At least Gretzky's playoff plus/minus was superior
Explain 70 Orr going +13 at home and -9 on the road against the O6.
Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 1
- Thread starter quoipourquoi
- Start date
-
Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
At least Gretzky's playoff plus/minus was superior
Explain 70 Orr going +13 at home and -9 on the road against the O6.
VanIslander
20 years of All-Time Drafts on HfBoards
Agreed. Yet Hart trophy voting seems to have a long history of awarding the sizzle more than the steak (Shore, Morenz).
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
Orr started in the original 06 era.
Gretzky started in that tripled size league plus added WHA teams.
And I don't recall Orr (or anyone else) stating that a team was a "Mickey Mouse organization" as Gretzky did about the Devils in 1983. That after a 13-4 game where Gretzky put up 8 points and Kurri had five goals. (Devils still manage to score 4 times)
Captain Bowie
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2012
- 27,139
- 4,414
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
- Jan 16, 2005
- 9,614
- 16,335
@seventieslord has already made a good case. Here's another way to look at it.
If we compare Orr/Lemieux to Howe during their best seven years, Howe probably ranks third. That being said, it was still a phenomenal peak. If we take, say, 1951 to 1955, 1957 and 1963, you have six Art Ross trophies (several of which were won by margins that only Gretzky has surpassed); five goal-scoring titles; three assist titles (as a winger); three playoff scoring titles (including one that set the all-time record); a "retro" Conn Smythe; strong, well-documented two-way play; a physical presence unmatched by any of the Big Four; four Hart trophies; and six first-team all-star selections. I grant that Orr (definitely) and Lemieux (possibly) have better peaks - but Howe was certainly in the same ballpark (or rink).
Then we look at their next seven best years. Howe's still going to have seven more years where he's placing in the top five for the Hart and Art Ross. He still has three more playoff scoring titles. In years 8-14, Orr basically has a Norris, a Calder, and that's it. Lemieux has a bunch of injured-plagued seasons (in only three of them does he qualify for the top ten in scoring; and only once is he a Hart finalist). Both continued to play very well on a per-game basis, but at some point, actual production has to outweigh that. Howe comfortably gets the edge here.
Let's look at the best seven years after that. This is digging far down (looking at seasons like, say, 1950 and 1967 for Howe). He still has six more years as a top five scorer, and four more years getting some non-trivial consideration for the Hart. Orr is long retired at this point. Lemieux's 15th and 16th best seasons are 36 games played at less than 1 PPG rate, surrounding the 2005 lockout. Again, Howe gets the decisive edge.
Someone can respond by saying that this is a misleading comparison. After all, Jagr ranks ahead of Lemieux if you're comparing what they're doing in years 15 and beyond. But, as I tried to show earlier, Howe had a very high peak that we can legitimately compare to Orr and Lemieux's (which obviously isn't the case with Jagr - nobody can even argue that his peak, as high as it was, approaches Lemieux's). For that reason, no amount of longevity would ever elevate Jagr above Lemieux - but I think Howe is close enough at his peak that we can't simply dismiss his enormous advantage in longevity. (And it's more than just in the sense of hanging around as a solid complimentary player, like Dave Andreychuk).
Look at it another way (see the table I posted on the first page) - Howe earned a non-trivial number of votes for the Hart trophy 18 times in his career. That's absurd. He singlehandedly matches the combined careers of Orr and Lemieux.
We all know that Hart voting has its flaws, but Howe was in contention for the Hart and Art Ross on a (nearly) continuous basis for two decades, far surpassing what Orr and Lemieux achieved. Even if #4 and #66 had higher peaks (certainly & possibly), that's just too many great seasons to overlook.
The other obstacle Howe faces is he peaked offensively just before league-wide scoring started to increase (so the records that he held were quickly surpassed). It's somewhat similar to what Roy experienced - league-wide scoring decreased just after his prime, so his numbers look a lot weaker in retrospect.
After the 1956-57 season, Howe had the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th and 9th highest scoring seasons in NHL history. He also had the highest scoring playoff run in NHL history. We forget these facts because scoring skyrocketed (over 20% from 1953-54 to 1958-59). Yes, it's true that Beliveau approached Howe's scoring numbers - but only while playing on a stronger team in a much higher scoring environment.
Lindsay was a great player in his own right, of course. But I think it's telling that his production plummeted from 85 points (2nd in the league), to 39 points, immediately after being traded. I can't attribute all of that to Howe - Lindsay was one year older, and the Blackhawks as a whole were weaker than the Wings as a whole - but I think this is solid anecdotal evidence that Howe could have a transformational impact on his linemates.
Captain Bowie
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2012
- 27,139
- 4,414
I didn't mean it as an insult. I mean it in a way that I want to hear the argument, if one exists, that makes me seriously considering a different order than I have. You are very firmly in your position, so surely there is something substantial that makes you feel that way. I would love to see it in detail. If you are unwilling or unable to provide such an argument, that's fine. But if I felt as strong as your that Orr>Gretzky I would provide everything I had to the group, for the sake of producing the best list possible.
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
All I can tell you is I saw them both play, as rookies and later (actually saw one of Orr's last Bruins games playing with Brad Park). Orr was the most dominant player I ever saw live. On TV, with replays available, even more so. That's all I've got. The numbers for Orr seem to indicate his dominance also. Gretzky offensive numbers are truly staggering. But when you can lead the league in scoring with 130 points and still put up a -25 (worst on his team), it really makes you wonder. I don't think a crippled Bobby Orr could ever be the worst +/- on his team.
sr edler
gold is not reality
- Mar 20, 2010
- 12,215
- 6,702
Well, he probably would have been alright, but in an era where elbows to heads and stuff aren’t as appreciated (todays league) he wouldn’t be able to play that type of game and intimidate/bully players as freely.
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 31,184
- 14,169
True, but as the saying goes: ''Better be a warrior in a garden than a gardener in a war''.
Captain Bowie
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2012
- 27,139
- 4,414
Unfortunately that doesn't help me much, I didn't see either of them play.
Though I'm not sure why him being a minus (while winning the Art Ross) in like his 13th best seasons means that much.
Those numbers seem cherry-picked to favour Gretzky. Whatever seasons The Panther looked at obviously didn't include 1985-86, when Gretzky played in the same division as the 59 point Winnipeg Jets, the 59 point Vancouver Canucks, and the 54 point L.A. Kings.
I think we need to see the complete picture rather than keep playing dueling anecdata, so I looked up how many games prime Gretzky and Orr had against teams that were below .400 and teams that were above .600 each season and overall during their primes (note: these are all the games that were scheduled, I did not remove games missed by either player as I assume they were distributed randomly):
Edmonton Oilers:
1981: 24 games vs. .600+, 16 games vs. <.400
1982: 9 games vs. .600+, 25 games vs. <.400
1983: 18 games vs. .600+, 12 games vs. <.400
1984: 15 games vs. .600+, 17 games vs. <.400
1985: 14 games vs. .600+, 23 games vs. <.400
1986: 6 games vs. .600+, 33 games vs. <.400
1987: 3 games vs. .600+, 0 games vs. <.400
1988: 11 games vs. .600+, 14 games vs. <.400
640 total GP
100 games vs. .600+ (16%)
140 games vs. <.400 (22%)
Boston Bruins:
1968: 10 games vs. .600+, 4 games vs. <.400
1969: 8 games vs. .600+, 18 games vs. <.400
1970: 32 games vs. .600+, 24 games vs. <.400
1971: 18 games vs. .600+, 24 games vs. <.400
1972: 18 games vs. .600+, 24 games vs. <.400
1973: 11 games vs. .600+, 16 games vs. <.400
1974: 21 games vs. .600+, 15 games vs. <.400
1975: 20 games vs. .600+, 24 games vs. <.400
618 total GP
138 games vs. .600+ (22%)
149 games vs. <.400 (24%)
I also checked extremely bad teams (winning percentage below .300), there were 6 from 1981-1988 and 6 from 1968-1975.
Not really seeing a lot of evidence to suggest that Orr had significantly easier competition. It is interesting that the schedule strength seemed to be a lot more variable in the 1980s, so I do think some of Gretzky's seasons might be a little stronger or weaker than they seem. It is very possible that the main difference between his numbers in 1982 and 1983 was that Gretzky played against better teams in 1983, and Gretzky's numbers in 1985-86 almost certainly aren't as good as they look relative to other years because he crushed the three terrible teams in his division:
Gretzky, 1985-86:
vs LAK/WPG/VAN: 24 GP, 20 G, 54 A, 74 P, +44
vs Rest of League: 56 GP, 32 G, 109 A, 141 P, +27
I also ran the numbers for both Bobby Orr and Bobby Clarke (if there was any other 1970s star up for voting right now I would have picked them instead, but I needed some point of comparison) to see if Orr had unusual splits against the Original Six teams compared to everyone else.
Orr, 1968-1975:
vs O6: 236 GP, 87 G, 213 A, 299 Pts, +163
vs Rest: 324 GP, 159 G, 370 A, 530 Pts, +423
Clarke, 1972-1978:
vs O6: 196 GP, 63 G, 144 A, 207 Pts, +63
vs Rest: 344 GP, 149 G, 330 A, 479 Pts, +277
Orr's PPG is 29% higher against the rest of the league, Clarke's PPG is 32% higher against the rest of the league. Not much of a difference.
Orr's plus/minus per game played is 2.2 times as good as Clarke's against the Original Six, and 1.6 times as good as Clarke's against everyone else, so it is at least possible that the Bruins were better at beating the bad teams by a lot of goals, helping that goals for/against ratio a bit even though Orr wasn't necessarily padding his individual stats (*Edit - my mistake, had that backwards, those numbers actually make Orr look better because he dominated the better teams by more than Clarke did). Ideally I'd like to see a few more points of comparison, as well as to see how Gretzky did against his weaker opponents through his entire prime, but I think I've run enough numbers for today.
Last edited:
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
The thing is, Orr didn't have the luxury of having the chance to play "post" prime. In large part of no fault of his own. Injuries robbed him and that had to the do with the era, lack of advancements in medicine, repair and recovery aspects especially, not having a lunatic enforcer covering you everywhere you went on the ice, which by today's standards wouldn't work because nobody is doing it.
Orr put up legendary offensive numbers at the time. No other way about it. And even today they are still elite (a notch below Gretzky or Lemieux of course) especially when you factor he was a friggin defensemen!!! And the advanced data we do have today show he was insanely dominant defensively, be it, even strength or special teams. So imagine if Wayne Gretzky had the ability to be a Selke defensive forward while posting near legendary numbers.
Orr is an elite offensive player all time, regardless of position + IMO greatest defensive player of all time, regardless of position.
Gretzky is the GOAT offensive player of all time and somebody who literally coasted when he wasn't in the ozone for big chucks of the games. Blame it on him, the era, i don't care. He was at best a 2 zone player.
Both have legendary numbers
Both have legendary awards and title cabinets
Orr was a far more complete player
I pick Orr
Orr put up legendary offensive numbers at the time. No other way about it. And even today they are still elite (a notch below Gretzky or Lemieux of course) especially when you factor he was a friggin defensemen!!! And the advanced data we do have today show he was insanely dominant defensively, be it, even strength or special teams. So imagine if Wayne Gretzky had the ability to be a Selke defensive forward while posting near legendary numbers.
Orr is an elite offensive player all time, regardless of position + IMO greatest defensive player of all time, regardless of position.
Gretzky is the GOAT offensive player of all time and somebody who literally coasted when he wasn't in the ozone for big chucks of the games. Blame it on him, the era, i don't care. He was at best a 2 zone player.
Both have legendary numbers
Both have legendary awards and title cabinets
Orr was a far more complete player
I pick Orr
ted2019
History of Hockey
Going to try and look this at another angle and that's the team they had around them each year.
Patrick Roy: First things first. While in Montreal, their style of play was very defensive. They had some gifted offensive players like Mats Naslund , Bobby Smith, Kjell Dahlin , Stephane Richer and others. He never had another superstar player to play off of and as the last line of defense, he won many a game and series at times, by himself. When Roy arrived in Colorado, he had stars all around him and they could win sometimes by simply out scoring fools. Colorado was a much deeper team then Montreal ever was and this cause Roy to sometimes become too relaxed. He did win and show up more times then not when they needed to win a game.
Ray Bourque: He seemed to be always the bridesmaid and never the bride when he was with Boston. When they had a strong team in the early years, Montreal would be better. When they did make the cup, the Oilers were simply the better team and at times, those games were no contest. In Boston, he had a bunch of grinders and even though he did have the Cam Neely's, Adam Oates', Rick Middleton's, he never had that other superstar play like Roy didn't. Obviously things changed for Bourque ( as it did for Roy) when he went to Colorado to find his quest and to get that holy grail he was trying to get his entire career. He had superstars to the left of him, superstars to the right and he was stuck in the middle with you.
Maurice Richard: The Rocket had better talent around him then Roy & Bourque and he played at a time in which there wasn't an entry draft nor free agency. He had Toe Blake, Elmer Lach, Bill Durnan, Bernie Geoffrion , Doug Harvey and Jean Beliveau just to name a few. The Rocket however had his share of down years, more so then probably anyone else in this voting round.
Doug Harvey: Considered the best defenseman of his generation and was probably the GOAT at his position until Bobby Orr came around. Always had star players around him almost to the point of having an embarrassment of riches in that extent. Harvey also had some pretty good defensemen to play alongside with to help him carry the mail from the backend. Could almost say that his stable of teammates were the best of all the players in this round.
Jean Beliveau: The leader of the HABS and he was the player on the dynasty of hockey that was the Montreal Canadiens. Even though he was the acknowledged top dog in Montreal, he had at times, almost an all star team on his roster in Montreal. This allowed him to focus on all aspects of the game and made Jean into a well rounded player.
Bobby Orr: He was a star as soon as he hit the ice and that made his teammates better. He wasn't alone however, as he played with Phil Esposito, Johnny Bucyk , Rick Middleton among others. Some say that with all the talent that the Bruins had, they should've won more cups then just the 2 that they won. Most of the times they ran into the Canadiens or something would derail potential success along the way.
Mario Lemieux: He carried the Penguins for many years and made household names out of players that had no right being so (Rob Brown). As talented as he was, he had no one around him and zero playoff success until Pittsburgh trade for Paul Coffey in 1987. His got the ball rolling as the team added Ron Francis, Tom Barrasso , Kevin Stevens, Rick Tocchet, Luc Robtallie, Jaromir Jagr to help Mario win that cup. They say that one man cannot win a championship, no matter how good that player is and Mario was living proof of that.
Bobby Hull: Hull had a good thing going in Chicago, he had players like a young Phil Esposito, Stan Mikita, Tony Esposito , Glenn Hall , Pierre Pilote on the roster at any given time. Hull could lean on his teammates when needed and didn't have to be the center of attention for the club to win.
Gordie Howe: Howe had stars abound on those Detroit teams. He didn't need the help to win, but it was always appreciated. Gordie was as consistent as a player could be, but it did help having Sawchuk, Lindsay, Kelly, Delvecchio, Sid Abel, Norm Ullman or Frank Mahovlich on his team at any time.
Wayne Gretzky: He was pretty good, but he had at times an all star team surrounding him. Mark Messier, Paul Coffey, Esa Tikkanen, Glenn Anderson , Jari Kurri, Grant Fuhr, Andy Moog, Kevin Lowe just to name a few. This doesn't include trade deadline additions that Glen Sather would add throughout the years. Gretzky didn't have to worry about playing any defense with Jari Kurri on his line. After leaving for the bright lights of the big city, Gretzky never won a cup again and he also didn't have the talent around him like he did in Edmonton.
Patrick Roy: First things first. While in Montreal, their style of play was very defensive. They had some gifted offensive players like Mats Naslund , Bobby Smith, Kjell Dahlin , Stephane Richer and others. He never had another superstar player to play off of and as the last line of defense, he won many a game and series at times, by himself. When Roy arrived in Colorado, he had stars all around him and they could win sometimes by simply out scoring fools. Colorado was a much deeper team then Montreal ever was and this cause Roy to sometimes become too relaxed. He did win and show up more times then not when they needed to win a game.
Ray Bourque: He seemed to be always the bridesmaid and never the bride when he was with Boston. When they had a strong team in the early years, Montreal would be better. When they did make the cup, the Oilers were simply the better team and at times, those games were no contest. In Boston, he had a bunch of grinders and even though he did have the Cam Neely's, Adam Oates', Rick Middleton's, he never had that other superstar play like Roy didn't. Obviously things changed for Bourque ( as it did for Roy) when he went to Colorado to find his quest and to get that holy grail he was trying to get his entire career. He had superstars to the left of him, superstars to the right and he was stuck in the middle with you.
Maurice Richard: The Rocket had better talent around him then Roy & Bourque and he played at a time in which there wasn't an entry draft nor free agency. He had Toe Blake, Elmer Lach, Bill Durnan, Bernie Geoffrion , Doug Harvey and Jean Beliveau just to name a few. The Rocket however had his share of down years, more so then probably anyone else in this voting round.
Doug Harvey: Considered the best defenseman of his generation and was probably the GOAT at his position until Bobby Orr came around. Always had star players around him almost to the point of having an embarrassment of riches in that extent. Harvey also had some pretty good defensemen to play alongside with to help him carry the mail from the backend. Could almost say that his stable of teammates were the best of all the players in this round.
Jean Beliveau: The leader of the HABS and he was the player on the dynasty of hockey that was the Montreal Canadiens. Even though he was the acknowledged top dog in Montreal, he had at times, almost an all star team on his roster in Montreal. This allowed him to focus on all aspects of the game and made Jean into a well rounded player.
Bobby Orr: He was a star as soon as he hit the ice and that made his teammates better. He wasn't alone however, as he played with Phil Esposito, Johnny Bucyk , Rick Middleton among others. Some say that with all the talent that the Bruins had, they should've won more cups then just the 2 that they won. Most of the times they ran into the Canadiens or something would derail potential success along the way.
Mario Lemieux: He carried the Penguins for many years and made household names out of players that had no right being so (Rob Brown). As talented as he was, he had no one around him and zero playoff success until Pittsburgh trade for Paul Coffey in 1987. His got the ball rolling as the team added Ron Francis, Tom Barrasso , Kevin Stevens, Rick Tocchet, Luc Robtallie, Jaromir Jagr to help Mario win that cup. They say that one man cannot win a championship, no matter how good that player is and Mario was living proof of that.
Bobby Hull: Hull had a good thing going in Chicago, he had players like a young Phil Esposito, Stan Mikita, Tony Esposito , Glenn Hall , Pierre Pilote on the roster at any given time. Hull could lean on his teammates when needed and didn't have to be the center of attention for the club to win.
Gordie Howe: Howe had stars abound on those Detroit teams. He didn't need the help to win, but it was always appreciated. Gordie was as consistent as a player could be, but it did help having Sawchuk, Lindsay, Kelly, Delvecchio, Sid Abel, Norm Ullman or Frank Mahovlich on his team at any time.
Wayne Gretzky: He was pretty good, but he had at times an all star team surrounding him. Mark Messier, Paul Coffey, Esa Tikkanen, Glenn Anderson , Jari Kurri, Grant Fuhr, Andy Moog, Kevin Lowe just to name a few. This doesn't include trade deadline additions that Glen Sather would add throughout the years. Gretzky didn't have to worry about playing any defense with Jari Kurri on his line. After leaving for the bright lights of the big city, Gretzky never won a cup again and he also didn't have the talent around him like he did in Edmonton.
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
I thought longevity was very important. Now it doesn't mean much?
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
- Jan 16, 2005
- 9,614
- 16,335
Is anybody willing to make an argument (even as devil's advocate) that would displace one of the usual suspects from the top four spots?
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
Captain Bowie
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2012
- 27,139
- 4,414
He still won the Art Ross in his 13th best season. The fact that he was a minus during so, still means that season is in the plus column, not the minus column. Wasn't nearly as good as others seasons where he had a similar points but much better +/-, hence why it is his 13th best season (or possibly lower if we really want to go deep into it).
Canadiens1958
Registered User
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 31,184
- 14,169
I made a quick case for Maurice Richard based on his star power and his overall legendary status earlier, but nothing statistical.I see no problem with him being the greatest Québécois player ever over Mario Lemieux, even if on paper it's a tough sell.
On one hand you have Mario Lemieux, who IIRC publicly said he wouldn't want to play for Montreal, his hometown, due to the pressure and scrutiny, and on the other you have Rocket Richard, who played under the most intense pressure ever, in his hometown, up to becoming what is probably the most well-known name in Québec all categories confounded, and responded to said pressure by becoming the most clutch goalscorer ever.
Richard's name will survive much longer than Lemieux'.
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
So, the observations of someone who's seen them play doesn't help you much even though you didn't see either of them play?
Captain Bowie
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2012
- 27,139
- 4,414
Not without going into detail, no. Otherwise I'd be simply taking your word for it.
If someone who was alive says Maurice Richard is the greatest player ever, and gives a brief explanation why, I can't do much with that either.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 31,184
- 14,169
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Inside Quebec,probably Canada and the USA and the hockey world.
