Wayne Gretzky overrated

[Thenameless]

To those critical of Gretzky, I ask:

What more could he have done?

No one's perfect. He could have played better defense. He was not physically intimidating which is a part of hockey, especially when he played. He could have won more Stanley Cups.

To me the Oilers/Kings thing is a wash. If he had stayed an Oiler, his numbers would likely be better and he'd likely have more Stanley Cups. But, by going to the Kings he indirectly leaves a greater mark on the game.

 

[squaleca]

ok lets give Mario plays with edmonton and doesnt have cancer and back problems etc and he scores x2 #of points that he actually had 1751 x 2 = 3500 points thats only 600 points more than 99 i mean come on wayne had 1696 points as an oiler yes i repeat 99 had as many points in 9 seasons as mario did in 17 ok yea mario was hurt but u want to do the math and figure out in how many games less wayne scored 1751 points go ahead be my guest

 

[squaleca]

Jagr did win the AR that season, yes, but Lemieux outscored Jagr (as he always did, except for his last 2 seasons at the ages of 38 and 40) in PPG by a substantial margin, and Lemieux would have easily won the scoring title had he played the full season.


I'm not giving Lemieux anything, I'm saying that Lemieux would definitely have won several additional ARs if he had played all those games and seasons he missed. No reasonable person would argue otherwise. From 1988 to 2003, Lemieux led the NHL in PPG almost anytime that he played. To suggest that he wouldn't have done at least as good (and presumably much better) if he were actually healthy is to suggest something that's not believable.


I think you're being hard on the guy - he underwent a lot of cancer treatments, and had several back surgeries, etc.


I'm not a Lemieux apologist - he was never among my favourites. I don't know what you mean by "extra credit". I merely think people should acknowledge was is obviously true - that Lemieux was one hell of a special hockey player (as Gretzky also was), and that if you want to rank Gretzky ahead of him, that's fine, but it's not by much, and Lemieux was a better player than Gretzky for quite a long period of time while they were playing at the same time (with only 4 years age difference between them).

99 1696 points in 9 years, mario 1751 in 17 seasons

 

[squaleca]

facts are had mario played 20 full seasons his ppg would be closer to 1.6 ppg had 99 played 17 half season his ppg would be close to 2.5 ppg those are facts

 

[squaleca]

yes gretzky is overated

Top 5 Most Statistically Dominant Athletes Of All-Time

 

[squaleca]

dont get me wrong i love mario hes argubably the second best hockey player ive ever seen play as i was born in 74
but people always compare him in his prime to 99 past his prime.

so when people make silly statements like gretzky was protected had hall of famers etc well the truth needs to be told u want to say mario is better than wayne fine but dont make up stats dumb statmenets and say things like he would have destroyed 99 records and that wayne would get killed in todays game becuase 18 years later and 100 years later noone is destroying wayne gretzky records no one

 

[squaleca]

was watching game highlights and they showed a stat 15 points and i was like big deal and then they showed how many games and i was like what
go watch youtube oilers vs redwings hattrick theres a point in the game where they post his point totals vs the red wings and its like 76 points in 21 games

 

[RageQuit77]

Overrated and underrated terms doesn't work very well with The Great One.

He IS the measurement stick we compare all others, so if overrate or underrate Gretzky, we essentially change only a length of our measuring stick, and that doesn't either change his relative or absolute position on that measurement stick.

And while we can point out to this or that fault in Gretzky's play, it's kind a moot point as he appears the least faulty in whole spectrum.

You simply cannot forget those +1000 assists and most goals ever. How you exactly underrate that? How you exactly overrate it?

 

[Boxscore]

To those critical of Gretzky, I ask:

What more could he have done?

I don't think people are being critical of Gretzky as much as some are trying to paint the picture for Lemieux.

I mean how do you criticize Gretzky?! The only legit thing you could possibly say is that he was fortunate enough to play with a bunch of HHOFers but soe were many other great superstars, especially in the O6 era. And that's not even being critical - I mean Gretzky played where he played.

I think, like with Orr, the tease is there when it comes to Mario - the "what ifs?"

If Orr's knees held up, how many Norris trophies would he have? 12-13? What if Mario didn't get cancer or have a horrible back? Would he have eclipsed 215?

Orr and Mario were so special, the answer to these hypothetical questions is probably "yes."

It's like connecting the dots, based on the amount of knowledge you have of them, their skills, and what they've accomplished.

 

[canuckster19]

I'm just going to ask this here since I don't want to start a new thread which requires a simple answer. Back in 2002, was there some sort of buzz or rallying call for Gretzky to play one last time for Canada in the Olympics? I seem to recall him having to deny rumours he might play.

 

[Asheville]

I don't think people are being critical.

I think, like with Orr, the tease is there when it comes to Mario - the "what ifs?"

If Orr's knees held up, how many Norris trophies would he have? 12-13? What if Mario didn't get cancer or have a horrible back? Would he have eclipsed 215?

Orr and Mario were so special, the answer to these hypothetical questions is probably "yes."

It's like connecting the dots, based on the amount of knowledge you have of them, their skills, and what they've accomplished.

Probably "no." The very attributes that made them legends are the same that broke them down.

Orr played balls to the wall, was extremely physical and faster than the speed of sound. That had a shelf life.

Lemieux was huge and didn't restrict himself to the perimeter, so he could be reached and abused. That had a shelf life.

Same applies to all of the other bright lights that burned out quickly (Neely, Bure, Forsberg, Bossy, Lindros, etc.).

Can't have one without the other. Too convenient.

 

[Rygu]

I'm a major Lemieux fan, and I believe his skillset was even a bit better than Gretzky's. I also think the cancer/back issues prevented him from seriously challenging Wayne's records.

Having said that, Gretzky was not overrated. He dominated the 80's like nobody has ever dominated an entire decade and probably never will again. The entire league had to up their game (or try to) because of how dominant he was.

 

[Boxscore]

Probably "no." The very attributes that made them legends are the same that broke them down.

Orr played balls to the wall, was extremely physical and faster than the speed of sound. That had a shelf life.

Lemieux was huge and didn't restrict himself to the perimeter, so he could be reached and abused. That had a shelf life.

Same applies to all of the other bright lights that burned out quickly (Neely, Bure, Forsberg, Bossy, Lindros, etc.).

Can't have one without the other. Too convenient.

Fair point in a way. But that's not always the case - luck plays a part. I mean, who played tougher than Howe and Messier? Both played forever. Ray Bourque played as robust as Bobby Orr and still went out on top, late in his career. Shanahan was a monster, so was Sundin. Some players are simply fortunate enough to get the breaks and some are plagued. In the case of Mario, you're talking about cancer at a young age. I mean, how unfortunate is that?

Barring cancer and a horrific back ailment, I think it is feasible to say Mario could have eclipsed 215, especially in 92-93, when he scored at the same PPG pace as Gretzky when he scored 215. Remove the physical and mental anguish of cancer, the time off, and it makes perfect sense that Mario scores about 220 that season... and that's being fairly conservative.

Orr was a different animal, especially since the training and advances in medicine were not on par in the 70's. However, I don't think it's outrageous to suggest he could've played, say, 15 seasons, without his knees bailing on him.

True, all hypothetical. And, again, this is making a case for them, not discrediting Gretz. Like the person above said, how does anyone discredit Wayne Gretzky? It's impossible.

I guess I look at it this simply...

Wayne Gretzky is a 10/10. So he can never be "overrated." However, some people take issue that Gretzky is a 10/10 and Lemieux is an 8/10 or Orr is an 8.5/10. To me, this is about making the case that Lemieux was a 9.8/10 and Orr was a 10/10. It has nothing to do with reducing Gretzky to a 9/10, etc.

 

[Asheville]

Fair point in a way. But that's not always the case - luck plays a part. I mean, who played tougher than Howe and Messier? Both played forever. Ray Bourque played as robust as Bobby Orr and still went out on top, late in his career. Shanahan was a monster, so was Sundin. Some players are simply fortunate enough to get the breaks and some are plagued. In the case of Mario, you're talking about cancer at a young age. I mean, how unfortunate is that?

Barring cancer and a horrific back ailment, I think it is feasible to say Mario could have eclipsed 215, especially in 92-93, when he scored at the same PPG pace as Gretzky when he scored 215. Remove the physical and mental anguish of cancer, the time off, and it makes perfect sense that Mario scores about 220 that season... and that's being fairly conservative.

Orr was a different animal, especially since the training and advances in medicine were not on par in the 70's. However, I don't think it's outrageous to suggest he could've played, say, 15 seasons, without his knees bailing on him.

True, all hypothetical. And, again, this is making a case for them, not discrediting Gretz. Like the person above said, how does anyone discredit Wayne Gretzky? It's impossible.

I guess I look at it this simply...

Wayne Gretzky is a 10/10. So he can never be "overrated." However, some people take issue that Gretzky is a 10/10 and Lemieux is an 8/10 or Orr is an 8.5/10. To me, this is about making the case that Lemieux was a 9.8/10 and Orr was a 10/10. It has nothing to do with reducing Gretzky to a 9/10, etc.

Well, you are discrediting Gretzky by taking two relatively short careers, playing make-believe, turning make-believe into likelihoods ("Mario scores about 220 that season... and that's being fairly conservative"), and using all of that fantasy to put them on par with Gretzky.

You want a legitimate "what if"? Monica Seles stabbed with a knife by a Steffi Graff fan during a changeover. That's a real example.

Those healthy players you listed may have remained healthy for a variety of reasons, including adaptation. Gretzky became quite the perimeter player in the latter half of his career. Orr and Lemieux made no such changes. And to play your game, maybe the more 66 and 4 play, the more they wear down and the more their amazing production and averages fall off. You know, like Gretzky. What if Lemieux played all 84 games in '93-'94 as opposed to 60? Think the mileage attached to 24 more games means nothing? He just goes from game 1 to game 84, no breaks between, without his production slowing down?

You are doing what every Orr/Lemieux "make-believer" does: you're assuming no decline.

So I play the game in reverse: Gretzky tragically dies just before ever suiting up for the Kings.

Now take just his Oilers career and project forward. 4,000 pts? 8+ Stanley Cups? 20 Art Rosses?

And that's why these exercises are dumb.

 

[Boxscore]

Well, you are discrediting Gretzky by taking two relatively short careers, playing make-believe, turning make-believe into likelihoods ("Mario scores about 220 that season... and that's being fairly conservative"), and using all of that fantasy to put them on par with Gretzky.

You want a legitimate "what if"? Monica Seles stabbed with a knife by a Steffi Graff fan during a changeover. That's a real example.

Those healthy players you listed may have remained healthy for a variety of reasons, including adaptation. Gretzky became quite the perimeter player in the latter half of his career. Orr and Lemieux made no such changes. And to play your game, maybe the more 66 and 4 play, the more they wear down and the more their amazing production and averages fall off. You know, like Gretzky. What if Lemieux played all 84 games in '93-'94 as opposed to 60? Think the mileage attached to 24 more games means nothing? He just goes from game 1 to game 84, no breaks between, without his production slowing down?

You are doing what every Orr/Lemieux "make-believer" does: you're assuming no decline.

So I play the game in reverse: Gretzky tragically dies just before ever suiting up for the Kings.

Now take just his Oilers career and project forward. 4,000 pts? 8+ Stanley Cups? 20 Art Rosses?

And that's why these exercises are dumb.

I think you're exaggerating a bit. In the case of Orr and Mario (92-93), we were robbed of some of their best hockey in the prime of their careers, not towards the end. So, yes, there would be decline factored in, but it would be after their prime. If healthy, Orr probably wouldn't have started to decline until about 33-34, which means at least 3 more Norris Trophies, giving him 11. Add another one or two in their for sentiment voting if you like - that's still feasible. Then, Orr would play a couple of down years before hanging up the blades.

Lemieux was dominating when he left in 97 and would have at least dominated at the same level through 2000. I mean, come on, he returned as a 37 year old, after not playing for 3 years, and scored 76 points in 43 games!! We're not reaching here.

As for your hypothetical in regards to Gretzky, God forbid that happened, people would have assumed the high end, at least until he was 35. And, if you look at Gretz's career, he scored 149 in 64 during his last season in EDM and 5 of his next 6 years in LA were pretty comparable to that, so it's not a stretch.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Well, you are discrediting Gretzky by taking two relatively short careers, playing make-believe, turning make-believe into likelihoods ("Mario scores about 220 that season... and that's being fairly conservative"), and using all of that fantasy to put them on par with Gretzky.

You want a legitimate "what if"? Monica Seles stabbed with a knife by a Steffi Graff fan during a changeover. That's a real example.

Those healthy players you listed may have remained healthy for a variety of reasons, including adaptation. Gretzky became quite the perimeter player in the latter half of his career. Orr and Lemieux made no such changes. And to play your game, maybe the more 66 and 4 play, the more they wear down and the more their amazing production and averages fall off. You know, like Gretzky. What if Lemieux played all 84 games in '93-'94 as opposed to 60? Think the mileage attached to 24 more games means nothing? He just goes from game 1 to game 84, no breaks between, without his production slowing down?

You are doing what every Orr/Lemieux "make-believer" does: you're assuming no decline.

So I play the game in reverse: Gretzky tragically dies just before ever suiting up for the Kings.

Now take just his Oilers career and project forward. 4,000 pts? 8+ Stanley Cups? 20 Art Rosses?

And that's why these exercises are dumb.

"You are doing what every Orr/Lemieux "make-believer" does: you're assuming no decline."

How about if one simply believes Orr was a better hockey player than Gretzky? Is it OK to rank him best ever?

 

[psycat]

"You are doing what every Orr/Lemieux "make-believer" does: you're assuming no decline."

How about if one simply believes Orr was a better hockey player than Gretzky? Is it OK to rank him best ever?

Sure you can since it's subjective. However you cant, with credibility, rank him as the greatest ever - Simply cant argue against the achievements of Gretzky.

Otoh I could also proclaim that Forsberg was a better player than Crosby doesnt make it true.

 

[Jim MacDonald]

I haven't looked myself to verify this, but I heard that Gretzky ended up being a "minus player" in the 90's....now whether he was a high minus or not I don't know...but how much of an impact should that have on his legacy?

 

[Nick Hansen]

I haven't looked myself to verify this, but I heard that Gretzky ended up being a "minus player" in the 90's....now whether he was a high minus or not I don't know...but how much of an impact should that have on his legacy?

From the start of 90/91 season to his final season with the Rangers in 98/99 he ended up being -56 after all those years. Who cares really.

 

[jj cale]

How can a guy with such statistical dominance, a guy with eight consecutive hart trophies, be overrated?

The guy is UNDERRATED on HF, it's a joke around here sometimes how he get's downplayed. He isn't just the most dominant hockey player of all time, he is one of the most dominant ATHLETES of all time, it is just a question of where he would rank on that list and it would be pretty high.

What Wayne did in the 1980's was mind boggling, there have been few decades dominated like that by any athlete in any sport.

He is in the pantheon of all time great sports figures.

 

[Asheville]

I haven't looked myself to verify this, but I heard that Gretzky ended up being a "minus player" in the 90's....now whether he was a high minus or not I don't know...but how much of an impact should that have on his legacy?

Glenn Healy
Mark Fitzpatrick
Byron Dafoe
Jamie Storr
Kelly Hrudey

You figure it out.

 

[Jim MacDonald]

Glenn Healy
Mark Fitzpatrick
Byron Dafoe
Jamie Storr
Kelly Hrudey

You figure it out.

Those guys are all in the Hall though....the Kings hall? I thought there was that marketing ploy in the 90's the Forum did ....."Opponents have no idea what's in Storr for them when they take the ice!!"

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Sure you can since it's subjective. However you cant, with credibility, rank him as the greatest ever - Simply cant argue against the achievements of Gretzky.

Otoh I could also proclaim that Forsberg was a better player than Crosby doesnt make it true.

Plenty of credible (hockey) people argue for Orr over Gretzky. Most of them saw both play.

 

[Leaf Fans]

Totally overrated. He was too small, too slow, and his shot is poor. I am not going to look, but I will assume that he didn't dominate based on the criteria that I bothered to look up.

 

[The Pale King]

Glenn Healy
Mark Fitzpatrick
Byron Dafoe
Jamie Storr
Kelly Hrudey

You figure it out.

Don't forget 56 games of Robb Stauber.

So Wayne is -56 for the decade, and there were 56 games where Stauber suited up for the Kings while Gretz was there. Coincidence? I don't think so!