Why would Gretzky still dominate today? Here's the secret about Gretzky...

[tfong]

Since Lemieux was much more physically dominant than Gretzky, yet fell behind him in overall domination (even by a hair), it shows that Gretzky was that much more mentally dominant, no?

To acknowledge that point, yes in my opinion.

I see Lemieux as being able to see plays that occur 5-6 steps ahead of time.
Gretzky in my opinion can see 6-7.

But my logic there is that each additional step you can see farther ahead increases in value.

Of course the situation of each player differed as well, as well as the opponents they faced (Its just like Ovechkin versus weak SE team arguements),, plus injuries on Mario all add up to become the difference in stats.

 

[overg]

It was an ability to simplify the game to the extent that the past, present, and future were all one pattern, and each moment within the game was just a part of the overall pattern. Gretzky would not react just to the present moment (or better put, he was, but the present moment was not just the present moment to him). He was reacting to ALL future possibilities within each moment, to the overall pattern, if that makes any sense.

It makes a lot of sense to me.

I've always distinguished Mario and Wayne by saying the former slowed the game down in order to dominate it, and the latter sped it up.

Even though I always said it, I was more satisfied with the Lemieux portion. When Mario got the puck, it *did* seem like time just stopped, and that Mario, his opponents, and every spectator watching had time to process exactly what was going to happen. And even though his opponents knew what was coming, they just could not stop it. The best example was Mario on a breakaway. Just how many times did he hold onto the puck and then roof it right under the crossbar? Certainly enough that every goalie in the game knew it was coming. But they still got beat by it all the time.

On the other hand, it never really did feel right to say Gretzky sped up the game. He certainly wasn't amazingly fast, or quick, and the game itself didn't feel any more frantic than usual when he was on the ice.

But describing Gretzky as playing in the future? That kind of makes sense. It really did look like he knew exactly where every player, stick, and skate on the ice would be, and that he just knew that if he put the puck in a certain location it would end up in the net. If you told me that Gretzky constantly had a snapshot in his brain about what everything in the ice would look like in 1 to 3 seconds, *that* would actually explain his vision to me.

I have never come close to understanding how Gretzky did it, other than that bland expression that he "thought the game better," which really didn't explain anything at all. But saying that he literally anticipated everything on the ice moments before it happened . . . that would explain a lot.

I think I've said this before, but here's something I would love to see. Tape a game, any game. And then have Lemieux and Gretzky sit down and watch it. At random times, pause it and ask them what will happen next. Something tells me their answers would be both insanely accurate and fascinating.

 

[Nordic*]

Oh, and the fact that at 37, old man Gretzky led the league in assists.

Lidstrom was the best defenceman in the league by far when he was 37, age doesn't mean as much as people think.

 

[Trottier]

Nobody with any credibility says this.

No further words required.

 

[revolverjgw]

Lidstrom was the best defenceman in the league by far when he was 37, age doesn't mean as much as people think.

Lidstrom is a freak. Guys like him are few and far between. For the vast majority of players, even superstars, age matters a lot.

Especially for forwards. Gretzky at 37 was the oldest all-star since genetic freak Gordie Howe. Since that season 12 years ago, no forward past the age of 34 has been an all-star.

It's a little less unusual for defensemen. Lidstrom, Macinnis, Chelios and Bourque were dominant well into their late 30s. The latter 3 were all-stars at 39, Lidstrom might be.

 

[mobilus]

I originally posted this here ...just repeating myself:

Studies have been done with Grandmaster chess players, where they've been shown chess pieces on a board either midgame or near endgame. The masters could backtrack the play, and state what moves led to that positioning, and could see where the game was going to end. Sometimes, they were shown pieces on the board that were just placed randomly, and the masters could not recognize what moves led to those positions. For all the billions of possibilities to get 40 moves into a chess game, the Grandmasters need only memorize the percentages of probability for moves that could lead to victory or failure, and all else was meaningless. Early in his pro career, Gretzky was tested in a similar way, and when shown photo stills of game situations, could accurately predict what was going on the ice five seconds before the photo was taken, and what would happen five seconds afterwards.

In chess, there are 400 different positions after each player makes one move apiece, 72,084 positions after two moves apiece, over 9 million positions after three moves apiece and 288+ billion different possible positions after four moves apiece. When Kasparov first played against Deep Blue (an IBM supercomputer) in 1996, he won 4-2. The computer programmers were stunned when they realized that Kasparov was playing and understanding the game up to 20 moves in advance of the play. With this in mind, they went back to reprogramming their computer for a year after the tournament, and played Kasparov again in 1997 with Deeper Blue, a revised computer which ultimately beat him.

In hockey, the positional possibilities alone surpasses the moves in chess. Five players aside plus those on the bench plus who's tired, who's sick or healthy, varying skill levels, etc. mean the possibilities of what, when and how are infinite. However, the probabilities eliminates most of the possibilities as to what might happen on the ice. I might skate hard and shoot on a breakaway, but I won't attack the net skating backwards with one hand on my stick and holding an ice cream in the other. Kasparov didn't have to memorize every possible move in chess, just the ones most likely to happen. Him knowing what's likely to happen 20 moves into the future gave him a certain advantage when playing. Gretzky, likewise, having a five second advanced notice as to what will probably happen on the ice gave him a tremendous advantage. A good NHL skater can move about 3/4 the length of the ice in five seconds. That's a tremendous head start over other players that didn't see the game unfold as he did. Goes a long way to explaining the 200+ point seasons in spite of the fact he was not physically overpowering, overly fast nor possessing a tremendous shot.

 

[Canadiens1958]

No

Since Lemieux was much more physically dominant than Gretzky, yet fell behind him in overall domination (even by a hair), it shows that Gretzky was that much more mentally dominant, no?

Lemieux's mental domination is rather evident in his ability to overcome serious health issues and return at a comparable level of play.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Seeing the Future

All the great skaters - Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr, Howe, Crosby, Harvey, Bourque, just a short list, had or have the ability to see the ice as it will be as the game progresses.

What has to be appreciated is that this ability is not only offensive but defensive as well. Anticipating or seeing the best offensive move is just as easy as seeing the greatest risk defensively. The willingness to execute is the difference.

Bobby Clarke would be a prime example. He had great offensive vision but he also used the same vision to play great defense.

Great goaltenders also have this ability. They can foresee how the play will proceed and the appropriate body position to optimize their chances of making saves.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

There is only one way to find out Doc, and that is with a time machine!

 

[tfong]

Lemieux's mental domination is rather evident in his ability to overcome serious health issues and return at a comparable level of play.

I think mental domination is referring to being able to think the game.

There was never in doubt about Mario's heart and determination. Fighting through so much in his career.

 

[Skobel24]

I've been reading a lot of threads about Gretzky, which compells me to post this. People saying he was just a product of his time and the watered down NHL and expansion and his great teammates and the "No Hit Gretzky Rule" conspiracies and the....you name it. So here it goes:

What so many people are missing (the people who say Crosby and Ovi and Malken, etc would score just as many points as him if they played then) is WHY Gretzky was so far ahead, and HOW he did it. The answer is so simple that no one would ever be able to figure it out just watching on TV in real time (without slow motion or replay). It was an ability to simplify the game to the extent that the past, present, and future were all one pattern, and each moment within the game was just a part of the overall pattern. Gretzky would not react just to the present moment (or better put, he was, but the present moment was not just the present moment to him). He was reacting to ALL future possibilities within each moment, to the overall pattern, if that makes any sense.

Ok, ready to finally understand how Gretzky had more assists than anyone else had points? It doesn't seem that amazing unless you really understand it (we all "know" it's because of his vision and hockey sense, but what does that really mean?), so here it is. Gretzky had 5 assists this game, but his most amazing assist does not look the most spectacular, not at all. He has far more beautiful assists (to the eye) during this game in fact. But watch what he does at 1:36:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPMhXNuzcSo&feature=related

Looks like a boring play, right? What's so special, right? You see, if you watched Gretzky on TV, you never really knew what he was doing. So let's break it down: He knew Gilmour was about to get out of the penalty box (on the opposite side of the ice, away from the camera), so instead of dumping the puck into the zone during the penalty kill on a routine 2 on 2 -- LIKE EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD WOULD DO -- he did something we call "genius". They say the most simple things are derived from genius, right? Well, this is an example of that. Instead of dumping the puck into the zone, Gretzky peels back toward the boards and drops the puck for Rochefort, who was trailing the play. Now because Gilmour was about to leave the penalty box (timing was something Gretzky was innately in tune with, and in fact used to count down seconds of the game and penalty time in his head while playing), Gretzky knew Gilmour would have a free shot being the extra player on the ice. Now that 2 on 2 is a 3 on 2 because of something so simple it doesn't even look like anything special in the moment. That moment in which he dropped the puck and created a 3 on 2 looked absolutely normal, because Gretzky caused it to be "normal". But how many players in the world would have decided not to dump that puck in at that moment??? The answer is NO ONE. No one, except for Gretzky. That's why he finished his career with more assists than anyone else has points. Gretzky was able to read the play several steps ahead, all in the present moment, because the future was simply an aspect of the present to him. And he didn't even have to think about it! His brain was simply able to read it and react to it as though he were a part of it -- the cause, as well as the effect.

So yes, Ovi and Lemieux and others may have LOOKED more spectacular, because all we see are the physical plays they make. With Gretzky, hardly anyone actually GOT it (nor did the players he played against, and exploited that). Gretzky simply "normalized" the patterns of the game to his liking. Looked boring, but no one else in history has been able to do it. And he did it every shift, every game, every season, every series, for his entire career. Go figure.

That's why Gretzky in his prime would win the scoring title today, and would dominate while doing so. I can't imagine what he'd do with no two line pass. He'd have a field day.

Boring, too much to read. I'll shorten it up for you.

Gretzky was a pretty damn good hockey player.

 

[shazariahl]

I don't think its any insult to Mario to say that Wayne saw the game better than he did - just as I don't think its any insult to Wayne to say that Mario had the more impressive one on one skills.

And to me, that was really the difference between them. If they played one on one, I'm sure Mario would beat him. He was just the more physically talented player. Where Wayne's main advantage lay was his ability to make everyone else around him so much better. All great players have this ability - Mario certainly did as well - but Gretzky seemed to do this better than anyone else in history, which is why put managed to put up 163 assists in a season, go 11 straight seasons with 100+ assists, and of course end up with more assists than anyone else has points.

It was this antipation that allowed him to use everyone else so effectively. He knew where they would be, where the puck would be, and how the defense was likely to react all before it happened. The end result was every assist record known to man.

 

[diligent_d]

To quote the old adage: the body achieves what the mind believes. There is raw talent, and then there is what Gretzky did during his NHL career - incredible stuff.

 

[revolverjgw]

I always found it amusing that his style was so unique and inimitable that some people simply can't wrap their heads around it, and try to explain it by inventing conspiracy theories like "there was a rule against hitting him" and "Dave Semenko would murder you if you touched him".

 

[Sens Rule]

It makes a lot of sense to me.

I've always distinguished Mario and Wayne by saying the former slowed the game down in order to dominate it, and the latter sped it up.

Even though I always said it, I was more satisfied with the Lemieux portion. When Mario got the puck, it *did* seem like time just stopped, and that Mario, his opponents, and every spectator watching had time to process exactly what was going to happen. And even though his opponents knew what was coming, they just could not stop it. The best example was Mario on a breakaway. Just how many times did he hold onto the puck and then roof it right under the crossbar? Certainly enough that every goalie in the game knew it was coming. But they still got beat by it all the time.

On the other hand, it never really did feel right to say Gretzky sped up the game. He certainly wasn't amazingly fast, or quick, and the game itself didn't feel any more frantic than usual when he was on the ice.

But describing Gretzky as playing in the future? That kind of makes sense. It really did look like he knew exactly where every player, stick, and skate on the ice would be, and that he just knew that if he put the puck in a certain location it would end up in the net. If you told me that Gretzky constantly had a snapshot in his brain about what everything in the ice would look like in 1 to 3 seconds, *that* would actually explain his vision to me.

I have never come close to understanding how Gretzky did it, other than that bland expression that he "thought the game better," which really didn't explain anything at all. But saying that he literally anticipated everything on the ice moments before it happened . . . that would explain a lot.

I think I've said this before, but here's something I would love to see. Tape a game, any game. And then have Lemieux and Gretzky sit down and watch it. At random times, pause it and ask them what will happen next. Something tells me their answers would be both insanely accurate and fascinating.

Well on that tangent. Wayne used his teammates and the opponents to plan and dictate the future. Mario moreso used himself.

 

[Brodie]

I thought this actually contained a secret about Gretzky, like that he was an alien or something.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Can we get more clips describing this phenomenal level of anticipation? I thought the first one was great.

 

[edog37]

Since Lemieux was much more physically dominant than Gretzky, yet fell behind him in overall domination (even by a hair), it shows that Gretzky was that much more mentally dominant, no?

put Gretzky on the '85 Pens & put Lemieux on the '85 Oilers. Then see how each player adds up. Gretzky never carried the Oilers the way Lemieux carried the Pens. The Oilers won a Cup after Gretzky left even.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

put Gretzky on the '85 Pens & put Lemieux on the '85 Oilers. Then see how each player adds up. Gretzky never carried the Oilers the way Lemieux carried the Pens. The Oilers won a Cup after Gretzky left even.

Gretzky more than proved he could carry a sub-par team on his back in L.A., and was able to take his team all the way to a Cup Final, something Lemieux was never able to do with a team of that caliber.

 

[edog37]

Well on that tangent. Wayne used his teammates and the opponents to plan and dictate the future. Mario moreso used himself.

when you had Lee Giffin & Dan Frawley as wingers, that's a little step down from Jari Kurri...he sort of had to do this by necessity....

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

put Gretzky on the '85 Pens & put Lemieux on the '85 Oilers. Then see how each player adds up. Gretzky never carried the Oilers the way Lemieux carried the Pens. The Oilers won a Cup after Gretzky left even.

Ah, the good old "but Gretzky's team was too good!" argument. Complete with the shaking head smilie for full effect!

1979-80 Edmonton Oilers scoring leaders:

1. Wayne Gretzky, 137 points
2. Blaire McDonald, 94 points
3. Stan Weir, 66 points
4. Brett Callighen, 58 points
5. Dave Lumley, 58 points

1980-81 Edmonton Oilers scoring leaders:

1. Wayne Gretzky, 164 points
2. Jari Kurri, 75 points
3. Mark Messier, 63 points
4. Brett Callighen, 60 points
5. 3 tied with 53 points

1981-82 Edmonton Oilers scoring leaders:

1. Wayne Gretzky, 212
2. Glen Anderson, 105
3. Paul Coffey, 89
4. Mark Messer, 88
5. Jari Kurri, 86

That Gretzky sure had his stats inflated by his dominant teammates, didn't he?

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

put Gretzky on the '85 Pens & put Lemieux on the '85 Oilers. Then see how each player adds up. Gretzky never carried the Oilers the way Lemieux carried the Pens. The Oilers won a Cup after Gretzky left even.

Did Mario ever win his team scoring title by 107pts?

 

[Weztex]

put Gretzky on the '85 Pens & put Lemieux on the '85 Oilers. Then see how each player adds up. Gretzky never carried the Oilers the way Lemieux carried the Pens. The Oilers won a Cup after Gretzky left even.

That argument is redundant and meaningless. It only states that the 80's Oilers were a incredibly well-built team, carried by many great players ans leaders. The Penguins needed a guy like Mario to put them over the top while the Oilers were a much more complete and well-balanced team.

You could see it that way. Lemieux turned a good team into a winning team. Gretzky turned a winning team into a dynasty.

 

[edog37]

Gretzky more than proved he could carry a sub-par team on his back in L.A., and was able to take his team all the way to a Cup Final, something Lemieux was never able to do with a team of that caliber.

Lemieux carried his team to back-to-back Stanley Cup titles....Gretzky lost to an overachieving Montreal team....

he just wasn't the same player after he left Edmonton....

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

Lemieux carried his team to back-to-back Stanley Cup titles....Gretzky lost to an overachieving Montreal team....

he just wasn't the same player after he left Edmonton....

Geez, guys like Recchi, Stevens, Murphy, Coffey, Francis, Jagr had absolutely nothing to do with the two cups. They were just standing around in awe of the Mario and let him do all the work

PS 86 Flames >>> 93 Isles