In the 80s goalies played almost naked, highlights from that era are not worthy even for amateur hockey.
The argument against Gretzky, and the reality, is that Gretzky could only score 90 goals (or anything close) in a very small window or years, which also happened to coincide with his best scoring years.So can you name the other players that scored 90+ goals in a season then? Because it ought to have been plenty. Or even 80. Or 70. Even Bossy never cracked 70. Gretzky scored at a ridiculous level and it is funny because he tends to get penalized for not doing it at that level for a longer period of time. He is the only player in NHL history to do this at that level and the argument against him is that eventually he didn't do it at that level.
After the Canada Cup. It took place Dec 30th, 1987, and it wasn't a big factor on his goal-scoring in the big scheme of things. As was evident in the Canada Cup, he wasn't close to being hockey's best goal-scorer during those years.Did this knee injury take place before or after the 1987 Canada Cup?
Yes, that's definitely true. Lemieux was a much better goal-scorer than Gretzky, but also a better overall scorer.I have always trusted what I saw with my own eyes. The main reason I believe Gretzky did not appear as good as Lemieux is simply because he wasn’t. He was more dominant against an inferior league and far more healthy. I don’t think there’s any chance prime Gretzky outscores a prime Lemieux in post 1995 NHL, goals or points.
After the Canada Cup. It took place Dec 30th, 1987, and it wasn't a big factor on his goal-scoring in the big scheme of things. As was evident in the Canada Cup, he wasn't close to being hockey's best goal-scorer during those years.
The argument against Gretzky, and the reality, is that Gretzky could only score 90 goals (or anything close) in a very small window or years, which also happened to coincide with his best scoring years.
If he were 5 or more years younger, he wouldn't have come close to ever scoring 90 goals, and very likely would never have led the NHL in goals in any season. He obviously also would've faced better competition among goal-scorers if he were a few years younger.
you just made him 5 years older not youngerSo if he was born in 1956 instead of 1961 he never hits 92 goals?
Yet in 1987 he scored 62 goals and led the NHL in goals for the 5th time. I'm puzzled
you just made him 5 years older not younger![]()
Does this support that it did not affected his goalscoring very much or goes against that statement, did scoring 62 goes against the notion he could not score 80-90 goals in that league anymore ?
I feel a lot of people talk over each other, Gretzky can still win the Rocket even if he would have much harder time scoring, declined from quite the peak.
1987, goals per games:
Lemieux: .86
Gretzky: .78
Kerr: .77
This is the whole thread and OP point he is trying to made, better defense taken away one of Gretzky favored way to score goals, very number of high chance from good spot on the ice shots he was able to get by the hundreds in a more open less good defense league.My question is why couldn't a younger Gretzky have done this?
Shooting less and scoring less can be saying the same thing, did he shoot less because defense did not gave him those nice scoring chance as much as before ? or for some other reasons. Gretzky taken 18% shoot was one of the best play in hockey history, changing that strategy without being forced is not necessarily a good one.He shot less, should we really be surprised that he scored less too?
This is the whole thread and OP point he is trying to made, better defense taken away one of Gretzky favored way to score goals, very number of high chance from good spot on the ice shots he was able to get by the hundreds in a more open less good defense league.
That one theory why his goalscoring declined, others could be lost a quickstep (and will to pay the price) to get those chance versus before, getting more perimeter-playmaker and so on. (like you say abou that 121 assists comments).
Shooting less and scoring less can be saying the same thing, did he shoot less because defense did not gave him those nice scoring chance as much as before ? or for some other reasons. Gretzky taken 18% shoot was one of the best play in hockey history, changing that strategy without being forced is not necessarily a good one.
Imo goalscoring peaking before 25 is nothing special and does not require much explanation, Ovechkin "decline" was not necessarily the league getting better defensively or Yzerman decline around the exact same age.
This is technically correct, but it's one of those stats that basically rewards Lemieux for missing games. The Oilers struggled (relatively) in the first half of 1986-87, and Gretzky completely dominated the team, and basically propped them up until mid-season, when Kurri, Anderson, Coffey etc. came around.1987, goals per games:
Lemieux: .86
Gretzky: .78
Kerr: .77
What do we make of his goalscoring across 2 of his final 3 playoff runs?
Yes, nobody in the thread has made any real argument to try to counter the subject of the thread, for the simple reason that there is no counter argument.People are really talking about each other and do not want to engage with the actual point I feel like.
100% of the @Staniowski point is before 1991.
Gretzky scored a bit over a goal per games between 82 and 85, 1.03
86-91, pre Suter incident it was, 0.64
a ~40% drop in goal scoring.
Because your argument is so black and white. It's not that simple. There are other factors. Mainly age. It was common for players of that era to drop off some after 25. As Gretzky aged his style changed to preserve himself. He wasn't going to the net as much. The argument is that the league got better and so his goals dropped. That might be partly true but age and injuries is another factor. There were other players with quick hands and could fake. But they weren't getting 92 goals. And there were explosive physical players with good shots in the 70s and 80s that weren't getting 92 goals. Look what happened in 85 when Gretzky decided to try to average 2 assists a game. His goals dropped. And that is what happened in general as he transitioned into primarily a playmaker.I don't see why this is so controversial.
Gretzky was a player who was ahead of his time both as a goal scorer and a playmaker. As the league changed significantly in the late 1980s (better goalies, shorter shifts, better defense/systems) his playmaking skill proved that it could stand the test of time across eras while his goal scoring did not, and his goal numbers fell pretty consistently from their peak in 83-84 right through the end of his career.
In 1983, you could be an elite goal scorer by being a clever player with quick hands who could fake a goalie or pick holes. By 1990 or 1993, elite goal scorers were pretty exclusively guys with explosive physical skills - size, skating, shot - that Gretzky simply didn't have.
Because your argument is so black and white. It's not that simple. There are other factors. Mainly age. It was common for players of that era to drop off some after 25. As Gretzky aged his style changed to preserve himself. He wasn't going to the net as much. The argument is that the league got better and so his goals dropped. That might be partly true but age and injuries is another factor. There were other players with quick hands and could fake. But they weren't getting 92 goals. And there were explosive physical players with good shots in the 70s and 80s that weren't getting 92 goals. Look what happened in 85 when Gretzky decided to try to average 2 assists a game. His goals dropped. And that is what happened in general as he transitioned into primarily a playmaker.