Was Mario the Best Player in the NHL ever?
Jeff Jardine
Tristan Vance (tris...@netcom.ca) wrote:
: I'm thinking yes, for a few reasons sure he's not all time scorer but
: he could have been if his health was better
: if he did'nt have the cancer or if he did'nt have a bad back.
Health is, in part, natural ability. Gretzky remained (for the most part)
healthy over the duration of his career. Whether it was due to his style
of play, conditioning, flexibility, or whatever is irrelevent. The fact
is that he stayed healthy and remained useful to his team.
Saying Mario woulda been better without Hodgkin's is like saying Gretzky
woulda been better if he was 6'4, 220lbs.
--
Jeff Jardine - jjar...@atm.dal.ca
"Television is the first truly democratic culture - the first culture
available to everybody and entirely governed by what the people want.
The most terrifying thing is what people do want." - Clive Barnes
John Alway
Tristan Vance wrote:
[...]
> Consecutive Stanley Cups. Lemieux is simply the best NHL player there ever was. And he dosn't get
> enough credit for his accomplishments.
> -Tristan a Philie fan all the way!
Lemieux is recognized by many as being the greatest ever,
and he may be. However, Gretzky had a year where he garnered
212 points, including 92 goals (if I recall correctly), and he
was consistently close to the 200 point level.
...John
Andrew Smith
> Lemieux is recognized by many as being the greatest ever,
> and he may be. However, Gretzky had a year where he garnered
> 212 points, including 92 goals (if I recall correctly), and he
> was consistently close to the 200 point level.
You guys are forgetting a few people (maybe spending too much time with
Ed Lor discussing hockey's short and nonexistent history :) ).
Bobby Orr - the only defenseman to win the Art Ross Trophy (did it twice),
the first defenseman to score 100 points in a season (did it a few times)
singlehandedly saved a fledgling franchise and turned them into a Stanley
Cup Champion in 4 years.
Orr was the best skater the game has ever seen, the best stickhandler
(Bobby Hull once said of him "He has the puck so much, I told the referee
to give him one, and then throw out another puck for the rest of us").
He changed the way the defense position was played - before Orr,
defensemen stayed at the bluelines like posts. Orr was a rusher, coming
in from the point and often scoring - much like Paul Coffey and Denis
Potvin later - but handled the puck so well, he would rarely get burned.
Orr was a great defensive player, a fantastic checker and, like Gordie
Howe, a player you wouldn't mess with more than once. The only thing
that ravaged Orr's career were two very bad knees. But even in 1977,
near the end of his storied career, it was said he was better on one leg
than anyone else in the NHL was on two.
Gordie Howe was another - he was the best scorer in a game when goals
were at a premimum, when there were 6 teams in the league (and so he had
to face one of the 5 best goalies in North America every night), racking
up very impressive numbers. He and his linemates effectively introduced
the system of passing the puck around the end boards - a forerunner to
the dump-and-chase system used by so many NHL teams today.
Gretzky and Lemieux were great scorers. Gretzky wasn't a checker, didn't
revolutionize the game ... he just is a great passer and had fantastic
linemates in Edmonton that allowed him to rack up gaudy scoring numbers.
And he was a great playoff performer. But you have to keep his - and
Lemieux's - numbers in context with the times. When Gretzky was putting
up those 200-point seasons, the league had just expanded faster than the
talent could catch up, and goals were being scored at an NHL all-time
high - a luxury Orr and Howe didn't have. As opposed to Howe, who had to
face one of the 5 best goalies in the world *every game*, Gretzky and
Lemieux did about once every 3-4 games. Lemieux is a good defensive
player, but instead of protecting himself, expects the game officials to
protect him.
Gretzky isn't even as good as Lemieux as far as being a great all-around
player. He is a great scorer. But, in 18 years of watching him play pro
hockey, I have yet to see him check somebody, defend himself (again,
relies on the officials to defend him and thinks skating within a 10-foot
circle of him should be a minor penalty) and tried unsuccessfully to get
fighting removed from the game (which I still don't understand - lose
fighting and the cheap-shot antics which are much more dangerous will
increase). Gretzky also couldn't find the defensive half of the rink
without a roadmap.
Wayne and Mario might be in the top 5, but there's no way either one is
the "best ever". At least not until the revisionist historians (the ones
that don't realize pro hockey was played before it expanded to San Jose)
purge Bobby Orr and Gordie Howe from existence.
--
Andrew Smith ancs...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Phone 812-857-3054 Finger this account for snail address
WWW: http://ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu/~ancsmith (tapelist there, too)
--
A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives.
--Jackie Robinson
Ron Yamauchi
Jeff Jardine (jjar...@Atm.Dal.Ca) wrote:
: Tristan Vance (tris...@netcom.ca) wrote:
:
: : I'm thinking yes, for a few reasons sure he's not all time scorer but
: : he could have been if his health was better
: : if he did'nt have the cancer or if he did'nt have a bad back.
:
: Health is, in part, natural ability. Gretzky remained (for the most part)
: healthy over the duration of his career. Whether it was due to his style
: of play, conditioning, flexibility, or whatever is irrelevent. The fact
: is that he stayed healthy and remained useful to his team.
This is certainly one way of answering the question.
Another could be: if you picked the best player as the player who played
the best at his very peak, who would it be? (ie. not factoring in
lifetime stats, length of career, just who was the most dominant player of
his day.)
I think you might rank Gretzky below Lemieux in that method. And Bobby
Orr over both.
Andrew Baumann
In article <5knvk3$b...@tor-nn1-hb0.netcom.ca>, Tristan Vance
<tris...@netcom.ca> wrote:
>
> Ahh but Gretzky dosn't have a 2 goal per game Average like Lemieux.
>
> -Tristan a Flyers Fan to the End!
Hmmm. Neither did Lemieux. Funny.
Andrew
John Santore
Tristan Vance <tris...@netcom.ca> writes:
> Ahh but Gretzky dosn't have a 2 goal per game Average like Lemieux.
>
> -Tristan a Flyers Fan to the End!
This is a bullshit stat... I could play one game, score 4 goals,
retire, and have the highest goals per game average. Gretzky's
definitely playing past his prime, and so consequently, the longer he
plays, and the less dominant he is, the lower his average drops.
Doesn't take away anything from what he accomplished when he was
younger, and doesn't make him any less a great player.
-John
=============================================================================
John Santore "I could not love thee, dear, so much,
js...@andrew.cmu.edu loved I not honor more"
jo...@santore.com, j...@decision.com -Richard Lovelace
http://www.santore.com/jsbh/home.html Go Flyers! Go Sabres!
=============================================================================
Andrew Baumann
In article <5kofnu$q...@tor-nn1-hb0.netcom.ca>, Tristan Vance
<tris...@netcom.ca> wrote:
> In article <ahb-060597...@beaker.mit.edu>,
> a...@mit.edu (Andrew Baumann) wrote:
>
> >In article <5knvk3$b...@tor-nn1-hb0.netcom.ca>, Tristan Vance
> ><tris...@netcom.ca> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Ahh but Gretzky dosn't have a 2 goal per game Average like Lemieux.
> >>
> >> -Tristan a Flyers Fan to the End!
> >
> >Hmmm. Neither did Lemieux. Funny.
> >
> >Andrew
>
> Nono it's points not goal I don't know what I was thinking.
>
> -Triatan a Flyers Fan to the End!
Well, Gretz does have a 2 point per game average I beleive. He leads in
this category (I think) while Lemieux leads in goals per game at around .8
or something.
Both great players. I'll take Gretzky in his prime though.
Andrew
Chris
Jeff Jardine wrote:
>
> Tristan Vance (tris...@netcom.ca) wrote:
>
> : I'm thinking yes, for a few reasons sure he's not all time scorer but
> : he could have been if his health was better
> : if he did'nt have the cancer or if he did'nt have a bad back.
>
> Health is, in part, natural ability.
Huh?
Gretzky remained (for the most part)
> healthy over the duration of his career. Whether it was due to his style
> of play, conditioning, flexibility, or whatever is irrelevent. The fact
> is that he stayed healthy and remained useful to his team.
> Saying Mario woulda been better without Hodgkin's is like saying Gretzky
> woulda been better if he was 6'4, 220lbs.
>
I do agree that you can't really say with much accuracy what "would of"
happened had Mario been healthy, if he had been surrounded by the Hall
of Famers Wayne was surrounded with in Edmonton, and if Mario had a
little bit of protection. But its fun to speculate. And its difficult to
dismiss what would've happened had Mario not missed approximately 260
games due to injury. That is a very significant number.
However, all of that aside, I still think Mario is the best ever. Of
course, I'm biased since I've always liked him and followed his career.
Hugs and kisses,
Chris
Chris
John Alway wrote:
>
> Tristan Vance wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > Consecutive Stanley Cups. Lemieux is simply the best NHL player there ever was. And he dosn't get
> > enough credit for his accomplishments.
>
> > -Tristan a Philie fan all the way!
>
> and he may be. However, Gretzky had a year where he garnered
> 212 points, including 92 goals (if I recall correctly), and he
> was consistently close to the 200 point level.
>
Yeah? Well, Mario had a year (1988-89) in which he accumulated 199
points in 76 games (85 goals, 114 assists). Wayne had around 140 points.
Guess which player won the Hart Trophy (MVP).
If you know the answer, you'll see one of the reasons why Mario will
never be considered the best player ever by a lot of people. Its called
politics/bias/foolishness.
Just my opinion.
-Chris
Tristan Vance
I'm thinking yes, for a few reasons sure he's not all time scorer but he could have been if his
health was better if he did'nt have the cancer or if he did'nt have a bad back. You think after
he got the Cancer treatments he was Top Scorer, it was easily the greatest Comeback ever and this
year number 1 again, and he isn't even playing 100%, put simply Mario is the best and he could have
proven that on paper with if his health was better but he showed it with Determination and Guts. You
can think when he first came to the Pens he took a team which was bottom of the Barrel to winning 2
Tristan Vance
In article <5km66m$mmk$1...@News.Dal.Ca>,
jjar...@Atm.Dal.Ca (Jeff Jardine) wrote:
>Tristan Vance (tris...@netcom.ca) wrote:
>
>: I'm thinking yes, for a few reasons sure he's not all time scorer but
>: he could have been if his health was better
>: if he did'nt have the cancer or if he did'nt have a bad back.
>
>Health is, in part, natural ability. Gretzky remained (for the most part)
>healthy over the duration of his career. Whether it was due to his style
>of play, conditioning, flexibility, or whatever is irrelevent. The fact
>is that he stayed healthy and remained useful to his team.
>Saying Mario woulda been better without Hodgkin's is like saying Gretzky
>woulda been better if he was 6'4, 220lbs.
>
>--
>Jeff Jardine - jjar...@atm.dal.ca
>
>"Television is the first truly democratic culture - the first culture
>available to everybody and entirely governed by what the people want.
>The most terrifying thing is what people do want." - Clive Barnes
Nono I'm not saying I'm just saying that Hodgkins was a Set back for Mario.
Not that is made his abilitites worse.
-Tristan a Flyer Fan all the way!
Tristan Vance
In article <336F4D...@icsi.net>,
John Alway <jal...@icsi.net> wrote:
>Tristan Vance wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> Consecutive Stanley Cups. Lemieux is simply the best NHL player there ever was. And he dosn't get
>> enough credit for his accomplishments.
>
>> -Tristan a Philie fan all the way!
>
>
> Lemieux is recognized by many as being the greatest ever,
> and he may be. However, Gretzky had a year where he garnered
> 212 points, including 92 goals (if I recall correctly), and he
> was consistently close to the 200 point level.
>
>
> ...John
Ahh but Gretzky dosn't have a 2 goal per game Average like Lemieux.
Tristan Vance
>In article <5knvk3$b...@tor-nn1-hb0.netcom.ca>, Tristan Vance
><tris...@netcom.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Ahh but Gretzky dosn't have a 2 goal per game Average like Lemieux.
>>
>> -Tristan a Flyers Fan to the End!
>
>Hmmm. Neither did Lemieux. Funny.
>
>Andrew
Nono it's points not goal I don't know what I was thinking.
-Triatan a Flyers Fan to the End!
James Burrows
I seem to recall reading that Gretzky's ppg is higher than
Lemieux's, so what exactly is it that you were thinking?
--
James Burrows Club Dead.....................
al...@freenet.carleton.ca The Antidote for Civilization.
John Alway
Tristan Vance wrote:
In article <336F4D...@icsi.net>,
John Alway <jal...@icsi.net> wrote:
>> Lemieux is recognized by many as being the greatest ever,
>> and he may be. However, Gretzky had a year where he garnered
>> 212 points, including 92 goals (if I recall correctly), and he
>> was consistently close to the 200 point level.
> Ahh but Gretzky doesn't have a 2 goal per game Average like Lemieux.
Hey, Tristan, you made an error somewhere, because there
is nobody who has such an average. Think about it.
One way to compare the two players is by looking at them
over an equal number of games while they were in their primes.
As I recall, one of these comparisons had Gretzky just edging
Mario out in goals, and well out distancing him in assists.
Of course, Gretzky's goals per game have come way down
over the last few years, that'll mess up your average.
...John
Unknown
> a...@mit.edu (Andrew Baumann) writes:
> > >> Ahh but Gretzky dosn't have a 2 goal per game Average like Lemieux.
> > >>
(snip)
> > Nono it's points not goal I don't know what I was thinking.
> >
> > -Triatan a Flyers Fan to the End!
>
> Well, Gretz does have a 2 point per game average I beleive. He leads in
> this category (I think) while Lemieux leads in goals per game at around .8
> or something.
>
> Both great players. I'll take Gretzky in his prime though.
>
>
Goals per game average. (min 200 goals)
1) Mario Lemieux .823
2) Cy Denneny .767
3) Mike Bossy .762
4) Brett Hull .717
5) Wayne Gretzky .646
Points per game average (min 500 points)
1) Wayne Gretzky 2.026
2) Mario Lemieux 2.005
3) Mike Bossy 1.497
4) Bobby Orr 1.393
5) Steve Yzerman 1.310
Chris
Ron Yamauchi wrote:
>
> Jeff Jardine (jjar...@Atm.Dal.Ca) wrote:
> : Tristan Vance (tris...@netcom.ca) wrote:
> :
> : : I'm thinking yes, for a few reasons sure he's not all time scorer but
> : : he could have been if his health was better
> : : if he did'nt have the cancer or if he did'nt have a bad back.
> :
> : Health is, in part, natural ability. Gretzky remained (for the most part)
> : healthy over the duration of his career. Whether it was due to his style
> : of play, conditioning, flexibility, or whatever is irrelevent. The fact
> : is that he stayed healthy and remained useful to his team.
>
>
> Another could be: if you picked the best player as the player who played
> the best at his very peak, who would it be? (ie. not factoring in
> lifetime stats, length of career, just who was the most dominant player of
> his day.)
>
> I think you might rank Gretzky below Lemieux in that method. And Bobby
> Orr over both.
Well, I'll take this a step further and say that you would have to look
at those players around Mario and Wayne during their peak. C'mon,
Edmonton could've won one or two Cups without Gretzky with all of those
Hall of Famers. I'm sure there will be a few people out there saying
that Wayne increased their performance more than they helped Wayne. But
it is an interesting factor.
Another point I need to make is that Mario really was never able to
fully peak with all of those injuries. Even the year (1988-89) he was
going to break Wayne's record for consecutive points streak and exceed
200 points, he was injured. So, once again, all we can do is speculate
and offer our opinions as to who was the best player of all time.
Of course, you know who has my vote.
-Chris
John Alway
Chris wrote:
> John Alway wrote:
> > Lemieux is recognized by many as being the greatest ever,
> > and he may be. However, Gretzky had a year where he garnered
> > 212 points, including 92 goals (if I recall correctly), and he
> > was consistently close to the 200 point level.
> Yeah? Well, Mario had a year (1988-89) in which he accumulated 199
> points in 76 games (85 goals, 114 assists). Wayne had around 140 points.
> Guess which player won the Hart Trophy (MVP).
> If you know the answer, you'll see one of the reasons why Mario will
> never be considered the best player ever by a lot of people. Its called
> politics/bias/foolishness.
You're just being silly. You can certainly objectively
assess Gretzky as the best ever by looking at the numbers
objectively, and you can do the same with Mario. It all
depends upon what time periods you look at, and what your
criterion are. Trophies won can be completely left out of
the equation.
Note: since I've never seen Orr or Howe I can't properly
assess where they stand within the whole picture.
...John
Sgvette
Politics, bias, foolishness, and an overemphasis on statistics! If you
actually saw them all play, you'd say Orr.
SG
Kevin Sosinov
with so much attention on Mario and Gretzky and some other stars,some of
the younger stars are forgotten. Mario and Gretzky are great players,but
that record that Gretzky hold for the most goal is going to be beaten in
the future by some of the younger stars!!!!
Sgvette
Gretzky and Lemieux...2 of the greatest ever. But neither was as good as
Orr.
SG
Chris
Just read an interesting stat that I wasn't aware of before. Lemieux
only played in 73% of the games over his career due to injuries. Orr
only played in 70% of the games because of injury. Both of those are
amazing. I think Wayne played in over 90% of the games.
Its astounding to think what Lemieux and Orr could've and would've done
had they been healthier.
By the way, Orr has been quoted as saying that Mario is/was the best
all-around player...ever.
-Chris
Chris
John Alway wrote:
>
> Chris wrote:
>
> > John Alway wrote:
>
> > > Lemieux is recognized by many as being the greatest ever,
> > > and he may be. However, Gretzky had a year where he garnered
> > > 212 points, including 92 goals (if I recall correctly), and he
> > > was consistently close to the 200 point level.
>
> > Yeah? Well, Mario had a year (1988-89) in which he accumulated 199
> > points in 76 games (85 goals, 114 assists). Wayne had around 140 points.
> > Guess which player won the Hart Trophy (MVP).
>
>
> > If you know the answer, you'll see one of the reasons why Mario will
> > never be considered the best player ever by a lot of people. Its called
> > politics/bias/foolishness.
>
> You're just being silly. You can certainly objectively
> assess Gretzky as the best ever by looking at the numbers
> objectively, and you can do the same with Mario. It all
> depends upon what time periods you look at, and what your
> criterion are. Trophies won can be completely left out of
> the equation.
>
considered the best of all-time because he "garnered" 212 points in a
season. Sometimes the numbers don't tell the whole story. That's why I
brought up the point about '88-'89 when Mario should've won the Hart
Trophy, but didn't because of politics.
-Chris
Tim Rodda
I liked Mario and thought he had alot to say about the game that I agreed
with; but, no, he was not the greatest. However you feel about him, Gretz
will always be the greatest.
Tim.
Vern Faulkner
S> From: sgv...@aol.com (Sgvette)
S> Politics, bias, foolishness, and an overemphasis on statistics! If you
S> actually saw them all play, you'd say Orr.
I did, and I do. Though a sentiment remains for Tretiak and Dryden.
Jeff Jardine
Chris (co...@fyi.net) wrote:
: Jeff Jardine wrote:
: > Health is, in part, natural ability.
: Huh?
PLayer X is big. He gets whacked with a slash on the wrist. It hurts,
and a 2min penalty is called. Player Y is smaller. He gets whacked, and
breaks his wrist. Player Y misses a month and is useless to his team
over that time. Because Player X is naturally bigger and stronger,
injuries are less taxing on his career.
Or, some players are healthier genetically. Most NHL'ers don't have
a history of Hodgkin's disease in their family.
--
Jeff Jardine - jjar...@atm.dal.ca
"You can't be a Real Country unless you have a BEER and an airline. It helps
if you have some kind of a football team, or some nuclear weapons, but at the
very least you need a BEER" - Frank Zappa
Jeff Jardine
Andrew Smith (ancs...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu) wrote:
: Bobby Orr - the only defenseman to win the Art Ross Trophy (did it twice),
: the first defenseman to score 100 points in a season (did it a few times)
: singlehandedly saved a fledgling franchise and turned them into a Stanley
: Cup Champion in 4 years.
I'm almost certainly going to get flamed for this (just like last time I
said it), but Orr is overrated in large part due to Cherry's rants. Orr
played in an English speaking center. He played within the hockey-watching
lifetimes of lots of fans today, many of whom look back and reminisce at
the good 'ol days.
Orr simply didn't play long enough to be considered the all-time greatest.
He won the Cup twice. He left the game before fans and media could see
his tremendous skill dwindle. They've been saying Gretzky is fading
since he moved to LA. Longevity is a very important factor (to me) when
considering the greatest ever. So is winning.
Gretzky is known as a set-up man, and he scored 92 goals in a single season.
He scored 215 points in another. His 92 goal year was very early on in his
career, before the Oilers won the Cup. Gretzky played with a lot of
future Hall of Famers, but this was when they were all very young and
hadn't yet reached their primes. His puck control was incredible, and
still is pretty darn good. In game three against the Devils this week,
he was skating up against three defenders, turned before the blue line,
and fooled all three by making a cross-ice breakaway pass to Robitaille
(I think it was Luc). He did this against the most defensively-aware team
in the NHL.
Maurice Richard is probably the meanest star ever. He scored the original
50 in 50 in a very defensive league. He led the most dominant teams ever.
: He [Orr] changed the way the defense position was played
Doug Harvey did just as much to revolutionize the game, if that's really
relevent when considering the greatest ever. He was the first blueliner
to generate offense fom his position, and possibly the greatest defender
ever.
My list has Gretzky at the top - his 200+ point seasons should satisfy
those who wish to consider the greatest ever at the pinnacle of his
career. After that, Orr, Howe, Bobby Hull, Richard and Harvey (in no
particular order). Should Gretzky and the Rangers win the Cup this year,
then it should be nearly unanimous that Wayne's the greatest ever.
Chris
Jeff Jardine wrote:
>
> Chris (co...@fyi.net) wrote:
> : Jeff Jardine wrote:
> : > Health is, in part, natural ability.
>
> : Huh?
>
> PLayer X is big. He gets whacked with a slash on the wrist. It hurts,
> and a 2min penalty is called. Player Y is smaller. He gets whacked, and
> breaks his wrist. Player Y misses a month and is useless to his team
> over that time. Because Player X is naturally bigger and stronger,
> injuries are less taxing on his career.
>
ability.
> Or, some players are healthier genetically. Most NHL'ers don't have
> a history of Hodgkin's disease in their family.
>
I still don't see how health relates to ability.
pok
I don't consider Lemieux as a legitimate candidate for "best player ever". He
may have been the most talented, but for whatever reasons (hodgkins, back, et
cetera) he was unable to put up the numbers necessary. It's unfair to
speculate "what if Lemieux was healthy?". I mean, we could ask "What if
Gretzky was never traded to LA?" or "What if he had never been checked into
the boards by Suter?" or "What if Bobby Orr didn't retire early?" or "What if
Gordie Howe played another 10 years?"
Gretzky, as some have noted, isn't considered a very gifted defensive player.
But I think if you check out this season's Rangers-Devils matchup, you'll find
that Gretzky's pretty responsible defensively, even if he's not particularly
gifted -- he neither has the size nor the grit to be an effective all-around
player.
Lemieux's in much the same boat as Gretzky: both are pure skill players and
expected to produce goals, assists, points. If that's true, Gretzky has
demonstrated a consistently superior career, from year to year. It's unfair
also to say that Gretzky played with future hall of famers. Afterall, they
weren't very good players when Gretzky first started on that Edmonton team.
The Edmonton Oilers were as much driven by the success of Gretzky as Gretzky
was driven by them. Don't believe for a moment that Messier was anything more
than a goon, a role player when he first entered the league.
I believe there are in fact only three players who can legitimately contend
for the "Best Player of All Time": Gordie Howe, Bobby Orr, Wayne Gretzky.
If you believe that consistently superior play over time is the mark of the
best player of all time, then Gordie Howe may be your man. If you believe
that the changes to the role of defensemen, their newly dynamic role as an
offensive weapon, if you believe revolutionary changes inspired by a player
determine this, then perhaps Bobby Orr should be strongly considered. If you
believe that records and numbers, in the regular season and the playoffs are
the sure determiner, then the name Wayne Gretzky seems to suggest itself.
Many hockey fans either have short memories or poor memories. Lemieux is not
unique: Gretzky, Orr, and Howe all dominated their respective leagues in their
respective primes.
Chris
pok wrote:
>
> I don't consider Lemieux as a legitimate candidate for "best player ever". He
> may have been the most talented, but for whatever reasons (hodgkins, back, et
> cetera) he was unable to put up the numbers necessary.
Are you serious? 6 scoring championships, 3 league MVP's, 2 Conn Smythes
to go with his 2 Stanley Cups, the highest goals per game average in NHL
history, over 600 goals, and 1,494 points in 745 games. He finished up
6th All-time in points. All of this, and he missed more than 250 games
during his career due to injury. And your telling me he was unable to
put up the numbers necessary?
It's unfair to
> speculate "what if Lemieux was healthy?". I mean, we could ask "What if
> Gretzky was never traded to LA?" or "What if he had never been checked into
> the boards by Suter?" or "What if Bobby Orr didn't retire early?" or "What if
> Gordie Howe played another 10 years?"
>
I'm not sure I would say that its "unfair". Inaccurate maybe, but not
unfair. Besides, it would be different if we would speculate about
someone who hasn't proven themselves when healthy. If Mario only played
a few seasons or wasn't the force he was while playing, it would be
difficult to start asking the "what if.." questions. This is similar to
a lot of people speculating that Gale Sayers was one of the best ever
Running Backs to play. However, his career was severely shortened by a
knee injury. In my opinion, it is more far-fetched to say that he was
one of the best of all time, simply because he only played a few seasons
(albeit good seasons). Not the case with Mario.
> Gretzky, as some have noted, isn't considered a very gifted defensive player.
> But I think if you check out this season's Rangers-Devils matchup, you'll find
> that Gretzky's pretty responsible defensively, even if he's not particularly
> gifted -- he neither has the size nor the grit to be an effective all-around
> player.
>
> Lemieux's in much the same boat as Gretzky: both are pure skill players and
> expected to produce goals, assists, points. If that's true, Gretzky has
> demonstrated a consistently superior career, from year to year.
Not true. Lemieux's been putting up better stats than Wayne for many
years now. Once again, at the risk of sounding redundant, people have
misperceived Wayne being better than Mario for so long that they are
starting to believe it.
It's unfair
> also to say that Gretzky played with future hall of famers. Afterall, they
> weren't very good players when Gretzky first started on that Edmonton team.
> The Edmonton Oilers were as much driven by the success of Gretzky as Gretzky
> was driven by them. Don't believe for a moment that Messier was anything more
> than a goon, a role player when he first entered the league.
>
C'mon. You can't be serious. The talent surrounding Wayne for much of
his career isn't even close to being comparable to Mario's linemates.
Your digging now. Bottom line is, he has played with several future
hall-of-famers everywhere he has gone. Its pretty weak to say that they
weren't very good at first. Jeez.
> I believe there are in fact only three players who can legitimately contend
> for the "Best Player of All Time": Gordie Howe, Bobby Orr, Wayne Gretzky.
>
> If you believe that consistently superior play over time is the mark of the
> best player of all time, then Gordie Howe may be your man. If you believe
> that the changes to the role of defensemen, their newly dynamic role as an
> offensive weapon, if you believe revolutionary changes inspired by a player
> determine this, then perhaps Bobby Orr should be strongly considered. If you
> believe that records and numbers, in the regular season and the playoffs are
> the sure determiner, then the name Wayne Gretzky seems to suggest itself.
>
> Many hockey fans either have short memories or poor memories. Lemieux is not
> unique: Gretzky, Orr, and Howe all dominated their respective leagues in their
> respective primes.
Your entitled to your opinion, but I do think Lemiuex is unique in a lot
of other areas that separates him from those other players you
mentioned.
One thing for certain, regardless of who people think is the best of all
time, is that we should all feel lucky that the sport of hockey has been
graced with the likes of Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr, Howe, and on and on. And
to think, the NBA couldn't have discussions like these since everyone
know MJ is the greatest basketball player of all time. Ooops! Off-topic.
-Chris
Chris
Jeff Jardine wrote:
>
[snipped some stuff here]
> My list has Gretzky at the top - his 200+ point seasons should satisfy
> those who wish to consider the greatest ever at the pinnacle of his
> career. After that, Orr, Howe, Bobby Hull, Richard and Harvey (in no
No Mario, huh? He wasn't too bad. Of course, he was no Harvey.
> particular order). Should Gretzky and the Rangers win the Cup this year,
> then it should be nearly unanimous that Wayne's the greatest ever.
>
So that's the deciding factor? The way I see it, if the Rangers do win,
it is merely the law of averages catching up to Wayne. As much jumping
from team to team that he has done over the years, he was bound to win
another Stanley Cup sometime.
-Chris
Jeff Jardine
: > My list has Gretzky at the top - his 200+ point seasons should satisfy
: > those who wish to consider the greatest ever at the pinnacle of his
: > career. After that, Orr, Howe, Bobby Hull, Richard and Harvey (in no
: No Mario, huh? He wasn't too bad. Of course, he was no Harvey.
Nope. I kinda consider Mario and Orr to be in the same boat - tremendous
talents who woulda, shoulda and coulda... but didn't. Both won the Cup
twice. Both OWNED the puck. Mario's the better scorer (obviously) but his
"toughness" and defense are negligible compared to Orr. That's why Orr
makes my list.
In case you're unfamiliar with the name "Doug Harvey," perhaps someone
here can post the number of times he won the Norris trophy and the
Stanley Cup. I personally don't know, offhand.
Jeff Jardine
Chris (co...@fyi.net) wrote:
: So what? Physical size and strength have nothing to do with natural
: ability.
Some people are naturally bigger and stronger than others. Their strength
is, in part, natural ability.
: I still don't see how health relates to ability.
I'm not as good a player as Wayne Gretzky. I have less ability than him.
When Joe Goon of the Trappers takes a run at me, I quickly become a red
smear on the boards. When Goon tries the same thing to Wayne, the Great
One eludes the check and any possible injury that may accompany it.
Because of Gretzky's ability, he is much healthier than I am after the
game.
--
Jeff Jardine - jjar...@atm.dal.ca
"The sports page records people's accomplishments; The front page nothing but
their failures." - Jutice Earl Warren
ONTML66
Gretzky was protected by his teammates and the NHL, something Mario never
got. That's the only reason he stayed phyically healthier and more injury
free.
As far as who's the most skilled there's no question that's Mario.
Only player to retire--over 2 points per game
More goals per game than any player in the history of the sport
Alot of this accomplished while the Pens were a 2nd rate team with minor
league talent
Carol
Vern Faulkner
JJ> From: jjar...@Atm.Dal.Ca (Jeff Jardine)
JJ> I'm almost certainly going to get flamed for this (just like last time I
JJ> said it), but Orr is overrated in large part due to Cherry's rants. Orr
Jeff - Given my position on Cherry, be assured that I formed my opinon of Orr
as being the best ever without Cherry's opinions. :)
hab...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Sgvette (sgv...@aol.com) wrote:
: Gretzky and Lemieux...2 of the greatest ever. But neither was as good as
: Orr.
: SG
heart, raw talent and learned skills. Gretzky was(is) the best offensive
player to play the game. Lemieux probably had more pure raw natural talent
than anyone ever, but no heart. It was like he was being forced to do
something he didn't like. He did everything he did without effort, scary
to think what half an effort could have produced for this guy.
Carsten Hoever
al...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (James Burrows) wrote on 07 May 97,
about Re: Was Mario the Best Player in the NHL ever?:
> I seem to recall reading that Gretzky's ppg is higher than
> Lemieux's, so what exactly is it that you were thinking?
Gretzky was the leader before the 96/97 season, but AFAIK is Lemieux the
current leader with a rating of slightly more than 2 ppg. Furthermore
chances are very high that after the next season Lemieux will be the only
player with a ppg rating higher than 2 unless Gretzky retires after the
playoffs (very unlikely) or scores more than 2 points per game during the
next season (which is even more unlikely).
CU soon,
Carsten
>>> You miss 100% of the shots you never take.
Wayne Gretzky
## XPWIZ v1.1 ##
Arthur
Jeff Jardine (jjar...@Atm.Dal.Ca) wrote:
: PLayer X is big. He gets whacked with a slash on the wrist. It hurts,
: and a 2min penalty is called. Player Y is smaller. He gets whacked, and
: breaks his wrist. Player Y misses a month and is useless to his team
: over that time. Because Player X is naturally bigger and stronger,
: injuries are less taxing on his career.
Yeah, like that paragon of health, Eric Lindros, vs. that smaller, weaker
guy Gretzky. I mean, obviously Gretzky has missed more time than Lindros
because he's smaller and weaker, right?
Arthur
Jeff Jardine
Arthur (ajle...@ford.wdi.disney.com) wrote:
Lemieux is also bigger, and presumably stronger, than Gretzky. This
example is just one of many possible reasons for a certain player to be
healthier than another. All I'm trying to say is: Staying healthy
is not luck or fate. It can either be due to skill, genetics (just
like size and peripheral vision) and style of play. I say injuries
do NOT provide a handicap for considering the greatest player ever.
That statement is, of course, directed mostly at Lemieux and Orr.
Paramount Rubber Recycling Ltd.
In article <5ktvi6$2c9$1...@News.Dal.Ca>, jjar...@NOSPAMatm.dal.ca wrote:
> Chris (co...@fyi.net) wrote:
> : Jeff Jardine wrote:
> : > Health is, in part, natural ability.
>
> : Huh?
>
> PLayer X is big. He gets whacked with a slash on the wrist. It hurts,
> and a 2min penalty is called. Player Y is smaller. He gets whacked, and
> breaks his wrist. Player Y misses a month and is useless to his team
> over that time. Because Player X is naturally bigger and stronger,
> injuries are less taxing on his career.
>
> Or, some players are healthier genetically. Most NHL'ers don't have
> a history of Hodgkin's disease in their family.
>
> --
> Jeff Jardine - jjar...@atm.dal.ca
>
> "You can't be a Real Country unless you have a BEER and an airline. It helps
> if you have some kind of a football team, or some nuclear weapons, but at the
> very least you need a BEER" - Frank Zappa
Forgive me,
Lemieux is 6.4 225, being in this body would be work alone and therfore is
succeptable to breakdown. All three are tremendously skilled players,
each a byproduct of the path set by his predecessor. Orr could play,
Gretz could play the same in a different era, and the same could be said
about Mario. Trevor Linden is nowhere near the talent of Lemieux yet
avoided serious injury for what 650? games. It (injury) is luck. not to
be afflicted with injury, ask Al Iafrate.
Health is not natural ability.
Ref.
Hong-yul Kim
Kevin Sosinov (kns...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: with so much attention on Mario and Gretzky and some other stars,some of
: the younger stars are forgotten. Mario and Gretzky are great players,but
: that record that Gretzky hold for the most goal is going to be beaten in
: the future by some of the younger stars!!!!
Let's hope that happens because it sure would be boring otherwise. Let's
hope another Gretzky or Lemieux comes upon us real soon. Gretzky would
probably be the first guy to congratulate anyone who break one of his
records. I've got a sneaking suspicion Mario would just sulk all day if
someone were to break one of his records.
--
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Science assumes that nature is guilty
until she has proven herself innocent.
Hong-yul Kim
Andrew Baumann (a...@mit.edu) wrote:
: > Ahh but Gretzky dosn't have a 2 goal per game Average like Lemieux.
: Hmmm. Neither did Lemieux. Funny.
: Andrew
Right on Andrew! Some people are so narrow minded. Gretzky's Career
Points Per Game Average has been above 2.00 for 18 years in a row, 18!
Lemieux did not cut it this year - he's only managed it 11 years. We can
all do the math and figure out who's really the consistent one.
B. R.
On Fri, 9 May 1997, pok wrote:
> I don't consider Lemieux as a legitimate candidate for "best player ever". He
> may have been the most talented, but for whatever reasons (hodgkins, back, et
> cetera) he was unable to put up the numbers necessary. It's unfair to
> speculate "what if Lemieux was healthy?". I mean, we could ask "What if
> Gretzky was never traded to LA?" or "What if he had never been checked into
> the boards by Suter?" or "What if Bobby Orr didn't retire early?" or "What if
> Gordie Howe played another 10 years?"
>
> Gretzky, as some have noted, isn't considered a very gifted defensive player.
> But I think if you check out this season's Rangers-Devils matchup, you'll find
> that Gretzky's pretty responsible defensively, even if he's not particularly
> gifted -- he neither has the size nor the grit to be an effective all-around
> player.
>
> Lemieux's in much the same boat as Gretzky: both are pure skill players and
> expected to produce goals, assists, points. If that's true, Gretzky has
> demonstrated a consistently superior career, from year to year. It's unfair
> also to say that Gretzky played with future hall of famers. Afterall, they
> weren't very good players when Gretzky first started on that Edmonton team.
> The Edmonton Oilers were as much driven by the success of Gretzky as Gretzky
> was driven by them. Don't believe for a moment that Messier was anything more
> than a goon, a role player when he first entered the league.
>
> I believe there are in fact only three players who can legitimately contend
> for the "Best Player of All Time": Gordie Howe, Bobby Orr, Wayne Gretzky.
>
> If you believe that consistently superior play over time is the mark of the
> best player of all time, then Gordie Howe may be your man. If you believe
> that the changes to the role of defensemen, their newly dynamic role as an
> offensive weapon, if you believe revolutionary changes inspired by a player
> determine this, then perhaps Bobby Orr should be strongly considered. If you
> believe that records and numbers, in the regular season and the playoffs are
> the sure determiner, then the name Wayne Gretzky seems to suggest itself.
>
> Many hockey fans either have short memories or poor memories. Lemieux is not
> unique: Gretzky, Orr, and Howe all dominated their respective leagues in their
> respective primes.
>
>I think that Gretzky has got to be the best player ever. He holds just
about if not all NHL records. He has been tremendously durable despite his
lack of size. Gretzky also has made everyone around him a better player.
Where would Jari Kurri be w/o the great one? Not only that, but if class
counts for anything then Gretzky wins it hands down. He is a real class
act. He never cried about getting hit or officiating like Lemieux.
George Vaughn
: player to play the game. Lemieux probably had more pure raw natural talent
: than anyone ever, but no heart. It was like he was being forced to do
: something he didn't like. He did everything he did without effort, scary
: to think what half an effort could have produced for this guy.
Yeah, like those games where he couldn't bend over to tie his skates, and
had to have the trainer do it for him. Then went out and scored a hat trick
or whatever, "without effort". Guffaw!
Or how about when he had radiation treatment, flew across country and scored
a couple points that night. Boy, if he only had a heart. Guess he needs to
see the great OZ.
Or the time he had a bone broken in his hand during the playoffs and came
back to win the cup. Geez, I bet that didn't hurt...
Here's 2 cents, go buy a clue.
Paramount Rubber Recycling Ltd.
In article <19970510175...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
ont...@aol.com (ONTML66) wrote:
Inferior talent translate into increased ice time and responsibility for
star palyers. While Gretz did have a supporting cast, he had to share the
puck. Lemieux carried the puck in his pocket in Pitt. because no one else
had hands to do it. The arguement could last forever, however, because of
his lack of speed? diminuitive size? poor shot? mdia pressure, I would
submit that WG will be considered the best Hockey Player of all time, not
the Greatest Natural Talent, the best Hockey Player.
Ref.
The Peanut Gallery
Excellent points! Never ever understood how people could accuse
Mario of not having heart!
geo...@neurocog.lrdc.pitt.edu writes:
>
> Yeah, like those games where he couldn't bend over to tie his skates, and
> had to have the trainer do it for him. Then went out and scored a hat trick
> or whatever, "without effort". Guffaw!
>
> Or how about when he had radiation treatment, flew across country and scored
> a couple points that night. Boy, if he only had a heart. Guess he needs to
> see the great OZ.
>
> Or the time he had a bone broken in his hand during the playoffs and came
> back to win the cup. Geez, I bet that didn't hurt...
>
> Here's 2 cents, go buy a clue.
>
--
Bill Cable |"I believe Cable is becoming
http://curry.edschool.virginia.edu/~wjc4k | an evil presence in our home."
e-mail:wj...@curry.edschool.virginia.edu | - Marge Simpson
Let's Go Bucs! (as in Pittsburgh Pirates)
Allan Gray
PPG is a stupid way of measuring the two because Lemieux played a
greater percentage of his games in his physical prime. Not that I want
to start a Gretzky vs. Lemieux thread: they were/are both great in
different ways.
Brad Murray
No.
rw...@mosquito.com
FOR SALE: Flyers vs Rangers Sunday 5/18/97
First level seats--sec 108
2 tickets sale
contact me via e-mail ASAP
rw...@mosquito.com
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
rw...@mosquito.com
FOR SALE: Flyers Stanley Cup Tickets Game One
First level seats--
4 tickets for sale
rw...@mosquito.com
FOR SALE: Flyers Stanley Cup tickets (Game 1) Saturday 8pm
First level seats--sec 109 row 10 as well as 2nd level seats
4 tickets for sale
contact me via e-mail ASAP !!!!!!! Please include a phone# for call back
Jeff Jardine
ROBO (ROBO) wrote:
: and Gretzky wasn't the best
: offensive player ever, he was the best _playmaker_ ever. Ask anyone
: who the better goalscorer was.
Even if you don't think Gretzky is the greatest player ever, you surely
must admit he's the greatest offensive player ever. I'm not going to
spew forth all his offensive records, as we've all seen them before.
Gretzky certainly is the best playmaker. He also has the two highest
single season goal totals and the most coals ever.
Not bad for a set-up man.
: Orr - changed the game moreso than any other player
: Mario - most talented player
: Gretzky - best career
: Do with this what you wish.
I'd have to agree with all three.
--
Jeff Jardine - jjar...@atm.dal.ca
If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure." - J. Danforth Quayle
ROBO
After one too many stiff root beers hab...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca ()
belched the following :
>Sgvette (sgv...@aol.com) wrote:
>: Gretzky and Lemieux...2 of the greatest ever. But neither was as good as
>: Orr.
>: SG
>Orr was indeed the total package. Offense, defense, toughness, leadership,
>heart, raw talent and learned skills. Gretzky was(is) the best offensive
>player to play the game. Lemieux probably had more pure raw natural talent
>than anyone ever, but no heart. It was like he was being forced to do
>something he didn't like. He did everything he did without effort, scary
>to think what half an effort could have produced for this guy.
Hold up. I believe someone said the same thing about Jean Beliveau,
that he was so good, he made everything look easy. To say that he
doesn't put out effort is ridiculous. PGH frequently pumped fluids
into his system between periods because he was so exhausted and
dehydrated. As it's not too hot inside hockey arenas, one _might_
assume that he was working hard. and Gretzky wasn't the best
offensive player ever, he was the best _playmaker_ ever. Ask anyone
who the better goalscorer was.
The way I look at it:
Orr - changed the game moreso than any other player
Mario - most talented player
Gretzky - best career
Do with this what you wish.
Thanks for listening. have a great day. :-)
ROBO
email to be...@mindspring.com, if you wish.
For replies via email, just check the address and adjust accordingly.
ROBO
After one too many stiff root beers co...@torfree.net (Hong-yul Kim)
belched the following :
>Kevin Sosinov (kns...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
>: with so much attention on Mario and Gretzky and some other stars,some of
>: the younger stars are forgotten. Mario and Gretzky are great players,but
>: that record that Gretzky hold for the most goal is going to be beaten in
>: the future by some of the younger stars!!!!
>
>Let's hope that happens because it sure would be boring otherwise. Let's
>hope another Gretzky or Lemieux comes upon us real soon. Gretzky would
>probably be the first guy to congratulate anyone who break one of his
>records. I've got a sneaking suspicion Mario would just sulk all day if
>someone were to break one of his records.
>--
>-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
>Science assumes that nature is guilty
>until she has proven herself innocent.
>
Funny, it seems that Lemieux, when told about being 1 game behind
Gretz in fastest to record 600 goals, said something like, "Oh well,
second again." When asked about his place in history, he wanted to be
"mentioned" along with Howe, Gretz, Orr, as being one of the best
ever. Besides, his records, GPG, and soon PPG, will not be broken for
QUITE some time. It will take more than just talent, it will take a
series of rulechanges in the league. Nobody touched Gretzky, and he
was allowed to do on the ice what he wanted when he wanted, without
fear of being touched. Mario did what he wanted, but got attacked
constantly. Instead of referee bias, he did what he wanted more
because he was (is) an incredibly large person who skates and
stickhandles like crazy.
Ironically, he is as large as Lindros, and everyone seems to gush over
Lindros because his stickhandling and skating are so good for a "big"
guy. Lemieux was just as big, but instead of checking, he scored. A
lot.
Anyway, as I just got back from a month hiatus, and Agent tells me
there are about 40 replies to this thread, I'll try to limit my
responses here.
ROBO
After one too many stiff root beers Chris <co...@fyi.net> belched the
following :
>Sgvette wrote:
>>
>> Gretzky and Lemieux...2 of the greatest ever. But neither was as good as
>> Orr.
>> SG
>
>Just read an interesting stat that I wasn't aware of before. Lemieux
>only played in 73% of the games over his career due to injuries. Orr
>only played in 70% of the games because of injury. Both of those are
>amazing. I think Wayne played in over 90% of the games.
>
>Its astounding to think what Lemieux and Orr could've and would've done
>had they been healthier.
>
>By the way, Orr has been quoted as saying that Mario is/was the best
>all-around player...ever.
>
>-Chris
He said he was the "most talented" player ever. There is a
difference.
Raymond Mason
jjar...@Atm.Dal.Ca,NewsGroups writes:
>Even if you don't think Gretzky is the greatest player ever, you surely
>must admit he's the greatest offensive player ever. I'm not going to
>spew forth all his offensive records, as we've all seen them before.
>Gretzky certainly is the best playmaker. He also has the two highest
>single season goal totals and the most coals ever.
>Not bad for a set-up man.
>: Orr - changed the game moreso than any other player
>: Mario - most talented player
>: Gretzky - best career
>: Do with this what you wish.
Gretzky would have went home crying to his momma if he had to play
hockey in the 50s, 60s, and very early 70s. He would not have had
anywhere near the point total he has. As for that oversized fag
Lemieux, if he would have spent more time playing hard and less time
whining to the refs I would have had more respect for him.. If he had
decided to play a physical game, he could have hung with the boys for
the 50s and 60s.
Jeff Jardine
Raymond Mason (rma...@pol.org) wrote:
: Gretzky would have went home crying to his momma if he had to play
: hockey in the 50s, 60s, and very early 70s. He would not have had
: anywhere near the point total he has.
But he didn't have to play in the 50's, 60s and early 70's. He played
in the 80's and dominated his era. The early 80's NHL was still a very
tough league. It was the talented high-flying Oilers (as well as the
introduction of European hockey to North America) that changed the
trend to a more offensive game.
--
Jeff Jardine - jjar...@atm.dal.ca
"Physics isn't a religion. If it were, we'd have a much easier time
raising money." - Leon Lederman
Mac Beaton
On 3 Jun 1997 20:46:36 GMT, jjar...@Atm.Dal.Ca (Jeff Jardine) wrote:
>Raymond Mason (rma...@pol.org) wrote:
>
>: Gretzky would have went home crying to his momma if he had to play
>: hockey in the 50s, 60s, and very early 70s. He would not have had
>: anywhere near the point total he has.
>
>But he didn't have to play in the 50's, 60s and early 70's. He played
>in the 80's and dominated his era. The early 80's NHL was still a very
>tough league. It was the talented high-flying Oilers (as well as the
>introduction of European hockey to North America) that changed the
>trend to a more offensive game.
>
>--
In 1970 the average player was 5'11" and 185 lbs. Those in the 50's
and 60's were even smaller. The main knock on Gretzky is that he was
too small. He would have done worse against much smaller players?
Mac
Raymond Mason
mac.b...@dlcwest.com,NewsGroups writes:
>In 1970 the average player was 5'11" and 185 lbs. Those in the 50's
>and 60's were even smaller. The main knock on Gretzky is that he was
>too small. He would have done worse against much smaller players?
>Mac
Yes he would have because those so called smaller players would have
pounded the crap out of him and all the whining in the world wouldn't
have saved him.
Jim Schenk
The best player ever was not Lemiuex or Gretzky. Gretzky wouldn't have survived 2 years in the six team league when checking was allowed. Teams like the
Bruins and Candadiens of the early 70's would have kicked the crap out of
the best teams that Edmonton and Pittsburgh had to offer.
--
ROBO
After one too many stiff root beers jjar...@Atm.Dal.Ca (Jeff Jardine)
belched the following :
>ROBO (ROBO) wrote:
>
>: and Gretzky wasn't the best
>: offensive player ever, he was the best _playmaker_ ever. Ask anyone
>: who the better goalscorer was.
>
>Even if you don't think Gretzky is the greatest player ever, you surely
>must admit he's the greatest offensive player ever. I'm not going to
>spew forth all his offensive records, as we've all seen them before.
Of course, naturally. Gretzky's records are incredible. But as I
have fought long and hard with so many other before, one MUST look at
the players play the game, and look at the teammates. If a team loses
the highest scoring player and highest scoring defenseman of all time,
then wins the Stanley Cup, what does that tell you about the team?
>Gretzky certainly is the best playmaker. He also has the two highest
>single season goal totals and the most coals ever.
>Not bad for a set-up man.
>
>: Orr - changed the game moreso than any other player
>: Mario - most talented player
>: Gretzky - best career
>: Do with this what you wish.
>
>I'd have to agree with all three.
Cool. I thought Gretzky was the best, and that 66 wasabuot 2/3 of
what 99 was on the ice and in my math book. When mario scored 85
goals on a team with Rob Brown and Bob Errey as linemates, then scored
5 goals ina playoff game against a much more powerful Philly flyer
team, I started to change my mind. Gretzky's records are there
because of his health, which certainly cannot be discounted.
I have given up declaring ANYONE as the best ever. i've copped out
and give the above 3 players their respective descriptions. I was not
privileged to see Howe at an age where he was still dominant, although
from the tapes I've seen and the words I've read, Eric Lindros is a
Gordie Howe wannabe without durability.
>--
>Jeff Jardine - jjar...@atm.dal.ca
>
>If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure." - J. Danforth Quayle
Whoa. Heavy. That J. Danforth guy is pretty smart. Maybe he'll run
for President?
ROBO
After one too many stiff root beers mac.b...@dlcwest.com (Mac
Beaton) belched the following :
>On 3 Jun 1997 20:46:36 GMT, jjar...@Atm.Dal.Ca (Jeff Jardine) wrote:
>
>>Raymond Mason (rma...@pol.org) wrote:
>>
>>: Gretzky would have went home crying to his momma if he had to play
>>: hockey in the 50s, 60s, and very early 70s. He would not have had
>>: anywhere near the point total he has.
>>
>>But he didn't have to play in the 50's, 60s and early 70's. He played
>>in the 80's and dominated his era. The early 80's NHL was still a very
>>tough league. It was the talented high-flying Oilers (as well as the
>>introduction of European hockey to North America) that changed the
>>trend to a more offensive game.
>>
>>--
>In 1970 the average player was 5'11" and 185 lbs. Those in the 50's
>and 60's were even smaller. The main knock on Gretzky is that he was
>too small. He would have done worse against much smaller players?
>
>Mac
Gretzky was not small, he PLAYED small. He is actually about 6' 180
pounds.
PSX Junkies
6 feet tall and 180 pounds? He's light!