The Best PLayer In The History of The NHL

[Trottier]

Oh yes everyone knows how silly and mundane things like statistics and facts are. They simply get in the road of ones personal oppinion, don't they?

Statistics can support opinions. They themselves are not "an opinion" and they certainly are not a definitive statement. Hope you can understand the difference someday.

Unfortunately, the fantasy stat dorks (hitting a nerve?) often use numbers as a substitute for opinion, for one's own EYES. Of course, given that these type typically are incapable of ARTICULATING an opinion (in either written or spoken word), it reasons that they would fall back nearly exclusively on nummmmmmbers.

How engaging. Like talking to a PC. But then again, with numbers, one never needs to actually watch and observe. Which, clearly, is the case with some here.

But feel free to defend the end of learned articulation in favor of a recital of a spreadsheet.

As for "facts": sorry. Not subscribing to the born in the 90s "post-modern" take on anything in life. As in: my opinion is fact. And everything is rellllllative.

 

[tape-2-tape]

people who have seen both go with Orr? How is that a general concensus. The most accurate voting would have to be the The Hockey News issue 1998 as which player was the greatest. Guess what when it was all said and done, Gretzky reigned supreme. Was there ever a doubt?. Sorry Gretzky invented the lil curl once in the opposition's end to find the trailing man, He also utilized the back of the net as his own Office, yet another revolutionary tactic employed by the Great One, It seems like some on here actually beleive Orr was as deadly offensively as the Gretzky, Sorry thats a lose cause. Not even close. If you would compare Orr's offensive wizardry to anyone compare it to another defenseman, Please not a forward who's hit over 200 points 4 times!

Have you even read any of the posts in this thread by those who saw both? Add them up again.

 

[Trottier]

I'll never orgue Orr vs Gretzky (or Richard or Howe...). Mario vs Wayne, well thats another story.

I'm with you, though I may disagree on #99 v. #66.

In the end, it's a great discussion. One that is enhanced by personal observation, as opposed to simply a sterile review of statistics.

Here's an interesting thought: what if Orr never gets hurt and somehow or another winds up on Edmonton for the tail end of his career, just as Gretzky is starting his?

Actually, if you look at Orr's age when he was forced to retire in '79, he would have quite possibly had nearly a decade's worth of hockey left in him. So, taking your hypothetical to it's conclusion, what happens is Orr helps Edmonton further dominate a good portion of the 80s...and Paul Coffey ends up relegated to the Oilers 2nd power play unit.

 

[tape-2-tape]

It seems like some on here actually beleive Orr was as deadly offensively as the Gretzky, Sorry thats a lose cause. Not even close. If you would compare Orr's offensive wizardry to anyone compare it to another defenseman, Please not a forward who's hit over 200 points 4 times!

Please.........do I have to read the title of the thread again to you??

 

[Whatever Man*]

Statistics and facts support opinions, genius. Hope you can understand the difference someday.

Unfortunately, the born yesterday fantasy stat dorks (hitting a nerve, Sparky?) use numbers as a substitute for opinion, for one's own EYES. Of course, given that these type typically are incapable of ARTICULATING an opinion (in either written or spoken word), it reasons that they would fall back on nummmmmmbers.

How engaging. Like talking to a PC. But then again, with numbers, one never needs to actually watch and observe. Which, clearly, is the case with some here.

As for "facts" genius: sorry. Not subscribing to the born in the 990s "post-modern" take on anything in life. As in: my opinion is fact. Everything is rellllllative.

Go back to school.

Why thank you. Being called a genius, as a way to insult my inteligence is always so mature. Are all your posts so enthralling?

Glad to see you realize you are trolling.

"Born Yesterday fantasy sports dorks" Nice. Sounds like someone is jealous of being left in the 70's. Don't worry man, disco will return.

Who would ever stoop as low as to use stats and facts and figures in place of oppinion? That is terrible. Why someone should tell the scientific community they have been going about it all wrong for centuries. It's not the data and evidence that matters. Its how you FEEL that is important. An emotion-based conclusion is all that really matters. So glad you cleared that up.

Oooh some more cleverly disguised insults towards my intellect. You sir, are a crafty one. I bet the nurses have to keep their eyes on you.

 

[soulok*]

Please.........do I have to read the title of the thread again to you??

do I have to keep telling you Gretzky was the greatest player ever? , dont worry You "try" to say Orr was better, I know Gretzky was better . Its ok when your at the top of the pile people always try to find a way to belittle your accomplishments. The fact of the matter is Gretzky "did" set records, he "did" prove his greatness by doing the things required to be "great". Orr did do great things to just "not" as great as gretzky sounds like a tongue twister.

 

[tape-2-tape]

The whole problem with this thread is that often a great players accomplishments are being discredited by some because of sheer #'s or records. I will back Orr because IMO he's the greatest player that I've even witnessed play the game.

During this whole thread I do not have to defend myself because I have never discredited Wayne's game whatsoever. Wayne's records/accomplishments all speak for themselves, as should Orr's.

If some don't feel that my opinion matters...that's fine because I can live long and happy with that.

 

[tape-2-tape]

do I have to keep telling you Gretzky was the greatest player ever? , dont worry You "try" to say Orr was better, I know Gretzky was better . Its ok when your at the top of the pile people always try to find a way to belittle your accomplishments. The fact of the matter is Gretzky "did" set records, he "did" prove his greatness by doing the things required to be "great". Orr did do great things to just "not" as great as gretzky sounds like a tongue twister.

That's cool...I respect your opinion...but I'll still take ORR!!!

 

[Trottier]

If some don't feel that my opinion matters...that's fine because I can live long and happy with that.

We don't want your stinking opinion. We just want statistics! This is science!

 

[tape-2-tape]

We don't want your stinking opinion. We just want statistics! This is science!

Opps..sorry....forgot!

 

[Sens Rule]

Here's an interesting thought: what if Orr never gets hurt and somehow or another winds up on Edmonton for the tail end of his career, just as Gretzky is starting his?

Orr could have played on ALL of Edmonton's Cup teams. He was born in 1948. Playing until he was 42 something Chelios, Bourque and other great D-Men have done. Imagine a Coffey and Orr on the same defence?

Their PP would have Gretzky, Kurri, Anderson (or Mess), Coffey, Orr.

If Orr had not got hurt he probably stays in Boston and likely would have played 5-10 years with Ray Bourque.

Gordie Howe stuck around long enough to play in Gretzky's first season and he was born in 1928. Bobby Hull as well and he was born in 1938. Orr was born in 1948.

That is a frustrating thing to me with all these people who say Orr played in some earlier era than Gretzky and Mario when in fact he likley could have played with both as peers if he had not had a career ending injury.

 

[Sens Rule]

That's all fine and dandy but......Orr was Boston's offence. He was the greatest dominant offensive threat in the league during his time. Espo, Bucyk, Stanfield, Hodge, ect.... ect...all benefited from his presence to thier greatest offensive seasons ever, just as Wayne did with his Oilers.

All teams devised plans to stop Orr, just as they did against Gretzky. To say that Orr wasn't a tremendous offensive force would be a great understatement IMO.

Yes, Orr was a defenceman but he was the offence wherever he went as well as taking care of his own end of the ice.

Orr was certainly a great offensive force. The best of his time. But don't underrate Esposito. He was a force in his own right and one of the best goal scorers ever. Orr benefitted from playing with Esposito as well just like Kurri and Coffey helped Gretzky be so dominant offensively.

IMO Orr and Esposito were the 2 best offensive players in the NHL for 5,6 maybe 7 seasons. They would have been even not playing together but together they helped each other to be even greater.

IMO Coffey was the 2nd best offensive player in the NHL until Mario came into the NHL and then became the 3rd best. From 1982 or so through about 1989 or so Coffey was a massive offensive force. Both Mario and Gretzky benefited from his presence on the ice a significant amount. Of course Coffey also bennefited from them as well a great deal.

 

[mcphee]

Why thank you. Being called a genius, as a way to insult my inteligence is always so mature. Are all your posts so enthralling?

Glad to see you realize you are trolling.

"Born Yesterday fantasy sports dorks" Nice. Sounds like someone is jealous of being left in the 70's. Don't worry man, disco will return.

Who would ever stoop as low as to use stats and facts and figures in place of oppinion? That is terrible. Why someone should tell the scientific community they have been going about it all wrong for centuries. It's not the data and evidence that matters. Its how you FEEL that is important. An emotion-based conclusion is all that really matters. So glad you cleared that up.

Oooh some more cleverly disguised insults towards my intellect. You sir, are a crafty one. I bet the nurses have to keep their eyes on you.

Witty disco references aside, I love stats, as Jim Bouton once advised, I used to eat cards to digest all pertinent player info. The pronblem with relying solely on stats, and I only say this because you seem to feel it is either /or[1R], is that they are affected to much by situation, and by position.

How in hell can you do a point comparison of Gretzky,the most productive offensive player of all time against Orr who had a different set of responsibilities, though he quickly re-defined those responsiblilities.

Gretz accomplished more on teh ice in terms of concrete production than anyone else, easily imo. Orr took over games and controlled them like no one else. Team situation, compettition, many things influenced stats. Time spent on pk, teammates, a lot of things.
I won't say who was better because it's a discussion, not a science, there is no answer. I stick with my std., Gretz accomplished the most, no one played a better game than Orr's best game.

 

[PurpleShamrock]

People say that Orr changed the way defense was played. I disagree.

Red Kelly, Doug Harvey, King Clancy, Dit Clapper and Eddie Shore were all good offensive defensement in their day. Orr was just better at it.

If Orr really changed the way defense is played, we would have had more than just Paul Coffey as a dominant offensive defenseman. Orr just did it better than any defenseman before or since. Offensive defensemen have always been around.

Fair point. Orr wasn't the first offensive defenseman the league ever saw; he just took the art to a previously unheard of level (and one which only Paul Coffey has even approached ever since). That said, I do think Orr changed the way the game is played, in that he inspired a generation of offensively-gifted players to play defense. There were offensive-minded defenseman before Orr, it's true. But there seemed to be considerably more of them in his immediate wake.

 

[the_fan]

jeff odgers

 

[God Bless Canada]

Witty disco references aside, I love stats, as Jim Bouton once advised, I used to eat cards to digest all pertinent player info. The pronblem with relying solely on stats, and I only say this because you seem to feel it is either /or[1R], is that they are affected to much by situation, and by position.

How in hell can you do a point comparison of Gretzky,the most productive offensive player of all time against Orr who had a different set of responsibilities, though he quickly re-defined those responsiblilities.

Gretz accomplished more on teh ice in terms of concrete production than anyone else, easily imo. Orr took over games and controlled them like no one else. Team situation, compettition, many things influenced stats. Time spent on pk, teammates, a lot of things.
I won't say who was better because it's a discussion, not a science, there is no answer. I stick with my std., Gretz accomplished the most, no one played a better game than Orr's best game.

The other problem is that success in hockey goes far beyond just statistics. Stats will tell you some things, but not everything. Not nearly everything. What makes our game so great - the greatest game on the planet - is that there is so much that can't be tracked on statistics alone. In recent years, the league has introduced some new stats - maybe in an attempt to appeal to stats-happy baseball fans, I don't know - some relevant (faceoff percentage, hits, blocked shots) some, for the most part, not. (Giveaways and takeaways). But there are so many things that stats can't measure that have such a huge impact on the game.

 

[Whatever Man*]

So things like statistics and facts are redundant, and only our FEELINGS and OPPINION matters?

If it were up to you stats and facts ignorers, we would still be learning the sun revolved around the earth. No point in doing any factual study. It Feels good to be the center of the universe, and therefore that is, how it is.

But if you want to ignore things like Art Ross, Hart and Pearson trophies and a re-write of the record books when it comes to the best player ever, go right ahead. But then just what are you using for comparison, when you all cry about how Orr "dominated" his peers? Just more oppinion? Or is it a feeling? I'm sorry but it seems to me all the people who trumpet Orr's dominance, do use facts and stats when it comes to Orr, but then dismiss any statistical data when it pertians to someone else. Sure, that is your choice, but does kind of take the legitimacy out of the arguments though.

Well I FEEL Mario is a better player than Gretzky and Orr. But I KNOW Gretzky was the best.

 

[mcphee]

So things like statistics and facts are redundant, and only our FEELINGS and OPPINION matters?

.

No one said that. You're putting words in everyone's collective mouths because there's discussion rather capitulation.

 

[Whatever Man*]

No one said that. You're putting words in everyone's collective mouths because there's discussion rather capitulation.

No I am not. Certain People ridicule stats and people who use them. I happen to think that is absurd.

 

[God Bless Canada]

So things like statistics and facts are redundant, and only our FEELINGS and OPPINION matters?

If it were up to you stats and facts ignorers, we would still be learning the sun revolved around the earth. No point in doing any factual study. It Feels good to be the center of the universe, and therefore that is, how it is.

But if you want to ignore things like Art Ross, Hart and Pearson trophies and a re-write of the record books when it comes to the best player ever, go right ahead. But then just what are you using for comparison, when you all cry about how Orr "dominated" his peers? Just more oppinion? Or is it a feeling? I'm sorry but it seems to me all the people who trumpet Orr's dominance, do use facts and stats when it comes to Orr, but then dismiss any statistical data when it pertians to someone else. Sure, that is your choice, but does kind of take the legitimacy out of the arguments though.

Well I FEEL Mario is a better player than Gretzky and Orr. But I KNOW Gretzky was the best.

I didn't say they're redundant. I said they don't tell the whole story. Hockey is not just a stats game. Individual success in hockey extends so far beyond stats. It's about intangibles, work ethic, determination, grit, big-game mentality, etc. In many cases, it's about leadership. You don't measure those with stats. Team success can't be measured via stats, either. You can't find a stat to measure team concept. The only barometer of team concept is playoff success.

Stats tell you some things. Plugs don't score 50 goals or 100 points, no matter the era. But stats don't tell you everything.

 

[Whatever Man*]

I didn't say they're redundant. I said they don't tell the whole story. Hockey is not just a stats game. Individual success in hockey extends so far beyond stats. It's about intangibles, work ethic, determination, grit, big-game mentality, etc. In many cases, it's about leadership. You don't measure those with stats. Team success can't be measured via stats, either. You can't find a stat to measure team concept. The only barometer of team concept is playoff success.

Stats tell you some things. Plugs don't score 50 goals or 100 points, no matter the era. But stats don't tell you everything.

OK Forget Stats. Lets only use oppinion.

When it comes to a meassuring stick, I would take the NHL players oppinion over anyone else's. In terms of overall dominance over one's peers, that would be the Pearson trophy. The players play against these guys. They know exactly who is capable of what, and how difficult it is to face them.

If Player "A" wins Three Pearsons over 7 years, and Player "B" wins 7 Pearsons in 7 Years. Which player, according to NHL Players, was more dominant during his era?

 

[God Bless Canada]

OK Forget Stats. Lets only use oppinion.

When it comes to a meassuring stick, I would take the NHL players oppinion over anyone else's. In terms of overall dominance over one's peers, that would be the Pearson trophy. The players play against these guys. They know exactly who is capable of what, and how difficult it is to face them.

If Player "A" wins Three Pearsons over 7 years, and Player "B" wins 7 Pearsons in 7 Years. Which player, according to NHL Players, was more dominant during his era?

Well, considering that no player has ever won "7 Pearsons in 7 years" (no player has won six Pearsons, total, let alone seven), I really don't know how to answer your question.

 

[Whatever Man*]

Well, considering that no player has ever won "7 Pearsons in 7 years" (no player has won six Pearsons, total, let alone seven), I really don't know how to answer your question.

Nice way to avoid answering. You should go into politics.

 

[God Bless Canada]

Nice way to avoid answering. You should go into politics.

Give me a comparison based on reality, and I will give you an answer. You gave me a ficticious comparison.

 

[Whatever Man*]

Give me a comparison based on reality, and I will give you an answer. You gave me a ficticious comparison.

It's called A "HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION". Sheesh, for someone who doesn't want to use statistics too much, you sure want everything else to be factual and correct.

Just forget it.