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.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by markf31

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.

But he DID do it with several Kings teams. Not quite sure how that gets glossed over.

[veloce]

He was "honestly nothing more than league average his last 8 seasons"?

Here is where Gretzky ranked in points his last 8 seasons:

'91-92 (3rd)
'92-93 (outside of top 20... missed 38 games)
'93-94 (1st)
'94-95 (19th)
'95-96 (12th)
'96-97 (tied 4th)
'97-98 (tied 3rd)
'98-99 (outside of top 20... missed 12 games)

Lemieux may have started his career with some poor teams, but Gretzky ended his career with poor teams.

Goal rates are absolutely skewed when you take 4 seasons away from Lemieux in the decline phase of his career during the peak of the neutral zone trap. Maybe not as skewed as a player like Bossy, but it does make Lemieux look better when you try and extrapolate his numbers. Looking at his career arc, I think if Lemieux hadn't had cancer and got a couple of injury seasons back he realistically could have cracked 2500 points, but he wouldn't have beaten Gretzky's 2857.

If you want to argue Lemieux's 199 point season was better than any of Gretzky's four 200+ seasons, you might be right. Still even after adjusting for teams, it would only be marginally better and Gretzky had an insanely high peak for 14 seasons while Lemieux's insanely high peak lasted about 10 seasons. Again, Gretzky's linemates look better in large part because they got to play with Wayne Gretzky. Kurri is probably a HOFer anywhere he plays, and Coffey certainly is, but their numbers are vastly inflated by playing with the greatest play maker of all time much more so than Gretzky's numbers are inflated by playing shifts with them.

I get that you are from Pittsburgh and absolutely should idolize Mario, but you are misremembering or misrepresenting how good Gretzky was even in those last few years and while even the most generous cherry picking of stats puts Lemieux in Gretzky's league I don't see how one could argue that he surpasses Gretzky.

Originally Posted by markf31

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.

[markf31]

My average comment may have been a little uninformed, so I stand corrected on where Wayne finished in overall points each of those seasons. I was simply looking at his production and not where in the league scoring standings he finished which was the wrong way to go about that.

I am from Pittsburgh, but I didn't grow up here but I've always been a hockey fan. I am keenly aware of having watched both Wayne and Mario play throughout their careers and its just my opinion that Mario was a better player than Gretzky. But I do enjoy the banter and conversation.

[pepis]

Originally Posted by markf31

My average comment may have been a little uninformed, so I stand corrected on where Wayne finished in overall points each of those seasons. I was simply looking at his production and not where in the league scoring standings he finished which was the wrong way to go about that.

I am from Pittsburgh, but I didn't grow up here but I've always been a hockey fan. I am keenly aware of having watched both Wayne and Mario play throughout their careers and its just my opinion that Mario was a better player than Gretzky. But I do enjoy the banter and conversation.

When you consider the fact that Gretzky had 4 seasons with over 200 points
and Mario had none! Gretzky had 11 seasons with over 100 assist and Mario
had only one, Gretzky had 2 seasons of 87 or more goals and Mario had none
YOU HAVE A POINT! you are from Pittsburgh.

[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.

[OTWCards]

Baseball: Babe Ruth and putting anyone on his level is a mistake
Football: Jim Brown and Otto Graham (just a pure winner and the most overlooked of the great QB's)
Hockey: Wayne Gretzky, Bobby Orr and Gordie Howe (stealing a spot not used for baseball)
Basketball: Oscar Robertson (c'mon, he averaged a triple double for a SEASON!!!) and Michael Jordan

[Wihawk]

Baseball: Ruth, Mathewson
Football: Unitas, Brown
Hockey: Gretsky, Orr
Basketball: Wilt the Stilt, Bird

[Ease]

Originally Posted by 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.



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.

Outstanding first post !!