Orr Vs Gretzky

[JaymzB]

I don't think that's it at all in this case.
If Gretzky put the same effort into preventing goals and digging for pucks in the defensive zone that he did trying to score goals and digging for the puck in the offensive zone....we would definitely remember that for sure.

I mean it's really not hard to remember Forsberg, Fedorov and Yzerman being down low in their own zone fighting for the puck, breaking up plays.
Yet you would have to strain yourself to even remember Gretzky coming back much past his own blueline.

After all, we are talking about a/the hockey genius here and you can't tell me that he couldn't of put some of that genius into the defensive side of the game more often.

I'm sure he could have "dug in the corners" much more than he historically did. Of course, his team probably wouldn't have won as much, but he'd be viewed as a more complete player 20 years later, which is all that matters...

 

[BraveCanadian]

Gretzky had so much world-class talent around him it ain't funny:
*His linemate (Kurri) was a premier sniper as well as being a defensive standout
*Messier and Anderson were fixtures on Team Canada
*Coffey and Lowe were also fixtures on Team Canada
*Grant Fuhr (Team Canada's starting goalie)

Five Orrs vs. five Gretzkys, the Orrs win hands down.

Both of these are fanboy arguments.

The Oilers were a dynasty team but the top teams of the 70s separated themselves more from the pack than even the dynasty Oilers did as you can see from my previous posts.

On top of that the 71 Bruins had the top 4 scorers in the league and 7 out of the top 10. Please don't even try to say Gretzky had more help from his teammates. The Bruins also had 4 of the top 12 scorers in 72. 3 of the top 7 in 73.. the top 4 in 74 etc..

Wayne and Bobby played on very strong teams and obviously they were both a big part of those teams doing so well.. but to say one had a much bigger advantage than the other is simply false. If anything the opposite of what you say is true.. the Bruins were actually stronger vs. the competition they faced.

The 5 Orrs vs 5 Gretzkys is just a silly thing to even bring up.

 

[Ward Cornell]

Exactly.

*frustrated as hell*

Yeah, tell me about it.
Seeing Orr play is believing while others crunch senseless data and numbers.

 

[Fourier]

Yeah, tell me about it.
Seeing Orr play is believing while others crunch senseless data and numbers.

But some of us might say that seeing Gretzky is believing.

To be honest, I never try to sway anyone's opinion on this debate, because it is virtually impossible to do so.

I watched Orr's whole career, in the sense that I was a Habs fan from the time he entered the league. But I was really too young to appreciate his first few years, and never saw him live. All things considered, I probably saw him play on TV quite a bit less than 100 times.

Gretzky on the other hand I saw live easily over 400 times. ,and likely over 1000 times in total. So for me I would choose Gretzky, but I have no problem with anyone who sees it otherwise, though the number of misconceptions about his game, especially while an Oiler, still surprises me.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Coffey was past prime,while Park and Howe were significantly past prime. Ozolinsh won't even get a sniff of the HHOF.

Just because they were past their prime or that Ozo won't get into the HoF, what does that have to do with the fact they were still premier rushing Dmen.
I mean Coffey was still almost a PPG in Detroit and the only exceptional part of Ozo's game was his ability to rush the puck.

Also while you wouldn't call Lidstrom and Murphy rushing Dmen, they were still both very good in the transition game.

Sorry man, I just find the argument that having a rushing Dman somehow makes defensive effort invisible fits in the lame duck category imo.

 

[85highlander]

Both of these are fanboy arguments.

The Oilers were a dynasty team but the top teams of the 70s separated themselves more from the pack than even the dynasty Oilers did as you can see from my previous posts.

On top of that the 71 Bruins had the top 4 scorers in the league and 7 out of the top 10. Please don't even try to say Gretzky had more help from his teammates. The Bruins also had 4 of the top 12 scorers in 72. 3 of the top 7 in 73.. the top 4 in 74 etc..

Wayne and Bobby played on very strong teams and obviously they were both a big part of those teams doing so well.. but to say one had a much bigger advantage than the other is simply false. If anything the opposite of what you say is true.. the Bruins were actually stronger vs. the competition they faced.

The 5 Orrs vs 5 Gretzkys is just a silly thing to even bring up.

Perhaps silly to some, but instructive nevertheless....

I've seen some critique the all-around player argument, or the more complete player argument. I would agree to a point, but it's important to remember that Orr wasn't merely a complete player, he is the ONLY player to win the established benchmarks for defense (Norris) and offense (Art Ross) concurrently in the same season, and he did it more than once.

This has never been duplicated -- not by Gretzky, Howe, or Jesus. This is more than a complete player. There have been other "complete" players, but none that were that complete.

Plus he worked the corners, blocked shots, and fought when necessary (more than Howe, Gretzky, and Lemeiux combined, btw).

He wasn't merely a "complete" player, he was all of hockey (sans goal tending, apologies to my goalie friends) wrapped up in one player, the completeness of which had never been witnessed before --- or since.

That's why having five Orr's (a Norris and Art Ross physical player who was also the best skater the league had ever seen before his injuries at EVERY position) would absolutely DESTROY a team of five Gretzky's (Art Ross player only).

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

well yeah, the five orrs vs. five gretzkys scenario means nothing because in the real world you can't play clones. however, it's an interesting thought experiment in that it shows that bobby orr is probably able to excel in more situations than gretzky.

in a hypothetical scenario-- let's say you have a legit top four guy as your seventh d-man and you've just lost your top two centers to injury and you're in a game seven. orr would be a fantastic first line center in a pinch, or a grinding left winger, or he can play a scott stevens role if needed, or a mike bossy role, etc. gretzky didn't have that versatility, and i honestly don't think he could play many roles other than being gretzky. this doesn't prove that orr is the better player, but it does show that he has facets to his game that gretzky doesn't.

but i will also say that what gretzky did in his prime, which was to make every other guy on the ice a dangerous scoring option while outpacing the next highest scoring guy (teammates/linemates included) by more than 3/2, is something i don't think anyone else in history-- including orr as a forward-- could do. or could have easily been a hall of fame center, but i doubt he could have been gretzky.

 

[85highlander]

well yeah, the five orrs vs. five gretzkys scenario means nothing because in the real world you can't play clones. however, it's an interesting thought experiment in that it shows that bobby orr is probably able to excel in more situations than gretzky.

in a hypothetical scenario-- let's say you have a legit top four guy as your seventh d-man and you've just lost your top two centers to injury and you're in a game seven. orr would be a fantastic first line center in a pinch, or a grinding left winger, or he can play a scott stevens role if needed, or a mike bossy role, etc. gretzky didn't have that versatility, and i honestly don't think he could play many roles other than being gretzky. this doesn't prove that orr is the better player, but it does show that he has facets to his game that gretzky doesn't.

but i will also say that what gretzky did in his prime, which was to make every other guy on the ice a dangerous scoring option while outpacing the next highest scoring guy (teammates/linemates included) by more than 3/2, is something i don't think anyone else in history-- including orr as a forward-- could do. or could have easily been a hall of fame center, but i doubt he could have been gretzky.

Believe it or not, if you want comparables between positional peers, Phil Esposito actually scored at a higher rate over other centers at a rate even higher than Gretzky for a year or two -- in Espo's year of 76 goals and 76 assists his % over the next highest scoring center was even greater than anything Gretzky did.... of course Esposito didn't keep this up, and I'm not saying that Esposito was as good as Gretzky, but he did something at a higher rate than even the great one.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Wait a minute...

Orr's entire career was in his prime? Excuse me??

Orr played through horrific injuries throughout his entire career. Some examples:

So you're saying Orr was past his prime by 21 because of injuries? Give me a freaking break. He (like Mike Bossy) had less than a full season of visible decline before retiring due to injury, which gives him an advantage over someone who actually played a full career if you want to average out their career stats.

Orr didn't need to rely on anyone for anything. He used his speed, strength and physicality to break up plays and take the puck by himself, and when he got it, he was unstoppable. He hit, battled, blocked shots, fought... whatever the situation called for, he did, and did spectacularly.

Most of these are a positive for Orr. But personally? The fact that Orr could be goaded into fights is a negative for him. Hell, players like Dennis Hextall made their careers by being able to goad Orr into fights. Gordie Howe and Larry Robinson are the examples of superstars who could kick anyone's ass if they actually fought, everyone knew it so they treaded lightly around them, but they didn't actually fight very often because they were much more valuable on the ice. Orr fought, but honestly, did he help his team by fighting? I highly doubt it.

But even still, lets look at their TGF/TGA during years two through nine (because Orr's rookie stats aren't available):

Gretzky: 627 games, 1865 TGF, 1018 TGA
Orr: 570 games, 1601 TGF, 756 TGA

Over an 82 game schedule, the numbers would look like this:
Gretzky: 244 TGF, 133 TGA = +111
Orr: 230 TGF, 109 TGA = +121

Exactly. Orr comes out ahead of Gretzky in each one's respective prime, but the margin is very small. Just what I suspected.

Orr still comes out ahead of Gretzky by a margin of 10 goals. And that doesn't take into consideration the fact that while Gretzky was disgustingly healthy, Orr was hardly "in his prime" due to his countless serious injuries. He couldn't even skate when he retired. Nor does it consider Orr's role as the top shutdown Dman on the Bruins, always being out in key defensive situations against the opposition's top offensive threats. He also played a ton of minutes on the PK, much more than Gretzky, all of which would have increased his TGA.

Oh give me a break. "In his prime" means when a player was playing at his best. This is just making excuses. So Orr wasn't even healthy in his prime. How doees that make him a better player? Each man accomplished what he accomplished. Orr's speed is a physical attribute that affected his ability to play hockey, same as his durability (or lack thereof)
.

It also doesn't take into consideration the superior teammates that Gretzky played with. Orr had a lot of quality teammates, but they were not the Oilers. Aside from Orr, they had two truly world-class players (Espo and Bucyk, although Bucyk wasn't good enough to be chosen for Team Canada in '72). Cashman, Hodge, Sanderson, Dallas Smith etc. were the equivalent of Tikannen, Linsman, Huddy, Gregg etc.

For the first few years of Gretzky's prime, the Oilers were a worse team than Orr's Bruins. Esposito, for instance, was 7th in league scoring the year before he was traded to Boston. Tikkanen wasn't even on the team. Kurri, Messier, and Coffey were really nothing for Gretzky's first few years in the league.

I get that there is a valid reason to rank Orr over Gretzky, but some of these arguments are brutal. There is no need to diminish the greatness of Gretzky to push that of Orr.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Perhaps silly to some, but instructive nevertheless....

5 Orrs vs. 5 Gretzkys might be instructive if cloning were a part of hockey, and not just science fiction. In the real world, you only get one of each player and the question is which guy makes a team of mere mortals better by adding his presence?

I've seen some critique the all-around player argument, or the more complete player argument. I would agree to a point, but it's important to remember that Orr wasn't merely a complete player, he is the ONLY player to win the established benchmarks for defense (Norris) and offense (Art Ross) concurrently in the same season, and he did it more than once.

This has never been duplicated -- not by Gretzky, Howe, or Jesus. This is more than a complete player. There have been other "complete" players, but none that were that complete.

If Gretzky or Howe won the Norris trophy as a forward, they'd pretty much have to be Jesus.

Plus he worked the corners, blocked shots, and fought when necessary (more than Howe, Gretzky, and Lemeiux combined, btw).

And like I said upthread, I think the fact that Orr could be goaded into taking himself off the ice with fights is a negative, not a positive. Howe could kick the ass of anyone in the league and everyone knew it. But Howe rarely fought; just the fact that he could kick your ass if he wanted to was enough of an incentive to back down when he elbowed you in the corner. To me, that's a lot more impressive than Orr taking himself off the ice for 5 minutes on a regular basis.

That's why having five Orr's (a Norris and Art Ross physical player who was also the best skater the league had ever seen before his injuries at EVERY position) would absolutely DESTROY a team of five Gretzky's (Art Ross player only).

How much of that is because Orr was a defenseman, though? A defenseman, by the nature of the position, simply has more impact over the whole ice surface than a forward.

 

[BraveCanadian]

That's why having five Orr's (a Norris and Art Ross physical player who was also the best skater the league had ever seen before his injuries at EVERY position) would absolutely DESTROY a team of five Gretzky's (Art Ross player only).

Gretzky.. an "Art Ross player only".. oh my...

That 5 on 5 may be true in the sense that Orr was a more complete player. But if we're playing a game of meaningless hypotheticals:

I am just as certain that 4 Orrs and 1 Gretzky on one side would trounce 5 Orrs on the other.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

That's why having five Orr's (a Norris and Art Ross physical player who was also the best skater the league had ever seen before his injuries at EVERY position) would absolutely DESTROY a team of five Gretzky's (Art Ross player only).

A team of five Gretzkys would have two Gretzkys playing defense. And if a Paul Coffey can win Norrises, then so could a "defenseman Gretzky".

That's just a part of what makes your argument silly. You can't introduce "what ifs" and then make statements which are incongruous with those what ifs.

 

[85highlander]

A team of five Gretzkys would have two Gretzkys playing defense. And if a Paul Coffey can win Norrises, then so could a "defenseman Gretzky".

That's just a part of what makes your argument silly. You can't introduce "what ifs" and then make statements which are incongruous with those what ifs.

As Orr has won the major awards on both ends of the ice, and Gretzky hasn't (and to be fair, couldn't, because of his position), anyone postulating Gretzky playing a Norris type defense would be stretching credulity. Heck, I'd suffice and shut up if Gretzky ever won a Selke, which on a probabilistic scale would have been more likely to happen than a defenseman ever winning the Art Ross, as only Orr has accomplished.

Has any forward ever won both awards (Art Ross and Selke) concurrently? NO. How many votes for the Selke did Gretzky earn in his career? I don't have the number handy, but I'm guessing its probably about the same as the number of checks and blocked shots he had during his career.

And this is much more doable (seeing forwards generally have more scoring opportunities than defensemen) than a defenseman winning the Art Ross.

Look, Gretzky was a fantastic player, and this thread is looking for comparables of all sorts. The five on five may be silly for some, but it still has merit because it's near impossible to compare a defenseman with a center to begin with.

 

[reckoning]

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

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

Thank you. That pretty much says it all.

There's several valid reasons to pick Orr (as there are with Gretzky), but creating some hypothetical fantasy situation, then stating what someone thinks might happen in that hypothetical fantasy situation (which is impossible to prove) as an indisputable fact isn't one of them.



By the way, I like how a new member joins the board, then immediately bumps a thread from three years ago, and all their posts have contained a shot against Gretzky. Welcome back.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Bobby Orr Live

But some of us might say that seeing Gretzky is believing.

To be honest, I never try to sway anyone's opinion on this debate, because it is virtually impossible to do so.

I watched Orr's whole career, in the sense that I was a Habs fan from the time he entered the league. But I was really too young to appreciate his first few years, and never saw him live. All things considered, I probably saw him play on TV quite a bit less than 100 times.

Gretzky on the other hand I saw live easily over 400 times. ,and likely over 1000 times in total. So for me I would choose Gretzky, but I have no problem with anyone who sees it otherwise, though the number of misconceptions about his game, especially while an Oiler, still surprises me.

Bobby Orr live was a treat to watch. First saw him live with the Oshawa Generals against the Scotty Bowman coached Junior Canadiens when Bobby Orr was 15 and then almost everytime he played in Montreal, 1nc. the 1976 Canada Cup plus a few times in Boston and Toronto.

See Bobby Orr on TV or video is very misleading since you are watching in 2-D on a reduced surface a game that was played in 3-d on a 200' x 85' rink. In person, especially from the end behind the player you get an excellent perspective of how he sees and plays the game.

Also in person you get a clear understanding of how the smaller Boston Garden rink crimped Bobby Orr's game. How much more difficult he was to cover on the regulation Forum or MLG ice surface.

 

[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.

They scored way more points in the 80's than 50s and 60s. No contest. Orr played in a league after a year or 2 and point totals increased drastically. What matters is who was the better player. Orr as a defenseman is the 4th leading scorer of all time behind Gretz and Lemiuex and someone who is 3rd.

So if Orr had come in as a center and not defense as the Bruins had to take the time to decide, I think he easily could have challenged #s 1 & 2.

 

[quasi1981]

Thank you. That pretty much says it all.

There's several valid reasons to pick Orr (as there are with Gretzky), but creating some hypothetical fantasy situation, then stating what someone thinks might happen in that hypothetical fantasy situation (which is impossible to prove) as an indisputable fact isn't one of them.



By the way, I like how a new member joins the board, then immediately bumps a thread from three years ago, and all their posts have contained a shot against Gretzky. Welcome back.

Both sides are taking sides against either player, and most important is the players who played with or against both, and the fans who got to watch both almost unanimously picked Orr.

The point is the Orr fans have many excellent reasons to pick Orr and the Gretzky fans have essentially scoring titles and records on the offensive side, where Orr is very close in scoring being the 4th leading scorer of all time in points per game and playing defense first. As a center, and the was a center, he would have outclassed any era in any league. He would have challenged Gretzky's records and still play a complete hockey game from forechecking to backchecking.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Short Term

And like I said upthread, . Howe could kick the ass of anyone in the league and everyone knew it. But Howe rarely fought; just the fact that he could kick your ass if he wanted to was enough of an incentive to back down when he elbowed you in the corner. To me, that's a lot more impressive than Orr taking himself off the ice for 5 minutes on a regular basis.

Short term there is the loss of the player for five minutes +/-. Long term it has the benefits that players on the team bond and are more protective of the supperstar.

If the star player is an elite fighter - Howe, it is very dissuasive - Fontinato and long term he would have to fight a lot less.

 

[quasi1981]

Thank you. That pretty much says it all.

There's several valid reasons to pick Orr (as there are with Gretzky), but creating some hypothetical fantasy situation, then stating what someone thinks might happen in that hypothetical fantasy situation (which is impossible to prove) as an indisputable fact isn't one of them.



By the way, I like how a new member joins the board, then immediately bumps a thread from three years ago, and all their posts have contained a shot against Gretzky. Welcome back.

the only reason this 5 on 5 is ever used and only with Orr, in hockey and not other sport I have heard, is he would have been an all pro, not just an allstar, but the best player at any position he played, maybe even goalie, so 5 Orr's could play as a team, as he was a virtual 10 at all aspects of the team game, meaning he could give up parts of his play being a role player and a star.

He was amazing and could do anything, and all who watched or played in the NHL in his day would still say He was so great, that he was from a league above ours, and we were amateurs.

He was that good, and it was nothing to do with scoring records at all. They are only used mostly because that is all Gretzky fans seem to use to show his greatness.

 

[quasi1981]

A team of five Gretzkys would have two Gretzkys playing defense. And if a Paul Coffey can win Norrises, then so could a "defenseman Gretzky".

That's just a part of what makes your argument silly. You can't introduce "what ifs" and then make statements which are incongruous with those what ifs.

That makes great sense. Coffey was nothing like Orr in any way. He was no way in Orr's league.

 

[quasi1981]

Gretzky.. an "Art Ross player only".. oh my...

That 5 on 5 may be true in the sense that Orr was a more complete player. But if we're playing a game of meaningless hypotheticals:

I am just as certain that 4 Orrs and 1 Gretzky on one side would trounce 5 Orrs on the other.

But not 4 Gretzky's and 1 Orr, no way!!

 

[quasi1981]

5 Orrs vs. 5 Gretzkys might be instructive if cloning were a part of hockey, and not just science fiction. In the real world, you only get one of each player and the question is which guy makes a team of mere mortals better by adding his presence?



If Gretzky or Howe won the Norris trophy as a forward, they'd pretty much have to be Jesus.


And like I said upthread, I think the fact that Orr could be goaded into taking himself off the ice with fights is a negative, not a positive. Howe could kick the ass of anyone in the league and everyone knew it. But Howe rarely fought; just the fact that he could kick your ass if he wanted to was enough of an incentive to back down when he elbowed you in the corner. To me, that's a lot more impressive than Orr taking himself off the ice for 5 minutes on a regular basis.



How much of that is because Orr was a defenseman, though? A defenseman, by the nature of the position, simply has more impact over the whole ice surface than a forward.

On the last sentence, maybe so, but Orr was a center to start till 11 and 12 when Bucko McDonald, and ex NHL Dman thought that Orr's charging way of skating would be great as a Dman, so he taught him to be a great Dman.

He was an allstar at either end of the ice. If they had made him a forward, with his backchecking abilty, he would still have dug the puck out of his own end and started a rush as he was a far better skater and puckhandler along with allusiveness.

 

[quasi1981]

Believe it or not, if you want comparables between positional peers, Phil Esposito actually scored at a higher rate over other centers at a rate even higher than Gretzky for a year or two -- in Espo's year of 76 goals and 76 assists his % over the next highest scoring center was even greater than anything Gretzky did.... of course Esposito didn't keep this up, and I'm not saying that Esposito was as good as Gretzky, but he did something at a higher rate than even the great one.

It may have had a little to do with #4. Espo was not a great player or scorer before and after playing for Boston.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Point Being

Just because they were past their prime or that Ozo won't get into the HoF, what does that have to do with the fact they were still premier rushing Dmen.
I mean Coffey was still almost a PPG in Detroit and the only exceptional part of Ozo's game was his ability to rush the puck.

Also while you wouldn't call Lidstrom and Murphy rushing Dmen, they were still both very good in the transition game.

Sorry man, I just find the argument that having a rushing Dman somehow makes defensive effort invisible fits in the lame duck category imo.

Point is that with an elite rushing defenseman a team cannot benefit from having their elite center in close proximity to the defenseman because by doing so they negate the advantage that such players offer by spreading coverage on the ice.Inevitably the center plays high - close to the blue line while the defenseman plays near the net.Up near the blue line requires a different defensive effort from the center than down low does.

Ozolinsh may have had rushing skills but the issue with him in the defensive zone was getting him the puck so that he could rush, hence the center had to play lower.

Park and Howe were getting by on experience in Detroit, evidenced by their numbers.

Coffey in Detroit produce numbers that were a fraction of the totals he had in Edmonton and Pittsburgh. Also he never found the harmony that he had with the Edmonton forwards.

 

[canucks4ever]

3 gretzky's and 2 doug harvey's should school 5 bobby orrs. Gretzky provides more offense, doug harvey is better defensviely.