Gretzky, Lemieux and Crosby comparables

[Hardyvan123]

By 1988, Gretzky was 27 and had played an enormous amount of hockey. A WJC, 3 Canada Cups, 4 SC runs while averaging close to 80 games a year, save 1988. I would say he entered phase two of his career; between elite and injury. I can't think of any player up to that point in history that played that much hockey by the time he was 27 years old. Its a credit to him that taking care of himself allowed him to continue at a high level into his 30's before the injury. Some players before him approached that amount of hockey such as Esposito, Lafleur, Cournoyer, etc..., but were performing at a much lower level by age 30. He is an incredible anomaly for hockey players.

I bet you cant find nobody playing similarly much hockey by that age. Come on now, you must be able to find a better reason why he regressed. No real injuries either.

I agree here, Wayne is still a very good player, elite offensively at this point and for some years to come but his 5-5 play is slipping, or perhaps it has been hidden by the style and support of the Oilers and league situation all along, it's something we don't know.

It's not like Wayne was changing his style of play at this point, although he wasn't the goal scoring threat he once was.

 

[MNNumbers]

I am almost afraid to jump in here, because it seems that many have very strong opinions. However, I am curious about a few things.

First, I am 45 years old, now. Never played hockey. Grew up in Minnesota. I was a teen/20s in the Gretkzy era, obviously.

Now, a question for Rheissan: Since you are referring to the 4 on 4 rule as the "Edmonton rule" I assume you are suggesting that more open ice would be a huge advantage to a player like Gretzky. I am not at all arguing with that - I didn't grow up with the money to go to games, and hockey didn't play well on TV in those years, with respect to noticing the effect of open ice. I am curious if you have data to support that the Oilers in those years scored more frequently in 4x4 situations than 5x5? And, as a follow up, how would the current overtime rules affect Gretzky (or LeMieux)?

A question for Hardyvan (please, I have no loyalty. From what I remember, G and L were both great players): The sense of you posts here seems to say "Gretzky was not so great. Merely a product of open ice, and a totally offensive style. The league caught up to him......." Is it correct to say that you don't think Gretzky was so special?

And, for everyone, an honest inquiry:
First a disclaimer: From what I have read and what I remember, G and L would be awesome in any era.
Now, the inquiry: Honestly, how much effect do you think the modern systems (defensive systems and goaltending skill - butterfly, etc) would have had on the way Edmonton and Pittsburgh seemed so superior?

Here is the reason: I have seen lots of clips of both men on this site. Lots of goals, assists, etc. Never a butterfly..... So, I am just interested in honest input.

Thanks.

 

[jigglysquishy]

It's a fair assumption for games, though.

By the end of his 27 year-old(87-88) season Gretzky had played

80 WHA games
13 WHA playoff games
696 NHL games
120 NHL playoff games
6 WJ games
24 Canada Cup Games
12 Other International Games

945 professional games


By the end of his 27 year old(92-93) season Lemieux had played

577 NHL games
60 NHL playoff games
9 Canada Cup Games
11 Other International Games

657 professional/junior games


Or 43.8% as many games.

I think its fair to use Gretzky's extra games played as a reason for his decline.

 

[Killion]

And, for everyone, an honest inquiry: First a disclaimer: From what I have read and what I remember, G and L would be awesome in any era. Now, the inquiry: Honestly, how much effect do you think the modern systems (defensive systems and goaltending skill - butterfly, etc) would have had on the way Edmonton and Pittsburgh seemed so superior? Here is the reason: I have seen lots of clips of both men on this site. Lots of goals, assists, etc. Never a butterfly..... So, I am just interested in honest input.... Thanks.

Well MN, obviously the games changed considerably since the 80's, a slow & gradual creep of constant cycling & defensive systems employed with great success by Bowman in Detroit in 94, ushering in what thereafter what has not been very affectionately referred to as the Dead Puck Era (DPE), which lasted through until 2005 when after the Lockout the rules were changed, opening the game up again. The Salary Cap as well brought in to not only fix costs but so too to create what was hoped would be league wide parity. In effect whats happened is through the deployment of Left Wing Locks & Neutral Zone Trapping, even teams like Phoenix who are not blessed with any wealth of talent are in fact able to achieve considerable success in playing system defence with cheaper personnel provided of course the players as a unit buy into the program.

Goals scored opportunistically, reactively when on offence the other team makes a mistake, the systems forcing turnovers. What scoring chances are afforded to the opposition when playing system defence are generally of low quality, shots being taken from bad angles, a lot of net crashing, what many refer to as Puckchenko. Goaltenders have adapted, whereby the only way to play it is in what previously was a "save selection" in the Butterfly has now become a full time technique. They dont make a whole lot of saves, they "block" shots, giving out in some cases nasty rebounds affording the offence 2nd, 3rd, sometimes even 4 more opportunities to fire again & again & again. If you were to take the Penguins or Oilers teams intact with their goaltenders having left behind the hybrid stand-up style they employed, going with the Butterfly, what with the removal of the Centre Ice Redline, I do believe they'd adapt quickly & absolutely excel.

However, size of players combined with strength has in many ways usurped the once important elements of hockey "crafts" & skills, hockey IQ if you will. Everything micromanaged to the nth degree. Players are not in the vast majority of cases even aloud to free-lance, get all creative because it doesnt fit the system. You have guys like Ovechkin & Crosby for example who to a large extent are bridled, harnessed, not allowed to do what 20yrs ago theyd have had the freedoms to explore, generate & create. They lack the supporting casts that teams like the Oilers had in spades with their run & gun talents on pretty much all 3 lines & defensive pairings.

So the Cap, the forced parity, the systems employed, certainly an Eddie Shore, Richard, Howe, Bobby Hull, Beliveau, Orr, Lafleur, Bossy, Gretzky, Lemieux or whomever, any of the transcendent players would be absolutely standouts, but no, I dont believe any, Gretzky included would in todays game be able to put up the kinds of numbers they did during their era's. Theyd still be absolutely outstanding, but forget the beyond gaudy stats & transcendent skills to a large degree. Theres just no way any of them could completely & utterly turn the way the games played inside out the way several did.

As far as the Butterfly is concerned, as I mentioned its not really a "style" its a "save selection" that has morphed into a full time technique. Glenn Hall was the innovator of course, the Grandaddy in its introduction, used by Standup goalies thereafter only on dekes, sometimes on a screen when youd lost sight of the puck, the only reason you'd fall into that inverted V being to cover as much of the net as possible, hoping the puck would hit you, not actually making a "save", but just blocking the puck & praying the rebound wasnt nasty. The human body wasnt meant to move, bend like that, todays netminders winding up with torn MCL's, arthritic knees & backs at like 28, needing hip replacements at 35. People complain about the size of their equipment, yet with the way the games played & the introduction of carbon fibre sticks, well, good luck reducing size by a whole lot without potentially putting at risk goaltenders life & limb.

The position is played the way it is in reaction to the way the game is now played out front, so if people complain about it, about the Butterfly & size of equipment, then their complaining about the wrong thing. Complain about system hockey, the lack of smarts & skills, get rid of the constant cycle, Locks & Traps, get rid of the trapezoid behind the net, just on & on, and sure, we'll see a better brand of game. Smarter. Craftier. The really skilled guys, and theres some incredible talent playing, let them shine, whats happened just aint right, and unfortunately too often cause endless debates here & elsewhere that a Crosby or Ovi, Dastyuk or whomever will never be as good as a Gretzky or a Lemieux, and under these conditions, the way the games played, Im afraid they wont be, as their simply not going to be afforded that opportunity, and sadly, unfulfilled potential like that is a terrible waste.

 

[MNNumbers]

So, Killion, it's like with anything - there is no going back. But, i think my question is more like this:
In the lack of defensive systems, and with goalies trying to react to the puck rather than block as much of the net as possible, I think I see lots of space around the rink, and lots of shooting angles for Gretzky, Lemieux, etc. What I wonder is, in today's more advanced theory of defense, what happens if you put a G or an L in there? Obviously, these are transcedent players - they would find some ways. But it is a very interesting thought exercise, no?

 

[Rhiessan71]

You talk about the Edmonton 4-4 rule, do you have any numbers to support it?

You mean besides the FACT that scoring dropped from 7.94 GpG to 7.34 OR that it spiked up to 7.25 from 6.96 in 92/93 when the League reverted the rule?

But hey, you want numbers eh, how about these....

Difference in ES scoring by team 85/86-86/87:
Bos 209 - 223 (+14)
Buf 212 - 207 (-5)
Cal 246 - 231 (-15)
Chi 251 - 230 (-21)
Det 179 - 182 (+3)
Edm 321 - 274 (-47)
Hart 237 - 203 (-34)
LA 206 - 212 (+6)
Min 228 - 204 (-24)
Mon 235 - 204 (-31)
NJ 225 - 202 (-23)
NYI 250 - 187 (-63)
NYR 198 - 220 (+22)
Phi 227 - 220 (-7)
Pit 208 - 216 (+8)
Que 220 - 183 (-37)
StL 215 - 196 (-19)
Tor 237 - 217 (-20)
Van 182 - 190 (+8)
Wash 220 - 211 (-9)
Win 210 - 219 (+9)

The NYI and Que drops are easily explained by the long absences of Potvin, Bossy, Stastny and Hunter on those teams. Coffey missed a 1/4 of the season for Edm as well.
The Montreal and Hartford are a little baffling, especially Hartford. With the Habs, at least you can try and chalk it up to Cup hangover. Have to look at it harder when I get home from work.

Another thing to keep in mind as well was that the Offside tag up rule was removed in 87/88. Once you were Offside, you had to clear the def zone and wait for them to come out.
It completely eliminated the forecheck and made for some extremely boring Hockey. Slowed the game down to a snail pace every other minute.

I'm not trying to score points for my buddies in the trailer park, I'm asking serious questions, maybe do some research and back up what you assert.

I have provided detailed ES scoring rates for Gretzky
I have provided League scoring changes for the seasons in question
I have provided team by team ES scoring from '86 - '87
I have provided detailed accounts of major League rule changes that happened in '86 and in '87
I have provided Gretzky's time missed and injuries in 87/88 and 89/90
I have provided Gretzky's changing of teams in 88/89
I have provided (as well as other) the Kings scoring and regular seasons records for before and after Gretzky got there
I have provided the King's Playoff history before and after Gretzky arrived

WHAT have you provided???
An all but worthless +/- argument
A study by OP that only really proves that Fuhr was better at playing playing in wide open games than Hrudy was (I'm sure everyone is completely shocked by this )
A completely unproven and pretty much always countered pet theory.

Yeah...I'm the one that needs to back MY **** eh

Wayne's 5-5 numbers take a serious dip in 88 at age 27 in Edmonton, they continue further for the rest of his career although if one wasn't looking carefully one could confuse his offensive production as being worth more than it actually was becoming.

The "Edmonton Rule" was in affect for 87 when Wayne was still plus 70, his last year of his 6 year run or peak.

Now what?

Here you go again, trying to use Wayne's 64 game season in 87/88 to justify a "serious dip".
It didn't work for you when you tried the same crap to show Gretzky's goal and overall production took a sudden drop in that year previously and it's not going to fly this time either.
He was still looking at around a +50 over a full season in 87/88, hardly a "serious dip"!

AGAIN
88/89 was his first year with a new team
89/90 He played when he shouldn't have and wasn't 100% for half of the season
90/91 Healthy again, is getting older, he's obviously not the same player he was in '83 but once again looks like the Gretzky that left the Oilers in '88
91/92 Suter hit. Gretzky is a minus player for the first time in his entire career, his ES production drops almost in half from 100+ to around 60

Time for you to do some research.
Tell me, how many players produced 100 or more ES points in a season from 88/89-90/91?

Well no one can prove what would ahve happened without the Suter hit point wise, but Wayne's 5-5 play had been a shell of it's former self for 4 whole years before that hit.

The way some guys talk about the Suter hit, it's like Wayne would still be leading the NHL in scoring well into the 2000's without it.

Oh I think one can reasonably predict he would have had a couple more Art Ross in trophy case.
I mean, all he did at ages 36 and 37 was finish 4th and 3rd in League scoring and 1rst in assists both years

The hit happened, Wayne's ES play had declined quite a bit before it and the league was absorbing a lot of excellent offensive talent as the 90's went on.

We're talking about Gretzky here. A guy that left Elite in in the dust during his peak.
He was Super-Elite.
It was only his Super-Elite play that was on the decline by '87, he was still Elite by other players standards.
How about this....you keep saying Gretz was no longer Elite. How about YOU provide a list of players who think were Elite at Even Strength from 86/87-90/91 and we then compare them to Gretzky.
Lets see you back up your claim!!!
And if all this "excellent Elite talent" was being absorbed by the League as the 90's went on, how come scoring went down, not up?

 

[Killion]

So, Killion, it's like with anything - there is no going back. But, i think my question is more like this:
In the lack of defensive systems, and with goalies trying to react to the puck rather than block as much of the net as possible, I think I see lots of space around the rink, and lots of shooting angles for Gretzky, Lemieux, etc. What I wonder is, in today's more advanced theory of defense, what happens if you put a G or an L in there? Obviously, these are transcedent players - they would find some ways. But it is a very interesting thought exercise, no?

Yes it most certainly is. As Gretzky & Lemieux, Orr as well sort of played with a 3rd eye 10' above the ice surface, saw the entire sheet if you will, could control the ebb & flow, it would most assuredly be beyond entertaining to imagine watching them break Left Wing Locks & Nuetral Zone Traps. Certainly the removal of the Centre Ice Red Line wouldve given them a lot more room to maneuvere in transitioning the game, particularly so with Orr. That being said, the skating abilities of todays players would mitigate the advantages they enjoyed during their eras' to a considerable extent, and of course much would depend on who their supporting casts might be. Absolutely though theyd all 3 be beyond dangerous players to be facing. Just how much they might change or alter how todays games being played Im not sure.

 

[pdd]

Tell me, how many players produced 100 or more ES points in a season from 88/89-90/91?

These three players, Gretzky twice.

Year|Player|GP|ESP|ESPPG
1988-89|Mario Lemieux|76|102|1.34
1990-91|Wayne Gretzky|78|103|1.32
1988-89|Wayne Gretzky|78|100|1.28
1988-89|Steve Yzerman|80|101|1.26

 

[pdd]

Yes it most certainly is. As Gretzky & Lemieux, Orr as well sort of played with a 3rd eye 10' above the ice surface, saw the entire sheet if you will, could control the ebb & flow, it would most assuredly be beyond entertaining to imagine watching them break Left Wing Locks & Nuetral Zone Traps.

Gretzky vs. the LWL:

 

[BraveCanadian]

Gretzky vs. the LWL:

Hilariously cherrypicked.

Good thing the sarcasm is there.

That Fedorov taking the puck clip comes up so often hahaha

 

[pdd]

Hilariously cherrypicked.

Good thing the sarcasm is there.

That Fedorov taking the puck clip comes up so often hahaha

I think those are even from the same game. Not sure though.

 

[Big Phil]

Phil you and I both know that the variation for plus minus has gone down quite a bit from the high 70's and early 80's, take a look at the study by Overpass, I provided a link and it's good reading.

Sid BTW has an excellent R-on 134 R-off 89 (for his 1st 5 seasons) and an adjusted plus minus of 154 which looks excellent given the small sample size of his first 5 seasons.

I am rarely interested in adjusted stats. But for a good argument they aren't needed at all. Gretzky led the NHL in +/- 4 times. Crosby has yet to do it once and has only been in the top 10 once - this year. You can't tell me you don't see a difference there.

Look Wayne was an icon and it was LA and I seriously doubt the voters really wanted to look at anything besides Wayne in LA that year.

You ahve to remember that Wayne, McSorely and Krushelnyski went to LA for Carson, hardly known as a two way player in any sense and Gelinas didn't even play with LA the year before. Also John Tonelli came in to and he is one under rated guy IMO.

All 4 guys had really big contributions to the team, of course Wayne was the catalyst and the Hart generally goes to the highest scoring forward not a two way guy like Moose who needs alot of scoring to to win like he did in the next year.

Basically it was one of those years that even though his offensive stats were good, it was an emotional vote for Wayne and how he saved hockey, made it grow in the states ect....

Perhaps that helped him get the Hart. I personally would have picked Lemieux. But either way, who was the only player as good as Gretzky as late as 1989? It was Mario Lemieux. I mean, whether or not you think he deserves the Hart, he is still better than anyone else in the NHL at this time, save for perhaps Mario. I mean, a decade in the NHL is how long it took for him to find a peer. Isn't that remarkable?

Even prorated for the full season it was a huge drop and basically one would expect him to keep doing it as long as he was playing at that elite level. If that elite level dropped or something else changed then it would drop.

While he was still elite offensively, his overall eliteness was dipping, the number don't lie here.

The slippage of course occurs for everyone but the fact remains that his offensive elite status stayed much longer and obscured the fact that it meant less in his teams abilities to win hockey games given his 5-5 play.

Well no one can prove what would ahve happened without the Suter hit point wise, but Wayne's 5-5 play had been a shell of it's former self for 4 whole years before that hit.

The way some guys talk about the Suter hit, it's like Wayne would still be leading the NHL in scoring well into the 2000's without it.

The hit happened, Wayne's ES play had declined quite a bit before it and the league was absorbing a lot of excellent offensive talent as the 90's went on.

Maybe some of the focus on points is clouding people's judgment here, I suggest people look at the numbers and read the report by Overpass.

Once again the link is here

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=591548

Isn't it assumed that if a player's scoring starts to decline that his plus/minus likely will also?

I mean, let's look at what we are talking about here. Gretzky had 183 points in 1987 and more assists than anyone else had points. Technically, this is a "drop" from his usual 200 point seasons. I don't know how long you expected the guy to keep scoring 200 points in a season. It is damn near impossible to do and he gets penalized because he is 17 points away from it? Alright. He does pretty much the same thing in 1988, 149 points with a 186 point season projection. The next season in a new environment with an inferior team he gets 168. I guess, technically it is a "dip" to his standards. Then 142 points which was an "off" year for him. Then 163 again in 1991 and he got 103 even strength points, down from 124 even strength points in 1987.

So what is the deal here? All you are pointing out is that over time Gretzky had a rather gradual drop in overall points and even strength points. He couldn't hold onto 200 points forever. Season after season it appears to drop as you would expect it to since I consider 27 to be probably a player's peak. So really, his gradual decline is very normal. But then all of the sudden there is a big dip. We know that after 1991 and the Suter hit his mobility was hurt, his quickness lost a step. There is a 42 point drop and the explanation is obvious. Gretzky never gets close to 163 points again. Nothing happened other than the Suter hit. It isn't as if he'd be getting 200 points again, but maybe he has 150 points a couple more times and is still a regular 40 goal guy. That Suter hit is really the biggest factor of all.

 

[LeBlondeDemon10]

I bet you cant find nobody playing similarly much hockey by that age. Come on now, you must be able to find a better reason why he regressed. No real injuries either.

And what's wrong with that reason? Because it doesn't fit into your theory? That it cannot be quantified? Show me another player in history that had played that much hockey by age 27 who kept up that pace.

 

[Fred Taylor]

I am rarely interested in adjusted stats. But for a good argument they aren't needed at all. Gretzky led the NHL in +/- 4 times. Crosby has yet to do it once and has only been in the top 10 once - this year. You can't tell me you don't see a difference there.

That's because Crosby's been injured the past few seasons. He's +61 in his last 99 games since 10-11.

 

[ot92s]

A lot of what people are seeing as pre suter hit decline is a decrease in minutes from the godlike icetime he logged in the 200+ point seasons.

 

[Killion]

Gretzky vs. the LWL:

... yep. Walked right into that one.

 

[Hardyvan123]

A question for Hardyvan (please, I have no loyalty. From what I remember, G and L were both great players): The sense of you posts here seems to say "Gretzky was not so great. Merely a product of open ice, and a totally offensive style. The league caught up to him......." Is it correct to say that you don't think Gretzky was so special?

i have Wayne as the number 1 player of all time, his elite scoring was with him until the end, as a playmaker.

His actual impact at ES or 5-5 did decline much quicker than the rest of his game though.

 

[Rhiessan71]

His actual impact at ES or 5-5 did decline much quicker than the rest of his game though.

Nope!

Just because you keep saying it, doesn‘t mean it‘s going to make it true.

PROVE IT!!!

Seriously, move on dude, you‘re done on this one bigtime!

 

[Hardyvan123]

Here you go again, trying to use Wayne's 64 game season in 87/88 to justify a "serious dip".
It didn't work for you when you tried the same crap to show Gretzky's goal and overall production took a sudden drop in that year previously and it's not going to fly this time either.
He was still looking at around a +50 over a full season in 87/88, hardly a "serious dip"!

it's actually 47 if you prorate it and it's a huge dip from 70 plus, which is his peak

Time for you to do some research.
Tell me, how many players produced 100 or more ES points in a season from 88/89-90/91?

it doesn't matter, Wayne was elite offensively, it's the GA es against that's the problem here, or rather the ratio slipping.

Oh I think one can reasonably predict he would have had a couple more Art Ross in trophy case.
I mean, all he did at ages 36 and 37 was finish 4th and 3rd in League scoring and 1rst in assists both years

Who knows, but his plus/minus wouldn't be any better it seems.

We're talking about Gretzky here. A guy that left Elite in in the dust during his peak.
He was Super-Elite.
It was only his Super-Elite play that was on the decline by '87, he was still Elite by other players standards.
How about this....you keep saying Gretz was no longer Elite. How about YOU provide a list of players who think were Elite at Even Strength from 86/87-90/91 and we then compare them to Gretzky.
Lets see you back up your claim!!!
And if all this "excellent Elite talent" was being absorbed by the League as the 90's went on, how come scoring went down, not up?

You get fixated on something and then can't even see what is being presented or argued here.

No one is arguing that WAYNE WASN'T ELITE IN THE EARLY 90'S OFFESNSIVELY, it's his ES AND PLUS MINUS AT 5-5 THAT HE WASN'T ELITE ANY MORE.

sorry my keyboard is acting up here.

finally 87 was still an elite year for plus/minus, why are you including it in the alst example.

88 was the first dip, the year he was 27, let's take the next 3 seasons before the Suter hit.

89-91

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points

he is first in points, by quite a bit still almost 100 over the next guy, then go to the plus/minus column

He is 12th in plus/minus over that 3 year stretch.

After 91 his 5-5 play takes an even bigger dip than his scoring decline does.

Maybe you could stop looking only at 1 thing, that's his offense, and look at the whole equation you might see the actual decline but not if you are blinded by the bright shiny object, his scoring, and not looking at the whole picture.

 

[Czech Your Math]

Gretzky was a different player, especially at ES, after '91.

He was first in ES points 3/4 times from '88-'91 and third in '89 (only two points from first). After that, his best finishes were 8th in '92, 6th in '94 & '97, and 3rd in '98.

He had at least 114 adjusted ES points in each of his first 12 seasons, but never hit 100 again after '91.

During his first dozen seasons in the NHL, he had an ESGF/GA ratio of at least 1.13 and an On/Off ratio of at least 1.10. He never did that again in a full season, the closest being '93 in 45 games and 1.19 (1.06 on/off) in '97.

He generally became much more reliant on the PP for scoring, particularly in seasons such as '92, '94, and '96.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Gretzky was a different player, especially at ES, after '91.

He was first in ES points 3/4 times from '88-'91 and third in '89 (only two points from first). After that, his best finishes were 8th in '92, 6th in '94 & '97, and 3rd in '98.

He had at least 114 adjusted ES points in each of his first 12 seasons, but never hit 100 again after '91.

During his first dozen seasons in the NHL, he had an ESGF/GA ratio of at least 1.13 and an On/Off ratio of at least 1.10. He never did that again in a full season, the closest being '93 in 45 games and 1.19 (1.06 on/off) in '97.

He generally became much more reliant on the PP for scoring, particularly in seasons such as '92, '94, and '96.

Thanks. Nice to finally see strong statistical evidence as to Gretzky's decline after 1991.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Thanks. Nice to finally see strong statistical evidence as to Gretzky's decline after 1991.

Thanks a lot Suter!

The stats are great backup but it was pretty obvious Gretzky lost something after getting his back rearranged.

 

[Hardyvan123]

And what's wrong with that reason? Because it doesn't fit into your theory? That it cannot be quantified? Show me another player in history that had played that much hockey by age 27 who kept up that pace.

well the Moose played in almost as many games by 27 and aged pretty darn well.

Actually he missed some game but then again he did play a more physical style than Wayne did.

Maybe the GP did wear him down but it sure wore down his plus/minus or ES play alot quicker than his offense raw or adjusted stats.

 

[tazzy19]

well the Moose played in almost as many games by 27 and aged pretty darn well.

Actually he missed some game but then again he did play a more physical style than Wayne did.

Maybe the GP did wear him down but it sure wore down his plus/minus or ES play alot quicker than his offense raw or adjusted stats.

Are you really trying to argue that Messier played almost as many games as Gretzky had by the age of 27? You are obviously not counting the amount of hockey Gretzky played before even setting foot in the NHL. You are also not taking into account the amount of ice time Gretzky had in the NHL vs Messier. If you take into account those two factors, it's really not even close. And of course, Messier never had as much to lose as Gretzky.....unless he was also scoring 200 points a year and +70 seasons....

 

[Hardyvan123]

Gretzky was a different player, especially at ES, after '91.

He was first in ES points 3/4 times from '88-'91 and third in '89 (only two points from first). After that, his best finishes were 8th in '92, 6th in '94 & '97, and 3rd in '98.

He had at least 114 adjusted ES points in each of his first 12 seasons, but never hit 100 again after '91.

During his first dozen seasons in the NHL, he had an ESGF/GA ratio of at least 1.13 and an On/Off ratio of at least 1.10. He never did that again in a full season, the closest being '93 in 45 games and 1.19 (1.06 on/off) in '97.

He generally became much more reliant on the PP for scoring, particularly in seasons such as '92, '94, and '96.

Do you have a yearly breakdown for those 12 years and does the peak end in 87?