Gretzky 88-89 Even Strength

[Infinite Vision*]

It's weird to see Gretzky go to LA, notch over 50 goals and over 100 assists, see the Kings go from 68 points to 91 points, and see anyone try to statistically justify Gretzky had a negative impact in any capacity. LA improved 23 points, Edmonton dropped by 15 points. LA went from 68 points (18th in the league out of 21 teams) in 1987-88 to 91 points (4th out of 21 teams) 1988-89 ... from near the bottom to near the top. Not seeing how this is difficult math.

Easy. You're attributing a variety of possible causes explained in this thread already, to Gretzky.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Easy. You're attributing a variety of possible causes explained in this thread already, to Gretzky.

Oh I guess it was Mcsorley then?

Lets keep it a little real here..

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Oh I guess it was Mcsorley then?

Lets keep it a little real here..

Notice I said possible, and I never mentioned Mcsorley.

 

[nik jr]

Oh I guess it was Mcsorley then?

Lets keep it a little real here..

keep it real by use of straw men?


other contributing factors were already mentioned, and mcsorley was not among them.

goaltending was much better. PK was better. bernie nicholls scored more (some of which was not a product of gretzky).

i think it should never be said, though, that gretzky had a negative effect on LAK.

 

[Regal]

I get the feeling there'd be much less vitriol in this thread if the numbers were for someone like Joe Thornton. Gretzky is such a sacred cow that it's hard accepting negative stats about him. I know when first looking at it, my initial reaction was "no way, it's freaking Gretzky" (and I have a feeling if the stat showed that he outperformed his team by greater numbers than he did in Edmonton, there'd be a lot of people saying "It just shows how good he was").


I also still think there's probably more to it than it appears, and agree to some extent with some of the arguments regarding matchups, making those around him better, situations, possible coaching reasons, taking more defensive zone draws etc. I mean, we can talk about Gretzky being scored on as much as he scored, but he wasn't, he was still 10% better, so perhaps the team was opening it up with him on to get the goals they need to win, or at least try to, and then try to shut teams out the rest of the time. If Gretzky gets three goals and is scored on twice, and the rest of the team manages a fluky goal, but is not scored on, the team would have a better percentage. But it's highly doubtful the team could keep that same percentage without the time Gretzky spent on the ice. If you look at that team, it really had no business being 4th in the league, and even then, they didn't actually have that great of a record.

Again, it's possible this is just my natural instinct to defend the guy who was ingrained in me as the best player of all time as I was growing up. However, while he was slowing down somewhat in Edmonton, it's hard to believe Gretzky could fall off so much in one season at age 28. While we can say that most top scorers performed so much better in comparison to their teams, and Gretzky is one of the few outliers, we can also question what are the other reasons behind such an outlier beyond simply that he wasn't that good. While he wasn't that good defensively, he would basically have to be by far the worst defensive player ever to outweigh his massive even strength point totals. I'm not sure if that's the case.


That said, I think I can kind of get on board to some degree with where we've ended up with this. Minus the empty net goals, he's now out-performing the rest of the team, albeit by a small amount. And while it seems he played some with Nicholls and Robitaille, having them as off-ice replacements probably hurts a bit as well. I think the argument that he wasn't as good at even strength as he had been is fair, and that his point totals do not necessarily equate to his value. And while he certainly helped the team when he came to it, perhaps it was not as much as some other top scorers over the years were helping theirs, it's just that they didn't change teams the year before (for instance, I really see no reason for Lemieux not winning the Hart that year, as he was the better player, and the Pens were almost as good as the Kings, and surely would have been much worse if the year before the Pens had Jimmy Carson instead of Lemieux). That said, I still can't see how he wasn't at the very least one of the best three forwards that year with Lemieux and Yzerman.


I'm curious though, seventieslord, do these stats affect your opinion of Gretzky in any way? Obviously he still has all the great years in Edmonton, but it puts a bit of a damper on the longevity argument over the last ten years of his career.

 

[Cake or Death]

Easy. You're attributing a variety of possible causes explained in this thread already, to Gretzky.

Actually, I'm avoiding a way too in-depth look at stats -- because stats only only tell so much and it is always easy to use select stats to manipulate arguments -- and I am instead looking at the bottom line. And the bottom line is, LA went from 18th in the league to 4th in the league, which is a massive improvement. I'm looking at the bottom line that LA (the 18th place team in the league the prior season) knocked Edmonton (the Stanley Cup champs the prior season) out in the first round of the playoffs. I'm looking at LA selling 7,000 seats at home and Gretzky single-handedly causing a sellout at every home game, and suddenly seeing LA have home ice support and going from 19-18-3 to 25-12-3 the season Gretzky arrives.

I'm looking at the big picture and the net results, because you have to dig pretty friggin hard to find a way where Gretzky going to LA had any negative impact or downside to that franchise that first season.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

What changed for Gretzky when he moved between Edmonton and LA? Obviously, his teammates got worse, but that's not what I'm talking about. What was so different about his situation in LA that would cause his ratio to get so much worse in one season?

Did he really miss Kurri that badly, or was it something else?

 

[Starchild74]

You're describing a really extreme situation and not a usual one.

PPs aren't part of this discussion - only even strength play is.

Strangely, the Kings drew fewer penalties that season and had a lower success rate on PPs that they did have.



My totals were an extreme thing but Gretzky's line drawing penalties weren't. Gretzky drew alot of penalties. There isn't a statistics on this but anyone who remember watching Gretzky especially if they hated the teams he played for will tell you alot of times the penalties went his way.

If a line is on the ice and draws a penalty and changes momentum of the game. They might not be a postive as far +/- goes but they were important in the game. That is my point there are alot more to hockey then stats.

It is the same if Bernie Nicholls draws a penalty and then Gretzky scores as the power play is ending. It will go down as an even strength goal but no one can take away what Nichols did yet his +/- will not be affected

How many times have you watched a game and a team scores just as the powerplay is ending. In the stat it is an even strength goal and everyone on the ice gets a + or a -. There are just so many variables then to look at plus minus or on ice off ice ratio to determine if a player was indeed important to his team.

The numbers that mean the most. The Kings won 12 games more. 23 more points that year. Scored 58 more goals that year. So Gretzky was indeed important to the Kings. The kings would not have improved as much without Gretzky. No matter what kind of stats you find or try to use. It can't take away what Gretzky did or diminish what he did for Los Angeles

1988-89 was the first time the Kings got past the first round since the Miracle on Manchester st. Not to hijack the thread but you did make reference that the ratio for Gretzky was diminsihing and that the Kings weren't that much better with Gretzky on the ice as they were without him. Well from 1988-89 to 1992-93 the Los Angeles Kings won more playoff series in that 5 year span then they did the rest of their 38 years of play. I would say that even though you might have stats that say otherwise. I will go by what I saw and how the Kings went from an easy win in the Smyth division. To a team where you had to play hard or get beat in the regular season or playoffs

In 1987-88 before Gretzky when teams went to the west coast it was a vacation. It was usually an easy win. In 1988-89 Wayne Gretzky brought respectibillity to the Kings and made them an instant contender. Why was he able to do this. Because he was the best player on the team and made everyone around him better.

 

[Cake or Death]

What changed for Gretzky when he moved between Edmonton and LA? Obviously, his teammates got worse, but that's not what I'm talking about. What was so different about his situation in LA that would cause his ratio to get so much worse in one season?

Did he really miss Kurri that badly, or was it something else?

New wife, new coaches, new teammates, new city, new country. Goes from a hockey passionate city where he's a hero to one where they were barely half-filling the arena. He went from being a sport's hero/celebrity in one place to being a more Hollywood-like celebrity. The whole thing was weird. But the more accurate question, IMO, is what didn't change for the guy?

If someone told you in 1985 the Kings would go to the Finals in the next 10 years, you would've laughed in their face and considered slapping them. If they then would have told you one player would generate so much attention in LA that there would eventually be enough fan interest to financially support three teams in California, you then would've smacked 'em in the head. Yeah, that whole trade was pretty damn shocking and pretty damn weird.

 

[Starchild74]

You know, before you crank your vitriol dial up to 11 and blow a hose somewhere, there should probably be some evidence about how many ES goals Gretzky and Nicholls collaborated on. We have people saying they were on separate lines and people saying they definitely played together, but how much? Nicholls in all likelihood did have a season where he was as good as a Forsberg or Jagr or Mikita or Goulet or Malkin as an off-ice comparable. Gretzky's presence helped that, yes, but so did Sakic, Lemieux, Hull, Stastny and Crosby help the above.
!

Bernie Nicholls had a career year that he never matched. As a matter of fact 2 years later he dropped by almost half his points and over 40 goals in his first full season in New York. Shows you how great he was.

Forsberg, Jagr, Mikita, Goulet and Malkin were helped by Sakic, Lemieux, Hull, Statsny, and Crosby there is no question there. However there is one thing to mention. Bernie Nicholls is no where near half as good as Forsberg, Jagr, Mikita, Goulet or Malkin. All these players were top players in the game for many years. Nicholls career year is that a year where he was considered great.

 

[overpass]

Seriously, this is where statistical analysis of hockey went off the deep end a few years ago.

A few years ago, the majority of serious hockey analysis used statistics but tried to actually match the statistics to the way the game was actually played. Most anyone presenting save percentage stats here came with the attitude "it's the best goalie stat, but has it's limitations and can definitely be affected by the team the goalie plays behind, just less so than GAA." Guys like TCG who seemingly spent their time analyzing box scores, rather than watching and appreciating the game, and who thought goalies were as personally responsible for save % as forwards were for goals and assists were the fringe minority.

I see the same thing happening with +/- derivatives now. A player is not nearly as personally responsible for a plus or minus on the ice, as he is for a goal or an assist, especially a defensive defenseman for a plus or an offensive forward for a minus (great point, Rabbins).

Yes, if the adjusted plus/minus is absurdly high or low it means something. But it really only means something if we know how the player was used.

As for why Gretzky's adjusted plus minus is so unimpressive (a few points off even with his teammates) when he won the Hart trophy in 88/89 as the Kings improved greatly? I've yet to hear from anyone who watched a significant number of Kings games that season.

If there's a problem I have with statistical analysis in hockey, it's when people forget that hockey is a fluid game where a player's contribution can't be perfectly described by statistics. The stats are an imperfect method of describing that contribution that includes context and, in smaller samples, random variation. Although I may be expecting too much from internet posts...

But this is hardly a recent trend. I think of old-school guys saying "Bottom line, Mike Gartner scored 30 goals in 17 straight years. Never mind the statistical smoke" when they're just arguing based on stats themselves. You can be equally blind to the limitations of stats whether you are looking at an adjusted plus-minus sheet or the hockey card stats. If you're looking at the hockey card stats, remember that they don't include anything about a player's defensive contributions. If you're looking at plus-minus, remember that it includes context and, within a small sample (even a full season) can include a lot of random variation.

That said, stats can be extremely useful in hockey. Remember where plus-minus analysis originated - the O6 Montreal Canadians. You think they knew what they were doing? Incidentally, I read an article recently from the Globe and Mail articles about plus-minus, and it said that Ron Andrews used a team-adjusted plus-minus back in the 1960s. The NHL board of governors preferred to use the unadjusted version when it became an official stat, for simplicity. This stuff isn't something new. I know if I were running an NHL team and I were deciding what data to collect from scratch, I'd track plus-minus (as well as a lot of other things that would be more useful to the coach on the game level).

The key is to know what stat to use when. In the case of plus-minus, to make definite conclusions, you need a large sample to minimize random variation - ideally several seasons. But over this large sample, the "indirect" contributions will show up as well as the "direct" contributions. And I think it's a serious error to ignore those indirect contributions if you are interested in finding players who contribute to their team winning games. Otherwise you'll end up with a team full of Brett Hulls and Ilya Kovalchuks - great "direct" contributors in that they shoot the puck in the net as well as anyone, but below-average at basically everything else.

I don't get the "plus-minus is for two-way players" argument. Every player in the NHL is a two-way player. This isn't football. Even scoring wingers have to cover their responsibilities defensively. Try playing 4-on-5 in the defensive zone and see how that works out. If a high-scoring player doesn't have a good plus-minus, maybe he should become a two-way player.

What does this all mean for Wayne Gretzky's 1988-89 season at even strength? Well, it's just a single season, so plus-minus can be deceiving. And there may have been a change in the role Gretzky played and the support he received. But put this season into the context of his career. For Gretzky's entire career in Edmonton, he was a dominant outscorer at even strength like no other forward in history. He led his team to four Stanley Cups. And from 1991 on, Gretzky was a minus player who didn't outperform the rest of his team at even strength at all, and had zero team success except in one last great run in the 1993 playoffs. As far as I'm concerned, the stats are very clear that 1990s Gretzky was a far, far less valuable player than 1980s Gretzky. So when I look at Gretzky's declining plus-minus in 1988-89, it looks like the beginning of a trend.

 

[nik jr]

I get the feeling there'd be much less vitriol in this thread if the numbers were for someone like Joe Thornton. Gretzky is such a sacred cow that it's hard accepting negative stats about him. I know when first looking at it, my initial reaction was "no way, it's freaking Gretzky" (and I have a feeling if the stat showed that he outperformed his team by greater numbers than he did in Edmonton, there'd be a lot of people saying "It just shows how good he was").


I also still think there's probably more to it than it appears, and agree to some extent with some of the arguments regarding matchups, making those around him better, situations, possible coaching reasons, taking more defensive zone draws etc. I mean, we can talk about Gretzky being scored on as much as he scored, but he wasn't, he was still 10% better, so perhaps the team was opening it up with him on to get the goals they need to win, or at least try to, and then try to shut teams out the rest of the time. If Gretzky gets three goals and is scored on twice, and the rest of the team manages a fluky goal, but is not scored on, the team would have a better percentage. But it's highly doubtful the team could keep that same percentage without the time Gretzky spent on the ice. If you look at that team, it really had no business being 4th in the league, and even then, they didn't actually have that great of a record.

Again, it's possible this is just my natural instinct to defend the guy who was ingrained in me as the best player of all time as I was growing up. However, while he was slowing down somewhat in Edmonton, it's hard to believe Gretzky could fall off so much in one season at age 28. While we can say that most top scorers performed so much better in comparison to their teams, and Gretzky is one of the few outliers, we can also question what are the other reasons behind such an outlier beyond simply that he wasn't that good. While he wasn't that good defensively, he would basically have to be by far the worst defensive player ever to outweigh his massive even strength point totals. I'm not sure if that's the case.


That said, I think I can kind of get on board to some degree with where we've ended up with this. Minus the empty net goals, he's now out-performing the rest of the team, albeit by a small amount. And while it seems he played some with Nicholls and Robitaille, having them as off-ice replacements probably hurts a bit as well. I think the argument that he wasn't as good at even strength as he had been is fair, and that his point totals do not necessarily equate to his value. And while he certainly helped the team when he came to it, perhaps it was not as much as some other top scorers over the years were helping theirs, it's just that they didn't change teams the year before (for instance, I really see no reason for Lemieux not winning the Hart that year, as he was the better player, and the Pens were almost as good as the Kings, and surely would have been much worse if the year before the Pens had Jimmy Carson instead of Lemieux). That said, I still can't see how he wasn't at the very least one of the best three forwards that year with Lemieux and Yzerman.


I'm curious though, seventieslord, do these stats affect your opinion of Gretzky in any way? Obviously he still has all the great years in Edmonton, but it puts a bit of a damper on the longevity argument over the last ten years of his career.

i think that is right.

i don't remember this kind of reaction in discussions about bure in florida, or when the other important changes to washington besides langway were mentioned.

in addition to langway, '83 washington added doug jarvis, brian engblom, pat riggin, and scott stevens, and their many young players had another year of development. but it is common to give credit to langway alone.


i don't think anyone would be trying to credit bure for florida's goalies having better sv% in '00 than in '99, or for their better PK in '00, and i think if anyone had said that, it would be almost universally ridiculed.

i don't remember a similar attitude about defense not being very important in debates about bure.

 

[Starchild74]

IMO yes. I've posted on here before that I thought Gretzky's defensive play was noticeably better in his Oiler years compared to the games I've seen of him after.

Gretzky was just a lot more noticeable to me, both offensively and defensively in the Oiler games I've seen compared to the ones after. He was always setting up chances even when they weren't being finished. He was always stripping people of the puck. He came back in the zone to break up plays more, especially in his earlier Oiler years IMO. I think the days of Gretzky being the dominant goal scorer were also the years he was better defensively, and it didn't hurt to be paired with Kurri, and backed by Coffey. The more his career went on, the more he became a playmaker, the more he became a powerplay specialist, the worse he got defensively. My honest opinion. I have tons of Gretzky games taped, still a few I haven't seen. I've analyzed him far more than any player before my time, for obvious reasons, and I believe my analysis of him in the games I've seen fit perfectly with these statistics. Strangely enough, most adjustments I see made, whether it be points, +/-, or anything, usually back up what I originally suspected. The reason I don't go into detail about things I've watched and just post only about statistics, is because your opinion from strictly watching a player is entirely subjective.

Wayne Gretzky was a great goal scorer in Edmonton. However he was always a playmaker. The reason why he scored so many goals in Edmonton. Is because in 1981-82 Gretzky was told to shoot more. The opposition knew that Gretzky was so good at passing and making plays they were cheating alot and trying to anticipate the pass. Not every goal of course but alot of them were the result of the opposition not knowing what to defend his passing or his shooting.

The scouting report on Gretzky was that he didn't have the best shot so he was challenged by the oppostion to take the shot becasue he wouldn't score he needed to pass. That is one reason he scored so much especially in 1981-82. After that it was just a nightmare. If you took away the pass Gretzky would score. If you tried to cover Gretzky he would make a pass.

If you look at his stats in Edmonton you will see that it looks as though he was more of a goal scorer in Edmonton then a playmaker but that is simply not true. He always looked to pass first on most occasions he just took what the defence gave him and more then not it ended up in the net.

When he was with the Kings. He was still an important part of the team and maybe in the games you saw he was a floater and didn't do much defensively or didn't carry the puck. Well I am sorry some of the best playes Gretzky did were with the Kings and he carried the puck alot. Now even in Edmonton he floated and tried to anticipate the play.

Was he better defensively in Edmonton. Maybe but Gretzky was never known for his defence anyway. One thing that did change in Los Angeles is that Gretzky was starting to lose a step as far as skating. Now remember Gretzky was never the best skater so losing a step did hurt him.

Now you might be analyzing his game and studying him. No offence but no one can study Gretzky. No one can analyze Gretzky he saw the game different then anyone else. The only player that probably saw the game like him was Orr.

Later on in his career he did not score that much but his goals to assists ratio was not that far off his average in his career. Now was he better as he got older on the powerplay or was more productive on the powerplay. That is true. But that was when he was with the Rangers. In 1988-89 he ws not just a powerplay guy he was great.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

i

i don't think anyone would be trying to credit bure for florida's goalies having better sv% in '00 than in '99, or for their better PK in '00, and i think if anyone had said that, it would be almost universally ridiculed.

.

If Bure changed the way Florida played as a team, or completely changed the way opponents played them,* there is a very good chance that he would have a small positive or negative effect on save percentage. I don't see it being laughable at all. Save percentage is highly influenced by the way the goalie's team and his opponents are playing the game.

*his presence definitely affected opponents strategies, but not to the extent of Gretzky

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

If there's a problem I have with statistical analysis in hockey, it's when people forget that hockey is a fluid game where a player's contribution can't be perfectly described by statistics. The stats are an imperfect method of describing that contribution that includes context and, in smaller samples, random variation. Although I may be expecting too much from internet posts...

More elegant version of my semi-drunken rant from the other night.

But this is hardly a recent trend. I think of old-school guys saying "Bottom line, Mike Gartner scored 30 goals in 17 straight years. Never mind the statistical smoke" when they're just arguing based on stats themselves. You can be equally blind to the limitations of stats whether you are looking at an adjusted plus-minus sheet or the hockey card stats. If you're looking at the hockey card stats, remember that they don't include anything about a player's defensive contributions. If you're looking at plus-minus, remember that it includes context and, within a small sample (even a full season) can include a lot of random variation.

I think it's a recent trend with the more advanced statistics. Look at HO's post from less than 2 years ago on adjusted save percentage: http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=718221. At that time, it's basically taken for granted that save percentage is affected by the goalie's teams. Now look where we are.

You're correct, of course, about the 30 goals in 17 straight years and the apparent inability of old school hockey people to apparently recognize that it was easier to score goals in the 1980s when they seem to induct every 80s compiler into the Hall.

That said, stats can be extremely useful in hockey. Remember where plus-minus analysis originated - the O6 Montreal Canadians. You think they knew what they were doing? Incidentally, I read an article recently from the Globe and Mail articles about plus-minus, and it said that Ron Andrews used a team-adjusted plus-minus back in the 1960s. The NHL board of governors preferred to use the unadjusted version when it became an official stat, for simplicity. This stuff isn't something new. I know if I were running an NHL team and I were deciding what data to collect from scratch, I'd track plus-minus (as well as a lot of other things that would be more useful to the coach on the game level).

You're right - it is a useful stat. But it used to be given far too much weight as a determinate of a player's value - Norris voting and Selke voting were affected by plus/minus way too much for a long period of time. That seemed to wane, but now that more advanced forms of plus minus are coming around (your adjusted plus/minus and other variants), there seems to be a recent trend back towards the assumption that a player is completely responsible for his own plus/minus (adjusted or otherwise), and I strongly disagree.

The key is to know what stat to use when. In the case of plus-minus, to make definite conclusions, you need a large sample to minimize random variation - ideally several seasons. But over this large sample, the "indirect" contributions will show up as well as the "direct" contributions.

Large samples, as well as close comparables, I think. In the purpose of this thread, I really don't think there was another player in the league who played the same role Gretzky did. Maybe Mario Lemieux. Maybe Yzerman for a couple of years. But I don't think Gretzky's role was comparable to that of your typical high scoring first line center.

And I think it's a serious error to ignore those indirect contributions if you are interested in finding players who contribute to their team winning games. Otherwise you'll end up with a team full of Brett Hulls and Ilya Kovalchuks - great "direct" contributors in that they shoot the puck in the net as well as anyone, but below-average at basically everything else.

True. Perhaps this is what Gretzky's LA numbers show more than anything? LA just didn't have the proper players to compliment his completely dominant but not complete skillset? Even so, I think it should be somewhat obvious that Gretzky was definitely helping his team win, regardless of the GF/GA stats. My problem isn't so much with the stat itself (I do think it has its use and am interested in knowing why Gretzky's statistical performance apparently dropped like a rock after being traded), but with the interpretation that "he was underperforming his teammates" simply by having a worse ratio.

I don't get the "plus-minus is for two-way players" argument. Every player in the NHL is a two-way player. This isn't football. Even scoring wingers have to cover their responsibilities defensively. Try playing 4-on-5 in the defensive zone and see how that works out. If a high-scoring player doesn't have a good plus-minus, maybe he should become a two-way player.

I sort of agree and disagree with the point. I mean, everything you say is right, but I also get what Rabbins is saying. +/- really just determines the effectiveness of a 5 man unit, not any individual player. Players like Gretzky and Ovechkin contribute greatly to the plus side and very little to reducing the minus side, while someone like Rod Langway or Devils-era Stevens is the reverse. If a guy like Gretzky is giving you 2 goals per game for your team (something only Gretzky and Lemieux could give you), then surround him with the right players to cover what he isn't doing. Basically the converse of a defensive defenseman who is providing you close to 0 goals per game, but reducing goals against. An individual player doesn't have to be strong at both ends of the ice to be successful - his 5 man unit does.

What does this all mean for Wayne Gretzky's 1988-89 season at even strength? Well, it's just a single season, so plus-minus can be deceiving. And there may have been a change in the role Gretzky played and the support he received. But put this season into the context of his career. For Gretzky's entire career in Edmonton, he was a dominant outscorer at even strength like no other forward in history. He led his team to four Stanley Cups. And from 1991 on, Gretzky was a minus player who didn't outperform the rest of his team at even strength at all, and had zero team success except in one last great run in the 1993 playoffs. As far as I'm concerned, the stats are very clear that 1990s Gretzky was a far, far less valuable player than 1980s Gretzky. So when I look at Gretzky's declining plus-minus in 1988-89, it looks like the beginning of a trend.

I think it is the beginning of a trend, yes. But his adjusted plus minus dropped like a rock when traded, while his visible play declined much more slowly. Clearly his individual performance is only a small part of what the numbers show.

I also don't think it's totally fair to say the Kings had zero team success other than 1993. Just making the playoffs, then beating the Oilers in 1989 was a big deal for a franchise like the Kings.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

What changed for Gretzky when he moved between Edmonton and LA? Obviously, his teammates got worse, but that's not what I'm talking about. What was so different about his situation in LA that would cause his ratio to get so much worse in one season?

Did he really miss Kurri that badly, or was it something else?

LA was a unique situation for Gretzky. While the Kings did have some support for Gretzky, he was definitively the center of attention for generating offense. While he still was the top guy in Edmonton, his supporting cast with the Oilers provided much more support and I think they had to rely on Gretzky a little less.

Whereas in LA, Gretzky was depended upon more and the Kings likely traded scoring chances more so than the Oilers did, which is a gamble that sometimes benefited the Kings, or cost them goals. Naturally, while the Kings generated their highest probability of scoring while Gretzky was on the ice, they also were just as likely to surrender a scoring opportunity.

You also have to consider his linemates, which was often changing due to the amount of ice time Gretzky received in LA. Not one of them was considered to be a well-rounded, defensively aware forward as Jari Kurri or Esa Tikkanen were. Now, when Gretzky isn't on the ice, and the scoring opportunities are less likely to occur, wouldn't it be wise for the coaching staff to try to prevent goals from occurring more so if they aren't generating scoring chances?

Also, take a look at the game results from 1988-89 with the Kings. This is a team that surrendered a lot of goals in losses (as well as in wins/ties), http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/LAK/1989_games.html

The Kings also did not acquire an established #1 goalie until much later in the season when they traded for Kelly Hrudey in late February of that season. Then you add the fact that he went from a defense that consisted of Kevin Lowe, Steve Smith, Charlie Huddy, Craig Muni, Jeff Beukeboom and Randy Gregg to Steve Duchesne, Tom Laidlaw, Dean Kennedy, Dale DeGray, Tim Watters and Doug Crossman, that is a huge defensive downgrade.

So less puck possession, more scoring chances allowed, worse defense and goaltending and less defensive help, and you are likely to see the number of goals surrendered by Gretzky's team to go up more than before. I mentioned in another post that the Kings were tied for the 5th worst defensive team in the NHL that season, surrendered 335 goals. The team GF/GA difference was +41. In Edmonton the prior season, the Oilers had the 8th best GA, only giving up 288 goals, and had a +75 GF/GA differential.

Rather than focusing on the single player for being the cause of a team surrendering more goals or scoring chances, we have to look at all of the elements involved. How many shots on average did the Kings surrender as opposed to Edmonton? I bet with less puck possession, the Kings surrendered significantly more shots and scoring chances. With a weaker and less physical defense, they also likely did a poorer job defensively in front of the net in recovering rebounds and cleaning up in front.

For many years, the Kings were also considered to be a rather soft team. That is until they brought in Jay Miller and moved McSorley to defense to help add some more physicality on the blueline. They also addressed some much needed depth issues offensively when they dealt Bernie Nicholls to acquire two top six forwards in Tony Granato and Tomas Sandstrom.

What's funny is that Bernie Nicholls was often criticized for being a rather lazy player during his time in LA. It was one of the reasons the Kings ended up trading him, even after setting team records for goals scored. And in the long run, the trade ended up benefiting the Kings more than it harmed them. And Bernie never came close to achieving those numbers after he moved on. Was it the Gretzky factor that helped him achieve his career high numbers? I would say so.

 

[nik jr]

If Bure changed the way Florida played as a team, or completely changed the way opponents played them,* there is a very good chance that he would have a small positive or negative effect on save percentage. I don't see it being laughable at all. Save percentage is highly influenced by the way the goalie's team and his opponents are playing the game.

*his presence definitely affected opponents strategies, but not to the extent of Gretzky

sv% is obviously very much influenced by how a team plays, but the amount of positive difference made by the presence of a player who did not really play D is probably negligible, and possibly smaller than some unknown minor injury a goalie had.

it seems much more likely that players like gretzky and bure had a negative effect on their goalies' stats. they generally waited around in the defensive zone for their teammates to get the puck. they did not really leave their team at 4 on 5, but the puck stayed in the defensive zone longer than it could have.


many times i have read that fuhr's stats are skewed by the oilers' style of play, and it is probably true, but i had never heard that basically ignoring D could have a positive effect on a goalie.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

LA was a unique situation for Gretzky. While the Kings did have some support for Gretzky, he was definitively the center of attention for generating offense. While he still was the top guy in Edmonton, his supporting cast with the Oilers provided much more support and I think they had to rely on Gretzky a little less.

I get that there was a huge difference in supporting casts towards the end. At the beginning of his time in Edmonton, Gretzky was basically carrying the team himself though, no? (Before Kurri, Messier, and Coffey had developed into elite players in their own rights).

Also, take a look at the game results from 1988-89 with the Kings. This is a team that surrendered a lot of goals in losses (as well as in wins/ties), http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/LAK/1989_games.html

The Kings also did not acquire an established #1 goalie until much later in the season when they traded for Kelly Hrudey in late February of that season. Then you add the fact that he went from a defense that consisted of Kevin Lowe, Steve Smith, Charlie Huddy, Craig Muni, Jeff Beukeboom and Randy Gregg to Steve Duchesne, Tom Laidlaw, Dean Kennedy, Dale DeGray, Tim Watters and Doug Crossman, that is a huge defensive downgrade.

Hmm, it would be interesting to compare Gretzky's plus minus between wins and losses. If the Kings played a run-and-gun game with relatively poor defense and goaltending and Gretzky played a ton of minutes when behind, his unimpressive plus minus could really be dragged down by some seriously bad minuses in losses.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

sv% is obviously very much influenced by how a team plays, but the amount of positive difference made by the presence of a player who did not really play D is probably negligible, and possibly smaller than some unknown minor injury a goalie had.

it seems much more likely that players like gretzky and bure had a negative effect on their goalies' stats. they generally waited around in the defensive zone for their teammates to get the puck. they did not really leave their team at 4 on 5, but the puck stayed in the defensive zone longer than it could have.


many times i have read that fuhr's stats are skewed by the oilers' style of play, and it is probably true, but i had never heard that basically ignoring D could have a positive effect on a goalie.

With someone as good offensively as Gretzky on the other side, teams are afraid to take as many offensive chances, and fewer players are likely to go deep into the defensive zone, possibly resulting in more perimeter shots. We're talking about a guy who had been averaging more than 2 points per game for more than a decade, not a normal superstar.

It's why Gretzky (and Bure) were such effective penalty killers - the powerplay played more tenatively knowing that a mistake would go the other way.

Obviously if Gretzky is causing odd man rushes the other way, he is likely hurting more than helping.

My rant the other night was more a comment on save % in general, rather than in this particular case (which was probably a relatively poor example).

 

[seventieslord]

wtf does gtfo mean anyways?

it means get the ... out.

but you know what wtf means!

i think it should never be said, though, that gretzky had a negative effect on LAK.

Agree.

I get the feeling there'd be much less vitriol in this thread if the numbers were for someone like Joe Thornton. Gretzky is such a sacred cow that it's hard accepting negative stats about him.

Oh, totally.

I'm curious though, seventieslord, do these stats affect your opinion of Gretzky in any way? Obviously he still has all the great years in Edmonton, but it puts a bit of a damper on the longevity argument over the last ten years of his career.

No. I've had him at #2 after Howe for a couple years now, and I still have him there. I don't believe Orr's short career outweighs Gretzky's longer one, and there's no doubt Lemieux didn't do as much as wayne (and had many of the same deficiencies as a player so it can't come down to pick your poison)

I don't want anyone to think this means I believe Gretzky was a negative player at even strength. He clearly helped the team. That whole 23-point gain is attributed to him and I think that's incorrect, but he obviously helped, for reasons I've already discussed. I don't think he had the impact he was having in Edmonton. Even if he was a negative ES impact post-89, his 1993 playoff and the fact that he was a very strong PP player for the rest of his career would be enough to keep him above Orr in my books.

I'm looking at the big picture and the net results, because you have to dig pretty friggin hard to find a way where Gretzky going to LA had any negative impact or downside to that franchise that first season.

No one's saying he had a negative impact.

What changed for Gretzky when he moved between Edmonton and LA? Obviously, his teammates got worse, but that's not what I'm talking about. What was so different about his situation in LA that would cause his ratio to get so much worse in one season?

Did he really miss Kurri that badly, or was it something else?

That's what I want to know.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I don't want anyone to think this means I believe Gretzky was a negative player at even strength. He clearly helped the team. That whole 23-point gain is attributed to him and I think that's incorrect, but he obviously helped, for reasons I've already discussed. I don't think he had the impact he was having in Edmonton. Even if he was a negative ES impact post-89, his 1993 playoff and the fact that he was a very strong PP player for the rest of his career would be enough to keep him above Orr in my books.

But when you say "Gretzky underperformed his teammates at even strength," you really just mean "Gretzky's team statistically underperformed at even strength when he was on the ice." But then the next person sees the language "underperformed his teammates" and takes it to the next level - "Gretzky caused as many or more goals against as he did goals for." And the next person takes it to the next level "Gretzky was a detriment to his team at even strength." And suddenly we get to a point where the Hart Trophy winner of a team that improved signifcantly (and long term over the next few seasons as someone else pointed out) was a detriment to his team.

 

[seventieslord]

It is the same if Bernie Nicholls draws a penalty and then Gretzky scores as the power play is ending. It will go down as an even strength goal but no one can take away what Nichols did yet his +/- will not be affected

How many times have you watched a game and a team scores just as the powerplay is ending. In the stat it is an even strength goal and everyone on the ice gets a + or a -. There are just so many variables then to look at plus minus or on ice off ice ratio to determine if a player was indeed important to his team.

So, talking about rare one-off situations is what we are reduced to now?

Bernie Nicholls had a career year that he never matched. As a matter of fact 2 years later he dropped by almost half his points and over 40 goals in his first full season in New York. Shows you how great he was.

Forsberg, Jagr, Mikita, Goulet and Malkin were helped by Sakic, Lemieux, Hull, Statsny, and Crosby there is no question there. However there is one thing to mention. Bernie Nicholls is no where near half as good as Forsberg, Jagr, Mikita, Goulet or Malkin. All these players were top players in the game for many years. Nicholls career year is that a year where he was considered great.

I thought I made my position on this clear earlier today. Nicholls was nowhere near those guys, but it's not out of the question that a player of his caliber could masquerade as one of those guys for a season. I think he did.

So yes, Nicholls does work as an "excuse", being a superstar off-ice comparable, for one season.

What does this all mean for Wayne Gretzky's 1988-89 season at even strength? Well, it's just a single season, so plus-minus can be deceiving. And there may have been a change in the role Gretzky played and the support he received. But put this season into the context of his career. For Gretzky's entire career in Edmonton, he was a dominant outscorer at even strength like no other forward in history. He led his team to four Stanley Cups. And from 1991 on, Gretzky was a minus player who didn't outperform the rest of his team at even strength at all, and had zero team success except in one last great run in the 1993 playoffs. As far as I'm concerned, the stats are very clear that 1990s Gretzky was a far, far less valuable player than 1980s Gretzky. So when I look at Gretzky's declining plus-minus in 1988-89, it looks like the beginning of a trend.

oh, snap

True. Perhaps this is what Gretzky's LA numbers show more than anything? LA just didn't have the proper players to compliment his completely dominant but not complete skillset?

Could be. But if that is the case, he should be held somewhat responsible for not adjusting.

I've got a guy on my adult safe team who is so fat and slow that he can't do much more than hang around the opposition's blue line late in the game. He seems to get a couple goals every game but it's like a power play against when he's on the ice. Seeing this, I wouldn't look at his 60 goals in 30 games and say that he just had to be valuable and that we shouldn't hold him responsible for goals against because he doesn't backcheck (how crazy is that? to me, it sounds exactly why we should!) I realize this is a super hyperbolized version of Gretzky we're talking about, and about 20 levels of hockey down from the NHL, but there's no doubt that if he backchecked more, we'd get scored on less. I think he'd also score less. Would his "ratio" be better? I don't know. Point is, every player is responsible for a goal against.

Even so, I think it should be somewhat obvious that Gretzky was definitely helping his team win, regardless of the GF/GA stats.

Is there something I said in this thread that was misconstrued to say this?

 

[seventieslord]

You also have to consider his linemates, which was often changing due to the amount of ice time Gretzky received in LA. Not one of them was considered to be a well-rounded, defensively aware forward as Jari Kurri or Esa Tikkanen were.

Tonelli and taylor fit that bill. How much did they play with Gretzky? I imagine a decent amount. they had a lot of points.

The Kings also did not acquire an established #1 goalie until much later in the season when they traded for Kelly Hrudey in late February of that season. Then you add the fact that he went from a defense that consisted of Kevin Lowe, Steve Smith, Charlie Huddy, Craig Muni, Jeff Beukeboom and Randy Gregg to Steve Duchesne, Tom Laidlaw, Dean Kennedy, Dale DeGray, Tim Watters and Doug Crossman, that is a huge defensive downgrade.

You know that we're talking about this season in particular and why his goal differential (when on the ice with two of the above LA defensemen) wasn't much better than others (when on the ice with two of the above LA defensemen), right?

The defense and goaltending can be removed from the equation, if you get what I'm saying.

Rather than focusing on the single player for being the cause of a team surrendering more goals or scoring chances, we have to look at all of the elements involved. How many shots on average did the Kings surrender as opposed to Edmonton? I bet with less puck possession, the Kings surrendered significantly more shots and scoring chances. With a weaker and less physical defense, they also likely did a poorer job defensively in front of the net in recovering rebounds and cleaning up in front.

Ditto

For many years, the Kings were also considered to be a rather soft team. That is until they brought in Jay Miller and moved McSorley to defense to help add some more physicality on the blueline. They also addressed some much needed depth issues offensively when they dealt Bernie Nicholls to acquire two top six forwards in Tony Granato and Tomas Sandstrom.

Ibid.

sv% is obviously very much influenced by how a team plays, but the amount of positive difference made by the presence of a player who did not really play D is probably negligible, and possibly smaller than some unknown minor injury a goalie had.

it seems much more likely that players like gretzky and bure had a negative effect on their goalies' stats. they generally waited around in the defensive zone for their teammates to get the puck. they did not really leave their team at 4 on 5, but the puck stayed in the defensive zone longer than it could have.

Yeah. If a player is that bad defensively then it's maybe not quite a PP when they're on the ice, but something resembling one. And PP shots are of a higher quality with a higher propensity to enter the net. it stands to reason that a lazy backchecker would cause their goalie to not only face more shots, but higher quality shots, especially rebounds.

But when you say "Gretzky underperformed his teammates at even strength," you really just mean "Gretzky's team statistically underperformed at even strength when he was on the ice." But then the next person sees the language "underperformed his teammates" and takes it to the next level - "Gretzky caused as many or more goals against as he did goals for." And the next person takes it to the next level "Gretzky was a detriment to his team at even strength." And suddenly we get to a point where the Hart Trophy winner of a team that improved signifcantly (and long term over the next few seasons as someone else pointed out) was a detriment to his team.

OK, I suppose. And I guess you answered my last question.

 

[overpass]

I think it's a recent trend with the more advanced statistics. Look at HO's post from less than 2 years ago on adjusted save percentage: http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=718221. At that time, it's basically taken for granted that save percentage is affected by the goalie's teams. Now look where we are.

My problem isn't so much with the stat itself (I do think it has its use and am interested in knowing why Gretzky's statistical performance apparently dropped like a rock after being traded), but with the interpretation that "he was underperforming his teammates" simply by having a worse ratio.

I think it is the beginning of a trend, yes. But his adjusted plus minus dropped like a rock when traded, while his visible play declined much more slowly. Clearly his individual performance is only a small part of what the numbers show.

Yeah, I'm pretty interested in knowing why Gretzky's statistical performance dropped to that degree also.

One other possibility - I've heard that Gretzky was an awesome "front-runner". When the Oilers were ahead and the opponent was pressing to tie, he was very good at picking their pocket and making them pay. Maybe he had fewer opportunities to do so in Edmonton.

Another thing - Around the same time, Steve Yzerman also had a ton of points, a ton of goals against, and a similar R-ON/R-OFF to his teammates. If Gretzky's drop in performance was caused by his new role in LA, Yzerman may be the best comparable.

But I'm a little hesitant to attribute too much of the change in Gretzky's numbers to his change in role. Because if you go down that road, every point that helps him in LA hurts him in Edmonton. And I'm not sure I want to start arguing that Gretzky owed a lot of his individual numbers in Edmonton to his teammates.

I also don't think it's totally fair to say the Kings had zero team success other than 1993. Just making the playoffs, then beating the Oilers in 1989 was a big deal for a franchise like the Kings.

No, I agree with you that the Kings improved a lot when Gretzky came, and that's a big point in his favour. My comment on team success was referring to 1991 and on. Gretzky's numbers dropped off even more at that point, and there's a good explanation for it in his back injury. In terms of team success, Gretzky's teams from that point on were:

1991-92: 10th of 22
1992-93: 11th of 24 (plus playoff run)
1993-94: 22nd of 26
1995: 20th of 26
1995-96: 23rd of 26
1996-97: 8th of 26 (but NYR had been 5th in the previous year, without Gretzky)
1997-98: 20th of 26
1998-99: 18th of 26

 

[BraveCanadian]

Is there something I said in this thread that was misconstrued to say this?

Only

Your definition of a "force" is different from mine. If he was allowing just as many goals as he was producing, that's not a force.

Think about what these numbers are saying. Gretzky: 1.1 GF:GA ratio. Rest of the team combined: 1.15.

And

So why was the team's goal differential better with him off the ice, than on it?

And

Is it a good enough excuse for the greatest player of all-time to have a negative goal differential compared to the rest of his team because Nicholls centered Robitaille on the 2nd line? 7 other forwards were Gretzky's off-ice comparables, not just Nicholls and Robitaille.

And

Looks like he helped them achieve highgoals against figures, too...

Then when we discovered that the Kings gave up an abnormal amount of EN's the story changed to Gretzky not outperforming his team enough and now after beating each other over the head about the limitations of the statistics being used we're at the soft touch.

At the end of the day its a curious anomaly but really it just highlights how poor the statistics collected are in hockey.. particularly the defensive ones. I don't think that with the data available we can find an easy answer. It would probably require digging through the scoresheets to get more insight into the context. Even then it might not be enough.

Personally I think the most likely reason, from my recollection of the team at that time, is that given the lack of depth and defensive talent on the team.. Gretzky was playing a ton and had to "go for it" all the time to make up for those shortcomings. Back and forth.

I am very confident that this was the best approach for him to take given what the Kings had to work with. It shows in the turnaround of the team.

Anyone who watched knows Gretzky was still a big time even strength producer and this is backed up by more first hand numbers.

It was actually a season that caused a lot of people to eat crow because they never thought Gretzky could produce at those levels outside of the stacked Edmonton team.