When Gretzky was in his prime he was scoring 200pts a season. This amazing accomplishment has been downplayed by some because the goals per game was higher in the 80s when he did this. When they work out the adjusted stats to compare to the modern era Gretzkys pts go down (but are still remarkable.) But what about Gretzkys last three years in the dead puck era when goals per game was less than what it is these last few years? That would mean Gretzkys points last 3 seasons 97, 90, and 62 would adjusted be quite a bit more. Can anyone do the math? ( I cant) I thought i read somewhere that Gretzky adjusted stats for these years was like round 110, 115. Does that mean that an old broken down Gretzky with terrible linemates in the dead puck era was still on par with a Mcdavid or a Crosby today? If so it certainly dispels the myth that 99 couldn't play today in a low scoring era. It also once again illuminates another amazing perspective that separates the Great One from the rest. Thoughts?
Old Gretzky and adjusted stats
- Thread starter Minar
- Start date
ResilientBeast
Proud Member of the TTSAOA
The Panther
Registered User
Nobody who is mentally over age 12 thinks this.
Anyway, it's not really a low-scoring era anymore. Last season saw the first 30-point month in twenty years, and haven't there been about three or four 4-goal games this month already?
scott clam
Registered User
- Sep 12, 2018
- 1,108
- 537
I think it is also worth noting that when Wayne finished 4th in scoring, at age 36 and age 37, that the league was as big and brutally physical as it has ever been.
People can go too far in downplaying his 200 point seasons but using a flawed method like adjusting to counter isn't useful.
Look at point finishes instead of point totals to get your answer.
I do think that the gap that Wayne and Mario put between themselves and the rest of the league would have been smaller in a lower scoring league but would still establish themselves as clearly on another level.
JackSlater
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2010
- 18,498
- 16,318
DannyGallivan
Your world frightens and confuses me
In Gretzky's day, hooking, holding and hand slashing were considered acceptable tactics and were often let go by the refs. Even in the 80's, the obstruction was crazy compared to today. The skilled players of today don't know how good they have it compared to the days before the officials actually adhered to the rule book.
Oh, and nothing against all the math wizards and stats guys, but there's something about "adjusted" stats that I don't trust. Obviously, there are differences between eras, but adjusted stats are stats that never actually happened. They're interesting to look at, but they are still a hypothesis. I don't consider them "real".
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
JackSlater
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2010
- 18,498
- 16,318
People who talk about Gretzky as if he just faded away once high scoring hockey subsided.
You forgot how inflated the goaltending pads were in the 80s and how every team played with rigorous defensive schemes and blocked shots like no tommorrow.
I saw the 80s close up it was definitely much easier to score back then.
Gretzky still is the best offensive player ever but let's keep it real here.
DannyGallivan
Your world frightens and confuses me
You forgot how inflated the goaltending pads were in the 80s and how every team played with rigorous defensive schemes and blocked shots like no tommorrow.
I saw the 80s close up it was definitely much easier to score back then.
Gretzky still is the best offensive player ever but let's keep it real here.
I never said that it wasn't easier to score, of course is was, but I did highlight ONE MASSIVE ISSUE that the players of those days face that the players of today certainly do not. If you indeed watched hockey in the 80's you couldn't deny the fact that it's like night and day compared to today as far as obstruction goes.
Imagine the scores if they called obstruction in 1985 like they do today.
Doctor No
Registered User
You can say that "adjusted stats" aren't real - and it's true that these didn't happen. Real goals do happen.
What's important is the value. The analogy I use is currency - suppose you have $1,000,000 now, and your grandfather had $1,000,000 in 1935. Both of you have exactly the same amount of money, and no one can say that you don't have as much money as your grandfather did.
But what can your $1,000,000 buy, compared to what your grandfather's $1,000,000 can buy?
Similarly, in the early 1980s, it took more goals to "buy" an average win than it does today. Each goal was less valuable.
That's very important to pay attention to.
What's important is the value. The analogy I use is currency - suppose you have $1,000,000 now, and your grandfather had $1,000,000 in 1935. Both of you have exactly the same amount of money, and no one can say that you don't have as much money as your grandfather did.
But what can your $1,000,000 buy, compared to what your grandfather's $1,000,000 can buy?
Similarly, in the early 1980s, it took more goals to "buy" an average win than it does today. Each goal was less valuable.
That's very important to pay attention to.
NHL's Greatest Players - Why Wayne Gretzky Is Not the Best
Well here is a article written I'm sure by some one over 12 who suggests gretzky isn't a top 5 player because his stats are inflated due to the era he played in. So using that reasoning wouldn't his stats from the last three years of his career( a very low scorung time) be deflated?
Well here is a article written I'm sure by some one over 12 who suggests gretzky isn't a top 5 player because his stats are inflated due to the era he played in. So using that reasoning wouldn't his stats from the last three years of his career( a very low scorung time) be deflated?
It doesn't mean any of those things.
What scoring adjustments to even out eras do is just even out how valuable (or dominant) a player was in the era he played compared with how dominant or valuable a player was or is in a different era.
It doesn't say anything about how a player would do against the players of today with the equipment of today and the coaching and officiating styles of today. It isn't a tool to say how good Gretzky as a player was compared with McDavid, just how Gretzky's performance in his circumstances compared with McDavid's performance in his.
To use an extreme example to show how one can't compare stats from different eras, does anybody believe that the 5'8-150 lb Babe Dye of 1923 could have stepped onto the ice in the NHL last season and been better than McDavid, Crosby, Ovechkin and Kucherov were?
Johnny Engine
Moderator
- Jul 29, 2009
- 5,039
- 2,761
The presentation problem with adjusted stats is that they look like unadjusted stats, and the name could be taken to imply that they've been massaged into the correct place, the way one might adjust a mirror to point at the rear window of a car. Something like "Points times scoring rate over mean" would be a whole lot less catchy, but would at least signal to people what you are doing with which numbers. Of course, you might scoff at using that many steps to look at scoring stats anyway, but once you consider how "points" glorifies "goals plus assists", and "plus-minus" glorifies "even strength and shorthanded goals on ice for minus even strength and shorthanded goals on ice against" as something discrete, you start to realize how few unadjusted stats there actually are.
GlitchMarner
There was a Glitch and my username was switched
The scoring rate in '97 and '98 was under six goals per game. HockeyReference's method of adjustment gives players who played during those seasons adjusted point totals that exceed their actual point totals.
When the scoring rate across the League is higher than six goals per game (which it was throughout the 80s), HockeyReference's adjusted points totals are lower than actual points totals.
That's right. So what I saying is that people who like adjusted stats punish gretzky's years during the 80s to try to diminish his greatness saying that his pts were inflated because of high scoring era. But they don't say anything about his years in the low scoring late 90s when he was near the top of the league in pts scoring (as an old player) similar to what superstars score today.
LeBlondeDemon10
Registered User
The 80's were high scoring because of Gretzky. Everybody and/or team was following his lead. I don't think his stats should be adjusted at all because he was the driving force behind it. The second place scorer in the NHL was not scoring any better than the highest totals of the weak 70's (aside from Lemieux), which to me shows that Gretzky was that much better than anyone else.
Doctor No
Registered User
Regardless of what you ascribe the increase in 1980s scoring to, the result of that increase was that it took more goals to earn one win. Therefore, each goal was less valuable.
The point of hockey is to win games.
MadLuke
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2011
- 9,638
- 7,043
The 70s was an high scoring era and the trend up was already there before Gretzky dominance had time to change much league system and junior development I would imagine, scoring went from 3.12 in 1970 to 3.51 in 79-80 to 3.84 in 80-81, no season in the 80s had an much higher scoring average than 80-81 except for 81-82, everyone that played that decade need to be adjusted if compared to a lower scoring decade like the 50s/60s
Without weighing for the relative season lenght, decade average season goal by game by team.
20's: 2.72
30's: 2.42
40's: 3.21
50's: 2.65
60's: 2.93
70's: 3.314
80's: 3.83
90's: 3.09
00's: 2.80
10's: 2.825
One could say it is Gordie Howe/Richard scoring in the 50s and Jagr in the late 90s that need adjusted up, not 80s player down, but that semantic meaning the exact same thing. Below 3.00 goal seem to have been much more the norm than the other way around, making adjusting down the 70/80/early 90s sounding logical to do.
Oddbob
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2016
- 15,937
- 11,980
Thanks for posting an article of someone I know to never believe, trust, read or hear from again! Asinine opinion the guy has. Crosby has never even come close to dominating his peers like Gretzky, Orr, Lemieux and Howe did. Crosby has had Art Rosses, but he was and has never been dominantly ahead, lower scoring or not, if he was Top 5, he would have 5-10 seasons of pure dominance compared to his peers.
Teams would probably have more PP opportunities than today...just like the way it actually is.
In 1985 the average NHL team had 326 PPO in that season.
Last season for example there was an average of 239 PPO per team.
LeBlondeDemon10
Registered User
Rather than take a cheapshot at my mental health, state your argument.
Is it really that difficult to measure relative dominance over one's respective peers rather than "adjusting"?
It is obvious Wayne and Mario stood out among their peers as obvious as it was they played in a higher scoring era that allowed that gap to be perhaps inflated.
It is obvious Wayne and Mario stood out among their peers as obvious as it was they played in a higher scoring era that allowed that gap to be perhaps inflated.
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest posts
-
News Article: Maple Leafs’ once-heralded ‘Core Four’ era is slipping away before our eyes (64 Viewers)- Latest: Stephen
-
-
-
-
