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

[Rhiessan71]

Gretzky played ~1% more NHL games (incl. playoffs) to that point, only because of the canceled lockout season... and you say "AINEC"?



I didn't know we were taking travel into account, my sweet lord.

I thought we were talking about actual hockey played. And no, I don't think the '79 WHA was that much different from the KHL/Czech leagues, esp. considering that was much less than 10% of each player's games to that point.

If you want to take other factors into account and tally up wear and tear, maybe start with Gretzky rarely being hit and Jagr playing a possession game and digging pucks out of the corners while (as Shanahan said in '07) "Jagr takes more abuse than any player I've seen." The amount of abuse he took and the rules enforcement in 2007 was nothing like it was in Jagr's prime, and no one would pretend otherwise.

Jagr was 18 when he started his first NHL season, less than one year older than Gretzky in his first NHL season. He was 17 when he played in the top Czech league. Was he supposed to fly around the world to try to play in the last season of the WHA? Seriously? When he started playing Jrs. he was 12 and playing against players 5-6 years older than him.

Let's be reality here.

You need to live up to your name my friend and check your math.

Gretzky 17-35 78/79-95/96:
1395 NHL/WHA games
206 NHL/WHA PO games
1601 total games played

Jagr 18-35 90/91-06/07
1191 NHL games
159 NHL PO games
1350 total NHL games played

Even if we added the 80-90 games he lost to the LO in '05, he's still over 150 games behind Gretzky.

And yes, travel is a factor. A West coast sched takes a huge toll on players.

You also may want to look up Gretzky's younger days, he was playing against 10 and 11 years old's at freakin 6 years old and dominating them.
He ALWAYS played against kids 4-5 years older than him until he was eligible for Junior A at 16.
He played Junior B at 14.
His single year in Junior A, as only a 16 year old, he broke the single season scoring record!

Jagr was also a 6'3" 230+lb monster.
Gretzky was a 5'11" 170lb runt.

I know you love Jagr and I like him a lot too but seriously, you're fighting a losing battle on this one.

 

[Czech Your Math]

You need to live up to your name my friend and check your math.

Gretzky 17-35 78/79-95/96:
1395 NHL/WHA games
206 NHL/WHA PO games
1601 total games played

Jagr 18-35 90/91-06/07
1191 NHL games
159 NHL PO games
1350 total NHL games played

Even if we added the 80-90 games he lost to the LO in '05, he's still over 150 games behind Gretzky.

And yes, travel is a factor. A West coast sched takes a huge toll on players.

I don't see where I made an error in math, although I do at times. I thought you meant before the season in which they turned 35, although that doesn't really change the comparison much. Maybe you want to check the "NHL/WHA games" by Gretzky, because I calculate 1,333 thru '97. It's possible you are counting his 62 with LA before being traded in '96 twice?

That would make the difference about ~100 more games for Gretzky. That doesn't include:

A) Jagr's 51 games in top Czech league at age 17-18 in '89-90
B) Jagr's 11 games in top Czech league in '94-95 (he also played 7 other games in lesser Euro leagues, which I never counted)

Again, if you count Gretzky in WHA at 17-18, I don't see how you deny Jagr's Czech league games. I didn't even count international play, as my point was that it was very close. Let's do that now:

Gretzky:
WJC- 6
WEC-10
CC- 31
RV87- 2
WC- 8
Total- 57

Jagr:
EJC- 5
WJC- 7
WEC- 10
Olympics- 18
CC- 5
WC- 8
IIHF WC- 25
Total- 78

So my count, from age 17-18 to age 34-35 is as follows:

Gretzky
NHL- 1370
WHA- 93
Int'l- 57
TOTAL: 1520

Jagr
NHL- 1350 (no additional games credited for '04-05)
KHL/Czech- 122 (includes 60 games in '04-05)
Int'l- 78
TOTAL: 1550

If you want to discount the KHL/Czech league games by ~25%, that seems fair and would make them equal. I again ask you, do you think Gretzky had a significantly more number of high level games by age ~35 and that it's "not close"?

Or do you think Gretzky's 126 games over three years in Jrs. and B Jrs. caused more wear and tear than Jagr's 135 games of Czech Jrs. and 29 games in the top Czech league (at age 16-17) over 4 years?

Shall we go back to "Jaromir started skating around the age of three. He learned to shoot in his backyard, playing street hockey with his dad. He often took 500 shots a day. At age six, he was on three different teams, which meant he got triple the ice team of other kids. When he reached the age of eight, he was playing in multiple games on weekends after practicing for hours daily."

At what point will you simply admit that it's very close and that, given the much higher degree of physical punishment that Jagr endured during his entire career, there is really no case that Gretzky had more wear and tear from hockey by age ~35, and that it's certainly "close" at the very least?

 

[Rhiessan71]

The WHA was an NHL level league and more importantly playing an NHL level schedule.

You can not use the Czech league games to cover the WHA games because they most definitely are not the same in quality or quantity.

Playing an 80 game sched plus playoffs against mostly NHL level players is a huge difference to playing a 44 game sched plus playoffs against almost no NHL level players.

 

[Czech Your Math]

The WHA was an NHL level league and more importantly playing an NHL level schedule.

You can not use the Czech league games to cover the WHA games because they most definitely are not the same in quality or quantity.

Playing an 80 game sched plus playoffs against mostly NHL level players is a huge difference to playing a 44 game sched plus playoffs against almost no NHL level players.

You claimed it wasn't close and accused me of making a math error (and I have done so before). Yet, Jagr played 1428 NHL + international games thru age 34-35 and Gretzky played 1427 such games through the same age. How is that not close? Remember, that does gives Jagr basically no credit (aside from 8 int'l games) for an entire canceled NHL season due to lockout.

You insist on counting Gretzky's WHA games and not giving Jagr even 75% credit for KHL/Czech games in terms of wear and tear? You will not even factor in all the extra punishment which Jagr took during his career? Do you really think sitting on an airplane for a little longer has more effect than players crushing one into the boards several times a game?

It would have been simpler to just admit that it's very close and more a matter of interpretation than one clearly having more wear and tear than the other at the same age.

 

[Rhiessan71]

You claimed it wasn't close and accused me of making a math error (and I have done so before). Yet, Jagr played 1428 NHL + international games thru age 34-35 and Gretzky played 1427 such games through the same age. How is that not close? Remember, that does gives Jagr basically no credit (aside from 8 int'l games) for an entire canceled NHL season due to lockout.

You insist on counting Gretzky's WHA games and not giving Jagr even 75% credit for KHL/Czech games in terms of wear and tear? You will not even factor in all the extra punishment which Jagr took during his career? Do you really think sitting on an airplane for a little longer has more effect than players crushing one into the boards several times a game?

It would have been simpler to just admit that it's very close and more a matter of interpretation than one clearly having more wear and tear than the other at the same age.

The only way it's a matter of interpretation is if you ignore the FACT that Gretzky was playing at an NHL level on an NHL sched at 17. Jagr at 18
That Jagr lost an entire season to the lockout.

No matter what you try and do or count, Gretzky has by default, a FULL TWO NHL SEASONS AT AN NHL SCHED over Jagr by age 35.


Further more, I'm still having major issues trying to figure out where you're only getting 1463 total games for Gretz in the NHL/WHA. I have checked my number twice now I get 1539 to Jagr's 1350.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Here's one for ya...

Gretzky's Adjusted 97/98 total is 103 points. Even unadjusted, he was tied for 4th only behind Selanne and Kariya in Anaheim and Mario freakin Lemieux that year.

So Gretz at 37 years old would of finished second in league scoring, a mere 6 points behind the Art Ross winner last year.
Then you actually have the audacity to suggest that a 25 year old prime Gretzky would have more trouble separating himself from the rest of the pack today?!?

How many more examples of this stuff do you need before you understand how silly you sound?

Two problems here

1) we do not know how many goals Wayne would be getting in a post lockout era, maybe he breaks 50 a couple of time or maybe he is only a 30-35 guy, something we really don't know.

2) His playmaking didn't get worse with age very much at all, he led the league in assists in 97 and 98 with 72 and 67 assists. Maybe if we are being generous he gets over 100 a couple of times on the right team or situation but does he get 50 goals those same years as well?

Either way it's a far cry from the 170 you are promoting, something that comes up exactly 1 time in adjusted stats, which already accounts for his outlier status, it's a conversion rate, something you really haven't grasped yet.

 

[Czech Your Math]

The only way it's a matter of interpretation is if you ignore the FACT that Gretzky was playing at an NHL level on an NHL sched at 17. Jagr at 18
That Jagr lost an entire season to the lockout.

How is it a fact that the WHA was on an NHL level in '79, when Gretzky started on one team, which folded and then only 4/6 teams were merged into the NHL the following season. It may have been near an NHL level, but it is not equivalent. I just don't understand how Gretzky would get credit for this season, but Jagr wouldn't for his Czech/KHL games (even discounted a bit), nor his edge in international games.

No matter what you try and do or count, Gretzky has by default, a FULL TWO NHL SEASONS AT AN NHL SCHED over Jagr by age 35.


Further more, I'm still having major issues trying to figure out where you're only getting 1463 total games for Gretz in the NHL/WHA. I have checked my number twice now I get 1539 to Jagr's 1350.

A WHA season is not an NHL season.

I apologize, as the error was mine. I was doing it in my head, but no more excuses, it was my error.

I still contend it was very close, but that you are not considering that Jagr has always played in other leagues (on other continents) when there were lockouts. Somehow, you act like he was resting up on the beach somewhere, when he played all the games he could, and took far more punishment in those that he did play. We can agree to disagree, sorry for any confusion, but I hope you can see why I don't fully agree with your assessment that it's "not close."

 

[pld459666]

Gretzky's vision alone would ensure dominance.

He would be the best offensive player today, AINEC

 

[Rhiessan71]

Two problems here

1) we do not know how many goals Wayne would be getting in a post lockout era, maybe he breaks 50 a couple of time or maybe he is only a 30-35 guy, something we really don't know.

Oooookkk so he goes from 92, 71, 87 and 73 to only being a 30-35 goal man. That's a joke on any level imaginable.

2) His playmaking didn't get worse with age very much at all, he led the league in assists in 97 and 98 with 72 and 67 assists. Maybe if we are being generous he gets over 100 a couple of times on the right team or situation but does he get 50 goals those same years as well?

Again, he goes from winning Art Ross's on his assists alone to "maybe he gets 100 a couple of times"...the joke continues.

Either way it's a far cry from the 170 you are promoting, something that comes up exactly 1 time in adjusted stats, which already accounts for his outlier status, it's a conversion rate, something you really haven't grasped yet.

How many times do I have say this before you get it into your head? It's a formula that normalizes everyone to the average. It assumes every player will be exactly the same. That is not how reality works, the further from the average you are, the more incorrect it will be.
The guys at the bottom, who were already having trouble scoring are going to have even more trouble than the % average, the average guy is reduced to about what the % average loss is going to be and the guys at the top are going to have the least % amount lost because they are STILL the guys doing most of the scoring.
If you try and tell me one more time that it would just be equally harder for Gretzky to score in today's NHL as it would be for Chris Nilan....seriously, for the love of god, either start listening to what I'm saying or just stop posting about it like you understand it.

 

[ThePuckBaron]

Interesting read from the OP. He made his point clear and used an example to back it up. Wayne was able to do things on the ice that you or I wouldn't have even thought to look twice at which created oppourtunities for his team. Guys like Mario and Ovechkin dominate the game with their bodies while Wayne dominates with his mind.

 

[Rhiessan71]

How is it a fact that the WHA was on an NHL level in '79, when Gretzky started on one team, which folded and then only 4/6 teams were merged into the NHL the following season. It may have been near an NHL level, but it is not equivalent. I just don't understand how Gretzky would get credit for this season, but Jagr wouldn't for his Czech/KHL games (even discounted a bit), nor his edge in international games.



A WHA season is not an NHL season.

I apologize, as the error was mine. I was doing it in my head, but no more excuses, it was my error.

I still contend it was very close, but that you are not considering that Jagr has always played in other leagues (on other continents) when there were lockouts. Somehow, you act like he was resting up on the beach somewhere, when he played all the games he could, and took far more punishment in those that he did play. We can agree to disagree, sorry for any confusion, but I hope you can see why I don't fully agree with your assessment that it's "not close."

You're trying to say that Jagr's 152 games played outside the NHL spread out over 4 seasons (averaging 38 games a season) is equal to 1 FULL season of 93 in the WHA in terms of wear and tear...think about that for a second.
Basically, Jagr had 4 years of vacation compared to Gretzky who, only had a partial vacation in '95.

And seriously, if you want to count Jagr's 2 seasons in the Czech league prior to the NHL, then I'm counting Gretzky's 80 games in Junior A as well because those two leagues are pretty damned close IMO.

Final Tally:

Gretzky
1446 NHL games with PO's
93 WHA games with PO's (all in one season)
80 games OHA with PO's
6 WJr's
43 Canada Cup/World Cup/ WEC's
1668 Total


Jagr
1350 NHL games with PO's
152 non-NHL league games with PO's (spread over 4 seasons)
66 Canada Cup/World Cup/ Worlds/Olympics
7 Wjrs
1575 Total


No, it's not close IMO.

 

[Czech Your Math]

You're trying to say that Jagr's 152 games played outside the NHL spread out over 4 seasons (averaging 38 games a season) is equal to 1 FULL season of 93 in the WHA in terms of wear and tear...think about that for a second.
Basically, Jagr had 4 years of vacation compared to Gretzky who, only had a partial vacation in '95.

And seriously, if you want to count Jagr's 2 seasons in the Czech league prior to the NHL, then I'm counting Gretzky's 80 games in Junior A as well because those two leagues are pretty damned close IMO.

Final Tally:

Gretzky
1446 NHL games with PO's
93 WHA games with PO's (all in one season)
80 games OHA with PO's
6 WJr's
43 Canada Cup/World Cup/ WEC's
1668 Total


Jagr
1350 NHL games with PO's
152 non-NHL league games with PO's (spread over 4 seasons)
66 Canada Cup/World Cup/ Worlds/Olympics
7 Wjrs
1575 Total


No, it's not close IMO.

First, just forget Juniors. It's not going to work in Gretzky's favor anyway, and it just bring us further from agreement. Let's address the WHA separately, since it's not the same as the NHL.

So using your figures above, that makes the totals:

Gretzky
1495 NHL/Int'l games in 20 seasons (74.8/yr.)

Jagr
1423 NHL/Int'l games in 19 seasons (74.9/yr.)

So, the difference is a canceled '05 lockout season, over which Jagr had no control. The additional games are these:

- Jagr playing 18 games in 4 leagues in 3 countries, 11 of which were in the Czech top league, in before the '95 lockout shortened season, which is part of the seasons counted above.

- a canceled season, during which he played 60 games in 2 leagues in different countries, 43 of which were in the RSL

The RSL generally had higher equivalencies to the NHL than the WHA, while the Czech Extraliga had similar to or higher equivalencies than many WHA seasons. Some of the RSL players in '04-05:

Malkin 32 points in 52 games
Sykora 31 in 45
Gonchar 19 in 40
Semin 30 in 50
Frolov 37 in 42
Datsyuk 35 in 47
Kovalev 23 in 35
Ovechkin 27 in 37
Afinogenov 25 in 34
Slava Kozlov 29 in 38

You might have heard of some those guys, maybe you'll even see one in the HHOF one day. For Jagr to play at a pace to lead that league and play 43 games in that league in '05 was not like playing a few exhibition games or something. The Czech league in '05 had plenty of Czech current/former NHLers (e.g. 4th place team had Hejduk, Hemsky, Sykora, Bulis and Dopita... and none of them led the team in scoring, despite them playing an avg. of ~90% of the scheduled games).

If you add in the WHA, before age 18, then you should be adding more Czech games for Jagr. If the WHA was so much more difficult than RSL/Czech, then how much more punishment was Jagr taking compared to Gretzky? That's they whole point of this entirely fruitless excercise, isn't it? The wear and tear on each player?

This is about as even as you could possibly get, especially given the circumstances. FINAL ANSWER!

 

[Rhiessan71]

Look man...the 39 games Jagr played in the Czech league at 16 doesn't compare to the 67 Gretz played in the OHA at 16.
The 51 games Jagr played in the Czech league at 17 does not compare to the 93 games Gretz played in the WHA at 17.
The 60 games Jagr played in the Czech and Russian leagues at 32 during the '05 lockout does not compare to the 81 NHL games Gretz played at 32.

Gretz is around 100 games ahead and almost 200 NHL caliber/NHL schedule length games ahead of Jagr by age 35.
Those are the facts.

You can keep on trying to count his Czech/Russian league games as equal all you want but we both know those leagues had half the travel, half the competition, half the schedule and not even half of the physicality that Gretzky played his "extra" games under.

At minimum IMO, Gretz has 2 full out seasons on Jagr by age 35 and THAT is my final answer!
Half a season or difference is close, 2 or more...not!

And you want to throw out names?
How about Gordie Howe, Kent Nilsson, Mark Howe, Rick Vaive, Real Cloutier, Marc Tardif, Dave Keon, Mike Gartner, Michel Goulet and Craig Hartsburg. Any of those names happen to ring a bell at all?

 

[Czech Your Math]

Look man...the 39 games Jagr played in the Czech league at 16 doesn't compare to the 67 Gretz played in the OHA at 16.
The 51 games Jagr played in the Czech league at 17 does not compare to the 93 games Gretz played in the WHA at 17.
The 60 games Jagr played in the Czech and Russian leagues at 32 during the '05 lockout does not compare to the 81 NHL games Gretz played at 32.

Gretz is around 100 games ahead and almost 200 NHL caliber/NHL schedule length games ahead of Jagr by age 35.
Those are the facts.

You can keep on trying to count his Czech/Russian league games as equal all you want but we both know those leagues had half the travel, half the competition, half the schedule and not even half of the physicality that Gretzky played his "extra" games under.

At minimum IMO, Gretz has 2 full out seasons on Jagr by age 35 and THAT is my final answer!
Half a season or difference is close, 2 or more...not!

And you want to throw out names?
How about Gordie Howe, Kent Nilsson, Mark Howe, Rick Vaive, Real Cloutier, Marc Tardif, Dave Keon, Mike Gartner, Michel Goulet and Craig Hartsburg. Any of those names happen to ring a bell at all?

He played more 72 NHL/Int'l games in one more season (since no NHL games in Jagr's canceled '05 season are counted). How is that not close? There was not one time when Jagr wasn't playing games he could.

You call the RSL in 2005 half of what the WHA was? A league where Ovechkin, Datsyuk, Kovalchuk, and Kovalev can't come close to PPG the year before they did so in the NHL? The WHA was NHL caliber? Please, no it wasn't, neither was the RSL exactly, but the RSL was probably at least as good.

Half the physicality? Good grief, you refuse to acknowledge that Gretzky didn't play nearly as physical of a game as Jagr, in terms of absorbing hits. That's to his credit, but isn't the whole point how much wear and tear these players took over the years? They are practicing constantly, how does a couple hours on a plane compare to being harrassed by two or three players every shift for hundreds of games? It doesn't and you know that.

Sorry for nitpicking, I just wanted to clarify one point you made. I agree with most everything else, such as that Gretzky did have a lot of wear and tear, that he did produce throughout his career, and that he would still be dominant today. I even suggested that to say he "only" was 33 when he won his last Ross is not giving him enough credit. I just don't understand why you seem so stubborn about an almost irrelevant part of your argument. Sorry if I'm being the same, but to me it's clearly very close in terms of wear and tear. I wouldn't say the same of Lidstrom, because he wasn't absorbing punishment and CHOSE (over the NHL) to play in Sweden into his early 20s.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I agree with you that Sid, without the injuries would of been better than what he has been been and possibly he could of been in the 130-140 range.
Where you lose me is when you say Crosby at 140 and Gretzky at only 160.
I'm sorry but if Crosby manages 140, then Gretzky is easily topping 180.
The gap between the two offensively is a hell of a lot more than you're allowing for[/B].

This is the major problem in thinking IMO. Certain people already have the opinion that Wayne will outscore Sid by a certain amount and they try to force through that thought before they look at the circumstances that each player plays in.

It's always better to ask the question then follow the data to the range of answers instead of the other way around but there is an already formed mind if people are thinking that Wayne would score 170 plus constantly, or even at all today, because it has to be that way to fit the pre conceived notion.

 

[Hardyvan123]

The WHA was an NHL level league and more importantly playing an NHL level schedule.

You can not use the Czech league games to cover the WHA games because they most definitely are not the same in quality or quantity.

Playing an 80 game sched plus playoffs against mostly NHL level players is a huge difference to playing a 44 game sched plus playoffs against almost no NHL level players.

No one is buying that the WHA was an NHL level league in 79. the forwards were pretty decent but dropped off in depth and the D and G situation was definitely inferior to the NHL in terms of elite, league average or any other metric you want to use.

Someone ball parked it at 75% of the NHL level and I think that might be fair.

 

[Czech Your Math]

I think a lot of the confusion over how Gretzky would do come from the changes in scoring over the past few years.

2006 is not the same as 2012. So when people say "today", they need to be more clear, because the difference is quite substantial.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Oooookkk so he goes from 92, 71, 87 and 73 to only being a 30-35 goal man. That's a joke on any level imaginable.

Even if it was the exact same Edmonton team there is no way he scores even close to that amount in goals with modern goaltending and systems and if you think he does then I can't help you there.

Good luck trying to support that argument as well.

Again, he goes from winning Art Ross's on his assists alone to "maybe he gets 100 a couple of times"...the joke continues.

You are again confusing what he did in the early 80's and the game today but then again it's the consistent thing you do here.

How many times do I have say this before you get it into your head? It's a formula that normalizes everyone to the average. It assumes every player will be exactly the same. That is not how reality works, the further from the average you are, the more incorrect it will be.
The guys at the bottom, who were already having trouble scoring are going to have even more trouble than the % average, the average guy is reduced to about what the % average loss is going to be and the guys at the top are going to have the least % amount lost because they are STILL the guys doing most of the scoring.
If you try and tell me one more time that it would just be equally harder for Gretzky to score in today's NHL as it would be for Chris Nilan....seriously, for the love of god, either start listening to what I'm saying or just stop posting about it like you understand it.

I understand what adjusted stats do, it's pretty obvious that you do not. They convert what every player actually did[/QUOTE] in any season and normalize it to the average scoring season of all time.

It doesn't massage or add or subtract what any player did in any freaking season but given the number of times we have been over this it obviously over your head or you pick and choose when to ignore it.

Denis Maruk (or pick any players peak season in the early 80's) has as much chance of scoring 60 goals today like Wayne does 92 and the answer is pretty much zero in both cases.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I understand what adjusted stats do, it's pretty obvious that you do not. They convert what every player actually did in any season and normalize it to the average scoring season of all time.

It doesn't massage or add or subtract what any player did in any freaking season but given the number of times we have been over this it obviously over your head or you pick and choose when to ignore it.

Denis Maruk (or pick any players peak season in the early 80's) has as much chance of scoring 60 goals today like Wayne does 92 and the answer is pretty much zero in both cases.

Some day I think you're going to awake one morning and it will finally dawn on you that the accuracy of adjusting what a Gretzky or a Lemieux did based on what the rest of the league did is just completely out of whack.
Unfortunately until that day comes, you personally should treat discussions about Adjusted Stats like the rules of Fight Club.

PLEASE STOP TELLING ME THAT I DO NOT KNOW HOW THEY WORK!
I know exactly how averages are come by and exactly how statistics are normalized and I know for a fact that you do not.
You are doing nothing but making a fool out of yourself when you do.

 

[OrrNumber4]

With Gretzky, goal-scoring would be hard to predict, because he didn't consistently dominate in goalscoring. He had a few crazy peak years, and then a few years where he was just exceptionally good. So I would guess that today, he'd probably get around 50-60 goals in his prime, with a few years of dipping to 30-40, and a year or two of rising to 70-80.

I mean, his best years, he was 60% better than the next four highest goalscorers averaged. Compare that to '10 and '12, he'd get 75 and 78 goals per year.

However, consider the changes in the game. Goalies are simply better today, especially at stopping that first shot. I imagine Gretzky could still cause havoc with his shot, but more at creating rebounds than with sniping the puck. Gretzky would also benefit from using his playmaking ability to tear apart the rigid defensive schemes popular today. That with the blueline pass may make so that Gretzky is better optimized as a pure set-up man.

Trying to remember history here, but didn't Gretzky eventually realize this? As in, he realized that despite monsterous totals, he was better off focusing on playmaking? uAs in, he wanted to set the record, but he generally felt that he could produce the most points as a pure playmaker.

 

[OrrNumber4]

Some day I think you're going to awake one morning and it will finally dawn on you that the accuracy of adjusting what a Gretzky or a Lemieux did based on what the rest of the league did is just completely out of whack.
Unfortunately until that day comes, you personally should treat discussions about Adjusted Stats like the rules of Fight Club.

PLEASE STOP TELLING ME THAT I DO NOT KNOW HOW THEY WORK!
I know exactly how averages are come by and exactly how statistics are normalized and I know for a fact that you do not.
You are doing nothing but making a fool out of yourself when you do.

Really I think the best way to do this would be to take the PPG of every player in the league. Plot out the curve. Find the % that Gretzky fits in. Apply that to a similarly constructed curve of modern players. That might be the most accurate...

 

[Rhiessan71]

Really I think the best way to do this would be to take the PPG of every player in the league. Plot out the curve. Find the % that Gretzky fits in. Apply that to a similarly constructed curve of modern players. That might be the most accurate...

Yep, exactly and there were one or two folk around here trying different things to accomplish something along those line but it's tough.
At the end of the day that might work for most top players but it really just comes down to being next to impossible to accurately gauge the proper value of extreme outliers of the level of 99 and 66. You just try and be as close as you can and then temper that with logic, reason and real player to player comparisons like you are supposed to do with Adjusted Stats anyway.


Either way, I just find it absolutely hilarious that some around here can actually suggest that THE greatest goal scorer in the history of the game and by far the smartest player ever "might only be a 30-35 goal scorer" or "might hit 50 if he's lucky" or "maybe he tops 100 assists a couple times" in today's game.
Seriously, it's a disgustingly bad joke heh

 

[BenchBrawl]

I agree that Gretzky's little plays that people won't notice are all part of his hockey master mind that made him the greatest.It's also true that normally when a freak comes along he normally change the sport because people slowly but surely will employ his tactics in the future , while nobody has ever been able to analyze and replicate Gretzky correctly.

Also on another note , Lemieux did dominate with his mind just as much as his body.Lemieux was smarter than any player today.

 

[McGuillicuddy]

I'll add that goaltending is alot different today than in the 80's as well. People need to give their head a shake and go back and look at save % in the 80's compared to the last decade.

40 and 50 goal scores were a dime a dozen in the 80's and in the last 6 years there have been exactly 12 guys 50 plus and only 44 over 40.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=goals

There isn't a lack of talent or skills in goal scoring, it's become alot freaking harder to score.

Let's look at the save % now.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/leagues/stats.html

During the last 6 years it has averaged at about .910 and in the 80's that we have figures for it's around .880 or so.

All teams are just so much better prepared to stop players from scoring.

My comments about Wayne's scoring were respectful, I consider him to be the best player of all time. At the same time the league is extremely competitive and has changed, why is this so hard for people to see?

That difference in save percentage (0.910 - 0.880 = 0.030) approximates to a difference of 1 goal per game (assuming 30 shots/game). In this case that means for every game the Oilers played (80) they would score appoximately 1 goal less per game, and therefore 80 goals less in an entire season in the early 80s.

In 1981-82 the Oilers scored 417 goals, of which Gretzky scored 92. Gretzky's portion represents 22% of the goals scored by the Oilers. Assuming that all players are equally affected by a 30 point change in save percentage we can calculate that Gretzky's total would drop by 0.22 * 80 = 17.6 goals (lets round to 18 to be conservative). That leaves Gretzky with 76 goals.

This is in close agreement with a similar calculation I did not too long ago that comes at this same question from a different angle:

Linky

In that case the result was 79 goals. Either way, not too shabby.

 

[211*]

That difference in save percentage (0.910 - 0.880 = 0.030) approximates to a difference of 1 goal per game (assuming 30 shots/game). In this case that means for every game the Oilers played (80) they would score appoximately 1 goal less per game, and therefore 80 goals less in an entire season in the early 80s.

In 1981-82 the Oilers scored 417 goals, of which Gretzky scored 92. Gretzky's portion represents 22% of the goals scored by the Oilers. Assuming that all players are equally affected by a 30 point change in save percentage we can calculate that Gretzky's total would drop by 0.22 * 80 = 17.6 goals (lets round to 18 to be conservative). That leaves Gretzky with 76 goals.

This is in close agreement with a similar calculation I did not too long ago that comes at this same question from a different angle:

Linky

In that case the result was 79 goals. Either way, not too shabby.

gretzky would never score 70 goals today, if he couldnt score over 40 in the 90s.