No, not really. The 80s Oilers are historical for playing an offensively dominant style dictated by Gretzky and his supporting cast and their brand of hockey was era defining and the pinnacle of that style.
So the idea that Gretzky thrived more in a freewheeling environment while things dried up for him in the goal scoring department doesn’t really describe their M.O. or how they necessarily preferred to play those big games.
The best teams dictate the style of play and when games were dictated by the Oilers on their terms they weren’t trying to gamebreak a 1-1 or 2-2 tie late in the third. They would have blown the doors off much earlier.
Agreed that the Oilers were able to be successful with their attack. Just not as much against strong defensive teams that could protect the slot.
From 1982-83 to 1987-88, the Oilers averaged 5.07 goals/game in the regular season. In 25 Stanley Cup final games, they averaged only 3.52 goals/game, but still won because they were able to play better defence, only allowing 2.80 goals/game.
Furthermore, if the occasion called for, Gretzky was always able to game break with goals. The OT winner vs Toronto in Game 6 and the hat trick in Game 7 in the third period is a good example.
I agree Gretzky was a great goal scorer! You don’t need to convince me. His 1992-93 season is a good example where his playoff scoring was much more meaningful than his regular season for showing how good he was as a goal scorer.
Finally, even if we bought into the idea that Gretzky was useless in the pressure moments and had to defer to someone else on his line to put the puck in the net, why is the “clutch” factor so important in determining goal scoring? It would seem to imply a situational and aesthetic scoring criteria for all goals which would open up an extra can of worms. Aka do slap shots from distance mean more than a tap in, are top corner rips better than breakaway goals, do opening goals mean more than insurance goals. Do unassisted goals mean more. Are tip ins inherently cheap?
Putting the hyperbole aside, I would say clutch goals are better because it takes fewer clutch goals to buy you an extra win. Every goal scored and allowed when the game is tied or +/- one goal has a good chance to be the goal that is the difference between a win or loss. Goals scored and allowed when one team is leading by 3+ may still swing the final result — especially in the 1980s — but are much less likely to do so.
When it comes to style and aesthetic criteria, I can see why you might think that’s an important factor here. I’m not really looking for aesthetics in and of themselves. (Although I could see an argument for that). I value skills that are robust in the widest variety of situations and against all opponents, and especially those situations that impact winning. I do think that players who score “goal scorers goals” and aesthetically look like good goal scorers — such as Bossy, Lemieux, Maurice Richard—tend have goal scoring skills that are more robust against all opposition. But at least for this discussion, I value them for the impact on winning. (I also love to see a beautiful goal scored, but that’s not the basis for my argument).
Again, for an NBA comparison—Hakeem Olajuwon scored a similar number of points to David Robinson in the regular season. But in the playoffs Hakeem was the better scorer, because he had a much wider variety of moves and counter-moves and was better at making tough shots when defences took away the easy shots. I wouldn’t say Hakeem was a better playoff scorer
because his scoring was more aesthetically pleasing, rather I would say his scoring was more aesthetically pleasing and more effective in the playoffs for the same reason.
Bossy looked more like a goal scorer than Gretzky, and his goal scoring held up better against locked in top defences and impacted winning championships more. Both because he had a much better wrist shot than Gretzky, with an incredibly quick release and great power and accuracy.
