Were Gretzky and Lemieux capable of being the best defensive forwards ever?

TheEye

Registered User
Nov 4, 2018
191
132
Yet Gretzky was on the ice for more goals against than any other player in history.

And Ray Bourque was on the ice for the second (correction: third) most goals against in NHL history. Whatever your implication regarding the goals against statistic for Gretzky, it must apply to Bourque to some degree. Ditto for Robinson and Lidstrom in that case.

Furthermore, Wayne Gretzky has the highest +/- of any forward in NHL history. Does this suggest, overall, he is the greatest defensive forward of all-time?
 
Last edited:

The Panther

Registered User
Mar 25, 2014
19,087
15,521
Tokyo, Japan
Furthermore, Wayne Gretzky has the highest +/- of any forward in NHL history. Does this suggest, overall, he is the greatest defensive forward of all-time?
Of course it doesn't because Gretzky was primarily an offensive forward. But this point brings up by personal bugbear (I haven't beaten it to death enough yet, sorry), which is: What the hell is "defensive forward"?

Gretzky in 1984-85, I think we all agree, was the best offensive player in the NHL. Gretzky also played on an offensively-tilted club that could play shut-down defense to a small degree, but was primarily concerned with outscoring its opponents. Should such a team be discounted from having the best "defensive forward"? Gretzky, that season, was on the ice for 253 Oilers' goals and 129 against, an overall "plus" 124. Thus, the Oilers scored more than 1.5 goals to the good when Wayne was on the ice.

Removing PP goals-against (because he killed penalties), Gretzky moves to "plus" 161. Thus, discounting when he killed penalties, throwing Gretzky on the ice in 1984-85 resulted in the Oilers scored 2.0 more goals per game than their opponent.

Just looking at even-strength (i.e. discounting his PP contribution), Gretzky was an official +100, or 1.25 goals to the good when he was on.

So, who won the Selke that season? Craig Ramsay of the Buffalo Sabres, in his final NHL season. The Scotty Bowman Sabres that season were a good-but-not-great club, but had the NHL's #1 defense. Now, I didn't watch Ramsay that season (and this was basically before I started watching NHL), so I have no idea what he was doing. Presumably, he was on the "third" line and was the designated shut-down winger. Ramsay scored 33 points. He was on the ice for 51 Sabres' goals for, and 52 goals against, so he was an overall "minus" 1.

Removing PP goals-against (Ramsay was only on for 22 against, 15 fewer than Gretzky, which suggest to me he wasn't even on the top PK unit), Ramsay moves to "plus" 21.

Just looking at even-strength, Ramsay was an official +17, sixth-best on his club.

So, to compare the numbers:
Gretzky
+123 / +161 / +100
Ramsay
-1 / +21 / +17

Now, I'm obviously not seriously suggesting Gretzky was a Selke winner in 1984-85, but I'm willing to bet Gretzky was on the ice against the opposition's top forwards as much or more than Ramsay (a third liner) was. And his positive goals-differential in ALL areas were vastly superior to Ramsay's... like, vastly. And the difference in strength between the two clubs (90 points to 109 points) is not nearly enough to suggest this difference.

So, my point is: If Gretzky was tilting the ice to a positive degree five to one-hundred times more than Ramsay was, why is Ramsay the best "defensive forward"? Obviously, these things are interpreted differently in different eras, but it seems voters in 1985 (as in many other periods) were impressed by shut-down forwards, whose one-dimensional responsibility was to check the other teams' stars (or right wingers, anyway).

The whole nature of the award is just sketchy as hell.
 

Black Gold Extractor

Registered User
May 4, 2010
3,049
4,802
Of course it doesn't because Gretzky was primarily an offensive forward. But this point brings up by personal bugbear (I haven't beaten it to death enough yet, sorry), which is: What the hell is "defensive forward"?

A defensive forward is a forward who specializes in attempting to reduce the number and quality of scoring chances generated by an opponent.

Gretzky in 1984-85, I think we all agree, was the best offensive player in the NHL. Gretzky also played on an offensively-tilted club that could play shut-down defense to a small degree, but was primarily concerned with outscoring its opponents. Should such a team be discounted from having the best "defensive forward"? Gretzky, that season, was on the ice for 253 Oilers' goals and 129 against, an overall "plus" 124. Thus, the Oilers scored more than 1.5 goals to the good when Wayne was on the ice.

Removing PP goals-against (because he killed penalties), Gretzky moves to "plus" 161. Thus, discounting when he killed penalties, throwing Gretzky on the ice in 1984-85 resulted in the Oilers scored 2.0 more goals per game than their opponent.

Plus-minus is already marred by pluses and minuses being assigned to shorthanded and empty-net goals (not to mention the effect of goaltending), but this is something else. The only reason why plus-minus generally works is because the playing field is *level* at even-strength (and because shorthanded and empty-net goals are relatively rare). Scoring on the powerplay is expected. Allowing goals on the the penalty kill is expected.

If you absolutely must estimate Gretzky's positive PP influence, I'd start with estimating the actual PP goals scored relative to league average. The Oilers' PP% was 25.26% versus league average 22.20%. Gretzky was on-ice for 61 PP goals. If the Oilers were average, that would be 54 goals, so Gretzky's actual offensive PP contribution would be roughly +7. (Gretzky's defensive PP contribution, i.e. preventing shorthanded goals, is naturally included in plus-minus.)

Heck, you could even estimate Gretzky's positive PK influence. The Oilers' PK% was 78.47% versus league average 77.80%, which means the PPGA rate for the Oilers was 21.53% versus league average 22.20%. Gretzky was on-ice for 37 PPGA. If the Oilers were average, that would be 36 PPGA. As such, Gretzky's actual defensive PK contribution would be roughly +1. (Gretzky's offensive PK contribution, i.e. shorthanded goals, is naturally included in plus-minus.)

As such, Gretzky's estimated "all-situations plus-minus" would be +100 +7 +1 = +108.

So, who won the Selke that season? Craig Ramsay of the Buffalo Sabres, in his final NHL season. The Scotty Bowman Sabres that season were a good-but-not-great club, but had the NHL's #1 defense. Now, I didn't watch Ramsay that season (and this was basically before I started watching NHL), so I have no idea what he was doing. Presumably, he was on the "third" line and was the designated shut-down winger. Ramsay scored 33 points. He was on the ice for 51 Sabres' goals for, and 52 goals against, so he was an overall "minus" 1.

Removing PP goals-against (Ramsay was only on for 22 against, 15 fewer than Gretzky, which suggest to me he wasn't even on the top PK unit), Ramsay moves to "plus" 21.

To clarify for anyone else who might be reading, Ramsay was officially (as in recorded by the NHL) +17. In 1984-85, Ramsay had 30 non-PP GA, and Gretzky had 98 non-PPGA. The Sabres' goaltending was worse than the Oilers' (0.875 vs 0.887 SV%). Unless someone is suggesting that Gretzky had more than 3 times as much ES ice-time as Ramsay, I would say that Ramsay was likely the better defensive player even if Gretzky was better overall.
 

The Panther

Registered User
Mar 25, 2014
19,087
15,521
Tokyo, Japan
A defensive forward is a forward who specializes in attempting to reduce the number and quality of scoring chances generated by an opponent.



Plus-minus is already marred by pluses and minuses being assigned to shorthanded and empty-net goals (not to mention the effect of goaltending), but this is something else. The only reason why plus-minus generally works is because the playing field is *level* at even-strength (and because shorthanded and empty-net goals are relatively rare). Scoring on the powerplay is expected. Allowing goals on the the penalty kill is expected.

If you absolutely must estimate Gretzky's positive PP influence, I'd start with estimating the actual PP goals scored relative to league average. The Oilers' PP% was 25.26% versus league average 22.20%. Gretzky was on-ice for 61 PP goals. If the Oilers were average, that would be 54 goals, so Gretzky's actual offensive PP contribution would be roughly +7. (Gretzky's defensive PP contribution, i.e. preventing shorthanded goals, is naturally included in plus-minus.)

Heck, you could even estimate Gretzky's positive PK influence. The Oilers' PK% was 78.47% versus league average 77.80%, which means the PPGA rate for the Oilers was 21.53% versus league average 22.20%. Gretzky was on-ice for 37 PPGA. If the Oilers were average, that would be 36 PPGA. As such, Gretzky's actual defensive PK contribution would be roughly +1. (Gretzky's offensive PK contribution, i.e. shorthanded goals, is naturally included in plus-minus.)

As such, Gretzky's estimated "all-situations plus-minus" would be +100 +7 +1 = +108.



To clarify for anyone else who might be reading, Ramsay was officially (as in recorded by the NHL) +17. In 1984-85, Ramsay had 30 non-PP GA, and Gretzky had 98 non-PPGA. The Sabres' goaltending was worse than the Oilers' (0.875 vs 0.887 SV%). Unless someone is suggesting that Gretzky had more than 3 times as much ES ice-time as Ramsay, I would say that Ramsay was likely the better defensive player even if Gretzky was better overall.
Of course, I'm aware of all this (and I stated in my post that Ramsay was officially +17).

I guess it's just my roundabout way of saying that I don't really believe in the concept of a "defensive forward" as a measurable, or even an 'observable', thing.
 

Dennis Bonvie

Registered User
Dec 29, 2007
29,201
17,552
Connecticut
And Ray Bourque was on the ice for the second most goals against in NHL history. Whatever your implication regarding the goals against statistic for Gretzky, it must apply to Bourque to some degree. Ditto for Robinson and Lidstrom in that case.

Furthermore, Wayne Gretzky has the highest +/- of any forward in NHL history. Does this suggest, overall, he is the greatest defensive forward of all-time?

First, you should enter a discussion with your facts straight. Mark Messier is second all-time in most goals against.

Second, defensemen get much more ice time than forwards. The great ones get huge amounts of time on the PK. Of the top 25 players in goal against, 19 are defensemen. But Gretzky is number one, by plenty, even though he is only 24th all-time in games played.

Anyway, my response was to a poster stating of Gretzky, "The old line about the best defence being a good offence is what was at play -if the other team can't get the puck, they can't score". How can anyone argue that if the player in question was on for the most goals ever? That was my implication.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Voight

Black Gold Extractor

Registered User
May 4, 2010
3,049
4,802
Of course, I'm aware of all this (and I stated in my post that Ramsay was officially +17).

Whoops, I missed that.

I guess it's just my roundabout way of saying that I don't really believe in the concept of a "defensive forward" as a measurable, or even an 'observable', thing.

The NHL has recorded plus-minus since 1959-60 (with other clubs like Montreal and Toronto tracking this for themselves much earlier). It's on-ice GA certainly flawed, but it is indicative. In 2016-17, one first-line center allowed 41 non-PP GA while he was on the ice (team SV% 0.905). Another allowed 54 non-PP GA (team SV% 0.918). Yet another allowed 64 non-PP GA (team SV% 0.914). Can one guess who was Bergeron, McDavid, and Toews?

Other stats like takeaways may also be indicative. Additionally, the development of shot metrics and tracking of defensive touches add more to the picture.

As for "observable", I'll leave that to a professional scout for an example.
 

The Panther

Registered User
Mar 25, 2014
19,087
15,521
Tokyo, Japan
First, you should enter a discussion with your facts straight. Mark Messier is second all-time in most goals against.

Second, defensemen get much more ice time than forwards. The great ones get huge amounts of time on the PK. Of the top 25 players in goal against, 19 are defensemen. But Gretzky is number one, by plenty, even though he is only 24th all-time in games played.

Anyway, my response was to a poster stating of Gretzky, "The old line about the best defence being a good offence is what was at play -if the other team can't get the puck, they can't score". How can anyone argue that if the player in question was on for the most goals ever? That was my implication.
Raw stats (goals) are completely meaningless in hockey. You don't win games by allowing the fewest goals. You win games by scoring more goals than the opponent. Almost every Stanley Cup winner in history is the team with the best goal differential in the playoffs. Most of the best defensive teams in the playoffs didn't win the Cup.

Point being: Gretzky (or anyone) being on the ice for the most total goals-against is a meaningless stat in itself. What would be a meaningful stat -- at least in context -- is the biggest (per game, or per-whatever) positive differentials in goals for and against.
 

The Panther

Registered User
Mar 25, 2014
19,087
15,521
Tokyo, Japan
The NHL has recorded plus-minus since 1959-60 (with other clubs like Montreal and Toronto tracking this for themselves much earlier). It's on-ice GA certainly flawed, but it is indicative. In 2016-17, one first-line center allowed 41 non-PP GA while he was on the ice (team SV% 0.905). Another allowed 54 non-PP GA (team SV% 0.918). Yet another allowed 64 non-PP GA (team SV% 0.914). Can one guess who was Bergeron, McDavid, and Toews?

Other stats like takeaways may also be indicative. Additionally, the development of shot metrics and tracking of defensive touches add more to the picture.
It sounds like you're really into those stats. Maybe you're right, maybe those kind of numbers do tell us something meaningful about the "best defensive forward". But then my question would be: How many actual Selke winners are the guy who looked best based on those stats?
 

Dennis Bonvie

Registered User
Dec 29, 2007
29,201
17,552
Connecticut
Raw stats (goals) are completely meaningless in hockey. You don't win games by allowing the fewest goals. You win games by scoring more goals than the opponent. Almost every Stanley Cup winner in history is the team with the best goal differential in the playoffs. Most of the best defensive teams in the playoffs didn't win the Cup.

Point being: Gretzky (or anyone) being on the ice for the most total goals-against is a meaningless stat in itself. What would be a meaningful stat -- at least in context -- is the biggest (per game, or per-whatever) positive differentials in goals for and against.

Again, the point was "if the other team can't get the puck, they can't score" doesn't apply with Gretzky.
 

tinyzombies

Registered User
Dec 24, 2002
16,824
2,337
Montreal, QC, Canada
Yet Gretzky was on the ice for more goals against than any other player in history.

That was the way the Oilers played. There were a few games I turned off in disgust in the 80s because it got ridiculous. For me scoring became boring. I wouldn't zero in on Gretzky as the cause - the system was built like that for him and it worked and we could see it again, but not to that degree.

We are seeing now what a small rule change can do to scoring, so who knows? The Capitals did the reverse, they kept everyone back and spent a season building tactics off of bad zone entries, passing up medium scoring chances to try to procure high danger chances - and that turned into a team that could trap to stop speed AND be dangerous going the other way with size/skill/finish in the playoffs and they won the Cup.

Maybe a team will do the reverse of that and leave one guy back and try to fully take advantage of the fact dmen can't touch a guy in front? Just all-out offense.
 

TheEye

Registered User
Nov 4, 2018
191
132
First, you should enter a discussion with your facts straight. Mark Messier is second all-time in most goals against.

I stand corrected there. I should have checked before posting from memory. Bourque is third. Nonetheless, the point still stands. The goals against statistic is mostly reflective of era played in, ATOI, and length of career.

defensemen get much more ice time than forwards. The great ones get huge amounts of time on the PK. Of the top 25 players in goal against, 19 are defensemen. But Gretzky is number one, by plenty, even though he is only 24th all-time in games played.

Even though Gretzky is "only 24th" in all-time games played, I can guarantee his career ATOI relative to many forwards is notably higher. He also logged significantly more minutes on the PK, relative to the average forward. That matters.

Absolutely, defensemen log more ice time than forwards, and this allows them to pad certain statistics (see: +/-) against weaker lines.

You continually note the +/- statistic as a metric for defensive acumen. I don't comprehend how you 'square the circle' when considering that Gretzky remains the all-time leader in this statistic amongst forwards. Notably, Gretzky's career +/- compared very favourably to Orr's on a per game basis, before leaving Edmonton. And if not for leaving Edmonton, he may have also challenged Robinson as the all-time leader.

I felt the need to chime in because your argument appears superficial and disingenuous. There's no need to knock Gretzky down to defend Orr. Both are brilliant players.
 

Stephen

Moderator
Feb 28, 2002
77,653
51,099
I feel like this is a conceptually flawed question. Producing offense at the rate and style of a Gretzky and Lemieux is literally what the sport is all about. It's the thoroughbred part of the game, the purest expression of outscoring the opposition. The defensive aspect of the game is more of what's necessary, the draft animal part of the game that players great to mediocre need to buy into to to make it work. Guys like Yzerman's famous transformation into two way hockey was a necessity because the Red Wings could not outgun everyone in the field. A guy like Guy Carbonneau evolved from a junior scoring sensation to a 3x time Selke winner because he couldn't be Guy Lafleur in the NHL. Igor Larionov became a great two way presence in the NHL, because he wasn't the same 80s CSKA Moscow superstar.

Anyway, if for some reason Gretzky and Lemieux were forced into ultra defense only roles I'm sure they'd have figured it out. But I'd say that was a transformation that was simply not necessary because you're literally talking about two guys who could always outgun their problems.
 

Voight

#winning
Feb 8, 2012
40,261
16,510
Mulberry Street
No way.

Stevie Y had GRIT. True grit.

That is something Mario lacked. To say Lemieux had grit is to demean the word and ignore his whining and getting owned by a 5'11 Lithuanian dman and a big-mouth goon forward, demanding his team acquire them because he couldn't tolerate their pestering.

& ignore his whole quitting the league because he didn't like the rules.
 

Dennis Bonvie

Registered User
Dec 29, 2007
29,201
17,552
Connecticut
I stand corrected there. I should have checked before posting from memory. Bourque is third. Nonetheless, the point still stands. The goals against statistic is mostly reflective of era played in, ATOI, and length of career.



Even though Gretzky is "only 24th" in all-time games played, I can guarantee his career ATOI relative to many forwards is notably higher. He also logged significantly more minutes on the PK, relative to the average forward. That matters.

Absolutely, defensemen log more ice time than forwards, and this allows them to pad certain statistics (see: +/-) against weaker lines.

You continually note the +/- statistic as a metric for defensive acumen. I don't comprehend how you 'square the circle' when considering that Gretzky remains the all-time leader in this statistic amongst forwards. Notably, Gretzky's career +/- compared very favourably to Orr's on a per game basis, before leaving Edmonton. And if not for leaving Edmonton, he may have also challenged Robinson as the all-time leader.

I felt the need to chime in because your argument appears superficial and disingenuous. There's no need to knock Gretzky down to defend Orr. Both are brilliant players.

Did Gretzky not play in the NHL after leaving Edmonton? He was only 27 when he left. More than half his career was after Edmonton.

11 seasons, 3 scoring titles, a Hart Trophy and took his team to the finals once. And was -33.

Yes, I do like to use the plus/minus stat. But its not the metric to measure defensive play on its own. In this case, it seems helpful.

And why do you think my argument is superficial and disingenuous?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Voight

TheClap

Registered User
Jul 20, 2014
424
326
According to Yzerman, this isn't true.

Which part?
Can't just throw that out there without at least providing us with what Yzerman actually has to say.
Give me a source, I can accept being wrong.

Edit: Nevermind, just found them, and comments from Trottier.
Trottier, who battled Yzerman for more than a decade before retiring in 1994, knows better. "Who are these people who say that?" Trottier says. "I played against him back then and I remember him killing penalties, hustling and back-checking. I guess no one else does."

I stand corrected.

At any rate, I still do think Gretzky and Lemieux could have been capable had they ever needed to develop that element of their game.
 
Last edited:

TheClap

Registered User
Jul 20, 2014
424
326
No way.

Stevie Y had GRIT. True grit.

That is something Mario lacked. To say Lemieux had grit is to demean the word and ignore his whining and getting owned by a 5'11 Lithuanian dman and a big-mouth goon forward, demanding his team acquire them because he couldn't tolerate their pestering.

With their talent, Gretzky and Lemieux could have done the same. Would they have is a different question.
 

wetcoast

Registered User
Nov 20, 2018
22,187
10,075
I do think there's a difference, though. Defensive IQ is just a different mindset than offensive IQ.

The defensive-minded player's perspective is one of maintaining a state that already exists. His IQ is formed around anticipating breakdowns and cutting them off before they can develop completely.

The offensive-minded player's perspective is one of breaking the status quo, creating a new state. Is IQ is formed not just around spotting potential vulnerabilities, but also in creating new vulnerabilities that didn't exist at all a split-second ago.

A player like Patrick Kane can see offensive possibilities that I don't think would ever even cross the mind of a Ryan O'Reilly, and O'Reilly can probably explain what happened better than Kane can.


This sums it up for me, offensive genius like Gretzky and Mario are like comparing Jimmy hendrix to a technically awesome guitar player but without the vision and artistry (I think Stevie Vai was the example I remember being given in comparison to Hendrix).

The Kane/O'Reilly example above sums this up for me, if you asked Kane he would probably shrug and say I just do it and O'Reilly grinds and thinks his way through everything.

Just completely different skill sets and different processes going on..
 
  • Like
Reactions: tarheelhockey

Nerowoy nora tolad

Registered User
May 9, 2018
1,401
651
Gladstone, Australia
Now, I'm obviously not seriously suggesting Gretzky was a Selke winner in 1984-85, but I'm willing to bet Gretzky was on the ice against the opposition's top forwards as much or more than Ramsay (a third liner) was. And his positive goals-differential in ALL areas were vastly superior to Ramsay's... like, vastly. And the difference in strength between the two clubs (90 points to 109 points) is not nearly enough to suggest this difference.

I wouldnt know as much on the subject as our resident Oilers expert, but IIRC in Gretzkys early career, wasnt the matchup situation on the road usually Gretzky up against the oppositions best checking line, and their top line against the Messier line? Then later in his career as he came back down to more mortal status, opposition coaches would line up their top line against Gretzky, which gradually ate away at his effectiveness as he got slower and less able to contain the better young crop of centres.
 
Last edited:

MadLuke

Registered User
Jan 18, 2011
9,372
5,030
It's on-ice GA certainly flawed, but it is indicative. In 2016-17, one first-line center allowed 41 non-PP GA while he was on the ice (team SV% 0.905). Another allowed 54 non-PP GA (team SV% 0.918). Yet another allowed 64 non-PP GA (team SV% 0.914). Can one guess who was Bergeron, McDavid, and Toews?

Time once ice
Toews, 72 games with 2:41 PP and 16:10 EV in average
Bergeron, 79 games with 2:57 PP and 14:19 EV in average
McDavid, 82 games 3:02 PP, 17:18 EV

Not killing penalty ice time:
Bergeron: 1364.07 minutes
Toews: 1357.2 minutes
McDavid: 1667.33 minutes

64 goals in 1667.33 minutes would be quite similar to 52 in 1360 minutes.

On-ice GA by 60 minutes sound like an already way less flawed metric a bit like Brodeur having the most absolute lost in history, I imagine Gretzky/Messier/Bourque place in GA against instead of having middle of the pack to good one can be largely explain by the volume of hockey they played and which season's it was (followed by the quality of opposition, offensive mission and so on)
 

Voight

#winning
Feb 8, 2012
40,261
16,510
Mulberry Street
I wouldnt know as much on the subject as our resident Oilers expert, but IIRC in Gretzkys early career, wasnt the matchup situation on the road usually Gretzky up against the oppositions best checking line, and their top line against the Messier line? Then later in his career as he came back down to more mortal status, opposition coaches would line up their top line against Gretzky, which gradually ate away at his effectiveness as he got slower and less able to contain the better young crop of centres.

Gretzky in 1993 when a guy finally took the puck off him after chasing him around all game long

tenor.gif
 

tazzy19

Registered User
Mar 27, 2008
2,268
115
That was the way the Oilers played. There were a few games I turned off in disgust in the 80s because it got ridiculous. For me scoring became boring. I wouldn't zero in on Gretzky as the cause - the system was built like that for him and it worked and we could see it again, but not to that degree.

We are seeing now what a small rule change can do to scoring, so who knows? The Capitals did the reverse, they kept everyone back and spent a season building tactics off of bad zone entries, passing up medium scoring chances to try to procure high danger chances - and that turned into a team that could trap to stop speed AND be dangerous going the other way with size/skill/finish in the playoffs and they won the Cup.

Maybe a team will do the reverse of that and leave one guy back and try to fully take advantage of the fact dmen can't touch a guy in front? Just all-out offense.
Here's an interesting clip of a Penguins reporter essentially asking Gretzky -- after a 3 point night against Lemieux and an Oiler win -- how he gets away with cheating so much offensively and leaving the zone early even when the Oilers are protecting a one goal lead. Gretzky dresses it up a little, but he essentially says, "Well, we play a different style than other teams." Hahaha, gotta love it...

 
  • Like
Reactions: tinyzombies

The Panther

Registered User
Mar 25, 2014
19,087
15,521
Tokyo, Japan
Here's an interesting clip of a Penguins reporter essentially asking Gretzky -- after a 3 point night against Lemieux and an Oiler win -- how he gets away with cheating so much offensively and leaving the zone early even when the Oilers are protecting a one goal lead. Gretzky dresses it up a little, but he essentially says, "Well, we play a different style than other teams." Hahaha, gotta love it...


He is quite right about that, in my view. The Oilers did play a different style from other teams, and part of it was based on the reality that Edmonton would convert opportunities to score at a much higher rate than other teams.

So, yeah, if Gretzky is cheating a bit by leaving the defensive zone, is the opponent's defenceman not going to stay close to him? The consequences of letting prime-Gretzky get behind you when the puck comes loose are about a 75% chance of a goal going in against you. It's too risky to let him float away from you, so the Dman would usually stay close to him, leaving the rest of the players in a 4-on-4. So, sure, the D-man is sometimes going to step in and might help create some goals for his team if Gretzky is not sticking like glue to him, but by the law of averages Gretzky receiving passes while fleeing the zone is going to work out to Edmonton's advantage most of the time.

I mean, you can't really argue with five trips the Finals in six seasons (Wayne going +73 per 80 games over this period).
 
  • Like
Reactions: tazzy19

The Panther

Registered User
Mar 25, 2014
19,087
15,521
Tokyo, Japan
I wouldnt know as much on the subject as our resident Oilers expert, but IIRC in Gretzkys early career, wasnt the matchup situation on the road usually Gretzky up against the oppositions best checking line, and their top line against the Messier line? Then later in his career as he came back down to more mortal status, opposition coaches would line up their top line against Gretzky, which gradually ate away at his effectiveness as he got slower and less able to contain the better young crop of centres.
I'm not sure about all that.

My impression is that in the mid-80s and for several years afterwards, it was more common for both coaches to play their top-lines against one another. (This is one reason why scoring was higher then.)
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->