Gretzky not so great (Not at all SR)

[Woodsy]

Yeah I know but there are a lot of Hockey fans in the Hoos so I wanted to ping them with the big lie according to Kevin Hench

Wayne Gretzky is, without question, the greatest hockey player of all time

To suggest otherwise is blasphemy. Hell, we're practically forbidden by international law from even discussing it.

But there's no way you're going to convince me that a guy with a concave chest who couldn't knock Michelle Kwan off stride was a more dominant player than Bobby Orr, Mario Lemieux or, for that matter, Mark Messier.

All the pro-Gretzky arguments are about numbers. Offensive numbers. Well, hockey is a physical game, and just because a guy was the greatest offensive player in a cartoonish offensive era does not mean he's the greatest hockey player of all time.

Just to give you a sense of what NHL hockey was like in the early 1980s, in the1982 series opener before Gretzky's Oilers were shocked 6-5 on six unanswered goals by the L.A. Kings in the Miracle on Manchester, the Kings won 10-8. Think about that. An NHL playoff game with 18 goals. So Gretzky's crazy numbers need to be looked at with some sense of perspective.

But let's look at another number: Gretzky's plus/minus. After leaving Edmonton, where he was surrounded by a bunch of Hall of Famers in their primes, over the last 11 years of his career, he was a net minus. That's right, from 1988-99, when Gretzky was on the ice at even strength, the Great One's teams were outscored by 33 goals. In his last eight seasons, he was a woeful minus-86. You see, backchecking — it turns out — actually helps your team. Crunching a guy into the boards helps your team. Clearing guys out of the crease helps your team. In all these ways and more, Gretzky did not help his teams. Sure, he put up mind-boggling numbers, but wouldn't you rather have your mind boggled than your bones jarred?

Wayne Gretzky may not have been as good as people think. (GettyImages)

Now no one would suggest with a straight face that Gretzky was as good in his own zone as any of the other nominees for greatest hockey player of all time. The case for Gretzky is that he was so much better offensively that it made up for his defensive limitations.

Is this true?

(Sports Nerd Alert: Stat-heavy analysis ahead.)

In his best offensive season, Gretzky tallied a record 215 points. The league average for goals was 7.94 per game. Gretzky's 2.69 points per game average represented 33.8 percent of average goals per game. In his best season, Orr averaged 1.69 ppg, or 24.6 percent of the total goals per game. Do you suppose Orr made up for this gap in his own zone as the best defenseman of all time?

A comparison with Lemieux invites the possibility that Gretzky wasn't even the best offensive player of his generation. In 1988-89, when he scored 199 points, Lemieux's point per game total as a percentage of league average goals was even higher than Gretzky's best year (35 percent to 33.8). So Lemieux not only matched Gretzky as a scorer, but he also lugged the puck from end to end with guys hanging all over him and made goal scorers out of Warren Young, Terry Ruskowski and Rob Brown. Lemieux also had a higher career points per game average than Gretzky before his last two injury-plagued seasons, despite having a career that bridged a high-scoring era and a low-scoring one. As it stands now, Gretzky's career points average (1.92 ppg) is one one-hundredth better than Lemieux's (1.91).

But Orr and Lemieux each won only two Stanley Cups as compared to four for Gretzky. It's hard to argue about the bottom line, which is, after all, winning championships. Given that criterion, however, Gretzky might not have been the best player on those Oilers teams. After Gretz went to L.A., the Oilers' amazing two-way center Mark Messier led them to a fifth Cup. Then, in one of the coolest, most incredibly clutch runs in NHL history, Messier carried the Rangers to their drought-ending title in 1994. So that's six rings for Messier (two without Gretzky) and four for Wayne (zero without Mess).

So if Gretzky might not be the best offensive player and is certainly below-average defensively and didn't win as many Cups as Messier, by what measure is he the greatest player ever?

He's not. It's a lie.

[FNG]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think scoring a goal counts towards your plus/minus.

- Edit: My vote goes to Gordie Howe

- Edit part II: I stand corrected. "Plus-Minus
A player is awarded a "plus" each time he is on the ice when his Club scores an even-strength or shorthanded goal. He receives a "minus" if he is on the ice for an even-strength or shorthanded goal scored by the opposing Club. The difference in these numbers is considered the player's "plus-minus" statistic." - NHL.com

[Buster Highmen]

Don't they realize that the "god is dead" schtick has been done already? Neitzsche's estate is getting the lawsuit ready.

[basom]

he's the gratest. his nick name confirms it. if he ceases to be the gratest he'll need a new nick, and thats just a pain in the ass for everyone.

[PlayHarder]

But there's no way you're going to convince me that a guy with a concave chest who couldn't knock Michelle Kwan off stride was a more dominant player than Bobby Orr,

That's what I've been since the mid-eighties, but then again I'm a lifelong Flames fan and hating anything Oilers is ingrained.

[Foggy_Goggles]

Originally posted by FNG
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think scoring a goal counts towards your plus/minus.

- Edit: My vote goes to Gordie Howe

Well...when you score that's +1 for you.

[phUnk]

Originally posted by Buster Highmen
Neitzsche's estate is getting the lawsuit ready.

Neitzsche wasn't all that. Here's why...

[mr_gyptian]

Ali is the Greatest. Gretzky is the Great One.

Gretzky's teams after Edmonton were just over the hill Edmonton players outside of Mess in NY.

I will say that his Autobio with Rick Reilly should have been printed on Big Chief ledger. What a turd.

[board]

This guy's point is not complete moronic however even suggesting Messier is in the same category with Wayne is. That aside let's be honest even before his bad back Lemeiux never finished a check in his life so he can drop that argument. Wanye was an offensive genius pure and simple. You could make an argument for Gordie Howe because he truly was a complete player but trying to convince anyone Gretsky's goals are over rated.. PLEASE !

[Tippster]

As Barry Melrose pointed out a few years ago during the Playoffs, the game of Hockey could (or should) be called "Goalie."

With that in mind, the greatest player of all time is:

Patrick Roy. (<--notice the "period")

I will brook no argument.

[Buster Highmen]

I will brook no argument.

Neither did Andre' Agassi.

[The AD]

I'm not really a hockey expert, but it seems to me the primary job of a center or winger is to score goals and help each other score goals (i.e., assists). Conversely, the goalie and defensemen's primary job is to prevent goals. Therefore the player who has scored the most points in his career should at least be considered the greatest offensive player ever. Yes, they also need to play defense, but this is secondary. If someone else was close to Gretzky in total points maybe you could argue defense, but no one is. Gretz has 51% more total points than the next player (Messier). That's just a staggering figure.

[iceman]

PLUS/MINUS!!!!

Plus/minus is what counts.

Since 1968, when Bobby Orr entered the league, he has six plus/minus championships. Gretzky has four, no one else has more than two.

Plus/minus is the most important stat in hockey (excepting goalies).

Bobbie Orr is the best player since 1968.

I can't find stats for before 1968. But I'll go out on a limb yet again and say that Bobby Orr was the best player in history, not Gretzky.

[The AD]

Originally posted by iceman
[BPlus/minus is the most important stat in hockey (excepting goalies). [/B]

If +/- is such a great stat how come they don't use it in any other sport? It seems like it should be equally useful in basketball, but I've never seen it used there.

[iceman]

I think it would be a cool and informative stat for hoops as well, but I don't have the resources or inclination to crunch the numbers.

But go for it.

[Steven S. Dallas]

1. Bobby Orr was an incredible player, but the guy states that he was "the greatest defenseman of all time" without mentioning that the greater part of that reputation was based on his offensive ability. He was definitely above-average defensively, but never the best in the league, I don't think. I think that the best player- not including goalies- ever has to be between Gretzky and Orr, with major props to Howe.

2. It's absolutely moronic to give Lemieux props for making guys like Rob Brown 50-goal scorers without mentioning Glenn Anderson, Jari Kurri, and other major contributors to that Oilers club who would have been nowhere without Gretzky. Gretzky never played with as good a player as Jagr, I don't think.

3. So Messier won two more rings than Gretzky. Whoop-de-shit. Is he really trying to suggest that Messier carried Gretzky to those Cups? Messier wasn't even the best player on the 1994 Rangers- Leetch- and it's absolutely insane to think that Messier at his best was anywhere near the player Gretzky was. In-sane. By the way, fuck Petr Klima.

There are two guys who, from the time they were 10 years old, had everyone who knew hockey nodding their heads and saying "this kid's going to be the best, ever." Orr and Gretzky. I think it's a toss-up. Throw in the goalies, though, and it might be a different story.

[PaSucks]

Originally posted by Alex P. Keaton

2. It's absolutely moronic to give Lemieux props for making guys like Rob Brown 50-goal scorers without mentioning Glenn Anderson, Jari Kurri, and other major contributors to that Oilers club who would have been nowhere without Gretzky. Gretzky never played with as good a player as Jagr, I don't think.

You are trying to say that Rob Brown was as good as Jari Kurri and Glenn Anderson? I'm sorry, no. And Gretzky may not have played with Jagr, but he sure as hell played with Messier, and if you try to say Jagr is as good as Messier, well that would just be crazy talk. Jagr had some amazing talent in his day, but I think it has become pretty apparent how much of a head case he is, and always was.

This whole argument is a little bit too subjective for anybody to ever win. I hate these arguments because you can't compare two people that played on two totaly different teams or in two totaly different era's. Hockey today is not what it was in the early 90's, and hockey in the early 90's is not what it was in the early 80's. I am not even going to mention how different it was back in the 60's and before. Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr, Eddie Shore, Ray Bourque, Guy Lefluer, Maurice Richard, and many others, where all amazing players and where among the best from their era's, but it is impossible to say who was the best among them.

In all honesty, if you were to put Gretzky in a game back in the 60's or 70's, he would have gotten the shit kicked out of him so bad he would have never stepped on the ice again, where as some of the other guys I mentioned thrived in that atmosphere. Those same guys that were great at the dirtyness of the 70's might have been nothing but low scoring goons in the 80's and 90's. You just don't know. There are just too many variable's for this argument.

[duph]

To win, your team must score more than the other team. Who scored more than GretzkY? Gretzky has the NHL record for most NHL records. Someone quoted Barry Melrose. Barry also said "I coached the greatest player of all time". And he's right.

[fridge]

Originally posted by PaSucks
Eddie Shore

Old time hockey?

I read this article a few days ago, and it pissed me off. As mentioned above, he may not have been the greatest player, but he certainly was the greatest offensive player. Gretzky was so goddamned talented its not even funny. And who cares if he wasn't strong defensively? Was that his job? Even if he played today, he wouldn't put up the numbers that he did then, but he'd still be far and above the best player in the NHL.

[TJ.Brk]

Well I can agree somewhat with the title of this thread. However, when Gretz goes to the bank vault to look inside his box. He looks at rings for every finger on one hand. He looks at MVP trophy's right and left.

Now you do have a valid arguement, however no other hockey player can walk into a banks vault and view what Gretz views. And to be honest that truly speaks volumns.






And his goal as a King sending them to the Cup is still one of the most fantastic shots I have ever seen.

[FNG]

Originally posted by The AD
I'm not really a hockey expert, but it seems to me the primary job of a center or winger is to score goals and help each other score goals (i.e., assists). Conversely, the goalie and defensemen's primary job is to prevent goals. Therefore the player who has scored the most points in his career should at least be considered the greatest offensive player ever. Yes, they also need to play defense, but this is secondary. If someone else was close to Gretzky in total points maybe you could argue defense, but no one is. Gretz has 51% more total points than the next player (Messier). That's just a staggering figure.

The primary job of a center is in a defensive and set-up roll. The wingers are in the position to be pure goal scorers (e.g. Selane & Bure in their primes). If the centerman gets caught out of position, the middle of the ice is compromised and the opposing team basically gets a 3 on 2 opportunity to carry the puck into the offensive zone which leads to numerous scoring chances. Case in point: Detroit Red Wings and their Left Wing Lock. Even though the left winger usually hangs back near the neutral zone, it's the centerman's backchecking that puts a halt to opponent's rushes. Detroit would have never won any of their cups in the late 90's w/o the defensive skills of Yzerman, Fedorov, and Draper (all Best Defensive Forward Award winners.)

Of course a hot goalie can change any game or series...but they can change it for the worse just as easily. Seems to me that in Patric Roy's last game in Montreal, he gave up 7 or 8 to the Wings before being pulled. When Roy is good, he's a machine, but when he's bad, he basically guarantees a loss.

IMHO Gretkzky & Lemieux are tied for best offensive players. Orr is best defenseman. And Howe is best player of all time and at least the best two-way player. Hell, he's got the 2nd most points in NHL history and elbows that strike fear into the hearts of men.

Oh, and they don't have +/- in the NBA because nobody other than Detroit & San Antonio plays defense.

- FNG
Official Motor City Puck-Head

[road trip]

Bobby Orr.

For the single reason that he didn't go out playing for the lowly Rangers.

How sad was it watching Gretzky's last years playing for such a horrible team.

Well, I loved it being a Devils fan, but that's beside the point.

[gincognito]

I've gone back and forth on the "Gretztky is/was the Greatest" issue many times throughout my meagre life. Given the subjective nature of the debate, I suppose it is somewhat irrelevant, but two things cannot be denied:

1) The man was an unbelievable talent. Saw the game like no other. Made plays out of nothing, scored almost at will, and brought an incredible amount of excitement to the rink throughout his heyday. His records speak for themselves and it will be awhile before anyone matches his hardware collection.

2) The man had a greater impact on the Game than anyone before or after. Some might try to argue for Orr and how he revolutionized the role of the defenceman, but I'm talking on a much grander scale. I'm not talking within in the game, I'm talking within the world. He brought hockey to foreign lands. He opened the sport to mass consumption. He's one of the few athletes whom people recognize even if they've never seen a game (or a sheet of ice) in their lives. On par with Micheal Jordan or Tiger Woods in the sense that he is/was bigger than the sport he played. The only point of contention here is whether or not this was a good thing, but that's a whole other topic.

On the topic of Mario Lemieux, I will admit that he was the dominant player during the years that I was really beginning to understand hockey. I will admit that his performances during the Penguins two titles were nothing short of mindblowing. He too was a rare and exceptional talent who made everything look easy. The sad fact is that injury and sickness will keep him away from any serious contention for Greatest Ever (a similar story for Cam Neely). He will always have to rely on his points-per-game and goals-per-game to approach Wayne's stature.

And on the topic of timing, for sure Wayne benifitted from the free-wheeling 80's. But, just for arguements sake, how much of this free-wheeling era was the result of the Oiler's play? How much did the success of that team dictate the style of hockey during their dominance? It would be interesting to look at the stats of the late 70's and early 80's to see when the floodgates really started to open.

Would Wayne have survived in earlier eras? I don't know. It's pure speculation. But I think he might have been okay. He had enforcers looking out for him throughout his career and I have no reason to doubt he won't have had them back then. Also, if you watch some old tapes you may just come to the same conclusion that I came to when wondering why people didn't hit Jagr more often: it wasn't for lack of trying. Some of these dudes are damn slippery.

Personally I don't look at his size and lack of physical play as a negative in the Greatest of all Time debate. I think the fact that a scrawny kid with a concave chest could excel in a game of roughnecks and hooligans speaks volumes about his talents and, if anything, elevates him even further.

In conclusion: Gretzky = Greatest Ever. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a poopyhead.

Sick and ashamed and happy (and now not only do I miss skiing, but I miss hockey as well),
d.

[dewey]

Plus/minus is the most important stat in hockey (excepting goalies).

I tend to agree with this statement, but that stat becomes skewed if a given player plays a significant role in power plays.

and gin, did you really just equate Cam Neely with Mario Lemieux? I mean I love Cam and all, but please.

[gincognito]

Originally posted by dewey
I tend to agree with this statement, but that stat becomes skewed if a given player plays a significant role in power plays.

and gin, did you really just equate Cam Neely with Mario Lemieux? I mean I love Cam and all, but please.

Pointo numero uno: +/- does not become skewed by power plays or short handed situations given that it only includes even strength goals. i.e. any goal scored on a power play (for or against) is not included in the stat.

Pointo numero duo: The Neely/Lemieux comparison was simply that injuries/sickness denied them both their full potential.

Sick and ashamed and happy (and make no mistake, Neely was the mold that Lindros, Leclair, Primeau etc. were based on),
d.