What if Gretzky never won a cup?

[SnowblindNYR]

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.

Interesting, he was before my time. But I can't fathom someone saying he's not as talented as Montana. I never thought of Montana as the most talented QB. I always thought of him as the perfect system QB.

 

[VanIslander]

Interesting, he was before my time. But I can't fathom someone saying he's not as talented as Montana. I never thought of Montana as the most talented QB. I always thought of him as the perfect system QB.

People say Tom Brady is the perfect system QB, dinking and dunking, mastering the coach Belichick game plans, clutch like 3-time Super Bowl MVP Montana but with more championships under his belt.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

People say Tom Brady is the perfect system QB, dinking and dunking, mastering the coach Belichick game plans, clutch like 3-time Super Bowl MVP Montana but with more championships under his belt.

I think of them both as system QBs. Funny, usually it's used as a pejorative but probably the two best ever are arguably system QBs.

 

[VanIslander]

Decision making and accuracy are skills that make one CLUTCH in the crunch. Montana & Brady had them in spades.

Elway had it.

Marino didn't. (He had a helluva arm though, with speed, strength and willingness to go deep.)

Favre had accuracy but poor decision making, a wild gunslinger who threw balls into tight coverage EXACTLY where he wanted to but in risky situations where the DB at times outperformed the WR.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Decision making and accuracy are skills that make one CLUTCH in the crunch. Montana & Brady had them in spades.

Elway had it.

Marino didn't. (He had a helluva arm though, with speed, strength and willingness to go deep.)

Favre had accuracy but poor decision making, a wild gunslinger who threw balls into tight coverage EXACTLY where he wanted to but in risky situations where the DB at times outperformed the WR.

I don't know if you're a Giants fan but Eli has lacked both those things for long periods of time but for some reason has always come through in the clutch (at least until he got old).

 

[robsenz]

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.

Marino tainted his own legacy when he made the decision to make out with a disguised Ray Finkle.

 

[Bluesguru]

Decision making and accuracy are skills that make one CLUTCH in the crunch. Montana & Brady had them in spades.

Elway had it.

Marino didn't. (He had a helluva arm though, with speed, strength and willingness to go deep.)

Favre had accuracy but poor decision making, a wild gunslinger who threw balls into tight coverage EXACTLY where he wanted to but in risky situations where the DB at times outperformed the WR.

Agreed on Montana and Brady. I used to not give either one the credit they deserved but Montana showed me a lot when he went to KC and I have to give Brady credit. He’s a statue but he makes quick reads and gets rid of the ball with great accuracy. In regards to Favre, yeah, he would make the ill advised pass at times. I really think Jim Hart was the Favre of his era. Same thing.
Once upon a time I used to think Marino was the best ever but in my opinion I would go with Roger Staubach, even though his lifetime stats are cut short.

 

[wetcoast]

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".

I'm pretty sure that most people would put him 4th among the big 4.

A huge part of his legacy is literally leading the Oilers to that dynasty and being a winner in international play.

Gretzky's greatest attribute was his preparation and desire to be the best and winning is something that is really celebrated in all sports culture.

We saw great examples of this in the recent top non NHL players project were a guy like Firsov made it huge and a guy like Erich Kühnhackl was given short shrift basically because one guy played for a winner and the second guy played for a weak international nation.

Even in the top 100 players of all time project SC counting becomes really material.

Marcel Dionne/Guy Lafleur being the obvious example of this.

It will be interesting to see how Connor McDavid or another generational talent and individual resume is perceived in a 32 team NHL where at some point a "McDavid" level of player is going to go Cupless for his career.

 

[wetcoast]

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

Not really in 82-83 he led the playoffs in points with 38 and had 4 of the 6 Oiler goals in the SC finals so if that pattern had remained, ie the Oilers never win a SC and his stats remain the same he would have gotten the Lindros treatment for not winning despite actually being pretty good in the playoffs as an individual performer.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

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.

He left at 27.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Don’t see how you could place him above Mario or Orr in this scenario. Lemieux would have the two best playoff runs of all time with his smythes and rings.

 

[MadLuke]

He left at 27.

Which is post peak for a lot of player that start playing pro around 18 and go to the playoff a lot, look at Ovechkin before and after turning 25, Crosby at 27 and up:

2005-06 NHL 1.26 (6th)

2006-07 NHL 1.52 (1st)

2007-08 NHL 1.36 (2nd)

2008-09 NHL 1.34 (3rd)

2009-10 NHL 1.35 (4th)

2010-11 NHL 1.61 (1st)

2012-13 NHL 1.56 (1st)

2013-14 NHL 1.30 (1st)

2014-15 NHL 1.09 (1st)

2015-16 NHL 1.06 (3rd)

2016-17 NHL 1.19 (2nd)

2018-19 NHL 1.27 (5th)

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

2014-2015 is when he turned 27 and stopped being above the pack. (1st place in 14-15 isn't quite the same than those before, a marginal 0.01 lead over Seguin).

It is certain certainly true that post 27 year's old level of a player Gretzky was not certain to win the cup, but that different than 5-6 season of a row of a 200 pts a year pace above 2 ppg playoff pace.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Which is post peak for a lot of player that start playing pro around 18 and go to the playoff a lot, look at Ovechkin before and after turning 25, Crosby at 27 and up:

2005-06 NHL 1.26 (6th)

2006-07 NHL 1.52 (1st)

2007-08 NHL 1.36 (2nd)

2008-09 NHL 1.34 (3rd)

2009-10 NHL 1.35 (4th)

2010-11 NHL 1.61 (1st)

2012-13 NHL 1.56 (1st)

2013-14 NHL 1.30 (1st)

2014-15 NHL 1.09 (1st)

2015-16 NHL 1.06 (3rd)

2016-17 NHL 1.19 (2nd)

2018-19 NHL 1.27 (5th)

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

2014-2015 is when he turned 27 and stopped being above the pack. (1st place in 14-15 isn't quite the same than those before, a marginal 0.01 lead over Seguin).

It is certain certainly true that post 27 year's old level of a player Gretzky was not certain to win the cup, but that different than 5-6 season of a row of a 200 pts a year pace above 2 ppg playoff pace.

Of course. But Gretzky was still an 180 point level player when he left. Don’t forget he scored 43 points in 19 playoff games before he got traded.

 

[MadLuke]

Of course. But Gretzky was still an 180 point level player when he left. Don’t forget he scored 43 points in 19 playoff games before he got traded.

But he wasn't a must win a cup if a play like that for almost 10 year's level for long, a player can obviously always loose in a given year, the argument is build about being that level of good for that level of time (say if someone consider that a peak level Gretzky has 25% chance of winning the cup if he has an average team around him in that era, not winning 7 year's in a row he has about 87% of at least winning one, quite different if it goes down to 17% level for 3 year's than quite down after 1991)

 

[FerrisRox]

He left at 27.

Why are you telling me this? Do you think I'm unaware of Gretzky's age when he was traded?

 

[FerrisRox]

Not really in 82-83 he led the playoffs in points with 38 and had 4 of the 6 Oiler goals in the SC finals so if that pattern had remained, ie the Oilers never win a SC and his stats remain the same he would have gotten the Lindros treatment for not winning despite actually being pretty good in the playoffs as an individual performer.

Lindros was barely a point-a-game player in the postseason.

This is a very odd - and flawed - comparison to make.

 

[FerrisRox]

Marino tainted his own legacy when he made the decision to make out with a disguised Ray Finkle.

To be fair to Marino, it was a very convincing disguise.

 

[wetcoast]

Lindros was barely a point-a-game player in the postseason.

This is a very odd - and flawed - comparison to make.

Not really as I compared Gretzky being in on 4 ( 4 goals actually) of the 6 goals his team had in a losing effort in the Finals to Lindros against Detroit were Eric was in on 3 of the 6 Flyer goals that series.

Lindros gets roasted for being a playoff choker and his "poor" performance when the truth was that his team often let him down.

Of course Gretzky went on to be a "winner" so we will never know for sure.

The PPG part is irrelevant in that scoring in the playoffs was much lower in the 90's than the 80's

Player Season Finder | Hockey-Reference.com


Player Season Finder | Hockey-Reference.com

 

[FerrisRox]

The PPG part is irrelevant in that scoring in the playoffs was much lower in the 90's than the 80's

You can say its irrelevant because scoring was "much lower in the 90's than the 80's" but the reality is Gretzky scored 108 playoff points in 77 playoff games in the 90's while Lindros scored 56 points in 48 games. The difference is enormous.

It's a silly comparison because there is no comparison.

 

[wetcoast]

You can say its irrelevant because scoring was "much lower in the 90's than the 80's" but the reality is Gretzky scored 108 playoff points in 77 playoff games in the 90's while Lindros scored 56 points in 50 games. The difference is enormous.

It's a silly comparison because there is no comparison.

Did you even look at the 2 times periods?

Lindros was 5th overall at 1.14 PPG for the 6 year period in the 90's ahead of Sakic and Forsberg for some context

1.14 PPG in the 6 year period would be 16th behind Ken Linesman and ahead of Doug Wilson.

So maybe get over your barley over a PPG obsession here it sheds zero light.

to be fair it is pretty hard for people to image what if Gretzky had never won the SC, something you have aptly demonstrated up thread and this is after what the OP is referring to in the thread.

Go back to the OP this is what he is asking

What do you think Gretzky's legacy would have been if he had the same regular season stats but never won a cup..

 

[iCanada]

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".

Id just like to reiterate that 894 goals is the most in the league by over 10%.

 

[MadLuke]

Did you even look at the 2 times periods?

Even in the 1995 to 2000 period:
Player Season Finder | Hockey-Reference.com

Gretzky is ahead in ppg, in 96-97 Gretzky last playoff

20 points (10g-10a) in 15 games, Lindros that year 26 points in 19 game.

 

[Fixxer]

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

I can see some people trying to diss him because "he got points but never won anything". Sure, he was scoring at a CRAZY rate but if he never won the cup, detractors would have had a large target to hit at.

 

[wetcoast]

Even in the 1995 to 2000 period:
Player Season Finder | Hockey-Reference.com

Gretzky is ahead in ppg, in 96-97 Gretzky last playoff

20 points (10g-10a) in 15 games, Lindros that year 26 points in 19 game.

Sure but if Gretzky had never won the SC he wouldn't be revered as much would he?

He would have gotten the Lindros/Jagr treatment that being superstar faces of their franchise they couldn't get it done.

As for Gretzky being better in PPG he wasn't titling the ice like he used to and heck he was 36 so he wasn't going to be defined by that playoff but no one would have said that Gretzky had a better playoffs than Lindros did that year.

The thing is that Gretzky was a winner and no one prepared like he did and played for perfection so it's really hard to answer the OP because of what we know.

 

[wetcoast]

I can see some people trying to diss him because "he got points but never won anything". Sure, he was scoring at a CRAZY rate but if he never won the cup, detractors would have had a large target to hit at.

Sadly we are going to see this with McDavid or some other future generational player.