If Gretzky started playing in todays NHL

[biturbo19]

take away all of the points he gathered off of hooking/holding/slashing penalties, add in the cap era issue of providing capable finisher linemates, and consider that teams and coaches have become far better at gameplanning against a single superstar driving a team's offense...

and honestly, i think he puts up Crosby-like numbers. maybe a tiny bit better. but i just don't see him suited for todays game the way he was suited to be a wildcard in the day and age in which he played.

 

[The_Eck]

Except all you have mentioned is hypothetical and based on the fact that Gretzky played in the 1980's and early 1990's.

I know Gretzky was getting old but why was a 34 year old Jagr more dominant than a 34 year old Gretzky?

Might it be that the game was changing and that maybe his "overblown" "physical shortcomings" were starting to show?

Also idf Gretzky had started his career not long ago and was playing in the post-lockout era, coaches would have not known that he once scored 200 Pts (because it would have never happened) so if he did give away the puck often he might have been at odds with the coach.


We are just using fantasies and what ifs.

We should appreciate Gretzky and Lemieux for what they did and be greatful for the memories they gave us but we cannot for a 100% certainty say that because they got 100 assists in the 1980's and got 170+ Pts in the 1980's that they would do it again.

For example the last time Gretzky surpassed 160 Pts was 1990-91. That season the GPG (goals per game was just under 7 goals at 6.91) big difference from now.

Gretzky wasn't exactly old in 1990-91 either as he was 30 years old, still very much in his prime.

He would still have 2 good years after that with 130 Pts and 121 Pts but why is it that when the game started to change, Gretzky became less dominant?

Because he got older and started to experience injuries??

 

[livewell68]

Because he got older and started to experience injuries??

How come players like Selanne, Jagr, Sakic who had gotten older and have experienced injuries put up impressive numbers even in the their mid to late 30's?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

take away all of the points he gathered off of hooking/holding/slashing penalties, add in the cap era issue of providing capable finisher linemates, and consider that teams and coaches have become far better at gameplanning against a single superstar driving a team's offense...

and honestly, i think he puts up Crosby-like numbers. maybe a tiny bit better. but i just don't see him suited for todays game the way he was suited to be a wildcard in the day and age in which he played.

Why take those away? Obstruction penalties are called far more frequently in the "New NHL," and a significantly greater percentage of offense comes from the powerplay than it did in Gretzky's prime.

 

[livewell68]

Can someone please put up a highlight reel of Gretzky's goals, especially the ones where he is behind the net?

The reason I say this is because yesterday on TSN and the Hockey Channel show, they were showing highlights of Gretzky and I couldn't help but notice that whenever Gretzky stood behind the net, not one single player would cover him or even attempt to check him.

He would basically just stand there and wait to pass to someone in front of the net.

How often can a player stand behind the net now or even in the late 90's without having at least one defender all over him?

Also when Gretzky was scoring over 50 goals a season, he used to wind up and take those slap shots of his, his wrist shot was weak and the goalies would just come up and jump up.

If a player tried to wind up now for a slap shot, he would have players all over him, checking, taking the puck from him, blocking the shot, not to mention he would have no time to let that shot go.

How many players can score on a slap shot with a clear lane nowadays on a goalie?

 

[BraveCanadian]

Can someone please put up a highlight reel of Gretzky's goals, especially the ones where he is behind the net?

The reason I say this is because yesterday on TSN and the Hockey Channel show, they were showing highlights of Gretzky and I couldn't help but notice that whenever Gretzky stood behind the net, not one single player would cover him or even attempt to check him.

He would basically just stand there and wait to pass to someone in front of the net.

How often can a player stand behind the net now or even in the late 90's without having at least one defender all over him?

There is a reason he didn't get challenged behind the net very often.

Teams had tried that before. They tried chasing him out of there, heck teams tried having someone come at him from both sides of the net at once.. they all got burned.

He made them look silly so many times that, in general, teams decided to try to cover his options in front of the net and try to block his passes out because that worked more often than trying to beat Gretzky in his own office.

 

[YNWA14]

There is a reason he didn't get challenged behind the net very often.

Teams had tried that before. They tried chasing him out of there, heck teams tried having someone come at him from both sides of the net at once.. they all got burned.

He made them look silly so many times that, in general, teams decided to try to cover his options in front of the net and try to block his passes out because that worked more often than trying to beat Gretzky in his own office.

I find it hard to believe that would be the case today.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I find it hard to believe that would be the case today.

Then you didn't watch a lot of Gretzky in his prime, did you?

 

[YNWA14]

Then you didn't watch a lot of Gretzky in his prime, did you?

Then you don't watch a lot of hockey today, do you?

 

[BraveCanadian]

Then you don't watch a lot of hockey today, do you?

I thought so..

 

[livewell68]

Then you didn't watch a lot of Gretzky in his prime, did you?

Very simple, put two 6'5 defenseman from each side and clog Gretzky's opening. What would he do then?

I watched some video tapes of both Lemieux and Gretzky and tried to compare them and I never saw a player get so much open ice, never get checked like Gretzky did.

My uncle has over 1000 video tapes taped of hockey games.

Watch all of Gretzky's highlights, he never ever got touched.

Was he that good that if you tried to check him he "would burn you"?

Burn you with what? His imposing size and strength? His superior stickhandling and speed?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

LOL, people couldn't believe Gretzky did the things he did back then, either. But he did them.

I swear, 20 years from now, some kids are going to be saying that Ovechkin's style of shooting anywhere from the ice "definitely wouldn't work in today's game, why didn't they just block his shots?"

 

[YNWA14]

I thought so..

I thought you might avoid the question.

 

[YNWA14]

Very simple, put two 6'5 defenseman from each side and clog Gretzky's opening. What would he do then?

I watched some video tapes of both Lemieux and Gretzky and tried to compare them and I never saw a player get so much open ice, never get checked like Gretzky did.

My uncle has over 1000 video tapes taped of hockey games.

Watch all of Gretzky's highlights, he never ever got touched.

Was he that good that if you tried to check him he "would burn you"?

Burn you with what? His imposing size and strength? His superior stickhandling and speed?

This is a pointless argument. People that grew up with Gretzky and the amazing things that he did aren't willing to accept the evolution of a sport. Even before the NHL became as stacked as it is today he was losing his touch in his late 20s. People are talking about wear and tear and injuries...but it's not like Gretzky took a lot of punishment. There's no way he would have anywhere near the space or respect today if he played in the NHL that he did then.

Ultimately yes he probably would be one of the best players in the league right now, but there's no way he would put up the kinds of numbers that he did in that day's NHL. The game is just too different; there's been so much evolution.

 

[livewell68]

LOL, people couldn't believe Gretzky did the things he did back then, either. But he did them.

I swear, 20 years from now, some kids are going to be saying that Ovechkin's style of shooting anywhere from the ice "definitely wouldn't work in today's game, why didn't they just block his shots?"

Except the game has evolved so much now that we are starting to hit a plateau.

Yes players are generally bigger, faster, smarter and more skilled than the players in the 1980's, but this evolution cannot continue at this rate because then what would happen?

Will the players in the future be 7'0 and skate like Bure? Will they be able to fly, will goalies have reflexes and vision that is fater than the speed of light?

I doubt it. Certain physical evolution can only go so far.

That is why there is very little change between the players from the mid to late 90's and the players now.

However the game played in the 80's is vastly different than the game played even in the mid 90's.

Yes some of the players from 80's still played but their dominance or effectivenous had been dimished, some due to age ( I will admit that) but you still have players in their late 30's now that are still performing at an elite level due to the advancement in training.

The reason Lemieux goes against this is because he was built like the "perfect hockey player". Fast, skilled, strong, big and nimble and had the vision (not to Gretzky's extent) but still had vision that is top 5.

Gretzy had superior vision and IQ but he did not have the physical gifts Lemieux had.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Was he that good that if you tried to check him he "would burn you"?

Burn you with what? His imposing size and strength? His superior stickhandling and speed?

In a word: yes.

I know it is hard for people to understand because, frankly, no one understands how Gretzky played. Not even Gretzky himself.

But size and strength had almost nothing to do with his game. He was just always two steps ahead of everyone on the ice.

He was a very deft stick handler, the best passer the game has ever seen, and did have a ton of quickness and agility when he was younger. He never had the fastest top end speed by any means though, but he was quick.

Mostly though he just understood the patterns in the game at some level no one else saw or could comprehend.

Making passes to no where and suddenly someone is there.. turning away from checks where the player wasn't even in his field of vision.. absolutely crazy things that you would have to see to believe.. and then you could watch it 10 times and still wonder.. How did he do that?

Honestly, as good as Crosby and Ovechkin et al. are today, I feel kind of sad for hockey fans today.. except for the ignorant ones.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I thought you might avoid the question.

I watch hockey all the time.

Unfortunately for you, in this argument I have seen both today's NHL and Gretzky in his prime.

So I can actually make an educated comparison whereas you cling to silly arguments about how "evolution" happens in a few years.

Laughable.

If anything, today's game is more suited to Gretzky than pre-lockout.

 

[livewell68]

This is a pointless argument. People that grew up with Gretzky and the amazing things that he did aren't willing to accept the evolution of a sport. Even before the NHL became as stacked as it is today he was losing his touch in his late 20s. People are talking about wear and tear and injuries...but it's not like Gretzky took a lot of punishment. There's no way he would have anywhere near the space or respect today if he played in the NHL that he did then.

Ultimately yes he probably would be one of the best players in the league right now, but there's no way he would put up the kinds of numbers that he did in that day's NHL. The game is just too different; there's been so much evolution.

How is my argument pointless? Did you not see that my questions are sarcastic?

Saying he would burn you. Burn you with what? Meaning he didn't have those extra physical skills that could make him that much better.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

from a thread called "Coffey - 2nd best offensive dman or result of teammates?"

this was the thread that changed my mind on the "elite players will produce no matter who they play with" theory:

How do you think he would have fared with "normal" teammates? Is his great record a product of his environment(s) or of his exceptional talent?

the answer, predictably, is a bit of both. coffey had some phenomenal teammates, which no doubt padded his points total.

but no player ever scored 170 points without paul coffey on his team. there are conditionals-- you can argue that lemieux would have topped 170 at least once without coffey had he been healthy, but nonetheless, this stat is pretty telling of coffey's impact on the monster numbers of gretzky and lemieux, i think.

what would gretzky's career totals look like without coffey?

and don't forget, on that '94-'95 red wings team that went to the finals, coffey was their best player, not yzerman, fedorov, lidstrom, fetisov, vlady, dino, etc.

No one has a 170 point season without him on their team and there are like a dozen or so 170 point years WITH him on a team.

there were only seven. but that is pretty amazing that coffey had a hand in the seven best offensive seasons of all time. even more impressive that each of those seven seasons was 180+, and six of them were 195+, when no one without coffey ever topped 168.

In fairness, Lemieux and Gretzky deserve the majority share of credit since they are the only two who hit those numbers. Coffey certainly had a hand in it(Being the second greatest puck moving, rushing defenseman of all time), but in 87-88 Gretzky was on pace for 186 points(More than his last season with Coffey), but missed a 5th of the season.

Without Coffey, Lemieux was on pace for 224 points in 92-93 before the Cancer bout, and 189 points in 1995-96, but was downed by injuries.

i agree, coffey doesn't deserve all, or even the majority, of the credit here. but my point, as i said upthread, is that this stat isn't meaningless. gretzky and lemieux, if healthy, each would likely have topped the 170 mark at least once in the post-coffey eras of their respective careers.

but even if you take out all of the extenuating factors-- that these were arguably the two greatest point producing forwards of all time playing in the easiest era for producing huge point totals-- the fact remains: if you put any d-man other than orr on those teams in those seasons with gretzky or lemieux, i don't think gretzky and lemieux hit the numbers they do.

put potvin in his 100 point prime on the '85-'86 oilers and take out coffey. does gretzky hit 215 that year? i think he might flirt with 200, and maybe the oilers beat the flames in the playoffs that year, but i don't think he reaches his career high without coffey.

replace '88-'89 coffey with '89-'90 bourque or '90-'91 macinnis on the penguins. again, from a team standpoint the pens are almost certainly a better team with well-rounded, do-everything defencemen who can still put up 90+ points. but from an individual point-producing standpoint, i think coffey makes a 15-25 point difference in lemieux's totals.

of course, gretzky and lemieux probably had an ever greater effect on coffey's point totals, but that's beside the point.

re: gretzky, remember that coffey only played 59 games in his last season in edmonton. i don't know for a fact that gretzky scored less when coffey was out of the lineup, but i think that's a safe assumption, given 1. that gretzky's 183 points that year was his lowest total in six years by 13, and 2. that gretzky continued to score at a lower, but still monster pace from the coffey trade until the suter hit at the 1991 canada cup. my memory is that gretzky was as good, if not a smarter and more efficient, point producer in those years (ages 27-30), he just wasn't in a situation to score as many points as he did in his early 20s. give him a 1980s coffey and he's probably still hitting 190 in LA, and maybe threatening his career high in '88-'89.

re: lemieux, i think he was at his absolute peak the season after the second cup, plus almost every first line player was scoring at unprecedented clips that year. and he was probably offensively as good in '96 as he was in '89, plus he had jagr, who had by then established himself as one of the game's best point producers with or without lemieux. give lemieux a prime coffey and a healthy back in '96 and lemieux probably flirts with 200 again. give '93 lemieux a prime coffey and a healthy back and... i can't even imagine.

in coffey's eight season prime, from '82-'89, he contributed to eight of the nine highest scoring seasons of all time. other than orr, i don't think anyone else in history could have done that given the same fortuitous circumstances (of having arguably the two greatest point producing forwards ever in the easiest era to put up monster point totals).

I do not have every game log for which games Coffey missed other than his back spasms time off that year, but according to the data, he played in the Nov 26th game against Calgary and then missed near a month due to back spasms - Dec 20th, returning on Dec 23rd's game against Winnipeg, so Ill post those games.

Last game before Back spasms: http://www.flyershistory.com/cgi-bin/poboxscore.cgi?H19860219

http://www.flyershistory.com/cgi-bin/poboxscore.cgi?H19860231
http://www.flyershistory.com/cgi-bin/poboxscore.cgi?H19860238
http://www.flyershistory.com/cgi-bin/poboxscore.cgi?H19860260
http://www.flyershistory.com/cgi-bin/poboxscore.cgi?H19860271
http://www.flyershistory.com/cgi-bin/poboxscore.cgi?H19860280
http://www.flyershistory.com/cgi-bin/poboxscore.cgi?H19860289
http://www.flyershistory.com/cgi-bin/poboxscore.cgi?H19860295
http://www.flyershistory.com/cgi-bin/poboxscore.cgi?H19860302
http://www.flyershistory.com/cgi-bin/poboxscore.cgi?H19860317
http://www.flyershistory.com/cgi-bin/poboxscore.cgi?H19860323
http://www.flyershistory.com/cgi-bin/poboxscore.cgi?H19860336
http://www.flyershistory.com/cgi-bin/poboxscore.cgi?H19860346

First game back from Back Spasms: http://www.flyershistory.com/cgi-bin/poboxscore.cgi?H19860359

In the 12 games Gretzky played without Coffey, he scored 15 goals and 19 assists for 34 points in 12 games. Obviously, Gretzky could score with anyone.

I have always advocated that superstars will produce big no matter who they are playing with, and that at most, a different supporting cast will have only a 5-10 point increase tops.

Ill just quote a post that covered my opinion almost to the letter.

The simple answer is... yes and no.

The shortish answer is that superstars produce what they will produce regardless of their linemates, but they can elevate the point totals of their linemates.

The long version:
I've found that players only produce more if they play with players who are actually better than them (not just better than their previously crappy linemates). Take the Penguins or recent history. A generational player like Mario Lemieux will produce his points no matter who he plays with. An all-time great like Jagr will produce his points no matter who he plays with, unless he plays with someone like Lemieux, who will bump his point totals upwards. A "normal level" star like Francis will produce what he will produce unless he plays with a better player like Lemieux or Jagr.

A star player should not see his production fall much when his team sucks. They only thing that should fall is his team's number of wins. Take Kovalchuk, for instance. He put up pretty similar totals when he played with Savard and Hossa as he does now, playing with relative crap. Look at Ovechkin and Crosby, both of whom put up gaudy totals in their early years, playing on awful teams. They increased their points slightly as they personally got better, but their teams getting better did not affect their personal totals very much.

An exception to the rule might be a shooter who depends on getting feeds in the perfect position like Brett Hull (who was much better with Oates), but such cases are rare, as that is a very particular type of player.

Obviously, an average player like Cheechoo can see his totals skyrocket when playing with a superstar.

Conclusion: Kovalchuk is better than Nash because he can put up high totals playing with nobody special, while Nash cannot.

 

[lextune]

LOL, people couldn't believe Gretzky did the things he did back then, either. But he did them.

I swear, 20 years from now, some kids are going to be saying that Ovechkin's style of shooting anywhere from the ice "definitely wouldn't work in today's game, why didn't they just block his shots?"

This is exactly right.

It is symptomatic of every generation. Everything new ("ours!") is the best thing ever.

Everything old is antiquated, and any suggestion to the contrary is foggy nostalgia.

The only saving grace is that 20 years from now these kids will be us trying to explain all of this to the latest generation, lol.

We hear things like:

"In 2011 players would just run over Gretzky. he'd score about 25 PP points, if that."
Hyperbolic I realize, but you get the point....

But it presents the idea that if Scott Stevens had a chance to line up Gretz with a perfectly clean, brutal hit, he wouldn't do it out of some "unwritten" rule, lol.

Really.

...I know. It's insane.

I've actually talked to people who believe this too. I've asked them point blank, "so Stevens would pass up the hit, and perhaps by doing so make the likelihood of Gretzky scoring (or setting up a goal) more likely...? You think he'd be alright with that?"

I either get no discernible response at all, or some inane reply like "he'd stop him, (or try to), in some other way, no way he would just run him down though."

Yeah....this is where we are supposed to believe that Scott Stevens, (and others of his ilk), were deathly afraid of Dave Semenko.

....never let logic get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.

 

[Jarick]

I'd guess maybe 50-60 goals and 80-100 assists. I just can't see 200+ points with modern goaltending and defense. Goalies aren't giving up unscreened slappers with larger pads and the butterfly, and coaches would put their best defensemen against him to limit breakaways and his ability to drive to the net.

 

[CarlWinslow]

How come players like Selanne, Jagr, Sakic who had gotten older and have experienced injuries put up impressive numbers even in the their mid to late 30's?

You should do some research into the 1991 Canada Cup, Gary Suter and Wayne Gretzky's subsequent back problems before you start talking about things you obviously have no idea about.

 

[livewell68]

You should do some research into the 1991 Canada Cup, Gary Suter and Wayne Gretzky's subsequent back problems before you start talking about things you obviously have no idea about.

Because Jagr never got injured right? He did not dislocate his shoulder and require reconstructive surgery. He did not have numerous groin injuries due to his chronic groin, he did not miss time due to a knee injury; injuries that can all diminish a player's effectiveness.

Because Jagr never got a concussion at the 2005-06 Olympics when Ruutuu hit him from behind.

Selanne did not have 3 knee surgeries.

Sakic did not get injured.

I guess Gretzky is the only player who hurt is "poor back".

Lemieux didn't battle cancer and a chronic bad back and score 160 Pts in 1995-96, he did not score 76 Pts in 43 games in 2000-01 after being away from hockey for 4 years.

Gretzky is the only one that got old and got injured!!!

 

[CarlWinslow]

Because Jagr never got injured right? He did not dislocate his shoulder and require reconstructive surgery. He did not have numerous groin injuries due to his chronic groin, he did not miss time due to a knee injury; injuries that can all diminish a player's effectiveness.

Because Jagr never got a concussion at the 2005-06 Olympics when Ruutuu hit him from behind.

Selanne did not have 3 knee surgeries.

Sakic did not get injured.

I guess Gretzky is the only player who hurt is "poor back".

Lemieux didn't battle cancer and a chronic bad back and score 160 Pts in 1995-96, he did not score 76 Pts in 43 games in 2000-01 after being away from hockey for 4 years.

Gretzky is the only one that got old and got injured!!!

The man had a debilitating back injury. You asked why he was less effective, well there it is.

Here is the thing though. Your point was that other players continued to put up impressive numbers into their 30s. How about 130 points in 81 games at age 32? How about 97 then 90 points at age 36 and 37 playing with Niklas Sundstrom as your top winger?

Gretzky put up great number in his later years but the man had a broken down back and almost 20 years of NHL hockey on his body. He was putting up insane numbers before, that's all.

If you'd like to argue the greatness of Gretzky vs. Sakic, Selanne, or even your all-time favorite Jammy, I'd be happy too though.

 

[JackSlater]

How come players like Selanne, Jagr, Sakic who had gotten older and have experienced injuries put up impressive numbers even in the their mid to late 30's?

Like Gretzky, who was fourth and third in NHL scoring in his mid to late 30s?

Can someone please put up a highlight reel of Gretzky's goals, especially the ones where he is behind the net?

The reason I say this is because yesterday on TSN and the Hockey Channel show, they were showing highlights of Gretzky and I couldn't help but notice that whenever Gretzky stood behind the net, not one single player would cover him or even attempt to check him.

He would basically just stand there and wait to pass to someone in front of the net.

How often can a player stand behind the net now or even in the late 90's without having at least one defender all over him?

Also when Gretzky was scoring over 50 goals a season, he used to wind up and take those slap shots of his, his wrist shot was weak and the goalies would just come up and jump up.

If a player tried to wind up now for a slap shot, he would have players all over him, checking, taking the puck from him, blocking the shot, not to mention he would have no time to let that shot go.

How many players can score on a slap shot with a clear lane nowadays on a goalie?

As far as chasing Gretzky from behind the net, it just resulted in one fewer defender defending the passing lanes. This would result in the other team getting burned. As far as Gretzky's use of the slap shot, I assume that the smartest hockey player ever would be able to find open ice to use it. I also assume that Gretzky would adapt to the changes in the game and alter his methods accordingly, including working on his wrist shot and changing his ratio of slap shots to wrist shots.

Very simple, put two 6'5 defenseman from each side and clog Gretzky's opening. What would he do then?

Very simple indeed. Clearly you are smarter than every single coach in the hockey world from 1980-1999. The smartest player ever never would have figured out what to do.

I watched some video tapes of both Lemieux and Gretzky and tried to compare them and I never saw a player get so much open ice, never get checked like Gretzky did.

My uncle has over 1000 video tapes taped of hockey games.

Watch all of Gretzky's highlights, he never ever got touched.

Yes, because he was always ahead of every other player mentally. It's been covered so many times that Gretzky did not get touched because of his incredible anticipation. Do you think that the other players all colluded so as to allow Gretzky to score loads of points against their teams, or was Gretzky just incredible at avoiding dangerous situations.

Was he that good that if you tried to check him he "would burn you"?

Burn you with what? His imposing size and strength? His superior stickhandling and speed?

Hmmm if a defender was out of position what would Gretzky do. This is getting quite repetitive, but Gretzky was the smartest player ever. He would move the puck into the right place, either by skating it there (since the defending almost certainly missed him) or passing it there, and very likely a dangerous play would develop. That is what happened the vast majority of the time when someone took a run at Gretzky. I suppose to be more succinct I will say that he would simply burn you with his hockey sense.

This is a pointless argument. People that grew up with Gretzky and the amazing things that he did aren't willing to accept the evolution of a sport. Even before the NHL became as stacked as it is today he was losing his touch in his late 20s. People are talking about wear and tear and injuries...but it's not like Gretzky took a lot of punishment. There's no way he would have anywhere near the space or respect today if he played in the NHL that he did then.

I like that Gretzky was losing his tuoch in his late 20s when he was still clearly the best offensive player in the world other than Lemieux. Would you care to explain why Gretzky was third in NHL scoring at 37, even though he played on a weak Rangers team?