If Gretzky started playing in todays NHL

[Seanconn*]

pretty sure Lemieux had the highest PPG in NHL stat leaders until 2002 or something like that

 

[seventieslord]

pretty sure Lemieux had the highest PPG in NHL stat leaders until 2002 or something like that

only because Gretzky played a lot more games past his prime than Lemieux did.

Then Lemieux played some more games past his prime and - surprise! - he fell behind Gretzky.

 

[Boxscore]

Right now, prime Gretzky would be a steady 160 point threat. Lemieux, on the other hand, would be putting the league through the shredder at a 170+ point clip.

The way PPs are handed out today, Mario would rack up 5/6 point games like they were on sale at Wal-Mart. His shot was accurate and deadly enough to easily pick apart the goalies today, and defensemen would not be able to hold him and tackle him to the ice.

 

[unknown33]

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.

What's with the whole evolution theory? The human race is the same as it was 200 years ago, the idea that athletes magically evoled superpowers in the last 20 years is absurd.

 

[alternity]

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?

If you honestly think that would have solved Gretzky, and league-wide protection was the key to Gretzky's success, I don't know what to make of you.

Gretzky wasn't born the NHL's golden boy, I can't conceivably see why the NHL collectively would let this young upstart from the WHA win the Hart Memorial Trophy, tie in the Art Ross trophy race and dominate offensively for the next couple of years just because. Gretzky made opponents fear his ability and give him the space, because the popular notion at the time was that if couldn't beat you one way he'd easily beat you another. Gretzky was always more of a playmaker than a scorer, better to limit his options rather than leave passing lanes open. The man was as slippery as an eel, and it's quite difficult to hit someone with the awareness he had.

And sure, there were the McSorley's and Semenko's, but Gretzky needed protection because he was skilled- he wasn't skilled because he had protection. You will agree with me that he wasn't considered a physical specimen by any stretch of the imagination. Yet when checked, he was able to roll with it and when heavily marked, he was able to rise to, and often above, the occasion- transcending the offensive game like no other.

You've never seen a player like Gretzky because there is no other player quite like Gretzky. You're right, you will often see many players dominate on basis of their size, strength, speed, stickhandling and some combination thereof, or in Lemieux's case, all of the above. These are skills that can be easily differentiated and identified.

But how many do it with purely hockey sense and vision? Gretzky doesn't have a comparable, there is no "poor man's Gretzky" we can point to in today's game to accurately gauge his theoretical impact. His skillset was very rare, his work ethic sublime and his passion unquestionable. The fact that he had little else in terms of being 'physically elite' just highlights how truly great he was.

 

[Boxscore]

Gretzky was almost impossible to defend because the other team's players and coaches had no idea what he was going to do and where he was putting the puck. It was the power of genius at work. There would never be a system in place to officially stop Gretzky; he was far too intelligent.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

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.

What gets me is the people who think Gretzky, universally acknowledged as having the highest on-ice IQ of all time, would simply play the game exactly like he did in the 80s and for some reason not be able to adapt. Yeah, ok.

 

[Boxscore]

he probably would be one of the best players in the league right now.

Rotfl, I've heard it all now.

Riiiiiiight, Gretzky would "probably" just be "one of" the best in the league?! Wow. Just wow.

 

[Jarick]

Couldn't Crosby be considered a poor man's Gretzky? I mean he's got well above average passing, vision, shooting, stickhandling, skating, work ethic, and intelligence.

 

[revolverjgw]

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?

Gretzky at 37 was the oldest all-star forward of the last 40 years. He seemed to do pretty well.

 

[Rhiessan71]

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?

I needed a good chuckle today.

You pretty much summed it up in your last sentence why it wouldn't matter one bit today.
Gretzkty wasn't even at the top of the league in any of those area's in his own era heh.
It was what was between his ears, find weaknesses and think ahead of everyone else.
It was like he was playing Chess and he was 10 moves ahead of anyone else playing.

As far as Gretzkty not getting hit, just ask Denis Potvin about that.
Potvin is on record saying he tried to hit him for years and couldn't.
He said mostly you got air but even if you did make contact, that's all it was, just a little contact. Connecting solid was all but impossible.
At some point he just had to forget about it and try another day because it could become frustrating to the point that it would affect other parts of your game.
Also, in case you didn't know and judging by your posts so far you don't but Potvin was one of the nastiest hitters I have ever seen this side of Scott Stevens.

The "goons" Gretzky had were there to protect him from cheap shots, not from getting hit.

...and if anything shows your age, it's that you think it would be possible to "rough" Gretzky up by today's standards hahaha.
The toughest and roughest team in the league today would get their ***** handed to them by the meekest team in the 80's.

 

[Unaffiliated]

What's with the whole evolution theory? The human race is the same as it was 200 years ago, the idea that athletes magically evoled superpowers in the last 20 years is absurd.

The difference in humans from 200 years ago is not part of evolution; it's a product of nutrition, medicine, and population growth.

Natural selection isn't going to happen much anymore. Survival of the fittest isn't a factor in developed countries.

 

[lextune]

As far as Gretzkty not getting hit, just ask Denis Potvin about that.
Potvin is on record saying he tried to hit him for years and couldn't.
He said mostly you got air but even if you did make contact, that's all it was, just a little contact. Connecting solid was all but impossible.

True.

And Trotts tried to line him up constantly, occasionally, (rarely), he'd get a good piece of him too...

....and no one did **** about it.

Gretzky took hits, rare though they might have been, very well actually.

 

[Retsmra2010*]

I needed a good chuckle today.

You pretty much summed it up in your last sentence why it wouldn't matter one bit today.
Gretzkty wasn't even at the top of the league in any of those area's in his own era heh.
It was what was between his ears, find weaknesses and think ahead of everyone else.
It was like he was playing Chess and he was 10 moves ahead of anyone else playing.

As far as Gretzkty not getting hit, just ask Denis Potvin about that.
Potvin is on record saying he tried to hit him for years and couldn't.
He said mostly you got air but even if you did make contact, that's all it was, just a little contact. Connecting solid was all but impossible.
At some point he just had to forget about it and try another day because it could become frustrating to the point that it would affect other parts of your game.
Also, in case you didn't know and judging by your posts so far you don't but Potvin was one of the nastiest hitters I have ever seen this side of Scott Stevens.

The "goons" Gretzky had were there to protect him from cheap shots, not from getting hit.

...and if anything shows your age, it's that you think it would be possible to "rough" Gretzky up by today's standards hahaha.
The toughest and roughest team in the league today would get their ***** handed to them by the meekest team in the 80's.

To add to this: You hear coaches who had to try to coach against Gretzky say that their entire strategy of games revolved around trying to stop Gretzky. We are talking about some of the smartest hockey minds in the world that couldn't do it.

 

[CarlWinslow]

To add to this: You hear coaches who had to try to coach against Gretzky say that their entire strategy of games revolved around trying to stop Gretzky. We are talking about some of the smartest hockey minds in the world that couldn't do it.

They coached in the 80s. Jags considers them to be idiots. Unless you played or coached in the mighty 90s, he will label you an inferior human.

 

[blogofmike]

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

I know this was a while back, but still THAT'S YOUR PLAN? Really? That's what you want to go with?

Sending the two players on the ice who play the best defensively and you ask them to stand behind the net?

Leaving three forwards left to cover four guys. I imagine you expect the greatest passer of all time to ignore these wide-open passing lanes, throw his hands up and say that he surrenders?

Methinks fear of Gretzky forced you to make a tactically unsound decision, even in your own hypothetical scenario.

And if you send two defenders behind the net when Gretzky's on the powerplay...

Wind-up slapshot:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3V0cbuPUUHM&t=0m30s

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

from main board thread about gretzky scoring 50 in 39 but failing to hit the 100 he was on pace for:

The reason he scored 50 in 39 then only scored 1 in his last 8 is that Gretzky was a product of the high-scoring 1981 part of the season. He couldn't compete against the nutrition and fitness knowledge and evolutionary superiority of the modern 1982 part of the season players, they just blew right past him.

 

[unknown33]

from main board thread about gretzky scoring 50 in 39 but failing to hit the 100 he was on pace for:

Haha one of the best posts I've seen.

 

[Blues88]

Again, those of you who blatanly proclaim that Gretzky would dominate the league today are making the same flawed assumptions that you routinely chastize others for making when they dont share your point.

Being condescending to newer fans or those that are deemed less educated is hilarious when some of the responses are of the "Gretzky was the smartest ever and would dominate in every era. No one would or could solve him. He did everything right, he was infallible as a player" variety. Sure, the man was a legend. His talent trascended the game.

I dont understand why there cant exist any compromise, like considering that most if not all elite players, Gretzky included, had variables that contributed to their success. This isnt to suggest that Gretzky wasnt a phenom completely on his own, but he benefitted from playing in the right era with the right team around him at the right time (speaking to the dominating years he had when in his prime). Its not a slight against him, the same can be said for those who's accomplishments pale in comparison to this but we stars (Sakic, Yzerman, Howe, Lemieux).

Gretzky is so idealised that newer fans or those who want to learn about the history of the game probably feel as though no one before or ever after him will be able to carve a career worth even half of what his was. He never made an errant pass, he never had a back game, he was never hit in the corner, and people left him alone because they could simply not stop him. This is all revisionism to a certain extent.

There is no middle ground it seems. Maybe some people are disgruntled by having to hear so many younger players being compared to or even proclaimed to be better than 99. The irony is that the same people who idolized Orr said the same kind of things about the pro Gretzky crowd. Stop the cycle.

Gretzky may be fantastic in the game today, who's to say? Maybe he looks out at the lanes behind the net, tries to move into the corner and gets drilled. Maybe he wins multiple pieces of hardware and Crosby and Malkin and Ovechkin and Datsyuk are afterthoughts, the Jari Kurris of their generation.

I just fail to see how seeing Gretzky play years ago qualifies one to say that he would dominate now. And if thats allowed, whats the issue with seeing a guy like Crosby play now, and saying he could dominate back in the day?

 

[Rhiessan71]

Again, those of you who blatanly proclaim that Gretzky would dominate the league today are making the same flawed assumptions that you routinely chastize others for making when they dont share your point.

Being condescending to newer fans or those that are deemed less educated is hilarious when some of the responses are of the "Gretzky was the smartest ever and would dominate in every era. No one would or could solve him. He did everything right, he was infallible as a player" variety. Sure, the man was a legend. His talent trascended the game.

I dont understand why there cant exist any compromise, like considering that most if not all elite players, Gretzky included, had variables that contributed to their success. This isnt to suggest that Gretzky wasnt a phenom completely on his own, but he benefitted from playing in the right era with the right team around him at the right time (speaking to the dominating years he had when in his prime). Its not a slight against him, the same can be said for those who's accomplishments pale in comparison to this but we stars (Sakic, Yzerman, Howe, Lemieux).

Gretzky is so idealised that newer fans or those who want to learn about the history of the game probably feel as though no one before or ever after him will be able to carve a career worth even half of what his was. He never made an errant pass, he never had a back game, he was never hit in the corner, and people left him alone because they could simply not stop him. This is all revisionism to a certain extent.

There is no middle ground it seems. Maybe some people are disgruntled by having to hear so many younger players being compared to or even proclaimed to be better than 99. The irony is that the same people who idolized Orr said the same kind of things about the pro Gretzky crowd. Stop the cycle.

Gretzky may be fantastic in the game today, who's to say? Maybe he looks out at the lanes behind the net, tries to move into the corner and gets drilled. Maybe he wins multiple pieces of hardware and Crosby and Malkin and Ovechkin and Datsyuk are afterthoughts, the Jari Kurris of their generation.

I just fail to see how seeing Gretzky play years ago qualifies one to say that he would dominate now. And if thats allowed, whats the issue with seeing a guy like Crosby play now, and saying he could dominate back in the day?

Not a lot of middle ground to be had with a title like "The Great One".

Besides, finding the middle ground should entail equal parts of acknowledging Gretzky's greatness and giving today's players their due.
Not by giving today's players their due and trying to make them look better by bashing Gretzky.
Middle ground will be found when the former happens and not the later.

 

[blogofmike]

Again, those of you who blatanly proclaim that Gretzky would dominate the league today are making the same flawed assumptions that you routinely chastize others for making when they dont share your point.

Being condescending to newer fans or those that are deemed less educated is hilarious when some of the responses are of the "Gretzky was the smartest ever and would dominate in every era. No one would or could solve him. He did everything right, he was infallible as a player" variety. Sure, the man was a legend. His talent trascended the game.

I dont understand why there cant exist any compromise, like considering that most if not all elite players, Gretzky included, had variables that contributed to their success. This isnt to suggest that Gretzky wasnt a phenom completely on his own, but he benefitted from playing in the right era with the right team around him at the right time (speaking to the dominating years he had when in his prime). Its not a slight against him, the same can be said for those who's accomplishments pale in comparison to this but we stars (Sakic, Yzerman, Howe, Lemieux).

Gretzky is so idealised that newer fans or those who want to learn about the history of the game probably feel as though no one before or ever after him will be able to carve a career worth even half of what his was. He never made an errant pass, he never had a back game, he was never hit in the corner, and people left him alone because they could simply not stop him. This is all revisionism to a certain extent.

There is no middle ground it seems. Maybe some people are disgruntled by having to hear so many younger players being compared to or even proclaimed to be better than 99. The irony is that the same people who idolized Orr said the same kind of things about the pro Gretzky crowd. Stop the cycle.

Gretzky may be fantastic in the game today, who's to say? Maybe he looks out at the lanes behind the net, tries to move into the corner and gets drilled. Maybe he wins multiple pieces of hardware and Crosby and Malkin and Ovechkin and Datsyuk are afterthoughts, the Jari Kurris of their generation.

I just fail to see how seeing Gretzky play years ago qualifies one to say that he would dominate now. And if thats allowed, whats the issue with seeing a guy like Crosby play now, and saying he could dominate back in the day?

Gretzky moves into a corner and gets drilled? That's why he hid behind the net in the first place.

As for the last point the guy who has seen both is capable of making a comparison. The guy who hasn't is 12 years old and from Pittsburgh or Nova Scotia.

...

I did that cycle thing again, didn't I? Oh well. I also think Muhammad Ali could beat the Klitschko brothers (well, not at the same time), and Michael Jordan could could dominate the no hand check NBA like Gretzky could in the no obstruction new NHL.

 

[shazariahl]

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!!!

But as others have mentioned, Gretzky did put up great numbers still. I'd say being 3rd in league scoring is pretty good. How did Crosby do two years ago? Oh ya, he was 3rd in league scoring. And he's not past his prime and beaten up.

I think people are missing the fact that Gretzky also played a ton of hockey. When he retired he was 14th all time for most games played. It wasn't just that he was around for a long time and played a lot of seasons, its that he PLAYED A LOT OF GAMES! Almost every year he had playoff runs, usually late ones, plus for the first 10 years he didn't really miss many games. The back injury was part of his decline, the arthritis in his shoulder was another, age was another. But he was still great even in his mid-late 30's.

Sure, other than the Suter hit, he didn't really have any 1 big injury (though that was big enough), but he was just broken down from a lot of games. He's like a car that drives 500,000 miles and is still on the first engine. Maybe you've had to do some big repairs, maybe you haven't. But you've just got a lot of miles.

 

[Blues88]

Not a lot of middle ground to be had with a title like "The Great One".

Besides, finding the middle ground should entail equal parts of acknowledging Gretzky's greatness and giving today's players their due.
Not by giving today's players their due and trying to make them look better by bashing Gretzky.
Middle ground will be found when the former happens and not the later.

Fair enough.

My point is that making blanket statements, either way is flawed.. "Gretzky could tear up the league now!" is just as speculative in nature as "Gretzky couldnt last 10 games in the league today!"

Gretzky moves into a corner and gets drilled? That's why he hid behind the net in the first place.

And?

The point of speaking hypothetically is to steer clear of speaking in real certainties. Even the great one would not be immune to being hit. He was quick and elusive, not superhuman.

As for the last point the guy who has
seen both is capable of making a comparison. The guy who hasn't is 12 years old and from Pittsburgh or Nova Scotia.

Its still flawed, no matter how much you've seen of both or one. The game has changed. It always becomes "Well Gretz would dominate". Then its "Give him modern equipment", and then "Well if he was born in '88 he'd be taller and stronger" The arguments on the other side are asinine as well. There are variables. I'd love for someone to admit that regardless of what side you're loyal to.[/QUOTE]

...
I did that cycle thing again, didn't I? Oh well. I also think Muhammad Ali could beat the Klitschko brothers (well, not at the same time), and Michael Jordan could could dominate the no hand check NBA like Gretzky could in the no obstruction new NHL.

Fair enough.

There are still variables. The thing I've never understood is why its so damning to accept that as technology evolves and sports age, athletes will consistently push the envelope to stay competitive. Play will differ. It doesnt mean that the players of newer eras are "better" in the superficial sense, its just that they are a product of their time in sport.

As blindingly fast as everyone says Bobby Orr was, is it really criminal to consider that even though he may have been far ahead of his peers, he may fall into the middle of the pack in this day and age? That takes nothing away from the guy, just that he may have not trained the same or enjoyed the same equipment advantages. Even if he had though, there is no proper way to say he would be faster than players of today.

And perhaps no one looks at it this way but I do:

If it werent for the Howes, the Orrs, the Drydens, the Gretzkys, the Lemieuxs, the Haseks, players would be stuck playing at a similar pace and level. Guys nowadays are benefitting from the studying of 35+ years since Orr dominated his peers, 20+ years of Gretzky and Lemieux and watching how they approached and executed the game. Not everyone has the mental or physical gifts of these greats, but its safe to say some players took parts of their games that were most affective and used them, adapted them.

It seems kind of dumb to hope or believe that no one will surpass these legends and that they would be able to have their way these days. That would, to me, indicate that their contributions didnt really have the impacts that everyone assumed they did. We all know for certain that isnt the case.

Again, I'm not disputing Gretzky as an icon, as an unstoppable force who played far above anyone else in and outside of his prime years. I'm also not going to believe that he would completely dominate the league as he stood in his prime and in the present context of the NHL.

What I will do is understand his generational, league defining talent and continue to look at him for what he is, one of, if not the best hockey player ever to this point in time.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Fair enough.

As blindingly fast as everyone says Bobby Orr was, is it really criminal to consider that even though he may have been far ahead of his peers, he may fall into the middle of the pack in this day and age? That takes nothing away from the guy, just that he may have not trained the same or enjoyed the same equipment advantages. Even if he had though, there is no proper way to say he would be faster than players of today.

And perhaps no one looks at it this way but I do:


_________________________________


Not criminal, just not true.

 

[Tumsh]

I think there are a few things to take into consideration here.

1) Even if Gretzky's shot wasn't that great. Is there a reason to think that he wouldn't have realized that and maybe worked on it to make it better? Sort of like Crosby deciding he needed to score more. Gretzky's shot was good enough then, and there might have been more important areas for him to work on. On the other hand, if his shot wasn't good enough, maybe he would have worked more on it?

2) People seem to think that there's a formula that goes:
points = domination
I would say the formula should read points = domination x k, where k is a constant for era. That is, if I'm dominating my competition in the 80s, then I get 200 points, while if I dominate the competition today by the same margin, I only get 150. Another way to look at it is that a 50 point gap in the 80's is as impressive as a 20 point gap in the 2011's. I'm not sure exactly what the adjustments for era would be, but I bet there's a smaller point gap in today's NHL than there was in the 80's. That doesn't mean he wouldn't be as "good" today. It just means that today, his edge is hockey ability wouldn't net him as many points.

One reason to think this is that a lot more goals seems to be scored by randomness in today's game. Basically, traffic + pucks to net = goals at random. This, in a sense, numbs the effect individual player's skill has on the game. I would think this would include Gretzky. Again, this doesn't make him any less of a talent or less good as a hockey player, it would just limit the way his superior skill translates into stats.