What would it take for a player of today to challenge for a spot in the big 4?

[Midnight Judges]

So the cavaet is that a player doesn't necessarily have to peak at the same statistical level that Wayne, Mario and Orr did in order to get consideration.

To say otherwise would be to care only about peak. Everything else would have to be a non-factor.

 

[daver]

Fair enough. I should have said "everything he did, Gretzky did it more often."

I don't think anyone but a few huge Mario fans put him above Wayne in any context. He is in the Big Four as he was, at his best, better than Howe, at least offensively, and clearly above everyone else including the argubly best 5th offensive player in Jagr.

 

[PenguinSpeed]

Since it's been only recently that you have made a factually wrong claim, these further corrections of your next claims shouldn't go unhighlighted. We're still waiting for a reply by you that goes beyond vague statements and actually adress these rebuttals:





Also, if the following post is a true reflexion of your opinion, then the History of Hockey board is simply the wrong place for you:

-The reply was made. Orr shattered his collarbone in 1968 December 9th then wrecked his knee. It was Orr's WORST season of his entire career. Boston was creamed in the playoffs by Montreal and completely blown out in the playoffs

-Orr's LAST 3 seasons he played 36 total games BECAUSE of injuries.


-This was already responded.

 

[Theokritos]

-The reply was made. Orr shattered his collarbone in 1968 December 9th then wrecked his knee. It was Orr's WORST season of his entire career. Boston was creamed in the playoffs by Montreal and completely blown out in the playoffs

-Orr's LAST 3 seasons he played 36 total games BECAUSE of injuries.


-This was already responded.

This doesn't adress anything in relation to Phil Esposito. Examples of him doing well or keeping up his scoring pace without Orr from three seasons (67-68, 68-69 and 72-73) have been brought up.

 

[PenguinSpeed]

This doesn't adress anything in relation to Phil Esposito. Examples of him doing well or keeping up his scoring pace without Orr from three seasons (67-68, 68-69 and 72-73) have been brought up.

-In 1968 with a hurt busted up Bobby Orr who played under 50 games, Esposito put up 84 points. With a healthy Orr he put up 127+ points in 6 of the next 7 years

-Without Orr in Chicago Esposito could not put up more then 61 points in a season

-Without Orr in NY Esposito could not score more then 81 points

So, to recap

-Esposito's stats in Chicago are terrible
-Esposito's stats in NY are terrible
-Esposito's stats in 1968 with a 1 leg 1 arm Orr are well below his peak

 

[Michael Farkas]

"Player outside of prime and in less firewagon conditions doesn't continue to break goals and points records."

Kthx for this incite...uh...insight...

 

[JackSlater]

-In 1968 with a hurt busted up Bobby Orr who played under 50 games, Esposito put up 84 points. With a healthy Orr he put up 127+ points in 6 of the next 7 years

-Without Orr in Chicago Esposito could not put up more then 61 points in a season

-Without Orr in NY Esposito could not score more then 81 points

So, to recap

-Esposito's stats in Chicago are terrible
-Esposito's stats in NY are terrible
-Esposito's stats in 1968 with a 1 leg 1 arm Orr are well below his peak

Somehow you ignored this - Esposito was twice a top ten scorer with Chicago. His stats were by no means terrible. Esposito was the NHL's second leading scorer in 1968, and yet you are using that season as a negative against him. In his first two New York seasons he was a top 20 scorer in the NHL, with only one player older than him in the whole league who outscored him. The next year he was eighth in goals. He was the leading scorer on his team in each of those years (with no Bobby Orr type player around) so we can't say he was being boosted by anyone.Esposito's resume surrounding his peak years looks like that of a HHOF level player who was on his way up in 1968 and gracefully aging in 1977.

 

[PenguinSpeed]

Somehow you ignored this - Esposito was twice a top ten scorer with Chicago. His stats were by no means terrible. Esposito was the NHL's second leading scorer in 1968, and yet you are using that season as a negative against him. In his first two New York seasons he was a top 20 scorer in the NHL, with only one player older than him in the whole league who outscored him. The next year he was eighth in goals. He was the leading scorer on his team in each of those years (with no Bobby Orr type player around) so we can't say he was being boosted by anyone.Esposito's resume surrounding his peak years looks like that of a HHOF level player who was on his way up in 1968 and gracefully aging in 1977.

-My response was clear. There is nothing impressive about finishing top 10 in the NHL in goals. Anders Lee finished 7th in goals this year, and literally no one cares or will remember because it isnt impressive. And the league is 5 times bigger today then 1950

 

[JackSlater]

-My response was clear. There is nothing impressive about finishing top 10 in the NHL in goals. Anders Lee finished 7th in goals this year, and literally no one cares or will remember because it isnt impressive. And the league is 5 times bigger today then 1950

So to be clear, there is nothing impressive about finishing top ten in goals. In fact it is terrible, by your previous post. And this is at the age of 37, when Esposito was the sixth oldest player in the NHL. That's an interesting, though ridiculous, stance to take.

 

[Michael Farkas]

To be fair, Anders Lee has a track record of routinely leading the league in goals and breaking records...so...it's uh, it's totally relevant...well thought out too...

Yet, strangely, I'm thankful I never would have thought of it...

 

[McFlash97]

Currently what McDavid is doing for another few seasons perhaps increase his scoring lead further plus a cup.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Gretzky from 81-87 was on another planet than every player in the league.
Lemieux 89-96 was a similar situation.
Lemieux was essentially another Gretzky out there. The difference is Lemieux came into his peak not only having to face a still young Gretzky in his mid/late twenties. But also a huge flourish of European talent.
Injuries are what held Mario back.

199 points in 76 games
46 game point streak
44 point playoff
160 in 60
161 in 70 in a 6.29 gpg league!

Imagine if a 22-26 year old Gretzky had to compete with a 26-30 year old Lemieux?

87-88



88-89
Lemieux 199
Gretzky 168

Now can someone answer me this question.?

Is it a coincidence that the moment Lemieux got Coffey full time for a season (88-89) he sky rocketed to 199 points in 76 games (209 over 82)
While Gretzky scored 168 points after leaving his hof team? Don’t tell me Gretzky was out of his prime. He was 27 for majority of the season.:: Lemieux got ONE of the oilers weapons and immediately took a dump on Gretzky.... and like I said Gretzky was fresh off a 43 point in 19 game playoff so don’t tell me he wasent prime.

 

[blogofmike]

You are being purposely obtuse. The two teams in question had the same net proceeds - 59 goals from their PP.

Both have the same amount of dollars in this case $59.

That one does not spend wisely choosing to spend more on taxable/deposit groceries(soft drinks requiring a container deposit) than the other does(juices without a container deposit) it does not change the fact that both started with a an identical net.Referencing Quebec provincial legislation.

Effectively, the SHA are part of the opposition strategy countering the 59 PP goals. Fact remains that in both instances 59 was the net number of goals that had to be countered. Different teams simply used different strategies, a concept which escapes you.

Apologies for the delay, but it's an increasingly busy time for me.

Anyways, within the analogy you started, the 59 PP goals are not at all NET REVENUE. They are GROSS REVENUE.

But if it be the official opinion of C58 that the 77 Barons PP was as good and as valuable as the 77 Habs, let it be.

 

[blogofmike]

Gretzky from 81-87 was on another planet than every player in the league.
Lemieux 89-96 was a similar situation.
Lemieux was essentially another Gretzky out there. The difference is Lemieux came into his peak not only having to face a still young Gretzky in his mid/late twenties. But also a huge flourish of European talent.
Injuries are what held Mario back.

199 points in 76 games
46 game point streak
44 point playoff
160 in 60
161 in 70 in a 6.29 gpg league!

Imagine if a 22-26 year old Gretzky had to compete with a 26-30 year old Lemieux?

87-88



88-89
Lemieux 199
Gretzky 168

Now can someone answer me this question.?

Is it a coincidence that the moment Lemieux got Coffey full time for a season (88-89) he sky rocketed to 199 points in 76 games (209 over 82)
While Gretzky scored 168 points after leaving his hof team? Don’t tell me Gretzky was out of his prime. He was 27 for majority of the season.:: Lemieux got ONE of the oilers weapons and immediately took a dump on Gretzky.... and like I said Gretzky was fresh off a 43 point in 19 game playoff so don’t tell me he wasent prime.

Lemieux played on a team with a million PPO. Believe it or not Mario's raw Even Strength scoring totals never surpassed a peak Guy Lafleur. From 1982-87 Gretzky was 20-45 ES points better than Lemieux's best year.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Apologies for the delay, but it's an increasingly busy time for me.

Anyways, within the analogy you started, the 59 PP goals are not at all NET REVENUE. They are GROSS REVENUE.

But if it be the official opinion of C58 that the 77 Barons PP was as good and as valuable as the 77 Habs, let it be.

Really.

Worker A earns $100.00 GROSS pay before payroll deductions. After payroll deductions the NET take home pay is $59.00.

Worker B earns $90.00 GROSS pay before payroll deductions. After payroll deductions the NET take home pay is $59.00.

Effectively each has $59.00 for life essentials. That one wastes more, like the Barons, is neither here nor there.

Specifically, in terms of hockey, to overcome the NET of 59 goals opposing teams have to have coaching and playing strategies.

One such strategy may be scoring on the PK, variable success depending on the opposition. This variable factor does not change the reality that the overall strategy has to total at least the NET 59 goals to be successful.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Lemieux played on a team with a million PPO. Believe it or not Mario's raw Even Strength scoring totals never surpassed a peak Guy Lafleur. From 1982-87 Gretzky was 20-45 ES points better than Lemieux's best year.

That’s all nice and dandy but pp points count for just the same last time I checked? And also when did lafleur ever score 102 Ev points in a season or 92 ev points in only 60 games?

 

[daver]

Now can someone answer me this question.?

Is it a coincidence that the moment Lemieux got Coffey full time for a season (88-89) he sky rocketed to 199 points in 76 games (209 over 82)
While Gretzky scored 168 points after leaving his hof team? Don’t tell me Gretzky was out of his prime. He was 27 for majority of the season.:: Lemieux got ONE of the oilers weapons and immediately took a dump on Gretzky.... and like I said Gretzky was fresh off a 43 point in 19 game playoff so don’t tell me he wasent prime.

Can you answer me this question:

What does this have to do with the OP?

 

[daver]

Lemieux played on a team with a million PPO. Believe it or not Mario's raw Even Strength scoring totals never surpassed a peak Guy Lafleur. From 1982-87 Gretzky was 20-45 ES points better than Lemieux's best year.

I am sure this is not an argument for Mario not being in the Big Four but who cares what the ES vs. PP breakdown was? Does it change the actual results? It looks like Mario was certainly more reliant on PP points moreso than Wayne was and perhaps accordingly, perhaps not, Wayne hit his peak/prime faster than Mario and stayed closer to his peak. Hard to say for certain given Mario's injuries after his 88/89 season.

If one wants to devalue Mario's peak seasons and playoffs because of PP points, then one should acknowledge that Mario's clear advantage on the PP put him at a significantly higher level than Wayne in their 30s.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Can you answer me this question:

What does this have to do with the OP?

Really daver? Your going to attack me after all the times we’ve fought side by side in battle lol?

 

[GuineaPig]

I am sure this is not an argument for Mario not being in the Big Four but who cares what the ES vs. PP breakdown was? Does it change the actual results? It looks like Mario was certainly more reliant on PP points moreso than Wayne was and perhaps accordingly, perhaps not, Wayne hit his peak/prime faster than Mario and stayed closer to his peak. Hard to say for certain given Mario's injuries after his 88/89 season.

If one wants to devalue Mario's peak seasons and playoffs because of PP points, then one should acknowledge that Mario's clear advantage on the PP put him at a significantly higher level than Wayne in their 30s.

It does change the actual results (to me at least). Players by and large don't control how many PP opportunities their team gets. So not only might player A score more points than player B because his team gets more PP chances, but player A might also score more points than some player C two decades later because player C plays in a league where fewer penalties in general get called.

I mean surely you'd think it wouldn't be fair to compare two goalies' stats without looking at how many powerplays they face?

I'm not saying that PP ability shouldn't or doesn't count. But there's certainly an argument to be made that powerplay production isn't worth the same as EV production; or comparing between eras isn't as transferable

 

[The Panther]

The PP/ES points thing is interesting.

I am not sure where I stand on that. On the one hand, all points count equally, so who cares? Mario's teams got a disproportionate number of PP-opportunities and he took advantage, as he should. And no doubt it is Mario himself who drew a disproportionate number of those penalties which benefited his team (witness the famous goal in Quebec -- maybe the greatest NHL goal ever -- where the defender basically jumps on top of Lemieux, mugs him, cuts off his breathing, covers his eyes, cuts his stick in half with a chainsaw, unties his laces... and Mario still scores). So it is all the same, in the end.

On the other hand, as mentioned above, teams cannot control how many PPs they get and when. And usually there are fewer PP-opportunities in the playoffs, when it really counts. Gretzky was scoring, at times, 65 goals and 165 points in a season if he had never taken a PP-shift all year! (He was still the highest-scoring player of the 80s if he'd never been on a single power-play the entire decade). That kind of ES dominance does seem important, and here's why: It means, for example, that Gretzky could push the 1st-year Oilers into a playoff spot (barely) in 1979-80, and he could do the same in 1980-81 (he was +41 on a losing team). It also shows how much Gretzky could make every other player on the ice dangerous, in any situation, not only on power-plays.

So, I dunno. At times in NHL history -- like the 70s/80s/90s -- there were a lot more PPs than today, but they weren't always equally distributed. It's a difficult point by which to compare individual players, and maybe not a hugely significant one, but I do think if I have a choice I'd prefer the guy who I know can tilt the ice at ES more so than on the PP.

 

[blogofmike]

Really.

Worker A earns $100.00 GROSS pay before payroll deductions. After payroll deductions the NET take home pay is $59.00.

Worker B earns $90.00 GROSS pay before payroll deductions. After payroll deductions the NET take home pay is $59.00.

Effectively each has $59.00 for life essentials. That one wastes more, like the Barons, is neither here nor there.

Specifically, in terms of hockey, to overcome the NET of 59 goals opposing teams have to have coaching and playing strategies.

One such strategy may be scoring on the PK, variable success depending on the opposition. This variable factor does not change the reality that the overall strategy has to total at least the NET 59 goals to be successful.

Net goals are measured in goals. PP Goals - SH Goals = Net PP Goals.

The Barons worked more hours over the same time period. In doing so they incurred costs. Their gross (PPG) was equal. The net (PPG-SHG) wasn't. Comparing hours to dollars is apples to oranges. Try apples to apples instead. Or dollars to dollars. Or goals to goals.

 

[authentic]

Gretzky from 81-87 was on another planet than every player in the league.
Lemieux 89-96 was a similar situation.
Lemieux was essentially another Gretzky out there. The difference is Lemieux came into his peak not only having to face a still young Gretzky in his mid/late twenties. But also a huge flourish of European talent.
Injuries are what held Mario back.

199 points in 76 games
46 game point streak
44 point playoff
160 in 60
161 in 70 in a 6.29 gpg league!

Imagine if a 22-26 year old Gretzky had to compete with a 26-30 year old Lemieux?

87-88



88-89
Lemieux 199
Gretzky 168

Now can someone answer me this question.?

Is it a coincidence that the moment Lemieux got Coffey full time for a season (88-89) he sky rocketed to 199 points in 76 games (209 over 82)
While Gretzky scored 168 points after leaving his hof team? Don’t tell me Gretzky was out of his prime. He was 27 for majority of the season.:: Lemieux got ONE of the oilers weapons and immediately took a dump on Gretzky.... and like I said Gretzky was fresh off a 43 point in 19 game playoff so don’t tell me he wasent prime.

Lemieux was a better player. Gretzky had a better career.

 

[authentic]

Lemieux played on a team with a million PPO. Believe it or not Mario's raw Even Strength scoring totals never surpassed a peak Guy Lafleur. From 1982-87 Gretzky was 20-45 ES points better than Lemieux's best year.

On a per game basis they did.

 

[blogofmike]

That’s all nice and dandy but pp points count for just the same last time I checked? And also when did lafleur ever score 102 Ev points in a season or 92 ev points in only 60 games?

1976-77. 104 ES points. Highest non-Gretzky ES point total ever. Which ties him for 7th or something, but still good.

92 in 60 is astounding. 92 as a number is less so in context. Lemieux was more efficient than 88 Gretzky (91 in 64). But in 88 Gretzky was the only player who had over 75 ES points. In 1993, Lemieux was one of a record 9 who had 75+. No 80s year had that.

And a PP goal counts on the scoreboard the same. But in terms of assessing value, it is more likely that a PP goal would have been scored anyways.

Case in point, Randy Carlyle 1981. Wins a Norris because Pittsburgh has a ton of PPO and he racks up 46, enough for 3rd place overall in PP points, only 7 back of Gretzky and Kent Nilsson. Having an extra PPO per game let him earn a sliver of separation from Denis Potvin, who helped the Isles have the most efficient PP and was generally better at everything, but now we are wondering why he didn't get Norris attention.