's more a reflection of the era than anything else. The bottom line no player could play that way today and get the same type of results in his team winning and that's the point that is being missed by some IMO.

Quote:
The game has changed, but the basics are the same. Watch a full game in the 1980s. The same things happen. The puck gets dumped in, a defenseman grabs it, the other team changes it up. A two-on-one ensues, etc. So things like the equipment and such have changed, the size of the players and even the speed. However, Gretzky wasn't big or overly fast in his day either and he did what he did.

Well the game hasn't really changed since they brought in forward passing the way you are describing it.

The game probably changed less from the mid 30's-90 than it has from 90-now.



Quote:
I think it is very relevant to bring up Sedin because he isn't any better of a player than Peter Stastny. He was a contemporary of Gretzky and wasn't even in the same universe. We saw that with our own eyes, a full blown legit HHOFer was miles behind Gretzky. The league knew that, the fans knew that and I would guess even Quebec fans at that time would acknowledge it.

The closest we've seen to Mario and Gretzky since has been Jagr. In the dead puck era he didn't pretty good by getting 127 points and 96 points in 63 games (projected to 125). Jagr was a beast and we can't argue that. However, in 2000-'01 we saw a glimpse of the Mario of old when he came back at 35 years old. Here are the PPG leaders:

Lemieux - 1.77
Jagr - 1.49
Sakic - 1.44
Forsberg - 1.22

Now I know we can take into account the fact that Lemieux played half a season. That's fine. And he was refreshed. That's fine too. But we are talking about an old Lemieux in the dead puck era on pace for 145 points in a full season. You don't think he does it, then fine I'll be generous and assume he slows down a bit and gets a 120 point year. That is still incredible. You see, I think the first thing you need to do is realize that these guys themselves are exceptions to the rule. Gretzky and Lemieux were not the typical superstars who were just good at that time. They would be good at ANY time. We only have enough evidence from their playing days but in my opinion there is enough there to show just how they could still dominate from era to era.

Gretzky dominated the NHL in the 1980s. Yet he still led the NHL in points in the 1990s. Think about that for a second. Gretzky found a way to do it all the time. We can only go as long as he played. His second to last season he led the NHL in assists. Don't ask who he was feeding on the 1998 Rangers because I don't know either. So we can work with the evidence we have and make a fair projection on it for how he would do today.

Gretzky had 90 points in 1998. Bure had 90 points. Forsberg, who is hardly any worse than a 2010 Sedin had 91. Gretzky was 37 years old with a bad back and a sad sack team and he kept up with Forsberg and even Jagr (102 points) as good as a prime Crosby kept up with Sedin who had 3 more points than him. Doesn't that tell you all you need to know about Gretzky right there? Can you imagine what he does at 25 years old in this game today considering we saw what he did at 37?

Hardyvan123 is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 01:40 AM
  #174
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,149
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Bonvie View Post
There is no comparison on the defensive end between Gretzky and Crosby.
Maybe so, but when you had the offense of Gretzky any defensive shortcoming is nonsenical after a while. Plus, Crosby isn't winning games either with blocking a shot or anything. He's winning it with his stick to a lesser extent than Gretzky did. Both players, Crosby and Gretzky, killed penalties. Gretzky wasn't the type to get involved physically but his anticipation and hockey sense didn't make him a defensive liability out there either in his prime. You think his anticipation only translated to the offensive side of things? He wasn't going to win any Selkes, but he wasn't there for Selkes. Do you want to sacrifice 200 points for a Selke?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
He didn't have to you are right especially not with those stacked Oilers teams (relatively speaking to the rest of the league) and for a while in LA but that's more a reflection of the era than anything else. The bottom line no player could play that way today and get the same type of results in his team winning and that's the point that is being missed by some IMO.

Well the game hasn't really changed since they brought in forward passing the way you are describing it.

The game probably changed less from the mid 30's-90 than it has from 90-now.
The point is if Gretzky would be playing in today's game he would have been born in 1990, the same year as John Tavares. We see what Tavares does in the NHL now that he has broken out. Lots of goals, not a lot of pretty plays but just always being there at the right time, having great hockey sense, great anticipation. He isn't a great skater, has a normal shot and isn't physical or a Selke candidate. Yet he leads the NHL in goals with Stamkos. Why is this? Hockey sense. You think even Tavares thinks the game the way Gretzky did? With all due respect to him I don't think so. So if Gretzky was playing today with all the changes in the game he would have had the same advantages and training as a guy like Tavares. He'd still be quick, but not fast. He'd be slender, a little below average height and still not physical. Yet his head would get him far. He'd still have the same skills and the same hockey sense. He might even have more. But he wouldn't have less.

The reason we haven't seen another Gretzky is simply because we've only ever seen one player like him in 100 years. I think you need to step back and stop pretending that Gretzky - and to a slightly lesser extent Lemieux - were just products of their time and not a special breed of superstar. If we can conclude that the superstars in the 1980s and 1990s were as good as today then I don't see why you have a problem with Gretzky dominating Stamkos, Crosby, Malkin, Tavares, Giroux, Sedins, etc. when he did it rather easily to Bossy, Trottier, Stastny, Dionne.

Big Phil is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 07:14 PM
  #175
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Are they making Kunitz and Dupuis 100 point guys? I think not, that was the question.
Yes, I think so or close to it.



Quote:
Let's also ignore that Sakic, Forsberg, Lindros, Kariya and his team mate Jagr played in the 60-high 60 game range as well.
When did ANY of these guys come close to Mario's level???
Are the games they missed going to make up that gap?


Quote:
Well at least someone is noticing the league was different eh?
There's a difference between noticing a different and completely exaggerating it my friend.
Tell though, what's your argument 95/96 exactly?
There's only 26 teams so the League is looking good in the talent per capita department and the League is completely integrated now.
So what happens?
Mario blows them ALL away, including Jagr, who in turn, will go on to leave everyone else in the League in his dust for most of the next decade.



Quote:
no one, not Mario or Wayne is getting the 150-160 points you referred to earlier in this thread and certainly not replacing Crosby on that Pittsburgh team with that lineup.
That's your opinion, it's not even remotely a fact. You have absolutely nothing to back it up.
I have guys like Jagr and Sakic. Guys that couldn't tie prime Mario's or Gretzky's skate laces offensively, being among the best the League has in the early 2000's. What's more, they're only winning these titles by a handful more points than a post 35, with a bad back Gretzky got a few years previous.
I have a past his prime Mario making the League look like peewee in 2001.

A prime Mario or Gretzky destroys the League in any era, period!
Seriously, you would have to be a complete moron (literal sense) to say otherwise.
Every piece of actual evidence and player comparison points to it.

Rhiessan71 is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:30 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.