What's The Argument For Lemieux Over Orr?

[BraveCanadian]

It's fairly easy to defend, as it is the single most credible list anyone has ever produced in hockey. Doesn't make it perfect or definitive but it has more credibility than anything that anyone criticizing it can produce. Even just his contentious top five, the knowledge of those players possessed by Bowman is something that people would kill for, and his ability to analyze the game is beyond that of anyone criticizing his list as well. His list doesn't fit the hfboards history section norm, but to 99.9% of people that is a problem with this section more than it is with Bowman.

Disagree.

And I doubt that Bowman actually puts as much thought and care into a list as some of the people do here tbh.

 

[The411]

Lemieux and Malkin are comparables.

No, they aren’t.

 

[MadLuke]

And I doubt that Bowman actually puts as much thought and care into a list as some of the people do here tbh.

This sound perfectly fine, specially say outside the Top 10 and with the canvas that the order of top 5 would change depending on the days of the week being asked, not that he considered a gap among them, more of an if I have to order them type of answer.

 

[Gorskyontario]

Disagree.

And I doubt that Bowman actually puts as much thought and care into a list as some of the people do here tbh.

He explains his picks there.

Reasoning for Lemieux over Gretzky. He thinks Lemieux accomplished roughly as much with far inferior teammates.

 

[K Fleur]

Bowman coached Lemieux. And in particular he coached him in 92-93. That likely plays a huge part in Bowman’s rankings.

 

[bleedgreen]

Lemieux and Malkin are comparables.

Not if you actually watched them play.

 

[VanIslander]

Not if you actually watched them play.

If only i had been an NHL-accredited newspaper journalist with the press pass to stand by the locker room doors and rinkside during practice.

 

[bleedgreen]

If only i had been an NHL-accredited newspaper journalist with the press pass to stand by the locker room doors and rinkside during practice.

There’s a bias in there somewhere then.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

If only i had been an NHL-accredited newspaper journalist with the press pass to stand by the locker room doors and rinkside during practice.

As I’ve now told you multiple times, feel free to get your claim vetted through [email protected] if you’d like to continue to make the claim.

 

[overpass]

He explains his picks there.

Reasoning for Lemieux over Gretzky. He thinks Lemieux accomplished roughly as much with far inferior teammates.

Here's a rough English translation of Scotty's remarks.

Interviewer: There are four, five other possible choices, but why Bobby Orr?

Scotty: I watched Bobby since he was 13 years old, I coached against him when I was with the Junior Canadiens, Bobby played for Oshawa, and - I believe he only played ten, eleven years, but I was lucky enough to have Bobby on my team during the Canada Cup, I think it was in 76, and....(can't understand)... it was really remarkable. He changed hockey for me with his game, as a defenceman, as a scorer, as a leader. He did not play twenty years, but in his ten years...

I understand Red Fisher also chose Bobby, but the others didn't. It's a difficult choice because myself, I've always admired Gordie Howe. In his time, Gordie was one of the great stars. Gordie Howe and Maurice Richard, during the fifties and sixties, were the two great players.

Interviewer says he also chose Orr first, asks about Wayne Gretzky.

Scotty: Mario Lemieux had about the same statistics during his career as Wayne Gretzky. Wayne also had his teammates Jari Kurri, Mark Messier, he had many great players with him. Mario, he started his career almost alone on the Penguins. Mario, he survived many injuries, he missed many games, but Mario would be almost equal with Gretzky for me. Really a machine. He scored 43 points in the playoffs, and the next year he scored, I think, 35.

Interviewer says Bobby Orr, in his nine full seasons, won the Norris trophy for best defenceman 8 times out of 9. He was, as you say Scotty, twice the top scorer as a defenceman.

Scotty: Yes. I was lucky enough to see Eddie Shore one time when I was young. Not much, but...Eddie Shore, Doug Harvey, Bobby Orr. And maybe after him Denis Potvin, Nick Lidstrom, Paul Coffey, guys like that. Doug Harvey, Bobby Orr, the two leaders of their teams. For me, the two great defencemen.

Interviewer thanks Scotty for joining and wishes him well.

Scotty: Thank you for the invitation and I was happy to see all the editors who chose their favourites. It's very difficult with all the great players we've had in the National Hockey League in the last fifty years.

 

[DitchMarner]

I don't know... If Bowman's rationale for Lemieux is roughly equal to Gretzky was primarily eye test-driven or based on some fascinating information that the public isn't privy to, it would be more compelling.

But I mean, you see people on message boards saying things like Gretzky played on loaded teams, was surrounded by Hall of Famers etc. I don't think the fact that he's the greatest coach ever necessarily makes his opinion on the matter infallible if it is based on reasoning like that. I stand by what I said earlier: I think Gretzky is clearly more accomplished. Lemieux played on some teams that were loaded with HHOFers himself, and I think Jagr is easily better than a guy like Kurri.

 

[Mike C]

I don't know... If Bowman's rationale for Lemieux is roughly equal to Gretzky was primarily eye test-driven or based on some fascinating information that the public isn't privy to, it would be more compelling.

But I mean, you see people on message boards saying things like Gretzky played on loaded teams, was surrounded by Hall of Famers etc. I don't think the fact that he's the greatest coach ever necessarily makes his opinion on the matter infallible if it is based on reasoning like that. I stand by what I said earlier: I think Gretzky is clearly more accomplished. Lemieux played on some teams that were loaded with HHOFers himself, and I think Jagr is easily better than a guy like Kurri.

He said almost equal. I read that as him rating Gretzky ahead of Mario

 

[Gorskyontario]

He said almost equal. I read that as him rating Gretzky ahead of Mario

He rated Lemieux ahead of Gretzky.

 

[Staniowski]

I don't know... If Bowman's rationale for Lemieux is roughly equal to Gretzky was primarily eye test-driven or based on some fascinating information that the public isn't privy to, it would be more compelling.

But I mean, you see people on message boards saying things like Gretzky played on loaded teams, was surrounded by Hall of Famers etc. I don't think the fact that he's the greatest coach ever necessarily makes his opinion on the matter infallible if it is based on reasoning like that. I stand by what I said earlier: I think Gretzky is clearly more accomplished. Lemieux played on some teams that were loaded with HHOFers himself, and I think Jagr is easily better than a guy like Kurri.

Bowman would definitely have strong reasons - and a clear rationale - for his opinions about issues like Lemieux vs Gretzky, but you're not going to get them in a 2 sentence reply. Unlike some people in the HOH group, people like Bowman don't spend every waking second of their life thinking about and articulating an argument of why one player is better than another. But he obviously could explain it if you sat down with him and allowed him to give a fulsome explanation.

I've heard, for example, that his favourite argument is explaining to people why Savard was better than Robinson, and I've heard some of his reasons for thinking this. And I think he makes a good argument.

If you really want to know why he thinks Lemieux was a better player than Gretzky, probably the best thing you could do is to do a little research on things he's said about each player. For example, I seem to remember him talking in the early '90s about how great Lemieux was defensively when he wanted to be, and when his back allowed him to be (of course, these two things didn't intersect for very long - or very often - and therefore we didn't see it very often).

In the case of him talking about Gretzky playing on better teams (which is generally true), probably he thought that this was the simplest way to give a reason in a couple sentences. I certainly wouldn't assume that this would be his real argument. Like, he might believe that Gretzky playing for better teams is (in his view) a major reason why many people overrate Gretzky vis-a-vis Lemieux.

 

[Staniowski]

Re: Wendel Clark vs Doug Gilmour

I can understand why somebody would argue Clark over Gilmour, and I partially agree with it. But one of the big problems with rankings in general is they are too simplistic, they don't allow much for a full opinion or explanation.

To me, the argument for Wendel is that he had more virtuoso skills than Gilmour. Wendel was among the best shooters ever in hockey, and an all-around shooter - most famous for his wrist shot and snap shot, but also a good slap shot, backhand, quick as a cat in front of the net, and excellent instincts of when to shoot quickly and when to be patient.

Gilmour wasn't as good at anything as Wendel was at shooting. And Wendel was also great at hitting and very good at throwing punches.

None of this means that Wendel was the better player, because Gilmour was definitely a better all-around player and a better scorer overall.

But that would be the argument for Wendel.

Gilmour was never very good on Team Canada either. If they were both on Team Canada together, I wouldn't be surprised if Clark could outscore Gilmour.

 

[Staniowski]

Disagree.

And I doubt that Bowman actually puts as much thought and care into a list as some of the people do here tbh.

Bowman's a lot smarter than anybody who's involved with the HOH rankings, though.

There's very little hockey knowledge in the HOH ranking group; they're just people who want to be involved in doing rankings. They're not there because they're smart hockey people.

 

[JackSlater]

Disagree.

And I doubt that Bowman actually puts as much thought and care into a list as some of the people do here tbh.

There is obviously no more credible single list out there, and anyone outside looking in would recognize that. I know that a popular way to dismiss it is to suggest that Bowman didn't think about his list but no one knows whether that is true. It very well might be true, but it isn't a way to just hand wave the list of the most credible source on the topic that exists just because it has some unexpected results. When the foremost expert on a topic weighs in it is not something just tossed away because enthusiasts likely took more time and effort to reach their dissenting opinions.

All of this is a roundabout way of getting back to the main point, which is that the only person to coach both of them in competitive games and to coach against them during their primes, who also happens to be the consensus best coach in the history of the sport, picked Orr over Lemieux. If someone somehow found a paper written by Napoleon that details his opinion that the Prussian army was better than the Russian army circa the late 18th century, it would be worth noting.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Bowman's a lot smarter than anybody who's involved with the HOH rankings, though.

There's very little hockey knowledge in the HOH ranking group; they're just people who want to be involved in doing rankings. They're not there because they're smart hockey people.

LOL ok bud..

There is obviously no more credible single list out there, and anyone outside looking in would recognize that. I know that a popular way to dismiss it is to suggest that Bowman didn't think about his list but no one knows whether that is true. It very well might be true, but it isn't a way to just hand wave the list of the most credible source on the topic that exists just because it has some unexpected results. When the foremost expert on a topic weighs in it is not something just tossed away because enthusiasts likely took more time and effort to reach their dissenting opinions.

All of this is a roundabout way of getting back to the main point, which is that the only person to coach both of them in competitive games and to coach against them during their primes, who also happens to be the consensus best coach in the history of the sport, picked Orr over Lemieux. If someone somehow found a paper written by Napoleon that details his opinion that the Prussian army was better than the Russian army circa the late 18th century, it would be worth noting.

This is just an appeal to authority.

I used to think Bowman’s opinion on players carried weight too.

Until this list - which is objectively terrible.

And not because of Orr over Lemieux which is not controversial here at all.

He’s entitled to his opinion and yes he was very successful and has great hockey knowledge.. but his list is bad.

So we’ll have to agree to disagree.

It’s great that he made an attempt and even ranked some players he didn’t see or coach too.. it’s not easy.

 

[overpass]

What I take away from that Bowman interview is that he didn't focus too much on career longevity or even on durability, but rather on the player on the ice at his best. He acknowledged Mario's injuries but pointed to the 1991 and 1992 playoffs. And those playoffs were Mario's case for being the best player ever at his peak.

 

[The Panther]

Lol... the Bowman list again!

Look, Bowman of course is a legend in his own time, and surely we should (and do) pay attention to his interesting (if yeah, slightly wonky) list.

But, just because Bowman was a strategical hockey genius doesn't mean he's objective. Bowman grew up in the Montreal system, in Montreal. As a kid, he'd go into the Forum and watch Rocket Richard practice (Bowman likely saw little of the Rocket in his prime, yet he rated him higher than Gretzky). Bowman scouted Orr, coached against Orr regularly and often, and he coached Orr in 1976. He was hired when they drafted Guy Lafleur and coached him to 5 Cups. Bowman coached Mario Lemieux (who's from Montreal... like Bowman) to 2 Stanley Cups together.

Gretzky dominated hockey at a time when Bowman's career was going down, eventually reaching the toilet in 1986-87 (his team was last overall). The one time Bowman coached Gretzky, Canada lost (and then they won three best-on-best tournaments in a row, without Bowman).

So, it's hardly surprising that Bowman highly rates classic Montreal stars and Lafleur, Orr, and Lemieux. It's also not overly surprising that he slightly under-rates Gretzky.

His opinions are certainly fascinating in context. His ranking of players, though, is certainly not objective (not that anyone's is).

 

[Fatass]

Lol... the Bowman list again!

Look, Bowman of course is a legend in his own time, and surely we should (and do) pay attention to his interesting (if yeah, slightly wonky) list.

But, just because Bowman was a strategical hockey genius doesn't mean he's objective. Bowman grew up in the Montreal system, in Montreal. As a kid, he'd go into the Forum and watch Rocket Richard practice (Bowman likely saw little of the Rocket in his prime, yet he rated him higher than Gretzky). Bowman scouted Orr, coached against Orr regularly and often, and he coached Orr in 1976. He was hired when they drafted Guy Lafleur and coached him to 5 Cups. Bowman coached Mario Lemieux (who's from Montreal... like Bowman) to 2 Stanley Cups together.

Gretzky dominated hockey at a time when Bowman's career was going down, eventually reaching the toilet in 1986-87 (his team was last overall). The one time Bowman coached Gretzky, Canada lost (and then they won three best-on-best tournaments in a row, without Bowman).

So, it's hardly surprising that Bowman highly rates classic Montreal stars and Lafleur, Orr, and Lemieux. It's also not overly surprising that he slightly under-rates Gretzky.

His opinions are certainly fascinating in context. His ranking of players, though, is certainly not objective (not that anyone's is).

When Tikanov was asked who on a great Team Canada impressed him most he said Messier. Like you point out we all have a certain bias in what we see as the qualities the best players have. For myself Orr will always be the best. But Mario was amazing too. Gretzky, Howe, Crosby and others are all great. It’s like splitting hairs. These great players had qualities that allowed them to dominate and lead their clubs to Cups.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Reasoning for Lemieux over Gretzky. He thinks Lemieux accomplished roughly as much with far inferior teammates.

That is flat out false though.

Lemieux missed the playoffs in 5 out of his first 6 seasons, and that was back when 16 out of 21 teams made it in. That is nowhere near what Gretzky achieved.

Gretzky won the Stanley cup 4 times to Lemieux's 2. Last I checked, that is half, and certainly not "roughly as much." And Lemieux never won a cup without 6 to 8 other hall of famers on his team (same as Gretzky).

Gretzky also had 9 Harts to Lemieux's 3. 10 Art Rosses to Lemieux's 6. 5 Rockets to Lemieux's 3. Is 9 to 3 "roughly as much?"

Nevermind that Gretzky has more assists than Lemieux has points, and in addition to that he's the all time goals leader with 200 more goals than Lemieux. So Gretzky has a whopping 66% more career points and this is waved away as "roughly as much?"

What a bizarre take.

 

[Midnight Judges]

I think the best explanation for Bowman's take is that he was almost entirely focused on per-game stats and disregarding total career contributions.

 

[JackSlater]

LOL ok bud..



This is just an appeal to authority.

I used to think Bowman’s opinion on players carried weight too.

Until this list - which is objectively terrible.

And not because of Orr over Lemieux which is not controversial here at all.

He’s entitled to his opinion and yes he was very successful and has great hockey knowledge.. but his list is bad.

So we’ll have to agree to disagree.

It’s great that he made an attempt and even ranked some players he didn’t see or coach too.. it’s not easy.

Of course accepting that Bowman's list is not a joke is an appeal to authority to some degree. He's literally the foremost authority on the subject. As for the rest, his list of not objectively bad. Every single list is subjective other than a ranking of players by assists or goals or points of penalty minutes etc. It does the history section no favours to disregard the list of Scotty Bowman, not to say that everyone does.

But, just because Bowman was a strategical hockey genius doesn't mean he's objective. Bowman grew up in the Montreal system, in Montreal. As a kid, he'd go into the Forum and watch Rocket Richard practice (Bowman likely saw little of the Rocket in his prime, yet he rated him higher than Gretzky). Bowman scouted Orr, coached against Orr regularly and often, and he coached Orr in 1976. He was hired when they drafted Guy Lafleur and coached him to 5 Cups. Bowman coached Mario Lemieux (who's from Montreal... like Bowman) to 2 Stanley Cups together.

Bowman talked about having access to the Forum as a teenager in the late 1940s and certainly by the late 1950s as you say. Something about Montreal leaving standing room for practices/games for young players who were in the Montreal system or something. Either way, it's a lot better than what almost anyone alive today (or ten years ago) had access to. Which obviously doesn't mean he's correct, but more information tends to be better than less. I don't really care about someone being totally objective, not that such a thing is possible anyway. Someone could be wildly biased (not that Bowman likely would be) and still be correct.

This is drifting far from the actual topic so I don't plan to pursue it more, but it means something that people who actually watched Richard rank him so highly. Certainly higher than I would.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Of course accepting that Bowman's list is not a joke is an appeal to authority to some degree. He's literally the foremost authority on the subject. As for the rest, his list of not objectively bad. Every single list is subjective other than a ranking of players by assists or goals or points of penalty minutes etc. It does the history section no favours to disregard the list of Scotty Bowman, not to say that everyone does.

I guess you changed your mind since it was released then?

If Bowman was some anonymous poster he would be heckled mercilessly.

We all know that list is awful, be real. Everyone has favourites and obviously Bowman has a bunch.

That's fair, I'm sure any of us doing our personal lists would have bias in them that people would quesiton. But I don't excuse it just because it is Scotty Bowman.