Support NeoGAF

[dem]

http://msn.foxsports.com/story/2579652?GT1=4244

3. Wayne Gretzky is, without question, the greatest hockey player of all time

To suggest otherwise is blasphemy. Hell, we're practically forbidden by international law from even discussing it.

But there's no way you're going to convince me that a guy with a concave chest who couldn't knock Michelle Kwan off stride was a more dominant player than Bobby Orr, Mario Lemieux or, for that matter, Mark Messier.

All the pro-Gretzky arguments are about numbers. Offensive numbers. Well, hockey is a physical game, and just because a guy was the greatest offensive player in a cartoonish offensive era does not mean he's the greatest hockey player of all time.

Just to give you a sense of what NHL hockey was like in the early 1980s, in the1982 series opener before Gretzky's Oilers were shocked 6-5 on six unanswered goals by the L.A. Kings in the Miracle on Manchester, the Kings won 10-8. Think about that. An NHL playoff game with 18 goals. So Gretzky's crazy numbers need to be looked at with some sense of perspective.

But let's look at another number: Gretzky's plus/minus. After leaving Edmonton, where he was surrounded by a bunch of Hall of Famers in their primes, over the last 11 years of his career, he was a net minus. That's right, from 1988-99, when Gretzky was on the ice at even strength, the Great One's teams were outscored by 33 goals. In his last eight seasons, he was a woeful minus-86. You see, backchecking — it turns out — actually helps your team. Crunching a guy into the boards helps your team. Clearing guys out of the crease helps your team. In all these ways and more, Gretzky did not help his teams. Sure, he put up mind-boggling numbers, but wouldn't you rather have your mind boggled than your bones jarred?


Now no one would suggest with a straight face that Gretzky was as good in his own zone as any of the other nominees for greatest hockey player of all time. The case for Gretzky is that he was so much better offensively that it made up for his defensive limitations.

Is this true?

(Sports Nerd Alert: Stat-heavy analysis ahead.)

In his best offensive season, Gretzky tallied a record 215 points. The league average for goals was 7.94 per game. Gretzky's 2.69 points per game average represented 33.8 percent of average goals per game. In his best season, Orr averaged 1.69 ppg, or 24.6 percent of the total goals per game. Do you suppose Orr made up for this gap in his own zone as the best defenseman of all time?

A comparison with Lemieux invites the possibility that Gretzky wasn't even the best offensive player of his generation. In 1988-89, when he scored 199 points, Lemieux's point per game total as a percentage of league average goals was even higher than Gretzky's best year (35 percent to 33.8). So Lemieux not only matched Gretzky as a scorer, but he also lugged the puck from end to end with guys hanging all over him and made goal scorers out of Warren Young, Terry Ruskowski and Rob Brown. Lemieux also had a higher career points per game average than Gretzky before his last two injury-plagued seasons, despite having a career that bridged a high-scoring era and a low-scoring one. As it stands now, Gretzky's career points average (1.92 ppg) is one one-hundredth better than Lemieux's (1.91).

But Orr and Lemieux each won only two Stanley Cups as compared to four for Gretzky. It's hard to argue about the bottom line, which is, after all, winning championships. Given that criterion, however, Gretzky might not have been the best player on those Oilers teams. After Gretz went to L.A., the Oilers' amazing two-way center Mark Messier led them to a fifth Cup. Then, in one of the coolest, most incredibly clutch runs in NHL history, Messier carried the Rangers to their drought-ending title in 1994. So that's six rings for Messier (two without Gretzky) and four for Wayne (zero without Mess).

So if Gretzky might not be the best offensive player and is certainly below-average defensively and didn't win as many Cups as Messier, by what measure is he the greatest player ever?

He's not. It's a lie.

Blood.... boiling.... blood...... blood....

77-78
1 Guy Lafleur, Mtl. Canadiens......132
2 Bryan Trottier, NY Islanders.....123
3 Darryl Sittler, Toronto..........117

78-79
1 Bryan Trottier, NY Islanders.....134
2 Marcel Dionne, Los Angeles.......130
3 Guy Lafleur, Mtl. Canadiens......129

79-80
1 Marcel Dionne, Los Angeles.......137
1 Wayne Gretzky, Edmonton..........137
3 Guy Lafleur, Mtl. Canadiens......125

80-81
1 Wayne Gretzky, Edmonton..........164
2 Marcel Dionne, Los Angeles.......135
3 Kent Nilsson, Calgary............131

81-82
1 Wayne Gretzky, Edmonton..........212
2 Mike Bossy, NY Islanders.........147
3 Peter Stastny, Quebec............139

82-83
1 Wayne Gretzky, Edmonton..........196
2 Peter Stastny, Quebec............124
3 Denis Savard, Chicago............121

83-84
1 Wayne Gretzky, Edmonton..........205
2 Paul Coffey, Edmonton............126
3 Michel Goulet, Quebec............121

84-85
1 Wayne Gretzky, Edmonton..........208
2 Jari Kurri, Edmonton.............135
3 Dale Hawerchuk, Winnipeg.........130

85-86
1 Wayne Gretzky, Edmonton..........215
2 Mario Lemieux, Pittsburgh........141
3 Paul Coffey, Edmonton............138

86-87
1 Wayne Gretzky, Edmonton..........183
2 Jari Kurri, Edmonton.............108
3 Mario Lemieux, Pittsburgh........107

87-88
1 Mario Lemieux, Pittsburgh........168
2 Wayne Gretzky, Edmonton..........149
3 Denis Savard, Chicago............131

88-89
1 Mario Lemieux, Pittsburgh........199
2 Wayne Gretzky, Los Angeles.......168
3 Steve Yzerman, Detroit...........155

89-90
1 Wayne Gretzky, Los Angeles.......142
2 Mark Messier, Edmonton...........129
3 Steve Yzerman, Detroit...........127

90-91
1 Wayne Gretzky, Los Angeles.......163
2 Brett Hull, St. Louis............131
3 Adam Oates, St. Louis............115

Someone posted this over at hf.
Everyone seems to be getting around the same # of points before Gretz and Lemieux came into the league... and then those 2 BLEW EVERYONE AWAY.
Jesus christ.. look at Gretzky's 215 point season. The next closest is 141. SEVENTY FOUR POINTS BEHIND. Look at his 212 point season.. his 205 point season. You know why the 80's were high scoring?? Because the biggest sports phenom the world has ever seen was playing!! (dont tell me about that cricket chump... i dont want to hear it).

 

[Greekboy]

This is what I found REALLY interesting:

But let's look at another number: Gretzky's plus/minus. After leaving Edmonton, where he was surrounded by a bunch of Hall of Famers in their primes, over the last 11 years of his career, he was a net minus. That's right, from 1988-99, when Gretzky was on the ice at even strength, the Great One's teams were outscored by 33 goals. In his last eight seasons, he was a woeful minus-86. You see, backchecking — it turns out — actually helps your team. Crunching a guy into the boards helps your team. Clearing guys out of the crease helps your team. In all these ways and more, Gretzky did not help his teams. Sure, he put up mind-boggling numbers, but wouldn't you rather have your mind boggled than your bones jarred?


Very interesting.

 

[dem]

He was playing on horrible teams...
THE RANGERS

 

[Tabris]

He was playing on horrible teams...
THE RANGERS

... horrible teams? the 80's Oilers? ...

 

[dem]

Im pretty sure on the 80s oilers he was a +one billion

 

[Doc Holliday]

He was playing on shitty teams when he left the oilers. The guy took the kings to the freagin finals...Nuff said!

 

[dem]

Thank god they also printed a rebuttal

In his column, Hench says one of the biggest myth in sports is the claim the Wayne Gretzky is the greatest hockey player ever. While Hench is trying to be edgy, that's the type of thing that puts me over the edge.
Hench writes: "But there's no way you're going to convince me that a guy with a concave chest who couldn't knock Michelle Kwan off stride was a more dominant player than Bobby Orr, Mario Lemieux or, for that matter, Mark Messier."

This is what he wrote after he called into question Gretzky's greatness. You can't say the obvious and then put a statement like you did above and then talk about how his plus/minus slipped after he left the Edmonton Oilers. Of course it would slip when you first go to a team like the hapless Los Angeles Kings.


When Gretzky arrived in Los Angeles it took the Kings one season to make the division finals (in the old playoff format), something they hadn't done in the club's history. The Kings also made the division finals in 1990 and 1991 and finally made it to the Stanley Cup — the only appearance in the history of the franchise — in 1993. The Kings were never supposed to win the Cup and the fact that they lost to the Montreal Canadiens was no surprise.

Hench: "So if Gretzky might not be the best offensive player and is certainly below-average defensively and didn't win as many Cups as Messier, by what measure is he the greatest player ever? He's not. It's a lie."

The author made a horrible reach saying that until the last two injury-plauged seasons Mario Lemieux had a higher points-per-game average. Well, the fact is he slipped and will continue to slip because of his age and bad hip. Gretzky also had a bad neck his last few seasons and slipped himself. That's sports.

So as it stands today Gretzky has the highest points per game total and he's not supposed to play defense. However, one of the four playoff records that Gretzky has with the Kings is for short-handed goals. How did he get them? He played on the penalty kill because of his exceptional vision and amazing skating ability.

Ask Lemieux to play defense. That's a joke, that wasn't his role. Mark Messier has seen his plus/minus dip tremendously the past few seasons. Will that affect his Hall-of-Fame voting?

One last note on The Great One. The 1997 Rangers made it to the Eastern Conference finals by beating a better New Jersey Devils team. How was this possible? Gretzky was the answer. He made players around him better and he ignited their power play.

If Messier or Gordie Howe calls Gretzky the greatest ever, believe it.

 

[calder]

That original "analysis" is fucking retarded. Plus minus? What kind of fucking moron pulls +/- out of his ass when discussing the greatest offensive players in the game? Fucking idiot. Thinking Gretzky isn't the best player ever is one thing (one wrong thing, but still) but his reasoning is beyond absurd.

Plus minus. I can't get over that. That's like someone arguing Barry Bonds isn't one of the best baseball players ever because his fielding has really diminshed the last few years. Or questioning Pele's ability to defend in his latter years.

Dem if you wanna ride down to wherever that dumbass is from to lay some beatdown swing by Winnipeg and pick me up. I'll bring a cricket bat.

 

[karasu]

You have to love when people write shit like this, believing that they alone posess the truth.

 

[Malakhov]

Lemieux was a better player than Gretzky, just look at Gretzky's and Lemieux's last seasons. Lemieux did adapt better to the new style hockey


1991-92 Pittsburgh Penguins NHL 64 44 87 131
1992-93 Pittsburgh Penguins NHL 60 69 91 160
1993-94 Pittsburgh Penguins NHL 22 17 20 37
1995-96 Pittsburgh Penguins NHL 70 69 92 161
1996-97 Pittsburgh Penguins NHL 76 50 72 122


1991-92 Los-Angeles Kings NHL 74 31 90 121
1992-93 Los-Angeles Kings NHL 45 16 49 65
1993-94 Los-Angeles Kings NHL 81 38 92 130
1995-96 Los-Angeles Kings NHL 62 15 66 81
1995-96 St. Louis Blues NHL 18 8 13 21
1996-97 New-York Rangers NHL 82 25 72 97

 

[6.8]

Gretzky > Lemieux. He handed everyone's ass. 92 goals in one season! 92 freaking goals.

Though Lemieux was freaking great as well.

Malakhov, Lemieux also happened to play in a much better line.

 

[dem]

Again.. its not fair to compare Gretzky's last seasons to those Lemieux seasons. Gretzky was older. Not to mention Lemieux was playing with JAGR in those season.

 

[Malakhov]

Not to mention Lemieux was coming back from hotchkin cancer and kept having back problems

 

[dem]

Cancer has nothing to do with anything. Kudos to him for coming back.. but.. so what? Saku Koivu did the same thing.

He recovered. Not hockey related at all.

 

[Malakhov]

Yeah sure it's not hockey related, I'm sure it doesn't drain anyone physicly nor mentally lol

Anyways, it's a personal choice, this is a debate that will never end, it's been going on for years.

All I'm gonna say is this, if I had the choice RIGHT NOW in 2004 to pick either Gretzky or Lemieux in their prime to be my #1 center for an NHL team, I'd go with Lemieux without any doubt.

 

[calder]

Lemieux adapted to the changing style of hockey while Gretzky was largely RESPONSIBLE for a drastic change in style of hockey. The entire game shifted in the 80s as teams desperately tried to outscore the Oilers. If that doesn't say Gretzky > Lemieux than I don't know what does... except a giant list of numbers and stats.

We've all had this argument before, but really if you consider actually *doing* something (like breaking a gajillion scoring records) more important than maybe having been able to do something then Gretzky is clearly the best player ever. If you want to factor in "maybes" and try to predict what would have happened to so and so if they had played x number of healthy years than Bobby Orr could easily be the greatest ever.

And Malakhov your numbers look a little funny... since when was 96-97 Lemieux's last season?

2003-04 Pittsburgh NHL 10 1 8 9 -2
2002-03 Pittsburgh NHL 67 28 63 91 -25
2001-02 Pittsburgh NHL 24 6 25 31 0
2000-01 Pittsburgh NHL 43 35 41 76 +15

Hmm, those look a lot like Gretzky's last few seasons.

 

[ConfusingJazz]

Cancer has nothing to do with anything. Kudos to him for coming back.. but.. so what? Saku Koivu did the same thing.

He recovered. Not hockey related at all.

Um, no.

 

[dem]

Im going to sound like a completely insensitive asshole.. but...
Seeing as Saku came back from cancer in in less than a season... is Mario's recovery really that impressive. The cancer didnt effect Saku's game much either.

 

[Malakhov]

Lemieux adapted to the changing style of hockey while Gretzky was largely RESPONSIBLE for a drastic change in style of hockey. The entire game shifted in the 80s as teams desperately tried to outscore the Oilers. If that doesn't say Gretzky > Lemieux than I don't know what does... except a giant list of numbers and stats.

We've all had this argument before, but really if you consider actually *doing* something (like breaking a gajillion scoring records) more important than maybe having been able to do something then Gretzky is clearly the best player ever. If you want to factor in "maybes" and try to predict what would have happened to so and so if they had played x number of healthy years than Bobby Orr could easily be the greatest ever.

And Malakhov your numbers look a little funny... since when was 96-97 Lemieux's last season?

2003-04 Pittsburgh NHL 10 1 8 9 -2
2002-03 Pittsburgh NHL 67 28 63 91 -25
2001-02 Pittsburgh NHL 24 6 25 31 0
2000-01 Pittsburgh NHL 43 35 41 76 +15

Hmm, those look a lot like Gretzky's last few seasons.

I only left seasons they both played that year.
And 35 goals in 43 games in 2001-01 doesn't look anything like Gretzky's last season. Add the fact that mario is playing with an almost fucked up back it makes it even more impressive.

Anyways, like I said, Orr, Gretzky or Lemieux, that will never end and I don't think it's gonna end on a GAF board

 

[ConfusingJazz]

Im going to sound like a completely insensitive asshole.. but...
Seeing as Saku came back from cancer in in less than a season... is Mario's recovery really that impressive. The cancer didnt effect Saku's game much either.

Yes, it is. Recovering from cancer to play in any professional sport is impressive.

 

[Spectral Glider]

Cancer is hockey related when it costs you playing time.

 

[Malakhov]

Im going to sound like a completely insensitive asshole.. but...
Seeing as Saku came back from cancer in in less than a season... is Mario's recovery really that impressive. The cancer didnt effect Saku's game much either.

Saku is a god, he's not human

Mr. Captain Courage himself!

 

[dem]

Recovering from cancer is impressive..

But I mean.. once youve recovered.. youve recovered. Its not like the guy magically loses his hands. Its not like he had to learn how to play hockey again. I'm pretty sure any athlete could do the same thing if they recovered from cancer.

 

[calder]

I only left seasons they both played that year.
And 35 goals in 43 games in 2001-01 doesn't look anything like Gretzky's last season. Add the fact that mario is playing with an almost fucked up back it makes it even more impressive.

Anyways, like I said, Orr, Gretzky or Lemieux, that will never end and I don't think it's gonna end on a GAF board

But the difference in age means that, at the end of Gretzky's career Mario is like 4 years younger and still nearly in his prime. I think it's better to compare stats from the same stages of their careers, but you're right it's a never ending argument. Really it just always seems to boil down to how you define greatness (potential vs actuality) and how much you want to adjust numbers to try to compare eras/teammates etc.

It's still fun to have the argument again, just say the word.

 

[Malakhov]

But Calder let me ask you something, I'm not asking who's better but right now in 2004, if you had a choice in a 100% healthy and young Lemieux or Gretzky to play in the current NHL's style as your #1 center, who would you pick?

 

[Spectral Glider]

Im going to sound like a completely insensitive asshole.. but...
Seeing as Saku came back from cancer in in less than a season... is Mario's recovery really that impressive. The cancer didnt effect Saku's game much either.

Mario found his cancer in Jan. of 93. He had his last radiation treatment on March 2nd, I believe, of 93 and played against Philly later that night and scored a goal and an assist.

 

[Malakhov]

Recovering from cancer is impressive..

But I mean.. once youve recovered.. youve recovered. Its not like the guy magically loses his hands. Its not like he had to learn how to play hockey again. I'm pretty sure any athlete could do the same thing if they recovered from cancer.

I work in pharmacy and we have an oncology pharmacy and seeing people recovering from cancer is a very rare thing so I wouldn't consider recovering from cancer "impressive", I consider it much much more than that.

I can't even think how you could come back from cancer and still go out and perform in a pro sports.

 

[dem]

Mario found his cancer in Jan. of 93. He had his last radiation treatment on March 2nd, I believe, of 93 and played against Philly later that night and scored a goal and an assist.

And?
Yeah he came back from cancer. Doesnt make him a better player.

 

[Malakhov]

And?
Yeah he came back from cancer. Doesnt make him a better player.

I'll make you go through a treatment and see if you can go back to work or school and perform.

You're sounding a bit like an asshole right now, I'd take a step back if I were you

 

[dem]

Well I said at the start I would sound like an asshole.
On the bright side... never has my avatar suited me better

 

[Spectral Glider]

And?
Yeah he came back from cancer. Doesnt make him a better player.

You asked about length......he came back in less than two months time. No, recovering from cancer doesn't make him a better player, the way he plays the game does that. Or, in this case, played the game.

 

[dem]

Then why bring cancer into it?

 

[dem]

Anyway... this is going to go nowhere as these things usually do so I'm just going to bail right now.

I have to atleast pretend im working sometimes

 

[calder]

But Calder let me ask you something, I'm not asking who's better but right now in 2004, if you had a choice in a 100% healthy and young Lemieux or Gretzky to play in the current NHL's style as your #1 center, who would you pick?

Right now? Yeah that's a good point - Lemieux's size is a big plus in this day and age. But I'd still take Gretzky - as a kid who grew up in Calgary in the 80s I can't overstate how much he changed the game. Dead puck era? Bringing in Gretzky in his prime would literally BOOST scoring league wide.

Gretz might get hit more/harder nowadays but he wasn't like Theo Fleury sized. He could add a few more pounds easily with the much better conditioning/training athletes have and he'd be faster than ever with the better equipment. Players are bigger, stronger, faster and plain better today than they were in the early 80s, but then again if Gretzky was just coming up through junior now *he'd* be faster and stronger too. He'd be pretty much the same size Sidney Crosby is right now, and Crosby being a bit on the smallish side isn't hurting him much yet.

I'm not sure how legit the point would be because the math is a bit fuzzy, but assuming Gretzky was now in his prime and was about as much better offensively than everyone else is last year he would have had 141pts compared to St. Louis' 94. Except that doesn't take into account the fact scoring would likely be up on several other teams so St. Louis might have scored more.

 

[Spectral Glider]

Then why bring cancer into it?

For one, I didn't bring cancer into it.

But if you're comparing stats or potential stats with somebody like Gretzky to hypothetically assess who was/is the better player, then time missed due to any injury, including cancer should be brought into the equation for any player. Which is why I assume Malakhov brought it up in the first place.

 

[Malakhov]

Calder: Really? You'd take Gretzky? That's surprising. Like I said I guess it comes down to personal preference.

But if you're comparing stats or potential stats with somebody like Gretzky to hypothetically assess who was/is the better player, then time missed due to any injury, including cancer should be brought into the equation for any player. Which is why I assume Malakhov brought it up in the first place.

Yes, exactly. Saying cancer and his back problems were non factors is a pretty wild statement.

And Calder, I'm glad you bringed Crosby into this. I really hope he's gonna live up to the hype. We need another Lemieux and Gretzky in this league to entertain us. I'd say the closest right now is Kovalchuk (as far as entertaining) but he is still leagues behind them.

 

[darscot]

Gretzky is the greatest, it's not even a question. Whomever mentioned Messier needs to wake up or at least watch what he did for the Canucks, I hate that bum. Mario is up there but he never had the same kind of magic that Gretzky had off the ice.

 

[Greekboy]

He was playing on shitty teams when he left the oilers. The guy took the kings to the freagin finals...Nuff said!

Let's not forget what he did to Doug Gilmour in order to get there though. Had McSorley done the same thing then Fraser would have given a 5 minute major. Gretzky did it so he turned a blind eye for "hockey".

P.S. Gretzky did score an amazing 92 goals but Lemieux also had 85 goals in a season and missed a few games too. He also had 69 goals in 60 games with 160 points. Prorated over an 80 game season would have given him 92 goals and 213 points. (Were seasons 80, 82 or 84 games back in 1992-1993?)

Anyhow, one-on-one I'd take Lemieux over Gretzky anyday of the year.

I was a fan of neither of them though.

 

[Dilbert]

I think that the using the argument, "If you had to pick one player from the past to be your #1 pick for TODAY'S league, who would it be?" to decide between Gretzky and Lemieux as the greatest ever is utterly uncompelling. Of course the game is different today, and one might very well pick the physically larger player for that reason. But the game may evolve different in 5-10 years so that smaller players like Gretzky would be preferred. Why is the style "now" meaningful in any way to compare their HISTORICAL achievements?

Also, handing out "bonus points" for Lemieux's struggle with cancer is also completely unfounded. Yes, it is amazing that he overcame his health issues and performed at such a high level. But the evaluation of the "greatest ever" has to be done based on what was ACTUALLY achieved, not hypothetically achieved.

The only way you can make sense of their accomplishments is to see how well they did compared to their peers, and how they impacted their teams. When Gretzky was paired with a high level of talent, he dominated the game in a way which was simply unreal...and won championships. When he moved to the Kings -- an otherwise unspectacular team -- they became an INSTANT contender, making deep playoff runs for a couple of years, and even making the Stanley Cup Finals. Since he left, the Kings haven't managed jack squat. Who else in hockey has made that kind of impact?

 

[Greekboy]

Who else in hockey has made that kind of impact?

Mark Messier in his prime?

 

[Spectral Glider]

Mario is up there but he never had the same kind of magic that Gretzky had off the ice.

If you ask me, that was Mario's real minus when compared to Gretz. Even more so than the injuries and cancer. Simply, he didn't obtain as much celebrity.

(Were seasons 80, 82 or 84 games back in 1992-1993?)

84 I think.

 

[Blackace]

His list gets no props for the lack of Nolan Ryan....

(But the I'm on the pill thing was pretty funny)

 

[Spectral Glider]

Also, handing out "bonus points" for Lemieux's struggle with cancer is also completely unfounded. Yes, it is amazing that he overcame his health issues and performed at such a high level. But the evaluation of the "greatest ever" has to be done based on what was ACTUALLY achieved, not hypothetically achieved.

Yes, but not if the argument is that Lemieux accomplished more in fewer games and thus potentially makes him the better player, at least skill wise. Not once in Mario's career did he play 80 games, let alone a full season. The most he played in one season I believe was 79 games. That's what always impressed me the most about him, how he was able to capture scoring titles while hardly ever playing as many games as the people he beat out.

If the argument is that Gretzky is the overall better player because he had the skills and physical health. I can fully understand that, makes perfect sense. But I can also understand how somebody would be more impressed by what Mario accomplished.

The only way you can make sense of their accomplishments is to see how well they did compared to their peers, and how they impacted their teams. When Gretzky was paired with a high level of talent, he dominated the game in a way which was simply unreal...and won championships. When he moved to the Kings -- an otherwise unspectacular team -- they became an INSTANT contender, making deep playoff runs for a couple of years, and even making the Stanley Cup Finals. Since he left, the Kings haven't managed jack squat. Who else in hockey has made that kind of impact?

That also works for Mario because the Pens were more or less a joke before he got there. First NHL shift, first NHL shot, first NHL goal. It did take 5 seasons before the Pens were a playoff team again.....but only one after that to pick up two consecutive cups.

 

[Socreges]

It is very difficult to plainly say that either Lemieux or Gretzky is the greater player. Statistics and championships are relative to circumstance, supporters [such as Kurri or Jagr] and the era. And if you've watched both of them play a great deal, you'd see that they both had an unbelievable knack for scoring and play-making. Both really did see the game in a way that no one else had or has since.

Btw, I'd like to point out that Lemieux was born in Montreal. Where Malakhov (Koopa) lives, and I suspect he was born. Not to completely dismiss you because of that, Malakhov, but your perceptions and opinions are heavily inclined by that affinity, whether you'd like to admit it or not.

Mark Messier should not be mentioned in the same breath as Gretzky, Lemieux, or Orr, btw.

 

[Socreges]

That also works for Mario because the Pens were more or less a joke before he got there. First NHL shift, first NHL shot, first NHL goal. It did take 5 seasons before the Pens were a playoff team again.....but only one after that to pick up two consecutive cups.

It took him 5 seasons to turn the team around because he didn't have the awesome supporting cast that he did in the Cup runs. Jagr, Francis, Stevens, Mullen, Tocchet...

 

[calder]

Mark Messier should not be mentioned in the same breath as Gretzky, Lemieux, or Orr, btw.

No argument here, Mess was a great player and a great (if still overrated) leader but IMO he doesn't belong anywhere near a discussion of the best player ever. The first year Messier scored a hundred points (one of his best years pointswise) Gretzky outscored him by exactly 90. Take a lot of "leadership" and big bodychecks to make up 90 freaking points when you're talking about who's better than who.

 

[Crazymoogle]

Lemieux was and is a great player, but even in his best years there were a lot of guys up there. Gretzky basically destroyed the goaltending position to the point where they couldn't recover until '95 or so, and even then he had a brilliant run with STL (the series against detroit still gives me shivers, that series was basically Gretzky + Fuhr against the best team in the NHL)

Hell, even when Gretzky was in NY, old, chronic neck issues and all, he would stand behind the net and leave the defense sweating because they all knew that Gretzky's eyes were better than anyone.

You could probably put Gretzky on the ice today and he would still get double coverage from any team in the NHL.

 

[Malakhov]

Btw, I'd like to point out that Lemieux was born in Montreal. Where Malakhov (Koopa) lives, and I suspect he was born. Not to completely dismiss you because of that, Malakhov, but your perceptions and opinions are heavily inclined by that affinity, whether you'd like to admit it or not.

Not at all, I just prefer Lemieux's style over Gretzky.
When it comes to hockey, I don't care what language you speak or where you come from as long as you can perform on the ice. But yeah I agree with what you're saying, a lot of people here are heavily biased towards Lemieux and any francophone players for that matter wich I find a bit ridiculous.

 

[Kabuki Waq]

Lemiuex could have possibly been a better player if he didnt get injured so much. Gretz is the best as it stands now. The man was clutch, i have never seen a defense as frantic and scared as when Gretz would be in his office.

 

[Lathentar]

His list gets no props for the lack of Nolan Ryan....

(But the I'm on the pill thing was pretty funny)

You suck.