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

[Mbraunm]

Today Sid would be absolutely and crazy dominant if dropped into the 80s. If Sid grew up with Gretzky's generation and didn't have all the modern advantages, I believe he would still dominate-possibly a perennial 140-160 point player. However, to score at Gretzky's level a player must process and "see" the game at a completely different level and different way than anyone can. Crosby is a generational talent, like McDavid, a player that comes around once every 10-20 years. A player with Gretzky's vision and mind come around once every 100 years-a genetic freak of nature...an Einstein level of processing ability.

Crosby is a very different player. His game has never been purely offensive. Could he have had a 160 point season. Certainly. But it's hard to say how many such seasons he may have had since he played such a different style of game than guys like Lemieux and Gretzky. He was closer to Lindros than those guys in the sense that a lot of his game is driven by power.

Crosby's best point total was obviously the 2006-2007 year. That year scoring in the NHl was about 10% lower than in the year Lindros put up 115 points in 73 games. If you do a simple conversion based on average goals per game you get 161.[/QUOTE]

Very well thought post! It is true that Crosby's game is very much that of a power forward with tremendous skill, vision and ability to make plays in gritty situations-all while proving leadership and a 200 foot game. Very impressive skill-set but different from a Lemieux or Gretzky.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

The best question when you vote for the hart is IF YOU TAKE THAT PLAYER AWAY, WOULD THE TEAM SUFFER ALOT?

I want to clarify. Are you telling me that if you take away a player who contributed a greater percentage of his team's offense than any other player in the league, the team wouldn't "SUFFER ALOT"?

In that case i go with PPG because they are the real impact.

I read the remainder of your post but I don`t understand what you`re trying to say. You can try re-phrasing, if not we`ll agree to disagree.

Sorry but 5th place in that case is a reputation thing, no conspiracy but reporters who doesnt know how to vote, who overated Gretzky since many years like they do now with some guys like Weber, Price...etc

My position is Gretzky deserved where he finished in Hart voting that year. He was the 3rd highest scorer in the league that year (and contributed a greater percentage of his team`s offense than anyone else), and he finishing 3rd amongst forwards in Hart voting. Obviously there isn't a one-to-one correlation but there's often a strong pattern.

 

[Fourier]

We keep naming bad players. Ovy with Zubrus and Laich/Clark! Crosby with Dupuis....Lemieux with guys like Cunneyworth, Warren Young....I prefer Lumley and Kurri honestly, a physical guy for the battle and a real sniper. Plus when the other line is Messier/Anderson, it helps you.

Also the power play effect and the Coffey effect.....lots of these other guys who did crazy seasons with crappy to average teammates didnt have these 2 things.

I told you i was from Quebec, Joe Sakic did 110 pts and Sundin was second at 59 pts. He was part of 47% of the goals! Another year Sakic did 102 pts and 2nd was Michel Petit at 36 pts(they traded Stastny and Goulet who both were not very good then!)....Imagine Sakic with Lumley and Kurri instead of Mike Hough and Guy Lafleur, with a Coffey in the back end to help, with a crazy power play....Is Joe Sakic the ultimate player? NO.......but put Joe Sakic in 1982 at his prime on the Edmonton Oilers and for sure he would do like 160++. I cant even think how the goalies would react to his quick release wrist shot while skating that he was one of the first and best to make.

Dennis Maruk did nearly 140 that year with average guys.

You are missing the point completely. This was not the polished Kurri/Anderson/Messier we are talking about. Gretzky put up huge points when these guys were not even on the hockey radar.

Ask Oiler fans about the 2014-2015 version of Leon Draisaitl vs the 2016-2017 version. Same person but a far different player. Kurri in his rookie year was no where near the player he would become. Coffey was struggling to stay in the line-up. Anderson was a non-factor for Gretzky and Messier was no where near the player people think of today. Yet Gretzky beat Esposito's record with this bunch of unknowns and a guy like Lumley who had been in the dog-house until Sather put him with Gretzky.

Sakic was a fantastic player by the way. Maruk was also a very gifted player. He was basically a guy who lived to put up points. He was not a guy who was going to make others better. But he had a season that he could never come close to replicating. In fact it is one of the great outlier seasons in history. But the game is changing. Minor hockey does a lot to curb creativity and to mold players into systems oriented robots.

 

[Elche1975]

You really have a problem with maths I see. When Gretzky scored 164pts, Kurri got 75pts, how can you state without looking dumb that Kurri helped Gretzky more than Cunneyworth helped Lemieux, look at the numbers. I'll say it again, bolded, Gretzky scored 164pts and Kurri 75pts, so apparently there are 89pts that Kurri helped Gretzky without touching the puck, how do you explain that, and how is that different than the Lemieux scenario...

Kurri is not a 4th line player like Cunneyworth, so right there to make Cunneyworth go to 74 pts is already crazy.

Its maths like you said, when there is big gap like that it means that there is alot of lines who changed or a switch of line too when power play starts. For example Kurri maybe was 25 games on another line simply while Anderson was with Gretzky. For sure had less power play time and Anderson more than Kurri. A bit like Crosby, % of games with Kunitz, Sheary, Hornqvist, Guentzel, Rust.....

When Sakic did 102 pts he played most of the year with Hough and Lafleur so maybe 55 games with them but he also played with many different wingers like Jeff Jackson. Sakic missed so many points with Hough missing empty net!

For the rest if you cant understand that 168 with a Cunneyworth that you bring to 83 pts(ratio on 80 games) is harder than bringing Kurri to 75 pts i cant help you!

If you switch a young Kurri with Mario instead of Cunneyworth, how much more pts both end up having?? Pretty sure Cunneyworth missed alot of easy goals more than Kurri would miss!

 

[Elche1975]

You are missing the point completely. This was not the polished Kurri/Anderson/Messier we are talking about. Gretzky put up huge points when these guys were not even on the hockey radar.

Ask Oiler fans about the 2014-2015 version of Leon Draisaitl vs the 2016-2017 version. Same person but a far different player. Kurri in his rookie year was no where near the player he would become. Coffey was struggling to stay in the line-up. Anderson was a non-factor for Gretzky and Messier was no where near the player people think of today. Yet Gretzky beat Esposito's record with this bunch of unknowns and a guy like Lumley who had been in the dog-house until Sather put him with Gretzky.

Sakic was a fantastic player by the way. But the game is changing. Minor hockey does a lot to curb creativity and to mold players into systems oriented robots.

Kurri was not what he became its normal, he didnt reach his peak but he was a 1 PPG guy already who would increase each year. Anderson played with Wayne and specially on power play where he did a good job. He was already a near PPG player. Messier was a little bit of a factor because he was a little bit of a threat. Im gonna take my example of the Nordiques, Sakic 102 pts with guys of 30 pts...no other threat. The year after Sundin arrives and makes only 59 pts, Sakic is still playing with crappy players but a little bit of threat on another line help Sakic increasing.

Alot of players never had that advantage, Mario didnt because the 2nd line was always not scary, so you can be all Ray Bourque on him.....thats what help alot Pittsburgh and Crosby/Malkin.....who played Subban didnt score at 5 vs 5, but there is only one Subban

This helped Gretzky alot and when he lost that after LA he dropped alot statiscally because you could go all in on him without worrying. Thats why also he finished his career with major minuses too(-87 in his last 8 seasons).

 

[Elche1975]

I want to clarify. Are you telling me that if you take away a player who contributed a greater percentage of his team's offense than any other player in the league, the team wouldn't "SUFFER ALOT"?



I read the remainder of your post but I don`t understand what you`re trying to say. You can try re-phrasing, if not we`ll agree to disagree.



My position is Gretzky deserved where he finished in Hart voting that year. He was the 3rd highest scorer in the league that year (and contributed a greater percentage of his team`s offense than anyone else), and he finishing 3rd amongst forwards in Hart voting. Obviously there isn't a one-to-one correlation but there's often a strong pattern.

Gretzky to be effective needed to produce alot, its like a Turgeon or any unidimensionnal player. A Gretzky at 20-23 minutes ice time, who start all power plays needs to produce like crazy because he wont really help you in physicality or defensive. Gretzky at 90 pts i know he will end up in minuses alot, i know also that 15 of these pts were empty net, alot of these points were 3 assists night in a 5-1 win.

He needs to be at over 130 pts to compensate. Takes Datsyuk at 89 pts vs Turgeon at 95 pts for example.....What Datsyuk brings you, Turgeon would have to be at 130 pts to compensate even if he contribute to 40% of the points of his team. A MVP should be bringing more than just points unless he do amazing numbers and beat others easily.

Gretzky was 9th in point per game so he didnt dominate, didnt success to makes everyone better, didnt success to compensate for the things he cant bring me! For that reason to me he was not a top containder that year. I told you many names that i put before with very good reasons with better numbers and weaker teammates + bringing more on other areas. I am not a reporter, i look at facts and not a name, i am not working to make the nhl more popular either. Voters look at the name and only the points, i tend to analyse a bit more and the Rangers fail that year says it all.

 

[Passchendaele]

Maruk's season is an anomaly..

Brian Gionta once scored 48 goals.

Does that mean he is/was an elite goal-scorer?
No.
Does that mean anybody can score 48 goals?
No. Not by a longshot.

Gionta is ironically a good example to make a point. Dude's 5'7 if he's lucky and did that in the "better, bigger, stronger, faster" NHL of today.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

i know also that 15 of these pts were empty net,

False.

Gretzky recorded two points on EN goals that year (November 5 vs Colorado, then April 15 vs the Islanders).

Would like to get a list of the other 13 EN goals you claimed he scored/assisted.

alot of these points were 3 assists night in a 5-1 win.

I think you`re trying to say that Gretzky recorded easy points in blowout games - correct me if I misunderstood.

When Gretzky was scoreless, the Rangers were 4-19-3 (21.2%). When he scored one point they were 8-15-13 (40.3%). When he scored two or more points, they were 13-5-2 (70.0%).

This shows that Gretzky`s personal success directly impact the Rangers` team success - exactly what you`d expect from a player who placed highly in Hart voting. If he was scoring easy points in blowout victories, that type of pattern wouldn't exist.

who start all power plays

I've already shown that Gretzky was a better scorer at ES than on the PP that year.

Gretzky was 9th in point per game

I`ve already explained to you that this is factually wrong, even if you include players like Kariya and Modano who both missed 30+ games.

====

Since you`ve repeatedly made false claims, I`m not interested in continuing this conversation further. You may have the "last word" if you choose.

 

[Elche1975]

Today Sid would be absolutely and crazy dominant if dropped into the 80s. If Sid grew up with Gretzky's generation and didn't have all the modern advantages, I believe he would still dominate-possibly a perennial 140-160 point player. However, to score at Gretzky's level a player must process and "see" the game at a completely different level and different way than anyone can. Crosby is a generational talent, like McDavid, a player that comes around once every 10-20 years. A player with Gretzky's vision and mind come around once every 100 years-a genetic freak of nature...an Einstein level of processing ability.

Crosby is a very different player. His game has never been purely offensive. Could he have had a 160 point season. Certainly. But it's hard to say how many such seasons he may have had since he played such a different style of game than guys like Lemieux and Gretzky. He was closer to Lindros than those guys in the sense that a lot of his game is driven by power.

Crosby's best point total was obviously the 2006-2007 year. That year scoring in the NHl was about 10% lower than in the year Lindros put up 115 points in 73 games. If you do a simple conversion based on average goals per game you get 161.[/QUOTE]


Crosby skating abililty beat Gretzky by so far!
Better shot, better at carrying the puck, more strenght, better to create his own space and better at protecting the puck. Crosby never had good legitimate linesmate, Kunitz, Dupuis, an old Recchi, Rust, Sheary, Guentzel......

Crosby with no cap in that era would of done more. He would of had more time to make his plays.

Thats 2 worlds.

Gretzky we cant even tell if he could suit for the nhl today with the speed and his lack of physical strenght.

If i cant lift naturally 150 lbs, even with lots of training i wont lift 400 lbs. The guys who lift 400 lbs are the ones who could lift 150 lbs easily at a young age.

Gretzky is not a natural gifted athlete.....Mario Lemieux was great in golf right at the beginning doing some crazy scores, he was a very strong baseball players....thats a natural athlete. Gretzky dont possess that, Gretzky was average to weak in most physical part of the game, what Gretzky possess is an intelligence for the play but in 2017 im not sure it would work! i mean we dont know, we never saw an intelligent player who dont possess the physical tools. I would think that you need to skating ability in the nhl now if you are small(gaudreau, johnson etc).

The fact that Gretzky was not a natural athlete also he couldnt add more tools when one timer became common, when the quick release wrist shot while skating started being use by top players....he couldnt follow the newer things like other older players were able to adjust because they were more natural athletes.

 

[Elche1975]

False.

Gretzky recorded two points on EN goals that year (November 5 vs Colorado, then April 15 vs the Islanders).

Would like to get a list of the other 13 EN goals you claimed he scored/assisted.



I think you`re trying to say that Gretzky recorded easy points in blowout games - correct me if I misunderstood.

When Gretzky was scoreless, the Rangers were 4-19-3 (21.2%). When he scored one point they were 8-15-13 (40.3%). When he scored two or more points, they were 13-5-2 (70.0%).

This shows that Gretzky`s personal success directly impact the Rangers` team success - exactly what you`d expect from a player who placed highly in Hart voting. If he was scoring easy points in blowout victories, that type of pattern wouldn't exist.



I`ve already explained to you that this is factually wrong, even if you include players like Kariya and Modano who both missed 30+ games.

Since you`ve repeatedly made false claims, I`m not interested in continuing this conversation further.

I would be curious to see your link for the empty net points.....i was more like sarcasm because Gretzky did so many empty net comparing to top players at that time.

For the points per game, what im saying is that Gretzky is also famous for many points in unimportant games but when its 2-2 in an important game against a top team, he would not be the difference maker. Messier had this, warrior and when it become important would stand up. Gretzky was alot a multi points guy in a 8-3 win. Your stats are showing that...26 games he was pointless, the guy who is on for 20-23 minutes, starting all the power plays......so he did 90 pts in the 54 others so its more concentrating production. I would be curious to see the teams where he got 0, 1 or multi points if you have the link of that too.....

That also show that like i said, if he doesnt produce he is no help in other areas....

Kariya did 99 in 69 the year before and 102 pts the year after, the fact that he is injured doesnt take off the fact that for sure he is a PPG higher than Gretzky at that time since 2 years. His injury takes him out of any race only and helped Selanne with the voting on the other hand.

 

[The Panther]

I wondered when you'd open your mouth. I know you always have troubles labelling the years correctly, but I know what you mean. So let's do this (again).

87-88 Lemieux beat Gretz by 20 pts, and Gretz missed a whack of games. I know you History board dudes, love to talk about the importance of durability and longevity and how that plays into a player's greatness and all-time standing. So yeah, Gretzky didn't have the better season. Lemieux earned that Hart, and nobody disputes it.

Uh-huh.

Just to clarify, do you think it's right that a player whose team misses the playoffs (back when it was really easy to make the playoffs) wins the Hart trophy? I sort-of have a problem with it.

I can guarantee you that Gretzky wouldn't have won the 1979-80 Hart trophy if the first-year 'expansion' Oilers had missed the playoffs (they made it, barely).

As for your unfounded premise that the League is throwing Gretzky bones, I'd love for you to analyze this:
1989 - Lemieux wins scoring race (2nd in PPG), teams misses playoffs, Lemieux wins Hart trophy
1994 - Gretzky wins scoring race (1st in PPG), team misses playoffs, Gretzky doesn't get even one third-place Hart vote

Yeah, I can really see that conspiracy brewing there...

Then he goes and does it again the next year, by a larger margin, and doesn't win the Hart. And 88-89 was probably the most level playing field we'll ever see between Wayne and Mario. Both of them on crap teams when you remove 66 & 99 from the rosters. Both of them playing nearly a full season. And Wayne still in his prime-window, as Mario enters his. Mario destroyed Wayne that year, but Wayne gets the Hart. Okay then.

I can see Ageless66's nonsense has been getting to you.

The idea that Gretzky was magically "even for comparison" to Lemieux in the season when suddenly Gretzky was on a new team and Lemieux -- just by coincidence! -- had his very best statistical season is as ridiculous as your arguments are idiotic.

Lemieux outscores gretzky by 19 points so why should they give it to gretzky. 88-89 was high way robbery.

I love how you go on about Crosby's "4 Smythe-worthy playoffs" in every other post, but Gretzky's 168-point season, dragging a team from 4th worst to 4th best, Hart win is an "absolute joke".

There's no sense debating with either of you any further, as you're both deluded by your own lack of objective perspective.

 

[Tweed]

Uh-huh.

Just to clarify, do you think it's right that a player whose team misses the playoffs (back when it was really easy to make the playoffs) wins the Hart trophy? I sort-of have a problem with it.

I don't give a **** whether a team makes the playoffs or not. Nowhere in the conditions of that award does it say the player must be the MVP in the league to his team, providing they make the playoffs. Lemieux eviscerated Gretzky that year. That's a fact.

Yeah, I can really see that conspiracy brewing there...
I can see Ageless66's nonsense has been getting to you.

It's not a conspiracy. Nor did I suggest it was. WTF? And I don't know what Ageless has or hasn't said. I've got my own brain, I can make up my own mind, thanks.

The idea that Gretzky was magically "even for comparison" to Lemieux in the season when suddenly Gretzky was on a new team and Lemieux -- just by coincidence! -- had his very best statistical season is as ridiculous as your arguments are idiotic.

I love how you go on about Crosby's "4 Smythe-worthy playoffs" in every other post, but Gretzky's 168-point season, dragging a team from 4th worst to 4th best, Hart win is an "absolute joke".

There's no sense debating with either of you any further, as you're both deluded by your own lack of objective perspective.

Ummm... that's exactly what it is. Coincidence. That's what makes it the best comparison. Things "coincided". Are you seriously saying that it's only worth comparing 99 & 66... so long as Prime Gretzky is on a dynasty, and Lemieux's on a basement dweller and isn't in his prime yet? Jesus, man. You're a piece of work.

I don't know what you're talking about Crosby's 4 Smythe something something blah blah blah. You love it so much that you don't even know that I'm not the guy you're thinking of. What a joke. Not addressed to me apparently.

88-89 Pens, Sans-Lemieux... is drafting top 3. Just like the Gretzky-less Kings. We've had this convo already, and I mopped the floor with you on it. Now **** off.

 

[Passchendaele]

Gretzky we cant even tell if he could suit for the nhl today with the speed and his lack of physical strenght.

If i cant lift naturally 150 lbs, even with lots of training i wont lift 400 lbs. The guys who lift 400 lbs are the ones who could lift 150 lbs easily at a young age.

Gretzky is not a natural gifted athlete.....Mario Lemieux was great in golf right at the beginning doing some crazy scores, he was a very strong baseball players....thats a natural athlete. Gretzky dont possess that, Gretzky was average to weak in most physical part of the game, what Gretzky possess is an intelligence for the play but in 2017 im not sure it would work! i mean we dont know, we never saw an intelligent player who dont possess the physical tools. I would think that you need to skating ability in the nhl now if you are small(gaudreau, johnson etc).

The fact that Gretzky was not a natural athlete also he couldnt add more tools when one timer became common, when the quick release wrist shot while skating started being use by top players....he couldnt follow the newer things like other older players were able to adjust because they were more natural athletes.

Look.. this is not baseball or american football.

Being able to bench press 500 lbs does not increase your chances of making the NHL, unless you plan on being a useless goon.

Back in '79 people said the same thing. Too small.. yada yada. Then he tied for the NHL lead in scoring at 18. Then right after he broke the NHL record for both assists and points. Then the following year, at 20 years of age, he smashed every offensive record in the book.

Gretzky post-35 was slow.. but he was still one of the top players in the league, and the best playmaker.

To think a 20-year old Gretzky wouldn't succeed in today's NHL is a joke. He'd make Crosby his *****.

 

[KingPuckChoo]

Are players really bigger stronger and faster today?

Gartners ASG speed record fell this year. McDavid looks no different than Orr, Bure, or Coffey (just better hands and vision to go with it).



Like are todays players much bigger and stronger than the players Gretzky played against? From what I remember, they were pretty jacked back in the era Gretzky played in.

Gordie Howe:

Bobby Hull:

Rod Brind Amour:

Jagr:

Bure:

Lindros:

Stevens (with WWE's Goldberg):

i love your collection of naked hockey men

 

[Passchendaele]

So you heard it here folks.. with his massive 5'10, 175-with-a-dryer-on-his-back lb frame, Patrick Kane can score 100+ points, but there's no way in hell Gretzky can top that.. he was way too small!

 

[ForumNamePending]

The fact that Gretzky produced at an advanced age (Mario as well) shows he could definitely play in todays game. He led the league in assists and was 5th in Hart voting at 37 years old. Veterans from the late 80's early 90's were still able to score post lockout, so I don't see why Gretzky couldn't.

Sakic: 100 points in 2007 at 37
Shanahan: 40 goals in 2006 at 37
Selanne: 31 goals in 2011 at 40
Recchi: 68 points in 2007 at 39
Sundin: 32 goals in 2008 at 37

These guys are all levels below Gretzky and had no problem being good - elite players in their late 30's. I think it's obvious Gretzky would not be able to put up 200 points in todays game considering the goaltending now is significantly better, along with the talent pool being more broad as well. But I have no doubt he would still be the best player in the game.

Exactly... The idea that the NHL, and hockey players, took some sort of quantum leap in the years immediately following Gretzky's retirement is silly when many of Gretzky's 90s contemporaries remained great players well into the aughts. If you made a venn diagram where one circle represented players who where active in the latter half of the 90s, and another circle represented players who where active in the latter half of the aughts, there would be significant overlap.

 

[Windy River]

Gretzky is not a natural gifted athlete.....Mario Lemieux was great in golf right at the beginning doing some crazy scores, he was a very strong baseball players....thats a natural athlete. Gretzky dont possess that, Gretzky was average to weak in most physical part of the game, what Gretzky possess is an intelligence for the play but in 2017 im not sure it would work! i mean we dont know, we never saw an intelligent player who dont possess the physical tools. I would think that you need to skating ability in the nhl now if you are small(gaudreau, johnson etc).

The fact that Gretzky was not a natural athlete also he couldnt add more tools when one timer became common, when the quick release wrist shot while skating started being use by top players....he couldnt follow the newer things like other older players were able to adjust because they were more natural athletes.

I believe that is completely untrue. I recall reading that Wayne had been offered professional baseball contracts, in addition to being very talented in most sports that he took part in.

 

[Elche1975]

Look.. this is not baseball or american football.

Being able to bench press 500 lbs does not increase your chances of making the NHL, unless you plan on being a useless goon.

Back in '79 people said the same thing. Too small.. yada yada. Then he tied for the NHL lead in scoring at 18. Then right after he broke the NHL record for both assists and points. Then the following year, at 20 years of age, he smashed every offensive record in the book.

Gretzky post-35 was slow.. but he was still one of the top players in the league, and the best playmaker.

To think a 20-year old Gretzky wouldn't succeed in today's NHL is a joke. He'd make Crosby his *****.

Its only an example because alot of people seem to think you can train and become something. Even if i train you for years you wont beat Mayweather at boxing or Usain Bolt at running. Gretzky didnt have the natural physical tools to become elite skater or shoot like Bobby Hull. He couldnt even upgrade his play with the newer skills that new players were bringing.

For the success, we know that a highly skilled player of today like Crosby could play in any era, we dont know the opposite(if someone who doesnt have the same tools like Gretzky or Richard) could today and if they could how much less effective they would be. We saw that Gretzky couldnt add one timer as a weapon or a quick release wrist shot like Messier added.....thats all we know. So how much less effective would he be? Could he cope with faster and stronger defensemen? with good goalies? Gretzky couldnt even do those skills contest at all stars he was the passer to the guy who hits targets, i dont even think he was in the relay competition.

Look at this highlights of Edm-Tor from the 80's and tell me seriously if you think that Crosby wouldnt dominate! And how many of these goals wouldnt be scored in 2017!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xc_Dvefyxf0

 

[SpinningEdge]

Gretzky was so dominant in his own era. He literally outscored other hall of famers 2 to 1.

You can't really compare eras. People can say Crosby back then would score at will - but back then maybe he does get beat up and isn't anywhere near the type of player he is this era. Who knows.

All you can do is compare how players did VS their peers in their own era - and NO ONE is anywhere close to Gretzky

 

[The Panther]

I don't give a **** whether a team makes the playoffs or not. Nowhere in the conditions of that award does it say the player must be the MVP in the league to his team, providing they make the playoffs.

Okay.

Lemieux eviscerated Gretzky that year. That's a fact.

Let's see... lower PPG, non-playoff team. But he "eviscerated" Gretzky. I give you points for the big, multi-syllabic word.

so long as Prime Gretzky is on a dynasty, and Lemieux's on a basement dweller and isn't in his prime yet? Jesus, man. You're a piece of work.

You seem strangely upset. Is it because your house of cards is falling apart?

And no, that's not at all what I suggested. Since you asked so nicely, I would consider a more equitable comparison to be, perhaps:

Gretzky 1979-1981 vs. Lemieux 1984-1986

or:

Gretzky 1981-82 vs. Lemieux 1988-89

or:

Gretzky c. 1983 to 1987 vs. Lemieux c. 1991 to 1996 (when dressed)

 

[Nathaniel]

Okay.

Let's see... lower PPG, non-playoff team. But he "eviscerated" Gretzky. I give you points for the big, multi-syllabic word.

You seem strangely upset. Is it because your house of cards is falling apart?

And no, that's not at all what I suggested. Since you asked so nicely, I would consider a more equitable comparison to be, perhaps:

Gretzky 1979-1981 vs. Lemieux 1984-1986

or:

Gretzky 1981-82 vs. Lemieux 1988-89

or:

Gretzky c. 1983 to 1987 vs. Lemieux c. 1991 to 1996 (when dressed)

Lemieux was 23 and gretzky 27 in 88-89. Don't give me that new team bs were talking gretzky and lemieux here either would still dominate on any team.

88-89 was the only year both were in prime form. Healthy and on even teams. Gretzky just came off a dynasty and lemieux just had a season where he scored 168 points and still missed the playoffs...

And lemieux outscored gretzky by 31 points? What's Gretzkys excuse a new team? His linemate score 150 friggen points while lemieux set the record for % on a teams goals with 57.4% a record that still stands.

No excuses the two best offensive players went toe to toe prime on prime and lemieux showed the difference between the two

 

[Elche1975]

I believe that is completely untrue. I recall reading that Wayne had been offered professional baseball contracts, in addition to being very talented in most sports that he took part in.

The story is more that Gretzky wanted to be a professionnal baseball player, it was his dream but was only OK but couldnt of done a career. Then when he was famous the Blue Jays tried to give him a tryout, something like that but more like a marketing 'thing'.

Mario Lemieux the first time he played golf did like something amazing and nearly went that way for his project of after career. He won some tournements playing cards of 67 and things like that.

He did in the 80's in Montreal a batting pratice with the expos and could do many homeruns.

This guy could of pick what he wanted to do and reach high level with not alot of effort.

 

[Elche1975]

So you heard it here folks.. with his massive 5'10, 175-with-a-dryer-on-his-back lb frame, Patrick Kane can score 100+ points, but there's no way in hell Gretzky can top that.. he was way too small!

Official height/weight of players(specially the small ones) are rarely accurate. Kane might be shorter!

Gretzky was a 150 lbs guy at the beginning and played listed at 165 lbs(on hockey cards i have).

So i would assume he was between 150-165 for some years and with time reached 170. At the end you can see he is a bit less skinny.

Gaudreau is listed at 5'9 157 lbs. It was 150 lbs 2 years ago. Gaudreau looks so tiny so imagine Gretzky at 6' 150 lbs! When you see old games we dont see much difference because players were alot smallers.

Gaudreau is a far more better skater and more elusive, the fact that he can survive in the nhl today with big, strong, fast defensemen is a talent in itself to avoid big hits. In the 80's he would of had no difficulty but doing this in 2017 is amazing.

 

[The Panther]

Lemieux was 23 and gretzky 27 in 88-89. Don't give me that new team bs were talking gretzky and lemieux here either would still dominate on any team.

88-89 was the only year both were in prime form. Healthy and on even teams. Gretzky just came off a dynasty and lemieux just had a season where he scored 168 points and still missed the playoffs...

And lemieux outscored gretzky by 31 points? What's Gretzkys excuse a new team? His linemate score 150 friggen points while lemieux set the record for % on a teams goals with 57.4% a record that still stands.

No excuses the two best offensive players went toe to toe prime on prime and lemieux showed the difference between the two

All I wanna know is -- do you actually believe this garbage, or do you just write it to aggravate people? (Either way, it's unfortunate.)

 

[BraveCanadian]

The story is more that Gretzky wanted to be a professionnal baseball player, it was his dream but was only OK but couldnt of done a career. Then when he was famous the Blue Jays tried to give him a tryout, something like that but more like a marketing 'thing'.

Mario Lemieux the first time he played golf did like something amazing and nearly went that way for his project of after career. He won some tournements playing cards of 67 and things like that.

He did in the 80's in Montreal a batting pratice with the expos and could do many homeruns.

This guy could of pick what he wanted to do and reach high level with not alot of effort.