Was Lidstrom a generational talent?

[BraveCanadian]

You guys with the talent pool argument do realize that Hockey Canada registrations are down over 200,000 a year from its peak, right? All the increases in population in the world don't mean anything if they aren't choosing to play.

Not to mention it is as close as for sure as possible that there are less people playing without registration because the warmer winters mean that those ponds, rivers, and backyard rinks often aren't worth the bother.

The registrations in the USA have risen to fill the gap but this idea that the talent pool is larger and (more importantly when talking about NHL players) better than ever .. I am very skeptical about.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Crosby, Malkin, and Ovechkin have not consistently separated themselves from everyone else in terms of overall value on the ice.

Come on now. These are the only 3 players that I think anyone would agree deserved the league max salary coming off of their ELCs, and that should tell everyone enough about their "value" right there.

Aside from goalies, Chara, Weber, Keith, Karlsson, Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Toews, Kane, Getzlaf, Kopitar, Stamkos, Tavares, Bergeron, etc., have been in the same stratosphere, or flirted with it at times. Many more will in the near future. The fact that you think only those 3 are "elite" says a lot about what you value in the player. I have a much different view of the game.

There are bound to be players who achieve superstar status, but don't necessarily (or even arguably) deserve the "generational" tag, and "same stratosphere" or "flirting with it" doesn't mean a clear distinction can't be found in between them.

For basically 7 years, and whether healthy or not, those 3 guys represent probably the only players that any GM would have, and may still, trade their current best player(/s) to acquire without hesitation. That's their value. As for the players you listed, I believe there's a package that could be made (or could HAVE been made) to land any one of them at any time, but the price of any one of the big 3 would be deemed a clear overpayment by most, I would reckon.

Don't listen to me though, analysts like Pierre McQuire, who is friends and coached with Scotty Bowman says this all the time. I heard him point to what I'm saying several time last season on TSN 1050 in Toronto. The players of today keep pushing the envelope and they are generally better than ever. He's not just trying to sell the game either, (this was on in Toronto, which doesn't need to be sold on hockey) he really believes it.

I'd argue that players are becoming more efficient (and that would certainly make them "better" for coaching), and better conditioned physically, but I don't think the raw talent is necessarily improving at the upper end of the scale. Players cover more ice than they used to, and hold onto the puck less than they used to, and keep fitter than they used to. But the impact on the league is in aggregate, and not necessarily pushing the upper boundary of expectations (or even performance) set by previous generations. Fastest skater and hardest shooter times these days aren't exactly blowing past masters out of the water now, are they.

I'd say current players are more effective carrying out a complex game plan (again, something any coach would love), but they come from a generation of dependence on complex game plans. Unload the thinking, build up the routine, do without thinking and trust the efficiency of the drones around you. There is far less of what NFL fans might refer to as the "read option", which involves players actually assessing what the opponent is giving them moment-to-moment, and using whatever talents they have to exploit it.

Throw them into situations where creativity has to be leaned on instead of chemistry/continuity, and they look much less impressive. Look at the all-star game and extra time/effort and NHL club-based roster building it takes assembling international teams that can actually work together. Basically, the more the games are decided by the efficiency of automotons, the less impressed I seem to be with individual quality of the automotons that rise to the top.

The all-star game used to be an event that entertained just by virtue of sticking such creativity together and letting it go to town. Now it requires an entire weekend gala full of distractions away from focusing on the fact that we're watching the best in the game try their hardest NOT to simply grind through 60 minutes of lunch pail tennis hockey like they would on any other night. Unsurprisingly, it's still the very few at the top of the talent spectrum (like Crosby, Ovechkin, Malkin) that steal those shows.

Internationally, when the "true" generational talents were thrown together, they figured it out quickly enough and dominated the stages they were on. They didn't seem as reliant on multiple years of 2 week orientation camps, followed by training camps, followed by preparation camps, and living 24/7 in each others' pockets to build up the chemistry/mutual understanding to come up with elite, effective hockey.

And for all the training that hockey players do these days, it's remarkable that the equipment seems to have made the biggest difference in the more obvious aspects that make the game seem faster/"better" in its current version, such as skating and shot speed. Heck, most of the time it seems like players can't even keep up with the speed they're playing the game at, resulting in things like too many men penalties seemingly every game (a rarity in the past) and getting "blind side" hit far more often by someone they didn't even seem to know (or feel) was coming.

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

I'd say current players are more effective carrying out a complex game plan (again, something any coach would love), but they come from a generation of dependence on complex game plans. Unload the thinking, build up the routine, do without thinking and trust the efficiency of the drones around you. There is far less of what NFL fans might refer to as the "read option", which involves players actually assessing what the opponent is giving them moment-to-moment, and using whatever talents they have to exploit it.

Throw them into situations where creativity has to be leaned on instead of chemistry/continuity, and they look much less impressive. Look at the all-star game and extra time/effort and NHL club-based roster building it takes assembling international teams that can actually work together. Basically, the more the games are decided by the efficiency of automotons, the less impressed I seem to be with individual quality of the automotons that rise to the top.

The all-star game used to be an event that entertained just by virtue of sticking such creativity together and letting it go to town. Now it requires an entire weekend gala full of distractions away from focusing on the fact that we're watching the best in the game try their hardest NOT to simply grind through 60 minutes of lunch pail tennis hockey like they would on any other night. Unsurprisingly, it's still the very few at the top of the talent spectrum (like Crosby, Ovechkin, Malkin) that steal those shows.

Internationally, when the "true" generational talents were thrown together, they figured it out quickly enough and dominated the stages they were on. They didn't seem as reliant on multiple years of 2 week orientation camps, followed by training camps, followed by preparation camps, and living 24/7 in each others' pockets to build up the chemistry/mutual understanding to come up with elite, effective hockey.

And for all the training that hockey players do these days, it's remarkable that the equipment seems to have made the biggest difference in the more obvious aspects that make the game seem faster/"better" in its current version, such as skating and shot speed. Heck, most of the time it seems like players can't even keep up with the speed they're playing the game at, resulting in things like too many men penalties seemingly every game (a rarity in the past) and getting "blind side" hit far more often by someone they didn't even seem to know (or feel) was coming.

That's very true: It's what I refer to as "coaching the talent out of players". It starts from an early age and results in players that are merely drones who execute a system rather than talent that actually plays. I've said it before and I'll say it again: "System hockey" is poison injected into the body of the sport.

 

[danincanada]

You guys with the talent pool argument do realize that Hockey Canada registrations are down over 200,000 a year from its peak, right? All the increases in population in the world don't mean anything if they aren't choosing to play.

Not to mention it is as close as for sure as possible that there are less people playing without registration because the warmer winters mean that those ponds, rivers, and backyard rinks often aren't worth the bother.

The registrations in the USA have risen to fill the gap but this idea that the talent pool is larger and (more importantly when talking about NHL players) better than ever .. I am very skeptical about.

I won't have time to post much this weekend but I will ask for a link to these statistics.

When is the last time a player made the NHL without playing organized hockey?

We have year round rinks now and summer hockey schools, does this not have an impact?

The sport has undoubtably grown and hopefully it will continue to grow. The only argument I see is that athletes are now inherently worse and hockey is in a downward spiral, which seems impossible considering the time the athletes put in these days to improve and the improvement in training techniques and coaching. The resistance here to this argument is really mind blowing.

 

[finchster]

Depends on your definition of generational talent and at that point you are arguing semantics. Lidstrom was one of the best defencemen to ever play hockey, that's more meaningful than the HFboards created term.

 

[Canadiens1958]

The Proper Questions

I won't have time to post much this weekend but I will ask for a link to these statistics.

When is the last time a player made the NHL without playing organized hockey?

We have year round rinks now and summer hockey schools, does this not have an impact?

The sport has undoubtably grown and hopefully it will continue to grow. The only argument I see is that athletes are now inherently worse and hockey is in a downward spiral, which seems impossible considering the time the athletes put in these days to improve and the improvement in training techniques and coaching. The resistance here to this argument is really mind blowing.

Without playing organized hockey the person would not know the first thing about hockey so they could not play in the NHL.

The argument is not as you represent it. The core argument is analogous to the comparison between "Natural Food" from previous generations vs "Processed Food" eaten today. The "Processed Food" is readily available, cheaper, sustains the species but lacks uniqueness, taste and benefits of "Natural Food".

 

[Rhiessan71]

There are no guarantees in life, period, but if the talent pool grows substantially then why wouldn't there be more "elite" players? Is there a lack of coaching? Nope, that has grown, too. Is there a lack of facilities? Nope, that has grown as well. Are todays athletes inherently worse? Hehe, no way. The players of today actually take their craft very seriously, and usually at an earlier age, and like everyone knows, they train nearly 12 months a year.

There are more players training and being trained to play organized hockey, I have no problem conceding that. They are being taught positioning and systems are earlier ages.
What is not happening like it used to is the training/harnessing of natural instincts. There are very few kids out there simply playing keep away on a pond/homemade park rink every day of the week in the winters. How often do you see kids playing street hockey anymore? 20-30 years ago you couldn't go 5 blocks without some kid yelling "car" and having to move the nets. Now, I can go a month without seeing any at all.


Those instincts, the ones that made Gretzky, Orr and Lemieux who they were, that are being suppressed today at younger and younger ages.
Kids are being taught to be robots, always play defense first, make the safe play, cycle in the corners endlessly, dump and chase.
Instinct and creativity are fighting a losing battle.

For a former goalie you sure appreciate pure offense a lot and dismiss all around players and defensive play. Crosby, Malkin, and Ovechkin have not consistently separated themselves from everyone else in terms of overall value on the ice. Aside from goalies, Chara, Weber, Keith, Karlsson, Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Toews, Kane, Getzlaf, Kopitar, Stamkos, Tavares, Bergeron, etc., have been in the same stratosphere, or flirted with it at times. Many more will in the near future. The fact that you think only those 3 are "elite" says a lot about what you value in the player. I have a much different view of the game.

Why would me being a goalie automatically make me a defensive first kind of guy exactly?
I was a goalie that played better the more shots I had. I relished the idea of playing in a wide open game where it really, truly was goalie vs goalie, every man for himself.

Do you even realise how frustrating it was when, after say I stopped a breakaway, the puck then goes back up the ice and it's dumped into the corner resulting in nothing?

I definitely appreciate good defensive play but EVERYONE plays defense now.
What I truly appreciate today are good offensive plays because they are becoming rarer and rarer.
So few even take offensive chances anymore and even more importantly, so few players even know how to take them!

What I don't appreciate is the giving up of decent offensive opportunities for the simple sake of playing it safe 100% of the time.

You are using the optics of these players being finished their careers. We can view their whole careers and remember them at their very best, then apply it to a certain season. Most of the players I would name still have years left to accomplish more or even improve. When their careers are done people will be able to look at the whole picture and it will appear to look better.

If you put a player like Kopitar in the early 90's and told him he didn't need to concentrate on back checking or defense as much, and play against the players at that time, he'd put up huge numbers and would look favourable with that list. He's got it all, size, strength, goal scoring ability, playmaking ability, hockey IQ, work ethic, and leadership - he is an elite player in every sense of the term. It's not his fault there are so many other elite players, great goalies, coaching strategies, and strong defensive play, which all help cancel him out and make him look less dominant.

That's crap, all the players you mentioned have 5 or more years in by now and we all know what and who they are, what their value is.
Every player I mentioned was established, known and had their value already accessed by 5 years.

Don't listen to me though, analysts like Pierre McQuire, who is friends and coached with Scotty Bowman says this all the time. I heard him point to what I'm saying several time last season on TSN 1050 in Toronto. The players of today keep pushing the envelope and they are generally better than ever. He's not just trying to sell the game either, (this was on in Toronto, which doesn't need to be sold on hockey) he really believes it.

First off...Pierre McGuire? Seriously? And don't confuse bigger and faster with better.
Wayne Gretzky was 5'11" and maybe 170lbs soaking wet. Just because a player is 6'3" 225lbs and can skate like Russ Courtnall, that doesn't make him a better player.

Second, as far as Scotty Bowman goes, don't confuse his systems with what we see today or with Lemaire like full-time defensive shells.
Bowman preached playing defensively responsible, of that there can be no doubt but the underlying premise in his coaching was ultimately to create OFFENSIVE opportunities through turnovers and counter attacking.

The "Trap" he employed with the Habs in the 70's was all about this, it wasn't about what we mainly see today where the Trap is deployed mostly as a wall trying to simply get the other team to dump the puck.

There's a difference between playing defensive first hockey and defensively responsible hockey. Bowman preached the latter!
Or as I have said many times before around here, there's a difference between playing to Win and playing not to lose!

 

[Hardyvan123]

Re-read what I posted, then re-read what you said here and then try again.

I read your post very carefully, by the 90's Wayne was scorign points but he wasn't a dominant player any more, ie his team wasn't a powerhouse because of him, Feds wasn't a superstar every year and neither were most of those players you mentioned.

Part of the problem is that post lockout we are seeing a lot of parity among teams in the NHL and defense and goal tending rules the day so it's less likely we are going to see any more dominant seasons offensively like we did in the past.

 

[Hardyvan123]

There are more players training and being trained to play organized hockey, I have no problem conceding that. They are being taught positioning and systems are earlier ages.
What is not happening like it used to is the training/harnessing of natural instincts. There are very few kids out there simply playing keep away on a pond/homemade park rink every day of the week in the winters. How often do you see kids playing street hockey anymore? 20-30 years ago you couldn't go 5 blocks without some kid yelling "car" and having to move the nets. Now, I can go a month without seeing any at all.

I see lots of kids playing hockey at a very high and organized level now and in the recent past, in the 70's sure everyone played street hockey (at least out here) but basically no one ever made the NHL.

But then again guys like RNH are robots right?

Those instincts, the ones that made Gretzky, Orr and Lemieux who they were, that are being suppressed today at younger and younger ages.
Kids are being taught to be robots, always play defense first, make the safe play, cycle in the corners endlessly, dump and chase.
Instinct and creativity are fighting a losing battle.

It's funny because the rise of international hockey was brought by the soviets who never played in the "traditional way" that you describe but yet closed the gap on Canada in basically 20 years time.

The calling of players robots is both insulting and not a very accurate description of what goes on the ice either. sure the game is more "structured" than in the past but this is true for all sports.

Why would me being a goalie automatically make me a defensive first kind of guy exactly?
I was a goalie that played better the more shots I had. I relished the idea of playing in a wide open game where it really, truly was goalie vs goalie, every man for himself.

Do you even realise how frustrating it was when, after say I stopped a breakaway, the puck then goes back up the ice and it's dumped into the corner resulting in nothing?

I definitely appreciate good defensive play but EVERYONE plays defense now.
What I truly appreciate today are good offensive plays because they are becoming rarer and rarer.
So few even take offensive chances anymore and even more importantly, so few players even know how to take them!

Well it's true that everyone does play defense now, that's part of the reason scoring is down, it's simply a lot easier to score on teams with lesser defensive systems or inclination, like in the 80's

What I don't appreciate is the giving up of decent offensive opportunities for the simple sake of playing it safe 100% of the time.

What NHL games are you watching? Does every play end up in a chip out and line change or just control the puck and never even think about taking a shot? what guys don't do is score the easy goals like they used to in great numbers because Dmen and opposing teams are actually much better prepared in preventing goals than they ever have been in the history of the NHL.

it's simply the way the game has progressed (in a chronological fashion) and changed over time.

Second, as far as Scotty Bowman goes, don't confuse his systems with what we see today or with Lemaire like full-time defensive shells.
Bowman preached playing defensively responsible, of that there can be no doubt but the underlying premise in his coaching was ultimately to create OFFENSIVE opportunities through turnovers and counter attacking.

The "Trap" he employed with the Habs in the 70's was all about this, it wasn't about what we mainly see today where the Trap is deployed mostly as a wall trying to simply get the other team to dump the puck.

There's a difference between playing defensive first hockey and defensively responsible hockey. Bowman preached the latter!
Or as I have said many times before around here, there's a difference between playing to Win and playing not to lose!

yes there are alot of differences between the game now and the 70's and Scotty wouldn't last in todays game trying to play the same way as in the 70's either.

he would have to adjust like everyone else has.

enough of this though back to making my top 60 list.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I read your post very carefully, by the 90's Wayne was scorign points but he wasn't a dominant player any more, ie his team wasn't a powerhouse because of him, Feds wasn't a superstar every year and neither were most of those players you mentioned.

Part of the problem is that post lockout we are seeing a lot of parity among teams in the NHL and defense and goal tending rules the day so it's less likely we are going to see any more dominant seasons offensively like we did in the past.

No! It wasn't that he was no longer a dominant player, it was that he just wasn't THE dominant player he was.

6 top 10 scoring finishes in 10 years during the 90's and was easily on pace for a 7th in 92/93 if not for injuries, including 3 Art Ross.
1020 points in 713 games, almost a full 100 points ahead of the next highest point getter from 89/90-98/99.

Name a single player in the League today that can match that resume in the last 10 years and remember, this resume is of a player on the downside of his prime doing this.

Not a dominant player my ass, gimme a break already.

 

[Hardyvan123]

No! It wasn't that he was no longer a dominant player, it was that he just wasn't THE dominant player he was.

6 top 10 scoring finishes in 10 years during the 90's and was easily on pace for a 7th in 92/93 if not for injuries, including 3 Art Ross.
1020 points in 713 games, almost a full 100 points ahead of the next highest point getter from 89/90-98/99.

Name a single player in the League today that can match that resume in the last 10 years and remember, this resume is of a player on the downside of his prime doing this.

Not a dominant player my ass, gimme a break already.

You are naturally confusing Wayne with his earlier days in Edmonton, his plus minus in the 90's or put another way his ES play wasn't dominant at all. He was still very good offensively and on the PP but if one wanted to win actual hockey games here is a lsit of centers one would ahve taken over Wayne in his 90's play.

I'll only take the 8 seasons and not 99, from 91-98, and there is a clear distinction in his level of dominance, after his 1st 3 seasons in LA (89-91 and 2 of those years are listed here).

offensively Wayne did age very well but to call him dominant, ie his offensive being able to overcome his defensive weaknesses in the 90's isn't true at all.

so from 91-98 here are teh scoring leaders in the NHL

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points

And yes Wayne is #1 so if one were lazy one could say that he was the "best player" or close to it in the NHL over that time..
but there was a reason why he was basically out of the Hart voting after 91 and only special circumstances, ie injuries to other top guys allowed for his last 2 2nd place all star berths which IMO were reputation awards.

even in 94 when he gets a 2nd team berth 5 other centers get Hart votes to his none, he was basically a great fantasy guy at that point but meh as an NHL star, ie you really had to surround him with guys for any shot any having a good regular season.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I won't have time to post much this weekend but I will ask for a link to these statistics.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/edit...re_looks_bleak_for_canadian_minor_hockey.html

When is the last time a player made the NHL without playing organized hockey?

That is not at all the point.

The point is that free play where a player actually has fun and the opportunity to try new things out without getting chastised by a coach influences creativity.

We have year round rinks now and summer hockey schools, does this not have an impact?

I don't know?

The sport has undoubtably grown and hopefully it will continue to grow.

Citation needed.

I'm pretty certain the countries making up the talent pool in the NHL has dipped since ~2000.

Americans are making up most of the gap if I recall correctly.

The only argument I see is that athletes are now inherently worse and hockey is in a downward spiral, which seems impossible considering the time the athletes put in these days to improve and the improvement in training techniques and coaching. The resistance here to this argument is really mind blowing.

I don't think athletes now are much different than they have been for quite some time. Human beings change very slowly over time.

The average players are marginally better. Sport specific training, better nutritional knowledge, and the fact that they get paid obscene amounts of money and don't have to keep a summer job gives that to them. They are still human beings.

None of those things makes them pass like Wayne Gretzky, shoot like Mario Lemieux, or skate like Bobby Orr.

All that training and coaching you refer to instead of going out and playing shiny or ball hockey with your buddies does send you down a different development path though. At least in my opinion.

 

[habsfanatics*]

No! It wasn't that he was no longer a dominant player, it was that he just wasn't THE dominant player he was.

6 top 10 scoring finishes in 10 years during the 90's and was easily on pace for a 7th in 92/93 if not for injuries, including 3 Art Ross.
1020 points in 713 games, almost a full 100 points ahead of the next highest point getter from 89/90-98/99.

Name a single player in the League today that can match that resume in the last 10 years and remember, this resume is of a player on the downside of his prime doing this.

Not a dominant player my ass, gimme a break already.

A somewhat human gretzky is being compared to an out of this world gretkzy here, perception is that he wasn't that dominate, and in comparison to himself, he wasn't, but to the rest of the league, he was still top tier here, but his +/- wasn't very good lol.

 

[BraveCanadian]

You are naturally confusing Wayne with his earlier days in Edmonton, his plus minus in the 90's or put another way his ES play wasn't dominant at all. He was still very good offensively and on the PP but if one wanted to win actual hockey games here is a lsit of centers one would ahve taken over Wayne in his 90's play.

I suppose the quality of the teams he was on during that time has nothing to do with his +/-?

 

[habsfanatics*]

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/edit...re_looks_bleak_for_canadian_minor_hockey.html



That is not at all the point.

The point is that free play where a player actually has fun and the opportunity to try new things out without getting chastised by a coach influences creativity.



I don't know?



Citation needed.

I'm pretty certain the countries making up the talent pool in the NHL has dipped since ~2000.

Americans are making up most of the gap if I recall correctly.




I don't think athletes now are much different than they have been for quite some time. Human beings change very slowly over time.

The average players are marginally better. Sport specific training, better nutritional knowledge, and the fact that they get paid obscene amounts of money and don't have to keep a summer job gives that to them. They are still human beings.

None of those things makes them pass like Wayne Gretzky, shoot like Mario Lemieux, or skate like Bobby Orr.

All that training and coaching you refer to instead of going out and playing shiny or ball hockey with your buddies does send you down a different development path though. At least in my opinion.

Agreed, there are only so many hours in a day, every hour spent in the gym is an hour spent away from the rink. What the players gain in strength training/endurance and overall fitness is likely sacrificed in actual practice and improving their craft, sure it benefits the tweeners, but it sucks the creativity out of the players imo.

I think it's unlikely we ever see a lemieux/orr/Gretzky again and it's not because of the talent pool/parity, but because no players are allowed to experiment/play creative anymore, systems are preached from a very young age now. I'm not sure it makes for a better product either. Teams playing not to lose ect.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I suppose the quality of the teams he was on during that time has nothing to do with his +/-?

He played with some pretty good quality players, at least in terms of offense.

It's not just a 1 season look it's a 98 year observation, people often confuse peak Wayne and Mario with them as they got older and less effective as the league changed, basically following the timeline of Feds (not saying he was the cause of it).

Look Wayne was a plus 15 in 80, as a rookie at 19 and that team wasn't really any better than most of thsoe 90's teams he played for at that point.

The "his teams were bad so his ES play was too" really gets carried to far and isn't supported that much by actual evidence.

Put another way, Wayne's offensive output aged better than his actual dominance and impact on games which waned pretty quickly after 91 and that first big year in LA.

 

[Rhiessan71]

He played with some pretty good quality players, at least in terms of offense.

It's not just a 1 season look it's a 98 year observation, people often confuse peak Wayne and Mario with them as they got older and less effective as the league changed, basically following the timeline of Feds (not saying he was the cause of it).

Look Wayne was a plus 15 in 80, as a rookie at 19 and that team wasn't really any better than most of thsoe 90's teams he played for at that point.

The "his teams were bad so his ES play was too" really gets carried to far and isn't supported that much by actual evidence.

Put another way, Wayne's offensive output aged better than his actual dominance and impact on games which waned pretty quickly after 91 and that first big year in LA.

But you're still comparing him to himself in his prime.
He was still among the very best in the league. You are talking about him like he was now a second tier player when in fact, he was just "mortal" now but still a superstar.
He just wasn't a "God" any longer.

 

[Hardyvan123]

But you're still comparing him to himself in his prime.
He was still among the very best in the league. You are talking about him like he was now a second tier player when in fact, he was just "mortal" now but still a superstar.
He just wasn't a "God" any longer.

I'm not comparing Wayne to himself in his prime but to other players in the same time period.

The early 90's Wayne either was a dominant player against his peers or he wasn't.

The fact of the matter is that his defensive deficiencies were enough to not warrant any serious Hart votes after 91 so my observation and yours should be as well is that the guys who follow the NHL really closely also felt that he wasn't a "star" any longer but was in that 2nd tier below elite.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I'm not comparing Wayne to himself in his prime but to other players in the same time period.

The early 90's Wayne either was a dominant player against his peers or he wasn't.

The fact of the matter is that his defensive deficiencies were enough to not warrant any serious Hart votes after 91 so my observation and yours should be as well is that the guys who follow the NHL really closely also felt that he wasn't a "star" any longer but was in that 2nd tier below elite.

AGAIN, 3 Art Ross and 6 Top 4 scoring finishes (would've been 7 in the top 10) in 10 years.
His last top 3 finish coming at age 37, the year before he retired!

And AGAIN, you can't even show me a player in their prime today that can match that!

Not still considered a top player for most of the 90's my ass!!!

 

[BraveCanadian]

The fact of the matter is that his defensive deficiencies were enough to not warrant any serious Hart votes after 91 so my observation and yours should be as well is that the guys who follow the NHL really closely also felt that he wasn't a "star" any longer but was in that 2nd tier below elite.

3rd Team Post Season All Star 92
Missed most of 92-93
2nd Team Post Season All Star 94
2nd Team Post Season All Star 97
5th in Hart voting and 2nd Team Post Season All Star 98

Not bad for a guy closing in on retirement.

AGAIN, 3 Art Ross and 6 Top 4 scoring finishes (would've been 7 in the top 10) in 10 years.
His last top 3 finish coming at age 37, the year before he retired!

And AGAIN, you can't even show me a player in their prime today that can match that!

Not still considered a top player for most of the 90's my ass!!!

Yeah, he was aging and never quite the same after getting gooned by Suter but Gretzky was still a top level hockey player -- just a mortal one in the 90s.

 

[Hardyvan123]

3rd Team Post Season All Star 92
Missed most of 92-93
2nd Team Post Season All Star 94
2nd Team Post Season All Star 97
5th in Hart voting and 2nd Team Post Season All Star 98

Not bad for a guy closing in on retirement.

His age is irrelevant to the claim, the claim was that he was an elite or dominant player throughout the 90's and not some "2nd tier guy".

Here are the Ranking for centers in Hart voting throughout the 90's

1990-91
Wayne Gretzky 220 (20-37-9)
Joe Sakic 3 (0-0-3)
Mark Messier 1 (0-0-1)

91-92

Mark Messier 341 (67-2-0)
Mario Lemieux 29 (0-7-8)
Jeremy Roenick 29 (0-5-14)
Steve Yzerman 10 (0-2-4)
Doug Gilmour 3 (0-1-0)
Dale Hunter 1 (0-0-1)
Pat LaFontaine 1 (0-0-1)

92-93

Mario Lemieux 248 (49-1-0)
Doug Gilmour 99 (0-29-12)
Pat LaFontaine 52 (1-12-11)
Adam Oates 28 (0-6-10)
Pierre Turgeon 12 (0-2-6)
Steve Yzerman 2 (0-0-2)
Eric Lindros 1 (0-0-1)

93-94

Sergei Fedorov 194 (31-11-6)
Doug Gilmour 50 (4-7-9)
Jeremy Roenick 3 (0-1-0)
Adam Oates 2 (0-0-2)
Igor Larionov 1 (0-0-1)

94-95

Eric Lindros 63 (10-4-1)

Wayne finished 11th in scoring for all centers this year

95-96

Mario Lemieux 439 (34-10-5-1-1)
Mark Messier 275 (10-15-10-6-2)
Eric Lindros 213 (2-17-7-12-3)
Sergei Fedorov 68 (0-3-6-4-5)
Joe Sakic 52 (0-0-6-5-7)
Peter Forsberg 8 (0-0-1-0-3)
Steve Yzerman 4 (0-0-0-1-1)

Wayne is 8th in points among centers, 3 ahead of Moose and Nedved

96-97

Mario Lemieux 181 (1-11-12-10-4)
Mike Modano 44 (0-0-3-7-8)
Eric Lindros 30 (0-2-2-1-3)
Peter Forsberg 17 (0-0-2-2-1)
Joe Sakic 10 (0-0-0-3-1)
Wayne Gretzky 8 (0-0-1-1-0)
Mats Sundin 3 (0-0-0-1-0)
Doug Gilmour 1 (0-0-0-0-1)


97-98

Wayne Gretzky 46 (1-0-1-9-4)
Peter Forsberg 26 (0-0-0-7-5)
Jason Allison 18 (0-1-1-1-3)
Joe Nieuwendyk 7 (0-0-1-0-2)
Nicklas Lidstrom 7 (0-0-0-2-1)
Ron Francis 6 (0-0-0-2-0)
Chris Pronger 6 (0-0-0-2-0)
Steve Yzerman 2 (0-0-0-0-2)
Bobby Holik 1 (0-0-0-0-1)

Obviously a bit like Lidstrom last Norris , waynes 5th place finish here was a combination of a "retirement vote and the culmination of alot of injuries and missed time from centers in the NHL in the 90's.

Interestingly Lidstrom, on that stacked wings team, was finally getting some recognition for his stellar play in Detroit and was indeed a top tier Dman well before his 1st Norris.

Yeah, he was aging and never quite the same after getting gooned by Suter but Gretzky was still a top level hockey player -- just a mortal one in the 90s.

Looking back at the actual Hart voting in the 90's, it's really hard to make the claim that Wayne was still a dominant player or elite, which was the claim being made.

He was still an elite offensive player but in terms of overall actual value to his team, yes he was on the next level down of centers you wanted on your team in the 90's.

That's the problem with the assertion being made, it's too simple and perhaps even lazy to simply look at the scoring stats to determine if a player was really "dominant or elite".

It's also the mind block of "it's Wayne man, he the best player of all time...." then our collective judgment on his actual performance in his alter years gets biased and influenced by our earlier perception.

 

[Den]

Yes!

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

And here's a list of top PPGs for the entire '90s (as off topic as this seems):

Lemieux 2.06 (318 GP)
Gretzky 1.37 (640 GP)
Lindros 1.36 (486 GP)
Jagr 1.32 (725 GP)
(Lafontaine 1.30, Selanne 1.29, Sakic 1.28, Forsberg 1.25, etc)

What's not "elite" or "dominant" or "superstar" about the numbers those guys, in particular, put up between '90/91 and '99/00?

 

[Rhiessan71]

His age is irrelevant to the claim, the claim was that he was an elite or dominant player throughout the 90's and not some "2nd tier guy".

Here are the Ranking for centers in Hart voting throughout the 90's

1990-91
Wayne Gretzky 220 (20-37-9)
Joe Sakic 3 (0-0-3)
Mark Messier 1 (0-0-1)

91-92

Mark Messier 341 (67-2-0)
Mario Lemieux 29 (0-7-8)
Jeremy Roenick 29 (0-5-14)
Steve Yzerman 10 (0-2-4)
Doug Gilmour 3 (0-1-0)
Dale Hunter 1 (0-0-1)
Pat LaFontaine 1 (0-0-1)

92-93

Mario Lemieux 248 (49-1-0)
Doug Gilmour 99 (0-29-12)
Pat LaFontaine 52 (1-12-11)
Adam Oates 28 (0-6-10)
Pierre Turgeon 12 (0-2-6)
Steve Yzerman 2 (0-0-2)
Eric Lindros 1 (0-0-1)

93-94

Sergei Fedorov 194 (31-11-6)
Doug Gilmour 50 (4-7-9)
Jeremy Roenick 3 (0-1-0)
Adam Oates 2 (0-0-2)
Igor Larionov 1 (0-0-1)

94-95

Eric Lindros 63 (10-4-1)

Wayne finished 11th in scoring for all centers this year

95-96

Mario Lemieux 439 (34-10-5-1-1)
Mark Messier 275 (10-15-10-6-2)
Eric Lindros 213 (2-17-7-12-3)
Sergei Fedorov 68 (0-3-6-4-5)
Joe Sakic 52 (0-0-6-5-7)
Peter Forsberg 8 (0-0-1-0-3)
Steve Yzerman 4 (0-0-0-1-1)

Wayne is 8th in points among centers, 3 ahead of Moose and Nedved

96-97

Mario Lemieux 181 (1-11-12-10-4)
Mike Modano 44 (0-0-3-7-8)
Eric Lindros 30 (0-2-2-1-3)
Peter Forsberg 17 (0-0-2-2-1)
Joe Sakic 10 (0-0-0-3-1)
Wayne Gretzky 8 (0-0-1-1-0)
Mats Sundin 3 (0-0-0-1-0)
Doug Gilmour 1 (0-0-0-0-1)


97-98

Wayne Gretzky 46 (1-0-1-9-4)
Peter Forsberg 26 (0-0-0-7-5)
Jason Allison 18 (0-1-1-1-3)
Joe Nieuwendyk 7 (0-0-1-0-2)
Nicklas Lidstrom 7 (0-0-0-2-1)
Ron Francis 6 (0-0-0-2-0)
Chris Pronger 6 (0-0-0-2-0)
Steve Yzerman 2 (0-0-0-0-2)
Bobby Holik 1 (0-0-0-0-1)

Obviously a bit like Lidstrom last Norris , waynes 5th place finish here was a combination of a "retirement vote and the culmination of alot of injuries and missed time from centers in the NHL in the 90's.

Interestingly Lidstrom, on that stacked wings team, was finally getting some recognition for his stellar play in Detroit and was indeed a top tier Dman well before his 1st Norris.




Looking back at the actual Hart voting in the 90's, it's really hard to make the claim that Wayne was still a dominant player or elite, which was the claim being made.

He was still an elite offensive player but in terms of overall actual value to his team, yes he was on the next level down of centers you wanted on your team in the 90's.

That's the problem with the assertion being made, it's too simple and perhaps even lazy to simply look at the scoring stats to determine if a player was really "dominant or elite".

It's also the mind block of "it's Wayne man, he the best player of all time...." then our collective judgment on his actual performance in his alter years gets biased and influenced by our earlier perception.

Naw, I don't think it's a collective bias , just a single persons bias. After all, you are still the only poster I know of that actually tries to argue against the impact of the Suter hit heh.

As far as defensive play being some kind of factor here, need I remind you that OV has 3 Hart's and Malkin has 1 sooooo that pretty much throws that criteria out the window

 

[Epsilon]

Who would be a good modern equivalent to Gretzky from say, 1993-94 until his retirement? Martin St. Louis maybe? Gretzky was 2nd in points over that time period, whereas St. Louis is 4th from the 2004-05 lockout to today. Both won an Art Ross trophy, both have a nice playoff run and a few other appearances besides that, neither was much of a factor in MVP voting. St. Louis has the superior AST record but at a less competitive position.