The Great One: Andrew, are you okay? Are you okay, Andrew?

Jason Gregor
May 21 2010 09:30AM

Gillette - EA SPORTS Champions Of Gaming Global Finals

There are days when I really wonder if people just write things to be different or if they truly believe them.

This staggering comment was posted by Andrew yesterday in JW’s article on Sam Gagner.

“I will never understand why every hockey fan looks at Gretzky through rose colored glasses and I didn't say he isn't a great player, he definitely is. But his numbers are incredibly inflated due to the era he played in and due to the aforementioned reasons in my previous post. Look at his numbers near the end of his career. He had a 97, 90, and 62 point campaigns in his final three years and he didn't lose a step either as he was always more cerebral than talented. Those point totals were very good considering the NHL was entering the trap and clutch era during his final years in the league. Once again Gretzky is a great player who deserves to be on the top 100 players of all time. He just isn't the greatest player in history.”

Having an opinion is great, but when you are so far off in your assessment it needs to be pointed out.

How can you suggest Gretzky’s point totals were inflated? Didn’t every other player who played in that era have the same chance to score? Of course they did, but shockingly enough they couldn’t produce as well as Gretzky. Yes the 1980’s were the supposed open era, but was it really that much more open than the 1970s?

Gretzky dominated the game like no one else had before, except maybe Bobby Orr, but Orr never did it for as long.

The fairest way to compare players from era-to-era is to compare how they fared against the other players in their respective seasons.

  • In 1941, Bill Cowley led the NHL in scoring with 62 points in 46 games. Five players finished tied for second with 44 points. He had more assists, 45, than anyone had points. He scored 18 more points than anyone else.
  • In 1951, Gordie Howe topped that by winning the scoring race by 20 points. In 1953 he potted 95 points for a 24-point cushion over Ted Lindsay.
  • The only other players to win the scoring race by more than 20 points were:
  • 1970, Bobby Orr finished with 120, 21 ahead of Phil Esposito.
  • 1973, Esposito tallied 130, 26 ahead of Bobby Clarke.
  • 1974, Esposito finished with 145, 23 ahead of Orr.
  • 1989, Mario Lemieux potted 199, 31 ahead of Gretzky. *** In 1993, Lemieux finished 12 points ahead of Pat Lafontaine, but Lemieux scored 160 in only 60 games. Had he played even ten more games he would have easily finished 20+ ahead.***
  • 1999, Jaromir Jagr scored 127 points, exactly 20 ahead of Teemu Selanne.

Now let’s look at the ~over-rated~ Wayne Gretzky.

His rookie season he tied Marcel Dionne in scoring with 137 points, but lost due to fewer goals. For the next seven years he dominated the game like no other has before, or ever will again.

  • 1981, Gretzky potted 164 points, 29 better than Dionne.
  • 1982, Gretzky tallied 212 points, 65 more than Mike Bossy.
  • 1983, Gretzky finished with 196, a whopping 72 more than Peter Stastny.
  • 1984, Gretzky ended with 205 points, only 79 more than Paul Coffey.
  • 1985, Gretz picked up 208 points, good for a 73 point cushion on Jari Kurri.
  • 1986, Gretz set a league record with 215, 74 more than Mario Lemieux.
  • 1987, He dipped to a measly 183, 75 points better than Kurri.
  • And in his 12th year in the league in 1991, he finished with 163, 32 better than Brett Hull.

So please, dear Andrew, explain to me how Gretzky’s points were inflated? Maybe take a second and re-read the previous bullet points, and notice how much better he was than anyone else on the ice when he played.

Before he entered the league here are the scoring leaders from the previous ten years and how many games each team played.

  • 1979 (80 games) ­-- Bryan Trottier, 134 points
  • 1978 (80 games) – Guy Lafleur, 132
  • 1977 (80 games) – Guy Lafleur, 136
  • 1976 (80 games) – Guy Lafleur, 125
  • 1975 (80 games) – Bobby Orr, 135
  • 1974 (78 games) – Phil Esposito, 145
  • 1973 (78 games) – Esposito, 130
  • 1972 (78 games) – Esposito, 133
  • 1971 (78 games) – Esposito, 152
  • 1970 (76 games) – Orr, 120

So clearly the game somehow changed overnight in the 1980s, and they must have stopped playing 1970s type of defence.

Anyone who suggest Gretzky’s totals were inflated wasn’t paying attention, or isn’t smart enough to realize how much better he was than anyone else. Look at the point totals of the second place finishers in his first eight seasons, 137, 135, 147, 124, 126, 135, 141 and 108. Do any of those numbers look that much better than the leaders in 1970?

Gretzky dominated his era more than any player in the history of the game, and to suggest he isn’t the greatest of all-time is so ignorant and uninformed I couldn’t ignore it.

We can argue and debate the merits of Hall/Seguin or Ovechkin/Crosby and both sides will have valid points, but, outside of Bobby Orr, there is nothing that proves why Gretzky wasn’t the greatest. The only player who you can even consider is Bobby Orr when you compare his numbers to other D-men in his era.

And your point that Gretzky’s last three seasons were “okay” once again doesn’t do him justice. In this 18th season he scored 97 points, only Teemu Selanne (109) and Mario Lemieux (122) had over a hundred. In his 19th season he scored 90 points, tied for third in the league with Pavel Bure, one behind Peter Forsberg and only 12 back of Jaromir Jagr. Even in his late 30’s he kept up with guys 10 to 12 years his junior.

And stating that Gretzky didn’t lose a step would suggest he was one of the most fine-tuned specimens the game has ever seen, because I don’t know any professional player who is as quick or as strong in his late 30s as he was in his early 20s.

Andrew also added this startling piece:

“I do have to say that Gretzky wasn’t that great of a player if you broke him down. He had an average shot, even for back in his playing days. He didn’t skate particularly well, and he wasn’t strong on the puck. He had the benefit of playing during an era where physical play was almost non existent and he was protected by his team and the league as they had him as the NHL’s poster boy. He also did think the game really well but in today’s game Gretzky would probably be scoring at the rate he was going near the tail end of his career. A 70-80 point playmaking center who would be capable of 15-25 goals. Which isn’t exactly anything to scoff at as he would be a top 6 forward. Just not as blown up as a “generational player”. PS. Lemieux, Francis, Lafontaine, Hawerchuk, etc were all better players.”

Yes Andrew, he had an average shot that somehow allowed him to score 894 goals, and he was such a bad skater, that he rarely got caught from behind when he smelled an opening.

And the '80s weren’t physical at all. There weren’t line brawls, or head shots or errant elbows. In fact, no one hit Gretzky because John Ziegler sent out a memo to all teams not to touch him for fear of a lifetime ban from the game.

And the league wanted him to dominate more than anyone else, because Edmonton, one of the smallest markets in the league needed to be the most popular. The NHL wanted one of the WHA castoffs to come in and dominate their league. Yes, the league’s grand plan was to put Edmonton on the map.

And you are correct that he would only be a 70-80 point player, even though he only dipped that low once, when he wasn’t injured, in his 20-year career.

Thanks for the astute and accurate points.

*** Sidenote, if any of you are interested, Tyler Seguin will be on my show today at 3:10 MST. Listen at TEAM 1260 or online at www.justagame.ca ***

Ddf3e2ba09069c465299f3c416e43eae
One of Canada's most versatile sports personalities. Jason hosts The Jason Gregor Show, weekdays from 2 to 6 p.m., on TSN 1260, and he writes a column every Monday in the Edmonton Journal. You can follow him on Twitter at twitter.com/JasonGregor
Avatar
#101 roger
May 21 2010, 05:10PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Oil Kings 'n' Pretty Things wrote:

Doesn't surprise me that Webster says it's a word. Didn't they canonize "meh" and "d'oh" in recent years?

Quick note:

In any kind of academic writing, don't reference Webster. Oxford is the English dictionary.

it's not like i am using readers digest as a medical reference, come on there is nothing the matter with using webster's dictionary as reference over oxford irregardless of what you say.

oxford compact dictionary:

irregardless- adjective & adverb informal regardless.

nowhere does it say it is not recognized as a word. but i am sure someone will endeavour to prove me wrong, irregardless i will continue to use it in polite conversation.

Avatar
#102 cableguy - 2nd Tier Fan
May 21 2010, 05:37PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
roger wrote:

it's not like i am using readers digest as a medical reference, come on there is nothing the matter with using webster's dictionary as reference over oxford irregardless of what you say.

oxford compact dictionary:

irregardless- adjective & adverb informal regardless.

nowhere does it say it is not recognized as a word. but i am sure someone will endeavour to prove me wrong, irregardless i will continue to use it in polite conversation.

you should see if there are forums there. maybe they will give a s***, cause i sure dont

Avatar
#103 roger
May 21 2010, 05:42PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
cableguy - 2nd Tier Fan wrote:

you should see if there are forums there. maybe they will give a s***, cause i sure dont

ooohh please stop you are hurting my feelings.

Avatar
#104 Jaime
May 21 2010, 08:02PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Did you really need to validate Andrew's dumb comments with an entire article? If I went and said 'Jason Gregor is a poo poo head' would you write a response to that?

Avatar
#105 Puritania
May 21 2010, 11:55PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Jaime wrote:

Did you really need to validate Andrew's dumb comments with an entire article? If I went and said 'Jason Gregor is a poo poo head' would you write a response to that?

I strongly object to that foul, horrid statement. yo Gregs (yeah I call him Gregs, we're tight like that.) Time to write Jaime into an early grave!

Avatar
#106 OB1 Team Yakopov - F.S.T.N.F
May 22 2010, 09:57AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Great write up Gregor! Their are alot of "Andrews" at the nation, and this is probably the best way to deal with them.

Avatar
#108 rubbertrout
May 22 2010, 11:53AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@Jason Gregor

As surprising as it is, I'm in total agreement with Gregor on this one. Of course it is tough to go wrong with a comment like "Gretzky was the best".

Of course, because I'm a contrarian prick, and because Gregor took the time to specifically call someone out on it, I feel compelled to point this out:

ir·re·gard·less   [ir-i-gahrd-lis] Show IPA

–adverbNonstandard.

regardless.

Origin:

1910–15; ir-2 (prob. after irrespective) + regardless

—Can be confused: irregardless, regardless (see usage note at this entry).

—Usage note

Irregardless is considered nonstandard because of the two negative elements ir- and -less. It was probably formed on the analogy of such words as irrespective, irrelevant, and irreparable. Those who use it, including on occasion educated speakers, may do so from a desire to add emphasis. Irregardless first appeared in the early 20th century and was perhaps popularized by its use in a comic radio program of the 1930s.

Dictionary.com Unabridged

Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010.

If you really feel the need to crack down on someone for how they post as opposed to what they post make sure you have your facts straight.

Avatar
#111 rubbertrout
May 22 2010, 12:14PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@Jason Gregor

"Bootylicious" is in the Oxford English Dictionary as a word. Words get added to the dictionary all the time through usage. That is how language evolves otherwise we'd be saying "forsooth" and "ye" as part of our day to day language.

The fact that there isn't a different definition doesn't mean that it isn't a word. "Scary" and "frightening" have the same definition but I don't think anyone would actually say that one isn't proper just because people use it. It isn't the first word I'd use but I'm not the one suggesting people are dumb for using it either.

All I was saying is before you crack down on someone for the way he writes you might want to fact check a little. Of course there is usually more than enough idiocy in the content of most of our comments so you can cut us down for that in any event :)

Just hasslin' you buddy. As I said, I'm a contrarian prick.

Avatar
#113 Archaeologuy
May 22 2010, 12:51PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@Jason Gregor

English is such a bastard language that adding new words isnt that hard. My better half is always telling me that "Winningest" is not a word. Whenever someone says "Goalie X is the winningest goalie of all-time" she goes off on a tirade.

I go with, "If someone else understands what the word means, then it's a word." Once meaning is conveyed the job is done. But yeah, not exactly proper English.

Avatar
#114 Beemer
May 22 2010, 01:12PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Good on you Gregor! This guy's off his rocker. I watched Gretzky in his prime. There was no one like him.

For some insight into the 'era' take a look at Super Mario's numbers. His last big Season was in 1995 where he had 170 pts in 60 games. From there, he had a decade of health issues that should have kept him off the golf course, let alone the rink. Yet, in 2005, he came back and played 26 games on one of the worst teams in NHL history and was still just shy of a point a game.

Grab a brain fella. Gretzky was the best there ever was.

Avatar
#115 rubbertrout
May 22 2010, 01:57PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

The definition of "irregardless" is "regardless". Same meaning but a different word just used for emphasis

its kind of like "inflammable" and "flammable". Identical meaning but different word. The irony there is that "inflammable" is the one that is considered to be the "proper" word and yet everyone says "flammable".

What more would you expect from a language that doesn't spell the word "phonetic" the way it sounds?

Avatar
#117 RossCreekNation
May 22 2010, 02:37PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@ (Ogden) rubbertrout & Jason Gregor

Pssssst! There's an NHL playoff game on ;-)

Avatar
#118 rubbertrout
May 22 2010, 02:41PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

@Jason Gregor

@RossCreek

Fair points for both of you. I'm going to walk my dog.

Avatar
#119 roger
May 22 2010, 05:29PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Jason Gregor wrote:

It is improper English. Just because dictionary.com says people use it, doesn't make it correct.

Can you find what the difference is between regardless and irregardless? Do they mean something different, otherwise it was just a word that was made up. Happens all the time, but doesn't mean it is correct.

Do you see a definition in anything you posted? I don't so I don't see how it is proper English.

look up Sycophant.

Avatar
#120 roger
May 22 2010, 05:31PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Jason Gregor wrote:

But Ir and less is the issue with irregardless. They both imply negative elements.

Inflammable and flammable don't fall into same category.

***Has to re-think my life if I'm debating grammar on a saturday afternoon on an hockey site***

it was not used incorrectly, your reference source points in the direction you are leading mine in another, but of course you must be right. arrogance and ignorance must be a heavy burden.

Avatar
#121 Puritania
May 22 2010, 07:07PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Grr I'm so mad! grr

Avatar
#122 TigerUnderGlass
May 22 2010, 09:36PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
roger wrote:

it was not used incorrectly, your reference source points in the direction you are leading mine in another, but of course you must be right. arrogance and ignorance must be a heavy burden.

Did the source you linked not tell us to "Use regardless" instead?

Avatar
#124 roger
May 23 2010, 10:40PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Jason Gregor wrote:

All I asked was to show me the definition? You didn't. It's not arrogant or ignorance on my part. You are the one you misuses the word. Thought I'd help you out. If not, go on saying the wrong word. You can argue it's technically a word, but even the definition of the word suggests using regardless. Not sure what part you don't see.

the definition has already been shown with the link provided earlier, you chose to ignore it. here is the link again.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless

please tell me where it states it is not a word. if you chose to dispute webster's as a credible source please provide evidence as to why it lacks credibility. saying oxford is the most widely used does nothing to discredit webster's, and their use of colloquialisms doesn't diminish their credibility either.

Avatar
#125 brucechris
May 24 2010, 10:50AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

Guys. Irregardless isn't a word. Widespread misuse does not a proper word make. Just like "addicting". Get over the fact that some people here paid better attention than you in English class.

Can we please talk about hockey again?

Avatar
#127 roger
May 24 2010, 09:17PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers
Jason Gregor wrote:

The link you provided evens states USE regardless instead. Which part of that didn't YOU get.

but if you recall your argument was that is was not a word, which webster's clearly states it is, is that not correct?

Avatar
#128 RossCreekNation
May 24 2010, 09:37PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Cheers
0
cheers

/Thread

Comments are closed for this article.