Well the counter argument is that Bobby Hull shouldnt be punished for not being allowed to have his prime in the high flying era. His goal scoring from 1960-1970 was complete and utter dominance.
Gordie Howe's 47 goal season in 1953 was incredible, one of the best goal scoring seasons ever.
As good as Bobby Hull & Gordie Howe were, did they ever score far more assists than goals during their best goal scoring seasons?
As good as Bobby Hull & Gordie Howe were, did they ever score far more assists than goals during their best goal scoring seasons?
Gordie Howe has lead the league in assists many times and has been top 5 in goal scoring for far more seasons than wayne did. Also, gordie played in a 6 team league, if the league expanded in the 1950's, im sure his scoring dominance would have increased, why wouldnt he score more against scrubs? He also knew how to play defense.
Gordie Howe has lead the league in assists many times and has been top 5 in goal scoring for far more seasons than wayne did. Also, gordie played in a 6 team league, if the league expanded in the 1950's, im sure his scoring dominance would have increased, why wouldnt he score more against scrubs? He also knew how to play defense.
I'm not sure if you understood my question! My question was, did either Howe or Hull ever score far more assists than goals during the same season in any if their top goal scoring seasons? The clear answer is no. Gretzky scored a ridiculous 120 assists during his 92 goal season, and always scored far more assists than goals even during his 60+, 70+, and 80+ goal scoring years. He had an even more ridiculous 135 assists during his Last 70+ goal season, for example. In this last example, that's almost DOUBLING his already monstrous goal scoring total with assists alone. Just imagine how many goals he would have scored without focussing so much on assists? 100+ goals would have been the norm for him....
I'm not sure if you understood my question! My question was, did either Howe or Hull ever score far more assists than goals during the same season in any if their top goal scoring seasons? The clear answer is no. Gretzky scored a ridiculous 120 assists during his 92 goal season, and always scored far more assists than goals even during his 60+, 70+, and 80+ goal scoring years. He had an even more ridiculous 135 assists during his Last 70+ goal season, for example. In this last example, that's almost DOUBLING his already monstrous goal scoring total with assists alone. Just imagine how many goals he would have scored without focussing so much on assists? 100+ goals would have been the norm for him....
The flaw in your argument is that there are 1.7 assists for every goal, if your suggesting gretzky would have scored 120-140 goals, i'll take that with a grain of salt.
The flaw in your argument is that there are 1.7 assists for every goal, if your suggesting gretzky would have scored 120-140 goals, i'll take that with a grain of salt.
Before you take that grain of salt.... As I stated in a previous post, Gretzky was far better at assists than goals (he was a great goal scorer too obviously, just out of this universe when it came to assists), so I agree with you: He would not be scoring 140 goals. However, as I stated above, 100+ goals would easily be attainable if he had focussed less on setting up his teammates. That's without a doubt. He reached 92, and still managed 120 assists after all. He scored 87 in only 74 games, and still managed 118 assists in those 74 games. If he had sacrificed 30-50 assists, you mean to tell me he wouldn't have scored 10-20 more goals?? (Gretzky was so good at setting up his teammates, he was smart enough not to make that sacrifice. But why should we punish him for being so good at setting up his teammates, and wisely focussing more on that?)
Before you take that grain of salt.... As I stated in a previous post, Gretzky was far better at assists than goals (he was a great goal scorer too obviously, just out of this universe when it came to assists), so I agree with you: He would not be scoring 140 goals. However, as I stated above, 100+ goals would easily be attainable if he had focussed less on setting up his teammates. That's without a doubt. He reached 92, and still managed 120 assists after all. He scored 87 in only 74 games, and still managed 118 assists in those 74 games. If he had sacrificed 30-50 assists, you mean to tell me he wouldn't have scored 10-20 more goals?? (Gretzky was so good at setting up his teammates, he was smart enough not to make that sacrifice. But why should we punish him for being so good at setting up his teammates, and wisely focussing more on that?)
100-105 seems likely, but only in the 80's. By 1990's goaltending equipment got bigger and teams began trapping.
100-105 seems likely, but only in the 80's. By 1990's goaltending equipment got bigger and teams began trapping.
Fair enough, but let me ask you this: If Gretzky scores 100-105 goals a year in the 80s by sacrificing his ridiculous 120+ assist totals, would those 100-105 goals per year be undoubtedly regarded as the best goal scoring seasons of all time (keeping in mind that the second highest goal scorer would be Brett Hull, a whopping 15-20 goals behind)?
You have no idea how many goals Gretzky would have scored if he passed less often. Gretzky did not have a terrifying wrist shot or arsenal of dekes. So many of his goals were misdirection - he'd show tHe pass, and Gretzky would put it in the net while the goalie was playing the pass
Personally, I think that Gretzky was extremely goal focused when he scored 92 and I think that was his limit. Of more interest is how many goals he would have scored in 52-53 or 65-66. I think he would have been hard pressed to score 40 in those years though he would have got a lot of assists. Tight checking back then & you were facing a top 6 goaltender every game.
You have no idea how many goals Gretzky would have scored if he passed less often. Gretzky did not have a terrifying wrist shot or arsenal of dekes. So many of his goals were misdirection - he'd show tHe pass, and Gretzky would put it in the net while the goalie was playing the pass
It wasn't that simple in my opinion , Gretzky didn't ''have dekes'' , he reacted to the play at the very moment it happened and very often had the perfect reaction , whatever it required.As similar as they are , hockey plays/situations are always different , angles are a bit different , pressure , players positions , speed , position of goalies , anticipation of what the opposite player will anticipate etc... and Gretzky caught and played with those differances everytime.Gretzky didn't need specific dekes because he was the greatest seller.Gretzky used his head to play , it's something a lot of players with great talent aren't doing , especially these days.The cerebral part of hockey is dying , because coaches thought it was their job to ''think'' in hockey.Some players are still smarter than any coaches and players , and they dominate.Nobody has ever come close to Gretzky's Hockey IQ.
I think our human nature will always want to unconsciously denies how Gretzky was better than everybody else , including Howe , Orr and Lemieux.We just won't accept it that he was in fact a lot smarter than those 3 combined.Gretzky was always my least favorite of the 4 , but the more I watch old games , the more I have to put my bias aside and realize he was the best and would destroy every league he would enter no matter the era.
It wasn't that simple in my opinion , Gretzky didn't ''have dekes'' , he reacted to the play at the very moment it happened and very often had the perfect reaction , whatever it required.As similar as they are , hockey plays/situations are always different , angles are a bit different , pressure , players positions , speed , position of goalies , anticipation of what the opposite player will anticipate etc... and Gretzky caught and played with those differances everytime.Gretzky didn't need specific dekes because he was the greatest seller.Gretzky used his head to play , it's something a lot of players with great talent aren't doing , especially these days.The cerebral part of hockey is dying , because coaches thought it was their job to ''think'' in hockey.Some players are still smarter than any coaches and players , and they dominate.Nobody has ever come close to Gretzky's Hockey IQ.
I think our human nature will always want to unconsciously denies how Gretzky was better than everybody else , including Howe , Orr and Lemieux.We just won't accept it that he was in fact a lot smarter than those 3 combined.Gretzky was always my least favorite of the 4 , but the more I watch old games , the more I have to put my bias aside and realize he was the best and would destroy every league he would enter no matter the era.
What about when he would come into the zone wide and then make a kind of faint fake with the puck which if you didn't bite he would let rip (using the defender as a screen), if you bit he would pull the puck back and coast through the slot all alone. If he was deep enough he would snipe a wide open slap shot from the slot if he was too high he'd hook up a trailing wing or set up a cycle. He did it all the time and constantly pulled it off.
Seriously, the move was so good he sometimes ended one-on-ones with a ********** full wind up slopshot fom mid slot, that's how open that deke got him. Still blows my mind.
Are we not counting that as a deke? I feel its a deke...
Personally, I think that Gretzky was extremely goal focused when he scored 92 and I think that was his limit. Of more interest is how many goals he would have scored in 52-53 or 65-66. I think he would have been hard pressed to score 40 in those years though he would have got a lot of assists. Tight checking back then & you were facing a top 6 goaltender every game.
But he was on pace to beat 92 when he got injured and missed 6 games with a shoulder injury only a couple seasons later. He still ended with 87 in only 74 games played. I'm not saying he would have broken 100, but I do think he could have broken 92 that year if not for the injury. He was also on pace for over 100 when he hit 50 in 39, he just slowed down right at the end of the season.
Now, directed at everyone and not just you, I think the best goal scoring season was indeed Gretzky's 92 goals. I don't think you can "only" look at goals and forget assists. It was just an historic season in general. He broke Richard's 50 in 50 record which had stood for decades. He shattered Espo's goal scoring record. He even broke his own records for assists and points (at the time).
When you start adjusting, or comparing vs peer scoring levels, I think some other seasons are arguably comparable or even better, but that's ONLY when one looks strictly at goals scored. But Gretzky simply dominated on every level that year. He crushed all-time records, many of which were considered almost unbeatable, by nearly as great of margins as he crushed his competition that year. For one player to break basically EVERY SINGLE MAJOR RECORD in the same season, and by such huge margins, is just staggering.
Frankly, I don't see the point in trying to separate assists out of the mix here. If player A scored 60 goals, but had 30 assists, and player B scored 59 goals, but had 70 assists, both in the same season, I would be hard-pressed to claim player A had a better "goalscoring" season. Hull's 86 goal season he lost the scoring race to Gretzky by 32 points. He didn't even have a better season than Gretzky, and that wasn't one of Gretzky's best seasons even.
If people want to give Lemieux extra credit for scoring 160 pts in 60 games while coming off of cancer treatment (and he certainly deserves some consideration for such a feat), I don't see why Gretzky isn't given more consideration for scoring more assists than any other player in history (except himself, of course) while ALSO scoring 92 goals and getting 50 in 39.
But that's not as deceptive as if he were to have posted an unusually high number of ENG in an individual season (like Pavel Bure in 2000). I can't recall how many Gretzky had in 1982 and 1984, but if instead of 2.75 ENG per season, he had something resembling 8-10 ENG, it would certainly be a factor warranting heavier consideration.
A quick scan of HSP has it at 4 ENG in 1982 (88 without) and 5 ENG in 1984 (82 without).
Well there you go. I'm not sure how many ENG goals Bure got in 2000, but he had 58 goals while 2nd place Nolan had 44. I am pretty sure Nolan would have gotten some empty netters too. But what about the games where the empty net goal is the most important goal of the game? It happens sometimes. A team scores three goals and is up 3-0 and the opposing team makes it 3-2 and is pressing hard to get that tying goal. The puck pops out to center ice and the forward shoots the puck into the empty net. For all intents and purposes that game is over and arguably the most integral goal of the game was the empty netter. So I am never really hung up on the ENG.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pappyline
Personally, I think that Gretzky was extremely goal focused when he scored 92 and I think that was his limit. Of more interest is how many goals he would have scored in 52-53 or 65-66. I think he would have been hard pressed to score 40 in those years though he would have got a lot of assists. Tight checking back then & you were facing a top 6 goaltender every game.
He doesn't score 92 because of the 70 game schedule and the tighter checking, but make no mistake, Gretzky is the smartest player on the ice in 1953, 1966, 1986 or 2012. He would find a way in any era to lead the NHL in goals multiple times no doubt in my mind.
Fair enough, but let me ask you this: If Gretzky scores 100-105 goals a year in the 80s by sacrificing his ridiculous 120+ assist totals, would those 100-105 goals per year be undoubtedly regarded as the best goal scoring seasons of all time (keeping in mind that the second highest goal scorer would be Brett Hull, a whopping 15-20 goals behind)?
Most likely it would, but we never got to see bobby hull play in the 80's. He was almost doubling his competition.
Most likely it would, but we never got to see bobby hull play in the 80's. He was almost doubling his competition.
Hull's margin over his competition was equivalent to Gretzky's, not miles ahead.
In Hull's best season he beat second place by 63.6%, which is better than Gretzky's 55.4% in 1984, but that margin is smaller than it looks (+1.75 goals for Frank Mahovolich in 1966 swings it). So with 2 more Mahovolich goals in 1966, Hull would have a lower margin of victory than Gretzky.
Keep in mind that every year he led the NHL in goals, Gretzky led the league in assists AND that assist total would have been a single-season record if not for his own success in other seasons (although 3 of them were records at the time). It's not that he was setting people up a little bit more often than the Hulls. He was setting them up at record levels, with Art Ross level assist totals in 1983, 1985, and 1987.
His goal totals also "suffered" on the powerplay where he would routinely have much larger PPA totals than PPG totals, which among the top contenders, only Mario Lemieux can also say.
I doubt playoffs count, but if they do, Gretzky gains a huge advantage over most of the field, particularly in 1984 and 1985 (although 1985 is only in the conversation if playoffs ARE included and even then it's tied with Kurri, which diminishes it. Gretzky's playmaking gifts are a self-inflicted wound in this instance.)
Last edited by blogofmike: 04-12-2012 at 05:03 PM.
Reason: 'an' to 'a'
