Completly changed what people thought a defenseman could do.
Won the Norris, the Conn, the Hart, AND THE ART ROSS.
No other defenseman has ever won the Art Ross - Orr did it twice.
From 1969-70 to 75-76 he was a 1.5+ PPG. Again, AS A DEFENSEMAN, with point totals of 120, 139, 117, 101, 122, and 135, and then 18 in the 10 games he played the 75-76 season.
Those would be godlike numbers for a forward, even.
Imagine if he had managed to stay healthy... only 657 career games and still almost 1000 pts.
Even strength goals
Rank Player EV Season
1. Wayne Gretzky* 68 1981-82
2. Brett Hull* 57 1990-91
3. Wayne Gretzky* 55 1983-84
4. Wayne Gretzky* 54 1984-85
Jari Kurri* 54 1984-85
6. Steve Shutt* 52 1976-77
Teemu Selanne 52 1992-93
8. Reggie Leach 51 1975-76
9. Phil Esposito* 50 1970-71
Phil Esposito* 50 1973-74
11. Alexander Mogilny 49 1992-93
Lanny McDonald* 49 1982-83
13. Steven Stamkos 48 2011-12
Even strength goals
Rank Player EV Season
1. Wayne Gretzky* 68 1981-82
2. Brett Hull* 57 1990-91
3. Wayne Gretzky* 55 1983-84
4. Wayne Gretzky* 54 1984-85
Jari Kurri* 54 1984-85
6. Steve Shutt* 52 1976-77
Teemu Selanne 52 1992-93
8. Reggie Leach 51 1975-76
9. Phil Esposito* 50 1970-71
Phil Esposito* 50 1973-74
11. Alexander Mogilny 49 1992-93
Lanny McDonald* 49 1982-83
13. Steven Stamkos 48 2011-12
kind of pointless to some degree. the best players draw penalties... and so score PP goals. can't fault them for being good, can you?
there's a reason that gretzky's numbers tailed off in his 92 goal season, right? everybody was so jacked on him that he could pass off to another guy so they could score. to ignore assists in a quest to quantify goal scoring is kind of odd to me. goals have to be a big part of it, for sure. but here's a guy who not only scored goals, but easily topped that number in assists. something the Hulls did not do. that's what makes it a special 'goal scoring' season.
kind of pointless to some degree. the best players draw penalties... and so score PP goals. can't fault them for being good, can you?
there's a reason that gretzky's numbers tailed off in his 92 goal season, right? everybody was so jacked on him that he could pass off to another guy so they could score. to ignore assists in a quest to quantify goal scoring is kind of odd to me. goals have to be a big part of it, for sure. but here's a guy who not only scored goals, but easily topped that number in assists. something the Hulls did not do. that's what makes it a special 'goal scoring' season.
Exactly right! If Gretzky had concentrated the same as Brett Hull did on scoring goals, meaning he had half as many assists as goals, but kept the same number of points, he would have had over 140 goals, just to give you an idea! Now I understand Gretz was better at getting points off assists, but upwards of 100 goals would not have been an issue whatsoever if he had sacrificed making plays for scoring himself, as did Brett Hull. In this regard, Hull's 86 goals is overrated in the grand scheme of things.
Dont forget that gretz was logging 30-35 minutes a game as a center during his monster seasons in the early to mid 80's. Stammer led the centers this season at 22. Over a season that adds up. Figure 10 extra minutes a game over 80 games, thats 800 extra minutes. 800 minutes is like 36 extra games at stammer's 22 minutes.
Dont forget that gretz was logging 30-35 minutes a game as a center during his monster seasons in the early to mid 80's. Stammer led the centers this season at 22. Over a season that adds up. Figure 10 extra minutes a game over 80 games, thats 800 extra minutes. 800 minutes is like 36 extra games at stammer's 22 minutes.
Dont forget that gretz was logging 30-35 minutes a game as a center during his monster seasons in the early to mid 80's. Stammer led the centers this season at 22. Over a season that adds up. Figure 10 extra minutes a game over 80 games, thats 800 extra minutes. 800 minutes is like 36 extra games at stammer's 22 minutes.
Ice time wasn't logged in the NHL until the 1998-'99 season - Gretzky's last.
All you can do is estimate. With Glen Sather his mantra was if you were playing good you were playing a lot. However, 35 minutes doesn't cut it with Gretzky. The footage of those Oilers games shows otherwise. He was on the ice for a good 25 minutes a game I would predict. I'm not even sure if Orr - a defenseman - hit 35 minutes a game regularly.
kind of pointless to some degree. the best players draw penalties... and so score PP goals. can't fault them for being good, can you?
Then why were the Oilers near the bottom of the league in terms of powerplays awarded in the mid-80s (same also applies for the Islanders in the early 80s & the Canadiens in the late-70s)?
Ice time wasn't logged in the NHL until the 1998-'99 season - Gretzky's last.
All you can do is estimate. With Glen Sather his mantra was if you were playing good you were playing a lot. However, 35 minutes doesn't cut it with Gretzky. The footage of those Oilers games shows otherwise. He was on the ice for a good 25 minutes a game I would predict. I'm not even sure if Orr - a defenseman - hit 35 minutes a game regularly.
Here's a game from the 82-83 season. The announcer says that Sather had been reducing gretz's minutes to preserve him for the playoffs from 30-35 down to around 20. Listen for yourself I have it queued up (skip to the 1:09:00 mark otherwise)...
Here's a game from the 82-83 season. The announcer says that Sather had been reducing gretz's minutes to preserve him for the playoffs from 30-35 down to around 20. Listen for yourself I have it queued up (skip to the 1:09:00 mark otherwise)...
Yeah I listened to it. The only thing I look at is there wasn't any data back then. There is no doubt that it SEEMS the superstars play longer and are on the ice longer but are they really? When you watch Crosby and Malkin you assume that they are on the ice half the game - at least. But then at the end of the game you look at their ice time and its 22-23 minutes. I'm just not sure how accurate it would have been going by an eye witness account. It isn't like anyone was clocking them.
Mario's 92-93 season is the best season (goal scoring or otherwise) that there's ever been. The guy gets cancer misses two months, comes back from Chemo and puts up a ridiculous pace to win the scoring title and leads his team to a 17 game winning streak. Despite the chemo he still manages to pace at 2.67 points per game. His 69 goals in 60 games averages out to be exactly 92 goals. Unbelievable.
Espo's 70-71 season was incredible to me. Granted I'm pretty young but, before him it was 50 goals and he completely killed it with 76 goals. Sure it was a longer season, but that's a long time to sustain nearly GPG numbers.
kind of pointless to some degree. the best players draw penalties... and so score PP goals. can't fault them for being good, can you?
It's not their fault, but it's not necessarily the work of one player in drawing penalties.
I like the idea accounting for PP goals in this discussion because it is easier to score on a powerplay and it follows that big goal numbers are easier to build when you have a lot of powerplays than they are when you don't.
Jari Kurri's 601 goals are more impressive than Dino Ciccarelli's 608, because the Oilers were always at or near the bottom of the NHL in PPO, and the North Stars had an average or above average amount every year.
In 1985-86 a peak Tim Kerr (58) looks like an equivalent if not better goal scorer than an off-peak Gretzky (52), but as you touched on in your other point, Gretzky was more focused on passing then shooting, and that was especially true on the PP (and in 85-86). Where Gretzky was more of a set-up man on the PP (8 PPG while leading the NHL's top PP unit), Kerr was a comparitively one-dimensional proto-Byfuglien (34 PPG on a very good PP unit, that was less effective than the Oilers, but had 85 more PPO.)
It's not their fault, but it's not necessarily the work of one player in drawing penalties.
I like the idea accounting for PP goals in this discussion because it is easier to score on a powerplay and it follows that big goal numbers are easier to build when you have a lot of powerplays than they are when you don't.
Jari Kurri's 601 goals are more impressive than Dino Ciccarelli's 608, because the Oilers were always at or near the bottom of the NHL in PPO, and the North Stars had an average or above average amount every year.
In 1985-86 a peak Tim Kerr (58) looks like an equivalent if not better goal scorer than an off-peak Gretzky (52), but as you touched on in your other point, Gretzky was more focused on passing then shooting, and that was especially true on the PP (and in 85-86). Where Gretzky was more of a set-up man on the PP (8 PPG while leading the NHL's top PP unit), Kerr was a comparitively one-dimensional proto-Byfuglien (34 PPG on a very good PP unit, that was less effective than the Oilers, but had 85 more PPO.)
I don't know how much PPGs matter. At the end of the day its still a goal. Most of the time the goal is scored on a more structured play rather than on the rush which isn't easy to do either when the other team is specifically keying on you. I've always thought a player who manages to score a lot on the power play (Lemieux, Hull, Esposito come to mind) is also a great asset. It isn't as if these guys had Tim Kerr's season where he had far less even strength goals than PPG either. They did both very well. For example, Mario's 1989 season (another goal scoring season not mentioned yet) he had 31 PPG and 13 SH goals. That's 44 special teams goals with 41 at even strength. I think that's a pretty balanced attack and he led the NHL in goals by a whopping margin too. Did anyone complain that Mario had too many powerplay goals?
The day they start giving a half-goal for a PPG, I might look at them differently than a 5 on 5 goal. A goal is a goal. Period.
Just another example of how people confuse themselves by trying to apply "advanced" stats.
Pretty much. There is analyzing things, and then OVER analyzing things. You can make a compelling case for things and not having to rely solely on stats. There was a thread once that downgraded Gretzky's goals record of 894 because he had 55 empty netters. I pointed out that all star players scored empty netters and that even without them he still has 48 more career goals than anyone else. Maybe that poster listened, who knows?
But should we downgrade Gretzky because he had an average of 2.75 empty netters a season? I don't think so. If all you do is score powerplay goals and nothing else, then we've got a problem. But since when is it a crime to do both very well at ES and PP?
Pretty much. There is analyzing things, and then OVER analyzing things. You can make a compelling case for things and not having to rely solely on stats. There was a thread once that downgraded Gretzky's goals record of 894 because he had 55 empty netters. I pointed out that all star players scored empty netters and that even without them he still has 48 more career goals than anyone else. Maybe that poster listened, who knows?
But should we downgrade Gretzky because he had an average of 2.75 empty netters a season? I don't think so. If all you do is score powerplay goals and nothing else, then we've got a problem. But since when is it a crime to do both very well at ES and PP?
Thank god for you sir!
I do think the adjusting and analyzing is getting out of hands on these boards. I think in judging history you have to analyze and put things to context. But it seems that some are pulling the stat sheets on the way that gives unfair advantage to players or it just presents useless data. I have heard posters stating that Stamkos had the most impressive goal scoring season in the history of hockey. That claim was based on the facts that he had top-10 ES goal scoring campaign. That is a nice feat, but i don't find it too impressive. If you score, you score. I can't take away the importance of PPG. It counts just as much on the score sheet. If you lead the league in goals, then you are the best goal scorer for that year. If you score 92 goals then you have the most highest goalscoring season all-time. If you score 894 career goals, you are the highest goalscorer all-time.
It counts just as much on the score sheet. If you lead the league in goals, then you are the best goal scorer for that year. If you score 92 goals then you have the most highest goalscoring season all-time. If you score 894 career goals, you are the highest goalscorer all-time.
+1. All that "adjustment" is just a way to support one's claim to originality: "Nah, Gretzky wasn't all that good, especially when compared to ..."
Yeah I listened to it. The only thing I look at is there wasn't any data back then. There is no doubt that it SEEMS the superstars play longer and are on the ice longer but are they really? When you watch Crosby and Malkin you assume that they are on the ice half the game - at least. But then at the end of the game you look at their ice time and its 22-23 minutes. I'm just not sure how accurate it would have been going by an eye witness account. It isn't like anyone was clocking them.
You're probably right and I know I've watched and rewatched a ton of gretzky games. And it certainly "feels" like 20-25 min a game.
But you gotta admit, there is evidence that he averaged much higher than that, possibly into the 30's. I realize that icetime wasn't tracked and published like it is today, but it appears that individual teams, at least the oilers, were tracking icetime independently.
"Sather regularly calls upon Gretzky to take abnormally long, 1½-to-two-minute shifts, which means he plays 32 to 38 minutes a game. Most first-line centers are on the ice about 22 minutes. Sather also "floats" Gretzky at center with all four sets of wings almost every game."
And believe me I'm a gretzky superfan. I think early 80's wayne would put up about 170 points in today's league and make a run at the Selke (i'm not kidding). In fact if anyone was man enough to log huge minutes like that and still produce i'm sure they would have, nobody else did.
The day they start giving a half-goal for a PPG, I might look at them differently than a 5 on 5 goal. A goal is a goal. Period.
Just another example of how people confuse themselves by trying to apply "advanced" stats.
I'm also not crazy about adjusted stats especially when they are presented as definitive in assigning value to goals or points.
But I'm not saying that 1PPG = 0.68317 ESG.
If we are ranking goal scorers and accounting for a season's TG/G as part of the environment where a player scored his goals, isn't spending a significant amount of time with your team having 5 players and the other team having 4 also influential?
While Wayne Gretzky's team saw 318 PPO (15th of 21) when he had 87 goals, and Brett Hull's team saw 348 PPO (14th of 21) when he had 86 goals, the 88-89 Pens had 491 PPO (1st of 21) when Lemieux had 85 goals. While the difference between Gretzky and Hull isn't huge, the difference between Gretzky and Lemieux is, and it was a significant factor in Lemieux hitting 85 goals.
Lemieux was obviously a great PP performer - but he didn't get 31 PPG because he was better than Hull or Gretzky at the PP, he got it because he was given significantly more PPO.
These are easily 3 of the best seasons ever, and I wouldn't use a high PPG/SHG total to lower the rank of Lemieux's season below Jari Kurri's 71 goal season where he had 54 ESG. But when ranking an 87, 86 and 85 goal season, I prefer not ignoring the effect of Lemieux having over 2 extra power plays each game.
We don't have ice time stats from the 80s, but we do have the number of goals a player was on the ice for. And if Gretzky actually did play 35-38 minutes per game, he was one of the best defensive players ever
But should we downgrade Gretzky because he had an average of 2.75 empty netters a season? I don't think so.
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).
We don't have ice time stats from the 80s, but we do have the number of goals a player was on the ice for. And if Gretzky actually did play 35-38 minutes per game, he was one of the best defensive players ever
There was an attempt to estimate Bobby Orr's icetime based in his goals for and goals against (Original thread). Based on the statistics, Orr's icetime during his prime was most likely between 33-35 minutes per game on average.
Similar estimations could be done for Gretzky, although the larger number of forward combinations compared to defencemen could make it much less precise.
I do think the adjusting and analyzing is getting out of hands on these boards. I think in judging history you have to analyze and put things to context. But it seems that some are pulling the stat sheets on the way that gives unfair advantage to players or it just presents useless data. I have heard posters stating that Stamkos had the most impressive goal scoring season in the history of hockey. That claim was based on the facts that he had top-10 ES goal scoring campaign. That is a nice feat, but i don't find it too impressive. If you score, you score. I can't take away the importance of PPG. It counts just as much on the score sheet. If you lead the league in goals, then you are the best goal scorer for that year. If you score 92 goals then you have the most highest goalscoring season all-time. If you score 894 career goals, you are the highest goalscorer all-time.
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.
