Orr Vs Gretzky

[pappyline]

I like this post quite a bit. And it's obvious you are very knowledgeable about the game and I respect that. But coming from a family who has not only watched but played hockey for decades, I have to disagree with this. My dad, who grew up idolizing the players of the 60's and 70's often admits how different the game was then. He watched both Orr and Gretz in their prime and he always tells me that he watches the game now and doesn't think they would be even as close to as dominant as they were if they played now. People tend to glorify the past. And that's fine. It's human nature. But the reality is that all it takes is to simply watch footage of a game from 1970 and a game from 2007 to see a drastic difference. The skill level, tempo and intensity are all much higher now than they were then. Anyone who can honestly say otherwise is either very naive or simply argumentative and clinging to an idealized version of the past. Players are bigger, stronger and faster. Immensely better skating is taking place out there. Goalies too are bigger. The equipment alone is massive compared to what it was then. There's barely any net to shoot at. Also the introduction of butterfly goaltending has drastically changed everything. Stand up goalies are no more and it's well known that they gave up much more net to shoot at. Heck how many goals are scored where the puck is sliding along the ice nowadays? Now compare that to the amount that you see in the footage from the old games. But goalies aside, defensive systems and schemes, like it or not, are much more polished and sophisticated as well. The list can go on and on. I know it's hard to admit because we all have our idols, but maybe, just maybe, some of the things both Orr and Gretz did in their time might not fly nowadays.

I gotta disagree. I picked up a DVD of a 1965 playoff game between Chicago & Detroit lately & thoroughly enjoyed watching it. IMO, the skill level, tempo & intensity of that 65 game was better than anything I have seen in the NHL in recent years. Defensive systems may be better these days but along with the dilution in talent, games are a lot more boring today.

 

[TheSniper26]

I gotta disagree. I picked up a DVD of a 1965 playoff game between Chicago & Detroit lately & thoroughly enjoyed watching it. IMO, the skill level, tempo & intensity of that 65 game was better than anything I have seen in the NHL in recent years. Defensive systems may be better these days but along with the dilution in talent, games are a lot more boring today.

Wow really? We must be looking at two different things. I have countless recordings of old games from my dad and uncle and they all seem very primitive from top to bottom. I see simple backhand dekes beating goalies right out of the net. Passes getting through that wouldn't even have a chance in the league today. Slow shots skidding along the ice beating goalies easily. Tempo that rivals watching paint dry. It just goes on and on. Some of the moves and shots guys were scoring on then wouldn't beat some of the lesser goalies I faced in junior to be honest.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Wow really? We must be looking at two different things. I have countless recordings of old games from my dad and uncle and they all seem very primitive from top to bottom. I see simple backhand dekes beating goalies right out of the net. Passes getting through that wouldn't even have a chance in the league today. Slow shots skidding along the ice beating goalies easily. Tempo that rivals watching paint dry. It just goes on and on. Some of the moves and shots guys were scoring on then wouldn't beat some of the lesser goalies I faced in junior to be honest.

Larger, lighter goalie equipment makes every goalie seem good. Give any of today's goaltenders Tony Esposito's equipment and watch them struggle.

 

[Lowetide]

Larger, lighter goalie equipment makes every goalie seem good. Give any of today's goaltenders Tony Esposito's equipment and watch them struggle.

Exactly. Watching those old films we can agree the stand-up style was flawed and that many goalies of that era didn't come out and play the angle agressively, but the equipment is a huge part of the story.

 

[TheSniper26]

Well sure, I agree there were others reasons aside from just skill that the goalies were lesser then. But that's sort of irrelevant to my point. My point has more to do with the skaters than the goalies. Watching some of Orr or Gretzky or Esposito's goals against these goalies makes me question the skill level they actually took. If we agree that the stand up style, lack of cutting down angles and poor equipment hindered goalies then, wouldn't it be fair to say that many of the goals scored against them would not be as likely today against the tougher goalies? Not trying to be argumentative, just an honest question for discussion purposes.

 

[pappyline]

Wow really? We must be looking at two different things. I have countless recordings of old games from my dad and uncle and they all seem very primitive from top to bottom. I see simple backhand dekes beating goalies right out of the net. Passes getting through that wouldn't even have a chance in the league today. Slow shots skidding along the ice beating goalies easily. Tempo that rivals watching paint dry. It just goes on and on. Some of the moves and shots guys were scoring on then wouldn't beat some of the lesser goalies I faced in junior to be honest.

The particular game I am talking about didn't have any of the "primitive" flaws that you mention but it sure had some very skilled players- Hull, Howe, Mikita, Lindsay, Pilote, Pronovost, Hall, Vasko, Ullman, Henderson, Delvecchio, Gadsby etc. Also, it was the 7th game of the semifinals & was very intense.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Well sure, I agree there were others reasons aside from just skill that the goalies were lesser then. But that's sort of irrelevant to my point. My point has more to do with the skaters than the goalies. Watching some of Orr or Gretzky or Esposito's goals against these goalies makes me question the skill level they actually took. If we agree that the stand up style, lack of cutting down angles and poor equipment hindered goalies then, wouldn't it be fair to say that many of the goals scored against them would not be as likely today against the tougher goalies? Not trying to be argumentative, just an honest question for discussion purposes.

No. Goalies are the way they are because the equipment allows them to play that way. Give any of today's goalies the equipment of the 70s and you will be very unimpressed with their play.

 

[Lowetide]

Well sure, I agree there were others reasons aside from just skill that the goalies were lesser then. But that's sort of irrelevant to my point. My point has more to do with the skaters than the goalies. Watching some of Orr or Gretzky or Esposito's goals against these goalies makes me question the skill level they actually took. If we agree that the stand up style, lack of cutting down angles and poor equipment hindered goalies then, wouldn't it be fair to say that many of the goals scored against them would not be as likely today against the tougher goalies? Not trying to be argumentative, just an honest question for discussion purposes.

I agree it's a faster game and also agree the athletes are better now, but the goalies saved (as a percentage) more shots than they would in the 1980s and in some cases more by plenty. If we can agree that save percentage is the best measure of a goalie they were saving more shots then than in the 80s no matter the quality.

The style of game was different too which leads to these conclusions. Last night in the Oiler game Raffi Torres scored a classic Bobby Hull goal (flew down LW and ripped it from well out) which would never have happened during the 94-04 dead-ball era in the NHL.

Now it's not so commonplace to see goals like that (it was in the 60s and 70s) but a lot of that has to do with percentages: it's a low percentage shot in any era, but was the prevailing wisdom in the 1960s.

 

[TheSniper26]

No. Goalies are the way they are because the equipment allows them to play that way. Give any of today's goalies the equipment of the 70s and you will be very unimpressed with their play.

Yes, that might be so. But I'm not even questioning the skill level of the goalies. I'm talking about the skaters. You say give any of the goalies of today equipment of the past and they'll be unimpressive. Well that's all well and good. But the fact of the matter is that they DON'T have that hindering them. Which makes things much harder on the skaters now than it was then. Honestly, I can argue this all day, but the proof is in the footage really. So many of the goals scored in the past would have little to no chance of being scored today. I don't see how somebody can watch the actual footage and deny this. Lousy equipment or not, the fact remains that there was MUCH more net to shoot at in those days and in my opinion, those players who racked up some of the crazy numbers they did, would not do so against todays defensive systems and goaltenders.

 

[Stephen]

I'm sure that with the intervention of modern science and training and such Bobby Orr would still be a very dominant athlete, and still the best player in the league today, but by that change he would be a diffferent player.

If we look at the technical and tactical advances made over the past 30 years, your average backup goalie is not going to belly flop at a Bobby Orr backhander. At the same time, your agile 6'4" 230 pound defensemen aren't going to back pedal and allow Orr to cut in between them, or lunge at him recklessly in hopes of getting the puck. Remember what happened to Paul Kariya against Scott Stevens? Or Tim Connolly in last year's playoffs? That's probably what would happen to a 70s style Orr playing in today's more vicious game. Orr is not going to be streaking in off the wing and blowing one past a goalie trying to make a kick save. Physical challenges against him aren't going to be stick sweeps. My point is that the way the players were trained and the way teams played defense back then was very different than it is today. What worked in 1973 is probably not going to work in 2007.

In the environment of the past decade, I think a Bobby Orr type defenseman is, as necessitated by the style of game favoured, going to play a bit more of a conservative role. Instead of making the risky, exciting plays that he was known for, he'd probably end up looking like a cross between a Scott Niedermayer and a Peter Forsberg, picking his spots more carefully.

 

[TheSniper26]

I'm sure that with the intervention of modern science and training and such Bobby Orr would still be a very dominant athlete, and still the best player in the league today, but by that change he would be a diffferent player.

If we look at the technical and tactical advances made over the past 30 years, your average backup goalie is not going to belly flop at a Bobby Orr backhander. At the same time, your agile 6'4" 230 pound defensemen aren't going to back pedal and allow Orr to cut in between them, or lunge at him recklessly in hopes of getting the puck. Remember what happened to Paul Kariya against Scott Stevens? Or Tim Connolly in last year's playoffs? That's probably what would happen to a 70s style Orr playing in today's more vicious game. Orr is not going to be streaking in off the wing and blowing one past a goalie trying to make a kick save. Physical challenges against him aren't going to be stick sweeps. My point is that the way the players were trained and the way teams played defense back then was very different than it is today. What worked in 1973 is probably not going to work in 2007.

In the environment of the past decade, I think a Bobby Orr type defenseman is, as necessitated by the style of game favoured, going to play a bit more of a conservative role. Instead of making the risky, exciting plays that he was known for, he'd probably end up looking like a cross between a Scott Niedermayer and a Peter Forsberg, picking his spots more carefully.

This is a great post. I agree with it 100%. Look, skill is skill. Bobby Orr had it. So would he still be a great player today? Absolutely. But would he be making the same type of plays that make him, well, Bobby Orr? Probably not. Would he be putting up 100 points? Probably not. And for that matter, would a 1985 Gretzky be putting up 215 points today? I really really doubt it. Does that take away from them as greats? Absolutely not. It just shows that comparisons between the eras are misleading and often foolish.

 

[BNHL]

Hopefully you are a better player than yapper.

I actually stink. One question before I go,Have you ever seen Orr play live?

 

[Trottier]

People tend to glorify the past.

As one who is no doubt younger than your father and older than you, I'll simply suggest this, from personal observation:

Indeed, as a general rule, we tend to look back fondly on "the good old days" even when they weren't so much. It's both an endearing and aggravating human trait. And it applies well beyond sports into all aspects of life.

That stated, it cuts both ways. A common trait among some (many?) younger people is to have an utter disregard (and disrespect) for that which came before them. To the extent that they try to diminish the accomplishments of those athletes who were the glory of their times.

Such a myopic view is equally insufferable. And it is played out daily on HF, though thankfully, very infrequently on this particular board, which tends to be a gathering of people old enough to actually remember the Reagan Presidency.

Bobby Orr was great. Wayne Gretzky was great (and still a productive player as recently as 1999, which oddly, qualifies as "olden times" to the born yesterday crowd around here).

Whether they could compete today or not seems to be the big (the only) question for some. Niiiiice hypotheticals, but it matters not. For among anyone not born in the 1990s, they are without question at the top of the conversation among the very best this sport has ever seen. (Alexander Ovechkin notwithstanding. )

Point being, the game is great now. But rest assured it was great then, too. And just as there are superior players today, there were elite players then.

To debase any generation of players, either purposely or unintentionally, is small. An it happens around these parts waaaaay too frequently, by irresponsible "fans".

Just my opinion.

 

[CapsChemist]

Gretzky is the greatest player of all time. Gretzky's career and accomplishments are more impressive then Orr's. I cant understand how people hold the fact that Gretzky played a full 20 years against. Its a testament to his longevity.

BTW people are way to nostalgic about the old days on this forum.

 

[TubbyTerrion*]

Colton Orr > Brent Gretzky

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Yeah, but neither are as good as Alain Lemieux.

 

[BNHL]

Discounting ties and missed games,Orr's B's won 66% of their decided games during the Orr era.Gretzky's Oilers won 65% of it's decided games.I'd call that a wash,though we could get more fine with the numbers, I'm too lazy.

 

[BNHL]

...........regular season games.

 

[RUSqueelin*]

Yes, that might be so. But I'm not even questioning the skill level of the goalies. I'm talking about the skaters. You say give any of the goalies of today equipment of the past and they'll be unimpressive. Well that's all well and good. But the fact of the matter is that they DON'T have that hindering them. Which makes things much harder on the skaters now than it was then. Honestly, I can argue this all day, but the proof is in the footage really. So many of the goals scored in the past would have little to no chance of being scored today. I don't see how somebody can watch the actual footage and deny this. Lousy equipment or not, the fact remains that there was MUCH more net to shoot at in those days and in my opinion, those players who racked up some of the crazy numbers they did, would not do so against todays defensive systems and goaltenders.

Ya, goalies have far superior equipment today. But do you think Gretzky would be using his good old Titan stick or Bobby Orr using his piece of crap stick that you wouldn't see fit to use as firewood. To see what players played with not to long ago I'd encourage a trip to the HHOF. It would blow you away what they had to shot and stick handle with. (I assume you know I'm saying this to illustrate that players of years past would do the same thing as todays players with the better equipment)

And don't put too much stock in old videos. The quality of production was horrible. It made the play seem slower then it was etc. You can see the difference production can made by watching a junior game on your local cable provide, then watching that same league on an outfit like Sportsnet or TSN. Same quality of play - but it sure doesn't seem like it.

I'm sure that with the intervention of modern science and training and such Bobby Orr would still be a very dominant athlete, and still the best player in the league today, but by that change he would be a diffferent player.

If we look at the technical and tactical advances made over the past 30 years, your average backup goalie is not going to belly flop at a Bobby Orr backhander. At the same time, your agile 6'4" 230 pound defensemen aren't going to back pedal and allow Orr to cut in between them, or lunge at him recklessly in hopes of getting the puck. Remember what happened to Paul Kariya against Scott Stevens? Or Tim Connolly in last year's playoffs? That's probably what would happen to a 70s style Orr playing in today's more vicious game. Orr is not going to be streaking in off the wing and blowing one past a goalie trying to make a kick save. Physical challenges against him aren't going to be stick sweeps. My point is that the way the players were trained and the way teams played defense back then was very different than it is today. What worked in 1973 is probably not going to work in 2007.

In the environment of the past decade, I think a Bobby Orr type defenseman is, as necessitated by the style of game favoured, going to play a bit more of a conservative role. Instead of making the risky, exciting plays that he was known for, he'd probably end up looking like a cross between a Scott Niedermayer and a Peter Forsberg, picking his spots more carefully.

Forget the skills. Orr and Gretzky were so ahead of everyone else because of what went on between their heads. It's incomprehensible to even think of an Orr in todays game. Looking at old highlight reels, as great as they're to watch, don't do justice. To compare him with Kariya or Connelly is an insult. I have a hard time believing that people think he wouldn't make McCabe and Hall Gill look like fools coming in off the rush. He had 3 speeds and he'd toy with the opposition - they were scared of him because he just change gears at any moment. And the Wayner knew what the opposition was going to do before then even did. These guys didn't play in 1920. Wayne retired in 1999 and Orr should have retired in 1989.

 

[Ogopogo*]

I actually stink. One question before I go,Have you ever seen Orr play live?

No, I have not. I was born in '71, Orr retired before I was really old enough to comprehend things too well.

My questions about his defensive ability are genuine because I have not witnessed his play. I know that there is a great deal of bias so, I would like to see some games from the old days. Now that I have ESPN Classic Canada and NHL Network, I hope that I will get to see the man play.

 

[ShooterMcGavin*]

Gretz > Orr.

 

[BNHL]

No, I have not. I was born in '71, Orr retired before I was really old enough to comprehend things too well.

My questions about his defensive ability are genuine because I have not witnessed his play. I know that there is a great deal of bias so, I would like to see some games from the old days. Now that I have ESPN Classic Canada and NHL Network, I hope that I will get to see the man play.

I hope so too but I'm afraid that telling a story or watching history is not the same as being in the story as it unfolds.Good Luck,I gotta go try to figure out what Peter Chiarelli is thinking as the Bruins continue to befuddle and bewilder.

 

[BNHL]

Just stumbled across another interesting plus minus (I know it's flawed),Orr's defense partner the year his plus minus was +124 was Dallas Smith and his plus minus was +94. I guess we can be judged by the company we keep!

 

[alanschu]

Fantastic!!
Yes apparently evolution happens faster than everyone first thought. In a matter of decades hockey players became faster, stronger and smarter. Darwin would be most pleased.

This is a misnomer. The evolution of the human body has not significantly changed, but the evolution of Sports Medicine has changed significantly. We understand more about fast-twitch and slow-twitch fibers. We understand more about training, nutrition, and general human biology, so that we are better able to develop our muscles.

It's not that our bodies were incapable of achieving these results in recent years, it's that we were incapable of harnessing it all. When you saw a huge rift in physical abilities in an older generation, I'd be more willing to write it off as one player realizing more of his physical potential than other players. Biology is still important, but you'll see less of this disparity given advancements in Sports Medicine.


Having said that, I think that the role of physical improvements can be overstated. All things being equal, a faster, stronger player will prevail. But all other things are rarely equal. The best players that I've seen in both hockey and basketball were also smart players. Maybe no rocket scientists, but had built up the muscle memory and perception to make instant decisions based on the situation of the game. It's not about seeing that man open and deciding to pass to him, but rather instinctively recognizing that he's open, and that the best thing to do is to pass it to him without even thinking about it. When the best players in the league absolutely blow past someone with a killer move, they weren't thinking on doing that move before they did it, they just did it.

 

[alanschu]

I hope so too but I'm afraid that telling a story or watching history is not the same as being in the story as it unfolds

I wouldn't disagree. That difference, IMO, is emotional attachment. Which throws objectivity out the window.