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

[tarheelhockey]

It's debatle to what Gretzky's best 5 years were because he had so many amazing years in the 1980s. Do you pick 83-84 when he scored an unthinkable 153 points in a record 51 straight games (3 points per game!) and finished with a record 2.77 PPG average and his 1st Cup? Or do you pick 84-85 when he obliterated the competition by beating runner up Jari Kurri for the scoring title by a whopping 73 points and winning his 6th straight Hart Trophy (and 4th straight Pearson), while demolishing the Flyers in the Stanley Cup Finals with 7 goals in 5 games, finishing with 47 points in 18 playoff games (47 points in 18 games!!!) on route to his 2nd Cup and first Conn Smythe? Or would you pick 1981-82 when a 20 year old kid named Gretzky scored a ridiculous 50 goals in 39 games on route to 92 goals and 120 assists for 212 points, leaving runner up superstar Mike Bossy some 65 odd points back? Or would it be 1986 when he somehow managed to score 163 assists in a season, something that only one other person has ever managed to do in terms of total points, forget about assists....while still somehow scoring over 50 goals! Ridiculous. Or would you pick 1986-87 when he won the scoring title by 72% and yet another Stanley Cup? Or how about 87-88 when he won 3 championships in one calender year (2 Stanley Cups and a Canada Cup), including the Conn Smythe and the scoring title and MVP at the 87 Canada Cup? There's just too many to choose from...but if you managed to pick the 5 "best", would Orr's 5 "best" seriously topple them as a group?

I think everyone's on the same page that Gretzky wins the stat war.

 

[jkrx]

To me I take both Orr and Howe over Gretzky mainly because those two were incredibly complete as hockey players BUT Gretzky is the greatest.

 

[tazzy19]

To me I take both Orr and Howe over Gretzky mainly because those two were incredibly complete as hockey players BUT Gretzky is the greatest.

Why not take Brian Trottier as well? I don't know...when a player comes along and laps the field (in some cases not just once, but multiple times) with offense alone, I think the need to be "complete" can be reserved for the more complete players.

 

[Long Duk Dong]

1 on 1 ...Ovechkin. Ever. Against anybody.

Not. Even. Close. It. Is.Mario.Lemieux.

 

[tazzy19]

I think everyone's on the same page that Gretzky wins the stat war.

But the stats are merely the symptom of his play, not the other way around. It just so happens that stats are the only emperical evidence we have to use when speaking about a game that involves numbers (scoring goals). I don't know how anyone can say that Orr's best 5 years were better as a group than Gretzky's best 5 years, with or without proving it with stats.

 

[Dark Shadows]

But the stats are merely the symptom of his play, not the other way around. It just so happens that stats are the only emperical evidence we have to use when speaking about a game that involves numbers (scoring goals). I don't know how anyone can say that Orr's best 5 years were better as a group than Gretzky's best 5 years, with or without proving it with stats.

In that case, Brian Propp is better than Nick Lidstrom. Better +/- and more points scored?

Since stats are all we are looking at that is?

 

[BostonAJ]

But the stats are merely the symptom of his play, not the other way around. It just so happens that stats are the only emperical evidence we have to use when speaking about a game that involves numbers (scoring goals). I don't know how anyone can say that Orr's best 5 years were better as a group than Gretzky's best 5 years, with or without proving it with stats.

Take the best defensive defenseman in the league today, and imagine him putting up offensive numbers like Sidney Crosby. As for Howe, a few of the really bright guys around here showed that he dominated the league at a pretty close level to what Gretzky did, all while being one of the toughest SOB's in hockey, and he did it for a hundred years. And if you're old enough to have watched Lemieux in the late 80's/early 90's, you know you were watching someone do the impossible. It really seemed like how the game was going to turn out was completely up to Mario.

All of the Big 4 have a legit claim to the title.

 

[Up the Irons]

But the stats are merely the symptom of his play, not the other way around. It just so happens that stats are the only emperical evidence we have to use when speaking about a game that involves numbers (scoring goals). I don't know how anyone can say that Orr's best 5 years were better as a group than Gretzky's best 5 years, with or without proving it with stats.[/QUOTE]

I concur. I know some guys don't like stats, but Gretzky's numbers are overwhelming. 164 assist. 92 goals. 215 points. points in 51 straight games. points in 77 of 80 games, and of course, 50 in 39.

I mean, come on guys. Those numbers throw intangibles out the window. They're just too impressive to argue against. If his numbers were a little closer, I would agree with you, but... get real. Orr's peak doesn't even come close. From 81 to 88 Wayne Gretzky dominated his sport to a greater degree than any athlete in the history of sport.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I concur. I know some guys don't like stats, but Gretzky's numbers are overwhelming. 164 assist. 92 goals. 215 points. points in 51 straight games. points in 77 of 80 games, and of course, 50 in 39.

I mean, come on guys. Those numbers throw intangibles out the window. They're just too impressive to argue against. If his numbers were a little closer, I would agree with you, but... get real. Orr's peak doesn't even come close. From 81 to 88 Wayne Gretzky dominated his sport to a greater degree than any athlete in the history of sport.

Yeah....a Dman putting up 140 points while being one of the top defensive players in the league at the same time isn't close
Stats are fun, how about this one, in their best 10 years...
Orr on the ice his team scored 22 goals for every 10 against
Gretzky on the ice his team scored 15.4 goals for every 10 against
Both of their teams scored 11 goals for every 10 against when they weren't on the ice.
Yes Gretzky dominated the game offensively but Orr dominated the whole game and overall more so.

 

[tazzy19]

Yeah....a Dman putting up 140 points while being one of the top defensive players in the league at the same time isn't close
Stats are fun, how about this one, in their best 10 years...
Orr on the ice his team scored 22 goals for every 10 against
Gretzky on the ice his team scored 15.4 goals for every 10 against
Both of their teams scored 11 goals for every 10 against when they weren't on the ice.
Yes Gretzky dominated the game offensively but Orr dominated the whole game and overall more so.

Did Orr average 140 points over his 5 best seasons? Gretzky averaged more than 200 points over his best 5 seasons (actually 6 if you want to get technical). That's the difference.

 

[tazzy19]

In that case, Brian Propp is better than Nick Lidstrom. Better +/- and more points scored?

Since stats are all we are looking at that is?

Again, Gretzky's stats are merely a symptom of his play, not the reason why he was great. The stats were as good as they are because he was great, not the other way around. Numbers just happen to be the easiest way to measure sport, but certainly not the only way. However, when using other methods, it becomes far more subjective, and much more of a matter of personal taste and opinion....which is fine, but very difficult to quantify or argue. I can definitely see why the anti-Gretzky crowd hate using stats.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Did Orr average 140 points over his 5 best seasons? Gretzky averaged more than 200 points over his best 5 seasons (actually 6 if you want to get technical). That's the difference.

Naw, Orr only averaged 127 points over his best 5, at a time when only 3-5 forwards total were barely cracking 100.
Again though, you ignore how dominant Orr was on the whole ice, not just what happened in the offensive zone.

The bottomline is that Orr was just as dominant, if not a little more so at his position as Gretzky was at his.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I'll assume you saw Orr through his prime and subsequently (I hope) were able to see 99 through his prime.

Would be curious of the posters who have seen both through their primes who they'd choose if their goal was to build a championship team (multiple cups) over a 5-7 year span.

I find it hard to believe that one wouldn't pick 99. The fact that MANY people who saw both would pick Orr is incredible to me, just based on how amazing a player Gretzky was.
(I read through the Orr vs Gretzky threads and love the historical context and stories about Orr - but it's the filtering through all the non-sense that is difficult and unsatisfying!)

I'm another one that saw both and would take Orr.

Its not just that Gretzky wasn't a complete player. He simply never initiated contact. Old farts like myself find it hard to say someone was the greatest hockey player ever if he never initiated contact. He also never stood up for himself.

And, there are 2 ends to the rink and Orr commanded both of them, played physical and fought his own battles.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Again, Gretzky's stats are merely a symptom of his play, not the reason why he was great. The stats were as good as they are because he was great, not the other way around. Numbers just happen to be the easiest way to measure sport, but certainly not the only way. However, when using other methods, it becomes far more subjective, and much more of a matter of personal taste and opinion....which is fine, but very difficult to quantify or argue. I can definitely see why the anti-Gretzky crowd hate using stats.

What's with the anti-Gretzky line?

Has anyone called you anti-Orr?

 

[jkrx]

Why not take Brian Trottier as well? I don't know...when a player comes along and laps the field (in some cases not just once, but multiple times) with offense alone, I think the need to be "complete" can be reserved for the more complete players.

Are you comparing Trottier to Orr and Howe? Whos a more complete player than Orr for example?

 

[Crosbyfan]

It's amazing that Orr is even in this debate.

It's amazing that Orr is even in this debate.

He had no prime.

He was the most talented player ever IMO, but as brilliant as he was as a young inexperienced player, adapting unbelievably quickly to a rapidly expanded League, his game, especially his defensive game, was far from matured before injuries took their toll.

At the highest level of play, he was the best player on the ice at the 76 Canada Cup, but barely, as he was playing on one leg (if that) by that time, and he was just 28 years of age. He had missed an inordinate number of games in his career up to that point, and played over half of it against expansion teams.

But he simply had no prime in any normal use of the term, especially as a defenceman, with physical peak matched with years of experience at the highest levels of play.

I will add that the retirement of 99 was a lame@$$ move, greatest player or not.

 

[Crosbyfan]

Naw, Orr only averaged 127 points over his best 5, at a time when only 3-5 forwards total were barely cracking 100.
Again though, you ignore how dominant Orr was on the whole ice, not just what happened in the offensive zone.

The bottomline is that Orr was just as dominant, if not a little more so at his position as Gretzky was at his.

Orr revolutionized the position like no other player in History, but the revolution was short lived.

Doug Harvey is a better model for a defenceman today, and in fact in any era, Orr's included, at the top levels of Hockey.

Edit: I say this in spite of believing that as physically gifted as Orr was, his greatest gift was upstairs. Mentally his game was second to none...well, none except Gretzky...

but we really were robbed of a prime, healthy, experienced, well coached Orr (and playing for the Canadiens).

When in fact did we have more than 1 of the above?

 

[BostonAJ]

Orr revolutionized the position like no other player in History, but the revolution was short lived.

Doug Harvey is a better model for a defenceman today, and in fact in any era, Orr's included, at the top levels of Hockey.

Are you sure that's true? I remember Bourque and Coffey attributing their offensive success to Orr, saying he was the one who changed the way young defensemen saw the game. All of a sudden they wanted to try rushing with the puck, too. I've never seen Harvey play, tho.

I will agree that today great PMD's are a rare breed, and something every team seems to be clamoring for, but in the 80's and 90's there were quite a few legendary offensive dmen.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Orr revolutionized the position like no other player in History, but the revolution was short lived.

Doug Harvey is a better model for a defenceman today, and in fact in any era, Orr's included, at the top levels of Hockey.

I don't agree that the "revolution" was short lived in the sense that Dmen since Orr have had much, much more freedom to jump into the play, carry the puck ect.

I would definitely agree though that Harvey is the better model, the text book model if you will where extraordinary talent and physical abilities are not as required to accomplish your job.
Only Orr could play like Orr. The skill, talent and physical abilities required to play like Orr are enormous and quite frankly there hasn't been a player before or since that has come close to matching them.

 

[kmad]

Doug Harvey is a better model for a defenceman today, and in fact in any era, Orr's included, at the top levels of Hockey.

Yeah I recall in an interview Oliver Ekman-Larsson credits his time as a youth watching those 50s Habs and Doug Harvey for his development as an offensive defenseman.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Orr revolutionized the position like no other player in History, but the revolution was short lived.

Doug Harvey is a better model for a defenceman today, and in fact in any era, Orr's included, at the top levels of Hockey.

The revolution was short lived because no other defenseman comes within a stones throw of Orr's pure talent. He's not a "model" because nobody else to date has been capable of filling the mold. In the event a Mario Lemieux clone decides to play defense, maybe we'll see something like it again.

It's like Gretzky's "revolution" of setting up beind the net. I can't count how many plays in today's game go to that spot to die. What people thought would be a tactical change in the sport turned
out to be one guy's phenomenal talent at work.

 

[Crosbyfan]

Are you sure that's true? I remember Bourque and Coffey attributing their offensive success to Orr, saying he was the one who changed the way young defensemen saw the game. All of a sudden they wanted to try rushing with the puck, too. I've never seen Harvey play, tho.

I will agree that today great PMD's are a rare breed, and something every team seems to be clamoring for, but in the 80's and 90's there were quite a few legendary offensive dmen.

Any young PMD that doesn't try to learn from Orr's game is absolutely nuts IMO, but his game was not balanced in the same way as Harvey.

Harvey and Pierre Pilotte are good examples of pre-Orr PMD. Harvey balanced it with exceptional defence.

I really don't blame Orr for this, not getting the balance right. The fact that he was young, inexperienced, constantly injured, playing in a rapidly expanded league with unequal teams etc was not his fault. In fact at the same age early years he was significantly better than Harvey had been at the same age and stage of development, possibly even defensively. Orr had great defensive skills, defensive lapses aside, but they weren't always present in the right zone. Everyone remembers what a fierce competitor Orr was, how hard he came back to break up a play, but that's not how modern defencemen play. (not that they don't read support, pinch etc)

 

[Rhiessan71]

but that's not how modern defencemen play.

Can't/not capable of playing you mean

 

[Mantha Poodoo]

Yes, of course they've decided. That doesn't mean you, me, or anyone else has to agree. Regardless, even if some people don't agree with their choice, I think the numbers of people who don't respect said choice are very, very few (and I'm certainly not one of 'em).

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Any young PMD that doesn't try to learn from Orr's game is absolutely nuts IMO, but his game was not balanced in the same way as Harvey.

Harvey and Pierre Pilotte are good examples of pre-Orr PMD. Harvey balanced it with exceptional defence.

I really don't blame Orr for this, not getting the balance right. The fact that he was young, inexperienced, constantly injured, playing in a rapidly expanded league with unequal teams etc was not his fault. In fact at the same age early years he was significantly better than Harvey had been at the same age and stage of development, possibly even defensively. Orr had great defensive skills, defensive lapses aside, but they weren't always present in the right zone. Everyone remembers what a fierce competitor Orr was, how hard he came back to break up a play, but that's not how modern defencemen play. (not that they don't read support, pinch etc)

And modern centers (as well as original 6 centers) didn't play defense like Gretzky and Lemieux.

So what?