What would a player have to do to be considered better than Gretzky?

[jcbio11]

200 point seasons or 90 goal seasons are simply impossible in today's league. The watered down 80s made this possible, however with today's goalies, defensive systems, greatly improved average quality of players (compared to 80s with virtually no Europeans) simply reaching 60 goals is a feat for the ages.

So my questions to you hockey nuts is, what would a player have to do in today's league to be considered the greatest ever?

Click to read more...

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Longevity of success? Although even that is going to be a difficult achievement. What is remarkable is that for a player to score up to 800 goals in a 20-year career, he would have to average 40 goals a season. I don't think anyone will come close to surpassing Gretzky's records. Can't fault Gretzky for being smarter than everyone else on the ice during the time he played.

 

[David Bruce Banner]

Win the Art Ross and the Vezina in the same season.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I'd say a player was better than Gretzky if he could play a physical game while scoring adjusted-similar numbers (say, 70-80-150 in a banner year).

Gretzky played for a long time, but it was only in about a 10-year range that he blew up the league. If a guy showed up with the physical game of an Iginla or Ovechkin, scored 60-70 goals a few years in a row and stayed at the 40-50 range a few more after that, then kept it at the 30-40 level for another decade, I'd give some thought to calling him the best ever. The physicality aspect is really the key.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I'd say a player was better than Gretzky if he could play a physical game while scoring adjusted-similar numbers (say, 70-80-150 in a banner year).

Gretzky played for a long time, but it was only in about a 10-year range that he blew up the league. If a guy showed up with the physical game of an Iginla or Ovechkin, scored 60-70 goals a few years in a row and stayed at the 40-50 range a few more after that, then kept it at the 30-40 level for another decade, I'd give some thought to calling him the best ever. The physicality aspect is really the key.

Can you name a player were physically dominating in the later stages of their career? Ovechkin will slow down as he gets older. His shoulders, legs and the rest of his body won't be able to sustain the type of punishment or absorb the same impact as he can now. All athletes in physical contact sports will gradually deteriorate and tone down the physicalness. It happened to Messier, Tocchet, Guerin, Tkachuk, Clark, Neely, etc.

Another remarkable Gretzky statistic. Even after leaving the Oilers dynasty, Gretzky maintained a point per game average of over 1.00 right until his very last season. He was still a very productive player in his late 30s, which was during the clutch and grab era. He led the league in assists in 1996-97 and 97-98 and registered 90+ points in those seasons when he was 36-37 years old. Even in the later stages of his career, he was one of the top scorers in the NHL.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Can you name a player were physically dominating in the later stages of their career?

Gretzky was never physically dominant, at any stage of his career. A player who could put up adjusted-equivalent stats and also be physical would have to get the nod. Even if it meant he backed off a bit at the end.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I never said Gretzky was physically dominant, he never had to be. I'm trying to get you to name examples of players who fit your criteria, of being physically dominant and productive for a long duration of their career. I think you'd be hard pressed to find one.

The three most gifted hockey players in the 90s were Jaromir Jagr, Peter Forsberg and Eric Lindros. Their careers took a dip as they got older as their dominance diminished as did their health. I'm not sure that there has been any player in their late 30s who was still putting up big numbers while still being a physically dominant force. Such a player has never existed.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I'm trying to get you to name examples of players who fit your criteria, of being physically dominant and productive for a long duration of their career. I think you'd be hard pressed to find one. ...Such a player has never existed.

Isn't the purpose of the thread to throw out hypotheticals?

But for the sake of argument, if Jarome Iginla had put up 50-70 goals every year of his 20s, and was still cruising at the top of the Ross race today, I'd say he would be an example of the sort of player I have in mind.

 

[jcbio11]

Can you name a player were physically dominating in the later stages of their career? Ovechkin will slow down as he gets older. His shoulders, legs and the rest of his body won't be able to sustain the type of punishment or absorb the same impact as he can now. All athletes in physical contact sports will gradually deteriorate and tone down the physicalness. It happened to Messier, Tocchet, Guerin, Tkachuk, Clark, Neely, etc.

Another remarkable Gretzky statistic. Even after leaving the Oilers dynasty, Gretzky maintained a point per game average of over 1.00 right until his very last season. He was still a very productive player in his late 30s, which was during the clutch and grab era. He led the league in assists in 1996-97 and 97-98 and registered 90+ points in those seasons when he was 36-37 years old. Even in the later stages of his career, he was one of the top scorers in the NHL.

Zdeno Chara. Still going strong.

 

[85highlander]

Win the Art Ross and the Vezina in the same season.

Orr an equivalent:

How about the Art Ross and the Norris is the same season? Plus an insane physical game on top of the most dominant skating ever seen in the NHL.

Number Four, Bobby Orr -- he was dominant in all three zones, Gretzky merely in one.

 

[jcbio11]

Can you name a player were physically dominating in the later stages of their career? Ovechkin will slow down as he gets older. His shoulders, legs and the rest of his body won't be able to sustain the type of punishment or absorb the same impact as he can now. All athletes in physical contact sports will gradually deteriorate and tone down the physicalness. It happened to Messier, Tocchet, Guerin, Tkachuk, Clark, Neely, etc.

Another remarkable Gretzky statistic. Even after leaving the Oilers dynasty, Gretzky maintained a point per game average of over 1.00 right until his very last season. He was still a very productive player in his late 30s, which was during the clutch and grab era. He led the league in assists in 1996-97 and 97-98 and registered 90+ points in those seasons when he was 36-37 years old. Even in the later stages of his career, he was one of the top scorers in the NHL.

There are two ways you can look at this. His late 90s seasons are actually my main argument as for why I consider Lemieux to be a better player than him. You can say he was still a productive player, yes, sure, he was a great player, but he failed to transition his dominance into late 90s. You can say it was his age, back whatever, but my point still stands. He was able to dominate a watered down league (rapid expansion), but when late 90s rolled around, teams started playing better defensive systems, goalies could actually stop a slapshot from just behind the blue line and league got better (influx of European talent), Gretzky was no longer able to dominate.

Compare this to Lemieux, who one shiny day rolled out of bed, got tired of Pens sucking it up, put on those skates and teared up a league, even at old age.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

10 Hart Trophies, 11 Art Ross, 6 Richard, 3 Conn Smythe, 1 Selke, 5 Cups, and a long productive career

 

[McGuillicuddy]

Walk on water, turn water into wine, rise from the dead. Pick two.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Chara is still 33, and even then, he isn't as physically active as he was two seasons ago. As he gets to his mid 30s and later, he will be less physical.

Iginla didn't reach 50 goals until his sixth season in the NHL in 2001-02, when he was 25. Since then, he's reached the 50-goal mark one other time.

It's hard for any athlete to maintain a consistent level of excellent from their rookie season until retirement. There are very few who have achieved that. No player will ever be considered to be better than Gretzky unless they surpass one of his great accomplishments, something you likely won't see happen.

 

[McGuillicuddy]

Orr an equivalent:

I see what you did there...

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

There are two ways you can look at this. His late 90s seasons are actually my main argument as for why I consider Lemieux to be a better player than him. You can say he was still a productive player, yes, sure, he was a great player, but he failed to transition his dominance into late 90s. You can say it was his age, back whatever, but my point still stands. He was able to dominate a watered down league (rapid expansion), but when late 90s rolled around, teams started playing better defensive systems, goalies could actually stop a slapshot from just behind the blue line and league got better (influx of European talent), Gretzky was no longer able to dominate.

Compare this to Lemieux, who one shiny day rolled out of bed, got tired of Pens sucking it up, put on those skates and teared up a league, even at old age.

When Lemieux came back in 00-01 at age 35 he had been resting for 4 years and had played 465 fewer regular season games than Gretzky had at that age. He came into the league and dominated for half a season, then couldn't manage more than 24 games and 31 points the next season. Compare that to Gretzky who at ages 36 and 37 played all 82 games, led the league in assists, and finished top 5 in points both years.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Iginla didn't reach 50 goals until his sixth season in the NHL in 2001-02, when he was 25. Since then, he's reached the 50-goal mark one other time.

So? I used the word "if" for a purpose.

It's hard for any athlete to maintain a consistent level of excellent from their rookie season until retirement. There are very few who have achieved that. No player will ever be considered to be better than Gretzky unless they surpass one of his great accomplishments, something you likely won't see happen.

I think you might have missed the point of this thread.

It's: "What would a player have to do to be considered better than Gretzky?"

Not: "What has a player done to be considered better than Gretzky?"

The whole conversation is based on unlikely hypotheticals. The most likely of these unlikely scenarios would be a modern-day Gordie Howe who could score at an equivalent level and still be physical.

 

[VanIslander]

10 Hart Trophies

that's a start

 

[Topgoon]

Statistic Wise
170-180 peak seasons (at least 3), 2000+ career points, multiple inspiring playoff runs (very high PPG). I wouldn't put the onus on him to win the cup, but to be considered better than Gretzky you must have to be very, very unlucky to not have won a cup.

Individual awards - must match or exceed Wayne's. Reason for this - because he needs to dominate his peers as much as Wayne did his (Let's forget the Mario argument for a bit).

Physicality - I don't think having a Lindros/Power forward playstyle actually makes you a better player (body checking at the end of the day is a net zero gain). You don't need to be a physical force to control a game. On the otherhand, the ability to play through your opposition's physicality is a requirement. Not all the greats delivered physical force, but none of them were ever stopped by it.

 

[Badger36]

Break all of Gretzky's records. Saying that, "nowdays its almost impossible" is just a cheap excuse.

 

[jcbio11]

Break all of Gretzky's records. Saying that, "nowdays its almost impossible" is just a cheap excuse.

Gretzky himself wouldn't be able to break Greatzky's records in today's NHL.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

For a decade straight, you need to be the best player in the world. Period. No "oh but that other guy might be better." You have to be so good that anyone would be laughed at if they even though someone was better.

And yes, you have to have the hardware (individual and team) to back it up.

And that's just a start.

 

[Big Phil]

200 point seasons or 90 goal seasons are simply impossible in today's league. The watered down 80s made this possible, however with today's goalies, defensive systems, greatly improved average quality of players (compared to 80s with virtually no Europeans) simply reaching 60 goals is a feat for the ages.

See, I never like these assumptions. It makes the 1980s look like every player was a pylon made out of silly puddy. Put it this way. A 200 point and/or 90 goal season was impossible in Gretzky's day as well, unless you were, well, Wayne Gretzky. Do you know how I know this? Because no one else in the history of the NHL has ever had a 90 goal or a 200 point season that wasn't #99. It was hard then, don't kid yourself. The only one close to BOTH of those feats was Lemieux. The only one close to ONE of those feats was Brett Hull who had 86 goals alongside one of the best playmakers of all time. After that Espo, Mogilny, Selanne all had no more than 76 goals and Yzerman is the next best with 155 points. Take Gretzky out of the equation and many NHL seasons in the 1980s featured a 120-130 point man as the Art Ross winner. Not much different from today.

Anyways, for a player to hit Gretzky's level is almost impossible. Neither Crosby or Ovechkin have dominated the NHL in their first 5 years the way Gretzky did. But you'll need a a slew of Art Ross Trophies, a ton of MVPs, and a ton of championships. Between the two I would take Crosby's resume so far since he has a Cup and two finals appearances. Ovechkin has yet to win anything in the NHL yet.

Also the 92 goals record is not written in stone. Ovechkin has had 65, 56, 54 and 46 not to mention probably 50 this year. All it takes is an amazing season. Crosby has been probably the best goal scorer in the NHL since the start of last year's playoffs and will hit 50-55 this year. It is almost as if when he sets his mind to do something extremely well then he will do it. 92 goals will be difficult but if anyone in today's NHL touches it, it'll be either one of these guys.

But for now #99's legacy is safe, I think. Crosby has certainly polished his game into being a well rounded player who is good if not great at every aspect of the game so maybe someone will value that enough to take him over Gretzky. But to be honest the NHL dominance, the MVPs, the records and the Cups will be monumental to catch up to and I just don't see it

 

[Sky04]

When Lemieux came back in 00-01 at age 35 he had been resting for 4 years and had played 465 fewer regular season games than Gretzky had at that age. He came into the league and dominated for half a season, then couldn't manage more than 24 games and 31 points the next season. Compare that to Gretzky who at ages 36 and 37 played all 82 games, led the league in assists, and finished top 5 in points both years.

The 465 more games Gretzky played are crucial, that many more games played going into your late 30's will take a toll on your body.

Lemieux had 4 years of rest, his talent was still there, all he did was get back into shape, where-as Gretzky's body was worn down.

 

[mobilus]

For a decade straight, you need to be the best player in the world. Period. No "oh but that other guy might be better." You have to be so good that anyone would be laughed at if they even though someone was better.

Back in the 80s when myself and friends did our annual playoff pool drafts, Gretzky was ineligible to be picked. No one could take Wayne, as it was considered an unfair advantage to whoever got the first overall selection.