This one gave me a laugh

[lextune]

Some pretty big leaps in logic here

How so?

Lets examine:

145 point pace in a lower scoring era than today, way past his prime. (Two demonstrable facts)

Put him in a higher scoring era like today = Points go up a bit. (How is expecting his points to go up a bit in a significantly higher scoring era a leap?)

Put him in his prime = Points go up a lot. (Demonstrable)

145+a bit+a lot = a number noticeably larger than 145. (Basic math)

Where are the leaps exactly? Especially "big" ones?

I'd honestly like to know.

 

[Big Phil]

Where to start...you put a lot of words in my mouth; statements that I never even wrote. Show me where I said "every" goalie was 5'8". I didn't yet you actually quoted me as doing so. Manny Legace might be the last midget goalie we ever see because there are no short goalies like that in the league right now and there were plenty in Mario's prime. That's what I stated. I didn't say there weren't any good goalies back then either but don't you agree that goalies are generally better now? That's what I stated. Disagree if you wish.

Your quote was how it was funny seeing Mario roof a shot over a "midget 5'8" goalie or something along those lines. I interpreted that as you assuming everyone was just a cardboard cutout back then. Goalies are bigger for sure. But they were bigger in 2001 too.

When things got tough Jagr often packed it in so it's not all that surprising that he scored less than Lemiuex in those playoffs. My point stands and Mario did not put up the huge numbers he did prior to those playoffs. Sure it had to do with his age and health but is it not possible that it also got tougher to score for him? He did after all decide to come out of retirement so just maybe he felt pretty good about his health and conditioning at that time?

Like I said the only team to seemingly stop him was the defending champs. Jersey played a strict defensive game who had the ability to shut down a player like Mario. He had 3 assists in those 5 games so I'd say they did a pretty good job rather than just assume Mario slowed down all of the sudden.

You have shown that his on pace numbers dropped. How is that proof for your point, exactly? Where is the mathematical equation showing on pace for 145 points in his mid 30's equals 199 points at 25?

I agree he would be winning the Art Ross if he played today in his prime. What I disagree with is that he would score 199 points today because offense is down and it's more difficult to score for everyone

I can't prove it. Nobody can because we don't have a time machine. All you have to do is project and use a little bit of an imagination. He's putting up a potentially 145 point season at 35. He is NOT in his prime. He's in the lowest scoring era since the 1950s. Put him in the NHL today in his prime with some advantages for skilled guys like himself and I certainly see that number creeping near 200 points whether that's 180 or whatever. Either way, not a big drop off at all.

 

[Big Phil]

Wayne is an even better example of how the ability to dominate changed since he didn't have the same injury woes that Mario had.

Wayne's last godlike season was in 86 when he was 25 and scored at a 2.69 PPG pace after that it dropped to 2.32, 2.33, 2.15 and 1.95 in his age 29 season.

Did Wayne get any worse as a player in those year?

Did he suddenly develop a 2way game?

No I suggest that the league became slightly harder to score in and this was still only in year 90 and the full impact of top flight players from Europe still had not reached it's climax.

I'd put 1991 as his last "God like" season like you said. The guy had 163 points while the next best King (Robitaille) had 91. He had 2.08 PPG that year. Hull was the next highest scoring NHL player at 131. Gretzky nearly had as many assists as the next player had points. He was 30 this year, he had played a LOT of hockey by then and to be honest Gretzky was still arguably the best player in the game until Suter cross checked him in the 1991 Canada Cup. After that is the only time when we saw Gretzky become mortal and even then he won another scoring title. In my honest opinion I think this was the cause of his points drop. He got old, let's face it. He wasn't a young man anymore.

I don't understand one thing though, Gretzky practically dominated the NHL for a decade. Only in 1989 did Lemieux finally catch up and there was finally a player that was comparable to him. Until then nobody was. What more did you want the guy to do? Dominate the NHL for 15 years? It was practically unthinkable to see someone annihilate the NHL for a decade like that and there are people who still don't think that was good enough?

Maybe Wayne or Mario would still lead in the NHL scoring race if it were today but it is more likely that it would be by 10-20 points rather than any flirtation with 200 points like has been repeatedly argued for in this thread.

and even if Wayne and Mario were scoring 10-20 points more than the pack it would still be arguable that they would win the hart with guys like Crosby and Datsyuk playing 2 way hockey and scoring pretty well.

the 80's and very early 90's were night and day to the NHL today and even in the history section we should realize this and try to make some objective comparison between players from the eras IMO

A healthy Lemieux still outpoints Crosby by a minimum 20 points. That's a bare minimum in my opinion. 30-40 points is a more likely minimum. These guys were just the most dominant talents we have ever seen. Throw in Gretzky as well. Look, there is one last fact here. You seem to try and find ways as to how they wouldn't score today but the truth is as recent as 1995-'96 we had a season where a player flirted with 200 points. Lemieux had 161 points. But had he played in every game he'd have gotten 189 points. This is not from the dark ages. This is 15 years ago. Scoring in 1996 is very comparable to right now. If that doesn't say something, well, then I'm sorry.

Gretzky, a little bit older had a 163 point season in 1991. He won the scoring title as a 33 year old in his 15th season by 10 points in 1994. He owned the 1993 playoffs with 40 points and he still led Canada in scoring at the 1996 World Cup. Nice career eh? No, that was just the BACK END of his career! You can't possibly expect a man in his 30s to dominate the game the way he did in his 20s.

 

[Unaffiliated]

I have yet to see any sort of real evidence to validate the ridiculous notion that Lemieux was in better shape at 35 than at 25.

Unless someone provides me with hard numbers from physical tests, I don't see any reason to give it any credit whatsoever.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I have yet to see any sort of real evidence to validate the ridiculous notion that Lemieux was in better shape at 35 than at 25.

Unless someone provides me with hard numbers from physical tests, I don't see any reason to give it any credit whatsoever.

He trained harder than he ever had and was no doubt in a better fitness level than he had been earlier in his career.

But as everyone knows, age, injuries and cancer take their toil too and he certainly was not as good a hockey player at 35 as he was in his prime. Still outstanding though!

 

[Sens Rule]

I have yet to see any sort of real evidence to validate the ridiculous notion that Lemieux was in better shape at 35 than at 25.

Unless someone provides me with hard numbers from physical tests, I don't see any reason to give it any credit whatsoever.

Man Mario was fat when he came back. It was obvious in just looking at his face even if you did not look at his body. He worked out for like a month or 6 weeks or something and came back after 3.5 seasons off playing golf. He was likely (just my impression seeing him) 250-260 lbs when he first came back. The idea that he was in the best shape of his career is ridiculous. It is absurd. He was sooooo much slower. He played a different game but still was playing well over 20 minutes a night. I am 35 now. Remembering what I was like at 22 or 25 and what I am like now it is easy to understand. Unless you are a workout freak and never get out of shape you can not be even close at 35 to what you were at 25. You can get stronger but you sure as heck don't get faster!

It is so incredibly obvious he was not even remotely close to as good of shape as he was in when he was in his early to mid 20's. He might have been stronger, he certainly was bigger, he could well have been the heaviest player in the NHL or close at the start of his comeback. The premise he was in the best shape of his career at 35 when he came back is absurd. He was likely in the WORST shape of his career. In the following seasons he was in better game shape and not fat like at the start of his comeback. He might have been the most injury free that he had been in many, many seasons though but that is a different thing.

 

[Hardyvan123]

How so?

Lets examine:

145 point pace in a lower scoring era than today, way past his prime. (Two demonstrable facts)

Put him in a higher scoring era like today = Points go up a bit. (How is expecting his points to go up a bit in a significantly higher scoring era a leap?)

Put him in his prime = Points go up a lot. (Demonstrable)

145+a bit+a lot = a number noticeably larger than 145. (Basic math)

Where are the leaps exactly? Especially "big" ones?

I'd honestly like to know.

His last full season was at age 31 where he put up a 76-50-72-122 line then didn't play again until the small 43 game sample.

Last 2 full seasons age 30-31 (96-97) scored at a 2.3 PPG and then a 1.61 clip before the 1.77(01) in 43 games followed by 1.29 (24 games) and 1.36 (67 games).

Now maybe Mario could have scored close to the !.77 PPG clip for the entire 01 season and not just the 43 games he played in but the numbers around that season strongly indicate that he probably would not have.

And while there might be a small amount of meritt in the physical shape Mario was in, most of us can agree that his reach and creativity with the puck was always more important than his skating skills were in his dominance.

Also one season of lower scoring 01 combined with the above observations does not make a very strong argument or foundation for the argument presented.

If we had a larger sample of like 2 seasons, or even 1 full one for that matter then sure but we just don't.

The statement there is ]no doubt that he would score 200 points today to there is little doubt indicates that either you over estimate what Lemieux, who is in my mind the great pure offensive player ever, could do today or that you under estimate the degree of difficulty of scoring in today's NHL or perhaps a bit of both.

Note: bold words are your words from previous posts on the topic

 

[Hardyvan123]

I'd put 1991 as his last "God like" season like you said. The guy had 163 points while the next best King (Robitaille) had 91. He had 2.08 PPG that year. Hull was the next highest scoring NHL player at 131. Gretzky nearly had as many assists as the next player had points. He was 30 this year, he had played a LOT of hockey by then and to be honest Gretzky was still arguably the best player in the game until Suter cross checked him in the 1991 Canada Cup. After that is the only time when we saw Gretzky become mortal and even then he won another scoring title. In my honest opinion I think this was the cause of his points drop. He got old, let's face it. He wasn't a young man anymore.

I don't understand one thing though, Gretzky practically dominated the NHL for a decade. Only in 1989 did Lemieux finally catch up and there was finally a player that was comparable to him. Until then nobody was. What more did you want the guy to do? Dominate the NHL for 15 years? It was practically unthinkable to see someone annihilate the NHL for a decade like that and there are people who still don't think that was good enough?



A healthy Lemieux still outpoints Crosby by a minimum 20 points. That's a bare minimum in my opinion. 30-40 points is a more likely minimum. These guys were just the most dominant talents we have ever seen. Throw in Gretzky as well. Look, there is one last fact here. You seem to try and find ways as to how they wouldn't score today but the truth is as recent as 1995-'96 we had a season where a player flirted with 200 points. Lemieux had 161 points. But had he played in every game he'd have gotten 189 points. This is not from the dark ages. This is 15 years ago. Scoring in 1996 is very comparable to right now. If that doesn't say something, well, then I'm sorry.

Gretzky, a little bit older had a 163 point season in 1991. He won the scoring title as a 33 year old in his 15th season by 10 points in 1994. He owned the 1993 playoffs with 40 points and he still led Canada in scoring at the 1996 World Cup. Nice career eh? No, that was just the BACK END of his career! You can't possibly expect a man in his 30s to dominate the game the way he did in his 20s.

Look, I wasn't saying anywhere that Wayne wasn't great, he is the greatest after all IMO, but that even his production slipped a bit after the age of 25 and this was in part due to the competition of the NHL getting better, not Wayne getting worse.

And for the comment that scoring was pretty much the same in 96 compared to today, don't let the facts get in the way of your idea here.

09-10 top 5 teams scored 318, 272, 271, 264 and 257 goals
95-96 top 5 teams scored 362, 326, 326, 282 and 282 goals

Maybe it's me but they don't look very similar at all.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Look, I wasn't saying anywhere that Wayne wasn't great, he is the greatest after all IMO, but that even his production slipped a bit after the age of 25 and this was in part due to the competition of the NHL getting better, not Wayne getting worse.

And for the comment that scoring was pretty much the same in 96 compared to today, don't let the facts get in the way of your idea here.

09-10 top 5 teams scored 318, 272, 271, 264 and 257 goals
95-96 top 5 teams scored 362, 326, 326, 282 and 282 goals

Maybe it's me but they don't look very similar at all.

....and yet he was still able to lead the entire league in assists and finish 4th in scoring at age 36 only to lead the league in assists again the following year at age 37 and finished 3rd in scoring and that was a full 15 years after his first 200 point season.

Sorry, it just makes no sense to argue against a 23 year old Gretzky still destroying the league today.

How does a 37 year old guy with a bad back continue to lead the league in assists and finish 3rd in points despite the competition level of the league being that much greater than when he was in his early 20's.

There's only one answer....he was just that good.

The argument here is not about IF he would blow everyone away today, it's only about by how much.

 

[BraveCanadian]

....and yet he was still able to lead the entire league in assists and finish 4th in scoring at age 36 only to lead the league in assists again the following year at age 37 and finished 3rd in scoring and that was a full 15 years after his first 200 point season.

Sorry, it just makes no sense to argue against a 23 year old Gretzky still destroying the league today.

How does a 37 year old guy with a bad back continue to lead the league in assists and finish 3rd in points despite the competition level of the league being that much greater than when he was in his early 20's.

There's only one answer....he was just that good.

The argument here is not about IF he would blow everyone away today, it's only about by how much.

Yeah there is no logical way to argue against Lemieux and Gretzky being better offensively than anyone in the league currently.

They both excelled when scoring was lower and tougher and when they were both well past their prime years.

 

[Slapshooter]

Man Mario was fat when he came back. It was obvious in just looking at his face even if you did not look at his body. He worked out for like a month or 6 weeks or something and came back after 3.5 seasons off playing golf.

Mario was always a bit chubby (no pun inteded) with all talent and little training. An exact opposite of Gretzky.

"I don't order fries with my club sandwich."-Mario Lemieux on getting in shape for the upcoming season

He was, after all, the greatest talent in the history of hockey (with possible exception of Bobby Orr). Sometimes Lemieux could not even tie up his skates without help (due to back problems) and probably still led the league in scoring.

 

[lextune]

They both excelled when scoring was lower and tougher and when they were both well past their prime years.

Exactly.

And it is notable that our side of the debate is based on a few easily stated, short and simple facts like this.

While the posts attempting to explain away these facts seem to get more and more convoluted.

Take Hardyvan123's reply to my question; "Where are the leaps exactly? Especially "big" ones?" as an example....

....and remember Occam's razor.

 

[Hardyvan123]

....and yet he was still able to lead the entire league in assists and finish 4th in scoring at age 36 only to lead the league in assists again the following year at age 37 and finished 3rd in scoring and that was a full 15 years after his first 200 point season.

Sorry, it just makes no sense to argue against a 23 year old Gretzky still destroying the league today.

How does a 37 year old guy with a bad back continue to lead the league in assists and finish 3rd in points despite the competition level of the league being that much greater than when he was in his early 20's.

There's only one answer....he was just that good.

The argument here is not about IF he would blow everyone away today, it's only about by how much.

Still no one is addressing the drop off by Wayne at age 25,26 as small as it was, it still was well below a 200 point season and he was still in his prime.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Exactly.

And it is notable that our side of the debate is based on a few easily stated, short and simple facts like this.

While the posts attempting to explain away these facts seem to get more and more convoluted.

Take Hardyvan123's reply to my question; "Where are the leaps exactly? Especially "big" ones?" as an example....

....and remember Occam's razor.

It's funny how you resort to defending your position without addressing the observations or arguments from an opposing view and sluff them off as "convoluted".

to me the evidence is pretty clear that it would be extremely difficult for anyone and that includes Wayne and Mario to score anywhere near 200 point in today's NHL.

Maybe they would score 150 or 160ish points but Sid is on pace for 130ish this year, so their degree of dominance from the past was due in part to the state of the NHL in the 80's and early 90's.

Not a hard concept to grasp and their is plenty of evidence to support that view.

 

[lextune]

It's funny how you resort to defending your position without addressing the observations or arguments from an opposing view and sluff them off as "convoluted".

It is convoluted.

I make a few simple observations of fact, followed by two straightforward assertions:

1. He would score more in a higher scoring era.
2. He would score more in his prime.

Which you call "pretty big leaps in logic".

When I ask how those are leaps at all, you reply with a convoluted mess.

I'm sorry, but those two assumptions are not leaps in the slightest, and any attempts to prove them as such are necessarily convoluted.


.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Still no one is addressing the drop off by Wayne at age 25,26 as small as it was, it still was well below a 200 point season and he was still in his prime.

It is because the Oilers didn't have anyone remotely close to replacing Paul Coffey in the 21 games he missed in 86-87 and when he was in Pittsburgh after that.

If they had an offensive defenseman capable of putting up 80ish points, Wayne would have hit 200 again, I think.

The Oilers were huge about transition and the second best offensive defenseman in the history of the world really helps that work more smoothly.

 

[Hardyvan123]

It is convoluted.

I make a few simple observations of fact, followed by two straightforward assertions:

1. He would score more in a higher scoring era.
2. He would score more in his prime.

Which you call "pretty big leaps in logic".

When I ask how those are leaps at all, you reply with a convoluted mess.

I'm sorry, but those two assumptions are not leaps in the slightest, and any attempts to prove them as such are necessarily convoluted.


.

Once again you take a 43 game sample and ignore the evidence both before and after, granted the before is more important as it's a full season at age 31 and he scores 122 points in 76 games but that hurts your argument so you simply ignore it for some reason.

One can always look at a small stretch (43 games) or isolated season but to come to sweeping conclusions from that and ignoring the whole sample of body or work is just plain avoiding the issue IMO.

What's with his age 31 season then with 122 points?

 

[lextune]

To tell you the truth I'm not ignoring anything specifically.

The numbers, (player's points per game, league goals per game etc. etc. on and on), bore me to tears.

I was watching hockey when Mario was still in diapers.
Then I saw his entire career.
I saw how hockey was played in his day, (his prime and otherwise).
I saw how he was "defended".
I see how the game is played today.
I make my learned assumptions.
Numbers be damned.
When someone else puts a number out there that supports what I know from my own eyes I repeat it.
That's how I roll.


Without any numbers I can tell you this, and I've said it over and over:

With the way the rules favor the highly skilled now. With the type of goals we see scored now, Mario would rip this league apart. He would score more than he did in his day, because the game is more suited to his playing style.

That is my belief.

The fact that he put up X amount of points, in X amount of games when league scoring was X or Y, actually factors very little into my belief. I find going by my own eyes to be far more reliable.


.

 

[lextune]

Deleted

 

[Rhiessan71]

Still no one is addressing the drop off by Wayne at age 25,26 as small as it was, it still was well below a 200 point season and he was still in his prime.

He dropped off at age 22 by 16 points taking him below 200 points as well only to put up 200+ for the next 3 seasons straight....the league must of been more competitive that year I guess

It's not as big of a drop as you make out either, it was only a drop of about 22 points.
His 86/87 season, he had some nagging injuries that he played through but was still limited by them.
Then his last season with the Oilers in 87/88 he missed 16 games and Coffey was traded yet he was still scoring at a 190 point pace.

He didn't truly drop off until he was traded to the Kings and even then he was still producing at a pace of 160-170 a season right up until he hit 30 years old, which is what he was scoring at age 21.

Look man, I'm sure the league getting a little tougher to score in had some minor effect on Gretzky's numbers declining but the majority of his decline was due to the player himself slowing down.
If there was a direct correlation between what the league's numbers were dropping by and what Gretzky's numbers were, you would have some grounds.
This is not the case though, the numbers do not match at all and continuing to give it as much weight as you do makes you look either blindly stubborn or purposefully ignorant, your choice.

The kind of changes in the league you're talking about take years to happen barring major rule changes like after the strike.

 

[Hardyvan123]

It is convoluted.

I make a few simple observations of fact, followed by two straightforward assertions:

1. He would score more in a higher scoring era.
2. He would score more in his prime.

Which you call "pretty big leaps in logic".

When I ask how those are leaps at all, you reply with a convoluted mess.

I'm sorry, but those two assumptions are not leaps in the slightest, and any attempts to prove them as such are necessarily convoluted.


.

Sure he would score more but you are asserting that 1) there would be no doubt to 2) there would be little doubt when there is a lot to suggest that there would be tons of doubt of him scoring 200 points today or anywhere close to it.

Only 1 team scored at a 4 goal a game pace and guys like Lemieux and Gretzky at their peaks still only scored in slightly above 50% of their teams points at their peaks. Lemieux best was 57%).

Let's take last years highest scoring team Washington that scored 318 goals, if Lemieux scored at his highest point ever % at 57% that still comes out at 181 points (and we are using his q99 point season here where the game was entirely different so it's not really even a fair exercise to do but I use it just to point out the difficulty of what you are asserting)

So unless you are going to say that somehow in today's NHL that they are going to score at a higher peak (% of their teams goals than anyone in history there is no way that they would get close to 200 points in today's NHL).

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Sure he would score more but you are asserting that 1) there would be no doubt to 2) there would be little doubt when there is a lot to suggest that there would be tons of doubt of him scoring 200 points today or anywhere close to it.

Only 1 team scored at a 4 goal a game pace and guys like Lemieux and Gretzky at their peaks still only scored in slightly above 50% of their teams points at their peaks. Lemieux best was 57%).

Let's take last years highest scoring team Washington that scored 318 goals, if Lemieux scored at his highest point ever % at 57% that still comes out at 181 points (and we are using his q99 point season here where the game was entirely different so it's not really even a fair exercise to do but I use it just to point out the difficulty of what you are asserting)

So unless you are going to say that somehow in today's NHL that they are going to score at a higher peak (% of their teams goals than anyone in history there is no way that they would get close to 200 points in today's NHL).

I would even comfortably lower that maximum to about 150 points today. There's just no way players could crack that with the time and space available in today's hockey. Crosby will not finish this season with more than 130, I'd take any bets on it.

 

[Gobo]

I would even comfortably lower that maximum to about 150 points today. There's just no way players could crack that with the time and space available in today's hockey. Crosby will not finish this season with more than 130, I'd take any bets on it.

Ya but Mario and Gretzky blow Crosby out of the water.

 

[Big Phil]

Look, I wasn't saying anywhere that Wayne wasn't great, he is the greatest after all IMO, but that even his production slipped a bit after the age of 25 and this was in part due to the competition of the NHL getting better, not Wayne getting worse.

And for the comment that scoring was pretty much the same in 96 compared to today, don't let the facts get in the way of your idea here.

09-10 top 5 teams scored 318, 272, 271, 264 and 257 goals
95-96 top 5 teams scored 362, 326, 326, 282 and 282 goals

Maybe it's me but they don't look very similar at all.

Scoring in 1995-'96 was at 6.2 GPG. Today it's in the high 5's. Similar enough.

Ya but Mario and Gretzky blow Crosby out of the water.

I agree with you 100% but I have had this talk with so many people and I have found out one thing, if you did not watch them play then you will never accept the numbers they put up. I don't think Infinite Vision or Hardyvan123 are old enough to have seen either play in their prime. This leads to my theory that there is nowhere but down for Mario and Wayne from here on in because the idea that they put up those numbers consistently is unreal and if you didn't see it then you will do your best to try and prove why they wouldn't.

I would even comfortably lower that maximum to about 150 points today. There's just no way players could crack that with the time and space available in today's hockey. Crosby will not finish this season with more than 130, I'd take any bets on it.

Okay, now I KNOW you didn't see Mario or Wayne play. That's okay if you were in diapers in the 1980s or even early 1990s but it's a lot better to listen to people who DID see them. For starters Crosby will hit around 130 points. I wouldn't bet against that if I were you because it will be very close. Secondly, there is no way Gretzky suffers a 70 point drop off to 150 just because the era is different. Crosby is similar (so far) offensively to Marcel Dionne. By Gretzky's second season he was embarassing Dionne in the scoring race. By his third season.............well the less I mention it the better it is for you.

Still no one is addressing the drop off by Wayne at age 25,26 as small as it was, it still was well below a 200 point season and he was still in his prime.

So we have come to this? A 183 point season is a "drop off" from 200 points? This 17 point margin at that number is supposed to make a difference? Considering Gretzky missed 16 games the next year and was on pace for a 186 point season. Then he leaves his comfortable surroundings and puts up 168 points on a far inferior team. Then he does 142, then 163 again and he's 30 years old by now. Then Suter crosschecks him which clearly slows him down and he still wins another scoring title after that.

Here's the real reason Gretzky "slipped" in points in 1987. The Oilers realized after 1986 that in order to win the Cup they couldn't always be playing river hockey and they tightened up their strings. They still played like an offensive machine but were more capable of winning a 3-2 game when it counted. To me that was the true reason for Gretzky's "sudden" point drop. Of course 1988 is the year where he had his best playoff and 2nd most productive (43 points) so whenever you doubted him he always came back. Funny story, his 1988 playoffs had him on pace for a 186 point regular season and this is when the stakes are higher and scoring is tighter.

Lastly, do you know how remarkably difficult it is to keep getting 200 points a year? Can we not also add how much hockey Gretzky played? Not just the constant deep playoff runs but the Canada Cups too. You don't think that even in your late 20s you would start to slow down ever so slightly after playing at that level for so long? I'll give you an example, Bryan Trottier never played at Gretzky's level, but it is strongly suggested around here that the dynasty wore him out since his production dropped a lot after the age of 30. The difference is when Gretzky "dropped" he went down to 160-180 points.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Scoring in 1995-'96 was at 6.2 GPG. Today it's in the high 5's. Similar enough.



I agree with you 100% but I have had this talk with so many people and I have found out one thing, if you did not watch them play then you will never accept the numbers they put up. I don't think Infinite Vision or Hardyvan123 are old enough to have seen either play in their prime. This leads to my theory that there is nowhere but down for Mario and Wayne from here on in because the idea that they put up those numbers consistently is unreal and if you didn't see it then you will do your best to try and prove why they wouldn't.



Okay, now I KNOW you didn't see Mario or Wayne play. That's okay if you were in diapers in the 1980s or even early 1990s but it's a lot better to listen to people who DID see them. For starters Crosby will hit around 130 points. I wouldn't bet against that if I were you because it will be very close. Secondly, there is no way Gretzky suffers a 70 point drop off to 150 just because the era is different. Crosby is similar (so far) offensively to Marcel Dionne. By Gretzky's second season he was embarassing Dionne in the scoring race. By his third season.............well the less I mention it the better it is for you.



So we have come to this? A 183 point season is a "drop off" from 200 points? This 17 point margin at that number is supposed to make a difference? Considering Gretzky missed 16 games the next year and was on pace for a 186 point season. Then he leaves his comfortable surroundings and puts up 168 points on a far inferior team. Then he does 142, then 163 again and he's 30 years old by now. Then Suter crosschecks him which clearly slows him down and he still wins another scoring title after that.

Here's the real reason Gretzky "slipped" in points in 1987. The Oilers realized after 1986 that in order to win the Cup they couldn't always be playing river hockey and they tightened up their strings. They still played like an offensive machine but were more capable of winning a 3-2 game when it counted. To me that was the true reason for Gretzky's "sudden" point drop. Of course 1988 is the year where he had his best playoff and 2nd most productive (43 points) so whenever you doubted him he always came back. Funny story, his 1988 playoffs had him on pace for a 186 point regular season and this is when the stakes are higher and scoring is tighter.

Lastly, do you know how remarkably difficult it is to keep getting 200 points a year? Can we not also add how much hockey Gretzky played? Not just the constant deep playoff runs but the Canada Cups too. You don't think that even in your late 20s you would start to slow down ever so slightly after playing at that level for so long? I'll give you an example, Bryan Trottier never played at Gretzky's level, but it is strongly suggested around here that the dynasty wore him out since his production dropped a lot after the age of 30. The difference is when Gretzky "dropped" he went down to 160-180 points.

There's so much wrong with those whole post I'm not even going to begin to pick apart all of it, but I'll just say now I KNOW you haven't been watching hockey the past ten years.