Gordie: lets be honest

[chooch*]

I read somewhere that he was in the top 5 in scoring 21 straight years.
He had multiple 30 plus goal seasons after 39 years of age. And fought his own battles. (hint hint)

Wonder what a one on one v. Orr was like.


I saw him as a Whaler. Anyone care to give an honest opinion.

Click to read more...

 

[Lowetide]

He basically had a Hank Aaron career, in that year after year he performed at a high level and did the things that helped his team win. He was named to the first all star team most years, and from all reports was a son of a ***** to play against all down the line.

Orr had a Koufax career (save the early part of Koufax's career where home plate was just a rumor) that at its peak represented the very best.

Howe for career value, Orr for peak value.

 

[Macman]

In terms of skill, Orr wins hands down. But Howe was a genetic freak of nature. How else can you explain playing pro hockey at the age he did?

 

[KOVALEV10*]

The 4 best players ever were Gretzky and Howe who had the longevity but in their primes Bobby Orr and Mario Lemieux were better. Although there wasnt much of a difference between them.

 

[VanIslander]

Mario is to Gretz
as
Hasek is to Roy
as
Orr is to Gordie

apples and oranges are both the best fruit

 

[soulok*]

At there absolute best .. Mario Lemieux was NOT better or more dominant the Wayne Gretzky. Gretzky is his prime was better then Lemieux. Thats a fact. Stats show it. Wayne made a mockery of all the other forwards like Hasek made a mockery of all the other goaltenders. So Roy and hasek comparison do not match. to Lemieux Gretzky ... Gretzky was as dominant as hasek and had a long career like Roy.

 

[KOVALEV10*]

At there absolute best .. Mario Lemieux was NOT better or more dominant the Wayne Gretzky. Gretzky is his prime was better then Lemieux. Thats a fact. Stats show it. Wayne made a mockery of all the other forwards like Hasek made a mockery of all the other goaltenders. So Roy and hasek comparison do not match. to Lemieux Gretzky ... Gretzky was as dominant as hasek and had a long career like Roy.

Well let's not get into the Lemieux/Gretzky debate because everyone has their favorite but I truly believe that Lemieux was slightly better then Gretzky. Howe is number 4 after Gretzky, Lemieux and Orr.

 

[c-carp]

He basically had a Hank Aaron career, in that year after year he performed at a high level and did the things that helped his team win. He was named to the first all star team most years, and from all reports was a son of a ***** to play against all down the line.

Orr had a Koufax career (save the early part of Koufax's career where home plate was just a rumor) that at its peak represented the very best.

Howe for career value, Orr for peak value.

Never saw either except on film and have heard opinions from a lot of peop;e who saw both and would say based on that this is a very fair and accurate comparison.

 

[sunb]

Mario is to Gretz
as
Hasek is to Roy
as
Orr is to Gordie

apples and oranges are both the best fruit

I don't agree with that.

Roy at his best was better than Hasek at his best.

 

[KOVALEV10*]

I don't agree with that.

Roy at his best was better than Hasek at his best.

Well no... Hasek at his best was clearly the best goalie in the league 6 times, 2 times the best player in the league, 2 times the most valuable player to his team and had better goals against average and a lot more shutouts. Longevity- Roy, Peak-Hasek.

 

[David Puddy]

The problem with comparing the two greats is that Gordie Howe was a forward and Bobby Orr was a defenseman.

Howe's 12 First All-Star Team selections is an outstanding accomplishment. Only three other players in NHL history have achieved more than 12 First or Second All-Star Team distinctions. Howe also was named to the Second All-Star Team nine times.

Orr's eight consecutive Norris Trophies is a staggering accomplishment. He also holds the distinction of being the only defenseman to win the scoring title, which he did twice.

Well let's not get into the Lemieux/Gretzky debate because everyone has their favorite but I truly believe that Lemieux was slightly better then Gretzky. Howe is number 4 after Gretzky, Lemieux and Orr.

Wayne Gretzky won eight straight Hart Trophies. That's more than Orr and Howe won during their entire, great careers. Howe won six over a 12 season period.

Wayne Gretzky also averaged over 200 points per season for five season stretch. No one else has ever even scored 200 points in a single season.

The only person in North American sports history that was more dominate in his respective sport than Gretzky was in hockey was Babe Ruth in baseball.

Roy at his best was better than Hasek at his best.

Hasek won six of eight Vezina Trophies between 1993-94 and 2000-01. Hasek's peak was much longer and than Roy's peak. Hasek also won both the Hart and Leaster B. Pearson honors twice.

And fought his own battles. (hint hint)

Wayne Gretzky didn't go around elbowing people, so almost all the battles were started by goons of the opposing teams trying to take-out the best player in the game.

 

[KOVALEV10*]

Well about Wayne being better then Mario it should also be notted that Lemieux never played a full season in his career and was constantly injured, had no body guard, less talented teammates, cancer and played more during a low scoring era then high scoring unlike Wayne. It should also be noted that both these guy's points per game averages are equal (1.92) and that Mario's goal per game average is far more then Wayne's (Mario 0.76, Wayne 0.60). And in the two years where Mario won two smythe trophies in a row he dominated a lot more individually then Wayne did. All in all Mario was the better goal scorer, Wayne the better passer and in the end both to me were the best ever although I prefere Lemieux but that's another story. But I will not tolerate someone telling me that Gretzky was far better then Lemieux and the stats show it. Oh and if Lemieux had been healthy in 89-90 and 92-93 he would've won the art ross trophy and both men's total number of art ross trophies would've been equal (8 each).

 

[arrbez]

I don't agree with that.

Roy at his best was better than Hasek at his best.

not even close, IMO. as far as "primes" go, Hasek was easily the best goalie of his generation.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

I don't agree with that.

Roy at his best was better than Hasek at his best.

Roy may have had the better career, but Hasek from 94-2000 played at a level Roy never reached.

 

[chooch*]

The problem with comparing the two greats is that Gordie Howe was a forward and Bobby Orr was a defenseman.

Howe's 12 First All-Star Team selections is an outstanding accomplishment. Only three other players in NHL history have achieved more than 12 First or Second All-Star Team distinctions. Howe also was named to the Second All-Star Team nine times.

Orr's eight consecutive Norris Trophies is a staggering accomplishment. He also holds the distinction of being the only defenseman to win the scoring title, which he did twice.
Wayne Gretzky won eight straight Hart Trophies. That's more than Orr and Howe won during their entire, great careers. Howe won six over a 12 season period.

Wayne Gretzky also averaged over 200 points per season for five season stretch. No one else has ever even scored 200 points in a single season.

The only person in North American sports history that was more dominate in his respective sport than Gretzky was in hockey was Babe Ruth in baseball.

Hasek won six of eight Vezina Trophies between 1993-94 and 2000-01. Hasek's peak was much longer and than Roy's peak. Hasek also won both the Hart and Leaster B. Pearson honors twice.

Wayne Gretzky didn't go around elbowing people, so almost all the battles were started by goons of the opposing teams trying to take-out the best player in the game.

I think 21 seasons as a first or second team all star is remarkable. Mario dominated as much as Ruth too then..... wait a minute, Babe Ruth dominated baseball like no other athlete in any sport. Comparing 99 to 3 is a joke.

Babe was also a HoF calibre pitcher. And hit 60 home runs when all other teams except a couple had less combined.
Arguably Messier was a more valuable player than 99 on his own team.

 

[tom_servo]

Comparing Ruth to Gretzky is a joke? Gretzky holds the record for most records held.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Arguably Messier was a more valuable player than 99 on his own team.

No, and it wasn't close.

 

[chooch*]

No, and it wasn't close.

Ok a bit of an exagerration

Let me restate though the Babe Ruth comparison to 99 (funny enough considering that 66 had similar seasons!) - and I'm going off memory here:

Babe's home run total of 59 in 1921 was more than all the other teams home run totals except one.

In other words its as if 99 had scored roughly 300 goals in a season! And his Left handed pitching from 1914 to 1920 when he became a full time outfielder was as if 99 was a Norris trophy calibre defenceman for the first 6 years of his career.

Who cares if 99 has the record for most consecutive assists in a period in a game
or some goofy record like that.

 

[DaveyCrockett]

Hasek was the most dominant goalie to ever put on the pads. Roy had a great career, but he never was as dominant as Hasek. During Hasek's prime, no other goalie could even come close to him.

 

[Quiet Robert]

Ok a bit of an exagerration

Let me restate though the Babe Ruth comparison to 99 (funny enough considering that 66 had similar seasons!) - and I'm going off memory here:

Babe's home run total of 59 in 1921 was more than all the other teams home run totals except one.

In other words its as if 99 had scored roughly 300 goals in a season! And his Left handed pitching from 1914 to 1920 when he became a full time outfielder was as if 99 was a Norris trophy calibre defenceman for the first 6 years of his career.

Who cares if 99 has the record for most consecutive assists in a period in a game
or some goofy record like that.

Gimme a break, you're trying to compare a baseball player from the beginning of the century to a hockey player in th 80? That's just too flawed. It's like saying Tiger Woods is more dominant than Micheal Jordan because Tiger got more birdies than Jordan hit 3 pointers. Gretzky was as domiant as Babe Ruth, it is comparable.

So if Gretzky's numbers don't match up to racist league, fastball only baseball games, how do Messier's? Seriously, how is it that Messier is more valuable than Gretzky?

 

[soulok*]

chooch the statement u made out 99 is no where as dominant as # 3 in there respected sports is more goofy then most assists in one game.


Gretzky was as dominant as babe ruth ... and the best part is he did it with more teams in the 80's no the goddam 20's and some beer league of a sport u call baseball.

 

[chooch*]

chooch the statement u made out 99 is no where as dominant as # 3 in there respected sports is more goofy then most assists in one game.


Gretzky was as dominant as babe ruth ... and the best part is he did it with more teams in the 80's no the goddam 20's and some beer league of a sport u call baseball.

Easy soulok! Baseball pre 1950 was Americas game. Every boy dreamt of being a ballplayer. The Babe will be remembered long after any hockey player. Heck a strong argument can be made that Orr and Lemeiux amongst others were better in roughly the same eras. Lemieux is comparable to the Babe also.

there was no such compariison to the Babe.

ps more teams is what got him the records. NHL expanded by 25% right before 99's peak years.

 

[tom_servo]

I'd consider the Bambino more of a freakshow than a dominant athlete (with all due respect to the man). Baseball was still in its relative infancy, and not comparable to hockey in the 80s.

 

[JCD]

Well about Wayne being better then Mario it should also be notted that Lemieux never played a full season in his career and was constantly injured

Wouldn't that be a negative? How is being injury-prone helping his cause?

Wayne battled back injuries for much of his career as well. Didn't hold him as back. He might not have had quite the severe of struggles as Mario, but the point is that injuries are part of the game. That the Penguins couldn't count on Mario to play a full season hurts his cause, not helps it.

had no body guard

That Wayne scored so much with a cementhead on his line makes it that much more notable. But lets not kid ourselves. Mario had goons behind him. From Rod Buskas when he was a rookie to Francois Leroux. Even when he didn't have a full-blown goon backing him, they put tough guys Kevin Stevens and Rick Tocchett (part-time) on his wings to keep people honest. Mario had protection just as Wayne had protection.

less talented teammates

Not by much. By the time the Pens were gunning for a Cup, Mario was surrounded by All-Stars. He had some weaker years (Brown and Quinn come to mind), but Gretzky had some years with so-so to marginal talent as well (Blair McDonald, Dmitri Khristich, Vitali Yachmenev, Patrick Sundstrom). Mario wasn't always lining up with stiffs just as Wayne wasn't always lining up with Hall of Famers.

cancer

No answer for that one. His 92-93 season is one of the best single seasons of all time.

played more during a low scoring era then high scoring unlike Wayne.

This is false. Mario entered the league 6 years after Wayne, not 60, so he played most of his career in the high-scoring era as well. Mario sat out or was retired for most of the dead-puck era. Wayne played 362 games from the lock-out on, Mario played only 290.

It should also be noted that both these guy's points per game averages are equal (1.92) and that Mario's goal per game average is far more then Wayne's (Mario 0.76, Wayne 0.60).

It should be noted that Mario only caught up to Wayne after he retired. Had Wayne sat out as many games/seasons over the age of 30 (when players are in decline), he would have never opened the door to catch up. If Wayne retired but one season earlier, Mario wouldn't have caught up.

This was done in a previous debate. Take the number of games Mario played and multiple that by the Wayne's PPG, Wayne retires with a 2.08 PPG average. Do the same for Mario (Mario's PPG times Wayne's games played; for seasons he sat out, take the average of the season before and season after), he sits with a 1.83.

Mario was able to preserve his PPG average by sitting out most of his declining years.

And in the two years where Mario won two smythe trophies in a row he dominated a lot more individually then Wayne did.

I disagree. Those were two impressive shows, not doubting that, but those were also two stacked teams. In 90-91, the Pens were a powerhouse even without Mario in the line-up for 2/3 the year.

What Wayne did in LAs Cup Final season stacks up to either of them. His 84-85 run was a show of offensive force like no other in Stanley Cup history. Wayne had several post-season runs that stack-up to Mario's Cups. Those two just are head and shoulders above any performace I have seen (note: I didn't see Orr win his Cups).

All in all Mario was the better goal scorer, Wayne the better passer and in the end both to me were the best ever although I prefere Lemieux but that's another story.

Mario was the better natural goal scorer and had more talent. That you prefer him is entirely up to you.

But I will not tolerate someone telling me that Gretzky was far better then Lemieux

These are always subjective. If you want to talk about 'best', you need to define context. Best single season? Best at their prime? Best career? Mario, at his best, performed at Gretzky's level. Talent-wise, Mario had more to work with. Those two comparisons, Mario stacks up. If you want to talk 'best' in terms of overall accomplishments and career, then it is no contest. Gretzky was indeed far better and it isn't even close. Far more points. Far more awards. Far more records. Far more impact on the sport.

Had Mario somehow managed to stay health, he might have challanged Wayne. Even that is questionable though because even at his best, Wayne's best was still better. Bottom line though, Mario didn't stay healthy and didn't have nearly the same career success Wayne did. Wayne's career stands SO far out ahead of the rest that there really is no comparison. Not just to Mario, but to anyones. You can compare some single seasons of Mario's, but taken on a whole there is no comparison.

the stats show it.

There are only three stats where Mario compairs: goals-per-game (Mario is the best); points-per-game (but as already noted, this number has mitigating circumstances) and single-season-performance (though still a good ways back from Wayne). Other than that, the stats don't show it.

Oh and if Lemieux had been healthy in 89-90 and 92-93 he would've won the art ross trophy and both men's total number of art ross trophies would've been equal (8 each).

That works both ways. Had Wayne been health in 87-88, he would have taken the Art Ross away from Mario. As for 92-93, Mario DID win the Art Ross. I am guessing you mean 93-94.

Say they both did stay healthy. Wayne takes the 87-88 Art Ross away from Mario, giving him 9 (10 real ones + 1 fake - 2 fake). Still more than Mario even if you give him the 93-94 and the 89-90 (6 real ones + 2 fake - 1 fake = 7). In the real world, Gretzky's 10 Art Ross trophies sit untouchable.

 

[JCD]

Easy soulok! Baseball pre 1950 was Americas game. Every boy dreamt of being a ballplayer. The Babe will be remembered long after any hockey player. Heck a strong argument can be made that Orr and Lemeiux amongst others were better in roughly the same eras. Lemieux is comparable to the Babe also.

there was no such compariison to the Babe.

ps more teams is what got him the records. NHL expanded by 25% right before 99's peak years.

In terms of popularity and what they brought to the sport off the ice, there is no comparison. Gretzky was the Face of hockey. Non-fans around the world who had no clue how many 'quarters' the NHL played, knew who Gretzky was.

Orr was a stud, arguably a better hockey player. Certainly on the same level at the very least, but he is known in hockey circles. The NHL was a forgotten issue in non-NHL cities. Your average Joe on the street could run Orr over and not know who he was. That isn't a slight on Orr, just an observation on who the media and public latched on too. Gretzky caught the public-at-larges eye, Orr did not.

Mario is behind both of them. Since he sat out so often in his career and treated hockey more like a job than a passion, he didn't get the 'love' the other two did. No slight on his talent either, I think he is on the same plateau as Orr and Wayne as well. Point being, he didn't grow the sport like Wayne did. He put Pittsburgh on the map, Gretzky put hockey on the map for most of the US.

Put it this way, the popularity of the NHL at large follows very closely with Gretzky's career. Off hand, in the last 30+ years, I would guess the highwater mark for hockey's popularity would be the mid- to late-80's and early 90's. That wave of enthusiasm sparked the expansion in southern markets. (note: these refer primarily to the US, Canada already knew what they had; this are also just my subjective observations).

Wayne was glamourized in a way no other hockey player has been. Saturday Night Live appearances. Breakfast cereals. Saturday Morning Cartoons. He is the only player to approach Ruth-esque popularity. Call that unfair if you like, but it remains true.

Combine that off-the-ice popularity with his on-the-ice dominance and he earns the title of 'The Great One'. Orr, Mario and Hull may compare (though not neccesarily exceed) Wayne on the ice, but none can touch him off-the-ice.