How many points would Wayne Gretzky and/or Mario Lemieux score in today's NHL?

[McGuillicuddy]

This will not contribute to the quantitative discussion, but as a general discussion point I would say that more than ever today's NHL game is about managing time and space, or lack thereof. Players have very little time/space to operate so attributes like the following are the most critical for an elite offensive player:

-on-ice situational awareness
-anticipation/prediction (of puck location/trajectory, player location/trajectory)
-able to make plays at speed
-able control timing
-able to alter/shift timing
-able change direction (quickly)
-able to make good decisions (quickly)

Remind you of anybody?

 

[Czech Your Math]

It is interesting how many mid-late 30s scorers there have been recently.

It certainly flies in the face of the today's players are bionic superheroes theory..

Big glut of them in the early 2000s too when there was a pretty good dip in the forward ranks..

There's a difference between Whitney finishing top 15 at age 39, and Oates or Messier finishing top 15 at age 35 or 36.
It's one thing for Gretzky to be top 5 at age 36 & 37, it's another for St. Louis to finish 2nd & 1st at ages 35 & 37.

What players finished top 5, top 10 or top 15 at age 35+ in the mid-late 90s?

'93, '94 & '95: None
'96: Gretzky and Messier (each 35), only top 15
'97: Gretzky tied for 4th and Messier top 15 (each age 36)
'98: Gretzky (37) tied for 3rd and Oates (35) top 15
'99 & '00: None

 

[Czech Your Math]

This is the right method but I think it makes sense to measure the % difference in the PPG of the leader vs. the average PPG of the next 10 to 20 scorers. This eliminates an injury factors while assuming any Top Ten scorer would have kept up their PPG if they played a full season.

This makes translating the % advantage into any other season more accurate. I.E. If you took your % and put it into 2014/15, it is 82 game Wayne vs. a 77 game Crosby and a 71 game Seguin.

How does it eliminate the injury factor for those that more often played through injuries instead of sitting out?

 

[Czech Your Math]

Unless a player only scores at ES, and there aren't any, the lack of PPs hurts every elite offensive player. This is the major factor, if not the only factor, why scoring by the Art Ross leaders is lower compared to years in the DPE where overall league scoring was at a similar rate. If you compare 2000/01 to 2013/14, you will see the average PPG of the Top Ten scorers is lower by the lower amount of scoring on the PP by the Top Ten scorers.

Lack of PPs is going to hurt some players more than others. It's going to hurt Lemieux or Crosby a lot more than it will Gretzky or Jagr. It would tend to hurt the relative dominance in points of Lemieux or Crosby, but actually tend to help Gretzky or Jagr.

When scoring levels by the elite gets more packed together it introduces parity, where seemingly less than elite players can make their way into the top echelon.

Frankly introducing the "well so and so wouldn't have finished in the Top Ten in the '90s" is an extremely weak argument and adds zero to a discussion on an interesting topic.

There were plenty of older players or players of questionable quality in the early-mid 70s, when Espo & Orr were dominating scoring races and breaking records, so it's hardly an ironclad rule.

 

[Tundra]

Deduct 20-25% and you've got your answer.

 

[Czech Your Math]

You gave reasons why Gretzky's scoring would go down, and of course that's true. Unless you have some proof about Gretzky (and Lemieux) having access to more blowout opportunities than other players, other than those brought on by the fact that they were better than the opposition, then Gretzky is likely affected in a pretty similar way to the others.

It would be interesting to see the frequency with which all (or just star forwards) players score, say, 2+ points or 3+ points over time. There must be a mathematical way to predict how often this would occur, based on the league scoring level and/or the scoring level of top forwards, and compare that to what actually happened.

Yeah, 80 points is looking like the new 100 points, based at least on the last few years. Luckily for Gretzky he wasn't remotely close to 100 points in his best years.

I just don't think there have been any standout performances the past couple seasons, aside from Crosby in '14 (and as good a season as that was, I wouldn't consider it didn't exactly seem legendary to me). Crosby may have passed his peak... Malkin may have too, and can't seem to stay healthy anyways (once in last 6 years)... Ovechkin passed his peak as a point producer a few years ago, although he's still a great goal scorer and very durable. The new crop probably isn't of the same caliber as point producers and it seems like most of them had their share of injuries (Kane, Stamkos, Seguin, Tavares).

I've looked at various tiers of scorers over time. What stands out recently is the drop in the top dozen or so scorers... maybe extending to the top ~30. After that, there really isn't much/any drop relative to the league. So it's not even all first liners, but at the very top. Things don't even out as much when you're talking about 10 or 12, or perhaps even 20 or 30 players, as they do when talking about 60 or 90 players or the entire league. If it was a case of reduced TOI, one would expect it to affect the entire top line (top ~90), but that doesn't appear to be the case.

 

[daver]

In todays NHL I think Lemieux would get somewhere between 150-160 points and Gretzky 160-175 points at their peaks.

Scoring has gone down quite a bit which would lower their totals. In overall points, I think the NHL is waiting for the next player to come in and really come in and dominate the league. Crosby was that player before he got hurt and Ovechkin is that player when it comes to scoring goals. Would anyone disagree that the competition for the Art Ross trophy has been weaker than previous years?

Lower league scoring and a lower # of PPs will do that.

No surprise that 2006 to 2010 saw "strong" competition. Lower scoring =/= weaker competition.

 

[authentic]

I find it outrageous that someone could think 200 points would be possible for Gretzky or Lemieux today. I seriously even doubt that if you could create a player with Lemieux and Gretzky's best attributes combined and gave them Bure's skating ability that this player would score 200 points in today's NHL.

 

[authentic]

Lower league scoring and a lower # of PPs will do that.

No surprise that 2006 to 2010 saw "strong" competition. Lower scoring =/= weaker competition.

Exactly. Except for the 06 era we all know the competition was strong then.

 

[Joedaman55]

Lower league scoring and a lower # of PPs will do that.

No surprise that 2006 to 2010 saw "strong" competition. Lower scoring =/= weaker competition.

I agree lower scores does not equal weaker offensive competition; however, weaker offensive competition will lead to lower scoring. I am saying that the weaker offensive talent pool of recent years has lead to lower scoring totals when compared to other years.

Nothing against Jamie Benn, but I think the art ross result last year shows this unless you feel goaltending/defensive systems improved that much.

 

[patnyrnyg]

Considering how much better the 1) bottom rung players 2) middle-tier players 3) defensemen 4) goalies 5) defensive systems are today as compared to when Gretzky and Lemieux were in their prime, I don't think either would come close to the numbers they put up. I do think they would both be among the top-4 in scoring just about every year and one of them would win the Ross just about every year.

 

[GreatGonzo]

I assume we are saying if they started their NHL career in this era? Or if they were just plopped down into this era from their respected peaks?

Either way there are a lot of things to take into account. Gretzky and Lemieux in many ways changed the way we play the game, if they never played in the 80s and 90s, the game might not have evolved into the game we know today.

I think this era of play would compliment Gretzky and Lemieux. The game is so much less brutal and more open ice, way less obstruction, and more depth in talent. That's what made Gretzky and Lemieux so amazing, their abilities to adapt and dominate. I don't see why both wouldn't be able to in today's NHL. I don't think they would score 200 points, but their point totals would be high and more often than not.

If Henrik Sedin can be one of the best playmakers in the game today and have the most assists over the past 5 years, Gretzky would easily surpass him. If Joe Thornton can put up back to back 90+ assists and constantly be a top playmaker, Gretzky would easily be better than him.

If ovechkin(as amazing of a goal scorer he is) can put up the most goals in the past 5 years, how wouldn't Lemieux be better? If Stamkos can win 2 rockets and constantly be one of the top goal scorers year in and year out, Lemieux would easily surpass him.

 

[Xelebes]

For Gretzky, my best guess is a peak of 139 pts and roughly 1200 pts in 10 seasons.

When I get home, I can do a better guess.

 

[daver]

Lack of PPs is going to hurt some players more than others. It's going to hurt Lemieux or Crosby a lot more than it will Gretzky or Jagr. It would tend to hurt the relative dominance in points of Lemieux or Crosby, but actually tend to help Gretzky or Jagr.

What do Jagr and Crosby have to do with the OP?

A lower # of PPs explains why the top scorers from recent years scored less than the top scorers from some of the DPE years where the overall league scoring levels was similar. All the top scorers are getting significantly less time on the PP.

What affect this has on Wayne and Mario I don't know but I don't think it's as simple as taking their ES and PP scoring rates and dividing by a translation ratio. I don't think that its written in stone that particular players would be affected by this moreso than others. For example, did Wayne play more on average at ES than Mario hence the higher ES point totals?

I think generational talent puts up points regardless. You mistakenly identify Crosby as relying on the PP. He put up a lot of PP points in 2007 but from 2009 - 2014 he was by far the best ES scorer:

http://www.nhl.com/stats/player?sort=points&viewName=summary&fetchKey=20162ALLSASAll

 

[daver]

I agree lower scores does not equal weaker offensive competition; however, weaker offensive competition will lead to lower scoring. I am saying that the weaker offensive talent pool of recent years has lead to lower scoring totals when compared to other years.

Nothing against Jamie Benn, but I think the art ross result last year shows this unless you feel goaltending/defensive systems improved that much.

How does one judge weaker offensive talent other than looking at point totals?

And why is Jamie Benn, a Top Ten scorer from the previous year, seen as the poster boy of weak competition? Over the past four seasons he has the 10th best PPG:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...c4comp=gt&c4val=&threshhold=5&order_by=points

 

[Hardyvan123]

This will not contribute to the quantitative discussion, but as a general discussion point I would say that more than ever today's NHL game is about managing time and space, or lack thereof. Players have very little time/space to operate so attributes like the following are the most critical for an elite offensive player:

-on-ice situational awareness
-anticipation/prediction (of puck location/trajectory, player location/trajectory)
-able to make plays at speed
-able control timing
-able to alter/shift timing
-able change direction (quickly)
-able to make good decisions (quickly)

Remind you of anybody?

Still even with those skills it is quite the difference from the 80's until today in reguards to how much time players have at any time on the ice, some watching of game film will show this.

there is a ton of denial of the huge differences in defending from the 80's to the current NHL.

 

[xxreact9]

This is a conversation that has started to take over multiple threads, so let's keep it here, please.

The lack of simple analytical skills in this thread is pathetic. People saying 160 points?? Hockey players have more skill each year. There have been huge advancements in sports science ranging from nutrition to recovery to muscle building, in addition to extreme mechanical advancements in how a stick fires a puck and how skates propel a player. Players are better each year for all of these reasons, and will continue to be better each year. The best player of a current era will almost always be the best player in history from an objective standpoint. So are we talking absolute best, or best for their time?

Now, first option: Are we putting them in their 1990s equipment and wooden sticks into today's NHL? Are we assuming they grew up in their respective eras with very limited knowledge in sports science and far less muscular and skilled players as competition? If so, I would put Gretzky at maybe 30-40 points at most and Mario getting more because of his powerful body type. Gretzky scored a ton of (relative to today's shots) weak shots from long range and bad angles. Not 1 of those would go in today.

The second option is, if Wayne or Mario and their genes were transferred to grow up in this era, were exposed to all the technologies in terms of supplements and recovery that today's players do, in addition to having modern skates/sticks, etc. Then the option becomes a realistic debate and I'd push them over 100.

Another consideration is that the growth of the sport has resulted in much more parity in the league. It is simply impossible to flat out dominate in the NHL for any player with any amount of skill and it will never happen again the way it was for Gretzky. That is a simple result of how different the sport is today. Getting 160 points is a physical impossibility in the NHL today for any human being who has ever lived on this planet.

 

[xxreact9]

If Ovechkin in his current equipment and body was put into the 1980s I have no problem saying he would score over 200 goals a season. Look at the shots that go in the net from that era, look at the goalies. Make a simple deduction.

 

[GreatGonzo]

The lack of simple analytical skills in this thread is pathetic. People saying 160 points?? Hockey players have more skill each year. There have been huge advancements in sports science ranging from nutrition to recovery to muscle building, in addition to extreme mechanical advancements in how a stick fires a puck and how skates propel a player. Players are better each year for all of these reasons, and will continue to be better each year. The best player of a current era will almost always be the best player in history from an objective standpoint. So are we talking absolute best, or best for their time?

Now, first option: Are we putting them in their 1990s equipment and wooden sticks into today's NHL? Are we assuming they grew up in their respective eras with very limited knowledge in sports science and far less muscular and skilled players as competition? If so, I would put Gretzky at maybe 30-40 points at most and Mario getting more because of his powerful body type. Gretzky scored a ton of (relative to today's shots) weak shots from long range and bad angles. Not 1 of those would go in today.

The second option is, if Wayne or Mario and their genes were transferred to grow up in this era, were exposed to all the technologies in terms of supplements and recovery that today's players do, in addition to having modern skates/sticks, etc. Then the option becomes a realistic debate and I'd push them over 100.

Another consideration is that the growth of the sport has resulted in much more parity in the league. It is simply impossible to flat out dominate in the NHL for any player with any amount of skill and it will never happen again the way it was for Gretzky. That is a simple result of how different the sport is today. Getting 160 points is a physical impossibility in the NHL today for any human being who has ever lived on this planet.

Gretzky put up 62 points in 70 games in '99 and 90 points in 82 games in '98. Past his prime and in an NHL not so different from this one in terms of equipment and scoring. But Gretzky would put up 30-40 points AT MOST? Give me a break...

Your basically saying players are only as good as their equipment now a days, not their skill level. Ray Whitney started his NHL career in the mid 90s and just recently retired in 2014. He had 32 points in 69 games and his point totals the few years prior are impressive for a guy in his 40s. Yet a prime(ish) Gretzky wouldn't hit more than 40?

 

[GreatGonzo]

If Ovechkin in his current equipment and body was put into the 1980s I have no problem saying he would score over 200 goals a season. Look at the shots that go in the net from that era, look at the goalies. Make a simple deduction.

Every player was going against the same goalies, same defensive systems, and same players as Gretzky, yet no one was scoring nearly 100 goals a season. If it was as bad as you say, everyone would have been right there with Gretzky.

 

[daver]

Can the OP clarify whether it's:

Time machine Wayne and Mario (why they choose 2015 to travel to is beyond me, I would think they go back to the 06 and win more Cups but I digress).

Or Wayne and Mario developing and playing in the current environment.

 

[BenchBrawl]

The lack of simple analytical skills in this thread is pathetic. People saying 160 points?? Hockey players have more skill each year. There have been huge advancements in sports science ranging from nutrition to recovery to muscle building, in addition to extreme mechanical advancements in how a stick fires a puck and how skates propel a player. Players are better each year for all of these reasons, and will continue to be better each year. The best player of a current era will almost always be the best player in history from an objective standpoint. So are we talking absolute best, or best for their time?

Now, first option: Are we putting them in their 1990s equipment and wooden sticks into today's NHL? Are we assuming they grew up in their respective eras with very limited knowledge in sports science and far less muscular and skilled players as competition? If so, I would put Gretzky at maybe 30-40 points at most and Mario getting more because of his powerful body type. Gretzky scored a ton of (relative to today's shots) weak shots from long range and bad angles. Not 1 of those would go in today.

The second option is, if Wayne or Mario and their genes were transferred to grow up in this era, were exposed to all the technologies in terms of supplements and recovery that today's players do, in addition to having modern skates/sticks, etc. Then the option becomes a realistic debate and I'd push them over 100.

Another consideration is that the growth of the sport has resulted in much more parity in the league. It is simply impossible to flat out dominate in the NHL for any player with any amount of skill and it will never happen again the way it was for Gretzky. That is a simple result of how different the sport is today. Getting 160 points is a physical impossibility in the NHL today for any human being who has ever lived on this planet.

Well at least all the none-sense from the ''players are infinitely better today than x years ago" camp have been said in one single post.Now we can move on.

I particularly liked how fancy it all sounded, ''in addition to extreme mechanical advancements in how a stick fires a puck''

Give me a break, plenty of guys in the past had shooting technic just as good as any shooter today.

 

[livewell68]

IMO, any reasonable reading of the question assumes the players being talked were born at a time when they would then be in their primes now, and therefore have all the benefits of today.

Though personally, while I think the time machine way of looking at things is pretty dumb, I think a time machined Gretzky at least competes for Art Rosses. I mean, Ray Bourque was able to a 1st Team All Star in both 1980 and 2001. 2001, the same year Jaromir Jagr (still an effective player even though he's one of the slowest players in the league at this point) was already at the tail end of his peak.

Jagr was still pretty darn fast that season. The big drop in his skating speed came the following season (2001-02) when he had a knee injury that made him miss 13 games and he was never the same after that.



Also he was still pretty fast even as a Capital.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Can the OP clarify whether it's:

Time machine Wayne and Mario (why they choose 2015 to travel to is beyond me, I would think they go back to the 06 and win more Cups but I digress).

Or Wayne and Mario developing and playing in the current environment.

It's what anyone wants it to be to keep this conversation out of other threads. But since this is a history forum, not a sci Fi forum, I prefer to not pay much heed to the silly time machine thing.

Tho I'm I'm pretty sure if you time machine 1980 Ray Bourque to 2001, he's still the Norris runner up...

 

[Czech Your Math]

Gretzky vs. the next 2N & 3N players in the league (N= number of teams)

The worst of his six season stretch from '81-2 thru '86-7 was in '87 when he scored 217% of next 2N & 234% of next 3N, while the best was in '86 when he scored 231% of next 2N & 253% of next 3N.

Compared to the past two seasons:

'87 Gretzky2N in '14 = 146.6
'87 Gretzky3N in '14 = 146.4
'87 Gretzky2N in '15 = 144.6
'87 Gretzky3N in '15 = 145.4

'86 Gretzky2N in '14 = 154.0
'86 Gretzky3N in '14 = 157.2
'86 Gretzky2N in '15 = 156.1
'86 Gretzky3N in '15 = 158.3

So Gretzky projects to ~145-155 or 160 in today's league... exactly what most of us estimated.