Gretzky & Lemieux: impact on stats & awards

[redbull]

Good work, and a lot of interesting "what ifs".

More than anything else, for me at least, it reminds one of just how absurdly dominant these two players were.

As a Trottier and NYI fan during that time, once #99 arrived on the scene, never once did I expect any individual awards of note to be coming his way. Didnt make #19 any less of an all-time great, of course. He was simply going up against a legend who produced offense at a clip which no one had ever seen.

Moreover, the Cups softened any blow.

I like to say that alltimers like Messier and Trottier were "great hockey players". Gretzky, Mario and Orr transcended that definition.

very lucky to be around for gretzky and mario and orr - it's funny how the term "great player" is so often thrown around now. Guy scores 30 goals and 70 pts and he's a "great" player - gretz had more than that before Christmas and people were wondering if he was having an off year.

Scott Gomez scores 13 goals and gets 7MM - wow!

and to your point, Trottier and Bossy and Messier may have played 2nd fiddle to 99/66 - BUT, were incredible players and probably better than any player today...although time will tell.

Crosby, Ovechkin and to a slightly lesser extent Malkin are tremendous talents and given enough time and luck, can be among the greats (not 99/66) but in the next tier, for sure.

They have the raw talent, but, until they can play into June and grab some rings, they'll never be considered among the all-time greats.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I realize I'm bumping an old thread, but it's a wealth of information for those doing the ATD.

Anyway, the point of the bump is that I noticed an omission - in 1983, Denis Savard would have moved up from 2nd-Team to 1st-Team All-Star without Gretzky. This would give him 2 First-Team and 1 Second-Team.

 

[Sens Rule]

It would be interesting to think about if one of Mario or Gretzky did not exist. Could you imagine how obscene Gretzky would look if Mario didn't have the 199 point season and the other 2 point a game seasons? Or how amazing Mario's season's would seem without Gretzky having done it before?

And without the other either one would have 2 or 3 more Ross and/or Hart trophies (Maybe more? Too lazy to figure out exactly how many each would have).

 

[Blades of Glory]

Bryan Trottier goes from the 20-25 range, all-time, to the 10-15? Is that a little generous? He's basically a four-time first team all-star without Gretzky.

 

[Sens Rule]

Bryan Trottier goes from the 20-25 range, all-time, to the 10-15? Is that a little generous? He's basically a four-time first team all-star without Gretzky.

He might go up a bit. Still does another Hart and a couple of All-stars and another Cup make him equal with Clarke and Mikita? Maybe it does. Does it make him surpass them ?

 

[pdd]

I would argue that Yzerman surpasses Savard for the 1st team in 1988 in a no Gretz/Mario scenario given his 50 goals and 102 points in only 64 games (pace for 63-65-127). And - having been on the AS team the previous three years (whether it be 2-1-2 or 1-1-2) he likely wins the close race he had with Joe Sakic in 1991 for second place behind former teammate Adam Oates.

That would make Yzerman's AS appearances look like this:

1988: 1st
1989: 1st
1990: 2nd

This one is also interesting. Yzerman had a very similar season to Messier, yet Messier won the Hart and 1st team while Yzerman was a clear 3rd in C voting (2nd with Gretzky removal). I wonder if being a postseason all-star in 88 and 89 would change who came out on top.

1991: 2nd

I've never understood why Yzerman ended up with so few votes for 1992 compared to Jeremy Roenick. LaFontaine had a ridiculous year that year when he was in the lineup (which wasn't often). I'll refer again to the "butterfly effect" of a guy being considered the best going into the year as sort of a vote-flipper that might change results; I could see an alternate 1992 as Yzerman/LaFontaine or the reverse rather than including Roenick.

It's also possible that this chain would give him more votes for his 1992-93 season against Oates, LaFontaine, and Gilmour. But I'm not going to argue anything like a potential jump over those guys because Patty and Gilmour had a significant enough higher number of votes.

2000: 1st

 

[Big Phil]

I would argue that Yzerman surpasses Savard for the 1st team in 1988 in a no Gretz/Mario scenario given his 50 goals and 102 points in only 64 games (pace for 63-65-127). And - having been on the AS team the previous three years (whether it be 2-1-2 or 1-1-2) he likely wins the close race he had with Joe Sakic in 1991 for second place behind former teammate Adam Oates.

That was one of Savard's best years, I can't see him being anything but a 1st team all-star that year. Yzerman was too far behind. Many of those first place votes from Gretzky and Lemieux would be passed down to Savard. Savard was too far ahead of him points wise for Yzerman to make up the difference.

 

[frontsfan2005]

Good post, thanks. One other facet of a 99/66-less universe that'd be worth looking at is the effect on the Cup. If you take the extreme position (especially in Gretzky's case) that the Oilers and Pens would have no wins other then the Gretzky-less Edmonton one in 1990, and assume the team they beat in the finals would have won, the Flyers get a couple of 80's Cups, the Islanders extend their streak to 5, and Boston, Chicago, and Minnesota (Dallas) all get one.

Howe- and Orr-less scenarios would be interesting, too - with no Howe, Maurice Richard would have been the first team all-star RW 13 years in a row.

1984: Islanders would've won the cup easily, giving them five in a row. Who would they face in the finals, the Flames or North Stars? I think the Flames defeat Minnesota, but the Islanders are too much for Calgary to handle for the Cup.

1985: Flyers win the cup over Edmonton. Even without Gretzky, the Oilers would be strong enough to make it to the Cup Finals, coming up short though.

1986: Habs still win the cup, although it could be argued that the Flames grueling seven game series win over Edmonton took a toll on the team. They barely defeated the Blues in the third round and lost the cup in five games to Montreal. Without the Oilers being that good, they would've had an easier time winning, could've taken care of the Blues easier in the third round, and have more energy against Montreal. I still think the Canadiens win the cup, as Roy was outstanding during the playoffs.

1987: Flyers would've defeated Edmonton again.

1988: Boston VS Edmonton. I think the Oilers still defeat Calgary in the division finals without Gretzky, and win the Stanley Cup over the Bruins, giving the Oilers their first (and only) Stanley Cup in team history.

1989: Calgary wins their first (prehaps second if they can win in 1986) Cup in team history.

1990: Hard to see the Oilers winning, as I think Winnipeg wins the first round matchup between the teams. I'd say the finals would be Boston VS Winnipeg, but then again, the Flames probably wouldn't lose to the Gretzky-less Kings. Hard to say, but I think Boston wins the Cup against either the Flames or Jets.

1991: Again, very hard to know who wins, most likely Boston, but would the Flames have lost to Edmonton in the first round? Remember, the Oilers would not have been defending champs who always seemed to have the Flames number. Either way, Boston wins their second straight Stanley Cup, against either the Flames or North Stars.

1992: I think Chicago defeats Boston in the finals in seven games, a perfect way to end the NHL's 75th season with two original six teams in the finals.

It's impossible to say what would have happened if either Gretzky or Lemieux didn't exist, but it does appear the Flames, Bruins and Flyers would have won more than the one Stanley Cup combined between those three teams between 1984 and 1992. The Flames look like they had a chance to become a dynasty level team with multiple wins if Gretzky didn't exist throughout the 80's, while the Bruins could have been a dynasty level team in the early 90's. Same could be said for the Flyers, especially in 1986 if Lindbergh isn't in his car accident.

 

[pdd]

That was one of Savard's best years, I can't see him being anything but a 1st team all-star that year. Yzerman was too far behind. Many of those first place votes from Gretzky and Lemieux would be passed down to Savard. Savard was too far ahead of him points wise for Yzerman to make up the difference.

In actual real life, Yzerman was considered the Hart trophy favorite when his injury occurred in 1988. With no Gretzky or Lemieux in his way, would that feeling have held on through the end of the season? His scoring pace would have put him right alongside Savard.

1984: Islanders would've won the cup easily, giving them five in a row. Who would they face in the finals, the Flames or North Stars? I think the Flames defeat Minnesota, but the Islanders are too much for Calgary to handle for the Cup.

1985: Flyers win the cup over Edmonton. Even without Gretzky, the Oilers would be strong enough to make it to the Cup Finals, coming up short though.

1986: Habs still win the cup, although it could be argued that the Flames grueling seven game series win over Edmonton took a toll on the team. They barely defeated the Blues in the third round and lost the cup in five games to Montreal. Without the Oilers being that good, they would've had an easier time winning, could've taken care of the Blues easier in the third round, and have more energy against Montreal. I still think the Canadiens win the cup, as Roy was outstanding during the playoffs.

1987: Flyers would've defeated Edmonton again.

1988: Boston VS Edmonton. I think the Oilers still defeat Calgary in the division finals without Gretzky, and win the Stanley Cup over the Bruins, giving the Oilers their first (and only) Stanley Cup in team history.

I'm going to argue that Detroit beats Edmonton in 1987 and 1988. In real 1987, Yzerman shut Gretzky down in the 1987 CCF and significantly reduced his effect in 1988, and Edmonton got past the Wings on superior depth. Without Gretzky, what happens? Yzerman is now against Messier in alternate universe, and there's no second star center on the Oilers. What happens?

Philly and Boston still win in the Finals, though.

1989: Calgary wins their first (prehaps second if they can win in 1986) Cup in team history.

I don't see how Gretzky or Lemieux affect Calgary's 1986 loss, unless you're suggesting that playing against Edmonton in round 2 weakened the Flames enough to lose to a team that was just as good in the regular season and riding a hot goalie?

1990: Hard to see the Oilers winning, as I think Winnipeg wins the first round matchup between the teams. I'd say the finals would be Boston VS Winnipeg, but then again, the Flames probably wouldn't lose to the Gretzky-less Kings. Hard to say, but I think Boston wins the Cup against either the Flames or Jets.

No way on Winnipeg. It would have been either Calgary (from the Smythe) or Chicago (Norris champion) representing the Campbell. I don't see either beating Boston, so Bourque gets a second Cup in three years.

1991: Again, very hard to know who wins, most likely Boston, but would the Flames have lost to Edmonton in the first round? Remember, the Oilers would not have been defending champs who always seemed to have the Flames number. Either way, Boston wins their second straight Stanley Cup, against either the Flames or North Stars.

1992: I think Chicago defeats Boston in the finals in seven games, a perfect way to end the NHL's 75th season with two original six teams in the finals.

I don't think Boston would have beaten Pittsburgh in 1991 or 1992, actually. Recchi had just broken out (and was then traded for Tocchet), Coffey and Murphy were doing well, Jagr proved even as a rookie that he could take over games when Lemieux was out, Cullen was traded for Ron Francis during the 91 season, Kevin Stevens was still a star power forward, Bryan Trottier had joined the team as a checking center, and Tom Barrasso was still an elite goalie.

That team was stacked and even without their MVP was still going to win those Cups.

It's impossible to say what would have happened if either Gretzky or Lemieux didn't exist, but it does appear the Flames, Bruins and Flyers would have won more than the one Stanley Cup combined between those three teams between 1984 and 1992. The Flames look like they had a chance to become a dynasty level team with multiple wins if Gretzky didn't exist throughout the 80's, while the Bruins could have been a dynasty level team in the early 90's. Same could be said for the Flyers, especially in 1986 if Lindbergh isn't in his car accident.

I've always questioned the idea of how great Lindbergh was. This is why:

1982-83 Lindbergh, PHI 7th Vezina, 6th AS Voting; Froese, PHI 8th Vezina
1983-84 Froese, PHI 7th AS Voting
1984-85 Lindbergh, PHI 3rd Hart, 1st Vezina, 1st Team
1985-86 Froese, PHI 2nd Vezina, 2nd Team
1986-87 Hextall, PHI 9th Hart, 1st Vezina, 1st Team, 2nd Calder

Now, in this same period:

1982-83 Howe, PHI 5th Hart, 2nd Norris, 1st Team (1st)
1983-84 Howe, PHI 10th Norris, 9th AS Voting
1984-85 Howe, PHI 6th Norris, 6th AS Voting
1985-86 Howe, PHI 3rd Hart, 2nd Norris, 1st Team (2nd)
1986-87 Howe, PHI 7th Hart, 2nd Norris, 1st Team (2nd)

Howe was dropped significantly in voting despite his play not varying much relative to peers during the first three years of this comparison. Also of note is the fact that Brad McCrimmon was present on the team, and Howe/McCrimmon formed the league's premier defensive tandem.

Was it really Lindbergh, or Froese, or Hextall? Or was it solid defense played by the guys in front of them?

 

[Cyborg LeClair]

Was it really Lindbergh, or Froese, or Hextall? Or was it solid defense played by the guys in front of them?

can't it be both? Rinne has had the benefit of Suter+Weber tandem in front of him for the past few years and has been a Vezina finalist as well, but anyone who watches wouldn't question whether he's deserving of the accolades.

 

[pdd]

can't it be both? Rinne has had the benefit of Suter+Weber tandem in front of him for the past few years and has been a Vezina finalist as well, but anyone who watches wouldn't question whether he's deserving of the accolades.

Say this hypothetically happened.

Suter is retained.
Rinne has a career ending injury during the lockout.
Chris Mason takes over the team with which he's previously posted a .925 s% in 40 games.
One or two seasons later, Nashville almost wins the Cup with Mason winning both the Vezina AND the Smythe.

Is there a general consensus that Rinne would have somehow put the team over that year the way there is with Lindbergh?

Hextall's 1986-87 season was (statistically) in a different stratosphere from Lindbergh. It was comparable to Froese's career season the previous year (both led the league in sv% and wins, Froese also led in GAA and SO) but well above anything Lindbergh did. Finally, during their time together, Lindbergh's statistics were far worse than Froese's both on the individual season basis and the overall basis (I don't have sv% data for 82-83 or 83-84, but the GAA difference is so extreme that it can be assumed that Froese beat Lindbergh given that they were teammates playing behind the same defense).

Froese suffered a knee injury early into the 1984 season and didn't come back until much later in the season. IMO Lindbergh's Vezina and his high Hart voting are artifacts both of playing behind a trong defense at its peak, as well as a Lindbergh having had to suddenly take on 20-25 extra games of work that would normally have gone to Froese. I find it odd, though, that the same Vezina and Hart consideration was not given to Froese after Lindbergh's accident; Froese dominated every important goalie statistic; he posted a 31-10-3 record (backup Darren Jensen was 15-9-1, Lindbergh was 6-2 before the accident, and Glenn Resch was 1-2). He put up a .909 sv%, far better than anything Lindbergh did and better than Hextall's Vezina season (.908) and led the league with a 2.55 GAA - which would have been close to the league lead in the early/mid 90's and the mid 00's. Unlike his former and future teammates, respectively, he won the Jennings (shared with Jensen, who had .884, 3.68 - no help there!) and had at least as strong a case for the Vezina as Lindbergh did. How Vanbiesbrouck won it I'll never know (I rank Froese first and Vanbiesbrouck fifth).

All of this said, I do consider Lindbergh to have been the top goalie in 1984-85. I jut think the "Lindbergh aura" is nuts, and as evidenced by the 1985-86 season, Froese was as good or better than Lindbergh. People like to bash Froese because of the Flyers' 1986 playoff bail. But Froese held the Rangers to one goal twice (G2 and G4) in a playoff series where Philly scored two goals in four of five games. The other three games? The Rangers scored 6, 5, and 5. Amusing trivia from that series? Backup Glenn Resch played seven minutes, faced one shot, and made zero saves.

 

[RattsSSV]

1990: Hard to see the Oilers winning, as I think Winnipeg wins the first round matchup between the teams. I'd say the finals would be Boston VS Winnipeg, but then again, the Flames probably wouldn't lose to the Gretzky-less Kings. Hard to say, but I think Boston wins the Cup against either the Flames or Jets.

Last time I checked; the Oil won the cup in 1990 without Gretz.

 

[pdd]

Last time I checked; the Oil won the cup in 1990 without Gretz.

But they did have the spoils of the lopsided Carson trade (Graves, Klima, Murphy) who all played a big part in that win. Without that deal, the Oil probably DON'T win the Cup.

EDIT: They also would likely not have had both Fuhr and Ranford; instead of trading Moog for a skilled younger goalie they would have traded him for more scoring.

 

[Czech Your Math]

NOTE: Posted this in another thread, but copied it here as it actually seems more relevant to this thread.

It's impossible to have an exactly level field to compare between seasons, but when people compare the pre-(WHA merger) NHL to the past ~30+ seasons, there's quite a difference. Think of an NHL with no Gretzky/Lemieux/Jagr level of top player, and no players from the US or overseas (this is essentially how it was most years before WHA merger). Which players could have won a Ross... or even two?

Dionne- wins it outright in '80, and '81 as well (second in '85)
Bossy- wins in '82... and wins in '86 as Coffey drops down (second in '81, '83 & '84... may have won in '84 as Goulet doesn't have Stastny)
Stastny- wins in '83 (second in '84 & '86, as Coffey drops down)
Savard- wins in '83 & '88 (second in '86)
Goulet- wins in '84... but does he w/o Stastny?
Hawerchuk- wins in '85 (second in '88)
Kurri- drops of 10, 10 and 2 points w/o Gretzky from '85-'87 each drop him from the actual/hypothetical top two
Messier- wins in '87 w/o Gretzky?... wins in '90... second in '92
Gilmour- if Messier doesn't win in '87, then he does (second in '94)
Yzerman- wins in '89 (second in '90 & '93)
Hull- wins in '91 & '92
Recchi- wins in '00
Lafontaine- wins in '93
Oates- wins in '93 & '94, second in '91
Fedorov- wins in '94
Jagr- actually wins in '95, '98, '99, '00 & '01 and wins in '96... '97 is first or second, depends on how he does w/o Lemieux and how Kariya does w/o Selanne (second in '02 & '06... not sure what to do about lost '05 season)
Lindros- wins in '95 (second in '96 as Francis drops down)
Sakic- wins in '96 & '01 (second in '95, '99, '04 & '02 as Bertuzzi drops down)
Selanne- wins in '97 & '99 (second in '98)
Kariya- wins in '97 & '99 and second in '00, all w/o Selanne?
LeClair- if Kariya doesn't win in '97 w/o Selanne, then he does... wins in '98
Forsberg- wins in '98 and actually won in '03... (second in '96 & '99... if Kariya doesn't win in '99 w/o Selanne, then he does)
Bure- wins in '98 & '00
Palffy- wins in '98
Iginla- actually won in '02 & wins in '08
Naslund- wins in '03 (actually second in '02)
Thornton- wins in '03 and actually won in '06 (actually second in '07, second in '08)
St. Louis- actually won in '04 & wins in '11
Crosby- actually won in '07, wins in '09 & '10
Ovechkin- actually won in '08, wins in '09 & '10 (second in '06)
Malkin- wins in '08 and actually won in '09 & '12
H.Sedin- actually won in '10
D.Sedin- actually won in '11
Stamkos- wins in '12 (2nd in '10)

1st-2nd place finishes in hypothetical multi-verse (includes Lafleur, who would also have finished second in '80):

Gretzky 16-0 or 15-1 (13 in a row)... depends on Kariya w/o Selanne in '97
Lemieux 8-0
Jagr 8-2 to 6-3??? tough to pinpoint
Ovechkin 3-1
Lafleur 3-1
Malkin 3-0
Crosby 3-0
Sakic 2-4
Bossy 3-2 or 2-3?
Forsberg 3-1 or 2-2?
Messier 2-1 or 1-2?
Dionne 2-3
Thornton 2-2
Selanne 2-1
Savard 2-1
Kariya 2-1 or lower??? tough one
St. Louis 2-0
Iginla 2-0
Br.Hull 2-0
Bure 2-0
Oates 2-1
LeClair 2-0 or 1-1?
Recchi 1-1
Yzerman 1-2
Stastny 1-2
Lindros 1-1
Stamkos 1-1
Naslund 1-1
Hawerchuk 1-1
H.Sedin 1-0
D.Sedin 1-0
Fedorov 1-0
Lafontaine 1-0
Palffy 1-0
Goulet 1-0 or 0-1?
Gilmour 1-1 or 0-2

So what stands out:

- Gretzky just continues to extend his dominance, winning 13 in a row from '80-'92 and 14/15, with a total of 15 or 16. Simply amazing.

- Lemieux wins 4 in a row, 6/8 and 8/12.

- Jagr at the very least would have been first or second in 8 consecutive seasons and potentially winning 7 in a row if he won in '97 (if not, was due to missing 19 games). Injury cost him a battle to the wire in '02 (missed 13 games), he lost the '05 lockout season (when he and Thornton should have been the two favorites) and he had a two point loss in '06 when Thornton had two extra games available due to trade. So one could argue for him deserving 7, 8 or even 9 Rosses, or just having 5 or 6 (with all 4 runner-ups being to potential multiple winners: Kariya, Sakic, Iginla and Thornton... only 5 if take away '01 Ross due to Lemieux's presence for half season, and seems rather unfair to deduct a Ross in this type of scenario, as he was never second fiddle that year).

- The post-lockout triumvirate of Crosby/Malkin/Ovechkin is impressive, as they are the only other players besides the "big 3" who would have definitely won 3 times each. Crosby's major injuries have prevented him from separating from the pack.

- Sakic's 6 top two finishes are only surpassed by the big 3. He also has a decent argument for potentially a 3rd or even 4th. In '95, he was 8 points behind Lindros after 48 games, but as we know Lindros had trouble staying healthy for a full season, so who knows how that ends up. In '99, he was 5 points behind Kariya, who actually played on the same line as Selanne (unlike Sakic & Forsberg).

- Three other players, Bossy, Messier and Forsberg, had potential to win 3 times.

- Players who could have finished top two at least 3 times since WHA merger: Dionne, Gretzky, Bossy, Savard, Stastny... Lemieux, Messier, Yzerman, Oates... Jagr, Sakic, Forsberg, Selanne, Kariya... Crosby, Malkin, Ovechkin, Thornton.

- Players who could have won at least twice: Gretzky, Bossy, Dionne, Savard... Lemieux, Messier, Hull, Oates, Recchi... Jagr, Forsberg, Sakic, Selanne, Bure, Kariya, LeClair... Crosby, Ovechkin, Malkin, Thornton, Iginla, St. Louis.

- There's always overlap between eras, but particularly difficult are the mid-80s to mid-late 90s. It starts with Gretzky & Lemieux in the league together in the mid-80s, then as they become less consistent factors due to age/injury, the US/overseas talent really becomes strong during the 90s. With Jagr being a force from '95-'02, Lemieux still on top '93, '96 & '97, and Gretzky still good in '94, '97 & '98, on top of the otherwise normal competition, the 90s were no picnic.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

But they did have the spoils of the lopsided Carson trade (Graves, Klima, Murphy) who all played a big part in that win. Without that deal, the Oil probably DON'T win the Cup.

EDIT: They also would likely not have had both Fuhr and Ranford; instead of trading Moog for a skilled younger goalie they would have traded him for more scoring.

They also traded Coffey for Simpson the year before the Gretzky trade, which doesn't sound like a good deal, but Simpson went on to lead the Oilers in goal scoring and tie Messier for points in the '90 playoffs run. He was big for them the following year, too.

 

[Boom Boom Bear]

I’m making the obviously unrealistic assumption that nothing else would change if Gretzky & Lemieux didn’t exist

[*]Mark Messier would have moved into the very elite three Harts club.
[*]Steve Yzerman almost certainly would have won the Hart in 1989 and he may have won in 1988 (Fuhr was ranked higher in voting but it’s highly debatable if he would have been a Hart candidate without the offensive support from Gretzky).

...

[*]I’m eliminating Gretzky, Lemieux, and some of their linemates (which I admit is a matter of judgment). For example, as great as Coffey & Kurri were, I don’t think they could have scored 138 & 131 points, respectively

...

[*]Although I think that Messier’s offense is overrated by younger fans, the History forum sometimes underrates his peak. If not for Gretzky/Lemieux, the Moose would have won a pair of AR trophies.

...

[*]I’m assuming that Kurri couldn’t have won the goal-scoring title without Gretzky.

From where you started, you've gone to extraordinary lengths to create exceptions to your own parameters for the sole purpose of specifically excluding Gretzky's teammates Kurri, Coffey & [to a lesser extent] Fuhr from this process, while giving Messier the benefit of the doubt. This is severely flawed & biased. It seems you were good with what the data was showing you until you encountered Kurri, Coffey & Fuhr hitting top spot, so you retrofit weak justifications to rig the data to support the conclusions you wanted to see.

Either "nothing else changes" & we look at pure data to give us the answers, or "everything changes" & we can endlessly fantasize, hypothesize & speculate on the impact plucking these two from the league would be, manufacturing whatever exceptions & rules fit in with our own biases.

The data tables should ideally reflect the raw data winners without exclusions.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

From where you started, you've gone to extraordinary lengths to create exceptions to your own parameters for the sole purpose of specifically excluding Gretzky's teammates Kurri, Coffey & [to a lesser extent] Fuhr from this process, while giving Messier the benefit of the doubt. This is severely flawed & biased. It seems you were good with what the data was showing you until you encountered Kurri, Coffey & Fuhr hitting top spot, so you retrofit weak justifications to rig the data to support the conclusions you wanted to see.

Either "nothing else changes" & we look at pure data to give us the answers, or "everything changes" & we can endlessly fantasize, hypothesize & speculate on the impact plucking these two from the league would be, manufacturing whatever exceptions & rules fit in with our own biases.

The data tables should ideally reflect the raw data winners without exclusions.

I think he made reasonable assumptions. Coffey and Kurri usually played with Gretzky; Messier did not.

 

[billybudd]

Good idea.

I don't, however, really understand the thinking behind Messier taking the hart in 95-96.

Even if the assumption is that Jagr and Francis' production would have been significantly reduced (and the OP sort of specifies that this would not be taken into consideration), it isn't clear to me why Messier would be leapfrogging Sakic, Forsberg, Sergei Fedorov, Paul Kariya or the actual 2nd team all-star at Messier's position that year, Eric Lindros.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Good idea.

I don't, however, really understand the thinking behind Messier taking the hart in 95-96.

Even if the assumption is that Jagr and Francis' production would have been significantly reduced (and the OP sort of specifies that this would not be taken into consideration), it isn't clear to me why Messier would be leapfrogging Sakic, Forsberg, Sergei Fedorov, Paul Kariya or the actual 2nd team all-star at Messier's position that year, Eric Lindros.

Hart voting 1995-96:

HART: Mario Lemieux 439 (34-10-5-1-1); Mark Messier 275 (10-15-10-6-2); Eric Lindros 213 (2-17-7-12-3); Jaromir Jagr 156 (5-3-10-10-5); Sergei Fedorov 68 (0-3-6-4-5); Grant Fuhr 52 (1-3-2-2-5); Joe Sakic 52 (0-0-6-5-7); Jim Carey 32 (1-0-1-5-2); Paul Kariya 28 (1-1-1-1-3); Chris Chelios 20 (0-2-1-0-1); Ray Bourque 13 (0-0-1-2-2); Martin Brodeur 9 (0-0-1-1-1); Peter Forsberg 8 (0-0-1-0-3); Keith Tkachuk 6 (0-0-0-1-3); Theo Fleury 5 (0-0-1-0-0); John LeClair 5 (0-0-1-0-0); Daren Puppa 5 (0-0-0-1-2); Steve Yzerman 4 (0-0-0-1-1); Alexander Mogilny 4 (0-0-0-1-1); Vladimir Konstantinov 3 (0-0-0-1-0); Teemu Selanne 2 (0-0-0-0-2); Peter Bondra 1 (0-0-0-0-1);Brian Leetch 1 (0-0-0-0-1); Scott Mellanby 1 (0-0-0-0-1); Chris Osgood 1 (0-0-0-0-1)

Messier was the next highest ranked player after Lemieux

 

[Hockey Outsider]

From where you started, you've gone to extraordinary lengths to create exceptions to your own parameters for the sole purpose of specifically excluding Gretzky's teammates Kurri, Coffey & [to a lesser extent] Fuhr from this process, while giving Messier the benefit of the doubt. This is severely flawed & biased. It seems you were good with what the data was showing you until you encountered Kurri, Coffey & Fuhr hitting top spot, so you retrofit weak justifications to rig the data to support the conclusions you wanted to see.

Either "nothing else changes" & we look at pure data to give us the answers, or "everything changes" & we can endlessly fantasize, hypothesize & speculate on the impact plucking these two from the league would be, manufacturing whatever exceptions & rules fit in with our own biases.

The data tables should ideally reflect the raw data winners without exclusions.

Your accusations of bias are unfounded. I clearly documented my assumptions so that anybody can challenge specific positions that they think are unreasonable. I also clearly state that it's "a matter of judgment" so that nobody assumes that I'm showing the one, correct answer for what is obviously a hypothetical question.

Making reasonable assumptions based on what we know is more meaningful than ignoring the context behind the numbers.

This post is more than four years old and it's possible that I've changed my mind since then. That being said, for the most part, I think my assumptions are reasonable. For example, I think highly of Kurri but I find it highly unlikely that a player who never scored more than 44 goals without Gretzky would top Bossy's 61 goals in 1986. Another way of looking at it - I find it unlikely that switching from Gretzky to any other player (except Lemieux, who I'm also eliminating) wouldn't have cost him at least 8 goals that pushed him ahead of the Islanders sniper.

Messier is a different story - he was on the ice far less with Gretzky than Kurri and Coffey and proved to be a dominant player (as evidenced by winning two Harts and having his top three seasons in adjusted points without TGO).

You can feel free to disagree with any specific assumptions I've made and I'd be happy to discuss but don't throw around accusations of bias when I've made my data and assumptions as transparent as possible.

 

[PhilJets]

if Gretzky did not exist, the faith of the Winnipeg Jets in that Smyth Division would have drastically changed in the 80s. someone should work on that , see if they would have made it to a cup final?

 

[frontsfan2005]

if Gretzky did not exist, the faith of the Winnipeg Jets in that Smyth Division would have drastically changed in the 80s. someone should work on that , see if they would have made it to a cup final?

We'll start in 82-83 when the Jets joined the Smythe Division.

82-83 (33-39-8, 74 pts, 4th place, lost 3-0 to EDM in round 1)

Even without Gretzky, the Oilers win the division easily, as they were the only club to finish over .500 during the season. The Jets "might" have won a game in the playoffs, but most likely, would be eliminated in the first round.

83-84 (31-38-11, 73 pts, 4th place, lost 3-0 to EDM in round 1)

Again, even with no Gretzky, the Oilers would have dominated the division, and much like the previous season, the Jets would have lost again in the opening round.

84-85 (43-27-10, 96 pts, 2nd place, lost 4-0 to EDM in round 2)

The Jets made a huge improvement in the standings, however, the team was still 13 points behind the Oilers. Without Gretzky, the Oilers probably still would've won the division. In the post-season, I think the Jets would have lost again to Edmonton, although it would have been a closer series (maybe Oilers in six instead of a sweep).

85-86 (26-47-7, 59 pts, 3rd place, lost 3-0 to CGY in round 1)

The Jets underachieved all season, and the Flames, who were much worse than the Oilers, coasted to a first round sweep.

86-87 (40-32-8, 88 pts, 3rd place, lost 4-0 to EDM in round 2)

Again, even without Gretzky, it's hard to say the Jets would have eliminated the Oilers considering they didn't win a game against them.

87-88 (33-36-11, 77 pts, 3rd place, lost 4-1 to EDM in round 1)

Edmonton once again was quite a bit better than the Jets in the regular season, even with no Gretzky, it's awfully difficult to see the Jets taking out the Oilers.

88-89 (26-42-12, 64 pts, 5th place, DNQ)

The Jets missed the playoffs, and probably would have even if Gretzky didn't exist. He did help the Kings improve considerably, but the Kings were a team on the rise at the time of the trade and most likely would have still finished higher than the last place Jets.

89-90 (37-32-11, 85 pts, 3rd place, lost 4-3 to EDM in round 1)

This was easily the Jets best chance at beating the Oilers. In reality, the team led the series 3-1 and should have won. If they defeat Edmonton, up next for Winnipeg was the LA Kings. With no Gretzky, and considering how in reality the Oilers easily defeated the Kings with Gretzky, the Jets probably would have won the series. That is, of course, if LA, with no Wayne, or Vancouver, who could have snuck into fourth, was still able to eliminate Calgary. If matched up against LA without Gretzky, the Jets win easily, same against the Canucks, however, the defending champion Flames would have been tough. If Winnipeg was able to make it out of the division, up next would be Chicago, followed by Boston. If the team was able to get close to Bill Ranford type goaltending out of Essensa, then the Jets would have been a tough team to handle for both the Hawks and Bruins.

Overall, other than 1990, its highly unlikely the Jets would have been able to take out the high flying Oilers, even without Gretzky. The Oilers were too talented (Messier, Kurri, Coffey, Fuhr, etc...) for Winnipeg.

 

[Hagged]

For example, I think highly of Kurri but I find it highly unlikely that a player who never scored more than 44 goals without Gretzky would top Bossy's 61 goals in 1986.

I don't disagree at all with your assumptions in this thread and I like the idea of looking at different players' impact on other players. So I have a question for you and all others who have been around enough to come up with a model of taking a player away from a line and exchanging it to another one.

What would have been Gretzky's totals had there been no Kurri? Let's make an assumption that there would have been a league average first line winger.

What would have been Kariya's and Selanne's totals had they been centered by a hypothetical adjusted stats 90's Gretzky.

So I guess basically my question is: Was Gretzky's and Lemieux's impact a fixed % rise in production of their line mates. Or would they have been able to make an average Joe a Kurri or a Coffey etc.

Is there any statistical way of coming to a conclusion that Kurri was even a 1st line talent or was he a second liner playing alongside Gretzky and so Gretzky would have been better off playing with anybody else or their mother .

I guess the especially intresting real life case is Mikko Koivu (although he doesn't fit in this thread at all as an all time great). When he gets lined up with Antti Miettinen and Andrew Brunette he is a 70 point player. Then you line him up with Zach Parise and Jason Pominville and he is still a 70 point player. Would Gretzky&Lemieux have been able to get his points regardless of the talent on their line.