Would you take Prime Gretzky, or Prime Crosby and Malkin?

[Albatros]

Maybe, but Gretzky was also getting older, with a bad back and an arthritic shoulder. I don't really see changes in goaltending being as much a factor in Gretzky's goal scoring decline than aging and injuries. I don't think changes in goaltending for some reason would have affected Gretzky at one rate, and every other player in the league at a lesser degree. It seems far more likely that it was age and his injuries, all of which are well known to us, that was the result of his decline. Gretzky was accurate, intelligent, patient, and had incredible anticipation. Am I supposed to believe those qualities don't matter in today's league? He never really relied on power anyways. I feel like, if anything, his skills would translate incredibly well into today's league.

Yes he was, but his goal scoring halved in his 20s already. Many other scorers of the same generation like Kurri or Hawerchuk or Goulet declined rather quickly too, it wasn't just Gretzky. With great anticipation you can still score 30 or so in today's league, sure. But if you look at the players competing for scoring titles nowadays, their skillsets are as much about what Gretzky didn't have. He wouldn't be the ultimate player today at least as a goal scorer.

 

[umma gumma]

Yes he was, but his goal scoring halved in his 20s already. Many other scorers of the same generation like Kurri or Hawerchuk or Goulet declined rather quickly too, it wasn't just Gretzky. With great anticipation you can still score 30 or so in today's league, sure. But if you look at the players competing for scoring titles nowadays, their skillsets are as much about what Gretzky didn't have. He wouldn't be the ultimate player today at least as a goal scorer.

I love these absolutes based on nothing. You have no idea what kind of player Gretzky could be if was born in the 90's. Sure, he likely wouldn't score 92 goals, but he'd still have the same brain, never mind composite equipment. And no red line. And no clutching and grabbing.

 

[Albatros]

I love these absolutes based on nothing. You have no idea what kind of player Gretzky could be if was born in the 90's. Sure, he likely wouldn't score 92 goals, but he'd still have the same brain, never mind composite equipment. And no red line. And no clutching and grabbing.

True, I have no idea whether Gretzky would make the league at all if he was born in the 1990s.

 

[Video Nasty]

The not so greatest hockey minds (HFBoards) are trying to say that the greatest hockey mind wouldn’t find a way to dominate today’s game.

 

[umma gumma]

True, I have no idea whether Gretzky would make the league at all if he was born in the 1990s.

What does this even mean? That Gretzky might not be interested in hockey at all, or that you honestly don't have a clue on the subject so you shouldn't be arguing about how Gretzky would fair today?

 

[Albatros]

What does this even mean? That Gretzky might not be interested in hockey at all, or that you honestly don't have a clue on the subject so you shouldn't be arguing about how Gretzky would fair today?

Mastering the path to the league is a rather more important and fundamental question than composite sticks are.

 

[umma gumma]

Mastering the path to the league is a rather more important and fundamental question than composite sticks are.

Pray tell, in which ways do you think Gretzky would have difficulties master the path to the NHL? He's the smartest player in the history of the game, he's one of the most determined hockey players ever, regular season and playoffs so his will to be the best would still be there. He's not small by today's standards. Where would his struggles be in 'mastering the path'? You must have an idea because you sound absolutely convinced he wouldn't much of a hockey player today.

 

[Albatros]

The basic assumption can not be that every exceptionally talented youth player is destined to make it to the NHL, for that to happen a lot has had to go right already before the first game as a professional. The whole story about Walter Gretzky coaching his son at the backyard rink you could toss right out of the window in today's youth hockey. Could Gretzky make it regardless? Of course. Would he? That's a bigger if than composite sticks.

 

[umma gumma]

The basic assumption can not be that every exceptionally talented youth player is destined to make it to the NHL, for that to happen a lot has had to go right already before the first game as a professional. The whole story about Walter Gretzky coaching his son at the backyard rink you could toss right out of the window in today's youth hockey. Could Gretzky make it regardless? Of course. Would he? That's a bigger if than composite sticks.

Wait, are you basing this on Gretzky having the same upbringing in the 2000s that he did in the 60s and only practiced on his backyard rink, and continued to play baseball in the summer while all of his peers were going to power skating lessons and playing hockey and getting coached year round?

It sounds to me like the basic assumption is whatever you want it to be.

 

[bobbyking]

30 points better then peak kane

 

[Albatros]

Wait, are you basing this on Gretzky having the same upbringing in the 2000s that he did in the 60s and only practiced on his backyard rink, and continued to play baseball in the summer while all of his peers were going to power skating lessons and playing hockey and getting coached year round?

It sounds to me like the basic assumption is whatever you want it to be.

Any other Gretzky is anybody's guess, it's not the same person anymore.

 

[umma gumma]

Any other Gretzky is anybody's guess, it's not the same person anymore.

Exactly. He would be different, so statements like 'he wouldn't be the ultimate player' are inaccurate. Only millennials use the time machine argument as its one you can't lose. Going back in time is always an advantage, and vice versa. You have no idea what he could do. You don't think have better training, coaching, year round hockey and modern equipment as a youth would be to his benefit as opposed to what he grew up with? Come on man.

 

[jfhabs]

A guy who scores 200pts vs 2 guys who score 100 each?
I'd take the guy who scoress 200 for entertainment purposes.

 

[Albatros]

Exactly. He would be different, so statements like 'he wouldn't be the ultimate player' are inaccurate. Only millennials use the time machine argument as its one you can't lose. Going back in time is always an advantage, and vice versa. You have no idea what he could do. You don't think have better training, coaching, year round hockey and modern equipment as a youth would be to his benefit as opposed to what he grew up with? Come on man.

To know what type of players are most successful as goal scorers today it's enough to look at the players that factually are, we don't need to know anything about the hypothetical millennial Gretzky for it. And one thing we can say with sufficient certainty is that Gretzky with his genes doesn't become Ovechkin or Matthews by being born into another generation and receiving a composite stick at an earlier age.

 

[nowhereman]

A guy who scores 200pts vs 2 guys who score 100 each?
I'd take the guy who scoress 200 for entertainment purposes.

Again, do people not realize that scoring rates change between eras? Gordie Howe had only one season over 100 points; does he not deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as Gretzky? Oh, and both Crosby and Malkin scored at well over a 100 point pace in their prime, so you're really batting a 1000 here...