Orr Vs Gretzky

[TheDevilMadeMe]

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.

It's far from unanimous. The THN Top 100 players of all time has Gretzky at #1 and Orr at #2. Most (all?) of the panel would have seen Bobby Orr in his prime.

 

[Fourier]

Orr's greatest gift was making all the players around him better "players" not just scorers, and all of them were much better scorers because of #4.
He led the league in assists in the last 5 of 6 years in good health, and Espo beat him by 3 in the year 72-73.

How does this set Orr apart from Gretzky? In my eyes, this is one area in which there is no question that Gretzky exceeded Orr. I don't think anyone has ever matched Gretzky's ability to make others better.

And he was playing D. It took him a few years to get the full game going offensively though he was by far the best offensive overall player to ever lace up, and after that he scored many goals but he was the greatest team player ever because to be a great team player, one has to at least try to play a complete game. He was moving so fast and spent very little time deep in the opposing teams end and still was the greatest passer ever. He couldn't just sit behind the net and look for people to pass to. He would have if he had been made a center which the Bs almost did, and chose the D as his place.

To say he was not a complete player, or maybe the greatest offensive threat ever? He was a great offensive player deep in his own end the way he got the puck out of his zone with ease and was always a huge threat to score no matter where he was on the ice, starting fast breaks out of his end going by and around players like they were not moving.

I am sorry but this is all over the place. Are you claimimg that Orr was by far the best offensive player to ever play? If so, I doubt you would get much support.

Are you claiming that Gretzky was not a great team player. Because again, if so I am not really even sure what to say.

I have no problem with your belief that Orr was better than Gretzky. But your case, is completely off the mark. For example, you say...

Absolutely, and he could do everything and was on all power plays and shorthanded situations, and would give you and offensive lift in penalty killing, which also meant he would offensively skate all over he ice for most of a penallty, in and out of either teams zones then back out again while 2 or 3 guys tried to catch him to no avail. and you know if you saw him that this is no exaggeration.

But at the same time you hint that Gretzky was one dimensional. Yet when it came to penalty killing Gretzky and the Oilers completely changed the paradigm. You are aware that Gretzky scored 73 shorthanded goals aren't you? You've never seen Gretzky rag the puck on a penalty kill?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Not to take anything away from Orr, but the idea that Gretzky wasn't a team player is bizarre. He was the captain of 4 Cup winners and always captain of Team Canada in the Canada Cups. Mario Lemieux credits playing with Gretzky in the 87 Canada Cup with teaching him the value of working hard.

 

[Fourier]

Gretzky was an unbelievable player. Truly unbelievable. I can understand why those who are too young to have seen Orr play find it impossible to believe that he could've been better than Wayne. But as one who is fortunate enough to have seen both of their careers from beginning to end, my opinion of Gretzky was always "he's unreal, but as great as he is, he's no Orr". That was actually quite a common sentiment amongst those of us who saw them both play.

Darryl Sittler:



That, in a nutshell, sums up what so many of us feel.

I am no trying to dismiss your position as there are legitimate reasons to choose Orr over Gretzky. But what makes debates between generations so difficult is that either a person

1) has seen neither play.

2) has seen one but not the other

3) has seen both.

Now in case, 1) it is easy to be critical of one's position since there is no substitute for actually having seen a player play. In case 2), a person's position may be easy to dismiss as generational ignorance. So one is left to assume that case 3) leads to the truth. Unfortunately, though this is seldom the case. People have a very strong tendancy in these situations to go with the older players. Especially, if they were contemporaries or if they watched those players in their formative years.

Ask players of Howe's and Richard's generation who was the best, and most would likley pick one of those two. Go back even further and you will see the same for players of previous generations.

Of course Sittler has a right to his opinion. But really he was a contemporay of Orr's, not Gretzky. If you broke into the league in 1970 Orr was the man, the guy you set your sights on. This has a powerful effect on one's impresions of the individual. As a Leaf in the 70's Sittler would have been up close and personal with Bobby Orr on many occasions but his encounters with Gretzky would have been much less consequential.

As I said, I respect your position, but I would still like to know how often you saw the two players play during their prime, particularly how often you saw them play live? My question is not intended to attack your credibility but rather it is more a curiostity about how people's experinces shape their opinions.

 

[85highlander]

Bobby Orr isn't the only elite two way player. Gordie Howe and Bobby Clarke were excellent two way players. Only difference, howe has more mvps, more cups, 3x the durability and he's way more physical than orr ever was.

No, but Bobby Orr was by far and away the best, as winning both the Art Ross and Norris concurrently prove. Yes, I am repeating myself...but this is such a sick accomplishment it bears repeating. Winning both awards doesn't put Orr in an elite class as far as two way players, it places him squarely on the top, looking down at every other hockey player because nobody else ever reached that height.

Did Clark or Howe ever win the Selke? Has ANY Art Ross player ever won the Selke trophy...? But a defenseman has won the Art Ross more than once.

And for those who want to romance Gretzky's career, you do realize that his plus/minus was in the negative category SEVEN times his last few years. Piling on stats, filling stadiums, and being on the ice for more goals against than any player in NHL history should at least be mentioned and acknowledged by honest hockey fans.

As for physical play, I noticed you didn't mention Gretzky....there are no "what ifs" about his lack and abhorrence of a physical game, including fighting -- it was totally absent.

As for Orr and Howe going toe to toe, and as one who actually watched plenty of Howe, let's just say if these two fought it would be closer than you think -- Orr was never soundly beaten in a fighting major, though he fought to a few draws. Howe also did not knock out everyone he fought (though his battle with Lou Fontinato is legendary). He also fought to a few draws -- HOWEVER, his elbows would crush and destroy you in the corners.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

No, but Bobby Orr was by far and away the best, as winning both the Art Ross and Norris concurrently prove. Yes, I am repeating myself...but this is such a sick accomplishment it bears repeating. Winning both awards doesn't put Orr in an elite class as far as two way players, it places him squarely on the top, looking down at every other hockey player because nobody else ever reached that height.

Did Clark or Howe ever win the Selke? Has ANY Art Ross player ever won the Selke trophy...? But a defenseman has won the Art Ross more than once.

The Selke didn't exist until 77-78. Bobby Clarke would have undoubtedly won a few if it existed when he was in his prime. Edit Doh, he actually did win one in 82-83 when he was well-past his prime.

Hell, Clarke won the Hart trophy over Orr when Orr actually outscored him!

And for those who want to romance Gretzky's career, you do realize that his plus/minus was in the negative category SEVEN times his lat few years. Piling on stats, filling stadiums, and being on the ice for more goals against than any player in NHL history should at least be mentioned and acknowledged by honest hockey fans.

In his last few years, he was basically a PP specialist who probably got too much even strength time... and yet he was good enough at it to be 5th in Hart voting in 1997-98.

As for physical play, I noticed you didn't mention Gretzky....there are no "what ifs" about his lack and abhorrence of a physical game, including fighting -- it was totally absent.

True.

As for Orr and Howe going toe to toe, and as one who actually watched plenty of Howe, let's just say if these two fought it would be closer than you think -- Orr was never soundly beaten in a fighting major, though he fought to a few draws. Howe also did not knock out everyone he fought (though his battle with Lou Fontinato is legendary). He also fought to a few draws -- HOWEVER, his elbows would crush and destroy you in the corners.

Out of curiosity, when did you start really paying close attention to hockey? "Watching Howe" in the 70s is obviously a lot different than watching him in the 50s.

 

[BraveCanadian]

.

Did Clark or Howe ever win the Selke? Has ANY Art Ross player ever won the Selke trophy...? But a defenseman has won the Art Ross more than once.

I'll just point out that there is most likely a pretty strong bias to NOT give an Art Ross winning forward the Selke as well.

I'd be surprised if it ever happens in the history of the NHL.

The reason there is a Selke in the first place is to recognize Bob Gainey.

Also for the first decade or so it was generally rewarded to defensive specialists instead of two-way guys.. a guy like Gilmour or Fedorov or Yzerman probably wouldn't have won it in the mid-eighties. Bobby Clarke was a real exception there.

 

[pluppe]

No, but Bobby Orr was by far and away the best, as winning both the Art Ross and Norris concurrently prove. Yes, I am repeating myself...but this is such a sick accomplishment it bears repeating. Winning both awards doesn't put Orr in an elite class as far as two way players, it places him squarely on the top, looking down at every other hockey player because nobody else ever reached that height.

Did Clark or Howe ever win the Selke? Has ANY Art Ross player ever won the Selke trophy...? But a defenseman has won the Art Ross more than once.

And for those who want to romance Gretzky's career, you do realize that his plus/minus was in the negative category SEVEN times his last few years. Piling on stats, filling stadiums, and being on the ice for more goals against than any player in NHL history should at least be mentioned and acknowledged by honest hockey fans.

As for physical play, I noticed you didn't mention Gretzky....there are no "what ifs" about his lack and abhorrence of a physical game, including fighting -- it was totally absent.

As for Orr and Howe going toe to toe, and as one who actually watched plenty of Howe, let's just say if these two fought it would be closer than you think -- Orr was never soundly beaten in a fighting major, though he fought to a few draws. Howe also did not knock out everyone he fought (though his battle with Lou Fontinato is legendary). He also fought to a few draws -- HOWEVER, his elbows would crush and destroy you in the corners.

even though I think winning the Art Ross and Norris in the same season is a mindblowing achievement I feel it is sometimes overrated. The Norris is not a defence specific award. it´s an defender specific award. Coffey won it, Mike Green almost did. I would say that it would be impossible to not win the Norris if you won the Art Ross as a defenceman. Not saying Orr was anything but great defensively. and not directed at you specifically. It´s just that I´ve seen this mentioned before and feel the combo is overrated and not the same as a selke/Art Ross combo.

 

[BraveCanadian]

even though I think winning the Art Ross and Norris in the same season is a mindblowing achievement I feel it is sometimes overrated. The Norris is not a defence specific award. it´s an defender specific award. Coffey won it, Mike Green almost did. I would say that it would be impossible to not win the Norris if you won the Art Ross as a defenceman. Not saying Orr was anything but great defensively. and not directed at you specifically. It´s just that I´ve seen this mentioned before and feel the combo is overrated and not the same as a selke/Art Ross combo.

Yeah this is basically what I was just saying.. I think any defenseman who won the Art Ross would pretty much automatically get the Norris whereas obviously the same is not true for forwards.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

A forward has come awfully close to winning both the Selke and Art Ross on at least 2 occasions.

In 93-94, Sergei Fedorov won the Hart, won the Selke, and was 2rd in scoring to Wayne Gretzky.

In 00-01, Joe Sakic won the Hart, was 2nd in scoring to Jagr (after Jagr got a lot of late season help by a returning Mario Lemieux), and was 2nd in Selke voting.

I do agree with the above posts about the Art Ross / Norris combo though. The Norris is about overall play as a defenseman, not defensive play and any defenseman winning the Art Ross would almost automatically win the Norris. Not saying Orr was anything less than excellent defensively, though.

 

[BraveCanadian]

A forward has come awfully close to winning both the Selke and Art Ross on at least 2 occasions.

In 93-94, Sergei Fedorov won the Hart, won the Selke, and was 2rd in scoring to Wayne Gretzky.

In 00-01, Joe Sakic won the Hart, was 2nd in scoring to Jagr (after Jagr got a lot of late season help by a returning Mario Lemieux), and was 2nd in Selke voting.

I do agree with the above posts about the Art Ross / Norris combo though. The Norris is about overall play as a defenseman, not defensive play and any defenseman winning the Art Ross would almost automatically win the Norris. Not saying Orr was anything less than excellent defensively, though.

Where did Trottier finish in Selke voting vs. Gainey in his Art Ross season? There is a guy I could see legitimately winning both the Selke and Art Ross.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Where did Trottier finish in Selke voting vs. Gainey in his Art Ross season? There is a guy I could see legitimately winning both the Selke and Art Ross.

Trottier didn't get a single Selke vote in his 78-79 Art Ross year. Clarke Gillies and Butch Goring both received multiple votes on the Islanders.

Trottier first received Selke votes in 80-81, but was still well behind the leaders. He was runner up to Doug Jarvis for the Selke in 83-84, when he was 8th in scoring.

(This is all from the stickied thread at the top of this board).

 

[BraveCanadian]

Trottier didn't get a single Selke vote in his 78-79 Art Ross year. Clarke Gillies and Butch Goring both received multiple votes on the Islanders.

Trottier first received Selke votes in 80-81, but was still well behind the leaders. He was runner up to Doug Jarvis for the Selke in 83-84, when he was 8th in scoring.

(This is all from the stickied thread at the top of this board).

What, now you expect me to read the stickies???

Yeah.. to me that looks like a bias against the Art Ross winner getting the Selke cause Trottier was a beast at both ends of the ice.

 

[85highlander]

The Selke didn't exist until 77-78. Bobby Clarke would have undoubtedly won a few if it existed when he was in his prime.

Clarke was 28yrs old when the trophy was first awarded, older players than this have one the Selke since its inception.

In his last few years, he was basically a PP specialist who probably got too much even strength time... and yet he was good enough at it to be 5th in Hart voting in 1997-98.

He was always an unbelievable, freakish, fantastic offensive player. The best ever in the offensive zone. Of this, I will not argue ... 894 goals, 1963 assists smacks me in the face if I try. Yet, he was also on the ice for 2285 goals against. He was on the ice for more goals against than any player in history. Why isn't this discussed? This isn't a "what if", this is hockey fact, and may speak to some deficiencies in Gretzky's defensive game. If one is to argue for the longevity argument, he should also point out that this longevity came with a cost, and the cost of filling the seats was deemed equitable.

Out of curiosity, when did you start really paying close attention to hockey? "Watching Howe" in the 70s is obviously a lot different than watching him in the 50s.

Early sixties and remember watching Howe and Don Awrey (Bruin's Defenseman) going at it and remember being unimpressed.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Clarke was 28yrs old when the trophy was first awarded, older players than this have one the Selke since its inception.

Yeah.. umm.. including Clarke himself.

He was always an unbelievable, freakish, fantastic offensive player. The best ever in the offensive zone. Of this, I will not argue ... 894 goals, 1963 assists smacks me in the face if I try. Yet, he was also on the ice for 2285 goals against. He was on the ice for more goals against than any player in history. Why isn't this discussed? This isn't a "what if", this is hockey fact, and may speak to some deficiencies in Gretzky's defensive game. If one is to argue for the longevity argument, he should also point out that this longevity came with a cost, and the cost of filling the seats was deemed equitable.

Gee a guy who played 20 seasons mostly in a high average scoring era had a lot of goals against.. who knew?

To put that in perspective, however, Raymond Bourque who played a simlar length of time with a lot of overlap of seasons... had 2144 goals against.

So in summary, and using your logic:

Wayne Gretzky was almost as good defensively as Raymond Bourque and is now certainly the greatest player ever.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Actually, Bobby Clarke did win the Selke in 82-83, when he as well past his prime. (Teaches me to post before fully waking up).

There is no reason to think he was worse defensively in the mid 70s, when he finished 2nd in scoring twice.

 

[85highlander]

A forward has come awfully close to winning both the Selke and Art Ross on at least 2 occasions.

In 93-94, Sergei Fedorov won the Hart, won the Selke, and was 2rd in scoring to Wayne Gretzky.

In 00-01, Joe Sakic won the Hart, was 2nd in scoring to Jagr (after Jagr got a lot of late season help by a returning Mario Lemieux), and was 2nd in Selke voting.

I do agree with the above posts about the Art Ross / Norris combo though. The Norris is about overall play as a defenseman, not defensive play and any defenseman winning the Art Ross would almost automatically win the Norris. Not saying Orr was anything less than excellent defensively, though.

Coming awfully close and actually doing it are two different things, no...?

And I realize you are not critiquing Orr's defensive play by calling him an excellent defensive defenseman....but he didn't just win the Norris based on his offensive ability (though that would be hard to ignore). He also came in first (tied) in a NHL coaches poll in '71 for DEFENSIVE defenseman.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Coming awfully close and actually doing it are two different things, no...?

And I realize you are not critiquing Orr's defensive play by calling him an excellent defensive defenseman....but he didn't just win the Norris based on his offensive ability (though that would be hard to ignore). He also came in first (tied) in a NHL coaches poll in '71 for DEFENSIVE defenseman.

I'm aware of that coaches poll. I also find it noteworthy that he didn't place in the 74 or 76 coach's polls in that category (granted, he was injured for most of 76, but he still placed highly in other categories).

 

[85highlander]

Yeah.. umm.. including Clarke himself.

But w/out the Art Ross, which was the main point

Gee a guy who played 20 seasons mostly in a high average scoring era had a lot of goals against.. who knew?

No, not a lot. THE MOST EVER.

To put that in perspective, however, Raymond Bourque who played a simlar length of time with a lot of overlap of seasons... had 2144 goals against.

So, Ray Bourque, who as a defenseman was on the ice for way more of each game against the top scorers of the other teams still saw LESS goals than Gretzky?

So in summary, and using your logic:

Wayne Gretzky was almost as good defensively as Raymond Bourque and is now certainly the greatest player ever.

My logic assumes no such point. Your inability (and others) to reference the deficiencies in Gretzky's game are what's laughable and make it difficult to have a coherent discussion.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Also from the stickied thread about the coach's polls:

Nobody should be surprised to hear the Gretzky was smart and a great playmaker. I find it interesting that the coaches consider Gretzky an elite penalty killer and a hard worker. This is a good argument against the idiotic (but unfortunately common) suggestion that Gretzky was a one-dimensional floater.

 

[BraveCanadian]

So, Ray Bourque, who as a defenseman was on the ice for way more of each game against the top scorers of the other teams still saw LESS goals than Gretzky?

The point is that Gretzky also logged a ton of ice time in his prime especially.. and that the gap between a player that everyone considers one of the best defenseman ever and Gretzky was not nearly as large as these "deficiencies" you seem to think we should be seeing would imply.

Yes Bourque allowed less goals than Gretzky and in more games too.. but the point I was making is that the gap is not much at all.

Rendering your critique of how bad Gretzky must have been defensively pretty much invalid.

 

[85highlander]

even though I think winning the Art Ross and Norris in the same season is a mindblowing achievement I feel it is sometimes overrated. The Norris is not a defence specific award. it´s an defender specific award. Coffey won it, Mike Green almost did. I would say that it would be impossible to not win the Norris if you won the Art Ross as a defenceman. Not saying Orr was anything but great defensively. and not directed at you specifically. It´s just that I´ve seen this mentioned before and feel the combo is overrated and not the same as a selke/Art Ross combo.

Overrated? How can something that has only been done by one player in the history of the NHL be considered overrated? And never completed as far as a Selke/Art Ross combo.

I understand the point others are trying to make, but Gretzky doesn't show up on ANYBODYs list, ever, at any time whatsoever as a defensive or physical player, except in the NEGATIVE.

Points in Selke voting.....? Is it greater than zero?

Fights won? zero.

Helping teammate in fight? zero.

Blocked shots (intentionally, not by accident)? zero.

Open ice checks? zero that I remember.

Back checking? Has allowed the most goals against in NHL history, so maybe not so good.

 

[Reds4Life]

Points in Selke voting.....? Is it greater than zero?

Fights won? zero.

Helping teammate in fight? zero.

Blocked shots (intentionally, not by accident)? zero.

Open ice checks? zero that I remember.

Back checking? Has allowed the most goals against in NHL history, so maybe not so good.

So I guess Kris Draper or Kirk Maltby are both much better than Gretzky.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Fights won? zero.

Helping teammate in fight? zero.

Blocked shots (intentionally, not by accident)? zero.

Open ice checks? zero that I remember.

You're not getting anywhere trying to tear down Wayne Gretzky to promote Orr.

You say that useless stuff and I say:

Most shorthanded goals in NHL history.

Highest career +/- of any forward in NHL history.

Most playoff game winning goals in NHL history.

 

[85highlander]

So I guess Kris Draper or Kirk Maltby are both much better than Gretzky.

See, this sort of posting is exactly why dialogue is near impossible.

To point out the lack or deficiencies in another's game is not to suggest that unmentionables are on par with Gretzky.