People say that. I guess he seemed to make defensive plays more often in the playoffs, but it's not like he wasn't a strong takeaway player in his prime. It seemed more pronounced later in his career though.
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
People say that. I guess he seemed to make defensive plays more often in the playoffs, but it's not like he wasn't a strong takeaway player in his prime. It seemed more pronounced later in his career though.
Captain Bowie
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2012
- 27,139
- 4,414
This might be a matter of opinion, but I think what they did offensively is more impressive than what they may have done had they committed more to a 2-way game. And it's not like team success suffered because of it.
Your point about wasting a roster spot on a bodyguard... didn't every team have at least one of these types of players at that time, regardless if they had a superstar to protect or not?
He had 5 points that game. He averaged 3 for the series.
Gretzky was less likely to take dumb penalties (Game 6, 74 Finals)
Bodyguards were part of the era. It was the most fight-filled. Losing a 4th line winger for 5 minutes was fine. Hell Gretzky would take his shift, so the roster spot was moot. Had he played in the late 1980s, Gordie Howe in theory, like Cam Neely in practice, also would be told to stop fighting because it hurts your team.
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
Hard to say. If somebody has a legit way to quantify this my body is ready!
And yeah, most teams had defined goons. Not a good look but that's just me. Players like Howe could dominate in between or after whistles, but they didn't need to cross the line to intimidate. I've never been a fan of hockey that feature guys who had no business being in professional hockey.
But that's my opinion.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
This:
Needs to die. Orr's R-off has a lot of every Bruins player. It may have more Don Awrey than any other individual player, because he was a mid-high lineup defenseman (#2/3) who Orr apparently never played with at even strength, but this R-off is based on about 23 minutes of even strength time per game for the 631 games that Orr did play, and about 46 even strength minutes per game for the 74 games that he didn't. Factor in that there are about 4.8 skaters on the ice on average for one team at even strength, and we're talking about 86,000 man-minutes of ice time that make up Orr's off-ice comparables. Awrey played an estimated 8700 ES minutes as a Bruin, so if he never set foot on the ice at the same time as Orr (which I'm sure we can both logically rule out as possible and probably better quantify with minimal effort), he accounts for an absolute maximum of 10% of Orr's off ice data, but probably closer to 7 or 8%.
Similarly, Gretzky's R-off for his key seasons has a lot of every Oilers player. it would be calculated as follows: (696 x 28 x 4.8) + (24 x 46 x 4.8) = 98841 ES man-minutes. Anderson and Messier during this time account for 17,343 minutes. We also know for a fact that they weren't completely, 100% separated from Gretzky. A simple analysis of their ES points over this time would show that. They were usually separated from him, but not all the time. Anderson especially. So at most, these two players account for 18% of the play that made up Gretzky's R-off numbers, but the true answer is probably closer to 12 or 13%.
I also think it's a mistake to include Awrey as an example of a marginal player who pumps up Orr's figures because he was actually a very good player. Similarly, Anderson wasn't a special player, certainly not the level of player one needs to point to as an example of why Gretzky's R-off would be so high. Messier, sure.
edit: just to explain further. I took a look at the 52 highest marks for total ESTOI in a season for Orr's Boston career (with Orr and his usual-but-not-always partner Dallas Smith excluded), and the players that turn up the most often are:
Esposito 8
Bucyk 6
Hodge 6
Awrey 6
Cashman 4
Green 3
Vadnais 3
Stanfield 3
those are all very good players, and none of them were with Orr all the time. Sometimes they were, sometimes they weren't. As a player who played half of the even strength time, it was inevitable he'd see some time with every line. Really, aside from Orr himself, the only major difference you can point to between the collection of man-minutes that make up his 61,000 on-ice minutes (of which 12,700 was him) is that his R-on almost always included Dallas Smith, and it almost never included Don Awrey, Carol Vadnais or Ted Green. Vadnais and Green are considered better players than Smith anyway, so while it was already clear that this wasn't a strong point, I'm now not really sure whether it's a point at all.
Needs to die. Orr's R-off has a lot of every Bruins player. It may have more Don Awrey than any other individual player, because he was a mid-high lineup defenseman (#2/3) who Orr apparently never played with at even strength, but this R-off is based on about 23 minutes of even strength time per game for the 631 games that Orr did play, and about 46 even strength minutes per game for the 74 games that he didn't. Factor in that there are about 4.8 skaters on the ice on average for one team at even strength, and we're talking about 86,000 man-minutes of ice time that make up Orr's off-ice comparables. Awrey played an estimated 8700 ES minutes as a Bruin, so if he never set foot on the ice at the same time as Orr (which I'm sure we can both logically rule out as possible and probably better quantify with minimal effort), he accounts for an absolute maximum of 10% of Orr's off ice data, but probably closer to 7 or 8%.
Similarly, Gretzky's R-off for his key seasons has a lot of every Oilers player. it would be calculated as follows: (696 x 28 x 4.8) + (24 x 46 x 4.8) = 98841 ES man-minutes. Anderson and Messier during this time account for 17,343 minutes. We also know for a fact that they weren't completely, 100% separated from Gretzky. A simple analysis of their ES points over this time would show that. They were usually separated from him, but not all the time. Anderson especially. So at most, these two players account for 18% of the play that made up Gretzky's R-off numbers, but the true answer is probably closer to 12 or 13%.
I also think it's a mistake to include Awrey as an example of a marginal player who pumps up Orr's figures because he was actually a very good player. Similarly, Anderson wasn't a special player, certainly not the level of player one needs to point to as an example of why Gretzky's R-off would be so high. Messier, sure.
edit: just to explain further. I took a look at the 52 highest marks for total ESTOI in a season for Orr's Boston career (with Orr and his usual-but-not-always partner Dallas Smith excluded), and the players that turn up the most often are:
Esposito 8
Bucyk 6
Hodge 6
Awrey 6
Cashman 4
Green 3
Vadnais 3
Stanfield 3
those are all very good players, and none of them were with Orr all the time. Sometimes they were, sometimes they weren't. As a player who played half of the even strength time, it was inevitable he'd see some time with every line. Really, aside from Orr himself, the only major difference you can point to between the collection of man-minutes that make up his 61,000 on-ice minutes (of which 12,700 was him) is that his R-on almost always included Dallas Smith, and it almost never included Don Awrey, Carol Vadnais or Ted Green. Vadnais and Green are considered better players than Smith anyway, so while it was already clear that this wasn't a strong point, I'm now not really sure whether it's a point at all.
Last edited:
Nice find. That’s what I think gets underrated about prime Gretzky. He was a major puck hound. He created a lot of turnovers that got the puck going the other way so he could work his magic. He may not have been Orr in terms of physical play but he was all over the ice in his own way.
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
Does anyone have, by chance, a list of most consecutive seasons averaging at least a point per game?
Always wondered but never saw anyone post that specific metric.
Just looking at the forwards in this group it would go: (btw, i eyeballed this quickly, so correct me if I f***ed up)
Gretzky - 19
Lemieux - 15
Howe - 11
Hull - 9
Beliveau - 7
Richard - 2
Always wondered but never saw anyone post that specific metric.
Just looking at the forwards in this group it would go: (btw, i eyeballed this quickly, so correct me if I f***ed up)
Gretzky - 19
Lemieux - 15
Howe - 11
Hull - 9
Beliveau - 7
Richard - 2
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
- Jan 16, 2005
- 9,614
- 16,334
I can look this up tonight. But it would probably have limited value given that 1 PPG can mean anything from elite (early 1950s) to merely very good (most of the 1980s).
Captain Bowie
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2012
- 27,139
- 4,414
Interesting.
Howe would have had 16 if not for 62 in 64 in 1954/55.
If taking into account non-consecutive, Howe is 2nd with 17, Mario tied with a handful of guys for 3rd at 15. Beliveau 12, Hull 11, Richard 8.
I don't know if it means anything, but it's amazing Richard had 8 overall, but never more than 2 in a row.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
agree. I'd be more interested in most consecutive seasons in the top-x in scoring or above VsX score XX.X.
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
Very true. I was just wondering for consistency purposes. Not a big deal or weighted very much in my mind. I'm bored!
BraveCanadian
Registered User
- Jun 30, 2010
- 15,726
- 5,239
Prime Gretzky's play without the puck has been painted with the same brush as the later career, slow, broken down Gretzky here because many people aren't actually old enough to have seen him in his prime years.
IMO He was actually quite good on the forecheck, intercepting passes, and picking pockets when he had his young agility. And the bigger the game the more he invested in it.
BraveCanadian
Registered User
- Jun 30, 2010
- 15,726
- 5,239
No, it doesn't. Considering who those R-offs are and the context in which they came is literally in overpass' original post regarding adjusted plus minus.
It is compounded by the fact they play two different positions and in different league contexts.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Canadiens1958
Registered User
There is a modern bias about O6 physical play. The play of the Wilson and Lucic types is retro projected.
O6 hockey was played by children of the Great Depression and WWII. Part of the school curriculum was militia training(cadets in most schools, community centers). Community centers offered boxing - Golden Gloves and Junior Golden Gloves andother physical demanding sports and activities.Physical contact was part of growing up.NHL players were a part of this educational process growing up. Learned how to hit, roll with hits, accept hits, how to leverage, physicality in sports.
Gordie Howe was part of this. As was Red Kelly and other Byng candidates who had boxed Golden Gloves.
Issue was that some of the contact was raw. Prime example Ted Lindsay. Enthusiastic but did not know how to check properly. Kneeing and elbowing penalties were introduced because of him. Coaching at the youth level could be substandard at times.
Not all flaws were corrected or correctable.
Last edited:
But if he played with all the forwards don't they cancel - never mind.
What actually needs to die is the idea that adjusted plus minus fixes plus minus. It just breaks it in different places while still conflating individual play with team play. It can't show you that a large part of Orr's r-on advantage over r-off is pounding the weaker teams (in the extreme r-on/r-off is shaped by a +1.5 per game over his team against Oakland/California vs. a +0 over his teammates vs Chicago.)
It also gives Orr credit for an equivalent number of pluses as Gretzky, even when Gretzky nearly doubles Orr's ES points. (And points are better indicators than pluses of an individual's offensive contribution). And that's kind of the rub. Orr seems to be getting equal credit for plays where he recorded no points as Gretzky is for plays where he did. A plus where you don't score a point is more easily replicated (see 77-78 Bruins). An ES point is more difficult to replicate (see 1989-91 Oilers vs. 1982-88 Oilers, or the 1986-88 Kings and 1992 Kings vs. 1989-91 Kings).
It was a high scoring era and he played on Super-teams. Sure. Yet the only team in the NHL to beat the league average in ESGF by 20% or more every year for a decade wasn't Edmonton or LA. It was INSERT WAYNE GRETZKY'S TEAM.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Excellent and astute post.
Soviet hockey was perfect offensively and defensively for Gretzky's cerebral game. Opposing players were predictably in the right places unlike NHL players who were less disciplined playing a somewhat random game.
That said there is the political reality. Like here, in the NHL Gretzky got a pass from the media for lax defence. Canada Cup time if he neglected defence,he would have been criticized across Canada for a long time.
Finally you raise the Gretzky paradox. Playing defence produced a five assist game. As often stated, defensive hockey generates offence.
Easy concept for a top 10 candidate to understand.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Lemieux and defensive hockey are hard to understand. Saw Mario Lemieux play from his pre teen days.
Not keen defensively but liked certain challenges.
Prime example, first year junior playing in Sherbrooke. OT, Laval draws two minors close together. Coach plays Lemieux and two defencemen on the PK.Lemieux plays token D, cheating to the weaker point man. Point man mishandles a pass, Lemieux strips the puck, goes in scores.
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
Got to see Lemieux play a couple of games in Montreal for Canada in the 2004 World Cup. Totally committed to playing defensive, especially against Team USA. As you stated in previous post, the nation was watching.
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
Great stuff!
Gretzky totally committed all over the ice.
What it also reminds me of is how much Canada was allowed to get away with after they lost game 1. There looked to be about 6 possible penalties against Canada in that one shift. And Messier wasn't even out there.
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
No.
Eddie Shore would probably be a likely candidate for playing the most physical game. Apparently Shore was hitting or getting hit for most of the game when he played. His litany of injuries received was legendary. Lost part of an ear in a fight with a teammate in practice. Had a doctor he knew sew it back on in the dressing room.
Eric Lindros was probably the most physically imposing player.
Howe used his physicality much as Messier did in his career, much more subtle and with a hockey purpose.
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
You do understand that Orr is a defenseman, right?
Of course points are a better indicator of offensive contribution. But plus/minus isn't designed or used to measure offense, its purpose is to try to measure overall play.
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
And Lemieux was a superior ambassador for the game than Richard, Hull, Harvey and Roy.
Should also be stated that Beliveau, Orr and Bourque are role models extraordinaire.
As you said, not a factor for rankings.
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 31,184
- 14,169
Trivia
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only players since O6 who led both in goals and assists in the same season are:
Gordie Howe (2)
Phil Esposito (1)
Wayne Gretzky (5)
Mario Lemieux (2)
Note that with Esposito you have Bobby Orr's shadow, which makes the group all connected to the Big 4 directly.
On top of my head Lafleur, Jagr, Mikita and perhaps a few others came really close but never did it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only players since O6 who led both in goals and assists in the same season are:
Gordie Howe (2)
Phil Esposito (1)
Wayne Gretzky (5)
Mario Lemieux (2)
Note that with Esposito you have Bobby Orr's shadow, which makes the group all connected to the Big 4 directly.
On top of my head Lafleur, Jagr, Mikita and perhaps a few others came really close but never did it.
- Oct 23, 2014
- 30,327
- 43,005
Latest posts
-
Rumor: Canucks Now Looking to Add Mid 20s Impact Forward- Latest: KirkAlbuquerque
-
-
