If you ask most hockey fans who the greatest player of all time is, you will most likely hear the name Wayne Gretzky mentioned.

An article by Kevin Hench of Foxsports.com, about his choices for the 10 Greatest Myths in Pro Sports, has an argument that the Wayner is not, in fact, the greatest of all time.

Using some (selective) statistics, Hench details his argument that Gretzky�s offensive contributions weren�t enough to make him the greatest.

Myth: 3. Wayne Gretzky is, without question, the greatest hockey player of all time

To suggest otherwise is blasphemy. Hell, we're practically forbidden by international law from even discussing it.

But there's no way you're going to convince me that a guy with a concave chest who couldn't knock Michelle Kwan off stride was a more dominant player than Bobby Orr, Mario Lemieux or, for that matter, Mark Messier.

All the pro-Gretzky arguments are about numbers. Offensive numbers. Well, hockey is a physical game, and just because a guy was the greatest offensive player in a cartoonish offensive era does not mean he's the greatest hockey player of all time.

But let's look at another number: Gretzky's plus/minus. After leaving Edmonton, where he was surrounded by a bunch of Hall of Famers in their primes, over the last 11 years of his career, he was a net minus. That's right, from 1988-99, when Gretzky was on the ice at even strength, the Great One's teams were outscored by 33 goals. In his last eight seasons, he was a woeful minus-86. You see, backchecking � it turns out � actually helps your team. Crunching a guy into the boards helps your team. Clearing guys out of the crease helps your team. In all these ways and more, Gretzky did not help his teams. Sure, he put up mind-boggling numbers, but wouldn't you rather have your mind boggled than your bones jarred?

Now no one would suggest with a straight face that Gretzky was as good in his own zone as any of the other nominees for greatest hockey player of all time. The case for Gretzky is that he was so much better offensively that it made up for his defensive limitations.
Is this true?

(Sports Nerd Alert: Stat-heavy analysis ahead.)

In his best offensive season, Gretzky tallied a record 215 points. The league average for goals was 7.94 per game. Gretzky's 2.69 points per game average represented 33.8 percent of average goals per game. In his best season, Orr averaged 1.69 ppg, or 24.6 percent of the total goals per game. Do you suppose Orr made up for this gap in his own zone as the best defenseman of all time?

A comparison with Lemieux invites the possibility that Gretzky wasn't even the best offensive player of his generation. In 1988-89, when he scored 199 points, Lemieux's point per game total as a percentage of league average goals was even higher than Gretzky's best year (35 percent to 33.8). So Lemieux not only matched Gretzky as a scorer, but he also lugged the puck from end to end with guys hanging all over him and made goal scorers out of Warren Young, Terry Ruskowski and Rob Brown. Lemieux also had a higher career points per game average than Gretzky before his last two injury-plagued seasons, despite having a career that bridged a high-scoring era and a low-scoring one. As it stands now, Gretzky's career points average (1.92 ppg) is one one-hundredth better than Lemieux's (1.91).

So if Gretzky might not be the best offensive player and is certainly below-average defensively and didn't win as many Cups as Messier, by what measure is he the greatest player ever?

He's not. It's a lie.



How about a rebuttal? Russ Cohen presents his argument for Gretz�s greatness.

The author made a horrible reach saying that until the last two injury-plagued seasons Mario Lemieux had a higher points-per-game average. Well, the fact is he slipped and will continue to slip because of his age and bad hip. Gretzky also had a bad neck his last few seasons and slipped himself. That's sports.

So as it stands today Gretzky has the highest points per game total and he's not supposed to play defense. However, one of the four playoff records that Gretzky has with the Kings is for short-handed goals. How did he get them? He played on the penalty kill because of his exceptional vision and amazing skating ability.

If Messier or Gordie Howe calls Gretzky the greatest ever, believe it.


Now, here are my arguments and rebuttals to both points:

• 1. I don�t think the Points-Per-Game stat is the absolute best measure, and the fact that Gretz holds a slight edge over Lemieux in that category doesn�t mean much. Lemieux has about the same PPG, but with a higher % in relation to the league (Thus, an adjusted figure), plus he put up those numbers with far inferior linemates.
  
  
• 2. +/-, by itself, doesn�t tell you the whole story.
  Sure, we know Gretz was pretty soft defensively and his +/- totals were unimpressive, but so what? What if the teams he played for were so bad that his +/- was hampered by that?
  The best way to look at +/- is in relation to a team�s overall even strength goals for/goals against:
  
  Example � If Player X plays on a team that scores 200 even strength goals for and 200 even strength goals against, an average player would be expected to have a 0 +/- with no other factors in play.
  
  Of course, then we need to consider other factors, such as
  1. Quality of Ice Time � How much did Player X play per game? Did he play against opposition�s scoring units, or was he showed by low-scoring defensive players? Did that player play a lot on the Power Play? Remember, a Power Play player gets a � for any shorthanded goal against, while a Penalty Killer gets a + for any shorthanded goal for.
  2. How did his teammates fare? If Player X had a +/- rating of -5, and he was the worst +/- on his team, then it could tell you something.
  
  
• 3. So if Mark Messier and Gordie Howe tell me that the Earth is flat? Am I supposed to believe them?
  
  
• 4. Stanley Cups do not measure a players greatness, or otherwise Ray Bourque (1 cup) and Marcel Dionne (0 cups), would be considered lesser players than Stephane Richer and Claude Lemieux.
  
  
• 5. Shorthanded Goals and Defence � Both Lemieux and Gretzky were both defensive liabilities through their careers, but players like them and Pavel Bure were put on the penalty kill for other reasons than their �defensive� abilities.
  
  So, Gretz may hold the record for most shorthanded goals in the playoffs, but guess who holds the record for most Shorthanded goals in a season?
  
  That�s right...it�s Lemieux, who had 13 short handed tallies in 1998-99 to set the record. Consider that selective statistic nullified.
  
  
• 6. Playoff Points Per Game � Lemieux had 1.60 PPG in his playoffs career while Gretzky had 1.83 PPG in the playoffs. I�m just throwing that number in your face.
  
  
• 7. Durability � It might be unfair to Lemieux, but Gretzky was rarely injured or out of the lineup for cancer treatments. The ability to stay healthy and contribute is a big plus. If Lemieux isn�t playing, his ice time has to be replaced with that of a Stu Barnes or someone else if his ilk. I�m surprised this wasn�t mentioned.
  

Ok, so I�m rambling, so let me sum this up for you.

Wayne Gretzky, in my opinion, is the Greatest Hockey Player� of all time, and it isn�t close...but, I don�t think he�s the best.

What?!?!

To me, no other player has had nearly the impact on the game of hockey that Gretzky has.

The scoring records, the record for most scoring records, the numerous All-Star and individual awards, the insane offensive numbers, the way he changed the game from his �office�, and the way he grew the game off the ice.

When Gretz was dealt to LA, the explosion and expansion of hockey in the USA was in large part to his presence. When the Canes couldn�t draw flies during their first year in Carolina, Gretz�s trip with the Rangers drew their only sellout of the season.

Even non-hockey people like my mom know who Wayne Gretzky is. He�s got �street-cred� that no other NHL player possesses. Only Mark Messier in his NYR prime had any level of real street cred, and he never came close to what Gretzky achieved in the PR world. You�ve never seen Messier on Saturday Night Live, have you?

There is a reason why #99 is retired in every NHL rink across the land.

...But...

If I was to pick the �best� player, and by that I mean the player, who in their prime, I would build my team around to win...I wouldn�t choose Gretzky first.

To me, Bobby Orr, Mario Lemieux, and Dominik Hasek are 3 players I would absolutely take for their overall level of skill and dominance if I was playing to win.

So, Gretzky is the greatest, but not the best. Let that be another argument solved :)