Why would Gretzky still dominate today? Here's the secret about Gretzky...

[tazzy19]

The best argument for Gretzky still being productive in the current NHL are his 130 points in 93-94. He was still productive into the era of butterfly goaltenders and increased clutching and grabbing.

Yes, and this was at age 33, past his prime, post Gary Suter hit, playing for a terrible non playoff 1994 Kings team. He also had a ton of playoff and international games under his belt at this point (and had just come off going to the Stanley Cup finals, with an epic 40 point performance). This was not the same Gretzky from 1986 or even 1988 - far from it. And he still won the scoring title by 10 points as a worn down, shadow of his former self player in the 90s.

 

[tazzy19]

Yes, I know you were talking about scoring, but I just wanted to emphasize - maybe redudantly? - that the top scorer is not always the best player/forward; Viktor Zhluktov in the 1976 Canada Cup would be a prime example... he might have gotten the most points, but he didn't really dominate anything (and of course I'm not comparing Zhluktov to Gretzky in any way!). Gretzky often won the scoring title by 1 point (1981 CC, 1982 WC, 1984 CC, 1991 CC...), so it's not like he always blew away the competition, points-wise or in other ways. Yes, he still proved that he was an excellent player in international competition too.

I'd say that the 1984 CC and 1991 CC are 'arguable', meaning that I'm not saying he absolutely 100 % wasn't the best player, but it is, as you said, up for debate. In 1984 John Tonelli was named the tournament MVP and in 1991 it was Bill Ranford. Whether 1991 should count or not (i.e. due to his injury), I don't know. WJHC I'll leave to someone who is better-informed.

Yes, the Great One had some big games in the 1982 WC, and he got better and more efficient as the games got tougher & more important, but still I don't think it was enough to make him the best forward/player in the tournament; Viktor Shalimov was named the best forward, and there were the likes of Makarov and Kapustin who were more consistent, I think. Fetisov was dynamite on defense. I'm hearing arguments like "it was a totally different situation for Gretzky!", but we were talking about whether he was the best in the tournament or not. If my memory serves me right, Bill Barber and Gretzky formed a nice tandem in the WC. Bobby Clarke was awful. It was during the 1982 WC, I think, when Anatoly Tarasov praised Gretzky's 'hockey intelligence', calling him "the smartest player I've ever seen" or something like that.

I hope this isn't Gretzky-bashing

Gretzky-bashing? No, not at all. Actuallly very well thought out post. It is arguable that Gretzky may not have been the best player, but somehow he was always the player that made just enough of a difference for the win (think of the game against the US -- or was it Sweden? -- in the 1991 Canada Cup where they were tied, and Gretzky finally broke the tie on a breakaway. When the game was on the line, he was the guy that always seemed to make the difference.

 

[billybudd]

I understand what you're trying to say here, but using a one off anomaly by Craig Simpson and comparing it to Stamkos's production is a strawman, no one ever suggested that Simpson was a better finisher than Stamkos, is it possible that on a given year he could outproduce Stamkos, of course.

Adjusted or unadjusted, Stamkos is a better finisher.

It's not a one-off anomaly. I picked Simpson instead of, say, Warren Young or Craig Laughlin, because Craig Simpson consistently, repeatedly finished scoring chances at a higher rate than Stamkos does at his very best.

If it wasn't because he was a better finisher, which you agree with me on, all that leaves is the deduction that the types of shots that result in goals during Simpson's career were of a lesser quality then than the types of shots that result in goals during Steven Stamkos' career.

 

[redbull]

It's not a one-off anomaly. I picked Simpson instead of, say, Warren Young or Craig Laughlin, because Craig Simpson consistently, repeatedly finished scoring chances at a higher rate than Stamkos does at his very best.

If it wasn't because he was a better finisher, which you agree with me on, all that leaves is the deduction that the types of shots that result in goals during Simpson's career were of a lesser quality then than the types of shots that result in goals during Steven Stamkos' career.

OR, that he scored 56 goals when he split a season among 99 & 66 as centres

scored 35 & 30 with Messier, Anderson, Kurri, Tikkanen on the Oilers...then settled in as a 24 goal scorer with "regular" teams - Damphousse, Klima, etc.

Easy to be opportunistic and have a strong season or two playing with the best of the best.
Even Jonathan Cheechoo scored 56 goals. I suppose that translates to 110 in 1985.

(Take nothing away from Stamkos. He's an awesome talent and a great goal scorer. And yes, 60 goals in today's game is quite a feat. But outscoring the next best superstar HOF by almost double over a decade is something far different.)

 

[habsfanatics*]

OR, that he scored 56 goals when he split a season among 99 & 66 as centres

scored 35 & 30 with Messier, Anderson, Kurri, Tikkanen on the Oilers...then settled in as a 24 goal scorer with "regular" teams - Damphousse, Klima, etc.

Easy to be opportunistic and have a strong season or two playing with the best of the best.
Even Jonathan Cheechoo scored 56 goals. I suppose that translates to 110 in 1985.

(Take nothing away from Stamkos. He's an awesome talent and a great goal scorer. And yes, 60 goals in today's game is quite a feat. But outscoring the next best superstar HOF by almost double over a decade is something far different.)

Yeah this, thanks for saving me the time redbull.

 

[Rob Scuderi]

If it wasn't because he was a better finisher, which you agree with me on, all that leaves is the deduction that the types of shots that result in goals during Simpson's career were of a lesser quality then than the types of shots that result in goals during Steven Stamkos' career.

Assuming of course the difference in yearly save percentages is the result of quality of competition and nothing else, which obviously no one is going to buy.

 

[tazzy19]

One thing that doesn't get mentioned often: Gretzky was almost impossible to predict. This was one of the biggest differences between Gretzky and Lemieux. Just when you thought he was going to pass it to the open guy, he would pass it to nowhere, and a new, unseen play would emerge. This might be my favorite Gretzky/Kurri play I've ever seen (I'm sure there are MANY I have not seen):

At 10:32:



Totally ridiculous on every level - from the mental foresight to the physical execution. Everyone thought it was a 2 on 1!

 

[Ola]

On Crosby: true
He's a flawless player. He's probably a much better skater and stronger on the puck than 99 & 66 were in their prime as well, not to mention peers today. But that doesn't mean he wouldn't be out-produced by a wide margin by those two.
Talent is talent. Reggie Leach played drunk, but he could score, period. (Not libelous, it's a known fact - book "Breakaway" - C.Wickins I believe?)

Whether player 150 is "better" today?
I know this is a highly debated issue on HF and I have no doubt that player 150 is better CONDITIONED than in 1990, 1980, 1970 and so on. They are bigger, skate faster, etc. But does that mean "better"? Not necessarily.

The way the game is played today, half the roster doesn't really play a skilled game. They skate hard, dump, chase, hit for 42-44sec and get off. You can be 6'3", skate well, and not be able to push the puck into a lake while standing on the pier and have a job in the NHL.

An elite player would be able to exploit these players just as well as player #150 in 1984.

And consider that Gretzky also destroyed the competition in the playoffs, in the final two rounds, in international play where it's best-on-best and there is no "worse player" or "player #150" to take advantage of.

I don't think the argument stands up, whether it's true or not that the players are "better" today.


AND:
Even if one concedes that player 150-600 is much better today, it doesn't change the fact that Bossy, Dionne, Stastny also played against the same player in that era, where they were shamed by 99.

First of all, people who read this reply and not my earlier ones will misunderstand my point, so please go back and see the context here.

But yes, there is much smaller difference between nr 1 and nr 150 today than in 82'. You just come to the wrong conclusion.

Hockey is a hard sport to play. For extremely few, it comes natural all over the board. For the rest, it's practise practise practise that matters. And today, we are just that much better at learning people to skate etc. Go back to 82', many didnt even work out that hard during the summers, if at all.

In short, the players that are where they are because of hard work do a heck of a better job to close the gap between them and the guys who are born to play the game as opposed to 30 years ago. I am sure of that.

 

[Rhiessan71]

First of all, people who read this reply and not my earlier ones will misunderstand my point, so please go back and see the context here.

But yes, there is much smaller difference between nr 1 and nr 150 today than in 82'. You just come to the wrong conclusion.

Hockey is a hard sport to play. For extremely few, it comes natural all over the board. For the rest, it's practise practise practise that matters. And today, we are just that much better at learning people to skate etc. Go back to 82', many didnt even work out that hard during the summers, if at all.

In short, the players that are where they are because of hard work do a heck of a better job to close the gap between them and the guys who are born to play the game as opposed to 30 years ago. I am sure of that.

That's all well and good but...

A) Even though more players work out and train more today, there were still quite a few players that DID work out and train back then.

B) There were plenty of other players back then that were just as talented as the top players today (some might argue more talented in the cases of Dionne, Bossy and Yzerman) that were going up against the very same "weak" opposition and Gretzky left them all in the dust by incredible margins.


So while your points are not wrong, they are greatly exaggerated and still don't even come remotely close to explaining point B above.

 

[Beville]

Gretzky > everyone.

Simples.

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

Gretzky saw the ice better than anyone else because nobody else played in a bubble! Nobody in history had a league bend over so far as Gretzky. It is one of the most embarrassing aspects of being a hockey fa, kmowing the league whored for Gretz.

Wnat to hide behind the net? Yes, sir! We'll move them out to give you more room!

Can't take ANY contact? No problem, we'll have our officials instruct teams before you play. Then we'll penalize any close brushes, you call, sir.

Wayne Gretzky was so coddled by the league that he played until he was too old, despite being a slightly built guy without wheels.

Where is Wayne now? Why isn't he President of the Player's Union? Well, he never played the game and everybody knows it.

If Wayne had ever played a game without tucking his shirt in to be recognized or a shift without yapping to the ref to watch him, he'd be in a wheelchair. I do not believe Gretzky in his prime could survive a period in today's league. Not the way the game is called, now. It is certain he would never finish a playoff game, much less a series!

Ever wonder why Gretz had to court Howe? It's because he never earned any respect from the older players. The greatest crybaby in the history of the game doesn't sound like a title the old boys revered, does it?

I'm not sure if I should laugh or vomit

 

[tazzy19]

I'm not sure if I should laugh or vomit

The irony of JuniorNelson's post of course is that Wayne did "play in a bubble", but it was a bubble he created for himself because of his vision, not because of the league:

"There's a spot on the ice that's no man's land, and the good goal scorers find it. It's a piece of ice that is just in between the defense and the forward. Mike Bossy used to find it all the time; Kurri finds it all the time. The good goal scorers know where that spot is." - Wayne Gretzky

Now Gretzky seemed to play the entire game in that spot, so I can see why people think he had an unfair advantage. With that kind of vision, yes, he did have an unfair advantage.

The other irony of JuniorNelson's post is that if the league really was doing all of this bending over backwards for Gretzky, then he must have been something pretty special for the league to do ALL of that!

 

[redbull]

happen to catch a replay of the 87 canada cup the other day, the can-usa game, oh boy there were some talented players on that ice. The CAN PP was Messier - Gretzky - Lemieux - Bourque - Coffey.

I'd forgotten how good Rod Langway was for the USA team. Gary Suter, Pat Lafontaine, very impressive players.

The level of hockey was extremely high. I was switching between that game and the PIT/DET 2009 playoff game, there was no noticeable difference in speed of play or pace, but the skill level on the ice was unparalleled. The 87 team of superstars obviously was a much higher level of hockey.

I'd forgotten how much better Gretzky and Lemieux were, than everyone else on the ice. Mario scored a hat-trick that game but looked "ordinary". He just was able to generate more chances when he was on the ice, just like Gretzky. The other nine skaters on the ice just look "not as good", it's very noticeable. I encourage anyone who hasn't seen them play, please watch any one game, not youtube highlights (which does nothing for how they played).

Their ability to generate offense was incredible.

 

[Richard]

I would say the main difference today is that everything and everyone is so "systematic". Creativity from player 150 in 1980 and 150 today would be miles apart. "Skill" as a subjective term? I dunno who would be more "skillful". "Technical"? Well that would be the player today, as in bigger, stronger, faster and understands how to play "systematic" hockey.

Equipment is also a huge factor, I used to have a flutter slapshot with my old Montreal wood sticks, all of a sudden, late 90's I was able to fire rockets. Did I suddenly relearn the game of hockey at age 35? No, better equipment.

Everyone forgets that both Mario and Wayne would have access to that techincal improvement.

 

[redbull]

I would say the main difference today is that everything and everyone is so "systematic". Creativity from player 150 in 1980 and 150 today would be miles apart. "Skill" as a subjective term? I dunno who would be more "skillful". "Technical"? Well that would be the player today, as in bigger, stronger, faster and understands how to play "systematic" hockey.

Equipment is also a huge factor, I used to have a flutter slapshot with my old Montreal wood sticks, all of a sudden, late 90's I was able to fire rockets. Did I suddenly relearn the game of hockey at age 35? No, better equipment.

Everyone forgets that both Mario and Wayne would have access to that techincal improvement.

but i find it amazing how gretzky and mario could have guys like rod langway and chris chelios look intimidated. How, in a flash, a scoring chance would be created without any defensive breakdown, just anticipating a play, jumping into open space, a nifty pass or a deadly accurate shot.

It's not so much equipment that makes a great play, at least not in the way I'm trying to refer to it.

The amount of chances that are generated when Gretzky and Mario were on the ice really stands out. Chaos for opponents.

It's not size, speed, shot, equipment so much as just knowing how to make plays. I firmly believe this transcends eras.

Crosby's like that today, just way less so.

Seeing Lafontaine & Messier & Anderson look "ordinary" by comparison is a site to see.

Nobody does that today. At any point in time, even in the Olympics, the best player on the ice could have been any of a dozen players (Toews, Nash, Crosby for Canada, for example) and in the NHL, any given season it could be Malkin, Ovechkin, Crosby, Sedins, Toews, Kane, Stamkos, Giroux - they are all "close"

Hard to imagine any one guy pulling away from the others by a noticeable degree. Especially someone who's no bigger, stronger, faster. I hadn't seen a 99 or 66 game in a while, it's easy to forget how dominant and noticeable they were on the ice. Throw away all the stats and if you just watch, again, for the first time, it's pretty obvious how much they stand out. Stand out above the other superstars.

I mean, Messier looked like a role player on that team.

 

[dennilfloss]

Originally Posted by JuniorNelson
Gretzky saw the ice better than anyone else because nobody else played in a bubble! Nobody in history had a league bend over so far as Gretzky. It is one of the most embarrassing aspects of being a hockey fa, kmowing the league whored for Gretz.

Wnat to hide behind the net? Yes, sir! We'll move them out to give you more room!

Can't take ANY contact? No problem, we'll have our officials instruct teams before you play. Then we'll penalize any close brushes, you call, sir.

Wayne Gretzky was so coddled by the league that he played until he was too old, despite being a slightly built guy without wheels.

Where is Wayne now? Why isn't he President of the Player's Union? Well, he never played the game and everybody knows it.

If Wayne had ever played a game without tucking his shirt in to be recognized or a shift without yapping to the ref to watch him, he'd be in a wheelchair. I do not believe Gretzky in his prime could survive a period in today's league. Not the way the game is called, now. It is certain he would never finish a playoff game, much less a series!

Ever wonder why Gretz had to court Howe? It's because he never earned any respect from the older players. The greatest crybaby in the history of the game doesn't sound like a title the old boys revered, does it?

Maybe you should watch this 1983 Coach's Corner to refresh your memory.

Those of us who watched hockey back then know every one who got the chance tried to hit Gretzky. There was no league protection. To the contrary, the league passed some rule changes that actually limited his (and the Oilers) offensive production.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4XWEqyJA1HY#!

Another one from the 82 playoffs mentioning how the Kings are going hard after Gretzky.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBlLPzMWAEk

 

[tazzy19]

For a guy who was a shadow of his former self once the 90s came around, Gretzky was good enough to make not just one, but two of the top 10 playoff hat tricks of the 90s according to NHL Network -- including the number 1 spot. And check out the natural hat trick he scores at 6:28 with the Rangers and tell me he wasn't the best player of the 1997 playoffs up until the Rangers were out. He scored all 3 goals in a span of about 5 minutes. The 3rd goal is just sick, skating like he's 26, not 36, faking out Jovonoski and the rest of the Panthers with speed and turns like it's 1985 again:




The one that shows multiple hat tricks of Kings players near the beginning has a beautiful Gretzky play as well at 3:01.

 

[gretzkyoilers]

For a guy who was a shadow of his former self once the 90s came around, Gretzky was good enough to make not just one, but two of the top 10 playoff hat tricks of the 90s according to NHL Network -- including the number 1 spot. And check out the natural hat trick he scores at 6:28 with the Rangers and tell me he wasn't the best player of the 1997 playoffs up until the Rangers were out. He scored all 3 goals in a span of about 5 minutes. The 3rd goal is just sick, skating like he's 26, not 36, faking out Jovonoski and the rest of the Panthers with speed and turns like it's 1985 again:




The one that shows multiple hat tricks of Kings players near the beginning has a beautiful Gretzky play as well at 3:01.

What a WEAK, inaccurate slap shot he had. Crosby hit the water bottle WAY harder than the "Weak One" did. And we all know that water bottles were easier to hit (and likely lighter) in 1997 than post-2005, newer, faster, NHL.

 

[gretzkyoilers]

Maybe you should watch this 1983 Coach's Corner to refresh your memory.

Those of us who watched hockey back then know every one who got the chance tried to hit Gretzky. There was no league protection. To the contrary, the league passed some rule changes that actually limited his (and the Oilers) offensive production.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4XWEqyJA1HY#!

Another one from the 82 playoffs mentioning how the Kings are going hard after Gretzky.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBlLPzMWAEk

Those two YouTube links should be stickied on this Forum...

 

[Beef Invictus]

For a guy who was a shadow of his former self once the 90s came around, Gretzky was good enough to make not just one, but two of the top 10 playoff hat tricks of the 90s according to NHL Network -- including the number 1 spot. And check out the natural hat trick he scores at 6:28 with the Rangers and tell me he wasn't the best player of the 1997 playoffs up until the Rangers were out. He scored all 3 goals in a span of about 5 minutes. The 3rd goal is just sick, skating like he's 26, not 36, faking out Jovonoski and the rest of the Panthers with speed and turns like it's 1985 again:





The one that shows multiple hat tricks of Kings players near the beginning has a beautiful Gretzky play as well at 3:01.

His 3rd goal of the top hat trick is insane as well. The announcers say it was luck but considering Gretzky, I doubt it. I suspect he intended to bank that puck and see what happens.

 

[tazzy19]

His 3rd goal of the top hat trick is insane as well. The announcers say it was luck but considering Gretzky, I doubt it. I suspect he intended to bank that puck and see what happens.

That goal was most definitely intentional. Harry Neal says, "In Gretzky's attempt to center the puck to nobody, it hit Dave Ellet in the foot..." Gretzky always knew where everyone was on the ice at all times, and he would never center the puck to "nobody" unless there was a "somebody" he could bank it off for a goal, or unless there was a player he knew would appear in a certain spot after the fact. If we look at the replay at 22:16, we will see there was absolutely no LA King within a country mile to pass to. And if we look at the replay at 22:25, we will see that Gretzky aims that backhand pass right at Ellet's skate, and then notice how Gretzky even turns his head and looks back at Potvin as he's skating away to make sure his bank shot went into the net! Gretzky never centered pucks to "nobody". He scored the 2nd goal of his 2nd hat trick of the 1997 playoffs with the Rangers in the same fashion against the Flyers. He was the master of bank shots. No luck at all, contrary to Harry Neale's opinion.

 

[AleksandarN]

That goal was most definitely intentional. Harry Neal says, "In Gretzky's attempt to center the puck to nobody it hit Dave Ellet in the foot..." Gretzky always knew where everyone was on the ice at all times, and he would never center the puck to "nobody" unless there was a "somebody" he could bank it off for a goal. If we look at the replay at 22:16, we will see there was absolutely no LA King within a country mile to pass it to. And if we look at 22:25, we will see in the replay that Gretzky aims that backhand pass right at Ellet's skate, and then notice how Gretzky even turns his head and looks back at Potvin as he's skating away to make sure his bank shot went into the net! Gretzky never centered pucks to "nobody". He scored the 2nd goal of his 2nd hat trick of the 1997 playoffs with the Rangers in the same fashion against the Flyers. He was the master of bank shots. No luck at all, contrary to Harry Neale's opinion.

but he could not do it in today's game because he is not a goal scorer like stamkos and OV

 

[tazzy19]

but he could not do it in today's game because he is not a goal scorer like stamkos and OV

 

[Ola]

Players born within the first 5 month's of the calender month is overrepresented in the NHL by a extremely high %.

Why is that? Ok sure, they should be able to be better during the junior years, but shouldn't the rest catch up when you stop growing? You "only" got a 5 month head start, or whatever. Its simple, they develop better because they have that head start. They get to dominate, while someone born in December has to be alot better to get to dominate and don't get to practise on doing just that as much.

Just like kids who is born in like January become better hockey players because they get to dominate early in their years, Mario Lemieux and Wayne Gretzky became tremendous hockeyplayers because they got to dominate for over a handful of years while the NHL evolved (hockey grew and Europeans joined the leauge).

Yes, both 99 and 66 were as good as people say they were. In their prime. And while they were tremendous talents, that's far from the only reason for it. The biggest reason from my point of view was that they was at the top of a league that just wasn't that good in the early 80's, but then got a chance to grow with the league as the league developed in the 90's.

 

[redbull]

T
Just like kids who is born in like January become better hockey players because they get to dominate early in their years, Mario Lemieux and Wayne Gretzky became tremendous hockeyplayers because they got to dominate for over a handful of years while the NHL evolved (hockey grew and Europeans joined the leauge).

Yes, both 99 and 66 were as good as people say they were. In their prime. And while they were tremendous talents, that's far from the only reason for it. The biggest reason from my point of view was that they was at the top of a league that just wasn't that good in the early 80's, but then got a chance to grow with the league as the league developed in the 90's.

Gladwell's point does not apply to extreme outliers like Gretzky and Lemieux, though.

To suggest the league wasn't that good at the time is dead wrong.

Bryan Trottier, Peter Stastny, Mike Bossy, Dale Hawerchuk, Pat Lafontaine, Steve Yzerman -- these players were shamed, in the same league, at the same time. That separation is era-agnostic. Not to mention the evidence of 99&66 transitioning eras like how they dominated Jagr and Dionne.


The Isles & Oilers, from 80-87 were among the top teams ever, according to anyone in hockey.

Respectfully, you are wrong about the era. Too much is made about eras, I don't notice a higher level of play in this era vs any other. I watched a Bruins-Leafs game from 71, two players stood out above the rest. Orr and Esposito. It was obvious. And the rest of the players, the flow of the game, well, add some tv, board advertising, helmets and big equipment and you couldn't tell the difference.