Can Crosby Surpass Gretzky With A Superior Finish Than Wayne Had to His Career?

[GlitchMarner]

I prefer to post this on the HoH board because I think there's less of a chance the, "Gretzky would score maybe 60 points today" crowd will show up.

Not only do I think that the idea of the ongoing significant evolution of the NHL is exaggerated (at least when applied to elite talent), I think it's fairly irrelevant when it comes to discussions such as this one.

First of all, I think greatness can really only be measured by transcendence. I've read a lot of Nietzsche's works and I think he was on the right track with his theory of the Ubermensh (or "Overman").

A human who is truly great is one who overcomes the apparent barriers, limitations and restrictions of his time, towering above his contemporaries and establishing a lofty standard of greatness.

The greatest is not necessarily the one who has the most modern education, training, equipment or technology; such a person may be more evolved than a previous great, but merely being in a position to benefit from such advantages does not make one great. The greatest is the one who catapults the furthest above his contemporaries, establishing news standards of excellence and inspiring and driving forth further evolution.

In hockey, the man who has transcendent the forward position more than any other is Wayne Gretzky.

During his first eight years in the NHL - his peak - he consistently blew away his competitors in the scoring race and seized award after award, breaking records and winning Championships along the way...

He slowed down somewhat after year eight but was still extremely transcendent compared to everyone but Mario Lemieux.

After a dozen years, he began appearing more human but still won a scoring Title in 1994 and finished in the top five for points in 1997 and 1998.


The greatest player of the current generation of NHL'ers has consistently been among the very best of his time but has not dominated the scoring race the way Gretzky did.

After twelve years, he is well behind Gretzky in terms of in-season scoring dominance against the field...

Some have speculated that Crosby can continue playing at a very high level for several more seasons - if not for the majority of the remainder of his career...

The question is: If his last eight seasons are superior to Gretzky's, can he be placed higher on a list of all-time greats even if he never reaches Gretzky's peak level of dominance or transcendence?

Realistically, he is not going to be outscoring Connor McDavid or other young superstars in his mid 30s, but if he can continue finishing in the top three to five in the scoring race year after year while being a strong two-way presence and a difference-maker in the playoffs, can he negate the gap that exists between him and Gretzky after twelve seasons in the NHL?

Would winning two or three more scoring Titles and coming close to leading the League in points a few times while finishing high in the Selke-race multiple times be enough to move him close to Gretzky after 16 seasons to 18 seasons?



I don't think he can truly surpass Gretzky without coming closer to matching his dominance of the rest of the field in the scoring race than he has done thus far (even including 2014).

With a young Connor McDavid now a rival, this task seems implausible.



Gretzky's margins of victory in the NHL race:


1981: 29 points
1982: 65 points
1983: 62 points
1984: 79 points
1985: 73 points
1986: 74 points
1987: 75 points
1991: 32 points

Click to read more...

 

[Canadiens1958]

Winning

^^^ Winning a few more SCs as the #1 center/leader on the Penguins and building a more complete game while competing in scoring would be the key.

 

[dr robbie]

It would take something never seen before. Like a better back half of his career than his first half. It's just not going to happen.

 

[MadLuke]

Well, maybe if some medical revolution happen (say stem cell type of stuff) to repair and maintain Crosby to play until 45-46 year's old at is current level (and continu to play on a team that give him the opportunity to build an impressive playoff full of long runs) and even then it would still be up to debate.

Otherwise no, prime Gretzky was just too high and too long (still achieved greatness in 92-93 playoff) and still had an elite playoff in 1996-1997, that was during is 19th season and still had 90 point in the dpe the year after.

That is great longevity that you cannot realistically expect a player to gain much on post 93-94 Gretzky, because he was still quite good himself.

 

[Ishdul]

Nope.

 

[Sentinel]

Well, maybe if some medical revolution happen (say stem cell type of stuff) to repair and maintain Crosby to play until 45-46 year's old at is current level (and continu to play on a team that give him the opportunity to build an impressive playoff full of long runs) and even then it would still be up to debate.

Otherwise no, prime Gretzky was just too high and too long (still achieved greatness in 92-93 playoff) and still had an elite playoff in 1996-1997, that was during is 19th season and still had 90 point in the dpe the year after.

That is great longevity that you cannot realistically expect a player to gain much on post 93-94 Gretzky, because he was still quite good himself.

Yeah, that's just about right. It would have to be something never seen before.

A fairly crazy idea, if you ask me.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Short answer: No.

Longer answer: Crosby lost any small chance he may have had to even approach Gretzky-level when he got the high ankle sprain in 2008.

Request: An all-purpose Crosby's place in history thread. How many of them do we need?

 

[The Panther]

During his first eight years in the NHL - his peak - he consistently blew away his competitors in the scoring race and seized award after award, breaking records and winning Championships along the way...

He slowed down somewhat after year eight but was still extremely transcendent compared to everyone but Mario Lemieux.

Not to get all pedantic, but some of the above isn't quite accurate.

First, Gretzky actually wasn't completing "blowing away" competition until halfway through his 2nd NHL season (3rd pro).

In his first season, he had 58 points in the first half and was up there with Lafleur and Dionne, but he wasn't winning. He only reached the top of the scoring race with three games left in the season, and then settled for a tie with Marcel Dionne (though he did miss one game).

His 2nd NHL season, he had 48 points in the first 31 games and wasn't in the scoring lead, either. But then he started to pick it up, and in mid-January the Oilers started to win more and more, and Wayne went nuts with 91 points in his last 37 games.

Second, Gretzky did not "slow down somewhat after year eight". In year nine (1987-88), he actually scored points at a slightly higher rate than the year before (despite the Oilers losing Coffey). In 1987-88 he was MVP and leading scorer of the winning team at the Canada Cup, the highest per-game scorer in the NHL, the best per-game plus/minus in the NHL; and then led the playoffs in scoring, won the Cup, and was MVP. That is not slowing down.

What happens then is he gets traded to a new (badly managed) team, and has to, in a sense, start from scratch. All things considered, his performance his first three seasons in L.A. is superb, and I don't think it represents a slow-down either, although he was getting less aggressive in going to the net and shooting a bit less.

I agree with you, though, that after a dozen years (i.e., after Canada Cup '91), he began appearing more human. 1991-92 was his first disappointing season, though partly for reasons beyond his control; nevertheless, he was never the same after September 1991.

To answer the question, Crosby obviously cannot do anything to match Gretzky's career or (especially) legacy. Gretzky's legacy is untouchable in the sense that it transcends the sport more than any other hockey player in history. In terms of career accomplishments, maybe we can call the Stanley Cup wins even now, but beyond that...? Uh, not even close. Crosby, I hope, will have another three or four late-prime seasons (kind of like Wayne in 1990-91 and 1993-94) where he wins or finishes near the top of the scoring heap and has some good teams, too. But you don't start surpassing yourself in outlandish ways from age 30.

 

[VanIslander]

No.

But he could become the consensus third best center ever.

 

[Boxscore]

No chance of Sid equalling Gretzky or Mario.

 

[Theokritos]

After twelve years, he is well behind Gretzky in terms of in-season scoring dominance against the field...

10 Art Ross trophies and 9 Hart trophies vs 2 Art Ross trophies and 2 Hart trophies. Even "well behind Gretzky" is generous towards Crosby.

Gretzky's margins of victory in the NHL race:

Translated from raw points to percentage:

1982: 144%
1983: 158%
1984: 162% (169* %)
1985: 154% (160* %)
1986: 152% (174** %)

*Leaving out Gretzky's teammates.
** Also leaving out Mario Lemieux, a historic outlier himself.

Crosby's was 17 points ahead in 2014. That's 119 % compard to the #2, Getzlaf. He would have had to score 166 134 resp. 151 points instead of 104 points to match for one season what Gretzky did year after year.

 

[Laineux]

10 Art Ross trophies and 9 Hart trophies vs 2 Art Ross trophies and 2 Hart trophies. Even "well behind Gretzky" is generous towards Crosby.



Translated from raw points to percentage:

1982: 144%
1983: 158%
1984: 162% (169* %)
1985: 154% (160* %)
1986: 152% (174** %)

*Leaving out Gretzky's teammates.
** Also leaving out Mario Lemieux, a historic outlier himself.

Crosby's was 17 points ahead in 2014. That's 119 % compard to the #2, Getzlaf. He would have had to score 166 points instead of 104 points to match for one season what Gretzky did year after year.

'

If he had scored 166 points he would've had 191% of Getzlafs points, clearly beating even the best margins of Gretzky.

The average margin Gretzky beat the #2 in those years you posted was 54%.

To match that in 13-14 or basically any of the last four seasons when the #2 point getter has averaged 87-88 points, would be 134 points.

Even when you eliminate Gretzky's teammates and Lemieux, Gretzky's best season comes at 151 points adjusted to 13-14.

It doesn't make much sense to claim that Gretzky would beat the Art Ross winner by the same margin he beat the #2 as the Art Ross winner is the outlier. With that logic, the Art Ross winner can never even approach Gretzky which is stupid.

A hypothetical fully healthy Crosby could've put on a consecutive run of four seasons from 10-14 only bettered by Gretzky, Howe and Orr. Such a shame...

 

[Rhiessan71]

[Mod]

Ok, I'll play along and answer what it would take.
A time machine so one could go back and keep Walter from having any kids.
That's the only answer I can come up with.

 

[Theokritos]

If he had scored 166 points he would've had 191% of Getzlafs points, clearly beating even the best margins of Gretzky. (...) Even when you eliminate Gretzky's teammates and Lemieux, Gretzky's best season comes at 151 points adjusted to 13-14.

You're right, my bad.

It doesn't make much sense to claim that Gretzky would beat the Art Ross winner by the same margin he beat the #2 as the Art Ross winner is the outlier.

I don't entirely agree with this. In a historic sense, not every Art Ross winner is an outlier. If you adopt a long-term view, it e.g. makes sense to speak of average Art Ross winners, even if the Art Ross winner is not average at all within any season at hand.

That said, you're right that extrapolating the hypothetical number of points Gretzky would score has to take the #2 scorer as the base of the calculation, not the Art Ross winner. Methodically, the opposite doesn't make as much sense.

 

[Laineux]

You're right, my bad.



I don't entirely agree with this. In a historic sense, not every Art Ross winner is an outlier. If you adopt a long-term view, it e.g. makes sense to speak of average Art Ross winners, even if the Art Ross winner is not average at all within any season at hand.

That said, you're right that extrapolating the hypothetical number of points Gretzky would score has to take the #2 scorer as the base of the calculation, not the Art Ross winner. Methodically, the opposite doesn't make as much sense.

True. The best method is probably use the VsX thing which eliminates outliers.

Kane in 15-16 clearly is an outlier, Benn in 14-15 clearly is not.

Likewise some of Gretzky's competition could fit into that outlier mold as well.

 

[Johnny Engine]

True. The best method is probably use the VsX thing which eliminates outliers.

Kane in 15-16 clearly is an outlier, Benn in 14-15 clearly is not.

Likewise some of Gretzky's competition could fit into that outlier mold as well.

If you weren't already aware, the formula to calculate VsX defines an "outlier" as a gap of 10% or more. So you don't have to guess who is and who isn't.

 

[Laineux]

Crosby's ceiling at this point is to be unanimously top five.

Mark Recchi said that with the way Crosby trains he can stay at the top of his game for 5-7 more years. If he has five more healthy seasons at his current prime level that's some ridiculously long and consistent resume at the top of the league.

 

[Rhiessan71]

10 Art Ross trophies and 9 Hart trophies vs 2 Art Ross trophies and 2 Hart trophies. Even "well behind Gretzky" is generous towards Crosby.



Translated from raw points to percentage:

1982: 144%
1983: 158%
1984: 162% (169* %)
1985: 154% (160* %)
1986: 152% (174** %)

*Leaving out Gretzky's teammates.
** Also leaving out Mario Lemieux, a historic outlier himself.

Crosby's was 17 points ahead in 2014. That's 119 % compard to the #2, Getzlaf. He would have had to score 166 134 resp. 151 points instead of 104 points to match for one season what Gretzky did year after year.

'

If he had scored 166 points he would've had 191% of Getzlafs points, clearly beating even the best margins of Gretzky.

The average margin Gretzky beat the #2 in those years you posted was 54%.

To match that in 13-14 or basically any of the last four seasons when the #2 point getter has averaged 87-88 points, would be 134 points.

Even when you eliminate Gretzky's teammates and Lemieux, Gretzky's best season comes at 151 points adjusted to 13-14.

It doesn't make much sense to claim that Gretzky would beat the Art Ross winner by the same margin he beat the #2 as the Art Ross winner is the outlier. With that logic, the Art Ross winner can never even approach Gretzky which is stupid.

A hypothetical fully healthy Crosby could've put on a consecutive run of four seasons from 10-14 only bettered by Gretzky, Howe and Orr. Such a shame...

Can I ask you guys what math you're practicing exactly?

When Gretzky beat Bossy in '82 by 65 points, it was done with a margin of 44%(65/147) not 144%.

Don't confuse a 1.44 modifier as 144%.
If you beat someone by 100%, you doubled their score.

Oh and as far as the Getzlaf example...I wouldn't give 2 craps if Crosby had have beaten Getzlaf by 50% (Crosby would have had to garner 131 points btw) because the first person that tries to say that Getzlaf was even close to Bossy (especially in 1982), I will absolutely lose my ****!

Let's put that in perspective shall we?
For Crosby to have even once approach Gretzky's level of Art Ross dominance (50% or more margin of victory), he would have had to actually have a full season at his half season 10/11 pace (132 points) but he would have had to do so in 13/14 so he was only up against Getzlaf and his 87 points...yeah ooookkkkk.

 

[Theokritos]

Can I ask you guys what math you're practicing exactly?

The kind where your mother language isn't English and you sometimes get a term wrong.

Don't confuse a 1.44 modifier as 144%.

Sure. To clarify, I just took the #2 scorer's points as 100%. Gretzky wasn't ahead by a margin of 144%, but he had 144% in relation to Bossy's 100%.

When Gretzky beat Bossy in '82 by 65 points, it was done with a margin of 44%(65/147) not 144%.

Since you insist on clarity: Gretzky actually beat Bossy with a margin of 44 percentage points (pp), not 44 percent (%).

 

[BenchBrawl]

Crosby can still bypass Gretzky, but that would require winning many extra championships with a significant individual contribution to all of those.By ''many'' I mean at least 3 or 4, preferably 5 or 6.

If he does that, he will be ''arguable'' for the people who have a heavy ''team success-based'' perspective when evaluating players.The problem is that other players will then be his competition in the eyes of those people, if they're consistent (Béliveau comes to mind).

IMO if Crosby wins 4 championships and is a Top 2 player in each of those runs, he has a shot at being the greatest hockey player of all-time.Think about it, imagine it.Pittsburgh wins 4 cups in the next 6 years and Crosby plays great.Think about the sequence of emotions and the emotionnal state it leaves you in at the end.Think about how shocked you would be if it happened.Those emotions and the unexpected/impressive factor are what really puts a player over the top in this range.

We already know he isn't the best if we define best by offensive skills or peak/prime level of impact (or just plain eye-witness and how impressive he looked).

In a nutshell, to rank Crosby #1, we'd need to take a different perspective on what ''career value'' really means, and we'd need to define greatest vs. best more rigorously.

 

[Rhiessan71]

The kind where your mother language isn't English and you sometimes get a term wrong.

I apologize then.

Sure. To clarify, I just took the #2 scorer's points as 100%. Gretzky wasn't ahead by a margin of 144%, but he had 144% in relation to Bossy's 100%.

Just drop the 100% stuff, save yourself and everyone else a lot of hassel.

Since you insist on clarity: Gretzky actually beat Bossy with a margin of 44 percentage points (pp), not 44 percent (%).

No he actually beat him by 44%.
65 points of 147 is 44% (44.22% actually)

 

[MXD]

Crosby's ceiling at this point is to be unanimously top five.

Mark Recchi said that with the way Crosby trains he can stay at the top of his game for 5-7 more years. If he has five more healthy seasons at his current prime level that's some ridiculously long and consistent resume at the top of the league.

More like... Unanimously 5th.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Crosby can still bypass Gretzky, but that would require winning many extra championships with a significant individual contribution to all of those.By ''many'' I mean at least 3 or 4, preferably 5 or 6.

If he does that, he will be ''arguable'' for the people who have a heavy ''team success-based'' perspective when evaluating players.The problem is that other players will then be his competition in the eyes of those people, if they're consistent (Béliveau comes to mind).

IMO if Crosby wins 4 championships and is a Top 2 player in each of those runs, he has a shot at being the greatest hockey player of all-time.

We already know he isn't the best if we define best by offensive skills or peak/prime level of impact (or just plain eye-witness and how impressive he looked).

In a nutshell, to rank Crosby #1, we'd need to take a different perspective on what ''career value'' really means.

Right, just forget about 10 Art Ross and 9 Harts. That's dime a dozen kind of stuff anyway right.
Forget that he has more assists than anyone else even has points. Kidsplay I say.
And I mean obviously with how much weight you ascribe to Championships, Henri Richard must be the current greatest hockey player of all-time in your eyes, correct?

C'mon now, seriously...gimme a break.

Crosby couldn't tie Gretzky's skate laces and never will, sorry.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Right, just forget about 10 Art Ross and 9 Harts. That's dime a dozen kind of stuff anyway.
And I mean obviously with how much weight you ascribe to Championships, Henri Richard must be the current greatest hockey player of all-time in your eyes, correct?

C'mon now, seriously...

What is the goal of hockey? Define ''career value''.

I'm telling you right now, to define those terms satisfactorily will take more time than you have left in your life.

Art Rosses, Harts, all great trophies to have.But what if the qualities required to maximize your chance of winning those trophies aren't the same as the qualities required to maximize your chance at being the kind of element of an arbitrary team which maximizes the chance of the arbitrary team of winning the Stanley Cup? Obviously a lot of overlap will be there, but it's something to keep in mind.

The thread topic itself is far-fetched, so why would I waste my time arguing from the canon perspective, when the debate is all but settled from it?

 

[BenchBrawl]

As for Henri Richard, it's possible that he is severely underrated indeed (theoretically speaking).

Let's play a crazy game: what if Henri Richard is THE collection of qualities which maximizes your chance of winning the cup the most out of all other collections (players)? Then maybe Henri Richard is the greatest hockey player of all-time.But this is clearly not the case because Richard was put in an ideal situation and we can debunk this idea.But maybe he's still underrated anyway, like Ted Kennedy for example.

I'm not saying this is what I think (though I think both are a tad underrated), but I'm just trying to take the chess board and flip it upside down because this is what the thread topic begs me to do.

Maybe Gretzky was so smart, went so far ahead of anyone at one particular skill, one which is so mystifying (intelligence in offensive playmaking), that we have a bias not to rank anyone (except a freak like Orr or Howe) ahead of him.But maybe it's like a crazy mental calculator, we're so impressed at his mental calculations (say we're in a very ancient era where this mattered), we cannot admit that a guy with much deeper ideas is a better mathematician than the calculator.