The significance of Suter's hit on Gretzky

[Calderon]

Gary Suter's hit on Wayne Gretzky is widely considered a watershed moment that forever altered Gretzky's career, basically ending his super-elite production, especially in terms of goal scoring. What is this claim based on?

I haven't been able to find a video of the infamous hit. I read somewhere Gretz didn't regard Suter as a dirty player but then again Wayne's never been a salty or bitter guy, quite the opposite. What was the injury like? How likely is (or was 30 years ago) one hit to one's back (by a cross check? As I mentioned, haven't seen the hit) to cause permanent damage? Gretzky was still able to win an Art Ross and score 40 points in one post season. How can one continue to play at a top3 to top20 level from age 30 to 38 with a supposedly bad back? We're talking about serious high level professional sports here.

Leading up to the Canada Cup 1991 Gretzky had seasons of 40, 54, 40 and 41 goals (pacing for 50, 55, 44, 42). Clearly he was already done as a serious contender for the goal scoring title. He had also turned 30. Great goal scoring in your thirties isn't really a thing in the NHL aside for Ovechkin. On the other hand, given that his goal scoring already had clearly taken a dive from the 60+ level, maybe the discussion should concern Gretzky's assist totals instead. Then there's the fact that he was now an LA guy, trying to grow the sport there, mingling with Hollywood stars etc. He wasn't a scoring alien superstar anymore, he was an aging entertainer and a family man.

I guess some stats regarding the evolution of league scoring levels and the impact of a few expansion teams in 1992 could be thrown into the mix but I doubt that'd alter the big picture. I reckon the hit came at a moment where Gretzky had already come down to Earth. I hesitate to think there's a big what-if case for the latter part of his career: Gretzky forged his legacy in the 1980s and there was little that was going to build upon it in the 90s, with or without the hit.

However, as a non-North American who was just a small kid back then I wasn't privy to the chatter and I don't know if there was conclusive evidence that proved Suter's hit was as detrimental as it's meant to be. Maybe judging by the eye test the change in Gretzky's effectiveness was evident. If the whole issue really is clear cut, please enlighten me.

Ps. For the record, I detest questionable hits, all the omnipresent cross checking, the likes of Scott Stevens etc.; I champion skill play(ers) so my angle is in no way pro Suter. I guess my interest in this issue revolves around Gretzky's overall career arc, his production levels through the years and the legacy in terms of career value.

Click to read more...

 

[BraveCanadian]

When Did You Start To Notice A Slip In Gretzky's Game

In 1980-81 Gretzky breaks two of hockey's most hallowed records, Phil Esposito's record for most points (152) and Bobby Orr's record for assists (102) with 55 goals and 109 assists for 164 points. In the following 5 years, Gretzky reaches a different stratosphere that will likely never be...

forums.hfboards.com

 

[jigglysquishy]

Gretzky's Scoring Drought Continues : Kings: After suffering a back injury in the Canada Cup, he has no goals while taking only seven shots in the Kings' first three games.

Something's wrong in Wayne's World.

www.latimes.com

The impact of the injury was known early on.

https://vault.si.com/vault/1991/12/16/looking-to-a-great-recovery-wayne-gretzky-mulled-over-retirement-after-he-started-slowly-and-his-dad-fell-gravely-ill-but-now-things-are-getting-better-for-both-father-and-son

Publically contemplated retirement

In 1991, Gretzky recorded 103 even strength points. Lafleur 77 is the only non Gretzky player to ever exceed that. Lemieux was only on pace to do it twice.

In 1992, he only hit 63 even strength points. He never exceed 65 the rest of his career. Gretzky went from 100 EVP player in 10 of his first 12 seasons (and on pace the other two) to never hitting 65 again.

The back injury functionally wiped out ~0.5 PPG worth of even strength scoring from his arsenal.

 

[The Panther]

There were three Gretzky back-related injuries in 1990 to 1991. (I previously detailed them in another thread and showed the video of each one, but I can't find it right now.)

March 22, 1990 -- vs. the Islanders in L.A., Gretzky was sandwiched between two players, wrenching his back. He had to leave the game and didn't play again until the playoffs (missing 7.5 games).

April 22, 1990 -- vs. the Oilers, game three, in L.A., Gretzky was crunched from behind by Steve Smith and re-wrenched his back. He left the game, and that was the end of his season.

Sept. 14, 1991 -- vs. Team USA, Gretzky was nailed from behind by Gary Suter, wrenching his back. He left the game and didn't return for game two.

The September 1991 injury clearly had a massive impact on Gretzky's physicality, as his even-strength production took a massive nosedive from exactly this moment onward (from around 110 ES points a season to 60 overnight). His prime decisively ended with the Suter hit.

As I've detailed by now in countless threads, Gretzky was still an elite goal-scorer for most of the four seasons the OP has mentioned, though certainly not threatening to lead the League in goals:

1987-88: He had 30 goals in the first 37 games (more or less matching Lemieux for the League lead, including a 5-goal game) before his injury on Dec. 30th. After he came back, I suppose he was probably preoccupied with staying healthy for the playoffs (same thing happened late the season prior), as the Oilers no longer cared about the regular season. Still scored 12 playoff goals in 18-19 games, which isn't too shabby.

1988-89: Scored 50 goals in 65 games.

1989-90: Definite dip in goals this season.

1990-91: Was pacing for 50 goals at mid-season, before (again) slowing down late. (Only one player scored more than 51 goals this season.) Still 4th in ES goals.


Any kind of elite-ness he had as a goal scorer definitely ended with the 1990-91 season, though. Again, he was never remotely the same after the Suter-hit.

 

[Voight]

Its sounds stupid given how much he had already accomplished but imagine what more he could've done sans back injury.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Its sounds stupid given how much he had already accomplished but imagine what more he could've done sans back injury.

He almost certainly wins the Art Ross in 1992. He's only 10 points back despite the back injury. Assuming Lemieux still misses 16 games. Enough to win the Hart? Probably not. But enough to finish top 5.

1993 is interesting. Lemieux missing 24 games is a big opportunity. Gretzky was still 12th in PPG despite the back injury. If he picks up the aforementioned ~0.5 EVP/G he has a strong chance of exceeding 160 points. A Lemieux Hart to Gretzky Art Ross is a possibility.

He widens the Art Ross margin in 1994. Not enough to win the Hart, but he likely is a finalist without being a defensive black hole.

1995 is an interesting one. 4 years after the missing back injury he's likely slowing down anyways. Does he contend with Jagr and Lindros? Likely. But this is likely the first season he isn't blowing away the non Lemieux competition.

1996 I think he contends with Sakic for third in points. No chance at 35 he's hitting 150.

I think he contends for Art Ross in 1998. He's only 12 points back in real life. I don't know if he beats Jagr, but can certainly manage at least 5 more points. Probably more in the 10-15 range.

Where he ends up is a huge question mark. Does he hit a level even higher in the 1993 playoffs? Do the Kings win?

The trades end up different. Does he end up in New York earlier? Go to Vancouver or Toronto?

In any case, I don't think he retires in 1999. He would be a much stronger player then without that injury.

Gretzky retired 4th in GP. Without that injury he's likely just behind 3rd by end of 1999. One more year and he is in 2nd behind Howe. I can't see him passing that up if he's still healthy. Does he stick around until 2003 or 2004 and overtake Howe's GP record? No back injury Gretzky in 2003 is still likely better than back injury Gretzky in 1999.

Interesting what if. I have no idea how he ages without that big injury. 1000 goals is almost a guarantee. Same with 3000 points.

 

[Albatros]

His goal scoring wasn't aging well regardless of any injuries, and overall he had a remarkably healthy career. Of course one can always speculate what would be if a player never had any significant injuries whatsoever for 20 years, but that's never going to be the case.

 

[Calderon]

I guess the EV scoring data has big implications. Don't know where you get the data as Hockey Reference, NHL.com and Hockeydb.com don't seem to offer EV point stats, as standard at least. In the SI article above, the reporter is in the know about the hits to Wayne's back but Wayne himself doesn't mention them in the quotes and instead just flogs himself for playing bad.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Its sounds stupid given how much he had already accomplished but imagine what more he could've done sans back injury.

Strange how every player but Gretzky gets the what-if treatment though.

Because he continued to play the games even in a reduced state people call him "healthy" when it was obvious to anyone watching or anyone who has looked at the numbers that there is a first half of his career and a second.

We never saw the real Gretzky after 1991 and yet people say oh he couldn't adjust and his goal scoring was already going down and goalies were better blah blah.. not to say he wasn't already slowing down some or immune to aging, but it is obvious what actually happened as soon as you look.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

my first thought was, 3,000 pts is probably on the table

in itself the number doesn’t really change much of anything though

 

[Voight]

Strange how every player but Gretzky gets the what-if treatment though.

Because he continued to play the games even in a reduced state people call him "healthy" when it was obvious to anyone watching or anyone who has looked at the numbers that there is a first half of his career and a second.

We never saw the real Gretzky after 1991 and yet people say oh he couldn't adjust and his goal scoring was already going down and goalies were better blah blah.. not to say he wasn't already slowing down some or immune to aging, but it is obvious what actually happened as soon as you look.

He was still 3rdin scoring as a 37 year old so its pretty clear that without the back injury he could have possibly been winning scoring titles even at the tail end of his career.

 

[JackSlater]

Much less agile after that. If you aren't big and fast, it really helps to be extremely agile. Especially in less structured play like even strength hockey.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

It is absolutely true that that narrative around Suter's hit is not always presented accurately. The way a lot of people tell it, Gretzky was an elite all-around player, then he got Sutered and his goal scoring dropped off a cliff even as he remained an elite playmaker as he aged. Yet that story doesn't actually match the data.

I posted this chart in another thread:

View attachment 606939

As the OP mentions, Gretzky was already a pretty extreme playmaker well before the 1991 Canada Cup, and the injury did not really affect his goal scoring as a percentage of his overall offence much at all. This was especially true at even strength (see the flat orange trend line), which is where he suffered by far his biggest loss in offence (as others have already mentioned in this thread). In short, the Suter injury was definitely impactful, but it affected all parts of Gretzky's game, not just his goal scoring, with the largest effects coming at 5-on-5.

 

[Calderon]

It is absolutely true that that narrative around Suter's hit is not always presented accurately. The way a lot of people tell it, Gretzky was an elite all-around player, then he got Sutered and his goal scoring dropped off a cliff even as he remained an elite playmaker as he aged. Yet that story doesn't actually match the data.

I posted this chart in another thread:

View attachment 606939

As the OP mentions, Gretzky was already a pretty extreme playmaker well before the 1991 Canada Cup, and the injury did not really affect his goal scoring as a percentage of his overall offence much at all. This was especially true at even strength (see the flat orange trend line), which is where he suffered by far his biggest loss in offence (as others have already mentioned in this thread). In short, the Suter injury was definitely impactful, but it affected all parts of Gretzky's game, not just his goal scoring, with the largest effects coming at 5-on-5.

The end of the post isn't what I expected from the beginning. Not sure what the chart proves, either. A big dip in 92 that rebounds, and aside from that a natural regression based on age and reduction on scoring levels.

I don't see how eclipsing 3000 points had made any difference on Gretzky's legacy. Indirectly, sure, as that'd mean more goals and more assists (makes that much harder for anybody to catch his assist total with points) and getting to, like, 950 would probably keep Ovi at bay for good. But yeah, one more Art Ross max.

 

[jigglysquishy]

The end of the post isn't what I expected from the beginning. Not sure what the chart proves, either. A big dip in 92 that rebounds, and aside from that a natural regression based on age and reduction on scoring levels.

I don't see how eclipsing 3000 points had made any difference on Gretzky's legacy. Indirectly, sure, as that'd mean more goals and more assists (makes that much harder for anybody to catch his assist total with points) and getting to, like, 950 would probably keep Ovi at bay for good. But yeah, one more Art Ross max.

It's the ratio of even strength goals to even strength assists.

So something like Gretzky who lead in EVP every year from 1980 until 1991 (except 1989 to Lemieux), to fall to 7th in 1994, gets missed. He lead in EV assists every year from 1980 until 1991 (including 1989), finishing with

Year	EV Assists	EVA/GP
1983-84	80	1.08
1984-85	92	1.15
1985-86	105	1.31
1986-87	82	1.04
1987-88	65	1.02
1988-89	62	0.79
1989-90	70	0.96
1990-91	70	0.90
1991-92	46	0.62
1992-93	24	0.53
1993-94	42	0.52
1994-95	15	0.31
1995-96	34	0.55
1996-97	46	0.56
1997-98	43	0.52
1998-99	26	0.37

How strong of a year was Gretzky's EVA in 1991? It is higher than any player ever. Adjusting for scoring levels no one hits it. Lemieux was on pace for 69 in 1993 and 64 in 1989. That's how good 70 EVA is.

He peaked at 50 EVA/82 after this.

So yes, his goal scoring dropped.

But he lost ~20 EVA/season with the Suter hit.

 

[Gilles Meloche]

 

[PrimumHockeyist]

As the OP mentions, Gretzky was already a pretty extreme playmaker well before the 1991 Canada Cup, and the injury did not really affect his goal scoring ....

While I don't dig deep into hard data like many do here, my strong impression has long since been that Gretzky made a decision to become more of a playmaker around five years before CC91. Seeing Connor McD this year has reminded me of that on many occasions, especially in recent weeks. I've been waiting for years for Connor to give himself permission to be a shoot-first type.

 

[Jim MacDonald]

Wow this is the first time I've seen this check.....two quick questions: In the pre 04-05 lockout years...do you guys think this would've been a 4 minute double-minor, 5 minute major or 10 minute game misconduct? How about if this happened 05-06 onward?

 

[CokenoPepsi]

my first thought was, 3,000 pts is probably on the table

in itself the number doesn’t really change much of anything though

I'd think 3000 points was more then a lock... he finished less than 150 away as it is.

 

[Oddbob]

The end of the post isn't what I expected from the beginning. Not sure what the chart proves, either. A big dip in 92 that rebounds, and aside from that a natural regression based on age and reduction on scoring levels.

I don't see how eclipsing 3000 points had made any difference on Gretzky's legacy. Indirectly, sure, as that'd mean more goals and more assists (makes that much harder for anybody to catch his assist total with points) and getting to, like, 950 would probably keep Ovi at bay for good. But yeah, one more Art Ross max.

Even in his 3rd last season he was keeping pace with prime Forsberg and Jagr in pts. He was 36 at the time. He easily would have won more than 1 more Art Ross without that injury. His last season he still finished 33rd in scoring with 62 pts with John MacLean as his winger and only 55 pts. The Rangers were pretty bad at the end of Wayne's career.

 

[RJMA]

Strange how every player but Gretzky gets the what-if treatment though.

Whenever what ifs are afforded to Lemieux and Orr, I like to create an alternate universe what if for Gretz where he rejects the trade to Los Angeles and retires with

In just 9 seasons:

RS:
696 games
583 goals
1,086 assists
1,669 points

PO:
120 games
81 goals
171 assists
252 points

4 Stanley cups
2 smythes
6 pearsons
8 harts
7 art rosses
7x 1st team AS
2x 2nd Team AS

And that completely ignores his international dominance during that same stretch

He gets punished for being relatively healthy (compared to Orr and Mario) and thusly declining before our eyes

 

[Albatros]

Even in his 3rd last season he was keeping pace with prime Forsberg and Jagr in pts. He was 36 at the time. He easily would have won more than 1 more Art Ross without that injury. His last season he still finished 33rd in scoring with 62 pts with John MacLean as his winger and only 55 pts. The Rangers were pretty bad at the end of Wayne's career.

Easily more than one additional Art Ross Trophy? Which years would that be?

1992 Lemieux 10 points more (Gretzky 74 games)
1993 Lemieux 95 (Gretzky 45 games)
1995 Jágr 22 (Gretzky 48 games/lockout)
1996 Lemieux 59 (Gretzky 80 games)
1997 Lemieux 25 (Gretzky 82 games)
1998 Jágr 12 (Gretzky 82 games)
1999 Jágr 65 (Gretzky 70 games)

 

[Oddbob]

Easily more than one additional Art Ross Trophy? Which years would that be?

1992 Lemieux 10 points more (Gretzky 74 games)
1993 Lemieux 95 (Gretzky 45 games)
1995 Jágr 22 (Gretzky 48 games/lockout)
1996 Lemieux 59 (Gretzky 80 games)
1997 Lemieux 25 (Gretzky 82 games)
1998 Jágr 12 (Gretzky 82 games)
1999 Jágr 65 (Gretzky 70 games)

Without his injury he could have taken 1992, 1997 and 1998. Gretzky lost quite a bit of pts from the hit, not hard to imagine adding 30-40 in 92, and at least 15-30 in 97 and 98 possibly. I didn't say he would have but he definitely could have. He finished just back of prime Jagr in his 2nd last season.

 

[Albatros]

Without his injury he could have taken 1992, 1997 and 1998. Gretzky lost quite a bit of pts from the hit, not hard to imagine adding 30-40 in 92, and at least 15-30 in 97 and 98 possibly. I didn't say he would have but he definitely could have. He finished just back of prime Jagr in his 2nd last season.

Gretzky didn't miss a single game between 1996 and 1998, so he would have scored dozens of more points in his late 30s with no additional ice time. Hard to see how that would realistically happen especially as he didn't really have any defensive duties as things were.

 

[Oddbob]

Gretzky didn't miss a single game between 1996 and 1998, so he would have scored dozens of more points in his late 30s with no additional ice time. Hard to see how that would realistically happen especially as he didn't really have any defensive duties as things were.

What? We aren't talking about Gretzky getting more pts because he missed games. We are talking about, if Gretzky hadn't suffered the back injury, he would have been a better player at the end of his career and would have led to more pts, no need for more games played. Gretzky was dominant until that back injury and this hit, afterwards he was still really good, but he wasn't The Great One anymore.