Who is the greatest of all time?

[Huntingwhale]

Gretzky. The numbers don't lie and he was a mile ahead of everyone else.

I know people like to say that Orr revolutionized the position. And he did. But eventually some other defencemen would have started playing like he did. The fact that Gretzky has 1000 more points then #2 on the list speaks volumes. No one can possibly come close to what he has for total points. His hardware. His peak. His longevity. His durability. His....everything. The best goal scorer. The best passer. The best vision. The list goes on.

I do think that Mario was physically the most well ''put together'' hockey player ever. But IMO it still doesn't reach peak Gretzky. But he was the closest.

For me the list is:

Gretzky
Lemieux
Orr
Howe

Truthfully I think you could interchange #2-4 and still be correct.

[Hockey_Ninja]

It's objectively Gretzky no matter how you spin it. He has the numbers, longevity and hardware to back it up.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Hockey_Ninja

It's objectively Gretzky no matter how you spin it. He has the numbers, longevity and hardware to back it up.

Objectively?

[Strange Brew]

Definitely Orr for me. I will admit to having a nostalgic bias to my vote but he sparked my love for the game.

If not for injuries, he owns every record there is for defensemen. What a talent.

[Sandman]

I think that Wayne put up the numbers, so he will always be considered the greatest-but i think Lemieux is the greatest of all time. Gretzky put up his best numbers in the 80's before the clutch & grab era took hold in the early 90's. Conversely, Mario put up his best numbers when it became much harder to score. At that time, Gretz was playing for LA-and his numbers kept depleting. Also consider that during the 90's, Mario had alot to deal with in terms of injuries, and of course the Hodgkins ordeal. If he and Wayne were to switch places in the eighties, i think Mario would put up bigger numbers than Wayne did.

[codynw]

The only player even worth mentioning in the same conversation as Gretzky is Lemieuix. And he's only a "what if?" player.

[AcGold]

How is Lemieux not even in the equation? Number one for me easy.

[flamesfan1297]

For me it's Lemieux. Also my favorite player of all time, so I'd might be biased

[Jacks]

Lemieux scored 85 goals and 199 points in 76 games, at that time the league was averaging 1/2 goal less per game than when Gretzky had his best season of 212 points (he had 215 points but only 52 goals that year). Lemieux was involved in 57% of the goals that the Penguins scored that year which I believe is still a modern day record. Lemieux had Rob Brown on his wing, Brown scored 115 points that one year which is more than 25% of his career totals. Brown was a borderline NHLer without Lemieux and a 49 goal scorer with Mario bouncing pucks off of him. Given Gretzky's health, teammates and era I'm confident that Lemieux would have at least equaled his point totals.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Robbob

I think it is super close between the players. I also think Gretzky had a bit of a benefit of a perfect storm that IMO inflated his point total a bit. You had recent expansion/absorbing the WHA. The talent pool was rather shallow and spread thin where the difference between high end talent was rather significant coupled with an absolute jackpot in talent on a single team. Did they have five or six hall of famers from those teams? Mario didn't play with any future hall of famers until the 90's.

I don't know if those five or six Hall of Fame guys would be in the Hall if not for Gretzky. They certainly wouldn't have won all those Cups without him and that's what made their careers, IMO. Hell, without Gretzky, the Flames would have won a few more cups in the '80s.

Kurri turned into a great player obviously, but if the Leafs had drafted him instead, and he was on Bill Derlago's line through the 80's, things would have turned out very different for him.

Wayne would have done it no matter where he played, and brought a different bunch of guys along for the ride.

[MRCboicgy]

Gretzky. He was only an illegal stick away from bringing the Cup to California.

[calumniate]

I wonder what Don Cherry would think?

[SixtySix]

I think Gretzky/Lemieux/Orr are in their own tier and any of them can make a legitimate argument for greatest of all time. IMO it's Mario, but you can't back it up by stats alone. You have to actually watch him play to understand the level of talent he possesses. Same for Orr. The GOAT doesn't mean the player who had the most successful career. It's not a conversation purely about who put up the most points or who won the most cups. Obviously Gretzky had the most successful career of any player. There are many factors that go into this far beyond Gretzky's raw individual ability as a hockey player. Also ROFL @ Messier > Lemieux.

I think Howe is 4th in his own tier, and I'd put Roy somewhere between 5-10.

[powderjunkie]

Language is the key thing here: greatest =/= best.

"Greatest" discussion should include longevity and winning. Gretzky all the way for me here. 2nd place becomes a very interesting conversation depending how you weigh things...it's possible to argue Lidstrom, Howe, or Messier (groan) might even rank Mario and Orr. If you're going to own a hockey team for the next 25 years, do you want 10 amazing years from the latter, or 20+ 'great' years from the former?

"Best" to me is who you want on your team for a single gold medal game, or Stanley Cup Final series. Mario, Orr and Gretz all did unprecedented things on the ice. Pick any of them out of a hat and I'm happy. If I had to pick I'd take Mario, because I'm too young to appreciate Bobby and the Oilers suck. Lindros and Richard factor very high into this discussion too.

Factoring goalies into the discussion is tough. Brodeur was 'great' and Hasek might be the best...Roy might rank 1st/2nd in both categories. I think the evolution of the game makes it harder to compare goalies over different eras than skaters.

[Erick Estrada]

I saw Gretzky in his prime and IMO Lemieux was the best player I have ever seen. I don't think I will ever see a hockey player in my lifetime as good as Lemieux again.

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Lemieux scored 85 goals and 199 points in 76 games, at that time the league was averaging 1/2 goal less per game than when Gretzky had his best season of 212 points (he had 215 points but only 52 goals that year). Lemieux was involved in 57% of the goals that the Penguins scored that year which I believe is still a modern day record. Lemieux had Rob Brown on his wing, Brown scored 115 points that one year which is more than 25% of his career totals. Brown was a borderline NHLer without Lemieux and a 49 goal scorer with Mario bouncing pucks off of him. Given Gretzky's health, teammates and era I'm confident that Lemieux would have at least equaled his point totals.

I find it interesting that Paul Coffey happened to be skating around in Edmonton and Pittsburgh when the two greatest players of the era were hanging around the 200 point mark.

Gretzky never hit 180 points again after Coffey left town. Gretzky went from 164->215 when Coffey broke out in his second season.

Lemieux went 107->168->199 in Coffey's first three seasons.

Coffey left to Detroit and Fedorov hit 100 points two out of the three seasons Coffey was there. The other season was the first lockout year. Fedorov never came close to the same production again.

Maybe its coincidence, or maybe Paul Coffey was the ultimate octane booster for offensive fowards. Maybe a bit of both.

[SixtySix]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Language is the key thing here: greatest =/= best.

"Greatest" discussion should include longevity and winning. Gretzky all the way for me here. 2nd place becomes a very interesting conversation depending how you weigh things...it's possible to argue Lidstrom, Howe, or Messier (groan) might even rank Mario and Orr. If you're going to own a hockey team for the next 25 years, do you want 10 amazing years from the latter, or 20+ 'great' years from the former?

"Best" to me is who you want on your team for a single gold medal game, or Stanley Cup Final series. Mario, Orr and Gretz all did unprecedented things on the ice. Pick any of them out of a hat and I'm happy. If I had to pick I'd take Mario, because I'm too young to appreciate Bobby and the Oilers suck. Lindros and Richard factor very high into this discussion too.

Factoring goalies into the discussion is tough. Brodeur was 'great' and Hasek might be the best...Roy might rank 1st/2nd in both categories. I think the evolution of the game makes it harder to compare goalies over different eras than skaters.

This is fair, but I do think it's very difficult to separate greatest and best. While it's totally fine to cite Gretzky's longevity and success as reasons to consider him the GOAT, I still don't think there are other players 'greater' than Lemieux or Orr despite having more cups or more games played etc. For example Orr shouldn't lose "greatness points" as punishment for being so good that mercilessly attacking his knees was the only way for opposition to try to contain him. Lemieux should not be considered below Messier because he happened to have debilitating back problems and cancer. That's why it's tough for me to break it up into two distinct categories, instead I just consider the GOAT to be the best pure hockey player.

[Kjesse]

If you teleport in time and put Lemieux in Gretzky's place, and Gretzky in Lemieux's place, I think-- as in guess -- that Lemieux would have better stats than Gretzky. He was the more complete player, and played in an era where things were much more difficult.

"Would have" does not matter though. It pretty hard to discount Gretzky's stats. He's in a class of his own.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by SixtySix

This is fair, but I do think it's very difficult to separate greatest and best. While it's totally fine to cite Gretzky's longevity and success as reasons to consider him the GOAT, I still don't think there are other players 'greater' than Lemieux or Orr despite having more cups or more games played etc. For example Orr shouldn't lose "greatness points" as punishment for being so good that mercilessly attacking his knees was the only way for opposition to try to contain him. Lemieux should not be considered below Messier because he happened to have debilitating back problems and cancer. That's why it's tough for me to break it up into two distinct categories, instead I just consider the GOAT to be the best pure hockey player.

Couldn't you just call him the BOAT then? Personally, I think 'best' is actually a stronger word than 'greatest'. Best simply means better than everyone else. "Greater" than everyone else isn't the same to me...it's just having more "greatness" than everyone else...which doesn't necessarily mean you were better...

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

Lemieux went 107->168->199 in Coffey's first three seasons.

No question that one of the best offensive defencemen ever helped both players. Lemieux did score 69 goals and 160 points in 60 games the year after Coffey left though and 161 points in 70 games 2 years later, of course by then he had much better linemates.