Baseball, Football, Basketball, Hockey.

[Greg Sonk]

Baseball: Ruth/Cobb
Basketball: Jordan
Football: Rice
Hockey: Gretzky/Orr/Howe (change my mind constantly) with Lemieux in 4th.

For me, the hockey debate comes down to what you prioritize in a player, as the top 4 are fairly interchangeable on peak value alone.

You can certainly make an argument that Lemieux was the most skilled player ever, or that he was a better goal scorer than Gretzky, but it's not really arguable that he had a better career.

Gretzky literally won scoring titles by 30 and 40% margins, consecutively from 81-82 to 86-87. He also led by almost 20% in 91-92, and almost 18% in 80-81 as a 19 year old. In Lemieux's apex in 88-89, he was a phenomenal 15%+ ahead of second place, but note how this still pales in comparison to the kind of dominance Gretzky put in year in and out during his peak. As far as consistent dominance related to his peers on a purely numerical aspect, only Howe can even be argued to be in Gretzky's league among forwards. Lemieux certainly had the ability to do so, and did some years, but didn't do it nearly as consistently, or for as long as Gretzky or Howe. Obviously that doesn't tell the whole story, but it's a far better quantification of relative dominance than raw stats.

Originally Posted by markf31

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.

Goal-scoring is not the entire game. My favorite Gretzky stat is actually him leading the entire NHL in assists, at the height of the dead puck era, in his age 36 and 37 seasons. To call him average is just indefensible. He was one of the premier playmakers through his age 37 season.

The argument for Gretzky's career is what he did. The argument for Lemieux's is what he could have done.