Orr v. Gretzky (Part 2)

[bleeney]

The THN Top 100 panel included a lot of journalists and media people, including:

Kevin Allen, USA Today
Ken Campbell, THN
Steve Dryden, THN
Bob Duff, Windsor Star
Eric Duhatschek, Calgary Herald
Milt Dunnell, Toronto Star
Mike Emrick, Broadcaster SportsChannel
Jack Falla, THN
Stan Fischler, writer/THN
Tony Gallagher, Vancouver Province
Charlie Halpin, THN
Dick Irvin, HNIC
Jim Kelley, Buffalo News
Claude Larouchelle, Le Soleil de Quebec
Jim Matheson, Edmonton Journal
Ken McKenzie, co-founder THN
Bob McKenzie, THN
Brian McFarlane, writer/HNIC
Frank Orr, Toronto Star
Yvan Pedneault, Journal de Montreal
Fran Rosa, Boston Globe

Over 40% of the panel was media people, many with a connection to THN.

Why wasn't someone like Ralph Mellanby on the panel? The guy only ran HNIC since day one, and has seen as much of the greats from the 50s on as anybody (And I'm not saying that as an Orr supporter; Mellanby is on record naming Howe as the best player ever).

It's just that the selection panel has a few curious names on it, as far as I'm concerned. Having Fischler, a man with a personal axe to grind against Orr, on the panel is a joke. After their falling out, he went from practically worshipping Orr to ripping him almost overnight. Orr went from being - in Fischler's own words - "the Greatest Ever", to ranking #14 on his list. Replace him with Mellanby, and you'd have a virtual three-way tie at the top.
*note: I have about 40 Fischler books in my collection. He's a very knowledgable, entertaining writer, particularly about the game in the early days. He's forgotten more than most of us will ever know. But... he sometimes lets his personal feelings get the better of him. He holds a grudge for a long, long time and he can be a real ****-disturber. For instance, he's had a long, nasty feud with Brian McFarlane(!)

Another thing about THN that bugs me: Switch even one panel member, and that vote could've gone any of three ways. But the write-up for Gretzky in the Top 100 came with the following heading:

"The Greatest One: Bar None"
They go on to say "That he is the greatest hockey player of all time is a given, merely affirmed - not decided - by the voting of The Hockey News 50 member committee."
-THN Top 100; pg 13

Excuse me? They make it sound like it wasn't even close, but I can think of dozens of knowledgable hockey people (every bit as qualified - in some cases more - as anybody on that panel) who would've voted for either Orr or Howe ahead of Gretzky.

It's as if their minds were made up before they even began.

 

[BraveCanadian]

It's as if their minds were made up before they even began.

Very much like this huge thread.. so why are we bothering?

 

[RabbinsDuck]

The THN Top 100 panel included a lot of journalists and media people, including:

Kevin Allen, USA Today
Ken Campbell, THN
Steve Dryden, THN
Bob Duff, Windsor Star
Eric Duhatschek, Calgary Herald
Milt Dunnell, Toronto Star
Mike Emrick, Broadcaster SportsChannel
Jack Falla, THN
Stan Fischler, writer/THN
Tony Gallagher, Vancouver Province
Charlie Halpin, THN
Dick Irvin, HNIC
Jim Kelley, Buffalo News
Claude Larouchelle, Le Soleil de Quebec
Jim Matheson, Edmonton Journal
Ken McKenzie, co-founder THN
Bob McKenzie, THN
Brian McFarlane, writer/HNIC
Frank Orr, Toronto Star
Yvan Pedneault, Journal de Montreal
Fran Rosa, Boston Globe

Over 40% of the panel was media people, many with a connection to THN.

Why wasn't someone like Ralph Mellanby on the panel? The guy only ran HNIC since day one, and has seen as much of the greats from the 50s on as anybody (And I'm not saying that as an Orr supporter; Mellanby is on record naming Howe as the best player ever).

It's just that the selection panel has a few curious names on it, as far as I'm concerned. Having Fischler, a man with a personal axe to grind against Orr, on the panel is a joke. After their falling out, he went from practically worshipping Orr to ripping him almost overnight. Orr went from being - in Fischler's own words - "the Greatest Ever", to ranking #14 on his list. Replace him with Mellanby, and you'd have a virtual three-way tie at the top.
*note: I have about 40 Fischler books in my collection. He's a very knowledgable, entertaining writer, particularly about the game in the early days. He's forgotten more than most of us will ever know. But... he sometimes lets his personal feelings get the better of him. He holds a grudge for a long, long time and he can be a real ****-disturber. For instance, he's had a long, nasty feud with Brian McFarlane(!)

Another thing about THN that bugs me: Switch even one panel member, and that vote could've gone any of three ways. But the write-up for Gretzky in the Top 100 came with the following heading:

"The Greatest One: Bar None"
They go on to say "That he is the greatest hockey player of all time is a given, merely affirmed - not decided - by the voting of The Hockey News 50 member committee."
-THN Top 100; pg 13

Excuse me? They make it sound like it wasn't even close, but I can think of dozens of knowledgable hockey people (every bit as qualified - in some cases more - as anybody on that panel) who would've voted for either Orr or Howe ahead of Gretzky.

It's as if their minds were made up before they even began.

Great points, I'm surprised it was so close as it is. Really surprised Howe was so close as I always assume he gets underrated often in polls.

 

[overpass]

Orr does indeed dominate this metric and it is quite impressive.

The problem I have with it is that everyone on HOH is quoting these numbers as something definitive without remembering another important part of overpass' post:

So while this is certainly an interesting look at things, it is not definitive and should absolutely be taken with a grain of salt.

Yes, those disclaimers are important. But in some ways, Orr and Gretzky played similar roles. In their prime, they were both playing an absolute ton of minutes. I don't think they were playing particularly easy or tough minutes at even strength - their coaches would just play them a lot and let the other team react to them.

So I think the adjusted plus-minus numbers tell the story fairly well. You might give Gretzky a slight bump because it's not fair that he's compared against Messier - but honestly, Messier's regular season plus-minuses weren't that great in the 1980s.

Bobby Orr is actually the main reason I created adjusted plus-minus. It's always difficult to quantify the contributions of defencemen with traditional stats, and especially one like Orr.

If there's a factor that might throw it off, it's that all the stats I posted in the adjusted plus-minus thread implicitly assume that average league strength is equal. The NHL in the early 1980s was probably stronger on average than it had been in the early to mid 1970s, with an influx of European and American talent and the WHA folding offsetting the increase to 21 teams. By the late 1980s it was almost certainly stronger on average. So league strength is a real influence on Orr's numbers.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Thanks for the post overpass.

As I said on the previous page I'm not trying to put down the work you put into the adjusted +/- at all.. I think the results are very interesting especially with respect to Orr being so far out in front and also players like Lindros getting some due.

I just think the adjusted +/- was being turned a bit too quickly into gospel around here when you warned everyone yourself to keep those caveats in mind.

 

[Up the Irons]

ok. you've changed my mind. I know longer think my hero is as good as your hero. your are right and I'm wrong. Your favourite is the best, my favourite is second best.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

It's no coincidence all the greatest +\- feats were from the 70s, there was a significant imbalance between teams in the league at the time.

 

[overpass]

Thanks for the post overpass.

As I said on the previous page I'm not trying to put down the work you put into the adjusted +/- at all.. I think the results are very interesting especially with respect to Orr being so far out in front and also players like Lindros getting some due.

I just think the adjusted +/- was being turned a bit too quickly into gospel around here when you warned everyone yourself to keep those caveats in mind.

No worries, I wouldn't take it as gospel either, so I don't mind criticism of the stat.

But I do think that it is at its best when looking at Bobby Orr. The signal-to-noise ratio of plus-minus is higher with the great players.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Every Orr supporter brings up his defensive ability, which obviously is great but what about this:

During their prime 6 seasons, for Orr 1969-1975 and Gretzky 1981-87:

Orr avg a +81 meanwhile Gretzky avg a +76.

5 goals difference and take into account that Gretzky played on the 2nd penalty kill and scored an unbelievable 45 shorthanded goals during his prime. Meanwhile Orr scored just 14.

Then let's take shooting percentage into account...
Orr during his prime: 9.7%
Gretzky during his prime: 21.5%

Better shooter: Gretzky
Better playmaker: Gretzky
Better defensive player: Orr

How can a guy who wins 2 out of 3 not be considered the best?

So we're seriously comparing the shooting percentage of a defenseman versus a forward now?

 

[redbull]

So we're seriously comparing the shooting percentage of a defenseman versus a forward now?

so what you're saying, in a way, is that comparing a defenseman and a forward is dumb and we should just close this thread already!


these arguments will last forever, no answer and dwindling meaningful dialog. maybe it's time for another crosby vs ovechkin thread.

is it september yet?

 

[BraveCanadian]

It's no coincidence all the greatest +\- feats were from the 70s, there was a significant imbalance between teams in the league at the time.

This is true and overpass makes reference to that in his post above:

If there's a factor that might throw it off, it's that all the stats I posted in the adjusted plus-minus thread implicitly assume that average league strength is equal. The NHL in the early 1980s was probably stronger on average than it had been in the early to mid 1970s, with an influx of European and American talent and the WHA folding offsetting the increase to 21 teams. By the late 1980s it was almost certainly stronger on average. So league strength is a real influence on Orr's numbers.