Is Wayne Gretzky Getting Underrated on This Board?

[Royale With Cheese]

I’m starting to think people on this site are like 20 - 25 years old and have never seen him play. Do you really not know how good this guy was?

He would CRUSH the scoring race regularly.

 

[PenguinSpeed]

Even at Crosby’s peak prior to his injuries, his era adjusted scoring is embarrassingly crushed by Gretzky’s. At no point in Crosby’s career has his era adjusted scoring approach Gretzky levels.

Again, Crosby is just not in Gretzky’s tier. What an insult to Gretzky! A fairer comparison would be players like Hull, Esposito, Jagr, Forsberg or Ovechkin.

-LOL, what?

-Wayne isnt even number 1 in points per game in era adjusted.

 

[RageQuit77]

Great graph! Very interesting.

Luckily Wayne, Mario, or anybody else didn't score those adjusted points in their respective careers. They all scored real, unadjusted goals and assists.

While these kind graphs and stats can give good overall picture over wide time frames and different eras, they do not measure anything that actually happened, anything real.

The Red Baron scored 80 and Rene Fonck 75 aerial victories during WWI, while Saburo Sakai had 28 officially confirmed victories, Hans-Joachim Marseille 158, Ilmari Juutilainen 94, Richard Bong 40, and Gerhard Barkhorn 300+ as examples during WWII. It's clear that we can make calculations and formulas to adjust all these guys and their aerial victories to the same sheet, but did that mean they scored those 'adjusted kills' in reality. No.

Same problem is with these all time scoring adjustments. Reality tends to disappear for sake of more or less speculative, and relative order.

 

[authentic]

Great graph! Very interesting.

Luckily Wayne, Mario, or anybody else didn't score those adjusted points in their respective careers. They all scored real, unadjusted goals and assists.

While these kind graphs and stats can give good overall picture over wide time frames and different eras, they do not measure anything that actually happened, anything real.

The Red Baron scored 80 and Rene Fonck 75 aerial victories during WWI, while Saburo Sakai had 28 officially confirmed victories, Hans-Joachim Marseille 158, Ilmari Juutilainen 94, Richard Bong 40, and Gerhard Barkhorn 300+ as examples during WWII. It's clear that we can make calculations and formulas to adjust all these guys and their aerial victories to the same sheet, but did that mean they scored those 'adjusted kills' in reality. No.

Same problem is with these all time scoring adjustments. Reality tends to disappear for sake of more or less speculative, and relative order.

They are a more accurate comparison than unadjusted stats though. That's obvious. Adjusted points per game is not though, but mostly because of the points per game part. If we compared Gretzky after the same amount of games I'm sure he would still be slightly ahead.

 

[TeeTee]

I am old enough to have watched Gretzky. He is the GOAT. I simply enjoy the banter and perspective of others. That said, I seem to remember a much more free wheeling era where he skated with so much open ice and virtually untouched. Sure, he got hit a few times. Hard. But he played a ton of games and was bound to get hit.
I know that there were tough guys back then and the nostalgic opinion of many was that it was a way tougher league. Having watched some videos on youtube, it was almost comical how wide open the ice was for skaters. It certainly tightened up in the 90's.

 

[LucianoBorsato]

I'm sure Gretzky is VERY worried about how his legacy is perceived on HFboards

 

[PittsburghPens8771]

There is no room on the ice today. All you read in these 30 pages is that everyone must be 10 years old and never watched Gretz play. It's hilarious. Gretzky's numbers will never be touched and these old timers in here who refuse to acknowledge how much the game has transcended in the past 10, 20, 30 years. Nobody knows for certain what numbers he would put up in today's game but you're out to lunch if you truly believe he would dominate his peers. McDavid is the perfect comparison (in my opinion). He has the most epic speed i've personally ever seen and he JUST hit 100 points last season. If McDavid barely hit 100 points you think Gretzky would hit 140+? Comical. I'm not saying McDavid is better by any means, but if he can't break 120+ points with his speed and the amount of breakaways / opportunities he has per game no one from any era would in today's game. (and he plays with another very good player in Drai)

To sum it up, Gretzky's numbers are untouchable, but you can't say for sure he would be the GOAT if he played today.

 

[Beukeboom]

There is no room on the ice today. All you read in these 30 pages is that everyone must be 10 years old and never watched Gretz play. It's hilarious. Gretzky's numbers will never be touched and these old timers in here who refuse to acknowledge how much the game has transcended in the past 10, 20, 30 years. Nobody knows for certain what numbers he would put up in today's game but you're out to lunch if you truly believe he would dominate his peers. McDavid is the perfect comparison (in my opinion). He has the most epic speed i've personally ever seen and he JUST hit 100 points last season. If McDavid barely hit 100 points you think Gretzky would hit 140+? Comical. I'm not saying McDavid is better by any means, but if he can't break 120+ points with his speed and the amount of breakaways / opportunities he has per game no one from any era would in today's game. (and he plays with another very good player in Drai)

To sum it up, Gretzky's numbers are untouchable, but you can't say for sure he would be the GOAT if he played today.

McDavid is also pretty inefficient (especially in comparison ofcourse). Gretzky was a great goalscorer and he was so until the other guys could keep up, after that he started to pass first. When Gretzky got his first 200+ season at 212 points, his linemate Kurri had 86 points. Hence Gretzky had to score more himself.

McDavid is also a great example of how something is unthinkable until it happens. Everyone has been going on about parity today and how it is impossible to stick out above the rest like #99 or #66 today. Then suddenly two years ago, a scrawny kid from northen Toronto shows up and skates so fast with the puck that the rest of the league look like beer league players around him. So much for parity and impossibility to stick out from all the super fast and well trained modern players.

Unfortunately what also happens is that people forget. 30 years from now the'll look at youtubevideos of #97 and say "wow they all skated so slow back then, no way he could do that in this era". Then you'll find yourself arguing with the kiddos, and when you do, give #99 a thought and ask that he forgives you for being an unbeliever..

 

[Pred303]

Gretzky would struggle to score 50 points in this year's NHL. Of course he is 57 years old.

 

[GreatGonzo]

Gretzky’s first year in the NHL at 19, he scores 51 goals, led the league with 86 assists and scored 137 points, tied First in the league.....all with Blair MacDonald and Brett Callighen. That team finished 28-39-13. He walked away with the Hart.

 

[DrDangles]

I've always considered Gretz to be the perfect storm, a generational talent on a dynasty team in a high scoring era. I still consider both Mario and Orr to be more talented hockey players.

Gretzky is the greatest, but he wasn't the best, if that makes any sense.

 

[KingBran]

Sadly, like most entertainers they get forgotten once they retired. It wont be until he dies that all of how great he really was will come flooding back.

 

[KingBran]

I've always considered Gretz to be the perfect storm, a generational talent on a dynasty team in a high scoring era. I still consider both Mario and Orr to be more talented hockey players.

Gretzky is the greatest, but he wasn't the best, if that makes any sense.

He was amazing on more than just one team though.

And you are wrong with your last sentence, that doesn't make sense.

 

[Dey so soff*]

I've always been more of a Lemieux fan over Gretzky, but I think Gretzky would win more scoring titles. He brought his A-game every night, and he would not let up even when his team was up 6-2 in the third. The Lemieux that didn't try was about 85% of Gretzky, and the Lemieux that gave his all was about 105% of Gretzky, but the problem is he just didn't bring it enough.

I think there is a good possibility that Mario “didn’t bring it enough” because of his injury problems and cancer. (He flew to Philly on the day of his last treatment to play).

Was he a bit lazy at times? Sure, but when he “brought it” he brought it big time. Wayne might have had the better IQ but Mario’s physical gifts straight clowned guys all over the ice.

It will always be my opinion that Lemieux was the better overall player but his injury troubles derailed his career.

 

[jbobell98]

I’m starting to think people on this site are like 20 - 25 years old and have never seen him play. Do you really not know how good this guy was?

He would CRUSH the scoring race regularly.

The game was much slower back then and it worked to his advantage. Today you have much less time to think. No more 5'8 goalies and 3rd/4th line goons and plugs. Not saying he wouldn't be dominant but he wouldn't be miles ahead of todays stars.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

The game was much slower back then and it worked to his advantage. Today you have much less time to think. No more 5'8 goalies and 3rd/4th line goons and plugs. Not saying he wouldn't be dominant but he wouldn't be miles ahead of todays stars.

Maybe just a singular mile.

 

[TB12]

I’m starting to think people on this site are like 20 - 25 years old and have never seen him play. Do you really not know how good this guy was?

He would CRUSH the scoring race regularly.

This x 1000.
Most people posting here clearly never saw him play. They are incapable of understanding how dominant he was and how dominant he would be in any era.

 

[DrDangles]

He was amazing on more than just one team though.

And you are wrong with your last sentence, that doesn't make sense.

Greater career doesn't mean better player is what I'm getting at. As far as Gretz post Oilers, I find it hard to gauge personally, he was leaving his "peak" as Mario was entering his.

At the end of the day, it's a coin flip and personal preference. I'd also just like to add how insane it is that there was a 20 year period where only 3 players won the Art Ross

 

[GreatGonzo]

The game was much slower back then and it worked to his advantage. Today you have much less time to think. No more 5'8 goalies and 3rd/4th line goons and plugs. Not saying he wouldn't be dominant but he wouldn't be miles ahead of todays stars.

Why wouldn’t the speed and better equipment of today he’ll Gretzky? Why wouldn’t it make him dominate just as much as he once did?

See 1997-98

Greater career doesn't mean better player is what I'm getting at. As far as Gretz post Oilers, I find it hard to gauge personally, he was leaving his "peak" as Mario was entering his.

At the end of the day, it's a coin flip and personal preference. I'd also just like to add how insane it is that there was a 20 year period where only 3 players won the Art Ross

fact is Gretzky was better than Lemieux. Could Lemieux had been better? Was he maybe more “skilled”? Yes, that’s very possible, but you can’t separate a great career with a player like Gretzky. His career as a whole is what makes him he GOAT.

Now your right, it is preference, but in terms of production, and even head to head match ups between the two, Gretzky usually came out on top. Lemieux was close to Gretzky one season, sure injuries did play a part in this, but that was the closest he ever got to touching Gretzky.

One could say, with the end of the 80s, the 90s belonged to Lemieux. But Gretzky was still right there.

 

[DrDangles]

fact is Gretzky was better than Lemieux. Could Lemieux had been better? Was he maybe more “skilled”? Yes, that’s very possible, but you can’t separate a great career with a player like Gretzky. His career as a whole is what makes him he GOAT.

Now your right, it is preference, but in terms of production, and even head to head match ups between the two, Gretzky usually came out on top. Lemieux was close to Gretzky one season, sure injuries did play a part in this, but that was the closest he ever got to touching Gretzky.

One could say, with the end of the 80s, the 90s belonged to Lemieux. But Gretzky was still right there.

I've always thought of Mario as Gretzky on roids, like what Mario did in 93 will forever be the most impressive season in all of sports in my opinion. 69 goals and 160 points in 60 games, while playing with a destroyed back and coming back from radiation treatment; winning the Hart, Art Ross, and Pearson/Lindsay. It doesn't even seem humanly possible.

I'll admit I have a bias in this discussion, I grew up idolizing Mario but I didn't witness Wayne's peak with the Oilers first hand and base my opinion of him on footage and discussions I've had with guys that were there for it. I mean no disrespect to Wayne, he has the greatest career of all time, you could even argue in sports history spanning the major North American sports. I just see Mario as the superior player head to head.

 

[Laineux]

Unfortunately what also happens is that people forget. 30 years from now the'll look at youtubevideos of #97 and say "wow they all skated so slow back then, no way he could do that in this era". Then you'll find yourself arguing with the kiddos, and when you do, give #99 a thought and ask that he forgives you for being an unbeliever..

There will be easily more skilled players than Connor McDavid in the league within 30 years. That's just how the world works.

 

[NyQuil]

No, he isn't.

If he were playing today he'd have all of the advantages that modern players get as well.

People always time travel a player into the present without acknowledging that they would also be a product of the advances to go along with his natural skill.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

I've always considered Gretz to be the perfect storm, a generational talent on a dynasty team in a high scoring era. I still consider both Mario and Orr to be more talented hockey players.

Gretzky is the greatest, but he wasn't the best, if that makes any sense.

I would love to know how Lemieux unhindered by injuries in his prime would have done on the oilers in the early mid 80's. Something tells me 215 points would be smashed

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

I've always thought of Mario as Gretzky on roids, like what Mario did in 93 will forever be the most impressive season in all of sports in my opinion. 69 goals and 160 points in 60 games, while playing with a destroyed back and coming back from radiation treatment; winning the Hart, Art Ross, and Pearson/Lindsay. It doesn't even seem humanly possible.

I'll admit I have a bias in this discussion, I grew up idolizing Mario but I didn't witness Wayne's peak with the Oilers first hand and base my opinion of him on footage and discussions I've had with guys that were there for it. I mean no disrespect to Wayne, he has the greatest career of all time, you could even argue in sports history spanning the major North American sports. I just see Mario as the superior player head to head.

A 92-93 Lemieux was the most dominating force the nhl has ever seen. I don't even know how a player can miss two months with radiation treatment. Come back and score 30 goals and 56 points in 20 games.

 

[KingBran]

Greater career doesn't mean better player is what I'm getting at. As far as Gretz post Oilers, I find it hard to gauge personally, he was leaving his "peak" as Mario was entering his.

At the end of the day, it's a coin flip and personal preference. I'd also just like to add how insane it is that there was a 20 year period where only 3 players won the Art Ross

Yeah and you hear that if Mario was never hurt so much he would have had better numbers. Heres the thing though... he was hurt, and he didn't have better numbers. So I don't consider him better than Gretz at all. He could have been... but he wasn't.