Orr Vs Gretzky

[Scott1980]

I would imagine, in 20 games against the top 5 defensive teams in 81/82, Gretzky would get 45 points, or about 180 points in 80 games against those teams. Islanders? I say Gretzky gets 9 points in 3 games.

 

[VMBM]

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.

I've seen that game, and no, he wasn't "easily the fastest skater on the ice" (and "by far the best player" is exaggeration also). Bobby Hull, Gilbert Perreault, Helmut Balderis and Sergei Kapustin - at least - were faster than him at this stage. I think it was his overall skating ability and hockey brain and sheer determination - rather than him outspeeding everyone - that still made him a great player.

If Canada's opponents are to believed, at least the Czechoslovaks seemed to fear Gilbert Perreault the most during the 1976 CC (according to Peter Stastny).

 

[VMBM]

This thread is getting dangerously close to being sheer 'fanboyism'

Well, we all have our favourites, eh?

 

[Rhiessan71]

This thread is getting dangerously close to being sheer 'fanboyism' at times

Well, we all have our favourites, eh?

Wouldn't really call it 'fanboyism'. What it really comes down to in the end is simply the majority of the people that actually saw Orr and Gretzky play choose Orr.
You then have the rest of the people, who didn't see Orr or some that didn't even see Gretzky for that matter and that majority choose Gretzky.


I do find it kind of telling though that any player that was in the league through both of them choose Orr when asked.

 

[VMBM]

Wouldn't really call it 'fanboyism'. What it really comes down to in the end is simply the majority of the people that actually saw Orr and Gretzky play choose Orr.
You then have the rest of the people, who didn't see Orr or some that didn't even see Gretzky for that matter and that majority choose Gretzky.

Sounds a bit patronizing.

Admittedly I have seen Orr only on tape/DVD/whatnot, and pretty much the same goes for Gretzky too; being a Finn, we didn't get much if any NHL coverage when Orr played and when Gretzky was in his prime. Thanks to Jari Kurri, though, we saw at least some of Edmonton's games from time to time.

Anyway, I'd choose Gretzky, but I'm not particulary passionate about it. Orr was certainly more fun and exciting to watch, as well as obviously being the more complete player, but I would 'penalize' him for his short career a bit; i.e. the edge Orr had in all-around skills is not enough to compensate the edge Gretzky had career-wise. But each to his own...

 

[Rhiessan71]

Sounds a bit patronizing.

Admittedly I have seen Orr only on tape/DVD/whatnot, and pretty much the same goes for Gretzky too; being a Finn, we didn't get much if any NHL coverage when Orr played and when Gretzky was in his prime. Thanks to Jari Kurri, though, we saw at least some of Edmonton's games from time to time.

Anyway, I'd choose Gretzky, but I'm not particulary passionate about it. Orr was certainly more fun and exciting to watch, as well as obviously being the more complete player, but I would 'penalize' him for his short career a bit; i.e. the edge Orr had in all-around skills is not enough to compensate the edge Gretzky had career-wise. But each to his own...

Naw, I wasn't being patronizing, that's really just the way it ends up.

...and you're right, Orr's shortened career does hurt him in some eyes more than others.

 

[Dark Shadows]

I would imagine, in 20 games against the top 5 defensive teams in 81/82, Gretzky would get 45 points, or about 180 points in 80 games against those teams. Islanders? I say Gretzky gets 9 points in 3 games.

You must have checked, because you are exactly right. Granted I checked quickly(Going through all this gets tedious), but he had 45 points in 20 games against the top 5 teams in 81-82(Rounds up to 180 points in 80 games), and exactly 9 in 3 against the Islanders

 

[bleeney]

Here are some great videos of Orr in the playoff action, before his major knee surgery in the summer of '72, which slowed him down.

The first video is during the Stanley Cup finals in 1970: At the 0:49 mark, while killing a penalty, he breaks up a play behind his net and then turns on the jets, fights through the hooking and slashing, and makes a great pass resulting in a goal. Talk about a transition game! Can you think of any other player you'd rather have on the PK?

Here's Orr in the '72 playoffs against Chicago, where we see his offensive skills on display: QBing the powerplay; unleashing his wicked point shot; and using his incredible speed to just slice through, or power his way around defenses.

We also see him blocking shots, another thing he was great at. Blocking shots is a common strategy now, but it wasn't back then, and for good reason. This was back in the days before helmets, and when the rest of the equipment offered very little protection. It took a hell of a lot more courage to throw yourself in front of pucks in those days. But Orr was fearless. Gerry Cheevers once said he should win the Vezina, because he blocks more shots than the goalies. Here he gets in front a few shots, including a blast from the hardest shooter ever: Bobby Hull.
Hard to imagine Gretzky even contemplating doing that.

Orr was a complete hockey player. His scoring feats alone were enough to give him consideration as the best player of all time. But so much of what Orr did never even showed up on the scoring sheets. Hitting, killing penalties, breaking up plays, battling in the corners, blocking shots, sticking up for teammates... He was a titan in his own end. Scoring against the Bruins was murder when Orr was on the ice.

 

[popculturereference]

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!!

See, this is the problem when you are addressing a "what if?" player. You don't have the ability to assess his career normally, so people are left creating hypotheticals that don't seem to have any bearing in reality.

Sure, it's easy to point out that Gretzky never won another Cup after leaving the Oilers, but the Kings never had a particularly good team surrounding him either. You could argue that Orr would have won a bunch of Cups on those Kings teams (he is PURE MAGIC!!!! after all), but again, your argument is based on fiction. But, if Gretzky couldn't win a Cup with the Kings, how come Orr couldn't win more Cups with a superior Bruins team? They were continually beaten by the Canadiens, in '73 they were ousted in the first round by the Rangers, lost in the Finals to the Flyers in '74, and the first round in '75 to the Blackhawks. You would think a player that had the ability of a magician would be able to win a few more Cups.

The problem with the Orr vs. Gretzky debate is this: they are two different players, playing in different eras, and in different positions. One of the players is "what if?" and the other is "he did." Because Orr never had the misfortune of becoming an older player, he never was able to taint his own legacy.

 

[bleeney]

See, this is the problem when you are addressing a "what if?" player. You don't have the ability to assess his career normally, so people are left creating hypotheticals that don't seem to have any bearing in reality.

Sure, it's easy to point out that Gretzky never won another Cup after leaving the Oilers, but the Kings never had a particularly good team surrounding him either. You could argue that Orr would have won a bunch of Cups on those Kings teams (he is PURE MAGIC!!!! after all), but again, your argument is based on fiction. But, if Gretzky couldn't win a Cup with the Kings, how come Orr couldn't win more Cups with a superior Bruins team? They were continually beaten by the Canadiens, in '73 they were ousted in the first round by the Rangers, lost in the Finals to the Flyers in '74, and the first round in '75 to the Blackhawks. You would think a player that had the ability of a magician would be able to win a few more Cups.

The problem with the Orr vs. Gretzky debate is this: they are two different players, playing in different eras, and in different positions. One of the players is "what if?" and the other is "he did." Because Orr never had the misfortune of becoming an older player, he never was able to taint his own legacy.

Whew...

For starters, Gretzky had a much better supporting cast than Orr had. Sure, Esposito and Bucyk were great players, but for the most part, the Bruins were a lunchpail team of tough pluggers.

The Oilers on the other hand were a stacked team. Look at all the Oilers on the roster of Team Canada at the '84 Canada Cup: Gretzky, Messier, Anderson, Coffey, Fuhr, Lowe, Gregg, Huddy. And that's not even including all-star Jarri Kurri.

As for the Bruins not winning more cups: The powerhouse team that won Cups in '70 and '72 was destroyed by the WHA and the expansion draft.
*They lost their checking line and top penalty killing pair (Sanderson and Westfall)
*They lost their #1 goalie (Cheevers)
*They lost a fixture on their powerplay, as well as the sparkplug of their 2nd line (McKenzie)
*They lost a key Dman and locker room leader (Green)

To compound matters, early in game two of the '73 playoffs Espo went down with a season ending knee injury.

The exodus continued from the cheapskate Bruins after '73, when 25 goal scorer Mike Walton also bolted to the WHA.

They also ran into two HOF goalies in Dryden ('71) and Parent ('74), each of them turning in the best performances of their careers. Both of these guys won the Conn Smythe trophy when the Bruins lost against them.

Neither of those losses were Orr's fault. In the '71 series against Montreal, Orr led all Bruins with 5G, 7A, 12Pts in 7 games. It was the rest of the team that couldn't solve Dryden. He continually stoned the record-breaking, 76 goal-scoring Esposito, holding him to just 3 goals. Bucyk had only 2.

In '74 against Parent and the Flyers, Orr led all players from both teams in scoring, with 3G and 4A in 6 games (Esposito had 2G, 1A).

In 13 playoff games against championship teams with two HOF goalies at the peaks of their careers, Orr had 8G, 11A for 19 points. Over an 82 game schedule, that's the equivalent of 50G and 120Pts! Against the best of the best. And he was a defenceman! No one can possibly hold Orr responsible for not being on more Cup winners.

Orr continually excelled in the playoffs. He was the top skater on the ice even when they lost, and he won the Conn Smythe trophy in both of their Cup winning years. You can't blame the guy for not having a team that was as stacked as Gretzky's Oilers of the '80s, a team that was good enough to win the Cup even without him.

 

[popculturereference]

Whew...

For starters, Gretzky had a much better supporting cast than Orr had. Sure, Esposito and Bucyk were great players, but for the most part, the Bruins were a lunchpail team of tough pluggers.

The Oilers on the other hand were a stacked team. Look at all the Oilers on the roster of Team Canada at the '84 Canada Cup: Gretzky, Messier, Anderson, Coffey, Fuhr, Lowe, Gregg, Huddy. And that's not even including all-star Jarri Kurri.

As for the Bruins not winning more cups: The powerhouse team that won Cups in '70 and '72 was destroyed by the WHA and the expansion draft.
*They lost their checking line and top penalty killing pair (Sanderson and Westfall)
*They lost their #1 goalie (Cheevers)
*They lost a fixture on their powerplay, as well as the sparkplug of their 2nd line (McKenzie)
*They lost a key Dman and locker room leader (Green)

To compound matters, early in game two of the '73 playoffs Espo went down with a season ending knee injury.

The exodus continued from the cheapskate Bruins after '73, when 25 goal scorer Mike Walton also bolted to the WHA.

They also ran into two HOF goalies in Dryden ('71) and Parent ('74), each of them turning in the best performances of their careers. Both of these guys won the Conn Smythe trophy when the Bruins lost against them.

Neither of those losses were Orr's fault. In the '71 series against Montreal, Orr led all Bruins with 5G, 7A, 12Pts in 7 games. It was the rest of the team that couldn't solve Dryden. He continually stoned the record-breaking, 76 goal-scoring Esposito, holding him to just 3 goals. Bucyk had only 2.

In '74 against Parent and the Flyers, Orr led all players from both teams in scoring, with 3G and 4A in 6 games (Esposito had 2G, 1A).

In 13 playoff games against championship teams with two HOF goalies at the peaks of their careers, Orr had 8G, 11A for 19 points. Over an 82 game schedule, that's the equivalent of 50G and 120Pts! Against the best of the best. And he was a defenceman! No one can possibly hold Orr responsible for not being on more Cup winners.

Orr continually excelled in the playoffs. He was the top skater on the ice even when they lost, and he won the Conn Smythe trophy in both of their Cup winning years. You can't blame the guy for not having a team that was as stacked as Gretzky's Oilers of the '80s, a team that was good enough to win the Cup even without him.

I think that the Oilers had a better team the early-70s Bruins, but I was referring to his comment about why Gretzky didn't win Cups after he left the Oilers -- and how Orr was pure magic. I mean, if you are going to try and discredit Gretzky for not being able to win a Cup without the Oilers, then why can't I discredit Orr for not winning more Cups with the Bruins? I realize it isn't his fault, but, I think you'd have to agree that the Bruins teams were much better then what Gretzky had to play with after he left the Oilers (I think the Blues MIGHT be the exception here.) I was trying to point out that the argument is silly.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Best Skater

I've seen that game, and no, he wasn't "easily the fastest skater on the ice" (and "by far the best player" is exaggeration also). Bobby Hull, Gilbert Perreault, Helmut Balderis and Sergei Kapustin - at least - were faster than him at this stage. I think it was his overall skating ability and hockey brain and sheer determination - rather than him outspeeding everyone - that still made him a great player.

If Canada's opponents are to believed, at least the Czechoslovaks seemed to fear Gilbert Perreault the most during the 1976 CC (according to Peter Stastny).

From 1966 thru 1976 Bobby Orr was always the best best skater on ice. Fastest skater is rather insignificant in a hockey game if the player is slower when skating with the puck, does not have lateral movement, cannot skate backwards, etc.

Of all the players mentioned in your post only Bobby Orr could play a complete overall game - offensively and defensively, at top speed while executing all the required plays.

 

[VMBM]

From 1966 thru 1976 Bobby Orr was always the best best skater on ice. Fastest skater is rather insignificant in a hockey game if the player is slower when skating with the puck, does not have lateral movement, cannot skate backwards, etc.

Geez, have you followed the conversation at all? I wasn't blaming him for not being the fastest skater in that game; I was responding to someone who said that he was "easily" just that - which he wasn't at that point anymore. And whether he was the best or not, IMO he wasn't that "by far". And apparently the Czechoslovaks didn't think so either, since they feared Gil Perreault even more (again, we are talking about the 1976 Canada Cup).

And Perreault, Hull, Balderis and Kapustin were great all-around skaters, don't be daft.

 

[BraveCanadian]

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.

Yes but the fact that 1/3 of the teams in Orr's era were also quite poor defensively blows the hell out of this "it was much harder to score in general because they were playing defense" nonsense. The numbers are right there and either 1/3 of the teams were totally outclassed and getting burned even while concentrating on defense (in which case it still didn't matter), or they actually weren't.

It may have been harder for the teams that were lousy to score but it was no harder for teams like the B's and Habs at their peaks. They were scoring easily.

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.

Thanks for proving my point back to me, again. Yes, there was more parity between the teams even when the Oilers were a dynasty than there was between the top 70s teams and their competition. That was my point exactly.

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.

You go look at the 9-1, 8-1, 7-3 scores the Bruins had against teams in 71 and try and tell me they were "taking it easy on the weaker teams".

And as a matter of fact.. against the Leafs I see a 9-1 score, an 8-3 score.. the Rangers they beat both 6-0 and 6-3, Montreal they beat 7-2, 6-1... St. Louis 6-0, 7-1.. Chicago they only blew out once 6-2.. yup they sure having trouble scoring those B's...

Of course they would not overplay the first liners when they were way ahead.. no team does that. They certainly weren't holding back though.

This is a team that averaged over 5 goals for a game in 71 and they didn't have a lot of trouble scoring on anyone.

Thats the facts I'm sorry.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Overall Skating

Geez, have you followed the conversation at all? I wasn't blaming him for not being the fastest skater in that game; I was responding to someone who said that he was "easily" just that - which he wasn't at that point anymore. And whether he was the best or not, IMO he wasn't that "by far". And apparently the Czechoslovaks didn't think so either, since they feared Gil Perreault even more (again, we are talking about the 1976 Canada Cup).

And Perreault, Hull, Balderis and Kapustin were all great skaters, don't be daft.

Actually supported your point by expanding on the overall skating ability that Bobby Orr had.

Gilbert Perreault was feared by the Czechoslovaks because of the offensive threat that he presented. He was not a danger in the defensive zone like Orr who could transition instantly if he got the puck.

While Perreault and Hull were great skaters they could not skate backwards nearly as well as Bobby Orr could. Hull was nowhere near the threat from the right side of the rink that he was from the left.True for all wingers, they are slightly slower from their opposite side - that's why they are wingers.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Yes but the fact that 1/3 of the teams in Orr's era were also quite poor defensively blows the hell out of this "it was much harder to score in general because they were playing defense" nonsense. The numbers are right there and either 1/3 of the teams were totally outclassed and getting burned even while concentrating on defense (in which case it still didn't matter), or they actually weren't.

It may have been harder for the teams that were lousy to score but it was no harder for teams like the B's and Habs at their peaks. They were scoring easily.

How is that any different than say Gretzky's best statistical season in '86 when 6 teams out of 21 were under 60 points and half of those teams were in Gretzky's own division.
By comparison there were only 3 teams out of 14 below 60 points in Orr's best season.
Gretzky's Oilers were just as far out in front of everyone else as Orr's early 70's Bruins were, more so to be honest. The Oilers didn't have the kind of competition that the Bruins had in the Habs and Flyers.


So this whole "Orr and the Bruins beat up on a weak league" is kinda crap because Gretzky and the Oilers did exactly the same thing.
Lets also not forget that regular season OT came back in 83/84 raising overall team points.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Yes but the fact that 1/3 of the teams in Orr's era were also quite poor defensively blows the hell out of this "it was much harder to score in general because they were playing defense" nonsense. The numbers are right there and either 1/3 of the teams were totally outclassed and getting burned even while concentrating on defense (in which case it still didn't matter), or they actually weren't.

It may have been harder for the teams that were lousy to score but it was no harder for teams like the B's and Habs at their peaks. They were scoring easily.

Nope.
When every team is playing a pro defensive system, it is more difficult for anyone to score.

The fact that most teams in the 80's were letting in as many goals against as the worst team of the 70's clearly illustrates why it was easier to score in the 80's and why fewer players could break 100 points.

Thanks for proving my point back to me, again. Yes, there was more parity between the teams even when the Oilers were a dynasty than there was between the top 70s teams and their competition. That was my point exactly.

I could care less about this point. We are talking about the ability of top players to score, not the parity of the league. When every team is playing an offense first system, it is easier for everyone to score. That is the point. You try to keep dancing around it.

Do I see Gretzky scoring those 200+ point seasons in the 70's? No, I don't. I was there. I watched the way the game was played and how it changed over the years. It was harder to score in the 70's for everyone than it was in the 80's. Were Orr playing his prime in the 80's, I feel comfortable saying he would have been scoring 160-170+ points as a defenseman as opposed to 120-130 since fewer teams even bothered trying to prevent goals as much as they did score them.

You go look at the 9-1, 8-1, 7-3 scores the Bruins had against teams in 71 and try and tell me they were "taking it easy on the weaker teams".

And as a matter of fact.. against the Leafs I see a 9-1 score, an 8-3 score.. the Rangers they beat both 6-0 and 6-3, Montreal they beat 7-2, 6-1... St. Louis 6-0, 7-1.. Chicago they only blew out once 6-2.. yup they sure having trouble scoring those B's...

Yes. They were fully capable of destroying the best defensive teams, as well as the worst ones. The fact of the matter is, coaches tended to sit their top players more during lopsided games in the 70's to rest them and keep them strong for the whole season, and let their secondary players have at it. The Bruins had enough depth that their secondary players that they still ran up the score, but the top players were not.

I can think of plenty of stories off the top of my head as an example. First being Denis DeJordy, who was tending the net for LA in a Bruins blowout that year. His comments on how Orr got turned on the jets and broke away and shot the puck right into his chest for an easy save, with a big smile on his face and a wink as he skated by were commonplace in the league. Lemieux was also well known for this and you will hear expansion goaltenders tell similar stories on how he did that.

This is not to say that Orr didn't have a tough streak. He was a frequent and capable participant in hockey's typical on-ice brawls, and spent plenty of time in the penalty box paying for them. But Orr still displayed modesty in his relations with opponents. Don Cherry, Bruins coach in the mid-1970s, recalled in an interview with Craig MacInnis for the book Remembering Bobby Orr that Orr went out of his way not to humiliate losing teams. "I saw him pass up goals and points because we were playing expansion teams. Once we'd get up 4-1 or 5-1 he would not want to embarrass the other teams…. After a great goal, he'd put his head down. He felt embarrassed for the other team."

Of course they would not overplay the first liners when they were way ahead.. no team does that. They certainly weren't holding back though.

This is a team that averaged over 5 goals for a game in 71 and they didn't have a lot of trouble scoring on anyone.

Thats the facts I'm sorry.

And Orr scored almost at the exact same pace against some of the deep, extremely talented original 6 teams loaded with stars that anyone would have had trouble scoring against. If he were munching on the easy teams as you imply he would have scored far less against the best teams and far more against the weak teams. He didn't. Thus, disproving your entire theory.

 

[bleeney]

And Orr scored almost at the exact same pace against some of the deep, extremely talented original 6 teams loaded with stars that anyone would have had trouble scoring against. If he were munching on the easy teams as you imply he would have scored far less against the best teams and far more against the weak teams. He didn't. Thus, disproving your entire theory.

I agree with you 100% here, Dark Shadows. Orr didn't like embarassing the other team. He didn't jump up and down after scoring... he'd just tap his teammates, put his head down and get on with the game. He was also known for having mercy against lesser team once the game was well in hand. He would pass off to his teammates, trying to help them hit 20 goals to get their bonus, rather than pad his own numbers by feasting on the weak. In fact, Orr feasted on the strong.

As I posted earlier, in the '71 series against the Habs, which was arguably the best performance of Dryden's great carrer, Orr was sensational. In fact, he was the only Bruin who "solved" Dryden, who was otherwise practically unbeatable.

And in the '74 finals against the Broad Street Bullies, with the great Bernie Parent at his finest, Orr led all players in the series in scoring.

Against two great teams, with two of the greatest goalies ever giving the peak performances of their careers (both of them winning the Conn Smythe), Orr had a combined 8 goals, 11 assists, for 19 points in 13 games.

That translates to 50 goals and 120 points over an 82 game schedule.

 

[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.

If Orr had not had those knee injuries, he was so superior athletically to all who ever laced up the skates, that he would have not slowed down nearly as fast as anyone else. He would have still played athletically far better than even the youngsters. Of course he played hard every night, and he got hurt. It was said by most who played who played against him, saw him play, or played with him, that it was like he was so far more superior to all, it was like he was playing against amateurs.

He also wasn't just a 4th forward making it seem like he was maybe inferior to the rest, and he was by far the best offensive player who ever played to game. He could do it all offensively, the best passer, skater, athlete, the most true shot maybe ever, always on the ice or just above, and was easy to misdirect it into the net for a goal. He had no weaknesses, mentally, emotionally, and he was everywhere all over the ice, meaning he couldn't just hang out in center ice so he could score a lot of points. He was the best player on the ice at every second of every game, never out of a game in his own end so he could lead the league in scoring. The fact he was never able to just stay deep in the offensive zone so he could score more points makes him the greatest scorer ever. He had to go deep into the zone, quickly go around or in front of the net and make an instant decision to pass or shoot and get back to the point. That means he may have been the greatest scorer ever based on the little time he spent deep in the zone.

Bobby Orr, a defenseman, was the 4th leading scorer in NHL history based on point per game. If you can't get the genius in that, only Gretzky, Lemiuex, and one other player were better, and he played 3/4 of the game or more behind the place they drop the puck in the circles out in front of the goal, where all other great offensive threats are down beneath the faceoff spot.

It blows me away that so many of you don't see how great he was. I would personally take him if I needed a goal to win over Gretzky. Bobby would make the defensive play in his zone, the only player ever who could make this play, rushing out of his zone and have a one on 3 play, him against your 3 players, and dance his way with speed, toughness, allusiveness, the greatest stick handler when you also consider his skating and playmaking at full speed, he could score from anywhere, and he didn't need to hang out at center ice. He could literally get by all 3 players and score or get his mate a great shot.

No comparison, I take Orr because he could make the D play and the O play to win it for you, and when a player gets the puck out of his end so easily, it is his offense that did it,not his D.

 

[quasi1981]

I've seen that game, and no, he wasn't "easily the fastest skater on the ice" (and "by far the best player" is exaggeration also). Bobby Hull, Gilbert Perreault, Helmut Balderis and Sergei Kapustin - at least - were faster than him at this stage. I think it was his overall skating ability and hockey brain and sheer determination - rather than him outspeeding everyone - that still made him a great player.

If Canada's opponents are to believed, at least the Czechoslovaks seemed to fear Gilbert Perreault the most during the 1976 CC (according to Peter Stastny).

Sorry my friend, every one knew the only reason why we beat the Soviets was Orr, because only he could skate with them and better than them, even Hull himself said he was better and faster than them on one knee. And still the best player in hockey. Wow one guy says Perrault. i am talking about the players and almost if not all the writers.

 

[quasi1981]

See, this is the problem when you are addressing a "what if?" player. You don't have the ability to assess his career normally, so people are left creating hypotheticals that don't seem to have any bearing in reality.

Sure, it's easy to point out that Gretzky never won another Cup after leaving the Oilers, but the Kings never had a particularly good team surrounding him either. You could argue that Orr would have won a bunch of Cups on those Kings teams (he is PURE MAGIC!!!! after all), but again, your argument is based on fiction. But, if Gretzky couldn't win a Cup with the Kings, how come Orr couldn't win more Cups with a superior Bruins team? They were continually beaten by the Canadiens, in '73 they were ousted in the first round by the Rangers, lost in the Finals to the Flyers in '74, and the first round in '75 to the Blackhawks. You would think a player that had the ability of a magician would be able to win a few more Cups.

The problem with the Orr vs. Gretzky debate is this: they are two different players, playing in different eras, and in different positions. One of the players is "what if?" and the other is "he did." Because Orr never had the misfortune of becoming an older player, he never was able to taint his own legacy.

The reason he couldn't beat the Canadians was their goalie, the best clutch goalie I ever saw, Ken Dryden, and it wasn't his goals against average, a very overrated stat, it is making the plays when they are needed. The b's totally outplayed them, and just couldn't put it by him. goaltending, the most important position in hockey.

Regardless of what you say, almost everyone who saw both, played with or against both, all say the believe Orr was the best ever, not gretzky.

Orr made a terrible Bruin team better his rookie year, and He always made his team better. He was not a Michael Jordan who did not, and when he played with the Wizards, he was still athletically better than most but didn't know the game well enough. If Bird played in his body, the Wizards would at least have been a playoff contender. and Orr was that way, even on one knee, always made his team better, a great team player he was.

 

[quasi1981]

From 1966 thru 1976 Bobby Orr was always the best best skater on ice. Fastest skater is rather insignificant in a hockey game if the player is slower when skating with the puck, does not have lateral movement, cannot skate backwards, etc.

Of all the players mentioned in your post only Bobby Orr could play a complete overall game - offensively and defensively, at top speed while executing all the required plays.

Thanks Canadian1958, it gets hard to get these youngsters to see Orr for what he was, he never got to be deeper than the center of the faceoff circle in the offensive end for more than a few seconds, having to make a quick shot or pass and back to the point. And he was the 4th leading scorer of all time in points per game.

He simply had Game, the whole Game.

Thanks

 

[pluppe]

Sorry my friend, every one knew the only reason why we beat the Soviets was Orr, because only he could skate with them and better than them, even Hull himself said he was better and faster than them on one knee. And still the best player in hockey. Wow one guy says Perrault. i am talking about the players and almost if not all the writers.

that´s pure hyperbole. and quite disrespectful to his team-mates.

The reason he couldn't beat the Canadians was their goalie, the best clutch goalie I ever saw, Ken Dryden, and it wasn't his goals against average, a very overrated stat, it is making the plays when they are needed. The b's totally outplayed them, and just couldn't put it by him. goaltending, the most important position in hockey.

Regardless of what you say, almost everyone who saw both, played with or against both, all say the believe Orr was the best ever, not gretzky.

Orr made a terrible Bruin team better his rookie year, and He always made his team better. He was not a Michael Jordan who did not, and when he played with the Wizards, he was still athletically better than most but didn't know the game well enough. If Bird played in his body, the Wizards would at least have been a playoff contender. and Orr was that way, even on one knee, always made his team better, a great team player he was.

why attack Jordan? you don´t think this has to do with him being 40 years old at the time coming out of a retirement? I love Bobby but nobody knows what kind of impact he would have had as a 40 year-old on a lousy team. don´t use it as an argument.

 

[Canadiens1958]

The Hockey Pendulum

Nope.
When every team is playing a pro defensive system, it is more difficult for anyone to score.

The fact that most teams in the 80's were letting in as many goals against as the worst team of the 70's clearly illustrates why it was easier to score in the 80's and why fewer players could break 100 points.

The hockey pendulum effect is common throughout the history of hockey.

Between 1960 and 1967 hockey saw two major offensive changes. The slapshot and the rushing defensemen - Bobby Orr. Both changed the way defense was played. By the late 1970's the defenses and goaltending had caught up strategically and technically so you did not see the high scoring numbers generated in the early 1970's.

The eighties changed this as first Wayne Gretzky then Mario Lemieux brought the perimeter into the offense, soon imitated by others. Scoring went up but then the defenses and goaltenders adapted and scoring dropped again.

If people are interested I can trace this trend back in time.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

The hockey pendulum effect is common throughout the history of hockey.

Between 1960 and 1967 hockey saw two major offensive changes. The slapshot and the rushing defensemen - Bobby Orr. Both changed the way defense was played. By the late 1970's the defenses and goaltending had caught up strategically and technically so you did not see the high scoring numbers generated in the early 1970's.

The eighties changed this as first Wayne Gretzky then Mario Lemieux brought the perimeter into the offense, soon imitated by others. Scoring went up but then the defenses and goaltenders adapted and scoring dropped again.

If people are interested I can trace this trend back in time.

The "copycat" effect is definitely an interesting one over time.

I know scoring hit its lowest point ever in the early 1950s, after the 1940s Leafs dynasty beat everyone up with smothering defense.

But then the best two teams in the 1950s were the two most offensive minded teams (the Tommy Ivan Red Wings and the Toe Blake Canadiens), and scoring increased over the course of the decade into the 1960s.