I already said the sample was just off the top of my head but I chose them because they were same season and the only thing changing for the player was his team.
If your theory is correct and players teams don't affect their performance.. why did it affect those guys?
And if your argument is ice time, systems, teammates or anything else it means that their production (not necessarily how they are performing but rather the success rate) is at least *somewhat* dependent on their team. And just so we're clear.. an elite linemate is part of team, right?
Which you contradicted yourself about earlier already but yeah.. I guess I'm way off base.
And if you guys honestly think that Wayne Gretzky scores 200+ points on the 84 Devils instead of the 84 Oilers.. I just don't know what to say. I could give you 150 or 160.. but no way he scores 200 points on that dreadful team.
Adjusting to new coaches, team needs and systems are all pieces of the puzzle.
Who are you to say Gretzky would not be scoring in bunches had he first gone to the Devils instead of the Oilers and had decent coaching and scouting GM's who filled the teams needs? Had he gone to the Devils in the 79, many of his teammates would have learned from him, just like his Oiler teammates did, learning together their strengths and weaknesses and improving all the while, while the GM and Coach adjusted and worked with what they had all the while, building on their strengths and filling the holes that were their weaknesses. And by the time 1984 came around it would have been a completely different team. You have no idea how much a player like Gretzky builds a teammates confidence and swagger, and just how much they learn from each other and a good coach.
The devils/Rockies had terrible revolving door coaching for years, as well as continually changing teammates and no superstar like Lemieux or Gretzky to build on. If you think a young player will learn and develop the same into the NHL by continually having different coaches and systems, as well as teammates.....who knows what John MacLean or Pat Verbeek could have become under different circumstances.
Mario Lemieux was a rather soft, lazy player in his early years in the NHL playing off only his talent and not giving it his all, and he personally references the turning point in his career as playing with Gretzky for Team Canada and learning just how hard he worked and how he demanded excellence and hard work from himself and those around him.
Gretzky jumped into the league as a 137 point 19 year old player, and you could see his confidence and abilities improve each year, as well as those around him as he learned what he could and could not do in the league, and just how far he could push it. The next year, his point total spiked to 164, despite having only rookies on his team, none of whom scored more than 75 points or 32 goals. Rookies who ended up far exceeding their expectations due largely to the fact that they were playing with and learning from the best, with coaching that allowed them to work with their strengths.
By the time Gretzky left Edmonton, the team still had the swagger, hard work ethic and everything they learned with Gretzky and the coach about their strengths and weaknesses before he left.
As stated, Jari Kurri didn't miss a beat his first season without Gretzky.
Kurri's last year with Gretzky: 43 goals, 96 points in 80 games
Kurri's first year without Gretzky: 44 goals, 102 points in 76 games.
By your logic, Kurri should have suffered a large drop since the quality of center he had had just suffered a massive hit. But he did not. in fact, he improved.
Not only that, But Messier moving up to 1st line duties 2 years
after the team lost Gretzky saw his greatest season ever.
This runs contrary to your line of thinking.
At another point, Paul Coffey missed a good chunk of time, and Gretzky's numbers while he was out actually improved. Small sample size, but again, contrary to your thinking.
I also seriously doubt Jagr would have become the player he became had he not learned playing with Lemieux. In fact, Jagr personally states this.
But to say silly things like "If player A was on team X with Players B and C, he would have scored Y more points". There are too many variables. Work ethic and team play. Attitude. Ability to adapt to different systems and develop chemistry. Coaching. A GM's job is to fit all of the pieces together to build a winner. Some do it better than others. A guy Like Yzerman was expected to be the go to guy when the Wings were not such a good team, and his personal numbers were staggering. However, when he finally did get much better linemates and defenseman with transition games, his personal numbers did not skyrocket as you suggest, but his all around game got much much better, as did his willingness to play to win at the cost of his personal numbers and icetime.
