What if Gretzky never won a cup?

[SnowblindNYR]

I was watching highlights of Dan Marino and it got me thinking. Marino was destroying records and head and shoulders in terms of stats above his competition. But no one thinks of him when talking about great QB ever because he never won a Super Bowl. What do you think Gretzky's legacy would have been if he had the same regular season stats but never won a cup. I say regular season stats obviously because to compile his postseason stats he'd need to go far in the playoffs and then it would be unfathomable that he never won a cup.

Click to read more...

 

[Varan]

even though people here try to play off the importance of winning a title, it absolutely would affect his legacy because there would always be a question of whether he can be a championship winning player, despite all the stats and accolades he has.

it 100% would affect him as much as people play it off

 

[MadLuke]

I say regular season stats obviously because to compile his postseason stats he'd need to go far in the playoffs and then it would be unfathomable that he never won a cup.

Is legacy would be affected if is playoff record was not has good has it was quite a bit, specially with 0 win the narrative of prime Trottier > Gretzky that I imagine must have been somewhat common when the Islander did win over the Oilers for example could have stayed alive, does he win 3 Canada Cup leading Canada in scoring in all of them in that parallel world ?

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Is legacy would be affected if is playoff record was not has good has it was quite a bit, specially with 0 win the narrative of prime Trottier > Gretzky that I imagine must have been somewhat common when the Islander did win over the Oilers for example could have stayed alive, does he win 3 Canada Cup leading Canada in scoring in all of them in that parallel world ?

Let's say he does.

 

[JackSlater]

Of course his reputation takes a hit in that scenario even if his level of play was the same. In terms of regular season nothing changes, but due to the uneven nature of playoffs people tend to struggle to properly assess how well a player performed individually, particularly if the player's team loses. Even in the most optimistic scenario Gretzky is no worse as a player but becomes a less accomplished player in the playoffs and his resume looks worse. More than a few would spew ridiculous opinions along the lines of "Gretzky can't win" and would be unconvinced by any other evidence.

 

[VanIslander]

He'd be on most people's top-5 players list, top-3 centers.

Beliveau and now Crosby (with the two Conn Smythes) would have their proponents. I'd disagree, but I'd understand the arguments.

Some might rank Roy & Hasek ahead of him, but that would be debated a lot. Goalies aren't judged by the same metrics, so a rational case could be made.

I doubt whether most would rank him below Rocket Richard or Bobby Hull. It's just hard to make that case. The gap is too big.

This would remain:

• 9 Harts
• 11 scoring titles
• 16 time assist leader (more career assists than anyone has points, PLUS 894 goals)

He would still be "The Great One".

 

[VanIslander]

I was watching highlights of Dan Marino and it got me thinking. Marino was destroying records and head and shoulders in terms of stats above his competition. But no one thinks of him when talking about great QB ever because he never won a Super Bowl.

I was in junior high when Marino had his first pro bowl season. I have seen several better passers. Marino had two pro bowl deep threat wide receivers in Clayton and Duper whom he would lob balls to. Marino was great at long bombs but his DECISION MAKING and ACCURACY were not as impressive. He is not a guy you want in the clutch, unless you want a risky, desperate attempt. (In today's game, he's more like Big Ben and Rivers than Brady or Rodgers.)

If Marino had won two Super Bowls, he'd still not be as talented or esteemed as Montana, but he would be argued to be a bit better than John Elway, though that would be debated.

Marino would need three or more Superbowl MVP performances (not just rings) to be even arguable as the GOAT.

To recap:

1. Marino lacked key traits of the greatest QBs ever;
2. It's not just about winning the cup, at least, in terms of Marino. He'd have to dominate.

Gretzky doesn't have those same conditions.

 

[The Panther]

Gretzky, I think, would have been judged pretty harshly for no Cup. A bit like Lemieux's stock c.1990 (46-games point streak, 2 points-per-game, no Hart votes), or McDavid now if the Oilers never become really good.

We're still envisioning Gretzky with teammates like Messier, Coffey, Kurri, right? So, assuming Edmonton in the 80s had at least a competitive team for several years, and even more so if we keep them as a 100+ point team dominating their division, then Gretzky with 20 years and no Stanley Cup would face an avalanche of critics today. For evidence, see how much he (and the Oilers) were criticized in 1983 after losing to the Islanders. If it had gone like that for years and years, his rep would now be like Joe Thornton on a bunch of hockey steroids.

Part of this is era. In the early/mid-80s, it was still normal for an elite RS team to then challenge for the Cup, and it was the late Dynasty era.

Today, it's a little different. Like, if McDavid goes back to winning the scoring title every year and ends up with 5 or 6 Hart trophies and the Oilers from today forward are a very competitive team with great regular seasons, etc., for the next ten years, but they never win the Stanley Cup, would it affect McDavid's rep a lot...? I don't think so, provided he performs well in the playoffs as a general rule. But 30-40 years ago, it was different.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Overlooked is that beating a Gretzky or Marino in the playoffs translates into applying the defensive strategies to future RS seasons thereby reducing performance.

 

[Bluesguru]

Him not winning a title is pretty much impossible. He was that good.

 

[bobholly39]

Depends.

Does he still score a ton in the playoffs as he has but no cup? If so hes still #1 - but there are a lot stronger arguments that he "didnt have the right stuff " to lead his team and to place Orr or Howe above him.


Does he completely underperform in playoffs and can be legitimately pointed as a choker and a reason for no cup? Id say he moves behind the other big 3. He stays at 4 though not below - but there would be some controversy there.

 

[Smirnov2Chistov]

Him not winning a title is pretty much impossible. He was that good.

Of course he was that good, but as the OP says, 'IF he never won a cup?'

One could argue that Mario would be better due to having Cups to his name. His trajectory even though he skipped out on 3 seasons due to the cancer would've been 100-120 pts.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Him not winning a title is pretty much impossible. He was that good.

No player is that good. Gretzky had 5 other hall of famers on his team. Once he left them he didn't win another cup.

Same goes for Lemieux - he got nowhere until he had 5 or 6 other hall of famers on his team. Peak Lemieux couldn't even get his team into the playoffs back when 16 out of 21 teams made it in.

Hockey is the ultimate team sport. One player cannot carry a team. It has never happened.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Anyway, it's certainly possible that Gretzky could have spent his entire career on a crappy team and never won a cup.

A lot of people would attack him for that, and those people would have demonstrated that they don't understand the game.

 

[Michael Farkas]

There may be a few more calls for Orr or Lemieux at 1...but he'd still be #1. Too dominant offensively to overlook in my very narrow-viewed opinion...he has a thousand points more than anyone on a scale of 3000...

 

[FerrisRox]

I was watching highlights of Dan Marino and it got me thinking. Marino was destroying records and head and shoulders in terms of stats above his competition. But no one thinks of him when talking about great QB ever because he never won a Super Bowl. What do you think Gretzky's legacy would have been if he had the same regular season stats but never won a cup. I say regular season stats obviously because to compile his postseason stats he'd need to go far in the playoffs and then it would be unfathomable that he never won a cup.

I think it's impossible for a player to perform like Gretzky did in the playoffs and not win a Championship.

 

[FerrisRox]

No player is that good. Gretzky had 5 other hall of famers on his team. Once he left them he didn't win another cup.

Same goes for Lemieux - he got nowhere until he had 5 or 6 other hall of famers on his team. Peak Lemieux couldn't even get his team into the playoffs back when 16 out of 21 teams made it in.

Hockey is the ultimate team sport. One player cannot carry a team. It has never happened.

I agree with the original poster. Gretzky was too dominant in the playoffs to ever be denied a Cup altogether.

Saying once he left the team he didn't win another Cup and ignoring his age when he left is just silly and pretending the five other Hall of Famers would all be Hall of Famers without the Gretzky-effect is a dubious claim at best.

 

[Gurglesons]

Lemieux would be viewed as the greatest ever and Midnight Judges would be even more pissed.

 

[Sadekuuro]

I think it's impossible for a player to perform like Gretzky did in the playoffs and not win a Championship.

That's true, a team that goes 15-2 or whatever wasn't exactly a couple of bounces from going home early.

 

[MadLuke]

I think the premise did mention that Greztky isn't necessarily scoring 47 poinnts in 18 game in a loosing cause in that scenario.

That said Greztky did show that he could score 38 pts in just 16 games or have a 40 point playoff and still not win the cup (suffice to face all time great team some time and weird unlucky some other time and Patrick Roy 1-2 time), so I am not sure how impossible that weird scenario would be, Crosby/Guentzel not so long ago got eliminated with 19 goals/42 points in 12 games.

 

[Hobnobs]

I dont get why people says that he def would have won a cup no matter what. No he wouldnt. Not without a team.

But ok back to topic. Lets say Oilers cant get it done. Now Gretzkys legacy will be affected by different variables. If Gretzky still scores in game 7s and so on his legacy would be effected very little. Sathers and Mucklers however would plummet.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

Him not winning a title is pretty much impossible. He was that good.

Agreed. The premise is flawed.

If he didn’t win a championship it would be because he didn’t perform as well as he actually did over his career

 

[Oddbob]

He would still be the absolute best ever, his performance was unreal!

 

[SnowblindNYR]

I think it's impossible for a player to perform like Gretzky did in the playoffs and not win a Championship.

That's what I said, that's why I said if he had the same regular season stats.

 

[BenchBrawl]

.