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

[Midnight Judges]

There seems to be people in this thread who think scoring 200 points in 1984 is the same as scoring 200 points in 2012.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

There seems to be people in this thread who think scoring 200 points in 1984 is the same as scoring 200 points in 2012.

Era adjusting goes out the window when talking the Big 4. you either match/beat their numbers/trophies or you dont

 

[JackSlater]

I think that nearly all reasonable people don't require a scoring forward to match Gretzky's or Lemieux's raw point totals in this scoring environment in order to be considered on their level as a scorer. Matching their relative advantage over the field however (allow for non-Canadian competition if desired, though in some ways it isn't necessary) and demonstrating the ability to consistently remain clearly above all of the other scorers is necessary. If McDavid for instance goes on a run of 140-150 point seasons and has some extremely dominant playoff runs over that span then I would consider that pretty much Gretzky/Lemieux level as an offensive player.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Era adjusting goes out the window when talking the Big 4. you either match/beat their numbers/trophies or you dont

Trophies yes.

Numbers as in points and goals - that's not reasonable when scoring league wide is down by 30%+.

 

[overg]

Era adjusting goes out the window when talking the Big 4. you either match/beat their numbers/trophies or you dont

I don't think that's true. Ovechkin already gets plenty of consideration as the greatest goal scorer ever, despite still being well behind Gretzky's raw single season or career numbers. Context matters.

 

[bobholly39]

I think that nearly all reasonable people don't require a scoring forward to match Gretzky's or Lemieux's raw point totals in this scoring environment in order to be considered on their level as a scorer. Matching their relative advantage over the field however (allow for non-Canadian competition if desired, though in some ways it isn't necessary) and demonstrating the ability to consistently remain clearly above all of the other scorers is necessary. If McDavid for instance goes on a run of 140-150 point seasons and has some extremely dominant playoff runs over that span then I would consider that pretty much Gretzky/Lemieux level as an offensive player.

That's true, of course.

Although I will say this - even though I do consider myself a reasonable person - I'm still not convinced that if you bring a 1981 Wayne Gretzky or 1985 Mario Lemieux into today's NHL, that they don't blow it wide open, somehow, and still approach their raw totals.

It's just hard to reconcile the idea of Gretzky flirting with barely a 1 point per game - and on some nights, he hits 2. They're so talented, how could they not be scoring 2-3 points every night?

 

[daver]

That's true, of course.

Although I will say this - even though I do consider myself a reasonable person - I'm still not convinced that if you bring a 1981 Wayne Gretzky or 1985 Mario Lemieux into today's NHL, that they don't blow it wide open, somehow, and still approach their raw totals.

It's just hard to reconcile the idea of Gretzky flirting with barely a 1 point per game - and on some nights, he hits 2. They're so talented, how could they not be scoring 2-3 points every night?

I think Jagr was a pretty good measure of what happens to one of the most talented offensive players in NHL history other than Wayne and Mario, who was given free reign to maximize their offensive production and tons of PP time, who played in a variety of scoring environments.

At least one of seasons (95/96) was played in close to 80s/early '90s level of scoring (38 of the Top 50 scorers were a PPG or better) and he had a 1.82 PPG (arguably boosted a bit by Mario). The next year scoring was down (24 of the Top 50 scorers were a PPG or better) and Jagr's PPG was 1.51. Two years later, scoring was way down (13 of the Top 50 scorers were a PPG or better) and Jagr's PPG dipped to 1.32. In 98/99, there were 14 PPG or better players and Jagr's PPG was 1.57. The year after that there were 16 PPG or better players and Jagr's PPG was 1.52, and in 00/01 there were 26 PPG players or better, and Jagr's PPG was 1.49.

The last five seasons has seen the # of PPG or better in the Top 50:

13/14 - 11
14/15 - 8
15/16 - 6
16/17 - 8
17/18 - 20

The # of PPs called has a major influence on scoring levels and that ES scoring has become clearly more difficult from the '80s to today. I know that people will argue that Wayne was more of an ES scorer than Mario was and we be more immune to that dynamic but we really have no idea of either of those player's would do in the current league.

My best guess is that they would lose some of their dominance as their simply is more parity. I argue that their playoff #'s are a much better indicator of how they would fare in today's league given its tighter checking and higher level of competition.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

McDavid perhaps.

The way he drives and creates offense at Even Strength is something unlike Sidney Crosby did in his prime. If he can do what he's done at Even Strength and rack up the PPP, who knows what kind of offensive seasons he will accumulate throughout his career.

 

[daver]

McDavid perhaps.

The way he drives and creates offense at Even Strength is something unlike Sidney Crosby did in his prime. If he can do what he's done at Even Strength and rack up the PPP, who knows what kind of offensive seasons he will accumulate throughout his career.

At his peak, Crosby was dominating at ES. From 2010/11 to 2013, his ESG PPG was 1.21, 55% better than Stamkos at 0.78. Over a larger sample, from 09/10 to 13/14, his ESG PPG 0.96 vs. 0.74 for Stamkos, a 30% difference.

McDavid's ESG PPG over the last two seasons is .95 vs. .78 for Kucherov.

 

[Canadiens1958]

At his peak, Crosby was dominating at ES. From 2010/11 to 2013, his ESG PPG was 1.21, 55% better than Stamkos at 0.78. Over a larger sample, from 09/10 to 13/14, his ESG PPG 0.96 vs. 0.74 for Stamkos, a 30% difference.

McDavid's ESG PPG over the last two seasons is .95 vs. .78 for Kucherov.

BTW Crosby over the last two seasons is at 0.733.

 

[daver]

BTW Crosby over the last two seasons is at 0.733.

And?

 

[psycat]

While you are right about the defenceman part the Crosby part is totally irrelevant as he is still miles from the big 4, 5th or not(in my opinion he is not all that close to 5th either but let's say he is)

Crosby has a career 1.29 ppg as a point producing center and is on the cusp of 5th all time.

If a defenseman in this era had a 1.25 career ppg he'd likely be unanimous #1 let alone part of big 4.

5 Hart + 5 Ross + 2 rockets for a defenseman....again forget the big 4 you're talking #1 by a LOT.

Defensemen don't usually win Hart trophies. I agree to break into the big 4 you'd need some but 5 is a lot. And 5 Ross? 2 rockets?

You're simply setting the bar way way too high.

Also regarding the AS1 - there's a lot more competition in today's era for those. Look at McDavid. He could win 8 art Ross in his career yet still end up with only 5-6 AS1. You have to take this into account when comparing AS across eras

 

[Panthera]

That's true, of course.

Although I will say this - even though I do consider myself a reasonable person - I'm still not convinced that if you bring a 1981 Wayne Gretzky or 1985 Mario Lemieux into today's NHL, that they don't blow it wide open, somehow, and still approach their raw totals.

It's just hard to reconcile the idea of Gretzky flirting with barely a 1 point per game - and on some nights, he hits 2. They're so talented, how could they not be scoring 2-3 points every night?

I mean, there's a world of difference between 200 points and 82 points. Thinking Gretzky would struggle with being a point per game player today is crazy, but you can believe he wouldn't put up 215 today without thinking he'd barely hit 100. If hypothetical Gretzky played today and put up 140-150 points, he'd be blowing the competition away to a similar degree as what he did back in the 80s, so I think it's fair to say if another player were to hit those totals, they'd be rivaling Gretzky's dominance (assuming it was as a result of just dominating the league, not some sort of rule change causing scoring to skyrocket for everyone, obviously).

 

[ozzie]

To be honest, players are held more accountable on the ice than ever before. Shorter shifts, more effort, more defensive awareness and responsibility. Throw coaches, systems and goaltenders on top of that and its going to be very difficult. Players like Lemieux , Bure, Brett Hull for example were allowed to cherry pick / float beyond what would be acceptable now. Lemieux in particular often waited at the red line or the other teams blue line for the puck. All while his team was back in their own end.

That style of play, that special player, it worked. I doubt it would work today.

First step for someone to break into the top 4 or make it a solid 5, is for fans and historians to temper their expectations and move on. Those lofty scoring totals of the old eras aren't returning in the foreseeable future; at least where the game is now.

People can bang on Crosby as much as they want, but he is probably in the best position to accomplish this feat. He potentially has a lot of hockey in front of him (hopefully). He has done a pretty good job meeting his pre-draft hype. To some degree the same could be said about Ovechkin.

I kind of feel Crosby is starting to compare closer to Howe, whilst Ovechkin is the modern era version of Bobby Hull.

Anyhow reduce expectations, deal with the fact that scoring today is harder than the past, 110-120 points maybe be the next 150 point barrier. Compare elite players to their peers.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I agree with the poster who said we'll know it when we see it.

Crosby never looked like a Top 4, or for way too short a window.Him, Lindros, you could believe they had a (small) shot at becoming a Top 4 after 2-3 years into their career, but they didn't.McDavid could hit another level and surprise us, but I'm not holding my breathe.

I'm still waiting for a Lemieux type of prospect to come along.Is it even possible to develop individual skills to that extent in the minor and junior system?

 

[daver]

I agree with the poster who said we'll know it when we see it.

Crosby never looked like a Top 4, or for way too short a window.Him, Lindros, you could believe they had a (small) shot at becoming a Top 4 after 2-3 years into their career, but they didn't.McDavid could hit another level and surprise us, but I'm not holding my breathe.

I'm still waiting for a Lemieux type of prospect to come along.Is it even possible to develop individual skills to that extent in the minor and junior system?

We also may know it if we don't see it. The change in league dynamics has made it quite difficult to compare players from different eras, as this thread clearly shows. If we don't see a real Big Four challenger using the metrics we apply currently in the 20, 30 or 40 years, then perhaps the careers of very best players of that time frame need to be reevaluated.

Crosby was very close to being on the same level as an offensive prospect as Mario and Wayne prior to being drafted. He was a prodigy in every sense from a very early age. That has translated into a career that is arguably pacing for #5 and an offensive ceiling, that ,at best, could have been the clear #4 best by a forward; at worst, is arguably on the same level as anyone not in the Big 4.

But he did not follow up on his dominant pre-NHL career in the way that Wayne and Mario did.

Is it simply not possible to dominate the league like they did given the change in dynamics mentioned in the post above? The numbers being produced by the very best offensive players point to significant changes to the league since the 1980's. I said that Crosby may not dominate with absurd offensive numbers but could make his mark with championships. So far he is doing pretty well on that front.

Was Crosby more NHL ready development-wise and/or physically than Mario and Wayne were and did not have that extra level to reach? Possibly, Crosby was being groomed for the NHL since age 7.

McDavid was also a prodigy and dominant in the junior and has the best 18 year old start to a career since Crosby. It will be interesting to see he hits significantly higher numbers once he its his traditional peak like Wayne and Mario, or like Crosby, he has hit close to his peak production earlier due to being almost fully developed by age 18.

 

[danincanada]

To be honest, players are held more accountable on the ice than ever before. Shorter shifts, more effort, more defensive awareness and responsibility. Throw coaches, systems and goaltenders on top of that and its going to be very difficult. Players like Lemieux , Bure, Brett Hull for example were allowed to cherry pick / float beyond what would be acceptable now. Lemieux in particular often waited at the red line or the other teams blue line for the puck. All while his team was back in their own end.

That style of play, that special player, it worked. I doubt it would work today.

First step for someone to break into the top 4 or make it a solid 5, is for fans and historians to temper their expectations and move on. Those lofty scoring totals of the old eras aren't returning in the foreseeable future; at least where the game is now.

People can bang on Crosby as much as they want, but he is probably in the best position to accomplish this feat. He potentially has a lot of hockey in front of him (hopefully). He has done a pretty good job meeting his pre-draft hype. To some degree the same could be said about Ovechkin.

I kind of feel Crosby is starting to compare closer to Howe, whilst Ovechkin is the modern era version of Bobby Hull.

Anyhow reduce expectations, deal with the fact that scoring today is harder than the past, 110-120 points maybe be the next 150 point barrier. Compare elite players to their peers.

Great post, until the very last sentence.

I could write a book about the problems that will inevitably occur if we just do peer to peer comparisons because Hockey and the NHL have not been stagnant in terms of truly elite players over their history. Although very difficult, and probably even impossible to do it fairly, if one is to compare elite players across vastly different eras some sort of context has to be added regarding where Hockey and the league were at during each era. This section is mostly slanted in favour of past eras for obvious reasons and most younger fans are slanted the other way so the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Anyhow reduce expectations, deal with the fact that scoring today is harder than the past, 110-120 points maybe be the next 150 point barrier.

so what we’re saying is there’s not even an yzerman in today’s game?

 

[bobbyking]

Hockey is the only sport where it literally changed the way it is played over time. Play in the system is so lame And the salary cap means no weak teams. If players like turgeon oates and Nicholls can score 120 - 140 pts it just shows exactly that.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Hockey is the only sport where it literally changed the way it is played over time. Play in the system is so lame And the salary cap means no weak teams. If players like turgeon oates and Nicholls can score 120 - 140 pts it just shows exactly that.

Football, with a salary cap for app 25 seasons, went from a one to a multi-platoon sport,jigging the rules constantly.Weighed schedule,yet had a winless team last year.

Basketball,likewise with a salary cap, introduced many changes to the pro game since 1947. 24 second clock, three point shoot, 3 second rule, etc.Hockey has always kept the one goal concept.

Baseball, multiple rule changes.No salary cap. Height of the mound lowered, designated hitter - no designated scorer in hockey. Banned the spitball,other rules to generate offence.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

hell, basketball is basically unrecognizable from, like, five years ago

 

[daver]

so what we’re saying is there’s not even an yzerman in today’s game?

Since the mid-70s, only Jagr put up a full season that was on the same level offensively as Yzerman's 88/89 season. Malkin and Crosby had the talent to put up a season like Yzerman's 88/89. Malkin's 11/12 was as close as you can get but he missed a few games. McDavid seems primed to reach that level. I would say that 120 -125 points in last year's league would be close.

 

[Plural]

Since the mid-70s, only Jagr put up a full season that was on the same level offensively as Yzerman's 88/89 season. Malkin and Crosby had the talent to put up a season like Yzerman's 88/89. Malkin's 11/12 was as close as you can get but he missed a few games. McDavid seems primed to reach that level. I would say that 120 -125 points in last year's league would be close.

For a guy who's so in to peer separation, I find it weird that you say this. Are you honestly of the opinion that Nicholls is almost at the same level?

 

[daver]

For a guy who's so in to peer separation, I find it weird that you say this. Are you honestly of the opinion that Nicholls is almost at the same level?

Since I did not give that opinion, I am not sure why you went here.

I was responding to the remarks about what level of scoring in today's league would be viewed as being the equivalent of 150 points/Yzerman's peak season in the '80s/90s. IMO, noone has put up a season like Yzerman's since except for Jagr in 98/99; one that stood out statistically from their peers and their teammates. OV's goalscoring exploits in 07/08 arguably make up for the lack of a similarly dominant point total, Malkin needed a few more games to clearly establish his, and Crosby could not finish off the two seasons where he was lapping the field by the halfway mark.

 

[Plural]

Since I did not give that opinion, I am not sure why you went here.

I was responding to the remarks about what level of scoring in today's league would be viewed as being the equivalent of 150 points/Yzerman's peak season in the '80s/90s. IMO, noone has put up a season like Yzerman's since except for Jagr in 98/99; one that stood out statistically from their peers and their teammates. OV's goalscoring exploits in 07/08 arguably make up for the lack of a similarly dominant point total, Malkin needed a few more games to clearly establish his, and Crosby could not finish off the two seasons where he was lapping the field by the halfway mark.

You ever consider the idea that you're being way too anal about the scoring levels compared to context?