Why is Gretzky known as the best?

[triggrman]

Gretz played in a wide open era, where everyone scored a ton of goals. He played with some great linemates, but yet not a single person from that era even comes close to his totals, not even close.

He dominated offensively in one of the best era's of offensive hockey.

 

[Nifty=HHOF]

If Bobby Orr hadn't gotten hurt (which he did, so my point is purely hypothetical), he would get a great deal more discussion in this conversation. I grew up near Boston in the late 70's so I only saw the very end of the Orr era, but I never saw anything like him. My argurement for Orr is as follows;

1) He revolutionize the game. No one playing his position ever played the game the way he did. Defensman were stay-at-home, never cross the blue line, and were only an offensive threat on the PP. All of that changed with Orr and after him players like Coffey and Bourque benefitted greatly (as did lesser players like Gonchar, Ozolinsh, etc).

2) I'll accept (easily) that Gretzky was the greatest offensive player of all time (the record book speaks for itself, Mario wasn't within shouting distance IMO), but there's more to hockey than just offense. I think it's pretty clear cut who was better defensively, which leads me to;

3) Overall game. The point of the game for your team to score more goals than your opponents, so let's take a look at +/-. In 1970-71, Orr was an amazing +124 in 78 games, the close as Gretzky ever came was +98 in 84-85. Later in his career (while he still scoring near league leading numbers), he was consistently in -'s. In fact he was only "+" twice after 1991.

4) Physical Play. Again, no doubt offense goes to Gretzky (despite playing different positions), but Orr also controlled the game physically which is something Gretzky clearly never did. Although there is less emphasis on this today, back in Orr's day this was a major part of the game.

All this said, I begrudingly accept Wayne Douglas Gretzky as the greatest player with longevity being a deciding factor. Just don't undersell Orr.

 

[NYIsles1*]

And this was the EASTERN CONFERENCE, whom that Islander fan up there thinks is sooooo tough... tight checking playoffs. No problem, he carried the team on his ailing back.

The results do not lie. Teams from the Western Conference did not play in the finals for years until the conference playoffs were reinstated.

What I also wrote was the disparity ended in the 90's between the Eastern and Western Conference. By 1997, it was a level playing field and the West had more dominating teams.

I'm not putting down Gretzky's vision and abilities and it's hard to argue with numbers and no doubt he was an outstanding player.

I am saying many of the numbers in his prime are like Barry Bonds hitting 200 homeruns a year playing the Devil Rays, Brewers, Tigers while winning World Series the way the Marlins got by a tired Yankee team last year.

No way do I see Gretzky or those Oiler teams doing what they did as an Eastern Conference team. Which is why I see Lemieux and Bossy's numbers as more significant because you cannot win playing that style in this conference.

 

[Big Phil]

Three different times Gretzky either had more or the same amount of assists as the next player in the league had points. He had 163 assists in '85-86 while the next highest player, Lemieux, had 141 points!

He could put a pass through a skate blade and a skate boot. His old teammate Dave Semenko once said "Don't ever think that Gretzky can't see you" based on his uncanny passes. The thing that separated him was his vision, he was the smartest person on the ice game in and game out. He anticipated the play before anyone else could even see it.

 

[Malefic74]

The results do not lie. Teams from the Western Conference did not play in the finals for years until the conference playoffs were reinstated.

No way do I see Gretzky or those Oiler teams doing what they did as an Eastern Conference team. Which is why I see Lemieux and Bossy's numbers as more significant because you cannot win playing that style in this conference.

This is how the "East Coast bias" thing gets started. Incidentally the Pens did pretty good with that style in the early 90's. Ditto the Nords and Habs in the late 80's. Boston had no problem running and gunning in the 70's did they?

Versus the soft Western conference teams whom he had more chance to do damage against playing them more often in 762 regular season games Gretz scored 1583 pts. An average of 2.08 PPG.

Against the big bad Eastern conference in regular season games he managed a paltry 1116 pts in 611 games. An average of 1.82 PPG.

The difference is a mere .26 PPG. As an aside the team that fared best against him? The Buffalo Sabres. The worst? The Quebec Nordiques/Colorado Avalanche.

I'm a fan of the Montreal Canadiens, and Eastern Conference team and a power for the bulk of the 80's. But my boys could not stop Gretzky. Bob Gainey could not stop Gretzky, neither could Guy Carbonneau; both of whom are regarded as some of the best defensive forwards the game has ever seen.

I agree with you, the styles of hockey in the two conferences do favor certain types of player, Val Bure or Vince Damphousse are good examples of that. But for Gretzky it made a negligible difference, if any at all.

 

[David Puddy]

Gretzky would not have scored what he did playing in today's league and would not have put up the numbers he did in previous era's.

No kidding Gretzky wouldn't have scored as much as he did in the early-80's, but he still would have put up a lot of points and led the league. In 1997-98, while playing for a bad New York Rangers team, Gretzky, who turned 37 midway throught the season, finished tied for third in scoring. What would a 25 year old Gretzky have done? I reckon he would have finished well above Jagr.

1- Rocket Richard: First player to score 50 goals in 50 games. Played during a tough time where people knew how to check.

Gretzky scored 50 goals in 39 games. He scored 5 goals against the Philadelphia Flyers on December 30, 1981 to reach the 50-goal level. I think Philadelphia was a pretty tough team. They knew how to do a lot more than simply "check."

Gretzky averaged over 200 points during a six-season period. No one else has ever even reached the 200 point plateau, which the Great One did four times.

9 Hart Trophies, 10 Art Ross Trophies and 5 Lester B. Pearson Trophies.

The NHL retired Gretzky's number 99 for a reason.

For someone who was a playmaker, and the best ever, he sure did score a lot of goals.

"[Gretzky's] intelligence on the ice and instincts for the game are just amazing," Armstrong said. "You watch him do things which 10-year NHL veterans have trouble handling and you figure he must be 35 years old. He has that ability which only the rare, gifted players have to just automatically be where the puck is. It seems to be something a very few players are born with, not something they can learn or be taught.

That was said by George Armstrong when Gretzky was 16 years old. Have a look at the Sporting News article from January 27, 1978.

 

[looooob]

Calgary? They went from a team off the radar in Atlanta to a prime contender for a cup simply because they moved.


.

you have made this claim a few times and it is simply not true

Calgary's first year in Calgary they made it to the semi-finals, BUT they were still playing in their 'old' division(NYI,PHI,NYR-who they beat by 18 points, and WSH-who they beat by 22 points). The playoffs that year had them play teams from the East (ie Philadelphia who they beat) and teams from the West (ie Minnesota who they ultimately lost to)

Calgary became a cup contender because they became really good in a decade where they drafted Vernon, MacInnis, Suter, Fleury,Nieuwendyk,Roberts,Loob,Hull,Makarov...traded for the likes of Lanny,Gilmour and Mullen and signed college FAs like Otto, Patterson and Macoun. That team would have done just fine in the Eastern Conference in the mid-late 80s...in fact I wager they would have been in the finals more than twice if THEY didn't have to go through Edmonton

not just because they moved to the Western Conference, I'm sorry

and yes Edmonton lost to Calgary during the Gretzky era...ONCE. a damn good team, and they beat Edmonton once. give the Oilers some credit man, it doesn't diminish the Islanders to do so

 

[NYIsles1*]

you have made this claim a few times and it is simply not true

Calgary's first year in Calgary they made it to the semi-finals, BUT they were still playing in their 'old' division(NYI,PHI,NYR-who they beat by 18 points, and WSH-who they beat by 22 points). The playoffs that year had them play teams from the East (ie Philadelphia who they beat) and teams from the West (ie Minnesota who they ultimately lost to)

Calgary became a cup contender because they became really good in a decade where they drafted Vernon, MacInnis, Suter, Fleury,Nieuwendyk,Roberts,Loob,Hull,Makarov...traded for the likes of Lanny,Gilmour and Mullen and signed college FAs like Otto, Patterson and Macoun. That team would have done just fine in the Eastern Conference in the mid-late 80s...in fact I wager they would have been in the finals more than twice if THEY didn't have to go through Edmonton not just because they moved to the Western Conference, I'm sorry

and yes Edmonton lost to Calgary during the Gretzky era...ONCE. a damn good team, and they beat Edmonton once. give the Oilers some credit man, it doesn't diminish the Islanders to do so

Not about giving crediting or diminishing anything. This was the competitive landscape of the league in that era. I do think the late 80's Flames could have won a cup out of the East, but prior to that absolutely not. In 1981 the league played a balanced schedule so Calgary listed in the Patrick Division played everyone the same four times. Aside from defeating Philadelphia in one playoff series in 1981 (and losing to Minnesota) for five years in the seventies Calgary did not get out of the opening round one time.

When expansion came in 1967 the Blues made three finals in a row and the final was such a mismatch the league had to go back to non-conference playoffs until 1981. During that time only one team from the West (Chicago) even played in a final.

Whether you care to admit it or not there was a huge disaprity.

When the playoff format changed to conference playoffs Calgary finally started winning some playoff series. But the bottom line was teams like Vancouver were marginal at best in that era and never would have had success playing as Eastern Conference seeds.

You want to give the Oilers credit that's fine, they were good enough to win a cup in either conference, but the road and quality of opponents to the finals after the conference playoffs were reinstated were far different for East and West. Would the Islanders in 84 or Philadelphia in 85 had enough to defeat Edmonton if they had Winnipeg, Vancouver and Calgary in the early rounds as opposed to Boston, Rangers, Montreal.

I think so. I have no doubt Edmonton would have had to go thru a harder grind to get into a final. No way they would have won five cups.

 

[Diaboli]

IMO Maradona was the best but Pele was the greatest.As i said previously there is a difference between greatest and best.Best is a measure of ones ability.Greatest
implies more than that

Don't really know what you mean by that. Do you mean leadership? Pele wasn't a real leader. Neither was Maradona. Or do you mean the life after their football-careers? I'd say that that award goes to Pele 100-0, but would you please specify what you mean.

 

[KariyaIsGod*]

Not about giving crediting or diminishing anything. This was the competitive landscape of the league in that era. I do think the late 80's Flames could have won a cup out of the East, but prior to that absolutely not. In 1981 the league played a balanced schedule so Calgary listed in the Patrick Division played everyone the same four times. Aside from defeating Philadelphia in one playoff series in 1981 (and losing to Minnesota) for five years in the seventies Calgary did not get out of the opening round one time.

When expansion came in 1967 the Blues made three finals in a row and the final was such a mismatch the league had to go back to non-conference playoffs until 1981. During that time only one team from the West (Chicago) even played in a final.

Whether you care to admit it or not there was a huge disaprity.

When the playoff format changed to conference playoffs Calgary finally started winning some playoff series. But the bottom line was teams like Vancouver were marginal at best in that era and never would have had success playing as Eastern Conference seeds.

You want to give the Oilers credit that's fine, they were good enough to win a cup in either conference, but the road and quality of opponents to the finals after the conference playoffs were reinstated were far different for East and West. Would the Islanders in 84 or Philadelphia in 85 had enough to defeat Edmonton if they had Winnipeg, Vancouver and Calgary in the early rounds as opposed to Boston, Rangers, Montreal.

I think so. I have no doubt Edmonton would have had to go thru a harder grind to get into a final. No way they would have won five cups.

You can't conclusively say that. They may very well have won 5 cups.

 

[dawgbone]

Would the Islanders in 84 or Philadelphia in 85 had enough to defeat Edmonton if they had Winnipeg, Vancouver and Calgary in the early rounds as opposed to Boston, Rangers, Montreal.

I think so. I have no doubt Edmonton would have had to go thru a harder grind to get into a final. No way they would have won five cups.

Aside from 1987, they won all of their final series in 5 games or less. They routinely dominated Eastern Conference teams (60 games above .500 from 1982-83 to 1987-88).

The Flames were built solely to beat Edmonton... it's a lot tougher to beat a team that is built for the sole purpose of beating you, than it is to beat teams you are merely competing against.

 

[Malefic74]

NYIsles does have a point in that in the early 80's in particular, it was far more common in the Campbell Conference for teams with losing records to qualify for the playoffs; although it did occasionally occur in the Wales as well. What we need to remember is that for that period some traditional powerhouses were nothing short of pitiful (Detroit, Toronto) while a large portion of the conference were expansion teams thus not as strong as a conference.

My problem with the argument lies in two places. One. Teams and players are often guilty of playing to the level of their opponent, whether up or down. So regardless of a team's record they can still be a dangerous force on the ice. Thus while it may look statistically like a mismatch, going through teams deemed weaker can be just as grueling as going through teams with better records.

Two. If going through weaker opposition made a team unworthy of the final they should nearly always lose. Doesn't happen. If a team slogging through tougher teams en route to the final tires them out, then they should nearly always lose. This doesn't happen either. The dynamic between any two teams is unique to that matchup regardless of the won-loss records.

In the end, no matter what competition he faced, regardless of the style or strategem any opponent used to stop him, Gretzky consistently was the instrument of his opponents' destruction. This was also true of Orr but longevity is the difference there. As for Bossy, while possibly the best pure scorer the league has seen, he was nevertheless one dimensional and defenses could stop him.

 

[looooob]

You want to give the Oilers credit that's fine, they were good enough to win a cup in either conference, but the road and quality of opponents to the finals after the conference playoffs were reinstated were far different for East and West. Would the Islanders in 84 or Philadelphia in 85 had enough to defeat Edmonton if they had Winnipeg, Vancouver and Calgary in the early rounds as opposed to Boston, Rangers, Montreal.

I think so. I have no doubt Edmonton would have had to go thru a harder grind to get into a final. No way they would have won five cups.

I'm still not buying your point, at all

look at the Standings from 1984-85 as an example. can you tell me how the Rangers were a tougher opponent than the Flames, Jets or Canucks?

look I agree with you, in the 1970s the Western based teams were not strong, but by the 1980s there were some strong teams emerging in the West, --for example Calgary, that were every bit the equal of many teams in the East

 

[Aarex]

Maybe it has something to do with the 61 NHL records he holds?

 

[Hab-a-maniac]

Ok, NYIsles guy. When the playoff format when to inter-conference, Calgary finally starting winning some playoff series. Right there you've showed your thin knowledge. The conf. format was instituted in 1993-94 and Cgy. lost to the Canucks, then to the Sharks and Hawks in the first round the next 2 seasons before their 7 year drought. The divisional format was still in there when the Flames began some success in the mid-to-late 80s, then pitifully underacheived after the cup win 89. Yet you know something, they beat the Oilers once in the playoffs. The Oilers won in 83 handily like they should've, came closer than they should've to losing but still won in 84 and lost when they should have won in 86 and we all know what fluky goal did them in! But the Oil managed to beat the Flames even when the Flames were the better team in 1988 (Oilers having 99 to their league-high 105 pts.) and 1991 (82 pts. to the Flames 99).

In an earlier post, my study did support the proof that the Isles had tougher competition to defeat in the playoffs but the notion that Gretz and the Oilers would have struggled to win cups in the Prince of Wales is nonsense. Within itself, the P.O.W. was more closely competitive. The Campbell was the Oilers and everyone else until Calgary woke up. But does that make Edmonton a weaker team than the isles? Not really because the Oilers didn't exactly suffer against P.O.W. teams. Like the Rangers, Capitals and Flyers could've put a stop to the Oilers better than they did to the Isles? I don't buy it, really. But you think that would hurt the Oil in playing in the P.O.W. because the other teams would tire them out and that they beat up on Wales teams in the finals only because those teams were tired out? No no no, that can easily be cancelled out.

The point is, and we're going by driving distance in cases of under 2 days straight, while the Islanders nearest rival, the Rags, was a mere 2 hrs. away (as was the Oil's rival the Flames), their whole division was within at the most (Washington) a 24 hr. day's drive! Washington, Philly, Pittsburgh, later New Jersey were pretty close. As for the other div. you might ask? It was also just a full day's drive to find their furthest rival, as in Quebec. Montreal was a bit shorter of a trip, Buffalo even shorter, Boston about the same, Hartford; maybe 5 hours! Pretty close knit as there were no teams from the East Side, in the sun belt or southcentral or even northcentral for that matter.

The Oilers had not far to go for the Flames, a full day's drive to Vancouver, a day and a half to get to Winnipeg but a freakin' 3.5 hour flight to face Los Angeles who was a bit more than twice as far from Edmonton as the furthest team in the whole P.O.W. conf. was from the Isles. Edmonton, after all, is the furthest North of all major cities in North America. Then, let's go to the Norris. Sure, weak teams and all but Chicago (2.5 hour flight), Minnesota (1.5 hour flight), Detroit (3 hour flight), St. Louis (4.5 hour flight) and Toronto (3.5 hour flight) are not exactly down the road. Factor in this during the reg. season, and a couple of not-so-tough trips during the Div. playoffs, then you face the distant Norris div. winner. Sounds like a lot more flight time than what the Isles had to deal with.

Remember the 1993 Conf. finals in the Campbell Conf. The Leafs and Kings are 5 hours apart and they had to make 4 flights during the series. That's 20 hours on a plane. Meanwhile, the Habs and Isles even if they went 7 would have 4 flights totalling 4 hours. I should know about the Western travel problem, it tires teams out no matter what you want to think when it comes to quality of opponents. The reg. season is way tougher to deal with. And Eastern teams complain about going West, please!!! They don't have to travel multiple hours on the plane to play divisional rivals!!! Being the Habs and going to Tampa takes 2.5 hours but you only make that trip twice in the reg. season, usually pieced in there is a game at Florida.

Being a Habs fan, this close proximity is what helped us stay fresh enough to vanquish our gassed opponents in the 86 and 93 cup finals. The Flames in 89 were good enough to only lose 4 game en route to the finals because if it had been 6-9 L's piled up, they'd be too tired to last against Montreal especially with the crazy 3.5 hour flights. The playoffs would be more balanced if the Eastern and Western teams were pooled 1-16 but that takes away from divisional and conf. rivalry. If it had been like this; guaranteed less injuries and fatigue for the Flames and they'd have beaten Tampa who although they played distant NYI, Montreal and Philly (all over 1.5 hrs. away), didn't need as many games as the Flames who battled Vancouver, Detroit and San Jose (all but one is 3 or more hours away on a flight). If you could calculate the hours every year between the finalist from the Campbell/West and the one from the Wales/East, you'd see the decided advantage of playing out East. Competition aside, the travel length makes you weary and the Oilers avoided this sometimes by not getting drawn into 7 game series' (or the DSF 5 game distance before 1986) with far-away teams. Under div. playoffs: only in the finals vs. Philly in 87, 3 times vs. Calgary, once against Winnipeg in 90, and against LA in 5 games in 82 and 7 in 89 but they were eliminated in those Div. Semi-finals anyway, so there wasn't much to be tired about for a proceeding series.

The fact that the Isles conf. had more teams finish with better records and it was overall not as top-heavy as the Campbell Conf., you still had to play Western teams much more than now because there was just 21 in the NHL. And before the div. format, reg. season play was easy for the Isles too. Playoffs made sure they ended up facing the quality rivals from the P.O.W. such as Montreal, Buffalo, Boston, Toronto and sometimes LA. The tough teams were in their own div. in Philly and Atlanta. They were in the weaker Campbell from 75-81 BTW with the inconsistent such as the Rangers (always tough on the Isles though) and Blackhawks while the Blues and North Stars just plained sucked until 1979. Colorado always was crap, too. Also, the relatively weak WHA teams came in for the last two years that the Isles were in the Campbell, adding the terrible Winnipeg and still bad Washington. Only with the restructured league did the Caps come to life and the Pens and Devils permanently nestle into the bottom.

The Isles had some out-of-div. competition with Montreal, Boston, Buffalo and Quebec a legion of rotating threats out of the Adams. Only Hartford, Pittsburgh and New Jersey were consistently dreadful in this 81-84 time period. While teams took turns being the best in their divisions while remaining never too far ahead of their peers (except for the Islanders of course), the Oilers had the inconsistent Norris to contend with (only Minnesota, Chicago and Detroit had back-to-back seasons of 1st in that division that usually had only 1 team over .500) in the Oilers heyday of 1981-90. While the afformentioned squads blew at other points, Toronto was generally an emberassment and St. Louis waded through mediocrity, only coming 1st in 86-87 with a mere 79 pts., a year after their only conf. final of this period). And a rotating basis of quality competitors would show up in the up-and-down Winnipeg and Los Angeles, while Calgary rounded into their natural born enemies for the rest of the decade. I think I mentioned that in these 9 year periods, the Oilers avg. playoff opponent had 75 pts., the Isles had a quality of 89 pts. Big difference, but maybe it's because the Oilers just made everyone else look that bad.

There were teams everyone beat up on in the Isles 81-84 section, but in the Campbell they all took turns beating on one another while the Oilers, and later Flames, ruled the roost. The only team to rarely show improvement in this 81-90 period was the Canucks. In the 75-84 period for the Isles, it gets tough to gauge because it's split up into two seperate fields of competition. The first being rather easy, the 2nd being more difficult. Eventually, div. rivals Philly and Washington figured out the islanders dynasty and it crumbled, ebbed and flowed throughout the rest of the div. playoff format with the Devils, Rangers and Flyers all offering defeat with the 93 Isles shocking the Caps and Penguins being the only Isle team since their dynasty to truly make a run at the big one.

As for the Oilers, after 1990 they had two unexpected runs through their more tight div. with just the new San Jose Sharks being the constant back-to-back playoff outsiders. But in the last year of the div. format, the Oilers (though more than doubly outsucked by the Sharks) became that team on the skids that everyone haplessly beats up on, to the tune of 60 pts. Their worst season. They missed the playoffs for 4 straight years so any resemblance of success last seen in 92 was gone. As for the Isles, they too would not see success like '93 until finally making to back to the post-season in 2001 after experiencing miserable years they had never even come close to experiencing during dry spells of the early 90s and late 80s and their inaugural 2 seasons. But the Oilers managed to become a consistent playoff squeaker in 1996 and onward. That's where the dynasties have gone, as everyone knows.

 

[VanIslander]

Because he was.

 

[MacDaddy TLC*]

Total Hockey Edition 1 (not sure if it is in the second edition and don't recall seeing it in Total NHL) has done a statistical comparison across eras and Gretzky's numbers stand up. You pretty much have to pick up a copy and read the chapters that describe his adjusted scoring stats to understand what he is doing. Total Hockey Edition 1, page 626

 

[Puckhead]

Maybe it has something to do with the 61 NHL records he holds?

Well said! There has never been an individual in any sport to come around and absoultely dominate the game like Wayne Gretzky! not even Michael Jordan. He not only holds 61 NHL records, many of those are so incredible, it is even hard to fathom how he did it! I believe as time goes on that some of those records will obvioulsy fall. However, I think that many are simply untouchable!

Quickest to 50 goals...39 games - NHL players rarely hit 50 in a full season nowadays
Most goals in a seaon...92 - See above
Most points in a season...215 - The NHL rarely sees 100 point producers anymore.
Over 3000 points in his career - including playoffs

I could go on and on well into the night talking about why he is the greatest, but in the few lines I have written here, I think it is very obvious!

Like Bobby Orr before him, who revolutionized the defense position, where a very special player was breaking into the league, at a time that the league was ripe for change and a new breed of player. I think that everything would have to go right throughout a players career in order to even come close to those numbers. Barring the NHL losing its marbles and awarding 3 points for a goal and 2 for an assist, I believe his totals will never be touched!

 

[David Puddy]

Well said! There has never been an individual in any sport to come around and absoultely dominate the game like Wayne Gretzky! not even Michael Jordan.

You forget about Babe Ruth. But if Wayne Gretzky is hockey's Babe Ruth, which I think he is, that is very high praise.

 

[Morbo]

2857 points. Nearly a thousand ahead of the closest competition.

Yup, that's pretty much the general idea.

I've never seen any convincing argument that Gretzky wasn't the best player ever.

 

[pei fan]

Don't really know what you mean by that. Do you mean leadership? Pele wasn't a real leader. Neither was Maradona. Or do you mean the life after their football-careers? I'd say that that award goes to Pele 100-0, but would you please specify what you mean.

Sorry, i was going to add more to the post but I had to leave just then.
Best measures ones ability but greatness measures the impact they made using
that ability.Pele did alot for soccer to expand it's audience and participants.He also
had a social impact.Also:good ,better,best vs great,greater,greatest.Or the
difference between good and great.

 

[rt]

He's just an awesome guy
Every sport has a legend, some one who is the "best"

Basketball- michael jordan
Baseball- babe ruth
Golf- tiger woods
Soccer- Pele
Football- Dan Marino ( maybe someone better, i'm not a big football fan
and in Hockey theres Wayne Gretzky

I'd change Ruth to Bonds, Woods to Palmer, and Marino to Brown.

 

[Wild Thing]

The thing that separated him was his vision, he was the smartest person on the ice game in and game out. He anticipated the play before anyone else could even see it.

That's the thing right there. If you're looking for just one reason that Gretzky was better than anyone else who ever played the game, you can sum it up with those two sentences. The man knew exactly where you were going to be before you even thought of going there, and when you got there, the puck was waiting for you. Every single time.

 

[JCD]

I'd change Ruth to Bonds, Woods to Palmer, and Marino to Brown.

Bonds over Ruth?!?!

Bonds is a great player, but people still recognize who Babe Ruth is nearly 70 years after he last swung a bat. No way does Bonds carry that kind of clout. Bonds doesn't carry as much clout TODAY as Babe, let alone keep it 70 years later...

 

[kruezer]

Bonds over Ruth?!?!

Bonds is a great player, but people still recognize who Babe Ruth is nearly 70 years after he last swung a bat. No way does Bonds carry that kind of clout. Bonds doesn't carry as much clout TODAY as Babe, let alone keep it 70 years later...

I have to agree, no disrespect to what Bonds has done, but Ruth is the best, Bonds is a great player, but really, I don't think he's even in the group just below Ruth, quite yet.