authentic
Registered User
- Jan 28, 2015
- 25,880
- 10,942
You want some facts?
In his fourth year as a pro, Gretzky scored 92 goals, 120 assists, for 212 points. This is the year when he accomplished the legendary feat of scoring 50 goals in 39 games.
Adjust all you want in your modern era, modern equipment, modern training fantasy-land. Connor McDavid will be hard-pressed to even achieve half that number of goals/assists/points this season, and scoring is not twice as hard in this era.
I'm not saying Gretzky's stat line would be 92/120/212 had he been playing this season in 2018/2019, but I can tell you with certainty that he wouldn't be hovering around 10th place in scoring and around 10 points behind the leader by December 7th.
Lol, that's not how it works. If you think the amount of goals scored in the league is simply an indication of how much harder it would be to score by that logic McDavid would score roughly the same today as in the 1930s, even after accounting for the average talent level which was far more condensed but still not as much as today. The thing is with the time machine scenario the parity level and talent distribution not only comes into play, but the raw athleticism, overall skill level and hockey IQ do as well.
Since you are claiming McDavid even with todays equipment wouldn't score twice as much back then because it wasn't twice as hard to score based on the league average goals per game, would that not apply to going back to much earlier times? I would guess that you don't believe it does, so either hockey stopped evolving from 1980 until now (when in reality the biggest advances in the evolution of the game happened from 1980-2000) or you just have no other way of denying the truth of the matter which is McDavid would probably double Gretzky in points at the least if he went back in time with his equipment and was somehow allowed to cheat like that. He would easily lead the league in points with equipment from the 1950s with his overall skill, IQ and athletic ability anyway.
Last edited: