Are there any upcoming prospects that will burn the league like Lemieux or Gretzky

[a587b]

Here is a more "elite" player than vastly over-rated Toews using some people's criteria...which would put him in as one of best players to play during his time...but history says otherwise.

4x Stanley Cup champion (1986, 1995, 1996, 2000)
Conn Smythe Trophy winner (1995)
9th all-time in Stanley Cup playoff goals with 80
Canada Cup Champion (1987)

Era-adjusted scoring far below Toews at equivalent stages of career. No Selke Trophy; okay defensively but far from elite. Never named to a post-season all-star team. Only played in one midseason All-Star Game.

In other words, not comparable.

 

[a587b]

This "domination" you speak of was a product of a more open era where high-end skill was allowed to shine and the vast majority of star players were in terrible shape without lifetimes of regimented skill development. Add in goaltenders who are pretty much impossible to beat without a second, third chance and you've got yourself a league that does not reward skill.

You will never see it again. You could re-create Mario, Jagr, Gretzky, Orr, or Hasek in their prime and while they may or may not outscore the likes of Crosby, McDavid and co, it would be nowhere to the same extent they dominated history. That's not the top end getting worse, but rather selective .

Further, with the level of defense played in today's era, 90s trap and clutch/grab hockey looks almost wide open in comparision.

Almost no one can even get a moment to hold the puck and be a star. And the few that can, are too busy covering on pinches and backchecking rather than crashing the net - because that's what it takes to win in a league of utmost parity.

A high scoring team built around sizzle, like a certain 1980s dynasty, might not even make the playoffs without completely adapting their style of play, and the "dominance" of certain individuals would trend down.

We're talking about 30 years of progress. Would great players adapt? Yes. Does that mean that they would necessarily create a gap with the likes of Kane, Benn, Crosby? It's an optimistic viewpoint rooted in nostalgia. The middle class now is not the middle class then.

So again I ask: why could Jagr outscore almost everyone in 2005-06 at age 36 but not an over-the-hill, three-years-retired Lemieux five years earlier? Some of you guys who go on about "nostalgia" are just as bad in the opposite direction. You write off everything that happened before the last 10-12 years as pure inferiority.

It boggles my mind that Jamie Benn is being mentioned as a peer to Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemieux.

 

[TheBaxMan*]

So again I ask: why could Jagr outscore almost everyone in 2005-06 at age 36 but not an over-the-hill, three-years-retired Lemieux five years earlier? Some of you guys who go on about "nostalgia" are just as bad in the opposite direction. You write off everything that happened before the last 10-12 years as pure inferiority.

It boggles my mind that Jamie Benn is being mentioned as a peer to Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemieux.

I already answered you. Jagr scored more than Lemieux in his final 43 games of the season and had a higher scoring pace from the time Lemieux returned to the lineup. Combine that with the fact that Jagr WON the Art Ross, how did Lemieux outscore Jagr? Jagr outscored Lemieux.

Jagr was still very good at age 36 and arguably had his best season. Just because someone is in their mid 30s, doesn't make them bad or necessarily worse than they were in their 20s. That may be the case for your average 2nd or 3rd liner, but most top players are still top players at the age of 36. This idea that old age automatically = garbage is a popular idea on HFBoards. It's just not true. It is very common to see a top player have a great or even one of their best season's in their mid 30s.

Gretzky, Howe, Lemieux, Jagr, Hasek, Brodeur, Roy, Sakic, Messier, Gilmour, Hull, Selanne, Oates, Francis, Lidstrom, Macinnis... even guys like Alfredsson, Sundin and Brind'Amour were all still very good in their mid 30's.

Jagr couldn't outscore everyone in 2006 because the competition caught up. That's why.

 

[Holtbyisms]

Dustin Rose

Old school...so old school.

 

[Holtbyisms]

I do feel like Ovechkin and Crosby would be there with scoring adjustments but we just won't see the ridiculous numbers ever unless the league opens back up again one day. Ovechkin is the most dynamic goal scorer the league has potentially ever seen and Crosby is the most dynamic center we've seen since 99/66 in terms of being able to do it all in the O zone and make it look like it's easy.

Feel like is 8 and 87 played in the same era....they might even be better than they were.

As a Caps fan I can still appreciate the otherworldly talent that Crosby is and I'm happy that I was able to watch both 8 and 87's careers. When people talk about them 30 years from now and I've got a white beard and no hair I can smile and tell them how awesome they both were. We're all fortunate to be alive and see them. Not sure anything else out there right now even comes close to those guys let alone 99/66.

 

[authentic]

This "domination" you speak of was a product of a more open era where high-end skill was allowed to shine and the vast majority of star players were in terrible shape without lifetimes of regimented skill development. Add in goaltenders who are pretty much impossible to beat without a second, third chance and you've now got yourself a league that does not reward skill the same way.

You will never see it again. You could re-create Mario, Jagr, Gretzky, Orr, or Hasek in their prime and while they may or may not outscore the likes of Crosby, McDavid and co, it would be nowhere to the same extent they dominated history. That's not the top end getting worse, but rather selective thinning of a larger, higher-end world-wide talent pool.

Further, with the level of pressure defense played in today's era, 90s trap and clutch/grab hockey looks almost wide open in comparison. Almost no one can even get a moment to hold the puck and be a star. And the few that can, are too busy covering on pinches and backchecking rather than crashing the net - because that's what it takes to win in a league of utmost parity.

A high scoring team built around sizzle, like a certain 1980s dynasty, might not even make the playoffs without completely adapting their style of play, and the "dominance" of certain individuals would trend down.

We're talking about 30 years of progress. Would great players adapt? Yes. Does that mean that they would necessarily create a gap with the likes of Kane, Benn, Crosby? It's an optimistic viewpoint rooted in nostalgia. The middle class now is not the middle class then.

I already answered you. Jagr scored more than Lemieux in his final 43 games of the season and had a higher scoring pace from the time Lemieux returned to the lineup. Combine that with the fact that Jagr WON the Art Ross, how did Lemieux outscore Jagr? Jagr outscored Lemieux.

Jagr was still very good at age 36 and arguably had his best season. Just because someone is in their mid 30s, doesn't make them bad or necessarily worse than they were in their 20s. That may be the case for your average 2nd or 3rd liner, but most top players are still top players at the age of 36. This idea that old age automatically = garbage is a popular idea on HFBoards. It's just not true. It is very common to see a top player have a great or even one of their best season's in their mid 30s.

Gretzky, Howe, Lemieux, Jagr, Hasek, Brodeur, Roy, Sakic, Messier, Gilmour, Hull, Selanne, Oates, Francis, Lidstrom, Macinnis... even guys like Alfredsson, Sundin and Brind'Amour were all still very good in their mid 30's.

Jagr couldn't outscore everyone in 2006 because the competition caught up. That's why.

As much as a lot of posters on here will try to tell you these posts are full of crap they're actually spot on.

 

[a587b]

I already answered you. Jagr scored more than Lemieux in his final 43 games of the season and had a higher scoring pace from the time Lemieux returned to the lineup. Combine that with the fact that Jagr WON the Art Ross, how did Lemieux outscore Jagr? Jagr outscored Lemieux.

Jagr was still very good at age 36 and arguably had his best season. Just because someone is in their mid 30s, doesn't make them bad or necessarily worse than they were in their 20s. That may be the case for your average 2nd or 3rd liner, but most top players are still top players at the age of 36. This idea that old age automatically = garbage is a popular idea on HFBoards. It's just not true. It is very common to see a top player have a great or even one of their best season's in their mid 30s.

Gretzky, Howe, Lemieux, Jagr, Hasek, Brodeur, Roy, Sakic, Messier, Gilmour, Hull, Selanne, Oates, Francis, Lidstrom, Macinnis... even guys like Alfredsson, Sundin and Brind'Amour were all still very good in their mid 30's.

Jagr couldn't outscore everyone in 2006 because the competition caught up. That's why.

Add in the playoffs, and Lemieux actually shaded Jagr. But let's just say that they were essentially even. Okay, so at age 35 and straight out of a 3.5 year retirement Mario Lemieux fully kept pace with Jagr who won his fourth straight scoring title.

Saying age doesn't matter is farcical. The average MVP and scoring leader ages are 25-26. Most of the forwards that you mentioned above were nowhere near as productive at age 35 as they were at 25. Defensemen and goalies generally do better than forwards when it comes to surviving the aging process.

 

[TheBaxMan*]

Add in the playoffs, and Lemieux actually shaded Jagr. But let's just say that they were essentially even. Okay, so at age 35 and straight out of a 3.5 year retirement Mario Lemieux fully kept pace with Jagr who won his fourth straight scoring title.

Saying age doesn't matter is farcical. The average MVP and scoring leader ages are 25-26. Most of the forwards that you mentioned above were nowhere near as productive at age 35 as they were at 25. Defensemen and goalies generally do better than forwards when it comes to surviving the aging process.

Well, Lemieux was scoring at a higher PPG at 35 than he was at 25. I thought Jagr was 36 in 2006 but he was actually 33. However he still scored 96 points at 34.

The forwards may produce less, but it's minimal in most cases. The huge-drop off you see is mainly due to a change in era. Lemieux scoring 131pts/64 games at age 26 is probably equivalent to what 35-year old Lemieux was doing when you account for how much easier it was to score when Lemieux was 26.

Look at Joe Thornton. At age 26 he led the league with 125 points but only had 82 points last season at the age of 36. Scoring 82pts in 2016 probably translates to ~105pts in 2006/2007 and ~97 in 2008. Not bad when you consider that 2005/06 was his career season. So Joe Thornton produced as much at the age of 36 as he did at 28, but on average 15 points less than when he was 26/27. But he did produce more at 36 than he did at 24. In raw numbers it looks like he produced 38 points less on average at age 36 compared to when he was 26/27, but that's because it was easier to score back when Thornton was 26. That is where you get the idea that the players are "nowhere near as productive".


The reason the average age to win the Art Ross is 25/26 is because that is around the time where the newer and "better" group of players starts to hit full flight. By the time the guys like Benn/Kane/Crosby are 36-38, guys who won't even be DRAFTED until 2018 will be turning 26. The guys born in 1997-2001 are going to be better than the guys born in 1987-1991. So even if a player is as productive at age 36 as they were at 25/26, they will still likely be beaten out by a guy who is just flat out better.

 

[CashMash]

We won't see anyone like Mario or Wayne. That's not due to lack of talent, it's just that the game has changed so much. There are so many variables: Ice time, Coaching, Depth players being better, the butterfly etc.

Humans don't evolve in this short of a timespan. Gretzky and Lemieux were exceptional talents, but they wouldn't come near the kind of totals they had back then. Still probably the best players to ever lace up skates, but not by as much as people are thinking. With an increased pool of talent from all over the world, there should be MORE opportunity now for such a player, not less.

In short, the gap between Crosby and Mario/Wayne/Bobby isn't as big as people think for the reasons outlined above. It's just common sense and basic biology.

 

[daver]

As much as a lot of posters on here will try to tell you these posts are full of crap they're actually spot on.

Naw, they are full of crap. By their reasoning, Kane is the best player of all-time, soon to be replaced by the next Art Ross winner.

Common sense, not blinded by narrative, places Mario above Jagr. There is not a reasonable argument that can be made to the contrary.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

It happened over time.

I'm tired of hearing the age argument.. It's not like all players at an old age automatically become bad. Most great players can play well into their later years. Think of it, how many great players suck at a later age? A majority of them have great seasons in their mid 30s. People try so hard to discredit the talent today by bringing up how an "old" X or Y scored so many points. So what if Jagr was 36 or if Lemieux was 35. They were still great players. I've even seen posts saying that Jagr was at his best in 2006. Crosby will most likely be capable of putting up 85-90+ pts at age 36. Ovechkin could still be a goal scoring machine at age 36. Who cares!

You can fantasize about Lemieux's 76pts in 43 games all you want, but Jagr scored 77pts in his final 43 games of the same season. Last time I checked, 77 was greater than 76. Done with less PP goals and less ice time too. And from the time Lemieux returned, Jagr had a higher points/game rate by a good margin (1.87 to 1.77) . So how are you gonna come and make it seem like "old" Lemieux was so much better?

It's possible the gap between them closed, yes most likely due to age. But it is also possible that a fully healthy, younger, "prime" Lemieux wouldn't be as dominant as you think.

I don't like it when people come in and say "Lemieux was old and had no back!!", because it implies that the injuries severely hindered Lemieux.. No they didn't. There is no way that a player can be so injured but still put up 1.77 pts a game . Nobody can be that good. Sure Lemieux was not 100%, but it's definitely overplayed. He was operating somewhere in the 90% range during his 2001 season. It's like claiming Usain Bolt had a broken right leg and a busted torn left ACL at the 2016 Olympics. Not believable when you actually look at what he accomplished.

In the end, Jagr really outpaced Lemieux (over a 43 game stretch), and a very good, arguably best Jagr lost the Art Ross to Joe Thornton

It's fine though. The posters you have of Lemieux and Gretzky on your wall will always be there.

Yeah..... If jagr even dreamed about being anywhere near lemieux he sjouke have his sleeping ability revoked. Jagr is a plug compared to lemieux

 

[AD1066]

I'm not sure that kind of dominance can exist today.

The average player has improved at a more rapid rate than the elite and their god-given gifts because the average player stands to benefit more from increased structure and an emphasis on defensive play. Count me with those who believe the defensive side of the game is easier to learn than true offensive creativity, which is largely innate. Since my early years of watching the game I've seen a noticeable difference in the ability of bottom-six players to match up against and often neutralize elite talent for extended periods, thanks to systems and an emphasis on skating.

Past that we've seen some significant changes in how players are deployed and teams are assembled. Best I can tell, a 1st line forward today sees 15-20% less ice time than he would've a few decades ago. Production and ice time don't scale linearly, but over the course of a season, a star in the 80s would have played the equivalent of several more games per season.

Team composition is pretty self-explanatory. Teams like the 80s Oilers are impossible to construct with a salary cap. Even the sustained success of the Hawks near-dynasty came on the back of front-loaded contracts in Hossa and Keith that are now longer allowed. Elite talent today is less likely to play with other elite talent.

Then there's the global talent pool. Start by removing most if not all European players, and then remove Canadians and Americans at random relative to the population growth that has occurred. The totals and point-finishes of the remaining elite players are now that much more impressive relative to their remaining peers.

Someone like Crosby, in a reduced talent pool, for example:

• Wins the Calder
• Wins the Art Ross in 2008-09 (no more Malkin)
• Wins the Art Ross in 2009-10 (no more Sedin)
• Wins the Hart in 2009-2010 (finished behind H. Sedin and Ovechkin)
• Leads the league in assists in 2008-09
• Leads the league in assists in 2014-15

... there's probably more I'm missing. But things like the above would make his trophy case and accolades even more gaudy and comparable to past greats.

So with the above in mind, even though I think someone like Gretzky would be the best today, I don't think he would achieve the same level of dominance over his peers, and we're unlikely to see that kind of dominance ever again.

Look at other sports and try to find anyone who statistically separates himself from all of his peers, intra- or intergenerational, like Gretzky does, and you can't. He was just not playing the same game as anyone else, at least during his prime.

Donald Bradman.

 

[daver]

Someone like Crosby, in a reduced talent pool, for example:

• Wins the Calder
• Wins the Art Ross in 2008-09 (no more Malkin)
• Wins the Art Ross in 2009-10 (no more Sedin)
• Wins the Hart in 2009-2010 (finished behind H. Sedin and Ovechkin)
• Leads the league in assists in 2008-09
• Leads the league in assists in 2014-15

.

I don't think it's that simple to remove all Euros from consideration. Who knows what affect that could have on the league. Less teams, more opportunities for another elite scorer to step up in any given season.

 

[dr robbie]

Nobody's touching Gretzky. In '87, guy would put up 183 points, second closest guy in the league would be his linemate with 108. Patrick Kane just put up 106. Scoring was higher then, but not by anything close to the absurd margins that Gretzky held over his competition. He was an outlier we will not see matched.

Look at other sports and try to find anyone who statistically separates himself from all of his peers, intra- or intergenerational, like Gretzky does, and you can't. He was just not playing the same game as anyone else, at least during his prime.

This sir would be false. Go look up Sir Donald Bradman.

As for the OP, you can have as many tiers as you'd like, but I tend to stick with 2 tiers for generational players. Tier 1 would be the big four. Tier 2 would include the Crosbys and Ovies of the world.

 

[silkyjohnson50]

It won't happen. Gretz/Lemieux were like 100m sprinters who could run it in sub-10. They raced against guys who could only run it in 16 seconds.

Now everyone can run it sub-11 and many sub-10, so good luck trying to "burn" guys in the 100m when the competition can run it just milliseconds slower (as opposed to multiple seconds).

So just to clarify for everyone out there, you are stating that there's many Gretzky/Lemieux ("sub-10")?level players today, correct?

 

[AD1066]

I don't think it's that simple to remove all Euros from consideration. Who knows what affect that could have on the league. Less teams, more opportunities for another elite scorer to step up in any given season.

Nothing would play out the same way, but I have to think Crosby competing against a subset of players similar to the composition of the league 30 years ago could only benefit him.

 

[daver]

Nothing would play out the same way, but I have to think Crosby competing against a subset of players similar to the composition of the league 30 years ago could only benefit him.

There were 9 less teams then meaning there was arguably a greater concentration of talent. And it's not like you remove Malkin from the league and he is replaced with an AHL callup. All of the current players would move up on their respective teams depth charts.

I don't see any tangible argument to be made that a player from 30 years ago wouldn't be as good as today especially when you can draw a line from Crosby to those players thru Jagr and Mario. Or do you think JAgr and Mario would not be as effective as they were in today's league, relatively speaking?

 

[TheBaxMan*]

So just to clarify for everyone out there, you are stating that there's many Gretzky/Lemieux ("sub-10")?level players today, correct?

In terms of actual skill, yes. It's not to say that a 2016 version of Gretzky wouldn't be the fastest, but it's to say that a Gretzky imported directly from his time would not be as fast as the top guys today.

If there were no stopwatches in track and field, which player would "look faster"

Guy A who can usually run it in 9.8 (Lemieux and Gretzky) against competition that run it in 16 seconds and sometimes maybe 15

OR

Guy B (Crosby) who can usually run it in 9.79 but has competition that is constantly running it in 9.9 and sometimes even up to 9.7.

Although Crosby is faster (by 0.01s), you would never be able to tell without a stopwatch because he wouldn't look as fast.

 

[daver]

In terms of actual skill, yes. It's not to say that a 2016 version of Gretzky wouldn't be the fastest, but it's to say that a Gretzky imported directly from his time would not be as fast as the top guys today.

If there were no stopwatches in track and field, which player would "look faster"

Guy A who can usually run it in 9.8 (Lemieux and Gretzky) against competition that run it in 16 seconds and sometimes maybe 15

OR

Guy B (Crosby) who can usually run it in 9.79 but has competition that is constantly running it in 9.9 and sometimes even up to 9.7.

Although Crosby is faster (by 0.01s), you would never be able to tell without a stopwatch because he wouldn't look as fast.

One of life's great mysteries is how a time machine argument make more sense to some people than a reasonable assumption that Wayne and Mario would have gone through the same development as Crosby?

 

[TheBaxMan*]

One of life's great mysteries is how a time machine argument make more sense to some people than a reasonable assumption that Wayne and Mario would have gone through the same development as Crosby?

Re-read my post. I said a 2016 version of Gretzky. The idea of Wayne being imported through a time machine is to show how the game has gotten better.

 

[daver]

Re-read my post. I said a 2016 version of Gretzky. The idea of Wayne being imported through a time machine is to show how the game has gotten better.

Tell you what just post the 100m times for all the different versions of Wayne, Mario and Crosby and I am sure it will all make sense.

 

[TheBaxMan*]

Tell you what just post the 100m times for all the different versions of Wayne, Mario and Crosby and I am sure it will all make sense.

What do you mean? The question (from the person I was replying to) is whether or not the top players are as good today as Gretz/Mario WERE.

What is being compared is the skill level of Gretzky/Lemieux BACK IN THE DAY to the skill level of the top players now.

2016 Crosby would be faster than "prime" Gretzky/Lemieux, but that doesn't mean that a Gretz/Lemieux that developed in the same conditions as Crosby would be slower.

EVEN IF a modern Gretz/Lemieux were faster than Crosby, they wouldn't be by enough of a margin to "burn the league" the same way they did back in the 80s.

 

[bobholly39]

Crosby was as close to Mario and Wayne as a prospect could ever be. He was arguably better than Mario after their 19 year old seasons. McDavid wasn't on the same level coming out of the CHL.

Well - I won't deny that Crosby might have done better at the NHL level than Lemieux by 19 years old. In fact i agree - Lemieux started out pretty slow in the NHL for his talent level, whereas Crosby played to his full potential right from the start it seems (very Gretzky-like for Crosby in that sense, who also started great).

But i'm talking about an actual prospect, before entering the NHL. Lemieux had 282 points in his last junior season - as great a prospect as Crosby was he just wasn't on that level.

It's very possible McDavid is also behind Crosby as a prospect, though i don't know to what extent. My point is there was a gap as a prospect between Lemieux and Crosby.

So if there were a junior player alive today with the talent level of a Gretzky/Lemieux - odds are they'd be very easy to spot, as they'd be that much better than even Crosby was as a junior, which is significant.

Gretzky had like 500 points as an 11 year old or such. Lemieux had 282 points in his junior year. Both of them did superhuman feats as teenagers - and as far as i know no one in the world today as a junior approaches that, and if someone did, we'd know about it.

 

[TheBaxMan*]

Well - I won't deny that Crosby might have done better at the NHL level than Lemieux by 19 years old. In fact i agree - Lemieux started out pretty slow in the NHL for his talent level, whereas Crosby played to his full potential right from the start it seems (very Gretzky-like for Crosby in that sense, who also started great).

But i'm talking about an actual prospect, before entering the NHL. Lemieux had 282 points in his last junior season - as great a prospect as Crosby was he just wasn't on that level.

It's very possible McDavid is also behind Crosby as a prospect, though i don't know to what extent. My point is there was a gap as a prospect between Lemieux and Crosby.

So if there were a junior player alive today with the talent level of a Gretzky/Lemieux - odds are they'd be very easy to spot, as they'd be that much better than even Crosby was as a junior, which is significant.

Gretzky had like 500 points as an 11 year old or such. Lemieux had 282 points in his junior year. Both of them did superhuman feats as teenagers - and as far as i know no one in the world today as a junior approaches that, and if someone did, we'd know about it.

It looks nice until you realize that Crosby played against much better players

Why is Lemieux's junior season not better than his best NHL season if he scored more points? Because the competition in the NHL is harder.. So how is it fair to say Lemieux's season is better than Crosby's when Lemieux's was easier?

 

[bobholly39]

It looks nice until you realize that Crosby played against much better players

Why is Lemieux's junior season not better than his best NHL season if he scored more points? Because the competition in the NHL is harder.. So how is it fair to say Lemieux's season is better than Crosby's when Lemieux's was easier?

I agree that Crosby played against tougher competition than Lemieux. There's more parity in the NHL these days, less weak teams, more defensive systems, etc.

But Lemieux was still significantly better, despite all that. So was Gretzky. And it's not particularly close.