Gretzky's Difficulties In Scoring Goals Against Good Defenses, After The Mid-1980s.

[MadLuke]

Skinner since 2013-2014:

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

Show a strong correlation with the more minutes he plays the more goals per minutes he score.

Probably not causal (ie coach give him more ice time because he score and vice-versa)

I would imagine Panthers points is more something that would apply to superstars, once you play 19 minutes in total a game as forward, adding more having a diminishing return, I do not imagine it would kick if you are a 16-17 minutes guy and if it does to a very small portion of their minutes.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I don't doubt that Gretzky played a lot of ice-time in this period, and possibly more than other forwards (though I'm not convinced that he played more than Lemieux, or Yzerman in 1988-89).

However, the supposition that he played more ice-time (than, say, Denis Savard or whoever) and that ALL of that extra ice-time is equally fair-game to judge his ability to score goals at even-strength is a silly conclusion. Players who play huge amounts of ice-time aren't going all-out 100% every shift on the ice, trying to score with the same intensity all the time. That might be a fair (if still speculatory) conclusion if Gretzky had been playing 19 minutes a game, all at ES and PP. But he was playing 25 minutes or whatever. Imagine a Kings' game in 1990 -- L.A. takes two penalties in a row, and Gretzky helps kills off, say, two minutes of that PK situation. When Robitaille and Gretzky go out for their next regular shifts respectively, Robitaille is fresh as a spring-chicken, having sat on the bench for the past five shifts. But Gretzky (and a few others) are tired, having just killed penalties. If LA is up 5-1, Gretzky isn't going out with the same energy to score as Denis Savard in Montreal is, where he's playing fewer minutes on a 4-line rotation and not killing penalties.

Gretzky and Lemieux (and others) did play a ton of time during the 80s and I think the change to the short shift strategy in the mid-80s has a lot to do with Gretzky scoring less goals - along with him focusing more on playmaking which is well known. They definitely had to pace themselves a lot differently than after the change.

One of Gretzky's prodigious abilities was his endurance, and I'm just guessing that he was able to take advantage of that more when longer shifts were the norm and his anticipation let him get the jump on other players who were a bit tired after a while on the ice.

I think the ice time argument cuts both ways because then you get into considerations of what effectiveness means.. sure, some players may score at a higher rate p60 or whatever, but is that because they are in a situation where they have the luxury of starting more often in the offensive zone, or are the preferred option in certain score situations? Is a guy playing a ton of minutes and scoring a bit less on a per minute basis because they are being relied on for a lot more situations out of necessity? Like you say, does he PK and have to take it a bit easier the next ES shift? All this stuff is super complicated.

 

[Crosby2010]

Why was Gretzky on the ice for so many more goals against, if not because he played more ice time? His teams were middle of the pack defensively. and better than the teams of the four players following him in the list above.

My thought has always been this. Who has the most interceptions as a QB in NFL history? Brett Favre. A three-time league MVP and Super Bowl winner. Also once owned the record for most touchdown passes. Favre could be erratic at times with the ball, but he was one of those high risk high reward types. Just to put it in perspective, Johnny Unitas is 7th on this list, Peyton Manning is 9th. Marino is 8th. You can't be a lousy QB and be high on this list.

Likewise with hockey. Gretzky was on the ice for the most goals against in his career at 2286. 2nd place is Messier at 2188. Bourque at 2143. Coffey 2024. Stevens 2017. You get the picture. Maybe Stevens surprises some since he was such a defensive stalwart and was on some good defensive teams but how many minutes a game was he playing? 24-25 minutes? Bourque was playing 26 minutes a game once they started tracking it back in 1998. So bottom line is you have to play a lot of games and be on the ice a lot to get these numbers. Dave Babych is the first non-HHOFer at 11th to be on this list. Conversely Gretzky leads in NHL history with most goals on ice for with 3524. Bourque is 2nd at 3255. Coffey 3rd at 3098. Then a big drop, Murphy is a 2773.

Here is why I think Gretzky was on the ice for so many goals against. For starters the Oilers weren't aggressive defensively in the regular season. Neither were the Kings. Secondly, what type of game or shift is it going to be if Gretzky is on the ice? Is it going to be tighter defensively? More freewheeling and open? The latter for sure. So basically with Gretzky he was in control of the play more than anyone and that's why so many goals were scored while he was on the ice. The game and the shift became more wide open while he was on the ice. Here is another good example, Gary Suter is 38th all-time for goals for on ice. And he is the first non-HHOFer on that list. Also another thing, Gretzky played an offensively charged game and he played in every situation. He killed penalties and therefore has the most shorthanded goals in NHL history. This also means you have a lot of goals scored against you. Only Robinson, Orr and Bourque have a better career plus/minus. Gretzky sits at +520.

 

[toothlessgoon]

People need to stop idolizing Gretzky. He is not a good person. And yes, he is overrated. He beat up on inferior competition. Look at the goals he scored during his prime. Most of those goals he scored wouldn't be goals today. If you're wondering why his goal scoring dropped off, that was the reason. He was very lucky to be in the era he was. He'd be a rich man's Joe Thornton today.

 

[daver]

Is playoff goalscoring the key metric to look at?

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

From 1980 to '88, Wayne, Bossy and Kurri have pretty much the same GPG.

 

[Albatros]

This also means you have a lot of goals scored against you. Only Robinson, Orr and Bourque have a better career plus/minus. Gretzky sits at +520.

...while being a minus player everywhere other than Edmonton.

 

[MadLuke]

Became a minus player only after the summer of 1991 back incident, a bit after the lates 80s and the ice time being talked about.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Gretzky LA (pre-Suter) +53

Gretzky 1988-89 +15
Gretzky 1989-90 +8
Gretzky 1990-91 +30

Gretzky 1991-92 -12
Gretzky 1992-93 +6
Gretzky 1993-94 -25

Pretty stark contrast

 

[Staniowski]

Gretzky had a huge drop in plus-minus when he left Edmonton.

That's the nature of the plus-minus statistic. It always has more to do with the other eleven players on the ice than the one player who is being assigned the plus-minus.

As with save percentage, plus-minus has very low transferability. I.E. these stats will always change - often substantially - if a player plays on different team situations. Plus-minus does it just on different line situations.

 

[Staniowski]

Six of the top 20 best plus-minus players in NHL history were all teammates with each other for a decade. Many of their teammates are not much further down the list.

 

[JackSlater]

People need to stop idolizing Gretzky. He is not a good person. And yes, he is overrated. He beat up on inferior competition. Look at the goals he scored during his prime. Most of those goals he scored wouldn't be goals today. If you're wondering why his goal scoring dropped off, that was the reason. He was very lucky to be in the era he was. He'd be a rich man's Joe Thornton today.

However Gretzky is as a person doesn't matter, but I do want to say that a rich man's Joe Thornton would be one of the best players ever.

 

[MadLuke]

As with save percentage, plus-minus has very low transferability.

1996 patrick roy MTL: .907
1996 Avs: .909

Lungo last starting season as a Canucks: .919
First as a panthers: .921

Moog last 2 season as an Oilers, .886
first 2 as a bruins: .885

Vachon MTL, last 3 seasons: .913
Kings first 3 seasons: .910

I would imagine as low as it is, save percentage transferability is tier higher than plus-minus, which will value on your own team assignment let alone if you change team all-together.

rich man's Joe Thornton would be one of the best players ever.

rich man's Joe Thornton that always delivers in the playoff-big moments, started rookie of the year instead of taking 6 seasons to blow up, it would have been quite the career, 2200 pts or something like that.

 

[Crosby2010]

People need to stop idolizing Gretzky. He is not a good person. And yes, he is overrated. He beat up on inferior competition. Look at the goals he scored during his prime. Most of those goals he scored wouldn't be goals today. If you're wondering why his goal scoring dropped off, that was the reason. He was very lucky to be in the era he was. He'd be a rich man's Joe Thornton today.

Gretzky would be the best player in the NHL today. No doubt. Simply because what he does no one else has done it. Quick, try and name someone who played Gretzky's style of game. Just one player. I can't. There isn't one. No one played the game like him. The Soviets described him like this as well. His game would translate into greatness in any era because of his hockey sense. When you are one step ahead of everyone else you will get your points regardless of who is defending you.

Case in point, such a simple play we have all seen but in what looked so easy it actually probably isn't done the same by anyone else. Lemieux's 1987 Canada Cup clinching goal. Gretzky is on the right flank. Hawerchuk wins the faceoff, there is a bit of a scramble on the draw and Mario picks it up, ducks the check of the Soviet defenseman (Kravchuk I think?) and by the time he spins around Gretzky is already in the perfect spot to receive the pass. It honestly looked like it was drafted up but it wasn't. This was Gretzky's natural instincts. Without Gretzky Mario doesn't feed the puck up to anyone, he might skate for a bit himself and maybe there is a chance he can feed Larry Murphy with a pass but it isn't the scoring chance it becomes without Gretzky. My question is, this is what Gretzky did all of the time. He is already in place by the time Lemieux turns around. This is why he had 200 point seasons. This is why he killed penalties and scored a ton shorthanded. His instincts were off the chart.

I will admit a rich man's Joe Thornton is among the best players in NHL history. But you are still selling him short. No one had his drive, his vision, his skill set, and no one scored 7 points one game and then tried to get 8 the next game. If he was "lucky" to be in the era he was why didn't everyone else get the numbers he did?

...while being a minus player everywhere other than Edmonton.

That's really selling him short and not telling the whole story. He was +520 for his career. +553 in Edmonton. -5 in L.A., -6 in St. Louis and -22 in NYR. He's on some lousy teams the last two years in NY. He's on some bad teams later in L.A. too. Wasn't a minus player until 1992, the year after the Suter hit and the year of his dad's aneurysm. You have to come down to earth sometimes. Even in 1992 he still led the NHL in assists. That was his "bad" season up until then.

 

[Albatros]

I wouldn't say the NY teams were lousy, more so performing under expectations. In terms of material they should have been able to make decent playoff runs rather than miss the postseason entirely.