When Did You Start To Notice A Slip In Gretzky's Game

[Never]

I'm only 30 so I noticed it around when he was dealt to St. Louis.

 

[mcauliffe]

There is a slip in Gretzky's game in '86-87. Was he still phenomenal? Yes. The best player in the game? Of course. But I remember he wasn't the same as he was the preceding five years, and the game log tells the same story. More pointless nights, more one token assist nights, and a late season swoon that was a slump by his standards.

The 75 points scoring lead? Super impressive, but Mario did miss 17 games that season. His stats over 80 games prorate to 68-67-135. Gretzky still wins by 48 points (and without Coffey for a quarter of the season), but 48 points is not the 70-80 points scoring gaps he enjoyed from 82 to 86. More importantly, Mario would have won the goal scoring title, something unthinkable before unless the usurpator was Gretz's own right-winger.
The Oilers were starting to slip. Yes, they won the Cup whereas they didn't the year before, but they were less dominant in the regular season (13 points drop.) The Flames, the Flyers, and the Adams division (except Québec) gave them fits all year long. And internally, the foundations were starting to crack. It wouldn't get out in the open until the following summer, but Coffey was clearly fed up with Slats, and Gretzky was starting to question him as well.
To some, Gretzky's best year was '87. That's clearly not the way I remember it. He was still amazing, and it says a lot about the talent on that team that they would win two more cups, but the OP thread asks when we STARTED to see a slip in Gretzky's game. And to me, that year is '86-87.

 

[The Panther]

There is a slip in Gretzky's game in '86-87. Was he still phenomenal? Yes. The best player in the game? Of course. But I remember he wasn't the same as he was the preceding five years, and the game log tells the same story. More pointless nights, more one token assist nights, and a late season swoon that was a slump by his standards.

I get what you're saying about the 'beginning' of a slip, but it's like saying Orr "slipped" in 1971-72 because he wasn't +124.

When you win the scoring race by the largest margin ever, lead the league in goals, assists, and points, and captain a team to 1st overall, is there any standard by which we can call it a "slip"?

Could it not be possible that the Oilers were simply (a bit) more focused on defence in 1986-87 after their elimination by Calgary? Edmonton's goals-for dropped from 426 to 372 (-54), while their goals-against reduced from 310 to 284 (+26). In 1986-87, despite the team's -54 offense, Gretzky scored 10 more goals than the previous season and had the same plus/minus. He scored a point on 49.2% of Edmonton's goals, compared to 50.5% the year before -- hardly a significant difference.

More importantly, Mario would have won the goal scoring title

Might have won the goal-scoring title. 68 to 62 is hardly a big difference, and I think Gretzky would have been more motivated if there had actually been a real scoring 'race' that season. Instead, he kind of coasted out of the end of the season, waiting for the playoffs.

...something unthinkable before unless the usurpator was Gretz's own right-winger.

Not really. In 1986, Gretzky was 'only' 6th in goals.

 

[mcauliffe]

I get what you're saying about the 'beginning' of a slip, but it's like saying Orr "slipped" in 1971-72 because he wasn't +124.

When you win the scoring race by the largest margin ever, lead the league in goals, assists, and points, and captain a team to 1st overall, is there any standard by which we can call it a "slip"?

Could it not be possible that the Oilers were simply (a bit) more focused on defence in 1986-87 after their elimination by Calgary? Edmonton's goals-for dropped from 426 to 372 (-54), while their goals-against reduced from 310 to 284 (+26). In 1986-87, despite the team's -54 offense, Gretzky scored 10 more goals than the previous season and had the same plus/minus. He scored a point on 49.2% of Edmonton's goals, compared to 50.5% the year before -- hardly a significant difference.

Might have won the goal-scoring title. 68 to 62 is hardly a big difference, and I think Gretzky would have been more motivated if there had actually been a real scoring 'race' that season. Instead, he kind of coasted out of the end of the season, waiting for the playoffs.

Not really. In 1986, Gretzky was 'only' 6th in goals.

Sorry, I don't know how to slice quotes the way you do.

By which standards we can call it a slip? By the standards established by the absolute greatest player of all-time: four 200-points seasons in a five-year period.
If challenged by Mario, Gretz would have ratchetted-up his goal-scoring: you might be right about that one.
Coasting at the end of the season: the absolute greatest player of all-time was in part the absolute greatest player of all-time because he NEVER coasted.
About '86: Gretz made it clear in his autobiography that he was gunning for two assists per game (you know, easy stuff.) That's why he left goals on table. Different story in '87. That team was not having it as easy as it did before.

 

[mcauliffe]

I get what you're saying about the 'beginning' of a slip, but it's like saying Orr "slipped" in 1971-72 because he wasn't +124.

When you win the scoring race by the largest margin ever, lead the league in goals, assists, and points, and captain a team to 1st overall, is there any standard by which we can call it a "slip"?

Could it not be possible that the Oilers were simply (a bit) more focused on defence in 1986-87 after their elimination by Calgary? Edmonton's goals-for dropped from 426 to 372 (-54), while their goals-against reduced from 310 to 284 (+26). In 1986-87, despite the team's -54 offense, Gretzky scored 10 more goals than the previous season and had the same plus/minus. He scored a point on 49.2% of Edmonton's goals, compared to 50.5% the year before -- hardly a significant difference.

Might have won the goal-scoring title. 68 to 62 is hardly a big difference, and I think Gretzky would have been more motivated if there had actually been a real scoring 'race' that season. Instead, he kind of coasted out of the end of the season, waiting for the playoffs.

Not really. In 1986, Gretzky was 'only' 6th in goals.

Sorry, I don't know how to slice quotes the way you do.

By which standards we can call it a slip? By the standards established by the absolute greatest player of all-time: four 200-points seasons in a five-year period.
If challenged by Mario, Gretz would have ratchetted-up his goal-scoring: you might be right about that one.
Coasting at the end of the season: the absolute greatest player of all-time was in part the absolute greatest player of all-time because he NEVER coasted.
About '86: Gretz made it clear in his autobiography that he was gunning for two assists per game (you know, easy stuff.) That's why he left goals on table. Different story in '87. That team was not having it as easy as it did before.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Sorry, I don't know how to slice quotes the way you do.

With [ quote ] at the beginning of each sentence or paragraph you want to slice and [ /quote ] at the end of each. Without the spaces within the brackets of course


So it would look like this as you're typing it...

[ QUOTE=mcauliffe;106256373 ]Sorry, I don't know how to slice quotes the way you do.

By which standards we can call it a slip?[ /quote ]

Bla bla bla....

[ quote ]By the standards established by the absolute greatest player of all-time: four 200-points seasons in a five-year period.[ /quote ]

Bla bla bla....

[ quote ]If challenged by Mario, Gretz would have ratchetted-up his goal-scoring: you might be right about that one.
Coasting at the end of the season: the absolute greatest player of all-time was in part the absolute greatest player of all-time because he NEVER coasted.
About '86: Gretz made it clear in his autobiography that he was gunning for two assists per game (you know, easy stuff.) That's why he left goals on table. Different story in '87. That team was not having it as easy as it did before.[ /QUOTE ]

Bla bla bla...

And ends up like this...

Sorry, I don't know how to slice quotes the way you do.

By which standards we can call it a slip?

Bla bla bla....

By the standards established by the absolute greatest player of all-time: four 200-points seasons in a five-year period.

Bla bla bla....

If challenged by Mario, Gretz would have ratchetted-up his goal-scoring: you might be right about that one.
Coasting at the end of the season: the absolute greatest player of all-time was in part the absolute greatest player of all-time because he NEVER coasted.
About '86: Gretz made it clear in his autobiography that he was gunning for two assists per game (you know, easy stuff.) That's why he left goals on table. Different story in '87. That team was not having it as easy as it did before.

Bla bla bla...

 

[mcauliffe]

With [ quote ] at the beginning of each sentence or paragraph you want to slice and [ /quote ] at the end of each. Without the spaces within the brackets of course

Thank you!

 

[Big Phil]

There is a slip in Gretzky's game in '86-87. Was he still phenomenal? Yes. The best player in the game? Of course. But I remember he wasn't the same as he was the preceding five years, and the game log tells the same story. More pointless nights, more one token assist nights, and a late season swoon that was a slump by his standards.

The 75 points scoring lead? Super impressive, but Mario did miss 17 games that season. His stats over 80 games prorate to 68-67-135. Gretzky still wins by 48 points (and without Coffey for a quarter of the season), but 48 points is not the 70-80 points scoring gaps he enjoyed from 82 to 86. More importantly, Mario would have won the goal scoring title, something unthinkable before unless the usurpator was Gretz's own right-winger.
The Oilers were starting to slip. Yes, they won the Cup whereas they didn't the year before, but they were less dominant in the regular season (13 points drop.) The Flames, the Flyers, and the Adams division (except Québec) gave them fits all year long. And internally, the foundations were starting to crack. It wouldn't get out in the open until the following summer, but Coffey was clearly fed up with Slats, and Gretzky was starting to question him as well.
To some, Gretzky's best year was '87. That's clearly not the way I remember it. He was still amazing, and it says a lot about the talent on that team that they would win two more cups, but the OP thread asks when we STARTED to see a slip in Gretzky's game. And to me, that year is '86-87.

See, I don't see it that way because of what we saw in the 1987 Canada Cup. He was phenomenal. Having 183 points compared to 200+ isn't really anything to get upset about. I'll agree the Oilers focused a little bit more on defense, but they were still pretty dominant offensively. They also led the NHL in points again. I really don't think they slipped but instead became more well rounded. If that sacrificed some offense it wasn't much.

The way I see it, Gretzky was probably the best around 1984 or 1985 because he scored goals AND got assists at levels no one else did. I don't think we understand just how hard it is to keep that pace up though, so when he was a 160+ guy on the Kings with not the same help as in Edmonton, I find that impressive too.

Let's remember one thing, in 1987 he still led the NHL in goals. He still had more assists - by far - than anyone had points. Maybe Mario missed 17 games, but even then he isn't close to Gretzky in the scoring race, and this is Mario Lemieux.

Many of us will say the best playoff he ever had was 1988. I also think his best season as a King was 1991. There really isn't a whole lot of difference between Gretzky in 1985 and in 1991. There isn't. The biggest difference is there was finally another generational talent as good as him by then (Lemieux).

 

[The Panther]

See, I don't see it that way because of what we saw in the 1987 Canada Cup. He was phenomenal.

I'm just gonna throw this out there...

I think Gretzky was better in the '91 Canada Cup than in the '87 Canada Cup!


[runs and hides]

 

[Killion]

I'm just gonna throw this out there...

I think Gretzky was better in the '91 Canada Cup than in the '87 Canada Cup!


[runs and hides]

.... I agree, concur. Just a whole bunch of supernatural intangibles brought to the game on top of his play in that series.

 

[mcauliffe]

See, I don't see it that way because of what we saw in the 1987 Canada Cup. He was phenomenal. Having 183 points compared to 200+ isn't really anything to get upset about. I'll agree the Oilers focused a little bit more on defense, but they were still pretty dominant offensively. They also led the NHL in points again. I really don't think they slipped but instead became more well rounded. If that sacrificed some offense it wasn't much.

The way I see it, Gretzky was probably the best around 1984 or 1985 because he scored goals AND got assists at levels no one else did. I don't think we understand just how hard it is to keep that pace up though, so when he was a 160+ guy on the Kings with not the same help as in Edmonton, I find that impressive too.

Let's remember one thing, in 1987 he still led the NHL in goals. He still had more assists - by far - than anyone had points. Maybe Mario missed 17 games, but even then he isn't close to Gretzky in the scoring race, and this is Mario Lemieux.

Many of us will say the best playoff he ever had was 1988. I also think his best season as a King was 1991. There really isn't a whole lot of difference between Gretzky in 1985 and in 1991. There isn't. The biggest difference is there was finally another generational talent as good as him by then (Lemieux).

With all due respect, I find it a bit convenient that you would use Lemieux as the only reason Gretzky didn't look as dominant in the late eighties, and then completely ignore the Lemieux factor when discussing the '87 Canada Cup. Yes, Wayne was phenomenal in that tournament. Still, there's no way he enjoys that kind of success if he doesn't play with Mario, and there's no way Canada wins that Cup if they don't play on the same line. And a great tournament doesn't mask the fact that he was slipping a bit. Sample size discussions aren't my cup of tea, but a ten game outburst does not make up for a 32 point decline, because reductio ad absurdum, you could make an argument that Gretzky was still as good in the '93 playoffs as he had ever been.

No one is upset that Gretzky got 183 instead of 200. It might have been the least significant 32 point drop in the history of the NHL. But again, I refer to the OP topic. When did we see a sign of decline? You wrote it yourself, you think his best years were '84 and '85. I'm willing to throw '86 in there as well. If you set out to get two assists per game and manage to do it in the most competitive hockey league in the world, you're still doing pretty much whatever you want. Gretz fell a bit short of those ridiculous standards in '87. He would never come close to them again.

The topic isn't who was the best player in the world in '87, or even if anybody else had ever had as good a season as Gretzky did in '87 up to that point (apart for maybe a couple Orr seasons, and Mr Hockey in '53, the answer is no.) The topic is when did Gretz start slipping. In '87, he was amazing, phenomenal, the best in the business. And he wasn't as good as he was before.

 

[The Panther]

Okay, I think we get what your thesis is -- 215 points to 183 is a "slip". And I suppose if you look at it only from the points perspective, it could be seen that way.

I personally don't see it that way. In fact, I've always thought Gretzky's 1985-86 is not one of his very best!

If we don't take playoffs into account, I'd rank his individual season performances as:
1) 1983-84
2) 1984-85
3) 1981-82
4) 1986-87 / 1982-83
5) 1985-86 / 1990-91

Goals were easier for the Oilers to come by in 1985-86 than in 1986-87. In fact, goals in the entire League were easier to come by in 1986 than in 1987 (for some reason). Even in his third season, Lemieux's pace in 1987 was slightly slower than in 1986.

1985-86 is one of the highest-scoring seasons in history, with the average team scoring 4.0 goals-per-game. 1986-87's stat is less than 3.7, which shows the overall drop -- it wasn't just Gretzky, or the Oilers; it was the whole NHL. Philadelphia scored fewer goals, Montreal (despite a better record) scored fewer goals, Calgary (despite a better record) scored fewer goals. Jari Kurri went from 131 points to 107; Paul Coffey from 1.75 PPG to 1.14 PPG, Glenn Anderson from 54 goals to 35. Did all these Oilers also "slip" suddenly at age 25/26? Or, did the team simply struggle out of the gate a bit (they were only 10W-8L-1T in the first 19 games) before picking up speed towards the end (and 40W-16L-5T the rest of the season)?

1985-86 is Gretzky's lowest goal-season between 1980 and 1988. It's the only season between 1981 and 1988 that he wasn't 1st or 2nd in plus/minus (he was 3rd). This doesn't sound like much, but consider that 1985-86 is the only year in Edmonton that Wayne was 'top-10' in on-ice goals-against (he was 5th 'worst' in the League, being on ice for a crazy 162 goals against). There were some crazy Oilers losses in 1985-86 that were sort-of premonitions of how they might lose their way in the playoffs (as they did). They lost a game 11-9 to Toronto -- Wayne had a hat-trick but it didn't help win the game on that night. They lost 9-3 to Calgary on the next-to-last night of the season. They won 12-9 over Chicago, but did it ugly, blowing a 6-0 lead in the process and nearly losing the game. They were slightly drunk on their own power in 1985-86, and this was (part of) their undoing in the playoffs.

So, Gretzky was back to 1st in goals (and assist, and points) and 1st in plus/minus in 1986-87, despite his team and the League being lower-scoring. He and the Oilers were more defensively responsible. In total goals on-ice for/against, Gretzky is +98 in 1986 but +107 in 1987.

Hard to see a slip here...

 

[blogofmike]

Okay, I think we get what your thesis is -- 215 points to 183 is a "slip". And I suppose if you look at it only from the points perspective, it could be seen that way.

I personally don't see it that way. In fact, I've always thought Gretzky's 1985-86 is not one of his very best!

If we don't take playoffs into account, I'd rank his individual season performances as:
1) 1983-84
2) 1984-85
3) 1981-82
4) 1986-87 / 1982-83
5) 1985-86 / 1990-91

Goals were easier for the Oilers to come by in 1985-86 than in 1986-87. In fact, goals in the entire League were easier to come by in 1986 than in 1987 (for some reason). Even in his third season, Lemieux's pace in 1987 was slightly slower than in 1986.

1985-86 is one of the highest-scoring seasons in history, with the average team scoring 4.0 goals-per-game. 1986-87's stat is less than 3.7, which shows the overall drop -- it wasn't just Gretzky, or the Oilers; it was the whole NHL. Philadelphia scored fewer goals, Montreal (despite a better record) scored fewer goals, Calgary (despite a better record) scored fewer goals. Jari Kurri went from 131 points to 107; Paul Coffey from 1.75 PPG to 1.14 PPG, Glenn Anderson from 54 goals to 35. Did all these Oilers also "slip" suddenly at age 25/26? Or, did the team simply struggle out of the gate a bit (they were only 10W-8L-1T in the first 19 games) before picking up speed towards the end (and 40W-16L-5T the rest of the season)?

1985-86 is Gretzky's lowest goal-season between 1980 and 1988. It's the only season between 1981 and 1988 that he wasn't 1st or 2nd in plus/minus (he was 3rd). This doesn't sound like much, but consider that 1985-86 is the only year in Edmonton that Wayne was 'top-10' in on-ice goals-against (he was 5th 'worst' in the League, being on ice for a crazy 162 goals against). There were some crazy Oilers losses in 1985-86 that were sort-of premonitions of how they might lose their way in the playoffs (as they did). They lost a game 11-9 to Toronto -- Wayne had a hat-trick but it didn't help win the game on that night. They lost 9-3 to Calgary on the next-to-last night of the season. They won 12-9 over Chicago, but did it ugly, blowing a 6-0 lead in the process and nearly losing the game. They were slightly drunk on their own power in 1985-86, and this was (part of) their undoing in the playoffs.

So, Gretzky was back to 1st in goals (and assist, and points) and 1st in plus/minus in 1986-87, despite his team and the League being lower-scoring. He and the Oilers were more defensively responsible. In total goals on-ice for/against, Gretzky is +98 in 1986 but +107 in 1987.

Hard to see a slip here...

By strict definition, any year after the #1 year on your list would count as a slip.

I do think the 84-85 season may have been better than the 83-84 season because of that 47 point playoff run, but you did not that the list was just regular season performance.

I stand by the 1991 Canada Cup being the biggest "slip" given the immediate impact on his numbers (especially his standard 100 ES point pace), and qualitatively, his skating (i.e. he stopped making the jump cut to the high slot, and he didn't keep his feet moving as much). But there are several little things that may have contributed.

But his game was changing before that. He was shooting less and passing more, especially on the powerplay. There no sure way to tell, but this may have started after 1984 if you use PPG : PPA ratios. Again, it's hard to call 1984-85 a decline overall.

The post-86 decline and 87-88 departure of Coffey hurt the Oilers PP (which dropped to 7th in 1987 and 1988 after years of either #1 or #2. Moving Gretzky to the point and sideboards worked wonders in the 88 playoffs).

You've previously noted the 87-88 knee injury.

He had less chemistry with his Kings teammates, who offered him seemingly random linemates under Ftorek, rather than the symbiotic relationship with Jari Kurri and Esa Tikkanen, and the Kings lacked the breakout passing of Coffey and the 80s Oilers in general.

He played less on the PK after 1990, but even after the Kings trade his aggressive PK style was still a sizable net benefit in 1989. Tom Webster preferred more traditional things like playing defensively on the PK though.

He went on a mini-slump after breaking Howe's points record in 89-90, and also had a back injury at the end of the year that limited him in the playoffs.

After McNall was caught on fraud charges in 1993 his team was mostly awful, so that didn't help. Aside from the 96-97 Rangers, the aging Gretzky played on very poor teams.

Also from 1988-89 through 1995-96 he had a goddamned aluminum stick. So the Easton sponsorship was like when Tiger Woods switched to Nike.

 

[DisgruntledGoat*]

Gretzky has talked about starting to get burned out in 1987. . .to the point where he considered skipping the Canada Cup and had to be convinced otherwise.

So I think, from that point of view, although you can quibble about whether or not 215 to 183 is a drop-off or not, its legit that as an observer, one might have been able to pick up 99's fatigue.

 

[DisgruntledGoat*]

but somehow you don't want to address my post, why is that I wonder?

I actually touched on the most glaring issue: the inability to separate fact from opinion but since you don't want to address that, yeah fine, I'll do it for you.

Actually the increase in injuries to elite players is really obvious to see

Here is an example of a personal observation which you are attempting to pass off as fact. Do you have any evidence to support this notion? No, okay then, its not fact.

as are the impact of heavier players colliding more often are higher speeds

Here I'd trot out the old line about correlation does not imply causation but you don't even have correlation as evidenced by the first half of this sentence.

Let's look at your original post on this subject:

The increasing physicality of the game from 1980 to 190 and beyond simply would have altered Gretzky's fortunes, to what degree we will never know but injuries to elite star players increased dramatically in the 90's compared to when Wayne entered the league plain and simple.

Bure, Lindros, Forsberg, Kariya, Neely....among many.

Orr, Cournoyer, Bossy, Hartsburg, Pederson, Redmond. . . picking a couple random examples is fun.

 

[Big Phil]

I'm just gonna throw this out there...

I think Gretzky was better in the '91 Canada Cup than in the '87 Canada Cup!


[runs and hides]

I've said that several times myself, although I always say that he was just as good, more or less, in 1991 than 1987.

With all due respect, I find it a bit convenient that you would use Lemieux as the only reason Gretzky didn't look as dominant in the late eighties, and then completely ignore the Lemieux factor when discussing the '87 Canada Cup. Yes, Wayne was phenomenal in that tournament. Still, there's no way he enjoys that kind of success if he doesn't play with Mario, and there's no way Canada wins that Cup if they don't play on the same line. And a great tournament doesn't mask the fact that he was slipping a bit. Sample size discussions aren't my cup of tea, but a ten game outburst does not make up for a 32 point decline, because reductio ad absurdum, you could make an argument that Gretzky was still as good in the '93 playoffs as he had ever been.

No one is upset that Gretzky got 183 instead of 200. It might have been the least significant 32 point drop in the history of the NHL. But again, I refer to the OP topic. When did we see a sign of decline? You wrote it yourself, you think his best years were '84 and '85. I'm willing to throw '86 in there as well. If you set out to get two assists per game and manage to do it in the most competitive hockey league in the world, you're still doing pretty much whatever you want. Gretz fell a bit short of those ridiculous standards in '87. He would never come close to them again.

The topic isn't who was the best player in the world in '87, or even if anybody else had ever had as good a season as Gretzky did in '87 up to that point (apart for maybe a couple Orr seasons, and Mr Hockey in '53, the answer is no.) The topic is when did Gretz start slipping. In '87, he was amazing, phenomenal, the best in the business. And he wasn't as good as he was before.

I just said 1984 and 1985 because from a statistical perspective including the postseason those are probably his best years. If anything you saw a more experienced and polished Gretzky in 1987 and of course we know what he did in 1988. So in all honesty, I don't see the difference in those years up until 1988. I guess you could say his goal scoring went down a bit. But in 1988 I honestly don't think anyone thought Gretzky had a crack in the armour at all. He just finished his most impressive postseason.

Oh and no argument there that Mario helped him in 1987. Of course he did. Gretzky led every other Canada Cup in scoring as it was, but 1987 went up a notch. That being said, Gretzky was still the MVP of that tournament and it was hard to argue that.

But if you see him in 1991 he was all over the place in the Canada Cup. Playing arguably just as good.

Here is the difference between 1988 and 1989 for instance:

1988 - 2.33 PPG
1989 - 2.15 PPG

Take everything into consideration here. He went to one of the worst teams in the league and they didn't have an offensive defenseman to give him the puck, nor did they have the talent of the Oilers. Yet he still delivers. Throws in 22 points in 11 playoff games.

1990 - 1.95 PPG
1991 - 2.09 PPG

1990 was a strange year for him, he still wins the Art Ross, but this might be a time when you think he's on the decline.........until 1991 again and he's right back up to his 1989 level. Then the Canada Cup and then the Suter hit.

From here it looks like this:

1992 - 1.64
1993 - 1.40
1994 - 1.60

He was simply just not the same after 1991. That's a serious drop, that was 42 points in one year. Other than the odd flash of brilliance like the 1993 playoffs we never saw that dominant Gretzky again after 1991. In 1991 he nearly had his assists lead the NHL.

I think the post 1986 Gretzky made a bit more of a commitment to winning after that Calgary debacle and playing responsibly. In fact all of the Oilers did. That plays a hand in "lower" goal totals to their standards.

But I am not sure I'd say we saw any less dominant of a Gretzky until after 1991. If so, it was very remote.

 

[Black Gold Extractor]

The 1991 Canada Cup, of course, comes after Gretzky's sub-par (for his standards, anyway) 15 points in 12 playoff games... the only time in his career he didn't lead his team in playoff scoring (aside from the 1990 playoffs, where he missed 30% of his team's playoff games).

Small sample sizes and all

I think The Panther is right in the sense that 85-86 is Gretzky's first "imperfect" season, scoring "only" 52 goals and dropping to 3rd in plus-minus in the regular season while getting bounced in the second round of the playoffs (though 19 points in 10 games is still pretty good). Of course, he still set the all-time assists and points records that year.

Gretzky had an incredibly dominant regular season in 86-87, but his playoffs were sub-par for his standards (34 points in 21 games).... but then there was the 1987 Canada Cup.

Gretzky lost significant time in 87-88, losing the Hart to Lemieux after a run of 8 straight, but had an incredible playoffs.

Gretzky was good in 88-89 in the regular season and playoffs... but Lemieux was even better. And honestly, Gretzky also barely outscored his own second-line center that season (and Nicholls also had a much better plus-minus on the same team).

Injury somewhat hindered Gretzky in 89-90 once more, and then 90-91 happened.

Starting in 81-82, Gretzky just didn't have these blemishes, even when the Oilers didn't win the Cup. He always produced in the post-season, and his regular seasons were record-shattering, eye-opening, and jaw-dropping.

Here is Gretzky's 81-82 through 85-86 seasons on Hockey Reference. He is at 2.63 points per game versus the next best at 1.63 (Bossy). That is an extra point per game. His plus-minus is +386 versus the next best at +255 (Coffey) and +244 (Kurri). All played on the same team, so Gretzky gets no "dynasty Oilers" advantage there.

Here is Gretzky's 86-87 through 90-91 seasons. Gretzky still leads in points per game (2.16) over Lemieux (2.13) and Yzerman (1.52)... only 0.64 points per game over Yzerman rather than the full 1 point per game over Bossy. Gretzky is +162, tied with Bourque and leading over MacInnis (+133).

Comparing both 5-year stretches, Gretzky scored 231 more points in only 22 more games in his earlier stretch (1036 in 394 versus 805 in 372). He was an additional plus 224 in those same 22 games.

In that second stretch, Gretzky still led his competition in assists, points, and plus-minus (though Lemieux, Yzerman, and Robitaille have passed Gretzky in goals)... so one could argue that Gretzky was still the best player in the world during those 5 years... but Gretzky was definitely not as dominant as before.

 

[mcauliffe]

I feel it is interpreted by some as a knock on Gretzky to say he wasn't as dominant as before starting in '87. It shouldn't. He was still dominant. He was still the best player around.

But I can't be the only one who remembers how magical were the five preceding years. From 82 to 86, Gretzky didn't just rewrite the record book, he changed the perception of what we thought was possible to do on a an NHL rink. By 1986, it seemed like it would last forever. When an NHL player purposefully gets two assists per game over a full season and multiple posters on this site are somewhat blasé about it, you have to conclude that the preceding years were super special.

But then Steve Smith, and the slow start in '86-87, and the 32 point drop, the late season swoon, the bickering between Sather and a few players, Gretzky's changes in his personal life (I don't want to get gossipy and all, but relationship changes will affect you professionnally, whether you're a construction worker or the greatest hockey player of all-time.) It wasn't an obvious decline like he experienced after the Suter hit. It was a slip. He was still fantastic. Just less so than he was before.

 

[Big Phil]

I feel it is interpreted by some as a knock on Gretzky to say he wasn't as dominant as before starting in '87. It shouldn't. He was still dominant. He was still the best player around.

But I can't be the only one who remembers how magical were the five preceding years. From 82 to 86, Gretzky didn't just rewrite the record book, he changed the perception of what we thought was possible to do on a an NHL rink. By 1986, it seemed like it would last forever. When an NHL player purposefully gets two assists per game over a full season and multiple posters on this site are somewhat blasé about it, you have to conclude that the preceding years were super special.

But then Steve Smith, and the slow start in '86-87, and the 32 point drop, the late season swoon, the bickering between Sather and a few players, Gretzky's changes in his personal life (I don't want to get gossipy and all, but relationship changes will affect you professionnally, whether you're a construction worker or the greatest hockey player of all-time.) It wasn't an obvious decline like he experienced after the Suter hit. It was a slip. He was still fantastic. Just less so than he was before.

I think if there was any sort of drop off in 1987 it was extremely remote. In other words, there had to be SOME time that he stopped having 200 point years. But I honestly think 1986's loss drove him to be even more competitive in doing the little things right, even if that cost him a few points. So yeah, statistically there was a tiny drop but I think he more than made up for it with other things. So I'm not sure I would even say he dropped in 1987 considering everything.

 

[Ogopogo*]

I think if there was any sort of drop off in 1987 it was extremely remote. In other words, there had to be SOME time that he stopped having 200 point years. But I honestly think 1986's loss drove him to be even more competitive in doing the little things right, even if that cost him a few points. So yeah, statistically there was a tiny drop but I think he more than made up for it with other things. So I'm not sure I would even say he dropped in 1987 considering everything.

There was no drop in 1987 - that was Gretzky's greatest season. There was a league-wide drop in scoring but, Gretzky won the Art Ross by 69%, the greatest level of dominance of his career. Don't use arbitrary numbers like season to season point totals to determine performance that simply confuses the issue.

 

[tony d]

Around 1994 or 1995.

 

[tazzy19]

Around 1994 or 1995.

I would actually agree with that. Yes, he did drop by 40 points immediately following the 1991 Canada Cup injury, and yes, he suffered from dealing with his father's brain aneurysm, but he obviously rebounded to full on 1991 level Gretzky-ness (is that a word?) in the 1993 playoffs. He maintained this resurgence until the first couple months of the 1993-94 season, when he was on track -- at one point early in the season -- for a 180 point season. He had told the media before the season began he wanted to win the Art Ross in 1993-94, and said he would likely need 160 points to do it. I don't ever recall Gretzky telling the media things like this in the off season before, so he had to be feeling pretty confident in his health and abilities at this point. But once the Kings began to stumble, and Kings management and players appeared to give up on the 1993-94 season, it seemed that Wayne sort of coasted his way to the Art Ross trophy. The "160 point Art Ross" jump that was in his step at the beginning of the season was gone by the time he was breaking Gordie How's all time goal scoring record. This was the beginning of the end, as I remember.

 

[rosemount289]

A general rule of..................???

A general rule of thumb.........the average NHL players start to go down hill (deteriorate) after playing in the league for 10 years.

 

[Big Phil]

There was no drop in 1987 - that was Gretzky's greatest season. There was a league-wide drop in scoring but, Gretzky won the Art Ross by 69%, the greatest level of dominance of his career. Don't use arbitrary numbers like season to season point totals to determine performance that simply confuses the issue.

I don't.

In fact I thought he was more seasoned in 1987 and 1988. Just as dominant more or less offensively but more locked in to win. Even more clutch.

 

[Nerowoy nora tolad]

Also from 1988-89 through 1995-96 he had a goddamned aluminum stick. So the Easton sponsorship was like when Tiger Woods switched to Nike.

Im assuming its implied that an Aluminum stick would have far less feel than a wood one?