Orr Vs Gretzky

[Stephen]

Identify exactly how the game has changed since Wayne Gretzky retired please.
Edit: that is not what you said so please identify what has changed in the 30 years span you said things have changed.

-Innovations in goaltending including butterfly and positional goaltending, paddle down techniques, replacing stand up goaltending. This in concert with better equipment has made it much more difficult to score, taking away large portions of the net, especially down low.

-Incorporation of the freer flowing European style game into the traditional North American game, which was about back and forth movement with more or less rigid lanes.

-Neutral zone trap, left wing lock and other strategic defensive implements that place an emphasis on not getting scored on, suffocating the free flow out of the game, clogging up scoring lanes and vulnerable locations on the ice, limiting rush opportunities and turnovers.

-Bigger, better conditioned, better trained players who hit harder, can skate better and maintain body position better than players did a generation ago. The fact that you have kids going to power skating lessons today improves the base skills of all NHLers, making it harder for someone to find holes to exploit on the attack.

 

[Trottier]

Just to add to this, one thing thats funny on this site is how people base their opinions on hearsay. I asked the goofball Gretzky hater from this site (we all know who he is, no need to name him) how aften he saw Gretzky play in his heyday. He said he was lucky to get more than a couple western conference games a month where he lived (out east). And yet he knows all about how he inflated his stats and was protected by bodyguards...

Orr was great. Or so I am told. I never saw him play. Gretzky was great. I saw him play tonnes growing up in the Edmonton area on locallly televised games (on CTV and ITV I think). Lemiuex was great. I rarely saw him play though, except for the rare regular season Hockey Night in Canada broadcast and playoffs.

Thats why I'm suprised why people argue to passionatly against players. I know for a fact Gretzky was amazing. I saw him play many times. I cant really compare him to Orr or Lemiuex though, since I only have hightlights and few-and-far-between memories. To say one is better is an argument that will never be solved, since its impossible. At least this way, their memories stay active. I just wish it could be done without the negatives that always arise in these threads.

As said above, Bobby Orr was great. Wayne Gretzky was great.

...And, likewise, IMO, Sidney Crosby is rapidly becoming worthy of being labeled "great" (or at least, "truly special"). The beat goes on, and thankfully many fans just sit back and enjoy the privilege of watching it unfold.

Your line about: "Thats why I'm suprised why people argue too passionately against players." cuts right to the heart of the matter, IMO. Especially when it comes to icons. Call me silly or whatever, but you'll never hear this fan utter a cross word about #'s 4, 66, or 99. They are the best, to date, in my lifetime and they earned that respect. One can have their preference, but how do you even begin to knock any of these guys' ridiculous personal and team accomplishments and unparalleled level of play?

Yet, some try, with regularity.

Likewise, I'm with you 100% on this: I couldn't even start to discuss a player I never saw, and saw repeatedly. When someone talks about Eddie Shore or Doug Harvey, etc., I'm all ears and have zip to contribute. I'm not suggesting that one cannot/should not voice their opinion about a player before their time, however, let's at least all agree that a conclusion based solely upon a highlight video and/or statistics, without any first-hand observation, is dubious. Likewise, first-hand observation, in itself, is not necessarily "indisputable evidence," but it has to make up part of the picture, IMO.

Otherwise, you are reduced to ruminating about 5 Gretzkys v. 5 Orrs.

Hey, strong passions and friendly debates about players is the M.O. of great fans, so I'm not discouraging it. The one peeve I do have, however, is the casualness that a few have in demeaning greats of the past. Try as I might, I never recall any conversations as a kid growing up in the late 70s where we mocked the players of the 50s, and 60s and earlier times. No badmouthing the quality of play during the Rockets' time, or saying how "weak" goaltenders were when Gordie Howe was in his prime, etc. Frankly, we revered them, and wanted to learn more about them. Doesn't seem to be the case as much any more, if HF is any indication. Easier to just neatly place all former players in the same bucket of "The game was inferior when they were playing!".

So it goes....

 

[BNHL]

This is about Gretzky and Orr with a little bit of Mario tossed in.
What you are saying has nothing to do with what that.

The point being that Gretzky was not physical but his team was and his team (Oilers)won.Orr was physical as was his team and his team won. People (including myself) believe that these physical attributes are one characteristic that Gretzky lacked that brings him down a notch.The argument was that he did not need to be physical in his situation and that was proven as the team provided that element. You'll have to go back 100 posts and start reading to see where the physical quality argument relevance lies.Did you read the post I was responding to?

 

[BNHL]

...And, likewise, IMO, Sidney Crosby is rapidly becoming worthy of being labeled "great" (or at least, "truly special"). The beat goes on, and thankfully many fans just sit back and enjoy the privilege of watching it unfold.

Your line about: "Thats why I'm suprised why people argue too passionately against players." cuts right to the heart of the matter, IMO. Especially when it comes to icons. Call me silly or whatever, but you'll never hear this fan utter a cross word about #'s 4, 66, or 99. They are the best, to date, in my lifetime and they earned that respect. One can have their preference, but how do you even begin to knock any of these guys' ridiculous personal and team accomplishments and unparalleled level of play?

Yet, some try, with regularity.

Likewise, I'm with you 100% on this: I couldn't even start to discuss a player I never saw, and saw repeatedly. When someone talks about Eddie Shore or Doug Harvey, etc., I'm all ears and have zip to contribute. I'm not suggesting that one cannot/should not voice their opinion about a player before their time, however, let's at least all agree that a conclusion based solely upon a highlight video and/or statistics, without any first-hand observation, is dubious. Likewise, first-hand observation, in itself, is not necessarily "indisputable evidence," but it has to make up part of the picture, IMO.

Otherwise, you are reduced to ruminating about 5 Gretzkys v. 5 Orrs.

Hey, strong passions and friendly debates about players is the M.O. of great fans, so I'm not discouraging it. The one peeve I do have, however, is the causalness that a few have in demeaning greats of the past. Try as I might, I never recall any conversations as a kid growing up in the late 70s where we mocked the players of the 50s, and 60s and earlier times. No badmouthing the quality of play during the Rockets' time, or saying how "weak" goaltenders were when Gordie Howe was in his prime, etc. Frankly, we revered them, and wanted to learn more about them. Doesn't seem to be the case as much any more, if HF is any indication. Easier to just neatly place all former players in the same bucket of "The game was inferior when they were playing!".

So it goes....

It's really premature but it sure looks like Crosby could be Gretzky with size and attitude.I'm liking his style better now!

 

[pappyline]

Are you serious? Goaltending equipment? Heavy use of the trap across the board? Butterfly goaltending being used by basically all goalies instead of the flawed stand up style? Guess what all of those things have done. Cut down on what?

A very good season indeed. But a far cry from the 200+ point seasons he had in the 80's. Those seasons very likely would not happen now or even in the 90's for that matter. Face it, the game changed drastically in a pretty short amount of time there.

No, I was joking. Any fool can can see that things were pretty 'primitive" in 1989 but have "evolved" into the great game we see today.

 

[Ogopogo*]

No, I said that if we had two equal teams, add Orr to one, Gretzky to the other, the team with Orr would win.

Why is it that you continously resort to insults? You also continuously argue points that I never made, trying to put words in my mouth. Both of these are the last resort of someone who knows they lost the debate.

Lost the debate?

You haven't even responded to this:

In case you hadn't noticed, Gretzky led teams that won plenty. Gretzky did more to make his team a winner than any player in the history of the NHL.

Orr played what? 10 seasons?

In Gretzky's first decade he won 9 Hart Trophies as MVP. Orr won 3.

Gretzky led his team to 4 Stanley Cup victories. Orr won 2.

Gretzky was the best forward in the game, Orr was the best defenseman during his time. Let's call that one a wash.


Now, this is simple, maybe too simple for some. Orr played defense. The primary responsibility of a defenseman is to defend. Orr defended because that was his job.

The primary responsibility of a forward is to score. If you cannot score then you might be a grinder or be defensive but, the most valuable forwards score. Gretzky scored.

So, Orr played an "all around" game because his position dictated that he must. Gretzky was the greatest scorer in the history of the game so he did what his position allowed him to do.

Gretzky was far greater offensively than Orr. "But Orr was a defenseman..." I hear already. Yes but that is EXACTLY the same argument you should make when you say Orr was a "complete" player. Gretzky was a forward; he was paid to score and score often. End of argument.

If you want to call it a tie, go ahead. The fact is, Gretzky's amazing offense more than made up for any lack of defense. In case you never saw him play, get ESPN Classic Canada or NHL Network and see for yourself. Gretzky was very responsible and played decent defense. Hell, he was on the Oilers first PK unit!

Orr's defensive abilities made up for his lack of offense. Orr wasn't even the best offensive player of his era: Esposito, Mikita, Hull... Oh wait, there it is again "But Orr was a defense....." Save it. We dealt with that one.

Calling Orr 4X the player Gretzky was is misunderstanding and foolishness. Call it a tie if you wish or either one by a nose hair if you want. Based on the career accomplishements, I have Gretzky ahead by a decent margin. Injuries suck but, what can ya do?

 

[Ogopogo*]

Oh if hockey were that simple.
You do understand there are intangibles in the game don't you?
A great hit or a fight can completely turn a game around.
Sounds to me like women's hockey is what you're looking for.

Why waste your best player's talent on that stuff? If I took the time to do the research, I promise you that less goals are scored by the Calgary Flames with Iginla in the box for fighting than when he is on the ice.

Let the Zach Stortinis of the world try to create momentum with a hit or a fight. If a player is truly talented offensvely, you are wasting their talents and HURTING YOUR TEAM sending them to battle it out physically.

Yes, Don Cherry and many other of his disciples think it is cool to mix it up but, really, what is the value? I suggest a team is much better off with a less talented guy playing this role.

 

[BNHL]

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/leagues/seasons/teams/0000321978.html


One of my favorite Bruin teams where the team was very physical,won 51 games and O'Reilly,Jonathan,Cashman,Schmautz,Park had over 20 goals flanking Ratelle,McNab and Middleton with over 20 goals and John Wensink had 16. Just an example of heart, physical sacrifice and desire resulting in goals and wins for this Don Cherry led club. Bobby was now gone.

 

[Stonefly]

Why waste your best player's talent on that stuff? If I took the time to do the research, I promise you that less goals are scored by the Calgary Flames with Iginla in the box for fighting than when he is on the ice.

Let the Zach Stortinis of the world try to create momentum with a hit or a fight. If a player is truly talented offensvely, you are wasting their talents and HURTING YOUR TEAM sending them to battle it out physically.

Yes, Don Cherry and many other of his disciples think it is cool to mix it up but, really, what is the value? I suggest a team is much better off with a less talented guy playing this role.

Zach Stortini wouldn't make any team of mine. I wouldn't waste the roster spot for someone like that. You don't need to when you have guys who can do it all. But that just leads to another debate about the watered down league. It's the Sather way.

And why do you constantly bring up Don Cherry?

Oh by the way, have you had anyone banned from here because you didn't agree with what they said lately? You and King Donair?

 

[Ogopogo*]

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/leagues/seasons/teams/0000321978.html


One of my favorite Bruin teams where the team was very physical,won 51 games and O'Reilly,Jonathan,Cashman,Schmautz,Park had over 20 goals flanking Ratelle,McNab and Middleton with over 20 goals and John Wensink had 16. Just an example of heart, physical sacrifice and desire resulting in goals and wins for this Don Cherry led club. Bobby was now gone.

That is true but, the team didn't win a cup. Do you think they would have been even better if Ratelle, McNab and Middleton roughed it up? I think they would have won less games. They had players to play that role.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Zach Stortini wouldn't make any team of mine. I wouldn't waste the roster spot for someone like that. You don't need to when you have guys who can do it all. But that just leads to another debate about the watered down league. It's the Sather way.

Yes, dumb old Sather. What does he know? He only won 5 cups in 7 years doing it his way. Would have been much smarter to send in Gretzky to fight and Kurri to be an agitator.

MUCH smarter to not require a Stortini-type and fill that position with Brandon Bochenski or Petr Tenkrat.

And why do you constantly bring up Don Cherry?

Because, you echo his very sentiments about how hockey should be played. How many cups did Cherry win as a coach?

Oh by the way, have you had anyone banned from here because you didn't agree with what they said lately? You and King Donair?

LOL. The admins ban who deserves it. Neither BBB nor I have any input into that process. There is a difference between intelligent debate and posting foolishness for the sole purpose of causing trouble.

 

[TheSniper26]

No, I was joking. Any fool can can see that things were pretty 'primitive" in 1989 but have "evolved" into the great game we see today.

Wow, internet sarcasm. That's a fresh take. So did you just decide to ignore the things I listed? Do you think the STATISTICS showing a continuous drop in scoring of the span from the 80's to 90's was just a coincidence? The clear difference in goaltending equipment is just smoke and mirrors? The heavy use of trap systems is a figment of my imagination? Stop ignoring the facts and just admit there's a difference between 80's hockey and today. Everyone else in this discussion, even those on the opposing side of the argument, can at least admit the difference. It's childish not to, to be honest.

 

[BNHL]

That is true but, the team didn't win a cup. Do you think they would have been even better if Ratelle, McNab and Middleton roughed it up? I think they would have won less games. They had players to play that role.

They did not win a cup and Cherry was fired for the infamous too many men on the ice call.I'm agreeing that some players simply cannot play the physical style whether they want to or not.I'm also saying that most great teams can play it any way you want-rough,defensively,run and gun,whatever.That's balance,and I prefer players like Clarke,Trottier,Messier and dare I say,Crosby to Ratelle,McNab etc. Your championship Oilers could play it anyway you like! Anyway,don't want to go too far off topic,but we know where we stand so....

 

[Ogopogo*]

They did not win a cup and Cherry was fired for the infamous too many men on the ice call.I'm agreeing that some players simply cannot play the physical style whether they want to or not.I'm also saying that most great teams can play it any way you want-rough,defensively,run and gun,whatever.That's balance,and I prefer players like Clarke,Trottier,Messier and dare I say,Crosby to Ratelle,McNab etc. Your championship Oilers could play it anyway you like! Anyway,don't want to go too far off topic,but we know where we stand so....

Yes, we definitely prefer a different style. I am more a fan of the Ratelle, Gretzky, Spezza type of player rather than the Clarke, Iginla type.

Thanks for the discussion.

 

[BNHL]

I actually like Spezza a lot and early last year (Hasek was injured) the B's were inquiring about Samsonov/Toivonen (Raycroft) for Spezza.I think it made sense at the time though Samsonov and Toivonen have now regressed at 28 and 22 years young! I guess I gotta include an Orr thingy.In the 70's a Boston Sportswriter contacted Arva Orr (mother Orr) and asked if she would comment on her son,Mrs.Orr replied;"Which one?,I have three." Homegrown humility. BTW,Doug Orr (father) passed away on Friday.

 

[Wooty]

Would it be fair to say that being physical is a "lower" or "less skilled" method to contribute to your team's offense? A higher skilled player has less of a need to be physical.
Wayne Gretzky plays a higher form or higher class of hockey so physical play is not important to him. Perhaps in WG's case, hitting is a waste of time or energy.

Am I explaining myself well? I seemed to have lost the ability to communicate clearly

 

[ilovehockey]

How ofton in a game did Gretzky actually have to play defence.

 

[RUSqueelin*]

It doesn't matter how skilled you are, if you're going into dangerous spots on the ice, i.e. full speed down the centre of the rink, and often, you're going to get filled in in a bad way.

And what do you mean by "these guys didn't play in 1920"? The game has changed a lot in the last thirty years. It was a different era then and there was a different way to play it.

You don't think players ever got hit in the 1970's? Don't get fooled by all the highlight clips you see of Orr rushing down the ice. It was no different back then. Orr got hit lots. The Pat Quinn special to name one of the more famous. How do you think he ruined his knees and ended his career. (If you took all of AO's highlight plays the NHL would look like the no hit league too - of course it looked easy when you cherry pick the highlights.)

I exagerated the 1920's comment to make a point. If Orr was healthy he'd have played well into the 80's. Not too long ago. The same time in which guys like Chelios, Bourque etc played. I can't see why people don't think he'd dominate the game today with his hockey sense and skills which were well above any other players.

 

[RUSqueelin*]

How ofton in a game did Gretzky actually have to play defence.

I'm not one to belittle Gretzky's defensive play. But I watched two Oiler's games from 85 and 86 on the weekend. Man was Wayne ever weak in the corners and on the puck. It's hard to remember those details back then when it was so long ago but it wasn't pretty watching the reruns. Or course, maybe he was just having a couple of off nights.

 

[ilovehockey]

I agree that great players can play in any era, All have to say is Gordie Howe. He played in the NHL in the 40's and he had 40 odd points in the 1980 NHL season at 51.

 

[BNHL]

You don't think players ever got hit in the 1970's? Don't get fooled by all the highlight clips you see of Orr rushing down the ice. It was no different back then. Orr got hit lots. The Pat Quinn special to name one of the more famous. How do you think he ruined his knees and ended his career. (If you took all of AO's highlight plays the NHL would look like the no hit league too - of course it looked easy when you cherry pick the highlights.)

I exagerated the 1920's comment to make a point. If Orr was healthy he'd have played well into the 80's. Not too long ago. The same time in which guys like Chelios, Bourque etc played. I can't see why people don't think he'd dominate the game today with his hockey sense and skills which were well above any other players.

If everyone remained healthy the Bruins were looking at a defense of Orr,Park,Bourque,Kluzak(many thought would be a Larry Robinson type) and Michael Thelven (poor man's Borje Salming).

 

[Stonefly]

Yes, dumb old Sather. What does he know? He only won 5 cups in 7 years doing it his way. Would have been much smarter to send in Gretzky to fight and Kurri to be an agitator.



MUCH smarter to not require a Stortini-type and fill that position with Brandon Bochenski or Petr Tenkrat.




Because, you echo his very sentiments about how hockey should be played. How many cups did Cherry win as a coach?




LOL. The admins ban who deserves it. Neither BBB nor I have any input into that process. There is a difference between intelligent debate and posting foolishness for the sole purpose of causing trouble.

Oh don't get me wrong. Sather is a sharp man. He orchestrated everything to enable Gretzky to do what he did. He assembled what is quite possibly the most offensive team ever. He had great success . It's just not the style I prefer. Thanks for the tip about your sarcasm. It was so subtle i may not have caught it.

Well if they have a complete game then that would make them a little more valuable to me than a guy like Semenko who has only one purpose.

Clearly you missed my post on this earlier when you made the same comment or you'd know what I think of him. No cups? Him and how many other coaches?

Funny how it seems you know exactly what I'm referring to though.
Not involved? Somebody get me a shovel.

 

[Stonefly]

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.

A misnomer? No lad, that was sarcasm.

 

[revolverjgw]

How ofton in a game did Gretzky actually have to play defence.

Go watch the '88 finals, Wayne was very much involved without the puck.

 

[alanschu]

and to those that have seen both numerous times?

THen I'd wager the one that was seen first would be the preferred one, since you'd have to compare the second to the first.