Looking back at Crosby's career, is there any disappointment?

[MXD]

Babe Ruth is a poor comparison as he played in a segregated league and his record in the exhibition games against touring black teams wasn't all that great.

Also his dominance in HR's is exaggerated as some of the top players of the time period preferred to hit for average instead of the deep ball.

Don't get me wrong Ruth was a great player just not as iconic as his legend would have it.

Babe Ruth could also hit for average (much better, actually) WITH power. And was, at the very worst, the 3rd best of all-time when it comes to the even more crucial ability of getting on bases.

Babe Ruth isn't made a worse player because Harry Heilman didn't have the power to hit 20 homers year-in, year out. That would be like saying that, I don't know, that Raymond Bourque wasn't that great, because Scott Stevens prefered to focus on the defense.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Babe Ruth is a poor comparison as he played in a segregated league and his record in the exhibition games against touring black teams wasn't all that great.

Also his dominance in HR's is exaggerated as some of the top players of the time period preferred to hit for average instead of the deep ball.

Don't get me wrong Ruth was a great player just not as iconic as his legend would have it.

A poor comparison to who? The point was that nobody has come along and surpassed Ruth in 100 years nearly. I've seen some argue for Mays, but that would be a minority opinion. Waiting for a prospect to come along and exceed Gretzky's body of work may prove to be the same century-long wait.

 

[Midnight Judges]

No, I didn't. I picked some seasons from different eras of the past (I didn't check how many 100 point scorers there were in any of those seasons, because, as I already explained, that's entirely irrelevant to our discussion) to show that the degree of separation between today's top-five scorers and the top-five scorers of different periods of the past is very comparable. The reason I did this is to suggest that higher-scoring eras don't necessarily means it's easier for players to dominate scoring.

Let me simplify it for you, since I suspect you're still confused. Let's say in Season A, goals-per-game was 13 and the top-five scorers had 350, 341, 325, 315, and 306 points. Then, in Season B, goals-per-game was 5, and the top-five scorers had 90, 87, 85, 81, and 79 points. So, my point is, if this were the case (of say, historically high-scoring season finishes and historically low-scoring season finishes, respectively), it would show that higher-scoring eras aren't necessarily easier for players to dominate scoring in.

Do you get it now, at last?

Yes, it's hypothetically possible that a higher scoring era would not translate to ease of higher scoring for elite players. (There are factors that could result that way - such as distribution of time on ice or powerplay opportunities).

Relative to the 1980s vs the 2000s and 2010s, it simply isn't the case though.

The historical data doesn't remotely make your point, which is why you selected the specific seasons that supported your point and ignored the ones that refuted it. There is no other rhyme or reason to your selected sample. You chose 05-06 and 18-19 as representative of the modern era and ignored the 12 years in between. Those are the two highest scoring seasons since the lockout - the two biggest outliers. You knew this. Yet for the 70s and 80s you chose 4 or 5 year increments, again, depending on which seasons made your desired point.

I looked back at the points leaders for each season in these eras. You deliberately chose the absolute lowest seasons for the high scoring era and the absolute highest for the low scoring era.

The sample that you portrayed as representative to get an understanding that would indicate "the degree of separation between today's top-five scorers and the top-five scorers of different periods of the past" is cherry picked, misleading, and presents an utterly dishonest impression of the differences between the eras.

 

[daver]

In terms of strictly offensive production, Wayne and Mario were on a clear level above Crosby. Any doubts as to the differences in the eras they played can be extinguished with a look at their playoff resumes which, IMO, is a better indicator of their offensive prowess when comparing them with players from pre '67 expansion and the mid-90s onwards.

There is nothing that can move Crosby up to their level although he clearly has the best 2-way game out of the three and likely will finish above Mario as a playoff performer.

Offensively, Howe fits into the space between Wayne/Mario and the best of the rest (Crosby, Jagr, Hull, Beliveau) then his all around game and longevity moves him onto their level.

I think in 40 to 50 years time, the idea that Wayne and Mario would or would not have been as statistically dominant in any era as they were in their own era will be clearer.

I would argue that Crosby is closer to Howe in terms of career per game production than he is to Hull and Beliveau which along with $0.50 gets you a cup of coffee at the end of day in terms of all time rankings but does put some perspective on whether he met expectations or not.

 

[Midnight Judges]

In terms of strictly offensive production, Wayne and Mario were on a clear level above Crosby. Any doubts as to the differences in the eras they played can be extinguished with a look at their playoff resumes which, IMO, is a better indicator of their offensive prowess when comparing them with players from pre '67 expansion and the mid-90s onwards.

There is nothing that can move Crosby up to their level although he clearly has the best 2-way game out of the three and likely will finish above Mario as a playoff performer.

Crosby's two way game is somewhere between 'below average' and 'far below average' in the modern NHL:

09/10 through 18/19 Regular Season
	Crosby	Bergeron	Ovechkin	Toews	Kopitar	Datsyuk
EV GA	481	379	548	470	493	240
EV TOI	10717	10251	12218	11276	12350	8438
Total EV GA/60	2.693	2.218	2.691	2.501	2.395	1.707

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Defense simply isn't an asset at all for Sidney Crosby.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Or maybe that's not the be-all, end-all for deciding defensive ability...?

Otherwise, Andrew Cogliano, Kyle Clifford, Brandon Tanev, Andrew Copp, and Colt Sissons are the five best defensive forwards of the last three seasons. I mean...maybe...

Also, maybe Taylor Hall is better defensively than Brad Marchand over the past three seasons...again...maybe...but probably not...

 

[wetcoast]

A poor comparison to who? The point was that nobody has come along and surpassed Ruth in 100 years nearly. I've seen some argue for Mays, but that would be a minority opinion. Waiting for a prospect to come along and exceed Gretzky's body of work may prove to be the same century-long wait.

Barry Bonds?

Even before PEDs.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Babe Ruth could also hit for average (much better, actually) WITH power. And was, at the very worst, the 3rd best of all-time when it comes to the even more crucial ability of getting on bases.

Babe Ruth isn't made a worse player because Harry Heilman didn't have the power to hit 20 homers year-in, year out. That would be like saying that, I don't know, that Raymond Bourque wasn't that great, because Scott Stevens prefered to focus on the defense.

Lets not forget that The Babe was also an all-star pitcher before going to the Yankees. Won 3 World Series with the Red Sox and held the record for consecutive scoreless innings in the WS which stood for 40 years.

 

[Incognito]

Any disappointment stems from the fact that Crosby's trophy case is a pale imitation of what it should be. Because of the injuries he's sustained, he doesn't have the accolades to match his performances. He should have:

4 Harts versus the 2 that he has now (he would have easily won in both 2010-2011 and 2012-2013 if he hadn't been injured)
4 Art Rosses versus the 2 that he has now (he was running away with the scoring races in both 2010-2011 and 2012-2013 and would have won in a landslide)
4 Pearson/Ted Lindsays versus the 3 that he has now (he would have easily won in 2010-2011 if not for his injury)
3 Rocket Richards versus the 2 that he has now (he was running away with the goal scoring race in 2010-2011 and would have won in a landslide)

 

[Midnight Judges]

Any disappointment stems from the fact that Crosby's trophy case is a pale imitation of what it should be. Because of the injuries he's sustained, he doesn't have the accolades to match his performances. He should have:

4 Harts versus the 2 that he has now (he would have easily won in both 2010-2011 and 2012-2013 if he hadn't been injured)
4 Art Rosses versus the 2 that he has now (he was running away with the scoring races in both 2010-2011 and 2012-2013 and would have won in a landslide)
4 Pearson/Ted Lindsays versus the 3 that he has now (he would have easily won in 2010-2011 if not for his injury)
3 Rocket Richards versus the 2 that he has now (he was running away with the goal scoring race in 2010-2011 and would have won in a landslide)

You can make those same claims for virtually every all time great. Ovie has barely ever been injured and still lost 2 art rosses, a Richard, and a hart to injury.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Barry Bonds?

Even before PEDs.

Certainly not. And not after them either. I've heard Bonds called a top 20 player by those more qualified to assess it than myself, but never on par with Ruth.

 

[The Panther]

Yes, it's hypothetically possible that a higher scoring era would not translate to ease of higher scoring for elite players. (There are factors that could result that way - such as distribution of time on ice or powerplay opportunities).

Relative to the 1980s vs the 2000s and 2010s, it simply isn't the case though.

The historical data doesn't remotely make your point, which is why you selected the specific seasons that supported your point and ignored the ones that refuted it. There is no other rhyme or reason to your selected sample. You chose 05-06 and 18-19 as representative of the modern era and ignored the 12 years in between. Those are the two highest scoring seasons since the lockout - the two biggest outliers. You knew this. Yet for the 70s and 80s you chose 4 or 5 year increments, again, depending on which seasons made your desired point.

I looked back at the points leaders for each season in these eras. You deliberately chose the absolute lowest seasons for the high scoring era and the absolute highest for the low scoring era.

The sample that you portrayed as representative to get an understanding that would indicate "the degree of separation between today's top-five scorers and the top-five scorers of different periods of the past" is cherry picked, misleading, and presents an utterly dishonest impression of the differences between the eras.

If you go back to my post #170, you'll see that in addition to the seasons I more-or-less randomly chose (and no, I didn't choose the highest or lowest-scoring seasons), I also included comparisons of the overall leading point-totals from 1980-81 to 1984-85 (specifically because that is the highest-scoring modern period) and 2015-16 to 2019-20 (because that is the current period). The discrepancy between the 1st to 5th-leading scorers (not including Gretzky) from these two very different periods is not very different. Again, see post #170 for details.

Since I suspect this still isn't enough to satisfy you as you seem entrenched in your evidence-less opinion, let's run some more numbers, and I'll re-hash some of those stats from post #170 plus further context (in terms of GPG and difference between 1st and 5th leading scorers):

1951-1955 / GPG = 2.53 / 1st above 5th by 71% (30% if we remove Howe)
410 (outlier, Howe)
312
299
241
240
239

1965-1969 / GPG = 2.93 / 1st above 5th by 19%
446
430
401
379
374

1970-1974 / GPG = 3.12 / 1st above 5th by 60% (47% if we remove Esposito)
659 (outlier Esposito)
599
436
416
412
401

1976-1980 / GPG = 3.41 / 1st above 5th by 33%
647
562
528
491
488

1981-1985 / GPG = 3.91 / 1st above 5th by 92% (21% if we remove Gretzky)
985 (Gretzky, extreme outlier)
619
591
577
514
513

1986-1990 / GPG = 3.76 / 1st above 5th by 70% (5% if we remove Gretzky & Lemieux)
857 (Gretzky, extreme outlier)
738 (Lemieux, extreme outlier)
530
525
518
516
503

1991-1995 / GPG = 3.39 / 1st above 5th by 13%
527
521
488
488
468

1996-2000 / GPG = 2.81 / 1st above 5th by 31%
569
495
448
441
434

2006-2010 / GPG = 2.85 / 1st above 5th by 21%
529
510
506 (Crosby)
444
438

2011-2015 / GPG = 2.68 / 1st above 5th by 8%
376
366
357
354
347 (Crosby & Tavares)

2016-2020 / GPG = 2.85 / 1st above 5th by 13%
458
456
454
409
404

So, there it is. We see that in the 1950s, when scoring was lower than at any time in Crosby's career, the difference between the top scorer and 5th-scorer was 30% even with outlier Gordie Howe removed, and a whopping 71% if we include Howe.

So far, this supports my argument.

We also see that in the late-1960s, when scoring was overall just slightly higher than the past five seasons, the difference between first and fifth was 6% higher than the difference between first and fifth the past five seasons.

This also supports my argument.

It gets tricky in the early 1970s, a very strange period in NHL history. Whether or not we include Esposito a legit 'outlier' and dismiss him from the data (and I think we should, since his VsX score in this period is higher than Mario Lemieux at his peak), it still shows a large distance from first to fifth (or second to sixth), either 60% or 47% respectively, as scoring went up a couple of years after mass expansion. But, as I said, this is a weird historical period in that 50-60% of NHL teams were new or recent expansion clubs, with stronger teams -- esp. Boston -- beating up on them by disproportionate amounts (see: John Bucyk -- 20-goal scorer vs. established teams; 65-goal scorer vs. expansion teams).

This period supports your argument... but I personally wouldn't put too much stock in this strange era.

The latter-1970s shows a 3.41 GPG and a 33% lead from first over fifth. The GPG here is the same as the early-1990s, but the lead of the top scorer is 20% higher. The thing to note is that scoring is way higher than in the earlier-1970s, and yet the leading scorer's lead is considerably less (whether or not we count Esposito).

So, this period supports my argument.

It gets cloudy again through the 1980s because of Gretzky, and then Lemieux, as all-time extreme outliers. We quickly see, however, that by removing Gretzky and Lemieux from the data (and I don't think there's any good argument why we shouldn't), the lead of the remaining top NHL scorer is less than in the early 50s, late 70s, early 70s, and today -- despite scoring then being notably higher. In fact, with Wayne & Mario removed from the latter-1980s, there's a historically low lead of the remaining top scorer over seventh-place (a piddly 5%), which is less than any other era in history.

This period strongly supports my argument unless one includes Gretzky and Lemieux. But I see no reason why we should include the two biggest outliers in history since, even if they had never played a game, this would still have been the highest-scoring period of the modern game.

The late-1990s is of note in that, while scoring begins to drop a lot, the leading scorers's lead increases compared to the early 1990s. Again, this supports my argument. In fact, during Crosby's first five seasons overall, scoring is higher than in the latter-1990s, and yet the leading scorer's lead is less.

The best (only?) evidence here to support your assertion is the 2011-2015 period, in which scoring drops to 2.68 (lowest since the 1950s), and accordingly the leading scorer's lead over fifth drops to a modest 8%. So, this does support your argument. (I suspect, however, that if Crosby had been healthy in this period, his own lead in scoring would have pushed it back up to historically average levels.)

And, again, scoring levels the past five seasons are the same as 2006-11 or in the late-90s, yet the scoring leader's lead over fifth is less.

************

This was an interesting analysis, so thanks for the stimulation. (If you're going to incorrectly accuse me of cherry-picking, you could at least supply some actual evidence/stats of your own to support your position.)

 

[daver]

Goals-per-game in the 1980s reached '8' only once, and that very early in the decade (1981-82). Goals-per-game so far this season is 6. In 1979-80 it was 7, in 1982-83 it was 7.7, in 1986-87 it was 7.35. When you then factor in how much less 2nd and 3rd-line players score now (not in raw numbers, but rather as percentage of teams' total goals), it becomes even less a factor in how much 1st-line players can score. (Not to mention today's top players regularly see 3-on-3 overtime, when it's far any easier to pick up points than any situation in hockey history.)

Removing Gretzky as an obvious outlier (well, obvious to those of us who saw him play in Edmonton), this is how select seasons' top-5 point-scorers compare:
1972-73
130
104
101
100
95

1977-78
132
123
117
97
94

1982-83
124
121
118
107
107

1986-87
108
107
107
105
103

1993-94
120
112
111
107
107

2005-06
125
123
106
103
103

2018-19
128
116
110
105
100

Not seeing any differences here....

When you have "selected" seasons that do not represent the seasons that Crosby was actually in his prime, and coincidentally were the two highest scoring seasons of his era, one can hardly draw any kind of conclusion as to the differences in the league environments in which they played.

 

[wetcoast]

Certainly not. And not after them either. I've heard Bonds called a top 20 player by those more qualified to assess it than myself, but never on par with Ruth.

We are going to agree to disagree here as Bonds is one of the best if not best player of all time.

A guy like Mike Trout is on track to being an all time great as well.

 

[golfortennis]

First of all, you're surely talking about 2011, as opposed to 2010, as Crosby did play a full season (81 games) in 2010 (well, 09-10), and did win the Rocket as well.

Second, while this is Sidney Crosby, a player with an established track record of offensive consistency, we really can't assume for as many games as a half-season (2011), let alone two-thirds of a season (2012), especially since those two seasons would've been career years had he kept the same pace.

I agree it's tough to call 2012 a missed opportunity, other than the fact he missed a lot of time. But to say 37 in 22 would have translated into something is a big leap. But 2011, he played 41 games, and was 30th in scoring at year's end(tied 29th, or 32, depending on whether you look at totals or apply tiebreakers). Think about that. 30 teams, ostensibly with 2-3 pretty good or better players, and only 29 could put up more points than he did in half the season. The closest total in GP for those above him was 67. 41 points shy of the scoring title in half the games. Even if he "slows down" to 120 for the season.... it's a pretty safe bet if hes in the lineup, he puts up pretty good numbers that easily win the Ross.

 

[golfortennis]

My biggest disappointment is how the injuries robbed any chance he may have had of being the second 2,000 point scorer. Pile up a number of 100+ seasons early on, if he plays 20 years he had a shot. But prime seasons lost just put a stop to that. Maybe he doesn't do it, but if he has 1000 points in 8 seasons or so, he has a shot.

He still has really impressive totals, and his all-time spots on leaderboards is very good, but he could have really put his numbers out there.

 

[MXD]

I agree it's tough to call 2012 a missed opportunity, other than the fact he missed a lot of time. But to say 37 in 22 would have translated into something is a big leap. But 2011, he played 41 games, and was 30th in scoring at year's end(tied 29th, or 32, depending on whether you look at totals or apply tiebreakers). Think about that. 30 teams, ostensibly with 2-3 pretty good or better players, and only 29 could put up more points than he did in half the season. The closest total in GP for those above him was 67. 41 points shy of the scoring title in half the games. Even if he "slows down" to 120 for the season.... it's a pretty safe bet if hes in the lineup, he puts up pretty good numbers that easily win the Ross.

He would need to go roughly PPG (and assuming for two games missed for the flu, or something) to win the Art Ross. Which he was absolutely capable of doing, mind you.

But then again, that hypothetical season (Actual Half-Season + PPG Hypothetical) would end up being his second or third best statistical season. I have no issue projecting if the season being projected end up being an "average" season for the player, but projecting for an upper quintile season is not something I like to do myself.

 

[MXD]

My biggest disappointment is how the injuries robbed any chance he may have had of being the second 2,000 point scorer. Pile up a number of 100+ seasons early on, if he plays 20 years he had a shot. But prime seasons lost just put a stop to that. Maybe he doesn't do it, but if he has 1000 points in 8 seasons or so, he has a shot.

He still has really impressive totals, and his all-time spots on leaderboards is very good, but he could have really put his numbers out there.

...That's possibly the best answer in this thread. 1800 points is extremely realistic, however.

 

[daver]

From 1979/80 to 1992/93 there were 46 players (other than Mario and Wayne) that had a 1.50 PPG (min. 65 games).

From 2005/06 to 2018/89, there were 7 players that had a 1.50 PPG (min. 65 games, includes Crosby's 2011 and 2013 seasons).

There is no way you can spin that to make the respective scoring environments that Wayne, Mario and Crosby played in anything but significantly different.

IMO, it would be somewhat harder for a GOAT talent to separate themselves to the same degree in a much lower scoring environment.

 

[MXD]

Barry Bonds?

Even before PEDs.

Well, Bonds claim would heavily rest on his Age 35+ seasons, because there's no way he's even close to Ruth by the time the 2000 Season starts.

Don't get me wrong : Bonds absolutely has a claim at being the GOAT, and a good one at that. But that requires a complete disregard of the whole PED thing (and before one claims that everyone was on PEDs, the PEDs had also with Bonds the effect of giving him better longevity (and consecutive MVP titles from age 36 to age 39).

 

[wetcoast]

Well, Bonds claim would heavily rest on his Age 35+ seasons, because there's no way he's even close to Ruth by the time the 2000 Season starts.

Don't get me wrong : Bonds absolutely has a claim at being the GOAT, and a good one at that. But that requires a complete disregard of the whole PED thing (and before one claims that everyone was on PEDs, the PEDs had also with Bonds the effect of giving him better longevity (and consecutive MVP titles from age 36 to age 39).

Well it's well documented that the commissioner of baseball fully knew about the PEDs, and in fact Bonds switched to them after realizing this, so it's part of the context of baseball playing era of the time and should make little difference as star pitchers like Roger Clemens were also on the juice.

My main point about Ruth and the exaggeration of his legacy was 2 fold although there was no doubt that he was a great player.

Firstly he hit a ton of home runs more than the competion in part that other great players like Ty Cobb focused more on batting average than home runs.

In other words part of the era was that other star players simply weren't as focused on the long ball as much as Ruth was and that way of thinking would indeed change with the times.

Much like the increased focus on ob% and slugging % have more significance than HRs and Rubio's in today's game.

Secondly MLB was strictly a white man's game during the era of Ruth and given the evidence of how great the nonwhite players of the era were (think of better versions of Firsov for a hockey comparison) and how racial politics still has strong overtones in the USA that's why Ruth was in mind a bad example.

 

[MXD]

Firstly he hit a ton of home runs more than the competion in part that other great players like Ty Cobb focused more on batting average than home runs.

In other words part of the era was that other star players simply weren't as focused on the long ball as much as Ruth was and that way of thinking would indeed change with the times.

Again, that's kinda like saying Bobby Orr won the Norris because Harry Howell didn't care about offence and contented himself with playing great defense.

And, about Bonds : you take out PEDs, you take out longevity. Of course I understand the argument that he wasn't any worse than many other stars, but you also can't ignore that, in a PED-less world, he may not even be in the Majors at all for the four straight years he's winning the MVP.

Those are hypotheticals of course, but we're really talking about the possible GOAT here.

 

[wetcoast]

Again, that's kinda like saying Bobby Orr won the Norris because Harry Howell didn't care about offence and contented himself with playing great defense.

Not really it isn't.

Its more like the situation with Pilote and his scoring as a Dman in the 60s but that was also a Black Hawk situation.

But the Orr example wasnt suggested and also doesn't work at all here.

 

[MXD]

Not really it isn't.

Its more like the situation with Pilote and his scoring as a Dman in the 60s but that was also a Black Hawk situation.

But the Orr example wasnt suggested and also doesn't work at all here.

Tell me how it's not the exact same thing.

Pilote numbers weren't even higher than Kelly or Harvey. Orr's numbers were never seen. Like Ruth's.

 

[ImporterExporter]

You can make those same claims for virtually every all time great. Ovie has barely ever been injured and still lost 2 art rosses, a Richard, and a hart to injury.

One, no you can't. Myth.

Two, there is a difference between getting run by a rival team/player (Steckel) and losing the most dominant season in the cap era in the process, and taking a slap shot to the jaw that would have shelved any player in the league for weeks and missing time because you turned an ankle or were out of shape and had a soft tissue injury. Those 2 things alone cost Sid 2 Hart's (one of which OV conveniently received directly because Sid lost the final 6 weeks of his season).

OV has not lost ANY hardware due to injury. Ever. That's a straight lie. He lost one piece of hardware due to suspension IIRC. Pretty sure he's been suspended a few times by the league now that I think about it. I give OV major marks for his durability. It's probably his most impressive feat beside the goal scoring.

But the ONLY reason there is any debate in the Sid/OV realm is directly because of Sid's injuries. The fact his career is as impressive as it DESPITE 2+ seasons lost due to various injuries speaks for itself.

If you take away OV's goal scoring what is left on his resume? Not much. The previous decade you could say OV's hitting and physical presence was a net positive. It isn't anymore. OV is one of the worst defensive players in the cap era. Even if you consider Sid average defensively, it's still miles better than any value you'd be getting out of OV. Sid's strong in the dot. Another aspect of hockey OV doesn't have to worry about. OV doesn't create offense on his own like he did 8-10 years ago. Sid has made a career off posting impressive number with vastly inferior line mates at ES. He's lifted guys like Kunitz and Dupuis into AS caliber wingers. Never had the benefit of playing with an elite playmaker or elite goal scorer like OV has for the entirety of his career.

OV has taken advantage of playing in an incredibly weak era for LW'ers so there has never really been anyone to challenge him for AS nods unlike Sid who's routinely had much better comp at C to compete with. Just last year OV had no business being a 1st team AS over Marchand who vastly outscored OV, and is a 200 foot hockey player who's value goes far beyond a single stat (goal scoring) and I have to listen to folks like you spout off about how easy Sid has it with the voters and the supposed bias against Soviets. It's comical to see OV still getting top nods for a major award based largely off his name.

Sid's led the league in goal scoring, assists, points, etc, etc. Oh that's regular season AND post season. His per game scoring numbers dwarf OV, both in the regular season and post season. But I know, goals matter x1000 and assists are worth negative value H2H. So you can skip that nonsense. We've heard it all before.

Sid has won FAR more both in the NHL and on the international scene. He's bested OV head to head in games that really matter. The Penguins have trounced Washington in 3 out of 4 playoff series head to head with OV playing ghost TWICE in game 7's on his own ice in a losing effort.

The sad thing is when OV breaks Gretzky's record the only thing you'll hear is about how the big 4 should become the big 5 and I'll just point to the fact it's going to take OV about 5000 more shots to barely pass Gretzky's record. Folks may not even realize that OV has already taken more shots on goal than Gretzky did in his entire career.

*MOD EDIT*