Gretzky Over Rated

[BTH]

Bobby Orr!!!!!!!!!

Like I said, if he could score 46 goals and 139 points as a defenceman (with bad knees, etc) could he have scored 92 goals and broken 200 as a forward? No one knows for sure but I think his achievements are the most impressive - not just because he changed the game, but he dominated the game at BOTH ends of the ice. +124 in one season says it all.

[KoZed]

I've never seen Orr play. However I've seen Gretz and Mario in their prime. Gretz is probably the best ever overall; but the most dominant was Mario. When Lemieux turned it on, he was unstoppable. And he didn't have the team Gretz had, or a bodyguard like Semenko. His 1.88 PPG is very close to Greztky's 1.92 but for years Mario was basically alone in Pittsburgh. For half his career Gretz had Kurri, Messier, Anderson, Coffey and Fuhr. Lemieux had Cunneyworth, Bodger, Quinn, Brown and Barasso.

[markierung]

I've never seen Orr play. However I've seen Gretz and Mario in their prime. Gretz is probably the best ever overall; but the most dominant was Mario. When Lemieux turned it on, he was unstoppable. And he didn't have the team Gretz had, or a bodyguard like Semenko. His 1.88 PPG is very close to Greztky's 1.92 but for years Mario was basically alone in Pittsburgh. For half his career Gretz had Kurri, Messier, Anderson, Coffey and Fuhr. Lemieux had Cunneyworth, Bodger, Quinn, Brown and Barasso.

APPLAUSE

[Mils]

I've never seen Orr play. However I've seen Gretz and Mario in their prime. Gretz is probably the best ever overall; but the most dominant was Mario. When Lemieux turned it on, he was unstoppable. And he didn't have the team Gretz had, or a bodyguard like Semenko. His 1.88 PPG is very close to Greztky's 1.92 but for years Mario was basically alone in Pittsburgh. For half his career Gretz had Kurri, Messier, Anderson, Coffey and Fuhr. Lemieux had Cunneyworth, Bodger, Quinn, Brown and Barasso.

I like the bold topics, so they're here again. What's wrong with a little bit of formality on a message board?

Incomplete information: Selective memory, my friend. Be careful. You're forgetting #68 most notably... among some other big names.

--From 1990 until Lemieux left in 1997, the Penguins had Jagr, Francis, Robitaille (1 season), Recchi, Trottier, Coffey, Kovalev, Lang, Nedved, Zubov (1 season), Samuelsson, and Murphy. Not to mention Kevin Stevens, the only first or second team all-star on the 1990-1991 team. Oh yeah... and a coach named Scotty... some of you may have heard of him.

Some quick facts: Jagr was arguably the best player in the NHL for a long time. Bryan Trottier has a total of 7 cup rings, Ron Francis was one of the most underrated players in the history of the game. Petr Nedved (along with Joe Sakic) is creditted with one of the best wrist shots in the NHL. Bryan Trottier was considered one of the best ever until Gretzky came along.

Barrasso: Don't be so quick to hold Fuhr over Barrasso... Barrasso's career numbers suggests he was at least Fuhr's equal as far as goaltending goes.

Fuhr: 3.38 GAA, Save% .887, 403 W in 868 games (.464 win%), 5 cups. http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/players/200/career

Barrasso: 3.25 GAA, Save% .892, 357 W in 743 games (.480 win%) 2 cups. http://espn.go.com/nhl/profiles/stats/career/0097.html

AND IF THAT'S NOT ENOUGH: You're totally ignoring the 8 years in Los Angeles where Gretzky had Robitaille, Kurri, Blake.....and Granato? With goaltending legend Kelly Hrudey in net and coaching disaster Barry Melrose behind the bench (for 3 of those years, I believe).

Conclusion: They both had decent supporting casts. That doesn't clinch the argument against Gretzky. Not a chance.

As for Bobby Orr: It's a tougher argument because he's a defenseman, but longevity plays a part in this discussion undoubtedly. Ask Barry Sanders. I think Gretzky's blinding dominance over the course of 21 seasons (vs. Orr's 12 seasons) alone puts him safely over Orr. Orr may have been the best defenseman ever, but that's also debatable because offense only plays so much in that discussion.

[Pierre the Great]

When I played hockey in the backyard I played myself but wanted to be like Super Mario, the rest wanted to be Hull. Nobody wanted to be Gretzky. If we took a slap shot it was always "be like McInnis!"

When we would play EA hockey, it was always blues (friends and hull scoring all the goals) or me and the penguins with mario scoring all the goals. nobody liked gretzky here even when the blues had him. He was suppose to click with Hull lol, that never happened.

nobody considers kareem the greatest basketball player ever even though he holds the scoring record.

[Mils]

When I played hockey in the backyard I played myself but wanted to be like Super Mario, the rest wanted to be Hull. Nobody wanted to be Gretzky. If we took a slap shot it was always "be like McInnis!"

When we would play EA hockey, it was always blues (friends and hull scoring all the goals) or me and the penguins with mario scoring all the goals. nobody liked gretzky here even when the blues had him. He was suppose to click with Hull lol, that never happened.

nobody considers kareem the greatest basketball player ever even though he holds the scoring record.

"Great story. Compelling... and rich."

-Anchorman

Kareem had to deal with Jordan. There is no comparable force to eclipse Gretzky.

I don't know anyone who wanted to be Brett Hull.

I also never took a slapshot like Marty McInnis.... Al MacInnis maybe.

[Pierre the Great]

its 10:30 i'm talking to a girl on msn, my mind isn't all here at the moment.

I disagree on the comparable force, that force was Lemieux and Gretzky never won a cup after he left edmonton, and as stated before, they won one AFTER he left. So who's to say they they couldn't have won all those cups without him in the first place?

Mario did the cup wins on his own. Jagr was still young and was just a supporting player.

Heck Mario missed a game in the first cup series win and still had 12 points.

I'm still with Mario.

[Mils]

its 10:30 i'm talking to a girl on msn, my mind isn't all here at the moment.

I disagree on the comparable force, that force was Lemieux and Gretzky never won a cup after he left edmonton, and as stated before, they won one AFTER he left. So who's to say they they couldn't have won all those cups without him in the first place?

Mario did the cup wins on his own. Jagr was still young and was just a supporting player.

Heck Mario missed a game in the first cup series win and still had 12 points.

I'm still with Mario.

We have found a fundamental difference of opinion. (And who is surprised? Anyone?)

That's ok.

But you'd better get the girl!!

By the "comparable force" comment, I just meant that Gretzky is the scoring leader, and there is no other player that is widely considered to be the greatest of all time (widely considered being the important part of that). With basketball, Kareem scored the most points, but Jordan is considered the greatest of all time. Just commenting on the difference in situation between Kareem and Wayne.

[Fanpuck33]

I don't know anyone who wanted to be Brett Hull.

Keep in mind, PTG is from St. Louis.

Ron Francis was one of the most underrated players in the history of the game.

No doubt about it. It's really sad how few people realize how good a passer Francis was. On "Stump the Schwab" a couple weeks ago, they were supposed to list the top all-time assist men in the NHL. Not one of them named Francis, despite the fact he's number two on the list.

Back to the main argument here. To say Gretzky is overrated is ridiculous. Whether you like him or not or whether you think he is the best or not, he's in the discussion. Any way you look at it, he is one of the guys you have to consider when asked who is the best ever. Any discussion about the greatest ever without Gretzky part of it is an incomplete discussion.

Now, if you want to throw anyone from this era into that discussion, then yeah, you'd be overrating someone.

[Pierre the Great]

And while everyone wanted to be Brett Hull, I always played like I was on the Penguins.

Mario stood out to me more as a kid. He was bigger (i wasn't tiny), and whenever he'd play the Blue I made damn sure I was listening to the game or if it was a Saturday Night game, I was watching it on KPLR. I never did that with Gretzky, he never appealed to me. I couldn't find anything in common with him. My dad could, because they have the similar build. But I was never "wowed" by Gretzky, ever. Then when my dad I watched a Penguins win over the Blues when the score was like 8 to 1. He was amazed by Mario. And is my dad a hockey fan? No not really. He only watches the Olympic hockey games and is like any St. Louisian when it comes to the blues. If they're really good, he jumps on the bandwagon and starts paying attention. But now the local games are really hard to listen to because Dan Kelly's son is doing the games, he used to work for the Avs. He's down right horrible, and the feed to the hockey games are bad as well. When you watch it, you feel distant, the crowd is muted etc. Typical FSN production. :puke:

Although I did stay up late like every other person in STL, when the Blues announced that Gretzky was coming to town. I thought it was cool, because he was supposedly the greatest, but when he got here, he didn't impress me much. He wasn't "as advertised" in the media. Granted Fuhr got injured in the first round against the Leafs that year. But Gretzky with all his "amazing abilities" still couldn't get the Blues past the Red Wings.

Edited November 14, 2007 by Pierre the Great

[KoZed]

Conclusion: They both had decent supporting casts. That doesn't clinch the argument against Gretzky. Not a chance.

I specificaly mentionned "for half his career", which applies to Gretz in Edmonton and Mario in Pittsburgh. Mario didn't have a decent supporting cast until 6, 7 years into his NHL career. From 84 to about 90, 91 Mario was basicaly alone in Pittsburgh. Just compare the % of his team's total goals. Even when Gretz was getting over 200 pts it still wasnt half the Oilers total goals.

When Mario finally had a decent supporting cast, his back was already wonky from all the abuse he had to suffer when he was the only player worth checking in Pittsburgh.

All that aside, stats aside, hardware aside... Mario could simply overtake a game like no other, not even Gretzky, could. Going end to end with two guys on his back, stuff Gretz never had to deal with.

[markierung]

We have found a fundamental difference of opinion. (And who is surprised? Anyone?)

That's ok.

But you'd better get the girl!!

By the "comparable force" comment, I just meant that Gretzky is the scoring leader, and there is no other player that is widely considered to be the greatest of all time (widely considered being the important part of that). With basketball, Kareem scored the most points, but Jordan is considered the greatest of all time. Just commenting on the difference in situation between Kareem and Wayne.

But there is. When Richard's career was over, He was number one in all of these categories. Why is it that Gretzky's record hole such high esteem over Richards? I'll tell you why, because Gretzky was liked everywhere, especially in the States. And in my opinion, Richard's records are just as important when they were set and he had to deal with people swinging at his head and refs making phantom calls against him.

[Fanpuck33]

But Gretzky with all his "amazing abilities" still couldn't get the Blues past the Red Wings.

Good grief, and you think any other player would have been able to do that? The Blues were terrible that year, they got into the playoffs with a losing record! I mean, what did they have besides Hull and MacInnis? Corson, Courtnall, Noonan, and a raw Chris Pronger. I mean, Gretz played fewer than 20 games for them and still had more points than well over half the team. No single player was gonna make that team suddenly great.

[Mils]

All that aside, stats aside, hardware aside... Mario could simply overtake a game like no other, not even Gretzky, could. Going end to end with two guys on his back, stuff Gretz never had to deal with.

In your opinion.

Gretzky was a playmaker, he made others better. Gretzky didn't have to go the whole way with 2 guys on him becuase he had such better on-ice vision and anticipation than Lemieux.

Everything measurable, including longevity, falls in Gretzky's favor.

[Pierre the Great]

One problem Grant Fuhr was on fire that year, he was having a rebirth. Then Kypreos cheap shot him in the knee and he was done.

Anyway Gretzky wasn't the star he was billed as. He didn't click with Hull. Just like Beckham now in the states. People were thinking he'd be a Pele. Gretzky wasn't Pele-ish. He was just liked, because he married a local girl. I repeat to hockey players don't marry girls from saint louis. they're nuts.

[Mils]

Why is it that Gretzky's record hole such high esteem over Richards?

Because Gretzky flat clobbered Richard.

[Pierre the Great]

Ignoring Records this is why I think Richard is more important the Gretzky. Richard rose above the game.

did Gretzky ever cause riots?

Did Gretzky fuel growing movement of nationalism?

Did Gretzky ever be a catalyst for political and social change?

Is Gretzky a sports icon that was bigger to the game and a symbol of a movement?

Will Gretzky get a state funeral?

[markierung]

Because Gretzky flat clobbered Richard.

But they playes in a totally different time period with a different style of play.

Scoring was much harder in teh Richard years than in Gretzky's time.

It's like you comparing Boxer's in different weight divisions. Obviously a heavyweight would kill a lightweight. Boxer's are rated in Pound for Pound. The same thing applies for time periods in hockey.

[BTH]

Orr may have been the best defenseman ever, but that's also debatable because offense only plays so much in that discussion.

That's ridiculous for so many reasons. Anyways, from all the people who actually HAVE seen Orr play (none of us), they mostly seem to find him better than Gretzky - including editor of the sports section of the Gazette, Stu Cowan and the Living Legend of Sports Journalism, Red Fisher.

[Mils]

Ignoring Records this is why I think Richard is more important the Gretzky. Richard rose above the game.

did Gretzky ever cause riots?

Did Gretzky fuel growing movement of nationalism?

Did Gretzky ever be a catalyst for political and social change?

Is Gretzky a sports icon that was bigger to the game and a symbol of a movement?

Will Gretzky get a state funeral?

Once again, you might be right about what you're implying, but none of that has anything to do with who the greatest hockey player of all time is. Political clout does not equal greatness. (See: George Bush. Politically powerful, few would consider him great.)

Plus, you can't back any of that up with anything other than your opinion. I know you don't feel constrained by that notion, but it's true.

BTH: I found your argument to be eloquent and well thought-out "That's ridiculous... anyway." Defensemen play defense. Their offensive skill is not the crux of the argument. Judging defensemen by how well they play offense is ridiculous. That's the equivalent of saying that Ron Hextall was the greatest goaltender ever becuase he scored two goals.

But they playes in a totally different time period with a different style of play.

Scoring was much harder in teh Richard years than in Gretzky's time.

It's like you comparing Boxer's in different weight divisions. Obviously a heavyweight would kill a lightweight. Boxer's are rated in Pound for Pound. The same thing applies for time periods in hockey.

How was it harder to score? The nets were the same size, the defensemen were not as big or as good, and the goalies were tiny and almost exclusively played stand-up. How is that tougher? If a guy with Gretzky's vision and passing ability played in Richard's era, he'd have had a 3.5 PPG average.

There's also a problem with your "they don't compare" argument. Where does it end? I can't compare guys who played 40 years apart. Can I compare guys who played 5 years apart? What about 10? If that's the case, then I probably wouldn't be allowed to make any comparisons whatsoever between Paul Stastny and Wayne Gretzky (I'm NOT comparing the two, just drawing an illustration). If 10 years is ok, what about 15? Is 20 years the cut-off? It's not like they played hockey for a few years back in the 40s, and then left and came back in the 80s, it's not that black and white.

[Pierre the Great]

That's not my personal opinion. While Richard isn't solely responsible for the The Quiet Revolution, he's a tiny part of it and that's not me talking, that's historians.

Like I said pages earlier to me the greatest have to either cause change within the game or sometimes be bigger then just a game. Richard's life certainly qualifies for both.

Ali wasn't just a boxer he was also a symbol of a movement.

Aaron didn't just hit home runs. He bridged racial gaps.

Jim Brown didn't just clobber opponents on the field.

Jesse Owens is considered the greatest runner ever and a lot it is also what he personally did, in front of hitler in berlin.

Roberto Clemente is considered the greatest hispanic baseball player of all time. For more reasons then just baseball

Jim Thorpe, who was a champion when people of native american ancestry were treated horribly and weren't even considered citizens of the US and didn't get the right to vote until the civil rights act.

Richard's is in another stratosphere compared to Gretzky. He always will be. A lot of that has to do with the sign of the times but Richards is the group above. They have there own special category.

Edited November 14, 2007 by Pierre the Great

[jetsniper]

BTH: I found your argument to be eloquent and well thought-out "That's ridiculous... anyway." Defensemen play defense. Their offensive skill is not the crux of the argument. Judging defensemen by how well they play offense is ridiculous. That's the equivalent of saying that Ron Hextall was the greatest goaltender ever becuase he scored two goals.

Thanks for helping the Orr argument, Mils.

Actually, I've seen Orr play. A lot. (and I don't mean those stupid legends games, actual footage of when he was in his prime). So I resent being a Grapes sheep or anything to do with how young I am. The man went into the Hall of Fame at the age of 31. Most players are just entering their prime at that time. You can't knock a guy because his body didn't hold up, that has absolutely nothing to do with his talent level. Obviously as a defenseman, his body is going to take more of a beating then someone like Gretzky. One look at his +/- stats is all you need to judge him by his defensive abilties.

This is just so pointless though because it's such a personal preference kind of thing. How many guys have been mentioned? 4? They all of have stats and the talent level to back up the claim that they were the best player ever. It just depends what the person values most in a hockey player. As for me:

1. Orr

2. Gretz

3. Lemieux

[BTH]

BTH: I found your argument to be eloquent and well thought-out "That's ridiculous... anyway." Defensemen play defense. Their offensive skill is not the crux of the argument. Judging defensemen by how well they play offense is ridiculous. That's the equivalent of saying that Ron Hextall was the greatest goaltender ever becuase he scored two goals.

No, it's really not. You're Hextall analogy is totally offbase and you know it so there was really no point using it.

Defenceman are judged on both their offensive and defensive skills, and even if they WERE judged solely on their defensive skills (which you'd have to be literally crazy to believe), Orr would still probably be the best defenceman of all time so the argument really holds no water at all. The fact is that Orr is arguably as good as Gretzky offensively (if Gretzky played defence, would he have been able to put up Orr's numbers? If Orr played forward could he have put up Gretzky's numbers? I think the answers are "no" and "maybe" respectively) but undisputably better defensively.

"Judging defensemen by how well they play offense is ridiculous"

Then maybe you don't understand how hockey works? You judge both forwards and defenceman on their play at both ends of the rink. By your logic, Gainey was a terrible forward because he couldn't even score 20 goals regularly and guys like Al MacInnis suck because all they could do was put up points but couldn't dominate in their own zone.

Seriously, if you have nothing to say, say nothing, don't make up bullshit to justify your blind love of Gretzky. If I now brought up a random player who you'd never heard of before who'd tripled all of Gretzky's scoring records while playing goalie, you would still make excuses for Gretzky. It's okay to think he was the best, but you really seem like a blind supporter.

[Zowpeb]

That's not my personal opinion. While Richard isn't solely responsible for the The Quiet Revolution, he's a tiny part of it and that's not me talking, that's historians.

Like I said pages earlier to me the greatest have to either cause change within the game or sometimes be bigger then just a game. Richard's life certainly qualifies for both.

Ali wasn't just a boxer he was also a symbol of a movement.

Aaron didn't just hit home runs. He bridged racial gaps.

Jim Brown didn't just clobber opponents on the field.

Jesse Owens is considered the greatest runner ever and a lot it is also what he personally did, in front of hitler in berlin.

Roberto Clemente is considered the greatest hispanic baseball player of all time. For more reasons then just baseball

Jim Thorpe, who was a champion when people of native american ancestry were treated horribly and weren't even considered citizens of the US and didn't get the right to vote until the civil rights act.

Richard's is in another stratosphere compared to Gretzky. He always will be. A lot of that has to do with the sign of the times but Richards is the group above. They have there own special category.

While that may have made him a more important figure it still does not mean he was a better hockey player...which is the actual discussion everyone else is having.

I've seen a lot of old tapes of Orr and many others...Orr was very good.

I'd take Gretzky every day of the week.

I don't buy the argument of "what would Orr have done as a forward"...Orr practically was another forward on the ice.

He also had the benefit early on of playing a style that required people to adapt to...but either way, he's right up there.

However, you just can't discount Gretzky's pure dominance. I don't care about era's and how the game changed. Dominance is relative to the talent around you...he was so far beyond everyone else on the ice in terms of production that you simply can not compare ANYONE to him. Orr and Lemiuex are very close seconds. The issue with both is longevity and as a result Gordie Howe creeps his way into the same bracket as Orr and Lemieux even though both Orr and Lemieux were actually better players IMO they couldn't sustain it. That may not be their fault, could be organizational...but either way it has to be factored in.

For some reason Orr was a widely loved player by the entire hockey community but in the 80's there were a LOT of people who didn't like Gretzky...especially from people who were big fans of the 70's style of game, Orr and Bossy(who was da man before Gretzky usurped him IMO). These people still hate Gretzky and his accomplishments for some reason...I really don't understand it. I'll even admit I didn't think a tonne of Gretzky or the Oilers...but I'll give the guy credit, he was an absolute monster. Just look at the hardware(Art Ross, Hart, etc), all star appearances, rings, etc...no one can match what he did consistently for almost his entire career. He could probably still lace up the skates and score more then half the current Habs roster.

[Zowpeb]

No, it's really not. You're Hextall analogy is totally offbase and you know it so there was really no point using it.

Defenceman are judged on both their offensive and defensive skills, and even if they WERE judged solely on their defensive skills (which you'd have to be literally crazy to believe), Orr would still probably be the best defenceman of all time so the argument really holds no water at all. The fact is that Orr is arguably as good as Gretzky offensively (if Gretzky played defence, would he have been able to put up Orr's numbers? If Orr played forward could he have put up Gretzky's numbers? I think the answers are "no" and "maybe" respectively) but undisputably better defensively.

"Judging defensemen by how well they play offense is ridiculous"

Then maybe you don't understand how hockey works? You judge both forwards and defenceman on their play at both ends of the rink. By your logic, Gainey was a terrible forward because he couldn't even score 20 goals regularly and guys like Al MacInnis suck because all they could do was put up points but couldn't dominate in their own zone.

Seriously, if you have nothing to say, say nothing, don't make up bullshit to justify your blind love of Gretzky. If I now brought up a random player who you'd never heard of before who'd tripled all of Gretzky's scoring records while playing goalie, you would still make excuses for Gretzky. It's okay to think he was the best, but you really seem like a blind supporter.

How much weight do you put on the longevity of Orr's career?

How much better was Orr then Harvey?

Why would Orr have scored more as a forward?? He was practically a 4th forward anyways...plus, he essentially recreated a style of play that no one was prepared to play or coach against. He would not have had that luxury as a forward...jmho.

Gretzky outscored everyone in his era by a ridiculous amount...like an adult playing with teenagers.

Orr clearly dominated but I don't think it's at that same level of dominance.

I'll grant you that it's a difficult argument comparing a d-man to a forward, and considering the era and Orr's limited career due to bad knees. Personally, I consider his shortened career and the fact that he didn't dominate as clearly as Gretzky to be the key factors why Gretzky ranks ahead of Orr. And I don't think that diminishes Orr's accomplishments one bit...