Gretzky's defensive play
- Thread starter unknown33
- Start date
metalfoot
Karlsson!
In his prime it must be noted that he was one of the first offensive specialist penalty killers, so he must have done it well. I was only 8 or 9 back then though, and didn't get a lot of Oilers games on TV. So I'll let others fill in the details.
revolverjgw
Registered User
I don't know where to get these stats, but apparently Gretzky is the all-time leader in takeaways and routinely led the league, and I believe it. Watch classic Oiler games, especially playoff games, and you can see that he was very effective without the puck because of his positioning and anticipation and didn't slack in his defensive responsiblities.
Gretzky wasn't a grinder but, he did play well in his own end. His positioning was excellent, he was good at taking away the puck and, most importantly, he worked hard behind centre and didn't float.
Yes, in his first few seasons he wasn't as focused on the back end but, as he matured he became much better.
Gretzky and Kurri were regularly the on the first penalty killing crew for the Oil.
Yes, in his first few seasons he wasn't as focused on the back end but, as he matured he became much better.
Gretzky and Kurri were regularly the on the first penalty killing crew for the Oil.
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
The takeaway stat as currently constituted by the NHL is ridiculous (as are the others: hits, giveaways/takeaways etc.)
That being said, I believe you're correct in reagrds to takeaways, at least from age 18 - 31.
Gretzky excelled by being smarter and reacting quicker than everyone else on the ice. Gretzky's skating is also much better than everyone talks about. He's wasn't overly fast, but he was certainly above average sped wise, but he ahd incredible agility and tha able to start/stop on the dime etc.
Gretzky was a very strong forechecker (which usually led to his takeaways). Possitionally, he was usually quite sound. Other than that, he wasn't very notable on D, but since those are two important aspects I would definitely consider him to be above average. As mentioned, he is supposedly the all-time leader in takeaways (though there are no official NHL records for it, so its hard to know how many, or by what margin). Most of his D came through just reading the play and anticipation - just like much of his Offense.
Obviously he was mostly known for his O game, but some seem to think he must have been terrible on D because he didn't grind or hit, and scored so many points. While being "above average" may not sound great, when you consider the offense he brought, its actually quite an accomplishment.
Obviously he was mostly known for his O game, but some seem to think he must have been terrible on D because he didn't grind or hit, and scored so many points. While being "above average" may not sound great, when you consider the offense he brought, its actually quite an accomplishment.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Gretzky was a takeaway artist. For that reason alone I would not call his defensive ability poor. Below average at worst. Maybe even average in his prime, or better. And of course, if you always have the puck, that means the other team doesn't, and that is a defensive skill too.
Gretzky's adjusted +/- was always fantastic during his prime, and other dominant offensive superstars like Lemieux did not always look great, meaning that although it's possible to have a great adjusted +/- based solely on offense, it is far form a guarantee.
Gretzky's adjusted +/- was always fantastic during his prime, and other dominant offensive superstars like Lemieux did not always look great, meaning that although it's possible to have a great adjusted +/- based solely on offense, it is far form a guarantee.
Ohashi_Jouzu*
Registered User
Can't really add too much to these. A player with the vision and hockey I.Q. of Gretzky could never be poor defensively unless they were playing in a wheelchair (or sledge, I guess). You don't earn enough stints on the PK to have an insurmountable lead in career SH goals (that 73 will never be broken... seriously, he has as many shorthanded goals as Marty St.Louis has powerplay goals in his career) unless you're both competent enough to do the job regularly AND able to turn opponent mistakes into shorties.
Ziggy Stardust
Master Debater
I remember the "Gretzky move" on the penalty kill. When he would have an open lane to attack in the offensive zone while shorthanded, Gretzky would peel back into his own end and pass it around or loft the puck deep and kill valuable time from the penalty.
As others have mentioned, Gretzky was a master of the takeaway. He would constantly gain possession of the puck with his stick lifts. While critics knocked Gretzky for his lack of strength, he demonstrated that strength didn't matter much when you are the smartest player on the ice.
As others have mentioned, Gretzky was a master of the takeaway. He would constantly gain possession of the puck with his stick lifts. While critics knocked Gretzky for his lack of strength, he demonstrated that strength didn't matter much when you are the smartest player on the ice.
85highlander
Registered User
- Apr 2, 2007
- 297
- 4
No one has dominated one end of the ice more than Gretzky -- he deserves all the accolades his offense has earned him.
Yet, how many have more goals against while on the ice than Gretzky (2285 goals against).
And seven MINUS +/- the back end of his career when his main job was to put folks in seats with his offense.
Plus, zero blocked shots (unless by accident), zero bone crushing checks, very little work in the corners, and a general disdain for all things physical makes for an incomplete defensive game. But in his power years, there was never anyone better in the offensive zone.
Yet, how many have more goals against while on the ice than Gretzky (2285 goals against).
And seven MINUS +/- the back end of his career when his main job was to put folks in seats with his offense.
Plus, zero blocked shots (unless by accident), zero bone crushing checks, very little work in the corners, and a general disdain for all things physical makes for an incomplete defensive game. But in his power years, there was never anyone better in the offensive zone.
Ohashi_Jouzu*
Registered User
Only 14 players in the history of the league have played more games than Gretzky (and not many players average close to 30 minutes per game for the bulk of their career), and all of them except Bourque have much, much worse +/-, so I don't think you should lean too much on that stat (which is simply an aggregate with 0 context or perspective).
Gretzky will never meet your expectations for a power forward (which seems to be your criteria for "defensive ability"), but then again most of the top talent the league has ever seen doesn't either.
jcbio11
Registered User
Meh, when youre as good at offense as he was, you dont need to be good at defense. You sound just like those people dissing Ovechkin for poor defense.
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
By that you mean, played almost no defense at all? Kurri would assume the centers responsiblities in the defensive zone so Gretzky could float around the blue line.
Mario and Bure did the same thing early in their careers.
As for PK time, Gretzky & Kurri killed penalties primarily by having possesion of the puck most of the time. I don't think Sather was sending Gretz out their with the intention of having him block shots from the point.
Big Phil
Registered User
- Nov 2, 2003
- 31,703
- 4,146
Maybe I'm in the minority here but I felt Gretzky's defense went more downhill as his career went on. In his prime he was as smart as he always was and he had great positioning for sure which enabled him to pick off a pass. But he also had quickness in his younger years and he was extremely dangerous on the penalty kill.
I felt as the years went on and his back started to give out more (thank you Gary Suter) along with his speed starting to decline that he was more of a liability defensively as his career dragged on, he still did have his hockey sense of course which is the only thing that saved him somewhat defensively.
In a way, he went the opposite of Lemieux. I always felt Lemieux became more polished all around later in his career and a much more reliable player in his own zone rather than in the beginning of his career where he was certainly lost defensively
I felt as the years went on and his back started to give out more (thank you Gary Suter) along with his speed starting to decline that he was more of a liability defensively as his career dragged on, he still did have his hockey sense of course which is the only thing that saved him somewhat defensively.
In a way, he went the opposite of Lemieux. I always felt Lemieux became more polished all around later in his career and a much more reliable player in his own zone rather than in the beginning of his career where he was certainly lost defensively
Trottier
Very Random
For a spell in the go-go 80s, it was in vogue for teams to ice their top players to kill penalties. Isles had Trottier/Bossy out often, as did the Oilers with #99/Kurri. So I do not put too much stock in that point as evidence of #99's defensive prowess.
***
That said, I've always maintained (and no offense intended to the thread opener) that discussion of #99's and #66's defensive game is moot. Entirely.
It is akin to asking about Babe Ruth's bunting ability.
For their play so trancended traditional hockey as we know it. Point being, every single shift they were on the ice, regardless if they ever touched the puck, they were a presence and had an effect on both sides of the puck. The shift revolved around them to one degree or another for every player on the ice.
For mere mortals (read: every other forward in the history of the game), defense is a very relevant consideration (and, unfortunately, is often under-appreciated by the fantasy stat geeks).
Not for these two. They played a different game.
***
I recall the ever-cocky Denis Potvin between periods of an NYI/Oilers Cup game mockingly describing #99 as playing a game of "river hockey" (read: no defense). Much as I respect #5 as one of the best ever, even at the time I found his line to be odd. For Gretzky dominated "the river" like no other.
***
That said, I've always maintained (and no offense intended to the thread opener) that discussion of #99's and #66's defensive game is moot. Entirely.
It is akin to asking about Babe Ruth's bunting ability.
For their play so trancended traditional hockey as we know it. Point being, every single shift they were on the ice, regardless if they ever touched the puck, they were a presence and had an effect on both sides of the puck. The shift revolved around them to one degree or another for every player on the ice.
For mere mortals (read: every other forward in the history of the game), defense is a very relevant consideration (and, unfortunately, is often under-appreciated by the fantasy stat geeks).
Not for these two. They played a different game.
***
I recall the ever-cocky Denis Potvin between periods of an NYI/Oilers Cup game mockingly describing #99 as playing a game of "river hockey" (read: no defense). Much as I respect #5 as one of the best ever, even at the time I found his line to be odd. For Gretzky dominated "the river" like no other.
Ohashi_Jouzu*
Registered User
Naw, I'd agree with that. His body was the only thing that COULD have eventually caught up with him, and it did. By that time, though, defensive schemes were becoming more sophisticated. In a more "free-flowing" and improvised version of NHL hockey, his hockey sense may not have helped him keep up as well as he did defensively at that point.
