The significance of Suter's hit on Gretzky

[Dingo]

Did someone itt about ‘what if Gretzky didn’t get hit’ question ‘why doesn’t Gretzky get the what if treatment’???

It is a dirty hit, but I have seen …… everyone? …. Take many like it.
I think we are fortunate that Gretz came along when nobody was quick enough to get him. He wasnt built to take abuse, and he (not Semenko) managed 12 healthy seasons avoiding much of it. Its a small miracle, a testament to his alertness and quickness, and also probably a testament to an era of lumbering pylons.

Still sensational that a diminished, old Wayne was STILL up there with the young guys towards the end.

Unlike the majority, I LOVE where the game is now - I wish we had long healthy careers from every star player in the past. The game is tough enough without the dirty crap.

 

[wetcoast]

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.

Sure if players didn't ever get hurt or feels the effects of travel (from all those long road trips from out west) or heck even age we would see different results but real word things happen.

I mean it's fun speculation for Gretzky but when it's brought up for basically anyone else it completely attacked.

The fact of the matter is Gretzky was following a pretty standard aging curve already after his peak in the early 20s already.

 

[BraveCanadian]

The fact of the matter is Gretzky was following a pretty standard aging curve already after his peak in the early 20s already.

He was following a pretty normal curve by slowing down a bit as he reached his 30s, but the back problems caused a sharp and sudden drop off from god tier to mortal. Then he continued to slow down normally again but from a lower starting point.

 

[Oddbob]

Sure if players didn't ever get hurt or feels the effects of travel (from all those long road trips from out west) or heck even age we would see different results but real word things happen.

I mean it's fun speculation for Gretzky but when it's brought up for basically anyone else it completely attacked.

The fact of the matter is Gretzky was following a pretty standard aging curve already after his peak in the early 20s already.

Actually it is everyone else that gets the benefits of saying "oh but the injuries"! When people mention the Gretzky injury thing it always gets brushed off like nothing. Gretzky took a lot less shots after that hit, and he has said it was because his back was bothering him. Nobody is saying Gretzky wouldn't have slowed down, but he would have been even better for a little while longer than he was without that hit. As is, he still finished high in pts in all his seasons after that including his last one, during the dead puck era and much less than what he used to be. His last 2-3 seasons in NYR he also played on pretty bad teams, with guys like aging John MacLean as his best pt producer teammates aside from himself.

 

[Boxscore]

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.

This is a true point. Gretzky never gets the what if treatment. Gretz and Lemieux, more than any other megastars, played at an elite level while nursing serious injuries. But Mario missed so much time, and had the cancer, that he (rightfully so) gets what ifs. I mean, there were at least two seasons where Mario's back was so bad that he couldn't even lift his carry-on and put it in the baggage compartment on the plane. I think for two seasons, he also couldn't bend over and lace his own skates before most games. Players like him and Gretz were different beasts. Without the back, Wayne absolutely breaks 3,000 points which is bananas.

 

[The Panther]

Would have been fun to see Wayne in full flight in the first half of 1992-93.

 

[wetcoast]

Actually it is everyone else that gets the benefits of saying "oh but the injuries"! When people mention the Gretzky injury thing it always gets brushed off like nothing. Gretzky took a lot less shots after that hit, and he has said it was because his back was bothering him. Nobody is saying Gretzky wouldn't have slowed down, but he would have been even better for a little while longer than he was without that hit. As is, he still finished high in pts in all his seasons after that including his last one, during the dead puck era and much less than what he used to be. His last 2-3 seasons in NYR he also played on pretty bad teams, with guys like aging John MacLean as his best pt producer teammates aside from himself.

My point was and still is that if one is going to account for injuries one should just be consistent.

His SOG were going down his last 2 years in Edmonton already that was well before the Suter hit.

I think that some people just tend to overlook or under rate his natural decline and the decreased scoring in the NHL and think that he would have scored a ton more without the Suter hit and that definitely is unlikely.

Gretzky had basically set his legacy with his first 8 seasons with 8 Art Ross trophies and 8 straight Hart trophies and being the guy driving the bus on a dynasty 3 SCs in 4 years all before the age of 27.

The post age 26 Gretzky even with the Suter hit was a HHOF career all in itself already.