| Author |
 Topic  |
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
 Posted - 10/25/2008 : 06:59:26
|
Well here's a nice fresh topic we have never discussed before.
As I have given more than my 2 yen's worth on this before in other threads, I don't think I can add much that hasn't been said (2 yen can buy like half of a cheap chocolate bar in Canada these days by the way).
BUT, I'll just throw this thought into the mix here. Last month I was in heated debates on a tennis site about the GOAT in that sport and the point that was often raised against Federer is that he hasn't won the French Open. The argument being that his inability to succeed on clay's biggest prize puts a big question mark around his claim to the title of "Greatest of All Time" as the GOAT has to be a well rounded player, who succeeded on all surfaces.
Actually, I argued strenuously against this point as I feel Federer has, to a certain degree, succeeded on clay, only losing at the French Open the last four years to Rafa, who may be the best clay court player ever.
BUT, the general principle of the "have to succeed on all surfaces" argument does make sense to me. And the main point of this post is to say that the same way of thinking can be transferred to hockey too. Just as to be the GOAT in tennis, you should have shown a certain excellence on all surfaces, in hockey you should have shown a certain excellence in all aspects of the game. Gretzky did show that excellence, without any doubt whatsoever in one aspect. But, to keep with the tennis analogy, is Gretzky's great offense not the equivalent of Pete Sampras's 7 Wimbledons? Or, for those who will go on (and on) about the sheer weight of Gretzky's accomplishments and raise the insane 200 point seasons, etc, if hypothetically Pete Sampras (who never made it to a even a French Open final, and only made it to one Semi-final) had won 15 Wimbledons, yes that's FIFTEEN (in order to make it Gretzky-like in its enormity statistically), but had the same mediocre French Open record, could Pete Sampras be considered the GOAT in tennis? Or would he still have the same problem he has now to block that claim? The mediocre French Open record.
I personally think the answer is NO, Sampras, even with FIFTEEN Wimbledons, would not be the GOAT in tennis. And it is for this same reason that I have trouble putting Gretzky above Orr, who excelled both at offense and at defence. No matter what exploits Wayne achieved on the offensive side of the board, Bobby will always have that claim on him.
Bobby Orr excelled at BOTH the offensive AND the defensive parts of the game. Wayne Gretzky simply can not say that.
|
Edited by - andyhack on 10/25/2008 07:04:28 |
 |
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2008 : 12:07:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
Well here's a nice fresh topic we have never discussed before.
As I have given more than my 2 yen's worth on this before in other threads, I don't think I can add much that hasn't been said (2 yen can buy like half of a cheap chocolate bar in Canada these days by the way).
BUT, I'll just throw this thought into the mix here. Last month I was in heated debates on a tennis site about the GOAT in that sport and the point that was often raised against Federer is that he hasn't won the French Open. The argument being that his inability to succeed on clay's biggest prize puts a big question mark around his claim to the title of "Greatest of All Time" as the GOAT has to be a well rounded player, who succeeded on all surfaces.
Actually, I argued strenuously against this point as I feel Federer has, to a certain degree, succeeded on clay, only losing at the French Open the last four years to Rafa, who may be the best clay court player ever.
BUT, the general principle of the "have to succeed on all surfaces" argument does make sense to me. And the main point of this post is to say that the same way of thinking can be transferred to hockey too. Just as to be the GOAT in tennis, you should have shown a certain excellence on all surfaces, in hockey you should have shown a certain excellence in all aspects of the game. Gretzky did show that excellence, without any doubt whatsoever in one aspect. But, to keep with the tennis analogy, is Gretzky's great offense not the equivalent of Pete Sampras's 7 Wimbledons? Or, for those who will go on (and on) about the sheer weight of Gretzky's accomplishments and raise the insane 200 point seasons, etc, if hypothetically Pete Sampras (who never made it to a even a French Open final, and only made it to one Semi-final) had won 15 Wimbledons, yes that's FIFTEEN (in order to make it Gretzky-like in its enormity statistically), but had the same mediocre French Open record, could Pete Sampras be considered the GOAT in tennis? Or would he still have the same problem he has now to block that claim? The mediocre French Open record.
I personally think the answer is NO, Sampras, even with FIFTEEN Wimbledons, would not be the GOAT in tennis. And it is for this same reason that I have trouble putting Gretzky above Orr, who excelled both at offense and at defence. No matter what exploits Wayne achieved on the offensive side of the board, Bobby will always have that claim on him.
Bobby Orr excelled at BOTH the offensive AND the defensive parts of the game. Wayne Gretzky simply can not say that.
Andyhack, I'd love to read the tennis argument. May i ask where I could read that? |
|
|
|
Guest2286
( )
|
Posted - 10/25/2008 : 13:44:18
|
| andyhack u wrote alot |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2008 : 16:47:21
|
Hey Willus - go to http://tennisplanet.wordpress.com/
It's not as easy to find things in the archives there as this site, but if you go to Search at the top left and type in something like "Federer Borg" or "Federer Nadal" you'll get a bunch of topics that had some interesting discussions. In the Borg debates you'll see me make reference to hockey with what I call the "Ken Dryden Syndrome" as a way of questioning Borg's incredible statistics . Also, one guy was holding up Steffi Graff as kind of the "GOAT bar" for both men and women so the GOAT discussion amongst the men slipped into there too - so type in things like "Graf" or "Steffi" or "Seles-Graf" and you should be able to track down some more good debates there.
As for this one here, it will never die I guess. My point is certainly not a new one, but arguing for Federer's versatility (despite the FO gap) got me thinking,
"Hey, why does Federer bear this burden of having to conquer every surface of the game of tennis in order to be the GOAT in his sport, but Gretzky doesn't bear the burden of having to conquer every aspect of the game of hockey".
I think, to some extent though, the "excellence across all surfaces" or "excellence across all aspects of the game" burden is actually a proper burden to have for the GOAT title though, and ultimately it crystalizes for me a key reason why I think Gretzky can not be the GOAT in hockey.
Guest 2286 - sorry if the quantity bothers you - but aren't these like just mini-posts compared to what our friend Alex used to put up here?
EDIT - Willus - one of the more relevant discussions can be found at:
http://tennisplanet.wordpress.com/2008/09/28/federer-vs-nadal-from-mircea-thanks/
|
Edited by - andyhack on 10/25/2008 17:44:20 |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
|
|
Guest2890
( )
|
Posted - 10/27/2008 : 14:41:40
|
gretz was healthy most of his carreer. lemieux wasnt. that tells me , other than his cancer. gretz seemed to have stamina more nights than not, and lemieuxs, ailments definately cost him a lot of 3 point per night nights.... i am, a bit biased though. edmonton has been MY team since 79 lol
flames suck7@hotmail.com, this is me |
|
|
|
Guest2206
( )
|
Posted - 10/27/2008 : 15:21:12
|
| i know gretz didnt want to get in fights,he wanted to stay fir.yes he was healthy most of his career. |
|
|
|
Guest0103
( )
|
Posted - 10/27/2008 : 17:15:37
|
| Rory Fitzpatrick! |
|
|
|
Canucks Man
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1547 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2008 : 18:11:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest0103
Rory Fitzpatrick!
YESS!!!!
CANUCKS RULE!!!
|
|
|
|
Guest4527
( )
|
Posted - 10/28/2008 : 00:46:58
|
No question in my mind that it's between Gretzky and Orr. I watched em both and in my mind Orr is the greatest. If Gretzky's knees were both chopped up and his career had only lasted 8 years, then nobody would even mention him. Thank god that the league finally realized that it was not in their interest to let people take liberties on the great one, and thank God for Cementhead to ensure that Gretz remained safe.
Orr did play more rough and tumble game, and he skated up and down the ice with Reckless abondond at times - he also fighted and was tough as nails. Amazingly, as a defenseman, he won 2 scoring titles - I mean no one player ever had such an effect on the game. What Gretz had over Orr was longgevity, but I give the nod to Orr since his game was not so one dimensional. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2008 : 09:06:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4527
No question in my mind that it's between Gretzky and Orr. I watched em both and in my mind Orr is the greatest. If Gretzky's knees were both chopped up and his career had only lasted 8 years, then nobody would even mention him. Thank god that the league finally realized that it was not in their interest to let people take liberties on the great one, and thank God for Cementhead to ensure that Gretz remained safe.
Orr did play more rough and tumble game, and he skated up and down the ice with Reckless abondond at times - he also fighted and was tough as nails. Amazingly, as a defenseman, he won 2 scoring titles - I mean no one player ever had such an effect on the game. What Gretz had over Orr was longgevity, but I give the nod to Orr since his game was not so one dimensional.
I will not argue with someone who picks Orr. I think the majoity of people are in one of 2 camps. The first being Orr was the most complete player who ever played the game, therefore he is the best ever. The other camp is Gretzky was so far head and shoulders above any other player in history offensively, that makes him the best. I am part of the later group, but that is irrelevant for my point.
I wanted to reply to the comment that if Gretzky only played 8 seasons in the league, no one would mention him. For someone who watched Orr and Gretzky both play, this completely shocks me.
Orr played 12 seasons, but really only 9 with an reasonable amount of games. But for the sake of arguement, I will try to compare games played. Orr, in those 9 seasons, played 621.
Gretzky, through his first 8 NHL seasons played 632 games. In those games, he had 543 goals, and 977 assists for 1,520 points. He was also +512 and had 209 playoff points in 101 games. IF Gretzky's career only lasted 8 years, he would be in the top 13th all time in scoring for a career, 2.4 regular PPG and 2.1 Playoff PPG.
Granted, I don't think he would be as heralded as he is today if he only played 8 seasons, but to say he would not even be mentioned is more than a little bit of a stretch. |
|
|
|
Guest2273
( )
|
Posted - 10/29/2008 : 02:53:17
|
| Wayne Gretzky i think is the best plyaer up there. |
|
|
|
PhillyFan12
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
399 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2008 : 11:27:40
|
| u spelled player wrong its plyaer |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
|
|
Guest5045
( )
|
Posted - 10/29/2008 : 22:49:20
|
| It all depends upon your criteria. If you're talking about pure goal scoring, then it's Gretzky. If it's about changing the way the game is played and lasting impact then it's Orr. But if you're judging on the basis of best all around player in all facets of the game, then it's got to be Mr. Hockey. Howe could score goals, play physical hockey and intimidate in both defensive and offensive zones, and even drop the gloves when necessary- not to mention his durability and longevity. To me , there's just no contest |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2008 : 10:09:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest5045
It all depends upon your criteria. If you're talking about pure goal scoring, then it's Gretzky. If it's about changing the way the game is played and lasting impact then it's Orr. But if you're judging on the basis of best all around player in all facets of the game, then it's got to be Mr. Hockey. Howe could score goals, play physical hockey and intimidate in both defensive and offensive zones, and even drop the gloves when necessary- not to mention his durability and longevity. To me , there's just no contest
That's a good breakdown. However I disagree that Gordie Howe is the best all around player. That title belongs to Orr. The reason I say that is because Orr could do everything as well and did most things that make up an all around player better tha Howe did.
My top four players looks like this.
Orr
Howe
Lemieux
Gretzky
|
Edited by - willus3 on 10/30/2008 10:09:52 |
|
|
|
PhillyFan12
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
399 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2008 : 13:17:07
|
I have a few changes on my top 4 players.I do agree to you that Howe is not the best player of all times.my pick is Orr.this would be my list of people.Orr
Gretzky
Lemieux
Howe Thats my order.
|
|
|
|
OILINONTARIO
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
816 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2008 : 04:12:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by PhillyFan12
I have a few changes on my top 4 players.I do agree to you that Howe is not the best player of all times.my pick is Orr.this would be my list of people.Orr
Gretzky
Lemieux
Howe Thats my order.
You are referring to Colton Orr, right?
The Oil WILL make the playoffs in 2009. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2008 : 05:39:01
|
[/quote]That's a good breakdown. However I disagree that Gordie Howe is the best all around player. That title belongs to Orr. The reason I say that is because Orr could do everything as well and did most things that make up an all around player better tha Howe did.
My top four players looks like this.
Orr
Howe
Lemieux
Gretzky
[/quote]
I know it might be blasphemous to say, but I would drop Howe down to the 5th spot. Messier, in humblist of opinions, is #4. My list would be:
Gretzky
Orr
Lemiuex
Messier
Howe
I have to argue a bit with the durability thing. Although it's an admirable trait, does it really make a player better than another?? I don't think so.
And I do agree with Willus that Orr was not weak in a single aspect of the game. I would say the exact opposite, he could have been the only player in the hirstoy of the game without a weakness. However, I put Gretzky ahead for 2 reasons. One is rationale, the other is not, Firstly, he was average defensively and played on a purely offensive league and team. That being said, during the highest scoring time in the NHL history, he was lapping the feild. He was SO GOOD offensively, it made up for the fact that he was not brilliant defensively. That's the first reason. My second reason, I grew up in the Edmonton through the 80's. The guy is my hero. Of course that puts him as #1 on my list. I don't fault anyone that doesn't list WG as #1, Orr is a more than suitable #1 on other lists, but never mine.
Peace! |
Edited by - Beans15 on 10/31/2008 05:45:19 |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2008 : 07:39:44
|
Beans I'd love to hear the rationale behind putting Messier ahead of Howe.
I'm not sure you realize just how much Howe dominated his time. It isn't just his durability that get's him his top 4 status in most peoples books.
|
|
|
|
Guest5372
( )
|
Posted - 10/31/2008 : 07:59:01
|
Not original but I think the Hockey News got it right a few years back in their top 5 in the list of top 50 of all time (I don't agree with the whole list). I'm not going to justify it here since it wouldn't be as well written as the paid people of the HN. The list is as follows:
W. Gretzky
B. Orr
G. Howe
M. Lemieux
Rocket Richard
And yes the scoring for Orr and Gretz (voted by the writers) were quite close for the #1 position. I'm willing to concede 1a and 1b for Gretz and Orr. |
|
|
|
Guest2205
( )
|
Posted - 10/31/2008 : 11:16:10
|
my order is Orr
Howe
Gretzky
Lemieux
Messier
Richard |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2008 : 12:20:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
Beans I'd love to hear the rationale behind putting Messier ahead of Howe.
I'm not sure you realize just how much Howe dominated his time. It isn't just his durability that get's him his top 4 status in most peoples books.
Willus, my rationale is very similar to Gretzky. How can I not think Messier is a God among men growing up in Edmonton through the 80's??
Ultimately, Howe and Messier were very close to each other in pretty much any aspect of the game. The fact that if you add Howe's time in the WHA into the mix is really irrelevant. That's what I mean by the durability thing.
I guess when I look at it, I think that if you put Howe in Messier's career (era wise) and Messier in Howe's, I don't think the performaces would have been much different.
That being said, if the two players are pretty much the same, I go with my favorite. That is Messier. |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2008 : 15:36:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
Beans I'd love to hear the rationale behind putting Messier ahead of Howe.
I'm not sure you realize just how much Howe dominated his time. It isn't just his durability that get's him his top 4 status in most peoples books.
Willus, my rationale is very similar to Gretzky. How can I not think Messier is a God among men growing up in Edmonton through the 80's??
Ultimately, Howe and Messier were very close to each other in pretty much any aspect of the game. The fact that if you add Howe's time in the WHA into the mix is really irrelevant. That's what I mean by the durability thing.
I guess when I look at it, I think that if you put Howe in Messier's career (era wise) and Messier in Howe's, I don't think the performaces would have been much different.
That being said, if the two players are pretty much the same, I go with my favorite. That is Messier.
But they really aren't the same. Howe dominated his era. Messier did not.
You should really work on your objectivity.
"I think you underestimate Howe's dominance. He was a first team allstar 12 times with competition like Richard, Geoffrion, and Bathgate. He won 6 scoring titles, 6 Hart's, and played a fantastic all around game. He was consistently winning scoring races by 20 points in his prime. That's a dominant feat in any era, but this was in such a low scoring era that he was often winning them by 25% (something that hasn't happened since Gretzky in the 80's)."
Forgot a few things. I know you enjoy statistics so here you go...
He was top 5 in NHL scoring for 20 straight seasons. TWENTY SEASONS, in an era where a 20 year career was a rarity.
* First or second team All-Star every season from 1949-1970 except for 1955, or 21 times in the NHL in 22 seasons
* Had his best statistical season at the age of 40 (44-59-103 +45)
* Top 5 in points in the NHL 20 times (1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969)
* Top 5 in goals in the NHL 13 times (1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1963, 1965, 1968, 1969)
* Top 5 in assists in the NHL 17 times (1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1969)
* Top 5 in PIM in the NHL 1 time (1954)
* 6 Art Ross Trophies (1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1957, 1963)
* 6 Hart Trophies (1952, 1953, 1957, 1958, 1960, 1963)
* Lester Patrick Trophy (1967)
Very impressive list for sure, but it's the level that he dominated those scoring races that sets him apart:
1950-51: 23.26% scoring margin (86 to 66) Age: 22
1951-52: 19.75% scoring margin (86 to 69) Age: 23
1952-53: 23.26% scoring margin (95 to 71) Age: 24
1953-54: 17.28% scoring margin (81 to 67) Age: 25
1956-57: 4.49% scoring margin (89 to 85) Age: 28
1962-63: 5.81% scoring margin (86 to 81) Age: 34
That wasn't against weak competition either. That was against players who are all-time greats and likely to be in our final top 10 to top 50. That's a level of dominance only Gretzky can rival, and that margin only gets larger if you compare it you take out his linemates.
|
Edited by - willus3 on 10/31/2008 16:49:04 |
|
|
|
Leafsfan_94
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1070 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2008 : 19:52:45
|
can someone please lock this topic theres too many of theese
Leafsfan_94
|
|
|
|
Guest9913
( )
|
Posted - 10/31/2008 : 20:51:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4527
No question in my mind that it's between Gretzky and Orr. I watched em both and in my mind Orr is the greatest. If Gretzky's knees were both chopped up and his career had only lasted 8 years, then nobody would even mention him. Thank god that the league finally realized that it was not in their interest to let people take liberties on the great one, and thank God for Cementhead to ensure that Gretz remained safe.
Orr did play more rough and tumble game, and he skated up and down the ice with Reckless abondond at times - he also fighted and was tough as nails. Amazingly, as a defenseman, he won 2 scoring titles - I mean no one player ever had such an effect on the game. What Gretz had over Orr was longgevity, but I give the nod to Orr since his game was not so one dimensional.
In reference to the part of you post I put in bold:
I find it completely ridiculous to suggest that no one would mention Gretzky if he had only played 8 years. If Gretzky had only played his first 8 years, he would have probably been blown up to even greater proportions, in much the same way as Orr is glorified. Let's take a look at (some of) what Gretzky accomplished in 8 years...
* 8 straigt Hart Trophies (by the time he was 26)
* tied or led the NHL in scoring 8 straight seasons
* 48 NHL records
* fastest ever to 500 goals (575 games)
* 4 Stanley Cups
* Averaged over 190 points per season...for 8 seasons!
If Gretzky had retired after those 8 seasons, imagine how big his legend would be? People would be saying, "Imagine if he had only played another 10 years? He would have scored 3400 points! He would have won 10 Championships! He would have, he would have, he would have.... "If only his knees hadn't have given out..." |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2008 : 07:25:12
|
One thing that I want to go back to that I posted originally. If Messier played in Howe's era and vise versa, what is the outcome??? I think pretty much the same.
The shot at my objectivity was a little below the belt. My point is pretty clear, both Howe and Messier as players were very close. I totally agree that Howe dominated his era more so than Messier did, but that doesn't mean that Messier would not have dominated Howe's era and that Howe would have dominated Messier's. You could point/counterpoint just about anything with these two players. Sure, Howe's era was lower scoring and he dominated. Messier played a big piece of his career playing on the 2nd line in Edmonton. We could go on and on.
I guess what I am saying is that as a player, I don't see very many difference between the two. Both were amazing offenisvely, tough as nails, played a long time, and were successful through their careers.
So, in essence, the players are tied in my opinion. When they are tied, my personal favorite will go above the other. Messier over Howe. |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2008 : 08:13:28
|
I was kidding when I made the objectivity comment but it wasn't below the belt. You had earlier admitted that when it came down to it, if you considered two players equal you would choose your personal favourite.
Also I don't believe for a second that if you swapped Howe and Messier the outcomes would be the same. Not at all. Howe played in a far tougher league, physically and competitively.
Messier's longevity doesn't compare well at all either. Howe's 20 straight seasons in the top five in scoring is absolutely staggering when you think about it. Think about some of the great players who have had great long careers and then compare them to what Howe did. Messier was in the top five in scoring 4 times.Top ten six times. By the time Messier was 37 he was a shadow of himself. Howe was still going strong.
Nothing about Messier's game was better than Howe's. |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2008 : 18:08:07
|
I can't really comment as I didn't see Howe play really, not in his prime anyway.
I can say that after an earlier post sometime back by a guy who had seen Howe play live (some Guest) I looked at Howe's numbers and read up about him a bit, and was more impressed than before, especially with his offence (more 80 and even 90 point seasons, IN THE 50s, than was in in my head prior to that for some reason).
On the other hand, you guys remember, I'm sure, my views on Messier. His prime as a hockey player coincided with my prime as hockey fan, and for me, from about 1983 to about 1993, Mark Messier, overall, was THE forward I would want on my team.
But we've had that talk before, and don't need to revitalize it. I only mention it because with these type of debates it easy to forget that your views are SO based on what you saw, and in particular WHEN you saw it. If Messier were in his prime now, when I don't follow hockey so closely actually, perhaps he wouldn't have as indelible an impression on me as he did when he actually was in his prime, as I was in my "I live, breathe and eat NHL" teens and early 20s back then, so his play really left its mark on me (in that respect, I can get Bean's point from a different angle that he mentioned - not so much because he was a fan of the Oilers, but because he saw the guy SO much when he was a youngster).
I wonder sometimes whether one should bother commenting on anything they haven't seen. Or at least if a comment is made, in my view a very important qualification at the end, "BUT I DIDN"T SEE HIM PLAY" needs to be made.
I mean, turning to tennis again, I can comment as a student of the game that Rod Laver needs an asterisk beside his accomplishments because not one of the Grand Slam tourneys he won was on a hard court surface (they played them all on clay and grass back then). BUT, perhaps if I had seen him play that asterisk would hold far less weight in my mind than it does now, as I would have a better idea just how good his chances would have been had they played Grand Slam tourneys on hard courts back then - and would be able to imagine him against more current greats on that surface (equalizing equipmemnt and other generational factors of course).
My opinion about Rod Laver, Gordie Howe, Babe Ruth, Jim Brown and so on is always qualified to a pretty significant degree. |
Edited by - andyhack on 11/01/2008 18:09:11 |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2008 : 07:14:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
I was kidding when I made the objectivity comment but it wasn't below the belt. You had earlier admitted that when it came down to it, if you considered two players equal you would choose your personal favourite.
Also I don't believe for a second that if you swapped Howe and Messier the outcomes would be the same. Not at all. Howe played in a far tougher league, physically and competitively.
Messier's longevity doesn't compare well at all either. Howe's 20 straight seasons in the top five in scoring is absolutely staggering when you think about it. Think about some of the great players who have had great long careers and then compare them to what Howe did. Messier was in the top five in scoring 4 times.Top ten six times. By the time Messier was 37 he was a shadow of himself. Howe was still going strong.
Nothing about Messier's game was better than Howe's.
My mistake Willus, at times it is a little difficult to read into a joke on these things.
To the item in front of us. I do want to comment on a few things.
1) I disagree that Howe played in a "tougher" time than Messier. The game itself appeared to be physical in Howe's time. But was it that much more physical than the 80's and 90's?? Maybe it's ignorant, but I don't understand why the game was so much tougher in the 50's and 60's.
2) Howe played in a league of 6 teams, a max 70 game season an a shortened playoff compared to Messier. Taking into account playoff games, Howe never played a seaon of more than 83 games and only played 80 games 7 of his 26 NHL seasons. Messier on the other hand played 13 of his 25 seasons of more than 80 games. Of those 13 seasons, 7 were over 90 games and 1 was over 100 games.
3) Above the number of games played, the travel in the 50's and 60's was far shorter than the travel in the 80's and 90's. When Howe played, a team could to the entire league in a road trip that was a little more then 2500 miles. Messier, playing a 5 game road trip of the 5 closest team (Calgary, Vancouver, LA, Minnesota, and Winnipeg) is more than double the distance of the entire league before 1967. This doesn't count the east coast road trips, or even play off series when it would be Edmonton against NY or Philly. Sure, very limited air travel if any in Howe's time, but no Jet lag, time changes, etc. Even if the game was tougher in the ice in Howe's time, I don't think one can argue it was tougher off the ice through travel.
4) I also think there is something behind the competition each played against. Howe played the majority of his career in a 6 team league. That is competing againsts around 140 different played. The lowest number of teams in the league in Messier's time was 21, being 440 different players.
5) There are only 5 player in the top 20 all time scoring that started playing before 1979 (Howe, Esposito, Trottier, Dionne, and Makita). My point behind that is that Messier's competition with the likes of Gretzky, Lemiuex, Bossy, Yzerman, Sakic, made it far more difficult for him to be at the top of the scoring than it was for Howe.
So, Messier played more games per season, more travel, more competition, and against more offensively productive players than Howe did.
And I have one question for you:
If there are two players who you consider equal, which one do you put ahead of on the "list???"
By the way, where did you find the information on league leading scoring by year?? I can't seem to find much on that before the 70's. |
Edited by - Beans15 on 11/02/2008 07:21:38 |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2008 : 07:51:51
|
1) Not to be rude but you may want to do a little reading on the 40's, 50's, and 60's. It was the roughest time in hockey.
2)Yet Howe still played almost 400 more professional games of hockey.
3)I'll give you the travel time but it's pretty insignificant in my opinion.
4)Howe was playing against the very best players in that 6 team league. It was extremely competitive. It wasn't a watered down league that had just finished doubling in size from expansion and the WHA merger when Messier started.
5)I won't argue there was great offensive talent after 78. There was. However you fail to mention that they benefited from that same lengthened schedule you mentioned earlier. More games equals more chances to score points. 10 games a season is a fairly large gap isn't it. They also benefited from playing in the highest scoring era in history. It was high scoring, not because of the offensive talent, that was a small part of it. It was because of the poor quality of players. There just wasn't the talent to fill all the roster spots on that many teams. There were quite a few terrible teams that were not competitive through most of the 80's.
Your summary of your last argument is incorrect.
If two players are equal which one do I pick? There are never two equal players. There is always something to qualify picking one over another.
Beans check out this website. Snoop around it for awhile. It's the best hockey site I've seen.
http://www.hockey-reference.com/
Hockeydb pales in comparison. It's like comparing Howe to Messier. |
|
|
|
Guest2264
( )
|
Posted - 11/04/2008 : 11:08:10
|
| thats true willus3 |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2008 : 15:24:00
|
Willus, I'm diggin that site. Thanks!
In the end, I think this arguement will end up very much like the Gretkzy/Orr battle we had.
A couple of quick questions I would like to hear your thoughts on.
1) If Messier played in Howe's era, and vise versa, do you think their respective career outcomes would have been different?? What I mean is would Messier not have owned the league as Howe did and would Howe have been more productive than Messier was??
2) You mentioned in one of your previous posts that you felt Howe was better than Messier in all facits of the game. I am hoping you can elaborate on that. Bigger, stronger, faster, better hands, better playmaker?? What was Howe better at and why.
Although I know I won't change my mind, but it would be nice to be further educated. Not unlike the Gretzky/Orr battle, I didn't change my mind but I did develop a further respect for Orr than I did before.
As much as we knock heads, I do value your opinion. It's just unfortunate that it is backwards most of the time. Are you from Saskatchewan by chance???
(PS, before all you jump on me for my Sasktachewan comment, my father and and the wife's entire family are from Saskatchewan. It was a joke!!) |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2008 : 21:12:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Willus, I'm diggin that site. Thanks!
In the end, I think this arguement will end up very much like the Gretkzy/Orr battle we had.
A couple of quick questions I would like to hear your thoughts on.
1) If Messier played in Howe's era, and vise versa, do you think their respective career outcomes would have been different?? What I mean is would Messier not have owned the league as Howe did and would Howe have been more productive than Messier was??
2) You mentioned in one of your previous posts that you felt Howe was better than Messier in all facits of the game. I am hoping you can elaborate on that. Bigger, stronger, faster, better hands, better playmaker?? What was Howe better at and why.
Although I know I won't change my mind, but it would be nice to be further educated. Not unlike the Gretzky/Orr battle, I didn't change my mind but I did develop a further respect for Orr than I did before.
As much as we knock heads, I do value your opinion. It's just unfortunate that it is backwards most of the time. Are you from Saskatchewan by chance???
(PS, before all you jump on me for my Sasktachewan comment, my father and and the wife's entire family are from Saskatchewan. It was a joke!!)
1) Howe would put up far better numbers than Messier in the 80's. Messier would still be an excellent player in the 50's but a far better comparison for Messier is Ted Lindsay.
2) I just think Howe was better at everything. He was on a higher level than Messier. Really I think you will probably have to research Howe to get a better understanding of how great he really was.
I'm not from Saskatchewan. Worse, the Hub of Canada, Ontario.
Though I have lived in Alberta now many years. |
|
|
|
fanoleaf
Rookie
143 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2008 : 11:37:52
|
Hands down Gretzky!!!
Some other greats on the list. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2008 : 13:21:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Willus, I'm diggin that site. Thanks!
In the end, I think this arguement will end up very much like the Gretkzy/Orr battle we had.
A couple of quick questions I would like to hear your thoughts on.
1) If Messier played in Howe's era, and vise versa, do you think their respective career outcomes would have been different?? What I mean is would Messier not have owned the league as Howe did and would Howe have been more productive than Messier was??
2) You mentioned in one of your previous posts that you felt Howe was better than Messier in all facits of the game. I am hoping you can elaborate on that. Bigger, stronger, faster, better hands, better playmaker?? What was Howe better at and why.
Although I know I won't change my mind, but it would be nice to be further educated. Not unlike the Gretzky/Orr battle, I didn't change my mind but I did develop a further respect for Orr than I did before.
As much as we knock heads, I do value your opinion. It's just unfortunate that it is backwards most of the time. Are you from Saskatchewan by chance???
(PS, before all you jump on me for my Sasktachewan comment, my father and and the wife's entire family are from Saskatchewan. It was a joke!!)
1) Howe would put up far better numbers than Messier in the 80's. Messier would still be an excellent player in the 50's but a far better comparison for Messier is Ted Lindsay.
2) I just think Howe was better at everything. He was on a higher level than Messier. Really I think you will probably have to research Howe to get a better understanding of how great he really was.
I'm not from Saskatchewan. Worse, the Hub of Canada, Ontario.
Though I have lived in Alberta now many years.
I wouldn't really disagree that Howe would have put up better numbers in the 80's and 90's than in the 50's and 60's, but would he have been ahead of the likes of Lemiuex, Gretzky, Bossy, etc.??? That's really my question. Howe's domination in his time (IMO) would not have translated to domination in the 80's and 90's. And not to shift too far from our current discussion, how does Howe end up ahead of both Gretzky and Lemiuex on your all time list if he doesn't dominate both eras???? My opinion is that Lemiuex or Gretzky would have dominated any era they were in. Lemiuex would dominate any area that Gretzky wasn't in. Orr and Gretzky would dominate any league in any era.
I guess that is where my ranking is, and to put this to bed, I personally think that Messier would have dominated the league in Howe's time.
Great Conversation. We'll have to do it again. |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2008 : 15:17:47
|
Howe in the 80's? I don't see 150 point seasons an unreasonable guesstimate. But the the difference is Howe was great everywhere on the ice. He played well defensively. In the 80's there is no doubt in my mind he would have also been the toughest guy on the ice every game.
To me that player is more valuable to a team than even a 200 point a season, no defense, no physical play guy.
So it would depend on your definition of dominant. There are two types of domination I guess. You can dominate the scoreboard a la Gretzky or you can dominate the game a la Howe.
You truly underestimate how great Howe was. You really do.
By the way, have you researched Ted Lindsay yet? That's what Messier would have been like in the 50's. Believe me, that's no knock against Messier.
|
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2008 : 17:32:07
|
I'll take a look at Ted Lindsay.
Quick question:
Who was stronger than Messier on the ice in the 80's??? If there were any at all, not very many. |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2008 : 18:04:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
I'll take a look at Ted Lindsay.
Quick question:
Who was stronger than Messier on the ice in the 80's??? If there were any at all, not very many.
What do you mean by strong? Just plain old physical strength?
A whole host of players I would say. Off the top of my head...
Kerr
Langevin
Potvin
Robinson
Neely
Secord
|
Edited by - willus3 on 11/06/2008 18:53:34 |
|
|
|
Guest5429
( )
|
Posted - 11/06/2008 : 19:22:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
]What do you mean by strong? Just plain old physical strength?
A whole host of players I would say. Off the top of my head...
Kerr
Langevin
Potvin
Robinson
Neely
Secord
Robinson for sure was physically strong and built like a tank. He could displace anyone anywhere at anytime. I think O'Reilly described hitting big bird or being hit by him like hitting or being hit by a lamp post.
Don't recall Secord ever as being strong. Neely was a beast until his back gave way, but I personally think he and Mess were about the same. Phaneuf kinda reminds me of Denis Potvin. Was he really strong, well made like a rock but physically strong a la Chara or Robinson like? No.
Tim Kerr a strong? Hmm, similar to the others, tough but I never thought as strong.
In the 80s, if you said, physically a strong player only one comes to mind and that is Big Bird. All the others I seem to remember as solid (like granite) but not physically strong. Of course as a scrawny teenager they all seemed pretty darn strong. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
best NHL player EVER! 
