Is Wayne Gretzky Getting Underrated on This Board?

[Michel Dion]

Are people just too young to understand how great he was? He scored over 700 more points than any other player in the 1980's. So the argument about it being so easy to score in the 80's does not quite work for me.

More assists than any player ever has total points. How can that not impress you?

No player ever has statistically dominated a sport like Gretzky has,

I'll never personally underrated Gretzky, and we have to mention the Cups he won when talking about the entire career. The next three all time greats can be any combination of Orr, Mario, and Howe. I do think a healthy Orr or Mario could have made the question up for debate.

 

[authentic]

I'll never personally underrated Gretzky, and we have to mention the Cups he won when talking about the entire career. The next three all time greats can be any combination of Orr, Mario, and Howe. I do think a healthy Orr or Mario could have made the question up for debate.

I think in comparison to their peers (all things considered not just points) Orr was probably better than Gretzky, and in terms of how they are actually were as players at their best Lemieux was clearly better.

 

[boredmale]

No player ever has statistically dominated a sport like Gretzky has

If Lemieux didn't get injured I do think he would challenge some of Gretzky's records. it should also be noted I do think Gretzky was on a better team(at least until he got traded) then Lemieux was during his prime years

So the argument about it being so easy to score in the 80's does not quite work for me.

While I do think he still would score alot of points, I don't think he would get as much as he did if he played the past 20 years compared to the 80s where stats were obviously padded due to more goals scored.

 

[MMANumminen]

Only ignorant teenagers are underrating him since they have no idea

 

[DitchMarner]

Well if the bolded is true (which it isn't, it develops it just isn't as much of a factor as it used to be in comparison to physical skills and attributes, IMO) then Gretzky wouldn't be better in some ways then? No, he would still have that sense, the greats of all eras have it including today (see Crosby, McDavid, Kane, Karlsson, etc.) and I agree he would be heavier (he reached 185 by the end of his career) and whether or not he would be taller wouldn't matter, 6'0 is basically perfect hockey height. He would be a better more powerful skater with a more powerful shot, and he would be stronger, how much more is all speculation though, and I still think with his natural build he would be in tough to dominate guys like Crosby, Ovechkin and McDavid, etc. (no way would he have their skating ability or strength).

He wasn't the strongest or heaviest player when he played, either. His game was never about physical strength or weight. To even bring up these qualities when talking about him is misguided.

He was already over-matched it terms of strength and weight by many players and it didn't matter.


You can argue that the superior skating ability of players today would make it harder for him to make some of the plays he made. It's debatable. How he would play now is a matter of speculation, but when comparing players across eras, the ones who were the most transcendent during their own time are to be considered superior to the ones who didn't dominate their peers to the same extent.

You can say advancements have made players in general better in many ways and that a player can't dominate as much now. Eventually someone will develop who dominates the way Orr, Gretzky or Lemieux did and that player can then be considered better because he was as transcendent during a more advanced era. It hasn't happened yet.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

How old are you? If you're not older than 50 and don't watch classic full length games religiously than I've probably easily watched more full length Gretzky games than you have. I never said he was slow in his era, I said compared to the best skaters today, and how much quicker he would be today is all speculation. My whole point is there are number of people who believe Gretzky as he was would absolutely dominate Crosby and whoever else today with a few weeks getting used to the new league, and that is complete nonsense.

I started paying attention and really understanding hockey during the early 80s, so I saw (and understood what I was seeing) Gretzky at his best.

If you actually watched him and STILL think the way you do, then it's not a case of you not seeing him play, it's a case of you not understanding the game enough at that time to realize just how much he dominated the game, the kind of domination that would have carried over into any era.

 

[hi]

Go back and actually watch the games. Don't rely on your childhood memories.

He was the best player in the league, but his stats and the stats of other good players were inflated because the goalies were terrible and "defense" wasn't a thing.

 

[boredmale]

If you actually watched him and STILL think the way you do, then it's not a case of you not seeing him play, it's a case of you not understanding the game enough at that time to realize just how much he dominated the game, the kind of domination that would have carried over into any era.

While I agree he would dominate to me the biggest thing I disagree with some is how many points he would be. My guess is in the NHL as it currently is he probably is a 130 point player. No way alot of stuff he got away with in the 80s would work now, but other stuff sure

 

[authentic]

He wasn't the strongest or heaviest player when he played, either. His game was never about physical strength or weight. To even bring up these qualities when talking about him is misguided.

He was already over-matched it terms of strength and weight by many players and it didn't matter.


You can argue that the superior skating ability of players today would make it harder for him to make some of the plays he made. It's debatable. How he would play now is a matter of speculation, but when comparing players across eras, the ones who were the most transcendent during their own time are to be considered superior to the ones who didn't dominate their peers to the same extent.

You can say advancements have made players in general better in many ways and that a player can't dominate as much now. Eventually someone will develop who dominates the way Orr, Gretzky or Lemieux did and that player can then be considered better because he was as transcendent during a more advanced era. It hasn't happened yet.

No I'm aware of everything you're saying here (except that his physical attributes would hinder him today unlike in the past) I am speaking only for those who believe he literally was better than Crosby today as he actually was. He quite clearly wasn't, and that has nothing to do with him and is totally out of his control anyway.

 

[authentic]

I started paying attention and really understanding hockey during the early 80s, so I saw (and understood what I was seeing) Gretzky at his best.

If you actually watched him and STILL think the way you do, then it's not a case of you not seeing him play, it's a case of you not understanding the game enough at that time to realize just how much he dominated the game, the kind of domination that would have carried over into any era.

Oh I understand the game, believe me. Also, it's the kind of domination that could carry over into any era, not would. I am almost 100% it wouldn't be anywhere close to the domination he displayed back then, and that has less to do with Gretzky himself and more to do with how the players have improved and the game has evolved.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

While I agree he would dominate to me the biggest thing I disagree with some is how many points he would be. My guess is in the NHL as it currently is he probably is a 130 point player. No way alot of stuff he got away with in the 80s would work now, but other stuff sure

Crosby scored 120 points in 2007. He was on pace for 132 points in 2011 before Steckel took him out. Thornton had 125 points in 2006. Jagr, in the height of the dead puck era, scored 121 and 127 points, respectively. Gretzky was better than any of those guys, and in some cases (Thornton) by a large margin. Yet you think he'd only be a 130 point player in the modern game (2000 and beyond)?

I don't think he'd score 200+ points, but I do think he'd be able to top the 150 mark on multiple occasions. I mean, a broken down Mario who just came out of retirement scored 76 points in only 43 games during a really low scoring era. That's almost averaging 2 points per game! Gretzky was easily on par with a prime Lemieux, and that wasn't even a prime Lemieux.

 

[authentic]

Go back and actually watch the games. Don't rely on your childhood memories.

He was the best player in the league, but his stats and the stats of other good players were inflated because the goalies were terrible and "defense" wasn't a thing.

Really though. Those saying they watched Gretzky when they were kids (a majority of posters here who defend him I would bet) but they can judge better than an adult who started watching hockey attentively with understanding in the early 90s and has watched countless classic Gretzky games as an adult. Doubtful.

 

[VanIslander]

...the game has evolved.

If you mean has become less of a skills showcase and more of defensively-coached, conservative plays and oversized goalie equipment, then yeah, it has "evolved".

It's hard for youngsters to fathom that the greatest ever was before their time.

 

[authentic]

Crosby scored 120 points in 2007. He was on pace for 132 points in 2011 before Steckel took him out. Thornton had 125 points in 2006. Jagr, in the height of the dead puck era, scored 121 and 127 points, respectively. Gretzky was better than any of those guys, and in some cases (Thornton) by a large margin. Yet you think he'd only be a 130 point player in the modern game (2000 and beyond)?

I don't think he'd score 200+ points, but I do think he'd be able to top the 150 mark on multiple occasions. I mean, a broken down Mario who just came out of retirement scored 76 points in only 43 games during a really low scoring era. That's almost averaging 2 points per game! Gretzky was easily on par with a prime Lemieux, and that wasn't even a prime Lemieux.

Better, better how though? In comparison to his peers in the 80s? Of course, the game has improved immensely since then though incase you haven't noticed. And no 150 is out of the question today, maybe not in 2005-06, but today absolutely.

 

[authentic]

If you mean has become less of a skills showcase and more of defensively-coached, conservative plays and oversized goalie equipment, then yeah, it has "evolved".

It's hard for youngsters to fathom that the greatest ever was before their time.

Lol the players are not less skilled though, come on.

 

[buyinnow]

I saw Gretzky play at the Heritage Classic last year. He was very slow.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Really though. Those saying they watched Gretzky when they were kids (a majority of posters here who defend him I would bet) but they can judge better than an adult who started watching hockey attentively with understanding in the early 90s and has watched countless classic Gretzky games as an adult. Doubtful.

So did you watch Gretzky in the 80s or are you judging him on how he played in the 90s, after his peak years were over?

Because if your opinion of him is based on how he looked in the early 90s, then I could see why you don't think he'd dominate the league today. He was essentially just an elite playmaker who played more of perimeter game at that point.

 

[CherryToke]

****ing millennials causing problems everywhere.

 

[Tofveve]

Go back and actually watch the games. Don't rely on your childhood memories.

He was the best player in the league, but his stats and the stats of other good players were inflated because the goalies were terrible and "defense" wasn't a thing.

Wasn't it one of the first posters who made good mention of the fact he was still 700 points ahead of the next player in the 80s? So really, all of that stuff like goal pads etc is sort of null.

 

[boredmale]

Crosby scored 120 points in 2007. He was on pace for 132 points in 2011 before Steckel took him out. Thornton had 125 points in 2006. Jagr, in the height of the dead puck era, scored 121 and 127 points, respectively. Gretzky was better than any of those guys, and in some cases (Thornton) by a large margin. Yet you think he'd only be a 130 point player in the modern game (2000 and beyond)?

Goal scoring has gone down considerabily in the past 6-7 years so using point totals from 2005-2010 is not a good comparison point for 2017

In regards to the dead puck era, counter argument is team were more likely to play 3 lines back then which will see a slight increase for top end players in production, once again I am saying in 2017(so 130 now might be about 140 in the Dead Puck Era)

 

[hi]

https://i.imgur.com/RA39pw2.mp4
https://i.imgur.com/AWi0y2B.mp4
https://i.imgur.com/sUmdQn2.mp4

I mean how could anyone prefer the modern game over the 80's game?

 

[boredmale]

https://i.imgur.com/RA39pw2.mp4
https://i.imgur.com/AWi0y2B.mp4
https://i.imgur.com/sUmdQn2.mp4

I mean how could anyone prefer the modern game over the 80's game?

80s hockey was less structured, less OVERALL skill(ie players 1-18) but more exciting. It's why I am all for expanding the hell out of the league because it means will will get lower quality players filling out rosters leading to more mistake and sloppy play

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Goal scoring has gone down considerabily in the past 6-7 years so using point totals from 2005-2010 is not a good comparison point for 2017

In regards to the dead puck era, counter argument is team were more likely to play 3 lines back then which will see a slight increase for top end players in production, once again I am saying in 2017(so 130 now might be about 140 in the Dead Puck Era)

So as an Islanders fan, are you then willing to accept that a guy like Bossy would only be about a 30-35 goal guy nowadays (ie. a Pacioretty type)?

 

[authentic]

Really though. Those saying they watched Gretzky when they were kids (a majority of posters here who defend him I would bet) but they can judge better than an adult who started watching hockey attentively with understanding in the early 90s and has watched countless classic Gretzky games as an adult. Doubtful.

So did you watch Gretzky in the 80s or are you judging him on how he played in the 90s, after his peak years were over?

Because if your opinion of him is based on how he looked in the early 90s, then I could see why you don't think he'd dominate the league today. He was essentially just an elite playmaker who played more of perimeter game at that point.

That bolded part of the same post you quoted is mostly referring to games of him in Edmonton in his prime. I also own the 1987 Canada Cup on DVD, have watched them more than a few times over the years. I am viewed as an old time hockey hater here simply because I share the opinion that hockey has improved a lot (not exactly a contraversial opinion in the real world) when I actually love watching older games and have been obsessed with the history of the game for as far back as I can remember. I'm far from the only person who doesn't believe Gretzky was actually the best hockey player, but am one of the few apparently that will openly share that opinion on a hockey board.

 

[boredmale]

So as an Islanders fan, are you then willing to accept that a guy like Bossy would only be about a 30-35 goal guy nowadays (ie. a Pacioretty type)?

I would go 35+ cracking 40 a bunch of times and maybe 50 in his best season(remember he cracked 60 goals 4 times getting 68 and 69 in his 2 best seasons)