Will we ever see a better player than Gretzky? Will we know it?

[Big Phil]

Hardyvan, we can go further with other players. There are ample players who dominated during different eras, or played at a very high level. Jagr, Hull, Mikita, Beliveau, Sakic and if you really want to get down to it - Mark Recchi. Recchi had a 113 point season in 1991. He led the NHL in assists in 2000. He was a key part of the Bruins Cup win in 2011 scoring 14 points as a 42 year old. Recchi aged incredibly well. He scored a lot in the early 1990s in a league that lacked Europeans and was higher scoring. He finished 3rd in scoring in 2000 at the height of the dead puck era once he was getting past his prime. Recchi is also hardly an all-time great player. He is perhaps a HHOF player but this was a guy that managed to produce and perform in several different eras in the NHL and his career curve was normal.

Look, nothing against old Joe Sakic, but if he gets a 100 point season in 1990 and then again as an old man in 2007 does it not sort of prove the point that a true star can score in any era? I mean there are so many examples of this that we almost have Martin St. Louis win an Art Ross in the dead puck era and in the post lockout era. What more prove do we need that someone like Gretzky would be more or less the same if these guys are?

 

[Hardyvan123]

The fact that Mario finished 2nd in hart voting in 43 games and Sid didn't finish that high in 11 doesn't mean that their 2 shortened seasons were that far apart in value though.

It's more a reflection of the voters, totally misguided IMO, and perhaps the conditions of the specific 01 NHL season.

In 01 Mario was on the ice for 99 goals for, 40 on the pp and 57 GA, 13 on the SH
In 11 Sid was on the ice for 78 goals for, 26 on the PP and 33 GA, 1 on the SH

Take into account the supporting cast of Mario versus Sid and it's not even close.

IMO, no one, not even Wayne should ever be in contention for the HART when they miss almost half of the games in a season.

As for Howe, I wasn't born to see him age in the late 06 league and increase production with expansion and it's possible that he was in a unique situation to score that many more points.

Also with Bourque he was one of the best 3 Dmen of all time IMO but he also had a bit of luck, with injuries to other guys in terms of having that consecutive all star streak.

Most Dmen have to earn a reputation first and then once earned they get a bit "of the benefit of the doubt" as we often see with late career all star team selections.

Each players situation is unique as is Waynes and it not always to infer one players success to another to prove anything regarding era, some guys are simply the exception that proves a point.

I think that Sid is close in terms of total impact to the type of impact that Wayne had and it's in a bigger pool as well or more top notch players, although that's somewhat subjective and that's why we have these debates.

I just think that even Wayne and Mario couldn't repeat their stats in todays games as I ahve gone over for numerous reasons, if others think they would then we will agree to disagree.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I just think that even Wayne and Mario couldn't repeat their stats in todays games as I ahve gone over for numerous reasons, if others think they would then we will agree to disagree.

Who said stats???
This ENTIRE thread has been talking about their offensive dominance, not their raw stats.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Who said stats???
This ENTIRE thread has been talking about their offensive dominance, not their raw stats.

Their offensive dominance is measured in stats right?

There is something to be said for Sid's 2 way game though, which cannot be entirely measured in stats.

We will agree to disagree as you have your mind made up here.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Their offensive dominance is measured in stats right?

There is something to be said for Sid's 2 way game though, which cannot be entirely measured in stats.

We will agree to disagree as you have your mind made up here.

The thing is you keep repeating over and over again that people are claiming that Gretz/Mario would score 200+ points today when no one is actually saying that.

All that's being said is that most people believe that Gretz and Mario's offense would be significantly more than Sid's.
Maybe Sid makes up a bit of ground on the defensive front but I really don't think it's as much as you think.

No offense but I find, based on your recent assessments of Sid's and Zubov's level of defensive play, that your ability to recognize the difference between being defensively responsible, good or great is not very well informed.

 

[Big Phil]

The fact that Mario finished 2nd in hart voting in 43 games and Sid didn't finish that high in 11 doesn't mean that their 2 shortened seasons were that far apart in value though.

It's more a reflection of the voters, totally misguided IMO, and perhaps the conditions of the specific 01 NHL season.

In 01 Mario was on the ice for 99 goals for, 40 on the pp and 57 GA, 13 on the SH
In 11 Sid was on the ice for 78 goals for, 26 on the PP and 33 GA, 1 on the SH

Take into account the supporting cast of Mario versus Sid and it's not even close.

IMO, no one, not even Wayne should ever be in contention for the HART when they miss almost half of the games in a season.

When Mario returned in December of 2000 Jagr was nowhere near the scoring lead. He ended up winning the Art Ross by the end of the year. Mario changed the entire mood of that team. The fact that he finished ahead of Jagr - the Art Ross winner - tells you that people felt at the time the type of impact Mario had on the team outweighed Jagr's impact that year. Everybody all of the sudden scored more on the Pens. Plus, if we want to consider Mario's 2001 season to Crosby's 2011 season then that's fine, but I think it goes to show you that Mario was 35 and Crosby 23. Big difference.

As for Howe, I wasn't born to see him age in the late 06 league and increase production with expansion and it's possible that he was in a unique situation to score that many more points.

What is the reasoning behind why only Hull and Esposito were able to outscore the 40 year old man? You have to have an idea here with that. Everyone was in the same NHL at that time.

Also with Bourque he was one of the best 3 Dmen of all time IMO but he also had a bit of luck, with injuries to other guys in terms of having that consecutive all star streak.

What injuries? It is commonly believed around here that Bourque was not only robbed of a Norris or two prior to his first in 1987 but also robbed of a Hart in 1990. You'll have to explain that one Hardy, where was Bourque lucky? He was an elite defenseman in two different decades highlighting two different eras of hockey. He never had a problem with it.

Each players situation is unique as is Waynes and it not always to infer one players success to another to prove anything regarding era, some guys are simply the exception that proves a point.

I think that Sid is close in terms of total impact to the type of impact that Wayne had and it's in a bigger pool as well or more top notch players, although that's somewhat subjective and that's why we have these debates.

I just think that even Wayne and Mario couldn't repeat their stats in todays games as I ahve gone over for numerous reasons, if others think they would then we will agree to disagree.

I'm not sure if they could repeat their stats either. 200+ points 4 times is insane. It is impossible for us to know this for sure. But I even went as far as showing you that Martin St. Louis never seemed to have a problem in two different eras of hockey competing. He wins the Hart and Art Ross in a clutch and grab lower scoring era in 2004. He has some wonderful seasons post lockout and his best one is 2011 when he finishes 3rd in scoring and 3rd in Hart voting. He was 35 years old that year and isn't slowing down even at 37.

I mean, we are talking about a player who is probably just going to slide into the HHOF, not Wayne Gretzky here. You are having trouble seeing Gretzky having dominance in this era when far inferior players have done it and Joe Sakic had nearly two decades between 100 point seasons.

My question is this, who ARE these players that weren't able to adjust to a different era. If all the examples I gave are the "exceptions to the rule" then which players are the rule?

 

[tazzy19]

The thing about Gretzky that never gets mentioned is that he wasn't just merely smashing other people's records -- there came a point that the records he was breaking were his own. Until we see a player come along that doesn't just break records, but break their own records after smashing them previously.....we will not really be able to compare them to Gretzky.

 

[Hardyvan123]

When Mario returned in December of 2000 Jagr was nowhere near the scoring lead. He ended up winning the Art Ross by the end of the year. Mario changed the entire mood of that team. The fact that he finished ahead of Jagr - the Art Ross winner - tells you that people felt at the time the type of impact Mario had on the team outweighed Jagr's impact that year. Everybody all of the sudden scored more on the Pens. Plus, if we want to consider Mario's 2001 season to Crosby's 2011 season then that's fine, but I think it goes to show you that Mario was 35 and Crosby 23. Big difference.

I know about the age but Hart voters don't take that into account, or they shouldn't. a 2nd place for the hart for Mario that year isn't a very accurate portrayal IMO.

As for Jagr, he led the league in scoring the year previous without Mario, in 63 games and 01 was his 4th consecutive year leading the league in scoring.

I don't know what the scoring rate without Mario was but it goes without saying that the Pens had one of the more talented groups of top 6 forwards in the league, even without Mario, in 01.

What is the reasoning behind why only Hull and Esposito were able to outscore the 40 year old man? You have to have an idea here with that. Everyone was in the same NHL at that time.

I'm one of those guys that think the 06 NHL was a bit over rated and indeed perhaps a bit stagnant, look at 72 and how close Russia was to beating Canada, when it really shouldn't have been close at all, even with Orr and Hull out.

But that's a whole other topic.

I think there is a reason why we call Howe Mr Hockey and he is a close 2nd to Gretzky in my books and then there is a drop off to 3 and 4.

I'm a career guy so more of that line of thought will come up in the centers project, especially around Mario.

What injuries? It is commonly believed around here that Bourque was not only robbed of a Norris or two prior to his first in 1987 but also robbed of a Hart in 1990. You'll have to explain that one Hardy, where was Bourque lucky? He was an elite defenseman in two different decades highlighting two different eras of hockey. He never had a problem with it.

Potvin is the obvious guy as he was never quite the same after the injury in the 80 season.

In fact he was poised to be in the running to be Orr like for his career with his trajectory up until that point IMO.

And there is Orr as well, people forget he would ahve been only 31 in Ray's 1st season, so ahealthy Orr and Bourque probably would ahve kept Ray out of the psot season a couple of times in the early 80's

It was also a changing of the guard with the big group from the 70's not being as dominant in the early 80's as one might have expected with Salming, Robinson, Lapointe, and Savard all dropping some gradually and some quickly.

I mean Carlyle and Wilson won Norris trophies in the early 80's and while both were fine players it's hard to conceive either guy being an all time great even the the best and most prefect storm situations.

Mark Howe also got uneven treatment with the voters as well IMO.

But what does this matter anyways, I have ray as my 2nd all time Dman, depending on my view on the matter on any day and a solid top 4.

I'm not sure if they could repeat their stats either. 200+ points 4 times is insane. It is impossible for us to know this for sure. But I even went as far as showing you that Martin St. Louis never seemed to have a problem in two different eras of hockey competing. He wins the Hart and Art Ross in a clutch and grab lower scoring era in 2004. He has some wonderful seasons post lockout and his best one is 2011 when he finishes 3rd in scoring and 3rd in Hart voting. He was 35 years old that year and isn't slowing down even at 37.

I mean, we are talking about a player who is probably just going to slide into the HHOF, not Wayne Gretzky here. You are having trouble seeing Gretzky having dominance in this era when far inferior players have done it and Joe Sakic had nearly two decades between 100 point seasons.

My question is this, who ARE these players that weren't able to adjust to a different era. If all the examples I gave are the "exceptions to the rule" then which players are the rule?

MSL hasn't really played in 2 different eras has he?

I will close with this thought, both Wayne and Mario grew up playing hockey the way they wanted, coaches can't really coach offense anyways but since at elast the early to mid 90's, and eprhaps earlier most coaches everywhere ahve been coachign defense, defesne, defense and systems.

It's really ahrd to even begin to think how this would ahve affected how Wayne and Mario both played.

Like I said before even though Mario was a better physical talent I think Wayne's drive and desire to be the best and be a winner would ahve made the transition easier for him but it's all really subjective and speculative in the end.

Sather allowed Wayne and the 80's Oilers to play the way they did, does anyone think Hitch in Columbus would have allowed Wayne that freedom (and we would be talking about an already different Wayne here to begin with).

This is the biggest problem in point projections from 2 quite different eras of the 80's and post lockout hockey IMO.

I mean even with the bourque example and the players and skill he played all thsoe minutes with in Colorado at thee nd his points, and goals especially were way down from where he started and yes some fo that is due to age but really how much he still logged huge minutes with world class players right?

Well part of the answer is that his point totals adjusted were worth more in his Colorado times but he did have a 2-31-33 PP line with Sakic and Forsberg and company.

In the end it doesn't really matter that much as we will have as little discussion on Wayne being the #1 center of all time as we did with Orr in the D project

The rest of the top 5 and even 10 and 20 is going to be really wild and wide open though.

 

[Big Phil]

I know about the age but Hart voters don't take that into account, or they shouldn't. a 2nd place for the hart for Mario that year isn't a very accurate portrayal IMO.

As for Jagr, he led the league in scoring the year previous without Mario, in 63 games and 01 was his 4th consecutive year leading the league in scoring.

I don't know what the scoring rate without Mario was but it goes without saying that the Pens had one of the more talented groups of top 6 forwards in the league, even without Mario, in 01.

I am not saying the Hart voting took age into account, I am just saying Mario had at least as good of a partial season as a 35 year old than Crosby did as a 23 year old. As for the Hart, a lot of it has to do with the fact that Mario started in December and finished the season. That will get you a lot more Hart votes than when the opposite happens, like Crosby, where he plays from October to April and doesn't help the team down the stretch. That probably weighed into the voting. Plus helping catapult Jagr into an Art Ross.

I'm one of those guys that think the 06 NHL was a bit over rated and indeed perhaps a bit stagnant, look at 72 and how close Russia was to beating Canada, when it really shouldn't have been close at all, even with Orr and Hull out.

But that's a whole other topic.

I think there is a reason why we call Howe Mr Hockey and he is a close 2nd to Gretzky in my books and then there is a drop off to 3 and 4.

I'm a career guy so more of that line of thought will come up in the centers project, especially around Mario.

Right, but I am just saying Howe dominated over a span of 20 years. I would certainly call that two different eras. So what would stop him, or Gretzky or Lemieux from dominating in 2013 when we physically saw that it wasn't a problem for him - even as an old man - when he played?

Potvin is the obvious guy as he was never quite the same after the injury in the 80 season.

In fact he was poised to be in the running to be Orr like for his career with his trajectory up until that point IMO.

And there is Orr as well, people forget he would ahve been only 31 in Ray's 1st season, so ahealthy Orr and Bourque probably would ahve kept Ray out of the psot season a couple of times in the early 80's

It was also a changing of the guard with the big group from the 70's not being as dominant in the early 80's as one might have expected with Salming, Robinson, Lapointe, and Savard all dropping some gradually and some quickly.

I mean Carlyle and Wilson won Norris trophies in the early 80's and while both were fine players it's hard to conceive either guy being an all time great even the the best and most prefect storm situations.

Mark Howe also got uneven treatment with the voters as well IMO.

But what does this matter anyways, I have ray as my 2nd all time Dman, depending on my view on the matter on any day and a solid top 4.

I'm not sure if you can chalk up his thumb injury in 1979-'80 to where he dropped off. After this injury he captained 4 Cups, had Smythe worthy runs, finished 2nd (should have been first) to Carlyle in Norris voting and had 85 points in 1984. Potvin just simply played a lot of hockey. 19 straight series wins will burn you out. Look at Trottier, or Smith for that matter. Bossy never surpassed 30.

I don't think Bourque faced easy competition by any means. He still had the old guard in Robinson and Potvin for a little bit and I don't know how long you expected Savard and Lapointe to dominate but they were starting to age by 1979. He had Langway, Wilson, a young Coffey, Mark Howe, and then by the mid to late 1980s he had to deal with Coffey's seasons, Stevens, eventually Chelios and then in the 1990s had Coffey, Stevens, Leetch, Chelios, MacInnis, etc. Yet he won 5 Norrises and his all-star selections didn't start becoming scarce until after 1996, when he was 35 years old. What more did you want the guy to do? Bourque clearly spanned two different eras and had a ton of HHOFers to compete against. 17 straight years of an all-star selection and you still can't see that a great player can and will dominate regardless of era or whoever is in the league?

I really don't know what else to say. If you can't see that Bourque had no problem with it......................but instead penalize him because an older Orr who may have been dominant in the early 1980s wasn't around?

MSL hasn't really played in 2 different eras has he?

Sort of. The example of St. Louis was to show you that post lockout and prelockout a player of even his status has managed to dominate.

I will close with this thought, both Wayne and Mario grew up playing hockey the way they wanted, coaches can't really coach offense anyways but since at elast the early to mid 90's, and eprhaps earlier most coaches everywhere ahve been coachign defense, defesne, defense and systems.

It's really ahrd to even begin to think how this would ahve affected how Wayne and Mario both played.

Like I said before even though Mario was a better physical talent I think Wayne's drive and desire to be the best and be a winner would ahve made the transition easier for him but it's all really subjective and speculative in the end.

Sather allowed Wayne and the 80's Oilers to play the way they did, does anyone think Hitch in Columbus would have allowed Wayne that freedom (and we would be talking about an already different Wayne here to begin with).

This is the biggest problem in point projections from 2 quite different eras of the 80's and post lockout hockey IMO.

I mean even with the bourque example and the players and skill he played all thsoe minutes with in Colorado at thee nd his points, and goals especially were way down from where he started and yes some fo that is due to age but really how much he still logged huge minutes with world class players right?

Well part of the answer is that his point totals adjusted were worth more in his Colorado times but he did have a 2-31-33 PP line with Sakic and Forsberg and company.

In the end it doesn't really matter that much as we will have as little discussion on Wayne being the #1 center of all time as we did with Orr in the D project

The rest of the top 5 and even 10 and 20 is going to be really wild and wide open though.

For starters, I think a 2001 Bourque is NOT a 1990 Bourque. First team all-star or not, we can see with our eyes that the 2001 Avs were not his team while the 1990 Bruins WERE his team, sometimes even offensively it was HIS team. The guy was 40 years old, his numbers are going to go down based on age and a lower scoring era. And yet he still had 59 points.

Secondly, let's just be thankful a Ken Hitchcock-like coach didn't ruin a player like Gretzky or Lemieux. It only takes one bad apple. The last thing in the world a competent coach should do to a young talent is stunt his creativity. When a player comes along like that with so much talent and control over the ice you let them do their thing. In Montreal even Scotty Bowman was smart enough to let Guy Lafleur play "naturally". Yes without the puck Scotty wanted him to be responsible but there have been many stories about how Lafleur was always the first one to screw up practicing the power play because he didn't like a structured way of doing things. 4 straight Cups later, I guess he did alright.

So it was a no-brainer for Sather to let Gretzky go with the flow. Ask Philly or Dallas fans their opinion on Ken Hitchcock. This is a coach who had a 4-2 lead in Canada at the 2008 World Championships going into the third period and instead of keeping the pedal to the metal he forced his team to sit back and let the Russians win the gold from under their noses. Why people think Hitchcock is a great coach is beyond me. So thank God Gretzky or Lemieux didn't have a guy like him hanging around.

You see this with other players. Crosby, Tavares for example never seemed to have a coach cramp their style. Look at them today. Look at what happened to Michel Therrien in the 2008-'09 season. He takes the team to the 2008 Cup final playing a wide open style and in the following season - with Crosby and Malkin on his team and missing Gonchar for the first half - he tightens the screws on them. You just don't do that with players of this ilk. What happened to Therrien? He was fired. Dan Byslma comes in, lets his talented players do their thing and they finish 18-3-4 for the season. And then they won the Cup. Where is Therrien now? The only city that would take him (thank God he speaks French or else) Montreal.

You can be a free wheeling team and still hold onto your defensive responsibilities. I think it gets glossed over just how good the Oilers in their day could be come playoff time when they had to tighten up in a close game. But you let your talented players do their thing. If someone like Gretzky came along again a coach would be a fool to do anything but. I guess the next best thing is Connor McDavid. With the talent he has it seems like he is allowed to do his thing. Hopefully this keeps up.

John Tavares scored 72 goals in the OHL at the same age as Gretzky (16) when he potted 70. It is very possible for someone to come along someday and break some records. We just haven't seen him yet and if he came around no one would try to cramp his style. Let's hope Jacques Lemaire and Hitchcock are in a nursing home by then though.

 

[Sony Eriksson*]

Bobby Orr

 

[Sentinel]

After all, take away powerplay points from the Lidstrom-Bourque equation, and Bourque blows Lidstrom out of the water.

Take away offense altogether, and Lidstrom blows Bourque out of the water

 

[Dark Shadows]

All 3 cases put forward were quite different and I won't go into great detail about them here except to say that some conclusions that coem forth are out of palce.

Bourque was only an all star in his last season because he was traded to the Avs and was playing with the best team in hockey with 2 top 20 centers of all time in their prime, a couple of really good top minute Dmen in Foote and Blake not to mention a guy in net named Roy.

He was on a natural decline as was Howe, although Howe was just plain Mr career but hadn't scored over 30 goals for a couple of seasons, 4 actually, before expansion.

Mario we ahve been over before, 32 PP points in 35 games with Jagr, a motivated Kovalev on the best PP of the era.

His actual "impact" in 01 was less than the stats tell.

Great for fantasy hockey but not a generational type of season by any means, even if he plays all season long.

Look Wayne is the number 1 guy ever IMO partly due to his skill and scoring but also a lot to do with his preparation.

The reason I don't think he would dominate as much today, or that anyone could, isn't because I'm not a fan of Wayne but rather I see the game for what it is, a defensive struggle were goals are a t a premium and coaches, defense and team play are at a premium over skill and the high flying 80's.

Sid is the closet guy to Wayne in terms of total impact and "legend status" and has a very good chance to be even greater than Mario who was an offensive and PP wizard but not the complete package like Wayne was or perhaps even Jean Beliveau or others when looking at their total impact on their teams winning.

Put another way I'd rather have quite a few different guys leading my team than Mario but very few, if any, than Wayne.

Quite a strange way to put it. If anything it showed how much a good team is important to help stand out at times. Especially defensively. Those Bruins teams his last few years were HORRIBLE on every part of the ice. He would make his usual brilliant tape to tape passes, but nobody could do anything with them. He played terrific, but often had to cover a lot more ice because the forwards were turning pucks over and not getting back into the play. He team philosophy at the time seemed to be "if they want money, trade them for picks and young inexperienced guys"

Ill just say it straight out. No defenseman short of Bobby Orr would have looked good on that team.

On the avs, Bourque did not change the way he played. He played the same style, with the difference obviously being the guys in front of him could actually make things happen.

Kind of like Lidstrom on the wings. Imagine all his perfect passes with guys like Josef Stumpel and Dmitri Khristich instead of Yzerman/Fedorov, etc

The results in anyone's mind are obvious.

"From Day 1, he made my job easier. It was like he brought a new energy into the locker room. And I knew he'd give me 30-plus minutes of quality defense each night. Finding a defenseman who can provide that is like finding gold."

"I came here for two reasons. I wanted to play for a team that had a chance to win a Stanley Cup. And I wanted to see how my game would measure up if I played for a better team. I learned that I could still play at that high level once I got here. Now all that's left is winning the Cup."

And the urgency is felt by every Avalanche player.

Offensive-minded before Bourque arrived, the Avalanche averaged 22 shots against per game with him in the lineup, compared with 29 per game in the pre-Bourque days.

"It was almost like adding 23 new players," defense partner Adam Foote says. "His poise, his confidence rubbed off on everybody. I think we all played a little like Ray after he arrived."

Others in the league noticed as well. "It's amazing how their confidence grew," Coyotes center Jeremy Roenick said at the end of last season. "Adam Foote grew into a rock playing alongside Ray, and the forwards clearly took more chances offensively knowing there's a Hall of Fame guy right behind them."

Wayne Gretzky recently was talking about the choices players make deep into their careers. "When you get to be 30 and 33 and 35 and more," he said, "you can either coast and cash in your paychecks every two weeks or take it as a challenge to compete with all of those 20-year-old players in the league now.

"Mark and Ray have clearly chosen to stay in shape and show those kids the kind of commitment it takes to play at a high level.

"It wouldn't matter if it was Ray with six Stanley Cups and Mark with none, instead of the other way around. They have both played like Hall of Famers since they first laced on their skates in the NHL."

Whereas Messier is the one who carries himself with flair and arrogance and a straight-ahead confidence, Bourque is the epitome of a quiet leader, one who knows where he wants to go and gets there without fanfare.

"He's one of the most consistent performers in the history of the game," Messier says. "He's strong as a bull on defense. No one beats him 1-on-1. Combine that with how slick he is with the puck. But the big thing about Ray is his competitiveness. I don't think he's taken a night off in more than 20 years."

Bourque has never played on the same team as Messier, but he says he can sense the charisma.

"He's a leader with several exclamation points behind it," Bourque says. "He's decisive, dynamic, powerful and stubborn, too. A real winner."

Messier was meant to be in New York with the bright lights; he is Broadway with his flair for the dramatic. Despite having no Stanley Cups, Bourque says he wouldn't trade his career for Messier's championships. Though he yearns to win a Cup, he's a family man and quiet leader first.

Leetch took the captain's 'C' off his chest and gave it to Messier, who accepted it. Sakic offered the 'C' to Bourque last March, but Bourque felt it would be better for Colorado's chemistry if he didn't take the captaincy.

"I remember Ray's first camp in Boston," former Bruins center Peter McNab says. "He came in with all sorts of expectations, playing in Bobby Orr's shadow, and he got leveled behind the net on his first shift.

"But you know something, he got right up and hit a forward with a 60-foot pass to send him in on a breakaway. We were all sitting on the bench with our tongues hanging out and saying, 'Wow!' "

More than 20 years later, the presence of Bourque and Messier is still as big as life.

 

[Dark Shadows]

But Bourque had 17 straight seasons where he was either a first or second team all-star. From 1979 to 1996 the game changed in the way where more Europeans were coming over. It didn't seem to matter. Bourque then was an all-star in 1999 and then 2001 in his final season. If you want to chalk it up to only being on the Avs then fine, but I think it just goes to show you that even Ray Bourque eventually had to stop getting all-star selections at some point. In 22 seasons he was an all-star in all but three of them. They were all at the end of his career when even Howe himself slowed down. I really don't know what these two men would have had to do in order to prove things to you. They are two of the most consistent and durable superstars in NHL history and when you saw them slow down in their late 30s/early 40s you consider that a knock? Have you thought that maybe Bourque AND Sakic complemented each other well in 2001? Does Sakic win the Hart without Bourque patrolling the blueline? Who knows? But what we do know is that both stars did well with each other and without each other.

As for Howe that is a strange description of the man. He is penalized because there is a 4 year span - while he was post 35 years old - where he didn't clear 30 goals? Come on, are you really using that argument? He was still top 5 in points those years and even among the top goal scorers, still.



Mario finished 2nd in Hart voting in 2001. He was 35 years old during 2000-'01 and he played 43 games. He nearly had a goal a game. What more could the man have done? But if you want to ignore 2001 then I can't stop you despite the evidence that Mario could dominate regardless of age or era, but how about 2002-'03 when he was even older, more beaten down, on a worse team and to top it all off, no Jagr. As a 37 year old he had 91 points in 67 games. On paper it looks good but it looks even better when you see the pace he had early in the season. 64 points in 37 games his first three months. After that, he tailed off, missed time and lost his chance at the Art Ross. Mario was not the same player anymore and couldn't maintain that type of pace all year anymore. I remember there being articles early in the season talking about how much of a mockery Mario was making "the rest" of the players in the NHL look. So with Mario there is overflowing evidence that he could dominate regardless of era.



Wayne's preparation was peerless, but it was his hockey sense and vision that made him what he was. Youtube can be your friend here, just watch the passes Gretzky made on a routine basis. No one can make some of the passes he made. That's what made him great - hockey sense. I can't imagine him being any less of a player today.

Look, I think Gretzky is a perfect example of the attitudes people get these days. Someone re-writes the record book by basically thrashing the previous records and because we don't see that again for 30 years we look at things short sighted and say - "Well, no one could do that today anyway". You know, a player like Gretzky isn't supposed to come around every 10 years. It is more of a once in a lifetime thing. He's the exception to the rule. It is kind of like people assuming the Lakers' 1971-'72 record of 33 wins in a row can never be broken today because the game is "different". That's simply a lazy way of looking at things. That theory gets trampled on when we see what the Miami Heat have done in consecutive games. Or even the Penguins of 2013 who are very close to the Penguins of 1993 with the consecutive wins record. These records stand for a long time not because it was an inferior era when it happened but rather because it is extremely difficult to replicate at any time. Even the 1977 Habs "only" won 8 games in a row at their best that season. In the so-called watered down 1970s the greatest team of all-time didn't even reach 10 wins in a row. It is hard to accomplish these feats just like it is and was very hard for Gretzky to do what he did. If it were easy, it would have happened by now.

Mario proved he could do that regardless of era. He was clearly the best player in the NHL on a per game basis when he came back and was healthy. Anyone saying otherwise is delusional.

 

[Big Phil]

Take away offense altogether, and Lidstrom blows Bourque out of the water

Not sure about that. Bourque was every bit as good defensively as Lidstrom. Considering offense is also half of the game I can't see how anyone would put Lidstrom ahead of Bourque. But, this is a Gretzky thread so I won't derail it.

 

[KevinRedkey]

Maybe a player as good as Gretzky can come along, but the chances of them dominating as much as Gretzky did is almost impossible. For that reason, Gretzky will never be topped. When he is, I probably won't be alive, and the game will likely be extremely different. Kind of like those guys from 1910 that most people don;t care about anymore.

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

Take away offense altogether, and Lidstrom blows Bourque out of the water

Oh please

 

[Hardyvan123]

Just as an update Sid has 13 games left and is 22 points behind Joe Thorton for 2nd in points (for Canadians) since he came into the league and 46 behind AO.

As long as he is healthy he will most likely pass both of those guys next year and maybe then he might get some well deserved recognition.

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

Just as an update Sid has 13 games left and is 22 points behind Joe Thorton for 2nd in points (for Canadians) since he came into the league and 46 behind AO.

Why is it necessary to stick the gratuitous "for Canadians" in there?

 

[Big Phil]

Maybe a player as good as Gretzky can come along, but the chances of them dominating as much as Gretzky did is almost impossible. For that reason, Gretzky will never be topped. When he is, I probably won't be alive, and the game will likely be extremely different. Kind of like those guys from 1910 that most people don;t care about anymore.

I think when we are thinking about the guys from 1910 or whenever you are thinking of an era where a) we don't have any footage to dissect them b) there were precious few games played in a season and c) the game was so new at that time and there wasn't any basis for comparison. Hockey was working out its kinks at that time, which makes players from that era very difficult to rank.

With Gretzky we will always be able to physically watch how he played the game and measure his stats by the style of play and what he did on the ice. That should never change, although in the internet era we are getting less and less inclined to do research, ironically.

There is a guy playing right now who is on the verge of leading the league in scoring with his assists alone. Not saying he is better than Gretzky but someone is dominating the league in a way Gretzky only did.

Not to take anything that Crosby is doing, but for now he isn't leading the NHL with his assists quite yet. He might, but he isn't. Secondly it is a shortened season and the NHL and the NHLPA (which Crosby supported greatly) shot themselves in the foot by creating a 48 game season. Its kind of like 1995. Yeah Jagr and Lindros both had great years, but you always wonder what they could have done in a full season. Luckily we did find out the following year. But in 1995 it was a season that had a little less credit than others. So to say he is doing what Gretzky did is short sighted. Because to do what Gretzky did he'll have to:

- Do it in a full season
- Lead the NHL in goals while he does it (Gretzky led the NHL in goals 5 times, three of those times his assists alone would have won the scoring title)

I'm sorry, I know it frustrates people to no end but you can't use a shortened season as a template and then say "Yeah, NOW we can compare them".

 

[Big Phil]

Why is it necessary to stick the gratuitous "for Canadians" in there?

Sounds nicer I guess? What sounds better, being third in points since he entered the league or being 2nd amongst Canadians and totally ignoring Ovechkin? I don't care much for the "among Canadians" tag either. It is nonsensical and I've written enough posts explaining why but there are enough people who use that as a template either way so what can you do?

 

[tazzy19]

At 4:46:

Don Wittman: "You know, I was looking at some statistics before tonight's game Howie.... He has eight 3 point nights, three 4 point nights, six 5 point nights, one 6 point night, one 7 point night, and two 8 point nights......And that's JUST. THIS. SEASON.

Howie Meeker: "That's unbelievable."



Um, yes, Mr. Meeker -- it is indeed unbelievable.

 

[rfournier103]

It's going to be VERY hard to gauge, so many things have changed. I know Crosby isn't as good as Gretzky (it's closer than a lot of people want to admit ), but even if he WAS, he's handcuffed by parity... he's not lining up next to Stamkos and Erik Karlsson every shift (Malkin is his Messier, and he'll have to make do with that, and even THAT might actually hurt his stats), he plays a more refined defensive game, he doesn't have as many weak franchises to beat up on, and he's had to compete with Russians and more elite Euros. I guarantee Gretzky's relative dominance would take a BIG hit if prime Ovechkin and Malkin were in 1984. Outscoring Michel Goulet by 30 goals is one thing, doing that to '08 Ovechkin would be another thing entirely.

There's no chance of anybody dominating statistically like Gretzky did, so we're left with things like extremely subjective era comparisons and "intangible" contributions like defensive ability that can't be measured or recorded in the record books. If/when somebody better than Gretzky comes along, he's got his work cut out for him to actually be recognized as such.

I agree on many of these points; especially that many things have changed.

In the era of Wayne's greatest success, he played in the Smythe Division where his only real competition was Calgary. Los Angeles, Vancouver, and Winnipeg were nothing but orange cones for him to skate around and totally pummel on the scoreboard.

Most of the great Europeans were playing in Europe, so I don't think the competition in the NHL was as tough as it could have been from a scoring/points standpoint. An influx of Europeans also could have helped other teams like the Flames, Flyers, Islanders, and Bruins match up better with Edmonton in the playoffs, too.

I don't think that we'll see another great team like those Oilers again (although Pittsburgh seems to be trying!). Gretzky had a LOT of help from the likes of Messier, Kurri, and Coffey. Free agency, the cap, and just the way business is done today make it unlikely that a team like that could be built today.

The goalies are far better today, as well...

Statistically, I don't know if we'll see another player AS DOMINANT of the NHL as Gretzky; but it is certainly possible that we may see a player as talented. Nobody thought we'd see a player like Bobby Orr for generations... Gretzky shows up in the NHL the year after Orr officially retires...

I think if we look at a player in the context of today's game, we might find a player as great or even better.

How would Crosby do on the Oilers of back then, playing in the old Smythe Division? Maybe THAT'S the question we should ask ourselves. I think his numbers and the overall team success would be very similar.

 

[livewell68]

Why is it necessary to stick the gratuitous "for Canadians" in there?

There is a need to prop up Crosby, where he fails in comparison to all-time greats, there is a need to make his stats look better.

Crosby is no doubt a great player and will go down as one of the best but he is closer to Yzerman and Sakic right now than he is to Jagr for instance; Gretzky and Lemieux, forget about it.

 

[livewell68]

He is certainly doing it this season. As he was also doing in 2010-2011. Give credit where credit is due. Crosby is 5 assists off leading the league in points alone....

In a shortened season playing on a stacked offensive team. What he "was" doing in 2010-11 is a moot point since he never finished the season.

Since his 2006-07 season, Crosby has shown himself to be a dominant player for short spurts between 20-50 games. Let's see him do it in a full 82 game schedule and sustain that dominance over the entire period and then we can talk.

It's not coincidence that since Jagr last won 5 Art Ross trophies (4 in a row mind you) that only one other player has won 2 Art Ross trophies and that player is Crosby's teammate named Malkin.

I'm not trying to take anything away from Crosby but the season is far from over. Crosby can get injured now and lose the Art Ross or he can slow down a bit and still end up being overtaken by someone like Stamkos.

He has yet to build himself a lead the way players like Lemieux and Gretzky built themselves in the Art Ross race to have that award bagged so early.

Heck another Pittsburgh great (Jagr) is the last player to win an Art Ross by a margin of 20 Pts or more and that was in 1998-99 when scoring was tougher than it is even today.

 

[livewell68]

He is certainly doing it this season. As he was also doing in 2010-2011. Give credit where credit is due. Crosby is 5 assists off leading the league in points alone....

Don't look now but Stamkos is catching up to Crosby. If this was Gretzky or Lemieux right now, they would already have close to 70 Pts.