MadLuke
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2011
- 9,543
- 5,172
100% no doubt about it.
That one is an interesting one to be brought up
What if Gretzky never won a cup?
- Thread starter SnowblindNYR
- Start date
100% no doubt about it.
That one is an interesting one to be brought up
I can't really think of too many players that had the best player in the league tag on them and they never won the SC.
Lindros came to mind first because he did have a good individual resume, despite what FF thinks and I think Jagr qualifies since he only won his SC as a young support player for the Pens.
Jagr really took alot of flack in the top 100 project for his playoff resume
Dionne isn't a great comparison due to his playoff resume but he got torched in the recent top 100 players of all time project.
McDavid might become another going forward but he is missing the playoff performances as well right now.
MadLuke
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2011
- 9,543
- 5,172
Hasek (specially that the op didn't remove Gretzky international play) without is Detroit cup is one somewhat easy to imagine.
Sure I forgot about that one because I was looking at forwards.
I guess Bourque would have been another, in anther sense, had he not had that second lease on life with the Avs.
I wouldn't be surprised if Eric Karlsson never wins a SC and I do think that it will hurt his legacy but I think he has been over rated by many already.
If I have the time it would be fun to consider the best post war team (4 lines 6 Dmen and 2 goalies ) that never won the SC.
I'm guessing Dionne and Lindros would be on that team along with EK.
Theokritos
Global Moderator
- Apr 6, 2010
- 12,541
- 4,937
If I need to illustrate the word "reaching" to anyone, I will from now on use the following illustration:
robsenz
Registered User
- Apr 15, 2007
- 3,560
- 2,423
Fixxer
Registered User
- Jul 28, 2016
- 3,224
- 1,631
It's very possible because there are so many teams. The cap also hinders players movement. We have yet to see the player considered the best, go without a cup, and I hope it doesn't happen.
The Panther
Registered User
I'll never understand that.
Aged 19/20, Jagr scored below a PPG in the regular season, and then scores 24 points in 21 playoff games, wins the Cup (scoring what Mario called "the greatest goal I've ever seen" in the Finals), and people just dismiss it like it never happened. He scored more even strength goals than anyone -- including Mario Lemieux -- that playoffs, the most game-winning goals in the playoffs, and it's all just overlooked because... he was young...??
Beyond my understanding.
Eleven times Jagr has been at or well over a point-per-game in playoffs (four of these in Dead-puck era). I would love to know how many forwards in the Hall of Fame have done that.
Before his old-man comeback to the NHL late in his career, he had 77 goals (15 game winners) and 181 points (+38) in 167 playoff games, with half those games in the Dead-puck era.
The guy was a playoff stud.
MadLuke
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2011
- 9,543
- 5,172
4th in playoff scoring on your team can do that when talking about being worthy of a top 10 all time spot.
But yes not taking the 98/99 99/2000 type of Pens type farther than what he did seem like victim of circumstance (than again how much that team was build around what he wanted too).
Feel quite a bit like Ovechkin before very recently, it is easy to imagine Jagr being the face of a good cup run or win legacy would be quite different.
Nino33
Registered User
- Jul 5, 2015
- 1,828
- 441
According to hockeyreference Mario had the most game-winning goals (and Jagr was tied with Stevens for most even strength goals, with Stevens ending up with 2 more total goals and 4 more total points) 1992 NHL Stanley Cup Playoffs Leaders | Hockey-Reference.com
mrhockey193195
Registered User
Gretzky performed amazingly in the playoffs with mediocre teams. Hell, his performance in 93 is one of the most talked about playoffs of his career and added a decent amount to his legacy. If he never wins a cup, then he has several consecutive performances similar to 93 - a ton of points and carries a mediocre team on his back to higher heights than they ought to have achieved. Yes, I think his legacy is affected, and I think there is more of an argument for Orr/Howe/Lemieux to be the greatest player of all time, but there is no chance that people consider him a "choker" or anything less than one of the "big four".
The Panther
Registered User
I made a mistake about GWGs, thanks. Regardless, he had a superb playoff run on a Cup run, barely out of his teens.
Big Phil
Registered User
- Nov 2, 2003
- 31,703
- 4,146
I think it all depends on how he performs when he loses. Take the 1993 playoffs for instance. How much more could he have done? He had 40 points. He had 4 points in the only win in Game 1 of the final and then 3 in the final 4. Not great, but it wouldn't have hurt Hrudey to stop a puck once in a while or Kurri or Robitaille or Sandstrom to step up when Gretzky was actually playing human. So if he has those sorts of finishes in losses then I think it helps a bit. But let's look at the big names in sports who never won.
Marino, Barry Bonds, Ted Williams, Ty Cobb, Karl Malone, Charles Barkley.
Are there any names bigger than this?
Bonds, Williams and Cobb never won a World Series. Bonds was awful in the playoffs in his Pirates career but got better as a Giant, especially in 2002 where you can't blame him for the loss. Williams played in only one World Series and played awful although he had a bad elbow. Cobb was "meh" in the 3 World Series he played in. Certainly not Cobb-esque batting averages. Then again, in baseball it is probably the hardest sport to be a difference maker, so how much can you blame them?
Malone I thought was weak when it came to crunch time. He always seemed to have this deer in the headlights thing against Jordan. Barkley I thought played better when the chips were down, but the NBA more than any sport is where one person can make most of a difference.
That leaves Marino, who didn't play well in the postseason. It was almost like he was a different guy. Sort of like Manning before he won his Super Bowl. Even then, Manning isn't what I consider an all-time great based on his playoff performances.
So a lot depends on how Gretzky performs. These guys are still legends and other than the baseball players there is this "what if" thing attached to him. Gretzky would definitely have that "what if" attached to him. He was just too good to NOT have that. Heck, Ovechkin had that attached to him. McDavid will if he doesn't win soon enough.
I just can't picture Gretzky never winning a Cup. Even with that terribly run team in L.A. he still got them to a final and he was not the same player anymore by 1993, although still great.
Marino, Barry Bonds, Ted Williams, Ty Cobb, Karl Malone, Charles Barkley.
Are there any names bigger than this?
Bonds, Williams and Cobb never won a World Series. Bonds was awful in the playoffs in his Pirates career but got better as a Giant, especially in 2002 where you can't blame him for the loss. Williams played in only one World Series and played awful although he had a bad elbow. Cobb was "meh" in the 3 World Series he played in. Certainly not Cobb-esque batting averages. Then again, in baseball it is probably the hardest sport to be a difference maker, so how much can you blame them?
Malone I thought was weak when it came to crunch time. He always seemed to have this deer in the headlights thing against Jordan. Barkley I thought played better when the chips were down, but the NBA more than any sport is where one person can make most of a difference.
That leaves Marino, who didn't play well in the postseason. It was almost like he was a different guy. Sort of like Manning before he won his Super Bowl. Even then, Manning isn't what I consider an all-time great based on his playoff performances.
So a lot depends on how Gretzky performs. These guys are still legends and other than the baseball players there is this "what if" thing attached to him. Gretzky would definitely have that "what if" attached to him. He was just too good to NOT have that. Heck, Ovechkin had that attached to him. McDavid will if he doesn't win soon enough.
I just can't picture Gretzky never winning a Cup. Even with that terribly run team in L.A. he still got them to a final and he was not the same player anymore by 1993, although still great.
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
scott clam
Registered User
- Sep 12, 2018
- 1,108
- 532
If the Oilers couldn't win one without Gretzky- nevermind Messier, Coffey etc.- they get relocated a long tine ago.
It's almost impossible to imagine Gretzky never playing on a championship team considering the fact that no other player in team sports (save for maybe a few seasons of Orr and Lemieux) comes close to the effect he had in elevating his teammates.
People talk about Gretzky's hall of supporting cast, but what kind of players would Messier and Anderson and Coffey and Kurri be without Gretzky's genius? Somehow the guy still doesn't get half the credit he's due for the much vaunted "leadership" intangible.
Finally you figure if teams like the Oilers or Kings can't win with him he gets traded to Montreal and sparks yet another dynasty.
It's almost impossible to imagine Gretzky never playing on a championship team considering the fact that no other player in team sports (save for maybe a few seasons of Orr and Lemieux) comes close to the effect he had in elevating his teammates.
People talk about Gretzky's hall of supporting cast, but what kind of players would Messier and Anderson and Coffey and Kurri be without Gretzky's genius? Somehow the guy still doesn't get half the credit he's due for the much vaunted "leadership" intangible.
Finally you figure if teams like the Oilers or Kings can't win with him he gets traded to Montreal and sparks yet another dynasty.
The Panther
Registered User
I agree with you that Gretzky's effect on elevating teammates is the greatest in NHL history.
I don't think it's an overstatement to say that Gretzky's presence in Edmonton, particularly in the years 1979 to 1984-85-ish, is why Coffey could win three Norrises, Kurri RS and playoff goals-titles, and Messier two future Hart trophies. Messier's is perhaps the most notable case. Messier was a 1-goal scorer in the WHA, and as an NHL rookie was briefly demoted to the AHL. Gretzky's presence sheltered him for 9 years in Edmonton, until he was ready to break out as a team leader. I also feel that Messier's playing at his personal-best elite level up to about 1996 or 1997 (which Gretzky did not) is a result of his years under Gretzky's celebrity-umbrella. Messier had more fuel in the tank later on.
(I'd say Glenn Anderson & Luc Robitaille are two Gretzky teammates whom Wayne had relatively lesser career effects on. Not that they didn't have their share of great moments on the ice with him, but I don't think their numbers pan out much differently with or without Gretzky.)
I suppose if we want to consider Gretzky without a cup - it probably benefits Lemieux quite a lot.
Gretzky did 92 goals and no one had come close till Lemieux did...but fell just short.
Gretzky did 215 points and no one had come close till Lemieux did...but fell just short.
Lemieux is great, lots of "what ifs" with better health, but in the end he fell just short of most of the big records Gretzky set. But in this scenario, the biggest question of all would have been a huge benefit to Lemieux.
Gretzky came in with all-world video-game like offense yet couldn't win a cup....till Lemieux came playing the same way, and led his team to 2 cups in 2 of the most dominating smythe performances ever. I think this would become a huge argument for Lemieux > Gretzky.
Obviously if Gretzky still has all of his actual playoff stats and performances - just somehow all in losing efforts - he doesn't lose that much in the end. But i'm going under the premise that he loses out on cups and also his individual playoff performances take a big hit.
Gretzky did 92 goals and no one had come close till Lemieux did...but fell just short.
Gretzky did 215 points and no one had come close till Lemieux did...but fell just short.
Lemieux is great, lots of "what ifs" with better health, but in the end he fell just short of most of the big records Gretzky set. But in this scenario, the biggest question of all would have been a huge benefit to Lemieux.
Gretzky came in with all-world video-game like offense yet couldn't win a cup....till Lemieux came playing the same way, and led his team to 2 cups in 2 of the most dominating smythe performances ever. I think this would become a huge argument for Lemieux > Gretzky.
Obviously if Gretzky still has all of his actual playoff stats and performances - just somehow all in losing efforts - he doesn't lose that much in the end. But i'm going under the premise that he loses out on cups and also his individual playoff performances take a big hit.
It really bugs me when people say "Gretzky never won a cup after leaving Oilers, and Oilers won one without him - wow, he mustn't have been that good/important".
I think Gretzky raised those Oiler teammates so much in value and ability. If he doesn't pass by Edmonton, none of Coffey, Kurri or Messier become anywhere near the players they become (argument can be made that without 1987 Canada Cup - same for Mario Lemieux whom he had a big positive effect on). Meaning that without Gretzky coming through in the 80s, none of those guys end up winning a cup in edmonton on their own. And if Gretzky hadn't helped shape them into the dynasty - there's no way the team would have been able to come together to win one more cup in 1990.
BraveCanadian
Registered User
- Jun 30, 2010
- 14,705
- 3,573
I'll never understand that.
Aged 19/20, Jagr scored below a PPG in the regular season, and then scores 24 points in 21 playoff games, wins the Cup (scoring what Mario called "the greatest goal I've ever seen" in the Finals), and people just dismiss it like it never happened. He scored more even strength goals than anyone -- including Mario Lemieux -- that playoffs, the most game-winning goals in the playoffs, and it's all just overlooked because... he was young...??
Beyond my understanding.
Eleven times Jagr has been at or well over a point-per-game in playoffs (four of these in Dead-puck era). I would love to know how many forwards in the Hall of Fame have done that.
Before his old-man comeback to the NHL late in his career, he had 77 goals (15 game winners) and 181 points (+38) in 167 playoff games, with half those games in the Dead-puck era.
The guy was a playoff stud.
Agreed.. Jagr is underrated in the playoffs around here for some reason. I dug into his playoff resume in detail a few years ago for the ATD and came away even more impressed than going strictly on memory alone. He also played hurt a lot during his prime when he *was* the Penguins.
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
Please elaborate.
Gretzky's mere presents raised the ability level of Coffey, Kurri & Messier? How?
Did Gretzky help shape them into a dynasty any more than Messier? Or even a Kevin Lowe?
Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
I'm not involved in this conversation and won't take a side...but someone looking to take a side might like this Freudian slip haha
Let's start strictly with opportunities.
Gretzky was scoring 200+ points in the regular season and 35-40+ in the playoffs. Remove that level of offense from the Oilers - and they take a very significant step back in terms of results. They don't finish top of standings, and they don't go on all those deep playoff runs.
A big part of Kurri, Coffey and Messier's legacies hinges on their playoffs. Remove Gretzky and it severely impacts their playoff's career, and hence overall careers.
Gretzky also helped Coffey and especially Kurri attain offensive totals they never would have approached without him.
Sticking to playoffs - I believe a very strong reason why Oilers were able to win the cup in 1990 was thanks to the playoff experience of guys like Messier, Kurri, etc. Without Gretzky and the playoff experienced they gained together in the 80s - this team doesn't win the cup in 1990. You still give them full merit for winning the cup in 1990, i'm not saying otherwise - i'm just saying, don't use "Gretzky never won a cup after Edmonton, they did, Gretzky mustn't be that important" argument because it's ridiculous. No Gretzky = no 1990 cup for the rest of them either.
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
