The Best PLayer In The History of The NHL

[God Bless Canada]

It's called A "HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION". Sheesh, for someone who doesn't want to use statistics too much, you sure want everything else to be factual and correct.

Just forget it.

As stated before, stats only tell so much when it comes to hockey. But arguments, opinions and insights still need to be based on reality, not hypothesis. That's why the whole "transport this player in a time machine to this era" argument always bugs me.

Anyways, to determine the best PLAYER ever, simply watch how they played the game, especially in the playoffs. Awards and numbers are nice, but in the end, it's how you played the game, especially in the most important games (ie: playoffs) that counts.

 

[Whatever Man*]

As stated before, stats only tell so much when it comes to hockey. But arguments, opinions and insights still need to be based on reality, not hypothesis. That's why the whole "transport this player in a time machine to this era" argument always bugs me.

Anyways, to determine the best PLAYER ever, simply watch how they played the game, especially in the playoffs. Awards and numbers are nice, but in the end, it's how you played the game, especially in the most important games (ie: playoffs) that counts.

So Gretzky's 4 Stanley Cups make him better than Orr?
Look at your own post for a minute.

"Stats suck, stats suck, stats suck, stats suck, stats suck, Oh wait playoff stats are good!"

Oppinions only? Fine, but when it comes to oppinions I'm going to take the NHL players who ACTUALLY PLAYED with the players oppinion's, before anyone's on these boards.

Well there is one oppinion I will take to heart. My Grandfather said Gretzky was the best he ever saw, and he was born in 1912, so it's not like he missed to many "old-time" greats.

 

[God Bless Canada]

So Gretzky's 4 Stanley Cups make him better than Orr?
Look at your own post for a minute.

"Stats suck, stats suck, stats suck, stats suck, stats suck, Oh wait playoff stats are good!"

Oppinions only? Fine, but when it comes to oppinions I'm going to take the NHL players who ACTUALLY PLAYED with the players oppinion's, before anyone's on these boards.

Well there is one oppinion I will take to heart. My Grandfather said Gretzky was the best he ever saw, and he was born in 1912, so it's not like he missed to many "old-time" greats.

Where did I say that playoff performance = Cups? Brian Propp was a great playoff performer. Zero Cups. Denis Savard was a great playoff performer. (Remember his 1995 playoff performance?) When Savard won his one Stanley Cup, he played one game in the final. Trevor Linden has always elevated his play in the post-season. No Cups. While there is nothing greater in hockey (or sports, IMO) than winning the Cup, and being a key part of a Cup champion (or champions) is the best way to build or cement your legacy, you don't have to win a Cup to be a great playoff performer.

And where did I talk about playoff stats? I said it's all about how you played when the games mattered most. Marcel Dionne was a choke artist. That's why a lot of people don't rate him in the top 25 players ever. Yzerman was terrific for Detroit in the 1997 playoffs. He had 13 points in 20 games that year. Bobby Holik was New Jersey's playoff MVP in 2001, and would have won the Conn Smythe if New Jersey would have beaten Colorado. He didn't come close to a point-per-game. Trying to evaluate post-season performance simply on playoff stats is absurd.

I respect your grandfather's opinion. He watched hockey for a long time, and probably saw almost every all-time great who ever played the game.

 

[Whatever Man*]

Where did I say that playoff performance = Cups? Brian Propp was a great playoff performer. Zero Cups. Denis Savard was a great playoff performer. (Remember his 1995 playoff performance?) When Savard won his one Stanley Cup, he played one game in the final. Trevor Linden has always elevated his play in the post-season. No Cups. While there is nothing greater in hockey (or sports, IMO) than winning the Cup, and being a key part of a Cup champion (or champions) is the best way to build or cement your legacy, you don't have to win a Cup to be a great playoff performer.

And where did I talk about playoff stats? I said it's all about how you played when the games mattered most. Marcel Dionne was a choke artist. That's why a lot of people don't rate him in the top 25 players ever. Yzerman was terrific for Detroit in the 1997 playoffs. He had 13 points in 20 games that year. Bobby Holik was New Jersey's playoff MVP in 2001, and would have won the Conn Smythe if New Jersey would have beaten Colorado. He didn't come close to a point-per-game. Trying to evaluate post-season performance simply on playoff stats is absurd.

I respect your grandfather's opinion. He watched hockey for a long time, and probably saw almost every all-time great who ever played the game.

OK then, is Doug Gilmour is the Best-player-ever based on his '93 playoff performance?
Or Forsberg perhaps, as he is a great playoff performer?

If you are going to look at one part of the game you can't just ignore the rest.





You know what we need to make a list of criteria, for player comparisons.

 

[God Bless Canada]

OK then, is Doug Gilmour is the Best-player-ever based on his '93 playoff performance?
Or Forsberg perhaps, as he is a great playoff performer?

If you are going to look at one part of the game you can't just ignore the rest.





You know what we need to make a list of criteria, for player comparisons.

I've always viewed hockey as an enigmatic sport. On the surface, it's simple: shoot the puck in the net, and hope your goalie can stop shots from the opponents. Yet, once you sit down and watch the game, and I mean really watch the game, you realize it's so complex. There's so much to being a great player, and a great team. There are so many aspects that might be described as "little things," until you really watch a game, and realize they aren't little. Things that don't show up on a boxscore, or in most print stories (and I would know). But to championship teams, these aren't "little things."

There's just too much that goes into being a great hockey player to develop a viable list of criteria. I respect pnep and Ogopogo for their efforts. They know that. They're two of my favourite posters. They know that. But they also know I disagree with them. And the beautiful thing is, I can have informed, respectful, but frank debate with both of them. There are few things more wonderful about being a hockey fan, than an informed, intelligent debate. The only way is to evaluate each player, IMO, is on his own merits, and then rank. Look at what each player did well, and didn't do well. And then, at the end of the day, formulate a list. And with that, each person's biases come into play: favouring one position over the other, favouring one style of play over another, etc. I put a great stock on the playoffs. Others do not.

If you don't mind me asking, why did your grandfather say that Gretzky is the best ever? I have no qualms with those who think he is, based on how he saw and thought the game, based on his work ethic, his resiliency, his willingness to improve and his ability to elevate his play in the post-season. I'll still take Orr, and Howe, for that matter, but to argue Gretzky as the best player ever is far from uninformed.

 

[mcphee]

You only take Howe because you're Saskatchewan centric.


I'm sure this will help the discussion along but I'm not a big believer in awards. Of course a player recognizes quality, but how much does that same player see another player ? How seriously does he take the vote ?

How political are the NHL awards ? Was Theodore a better player than Iginla a few years back ? I'm a Mtl. fan and was happy to see him claim his trophy but I don't believe any writer has a magic formula to decide their value.

I don't know your age,but I think it's close to mine, but when you saw the likes of Lemieux,Gretz,Orr or Howe at their best, you got a sense that you were seeing them do something altogether different, something no one else could do the same way. There isn't really a pecking order at that level.

If you want to take the forwards and go by point totals, I won't get too excited, ppg could work too. Ogo's formula matching eras works too, but deep down, it's just definition. You saw the best. My daughter's an artist, she can tell me her favorite but not the best.

So take all the #'s then ask, ok, defense is a different position, now what.

There are great athletes I wish that I saw, the Rocket being #1, Jackie Robinson being another. iF you were lucky enough to see Orr, not the hobbled Orr on DVD in 76, Orr in a menaingless Feb. game against the North Stars in around 70, you would really see something. So is the best D man better than the best forward, how the hell would I know ?

 

[Sens Rule]

OK then, is Doug Gilmour is the Best-player-ever based on his '93 playoff performance?
Or Forsberg perhaps, as he is a great playoff performer?

If you are going to look at one part of the game you can't just ignore the rest.





You know what we need to make a list of criteria, for player comparisons.

Gilmour was a monster playoff performer. Even later in his career in Montreal. He has the playoff stats of course but watching him play he ALWAYS elevated his game in every way in the playoffs and it wasn't like he was poor in the regular season.

In 1989 when the Flames won the Cup he was amazing in all facets of the game. In 1993 and 1994 he was as good as ANY player has EVER been in the playoffs. Perhaps not better but as good.

It would be hard for me to take anyone over him if I had to win a playoff series having watched him play in the playoffs. I'd take Gretzky and Mario because they raised their game in the playoffs and they were already the best players. Anyone else that I saw play in the 1980's, 90's 00's, was no better than Gilmour in his prime in the playoffs even Yzerman, Messier, Sakic, Forsberg, Jagr. Gilmour was not in their class over his entire career but in the playoffs he was as good as any of these guys.

 

[Whatever Man*]

Gilmour was a monster playoff performer. Even later in his career in Montreal. He has the playoff stats of course but watching him play he ALWAYS elevated his game in every way in the playoffs and it wasn't like he was poor in the regular season.

In 1989 when the Flames won the Cup he was amazing in all facets of the game. In 1993 and 1994 he was as good as ANY player has EVER been in the playoffs. Perhaps not better but as good.

It would be hard for me to take anyone over him if I had to win a playoff series having watched him play in the playoffs. I'd take Gretzky and Mario because they raised their game in the playoffs and they were already the best players. Anyone else that I saw play in the 1980's, 90's 00's, was no better than Gilmour in his prime in the playoffs even Yzerman, Messier, Sakic, Forsberg, Jagr. Gilmour was not in their class over his entire career but in the playoffs he was as good as any of these guys.

*sigh* Ya he was great. The grit he played with was something else for a guy his size. That 92-93 season was something special though.

Too depressing, to think about. Already got reminded of the travesty twice today.

In 1993 and 1994 he was as good as ANY player has EVER been in the playoffs.

 

[theprogoalie777]

Wayne all the way!

 

[theflightlessbirds]

Lemieux

 

[KariyaIsGod*]

Gretzky

 

[Gerry4001]

Been watching hockey since the early 70's, saw Orr play live at the Montreal Forum in '74, saw Gretzky and Mario play live during the Canada Cup 87 series. Best and most awe inspiring player to watch was Bobby Orr, his skating alone was a thing of artistic beauty. Reminds me of a TV ad from a couple of years ago with Elvis Stoiko showing Orr how to figure skate and do twirls, pretty funny, should have been the other way around though, anyway, not to take anything away from the Gretzer or Mario they were both in the same category as Orr, all three are up there by themselves.

I have a collection of DVD's of Orr games that I bought on ebay. Watched them endlessly and really got to see his game. The amount of times he would take control of the puck in his zone and take off to mastermind a play on the other side is unbelievable. A defenseman that would do it half as much nowadays would be a Rockstar, and he did it with ease and regularity. The quarterback, offensive leader and official puckstripper.

The Gretzer was a great passer but wasn't the best skater or shooter and his game didn't take up the hole ice surface from one end to the other... so not as spectacular to watch. Let's face it, he floated around waiting for Coffey's thread.

Orr was the offensive and defensive leader of his team, the Bruins had the top 4 scorers of the league twice on Orr's back. Gretz didn't pull that off, the team helped him instead. Orr and Espo were the greatest one-two combo ever at the top of the league for 8 seasons in a row.

 

[Cawz]

The Gretzer was a great passer but wasn't the best skater or shooter and his game didn't take up the hole ice surface from one end to the other... so not as spectacular to watch. Let's face it, he floated around waiting for Coffey's thread.

Orr was the offensive and defensive leader of his team, the Bruins had the top 4 scorers of the league twice on Orr's back. Gretz didn't pull that off, the team helped him instead. Orr and Espo were the greatest one-two combo ever at the top of the league for 8 seasons in a row.

So the Bruins had the top 4 scorers of the league twice on Orrs back, but Orr wasnt even the highest scorer on the team either time?

The Oilers had the top 3 once and 3 of the top 4 once, with Gretzky being the top scorer by a large margin, and the team helped him? Thats some pretty unique logic.

When the Bruins did that, there were 14 and 16 teams in the NHL. When the Oilers did it, there were 21 teams. I dont think thats a very good argument for Orr.

Gretzky also led the league without Coffey, so that argument doesnt really work either. And Gretzky didnt float. He would hang out at the offensive blueline. Thats referred to cherry-picking, not floating.

That being said, can I assume that you saw very little of Grezky play back in the day? You mention the Canada Cup, but I assume you are one of the people here that are regurgitating others' arguments without much first hand knowledge.

You say he waited for Coffey. How come Gretzky consistantly got 70 to 130 points more than Coffey while teammates?

Please note that I'm not arguing Wayne vs Bobby, since I havent seen Orr play. I'm just pointing out some holes in your arguments. Orr may very well be the better player, but not becasue of your loose arguments.

 

[VanIslander]

At the height of his success and popularity Gretzky still was being spoken of as no better than Orr. They were considered on apr, great but different. I do think Gretzky surpassed Howe in popular esteem in the hockey community as well as record books.

Greatest careers: Gretzky, Howe
Greatest talents: Orr, Lemieux

 

[mcphee]

At the height of his success and popularity Gretzky still was being spoken of as no better than Orr. They were considered on apr, great but different. I do think Gretzky surpassed Howe in popular esteem in the hockey community as well as record books.

Greatest careers: Gretzky, Howe
Greatest talents: Orr, Lemieux

I've spent a jillion words trying to say exactly that. So, which makes the greatest player, the greatest career or the player who played the greatest ? All in the definition.

 

[Snap Wilson]

Greatest careers: Gretzky, Howe
Greatest talents: Orr, Lemieux

Greatest 'stache: Lanny.

And in the end, isn't that all that really matters?

 

[Ogopogo*]

At the height of his success and popularity Gretzky still was being spoken of as no better than Orr. They were considered on apr, great but different. I do think Gretzky surpassed Howe in popular esteem in the hockey community as well as record books.

Greatest careers: Gretzky, Howe
Greatest talents: Orr, Lemieux

Exactly what evidence supports Lemieux being a greater talent than Gretzky or Howe?

 

[Poochie_D]

Wayne. No question. They changed the freakin rules because of this guy.

 

[Poochie_D]

I think the question you should ask yourself is : In Game 7 of the stanley cup finals who would you want on your team? Again, Wayne Gretzky for me.

My second pick however wouldn't be any of these players.

 

[tape-2-tape]

My second pick however wouldn't be any of these players.

WoW....don't EVER look to being an NHL GM for a career choice, because you'd be canned quicker than a Boston Baked Bean!

If you're thinking that any of the other players mentioned in this thread aren't capable of being in Wayne's league, you really should watch the game as well as any footage of those you question.

 

[GSK*]

Cy Denneny with an average 57 goals per season...

In 28-29 he won the cup like a player and he was the head coach to

 

[GSK*]

Or Newsy Lalonde with an average 102 goals by season

 

[KariyaIsGod*]

Anybody who says Gretzky wasn't a great shooter is just simply ignorant.

His slapshot is probably the msot accurate slapshot in league history pre-91 back injury.

 

[Raoul Duke*]

Eric Lindros

 

[blue dave]

Wayne Gretzky was the greatest pure offensive player. The best all around has to be Bobby Orr. Its like comparing apples and oranges. They were completely different kinds of player. They are without a doubt the 2 best to ever play the game.
Crosby and Ovechkin each have the talent to one day be considered within the best to ever play but 1 season does not make the greatest player.