Wayne Gretzky overrated

[Oddbob]

Lemieux was a better player in his prime IMO.

How? He doesn't even have one season over 200 pts, Gretzky has 5 or 6? That alone proves you wrong. I honestly believe Lemieux had better shooting and deking than Gretzky, but Gretz was superior in most everything else.

 

[Oddbob]

Playing defense was a weakness. As it was for Mario.

Oh dear, playing defense was not expected of offensive players like Gretzky and Lemieux and Yzerman back in the 80's. Who gives a rip if they were the worst defensive players of all time? When you have the puck 80% of the game you aren't exactly spending much energy or time on defense anyhow. Everyone needing to be a complete player only started late 90's early 2000's and is exactly the reason why the game isn't as fun to watch anymore.

 

[Oddbob]

Why do people think other players had better "primes" than Gretzky? Did anyone else win 8 Harts in a Row, or 9 Scoring Titles in a Row? That is just 2 of his 60+ records! No disrespect to Orr, he was in a league of his own as well, but nowhere near Gretzky!

 

[Marshy]

Lucky to have watched his whole career. I was 9 in 79.

I wish everyone could have seen him at his absolute best. Nobody comes close. Even though I witnessed it - reading through this thread I'm even more convinced. Never thought that was possible. Well done!

 

[Iapyi]

Why do people think other players had better "primes" than Gretzky? Did anyone else win 8 Harts in a Row, or 9 Scoring Titles in a Row? That is just 2 of his 60+ records! No disrespect to Orr, he was in a league of his own as well, but nowhere near Gretzky!

i'm pretty much at the point where i don't even waste my time with anyone who argues against gretzky.

i think that it's either people who never saw him play OR, for the ones who were old enough to have watched, know deep down that he was the best ever and they just argue against him for reasons only they know.

 

[bobholly39]

Career - probably Gretzky, but there`s an argument for Howe.
Prime - I`d rank Howe ahead. Maybe you could argue for Bourque ahead as well.
Peak - there`s a solid argument for Orr.
Playoffs - no worse than 3rd behind Richard and/or Roy.
International tournament - probably an argument for Fetisov or Makarov.

If you look at it like that, Gretzky is probably no worse than 3rd in any category, and he has a legitimate argument for 1st in all five. Ranking Gretzky anywhere other than first isn't impossible, but it's a tough sell.

Prime - how is it not Gretzky? To me prime is the player's best year (minimum of 3, usually 5+) where he was at or near his best level. Important factors are heights of prime, consistency, and performance vs peers. Longevity also.

During his 11 first years, he won 9 harts, 9 ross, and 2 smythes. 8 straight harts. The one year he didn't win a hart/ross - he won a smythe. He also captained his team to 4 cups - and made players around him better (and in that aspect, he may also be #1 all time, though that's more subjective).

In what possible world does Bourque stack up? You could maybe say Bourque achieved a very very high level of play (Norris or close) - and remained consistent at that level longer than Gretzky maintained his level. So Longevity of prime = Bourque. But if you factor in height of prime and performance vs peer Gretzky blows him out of water. If you include playoffs in prime (and we should) - it's even a bigger gap.

I'm not sure off hand what you consider Howe's prime. His career is so long it's tricky. Obviously he can have Gretzky beat on longevity if you count his prime till age 41 and his 15th top 7 hart nomination in a row. Consistency and longevity is staggering. But performance vs peers Gretzky remains a huge step ahead. He torched the league in every way possible, was so above everyone for those 11 years (minus Lemieux near end). I don't think the longer longevity of Howe counters that. To me prime is definitely Gretzky. He was the clear cut best player in the world for almost 11 years straight (minus Lemieux). Was Howe even the clear cut best player for 4 years straight? At any point after that?


Peak. You might say there's a solid argument for Orr. I said that myself. I personally find there's an even stronger case for Gretzky. Consistency/length/playoffs being factored into peak i think gives Gretzky the edge, even if you somehow want to say for 1-2 specific season Orr might have been the better contributor on an overall per game basis.

Career. I mean to me, career is prime, peak, + accomplishments (team + individual). Accomplishments - Gretzky owns more records, trophies (individual and not) than any other player. his prime/peak i just spoke of. I have trouble not giving it to Gretzky easily.

Playoffs - we just did the playoff project last year, comparing playoff performers. Frankly I don't see the case for Richard over Gretzky AT ALL. Roy - maybe. A lot of that hinges on it being apples to oranges (goalie vs forward). I personally lean heavily towards Gretzky (3 smythes is awesome, but i feel as though Gretzky should have 4 minimum) - but ok top 2 at minimum, with a much easier case at #1.

International tournament. I also don't know enough about Soviet players to comment about that comparison. Suffice it to say Gretzky blows Howe/Orr/Lemieux away in international competition. So none of them make up ground on him here - he just distances them further.

I realize you're not specifically saying you rank Gretzky behind in all those categories you laid out - you're just opening up the argument that it's plausible. I still think it's not really all that plausible at all.

I don't see a case for Gretzky at #2.

Orr's playoffs are very bad (compared to Gretzky).
International and overall career is also lacking.
Even if you give the slightest of edges to him in prime/peak - Gretzky should destroy him thanks to the other elements.

Howe - very lacking on Gretzky in playoffs and peak (especially length of peak, but also height of peak i think). International tournament too i think (not sure?). I spoke about prime above, and also career. Even if you want to give him the edge in some aspects (and it takes a lot of work to get there) - Gretzky comfortable edges him out overall.

Lemieux - I love playing the "what if" game and speaking about which records Lemieux could have topped under better circumstances. But in an all time ranking there's never been a case to rank Lemieux ahead.

Yeah - I just don't see Gretzky at anywhere but #1 making sense. His resume lacks nothing.

 

[bobholly39]

Playing defense was a weakness. As it was for Mario.

I know a couple of other posters refuted/disputed that claim already.
What I will say is - i didn't mean that Gretzky the "hockey player" had no weaknesses. I'm sure he had a few. He couldn't hit. He wasn't a fighter. Defense too maybe if we agree with you.

I was talking about his resume though. His resume 0 weakness.

He has the peak. The length. The consistency. The records. The cups. The playoffs.

For Orr or Howe to beat Gretzky overall - they need to make up ground somewhere. Where? Gretzky is #1 in all of those areas (and if you feel he isn't, he's usually right there at 1B or 2 at most). He has no weaknesses in his resume.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Oh dear, playing defense was not expected of offensive players like Gretzky and Lemieux and Yzerman back in the 80's. Who gives a rip if they were the worst defensive players of all time? When you have the puck 80% of the game you aren't exactly spending much energy or time on defense anyhow. Everyone needing to be a complete player only started late 90's early 2000's and is exactly the reason why the game isn't as fun to watch anymore.

Sounds like you don't know much about the history of hockey.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

i'm pretty much at the point where i don't even waste my time with anyone who argues against gretzky.

i think that it's either people who never saw him play OR, for the ones who were old enough to have watched, know deep down that he was the best ever and they just argue against him for reasons only they know.

Most of the people that would argue for Orr (like myself) were those that saw Orr play. Hence, they would have seen Gretzky.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I'll let others respond for Mario but for Wayne he was definitely not weak defensively. My comments are based on watching him live hundreds of time. For me he was unorthodox but not weak.

Wayne was a terrific fore-checker and back-checker. He was as good as Datsyuk in stripping pucks. His defensive game was driven like other parts of his game by his anticipation.

In his own end he played very high but that was by design. In part is was a tactic to take the opposition defensemen out of the play. No one backed off defenders like Gretzky which made it significantly easier for the Oilers to get the puck out of their end. . He was also excellent at picking off passes in his own end and transitioning the puck immediately up ice. And while completely non-physical if there was scrum along the boards Gretzky had a great knack of coming away with the puck.

Fore-checking is not a defensive skill.

And Gretzky being a terrific back-checker is simple not true.

 

[shazariahl]

I think Gretzky has to be ranked in the top two.

Someone can argue that Orr had a higher peak. I think that's probably a true statement (but not by much). So if one were to rank Orr first, they'd have to ignore Gretzky's massive advantage in prime, consistency and longevity. That's fine - but then you couldn't rank Howe ahead of Gretzky too. In order to be consistent, you'd have to rank Gretzky second overall because he had a higher peak than Howe (having just taken the position that even a big edge in prime, consistency and longevity don't matter).

Similarly, one can argue that Howe should be first on the basis of his enormous prime, consistency and longevity, even if Gretzky had a higher peak. That's fine too - but then you couldn't rank Orr ahead of Gretzky, because you've just taken the position that prime etc. is most significant.

Lemieux was no better than Gretzky at his absolute best, and Gretzky had a longer/better prime, a longer/better career, and was better in the playoffs and international tournaments. There's no serious argument that he should be ranked higher all-time.

In summary - either Orr or Howe can be ranked ahead of Gretzky, but I don't see how both of them can be without the list being inconsistent.

I've made this same argument myself in the past, so obviously I agree with what you are saying. Its not that there aren't cases to be made for other to be ahead in these areas, but as you say, those usually then preclude the others. You can't argue that Howe is above Gretzky because of the longevity of his career and his consistency, then turn around and claim Orr and Lemieux are also ahead of Gretzky due to whatever else. If you value career that highly, Gretzky is #2 at worst. If you value peak/prime, he is clearly ahead of Howe, and IMO has stronger arguments than Lemieux and probably Orr as well. At worst he's #3, and probably 1 or 2.

IMO there's no reason to rank Richard above Gretzky for playoffs. Gretzky is either #1 here, or #2 behind Roy, who isn't in consideration for top 4 anyways. Of the big 4, its hard to rank anyone ahead of Gretzky for playoffs. Same with international tournaments. It isn't entirely fair to hold international play against Howe and Orr, since they had far fewer opportunities and weren't really at their best when those opportunities did arise, but its pretty hard to build a case against Gretzky here. 3 CC golds, 1 CC silver, led all 4 tournaments in scoring, MVP, set tournament records, etc. Others have already posted his stats for international play vs the other top players, and Gretzky is very dominant.

Whether you are comparing peak, prime, career, playoffs, international play... he just has a stronger overall resume than anyone else.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Some posters look at the total package. This removes qualifiers that are in place that tend to direct the outcome.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Prime - how is it not Gretzky? To me prime is the player's best year (minimum of 3, usually 5+) where he was at or near his best level. Important factors are heights of prime, consistency, and performance vs peers. Longevity also.

During his 11 first years, he won 9 harts, 9 ross, and 2 smythes. 8 straight harts. The one year he didn't win a hart/ross - he won a smythe. He also captained his team to 4 cups - and made players around him better (and in that aspect, he may also be #1 all time, though that's more subjective).

In what possible world does Bourque stack up? You could maybe say Bourque achieved a very very high level of play (Norris or close) - and remained consistent at that level longer than Gretzky maintained his level. So Longevity of prime = Bourque. But if you factor in height of prime and performance vs peer Gretzky blows him out of water. If you include playoffs in prime (and we should) - it's even a bigger gap.

I'm not sure off hand what you consider Howe's prime. His career is so long it's tricky. Obviously he can have Gretzky beat on longevity if you count his prime till age 41 and his 15th top 7 hart nomination in a row. Consistency and longevity is staggering. But performance vs peers Gretzky remains a huge step ahead. He torched the league in every way possible, was so above everyone for those 11 years (minus Lemieux near end). I don't think the longer longevity of Howe counters that. To me prime is definitely Gretzky. He was the clear cut best player in the world for almost 11 years straight (minus Lemieux). Was Howe even the clear cut best player for 4 years straight? At any point after that?

I realize you're not specifically saying you rank Gretzky behind in all those categories you laid out - you're just opening up the argument that it's plausible. I still think it's not really all that plausible at all.

That's right, I'm not necessarily taking any of those positions, just trying to come up with potential/plausible counter-arguments.

The one that probably requires the most explanation is prime. The argument for Howe is that Howe`s prime was longer (20 years - 1950 to 1969; Gretzky`s was 15), he had more years as an elite scorer (top five for each of those twenty years), and more years as a Hart candidate (top five for 16 out of 19 seasons, compared to 12 years straight for Gretzky). Obviously Gretzky had a much higher peak but if you interpret "prime" to mean how long they played at an elite level (and leaving the differences in their peaks to be captured in the peak category), I think there's a very solid argument for Howe ahead of Gretzky - in this particular category.

The argument for Bourque would obviously be weaker, but it would centre around the face that Bourque was named no worse than 4th best at his position 17 years in a row (and 19 years in total). The same was true of Gretzky 13 years in a row (and 16 years in total). I think this is a much weaker argument than Howe's, but if you're trying to answer the question "who was a top player at his position for the greatest amount of time", it's possible to rank Bourque ahead. Then, of course, Gretzky would destroy him in the peak category.

Part of the challenge is even if we're breaking it down into these categories, there aren't any universally accepted definitions.

 

[Canadiens1958]

That's right, I'm not necessarily taking any of those positions, just trying to come up with potential/plausible counter-arguments.

The one that probably requires the most explanation is prime. The argument for Howe is that Howe`s prime was longer (20 years - 1950 to 1969; Gretzky`s was 15), he had more years as an elite scorer (top five for each of those twenty years), and more years as a Hart candidate (top five for 16 out of 19 seasons, compared to 12 years straight for Gretzky). Obviously Gretzky had a much higher peak but if you interpret "prime" to mean how long they played at an elite level (and leaving the differences in their peaks to be captured in the peak category), I think there's a very solid argument for Howe ahead of Gretzky - in this particular category.

The argument for Bourque would obviously be weaker, but it would centre around the face that Bourque was named no worse than 4th best at his position 17 years in a row (and 19 years in total). The same was true of Gretzky 13 years in a row (and 16 years in total). I think this is a much weaker argument than Howe's, but if you're trying to answer the question "who was a top player at his position for the greatest amount of time", it's possible to rank Bourque ahead. Then, of course, Gretzky would destroy him in the peak category.

Part of the challenge is even if we're breaking it down into these categories, there aren't any universally accepted definitions.

Two factors get overlooked here. TOI for an elite defenceman over 19 years vs a center or a winger, 16 to 20 years.

Likewise an elite defenceman influences all of his team's forward lines whereas a center or a winger only one, plus the hybrid line produced by extra shifts. The PP and PK situations also favour the value of a defenceman.

 

[TomatoJos]

Well, he won 3 CC golds and 1 silver in 4 tournaments while leading all 4 tournaments in scoring and setting a record in 87 for the most points scored in the history of the tournament. He even led in 91 despite getting injured and missing part of the last game (which kinda matters in a short tournament). I mean, you certainly can't argue that anyone else dominated more than him during this time period. As for not blowing the Soviets out like 12-2 or something, they had a great team themselves, you just seem to have ridiculous expectations. I'm not certain one could really have been more dominant against this level of competition than Gretzky was.

As others have said, he was also much better in the playoffs than Orr and Lemieux were. Gretzky was amazingly consistent in every situation.

Ridiculous expectations? No. I didnt expect Gretzky to dominate the Soviets. That was probably impossible in those days.

By the way:

 

[Iapyi]

Most of the people that would argue for Orr (like myself) were those that saw Orr play. Hence, they would have seen Gretzky.

maybe, maybe not. i saw them both play [tho i was quite young when orr was playing] and gretzky is in a tier above everyone else as far as i'm concerned. orr was amazing but gretzky was at another level.

it's all subjective anyway and basically a useless exercise of debate.

 

[Merya]

I DO believe, given equal goaltending, "5 Orr's" would beat "5 Gretzky's", but admittedly there's too much fantasizing necessary there.

So does everyone else with a brain. Problem is, that it's a totally idiotic juxtaposition in the first place. However 1 Gretzky and 4 Orrs would beat 5 Orrs 21-0

 

[Merya]

I still maintain that those who place Orr above gretzky, simply don't see and don't want to spend the effort to see hockey for more than second by second entertainment. The so called eye test has no worth if you don't understand the game close to hundred percent. For me it's become rather obvious to see who plays the game and who makes the game. Orr played, Gretzky made.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I still maintain that those who place Orr above gretzky, simply don't see and don't want to spend the effort to see hockey for more than second by second entertainment. The so called eye test has no worth if you don't understand the game close to hundred percent. For me it's become rather obvious to see who plays the game and who makes the game. Orr played, Gretzky made.

Quite the arrogant assessment, I would say.

And way off base, in my opinion.

However, if you understand the game close to 100%, I really shouldn't question your esteemed view.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

So does everyone else with a brain. Problem is, that it's a totally idiotic juxtaposition in the first place. However 1 Gretzky and 4 Orrs would beat 5 Orrs 21-0

So, who wins when 2 Gretzky and 3 Orrs play 2 Mario's and 3 Orrs, on the road on an Olymipic size rink?

 

[Johnny Engine]

So, who wins when 2 Gretzky and 3 Orrs play 2 Mario's and 3 Orrs, on the road on an Olymipic size rink?

The Gretzkys, but 6 King Clancys beat 6 of anything else.

 

[Oddbob]

Sounds like you don't know much about the history of hockey.

[MOD] Players themselves that were scorers have said they weren't expected to bring much if anything to the table defensively, and they would know more than you or I. Also, on top of that, watching them play shows that the offensive guys, such as Bure who played at his own blue line waiting for breakaways prove such. Yzerman played almost no defense until 1993 when Bowman took over Detroit and required a change in style. Countless Gretzky, Lemieux, Yzerman type players played offense only and that was of course OK with their coaches.

When the game tightened up big time in 95 or so, every player was expected to come back and play both ends, otherwise they would be in coaches doghouse.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Players themselves that were scorers have said they weren't expected to bring much if anything to the table defensively, and they would know more than you or I. Also, on top of that, watching them play shows that the offensive guys, such as Bure who played at his own blue line waiting for breakaways prove such. Yzerman played almost no defense until 1993 when Bowman took over Detroit and required a change in style. Countless Gretzky, Lemieux, Yzerman type players played offense only and that was of course OK with their coaches.

When the game tightened up big time in 95 or so, every player was expected to come back and play both ends, otherwise they would be in coaches doghouse.

You do know that the NHL existed before 1980, right?

 

[Oddbob]

You do know that the NHL existed before 1980, right?

What is your point?

 

[Johnny Engine]

What is your point?

The point is that there have been offensively-minded eras and defensively-minded eras, and history almost never solely travels in one direction.
Do you think the high-scoring forwards of the 50s and 60s, for instance, generally didn't have to play two-way hockey?