Orr Vs Gretzky

[TheDevilMadeMe]

When Gretzky's numbers really went off the charts in his 3rd year ('82), Messier had 50 goals, Anderson had 105 points, Coffey had 89 points, Kurri had 86. Hardly what I would call "really nothing".

I stand by my statement that Wayne had a better supporting cast than Bobby. Let's look at where The Hockey News ranked their respective mates (not that I believe THN's Top 100 was flawless, obviously , but it's generally a good barometer):

#12: Messier
#18: Esposito
#28: Coffey
#45: Bucyk
#50: Kurri
#70: Fuhr

Glen Anderson, Kevin Lowe, Andy Moog, Esa Tikkanen, plus a tremendous cast of role players and thugs to provide toughness, checking etc... this was the definition of a stacked team.

Two counterpoints:

1) There was a year that Orr's Bruins finished 1-4 in scoring. This wasn't exactly an aberration. The year you are pointing to, Gretzky was 1st with 212 points and Anderson (Gretzky's best teammate) was 11th with 105 points. Until Kurri established himself as a star in his own right (and the team started winning Cups), Gretzky was carrying the Oilers to a greater extent than Orr ever had to carry the Bruins.

2) Messier's spot on the list is due more much more to his time without Gretzky, than with him.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Would like to add some points to this after reading this thread. Being a relatively newer hockey fan who saw neither in their prime (since 97 - following the NHL was sort of hard here before the internet age), I find this board fascinating to read about the game's history. While I can't add a lot of judgement on the qualities of the older players, there's a few points I feel I could make to add to the discussion:

On the point of Orr winning the Art Ross and Norris in the same season, this is obviously an incredible feat that cannot be understated. It can be used as an argument to Orr being a wonderfully complete player. Yet I don't think it's a good argument to state that it means Orr was greater than Gretzky. First of all, you can't fault a forward for not winning an award he is unable to win. Secondly, there's just no comparison or forwards. The Selke trophy has been mentioned, and how Art Ross + Selke would equal Orr's feat, but has not been done before. (Reading about Bobby Clarke suggests he could have come very close, had the Selke been created sooner, though he never managed to win the scoring race and topped out at #2) However, I don't really think this is a fair comparison. The Selke is supposed to go to the best defensive forward, whereas the Art Ross goes to what statistically is the best offensive forward. Hence winning both would require to be both the best defensive and offensive forward at the same time. On the other hand, the Norris is awarded to the best overall defenseman. Since the offensive compenent of the game does figure in this decision, this is not quite the same. Art Ross + Norris requires a defenseman to be the best scorer, and best overall defenseman, rather than also be the best defensive defenseman.

Not to take away anything from Bobby Orr, who managed to achieve amazing things, but I just don't think it's an overly valid argument or comparison. In general, stating that Orr or Gretzky was better because of some unique feat the other didn't do seems a bit pointless. Both were immense players who did things nobody ever did before, and in many cases did not since. Orr did things Gretzky didn't do (and nobody else did), Gretzky also did some 61 things nobody else ever did.





Statistics always have to be seen in context, I agree with that. I'll also admit that I am fairly skeptical of adjusted stats, since while they might give ballpark figures here and there, they will invariably fail to take into account many factors, are highly susceptible to agendas, and may treat statistical outliers as a product of the era, rather than greatness. With that out of the way, some things to keep in mind when making the point above:

• One of the posters here recently did some research and found that the portion of the scoring done by the top players in the 80s was relatively low compared to other eras. In other words, a lot of the beneficiaries of the extra scoring were the more average players, not the superstars. This does not mean the stars did not score more than they would have done during other decades and eras, but rather that the stars scoring did not go up by for example the 24% scoring difference you are suggesting, and just adjusting Orr's stats like this is not a valid concept.

• Orr's Bruins were an extremely high-scoring team, which at times defeated the competition in scoring categories by a greater margin than Gretzky's Oilers. Both teams were extremely high scoring, far above the average of their time. Using averages to then analyze the performances of statistical outliers seems a bad idea.

• To highlight my first point, consider the scoring leaders between 1970 (Orr's first big offensive season) and 1990. Since they are generally considered 'freaks of nature', I left out Orr, Gretzky and Lemieux, to see how the 'normal' superstars did:
  
  69-70: Phil Esposito, 99 (126 the year before)
  70-71: Phil Esposito, 152
  71-72: Phil Esposito, 133
  72-73: Phil Esposito, 130
  73-74: Phil Esposito, 145
  74-75: Phil Esposito, 127
  75-76: Guy Lafleur, 125
  76-77: Guy Lafleur, 136
  77-78: Guy Lafleur, 132
  78-79: Bryan Trottier, 134
  79-80: Marcel Dionne, 137
  80-81: Marcel Dionne, 135
  81-82: Mike Bossy, 147
  82-83: Peter Stastny, 124
  83-84: Paul Coffey, 126
  84-85: Jari Kurri, 135
  85-86: Paul Coffey, 138
  86-87: Jari Kurri, 108
  87-88: Denis Savard, 131
  88-89: Steve Yzerman, 155
  89-90: Mark Messier, 129
  
  I'm not really in the mood to run ANOVA checks on those numbers to look for significance, but looking at that list suggests to me that the superstars not called Mario, Wayne or Bobby did not score significantly more during the 80s than during the 70s. (Another funny side product of this list is the suggestion that if not for Lemieux and Gretzky, Paul Coffey could have had 2 Art Ross trophies. Though I'll have to add the disclaimer that Coffey likely has less points without Gretzky, and was no Orr defensively from what I understand)

• One thing one might argue from the above is that a lot of Esposito's stats were partially thanks to Orr. There is some merit to this, though on the other hand I doubt Bobby Orr's stats suffered from playing with Esposito either. (even if superstars typically will get their points despite the players they play with, as has been shown numerous times on this forum) Somewhat of a similar argument could be made for some of the Oilers appearing on this list. However I think the best conclusion which can be drawn from these statistics and the dominance of either team in total scoring and scoring leaders, is that these teams were exceptionally powerful offensive teams, which you cannot really compare or analyze using average statistics from an era. (Which is not to say scoring might be affected by an era, but to me analyzing an anomaly with the use of averages seems a faulty concept.)

In closing, I've seen a lot of arguments of Orr as a complete player being the main reason to be greater than Gretzky. Being a complete player is definitely a great asset to a team, but it's not the only way to win. Orr might have been great in more areas of the game than Gretzky, but on the other hand it seems Gretzky's dominance on offense exceeds any of Orr's individual dominances. In the end both were great players, and Orr's completeness is an admirable thing. But equaling being more complete with being greater is in my view not really a proper argument, since extreme dominance in less areas is another way to win, especially in a team game. In the end, both players managed to do this, leading their teams to multiple championships.

And finally, as I already indicated in my preamble, I can only acknowledge that both individuals were amazing players which are only rarely seen. I cannot make any judgement on who was the greater, but did want to pitch in with some points about the arguments some posters are trying to use to elevate one above the other.

Excellent points raised. You should post here more often...

despite your poor choice in NHL teams.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Excellent points raised. You should post here more often...

despite your poor choice in NHL teams.

Hey!


Oh and yes that was an excellent post and they should post more often!

 

[BraveCanadian]

Two counterpoints:

1) There was a year that Orr's Bruins finished 1-4 in scoring. This wasn't exactly an aberration. The year you are pointing to, Gretzky was 1st with 212 points and Anderson (Gretzky's best teammate) was 11th with 105 points. Until Kurri established himself as a star in his own right (and the team started winning Cups), Gretzky was carrying the Oilers to a greater extent than Orr ever had to carry the Bruins.

2) Messier's spot on the list is due more much more to his time without Gretzky, than with him.

Agreed, I pointed the same thing out earlier in the thread.

They both had outstanding support so it is very difficult to say if one or the other had a team advantage.

 

[popculturereference]

Yes, but this comparison is highly unfair to Orr (as it would be to anybody who played in Orr's time, and it would be even more unfair to players like Howe, Hull, Beliveau etc. who played during the 50s-60s). Gretzky played in the most wide open, highest scoring era ever. When 50 goal scorers were a dime a dozen.

Look at the average goals-per-game throughout the league during Orr's nine years:

66-67: 5.96
67-68: 5.58
68-69: 5.96
69-70: 5.81
70-71: 6.24
71-72: 6.13
72-73: 6.55
73-74: 6.39
74-75: 6.85

Now look at the GPG during Gretzky's first nine years:

79-80: 7.03
80-81: 7.69
81-82: 8.03
82-83: 7.73
83-84: 7.89
84-85: 7.77
85-86: 7.94
86-87: 7.34
87-88: 7.43

Scoring throughout the league during Gretzky's first nine years was 24% higher than in Orr's day. To be fair to Orr, we'd have to increase his total by 24% to account for the difference. This would put him at 1.74, third behind Gretzky and Lemieux. Which is about where I'd expect him, as a defenceman, to be. These three, in any order, were the three most dangerous players I've ever seen

There was a steady erosion in the quality of play due to rapid expansion during the late 60s-70s. Over 14 years, the league ballooned from 6 to 21 teams, and that was before the influx of American talent, and when the Iron Curtain kept the East Europeans off limits. Just before Gretzky's arrival, the draft age was lowered from 20 to 18, and suddenly kids were getting prime time duty on the blueline. Hell, I can remember Gretzky lighting it up one night at the Gardens, when the leafs had three 18 year -olds on defense (Boimstruck, Benning and McGill).

The effect of this showed on scoreboards all around the league, and long established records were obliterated. Certainly, that has to be taken into consideration when we look at Gretzky's scoring exploits. This is not to say that they weren't unbelievable, but they were inflated, just as Orr's (to a lesser extent) were compared to the pre-expansion days. If we don't acknowledge that, we'd have to accept that guys like Denis Maruk, Wayne Babych, Jacques Richard and Jimmy Carson were more dangerous than Howe, Hull and Mahovlich.

Thank you for the history lesson, but I am well aware of the difference in scoring during the eras. But, I think you missed the point. I wasn't trying to take anything away from Orr, instead, I was just trying to show the other poster that it's difficult to make a PPG comparison between a player who played half the length that another player did. To compare, Forsberg ended up with a 1.25 PPG, whereas Jagr ended up with a 1.26 PPG. Looking at that, am I supposed to assume that Forsberg was almost as good offensively as Jagr? I realize that this comparison is not exact (both played in same era, both are forwards, both are relatively close in career PPG whereas, even with his latter seasons, Gretzky is still 0.53 PPG ahead of Orr), but I am just trying to show that it becomes tricky to use PPG. But, I mean, that should already be well-known.

No matter how you skew the numbers, Gretzky's offensive peak is unparalleled. Lemieux came incredibly close, but unfortunately, he couldn't sustain due to injuries and cancer.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Thank you for the history lesson, but I am well aware of the difference in scoring during the eras. But, I think you missed the point. I wasn't trying to take anything away from Orr, instead, I was just trying to show the other poster that it's difficult to make a PPG comparison between a player who played half the length that another player did. To compare, Forsberg ended up with a 1.25 PPG, whereas Jagr ended up with a 1.26 PPG. Looking at that, am I supposed to assume that Forsberg was almost as good offensively as Jagr? I realize that this comparison is not exact (both played in same era, both are forwards, both are relatively close in career PPG whereas, even with his latter seasons, Gretzky is still 0.53 PPG ahead of Orr), but I am just trying to show that it becomes tricky to use PPG. But, I mean, that should already be well-known.

No matter how you skew the numbers, Gretzky's offensive peak is unparalleled. Lemieux came incredibly close, but unfortunately, he couldn't sustain due to injuries and cancer.

....and once again I have to point out we're talking about a Dman and a forward.
You take two players of the same offensive caliber, make one a forward and one a Dman and the Dman should only keep up around 2/3's the production of the forward.

It is absolutely ridiculous to simply use a forward's point production over a Dman's point production as a basis for who's the better player.

 

[BraveCanadian]

It is absolutely ridiculous to simply use a forward's point production over a Dman's point production as a basis for who's the better player.

That is true but that would mean it is equally ridiculous to simply use the fact that a defenseman is better at defense over a forward as a basis for who is the better player too.

Can't have it both ways.. they have different primary responsibilities.

 

[popculturereference]

....and once again I have to point out we're talking about a Dman and a forward.
You take two players of the same offensive caliber, make one a forward and one a Dman and the Dman should only keep up around 2/3's the production of the forward.

It is absolutely ridiculous to simply use a forward's point production over a Dman's point production as a basis for who's the better player.

Are you purposely being obtuse? I am well are of the difficulties of comparing two players of different positions, but nowhere in my post did I say that Gretzky was better then Orr because of offense. To re-iterate what I said in my last post:

a. Gretzky's offensive peak is unparalleled
b. It's impossible to compare PPG when one player has less then half of the GP then the other.

I don't know where you got the 2/3 from, because of the way you put it, it sounds like common knowledge.

One thing I don't understand about this debate: a lot of people are taking it too seriously. As in, they seem personally hurt when any perceived slight is written.

 

[Rhiessan71]

That is true but that would mean it is equally ridiculous to simply use the fact that a defenseman is better at defense over a forward as a basis for who is the better player too.

Can't have it both ways.. they have different primary responsibilities.

But...we are talking about a Dman who excelled and pretty much dominated in his primary responsibilities AND THEN dominated in his secondary responsibilities as well, out scoring or coming close to out scoring every forward in the league.

How was Gretzky in his secondary responsibilities again...not poor but still only somewhere in the average range imo, certainly no where close to dominating.



Edit: The 2/3's ratio is roughly what the top Dmen to top forwards produce over the years. Check it yourself.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

But...we are talking about a Dman who excelled and pretty much dominated in his primary responsibilities AND THEN dominated in his secondary responsibilities as well, out scoring or coming close to out scoring every forward in the league.

How was Gretzky in his secondary responsibilities again...not poor but still only somewhere in the average range imo, certainly no where close to dominating.



Edit: The 2/3's ratio is roughly what the top Dmen to top forwards produce over the years. Check it yourself.

But then compare Gretzky's primary responsibility (offense) to, well, anything any other player has done in hockey.

Orr might blow Gretzky away defensively. But Gretzky absolutely blows Orr away offensively, and yes, I know Orr was an amazing offensive player.

 

[Rhiessan71]

But then compare Gretzky's primary responsibility (offense) to, well, anything any other player has done in hockey.

Orr might blow Gretzky away defensively. But Gretzky absolutely blows Orr away offensively, and yes, I know Orr was an amazing offensive player.

Gretzky was better offensively than Orr, even accounting for the forward vs Dman issue but he does not blow Orr away. Orr's two only Art Ross's by a Dman say otherwise.

So what are we back to.....Gretzky was better at his primary than Orr was in his secondary and Orr DOES blow Gretzky away with his primary vs Gretzky's secondary.

I'm not knocking Gretzky here, he is the greatest offensive player in history but Orr is the best player in history.
That's my opinion and nothing changes my mind.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Gretzky was better offensively than Orr, even accounting for the forward vs Dman issue but he does not blow Orr away. Orr's two only Art Ross's by a Dman say otherwise.

So what are we back to.....Gretzky was better at his primary than Orr was in his secondary and Orr DOES blow Gretzky away with his primary vs Gretzky's secondary.

I'm not knocking Gretzky here, he is the greatest offensive player in history but Orr is the best player in history.
That's my opinion and nothing changes my mind.

No, at this point you are knocking Gretzky. Orr won two Art Rosses by a small margin. Gretzky won 11 Art Roses, many of them by huge margins, and finished 2nd twice to Mario Lemieux, a consensus top 4 player. Speaking of offense and offense alone, Gretzky blows Orr away.

And if you want to put it this way, Gretzky was better at his primary than Orr was at his primary. Gretzky is the greatest offensive player to ever player the game, period. Orr is not the best defensive player of all time. Even in his own era, he was tied for best defensive defenseman in one coach's poll, then didn't place in 2 others.

Nothing I said is to take anything away from Orr's overall game. If you go by peak alone, Orr likely was the best overall package of all time... by a small margin over Gretzky.

 

[Ward Cornell]

Imagine the bandwidth being used here if both Gretzky and Orr were going into their draft year?

Any coach would have a wet dream to have either player.
A coach who prefers a player like Orr would gladly take him with a 10 year career. While another coach would take Gretzky.
Just be glad some of us saw both players let alone one of them.
It's not like it's a Maryanne or Mrs Howell debate it's a Maryanne and Ginger debate.
There is no right answer!
But I'll gladly take Orr for 10 years!

 

[BraveCanadian]

Orr's Art Ross trophies are a remarkable accomplishment for a defenseman but to even try to say he was close to Gretzky offensively is not true. Orr didn't not win them in a dominant fashion like Wayne did.. and Wayne won 10 times.

No one has even come close to Gretzky's peak offensively except for one season by Lemieux.

Coffey erased Orr's goal record and had a season 1 point less than Orrs best. (I know, era, blah blah)

Leetch, Mac, Potvin have also got within hailing distance of Orr offensively.

Gretzky is wayyy out there in front.

Now whether he is far enough in front on offense to make up for his average to above average defensive play vs. Orr who knows.. but Gretzky is definitely the greatest offensive force the league has seen by a long shot.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Imagine the bandwidth being used here if both Gretzky and Orr were going into their draft year?

Any coach would have a wet dream to have either player.
A coach who prefers a player like Orr would gladly take him with a 10 year career. While another coach would take Gretzky.
Just be glad some of us saw both players let alone one of them.
It's not like it's a Maryanne or Mrs Howell debate it's a Maryanne and Ginger debate.
There is no right answer!
But I'll gladly take Orr for 10 years!

hahah so true.. it is a debate that will never be settled one way or the other.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Orr's Art Ross trophies are a remarkable accomplishment for a defenseman but to even try to say he was close to Gretzky offensively is not true. Orr didn't not win them in a dominant fashion like Wayne did.. and Wayne won 10 times.

That a Dman took it home twice is in itself domination.

No one has even come close to Gretzky's peak offensively except for one season by Lemieux.

Coffey erased Orr's goal record and had a season 1 point less than Orrs best. (I know, era, blah blah)

Not just era, he also was playing with Gretzky and it could be easily argued that Coffey's primary even as a Dman was offense not defense.

Leetch, Mac, Potvin have also got within hailing distance of Orr offensively.

How? Each one of them barely broke 100 points once each.
Orr blew past 100 points 5 times and the other year where he only had 101, he only played 63 games.
That's not hailing distance by any means.

Gretzky is wayyy out there in front.

Orr is just as far out in front of other Dmen as Gretzky is to other forwards with each of them only having one player total each getting within spitting distance.
On top of that it could easily be argued that Lemieux was a hell of a lot closer to Gretzky overall than Coffey was to Orr.

Now whether he is far enough in front on offense to make up for his average to above average defensive play vs. Orr who knows.. but Gretzky is definitely the greatest offensive force the league has seen by a long shot.

Exactly, Gretzky was the greatest offensive force ever but Orr was the greatest force period.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

That a Dman took it home twice is in itself domination.

You can't say that Orr's offense is better because he is a defenseman, but being a defenseman has no effect on why his defense is better. If we say that "of course Gretzky's offense was better - he was a forward" then we have to say the same for Orr's defense.

The fact is, that on any objective basis, Gretzky was better offensively than Orr, and it really isn't close.

Hell, you have a player who, based almost on offense alone, is often argued to be the #1 player of all-time: he topped both the THN and HOH Top 100 lists. To do that, he has to be a lot better than Orr offensively, given everything else Orr brought to the table.

 

[Rhiessan71]

You can't say that Orr's offense is better because he is a defenseman, but being a defenseman has no effect on why his defense is better. If we say that "of course Gretzky's offense was better - he was a forward" then we have to say the same for Orr's defense.

Yeah cause Coffey, the only Dman to even approach Orr's level of production, was good at defense because he was a Dman

Gretzky was just as good as Coffey defensively, maybe even better at times heh and neither were even on the same planet as Orr defensively.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Gretzky was just as good as Coffey defensively, maybe even better at times heh and neither were even on the same planet as Orr defensively.

I certainly wouldn't argue with this.

 

[vulture77]

Overall it's Gretzky because of his full career, but prime? Impossible to say. On the other hand Orr's accomplishments are just as, or maybe even more impressive as Gretzkys. Then again, I think Gretzky at his best was a bit more unstoppable at playoffs.

I understand Philadelphia found a way to somewhat contain Orr by dishing the puck to him and wearing him out (haven't watched the series so this is hearsay), whereas I don't think you could contain prime Gretzky in the playoffs other than weather him out somehow.

As for prime I therefore say it's even, overall I'd give the edge to Gretzky.

 

[pluppe]

You can't say that Orr's offense is better because he is a defenseman, but being a defenseman has no effect on why his defense is better. If we say that "of course Gretzky's offense was better - he was a forward" then we have to say the same for Orr's defense.

The fact is, that on any objective basis, Gretzky was better offensively than Orr, and it really isn't close.

Hell, you have a player who, based almost on offense alone, is often argued to be the #1 player of all-time: he topped both the THN and HOH Top 100 lists. To do that, he has to be a lot better than Orr offensively, given everything else Orr brought to the table.

I´m sure you know this but just wanted to point out that this, in my eyes, has more to do with career lenght than domination since both lists, as far as I know, voted more on greatest than best.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I´m sure you know this but just wanted to point out that this, in my eyes, has more to do with career lenght than domination since both lists, as far as I know, voted more on greatest than best.

When the HOH list was put together, many people assumed that Gretzky and Orr were close in peak value. The discussions are linked to the list itself.

 

[quasi1981]

Excellent post DutchLeafsFan

If you average out the Bruins goals for per game over those 9 years and the Oilers it ends up being 4.03 for the Bruins to 4.83 for the Oilers. Those teams were anything but average and in the Bruins case especially they were eating up a lot more than their fair share of the "average" during most seasons.

The Bruins peak over 5 goals for per game in 71 and the Oilers were over 5 for a few seasons in a row.

While the 4.03 to 4.83 is definitely a significant amount it is no where near the difference someone was saying was 24% earlier in this thread. The Bruins were scoring at 83% of the rate of the Oilers over that span of time.

The Oilers also had the benefit of playing some more games so their numbers just plain look bigger from that as well.

What the other person said is what is the truth, and that is in Gretzky's era, all the teams in the league were scoring 24% more points per game than in the Orr era giving Orr 1.74 points per game in the Gretz era, making him as great a super star when it came to scoring, and right up there with The G man and Lemieux.

 

[quasi1981]

Coulda, shoulda, woulda....and Orr should of won the Hart at least two more times but he didn't, **** happens.

If you think Coffey scoring more points than Orr means anything here, forget it. He is not in the same league as Orr on any level. Orr was clearly the greatest hockey player in his era, and would have been in any era. Orr opened things up and if healthy, he would have scored much more in his 30s. He was getting better. You have to realize that Orr started this whole thing, and the players later got to learn from him, and to think that Coffey is in his league sounds more like you are running out of ammo in defending The G one. It seems every gretzky or 80s fans uses the same old how many points scored. Realize the stupidity of it. In order to score a lot of points, the Defense has to give up more points. It is all relative. In the 6 team league, the D was better, more concentrated talent, and less goals scored, meaning the offense was bad or the D was great or a combo of 2.

Orr as a defenseman was outscoring every one, even Espo, and he had no right to do so one would think, being a D man. Coffey scored a lot of points but so were many other forwards. Orr was clearly a better player than him, so please stop with all the stats. They mean nothing. I hate to have to use them here for effect, because none of you 80s fans seem to know little about the game except stats, which the great coaches in almost all sports would tell you is that Stats are for losers.

 

[BraveCanadian]

What the other person said is what is the truth, and that is in Gretzky's era, all the teams in the league were scoring 24% more points per game than in the Orr era giving Orr 1.74 points per game in the Gretz era, making him as great a super star when it came to scoring, and right up there with The G man and Lemieux.

Applying averages to outliers doesn't make a lot of sense.