Orr Vs Gretzky

[t-bo]

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

Their is some truth here. As soon as you have see one of them, your objectivity is tainted. So maybe those who didn't see them play live are our best judge

 

[BNHL]

Their is some truth here. As soon as you have see one of them, your objectivity is tainted. So maybe those who didn't see them play live are our best judge

and to those that have seen both numerous times?

 

[Ogopogo*]

and to those that have seen both numerous times?

I think being a fan of one or the other taints judgement.

 

[notmynhl]

cgb:
1. It's true gretzky lacked a physical presence in a phyiscal and often violent game but that's not really his fault. The guy was a God-given 6'0 and 185 lbs. No amount of work weight room/ fitness work is going to change that by much. He was a twig plain and simple. So Gretzky did what he could with what he had, namely being smarter (and better) than everyone else on the ice to make up for what he lacked.
One could also look at it that Gretzky knew he didn't have or need to have a physical game, so he didn't, whereas Orr had a desire (and to a point a need to as a defenseman) to have a physical component to his game and that is probably what hurt him and shortened his career. At that point is comes down to a personal opinion of how much each individual person weighing in on the debate values the longevity of a career.

No its not Gretzky's fault he was small, but there have been many small players with far more physical presence than Gretzky. Lack of physical presence lessens a player's value to his team.

 

[BNHL]

I think being a fan of one or the other taints judgement.

I'd hope so.

 

[Ogopogo*]

No its not Gretzky's fault he was small, but there have been many small players with far more physical presence than Gretzky. Lack of physical presence lessens a player's value to his team.

Considering that Gretzky's value to the Oilers was greater than anyone's value to any team at any time, that isn't a bulletproof theory.

 

[notmynhl]

cgb:
2. Why do you say hockey players are supposed to play at both ends of the ice? If that was the case, why are there distinctions between forwards and defensemen? Shouldn't the coach just send five guys out and tell them to line-up wherever and do what ever they want? Forwards are supposed to play offense, defensemen are supposed to play defense. If each can bring the other part to their game, great. But I don't think they're expected to.
Gretzky did play defense and I think his skill at it is undervalued by most because its overshadowed by the stats. He killed penalties even playing with the Rangers and you don't do that if your not good defensively. He probably just went about it a different way than say Carbonneau, Gretzky again used his smarts for it.
I think Gretzky's offensive advantage over Orr is more than slight, and Orr's defense over Gretzky was not quite dominant. But Orr better be remarkably better than a forward defensively, otherwise he's just a 4th forward.

Why do I say hockey players are supposed to play at both ends of the ice?

Because thats how hockey is played. There are three zones: Offensive, Defensive, and Neutral.

 

[notmynhl]

cgb:
3. And thank God the 5 Orr's vs. 5 Gretzky's debate seems to have been replaced with the more reasonable one of each guy on two otherwise equal teams but it wouldn't be otherwise equal teams because it is after all a team game. In simplistic terms I think in a perfect world a line-up would be 2 purely offensive guys, 2 purely defensive guys and one 50/50 split. So the Orr team would be 2 purely offensive forwards, 1 purely defensive forward and d-man and Orr. The Gretzky team would be 1 purely offensive forward, 1 50/50 split forward 2 defensive defensemen and Gretzky. You wouldn't be planting Gretzky and Orr into the two teams, the teams would be built around them.

While I've thoroughly enjoyed reading and occasionally participating in the thread,(and don't want this comment to bring it to a halt) it really does seem like everyone is going round and round and no one's mind will be changed because everyone has already come with their pre-conceived notion of what makes someone great.
If you value an amazing, injury-shortened career that brought something entirely new from the blueline coupled with a strong all-around game, Orr's your man. If you value a long, dominant career, with stats that re-wrote the book and may never be broken, a career that changed the game by forcing coaches to emphasize defensive play in order to stop a player, Gretzky's your man.

I would argue that if you are making your fantasy team then your first pick, the one that is going to give you the best chance of winning, is going to be greatest player of all time. Argue 5 Orrs vs 5 Gretzkys or equal teams, one with Orr, one with Gretzky, and it amounts to the same thing: The team with Orr is going to beat the team with Gretzky. Thus Orr is better than Gretzky.

As for your characterizations of Orr and Gretzky: Are you aware that Orr led the league in scoring...as a defenceman? Personally, I think that record will stand far longer than Gretzky's point totals. Many players have held the record for most points in a season/career, but as far as I know Orr is the only defenceman to hold the scoring title.

 

[Ogopogo*]

I would argue that if you are making your fantasy team then your first pick, the one that is going to give you the best chance of winning, is going to be greatest player of all time. Argue 5 Orrs vs 5 Gretzkys or equal teams, one with Orr, one with Gretzky, and it amounts to the same thing: The team with Orr is going to beat the team with Gretzky. Thus Orr is better than Gretzky.

As for your characterizations of Orr and Gretzky: Are you aware that Orr led the league in scoring...as a defenceman? Personally, I think that record will stand far longer than Gretzky's point totals. Many players have held the record for most points in a season/career, but as far as I know Orr is the only defenceman to hold the scoring title.

A team with Orr would beat a team with Gretzky? Is that whay you are trying to say?

Please explain how the Bruins could have possibly not won the 1968,69,71,73,74 and75 Stanley Cups. The Bruins faced teams that didn't even have Gretzky on them but the mighty Orr could not lead his team to victory. Perhaps Orr isn't the god you suggest?

 

[Wooty]

No its not Gretzky's fault he was small, but there have been many small players with far more physical presence than Gretzky. Lack of physical presence lessens a player's value to his team.

No it doesn't

 

[Stonefly]

Considering that Gretzky's value to the Oilers was greater than anyone's value to any team at any time, that isn't a bulletproof theory.

How do you come to this conclusion?

 

[Ogopogo*]

How do you come to this conclusion?

9 Hart trophies would be a nice start.

 

[Stonefly]

A team with Orr would beat a team with Gretzky? Is that whay you are trying to say?

Please explain how the Bruins could have possibly not won the 1968,69,71,73,74 and75 Stanley Cups. The Bruins faced teams that didn't even have Gretzky on them but the mighty Orr could not lead his team to victory. Perhaps Orr isn't the god you suggest?

No he's saying two equal teams, one with Orr, one with Gretzky. Not just any teams.

The Bruins didn't win all the years you state because they didn't have the team in the early years and later they ran into a ridiculously hot goal tender.(Plante)
Nobody wins a cup by themselves. But one player can make the difference. That being said, why is it that the oilers were able to win a cup without Gretzky, since he was soooo valuable and all?

By the way, the years Boston did win, Orr lead the team to the cup.
He scored both cup winning goals and was playoff MVP both times.

 

[notmynhl]

Ogopogo:
Please explain how the Bruins could have possibly not won the 1968,69,71,73,74 and75 Stanley Cups. The Bruins faced teams that didn't even have Gretzky on them but the mighty Orr could not lead his team to victory. Perhaps Orr isn't the god you suggest?

Where did I suggest Orr was a god?

You do realize you are arguing against yourself? Why was Gretzky unable to win a cup with LA, St. Louis, or the Rangers? The only Stanley Cups Gretzky won were with a team that didn't need him to win those cups: The Edmonton Oilers.

 

[04' hockey]

Ogo.....opinions on the 1990 Stanley Cup?

 

[notmynhl]

pkd88:

Originally Posted by notmynhl
No its not Gretzky's fault he was small, but there have been many small players with far more physical presence than Gretzky. Lack of physical presence lessens a player's value to his team.

No it doesn't

I don't know how to answer. Could you please explain how you reached this conclusion?

 

[notmynhl]

Ogopogo:

Originally Posted by notmynhl
No its not Gretzky's fault he was small, but there have been many small players with far more physical presence than Gretzky. Lack of physical presence lessens a player's value to his team.

Considering that Gretzky's value to the Oilers was greater than anyone's value to any team at any time, that isn't a bulletproof theory.

Once again, I don't how to answer this. Could you please explain how you reached this conclusion?

 

[Ogopogo*]

Ogo.....opinions on the 1990 Stanley Cup?

I think the 1990 Stanley Cup had a lot to do with the 1989, 2nd round loss. The 1989 Edmonton Oilers were virtually the same as the 1988 team, except without Wayne Gretzky. The heart was ripped out of the team and they lost.

In 1990, Mark Messier realized that he had to lift his game a level and lead the club. The '90 Cup was a combination of Messier elevating his game and Bill Ranford playing amazing hockey. The 1990 Cup team was not the same Oilers team that Gretzky led.

Gretzky was the main reason for the Oilers success until he left. You might remember, after Gretzky's 51 game point streak was snapped, he sat out the next 8 games with a shoulder injury. During that 8 game stretch, the Oilers played very poorly - including an 11-0 loss to the lowly Hartford Whalers.

Gretzky made the Oilers go while he was in Edmonton and he made the Kings go while he was in LA. Although lat in his career, he was still the best player on the Rangers while he was there.

 

[Wooty]

I don't know how to answer. Could you please explain how you reached this conclusion?

Could you please explain how you reached this conclusion?

Sorry, I quoted the wrong line.
Your statement is your opinion. You explain how you reached your conclusion.

 

[TheSniper26]

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.

This was a great post and I actually agree with much of it. I quoted this last bit only to emphasize that I'm not debasing any one generation of players. My point was that comparisons between the generations are impossible and just not very productive. The game, much like most sports or music or film or technology in general has evolved and been streamlined in such a way to make it totally different. It's natural. Much of what was accomplished in the past would probably not be accomplished in todays league. It's not a discredit to past accomplishments, but simply a good timeline of evolution. A good analogy would be film. Take a film from 1955 and have it come out today. The effects, production and even the acting would probably be laughed at by today's standards. But does that mean some of the great films of the past are not still great? Of course not. They were innovations and got a great ball rolling towards what it has evolved into. The same thing has happened in hockey. The accomplishments of the past set a bar to be passed and has molded the game into what it is today. It's a natural and, much to the dismay of people clinging to the past, a really good thng.

 

[reckoning]

That being said, why is it that the oilers were able to win a cup without Gretzky, since he was soooo valuable and all?

Out of all the arguments that the Gretzky-haters love to pull out, that has to be the most pointless. Yes, Edmonton won 1 Stanley Cup without Gretzky (as opposed to 4 with him). What does that mean? That they didn't need Gretzky to win those Cups? Because if we're using that logic, does that mean since Montreal won the Cup two years after Jean Beliveau retired, that Beliveau wasn't valuable to them? Of course not.

You can pick and choose examples to make anybody look bad if you want. For example, in Orr's last full season with the Bruins (74-75) they had 94 pts and lost in the first round of the playoffs. Next season, they had 113 pts and make it to the semi-finals. Does that mean they were better off without Orr?

What about 1972 when Boston beat the Rangers in the Final with both Orr and Esposito in the lineup? The next year, they play the Rangers in the first round, but Espo gets injured early and the Bruins (still with Orr) lose the series in 5 games. Does that somehow prove that Espo was more valuable than Orr?

Do you see what a stupid argument it is? There's always other factors to consider.

 

[notmynhl]

Originally Posted by notmynhl
No its not Gretzky's fault he was small, but there have been many small players with far more physical presence than Gretzky. Lack of physical presence lessens a player's value to his team.

Could you please explain how you reached this conclusion?

Sorry, I quoted the wrong line.
Your statement is your opinion. You explain how you reached your conclusion.

Because hockey is a contact sport. How could having more physical presence not be beneficial?

 

[Ogopogo*]

Could you please explain how you reached this conclusion?

Sorry, I quoted the wrong line.
Your statement is your opinion. You explain how you reached your conclusion.

I guess you are talking to me????

Gretzky won 9 Hart Trophies as "Player most Valuable to his Team". Gretzky turned the LA Kings from one of the bottom feeders to a contender his first season there.

When Greztky was hurt the Oilers struggled mightily - including an 11-0 stinker of a loss to the Hartford Whalers.

How's that for a start?

 

[Ogopogo*]

Because hockey is a contact sport. How could having more physical presence not be beneficial?

Because sitting in the penalty box does not help your team win. Getting injured does not help your team win. Being distracted with the physical aspect of the game takes away from putting numbers on the scoreboard.

Ever heard of Jarome Iginla?

People think it's cool that Jarome plays physical but, honestly, he is doing the Flames a disservice. Sitting in the box for 5 minutes when you are the teams biggest offensive threat is foolishness.

 

[notmynhl]

reckoning:
Out of all the arguments that the Gretzky-haters love to pull out, that has to be the most pointless. Yes, Edmonton won 1 Stanley Cup without Gretzky (as opposed to 4 with him). What does that mean? That they didn't need Gretzky to win those Cups? Because if we're using that logic, does that mean since Montreal won the Cup two years after Jean Beliveau retired, that Beliveau wasn't valuable to them? Of course not.

Agreed 100% reckoning, Gretzky was obviously valuable to the Oilers, as a matter of fact, clearly their most valuable player. I was just replying to:

Ogopogo:
Please explain how the Bruins could have possibly not won the 1968,69,71,73,74 and75 Stanley Cups. The Bruins faced teams that didn't even have Gretzky on them but the mighty Orr could not lead his team to victory. Perhaps Orr isn't the god you suggest?

Just showing the knife cuts both ways.