Why is Gretzky so underrated on HF?

[stranger]

well, watch a few highlights. many if not most of the goals you see would not go in against modern goalies.

Put a modern player in Gretzky's skates, and use his STICK especially, and see how great their shots are. Today's sticks are insane.

 

[GardinerTheForward]

His Corsi was low.

Gretzky’s PDO of 163838483626 proves he was a lucky bum and nothing else

 

[Tranq]

I just watched highlights of the guy. He had a shot and goal scoring ability like Ovechkin. The passing ability and awareness of Sidney Crosby and Connor McDavid. But he was better than all three of them. It's crazy.

 

[authentic]

If you can spend a few bucks, order DVD's of the 3 game Canada Cup final in 1987. Gretzky and Lemieux were team-mates and played on the same line in game 2, all games were decided by a 6-5 score, all games were come from behind victories and IIRC, two of the 3 games were decided in OT. In the opinion of many (including myself), this was the best hockey ever played.

I have the Canada Cup DVD, all the games against Russia are awesome.

 

[Shaman464]

Underrated? People call him the best ever. He's worth a conditional 3rd round pick at most.

 

[nbwingsfan]

Pretty sure every hockey fan I've had a serious conversation with has Gretzky as #1 by default so I don't really know where this perspective is coming from. Do you think that a young Wayne Gretzky entering the league is going to score 2800+ points? No, obviously not. But he proved throughout his career that he was head and shoulders above the rest, with a very small handful of players ever rivaling his dominance.

I think Wayne Gretzky was the greatest playmaker that ever lived. I think Mario Lemieux was the greatest goal scorer that ever played. Bobby Orr was the greatest defenseman. I don't think you'll ever have a modern player so clearly stand out as unequivocally the greatest to supplant Gretzky on the top of the mountain, and that's a testament to the quality of players in the league today. It's OK to have different eras, and to measure greatness by the relative standard of your peers. ...which is what makes Gretzky so undeniably great.

I read a poster around here seriously try and tell us why Gretzky would be no more than a 70pt player today even if he grew up with modern training/equipment, so yeah he’s underrated by some

 

[Conspiracy Theorist]

Hes underrated? Hes the consensus best player of all time. Personally, I think Orr is but I'll admit I wasnt around when he played and injuries killed his career. We could argue all day but at worst, hes the 2nd best player in hockey history.

Top 3 imo. Mario and Orr have a case when it comes to best.

 

[KoozNetsOff 92]

Top 3 imo. Mario and Orr have a case when it comes to best.

Orr does, Lemieux doesn't. Gretzky beats him in pts, adjusted pts, playoff pts, pace, etc. Gretzky beat him to every milestone of pts and goals. Yes we can fantasize what if Lemieux had perfect health or project his 92/93 pace to a full season. I mean yes 160pts in 60 was impressive (2.67 PPG) and the projected 219pts would have been unreal.. but Gretzky had 153pts in 51 (3 PPG) and that projected 246pts looks way better. Gretzky wins every time in every category.

 

[The Shovel Penguin]

Doesn't help that a lot of people are becoming too young to actually remember him play so he and others just become guys with numbers from a different era. Same with Mario. I have seen a number of millennial Pens fans on social media claiming Crosby is better than Mario.

Um, no.

 

[OvermanKingGainer]

Well, the other players of his time were shooting on the same goals and the players who play now are all shooting on modern goalies. Greatness is defined by transcendence. I'm not going to get too heavily into philosophy, but according to the German philosopher Nietzsche (who theorized the "Superman"), a truly superior individual is basically one who sets himself apart from his contemporaries and transcends the apparent limitations and boundaries of his time.

Here's my problem with that logic:

Certain eras allowed for more of a gap between the best and the rest because the rest were simply not noteworthy. You are suggesting that greatness can only be measured relative to direct peers, but I contend that is impossible because the quality of direct peers is not a constant.

League expansion is one reason for this, as well as a general league-wide imbalance caused by skewed scheduling. Advancements in technique are another (and no, not constant or linear improvements but rather certain degrees of maximum efficiency acheived when certain fundamental techniques were pioneered or standardized).

Just as it's a lot more impressive for someone to be the best player in the NHL (i.e. Crosby) than it is for someone to be the best player in the AHL (i.e. Daniel Carr), being the best player in a league where all goalies can stop virtually any shot consistently, where 4th liners can hem you in with skill and regularily finish top corner should not be marginalized just because one guy was transcendant in an era where goalies didn't even have a butterfly in their repertoire.

Put another way - being the fastest guy on the Autobahn doesn't mean you're a great driver, it means you're way more rich than the average driver. That's Gretzky.

Winning the Formula 1 Grand Prix consistently, but probably not always, is still a superior accomplishment. The best Formula 1 drivers may not have as much separation from each other, but each and every one of then would blow those Autobahn plebes (80s players) out of the water.

Maybe that guy on the Autobahn COULD hang with the F1 guys. But all his fans are ad nauseum saying it's the F1 drivers who couldn't hang with him if you put him in an F1 racecar and his gap over his peers would be replicated. Forgive me for thinking the F1 Champ's raw ability gets insufficient appreciation because he's simply at the limit of human ability playing against the greatest peers in history.

The reality is, Gretzky was as much a beneficiary of his time as he was "transcendental". The fantasy is that him being ahead of his time would translate to being ahead of this time. It doesn't work that way. Wilt Chamberlain would not score 100 pts in a game in today's NBA with his rudimentary skillset. Being the greatest of his era by the biggest margin doesn't mean the greatest to ever lace them up. For some of us, being head and shoulders above the best peers is more impressive than being alone on a mountain against unimpressive peers.

 

[Gary Nylund]

He is without question the GOAT.

No room for discussion, OK.

The notion that Gretzky is underrated is ridiculous. It's feels like the majority of people almost consider him some untouchable god, that you can't even compare any other player to without being an idiot.

Yup. There have been many posts like the one above, my impression is that as great as he was, Gretzky may even be overrated at this point.

I have the Canada Cup DVD, all the games against Russia are awesome.

As I said earlier, in the opinion of many, this was the best hockey ever played. For people that never saw these guys in their prime it's so easy, order these DVD's and watch Canada's best with Gretzky AND Lemieux play against an elite Soviet team that was every bit their equal. Incredible stuff!

Top 3 imo. Mario and Orr have a case when it comes to best.

Gordie Howe as well.

 

[GOilers88]

If you're saying he'd be less than the best today, you're underrating him.

If you're saying he'd score 150+ points, you're overrating him.

With an actual team around him I think McDavid scores closer to 150. I don't think it's at all unrealistic to think the greatest mind to ever play the game would still be able to put up that number.

 

[Dickie Dunn]

I didn't see a lot of in person NHL in the 80's but I did get to see Gretzky. He put up 4 points on my North Stars one night and I'm sure it was just another 4 point night among many but I had never seen a player skate like that before or since. And everything he did with the puck was smooth and quick.

I never saw Orr or Mario but I'm sure they were just as impressive.

 

[Spirit of 67]

Remove Gretzky (and Lemieux) from the equation and it makes little difference. We have data from thousands of games, and tens of thousands of goals, showing that scoring was objectively higher during that period, with or without them.

Gretzky's GOAT 215-point season accounts for only 3% of goals that were scored that year (among only 21 teams).

It was an arms race. Teams were trying to outscore each other. Edmonton did it and people tried to follow suit.

 

[GOilers88]

I don't see how anyone could put Mario above Wayne. Even Orr I have a hard time with, simply because as great as they were, they didn't play nearly as long as guys like Gretzky and Howe.

I fully believe that if he had stayed healthy,Mario could have been the guy to maybe surpass some of Gretzky's records. But the simple fact is he didn't stay healthy, and Gretzky dominated his peers for double the amount of time that Mario did. I don't think you can just toss that aside because "IF Lemieux stayed healthy". He didn't and it's a moot point. Longevity has to be considered when accounting for who was the best, even though it's all semantical.

 

[Deedog99]

Give Keith some time. He's new as Oilers gm.

 

[GlitchMarner]

Here's my problem with that logic:

Certain eras allowed for more of a gap between the best and the rest because the rest were simply not noteworthy. You are suggesting that greatness can only be measured relative to direct peers, but I contend that is impossible because the quality of direct peers is not a constant.

League expansion is one reason for this, as well as a general league-wide imbalance caused by skewed scheduling. Advancements in technique are another (and no, not constant or linear improvements but rather certain degrees of maximum efficiency acheived when certain fundamental techniques were pioneered or standardized).

Just as it's a lot more impressive for someone to be the best player in the NHL (i.e. Crosby) than it is for someone to be the best player in the AHL (i.e. Daniel Carr), being the best player in a league where all goalies can stop virtually any shot consistently, where 4th liners can hem you in with skill and regularily finish top corner should not be marginalized just because one guy was transcendant in an era where goalies didn't even have a butterfly in their repertoire.

The reality is, Gretzky was as much a beneficiary of his time as he was "transcendental". The fantasy is that him being ahead of his time would translate to being ahead of this time. It doesn't work that way. Wilt Chamberlain would not score 100 pts in a game in today's NBA with his rudimentary skillset. Being the greatest of his era by the biggest margin doesn't mean the greatest to ever lace them up. For some of us, being head and shoulders above the best peers is more impressive than being alone on a mountain against unimpressive peers.

If you compare the top-end competition in the 1980s to the top-end competition in the last decade or so, how was it much if any worse in the 1980s?

Players such as Lemieux, Dionne, Messier, Stastny, Hawerchuk, Denis Savard, Trottier, Bossy, Yzerman are considered to be among the greatest forwards of all-time. The defensemen of that era include Bourque, Potvin, Chelios, Stevens, MacInnis, Robinson, Langway and Murphy.

There was not such a dearth of high-end talent that simply being the best player in the present or the last 15 or so years automatically makes a player better than a player who was as dominant as Gretzky was in his era. It takes more than that.

And again, the fact that the goaltenders were not as good doesn't matter here because the forwards I mentioned from the 1980s were facing the same scoring environment as Gretzky.

McDavid is the best player currently anyway.

 

[frisco]

People are too enamored with "peak" Forsberg to notice a mere mortal like Gretzky.

My Best-Carey

 

[Royale With Cheese]

Gretzky was pretty good, but let's face it, he was not Evander Kane level of good.

 

[Butch 19]

Here's my problem with that logic:

Certain eras allowed for more of a gap between the best and the rest because the rest were simply not noteworthy. You are suggesting that greatness can only be measured relative to direct peers, but I contend that is impossible because the quality of direct peers is not a constant.

League expansion is one reason for this, as well as a general league-wide imbalance caused by skewed scheduling. Advancements in technique are another (and no, not constant or linear improvements but rather certain degrees of maximum efficiency acheived when certain fundamental techniques were pioneered or standardized).

Just as it's a lot more impressive for someone to be the best player in the NHL (i.e. Crosby) than it is for someone to be the best player in the AHL (i.e. Daniel Carr), being the best player in a league where all goalies can stop virtually any shot consistently, where 4th liners can hem you in with skill and regularily finish top corner should not be marginalized just because one guy was transcendant in an era where goalies didn't even have a butterfly in their repertoire.

Put another way - being the fastest guy on the Autobahn doesn't mean you're a great driver, it means you're way more rich than the average driver. That's Gretzky.

Winning the Formula 1 Grand Prix consistently, but probably not always, is still a superior accomplishment. The best Formula 1 drivers may not have as much separation from each other, but each and every one of then would blow those Autobahn plebes (80s players) out of the water.

Maybe that guy on the Autobahn COULD hang with the F1 guys. But all his fans are ad nauseum saying it's the F1 drivers who couldn't hang with him if you put him in an F1 racecar and his gap over his peers would be replicated. Forgive me for thinking the F1 Champ's raw ability gets insufficient appreciation because he's simply at the limit of human ability playing against the greatest peers in history.

The reality is, Gretzky was as much a beneficiary of his time as he was "transcendental". The fantasy is that him being ahead of his time would translate to being ahead of this time. It doesn't work that way. Wilt Chamberlain would not score 100 pts in a game in today's NBA with his rudimentary skillset. Being the greatest of his era by the biggest margin doesn't mean the greatest to ever lace them up. For some of us, being head and shoulders above the best peers is more impressive than being alone on a mountain against unimpressive peers.

Some of the worst attempted analogies - EVER!!

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Gretzky is underrated on HF because the site is probably made up of a bunch of 20 somethings who weren't even born when Gretzky was playing, and those that were born, were too young to see just how good he was at his absolute peak.

 

[saffronleaf]

Gretzky is overrated on HF because the site has a lot of 40 somethings who are blinded by nostalgia.

 

[SML2]

Gretzky is overrated on HF because the site has a lot of 40 somethings who are blinded by nostalgia.

Did you know Gretzky broke 1000 points before he turned 24? You can call it nostalgia, but it's still fact. Nobody else has ever broken 200 points, he did it 4 times. He is the holder of youngest and fastest to 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700 and 800 goals. He holds over 40 NHL records. Over 3000 combined regular season and playoffs points. These are all facts. If players have gotten so much better, someone should be able to break away from the pack and at least come close don't you think?

 

[Machinehead]

Gretzky is overrated on HF because the site has a lot of 40 somethings who are blinded by nostalgia.

This site does not have a lot of 40 somethings.

 

[Amazinmets73]

People need to take into account it's not solely goalie equipment that's improved. Have you seen the skates and sticks players used in 1985?