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

[Irato99]

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.

But what you don't seem to understand, and that's a problem with that kind of useless debate, is that you are using the 'time travel' hypothesis while it makes more sense to go with the 'born and trained in this era'. If Gretzky learned to play hockey in this era he would be a different player, he would have all his youth to develop and to be effective, he would also have better skates, stick, equipment, training.

Also you are really overrating the impact his teammates had on him, he was going to get 200pts with whoever he played, he would've done it with Cunneyworth easily, he did it with Lumley who had a 12 games goal scoring streak playing with Gretzky. He was winning Hart trophy before Kurri, Anderson and Coffey joined the NHL.

 

[BeatenLikeRentedMule]

But what you don't seem to understand, and that's a problem with that kind of useless debate, is that you are using the 'time travel' hypothesis while it makes more sense to go with the 'born and trained in this era'. If Gretzky learned to play hockey in this era he would be a different player, he would have all his youth to develop and to be effective, he would also have better skates, stick, equipment, training.

Also you are really overrating the impact his teammates had on him, he was going to get 200pts with whoever he played, he would've done it with Cunneyworth easily, he did it with Lumley who had a 12 games goal scoring streak playing with Gretzky. He was winning Hart trophy before Kurri, Anderson and Coffey joined the NHL.

His argument is sound because there are some things you can't develop no matter how much you practice.

Gretzky was an average skater and that won't change. You're either born with it or you're not. Gretzky's shot was not accurate, which is why he didn't engage in that portion of skills competition at ASGs. He also had a limited number of ways to defeat goalies, primarily depending on a slap shot.

That leaves his hockey IQ, which while being immeasurable, wouldn't translate into the dominance that it did in his heyday.

Only a diehard fanboy could believe 99 could put up 150+ points in a season today.

 

[Elche1975]

But what you don't seem to understand, and that's a problem with that kind of useless debate, is that you are using the 'time travel' hypothesis while it makes more sense to go with the 'born and trained in this era'. If Gretzky learned to play hockey in this era he would be a different player, he would have all his youth to develop and to be effective, he would also have better skates, stick, equipment, training.

Also you are really overrating the impact his teammates had on him, he was going to get 200pts with whoever he played, he would've done it with Cunneyworth easily, he did it with Lumley who had a 12 games goal scoring streak playing with Gretzky. He was winning Hart trophy before Kurri, Anderson and Coffey joined the NHL.

When are you born? Could you beat Ali in the 12 rounds fight? Could you play in the nhl in the 60's? Could you beat Carl Lewis in running? Could you go in tennis and serve at 240 km/h because you're training? There is an evolution in sports like it or not....

It increase with people who have the tools for it, Gretzky with all serious training could not shoot the puck at 93 mph or have the strenght of a Jagr.....if life was like you say, each player in the nhl would skate like Mcdavid and shoots like Weber with the accuracy of a sniper.

Gretzky also could not add up to his play the newer things, you think he never tried to devellop a lethal one timer? you think he never tried to become like Sakic, Lindros, Messier with the quick release wrist shot while going full speed? He just couldnt like Robitaille and Ribeiro had skating issues and didnt become super skaters.....

Its not walt disney! i want to be a first line nhl player, all i have to do is train and suddenly i am now the perfect player.

People are just bigger, stronger, faster its evolution, you think people could of just imagine a player like Lindros 10 years before? Big, strong, skilled, with speed.....this was not even something people imaginated possible. Human evolution will always continue and there will be better, faster guys all the time.


His weaknesses would of been just bigger now and some of his strenghts (to manuver around bad slow defensemen) would not be a strenght anymore because it doesnt exist anymore. The fact that with is IQ he had an extra 1-2 and even 3 seconds sometimes was his big strenght and would dissapear. Its simple like that.

For the other part, with Cunneyworth he would of brought Cunneyworth to 75-80 pts i agree, but it would of taken more games and he would of slow down his production. Go on youtube and check the crazy games, the ones where he did 5-6-7-8 pts and you can see that a part of the pts are not him doing the job(it goes in help department) and alot of them are simply goals that would not happen in 2017.

 

[Irato99]

His argument is sound because there are some things you can't develop no matter how much you practice.

Gretzky was an average skater and that won't change. You're either born with it or you're not. Gretzky's shot was not accurate, which is why he didn't engage in that portion of skills competition at ASGs. He also had a limited number of ways to defeat goalies, primarily depending on a slap shot.

That leaves his hockey IQ, which while being immeasurable, wouldn't translate into the dominance that it did in his heyday.

Only a diehard fanboy could believe 99 could put up 150+ points in a season today.

There's actually not a single sentence that's true, it's mind boggling really. So you can't develop skating, I wonder what power skating schools are for

 

[Elche1975]

His argument is sound because there are some things you can't develop no matter how much you practice.

Gretzky was an average skater and that won't change. You're either born with it or you're not. Gretzky's shot was not accurate, which is why he didn't engage in that portion of skills competition at ASGs. He also had a limited number of ways to defeat goalies, primarily depending on a slap shot.

That leaves his hockey IQ, which while being immeasurable, wouldn't translate into the dominance that it did in his heyday.

Only a diehard fanboy could believe 99 could put up 150+ points in a season today.

Exactly, i was a good tennis player(and still i would beat 99% of people) but when i started higher level i could see my weaknesses more......and my weaknesses were more exposed.

I was not a fast runner and good defender, i was use to attack and dominate because i was hitting harder and more near the lines......when i faced guys who hitted harder than me my weaknesses were more exposed. Even if i trained like crazy i improved a bit but not to the level to go pro. I reached my potential who is to beat most people in a public tennis court lol

Here its the same, Gretzky you could compare to my story......when he faced the bad opposition of the 80's it was easy like me against most people, his strenght were taking over and the weaknesses were hiden.....in the 90's it became harder for him because his strenghts were not as much hiding his weaknesses.....he couldnt add up the new tools to his play to compensate.

 

[Cawz]

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.

There was no early and late game when Gretzky was in Edmonton. So no, you didnt. Gretzky on the Oilers didnt have much national coverage since there was no national broadcaster back then other than CBC (who had other Canadian teams to show). You'd be lucky to be able to see more than 1 Oiler game a month before the later rounds of the playoffs. All Conference and SC Final games were obviously watched by many.

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.

Well, he said he watched live since he was around back then. If he said he researched lots of tapes, I wouldnt have commented. But he didnt. So he's obviously either full of **** or misremembering.

 

[Cawz]

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?

It was 1980. He wasnt a star yet

Did you read the link I provided?

 

[Irato99]

When are you born? Could you beat Ali in the 12 rounds fight? Could you play in the nhl in the 60's? Could you beat Carl Lewis in running? Could you go in tennis and serve at 240 km/h because you're training? There is an evolution in sports like it or not....

It increase with people who have the tools for it, Gretzky with all serious training could not shoot the puck at 93 mph or have the strenght of a Jagr.....if life was like you say, each player in the nhl would skate like Mcdavid and shoots like Weber with the accuracy of a sniper.

Gretzky also could not add up to his play the newer things, you think he never tried to devellop a lethal one timer? you think he never tried to become like Sakic, Lindros, Messier with the quick release wrist shot while going full speed? He just couldnt like Robitaille and Ribeiro had skating issues and didnt become super skaters.....

Its not walt disney! i want to be a first line nhl player, all i have to do is train and suddenly i am now the perfect player.

People are just bigger, stronger, faster its evolution, you think people could of just imagine a player like Lindros 10 years before? Big, strong, skilled, with speed.....this was not even something people imaginated possible. Human evolution will always continue and there will be better, faster guys all the time.


His weaknesses would of been just bigger now and some of his strenghts (to manuver around bad slow defensemen) would not be a strenght anymore because it doesnt exist anymore. The fact that with is IQ he had an extra 1-2 and even 3 seconds sometimes was his big strenght and would dissapear. Its simple like that.

For the other part, with Cunneyworth he would of brought Cunneyworth to 75-80 pts i agree, but it would of taken more games and he would of slow down his production. Go on youtube and check the crazy games, the ones where he did 5-6-7-8 pts and you can see that a part of the pts are not him doing the job(it goes in help department) and alot of them are simply goals that would not happen in 2017.

I may be born before you...

So all players born 30 years are bigger and stronger than those born in the Gretzky era according to evolution, like you claimed, but if Gretzky was born 30 years later he would be the exact person, he would be magically denied of any evolution, strange isn't it. Sorry to destroy your whole argument...

 

[Elche1975]

There's actually not a single sentence that's true, it's mind boggling really. So you can't develop skating, I wonder what power skating schools are for

Mike Ribeiro was a bad skater, he improved just slightly with many years of training but was still a bad skater...you cant become Mcdavid just because you want to put hours on it....they would all be olympic skaters if it was the case

Gretzky would of never shoot at 90 mph or his targets with a strong wrister like he wants....Lindros wrister would always be faster than Gretzky's slapper lol

 

[Butch 19]

That leaves his hockey IQ, which while being immeasurable, wouldn't translate into the dominance that it did in his heyday.

Only a diehard fanboy could believe 99 could put up 150+ points in a season today.

Only a jealous Mario fan boy in denial could believe 99 could not put up 150+ points in a season today, with all the current game adjustments. (that have been outlined time and time again in this thread)

and your statement "That leaves his hockey IQ, which while being immeasurable, wouldn't translate into the dominance that it did in his heyday." Wow! - that tells me a lot about you.

 

[BronzeSpruce]

Better question, how many concussion would Gretzky have in today's NHL?

 

[OkimLom]

If you transplanted Gretzky into the game today without any training of today and without the gear of today, you're probably looking at a 60-70 point player. The game is harder hitting(guys are on average bigger than guys back then with more powerful skating), faster, and more skillful when you go from individual to individual(today's 4th liners are probably good enough to be 2nd line players from back then) and more importantly the goalies today are better trained, more under control positionally, and more patient.

If you took Gretzky and put him in the game today with the all the resources players have today, training/diet/gear of today, you're probably looking at a 150+ point player easily.

 

[Elche1975]

I may be born before you...

So all players born 30 years are bigger and stronger than those born in the Gretzky era according to evolution, like you claimed, but if Gretzky was born 30 years later he would be the exact person, he would be magically denied of any evolution, strange isn't it. Sorry to destroy your whole argument...

So why are you not a famous player or a world champion of what you wanted to? if training is magical!

It doesnt destroy anything.....i am 5'10 185 lbs, my dad is 5'8 and my mom is 5'2....i would really question myself or my mom if i had the shape of Victor Hedman! lol The time where i get born is a bit irrelevant, i am born that way because i have these parents. My genetic was not to beat Usain Bolt in the 100 m or goes against Tyson for a boxing fight, even if i train like crazy he would kill me lol

But with time, there is that evolution, my dad's dad was 5'7, my uncles are 5'10 and 5'11, their sons are like 6'1-6'3....do you realise these things? Training and taking things seriously helps but you need to have genetics....Turner Stevenson couldnt become Cam Neely you know

 

[ChuckLefley]

It's actually gotten comical watching the lengths the people who just can't admit Gretzky would be will go to.

We have people claiming they were watching all of these Oilers games when most of them were not shown outside of Alberta until the very late 80's.

We have people talking about how Crosby would dominate in the 80's with his strength, skating, etc. but Won't give Gretzky the same advantages modern players have.

People saying how little time players have today while ignoring the fact that Gretzky made extra time by his awareness and excellent lateral movement. Players having less time would actually emphasis his talent.

People saying he would get destroyed today, despite the fact that's what they said when he was entering the NHL. How'd that work out.

I challenge all of the naysayers to sit down and watch an Oilers dynasty era game, forget about everything except what Gretzky is doing. Forget who is on his team, how the goaltending position is being played and just focus on how he is controlling the game. For instance his OT playoff goal vs. Calgary where he doesn't go for the puck immediately after the great outlet pass from Lowe, but let's the puck go to set himself up to not get caught and to fire a pinpoint slapped into the upper corner. Do that and you will change your mind.

I know none of you will.

 

[Cawz]

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.

No, say it on here if you have something to say. I'm wasting enough time without going to another place.

Ok, you greased around my question I see. Based on however you look at the numbers (either use real data or your pretend fantasy data with rounding errors that your pet unicorn helped you with), the stats are similar to 150. Similar, no matter which way you look at it (real data comparison or unicorn-assisted data comparison).

Your math confirms the results would be similar if you do that comparison. Now, if you round incorrectly and pro-rate players for games they didn’t play in, you manage to squeeze a 0.01 difference. Are you really going to hold onto that weak conclusion, aided with pretend stats and math errors? Or are you going to man up and admit that your math proved it would be similar?

 

[Irato99]

So why are you not a famous player or a world champion of what you wanted to? if training is magical!

It doesnt destroy anything.....i am 5'10 185 lbs, my dad is 5'8 and my mom is 5'2....i would really question myself or my mom if i had the shape of Victor Hedman! lol The time where i get born is a bit irrelevant, i am born that way because i have these parents. My genetic was not to beat Usain Bolt in the 100 m or goes against Tyson for a boxing fight, even if i train like crazy he would kill me lol

But with time, there is that evolution, my dad's dad was 5'7, my uncles are 5'10 and 5'11, their sons are like 6'1-6'3....do you realise these things? Training and taking things seriously helps but you need to have genetics....Turner Stevenson couldnt become Cam Neely you know

Gretzky had the genetics, you must be blind not to see it, you can't be the greatest athlete of the history of the sports without it, he was born to be the greatest.

 

[Cawz]

It's actually gotten comical watching the lengths the people who just can't admit Gretzky would be will go to..

Its funny because their arguments are just so full of holes. I almost feel a little bit sorry for people who believe the things they are typing. It makes a bit of sense that people have difficulty fathoming the greatness of Gretzky. Its pretty ****ed up good. Its pretty hard to comprehend (for some).

 

[Tweed]

No, say it on here if you have something to say. I'm wasting enough time without going to another place.

Ok, you greased around my question I see. Based on however you look at the numbers (either use real data or your pretend fantasy data with rounding errors that your pet unicorn helped you with), the stats are similar to 150. Similar, no matter which way you look at it (real data comparison or unicorn-assisted data comparison).

Your math confirms the results would be similar if you do that comparison. Now, if you round incorrectly and pro-rate players for games they didn’t play in, you manage to squeeze a 0.01 difference. Are you really going to hold onto that weak conclusion, aided with pretend stats and math errors? Or are you going to man up and admit that your math proved it would be similar?

I didn't grease around your answer. I answered it straight-up. Why the **** is the answer so problematic for you? What am I missing here? (I love that you've adopted my lingo).

Yes, similar. Extremely similar. So close it's not funny. But at the end of the day... like I said... more dominant, not less dominant. This whole side-thing you've got going on with me over this "similar" crap, is so stupid. It has nothing to do with what he and I were talking about... and it's obvious that you're obsessed with forcing me and readers to waste exorbitant amounts of time ****ing around with it. It's especially stupid, because regardless of how similar it is... even if we allow him his low-end project... it doesn't change the fact that his projection is utterly ********.

You're pissin' and moanin' about how I've failed to round numbers precisely to the 3rd decimal place... and your whole point is to show me how it's "roughly similar". Like... it's so stupid.

 

[BeatenLikeRentedMule]

Only a jealous Mario fan boy in denial could believe 99 could not put up 150+ points in a season today, with all the current game adjustments. (that have been outlined time and time again in this thread)

and your statement "That leaves his hockey IQ, which while being immeasurable, wouldn't translate into the dominance that it did in his heyday." Wow! - that tells me a lot about you.

Did I touch a nerve there? You mad, 'Bro?

I'm a fan of other athletes such as Andre Agassi but doubt he'd be dominant in today's game with his weak serve and his advantages like his powerful fore-hand would be gone since all the top tennis players pound the ball today. Serena Williams might even be able to beat Andre in a 3 Set Match.

Wayne, like Andre, were dominant for their day. And for either, their lack of size (shorter stature) would be a major disadvantage for them if they competed now.

But keep dreaming that 99 gets 150 or more in today's game.

 

[Tweed]

Better question, how many concussion would Gretzky have in today's NHL?

That's easy. ONE.

 

[Cawz]

I didn't grease around your answer. I answered it straight-up. Why the **** is the answer so problematic for you? What am I missing here? (I love that you've adopted my lingo).

Yes, similar. Extremely similar.

Yes, and thanks again for the math that illustrated that 150 points is around the same level of dominance. I don't see why that was so hard for you. So what that your math proved someone else's argument that 140-160 would be the range of similar dominance. Just be happy you provided backup for someone's discussion.

 

[ChuckLefley]

Its funny because their arguments are just so full of holes. I almost feel a little bit sorry for people who believe the things they are typing. It makes a bit of sense that people have difficulty fathoming the greatness of Gretzky. Its pretty ****ed up good. Its pretty hard to comprehend (for some).

They remind me of the flat earth people. They repeat themselves often enough that people think they could be right. They say stuff that sounds good, if you don't investigate it. They move the goalposts or just keep repeating when they get called on it.

Have you noticed how often they feel the need to curse and insult people with a differing opinion, than get all worked up if you return the favor?

They also always must have the last word. You could say "I'm done" and they would come back. You could post a picture of an Oilers jersey, they would come back. They can let it go.

It's sad.

 

[BeatenLikeRentedMule]

Better question, how many concussion would Gretzky have in today's NHL?

It would be interesting to see how 99 handles a hit by Ovechkin.

 

[Tweed]

Yes, and thanks again for the math that illustrated that 150 points is around the same level of dominance. I don't see why that was so hard for you. So what that your math proved someone else's argument that 140-160 would be the range of similar dominance. Just be happy you provided backup for someone's discussion.

You're delusional. My math showed that what I said he said... was a correct assertion. Similar or not. I called it perfectly. You're done here.

 

[jetsforever]

Hyman had 28 points this season, so probably at least that