Lidstrom Vs. Potvin

[Trottier]

There is just no basis for saying that individual player performance equals number of cups won. You also need to be lucky enough to be on the best team.

Consider fourth-line player Tomas Kopecky. He played his first full season in 2008, then got injured and missed the playoffs. Still, he got his name on the Cup. This year, he was a healthy scratch for several times during the playoffs, but Chicago still won. So, in three years he has won two cups despite barely making the line-up. Skill or luck?

Performing great during playoffs takes skill, winning takes a good team.

First, do me a favor. Show me an instance where I suggested that "individual player performance equals number of cups won." Until you do, I'll ignore a strawman argument.

Second, it's unfortunate that some posters equate a fourth line player with a core, top minutes player and the contribution they make to a Cup winner. Sure, the niiiiiice "its a team game", intramural meme plays well on HF. However, no one in his right mind equates Tomas Kopecky's contribution/impact with that of J. Toews.

This is a recording: Among top players of relatively equal personal output, who play the same postition and roles on their respective squads, team success is a very valid consideration, among many others.

Players don't exist in a vacuum. The truly great players have an affect on the team that goes beyond simple statistics.

Thank you. A basic and critical concept lost on some members of the contemptable lot known as Generation Fantasy League.

Players, utlimately, exist to win games and Cups. Not simply to compile the bestest numbers. As such, it is logical to evalute the very best by this metrics, among many others.

 

[Hardyvan123]

As I said previously, if one considers all previous eras de facto inferior ("historical context"), then why even bother comparing players? Everyone today is superior. (Amusingly, I'm quite certain there are a sizable portion of "Born Yesterday" posters on the main board who readily subscribe to that mindset.)

My opinion: Nik Lidstrom is superior to Robert Gordon Orr like Alex Ovechkin is superior to Wayne Gretzky (and Mario Lemieux and...).

Which is to say, not in a million years.

Frankly, I'd wager that it is not even considered a topic worthy of consideration in most hockey circles.

no one even said that everyone is better today than past years but by the same token if the quality and level of competition goes up, and it has IMO, then no one can ever be as good against their peers as players in the past where the competition and quality of players was not as good.

it's not fair to current or recently retired players that they play in more competitive or better era either . IMO there has to be some kind of balance when considering the strength or the era and how any player did against their peers as well, it's not an either or thing in my books nor should it be in anyone else's.

Some modern guys might trot our some crap like Green is better than Park or Savard or something like that but that would be an exaggeration and misguided without more information ie. Green playing more years and getting better on D

 

[Sorge Georos]

Personally, I'm not a big fan of the, "He had better competition" argument. What does a defenseman on a separate team have to do with how well Lidstrom performed? They certainly don't make him better or worse.

It happens in all sports. Nostalgia filter. Older guys always better than the next generation.

I'm also not a fan of using Norris Trophies as a tool of comparison. Being that there are no reliable Sabremetric stats (and the classic argument that numbers are "worthless") back then or now in hockey, the Norris trophy is highly based on subjective opinions and more basic numbers which not very indicative of the level of play (G,A,+/-,etc.). Considering how many people consider voting for this trophy a "joke" nowadays, it's hard to believe many of the same people put so much stock into it.

I have to say, it's beautiful what is happening in baseball. Whereas stats entirely out of the player's control (RBI, W/L) used to be gospel, statistics such as Fielding Independent Pitiching and Weighted On Base Average have been established, rightfully assessing a player's performance on factors in his control. Of course, you always have the traditionalists who trash the Sabrematricians, such as Joe Morgan, as "numbers geeks" who "don't watch the games." Of course, what guys like Joe Morgan don't understand is that these guys do in fact watch many games, but knowing it is not possible to watch all the games, createed these stats to get a picture of how good these guys are. Now as the years go by, more and more people are moving on to advanced statistics as supposed to Runs Batted In and Batting Average. The best players will truly be recognized.

By the way, Stanley Cups are the RBIs of hockey. You judge a hockey player on factors they control, not upon luck/team-oriented (don't tell me Stanley Cups don't take any luck to win) factors.

 

[Hardyvan123]

First, do me a favor. Show me an instance where I suggested that "individual player performance equals number of cups won." Until you do, I'll ignore a strawman argument.

Second, it's unfortunate that some posters equate a fourth line player with a core, top minutes player and the contribution they make to a Cup winner. Sure, the niiiiiice "its a team game", intramural meme plays well on HF. However, no one in his right mind equates Tomas Kopeccky's contribution with that of J. Toews.

This is a recording: Among top players of relatively equal personal output, who play the same postition and roles on their respective squads, team success is a very valid consideration, among many others.



Thank you. A basic and critical concept lost on some members of the contemptable lot known as Generation Fantasy League.

Players, utlimately, exist to win games and Cups. Not simply to compile the bestest numbers. As such, it is logical to evalute the very best by this metrics, among many others.

I agree with most of what is said here but there are also a couple of further points that need to be restated here.

First of all there can only be one cup winner and 2 teams in the finals every year. this was easier to do in a smaller league than the larger one of today so this needs to be factored in as well.

So we need to place some kind of value on making the cup finals 4 times in 4 years in a 30 team league in today's' Cap era versus a 6 team league with no player draft like in the 50's.

How much value is given is of course subjective but to those who say that it doesn't matter well it actually does IMO.

Also lets face it there will always be players like Marcel Dionne who are great but are stuck on bad teams and I think that he and the difference between him and Lafleur is often exaggerated by the teams and situations they played on. Of course this takes us a little bit into the "what if" territory but guys do it all the time on here, whether they are translating Russian values for players like Fetisov or others who never even played in the NHL or have small careers in it.

 

[BraveCanadian]

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.

A prime Gretzky would blow away the players in the league today.

I'm not even kidding. He'd be putting up 150+ point seasons and beating Crosby/Ovechkin by 30+ points a season.

He never relied on any outstanding physical ability except his endurance.

The thing you guys always forget about when you make this argument is a simple fact that trumps all physical attributes.

No one is as fast as the puck.

Gretzky made use of that simple truth more than any player ever will.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Personally, I'm not a big fan of the, "He had better competition" argument. What does a defenseman on a separate team have to do with how well Lidstrom performed? They certainly don't make him better or worse.

It happens in all sports. Nostalgia filter. Older guys always better than the next generation.

I'm also not a fan of using Norris Trophies as a tool of comparison. Being that there are no reliable Sabremetric stats (and the classic argument that numbers are "worthless") back then or now in hockey, the Norris trophy is highly based on subjective opinions and more basic numbers which not very indicative of the level of play (G,A,+/-,etc.). Considering how many people consider voting for this trophy a "joke" nowadays, it's hard to believe many of the same people put so much stock into it.

I have to say, it's beautiful what is happening in baseball. Whereas stats entirely out of the player's control (RBI, W/L) used to be gospel, statistics such as Fielding Independent Pitiching and Weighted On Base Average have been established, rightfully assessing a player's performance on factors in his control. Of course, you always have the traditionalists who trash the Sabrematricians, such as Joe Morgan, as "numbers geeks" who "don't watch the games." Of course, what guys like Joe Morgan don't understand is that these guys do in fact watch many games, but knowing it is not possible to watch all the games, createed these stats to get a picture of how good these guys are. Now as the years go by, more and more people are moving on to advanced statistics as supposed to Runs Batted In and Batting Average. The best players will truly be recognized.

By the way, Stanley Cups are the RBIs of hockey. You judge a hockey player on factors they control, not upon luck/team-oriented (don't tell me Stanley Cups don't take any luck to win) factors.

The reason quality of competition conversations come up so much.

Many people on this forum simply point to Lidstrom having 6 norris trophies and say that makes him better than many who had less, when in fact, the reason they had fewer Norris trophies was often the quality of their competition for the trophy being much higher.

 

[Dark Shadows]

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...

I'll remind Martin StLouis to return his hart trophy

 

[Trottier]

no one even said that everyone is better today than past years but by the same token if the quality and level of competition goes up, and it has IMO, then no one can ever be as good against their peers as players in the past where the competition and quality of players was not as good.

it's not fair to current or recently retired players that they play in more competitive or better era either . IMO there has to be some kind of balance when considering the strength or the era and how any player did against their peers as well, it's not an either or thing in my books nor should it be in anyone else's.

We have different defintions of "more competitive". Competition is more evenly spread out across 30 teams, so to the extent that you are playing more challenging competition consistently, night to night, in today's NHL, I agree. But with Nuuu NHL parity (exacerbated by the post-modern contrived points system) has come the lowering of a threshold which a team has to cross in order to be considered elite...and likewise, a lower threshold to surpass to win the Cup.

More specifically, one simpy cannot ignore the fact that there are no Montreal Canadiens, circa 1976-79, NY Islanders, 1980-83 or Edmonton Oilers, 1984-90, that a team has to go through anymore.

The randomness of each season, and each season's "top team" supports this point.

Now, many (most) of HF consider this tee-ball level of homogenized competition, where every team has a chance to win, to be a good development. That's fine.

But in evaluating eras (and subsequently players), it is a bit myopic to not consider "the best of the best" in past eras vs. same today, IMO.

Look, I'm not here to dissuade you of your opinions, and big deal if we disagree.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

A prime Gretzky would blow away the players in the league today.

I'm not even kidding. He'd be putting up 150+ point seasons and beating Crosby/Ovechkin by 30+ points a season.

He never relied on any outstanding physical ability except his endurance.

The thing you guys always forget about when you make this argument is a simple fact that trumps all physical attributes.

No one is as fast as the puck.

Gretzky made use of that simple truth more than any player ever will.

Wait...tell me you don't mean exactly as he was right?

 

[Infinite Vision*]

I'll remind Martin StLouis to return his hart trophy

Elaborate?

 

[unknown33]

Now, many (most) of HF consider this tee-ball level of homogenized competition, where every team has a chance to win, to be a good development. That's fine.

Ugh I don't.

Understandable moneywise , but hurting the game.

 

[redbull]

I agree with most of what is said here but there are also a couple of further points that need to be restated here.

First of all there can only be one cup winner and 2 teams in the finals every year. this was easier to do in a smaller league than the larger one of today so this needs to be factored in as well.

So we need to place some kind of value on making the cup finals 4 times in 4 years in a 30 team league in today's' Cap era versus a 6 team league with no player draft like in the 50's.

How much value is given is of course subjective but to those who say that it doesn't matter well it actually does IMO.

Also lets face it there will always be players like Marcel Dionne who are great but are stuck on bad teams and I think that he and the difference between him and Lafleur is often exaggerated by the teams and situations they played on. Of course this takes us a little bit into the "what if" territory but guys do it all the time on here, whether they are translating Russian values for players like Fetisov or others who never even played in the NHL or have small careers in it.

to some extent, Dionne may have been "stuck on a bad team" - but he played for a long time on many different teams, including Canada Cup teams and always underachieved when the games got important. But there was a lack of player movement at that time, teams pretty much owned players for as long as they wanted. It wasn't as though a player could just move where they felt that had a better chance at winning - see: kovalchuk, hossa, etc.

But the player, especially the elite player, the top minute guy, MUST be accountable for team performance.

As far as I can tell, there are no significant awards for goals and assists. The Art Ross means little if not supported by some team success at some point. Teams don't win anything for total goals scored or goal differential. The regular season is fairly insignificant in the NHL. The President's Trophy is a bit of a joke when 16 teams make the playoffs.

The only true measure of success is the playoffs, the Stanley Cup, the Conn Smythe - that's where success is defined.

The regular season rewards the guy who scores a hattrick in a 6-3 loss, more than the guy who scores the winning goal to break a 1-1 tie in the 3rd period.

A statistical contribution reflecting a team success far outweighs a similar (or better) statistical contribution.

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.

Gretzky, in his prime, in this league, would probably approach 200 points again.

Remember, Gretzky DEFINED the ERA - not vice versa. He didn't benefit from a higher scoring era. MARIO carried that forward. Just coincidence they happened to span the same generation - lucky us!

 

[Trottier]

Ugh I don't.

Understandable moneywise , but hurting the game.

Well, then you and I agree!

I was simply pointing out that our opinion is in the minority, most seemingly love it. For they want to believe their middling (or even bottom-feeder) team is something it's not.

Gary's contrived point system basically ensures "parity" leaguewide through at least each January. Some consider that "better competition". I consider it crap.

I mean, review the archives here over the last couple of seasons, and check out threads on the NYI board, for example. Hope abounds for snagging a playoff spot well into February, even March...meanwhile the team, ends up 30th and 25th.

When your worst products (teams) are in the hunt that late in the year, that's not "better". That's lowering the overall quality of your league. It makes sense economically (the charade of competition fools some fans) but don't try to tell me that the quality of today's NHL is better based on that red herring.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Okay now we are entering the silly season here sure I'll buy the argument that Gretzky could score around 150 points in a PERFECT situation in todays NHL, but approach 200 points again, come on now lets get serious.

Lets get this out of the way 1st, I think Gretzky is the greatest player of all time period.

The state of the NHL in the 1980's were Gretzky did most of his spectacular work has changed drastically, it was already changing when Gretzky turned 27 and he dropped of from 215 (his high at age 25 to 149, 168, 142, 163 and 121 points in what are most players prime years from age 27-31).

Those are still great totals but honestly which team would we put Gretzky on today where he comes close to 200 points with the style of play, shot blocking (everyone is doing it these days, were it was a specialty in the past). Let's not even get into the equipment that goalies are wearing these days either.

The biggest change is the speed of the game which might only be slightly higher than it was in the 80's by as everyone who has ever played the game a couple of 1/10th of a second on the ice does make a huge difference.

I'm pretty sure that the great one would get 120-140 points and maybe a bit more in the right conditions but even those would change in the current cap era.

A more interesting thing to ponder is would a guy like Pavel Bure or AO score the magic Century mark in the high flying 80's?

It would have been very interesting to see them play in the 80's hockey environment.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

to some extent, Dionne may have been "stuck on a bad team" - but he played for a long time on many different teams, including Canada Cup teams and always underachieved when the games got important. But there was a lack of player movement at that time, teams pretty much owned players for as long as they wanted. It wasn't as though a player could just move where they felt that had a better chance at winning - see: kovalchuk, hossa, etc.

But the player, especially the elite player, the top minute guy, MUST be accountable for team performance.

As far as I can tell, there are no significant awards for goals and assists. The Art Ross means little if not supported by some team success at some point. Teams don't win anything for total goals scored or goal differential. The regular season is fairly insignificant in the NHL. The President's Trophy is a bit of a joke when 16 teams make the playoffs.

The only true measure of success is the playoffs, the Stanley Cup, the Conn Smythe - that's where success is defined.

The regular season rewards the guy who scores a hattrick in a 6-3 loss, more than the guy who scores the winning goal to break a 1-1 tie in the 3rd period.

A statistical contribution reflecting a team success far outweighs a similar (or better) statistical contribution.



Gretzky, in his prime, in this league, would probably approach 200 points again.

Remember, Gretzky DEFINED the ERA - not vice versa. He didn't benefit from a higher scoring era. MARIO carried that forward. Just coincidence they happened to span the same generation - lucky us!

Correct me if I'm wrong but you just said Gretzky straight from wherever he was would approach 200 points today if dropped into the current NHL? The funny things is, with all the advantages possible most would agree he'd top out somewhere between 150-160. Or are you one of those people who look strictly at raw numbers when judging players across eras?

 

[Hardyvan123]

Well, then you and I agree!

I was simply pointing out that our opinion is in the minority, most seemingly love it. For they want to believe their middling (or even bottom-feeder) team is something it's not.

Gary's contrived point system basically ensures "parity" leaguewide through at least each January. Some consider that "better competition". I consider it crap.

I mean, review the archives here over the last couple of seasons, and check out thread on the NYI board, for example. Hope abounds for snagging a playoff spot well into February, even March...meanwhile the team, ends up 30th and 25th.

When your worst products (teams) are in the hunt that late in the year, that's not "better". That's lowering the overall quality of your league. It makes sense economically (the charade of competition fools some fans) but don't try to tell me that the quality of today's NHL is better based on that red herring.

I agree with you here that the current point system and the way Bettman runs the league with the cap as well is not good for the product but my assertion of the competition being better has nothing to do with that and has more to do with the training, coaching and all that's involved with this and more feeder systems available to NHL teams today, most notably Europe and the US College ranks

 

[Trottier]

I agree with you here that the current point system and the way Bettman runs the league with the cap as well is not good for the product but my assertion of the competition being better has nothing to do with that and has more to do with the training, coaching and all that's involved with this and more feeder systems available to NHL teams today, most notably Europe and the US College ranks

We have no disagreement there, whatsoever.

 

[Regal]

Ugh I don't.

Understandable moneywise , but hurting the game.

Me either. I like to watch great teams battle it out (even if my team is never one of them). I know a lot of Canuck fans gleefully looked on as the Hawks jettisoned a bunch of their players, but it's kinda sad when a great team has to be broken up because of financial reasons (even if they dug their own grave to some extent with a couple of contracts)

 

[redbull]

Okay now we are entering the silly season here sure I'll buy the argument that Gretzky could score around 150 points in a PERFECT situation in todays NHL, but approach 200 points again, come on now lets get serious.

Lets get this out of the way 1st, I think Gretzky is the greatest player of all time period.

The state of the NHL in the 1980's were Gretzky did most of his spectacular work has changed drastically, it was already changing when Gretzky turned 27 and he dropped of from 215 (his high at age 25 to 149, 168, 142, 163 and 121 points in what are most players prime years from age 27-31).

Those are still great totals but honestly which team would we put Gretzky on today where he comes close to 200 points with the style of play, shot blocking (everyone is doing it these days, were it was a specialty in the past). Let's not even get into the equipment that goalies are wearing these days either.

The biggest change is the speed of the game which might only be slightly higher than it was in the 80's by as everyone who has ever played the game a couple of 1/10th of a second on the ice does make a huge difference.

I'm pretty sure that the great one would get 120-140 points and maybe a bit more in the right conditions but even those would change in the current cap era.

A more interesting thing to ponder is would a guy like Pavel Bure or AO score the magic Century mark in the high flying 80's?

It would have been very interesting to see them play in the 80's hockey environment.

Nobody approached Gretzky besides Lemieux.

You eliminate players that played directly with those two, Brett Hull had a staggering 86 goals one year (with Oates) and I don't think anyone came within 50 points of Mario's 199 NOR Gretzky's 200pt seasons.

Gretzky was the same age as many other superstar players and still DOUBLED their output.

I don't think Ovechkin would score any more than Bure or Hull, he's about the same in terms of offensive ability IMO. Crosby's probably the closest in terms of offensive ability that, with a better supporting cast, could come close but he's nowhere close to 99 and 66.

I really believe they made the era.

I'd love to see the league stats if you eliminate all games they played in, see how the average goals per game would be adjusted downward. That would be interesting.

Correct me if I'm wrong but you just said Gretzky straight from wherever he was would approach 200 points today if dropped into the current NHL? The funny things is, with all the advantages possible most would agree he'd top out somewhere between 150-160. Or are you one of those people who look strictly at raw numbers when judging players across eras?

In his prime - ages 22-26 - yes, Gretzky would score somewhere between 165-195 depending on the supporting cast. No a doubt in my mind.

I base this solely on what the NHL was like immediately before and immediately after that era.

99 was THAT MUCH better than every other ELITE PLAYER in the game, before or since.

No reason to think this wouldn't apply today.

Gretzky and Lemieux were significantly better than even dionne, lafleur and sakic, hull, bure and everyone in between when it came to scoring points, creating offense.

I don't think that anything would be different today.

What they had above anyone else was hockey sense, creativity, vision....that transcends eras and size and speed and equipment sizes

Many of us watched Mario take four years vacation only to come back to the ice with half a back, skating at 1/2 speed compared to when he retired and still scored 76pts in 43 game, highest rate in the NHL. Many nights he looked like he wasn't even trying.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Nobody approached Gretzky besides Lemieux.

You eliminate players that played directly with those two, Brett Hull had a staggering 86 goals one year (with Oates) and I don't think anyone came within 50 points of Mario's 199 NOR Gretzky's 200pt seasons.

Gretzky was the same age as many other superstar players and still DOUBLED their output.

I don't think Ovechkin would score any more than Bure or Hull, he's about the same in terms of offensive ability IMO. Crosby's probably the closest in terms of offensive ability that, with a better supporting cast, could come close but he's nowhere close to 99 and 66.

I really believe they made the era.

I'd love to see the league stats if you eliminate all games they played in, see how the average goals per game would be adjusted downward. That would be interesting.




In his prime - ages 22-26 - yes, Gretzky would score somewhere between 165-195 depending on the supporting cast. No a doubt in my mind.

I base this solely on what the NHL was like immediately before and immediately after that era.

99 was THAT MUCH better than every other ELITE PLAYER in the game, before or since.

No reason to think this wouldn't apply today.

Gretzky and Lemieux were significantly better than even dionne, lafleur and sakic, hull, bure and everyone in between when it came to scoring points, creating offense.

I don't think that anything would be different today.

What they had above anyone else was hockey sense, creativity, vision....that transcends eras and size and speed and equipment sizes

Many of us watched Mario take four years vacation only to come back to the ice with half a back, skating at 1/2 speed compared to when he retired and still scored 76pts in 43 game, highest rate in the NHL. Many nights he looked like he wasn't even trying.

Mario Lemieux is the exception not the rule. You've solidified the fact that you have probably never been very involved in organized sports at any level.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Baseline

Correct me if I'm wrong but you just said Gretzky straight from wherever he was would approach 200 points today if dropped into the current NHL? The funny things is, with all the advantages possible most would agree he'd top out somewhere between 150-160. Or are you one of those people who look strictly at raw numbers when judging players across eras?

If you accept the pre Gretzky baseline set by Lafleur, Dionne, Trottier(125 -140 point range) as close to the baseline set by Thornton, Crosby, Ovechkin, Malkin Sedin(110 -125 points) for the trans generational Gretzky then 200 is plausible.

Whether raw or adjusted numbers are used is immaterial. The surrounding talent is what matters. Add the equivalent of a Coffey, Messier, Kurri, Anderson to the same team and the chances increase. Eliminate a mega strong supporting cast and the chances decrease.

 

[redbull]

Mario Lemieux is the exception not the rule. You've solidified the fact that you have probably never been very involved in organized sports at any level.

well you're wrong...and you're missing my point entirely.

Mario was exceptional in his prime. As was 99.
I'd say 99 was better offensively than even Mario was, prime to prime.

Point being, even past his prime, Mario could walk away from the league and step right in a dominate, far better than the elite of that era.

I'd suspect Gretzky would do the same today. Mario would as well. No reason to believe otherwise.

Ovechkin, Crosby don't compare to Gretzky and Lemieux - not close. Hockey sense - off the charts in favour of 99 & 66.

These two are FAR BETTER than even the best players we see today.

You can disagree with me, your choice. We'll never know since this is pure speculation anyway.

But I've watched and played enough hockey in my life to know that there's a level of talent that transcends generations.

IMO, there are bigger, faster players now, in much better shape, they have longevity...but the lack of talent on the ice, especially after the top 5-6 forward and top 2-3 defensemen on ALL TEAMS is as bad as I've seen for a long time.

Don't confuse speed and size with talent and pure hockey ability.
---
Just curious. Did you watch hockey before Gretzky? During the 80s? through to today?
I wonder whether you actually saw the games, followed the players or going by the odd game you see on NHL Network re-runs? or stats and "theories" about how the game has changed.

I don't mean to offend, I just find in curious that many people who have a bias towards a certain era tend to not have seen the players or the games.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

well you're wrong...and you're missing my point entirely.

Mario was exceptional in his prime. As was 99.
I'd say 99 was better offensively than even Mario was, prime to prime.

Point being, even past his prime, Mario could walk away from the league and step right in a dominate, far better than the elite of that era.

I'd suspect Gretzky would do the same today. Mario would as well. No reason to believe otherwise.

Ovechkin, Crosby don't compare to Gretzky and Lemieux - not close. Hockey sense - off the charts in favour of 99 & 66.

These two are FAR BETTER than even the best players we see today.

You can disagree with me, your choice. We'll never know since this is pure speculation anyway.

But I've watched and played enough hockey in my life to know that there's a level of talent that transcends generations.

IMO, there are bigger, faster players now, in much better shape, they have longevity...but the lack of talent on the ice, especially after the top 5-6 forward and top 2-3 defensemen on ALL TEAMS is as bad as I've seen for a long time.

Don't confuse speed and size with talent and pure hockey ability.
---
Just curious. Did you watch hockey before Gretzky? During the 80s? through to today?
I wonder whether you actually saw the games, followed the players or going by the odd game you see on NHL Network re-runs? or stats and "theories" about how the game has changed.

I don't mean to offend, I just find in curious that many people who have a bias towards a certain era tend to not have seen the players or the games.

I don't have a bias towards any era. Have you been reading exactly what I have been saying, because judging by what you're seemingly trying to tell me I'd guess not. I'm simply stating a plain fact that, in sports in general, no matter how great or dominant one is, could not jump 10+ years into there sport straight out of a time machine and still be the best player let alone be much of a factor. Of course this could never happen so wouldn't matter anyway, hence why we judge players based on how they did against their peers. If you literally believe Gretzky could jump straight out of the 80's into today and be the best player, even with years of training, your failing to realize a simple fact that, he would have missed out on 20+ years of overall improvement in the game. That's 20+ years of the best players in the world improving each year to make/stay in the league...and your claiming a guy who wasn't even physically impressive in his own time, would hop into a far, far more physically skilled and high paced game with far less time and far less space, and still find ways to score more than anyone. This time and space he had to work with was what he dominated with. Anticipating plays and utilizing the time and space he had to work with better than anyone with his vision/passing and deceptive creativity. The amount that Gretzky would have to improve his physical skill in the technical sense to even be in the league today let alone be one of the best/standout best players I'd say would be impossible for him to do no matter how many years he had. He was the best of his era, by quite a margin, and frankly that's all you can be.

 

[vulture77]

I'm simply stating a plain fact that, in sports in general, no matter how great or dominant one is, could not jump 10+ years into there sport straight out of a time machine and still be the best player let alone be much of a factor.
[...]
The amount that Gretzky would have to improve his physical skill in the technical sense to even be in the league today let alone be one of the best/standout best players I'd say would be impossible for him to do no matter how many years he had.

I think you overestimate the difference. Players adjust constantly when they move from league to another. Take Gretzky who is 20, having just scored 164 points and breaking all-time record of points per season, moving from NHL of the 80's to what it is today.

Then look at an european player of the same age, who has played and succeeded in weaker national league, larger rink with more time and space.

For example 20 years old Ovechkin scored 52 goals moving from Superleague to NHL, from different culture, different sized rink, weaker opposition, slower tempo, less contact, different tactics, and he had no problems. I have no doubt Gretzky having any more trouble doing the same.

 

[seventieslord]

I'd love to see the league stats if you eliminate all games they played in, see how the average goals per game would be adjusted downward. That would be interesting.

I'm thinking a change of 2% tops. There is no way two players created an era of high scoring.

If there was any truth to that, then as Lemieux matured while Gretzky was still winning scoring titles, scoring would have plateaued, but it started going down in 1990 when Lemieux was 24.