How Would Playing with Orr Have Affected The Legacy of Gretzky or Lemieux?

[DitchMarner]

The Panther's post about Phil Esposito made me think about how either Gretzky or Lemieux might have done playing on the same team as Bobby Orr. Esposito was obviously a talented player, but it seems to be generally accepted that he benefited considerably from being on Orr's team.

What if prime Gretzky or Lemieux had played with Orr? Would either forward still be regarded as highly as he is? Could either of them have topped 300 points in a season?

Click to read more...

 

[The Macho King]

The Panther's post about Phil Esposito made me think about how either Gretzky or Lemieux might have done playing on the same team as Bobby Orr. Esposito was obviously a talented player, but it seems to be generally accepted that he benefited considerably from being on Orr's team.

What if prime Gretzky or Lemieux had played with Orr? Would either forward still be regarded as highly as he is? Could either of them have topped 300 points in a season?

No? Of course not.

Both of their peaks largely coincided with the closest offensive Dman to Orr in Paul Coffey, so as far as the offensive effects, I don't think it would be significant. Better? Maybe. By how much? Probably not a ton since it was likely close to maximum output anyway.

The effect on their teams though would have been enormous. Oilers go from a dynasty to challenging the 50s Habs as the greatest ever. Pens go from a two-peat to a dynasty.

 

[LeBlondeDemon10]

If Orr had lasted long enough to play with or against 99 and 66, he may be the consensus #1. Some people already have him #1.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

The effect on their teams though would have been enormous. Oilers go from a dynasty to challenging the 50s Habs as the greatest ever. Pens go from a two-peat to a dynasty.

the greatest offensive juggernaut in nhl
history still got bounced by the habs in the 1971 playoffs, and even thoug he’s the greatest player of all time imo orr still only won two cups.

hard to imagine a penguins dynasty with mario skipping 94 and 95. jagr and francis and the rest were a great supporting cast but so were espo, hodge, cashman, bucyk, stanfiekd, mckenzie, westfall, marcotte, sanderson.

 

[McFlash97]

If Orr had lasted long enough to play with or against 99 and 66, he may be the consensus #1. Some people already have him #1.

Sorry no.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

If anything it would change orrs legacy. He was already losing harts to Esposito. Imagine a Lemieux or Gretzky instead

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

And there’s also no way he’s winning an art ross over either

 

[LeBlondeDemon10]

Sorry no.

Yes. Take a look at the voting results for the top 100 players.

 

[McFlash97]

Yes. Take a look at the voting results for the top 100 players.

Gretzky is number 1 as expected.

 

[Pominville Knows]

If anything it would change orrs legacy. He was already losing harts to Esposito. Imagine a Lemieux or Gretzky instead

Esposito got many of his Harts from breaking scoring records and winning Art Rosses, just like nowadays its usually a trophy for forwards.

 

[MadLuke]

Sorry no.

Are you arguing that people ranking Orr as the best player of all time do not exist ?

 

[Gambitman]

One of the nice things about Gretzky’s career is there is very little what might have been. Sure there was the trade and the Suter hit. But we got 9 years in Edmonton of those 7 maybe 8 are peak performance years, with a perfect coach, perfect teammates, and good health to maximize his offensive totals. I think 240 is a stretch as the offensive prowess of Coffey is very similar to Orr. I think Edmonton is a better team and they win maybe 5 or even 6 cups in a row with Orr but not a lot more points by Gretzky.

 

[bobholly39]

The Panther's post about Phil Esposito made me think about how either Gretzky or Lemieux might have done playing on the same team as Bobby Orr. Esposito was obviously a talented player, but it seems to be generally accepted that he benefited considerably from being on Orr's team.

What if prime Gretzky or Lemieux had played with Orr? Would either forward still be regarded as highly as he is? Could either of them have topped 300 points in a season?

I feel that Gretzky is the player in history who had the most positive impact on teammates, above Orr. Gretzky on Kurri, and others, etc. So - as much as Orr would help Gretzky, the opposite is also true with Gretzky helping Orr, and Orr would produce more.

I didn't get to see Esposito play - but it sounds like he was supremely talented and a great compliment/finisher to Orr. Do Lemieux/Gretzky do better in that role? Sure, maybe a little bit since they're both more talented then Espo, but we wouldn't be seeing 300 point seasons.

I think the biggest difference would be on team results, vs individual statistics.

It's true on the 80s oilers, a peak/prime Orr playing with Gretzky may help Gretzky score up to 230-250 points in a career year, vs 215. But the biggest differentiator would have been come playoffs, and in winning games. Oilers lost the cup in 83. and in 86. Maybe even 82? It's possible with Orr/Gretzky combo they win more.

Same idea with Lemieux. The effect on Lemieux would have been a bit bigger early in his career, since he was slower to start. I think Lemieux's point totals can shoot up prior to 89 if he got to play with Orr. That team would obviously be making playoffs too - and possibly competing for more cups before 91. I'm sure Orr could have helped push Pittsburgh to the finals in 96, maybe 93. So again, team success, it helps a ton. Personal statistics? Same as Gretzky. Maybe in a career year Lemieux could approach that 230-250 range (again, without healthy seasons which he lacks, it isn't exactly happening) - but you wouldn't see 300 points, no.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Inversely, the "what if" becomes - if one was so willing - what if he didn't have the perfect situation? What if he didn't have Coffey and Kurri? What if he didn't play in a weak time period for the league? What if he had a coach that insisted his center take F1 defensive responsibilities (even if to a fault)...?

I don't say that to knock him...he's my #1. But you could ask some pointed questions as a "what if" and perhaps generate a different conversation...

 

[bobholly39]

Inversely, the "what if" becomes - if one was so willing - what if he didn't have the perfect situation? What if he didn't have Coffey and Kurri? What if he didn't play in a weak time period for the league? What if he had a coach that insisted his center take F1 defensive responsibilities (even if to a fault)...?

I don't say that to knock him...he's my #1. But you could ask some pointed questions as a "what if" and perhaps generate a different conversation...

I respect Gretzky too much to question any of that. Moreso than any player in history in my opinion - he always was the best at every level, with no exception. His game was offense, and he outscored everyone in every season, every playoffs, every tournament he ever played without fail (during his prime). Coffey and Kurri are tremendous players who had a huge contribution to Gretzky's career - but without them? Gretzky would have found someone else to produce with. And he'd have found a way to produce if his coach insisted he play a certain way too.

Coming back to the OP's hypothetical - the biggest effect having Orr/Gretzky as teammates throughout their primes is probably in the hart trophy race. Gretzky won 8 straight harts (lol). Does Orr steal 1? 2? 5? Do being teammates cause a player on another team to steal a couple? And how does this affect their respective legacies?

 

[2xJack]

I see a couple of posters have mentioned Paul Coffey. Both Getzky and Lemieux had their best offensive seasons playing with Coffey. This is not coincidental. I'm not going to try claiming that Coffey was as good a player as Orr was. That's just not true. However, from a purely offensive point of view Orr and Coffey are very close to almost be considered on par. Of the six highest season point totals for D, three are Orr's and three are Coffey's. I do not believe that playing with Orr would result in much better numbers than playing with Coffey did. I'd expect the point totals to be about the same. Where we'd see the difference is in the goals against.

 

[LeBlondeDemon10]

Gretzky is number 1 as expected.

Ok, now you're not even trying...

 

[Gambitman]

In my mind the “inverse what if” is answered by his first 3 years in LA. I think those are almost as remarkable as his 215 point season. 163 and 168 on those LA teams show how great he really was.

 

[2xJack]

In my mind the “inverse what if” is answered by his first 3 years in LA. I think those are almost as remarkable as his 215 point season. 163 and 168 on those LA teams show how great he really was.

I don't know how much those first LA years really prove. There were some really good players on those teams. Not as good as he had in Edmonton of course, but they were not terrible. I don't find it remarkable that he put up 160 points with the likes of Robitaille, Dave Taylor, Duchesne, Nichols and Sandstrom.

 

[The Panther]

I feel that Gretzky is the player in history who had the most positive impact on teammates, above Orr. Gretzky on Kurri, and others, etc. So - as much as Orr would help Gretzky, the opposite is also true with Gretzky helping Orr, and Orr would produce more.

I didn't get to see Esposito play - but it sounds like he was supremely talented and a great compliment/finisher to Orr. Do Lemieux/Gretzky do better in that role? Sure, maybe a little bit since they're both more talented then Espo, but we wouldn't be seeing 300 point seasons.

I think the biggest difference would be on team results, vs individual statistics.

It's true on the 80s oilers, a peak/prime Orr playing with Gretzky may help Gretzky score up to 230-250 points in a career year, vs 215. But the biggest differentiator would have been come playoffs, and in winning games. Oilers lost the cup in 83. and in 86. Maybe even 82? It's possible with Orr/Gretzky combo they win more.

Same idea with Lemieux. The effect on Lemieux would have been a bit bigger early in his career, since he was slower to start. I think Lemieux's point totals can shoot up prior to 89 if he got to play with Orr. That team would obviously be making playoffs too - and possibly competing for more cups before 91. I'm sure Orr could have helped push Pittsburgh to the finals in 96, maybe 93. So again, team success, it helps a ton. Personal statistics? Same as Gretzky. Maybe in a career year Lemieux could approach that 230-250 range (again, without healthy seasons which he lacks, it isn't exactly happening) - but you wouldn't see 300 points, no.

I agree with all of this.

I think people go into these fantasy-scenarios of how many points Gretzky or Lemieux could have scored with so-so as a teammate, but... I don't think it works like that. I think '82 / '84 / '85 / '86 Gretzky and '89 / '93 Lemieux show us what is basically the upper-limit of possible scoring in an 80-ish games season. Here we see the perfect players on the perfect teams in the perfect eras. Gretzky got 212 points before any of his teammates were superstars... then, after '84 or so when the Edmonton supporting cast became really elite, it's not like Gretzky's scoring increased. It had already hit a plateau. And likewise Lemieux: when his supporting cast became really stellar from '90 to '93, it's not like his scoring went up from '88 or '89 (in sum, it actually went a bit down).

And, as mentioned, Paul Coffey already scored more goals in a season than Orr ever did and only one less point, and finished 2nd to peak-Gretzky in NHL scoring twice. How much more offence would Orr be bringing?

And I also agree that the real difference would be in goals-against and team success. Orr would have a more positive impact on team success than Coffey, because he was more consistent and much better at "picking his spots" and being smart defensively.

 

[The Panther]

I don't know how much those first LA years really prove. There were some really good players on those teams. Not as good as he had in Edmonton of course, but they were not terrible. I don't find it remarkable that he put up 160 points with the likes of Robitaille, Dave Taylor, Duchesne, Nichols and Sandstrom.

I mean, Taylor was past his prime when Gretzky arrived (coming off an 18-goal season), and Nicholls and Sandstrom were never together on the Kings.

It's true, though, that the Kings were not a poor offensive team by any stretch. They were actually 2nd in the League in scoring in 1987, and then fifth in 1988, just before Gretzky arrived. With his arrival, they shot up to 1st, 2nd, and 3rd in his first three seasons.

 

[2xJack]

I mean, Taylor was past his prime when Gretzky arrived (coming off an 18-goal season), and Nicholls and Sandstrom were never together on the Kings.

It's true, though, that the Kings were not a poor offensive team by any stretch. They were actually 2nd in the League in scoring in 1987, and then fifth in 1988, just before Gretzky arrived. With his arrival, they shot up to 1st, 2nd, and 3rd in his first three seasons.

You're right about Taylor. He was definitely on the down side prior to Gretzky's arrival. As for Nicholls and Sandstrom, I was just listing various players that Gretzky played with during the 3 seasons you highlighted. Just trying to show the level of talent he was working with. Of course, Robitaille was the big gun.

I think the truly great players of that era were capable of 150-160 point seasons with just average 1st line quality linemates. Yzerman managed 155 points with Gerard Gallant and Paul MacLean on his wings. It is for this reason I don't think the LA years were anything special for Gretzky. His best and most remarkable work was the era in Edmonton when he peaked.

 

[Boxscore]

Tricky question.

First, I consider Orr the single greatest hockey player in history--not due to stats--but due to the way he impacted a game in ways 99 and 66 couldn't. The only weakness Bobby had were his weak knees. On the ice, the man was the perfect hockey player--he could skate better than anyone, score and pass with the best of forwards. He could also throw the body and drop the gloves. He could kill penalties at will and run a PP with ease. He was winning Harts, Art Rosses and Norrises and sometimes it wasn't close. He was the best overall. A defenseman (who was great at DEFENDING) who could score well over 100 points a year and lead the NHL in scoring is amazing.

That said, both Wayne and Mario played with prime Coffey, who was probably as close to an "Orr" offensively as we saw. If anything, I think either player who played steadily with a prime Orr would at least have another Cup or two to their resumer. Points-wise, I think the see a tiny bump, but you can only go so high. Gretz popped 200 a couple of times and Mario pretty much hit 200 points playing with beer leaguers.

All three players have their legacies cemented.

 

[The Panther]

I think the truly great players of that era were capable of 150-160 point seasons with just average 1st line quality linemates. Yzerman managed 155 points with Gerard Gallant and Paul MacLean on his wings. It is for this reason I don't think the LA years were anything special for Gretzky. His best and most remarkable work was the era in Edmonton when he peaked.

Wow, that's quite a statement. I think the first three years in L.A. were indeed very special for Gretzky. 1988-89 is a weird season in general because of the Gretzky trade, and then four players scored 150 points or more, which was a unique occurrence. I don't think 1988-89 was one of Gretzky's better seasons (the Kings were a trainwreck defensively, and he was on the ice for far too many goals against), but, you know, 168 points in your first season with a new team isn't exactly shabby.

Remember that scoring levels drop noticeably from 1989-90 and ever onward (partial exception in 1992-93). Gretzky won the scoring title in 1989-90 and 1990-91, and I think 1990-91 was one of his best seasons, ever. The Kings scored about 1/2-a-goal per game less that year than in 1988-89, but Wayne still put up 163 points in 78 games, winning the scoring title by 32, and with 72 more than anybody else on his team. And L.A. had its first ever first place finish.

Yzerman's scoring level reached that 150+ point plateau in 1988-89, yes, but could be sustain it? He did that for one season only (during which his team sagged in the standings).

 

[Boxscore]

Wow, that's quite a statement. I think the first three years in L.A. were indeed very special for Gretzky.

I agree. I think some fans tend to underestimate Gretzky's time in LA due to three reasons:

1. The Kings didn't win anything significant with Wayne, while the Oilers won a Cup without him

2. Gretzky wasn't the 200 point "Gretzky" we were used to in Edmonton

3. Wayne passed the torch to Mario in the Canada Cup and Lemieux took over as the elite scorer in the NHL (scoring 199 the first year Wayne was in LA)

That said, Gretzky was great in LA.

1988-89: he finished 2nd in scoring to Mario
1989-90: he won the Art Ross by 13 points
1990-91: he won the Art Ross by 32 points
1991-92: he finished 3rd in scoring behind Lemieux and Stevens, but scored 1 less point than Stevens in 6 less GP... so he "really" finished 2nd.
1992-93: he was injured and only played 45 games
1993-94: he wins the Art Ross by 10 points