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

[Fish on The Sand]

While I'm not disputing scoring was easier in the 80s, because it certainly was, I have two questions

1) Was scoring easier for all teams, thus negating the large discrepencies between top and bottom?

2) How much of this was power-play related and thus not represented in plus/minus?

I don't know the answers, but I wouldn't be shocked if both of those played substantial factors.

 

[Scott1980]

While I'm not disputing scoring was easier in the 80s, because it certainly was, I have two questions

1) Was scoring easier for all teams, thus negating the large discrepencies between top and bottom?

2) How much of this was power-play related and thus not represented in plus/minus?

I don't know the answers, but I wouldn't be shocked if both of those played substantial factors.

Gordie Howe made it look easy to finish in the top ten in scoring. 21 straight seasons!

 

[Hardyvan123]

I don't see why.

Sandy Koufax is considered by many the greatest pitcher ever and he only had 6 great seasons. Jimmy Bown is considered by many to be the greatest football player ever, playing only 9 seasons.

Again, it comes down to best player or best career. When someone asks me who was the greatest player I ever saw, I don't think best career. But many people here do.

I understand that some people do that but it's a faulty thing to do IMO as all great players slow down and eventually have to hang it up.

Take the baseball example, Dale Murphy is often cited for not being in the HOF because of his last seasons 80-87, where he was a serviceable player but not the superstar that he was up until age 32. Kirby Puckett on the other hand had a short career (by baseball standards) and had no drop off for viewers to judge him by.

Lets put it another way as one other poster did on here, we would be looking at Gretzky in even more awe if he had (for whatever reason and injury or death would make it even more favorable in terms of treatment and judgment) stopped playing after 10 seasons and had the 4 cups and the peak that he had in those seasons and had no downward curve on his career.

Most serious historians of baseball and football know that both players cited played under special conditions like the lowered mound for Koufax and in Brown's case being a physical freak in the late 50's early 60's were very few of those players would have been able to play in the NFL in the 80's and beyond were the level of physical "freakishness" just exploded to were it is today. Take any starting running back in the NFL today and they would have dominated just as much if not more than Brown did back in his time.

Longevity is one component of greatness, IMO, and Orr just didn't have it.

 

[Hardyvan123]

But it takes more than speed, size and skill to be an NHL level player.

Wonder if Reinhart thinks he couldn't play in today's NHL, our if he'd just be a third pair dman? (Bet he doesn't)

As for the pace of the game, if you have the Center Ice package you know that on any given night you can watch 2 different games that seem to have a pace from 2 different eras. Certainly my Bruins played a number of games last season that could have been confused with 50s or 60s. Rangers & Devils had a few too, though for the Devils its more by design.

Honestly, if you are actually old enough to have seen games from the 50's or 60's and I am not, but on the tapes there is a lot more time and space for every player out there, thus it's not a huge leap to say that the pace was slower.

Personally watching games from the 70's onwards I can tell that the size, skill and pace has increased level of play has as well.

Anyone on these boards who plays any sport can attest to this as well. It's the equivalent of being a Jr star in Canada today, the player looks all-world against his competition but put him up a level to the AHL and he isn't as impressive and great and in the NHL even less so.

If people only judge players against their peers then I know a guy who plays down the street in a beer league who has dominated for over 25 years but there is no discussion of him being the best player ever and the reason is pretty simple the level of competition.

The level of competition has changed and gotten better through out history and will remain so until it hits a certain peak, and we are probably pretty close to it right now.

If we do not take that into context when judging players then the greatest players of all time are all dead they played in the late 1800's and early 20th century as no one can or will ever dominate as those players did.

I know this is kinda like sacrilege to point this out in the history section but so be it.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Honestly, if you are actually old enough to have seen games from the 50's or 60's and I am not, but on the tapes there is a lot more time and space for every player out there, thus it's not a huge leap to say that the pace was slower.

Personally watching games from the 70's onwards I can tell that the size, skill and pace has increased level of play has as well.

Anyone on these boards who plays any sport can attest to this as well. It's the equivalent of being a Jr star in Canada today, the player looks all-world against his competition but put him up a level to the AHL and he isn't as impressive and great and in the NHL even less so.

If people only judge players against their peers then I know a guy who plays down the street in a beer league who has dominated for over 25 years but there is no discussion of him being the best player ever and the reason is pretty simple the level of competition.

The level of competition has changed and gotten better through out history and will remain so until it hits a certain peak, and we are probably pretty close to it right now.

If we do not take that into context when judging players then the greatest players of all time are all dead they played in the late 1800's and early 20th century as no one can or will ever dominate as those players did.

I know this is kinda like sacrilege to point this out in the history section but so be it.

While very true, you can also make certain leaps in evaluating players as well.
For example...after watching Orr, you can compare him to Park, Robinson and Potvin, then compare them to Bourque, Stevens and Coffey, then them to Chelios, MacInnis and Leetch, then to Lidstrom and Pronger and then to today.
This is why stats only go so far and why anyone who actually saw Orr play knows that after watching all the players that came after him know without a doubt that even by today's standards, he is easily still the best.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Okay

Honestly, if you are actually old enough to have seen games from the 50's or 60's and I am not, but on the tapes there is a lot more time and space for every player out there, thus it's not a huge leap to say that the pace was slower.

Personally watching games from the 70's onwards I can tell that the size, skill and pace has increased level of play has as well.

Anyone on these boards who plays any sport can attest to this as well. It's the equivalent of being a Jr star in Canada today, the player looks all-world against his competition but put him up a level to the AHL and he isn't as impressive and great and in the NHL even less so.

If people only judge players against their peers then I know a guy who plays down the street in a beer league who has dominated for over 25 years but there is no discussion of him being the best player ever and the reason is pretty simple the level of competition.

The level of competition has changed and gotten better through out history and will remain so until it hits a certain peak, and we are probably pretty close to it right now.

If we do not take that into context when judging players then the greatest players of all time are all dead they played in the late 1800's and early 20th century as no one can or will ever dominate as those players did.

I know this is kinda like sacrilege to point this out in the history section but so be it.

Assume for a moment that what you posted above is plausible - you still have a major obstacle to overcome. Ray Bourque maintained the pace of the game during his first season, 1979 -80 and during his last season more than twenty years later. This is true for all the players who played 15 -20 + seasons, consecutive or not, at various points in NHL history. Yet you have failed to explain within the context of your hypothesis why this is so. So step - up and do so. Consider Chris Chelios,Gordie Howe, Jean Beliveau or various goalies, Patrick Roy, Jacques, Plante, Dominik Hasek etc.
Kindly explain why a 51 year old Gordie Howe was more productive than an 18 year old Gordie Howe:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/h/howego01.html

Basically your hypothesis does not hold or in the alternative, despite all the advances that you admit, the collective skills of the other 1980 era NHL players had collectively regressed compared to the late 1940's era.


Conversely if your point about the level of competition holds then you have another issue - equipment. Take car racing. Be it NASCAR, Indy, F1 the actual car is better today than it was 10 - 20 -30 years ago. On the other hand the great drivers will span the eras and win whereas the cars would not.Effectively great hockey players with greater equipment, technology, training, coaching tend to adapt favourably to the various positive changes with enhanced performances.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

I don't see why.

Sandy Koufax is considered by many the greatest pitcher ever and he only had 6 great seasons. Jimmy Bown is considered by many to be the greatest football player ever, playing only 9 seasons.

Again, it comes down to best player or best career. When someone asks me who was the greatest player I ever saw, I don't think best career. But many people here do.

I think it is right to factor career and prime into the equation for 'greatest player ever' and not just peak. The ability to remain healthy and competitive in a pro sport is often a very underrated positive attribute of a player.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Assume for a moment that what you posted above is plausible - you still have a major obstacle to overcome. Ray Bourque maintained the pace of the game during his first season, 1979 -80 and during his last season more than twenty years later. This is true for all the players who played 15 -20 + seasons, consecutive or not, at various points in NHL history. Yet you have failed to explain within the context of your hypothesis why this is so. So step - up and do so. Consider Chris Chelios,Gordie Howe, Jean Beliveau or various goalies, Patrick Roy, Jacques, Plante, Dominik Hasek etc.
Kindly explain why a 51 year old Gordie Howe was more productive than an 18 year old Gordie Howe:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/h/howego01.html

Basically your hypothesis does not hold or in the alternative, despite all the advances that you admit, the collective skills of the other 1980 era NHL players had collectively regressed compared to the late 1940's era.


Conversely if your point about the level of competition holds then you have another issue - equipment. Take car racing. Be it NASCAR, Indy, F1 the actual car is better today than it was 10 - 20 -30 years ago. On the other hand the great drivers will span the eras and win whereas the cars would not.Effectively great hockey players with greater equipment, technology, training, coaching tend to adapt favourably to the various positive changes with enhanced performances.

This is a really good point.

My thought is that the average player is better conditioned, better trained and possibly a bit more skilled in todays league.

However, when you're a player such as Orr or Howe or Gretzky or even a Bourque or Chelios, you are already close to some human limits that cannot be overcome by any significant margin due to equipment or video being used by coaches etc. ie. there is not much room for anyone to be better in those certain abilities where you are close to the human limit of what is possible.

I mean will anyone ever skate better than a healthy Orr? People may come along being able to skate as well as him but I doubt anyone will ever be better.

Will anyone ever see the game better than Gretzky? Just examples.

So those types of players would be good or great in any era in the areas they excelled in. Whereas I would say if you could take a very average NHLer from 1970 and stick him in training camp today without the benefit of the coaching and equipment we have now.. they might be fighting for a spot in todays NHL because that bar has been raised.

 

[Rhiessan71]

This is a really good point.

My thought is that the average player is better conditioned, better trained and possibly a bit more skilled in todays league.

However, when you're a player such as Orr or Howe or Gretzky or even a Bourque or Chelios, you are already close to some human limits that cannot be overcome by any significant margin due to equipment or video being used by coaches etc. ie. there is not much room for anyone to be better in those certain abilities where you are close to the human limit of what is possible.

I mean will anyone ever skate better than a healthy Orr? People may come along being able to skate as well as him but I doubt anyone will ever be better.

Will anyone ever see the game better than Gretzky? Just examples.

So those types of players would be good or great in any era in the areas they excelled in. Whereas I would say if you could take a very average NHLer from 1970 and stick him in training camp today without the benefit of the coaching and equipment we have now.. they might be fighting for a spot in todays NHL because that bar has been raised.

No doubt.
I mentioned this in a previous post.
I don't honestly think that there is much of a difference bettween what you would call first line players now and what there was in the 70's. You can argue conditioning and fitness levels all you want but that's not what got them onto the first line, talent did.

Where the differences are, is the talent level on the other lines, especially the 3rd and 4th lines today compared to the 70's.

All that said though, talent doesn't have a lot to do with how a player does defensively. Being a good shooter, passer and stickhandeler won't make you a better checker.
This is yet another reason why I don't buy into the whole "Orr was in a watered down league" crap.
Thinner talent doesn't mean less defense, it just means that thinner talent scores less goals.
Unless of course you think Bobby Hull, if he had of stayed in the NHL instead of going to the WHA, would or could of done a better job of stopping Orr than less talented 3rd and 4th line grinders.

I understand that in saying this one could argue that maybe Orr's defensive stats might of been inflated a bit because of the thinner talent pool he had to stop. The thing is though, he was still way too far out in front of just about everyone else to justify such an argument, not enough to truly say it was a major factor anyway.

His offensive stats are all but untouchable though imo.

 

[BraveCanadian]

No doubt.
I mentioned this in a previous post.
I don't honestly think that there is much of a difference bettween what you would call first line players now and what there was in the 70's. You can argue conditioning and fitness levels all you want but that's not what got them onto the first line, talent did.

Where the differences are, is the talent level on the other lines, especially the 3rd and 4th lines today compared to the 70's.

All that said though, talent doesn't have a lot to do with how a player does defensively. Being a good shooter, passer and stickhandeler won't make you a better checker.
This is yet another reason why I don't buy into the whole "Orr was in a watered down league" crap.
Thinner talent doesn't mean less defense, it just means that thinner talent scores less goals.

I agree with all that and definitely Orr would be great in any hockey era.

The 70s were still pretty thin though

 

[Canadiens1958]

Today`s First Lines

No doubt.
I mentioned this in a previous post.
I don't honestly think that there is much of a difference bettween what you would call first line players now and what there was in the 70's. You can argue conditioning and fitness levels all you want but that's not what got them onto the first line, talent did.

Where the differences are, is the talent level on the other lines, especially the 3rd and 4th lines today compared to the 70's.

All that said though, talent doesn't have a lot to do with how a player does defensively. Being a good shooter, passer and stickhandeler won't make you a better checker.
This is yet another reason why I don't buy into the whole "Orr was in a watered down league" crap.
Thinner talent doesn't mean less defense, it just means that thinner talent scores less goals.
Unless of course you think Bobby Hull, if he had of stayed in the NHL instead of going to the WHA, would or could of done a better job of stopping Orr than less talented 3rd and 4th line grinders.

I understand that in saying this one could argue that maybe Orr's defensive stats might of been inflated a bit because of the thinner talent pool he had to stop. The thing is though, he was still way too far out in front of just about everyone else to justify such an argument, not enough to truly say it was a major factor anyway.

His offensive stats are all but untouchable though imo.

Kunitz and Guerin playing on the first line with Crosby in Pittsburgh contradict your position.Also you still have the bad team first line issue.

3rd or 4th lines. Rank them anyway that you wish Gainey/Jarvis/Roberts or Tremblay/Risebrough/Lambert 3rd or 4th or the Bruins,Oilers, Islanders 3rd/4th lines 1975-85 and in terms of relative talent to the Hawks 3rd or 4th or the Flyers third or fourth or the Penguins, Sharks, Wings and who comes out ahead? The older lines would have at least one prime HHOFer and a few maybes. Today, maybe a Jordan Staal.

Ask the other question - how many 3rd / 4th lines today would a coach feel comfortable playing against a line featuring three HHOFers like Gillies/Trottier/Bossy?
Yes Maxim Lapierre plays against Sidney Crosby`s line but the drag of Kunitz and Guerin neutralizes any advantage since they are playing against equals.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I think it is right to factor career and prime into the equation for 'greatest player ever' and not just peak. The ability to remain healthy and competitive in a pro sport is often a very underrated positive attribute of a player.

I agree. A positive attribute.

But to me that doesn't make them a better player. It only allows them to play longer and have a better career.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I understand that some people do that but it's a faulty thing to do IMO as all great players slow down and eventually have to hang it up.

Take the baseball example, Dale Murphy is often cited for not being in the HOF because of his last seasons 80-87, where he was a serviceable player but not the superstar that he was up until age 32. Kirby Puckett on the other hand had a short career (by baseball standards) and had no drop off for viewers to judge him by.

Lets put it another way as one other poster did on here, we would be looking at Gretzky in even more awe if he had (for whatever reason and injury or death would make it even more favorable in terms of treatment and judgment) stopped playing after 10 seasons and had the 4 cups and the peak that he had in those seasons and had no downward curve on his career.
Most serious historians of baseball and football know that both players cited played under special conditions like the lowered mound for Koufax and in Brown's case being a physical freak in the late 50's early 60's were very few of those players would have been able to play in the NFL in the 80's and beyond were the level of physical "freakishness" just exploded to were it is today. Take any starting running back in the NFL today and they would have dominated just as much if not more than Brown did back in his time.

Longevity is one component of greatness, IMO, and Orr just didn't have it.

I'd still see Gretzky not playing much defense and making no contact and having his teammates fight his battles for him.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Kunitz and Guerin playing on the first line with Crosby in Pittsburgh contradict your position.Also you still have the bad team first line issue.

3rd or 4th lines. Rank them anyway that you wish Gainey/Jarvis/Roberts or Tremblay/Risebrough/Lambert 3rd or 4th or the Bruins,Oilers, Islanders 3rd/4th lines 1975-85 and in terms of relative talent to the Hawks 3rd or 4th or the Flyers third or fourth or the Penguins, Sharks, Wings and who comes out ahead? The older lines would have at least one prime HHOFer and a few maybes. Today, maybe a Jordan Staal.

Ask the other question - how many 3rd / 4th lines today would a coach feel comfortable playing against a line featuring three HHOFers like Gillies/Trottier/Bossy?
Yes Maxim Lapierre plays against Sidney Crosby`s line but the drag of Kunitz and Guerin neutralizes any advantage since they are playing against equals.

You're picking out the 3rd/4th lines of some of the best teams in the league, now and back then.
You have to understand that when it's argued that there was a thinner talent pool, they are talking on average across the league.
You can't sit there and use the Gainey/Jarvis/Roberts line and even remotely say that they represent the league average, not even close.
That would be like saying Malkin represents the average 2nd line center across the league.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

I agree. A positive attribute.

But to me that doesn't make them a better player. It only allows them to play longer and have a better career.

How can it •not• make them a better player?
If I am a GM and am offered two players of equal skill but one will be healthy and play in twice as many games, of course I am going to take the healthy one - he's much better.

Still do not understand why some ignore prime and career when it comes to determining "who is better". How short can a peak be? Does Lindros' half-year Hart performance make him a better player than Yzerman?

 

[tazzy19]

I'd still see Gretzky [had he retired after 10 years] not playing much defense and making no contact and having his teammates fight his battles for him.

Would the 9 Hart Trophies, 4 Cups, and 51 NHL records (including breaking the all time scoring record) have made up for it?

 

[tarheelhockey]

Would the 9 Hart Trophies, 4 Cups, and 51 NHL records (including breaking the all time scoring record) have made up for it?

There would still be a strong argument that Gretzky was the most prolific scorer of all time, but not the best all-around hockey player. Regardless of career length, there is no getting around the fact that he had large gaps in his game.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Phantom Average

You're picking out the 3rd/4th lines of some of the best teams in the league, now and back then.
You have to understand that when it's argued that there was a thinner talent pool, they are talking on average across the league.
You can't sit there and use the Gainey/Jarvis/Roberts line and even remotely say that they represent the league average, not even close.
That would be like saying Malkin represents the average 2nd line center across the league.

That does not play with me. You are hiding behind a phantom average. Step-up and define your average third line from 1975-85. Obviously amongst the elite teams from today you cannot find comparable third / fourth lines to the elite teams from the 1970`s and 1980`s.

As for the bottom feeders, comparing third or fourth lines across eras would not advance matters.

As for the Malkin point, really no different than Lemieux/Francis, Gretzky/Messier.You could even look at the 74-75 Leafs and make a point about a middling team having three HHOF centers - Keon, Ullman and Sittler.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Would the 9 Hart Trophies, 4 Cups, and 51 NHL records (including breaking the all time scoring record) have made up for it?

Good enough to be one of the 4 best players ever.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Salary Cap Parity

That does not play with me. You are hiding behind a phantom average. Step-up and define your average third line from 1975-85. Obviously amongst the elite teams from today you cannot find comparable third / fourth lines to the elite teams from the 1970`s and 1980`s.

As for the bottom feeders, comparing third or fourth lines across eras would not advance matters.

As for the Malkin point, really no different than Lemieux/Francis, Gretzky/Messier.You could even look at the 74-75 Leafs and make a point about a middling team having three HHOF centers - Keon, Ullman and Sittler.

The salary cap is designed to create parity, therefore, if it's working the non-salary cap era teams should have larger extremes than those in the salary cap era. The elite teams should be better compared to the rest of the league (which is evidenced by dynasties) and the bad teams should be worse compared to the rest of the league.

Using this line of thought, we would expect the 3rd and 4th lines of the elite teams of the past to be better than those of the elite teams of today. We would also expect the 3rd and 4th lines of the worst teams in the league today to be better than those of the past.

Again, this is assuming that the salary cap is working to create a more balanced league

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

How can it •not• make them a better player?
If I am a GM and am offered two players of equal skill but one will be healthy and play in twice as many games, of course I am going to take the healthy one - he's much better.Still do not understand why some ignore prime and career when it comes to determining "who is better". How short can a peak be? Does Lindros' half-year Hart performance make him a better player than Yzerman?

By this argument, if a player was willing to play for less money it would make him a better player.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Assume for a moment that what you posted above is plausible - you still have a major obstacle to overcome. Ray Bourque maintained the pace of the game during his first season, 1979 -80 and during his last season more than twenty years later. This is true for all the players who played 15 -20 + seasons, consecutive or not, at various points in NHL history. Yet you have failed to explain within the context of your hypothesis why this is so. So step - up and do so. Consider Chris Chelios,Gordie Howe, Jean Beliveau or various goalies, Patrick Roy, Jacques, Plante, Dominik Hasek etc.
Kindly explain why a 51 year old Gordie Howe was more productive than an 18 year old Gordie Howe:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/h/howego01.html

Basically your hypothesis does not hold or in the alternative, despite all the advances that you admit, the collective skills of the other 1980 era NHL players had collectively regressed compared to the late 1940's era.


Conversely if your point about the level of competition holds then you have another issue - equipment. Take car racing. Be it NASCAR, Indy, F1 the actual car is better today than it was 10 - 20 -30 years ago. On the other hand the great drivers will span the eras and win whereas the cars would not.Effectively great hockey players with greater equipment, technology, training, coaching tend to adapt favourably to the various positive changes with enhanced performances.

Well for the case of Bourque the number 1 reason is experience, same goes for Gordie Howe. Both guys don't have to rely on purely physical skills to do the same things in year number 1 than in year number 20. The same holds true for just about any profession or sport

Also the case with Howe is playing time, I highly doubt that he got a feature role at the age of 18 and even at the age of 51 his scoring was inflated in that year with the influx of the 4 WHA teams.

You also have given no indication of how Borque or Howe actually maintained the same pace at age 18 to their final seasons either.

Are you actually going to tell me that you watched NHL games in 79-80, or in Orr's day and that they were on the same level, skill, speed and talent wise, as today?

Or that only equipment is to account for the changes?
If that's the case then I have to suggest hat you and I are not watching the same NHL games.

 

[Rhiessan71]

That does not play with me. You are hiding behind a phantom average. Step-up and define your average third line from 1975-85. Obviously amongst the elite teams from today you cannot find comparable third / fourth lines to the elite teams from the 1970`s and 1980`s.

As for the bottom feeders, comparing third or fourth lines across eras would not advance matters.

I'm not even exactly sure what you are trying to say to be honest.
When you have such a disparity of talent in the league like in the 70's, it goes without saying that the expansion teams are going to have players on their bottom lines that prolly shouldn't even be in the league.
While at the same time the established teams had guys on their bottom lines that prolly could of been 2nd or maybe even 1rst line players on those expansion teams.

I'm still not sure how in the hell you thought you could mention the Gainey line and pass it off as being anywhere close to representing what was an average 3rd line in the 70's.
I'm sorry but that's ridiculous.

As for the Malkin point, really no different than Lemieux/Francis, Gretzky/Messier.You could even look at the 74-75 Leafs and make a point about a middling team having three HHOF centers - Keon, Ullman and Sittler.

So what, you're still picking out the best of the best for examples while ignoring what the other 18-29 teams had.
When talking about average, you sure as hell don't just list the best second line center in the league and end it there now do you.

If what you're trying to argue is that the Habs/Bruins of the 70's or the Isles/Oilers of the 80's prolly had better 3rd/4th lines than what is on the top teams today, you're prolly right but I guarantee you the bottom teams from those times also had far worse 3rd/4th lines than the bottom teams of today.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

By this argument, if a player was willing to play for less money it would make him a better player.

To a degree.... I suppose.
More than a fair share of players have been waylaid by greed, and many have reaped the benefits of being surrounded by often better and more stable talent by accepting less than they might get from the open market.

But I think we can both agree it is an attribute that barely registers on the scales when compared to a skill such as goalscoring or the ability to remain healthy.

 

[Hardyvan123]

No doubt.
I mentioned this in a previous post.
I don't honestly think that there is much of a difference bettween what you would call first line players now and what there was in the 70's. You can argue conditioning and fitness levels all you want but that's not what got them onto the first line, talent did.

Where the differences are, is the talent level on the other lines, especially the 3rd and 4th lines today compared to the 70's.

All that said though, talent doesn't have a lot to do with how a player does defensively. Being a good shooter, passer and stickhandeler won't make you a better checker.
This is yet another reason why I don't buy into the whole "Orr was in a watered down league" crap.
Thinner talent doesn't mean less defense, it just means that thinner talent scores less goals.
Unless of course you think Bobby Hull, if he had of stayed in the NHL instead of going to the WHA, would or could of done a better job of stopping Orr than less talented 3rd and 4th line grinders.

I understand that in saying this one could argue that maybe Orr's defensive stats might of been inflated a bit because of the thinner talent pool he had to stop. The thing is though, he was still way too far out in front of just about everyone else to justify such an argument, not enough to truly say it was a major factor anyway.

His offensive stats are all but untouchable though imo.

Couple of points here are that being a better skater can help you be a much better defensive guy and today more players are forced by their coaches and systems to play a defensive game, this transition really started in the 1980's and is pretty much complete today as even most stars are asked to play defensively as well.

I think people are trying to make the case of Orr being better than Gretzky by determining what Gretzky wasn't (a defensive player) instead of focusing on what he was.

Positional play shouldn't hurt a player IMO because when it comes down to it Goalies are the most important players on the ice, ie. a goalie like Hasek in his peak can have more influence in the amount of wins a team gets and this could be considered by some as another yardstick as to who the greatest player was of all time.

At the end of the day there probably should be 3 all time great lists, one for forwards a second one for Dmen and another for goalies as it would bring more clarity to the matter IMO.