Fanpuck33 Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 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. Exactly. Jackie Robinson wasn't thrown up on a "best ever" pedestal because of his impact on society. While I love the Rocket, you can't throw any anything other than hockey-related stuff when discussing whether he was the greatest of all time. Plus, you're out in left field on that one, not even Habs fans claim Richard was better than Howe, Gretzky, Orr, or Lemieux. Jim Brown didn't just clobber opponents on the field. You're right, he also clobbered his wife. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTH Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 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... Well, the length of his career doesn't have much to do with how good a hockey player is. If you're talking about how great a hockey player is then maybe. But if that's the argument than Richard was a "greater" player than Gretzky, just not as good. Orr was the most dominant offensively and the most dominant defensively. I don't believe Harvey ever came near his offensive production, while still being a bit worse in his own zone. Orr would have scored more as a forward because he wouldn't have had as much responsibility on him to come back and play defence (which he did). He could have lead the rush with more ease knowing that he didn't have to play it safe and return to his own end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mils Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 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. Your intelligent discussion is truly enlightening. You have undoubtedly put me in my place. I guess I am just a blind supporter. Can you forgive me BTH?! I desperately need your approval. Try this: Next time you're compelled to unleash an amateurish, little-boy rant like this one, take a few seconds to actually read what I said. If you can't read, then maybe this isn't the place for you. I disagree with PTG most of the time, but at least he sounds like he knows what he's talking about some of the time. I'm glad you're in the minority of people who takes hockey discussions as an affront to his identity. Edit: I forgot the requisite eye-roll, the final show of intelligence and originality. (That's a shout out to you, BTH. ) There it is. #99: Best ever. Mils: Checking out!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTH Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 I seem to have touched a nerve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33 Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 I seem to have touched a nerve. Perhaps because you were being a jerk? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markierung Posted November 14, 2007 Author Share Posted November 14, 2007 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. If you had properly read the opening comments, you would have realised that i have already explained this. 1. Flat Blade Sticks 2. Defensemen didn't join the rush as often 3. Richard had players SWINGING STICKS AT HIS HEAD 4. Star players had to defend themselves. Guys like Richard and Howe had to fight for themselves, spending more time in the box, giving them less time to score. 5. Although you say Gretzky had to deal with clutching and grabbing, you can't tell me that it was the same as in the 40's and 50's. There are stories of how richard had to carry a 200 pound Red Wings D-Man literrally on his back to score a goal on a breakaway. I never said you can't compare. But point totals cannot be compared over time periods. I think many would argue that Babe Ruth is the best pure slugger of all time. It is rare that Hank Aron is held in higher regard, even though he has over 100 more HR. It's due to dominance in relation to the players around you and the style of play. If you look at the facts, Richard had pt totals that were just as dominant as Gretzky's were in his days. The difference: Richard played in a more violent environment, with many more obstacles than Gretzky. ex. Refs, crazy bloodthirsty Bruin players etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33 Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 If you had properly read the opening comments, you would have realised that i have already explained this. And if you had properly read my comments about goalies, you'd have realized that I have already explained this. And the goalie equipment was small and the goalies were just starting to use masks. Goalies almost never went down on their knees to make saves, they played goalie standing up. The game has come a long way, but not only for the scorers. Also, comparing point totals for Gretzky and Richard doesn't exactly benefit Richard. Richard was a scorer, plain and simple. Only four times in his career did Rocket had more assists than goals. Richard was a great scorer and one tough son of a gun, but he wasn't an elite passer. Gretzky was an elite scorer and the best passer of all time. Did he have Richard's or Howe's toughness? Of course not. But that doesn't mean he was a lesser hockey player. Orr is the best defenseman ever. Howe is the best all around hockey player ever. Richard is the best pure scorer ever. Gretzky is the best playmaker ever. Mario is the best of the rest, not the best in any one category but very close in nearly all of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markierung Posted November 14, 2007 Author Share Posted November 14, 2007 And if you had properly read my comments about goalies, you'd have realized that I have already explained this. Also, comparing point totals for Gretzky and Richard doesn't exactly benefit Richard. Richard was a scorer, plain and simple. Only four times in his career did Rocket had more assists than goals. Richard was a great scorer and one tough son of a gun, but he wasn't an elite passer. Gretzky was an elite scorer and the best passer of all time. Did he have Richard's or Howe's toughness? Of course not. But that doesn't mean he was a lesser hockey player. Orr is the best defenseman ever. Howe is the best all around hockey player ever. Richard is the best pure scorer ever. Gretzky is the best playmaker ever. Mario is the best of the rest, not the best in any one category but very close in nearly all of them. I wasn't making a coment on anything you said. Also, i hate the arguement that he was only the best pure scorer. Simply him having years where he did have more assists then goals, and was tops the league in points, proves that he was an elite passer. He's not simply a scorer because he scores more goals then assists on them. If I had a shot like Richard, i would shoot more to. Him scoring more goals is probably more him making the best decision to shoot rather than pass. And if you had properly read my comments about goalies, you'd have realized that I have already explained this. Also, comparing point totals for Gretzky and Richard doesn't exactly benefit Richard. Richard was a scorer, plain and simple. Only four times in his career did Rocket had more assists than goals. Richard was a great scorer and one tough son of a gun, but he wasn't an elite passer. Gretzky was an elite scorer and the best passer of all time. Did he have Richard's or Howe's toughness? Of course not. But that doesn't mean he was a lesser hockey player. Orr is the best defenseman ever. Howe is the best all around hockey player ever. Richard is the best pure scorer ever. Gretzky is the best playmaker ever. Mario is the best of the rest, not the best in any one category but very close in nearly all of them. Also, you just proves my point. You say he was the best playmaker ever. Perhaps you're right. I have no problem accepting this. I am trying to argue that he is not the best player ever. Him being the best playmaker doesn't make him the best ever, and certainly doesn't warrent a league wide jersey retirement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33 Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 I wasn't making a comment on anything you said. I never said you did. I was simply pointing out that I already addressed a point that you were trying to make again, without having responded to mine in the first place. Also, i hate the arguement that he was only the best pure scorer. Simply him having years where he did have more assists then goals, and was tops the league in points, proves that he was an elite passer. He's not simply a scorer because he scores more goals then assists on them. If I had a shot like Richard, i would shoot more to. Him scoring more goals is probably more him making the best decision to shoot rather than pass. I would too, but the fact he had more assists than goals four times doesn't say anything about his passing. Pavel Bure had some season where he had more assists than goals, I don't think you'll hear anyone argue he was a great passer. Not being an elite passer doesn't take anything at all away from what he was, an all-time great hockey player. Also, you brought up the teammates Gretzky have. How about the teammates Richard had? I mean, he played on a line with Beliveau and Boom Boom for goodness sakes! Also, you just proves my point. You say he was the best playmaker ever. Perhaps you're right. I have no problem accepting this. I am trying to argue that he is not the best player ever. Him being the best playmaker doesn't make him the best ever, and certainly doesn't warrent a league wide jersey retirement. And what I have been trying to say all along is that just because some people think he is the best ever doesn't mean he's overrated. It's a subjective thing. Just because you don't think he's the best doesn't mean other can't think that. He's obviously one of a handful of people worthy of being in the conversation. As for retiring his number league-wide, no player in league history had as much impact on the popularity of the sport. Before Gretzky, the only thing most Americans could tell you about hockey was that in 1980 we beat the Commies. For better or for worse, it's nearly impossible to deny his impact on the league. Yes, Orr changed the way the defensive position was played and other players may have had social impacts, but when it comes to the NHL as a league, Gretzky led to rule changes, all-time high popularity leaguewide, and expansion. Without Gretzky, it is extremely unlikely that youth and high school hockey would have developed as much as it has. Most kids in the states who liked hockey idolized him over guys like Lemieux, even though he was right up there with Gretzky. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markierung Posted November 15, 2007 Author Share Posted November 15, 2007 I agree that he did a lot for the USA. But not in the traditional hockey markets. The Bruins, Hawks, Rangers, and wings fans all had their own stars and hockey was huge their long before Gretzky. The Pens had Mario. The Islanders had Bossy that they went nuts for. Minnesota was always a hockey market. I agree that Gretzky helped to expand the game, but mostly in the Sunny states. Hockey was perfectly popular enough in the North East. Gretzky made many American fans (and rest assured that i'm not accusing the posters on this site) think of hockey as purely a game of offense and good looking sexy hockey. Now that it isn't there to the same degree, many fans from the Sun belt tend to disappear. I don't think inspiring hockey in California warrents having your jersey retired. Who cares if he made the game more popular. It was fine the way it was. And did he really have that big an effect. The way i see it, the NHL has been diluted ever since they went over 24 teams Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33 Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 That's why I said for better or for worse. Either he, he was a huge part of the league changing over the years. Forget his importance to the sport, his importance to the league is unmatched. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mils Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 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. Check out Cimilluca's second bit under "Is Mike Modano the greatest American born player?" (The part about Chelios specifically.) How I would love to see your reaction in person. http://cbs.sportsline.com/nhl/story/10473336/rss The gretzky argument has become rhetorical and disinteresting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markierung Posted November 15, 2007 Author Share Posted November 15, 2007 So we call truce and make and American player thread? lol or a best D-Man thread? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mils Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 So we call truce and make and American player thread? lol or a best D-Man thread? Fine by me. I see you started the thread already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTH Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 Check out Cimilluca's second bit under "Is Mike Modano the greatest American born player?" (The part about Chelios specifically.) How I would love to see your reaction in person. http://cbs.sportsline.com/nhl/story/10473336/rss The gretzky argument has become rhetorical and disinteresting. I don't disagree with what the guy is saying (not that an analyst saying Chelios is great makes it absolutely true). "...no player born of red, white and blue has made such a significant mark on the game over a career as long as Chelios" The key there is "over a career as long as Chelios" - Bobby Orr's career was half as long as Chelios'. For another thing, the writer clearly says "player born of red, white and blue," referring only to American defenceman. Again, I agree with this - Chelios has had one of the greatest careers of all American defenceman. Orr was a Canadian from Ontario. There was one other quote you could have been referring to - where the writer says that when Chelios is retired he might be seen as one of the greatest defenceman ever. Again, I agree - what's the conflict? He never once says Chelios is a candidate for THE best, just one of the best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mils Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 I read Cimirulla's (whatever his name is) comment as saying that Chelios was the best. But you're right, he said "one of the best." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.