Would like to add some points to this after reading this thread. Being a relatively newer hockey fan who saw neither in their prime (since 97 - following the NHL was sort of hard here before the internet age), I find this board fascinating to read about the game's history. While I can't add a lot of judgement on the qualities of the older players, there's a few points I feel I could make to add to the discussion:
On the point of Orr winning the Art Ross and Norris in the same season, this is obviously an incredible feat that cannot be understated. It can be used as an argument to Orr being a wonderfully complete player. Yet I don't think it's a good argument to state that it means Orr was greater than Gretzky. First of all, you can't fault a forward for not winning an award he is unable to win. Secondly, there's just no comparison or forwards. The Selke trophy has been mentioned, and how Art Ross + Selke would equal Orr's feat, but has not been done before. (Reading about Bobby Clarke suggests he could have come very close, had the Selke been created sooner, though he never managed to win the scoring race and topped out at #2) However, I don't really think this is a fair comparison. The Selke is supposed to go to the best defensive forward, whereas the Art Ross goes to what statistically is the best offensive forward. Hence winning both would require to be both the best defensive and offensive forward at the same time. On the other hand, the Norris is awarded to the best overall defenseman. Since the offensive compenent of the game does figure in this decision, this is not quite the same. Art Ross + Norris requires a defenseman to be the best scorer, and best overall defenseman, rather than also be the best defensive defenseman.
Not to take away anything from Bobby Orr, who managed to achieve amazing things, but I just don't think it's an overly valid argument or comparison. In general, stating that Orr or Gretzky was better because of some unique feat the other didn't do seems a bit pointless. Both were immense players who did things nobody ever did before, and in many cases did not since. Orr did things Gretzky didn't do (and nobody else did), Gretzky also did some 61 things nobody else ever did.
Statistics always have to be seen in context, I agree with that. I'll also admit that I am fairly skeptical of adjusted stats, since while they might give ballpark figures here and there, they will invariably fail to take into account many factors, are highly susceptible to agendas, and may treat statistical outliers as a product of the era, rather than greatness. With that out of the way, some things to keep in mind when making the point above:
- One of the posters here recently did some research and found that the portion of the scoring done by the top players in the 80s was relatively low compared to other eras. In other words, a lot of the beneficiaries of the extra scoring were the more average players, not the superstars. This does not mean the stars did not score more than they would have done during other decades and eras, but rather that the stars scoring did not go up by for example the 24% scoring difference you are suggesting, and just adjusting Orr's stats like this is not a valid concept.
- Orr's Bruins were an extremely high-scoring team, which at times defeated the competition in scoring categories by a greater margin than Gretzky's Oilers. Both teams were extremely high scoring, far above the average of their time. Using averages to then analyze the performances of statistical outliers seems a bad idea.
- To highlight my first point, consider the scoring leaders between 1970 (Orr's first big offensive season) and 1990. Since they are generally considered 'freaks of nature', I left out Orr, Gretzky and Lemieux, to see how the 'normal' superstars did:
69-70: Phil Esposito, 99 (126 the year before)
70-71: Phil Esposito, 152
71-72: Phil Esposito, 133
72-73: Phil Esposito, 130
73-74: Phil Esposito, 145
74-75: Phil Esposito, 127
75-76: Guy Lafleur, 125
76-77: Guy Lafleur, 136
77-78: Guy Lafleur, 132
78-79: Bryan Trottier, 134
79-80: Marcel Dionne, 137
80-81: Marcel Dionne, 135
81-82: Mike Bossy, 147
82-83: Peter Stastny, 124
83-84: Paul Coffey, 126
84-85: Jari Kurri, 135
85-86: Paul Coffey, 138
86-87: Jari Kurri, 108
87-88: Denis Savard, 131
88-89: Steve Yzerman, 155
89-90: Mark Messier, 129
I'm not really in the mood to run ANOVA checks on those numbers to look for significance, but looking at that list suggests to me that the superstars not called Mario, Wayne or Bobby did not score significantly more during the 80s than during the 70s. (Another funny side product of this list is the suggestion that if not for Lemieux and Gretzky, Paul Coffey could have had 2 Art Ross trophies. Though I'll have to add the disclaimer that Coffey likely has less points without Gretzky, and was no Orr defensively from what I understand)
- One thing one might argue from the above is that a lot of Esposito's stats were partially thanks to Orr. There is some merit to this, though on the other hand I doubt Bobby Orr's stats suffered from playing with Esposito either. (even if superstars typically will get their points despite the players they play with, as has been shown numerous times on this forum) Somewhat of a similar argument could be made for some of the Oilers appearing on this list. However I think the best conclusion which can be drawn from these statistics and the dominance of either team in total scoring and scoring leaders, is that these teams were exceptionally powerful offensive teams, which you cannot really compare or analyze using average statistics from an era. (Which is not to say scoring might be affected by an era, but to me analyzing an anomaly with the use of averages seems a faulty concept.)
In closing, I've seen a lot of arguments of Orr as a complete player being the main reason to be greater than Gretzky. Being a complete player is definitely a great asset to a team, but it's not the only way to win. Orr might have been great in more areas of the game than Gretzky,
but on the other hand it seems Gretzky's dominance on offense exceeds any of Orr's individual dominances. In the end both were great players, and Orr's completeness is an admirable thing. But equaling being more complete with being greater is in my view not really a proper argument, since extreme dominance in less areas is another way to win, especially in a team game. In the end, both players managed to do this, leading their teams to multiple championships.
And finally, as I already indicated in my preamble, I can only acknowledge that both individuals were amazing players which are only rarely seen. I cannot make any judgement on who was the greater, but did want to pitch in with some points about the arguments some posters are trying to use to elevate one above the other.
You have made some interesting observations, but I respectfully disagree with your overall conlusions.
Statistics are great, and as you point out, can be used to further an agenda. What's the old saying... there are lies, damned lies, and statistics?
The reason I brought up the statistical argument in the first place was that when people talk about Gretzky, they always point out his stats. Always. Just look at the last couple of pages on this thread, and you can see what I'm talking about.
But as one who lived through and witnessed both of their careers, I can tell you one thing: The difference between the style of hockey played in the first half of the 70s when Orr played, and the 80s when Gretzky was destroying records, was like night and day.
By comparing their numbers in the context of league-wide goals-per-game during their respective eras (which was 24% higher in the 80s), I was attempting to "level the playing field". Plus, using scoring stats alone as a way to compare player (a) who is a forward, with player (b) who is a defenceman, is just plain silly to begin with. The fact remains that Orr played a much more demanding position, based in the defensive zone, in an era where goals were harder to come by. Despite this, Gretzky still only outscored him by approximately a 3:2 ratio during their best years. That alone should tell us something about what an incredible offensive talent Orr was.
Back to your numbers:
You excluded Orr and Gretzky-fair enough, but also Lemieux. Then you included Esposito, who was the prime beneficiary of Orr's creative genius. Look at what happened to Phil when he left Boston (and Orr):
73-74 (Bos) 68G, 77A, 145Pts
74-75 (Bos) 61G, 66A, 127Pts
---traded---
75-76 (NYR) 29G, 38A, 67Pts (over 62 games)
76-77 (NYR) 34G, 46A, 80Pts
77-78 (NYR) 38G, 43A, 81Pts
That's a sudden, dramatic drop in production. I wonder why...
Let's face it. Orr and Gretzky were both in the genius class when it came to generating offense, and anyone playing with either of them was going to see their numbers go up substantially. So what I've done here is to list the 100 point players from Orr's post-expansion days, and from Gretzky's peak years in the 80s,
excluding them and their teammates. The result is eye-opening:
Orr's era:
67-68: none
68-69: Hull 107, Howe 103
69-70: none
70-71: none
71-72: Ratelle 109, Hadfield 106
72-73: Clarke 104, MacLeish 100
73-74: none
74-75: Dionne 121, Lafleur 119, P Mahovlich 117, Clarke 116, Robert 100
Gretzky's era with Oilers:
79-80: Dionne 137, Lafleur 125, Perreault 106, Rogers 105, Trottier 104, Stoughton 100
80-81: Dionne 135, Nilsson 131, Bossy 119, Taylor 112, Stastny 109, Simmer 105 (
in 65 games), Rogers 105, Federko 104, Trottier 103, Middleton 103, J. Richard 103
81-82: Bossy 147, Stastny 139, Maruk 136, Trottier 129, Savard 119, Dionne 117, Bobby Smith 114, Ciccarelli 106, Taylor 106, Hawerchuk 103, Rogers 103
82-83: Stastny 124, Savard 120, Bossy 118, Pederson 107, Dionne 107, Goulet 105, Nilsson 104,
83-84: Goulet 121, Stastny 119, Bossy 118, Pederson, 116, Trottier 111, Federko 107, Middleton 105, Hawerchuk 102
84-85: Hawerchuk 130, Dionne 126, Bossy 117, Ogrodnick 105, Savard 105, Federko 103, Gartner 102, B. Sutter 102, Paul MacLean 101
85-86: Lemieux 141, Bossy 123, Stastny 122, Savard 116, Naslund 110, Hawerchuk 105, Broten 105, Goulet 104, Federko 102, Tonelli 100
86-87: Lemieux 107, Gilmour 105, Ciccarelli 103, Goulet 100, Hawerchuk 100
87-88: Lemieux 168, Savard 131, Hawerchuk 121, Robitaille 111, Stastny 111, Carson 107, Loob 106, Goulet 106, Bullard 103, Yzerman 102
Other than by Orr and his teammates, the 100 point plateau was reached
just 11 times over 8 years.
Aside from Gretzky and his teammates, the 100 point mark was reached an incredible
77 times over 9 years.
Those mind boggling numbers should open anyone's eyes to the huge difference between the style of game played during Orr's era and Gretzky's. In the 80s, it was all offense, offense, offense.
Now please, tell me it wasn't a hell of a lot easier to score during the 80s than the early 70s. In this light, Orr scoring 139 points
as a defenseman in the tighter defensive hockey of '71 is every bit as amazing as Gretzky,
a centre, getting 215 points in the wide-open game of '85-86.
