Hart Trophy Tournament (1969-00) Final Round: 1971 Bobby Orr vs 1984 Wayne Gretzky

[blundluntman]

Final Round Matchup: Bobby Orr (1971) vs Wayne Gretzky (1984)

Bobby Orr (1970-71):
78 GP 37 G 102 A 139 Points 124+/- | 2nd in Scoring, 1st in Assists, 9th in Goals, Norris Trophy, 1st AST, 1st in Defensive Point shares, 1st in +/-

Wayne Gretzky (1983-84):
74 Games Played 87 Goals 118 Assists 205 Points | 1st in Points, 1st in Assists, 1st in Goals, Pearson/Lindsay, Art Ross, 1st AST

Round 1-4 Results

Click to read more...

 

[JackSlater]

I'll take a few moments to make the case for Orr here. The biggest factor here will be offence, unquestionably. Gretzky outscored Orr by 66 points. That is significant. Also significant is that Gretzky played in a league that was generally 26% higher in scoring. If Orr's scoring is adjusted 26% upward, he is at 176 points and Gretzky's lead is down to 29 points. Now I am aware that scoring for elite players doesn't exactly mirror changes in league scoring overall, but as a blunt adjustment it isn't entirely invalid. Orr played with an all time offensive great like Esposito, but I'm not sure that his level of support was greater than Gretzky's. Gretzky spend a lot of time playing with Coffey, the second greatest offensive defenceman ever, and most of his forward time with Kurri, an all time great goal scorer who also provided elite defence that partially covered for Gretzky's biggest weakness and freed him to play as offensively as he did. Orr spent a lot of time away from Esposito in addition to his time with him, and it isn't as though Esposito brought something that compensated for a lack in Orr. Both teams were very talented - Bucyk, Anderson, Lowe, and Messier would all become hall of famers, though it's quite possible that only Messier makes it if he didn't play on a team with Orr/Gretzky. each team had a HHOf goaltender. Ultimately I think that neither benefitted all that much from their teammates statistically, in that they would put up astronomical numbers regardless of where they played, but Gretzky probably had a more ideal situation. Gretzky did play in a stronger league.

Continuing from there, Gretzky likely did play in a stronger league. I'm not sure that there was a drastic difference between the NHL of 1971 and 1984, but it would be an edge to 1984. Orr outscored the number ten scorer that season by 83%, Gretzky outscored number 10 by 95%. If you removed teammates from the equation it changes things a little (Orr outscores ten by 93%, Gretzky outscores ten by 116%). Orr's team dominated more at even strength when he was on the ice - Boston outscored teams at over 3 goals to 1 when Orr was on the ice, Edmonton outscored teams around 2 to 1 when Gretzky was on the ice. Each was a huge power play performer, though it probably isn't a big edge for Gretzky - Gretzky didn't dominate power play scoring to the degree he did even strength scoring, with for example Barry Pederson tying him in powerplay scoring and Denis Savard being quite close. Gretzky tied for first in scoring, Orr was second in power play scoring to teammate Esposito. Gretzky was a very useful asset on the penalty kill, scoring 12 goals, but Orr would likely be better as an offensive threat and also an elite defensive player. I'll add that Gretzky missed ~8% of the season, while Orr misses 0%.

In the end I think this comes down to how much someone values an elite defensive defenceman. Orr was still near his peak mobility in 1971 and was elite defensively - in a coaches poll in 1971, Orr tied for first when the coaches selected the best defensive defenceman in the NHL. Gretzky outscored Orr by 66 points that season - that is a significant offensive gap, but Gretzky provided little outside of offence while Orr was an elite defensive player. I suppose you could say that young Gretzky was also a strong possession and transition player, but Orr is possibly the best ever in those areas. Gretzky was playing in a significantly higher scoring league, so the 66 point gap may realistically be smaller than it looks in terms of value. To me I think that a player in the running for best defensive defenceman in the NHL is probably worth 66 (or fewer) points. I get voting for Gretzky, but the argument would have to be derived from a very strong distaste for the NHL of the early 1970s compared to the NHL 13 years later and/or a strong preference for goals.

These players have the two best peaks the NHL has ever seen so I am glad that they go head to head in the finals.

 

[blundluntman]

Can't go wrong with either pick here. I'm so tempted to take Gretzky here (and just might if I think about it another 15 minutes), but I don't think you'll ever find such a complete package as Bobby Orr was in his prime. Gretzky was definitely superior offensively, but I don't know if it was as big of a gap between the two as their defensive play was. Orr genuinely did it all and could be counted on to do so many different things. He also was on the ice longer on a per game basis and was such a possession monster that he could manage games simply by keeping the puck away from the opposing team.

Here's my crude breakdown of both seasons offensively & defensively

Gretzky's Offensive Tier in 84: A+++. Not much to say about this one. Likely the greatest offensive season in league history. Would've been the highest goal and point total in history if he played the full season.

Orr's Offensive Tier in 71: A+. If we take the defensive position out of the equation, only 14 other players in league history have ever scored 139 points or more in a season. Even as a forward, this would be one of the best offensive seasons in league history. As a defenseman, it's basically unparalleled (outside of Coffey). You could argue this is an A++ seasons with that taken into context along with separation from peers that season (like @JackSlater said, he outscored number 10 by 93%). At the bare minimum though it's an A+ so I'll leave it at that.

Gretzky's Defensive Tier in 84: C? Don't know all too much about his defensive play honestly, I never paid much attention to him on that side of the ice unless it involved a high IQ transition set-up or a takeaway leading to a goal. I wouldn't call him a stalwart but I wouldn't say he was horrid either.

Orr's Defensive Tier in 71: A. Wouldn't exactly call him Rod Langway or Nick Lidstrom but Orr in his prime was so mobile and energetic that he could be back on the defensive side of the ice in the blink of an eye if the puck was turned over while he was deep in the O-Zone. Haven't seen a lot of his games but from what I have seen as well as his hour long highlight videos on youtube, Orr was great at blocking shots, forcing turnovers, and was very good positionally and had the skating prowess to compensate if he was ever in the wrong place. We all know how important skating is to defensive play whether it's D-Zone positioning or backchecking a rush/2 on 1. Orr had zero deficiencies in that department. Also showed phenomenal anticipation and stickwork. Not your traditional stay at home shutdown D, but he got the job done. It's no surprise that his +/- was so insanely high in 71. I've never seen anyone tilt the ice the way he did before.

TLDR: I'd say 1984 Gretzky was 1-2 tiers above Orr's offensively, and Orr was 2-3 Tiers above Gretzky defensively. For now I'm gonna take Orr but I could just as easily be swayed to take Gretzky.

I'll take a few moments to make the case for Orr here. The biggest factor here will be offence, unquestionably. Gretzky outscored Orr by 66 points. That is significant. Also significant is that Gretzky played in a league that was generally 26% higher in scoring. If Orr's scoring is adjusted 26% upward, he is at 176 points and Gretzky's lead is down to 29 points. Now I am aware that scoring for elite players doesn't exactly mirror changes in league scoring overall, but as a blunt adjustment it isn't entirely invalid. Orr played with an all time offensive great like Esposito, but I'm not sure that his level of support was greater than Gretzky's. Gretzky spend a lot of time playing with Coffey, the second greatest offensive defenceman ever, and most of his forward time with Kurri, an all time great goal scorer who also provided elite defence that partially covered for Gretzky's biggest weakness and freed him to play as offensively as he did. Orr spent a lot of time away from Esposito in addition to his time with him, and it isn't as though Esposito brought something that compensated for a lack in Orr. Both teams were very talented - Bucyk, Anderson, Lowe, and Messier would all become hall of famers, though it's quite possible that only Messier makes it if he didn't play on a team with Orr/Gretzky. each team had a HHOf goaltender. Ultimately I think that neither benefitted all that much from their teammates statistically, in that they would put up astronomical numbers regardless of where they played, but Gretzky probably had a more ideal situation. Gretzky did play in a stronger league.

Continuing from there, Gretzky likely did play in a stronger league. I'm not sure that there was a drastic difference between the NHL of 1971 and 1984, but it would be an edge to 1984. Orr outscored the number ten scorer that season by 83%, Gretzky outscored number 10 by 95%. If you removed teammates from the equation it changes things a little (Orr outscores ten by 93%, Gretzky outscores ten by 116%). Orr's team dominated more at even strength when he was on the ice - Boston outscored teams at over 3 goals to 1 when Orr was on the ice, Edmonton outscored teams around 2 to 1 when Gretzky was on the ice. Each was a huge power play performer, though it probably isn't a big edge for Gretzky - Gretzky didn't dominate power play scoring to the degree he did even strength scoring, with for example Barry Pederson tying him in powerplay scoring and Denis Savard being quite close. Gretzky tied for first in scoring, Orr was second in power play scoring to teammate Esposito. Gretzky was a very useful asset on the penalty kill, scoring 12 goals, but Orr would likely be better as an offensive threat and also an elite defensive player. I'll add that Gretzky missed ~8% of the season, while Orr misses 0%.

In the end I think this comes down to how much someone values an elite defensive defenceman. Orr was still near his peak mobility in 1971 and was elite defensively - in a coaches poll in 1971, Orr tied for first when the coaches selected the best defensive defenceman in the NHL. Gretzky outscored Orr by 66 points that season - that is a significant offensive gap, but Gretzky provided little outside of offence while Orr was an elite defensive player. I suppose you could say that young Gretzky was also a strong possession and transition player, but Orr is possibly the best ever in those areas. Gretzky was playing in a significantly higher scoring league, so the 66 point gap may realistically be smaller than it looks in terms of value. To me I think that a player in the running for best defensive defenceman in the NHL is probably worth 66 (or fewer) points. I get voting for Gretzky, but the argument would have to be derived from a very strong distaste for the NHL of the early 1970s compared to the NHL 13 years later and/or a strong preference for goals.

These players have the two best peaks the NHL has ever seen so I am glad that they go head to head in the finals.

I agree with pretty much everything you said here. Great post.

 

[Duffy13]

Bobby Orr played his whole career in a league that added terrible expansion teams. In 70-71 there were the Original 6 and then 6 teams that were 4 years old. and 2 1st year teams. Everything from 67- 75ish should be a giant asterix.

 

[bobholly39]

I think Gretzky's peak is better than Orr's.

It's really close - and hard to tell apart. I don't really have any big arguments to make - truth be told I can see myself arguing either/or, because it's close. Both are very worthy finalists,

But I voted Gretzky.

 

[Staniowski]

This might be Orr's best season, but I really don't think it's Gretzky's best (even if its the best points-per-game) - he probably has a few seasons that were better. The league became better, and so did he. He was always savvy, but he became even savvier in subsequent years. His skating held up (for several more years). It just became more difficult to score. In '84, you can see some weaknesses in his game in the playoffs, and he wasn't that great in the '84 Canada Cup after the season. But, of course, it was still a great season.

 

[authentic]

This might be Orr's best season, but I really don't think it's Gretzky's best (even if its the best points-per-game) - he probably has a few seasons that were better. The league became better, and so did he. He was always savvy, but he became even savvier in subsequent years. His skating held up (for several more years). It just became more difficult to score. In '84, you can see some weaknesses in his game in the playoffs, and he wasn't that great in the '84 Canada Cup after the season. But, of course, it was still a great season.

Just curious when you believe Gretzky was at his best?

I'll take a few moments to make the case for Orr here. The biggest factor here will be offence, unquestionably. Gretzky outscored Orr by 66 points. That is significant. Also significant is that Gretzky played in a league that was generally 26% higher in scoring. If Orr's scoring is adjusted 26% upward, he is at 176 points and Gretzky's lead is down to 29 points. Now I am aware that scoring for elite players doesn't exactly mirror changes in league scoring overall, but as a blunt adjustment it isn't entirely invalid. Orr played with an all time offensive great like Esposito, but I'm not sure that his level of support was greater than Gretzky's. Gretzky spend a lot of time playing with Coffey, the second greatest offensive defenceman ever, and most of his forward time with Kurri, an all time great goal scorer who also provided elite defence that partially covered for Gretzky's biggest weakness and freed him to play as offensively as he did. Orr spent a lot of time away from Esposito in addition to his time with him, and it isn't as though Esposito brought something that compensated for a lack in Orr. Both teams were very talented - Bucyk, Anderson, Lowe, and Messier would all become hall of famers, though it's quite possible that only Messier makes it if he didn't play on a team with Orr/Gretzky. each team had a HHOf goaltender. Ultimately I think that neither benefitted all that much from their teammates statistically, in that they would put up astronomical numbers regardless of where they played, but Gretzky probably had a more ideal situation. Gretzky did play in a stronger league.

Continuing from there, Gretzky likely did play in a stronger league. I'm not sure that there was a drastic difference between the NHL of 1971 and 1984, but it would be an edge to 1984. Orr outscored the number ten scorer that season by 83%, Gretzky outscored number 10 by 95%. If you removed teammates from the equation it changes things a little (Orr outscores ten by 93%, Gretzky outscores ten by 116%). Orr's team dominated more at even strength when he was on the ice - Boston outscored teams at over 3 goals to 1 when Orr was on the ice, Edmonton outscored teams around 2 to 1 when Gretzky was on the ice. Each was a huge power play performer, though it probably isn't a big edge for Gretzky - Gretzky didn't dominate power play scoring to the degree he did even strength scoring, with for example Barry Pederson tying him in powerplay scoring and Denis Savard being quite close. Gretzky tied for first in scoring, Orr was second in power play scoring to teammate Esposito. Gretzky was a very useful asset on the penalty kill, scoring 12 goals, but Orr would likely be better as an offensive threat and also an elite defensive player. I'll add that Gretzky missed ~8% of the season, while Orr misses 0%.

In the end I think this comes down to how much someone values an elite defensive defenceman. Orr was still near his peak mobility in 1971 and was elite defensively - in a coaches poll in 1971, Orr tied for first when the coaches selected the best defensive defenceman in the NHL. Gretzky outscored Orr by 66 points that season - that is a significant offensive gap, but Gretzky provided little outside of offence while Orr was an elite defensive player. I suppose you could say that young Gretzky was also a strong possession and transition player, but Orr is possibly the best ever in those areas. Gretzky was playing in a significantly higher scoring league, so the 66 point gap may realistically be smaller than it looks in terms of value. To me I think that a player in the running for best defensive defenceman in the NHL is probably worth 66 (or fewer) points. I get voting for Gretzky, but the argument would have to be derived from a very strong distaste for the NHL of the early 1970s compared to the NHL 13 years later and/or a strong preference for goals.

These players have the two best peaks the NHL has ever seen so I am glad that they go head to head in the finals.

When you think of it this way really a 176 point defenseman in the 80s who didn’t play with Gretzky and was also the best defensively, how could that not be the best player ever?

 

[Toby91ca]

Poll is closer than I expected. Orr had a great season obviously, one of the best, but I just don't see anyone toping what Gretzky did in 1984.

I know Orr was a D and Gretzky a F, but let's be clear, we are pushing Orr into the stratosphere here because of offense and there is really zero comparison here in terms of level of domination, there is no comparison for any player in any year.

 

[JackSlater]

When you think of it this way really a 176 point defenseman in the 80s who didn’t play with Gretzky and was also the best defensively, how could that not be the best player ever?

It generally seems that for people who actually watched both, most pick Orr as the best. Some pick Gretzky as the best or some will select Gretzky as greater and focus on career, but it is generally close and somewhat depends on how someone views career length. Obviously loads of people who saw them both will go with Gretzky as well. For example, when The Hockey News did its big expert poll to name the 100 best players ever in 1997, Gretzky very narrowly topped Orr.

People who saw only Gretzky or neither tend to overwhelmingly pick Gretzky as the best. It helps to have a game very much explained by numbers, and he has the best numbers ever.

 

[Albatros]

The 1970s were not the 80s no matter how one looks at it. By 1984 the expansion era was over, the NHL-WHA merger done, and all of the best North American players quite reliably in the league, together with some good international players. It was a much better competition, just like the 90s NHL was to be much better than the 80s.

 

[authentic]

It generally seems that for people who actually watched both, most pick Orr as the best. Some pick Gretzky as the best or some will select Gretzky as greater and focus on career, but it is generally close and somewhat depends on how someone views career length. Obviously loads of people who saw them both will go with Gretzky as well. For example, when The Hockey News did its big expert poll to name the 100 best players ever in 1997, Gretzky very narrowly topped Orr.

People who saw only Gretzky or neither tend to overwhelmingly pick Gretzky as the best. It helps to have a game very much explained by numbers, and he has the best numbers ever.

Gretzky has hands down the greatest career of all time but at their best he is atleast matched by Lemieux (I would take Lemieux by a hair at their absolute peak and in todays game maybe by a little more) and narrowly exceeded by Orr IMO.

The 1970s were not the 80s no matter how one looks at it. By 1984 the expansion era was over, the NHL-WHA merger done, and all of the best North American players quite reliably in the league, together with some good international players. It was a much better competition, just like the 90s NHL was to be much better than the 80s.

Still don’t believe it changes that Orr was the best overall player ever.

 

[tabness]

It generally seems that for people who actually watched both, most pick Orr as the best. Some pick Gretzky as the best or some will select Gretzky as greater and focus on career, but it is generally close and somewhat depends on how someone views career length. Obviously loads of people who saw them both will go with Gretzky as well. For example, when The Hockey News did its big expert poll to name the 100 best players ever in 1997, Gretzky very narrowly topped Orr.

People who saw only Gretzky or neither tend to overwhelmingly pick Gretzky as the best. It helps to have a game very much explained by numbers, and he has the best numbers ever.

I don't think this is true at all, The Hockey News Top 100 had basically everyone on the panel being around for Orr's career, Gretzky won by a slim margin over Orr and Howe, but he won. As early as the first couple Oilers cups, real old timers were straight up saying Gretzky is the greatest.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Sucks that the only season in history that could give gretzky a run is lemieux 89 n he cant be in this since he was robbed of the hart

 

[JackSlater]

I don't think this is true at all, The Hockey News Top 100 had basically everyone on the panel being around for Orr's career, Gretzky won by a slim margin over Orr and Howe, but he won. As early as the first couple Oilers cups, real old timers were straight up saying Gretzky is the greatest.

I know what that panel said, as I directly cited it myself. My experience is that people who saw both usually went with Orr, though more of a plurality over Gretzky and Howe. You don't hear from those people very often anymore, mainly people who saw just Gretzky or neither. Of course Stan Fischler exists to rank Orr below Frank Boucher or something and thus keep him from getting a big head.

Thinking about it now, we learned a few years ago that Gretzky beat out Orr 2726 to 2713 in the 1997 vote. I'd love to see how Fischler ranked both of them.

When The Hockey News ranked the greatest seasons ever, Orr 1970 narrowly beat out Gretzky 1982.

 

[tabness]

I know what that panel said, as I directly cited it myself. My experience is that people who saw both usually went with Orr, though more of a plurality over Gretzky and Howe. You don't hear from those people very often anymore, mainly people who saw just Gretzky or neither. Of course Stan Fischler exists to rank Orr below Frank Boucher or something and thus keep him from getting a big head.

Thinking about it now, we learned a few years ago that Gretzky beat out Orr 2726 to 2713 in the 1997 vote. I'd love to see how Fischler ranked both of them.

When The Hockey News ranked the greatest seasons ever, Orr 1970 narrowly beat out Gretzky 1982.

sure which is why i was confused by your statement that most that watched Orr pick him over Gretzky

 

[JackSlater]

sure which is why i was confused by your statement that most that watched Orr pick him over Gretzky

I referenced that poll after stating that there are also people who watched both and pick Gretzky.

sure which is why i was confused by your statement that most that watched Orr pick him over Gretzky

I referenced that poll after stating that there are also people who watched both and pick Gretzky.

 

[Toby91ca]

Most that saw Orr and Gretzky would be biased towards the old timer, Orr, not saying I’d agree or disagree with their views, but they would certainly be biased

 

[bobholly39]

Sucks that the only season in history that could give gretzky a run is lemieux 89 n he cant be in this since he was robbed of the hart

Lemieux was better in 1993 than 1989 imo.