Orr Vs Gretzky

[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?

BraveMan - Remember Orr played D so while he is out there w/out Espo, the other team is less likely to score because Orr is out there, and the B's are more likely to score because Orr is out there. Remember it is more important to make the players around you better, than to score a lot of points. Orr could also make a great pass from his end and get a 3 on 2 and score, and Orr set up the play with no assist.

Espo on w/out Orr is a big slow but strong man, and the team isn't nearly as good as with Orr, who can start a breal from anywhere on the ice, even a 1 on 3 can be a break for Orr with all his ability to skate better than you, pass, stick handle, and shoot in all kinds away. He could do it all alone, but he was still the greatest of team players, always making you better as soon as steps on the ice, so you can get caught out of position at either end of the ice and Orr is always around the puck no matter where it is and make up for your mistakes, where Gretzky only does it basically in the offensive zone. Same with Espo. Orr makes your whole team better because he plays all 5 positions every game. If he comes down the left or right side he is being a forward, if up the middle he is a center, and if he stays at the point, a D man. No matter what area of the ice he is in, he was the best to ever play.

 

[quasi1981]

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?

No, what I am saying is Orr won 2 titles in a very short time and Gretzky played many more years. If Orr played for as many years he would have won more titles I believe because the only flaw on that team is the right wing wouldn't hang back at the point when Orr made his rush. Don Cherry finally got Orr to get the guys to back check and stay back at the point on his rushes up ice, and they became unbeatable with the best power play I ever saw for 10 games with Orr and Brad Park, the 2nd best offensive D player in hockey back at the point, and instead of setting up players out in front of the net, they set up Orr or Park at the top of the faceoff circle. Unbeatable! Orr's knee crumbled on him and the next year he signed with Chicago.

If he had remained healthy there is no limit what this team could have done as they finally had a defensive coach who had them playing a complete hockey game.

So Orr being healthy and playing as long as Gretzky, I don't think thins discussion would happen. As it is, on these pages, far far more people pick Orr as the best. I would say that even more of a % of those who saw both play picked Orr big time.

Bobby Schmautz, who played with both of them laughed when asked who was better, because it was Orr, no contest. Just cause the stupid media says G is the best ever and you believe those idiots? ESPN? come on now.

 

[quasi1981]

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

No, the job of any player is to outscore the other team, and there are two major ways to do that, one is to keep them from scoring, defense and having a great goalie. "Everyone" - yes you Wayne- backchecks and helps out the defense, and this is more important because rarely if ever does an all offense/no defense team win, and the other is just trying to outscore the opponent with no D and the other team plays good D and just outscores you. The team that plays good honest D and a solid offense wins, so players should be two way all the time in hockey and basketball because you are always on the ice so you have to score and prevent them from scoring, hence we have Orr who could do it all and he is the only player in all sports who could play all 5 positions and they wouldn't be clones, they would be allstars at all the positions.

 

[quasi1981]

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?

Also the fact Orr played only 10 injury riddled seasons, and everyone here is comparing the two is a tribute to Orr's greatness here. If Orr played uninjured, which he didn't, and played 20 years, or if Gretzky played just 10 years we wouldn't be talking this stuff.

What gets me is the only arguement all of you seem to have in Gretzky's favor are his scoring records.

The greatest coaches like Auerbach, Belicek, and John Wooden would say, Stats are for losers!!

 

[bleeney]

I've been watching hockey for over 40 years. In that time, there are three players that stand a level above all others when it comes to pure offensive skill: Orr, Gretzky and Lemieux. Each was, in their own way, virtually unstoppable.

What separates Orr from the others was the fact that he was a complete hockey player. He dominated both ends of the ice. He was a defensive stalwart who hit, battled in the trenches, killed penalties, blocked shots. And he also dropped the gloves against (and defeated) the toughest players in the league... at a time when a superstar was expected to be tough.

Orr didn't need teammates to do the dirty work in the corners and boards, digging the puck out for him. He didn't need teammates to backcheck for him. He didn't need teammates to protect him. When the puck was in the Bruins' end, he was working his ass off, breaking up plays, blocking shots, taking the puck away from the other team himself, instead of waiting for a breakout pass.

It's been said before, and I'll say it again: If you put five Gretzkys on the ice against five Orrs, the Orrs would win hands down.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Also the fact Orr played only 10 injury riddled seasons, and everyone here is comparing the two is a tribute to Orr's greatness here. If Orr played uninjured, which he didn't, and played 20 years, or if Gretzky played just 10 years we wouldn't be talking this stuff.

What gets me is the only arguement all of you seem to have in Gretzky's favor are his scoring records.

The greatest coaches like Auerbach, Belicek, and John Wooden would say, Stats are for losers!!

The fact that Wayne was able to stay relatively healthy and have a full career is a point in his favour. And the main reason why he is considered the greatest player ever over Orr. No one was ever so good for so long with the exception of Howe but then you throw on those obliterated records and the winner is... Gretzky.

No one knows what Orr would have done if he played past 30.

I would hazard a guess that despite him being a mythical god here on hfboards (scoring like a 4th forward with the ability to instantly teleport back to defense and be the best defensive defenseman in the history of hockey at the same time) he actually would have slowed down just like most players do offensively past 30. Teams in the 80s actually weren't scoring much if at all more than the 70s Bruins. Blasphemy I know.

Then we wouldn't be comparing a player like Gretzky who played an extra 10 years which was long enough for him to slow down, become a mere mortal star, and be less effective and on much worse teams with the nostalgic memory of a guy who was only ever great, like Orr.

Orr burned incredibly brightly and is most likely a candidate for the most complete player of all time with Howe.. but he is also a huge what if case because he only played as a young player.

Gretzky has more superstar level full seasons than Orr even tried to play much less complete.

 

[canucks4ever]

Gretzky's hart trophy in 1989 was a joke, lemieux was the best player in the league. Bobby Orr should have 6 hart trophies, even in 74, his plus minus was way better than espo's and he was simply the more effective player.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Gretzky's hart trophy in 1989 was a joke, lemieux was the best player in the league. Bobby Orr should have 6 hart trophies, even in 74, his plus minus was way better than espo's and he was simply the more effective player.

Yeah, to be honest, Gretzky wasn't even the second best player that year, Yzerman was.

As far as Orr not winning more Hart's, that really just comes down to media bias in that some feel that Dmen and Goalies already have an award and the Hart should more likely go to a forward.
Not to mention the politicking and if one thing that Espo had over Orr was that he could talk about himself better than most.
Always been this way and always will.

 

[pluppe]

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

No, the job of any player is to outscore the other team, and there are two major ways to do that, one is to keep them from scoring, defense and having a great goalie. "Everyone" - yes you Wayne- backchecks and helps out the defense, and this is more important because rarely if ever does an all offense/no defense team win, and the other is just trying to outscore the opponent with no D and the other team plays good D and just outscores you. The team that plays good honest D and a solid offense wins, so players should be two way all the time in hockey and basketball because you are always on the ice so you have to score and prevent them from scoring, hence we have Orr who could do it all and he is the only player in all sports who could play all 5 positions and they wouldn't be clones, they would be allstars at all the positions.

I don´t understand?

you quote me. start with "No". and then repeat exactly what I said?

 

[bleeney]

Gretzky's hart trophy in 1989 was a joke, lemieux was the best player in the league. Bobby Orr should have 6 hart trophies, even in 74, his plus minus was way better than espo's and he was simply the more effective player.

Yeah, Orr was robbed of a few Hart trophies.

Look at 70-71. Espo won it, based on his record-breaking 76-76-152 season. Like all Bruins, he was the beneficiary of plays engineered by #4, particularly on the powerplay. Espo himself said "Our powerplay was great because of Bobby".

Meanwhile, Orr was only 13 points behind him, and he was a defenseman for Cripes sake! Orr had 102 assists, and 139 points... from the back end!
*Espo didn't kill penalties; Orr was a monster on the PK, and usually played through the entire 2:00.
*Espo's plus/minus was +71; Orr's was +124... 53 higher than Espo's!

Then there was the '75 Hart that went to Bobby Clarke. Let's see... Orr wins the Norris as the best defender in the league, and also wins the Ross as the games top scorer.
*Orr (a defenseman) had 46-89-135
*Clarke (a centre) had 27-89-116
Despite playing in front of a very average Gilles Gilbert (3.13 GAA), Orr still managed to edge out Clarke for the plus/minus lead (+80 vs +79), even though Clarke was playing in front of HOFer Bernie Parent (2.03 GAA), who was at the peak of his career. Parent was unreal at the time. In both '74 and '75 he was the 1st A/S goalie, won the Vezina, and was the Conn Smythe winner in both of the Flyer Cup winning years.
But somehow Bobby Clarke was the best player?

Yup. Orr was robbed.

 

[tazzy19]

Also the fact Orr played only 10 injury riddled seasons, and everyone here is comparing the two is a tribute to Orr's greatness here. If Orr played uninjured, which he didn't, and played 20 years, or if Gretzky played just 10 years we wouldn't be talking this stuff.
What gets me is the only arguement all of you seem to have in Gretzky's favor are his scoring records.

The greatest coaches like Auerbach, Belicek, and John Wooden would say, Stats are for losers!!

Let's see what Gretzky did in his first 10 years... 9 Hart Trophies (8 straight), 7 scoring titles (including tying Marcel Dionne his first season), 4 Stanley Cups, 2 Conn Smythe's, 52 NHL records, including becoming the all time leading scorer in sixteen years less than Howe; was also the fastest to 500 and 600 goals by that time...not to mention absolutely ridiculous PPG and GPG averages -- needles to say, the highest that have ever been recorded in history. Gretzky was on pace to hit around 1200 goals and 3500 points. If he had retired after 10 years, we would have considered him to be the greatest "what if" of all time, even moreso than Orr and Lemieux.

 

[Scott1980]

Yeah, Orr was robbed of a few Hart trophies.

Look at 70-71. Espo won it, based on his record-breaking 76-76-152 season. Like all Bruins, he was the beneficiary of plays engineered by #4, particularly on the powerplay. Espo himself said "Our powerplay was great because of Bobby".

Meanwhile, Orr was only 13 points behind him, and he was a defenseman for Cripes sake! Orr had 102 assists, and 139 points... from the back end!
*Espo didn't kill penalties; Orr was a monster on the PK, and usually played through the entire 2:00.
*Espo's plus/minus was +71; Orr's was +124... 53 higher than Espo's!

Then there was the '75 Hart that went to Bobby Clarke. Let's see... Orr wins the Norris as the best defender in the league, and also wins the Ross as the games top scorer.
*Orr (a defenseman) had 46-89-135
*Clarke (a centre) had 27-89-116
Despite playing in front of a very average Gilles Gilbert (3.13 GAA), Orr still managed to edge out Clarke for the plus/minus lead (+80 vs +79), even though Clarke was playing in front of HOFer Bernie Parent (2.03 GAA), who was at the peak of his career. Parent was unreal at the time. In both '74 and '75 he was the 1st A/S goalie, won the Vezina, and was the Conn Smythe winner in both of the Flyer Cup winning years.
But somehow Bobby Clarke was the best player?

Yup. Orr was robbed.

You sure about Espo not being a penalty killer?

If so, than how did he lead the NHL in shorthanded goals with 5 in 1972/73? He was on the ice for 26 power play goals against that season and 33 more in 74/75.

That average Gilbert won a record 17 games a row in 75/76, and then he almost did what no other goalie could do, beat the 76-79 Canadians. He would have had Don Cherry not got called with 2 many man on the ice. From the games I've seen in the 1974 Stanley Cup finals he wasn't too average. Just in games 3 and 4.

 

[bleeney]

You sure about Espo not being a penalty killer?

If so, than how did he lead the NHL in shorthanded goals with 5 in 1972/73? He was on the ice for 26 power play goals against that season and 33 more in 74/75.

That average Gilbert won a record 17 games a row in 75/76, and then he almost did what no other goalie could do, beat the 76-79 Canadians. He would have had Don Cherry not got called with 2 many man on the ice. From the games I've seen in the 1974 Stanley Cup finals he wasn't too average. Just in games 3 and 4.

I was talking about the 70-71 season, where Espo's PK time was usually due to Sanderson being in the box himself (which was often), or out of the line-up.

You are talking about 72-73, when Espo was put into that role out of necessity because the Bruins were in a state of disarray. They had lost their top two penalty-killers (Westfall to the NYI in the expansion draft, and Sanderson to the WHA, where he completely lost himself in booze and drugs). The PK was a role Espo wasn't especially suited for. The Bruins also lost their top goalie (Gerry Cheevers), an anchor on their blueline and locker room leader (Ted Green) and a 2nd line winger who was one of their sparkplugs (Johnny McKenzie) to the WHA. That's over a quarter of their lineup, every one of them a significant piece of their team. As I said, they were in disarray.

And Gilbert? I was comparing him to Bernie Parent in 74-75, when Parent was without a doubt the best goalie in the entire league. The context was a comparison between the plus/minus of Orr and Clarke. Orr was better offensively than Clarke. Hell, he won the scoring title, despite being a Dman, so Clarke must've been so much better defensively in order to win the Hart over Orr, right? But Orr edged Clarke in +/-, despite the vastly superior goalie that Clarke had playing behind him. Can you honestly say that Gilbert was anything close to Parent:

*Gilbert played 53 games and had a team-worst GAA of 3.13 (Brooks was 2.98 over 17 games, Broderick was 2.39 over 15)
*Compare that with Parent, with a GAA of 2.03, along with 12 shutouts. For the second year in a row he was a 1st Team All-Star, won the Vezina and won the Conn Smythe.

If they switched goalies, Clarke's +/- wouldn't have been close to Orr's.

Face it. Orr was robbed.

 

[quasi1981]

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.

DA, what made Orr great was he made Espo, Hodge, and Stanfield who the got in a great trade, and made all of them and especially Espo into a great player which he wasn't in Chicago before and the Rangers after Boston. He was the greatest passer I have ever seen, making passes moving 1& 1/2 faster than anyone else, making great shots, many so perfectly 0 to 3 inches off the ice so they could be tipped. He was a master at every facet ot the game of hockey and he would have been right up there with Gretz and Lemieux in all time scoring if he played center in their era, plus all the other skills that made him a superstar in all his abilities, especially scoring, being the 4th leading scorer of all time just behind Gretz and Lemieux and coming from a time far less points were scored.

 

[quasi1981]

The fact that Wayne was able to stay relatively healthy and have a full career is a point in his favour. And the main reason why he is considered the greatest player ever over Orr. No one was ever so good for so long with the exception of Howe but then you throw on those obliterated records and the winner is... Gretzky.

No one knows what Orr would have done if he played past 30.

I would hazard a guess that despite him being a mythical god here on hfboards (scoring like a 4th forward with the ability to instantly teleport back to defense and be the best defensive defenseman in the history of hockey at the same time) he actually would have slowed down just like most players do offensively past 30. Teams in the 80s actually weren't scoring much if at all more than the 70s Bruins. Blasphemy I know.

Then we wouldn't be comparing a player like Gretzky who played an extra 10 years which was long enough for him to slow down, become a mere mortal star, and be less effective and on much worse teams with the nostalgic memory of a guy who was only ever great, like Orr.

Orr burned incredibly brightly and is most likely a candidate for the most complete player of all time with Howe.. but he is also a huge what if case because he only played as a young player.

Gretzky has more superstar level full seasons than Orr even tried to play much less complete.

Orr played against the Soviets on one knee, and the Soviets had bigger rinks and a wide open game against the slow moving Canadians, and Bobby Hull said Orr's knee was gone, he had almost no use for it, didn't practice much for Soviets. He came out and on one knee he was still easily the fastest skater and by far the best player on the ice.

Orr was so good that only he of all the athletes I have ever seen would still not only be in the running, but virtually every person in this discussion who saw both players said Orr was easily the best of the 2 and one player Bobby Schmautz who played with both in their prime just laughed when asked who was better when he was not speaking to the media.

No Contest, and Stats are for losers, and Orr had fat better overall stats than Gretz. He was the best scorer of his day and he would have been a 1st team all pro center or any position he played. HE was a specialist at all 5 positions and his goalie Gerry Cheevers said he should have won the Vezina Trophy.

He won more % of seasons of championships, 21% to 19% over Gretz. Stupid stat like winning all the scoring titles, who cares, most leading scorers don't win titles, and Orr's presence on the ice and making his mates better was as great a feat as ever, he being capable of breaking all the records with a little self centeredness, but no he just wanted to win games and titles.

 

[quasi1981]

I don´t understand?

you quote me. start with "No". and then repeat exactly what I said?

Dude, no means you were incorrect in what it means to outscore a team and all I said is all offense no defense teams rarely win anything, and when the other way around, the all defensive no offensive team wins much more. Don't get caught up in the no. I was just, well read the whole thing and see how it is in sports in general, that defense comes first, offense second in importance. That also means that it is more important to hustle on the D, because it is an all attitude thing and keeps the players focused on the game, where the Gretz are so offensive focused, that the opposition scores a lot of goals or at least has a lot of chances to make plays to score quick goals.

It is all simple

 

[quasi1981]

Let's see what Gretzky did in his first 10 years... 9 Hart Trophies (8 straight), 7 scoring titles (including tying Marcel Dionne his first season), 4 Stanley Cups, 2 Conn Smythe's, 52 NHL records, including becoming the all time leading scorer in sixteen years less than Howe; was also the fastest to 500 and 600 goals by that time...not to mention absolutely ridiculous PPG and GPG averages -- needles to say, the highest that have ever been recorded in history. Gretzky was on pace to hit around 1200 goals and 3500 points. If he had retired after 10 years, we would have considered him to be the greatest "what if" of all time, even moreso than Orr and Lemieux.

'

What is it with you, all you think about is scoring, and it is just a stat, and doesn't make you a great hockey, and I tell you what, if Orr had stayed healthy and came up at the same time as Gretz, played for the Oilers instead he would have easily won as many titles, and more important when Gretz left, his teams were never very much in contention. If Orr had gone to where Gretz went, his teams would have loved playing with him, his attitude playing every single aspect of the game as the greatest at his position no matter what or where he played, all Gretz new teams his last half of his career would have much more competetive than w/ Gretz. Orr's total game is an inspiration to all, and makes one more competitive and more of a team player.

 

[popculturereference]

No, what I am saying is Orr won 2 titles in a very short time and Gretzky played many more years. If Orr played for as many years he would have won more titles I believe because the only flaw on that team is the right wing wouldn't hang back at the point when Orr made his rush. Don Cherry finally got Orr to get the guys to back check and stay back at the point on his rushes up ice, and they became unbeatable with the best power play I ever saw for 10 games with Orr and Brad Park, the 2nd best offensive D player in hockey back at the point, and instead of setting up players out in front of the net, they set up Orr or Park at the top of the faceoff circle. Unbeatable! Orr's knee crumbled on him and the next year he signed with Chicago.

If he had remained healthy there is no limit what this team could have done as they finally had a defensive coach who had them playing a complete hockey game.

So Orr being healthy and playing as long as Gretzky, I don't think thins discussion would happen. As it is, on these pages, far far more people pick Orr as the best. I would say that even more of a % of those who saw both play picked Orr big time.

Bobby Schmautz, who played with both of them laughed when asked who was better, because it was Orr, no contest. Just cause the stupid media says G is the best ever and you believe those idiots? ESPN? come on now.

The % argument holds no weight -- it favours the guy who played a shortened career, as was already pointed out. And, it's cool that you think that Orr would have won more Cups with the Bruins had he not been injured, but it's all hypothetical, stop treating it like it's fact. This is the fun thing about only seeing a player in his prime, you don't have to watch his eventual slip into old age. His legacy was never tarnished.

The reason I think Gretzky is a better player is simple -- he was able to maintain a record-shattering career for twenty seasons. It's not just the stats, but it's how he played. I think Bobby Orr had the better peak, but Gretzky was able to play at the highest level for so many seasons, that I don't see why its that weird why people are so apt to choose him.

Also, even though the Hockey News chose Gretzky as #1 in 1998, if you looked at the voting results (I don't own the book, and I don't know if the tally is online) it was incredibly close. They conceded that Howe, Orr, and Gretzky should really be 1a, 1b, and 1c.

edit: Presuming it was a healthy Orr, and the future remained the same -- Orr's Bruins would have to contend with the Canadiens, Islanders, and then Oilers dynasties to win some Stanley Cups. Even when Orr was playing during his peak, they only won two Stanley Cups, so why should we assume that his teams would win more Cups then Gretzky did?

 

[quasi1981]

You sure about Espo not being a penalty killer?

If so, than how did he lead the NHL in shorthanded goals with 5 in 1972/73? He was on the ice for 26 power play goals against that season and 33 more in 74/75.

That average Gilbert won a record 17 games a row in 75/76, and then he almost did what no other goalie could do, beat the 76-79 Canadians. He would have had Don Cherry not got called with 2 many man on the ice. From the games I've seen in the 1974 Stanley Cup finals he wasn't too average. Just in games 3 and 4.

He did at times, maybe injuries, but he was no know for it, Orr and Sanderson were the keys. Bobby would kill 5 on 3's by himself as all 3 guts chased him around his end, and he would get by all 3 and go into their zone to score and more times than not he would turn around and go back to his end and start over, and they never of almost never would get the puck away from himfor more than a minute and sometimes the whole penalty, oh, I mean 2 penalties.

 

[quasi1981]

I was talking about the 70-71 season, where Espo's PK time was usually due to Sanderson being in the box himself (which was often), or out of the line-up.

You are talking about 72-73, when Espo was put into that role ou
t of necessity because the Bruins were in a state of disarray. They had lost their top two penalty-killers (Westfall to the NYI in the expansion draft, and Sanderson to the WHA, where he completely lost himself in booze and drugs). The PK was a role Espo wasn't especially suited for. The Bruins also lost their top goalie (Gerry Cheevers), an anchor on their blueline and locker room leader (Ted Green) and a 2nd line winger who was one of their sparkplugs (Johnny McKenzie) to the WHA. That's over a quarter of their lineup, every one of them a significant piece of their team. As I said, they were in disarray.

And Gilbert? I was comparing him to Bernie Parent in 74-75, when Parent was without a doubt the best goalie in the entire league. The context was a comparison between the plus/minus of Orr and Clarke. Orr was better offensively than Clarke. Hell, he won the scoring title, despite being a Dman, so Clarke must've been so much better defensively in order to win the Hart over Orr, right? But Orr edged Clarke in +/-, despite the vastly superior goalie that Clarke had playing behind him. Can you honestly say that Gilbert was anything close to Parent:

*Gilbert played 53 games and had a team-worst GAA of 3.13 (Brooks was 2.98 over 17 games, Broderick was 2.39 over 15)
*Compare that with Parent, with a GAA of 2.03, along with 12 shutouts. For the second year in a row he was a 1st Team All-Star, won the Vezina and won the Conn Smythe.

If they switched goalies, Clarke's +/- wouldn't have been close to Orr's.

Face it. Orr was robbed.

bleenie thanks for that. i knew something had to happen for Espo to be out there killing penalties, and with Turk and Eddie leaving, there goes to great penatly killers.

It is so sad for all these Gretzky fans making him great because he had all the scoring records.

Most great coaches would say Stats are for losers, but all these G fans think it is all about scoring, but what about preventing teams from scoring, giving the offense a rest so they don't always have to score goals because the D gave up so many of them. What about being a cohesive unit and play as a team making it just as important to prevent a goal as scoring one, in fact preventing one is more important because it keeps the whole team on its toes, seeing defense takes 100% total great attitude on behalf of the team.

 

[pluppe]

Dude, no means you were incorrect in what it means to outscore a team and all I said is all offense no defense teams rarely win anything, and when the other way around, the all defensive no offensive team wins much more. Don't get caught up in the no. I was just, well read the whole thing and see how it is in sports in general, that defense comes first, offense second in importance. That also means that it is more important to hustle on the D, because it is an all attitude thing and keeps the players focused on the game, where the Gretz are so offensive focused, that the opposition scores a lot of goals or at least has a lot of chances to make plays to score quick goals.

It is all simple

it is not simple. I still have no idea in what way you thought I was incorrect. when did I say anything about the relative importance of offence/defence?

 

[quasi1981]

The % argument holds no weight -- it favours the guy who played a shortened career, as was already pointed out. And, it's cool that you think that Orr would have won more Cups with the Bruins had he not been injured, but it's all hypothetical, stop treating it like it's fact. This is the fun thing about only seeing a player in his prime, you don't have to watch his eventual slip into old age. His legacy was never tarnished.

The reason I think Gretzky is a better player is simple -- he was able to maintain a record-shattering career for twenty seasons. It's not just the stats, but it's how he played. I think Bobby Orr had the better peak, but Gretzky was able to play at the highest level for so many seasons, that I don't see why its that weird why people are so apt to choose him.

Also, even though the Hockey News chose Gretzky as #1 in 1998, if you looked at the voting results (I don't own the book, and I don't know if the tally is online) it was incredibly close. They conceded that Howe, Orr, and Gretzky should really be 1a, 1b, and 1c.

edit: Presuming it was a healthy Orr, and the future remained the same -- Orr's Bruins would have to contend with the Canadiens, Islanders, and then Oilers dynasties to win some Stanley Cups. Even when Orr was playing during his peak, they only won two Stanley Cups, so why should we assume that his teams would win more Cups then Gretzky did?

Orr had, I forget how many but at least 5 knee operations so he had lost his prime long or early in his career and on on knee in his last year or so, he was still the best player they had ever saw.

There is a reason Orr after a injury riddled career, would still be voted as maybe the best player ever. No one is ever in the running after his whole health is shattered because of his knee, and he didn't get to play. And still even on his last leg he was the best we ever saw, and he could have played into his 50' at least, because he was by far the most gifted athlete to ever put on skates.

realize how great it was for a beatup old man at 25, no knee as it was falling apart and all the players were blown away because he was still better than anyone they ever saw, even today.

 

[popculturereference]

Orr had, I forget how many but at least 5 knee operations so he had lost his prime long or early in his career and on on knee in his last year or so, he was still the best player they had ever saw.

There is a reason Orr after a injury riddled career, would still be voted as maybe the best player ever. No one is ever in the running after his whole health is shattered because of his knee, and he didn't get to play. And still even on his last leg he was the best we ever saw, and he could have played into his 50' at least, because he was by far the most gifted athlete to ever put on skates.

realize how great it was for a beatup old man at 25, no knee as it was falling apart and all the players were blown away because he was still better than anyone they ever saw, even today.

Again, your whole argument is hypotheticals. You are saying he would have won Cups, he would have played until he was fifty, he would have..., and that's it -- the problem with this is that you're making baseless points that are as difficult to prove as they are to disprove. You could easily say that Orr would have put up 2000+ points if he was 100% healthy, and how could anyone argue with that?

Anyways, I do recognize the greatness of Orr -- this is why I think he's the second best player of all-time. I just think it's impossible to overlook Gretzky's prolonged greatness. It's impressive he was able to play at that level for so long as I have pointed out.

 

[quasi1981]

The % argument holds no weight -- it favours the guy who played a shortened career, as was already pointed out. And, it's cool that you think that Orr would have won more Cups with the Bruins had he not been injured, but it's all hypothetical, stop treating it like it's fact. This is the fun thing about only seeing a player in his prime, you don't have to watch his eventual slip into old age. His legacy was never tarnished.

The reason I think Gretzky is a better player is simple -- he was able to maintain a record-shattering career for twenty seasons. It's not just the stats, but it's how he played. I think Bobby Orr had the better peak, but Gretzky was able to play at the highest level for so many seasons, that I don't see why its that weird why people are so apt to choose him.

Also, even though the Hockey News chose Gretzky as #1 in 1998, if you looked at the voting results (I don't own the book, and I don't know if the tally is online) it was incredibly close. They conceded that Howe, Orr, and Gretzky should really be 1a, 1b, and 1c.

edit: Presuming it was a healthy Orr, and the future remained the same -- Orr's Bruins would have to contend with the Canadiens, Islanders, and then Oilers dynasties to win some Stanley Cups. Even when Orr was playing during his peak, they only won two Stanley Cups, so why should we assume that his teams would win more Cups then Gretzky did?

So if Gretz was so great why after he left the Oilers, why were none of these teams very competitive? I am sure Orr would have made them much better than they were. He was an inspiration by the way he played, finesse, hitting, skating etc. and everyone was better no matter which end of the ice they were in. He was pure magic!!

 

[Dark Shadows]

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.



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.

The absolute worst team(Seals) in Orr's best season had 320 goals against and only 3 had a goals against of 300+

In Gretzky's 92 goal, 212 point season, 12 teams had 332 or more goals against, and most of them well above 320. Even to the point of 380 goals against. It is plain as day which era was far more offensive. Teams in the 80's had largely adopted an offensive strategy, and it shows in their Goals against. Making it easier for all those players to score those big seasons. Which is why so few players scored 100+ point seasons in the 70's as opposed to the 80's.

The Bruins outscored the other teams by so much because they were the first real firewagon offensive team of that era, while everyone was still playing defensive systems. The oilers were the greatest offensive team of all time, but did not beat the others by as much simply because most teams by then had adopted offense first strategies too. Which meant they let in more goals.

As for Orr and the other weaker teams....Yes, top players back then did take it easy on the weaker teams, and coaches did tend to sit their best players to rest them more in lopsided games when the score was far in their favor. Against only the top 5 teams in goals against that year(Chicago, New york, Toronto, StLouis, Montreal), Orr scored 51 points in 30 games. Over a 78 game schedule, that rounds out him being on pace for 133 points against only the best defensive teams. If you want to make a huge case over him only being on pace for 133 points instead of 139 against the top 5 best of the best Goals against teams and act like that 6 points means something and imply that Orr simply beat up on the weaker teams to get the numbers he did, then feel free.

I am sure if I ran Gretzky's 92 goal season against only the 5 best goals against teams I would get similar results.