There may be someone who comes along who is better than Gretzky, but it's unlikely that it'll be as recognizable by the numbers. He played during the highest scoring era in hockey, and with the salary cap in place as well as improvements in goaltending and defensive systems it would be a lot harder to hit/break his records.
My only problem with the relative dominance comparison to 2nd place is, how do we know there aren't simply more great players around now compared to 1984? Wouldn't comparing his point totals to the league average for goals per game be a better way? I'm sure Gretzky comes out ahead either way, but from a point of statistical analysis comparing to just 2nd place seems fairly pointless.
The premise is taking the mean of the top 100 scorers and finding how many standard deviations away the Art Ross winner is. Needless to say, Gretzky absolutely demolishes.
If you give Crosby the benefit of the doubt (132 points) then he slides in just behind Lemieux's peak.
I'm not 100% sure what forum to put this in. This is more of a look in the future than a look at the past, however it involves Gretzky and I figured I'd put it here. Plus this board has the best discussion, I won't get answers such as "No /end thread".
Anyway, this question is two-fold. First will we see a better player than Gretzky ever? Second, if we do, would we know it?
Reason I ask this is because a huge part of his legacy is how he tore apart the record books. Another part is the fact that he was part of the Oilers dynasty. However, even though he was leaps and bounds better than anyone in his era, you still have to realize that Gretzky's numbers and records are a bit inflated by the era he played in. You won't see those numbers in today's NHL. So what does someone have to do to surpass him? Does he have to have a certain percentage lead over his closest competitor? Because unless someone plays a ridiculously long time at a ridiculous high level, I don't see anyone touching Gretzky's records. For a little perspective, if we look at his regular season point total of 2,857, if a player were to start at 18 and finish at 45, he'd need to average about 106 points per season. Even THEN, people will more likely just call him a compiler (an all time great compiler, but not in Gretzky's class). Also, let's not forget that Gretzky played with some of the best players in the NHL. With the cap, we won't see teams like that ever again. So it seems that unless there's some sort of change in the NHL (I can't foresee a significant one unless they do something ridiculous like make the nets bigger), no one is touching those numbers. And we can't use math to say that certain seasons were as good as Gretzky's. I remember someone doing that with Stamkos' season last year, taking into account how high scoring the league was and got practically laughed at.
Furthermore, a reason Gretzky is so revered is that he won 4 cups on a dynasty team that may be the best known dynasty in the NHL. Going back to the cap, it'll be very difficult for a player to win 4 cups total over his career, much less in a dynasty.
So if someone DOES come along as good as Gretzky will the lower numbers and cups obscure his accomplishments?
To borrow one example from another sport. Wilt Chamberlain dominated his day in a different era. He had seasons no one could dream of in a different era. He had 50 points per game one season. He had a 100 point game. He dominated the boards, had 11 seasons of 20+ boards (in a row). However, in came Jordan and he's now considered the best ever. Granted he does have more career points than Wilt, but that's in 3 more seasons. People were able to discount the era and not hold it against Michael that it was impossible in his era to average 50 points a game in one season. One difference though is that basketball is much more conducive to dynasties than the NHL today. Michael's 6 in 8 years is probably the biggest factor in being called GOAT. Most likely we won't see an NHL player be part of a legit dynasty anymore if the cap doesn't disappear.
All things considered, Orr was better, eight straight Norris Trophies, would have probably won 15 if not for injuries, more importantly, two Art Ross Trophies,first and only dman to ever do that, changed the game way before Gretzky ever did. I would have considered Gretzky better than Orr if he had won at least on Norris Trophy, to be the only forward to do so but he never did.
Adjusting for league average scoring just makes it harder on Crosby:
Gretzky hit 170 adjusted and over 150 6 times in total.
There is no way to reasonably downgrade Gretzky enough to put anyone currently playing in the same conversation.
I'm not trying to downgrade him, i'm trying to get a more accurate representation. If he dominates the average more than he dominates 2nd place, that's all the more impressive.
The premise is taking the mean of the top 100 scorers and finding how many standard deviations away the Art Ross winner is. Needless to say, Gretzky absolutely demolishes.
If you give Crosby the benefit of the doubt (132 points) then he slides in just behind Lemieux's peak.
Perfect, i like this analysis way more than what % he beat 2nd place by. Gretzky's margins are incredible.
There may be someone who comes along who is better than Gretzky, but it's unlikely that it'll be as recognizable by the numbers. He played during the highest scoring era in hockey, and with the salary cap in place as well as improvements in goaltending and defensive systems it would be a lot harder to hit/break his records.
And yet, Gretzky way past his prime with a broken back in the mid/late 90's with the trap and ballooning goalie equipment, he was STILL finishing in the top 10 in scoring.
When/if a player comes along in Gretzky's zip code, we will all know it, trust me. Just like we did with Mario.
It sure as hell hasn't come close to happening since Mario though.
Nothing against the Cosbyites around here but Sid really isn't even on the same planet, let alone the same zip code.
The premise is taking the mean of the top 100 scorers and finding how many standard deviations away the Art Ross winner is. Needless to say, Gretzky absolutely demolishes.
If you give Crosby the benefit of the doubt (132 points) then he slides in just behind Lemieux's peak.
Not really sure that helps. That just shows how far away the 99 other players are from the mean. Not sure what that would prove. If the other 99 players have a small gap in production because they had a small gap in talent while Gretzky had a large cap in talent, that just proves that Gretzky is way better than the rest. Still the same issue can creep up. The rest of the field may be very weak. I'm sure Wilt was many SDs ahead of his short stiff competitors when he dominated the rest of the centers of the league back in the day.
And yet, Gretzky way past his prime with a broken back in the mid/late 90's with the trap and ballooning goalie equipment, he was STILL finishing in the top 10 in scoring.
When/if a player comes along in Gretzky's zip code, we will all know it, trust me. Just like we did with Mario.
It sure as hell hasn't come close to happening since Mario though.
Nothing against the Cosbyites around here but Sid really isn't even on the same planet, let alone the same zip code.
I don't know if you can say that... Crosby, if healthy is an Art Ross contender every single year, and in all likelihood the odds-on favourite. Isn't that close enough to what you are looking for?
Also, kinda OT, but weren't they saying the same thing about Phil Esposito's records, and Bobby Orr's legendary status before Gretzky came along? Obviously things change and the way the goaltenders are now you will likely never see as much scoring as you did back then, but there is always someone who comes along and beats the odds. Records were made to be broken.
I don't know if you can say that... Crosby, if healthy is an Art Ross contender every single year, and in all likelihood the odds-on favourite. Isn't that close enough to what you are looking for?
Also, kinda OT, but weren't they saying the same thing about Phil Esposito's records, and Bobby Orr's legendary status before Gretzky came along? Obviously things change and the way the goaltenders are now you will likely never see as much scoring as you did back then, but there is always someone who comes along and beats the odds. Records were made to be broken.
Gretzky and Lemieux weren't ''Art Ross contenders every year'' they were absolutely guaranteed to win unless an injury happened or they competed against each other.Even Jagr managed to win many Art Rosses , yet nobody is going to confuse Jagr for a Gretzky type of player.
Gretzky and Lemieux weren't ''Art Ross contenders every year'' they were absolutely guaranteed to win unless an injury happened or they competed against each other.Even Jagr managed to win many Art Rosses , yet nobody is going to confuse Jagr for a Gretzky type of player.
Prime Gretzky wouldn't have let Henrik Sedin even get close to him, let alone steal an Art Ross.
Gretzky was so far ahead of the curve it is very unlikely we will see anyone better. Especially if you restrict it to offensive play.
Even if you adjust his totals for average league scoring he blows everyone away. No one playing today is even close.
A player like Gretzky is a once in a blue moon winning the lottery type of event.
It is even very remote we'll see a better all around player.. but there is a better chance of that because Gretzky wasn't physical and didn't always play traditional defense.
It is too bad for those of you out there who didn't get to witness two true generational talents at their best back to back with Wayne and Mario.
Exactly.
The thread should be titled "will we ever see a better offensive player than Gretzky?".
Even Jagr managed to win many Art Rosses , yet nobody is going to confuse Jagr for a Gretzky type of player.
No you're absolutely right. That is only because Gretzky and Lemieux were, like you said, head and shoulders above the rest.
But Jagr is as close as you are likely to get nowadays, and I would say Sid has to be getting close to being comparable to the impact Jagr had on the scoring race(s) year in, year out. So I am not saying that Sid is Greztky-esque but his accomplishments speak for themselves. He is the betting favourite to win the scoring race going into every new season, and almost universally regarded as the best player in the league. You could say the same thing about Gretzky, Lemieux or Jagr at one point or another.
So maybe not Gretzky's level, but Wayne is the most statistically dominant athlete in the history of pro sports. They don't come around very often. Sid/Jagr is likely the closest we will get.
I think guys like Gretzky are really, really rare in the history of all pro sports, much less just hockey.
I think such a dominant player in pro sports is likely, but in all likelihood it won't be in hockey this time out.
As far as I'm concerned, in my lifetime (I'm 44) there has never been anyone in pro sports that dominated the way Gretzky did.
Michael Jordan was a very special basket ball player, the best in the league, but there were other guys who played with him, or even now, that someone could try and argue we're just as good. Some people will tell you there are at least two guys right now (Kobe and Lebron) that are just as good. Some here in LA would argue Magic was just as good.
With all due respect to Mario and Orr, no one dominated the way Wayne did. Wayne just wasn't as pretty to watch. He was smaller, wasn't fast, had an average shot etc...it didn't necessarily have the look of a truly one in a lifetime athlete, but somehow the result was so much greater than the sum of its parts.
Mario had the height and strength that made you marvel, Orr the skating, shot and stick handling...it all looked so much better, that the skills you saw, IMO, made you think they were better. But Wayne, without the glaring way better than everyone else type skills was way more dominat than I think we will ever see in this sport for a long long time, if not ever.
My apologies to the Orr and Lemieux fans. They were truly special players, but IMO, their dominance never reached Gretzky levels.
I think guys like Gretzky are really, really rare in the history of all pro sports, much less just hockey.
I think such a dominant player in pro sports is likely, but in all likelihood it won't be in hockey this time out.
As far as I'm concerned, in my lifetime (I'm 44) there has never been anyone in pro sports that dominated the way Gretzky did.
Michael Jordan was a very special basket ball player, the best in the league, but there were other guys who played with him, or even now, that someone could try and argue we're just as good. Some people will tell you there are at least two guys right now (Kobe and Lebron) that are just as good. Some here in LA would argue Magic was just as good.
With all due respect to Mario and Orr, no one dominated the way Wayne did. Wayne just wasn't as pretty to watch. He was smaller, wasn't fast, had an average shot etc...it didn't necessarily have the look of a truly one in a lifetime athlete, but somehow the result was so much greater than the sum of its parts.
Mario had the height and strength that made you marvel, Orr the skating, shot and stick handling...it all looked so much better, that the skills you saw, IMO, made you think they were better. But Wayne, without the glaring way better than everyone else type skills was way more dominat than I think we will ever see in this sport for a long long time, if not ever.
My apologies to the Orr and Lemieux fans. They were truly special players, but IMO, their dominance never reached Gretzky levels.
I think the people who claim Kobe and Lebron are as good as Jordan are in the VAST minority.
Are there any truth to the claim that Gretzky ran up the numbers during the eighties?
Well think about it. The league had more scoring, why wouldn't his numbers be better? If he could get the same numbers now (in his prime), seems like he wasn't playing up to his potential in the 80s.
1a: Howe, Orr, Lemieux
1b: Gretzky
2: Harvey and some other old blokes
3: Jagr and and his possé
-LETS GO PENS!
Quote:
Originally Posted by jigglysquishy
I would love to hear your argument for Lemieux over Gretzky.
I'd like to hear an argument to have all 3 of them above Gretzky. I can understand arguments for any one of them individually, but all 3? Honestly, if you rate Howe above Gretzky for his longevity, then you can't really put Orr and Lemieux above him due to their lack of longevity.
If you rate Orr and Howe above him for their more complete games, you can't really put Lemieux above him, since he was generally worse defensively than Gretzky. If you're going by peak, it's pretty hard to rate Howe above him. If you are rating them on competition, it's hard to rate Howe and Orr above him (especially Orr, who played in the weakest era of all time except maybe right after WWII).
And if you're going by a combination of all these factors, plus awards, peer dominance, career accomplishments, etc... its hard to rate any of them above him, IMO.
Are there any truth to the claim that Gretzky ran up the numbers during the eighties?
Of course he did. But what difference does that make? One of the things that made him great was that he kept pushing himself for more and was never satisfied. When someone asked him about his 50 goals in 42 games, he said "Ya, but it's not 50 in 39, is it?" 2nd fastest to 50 ever, behind only himself, and he still wasn't happy.
On an absolute scale, I think so. But the average player will be so much better than the average player of the 80's that he won't stand out in the same way or dominate by the same percentage relative to his peers. What makes Gretzky special is how far ahead of the curve he was at the time. But there are players today who are closer to him in talent than nostalgic memories would have you believe.
Don't get me wrong, he is undoubtedly the best player there has been. But it rubs me the wrong way when we discredit the current batch of guys playing. In every other sport there's an improvement between generations, yet it's common around here to elevate players of the past above anyone playing today. I don't think any player today is better than Gretzky, but l think we sometimes give too much reverence to certain other players just on the basis of them having played in an older era.
