The Best PLayer In The History of The NHL

nmbr_24

Registered User
Jun 8, 2003
12,864
2
Visit site
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.


I saw many games that both Gretzky and Orr played in their prime, I'd take Orr any day.
 

KariyaIsGod*

Guest
Maybe they should've instituted a best forward award just so Orr wouldn't have trumped Wayne then? :dunno: Amazing how this whole award issue makes people a bit shallow towards the what Orr actually did accomplish during his career. :dunno:

Not at all.

I'm just pointing out that to use the awards to compare them like that is rather unfair because there is no best forward award to compliment the Norris.

If you prefer Orr, that's great.

I have a lot of Orr tapes in my collection and he is in my opinion, the second greatest ever. If I had to choose one though, I would choose Wayne.
 

soulok*

Guest
Gretzy dominated MORE then Orr. Orr's +120 although awesome is not as impressive as Waynes 163 assists, or 50 goals in 39 games! Enough said. Gretzky was simply the BETTER player in their primes. You could set up a plan to stop Orr but you could NEVER set up a gameplan to stop the Great One! He was the smartest player ever, had very deceptive speed, could turn on a dime i believe no one ever in NHL history had better lateral movement then Wayne twisting and turning shooting on a dime. He was unbeleivable at that. Wayne turned all those Oiler players into superstars. They werent all that dominant coming out of juniors. Wayne simply elevated their game by showing them what greatness meant. Esposito, Bucyk these guys were already proven vets when Orr came in. Orrs single season goals record has already been broken by Coffey, ......why? because Wayne made sure of that! Tell me anyone that has even come close to Gretzkys 50 in 39? 163 assists? 215 points? 47 points in 18 games in the playoffs!!!!!!Bobby Orr was NOT as good as Gretzky, He might have been faster, had better defensive awareness and was stronger but he was no as GOOD! amen!
 

CLF4life

Bourque ** Lidstrom
May 7, 2004
233
1
Niagara Falls.Ont
Wayne.. Im a bit young to remember Orr in his prime. I read this whole thread and no one mentioned big #8 Cam Neely although he never one a cup or a scoring title
and his career was cut short by a lo blow by a chicken swede. He was the most dominant player Iv ever watched. He was the complete package imo.
 

charlio lemieux*

Guest
:biglaugh: And you wonder why people on here get on your back.

Well you would think the best player ever would be able to win the scoring title more than a measley 2 times. Espo, LaFleur, Jagr, Mikita, Hull, all won it more than twice, but are all considered well beneath Orr.

Whereas Gretzky won the Art Ross 10 times by beating players like;
Messier(2nd all-time points)
Francis (4th all-time)
Dionne(5th All-time)
Yzerman(6th All-time)
Coffey(10th All-time)
Sakic(11th All-time)
Trottier (14th All-time)
Oates(15th All-time)
Gilmour(16th All-time)
Hawerchuk(17th All-time)
Robitaille(19th All-time)
Hull(20th All-time)
D. Savard(23rd All-time)
P. Stastny(32nd All-time)
*Lemieux(7th All-time)*

Gretzky absolutely, overwhelmingly, dominated an era that produced 13 of the top 20 all-time point producers in the history of the NHL, not counting himself. The only Notable exception is #7 All-time in scoring, Mario Lemieux, who was entering his prime as Gretzky was ending his, and was the only player in the entire era who could even come close to Gretzky's skill and offensive prowess.

So sorry if I don't buy Bobby Orr being sooooo dominating when he was getting beat by his own teammates fo the Art Ross, and Hart Trophies. There were obviously players in Orr's era that weren't that far off his skill level. Otherwise he would have dominated the individual awards the same way Gretzky and, to a lesser extent, Lemieux did. So if we judge a player against his peers, Gretzky dominated his peers longer and by a bigger margin than Bobby Orr dominated his own peers.

To me that means Gretzky is #1 overall, All-time.
 

raleh

Registered User
Oct 17, 2005
1,764
9
Dartmouth, NS
Well you would think the best player ever would be able to win the scoring title more than a measley 2 times. Espo, LaFleur, Jagr, Mikita, Hull, all won it more than twice, but are all considered well beneath Orr.

Whereas Gretzky won the Art Ross 10 times by beating players like;
Messier(2nd all-time points)
Francis (4th all-time)
Dionne(5th All-time)
Yzerman(6th All-time)
Coffey(10th All-time)
Sakic(11th All-time)
Trottier (14th All-time)
Oates(15th All-time)
Gilmour(16th All-time)
Hawerchuk(17th All-time)
Robitaille(19th All-time)
Hull(20th All-time)
D. Savard(23rd All-time)
P. Stastny(32nd All-time)
*Lemieux(7th All-time)*

Gretzky absolutely, overwhelmingly, dominated an era that produced 13 of the top 20 all-time point producers in the history of the NHL, not counting himself. The only Notable exception is #7 All-time in scoring, Mario Lemieux, who was entering his prime as Gretzky was ending his, and was the only player in the entire era who could even come close to Gretzky's skill and offensive prowess.

So sorry if I don't buy Bobby Orr being sooooo dominating when he was getting beat by his own teammates fo the Art Ross, and Hart Trophies. There were obviously players in Orr's era that weren't that far off his skill level. Otherwise he would have dominated the individual awards the same way Gretzky and, to a lesser extent, Lemieux did. So if we judge a player against his peers, Gretzky dominated his peers longer and by a bigger margin than Bobby Orr dominated his own peers.

To me that means Gretzky is #1 overall, All-time.

Those were all very good defensive players too weren't they? :dunno: Try to keep in mind that hockey is played on both ends of the ice. How many other defencemen have ever won the art ross?

And there is a "best forward award", it's called the art ross. It just so happens that Orr stole it for a couple of years.
 

charlio lemieux*

Guest
Those were all very good defensive players too weren't they? :dunno: Try to keep in mind that hockey is played on both ends of the ice. How many other defencemen have ever won the art ross?

Forget he was a defenseman. We're talking about the Supposed "Best Player Ever". I find it hard to believe the "Best Player Ever" could only win the scoring title twice when you look at how Gretzky could have won it twice on assists alone.
 

charlio lemieux*

Guest
And there is a "best forward award", it's called the art ross. It just so happens that Orr stole it for a couple of years.

The "Best Forward Award" is not the Art Ross, or the Selke for that matter. There isn't a "Best Forward Award", like there is a "Best Goalie Award" or a "Best Defensman Award". But I think it would be safe to deduce that if a player wins the Hart trophy for league MVP then he would also win the award as the best player for his position. Gretzky has 9 Hart Trophies.
 

God Bless Canada

Registered User
Jul 11, 2004
11,793
17
Bentley reunion
Those were all very good defensive players too weren't they? :dunno: Try to keep in mind that hockey is played on both ends of the ice. How many other defencemen have ever won the art ross?

And there is a "best forward award", it's called the art ross. It just so happens that Orr stole it for a couple of years.
Bingo. Just think about this for a second: a defenceman won the Art Ross. Repeat it to yourself: a defenceman won the Art Ross. Some people don't understand how incredible that is. The closest comparison I could think of would be a tight end - whose responsibility is blocking, physical play and occasionally making a catch - leading the NFL in receiving yards and touchdowns.

And those who use stats as the measuring stick are sadly mistaken. If you want to hype Gretzky as the greatest player ever, I'm fine with that. Lord knows there are a lot of insightful, intelligent hockey people out there who rate Gretzky as the best ever. Talk about how he's the smartest player ever. Talk about how he saw and thought the game in a way that nobody else ever could. Talk about his array of effective, accurate shots. Talk about his ability to raise his game to another level in the big games, or to dominate in the playoffs. But don't just throw stats out there. This is easily the best part of HF Boards, with the most knowledgeable posters. We watched Wayne. We know his stats. So what about stats? A good friend of mine used to always say "stats are for losers." When evaluating the best player ever, you don't do it on stats. You do it on HOW HE PLAYED THE GAME. Period.

To the individual who brought up Neely: I am one of the biggest Cam Neely fans around. I have intensely argued for his inclusion in the Hall, against those who don't feel he belongs. (Including Big Phil, who's a pretty knowledgeable guy). But Cam is far from the top players ever. In terms of peak value, and how he played the game, he could be legitimately argued as a top 50 player. It's not that far of a stretch when you look at how he played in his prime. I think he's definitely one of the top 100 players in NHL history. But he's not even as good as positional contemporaries like Bossy and Kurri.

PS: raleh, who's your grandfather?
 

charlio lemieux*

Guest
"Stats are for losers" Eh?

So Why the hell are you bragging up Orr's Art Ross' for then?

Oh Stats are good for Orr, but not Gretzky? What a crock. LMAO
 

Bear of Bad News

Your Third or Fourth Favorite HFBoards Admin
Sep 27, 2005
13,361
26,529
Well you would think the best player ever would be able to win the scoring title more than a measley 2 times.

So by your definition, it's impossible for a goaltender to be the best player ever?

Let's make up a goaltender who plays for twenty seasons and never allows a single goal. According to you, he's not the best player ever?
 

charlio lemieux*

Guest
So by your definition, it's impossible for a goaltender to be the best player ever?

Let's make up a goaltender who plays for twenty seasons and never allows a single goal. According to you, he's not the best player ever?

That is just a foolish statement.
How about we try some common sense?

We are talking about someone who is considered by some to be the best player ever, based primarily on his offense. If Orr wasn't scoring like crazy, there wouldn't even be a debate of him being in the top 20 all-time. But because of his offense he is considered easily in the top 4. So when Offense is such a big part of why he is considered great, then a lack of domination in that area is definitely an issue.
 

KariyaIsGod*

Guest
Bingo. Just think about this for a second: a defenceman won the Art Ross. Repeat it to yourself: a defenceman won the Art Ross. Some people don't understand how incredible that is. The closest comparison I could think of would be a tight end - whose responsibility is blocking, physical play and occasionally making a catch - leading the NFL in receiving yards and touchdowns.

And those who use stats as the measuring stick are sadly mistaken. If you want to hype Gretzky as the greatest player ever, I'm fine with that. Lord knows there are a lot of insightful, intelligent hockey people out there who rate Gretzky as the best ever. Talk about how he's the smartest player ever. Talk about how he saw and thought the game in a way that nobody else ever could. Talk about his array of effective, accurate shots. Talk about his ability to raise his game to another level in the big games, or to dominate in the playoffs. But don't just throw stats out there. This is easily the best part of HF Boards, with the most knowledgeable posters. We watched Wayne. We know his stats. So what about stats? A good friend of mine used to always say "stats are for losers." When evaluating the best player ever, you don't do it on stats. You do it on HOW HE PLAYED THE GAME. Period.

To the individual who brought up Neely: I am one of the biggest Cam Neely fans around. I have intensely argued for his inclusion in the Hall, against those who don't feel he belongs. (Including Big Phil, who's a pretty knowledgeable guy). But Cam is far from the top players ever. In terms of peak value, and how he played the game, he could be legitimately argued as a top 50 player. It's not that far of a stretch when you look at how he played in his prime. I think he's definitely one of the top 100 players in NHL history. But he's not even as good as positional contemporaries like Bossy and Kurri.

PS: raleh, who's your grandfather?

I agree with you in regards to stats. The problem is, there's no way for me to tangibly give you evidence of Wayne Gretzky's smarts on a message board.
 

Patrice37

Registered User
Jul 19, 2006
1,856
111
781
number 4 bobby orr


hands down

never got to see him play but he revolutioned the game and im lucky enough to be a bruins a fan...every time i enter the garden hes everywhere
 

Ti-girl

Registered User
Jan 29, 2005
7,913
1
Merida, Mexico
Howe and Orr

Howe was able to score and dominate the game from top to bottom. Not just on the scoreboard but everywhere on the ice.
He won the Art Ross and the Hart trophey 6 times and the Pearson once. He was able to play in 5 decades (albeit playing in the 5th was only one game.)
He epitomized hockey in Canada.

Orr won the Norris trophy 8 times. He won Won the Art Ross Trophy in 1970 and 1975. He won the Hart Memorial Trophy in 1970, 1971 and 1972 and the Conn Smythe Trophy in 1970 and 1972.
He changed the game paving the road for offensive defensemen like Brad Park and Ray Borque and more recently players like Neidermayer.
 

Trottier

Very Random
Feb 27, 2002
29,232
14
San Diego
Visit site
Classy response to one of the best posters on these boards. :confused:


Thanks SenRule, but your kind words are not needed.

Best to ignore the child. Remember, it's summer and school's out.

He'll be gone soon enough, back on the playground learning his next new slogan which he will repeat continually ("get bent!"). :dunce:

It's amusing and nakedly evident when a fool comes on to the board attempting to talk to a subject about which he knows absolutely nothing. ;)
 

charlio lemieux*

Guest
Thanks SenRule, but your kind words are not needed.

Best to ignore the child. Remember, it's summer and school's out.

He'll be gone soon enough, back on the playground learning his next new slogan which he will repeat continually ("get bent!"). :dunce:

It's amusing and nakedly evident when a fool comes on to the board attempting to talk to a subject about which he knows absolutely nothing. ;)


Why don't you just ignore me then you pompous ***. Calling me a punk and fool only makes yourself more of an arrogant idiot anyway. It's not my fault you have an problem with logic.

I know just as much about it as you and your deluded reasoning skills do.
 

EventHorizon

Bring Back Ties!
It's very frustrating having been born in '78 because it was too late to have seen Orr play. It is the perfect year to have been born in to follow the career of Wayne Gretzky, however. Having done that, it is inconceivable for me to imagine that there was a player better than The Great One. And I feel privileged to have been able to see him play. The thing is that there are too many people whose opinions I respect, including the parents, who say that Orr was the best they've ever seen. So the frustrating thing is not that they say it, because I believe them. The frustrating thing is that I didn't get to see him play. It kills me. As good as I know Wayne was, to even think that there was someone better is incomprehensible. As soon as I find a time machine, I'm going back to watch Orr play, he had to have been something to see.



As far as the best player goes, I would have to go with Orr. Like I said, too many people whose opinions I respect pick him. He dominated the sport in the '70s. He won the Art Ross as a defenseman. That to me is the most amazing thing about him. So for me, the list goes:

1) Orr
2) Gretzky
3) Lemieux

You know, it's funny. I've never wanted to get into one of these "best player ever" threads. I've never really wanted to admit that my favorite player of all time was not the best player of all time. But I have to pick Orr.


A quick question to those who have seen Orr play. How good was he defensively? I think a lot of people of my generation question his defensive abilities because all we see are the numbers he put up offensively. Was he as good defensively as he was on offense?
 

Trottier

Very Random
Feb 27, 2002
29,232
14
San Diego
Visit site
A quick question to those who have seen Orr play. How good was he defensively?

Orr was good defensively, Event. Not great, but good. Put it this way: this was no Sandis Ozolinch type. ;) Not be a long-shot. Orr was also very physical.

The thing about Orr, however, like #99 and #66, and unlike any other player in my lifetime, is that every time he was on the ice, the play revolved around him. Those players commanded disproportionate attention each shift and the puck always found them. Orr even moreso, for as a defenseman, he had the puck on his stick a large part of the time. (Coast to coast, seemingly whenever he wanted to.)

Your point about seeing a player is well taken. As a rule, I never comment (or rate) a player who I did not see first-hand. Seeing a few clips of, say, Maurice Richard and reading his resume and stat sheet, as well as hearing others who did see him, allows me to get an impression of his greatness. But it would be folly for me to comment on him.

Your take on having the "privilege" to see #99 is to be commended, as is your respect for #4. They both deserve it.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->