agreed


was watching a bunch of Orr highlights during the conversation today and - not taking anything away from him as a player - a good amount of the goals would be considered soft in today's game.

but on the flipside you have to keep in mind skaters are using less efficient equipment too. sticks with less curve, etc..
- Crimsoninja

Right but the goalies had heavier sticks also, less efficient glove, but yes prob a greater difference with the skater. Plus the butterfly seemingly hadn't been invented yet!

Agreed -- and since the mid-90's more coaches have focused on defensive systems. They have figured it is easier teaching a player to play defense than how to score a goal.
- Flyskippy

And imagine what would happen to Gretzky if teams actually focused on shutting him down, like what happens to most superstars today. If you play Stamkos, it's always high on your priority list to shut him down. Same with OV, Crosby, Malkin, Giroux, Tavares, etc. Gretzky had his own personal body guard with included limo service that carried him to the net and allowed him to have his way in the offensive zone.

What? Thats lame. He should be in here theres things that need to get done.
- Just5

Here's the schedule. Look for the Ice Hockey Masters Schedule on page 34:

http://maccabiah.com/Data...ploads/gamesschedule7.pdf

8 AM Sunday morning (3 PM local time in Israel) we can boo his absence when his team squares off against Team Canada.

Same size net. Same size puck. Different sized goalies and their pads. I'm sorry whenever I watch highlights of the 70-80's I shake my head at most of the goals that are let in.

Maybe Hammarby can comment on this but my God were the goalies small back then. Did they just look smaller?

Look at the stats of the 84-87 season and all the players that scored over 100 pts. Guys I've never heard of. John Ogrodnick? Neal Broten Maybe these guys are hall of famers I don't know. One player, Evgeni Malkin in 2011-2012 scored over 100 pts. Are all these guys that much better than the 99.89% of players right now that havent hit 100 yet?

I'd like to think that maybe the game has grown in it's complexity. Systems play, defense tactics, since the 80's that a Lemieux or Gretzky in their prime wouldn't waltz into 2013 and put up 160-170 pts.

Maybe I'm wrong and their that much better. That sucks for the state of hockey then I guess
- Just5

This post is so shameful I have to quote it again. You don't know Neal Broten? Go watch "Miracle" (again).

Here's the schedule. Look for the Ice Hockey Masters Schedule on page 34:

http://maccabiah.com/Data...ploads/gamesschedule7.pdf

8 AM Sunday morning (3 PM local time in Israel) we can boo his absence when his team squares off against Team Canada.
- Flyskippy

You'd think he'd have some downtime though.....but it would prob be 5 AM eastern

yep. and lemaire perfected it.
- isaiah520

I believe it is his quote I paraphrased. Not sure/don't care.

And imagine what would happen to Gretzky if teams actually focused on shutting him down, like what happens to most superstars today. If you play Stamkos, it's always high on your priority list to shut him down. Same with OV, Crosby, Malkin, Giroux, Tavares, etc. Gretzky had his own personal body guard with included limo service that carried him to the net and allowed him to have his way in the offensive zone.
- JAKEw1234

Habs shut hm down with Carbo and Gainey line.

You'd think he'd have some downtime though.....but it would prob be 5 AM eastern
- Just5

I'm sure the first thing he'll do after playing his first game, whilst touring another country -- one that has ethnic and religious importance, will be to come in here and set us all straight with his opinions of 1980's hockey. Then, he'll grab a Gatorade and a nap.

Habs shut hm down with Carbo and Gainey line.
- BingoLady

Also with the brilliant insertion of Barry Melrose as Kings coach.

This post is so shameful I have to quote it again. You don't know Neal Broten? Go watch "Miracle" (again).
- Flyskippy

To watch it again I'd have to watch it first.

Neal Broten. Esteemed member of the 100 pt. club eh? Give me a break.

To watch it again I'd have to watch it first.

Neal Broten. Esteemed member of the 100 pt. club eh? Give me a break.
- Just5

Well, yeah, when you have the likes of Ciccarelli, Bjugstad, and Bellows to feed I guess you'll put up 76 assists.

To watch it again I'd have to watch it first.

Neal Broten. Esteemed member of the 100 pt. club eh? Give me a break.
- Just5

A great player.

Gretzgy was never touched. It was like an all star game. If you got within 5 feet of him mcsorley was chopping you down. His stats are soooo inflated. No way he puts up those numbers in marios era or now a days. Not to mention the goaltending was a complete and utter joke. I wish someone would go through all gretzgys goals and assisted goals and eliminated 90 % of points where easy ass goals scored along the ice happened because goalies never went down like today to cover bottom of ice and see what total he'd have then.
- SMS4016

Gretzky's stats aren't inflated. You're making it seem like Gretzky scored all those points because of Goalies flopping on the ice. Which to be blunt, is absurd! I had the pleasure of seeing Gretzky play live a number of times. He was unstoppable. He an incredible shot. Both a slap shot and wrist shot. His playmaking and on ice vision would make Claude Giroux look like a chump. No offense to Giroux. Gretzky saw and created plays that nobody else saw. Not to mention the speed to his game. His talent and kill level was off the charts. And hasn't been duplicated since.

I agree, here's some math that you may or may not agree with, but that I think helps my point. In the 11-12 season, the average goals per game among all teams was 2.838 goals per game. In the 81-82 season, the average was 4.0125 goals per game. Based on this average I'm going to say that 1 goal in 2011 is worth 1.414 goals in 1981. Using that, in Gretzky's highest scoring season ever (81-82), his 92 goals in 1981 would be worth 65 goals translated in the 2011-2012 season. Stamkos scored 60 goals that season. On the same note, Stamkos's 60 goals in 2011-2012 would theoretically be worth 85 goals in the 1981-1982 season. I think people today just build so much lore around players of the past that they become hockey gods, and no other player ever could rival them. Here, in what is in my opinion the best way to translate Gretzky's game to the modern era, it shows that while he still would be the best, he wouldn't be miles ahead of the competition as a lot of people seem to insist he would be.
- JAKEw1234

This is flawed. Because that math cannot possibly account for the extreme difference in talent and ability that would still exist today between Gretzky and his peers. I think people trying to make these comparisons. Either aren't aware of the off the charts ability of players like Gretzky, Orr, and Lemieux. Or just don't want to accept it. It's not likely we'll ever see players with the ability of Gretzky and Lemieux in out lifetime, again. Stamkos, or anyone else doesn't come close.

Gretzky's stats aren't inflated. You're making it seem like Gretzky scored all those points because of Goalies flopping on the ice. Which to be blunt, is absurd! I had the pleasure of seeing Gretzky play live a number of times. He was unstoppable. He an incredible shot. Both a slap shot and wrist shot. His playmaking and on ice vision would make Claude Giroux look like a chump. No offense to Giroux. Gretzky saw and created plays that nobody else saw. Not to mention the speed to his game. His talent and kill level was off the charts. And hasn't been duplicated since.
- MJL

Exactly.

This is flawed. Because that math cannot possibly account for the extreme difference in talent and ability that would still exist today between Gretzky and his peers. I think people trying to make these comparisons. Either aren't aware of the off the charts ability of players like Gretzky, Orr, and Lemieux. Or just don't want to accept it. It's not likely we'll ever see players with the ability of Gretzky and Lemieux in out lifetime, again. Stamkos, or anyone else doesn't come close.
- MJL

McDavid

Same size net. Same size puck. Different sized goalies and their pads. I'm sorry whenever I watch highlights of the 70-80's I shake my head at most of the goals that are let in.

Maybe Hammarby can comment on this but my God were the goalies small back then. Did they just look smaller?

Look at the stats of the 84-87 season and all the players that scored over 100 pts. Guys I've never heard of. John Ogrodnick? Neal Broten Maybe these guys are hall of famers I don't know. One player, Evgeni Malkin in 2011-2012 scored over 100 pts. Are all these guys that much better than the 99.89% of players right now that havent hit 100 yet?

I'd like to think that maybe the game has grown in it's complexity. Systems play, defense tactics, since the 80's that a Lemieux or Gretzky in their prime wouldn't waltz into 2013 and put up 160-170 pts.

Maybe I'm wrong and their that much better. That sucks for the state of hockey then I guess
- Just5

The systems and defenses used today have been around forever. The Canadiens of the 50's played the Nuetral zone trap. That's where Jacque Lemaire learned it.
Yea, those guys scored 100 pts. Lemieux and Gretzky were scoring 200.

And imagine what would happen to Gretzky if teams actually focused on shutting him down, like what happens to most superstars today. If you play Stamkos, it's always high on your priority list to shut him down. Same with OV, Crosby, Malkin, Giroux, Tavares, etc. Gretzky had his own personal body guard with included limo service that carried him to the net and allowed him to have his way in the offensive zone.
- JAKEw1234

They could focus on shutting him down all they want. It wouldn't happen. Not possible. Do you think teams in the 80's didn't focus on him defensively? So you think Gretzky scored all those points because of Marty McSorely?

This is flawed. Because that math cannot possibly account for the extreme difference in talent and ability that would still exist today between Gretzky and his peers. I think people trying to make these comparisons. Either aren't aware of the off the charts ability of players like Gretzky, Orr, and Lemieux. Or just don't want to accept it. It's not likely we'll ever see players with the ability of Gretzky and Lemieux in out lifetime, again. Stamkos, or anyone else doesn't come close.
- MJL

Not to mention broten and Ogrodnick. These guys are legendary.

How many points would Crosby get in 1984? I say 170 easy

And that logic is not flawed. Bc it's actually done apples to apples. Unless you think the collective vision of players of 1984 is a goal and a half more than today's. Again, I'll say hockey is in a sad state of affairs if thats the case

This is flawed. Because that math cannot possibly account for the extreme difference in talent and ability that would still exist today between Gretzky and his peers. I think people trying to make these comparisons. Either aren't aware of the off the charts ability of players like Gretzky, Orr, and Lemieux. Or just don't want to accept it. It's not likely we'll ever see players with the ability of Gretzky and Lemieux in out lifetime, again. Stamkos, or anyone else doesn't come close.
- MJL

I'm not buying it. It just sounds like a case of "those were the times" syndrome, where people just think these guys are once in a lifetime just because they're going off of pure memory. You can't honestly expect me to believe that not only 1 "once in 50+ years" type player came around in the early 80s, but that a 2nd "once in 50+ years" player came around in the same half decade, and no player in the next 3 or more generations will even come close to them. They were great players, but there ARE players today that can compare to them, and Connor McDavid will be the next one. When he starts to light it up, people with "those were the times" syndrome will berate anyone who compares McDavid to Gretzky and Lemieux. Now I don't know how good McDavid will be in the NHL yet, but I'll go ahead and take a guess that the 16 year old kid who is better than almost any 18 year old player in the world right now will reach the Gretzky-Lemieux area code.

This is flawed. Because that math cannot possibly account for the extreme difference in talent and ability that would still exist today between Gretzky and his peers. I think people trying to make these comparisons. Either aren't aware of the off the charts ability of players like Gretzky, Orr, and Lemieux. Or just don't want to accept it. It's not likely we'll ever see players with the ability of Gretzky and Lemieux in out lifetime, again. Stamkos, or anyone else doesn't come close.
- MJL

Numbers are only numbers. You had to see them play, and know the feeling of dread whenever they had the puck. I hate Lemieux as much as anyone, and have many times said how he was a cherry-picker, got preferential treatment from the refs, etc. But it doesn't matter - he is far and away better than anyone in the league today - not because of his goals or points, but how amazing his skill level was. Same goes for Gretzky. Orr was slightly before my time.

Not to mention broten and Ogrodnick. These guys are legendary.

How many points would Crosby get in 1984? I say 170 easy

And that logic is not flawed. Bc it's actually done apples to apples. Unless you think the collective vision of players of 1984 is a goal and a half more than today's. Again, I'll say hockey is in a sad state of affairs if thats the case
- Just5

I think fans who are interested in the history of the game, are aware of who Broten and Ogrodnick are. It is flawed, because it ignored the gap in talent and ability between Gretzky and Lemieux. And everyone else. Regardless of what the point totals would be. That gap would still exist.

I think fans who are interested in the history of the game, are aware of who Broten and Ogrodnick are. It is flawed, because it ignored the gap in talent and ability between Gretzky and Lemieux. And everyone else. Regardless of what the point totals would be. That gap would still exist.
- MJL

Its actually an objective comparison of the rate of goals being scored across the league at both periods in time. So why is it flawed in that nature? Forget Gretzky or Lemieux for a minute. Unless your argument is that their presence inflated the numbers alone?

I'm not buying it. It just sounds like a case of "those were the times" syndrome, where people just think these guys are once in a lifetime just because they're going off of pure memory. You can't honestly expect me to believe that not only 1 "once in 50+ years" type player came around in the early 80s, but that a 2nd "once in 50+ years" player came around in the same half decade, and no player in the next 3 or more generations will even come close to them. They were great players, but there ARE players today that can compare to them, and Connor McDavid will be the next one. When he starts to light it up, people with "those were the times" syndrome will berate anyone who compares McDavid to Gretzky and Lemieux. Now I don't know how good McDavid will be in the NHL yet, but I'll go ahead and take a guess that the 16 year old kid who is better than almost any 18 year old player in the world right now will reach the Gretzky-Lemieux area code.
- JAKEw1234

I'll simply say this. If you think that there are players today that can compare to Gretzky and Lemieux. Then you never saw them play. To even suggest that there is, is outrageous. Crosby and Malkin can't even compare to Gretzky and Lemieux.
And I'd be curious for you to expand on your bodyguard and limo theory.

Gretzky and Lemieux's heyday was in the 80's and early 90's. Here we are 20+ years later. And there hasn't been a player close to either.

They said the same thing about Crosby as they are about McDavid. Maybe he'll get there, maybe he won't. But he has to do it first. And you're right, saying he will is just a guess.

Its actually an objective comparison of the rate of goals being scored across the league at both periods in time. So why is it flawed in that nature? Forget Gretzky or Lemieux for a minute. Unless your argument is that their presence inflated the numbers alone?
- Just5

It's flawed because it is a comparison of all the players in the League. I guess if you haven't seen them play, then you can't comprehend how much better they were then everybody else. What everybody else below them scored, is irrelevant. The totals may be less today, for a variety of reasons. But the gap between Gretzky and Lemieux, and the rest of the League. Would still be as large.