|
|
GOAT
Jan 9, 2020 16:58:21 GMT -7
Post by Bronco73 on Jan 9, 2020 16:58:21 GMT -7
The concept of a GOAT is stupid IMO especially for team sports. There is no way to compare players who played in different eras and on different teams. Would Gretzky have been as prolific had he been on the worst team in the league rather than arguably some of the greatest of all time? What would Lemieux's numbers have looked like had he started at the same time or played for as long? What would either of their numbers look like if they had to face goalies of today or had the sticks of today? He!! Gordie Howe played for 4 decades and scored 41 points in the NHL at age 51! That's pretty freaken great. I understand people like to feel like there has to be the best at something but it is pretty much impossible because no two players have taken the same path to allow a fair comparison. The concept of a GOAT is stupid IMO especially for team sports. There is no way to compare players who played in different eras and on different teams. Would Gretzky have been as prolific had he been on the worst team in the league rather than arguably some of the greatest of all time? What would Lemieux's numbers have looked like had he started at the same time or played for as long? What would either of their numbers look like if they had to face goalies of today or had the sticks of today? He!! Gordie Howe played for 4 decades and scored 41 points in the NHL at age 51! That's pretty freaken great. I understand people like to feel like there has to be the best at something but it is pretty much impossible because no two players have taken the same path to allow a fair comparison. Agree, and how much is a point that McDavid gets today against probably much stiffer defences and certainly with much smaller goals to aim at when one takes into account the actual dimensions of today's goalies and their attire/equipment, and also, one has to take into account the quality of the players surrounding the star in question and there can be no doubt that McDavid's numbers (as an example) have suffered due to the lack of quality of the players he has been asked to play with since he joined the Oilers. How would Gretzky look for example with Rattie on one wing and Archibald on the other...……..no disrespect to either of those players but you surely get my gist. It is the same in golf, how good would Jack Nicklaus be with today's golf clubs and size of the driver and quality of the ball and how the fairways are cut etc? Or how good would Tiger be playing with hickory shafts or feathery golf balls? That is why I take with a pinch of salt GOAT claims....one can only be the greatest in one's own era, that can perhaps be proven, but GOAT..….a dubious claim that can never be properly proven. Now greatest of all time record points getter, sure, or greatest of all time record goal scorer sure, but does that equate to GOAT? Dubious claim as I say. If you don't like the "concept" or discussion you are both free to ignore this thread. I don't think it's fair that you criticize our intelligence or the thread discussing it though. It's done in every sport, and it's an argument that is discussed on a daily basis, so there are definitely many people who disagree with your opinions. IGibb the shoulda coulda woulda's are exactly why some players are considered better than others. Spud Webb COULD have been the best basketball player ever if he'd only been two feet taller, but he wasn't and there is no changing that. Blackhawk the point of selecting a "GOAT" is to take all things into consideration past and present, eras, dimensions, equipment and everything else you've mentioned and formulate an opinion as to which player excelled enough to be considered the best despite all those differences, which is exactly what GrooveyAsh and I are debating right now, and although you and IGibb disagree with the premise of a "GOAT", I feel you could at least respect the discussion we are having. Greatest all time is argued in every sport, but no player ever has dominated his sport the way that Gretzky did.
|
|
|
|
GOAT
Jan 9, 2020 17:02:03 GMT -7
Post by Bronco73 on Jan 9, 2020 17:02:03 GMT -7
Back to Wayne...
His FIRST professional goal came in his fifth game. He scored against his future team, the Edmonton Oilers lol
|
|
|
|
GOAT
Jan 10, 2020 1:06:02 GMT -7
via mobile
Post by advisor1 on Jan 10, 2020 1:06:02 GMT -7
Back to Wayne... His FIRST professional goal came in his fifth game. He scored against his future team, the Edmonton Oilers lol 100% Bronco. The mere fact that rules were changed and teams were forced to implement radical defensive systems (neutral zone trap) just to compete with Gretz and gang says it all. |
|
|
|
GOAT
Jan 10, 2020 9:25:41 GMT -7
Post by igibb on Jan 10, 2020 9:25:41 GMT -7
The concept of a GOAT is stupid IMO especially for team sports. There is no way to compare players who played in different eras and on different teams. Would Gretzky have been as prolific had he been on the worst team in the league rather than arguably some of the greatest of all time? What would Lemieux's numbers have looked like had he started at the same time or played for as long? What would either of their numbers look like if they had to face goalies of today or had the sticks of today? He!! Gordie Howe played for 4 decades and scored 41 points in the NHL at age 51! That's pretty freaken great. I understand people like to feel like there has to be the best at something but it is pretty much impossible because no two players have taken the same path to allow a fair comparison. Agree, and how much is a point that McDavid gets today against probably much stiffer defences and certainly with much smaller goals to aim at when one takes into account the actual dimensions of today's goalies and their attire/equipment, and also, one has to take into account the quality of the players surrounding the star in question and there can be no doubt that McDavid's numbers (as an example) have suffered due to the lack of quality of the players he has been asked to play with since he joined the Oilers. How would Gretzky look for example with Rattie on one wing and Archibald on the other...……..no disrespect to either of those players but you surely get my gist. It is the same in golf, how good would Jack Nicklaus be with today's golf clubs and size of the driver and quality of the ball and how the fairways are cut etc? Or how good would Tiger be playing with hickory shafts or feathery golf balls? That is why I take with a pinch of salt GOAT claims....one can only be the greatest in one's own era, that can perhaps be proven, but GOAT..….a dubious claim that can never be properly proven. Now greatest of all time record points getter, sure, or greatest of all time record goal scorer sure, but does that equate to GOAT? Dubious claim as I say. If you don't like the "concept" or discussion you are both free to ignore this thread. I don't think it's fair that you criticize our intelligence or the thread discussing it though. It's done in every sport, and it's an argument that is discussed on a daily basis, so there are definitely many people who disagree with your opinions. IGibb the shoulda coulda woulda's are exactly why some players are considered better than others. Spud Webb COULD have been the best basketball player ever if he'd only been two feet taller, but he wasn't and there is no changing that. Blackhawk the point of selecting a "GOAT" is to take all things into consideration past and present, eras, dimensions, equipment and everything else you've mentioned and formulate an opinion as to which player excelled enough to be considered the best despite all those differences, which is exactly what GrooveyAsh and I are debating right now, and although you and IGibb disagree with the premise of a "GOAT", I feel you could at least respect the discussion we are having. Greatest all time is argued in every sport, but no player ever has dominated his sport the way that Gretzky did. Wasn't aware other couldn't have opinions different than yours Bronco. Thanks for the info. No one is criticizing your intelligence I just stated MY OPINION. If you don't like it too bad.
|
|
|
|
GOAT
Jan 10, 2020 13:11:56 GMT -7
Post by Bronco73 on Jan 10, 2020 13:11:56 GMT -7
If you don't like the "concept" or discussion you are both free to ignore this thread. I don't think it's fair that you criticize our intelligence or the thread discussing it though. It's done in every sport, and it's an argument that is discussed on a daily basis, so there are definitely many people who disagree with your opinions. IGibb the shoulda coulda woulda's are exactly why some players are considered better than others. Spud Webb COULD have been the best basketball player ever if he'd only been two feet taller, but he wasn't and there is no changing that. Blackhawk the point of selecting a "GOAT" is to take all things into consideration past and present, eras, dimensions, equipment and everything else you've mentioned and formulate an opinion as to which player excelled enough to be considered the best despite all those differences, which is exactly what GrooveyAsh and I are debating right now, and although you and IGibb disagree with the premise of a "GOAT", I feel you could at least respect the discussion we are having. Greatest all time is argued in every sport, but no player ever has dominated his sport the way that Gretzky did. Wasn't aware other couldn't have opinions different than yours Bronco. Thanks for the info. No one is criticizing your intelligence I just stated MY OPINION. If you don't like it too bad. Absolutely, and nobody said you can't have differing opinions. But calling somebody's intelligence into question and referring to them as stupid ("The concept of a GOAT is stupid IMO especially for team sports") for discussing the subject that you personally don't put any credence in to me is doing little more than inciting uncivil discussion. You don't believe in discussing or debating who would be considered the best player, understood. Posting in a thread just to berate those that do and insult their intelligence really provides nothing. Either way, I'm over it. Have a great day!
|
|
|
|
GOAT
Jan 10, 2020 14:25:27 GMT -7
Post by GrooveyAsh on Jan 10, 2020 14:25:27 GMT -7
You said Gretzky was unchallenged as the 'Best' all-time, not the highest scoring, nor the assist king. I could get into the issue of assists as well, pointing out that forwards are more likely to accumulate them than defensemen, or that Orr broke the 100 in a vastly different era, but my previous point here stands up: winning games comes down to a lot more than offense. Valued as a solitary contributor to any team, Orr would win you more games than Gretzky. IMO he is the GOAT, hands down, but at the very least, I feel you should cede the fact that he definitely challenges Gretzky under the 'best' category. No, sorry I don't cede that at all. As for points... the purpose of the game of hockey is to score more goals than the other team. The best way to do that is to actually score, so that's why I put so much emphasis on scoring (as do pretty much all statisticians, analysts, reporters, managers, coaches, etc). Yes you can say that "hockey is a lot more than offense" and you are completely right. I can conversely say that "hockey is a lot more than defense". The thing about hockey and Gretzky is that he thought and saw the game so well that defense was rarely an issue, his line had the puck in the offensive zone so much more that they rarely even had to defend. it makes defending almost a non-sequitur since he was so good that most of his game was played in the offensive zone. The league didn't change it's rules to keep Bobby Orr from dominating so much like they did with Gretzky BO didn't have nearly the length of career that Gretzky had (IMO this is huge. Longevity or lack thereof is a big part of what makes players good vs great) An argument can very well be made that Lidstrom is the best defenseman of all time (although I don't subscribe to that, Orr wins it hands down): Lidstrom had a longer more productive career
Lidstrom holds more NHL records than Orr
Lidstrom has more All Star nods than OrrAnd I'm sorry but no way no how would Orr have won you more games than Gretzky. I can't think of any manager in history that with the advantage of seeing how both careers were going to go wouldn't take Gretzky first. Gretzky was the star who got you there, every time. When the dust settles, and ALL facets of the game are taken into account, IMO Gretzky still easily gets the nod and I would be willing to bet that those who disagree with that are very few and far between. Would it have been different if Orr hadn't had such a shortened career? Possibly, maybe even likely, but that isn't how it shook down and Gretzky beneffited from that longevity. Gretzky, GOAT unchallenged Mario Orr and Howe duke it out for second Yes, hockey is a lot more than defense and that plays straight into my point: Orr was excellent at both facets of the game, Gretzky was not. You cannot detract from how great a player actually was because of the misfortunes of injury/shortened career, or how the league may or may not react to said player's greatness, at least imo. If Gretzky broke a femur after 10 seasons, his incredible displays of greatness would suddenly become lesser? That just doesn't make any sense. You rely on points as your standard, yet the fact remains that Orr helped generate many goals of which he didn't get credited with a point. Taking down an offensive rush, battling and retrieving pucks in his own zone, getting the puck out and into the offensive zone....etc.... are some of the things that not only served to prevent goals scored against, but scored goals for as well. In 70-71 Boston scored an amazing 399 goals and only allowed 207. That's the kind of impact he had, and that's why he would win you more games than Gretzky. No manager has clairvoyance or foresight to take into account things like longevity, my point is, if two sides are filling out rosters to play one game against each other, and have the ability to pick any player from any era in their prime, any manager picking first overall that is worth his salt will likely grab Orr first. If points are your go-to prove-all, then arguments can be made that Lemieux was better, since he has higher career PPG and GPG. My point remains that Gretzky is NOT unchallenged as GOAT, as such debates occur all the time, and there is indeed no clear-cut consensus that Gretz is in this position. Love the debate BTW!
|
|
|
|
GOAT
Jan 10, 2020 14:39:30 GMT -7
Post by GrooveyAsh on Jan 10, 2020 14:39:30 GMT -7
The concept of a GOAT is stupid IMO especially for team sports. There is no way to compare players who played in different eras and on different teams. Would Gretzky have been as prolific had he been on the worst team in the league rather than arguably some of the greatest of all time? What would Lemieux's numbers have looked like had he started at the same time or played for as long? What would either of their numbers look like if they had to face goalies of today or had the sticks of today? He!! Gordie Howe played for 4 decades and scored 41 points in the NHL at age 51! That's pretty freaken great. I understand people like to feel like there has to be the best at something but it is pretty much impossible because no two players have taken the same path to allow a fair comparison. Agree, and how much is a point that McDavid gets today against probably much stiffer defences and certainly with much smaller goals to aim at when one takes into account the actual dimensions of today's goalies and their attire/equipment, and also, one has to take into account the quality of the players surrounding the star in question and there can be no doubt that McDavid's numbers (as an example) have suffered due to the lack of quality of the players he has been asked to play with since he joined the Oilers. How would Gretzky look for example with Rattie on one wing and Archibald on the other...……..no disrespect to either of those players but you surely get my gist. It is the same in golf, how good would Jack Nicklaus be with today's golf clubs and size of the driver and quality of the ball and how the fairways are cut etc? Or how good would Tiger be playing with hickory shafts or feathery golf balls? That is why I take with a pinch of salt GOAT claims....one can only be the greatest in one's own era, that can perhaps be proven, but GOAT..….a dubious claim that can never be properly proven. Now greatest of all time record points getter, sure, or greatest of all time record goal scorer sure, but does that equate to GOAT? Dubious claim as I say. If you don't like the "concept" or discussion you are both free to ignore this thread. I don't think it's fair that you criticize our intelligence or the thread discussing it though. It's done in every sport, and it's an argument that is discussed on a daily basis, so there are definitely many people who disagree with your opinions. IGibb the shoulda coulda woulda's are exactly why some players are considered better than others. Spud Webb COULD have been the best basketball player ever if he'd only been two feet taller, but he wasn't and there is no changing that. Blackhawk the point of selecting a "GOAT" is to take all things into consideration past and present, eras, dimensions, equipment and everything else you've mentioned and formulate an opinion as to which player excelled enough to be considered the best despite all those differences, which is exactly what GrooveyAsh and I are debating right now, and although you and IGibb disagree with the premise of a "GOAT", I feel you could at least respect the discussion we are having. Greatest all time is argued in every sport, but no player ever has dominated his sport the way that Gretzky did. Usain Bolt. Michael Phelps. Babe Ruth. Michael Jordan...
|
|
|
|
GOAT
Jan 10, 2020 16:36:31 GMT -7
Post by Bronco73 on Jan 10, 2020 16:36:31 GMT -7
If you don't like the "concept" or discussion you are both free to ignore this thread. I don't think it's fair that you criticize our intelligence or the thread discussing it though. It's done in every sport, and it's an argument that is discussed on a daily basis, so there are definitely many people who disagree with your opinions. IGibb the shoulda coulda woulda's are exactly why some players are considered better than others. Spud Webb COULD have been the best basketball player ever if he'd only been two feet taller, but he wasn't and there is no changing that. Blackhawk the point of selecting a "GOAT" is to take all things into consideration past and present, eras, dimensions, equipment and everything else you've mentioned and formulate an opinion as to which player excelled enough to be considered the best despite all those differences, which is exactly what GrooveyAsh and I are debating right now, and although you and IGibb disagree with the premise of a "GOAT", I feel you could at least respect the discussion we are having. Greatest all time is argued in every sport, but no player ever has dominated his sport the way that Gretzky did. Usain Bolt. Michael Phelps. Babe Ruth. Michael Jordan... Most of Babe Ruth's records have already been broken, he currently holds about 20 major league records. Many analysts consider Lebron to be greater than Jordan (I completely disagree) and his career isn't even done yet, that being said even Jordan only holds 13 NBA records. Phelps and Bolt are both athletes in individual sports that you yourself said is not as "stupid" to argue. "The concept of a GOAT is stupid IMO especially for team sports" That being said, neither Phelps nor Bolt hold nearly the records that Gretzky holds, and despite winning more often than their competitors did not dominate their competitors nearly as overwhelmingly for as long as Gretzky did. For example if Usain was to truly dominate like Gretzky did he'd have to beat his competitors by a full two seconds, not a couple of tenths. For baseball, to equate what Gretzky did to the hockey world it would be like somebody hitting 350 more home runs than the home run leader Barrie Bonds. In NBA, a player would have to score another 16 thousand points more than their all time points leader Kareem Abdul Jabbar. An NFL quarterback would have to pass for 31 thousand yards more than the current record holder Brett Favre. So ya, Gretzky dominated his sport like no other athlete in their own corresponding sports. bleacherreport.com/articles/1906423-why-wayne-gretzky-is-the-greatest-athlete-ever
|
|
|
|
GOAT
Jan 10, 2020 16:55:46 GMT -7
Post by fogolin2 on Jan 10, 2020 16:55:46 GMT -7
You said Gretzky was unchallenged as the 'Best' all-time, not the highest scoring, nor the assist king. I could get into the issue of assists as well, pointing out that forwards are more likely to accumulate them than defensemen, or that Orr broke the 100 in a vastly different era, but my previous point here stands up: winning games comes down to a lot more than offense. Valued as a solitary contributor to any team, Orr would win you more games than Gretzky. IMO he is the GOAT, hands down, but at the very least, I feel you should cede the fact that he definitely challenges Gretzky under the 'best' category. No, sorry I don't cede that at all. As for points... the purpose of the game of hockey is to score more goals than the other team. The best way to do that is to actually score, so that's why I put so much emphasis on scoring (as do pretty much all statisticians, analysts, reporters, managers, coaches, etc). Yes you can say that "hockey is a lot more than offense" and you are completely right. I can conversely say that "hockey is a lot more than defense". The thing about hockey and Gretzky is that he thought and saw the game so well that defense was rarely an issue, his line had the puck in the offensive zone so much more that they rarely even had to defend. it makes defending almost a non-sequitur since he was so good that most of his game was played in the offensive zone. The league didn't change it's rules to keep Bobby Orr from dominating so much like they did with Gretzky BO didn't have nearly the length of career that Gretzky had (IMO this is huge. Longevity or lack thereof is a big part of what makes players good vs great) An argument can very well be made that Lidstrom is the best defenseman of all time (although I don't subscribe to that, Orr wins it hands down): Lidstrom had a longer more productive career
Lidstrom holds more NHL records than Orr
Lidstrom has more All Star nods than OrrAnd I'm sorry but no way no how would Orr have won you more games than Gretzky. I can't think of any manager in history that with the advantage of seeing how both careers were going to go wouldn't take Gretzky first. Gretzky was the star who got you there, every time. When the dust settles, and ALL facets of the game are taken into account, IMO Gretzky still easily gets the nod and I would be willing to bet that those who disagree with that are very few and far between. Would it have been different if Orr hadn't had such a shortened career? Possibly, maybe even likely, but that isn't how it shook down and Gretzky beneffited from that longevity. Gretzky, GOAT unchallenged Mario Orr Omark and Howe duke it out for second Weird list of guys gunning for 2nd all time, isn't it?
|
|
|
|
GOAT
Jan 10, 2020 17:08:49 GMT -7
Post by Bronco73 on Jan 10, 2020 17:08:49 GMT -7
No, sorry I don't cede that at all. As for points... the purpose of the game of hockey is to score more goals than the other team. The best way to do that is to actually score, so that's why I put so much emphasis on scoring (as do pretty much all statisticians, analysts, reporters, managers, coaches, etc). Yes you can say that "hockey is a lot more than offense" and you are completely right. I can conversely say that "hockey is a lot more than defense". The thing about hockey and Gretzky is that he thought and saw the game so well that defense was rarely an issue, his line had the puck in the offensive zone so much more that they rarely even had to defend. it makes defending almost a non-sequitur since he was so good that most of his game was played in the offensive zone. The league didn't change it's rules to keep Bobby Orr from dominating so much like they did with Gretzky BO didn't have nearly the length of career that Gretzky had (IMO this is huge. Longevity or lack thereof is a big part of what makes players good vs great) An argument can very well be made that Lidstrom is the best defenseman of all time (although I don't subscribe to that, Orr wins it hands down): Lidstrom had a longer more productive career
Lidstrom holds more NHL records than Orr
Lidstrom has more All Star nods than OrrAnd I'm sorry but no way no how would Orr have won you more games than Gretzky. I can't think of any manager in history that with the advantage of seeing how both careers were going to go wouldn't take Gretzky first. Gretzky was the star who got you there, every time. When the dust settles, and ALL facets of the game are taken into account, IMO Gretzky still easily gets the nod and I would be willing to bet that those who disagree with that are very few and far between. Would it have been different if Orr hadn't had such a shortened career? Possibly, maybe even likely, but that isn't how it shook down and Gretzky beneffited from that longevity. Gretzky, GOAT unchallenged Mario Orr and Howe duke it out for second Yes, hockey is a lot more than defense and that plays straight into my point: Orr was excellent at both facets of the game, Gretzky was not. You cannot detract from how great a player actually was because of the misfortunes of injury/shortened career, or how the league may or may not react to said player's greatness, at least imo. If Gretzky broke a femur after 10 seasons, his incredible displays of greatness would suddenly become lesser? That just doesn't make any sense. You rely on points as your standard, yet the fact remains that Orr helped generate many goals of which he didn't get credited with a point. Taking down an offensive rush, battling and retrieving pucks in his own zone, getting the puck out and into the offensive zone....etc.... are some of the things that not only served to prevent goals scored against, but scored goals for as well. In 70-71 Boston scored an amazing 399 goals and only allowed 207. That's the kind of impact he had, and that's why he would win you more games than Gretzky. No manager has clairvoyance or foresight to take into account things like longevity, my point is, if two sides are filling out rosters to play one game against each other, and have the ability to pick any player from any era in their prime, any manager picking first overall that is worth his salt will likely grab Orr first. If points are your go-to prove-all, then arguments can be made that Lemieux was better, since he has higher career PPG and GPG. My point remains that Gretzky is NOT unchallenged as GOAT, as such debates occur all the time, and there is indeed no clear-cut consensus that Gretz is in this position. Love the debate BTW! You are right, I cannot take away from a shortened career due to injury... but likewise we should also not be able to add to it. We don't know how a career shortened athlete would have continued to perform, we have to take their careers at face value. Gretzky dominated for an entire career, but should he be faulted for that? I don't rely on JUST points as a standard, but points is pretty much THE standard in most sports including hockey to determine a players effectiveness. You bring up Bostons 70-71 season with a whopping 399 goals for and 207 against which is amazing and Orr was a huge part of that... but in 83-84 The Gretzky led Oilers had an NHL record 447 goals for (148 more than Boston, or over 1.5 goals PER GAME). They allowed more goals, 319 that year... however the point is that the Bruins on the 70-71 season of 399 goals and only 207 against, they won 57 games... in 83-84 the Oilers with their 447 goals for and 319 against, also won 57 games. Both teams with 57 wins. In fact the Bruins best season ever for wins was 70-71 with 57... same as the Oilers. Bostons second most was 54 while Edmontons second most was 56 Lemieux COULD have been the GOAT, but his career was cut short, Gretzky's wasn't. It could have been because Gretzky saw the ice better and avoided crippling hits or it could have just been Mario with physical setbacks that Gretzky didn't have (although as I recall Gretzky did battle back issues for quite a few years)... because of that Gretzky had a longer, better, more productive career. Mario could also have pushed forward, played more years and seen a drastic decrease in his scoring over those years, in fact that is likely what would have happened. I think there will always be SOME that buck the trend so to speak.. but I'm willing to bet that the overwhelming majority of pundits, analysts, fans, players, coaches, and management will agree that Gretzky is the GOAT. In fact I'd be willing to lay money on it being very close to 100% of them.
|
|
|
|
GOAT
Jan 10, 2020 17:10:08 GMT -7
Post by Bronco73 on Jan 10, 2020 17:10:08 GMT -7
No, sorry I don't cede that at all. As for points... the purpose of the game of hockey is to score more goals than the other team. The best way to do that is to actually score, so that's why I put so much emphasis on scoring (as do pretty much all statisticians, analysts, reporters, managers, coaches, etc). Yes you can say that "hockey is a lot more than offense" and you are completely right. I can conversely say that "hockey is a lot more than defense". The thing about hockey and Gretzky is that he thought and saw the game so well that defense was rarely an issue, his line had the puck in the offensive zone so much more that they rarely even had to defend. it makes defending almost a non-sequitur since he was so good that most of his game was played in the offensive zone. The league didn't change it's rules to keep Bobby Orr from dominating so much like they did with Gretzky BO didn't have nearly the length of career that Gretzky had (IMO this is huge. Longevity or lack thereof is a big part of what makes players good vs great) An argument can very well be made that Lidstrom is the best defenseman of all time (although I don't subscribe to that, Orr wins it hands down): Lidstrom had a longer more productive career
Lidstrom holds more NHL records than Orr
Lidstrom has more All Star nods than OrrAnd I'm sorry but no way no how would Orr have won you more games than Gretzky. I can't think of any manager in history that with the advantage of seeing how both careers were going to go wouldn't take Gretzky first. Gretzky was the star who got you there, every time. When the dust settles, and ALL facets of the game are taken into account, IMO Gretzky still easily gets the nod and I would be willing to bet that those who disagree with that are very few and far between. Would it have been different if Orr hadn't had such a shortened career? Possibly, maybe even likely, but that isn't how it shook down and Gretzky beneffited from that longevity. Gretzky, GOAT unchallenged Mario Orr Omark and Howe duke it out for second Weird list of guys gunning for 2nd all time, isn't it? Well I also had Magnus and Schremp on that list but it was getting pretty crowded, had to shortlist it a bit.
|
|
|
|
GOAT
Jan 11, 2020 8:58:14 GMT -7
Post by oilyfan on Jan 11, 2020 8:58:14 GMT -7
It's so hard to compare the players of different eras. My parents had season's tickets at Northlands all through the 80s until the mid 90s. I got to see some of the best hockey ever played by the best player that had ever played, up to that point. Having said that, I can't imagine what Mcdavid, the pinnacle of the modern athlete would do to the league in that era. But, i can say the same for how Gretzky changed the game. Gordie howe, Bobby Orr, Guy Lafleur, all the way back to Howie Morenz before them all.... My thread contribution....  That's a great point Fog - different era's. If McDavid, this version of Connor McDavid I mean was playing in Gretzky's era, then he'd be scoring 100 goals +, and getting 300 points +, easy. No Question about it. However, if Wayne Gretzky was playing in this era, with all the advantages athlete's have today compared to back then, he would still be the one. Bobby Orr revolutionized the game, Gretzky the same. If not for his perceived laziness and cancer however, Mario Lemieux also should be up here. He was another unbelievable talent. Unlike Wayne, he had the size, and when he wanted to score, he scored, regardless of who was trying to tackle him.
|
|
|
|
GOAT
Jan 11, 2020 9:11:24 GMT -7
Post by Dr. Telly-Belly on Jan 11, 2020 9:11:24 GMT -7
It's so hard to compare the players of different eras. My parents had season's tickets at Northlands all through the 80s until the mid 90s. I got to see some of the best hockey ever played by the best player that had ever played, up to that point. Having said that, I can't imagine what Mcdavid, the pinnacle of the modern athlete would do to the league in that era. But, i can say the same for how Gretzky changed the game. Gordie howe, Bobby Orr, Guy Lafleur, all the way back to Howie Morenz before them all.... My thread contribution.... That's a great point Fog - different era's. If McDavid, this version of Connor McDavid I mean was playing in Gretzky's era, then he'd be scoring 100 goals +, and getting 300 points +, easy. No Question about it. However, if Wayne Gretzky was playing in this era, with all the advantages athlete's have today compared to back then, he would still be the one. Bobby Orr revolutionized the game, Gretzky the same. If not for his perceived laziness and cancer however, Mario Lemieux also should be up here. He was another unbelievable talent. Unlike Wayne, he had the size, and when he wanted to score, he scored, regardless of who was trying to tackle him. I watched almost each and every game Gretzky played in Edmonton. You're right. When "he wanted to score, he scored, regardless of who was trying to tackle him." The game is very different so to compare McD to Gretzky is probably the weakest comparison in this thread. The closest comparison to Gretzky in dominance is Lemieux. Bobby Orr was great but has been shown above, the difference between Orr and others including Lidstrom is far less than anyone and Gretzky. I know, Grapes loved Orr and called him the greatest of all time but seriously, there's no comparison to the dominance of Gretzky in an era of clutch and grab and far less perks than the players have today.
|
|
|
|
GOAT
Jan 11, 2020 10:27:49 GMT -7
Post by fogolin2 on Jan 11, 2020 10:27:49 GMT -7
If you don't like the "concept" or discussion you are both free to ignore this thread. I don't think it's fair that you criticize our intelligence or the thread discussing it though. It's done in every sport, and it's an argument that is discussed on a daily basis, so there are definitely many people who disagree with your opinions. IGibb the shoulda coulda woulda's are exactly why some players are considered better than others. Spud Webb COULD have been the best basketball player ever if he'd only been two feet taller, but he wasn't and there is no changing that. Blackhawk the point of selecting a "GOAT" is to take all things into consideration past and present, eras, dimensions, equipment and everything else you've mentioned and formulate an opinion as to which player excelled enough to be considered the best despite all those differences, which is exactly what GrooveyAsh and I are debating right now, and although you and IGibb disagree with the premise of a "GOAT", I feel you could at least respect the discussion we are having. Greatest all time is argued in every sport, but no player ever has dominated his sport the way that Gretzky did. Usain Bolt. Michael Phelps. Babe Ruth. Michael Jordan... Serena Williams. Tiger Woods.
|
|
|
|
GOAT
Jan 11, 2020 10:30:45 GMT -7
Post by fogolin2 on Jan 11, 2020 10:30:45 GMT -7
Weird list of guys gunning for 2nd all time, isn't it? Well I also had Magnus and Schremp on that list but it was getting pretty crowded, had to shortlist it a bit. ha! I snort laughed!
|
|
|
|
GOAT
Jan 11, 2020 10:35:57 GMT -7
Post by blackhawk216 on Jan 11, 2020 10:35:57 GMT -7
The concept of a GOAT is stupid IMO especially for team sports. There is no way to compare players who played in different eras and on different teams. Would Gretzky have been as prolific had he been on the worst team in the league rather than arguably some of the greatest of all time? What would Lemieux's numbers have looked like had he started at the same time or played for as long? What would either of their numbers look like if they had to face goalies of today or had the sticks of today? He!! Gordie Howe played for 4 decades and scored 41 points in the NHL at age 51! That's pretty freaken great. I understand people like to feel like there has to be the best at something but it is pretty much impossible because no two players have taken the same path to allow a fair comparison. Agree, and how much is a point that McDavid gets today against probably much stiffer defences and certainly with much smaller goals to aim at when one takes into account the actual dimensions of today's goalies and their attire/equipment, and also, one has to take into account the quality of the players surrounding the star in question and there can be no doubt that McDavid's numbers (as an example) have suffered due to the lack of quality of the players he has been asked to play with since he joined the Oilers. How would Gretzky look for example with Rattie on one wing and Archibald on the other...……..no disrespect to either of those players but you surely get my gist. It is the same in golf, how good would Jack Nicklaus be with today's golf clubs and size of the driver and quality of the ball and how the fairways are cut etc? Or how good would Tiger be playing with hickory shafts or feathery golf balls? That is why I take with a pinch of salt GOAT claims....one can only be the greatest in one's own era, that can perhaps be proven, but GOAT..….a dubious claim that can never be properly proven. Now greatest of all time record points getter, sure, or greatest of all time record goal scorer sure, but does that equate to GOAT? Dubious claim as I say. If you don't like the "concept" or discussion you are both free to ignore this thread. I don't think it's fair that you criticize our intelligence or the thread discussing it though. It's done in every sport, and it's an argument that is discussed on a daily basis, so there are definitely many people who disagree with your opinions. IGibb the shoulda coulda woulda's are exactly why some players are considered better than others. Spud Webb COULD have been the best basketball player ever if he'd only been two feet taller, but he wasn't and there is no changing that. Blackhawk the point of selecting a "GOAT" is to take all things into consideration past and present, eras, dimensions, equipment and everything else you've mentioned and formulate an opinion as to which player excelled enough to be considered the best despite all those differences, which is exactly what GrooveyAsh and I are debating right now, and although you and IGibb disagree with the premise of a "GOAT", I feel you could at least respect the discussion we are having. Greatest all time is argued in every sport, but no player ever has dominated his sport the way that Gretzky did. A bit touchy aren't you Bronco? If you are telling me that Gretzky's numbers would not have suffered playing alongside the huge number of "failed" wingers that Connor has had to play with so far during his time with the Oilers and also playing against the "oversized goalies" of today, then you are not being reasonable. No one is looking for an argument with you, and I am not saying at all that Connor is a superior player to Gretzky, that isn't my point, but as I mentioned about golf, conditions have changed so much in both games (hockey and golf) that whilst it is fun to compare, we shouldn't get 100% focused on the numbers game. An example is that just because Rory McIlroy can drive the ball often 350 yards, and perhaps Jack Nicklaus could maybe only just clear 300 yards does not make McIlroy a better driver of the ball, it just means conditions and equipment and coaching/diet/fitness etc has improved in today's golfer. The other issue for me is that a goal scored, or an assist is immediately in the record books, whilst a goal prevented isn't recorded in the same way, and the last time I checked, a goal prevented was exactly the same value as a goal or an assist scored, but as I say goes more or less unrecorded. Hence what we can say is that Wayne Gretzky was the greatest points getter in the NHL, that is a fact, but that does not necessarily mean he was the GOAT NHL player, he may well be, but the points haul alone to me does not qualify him as such. There is a bigger picture (described above) to take into account, of which you choose to ignore. You are just focused on numbers. If you wish to post on here and go unchallenged so be it, but please don't come back with a response telling us we can "choose to ignore this thread", other opinions are worthy, just as yours is. Also I have read and re-read what I wrote, and can see nowhere where I criticized your intelligence, so I would thank you not to include me in with other posters remarks that have offended you. I was agreeing with igibb's general stance, not that he used the word "stupid", so sorry if that confused you. I also think that igibb was referring to the concept of GOAT being "stupid", not that he was saying you were stupid, and there is a difference, right? Thank you Bronco...………..lets hope we can overcome those Flames tonight! 
|
|
|
|
GOAT
Jan 11, 2020 12:59:34 GMT -7
Post by GrooveyAsh on Jan 11, 2020 12:59:34 GMT -7
Usain Bolt. Michael Phelps. Babe Ruth. Michael Jordan... Most of Babe Ruth's records have already been broken, he currently holds about 20 major league records. Many analysts consider Lebron to be greater than Jordan (I completely disagree) and his career isn't even done yet, that being said even Jordan only holds 13 NBA records. Phelps and Bolt are both athletes in individual sports that you yourself said is not as "stupid" to argue. "The concept of a GOAT is stupid IMO especially for team sports" That being said, neither Phelps nor Bolt hold nearly the records that Gretzky holds, and despite winning more often than their competitors did not dominate their competitors nearly as overwhelmingly for as long as Gretzky did. For example if Usain was to truly dominate like Gretzky did he'd have to beat his competitors by a full two seconds, not a couple of tenths. For baseball, to equate what Gretzky did to the hockey world it would be like somebody hitting 350 more home runs than the home run leader Barrie Bonds. In NBA, a player would have to score another 16 thousand points more than their all time points leader Kareem Abdul Jabbar. An NFL quarterback would have to pass for 31 thousand yards more than the current record holder Brett Favre. So ya, Gretzky dominated his sport like no other athlete in their own corresponding sports. bleacherreport.com/articles/1906423-why-wayne-gretzky-is-the-greatest-athlete-ever Ruth crushed his peers. That he still holds so many nearly a hundred year later speaks volumes of his dominance. How many will Gretzky have in say, 2080? Jordan also crushed everyone, AND was excellent defensively. BTW, I never claimed GOAT = 'stupid'. You are confusing me with someone else. Phelps and Bolt weren't in sports that had as many individual records available as there are in hockey, so your point is rendered invalid here IMO. So is trying to equate the finishing times in 100m sprints to accumulated point totals.
|
|
|
|
GOAT
Jan 11, 2020 13:23:40 GMT -7
Post by GrooveyAsh on Jan 11, 2020 13:23:40 GMT -7
Yes, hockey is a lot more than defense and that plays straight into my point: Orr was excellent at both facets of the game, Gretzky was not. You cannot detract from how great a player actually was because of the misfortunes of injury/shortened career, or how the league may or may not react to said player's greatness, at least imo. If Gretzky broke a femur after 10 seasons, his incredible displays of greatness would suddenly become lesser? That just doesn't make any sense. You rely on points as your standard, yet the fact remains that Orr helped generate many goals of which he didn't get credited with a point. Taking down an offensive rush, battling and retrieving pucks in his own zone, getting the puck out and into the offensive zone....etc.... are some of the things that not only served to prevent goals scored against, but scored goals for as well. In 70-71 Boston scored an amazing 399 goals and only allowed 207. That's the kind of impact he had, and that's why he would win you more games than Gretzky. No manager has clairvoyance or foresight to take into account things like longevity, my point is, if two sides are filling out rosters to play one game against each other, and have the ability to pick any player from any era in their prime, any manager picking first overall that is worth his salt will likely grab Orr first. If points are your go-to prove-all, then arguments can be made that Lemieux was better, since he has higher career PPG and GPG. My point remains that Gretzky is NOT unchallenged as GOAT, as such debates occur all the time, and there is indeed no clear-cut consensus that Gretz is in this position. Love the debate BTW! You are right, I cannot take away from a shortened career due to injury... but likewise we should also not be able to add to it. We don't know how a career shortened athlete would have continued to perform, we have to take their careers at face value. Gretzky dominated for an entire career, but should he be faulted for that? I don't rely on JUST points as a standard, but points is pretty much THE standard in most sports including hockey to determine a players effectiveness. You bring up Bostons 70-71 season with a whopping 399 goals for and 207 against which is amazing and Orr was a huge part of that... but in 83-84 The Gretzky led Oilers had an NHL record 447 goals for (148 more than Boston, or over 1.5 goals PER GAME). They allowed more goals, 319 that year... however the point is that the Bruins on the 70-71 season of 399 goals and only 207 against, they won 57 games... in 83-84 the Oilers with their 447 goals for and 319 against, also won 57 games. Both teams with 57 wins. In fact the Bruins best season ever for wins was 70-71 with 57... same as the Oilers. Bostons second most was 54 while Edmontons second most was 56 Lemieux COULD have been the GOAT, but his career was cut short, Gretzky's wasn't. It could have been because Gretzky saw the ice better and avoided crippling hits or it could have just been Mario with physical setbacks that Gretzky didn't have (although as I recall Gretzky did battle back issues for quite a few years)... because of that Gretzky had a longer, better, more productive career. Mario could also have pushed forward, played more years and seen a drastic decrease in his scoring over those years, in fact that is likely what would have happened. I think there will always be SOME that buck the trend so to speak.. but I'm willing to bet that the overwhelming majority of pundits, analysts, fans, players, coaches, and management will agree that Gretzky is the GOAT. In fact I'd be willing to lay money on it being very close to 100% of them. "Gretzky dominated for an entire career," No, he didn't. His play waned (see what I did there?) as he got older. Also, the last time he led the league in scoring with LA, I believe he was a -25. "I don't rely on JUST points as a standard, but points is pretty much THE standard in most sports including hockey to determine a players effectiveness." It determines his effectiveness as a point-getter yes, and again, I am not arguing Gretzky's amazing scoring prowess. But you have to play both sides of the puck well to win games. "however the point is that the Bruins on the 70-71 season of 399 goals and only 207 against, they won 57 games... in 83-84 the Oilers with their 447 goals for and 319 against, also won 57 games. " 83-84.... isn't that the year the NHL introduced the advent of 5-minute overtime? Boston's 399 was during a much lower scoring era, making it that much more impressive, the gap between that and the rest of the league was larger than even Edm's 446, (not 447 btw, small point, but still...) and goal diff...well, again, my point of Orr having more of an impact is where I am going here... Orr = GOAT.
|
|
|
|
GOAT
Jan 11, 2020 14:25:12 GMT -7
Post by Dr. Telly-Belly on Jan 11, 2020 14:25:12 GMT -7
I don't know if it's been said yet but the GOAT (WG) changed the game like no other. Rules were changed because he dominated the game so clearly and completely.
It was almost unfair for the Oilers because Gretzky was an advantage that forced the league to level the playing field.
Make no mistake, Orr, Hull, Howe, Jagr, Lemieux and maybe someday, McDavid will be lauded as some of the top players of all time but there is only one who literally changed the game.
Yup. Gretzky = GOAT.
|
|
|
|
GOAT
Jan 11, 2020 15:53:55 GMT -7
Post by FloridaAltFan on Jan 11, 2020 15:53:55 GMT -7
Gretzky was the best without a doubt. His "office" behind the net, was the first player that could literally stand back there because if anyone ventured in there Gretzky would find the open guy. With Gretzky the puck seemed to follow him. He utilized all players around him and he could dominate a game on his own.
2nd best is Mario, with all due respect to Orr. Mario didn't have the players around him like Gretzky did. No one knows who Mario's wingman was. You could argue Jagr, but Jagr came later on. Mario is definitely in Gretzky's tier.
Slight nod to Gretzky because of his stats and changing the sport, and this coming from a hockey fan that HATED him but RESPECTED him growing up. No goal lead was safe back in the day with the Oilers top 2 lines on the ice.
The Gretzky trade also created the most disliked owner of all time.
|
|
