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

[Tweed]

Yes, its very important for people with poor arguments to try to change the numbers.

Do you not understand that you shouldn’t get credit for points you didn’t score? Do you not understand that you are comparing actual points to "if" points?

How'd I know you were gonna grease your way out of answering a simple Yes/No question.

(Btw, if you have troubles with fantasy numbers... you're in the wrong thread, and you should excuse yourself now. This is a conversation about 99 in 2017, dominance, and transposing statistics across eras. You do realize where you are right now, right? Look around ya. Get your bearings. Take your **** and go... and don't come back until you're ready to play in this sandbox with the rest of us.)

 

[Elche1975]

You are getting entagled in all your nonsense..

Where should I start? You did check the links I assume? Your response is Maruk's 136 point season? A freak year for him. You failed to mention Maruk never ever reached 100 again? In fact he was mostly in the 80's point wise.

I am once again going to post Wayne + linemates' points in Wayne's third season.

Kurri; 86pts, Lumley; 74pts, and at times Semenko; 24 pts. Wayne; 212 pts..Wayne has 126 points more than number two on his line. That is not a Maruk anomaly, Wayne did it every year. In fact his 126 point difference is pretty much Maruk's points total in his freak season.

Second off, the size thing has no bearing what so ever. I can not grasp how someone could say anything like that when you have an army of modern midgets dominating this league. Gretzky was not smaller then Kane, Marner and that size seems to be enough to win the Art Ross. In respons to Gretzky's physique, did you ever see that track and field tournament in the 80's where Gretzky faced the stars of other sports? I am pretty sure you didn't given your comments.

So then answer this, how can an old broken down Wayne at the age of 37 end up tied third in the scoring race 1998? Tied with Bure. In an era with as low scoring as today but the players where a lot bigger. Do read the last part again, might be hard for modern fans to grasp. But they where bigger and definately meaner. What is your excuse? His Rangers did not make the playoffs so they were a ****** team. I mean you can't seriously say the other teams let him have those points out of pity? Tied with a prime Bure, 1 point from a prime Forsberg (less games) and only 12 points from a prime Jagr, a guy that is one of the best of all times can't beat a 37 year old Wayne in a ****** team by more than 12 points..

Thirdly you say Gretzky had no shot, was slow, can't play the boards.. I mean how does one respond to that? He had an amazing accuracy in his shot, was one of the faster guys with the puck, isn't that what matters? Excellent on break aways, one on ones. In fact his only weakness was size, something that did not matter to him since his brain was superior.

I am starting to think that the reason people always downplay older players is because they never got to see them play. So it bothers them that their heroes such as Crosby can't touch the Lemieux/Wayne level. Every generation want to have seen the best I guess..

I dont check links....Maruk is an example of how crazy it was for goals, they all are example, Hawerchuk did 130 with a crappy team and teamates. Hawerchuk yes was a first line center but its abnormal that he reached that kind of production. Put Hawerchuk with Edm, imagine a trade happened Hawerchuk and 40 millions(Peter P loved money) for Gretzky. How much points Hawerchuk will make if he can do 120-130 with guys like Laurie Boschman! In Edm for sure 160++, wouldnt reach the 200 for sure but would increase. That is the same for most center in the NHL then.

The points gap in a team happen in every team its ice time, change of linesmate, that year that you're talking about Anderson played more often with Gretzky than Kurri, Kurri had 86 but Anderson 105 pts. Lumley had 74 but missed many games so it was like 90+ pts on 80 games. All you can see is that the lines changed often but that Gretzky was producing with whoever they put with him.


Gretzky didnt have a good shot, a good shot is more like Stamkos, hit a target at 90-95 with a slapper. Gretzky had some accuracy but his shot must of been in the 70.....Look at many of his goals from the 80's there is no way a junior goalie in 2017 let the puck goes in. He was not a great skater, he was not physical or go and get the puck and was losing most of his battles along the board, sometimes i had the feeling he was scare and just gave the puck to the other guy. This is more noticeable in the 90's where the zone coverage became better and the space was harder to get.

Gretzky was in fact skinnier than the guys you're talking about because he was 6' 150-165 lbs for many years.....the guys you're talking about have nothing to prove because they are in a league with bigger, faster guys and they can cope. Gretzky we will never know.....do you realise that players now are doing blue line to blue line in more than 1 second faster than 1997? In Gretzky's prime it was like 2 seconds slower from blue line to blue line! Imagine the extra time a guy like Kane would get to make a play, now the guy is in your face straight away, you have to create that space with strength, quickness and puck control.....

For the 97 Gretzky, he was number 9 in PPG, alot of the guys you're talking about had way worst teams, Bure for example got 90-91 and 2nd is Messier at 60 and then goes to 45 and 4th best had 34...Bure is a pure goal scorer but you dont win Art Ross if you dont make assist like crazy....its like comparing Neely to Joe Thornton, Andreychuk to Gilmour.....the first line center who is a crazy passer always gets a big advantage over the winger. Alot of easy assist right from faceoffs, alot of assist just because you are on the power play(Gilmour or Oates to the blue line, defenseman shots(sometimes scores and sometimes a Andreychuk or Neely tips it in or takes the rebound). Points are not everything, a first line center at that time with the 20 min ice time, the power plays, the extras is sure to get a production because the plays starts with him and gets more chance to get a secondary assist.

Just take a Markov, how many assist did he get in his career just for passing to his partner(Souray, Subban, Weber) who will blast it? Replace Markov by Brisebois, he gets those assist....so Markov starts the year with 20-25 easy assist.....if he finish the season at 5-35 for 40 pts people will say, great year!

Gretzky did the pts expected simply for the role and ice time he had but failed to make a Lafontaine or Graves, Stevens to go back to crazy level and then the Rangers would of won. He also gave up more goals to other teams, the Madden, Peca guys of the league that year were able to contain him but even more were able to get extras goals against his line. If i am the opposite coach and my defensive line end up +1 against the top line, i force the other team to contain my top line

PS i saw all these guys plays, look at my nickname! if you miss obvious stuff like that im not surprise that you miss alot in analyzing obvious things in hockey. I am just realistic, i realise zone coverage didnt exist, goalies are better, defensemen are better, players are bigger, stronger, faster, they can do more tricks with the puck....etc and it will be always bigger, stronger, faster, skiller in 10 years!

I dont miss the 80's hockey, at the all star game we see what it was its kinda close and its just plain ridiculous with no strategy.

 

[Cawz]

How'd I know you were gonna grease your way out of answering a simple Yes/No question.

(Btw, if you have troubles with fantasy numbers... you're in the wrong thread, and you should excuse yourself now. This is a conversation about 99 in 2017, dominance, and transposing statistics across eras. You do realize where you are right now, right? Look around ya. Get your bearings. Take your **** and go... and don't come back until you're ready to play in this sandbox with the rest of us.)

What simple yes or no answer? Yes, I understand how its important to delusional people. Its not a simple yes or no. I fully understand why people cling to it when theyre desperate.

You didnt answer my questions either, or this one (that I'll post again for 3rd time, hoping you'll man up and answer).

Or because I don't give a ****... and the whole point of the exercise was to show just how stupid you'd have to be, to say Gretzky would tally for 150.

If the whole point of the exercise was to show how stupid it was, yet the results you provided showed that the numbers are similar, what did you prove with your numbers?

 

[sr edler]

Gretzky didnt have a good shot, a good shot is more like Stamkos, hit a target at 90-95 with a slapper. Gretzky had some accuracy but his shot must of been in the 70.....Look at many of his goals from the 80's there is no way a junior goalie in 2017 let the puck goes in. He was not a great skater, he was not physical or go and get the puck and was losing most of his battles along the board, sometimes i had the feeling he was scare and just gave the puck to the other guy. This is more noticeable in the 90's where the zone coverage became better and the space was harder to get.

Gretzky had a great shot, and a fantastic slapper, and was a very well above average skater. He wasn't physical though but who cares. He didn't really have to be.

 

[Elche1975]

Again, you need to educate yourself about the player. Gretzky was a tremendous athlete. He was good enough that he could have been a pro baseball player though likely not a major leaguer. He was also a terrific lacrosse player as well. The only part of your assessment of him as an athlete that is true is that he did not succeed on strength.

As far as Crosby's skating vs Gretzkys...Crosby is faster but not by nearly as much as people would suggest. He is a much more powerful skater. That is undisputed. But Gretzky was more agile which to be honest was more important to him than flat out speed. I also think that you are mistaken thinking that Crosby had the better shot.

Gretzky wanted to be a baseball player, it was his dream but was not good enough, you need to say the real fact. I played soccer, tennis, hockey.....i was no caliber to be a professionnal but i was good in most sports, i dont consider myself like a 'natural'. Mario Lemieux, Michael Jordan are naturals that can just decide what sports they could make a career. Gretzky because he was not a natural athlete had an intelligence of the game, so im pretty sure he would translate that intelligence in Tennis as an example but being not a natural he wouldnt serve at +200 you understand?

Gretzky was not more 'agile' what you need to understand is the time difference that you have in extras in the 80's. For example players do blue line to blue line 2 seconds faster now. Imagine if Crosby had a whole 1-2 seconds extra to do what he wants with the puck! You have to be powerful to compensate now and create the half of second you need to make a play. Gretzky didnt have it as you said so it would hurt badly his game and makes his efficiency goes down. By what %? we will never know.

 

[Elche1975]

Gretzky had a great shot, and a fantastic slapper, and was a very well above average skater. He wasn't physical though but who cares. He didn't really have to be.

Gretzky scored many goals with a slapper not leaving the ice like many guys in the 80's! This doesnt work now and its like 20-25-30 mph more than Gretzky's slapper!

He also never tried the hit the target at all stars contest because it was not something he was good at.

His skating was not great, in his biography he said he is not a great skater and couldnt turn on a 10 cents, for ability he is far from guys that we see now. For Speed i think he was about faster than 60% of the guys in the 80's. At that time you didnt have to be a great skater, now you have to...

 

[Cawz]

Gretzky wanted to be a baseball player, it was his dream but was not good enough, you need to say the real fact.

http://nitzyshockeyden.blogspot.ca/2011/12/wayne-gretzky-baseball-star.html

 

[Tweed]

What simple yes or no answer? Yes, I understand how its important to delusional people. Its not a simple yes or no. I fully understand why people cling to it when theyre desperate.

You didnt answer my questions either, or this one (that I'll post again for 3rd time, hoping you'll man up and answer).

If the whole point of the exercise was to show how stupid it was, yet the results you provided showed that the numbers are similar, what did you prove with your numbers?

Bolded above says you're looking for a fight, instead of actually resolving the math.

#2/80 is in fact, a simple yes or no question, for those that understand the premise of the debate. Because you have interjected, it's entirely possible that you either 1) don't understand the debate... or 2) are just looking for something to chirp me about because my assertions threaten your beliefs.

It appears that the former is more likely the case, because you keep concluding "similar! similar!" as though you're adjudicating something. And neither myself, or the guy I was debating with were discussing that.

Either you do understand the importance of pro-rating the #2 guy to 80 games... or you don't. It's that simple. If you don't, be a man, say so. And I'll explain it to ya. I've help smalled children understand complex mathematical concepts in other ventures... I'm confident I can get you up to speed here with this. I'll spend the time, even though I know in my heart you'll not concede, because "Wayne omg".

Lastly, I did answer your question. I've even PM'd you to get clarification on your question, because I don't think it's necessary for people to have to endure this idiocy, and repeated questioning that I've already addressed... especially if this amounts to nothing more than a chip on your shoulder and nitpick-trolling.

The thing you keep quoting... is my response. That's not your "question". Either ask the question again, or quote it properly... but for the love of god, quit dickin' around.

 

[Cawz]

Bolded above says you're looking for a fight, instead of actually resolving the math.

#2/80 is in fact, a simple yes or no question, for those that understand the premise of the debate. Because you have interjected, it's entirely possible that you either 1) don't understand the debate... or 2) are just looking for something to chirp me about because my assertions threaten your beliefs.

It appears that the former is more likely the case, because you keep concluding "similar! similar!" as though you're adjudicating something. And neither myself, or the guy I was debating with were discussing that.

Either you do understand the importance of pro-rating the #2 guy to 80 games... or you don't. It's that simple. If you don't, be a man, say so. And I'll explain it to ya. I've help smalled children understand complex mathematical concepts in other ventures... I'm confident I can get you up to speed here with this. I'll spend the time, even though I know in my heart you'll not concede, because "Wayne omg".

Lastly, I did answer your question. I've even PM'd you to get clarification on your question, because I don't think it's necessary for people to have to endure this idiocy, and repeated questioning that I've already addressed... especially if this amounts to nothing more than a chip on your shoulder and nitpick-trolling.

The thing you keep quoting... is my response. That's not your "question". Either ask the question again, or quote it properly... but for the love of god, quit dickin' around.

Your whole PM is about decimals again...?

Here, I'll ask my question again, below (its the thing with the question mark, under your quote, which provides context):

Or because I don't give a ****... and the whole point of the exercise was to show just how stupid you'd have to be, to say Gretzky would tally for 150.

If the whole point of the exercise was to show how stupid it was, yet the results you provided showed that the numbers are similar, what did you prove with your numbers?

 

[Elche1975]

How many Oiler games would you estimate you watched a year while Gretzky was on the team?

With playoffs runs i would say maybe between 30 to 50 why? I was an Oilers fan but i am realistic. I can compare era's and what was different(so easier to deal with), you guys dont even considerate the poor goaltending, the non existent zone coverage, the fact that you have a whole 2-3 seconds to make a play.....I never liked Pittsburgh but i am able to say the truth about Crosby and Lemieux too....Lemieux is the ultimate player(but i dont like the guy), he is the one who could of dominated anytime 100% sure.

 

[Cawz]

Either you do understand the importance of pro-rating the #2 guy to 80 games... or you don't. It's that simple.

Its kind of like asking if people understand why its important to use +/- to compare players on different teams (which we see often done). People understand why some people think its important, but it’s a bit of a loaded question, because its not important in a real tangible way.

 

[Cawz]

With playoffs runs i would say maybe between 30 to 50 why?

Becasue I thought you were from Quebec. How could you watch so many games out east?

 

[Tweed]

Its kind of like asking if people understand why its important to use +/- to compare players on different teams (which we see often done). People understand why some people think its important, but it’s a bit of a loaded question, because its not important in a real tangible way.

WHOA. NO. No it is not. Don't even try to play that crap here. You very clearly do NOT understand the debate, nor the importance of pro-rating the #2 guy.

 

[Elche1975]

http://nitzyshockeyden.blogspot.ca/2011/12/wayne-gretzky-baseball-star.html

Thats a marketing thing, the expos did the same with Lemieux after(and he was doing homeruns against pros and was really good), Gretzky was famous it would of been huge but the talent wasnt there.....you really think the Jays would take a guy who is not even a pro?


Wayne Gretzky says he wanted to play pro baseball 'Great One' had dreams of suiting up for Detroit Tigers

If not for his father, and the realization that he'd struggle to reach the big leagues playing baseball, he might have had an entirely different career.

https://www.nhl.com/news/wayne-gretzky-says-he-wanted-to-play-baseball-for-tigers/c-286606386


For Lemieux....

Lemieux was an outstanding junior baseball player in his youth, in addition to playing hockey, but obviously had to give up the summer sport very early, as NHL stardom was already predicted for him when he had barely turned 16.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Mario_Lemieux

 

[Tweed]

Your whole PM is about decimals again...?

Here, I'll ask my question again, below (its the thing with the question mark, under your quote, which provides context):

If the whole point of the exercise was to show how stupid it was, yet the results you provided showed that the numbers are similar, what did you prove with your numbers?

You gonna answer the PM or not?

To answer your question... "It's stupid to think Gretzky would be as dominant today as he was in his own era. My math shows that estimating 99 would pot 150 pts today, suggests that Gretzky would be more dominant today than he was in his own era."

Basically. The same thing I said the first time you asked the question. That's twice now I've answered your dumb question.

 

[Elche1975]

Becasue I thought you were from Quebec. How could you watch so many games out east?

He have a thing call a tv

Quebec have CBC you know, so you get all playoffs games + each saturday all the Canadians teams involved.

Edmonton were the main canadian team in the 80's so they would be on for most of their home games and the away games who are late....Mtl and Tor had priority for early games.

 

[Tweed]

He have a thing call a tv

Quebec have CBC you know, so you get all playoffs games + each saturday all the Canadians teams involved.

Edmonton were the main canadian team in the 80's so they would be on for most of their home games and the away games who are late....Mtl and Tor had priority for early games.

You're being too vague. Next he's going to ask you to cite dates of the games you watched, and if you don't get the time of puck drop correct to the minute... he's gonna dink up this thread for the next 24 hours over it.

He's the truth police.

 

[BeatenLikeRentedMule]

Becasue I thought you were from Quebec. How could you watch so many games out east?

There were devices back then called a video cassette recorder. They allowed you to record events onto the cassette and watch them at your own convenience. What a wonderful piece of technology. Don't forget to rewind though.

 

[Tweed]

There were devices back then called a video cassette recorder. They allowed you to record events onto the cassette and watch them at your own convenience. What a wonderful piece of technology. Don't forget to rewind though.

Toldya man. Look out, Columbo's on the case.

 

[Habsfunk]

Just take a Markov, how many assist did he get in his career just for passing to his partner(Souray, Subban, Weber) who will blast it? Replace Markov by Brisebois, he gets those assist....so Markov starts the year with 20-25 easy assist.....if he finish the season at 5-35 for 40 pts people will say, great year!

Or maybe Markov's defence partners score so many goals because he's so good at setting them up? I can tell you for certain Brisebois would not have gotten those points.

As for Gretzky, this idea that he only put up 200 points because players and goalies were terrible in the 80s is so dumb. If it was so easy to score, why weren't more players putting up such lofty numbers? It took another super-human talent to approach his totals, and even Lemieux didn't match them.

 

[Elche1975]

You're being too vague. Next he's going to ask you to cite dates of the games you watched, and if you don't get the time of puck drop correct to the minute... he's gonna dink up this thread for the next 24 hours over it.

He's the truth police.

Thats the problem in this kind of debate! People who refuse to see things will bring things to a very low level!

I talked about speed, zone coverage, i even put videos of 80's games and ask how many goals wouldnt goes in, talk of the 2 seconds faster now from blue line to blue line, the fact that Gretzky couldnt add up to his game the new weapons(one timer, quick release wristshot while skating etc)......but you get ignore on these things but you get assumptions that you never seen him play A bit ridiculous

Even younger people who didnt see 80's hockey can just go on youtube to see how bad is the goaltending, the defense, there's no system looks like 10 chickens who got their head cut and goes everywhere but the right place lol

The subject is how many points would he do.....so things that were his strenghts at the time are now weaknesses, and some weaknesses then are now extreme weaknesses in 2017....all this would translate in less efficiency, its all logical! But when emotional takes over logical we can witness these kind of things.

 

[TheSituation]

Thats the problem in this kind of debate! People who refuse to see things will bring things to a very low level!

I talked about speed, zone coverage, i even put videos of 80's games and ask how many goals wouldnt goes in, talk of the 2 seconds faster now from blue line to blue line, the fact that Gretzky couldnt add up to his game the new weapons(one timer, quick release wristshot while skating etc)......but you get ignore on these things but you get assumptions that you never seen him play A bit ridiculous

Even younger people who didnt see 80's hockey can just go on youtube to see how bad is the goaltending, the defense, there's no system looks like 10 chickens who got their head cut and goes everywhere but the right place lol

The subject is how many points would he do.....so things that were his strenghts at the time are now weaknesses, and some weaknesses then are now extreme weaknesses in 2017....all this would translate in less efficiency, its all logical! But when emotional takes over logical we can witness these kind of things.

And there are multiple statistics to back all of that up. But people are in here arguing like a 5 year old contesting that Santa is real.

 

[TheBaxMan*]

Gretzky at 150 points today is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gretzky's 215 points. The fact that people can't understand that is ridiculous.

 

[Elche1975]

Or maybe Markov's defence partners score so many goals because he's so good at setting them up? I can tell you for certain Brisebois would not have gotten those points.

As for Gretzky, this idea that he only put up 200 points because players and goalies were terrible in the 80s is so dumb. If it was so easy to score, why weren't more players putting up such lofty numbers? It took another super-human talent to approach his totals, and even Lemieux didn't match them.

Im talking of exchange of puck between 2 defensemen at the blue line, any defenseman can do that. All you have to do is being on the ice and set Souray's one timer....Markov did some IQ hockey assist in his career but each season he gets the extras easy ones for being just there on PP and is sure to start the year with 20-25 extras assist.

A #1 center who for sure will play 20-24 min a game and each power play will start the year with an extras numbers of points just for winning the faceoff.....Getzlaf wins offensive faceoff, Vatanen gets it, wrister thru traffic and score! Getzlaf didnt do much, if Vermette did the faceoffs and wins it, he gets that assist. Hockey is more than just assist and points. Datsuyk at 90 pts at his prime OR Michel Goulet at 120 pts at his prime? Who can makes you win?


For the 80's i think its quite simple and was explain many times. The 80's were bad but the worst are 81-83......Lemieux didnt play his prime in the worst year. He played from 83-84(18) with very bad teamates.....pittsburgh became strong with trades, Lemieux was making AHL players looks like good(Young, Brown, Cunneyworth(more a 4th line goon)) and pittsburgh ripped off other teams like that and became strong for the 90's....Edm was more like a bunch of talented teens squad at first with amazing draft picks simply and each year, guys were improving. Mario grew up in a way different situation. So when he finally get to his peak and near peak and with proper team the goals crazyness was past and then he started to get health issues. So Mario in his prime in 81-82 with a proper team would pass 230-240 pts easy thats no question in my mind.

All players did better, not just Gretzky. 3rd liner of 25 goals 60 pts were a common thing. Here in Quebec we had P.Stastny nearly 140 pts playing with his brothers 72 and 89 pts. Cloutier 97 pts, Goulet 84, Hunter 72, Tardif 70 etc...But numbers are numbers, what the numbers doesnt say about that Nordiques team is that injuries were crazy that year. On 80 games ratio Cloutier is 116 pts, M.Stastny 96, A.Stastny 84. Tardif, Marois, J.Richard and many others missed many games. Peter Stasny would of got what? 160 pts? They were the helpers, its not like he was with a Cunneyworth or Lumley and the replacement is better......

Stastny was a real #1 center yes, but no way a guy who could dominate in 2017 with the tools he had. He would be a 60-70 pts guy like many others. He took advantage of 81-84 and 86 to make way higher points per season and then when goals decreased he started to decrease production each year(age catching too).

But once again he didnt have a Coffey, Kurri, Anderson etc.....he would of been 150-170 pts guy in Edm??

Nobody is arguing that Gretzky was the most dominant player in the beginning of 80's and was the best of these no zone coverage and bad goalenting years.....he just did more like every player in the league at that time, but the topic is the production in those years vs what he would be now and the no zone coverage and bad goaltending is a big part of it because it is so different. You need to see what kind of tools the guy had and what kind of goals he scored. As an example Guy Lafleur scored alot of goals down the wing at the blue line from a bad angle a slapper not leaving the ice at maybe 80 mph, this doesnt work now on any goalies so if the topic was Guy Lafleur i would drastically cut down his goals production.

 

[Elche1975]

Gretzky at 150 points today is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gretzky's 215 points. The fact that people can't understand that is ridiculous.

It will always happen. And its far from being just maths.

I see way older people that thinks Maurice Richard would score like 60-70 goals now and would of done 100+ in the 80's! Their main argument is there was 6 teams, so it was only the best of the best(not thinking that you would take off the best Swedes, Finnish, Russians etc).

You just CANT simply do a math translation, Richard was 180 lbs playing against guys of 170 lbs! He didnt even use a proper slap shot, there is so many things that would translate into his strenghts at the time becoming weaknesses today.

Expansion did damage in the 80's where alot of bad players and AHL level ones went into nhl career, it was fix with euro coming more and more. Only this fact makes the numbers goes drastically because you replace a % of bad players by top players of many countries.