If Gretzky started playing in todays NHL

[Tumsh]

Please. Consider for a moment that trying to defend a player like Gretzky or a Lemieux or a Howe or even Bossy is a waste of time. Coaches spent night after night game planning to stop these players. Do you not think that these hockey minds considered for a second the same defensive strategies as they do today? Yes, they did. Some tried them and they failed miserably because the offensive players were too good.

Indeed the coaches spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to play better defense. Not just against Gretsky, but in general. And today, all the coaches can use the knowledge that was gained through the coaches of the 70's, 80's, and 90's. They thought out things and tested them out. Today's coaches have the benefit of their discoveries readily at their disposal. That is, they can combine the best of some very good coaches, without the trial and error that the older coaches had to go through, because it's already been done for them.

As far as defensive systems being more advanced today? precision is only as good as the player running it. Take for example the 70's Canadiens, they ran a pretty precise defensive machine, now compare that to the 2010 Capitals.
Who was the superior coach?

Was Isaac Newton a better physicist than me? Yes
Do I know more about the universe than he did? Yes

Same thing about the coaches of today. Is BB necessarily a better coach than whomever was coaching the 70's Habs? Of course not. Does he know more about systems and strategies? Hell yes.
Education is the key here. What was pioneered by greats in the past are readily available to students of today. This includes coaching hockey.

Another thing to keep in mind is that offense relies more on the creativity and skill of the individual players. Defense relies a lot more on system and conditioned behaviours. So it makes sense that improvements in coaching will make it harder to score as time goes on.

Iain Fyffe wrote an interesting article about this: link

Basically, the data shows that the NHL becomes higher scoring as the talent pool decreases (as there are more weak players to exploit). This only works up to a point though (scoring dropped in the 1990's as the league became diluted by expanding so quickly, there just wasn't enough hockey talent left to fill the scoring lines on the ever-growing number of teams).

Has anyone made a similar analysis for the best players every year? Basically, how did the top player's scoring change as the league got watered down or tighter. It would be interesting to see if the effect is greater on the top end players than it is on the league as an average.

Goalie equipment is the bigger factor among equipment factors IMO. It's completely logical that if they didn't take up so much space, more pucks would get by them. With that said, the shooters have mitigated some of that advantage with their composite sticks, so I don't feel the net effect makes a big difference in goalies' favour, although it would make some difference. In total, this can likely account for 10-20% of the scoring drop from 1990 to today, which doesn't invalidate the stuff I've been saying here.

I think the way in which teams go about scoring goals is a big change too which mitigates the improved goalie equipment. There is a much larger emphasis on screening and just flinging pucks at the net, hoping for a redirect or a rebound. This I think is also a reason it would be harder for an individual to stand out to the same extent as they once could.

Gretzky would be the best player in the NHL if he were playing now.

Sorry, but you just can't teach hockey sense and he wouldn't lose any of this. Am I the only one that chuckles a bit when wondering how a prime Gretzky would eat up the no red line rule?

I know there are a lot of posters on here that aren't very old. Unfortunately the people that actually saw Gretzky in his prime will dwindle by the year. But in 1979 he was too skinny and slow to play in the NHL. Bobby Clarke openly said he wouldn't "last" in the NHL. The skinny kid won the MVP his rookie year.

Then he scored over 200 points. Then 50 goals in 39 games, then 92 goals. The critics then said "Sure he can score, but can he win"? Then in 1984 he won. "But can he do it again?" He did it again. Then they choked in 1986 and the critics started the whole drug abuse thing in Edmonton with some Oilers players.

"I guess he won't be able to lead a team to dynasty status eh?"

Then he won two more Cups. In between he proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was the best player in the world during the 1987 Canada Cup.

Then he got traded. "Well, he won't do as well in L.A. As a King he won another Hart and three more scoring titles not to mention taking a team on his back to the Cup final.

The more things change the more they stay the same eh? No one wanted to admit that he was as great as he was then, and many people believe he wouldn't be anything special today. In 30 years we have learned NOTHING!

Looking at this thread, very few people said that he wouldn't dominate or that he'd be nothing special. I think it's just the case that a lot of people think that it would be hard to score 200+ points in today's NHL. Gretzky would still be head and shoulders above every one else in terms of how good a hockey player he is, it's just that the same difference in "goodness" would translate to a smaller difference in stats. Apart from the debate about "replacement talent" most people seem to agree that there would be a decrese, but that it's hard to know exactly how much. I would say that a the difference between guess of 150pts and 170pts is likely more due to how they view the different eras than it is about how they view Gretsky's skill.


PS: It's rather late, so some of the tings I said may not make a whole lot of sense.

 

[tazzy19]

Tumsh, I enjoyed reading your analysis, and I agree with many of the points you made, however they would have held a lot more weight if you knew how to spell "Gretsky"

 

[Tumsh]

Tumsh, I enjoyed reading your analysis, and I agree with many of the points you made, however they would have held a lot more weight if you knew how to spell "Gretsky"

Heh... seems I was going roughly 50-50. As I said, I was tired, at least I'll let that lie as my excuse

 

[bauerguy88]

Well considering we dont really have any generational offensive talents in the league. He would score much more than anyone else, just not as dominate as he used to be. I think 140 to 160 average points per game.

I agree with this if you meant season (which I am assuming you did mean.)

 

[seventieslord]

So why doesn't Ovechkin score at will against a guy like Orr whereas a Bossy would chew up any line with an Orr caliber player on it? It's because Bossy was better.

- Ovechkin has a ways to go before he is viewed favourably to Bossy in an all-time sense, but assuming the next 5 years go like his first five years, he is well on his way to being better than Bossy. Anyone in this section should see that.

How do you figure? He is already slowing down. The only thing Ovechkin has over Bossy is awards and the only reason he has that is because of Wayne Gretzky. Unless you want to argue their speed etc. which you can;t because the playing field is unfair.

Whether he's already slowing down is up for debate. He probably has a handful of seasons top-3 in scoring still left in him.

There you go. More opinion based debate. So how do you propose one of us proves the other wrong? It's not going to happen.

Wait 5 years, I guess. This board will still be here, I like to be right, and I have a looong memory.

Okay, in five years, I invite you to bring this up again. Until then, neither of us is proving the other wrong.

It's just four seasons later, but with seasons in 3rd, 4th and 8th in points and three times 1st in goals, I'm claiming victory on this one.

 

[Voight]

He would not a "lose" an Art Ross thats for sure.

 

[Big Phil]

He would not a "lose" an Art Ross thats for sure.

Absolutely not, we know this for sure.

The Art Ross winners post 2005:
2006 - Thornton
2007 - Crosby
2008 - Ovechkin
2009 - Malkin
2010 - H. Sedin
2011 - D. Sedin
2012 - Malkin
2013 - St. Louis
2014 - Crosby
2015 - Benn

Look, we don't even know if all of those guys are going to be in the HHOF. Gretzky was obliterating Dionne, Stastny, Hawerchuk, Kurri, Bossy, Savard and Trottier.

Now, were some of the modern day guys as good as them? Absolutely, or better. Thornton is Stastny more or less. Crosby is on equal footing offensively as Dionne at least. There are comparables for sure. But Gretzky was dominating those guys, so how in the world could Jamie Benn have outpointed him? Truth is, he wouldn't have. He wouldn't have even been close, well, maybe in October or November.

That's the true test right there. How the guy would fare in today's game by comparing players past and present. I think most of us agree the 1980s guys fit in rather nicely today as well. Well, Gretzky was outscoring them by 70 points.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Absolutely not, we know this for sure.

The Art Ross winners post 2005:
2006 - Thornton
2007 - Crosby
2008 - Ovechkin
2009 - Malkin
2010 - H. Sedin
2011 - D. Sedin
2012 - Malkin
2013 - St. Louis
2014 - Crosby
2015 - Benn

Look, we don't even know if all of those guys are going to be in the HHOF. Gretzky was obliterating Dionne, Stastny, Hawerchuk, Kurri, Bossy, Savard and Trottier.

Now, were some of the modern day guys as good as them? Absolutely, or better. Thornton is Stastny more or less. Crosby is on equal footing offensively as Dionne at least. There are comparables for sure. But Gretzky was dominating those guys, so how in the world could Jamie Benn have outpointed him? Truth is, he wouldn't have. He wouldn't have even been close, well, maybe in October or November.

That's the true test right there. How the guy would fare in today's game by comparing players past and present. I think most of us agree the 1980s guys fit in rather nicely today as well. Well, Gretzky was outscoring them by 70 points.

How would mumps have affected Gretzky?

 

[Big Phil]

How would mumps have affected Gretzky?

Mumps? Come on. Give Crosby an extra 10 points just for grace. He has 94, Benn has 87. When did a player of Benn's caliber come that close to Gretzky in the scoring race?

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

I'm not sure gretzky would have beaten crosby for the 07 ross. Crosby was 19 and put up 120 points in 2007. Gretzky at 19 put up 137 points in 1980. I'm not sure if 137 points in 80 translates to more than 120 in 07. The thing is crosby from 16-19 can absolutely be compared to gretzky from 16-19. It's close between the two in that age span.

 

[Black Gold Extractor]

I'm not sure gretzky would have beaten crosby for the 07 ross. Crosby was 19 and put up 120 points in 2007. Gretzky at 19 put up 137 points in 1980. I'm not sure if 137 points in 80 translates to more than 120 in 07. The thing is crosby from 16-19 can absolutely be compared to gretzky from 16-19. It's close between the two in that age span.

Here are the top ten players from 1979-80 and 2006-07:

79-80 Player | Points | 06-07 Player | Points
Gretzky | 137 | Crosby | 120
Dionne | 137 | Thornton | 114
Lafleur | 125 | Lecavalier | 108
Perreault |106 | Heatley | 105
Rogers | 105 | St. Louis | 102
Trottier | 104 | Sakic | 100
Simmer | 101 | Hossa | 100
Stoughton | 100 | Jagr | 96
Sittler | 97 | Savard | 96
Federko | 94 | Briere | 95
AVG. 2-10 | 107 | AVG. 2-10 | 101 AVG. 2-6 | 115 | AVG. 2-6 | 105

The scoring of top players is actually reasonably similar with the exception of Dionne, Gretzky, and Lafleur, who are all outlier scorers in 1979-80. (This is, of course, helped by the fact that there are 2 more games in a season in 2006-07 than in 1979-80).

If we go by the lead between Gretzky and the rest of the top ten, it looks like instead of scoring 137 points in 79 games, he'd probably score 129 in 81 games (137 times 101 divided by 107) if he played his 19-year-old season in 2006-07.

If you want to ignore Hossa and Jagr, let's just look at Gretzky's lead over the rest of just the top six. It looks like Gretzky would score 125 points in 81 games (137 times 105 divided by 115).

"Adjustments" are never spot on, but it does look like Gretzky would top 120 points, though not by much.

Like you said, it's pretty close between Gretzky and Crosby between 16-19.

 

[Plural]

It's just four seasons later, but with seasons in 3rd, 4th and 8th in points and three times 1st in goals, I'm claiming victory on this one.

Nicely done.

 

[Big Phil]

I'm not sure gretzky would have beaten crosby for the 07 ross. Crosby was 19 and put up 120 points in 2007. Gretzky at 19 put up 137 points in 1980. I'm not sure if 137 points in 80 translates to more than 120 in 07. The thing is crosby from 16-19 can absolutely be compared to gretzky from 16-19. It's close between the two in that age span.

Actually to compare it accurately, Gretzky's 19 year old season - one in which he turned 20 mid way through it - is 1980-'81 where he got 164 points.

 

[Plural]

Actually to compare it accurately, Gretzky's 19 year old season - one in which he turned 20 mid way through it - is 1980-'81 where he got 164 points.

Which definitely would be enough to beat Crosby.

But outside of Gretzky, who has ever had so good start to their career as Crosby? I don't think even Lemieux was able to be as good as Crosby was in his first two years.

I remember people talking about how good he would eventually come and even you, Phil, wrote on this very forum that you could see Crosby going on the 170 point territory. It wasn't as if it was an absurd statement either. Crosby was on fire in his sophomore season and there was a lot of talk about him being Gretzky-level player.

Ten years in and we all know that wasn't the case. Not even nearly. So, in a way, his career has been on the downfall since his sophomore season. When compared to expectations. He's still the best player of his generation. But not on the level most of us expected after his sophomore season.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Which definitely would be enough to beat Crosby.

But outside of Gretzky, who has ever had so good start to their career as Crosby? I don't think even Lemieux was able to be as good as Crosby was in his first two years.

I remember people talking about how good he would eventually come and even you, Phil, wrote on this very forum that you could see Crosby going on the 170 point territory. It wasn't as if it was an absurd statement either. Crosby was on fire in his sophomore season and there was a lot of talk about him being Gretzky-level player.

Ten years in and we all know that wasn't the case. Not even nearly. So, in a way, his career has been on the downfall since his sophomore season. When compared to expectations. He's still the best player of his generation. But not on the level most of us expected after his sophomore season.

That damn high ankle sprain...

 

[Plural]

That damn high ankle sprain...

Was it really that big deal? He was on his way to another Art Ross. But I don't remember him taking it to the next level that season. When the concussion/neck injuries came those were worse in terms of his career IMO.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Back to the original topic:

NHL scoring has plummeted since this thread was started. In 2013-14, the highest non-Crosby player had 87 points. In 2014-15 (Crosby's mumps year), the Art Ross winner had 87 points. So let's use 87 points as the standard.

From 1981-82 to 1985-86, Gretzky averaged about 207 points per season. The highest scoring non-Oiler non-Lemieux (Bossy, Stastny, Goulet, Hawerchuk, Bossy) averaged about 129 points during this time period, or 62% of what Gretzky averaged.

87 points is 62% of 140 points.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Was it really that big deal? He was on his way to another Art Ross. But I don't remember him taking it to the next level that season. When the concussion/neck injuries came those were worse in terms of his career IMO.

It robbed him of his speed, beforehand, he was one of the fastest players in the league.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Actually to compare it accurately, Gretzky's 19 year old season - one in which he turned 20 mid way through it - is 1980-'81 where he got 164 points.

The nhl officially rules it as the age you end the season as. So 1979-80 gretzky was 18 years old when it started and 19 when it ended. So officially he was 19 his rookie year

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Here are the top ten players from 1979-80 and 2006-07:

79-80 Player | Points | 06-07 Player | Points
Gretzky | 137 | Crosby | 120
Dionne | 137 | Thornton | 114
Lafleur | 125 | Lecavalier | 108
Perreault |106 | Heatley | 105
Rogers | 105 | St. Louis | 102
Trottier | 104 | Sakic | 100
Simmer | 101 | Hossa | 100
Stoughton | 100 | Jagr | 96
Sittler | 97 | Savard | 96
Federko | 94 | Briere | 95
AVG. 2-10 | 107 | AVG. 2-10 | 101 AVG. 2-6 | 115 | AVG. 2-6 | 105

The scoring of top players is actually reasonably similar with the exception of Dionne, Gretzky, and Lafleur, who are all outlier scorers in 1979-80. (This is, of course, helped by the fact that there are 2 more games in a season in 2006-07 than in 1979-80).

If we go by the lead between Gretzky and the rest of the top ten, it looks like instead of scoring 137 points in 79 games, he'd probably score 129 in 81 games (137 times 101 divided by 107) if he played his 19-year-old season in 2006-07.

If you want to ignore Hossa and Jagr, let's just look at Gretzky's lead over the rest of just the top six. It looks like Gretzky would score 125 points in 81 games (137 times 105 divided by 115).

"Adjustments" are never spot on, but it does look like Gretzky would top 120 points, though not by much.

Like you said, it's pretty close between Gretzky and Crosby between 16-19.

We have to remember that crosby had 120 in 79. 125 point pace in 82. Also crosby played the last month with a broken bone in his foot. Either way it would have been right down to the wire between crosby and gretzky as 19 year olds for the art ross. Which is still exceptional for crosby. Beyond that no one would probably beat gretzky. But idk a 2010-2011 crosby was a man amongst boys... But that's another story haha

 

[Plural]

The nhl officially rules it as the age you end the season as. So 1979-80 gretzky was 18 years old when it started and 19 when it ended. So officially he was 19 his rookie year

If the purpose is to religiously look at the rule book, you have a point. But for the purpose of discussion, context is good.

But Gretzky did play a year of pro hockey before his first NHL season. So it depends. If you count this by NHL seasons, Gretzky's first vs. Crosby's first is correct. If you count this from pro seasons. Gretzky's first vs. Crosby's second is correct.

I don't see the point in arguing over few months age difference. If we would be talking about rookie a'la Selanne, who was 22 year old millionaire with 4 years of pro hockey under his belt, I get the point. But Gretzky vs. Crosby it's only semantics. The age difference is minimal and doesn't have any bearing. Both guys had some amount of high level hockey under their belt before first NHL season. I honestly don't see a big difference one way or another here.

 

[seventieslord]

If the purpose is to religiously look at the rule book, you have a point. But for the purpose of discussion, context is good.

But Gretzky did play a year of pro hockey before his first NHL season. So it depends. If you count this by NHL seasons, Gretzky's first vs. Crosby's first is correct. If you count this from pro seasons. Gretzky's first vs. Crosby's second is correct.

I don't see the point in arguing over few months age difference. If we would be talking about rookie a'la Selanne, who was 22 year old millionaire with 4 years of pro hockey under his belt, I get the point. But Gretzky vs. Crosby it's only semantics. The age difference is minimal and doesn't have any bearing. Both guys had some amount of high level hockey under their belt before first NHL season. I honestly don't see a big difference one way or another here.

when talking about age, why can't we just all go by draft year? Gretzky was officially old enough to play in the NHL in 1979-80. We should call that his rookie season in the same way we call Crosby's 2005-06.

Some players are born right at the start of eligibility. Lemieux never even got to play as an 18 year old because he just missed the cut. But still, that's his first season after his draft season. I'd still use that for comparison's sake, with perhaps a mental adjustment.

 

[Plural]

when talking about age, why can't we just all go by draft year? Gretzky was officially old enough to play in the NHL in 1979-80. We should call that his rookie season in the same way we call Crosby's 2005-06.

Some players are born right at the start of eligibility. Lemieux never even got to play as an 18 year old because he just missed the cut. But still, that's his first season after his draft season. I'd still use that for comparison's sake, with perhaps a mental adjustment.

Yeah. That sounds about right.

So, in this comparison Gretzky's first year in the NHL is valid comparison to Crosby's first year in the NHL. And so on. His WHA year is not counted, even if he played against men in pro league. But so do a lot of other players too. Especially players coming from Europe. We don't take their pro seasons in KHL/SEL/Liiga/etc. in to account if they come right after they are drafted, so we shouldn't count Gretzky's WHA year as comparable to Crosby's first NHL season.

It then becomes pretty clear that Gretzky had superior two first seasons compared to Crosby, who might just be the 2nd best "rookie and sophomore" combo ever. I can't think of anyone who did better.

Gretzky's first year in the NHL is probably around similar tier as Crosby/Ovechkin first year. Bit better, but not by that much. Well, maybe Ovechkin's was even better. So, if he started at the same time, these three rookies are on same level after first season. Next season, Gretzky beats Crosby and Crosby beats the rest?

 

[geofff]

80 Gretzky 137 points on 301 team goals - 0.455
07 Crosby 120 points on 277 team goals - 0.433

Offensive Point Shares (from hockey-reference)
Gretzky 11.3
Crosby 11.3

Overall, their stats are very similar relative to the era. The one big difference I've found is pp scoring. Crosby had 61 ppp, Gretzky had 36. The Pens overall were 94/463 (20.3%) on the pp, the Oilers were 61/282 (21.63%). Maybe this is just a product of the era, but you would have to think Gretzky would have scored more points with more powerplay opportunities. (about 20 more pts based on the numbers)

The 2007 Pens were 3rd out of 30 in goals for, the 1980 Oilers were 9th of 21. The Pens were also a much better team overall, I would think that if Gretzky was put in Crosby's shoes, he would score more than 120 points that year. Not a lot more but maybe 130-some.

 

[Plural]

80 Gretzky 137 points on 301 team goals - 0.455
07 Crosby 120 points on 277 team goals - 0.433

Offensive Point Shares (from hockey-reference)
Gretzky 11.3
Crosby 11.3

Overall, their stats are very similar relative to the era. The one big difference I've found is pp scoring. Crosby had 61 ppp, Gretzky had 36. The Pens overall were 94/463 (20.3%) on the pp, the Oilers were 61/282 (21.63%). Maybe this is just a product of the era, but you would have to think Gretzky would have scored more points with more powerplay opportunities. (about 20 more pts based on the numbers)

The 2007 Pens were 3rd out of 30 in goals for, the 1980 Oilers were 9th of 21. The Pens were also a much better team overall, I would think that if Gretzky was put in Crosby's shoes, he would score more than 120 points that year. Not a lot more but maybe 130-some.

Gretzky was always an amazing ES scorer. Only once in his long career did Gretzky lead the league in PP goals.

BTW, is there a easy source for PP and ES point/goal/assist leaders? Hockey-Reference lists goal leaders but not assist leaders.