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

[Hardyvan123]

Hmmmmm, sounds like comment about equipment to me. Nothing in there saying goaltenders are WORSE than the '80s variety.

Grasp at straws much?



I thought I made it clear I really don't CARE where the players come from. Bean counting may be your favorite past-time but it ain't mine.

Well if context doesn't matter it's really hard to take anything you say seriously.

It's pretty obvious that the talent level of the NHL is most likely better from a pretty much all Canadian 21 team team NHL to a fully integrated 30 team NHL.

that you refuse to consider it is ridiculous.

Why then would you consider anyone to be a better goal scorer than say Joe Malone?

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

Well if context doesn't matter it's really hard to take anything you say seriously.

It's pretty obvious that the talent level of the NHL is most likely better from a pretty much all Canadian 21 team team NHL to a fully integrated 30 team NHL.

that you refuse to consider it is ridiculous.

Why then would you consider anyone to be a better goal scorer than say Joe Malone?

I also know that the league has expanded by 9 teams since the '80s too, which effectively kept the overall talent level steady. That's the context that YOU aren't accounting for. Try again.

 

[tazzy19]

You do realize that Sid has been by far the best Canadian player in the league since his rookie season right?

And that his trophy case would be even larger, if not for the elite talent from Europe that he has had to contend with, something that was less with both Wayne and Mario in their primes.






Once again all we can compare between Sid and Jagr is what they did up to equal points in their careers up until now and Sid is ahead. we know what Jagr did afterwards and it's a question if Sid can top that but you are being ridiculous in not comparing the apple with apple right in front of you.

Once again the double standard with Sid, he plays in what less than 10% the difference in games that Mario did in his first 8 years and Sid has to play full seasons while Mario didn't?

I'm less concerned with your opinion than your double standards.




Once again why the double standard in games played for Sid and Mario?

Either you treat all players the same, within context sure, or you start making special exceptions for the players you want and then your conclusions will be treated as such, incomplete and totally biased.

Yet a prime Gretzky played against the best players in the world in the 1981, 1984, 1987, and 1991 Canada Cups - and beat them all in scoring every single time. How would you explain that?

 

[Rhiessan71]

enough of this garbage you throw out with nothign to back it up, the numbers say otherwise.

In 85, sort of the middle of Waynes prime there were 28 NHL players from Sweden.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=games_played


In 09, sort of the middle of the post lockout era there were 49

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=games_played

An even more credible example is the emergence of a lot of non Canadian players on the top 20 lists the further we get away from 1980 to today.

The reality of the matter is that your math doesn't back up any of your claims while I have provided numbers and context.

You said ELITE players!!!
All your nationality charts show are that there were/are more players from other countries. The vast majority of the Elite Russians and Czechs came over right off the bat in a pretty small window.
The remaining bulk of those growing nationalities that came over in the years following consisted mainly of tier II, II and IV players filling roster spots now opened up from from the addition of 6 more teams.

so are you trying to say that the talent level in the NHL was higher in the early to mid 90's than say the early 80's?

If so you might just be right.

I am right and I said Talent per capita and it only lasted half a dozen years until expansion thinned it back down again and then some.

And again, who were STILL the top players during that time?

Give me a break the time and space afforded guys in the 80's to what it is post lockout is like the difference between an NHL game and a AHL/top Junior game.

All you're talking about is speed, not talent.
And YOU brought up the hits and collisions as an area that makes it harder to play today.
I showed an area that made it hard to play back then and AGAIN, I would take being being hit, hell I would take multiple hits wearing what they wear today over even just one average cross check back then wearing what they wore then.

Or do you think it was just a freakin coincidence that sooo many top players from the 80's suffered all those back issue's later on?
No, you give ME a break!

Drones?

Good thing we have that sticky to protect past generations right?

Players have to play their teams systems because their coaches demand it, the system any team plays has no bearing on the actual skill of any player.

If you can't acknowledge the skill level of todays player then your observations will be lacking.

there is simply no evidence whatsoever that there is any less talent, elite, per team or otherwise in the NHL today than in 1970,80,90 period.

Again, being able to skate fast does not equal skill or especially talent.

 

[Yamaguchi*]

Yet a prime Gretzky played against the best players in the world in the 1981, 1984, 1987, and 1991 Canada Cups - and beat them all in scoring every single time. How would you explain that?

Beat the best players in the world in scoring....

It just does not sound right.

 

[gretzkyoilers]

Yet a prime Gretzky played against the best players in the world in the 1981, 1984, 1987, and 1991 Canada Cups - and beat them all in scoring every single time. How would you explain that?

Good point. While Crosby did score the Golden Goal in 2010, he wasn't the best player or leading scorer at the Olympics...

 

[Hardyvan123]

I also know that the league has expanded by 9 teams since the '80s too, which effectively kept the overall talent level steady. That's the context that YOU aren't accounting for. Try again.

Okay so the NHL expands from 6-12 teams in the late 60's and no new talent streams and you are going to argue that it's the same?

Then in the 70's it expands further and the WHA competes for players and once again not nearly enough, a couple of swedes, to make up the difference.

then in 79 NHL goes from 17 to 21 teams and absorbs the WHA, some trickle of non Canadian talent, mostly from US through the 80's then quite a bit from everywhere post 90's to where it is today.

Maybe at certain points, especially the early 70's NHL were more diluted than others but your treatment and evaluation of the post 90's group is not supported in any sense by the numbers now is it?

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

Okay so the NHL expands from 6-12 teams in the late 60's and no new talent streams and you are going to argue that it's the same?

Then in the 70's it expands further and the WHA competes for players and once again not nearly enough, a couple of swedes, to make up the difference.

then in 79 NHL goes from 17 to 21 teams and absorbs the WHA, some trickle of non Canadian talent, mostly from US through the 80's then quite a bit from everywhere post 90's to where it is today.

Maybe at certain points, especially the early 70's NHL were more diluted than others but your treatment and evaluation of the post 90's group is not supported in any sense by the numbers now is it?

Probably because a mere 6 teams was UNDERSERVING the available talent base. Did it ever occur to you that someone like Johnny Bower languished in minors until he was in his thirties NOT because he sucked but because there weren't enough roster spots in a 6 team league for the available talent?

To put it into perspective: In 1966 there were 24 teams between the NFL and AFL. Those were 45 man rosters which were more than twice the size of NHL rosters. Now, are you claiming the talent pool for American football players was 8 times the size of the talent pool of Canadian hockey players? Really? And reducing that margin to 4 times the size is seriously diluting the talent?

 

[Hardyvan123]

You said ELITE players!!!
All your nationality charts show are that there were/are more players from other countries. The vast majority of the Elite Russians and Czechs came over right off the bat in a pretty small window.
The remaining bulk of those growing nationalities that came over in the years following consisted mainly of tier II, II and IV players filling roster spots now opened up from from the addition of 6 more teams.

So the % increase in non Canadian players in top 5,10 and 20 scoring lists and their increase in voting for post season awards isn't elite?

It's hard to take you seriously when you can't even acknowledge simple basic facts.

Speaking of facts we aren't only talking about Czech and Russian players here, the increase was a total from all countries.

I am right and I said Talent per capita and it only lasted half a dozen years until expansion thinned it back down again and then some.

And again, who were STILL the top players during that time?

Once again both in terms of quality and quantity the numbers do not back you up but feel free to make stuff up.

All you're talking about is speed, not talent.
And YOU brought up the hits and collisions as an area that makes it harder to play today.
I showed an area that made it hard to play back then and AGAIN, I would take being being hit, hell I would take multiple hits wearing what they wear today over even just one average cross check back then wearing what they wore then.

I'm talking about two different things and the primary one with time and space is that the defensive team gives less time and space to the attacking team in the NHL than it did in the 1980's. Talent is a different question but in terms of time and space it's pretty clear that there is less of of it and anyone who has ever played hockey on any level knows that it's harder to generate offense when given less time and space.

Or do you think it was just a freakin coincidence that sooo many top players from the 80's suffered all those back issue's later on?
No, you give ME a break!

Injuries are much more common today than at any time in the 80's but once again don't let the facts get in the way of your idea.

Again, being able to skate fast does not equal skill or especially talent.

We went over this above scoring more points in a weaker league doesn't equate to more talent either.

If you think that their is less talent elite or otherwise in the NHL today than the 80's you are going to need to bring more than just scoring from that time era. It's just a really weak argument.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Okay so the NHL expands from 6-12 teams in the late 60's and no new talent streams and you are going to argue that it's the same?

Then in the 70's it expands further and the WHA competes for players and once again not nearly enough, a couple of swedes, to make up the difference.

then in 79 NHL goes from 17 to 21 teams and absorbs the WHA, some trickle of non Canadian talent, mostly from US through the 80's then quite a bit from everywhere post 90's to where it is today.

Maybe at certain points, especially the early 70's NHL were more diluted than others but your treatment and evaluation of the post 90's group is not supported in any sense by the numbers now is it?

If we aren't treating the Elite players that weren't in the NHL in the 70's and 80's unfairly then it doesn't matter.

That obviously is not the case as evidenced by their names appearing prominently among all-time lists.

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

If we aren't treating the Elite players that weren't in the NHL in the 70's and 80's unfairly then it doesn't matter.

That obviously is not the case as evidenced by their names appearing prominently among all-time lists.

Hey! Remember what I was saying before about how staying healthy is part of a players make up? Well Crosby's out hurt again indefinitely.

 

[OrrNumber4]

Hardy, why does nationality matter? What matters is the number of elite players in the league...no one is comparing Wayne Gretzky to Martin Straka or Peter Bondra.

The notion is that Wayne Gretzky, Lemieux, and Orr dominated their league to such a degree, that it wouldn't have mattered if players from Europe had been in the NHL. It isn't like Gretzky had a 5% lead over the next guy; then you could say, "hey, there were one or two European plays that would have cut or surpassed that lead".

Gretzky crushed his competition. If more European talent had been in the NHL during his prime, he'd still have a massive scoring lead over 2nd place.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Probably because a mere 6 teams was UNDERSERVING the available talent base. Did it ever occur to you that someone like Johnny Bower languished in minors until he was in his thirties NOT because he sucked but because there weren't enough roster spots in a 6 team league for the available talent?

To put it into perspective: In 1966 there were 24 teams between the NFL and AFL. Those were 45 man rosters which were more than twice the size of NHL rosters. Now, are you claiming the talent pool for American football players was 8 times the size of the talent pool of Canadian hockey players? Really? And reducing that margin to 4 times the size is seriously diluting the talent?

It doesn't matter if the 6 teams were UNDERSERVING the available talent base or not and we can't prove it one way or another but it's really weak to say that the league is the same with the doubling of players with no real new talent stream.

the way scoring increased for virtually every player from one year to the enxt is the litmius test here

Your whole their gets blown out of the water in the early 70's with even more expansion and the WHA.

I won't even get into the whole "how the US and Sweden stacked up against the Canadian best" part as I don't need it here.

My wonder is why you refuse to acknowledge the changes, what purposes or position are you weakly trying to defend here?

 

[Yamaguchi*]

Hardy, why does nationality matter? What matters is the number of elite players in the league...no one is comparing Wayne Gretzky to Martin Straka or Peter Bondra.

The notion is that Wayne Gretzky, Lemieux, and Orr dominated their league to such a degree, that it wouldn't have mattered if players from Europe had been in the NHL. It isn't like Gretzky had a 5% lead over the next guy; then you could say, "hey, there were one or two European plays that would have cut or surpassed that lead".

Gretzky crushed his competition. If more European talent had been in the NHL during his prime, he'd still have a massive scoring lead over 2nd place.

Are we talking tennis in here? Hockey is a team sport.

 

[tazzy19]

Hardy, why does nationality matter? What matters is the number of elite players in the league...no one is comparing Wayne Gretzky to Martin Straka or Peter Bondra.

The notion is that Wayne Gretzky, Lemieux, and Orr dominated their league to such a degree, that it wouldn't have mattered if players from Europe had been in the NHL. It isn't like Gretzky had a 5% lead over the next guy; then you could say, "hey, there were one or two European plays that would have cut or surpassed that lead".

Gretzky crushed his competition. If more European talent had been in the NHL during his prime, he'd still have a massive scoring lead over 2nd place.

Exactly right. It's rather interesting that Hardyvan hasn't answered my previous question which I'll post once more:

Yet a prime Gretzky played against the best players in the world in the 1981, 1984, 1987, and 1991 Canada Cups - and beat them all in scoring every single time. How would you explain that?

And it's not just that Wayne beat everyone else in the world in scoring. It's that he more than doubled 2nd place Makarov, and, as usual, beat him with his assists alone. If he can beat all the best players in the world with his assists alone, that tells me everything I need to know about how he would do against a more European infused NHL.

http://forums.internationalhockey.net/showthread.php?164-Canada-cup-World-cup-scoring-leaders

Canada cup/World cup - scoring leaders
Top 20 - all time scoring leaders

Player, country GP... Goals Ass. Points
1. Wayne Gretzky, CAN 39 20 44 69
2. Sergei Makarov, USSR 22 16 15 31
3. Paul Coffey, CAN 33 6 25 31
4. Vladimir Krutov, USSR 22 14 16 30
5. Mark Messier, CAN 32 6 20 26
6. Alexei Kasatonov, USSR 27 3 19 22
7. Mike Bossy, CAN 15 13 7 20
8. Brett Hull, USA 15 9 11 20
9. Mario Lemieux, CAN 9 11 7 18
10. Gerry Perreault, CAN 11 7 10 17
11. Guy Lafleur, CAN 14 3 14 17
11. Kent Nilsson, SWE 19 3 14 17
11. Viacheslav Fetisov, USSR 20 3 14 17
11. Raymond Bourque, CAN 24 3 14 17
15. Brian Trottier, CAN/USA 12 8 8 16
16. Michel Goulet, CAN 16 7 9 16
17. Dennis Potvin, CAN 14 3 13 16
18. Mike Modano, USA 16 4 11 15
19. Igor Larionov, USSR/RUS 26 6 9 15
20. Sergei Svetlov, USSR 17 7 7 14

 

[Hardyvan123]

Hardy, why does nationality matter? What matters is the number of elite players in the league...no one is comparing Wayne Gretzky to Martin Straka or Peter Bondra.

The notion is that Wayne Gretzky, Lemieux, and Orr dominated their league to such a degree, that it wouldn't have mattered if players from Europe had been in the NHL. It isn't like Gretzky had a 5% lead over the next guy; then you could say, "hey, there were one or two European plays that would have cut or surpassed that lead".

Gretzky crushed his competition. If more European talent had been in the NHL during his prime, he'd still have a massive scoring lead over 2nd place.

People are hung up on nationality, and that's not the point, it's like the state of hockey pre NHL and after the early years when the PCHL ceased to exist.

At some point when all the more talent is concentrated into one league, rather than dispersed, then it becomes harder to excel in the more concentrated league.

There are 2 points to the Gretzky part of the question, first not nearly all of the best non Canadians were in the NHL when he players, especially not at the beginning.

the 2nd point is that teams like Sweden can now compete with canada as the elite hockey power when in the 80's that wasn't the case.

Simply put Sweden has better players compared to Canada in more recent times than in the 80's or before.

One can't measure exactly the impact of all of these differences in the makeup of the NHL, never mind the difference in style of play, goal tending, defensive systems ect.. but to not acknowledge it is folly.

I'm not sure but the differences in makeup and rapid expansion of the NHL probably influenced how we look at Orr more than how we look at Wayne or perhaps even Mario but there are other factors at play as well.

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

It doesn't matter if the 6 teams were UNDERSERVING the available talent base or not and we can't prove it one way or another but it's really weak to say that the league is the same with the doubling of players with no real new talent stream.

If it can't be proved one way or another why do you continue make statements that the dilution of talent is a fact?

the way scoring increased for virtually every player from one year to the enxt is the litmius test here

That's a classic post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. If anything the increase in scoring back then had more to do with how teams played the game than any dilution of talent. Ever heard that the NHL is a copy-cat league? Well, that's nothing new. Who was the marquee team during that period?

1960-61 3
1961-62 3
1962-63 3
1963-64 2.8
1964-65 2.9
1965-66 3
1966-67 3
1967-68 2.8
1968-69 3
1969-70 2.9

1970-71 3.1
1971-72 3.1
1972-73 3.3
1973-74 3.2
1974-75 3.4
1975-76 3.4
1976-77 3.3
1977-78 3.3
1978-79 3.5
1979-80 3.5

Now were was the first real jump in scoring? 1972-73. Right after the Boston Bruins won their second cup in two years featuring a high-octane offense. I suppose it never occurred to you that teams around the league might copy-cat the Bruins style of play seeing their recent success? Or do you think teams only copy-cat when someone has success grinding?

Your whole their gets blown out of the water in the early 70's with even more expansion and the WHA.

Not really, as most WHA rosters where made up of sub-NHL grade talent. The effect on the overall talent of the NHL was minimal. I think you need to realize just how inferior to the NHL in talent the WHA really was.

I won't even get into the whole "how the US and Sweden stacked up against the Canadian best" part as I don't need it here.

Good thing since international play is irrelevant to the discussion.

My wonder is why you refuse to acknowledge the changes, what purposes or position are you weakly trying to defend here?

I've never denied changes in the game itself (as I alluded to some of those changes earlier). What I deny is the assertion that the average talent level has changed much beyond normal year to year fluctuations.

 

[Rhiessan71]

So the % increase in non Canadian players in top 5,10 and 20 scoring lists and their increase in voting for post season awards isn't elite?

It's hard to take you seriously when you can't even acknowledge simple basic facts.

Speaking of facts we aren't only talking about Czech and Russian players here, the increase was a total from all countries.

Oh? Because Kurri, Stastny, Nilsson and Naslund were all chopped liver?

And you know what else is funny?
Looking at the top 10 last season I see...
5 Can
2 Rus
1 Swe
1 Czh
1 USA.
(If Crosby had of played a full season it would have been 6 Can and no Czh's)

In '86 I see...
6 Can
1 Fin
1 Swe
1 Rus
1 USA


Hmmmmm....

Once again both in terms of quality and quantity the numbers do not back you up but feel free to make stuff up.

Oh so now you are saying that simply increasing the league population equally increases the number of Elite players?

I'm talking about two different things and the primary one with time and space is that the defensive team gives less time and space to the attacking team in the NHL than it did in the 1980's. Talent is a different question but in terms of time and space it's pretty clear that there is less of of it and anyone who has ever played hockey on any level knows that it's harder to generate offense when given less time and space.

First off, I will guarantee you that I played and coached at a higher level of Hockey than you have.
Second, I wasn't arguing against the speed of the game today. I SAID that where one area might be harder now than it was then, there are also area's of the game that are easier now than it was then.

Injuries are much more common today than at any time in the 80's but once again don't let the facts get in the way of your idea.

Prove it!!!
Reported and/or properly diagnosed injuries maybe but more actual injuries, I highly doubt it.

We went over this above scoring more points in a weaker league doesn't equate to more talent either.

If you think that their is less talent elite or otherwise in the NHL today than the 80's you are going to need to bring more than just scoring from that time era. It's just a really weak argument.

Who said there was less talent today than in the 80's? Of course there's more now!
That's not the question though. The question is does the League have 43% more talent than it had in the 80's? Or 400% more than it had in the 50's/60's?
And THAT answer, my myopic friend, is extremely open for debate.

 

[Killion]

Are we talking tennis in here? Hockey is a team sport.

....let me guess Mr. Yamaguchi; John McEnroe? Absolutely have to be your pick for Best
Tennis Player All Time. Imagine him & Billy Smith playing whomever in Doubles huh?

 

[Sentinel]

1. Wayne Gretzky, CAN 39 20 44 69
2. Sergei Makarov, USSR 22 16 15 31

For fairness' sake, that gives Wayne 1.76 PPG / 0.76 GPG and Sergei 1.41 PPG / 0.72 GPG. Not exactly "crushing," although still quite dominant.

 

[tazzy19]

For fairness' sake, that gives Wayne 1.76 PPG / 0.76 GPG and Sergei 1.41 PPG / 0.72 GPG. Not exactly "crushing," although still quite dominant.

What blows me away is that despite being the all time Canada Cup/World Cup points scorer with his assists alone, Gretzky still manages to be the all time goal leader in that tournament as well -- again, against the best players in the world.

As for your PPG analysis, Makarov played about half as many games as Wayne. As we all know, it is much harder to have a higher PPG average over twice the number of games -- yet Wayne still demolishes him anyway. Not "crushing", you say? Consider that 1.76 PPG game vs. 1.41 is like saying 140 points vs 112 points over an 80 game schedule, for example. And this is over almost TWICE the number of games??? "Crushing" would be a pretty good word for it, actually

 

[Canadiens1958]

Ppg/gpg

For fairness' sake, that gives Wayne 1.76 PPG / 0.76 GPG and Sergei 1.41 PPG / 0.72 GPG. Not exactly "crushing," although still quite dominant.

If we complete the PPG calculations we see that Mario Lemieux is at 2.0 PPG / 1.22 GPG , while Gilbert Perreault comes in at 1.54 PPG / 0.64 GPG

 

[tazzy19]

If we complete the PPG calculations we see that Mario Lemieux is at 2.0 PPG / 1.22 GPG , while Gilbert Perreault comes in at 1.54 PPG / 0.64 GPG

Games Played:

Mario Lemieux: 9
Gilbert Perreault: 11
Wayne Gretzky: 39

How in the world does Mario have a better PPG average than Wayne, and how does Gilbert have a better GPG average? It can't have anything do with with the fact that Wayne played FOUR times the number of games, can it? . The tournament that Mario clocked up that PPG average (1987), Gretzky had the better PPG average anyways (and of course outscored Mario and won the MVP).

 

[Yamaguchi*]

....let me guess Mr. Yamaguchi; John McEnroe? Absolutely have to be your pick for Best
Tennis Player All Time. Imagine him & Billy Smith playing whomever in Doubles huh?

No way.

Vitas Gerulaitis is a no-brainer.

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

....let me guess Mr. Yamaguchi; John McEnroe? Absolutely have to be your pick for Best
Tennis Player All Time. Imagine him & Billy Smith playing whomever in Doubles huh?

Conners. It's a no-brainer.