I never saw Orr play, so it's hard to say... and at the same time, since I was born in 86, I missed Gretzky at his peak and have really barely seen him play at all. But... it's ludicrous the way he dominated. I mean, what the hell? Really? 1984, he wins the ross by 89 points. 1985 he wins the Ross by 83 points. What the hell? What's wrong with all the other players in the NHL? Are they on dope? 1986. He wins the Ross by a margin of 74 points. Are you *****ing kidding me? I was a fetus back in '86, are these numbers real? Has someone been altering the record books? Good lord, 163 assists? Without scoring a goal he wins the Ross! 1987, he wins the scoring title by 75 points. With 121 assists, he wins the scoring title by a healthy margin without even scoring a goal, AGAIN. Didn't think ONCE was enough Wayne?
I know we've all seen these numbers before, but they deserve to be repeated. This kind of statistical dominance is unparalleled. Of course, then he left the Edmonton Oilers and could only manage to lead the league in scoring a dismal three times. Three times Wayne? Come on.
I mean, he has a THOUSAND POINTS on #2, Messier. Messier has 37 points on #3, Howe. WHAT? Are we missing players here? What's with the dropoff? What the freaking crap? How did this happen? How could anyone dominate like that? Was Hockey fixed in the 80's?
Stats don't prove a player, sure. 200 points in the 80's isn't equivalent to 200 points in the 90s and all. But the Margin between Gretzky's stats and the next guy is simply mind boggling. I literally cannot imagine how it happened. I can't concieve of a guy going out and scoring 92 goals in a season, or hitting 163 assists. It just blows my mind, I don't understand what that would look like on a game by game basis.
In all of Hockey history, the only two players who really approach that statistical dominance are Orr and Lemieux, right? Lemieux, projected over a healthy career as long as Gretzky's, probably outscores him. But that's projected, we don't know. Same deal with Orr, if he'd been a forward and stayed healthy, maybe he'd have Gretzky like numbers. The difference is Gretzky did it. The problem is that you take any other player and you have to try to prove that they're the best, with Gretzky you don't need to debate or argue, the numbers just speak for themselves.
Now having said all that... I don't necessarily think that means Gretzky is better than Bobby Orr. I think its unfair to compare because even a defensemen like Bobby Orr is still a defensemen and Gretzky is a forward. But to me, what Gretzky did makes him as good as anyone else who ever played the game. I think it's kind of crazy (though a lot of fun, which is why we debate it all the time) to try to pick anyone as a clear cut number one of all time, but I think that no matter who you pick, Gretzky has to be at least tied for the first overall. Anything below requires far, far too much denial of overwhelming statisical evidence. And he's the only player who I can say that about.