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

[Ducks in a row]

Enhancing your point: you're actually listing his assist totals for last 3 seasons. His actual last 3 seasons' point totals were 97 (4th in the league) , 90 (3rd in the league) and 62.

I think the biggest impediment for Gretzky in the modern NHL would have been his back. He had a bad back with less than average contact. How long would his back have handled the type of physical contact the stars of today get?

Oops your right I made the mistake of listing his assists totals instead of points

There was some real good physical contact in the past during his time some stuff that wouldn't be accepted today.

 

[BruinLVGA]

Enhancing your point: you're actually listing his assist totals for last 3 seasons. His actual last 3 seasons' point totals were 97 (4th in the league) , 90 (3rd in the league) and 62.

I think the biggest impediment for Gretzky in the modern NHL would have been his back. He had a bad back with less than average contact. How long would his back have handled the type of physical contact the stars of today get?

If anything, the game was way more brutal in his day, AINEC...

 

[LTIR]

If he had the same coaching, training, equipment and nutrition of today's NHLers he could still be the best player in the game.

different era ...different challenges.. Wayne was the best player for an entire generation.. He was more dominant compared to his peers than anyone since.

 

[Seanaconda]

The difference is, today's players are gym rats while the guys in the 80's were prone to not even working out until training camp. There were players smoking during the intermissions or chugging Pepsi between intermissions.

What you are seeing today is a better conditioned athlete who is having a longer and healthier career and playing the game and quicker speeds than 30 years ago. This however fools people into thinking players have all magically gotten better than all the legends of the game and how scrubs like Gretzky would struggle to score points today because he was the size of Patrick Kane.

Doesnt or didn't chara have coke (the drink) between periods ? And yeah lemieux smoked but I bet he would still dominate even if he smoked today if he was in his prime.

And Gretzky didn't have an nhl body at the time he was drafted he would be fine

 

[BruinLVGA]

The difference is, today's players are gym rats while the guys in the 80's were prone to not even working out until training camp. There were players smoking during the intermissions or chugging Pepsi between intermissions.

What you are seeing today is a better conditioned athlete who is having a longer and healthier career and playing the game and quicker speeds than 30 years ago. This however fools people into thinking players have all magically gotten better than all the legends of the game and how scrubs like Gretzky would struggle to score points today because he was the size of Patrick Kane.

Last hockey players tribune article by Mike Bossy talked about this too. Cigarettes and coffee during the intermissions.

I agree with what you say and let's not forget about the equipment advances too, especially skates and sticks.

 

[BruinLVGA]

Doesnt or didn't chara have coke (the drink) between periods ? And yeah lemieux smoked but I bet he would still dominate even if he smoked today if he was in his prime.

And Gretzky didn't have an nhl body at the time he was drafted he would be fine

Once on the bench during a game, actually. I believe he was having an issue with low blood sugar and there's nothing better than a full sugar drink to raise it: it gets in your system faster than anything else.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Crosby, Malkin and Ovechkin both display a skill, strength and athleticism combination vastly superior to any player before the 90s, that's not really debatable.

I think that is very debatable.

 

[generalshepherd141]

Wayne would probably average 130 points per season in today's NHL (which is ridiculous production nowadays), and I could also see Lemieux coming close to that (120-125).

 

[TheBaxMan*]

Gretz and Lemieux would not be scoring that many points.

The reason guys like Crosby are only scoring at an ~100 point pace is because they don't play the extra 4-5+ minutes a game that Wayne and Mario did.

Adjust the ice time, and guys like Crosby and McDavid are scoring ~120 points today.

Jagr was scoring at a 120-130 point pace back in his prime years, but I think Jagr is in the tier below the Gretzky, Lemieux, Crosby tier. In 2001, Lemieux was on pace for 145 points. This makes sense because Mario was better than Jagr. Jagr's seasons don't look all that impressive now that you consider the best of the best wasn't playing at the time.

Consider that the game is a lot better now.. and I believe guys like Crosby (and soon to be McDavid) are better than Jagr, when you adjust for everything I think the 100 point seasons today are ~140 point seasons back in Jagr's prime years.

I think the tiers look something like this:

Gretz/Lemieux/Crosby/Ovie (prime)/McDavid(?)

Jagr/Malkin/Ovie

Sakic/Forsberg/Kane/Kucherov etc.

 

[kmo429]

90-100, oon par with the greats of today but I'd give him an advantage in taking home the Art Ross.

 

[Cawz]

Wayne would probably average 130 points per season in today's NHL (which is ridiculous production nowadays), and I could also see Lemieux coming close to that (120-125).

Yeah, Gretzky would be the best. Lemieux would be close behind. Both would be better than anyone today, just obviously not to the same extent as in the 80s.

If he had the same coaching, training, equipment and nutrition of today's NHLers he could still be the best player in the game.

different era ...different challenges.. Wayne was the best player for an entire generation.. He was more dominant compared to his peers than anyone since.

Yup. Since people love to bring Lemieux into the conversation (took all of one post), I think Gretzky would benefit more with modern advancements than Lemieux. Gretzky was just more dedicated to bettering himself.

 

[kmo429]

If anything, the game was way more brutal in his day, AINEC...

You can say that all you want but in his day if you so much as looked at Gretzky the wrong way they'd call a penalty.

(Obvious hyperbole, but you get the point.)

 

[Cawz]

when you adjust for everything I think the 100 point seasons today are ~140 point seasons back in Jagr's prime years.

What are you adjusting for? Your biases?

 

[Cawz]

You can say that all you want but in his day if you so much as looked at Gretzky the wrong way they'd call a penalty.

(Obvious hyperbole, but you get the point.)

How old were you in Gretzky's day?

 

[TheSituation]

In his 215 point season, Vezina Trophy Winner John Vanbiesbrouck posted a SV% of .887. That's laughable. The average this past season was .914.

He'd still easily win the Art Ross every year, but there is zero chance that he would be putting up the numbers like he did in his prime.

 

[TheBaxMan*]

What are you adjusting for? Your biases?

I'm adjusting for:

Ice Time: Gretzky and Lemieux played so much that Crosby would need to play around 105 games to match them

Better Competition: The players are a lot better today than they were back then

Talent Level: I think Lemieux would have gotten 140-150 points in the seasons Jagr was scoring 120-130. He was on pace for 140+ points, and Lemieux is better than Jagr. I think Crosby is in the same tier as Lemieux.

-----------------------------------------

I believe scoring at a 100 point pace today on 18-21 minutes of ice-time is more impressive than scoring 120-130 points in 1999-2002 on 23-26 minutes of ice time.

 

[Passchendaele]

Gretz and Lemieux would not be scoring that many points.

The reason guys like Crosby are only scoring at an ~100 point pace is because they don't play the extra 4-5+ minutes a game that Wayne and Mario did.

Adjust the ice time, and guys like Crosby and McDavid are scoring ~120 points today.

Jagr was scoring at a 120-130 point pace back in his prime years, but I think Jagr is in the tier below the Gretzky, Lemieux, Crosby tier. In 2001, Lemieux was on pace for 145 points. This makes sense because Mario was better than Jagr. Jagr's seasons don't look all that impressive now that you consider the best of the best wasn't playing at the time.

Consider that the game is a lot better now.. and I believe guys like Crosby (and soon to be McDavid) are better than Jagr, when you adjust for everything I think the 100 point seasons today are ~140 point seasons back in Jagr's prime years.

I think the tiers look something like this:

Gretz/Lemieux/Crosby/Ovie (prime)/McDavid(?)

Jagr/Malkin/Ovie

Sakic/Forsberg/Kane/Kucherov etc.

Strong logic.

If players today play less than they used to, wouldn't that make the playing field even? I mean BOTH Crosby and his competition get less ice time.

Still, you're out to lunch if you think Crosby is at Gretzky-Lemieux level.

 

[JuniorNelson]

If anything, the game was way more brutal in his day, AINEC...

Except for Gretzky. Without league protection and openly cooperative refs Gretzky would never have played a full season back in the day. He still couldn't. He ragged the puck all the time and hid behind the net. Today's guys are too big and fast to hide from. He'd be mashed like a potato in every game and he was never resilient.

 

[TheBaxMan*]

Strong logic.

If players today play less than they used to, wouldn't that make the playing field even? I mean BOTH Crosby and his competition get less ice time.

Still, you're out to lunch if you think Crosby is at Gretzky-Lemieux level.

No, it's not even because they are being compared to Gretzky and Lemieux who were playing way more.

I'm saying... if the playing field were really even across the board, you would find that Crosby is above the Jagr tier and in the Gretzky/Lemieux tier.

 

[Cawz]

I'm adjusting for:

Ice Time: Gretzky and Lemieux played so much that Crosby would need to play around 105 games to match them

Better Competition: The players are a lot better today than they were back then

Talent Level: I think Lemieux would have gotten 140-150 points in the seasons Jagr was scoring 120-130. He was on pace for 140+ points, and Lemieux is better than Jagr. I think Crosby is in the same tier as Lemieux.

-----------------------------------------

I believe scoring at a 100 point pace today on 18-21 minutes of ice-time is more impressive than scoring 120-130 points in 1999-2002 on 23-26 minutes of ice time.

Well, Jagr is the only player to score that amount in the date range, and he did it playing just over 23 minutes a game, so less than 2 minutes more than the stars of today.

Plus, this totally ignores the fact that this time period was the height of the clutch and grab era. Did you watch hockey back then?

Plus, if you look at the stats, most years the top players are around 80-90 point range, similar to today. Expect for Jagr and Sakic.

So yeah, the stats are similar. Back then the stars played a bit more per game with worse equipment through more clutch and grab defence with less systems on both O and D. Take your pick how it would affect the players stats.

 

[Cawz]

Except for Gretzky. Without league protection and openly cooperative refs Gretzky would never have played a full season back in the day. He still couldn't. He ragged the puck all the time and hid behind the net. Today's guys are too big and fast to hide from. He'd be mashed like a potato in every game and he was never resilient.

I assume youre being sarcastic?

 

[TheBaxMan*]

Well, Jagr is the only player to score that amount in the date range, and he did it playing just over 23 minutes a game, so less than 2 minutes more than the stars of today.

Plus, this totally ignores the fact that this time period was the height of the clutch and grab era. Did you watch hockey back then?

Plus, if you look at the stats, most years the top players are around 80-90 point range, similar to today. Expect for Jagr and Sakic.

So yeah, the stats are similar. Back then the stars played a bit more per game with worse equipment through more clutch and grab defence with less systems on both O and D. Take your pick how it would affect the players stats.

Some of the superstar players today could play 100 games and still play less than Jagr and Lemieux did in 82 games.

Jagr was playing 23-26 minutes a game, and Lemieux over 24.... guys like Crosby, Kucherov, Marchand are all playing less than 20 minutes. The difference is definitely more than <2 minutes.

Jagr was the only player to score that many points, but that is because the best player (Lemieux) wasn't playing. Lemieux would have likely scored more points. He was scoring at a 145 point pace. Jagr's seasons don't look that spectacular when you realize that the actual best player of the era would have been scoring more.

I think Crosby or McDavid is to Lemieux as Malkin or Ovie is to Jagr.

I also think the superstar players today for the most part are better than a guy like Sakic. Guys like Marchand, Kane, Kucherov, etc. are better (or at least they played better this season). Could be wrong, but in other leagues like the NBA you can see how the best players today are just so much better than everyone from the early 2000s besides maybe a select few like Shaq and Duncan. I think it's the same in the NHL. Outside of Lemieux and Jagr, the stars today are way better.

 

[Beukeboom]

Some of the superstar players today could play 100 games and still play less than Jagr and Lemieux did in 82 games.

Jagr was playing 23-26 minutes a game, and Lemieux over 24.... guys like Crosby, Kucherov, Marchand are all playing less than 20 minutes. The difference is definitely more than <2 minutes.

Jagr was the only player to score that many points, but that is because the best player (Lemieux) wasn't playing. Lemieux would have likely scored more points. He was scoring at a 145 point pace. Jagr's seasons don't look that spectacular when you realize that the actual best player of the era would have been scoring more.

I think Crosby or McDavid is to Lemieux as Malkin or Ovie is to Jagr.

I also think the superstar players today for the most part are better than a guy like Sakic. Guys like Marchand, Kane, Kucherov, etc. are better (or at least they played better this season). Could be wrong, but in other leagues like the NBA you can see how the best players today are just so much better than everyone from the early 2000s besides maybe a select few like Shaq and Duncan. I think it's the same in the NHL. Outside of Lemieux and Jagr, the stars today are way better.

Oh my..you have not been following NHL for more than 5 years have you?

 

[Beukeboom]

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

/End thread

Do we really need a "How many points would Wayne/Mario get?" every other month. Can't people use the search button?

Also I do hear the strangest of things. Hockey tougher today? I mean how could one possibly come to that conclusion? Because the Sedin twins can be superstars today? Google a pic of Bobby Hull with no shirt and compare his body to Kessel. Or why not compare Gordie Howe to Ovechkin. The fitness level of today's players is highly overrated when it comes to strength and anything related to toughness.

 

[Cawz]

Some of the superstar players today could play 100 games and still play less than Jagr and Lemieux did in 82 games.

Jagr was playing 23-26 minutes a game, and Lemieux over 24.... guys like Crosby, Kucherov, Marchand are all playing less than 20 minutes. The difference is definitely more than <2 minutes.

Jagr played 23:12 in 99/00 and 23:18 in 00/01, and 21:42 in 01/02.

5 forwards this year played over 21 minutes.

Check your math.

Plus, its not a linear relationship. If more time = more points, why wouldnt the stars of today just play that much more? Seems pretty logical that if McDavid scores 120 points, the team would likely do better. Do you not see the fault in your logic?