Scotty Bowman's Top 100 Canadian Players

[wetcoast]

I completely agree with Esposito's 1969 Hart trophy.

I also completely agree with Clarke's 1975 Hart trophy.

But the 1974 Hart was wrong. That should definitely have been Orr.

(An odd one is 1973, which went to Clarke, also. That's that odd first season of WHA co-existence, and clubs like Boston were weakened a bit. Orr and Esposito fell off the pace a bit -- Orr was "down" only 4th-best plus/minus, and missed some games -- and Clarke was 2nd in scoring. That's one of those season where about five or six players equally deserved the Hart.)

I think that the point of the matter is the case that Orr could have and has arguments to win the Hart in each of those years, that's what a great player he was.

 

[wetcoast]

Indeed.

A 5'10 center in the NHL has to have his head on a swivel, a spidey sense.

Mario and Lindros had their clocks cleaned repeatedly in the NHL because they grew up the big guy on the ice and didn't have to watch out.

The game also changed in the 90s were clutch and grab and defensive measures created the situation where Dmen could tee up on guys and the team wouldn't suffer defensively for the cheaps shots.

Mario and Lindros would have been fine in the 70s and 80s NHL as perpetual superstars.

 

[NigerianNightmare]

The key word is "former." Messier always played second fiddle to Gretzky. After NINE Harts, finally, the fatigue settled in.


It doesn't matter what Espo would say. He won the Hart over Orr twice. And neither of those times were steals. Espo was phenomenal.

Fatigue? Then we can say that Orr got tired after 3 consecutive Harts

 

[wetcoast]

Fatigue? Then we can say that Orr got tired after 3 consecutive Harts

Voter fatigue not player fatigue.

 

[Minar]

No Gretzky was protected by the league and his police officer while lenieux never had such protection. Let's be real

Gretzky himself laughed at this suggestion. His response was why would coaches and players whose job is on the line hold back and not hit someone who is threatening their chances. Why would we even watch a game where players weren't trying like hell to win by any means nessasary?

 

[MadLuke]

Why would we even watch a game where players weren't trying like hell to win by any means nessasary?

Not only for self preservation (if you start to use any means, your adversary will do the same it is much better for both to use constraints) but I think we would have got sick of it quick, obviously players are not trying for some fun pro entertainment game to win by any means necessary or we would have seen a collection of 4th liner doing Bobby Clark type attack on Karlamov to the other team best player, in every series when a team evaluated that the other team stars and better than their own star.

 

[Staniowski]

 

[Staniowski]

Has anyone else read Ken Dryden's recent book about Scotty Bowman?

Just to add some context to Bowman's ratings, he was watching all Montreal home games since 1947, when he joined a Montreal Canadiens sponsored junior team and got standing room tickets to every game. He also watched all their practices starting in the early 1950s. So his ratings of Morenz and Shore must be based on what he heard from others, but the rest would be based on his personal viewing.

The book included Bowman's picks for the top 8 teams of all time. Those teams were the 1951-52 Detroit Red Wings, the 1955-56 Montreal Canadiens, the 1962-63 Toronto Maple Leafs, the 1976-77 Montreal Canadiens, the 1981-82 New York Islanders, the 1984-85 Edmonton Oilers, the 2001-02 Detroit Red Wings, and the 2014-15 Chicago Blackhawks. I get the feeling he is more comfortable discussing great teams than just the individual great players...or at least when discussing players he also thinks about their context on the teams.

I suspect that when Bowman rated players in 2012, he thinks about how they would fit on an all-time great team like the teams listed above.

Here are direct quotes from Bowman in the Dryden/Bowman book about some of the players he listed in his top 100 Canadians in 2012. I've included Bowman's ranking of the player from 2012 for reference.

One thing I noticed is that Bowman often comments on how strong the player was. He seems to value physical strength a lot. Maybe especially for the Original Six players, when everyone played man on man and individual battles counted for a lot.

Unfortunately Bowman didn't comment much on the individual players of the 1976-77 Canadiens, so we don't get any insight into why he rated Serge Savard over Larry Robinson, for example. I think the fact that Dryden was a member of the team made discussing the individual players a little awkward...Dryden notes at one point that discussing this team with Scotty was hard for him because of his personal connection.

And he's very complimentary of all the top players, so you don't really get a sense for why he rated Richard over Lemieux and Gretzky, for example.

Gordie Howe (rated 2nd in 2012)
It's why Howe was so good at that time. With man-to-man coverage -- first against his winger, then against the defenceman--he was so strong. He was really a big, big guy. He'd challenge them, and he was faster than those guys when he needed to be. He could get an edge. Then he was too much for them. He'd just power his way by.

He had a terrific shot. Like Bossy. Like Lafleur. Like Leach. They had those perfect shots in the corner. Now we don't see many angled shots going in. If they do go in, we say 'Oh, the goalie should have had it.' It was the same with the Rocket. He was so strong. He'd challenge you. With the Rocket, it was his backhand.
...
Howe and Lindsay fit perfectly together. They understood each other. They used to have those plays, especially at the Olympia. One of them would shoot the puck in and it would rebound off the boards in front of the net, and the other would race in after it. They scored a lot of goals that way.

They were really tough guys. They were really aggressive. Ultra competitive. And they weren't just guys who put up points, they were so good both ways. They were feared by other teams. If they'd had their way, they'd play against anybody. But they didn't have to because the Wings developed that Skov line.
...
Howe was the dominant player. There's no ifs, ands, or buts. There's just no argument over who was the best player in the league at that time. It was Howe, for sure. And that season he really took off. He won the scoring title; he and Lindsay went 1-2, but Howe beat him by 17 points. He scored more than 20 per cent of the Wings goals.

If you were going to make a model for a player, he was it. He was strong. Very strong. Just a natural. He knew how to play. He had a terrific shot. He didn't need many chances to score. He was a good two-way player too. And he was mean, he really was. He did things to players...He was tough as nails. And he didn't have many fights. No one would dare fight him.

Maurice Richard (rated 3rd in 2012)
He practiced hard. He didn't joke around. He wanted to score goals. He wanted to score so much, even in practice. He never fooled around.
...
He was so strong on his skates. Guys would just be leaning on him, but he was still driving to the net. He was a tough player. Gordie Howe was bigger, and he was tough too, but the Rocket was really tough. He was so competitive. He was fearless. He was explosive. He got fouled a lot and he had this vicious temper. I would say I've never seen a player so determined.

Mario Lemieux (rated 4th in 2012)
He was very calm and mild mannered. He never got emotional. He wasn't interested in the limelight, and wasn't a guy who was always knocking on your door as the coach and wanting you to do this, or that. He just wanted to do whatever you wanted him to do. But you had to fit players in to play with him. He needed a lot of ice time. Some nights he played over 30 minutes, and for a forward that's a lot.

I always thought two things made him different. His reach--he had this wingspan, he was pretty much impossible for one guy to stop. And also around the net. At the side of the net, or in behind, he was so unpredictable as to what he might do. He'd bank pucks off the goalie's pads. Do wrap-arounds. Players didn't do that back then.
...
I don't think he could ever put everything into the game he wanted to.
...
He also had an inner fire about him. The year I took over from Bob Johnson we played Washington in the first round of the playoffs and they had a good team. They had some terrific defencemen, and we got down three games to one, but we came back and won Games 5 and 6. The seventh game was in Washington and Mario controlled the entire game. We shut them down completely, a team that could really score, and we just played a completely different style, because Mario wanted to win so badly. I'd never seen him play defensive hockey before--play without the puck. But guys like that have so much talent, they can apply themselves and play defensive hockey if they want to. And he did.

Back to back years, they couldn't stop him. Don't forget, he had health issues that never went away. You were always just waiting for him to make a big play, to score big goals.

Wayne Gretzky (rated 5th in 2012)
He did so many things differently. He was unpredictable. He was a scoring machine. He had such vision on the ice. He had so much hockey sense. That's an underrated quality. He was brainy, and his quickness was underestimated. Maybe he didn't skate all over the ice and everywhere, but I don't remember him hanging around. He was always a busy guy.

He could pass the puck as well as anybody who's ever passed it. Backhand, forehand, over the stick, through guys. He'd get the goalie and the other five guys looking at his teammates, then at him. In that position, you have to commit and go after him, but you can't fully commit. Then he can make a forehand pass, or if you chase him--and teams would always say 'Chase him onto his backhand'--well, he can make a backhand pass too.
...
I don't know why we didn't play more guys 'up high' like Gretzky did. But you have to have a special player. Buffalo did that with Mogilny. And Vancouver with Bure. I remember in Montreal, talking with Tarasov before the New Year's Eve game with the Russians. He had watched us practise, and he mentioned Lafleur, and also Savard, Robinson, and Lapointe, and he said 'You have players who are calm, who don't get flustered and who can really pass the puck. Why don't you have Lafleur break out of your zone [without the puck] past the point man? Now you'd have both defencemen looking at each other, each having to make sure that one of them covers Lafleur. Now you've got a four on four in your own end, and if Lafleur is like a lot of our offensive players in his own zone, he's not a defensive player. So he's not going to make good defensive decisions anyway.' (Dryden mentions Kharlamov had played up high for the Soviets against Canada). Cournoyer used to do that a little for us.
...
Nobody will ever score goals again like this guy. Over a six year period: 92, 71, 87, 73, 52, 62 -- 437 goals. Nobody's ever going to come close to that. I don't think anybody could think the game, and think ahead of the game, the way he could. Players would try to cover him, but then he'd be gone.

He played a tremendous amount of shinny on his backyard rink as a young kid. When you're playing shinny, you're not thinking defence.

Jean Beliveau (rated 9th in 2012)
He was a superb positional player. People underestimated that in him. He was always in the right position. In his own end, he'd stand kind of in the middle, and because of the reach, and the length of his stick, he covered so much. Geoffrion didn't play defence much, but he didn't have to.

Dave Keon (rated 12th in 2012)
Keon was such an exceptional skater. He was very nimble. He could just fly on his skates. He was always on the puck, always on top of you, never giving you a moment to breathe. He wasn't physical, because he wasn't big, but he was always there, darting in and out, and his hockey IQ was so high. He always knew what to do and when to do it.

Henri Richard (rated 13th in 2012)
(This is all Dryden writing below, there are no direct quotes from Scotty. I include this because while Dryden played with the older Henri, he hadn't seen the young Henri play, and his conversations with Scotty must have contributed to these paragraphs. Also keep in mind these comments may be specifically about Henri in 1955-56, when he was only 20.)

Henri was small, about five foot seven and 160 pounds, but he could skate. He was fast, and he could turn, and turn, and turn again, and in possession of the puck, with his short arms and short stick, he rarely exposed the puck beyond the protective shelter of his body. He was tireless too. At the time, other players changed every two minutes; Henri stayed on the ice for three minutes or more. And because teams matched lines, the opposing centre had to either stay on for three minutes or more with him and play at Henri's speed, or get off the ice and throw all the team's other lines into disarray. By halfway through a shift, if not earlier, it was 'Advantage, Henri.'
...
Henri was a puck carrier. He wanted the puck all the time. Henri could be a defensive liability at times because in carrying the puck he might be checked and lose it, but because he generally had the puck so much, the other team didn't have it--and if they didn't have it, they couldn't score. The usual distributor on a line is the centre, but on this line it was the left winger, Dickie Moore.

Mark Messier (rated 14th in 2012)
He had a big mean streak in him. He played on the edge. No other player I can recall had as many suspensions as he did. He and the Rocket were very similar. When the Rocket was out of control, nothing could stop him.

He was an exceptional skater, and in super condition in an era when not many were. He had defensive instincts--he had to if you played with Glenn Anderson. Anderson was a little like Cournoyer. He could fly, he didn't handle the puck that well but if you could get him the puck in flight he could really cause you problems, and Messier was really good at finding him. Anderson had a knack around the net and he didn't need much of an opening. A lot of guys just don't finish, but what I remember about Anderson is he could finish. He'd come from that off wing and put his leg out, and with his speed and strength, you couldn't stop him. He and Messier played so well together. They were tough guys and they played tough. And they were both mean.
...
Messier dominated players when teams tried to play him one against one. If a player challenged him, if he made it all about him and Messier, that's when Messier was at his best.

Frank Mahovlich (rated 18th in 2012)
(About the Leafs) Maybe only Mahovlich played a one-way, offensive game.
...
I don't think (Imlach) ever really embraced Mahovlich, because Frank was a big, strong player but he wasn't physical, and he wasn't airtight defensively.

Terry Sawchuk (rated 19th in 2012)
I talked to Ted Lindsay about him. He said 'There's never been a goalie in his prime like Sawchuk. He had all the mechanics. He had his glove. He was just so focused.'
...
Sawchuk is still rated by people as the best of those three (ed. Sawchuk, Hall, Plante). I think the fact that Sawchuk had a checkered career after winning those Cups in '52, '54, and '55 took away a lot from his reputation. He got some kind of malaise, or disease--I don't think they ever found out what it was. He lost a lot of weight. He was in Boston then, and when he went to Detroit they were on the decline, then he was in Toronto. But after he left Detroit the first time I don't think he was ever the same goalie.

Yet in the early 1950s "Nobody was close to him."

Denis Potvin (rated 21st in 2012)
What I remember about the Islanders more than anything was Potvin. He was their key. He was an exceptional defenceman, a really strong physical guy. And he could play a lot. He was as close as anyone I ever saw to Doug Harvey. Their passing was right on the mark. And he was mean like Harvey. If you tried to hit either of them, you were going to pay a price. Potvin was maybe a little more fiery. Doug was fiery too, but he didn't show it as much. And for a guy who could play both ways, Potvin was a real offensive threat. He had a good shot. He probably didn't get as much attention as he should have, because when he started Orr was still in his prime.

Dickie Moore (rated 24th in 2012)
It was his perseverance. He battled. That's what he did, more than anybody, he battled. He was fiery. He was chippy--oh, he was chippy. When he came to the NHL, they said he's not going to last playing this kind of hockey. And he got into some scraps early. He wasn't really a great fighter, but he would persevere. He was one of those guys one of the most I've ever seen who just couldn't stand losing. Who just couldn't stand not doing well.

He was also pretty good at making plays. If you're going to play with the Rocket, you're going to try to set him up. Dickie liked to be fancy at times. He'd come in on a guy and be stickhandling like crazy, except his stick wasn't even touching the puck. His stick was passing over the top of it, just to rattle the guy a bit. He used that a lot in junior. He didn't use it so much in the NHL. But he had a lot of creativity to his game. That's why he won the scoring title in 58 and 59. Dickie was some player. He played fearless.

Bernard Geoffrion (rated 28th in 2012)
I remember the first guy who could really shoot was Geoffrion. Most players didn't slap the puck then. He started that.
...
He could score from the blue line. He had that good a shot.
...
He wasn't a speedster as much as a strong skater. He kind of ran on his skates, he had short strides, but he was very strong--and boy, what a shot he had. When he walked in on the right wing he could shoot that puck with the best guys I've ever seen.

He was fearless too. Nobody could intimidate him.
...
He had a swagger about him. He was a flashy dresser. He was a really flashy guy. Like a bon vivant. But a nice guy. A good guy. And popular--he was always talking to the media. He was always into ventures too. Always opening up a restaurant or something. He had a lot of energy. He was up and down, though. He wasn't always up. You had to pump him up.

Gilbert Perreault (rated 37th in 2012)
He was the best player on the team by quite a bit. I don't know if he realized that, or if he was of the type of temperament to notice. There aren't a lot of players who can make plays and also score goals, but he could pretty well do anything. You were always hoping 'Is he going to realize tonight that he can take over the game?' And you always had the feeling he could. He was easy to coach too. He practised pretty well, he was never involved in any controversy, he wasn't a rebel at all. He had none of that in him. Yet he was ultra-competitive in his own way.

You could play him with whomever you wanted. You could ask him to do certain things, and he'd try. Not many superstars were like that. As a teammate, you couldn't find anyone better. He never had a negative part in him. But he had no leadership at all. None. He didn't want that responsibility. He didn't want to be 'the guy'

Red Kelly (rated 42nd in 2012)
From 1950 to 1956, he never scored less than 15 goals in a season. Three times he finished in the top 15 in scoring. "No other defenceman in the league was even close," Scotty says.
...
On a winning team, you're not spending a lot of time in your own end, where Kelly was weaker. You're on the attack, where he was at his best. Then the Wings got weaker.
...
He seemed to fit in perfectly with Mahovlich. They were two good-sized guys, and Kelly was a very strong skater.
...
(Goldham) played with Kelly, and there was no defenceman in the league who was close to playing like Kelly. He was up the ice all the time. He was a forward-playing defence. He got 16 goals as a defenceman that year. That was unheard of in those days.

Jonathan Toews (rated 63rd in 2012)
If the (Hawks) team had one indispensable player, "It would be Toews. He was solid all the way through. He was consistent. He was ultra-competitive. He's got that work ethic. He's very conscientious. He plays as hard without the puck as he does with it. He'll chase guys down. He'll forecheck. He's very good at faceoffs. He's physically strong. Others might be better in certain areas, but not overall, not when you look at everything. And he judges his game by every standard, not just his points. He's not the biggest offensive threat, but in crunch time he can make the big individual play. And if you're his teammate, it's hard to slack off when you have a guy who does everything at such a high level. He prides himself in who he is, in the reputation he has, and he lives up to that reputation.
...
Toews took his captain's job pretty seriously. He doesn't shy away from it. The other players lean on him, and as a coach, you run a lot of stuff through him.
...
Toews is like Beliveau--tall, strong, good on offence and defence, good on faceoffs. He isn't the scorer Beliveau was, he doesn't have quite the same force to his game.

Paul Coffey (rated 68th in 2012)
Of all the defencemen I've seen, nobody else except Coffey could skate stride for stride with Orr. He had a beautiful glide. He skated effortlessly, and I don't think he ever got tired. And for him, it was all offence. He didn't play much attention to defence. He didn't sense danger.
...
And, of course, Coffey was a terrific offensive player. In some games he was so good. But he was high-risk, there's no other way to say it, and he was never going to shut things down defensively.

With respect to Bowman valuing strong players....yes, I think most people value strong players, it's better to be strong than not. But also, it's hard to accurately describe players like Howe, Richard, Harvey, Lemieux, etc. without mentioning how strong they were. Their strength was a very significant part of their games.
--------------------
Savard over Robinson.....I don't think anybody who watched the Habs in the '70s would have to wonder too much about why somebody would value Savard over Robinson. First, for some of the years that Bowman coached them, Savard was definitely the better player.

But, also, Savard was the player on those teams that was the most comforting for Habs fans to see on the ice in key situations. He was the smartest player (along with Lemaire), the most versatile (along with Lapointe), a great skater, great defensively....he played forward some (so did Robinson).

 

[Staniowski]

The only person to actually make an argument for Gretzky outside the top four is Canadiens1958. And he didn't really argue it either, or why Hull should be above him. He clearly had a strong preference for two way or defensive forwards, but it was probably his most controversial opinion.

Bowman throws Gretzky at 5 with no support or argument. So it's just kind of there.

What, 90% of this board had Gretzky top 2 and everyone but Canadiens1958 had him top 3?

There are lots and lots of smart hockey people who would rank Gretzky outside the top 2 or top 3....but most of these people are older people who aren't participating in rankings.

Current rankings are done overwhelmingly by younger generations. The only group of people who unanimously (or almost) rank Gretzky #1 are people who are too young to have seen Gretzky play in the '80s.....as you go back in time - to include people who watched Gretzky play, and who watched Orr play, and Howe, etc., support for Gretzky drops substantially. And support for Orr, Howe, and others increases by a lot.

It's not clear, even, if Gretzky is currently #1 if all age groups were included as voters.

 

[Staniowski]

Orr was a defenseman. He didn't even win the Hart when he - as a defenseman - won the Art Ross.

Sometimes voters are idiots. No one - not even Espo - would say he deserved those Harts over Orr.

I wouldn't pay much attention to Hart Trophy voting.....there has never been any agreement on what this trophy is for, as we can see every year, still, when voters discuss whether a player made the playoffs, or how many other good players are on a player's team, etc.

Plus, the people voting for this and other trophies are generally not smart hockey people....and they never have been.

 

[Staniowski]

Gretzky's skating was sublime. He just didn't look as good as others doing it. Show me a player who could turn like he could, control the puck, avoid a check and find an open man. Ok, Orr.

Gretzky's normal skating stride was never very fast, but his speed was ok when he was young, and he had very good agility and pretty good quickness.

But he lost a lot of everything - speed, agility, quickness - through the '80s and even more into the '90s....and that's one of the main reasons why he lost his ability to score goals.

 

[NigerianNightmare]

There are lots and lots of smart hockey people who would rank Gretzky outside the top 2 or top 3....but most of these people are older people who aren't participating in rankings.

Current rankings are done overwhelmingly by younger generations. The only group of people who unanimously (or almost) rank Gretzky #1 are people who are too young to have seen Gretzky play in the '80s.....as you go back in time - to include people who watched Gretzky play, and who watched Orr play, and Howe, etc., support for Gretzky drops substantially. And support for Orr, Howe, and others increases by a lot.

It's not clear, even, if Gretzky is currently #1 if all age groups were included as voters.

Good point. Some guys from that young generation act as if there was only Gretzky in hockey before the 90s, as if Gretzky was a semi-mythological superhuman destroying all hockey records

 

[ResilientBeast]

semi-mythological superhuman destroying all hockey records

which he was lol

 

[NigerianNightmare]

which he was lol

Thanks for proving my point

 

[jigglysquishy]

We voted him number 1 on the 2008 list. Most of those voters watched Gretzky's prime as it was happening.

 

[JackSlater]

There are lots and lots of smart hockey people who would rank Gretzky outside the top 2 or top 3....but most of these people are older people who aren't participating in rankings.

Current rankings are done overwhelmingly by younger generations. The only group of people who unanimously (or almost) rank Gretzky #1 are people who are too young to have seen Gretzky play in the '80s.....as you go back in time - to include people who watched Gretzky play, and who watched Orr play, and Howe, etc., support for Gretzky drops substantially. And support for Orr, Howe, and others increases by a lot.

It's not clear, even, if Gretzky is currently #1 if all age groups were included as voters.

The most prominent player ranking ever (The Hockey News Top 100 from 1997) had Gretzky ahead of Orr by an extremely small margin, and that's with Stan Fischler probably ranking Orr 47th or something. Gretzky added a little after that list came out but not much in an all time sense. It is pretty clear that Gretzky has become more unassailable as time passes. Memories of the players disappear but the numbers stay around.

 

[Minar]

Gretzky's normal skating stride was never very fast, but his speed was ok when he was young, and he had very good agility and pretty good quickness.

But he lost a lot of everything - speed, agility, quickness - through the '80s and even more into the '90s....and that's one of the main reasons why he lost his ability to score goals.

I think this idea that Gretzky lost significant speed is somewhat overstated. You really notice when watching around 93 to 95 time frame that he looked slower due to his back injury. But he seemed to get some of his speed back when he went to the rangers. Maybe even with the blues.



Also I think the idea that Gretzky lost his goal scoring ability is over stated too. He definitely declined as injuries mounted and age crept in. But no more than most players. In the playoffs he still scored alot. In 93 he had 15 goals in 24 games. In 97 he had 10 goals in 15 games. Also if you ignore his last season, to be a 25 goal scorer in your late 30s when you are the best playmaker in the league in the dpe isn't bad. Yes he lost some skating ability as most players do and he stopped going to the net as much which affected his goals. But if you watch his skating with the rangers even he still had plenty of agility and quickness at times. Look at the hat trick vs Florida in playoffs.

 

[LeBlondeDemon10]

Gretzky's normal skating stride was never very fast, but his speed was ok when he was young, and he had very good agility and pretty good quickness.

But he lost a lot of everything - speed, agility, quickness - through the '80s and even more into the '90s....and that's one of the main reasons why he lost his ability to score goals.

That could be said about just about every player. Despite these losses, he still scored pretty good for being average up to about 1994.

 

[Sentinel]

Good point. Some guys from that young generation act as if there was only Gretzky in hockey before the 90s, as if Gretzky was a semi-mythological superhuman destroying all hockey records

He did just that.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Good point. Some guys from that young generation act as if there was only Gretzky in hockey before the 90s, as if Gretzky was a semi-mythological superhuman destroying all hockey records

Well, that's exactly what he was. In his prime, there was Gretzky then there was everyone else.

Consider the 12 year peak from 1979-80 to 1990-91

9x Hart
12x assist leader
5x Rocket

This fact alone shows how are ahead of everyone else he was. If you limit his career to only those 12 seasons, he would still be the all time leader in points with 2,142 and assists with 1,424.

 

[MadLuke]

I think not only numbers that speak for itself about Gretzky stay and would help make him win between 2 players a young fans did not saw.

But also I imagine the only hesitation of some to not have it a clear #1 was the no cup post Oilers and 4 career cups, a bit like some would hesitate having people above Russel in basketball or anyone above Brady in football.

But no dynasty since was better than the Oilers one, so the 10 cups or other large amount of cups vs 4 mental image is removed by now.

 

[NigerianNightmare]

Well, that's exactly what he was. In his prime, there was Gretzky then there was everyone else.

Consider the 12 year peak from 1979-80 to 1990-91

9x Hart
12x assist leader
5x Rocket

This fact alone shows how are ahead of everyone else he was. If you limit his career to only those 12 seasons, he would still be the all time leader in points with 2,142 and assists with 1,424.

Gretzky was the most dominant player in the old school NHL. And there was a lot of high caliber talent outside of the NHL back then. That's why, if you watch Gretzky in the international best on best tournaments, he actually wasn't head and shoulders above everyone else, especially playing the Soviet teams.

No wonder, with the influx of European talent in the early 90s, Gretzky's dominance suddenly diminished, and he actually started losing Harts to his ex teammate Messier

 

[MadLuke]

No wonder, with the influx of European talent in the early 90s, Gretzky's dominance suddenly diminished, and he actually started losing Harts to his ex teammate Messier

I think that a good argument that it is not related to the influx of European but the gap between him and Messier changing because of Gretzky injuries pilling up and obviously post Suter and not aging has well, than a change in the league caliber.

 

[NigerianNightmare]

I think that a good argument that it is not related to the influx of European but the gap between him and Messier changing because of Gretzky injuries pilling up and obviously post Suter and not aging has well, than a change in the league caliber.

A valid point. Thanks.

Plus, the rise of Mario Lemieux who had a comparable potential to dominate the league

 

[The Panther]

Gretzky was the most dominant player in the old school NHL. And there was a lot of high caliber talent outside of the NHL back then. That's why, if you watch Gretzky in the international best on best tournaments, he actually wasn't head and shoulders above everyone else, especially playing the Soviet teams.

No wonder, with the influx of European talent in the early 90s, Gretzky's dominance suddenly diminished, and he actually started losing Harts to his ex teammate Messier

This is one of the crazier posts I've seen in a while...

What is with this board's fixation on the 1990s as the "European influx"?

There were only around 581 NHL players (who played 5 games or more) in 1988-89, vs. about 800 in 2019-20. So any discussion of raw numbers (of European players) needs to take into account League-wide size.

Anyway, I doubt there was a lot of high caliber talent outside the NHL during Gretzky's peak in the early/mid-80s, aside from the obvious (a half-dozen elite Soviets, and Dominik Hasek). Care to name some of these high-talents?

The idea that Gretzky's production decreased because of more European competition is utterly ludicrous. For starters, look at the 1978 World Juniors, the 1981 Canada Cup, the 1982 World Championships, the 1984 Canada Cup, the 1987 Canada Cup, and the 1991 Canada Cup. Who led every one of these tournaments in scoring? Oh yeah, Wayne Gretzky.

Even in his Edmonton days only, Gretzky shared the NHL with:
Peter Stastny
Anton Stastny
Marian Stastny
Jari Kurri
Kent Nilsson
Thomas Gradin
Mats Naslund
Bengt-Ake Gustafsson
Patrick Sundstrom
Borje Salming
Ilkka Sinisalo
Risto Siltanen
Hakan Loob
Reijo Ruotsalainen
Willy Lindstrom
Anders Hedberg
Miroslav Frycer
Tomas Jonsson
Tomas Sandstrom

...just to name the most obvious, higher-scorers. Here's how he did, based on per-game (min. 160 games played) scoring stats, vs. these all-Euro guys:

Points per game
2.40 Gretzky
1.49 P. Stastny
1.41 Kurri
1.25 Nilsson
1.04 Naslund
1.01 A. Stastny
0.93 Loob
0.91 M. Stastny
0.91 Sandstrom
0.90 Gradin

Projected to an 80-game season:
192 Gretzky
119 Stastny
113 Kurri
100 Nilsson
83 Naslund
Etc.

My question is: From 1979-80 through 1987-88, who were these fabulous European players, missing from the NHL, who were going to come and challenge Gretzky's dominance? As mentioned, there were a few Soviets who were clearly at all-star NHL level then (the obvious ones), but it's not like any of them were even 90-point scorers when they did make the NHL (albeit under strange circumstances), so I have a hard time seeing Makarov or Krutov as consistently outscoring Stastny, let alone Gretzky.

Then, in Wayne's first 5 seasons in L.A (which includes two post-prime seasons when he was no longer "Gretzky")., during which ex-Soviets and even more Europeans were in the League, this is how it breaks down (min. 120 games played):

Points per game
1.84 Gretzky (Mario is the only player topping him, though playing 122 fewer games)
1.38 Selanne
1.24 Bure
1.19 Fedorov
1.18 Mogilny
1.11 Zhamnov
1.07 Kurri
1.03 Sundin
1.03 Jagr
1.02 Sandstrom

Projected to an 82-game season:
155 Gretzky
113 Selanne
102 Bure
98 Fedorov
97 Mogilny

In the 1993 L.A.-Vancouver playoff series (Van was the favorite to win), Gretzky, five or six years past his peak period, completely outclassed Bure, outscoring him 13 points to 5 (and 6 to 1 in goals scored). Even in the 1996 St. Louis-Detroit series, Gretzky easily outscored Fedorov -- in his prime and on one of the more dominant clubs in history -- though Lidstrom had a strong series and matched Wayne in points.