Hasn't the league decided who is the greatest hockey player?

[85highlander]

Just for sake of argument, I'll put Denis Potvin and Bryan Trottier in the competition with those guys. They were playing on a dynasty AND playing together. They played for a defensively responsible coach.

Why didn't they ever approach those +/- records if you are correct and the potential to do so was there moreso in the 80s?

If you look at all-time top +/- per game, Potvin is on the list, and notice another player from the Isles dynasty is also present, Bossy.

The Habs have multiple players : Robinson, Savard and Lafluer.

Orr has no equivalent, or teammate that makes the cut -- is this coincidence that he is nearly double over the next closest on a per game basis....?


Player +/- Per Game

Bobby Orr 1.01
Larry Robinson .53
Mike Bossy .51
Bobby Clarke .44
Serge Savard .44
Denis Potvin .43
Guy Lafluer .40

 

[BraveCanadian]

If you look at all-time top +/- per game, Potvin is on the list, and notice another player from the Isles dynasty is also present, Bossy.

The Habs have multiple players : Robinson, Savard and Lafluer.

Orr has no equivalent, or teammate that makes the cut -- is this coincidence that he is nearly double over the next closest on a per game basis....?


Player +/- Per Game

Bobby Orr 1.01
Larry Robinson .53
Mike Bossy .51
Bobby Clarke .44
Serge Savard .44
Denis Potvin .43
Guy Lafluer .40

The per game doesn't really tell you anything except that if you play longer and slow down you do worse.

And no it isn't a coincidence. Orr played only in his prime for the most part, was the best all around defenseman ever, and played in a league that was sadly lacking in parity.

 

[tarheelhockey]

You're confusing the hell out of the argument. Again throwing averages and overalls into an outlier situation. It is a common fault on this board.

There's nothing confusing about it. Orr's Bruins had an incredible +/- in a league where the overall numbers were comparable to the mid-80s. What else needs to be said here?

The only thing confusing the issue is that a couple of forumers are trying to pass off a myth that +/- was out of whack in 70-71, which is not the case at all.

Why didn't they ever approach those +/- records if you are correct and the potential to do so was there moreso in the 80s?

For one thing, by the year in question, Potvin and Trottier were outside their prime and the team was no longer in dynasty mode. So I'm not sure how precise a comparison we can rightfully make here given the changes in circumstances.

But putting that aside, perhaps it's better answered by the longtime Isles fans here why those players never quite cracked the all-time list in this category. They certainly came close, with Potvin and Trottier both at about the same level as Gretzky in their respective primes -- with the exception of 84-85 which is the year we were talking about.

What data do you have to support the fact that it was more probable to have a big +/- spread in the 80s? Did any teams even come close to the differentials of the 71 Bruins or the dynasty Habs?

AGAIN -- focusing solely on those 2 teams is misleading. The dynasty Habs and Bruins were dynasties. Of course they had big numbers, how many HOF'ers played on those teams! Look at the rest of the league, though, and things look pretty ordinary. There's no evidence whatsoever that teams (other than the Seals) were getting run out of the building worse than in the 1980s.

But you asked for data, so I have attached a simple visualization of the +/- spread (not including the Bruins and Oilers) from 70-71 and 84-85. You can clearly see that there was no advantage to playing in 70-71 if you were trying to rack up a big +/-.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Gah I give up. I won't be responding again.

I don't think that you understand you have to play on an absolutely top rung team to even have a hope of having a +100 or more season. So yes we are talking about the 71 Bruins, the 70s Habs, the Isles, the Oilers. They were the only ones with a chance.

Therefore to post one of those top +/- seasons, the argument is how far ahead the top teams are not what the average or even good team is doing.

Again, the top teams of the 70s were much stronger relative to their competition than the top teams of the 80s were to theirs in terms of goals for to goals against. It has nothing to do with what the average or below average teams are doing because the chances of someone on one of those teams posting a +100 season is about the same chances as a snowball in hell.

Happy thread.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I don't think that you understand you have to play on an absolutely top rung team to even have a hope of having a +100 or more season. So yes we are talking about the 71 Bruins, the 70s Habs, the Isles, the Oilers. They were the only ones with a chance.

I don't know why you think I don't understand this, as I haven't said anything to the contrary.

Therefore to post one of those top +/- seasons, the argument is how far ahead the top teams are not what the average or even good team is doing.

Again, the top teams of the 70s were much stronger relative to their competition than the top teams of the 80s were to theirs in terms of goals for to goals against. It has nothing to do with what the average or below average teams are doing because the chances of someone on one of those teams posting a +100 season is about the same chances as a snowball in hell.

Hey, I'm just responding to your original assertion that there was "much more parity in the league" during Gretzky's era. And your further explanation that there were a lot of "mediocre" teams in the "horribly imbalanced" 70s.

But when we look at the data trends, the disparity looks more or less the same except when you consider the Bruins themselves. So you want to draw the conclusion that the Bruins were light years ahead of their competition because there were so many bad teams... but the data doesn't support that conclusion. I feel like I'm giving your point a fair treatment here, you asked for data to disprove it and I provided exactly what you asked for.

Since you are apparently not returning, let's recap the discussion so far:

You said: The league had a greater level of parity in '85 due to European and American influx.
I proved: That Europeans accounted for only about 1/10th of NHL GP that year, and the talent level likely didn't rise across the board from '71-'85 due to a 50% expansion in roster spots.

You said: The league was imbalanced in 1971 due to poor competition, as evidenced by the Bruins' incredible numbers.
I proved: The league was balanced pretty much the same as in '85, except the Bruins performed twice as well as the Oilers in +/-.

You said: The '85 Oilers were clearly a better team than the '71 Bruins.
I proved: Well, actually I'm not sure how this was supposed to be a point against Orr.

Is there anything else that you want to advance before you leave to explain why Gretzky was on the ice for nearly 100% more GA than Orr, something perhaps that could quantifiably erase a 77-goal difference?

 

[BraveCanadian]

I really didn't want to get dragged into this but since you persist:

You said: The league had a greater level of parity in '85 due to European and American influx.
I proved: That Europeans accounted for only about 1/10th of NHL GP that year, and the talent level likely didn't rise across the board from '71-'85 due to a 50% expansion in roster spots.

There are two factors in play. The influx of American and European players as well as the decade+ inbetween allowing time for a better feeder network to develop. Yes, the league had a greater level of parity in the mid 80s than in the 70s. I'll stand by it.

You said: The league was imbalanced in 1971 due to poor competition, as evidenced by the Bruins' incredible numbers.
I proved: The league was balanced pretty much the same as in '85, except the Bruins performed twice as well as the Oilers in +/-

Which is exactly my point, thank you.

You said: The '85 Oilers were clearly a better team than the '71 Bruins.
I proved: Well, actually I'm not sure how this was supposed to be a point against Orr.

No, what I was saying was that the Oilers were a greater dynasty than the Bruins. Only the 76-77 Habs ever dominated the league during one year any better than Orr's 71 team.

Is there anything else that you want to advance before you leave to explain why Gretzky was on the ice for nearly 100% more GA than Orr, something perhaps that could quantifiably erase a 77-goal difference?

I don't know where this 77 goal difference came from and I don't really care. Where this all started was +/- and my assertion that it was "easier" to have a big +/- in the 70s.

I didn't want to have to go through this exercise when it is so obvious:

1. Bobby Orr 70-71 +124 Team Differential GF-GA = 192
2. Larry Robinson 76-77 +120 Team Differential GF-GA = 217
3. Wayne Gretzky 84-85 +98 Team Differential GF-GA = 103
4. Dallas Smith +94 Differential 192

And on we go with 70s players playing on huge differential teams

8. Mark Howe +85 Differential 94
9. Bobby Orr +84 Differential 128
10 Brad McCrimmon +83 Differential 94
10 Bobby Clarke +83 Differential 139

And again 7 of the top 9 are from the 70s. If you wanted a chance that the +/- record you wanted to play for the 71 Bruins or mid 70s Habs.

Now as you can see the guys in the 80s who even approached the records were working with a much smaller differential because even the best teams in the 80s did not dominate the competition nearly to the degree of the top teams in the 70s. I'm sorry about your chart and all that but there is no way around it.

We're talking double differentials here almost literally at the top 3 spots.

Wayne's +98 is actually quite remarkable. Not that it has anything to do with the discussion at hand.

 

[tarheelhockey]

There are two factors in play. The influx of American and European players as well as the decade+ inbetween allowing time for a better feeder network to develop. Yes, the league had a greater level of parity in the mid 80s than in the 70s. I'll stand by it.

Stand by it if you wish, but there's no way the talent in the league increased 50% in 15 years. It just didn't happen.

Which is exactly my point, thank you.

But that's not much of a point... all it shows is that the Bruins were farther ahead of the competition than the Oilers. Occam's Razor provides us a tidy explanation -- the Bruins were a better-rounded team.

And again 7 of the top 9 are from the 70s. If you wanted a chance that the +/- record you wanted to play for the 71 Bruins or mid 70s Habs.

Can't say I disagree with that, it follows logically that you would have a high +/- from playing on two of the best teams of all time.

I don't know where this 77 goal difference came from and I don't really care... I'm sorry about your chart and all that but there is no way around it.

It's astonishing that you can be so casually dismissive of evidence which flatly contradicts you.

Now as you can see the guys in the 80s who even approached the records were working with a much smaller differential because even the best teams in the 80s did not dominate the competition nearly to the degree of the top teams in the 70s.

We're talking double differentials here almost literally at the top 3 spots.

Has it yet occurred to you that this is true because teams in the 80s didn't play defense? That's the fundamental concept behind this entire argument yet you are tap dancing all around it.

The simple matter of fact is that Orr blew past Gretzky when you take both the GF and GA columns into consideration. Nothing you have argued so far diminishes that fact.

 

[BraveCanadian]

The only thing I have claimed is that it was easier to get a higher +/- in the 70s.. I'm not sure what you are ranting about.

 

[tarheelhockey]

The only thing I have claimed is that it was easier to get a higher +/- in the 70s.. I'm not sure what you are ranting about.

But again, the stats don't bear that out. While some players on well-rounded dynastic teams did have higher +/- than those later on, that by no means makes it "easier".

Again, not one iota of Orr's record is diminished by era considerations. Myth busted.

 

[matnor]

Don't know if it has been posted before but here is Orr's stats (courtesy of the Hockey Summary Project) separated by opposition, original-6 team or not. Unfortunately we don't know which games Orr played in so we have to do some guesswork.

Against O6 teams:

Season | GP for Orr's teams |Goals | Assists | Points
1966/67 | 70| 13 | 28 | 41
1967/68 | 50 | 10 | 18 | 28
1968/69 | 40 | 14 | 16 | 30
1969/70 | 40 | 15 | 36 | 51
1970/71 | 30 | 11 | 35 | 46
1971/72 | 30 | 11 | 23 | 34
1972/73 | 26 | 6 | 24 | 30
1973/74 | 28 | 9 | 36 | 45
1974/75 | 24 | 12 | 23 | 35
1975/76 | 24 | 3 | 2 | 5
1976/77 | 21 | 0 | 3 | 3
1978/79 | 21 | 1 | 0 | 1

Against non-O6 teams:

Season |GP for Orr's teams| Goals | Assists | Points
1967/68 | 24 | 1 | 2| 3
1968/69 | 36 | 7 | 27| 34
1969/70 | 36 | 18 | 50| 68
1970/71 | 48 | 26 | 67 | 93
1971/72 | 48 | 26 | 57 | 83
1972/73 | 52 | 23 | 48 | 71
1973/74 | 50 | 23 | 52 | 75
1974/75 | 56 | 34 | 63 | 97
1975/76 | 56 | 2 | 11 | 13
1976/77 | 59 | 4 | 16 | 20
1978/79 | 59 | 1 | 2 | 3

During Orr's prime 69/70 to 74/75 Boston played 178 out of 468 games against O6 teams. During this time Orr played 447 games so we would expect Orr to have played (178/468)*447=170 games against O6 teams and 277 games against non-O6 teams. This gives the following stats for Orr:

|Games|Goals|Assists|Points|PPG
Against O6 | 170 | 64 | 177 | 241|1.42
Against non-O6 | 277 | 150 | 337 | 487|1.76

So, Orr did significantly worse against the O6-teams but the difference is relatively small.

Note: A few points are missing due to missing values in the HSP-data.

Edit: Updated after a miscalculation, the difference became slightly larger.

 

[BraveCanadian]

But again, the stats don't bear that out. While some players on well-rounded dynastic teams did have higher +/- than those later on, that by no means makes it "easier".

Again, not one iota of Orr's record is diminished by era considerations. Myth busted.

Yes, it was easier. We can agree to disagree but the myth is certainly not busted unless 124/192 > 98/103.

Now obviously how much of the teams dominance was directly attributable to Orr and how much was the synergy with the rest of the team is always up for debate but the fact is you don't see 190-200 goal differentials any more.. ever.

So the era does factor into it at least a bit. Myth busted.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Now obviously how much of the teams dominance was directly attributable to Orr and how much was the synergy with the rest of the team is always up for debate but the fact is you don't see 190-200 goal differentials any more.. ever.

We don't see 200 point seasons any more... ever. Can we surmise that Gretzky was playing in a weaker, watered-down league against inferior competition and that Sidney Crosby would have posted better numbers on the Oilers? After all, NOBODY comes close to Gretzky in scoring so he couldn't have been that much better than the competition... right? Players from a later era would have performed the same under the same circumstances... right?

This is what happens when you create an argument without taking causation into account.

So the era does factor into it at least a bit. Myth busted.

I don't believe this, but I will take it for granted in my next sentence. Please quantify how much of Orr's +26 advantage in +/- and +77 advantage on defense you would write off as a result of era-related factors.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I don't believe this, but I will take it for granted in my next sentence. Please quantify how much of Orr's +26 advantage in +/- and +77 advantage on defense you would write off as a result of era-related factors.

Like I said I think that part is very debatable but when 8 of the top 10 +/- seasons come in what.. 6 years of each other? I think it would be foolish not to think there was some reason contributing to it besides simply individual talent.

The same way everyone here harps about average scoring being up so much as a contribution to those 200 point seasons you are failing to make an argument with. Obviously no one scores 200 points a season now for multiple factors too: no one is as good as Gretzky AND the league in general isn't as wide open. It isn't one or the other.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Like I said I think that part is very debatable but when 8 of the top 10 +/- seasons come in what.. 6 years of each other? I think it would be foolish not to think there was some reason contributing to it besides simply individual talent.

And 7 of those involve 2 teams loaded with HOF'ers -- logically there are going to be a bunch of high pluses on those teams regardless of whether they played in 1970 or 1990. Bobby Orr and his defense partner alone make up 4 of those 10.

And a funny thing happens to the top 10 if you take away the Bruins and Habs of the 1970s. Here's what's left.

Wayne Gretzky EDM 84-85 +98
Mark Howe PHI 85-86 +85
Bobby Clarke PHI 75-76 +83
Brad McCrimmon PHI 85-86 +83
Bobby Clarke PHI 74-75 +79
Brian Engblom MTL 81-82 +78
Wayne Gretzky EDM 83-84 +76
Jari Kurri EDM 84-85 +76
Bryan Trottier NYI 78-79 +76
Bill Barber PHI 75-76 +74

Well whaddayaknow? All but one (Clarke) is from the post-Orr era, 6 of the top 10 are from the 80s (including powerhouses like McCrimmon and Engblom), our old friend Bryan Trottier shows up!

Funny, you'd almost think that there was no advantage at all to playing in 1971 unless you were named Bobby Orr

The same way everyone here harps about average scoring being up so much as a contribution to those 200 point seasons you are failing to make an argument with. Obviously no one scores 200 points a season now for multiple factors too: no one is as good as Gretzky AND the league in general isn't as wide open. It isn't one or the other.

People who actually pay attention invariably point out that Gretzky and Lemieux scored 50% more points than the next-highest total of all time -- Gretzky did it in multiple seasons. If era was really behind the totals, someone else would have been breaking close to 200, but nobody ever did. The same applies to Orr's +125, which is too far beyond Gretzky's +98 to be simply written off as a mirage.

 

[BraveCanadian]

People who actually pay attention invariably point out that Gretzky and Lemieux scored 50% more points than the next-highest total of all time -- Gretzky did it in multiple seasons. If era was really behind the totals, someone else would have been breaking close to 200, but nobody ever did. The same applies to Orr's +125, which is too far beyond Gretzky's +98 to be simply written off as a mirage.

Darn you pesky Larry Robinson at +120 invalidating another argument!

The point being that Orr didn't even remotely repeat his +124 and Robinson was neck and neck.. whereas like you say no one else hit 200 at all and Gretzky did it multiple times. Really not a good analogy.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Darn you pesky Larry Robinson at +120 invalidating another argument!

The point being that Orr didn't even remotely repeat his +124 and Robinson was neck and neck.. whereas like you say no one else hit 200 at all and Gretzky did it multiple times. Really not a good analogy.

Remember that guy Mario Lemieux who scored 199?

Edit: Before we go spiraling off in another direction, my point is simply that a good enough player can replicate incredible accomplishments. Mario Lemieux wasn't just any star player, he was a generational (maybe multi-generational) talent on the level of Orr and Gretzky.

Likewise, Larry Robinson wasn't just any stalwart defenseman. He was arguably the best defensive defenseman ever with a good offensive game to match. Not just anyone wins a Conn Smythe on the '78 Habs, nor two Norris trophies during the heyday of Potvin and Parke. Robinson was a generational defensive player on the level of Orr and Langway.

Note the common factor in the two comparisons: Orr, who was as good offensively as the best of the best AND as good defensively as the best of the best.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Remember that guy Mario Lemieux who scored 199?

Yes as a matter of fact I do.

However your analogy was that Orr was too far out in front to be explained by era. That is true against Gretzky who played in a different one (so everyone says). It is not true about Robinson who was neck and neck with him.

Also neither one of them were able to repeat anywhere near that level of +/- whereas Gretzky hit 200 5 times.

Like I said, not a good analogy.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Yes as a matter of fact I do.

However your analogy was that Orr was too far out in front to be explained by era. That is true against Gretzky who played in a different one (so everyone says). It is not true about Robinson who was neck and neck with him.

Also neither one of them were able to repeat anywhere near that level of +/- whereas Gretzky hit 200 5 times.

Like I said, not a good analogy.

See the post above. People want to write off Gretzky and Lemieux as era-based, but ignore that the next highest scorer was Yzerman at 150.

Similarly, you want to write off Robinson and Orr as era-based, but ignore that the next highest +/- is 20% lower.

 

[BraveCanadian]

See the post above. People want to write off Gretzky and Lemieux as era-based, but ignore that the next highest scorer was Yzerman at 150.

Similarly, you want to write off Robinson and Orr as era-based, but ignore that the next highest +/- is 20% lower.

Here you go again changing my words. I said it was a combination of their individual talent and the era that made those 20% higher seasons possible.

Anyone looking at it would agree unless you can find me other times that teams had a gf-ga difference in the 190-200 range. Or someone who was +120 on a team that had much less of a difference.

This is by definition stuff here.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Here you go again changing my words. I said it was a combination of their individual talent and the era that made those 20% higher seasons possible.

And when I asked you to quantify the proportion by which Orr's achievements should be discounted for era, you refused. I think I've provided a decent little hill of evidence here that it would be a proportion pretty close to 0.

Anyone looking at it would agree unless you can find me other times that teams had a gf-ga difference in the 190-200 range. Or someone who was +120 on a team that had much less of a difference.

Where are you getting "teams"? Only ONE team did it during Orr's career, and that was the Bruins in 70-71.

The next was the arguably-best-team-ever Habs, but that was in an 18-team league at the peak of the WHA's impact. Some of your points might apply to them, but not to the '71 Bruins.

Otherwise, +200 simply didn't happen. Are you opposed in principle to the possibility that a team could simply have been THAT good against ordinary competition?

 

[Scott1980]

Yes as a matter of fact I do.

However your analogy was that Orr was too far out in front to be explained by era. That is true against Gretzky who played in a different one (so everyone says). It is not true about Robinson who was neck and neck with him.

Also neither one of them were able to repeat anywhere near that level of +/- whereas Gretzky hit 200 5 times.

Like I said, not a good analogy.

Actually, Gretzky only got 200 points 4 times + 196 in 82/83.

I still think Orr is better by the way, slighly. There's no way I would want to face either Orr with Gretzky on my team, or[r] likewise Gretzky with Orr on my team. It's gonna be a long night.

I have to admit, I'm awestruck by Gretzky. Not just his stats, but also watching entire games of him. Even when he doesn't score. Billy Harris, the Oilers assistant coach, once said that Gretzky could get 15 points EVERY GAME if all of his passes were perfectly recieved and all his teammates perfectly fed him the puck. Having watched about 50 of his games in the last two weeks, I'll conclude is more like 15 to 20 points. He dominates that much.

Even his defence. I'm noticing every time he's out there. BAMN! The pucks on his stick, the pucks in the other end and the Oilers got a scoring chance. It's surreal!

How about assist per game single season, top 15? Whose got 11 of them, despite also having the highest single season goals per game average in 83/84?

 

[Rhiessan71]

Actually, Gretzky only got 200 points 4 times + 196 in 82/83.

I still think Orr is better by the way, slighly. There's no way I would want to face either Orr with Gretzky on my team, or[r] likewise Gretzky with Orr on my team. It's gonna be a long night.

I have to admit, I'm awestruck by Gretzky. Not just his stats, but also watching entire games of him. Even when he doesn't score. Billy Harris, the Oilers assistant coach, once said that Gretzky could get 15 points EVERY GAME if all of his passes were perfectly recieved and all his teammates perfectly fed him the puck. Having watched about 50 of his games in the last two weeks, I'll conclude is more like 15 to 20 points. He dominates that much.

Even his defence. I'm noticing every time he's out there. BAMN! The pucks on his stick, the pucks in the other end and the Oilers got a scoring chance. It's surreal!

How about assist per game single season, top 15? Whose got 11 of them, despite also having the highest single season goals per game average in 83/84?

The same thing can be said about Orr though.
Watch 50 of his games and see how many times he could of had a ton more points if teammates could of finished better or more importantly with Orr's selfless play, how he would pass up prime shooting opportunities to pass it off to lesser 3rd/4th line players trying to get them some goals.
The bottomline is that when you're talking about Gretzky, Orr or Lemieux, you're talking about the 3 greatest offensive minds and visionaries to ever play the game.

 

[tazzy19]

And in '85-86, when Gretzky was scoring those 215 points, he was on the ice for a total of 260 total goals for and 162 goals against. His +/- was +71, 10 higher than Paul Coffey's, the runner up on the Oilers.

In '70-71, when Orr scored 139 points, he was on the ice for 258 total goals for (virtually identical to Gretzky), but just 85 goals against.. about half of Gretzky's total! Orr's +/- was 30 higher than the next best Bruin (Dallas Smith, his defense partner... go figure). Espo was third on Boston at +71, which was 53 below Orr. Yup, everyone just feasted on those expansion teams, didn't they...

Maybe if Wayne had spent a little more time in his own end, his combined offensive/defensive numbers (overall impact on the game) could've been closer to Orr's, and there might be some defensive plays worth posting on youtube.

Again, it was Orr's job as a defenseman to prevent goals more than it was to score them. It was Gretzky's job to score, not so much defend. Gretzky put 100% effort into what he was amazing at, and let the rest of the team (as hockey is a team game afterall)
do the things he wasn't as good at. When you average around 200 points a year for 7 years in a row, you can get away with that, I would think.

By the way, if you really want to see Gretzky play some great defensive hockey where he breaks up a lot of plays, try watching the 1987 Canada Cup final 3 games on DVD... You're not going to find them on youtube, as youtube tends to focus on his offensive records and achievements (since he has quite a few of them, LOL).

 

[BraveCanadian]

And when I asked you to quantify the proportion by which Orr's achievements should be discounted for era, you refused. I think I've provided a decent little hill of evidence here that it would be a proportion pretty close to 0.

Absolutely not. And here is the reason. If it was Orr's talent individually without any influence of the era (which is the only time I can think of that any teams had +200ish seasons), why was he unable to reproduce it? Or even a +100 season?

Why was Robinson unable to?

The reason is because those kind of differentials just don't exist outside of that era where the top teams were far and away better than the rest of the league by and large.

The same way teams scoring 400 goals don't exist any more. Parity keeps teams from being those extreme kind of outliers now.

You can keep denying it but it has to be pretty obvious.

Yes Orr and Robinson were both "that good" as well. But no way they hit +120 if they played in the 80s.

 

[Scott1980]

Again, it was Orr's job as a defenseman to prevent goals more than it was to score them. It was Gretzky's job to score, not so much defend. Gretzky put 100% effort into what he was amazing at, and let the rest of the team (as hockey is a team game afterall)
do the things he wasn't as good at. When you average around 200 points a year for 7 years in a row, you can get away with that, I would think.

By the way, if you really want to see Gretzky play some great defensive hockey where he breaks up a lot of plays, try watching the 1987 Canada Cup final 3 games on DVD... You're not going to find them on youtube, as youtube tends to focus on his offensive records and achievements (since he has quite a few of them, LOL).

Or even, 1981 Canada Cup. Watching it, right now as we speak. In the game against USA, in the second period, on a power play, a US defencman tries to clear the puck.

Gretzky, playing the point, jumps into the air to block a clearing attempt, walzes through the entire team, from the point only to be stopped by Esposito.