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

[Beukeboom]

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.)

Name one player in the SC winning Pens that would pose any kind of physical threat to Wayne? It is a bunch of softies. Their toughest player is Scott Wilson. They would be eaten alive back in Wayne's time. Why don't you stop spreading anoying modern made lies about how Wayne was untouchable. Google what Dennis Potvin had to say about why Wayne almost never got caught. Do you really think Behn Wilson or Probert were afraid of Semenko hence they didn't touch Wayne?

Nicklas Lidstrom is another guy that had an uncanny ability to avoid hits and foul play.

 

[nbwingsfan]

I don't think being jacked is ever the question about modern players vs. older ones, but 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 sincerely doubt Gretzky would be physically capable of dominating today like he did in the 80s, or anywhere close really, regardless of how great his stamina was.

Of course it's debatable. Have you seen comparisons when athletes try and use equipment and conditions that athletes were in decades ago? Its not pretty.

The reason we see so many records broken every year isn't because of everyone getting better.. it's the equipment/training/conditions that are getting better.

 

[BraveCanadian]

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.)

I'm sure he got some calls.. he also had people that would make you answer the bell if you hit him.. but mostly:

Again? This has been debunked 1000 times.

The real reason Wayne avoided most serious injuries (outside Suter gooning him):

Denis Potvin: "Hitting Gretzky is like wrapping your arms around fog. You saw him but when you reached out to grab him your hands felt nothing, maybe just a chill. He had the strongest danger radar of anyone on the ice. I think he could sense me coming, the way you can sometimes look ahead and sense somebody watching you from behind. I can't remember one time in my career when I got a good piece of him."

OR

Igor Dmitriev: “Gretzky is like an invisible man. He appears out of nowhere, passes to nowhere, and a goal is scored.â€

 

[Cawz]

Of course it's debatable. Have you seen comparisons when athletes try and use equipment and conditions that athletes were in decades ago? Its not pretty.

When has that happened?

I always thought they should play part of the allstar game or something with 80s equipment. Would be funny to watch.

 

[BraveCanadian]

When has that happened?

I always thought they should play part of the allstar game or something with 80s equipment. Would be funny to watch.

This one is about equipment as well as selection of desired attributes having a big impact on some sports.

 

[Cawz]

Cool, thanks. I didnt watch the longer one yet. I'll have to keep that in mind when I have 15 mins to kill, but that DeGrasse one was interesting.

 

[TheBaxMan*]

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?

Just because 5 forwards played over 21 minutes, doesn't mean that Crosby, Kucherov and Marchand did. It's also important to remember that Jagr was playing nearly 26 minutes the season before, and there was a season where Lemieux was playing over 24.

It's not a linear relationship, but it is definitely correlated. Doesn't it make sense to you that more ice time = more opportunities to score points? For example, Joel Quenneville said he would double shift Patrick Kane so he could score more points. Another example, say you have a guy who scores every 5 shifts on average. If you play him 50 shifts one game, and 5 the next, which game would you expect him to score more points?

McDavid scoring 120 points wouldn't necessarily make his team better. The game has changed to a point where it is better to have shorter shifts. Just like in the NBA, star players today are playing way less minutes than they did in the early 2000s. There is a reason for that.

 

[Beukeboom]

Just because 5 forwards played over 21 minutes, doesn't mean that Crosby, Kucherov and Marchand did. It's also important to remember that Jagr was playing nearly 26 minutes the season before, and there was a season where Lemieux was playing over 24.

It's not a linear relationship, but it is definitely correlated. Doesn't it make sense to you that more ice time = more opportunities to score points? For example, Joel Quenneville said he would double shift Patrick Kane so he could score more points. Another example, say you have a guy who scores every 5 shifts on average. If you play him 50 shifts one game, and 5 the next, which game would you expect him to score more points?

McDavid scoring 120 points wouldn't necessarily make his team better. The game has changed to a point where it is better to have shorter shifts. Just like in the NBA, star players today are playing way less minutes than they did in the early 2000s. There is a reason for that.

Too much speculation. Playing less minutes in Oct to Dec might also make you more productive at the end of the season since you are less tired.

If you think Crosby is at Wayne's level then I bet you are new to the game and young. That is usually the period where one challanges the "givens". You'll live and learn. Wait 20-30 years and then people will tell you Crosby/McDavid wouldn't survive a day in the league then or perhaps be 4th liners because the players are "so much better today"...

 

[Cawz]

Just because 5 forwards played over 21 minutes, doesn't mean that Crosby, Kucherov and Marchand did. It's also important to remember that Jagr was playing nearly 26 minutes the season before, and there was a season where Lemieux was playing over 24.

It's not a linear relationship, but it is definitely correlated. Doesn't it make sense to you that more ice time = more opportunities to score points? For example, Joel Quenneville said he would double shift Patrick Kane so he could score more points. Another example, say you have a guy who scores every 5 shifts on average. If you play him 50 shifts one game, and 5 the next, which game would you expect him to score more points?

McDavid scoring 120 points wouldn't necessarily make his team better. The game has changed to a point where it is better to have shorter shifts. Just like in the NBA, star players today are playing way less minutes than they did in the early 2000s. There is a reason for that.

For your first point, you said 1999-2002, thats why I quoted those years.

As for ice time, is it correlated? Possibly a bit. But enough to account for scoring over 20 points more while playing 23 and change a night through the clutch-and-grab? I dont think so.

Crosby isnt better than Jagr at scoring (hell, he lost the playoff scoring title to Malkin), but his intangibles may bring him above Jagr. I dunno (or care).

And Jagr is a step below Lemiuex, who is below Gretzky.

 

[Cawz]

I cut and pasted this from another thread where I made a comparison.

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

1986/87
1 Wayne Gretzky* 183
2 Jari Kurri* 108
3 Mario Lemieux* 107
4 Mark Messier* 107
5 Doug Gilmour* 105
6 Dino Ciccarelli* 103
7 Dale Hawerchuk* 100
8 Michel Goulet* 96
9 Raymond Bourque* 95
10 Tim Kerr 95

11 Ron Francis* 93
12 Denis Savard* 90
13 Steve Yzerman* 90
14 Joe Mullen* 87
15 Walt Poddubny 87
16 Bryan Trottier* 87
17 Marcel Dionne* 84
18 Steve Larmer 84
19 Luc Robitaille* 84
20 Larry Murphy* 81

21 Bernie Nicholls 81
22 Mats Naslund 80
23 Dan Quinn 80
24 Aaron Broten 79
25 Jimmy Carson 79
26 Kevin Dineen 79
27 Tony Tanti 79
28 Esa Tikkanen 78
29 Peter Stastny* 77
30 Al MacInnis* 76

2006/07
1 Sidney Crosby 120
2 Joe Thornton 114
3 Vincent Lecavalier 108
4 Dany Heatley 105
5 Martin St. Louis 102
6 Marian Hossa 100
7 Joe Sakic* 100
8 Jaromir Jagr 96
9 Marc Savard 96
10 Daniel Briere 95

11 Jarome Iginla 94
12 Teemu Selanne 94
13 Alex Ovechkin 92
14 Olli Jokinen 91
15 Daniel Alfredsson 87
16 Pavel Datsyuk 87
17 Jason Spezza 87
18 Evgeni Malkin 85
19 Daniel Sedin 84
20 Thomas Vanek 84

21 Andrew Brunette 83
22 Michael Nylander 83
23 Ray Whitney 83
24 Rod Brind'Amour 82
25 Henrik Sedin 81
26 Alex Tanguay 81
27 Mike Cammalleri 80
28 Vyacheslav Kozlov 80
29 Patrick Marleau 78
30 Andy McDonald 78

86/87 was a deflated points year for most players. 06/07 was an inflated points year for most players.

So in a 80s season when points are deflated so that only 7 players get over 100 points and 23 players get over 80 points, Gretzky got 183 (down from hitting 200 points 4 of his last 5 years, and 196 in the other year).

Now compare that the a 2000s season when points are inflated so that 7 players again get over 100 points but 28 players get over 80 points, Crosby gets 120.

I like this comparison, since it shows that a deflated 80s year is very similar to an inflated 2000's year, except for one anomaly.

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

This one is about equipment as well as selection of desired attributes having a big impact on some sports.

I posted that in the "Skill Level Declining" thread and it got dismissed with "DeGrasse was dogging it"

 

[Cawz]

I posted that in the "Skill Level Declining" thread and it got dismissed with "DeGrasse was dogging it"

Well, to be fair, if he had more time to train on that surface and get used to the gear, and was in a stadium full of thousands of people, he would likely do better. Its an example that people shouldnt dismiss the advancements of todays gear, but also shouldnt be taken at face value.

At least they didnt compare him to the ancient games when athletes competed naked...

 

[TheBaxMan*]

For your first point, you said 1999-2002, thats why I quoted those years.

As for ice time, is it correlated? Possibly a bit. But enough to account for scoring over 20 points more while playing 23 and change a night through the clutch-and-grab? I dont think so.

Crosby isnt better than Jagr at scoring (hell, he lost the playoff scoring title to Malkin), but his intangibles may bring him above Jagr. I dunno (or care).

And Jagr is a step below Lemiuex, who is below Gretzky.

I think Crosby is the better scorer and here is why:

Jagr won his Art Ross trophies when the best player (Lemieux) was not playing.

Crosby IS the best player, and if not for injuries we should be able to agree that Crosby would at least have 5 Art Ross trophies, which is as many as Jagr had.

I think if injuries never existed, you would see that Crosby's scoring looks a lot more impressive than Jagr's.

 

[boredmale]

86/87 was a deflated points year for most players. 06/07 was an inflated points year for most players.

So in a 80s season when points are deflated so that only 7 players get over 100 points and 23 players get over 80 points, Gretzky got 183 (down from hitting 200 points 4 of his last 5 years, and 196 in the other year).

Now compare that the a 2000s season when points are inflated so that 7 players again get over 100 points but 28 players get over 80 points, Crosby gets 120.

I like this comparison, since it shows that a deflated 80s year is very similar to an inflated 2000's year, except for one anomaly.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/leagues/stats.html

Bad comparison point. Goal per game(per team) in 86/87 was 3.74, in 2005/06 it was 3.08. While it's a terrible way to judge points if you prorate what a goal is worth in 2006 vs 1987, 1 goal in 2006 would be worth 0.82 goals in 1987. That would put Gretzky at roughly 151 points(although given they played 2 less games that season I would say 155 to be generous)

 

[Cawz]

I think Crosby is the better scorer and here is why:

Jagr won his Art Ross trophies when the best player (Lemieux) was not playing.

Crosby IS the best player, and if not for injuries we should be able to agree that Crosby would at least have 5 Art Ross trophies, which is as many as Jagr had.

I think if injuries never existed, you would see that Crosby's scoring looks a lot more impressive than Jagr's.

If the word "IF" never existed, you'd have no post.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/leagues/stats.html

Bad comparison point. Goal per game(per team) in 86/87 was 3.74, in 2005/06 it was 3.08

So? Averages are a bad way to look at things because it is an oversimplification. Thats why I'd prefer to look at the star players vs star players. They are different than the "average" player.

 

[Passchendaele]

I think Crosby is the better scorer and here is why:

Jagr won his Art Ross trophies when the best player (Lemieux) was not playing.

Crosby IS the best player, and if not for injuries we should be able to agree that Crosby would at least have 5 Art Ross trophies, which is as many as Jagr had.

I think if injuries never existed, you would see that Crosby's scoring looks a lot more impressive than Jagr's.

What the hell. Crosby would be a distant second to Lemieux too if he were in his prime right now. Point is moot.

 

[boredmale]

So? Averages are a bad way to look at things because it is an oversimplification. Thats why I'd prefer to look at the star players vs star players. They are different than the "average" player.

Well for starters we have 9 more teams(or roughly 50% more teams(21 compared to 22)) so that means we would have 50% more players put in positions to get points(hence you equal amount of player got 80+ points argument). But beyond that if a team is getting an average of 0.65 goals more a game then chances to increase your points only gets higher.

It should also be noted you picked a season that is a statistical anomaly in the 80s where the second best player wasn't getting like 130+ points

 

[Cawz]

Well for starters we have 9 more teams(or roughly 50% more teams(21 compared to 22)) so that means we would have 50% more players put in positions to get points(hence you equal amount of player got 80+ points argument). But beyond that if a team is getting an average of 0.65 goals more a game then chances to increase your points only gets higher.

It should also be noted you picked a season that is a statistical anomaly in the 80s where the second best player wasn't getting like 130+ points

Who cares if you add 50% more players. The top payers are still the top players and should be compared. You can do whatever you want to the overall sample size, it doesnt change the fact that Gretzky scored the most in that 80s year and Crosby scored the most in the 00s year.

I like your 'It should be noted" point. Um, it was noted. Right there in my post. You should read posts all the way through before responding.

 

[TheBaxMan*]

What the hell. Crosby would be a distant second to Lemieux too if he were in his prime right now. Point is moot.

So if this is the way you guys really think, are you ok with the idea that you will never see anyone even close to Gretzky/Lemieux?

Nobody is ever going to come in and dominate like Wayne or Mario did.

If a guy of their skill entered the league today, you would never be able to tell.

 

[boredmale]

Who cares if you add 50% more players. The top payers are still the top players and should be compared. You can do whatever you want to the overall sample size....

One of his arguments was X amount of players got 80 points in 87 and y amount in 2006. It's bad logic making that one of your points if you don't take into consideration there was over 200 extra players playing int he NHL in 2006

 

[BraveCanadian]

I posted that in the "Skill Level Declining" thread and it got dismissed with "DeGrasse was dogging it"

I know I have posted it before and the usual suspects who believe that todays players are bionic superheroes immediately started with the excuses.. it doesn't even matter if it was hand timed or if DeGrasse or Owens were actually faster. It obviously wasn't a super strict reproduction.

However, if they actually listened to what DeGrasse had to say about how much of a difference it made, then maybe they would understand.

Someone posted a video a while ago about current NHLers playing around with old wooden sticks etc. and it was pretty funny how much of a difference it made to them too.

 

[BraveCanadian]

So if this is the way you guys really think, are you ok with the idea that you will never see anyone even close to Gretzky/Lemieux?

I'm personally hoping I get to see another player like that.

There is no one close to them at the moment.

Nobody is ever going to come in and dominate like Wayne or Mario did.

That is what they said before they came along too.

If a guy of their skill entered the league today, you would never be able to tell.

I'd be able to tell. I mean they really stand out when they are lapping the field.

I'm really hoping McDavid can take the next step so that all the "oh everyone is so good no one can stand out" crowd can eat 10 truck loads of crow.

 

[TheBaxMan*]

I'm personally hoping I get to see another player like that.

That is what they said before they came along too.

I'm really hoping McDavid can take the next step so that all the "oh everyone is so good no one can stand out" crowd can eat 10 truck loads of crow.

The game was garbage back then though. I mean the idea of someone coming along now and dominating like Wayne is very unlikely.

McDavid won't come close to the level of domination that the cheesers achieved.

 

[Juicy Pop]

He might be competitive with McDavid/Crosby in any given year.

I'll give a bit of deference to his status but I think people seriously underestimate just how much the sport has advanced in the course of a few decades. I don't think it's disrespectful to simply appreciate that he was the most dominant player in any era but to also recognize that the same sort of dominance would not be possible in today's game.

 

[Passchendaele]

He might be competitive with McDavid/Crosby in any given year.

I'll give a bit of deference to his status but I think people seriously underestimate just how much the sport has advanced in the course of a few decades. I don't think it's disrespectful to simply appreciate that he was the most dominant player in any era but to also recognize that the same sort of dominance would not be possible in today's game.

It's pretty much the other way around actually.

Nicklas Lidstrom, who started his NHL career in 1991 (same year Gretzky won the scoring title with 122 assists and 163 points) and won the Norris at age 40. Played until he was 42. That was just a couple of years ago.

Same story with Jagr.. old man is slow as molasses nowadays but keeps up with the *so-much-better-faster-toewslikedominant* players of today at 45 years old.

This is not Newsy Lalonde we're talking about, here.