This one gave me a laugh

[finchster]

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.

Considering your old user name was Ryan87, I will assume it means 1987 and agree with Phil

 

[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.

Occam's razor?

Man and some people here I'm too young to shave.

Actually I do admit that i can get a bit long winded (ask my wife ) as I am very passionate on hockey and keeping an open mind on things and investigating all avenues and possibilities.

Looking at all of the data available (and not just select seasons then making some conclusions of faulty addition) it looks more than likely (and by quite a bit) that Mario would never score 200 points in today's NHL and it's extremely debatable on how many points he would get as well as the game has really changed that much since his 199 point season.

How would he respond to playing some defense for instance?

Players are bigger and the checking is a lot closer as well.

I have no doubt that he would do very well as he is the best offensively gifted player of all time but it is clearly up for debate.

You seem like a smart fellow but maybe you are trying to hard to defend a position (like many a professor defending a thesis) and don't want to look at the possibility that the picture might be different from the whole of the facts (stats ect..) available.

Or maybe not?

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Considering your old user name was Ryan87, I will assume it means 1987 and agree with Phil

I don't think that really matters, I've seen enough hockey from all different eras and have been watching hockey since I can remember, grew up playing it all my life and have a greater understanding of the game than you could possibly imagine.

 

[Stray Wasp]

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.

This "dropping off" thing is priceless. How much context do some people want? In 86/87 the year of this fearful "dropping off" he won the scoring title by 75 points. (A pause, allowing everyone to consider whether winning the Ross by 75 is quite impressive, no matter the state of the league.) That's the second highest margin of victory Gretzky ever enjoyed. (Caveat: Mario missed a few games with injury).

In 86-87 goal scoing per game was 7.34. Whereas when Gretzky won the Ross by 79 points in 83-84, scoring per game was 7.89. The Oilers scored 446 goals in 83-84. They notched 372 in 86-87.

So league scoring was down, his own team's scoring was significantly down and Gretzky's raw points total fell. However, the difference this made to Gretzky's real terms dominance over his peers was a whole four points. Anyone preparing adjusted scoring dominance figures?

Circumstances changed, but he remained far ahead of everyone else.

 

[pluppe]

why is this not moved?

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=849771

and can´t that one just be stickied?

 

[Gobo]

I don't think that really matters, I've seen enough hockey from all different eras and have been watching hockey since I can remember, grew up playing it all my life and have a greater understanding of the game than you could possibly imagine.

So you've done what mostly everyone here has, except for less time as im pretty positive that lextune, Rhiessan and whomever else is older than 23/24.

 

[Big Phil]

This "dropping off" thing is priceless. How much context do some people want? In 86/87 the year of this fearful "dropping off" he won the scoring title by 75 points. (A pause, allowing everyone to consider whether winning the Ross by 75 is quite impressive, no matter the state of the league.) That's the second highest margin of victory Gretzky ever enjoyed. (Caveat: Mario missed a few games with injury).

In 86-87 goal scoing per game was 7.34. Whereas when Gretzky won the Ross by 79 points in 83-84, scoring per game was 7.89. The Oilers scored 446 goals in 83-84. They notched 372 in 86-87.

So league scoring was down, his own team's scoring was significantly down and Gretzky's raw points total fell. However, the difference this made to Gretzky's real terms dominance over his peers was a whole four points. Anyone preparing adjusted scoring dominance figures?

Circumstances changed, but he remained far ahead of everyone else.

Thank you for that post. Somehow in my previous post I forgot to mention that even with his drop in points he still managed to embarass the rest of the NHL when the top 10 players in points were:
Gretzky, Kurri, Lemieux, Messier, Gilmour, Ciccarelli, Hawerchuk, Goulet, Kerr and Bourque.
Unless there is someone there who wants to say that this was a relatively "weak" competition since 8 of them are in the HHOF, one should be (Gilmour) and the other was at least playing like he was one (Kerr)

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.

I just wrote a novel in my last post and this was your response. This isn't the main board, if you disagree with someone you need to elaborate as to why you do. An emoticon is meaningless if you don't explain yourself.

What is "wrong" with the post? The Oilers as a whole focused more on tightening their game and making sure the loosey goosey style of 1986 didn't happen again, which it didn't since they won the next two Cups. Gretzky "dipped" 20 points and we should end the world? You need to be more specific with what you mean.

And you don't think that playing all that hockey in the 1980s wore him down? Not to mention I have yet to see an athlete who dominated in his 20s and then did even better in his 30s. What exactly were you expecting from Gretzky?