Orr Vs Gretzky

[BraveCanadian]

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.

It has already been pointing out to him the last couple of times he brought up the "winning is everything" argument.

He'll just keep babbling.

 

[habsjunkie2*]

Once again Ogopogo, you didn't answer my question: If Orr is more successful at shutting down Gretzky than Gretzky is at shutting down Orr, I win. Are you seriously going to argue that Gretzky is going to be more successful at shutting down Orr than Orr is at shutting down Gretzky?

For the record, I will definitely say that Orr was better defensively than any of the defencemen you named. He was easily as strong, had far better vision, played as well positionally, was a far better skater, and was far better with his stick than any of the defencemen you mentioned. Granted Orr took far more chances, but those chances often paid huge dividends. Simply put, if Orr was assigned to shut down Gretzky, he would be far more effective than any of the defencemen you named.

Your post is really stupid. The game of hockey isn't 1vs1. All you can do is give your ridiculous hypotheticals that can never be proven. Comparisons that have no business in the discussion of who was the better player. Hockey is a 5vs5 game and not 1vs1 and Gretzky was unquestionably the best at this game. If Bobby Orr was in the league the same time as Wayne Gretzky he would have never won a scoring title.

 

[Rhiessan71]

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.

To be honest man, I wish I could remember exactly.
The interviews may not of even been about the Hockey news rankings.
I am assuming they were though, because even just a few months ago Bobby Mac mentioned on TSN about serving on something that had Cherry and Sather, saying that those two going at it over Gretzky and Orr was pretty epic.
I could be mistaken, it was '98 after all.

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.

First off.....for the love of god, stop using any version of the phrase "It isn't even close" when talking about Orr vs Gretzky, it's ****ing ridiculous!!!

No one is questioning that Gretzky was the most dominating offensive force to ever play.
What Orr supporters point out and what Gretzky supporters deny is that the game is not just about putting the puck in the net but also about keeping it out.
Orr's ability to do both is unmatched, players have come close to Gretzky's level of offense but no one has even been remotely close to matching Orr's dominance on both sides of the puck.

You pick Gretzky and that's respected but please don't use that "it isn't even close" bull****!
If it wasn't ****ing close then we wouldn't have nearly a 50/50 split on the subject.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

To be honest man, I wish I could remember exactly.
The interviews may not of even been about the Hockey news rankings.
I am assuming they were though, because even just a few months ago Bobby Mac mentioned on TSN about serving on something that had Cherry and Sather, saying that those two going at it over Gretzky and Orr was pretty epic.
I could be mistaken, it was '98 after all.




First off.....for the love of god, stop using any version of the phrase "It isn't even close" when talking about Orr vs Gretzky, it's ****ing ridiculous!!!

No one is questioning that Gretzky was the most dominating offensive force to ever play.
What Orr supporters point out and what Gretzky supporters deny is that the game is not just about putting the puck in the net but also about keeping it out.
Orr's ability to do both is unmatched, players have come close to Gretzky's level of offense but no one has even been remotely close to matching Orr's dominance on both sides of the puck.

You pick Gretzky and that's respected but please don't use that "it isn't even close" bull****!
If it wasn't ****ing close then we wouldn't have nearly a 50/50 split on the subject.

Agreed, but players have come close to Orr - obviously Coffey offensively, and many have been better defensively.
I also believe some of the other great all-around defenseman could have put up some monster numbers in that watered down league - not to the same extent, but close - guys like Kelly, Potvin, Bourque and even Lidstrom could put up 100+ seasons at the time, especially playing for the Bruins, and while playing just as good, if not better than Orr defensively.

What is uniquely impressive about Gretzky is he simply accomplished such heights many more times than Orr.

 

[habsjunkie2*]

To be honest man, I wish I could remember exactly.
The interviews may not of even been about the Hockey news rankings.
I am assuming they were though, because even just a few months ago Bobby Mac mentioned on TSN about serving on something that had Cherry and Sather, saying that those two going at it over Gretzky and Orr was pretty epic.
I could be mistaken, it was '98 after all.




First off.....for the love of god, stop using any version of the phrase "It isn't even close" when talking about Orr vs Gretzky, it's ****ing ridiculous!!!

No one is questioning that Gretzky was the most dominating offensive force to ever play.
What Orr supporters point out and what Gretzky supporters deny is that the game is not just about putting the puck in the net but also about keeping it out.
Orr's ability to do both is unmatched, players have come close to Gretzky's level of offense but no one has even been remotely close to matching Orr's dominance on both sides of the puck.

You pick Gretzky and that's respected but please don't use that "it isn't even close" bull****!
If it wasn't ****ing close then we wouldn't have nearly a 50/50 split on the subject.

Ppl have come close to Gretzky? Where are they? He has more assists than anyone has points. No one has come close. 1 season does not a career make. Gretzky holds over 60 NHL records, most will never be touched in our lifetime. Orr can't make the same claims, the only argument I see is based on the fact Orr was a defencemen and played a more complete game, i'll give him that, but Gretzky and his ridiculous offensive abilities far out weigh the complete game.

His vision is unmatched, a skill that seems to be vastly underrated. His ability to think 5-10 moves ahead of everyone else was what made him so great. You could argue many were better skaters, had harder shots, faster, stronger, better defensively on and on but none of them will ever be the great one. In a skills competition Orr likely had the advantage, but the game isn't played that way.

 

[Mothra]

No player I have seen controlled the game like Bobby Orr....in my mind he is the greatest hockey player of my lifetime

 

[shazariahl]

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.

Well, if you want work ethic or doing "anything" to help their team win, it was hard to beat Gretzky. Look at game 2 of the 87 Canada Cup. Game went into double OT, and lasted just over 90 minutes. Gretzky played just over 50 minutes of that. As a forward. Think about that - no Dmen even play over half a game, let alone a forward. He was so exhausted he lost muscle control and actually pissed himself at one point. After the game he had to be helped to the dressing room. But, he had 5 assists on Canada's 6 goals, including the pass to Mario for the game winner.

If its not about points but when you get them, then look at his playoffs. He is one of the greatest playoff performers of all time. I know you don't care about stats, but having the most playoff goals, assists, and points is significant, and clearly shows he "got his points" at the most important times. And his offense wasn't just in the other team's end, as you seem to keep implying. It often began in his own end, anticipating a pass, intercepting it, and bringing things back the other way. Sure, he didn't check or grind in the corners, but he had teammates that did.

That is why sometimes completeness can be overrated. Not always, but sometimes. Because its a team sport - Gretzky didn't have to be great at digging for pucks along the boards because people like Messier were. Others could cover for the areas Gretzky was weaker, allowing him to put up 200+ points a year and concentrate on the parts of the game he did dominate. Many players were more complete players than Gretzky, even on his own team (Messier and Kurri among them), but that doesn't mean they were better. And who cares about fighting? Asking Gretzky to fight is like asking a brain surgeon to empty bed pans.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Agreed, but players have come close to Orr - obviously Coffey offensively, and many have been better defensively.
I also believe some of the other great all-around defenseman could have put up some monster numbers in that watered down league - not to the same extent, but close - guys like Kelly, Potvin, Bourque and even Lidstrom could put up 100+ seasons at the time, especially playing for the Bruins, and while playing just as good, if not better than Orr defensively.

What is uniquely impressive about Gretzky is he simply accomplished such heights many more times than Orr.

...and Mario came close to Gretzky, we've been over this already.

As far another all around Dman doing what Orr did....lets look at who you mentioned.
First off Kelly played forward quite often and it's not even known exactly how many points he actually generated from the back end.
Second you mention Potvin, who DID play in this so called "watered down" league and only managed 101 points and that wasn't until the 1980 season.
Bourque played in the highest scoring era in history and never even broke 100 points.
Lidstrom...really? His highest point total was 80 and you're telling me that translates to 120-140 in the 70's?
Dude....that doesn't even translate to 120-140 in the 80's for pete's sake.
Then tack on +60, +80, +124!!!

No, sorry, Orr is further ahead of any other Dman than Gretzky is to any other forward.
Gretzky put up 200+ points....Mario put up 199.
Orr put up 139 points with a +124.....ummmmm.....yea....crickets.

Ppl have come close to Gretzky? Where are they? He has more assists than anyone has points. No one has come close. 1 season does not a career make. Gretzky holds over 60 NHL records, most will never be touched in our lifetime. Orr can't make the same claims, the only argument I see is based on the fact Orr was a defencemen and played a more complete game, i'll give him that, but Gretzky and his ridiculous offensive abilities far out weigh the complete game.

Well since Orr was on the ice for 22 goals for per every 10 goals against and Gretzky, even in his 10 best years, only managed 15.4 goals for per every 10 goals against....I would wholeheartedly disagree that his offensive might out weighed Orr's complete game.
Before you say it was because of their teams....both of their teams had the exact same 11 goals per 10 against when Orr and Gretzky were not on the ice.

Lemieux with 199 points came close obviously.
Then with Orr you have Coffey coming close to the same points and Robinson coming close in +/- but no player has even sniffed at doing both, not even on the same planet.

Well, if you want work ethic or doing "anything" to help their team win, it was hard to beat Gretzky. Look at game 2 of the 87 Canada Cup. Game went into double OT, and lasted just over 90 minutes. Gretzky played just over 50 minutes of that. As a forward. Think about that - no Dmen even play over half a game, let alone a forward. He was so exhausted he lost muscle control and actually pissed himself at one point. After the game he had to be helped to the dressing room. But, he had 5 assists on Canada's 6 goals, including the pass to Mario for the game winner.

If its not about points but when you get them, then look at his playoffs. He is one of the greatest playoff performers of all time. I know you don't care about stats, but having the most playoff goals, assists, and points is significant, and clearly shows he "got his points" at the most important times. And his offense wasn't just in the other team's end, as you seem to keep implying. It often began in his own end, anticipating a pass, intercepting it, and bringing things back the other way. Sure, he didn't check or grind in the corners, but he had teammates that did.

That is why sometimes completeness can be overrated. Not always, but sometimes. Because its a team sport - Gretzky didn't have to be great at digging for pucks along the boards because people like Messier were. Others could cover for the areas Gretzky was weaker, allowing him to put up 200+ points a year and concentrate on the parts of the game he did dominate. Many players were more complete players than Gretzky, even on his own team (Messier and Kurri among them), but that doesn't mean they were better. And who cares about fighting? Asking Gretzky to fight is like asking a brain surgeon to empty bed pans.

Bringing up effort in a Gretzky vs Orr debate is not going to help you.
Orr brought his effort every single night, every single game, whether it was game 42 of the season or game 7 of the SCF.
One of the biggest factors in Orr having a short career was because of his all out play every single night.
What you describe Gretzky doing there in one game, is what Orr did every time his feet hit the ice.

 

[JaymzB]

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.

These points are absolutely true. The problem I have is, how can you claim to have seen Gretzky play, and believe he did not do these things. Wayne got his points when it mattered (only Jean Beliveau has scored more than Wayne in Cup finals), and how many times was Wayne on the PK in the playoffs, making his opponents more afraid of giving up a goal rather than scoring one themselves.

Plus, as mentioned above, his performance in the 87 Canada Cup may be the greatest performance in Hockey history. Orr was amazing in the 76 Canada Cup, but his opponents were not quite at the same level as the 87 Soviets. I don't think it is hyperbole to say Wayne willed his team to win that series. Without him, the Soviets probably win in a similar fashion as the 81 Canada Cup. Hell, Lemieux has said it took that series to teach him how to be a winner (much like the 83 finals taught the Oilers how to be winners from the Isles).

I have no problem if people think Orr is better than Gretzky (I still bounce back and forth every so often) but some of the stuff you are saying to try and discredit Gretzky is down right silly.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Not Really

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.

Wilt Chamberlain had Elgin Baylor, Gail Goodrich and Jerry West all Basketball HOFers, Baylor and West arguably top 10 All Time. Could not beat the Celtics.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

...and Mario came close to Gretzky, we've been over this already.

As far another all around Dman doing what Orr did....lets look at who you mentioned.
First off Kelly played forward quite often and it's not even known exactly how many points he actually generated from the back end.
Second you mention Potvin, who DID play in this so called "watered down" league and only managed 101 points and that wasn't until the 1980 season.
Bourque played in the highest scoring era in history and never even broke 100 points.
Lidstrom...really? His highest point total was 80 and you're telling me that translates to 120-140 in the 70's?
Dude....that doesn't even translate to 120-140 in the 80's for pete's sake.
Then tack on +60, +80, +124!!!

No, sorry, Orr is further ahead of any other Dman than Gretzky is to any other forward.
Gretzky put up 200+ points....Mario put up 199.
Orr put up 139 points with a +124.....ummmmm.....yea....crickets.

I guess you misunderstood me. I stated they could put up 100+ pts in that watered-down league and still play better defensively than Orr. Orr was not scoring 120-140 pts every year, you know.

Orr was in an extremely unique position during his prime -- you have rapid expansion; a competing league in N. America drawing players; it was right before euros started coming over; and even without him, those Bruins were an offensive juggernaut.

Besides, Gretzky trounces Orr in the "no one comes close" argument...

Lemieux never scored more than 200, Gretzky did it 4 times and scored over 210 twice. Lemieux's next best was 168 and only 2 players have ever scored more than 160 -- Gretzky did it 9 times.

Gretzky has the 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 17, 22, 29, 48 highest scoring seasons ever recorded.

Orr, amongst defensemen, has the 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 13 highest scoring seasons.

To illustrate the difference, eliminating same finishes, you have:

Gretzky: 2, 4, 6, 10, 11, 17, 22, 29, 48
Orr: 5, 13

Huge difference.

 

[shazariahl]

...and Mario came close to Gretzky, we've been over this already.

As far another all around Dman doing what Orr did....lets look at who you mentioned.
First off Kelly played forward quite often and it's not even known exactly how many points he actually generated from the back end.
Second you mention Potvin, who DID play in this so called "watered down" league and only managed 101 points and that wasn't until the 1980 season.
Bourque played in the highest scoring era in history and never even broke 100 points.
Lidstrom...really? His highest point total was 80 and you're telling me that translates to 120-140 in the 70's?
Dude....that doesn't even translate to 120-140 in the 80's for pete's sake.
Then tack on +60, +80, +124!!!

No, sorry, Orr is further ahead of any other Dman than Gretzky is to any other forward.
Gretzky put up 200+ points....Mario put up 199.
Orr put up 139 points with a +124.....ummmmm.....yea....crickets.

Ya, but the 200+ point seasons Gretzky was also + 81, 76, 98, and 71. 3 of those led the league in +/-. Lemieux, despite putting up 199 points, was only +41. Coffey may not have been close to Orr at all round game, but you can't discount Coffey's offense because of his +/- while crediting Mario without admitting his +/- was no where near Gretzky's either. Of course, this brings us back to +/- and whether its even useful as a stat or not, but whatever.

And really, Lemieux WASN'T close to Gretzky. He was on pace a bunch of times, but never managed to stay healthy enough. 199 may be close to 200, but its not really close to 215. Gretzky is 1, 2, 3, and 4 in all-time point finishes. I can't really say that coming in 5th meant you were close. And that's the problem with Lemieux vs Gretzky - Gretzky isn't just 1st in everything, he's 1-4 in points, 1 and 2 in goals (and then Hull is 3), 1-7 in assists (and tied with Lemieux for 8). So Lemieux's best finishes vs Gretzky are 5th in points, 4th in goals, and tied for 8th in assist. And his +/- is no where near Gretzky's either.

I think the Gretzky vs Orr debate is very close, but the gap between Gretzky and Lemieux is about as big as the gap between Orr and Robinson/Coffey is.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I guess you misunderstood me. I stated they could put up 100+ pts in that watered-down league and still play better defensively than Orr. Orr was not scoring 120-140 pts every year, you know.

Yeah...my bad, it was only 117-139 for 5 out 6 years and he got 101 in the other year while only playing 63 games averaging +81 over that stretch

Orr was in an extremely unique position during his prime -- you have rapid expansion; a competing league in N. America drawing players; it was right before euros started coming over; and even without him, those Bruins were an offensive juggernaut.

How is that any different from the unique position Gretzky was in playing during the highest scoring era in history on a team that was the first to employ an offense first euro style that was also an offensive juggernaut.
I mean seriously dude, Coffey playing in that high scoring era, in that offensive euro style with the very same offensive juggernaut WITH Gretzky and even with himself playing all out offensively with very little defensive thought was still only able to keep pace with Orr for 3 years total!!!
Gimme a break already.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Yeah...my bad, it was only 117-139 for 5 out 6 years and he got 101 in the other year while only playing 63 games averaging +81 over that stretch

I guess I just consider 101 significantly different than 117, which is then significantly different than 139. I do not lump them all into the same bucket.

Put Bourque on the Boston Bruins during the 70s and I think he easily scores over 100 points numerous times, over 110 a few times and 120 in a peak year.... all while bringing a defensive game better than Orr.

To sum it up - I do not think Orr is as far ahead of defensemen like Harvey, Shore, Kelly, Bourque and Lidstrom as Gretzky is ahead of Lemieux.

How is that any different from the unique position Gretzky was in playing during the highest scoring era in history on a team that was the first to employ an offense first euro style that was also an offensive juggernaut.
I mean seriously dude, Coffey playing in that high scoring era, in that offensive euro style with the very same offensive juggernaut WITH Gretzky and even with himself playing all out offensively with very little defensive thought was still only able to keep pace with Orr for 3 years total!!!
Gimme a break already.

I believe the elite teams and players were more able to capitalize on the rest of the league in the 70s. You did not have a competing N. American league in the 80s, Euros had started coming over and expansion had slowed down considerably.

Overall scoring may have been slightly higher in the 80s, but that is not the only thing which factors relative strength of a league.

The more watered-down a league becomes, the greater the difference between the "best" and the merely "good". In other words, someone like Howe would have beaten his competition to a larger degree had his peak fallen in the early 40s (WWII) and not during the 50s, and someone like Gretzky could very well have put up even more points had he played in the 70s.

Anyways, Coffey did more than keep pace with Orr for "3 seasons" --

Orr's best season is 0.7% better than Coffey's.
Gretzky's is 8% better than Lemieux's.

Orr's best 3 seasons are 2.9% better than Coffey's.
Gretzky's are 20.2% better than Lemieux's.

Orr's best 6 seasons are 5.3% better than Coffey's.
Gretzky's are 28% better than Lemeiux's.

Orr's best 8 seasons are actually 4.8% behind Coffey's.
Gretzky's are 31.3% better than Lemieux's.

 

[canucks4ever]

Wilt Chamberlain had Elgin Baylor, Gail Goodrich and Jerry West all Basketball HOFers, Baylor and West arguably top 10 All Time. Could not beat the Celtics.

Chamberlain played with those guys at the end of his career, you know when they won championships. Russell retired when Chamberlain joined the lakers.

Russell played with 7-8 hall of famers.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I guess I just consider 101 significantly different than 117, which is then significantly different than 139. I do not lump them all into the same bucket.

That 101 in just 63 games is a 130 point pace and could of lined him up for a THIRD Art Ross.
Two out of the other five seasons he led the entire freakin league in points.

Put Bourque on the Boston Bruins during the 70s and I think he easily scores over 100 points numerous times, over 110 a few times and 120 in a peak year.... all while bringing a defensive game better than Orr.

Completely ridiculous Bull****!!!
I don't even have to go into why.

To sum it up - I do not think Orr is as far ahead of defensemen like Harvey, Shore, Kelly, Bourque and Lidstrom as Gretzky is ahead of Lemieux.

Your opinion but it's certainly not mine, nor I would guess it's many others either.
I have never said Orr was the very best defensive Dman but he's sure as hell up there. Combine that with being the very best offensive Dman at the same time and you have a player the league has never seen before or again.

I believe the elite teams and players were more able to capitalize on the rest of the league in the 70s. You did not have a competing N. American league in the 80s, Euros had started coming over and expansion had slowed down considerably.

Overall scoring may have been slightly higher in the 80s, but that is not the only thing which factors relative strength of a league.

The more watered-down a league becomes, the greater the difference between the "best" and the merely "good". In other words, someone like Howe would have beaten his competition to a larger degree had his peak fallen in the early 40s (WWII) and not during the 50s, and someone like Gretzky could very well have put up even more points had he played in the 70s.

Bla bla bla, yet Orr scored the same against the mighty Habs as he did against the lowly Caps, moot point.
Gretzky would not of scored more points in the 70's than he did in the 80's, that's ridiculous.
His talent, the 80's, his teammates and the style of play his team played were all factors in him amassing those ungodly point totals.
Remove the 80's and playing in that euro offensive style and his point totals drop.
I have no doubt he still leads the league but it wouldn't be at the same pace, sorry.

Or what about in 74/75 when the Bruins only had 94 points, 5th place overall and only 3rd in scoring? They were no offensive juggernaut that year and yet who took home the Art Ross...hmmmmm.

Anyways, Coffey did more than keep pace with Orr for "3 seasons" --

Orr's best season is 0.7% better than Coffey's.
Gretzky's is 8% better than Lemieux's.

Orr's best 3 seasons are 2.9% better than Coffey's.
Gretzky's are 20.2% better than Lemieux's.

Orr's best 6 seasons are 5.3% better than Coffey's.
Gretzky's are 28% better than Lemeiux's.

Orr's best 8 seasons are actually 4.8% behind Coffey's.
Gretzky's are 31.3% better than Lemieux's.

You keep going on about stats, especially with Coffey and Orr.
Once again I have to point out that Coffey playing 100% offensively, under every and any offensive advantage possible in the history of the game, doesn't even keep up with Orr.
Orr meanwhile was also one of the top defensive Dmen in the league at the same time.
Coffey was literally less than half the player Orr was.


The thing I think needs to mentioned once again here is I have absolutely no problem with you or anyone else picking Gretzky over Orr.
My only issue is when people add..."and it's not even close" to their opinion.
It's bull****, disrespectful and just plain ignorant!

 

[canucks4ever]

Stats are also the reason Orr is considered the best defensemen. I would love to see someone say Orr is better than doug harvey and nick lidstrom without any mention of stats. Both of them are clearly better than him defensively, doug harvey as more cups. Kind of contradicting yourself aren't you?

 

[RabbinsDuck]

That 101 in just 63 games is a 130 point pace and could of lined him up for a THIRD Art Ross.
Two out of the other five seasons he led the entire freakin league in points.

I consider endurance and health a strength, and missing games a weakness, so I definitely do not give extra credit for missed games.

Bla bla bla, yet Orr scored the same against the mighty Habs as he did against the lowly Caps, moot point.
Gretzky would not of scored more points in the 70's than he did in the 80's, that's ridiculous.
His talent, the 80's, his teammates and the style of play his team played were all factors in him amassing those ungodly point totals.
Remove the 80's and playing in that euro offensive style and his point totals drop.
I have no doubt he still leads the league but it wouldn't be at the same pace, sorry.

It's just my opinion, but I really think Gretzky could have scored more in the 70s... teams may have played more defensive than in the 80s, but the talent simply was not nearly as good.

You keep going on about stats, especially with Coffey and Orr.
Once again I have to point out that Coffey playing 100% offensively, under every and any offensive advantage possible in the history of the game, doesn't even keep up with Orr.
Orr meanwhile was also one of the top defensive Dmen in the league at the same time.
Coffey was literally less than half the player Orr was.

You more then inferred Lemieux kept up with Gretzky --- Coffey 'kept up' offensively with Orr, but Lemieux did not come even close to keeping up with Gretzky.

Gretzky was better than Lemieux defensively and in the playoffs as well. It's been pointed out many times that the 'difference' between Gretzky and Lemieux would still be a Top 10 Player of all-time.

I do not believe Orr dominates the likes of Doug Harvey or Ray Bourque to such an extent.

 

[alanschu]

Wilt Chamberlain had Elgin Baylor, Gail Goodrich and Jerry West all Basketball HOFers, Baylor and West arguably top 10 All Time. Could not beat the Celtics.

Chamberlain was only a Laker for 5 seasons. Most of his confrontations with Boston came from his time in Philly.

His gaudy stats also came when he was playing for the Warriors, one season averaging more than 48 minutes a game.

Also, when Wilt was there, the only time Gail Goodrich was a Laker with Baylor is when Baylor played 2 and 9 games in the regular season because he was old and broken.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Stats are also the reason Orr is considered the best defensemen. I would love to see someone say Orr is better than doug harvey and nick lidstrom without any mention of stats. Both of them are clearly better than him defensively, doug harvey as more cups. Kind of contradicting yourself aren't you?

You prove to me Lidstrom is better defensively than Orr first.

Stats are always going to play a part but they have to have some context to them.
Hey look Gretzky scored 200 points as a center so he must be better than Orr who only had 139.
Wait a minute, not only is Orr a damned Dman but he also won the Art Ross with those 139 points and had a +124 to boot.

Now, taken in context it means Gretzky put on one hell of a show in the offensive zone but Orr put on one hell of a show period.

 

[canucks4ever]

You prove to me Lidstrom is better defensively than Orr first.

Stats are always going to play a part but they have to have some context to them.
Hey look Gretzky scored 200 points as a center so he must be better than Orr who only had 139.
Wait a minute, not only is Orr a damned Dman but he also won the Art Ross with those 139 points and had a +124 to boot.

Now, taken in context it means Gretzky put on one hell of a show in the offensive zone but Orr put on one hell of a show period.

I don't need to prove it to you, watching games of both makes it very clear.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

You prove to me Lidstrom is better defensively than Orr first.

Stats are always going to play a part but they have to have some context to them.
Hey look Gretzky scored 200 points as a center so he must be better than Orr who only had 139.
Wait a minute, not only is Orr a damned Dman but he also won the Art Ross with those 139 points and had a +124 to boot.

Now, taken in context it means Gretzky put on one hell of a show in the offensive zone but Orr put on one hell of a show period.

Gretzky scored more than 200 points.... in a season and in his career. In fact, Gretzky scored 1,942 more points than Bobby Orr. Put into context, the difference between Orr and Gretzky is more than Mario Lemieux scored in his entire career.

Or do you only count a player's best 1-6 seasons when determining a player's worth?

I think there is a very strong case to be made that Orr's peak was better than Gretzky's --- but Gretzky's prime, playoffs and career were all unquestionably better than Orr's... and to a much larger degree than the difference between their peaks.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I do not believe Orr dominates the likes of Doug Harvey or Ray Bourque to such an extent.

Why do you keep saying these two?
Harvey is considered by many to be one of the greatest defensive Dman of all time and those same people have no problem saying Orr was up there with him.

Bourque...I love him, even as a Habs fan but dude....he was not on Orr's level defensively and especially not offensively.
You saying he was is just plain ignorant.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Gretzky scored more than 200 points.... in a season and in his career. In fact, Gretzky scored 1,942 more points than Bobby Orr.

Or do you only count a player's best 6 seasons when determining a player's worth?

I think there is a very strong case to be made that Orr's peak was better than Gretzky's --- but Gretzky's prime, playoffs and career were all unquestionably better than Orr's.

Just the FACT that we can have this argument where people are pretty close to being split down the middle on, when we're talking about a player that played 20 years vs a player that only played 9 and change only emphasizes just how good and supremely special Orr was!


Did Gretzky have the better career...yep.
Is Gretzky the better player...nope.

That's my opinion, deal with it.
Just when you do, forget about the whole "it isn't even close" bull**** and there's no issues.
Also, trying to say Gretzky is further ahead of Lemieux than Orr is Coffey is just silly.
Considering Mario comes in around #4 all time and Coffey around 30th....I call shenanigans.

 

[alanschu]

And Gretzky