Gretzky's Playoff Stats

shazariahl

Registered User
Apr 7, 2009
2,030
59
And still I think it's only fair to show the entire team's output.

85 Oilers where Gretzky scored 47 points.
The rest of the team combined for 206 points.

Now when Lemieux scored 44 in 91.
The rest of the team combined scored 210 points.

This is close, but I'll add Stevens and Jagr were his line-mates, and Stevens most will agree was a pawn.

Recchie, Francis and Mullen actually scored more combined.

But I digress those seasons are comparable, now add Lemieux's 92 into the mix:

The rest of the team scored 186 points, most of those players playing 19-21 games to Lemieux's 15.

Looking at Stevens, who scored 28 points to Lemieux's 34 despite playing 6 more games, I'd like to see the 6 playoff games Stevens played without Lemieux.



And for the guy who said Lemieux losing to the Beezer in the Conference Finals as being a bigger upset than anytime Gretzky's team lost? How so? Did Gretzky face many Vezina goalies? Were they on fire like Beezer? And as for the Islanders loss, the Pens goaltender/s did let in 5 goals in two games, not like you can blame Lemieux for not scoring 4 goals for his team to succumb the shortcomings.

How does Lemieux scoring less points in more games with a team that scored more points overall (which would prove a stronger supporting cast, but it was over more games, so we'll call that one close) prove that Lemieux had a better post-season?

He did not. I don't care what anyone says about era, adjusted scoring, etc - Gretzky averaged 2.61 PPG in the playoffs. That is unreal, regardless of era, adjusted stats, or anything else.

Lemieux's penguins were not as good as Gretzky's Oilers, I'll agree to that. But they didn't suck either. In fact, I'd put Gretzky's 93 run with the Kings against any of Lemieux's. I'm not saying he beats him in 90-91, but its at least close.

And did he play any great goalies? Are you kidding me? Patrick Roy in 93, Billy Smith, Ron Hextall, and Mike Vernon were all great goaltenders. All of them have won a Con Smythe, Roy actually won 3.
 

shazariahl

Registered User
Apr 7, 2009
2,030
59
Frank McGee scored 3.00 goals per game in Stanley Cup play, so I'm quite sure era does matter.

Ok, fine, I'll give you that. But there's a big difference between what you just said there, and claiming that Gretzky from the late 80's and Lemieux from 91 and 92 are somehow different eras. Gretzky had the 93 run with the Kings which was comparable to Lemieux's run as well. My point is that people trying to adjust Gretzky's to "era" vs Lemieux's team of the 90's by "era" is that it was the same era. As someone already showed with their table, the 2nd half of Gretzky's career he scored at the same rate as Lemieux (scored points - I know Lemieux had more goals just in case someone is going to be OCD and point that out to me), and 6 of those 8 years were the same.

I should have been more specific (although everyone except you probably knew what I meant), but point is Gretzky and Lemieux were basically the same era. So yes, Gretzky's post season success is way more impressive than Lemieux's.
 

Iain Fyffe

Hockey fact-checker
Ok, fine, I'll give you that. But there's a big difference between what you just said there, and claiming that Gretzky from the late 80's and Lemieux from 91 and 92 are somehow different eras.
"Era" is quite a subjective term, and there are some fairly significant differences between the game in 1983 and 1992. It's not a huge gulf, as you say, but some adjustment is probably called for.

Not saying that this puts Lemieux ahead, just discussing general principles.
 

WingsFan95

Registered User
Mar 22, 2008
3,492
259
Kanata
So I guess you're just gonna ignore 92 eh?

Where I showed Lemieux's teammates scored less than 190 point while almost all playing 4-6 more games?

And goals>assists. Why? Cause of the obvious case of there being less 70 goal seasons than 70 assist seasons, for one, and that you can get a goal without an assist, and certainly without a secondary assist.
 

Hawkey Town 18

Registered User
Jun 29, 2009
8,244
1,631
Chicago, IL
So I guess you're just gonna ignore 92 eh?

Where I showed Lemieux's teammates scored less than 190 point while almost all playing 4-6 more games?

And goals>assists. Why? Cause of the obvious case of there being less 70 goal seasons than 70 assist seasons, for one, and that you can get a goal without an assist, and certainly without a secondary assist.

Disagree, particularly with players of this caliber. The entire offense is run through them. There are no (or very few) freebie/garbage assists.

Edit: Meant disagree, they should be viewed equally
 
Last edited:

Rhiessan71

Just a Fool
Feb 17, 2003
11,618
24
Guelph, Ont
Visit site
So I guess you're just gonna ignore 92 eh?

Where I showed Lemieux's teammates scored less than 190 point while almost all playing 4-6 more games?

And goals>assists. Why? Cause of the obvious case of there being less 70 goal seasons than 70 assist seasons, for one, and that you can get a goal without an assist, and certainly without a secondary assist.


Yeah but ya know...when a player has as many or more Playoff assists as anyone else has Playoff points...kinda says something eh.
Only Messier has more PO points than Gretzky has PO assists.

Gretzky 260 PO assists

1)Gretzky 382 PO points
2)Messier 295 PO points
3)Kurri 233 PO points
 

WingsFan95

Registered User
Mar 22, 2008
3,492
259
Kanata
Yeah but ya know...when a player has as many or more Playoff assists as anyone else has Playoff points...kinda says something eh.
Only Messier has more PO points than Gretzky has PO assists.

Gretzky 260 PO assists

1)Gretzky 382 PO points
2)Messier 295 PO points
3)Kurri 233 PO points

Playoff GPG:

1. Mario Lemieux* 0.710 (107GP)
2. Alex Ovechkin 0.676 (37GP)
3. Mike Bossy* 0.659 (129GP)
4. Barry Pederson 0.647 (34GP)
5. Maurice Richard* 0.617 (133GP, 4 team playoffs)
6. Cam Neely* 0.613 (93GP)
7. Wayne Gretzky* 0.587 (208)

I know you can write off Ovechkin and Pederson for so much fewer games left and even Neely for having Bourque and also playing under 100 games.

But you're still left with Bossy who I have said was a better pure goal scorer and then even if you write off Lemieux for only having played 107 games, missing a chunk of his prime.

You still have The Rocket, who considering played in the 4 team format, IS the ultimate playoff goal scorer.

I, if you've noticed, haven't argued so much against Gretzky's whopping assist totals, my beef is how people say points are better because it counts both, in reality Gretzky's assist totals are lopsided and I think diminish his playoff attributes, because it tells me he wasn't gritty enough, how many of those assists are secondary assists first off, and then look at the goals production from contemporaries, like Bossy.

Again, the OP seems to be overflowing with sheer amazement at Gretzky's ungodly playoff scoring. I do respect it and see the greatness in it, but to say Gretz is the best is not unquestionable.

Talk to the guys who saw both Gretz and Richard play, they say Richard.
 

Hawkey Town 18

Registered User
Jun 29, 2009
8,244
1,631
Chicago, IL
Playoff GPG:

1. Mario Lemieux* 0.710 (107GP)
2. Alex Ovechkin 0.676 (37GP)
3. Mike Bossy* 0.659 (129GP)
4. Barry Pederson 0.647 (34GP)
5. Maurice Richard* 0.617 (133GP, 4 team playoffs)
6. Cam Neely* 0.613 (93GP)
7. Wayne Gretzky* 0.587 (208)

I know you can write off Ovechkin and Pederson for so much fewer games left and even Neely for having Bourque and also playing under 100 games.

But you're still left with Bossy who I have said was a better pure goal scorer and then even if you write off Lemieux for only having played 107 games, missing a chunk of his prime.

You still have The Rocket, who considering played in the 4 team format, IS the ultimate playoff goal scorer.

I, if you've noticed, haven't argued so much against Gretzky's whopping assist totals, my beef is how people say points are better because it counts both, in reality Gretzky's assist totals are lopsided and I think diminish his playoff attributes, because it tells me he wasn't gritty enough, how many of those assists are secondary assists first off, and then look at the goals production from contemporaries, like Bossy.

Again, the OP seems to be overflowing with sheer amazement at Gretzky's ungodly playoff scoring. I do respect it and see the greatness in it, but to say Gretz is the best is not unquestionable.

Talk to the guys who saw both Gretz and Richard play, they say Richard.

As I said before, for lesser players I think the goals vs. assists argument can start to be made, but when you're talking about Gretzky/Orr/Howe/Lemieux type players they should be viewed equally. Do you really think Wayne Gretzky was getting garbage assists? You've seen him play, the entire offense of his team was ran through him and the entire defense of the other team was concentrated on him.
 

Iain Fyffe

Hockey fact-checker
Talk to the guys who saw both Gretz and Richard play, they say Richard.
Considering the 35-year gap between these players' primes, I wouldn't put too much stock in something so reliant on human memory. It's also pretty well established that most folks will remember players from their youths much more fondly than those from later years; as soon as hockey had been around long enough for there to be retired players, there were the first of those to say that current players (for the time) simply didn't match up.
 

BM67

Registered User
Mar 5, 2002
4,775
279
In "The System"
Visit site
Here is Gretzky's PO GPG career total throughout his career.

Year|GP|G|GPG
1980|3|2|0.667
1981|12|9|0.750
1982|17|14|0.824
1983|33|26|0.788
1984|52|39|0.750
1985|70|56|0.800
1986|80|64|0.800
1987|101|69|0.683
1988|120|81|0.675
1989|131|86|0.656
1990|138|89|0.645
1991|150|93|0.620
1992|156|95|0.609
1993|180|110|0.611
1996|193|112|0.580
1997|208|122|0.587

Compare Gretzky's GPG when he passed the same games played, and the number of seasons before he dipped below their GPG for good.

Player|GP|GPG|Gretzky|Seasons
Barry Pederson|34|0.647|0.750|11
Alex Ovechkin|37|0.676|0.750|9
Cam Neely|93|0.613|0.683|13
Mario Lemieux|107|0.710|0.675|8
Mike Bossy|129|0.659|0.656|10
Maurice Richard|133|0.617|0.645|13
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
Considering the 35-year gap between these players' primes, I wouldn't put too much stock in something so reliant on human memory. It's also pretty well established that most folks will remember players from their youths much more fondly than those from later years; as soon as hockey had been around long enough for there to be retired players, there were the first of those to say that current players (for the time) simply didn't match up.

statistically, the Rocket was far and away the best goal scorer in the playoffs before expansion.

The pertinent question is "Are goals more valuable than assists in the playoffs?"
 

Infinite Vision*

Guest
I think just in general goals are obviously harder to come by than an assist, regular season or playoffs. However, most truly great offensive players are more playmaker than goal scorer for a reason, if it's easier to get an assist than a goal, then you should be doing that more often to create goals for your team. Obviously some players are much better at scoring than playmaking, so they play to their strengths, however that's just more likely they won't be the best overall offensive player. Maurice Richard does not have an Art Ross trophy, though he was second 3 or 4 times I believe.

The following players aren't the greatest at scoring goals, however, great at winning they are for two other reasons.

-Sergei Fedorov
-Bobby Clarke
-Pavel Datsyuk
-Mike Modano
-Bryan Trottier
-Stan Mikita
-Doug Gilmour
-Peter Forsberg
-Henrik Zetterberg

If defense and playmaking are easier on average than scoring goals (both true), then you should be focusing on them just as much, if not more than scoring goals yourself to help your team win.
 

Infinite Vision*

Guest
My examples are players who had/have the skill to score when they needed to, but know how to win in all situations.
 

WingsFan95

Registered User
Mar 22, 2008
3,492
259
Kanata
I think just in general goals are obviously harder to come by than an assist, regular season or playoffs. However, most truly great offensive players are more playmaker than goal scorer for a reason, if it's easier to get an assist than a goal, then you should be doing that more often to create goals for your team. Obviously some players are much better at scoring than playmaking, so they play to their strengths, however that's just more likely they won't be the best overall offensive player. Maurice Richard does not have an Art Ross trophy, though he was second 3 or 4 times I believe.

The following players aren't the greatest at scoring goals, however, great at winning they are for two other reasons.

-Sergei Fedorov
-Bobby Clarke
-Pavel Datsyuk
-Mike Modano
-Bryan Trottier
-Stan Mikita
-Doug Gilmour
-Peter Forsberg
-Henrik Zetterberg

If defense and playmaking are easier on average than scoring goals (both true), then you should be focusing on them just as much, if not more than scoring goals yourself to help your team win.

I don't know what the point of that was exactly since Gretzky wasn't anywhere near the two way forward Datsyuk or Fedorov was, but for the record, Fedorov statistically often scored more or same number of goals as assists. You may have a case in the playoffs but that's because he played on lines with better pure goal scorers.

Which goes back to my point of Gretzky, he relied on the pure goal scorers to finish the job. Again, this whole debate isn't about Gretzky's offensive firepower, he was better than Fedorov and I love Fedorov, but we're talking Top 5 I'm not going to crown Gretzky the best playoff performer and certainly not by a wide margin if I did.

@BM67

This is exactly what I was looking for. Lemieux still outscores Gretzky any way you put it.

While Richard has a slightly less GPG because his career is more stretched out, his playoff seasons were half the length so you have more lower scoring seasons counted in. For what it's worth on Gretzky's behalf at least his last playoff year was at 35 while he missed the playoffs at age 32 and 33. And Richard's goal scoring was far higher among his peers.

Also interesting to see Bossy's numbers near equal that of Gretzky's.
 

Infinite Vision*

Guest
I don't know what the point of that was exactly since Gretzky wasn't anywhere near the two way forward Datsyuk or Fedorov was, but for the record, Fedorov statistically often scored more or same number of goals as assists. You may have a case in the playoffs but that's because he played on lines with better pure goal scorers.

Which goes back to my point of Gretzky, he relied on the pure goal scorers to finish the job. Again, this whole debate isn't about Gretzky's offensive firepower, he was better than Fedorov and I love Fedorov, but we're talking Top 5 I'm not going to crown Gretzky the best playoff performer and certainly not by a wide margin if I did.

@BM67

This is exactly what I was looking for. Lemieux still outscores Gretzky any way you put it.

While Richard has a slightly less GPG because his career is more stretched out, his playoff seasons were half the length so you have more lower scoring seasons counted in. For what it's worth on Gretzky's behalf at least his last playoff year was at 35 while he missed the playoffs at age 32 and 33. And Richard's goal scoring was far higher among his peers.

Also interesting to see Bossy's numbers near equal that of Gretzky's.

It was to the post above it. Regarding the value and difficulty of goals over assists. I was just hoping to get a minor discussion out of it. My main point was, if something is easier on average, it makes sense you are going to do that more often to help a team win... so we really shouldn't put any extra value on goals.

Here are some pure goalscorers.

-Bobby Hull
-Brett Hull
-Pavel Bure
-Alexander Ovechkin
-Ilya Kovalchuk
-Peter Bondra
-Jarome Iginla
-Cam Neely

These players have had less team success, for reasons that go beyond the teams they played for.
 

Infinite Vision*

Guest
Fedorov's career - 1,248gp 483g 696a

Playoffs - 183gp 52g 124a

We can see here he did infact score a lot more assists than goals even in the regular season.
 

WingsFan95

Registered User
Mar 22, 2008
3,492
259
Kanata
Fedorov's career - 1,248gp 483g 696a

Playoffs - 183gp 52g 124a

We can see here he did infact score a lot more assists than goals even in the regular season.

483 goals to 696 assists in over 1,200 games is relatively close.

I'd use Oates and Gretzky as the two extremes for assists.

Also, if you take away Fedorov's first three seasons and 95-96, all before his team was "winning" you have a closer margin:

347-473
 

Ohashi_Jouzu*

Registered User
Apr 2, 2007
30,332
11
Halifax
It was to the post above it. Regarding the value and difficulty of goals over assists. I was just hoping to get a minor discussion out of it. My main point was, if something is easier on average, it makes sense you are going to do that more often to help a team win... so we really shouldn't put any extra value on goals.

I know what you're saying, but you can't control whether a pass becomes an assist or not. I mean, you don't get an assist simply for putting the puck in a place/position from which your teammate SHOULD have scored. It depends ultimately on getting the puck in the net. So, in fact, the importance/value of the assist is simply a retroactive analysis of the more "important" aspect of scoring. I, personally, think it is "easier" to get assists because we extend the connection back two steps of possession from the actual act of scoring, regardless of timing or position (both crucial elements for scoring a goal, incidentally). But I'd never discredit anyone's talent on that basis, because not all passes are equal, and not all player's abilities to see the ice, choose the best path for the puck, and execute the play are equal.
 

shazariahl

Registered User
Apr 7, 2009
2,030
59
So I guess you're just gonna ignore 92 eh?

Where I showed Lemieux's teammates scored less than 190 point while almost all playing 4-6 more games?

And goals>assists. Why? Cause of the obvious case of there being less 70 goal seasons than 70 assist seasons, for one, and that you can get a goal without an assist, and certainly without a secondary assist.

As we see in the thread about primary vs secondary assists, Gretzky not only has the most primary assists of any player, he also has the highest % of primary assists vs secondary assists of any player ever. While that was for regular season and not playoffs, I highly doubt things suddenly changed, or that his 2ndary assist% magically doubled in the post season, or anything crazy like that.

On another note, who really cares if its primary assists or secondary? Or even between goals or assists? Gretzky was a playmaker, who made everyone around him better. He didn't need "pure goal scorers" to finish things, it just made it easier for him. He scored 50 in 39 and 92 in a season when he had terrible linemates because they couldn't finish things. He put up 163 assists in a season with Kurri because he had an amazing linemate who could. Gretzky was able to adapt his game to the people around him, and elevate his entire team offensively. He was an amazing goal scorer and an amazing playmaker, so he could do whichever his team needed more.

What I find interesting, is that as he moved more from goal scorer to playmaker, his team became more successful. I personally feel that its because he was able to get more people involved in the play, making everyone on the ice with him a threat, making the team as a whole much harder to stop. When Gretzky put up his 92 goals, 212 points, he more than doubled the scoring of any other Oiler. Yet the team saw little success in the post season. You could say they weren't as old, and hadn't matured, which is also true. But Lemieux did the same thing with his 199 point year - great personal success, little team success.

I'm not saying that always happens, or even that its the general rule. I just find it strange that great individual performances often seem to count for less than strong playmaking and spreading the success throughout the entire team. This years finals is another great example - Vancouver had all the regular season offensive stars, but Boston had a stronger team game. It doesn't look as eye-catching on paper, but sometimes its better on the ice.
 

BM67

Registered User
Mar 5, 2002
4,775
279
In "The System"
Visit site
And goals>assists. Why? Cause of the obvious case of there being less 70 goal seasons than 70 assist seasons, for one, and that you can get a goal without an assist, and certainly without a secondary assist.

There are however fewer 100 assist seasons (13) than 70 goal seasons (14). Gretzky has the most in both categories (4 & 11), and indeed Gretzky has over half of the combined total (15 of 27).
 

Big Phil

Registered User
Nov 2, 2003
31,703
4,144
He's recognized as a top 4 player ever (at worst), and he deserves it. ;)

But in any event, I would argue that Jackie Robinson's significance in baseball history outweighs that of Orr's in that of hockey.

Yes, Orr was a better hockey player than Robinson a baseball player (although he's no slouch either) but it is the overall impact that Robinson gave. It can be argued that no player in all of sports had that impact. Perhaps Babe Ruth for literally changing the way the game is played.

Anyway, Gretzky had his number retired over Orr for a couple of reasons. For starters nobody wore #99. Sure Wilf Paiemant did but it became an exclusive number after a while. Secondly, Orr wore #4 which is a popular number even today. Beliveau wore it before him too. If you are going to retire a league wide number, it better be a rare number nobody wears. #99 is the perfect case for that.
 

Rhiessan71

Just a Fool
Feb 17, 2003
11,618
24
Guelph, Ont
Visit site
I know what you're saying, but you can't control whether a pass becomes an assist or not. I mean, you don't get an assist simply for putting the puck in a place/position from which your teammate SHOULD have scored. It depends ultimately on getting the puck in the net. So, in fact, the importance/value of the assist is simply a retroactive analysis of the more "important" aspect of scoring. I, personally, think it is "easier" to get assists because we extend the connection back two steps of possession from the actual act of scoring, regardless of timing or position (both crucial elements for scoring a goal, incidentally). But I'd never discredit anyone's talent on that basis, because not all passes are equal, and not all player's abilities to see the ice, choose the best path for the puck, and execute the play are equal.

That's the difference, this was not the case with Gretzky a lot of the time though. I can not even begin to count how many times I heard a teammate of his say..."Keep your stick on the ice and Gretz will get you a goal."

It was soooo true.

You do not get 100 assists in a season 11 times and you do not get more assists in a season than all but one other player has even had points by luck.

We're not talking about a goalie getting an assist by stopping the puck behind the net for guy that takes it, goes end to end and scores.
 

Iain Fyffe

Hockey fact-checker
Anyway, Gretzky had his number retired over Orr for a couple of reasons. For starters nobody wore #99. Sure Wilf Paiemant did but it became an exclusive number after a while. Secondly, Orr wore #4 which is a popular number even today. Beliveau wore it before him too. If you are going to retire a league wide number, it better be a rare number nobody wears. #99 is the perfect case for that.
When Robinson's number was retired, anyone currently wearing 42 was allowed to retain it until they retire. I believe a couple of people still do. Mariano Rivera and someone else maybe? No reason the NHL couldn't do the same thing.

In some sense, the fact that it's also Beliveau's number just increases the reason to retire it league-wide.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->