Baseball, Football, Basketball, Hockey.

[markf31]

Originally Posted by veloce

I'm OK with saying "Orr is the greatest defenceman" or "Orr redefined the role of defenceman" or "Orr embodies everything great about hockey" or "I wish my daughter would marry Bobby Orr", but to say Orr is better "by a wide margin" over Gretzky is silly. At least keep the forwards, defenceman, and goalies separate.

To claim Lemieux is better due to goal rates is also a bit absurd. Goal rates are skewed towards shorter careers. The fact that Gretzky had a long and productive career with a normal decline phase shouldn't be held against him when comparing to guys like Orr, Bossy, or Lemieux. Also ignoring assists for Gretzky is like ignoring wins for Cy Young or strikeouts for Nolan Ryan. Gretzky had more assists than any other player has had points. Add in the fact that Gretzky has the most goals ever and he has 50% more points than #2 on the list! Lemieux was never going to come close to that even if the game hadn't slowed down after '94. While hockey stats are difficult to adjust for teams and era, I have never seen any analysis that puts Howe and Lemieux ahead over their careers (they do close the gap and Lemieux had a comparable, but shorter peak). Also, saying that Gretzky benefited from playing with great players like Kurri is misleading. Lemieux benefited from playing with Kevin Stevens because any competent linemate is going to benefit you. It is more fair to say Kurri and Stevens benefited from playing with Gretzky and Lemieux. Messier, Coffey, and Gretzky are all great players, but again why penalize Gretzky for capturing the cup with those guys? Of Howe, Gretzky, Lemieux, and Orr, none won the cup in the second half of their careers. Howe and Orr had great teams that couldn't overcome greater Habs teams. Lemieux didn't win until he had some other HOFers surrounding him (Francis, Jagr, Murphy, Coffey, Recchi, Mullen). Although most were not at their peaks, this wasn't a "bunch of wannabees" inspired by Lemieux. Gretzky did carry the '93 Kings to the cup, but lost (as all the greats seem to) to Montreal. Strange that Montreal ended Howe's run in the 50s, Orr's run in the '70s, blocked Gretzky's last cup, and won it immediately after Lemieux's cups.

I totally understand if Howe, Orr, or Lemieux is your favorite hockey player, or if you want to include them in the best ever discussion; but, like Ruth in baseball, Gretzky is the man to beat.

Goal rates are hardly skewed towards shorter careers when you're discussing two players who both played 16+ seasons in the league. While you argue Gretzky's long career shouldn't be held against him neither should then Lemieux's short career. Lemieux played just 915 games while Gretzky played 1482. So it's hardly fair to compare straight raw stats when Lemieux played 516 fewer games, you have to compare points/game and goals/game. You say Lemieux would never come close to Gretzky's numbers if he had played as long, but Lemieux trails Gretzky in points/game by just 0.038 points per game and given a player of Lemieux's pedigree its quite possible he could have come very close to or broken Gretzky's career numbers.

And no one is penalizing Gretzky for playing with the the HOFers but he put up his best numbers in those years, while some of Lemieux's highest point totals came playing on teams WITHOUT Jagr, Francis or Stevens. Lemieux put up 199 points in the 88-89 and single handedly took that team to the playoffs, something Gretzky never had to do in with the 80s Oilers. Lemieux put up over 100 points in each of his first 6 seasons, making the playoffs just once with a Pens team that wallowed in the bottom of the Whales conference.

In Gretzky's last 8 seasons, he scored more than 30 goals just twice and put up over 100 points just twice. I just can't say a player was the best ever when for the last 8 years of his career he was honestly nothing more than average statistically speaking.