Bobby Clarke better than Gretzky.
The BEST two way forward EVER !
Clarke was a talented hockey player but he is tarnished for being a dirty thug: he should have respected the sport enough not to slash Kharlamov with intent to injure back in the 1972 Summit Series. (it does not excuse Mikhailov kicking skates at Bergman in that series either) Similar play to Bertuzzi/Moore. I know a lot of people like Clarke, but I'd take Yzerman, Datsyuk or Patrice Bergeron over Clarke anytime.
Bobby Clarke better than Gretzky.
The BEST two way forward EVER !
Clarke was a talented hockey player but he is tarnished for being a dirty thug: he should have respected the sport enough not to slash Kharlamov with intent to injure back in the 1972 Summit Series. (it does not excuse Mikhailov kicking skates at Bergman in that series either) Similar play to Bertuzzi/Moore. I know a lot of people like Clarke, but I'd take Yzerman, Datsyuk or Patrice Bergeron over Clarke anytime.
Regarding Clarke, who was NOT better than Gretzky, it's a shame he played on that goon squad and a bigger shame the NHL allowed the Flyers to completely ignore the rules.
I distinctly remember a North Stars Flyers playoff series (1973?) where whenever the Flyers had a player in the penalty box, they would blatantly trip, slash etc the North Stars players and the refs swallowed their whistles.
The Flyers took advantage of this, not sure how much to blame them. Hated them for years though.
Yzerman was one of the very best ever. Yet +/- says otherwise by a LOT when comparing Yzerman to Clarke!!!!!!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Scotty Bowman and I agree on who was the best ever, and others who never saw Orr from age 18-26 on channel 38 in Boston can disagree.
Randy Holt played with and against Orr and told me Orr was much better than 99 and he played against him too.
Everyone is entitled to their opinions.
Enjoyed the chat.
Wait. So the whole argument is "You don't understand. I watched him on TV!"?
You’re right. Evaluating what players did in both ends of the ice comes from data only, and not watching them a lot.
You earned your lol.
Example. One third baseman with 900 field percentage has a season of easy groundouts on astroturf.
Other 3B with same percentage makes amazing plays on grass and dirt with Rocket arm and speed fielding bunts.
Yeah, watching is not necessary. Lol
Well, yes, I suppose that's true if you think that fielding percentage is the most important, or even at all relevant, in assessing the value of a third baseman, or even the defensive value of a third baseman. It would suggest that Placido Polanco was the best 3B (or possibly defensive 3B) of all time, followed by Mike Lowell, Matt Chapman, Nolan Arenado, Anthony Rendon, with Brooks Robinson sixth. If we extend this to Short we not only learn that Xander Bogearts is better than Ozzie Smith, but Mark Belanger is 40th best of all time.
Stats, especially dumb stats like +/- per game, save percentage per game, or fielding percentage, obviously can't tell the whole story. There are things that can be seen by watching, if you understand what you're watching. A coach watching his players every night is apt to have a clearer opinion of the relative worth of the players than a thirteen-year-old kid who understands vastly less about hockey sitting at home watching most of one team's games most of the time on TV. Even then, people have biases that can be corrected for by the right statistics. Even the three statistics I ridiculed above aren't meaningless, but they likely don't say what you think they mean.
l loved it when he stood up for Don Cherry a few years ago. Put his ass on the line against the woke mob. Solid. ( he is wearing shoulder pads by the way )
@habs007 said:
l loved it when he stood up for Don Cherry a few years ago. Put his ass on the line against the woke mob. Solid. ( he is wearing shoulder pads by the way )
Of course he is. It's silly to think he didn't. Just in case, though, here's a photo from ebay where you can clearly see his shoulder pads:
@habs007 said:
l loved it when he stood up for Don Cherry a few years ago. Put his ass on the line against the woke mob. Solid. ( he is wearing shoulder pads by the way )
I loved it too.
Sometimes he wore them and sometimes he didn’t.
Your #1 line is expected to score while keeping your opponent scoreless.
Over the course of their careers, Bobby Clarke did that much better than Wayne Gretzky. You can’t have it both ways either. You can’t say longevity hurt Wayne’s plus minus while praising his career point totals.
If he chose to play then it was his job to defend as well as attack. He didn’t do it better then Clarke. He didn’t do it in 1987 with Team Canada, or 3 postseasons while healthy in Edmonton.
When I said Bobby Orr is the best ever and it isn’t even close, I wasn’t trying to upset anyone. It’s just what many of us know as the truth.
For the love of all things big and small, please let this thread die.
It’s like arguing with a kindergartener as to what their favorite stuffed animal is. This guy likes his pink fluffy elephant. Great toy, sure. But if you, like most people, enjoy the brown teddy bear more, you’re just wrong.
Teddy had a bad +/- in a preseason OHL game when he was 17 is all that matters.
Aw, you didn't bother to check WHEN each guy played for Chicago that year. I did.
Orr's 20 games with Chicago that season went from 10/76 - 1/27/77. Holt's 12 games STARTED in 3/77.
So, no, they did not play any games together.
I would assume they were both in training camp that season. Perhaps a pre-season game.
You figured it out.
There is no way this is what you meant.
It’s what Randy told me. It has nothing to do with what I meant.
If you're going to make a statement about how they played together and post links to the season they were on the same team, don't act like you meant they played in the preseason together and somebody finally figured out the riddle. It's not what you were implying at all.
Aw, you didn't bother to check WHEN each guy played for Chicago that year. I did.
Orr's 20 games with Chicago that season went from 10/76 - 1/27/77. Holt's 12 games STARTED in 3/77.
So, no, they did not play any games together.
I would assume they were both in training camp that season. Perhaps a pre-season game.
You figured it out.
There is no way this is what you meant.
It’s what Randy told me. It has nothing to do with what I meant.
If you're going to make a statement about how they played together and post links to the season they were on the same team, don't act like you meant they played in the preseason together and somebody finally figured out the riddle. It's not what you were implying at all.
Don’t act like you know what others meant. There are professionals who can help you with this problem
@GreenSneakers said:
For the love of all things big and small, please let this thread die.
It’s like arguing with a kindergartener as to what their favorite stuffed animal is. This guy likes his pink fluffy elephant. Great toy, sure. But if you, like most people, enjoy the brown teddy bear more, you’re just wrong.
Teddy had a bad +/- in a preseason OHL game when he was 17 is all that matters.
There seems to be a flaw in the coding on this site; I can't figure out how to hit Agree, Like and LOL on the same comment
@Goldenage said:
Many hockey fans see Gretzky as the all time leading scorer and think he was the greatest.
They have no clue about what the greatest in hockey is all about.
Bobby #1
Gordie #2
This is a stupid statement.
This just goes back you basically saying I (and Scotty Bowman) think Bobby Orr is the greatest and everybody that doesn't say Orr is wrong.
When people think they're the smartest person in the room, they usually aren't.
Ok. You’re right. Only scoring is important in hockey. That’s all that matters.
Bowman is clueless. As is Don Cherry, Clarke, Potvin and many others.
You’re right.
So all the players & coaches that say Gretzky is the greatest to play are wrong?
>
>
>
Maybe, it depends on each person's judgement on what makes a player "The Greatest".
If you only look at PPG for a long period of time, Wayne's the greatest.
If you like Goals per Game, Lemieux (or Bossy) could be considered the GOAT.
When you put more emphasis on an all around game, which would include playing defense and throwing a check once in a while, Wayne's game takes a big drop.
I like Howe better, but wouldn't spend too much energy trying to "prove" he was the GOAT over Gretzky. It is funny to me that people choose Gretzky over Mario because of length of career and don't see that Howe played until he was 50.
Orr's career was cut short, but he is considered one of the top 3 defenseman of all time and he was the best goal scorer, by far, of all the blueliners.
Not sure if anyone thinks Ray Bourque deserves much praise but he made 17(?) straight All Star games and is the All Time points leader among defenders.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@Goldenage said:
Many hockey fans see Gretzky as the all time leading scorer and think he was the greatest.
They have no clue about what the greatest in hockey is all about.
Bobby #1
Gordie #2
This is a stupid statement.
This just goes back you basically saying I (and Scotty Bowman) think Bobby Orr is the greatest and everybody that doesn't say Orr is wrong.
When people think they're the smartest person in the room, they usually aren't.
Ok. You’re right. Only scoring is important in hockey. That’s all that matters.
Bowman is clueless. As is Don Cherry, Clarke, Potvin and many others.
You’re right.
So all the players & coaches that say Gretzky is the greatest to play are wrong?
>
>
>
Maybe, it depends on each person's judgement on what makes a player "The Greatest".
If you only look at PPG for a long period of time, Wayne's the greatest.
If you like Goals per Game, Lemieux (or Bossy) could be considered the GOAT.
When you put more emphasis on an all around game, which would include playing defense and throwing a check once in a while, Wayne's game takes a big drop.
I like Howe better, but wouldn't spend too much energy trying to "prove" he was the GOAT over Gretzky. It is funny to me that people choose Gretzky over Mario because of length of career and don't see that Howe played until he was 50.
Orr's career was cut short, but he is considered one of the top 3 defenseman of all time and he was the best goal scorer, by far, of all the blueliners.
Not sure if anyone thinks Ray Bourque deserves much praise but he made 17(?) straight All Star games and is the All Time points leader among defenders.
Thanks for showing, like others have, that there is no clear answer. You can't just pick all the players that you watched growing up that you hold near and dear to your heart and say they're the greatest.
I'm from Boston and I always thought Bourque doesn't get enough praise. There were a lot of great defenseman during that time.
Not sure if anyone thinks Ray Bourque deserves much praise but he made 17(?) straight All Star games and is the All Time points leader among defenders.
This is a very impressive point, for sure. But to be fair to Bourque, and to be a bit more accurate, his achievement was actually better than stated above. Bourque appeared in the All-Star Game in every season that it was held during his career. But, being selected as a 1st team or 2nd team NHL All-Star is an award which is not really related to playing in the All-Star game, and much more exclusive than the All-Star Game. Bourque made 1st or 2nd team NHL All-Star in 17 straight years, and 19 total times.
For my money, Lidstrom is right up next to Orr, followed by a more notable step down to the next group of Bourque/Harvey/Shore, though I can appreciate some people feel otherwise.
For my money, Lidstrom is right up next to Orr, followed by a more notable step down to the next group of Bourque/Harvey/Shore, though I can appreciate some people feel otherwise.
As a "pure" defender Lidstrom might have been better, but Bourque was the better scorer by quite a bit.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@Goldenage said:
Remember, Brad Marsh and Ed Hospidar were regular shift D men for Stanley Cup final teams during then.
Very few HOF D men and goalies during that time.
Ray Bourque. An old Potvin.
Steven’s and Chelios just getting started.
There are others (Larry Robinson, Brad Park, Guy Lapointe and Borje Salming come to mind); but when it comes to defending against forwards, it is important to also credit forwards filling that role (during the years in question as well as other eras too), such as Bob Gainey and Guy Carbonneau, et. al.
Wilson and Langway are also in the HOF and won 3 Norris trophies between them.
I forgot about Larry Murphy and Phil Housley to add to that list too. Seems like there was a good share of HHOF Defencemen in the NHL during the early to mid '80's
@Goldenage said:
Many hockey fans see Gretzky as the all time leading scorer and think he was the greatest.
They have no clue about what the greatest in hockey is all about.
Bobby #1
Gordie #2
I have said all along, there are legitimate arguments for people to say that Orr or Lemieux (and, by inference, Howe) is the GOAT and, ultimately, the choice is that of personal opinion.
So, am I to conclude that I am included in the "they" who have no clue?
I have never denigrated Orr. The worst I have done is point out the fallacies of your arguments when you either claimed something that was demonstrably false or by providing a valid comparison to some statement you made that applied equally to Orr and another player.
@Goldenage said:
Here’s Wayne Gretzky at age 26. In the prime of his life against the best competition in the world.
The year is 1987.
Why is Bourque, Messier, and even Lemieux a PLUS, and he is a MINUS ?
He’s the leading scorer of the tournament yet he is way less important to his team than Larry Murphy is.
Understand now why Bobby Orr is the GOAT ?
I have always understood why people consider Orr the GOAT. However, your appear to keep saying that only Orr can be considered the GOAT and all other opinions are by people who have no clue about hockey.
With regard to the 1987 Canada Cup, Gretzky was named tournament MVP. To anyone who watched that tournament, that decision was a no brainer. Likewise, Orr was named MVP of the 1976 Canada Cup and that was obvious to anyone who watched that tournament.
During that 1976 Canada Cup, Denis Potvin tied Orr in points and was a +10 compared to Orr's +8. Are we then supposed to try to make similar conclusions that Potvin was more important than Orr?
A couple of other points of context.
In the 1987 Canada Cup, to anyone who watched that tournament, Krutov was unbelievably good and appeared, to most observers, to be their best player. He was a -4 in the tournament. The top pairing of Fetisov and Kasatonov were -6 and -5, respectively. The Russians did have several + players. I don't think you can pull +/- from a single tournament and make a blanket assessment of a player's career, be it prime or in total. That is illogical.
Second, it could be pointed out that Gretzky was the tournaments' leading scorer in each Canada Cup he played in (81, 84, 87 and 91) through the age of 30.
@Goldenage said:
Your #1 line is expected to score while keeping your opponent scoreless.
Over the course of their careers, Bobby Clarke did that much better than Wayne Gretzky. You can’t have it both ways either. You can’t say longevity hurt Wayne’s plus minus while praising his career point totals.
If he chose to play then it was his job to defend as well as attack. He didn’t do it better then Clarke. He didn’t do it in 1987 with Team Canada, or 3 postseasons while healthy in Edmonton.
When I said Bobby Orr is the best ever and it isn’t even close, I wasn’t trying to upset anyone. It’s just what many of us know as the truth.
For context, I am going to provide the team point totals for ages 31 (Gretzky's first minus year) through age 34 (Clarke's retirement age.
Unfortunately for Gretzky (with regard to +/-), in addition to being on generally weaker teams, the Kings did not have the luxury of changing Gretzky's role to accommodate for his age. I think his legacy made it difficult to allow any team to change his role (the 96 World Cup, where he led Canada in scoring, and his Rangers years). By the 79-80 season (the "Streak" and Clarke's 29 year old season), Clarke's role was no longer that of the 1st line center nor that of a shut-down center. He was still a great player and those teams were still strong, but the demands on him were appropriate for his age progression.
Their respective +/- stats, therefore are not surprising to me. And they certainly do not effect my opinions of either player during their prime years.
I also posted what Gretzky's career numbers would have looked like had he only played through the age of 30. The only quantitative stat that dropped was his goal ranking. His qualitative stats jump dramatically. It should be noted, I was never praising his career totals.
You again mention "3 postseasons while healthy in Edmonton". As has been pointed out, Orr, too, had three "-" post-seasons in Boston. What's your point? They count to say Gretzky sucked, but should be ignored for Orr? I don't understand.
[Edit, lest I get accused of saying something stupid - I realize he injured his knee(s) multiple times. I believe the more significant surgeries were in 1966, 1972 (after they won the Cup, but not enough recovery for the Summit Series) and 1976 after the Canada Cup. One of the best arguments for Orr is akin to Mickey Mantle and what if his knees were better. Very valid point. But that is pure speculation. We can say he would have played so much better, but we will never know. He felt well enough to play, so he played. While his knees may have hurt, it is not obvious they were hurt any worse in the springs of 1968, 1971 or 1973 than in 1970 or 1972.
And not to minimize knee injuries, but most players are banged up by the end of the play-offs, but the desire to play is very strong. Gretzky, luckily for him, had back issues, but not debilitating, throughout his career. Lemieux's back issues were worse plus he had to take a couple years off due to Hodgkin's.
Further clarification regarding the knees as I read up to improve my knowledge. As they didn't have MRI's, every time they looked at anything it was via surgery. It is unclear how many times he had major surgery, but based upon the normal recovery time and the amount of games he played, at a minimum of two, possibly four times through 1976, who knows how many exploratory ones where they cleaned stuff out. That said, even exploratory stuff is significant.]
Bottom line.
I believe the opinion that Orr is the GOAT to be worthy and valid.
You believe that anyone who doesn't think Orr is the GOAT knows nothing about hockey. Also, any blatantly proven facts provided when adjusting for equivalent periods of time are either ignored or dismissed out of hand. This latter point is why people continue to post. All I can say is that it is not a good look on your part.
Not sure if anyone thinks Ray Bourque deserves much praise but he made 17(?) straight All Star games and is the All Time points leader among defenders.
This is a very impressive point, for sure. But to be fair to Bourque, and to be a bit more accurate, his achievement was actually better than stated above. Bourque appeared in the All-Star Game in every season that it was held during his career. But, being selected as a 1st team or 2nd team NHL All-Star is an award which is not really related to playing in the All-Star game, and much more exclusive than the All-Star Game. Bourque made 1st or 2nd team NHL All-Star in 17 straight years, and 19 total times.
For my money, Lidstrom is right up next to Orr, followed by a more notable step down to the next group of Bourque/Harvey/Shore, though I can appreciate some people feel otherwise.
(yes, shame on Shore for the Bailey incident)
IMO, one of the few things you can really do is compare a player relative to the rest of the league at the time he played. When you mentioned Bourque's amazing consistency, it got me thinking.
Bourque played 22 seasons. He was a post-season all-star 19 times. He won 5 Norris, was top 5 an additional 13x (6x 2nd, 4x 3rd and 3x 4th) and top 10 an additional 4x. In other words, he finished in the top 10 (7, actually as those other 4 times were all 7th) each year of his 22 year career. That really is amazing.
For comparison, Lidstrom won 6 Norris, was top 5 an additional 6x (3x 2nd, 1x 3rd, 4th and 5th) and top 10 an additional 4x. That is amazing, too. I'm just not sure it is as amazing as Bourque.
Harvey won 7 Norris trophies. But, he was a 1st team NHL All-Star in the two seasons prior to the introduction of the award. Either he or Kelly would have added one or two more.
My point being, I am not so convinced that Bourque and Harvey, at least, would be a notable step down.
I think the biggest unanswered question in this whole thread, is who is the all time leader in time on ice per period? Or save percentage on backhanders? What about shots off the post per game?
Main collecting focus is Patrick Roy playing days 85/86-02/03, expect 1/1, National/All-Star stamped cards.PC Completion: 2,548/2,952; 86.31% My Patrick Roy PC Website:https://proy33collector.weebly.com
I know I shouldn’t have read this. Mario was by far the best player in the 1987 CC.
11 goals to Gretzky’s three.
4 Game winning goals to Gretzky’s three.
A plus 5 to Gretzky’s minus 1.
Gretzky was the leading scorer only because Mario played with him, or he wouldn’t have all those assists.
Lemieux was the best by far.
You’re right. Orr was easily the best in the 1976 CC.
Brett Hull was the leading scorer for team USA at the 1996 World Cup, but LeClair Leetch and D Hatcher were the best players by far. Perhaps Chelios.
Of course Richter was the best if we count goalies.
@Goldenage said:
If you lean towards offensive guys then you’ve got to score.
Lemieux was far Superior to Gretzky in 1987. 11 goals to 3.
He had more game winning goals than Gretzky had total goals for the tournament.
Mario was definitely the best player at that tournament. He was just coming into his true prime and was out of this world playing with teammates that didn't suck for the first time.
I remember Mario in the 1991 Finals against the North Stars;
I believe it was in game 5 in the third period. Minnesota had cut Pittsburgh's lead to 5-4. It seemed the momentum had shifted back to Minnesota. Lemieux just took over the game. Time after time he would take the puck from whoever had it on the N Stars in the Penguins zone and turn the play around, bring the puck the other way for a scoring chance at the other end. He made it look easy. Really easy.
The N Stars went from attacking to try to get the tying goal to being almost completely on the defensive whenever Mario was on the ice. I have never seen a hockey player take over a game like that. Eventually Pittsburgh got another goal, late in the game to win 6-4. Surprisingly Mario neither assisted nor scored after he took control of the contest.
Two days later Pittsburgh won game 6, and the series in Minnesota 8-0.
I really think that after his performance in game 5, Minnesota knew they were beat.
Pittsburgh was the superior team, but without Mario.........who knows?
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@JoeBanzai said:
I remember Mario in the 1991 Finals against the North Stars;
I believe it was in game 5 in the third period. Minnesota had cut Pittsburgh's lead to 5-4. It seemed the momentum had shifted back to Minnesota. Lemieux just took over the game. Time after time he would take the puck from whoever had it on the N Stars in the Penguins zone and turn the play around, bring the puck the other way for a scoring chance at the other end. He made it look easy. Really easy.
The N Stars went from attacking to try to get the tying goal to being almost completely on the defensive whenever Mario was on the ice. I have never seen a hockey player take over a game like that. Eventually Pittsburgh got another goal, late in the game to win 6-4. Surprisingly Mario neither assisted nor scored after he took control of the contest.
Two days later Pittsburgh won game 6, and the series in Minnesota 8-0.
I really think that after his performance in game 5, Minnesota knew they were beat.
Pittsburgh was the superior team, but without Mario.........who knows?
The following year in 1992 Mario had a year that was amazing.
He had 160 points in 60 games where he was clearly hurt a lot of the season. Very Bobby Orr like.
Comments
I know. Lol
Then Tabe says Holt didn’t play with Orr and I needed to correct him.
PLEASE no more false statements so I can exit !
PLEASE!!!
Plus minus per game
Orr. .91
Robinson .53
Clarke .44
Gretzky .35
Bobby Clarke better than Gretzky in plus minus. The BEST two way forward EVER !
3 MVPs. 2 Cups.
Oh yeah, why is Bourque and McCrimmons plus minus per game better than Lidstroms and Coffey’s ?
One can compare Lidstrom to Bourque. One can not compare either of those two to Bobby Orr.
Clarke was a talented hockey player but he is tarnished for being a dirty thug: he should have respected the sport enough not to slash Kharlamov with intent to injure back in the 1972 Summit Series. (it does not excuse Mikhailov kicking skates at Bergman in that series either) Similar play to Bertuzzi/Moore. I know a lot of people like Clarke, but I'd take Yzerman, Datsyuk or Patrice Bergeron over Clarke anytime.
Regarding Clarke, who was NOT better than Gretzky, it's a shame he played on that goon squad and a bigger shame the NHL allowed the Flyers to completely ignore the rules.
I distinctly remember a North Stars Flyers playoff series (1973?) where whenever the Flyers had a player in the penalty box, they would blatantly trip, slash etc the North Stars players and the refs swallowed their whistles.
The Flyers took advantage of this, not sure how much to blame them. Hated them for years though.
Yzerman was one of the very best ever. Yet +/- says otherwise by a LOT when comparing Yzerman to Clarke!!!!!!
Aw, you didn't bother to check WHEN each guy played for Chicago that year. I did.
Orr's 20 games with Chicago that season went from 10/76 - 1/27/77. Holt's 12 games STARTED in 3/77.
So, no, they did not play any games together.
Well, yes, I suppose that's true if you think that fielding percentage is the most important, or even at all relevant, in assessing the value of a third baseman, or even the defensive value of a third baseman. It would suggest that Placido Polanco was the best 3B (or possibly defensive 3B) of all time, followed by Mike Lowell, Matt Chapman, Nolan Arenado, Anthony Rendon, with Brooks Robinson sixth. If we extend this to Short we not only learn that Xander Bogearts is better than Ozzie Smith, but Mark Belanger is 40th best of all time.
Stats, especially dumb stats like +/- per game, save percentage per game, or fielding percentage, obviously can't tell the whole story. There are things that can be seen by watching, if you understand what you're watching. A coach watching his players every night is apt to have a clearer opinion of the relative worth of the players than a thirteen-year-old kid who understands vastly less about hockey sitting at home watching most of one team's games most of the time on TV. Even then, people have biases that can be corrected for by the right statistics. Even the three statistics I ridiculed above aren't meaningless, but they likely don't say what you think they mean.
l loved it when he stood up for Don Cherry a few years ago. Put his ass on the line against the woke mob. Solid. ( he is wearing shoulder pads by the way )
Of course he is. It's silly to think he didn't. Just in case, though, here's a photo from ebay where you can clearly see his shoulder pads:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/174597010907
Not as fearless as this guy.
https://youtu.be/v-U3gGaLZqE
I can confirm that they did not play in a regular season game together that season.
I would assume they were both in training camp that season. Perhaps a pre-season game.
You figured it out.
I loved it too.
Sometimes he wore them and sometimes he didn’t.
Anyone care to answer this ?
How is Wayne Gretzky a MINUS for THREE postseasons for Edmonton ?
He’s young like Orr. No injuries like Orr. Why is he a minus for 3 different years in the postseason ?
Here’s Wayne Gretzky at age 26. In the prime of his life against the best competition in the world.
The year is 1987.
Why is Bourque, Messier, and even Lemieux a PLUS, and he is a MINUS ?
https://www.quanthockey.com/world-cup/en/seasons/1987-world-cup-players-stats.html
He’s the leading scorer of the tournament yet he is way less important to his team than Larry Murphy is.
Understand now why Bobby Orr is the GOAT ?
Many hockey fans see Gretzky as the all time leading scorer and think he was the greatest.
They have no clue about what the greatest in hockey is all about.
Bobby #1
Gordie #2
Your #1 line is expected to score while keeping your opponent scoreless.
Over the course of their careers, Bobby Clarke did that much better than Wayne Gretzky. You can’t have it both ways either. You can’t say longevity hurt Wayne’s plus minus while praising his career point totals.
If he chose to play then it was his job to defend as well as attack. He didn’t do it better then Clarke. He didn’t do it in 1987 with Team Canada, or 3 postseasons while healthy in Edmonton.
When I said Bobby Orr is the best ever and it isn’t even close, I wasn’t trying to upset anyone. It’s just what many of us know as the truth.
There is no way this is what you meant.
This is a stupid statement.
This just goes back you basically saying I (and Scotty Bowman) think Bobby Orr is the greatest and everybody that doesn't say Orr is wrong.
When people think they're the smartest person in the room, they usually aren't.
The same reason Orr was a MINUS for THREE postseasons: they lost in an early round. It happens.
Orr was hurt. He couldn’t play in the 72 Summit also. He barely made it in 74-75 also.
Think about it. He had 10-20 knee surgeries in a 10 year hockey career.
Ok. You’re right. Only scoring is important in hockey. That’s all that matters.
Bowman is clueless. As is Don Cherry, Clarke, Potvin and many others.
You’re right.
It’s what Randy told me. It has nothing to do with what I meant.
Tenacious on both ends of the ice.
For the love of all things big and small, please let this thread die.
It’s like arguing with a kindergartener as to what their favorite stuffed animal is. This guy likes his pink fluffy elephant. Great toy, sure. But if you, like most people, enjoy the brown teddy bear more, you’re just wrong.
Teddy had a bad +/- in a preseason OHL game when he was 17 is all that matters.
So all the players & coaches that say Gretzky is the greatest to play are wrong?
If you're going to make a statement about how they played together and post links to the season they were on the same team, don't act like you meant they played in the preseason together and somebody finally figured out the riddle. It's not what you were implying at all.
Don’t act like you know what others meant. There are professionals who can help you with this problem
OK. I’m done here for good. I’ve heard enough dumb statements, but some very good ones too.
I’ll leave you with this. Bobby Clarke and Bobby Orr and Geordie Howe never got benched for not playing hard enough.
Glen Sather sat Wayne an entire period of a game once for not playing defense.
Enjoyed most of your feedback.
There seems to be a flaw in the coding on this site; I can't figure out how to hit Agree, Like and LOL on the same comment
>
>
>
Maybe, it depends on each person's judgement on what makes a player "The Greatest".
If you only look at PPG for a long period of time, Wayne's the greatest.
If you like Goals per Game, Lemieux (or Bossy) could be considered the GOAT.
When you put more emphasis on an all around game, which would include playing defense and throwing a check once in a while, Wayne's game takes a big drop.
I like Howe better, but wouldn't spend too much energy trying to "prove" he was the GOAT over Gretzky. It is funny to me that people choose Gretzky over Mario because of length of career and don't see that Howe played until he was 50.
Orr's career was cut short, but he is considered one of the top 3 defenseman of all time and he was the best goal scorer, by far, of all the blueliners.
Not sure if anyone thinks Ray Bourque deserves much praise but he made 17(?) straight All Star games and is the All Time points leader among defenders.
The moment you said Orr was easily better than Gretzky you lost me. Easily was a bad choice!
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
Thanks for showing, like others have, that there is no clear answer. You can't just pick all the players that you watched growing up that you hold near and dear to your heart and say they're the greatest.
I'm from Boston and I always thought Bourque doesn't get enough praise. There were a lot of great defenseman during that time.
This is a very impressive point, for sure. But to be fair to Bourque, and to be a bit more accurate, his achievement was actually better than stated above. Bourque appeared in the All-Star Game in every season that it was held during his career. But, being selected as a 1st team or 2nd team NHL All-Star is an award which is not really related to playing in the All-Star game, and much more exclusive than the All-Star Game. Bourque made 1st or 2nd team NHL All-Star in 17 straight years, and 19 total times.
For my money, Lidstrom is right up next to Orr, followed by a more notable step down to the next group of Bourque/Harvey/Shore, though I can appreciate some people feel otherwise.
(yes, shame on Shore for the Bailey incident)
>
As a "pure" defender Lidstrom might have been better, but Bourque was the better scorer by quite a bit.
I forgot about Larry Murphy and Phil Housley to add to that list too. Seems like there was a good share of HHOF Defencemen in the NHL during the early to mid '80's
I have said all along, there are legitimate arguments for people to say that Orr or Lemieux (and, by inference, Howe) is the GOAT and, ultimately, the choice is that of personal opinion.
So, am I to conclude that I am included in the "they" who have no clue?
I have never denigrated Orr. The worst I have done is point out the fallacies of your arguments when you either claimed something that was demonstrably false or by providing a valid comparison to some statement you made that applied equally to Orr and another player.
I have always understood why people consider Orr the GOAT. However, your appear to keep saying that only Orr can be considered the GOAT and all other opinions are by people who have no clue about hockey.
With regard to the 1987 Canada Cup, Gretzky was named tournament MVP. To anyone who watched that tournament, that decision was a no brainer. Likewise, Orr was named MVP of the 1976 Canada Cup and that was obvious to anyone who watched that tournament.
During that 1976 Canada Cup, Denis Potvin tied Orr in points and was a +10 compared to Orr's +8. Are we then supposed to try to make similar conclusions that Potvin was more important than Orr?
A couple of other points of context.
In the 1987 Canada Cup, to anyone who watched that tournament, Krutov was unbelievably good and appeared, to most observers, to be their best player. He was a -4 in the tournament. The top pairing of Fetisov and Kasatonov were -6 and -5, respectively. The Russians did have several + players. I don't think you can pull +/- from a single tournament and make a blanket assessment of a player's career, be it prime or in total. That is illogical.
Second, it could be pointed out that Gretzky was the tournaments' leading scorer in each Canada Cup he played in (81, 84, 87 and 91) through the age of 30.
For context, I am going to provide the team point totals for ages 31 (Gretzky's first minus year) through age 34 (Clarke's retirement age.
Clarke 80-81 97 pts, 81-82 87 pts, 82-83 106 pts and 83-84 98 pts.
Gretzky 91-92 84 pts, 92-93 88 pts, 93-94 66 pts, 94-95 41 pts (.428 pts % in strike shortened season).
Unfortunately for Gretzky (with regard to +/-), in addition to being on generally weaker teams, the Kings did not have the luxury of changing Gretzky's role to accommodate for his age. I think his legacy made it difficult to allow any team to change his role (the 96 World Cup, where he led Canada in scoring, and his Rangers years). By the 79-80 season (the "Streak" and Clarke's 29 year old season), Clarke's role was no longer that of the 1st line center nor that of a shut-down center. He was still a great player and those teams were still strong, but the demands on him were appropriate for his age progression.
Their respective +/- stats, therefore are not surprising to me. And they certainly do not effect my opinions of either player during their prime years.
I also posted what Gretzky's career numbers would have looked like had he only played through the age of 30. The only quantitative stat that dropped was his goal ranking. His qualitative stats jump dramatically. It should be noted, I was never praising his career totals.
You again mention "3 postseasons while healthy in Edmonton". As has been pointed out, Orr, too, had three "-" post-seasons in Boston. What's your point? They count to say Gretzky sucked, but should be ignored for Orr? I don't understand.
[Edit, lest I get accused of saying something stupid - I realize he injured his knee(s) multiple times. I believe the more significant surgeries were in 1966, 1972 (after they won the Cup, but not enough recovery for the Summit Series) and 1976 after the Canada Cup. One of the best arguments for Orr is akin to Mickey Mantle and what if his knees were better. Very valid point. But that is pure speculation. We can say he would have played so much better, but we will never know. He felt well enough to play, so he played. While his knees may have hurt, it is not obvious they were hurt any worse in the springs of 1968, 1971 or 1973 than in 1970 or 1972.
And not to minimize knee injuries, but most players are banged up by the end of the play-offs, but the desire to play is very strong. Gretzky, luckily for him, had back issues, but not debilitating, throughout his career. Lemieux's back issues were worse plus he had to take a couple years off due to Hodgkin's.
Further clarification regarding the knees as I read up to improve my knowledge. As they didn't have MRI's, every time they looked at anything it was via surgery. It is unclear how many times he had major surgery, but based upon the normal recovery time and the amount of games he played, at a minimum of two, possibly four times through 1976, who knows how many exploratory ones where they cleaned stuff out. That said, even exploratory stuff is significant.]
Bottom line.
I believe the opinion that Orr is the GOAT to be worthy and valid.
You believe that anyone who doesn't think Orr is the GOAT knows nothing about hockey. Also, any blatantly proven facts provided when adjusting for equivalent periods of time are either ignored or dismissed out of hand. This latter point is why people continue to post. All I can say is that it is not a good look on your part.
IMO, one of the few things you can really do is compare a player relative to the rest of the league at the time he played. When you mentioned Bourque's amazing consistency, it got me thinking.
Bourque played 22 seasons. He was a post-season all-star 19 times. He won 5 Norris, was top 5 an additional 13x (6x 2nd, 4x 3rd and 3x 4th) and top 10 an additional 4x. In other words, he finished in the top 10 (7, actually as those other 4 times were all 7th) each year of his 22 year career. That really is amazing.
For comparison, Lidstrom won 6 Norris, was top 5 an additional 6x (3x 2nd, 1x 3rd, 4th and 5th) and top 10 an additional 4x. That is amazing, too. I'm just not sure it is as amazing as Bourque.
Harvey won 7 Norris trophies. But, he was a 1st team NHL All-Star in the two seasons prior to the introduction of the award. Either he or Kelly would have added one or two more.
My point being, I am not so convinced that Bourque and Harvey, at least, would be a notable step down.
I think the biggest unanswered question in this whole thread, is who is the all time leader in time on ice per period? Or save percentage on backhanders? What about shots off the post per game?
Main collecting focus is Patrick Roy playing days 85/86-02/03, expect 1/1, National/All-Star stamped cards.PC Completion: 2,548/2,952; 86.31% My Patrick Roy PC Website:https://proy33collector.weebly.com
Wayne Gretzky is the best hockey player ever. In real life. Offense is the best defense. Statistics do matter. So do trophies.
I know I shouldn’t have read this. Mario was by far the best player in the 1987 CC.
11 goals to Gretzky’s three.
4 Game winning goals to Gretzky’s three.
A plus 5 to Gretzky’s minus 1.
Gretzky was the leading scorer only because Mario played with him, or he wouldn’t have all those assists.
Lemieux was the best by far.
You’re right. Orr was easily the best in the 1976 CC.
Brett Hull was the leading scorer for team USA at the 1996 World Cup, but LeClair Leetch and D Hatcher were the best players by far. Perhaps Chelios.
Of course Richter was the best if we count goalies.
If you lean towards offensive guys then you’ve got to score.
Lemieux was far Superior to Gretzky in 1987. 11 goals to 3.
He had more game winning goals than Gretzky had total goals for the tournament.
Just messing with ya.
Mario was definitely the best player at that tournament. He was just coming into his true prime and was out of this world playing with teammates that didn't suck for the first time.
I remember Mario in the 1991 Finals against the North Stars;
I believe it was in game 5 in the third period. Minnesota had cut Pittsburgh's lead to 5-4. It seemed the momentum had shifted back to Minnesota. Lemieux just took over the game. Time after time he would take the puck from whoever had it on the N Stars in the Penguins zone and turn the play around, bring the puck the other way for a scoring chance at the other end. He made it look easy. Really easy.
The N Stars went from attacking to try to get the tying goal to being almost completely on the defensive whenever Mario was on the ice. I have never seen a hockey player take over a game like that. Eventually Pittsburgh got another goal, late in the game to win 6-4. Surprisingly Mario neither assisted nor scored after he took control of the contest.
Two days later Pittsburgh won game 6, and the series in Minnesota 8-0.
I really think that after his performance in game 5, Minnesota knew they were beat.
Pittsburgh was the superior team, but without Mario.........who knows?
The following year in 1992 Mario had a year that was amazing.
He had 160 points in 60 games where he was clearly hurt a lot of the season. Very Bobby Orr like.
66 ? 99 ? Flip a freaking coin !
It could be worse JoeB
Card #300 for post #300.
A Gem mint card
A Gem mint auto
A Gem mint player