Ted Leonsis: We will do everything to help Ovi to beat Gretzky's goals record

[gn2007]

If Gretzky prime was him playing without the two line rule he would easily have 1000 goals.

 

[KrugAvoy]

If Ovechkin breaks the record he should retire and go home and play in Russia. Then immediately Gretzky comes out of retirement to break Ovechkins record

 

[Midnight Judges]

Before I get into the rest, I take issue with the claims that I said “non-whites don’t play hockey” or anything resembling that.

What I said was that all the current major (top-10+) influxes of immigrants to Canada are visible minorities, which makes it conveniently easy to measure how many of those immigrant groups are putting players into the NHL (because a list of POC is easily found) which leads to a clear conclusion that one current NHL player comes from that background. That is not the same thing as saying non-whites don’t play hockey.

I think you’ve done some reasonable math above to come to the 73%. Obviously we’re never going to get to a precise number but as a broad estimate I don’t take issue with that.

In a context where the number of NHL teams has risen by half since 1990, and the overall Canadian population has grown by some 30%, it’s disheartening that the NHL talent base would actually recede during that timeframe. That speaks to the NHL’s/hockey’s failure to penetrate immigrant communities in a meaningful way, and also to the NHL’s willingness to settle for superficial solutions to its inclusion problem.

Did prior generations of immigrants feed the NHL? Well, there were more first-generation Finns and Swedes in a 10-team NHL in 1930 than there are first-generation Indians in the NHL in 2021. So it might not have been overwhelming, but it was something. In today’s league it’s statistically nothing, and that’s a problem.

Economics… unfortunately those issues have to be described anecdotally, because nobody is officially monitoring them. What, you think Hockey Canada’s going to fund a report saying hockey is becoming less inclusive? Is the NHL going to post an article about players who came from wealthy households? Of course not. Those organizations have no motive to address any issue in such a way that doesn’t end with “we’ve done a great job and the sport has never been healthier!”.

But simple observation tells you that the Canadian minor development system has consolidated and shrunk in recent decades. The elite tier has been privatized to the point of obvious economic exclusivity. Routine long-distance travel, beyond the financial or professional capacity of a working class family, is required in order to advance. Those kinds of changes don’t happen without cutting deeply into the middle class and especially the working class pipeline.

When we talk about 73%, when we talk about immigrant communities declining to adopt hockey, when we talk about soccer being massively more popular as a participation sport, the really insidious (and unmeasurable) underlying factor is the disappearance of the working class and even the average middle class family from the hockey development pipeline. At the end of the day, the NHL doesn’t care — they’ll have players on the ice under any circumstances — but as people who love the game for its own sake this stuff should be deeply concerning if not outrage-inducing.

I don't think the 73% is accurate though, because again, it assumes immigrant communities of the past immediately adopted the sport. Maybe that's 10% true or 50% true or 90% true. I really don't know, but the result weighs heavily.

I suspect immigrant populations in any country take time to assimilate, but ultimately they largely do. I think we Americans often look at the current immigration wave and think it's different from the past because we're not all integrated. But neither were the previous immigration waves - it's their children and their children's children that speak perfect English, play football, then major in something uselesss (lol). I don't see why it would be any different for hockey. It's a great sport. Sure, it's not as accessible a soccer, but it wasn't in the past either. Hockey - particularly ice hockey - is just never going to be as accessible as soccer.

 

[Iapyi]

Which part precludes the team from having success?



Nah real hockey fans are all about witnessing hockey history being made in the record being broken. Now tryhards who care more about message board appearances than the actual sport, on the other hand...



Why don't they? Only 4 teams won more cups than Ovechkin's since he joined the league, 2 of which got to obscenely game their payroll the years they did.



Wrong emoji

LOL

1. Who said it did.

2. Who cares about records. If they fall they fall. Us real hockey fans watch, play, and love hockey and don't care about the rest of the crap.

3. This makes zero sense based on what I said.

 

[txpd]

If Gretzky prime was him playing without the two line rule he would easily have 1000 goals.

I disagree with that. Kurri would have more goals than today and Gretzky less. The way you have to score goals in the butterfly era is lateral puck movement and quick/one time shooting. In today's NHL goal scorers score and passers pass. Gretzky would have been making those lateral passes and Kurri shooting the one timers.

Lets also consider that the defenses prepared for Gretzky in the modern era where video is immediately available of every team's every game. In Gretzky's era teams just couldn't game plan like they do now. Most teams played against Gretzky they way they played against Trottier. They certainly weren't rolling out specialty penalty kills like teams have been doing for years to Ovechkin.

 

[Plural]

Only in the nhl does the human body evolve leaps and bounds in a timespan of 20 years

The sport has evolved. Not human evolution.

 

[Iapyi]

After the Great Ape, I hope the Caps become bottom feeder irrelevant for 30 years

I agree in that it would rid of their obnoxious fans.

 

[Foots]

After the Great Ape, I hope the Caps become bottom feeder irrelevant for 30 years

We'll see you there. Lol

 

[zar]

If Gretzky prime was him playing without the two line rule he would easily have 1000 goals.

How about 4 on 4 PPs and 3 on 3 OTs as well? Could you imagine Gretzky, Kurri and Coffey out one shift then Messier, Anderson, Huddy the next.

Courtesy of Wikipedia…


The Gretzky rule

In June 1985, as part of a package of five rule changes to be implemented for the 1985–86 season, the NHL Board of Governors decided to introduce offsetting penalties, where neither team lost a man when coincidental penalties were called. The effect of calling offsetting penalties was felt immediately in the NHL, because during the early 1980s, when the Gretzky-era Oilers entered a four-on-four or three-on-three situation with an opponent, they frequently used the space on the ice to score one or more goals.[77][78] Gretzky held a press conference one day after being awarded the Hart Memorial Trophy, criticizing the NHL for punishing teams and players who previously benefited. The rule change became known as "the Gretzky rule."[77][79] The rule was reversed for the 1992–93 season.[80]

 

[tarheelhockey]

I don't think the 73% is accurate though, because again, it assumes immigrant communities of the past immediately adopted the sport. Maybe that's 10% true or 50% true or 90% true. I really don't know, but the result weighs heavily.

I suspect immigrant populations in any country take time to assimilate, but ultimately they largely do. I think we Americans often look at the current immigration wave and think it's different from the past because we're not all integrated. But neither were the previous immigration waves - it's their children and their children's children that speak perfect English, play football, then major in something uselesss (lol). I don't see why it would be any different for hockey. It's a great sport. Sure, it's not as accessible a soccer, but it wasn't in the past either. Hockey - particularly ice hockey - is just never going to be as accessible as soccer.

I think you have a valid point about past waves of immigration, and it would probably take quite a bit of time to peel apart the data for those generations, but here's what jumps to mind for me superficially:

1) If in fact Canadian immigrants have never assimilated to hockey within a generation or two, then that just means this has all been a problem has been going on for longer than I asserted to start with. What it implies is that Canadian hockey has always been drawing its talent very heavily from the British/Irish/French ethnic communities, which is a serious problem considering those have been a shrinking share of the total for over to a century now.

2) Even if this premise were true, the Baby Boom was still a reality for all demographic groups and the fundamental point about the expansion and contraction of the talent pool is basically the same proportionally speaking -- just smaller in absolute numbers, which is a whole other problem.

3) I'm not sure that the above are actually true in light of names that jump immediately to mind: Frank Fredrickson, Cyclone Taylor, Oliver Seibert, Turk Broda, the Kraut Line, Stan Mikita, Elmer Lach, Sweeney Schriner, the Bentley Brothers, the immigrants' kids from Eveleth MN, Alex Delvecchio, Johnny Bower, Terry Sawchuk. That's not by any means a complete survey, just HOF'ers who come to mind for being from immigrant families. It's probably true that those communities were slow to pick up hockey, don't get me wrong -- but they were producing HOF players within a generation or two.

I just checked for a point of reference, and these are the top-10 places of birth for Canadian immigrants between 1961 and 1996 (source)

1. United Kingdom 655,540 13.2
2. Italy 332,110 6.7
3. United States 244,695 4.9
4. Hong Kong 241,095 4.8
5. India 235,930 4.7
6. People's Republic
of China 231,055 4.6
7. Poland 193,375 3.9
8. Philippines 184,550 3.7
9. Germany 181,650 3.7
10. Portugal 158,820 3.2

I have no idea how we would go about identifying NHL players whose parents or grandparents were from the UK, Italy, the USA, or even Poland or Germany. They aren't visible minorities and surnames aren't going to help very much.

But we can easily identify players of Asian descent (source) and here's what we have:
Total - 26

Canadian - 18

Active - 7
100 or more games of NHL experience - 7

Matt Dumba, Victor Bartley, Brandon Yip, Tim Stapleton, Paul Kariya, Devin Setoguchi, Jim Paek, Richard Park, Jamie Storr​

So we're talking about seven players with significant NHL careers, of whom only one is HHOF caliber, after 35 years of heavy immigration which is a major source of the country's overall population growth? Seven out of something like >5000 players during that timeframe? They could even be playing hockey, but they are not graduating a proportionate number of prospects to the NHL which hints that somewhere along the line there is a massive demographic problem with respect to the talent pipeline.

FWIW, the Portuguese-Canadian community has done comparatively well -- Tavares, Doughty, Ribeiro, Henrique, and a handful of others are of Portuguese descent. Compare that to only two meaningful NHL careers (Malhotra and Khaira) from people of Indian descent during the same time period. Again, there's clearly a discrepancy here along demographic lines that appears to exist independent of native Canadian-ness.

The overall picture is a very unevenly weighted development pipeline, where some of the largest sources of population growth are creating little-to-no traction in the hockey world. If this were a biosphere or a business market, we would view it as having uneven selective pressure... it's a selective environment, but not so much that it necessarily selects for the most worthy champion. By all appearances, there are certain traits that eliminate prospects from the pool before they ever get to the point of being selected for athleticism, discipline, etc.

 

[JustAnotherHockeyFan]

LOL

1. Who said it did.

2. Who cares about records. If they fall they fall. Us real hockey fans watch, play, and love hockey and don't care about the rest of the crap.

3. This makes zero sense based on what I said.

You care a lot about putting down the most electrifying player of a generation while trying to convince everyone you're a real fan though. And yeah, fans don't care about it at all, that's why there's 3 threads on Ovechkin potentially breaking the goal record FIVE years from now and you're in one of those threads rather than one about Tampa's back to back cups or whatever "real" hockey fans care about

 

[KoozNetsOff 92]

How about 4 on 4 PPs and 3 on 3 OTs as well? Could you imagine Gretzky, Kurri and Coffey out one shift then Messier, Anderson, Huddy the next.

Courtesy of Wikipedia…


The Gretzky rule

In June 1985, as part of a package of five rule changes to be implemented for the 1985–86 season, the NHL Board of Governors decided to introduce offsetting penalties, where neither team lost a man when coincidental penalties were called. The effect of calling offsetting penalties was felt immediately in the NHL, because during the early 1980s, when the Gretzky-era Oilers entered a four-on-four or three-on-three situation with an opponent, they frequently used the space on the ice to score one or more goals.[77][78] Gretzky held a press conference one day after being awarded the Hart Memorial Trophy, criticizing the NHL for punishing teams and players who previously benefited. The rule change became known as "the Gretzky rule."[77][79] The rule was reversed for the 1992–93 season.[80]

Would the Oilers be playing without a salary cap?

 

[EdmFlyersfan]

I disagree with that. Kurri would have more goals than today and Gretzky less. The way you have to score goals in the butterfly era is lateral puck movement and quick/one time shooting. In today's NHL goal scorers score and passers pass. Gretzky would have been making those lateral passes and Kurri shooting the one timers.

Lets also consider that the defenses prepared for Gretzky in the modern era where video is immediately available of every team's every game. In Gretzky's era teams just couldn't game plan like they do now. Most teams played against Gretzky they way they played against Trottier. They certainly weren't rolling out specialty penalty kills like teams have been doing for years to Ovechkin.

This is not true.

 

[txpd]

This is not true.

The games that I saw I recall seeing the base pk particularly those games with the Capitals

 

[wetcoast]

First of all, the NHL was a big-money, professional major league throughout Gretzky's career. Age 21, he was Sportsman of the Year in Sports Illustrated, was feted by Hollywood stars, invited onto The Tonight Show. Yes, the bottom-end of the talent-pool was lesser up to the early-80s than in later periods, but by the mid- and late-80s it was the same as today, and Gretzky dominated as much in 1991 as in 1981.

Your "stands to reason" statement doesn't stand to reason because the "cut off" you refer to is blindly ignoring League expansion, which was entirely after Gretzky's prime. Up to 1981-82, NHL clubs had two (or three? I forget) fewer roster spots than clubs today, and there were 21 teams, not 32. There were still 21 teams in the very early-90s (the best period in NHL history, in my opinion) and about 24 by the mid-90s (also a great period). Anyway, 21 teams was the number throughout Gretzky's prime, and that means a League with 250 fewer jobs available to players than today -- Gretzky's NHL was 30% smaller than today.
I can't really speak to Orr, but here are players Gretzky had no trouble dominating in his prime:
Ray Bourque
Scott Stevens
Chris Chelios
Igor Larianov
Viacheslav Fetisov
Peter Stastny
Mark Howe
Larry Robinson

And when he was well past his prime and on bad teams, he still did well against:
Nick Lidstrom
Zdeno Chara
Etc.

I agree that circa 1979 to 1982 -- early in Wayne's career -- the bottom-end players on bad teams like Vancouver, Toronto, New Jersey, Hartford, etc. were of a lower quality than would be found today. But the NHL of the late-80s was completely different to the NHL of the very early-80s, and Gretzky dominated both, as well as the early 90s. And he was highest-scoring North American player in 1998, twenty years after his pro-career started. (Orr's era is harder to get a handle on, as he did play 1/2 his games against expansion teams. But Gretzky didn't -- the NHL he entered was a contraction, not an expansion, and there was no expansion during his prime years.)

This pattern plays out throughout history -- it doesn't matter how low-end or high-end the competition gets; the elite players are always elite:
- Gordie Howe: 95 points in 70 games in 1953-53; 103 points in 76 games in 1968-69
- Mario Lemieux: 100 points in 73 games in 1984-85; 91 points in 67 games in 2002-03
- Joe Sakic: 109 points in 1989-90 (vs. Gretzky); 100 points in 2006-07 (vs. Crosby)
- Jaromir Jagr: 60 ES points in 1991-92, 55 ES points (more, per ice-time, than Crosby) in 2016-17


Finally, I encourage you to get past this stubborn position that players of the past would like "wildly out of place" in today's NHL. OF COURSE THEY WOULD. And today's players would look wildly out of place in the NHL of twenty years from now. For some reason (and we all know why -- because he's the greatest) Gretzky is always the whipping-boy of this bizarre way of rationalizing recency bias. I never hear people arguing: "Gretzky would have scored 8 points per game vs. Joe Malone! Ha-ha! It proves how great he is!", but somehow this argument is perpetually used against Gretzky.

Denial is not just a river in Africa.

Gretzky and Chara only overlap for a short time and Gretzky was done being a force by then and Chara was an awkward struggling young Dman.

Also the only time Gretzky and Lidstrom met in the playoffs Lidstrom was the better player.

But none of this matters we all know how great Gretzky was.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Also the only time Gretzky and Lidstrom met in the playoffs Lidstrom was the better player.

I’m not going to do Lidstrom the disservice of holding his rookie and sophomore years against him, considering he was up against a near-prime Gretzky.

Starting when he was age 23, Lidstrom started getting Norris votes while playing on a stacked (and I mean stacked) Detroit team against a fading Gretzky.

Gretzky paced for 96 points in those matchups.

 

[wetcoast]

I’m not going to do Lidstrom the disservice of holding his rookie and sophomore years against him, considering he was up against a near-prime Gretzky.

Starting when he was age 23, Lidstrom started getting Norris votes while playing on a stacked (and I mean stacked) Detroit team against a fading Gretzky.

Gretzky paced for 96 points in those matchups.

Well in the first game Gretzky went 2-4-6 +3 but it was against 2 crappy goalies and the rest of the year the line was 3-0-3-3 minus 6

94-95 he had a 4-0-3-3 minus 3 line against the Red Wings.

95-96 a line of 5-2-2-4 minus 6

So the original claim of Gretzky dominating Lidstrom clearly is in doubt here, heck I'm not even sure if Lidstrom was matched up against Wayne in those games either.

Gretzky maybe wasn't playing on stacked teams but they weren't bad ones either well until he got to New York.

My main point was that Gretzky past the age of 30 simply wasn't tilting the ice in his favour any more despite still possessing some really good scoring streaks, including an Art Ross and 3 times leading the NHL in assists.

The big exception was his age 32 season in 92-93 were he was still great in an injury year but was back to the Greztky we all knew in the playoffs with 40 points and a Conn Smythe worthy playoffs except for Patrick Roy.

 

[Nasti]

So many people who didn’t watch Gretzky play on a consistent basis, will never have any understanding of the kind of deceptive and patient game he played. All they understand is a guy being fed the puck at the left circle and firing it on net. Gretzky had so many ways to outsmart and beat you. And he would do it in a way that didn’t seem impressive unless you actually understood what he did. And yes, he would have adjusted to today’s game.

 

[filinski77]

So many people who didn’t watch Gretzky play on a consistent basis, will never have any understanding of the kind of deceptive and patient game he played. All they understand is a guy being fed the puck at the left circle and firing it on net. Gretzky had so many ways to outsmart and beat you. And he would do it in a way that didn’t seem impressive unless you actually understood what he did. And yes, he would have adjusted to today’s game.

The overwhelming majority of people here aren't saying Gretzky wouldn't be the best player in the league in the cap-era -> he would.

But he sure as shit wouldn't be scoring 70+ goals and 200 points. He could be scoring 45-50 goals and 140 points and still be dominating the league when #2 in points is 100-110.

 

[HurricaneFanatic]

If Ovechkin breaks the record he should retire and go home and play in Russia. Then immediately Gretzky comes out of retirement to break Ovechkins record

haha Gretzky can barely skate these days. His videos of him on the ice are almost pitiful. Yeah, i know he's 60+ haha

 

[HurricaneFanatic]

Well in the first game Gretzky went 2-4-6 +3 but it was against 2 crappy goalies and the rest of the year the line was 3-0-3-3 minus 6

94-95 he had a 4-0-3-3 minus 3 line against the Red Wings.

95-96 a line of 5-2-2-4 minus 6

So the original claim of Gretzky dominating Lidstrom clearly is in doubt here, heck I'm not even sure if Lidstrom was matched up against Wayne in those games either.

Gretzky maybe wasn't playing on stacked teams but they weren't bad ones either well until he got to New York.

My main point was that Gretzky past the age of 30 simply wasn't tilting the ice in his favour any more despite still possessing some really good scoring streaks, including an Art Ross and 3 times leading the NHL in assists.

The big exception was his age 32 season in 92-93 were he was still great in an injury year but was back to the Greztky we all knew in the playoffs with 40 points and a Conn Smythe worthy playoffs except for Patrick Roy.

Well no, Gretzky past age 30 wasn't nearly as good. I remember him actually saying that in some post game interviews back then. Of course he was injured that didn't help.

 

[tarheelhockey]

So many people who didn’t watch Gretzky play on a consistent basis, will never have any understanding of the kind of deceptive and patient game he played... Gretzky had so many ways to outsmart and beat you. And he would do it in a way that didn’t seem impressive unless you actually understood what he did.

This is so hard to express to people who didn't see it in real time. Watching a highlight reel, or going back and watching a handful of old playoff games where you already know the outcome, doesn't really convey it properly.

Gretzky was a guy where every single freakin' day you look at the box scores and he has 2 or 3 points. You watch him play a game and he doesn't do a single thing to draw you out of your seat, but at the end you realize he had 3 assists in that game. You say to yourself that he's not that good, he's just leeching points, he's an OK first liner but overrated as a star. And then he has 3 points in the next game. And a hat trick in the one after that. And it just keeps going and going, month after month and year after year. There hasn't been anyone else like that in the league ever. It was truly unique.

The overwhelming majority of people here aren't saying Gretzky wouldn't be the best player in the league in the cap-era -> he would.

But he sure as shit wouldn't be scoring 70+ goals and 200 points. He could be scoring 45-50 goals and 140 points and still be dominating the league when #2 in points is 100-110.

1983
1. Gretzky 196
2. Stastny 124
3. Savard 121

1984
1. Gretzky 205
2. Coffey 126
3. Goulet 122

1987
1. Gretzky 183
2. Kurri 108
3. Lemieux/Messier 107

Those were years where the #2 guy had fewer points than the three most recent Art Ross winners (128, 127 pace, 153 pace). Gretzky was scoring 183-205 points in that environment.

 

[trentmccleary]

He's about to turn 36yo and needs 164 goals just to tie Gretzky.

If he matches the NHL goal scoring record at each age for the next 4 seasons, he'll score exactly 164 goals.

Age	G-record	Player	Year
36	48	Selanne	2007
37	40	Bucyk	1973
38	37	Hull	2003
39	39	Howe	1968

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[filinski77]

This is so hard to express to people who didn't see it in real time. Watching a highlight reel, or going back and watching a handful of old playoff games where you already know the outcome, doesn't really convey it properly.

Gretzky was a guy where every single freakin' day you look at the box scores and he has 2 or 3 points. You watch him play a game and he doesn't do a single thing to draw you out of your seat, but at the end you realize he had 3 assists in that game. You say to yourself that he's not that good, he's just leeching points, he's an OK first liner but overrated as a star. And then he has 3 points in the next game. And a hat trick in the one after that. And it just keeps going and going, month after month and year after year. There hasn't been anyone else like that in the league ever. It was truly unique.



1983
1. Gretzky 196
2. Stastny 124
3. Savard 121

1984
1. Gretzky 205
2. Coffey 126
3. Goulet 122

1987
1. Gretzky 183
2. Kurri 108
3. Lemieux/Messier 107

Those were years where the #2 guy had fewer points than the three most recent Art Ross winners (128, 127 pace, 153 pace). Gretzky was scoring 183-205 points in that environment.

Definitely see what you mean, but I think looking at #2 or #3 is still a little volatile. If you take Gretzky's leads over #10 in point and goals in each of his years, and applied those same % leads to the #10 in goals and points in the cap era, you would get:

Year	Gretzky Points	Gretzky Goals	10th in Points	10th in Goals	% ahead P	% ahead G
1980	137	51	94	47	45.7%	8.5%
1981	164	55	103	48	59.2%	14.6%
1982	212	92	106	50	100.0%	84.0%
1983	196	71	104	48	88.5%	47.9%
1984	205	87	105	47	95.2%	85.1%
1985	208	73	102	46	103.9%	58.7%
1986	215	52	105	46	104.8%	13.0%
1987	183	62	95	42	92.6%	47.6%
1988	149	40	106	48	40.6%	-16.7%
1989	168	54	98	46	71.4%	17.4%
1990	142	40	102	45	39.2%	-11.1%
1991	163	41	101	45	61.4%	-8.9%
1992	121	31	99	42	22.2%	-26.2%
1993	65	16	123	54	-47.2%	-70.4%
1994	130	38	99	46	31.3%	-17.4%
1995	48	11	53	26	-9.4%	-57.7%
1996	102	23	107	47	-4.7%	-51.1%
1997	97	25	122	42	-20.5%	-40.5%
Year	10th in Points	10th in Goals	% ahead P	% ahead G	Gretzky P	Gretzky G
2006	93	40	45.7%	8.5%	136	43
2007	95	40	59.2%	14.6%	151	46
2008	87	40	100.0%	84.0%	174	74
2009	88	39	88.5%	47.9%	166	58
2010	86	35	95.2%	85.1%	168	65
2011	77	34	103.9%	58.7%	157	54
2012	78	36	104.8%	13.0%	160	41
2013	49	21	92.6%	47.6%	94	31
2014	79	34	40.6%	-16.7%	111	28
2015	73	33	71.4%	17.4%	125	39
2016	77	33	39.2%	-11.1%	107	29
2017	75	34	61.4%	-8.9%	121	31
2018	89	39	22.2%	-26.2%	109	29
2019	96	41	-47.2%	-70.4%	51	12
2020	78	34	31.3%	-17.4%	102	28
2021	62	26	-9.4%	-57.7%	56	11
					1,988	618

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Gretzky still becomes the best player of the Crosby/Ovechkin era by FAR - but he's not pushing the consistent 200 point seasons. If anything, it might slightly overstate Gretzky's just a tad as well, since the disparity between the 10th best producer and 1st seems to be a lot smaller in general nowadays, due to the larger talent pool overall (harder to differentiate).

 

[Nasti]

The overwhelming majority of people here aren't saying Gretzky wouldn't be the best player in the league in the cap-era -> he would.

But he sure as shit wouldn't be scoring 70+ goals and 200 points. He could be scoring 45-50 goals and 140 points and still be dominating the league when #2 in points is 100-110.

That scenario actually played out and Gretzky scored more than 140 points. So even you are underrating him.