Orr Vs Gretzky

[BraveCanadian]

Scoring has nothing to do with being a great offensive player.

Whew...

 

[Up the Irons]

That is the one constant for sure, and that is that Gretzky did not revolutionize the game.

Bobby Orr did revolutionize the game, changing it forever!!

that one takes the cake.

1. working from behind the net (i know about Bobby Clarke, but 99 made it the norm).
2. defensive schemes which had to adapt to the above.
3. gaining the zone instead of completing rush
4. specialist-type players
5. the saucer pass
6. the one-timer
7. pass off the net
8. pass over the net
9. bank-shot off the goalie/player
10. expansion
11. minor hockey in California/Texas/Arizona/Colorado (22 of the first 60 players picked in 2010 entry draft from the USA)
12. bigger salaries/higher ticket prices (that would be a negative for fans)

probably a few more that I can't think of.

 

[bleeney]

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.

This is what Gordie Howe said:

"My favourite as the No. 1 player of all time would be Bobby Orr. I loved the way he played the game. I loved the way he changed the game and the quickness he had".
-from The Hockey News Top 100; pg 20

He also had this to say about Orr:

"I would say I've never seen a guy who did as much offensively and defensively as much as that young man did".
-from Remembering Bobby Orr; pg 109

This is from Howe, a guy who had a friendship with Gretzky going back to when Wayne was a kid. He's a huge admirer of Gretzky; probably the player Gretzky respects more than anyone else in history. In fact, he refers to Howe as his "idol".

Yet despite their friendship and mutual admiration, Gordie says Orr was the best ever.

As for me, I managed to see Gretzky in perhaps his finest hour: The '87 Canada Cup. I went to every game against the Russians, including the exhibition game (where Neeley and Stevens were wrecking balls. I was disappointed when they were cut). As an aside, seeing the Russians come out after the game, I was struck by the poor complexions and puffy faces that many of them had. When the Ben Johnson steroid scandal happened the following year, and the side effects of steroid use became known, it made me think back to the way the Russians looked and wonder if some of them were juiced. But I digress...

Gretzky was unbelievable in that tournament. Magnificent. He is the most creative player in the offensive zone that I've ever seen. And he played his guts out. I will always respect him for his efforts on behalf of Team Canada. I also believe that playing with Wayne at that tournament made Mario a better player from that point on.

But if I were to pick the second most creative player ever, I'd be hard pressed to choose somebody over Orr. Along with his incredible speed, shot and puckandling, he was an outstanding playmaker, leading the league in assists every year, including breaking the 100 mark... from the blueline. He too had that sixth sense, and he applied it equally to his defensive as well as offensive game.

This is from a Feb. 1965 article by Trent Fayne (who authored one of the greatest hockey books ever: The Mad Men of Hockey ) about Orr when he was the most hyped prospect ever:

"He amazes me every time I see him" says the beleaguered general manager of the Bruins, Lynn Patrick. "The way he can anticipate what's going to happen is sometimes uncanny; you know, sensing where the puck is going to be and moving there even before the puck gets there. I never saw a more promising player".
-from Canada on Ice; pg 169

Harry Sinden was asked if he thought Orr "saw the game differently than others, say in slow motion, to give him a unique view of the play"
"I suppose he did. But how could you know? No one ever saw it his way and reacted to what he saw the way Orr did so I suppose he had some different view of it. Maybe Wayne Gretzky or Mario Lemieux, who seemed to have that quality, could explain it, although I doubt it. None of them think about it; they just do it."

Gerry Cheevers said: "We used to kid him about his anticipation, tell him if he really concentrated on it, he could tell us what would happen at the 11:55 mark of the second period in a game next week".
-from Remembering Bobby Orr; pg 77-78

"Viewed from the top of the arena, hockey is a game of geometry, a kind of high-speed chess. From the top it is possible to see not only the million things a player may do with the puck in any situation, but the one thing he should do. Nine times out of 10 Orr does that one thing-as if he too could see the flow of play from the top. His shot is wicked, his passing crisp, his control of the game awesome. But his instinct for knowing precisely what to do with the puck and the exact moment to do it, surpasses understanding."
-from Canada on Ice; pg 248

 

[Rhiessan71]

This is what Gordie Howe said:

"My favourite as the No. 1 player of all time would be Bobby Orr. I loved the way he played the game. I loved the way he changed the game and the quickness he had".
-from The Hockey News Top 100; pg 20

He also had this to say about Orr:

"I would say I've never seen a guy who did as much offensively and defensively as much as that young man did".
-from Remembering Bobby Orr; pg 109

This is from Howe, a guy who had a friendship with Gretzky going back to when Wayne was a kid. He's a huge admirer of Gretzky; probably the player Gretzky respects more than anyone else in history. In fact, he refers to Howe as his "idol".

Yet despite their friendship and mutual admiration, Gordie says Orr was the best ever.

As for me, I managed to see Gretzky in perhaps his finest hour: The '87 Canada Cup. I went to every game against the Russians, including the exhibition game (where Neeley and Stevens were wrecking balls. I was disappointed when they were cut). As an aside, seeing the Russians come out after the game, I was struck by the poor complexions and puffy faces that many of them had. When the Ben Johnson steroid scandal happened the following year, and the side effects of steroid use became known, it made me think back to the way the Russians looked and wonder if some of them were juiced. But I digress...

Gretzky was unbelievable in that tournament. Magnificent. He is the most creative player in the offensive zone that I've ever seen. And he played his guts out. I will always respect him for his efforts on behalf of Team Canada. I also believe that playing with Wayne at that tournament made Mario a better player from that point on.

But if I were to pick the second most creative player ever, I'd be hard pressed to choose somebody over Orr. Along with his incredible speed, shot and puckandling, he was an outstanding playmaker, leading the league in assists every year, including breaking the 100 mark... from the blueline. He too had that sixth sense, and he applied it equally to his defensive as well as offensive game.

This is from a Feb. 1965 article by Trent Fayne (who authored one of the greatest hockey books ever: The Mad Men of Hockey ) about Orr when he was the most hyped prospect ever:

"He amazes me every time I see him" says the beleaguered general manager of the Bruins, Lynn Patrick. "The way he can anticipate what's going to happen is sometimes uncanny; you know, sensing where the puck is going to be and moving there even before the puck gets there. I never saw a more promising player".
-from Canada on Ice; pg 169

Harry Sinden was asked if he thought Orr "saw the game differently than others, say in slow motion, to give him a unique view of the play"
"I suppose he did. But how could you know? No one ever saw it his way and reacted to what he saw the way Orr did so I suppose he had some different view of it. Maybe Wayne Gretzky or Mario Lemieux, who seemed to have that quality, could explain it, although I doubt it. None of them think about it; they just do it."

Gerry Cheevers said: "We used to kid him about his anticipation, tell him if he really concentrated on it, he could tell us what would happen at the 11:55 mark of the second period in a game next week".
-from Remembering Bobby Orr; pg 77-78

"Viewed from the top of the arena, hockey is a game of geometry, a kind of high-speed chess. From the top it is possible to see not only the million things a player may do with the puck in any situation, but the one thing he should do. Nine times out of 10 Orr does that one thing-as if he too could see the flow of play from the top. His shot is wicked, his passing crisp, his control of the game awesome. But his instinct for knowing precisely what to do with the puck and the exact moment to do it, surpasses understanding."
-from Canada on Ice; pg 248

Fantastic post

I too thought there was something about the Howe picking Gretzky as his #1 comment that didn't sound right.
Just glad you did the research and saved me the time

 

[shazariahl]

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.

Firstly, saying that Gretzky fans don't know anything about hockey is both stupid and insulting. Also, Gretzky won twice as many championships as Orr, so saying "stats don't win championships" is plainly wrong - putting up 47 points in a single post season DOES help your team win championships. It may not guarantee a win, but it certainly goes a long way towards helping the team out.

Secondly, I wanted to address the whole use of stats. Of course Gretzky fans are going to use stats - why wouldn't we? The guy has nearly every record imaginable, and stats that will probably never be broken. But you seem to be implying that I and others like me think he was great BECAUSE of his stats. That is completely backwards. His stats were a product of his greatness, not the reason for it.

Stats are physical evidence. They are not the opinion of a player or coach, which are completely subjective and have no physical proof to back them. Stats are undeniable. Player A scored x amount, player B scored more. What we are really debating then, is the VALUE that people put on stats, not the stats themselves. Obviously, myself and many Gretzky fans like using stats. You don't. And that's fine. There's much more to this debate than just who scored more.

The problem is, that many Gretzky fans only care about stats. And people like you don't care about them at all, seemingly. Both are wrong. You can't go just by stats, but ignoring them is equally foolish, because stats are the only empirical evidence we have.

Many Gretzky fans, myself included, try to look beyond the stats. We look at trophy wins, % of dominance over one's peers, margins of victory, top 5 or to 10 finishes in their careers in different areas, etc. You could say these are just more stats, but at some point any comparison between players HAS to involve some form of numbers. Without it there is no basis for comparison, other than your word vs mine. In which case you could try to say Forsberg was better than Gretzky, and if we can't use stats to compare, then whose to say otherwise? Without stats there is no measuring stick at all, which makes it hard to measure anything.

And for the record, I did see Orr play. Not much, granted - it was towards the end of his career. And I saw Gretzky's entire career - so I am probably biased. But when you see someone averaging 3.0 PPG for 51 straight games and realize that the only records left for him to break are his own, its hard not to be impressed. Maybe you didn't care about such things, because they involved stats and numbers. And that's fine. I guess my problem is I just don't know what else you use to judge players by, other than recollections of your youth or videos on youtube.

 

[Up the Irons]

Firstly, saying that Gretzky fans don't know anything about hockey is both stupid and insulting. Also, Gretzky won twice as many championships as Orr, so saying "stats don't win championships" is plainly wrong - putting up 47 points in a single post season DOES help your team win championships. It may not guarantee a win, but it certainly goes a long way towards helping the team out.

Secondly, I wanted to address the whole use of stats. Of course Gretzky fans are going to use stats - why wouldn't we? The guy has nearly every record imaginable, and stats that will probably never be broken. But you seem to be implying that I and others like me think he was great BECAUSE of his stats. That is completely backwards. His stats were a product of his greatness, not the reason for it.

Stats are physical evidence. They are not the opinion of a player or coach, which are completely subjective and have no physical proof to back them. Stats are undeniable. Player A scored x amount, player B scored more. What we are really debating then, is the VALUE that people put on stats, not the stats themselves. Obviously, myself and many Gretzky fans like using stats. You don't. And that's fine. There's much more to this debate than just who scored more.

The problem is, that many Gretzky fans only care about stats. And people like you don't care about them at all, seemingly. Both are wrong. You can't go just by stats, but ignoring them is equally foolish, because stats are the only empirical evidence we have.

Many Gretzky fans, myself included, try to look beyond the stats. We look at trophy wins, % of dominance over one's peers, margins of victory, top 5 or to 10 finishes in their careers in different areas, etc. You could say these are just more stats, but at some point any comparison between players HAS to involve some form of numbers. Without it there is no basis for comparison, other than your word vs mine. In which case you could try to say Forsberg was better than Gretzky, and if we can't use stats to compare, then whose to say otherwise? Without stats there is no measuring stick at all, which makes it hard to measure anything.

And for the record, I did see Orr play. Not much, granted - it was towards the end of his career. And I saw Gretzky's entire career - so I am probably biased. But when you see someone averaging 3.0 PPG for 51 straight games and realize that the only records left for him to break are his own, its hard not to be impressed. Maybe you didn't care about such things, because they involved stats and numbers. And that's fine. I guess my problem is I just don't know what else you use to judge players by, other than recollections of your youth or videos on youtube.

great post. I don't have the stats, but it is rare for the playoff scoring leader to not win the Cup (this year Briere was an exception). But, when the playoff scoring leader scored more than 35 points, I don't there is an exception.

Gretzky haters don't like stats because they don't help their argument. If they're Mario fans then pretty goals carry the most weight. If they're Howe fans, then the complete game wins the day. But for some strange reason, making 3239 goals occur in a career doesn't mean any thing to these guys. Just like 500 foot homeruns are better than more homeruns, rbi's and runs scored.

the most goals, most assists, most points, most Hart trophies will always be the measuring stick. you may not like it, but it is the truth, Ruth.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

The problem is, that many Gretzky fans only care about stats. And people like you don't care about them at all, seemingly. Both are wrong. You can't go just by stats, but ignoring them is equally foolish, because stats are the only empirical evidence we have.

This is an excellent, excellent point and one that should apply to any serious conversation about hockey, historical or otherwise.

 

[Fourier]

This is what Gordie Howe said:

"My favourite as the No. 1 player of all time would be Bobby Orr. I loved the way he played the game. I loved the way he changed the game and the quickness he had".
-from The Hockey News Top 100; pg 20

He also had this to say about Orr:

"I would say I've never seen a guy who did as much offensively and defensively as much as that young man did".
-from Remembering Bobby Orr; pg 109

This is from Howe, a guy who had a friendship with Gretzky going back to when Wayne was a kid. He's a huge admirer of Gretzky; probably the player Gretzky respects more than anyone else in history. In fact, he refers to Howe as his "idol".

Yet despite their friendship and mutual admiration, Gordie says Orr was the best ever.

As for me, I managed to see Gretzky in perhaps his finest hour: The '87 Canada Cup. I went to every game against the Russians, including the exhibition game (where Neeley and Stevens were wrecking balls. I was disappointed when they were cut). As an aside, seeing the Russians come out after the game, I was struck by the poor complexions and puffy faces that many of them had. When the Ben Johnson steroid scandal happened the following year, and the side effects of steroid use became known, it made me think back to the way the Russians looked and wonder if some of them were juiced. But I digress...

Gretzky was unbelievable in that tournament. Magnificent. He is the most creative player in the offensive zone that I've ever seen. And he played his guts out. I will always respect him for his efforts on behalf of Team Canada. I also believe that playing with Wayne at that tournament made Mario a better player from that point on.

But if I were to pick the second most creative player ever, I'd be hard pressed to choose somebody over Orr. Along with his incredible speed, shot and puckandling, he was an outstanding playmaker, leading the league in assists every year, including breaking the 100 mark... from the blueline. He too had that sixth sense, and he applied it equally to his defensive as well as offensive game.

This is from a Feb. 1965 article by Trent Fayne (who authored one of the greatest hockey books ever: The Mad Men of Hockey ) about Orr when he was the most hyped prospect ever:

"He amazes me every time I see him" says the beleaguered general manager of the Bruins, Lynn Patrick. "The way he can anticipate what's going to happen is sometimes uncanny; you know, sensing where the puck is going to be and moving there even before the puck gets there. I never saw a more promising player".
-from Canada on Ice; pg 169

Harry Sinden was asked if he thought Orr "saw the game differently than others, say in slow motion, to give him a unique view of the play"
"I suppose he did. But how could you know? No one ever saw it his way and reacted to what he saw the way Orr did so I suppose he had some different view of it. Maybe Wayne Gretzky or Mario Lemieux, who seemed to have that quality, could explain it, although I doubt it. None of them think about it; they just do it."

Gerry Cheevers said: "We used to kid him about his anticipation, tell him if he really concentrated on it, he could tell us what would happen at the 11:55 mark of the second period in a game next week".
-from Remembering Bobby Orr; pg 77-78

"Viewed from the top of the arena, hockey is a game of geometry, a kind of high-speed chess. From the top it is possible to see not only the million things a player may do with the puck in any situation, but the one thing he should do. Nine times out of 10 Orr does that one thing-as if he too could see the flow of play from the top. His shot is wicked, his passing crisp, his control of the game awesome. But his instinct for knowing precisely what to do with the puck and the exact moment to do it, surpasses understanding."
-from Canada on Ice; pg 248

Thanks,

I must say that I have heard Howe call Gretzky the best ever as well but I have no evidence to present so given that you have such a reference I will gladly defer to your position.

I also agree that the '87 Canada Cup was probably Gretzky at his best. I got to see much of the '84 Canada Cup. Great hockey, but not on the level of '87. You were lucky indeed.

Overall, you should know that I very much respect your position and I most certainly appreciate the effort!

(Added in edit: After reading your post I did a search for THN's top 100. I found the list of judges to be pretty interesting:

The judges involved in making the selections for this list included writers, journalists, and broadcasters (Don Cherry, John Davidson, Milt Dunnell, Stan Fischler, Dick Irvin, Brian McFarlane, Bob McKenzie, Jim Matheson, Harry Neale, Frank Orr), as well as coaches, referees, general managers, and former players (Al Arbour, Scotty Bowman, Emile Francis, Howie Meeker, Scotty Morrison, Roger Neilson, Bud Poile, Sam Pollock, Marcel Pronovost, Billy Reay, Glen Sather, Harry Sinden, Red Storey).

Guess who they picked!

Fun debate, that I am sure will go on for years.)

 

[BraveCanadian]

The judges involved in making the selections for this list included writers, journalists, and broadcasters (Don Cherry, John Davidson, Milt Dunnell, Stan Fischler, Dick Irvin, Brian McFarlane, Bob McKenzie, Jim Matheson, Harry Neale, Frank Orr), as well as coaches, referees, general managers, and former players (Al Arbour, Scotty Bowman, Emile Francis, Howie Meeker, Scotty Morrison, Roger Neilson, Bud Poile, Sam Pollock, Marcel Pronovost, Billy Reay, Glen Sather, Harry Sinden, Red Storey).

Guess who they picked!

Yeah but what do they know!? Oh wait a minute..

 

[reckoning]

I really wish THN would've printed everyone's individual list so we'd know who picked who. But the fact that all those contributors would've seen both of them play should kill the often-repeated myth that "everyone who saw both Orr and Gretzky play thinks Orr was better."

Some think Orr was better. Some think Gretzky was better. And I'm sure a few voted Howe #1. The final tally was quite close between those three.

I'm not saying that the list is the indisputable gospel, but I'd rate the opinions of most of those voters higher than that of Bobby Schmautz.

 

[seventieslord]

Please find one person, let alone "many," who believes Messier was a better player than Gretzky. Please find this person and bring him here, so we can all point and laugh.

Haha. I liked this one, too.

Rampant fanboyism going on. Pretty much like the present-day Crosby/Ovechkin talk. Seemingly the only way to make your point is to talk **** about the player you don't like.

 

[seventieslord]

Eddie Shore was the one who brought physicality and offense into defensemen.

You could say that was Sprague cleghorn.

 

[Rhiessan71]

(Added in edit: After reading your post I did a search for THN's top 100. I found the list of judges to be pretty interesting:



Guess who they picked!

Fun debate, that I am sure will go on for years.)

What they don't tell you though, is just how close the vote between Orr and Gretzky was.
I remember interviews with Cherry, Bowman and Neale after and they all said that the Orr vs Gretzky debates got pretty heated.
Gretzky won out obviously but it definitely wasn't any kind of landslide.

Can't go wrong with either. I accept that 51% give Gretzky the edge but I'll continue to be happy being in the other 49%

 

[BraveCanadian]

What they don't tell you though, is just how close the vote between Orr and Gretzky was.
I remember interviews with Cherry, Bowman and Neale after and they all said that the Orr vs Gretzky debates got pretty heated.
Gretzky won out obviously but it definitely wasn't any kind of landslide.

Can't go wrong with either. I accept that 51% give Gretzky the edge but I'll continue to be happy being in the other 49%

I'm sure the vote was very close on Orr, Gretzky and Howe.

I don't think you could go wrong picking any one of them to be on your team in any era.

 

[Fourier]

What they don't tell you though, is just how close the vote between Orr and Gretzky was.
I remember interviews with Cherry, Bowman and Neale after and they all said that the Orr vs Gretzky debates got pretty heated.
Gretzky won out obviously but it definitely wasn't any kind of landslide.

Can't go wrong with either. I accept that 51% give Gretzky the edge but I'll continue to be happy being in the other 49%

And you will get no argument from me on this. I have said all along I can respect anyone who takes the position that Orr was #1.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'm sure the vote was very close on Orr, Gretzky and Howe.

I don't think you could go wrong picking any one of them to be on your team in any era.

They didn't give voting breakdowns but did say that it was really close between the top 3 with Mario Lemieux basically the consensus #4.

 

[Up the Irons]

I'm sure the vote was very close on Orr, Gretzky and Howe.

this . your own opinion of what you personally see as being the most important attributes in a player will lead you to pick one of these 3 men as the greatest ever. For me, it's 99. but I can respect those who pick 4 or 9.

IMO, Richard, Lemieux and Morenz could almost be in this grouping as well.

 

[tazzy19]

I just can't get over the fact that Gretzky has the top 11 best assist seasons of all time (sharing the 9th best with Lemieux). Combine that with somehow still being the fastest to 500, 600, 700, 800 goals, and scoring the most goals ever...that just takes the cake for me.

Oh, darnit. I used stats.

 

[habsjunkie2*]

I just can't get over the fact that Gretzky has the top 11 best assist seasons of all time (sharing the 9th best with Lemieux). Combine that with somehow still being the fastest to 500, 600, 700, 800 goals, and scoring the most goals ever...that just takes the cake for me.

Oh, darnit. I used stats.

Yeah, but you didn't use adjusted stats where he would probably only be 700-800 points ahead of his closest rival

 

[tazzy19]

Yeah, but you didn't use adjusted stats where he would probably only be 700-800 points ahead of his closest rival

Haha, so true!

 

[seventieslord]

What they don't tell you though, is just how close the vote between Orr and Gretzky was.
I remember interviews with Cherry, Bowman and Neale after and they all said that the Orr vs Gretzky debates got pretty heated.
Gretzky won out obviously but it definitely wasn't any kind of landslide.

Can't go wrong with either. I accept that 51% give Gretzky the edge but I'll continue to be happy being in the other 49%

I'd like to know where you got this. Because as far as I know, there were no "debates" at all - everyone submitted a list. Do you think they all flew in to one central location to put this together? As awesome as that would be, that didn't happen.

They publicized the list of players and the voting points they received, and the top-3 were all extremely close, reflecting that they all earned top-3 spots on every ballot, with Wayne basically winning out by being 1st and 2nd more often than Gordie and Bobby.

 

[quasi1981]

Firstly, saying that Gretzky fans don't know anything about hockey is both stupid and insulting. Also, Gretzky won twice as many championships as Orr, so saying "stats don't win championships" is plainly wrong - putting up 47 points in a single post season DOES help your team win championships. It may not guarantee a win, but it certainly goes a long way towards helping the team out.

Secondly, I wanted to address the whole use of stats. Of course Gretzky fans are going to use stats - why wouldn't we? The guy has nearly every record imaginable, and stats that will probably never be broken. But you seem to be implying that I and others like me think he was great BECAUSE of his stats. That is completely backwards. His stats were a product of his greatness, not the reason for it.

Stats are physical evidence. They are not the opinion of a player or coach, which are completely subjective and have no physical proof to back them. Stats are undeniable. Player A scored x amount, player B scored more. What we are really debating then, is the VALUE that people put on stats, not the stats themselves. Obviously, myself and many Gretzky fans like using stats. You don't. And that's fine. There's much more to this debate than just who scored more.

The problem is, that many Gretzky fans only care about stats. And people like you don't care about them at all, seemingly. Both are wrong. You can't go just by stats, but ignoring them is equally foolish, because stats are the only empirical evidence we have.

Many Gretzky fans, myself included, try to look beyond the stats. We look at trophy wins, % of dominance over one's peers, margins of victory, top 5 or to 10 finishes in their careers in different areas, etc. You could say these are just more stats, but at some point any comparison between players HAS to involve some form of numbers. Without it there is no basis for comparison, other than your word vs mine. In which case you could try to say Forsberg was better than Gretzky, and if we can't use stats to compare, then whose to say otherwise? Without stats there is no measuring stick at all, which makes it hard to measure anything.

And for the record, I did see Orr play. Not much, granted - it was towards the end of his career. And I saw Gretzky's entire career - so I am probably biased. But when you see someone averaging 3.0 PPG for 51 straight games and realize that the only records left for him to break are his own, its hard not to be impressed. Maybe you didn't care about such things, because they involved stats and numbers. And that's fine. I guess my problem is I just don't know what else you use to judge players by, other than recollections of your youth or videos on youtube.

Virtually every time a read someone speaking of how great Gretzky was, 90% of what they say is about stats. It is boring & says zero about his play. And most great coaches will say that ' Stats are for losers '! It takes a team to win titles, and Waynes job was to score. Scoring doesn't mean you are a great player.

Wilt Chamberlain dominated stats as a player maybe more than anyone, but Russell who couldn't care less about stats, saying it is not how many points, rebounds, or assists, but when you get them. That is what counts. Not how many points, but when you get them, so this is why I care less about Waynes stats.

Truly great champions are not into their stats, but they are into the game and do "anything" to help their team win, not just scoring. And some laugh when I say a great offense is not about scoring, it is also about controlling the puck so the D doesn"t have to work so hard. Defense is much much harder to play than offense, because the offense knows what it wants to do. The D has see what the O does and react to it, adjust to it, and this takes a lot of effort and stamina. So the offense can help win just by holding on to the puck, or in football having a long sustained drive, and no score can be almost more important than a quick score. The long drive keeps the other QB off the field so he can't get hot, or cools him off. so offense isn;t all about scoring.

 

[canucks4ever]

Virtually every time a read someone speaking of how great Gretzky was, 90% of what they say is about stats. It is boring & says zero about his play. And most great coaches will say that ' Stats are for losers '! It takes a team to win titles, and Waynes job was to score. Scoring doesn't mean you are a great player.

Wilt Chamberlain dominated stats as a player maybe more than anyone, but Russell who couldn't care less about stats, saying it is not how many points, rebounds, or assists, but when you get them. That is what counts. Not how many points, but when you get them, so this is why I care less about Waynes stats.

Truly great champions are not into their stats, but they are into the game and do "anything" to help their team win, not just scoring. And some laugh when I say a great offense is not about scoring, it is also about controlling the puck so the D doesn"t have to work so hard. Defense is much much harder to play than offense, because the offense knows what it wants to do. The D has see what the O does and react to it, adjust to it, and this takes a lot of effort and stamina. So the offense can help win just by holding on to the puck, or in football having a long sustained drive, and no score can be almost more important than a quick score. The long drive keeps the other QB off the field so he can't get hot, or cools him off. so offense isn;t all about scoring.

Bill Russell also had several hall of famers on his team. Chamberlain usually dominated him head to head, but bill's teams would win because they had more depth.

 

[habsjunkie2*]

Virtually every time a read someone speaking of how great Gretzky was, 90% of what they say is about stats. It is boring & says zero about his play. And most great coaches will say that ' Stats are for losers '! It takes a team to win titles, and Waynes job was to score. Scoring doesn't mean you are a great player.

Wilt Chamberlain dominated stats as a player maybe more than anyone, but Russell who couldn't care less about stats, saying it is not how many points, rebounds, or assists, but when you get them. That is what counts. Not how many points, but when you get them, so this is why I care less about Waynes stats.

Truly great champions are not into their stats, but they are into the game and do "anything" to help their team win, not just scoring. And some laugh when I say a great offense is not about scoring, it is also about controlling the puck so the D doesn"t have to work so hard. Defense is much much harder to play than offense, because the offense knows what it wants to do. The D has see what the O does and react to it, adjust to it, and this takes a lot of effort and stamina. So the offense can help win just by holding on to the puck, or in football having a long sustained drive, and no score can be almost more important than a quick score. The long drive keeps the other QB off the field so he can't get hot, or cools him off. so offense isn;t all about scoring.

Gretzky was great in every sense of the word. Stats just prove it was never very close. What he lacked in grit and toughness he more than made up for with unprecedented vision, a skill that will likely never be matched. All his stats do is reconfirm that he was in fact the greatest hockey player to ever lace up skates and it was never really close. He made everyone better, he was hardly a self centered player only worried about padding his stats and he was a winner as well.

Anyone who watched the great one play knew how special he was. The stats are a result of his outstanding performance.

All I ever see from people who don't rate Wayne Gretzky number 1 is the great lengths to discredit the mans accomplishments. Even the often discussed adjusted stats that have a knack for taking points away from Wayne (others from the high scoring 80's as well.) and inflating the stats of others, and after this is all said and done, he still comes out way on top. He completely dominated his peers during the high scoring 80's and ppl try their best to marginalize his dominance.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Virtually every time a read someone speaking of how great Gretzky was, 90% of what they say is about stats. It is boring & says zero about his play. And most great coaches will say that ' Stats are for losers '! It takes a team to win titles, and Waynes job was to score. Scoring doesn't mean you are a great player.

Wilt Chamberlain dominated stats as a player maybe more than anyone, but Russell who couldn't care less about stats, saying it is not how many points, rebounds, or assists, but when you get them. That is what counts. Not how many points, but when you get them, so this is why I care less about Waynes stats.

Truly great champions are not into their stats, but they are into the game and do "anything" to help their team win, not just scoring. And some laugh when I say a great offense is not about scoring, it is also about controlling the puck so the D doesn"t have to work so hard. Defense is much much harder to play than offense, because the offense knows what it wants to do. The D has see what the O does and react to it, adjust to it, and this takes a lot of effort and stamina. So the offense can help win just by holding on to the puck, or in football having a long sustained drive, and no score can be almost more important than a quick score. The long drive keeps the other QB off the field so he can't get hot, or cools him off. so offense isn;t all about scoring.

Except Wayne also won more than Orr and captained more teams to the Cup. He is also universally recognized as one of the hardest working players ever.