Will we ever see a better player than Gretzky? Will we know it?

[kshinkman*]

I'm not 100% sure what forum to put this in. This is more of a look in the future than a look at the past, however it involves Gretzky and I figured I'd put it here. Plus this board has the best discussion, I won't get answers such as "No /end thread".

Anyway, this question is two-fold. First will we see a better player than Gretzky ever? Second, if we do, would we know it?

Reason I ask this is because a huge part of his legacy is how he tore apart the record books. Another part is the fact that he was part of the Oilers dynasty. However, even though he was leaps and bounds better than anyone in his era, you still have to realize that Gretzky's numbers and records are a bit inflated by the era he played in. You won't see those numbers in today's NHL. So what does someone have to do to surpass him? Does he have to have a certain percentage lead over his closest competitor? Because unless someone plays a ridiculously long time at a ridiculous high level, I don't see anyone touching Gretzky's records. For a little perspective, if we look at his regular season point total of 2,857, if a player were to start at 18 and finish at 45, he'd need to average about 106 points per season. Even THEN, people will more likely just call him a compiler (an all time great compiler, but not in Gretzky's class). Also, let's not forget that Gretzky played with some of the best players in the NHL. With the cap, we won't see teams like that ever again. So it seems that unless there's some sort of change in the NHL (I can't foresee a significant one unless they do something ridiculous like make the nets bigger), no one is touching those numbers. And we can't use math to say that certain seasons were as good as Gretzky's. I remember someone doing that with Stamkos' season last year, taking into account how high scoring the league was and got practically laughed at.

Furthermore, a reason Gretzky is so revered is that he won 4 cups on a dynasty team that may be the best known dynasty in the NHL. Going back to the cap, it'll be very difficult for a player to win 4 cups total over his career, much less in a dynasty.

So if someone DOES come along as good as Gretzky will the lower numbers and cups obscure his accomplishments?

To borrow one example from another sport. Wilt Chamberlain dominated his day in a different era. He had seasons no one could dream of in a different era. He had 50 points per game one season. He had a 100 point game. He dominated the boards, had 11 seasons of 20+ boards (in a row). However, in came Jordan and he's now considered the best ever. Granted he does have more career points than Wilt, but that's in 3 more seasons. People were able to discount the era and not hold it against Michael that it was impossible in his era to average 50 points a game in one season. One difference though is that basketball is much more conducive to dynasties than the NHL today. Michael's 6 in 8 years is probably the biggest factor in being called GOAT. Most likely we won't see an NHL player be part of a legit dynasty anymore if the cap doesn't disappear.

We've already seen a better player than Gretzky. His name is Mario Lemieux.

 

[Rhiessan71]

We've already seen a better player than Gretzky. His name is Mario Lemieux.

In your opinion and welcome to 30 pages ago

 

[BamBamCam*]

We've already seen a better player than Gretzky. His name is Mario Lemieux.

Wow....

 

[Big Phil]

Hardy, now I am usually fair on these boards and if you answered this already I apologize but we are talking about 800+ posts so we can get lost here. But if you can, can you answer this question now?

Alright, we saw all-time greats cross over generations and dominate in either or. Lemieux dominated in 1989 in an NHL with about 80% Canadians. He did the same in 1993 when the Euro invasion was starting. He did the same in 1996 when no one other than his own linemate was within a country mile of him. Then as a 35 year old in an NHL with 55% Canadians he was on pace for a 145 point season in 2000-'01. Mario Lemieux, as we saw with our own eyes, could dominate regardless of era and regardless of where the players were born. We don't need to imagine this, we saw it.

Gordie Howe, dominates the 1950s and up until Gretzky probably was the forward that people would have considered to have had the biggest gap between him and the next best forward when he was playing - and that was Richard by the way. Then as he gets older and in his 30s he wins two Harts. In 1968-'69 no longer in an original 6 league and no longer a young man he has 103 points good for 3rd overall in the NHL behind Esposito and Hull. He then competes rather well in his 40s in the WHA and even as a 51 year old in his final season in the NHL he has 41 points. We literally saw Gordie Howe have no problem dominating against his peers, regardless of era. The man had 20 straight seasons where he was top 5 in the scoring race.

Ray Bourque is another name. First team all-star in 1980. Loses the Norris to Robinson. Wins his first Norris in 1987 and his last in 1994. Has lots of foreign competition in 1994. He's getting older but not worse. He routinely is a first or 2nd team all-star up until 2001, his final season, as a 40 year old and he finishes 2nd in Norris voting to Lidstrom. Bourque was the best defenseman in the 1980s, he was most likely the best in the 1990s as well and he retired as a 1st team all-star. He had no problem dominating in a high or lower scoring era and regardless of where the best defensemen in the world came from.


Alright, that's three names and three all-time greats. Neither of them had any problems whatsoever dominating in different eras, with different types of players and different levels of scoring.

So the question begs, why stop at Gretzky? We saw him lead the entire field in scoring in two different decades. Do all of these examples not prove enough to you that a true all-time great is going to dominate regardless of era?

 

[Big Phil]

I agree with you on most of this. But I am old enough to have gone from the old metal skates to CCM Super Tacks when that was the new thing, those skates clearly gave me more speed. The equipment is better now.

Right. So everyone, including Gretzky, has the same advantages. Just like in any other era and just like in any other time. What has changed here?

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Hardy, now I am usually fair on these boards and if you answered this already I apologize but we are talking about 800+ posts so we can get lost here. But if you can, can you answer this question now?

Alright, we saw all-time greats cross over generations and dominate in either or. Lemieux dominated in 1989 in an NHL with about 80% Canadians. He did the same in 1993 when the Euro invasion was starting. He did the same in 1996 when no one other than his own linemate was within a country mile of him. Then as a 35 year old in an NHL with 55% Canadians he was on pace for a 145 point season in 2000-'01. Mario Lemieux, as we saw with our own eyes, could dominate regardless of era and regardless of where the players were born. We don't need to imagine this, we saw it.

Gordie Howe, dominates the 1950s and up until Gretzky probably was the forward that people would have considered to have had the biggest gap between him and the next best forward when he was playing - and that was Richard by the way. Then as he gets older and in his 30s he wins two Harts. In 1968-'69 no longer in an original 6 league and no longer a young man he has 103 points good for 3rd overall in the NHL behind Esposito and Hull. He then competes rather well in his 40s in the WHA and even as a 51 year old in his final season in the NHL he has 41 points. We literally saw Gordie Howe have no problem dominating against his peers, regardless of era. The man had 20 straight seasons where he was top 5 in the scoring race.

Ray Bourque is another name. First team all-star in 1980. Loses the Norris to Robinson. Wins his first Norris in 1987 and his last in 1994. Has lots of foreign competition in 1994. He's getting older but not worse. He routinely is a first or 2nd team all-star up until 2001, his final season, as a 40 year old and he finishes 2nd in Norris voting to Lidstrom. Bourque was the best defenseman in the 1980s, he was most likely the best in the 1990s as well and he retired as a 1st team all-star. He had no problem dominating in a high or lower scoring era and regardless of where the best defensemen in the world came from.


Alright, that's three names and three all-time greats. Neither of them had any problems whatsoever dominating in different eras, with different types of players and different levels of scoring.

So the question begs, why stop at Gretzky? We saw him lead the entire field in scoring in two different decades. Do all of these examples not prove enough to you that a true all-time great is going to dominate regardless of era?

That's a pretty solid post, Phil, that at least begs the same amount of thought and context for "suitable" rebuttal, imo.

 

[BamBamCam*]

Right. So everyone, including Gretzky, has the same advantages. Just like in any other era and just like in any other time. What has changed here?

Hold on, I agree with you wholeheartedly.

I mentioned the skates because some of the players like the guy in your avatar never had the advantage of Super Tacks. Or maybe he had them on during the Blackhawk days but nonetheless, he barely ever used them. It would have made them greater...that's the only "what if" I have.

So, there is a gap in equipment from decade to decade that aids the next generation to be better than the last. Now, like you mentioned, that does not mean the player (insert name) would not have done the same thing with or w/o that equipment in any era they played in. I believe players like Orr, Gretz or Richard (pick your player) would have dominated in any era.

The 80% Canadian league argument drives me nuts. We saw Mario (like you eloquently pointed out) dominate in the 80s and 90s just like we saw Orr dominate in the Canada Cup against the best players in the world at the time.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

I mentioned the skates because some of the players like the guy in your avatar never had the advantage of Super Tacks. Or maybe he had them on during the Blackhawk days but nonetheless, he barely ever used them. It would have made them greater...that's the only "what if" I have.

For sure, on some level. Perhaps mostly for players whose success was predicated on speed. Not sure we can treat skates like a +1 bonus item that gives "Old Player A" X extra points whether they're Esposito or Lafleur, for example. Perhaps quicker feet on defensemen (or goalies, for that matter) shifts the balance in a less predictable manner "league-wide", who knows?

What-ifs are dangerous things to explore too deeply in a linear manner, and are nearly impossible to contemplate with "sufficient" lateral thought.

 

[Big Phil]

Hold on, I agree with you wholeheartedly.

I mentioned the skates because some of the players like the guy in your avatar never had the advantage of Super Tacks. Or maybe he had them on during the Blackhawk days but nonetheless, he barely ever used them. It would have made them greater...that's the only "what if" I have.

So, there is a gap in equipment from decade to decade that aids the next generation to be better than the last. Now, like you mentioned, that does not mean the player (insert name) would not have done the same thing with or w/o that equipment in any era they played in. I believe players like Orr, Gretz or Richard (pick your player) would have dominated in any era.

The 80% Canadian league argument drives me nuts. We saw Mario (like you eloquently pointed out) dominate in the 80s and 90s just like we saw Orr dominate in the Canada Cup against the best players in the world at the time.

Precisely.

 

[Big Phil]

That's a pretty solid post, Phil, that at least begs the same amount of thought and context for "suitable" rebuttal, imo.

I thought it was awfully relevant too. I directed it at Hardyvan and I want his opinion on it.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Hardy, now I am usually fair on these boards and if you answered this already I apologize but we are talking about 800+ posts so we can get lost here. But if you can, can you answer this question now?

Alright, we saw all-time greats cross over generations and dominate in either or. Lemieux dominated in 1989 in an NHL with about 80% Canadians. He did the same in 1993 when the Euro invasion was starting. He did the same in 1996 when no one other than his own linemate was within a country mile of him. Then as a 35 year old in an NHL with 55% Canadians he was on pace for a 145 point season in 2000-'01. Mario Lemieux, as we saw with our own eyes, could dominate regardless of era and regardless of where the players were born. We don't need to imagine this, we saw it.

Gordie Howe, dominates the 1950s and up until Gretzky probably was the forward that people would have considered to have had the biggest gap between him and the next best forward when he was playing - and that was Richard by the way. Then as he gets older and in his 30s he wins two Harts. In 1968-'69 no longer in an original 6 league and no longer a young man he has 103 points good for 3rd overall in the NHL behind Esposito and Hull. He then competes rather well in his 40s in the WHA and even as a 51 year old in his final season in the NHL he has 41 points. We literally saw Gordie Howe have no problem dominating against his peers, regardless of era. The man had 20 straight seasons where he was top 5 in the scoring race.

Ray Bourque is another name. First team all-star in 1980. Loses the Norris to Robinson. Wins his first Norris in 1987 and his last in 1994. Has lots of foreign competition in 1994. He's getting older but not worse. He routinely is a first or 2nd team all-star up until 2001, his final season, as a 40 year old and he finishes 2nd in Norris voting to Lidstrom. Bourque was the best defenseman in the 1980s, he was most likely the best in the 1990s as well and he retired as a 1st team all-star. He had no problem dominating in a high or lower scoring era and regardless of where the best defensemen in the world came from.


Alright, that's three names and three all-time greats. Neither of them had any problems whatsoever dominating in different eras, with different types of players and different levels of scoring.

So the question begs, why stop at Gretzky? We saw him lead the entire field in scoring in two different decades. Do all of these examples not prove enough to you that a true all-time great is going to dominate regardless of era?

All 3 cases put forward were quite different and I won't go into great detail about them here except to say that some conclusions that coem forth are out of palce.

Bourque was only an all star in his last season because he was traded to the Avs and was playing with the best team in hockey with 2 top 20 centers of all time in their prime, a couple of really good top minute Dmen in Foote and Blake not to mention a guy in net named Roy.

He was on a natural decline as was Howe, although Howe was just plain Mr career but hadn't scored over 30 goals for a couple of seasons, 4 actually, before expansion.

Mario we ahve been over before, 32 PP points in 35 games with Jagr, a motivated Kovalev on the best PP of the era.

His actual "impact" in 01 was less than the stats tell.

Great for fantasy hockey but not a generational type of season by any means, even if he plays all season long.

Look Wayne is the number 1 guy ever IMO partly due to his skill and scoring but also a lot to do with his preparation.

The reason I don't think he would dominate as much today, or that anyone could, isn't because I'm not a fan of Wayne but rather I see the game for what it is, a defensive struggle were goals are a t a premium and coaches, defense and team play are at a premium over skill and the high flying 80's.

Sid is the closet guy to Wayne in terms of total impact and "legend status" and has a very good chance to be even greater than Mario who was an offensive and PP wizard but not the complete package like Wayne was or perhaps even Jean Beliveau or others when looking at their total impact on their teams winning.

Put another way I'd rather have quite a few different guys leading my team than Mario but very few, if any, than Wayne.

 

[daver]

All 3 cases put forward were quite different and I won't go into great detail about them here except to say that some conclusions that coem forth are out of palce.

Bourque was only an all star in his last season because he was traded to the Avs and was playing with the best team in hockey with 2 top 20 centers of all time in their prime, a couple of really good top minute Dmen in Foote and Blake not to mention a guy in net named Roy.

He was on a natural decline as was Howe, although Howe was just plain Mr career but hadn't scored over 30 goals for a couple of seasons, 4 actually, before expansion.

Mario we ahve been over before, 32 PP points in 35 games with Jagr, a motivated Kovalev on the best PP of the era.

His actual "impact" in 01 was less than the stats tell.

Great for fantasy hockey but not a generational type of season by any means, even if he plays all season long.

Look Wayne is the number 1 guy ever IMO partly due to his skill and scoring but also a lot to do with his preparation.

The reason I don't think he would dominate as much today, or that anyone could, isn't because I'm not a fan of Wayne but rather I see the game for what it is, a defensive struggle were goals are a t a premium and coaches, defense and team play are at a premium over skill and the high flying 80's.

Sid is the closet guy to Wayne in terms of total impact and "legend status" and has a very good chance to be even greater than Mario who was an offensive and PP wizard but not the complete package like Wayne was or perhaps even Jean Beliveau or others when looking at their total impact on their teams winning.

Put another way I'd rather have quite a few different guys leading my team than Mario but very few, if any, than Wayne.

You seem to be giving a reason why scoring is lower than the 80's, not why someone could not dominate the league in relative terms.

A 35 year Mario putting up 145 in the DPE wouldn't be generational? He never needed talent to put up monster numbers before he retired. None of the great ones do.

PP specialist? Crosby put up half of his points in 06-07 on the PP. A rate higher than Mario's.

How do you explain Bourqe's all star selection in 1999?

A 35 year Howe winning the Art Ross and Hart is somehow diminished cause he couldn't score more than 30 goals after that?

Sorry, you have not made a compelling case. Talent is talent, and the best way, if not the only realisitic way, to measure is against peers.

 

[Hawks82]

Gretzky's statistical dominance IMO will survive the test of time. When your talking about a player who would still be the all time leader in points if you took every goal he ever scored away, and he just so happens to have scored the most goals in history...that's really all that needs to be said. He's the guy sitting atop the throne.

 

[BamBamCam*]

Gretzky's statistical dominance IMO will survive the test of time. When your talking about a player who would still be the all time leader in points if you took every goal he ever scored away, and he just so happens to have scored the most goals in history...that's really all that needs to be said. He's the guy sitting atop the throne.

We don't know nor can we predict this. While it seems unbeatable, there is nothing that can not be undone. Nothing.

 

[Randomtask68]

What's the acceptable level of offensive dominance for such a player?

Would people think that a player is better than Gretzky if they had similar success in terms of awards (5 Rocket Richard, 10 Art Rosses, 16-time assist leader, 9 Harts, etc) but without the ridiculous edge over the competition (ex: Gretzky winning Art Rosses by 50+ points before Mario challenged him and owning the top 2 goal finishes in history)?

 

[BamBamCam*]

What's the acceptable level of offensive dominance for such a player?

Would people think that a player is better than Gretzky if they had similar success in terms of awards (5 Rocket Richard, 10 Art Rosses, 16-time assist leader, 9 Harts, etc) but without the ridiculous edge over the competition (ex: Gretzky winning Art Rosses by 50+ points before Mario challenged him and owning the top 2 goal finishes in history)?

To some like me; Orr already has Gretzky beat, so it's what you value not what you can point at on the stat sheet or scoreboard.

 

[Killion]

To some like me; Orr already has Gretzky beat, so it's what you value not what you can point at on the stat sheet or scoreboard.

Ya absolutely. For me, I prefer Orr over an even greater abstractionist in Gretzky as my pick for Greatest All Time Player. I think the game from a defensive perspective, just have a natural & innate appreciation more for the greats on the blue-line than Ive ever had for forwards.... as Hard-Rock Defenceman Harold Snepsts once said when advised by his Doctor after another concussion to start wearing a helmet in order to avoid brain damage, "I guess I can always play forward if that happens".

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

To some like me; Orr already has Gretzky beat, so it's what you value not what you can point at on the stat sheet or scoreboard.

What makes it such a great debate is that these are two players who have resumes in the superfluous regardless of which avenue you take, really.

 

[BulletTheBlueSky]

We've already witnessed the greatest player of all time in Mario Lemieux. Had he not missed the time he did for his severe back issues and what not, he would have busted Gretzky's records wide the hell open.

I hate the fact that Gretzky is called the Great One, I think Lemieux roasts him in every category of the game. Gretzky is lucky Lemieux was so hurt.

Lemieux fought, hit, scored. He was the complete package. Gretzky was one dimensional for the most part.

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

We've already witnessed the greatest player of all time in Mario Lemieux. Had he not missed the time he did for his severe back issues and what not, he would have busted Gretzky's records wide the hell open.

I hate the fact that Gretzky is called the Great One, I think Lemieux roasts him in every category of the game. Gretzky is lucky Lemieux was so hurt.

Lemieux fought, hit, scored. He was the complete package. Gretzky was one dimensional for the most part.

Biased much?

 

[Killion]

... he would have busted Gretzky's records wide the hell open.... I hate the fact that Gretzky is called the Great One... Gretzky is lucky Lemieux was so hurt.

.... why dont you tell us how you really feel NJD?

 

[BamBamCam*]

We've already witnessed the greatest player of all time in Mario Lemieux. Had he not missed the time he did for his severe back issues and what not, he would have busted Gretzky's records wide the hell open.

I hate the fact that Gretzky is called the Great One, I think Lemieux roasts him in every category of the game. Gretzky is lucky Lemieux was so hurt.

Lemieux fought, hit, scored. He was the complete package. Gretzky was one dimensional for the most part.

Even if you go age 19 to 27 comparing stats. Mario has ZERO chance to catch Wayne's records. The injury has very little to do with the possibly to catch Wayne.

Mario and Wayne essentially fought the same amount of people. Wayne has 4 and Mario is listed as 7 BUT at least 3 of those Mario fights, no one dropped the gloves or it was a prolonged scrum, not a fight. So, I don't know why you even bothered to make some sort of boast about Mario "fought". He was also a big giant cry baby about physical play, so you decide where he really stood on the rough stuff.

Like to show where Mario was a defensive stalwart enough so to try and slam Gretzky about being one dimensional? Nevermind that is just a silly thing to say.


Pen fans = Wing fans I don't see much difference sometimes.

 

[OrrNumber4]

Bourque was only an all star in his last season because he was traded to the Avs and was playing with the best team in hockey with 2 top 20 centers of all time in their prime, a couple of really good top minute Dmen in Foote and Blake not to mention a guy in net named Roy.

He was also really, really, good. I could also say that the only reason Bourque wasn't an all-star the season before was because he was playing on the worst team in hockey with no talent surrounding him.

Mario we ahve been over before, 32 PP points in 35 games with Jagr, a motivated Kovalev on the best PP of the era.

So? First, we cannot completely discount his effectiveness on the powerplay. After all, take away powerplay points from the Lidstrom-Bourque equation, and Bourque blows Lidstrom out of the water. Lidstrom was also frequently playing on the best PP of his era.

Even with 0 PP production, Lemieux still gets, what, 45 points in the 43 games he played? Crosby is at a very similar pace today, except that Crosby is in his prime.

Great for fantasy hockey but not a generational type of season by any means, even if he plays all season long.

Very hard time believing this. Over a full season, Lemieux would project to 145 points. Moreover, Lemieux wasn't quite a generational player at that point. He had regressed just like anyone does at that age (and after taking so much time off, injuries, etc.).

Put another way I'd rather have quite a few different guys leading my team than Mario but very few, if any, than Wayne.

If Gretzky is really your number one guy, there should be no doubt that you'd have no one else leading your team, no?

 

[shazariahl]

We've already witnessed the greatest player of all time in Mario Lemieux. Had he not missed the time he did for his severe back issues and what not, he would have busted Gretzky's records wide the hell open.

I hate the fact that Gretzky is called the Great One, I think Lemieux roasts him in every category of the game. Gretzky is lucky Lemieux was so hurt.

Lemieux fought, hit, scored. He was the complete package. Gretzky was one dimensional for the most part.

1. His PPG at the time of his back injury was lower than Gretzky's was at the same point in his career. There's actually no point where Lemieux was ahead in PPG at the same stages of their careers (ie after 3 yrs, 6, 7, 12, whatever).

2. Lemieux didn't fight either. IIRC he had 7 fights in his whole career. In 17 years, that's not a fighter. He was also more one-dimensional than Gretzky, especially at the start of his career where he tended to float a lot. Gretzky wasn't winning any selke's either, but at least he gave effort.

3. You said Lemieux roasts him in every category, but Gretzky still has the single seas records for goals, assists, points, GPG, APG, and PPG. I'm not talking career here, where obviously Lemieux wouldn't have been able to surpass him due to injury, but even single season Gretzky holds all the records. In most cases, Lemieux isn't even really close. Gretzky is 1st and 2nd in goals with 92 and 87 (in only 74 games). He's 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6th in points. He's 1-7 in assists, and then tied with Mario for 8th. He reached 300 goals, 400, 500, 600, and 700 all in less games than Lemieux. He scored 50 in 39 and 50 in 42. Mario's best is 50 in 44. If Lemieux "roasts" him in every category, why doesn't he actually lead in ANY major scoring category?

You can try to break things down with adjusted points, etc, but your posts wasn't about adjusted stats, you said Lemieux would have destroyed all of Gretzky's records. He had seasons where he was healthy for 40 games, but he never beat 50 in 39. He had seasons where he sat out back to back games and still didn't beat Gretzky's 2.77 PPG pace. He wasn't even close to any of Gretzky's assist records. If Lemieux were healthy, he'd have come closer, but Gretzky would have still beat him in every major scoring category.

 

[Big Phil]

All 3 cases put forward were quite different and I won't go into great detail about them here except to say that some conclusions that coem forth are out of palce.

Bourque was only an all star in his last season because he was traded to the Avs and was playing with the best team in hockey with 2 top 20 centers of all time in their prime, a couple of really good top minute Dmen in Foote and Blake not to mention a guy in net named Roy.

He was on a natural decline as was Howe, although Howe was just plain Mr career but hadn't scored over 30 goals for a couple of seasons, 4 actually, before expansion.

But Bourque had 17 straight seasons where he was either a first or second team all-star. From 1979 to 1996 the game changed in the way where more Europeans were coming over. It didn't seem to matter. Bourque then was an all-star in 1999 and then 2001 in his final season. If you want to chalk it up to only being on the Avs then fine, but I think it just goes to show you that even Ray Bourque eventually had to stop getting all-star selections at some point. In 22 seasons he was an all-star in all but three of them. They were all at the end of his career when even Howe himself slowed down. I really don't know what these two men would have had to do in order to prove things to you. They are two of the most consistent and durable superstars in NHL history and when you saw them slow down in their late 30s/early 40s you consider that a knock? Have you thought that maybe Bourque AND Sakic complemented each other well in 2001? Does Sakic win the Hart without Bourque patrolling the blueline? Who knows? But what we do know is that both stars did well with each other and without each other.

As for Howe that is a strange description of the man. He is penalized because there is a 4 year span - while he was post 35 years old - where he didn't clear 30 goals? Come on, are you really using that argument? He was still top 5 in points those years and even among the top goal scorers, still.

Mario we ahve been over before, 32 PP points in 35 games with Jagr, a motivated Kovalev on the best PP of the era.

His actual "impact" in 01 was less than the stats tell.

Great for fantasy hockey but not a generational type of season by any means, even if he plays all season long.

Mario finished 2nd in Hart voting in 2001. He was 35 years old during 2000-'01 and he played 43 games. He nearly had a goal a game. What more could the man have done? But if you want to ignore 2001 then I can't stop you despite the evidence that Mario could dominate regardless of age or era, but how about 2002-'03 when he was even older, more beaten down, on a worse team and to top it all off, no Jagr. As a 37 year old he had 91 points in 67 games. On paper it looks good but it looks even better when you see the pace he had early in the season. 64 points in 37 games his first three months. After that, he tailed off, missed time and lost his chance at the Art Ross. Mario was not the same player anymore and couldn't maintain that type of pace all year anymore. I remember there being articles early in the season talking about how much of a mockery Mario was making "the rest" of the players in the NHL look. So with Mario there is overflowing evidence that he could dominate regardless of era.

Look Wayne is the number 1 guy ever IMO partly due to his skill and scoring but also a lot to do with his preparation.

The reason I don't think he would dominate as much today, or that anyone could, isn't because I'm not a fan of Wayne but rather I see the game for what it is, a defensive struggle were goals are a t a premium and coaches, defense and team play are at a premium over skill and the high flying 80's.

Wayne's preparation was peerless, but it was his hockey sense and vision that made him what he was. Youtube can be your friend here, just watch the passes Gretzky made on a routine basis. No one can make some of the passes he made. That's what made him great - hockey sense. I can't imagine him being any less of a player today.

Look, I think Gretzky is a perfect example of the attitudes people get these days. Someone re-writes the record book by basically thrashing the previous records and because we don't see that again for 30 years we look at things short sighted and say - "Well, no one could do that today anyway". You know, a player like Gretzky isn't supposed to come around every 10 years. It is more of a once in a lifetime thing. He's the exception to the rule. It is kind of like people assuming the Lakers' 1971-'72 record of 33 wins in a row can never be broken today because the game is "different". That's simply a lazy way of looking at things. That theory gets trampled on when we see what the Miami Heat have done in consecutive games. Or even the Penguins of 2013 who are very close to the Penguins of 1993 with the consecutive wins record. These records stand for a long time not because it was an inferior era when it happened but rather because it is extremely difficult to replicate at any time. Even the 1977 Habs "only" won 8 games in a row at their best that season. In the so-called watered down 1970s the greatest team of all-time didn't even reach 10 wins in a row. It is hard to accomplish these feats just like it is and was very hard for Gretzky to do what he did. If it were easy, it would have happened by now.