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
03-05-2013, 07:11 PM
  #376
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,103
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by redbull View Post
I would love this answer as well, a point I've made several times that has never been addressed.

And with time, I'm sure I can post the top consecutive 7-8 seasons of players spanning several eras, in their primes, and still show how Gretzky dwarfed them even though he HIMSELF was helping elevate the stats (such as teammates Kurri/Coffey/Messier) that he also dwarfed.

But what's the point. Some of the naysayers will find a flaw into anything, stats or non.

But I'd love for someone to address the bolded.

I think Gretzky was pretty much that much better (as the stats show) than Bossy, Trottier, Stastny, Savard, Hawerchuk - in their primes at that time.
I'll bite, first with Peter Stastny, who is a player I like a lot and probably rate higher than some others here.

But before i do , let's stop with this "naysayers stuff", people will have different opinions than you and I like Wayne as the best player of all time, but there has to be context and respect for all players, not just peoples favorites.

If Mario had come into the NHL 1 season after Wayne and stayed healthy would you think any less of what Wayne did? I wouldn't.

Part of Wayne's dominance was a perfect storm of older guys fading, some better younger guys of the 80's not playing until the mid 80's and the whole Edmonton thing.

If putting some perspective on something makes me a "naysayer" then too bad, it's ridiculous to think that everyone is going to fully agree on everything here.


Stastny I would put in the same tier as Toews, Dats, Kopitar range at similar stages of the latter 3 players careers. All 4 guys are different types of players but all have pretty close value, although Dats has the highest peak value right now.

Bossy is a tough case, he fell in the draft for a reason as his skating was never explosive and his career was more of a trigger man than as a dynamic player.

There is a degree of variance that his career could have not adapted well, due to the skating, or that his shot, clutch scoring ability and everything else comes into a perfect storm and he is a D Sedin to Stamkos type of goal scorer.

Hardyvan123 is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 07:18 PM
  #377
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,103
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kresnik View Post
I don't know if i go way over the line now, but Crosby is 0.21ppg higher then the two time art ross winner since 06/07-12/13.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...rder_by=points


I don't know but Crosby is quite dominant and if you would remove Malkin and Ovechkin from the equation because during the years Gretzky played there were no Russians, he would be 0.33ppg higher then the guy behind him during the timespan between 06/07-12/13.



Quite some domination he got there.
Martin St louis: gp509 g188 a372 pt560
Joe Thornton: gp507 g139g a415 p554
Sidney Crosby: gp376 g195 a348 pt543


Hehe.
I'm a big proponent of comparing apples with apples, like you do here, but for some reason there is a huge silence on this matter when it's brought up.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...rder_by=points

The fact that Sid is only 54 points behind Thorton, in 131 less games from the start of his career as an 18 year old and 24 points ahead of Marty St. Louis in 132 less games is incredible.

Hopefully he will remain healthy for the rest of his career and people will be able to see how truly dominant he is as a player.

As we can see in this 2nd list among all Canadian players his lead will be extremely impressive if he stays healthy.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...rder_by=points

Hardyvan123 is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 07:26 PM
  #378
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,103
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by superroyain10 View Post
There is a difference, but not so gargantuan.

We see players like Jagr and Selanne dominating in old age, players like Lemieux returning and putting up great numbers, and make logical conclusions.
Jagr and Selanne aren't dominating in their old age, they are playing well.

Mario returned and put up some great numbers but that was it, he wasn't a 2 way player and his 'actual value" as a player was less than his numbers in the later 90's and beyond.

IMO there is a huge difference between the Mario from 96, his last superstar season and 97 where his slippage and impact as an overall player was much less.

I'll have more on Mario when we do the all time Center list but I believe that there is a case for him to slip out of the top 3 Centers of all time.

Part of that is because I'm a career guy but another part is that Mario was more a points guy, than anyone else that I can think of and his lack of defense hurts his all time rating IMO.

Hardyvan123 is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 07:27 PM
  #379
blogofmike
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 524
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
You are right they are not, but AO was built to be a goalscorer in the post lockout era, it's debatable if Wayne would have had the goal scoring success that AO has, until his recent decline. That being said Wayne's preparation is the best of all time and that would help him but I'm not very sure that he would be able to get near to replicating his goal scoring success of the early 80's.

Green is an all offensive version of Coffey, Karlsson is a better example and we saw what his peak is so far and it's unlikely that nay Dman and especially not Coffey (with his defensive limitations) would be able to score over 90 points period even in the most perfect of situations in the post lockout era.

Take any team in the league and replace their top C with Wayne and their top Dman with Coffey and I highly doubt that we see Wayne being able to score that 150 points plus that people are throwing out there IMO.

I see people talking hypothetical about his 150 points but on what actual team does that take place?

Pittsburgh minus Sid and Letang and add Wayne and Coffey, I doubt it.

It's not that I think so little of Wayne, he is my #1 after all, it's just really really hard to score in the NHL today for many reasons.
150-160 TGF seems to be reasonable for league leaders in this era. Gretzky would need to be on the ice for 180-185 TGF to hit 150, given that he can score 183 points off of 227 GF (Bourque was second with 168).

Given that he frequently had points on over 50% of team goals, his team would need 280-300 goals to get there, which is in line with top offenses.

Given that he regularly won the Art Ross by a 50% margin over 2nd place, and typical Art Ross winners score over 100 points, I think 150 is manageable for Gretzky.

If 1986 Wayne Gretzky can't get to 150 points, are we saying 1986 Mario Lemieux can't get to 100? (Sedins > Lemieux!?!) Keep in mind, unlike Lemieux, he's not losing PPO by moving to the modern era since Edmonton never got powerplays.

If Gretzky can lead the NHL in assists at ages 36 and 37 on a New York Rangers team with no top goal scorers in the middle of DPE, why can't he lead the NHL in assists if he were 25? Prime Gretzky usually dominated 2nd place, and assists per goal have gone up. Is a 100 assist season really impossible when Thornton can hit 92?

blogofmike is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 07:29 PM
  #380
blogofmike
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 524
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Jagr and Selanne aren't dominating in their old age, they are playing well.
Jagr in 2006 was pretty old and kinda dominant.


Last edited by blogofmike: 03-05-2013 at 07:36 PM.
blogofmike is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 07:46 PM
  #381
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,103
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by superroyain10 View Post
Alright, did some math here.

Mario Lemieux, in 2000-2001, contributed to 45% of his team's goals while he was on the ice. Pittsburgh scored 275 goals that year. That year, they scored at a pace of 3.91 goals a game with Lemieux on the ice, and 2.74 goals/game with Lemieux off the ice, with an average of about 3.4 goals/game. So, it looks like Lemieux, increased his team's scoring by ~43%.

In 2011-20122, Pittsburgh scored 282 goals. Not quite the 300+ Washington scored a few years before that, but higher than some other leaders in other years. Under that scenario, playing a full 82 games Lemieux would have about 180 points on that year. Mind you, a 35-year old Lemieux with injuries and staleness.

So there is no question in my mind that Gretzky could have gotten 160+ points.
Why the partial year of only 43 games?

His last full season he had 122 points (76GP) of his teams 285 goals which is a 43% rate.

The year before it was 44% and he had 161 points (70 GP).

Huge difference can't only be explained by the 6 game difference.

Back to 01, Pittsburgh scored 76 PP goals that year and were 1 of 5 teams to have a PP% over 20%. 11 teams had 70 plus goals on the PP (league average was 63)

Mario had 16 of his 35 goals on the PP, I'm not sure of his assists.

In 12, 3 teams, including Nashville surprisingly, had a PP% of over 20%

In 12 Phiily led the league in PP goals with 66 followed by 3 teams tied at 57.

The league average was 47. The years before it was 52, 56, 65, 62, 70 and 85 in the lockout year.

this year, just past 20 games for most teams, the average is 15 and would pro rate to around a little under 60.

The downward trend definitely is not making it easier to get points.

I was actually surprised at these differences but they have an impact on how Mario would score.


Last edited by Hardyvan123: 03-05-2013 at 07:54 PM.
Hardyvan123 is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 07:58 PM
  #382
OrrNumber4
Registered User
 
OrrNumber4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 7,402
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Jagr and Selanne aren't dominating in their old age, they are playing well.

Mario returned and put up some great numbers but that was it, he wasn't a 2 way player and his 'actual value" as a player was less than his numbers in the later 90's and beyond.

IMO there is a huge difference between the Mario from 96, his last superstar season and 97 where his slippage and impact as an overall player was much less.

I'll have more on Mario when we do the all time Center list but I believe that there is a case for him to slip out of the top 3 Centers of all time.

Part of that is because I'm a career guy but another part is that Mario was more a points guy, than anyone else that I can think of and his lack of defense hurts his all time rating IMO.
By comparison,

With Lemieux, the Penguins had 138 goals against in 43 games; this is 3.21 per game. Overall, Pittsburgh had 256 ga in 82 games, a rate of 3.12 per game.

Without Lemieux, in 39 games, they allowed 3.02 per game.

6% more GA allowed with Lemieux on the ice. That is statistical noise.

OrrNumber4 is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 08:01 PM
  #383
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,103
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blogofmike View Post
Jagr in 2006 was pretty old and kinda dominant.
I thought the poster was referring to the current season.

Even so 06 was a weird year, unlike any other in the post lockout and Jagr was 33 and bucked his previous 2 years so it isn't the best year to make a case for anything in his 06 year.

In 06 we had

5 50 goal guys and
7 100 point guys.

In the 6 full seasons since we have had

12 50 plus goal seasons and
18 100 plus point seasons

Hardyvan123 is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 08:07 PM
  #384
OrrNumber4
Registered User
 
OrrNumber4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 7,402
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Why the partial year of only 43 games?

His last full season he had 122 points (76GP) of his teams 285 goals which is a 43% rate.

The year before it was 44% and he had 161 points (70 GP).

Huge difference can't only be explained by the 6 game difference.

Back to 01, Pittsburgh scored 76 PP goals that year and were 1 of 5 teams to have a PP% over 20%. 11 teams had 70 plus goals on the PP (league average was 63)

Mario had 16 of his 35 goals on the PP, I'm not sure of his assists.

In 12, 3 teams, including Nashville surprisingly, had a PP% of over 20%

In 12 Phiily led the league in PP goals with 66 followed by 3 teams tied at 57.

The league average was 47. The years before it was 52, 56, 65, 62, 70 and 85 in the lockout year.

this year, just past 20 games for most teams, the average is 15 and would pro rate to around a little under 60.

The downward trend definitely is not making it easier to get points.

I was actually surprised at these differences but they have an impact on how Mario would score.
Good point, but again the difference will be noise. Assuming that any team Lemieux is on has the best PP in the game, with the same 66 goals (a funny assumption), and assuming that the ten goal difference all comes out of Mario's contributions, he is still comfortably in the plus 160 point range...

OrrNumber4 is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 08:11 PM
  #385
OrrNumber4
Registered User
 
OrrNumber4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 7,402
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Why the partial year of only 43 games?
I was attempting to show Mario's contributions.

One can't just assume that when Lemieux is added to any lineup, he just "takes the place" of other scores. He does some of that, but he also adds to the offense. Otherwise, you are saying he is just getting the points that everyone else already had...

OrrNumber4 is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 08:11 PM
  #386
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,103
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by superroyain10 View Post
By comparison,

With Lemieux, the Penguins had 138 goals against in 43 games; this is 3.21 per game. Overall, Pittsburgh had 256 ga in 82 games, a rate of 3.12 per game.

Without Lemieux, in 39 games, they allowed 3.02 per game.

6% more GA allowed with Lemieux on the ice. That is statistical noise.
I wonder what the stats are for Sid and the Pens in 11?

Also didn't Mario often sit out the 3rd game in 4 nights? Maybe I have the wrong season but if it was a straight block of games it would have more meaning potentially right?

I did a quick check and it's looks like I had a different season in mind and that his 43 games was in one block so that part makes for a strong case for him.

Hardyvan123 is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 08:12 PM
  #387
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,103
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by superroyain10 View Post
I was attempting to show Mario's contributions.

One can't just assume that when Lemieux is added to any lineup, he just "takes the place" of other scores. He does some of that, but he also adds to the offense. Otherwise, you are saying he is just getting the points that everyone else already had...
Okay I understand that point of it but isn't a larger sample of say 2 or 3 seasons make for a truer picture?

Hardyvan123 is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 08:18 PM
  #388
OrrNumber4
Registered User
 
OrrNumber4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 7,402
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Okay I understand that point of it but isn't a larger sample of say 2 or 3 seasons make for a truer picture?
Well, the problem is that we do not have that for Lemieux. He generally played a lot of games each year (missing less than ten games is the "noise" range). Plus, when you pick several years out of a span, you end up comparing production across different eras. Where GPRS, strategies, similar in 97 vs. 2001? How about lemieux's health?

OrrNumber4 is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 08:22 PM
  #389
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,103
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by superroyain10 View Post
Good point, but again the difference will be noise. Assuming that any team Lemieux is on has the best PP in the game, with the same 66 goals (a funny assumption), and assuming that the ten goal difference all comes out of Mario's contributions, he is still comfortably in the plus 160 point range...
But PP is only part of the equation in the 66 goal example of Philly in 12, Philly only scores 264 goals.

Mario's best year of scoring when he gets 199 points and is in on 57.3% of his teams scoring (despite missing 4 games) would be very hard to replicate in the NHL in 12.

Even if Mario could replicate 57% scoring on that Philly example, the current 262 goals would come out to 151 points.

There are too many "what if this happens" and "if that happens" and then "that happens" to predicate that his scoring would be so high IMO.

In all likelihood maybe one thing happens but not all 3 ( The 57 %, enough teams goals, enough of a PP increase).

I mean it could happen but it's more likely that it wouldn't from what we know.

Hardyvan123 is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 08:32 PM
  #390
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,103
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by superroyain10 View Post
Well, the problem is that we do not have that for Lemieux. He generally played a lot of games each year (missing less than ten games is the "noise" range). Plus, when you pick several years out of a span, you end up comparing production across different eras. Where GPRS, strategies, similar in 97 vs. 2001? How about lemieux's health?
This is true but we have earlier seasons adn conditions where he plays more than 70 games.

Sadly we only have 3 sets of 2 consecutive seasons like this and they are all at slightly different stages of his career as well.

85-86
88-89
96-97

At the end of the day there is a lot of evidence that the current conditions would hinder his ability to produce over 150 points with any regularity.

As it is adjusted his best seasons are

165
156
141
129
127
116

Most of those years include a SHG scoring rate that would be virtually impossible to replicate, with any chance of his team winning, in a post lockout NHL and that's just for starters.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/lead...sh_top_10.html

The 80's stand out as an abberation to the SHG leaders and it's not just that the *)'s players were good either.

Hardyvan123 is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 09:18 PM
  #391
OrrNumber4
Registered User
 
OrrNumber4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 7,402
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
This is true but we have earlier seasons adn conditions where he plays more than 70 games.

Sadly we only have 3 sets of 2 consecutive seasons like this and they are all at slightly different stages of his career as well.

85-86
88-89
96-97

At the end of the day there is a lot of evidence that the current conditions would hinder his ability to produce over 150 points with any regularity.

As it is adjusted his best seasons are

165
156
141
129
127
116

Most of those years include a SHG scoring rate that would be virtually impossible to replicate, with any chance of his team winning, in a post lockout NHL and that's just for starters.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/lead...sh_top_10.html

The 80's stand out as an abberation to the SHG leaders and it's not just that the *)'s players were good either.
The issue with adjustment is that adjustment affects the outliers more than it does the means.

Plus, in those adjusted seasons you are not accounting for games played, I believe...

OrrNumber4 is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 09:36 PM
  #392
OrrNumber4
Registered User
 
OrrNumber4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 7,402
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
I wonder what the stats are for Sid and the Pens in 11?

Also didn't Mario often sit out the 3rd game in 4 nights? Maybe I have the wrong season but if it was a straight block of games it would have more meaning potentially right?

I did a quick check and it's looks like I had a different season in mind and that his 43 games was in one block so that part makes for a strong case for him.
I decided to do Crosby'a nalysis for 2011, as we have decent sample sizes for on/off that time.

Impressively, Crosby was in on 50% of his team's goals in 2010-2011 when he played. The team overall scored at a rate of 3.2 goals/game with him on the ice.

Without Crosby, however, Pittsburgh still managed 2.6 goals/game. Crosby then boosted his team's offense by "only" 31%. Very impressive, but not Mario Lemieux...what this data seems to suggest that a larger part of Crosby's 49% contribution is not what he is "adding" to the game; part of what he is doing is replaceable.

That might make sense in that when Crosby was out, Malkin took his place; when Lemieux was out, who took his place? Martin Straka? Another explanation is that Lemieux was contributing to the team in ways that do not show up in offensive statistics (like drawing more attention to him, etc.).

OrrNumber4 is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 09:41 PM
  #393
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,908
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
I'll bite, first with Peter Stastny, who is a player I like a lot and probably rate higher than some others here.

But before i do , let's stop with this "naysayers stuff", people will have different opinions than you and I like Wayne as the best player of all time, but there has to be context and respect for all players, not just peoples favorites.

If Mario had come into the NHL 1 season after Wayne and stayed healthy would you think any less of what Wayne did? I wouldn't.

Part of Wayne's dominance was a perfect storm of older guys fading, some better younger guys of the 80's not playing until the mid 80's and the whole Edmonton thing.

If putting some perspective on something makes me a "naysayer" then too bad, it's ridiculous to think that everyone is going to fully agree on everything here.


Stastny I would put in the same tier as Toews, Dats, Kopitar range at similar stages of the latter 3 players careers. All 4 guys are different types of players but all have pretty close value, although Dats has the highest peak value right now.

Bossy is a tough case, he fell in the draft for a reason as his skating was never explosive and his career was more of a trigger man than as a dynamic player.

There is a degree of variance that his career could have not adapted well, due to the skating, or that his shot, clutch scoring ability and everything else comes into a perfect storm and he is a D Sedin to Stamkos type of goal scorer.

So if you put Bossy and Stastny among Stamkos, Toews and the Sedins AND Gretzky BLEW Bossy and Stastny away by incredible margins...wouldn't logic lead one to conlude that Gretzky would also be blowing away Stamkos, Toews and the Sedins by incredible margins as well???


Seriously, where's the accountability here?

Oh and enough with this perfect storm garbage.
Orr was a perfect storm.
Gretzky was a perfect storm.
Bla bla bla

Was Hasek a perfect storm too them? Roy? What perfect storm did Mario benefit from? What about Crosby in the first year post lockout with the new rules being enforced so heavily? Jagr in the DPE, was that a perfect storm too?
Where does it end?
And you can't even prove that Gretzky was the product of a perfect storm. He could have been the creator of it.


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 03-05-2013 at 09:51 PM.
Rhiessan71 is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 09:43 PM
  #394
bambamcam4ever
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,056
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by superroyain10 View Post
I decided to do Crosby'a nalysis for 2011, as we have decent sample sizes for on/off that time.

Impressively, Crosby was in on 50% of his team's goals in 2010-2011 when he played. The team overall scored at a rate of 3.2 goals/game with him on the ice.

Without Crosby, however, Pittsburgh still managed 2.6 goals/game. Crosby then boosted his team's offense by "only" 31%. Very impressive, but not Mario Lemieux...what this data seems to suggest that a larger part of Crosby's 49% contribution is not what he is "adding" to the game; part of what he is doing is replaceable.

That might make sense in that when Crosby was out, Malkin took his place; when Lemieux was out, who took his place? Martin Straka? Another explanation is that Lemieux was contributing to the team in ways that do not show up in offensive statistics (like drawing more attention to him, etc.).
The Penguins averaged 2.34 GPG without Crosby in 2010-11. I'm not sure how you got 2.6.

bambamcam4ever is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 10:34 PM
  #395
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,165
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goalsfordinner View Post
If Crosby scores 70+ points this season. He needs to be considered an 130 point player.
I hope he does get 130 someday. However he hasn't done it yet and unless he has a superhuman season he won't do it this year. He may be PROJECTED to get it over 82 games but he has to do it in a full season. None of this half season crap anymore.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ryanwb View Post
My point was that I don't think even a prime Gretzky would statistically dominate now the way that he did. The game is far, far too different for it to happen. That being said he would still clearly be the best player in the league. Just the statistical separation he once had is pretty much impossible to reproduce today. I think somewhere in the realm of 150-160 points would be achievable. Somewhere around 15-30 points ahead of 2nd place. Anything more than that is unlikely I believe.

I also refuse to believe that Crosby is anything but the best player of his generation. Where he ranks all time is obviously still to be decided, but when all is said and done, he may end up being a top 10 forward, maybe even player, of all time. I highly doubt that Gretzky could outscore Sid by 50+ points any given season now, let alone 80 or more, or that he could win the Art Ross over Sid purely on assists alone.

All I can do is thank my lucky stars that I was actually alive to see some of these things happen, because it is quite likely we will never, ever see anything like that ever again.
It is worth pointing out that even a 1991 version of Gretzky had 122 assists to the next best in points (131 for Hull). That isn't even Gretzky at his best and he was doing that. In 1987 Gretzky had more assits (121) than the next best player had points (108). These players were Lemieux, Messier and Kurri. Go back further and you have 1986, 1985 and 1983 as seasons where his assists alone lead the NHL. It was also against some gaudy talent. I mean, 1983 he had 125 assists compared to Peter Stastny's 124 points. The logic is that if he is doing this with players very close to the Crosby level (and I think a 1987 Lemieux is more or less as good as any Crosby season) then why not again today? Logic says Gretzky WOULD do it again. A lot of people don't want to admit someone can dominate the game like that again because we are used to players that have fallen short by a large margin. I think that's what made Gretzky that much more special.

If you want to cling to the fact that "no one could do this today" then I think you have to ask yourself just why it only happened coincidentally once in 100 years in NHL history. No one in the original 6 did it like that. Players like Howe, Lafleur, Esposito, etc. had nice spurts of domination but still clearly fall short of Gretzky. So it is one of two things. There was an unexplained perfect storm that Gretzky got lucky and was able to do it in that window or that there really isn't and hasn't been another player that could do what he did for a good reason. I'll give you a hint.........

Big Phil is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 10:40 PM
  #396
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,103
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by superroyain10 View Post
I decided to do Crosby'a nalysis for 2011, as we have decent sample sizes for on/off that time.

Impressively, Crosby was in on 50% of his team's goals in 2010-2011 when he played. The team overall scored at a rate of 3.2 goals/game with him on the ice.

Without Crosby, however, Pittsburgh still managed 2.6 goals/game. Crosby then boosted his team's offense by "only" 31%. Very impressive, but not Mario Lemieux...what this data seems to suggest that a larger part of Crosby's 49% contribution is not what he is "adding" to the game; part of what he is doing is replaceable.

That might make sense in that when Crosby was out, Malkin took his place; when Lemieux was out, who took his place? Martin Straka? Another explanation is that Lemieux was contributing to the team in ways that do not show up in offensive statistics (like drawing more attention to him, etc.).
Wouldn't Sid's 31% be worth more, relatively speaking in a lower scoring league than a higher scoring one overall?

Maybe not, I'm tired math hurts my head on the best of days...lol

Hardyvan123 is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 10:55 PM
  #397
Wrath
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,047
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Wouldn't Sid's 31% be worth more, relatively speaking in a lower scoring league than a higher scoring one overall?

Maybe not, I'm tired math hurts my head on the best of days...lol
No, unless you can prove that a higher scoring league leads to a higher percentage variance.

Wrath is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 10:58 PM
  #398
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,103
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
So if you put Bossy and Stastny among Stamkos, Toews and the Sedins AND Gretzky BLEW Bossy and Stastny away by incredible margins...wouldn't logic lead one to conlude that Gretzky would also be blowing away Stamkos, Toews and the Sedins by incredible margins as well???
You didn't read my post on Stastny and Bossy very well did you?

Go back and read it before you come up with conclusions around it.


Quote:
Seriously, where's the accountability here?
There is none to account for as you drew an incorrect conclusion and inferred something I didn't even broach in my post.

Quote:
Oh and enough with this perfect storm garbage.
Orr was a perfect storm.
Gretzky was a perfect storm.
Bla bla bla
Yes you must be right, Orr would ahve had the exact same career in a 6 team NHL rather than expanding one. No NHL talent left for the WHA...

Wayne would score just as well with a Hitch coached Columbus post lockout, the NHL never changes.....

Was Hasek a perfect storm too them? Roy? What perfect storm did Mario benefit from? What about Crosby in the first year post lockout with the new rules being enforced so heavily? Jagr in the DPE, was that a perfect storm too?
Where does it end?
And you can't even prove that Gretzky was the product of a perfect storm. He could have been the creator of it.[/QUOTE]

No one can prove anything, they can post opinions and then back it up with some analysis.

Every player is the product of their environment and some make the best of their opportunities and some don't.

I don't pretend that every player can replicate their production under any circumstances, almost none of them can and very few can in any other circumstances.

Would any score more points if he only cared about offense? Probably.

Would any player be allowed to only care about offense? depends on the coach and time period.

Can we transplant any player forward in time and be able to predict on how they would produce?

We can make educated guesses and that's about it. If we don't take into account the differences in the game then our guesses have less validity and less basis. No one will ever know because we can't prove it.

It's like the weather, we can ask "will it rain tomorrow?"

One guy can say heck yes because it's been raining all week and the other guy can look at a weather forecast.

Both guys might be right or wrong but chances are the guy looking at the weather forecast has a better chance at being right.

The difference is that some people ask questions while others are so enlightened to have all of the answers it's a wonder why we can't understand how right they must be all of the time.

Hardyvan123 is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 11:01 PM
  #399
ryanwb
Registered User
 
ryanwb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Country: Canada
Posts: 863
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
It is worth pointing out that even a 1991 version of Gretzky had 122 assists to the next best in points (131 for Hull). That isn't even Gretzky at his best and he was doing that. In 1987 Gretzky had more assits (121) than the next best player had points (108). These players were Lemieux, Messier and Kurri. Go back further and you have 1986, 1985 and 1983 as seasons where his assists alone lead the NHL. It was also against some gaudy talent. I mean, 1983 he had 125 assists compared to Peter Stastny's 124 points. The logic is that if he is doing this with players very close to the Crosby level (and I think a 1987 Lemieux is more or less as good as any Crosby season) then why not again today? Logic says Gretzky WOULD do it again. A lot of people don't want to admit someone can dominate the game like that again because we are used to players that have fallen short by a large margin. I think that's what made Gretzky that much more special.

If you want to cling to the fact that "no one could do this today" then I think you have to ask yourself just why it only happened coincidentally once in 100 years in NHL history. No one in the original 6 did it like that. Players like Howe, Lafleur, Esposito, etc. had nice spurts of domination but still clearly fall short of Gretzky. So it is one of two things. There was an unexplained perfect storm that Gretzky got lucky and was able to do it in that window or that there really isn't and hasn't been another player that could do what he did for a good reason. I'll give you a hint.........
It's ok I don't need a hint. Gretzky would transcend eras is your basic point right? I agree with you in principle.

But while I understand where you are coming from, but I just don't see it happening in a similar fashion as it actually did. Too many good players now. Too much parity. There are no "Mickey Mouse Organizations" anymore. Any NHL team can beat any other NHL team on any given night because the offensive game has been dulled down and overcoached almost to death. Gretzky doesn't get 8 point games too often nowadays. Sure he might get a couple in his career, but the goaltenders are so much better. No way he scores 50 in 39. Almost everyone in the league is as good a skater as the best were back then. (There are a few obvious exceptions on both ends) If we give Gretzky the same benefits afforded to everyone else then it obviously gets interesting, but I believe my point would stand.

This is why I hate comparing eras. It makes things way too difficult. I do believe Gretzky would flat out dominate in a way that would put Crosby to shame, but because of a lot of these changes, I just don't see that amounting to 200 points in 2013.

Clearly the best player in the league? Definitely, but his stats are not nearly as impressive as they were, because whether you think so or not, the 80s were the perfect time for a guy like Gretzky to come along. His domination nowadays would be on the same level on a game to game or shift to shift basis, but it would just be much more subdued statistically IMO.

ryanwb is offline  
Old
03-05-2013, 11:02 PM
  #400
OrrNumber4
Registered User
 
OrrNumber4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 7,402
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bambamcam4ever View Post
The Penguins averaged 2.34 GPG without Crosby in 2010-11. I'm not sure how you got 2.6.
Maybe my figures are wrong.

Crosby played for 41 games, where the team scored 132 goals. Pittsburgh scored 238goals over the 82-game span. That implies that in the other 41 games, they scored 106 total goals, which is 2.585 goals per game.

Am I doing something wrong?

OrrNumber4 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 05:22 PM.

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.