Orr Vs Gretzky

[canucks4ever]

Gretzky won scoring titles by a gap almost as much as Howe scored that whole season. It really isn't close.. Gretzky was so far out in front of the league in his prime it was like Einstein teaching grade school science.

Coffey was really only a notch below Orr offensively.. in his prime he regularly was compared to and did beat Orr's record for goals in a season and Coffey also is the top playoff scoring defenseman.

He's only a notch below him overall for offense.. Orr is just much better defensively at the same time which makes him so special.

You do understand the difference in eras right, the 1950's and 60's was defense hockey, no such thing as run n gun. Gordie Howe's 1951-54 run compares just fine with gretzky.

Like I said before, Coffey's top 10 finishes resemble that of Steve Yzerman or Max Bentley. While Orr's offense is more richard-jagr-mikita level, 2 different classes of offense.

 

[Dark Shadows]

I've already admitted that several times much to the chagrin of the "superstars aren't affected by teammates" faithful.

The point is that Gretzky is way way out there in front offensively. It isn't even debatable. The guy has more assists than anyone in history has points. Then add in he has the most goals ever too.

Orr is a more complete player for sure.. and who is the better overall player between Orr and Gretzky is (obviously) debatable.. but it simply shouldn't even be up for discussion that Gretzky is the #1 end all and be all for offense in the history of the NHL.

A dozen arguments have already been brought up on this matter. Both sides have merit. I still maintain that the elite best of the best players would produce huge with very little difference no matter who their linemates.

Obviously certain players required specific circumstances and strategies and some had trouble adapting when they went to new teams with different systems. Esposito needed Boston's much more offensive strategy as opposed to Chicago and NYR's defensive strategy and no Cashman digging in corners to get him the puck in the slot. Brett Hull required an elite playmaker to put up his best goal scoring.

And I do agree to certain extents that the big 4 could elevate teammates to a level beyond that of normal players.

But in general, there was always an opposite, and usually more of them. Oates for instance maintained and exceeded his previous best with Joe Juneau and Dmitri Kvarntalnov rather than with Hull, who was easily superior to both.

John Bucyk was 7th and 9th in scoring before Orr or Esposito ever showed up, when the Bruins were a bottom feeding team with him being the only guy there, and he was 9th, 3rd, 8th and 7th in scoring after they arrived. Some want to demean him and claim Orr and Esposito were the only reason he hit 3rd in scoring. But I watched him play and personally attest to the fact that he hit his peak, and did so when Boston had finally ironed out their firewagon system. If it were all Orr and Esposito, why did Bucyk only hit 3rd once?The rest of his years stayed on par with what he had already been scoring before they got there.

And yes, I see in the other thread you are bringing up the Kurri/Gretzky thing again. but as another already pointed out, Kurri scored just as much or more when Gretzky was out those 6 games in 87-88 as he did with him, and he played less games in 88-89 and still beat the last year with Gretzky.

What about Bossy? If Trottier was the reason he scored so much, why was his total with 40 point man Sutter centering him identical to his previous 2 seasons? by your logic, losing Trotz should have yielded immediate downside to Bossy's numbers, and yet, with a 3rd line checker centering him and Tonelli on the other side(Who was a very good two way player, but averaged 50-65 points a year). Bossy ended up elevating 2 lesser players and maintaining his own numbers.

Yzerman put up his best numbers playing with lesser players. He thrived in scoring when he had to be the man.

Jagr immediately had his best individual season ever after Ron Francis left and was replaced by Straka. Obviously Francis is far above Straka on the totem pole. Why then did Jagr suddenly get better with more pressure and less help?

Mark Recchi went from the Pens to the Flyers, and was stuck with completely different linemates(Rookie Lindros) yet did not miss a beat.

Hawerchuk went from the Jets to the Sabres, where he was with better linemates like Turgeon, Mogilny, Andreychuk and later, LaFontaine, and his numbers did not suddenly skyrocket.

Marcel Dionne was scoring 122 points with the Dead wings and nobody on his wings, and 130-37 points with Much better superstars like Dave Taylor and Charlie Simmer on his line in LA. If you want to argue that that 7-10% increase was due to better linemates instead of the changing philosophy of teams going to all out offense, I won't argue. But it was a marginal increase, and I have always advocated that linemates might make a 5-10 point difference, but that the superstars will score big no matter who you put them with.

etc etc

 

[Dark Shadows]

Gretzky won scoring titles by a gap almost as much as Howe scored that whole season. It really isn't close.. Gretzky was so far out in front of the league in his prime it was like Einstein teaching grade school science.

Coffey was really only a notch below Orr offensively.. in his prime he regularly was compared to and did beat Orr's record for goals in a season and Coffey also is the top playoff scoring defenseman.

He's only a notch below him overall for offense.. Orr is just much better defensively at the same time which makes him so special.

Coffey is more than a notch below. Teams in the 80's were neglecting defense for offense to a far larger extent, and his point totals would not look nearly as good in the more defense oriented 70's.

This will probably lead to the "Watered down" conversation again. It is common published knowledge that Orr took it easy on the weaker teams, and that the 80's had plenty of weak teams of their own.

 

[quasi1981]

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.

If Bobby played with Wayne and his team made him a center which he "was" and a great one as a kid, then you can't even hint at him not being able to win a scoring title. There is every possibility he would have one one or many. He was unbelievable around the net, as great as you can find, and if you measured the amount of time Orr and Gretzky played inside the center of the two faceoff circles out in front of the net, Bobby out scored the G one in points per time around the net. He also was spectacular around it and had a giant Hockey IQ. To many people underestimate how great of a scorer he would have been in he played up front.

 

[quasi1981]

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.

Once again it seems all I here from Gretzky fans is stats. Stats are for losers and any GREAT coach would say this. Bobby's stats are so superior to Waynes, and they are very intangible so they aren't stats per say. Bobby was a threat to score or get a great chance to score for his team any place on the ice. If Bobby played center and he was great at it as a kid, he could have scored so many points, and he was so much better than that, and is why no matter how many points have been scored by Dmen since, none of them can compare to Bobby as a hockey player.

 

[BraveCanadian]

A dozen arguments have already been brought up on this matter. Both sides have merit. I still maintain that the elite best of the best players would produce huge with very little difference no matter who their linemates.

You're welcome to your opinion but I still maintain that playing with better teammates does make a noticeable difference to players production.

Anything else goes against all logic.

Obviously certain players required specific circumstances and strategies and some had trouble adapting when they went to new teams with different systems. Esposito needed Boston's much more offensive strategy as opposed to Chicago and NYR's defensive strategy and no Cashman digging in corners to get him the puck in the slot. Brett Hull required an elite playmaker to put up his best goal scoring.

This is what I don't get.. you say one thing and then bring up exception after exception to your own rule of thumb and yet you still maintain it.

I will say in Espo's case though he was past his prime when he went to an inferior team.. I think keeping up 40 goals and a ppg was pretty damn good for a guy in that position in that era.

And I do agree to certain extents that the big 4 could elevate teammates to a level beyond that of normal players.

I agree with this.. for sure playing with one of the best players in history is going to generate more chances even for average players. I mean even average NHL players are a pretty select company.

But in general, there was always an opposite, and usually more of them. Oates for instance maintained and exceeded his previous best with Joe Juneau and Dmitri Kvarntalnov rather than with Hull, who was easily superior to both.

Its worth nothing though that Oates better season came in the year of career years for everyone! of 92-93. He never got close to that height before or after.

John Bucyk was 7th and 9th in scoring before Orr or Esposito ever showed up, when the Bruins were a bottom feeding team with him being the only guy there, and he was 9th, 3rd, 8th and 7th in scoring after they arrived. Some want to demean him and claim Orr and Esposito were the only reason he hit 3rd in scoring. But I watched him play and personally attest to the fact that he hit his peak, and did so when Boston had finally ironed out their firewagon system. If it were all Orr and Esposito, why did Bucyk only hit 3rd once?The rest of his years stayed on par with what he had already been scoring before they got there.

Because he was way past his prime by the time they got going full out, obviously. Guys in their mid 30s don't go from 69 points to a 116 points because they are improving their game.. especially in those days. You were lucky to be playing at 35 at all.

And yes, I see in the other thread you are bringing up the Kurri/Gretzky thing again. but as another already pointed out, Kurri scored just as much or more when Gretzky was out those 6 games in 87-88 as he did with him, and he played less games in 88-89 and still beat the last year with Gretzky.

Gretzky missed 16 games I believe and the way Gretzky played at that time.. who knows how much more they would have scored if he had been there.

What about Bossy? If Trottier was the reason he scored so much, why was his total with 40 point man Sutter centering him identical to his previous 2 seasons? by your logic, losing Trotz should have yielded immediate downside to Bossy's numbers, and yet, with a 3rd line checker centering him and Tonelli on the other side(Who was a very good two way player, but averaged 50-65 points a year). Bossy ended up elevating 2 lesser players and maintaining his own numbers.

Bossy maintained what I like to call his "natural level" with Sutter but he definitely didn't reach anywhere close to his peak that year.

Yzerman put up his best numbers playing with lesser players. He thrived in scoring when he had to be the man.

True, but Yzerman is another guy who has a somewhat flukey career year in that it is quite a bit higher than his other top years. I think 88-89 was like that for several players.. but definitely it was somewhat because he was the focus of the teams offense like you say.. and hey.. he was a great player too.

Jagr immediately had his best individual season ever after Ron Francis left and was replaced by Straka. Obviously Francis is far above Straka on the totem pole. Why then did Jagr suddenly get better with more pressure and less help?

Francis was 34-35 when he left and on his downswing for sure.. I think that season has more to do with the maturation of Jagr and the fact that I think they also picked up Kovalev.. so for Jagr it was really Straka + Kovalev for a declining Francis.. in any case it was a remarkable season for Jagr no doubt.

Mark Recchi went from the Pens to the Flyers, and was stuck with completely different linemates(Rookie Lindros) yet did not miss a beat.

Well yeah.. Lindros. Look what happened to Leclair's numbers too.

Hawerchuk went from the Jets to the Sabres, where he was with better linemates like Turgeon, Mogilny, Andreychuk and later, LaFontaine, and his numbers did not suddenly skyrocket.

Hawerchuk was already 2 years removed from his last 100 point season and also had a degenerative hip if I remember correctly Also he went from being "the guy" to being 1b at center with Lafontaine and then to strictly behind Lafontaine.

Marcel Dionne was scoring 122 points with the Dead wings and nobody on his wings, and 130-37 points with Much better superstars like Dave Taylor and Charlie Simmer on his line in LA. If you want to argue that that 7-10% increase was due to better linemates instead of the changing philosophy of teams going to all out offense, I won't argue.

He did have better linemates but the team was still dreadful and they had no puck moving defensemen.

But it was a marginal increase, and I have always advocated that linemates might make a 5-10 point difference, but that the superstars will score big no matter who you put them with.

I think maybe you're misinterpreting what I am trying to get at when I say that teams affect even superstars.

I'm not saying that Gretzky on a lousy team would be a 100 point scorer instead of a 200 point man. I think he could score 150-160 in his prime playing with pretty much anyone of nhl quality. That is just an estimate based on the fact he was able to put up a bit over that in LA with decent (but not great) help.

And similarly with other superstars.. I think they have a natural level that because they are so good they will achieve with pretty much anyone.. but for these guys that played on dynasties and with really talented linemates/teammates/systems/coaching I think there must be more than a marginal difference.

 

[quasi1981]

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.

I am not discrediting Gretzky at all. i just get sick of using stats to compare players when they have no merit here. Bobby scored equally as many points per time spent down deep in the Offensive zone. Bobby had to come in and make a quick play and come out, and he always made a great pass to at least start something, but had to get back to the point, and Gretzky just hung around there. So all I am saying is everyone seemingly rooting for the G man is saying Orr was not a super star on offense when he was a phenom at least, by far the best ever in his day and would have been just as great today or any day. Just talk about Gretzky's play and not so much about points and goals and records which are meaningless. The Oilers won because they had a great team as Orr also won because he had a great team, they both were great minds on the ice with great vision, and playmaking ability seeing things and feeling where players were, and could see a play develop, and if you think for one second that gretz was better at that than forget it. Larry Robinson partnered with Orr on D against the Soviets and said he just let Orr do his thing because he was so intelligent and creative on the ice. Orr would have scored a slew of points if he played center, his natural position till 11 or 12 and few fans realize how offensive he was.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Coffey is more than a notch below. Teams in the 80's were neglecting defense for offense to a far larger extent, and his point totals would not look nearly as good in the more defense oriented 70's.

This will probably lead to the "Watered down" conversation again. It is common published knowledge that Orr took it easy on the weaker teams, and that the 80's had plenty of weak teams of their own.

Earlier in the thread I compared the Bruins for the 9 years of Orr's career there to Gretzky's first 9 years with the Oilers.

The Oilers did score on average more but the difference is less than the difference in the average scoring between the two decades.

This is because while the Bruins at times during those 9 seasons were very far ahead of the pack.. the Oilers were only a bit ahead of several teams at a time.

The disparity in the 70s really makes using average scoring a minefield when comparing in my opinion.

 

[bleeney]

Orr only played 74 playoff games.. are you saying that half the games he played were against the "best" teams with HOF goalies who were still playing like HOF goalies?
Virtually every year he was in the playoffs, Orr's team was the best regular season team. In 71 his team was freakish outlier good and they lost in the first round.

The "best" teams Orr was facing is apples and oranges compared to the team you bring Gretzky down for not dominating.

When did Orr face a 4 time straight winner and 5 time straight finalist like the NYI you take Gretzky down for learning against one year and defeating the next?

Probably the best team he played against was the Flyers who won back to back and they contained and beat him very similarly to how the Isles contained Gretzky the first time.

Look at the examples I used.

1970:
New York Rangers:
*finished with 92 points (7 behind Boston)
*Giacoman (HOF) was 2nd Team All-Star and 2nd in GAA at 2.36
Chicago Black Hawks:
*first place in Eastern Division
*Esposito was 1st Team All-Star and 1st in GAA at 2.17. Led league with 15 shutouts

1971:
Montreal Canadiens:
*Stanley Cup winners
*Dryden (HOF) won Conn Smythe with best performance of his career

1972:
New York Rangers:
*finished 2nd to Bruins in East with 109 points, with virtually identical GF/GA differential as Bruins
*Giacoman and Villemure finished 3rd in league with a combined 2.46 GAA.

1974:
Philadelphia Flyers:
*1st in West with 112 points, one point behind Boston for 1st overall
*Parent led league with GAA of 1.89, won the Vezina, and took the Conn Smythe with the peak performance of his career

Who were the best goalies during that five year span (70-74):
*1st Team All-Stars: Esposito, Giacoman, Esposito, Dryden, Parent
*2nd Team All-Stars: Giacoman, Plante, Dryden, Esposito, Esposito

And Dryden (25), Parent (63) and Tony O. (79) all ranked ahead of Billy Smith (80) on the THN Top 100 list.

So, yeah... I'd say those teams represented the best competition possible for Orr. And he actually produced at a higher level against these teams than he did against the weaker teams.

My overall points were that:
a) Gretzky "put the pedal to the metal", so to speak, against weaker teams, something Orr didn't do. Something to remember when evaluating their respective numbers.

b) What Gretzky did to the weaker teams, he didn't even come close to against the Islanders. As in getting 67 points in 30 games against the weak sisters in the '83 and '84 playoffs vs. 10 points in 9 games against the Isles. On the other hand, Orr actually upped his numbers when playing the best competition in comparison to his performance against the weaker teams.

In '83 and '84 the Isles were more successful in shutting down the production of Gretzky, a centre (10 points in 9 games), than the '71 Habs and '74 Flyers (both Stanley Cup champs with Conn Smythe winning, HOF goalies) were against Orr, a defenseman (19 points in 13 games).

 

[quasi1981]

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.

thanks bleeny, I too get sick of having to always bring stats into the picture, and occasionally you see how misleading they can be. I bring up a point that if you could take the time spent in and around the net trying to score, Orr spent quick moments, making a fast run down the right side, down behind the net quickly and make some play in a total of 5 - 7 seconds, where Gretzky got to stay down there and wait for the puck and play around with it to score or set up players. To say Orr at center couldn't do similar things is absurd.

 

[quasi1981]

So far I haven't found a post in this topic I agree with you on. No one is unanimously gonna take over someone who has them beat by close to 2000 points. You can speculate all you want. It's always what ifs and this could a happen non sense when people debate Wayne isn't the greatest.

Waynes actually done all these things, there is no woulda, coulda, shoulda.

there was this player named Bill Russell, who had only rebounding stats that they kept back then in his favor and blocked shots which they didn't keep. Oscar Robinson had unbelieveable stats passing and scoring, Jerry West, Wilt Chamberlain, and so many others dominated with stats, Chamberlain always out stat-ing Russell in head to head matches.

Russell won all the titles he was involved in, 11 in 13 years, and everyone knew it was him, and not the Celts best scorers who won the games with spectacular play. No one on these Celtic teams had outstanding stats.

As every truly coach I have ever read or heard speaking have all said: Stats are for losers!!

 

[quasi1981]

Gretzky won scoring titles by a gap almost as much as Howe scored that whole season. It really isn't close.. Gretzky was so far out in front of the league in his prime it was like Einstein teaching grade school science.

Coffey was really only a notch below Orr offensively.. in his prime he regularly was compared to and did beat Orr's record for goals in a season and Coffey also is the top playoff scoring defenseman.

He's only a notch below him overall for offense.. Orr is just much better defensively at the same time which makes him so special.

Stats stats stats stats doesn't make a hockey player great!! Never, he just happened to b their best scorer, but it was and is a team game, and he had to get the puck from somewhere. Stats are for losers, and just ask any great coaches.

 

[Dark Shadows]

You're welcome to your opinion but I still maintain that playing with better teammates does make a noticeable difference to players production.

Anything else goes against all logic.

And I do not think it goes against all logic at all. Many players thrive from being the guy depended on to score because the team has nobody else. It also usually means they get more icetime than a balanced team.

This is what I don't get.. you say one thing and then bring up exception after exception to your own rule of thumb and yet you still maintain it.

I will say in Espo's case though he was past his prime when he went to an inferior team.. I think keeping up 40 goals and a ppg was pretty damn good for a guy in that position in that era.

There are always exceptions.

Espo went from the most offensive team in the league to a more defense based team not built around or trained at getting him the puck in the slot like the Bruins were.

I agree with this.. for sure playing with one of the best players in history is going to generate more chances even for average players. I mean even average NHL players are a pretty select company.



Its worth nothing though that Oates better season came in the year of career years for everyone! of 92-93. He never got close to that height before or after.

And? You are looking at it in terms of points, not scoring finishes. With Hull, Oates finished 10th, 3rd and 10th in overall scoring. In Boston, Oates finished 3rd and 3rd and 10th in overall scoring.

The fact that everyone was having career years, yet he still came in 3rd in scoring with 2 players far below Hull's capacity on his wings speaks volumes.

Because he was way past his prime by the time they got going full out, obviously. Guys in their mid 30s don't go from 69 points to a 116 points because they are improving their game.. especially in those days. You were lucky to be playing at 35 at all.

Bucyk was a durable player, like Sakic and Howe who could maintain his high level of play even into his mid 30's. Again, you are looking at it in terms of points when scoring finishes are what matters.

Gretzky missed 16 games I believe and the way Gretzky played at that time.. who knows how much more they would have scored if he had been there.

Yes, I missed typing the 1 in front of the 6. But as someone else already pointed out in a study, Kurri was scoring just as much, if not more when Gretz was out that season. Your reasoning was that Kurri only scored less that season than his first season without Gretzky because Gretzky was out, when in fact, it has been proven that he was maintaining that pace and more without him.

Bossy maintained what I like to call his "natural level" with Sutter but he definitely didn't reach anywhere close to his peak that year.

It is not simply about "peaks". It is about the fact that he scored around the same clip he normally did with two 2nd/3rd line players who normally only scored 40-65 points instead of a much better Trottier. By your logic, his numbers should have seen a slump. They did not.

True, but Yzerman is another guy who has a somewhat flukey career year in that it is quite a bit higher than his other top years. I think 88-89 was like that for several players.. but definitely it was somewhat because he was the focus of the teams offense like you say.. and hey.. he was a great player too.

I think of it as an example of how he thrived in scoring when he was expected to carry the load. A few years later once they had better players, his numbers did not suddenly skyrocket.

Francis was 34-35 when he left and on his downswing for sure.. I think that season has more to do with the maturation of Jagr and the fact that I think they also picked up Kovalev.. so for Jagr it was really Straka + Kovalev for a declining Francis.. in any case it was a remarkable season for Jagr no doubt.

Francis never really declined all that much in that time frame, and certainly not enough to say a Straka that averaged 40 points made up for it. Sure Francis had an off year the first year he left, leaving the last real offensive first team in the league and going to a more defense oriented team. He was 9th in overall scoring in 2001-02 after all playing with Sami Kapanen so he certainly still had it.

Not sure why a 20 goal, 46 point Kovalev mattered all that much to a 127 point Jagr's totals given that they did not even play on the same line or the PP much together.

Well yeah.. Lindros. Look what happened to Leclair's numbers too.

What did Happen to Leclair's numbers? Multiple studies have been done showing that Leclair scored at the exact same pace with or without Lindros.

Hawerchuk was already 2 years removed from his last 100 point season and also had a degenerative hip if I remember correctly Also he went from being "the guy" to being 1b at center with Lafontaine and then to strictly behind Lafontaine.

So you admit being "The guy" will help with totals. He might have been behind LaFontaine, but as you said before,would that not mean less or split defensive coverage? He played the PP with Lafontaine, and either way, this was an extreme case of going from a team with almost nobody to a team with several great players.

Granted I do not remember his health at the time.

He did have better linemates but the team was still dreadful and they had no puck moving defensemen.

I never debated whether the team was dreadful or not. The point was "far far superior linemates than he had in Detroit"

Larry Murphy was not a puck moving defenseman?

I think maybe you're misinterpreting what I am trying to get at when I say that teams affect even superstars.

I'm not saying that Gretzky on a lousy team would be a 100 point scorer instead of a 200 point man. I think he could score 150-160 in his prime playing with pretty much anyone of nhl quality. That is just an estimate based on the fact he was able to put up a bit over that in LA with decent (but not great) help.

And as I said before, there are a lot of factors involved. Who is to say Gretzky going to a lousy team does not improve his linemates in many significant ways over the years? His work ethic was second to none at the time. And his teammates fed off that by forcing themselves to follow his lead and work hard. He also helped groom 4th round picks Jari Kurri and Glen Anderson, and 3rd round pick Messier and into the players they became.

Lemieux himself credits his sudden improvement to 168 points specifically to learning from Gretzky what it took to be the best and how hard he worked even during drills.

And similarly with other superstars.. I think they have a natural level that because they are so good they will achieve with pretty much anyone.. but for these guys that played on dynasties and with really talented linemates/teammates/systems/coaching I think there must be more than a marginal difference.

And I think it matters to their point totals only a little bit.

Icetime, Coaching, team system and work ethic

Earlier in the thread I compared the Bruins for the 9 years of Orr's career there to Gretzky's first 9 years with the Oilers.

The Oilers did score on average more but the difference is less than the difference in the average scoring between the two decades.

This is because while the Bruins at times during those 9 seasons were very far ahead of the pack.. the Oilers were only a bit ahead of several teams at a time.

The disparity in the 70s really makes using average scoring a minefield when comparing in my opinion.

The disparity in the 80's is just as bad, and, most teams had begun playing offense first, allowing far far far more goals. As much as you try to ignore it, far far more teams were allowing more goals against than the worst 70's team, which made it easier for forwards to score more.

The absolute WORST team in goals against in 71 were the seals, and they allowed 320 goals against. Over half the league was allowing 320+ goals against by the time Gretzky started scoring 200 points. Imagine that. 10+ teams in the league letting in more goals than the worst team of 71.

The Bruins were so far ahead of the pack because they were the first team to run and gun offense to that level while everyone else was still playing defense first, and, specifically because of Bobby Orr's ability to play superb defense at the same time.


AND Orr was renowned for taking it easy on the weaker teams.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Earlier in the thread I compared the Bruins for the 9 years of Orr's career there to Gretzky's first 9 years with the Oilers.

The Oilers did score on average more but the difference is less than the difference in the average scoring between the two decades.

This is because while the Bruins at times during those 9 seasons were very far ahead of the pack.. the Oilers were only a bit ahead of several teams at a time.

The disparity in the 70s really makes using average scoring a minefield when comparing in my opinion.

You can make that argument for the 70/71 Bruins but then it fails miserably for the 74/75 Bruins who were only 5th overall and only 3rd in scoring in an 18 team league.
This btw, was Orr's second best year and second Art Ross.

By comparison inf Gretzky's top seasons, his Oilers from 81/82 to 86/87 finished first 3 times and second 3 times while being #1 in scoring every single year by ridiculous amounts.

There is no way you can honestly say that Orr's Bruins in his best seasons were as far ahead of Greztky's Oilers in his best seasons...no way dude.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Production vs Results

A dozen arguments have already been brought up on this matter. Both sides have merit. I still maintain that the elite best of the best players would produce huge with very little difference no matter who their linemates.


Yzerman put up his best numbers playing with lesser players. He thrived in scoring when he had to be the man.

Jagr immediately had his best individual season ever after Ron Francis left and was replaced by Straka. Obviously Francis is far above Straka on the totem pole. Why then did Jagr suddenly get better with more pressure and less help?

Mark Recchi went from the Pens to the Flyers, and was stuck with completely different linemates(Rookie Lindros) yet did not miss a beat.

Hawerchuk went from the Jets to the Sabres, where he was with better linemates like Turgeon, Mogilny, Andreychuk and later, LaFontaine, and his numbers did not suddenly skyrocket.

Marcel Dionne was scoring 122 points with the Dead wings and nobody on his wings, and 130-37 points with Much better superstars like Dave Taylor and Charlie Simmer on his line in LA. If you want to argue that that 7-10% increase was due to better linemates instead of the changing philosophy of teams going to all out offense, I won't argue. But it was a marginal increase, and I have always advocated that linemates might make a 5-10 point difference, but that the superstars will score big no matter who you put them with.

etc etc

Fascinating topic. Production in terms of raw numbers is one thing while results are another.

There are plenty of examples where a marginal player or two on a line with a superstar or generational talent produces AND the superstar or generational talent produces.Blair McDonald with Wayne Gretzky, Rob Brown,Randy Cunneyworth with Mario Lemieux may be added to the above listed examples. Basic KIS principle at work find open ice near the net and the superstar gets you the puck. The superstars or generational talents did it all the time in junior with weak linemates so its easy to do in the NHL with players who have post junior skills. Winning is another matter.

Playing a complete game and actually winning a Stanley Cup does not happen as easily. To do so the superstar has to have teammates that can actually play multiple facets of the game. None of the examples cited previously produced a Stanley Cup. Nice numbers for all but no significant results.

 

[Dark Shadows]

You can make that argument for the 70/71 Bruins but then it fails miserably for the 74/75 Bruins who were only 5th overall and only 3rd in scoring in an 18 team league.
This btw, was Orr's second best year and second Art Ross.

By comparison inf Gretzky's top seasons, his Oilers from 81/82 to 86/87 finished first 3 times and second 3 times while being #1 in scoring every single year by ridiculous amounts.

There is no way you can honestly say that Orr's Bruins in his best seasons were as far ahead of Greztky's Oilers in his best seasons...no way dude.

Which is amazing considering how his knees were affecting him by then.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Fascinating topic. Production in terms of raw numbers is one thing while results are another.

There are plenty of examples where a marginal player or two on a line with a superstar or generational talent produces AND the superstar or generational talent produces.Blair McDonald with Wayne Gretzky, Rob Brown,Randy Cunneyworth with Mario Lemieux may be added to the above listed examples. Basic KIS principle at work find open ice near the net and the superstar gets you the puck. The superstars or generational talents did it all the time in junior with weak linemates so its easy to do in the NHL with players who have post junior skills. Winning is another matter.

Playing a complete game and actually winning a Stanley Cup does not happen as easily. To do so the superstar has to have teammates that can actually play multiple facets of the game. None of the examples cited previously produced a Stanley Cup. Nice numbers for all but no significant results.

Agreed.

 

[overpass]

Earlier in the thread I compared the Bruins for the 9 years of Orr's career there to Gretzky's first 9 years with the Oilers.

The Oilers did score on average more but the difference is less than the difference in the average scoring between the two decades.

This is because while the Bruins at times during those 9 seasons were very far ahead of the pack.. the Oilers were only a bit ahead of several teams at a time.

The disparity in the 70s really makes using average scoring a minefield when comparing in my opinion.

Do you think that might have anything to do with Orr or Gretzky?

Team scoring levels aren't independent contexts that the player plays within. They are affected by the play of the players themselves, especially players like Bobby Orr and Wayne Gretzky.

(And with Orr, the effect on the team's offence went beyond the points he scored. Forwards score more goals if the puck is always in the offensive zone.)

League scoring levels are far less affected by individual players, and serve as a more neutral estimate of the value to place on each goal.

 

[bleeney]

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.

You're giving Gretzky credit for the one-timer?

Seriously, Gretzky certainly had a huge impact, but Orr revolutionized the game. It's why Beliveau devoted an entire chapter in his biography to Orr. Orr brought an entire new dimension to the game, making it faster and more entertaining. Forty-plus years later, and Dmen who move the puck, join the attack, QB the powerplay etc. are still essentials for any team.

Gretzky was a great salesman for hockey. Never been anyone better. Not only was he setting all those scoring records, he was very media-friendly, and came along at the right time (with cable TV, expanded coverage through TSN, ESPN, etc.).

Orr lacked Gretzky's media savvy; he was shy and uncomfortable being the centre of attention. But his on-ice performance led to an explosion in the popularity of hockey in America, particularly in New England. More and more kids started playing. Bobby Carpenter (from Massachussetts) was drafted 3rd overall in '81. That was previously unheard of. Call it the Bobby Orr effect.

Like Gretzky, Orr had a huge effect on attendence:

"Orr has not only taken on Messianic qualities for the Bruins, but for the NHL as well. In an era when big-league hockey is spreading its wings to new areas of North America, Orr remains the most saleable commodity the shinny moguls have to offer. And no one knows it better than Orr's attorney Al Eagleson of Toronto.
"Bobby is the only player who can help out the low-drawing teams in the NHL," said Eagleson. "For example, in Oakland, Orr played there on a Sunday night and drew 10,500. St. Louis came there on a Wednesday and drew 3,000. In Los Angeles, Orr drew 12,700, the next night against St. Louis the crowd was only 7,200. Vancouver's manager says he could sell an extra 30,000-40,000 tickets when Orr is in town."
-from Hockey Stars of 1973 (Stan Fischler); pg 69-70

And as far as bigger salaries go, Orr paved the way for that more than anybody else:

Apart from his impact on the game, Orr exerted a significant impact off the ice as well in the sphere of hockey economics. With the backing of Toronto attorney R. Alan Eagleson, Orr became the first major player to be officially represented in contract negotiations by an agent. At first the Bruins' owners fought the idea of even speaking with an agent, but Orr ultimately won out and almost overnight dozens of players sought representation. Shortly thereafter, with Eagleson at the head, the NHL Players' Association was organized over the objections of the owners.
-from The Hockey Encyclopedia, 1983; pg 12

 

[Central Scrutinizer]

Which team would win?A team with 5 gretzkys' or a team with 5 orrs'?

 

[habsjunkie2*]

...and I say Orr was almost as gifted offensively as a dman as Greztky was as a center.
The only reason there is such a gap is because we're comparing a forward to a dman in the first place.
Make Orr a forward and watch his points sky rocket.
Make Gretzky a dman and watch his points plummet, I mean he sure as hell wouldn't be able to hang out down low or behind the net as a Dman while Orr would as a forward.

As I said before, Orr put up his numbers while playing a more than solid defensive game as well.
Coffey was only able to keep pace with Orr by playing with Gretzky, playing on the highest scoring team in history, playing in the most offesive system in history, playing in the highest scoring era in history and by playing all out offensively without much regard for defense.

To say Coffey was only a notch below Orr offensively is ridiculous considering Orr still devoted a great deal of time and energy to playing defense.

Do you have any real arguements? Or is it all speculative nonsense? If, If, and more ifs. Give it up. The guy with more assist than anyone in the history of the game points is undeniably the most gifted offensive talent the league has ever seen and likely will be forever.

If you wanna argue Orr is a better because of the 2way game, go for it, but for offence alone. It isn't even close.

 

[habsjunkie2*]

If Bobby played with Wayne and his team made him a center which he "was" and a great one as a kid, then you can't even hint at him not being able to win a scoring title. There is every possibility he would have one one or many. He was unbelievable around the net, as great as you can find, and if you measured the amount of time Orr and Gretzky played inside the center of the two faceoff circles out in front of the net, Bobby out scored the G one in points per time around the net. He also was spectacular around it and had a giant Hockey IQ. To many people underestimate how great of a scorer he would have been in he played up front.

Keep on trying. All these hypotheticals aren't helping your cause.

 

[habsjunkie2*]

Once again it seems all I here from Gretzky fans is stats. Stats are for losers and any GREAT coach would say this. Bobby's stats are so superior to Waynes, and they are very intangible so they aren't stats per say. Bobby was a threat to score or get a great chance to score for his team any place on the ice. If Bobby played center and he was great at it as a kid, he could have scored so many points, and he was so much better than that, and is why no matter how many points have been scored by Dmen since, none of them can compare to Bobby as a hockey player.

Dude stop please.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Do you have any real arguements? Or is it all speculative nonsense? If, If, and more ifs. Give it up. The guy with more assist than anyone in the history of the game has more assists than anyone has points is undeniably the most gifted offensive talent the league has ever seen and likely will be forever.

If you wanna argue Orr is a better because of the 2way game, go for it, but for offence alone. It isn't even close.

Yeah I do have a real argument and since you have a lot of trouble comprehending it, I'll spell it out.

First off I concede that Gretzky does indeed have an edge in offensive talent over Orr.
However, this not even close crap is just that...crap!

Orr is not far behind Gretzky at all in pure offensive talent. To say different is ridiculous and I guarantee is purely based from record book ignorance and not actually seeing Orr play.
The only thing that held Orr back from producing numbers closer to Gretzky's was the position he played, certainly not because Gretzky's offensive talent Dwarfed Orr's.

Then on top of this Orr was a superior 2-way player to boot and why he's will always be my choice as #1.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Orr is not far behind Gretzky at all in pure offensive talent. To say different is ridiculous and I guarantee is purely based from record book ignorance and not actually seeing Orr play.
The only thing that held Orr back from producing numbers closer to Gretzky's was the position he played, certainly not because Gretzky's offensive talent Dwarfed Orr's.

Then on top of this Orr was a superior 2-way player to boot and why he's will always be my choice as #1.

If "the only thing that held Orr back from producing numbers closer to Gretzky was the position he played," then why isn't the fact that Orr's position is a large part of what made him a "superior 2-way player?"