Orr Vs Gretzky

[slade]

Crosby's not the first person to be considered "The Next One." Keep predicting it, and sooner or later you're going to get it right.

wasnt it basically him and lindros?

youd be crazy to deny sids skills.

 

[ilovehockey]

Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr, Lindros, Crosby have been the the one's or the next ones before the came into the league, Lindros was the only one that didn't live up to the hype. Crosby's should be if keeps on whats he's doing. So when someone is called the next one, odds are he'll be that good.

 

[alanschu]

wasnt it basically him and lindros?

youd be crazy to deny sids skills.

I don't deny Sid's skills. I hope he is "the next one" since I was too young to appreciate Gretzky's dominance.


I suppose "The Next One" might be a bit extreme. But people were rolling over in their seats when Daigle scored more points than Lemieux did in his QMJHL rookie season.

 

[quasi1981]

lol@ the 5 Gretzky's vs 5 Orr's argument. Hockey is not that simple. It is like saying Shaq is better than Nash at basketball since 5 Shaq's could beat 5 Steve Nash's even though they have completely different games and it is like comparing apples to oranges. Gretzky was the best offensive player to ever play the game and the NHL record book is basically Gretzky's name over and over again. I wont say either is better since you cant compare a d-man to a forward, just that you cant definitively say Orr is a better player.

That was the beauty of Bobby Orr. He was the player who could play any position he played as an allstar, even goalie if he had chosen to. He was a forward, I believe a center, and his Dad wanted him to play up front. His coach from 11 - 12 was Bucko McDonald, and ex NHL defensemen who thought Orr's charging up ice with the puck would be great for him as a defenseman, so he taught Bobby to play defense, and add some offensive punch with all his other skills. So Orr was a great offensive player first, who later learned to play defense.

Now, what was said by Jean Beliveau of the Canadians way back when was that if you played Orr on all 5 positions, he would be truly unbeatable. He would have been the greatest center, yes Wayne, if he had played Center. He was that good. At any of the 5 positions he would have been 1st team all pro, period. He could do anything, I mean anything on the ice, and when he brought the puck up the ice from behind his own net down the right side, then cross the blue line and around the back of the net, he, at least when he comes out to mid ice is a center all the way till he comes back to the point. He would have been able to "hang" behind the net like the G one, and would have been so quick, so elusive, a great shot, no matter what type, and his passing ability, his skating, shot selections, ability to see the everything at any position, simply because he was always "out" of position, playing everywhere, with purpose. he knew where he was at all times. At full speed, which was so much faster thatn anyone ever, even after 5 knee operations he was still the best skater, and one knee surgery back then was worse than 10 now in the way they tore the whole muscle to get to it.

As a defenseman, he was the the 4th leading scorer of all time, 4th to Gretzky and Lemieux. Here is a guy who played Defense, and he scored 3/4 as many points per game as the Great One in a time they scored far less points. He had to play all over the place and Gretzky could hang around center ice. Come on! If Orr played at the same time, played center, he would have been easily as effective as Wayne. He would be an allstar and all pro no matter where he was, the left or right wing, in the slot out front of the net, on either side as a defensemen, a great goalie whenever Cheever's was out of position.

That is why they say he could play all 5 positions as an allstar at each of them. He made all the players then and today appear as amateurs. He was from another realm, the greatest athlete in his sport, at least in the 4 major sports of Baseball, football, basketball, and hockey that I have ever seen. He was all about the team, and no ego on even his greatest stat nights.

And as any great coach would say and here is to you Wayne and all your fans who believe that scoring stats are all that matters":

Statistics are for losers!!

 

[quasi1981]

These kind of statements destroy your credibility and tarnish Orr's image.

Most people call the player they watched growing up, the greatest ever. Older folks say it's Howe, you say Orr, I say Gretzky, some say Lemieux. It depends when you were born for most people.

Those four are the four greatest of all time, virtually everyone says that. But to say that nobody's been close to Orr is simply foolishness. How would that explain Orr winning 3 Hart Trophies in his 9 full NHL seasons? In Gretzky's first 9 seasons he won 8 Hart trophies.

I am not trying to bash Orr at all, it is just foolish to make comments like the one you made above.

Well my friend, in any sport, MVPs usually go to players with great stats. Orr's were every bit as good as Gretsky's. He still scored less, had many injuries so played less games. Peyton Manning has won more of them than any in NFL history and he is maybe the biggest choke ever in the playoffs.

Realize also that if Orr played 20 seasons we would not be having this chat, and if Wayne only played 8 injury riddled seasons he wouldn't even be in the conversation.

Every person here who saw both play virtually say Orr was the best ever, so those of us who saw only one of them play has no real argument. Orr did something that Gret never could ever do and that was to truly revolutionize the game of hockey, and to say that defensemen who scored well under a point a game were great offensive defensemen is ridiculous. Orr was a great offensive player way before he ever played D. He was a natural, and he learned to play D and became the best offensive "and" defensive player ever, and at either end he was the best, not just that he was a great overall player. He would have been in the running for best player ever just by being on the ice, and the position he played had nothing to do with it. His presence made him the best, where Gretzky was simply a great offensive force only, and was simply a specialist. Orr was not only the best player, but no matter where he was on the ice, no matter the situation, score or anything else, he was always the best on the ice.

As Terry Crisp said when he played against him:

The puck is behind the Bruin net, he's there, the puck is coming out from behind the net and coming out of the zone, he's there, the puck is zipping around with passes and great skating, he's there, it crosses the blue line into their offensive end, he's there, the puck is behind the goal, he's there, it goes back to the point, he's there etc, etc, etc

Good with your rebuttal!!

 

[greatgazoo]

Orr vs Gretzky is like comparing John Bonham to Jimi Hendrix.

Different positions. You can't compare them.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Orr vs Gretzky is like comparing John Bonham to Jimi Hendrix.

Different positions. You can't compare them.

finally some sense in the matter

 

[greatgazoo]

finally some sense in the matter

Different eras as well.

Watch a game from the 70's and you'll see players out there for 90 second-2 minute shifts. In the 80's, you'll see 1 minute-90 second shifts.

In the 1990's. Shifts got even shorter. Today, we're lucky to see players on the ice for 45 seconds per shift!

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

The 5 Orrs vs. 5 Gretzky argument always struck me as hilarious.

Back in the real world, you pick the player who you could add to an actual realistic hockey team (not one made of clones) that would give that team the best chance of winning.

 

[canucks4ever]

You must be young.

How do you win a hockey game? Do they count the most blocked shots? How about the most hits? Actually, IIRC, it is the most goals scored.

So, for a forward, the most important aspect of hockey is goals scored. If you aren't good enough to score then try to do something else that will keep you in the league - like blocking shots or grinding. If you are the best player in the world at the most important aspect of the game, why on earth would you waste your time and talent by dropping the gloves.

People such as yourself are completely confused about the game. Don Cherry put in in your head that it is better to grind than score. Kirk Muller is superior to Sidney Crosby. Know what? Cherry is wrong. Cherry couldn't score so he had to be a grinder and he despises great talent because players with talent have it "easier" than did Cherry.

You have completely missed the point and I think that you will never get it. That is OK, you are entitled to live in your world of make believe.

The teams with the best defense are the ones that usually win stanley cups. You act like anyone can be an elite defender. I'm sure you could teach any grinder to play defense like doug harvey.

There is another stat called plus/minus, you know it determines how many goals were scored for when you were on the ice. Gretzky has a season where he put up 130 points and had a negative 25, so those points he racked up were basically meaningless if the other team was scoring more with him on the ice.

Bobby Orr put up a +124, that is better than any season wayne ever pulled. 139 points in 1971 is like 170 points in the 80's.

The red wings won thier cups because of thier defense, without denis potvin the islanders wouldn;t win any cups either, the defensemen is always the glue to the team. He's not on the blueline because he needs to keep a job, thats the worst logic i have ever heard.

Bobby Orr was getting mvp votes from 1967-1969, well before he put up those monster offensive seasons. He lead the league in plus minus in 1968 and 1969, clearly his presence on the ice was the greatest. Hell phil esposito scored twice as many points as orr in 68 and 69, yet orr's plus minus was still better, but o wait to you defense is just for losers that can't score.

 

[greatgazoo]

Let's not forget that Orr had Phil Esposito taking 2 minute shifts to feed the puck to in the slot against such high calibre clubs as the California Golden Seals.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Let's not forget that Orr had Phil Esposito taking 2 minute shifts to feed the puck to in the slot against such high calibre clubs as the California Golden Seals.

This is actually a good point.

There was a huge disparity of talent in NHL during Orr's prime years. The top teams during that time were far and away better than the average and below average teams.

For example in 1971 the Bruins scored 100 more goals as a team than the #2 offensive team.

Not to take away from Orr because obviously he would be outstanding in any era but this is just more variation that makes it so hard to compare players of different times.

 

[shazariahl]

The teams with the best defense are the ones that usually win stanley cups. You act like anyone can be an elite defender. I'm sure you could teach any grinder to play defense like doug harvey.

There is another stat called plus/minus, you know it determines how many goals were scored for when you were on the ice. Gretzky has a season where he put up 130 points and had a negative 25, so those points he racked up were basically meaningless if the other team was scoring more with him on the ice.

Bobby Orr put up a +124, that is better than any season wayne ever pulled. 139 points in 1971 is like 170 points in the 80's.

The red wings won thier cups because of thier defense, without denis potvin the islanders wouldn;t win any cups either, the defensemen is always the glue to the team. He's not on the blueline because he needs to keep a job, thats the worst logic i have ever heard.

Bobby Orr was getting mvp votes from 1967-1969, well before he put up those monster offensive seasons. He lead the league in plus minus in 1968 and 1969, clearly his presence on the ice was the greatest. Hell phil esposito scored twice as many points as orr in 68 and 69, yet orr's plus minus was still better, but o wait to you defense is just for losers that can't score.

+/- is a rather meaningless stat, IMO. If you're on a good team, you have a good +/-. To complain about Gretzky's +/- is also strange, since he has the highest of any forward ever (both single season and career). If +/- mean you were meaningful as a defensive measurement, that would mean Gretzky was the greatest defensive forward of all time, while also having every offensive record imaginable.

And for the record, while most teams win championships with defense, the Oilers did not. They simply outscored their foes and beat them down with most potent attack ever seen in the NHL.

 

[Rhiessan71]

+/- is a rather meaningless stat, IMO. If you're on a good team, you have a good +/-. To complain about Gretzky's +/- is also strange, since he has the highest of any forward ever (both single season and career). If +/- mean you were meaningful as a defensive measurement, that would mean Gretzky was the greatest defensive forward of all time, while also having every offensive record imaginable.

....and why the adjusted +/- thread is so insightful in this regard especially when it shows how when Orr was on the ice, the Bruins scored twice as much in relation to goals allowed.

Orr off the ice
Bruins scored 11 goals for every 10 allowed

Orr on the ice
Bruins scored 22 goals for every 10 allowed.

Absolutely ridiculous domination and no other player is even within sniffing distance of that kind of ratio.

Gretzky for example, despite all those points only clocks in around 14-10

 

[BenchBrawl]

I'm not a big Gretzky fan and think Orr and Lemieux were better players but Wayne destroyed the league for too long not to put him 1st of all-time.

 

[BraveCanadian]

....and why the adjusted +/- thread is so insightful in this regard especially when it shows how when Orr was on the ice, the Bruins scored twice as much in relation to goals allowed.

Orr off the ice
Bruins scored 11 goals for every 10 allowed

Orr on the ice
Bruins scored 22 goals for every 10 allowed.

Absolutely ridiculous domination and no other player is even within sniffing distance of that kind of ratio.

Gretzky for example, despite all those points only clocks in around 14-10

How is the adjustment done?

And how is an adjustment of a pretty mediocre stat better than the mediocre stat? If the basis is junk the derivative sort of has to be as well..

Not that Orr wasn't amazing but I have a hard time believing that Gretzky being in on over 200 goals in a season allows Orr to somehow be 50% better in goal differential.

Or are we penalizing Gretzky for actually playing a whole career here?

 

[Rhiessan71]

How is the adjustment done?

And how is an adjustment of a pretty mediocre stat better than the mediocre stat? If the basis is junk the derivative sort of has to be as well..

Not that Orr wasn't amazing but I have a hard time believing that Gretzky being in on over 200 goals in a season allows Orr to somehow be 50% better in goal differential.

Or are we penalizing Gretzky for actually playing a whole career here?

Nope, there's different break downs in that thread as well like first 10 seasons only ect ect.
Also, I'm not even strictly going by the adjusted +/-.
The R-on and R-off stats are the most telling for me as it sets a baseline determined by how good of a team they were on.

Again for example, Gretzky in his first 10 years putting up those monstrous years....
Without Gretzky on the ice
Oilers scored 11 goals for every 10 against

With Gretzky on the ice
Oilers scored 15.4 goals for every 10 against

Rk | Years | Player | Seasons | $F/G | $A/G | R-ON | R-OFF | XEV+/- | EV+/- | AEV+/- | /Season | PP% | SH%
1 | 68-76 | Bobby Orr | 7.4 | 1.84 | 0.85 | 2.18 | 1.10 | 51 | 600 | 549 | 75 | 98% | 64%
2 | 80-89 | Wayne Gretzky | 9.7 | 1.67 | 1.08 | 1.54 | 1.10 | 66 | 463 | 397 | 41 | 86% | 37%
3 | 93-02 | Eric Lindros | 7.2 | 1.39 | 0.86 | 1.62 | 0.95 | -20 | 312 | 332 | 46 | 74% | 15%
4 | 91-00 | Jaromir Jagr | 9.3 | 1.31 | 0.92 | 1.43 | 0.95 | -26 | 301 | 327 | 35 | 61% | 10%
5 | 76-85 | Bryan Trottier | 9.5 | 1.10 | 0.58 | 1.91 | 1.23 | 87 | 406 | 319 | 34 | 67% | 21%
6 | 80-89 | Ray Bourque | 9.0 | 1.18 | 0.75 | 1.57 | 0.99 | -3 | 314 | 317 | 35 | 83% | 51%
7 | 78-87 | Mike Bossy | 9.4 | 1.08 | 0.60 | 1.80 | 1.17 | 67 | 370 | 302 | 32 | 75% | 5%
8 | 80-89 | Mark Howe | 8.8 | 1.17 | 0.80 | 1.46 | 0.94 | -28 | 266 | 293 | 33 | 64% | 44%
9 | 70-79 | Bobby Clarke | 9.8 | 0.91 | 0.49 | 1.87 | 1.14 | 49 | 341 | 292 | 30 | 66% | 42%
10 | 72-81 | Guy Lafleur | 9.2 | 1.25 | 0.62 | 2.01 | 1.50 | 185 | 473 | 289 | 31 | 74% | 5%

Stats Glossary
Seasons: Season Fractions. 1.00 is a full season. I prefer it to games played because it gives a 48 game season, a 74 game season, an 80 game season or an 82 game season the same weight.
$ESGF: Even-strength goals for, normalized to a 200 ESG scoring environment and with estimated SH goals removed.
$ESGA: Even-strength goals against, normalized to a 200 ESG scoring environment and with estimated SH goals removed.
R-ON: Even strength GF/GA ratio when the player is on the ice.
R-OFF: Even-strength GF/GA ratio when the player is off the ice.
XEV+/-: Expected even-strength plus-minus, which is an estimate of the plus-minus that an average player would post with the same teammates. Based on R-OFF.
EV+/-: Even –strength plus-minus, which is simply plus-minus with estimated shorthanded goals removed and normalized to a 200 ESG environment.
AEV+/-: Adjusted even-strength plus-minus, which is even-strength plus-minus minus expected even-strength plus-minus. This is the final number.

(All credit to Overpass http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=591548 )

 

[BraveCanadian]

I have no problem with Orr beating Gretzky out in this but that difference is surprising.

Gretzky during that time averaged what.. 180 points a season? And yet Orr was on the ice for more goals for / game??

Sounds to me like Orr was getting the double advantage of being on a team that was lapping the competition while in a supposedly "low scoring era" to me..

 

[Rhiessan71]

I have no problem with Orr beating Gretzky out in this but that difference is surprising.

Gretzky during that time averaged what.. 180 points a season? And yet Orr was on the ice for more goals for / game??

Sounds to me like Orr was getting the double advantage of being on a team that was lapping the competition while in a supposedly "low scoring era" to me..

Yeah but Brave, look at it, when Orr wasn't on the ice the Bruins were only scoring 11 goals for every 10 against and if what you say was true then Espo would be much, much better than 1.26 R-on to 1.22 R-off.

The reality is that Orr really was that good and why I say yes, Gretzky dominated offensively but Orr dominated period.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Yeah but Brave, look at it, when Orr wasn't on the ice the Bruins were only scoring 11 goals for every 10 against and if what you say was true then Espo would be much, much better than 1.26 R-on to 1.22 R-off.

The reality is that Orr really was that good!

I'm not debating that Orr was amazing but..

Actually Espo being that much worse in both categories makes me question the whole thing that much more.. considering they played for the same overpowered team that is a shocking difference.

Obviously being a dman Orr would play more minutes than Espo so I could see there being a difference but that is a gigantic difference when you have to think that they would both be on the ice during most possible scoring situations (offensive zone faceoffs for example).

How could Espo be running basically even on a team that was routinely scoring 100+ goals more than they gave up and on which he was usually the highest scorer?

 

[Rhiessan71]

I'm not debating that Orr was amazing but..

Actually Espo being that much worse in both categories makes me question the whole thing that much more.. considering they played for the same overpowered team that is a shocking difference.

Obviously being a dman Orr would play more minutes than Espo so I could see there being a difference but that is a gigantic difference when you have to think that they would both be on the ice during most possible scoring situations (offensive zone faceoffs for example).

How could Espo be running basically even on a team that was routinely scoring 100+ goals more than they gave up and on which he was usually the highest scorer?

That was for Espo's career though, something I forgot to add.
I don't have the numbers for him just with the Bruins.
I'll send Overpass a PM and see if he'll run 'em for me.

 

[BraveCanadian]

That was for Espo's career though, something I forgot to add.
I don't have the numbers for him just with the Bruins.
I'll send Overpass a PM and see if he'll run 'em for me.

Ohhh ok gotcha.. that makes more sense then..

Still as soon as I see adjusted all I think is "most likely overlooking many things"

Although they are still interesting to look at and see the differences, I just take em with a grain of salt.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Ohhh ok gotcha.. that makes more sense then..

Still as soon as I see adjusted all I think is "most likely overlooking many things"

Although they are still interesting to look at and see the differences, I just take em with a grain of salt.

I understand what you're saying, as you know, I'm not the biggest fan of "adjusted" stats either and why I pointed out the R-on/R-off stats in the formula.
I simply don't think you can dismiss something that actually shows how good/bad a team is with and without said player.

Back to Espo though, with the Bruins during Orr's time there.
Espo hit +71 once, cleared +50 three times, +28 once and was in the teens the other 3 years.
The 2 most glaring years was 72/73 and 74/75.
72/73 Espo 130 points +16, Orr 101 points +56 (only 63 games)
74/75 Espo 127 points +18, Orr 135 points +80

In any of those years, the smallest gap between them in +/- was Orr being +30 ahead to as much as almost +60.

So even if what you say were true and they were benefiting from a strong team, Orr is still on quite another level.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I understand what you're saying, as you know, I'm not the biggest fan of "adjusted" stats either and why I pointed out the R-on/R-off stats in the formula.
I simply don't think you can dismiss something that actually shows how good/bad a team is with and without said player.

Back to Espo though, with the Bruins during Orr's time there.
Espo hit +71 once, cleared +50 three times, +28 once and was in the teens the other 3 years.
The 2 most glaring years was 72/73 and 74/75.
72/73 Espo 130 points +16, Orr 101 points +56 (only 63 games)
74/75 Espo 127 points +18, Orr 135 points +80

In any of those years, the smallest gap between them in +/- was Orr being +30 ahead to as much as almost +60.

So even if what you say were true and they were benefiting from a strong team, Orr is still on quite another level.

Agreed that is a big difference for two guys that would play a lot together. Orr was picking up a lot of other goals playing with the other forward lines that is for sure..

The Bruins had a ton of depth then too so I suppose that makes sense. Orr still had lots of outlets while playing those extra minutes.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Agreed that is a big difference for two guys that would play a lot together. Orr was picking up a lot of other goals playing with the other forward lines that is for sure..

The Bruins had a ton of depth then too so I suppose that makes sense. Orr still had lots of outlets while playing those extra minutes.

Johnny Bucyk almost never played with Esposito at even strength and he said in his legends of hockey interview that one of the reasons he scored so many goals was Bobby Orr. So Orr definitely played a significant amount without Espo.

And Orr's famous flying threw the air goal was off a pass by Derek Sanderson, who didn't play with Bucyk or Espo, instead centering the third line.

So Orr definitely played with everyone.

Since I'm blabbering, the Bruins top 3 lines were:

Wayne Cashman - Phil Esposito - Ken Hodge
Johnny Bucyk - Fred Stanfield - John "Pie" McKenzie
Don Marcotte - Derek Sanderson - Ed Westfall

That is a ridiculously stacked group of forwards.

Honestly, I think that leads to one big advantage Orr had over Espo in terms of adjusted plus/minus. When Esposito wasn't on the ice, the Bruins still had 2 very good forward lines waiting behind him. When Bobby Orr wasn't on the ice, the Bruins had a fairly mediocre group of defensemen to take his place.