What if Gretzky had retired after the same number of seasons as Orr?

[Rhiessan71]

It is really amazing that the Bruins ever lost a game and didn't win 6 cups during Bobby's peak.. or maybe we are inflating the legend into myth just a little?

With that powerhouse Bruins team and a guy who dominates every facet of every game for half the game... how did they only win 2???

Not trying to say that winning 2 isn't an accomplishment in itself but something doesn't add up.

Well ya see...there was this other team called the Montreal Canadiens that were pretty decent
Not like it's some great secret that some guy named Kenny Dryden all but single handedly stole the '71 Cup from the Bruins.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Well ya see...there was this other team called the Montreal Canadiens that were pretty decent
Not like it's some great secret that some guy named Kenny Dryden all but single handedly stole the '71 Cup from the Bruins.

Ya I know the answer to my own question.. also the Flyers and in the later 70s the Canadiens had another dynasty.. my point is that even if I agree that Orr is probably the best all around player ever with maybe the exception of Howe... we still have to take it easy on the hyperbole.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Ya I know the answer to my own question.. also the Flyers and in the later 70s the Canadiens had another dynasty.. my point is that even if I agree that Orr is probably the best all around player ever with maybe the exception of Howe... we still have to take it easy on the hyperbole.

Well what can I say, it's a team game after all and players can only do so much on their own.
I mean, does Jordan win as many championships without Pippen's support?

 

[BraveCanadian]

Well what can I say, it's a team game after all and players can only do so much on their own.
I mean, does Jordan win as many championships without Pippen's support?

I totally agree with you.

I just was taking a bit of issue with the dominating every aspect of the the game every game for half the game statement.. because that combined with that powerhouse Bruins team of the day would make them pretty much a lock for the cup every year.

Bobby might have been the closest thing to a god in hockey but he was still only a man.

 

[Ward Cornell]

No, there's the people who saw him and knew he was that good and then there's the people like yourself that didn't see him and downplay what the people who did say.

Well, I did see Orr play from junior hockey through to his last game in the NHL and since I'm typing this you can assume I saw Gretzky play also from junior to his last NHL game.
I would take Bobby Orr.... hands down.... no questions asked!

 

[Merya]

I readily admit that in most ways Orr, Howe and others have been more "complete" players. Heck Neely and Lindros were more "complete" than Gretzky. Also they were flashier, like Ovechkin is at the moment. Orr had talent above those others by quite a margin ofc.

Still, while watching the above (recordings are nice, I was born in 72) is a thrill, and Orr is like the best action movie ever, watching Gretzky was otherwordly. It was unbelievable. I often thought he had no business doing what he did. It was like he lived few second in the future.

Orr bended the present to his will dominantly, fighting and showing the injuries for it. Gretzky lived in "bullet time" or whatever, dodged bullets and escaped usually unharmed.

Thats why I choose Gretzky, he's the only player I've ever seen that made me question my own perceptions.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I readily admit that in most ways Orr, Howe and others have been more "complete" players. Heck Neely and Lindros were more "complete" than Gretzky. Also they were flashier, like Ovechkin is at the moment. Orr had talent above those others by quite a margin ofc.

Still, while watching the above (recordings are nice, I was born in 72) is a thrill, and Orr is like the best action movie ever, watching Gretzky was otherwordly. It was unbelievable. I often thought he had no business doing what he did. It was like he lived few second in the future.

Orr bended the present to his will dominantly, fighting and showing the injuries for it. Gretzky lived in "bullet time" or whatever, dodged bullets and escaped usually unharmed.

Thats why I choose Gretzky, he's the only player I've ever seen that made me question my own perceptions.

Very good post

I still think too much weight is being given strictly to the offensive side of the game but hey, that's just the goalie in me talking

 

[Sens Rule]

Here is the easiest I can put it.
Orr would be just as completely dominant and be just as much of a factor winning in a 6-3 game scoring 2-3 points as he would be in a 1-0 game without any points.
The same can not be said about Gretzky.

Basically if a choice is given between taking a Dman that for 7-8 years will score like an elite all-star forward while controlling and dominating every single aspect of every game for 30+ minutes.
Or taking a center that will put up insane offense and nothing else for 10-11 years....I take the Dman.

Except Gretzky dominated EVERY aspect of the game.... including PK and the defensive zone for the first ten years of his career if not for the first few LA years as well. You really think Gretzky provided nothing else but scoring points? Watch how teams played the Oilers. They shadowed Gretzky when there own team had the puck, even many times when they were on the PP. Gretzky would break up passes and find loose pucks as well as anyone in the NHL. Sure his defensive game was not at all typical. He did not hit or block shots like a Peca or Gainey or Carboneau. And he did not dominate in the same manner as Trottier or Clarke or Gilmour did. But he dominated EVERY ASPECT of a game in his own way. He was astoundingly good on defence even if he did it in a completely unique way that no one else every has or probably ever will.

As Gretzky aged his ability to dominate on defence was far less just as his goal scoring dropped. After about 93 or 94 he was no longer the kind of defensive player he was when younger because he had lost his speed and his body was not able to keep ahead on the ice like his mind could keep ahead. But watch the Oilers in the playoffs and tell me Gretzky was not a great defensive force, and that the mere threat of him being on the ice did not completely change the other teams offence.

Orr or Gretzky is not what I am debating but you talking about a PRIME Gretzky playing like a cherry picking Panther era Bure is so wrong and misguided that I needed to make a comment. Who shadows a player when you have the puck? Do you think Gretzky used his insane hockey mind only on offence? He used it everywhere on the ice at all times. Gretzky was the best player in the NHL at getting loose pucks and breaking up passes and also getting himself open for a breakout whenever anyone on his team got possession of the puck.... all that while the other team was completely keyed on him at ALL times. That is dominating the entire ice. Crosby and Ovechkin are not able to do anything like that kind of dominance now. Not even close to the way Gretzky was in the 1980's. They are just merely the best players they are not on some kind of other level everywhere on the ice all the time. Gretzky was and to say he was a one dimensional player shows a complete misunderstanding of how and why he was so dominant.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Except Gretzky dominated EVERY aspect of the game.... including PK and the defensive zone for the first ten years of his career if not for the first few LA years as well. You really think Gretzky provided nothing else but scoring points? Watch how teams played the Oilers. They shadowed Gretzky when there own team had the puck, even many times when they were on the PP. Gretzky would break up passes and find loose pucks as well as anyone in the NHL. Sure his defensive game was not at all typical. He did not hit or block shots like a Peca or Gainey or Carboneau. And he did not dominate in the same manner as Trottier or Clarke or Gilmour did. But he dominated EVERY ASPECT of a game in his own way. He was astoundingly good on defence even if he did it in a completely unique way that no one else every has or probably ever will.

As Gretzky aged his ability to dominate on defence was far less just as his goal scoring dropped. After about 93 or 94 he was no longer the kind of defensive player he was when younger because he had lost his speed and his body was not able to keep ahead on the ice like his mind could keep ahead. But watch the Oilers in the playoffs and tell me Gretzky was not a great defensive force, and that the mere threat of him being on the ice did not completely change the other teams offence.

Orr or Gretzky is not what I am debating but you talking about a PRIME Gretzky playing like a cherry picking Panther era Bure is so wrong and misguided that I needed to make a comment. Who shadows a player when you have the puck? Do you think Gretzky used his insane hockey mind only on offence? He used it everywhere on the ice at all times. Gretzky was the best player in the NHL at getting loose pucks and breaking up passes and also getting himself open for a breakout whenever anyone on his team got possession of the puck.... all that while the other team was completely keyed on him at ALL times. That is dominating the entire ice. Crosby and Ovechkin are not able to do anything like that kind of dominance now. Not even close to the way Gretzky was in the 1980's. They are just merely the best players they are not on some kind of other level everywhere on the ice all the time. Gretzky was and to say he was a one dimensional player shows a complete misunderstanding of how and why he was so dominant.

I never said Gretzky wasn't a dominant forechecker, anticipating break out plays and such.
What he did on the PK was not coming from a defensive mind set. He was not trying to keep the other team from scoring or even shooting for that matter, he was always going high to set up the possibility of him stealing the puck or breaking the zone early and taking off on offense.

He did not back check with regularity or with sustained effort and rarely ever did anything he do have the slightest defensive thinking behind it.

Imo you are taking an offensively minded pressure PK and trying to assert that that's playing defense, it's not.

They scored more SH goals than most teams but at the same time their PK% was never far from the league average either.

 

[jkrx]

Except Gretzky dominated EVERY aspect of the game.... including PK and the defensive zone for the first ten years of his career if not for the first few LA years as well.

Most offensive minded centers and forwards are still used this way. I remember Forsberg, Yzerman, Fedorov being the offensive movement on PKs during the 90s. It's not uncommon to have an offensive minded guy out there to steal pucks and kill of PKs in the offensive zone and then go change or hopefully get the goalie to cover the puck (or score a goal on him).

 

[Sens Rule]

I never said Gretzky wasn't a dominant forechecker, anticipating break out plays and such.
What he did on the PK was not coming from a defensive mind set. He was not trying to keep the other team from scoring or even shooting for that matter, he was always going high to set up the possibility of him stealing the puck or breaking the zone early and taking off on offense.

He did not back check with regularity or with sustained effort and rarely ever did anything he do have the slightest defensive thinking behind it.

Imo you are taking an offensively minded pressure PK and trying to assert that that's playing defense.

Stealing the puck is defence even if you do it to score. Being such a unique player as to completely change other teams offensive strategies based on your presence is dominating ALL ASPECTS of a game. Being so dominate offensively so as to make the other team HAVE to score to have a chance to win but also need to constrain their own offence to account for the same player they need to open up their offence to beat is Dominating ALL ASPECTS of a game.

Sure Gretzky was always on offence even when the other team had the puck. However in doing so he dominated the other team even when they had the puck. And he was so superb a weapon that the Oilers could take massive offensive risks with impunity knowing that if they got scored on they would quickly be able to get the goal back.

Back to Orr vs Gretzky. Orr could physically (and mentally to a lesser degree) dominate ALL ASPECTS of a game. But Gretzky would MENTALLY dominate ALL ASPECTS of a game, whether his team had the puck or the other team did. Whether his team was ES, PP or PK or 4-4, he utterly dominated every inch of the ice surface ALL the time. He did it in a completely unique way. Maybe Orr looked better doing it because the things he did other players could sometimes do parts of. Not to the same extent or to the same degree or nearly as often but others players could somehow be compared to Orr and Orr would look superior. What Gretzky did at his best no one could do. No one could play a nearly completely non-physical style but come up with a ton of loose pucks. No one could anticipate what everyone on the ice was going to do all the time on every shift in every situation. No one could be a seemingly non physical presence and yet dominate an entire game. Because no one... not even Mario or Orr could do that it seems less real. And seemingly people now forget what Gretzky was like in the 1980's. He was so absurdly different, he dominated defensively without really playing anything like typical defence. He scored all the time with shots no one else would take. He shot when everyone else would pass and passed when everyone else would shoot. He had no real physical impressiveness. Mario was huge, he could go through you or around you or deek you out. Same with Orr. Gretzky was like no one else. Whether Orr or Gretzky or Mario was better is immaterial, Gretzky is still misunderstood by people with opinions like yours that don't understand his dominance of entire games. It was not like he sat around waiting to score. He used every single edge possible on every single play in a unique way, a far more unique way than anyone ever. So it is easy to misunderstand his greatness as you apparently do not understand it.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Stealing the puck is defence even if you do it to score. Being such a unique player as to completely change other teams offensive strategies based on your presence is dominating ALL ASPECTS of a game. Being so dominate offensively so as to make the other team HAVE to score to have a chance to win but also need to constrain their own offence to account for the same player they need to open up their offence to beat is Dominating ALL ASPECTS of a game.

Sure Gretzky was always on offence even when the other team had the puck. However in doing so he dominated the other team even when they had the puck. And he was so superb a weapon that the Oilers could take massive offensive risks with impunity knowing that if they got scored on they would quickly be able to get the goal back.

Back to Orr vs Gretzky. Orr could physically (and mentally to a lesser degree) dominate ALL ASPECTS of a game. But Gretzky would MENTALLY dominate ALL ASPECTS of a game, whether his team had the puck or the other team did. Whether his team was ES, PP or PK or 4-4, he utterly dominated every inch of the ice surface ALL the time. He did it in a completely unique way. Maybe Orr looked better doing it because the things he did other players could sometimes do parts of. Not to the same extent or to the same degree or nearly as often but others players could somehow be compared to Orr and Orr would look superior. What Gretzky did at his best no one could do. No one could play a nearly completely non-physical style but come up with a ton of loose pucks. No one could anticipate what everyone on the ice was going to do all the time on every shift in every situation. No one could be a seemingly non physical presence and yet dominate an entire game. Because no one... not even Mario or Orr could do that it seems less real. And seemingly people now forget what Gretzky was like in the 1980's. He was so absurdly different, he dominated defensively without really playing anything like typical defence. He scored all the time with shots no one else would take. He shot when everyone else would pass and passed when everyone else would shoot. He had no real physical impressiveness. Mario was huge, he could go through you or around you or deek you out. Same with Orr. Gretzky was like no one else. Whether Orr or Gretzky or Mario was better is immaterial, Gretzky is still misunderstood by people with opinions like yours that don't understand his dominance of entire games. It was not like he sat around waiting to score. He used every single edge possible on every single play in a unique way, a far more unique way than anyone ever. So it is easy to misunderstand his greatness as you apparently do not understand it.

Oh, I have absolutely no misconceptions on how and what Gretzky did in and for the game as we know it.
However, there is a big difference between preemptively attempting to stop plays or applying offensive pressure in defensive situation and actually, physically stopping that play.
Whether you're playing a zone defense or man on man, you can't sit there relying on an interception every time, sooner or later you actually have tackle someone.

If Gretzky truly was as dominant in ALL aspects and every inch of the rink like you say then his +/- should of been much, MUCH closer to his actual point totals.

Go check out the adjusted +/- thread in this section to truly see what dominating on both sides of center really looks like.
Orr's numbers are quite simply insane.

 

[BraveCanadian]

If Gretzky truly was as dominant in ALL aspects and every inch of the rink like you say then his +/- should of been much, MUCH closer to his actual point totals.

Go check out the adjusted +/- thread in this section to truly see what dominating on both sides of center really looks like.
Orr's numbers are quite simply insane.

Orr blows everyone away on that list by a ridiculous amount. But as always it is difficult to separate the player and the team. In this case Orr's top +/- was on a team that scored just short of 400 goals and only let in 200 if memory serves.

He was on a stacked team in addition to being one of the 2 best players ever.

People will say the same thing about the Oilers but we all know that the Oilers played run and gun and did not pay as much attention to defense.

Besides going by +/- isn't Larry Robinson the best ever?

 

[Rhiessan71]

Orr blows everyone away on that list by a ridiculous amount. But as always it is difficult to separate the player and the team. In this case Orr's top +/- was on a team that scored just short of 400 goals and only let in 200 if memory serves.

He was on a stacked team in addition to being one of the 2 best players ever.

People will say the same thing about the Oilers but we all know that the Oilers played run and gun and did not pay as much attention to defense.

Besides going by +/- isn't Larry Robinson the best ever?

On the defensive side of things, he was an absolute beast that chipped in fairly well offensively.
However, your previous argument about stacked teams comes into play even more (as i'm sure was your point ) as his most dominant seasons were playing for arguably the most stacked and greatest team in the history of the league.

Also, if you look through the data more carefully in that thread, you will notice that it takes into account and provides you with the numbers for how their teams did when they weren't on the ice as well.

 

[BraveCanadian]

On the defensive side of things, he was an absolute beast that chipped in fairly well offensively.
However, your previous argument about stacked teams comes into play even more (as i'm sure was your point ) as his most dominant seasons were playing for arguably the most stacked and greatest team in the history of the league.

That is my point. When you are talking about those Bruins or Larry Robinson's Habs or even the Oilers to a lesser degree (because they didn't play as much D)... how much of that +/- is Bobby or Larry or Wayne and how much is the powerful team?

 

[trexall*]

Originally Posted by Rhiessan71

Oh, I have absolutely no misconceptions on how and what Gretzky did in and for the game as we know it.
However, there is a big difference between preemptively attempting to stop plays or applying offensive pressure in defensive situation and actually, physically stopping that play.
Whether you're playing a zone defense or man on man, you can't sit there relying on an interception every time, sooner or later you actually have tackle someone.

If Gretzky truly was as dominant in ALL aspects and every inch of the rink like you say then his +/- should of been much, MUCH closer to his actual point totals.

Go check out the adjusted +/- thread in this section to truly see what dominating on both sides of center really looks like.
Orr's numbers are quite simply insane.

Face it man, Orr will always be # 2. Gretzky is known worldwide and has accomplished a lot more in the NHL. Not only do his records seem more invincible then Orr's, but his popularity is the reason hockey is where it's at today. Larry Robinson's +- stat is just as impressive as Orr's, does that make Larry Robinson as good or better then Orr? the NHL changed thier 4 on 4 rules to try to stop Gretzky and his Oilers. Did they change their rules to stop Orr? If Orr was better, why does he only have 2 cups and his playoff numbers are nowhere near Waynes in any category? How come no one shadowed Orr for an entire game? How come Orr didn't dominate during All-Star games against other STAR players( at least just once). Gretzky did. The myth of Orr is a little overrated. If Gretzky retired after his first 9 seasons, this wouldn't even be discussed as Gretzky would be looked upon as hockey freak of nature who was head and shoulders better the the next best. ORR. The reason the argument of " whos is better Orr or Gretzky?" is even discussed is because Gretzky got old and his numbers took a hit.

 

[Rhiessan71]

That is my point. When you are talking about those Bruins or Larry Robinson's Habs or even the Oilers to a lesser degree (because they didn't play as much D)... how much of that +/- is Bobby or Larry or Wayne and how much is the powerful team?

Like I said, the numbers are there.
For example on page 4 of that thread there is a parsing of player's 10 best seasons.
Orr's Bruins' teams scored 11 goals for every 10 allowed when Orr was NOT on the ice.
When Orr was ON the ice they scored almost 22 goals for every 10 allowed or 21.8-11.
No player even comes close to doubling his teams goal ratio like Orr did.
The closest is prolly Forsberg at 17.6-10 or Lindros at 16.2-9.5.

Gretzky by comparison was 15.4-11.

 

[Gylf]

Like the thread. Always like these types of discussions.

I would like for someone to watch every Orr and Gretzky game in the NHL and recount their Points. I saw a clip on the tube when Gretzky got assists when he wasn´t even on the ice. I assume the same is for Orrs career.

Nowadays that can´t happen so i think if we´re ever going to see players with that kind of talent that those guys had i think they will have a tougher time beating the records.

I also think that you don´t have to have been alive when they´ve hade their prime to have an opinion. You can read a lot of opinions and there are tapes.

My opionion is that Gretzky is the best of all time. He´s the best the first 10 as well, of course. He dominated more and must be considered the best athlete ever in a teamsport.

But i also belive that Orr had the best season of all-time in 69/70. Winning Hart, Art Ross (first ever D), Norris, Conn Smythe and score the GWG in last game of the final to win the Cup as well. The guy was 22 at the time.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Like I said, the numbers are there.
For example on page 4 of that thread there is a parsing of player's 10 best seasons.
Orr's Bruins' teams scored 11 goals for every 10 allowed when Orr was NOT on the ice.
When Orr was ON the ice they scored almost 22 goals for every 10 allowed or 21.8-11.
No player even comes close to doubling his teams goal ratio like Orr did.
The closest is prolly Forsberg at 17.6-10 or Lindros at 16.2-9.5.

Gretzky by comparison was 15.4-11.

Agreed. I honestly believe this is proof that Orr was better than Gretzky and the best player ever, if we're going by the literal definition of best, ie. helping your team win more.

Rk | Years | Player | Seasons | $F/G | $A/G | R-ON | R-OFF | XEV+/- | EV+/- | AEV+/- | /Season | PP% | SH%
1 | 68-76 | Bobby Orr | 7.4 | 1.84 | 0.85 | 2.18 | 1.10 | 51 | 600 | 549 | 75 | 98% | 64%
2 | 80-89 | Wayne Gretzky | 9.7 | 1.67 | 1.08 | 1.54 | 1.10 | 66 | 463 | 397 | 41 | 86% | 37%
3 | 92-01 | Jaromir Jagr | 9.2 | 1.40 | 0.96 | 1.46 | 0.95 | -27 | 337 | 365 | 39 | 68% | 12%
4 | 83-92 | Ray Bourque | 9.2 | 1.20 | 0.79 | 1.51 | 0.94 | -30 | 307 | 337 | 37 | 88% | 54%
5 | 93-02 | Eric Lindros | 7.2 | 1.39 | 0.86 | 1.62 | 0.95 | -20 | 312 | 332 | 46 | 74% | 15%
6 | 77-86 | Bryan Trottier | 9.4 | 1.13 | 0.60 | 1.87 | 1.21 | 83 | 406 | 323 | 34 | 66% | 24%
7 | 71-80 | Bobby Clarke | 9.8 | 0.94 | 0.47 | 1.98 | 1.20 | 68 | 374 | 305 | 31 | 65% | 42%
8 | 81-90 | Mark Howe | 8.4 | 1.16 | 0.76 | 1.53 | 0.94 | -29 | 277 | 305 | 36 | 61% | 44%
9 | 78-87 | Mike Bossy | 9.4 | 1.08 | 0.60 | 1.80 | 1.17 | 67 | 370 | 302 | 32 | 75% | 5%
10 | 95-04 | John Leclair | 8.4 | 1.19 | 0.72 | 1.64 | 1.07 | 31 | 320 | 289 | 34 | 68% | 1%
11 | 72-81 | Guy Lafleur | 9.2 | 1.25 | 0.62 | 2.01 | 1.50 | 185 | 473 | 289 | 31 | 74% | 5%
12 | 76-85 | Marcel Dionne | 9.7 | 1.04 | 0.82 | 1.28 | 0.80 | -107 | 179 | 286 | 30 | 81% | 14%
13 | 97-07 | Peter Forsberg | 6.9 | 1.17 | 0.66 | 1.76 | 1.00 | 1 | 287 | 285 | 41 | 74% | 17%
14 | 74-83 | Borje Salming | 9.2 | 1.25 | 1.00 | 1.25 | 0.85 | -89 | 190 | 280 | 30 | 72% | 57%
15 | 74-83 | Larry Robinson | 9.3 | 1.51 | 0.83 | 1.83 | 1.54 | 247 | 522 | 275 | 30 | 50% | 52%
16 | 74-83 | Steve Shutt | 9.4 | 1.06 | 0.51 | 2.09 | 1.51 | 160 | 424 | 264 | 28 | 42% | 1%
17 | 88-97 | Mario Lemieux | 6.5 | 1.46 | 1.07 | 1.37 | 0.89 | -51 | 210 | 260 | 40 | 98% | 40%

Here are the top players by best 10 consecutive seasons of adjusted plus-minus. I went 17 deep this time because I wanted to include Mario.

Lindros drops a couple of spots, but he's still very high.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Agreed. I honestly believe this is proof that Orr was better than Gretzky and the best player ever, if we're going by the literal definition of best, ie. helping your team win more.

It is definitely an incredible statistic.. Orr is so FAR ahead.

When you look at the haves and the have-nots in the 70s it becomes apparent that there is a reason why all the big +/- records were set during that time.

76-77 Montreal had 385gf and 171GA for example.

70-71 Bruins had 399GF and 204GA.

Those differentials are just out of this world.

A few teams in the 70s were routinely putting up 100-120 goal differentials which lately just doesn't happen.

I think the last time we even saw over 100ish goal differentials was the early nineties?


Unheard of today anyways.