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

[Crosbyfan]

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.

I think that was a big part of it. Not even his Coaches knew the best way to use him in the most important (playoff etc) games. I know as a Montreal fan at the time Orr absolutely drove the Canadiens nuts as to how to contain him, but in spite of the fact he was probably the best player on the ice in every playoff series they played, Montreal managed to best the Bruins every time even when the Bruins were favoured to win.

We all have a vivid image of Orr in our minds...flying through the air after scoring the Stanley Cup winning goal in overtime against the expansion Blues...(who got to the final besting other expansion teams)...

But Orr's defence, talented as it was, was never as accurate as Harvey's, or (later) Potvin's, or (even later) Lidstrom's.

It did get close, but by then his skating wings had been considerably clipped by injury, long before the age of thirty.

 

[Crosbyfan]

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

So what?

Lapses (and minor adjustments) aside, modern centers play very much like Greztky and Lemieux, just not with the same level of talent.

 

[Up the Irons]

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.

I suppose Orr had better stats on -20 Tuesdays and full moon Fridays, too. All these obscure stats.

THE MOST GOALS, MOST POINTS, MOST HART TROPHIES!!!! Call me when someone tops that. Untill then, Gretzky is the greastest, the best, the most impactful, most important, rmost successful.... pick your word. 99 rules for 99 reasons.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Lapses (and minor adjustments) aside, modern centers play very much like Greztky and Lemieux, just not with the same level of talent.

Modern centers play defense like Gretzky & Lemieux?

Not for very long (in the NHL) they don't.

 

[Epsilon]

It's an interesting question to ponder: if you had a player with the physical talents to play the same style as Orr, would you even want him to? Orr's knee injuries and subsequent early end to his career were in considerable part due to his style of play.

 

[jcbio11]

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

Yes. Yes it is.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I suppose Orr had better stats on -20 Tuesdays and full moon Fridays, too. All these obscure stats.

THE MOST GOALS, MOST POINTS, MOST HART TROPHIES!!!! Call me when someone tops that. Untill then, Gretzky is the greastest, the best, the most impactful, most important, rmost successful.... pick your word. 99 rules for 99 reasons.

Oh I'm sorry, I must of missed the memo prohibiting people from using stats to show how dominant Orr was in all area's of the ice.
I didn't realise that Gretzky's offensive stats were the only ones allowed here

How about you call me when a Dman wins an Art Ross let alone TWO mmmmk and more impactful on the game than Orr....are you freakin kidding me?!?

 

[Up the Irons]

It's an interesting question to ponder: if you had a player with the physical talents to play the same style as Orr, would you even want him to? Orr's knee injuries and subsequent early end to his career were in considerable part due to his style of play.

Bang on. High risk, high reward. hi injuries. Bure was the same. Gretzky's low injury rate is a credit not a fluke. He made goals happen without having to beat guys wide a full speed and end up skates first in the boards or in the post. Some say Orr was the best skate. Well, Gretzky's elusiveness, quickness and anticipation were second to none and the reason he lasted. There is more to game than fast foot speed.

THE MOST, THE MOST AND THE MOST. the untoppable facts.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Bang on. High risk, high reward. hi injuries. Bure was the same. Gretzky's low injury rate is a credit not a fluke. He made goals happen without having to beat guys wide a full speed and end up skates first in the boards or in the post. Some say Orr was the best skate. Well, Gretzky's elusiveness, quickness and anticipation were second to none and the reason he lasted. There is more to game than fast foot speed.

THE MOST, THE MOST AND THE MOST. the untoppable facts.

If it's so cut and dry and Gretzky is sooo far ahead of Orr then why are we here and why is this topic so split among the masses?
All your extreme Gretzky bias does imo, is to show your lack of hockey knowledge and is quite frankly, insulting to Orr, Howe and Lemieux.

 

[Crosbyfan]

Modern centers play defense like Gretzky & Lemieux?

Not for very long (in the NHL) they don't.

I guess it's how you interpret "minor adjustments". Relative to the mode of defense Orr played, only minor adjustments are required.

It's not like Gretzky and Lemieux didn't generally support the puck, were unable to calculate risk/reward, and were unwilling to battle for a win.

The incredible thing with Orr is how much of his offence effectiveness remained as his game matured and his physical dominance waned. I have no doubts that he would have been the best player ever, Gretzky included, had he had a full and healthy carreer. He was that talented and, more importantly, that clever.

 

[redbull]

curious if ANYONE who saw BOTH chooses 99? I don't seem to think so based on these posts.

I don't see how you can have a strong opinion unless you saw BOTH in their prime though. Makes no sense.

I admit not seeing Orr in his prime but I also think it's amazing that 99 isn't the clear choice. To me, the opinions of those who saw BOTH carry more weight.

 

[Crosbyfan]

curious if ANYONE who saw BOTH chooses 99? I don't seem to think so based on these posts.

I don't see how you can have a strong opinion unless you saw BOTH in their prime though. Makes no sense.

I admit not seeing Orr in his prime but I also think it's amazing that 99 isn't the clear choice. To me, the opinions of those who saw BOTH carry more weight.

When you watched Orr, it was almost immediately obvious that he was the best player on the ice. With Gretzky, you recognized the talent, but were then more amazed at the results, like it was some kind of conspiracy or magic trick, it seemed like things just didn't add up. Orr seemed smarter than everyone else, but Gretzky seemed to be able to read everyone's mind.

 

[Rhiessan71]

When you watched Orr, it was almost immediately obvious that he was the best player on the ice. With Gretzky, you recognized the talent, but were then more amazed at the results, like it was some kind of conspiracy or magic trick, it seemed like things just didn't add up. Orr seemed smarter than everyone else, but Gretzky seemed to be able to read everyone's mind.

Should also add that when you watched Orr dominate it wasn't just in one end of the ice.
You were just as likely to see Orr paste someone into the boards, block a shot, break up a 2 on 1 or beat the crap out of someone as you were to see him rush up the ice and set up or score a goal.

Orr's dominance didn't end when the opposing team took possession of the puck, that's the biggest difference imo.

 

[Hatfield]

That's a great question. Stats aside, if I were to watch both of these guys play in a hockey game against each other I think I'd say Orr was the better player.

Gretzky would probably lose a 1-on-1 game against any number of players, but it's how he used his teammates that set him apart.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Gretzky would probably lose a 1-on-1 game against any number of players, but it's how he used his teammates that set him apart.

That's assuming that you were only judging them on 1 on 1 play. It's not like Orr didn't use his teammates well or have remarkable vision in his own right.
There's a great clip in the other thread showing Orr getting knocked down but as he's falling, he sweeps the puck around behind his back for a perfect no look pass to what appears to be an open area yet when the puck arrives it turns into a perfect on the tape pass to a Bruin who scores an easy goal.

Bottomline is Gretzky wasn't the only player that cornered the market on magical plays that left you scratching your head after.

 

[God Bless Canada]

I have always felt that retiring No. 99 was partially because it was No. 99. It wasn't 4 or 7 or 9 or 16 or any other number that so many greats have worn. If Gretzky wore 8, I don't think it's retired across the league. Gretzky wasn't the only one to wear 99. But because we're talking about the greatest offensive player to ever play the game, and we're talking about the guy who had the greatest impact off the ice, and because his number was so unique, it was retired around the league. Frankly, why should anyone ever wear 99 again?

I had no problem with it. I think those that do have a problem just don't understand the significance and the association between Gretzky and 99.

His impact on the game off the ice was incredible. Just look at LA. LA was death to a player's profile before Gretzky arrived. It was on the west coast, they never had any national TV coverage (except when the Oilers were visiting) and nobody went to the games. Outside of Marcel Dionne, top players on the Kings were usually heralded as underrated. (In a 1988 THN Yearbook survey, Bernie Nichols and Dave Taylor were cited as among the most underrated players; of Taylor, one person said "He scored 347 of the quietest goals in NHL history.")

When Gretzky arrived, everything changed. The Kings fortunes on the ice obviously soared; they reached the second round the first three years Gretzky was there, and they reached the Cup final in 93). Kings tickets became hot commodities, and games became the place to be. The landscape of the game changed (some would say for the worse), but without Gretzky, you probably don't have the Sharks (and San Jose has been a successful market), you probably don't have a Mighty Ducks movie, so you don't get the Ducks or the Panthers, you don't get the Tampa Lightning. There is only one player, ever, who could have generated that kind of turnaround in LA, and that's Gretzky.

 

[AmazingNuck]

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.

Result? Longevity.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Result? Longevity.

Gordie Howe.

And still wacking guys in his 40s and 50s.

 

[tazzy19]

I guess it's how you interpret "minor adjustments". Relative to the mode of defense Orr played, only minor adjustments are required.

It's not like Gretzky and Lemieux didn't generally support the puck, were unable to calculate risk/reward, and were unwilling to battle for a win.

The incredible thing with Orr is how much of his offence effectiveness remained as his game matured and his physical dominance waned. I have no doubts that he would have been the best player ever, Gretzky included, had he had a full and healthy carreer. He was that talented and, more importantly, that clever.

Again, take Orr's best 5 seasons and put them against Gretzky's best 5 seasons, who comes out on top? If Gretzky only played 10 seasons (with 9 MVPs, 4 Cups, and a ridiculous 49 NHL records), who comes out on top?

 

[Crosbyfan]

Again, take Orr's best 5 seasons and put them against Gretzky's best 5 seasons, who comes out on top? If Gretzky only played 10 seasons (with 9 MVPs, 4 Cups, and a ridiculous 49 NHL records), who comes out on top?

I don't disagree at all. But given 5 full and healthy seasons for Orr, I have no doubt he would come out on top. (Of course he didn't... so he wasn't)

 

[tazzy19]

What's with the anti-Gretzky line?

Has anyone called you anti-Orr?

No, but that's because I'm not anti-Orr. As for Gretzky, there genuinely seems to be an attitude that he wasn't that great, and that his numbers were somehow inflated (even though no one else at the time even came remotely close)...but that's nothing new. People were saying "Gretzky sucks" even back when he was winning 8 straight Hart Trophies in 1987.

Most people don't seem to understand that what made Gretzky special was how he used the team around him, which is why he was probably the most misunderstood player of all time. It is this misunderstanding of Gretzky which ironically made him the most successful on the ice as well. With Mario and Bobby, you could watch them and be in awe. With Gretzky, however, you actually had to watch everyone else to be in awe. You had to watch not so much Gretzky, but the play.

 

[tazzy19]

I don't disagree at all. But given 5 full and healthy seasons for Orr, I have no doubt he would come out on top. (Of course he didn't... so he wasn't)

What would Orr had to have done for his best 5 seasons in order to beat Gretzky's best 5 seasons (had he remained healthy)?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

No, but that's because I'm not anti-Orr. As for Gretzky, there genuinely seems to be an attitude that he wasn't that great, and that his numbers were somehow inflated (even though no one else at the time even came remotely close)...but that's nothing new. People were saying "Gretzky sucks" even back when he was winning 8 straight Hart Trophies in 1987.

Most people don't seem to understand that what made Gretzky special was how he used the team around him, which is why he was probably the most misunderstood player of all time. It is this misunderstanding of Gretzky which ironically made him the most successful on the ice as well. With Mario and Bobby, you could watch them and be in awe. With Gretzky, however, you actually had to watch everyone else to be in awe. You had to watch not so much Gretzky, but the play.

Who the hell were these people back in 1987 that said Gretzky sucks?

And who are the anti-Gretzky people on the history site? Most people don't understand what made Gretzky special? Gee, thanks for enlightening us novices.

 

[nik jr]

i agree with GBC that it is quite different to retire a very uncommon number like 99 than a common number.

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.

Modern centers play defense like Gretzky & Lemieux?

Not for very long (in the NHL) they don't.

those are some of the reasons i never liked gretzky. tended to float around in the defensive zone waiting for his teammates to get the puck, and was extremely unphysical.

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.

i have only seen 1 game of harvey (from '59) but his offensive play was much more impressive than his defensive play. his puck control was levels above all other players in the game. passing and decisions with the puck were excellent. harvey looked like a modern d-man, while the other d-men looked like players from the '50s.

 

[habsjunkie2*]

Statistically, there's no denying Gretzky. What locks him out of the all time top spot for me is a purely subjective matter. He was one of the biggest wusses on the ice at all times. You know all that stuff you read from fans calling Crosby a diver/whiner/whatever? If HF existed during Gretzky's prime there'd be 10x the amount of complaints. The Oilers had to go so far as to get him a bodyguard, for crying out loud.

His passes were amazing, no doubt. He'd always do that slight curl away from the defender, and just as it looked like 99 was going to get lit up, the puck would squirt out and land on the tape of a team mate rushing towards the net. That, or he'd set up right behind the net and wait for someone to jump into the slot.

Still, from a fan's perspective I prefer a Howe or an Orr to Gretzky. But there's no way to deny his numbers.

Yet, you probably haven't seen 5 minutes of Gordie Howe.