Gretzky 88-89 Even Strength

[poise]

What does this all mean for Wayne Gretzky's 1988-89 season at even strength? Well, it's just a single season, so plus-minus can be deceiving. And there may have been a change in the role Gretzky played and the support he received. But put this season into the context of his career. For Gretzky's entire career in Edmonton, he was a dominant outscorer at even strength like no other forward in history. He led his team to four Stanley Cups. And from 1991 on, Gretzky was a minus player who didn't outperform the rest of his team at even strength at all, and had zero team success except in one last great run in the 1993 playoffs. As far as I'm concerned, the stats are very clear that 1990s Gretzky was a far, far less valuable player than 1980s Gretzky. So when I look at Gretzky's declining plus-minus in 1988-89, it looks like the beginning of a trend.

I think the problem comes in of using this particular season to illustrate the beginning of the trend though. I would think there would be little argument with a position that Gretzky in 1991-1992 and beyond and including the off year of 1989-1990, was a shadow of his former self in even strength play. That's why the 1993 cup run is so memorable. We hadn't seen Gretzky like that since 1988.

However, the 1988-1989 season is not a season that should be lumped in with that trend (nor is his 1990-1991 season, not sure what the numbers are for those). The underwhelming statistics do have pretty good explanations, or "excuses" if you will, especially Bernie Nicholls, who really did have a season that was one of the strongest in league history. Keeping pace with Mario for even half a year and outscoring Gretzky on the same team in that span is extremely impressive.

Both the 1988-1989 season and the 1990-1991 season have much more in common with Gretzky's last two seasons in Edmonton then they do with the rest of his career.

You could make the point that Gretzky was declining even in these seasons from his 205-215 point seasons and of course that is true, but if that's the case then it would be better to draw the line starting at 1986-1987. Just as it would make sense to draw the line of his goal scoring decline in 1985-1986.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I think the problem comes in of using this particular season to illustrate the beginning of the trend though. I would think there would be little argument with a position that Gretzky in 1991-1992 and beyond and including the off year of 1989-1990, was a shadow of his former self in even strength play. That's why the 1993 cup run is so memorable. We hadn't seen Gretzky like that since 1988.

Ya after 91 there was a dramatic difference in his game..

Age and Suter caught up to him, I think. Not sure how much of each.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

Hmm, it would be interesting to compare Gretzky's plus minus between wins and losses. If the Kings played a run-and-gun game with relatively poor defense and goaltending and Gretzky played a ton of minutes when behind, his unimpressive plus minus could really be dragged down by some seriously bad minuses in losses.

There might be some merit to that theory.

'88: 2.70 PPG, +1.35/gm in wins, 1.70 PPG, -0.70/gm in losses
'89: 2.66 PPG, +1.41/gm in wins, 1.60 PPG, -1.40/gm in losses

Gretzky was getting dinged by minuses at double the rate in losses as a King than as an Oiler, with all the other numbers pretty much equal.

The Kings definitely played a run and gun style, as there were 5,222 shots taken by both teams in Kings games in '88-89, the most in the league. In '87-88 the Kings were 5th with 5,029. Edmonton had a total of 4,657 shots by either team in '88-89, ranking them 16th in the league, which is almost identical to the Oilers' 4,705 and 16th place ranking in '87-88. A possible interpretation of that would be that Gretzky was operating within his respective teams' environment, rather than having a major personal impact on their style of play.

You know that we're talking about this season in particular and why his goal differential (when on the ice with two of the above LA defensemen) wasn't much better than others (when on the ice with two of the above LA defensemen), right?

The defense and goaltending can be removed from the equation, if you get what I'm saying.

I disagree that defense and goaltending can be removed as a variable. Not over the course of one season, it doesn't always even out. Even for a top-minutes forward, a full season worth of on-ice shot and goals against data is the equivalent of a goalie playing 30-35 games. It happens all the time that goalies have a great half and then a terrible half, and it happens all the time that one center on a team has a great save percentage behind him while another center does not.

Two examples of center combinations with very different even strength save percentages behind them from last year are Saku Koivu (.937) and Ryan Getzlaf (.905), and Jordan Staal (.919) and Sidney Crosby (.884). Each pairing faced fairly similar shots against rates, but if you look at the ESGA per game numbers it looks like one was way better defensively than the other.

It's entirely possible that the Kings goalies just happened to have an .870 save percentage behind Gretzky and an .890 save percentage behind everyone else in 1988-89, without it being his fault at all.

The later L.A. years prove that Gretzky had declined as an even strength performer, but I don't think we can necessarily assume that he fell off that cliff the day he got traded. I think it's quite possible that Gretzky's relatively unimpressive results in '88-89 were the result of luck or other contextual factors, more so than a decline in his personal performance. Or maybe Bruce McNall just told him to cherrypick like a madman so the Kings could sell more tickets. I'm not sure we'll ever really know for sure, but it's an interesting discussion.

 

[seventieslord]

Only

And

And

And

So, then, nothing that said Gretzky had a negative impact, then? OK.

Then when we discovered that the Kings gave up an abnormal amount of EN's the story changed to Gretzky not outperforming his team enough and now after beating each other over the head about the limitations of the statistics being used we're at the soft touch.

Don't act like that made a major difference in the numbers. It took him from the 122nd-best ratio out of 129, to 117th.

Anyone who watched knows Gretzky was still a big time even strength producer and this is backed up by more first hand numbers.

Absolutely. And many players were great even strength producers against him.

It was actually a season that caused a lot of people to eat crow because they never thought Gretzky could produce at those levels outside of the stacked Edmonton team.

He did, but it apparently came at a price.

I disagree that defense and goaltending can be removed as a variable. Not over the course of one season, it doesn't always even out. Even for a top-minutes forward, a full season worth of on-ice shot and goals against data is the equivalent of a goalie playing 30-35 games. It happens all the time that goalies have a great half and then a terrible half, and it happens all the time that one center on a team has a great save percentage behind him while another center does not.

that would still be pretty conspiracy-theory of you to think the goalies stunk a lot when one player was on the ice... especially one who many are saying would have had a magical positive effect on all players, including the goalie.

Two examples of center combinations with very different even strength save percentages behind them from last year are Saku Koivu (.937) and Ryan Getzlaf (.905), and Jordan Staal (.919) and Sidney Crosby (.884). Each pairing faced fairly similar shots against rates, but if you look at the ESGA per game numbers it looks like one was way better defensively than the other.

Two things:

1) It appears you hand-selected the two most extreme cases. It's possible, like anything, but highly unlikely that Gretzky had a situation like this to deal with.

2) Koivu had an amazing defensive season and I happen to think Jordan Staal is the league's best defensive forward. Could they play so well defensively that the shot quality they surrendered was that much less? I bet they could have. I don't see anyone else on the 88-89 Kings who could have had that impact.

It's entirely possible that the Kings goalies just happened to have an .870 save percentage behind Gretzky and an .890 save percentage behind everyone else in 1988-89, without it being his fault at all.

Based on intuitive interpretation of the numbers you chose to use, It could easily be argued that if that was the case, it was Gretzky's fault to some degree.

The later L.A. years prove that Gretzky had declined as an even strength performer, but I don't think we can necessarily assume that he fell off that cliff the day he got traded. I think it's quite possible that Gretzky's relatively unimpressive results in '88-89 were the result of luck or other contextual factors, more so than a decline in his personal performance. Or maybe Bruce McNall just told him to cherrypick like a madman so the Kings could sell more tickets. I'm not sure we'll ever really know for sure, but it's an interesting discussion.

That could be it.

 

[BraveCanadian]

So, then, nothing that said Gretzky had a negative impact, then? OK.

You saying repeatedly that the team was playing better when he wasn't on the ice isn't him having a negative impact? I realize you've had to back pedal now but..

Don't act like that made a major difference in the numbers. It took him from the 122nd-best ratio out of 129, to 117th.

It doesn't have to. It shows how a small factor of 6 EN goals can change the ratio you are using very quickly. He went from "underperforming" to "outperforming" just like that. The question is how many other factors aren't captured by your original stat? A lot.

Absolutely. And many players were great even strength producers against him.

Nope. Gretzky wasn't out there 5 on 1. They may have been surrendering a lot of goals but that isn't a function of Gretzky the individual.

that would still be pretty conspiracy-theory of you to think the goalies stunk a lot when one player was on the ice... especially one who many are saying would have had a magical positive effect on all players, including the goalie.

It reflects the different situations the centers were playing in more than it means a goalie was better with one and worse with the other.

Conspiracy has nothing to do with it.

2) Koivu had an amazing defensive season and I happen to think Jordan Staal is the league's best defensive forward. Could they play so well defensively that the shot quality they surrendered was that much less? I bet they could have. I don't see anyone else on the 88-89 Kings who could have had that impact.

Based on intuitive interpretation of the numbers you chose to use, It could easily be argued that if that was the case, it was Gretzky's fault to some degree.

Oh so you do understand that situations affect numbers you just refuse to believe that it is so in Gretzky's case.. in that case he's just horrible defensively and personally responsible for every puck that hits the back of his net?

In reality what you described works the opposite way as well: If Gretzky and the Kings realize that the best way to optimize the fact that they have Wayne Gretzky is to play offensively (because he makes it work out in their favour more often than not)... it is very conceivable that they would give up higher percentage chances when he was on the ice and the goaltenders would have a lower save percentage with him on the ice.

You say that makes it his fault they give up goals.. I say the teams improvement means they were maximizing the benefit of their strengths. It worked out in their favour and translated into a win more often than a loss.

Center Shifts stats that show Gretzky's production and +/- in wins and losses seems to support this may have been the case as well.

 

[seventieslord]

You saying repeatedly that the team was playing better when he wasn't on the ice isn't him having a negative impact? I realize you've had to back pedal now but..

#1, even strength is not the entire game, it's the most important part, but a player who is dynamite on the PP can easily be a positive impact on a team even if he's not at even strength.

#2, I never said the team "played better" but they did appear to have better results (before the ENG factor changed that ever so slightly) - I realize all the caveats that come with that but the fact is, those caveats apply to most players who are top-3 scorers and they didn't end up with ratios like this.

I don't think there's any doubt he had become less dominant at even strength, and it's pretty clear disclaim-the-stats-before-all-else overpass agrees with me. That should be a wake-up call for you but you need to vehemently deny anything that makes Gretzky look even 2% less god-like.

It doesn't have to. It shows how a small factor of 6 EN goals can change the ratio you are using very quickly. He went from "underperforming" to "outperforming" just like that. The question is how many other factors aren't captured by your original stat? A lot.

6 EN goals are not "small" - they represent a more-than-doubling of the usual 4-5 EN goals a top offensive player tends to have scored on them. In other words, this was a freak season for EN goals against for Gretzky. It did not make a huge difference in what I was saying.

Oh so you do understand that situations affect numbers you just refuse to believe that it is so in Gretzky's case.. in that case he's just horrible defensively and personally responsible for every puck that hits the back of his net?

No, I look at those numbers and can make a good judgment right away that it was because Staal and Koivu were so good defensively that they allowed very low shot quality last season compared to Crosby and Getzlaf. As it applies to Gretzky, he's a lot closer to Crosby and Getzlaf than Koivu and Staal, and anyone who watches him play defensively would agree that the team should allow more high-quality shots when he's out there. There is no evidence that the goalies would have a different sv% when he's on the ice, but it would sure make sense if they did.

In reality what you described works the opposite way as well: If Gretzky and the Kings realize that the best way to optimize the fact that they have Wayne Gretzky is to play offensively (because he makes it work out in their favour more often than not)... it is very conceivable that they would give up higher percentage chances when he was on the ice and the goaltenders would have a lower save percentage with him on the ice.

so Gretzky = lower sv% for goalies. in other words, his presence on the ice has a negative defensive impact. Obviously it's an even greater positive impact offensively.

It was always that way for him. The difference between the two just wasn't as much as he was accustomed to.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

that would still be pretty conspiracy-theory of you to think the goalies stunk a lot when one player was on the ice... especially one who many are saying would have had a magical positive effect on all players, including the goalie.

First of all, I flat-out disagree with the magical positive effect. Secondly, it's not conspiracy theory, it's random distribution. Look at monthly stats for goalies, you'll see their save percentages veer all over the place. Same thing with monthly shooting percentages for shooters. They aren't all playing bad when the rates are bad and good when the rates are good.

Haven't you ever had a stretch of games playing hockey where every lucky bounce seemed to be going in while you were on the ice, while everything was hitting the post or going wide while you were on the bench? Or vice versa? Those things even out in large samples, but one season is not a large sample.

Two things:

1) It appears you hand-selected the two most extreme cases. It's possible, like anything, but highly unlikely that Gretzky had a situation like this to deal with.

You are correct that those were extreme examples, but we're also talking about an extreme case here. It is the highest ESGA/game season of Gretzky's career, for one, and you've noted that it ranks among the worst ever for a scorer of his calibre. Your selection isn't random either, which makes it much more likely that there is a bad luck effect at work in addition to whatever flaws there may have been in Gretzky's defensive effort (and I am agreeing with you in general that Gretzky gave a lot back on the other end of the rink).

I'd say it is very likely that the save percentage with Gretzky was lower than the save percentage without him, because of a factor already discussed in this thread: empty net goals. I'll grant that we can adjust for that variable separately though.

2) Koivu had an amazing defensive season and I happen to think Jordan Staal is the league's best defensive forward. Could they play so well defensively that the shot quality they surrendered was that much less? I bet they could have. I don't see anyone else on the 88-89 Kings who could have had that impact.

I don't think they could have, no. In 2008-09 Staal was .912 and Crosby was .904. Maybe there's a shot quality gap of something like that (or maybe Crosby was just playing against better players and was on the ice for more empty-net goals against).

As a team the Kings' shots against went up by 5% compared to '87-88, and up by 8% compared to the '87-88 Oilers. Gretzky's personal shots taken per game rate went up by 15% after going to the Kings. Nicholl's shot rate also went through the roof, and he played a lot with Gretzky.

Both Edmonton in '88 and Los Angeles in '89 had a team save percentage of .880. Given that Gretzky was probably getting as many if not more shots than before at the other end of the ice, what reason is there to expect that his shots against would go up by one-third, to match the rise in his ESGA/game? And given that Los Angeles was a high shots against team both with and without Gretzky, what reason is there to think that it was all his fault or that the rest of the team would have vastly outperformed Gretzky in that regard?

It seems to me that if you think that Gretzky was primarily responsible for the goals against, you'd probably have to make that argument based on shot quality. I happen to think that a lot of times when people make shot quality arguments they are just looking for a way to explain random variance.

Gretzky may have faced more shots against if he took on a lot more defensive situations in L.A. than in Edmonton, where they might have fallen to Messier. That's quite possible, given that the Kings did not have any notable checking centers on the team, and might have gone power vs. power or just double-shifted Gretzky at all times. If that was the case, that doesn't necessarily mean Gretzky was declining, just that he was more sheltered as an Oiler.

I think he was probably declining a bit and playing a tougher role and the Kings goalies let in more shots while he was on the ice. It would be nice if we could pin all the blame on Gretzky himself, but I just don't think it's that simple.

 

[BraveCanadian]

in other words, his presence on the ice has a negative defensive impact. Obviously it's an even greater positive impact offensively.

It was always that way for him. The difference between the two just wasn't as much as he was accustomed to.

Yeah and I suppose you're still going to say it was because of a decline in his personal play? I'd say it has a lot more to do with him going from a dynasty to a team that was 18th and with limited options.

What is more likely here:

That Gretzky had 43 points in 19 playoff games and won the Stanley Cup yet, somehow over the summer at age 28, became a non-impact player at even strength while still putting up 38 even strength goals, 168 points overall, and improving a team from 18/21 to 4th..

OR

The statistic used isn't capturing everything we need to make a good judgment about Gretzky's personal play.

 

[seventieslord]

First of all, I flat-out disagree with the magical positive effect. Secondly, it's not conspiracy theory, it's random distribution. Look at monthly stats for goalies, you'll see their save percentages veer all over the place. Same thing with monthly shooting percentages for shooters. They aren't all playing bad when the rates are bad and good when the rates are good.

I agree there is variation in that regard.

Haven't you ever had a stretch of games playing hockey where every lucky bounce seemed to be going in while you were on the ice, while everything was hitting the post or going wide while you were on the bench? Or vice versa? Those things even out in large samples, but one season is not a large sample.

I agree that there can be variation in this regard too, but strongly disagree that it can't wash out over a full season.

You are correct that those were extreme examples, but we're also talking about an extreme case here. It is the highest ESGA/game season of Gretzky's career, for one, and you've noted that it ranks among the worst ever for a scorer of his calibre. Your selection isn't random either, which makes it much more likely that there is a bad luck effect at work in addition to whatever flaws there may have been in Gretzky's defensive effort (and I am agreeing with you in general that Gretzky gave a lot back on the other end of the rink).

ok.

I'd say it is very likely that the save percentage with Gretzky was lower than the save percentage without him, because of a factor already discussed in this thread: empty net goals. I'll grant that we can adjust for that variable separately though.

I don't think they could have, no. In 2008-09 Staal was .912 and Crosby was .904. Maybe there's a shot quality gap of something like that (or maybe Crosby was just playing against better players and was on the ice for more empty-net goals against).

Nope, ENG don't affect sv%.

And given that Los Angeles was a high shots against team both with and without Gretzky, what reason is there to think that it was all his fault or that the rest of the team would have vastly outperformed Gretzky in that regard?

No idea. There was a major turnover in that team besides the introduction of Gretzky, so trying to attribute a 5% rise in shots against to anything is like pissing up a rope.

It seems to me that if you think that Gretzky was primarily responsible for the goals against, you'd probably have to make that argument based on shot quality. I happen to think that a lot of times when people make shot quality arguments they are just looking for a way to explain random variance.

No, I can't say for sure that he caused higher shot quality against his goalies. No one really can. But it would make a lot of sense the way he played.

I think he was probably declining a bit and playing a tougher role and the Kings goalies let in more shots while he was on the ice. It would be nice if we could pin all the blame on Gretzky himself, but I just don't think it's that simple.

I certainly don't want to do that either. But I think it's clear that he had a part in his lines allowing more goals. And with that said, it's arguable that this season wasn't as godlike as some make it out to be.

I mean, he could have backchecked even less, caused 30 more goals for, getting 25 points in the process, and caused 30 more goals against, and his ratio would be about the same, and his impact at ES wouldn't have been any more positive, but he'd have 193 points now and I'd be going even more against the grain than I am right now.

Yeah and I suppose you're still going to say it was because of a decline in his personal play? I'd say it has a lot more to do with him going from a dynasty to a team that was 18th and with limited options.

What is more likely here:

That Gretzky had 43 points in 19 playoff games and won the Stanley Cup yet, somehow over the summer at age 28, became a non-impact player at even strength while still putting up 38 even strength goals, 168 points overall, and improving a team from 18/21 to 4th..

OR

The statistic used isn't capturing everything we need to make a good judgment about Gretzky's personal play.

Neither. It's a combination of both and a lot more things. It sounds like you think I want this to be black and white.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Neither. It's a combination of both and a lot more things. It sounds like you think I want this to be black and white.

That's pretty funny considering you are the one using a single number as the basis for everything in this thread.. its by and large been everyone else trying to put forth why that probably isn't the case.

Anyways everyone is going in circles here now.. its obvious there is a lot more at play than gf/ga.

 

[seventieslord]

That's pretty funny considering you are the one using a single number as the basis for everything in this thread.. its by and large been everyone else trying to put forth why that probably isn't the case.

Anyways everyone is going in circles here now.. its obvious there is a lot more at play than gf/ga.

And I've been open to that all along. Some looked like objective observers trying to understand the truth, others looked like Gretzky worshippers who wouldn't accept anything other than he's the bestest ever.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

I agree that there can be variation in this regard too, but strongly disagree that it can't wash out over a full season.

I never said it couldn't wash out, I just said it doesn't necessarily wash out. Jonas Hiller's job was not 50% easier last year with Saku Koivu on the ice than it was with Ryan Getzlaf. Someone already showed how 6 ENG can change the numbers, that's just one goal per month, well within the boundary of luck. Even if the goalies had exactly the same save percentage behind Gretzky as everyone else, maybe he got scored on a few times just after a penalty kill ended, maybe he and/or his teammates hit the crossbar a bunch of times, maybe he had goals unjustly allowed or disallowed, etc., etc. Not guaranteed, but possible.

Looking at several seasons, such as his entire L.A. tenure, it's obvious that his game was on the downswing. I'm just urging caution with respect to conclusions about 1988-89.

Nope, ENG don't affect sv%.

I think ENG are included in the stats at Behind the Net. Or at least I thought they were at one point, but I could be wrong about that. ENG don't affect a goalie's sv%, but they do affect Gretzky's on-ice save percentage, which is total goals against / totals shots against. If you prefer to take out ENG when calculating player save percentages then fine, the point is that they end up going against his defensive record.

I certainly don't want to do that either. But I think it's clear that he had a part in his lines allowing more goals. And with that said, it's arguable that this season wasn't as godlike as some make it out to be.

I mean, he could have backchecked even less, caused 30 more goals for, getting 25 points in the process, and caused 30 more goals against, and his ratio would be about the same, and his impact at ES wouldn't have been any more positive, but he'd have 193 points now and I'd be going even more against the grain than I am right now.

We're on the same page for the most part here. I agree that Gretzky's season wasn't as godlike as many say, I agree that it seems clear that cheated for offence at the cost of defence, and I agree that the Hart voters mistakenly gave Gretzky credit for some stuff that his teammates did. I just think you might have gone a bit far at times in this thread in drawing conclusions from one season's worth of data. Gretzky was declining in effectiveness at even strength between the trade and the Suter incident, while remaining a strong contributor on special teams, I'm just unconvinced that his decline was as sudden as the numbers may make it seem.

 

[JackSlater]

And I've been open to that all along. Some looked like objective observers trying to understand the truth, others looked like Gretzky worshippers who wouldn't accept anything other than he's the bestest ever.

And some appear not to have understood the discussion all along, leading to gems such as:

You saying repeatedly that the team was playing better when he wasn't on the ice isn't him having a negative impact? I realize you've had to back pedal now but..

That the team performed better when Gretzky was not on the ice at even strength does not actually mean that he had a negative impact. You have incorrectly equated the two, repeatedly. It has already been explained how Gretzky very likely still had a positive impact at even strength on the Kings that year, which doesn't even take his special teams contributions into account.

It doesn't have to. It shows how a small factor of 6 EN goals can change the ratio you are using very quickly. He went from "underperforming" to "outperforming" just like that. The question is how many other factors aren't captured by your original stat? A lot.

You do realize that other elite scoring forwards also have empty net goals scored against them each year, right? Even if Gretzky suffered a few more of these than you would expect, his ratio compared to the rest of the team is still highly unimpressive. Even after discounting these goals (which I don't think is necessarily the proper thing to do in this discussion) Gretzky's ratio compared to other elite scoring forwards is still highly unimpressive, even before adjusting them for empty net goals as well, which has been the point all along. It doesn't matter if Gretzky's ratio is just slightly below or above that of the Kings; those following the discussion have been wondering why it wasn't actually much better, as one would expect of a player of that stature who scored so much. I am guessing that the other factors you are thinking of, but not naming, also apply to these forwards who still posted much stronger ratios.

It reflects the different situations the centers were playing in more than it means a goalie was better with one and worse with the other.

I'm pretty sure that many other elite scoring forwards have been in similar situations, and yet their ratios by and large were better than Gretzky's that year... which once again has been the point all along.

 

[BraveCanadian]

That the team performed better when Gretzky was not on the ice at even strength does not actually mean that he had a negative impact. You have incorrectly equated the two, repeatedly. It has already been explained how Gretzky very likely still had a positive impact at even strength on the Kings that year, which doesn't even take his special teams contributions into account.

I am pretty sure I have been in the camp explaining how Gretzky had a positive impact on the Kings despite the silly ratio all along. Oh yup. There I am starting the thread and believing my eyes and what the Kings accomplished over what the simplistic ratio says..

I'm pretty sure that many other elite scoring forwards have been in similar situations, and yet their ratios by and large were better than Gretzky's that year... which once again has been the point all along.

No it wasn't the point all along. The original thing that started the thread was seventies saying that Gretzky was not a good even strength performer starting in 88-89 because of the ratio..

A good question would be how many of the top scorers were top 3 in scoring on a team as bad defensively as the Kings were in 88-89 and had a better ratio with a comparable off ice counterpart to 150 point Nicholls.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Suddenly Gretzky isn't so responsible for Nicholls 150 point season now is he. Either he's getting a lot of those points with Gretzky, or without, it can't be both.

 

[lextune]

Suddenly Gretzky isn't so responsible for Nicholls 150 point season now is he. Either he's getting a lot of those points with Gretzky, or without, it can't be both.

Gretzky assisted on 40 of Bernie's 97 regular season goals while they were teammates, and 5 of his 7 playoff goals.

Some could say "so Gretzky assisted on less than half of Bernie's goals!"

While others might say "Gretzky nearly doubled Bernie's goal output."

I saw them play together and go with the later.

 

[seventieslord]

No it wasn't the point all along. The original thing that started the thread was seventies saying that Gretzky was not a good even strength performer starting in 88-89 because of the ratio..

Actually, I said "not dominant" - which is a far cry from "not good". Is there a reason you try to put words in my mouth at every turn?

 

[BraveCanadian]

Suddenly Gretzky isn't so responsible for Nicholls 150 point season now is he. Either he's getting a lot of those points with Gretzky, or without, it can't be both.

Bernie scored 150 points that year so there are enough to be both

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Bernie scored 150 points that year so there are enough to be both

I think you get my point though, even if you don't agree with it.

 

[JackSlater]

I am pretty sure I have been in the camp explaining how Gretzky had a positive impact on the Kings despite the silly ratio all along. Oh yup. There I am starting the thread and believing my eyes and what the Kings accomplished over what the simplistic ratio says..

I really can't tell if you're serious and just really do not understand. I was not claiming that you or anyone else said that Gretzky was hurting the team. I was telling you that there is a difference between being outperformed by the team at even strength and having a negative impact on the team, a distinction which has already been made yet one which you have seemingly not realized yet.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I really can't tell if you're serious and just really do not understand. I was not claiming that you or anyone else said that Gretzky was hurting the team. I was telling you that there is a difference between being outperformed by the team at even strength and having a negative impact on the team, a distinction which has already been made yet one which you have seemingly not realized yet.

Of course there is a difference between being outperformed by the team at even strength and having a negative impact on the team!

However that is what was being implied.. you had to catch yourself once in the thread for that very reason.

The problem is I don't think that the metric being used proves that about Gretzky's individual play whatsoever in the first place!

 

[tazzy19]

My question is this: why did Gretzky go from being on pace for 186 points (he would have beaten Lemieux in the scoring race and won the Hart Trophy had he not been injured for 16 games during his last season with Edmonton) to only a 168 point player the following season with LA. Was that 18 point gap directly attrituble to losing Kurri and the rest of the Oiler support? I guess it must have been. I really don't think Gretzky suddently got old and lost a step over the summer of 1988. I also believe the same logic applies when Gretzky went from being a 215 point player in 86 to a 183 point player in 87. The loss of Paul Coffey is directly attributable. What this says to me is that Gretzky was the best ever at using superstar talent around him, moreso than Lemieux even. Lemieux on the other hand, was more of an individual talent, and that's why he didn't need superstars to score 199 points in 1989. But put Gretzky and Lemieux on the same superstar laden team, and I say Gretzky outscores Lemeiux 90% of the time (ie, The 1987 Canada Cup). Put them both on a poor team, and Lemieux outscores Gretzky 90% of the time (barring injury). That's why I take Gretzky over Lemieux. I want the player who best utilizes the best players. Sorry for the tangent.

 

[seventieslord]

My question is this: why did Gretzky go from being on pace for 186 points (he would have beaten Lemieux in the scoring race and won the Hart Trophy had he not been injured for 16 games during his last season with Edmonton) to only a 168 point player the following season with LA. Was that 18 point gap directly attrituble to losing Kurri and the rest of the Oiler support? I guess it must have been. I really don't think Gretzky suddently got old and lost a step over the summer of 1988. I also believe the same logic applies when Gretzky went from being a 215 point player in 86 to a 183 point player in 87. The loss of Paul Coffey is directly attributable. What this says to me is that Gretzky was the best ever at using superstar talent around him, moreso than Lemieux even. Lemieux on the other hand, was more of an individual talent, and that's why he didn't need superstars to score 199 points in 1989. But put Gretzky and Lemieux on the same superstar laden team, and I say Gretzky outscores Lemeiux 90% of the time (ie, The 1987 Canada Cup). Put them both on a poor team, and Lemieux outscores Gretzky 90% of the time (barring injury). That's why I take Gretzky over Lemieux. I want the player who best utilizes the best players. Sorry for the tangent.

Heh.

Could any team with both of them be poor?

I suppose, if they're 49 and 45.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Of course there is a difference between being outperformed by the team at even strength and having a negative impact on the team!

However that is what was being implied.. you had to catch yourself once in the thread for that very reason.

The problem is I don't think that the metric being used proves that about Gretzky's individual play whatsoever in the first place!

I agree here with this last statement.

All stats show things to be sure but their meaning is often subjective and not as straight as cause and affect as the thread title implied.

 

[Noldo]

My question is this: why did Gretzky go from being on pace for 186 points (he would have beaten Lemieux in the scoring race and won the Hart Trophy had he not been injured for 16 games during his last season with Edmonton) to only a 168 point player the following season with LA. Was that 18 point gap directly attrituble to losing Kurri and the rest of the Oiler support?

How much of that gap is actually inflated because the first numbers is on pace while the second is actual points achieved?

With Gretzky's scoring pace, the two games he missed during his first year in LA mean in average 4 points, already reducing the gap to "only" 14 points.

Moreover, Gretzky was getting older at that point and had already played plenty of hockey. Would he been able to sustain that level of production through full 80 games schedule? After all, games missed by Gretzky did constitute quite considerable portion of the season, 20% of games, with Gretzky's pace 37 points. I would argue that using "on pace for" points for the previous season could pad the difference between Gretzky's last season in Edmonton and first in LA (even though he managed to keep up practically the same scoring pace through playoff in 1987-88 season).