Orr Vs Gretzky

[Starchild74]

Good post, however, saying that the Oilers, Jets, Whalers and Nords were true expansion teams is not accurate at all.
They did not start from scratch like every other "expansion" team before or after them, the Sharks being the only exception and even through their deal with Minny, they still weren't working with half as much as the WHA teams did.

There is a reason why the Flyers hold the record for the fastest expansion team to win a Cup and not the Oilers.

The WHA teams were only aloowed to protect 2 players and 2 goalies, and were not guaranteed the same roster that came into the league. THis was a negotiation tactic that Peter Pocklington wanted to ensure that he was able to keep Wayne Gretzky. However a team was not allowed to protect a player that was property of an NHL team. Their were players in the WHA who's rights belonged to other NHL teams. Their were alot of backroom deals by the WHA teams to keep as many of their players as they could. All players that were not protected were allowed to be picked up by any team. Most of the Rosters on the current NHL teams were set and their was still this belief that most of the players that were playing in WHA would never make it in the NHL. Any player who was 19 and eligible for the NHL draft were put into the draft. That is why guys like Mike Gartner and Mark Messier were put in the draft and not just free agents. Of course their was excedption and that was Wayne Gretzky it was a seperate deal by Pocklington that allowed the Oilers to be able to protect him. So yes the Oilers were not a pur expansion team like some other years but when teams like Buffalo came into the league they got the first pick overall and later on expansion teams would get the 2nd picks

Some of the moves to keep the players that were playing in the WHA are not precisely known how they worked. As an Oiler fan I know more about the Oilers then the other 3 teams so I know a little more about the Oilers. The Oilers lost in reclamation draft a total of 9 players. They had to trade to get back Dave Hunter, Stan Weir, Dave Semenko and Risto Siltanen. SO the Oilers had to trade assests to get back players that were playing for them the year before. The other players that the Oilers were able to protect and keep during the expansion draft were players who's NHL rights were not reclaimed.

If I am not mistaken and I should check but their were only 3 Oilers from the WHA era that were on the 1984 Cup team. Gretzky,Hunter,and Siltanen, SO the team changed quite a bit from the last year of the WHA. The 3 Canadian teams were also at the biggest disadvantage as they were not allowed to get any tv revenue from the CBC as the Maple Leafs and Canadiens did not want to share proceeds and market with the 3 new Canadian teams as they were not liking giving exposure to the Canucks. Also if it was not for a boycott Molson products the Montreal Canadiens would never have changed their mind as far as voting for the Oilers, Jets and Nordiques to join the league. If I am not mistake the Maple Leafs never changed their mind and neither did Chicago for allowing the merger. SO the OIlers and comapny were not true expansion teams per say , but because of the flack and restriction they got form the NHL they had it harder then any other expansion in the history of the NHL.

 

[Rhiessan71]

The WHA teams were only aloowed to protect 2 players and 2 goalies, and were not guaranteed the same roster that came into the league. THis was a negotiation tactic that Peter Pocklington wanted to ensure that he was able to keep Wayne Gretzky. However a team was not allowed to protect a player that was property of an NHL team. Their were players in the WHA who's rights belonged to other NHL teams. Their were alot of backroom deals by the WHA teams to keep as many of their players as they could. All players that were not protected were allowed to be picked up by any team. Most of the Rosters on the current NHL teams were set and their was still this belief that most of the players that were playing in WHA would never make it in the NHL. Any player who was 19 and eligible for the NHL draft were put into the draft. That is why guys like Mike Gartner and Mark Messier were put in the draft and not just free agents. Of course their was excedption and that was Wayne Gretzky it was a seperate deal by Pocklington that allowed the Oilers to be able to protect him. So yes the Oilers were not a pur expansion team like some other years but when teams like Buffalo came into the league they got the first pick overall and later on expansion teams would get the 2nd picks

Some of the moves to keep the players that were playing in the WHA are not precisely known how they worked. As an Oiler fan I know more about the Oilers then the other 3 teams so I know a little more about the Oilers. The Oilers lost in reclamation draft a total of 9 players. They had to trade to get back Dave Hunter, Stan Weir, Dave Semenko and Risto Siltanen. SO the Oilers had to trade assests to get back players that were playing for them the year before. The other players that the Oilers were able to protect and keep during the expansion draft were players who's NHL rights were not reclaimed.

If I am not mistaken and I should check but their were only 3 Oilers from the WHA era that were on the 1984 Cup team. Gretzky,Hunter,and Siltanen, SO the team changed quite a bit from the last year of the WHA. The 3 Canadian teams were also at the biggest disadvantage as they were not allowed to get any tv revenue from the CBC as the Maple Leafs and Canadiens did not want to share proceeds and market with the 3 new Canadian teams as they were not liking giving exposure to the Canucks. Also if it was not for a boycott Molson products the Montreal Canadiens would never have changed their mind as far as voting for the Oilers, Jets and Nordiques to join the league. If I am not mistake the Maple Leafs never changed their mind and neither did Chicago for allowing the merger. SO the OIlers and comapny were not true expansion teams per say , but because of the flack and restriction they got form the NHL they had it harder then any other expansion in the history of the NHL.

I'm not debating that they didn't have it tough off the ice but on the ice they were considered expansion teams in only the loosest sense of the word and many would still prefer to say it was a merging. Neither is very accurate and they fall some where between the two.
Still, none of them started from scratch and were a very, very long way from only being able to choose from the other teams rejects.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

What I am reading a lot of is a debate over "Who was the best at their absolute best?"

Which is a great question to ask, but only a piece of the puzzle. I do believe Orr at his absolute best is slightly ahead of Gretzky (though Gretzky demolishes him in the playoffs at peak, and that just might tilt it in his favor).

But that's not enough. A forward with 5 years of 230 pts, 220, 190, 180, 160 and then a couple injury plagued seasons before retiring is not better than Wayne Gretzky, despite hitting a greater peak at his absolute best.

Gretzky is a rare combination of elite peak, prime and career that is really unmatched (one or two can match the peak, and one the career - but no one has them all).

The way I see it:
Both Gretzky and Orr have 4 unbelievable seasons, which have never really been matched. If Orr has an advantage here, it is not large.

Gretzky then has 4 years that are amongst the best ever (160+ pts), while Orr only has 2 (still above 100 pts) -- In terms of prime, Gretzky is taking over.

On top of that, Gretzky also has 5 all-time elite seasons of above 120 pts... while Orr is quickly faltering, with 10-60 pts seasons.

With Orr completely out of the game, Gretzky is still a top forward in the league for another 5 or so seasons.

So what it comes down to is Orr might have one or two seasons better than Gretzky's best. But Gretzky ultimately has 16 seasons where he was anywhere from amongst the best in the world to the best of all-time.

Orr might have a slightly higher peak, but I have yet to see a convincing argument showing that peak was enough to overcome Gretzky's inarguable large advantage in prime, career, playoffs and international play.

Ultimately, if Orr's peak was so vastly superior to Gretzky's, that it overcomes prime, career, playoffs and international play... why the heck was he not able to lead a great Bruins' team to a dynasty?

 

[SidGenoMario]

Ultimately, if Orr's peak was so vastly superior to Gretzky's, that it overcomes prime, career, playoffs and international play... why the heck was he not able to lead a great Bruins' team to a dynasty?

Yeah, you'd think the most impactful player of all-time, who happened to play the most impactful skating position, would be able to bring those powerhouse teams to some more cups.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Coaching

Yeah, you'd think the most impactful player of all-time, who happened to play the most impactful skating position, would be able to bring those powerhouse teams to some more cups.

Consider and compare the coaching Orr had in Boston and the coaching Gretzky had in Edmonton and you have your answer.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Ultimately, if Orr's peak was so vastly superior to Gretzky's, that it overcomes prime, career, playoffs and international play... why the heck was he not able to lead a great Bruins' team to a dynasty?

Prolly for the same reasons that Gretzky was only able to win the Cup twice out of his 5 best seasons.

85/86 215 points...no Cup
81/82 212 points...no Cup
84/85 208 points....Cup
83/84 205 points....Cup
82/83 196 points....no Cup

 

[CpatainCanuck]

Prolly for the same reasons that Gretzky was only able to win the Cup twice out of his 5 best seasons.

85/86 215 points...no Cup
81/82 212 points...no Cup
84/85 208 points....Cup
83/84 205 points....Cup
82/83 196 points....no Cup

Then again Orr's NHL had only 12-14 teams with 6-8 being recent expansion franchises while Gretzky's had 21 or more. Gretzky's stanley cup wins were more unlikely.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Then again Orr's NHL had only 12-14 teams with 6-8 being recent expansion franchises while Gretzky's had 21 or more. Gretzky's stanley cup wins were more unlikely.

You do realise that Gretzky played his first game in the NHL only 7 years after Orr won his second Cup.
We're not exactly talking about a lot of time passing here heh.

 

[CpatainCanuck]

You do realise that Gretzky played his first game in the NHL only 7 years after Orr won his second Cup.
We're not exactly talking about a lot of time passing here heh.

The amount of time or lack thereoff between eras is irrelevant. For example, the amount of time between the Dead-Puck Era and the New NHL is one season.

The fact remains that when Bobby Orr entered the nhl in 1966 an average player playing 12 seasons would win 2 stanley cups.

This is very different from Gretzky's era when an average player would have to play 21+ seasons to "expect' just one Lord Stanley.

 

[Rhiessan71]

The amount of time or lack thereoff between eras is irrelevant. For example, the amount of time between the Dead-Puck Era and the New NHL is one season.

The fact remains that when Bobby Orr entered the nhl in 1966 an average player playing 12 seasons would win 2 stanley cups.

This is very different from Gretzky's era when an average player would have to play 21+ seasons to "expect' just one Lord Stanley.

Explain those conclusions please, especially considering only a total of 8 teams won the Cup from 1966-1993, a span of 28 years.
Habs 11
Oilers 5
Isles 4
Philly 2
Boston 2
Pens 2
Calgary 1
Leafs 1

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Prolly for the same reasons that Gretzky was only able to win the Cup twice out of his 5 best seasons.

85/86 215 points...no Cup
81/82 212 points...no Cup
84/85 208 points....Cup
83/84 205 points....Cup
82/83 196 points....no Cup

But I am not arguing Gretzky's peak was even better than Orr's.

Your post does not make a case that Orr's peak was so much greater than Gretzky's that it outweighs Gretzky's decided advantage in prime, career, playoffs and international play.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

What I am reading a lot of is a debate over "Who was the best at their absolute best?"

Which is a great question to ask, but only a piece of the puzzle. I do believe Orr at his absolute best is slightly ahead of Gretzky (though Gretzky demolishes him in the playoffs at peak, and that just might tilt it in his favor).

But that's not enough. A forward with 5 years of 230 pts, 220, 190, 180, 160 and then a couple injury plagued seasons before retiring is not better than Wayne Gretzky, despite hitting a greater peak at his absolute best.

Gretzky is a rare combination of elite peak, prime and career that is really unmatched (one or two can match the peak, and one the career - but no one has them all).

The way I see it:
Both Gretzky and Orr have 4 unbelievable seasons, which have never really been matched. If Orr has an advantage here, it is not large.

Gretzky then has 4 years that are amongst the best ever (160+ pts), while Orr only has 2 (still above 100 pts) -- In terms of prime, Gretzky is taking over.

On top of that, Gretzky also has 5 all-time elite seasons of above 120 pts... while Orr is quickly faltering, with 10-60 pts seasons.

With Orr completely out of the game, Gretzky is still a top forward in the league for another 5 or so seasons.

So what it comes down to is Orr might have one or two seasons better than Gretzky's best. But Gretzky ultimately has 16 seasons where he was anywhere from amongst the best in the world to the best of all-time.

Orr might have a slightly higher peak, but I have yet to see a convincing argument showing that peak was enough to overcome Gretzky's inarguable large advantage in prime, career, playoffs and international play.

Ultimately, if Orr's peak was so vastly superior to Gretzky's, that it overcomes prime, career, playoffs and international play... why the heck was he not able to lead a great Bruins' team to a dynasty?

I'd say the difference between those who think Gretzky was the best ever (like yourself) and those who think Orr was the best ever (like myself) is this:

Gretzky fans are comparing careers as well as offensive statistics.
Orr fans are comapring the 2 as hockey players, which entails much more than just putting up points.

As I've stated before, Orr, Gretzky, Mario and Howe are so far above the rest and so close that I can understand the argument for any one of them be the greatest player ever.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

I'd say the difference between those who think Gretzky was the best ever (like yourself) and those who think Orr was the best ever (like myself) is this:

Gretzky fans are comparing careers as well as offensive statistics.
Orr fans are comapring the 2 as hockey players, which entails much more than just putting up points.

As I've stated before, Orr, Gretzky, Mario and Howe are so far above the rest and so close that I can understand the argument for any one of them be the greatest player ever.

Those 4 are only close if you take a snapshot of them at their best. Taking into consideration all they accomplished and Gretzky & Howe start to really pull away from Orr, and Lemieux really falls behind.

At his best, Hasek is right up there as well.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Those 4 are only close if you take a snapshot of them at their best. Taking into consideration all they accomplished and Gretzky & Howe start to really pull away from Orr, and Lemieux really falls behind.

At his best, Hasek is right up there as well.

Like I said, the difference is comparing players to comparing careers.

 

[Rhiessan71]

But I am not arguing Gretzky's peak was even better than Orr's.

Your post does not make a case that Orr's peak was so much greater than Gretzky's that it outweighs Gretzky's decided advantage in prime, career, playoffs and international play.

I only posted that in response to the quip about Orr being so dominant and yet only capturing 2 Cups.
Just showing that 3 of Gretzky's 5 most dominant years did not result in Cups either.
That was all I was saying.

Those 4 are only close if you take a snapshot of them at their best. Taking into consideration all they accomplished and Gretzky & Howe start to really pull away from Orr, and Lemieux really falls behind.

At his best, Hasek is right up there as well.

From a career standpoint sure but a lot of people here are talking about who was the best player on the ice period.

Many people, like myself believe that during Orr's peak years, there was no player better before or since.

 

[bleeney]

So what exactly is the criteria for being the best player ever?

If you're asking who had the best career, then Gretzky (and Howe) would both rank ahead of Bobby. Gretzky played 20 years, Howe played 26 (32 if you count the WHA). Orr really only played 9 years, his career being tragically cut in half by a series of debilitating knee injuries that left him a virtual cripple by the age of 27, when he should've been entering his prime. As Gordie himself (who called Orr the best player ever) said:

"I would say I've never seen a guy who did as much offensively and defensively as much as that young man did."
He also said "Losing Bobby was the single biggest blow the National Hockey League has ever suffered"

Even on this thread, there are people who pick Gretzky, base on his career, but concede that Orr, at his peak, was the better player.

But the question wasn't "Who had the best career"; it was "Who was the best player".

Those of us lucky enough to see him play will argue that nobody, not even Gretzky or Howe, was better than Bobby Orr at his peak. But that peak was short-lived, drastically cut short due to horrific injury.

How bad were his knees? Dr. Jim Murray, who ministered to Orr's right knee during the '72 series with the Russians (Orr was still recovering from major surgery on his right knee at the time and unable to play) had this to say:

"He has osteo-arthritis. When you get an arthritis it sort of perpetuates itself. I don't know how long he'll last as a hockey player but, whatever it is, he'd have gone ten years longer without this problem. When you look at x-rays you'd think you were looking at the knees of a man sixty-five; the surfaces of the joints are very ragged... It's a thing that gets worse over time"
-from Trent Fayne: The Mad Men of Hockey; pg 51

"The knees of a man 65". Hell, he was only 22 at the time! Anybody who watched him play could see the difference after that '72 surgery. He slowed down a little and picked his spots more. He didn't make as many end-to-end rushes, relying upon his incredible vision and hockey sense more than his unmatched speed and raw physical skills. That was only six years into his career. Despite this, three years later he was still able to win a scoring title with 46 goals and 135 points! And in the '76 Canada Cup, when he could barely walk, Bobby Hull said "he was better on one leg than the rest of us on two".

If you ask me who was the greatest player I've ever seen, it's Bobby Orr. Orr, in his prime, was simply the ultimate hockey player.

It's just a tragedy that his career was ruined by injury. A tragedy!

 

[habsjunkie2*]

When judging who is the greatest ever it has always been a combination of peak/career. I don't agree that Orr even had the better peak, but even if I did. Waynes accomplishments throughout his career far surpass any advantage Orr may have had during their peaks. Gretzky therefore is the greatest player of all time.

Why is it when the Orr/Gretzky debate comes up their careers is casually tossed aside and only their peaks are considered? Is it because this is the only way Bobby stands a prayer?

Every other vs thread here everyone tries to balance them both, not with Bobby Orr we just look at 5 or 6 seasons and decide he's the best.

Waynes career far outweighs any advantage Orr might have had at their peaks and personally I don't think he has the edge there either.

 

[Rhiessan71]

When judging who is the greatest ever it has always been a combination of peak/career.

According to who? You? Not everyone sees it that way. The question is not who was the better player for a longer time, it's simply who was the best player.

Why is it when the Orr/Gretzky debate comes up their careers is casually tossed aside and only their peaks are considered? Is it because this is the only way Bobby stands a prayer?

It's not tossed aside, it's the whole reason Gretzky gets to stay in the debate in the first place.
I mean hell if you specified the question to the best you ever saw and only asked people who actually saw both players, Orr wins in a land slide.

Every other vs thread here everyone tries to balance them both, not with Bobby Orr we just look at 5 or 6 seasons and decide he's the best.

Like I said, Orr was so good and so dominant in his 9 years that Gretzky needs the extra just to keep up or to cancel out the revolutions that Orr brought to the game itself.

Waynes career far outweighs any advantage Orr might have had at their peaks and personally I don't think he has the edge there either.

Why, because you see 200 points to 140 points and call it a day?
The game is about a lot more than just points and Orr was a master of all of them.

I mean dude...we're talking about Bobby Orr here, the guy who single handedly changed the game the way it's played today and the reason that things were opened up to even allow a player like Gretzky to come along and put up the points he did.

Say what you want but in the end, Bobby Orr was the single greatest factor in the evolution of the game itself.


I'm not trying to dissuade you from your choice, I'm just saying there's a lot more involved than simply who had the longer career or who had more points, A LOT MORE.

 

[bleeney]

When judging who is the greatest ever it has always been a combination of peak/career. I don't agree that Orr even had the better peak, but even if I did. Waynes accomplishments throughout his career far surpass any advantage Orr may have had during their peaks. Gretzky therefore is the greatest player of all time.

Why is it when the Orr/Gretzky debate comes up their careers is casually tossed aside and only their peaks are considered? Is it because this is the only way Bobby stands a prayer?

Every other vs thread here everyone tries to balance them both, not with Bobby Orr we just look at 5 or 6 seasons and decide he's the best.
Waynes career far outweighs any advantage Orr might have had at their peaks and personally I don't think he has the edge there either.

Umm... the answer is painfully obvious:

The reason we only look at those 5 or 6 seasons is because Bobby Orr was effectively finished at 27. His right knee was so bad he couldn't even skate. He even had to give up charity events if they involved skating.

And as one fortunate enought to have seen both of their careers from beginning to end, I've got to say that Orr was a better player. A defenseman winning scoring titles while playing a superb, physical defensive game! A player who dominated every aspect of the game, in any zone, in any situation. He did so many things that don't show up in the record books, things that Gretzky never did.

How many hits did Gretzky deliver?
How many shots did he block?
How many times did he knock an opposing forward out of the slot?
How many times did he personally break up plays deep in his own end?
How many times did he drop the gloves to defend a teammate?
How many times did he sacrifice his body, taking a hit to clear the puck out of danger?

As Gordie Howe said, nobody did more offensively and defensively than Orr. And offensively, Orr was something else, putting up record-smashing numbers despite being based in his own end, where preventing goals was his first responsiblity, one he took very seriously (as his all-time leading +/- indicates).

During Orr's peak ('69-70 to '74-75) he averaged 123 points.
During Gretzky's peak ('81-82 to '86-87) he averaged 203 points.

During their respective six-year peaks listed above, league-wide scoring was at an average of 6.33 goals/game for Orr's time, and 7.78 for Gretzky's. That's a huge difference, and it affected every player. Records were obliterated. The once-revered 50 goal and 100 point marks became meaningless. Orr's numbers, adjusted for the free-wheeling type of game played from '82-87, would put him at an average of 151 points.

I know you don't like "adjusted" numbers, but what better way do we have of comparing stats from radically different eras? Please, tell me. The fact remains that Gretzky played in a much higher scoring period, the highest in history. If you can't take that into consideration, you must also believe that Denis Maruk (60G, 136Pts in '82) would've outscored Jean Beliveau, who never approached those kind of numbers. Denis Maruk! Or that Kent Nilsson, who twice cracked the 100 point mark (including 131 in '80-81) was better offensively than Stan Mikita. There are countless examples of good players putting up "superstar" numbers throughout the 80s.

I have no problem believing that Orr would've averaged 150+ points during the wide open, wild-west shooting gallery that was 80s hockey. While playing great, shut-down defense. And hitting, blocking shots, outmuscling the opposition in the corners and slot, and even fighting the league's top heavyweights.

 

[habsjunkie2*]

According to who? You? Not everyone sees it that way. The question is not who was the better player for a longer time, it's simply who was the best player.




It's not tossed aside, it's the whole reason Gretzky gets to stay in the debate in the first place.
I mean hell if you specified the question to the best you ever saw and only asked people who actually saw both players, Orr wins in a land slide.


Like I said, Orr was so good and so dominant in his 9 years that Gretzky needs the extra just to keep up or to cancel out the revolutions that Orr brought to the game itself.



Why, because you see 200 points to 140 points and call it a day?
The game is about a lot more than just points and Orr was a master of all of them.

I mean dude...we're talking about Bobby Orr here, the guy who single handedly changed the game the way it's played today and the reason that things were opened up to even allow a player like Gretzky to come along and put up the points he did.

Say what you want but in the end, Bobby Orr was the single greatest factor in the evolution of the game itself.


I'm not trying to dissuade you from your choice, I'm just saying there's a lot more involved than simply who had the longer career or who had more points, A LOT MORE.

You give Bobby Orr way too much credit. Wayne Gretzky would of scored like a machine had Bobby Orr never existed. With statements like Gretzky having the better career is the only thing that keeps him in the debate, it's pretty simple to see we can't have a serious debate.

You can argue that Orr had the better peak, and I can see your argument but it is very much debatable, whereas their career achievements are not.

As for your 200vs140 point whatever you're trying to prove there, i'm not really sure. Of course I don't look at that and call it a day, don't be ridiculous. Gretzky had 14 seasons in a row with over 120 points, likely would of been 16 in a row if hadn't missed close to 40 games in 92-93. Holds just about every record imaginable and completely dominated his peers during his peak. I think any rational thinker would conclude that Wayne Gretzkys career far surpassed Orr.

 

[habsjunkie2*]

Umm... the answer is painfully obvious:

The reason we only look at those 5 or 6 seasons is because Bobby Orr was effectively finished at 27. His right knee was so bad he couldn't even skate. He even had to give up charity events if they involved skating.

And as one fortunate enought to have seen both of their careers from beginning to end, I've got to say that Orr was a better player. A defenseman winning scoring titles while playing a superb, physical defensive game! A player who dominated every aspect of the game, in any zone, in any situation. He did so many things that don't show up in the record books, things that Gretzky never did.

How many hits did Gretzky deliver?
How many shots did he block?
How many times did he knock an opposing forward out of the slot?
How many times did he personally break up plays deep in his own end?
How many times did he drop the gloves to defend a teammate?
How many times did he sacrifice his body, taking a hit to clear the puck out of danger?

As Gordie Howe said, nobody did more offensively and defensively than Orr. And offensively, Orr was something else, putting up record-smashing numbers despite being based in his own end, where preventing goals was his first responsiblity, one he took very seriously (as his all-time leading +/- indicates).

During Orr's peak ('69-70 to '74-75) he averaged 123 points.
During Gretzky's peak ('81-82 to '86-87) he averaged 203 points.

During their respective six-year peaks listed above, league-wide scoring was at an average of 6.33 goals/game for Orr's time, and 7.78 for Gretzky's. That's a huge difference, and it affected every player. Records were obliterated. The once-revered 50 goal and 100 point marks became meaningless. Orr's numbers, adjusted for the free-wheeling type of game played from '82-87, would put him at an average of 151 points.

I know you don't like "adjusted" numbers, but what better way do we have of comparing stats from radically different eras? Please, tell me. The fact remains that Gretzky played in a much higher scoring period, the highest in history. If you can't take that into consideration, you must also believe that Denis Maruk (60G, 136Pts in '82) would've outscored Jean Beliveau, who never approached those kind of numbers. Denis Maruk! Or that Kent Nilsson, who twice cracked the 100 point mark (including 131 in '80-81) was better offensively than Stan Mikita. There are countless examples of good players putting up "superstar" numbers throughout the 80s.

I have no problem believing that Orr would've averaged 150+ points during the wide open, wild-west shooting gallery that was 80s hockey. While playing great, shut-down defense. And hitting, blocking shots, outmuscling the opposition in the corners and slot, and even fighting the league's top heavyweights.

I've heard these all before. The more complete player, yes, I agree. As for adjusted stats they have their place and sure the different eras need to be considered, but the stats themselves are flawed.

Most of these Orr would of scored x is based mostly on speculation. Sure he would of scored more, how much, who knows. Gretzky was equally dominate during his high scoring era where he routinely outclassed everyone in the game.

Sure Orrs career was cut short, it probably had to with the style he played, no?

Everyone talks like Gretzky was playing against a bunch of scrubs and only ever scored more than anyone in history because he played in the 80's, they fail to acknowledge how dominate he was over the rest of the league during that time.

 

[Rhiessan71]

You give Bobby Orr way too much credit. Wayne Gretzky would of scored like a machine had Bobby Orr never existed. With statements like Gretzky having the better career is the only thing that keeps him in the debate, it's pretty simple to see we can't have a serious debate.

Well, when it's as close as it is and the only great advantage Gretzky has on Orr is career length....kind of explains itself.
I do not give Orr too much credit, you give him too little.
Like there really has to be something to all this considering how split people are on the subject despite how far in front you place Gretzky.
Hey, that's your opinion but at the same time if Gretzky should win this in a cake walk as you say then why are we here and why is this subject so split.
That's why the term "not even close" used in this particular argument is nothing more than pure ignorance.
I have no doubt Gretzky would of still scored a ton but his totals would of definitely been lower had Orr not opened the door...scratch that...took the damned thing off its' hinges to offensive hockey over a decade previously.

You can argue that Orr had the better peak, and I can see your argument but it is very much debatable, whereas their career achievements are not.

Orr's stellar play across all 3 zones trumps anything Gretzky did imo.

As for your 200vs140 point whatever you're trying to prove there, i'm not really sure. Of course I don't look at that and call it a day, don't be ridiculous. Gretzky had 14 seasons in a row with over 120 points, likely would of been 16 in a row if hadn't missed close to 40 games in 92-93. Holds just about every record imaginable and completely dominated his peers during his peak. I think any rational thinker would conclude that Wayne Gretzkys career far surpassed Orr.

In length, yes.
Singlehandedly changing the game as we know it should count for something though maybe

 

[Maupin Fan]

Well, when it's as close as it is and the only great advantage Gretzky has on Orr is career length....kind of explains itself.
I do not give Orr too much credit, you give him too little.
Like there really has to be something to all this considering how split people are on the subject despite how far in front you place Gretzky.
Hey, that's your opinion but at the same time if Gretzky should win this in a cake walk as you say then why are we here and why is this subject so split.
That's why the term "not even close" used in this particular argument is nothing more than pure ignorance.
I have no doubt Gretzky would of still scored a ton but his totals would of definitely been lower had Orr not opened the door...scratch that...took the damned thing off its' hinges to offensive hockey over a decade previously.



Orr's stellar play across all 3 zones trumps anything Gretzky did imo.



In length, yes.
Singlehandedly changing the game as we know it should count for something though maybe

Curious as to how you can quantify the argument that Gretzky would have "definitely" scored less had Bobby Orr not played in the NHL?

 

[bleeney]

According to who? You? Not everyone sees it that way. The question is not who was the better player for a longer time, it's simply who was the best player.




It's not tossed aside, it's the whole reason Gretzky gets to stay in the debate in the first place.
I mean hell if you specified the question to the best you ever saw and only asked people who actually saw both players, Orr wins in a land slide.


Like I said, Orr was so good and so dominant in his 9 years that Gretzky needs the extra just to keep up or to cancel out the revolutions that Orr brought to the game itself.



Why, because you see 200 points to 140 points and call it a day?
The game is about a lot more than just points and Orr was a master of all of them.

I mean dude...we're talking about Bobby Orr here, the guy who single handedly changed the game the way it's played today and the reason that things were opened up to even allow a player like Gretzky to come along and put up the points he did.

Say what you want but in the end, Bobby Orr was the single greatest factor in the evolution of the game itself.

I'm not trying to dissuade you from your choice, I'm just saying there's a lot more involved than simply who had the longer career or who had more points, A LOT MORE.

Excellent point.

I was just looking through the book "Blades on Ice: A Century of Professional Hockey" by Frank Orr and Chrys Goyens. There's a great interview with Jean Beliveau, in which he discusses Bobby Orr. Here are some excerpts:

Q) What is your description of Bobby Orr's impact, in a nutshell?
A) Simply put, he had the greatest impact of any player to come along in my lifetime. He earned his place in hockey by single-handedly changing the game from the style played in my day to the one played today.

Q) How did Bobby Orr change hockey?
A) He redefined the defenseman's role, bringing him into a new, more aggressive offensive strategy, and opening the door for all-out attacks off quick transitions...

Q) What was his greatest weapon?
A) It's probably a tie between his ice vision and hockey sense, and his skating ability...

Q) Was his game really that different?
A) Prior to his arrival in the league, defenseman rarely jumped into the play. They were supposed to head-man the puck and then follow the play up the ice.

Q) How else did this change things?
A) It changed the make-up of the prototypical defender. Before Orr, defensemen were generally big, blocky guys - heavy hitters who tended to move slowly and awkwardly... Orr dictated the pace not only of a given game, but of all future games, by cranking up the speed limits to previously unknown levels.

Q) But he was just one player; isn't this a bit dramatic?
A) One player, the right player, can literally change the allure and tempo of a game, as Bobby Orr did most every night. Orr presented problems the opposing team never had to face before... When the Bruins faced off in our zone, it didn't matter who they had up front - Esposito, Hodge, Cashman, Bucyk or McKenzie. How we lined up was dictated by one factor, the position of Bobby Orr. When the puck was dropped, everyone's attention was divided, with nervous glances in Orr's direction predominating.

Q) Were there other adjustments to Orr?
A) Of course. The man-to-man, lane game would change with speedy defensemen able to come from the back, or attack at any time, thus creating out-numbered situations. He had the ability to move the game laterally from boards to boards. Also as important, powerplay and penalty-killing strategies would change when he was on the ice in a defensive or offensive role.

Q) What is his legacy?
A) Serge Savard, Guy Lapointe and Brad Park... all tried to pick up things from his game and incorporate them into their own. After that, you might call his legacy Chris Chelios, Paul Coffey, Brian Leetch, Phil Housley, Denis Potvin, Larry Robinson, Ray Bourque, Doug Wilson and Borje Salming... all mobile defensemen who were lynchpins of their teams' offenses and defenses. The defenseman, as team quarterback, was Bobby's creation.
-from Blades on Ice; pg 124-125

Orr's legacy lives on today. The emphasis on speed and the transition game really began with Bobby. We take it for granted when we see kids like Drew Doughty or Tyler Myers jumping into the play, leading the attack, running the powerplay, but it was Bobby Orr who invented the entire strategy.

Don't take it from me, take it from Jean Beliveau.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

If a defenseman came around who played excellent defensively while putting up 120 points for 10 seasons and 5 more 100 pt seasons, winning 12 Norrisses and 8 Harts... Is Orr still better than him?

At their absolute peak, Orr was better.
But that is only one part of what makes a player great.