How Many Points Would Gretzky Have In Today's Game?

[Beukeboom]

lol

On nhl.com and online at many places they say 140. But Gretzky says 120 in his book. The point is that he was weak! Great hockey sense, IQ, vision but weak! You can be stronger at 5'10-5'11/193 lbs than a guy of 6'2 220 lbs. Like he admits that his skating was bad too, must be a liar on this too! lol

Gretzky was not strong and i could see alot of overating about his physical strenght in that post.

I think people get delusional.....i like Kucherov, but i can say his flaws and be realistic. I dont like Ovechkin but i can say his assets

There is no perfect hockey player who have all the tools except for Gretzky's fans it seems!

The problem is that all the anti Gretzky people seem to struggle moving talent across time. If Wayne, who is one of the hardest working NHL players of all time, saw that an extra 100 pounds on the bench would do him well then he'd work on it. Getting strength is the easiest thing to do of all the talents a hockey player might need. The same with adding weight. Don't you guys see how easy it would be for Wayne to gain 15 pounds?

Weight and strength are simply not any good arguments. Especially so since this league is dominated by modern "midgets" such as Kane, Gadreau, Marner.

Gretzky would have the same training regimen as everyone else.

 

[Beukeboom]

In a world where 1x 1983 goal is worth 1.4x 2017 goal.

Scoring is down since the 80s, ya know.

You have to understand you can't use math like that. It holds no merit what so ever.

You can measure % superiority to #2. You can not do what you have done and take it as a truth.

 

[Tweed]

7 games is more than measly when youre looking at his scoring at a 2.5 ppg pace.

OK, why do you give players the benefit of games they didnt play. PPG is a losers argument. It always gets brought up when someone loses an argument thats based on reality. A "did" argument always beats a "woulda, coulda, if" arguement.

But whatever, the numbers are basically the same anyways, pro-rating or not. I just thought it was funny that you pro-rate Gretzky's closest competitor but say "Gretzky plays what Gretzky". So I'm not confused about your "why". Its quite obvious..

The way I look at it, everyone plays what everyone plays and PPG gets tossed out the window. 2nd place with a better PPG is still 2nd place.

Okay, I better explain it to you, since I can tell you're being sheep'ish about what you really think I'm doing with the numbers, and can't quite spit it out.

McDavid is the measuring stick. Not Gretzky. Gretzky is the constant. He played 80 games a seasons for 6 straight seasons and missed 20 minutes of ice-time one year, and a road-trip a few years later.

Point being, I'm sure Brave was projecting Gretzky to play what Gretzky always plays... "a full season" when he shot off 140-160 pts. I didn't touch Gretzky's numbers or games on EITHER SIDE of the math or argument. That's fair and square.

It was a question of dominance, and McDavid is the #2 guy at 100 points in 82 games. McD enjoyed a full season. I pro-rated him down to 80 just like I pro-rated Kurri up to 80. To get a measurement of dominance.

If Gretzky played in a league where everybody else got hurt after 20 games, during his 215 point season... would you be running around saying "He outscored everybody by 7 TIMES"? I don't think so. Surely, somebody who wasn't a Gretzky-lover would say... "In all fairness, the other guys were playing at about a 120 point level."...

... and we'd conclude Wayne was "only" 1.5x better than the rest of the league. And that's what the numbers show.

Make sense now?

We are literally discussing Wayne playing hockey in 2017. And you want me to cite reality? PPG's not a loser's argument... GTFO here with that. It's probably one of the most valuable tools we have when doing these absurd comparisons. The funny thing is, I've noticed the Pro-Gretzky guys are the ones that don't like the PPG argument because it's what starts to put the bigger picture into perspective, when Lemieux enters the conversation. Only Waynkers moan about PPG and spew "woulda coulda shoulda didn't do".

PPG is fine, if the sample-size is big enough. The sample size here is a 6 season era.

 

[Beukeboom]

The question is, are we talking about an exact clone of Gretzky from the 80's or a Gretzky-like player that grew up in this generation? If the latter, I would assume that he'd adapt to the modern style and compete for the Art Ross on yearly basis.

Always transfer talent thorugh times. You take Gretzkys qualities and abilities as a player and ad a modern training regimen.

Anything else is completely irrelevant.

Is Napoleon a better general than the ones in a current army? People who just takes Gretzky in a time machine and put him in a game today without the modern training regimen would be as daft as to say "no" since Napolens horsebased army would get their ***** kicked by drones..

 

[Tweed]

You have to understand you can't use math like that. It holds no merit what so ever.

You can measure % superiority to #2. You can not do what you have done and take it as a truth.

Thanks for the hot tip.

 

[Tweed]

Always transfer talent thorugh times. You take Gretzkys qualities and abilities as a player and ad a modern training regimen.

Anything else is completely irrelevant.

Is Napoleon a better general than the ones in a current army? People who just takes Gretzky in a time machine and put him in a game today without the modern training regimen would be as daft as to say "no" since Napolens horsebased army would get their ***** kicked by drones..

And when Gretzky says "I wouldn't be any different physically, if I grew up with today's players"?

 

[Beukeboom]

And when Gretzky says "I wouldn't be any different physically, if I grew up with today's players"?

It holds no merit to me what so ever. Do you think he has some kind of growth disorder?

He'd do what he has to win. Gretzky was 183cm, almost 6'1. The fact that Kane, Marner, Gadreau do fine in today's league can't be explained by the fact that you claim Marner is 15 pounds heavier than Wayne was.

Marner is built like a shrimp and he does great so it is beyond me how you can think Gretzky would struggle?

Look at him for God's sake..

http://storage.torontosun.com/v1/dynamic_resize/sws_path/suns-prod-images/1297880122837_ORIGINAL.jpg?quality=80&size=650x

 

[Elche1975]

Gretzky was tied for 3rd in the league in scoring in 1998. There's absolutely nothing unusual about a top three scorer finishing in the top five in Hart voting, so from a first glance nothing looks suspect.

The case for Gretzky rests on being one of the most important players to his team that year. In 1998, he recorded a point on 45.7% of the Rangers' goals scored. That puts him first in the league (the closest players behind him were Jagr, Selanne and Palffy).

I won`t bother going into the numerous flaws in the plus/minus statistic, but it's obvious that the awards voters didn't place much emphasis on it when the Norris trophy winner Rob Blake was a "minus" player for the year.

It's very rate for a defenseman to finish top five in Hart voting. That doesn't make it fair or right, but that's been the trend from 1954 (the first year the Norris trophy was awarded) onwards. Gretzky, the league's third highest-scoring forward, finished 3rd among forwards in Hart voting, and behind two goalies.

Gretzky was 9th in PPG. Who is doing better between a guy who gets 77 pts in 82 games or 75 pts in 70 games?? Voters are suppose to look at this.

9th in PPG when we didnt even talk of goalies, or snipers(50 goals but not alot of assist) and Defensemen! You should not be 5th in the votes simply.

Blake(who was a bad vote too by the way, they went for the goals! Lidstrom, Niedermayer had the production and the overall play) played PK, top minutes against best players........Chara, Phillips or whatever they went from -20 to +20 sometimes having the exact same role(look at the + - on Blake's career you're gonna see how it goes from -28 to +20 to -26 to +17 etc, its always the same guy with the same role). But here the point is that Gretzky is not a Kopitar, Datsyuk or Toews, to have an impact he needs to produce like crazy because he doesnt bring much in other areas. The fact that he is minuses means he did alot of power play points but at 5 vs 5 didnt!

His % of points on the team goes against him. When the NYR at the beginning of that year built that team with Gretzky, Lafontaine, Kovalev, Leetch, Graves, Stevens etc do you think they thought they would be 1 of the 5 teams who doesnt score 200 goals? The plan was to get Lafontaine back to 100 pts with Gretzky at 130. He didnt work simply and was a huge fail. You can read numbers easy, at 5 vs 5 the Rangers were awful and Gretzky included(-11), their attack was 1 of the worst but their power play one of the best. Simple as that.


So all these things are suppose to be considerated in voting and the fact that he finished 5th, i doubt he would of if his name was Joe Smith lol

 

[Beukeboom]

Your mistake is to compare Era's....and thats why you're making the same mistake assuming Gretzky's play would be the same now.

Esposito did it in a era with less goals. The NHL expansion brought much more goals. The western conference were like almost NFL games!

If Gretzky arrive 5 years before he doesnt beat that record.

Kurri never played before doesnt change the fact that he could and he did a good season. Kurri is no Kevin Stevens, he did good without Gretzky, both were using each other, Kurri was a 40-50 goals scorer who did way more because of Gretzky and Gretzky did way more points using his sniper ability. Gretzky like i said in Winnipeg or Detroit instead of Hawerchuk or Yzerman would of never got 200 pts.

Messier and Anderson did good too, Anderson almost 1 pts per game. I wouldnt compare that team to Detroit, New Jersey, Pittsburgh of the 80's! It was a young team promised to a great future who would increase each year a bit like Toronto now or Pittsburgh aroud 2005-2006.

I am from Quebec so i am use to this! Here Price was drafted and they were talking of the cup. Beaulieu is worth almost Crosby! Kovalev was a top 5 players in the NHL for people here.....its a bit the same everywhere

What you need to realise is that with whatever tools(not alot) you can be a star in some era's. Maurice Richard could fly coast to coast and score 5 goals with a back injury! Why? Not because he was so great, because the tools he had at that time were over the average. The same guy in 2017 is just a guy like many others!

Gretzky in his bio says he cant turn on a 10 cents, that he always had to fight many flaws(not a strong guy, not a great skater and average shot), he was compensating all this with the vision, hockey sense....if you think that guys in 2017 couldnt touch Gretzky this makes me shake my head!! Guys today they can skate against olympic skater and beat them on short track and not look like fools on long track!

Look at some highlighs from the 80's and imagine just a Jonathan Drouin against these guys, look at this video and see how alot of them are just looking like chicken with no head, there was no system at all! I invite you to look at this video and be honest and tell me how many goals would really happen in 2017 from this? And to tell me if these defenders can play defense.

I think you go too much on emotional and memories and need to listen to your eyes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTwqw3eHYes&t=618s

You are still dishonest when you mention how Kurri, Messier and the guys performed in relation to Wayne.

Please take a look at this season and describe how Kurri and Coffey carried Gretzky?

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/leagues/seasons/teams/0000411982.html

These lies about a team around him doing the job are pretty easy to debunc. If you Compare that team to today's Oilers and take out Gretzky, do you see any similarities? Anderson+Kurri kind of equal McDavid and Draisitel don't they? Then you of course have that number 99 which is a bit trickier to explain? But yeah..he'd struggle in today's league.

Crosby's level was it? A guy who lost Art Ross races to the Sedin brothers and Jamie Benn.. (for the record I am a Crosby fan)

Edit; While you're at it. Why not look at this season too. Please do compare numbers to today's Oilers. Explain #99 please?

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/leagues/seasons/teams/0000411981.html

 

[Tweed]

It holds no merit to me what so ever. Do you think he has some kind of growth disorder?

He'd do what he has to win. Gretzky was 183cm, almost 6'1. The fact that Kane, Marner, Gadreau do fine in today's league can't be explained by the fact that you claim Marner is 15 pounds heavier than Wayne was.

Marner is built like a shrimp and he does great so it is beyond me how you can think Gretzky would struggle?

Look at him for God's sake..

http://storage.torontosun.com/v1/dynamic_resize/sws_path/suns-prod-images/1297880122837_ORIGINAL.jpg?quality=80&size=650x

Personally, I would have assumed and given 99 the benefit of sports sciences. I'm just as shocked as you that he said "It wouldn't matter".

 

[Cawz]

Okay, I better explain it to you, since I can tell you're being sheep'ish about what you really think I'm doing with the numbers, and can't quite spit it out.

McDavid is the measuring stick. Not Gretzky. Gretzky is the constant. He played 80 games a seasons for 6 straight seasons and missed 20 minutes of ice-time one year, and a road-trip a few years later.

Point being, I'm sure Brave was projecting Gretzky to play what Gretzky always plays... "a full season" when he shot off 140-160 pts. I didn't touch Gretzky's numbers or games on EITHER SIDE of the math or argument. That's fair and square.

It was a question of dominance, and McDavid is the #2 guy at 100 points in 82 games. McD enjoyed a full season. I pro-rated him down to 80 just like I pro-rated Kurri up to 80. To get a measurement of dominance.

If Gretzky played in a league where everybody else got hurt after 20 games, during his 215 point season... would you be running around saying "He outscored everybody by 7 TIMES"? I don't think so. Surely, somebody who wasn't a Gretzky-lover would say... "In all fairness, the other guys were playing at about a 120 point level."...

... and we'd conclude Wayne was "only" 1.5x better than the rest of the league. And that's what the numbers show.

Make sense now?

We are literally discussing Wayne playing hockey in 2017. And you want me to cite reality? PPG's not a loser's argument... GTFO here with that. It's probably one of the most valuable tools we have when doing these absurd comparisons. The funny thing is, I've noticed the Pro-Gretzky guys are the ones that don't like the PPG argument because it's what starts to put the bigger picture into perspective, when Lemieux enters the conversation. Only Waynkers moan about PPG and spew "woulda coulda shoulda didn't do".

PPG is fine, if the sample-size is big enough. The sample size here is a 6 season era.

It always made sense. You pro-rate Kurri up to 80, you pro-rate McDavid down to 80 and you leave Gretzky at 74 and 79 for a couple seasons, because fair read and sliding.

But regardless, the numbers are the same-ish anyways, and so your point almost stands, with a slight modification in that he would dominate to a slightly lesser degree if he got 150 points today.

I just thought your "Gretzky plays whatever Gretzky plays and everyone else gets pro-rated" quote was funny. Its like the arguments of some of you guys here in a nutshell. "If you take these numbers and adjust these numbers and ignore what actually happened, you get the result I'm trying to prove of what didnt happen".

 

[Elche1975]

The problem is that all the anti Gretzky people seem to struggle moving talent across time. If Wayne, who is one of the hardest working NHL players of all time, saw that an extra 100 pounds on the bench would do him well then he'd work on it. Getting strength is the easiest thing to do of all the talents a hockey player might need. The same with adding weight. Don't you guys see how easy it would be for Wayne to gain 15 pounds?

Weight and strength are simply not any good arguments. Especially so since this league is dominated by modern "midgets" such as Kane, Gadreau, Marner.

Gretzky would have the same training regimen as everyone else.

But Gretzky was playing also against heavy smoker, heavy drinker.....you're saying now he would be a machine like them, but the opposition too are 'machines'......it helped Gretzky in that era that they were not so drastically into all this.

Like it helped others too. The ones that had an edge on natural talent, on skating or hockey IQ.

Here alot of old people are pro Maurice Richard......they assume like he would translate all what he did into similar or better in 2017. They will say to the fact he was 5'10 180 lbs that he could fight, play physical but they dont realise he could against other guys who were like 5'9 160 lbs!! You cant assume that he would translate 100% and for each point you need to realise that the advantage the guy had in his era dissapear because guys are better now simply. Richard didnt even play with the big slap shots. Thats how much the game changes all the time.

If you take off to Gretzky the extra time frame you had in the 80's you just cut a big part of his play. Would he create his own space with puck control and his strenght? No! Could he win battles and protect the puck along the board and behind the net? NO. His edge over others dissapear in a better era, same as Richard.....

 

[Tweed]

It always made sense. You pro-rate Kurri up to 80, you pro-rate McDavid down to 80 and you leave Gretzky at 74 and 79 for a couple seasons, because fair read and sliding.

But regardless, the numbers are the same-ish anyways, and so your point almost stands, with a slight modification in that he would dominate to a slightly lesser degree if he got 150 points today.

I just thought your "Gretzky plays whatever Gretzky plays and everyone else gets pro-rated" quote was funny. Its like the arguments of some of you guys here in a nutshell. "If you take these numbers and adjust these numbers and ignore what actually happened, you get the result I'm trying to prove of what didnt happen".

I find it funny you'd take the time to call me on it, when you know full well, and admit, that it doesn't make a difference.

 

[TheBaxMan*]

I find it funny you'd take the time to call me on it, when you know full well, and admit, that it doesn't make a difference.

These guys are ridiculous. The idea that Gretzky could score 150 points today is wild. Scoring 150 points today is way better than scoring 215 points when Gretzky scored it. I'd say it's the equivalent of at least 300 points.

 

[Cawz]

Edit; While you're at it. Why not look at this season too. Please do compare numbers to today's Oilers. Explain #99 please?

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/leagues/seasons/teams/0000411981.html

Its quite obvious that those future HOFers were channelling their inner future star potential and mind-melding with Gretzky to give him his success. Never mind that the 4 future HOFers were scoring well below half of what Gretzky was scoring, they were the real reason why Gretzky won the scoring race. Because playing with a defenseman scoring 32 points will always propel a player to score 164. History has shown it.

 

[Tweed]

These guys are ridiculous. The idea that Gretzky could score 150 points today is wild. Scoring 150 points today is way better than scoring 215 points when Gretzky scored it. I'd say it's the equivalent of at least 300 points.

I agree, it is ridiculous. However, I don't know if I'd put the math at 300 points though. The only thing would justify that kind of a leap is by saying McDavid 16-17 @ 100 is equal to the player that Gretzky 83-84 @ 200 was... and THEN... saying Gretzky Today @ 150, would directly translate to 300 back then.

And here's the thing... we've gone off the topic of, what happens when he get's "A Day at Dubinsky Spa" or Ovechkin'd?

This is why I think his points, whatever they would be, don't even matter. He'd be LTIR.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Gretzky was 9th in PPG. Who is doing better between a guy who gets 77 pts in 82 games or 75 pts in 70 games?? Voters are suppose to look at this.

I`d rather have the player who was healthy and actually playing. You can pro-rate injured players` statistics, but it doesn`t help a team win games if they`re sitting in the press box.

(For the record, I don't see how you get Gretzky down to 9th in PPG. The absolute lowest he ranks is 8th, and that's only if you include players like Kariya and Modano who didn't play anywhere close to a full season).

9th in PPG when we didnt even talk of goalies, or snipers(50 goals but not alot of assist) and Defensemen! You should not be 5th in the votes simply.

Blake(who was a bad vote too by the way, they went for the goals! Lidstrom, Niedermayer had the production and the overall play) played PK, top minutes against best players........Chara, Phillips or whatever they went from -20 to +20 sometimes having the exact same role(look at the + - on Blake's career you're gonna see how it goes from -28 to +20 to -26 to +17 etc, its always the same guy with the same role). But here the point is that Gretzky is not a Kopitar, Datsyuk or Toews, to have an impact he needs to produce like crazy because he doesnt bring much in other areas.

Would suggest you re-read my post. As I mentioned, it`s very rare for defensemen to place in the top five in Hart voting.

I`ll give you some further details. From 1992 to 2016, there have been 24 complete NHL seasons, and 121 top-five Hart finishes (should be 120, but there was one tie). There have been exactly three seasons where a defenseman placed in the top five in Hart voting - Coffey in 1995, Pronger in 2000, and Lidstrom in 2008. You might not like that - for the record, I don`t like it - but that`s what happens. The fact that no defenseman finished ahead of the league`s 3rd highest scoring forward in 1998 is completely normal.

The fact that he is minuses means he did alot of power play points but at 5 vs 5 didnt!

That's factually incorrect. Gretzky was 3rd in even strength scoring in 1998 (behind Selanne and Jagr). He was 10th in scoring on the powerplay.

His % of points on the team goes against him. When the NYR at the beginning of that year built that team with Gretzky, Lafontaine, Kovalev, Leetch, Graves, Stevens etc do you think they thought they would be 1 of the 5 teams who doesnt score 200 goals? The plan was to get Lafontaine back to 100 pts with Gretzky at 130. He didnt work simply and was a huge fail. You can read numbers easy, at 5 vs 5 the Rangers were awful and Gretzky included(-11), their attack was 1 of the worst but their power play one of the best. Simple as that.

Gretzky contributing a higher percentage of his team's offense than any other player in the NHL is a point in his favour (especially for the Hart trophy, when it ties nicely to the criteria - "most valuable to his team"). This statement is self-evident.

The comment about expectations for 1998 is absolutely false. Nobody who followed the NHL at that time expected a 37 year old Gretzky to score 130 points, nor did anybody expect Lafontaine to score 100 points. I would like you to provide some evidence to support your position.

So all these things are suppose to be considerated in voting and the fact that he finished 5th, i doubt he would of if his name was Joe Smith lol

Gretzky was the 3rd highest scoring forward in the league (and contributor more to his team's offense than any other forward), and finished 3rd among forwards in Hart voting (behind Jagr, Selanne, plus two goalies). You're looking for a conspiracy when none exists.

 

[KingWantsCup]

In 2002/2003 38 year old Mario Lemieux scored 91 points in 67 games, a PPG ratio of 1.38. Goals per game that year averaged 5.14. He was coming off a broken back and cancer.

In 2016-2017, a prime 29 year old Crosby scored 89 points in 75 games, a PPG ratio of 1.18. Goals per game this past season was 5.45

Seeing as a broken down 38 year old Lemieux could outscore a prime Sidney Crosby in a lower scoring era, I think Gretzky would do just fine in today's game

This was before my time. So unreal. Very hard to fathom that kind of domination-- let alone at 38 with those health conditions in mind.

 

[Cawz]

I find it funny you'd take the time to call me on it, when you know full well, and admit, that it doesn't make a difference.

It makes enough of a difference for you to be able to say "your argument is that he'd be more dominant today" when in reality the argument is that he'd be less dominant today. Subtle difference I realize, but when you are trying to down-play anothers argument, these little things count.

Plus, I'm a sucker for details. Someone manipulates the details, I cant just let it slide.

 

[BraveCanadian]

[table="head,sort1d,2,3,4,5;autonumtitle=rank;width=25em"]Season|99 PTS|#2Guy PTS/80|DOMINANCE
81-82|212|147|1.44x
82-83|196|132|1.48x
83-84|205|126|1.62x
84-85|208|148|1.40x
85-86|215|143|1.50x
86-87|183|109|1.67x
TOTAL|1219|805|1.51x
16-17|150|97|1.54x
[/table]

That's 4 outta 6 of those prime 80's seasons, and the era as a whole that your prediction of how Gretzky would do in today's game... shows you think he would be more dominant today, than he was back then.

Actually what the numbers say there is that he would be right in the same range as before. I have no idea what you are talking about.

Before he was 1.44x-1.67x and now my guesstimate puts him right in the middle at 1.54.

It was a good exercise for you to see just how wrong your 2.3x idea was, though.

If anything these numbers just make my estimate look good.

Like I said, you think he wouldn't lose a step over the competition today. Just like... nothin' ever changed.

It isn't like nothing changed. The actual totals change even if his relative position to the competition doesn't.

150 doesn't even put him at the top level of where he was.. I mean I get you're upset that by having now crunched the numbers you might realize just how good Gretzky really was.. guys like he and Mario were on a completely different level than the top level today.

Sorry, but it is true. Hopefully McDavid will break through.

So Gretzky plays what Gretzky plays but his 2nd closest competitor plays a pro-rated fantasy situation that closes the gap, to get a "fair read"? Wow...

It is the only way he could massage the numbers to try and get the result he was looking for.. which he totally underestimated in the first place because he was complaining earlier that Gretzky scoring in the 140-160 range today would be like 2.3x and much higher than what Gretzky did in reality. He was wrong.

 

[Elche1975]

You are still dishonest when you mention how Kurri, Messier and the guys performed in relation to Wayne.

Please take a look at this season and describe how Kurri and Coffey carried Gretzky?

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/leagues/seasons/teams/0000411982.html

These lies about a team around him doing the job are pretty easy to debunc. If you Compare that team to today's Oilers and take out Gretzky, do you see any similarities? Anderson+Kurri kind of equal McDavid and Draisitel don't they? Then you of course have that number 99 which is a bit trickier to explain? But yeah..he'd struggle in today's league.

Crosby's level was it? A guy who lost Art Ross races to the Sedin brothers and Jamie Benn.. (for the record I am a Crosby fan)

Edit; While you're at it. Why not look at this season too. Please do compare numbers to today's Oilers. Explain #99 please?

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/leagues/seasons/teams/0000411981.html

Im not dishonnest. If i think Kurri is a legitimate 40-50 goals sniper in a different team, he used Wayne to reach 60-70! Like Wayne did more points because he passed the puck to Kurri who could burry it.

Thats why i said in Detroit or New Jersey Gretzky doesnt make 200 pts, you need help for that, everybody was making everybody looks better.

If Crosby makes 100 pts with Kunitz and Dupuis! imagine if Ovy got traded in 2006 there for Malkin. The trade happen and they play together, Crosby's production and Ovy's production would of increase. Ovy was making 50 goals with Zubrus, Laich, Clark......the 2 together would of been crazy!! Gretzky in his era with no cap didnt have to deal with this, we dont know what he would of done with this kind of linesmate. Lemieux had to deal with it and Pittsburgh became strong like that, Lemieux was creating 40-50 goals scorer like Warren Young and other teams would pay for them.

For your other question im not too sure about what you're asking me(i am quebecer but oilers are 1 of my team)....If i understand right, i really think the 80's Oilers were something we will never see unless a team finish last for many many years. Edm drafted amazingly straight away. I think Coffey, Messier, Kurri, Anderson were real talent and like i said everyone used everyone. The Gretzky trade was good for many of them, Messier was in the shadow but if you compare the after trade of Gretzky if we are honest Messier had a better career than Gretzky when they were separated. 2 cups to 0. Longest career.....Messier must be pretty close to Gretzky in PPG after in the 90's but could bring so much more!

The new Oilers dont have all this top end talent and i think they did bad moves to try to go to the next level too quick. Mcdavid is the guy to stop and you might beat them! But at that time it was different, too many guys could hurt you on the oilers team and this helped Gretzky and all of them. I see what you mean but the 80's oilers were too good simply! too Strong i would say for that era.

 

[Cawz]

Im not dishonnest. If i think Kurri is a legitimate 40-50 goals sniper in a different team, he used Wayne to reach 60-70! Like Wayne did more points because he passed the puck to Kurri who could burry it.

Thats why i said in Detroit or New Jersey Gretzky doesnt make 200 pts, you need help for that, everybody was making everybody looks better.

If Crosby makes 100 pts with Kunitz and Dupuis! imagine if Ovy got traded in 2006 there for Malkin. The trade happen and they play together, Crosby's production and Ovy's production would of increase. Ovy was making 50 goals with Zubrus, Laich, Clark......the 2 together would of been crazy!! Gretzky in his era with no cap didnt have to deal with this, we dont know what he would of done with this kind of linesmate. Lemieux had to deal with it and Pittsburgh became strong like that, Lemieux was creating 40-50 goals scorer like Warren Young and other teams would pay for them.

For your other question im not too sure about what you're asking me(i am quebecer but oilers are 1 of my team)....If i understand right, i really think the 80's Oilers were something we will never see unless a team finish last for many many years. Edm drafted amazingly straight away. I think Coffey, Messier, Kurri, Anderson were real talent and like i said everyone used everyone. The Gretzky trade was good for many of them, Messier was in the shadow but if you compare the after trade of Gretzky if we are honest Messier had a better career than Gretzky when they were separated. 2 cups to 0. Longest career.....Messier must be pretty close to Gretzky in PPG after in the 90's but could bring so much more!

The new Oilers dont have all this top end talent and i think they did bad moves to try to go to the next level too quick. Mcdavid is the guy to stop and you might beat them! But at that time it was different, too many guys could hurt you on the oilers team and this helped Gretzky and all of them. I see what you mean but the 80's oilers were too good simply! too Strong i would say for that era.

You didnt click on the 2 links he provided, did you?

 

[Tweed]

It makes enough of a difference for you to be able to say "your argument is that he'd be more dominant today" when in reality the argument is that he'd be less dominant today. Subtle difference I realize, but when you are trying to down-play anothers argument, these little things count.

Plus, I'm a sucker for details. Someone manipulates the details, I cant just let it slide.

[table="head,sort1d,2,3,4,5;autonumtitle=rank;width=25em"]Season|99 PTS|#2Guy PTS/80|DOMINANCE
81-82|212|147|1.44x
82-83|196|132|1.48x
83-84|221|126|1.76x
84-85|208|148|1.40x
85-86|215|143|1.50x
86-87|185|109|1.70x
TOTAL|1237|805|1.53x
16-17|150|97|1.54x
[/table]

Happy?

 

[Cawz]

Actually what the numbers say there is that he would be right in the same range as before. I have no idea what you are talking about.

Before he was 1.44x-1.67x and now my guesstimate puts him right in the middle at 1.54.

It was a good exercise for you to see just how wrong your 2.3x idea was, though.

If anything these numbers just make my estimate look good.




It isn't like nothing changed. The actual totals change even if his relative position to the competition doesn't.

150 doesn't even put him at the top level of where he was.. I mean I get you're upset that by having now crunched the numbers you might realize just how good Gretzky really was.. guys like he and Mario were on a completely different level than the top level today.

Sorry, but it is true. Hopefully McDavid will break through.



It is the only way he could massage the numbers to try and get the result he was looking for.. which he totally underestimated in the first place because he was complaining earlier that Gretzky scoring in the 140-160 range today would be like 2.3x and much higher than what Gretzky did in reality. He was wrong.

Yup. That moment when you go through all the math and realize it supports your opponents argument. But props to him for still posting the results.

 

[Tweed]

Actually what the numbers say there is that he would be right in the same range as before. I have no idea what you are talking about.

Before he was 1.44x-1.67x and now my guesstimate puts him right in the middle at 1.54.

It was a good exercise for you to see just how wrong your 2.3x idea was, though.

If anything these numbers just make my estimate look good.




It isn't like nothing changed. The actual totals change even if his relative position to the competition doesn't.

150 doesn't even put him at the top level of where he was.. I mean I get you're upset that by having now crunched the numbers you might realize just how good Gretzky really was.. guys like he and Mario were on a completely different level than the top level today.

Sorry, but it is true. Hopefully McDavid will break through.



It is the only way he could massage the numbers to try and get the result he was looking for.. which he totally underestimated in the first place because he was complaining earlier that Gretzky scoring in the 140-160 range today would be like 2.3x and much higher than what Gretzky did in reality. He was wrong.

Oh I didn't even bother showing you how 2.3x works. I didn't need to do all that extra work. All I needed to do was show you how what you said suggests that Gretz would be more dominant today than he was back then.