Mario Lemieux vs Bobby Orr?

[habsfanatics*]

Well, first off...I absolutely HATE the Bruins so there‘s definitely no team bias going on when I take Orr.

Second, Orr‘s Bruins were a great team when he played. When he didn‘t play however, they were a good team at best. They had a solid forward core with some depth but their D corps minus Bobby was average on their best day.
And how you, with a straight face no less, can even attempt to bring up team strength against Orr when talking about Gretzky‘s completely stacked Oilers is beyond ridiculous.

Third, I would put this in Football terms...Gretz was the most dominant QB. Orr however, was an extremely dominant QB and an extremely dominant LB that also dominated on kick/punt returns.
That‘s the difference!

I never said everyone was bias, but, some most certainly are and those that put Gretzky 4th definitely are.

Your analogy is worthless, Football players don't play both d and o at the same time. Orr was a free runner, caught out of position plenty of times. You guys aren't the only ones to see him play. He was great, but what comparing him to someone who was also great peak wise and has a huge edge career wise he falls clearly short imo.

I wasn't downplaying Orr for playing on a stacked team, I was only pointing out that the results were meh compared to the great ones.

Don't mind me if I call shenanigans on this entire post.

 

[habsfanatics*]

That's my thought too. And I do agree that Orr was a better all-round player than Wayne. But I don't really think being "complete" is as important as people make it out to be. Its a team sport, and Gretzky's weaknesses were covered by others, and his strengths were just so much greater than everyone else's. Gretzky did more to lift his teammates than probably any other player in history.

Complete is a cute little term used when someone doesn't stack up to those their being compared to. Dats is more complete than crosby, for example. Although I don't even agree with that statement, I've seen it tossed around here like crazy, as if Dats defensive edge somehow makes up for the huge gap in production, it doesn't.

Same as hardy trying to close the gap on mario with fedorov. It simply doesn't fly.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I never said everyone was bias, but, some most certainly are and those that put Gretzky 4th definitely are.

Your analogy is worthless, Football players don't play both d and o at the same time. Orr was a free runner, caught out of position plenty of times. You guys aren't the only ones to see him play. He was great, but what comparing him to someone who was also great peak wise and has a huge edge career wise he falls clearly short imo.

I wasn't downplaying Orr for playing on a stacked team, I was only pointing out that the results were meh compared to the great ones.

Don't mind me if I call shenanigans on this entire post.

I look at it two ways.
For career it‘s obviously going to be Gretzky but if you were to ask me who I would take at their peak, it‘s Orr with no hesitation.

Just like for all-time lists I have Bourque and Lidstrom ahead of Potvin but if asked which was the best at their peak, i take Potvin, again with no hesitation.

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

I look at it two ways.
For career it‘s obviously going to be Gretzky but if you were to ask me who I would take at their peak, it‘s Orr with no hesitation.

Just like for all-time lists I have Bourque and Lidstrom ahead of Potvin but if asked which was the best at their peak, i take Potvin, again with no hesitation.

I personally would still take a peak Bourque over a peak Potvin but it's close enough that I wouldn't quibble with someone having it the other way.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

No offense Dennis, but someone who ranks Gretzky fourth all-time should have their right to an opinion stripped away from them.

Who is the most complete, best player is entirely subjective. We all know as far as the tool box and individual attributes there appeared to be many more skilled players than Gretzky, he never had the hardest shot, was the faster skater, biggest body, ect ect, but what he did was the most effective. Bobby Orr played on a stacked team and lead the Bruin's to underachieve. Two cups when they should have had 3, or 4.

Plus Bobby Orr was playing in a tie where his competition at his position was weak, the whole league was weak for that matter. Gretzky dominated the world on every stage. One of the most dominant athletes in all of sports. In fact, you probably have to go to some obscure sport to find someone who has dominated in the same manner as wayne. Whatever the eye ball tests say, doesn't match up with reality. Certain posters are also subject to biases, voting for players on their favorite team ect. I'd take Wayne in a New York minute.

Really? Kind of harsh, eh?

But you wouldn't want New York Wayne in a minute.

As Butch once said: "Boy, I got vision, and the rest of the world wears bifocals".

 

[habsfanatics*]

I look at it two ways.
For career it‘s obviously going to be Gretzky but if you were to ask me who I would take at their peak, it‘s Orr with no hesitation.

Just like for all-time lists I have Bourque and Lidstrom ahead of Potvin but if asked which was the best at their peak, i take Potvin, again with no hesitation.

But you still have Bourque ahead of Potvin and Lidstrom. As do I, but when it comes to Orr you veer off track of your own voting criteria. The peaks between Orr and Wayne are comparable, one could argue, Orr, peaked higher, I strongly disagree, but that's where the comparison ends, Gretzky trumps him in everything else, longer prime, more personal awards, better team achievements, much better international resume, the better playoff performer ect ect. When everything is accounted for the gap between is substantially wider than people pretend.

I actually think Gretzky would be consider even more superhuman if he played 10-12 years, broke every record there ever was, won 10 Art Ross Trophies and 9 harts and called er a day. Seems he gets penalized a bit for his past his prime years compared to players who never really had a past their prime career at all.

It's another case where Gretzky is harder to appreciate, his game isn't nearly as aesthetically pleasing to most. That's what made Gretzky great, turn your head for a second and you'll miss the most important part of the play.

I agree with you on most topics, I think you're being wildly inconsistent with how you rank players in this case, relying more on nostalgia than the results. Like you always say, I prefer what actually happened over what might have been. The career gap is just way, way too large for Orr to overcome. Anyone looking at this objectively would agree. Orr has no real case for number 1.

 

[habsfanatics*]

Really? Kind of harsh, eh?

But you wouldn't want New York Wayne in a minute.

As Butch once said: "Boy, I got vision, and the rest of the world wears bifocals".

Not harsh at all, in order to conclude Gretzky was 4th all-time all sorts of slight of hand is at use. Twisting of facts, and elevating players based on things they didn't do. Gretzky actually did them.

 

[shazariahl]

But you still have Bourque ahead of Potvin and Lidstrom. As do I, but when it comes to Orr you veer off track of your own voting criteria. The peaks between Orr and Wayne are comparable, one could argue, Orr, peaked higher, I strongly disagree, but that's where the comparison ends, Gretzky trumps him in everything else, longer prime, more personal awards, better team achievements, much better international resume, the better playoff performer ect ect. When everything is accounted for the gap between is substantially wider than people pretend.

I actually think Gretzky would be consider even more superhuman if he played 10-12 years, broke every record there ever was, won 10 Art Ross Trophies and 9 harts and called er a day. Seems he gets penalized a bit for his past his prime years compared to players who never really had a past their prime career at all.

It's another case where Gretzky is harder to appreciate, his game isn't nearly as aesthetically pleasing to most. That's what made Gretzky great, turn your head for a second and you'll miss the most important part of the play.

I agree with you on most topics, I think you're being wildly inconsistent with how you rank players in this case, relying more on nostalgia than the results. Like you always say, I prefer what actually happened over what might have been. The career gap is just way, way too large for Orr to overcome. Anyone looking at this objectively would agree. Orr has no real case for number 1.

Couldn't have said it any better.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Not harsh at all, in order to conclude Gretzky was 4th all-time all sorts of slight of hand is at use. Twisting of facts, and elevating players based on things they didn't do. Gretzky actually did them.

I've actually changed my rating over time. I'm not sure Mario should be ahead of Gretzky any more.

But Orr and Howe were clearly better hockey players to me. Neither was as good as Gretzky offensively, but they were close. In every other aspect of the game Gretzky is not close to either. I'm not ranking on best career, just best player.

 

[Rhiessan71]

But you still have Bourque ahead of Potvin and Lidstrom. As do I, but when it comes to Orr you veer off track of your own voting criteria. The peaks between Orr and Wayne are comparable, one could argue, Orr, peaked higher, I strongly disagree, but that's where the comparison ends, Gretzky trumps him in everything else, longer prime, more personal awards, better team achievements, much better international resume, the better playoff performer ect ect. When everything is accounted for the gap between is substantially wider than people pretend.

I actually think Gretzky would be consider even more superhuman if he played 10-12 years, broke every record there ever was, won 10 Art Ross Trophies and 9 harts and called er a day. Seems he gets penalized a bit for his past his prime years compared to players who never really had a past their prime career at all.

It's another case where Gretzky is harder to appreciate, his game isn't nearly as aesthetically pleasing to most. That's what made Gretzky great, turn your head for a second and you'll miss the most important part of the play.

I agree with you on most topics, I think you're being wildly inconsistent with how you rank players in this case, relying more on nostalgia than the results. Like you always say, I prefer what actually happened over what might have been. The career gap is just way, way too large for Orr to overcome. Anyone looking at this objectively would agree. Orr has no real case for number 1.

What were we talking about here though?

Where they "rank" or who was the best you ever saw?

The answer for both questions for me is Orr but that's just me.

I understand that Gretzky generally gets the greater consensus for the first question and that's fine with me, I have them extremely close anyway.

The answer to the second question however is clearly Orr for me and for many others.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I've actually changed my rating over time. I'm not sure Mario should be ahead of Gretzky any more.

But Orr and Howe were clearly better hockey players to me. Neither was as good as Gretzky offensively, but they were close. In every other aspect of the game Gretzky is not close to either. I'm not ranking on best career, just best player.

I'd like to think that it takes a lot to get me to raise my eyebrows. Gretzky at #5 does, but Gretzky at #4 doesn't make me reach for my torch and pitchfork. Hell, in our HOH Top 70, he got more 4th place votes than Orr or Howe.

I think of the top-4 skaters like the top-7 goaltenders: Some orders are more popular than others in certain venues, but you'll probably find every order if you ask enough people. I have Orr over Lemieux, but it's mostly indoctrination.

 

[shazariahl]

I've actually changed my rating over time. I'm not sure Mario should be ahead of Gretzky any more.

But Orr and Howe were clearly better hockey players to me. Neither was as good as Gretzky offensively, but they were close. In every other aspect of the game Gretzky is not close to either. I'm not ranking on best career, just best player.

But neither were actually close to Gretzky offensively. Gretzky won more scoring titles than Howe, and by bigger margins. Orr was spectacular offensively for a Dman, but he wasn't close to Gretzky. Gretzky wasn't as bad defensively as you always make him sound either - he was an effective penalty killer and one of the most effective forcheckers I've ever seen. He didn't play traditional defense, but he didn't play traditional offense either.

 

[Killion]

I have Orr over Lemieux, but it's mostly indoctrination.

I dont quite follow. As great as Mario Lemieux was, Gretzky, Gordie Howe, none of them changed the way the game itself was played. Sure there had been a few rushing defenceman prior to Orr's arrival, but nothing close to the revolutionary changes that he himself promulgated. It may perhaps be difficult for one to fully appreciate unless theyd been around in the 50's & 60's, but in his wake the way defence was played transitionally affected how offence was also played, integration between the two which previously had been almost independent of one another. Well, that seriously altered & changed everything on the ice, how every position was played including Goal.

 

[habsfanatics*]

What were we talking about here though?

Where they "rank" or who was the best you ever saw?

The answer for both questions for me is Orr but that's just me.

I understand that Gretzky generally gets the greater consensus for the first question and that's fine with me, I have them extremely close anyway.

The answer to the second question however is clearly Orr for me and for many others.

I kind of veered off topic in this thread, however, I was talking about the all-time lists. Who was better is subjective and strictly opinion. The eye test can only go so far. Sure some think Orr was better and I personally don't agree with that either, but when we rank players for all-time lists we tend to gather everything and try to make sense of all sorts of criteria, most of it has to be glossed over to put Orr ahead of Gretz.

Besides, saying so and so was better than Wayne is kind of foolish. When the games became more important, Gretzky elevated his game to a degree no one else ever did. The best big game performer ever, the best playoff performer of all-time, a beast in must win games internationally and on and on. If you could pick one player for the biggest game you've ever played, imo the only choice is Wayne.

Like a poster said on the previous page. Wayne is a lot like MJ in that regard. I think his desire to win, his hard-work and dedication to go along with superhuman talent is what separates him. Putting Orr ahead of Wayne isn't really a travesty, and although I think two players were close in peak, Wayne is clearly in front.

 

[Cursed Lemon]

I dont quite follow. As great as Mario Lemieux was, Gretzky, Gordie Howe, none of them changed the way the game itself was played. Sure there had been a few rushing defenceman prior to Orr's arrival, but nothing close to the revolutionary changes that he himself promulgated. It may perhaps be difficult for one to fully appreciate unless theyd been around in the 50's & 60's, but in his wake the way defence was played transitionally affected how offence was also played, integration between the two which previously had been almost independent of one another. Well, that seriously altered & changed everything on the ice, how every position was played including Goal.

Bobby Orr was a phenom but I really don't know if he actually changed anything about the game, as no defenseman has ever even come CLOSE since that time to assuming the same role that he did. Goalies continued to be relative pylons all through the 80s until the butterfly + bigger pads arrived.

 

[Pominville Knows]

Not even close. Lidstrom has 7 of them, proves how much they fail in comparison to the Hart.

Gretzky was MVP, most valuable player for what amounts to the duration of Orr's entire career. Career accomplishments, peak/longevity/ dominance over peers, you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who has dominated more than Wayne in any sport. His international play only makes the gap that much further and the fact he was the best playoff performer certainly doesn't hurt either. There is just too many things working against orr here when compared to Wayne. I've seen all the lists, some have him(orr) number 1, but have a very hard time defending their position. I don't think it's nearly as close as it's made out to be.

What are you implying here, that Lidstrom is no All-Time Great? His 7 Norrises compared to Gretzkys 9 Harts? I'd say that could be quite correct if Norrises are, straightly mathematically speaking, worth slightly less.

 

[shazariahl]

Bobby Orr was a phenom but I really don't know if he actually changed anything about the game, as no defenseman has ever even come CLOSE since that time to assuming the same role that he did. Goalies continued to be relative pylons all through the 80s until the butterfly + bigger pads arrived.

I agree. The only D-man who has really come close to Orr's style of play is Coffee, who was close offensively, but not really close defensively. Orr didn't really revolutionalize the game because no one else had the skill set to duplicate what Orr had done. I'd say Gretzky had just as much impact on the game with his play behind the net - something we see far more of in today's cycle-based game. Granted, people don't play it the Gretzky did, but that's because, like with Orr, Gretzky's talent has been impossible to fully duplicate.

What are you implying here, that Lidstrom is no All-Time Great? His 7 Norrises compared to Gretzkys 9 Harts? I'd say that could be quite correct if Norrises are, straightly mathematically speaking, worth slightly less.

I consider Gretzky's 10 Art Ross trophies to be basically equivalent to 10 Norris trophies. The Art Ross is the best forward vs the Norris for best Dman. But no Dman has 10 Norris trophies. Gretzky's 9 MVPs on top of that are just further indication of his separation from everyone else.

 

[shazariahl]

I'd like to think that it takes a lot to get me to raise my eyebrows. Gretzky at #5 does, but Gretzky at #4 doesn't make me reach for my torch and pitchfork. Hell, in our HOH Top 70, he got more 4th place votes than Orr or Howe.

I think of the top-4 skaters like the top-7 goaltenders: Some orders are more popular than others in certain venues, but you'll probably find every order if you ask enough people. I have Orr over Lemieux, but it's mostly indoctrination.

The reason Gretzky at #4 would raise my eyebrows is because it usually results from some crazy double standards. For example - rating Howe over Gretzky means the person is going by either longevity or complete game, perhaps a strong combination of both. It's impossible to argue that Howe peaked higher. But having Orr over Gretzky is usually complete game and maybe some peak (if you think Orr peaked higher - that's very debatable). Having Lemieux over Gretzky is usually "what ifs" and peak, assuming people think Lemieux peaked higher (again, very debatable). The problem is, to have ALL 3 above him means you have to judge Gretzky vs Howe on longevity, while ignoring longevity in the Gretzky vs Orr and Lemieux debates. Putting Orr and Howe above Gretzky means you must favor complete game - but then you must be ignoring complete game in judging Gretzky vs Lemieux, who had even less complete game than Gretzky did.

Usually it comes down to this - Gretzky was small and weak, and the people who rank him 4th want guys like Howe and Orr, who were strong and tough, or Lemieux who could bulldoze through 2 Dmen and score with a guy riding his back like a pack mule. They aren't judging by what he accomplished, but by the WAY in which he accomplished it. They have crazy double standards, where they'll praise guys like Howe for his longevity and for finishing top 5 in scoring 20 straight seasons, but then try to argue Lemieux over Gretzky based on team strength and PPG averages for partial seasons, not actual scoring results.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I consider Gretzky's 10 Art Ross trophies to be basically equivalent to 10 Norris trophies. The Art Ross is the best forward vs the Norris for best Dman.

I have to disagree with this. No Art Ross Trophy is equal, just like no Norris Trophy is equal, so how exactly do they balance out? I mean, one of Wayne Gretzky's 70-point leads in the early 1980s is certainly better than PK Subban's 42 games of powerplay hockey. Not every best defenseman is going to be as good as that year's best forward, just by the eye test - in fact, it is extremely rare. That's what makes Bobby Orr as special as he is.

 

[habsfanatics*]

I have to disagree with this. No Art Ross Trophy is equal, just like no Norris Trophy is equal, so how exactly do they balance out? I mean, one of Wayne Gretzky's 70-point leads in the early 1980s is certainly better than PK Subban's 42 games of powerplay hockey. Not every best defenseman is going to be as good as that year's best forward, just by the eye test - in fact, it is extremely rare. That's what makes Bobby Orr as special as he is.

42 games of pp hockey lol, I now know how what your opinion is worth.

 

[habsfanatics*]

What are you implying here, that Lidstrom is no All-Time Great? His 7 Norrises compared to Gretzkys 9 Harts? I'd say that could be quite correct if Norrises are, straightly mathematically speaking, worth slightly less.

Considering lidstrom isn't in the same stratosphere as Gretzky it kind of illustrates my point, no? There's a good few hundred miles separating them, the notion that the norris is equivalent to the hart or even Art Ross is silly.

 

[quoipourquoi]

42 games of pp hockey lol, I now know how what your opinion is worth.

Hey, I like Subban, but come on. He won because he was killing it on the powerplay, and the Canadiens saw more opportunities than anyone by a huge margin. It isn't the measuring stick of Norris Trophies, and it damn sure isn't as good as any Art Ross Trophy I've seen.

 

[Pominville Knows]

Considering lidstrom isn't in the same stratosphere as Gretzky it kind of illustrates my point, no? There's a good few hundred miles separating them, the notion that the norris is equivalent to the hart or even Art Ross is silly.

I have not said that its the equivalent of the Hart Trophy. "Slightly less" could as a matter of fact mean 7 Norrises is the equivalent of five Hart Trophies. 9-5 Gretzky means Lidström was 55 percent of what Gretzkys was. Is that far enough for you that rather blatantly voices the opinion that Lidström is not "in the stratosphere as Gretzky"?
This obviously is besides quoipourquoi:s point above that no individual award-winner was exactly as good as their respective predecessors, or those coming after. But that is no news on this board.
But take Orr as a great example. Is it really too far fetched that he during many of his later seven straight Norris-seasons was about the co-MVP of the league for each of those years? I think not, as a matter of fact i would claim that some of those years when he did'nt get the Hart where ones where the Norris winner actually was better than the one getting the Hart. This is what comes from when there are no trophy to be voted for expressively for the best forward. Everybody knows the goalies has the Vezina, the D's has the Norris. At the same time few people thinks that forwards are far and away the most important position in the game, but still, the Hart Trophy goes to one except for per Force Major(Bobby Orr is the only one-man Force Major yet, Hasek is borderline. Pronger and Theodore was the beneficiary of one.). All this can be said about the Lindsay as well of course.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I have not said that its the equivalent of the Hart Trophy. "Slightly less" could as a matter of fact mean 7 Norrises is the equivalent of five Hart Trophies. 9-5 Gretzky means Lidström was 55 percent of what Gretzkys was. Is that far enough for you that rather blatantly voices the opinion that Lidström is not "in the stratosphere as Gretzky"?
This obviously is besides quoipourquoi:s point above that no individual award-winner was exactly as good as their respective predecessors, or those coming after. But that is no news on this board.
But take Orr as a great example. Is it really too far fetched that he during his seven straight Norris-seasons was about the co-MVP of the league for each of those years? I think not, as a matter of fact i would claim many of those years when he did'nt get the Hart where ones where the Norris winner actually was better than the ones getting the Hart.

You can't look at it that way either.

Here's the breakdown of Lidstrom's Norris win to Hart winners that same season.

00/01 Sakic
01/02 Theodore
02/03 Forsberg
05/06 Thornton
06/07 Crosby
07/08 OV
10/11 Perry

Sorry, I don't see Lidstrom being better than any of those winners in those years.
Although, one could possibly make a case for him in 05/06 but even that is tough going against Thronton's career season.

At first glance some would jump on the Perry win but that would actually be quite ridiculous because by '11, Lidstrom was a mere shadow of himself and wouldn't even be a top 10 player in the league at that point.
That he won the Norris over Weber that year was a joke to begin with IMO.


Some of those years, you would be hard pressed to even put Lidstrom top 3 in the League so I really don't see your 7 to 5 ratio working out too well.

 

[Pominville Knows]

You can't look at it that way either.

Here's the breakdown of Lidstrom's Norris win to Hart winners that same season.

00/01 Sakic
01/02 Theodore
02/03 Forsberg
05/06 Thornton
06/07 Crosby
07/08 OV
10/11 Perry

Sorry, I don't see Lidstrom being better than any of those winners in those years.
Although, one could possibly make a case for him in 05/06 but even that is tough going against Thronton's career season.

At first glance some would jump on the Perry win but that would actually be quite ridiculous because by '11, Lidstrom was a mere shadow of himself and wouldn't even be a top 10 player in the league at that point.
That he won the Norris over Weber that year was a joke to begin with IMO.


Some of those years, you would be hard pressed to even put Lidstrom top 3 in the League so I really don't see your 7 to 5 ratio working out too well.

You still dont understand that no individual Norris Trophy-season by a player was just as good as any other winning the award. My 55 percent of Gretzky-rate was purely rethorical since we all here are aware, and has brought up, that some of Gretzkys Hart seasons was over the moon.
One could legitimately claim that becouse only two of five skaters on the ice are defensemen, that would naturally lower the Norris pure mathematical value on a career basis by the same ratio.(Please remember, pure mathematics in hockey statistics are not so pure). All i'm trying to say is that we should not be shocked that Phil Esposito has as many Harts as Bobby Orr. And we should therefore all be prepared to at least consider a current Norris holder the notion of being "Best in the game". Just as is the case with the Vezina i guess.