Gretzky's late career value

[Amazinmets73]

The Athletic recently unveiled their top 100 players list, and subsequently Gretzky's annual wins per 82. I suspected the latter half of his career would rank lower than many would expect, and my suspicions were confirmed.

My reasoning was that advanced analytics has shown us that on average, goals are more valuable than assists.

Example:

Player A has 30 goals and 90 assists

Player B has 55 goals and 40 assists

Advanced analytics will typically evaluate player B as more valuable offensively, despite the higher point production of player A.


As we know, after the 86-87 season Gretzky's days as an elite goal scorer were behind him. His goal scoring prowess would continue to slowly decline until his retirement. Furthermore, I believe Gretzky was a poor defensive player, which would further reduce his overall value.

Another argument was Gretzky had a HoF career after the age Bobby Orr effectively retired. Assuming we use the 88-89 season as a starting point, I think I could make a reasonably convincing argument it's not a HoF career, although I think he would be voted in.

 

[blogofmike]

If 88-89 is the cutoff he's definitely in the HHOF. I think every eligible Art Ross winner is in and Gretzky would have 3 of them. His playoff scoring would be about 1.5 ppg, just shy of Lemieux (and only Lemieux) who'd be at 1.6 ppg. He's also still got the single season record for assists, unless he's competing with himself, and even then the only players with multiple 100 assist years are Gretzky A and Gretzky B. Gretzky B will have led the league in assists 7 times - more than anyone but Gretzky A.

If 1990-91 Wayne Gretzky ranks low in Wins/82, it's probably more of a flaw in the statistic not understanding hockey than it is with Gretzky's play.

First, as a setup man, his assists were the result of creating offense, not just picking up points by being on a good team. Gretzky led the league in assists as late as 1998, as a 37 year old on a weak offensive team that scored under 200 goals. He wasn't playing with a sniper on his line - his 23 goals tied for the team lead. If a statistic thinks that's less valuable then peak Cheechoo banging in goals from an elite playmaker, faith in that statistic might cost some team several millions of dollars because they'd bet on the mirage. Goals can be more valuable than assists, but assists can also be more valuable than goals and if Player A in your example is reliably scoring 30-90-120 you'd be a fool not to take him.

Second, does this metric account for PP usage? Gretzky having a low PP goal count isn't because he was an incapable goal scorer, it's because he's the best playmaker of all time and he could help any open man become a weapon. Wayne Gretzky may only have scored 41 goals in 1991, but he still scored more even strength goals that year than Lemieux did in years where he scored 70 and 69 goals.

 

[JackSlater]

There are so many loose strands to pick at in that OP. Regardless if the main point is that Gretzky's late career value is somewhat lower than his point totals would indicate, that's something that people were aware of at the time for the most part. Post-Suter Gretzky was a different level of player who didn't usually dictate the game anymore. If the point is to say that the Gretzky in the late 80s or 1990 and 1991 was not as valuable as he looked then no, he really was.

 

[GlitchMarner]

Was Gretzky really a weak defensive player in his peak years?

I mean relatively speaking, of course. Compared to Bob Gainey, he obviously was. Compared to the average checking line forward of the time, I'm sure he was. But for a scoring 1980s first line centre, was he particularly bad? Notably worse than, say, Dionne, Stastny, Lemieux, Savard, Perreault? Nilsson? Hawerchuk? Federko?

The good two-way C who could also score at a high level was a rarity back then. There was Trottier and then maybe Gilmour... and?

 

[Dingo]

I think Gretz was a good all around, 200ft player in his heyday.
I think, by the 90s, he was a powerplay specialist to a degree, and not quick enough anymore for the faster league, and a league that was still allowed to hook and hold.

As a 47 year old, Wayne was Luke Skywalker - he was farking magic. A lot of guys only a little bit younger than me were certain that Mario was better than him, and I don’t blame them. I think Wayne’s absolute King Arthur status, coupled with still very good play, kept him at the top in our national discourse through the 90s. In retrospect, I don’t consider second half career Wayne to be ahead of Jagr, Forsberg, Sakic, Lindros when healthy, Selanne, Brett Hull for a few seasons. Same kind of rough ballpark.

First half Wayne’s everything he is spectacled up to be.

 

[hacksaw7]

If 88-89 is the cutoff he's definitely in the HHOF. I think every eligible Art Ross winner is in and Gretzky would have 3 of them. His playoff scoring would be about 1.5 ppg, just shy of Lemieux (and only Lemieux) who'd be at 1.6 ppg. He's also still got the single season record for assists, unless he's competing with himself, and even then the only players with multiple 100 assist years are Gretzky A and Gretzky B. Gretzky B will have led the league in assists 7 times - more than anyone but Gretzky A.

If 1990-91 Wayne Gretzky ranks low in Wins/82, it's probably more of a flaw in the statistic not understanding hockey than it is with Gretzky's play.

First, as a setup man, his assists were the result of creating offense, not just picking up points by being on a good team. Gretzky led the league in assists as late as 1998, as a 37 year old on a weak offensive team that scored under 200 goals. He wasn't playing with a sniper on his line - his 23 goals tied for the team lead. If a statistic thinks that's less valuable then peak Cheechoo banging in goals from an elite playmaker, faith in that statistic might cost some team several millions of dollars because they'd bet on the mirage. Goals can be more valuable than assists, but assists can also be more valuable than goals and if Player A in your example is reliably scoring 30-90-120 you'd be a fool not to take him.

Second, does this metric account for PP usage? Gretzky having a low PP goal count isn't because he was an incapable goal scorer, it's because he's the best playmaker of all time and he could help any open man become a weapon. Wayne Gretzky may only have scored 41 goals in 1991, but he still scored more even strength goals that year than Lemieux did in years where he scored 70 and 69 goals.

Gretzky's 97-98 season really doesn't get enough credit. It was full on dead puck era at that point (I mean so was 96-97 but 97-98 it really fell off a cliff) he was playing on a bad, old, go nowhere Rangers team that scored a then unthinkably low 197 goals over 82 games. And yet during the year he turned 37, 23 goals...67 assists and 90 points. A 90 pt scorer on a team that scored under 200 goals...has it ever been done since? He was tied for 3rd in the league in scoring

The 98-99 drop-off was a bit surprising. He played 70 games, missing 12...over 82 he projected to about 10-11 goals and 61-62 assists or so. Still pretty damn good for that era. Really that's sort of in the range of what Adam Oates was around that time. What was it that brought Gretz down another run between 98 and 99...was it just wear and tear or new injuries on top of what he already had going on. That last year I remember he really couldn't buy a goal at all...and the few times he wound up for the big slapper I can recall goalies actually over-exaggerating saves on them. Like they didn't want to show up Wayne by making a save look too easy and highlighting how much of his old self he's lost.

 

[MadLuke]

Furthermore, I believe Gretzky was a poor defensive player, which would further reduce his overall value.

If we speak post Sutter incident over sustained stretch yes, but winning the Art Ross while not pushing your team above second last in the west, finishing -25 and getting zero Hart Trophy vote kind of already factor it in.

Was plus-minus leading 4 season in a row, leading shorthand goals Gretzky a poor defensive player, that could be an interesting conversation, but in terms of being good enough to translate his offensive brilliance in outscoring opponent...

Assuming we use the 88-89 season as a starting point, I think I could make a reasonably convincing argument it's not a HoF career, although I think he would be voted in.

Wonder how convincing, we are talking about someone that would have scored at 1.5 ppg like Bossy, only Lemieux above them.

From 88-89 to 98-99 Gretzky still has the most point of any nhler in the regular season, only beat by Lemieux in ppg in the playoff his 130 points only third to Lemieux-Messier.

If he keep that Hart in 1989 that a hart winner with 3 art ross and a 40 points playoff runs that lead the league in points during his career, with the most points in a non Lemieux season by a good amount.

Example:

Player A has 30 goals and 90 assists

Player B has 55 goals and 40 assists

Advanced analytics will typically evaluate player B as more valuable offensively, despite the higher point production of player A.

I would like more details a bit on this, that a huge gap (120 points to 95)

30g-90a is really close to 2005-2006 Joe Thornton (29-96), 55 goals 40 assists is almost exactly 2005-2006 Cheechoo that season (56-37), how many would evualated player B not only equal to A but more valuable ? Is that really typical ?

 

[jigglysquishy]

My reasoning was that advanced analytics has shown us that on average, goals are more valuable than assists.

Example:

Player A has 30 goals and 90 assists

Player B has 55 goals and 40 assists

Advanced analytics will typically evaluate player B as more valuable offensively, despite the higher point production of player A.

Player A is absolutely more valuable offensively.

Your assertion isn't supported by any analytics, coaching, or scouting. It isn't supported by Hart voting history, contemporary opinions, or just basic common sense. We're not talking a 5 point spread or even getting into team strength, EVP production. A 25 point spread in modern hockey is massive.

The goals >>assists crown is almost exclusively people who didn't actually play hockey.

A few points can go either way. A 100 point player isn't necessarily better than a 97 point player. Who are their linemates? What is the PP like? Is it a Draisailt situation, where he's getting both PP and EV time with the best player in the league? Or a Pastrnak, where he's a mile ahead of everyone? How are they defensively? There are a lot of factors.

But a 25 point spread is massive. That's a bigger Art Ross margin that anyone outside the Big Four and Espo. Ever.

 

[Overrated]

Player A is absolutely more valuable offensively.

Your assertion isn't supported by any analytics, coaching, or scouting. It isn't supported by Hart voting history, contemporary opinions, or just basic common sense. We're not talking a 5 point spread or even getting into team strength, EVP production. A 25 point spread in modern hockey is massive.

The goals >>assists crown is almost exclusively people who didn't actually play hockey.

A few points can go either way. A 100 point player isn't necessarily better than a 97 point player. Who are their linemates? What is the PP like? Is it a Draisailt situation, where he's getting both PP and EV time with the best player in the league? Or a Pastrnak, where he's a mile ahead of everyone? How are they defensively? There are a lot of factors.

But a 25 point spread is massive. That's a bigger Art Ross margin that anyone outside the Big Four and Espo. Ever.

A common sense would say that an unassisted goal (1 point awarded) isn't any more valuable than a goal that three guys took part in yet 3 points were awarded. It's still a single goal.

If I had to put a value which could approximate value on each goal then a goal would be 1. An overtime goal would be let's say 2. A game winning goal would be based on the time left in the game. Was the GWG scored 5 seconds into the start of the game? It would be worth like 1.01. Was it 5 seconds before the end of the last third? Then it would be like 1.99.

Every pass preceding a goal would be worth half of the pass before so if it went player A --> B --> C with C scoring (x+0.5x+0.25x=1) the values would be C = 0.57, B = 0.29, A = 0.14. If the sequence went A --> B--> C --> D -->A --> B --> F with player F scoring (x+0.5x+0.25x + 0.125x+ 0.0625x + 0.03125x + 0.015625x=1) the values would be split as following - F = 0.5, B = 0.27, A = 0.13, D = 0.06 and C = 0.04. An unassisted goal would be a full 1 value.

PP vs ES goals could easily be looked at as how much more likely it is to score on a PP vs full strength in any given season of the league for meta adjustment. Let's say for the sake of the argument you're twice as likely to score at PP than at ES given the same amount of time for each. Then the guy who drew the PP should automatically get half of the value (that is 0.5) of a goal scored during such PP.

If some sort of a rating was calculated based on this it would be far more accurate to judge offensive prowess imo.

 

[Staniowski]

Was Gretzky really a weak defensive player in his peak years?

I mean relatively speaking, of course. Compared to Bob Gainey, he obviously was. Compared to the average checking line forward of the time, I'm sure he was. But for a scoring 1980s first line centre, was he particularly bad? Notably worse than, say, Dionne, Stastny, Lemieux, Savard, Perreault? Nilsson? Hawerchuk? Federko?

The good two-way C who could also score at a high level was a rarity back then. There was Trottier and then maybe Gilmour... and?

Yes, Gretzky was weak defensively. The only thing you can say about him is that he played an organized, focused, consistent game....so this helped his overall performance. But, purely defensively, he was quite weak.

But of course this was the golden age for players who were weak defensively. Guys like Nilsson, Savard, etc. were just as bad or worse. These players didn't need to play defense, and they (for the most part) didn't have to face any great defense either.

If you watch games from the first half of the '80s, one thing you'll notice is the guys who are actually playing pretty good defense stick out like a sore thumb....because there were so few of them. Langway, Lowe, Ramsey, Carbonneau, McPhee, etc. And also the teams who can play defense, so few of them.

Coaching really was a big factor in the improvements in defense in the '80s.

 

[Staniowski]

Post-Edmonton, Gretzky was never as good as his numbers. Even his first few years in LA, he didn't adapt to improvements in defense as well as many other players....his ability to score goals declined significantly (he lost his easy lanes to the net, where he previously scored most of his goals); his skating declined.

Through the '90s, though, it was worse. His skating continued to decline, his goal-scoring declined to almost nothingness, and he was generally terrible defensively. So, his game was a lot more limited. He could still make plays and score lots of points, but you generally wouldn't want to build your team around him if you wanted to have a top team.

Lemieux was similar in the latter parts of his career.

 

[MadLuke]

If some sort of a rating was calculated based on this it would be far more accurate to judge offensive prowess imo.

Is that base on something else than just an gut feeling ?

90-91 Adam Oates less Blues were scoring 3.315 goal a game, with Oates they were scoring 4.05 goal a night

Finding enough case or playmaker missing (or trade) time and more pure goalscorer could give some idea of how many effective net goal added assist per game over replacement are worth versus the goal over replacement and were that replacement level happen to be

 

[The Panther]

Okay, so the second half of Gretzky's NHL career would be 1989-90 through 1998-99, right? So, we're imagining he was born in 1971 (like Sundin, Bure, Nedved, Weight), so he's 18 or 19 in 1989-90 and he's only 27-28 in his final season, 1998-99.

Thus, we're looking at a extremely talented and amazingly productive player who either had a career-ending injury at age 28, or who lost interest in the sport and decided to live off his investments and play golf every day from his late 20s.

That is, he'd be remembered now either similar to Bobby Orr minus the two Cups---wherein his career was sadly cut short by injuries; or similar to Jimmy Carson---wherein he was just not that into hockey and peaked very young. In one narrative, he's a romantic figure (probably the poster-child for ending violence in hockey), and in the other he's an eccentric.

We're assuming, I guess, he's still a small-town Ontario boy, but now he's drafted by the L.A. Kings and later (aged 25) signs with the New York Rangers. (I think we can assume he doesn't go to St. Louis at all, as the Blues would have had to give up a lot to get him at age 25.) So, let's say he had seven seasons in Los Angeles, and three in New York before the career suddenly ended.

Anyway, this is more-or-less how his career stats pan out, going by 'adjusted stats" (to 'correct' for the downward scoring totals as the 90s' progress) on Hockey Ref., and with scoring finishes, etc.:

1989-90 (L.A.)
120 points in 73 games
-- 1st in scoring (Art Ross). He's the first rookie in NHL history to do this.
-- 2nd team All Star (though I wonder if this might have been 1st with his 'rookie' narrative)
-- 1st in assists (2nd or 3rd highest total of all-time behind one Mario season the year prior and Orr 1971)
-- wins Calder trophy (over Makarov, Modano, Roenick), probably with 100% of the vote
-- probably finishes 2nd or 3rd in Hart voting (as opposed to 4th in reality)
-- in playoffs, fourth-place L.A. upsets Cup-champ Calgary; in the second round Gretzky is hurt vs. Edmonton (the first of many accumulating injuries in his short career to come)

1990-91 (L.A.)
146 points in 78 games (similar to McDavid this season)
-- 1st in scoring (Art Ross) by 28 points. His 146-ish points would be 2nd-highest all time.
-- 1st team All Star (the big talk during this season would be: "Is young Gretzky better than Mario??")
-- 1st in assists (his 109-ish assists would be the most all time, by far)
-- wins Hart Trophy (Brett Hull would still get his share of votes, but with L.A. finishing in 1st for the first time, and with the massive hype over Gretzky from the previous season being matched with reality, I have to think 20-year-old Wayne wins this.
-- in playoffs, Kings choke slightly vs. Edmonton

Canada Cup 1991
-- Canada wins, with Gretzky leading tournament in scoring. As a 20-year-old, maybe he doesn't get injured in the second game of the final series (?). If not, he wins tournament MVP in a landslide (as he should have, anyway). But we have to assume he's still 'Suter-ed'; hence the drop-off from next season....

1991-92 (L.A.)
108 points in 74 games
-- 3rd in scoring (1 point behind Stevens; 8 points behind Mario)
-- 1st in assists (albeit with nearly 30 fewer than the previous season)
-- L.A. underperforms in the playoffs again (narrative begins that maybe young Gretzky can't "lead" his team, as well as rumors about the severity of his back injury)

1992-93 (L.A.)
52 points in 45 games
-- Bummer season due to injury, with Wayne taking a back-seat to much older players like Robitaille, Kurri... However:
-- In the playoffs, the Kings surprise everyone by winning the West and going to the Cup Finals. Gretzky leads all players in goals, points, etc. His 40-point playoff is the second most all time.

1993-94 (L.A.)
119 points in 81 games
-- 1st in scoring (Art Ross)
-- 1st in assists
-- 1st or 2nd-team All Star (not sure how this plays out vis-à-vis Fedorov's big season in Detroit)
-- L.A. has a massively disappointing season, missing the playoffs entirely. With McNall going to prison in summer, rumor begins that Gretzky, only aged 23, wants out of Los Angeles.

1995 (L.A.)
about 50 points in 48 games
-- 19th in scoring (behind Owen Nolan); 9th in assists (behind Joe Juneau)
-- L.A. tries to get physical with new players, but crashes and burns again, missing the playoffs. The new talk is that Jagr and Lindros are better young players than Gretzky.

1995-96 (L.A.)
97-100 points in 80 games (his pace dropped a bit in St. Louis, a trade which I'm assuming doesn't happen here)
-- around 10th to 11th in scoring
-- Kings are now heading toward a rebuild without Gretzky, who is clearly on his way out once this season is over

World Cup 1996
-- Gretzky plays, is okay, but Canada loses

1996-97 (NYR)
101 points in 82 games
-- 4th in scoring
-- 1st in assists
-- 2nd-team All Star
-- up-and-down season in New York, but overall the narrative is that Gretzky has had a minor renaissance in a new environment
-- Gretzky appears in the playoffs for the fifth and LAST time in his career, doing extremely well, though the Rangers falter against Lindros and the Flyers in the third round.

1997-98 (NYR)
103 points in 82 games
-- 3rd in scoring
-- 1st in assists
-- 2nd-team All Star
-- Rangers have a horrible season, scoring just 197 goals and missing the playoffs

1998 Olympics
-- Gretzky plays, but is somewhat disappointing.

1998-99 (NYR)
70 points in 70 games
-- 33rd in scoring
-- Gretzky scores over a point-per-game through 58 games, but after a late-season injury, he phones-in the remaining 12 games, knowing he's going to retire.

(Retires aged 28.)

So, Gretzky would retire with 10 NHL seasons (one a half-season to injury; another a half-season due to NHL work stoppage), and so the game-equivalent of only about 9.

His final career numbers would be:

713GP (56 more games than Orr; 47 fewer than Lindros)
968 points (so, 1.36 PPG)

He would retire averaging 112 points per 82 games, over ten years.

Career accomplishments (adjusted):
-- 2nd-highest season point total ever (146 points) [though McDavid may threaten that this season]
-- Highest assist season total ever (109 assists)
-- Six times 1st/2nd-team All Star at center
-- 1 Hart trophy (probably three times a 'finalist')
-- 3 Art Ross trophies (7th most))
-- Playoff leading scorer 1993 (2nd highest playoff point total ever)
-- Calder trophy (highest scoring total ever)

His regular season career would be looked back at as being an unbelievably great first two seasons (very similar to Wayne's actual first two seasons in Edmonton, but in a major US city), followed by a dominant Canada-Cup performance, and that brief period in spring to autumn 1991 where Gretzky would have been tipped as the new superstar of hockey, threatening Mario Lemieux's status as the game's greatest player. However, he would equally be remembered for his subsequent decline in what should have been his peak years, esp. from autumn 1991 (age 20) to spring 1996 (age 25)---despite a run to the Finals in '93 and a scoring title in '94---and his bitter fall-out with the Kings' organization. He would be seen to have had a minor resurgence with New York for two seasons, but then an ignoble final year.

His playoff resume would be mixed. Only five appearances in his whole career, but with one run to the Finals and one Conference appearance, with him being heroic in both. However, his 1991 and 1992 playoffs, with a solid Kings' team, would be remembered as fairly poor (although he was only 20-21 years old for those). With his last two playoff appearances (1993 & 1997) being remarkable, I think a retrospective narrative would emerge that his teams in his 'mature' years really let him down, and that if he had played on better clubs from around 1994 to 1998, he could have done a lot more.

We'd probably be talking about him now as the great "what if?" of hockey history, along with Orr and to some extent Mario Lemieux. But his status as one of the game's most gifted players would be secure, and his peak (c.1989-1991) would be seen as one of the top three or four in history. His team success would have been very small, however. Aside from the 1990-91 season and the 1993 playoffs, none of his clubs would be remembered for being very good. To what extent he would get sympathy or blame for this in the 'grand narrative' would probably depend on the extent his accumulated injuries were seen as having caused his premature decline and early retirement.

But what stands out about his inconsistent career is no fewer than SIX 1st/2nd-team All Star selections (at center, no less). That's obviously a slam-drunk Hall of Fame career.

 

[The Panther]

Even his first few years in LA, he didn't adapt to improvements in defense as well as many other players....his ability to score goals declined significantly (he lost his easy lanes to the net, where he previously scored most of his goals); his skating declined.

This is all completely wrong.

Gretzky's first three seasons in L.A., and his 1991 Canada Cup performance, were utterly superb. He continued to be an excellent goal scorer, the game's best passer/playmaker, and the co-best player in the game (alongside, of course, Mario).

If he was having trouble adapting to improvements in defence, you might want to explain this:
1989:
-- Scored 50 goals in 66 games
-- 168 points in 78 games
-- 114 assists
1990:
-- Won scoring title (142 points in 73 games, including 94 in 46 before he got angry over the Nicholls' trade)
1991:
-- 163 points in 78 games (122 assists), winning scoring title by 32 points
-- Scored 25 goals in 40 games (32 goals in 50)
-- Fourth in ES goals

(Gretzky also had the 12th-best plus/minus among NHL forwards during these three seasons.)

1991 Canada Cup
-- leading scorer of tournament (missing 1.5 games), and was MVP of nearly every game he played



So, yeah, he was really struggling!

 

[Gambitman]

One of the most underrated aspects of Greyzky’s career is the first 3 years in LA.

 

[The Panther]

One of the most underrated aspects of Greyzky’s career is the first 3 years in LA.

Indeed.

He scored at a 50-goal pace the first 2.5 seasons in Los Angeles, only falling off a bit in the last 38 games of 1990-91 (which, btw, was the Kings' most successful half-season in his entire L.A. tenure). He still averaged 47 goals per season his first three seasons in L.A.

He was fourth in ES goals those three seasons combined. Robitaille (his teammate, who he'd set up for several scores) was just 5 goals ahead of him, meaning only Hull and Yzerman were significantly ahead of him in ES goals from 1988 to 1991.

Of the 27 players who scored 100+ goals those three seasons, Wayne had the 8th-best shooting percentage, his being higher than Fleury's, Yzerman's, Sakic's (and only 0.04% under Brett Hull's).

He averaged 118 assists per year those three seasons. In Edmonton, he'd averaged 125 per year, which, given the slightly lower scoring conditions from 1988 to 1991, would be equivalent.

Obviously, Gretzky was 1st in overall points those three seasons (with Mario missing some games) by nearly 90 points over Yzerman, and he was 51 points clear of Yzerman in ES points. His ES point production was higher than Mario Lemieux's these three seasons.

Wayne also had the best plus/minus of the top-9 NHL scorers over those three years (and best of the top-11 ES scorers). Not counting three players who played for Calgary (which dominated ES those three seasons), Gretzky had the best plus/minus of the NHL's top-25 scorers, excepting Steve Larmer who was only slightly higher.

 

[Overrated]

Is that base on something else than just an gut feeling ?

90-91 Adam Oates less Blues were scoring 3.315 goal a game, with Oates they were scoring 4.05 goal a night

Finding enough case or playmaker missing (or trade) time and more pure goalscorer could give some idea of how many effective net goal added assist per game over replacement are worth versus the goal over replacement and were that replacement level happen to be

I think Adam Oates would do very well in a rating based on what I outlined. It would likely significantly only boost players like Bure which is reasonable.

 

[MadLuke]

I think Adam Oates would do very well in a rating based on what I outlined. It would likely significantly only boost players like Bure which is reasonable.

If you boost Cheechoo and Bondra a lot that will significantly reduce Oates or most D offensive value.

Say some 1G 0.5 A1 0.25 A2

90-91 Brian Leetch offensive value goes from a 88 points guy to someone that
16+42*.5+30*.25 = 43 adjusted points

Petr Klima that season
40+28*.5+14*.25 = 57.5 adjusted points

Are we to believe that Petr Klima instead of his easy to find replacement playing 70 games was significantly adding more offence to a team than having Brian Leetch playing all those minutes instead of an easy to find replacement defenceman ?

90-91 Adam Oates
25+54*.5+36*.25 = 61
90-91 John MacLean
45+25*.5+8*.25 = 59.5

Adam Oates goes from third in the league behind only Gretzky-Hull with his 115 points to John MacLean-Dave Gagner level.

On what is this based, looking at a high enough sample of team loosing-gaining high goal scorer vs high assist player ?

 

[Hockey Outsider]

The problem with discounting the value of assists (especially primarily assists) is it leads to conclusions that are clearly unreasonable and unsupportable.

Take hockey-reference.com as an example. Their "goals created" stat says the following:

• Adam Oates would have been a top ten scorer just three times during his career (peaking at 7th place).
• Peter Forsberg would have peaked at 7th in scoring (even if you're looking at per-game, he would have been higher than 8th place just once).
• Joe Thornton would have only been in the top ten four times.
• Henrik Sedin would have been in the top ten twice.
• Doug Gilmour would have been in the top ten just once (7th place).
• Ron Francis would have been in the top ten just once (10th place).
• Ryan Getzlaf would have never been in the top ten.

It also says that:

• Steven Stamkos would have been in the top ten seven times, with six of those 5th place or higher.
• John LeClair would have been in the top ten six times, twice coming in 3rd.
• John Tavares would have been in the top ten four times, peaking at 2nd.
• Phil Kessel would have been in the top ten four times, peaking at 5th.

Does anybody really think that Stamkos was not just better, but much better offensively than Forsberg, Thornton and Oates? Does anybody really think that LeClair, Tavares and Kessel were better offensively than Gilmour, Francis and Sedin? These conclusions don't make sense to anybody who follows these players.

"Goals created" says that Brett Hull would have been in the top five in scoring as much as Oates, Forsberg, Thornton, Gilmour and Bobby Clarke combined. That's a nonsensical conclusion.

 

[wetcoast]

There are so many loose strands to pick at in that OP. Regardless if the main point is that Gretzky's late career value is somewhat lower than his point totals would indicate, that's something that people were aware of at the time for the most part. Post-Suter Gretzky was a different level of player who didn't usually dictate the game anymore. If the point is to say that the Gretzky in the late 80s or 1990 and 1991 was not as valuable as he looked then no, he really was.

Agree with this but to his last point, ie his career after the age of Orr retiring so 88-89 to 98-99 not being a HHOF caliber career I disagree with him.

Greztky didn't win a SC but was 3rd in playoff points in that time period and basically the best offensive producer after Mario in that time frame.

In the regular season he was first overall and had scoring finishes of 1,1,1,2,3,3 and 4th in that time period.

Had some guy named Joe Murphy had that exact same career and then retired he would be a slam dunk for the HHOF.

 

[wetcoast]

Player A is absolutely more valuable offensively.

Your assertion isn't supported by any analytics, coaching, or scouting. It isn't supported by Hart voting history, contemporary opinions, or just basic common sense. We're not talking a 5 point spread or even getting into team strength, EVP production. A 25 point spread in modern hockey is massive.

The goals >>assists crown is almost exclusively people who didn't actually play hockey.

A few points can go either way. A 100 point player isn't necessarily better than a 97 point player. Who are their linemates? What is the PP like? Is it a Draisailt situation, where he's getting both PP and EV time with the best player in the league? Or a Pastrnak, where he's a mile ahead of everyone? How are they defensively? There are a lot of factors.

But a 25 point spread is massive. That's a bigger Art Ross margin that anyone outside the Big Four and Espo. Ever.

The example of player A versus player b is pretty much the one in 05-06 where Joe Thornton won the Hart as player A and his team mates for around 2/3 of the season was player B and was 15th in Hart voting.

 

[wetcoast]

One of the most underrated aspects of Greyzky’s career is the first 3 years in LA.

I'm not so sure about that given his 88-89 Hart win.

 

[MadLuke]

I'm not so sure about that given his 88-89 Hart win.

Having too choose what would be underrated aspects of Greyzky’s career, that could be the one, this conversation stating:
Another argument was Gretzky had a HoF career after the age Bobby Orr effectively retired. Assuming we use the 88-89 season as a starting point, I think I could make a reasonably convincing argument it's not a HoF career,

For example, point to be possibly the case.

I think many get re-surprised by those 2 dominant Ross win (13 and 32 pts).

I am not sure his 473pts, +53, only Yzerman-Hull scoring more even strength goal (Lemieux if we count pace), 3 season get fully rated at their right value, because of what he did before.

Or just what he did before is so legendary or what he achieved to do after were on the big more televised on the east coast stage (40 points playoff run, NY Rangers over 90 dpe seasons).

That Hart win is quite controversial.

 

[Overrated]

If you boost Cheechoo and Bondra a lot that will significantly reduce Oates or most D offensive value.

Cheechoo still finishes behind Thornton in offensive value in his outlier season on a per game basis according to my numbers and that doesn't even include the fact Thornton was better defensively.

Say some 1G 0.5 A1 0.25 A2

90-91 Brian Leetch offensive value goes from a 88 points guy to someone that
16+42*.5+30*.25 = 43 adjusted points

Petr Klima that season
40+28*.5+14*.25 = 57.5 adjusted points

Are we to believe that Petr Klima instead of his easy to find replacement playing 70 games was significantly adding more offence to a team than having Brian Leetch playing all those minutes instead of an easy to find replacement defenceman ?

Why should I view a defenseman as better in the attack than a 40 goal winger? That doesn't knock down Leetch at all. He had defensive responsibilities Klima didn't have and on top of that produced a lot offensively.

90-91 Adam Oates
25+54*.5+36*.25 = 61
90-91 John MacLean
45+25*.5+8*.25 = 59.5

Adam Oates goes from third in the league behind only Gretzky-Hull with his 115 points to John MacLean-Dave Gagner level.

On what is this based, looking at a high enough sample of team loosing-gaining high goal scorer vs high assist player ?

In 61 games. MacLean in 78 games. Oates still pulls ahead on a per game basis by a wide margin. Oates also had better seasons than that where he scored 30+ goals. Once even 45. He was definitely not better than Sakic or Yzerman despite raking up all of these assist points.

 

[FerrisRox]

My reasoning was that advanced analytics has shown us that on average, goals are more valuable than assists.

Example:

Player A has 30 goals and 90 assists

Player B has 55 goals and 40 assists

Advanced analytics will typically evaluate player B as more valuable offensively, despite the higher point production of player A.

I certainly don't need any analytics, advanced or otherwise, to tell me that I'm gonna take the "less valuable" 120 point player and you go head and take that 95 point player and let your Analytics Department tell you how clever you are.