Orr Vs Gretzky

[Rhiessan71]

fare enough Reiss. its a great argument. But don't tell me its Orr by a landsland. Was Orr better all round? Probably, but Howe and Messier were better than Orr in that catagory.

If I'm the coach and I want a goal scored, there is only one player I want and its 99. His job was to make goals happen and He was, without a doubt, the most likely player to produce a goal on a given shift. The man made goals happen, and isn't that really essence of the game?

Gretzky was more prolific at his job than anyone else at their's. And there are no adjusted +/- stats that anyone can show me to convince me otherwise.

I would never say Orr in a landslide, I would say Orr gets my vote and it's so close you could barely fit the head of a pin between them.

I will take issue in you saying Howe and Messier were better all around though...not a chance.
Orr was THE most complete hockey player in the history of the game imo.

Why would you bother to mention that Orr has 100 assists in a season? Gretzky did it eleven times. The only other player who did it was Mario Lemieux.

This doesn't take anything away from Orr because 100 assists is an incredible feat, especially for a defenseman, but come on -- eleven times. That's incredible.

Why would I mention it? Why wouldn't I? He's the only other player to do it besides 99 and 66 and what's more...he did it first AND as a freakin Dman which makes it even more ridiculous heh.


...and I've always maintained that Gretzky was the best ever on the offensive side of the ice. Orr is just the best ever on the whole ice.

 

[popculturereference]

Why would I mention it? Why wouldn't I? He's the only other player to do it besides 99 and 66 and what's more...he did it first AND as a freakin Dman which makes it even more ridiculous heh.


...and I've always maintained that Gretzky was the best ever on the offensive side of the ice. Orr is just the best ever on the whole ice.

Sorry, it's been a long day. And, to top it off, I just got hit with the need to fall asleep. However, my thought is that Orr's 100-assist, while groundbreaking, pales in comparison to Gretzky's eleven 100-assist seasons. But, I do kind of see why you mentioned it.

With that said, instead of playing hypotheticals of 5 Gretzkys vs. 5 Orrs as they did earlier in the thread, is there a way that I could get both players to play on my team?

 

[finchster]

With that said, instead of playing hypotheticals of 5 Gretzkys vs. 5 Orrs as they did earlier in the thread, is there a way that I could get both players to play on my team?

Maybe, but you would have to play the game shorthanded 3 v 5 to make it fair

 

[Up the Irons]

Rheiss: 'I would never say Orr in a landslide, I would say Orr gets my vote and it's so close you could barely fit the head of a pin between them.'

Roger that. on this, I completely agree.

actually, it is my opinion there are 3 players that stand alone in the history of hockey, because they are the only 3 to take the game to a next level of play, exposure and popularity.

they are Gretzky, Orr and Howie Morenz.

 

[shazariahl]

Exactly what i imagine when comparing players of different positions - one whole team of one guy (playing all positions) against one whole team of the other guy and give them equal goaltending. You're right - this comparison is laughable not because of a huge discrepancy in talent but because the "Gretzky team" would not hit, fight in the corners, clear the crease or stand in there on offense, and you can't give up all that territory and win. In fact, i wonder if a team of Gretzky's could even beat the average NHL team playing an entirely non-physical game? Gretzky may have been the greatest "specialist" ever, but he was too one-dimensional to match up with Orr or even a lot of other players when you think of it this way.

But why would you think of it that way? I'm sure a full team of Messiers could give a full team of Gretzky's a hard time. Same with a full team of Datsyuks or Yzermans. Who cares? None of them were better than Gretzky. What made Gretzky great wasn't playing with 4 clones of himself and a goalie, it was making people like Nichols go from 40 goal scorers to 70. From 100ish point scorers to 150. Would Kurri have ever broken 70 goals without Gretzky? Highly unlikely. Good players to be certain, but they benefitted greatly from Gretzky's playmaking skills.

He led the league in assists 17 times. That's not just coincidence or having good teammates, because he was even doing it as an old man with a herniated back and an arthritic shoulder playing on an aweful Rangers team that couldn't make the playoffs. The 5 player A vs 5 Player B arguement is useless since it completely ignores the reality of the game and is pure speculation regardless. Maybe a team of Gretzkys would put up 250 or 300 points each in a season since they'd have each other as playmakers and snipers. Who knows? No one - because it is pure fantasy and has no value.

 

[Up the Irons]

But why would you think of it that way? I'm sure a full team of Messiers could give a full team of Gretzky's a hard time. Same with a full team of Datsyuks or Yzermans. Who cares? None of them were better than Gretzky. What made Gretzky great wasn't playing with 4 clones of himself and a goalie, it was making people like Nichols go from 40 goal scorers to 70. From 100ish point scorers to 150. Would Kurri have ever broken 70 goals without Gretzky? Highly unlikely. Good players to be certain, but they benefitted greatly from Gretzky's playmaking skills.

He led the league in assists 17 times. That's not just coincidence or having good teammates, because he was even doing it as an old man with a herniated back and an arthritic shoulder playing on an aweful Rangers team that couldn't make the playoffs. The 5 player A vs 5 Player B arguement is useless since it completely ignores the reality of the game and is pure speculation regardless. Maybe a team of Gretzkys would put up 250 or 300 points each in a season since they'd have each other as playmakers and snipers. Who knows? No one - because it is pure fantasy and has no value.

bingo, thankyou. rock on.
Gretzky has the most (there's that word again) Hart trophies which may be his most telling record. the best player the most times.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

I strongly believe the 70s were much more watered down than the 80s and someone like Gretzky would approach 250 Points at his peak.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I strongly believe the 70s were much more watered down than the 80s and someone like Gretzky would approach 250 Points at his peak.

Yeah this has to be kept in mind.. during the 70s there were extreme versions of teams in the "have" and the "have not" that definitely skewed the results a bit.

I've been getting my nose bloodied repeatedly for bringing it up but I think some people are starting to come around to the fact that there were some massive separations between teams then..

Also does anyone know how hockey-reference comes up with the goals for while a player is on the ice?

Did they exhaustively go through the game records or what? A couple of things bug me about them.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I strongly believe the 70s were much more watered down than the 80s and someone like Gretzky would approach 250 Points at his peak.

Unfortunately Gretzky wouldn't of survived.
The early to mid 70's was a different time, seriously, a team would of had to carry 3-4 enforcers just to keep Wayne safe in those days.
Even if you were what would be called "gentlemanly player", they still knew how to protect/stand up for themselves, you had to back then.

Could you imagine Gretzky playing the Broad Street Bullies multiple times a year....I don't like Wayne's odds to be honest and at the very least he would of had many years taken off his career.
IMO, Wayne would of endured more cheap shots in one season back then, then he endured for the entire 80's.

 

[Dark Shadows]

I strongly believe the 70s were much more watered down than the 80s and someone like Gretzky would approach 250 Points at his peak.

More? Yes. Much more? No.

And the other end of stick in this is that the 70's still had many more teams playing a primarily defense based system, making it harder for players to score. Only a few teams a season were giving up 300 goals a season in Orr's Heyday. In the 80's, you were almost always looking at 10-15 teams giving up 300+ goals, and many of them giving up over 350+ goals.

Also, there was more of a "Don't run up the score" mentality from top players and coaches than in the 80's. In the sense that top players would take it easy if the game was well in hand, and coaches would roll their other lines more to rest the top players.

Orr was the kind of player who would take it easy on opposing teams when the score was lopsided. Gretzky, err, well he was not.

 

[BraveCanadian]

More? Yes. Much more? No.

And the other end of stick in this is that the 70's still had many more teams playing a primarily defense based system, making it harder for players to score. Only a few teams a season were giving up 300 goals a season in Orr's Heyday. In the 80's, you were almost always looking at 10-15 teams giving up 300+ goals, and many of them giving up over 350+ goals.

Here we go again.

First of all in Orr's best season (70-71) five out of the 15 teams in did give up 290 goals or more - so much for the defense first mentality.

Secondly.. yes, in fact, the disparity between the highest scoring teams and the lowest scoring teams was more prevalent in the 70s.

The total amount of goals was more in the 80s but the division between the haves and have nots was much greater.

In the extreme example of 70-71 when the Bruins had their highest scoring season with 399 goals for, the North Stars were the lowest scoring team with 191 goals for, followed by the Seals with 199. The Bruins had more goals for than the 2 lowest scoring teams of their 15 league team combined.

The Bruins also had a better defense than either at the same time. In fact only 2 teams had a better defense than the B's. If that isn't a case of extreme disparity I don't know what is..

In 83-84 the highest scoring team in history was the Oilers with 446. The lowest scoring team in that year was NJ with 231 followed by the Pens with 254. The Oilers were 39 goals short of doubling the bottom two even with the highest scoring team of all time.

Meanwhile 9 teams were better defensively than the Oilers that year. They gave up some on defense to get that offense.

The parity question isn't even close. It is similar with the Canadiens later in the 70s decade but not quite as bad as with the 71 Bruins.

Also, there was more of a "Don't run up the score" mentality from top players and coaches than in the 80's. In the sense that top players would take it easy if the game was well in hand, and coaches would roll their other lines more to rest the top players.

Orr was the kind of player who would take it easy on opposing teams when the score was lopsided. Gretzky, err, well he was not.

Not true. If that were so you wouldn't have a 71 Bruins team outpacing the #2 offensive team by over 100 goals and featuring a Bobby Orr who was on the ice for 258 goals for when the second place offensive team only had 291 goals.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Unfortunately Gretzky wouldn't of survived.
The early to mid 70's was a different time, seriously, a team would of had to carry 3-4 enforcers just to keep Wayne safe in those days.
Even if you were what would be called "gentlemanly player", they still knew how to protect/stand up for themselves, you had to back then.

Could you imagine Gretzky playing the Broad Street Bullies multiple times a year....I don't like Wayne's odds to be honest and at the very least he would of had many years taken off his career.
IMO, Wayne would of endured more cheap shots in one season back then, then he endured for the entire 80's.

Yeah but if he played on one of the few extremely stacked teams and rang up 7-8 250 point seasons (while being a consistent +100 because of the lack of parity) before being forced to retire we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

[Sureves]

As a 20 year old this thread has actually done a lot for me. I always knew Orr was an absolute legend, but I thought Gretzky was the favourite over him when "a gun was placed to the head".

Interesting that that is clearly untrue, seems like Orr has the edge, I didn't know he was THAT legendary

 

[Briere Up There*]

Unfortunately Gretzky wouldn't of survived.
The early to mid 70's was a different time, seriously, a team would of had to carry 3-4 enforcers just to keep Wayne safe in those days.
Even if you were what would be called "gentlemanly player", they still knew how to protect/stand up for themselves, you had to back then.

Could you imagine Gretzky playing the Broad Street Bullies multiple times a year....I don't like Wayne's odds to be honest and at the very least he would of had many years taken off his career.
IMO, Wayne would of endured more cheap shots in one season back then, then he endured for the entire 80's.

Absurd, he would have been just as great. He rolled off hits and had an entire team ready to protect him. Additionally a 70s Gretzky would have been tougher.

No doubt Orr would have scored more in the 80s as well.

 

[BraveCanadian]

As a 20 year old this thread has actually done a lot for me. I always knew Orr was an absolute legend, but I thought Gretzky was the favourite over him when "a gun was placed to the head".

Interesting that that is clearly untrue, seems like Orr has the edge, I didn't know he was THAT legendary

He is legendary and the legend keeps growing.

Check back in 20 years to see how big Gretzky is by that time.


Really it boils down to:

Do you want a guy who changes the game and plays an almost unrivaled all around game for 9 years or do you want a guy who changes the game and dominantly destroys every offensive record in the league for a whole career?

Each of them have their pros and cons.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Absurd, he would have been just as great. He rolled off hits and had an entire team ready to protect him. Additionally a 70s Gretzky would have been tougher.

No doubt Orr would have scored more in the 80s as well.

I'm not talking about rolling off hits, I'm talking about getting punched in the face 2-3 times a shift, getting speared, crosschecked and slashed multiple times a game.

Seriously go watch some of those games in the early - mid 70's and see how nasty it was.
People thought the game still needed to be cleaned a lot up in the 80's and the league had already come a loooooong way already from the early 70's.

You honestly think Bobby Clarke's vicious two hander to Kharlamov in '72 was something new in the NHL at that time or do you believe the stuff going on in the movie Slapshot was all fiction?

 

[Briere Up There*]

I'm not talking about rolling off hits, I'm talking about getting punched in the face 2-3 times a shift, getting speared, crosschecked and slashed multiple times a game.

Seriously go watch some of those games in the early - mid 70's and see how nasty it was.
People thought the game still needed to be cleaned a lot up in the 80's and the league had already come a loooooong way already from the early 70's.

You honestly think Bobby Clarke's vicious two hander to Kharlamov in '72 was something new in the NHL at that time or do you believe the stuff going on in the movie Slapshot was all fiction?

Please don't react like I've never seen a Flyers game before. Gretzky would have adapted, he had more focus and determination than almost anybody. "He wouldn't have survived" is pure baloney.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Please don't react like I've never seen a Flyers game before. Gretzky would have adapted, he had more focus and determination than almost anybody. "He wouldn't have survived" is pure baloney.

The point is, it was a different time, a much, much more physical time and there was no Oilers "euro' style of play for him to thrive in either.
Not saying he wouldn't gotten a lot of points, just saying he wouldn't of broken 200.
He broke 200 points at the only time in history that it would of been possible playing in the most open years with the most open team and system.

 

[pluppe]

fare enough Reiss. its a great argument. But don't tell me its Orr by a landsland. Was Orr better all round? Probably, but Howe and Messier were better than Orr in that catagory.

If I'm the coach and I want a goal scored, there is only one player I want and its 99. His job was to make goals happen and He was, without a doubt, the most likely player to produce a goal on a given shift. The man made goals happen, and isn't that really essence of the game?

Gretzky was more prolific at his job than anyone else at their's. And there are no adjusted +/- stats that anyone can show me to convince me otherwise.

no it´s not. the essence of the game is making more goals happen than the other team. I think Orr was a little better at this.

put it like this.
if I was in need of a goal Gretzky would probably be the first person I pick. Orr likely the second or third (but he and Lemieux would be close to Gretzky)

if I was defending a lead Orr maybe Doug Harvey would be my first choice, but Orr would still be second or third (or even first). Gretzky would not be close.

I say all this when it comes to peak. if the discussion was for greatest career I might change my mind.

good discussion though

 

[67 others]

Here we go again.

First of all in Orr's best season (70-71) five out of the 15 teams in did give up 290 goals or more - so much for the defense first mentality.

i don't completely disagree with you on this, but you are really splitting hairs here.

in 70-71, the team scored against the most was the seals, and they had a GA of 320. like you said, 5 teams had over 290 goals scored against them, but the other 9 teams had 240 scored against them or below.

in 85-86, the year gretzky scored 215, all 10 teams in the campbell conference had at least 291 GA and every team in the league except for 1 had 272 GA or worse. in total, 7 teams in 85-86 had a worse GA than the worst team of the 70-71 year

Secondly.. yes, in fact, the disparity between the highest scoring teams and the lowest scoring teams was more prevalent in the 70s.

The total amount of goals was more in the 80s but the division between the haves and have nots was much greater.

In the extreme example of 70-71 when the Bruins had their highest scoring season with 399 goals for, the North Stars were the lowest scoring team with 191 goals for, followed by the Seals with 199. The Bruins had more goals for than the 2 lowest scoring teams of their 15 league team combined.

which seems logically due to the fact that the bruins were the only team playing a high offense system. few teams had adopted it at that point

The Bruins also had a better defense than either at the same time. In fact only 2 teams had a better defense than the B's. If that isn't a case of extreme disparity I don't know what is..

that is actually an example of what bobby orr does for a team

In 83-84 the highest scoring team in history was the Oilers with 446. The lowest scoring team in that year was NJ with 231 followed by the Pens with 254. The Oilers were 39 goals short of doubling the bottom two even with the highest scoring team of all time.

Meanwhile 9 teams were better defensively than the Oilers that year. They gave up some on defense to get that offense.

The parity question isn't even close. It is similar with the Canadiens later in the 70s decade but not quite as bad as with the 71 Bruins.

if that is the case, why were dozens of players not scoring 100's of points like they were in the 80's?

Not true. If that were so you wouldn't have a 71 Bruins team outpacing the #2 offensive team by over 100 goals and featuring a Bobby Orr who was on the ice for 258 goals for when the second place offensive team only had 291 goals.

players in the 70's did tend to let up more than their 80's counterparts.

 

[quasi1981]

+/- 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.

So the Oilers having a potent attack is no big deal, but the Bruins potent attack is tarnished. If it wasn't for the greatest "Clutch" goalie "ever" Ken Dryden, Orr and his team would have won about 5 or 6 Cups, and they still had to go through all the old 6 teams. They were the best offense because they had the greatest offensive force ever, and he learned after he was that offensive force to play as a defenseman. But the +/- thing you state is ridiculous. What the person was saying to you is that Gretzky while he was scoring all those points was barely out scoring the opposition meaning it was always a struggle for the Oilers no matter how many points he scored. +/- is not a defensive stat, but a stat that says your team was better or worse while you were out there, and with the Good Boy, the Oilers were a good team just beating the opponent, barely! With Orr and his great defense, and even better offensive play, and it is not all about points scored, was a far better player than The G One because they held the lead with defense and smoked them with offense. Orr was just great at everything he did anywhere on the ice where Gretzky was a "basket" hanger in basketball. I bet if you take the amount of time Orr spent in his offensive end we'll say between the place they drop the puck in the faceoff circle in front of the net, probably the whole highight film of the area you see Gretzky in and then take the amount of time Orr is that close to the goal, and then see how many points per minute he would get compared to all Gretzky's points per minute. It wouldn't even be close. Orr plays equal time in the offense and defensive zones, and then has to play the point on offense, so he flies down the right side and in 5 or so seconds he comes around and behind the net and shoots or passes and he has to go back to the point, and he is the 4th leading scorer of all time in points per game.

None of you really has leg to stand on. One played the whole game on offense and the other had to split his time playing both ways and I mean end to end every play. There % of cups wins per amount of seasons is Orr 21% and The G one 19%. I hate stats but you force me to because you think offense is the game of hockey is your defense. It is clear that defense is the most important in all sports, and all of Gretzy highlights are points scored, no nothing else.

 

[quasi1981]

I would never say Orr in a landslide, I would say Orr gets my vote and it's so close you could barely fit the head of a pin between them.

I will take issue in you saying Howe and Messier were better all around though...not a chance.
Orr was THE most complete hockey player in the history of the game imo.



Why would I mention it? Why wouldn't I? He's the only other player to do it besides 99 and 66 and what's more...he did it first AND as a freakin Dman which makes it even more ridiculous heh.


...and I've always maintained that Gretzky was the best ever on the offensive side of the ice. Orr is just the best ever on the whole ice.

Maybe so, but Orr was a center till he was about 12, and he started learning how to be a defenseman at 11. So if I needed a goal I take Orr because he can score from any where, and at any time. He can run a 3 on 3 break or do it alone if needed from deep in his own end. I still say if the Bruins decided, and they did have to make this decision, and made Orr a center, there is no telling what he would haved done. Can you imagine him playing with Gretzky and Lemieux with all the points scored, and his ability to forcheck, backcheck and just hammer at their defense along with Sanderson? Amazing. I still feel Orr could have scored as many points as G if he had been a Center in the same era. Plus he would have been a far better all around player, and if he finished second to Gretzky every year, Orr would have been voted more MVPs because of points scored and much, much better overall play. His passing was amazing. I believe he won as a defensemen, 5 assist titles as a defenseman, and that meant he led the LEAGUE, 5 times, so imaging how many he would have had if he could hang around the goal and center ice just waiting for a pass. Sounds like a very incomplete player.

 

[quasi1981]

I would never say Orr in a landslide, I would say Orr gets my vote and it's so close you could barely fit the head of a pin between them.

I will take issue in you saying Howe and Messier were better all around though...not a chance.
Orr was THE most complete hockey player in the history of the game imo.



Why would I mention it? Why wouldn't I? He's the only other player to do it besides 99 and 66 and what's more...he did it first AND as a freakin Dman which makes it even more ridiculous heh.


...and I've always maintained that Gretzky was the best ever on the offensive side of the ice. Orr is just the best ever on the whole ice.

I believe Orr won the assist title 5 times so that is as great as doing it 11 times because how many others had almost 100 in that time, gee ah, um oh Lemieux, and I wonder if it was just the wide open play?

 

[quasi1981]

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?

BraveCanadian - Espo was an average, maybe a little better when he came to Boston and he was back to that when he was traded to the Rangers.

Orr was that good, and he was always setting up players going mach 15 and still seeing the whole ice and placing his passes right on your stick. he only had maybe 3-5 seconds to do anything around the net,and he had to get back to the point, but he scored far more points per second when he was in close around and behind the goal than Gretzky, who spent all game there, and as it is Orr is the 4th leading scorer of all time in points per game and the played defense, and Gretzky could just hang down there around the net to score. Orr would fly down the right side most of the time come inside the blue line and around behind the net at almost full speed which was unbelievable, and then make a quick lightening like decision to shoot or pass and get back.

Gretz could hang there all day, he wasn't a back checker, he was an offensive basketball hanging around center ice waiting for the pass. He won less % NHL titles than Orr. If I play basketball and all I do is shoot everytime I get the ball, my team will get bored and we most likely won't win.

And the Oilers did win a 5th title without him so?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Esposito was 7th in scoring in Chicago, the year before he was traded to Boston. If that's "average," I'll take an average player on my team every day.

Also, Orr won a greater % of titles than Gretzky? Really? You're really using that as a pro-Orr argument? So Gretzky would be a better player if he retired earlier to keep his "percentage" intact?