How Many Seasons of Peak Gretzky is Worth More than Marleau's Entire Career?

[islandersbob]

IMO you'd need peak Gretzky signed for 2 years for a #1 OA draft pick. At #1 OA, you'd hope for (and expect) a better career than Marleau. Gretzky signed for a single season is easily enough for 20 years of Patrick Marleau. A TD rental of prime Gretzky probably gets you a pick in the 5-10 range. 20 years of Marleau is probably better than draft pick in the 5-10 range, but some desperate GM probably pulls the triggers, so 20 games of Gretzky.

EDIT:
I voted 20 games of Gretzky (one TD rental period of peak Gretzky)

 

[MOGlLNY]

Peak offseason thread

 

[Stephen]

So I just went back to the start of Gretzky's career and counted off the point where he would surpass Marleau's career total of 1197 points in the regular season. And that occurred somewhere in 1985-86 when he started with 1122 points and finished the year with 1337. At this point he already had 2 Stanley Cups. So about 6.5 years is a comfortable run of production and championships to completely blow Marleau out of the water.

 

[Aashir Mallik]

Ovechkin is on track to break the goals mark. Can’t you be satisfied with that and abandon this weird crusade to downplay Gretzky?

This also might be to overplay marleau tbh

If you saw that Lemieux thread vs ovechkin. This guys argument was using adjusted era goals to prop up marleau over Lemieux. He tried arguing marleau was the “better” goal scorer

 

[Video Nasty]

This also might be to overplay marleau tbh

If you saw that Lemieux thread vs ovechkin. This guys argument was using adjusted era goals to prop up marleau over Lemieux. He tried arguing marleau was the “better” goal scorer

I think Midnight is building up to an argument that Ovechkin is the greatest player ever, hence why he’s been making unusual comments about Gretzky and Lemieux lately, with the goals record well within reach.

 

[Albatros]

Four, that's how many cups Gretzky won and Marleau didn't.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

This thread is moreso about the value of peak vs longevity.

Then it's a weird comparison because Marleau's "longevity" never saw him as a top 5 player during any of those years. Because it's easy to pick the "peak" player because 5 dominant years trumps anything someone can give you for 20 average years.

This thread might be more difficult if you picked a "longevity" player who also happened to be a top 5 player during a big stretch of those years.

 

[Midnight Judges]

So I just went back to the start of Gretzky's career and counted off the point where he would surpass Marleau's career total of 1197 points in the regular season. And that occurred somewhere in 1985-86 when he started with 1122 points and finished the year with 1337. At this point he already had 2 Stanley Cups. So about 6.5 years is a comfortable run of production and championships to completely blow Marleau out of the water.

I think that's a not a bad starting point but a couple adjustments from there that are potentially offsetting:

1) Scoring was obviously much easier in Gretzky's initial years

2) Concentrated peak scoring (as Gretzky did) is way more valuable than compiled scoring (as Marleau did).

I think Midnight is building up to an argument that Ovechkin is the greatest player ever, hence why he’s been making unusual comments about Gretzky and Lemieux lately, with the goals record well within reachz

You are being paranoid.

Ovechkin has an excellent peak and excellent longevity. Nothing in this thread moves the needle for him.

 

[Letsdothis]

Two years. Without going too specifically into what peak Gretzky would mean adjusted for todays era or whatever, I'm assuming I'm getting the best player in the world by a wide margin. I'd feel comftorable that two years of that kind of competitive edge would be more valuable than Marleau's entire career when it comes to increasing your chances of winning.

Value is value over replacement and you can get substitutes for Marleau in the free agency or via trade5... maybe a little more expensive, maybe a little worse, but it's not too difficult to acquire. You can't get substitutes for Gretzky.

 

[Stephen]

I think that's a not a bad starting point but a couple adjustments from there that are potentially offsetting:

1) Scoring was obviously mush easier in Gretzky's initial years

2) Concentrated peak scoring (as Gretzky did) is way more valuable than compiled scoring (as Marleau did).

I don't think Gretzky needs to be era adjusted for this oddball comparison with Marleau. Proportionately it looks like 6-7 years of Gretzky kind of covers all the bases. Any more precision isn't really necessary to establish the fact that a handful of Gretzky's peak years is preferable to a whole lotta Marleau.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Then it's a weird comparison because Marleau's "longevity" never saw him as a top 5 player during any of those years. Because it's easy to pick the "peak" player because 5 dominant years trumps anything someone can give you for 20 average years.

This thread might be more difficult if you picked a "longevity" player who also happened to be a top 5 player during a big stretch of those years.

That would merely put it in a different spot on the spectrum. I don't see why that makes it easier or more difficult to decide.

Anyway, I think GMs have to grapple with these types of value judgements (not generally with Gretzky caliber players of course). But they do often have to decide between potential long term assets and "go for it now" type players on a rental contract or players who are later in the careers and you know their time of providing high value is limited.

I don't think Gretzky needs to be era adjusted for this oddball comparison with Marleau.

Scoring in a 3.5-4.00 GPG per team per game league is wildly different than a 2.7 GPG league.

 

[bambamcam4ever]

Over the course of 20 seasons, aren't the odds of any random team winning a cup in a 32 team league about 62.5%?

No, it's 47%. The average number of cups you'd expect is 0.625 cups.

 

[WalterLundy]

Wayne Gretzky scored is 1198th point in career game 504 on December 13 1985. This was in the middle of the 1985-86 season so it only took him 6.5 seasons to score more points than Marleau did in 23. As for any era adjustments that took Gretzky 9 seasons to surpass Marleau’s 23.

39% of Marleau’s games and had 12 more adjusted points. 28% of Marleau’s games and had more actual points.

 

[beowulf]

This is absurd.

Agreed.

 

[Albatros]

You can't get substitutes for Gretzky.

 

[Rorschach]

In a vacuum, Gretzky > Marleau. If we’re tanking, Marleau > Gretzky assuming no trades.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I think anywhere from 3-6 seasons/years is fair. Hard to narrow it down from there.

Yeah, I took this thread as a career value/impact question as opposed to purely an "on ice" question. Which is a little tough to describe...but this is about where I think it is too. I voted 4, but I'm not married to it. It's somewhere around there.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Anyway, I think GMs have to grapple with these types of value judgements (not generally with Gretzky caliber players of course). But they do often have to decide between potential long term assets and "go for it now" type players on a rental contract or players who are later in the careers and you know their time of providing high value is limited.

But that's a completely different scenario than what you're asking in the OP. Getting 3 or 4 (or 5) years of PEAK Gretzky, the greatest offensive player in league history, is more valuable than a 20 year career out of a (relatively speaking) average top line player like Marleau. 5 years of peak Gretzky likely has a greater impact on franchise results than 20 years of Marleau does.

Put another way -- if ALL you got out of Ovechkin was his first 5 years in the league, would you rather have Marleau's 20 years over what you got from Ovechkin for the first 5 years?

 

[Regal]

But that's a completely different scenario than what you're asking in the OP. Getting 3 or 4 (or 5) years of PEAK Gretzky, the greatest offensive player in league history, is more valuable than a 20 year career out of a (relatively speaking) average top line player like Marleau. 5 years of peak Gretzky likely has a greater impact on franchise results than 20 years of Marleau does.

Put another way -- if ALL you got out of Ovechkin was his first 5 years in the league, would you rather have Marleau's 20 years over what you got from Ovechkin for the first 5 years?

And it’s one of those things too where the combined output of 20 years of Marleau might be greater than 5 years of Ovechkin, but it’s so much easier to find a Marleau or similar for 15 years after the 5 years of Ovechkin that it shouldn’t matter all that much.

I think the problem with this comparison is that Marleau is such a huge compiler when compared to Gretzky that most seasons are irrelevant. Longevity really is quite meaningless when the gap is so large. I’d take 5 years of pretty much any superstar over 20 years of Marleau. In order to really get a sense of how much longevity matters it needs to be an actual franchise player for 20 years like a Lidstrom, Bourque, etc.

 

[SoupNazi]

Agreed.

Thirded.