Orr Vs Gretzky

[BraveCanadian]

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.

If you want to ignore the stats and look at who won what.. Gretzky wins that without breaking a sweat.

 

[Ward Cornell]

If you want to ignore the stats and look at who won what.. Gretzky wins that without breaking a sweat.

Now that is really really stretching things now!!

 

[McRpro]

This should end the debate once and for all. May I refer you to this handy website full of useful information about Orr:

http://www.nomoreorr.com/

Case closed.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Now that is really really stretching things now!!

He started it!

 

[Rhiessan71]

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.

Ummm you do realise I'm one of the biggest Orr supporters in this thread so I'm just a tad confused over being quoted and then pounced on for the opposite.

This should end the debate once and for all. May I refer you to this handy website full of useful information about Orr:

http://www.nomoreorr.com/

Case closed.

Wow!
One way or the other, that's the biggest joke site I have seen in years.

 

[Passchendaele]

Staying healthy is a skill.. that's why I think Gretzky was better than Orr. Orr, like Lindros coudn't have success without playing his game, but they both ended up on the IR too often.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Staying healthy is a skill.. that's why I think Gretzky was better than Orr. Orr, like Lindros coudn't have success without playing his game, but they both ended up on the IR too often.

C'mon dude, really?
Are you seriously now penalizing players that can and did stand up for themselves and fight their own battles?

Last I heard, players that refused or avoided to engage physically were known to be soft, made of glass and called a bad word that starts with a P.
They are not usually the players that are looked on favourably.

 

[revolverjgw]

C'mon dude, really?
Are you seriously now penalizing players that can and did stand up for themselves and fight their own battles?

Last I heard, players that refused or avoided to engage physically were known to be soft, made of glass and called a bad word that starts with a P.
They are not usually the players that are looked on favourably.

I agree with Passchendale, staying healthy IS a skill. Avoiding contact was absolutely key to his dominance, and makes him more valuable. Denis Potvin never called Gretzky out for being a "p*ssy", but he marveled at his almost supernatural ability to avoid his checks. It got into the heads of defenders trying to stop him. Try to get physical with Gretzky and you'll pay the price on the scoreboard... you had to get lucky to tag him, so you had to sit back while he dissected your defensive setup. It wasn't any less effective than Orr or Lemieux's flashier dekes and headlong rushes. Gretzky won more, played longer, had more elite seasons, more MVPs, and was there for his teams 100+ games a year if need be, for 20 years.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I agree with Passchendale, staying healthy IS a skill. Avoiding contact was absolutely key to his dominance, and makes him more valuable. Denis Potvin never called Gretzky out for being a "p*ssy", but he marveled at his almost supernatural ability to avoid his checks. It got into the heads of defenders trying to stop him. Try to get physical with Gretzky and you'll pay the price on the scoreboard... you had to get lucky to tag him, so you had to sit back while he dissected your defensive setup. It wasn't any less effective than Orr or Lemieux's flashier dekes and headlong rushes. Gretzky won more, played longer, had more elite seasons, more MVPs, and was there for his teams 100+ games a year if need be, for 20 years.

Avoiding being hit is not the same as avoiding all physical contact.

Generally, avoiding ALL physical contact is universally considered a knock against a player, not a positive....except in this thread of course, where Gretzky gets bonus points for it and Orr get penalized for it....you'll excuse me if I step back and snicker for a minute or two

 

[The Cheat]

What about Messier?

NHL totals 694 goals 1193 assists 1887 points and an amazing +210

 

[bleeney]

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.

Actually, Sittler's career (70-71 to 84-85) overlapped the Orr and Gretzky eras.

Orr's career was effectively over after 1975 (he played only 36 games over the last 4 years before he retired). So Sittler had five years in the league against Orr (71-75), playing the Bruins six times a year.

Gretzky came into the league in 79-80. Sittler played until '85, giving him six years in the league during Gretzky's time. He played the Oilers four times a year as a Leaf, three times as a Flyer and Red Wing.

He faced Orr a few more times than he faced Gretzky, but he certainly played against each of them enough to make a sound judgement. And he felt that, as great a player as Gretzky was, Orr was better. Among those whose careers spanned Orr's and Gretzky's, those who think Gretzky was the better player are few and far between. Funny, but the same isn't true re those whose careers spanned Howe's and Orr's. There is a long list of players who felt Orr was the better player (including none other than Bobby Hull, who called Orr "my idol")

btw, I heard Dale Hawerchuk being interviewed on the Bill Watters show. This is a guy who went head to head against Gretzky for years, during Wayne's prime, including several playoff rounds. When he was asked who the greatest player ever was, he didn't hesitate to say "Orr".

 

[pluppe]

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.

I know, I read those. and still think you used it wrongly. I think it is at least arguable who had the better offensive peak. and that Gretzky won both those is in large part due to a much more accomplished career. in my eyes more so than people arguing he was " a lot better than Orr offensively".

 

[BraveCanadian]

When he was asked who the greatest player ever was, he didn't hesitate to say "Orr".

If we're talking about peak then that could very well be true.

Heck, it probably is true.

As far as all-time, based on what they actually did though.. I'd take Gretzky for 20 years any day.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I know, I read those. and still think you used it wrongly. I think it is at least arguable who had the better offensive peak. and that Gretzky won both those is in large part due to a much more accomplished career. in my eyes more so than people arguing he was " a lot better than Orr offensively".

On what basis is Orr close to Gretzky offensively?

 

[Peter9]

I've seen Orr play of course.I did say he would be my pick if push came to shove did i not? i just don't think it's like comparing hamburger to filet mignon like some people are making it out to be.

You say Gretzky could only pass and score well but you forgot to mention that he could pass and score better then anybody that's ever played the game,care to think about just how important that is to a team and what it does for a team? after all, if you don't score goals you dont win hockey games. I don't know about you but i'll gladly take a guy on my team who is 3 times more productive at putting pucks in the net of the other team then the next best guy anyday of the week...................that's a pretty handy guy to have around.Don't believe it? ask the coaching staff of the pittsburgh penguins......and Crosby ain't dominating the game like Gretzky did yet i'll tell you that.

The guy was phenomenal,the most damaging offensive force in the history of the game bar none and the records speak for themselves.Peoples memories are very short it would seem and i don't care if he did'nt block shots,you put up offensive numbers like he put up you don't need to block shots thank you very much............get someone else to block the f'in shots,anyone can block shots if they want to.Not everyone can make mincemeat out of the opposition and think 2 plays ahead of everyone else..............Wayne could.

Players like that come around about as much as Haley's comet.

When the guy was in his prime he literally made hockey fans wonder just how great was great anymore.No-one knew what to make of what he was accomplishing,our sense of hockey history was offended because he was destroying every conceivable offensive benchmark there was.I don''t mean raising the bar,i 'm talking taking the bar and throwing it out the damn window!! he was winning scoring races by 65 points in those days,that was about half a seasons work for most big scorers at the time!!. Anyway you cut it that's just incredible. And he did it at every level at every place of competition there was domestic or international,simply put the guy delivered the goods every bit as much as a legend like Orr did whether anyone likes it or not.Gretzky was every bit the prodigy bobby was,not the same type of player but every bit the star........don't kid yourself.

I'll say it again,people's memories are very,very short.

No offense but i'll turn your question around and ask you...................did you ever see gretzky play the game?

Sometimes i wonder around here.

Gretzky not CLOSE to Orr?Could'nt hold his jockstrap? Cmon folks.

I love Bobby Orr.................but i refuse to go that far,and for good reason.

Honestly,i feeel so silly for having to defend a guy with the acheivements and stature of a guy like Gretzky in the game of hockey.It's the equivalent of being on a soccer board and having to defend Pele.

Gretzky could'nt hold so and so's jockstrap should never enter the conversation..............................with any player that's ever played.

The best assessment I've read in this somewhat charged debate. I've watched NHL hockey since I came to Canada as an almost 10-year-old immigrant from England in 1953. I immediately became a fan of the Montreal Canadiens and so I have no dog in this fight.

I saw the entire careers of Bobby Orr and Wayne Gretzky and I saw Gordie Howe in his real prime in the early 1950s. Through the smoke at the old Boston Garden, I saw Bobby Orr's first NHL goal, a screaming slap shot from the left point against my Canadiens, with Gump Worsley in the net. I went to all Bruins games against the Canadiens, seven a season, while I was a law student at a school across the Charles River, as well as assorted other games (particularly the Rangers, who had brought Bernie Geoffrion back to the NHL).

Were I to build a team and had no knowledge of career length, I would pick both Orr and Howe over Gretzky. I don't denigrate Gretzky's talents in the least, and some posters on this thread, which I'm about half way through, have come perilously close to that and worse. As I've said here before, I think the entire enterprise of comparing players from different eras is futile, although I occasionally take part and I certainly enjoy the efforts to appreciate players of eras long gone.

Orr was not the first offensive defenceman, nor the first rushing defenceman. Shore, Clancy, Kelly, Harvey, Gadsby were all defencemen with tremendous capabilities on offense. The only question was how free they were to exploit those capabilities. I never saw anyone control a game like Harvey could. He did not score more points because of the tremendous array of offensive talent he had in front of him. Why bother when the Rocket, Beliveau, Geoffrion and Moore were there to take care of the scoring? Harvey did not have the dashing style of Orr. Some pundit once described Harvey as playing hockey as if he were in a rocking chair. He was tremendously deceptive. He could send the entire opposing team the wrong way with a simple move. He was also a tremendous athlete. You had to watch him to see his value to the team, and his numbers simply do not reflect that value.

By the way, it's off topic, but I've seen some portrayals of King Clancy which are rather unkind to him. They say he was unkind. That does not fit with my one experience with him. My eighth grade class from a rural area 50 miles north of Toronto was given a tour of Maple Leaf Gardens in early 1956, and Clancy, then the Leafs coach under great stress nearing the end of the season as his team struggled for a playoff spot (successfully, although barely), spent the better part of an hour with us, presented all of us with Maple Leafs calendars, gave all of us his autograph, showed us round the dressing rooms and the Hot Stove room used in telecasts of Leafs games during the intermission, introduced us to Tim Daly, the ancient and gruff team trainer, and answered our questions, drawing out the timid among us. It was a great occasion for me and my classmates, almost all of us from poverty-stricken families living in homes without indoor plumbing. I believe Clancy was moved by the wonder and excitement he saw in our eyes. I thought he was the kindest of men then, and I still think so. I may have told this story on this board before. If so, forgive me. I plead old age.

 

[Fourier]

Actually, Sittler's career (70-71 to 84-85) overlapped the Orr and Gretzky eras.

Orr's career was effectively over after 1975 (he played only 36 games over the last 4 years before he retired). So Sittler had five years in the league against Orr (71-75), playing the Bruins six times a year.

Gretzky came into the league in 79-80. Sittler played until '85, giving him six years in the league during Gretzky's time. He played the Oilers four times a year as a Leaf, three times as a Flyer and Red Wing.

He faced Orr a few more times than he faced Gretzky, but he certainly played against each of them enough to make a sound judgement. And he felt that, as great a player as Gretzky was, Orr was better. Among those whose careers spanned Orr's and Gretzky's, those who think Gretzky was the better player are few and far between. Funny, but the same isn't true re those whose careers spanned Howe's and Orr's. There is a long list of players who felt Orr was the better player (including none other than Bobby Hull, who called Orr "my idol")

btw, I heard Dale Hawerchuk being interviewed on the Bill Watters show. This is a guy who went head to head against Gretzky for years, during Wayne's prime, including several playoff rounds. When he was asked who the greatest player ever was, he didn't hesitate to say "Orr".

So you know I am fully aware of the overlap in each players careers. In fact, I probably saw every game Sittler played against Gretzky. It does not change the fact that Sittler is really a contemporary of Orr's. As I said he broke into the league when Orr was "the man" and played against him when Orr was in his prime. In addition, for the early part of his career any playoff success you wanted to have as a Leaf led you to the Bruins. As you know this was literally true in '72 and '74 but it was clear that Boston was one of the teams to beat for the first five years of Sittler's career.

In contrast, Gertzky and the Oilers were viewed almost like a novelty until at least the 83-84 season. This was particularly true of the eastern media, but it was also fairly commonplace amongst players from the east as well. Ask any Oiler fan of that era how frustrating it was to hear how the Oilers would be eaten alive if they played out east against the big boys. It was in the face of Beddoes statements about the Oilers being essentially a glorified minor league team that Pocklington made his declaration about the team winning a cup within five years. Despite the ridicule that statement gave rise to, we do know how that one turned out.

And of course there was Sevingy's claim that "Lafleur will put Gretzky in his back pocket". This got a lot of support out east. For me this was a big deal because through the 60's and 70's I was an absolute diehard Habs fan, watching evey game I could in French or in English. As an Oiler season ticket holder from back in the WHA days I can honestly say that it was that comment that finally sealed my loyalties. Even after Gretzky and the Oiler dominated the mighty Habs, there was precious little respect for what the accomplished. After the loss to the Islanders in 83 the word was still out that the Oilers were all flash a dash but would never be able to beat a team like the Islanders. All that may have turned around after game 1 of the 1983-84 finals, but even after the Oilers pretty much crushed the Islanders in games 3-5, there was still lot of stuff coming from out east that the Oilers would not have won had they not had it so easy getting to the finals.

So for pretty much the whole of Sittler's career, the Oilers would have been viewed as a non-factor, and Gretzky as a very good one trick pony. Hit him and he would be done. The over riding sense was if he played out east, he would be much less of a factor.

Hawerchuck is of course a different story. He got to see Gretzky up close and personal. It would have been interesting to hear the comment. And I have no doubt there would be others of Gretzky's era who say Orr was the best, just as I am sure that there would be those that played through Orr's career that would choose Gretzky, Howe being one of them.

In the end though there still remains a tendency for the past to be glorified. It happens in all sports. Ask anyone born in the 50's or 60's who was the best basketball player of all time and you will likely get many saying it was Russell. Best running back of all-time, you will hear Jim Brown. Best golfer of all-time: Ben Hogan and Bobby Jones will be right at the top with many picking them over Tiger despite the fact that Tiger has dominated in a time when golf is a huge sport world-wide .

It's not that these are not legitimate opinions. I am more than happy to concede that there is a reasoned case for making Orr the choice for best ever. But I would be very hard pressed to accept any claim that such a choice was anything more than an opinion. Given all of the factors at play there really is no way to definitively compare players like Orr and Gretzky.

I still remain curious about how often you saw Gretzky play, especially live.

 

[unknown33]

What about Messier?

NHL totals 694 goals 1193 assists 1887 points and an amazing +210

Uhm yeah, NO.

 

[Rhiessan71]

So you know I am fully aware of the overlap in each players careers. In fact, I probably saw every game Sittler played against Gretzky. It does not change the fact that Sittler is really a contemporary of Orr's. As I said he broke into the league when Orr was "the man" and played against him when Orr was in his prime. In addition, for the early part of his career any playoff success you wanted to have as a Leaf led you to the Bruins. As you know this was literally true in '72 and '74 but it was clear that Boston was one of the teams to beat for the first five years of Sittler's career.

In contrast, Gertzky and the Oilers were viewed almost like a novelty until at least the 83-84 season. This was particularly true of the eastern media, but it was also fairly commonplace amongst players from the east as well. Ask any Oiler fan of that era how frustrating it was to hear how the Oilers would be eaten alive if they played out east against the big boys. It was in the face of Beddoes statements about the Oilers being essentially a glorified minor league team that Pocklington made his declaration about the team winning a cup within five years. Despite the ridicule that statement gave rise to, we do know how that one turned out.

And of course there was Sevingy's claim that "Lafleur will put Gretzky in his back pocket". This got a lot of support out east. For me this was a big deal because through the 60's and 70's I was an absolute diehard Habs fan, watching evey game I could in French or in English. As an Oiler season ticket holder from back in the WHA days I can honestly say that it was that comment that finally sealed my loyalties. Even after Gretzky and the Oiler dominated the mighty Habs, there was precious little respect for what the accomplished. After the loss to the Islanders in 83 the word was still out that the Oilers were all flash a dash but would never be able to beat a team like the Islanders. All that may have turned around after game 1 of the 1983-84 finals, but even after the Oilers pretty much crushed the Islanders in games 3-5, there was still lot of stuff coming from out east that the Oilers would not have won had they not had it so easy getting to the finals.

So for pretty much the whole of Sittler's career, the Oilers would have been viewed as a non-factor, and Gretzky as a very good one trick pony. Hit him and he would be done. The over riding sense was if he played out east, he would be much less of a factor.

Hawerchuck is of course a different story. He got to see Gretzky up close and personal. It would have been interesting to hear the comment. And I have no doubt there would be others of Gretzky's era who say Orr was the best, just as I am sure that there would be those that played through Orr's career that would choose Gretzky, Howe being one of them.

In the end though there still remains a tendency for the past to be glorified. It happens in all sports. Ask anyone born in the 50's or 60's who was the best basketball player of all time and you will likely get many saying it was Russell. Best running back of all-time, you will hear Jim Brown. Best golfer of all-time: Ben Hogan and Bobby Jones will be right at the top with many picking them over Tiger despite the fact that Tiger has dominated in a time when golf is a huge sport world-wide .

It's not that these are not legitimate opinions. I am more than happy to concede that there is a reasoned case for making Orr the choice for best ever. But I would be very hard pressed to accept any claim that such a choice was anything more than an opinion. Given all of the factors at play there really is no way to definitively compare players like Orr and Gretzky.

I still remain curious about how often you saw Gretzky play, especially live.

Very good post...however, I'm a little dismayed at the amount of posts that like to dismiss real player and coach opinions, that not only saw both players but also played/coached with or against both, based on nostalgia.
I don't think there is truly a better way to gauge players than what you saw with your own eyes and to dismiss such opinions for the reasons given is a crock of you know what imo.

I know Gretzky had the longer and better career but that still doesn't change my opinion that Orr was still the best player that ever played, even if it was for a shorter time.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Very good post...however, I'm a little dismayed at the amount of posts that like to dismiss real player and coach opinions, that not only saw both players but also played/coached with or against both, based on nostalgia.
I don't think there is truly a better way to gauge players than what you saw with your own eyes and to dismiss such opinions for the reasons given is a crock of you know what imo.

I know Gretzky had the longer and better career but that still doesn't change my opinion that Orr was still the best player that ever played, even if it was for a shorter time.

If you want to go on player opinions.. why did Orr only win one LBP?

Not trying to stir it all up but the fact is that if Orr was truly head and shoulders above everyone else during his prime.. why did the players only vote him for mvp once?

I also find it a bit surprising that Gretzky only won it 5 times.. it is obviously more difficult to win than the Hart.

 

[Rhiessan71]

If you want to go on player opinions.. why did Orr only win one LBP?

Not trying to stir it all up but the fact is that if Orr was truly head and shoulders above everyone else during his prime.. why did the players only vote him for mvp once?

I also find it a bit surprising that Gretzky only won it 5 times.. it is obviously more difficult to win than the Hart.

Talking about Trophy voting is a whole other can o worms and I'm not sure there is enough room in this thread for it

 

[Fourier]

Very good post...however, I'm a little dismayed at the amount of posts that like to dismiss real player and coach opinions, that not only saw both players but also played/coached with or against both, based on nostalgia.
I don't think there is truly a better way to gauge players than what you saw with your own eyes and to dismiss such opinions for the reasons given is a crock of you know what imo.

I know Gretzky had the longer and better career but that still doesn't change my opinion that Orr was still the best player that ever played, even if it was for a shorter time.

Its not my attention to dismiss player or coaches opinions. They are most definitely of interest, and I would take anything such individuals say seriously.

My point is that in the end there is no real way to definitively rank players of different generations. Especially when they are as different as Gretzky and Orr. In the end it comes down to opinion, and there is no question that our individual experiences significantly impact our positions.

While I enjoy the debate, there is absolutely nothing anyone on here can say that will sway me to believe that Wayne Gretzky is not the best hockey player of all time. And I am fully willing to admit personal bias. Moreover, I will probably believe this no matter what the next great player does, because I am old and living where I do I will never again get the chance to experience in person the magic that I saw on so many occasions. This does not make me right. It's just the way it is.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Talking about Trophy voting is a whole other can o worms and I'm not sure there is enough room in this thread for it

That may be true but it seriously calls into question these recollections players have when the contemporaries playing with and against Orr only chose him as the most outstanding player once.

The same thing can be said about Gretzky only winning it 5 times.. either there is some voting block that is playing in the NHL and sees something we all don't.. or something is really screwy.

 

[quasi1981]

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

despite your poor choice in NHL teams.

Orr was totally dominant as an offensive player. He dominated the entire ice as an offensive player. When the puck was in his own end and behind the net, Bobby would take off from around the net like gang busters and it was pure offense no matter where he was. He would take the puck off your stick in his end, and he would skate circles around everyone. He played offense no matter where he was. I would take Bobby if I needed one goal and not Wayne. Bobby can be hemmed deep in his own end, and get the puck out quickly, and start a charge up ice, the greatest passer ever, and at high speeds, so many no look passes to set you up or himself up for that goal. He is a huge threat anywhere at any time no matter where on the ice he was.

He was a pro, playing against amateurs throughout his career, even when his knee was gone, and this was said by the players he played against and not some reporter who knows nothing about the game.

 

[quasi1981]

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.

Get off the stats, that is all 90% of you Gretzky fans have to defend yourselves. First, Bobby was only a 1/4 of a point if you take the fact that in the 80s, scoring was much higher, and Orr was still by far, the greatest offensive player ever, and it wasn't just about points, it was wins, controlling the game no matter where he was, was literally feared by all no matter where he was on the ice. He could make a play out of nothing, with as great a vision as Wayne, and had to make much tougher passing decisions at high speeds and never getting the chance to just stay behind the net and look for plays to make. If the Bruins made the choice to make Orr a center, no telling what kind of scorer he would have been. Even now most here would say that Orr is at least equal to Wayne in offensive play, and he had infinitely more responsibilies than Wayne.

 

[quasi1981]

....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.

100% agreement with you, it is obvious most Gretzky fans no little about the game, they don't understand it at all in general. All they have is stats, and stats don't win championships. They are for losers. Orr played offense all the time even deep in his own end, the way he carried the puck out of his own end, and all the other teams forwards would hustle back in a panic as this defenseman came out so fast and graceful, taking the puck from end to end. A great player always plays offense and defense, back checking, forechecking and so many other things. It was never about how many points Orr scored, but how he played the game, perfectly! He was always around the puck, and more so the action, it was being around the play so he could make the best offensive or defensive play, and mostly it was both at the same instance, taking the puck off your stick and start a rush or passing to a mate a getting something started which mostly was try to get the puck back off to Orr as fast as they could.