Lidstrom Vs. Potvin

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Oh boy. Every year, the league as whole gets better. Every year player's as a whole get better (technically speaking). The proof lies, in simply watching games from different eras which I do quite frequently. I'm a huge fan of the history of the game, make no mistake about it. However, I also played, and know many people who play hockey at a high level, and have a good understanding of sports in general. What I said is really not crazy at all. Again, Gretzky is the 2nd best player of all-time and with today's advantages likely would still be the best player.

Nicklas Lidstrom won his first Norris in 2001. If you plop that Lidstrom in the NHL today, is he a scrub?

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

How do you go from this...

I'd go as far as to say, that straight out of a time machine from the 80's, Gretzky would not be better than your average Junior A player.

To this?..

Again, Gretzky is the 2nd best player of all-time and with today's advantages likely would still be the best player.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

How do you go from this...


To this?..

The answer is simple. Watch games. Both sides are true believe it or not.

 

[Dark Shadows]

I can't tell if this post is snark or not, but I'll play along.

What if you plopped the Ray Bourque from 1980 into 2001? Would he look like a peewee player?

 

[unknown33]

The answer is simple. Watch games. Both sides are true believe it or not.

Shift lengths.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Shift lengths.

Right. Shorter shifts is huge change from the 80s - probably the biggest change that doesn't involve goaltending. But how long do you really think it would take prime Gretzky to adapt to shorter shifts?

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Guys your not telling me anything I don't already know about Bourque (My favourite defenseman of all time). Yes unknown33 I know all about shift lengths and yes that has an effect of course. Wish I hadn't made that comment now lol. I'm just getting attacked.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

The answer is simple. Watch games. Both sides are true believe it or not.

Can you be a little more specific? Of course the game has changed since the 80's, but what part do you think is so different that the smartest hockey player of all time wouldn't be able to adapt to fairly quickly?

 

[Regal]

I agree with everything you said except the bolded. Anyone who knows anything about sports or just how things change over time, knows that's honestly not possible. I'd go as far as to say, that straight out of a time machine from the 80's, Gretzky would not be better than your average Junior A player. Doesn't mean they're better than Gretzky though, nor does it mean anyone in the NHL today is for that matter. The fact is, even if you took that Lemieux that came back in 2001, and put him in a time machine to the league today, he'd more than likely be a 60-70 point player in the right situation. Things change over time.

I think you're vastly overrating the difference in speed, strength and skill between the two eras, and underrating the importance of hockey sense. The game is more open now than it was in the dead puck era, and relatively similar otherwise, and in that period Gretzky scored 97 and 90 points as a 36 and 37 year old, placing 4th and 3rd in league scoring, and getting a 2nd team All-Star nod both seasons. I find it very hard to believe that that Gretzky was better than the Gretzky of the 80s. Now, obviously Gretzky existed throughout all those years, and so as things changed he adapted along with the other players in the league, something a "time-machine" Gretzky wouldn't have the benefit of doing. As such, as TheDevilMadeMe said, he'd probably take a bit of time to adapt to the new game. But I think after that, the guy who's probably the smartest player and best passer of all-time, who never needed to physically dominate in order to succeed, would do very, very well.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Someone please watch a game thoroughly from this past years playoffs, then watch a game from the 80's right after, and tell me I'm crazy!

 

[Maupin Fan]

Right. Shorter shifts is huge change from the 80s - probably the biggest change that doesn't involve goaltending. But how long do you really think it would take prime Gretzky to adapt to shorter shifts?

We would never know. Prime Gretzky would barely be noticed as an average player in the NAHL, hoping to get noticed by an NCAA D-3 school.

That junior A comment really takes the cake.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

I think you're vastly overrating the difference in speed, strength and skill between the two eras, and underrating the importance of hockey sense. The game is more open now than it was in the dead puck era, and relatively similar otherwise, and in that period Gretzky scored 97 and 90 points as a 36 and 37 year old, placing 4th and 3rd in league scoring, and getting a 2nd team All-Star nod both seasons. I find it very hard to believe that that Gretzky was better than the Gretzky of the 80s. Now, obviously Gretzky existed throughout all those years, and so as things changed he adapted along with the other players in the league, something a "time-machine" Gretzky wouldn't have the benefit of doing. As such, as TheDevilMadeMe said, he'd probably take a bit of time to adapt to the new game. But I think after that, the guy who's probably the smartest player and best passer of all-time, who never needed to physically dominate in order to succeed, would do very, very well.

Today you have to be a physical freak skill wise to be one of the best in the league let alone the absolute standout best. Especially as a forward. Lidstrom being the only one that comes to mind and he's a defenseman with some physical tools of his own. Do people realize not only the skill of Crosby and Ovechkin, but they're overall strength and athletiscism? It's beyond what you could imagine trust me. They have a hard time standing out. They are not dumb players. Again, I'm not saying they're better than Gretzky...

 

[Canadiens1958]

Advances vs Performance

Oh boy. Every year, the league as whole gets better. Every year player's as a whole get better (technically speaking). The proof lies, in simply watching games from different eras which I do quite frequently. I'm a huge fan of the history of the game, make no mistake about it. However, I also played, and know many people who play hockey at a high level, and have a good understanding of sports in general. What I said is really not crazy at all. Again, Gretzky is the 2nd best player of all-time and with today's advantages likely would still be the best player.

Just another spin on the advances vs performance debate. While it is fairly easy to show that from generation to generation advances in equipment technology, training, nutrition, sports medicine, coaching, teaching and whatever else is thrown into the "making of an athlete" mix increases by whole number multiples, performance increases very slowly.

An example would be comparing Usain Bolt with Jesse Owens. Regardless of the fact that all the relevant factors from footwear on up have improved by multifold whole number multiples the actual improvement in performance between Usain Bolt's world record and Jesse Owens time is a very small fractions.

As for the Wayne Gretzky Junior "A" analogy. Absolutely true from the standpoint that by the time Wayne Gretzky reached the WHA the quality of the various benefits he enjoyed - coaching, training, nutrition, equipment, and so forth down the line are easily matched if not surpassed by those received by today's Junior "A" players - Tier II.Reagrdless, the advantages do not necessarily produce superior talent. Given today's advantages on the path to the NHL Wayne Gretzky would be equally dominant. Just like Jesse Owens would be equally elite when compared to a Usain Bolt.

Rather straightforward.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

To get my point across but to a greater extent. Does any reasonably good hockey player today think If Maurice Richard hopped out of the forty's you would have a hard time beating him right off the bat? More than likely not. Does that mean that you or I is a better player than Maurice Richard? Not even close. Why? because we judge players based on how good they were at the time which is the only logical way. If you guys seriously think that Gretzky would even be in the NHL if he jumped straight from where he was, pick any year from 80-99, there's just somethings you either don't, or refuse to understand about basic common sense really.

 

[unknown33]

To get my point across but to a greater extent. Does any reasonably good hockey player today think If Maurice Richard hopped out of the forty's you would have a hard time beating him right off the bat? More than likely not. Does that mean that you or I is a better player than Maurice Richard? Not even close. Why? because we judge players based on how good they were at the time which is the only logical way. If you guys seriously think that Gretzky would be even in the NHL if he jumped straight from where he was, there's just somethings you either don't, or refuse to understand about basic common sense really.

One of those players played his last NHL game 50 years ago, the other one 10 years ago.

 

[Regal]

Someone please watch a game thoroughly from this past years playoffs, then watch a game from the 80's right after, and tell me I'm crazy!

I'm not denying the difference. I remember when I first watched video of the Islanders-Oilers cup final in '84 when I was a kid and wondered why everyone talked about the high scoring era so fondly when the play was slower, and the players didn't seem to hit as hard.

The thing is though, I think it's more about playing styles than the quality of the players. There isn't nearly as many pylons, sure, though they still have their place (hello Hal Gill), but there was still hard hitters, fast skaters, talented puckhandlers, great passers, etc that would compare to today, they just weren't playing the same way.

I'm guessing your biggest question is with Gretzky (or someone else) not having the time each year to adapt slowly as the game changes, and I suppose you have a point. That's a real concern. But I'm not sure he ever really changed too much physically over the years in order to continue to compete as the league changed, and as such, I think his high level of hockey sense would let him figure out the game today. Perhaps he'd need a year or two of seasoning, figuring out what he could and couldn't do.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Just another spin on the advances vs performance debate. While it is fairly easy to show that from generation to generation advances in equipment technology, training, nutrition, sports medicine, coaching, teaching and whatever else is thrown into the "making of an athlete" mix increases by whole number multiples, performance increases very slowly.

An example would be comparing Usain Bolt with Jesse Owens. Regardless of the fact that all the relevant factors from footwear on up have improved by multifold whole number multiples the actual improvement in performance between Usain Bolt's world record and Jesse Owens time is a very small fractions.

As for the Wayne Gretzky Junior "A" analogy. Absolutely true from the standpoint that by the time Wayne Gretzky reached the WHA the quality of the various benefits he enjoyed - coaching, training, nutrition, equipment, and so forth down the line are easily matched if not surpassed by those received by today's Junior "A" players - Tier II.Reagrdless, the advantages do not necessarily produce superior talent. Given today's advantages on the path to the NHL Wayne Gretzky would be equally dominant. Just like Jesse Owens would be equally elite when compared to a Usain Bolt.

Rather straightforward.

Thank you. Someone understands.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

To get my point across but to a greater extent. Does any reasonably good hockey player today think If Maurice Richard hopped out of the forty's you would have a hard time beating him right off the bat? More than likely not. Does that mean that you or I is a better player than Maurice Richard? Not even close. Why? because we judge players based on how good they were at the time which is the only logical way. If you guys seriously think that Gretzky would be even in the NHL if he jumped straight from where he was, there's just somethings you either don't, or refuse to understand about basic common sense really.

Yes, if Wayne Gretzky stepped out of a time machine directly onto the ice without getting to change his equipment, be taught how the tactics of the game have changed, get on a modern-day training/nutrition regimen, then he would not be an elite player. The point is, it wouldn't take very long for 1980's Wayne to catch up on all these things once he was exposed to them.

Basically your point is: if a player from the past comes to the present and does not get to take advantage of any of the games advances he will not be as good as the present day players.

In other words: The game of hockey is always making advances (I'm pretty sure everyone already knew that)

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Today you have to be a physical freak skill wise to be one of the best in the league let alone the absolute standout best. Especially as a forward. Lidstrom being the only one that comes to mind and he's a defenseman with some physical tools of his own. Do people realize not only the skill of Crosby and Ovechkin, but they're overall strength and athletiscism? It's beyond what you could imagine trust me. They have a hard time standing out. They are not dumb players. Again, I'm not saying they're better than Gretzky...

That's what they used to think in the late 70s when that kid Gretzky was oh so skilled, but perhaps too small for the NHL.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

One of those players played his last NHL game 50 years ago, the other one 10 years ago.

I know but the point was things change every year. It just takes a few to really notice it. However, you go watch Gretzky's last game in the NHL, I would bet that Jagr straight from that day would have a hard time being one of the absolute best players today. The game really has changed substantially since 99 even. I watch classic games from different eras on a fairly regular basis.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Yes, if Wayne Gretzky stepped out of a time machine directly onto the ice without getting to change his equipment, be taught how the tactics of the game have changed, get on a modern-day training/nutrition regimen, then he would not be an elite player. The point is, it wouldn't take very long for 1980's Wayne to catch up on all these things once he was exposed to them.

Basically your point is: if a player from the past comes to the present and does not get to take advantage of any of the games advances he will not be as good as the present day players.

In other words: The game of hockey is always making advances (I'm pretty sure everyone already knew that)

Well, apparently not Regal which is who I responded to originally regarding this point.

 

[revolverjgw]

To get my point across but to a greater extent. Does any reasonably good hockey player today think If Maurice Richard hopped out of the forty's you would have a hard time beating him right off the bat? More than likely not. Does that mean that you or I is a better player than Maurice Richard? Not even close. Why? because we judge players based on how good they were at the time which is the only logical way. If you guys seriously think that Gretzky would even be in the NHL if he jumped straight from where he was, pick any year from 80-99, there's just somethings you either don't, or refuse to understand about basic common sense really.

We're not talking about Maurice Richard, we're talking about Wayne Gretzky, who was the third highest scorer when he was old and broken down and playing against guys like Lidstrom, Pronger and Brodeur.

It's just absurd to think that a healthier, faster, more agile prime Oilers Gretzky would only be a 70 point man with today's more star-friendly rules given what he did as an old man. It's not like there was some revolution in the past 11 years. Yeah, there has been progress, but you're outrageously overstating it.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

That's what they used to think in the late 70s when that kid Gretzky was oh so skilled, but perhaps too small for the NHL.

Oh for sure...see guys, I am not by any means a Gretzky hater. I watch as many Gretzky games as I get a chance to and try to broaden my understanding of just how he managed to be so much better than everyone else as much as I can. Classic Oiler games are set to automatically record on my satellite.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

We're not talking about Maurice Richard, we're talking about Wayne Gretzky, who was the third highest scorer when he was old and broken down and playing against guys like Lidstrom, Pronger and Brodeur.

It's just absurd to think that a healthier, faster, more agile prime Oilers Gretzky would only be a 70 point man with today's more star-friendly rules given what he did as an old man. It's not like there was some revolution in the past 11 years. Yeah, there has been progress, but you're outrageously overstating it.

So...answer me this then. What type of numbers would any Gretzky of your choice, from any year, put up if he was sent to us now in a time machine. Yes a younger Gretzky likely would have done better in 99, but like I said, watch Gretzky's last game, watch a game from this past year. If you don't see a substantial difference in every aspect of the game, then I'm not sure what else to say really.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Nevermind.