Orr versus Gretzky

Leather · Mar 25, 2016

Gretzky was amazing, but his numbers came in a period in hockey that was analogous to the period of 1993-2005 for baseball (or 2005-2015 in football). There was about 20% more scoring during Gretzky's peak than Orr's.

jacklamabe65 · Mar 25, 2016

"Six Bobby Orrs would beat six Gordie Howes or six Wayne Gretskys 100 times out of 100, and everyone who played the game knows it." - Gordie Howe

mwonow · Mar 25, 2016

jacklamabe65 said:
"Six Bobby Orrs would beat six Gordie Howes or six Wayne Gretskys 100 times out of 100, and everyone who played the game knows it." - Gordie Howe

I've never seen that quote, but I believe it.

Thanks for the video, Theo - every time I see something like that, I end up laughing out loud. Skating is the core of hockey, and Bobby Orr was so much better at it than anybody else...

Gretzky was truly amazing, but I'm with you - Orr was the best ever. A defenseman leading the league in scoring? Adjusted for era, that's about as amazing as the fact that Ruth's career overlapped "Home Run" Baker.

FL4WL3SS · Mar 25, 2016

Bobby was effectively done in the NHL before the age of 30 (officially retiring at the age of 30).

Let that sink in for a moment.

Eddie Jurak · Mar 25, 2016

The best argument to be made for Gretzky is the longevity argument, as he played in more than double the number of games. Gretzky played 20 years in the NHL, had only one significantly injury shortened year. If we define "health" as played 60+ games in a normal year, Gretzky had 18 healthy years plus a healthy lockout year. Orr, by contrast, had just 8 healthy years. If you are of a mind to count that against Orr, then there is a case for Gretzky.

Everything else favors Orr. Orr did manage to play 8.5 more or less full seasons, but he was battling serious knee injuries throughout. What he actually did do was in spite of knee injuries and bad medical technology that probably would have forced lesser players out of the game entirely.

Because his career was so short, he missed out on playing in the high offense 80s during which Gretzky put up his best stats. The numbers Orr would have put up during that period would have cemented his case as #1 of all time. Also, a Bourque/Orr blue line would have been quite the challenge for those dynastic Islander/Oiler teams of the 80s. Bruins are looking at a couple of Cups in that scenario.

Another thing. Gretzky's goal totals faded as his career progressed. The one skill that he maintained throughout was the assist. Looking at his full years plus the lockout year, he led the league in assists 16 times in 19 years. That's a good assessment of where he compared to the rest of the league in that skill.

Where was Orr for assists? Led the league in 5 of his 8 "full" years. Nearly as dominant as Gretzky in comparison to his peers. And of course Bobby was a defenseman, as a rookie he played in a 6 team league, and it took the Bruins a couple of years to adapt to his unique in NHL history style of 2 way play.

Moosey · Mar 25, 2016

I guess I'll be the detractor.

My dad and I used to get into this discussion a lot when I was in high school. This is always a tough one, given the differences in their position and the league. The argument for Orr is fantastic, don't get me wrong, but I have trouble crowning him better than Gretzky when that guy is still the points leader even if he never scored a goal.

That isn't 20% better than everyone else, that's leaps and bounds. He averaged over 200 points for 5 seasons. He had an "office" on the ice.

Points aside, my old man's argument really came down to: "Orr changed the way hockey is played." I can't dispute that, he certainly did. I think it's hard to penalize Gretzky for it though. It's like getting on Jordan's case because he came after Magic and Bird. I think an argument can also be made that Gretzky changed the game as well; showcasing a level of misdirection and anticipation that was levels above his peers.

Also, regarding that Howe quote, when did he say it? Didn't he start to get pissy when Gretzky was coming up on his points record and started arguing about how his WHA numbers were important too?

I'm a Bruins fan, through and through. Gretzky is the best ever.

mikeford · Mar 25, 2016

Lemieux.

But yes, Orr > Gretzky.

jacklamabe65 · Mar 25, 2016

My brother's best friend was Jack Falla, the great hockey writer who died much too young. Years ago, Jack was going on and on about Gretzky and my brother sent him a VHS tape of Orr highlights to him. When Jack returned it, he said, "Jesus, I have forgotten. There was no one like him. No one."

FL4WL3SS · Mar 25, 2016

FarvinMoosey said:
I guess I'll be the detractor.

My dad and I used to get into this discussion a lot when I was in high school. This is always a tough one, given the differences in their position and the league. The argument for Orr is fantastic, don't get me wrong, but I have trouble crowning him better than Gretzky when that guy is still the points leader even if he never scored a goal.

That isn't 20% better than everyone else, that's leaps and bounds. He averaged over 200 points for 5 seasons. He had an "office" on the ice.

Points aside, my old man's argument really came down to: "Orr changed the way hockey is played." I can't dispute that, he certainly did. I think it's hard to penalize Gretzky for it though. It's like getting on Jordan's case because he came after Magic and Bird. I think an argument can also be made that Gretzky changed the game as well; showcasing a level of misdirection and anticipation that was levels above his peers.

Also, regarding that Howe quote, when did he say it? Didn't he start to get pissy when Gretzky was coming up on his points record and started arguing about how his WHA numbers were important too?

I'm a Bruins fan, through and through. Gretzky is the best ever.

The game is more than offense and Bobby Orr was a defenseman. Give Bobby another 10 healthy years in the league and his numbers would be as dominant as Gretzky's.

Bobby would go end to end with the puck and then make it back down the ice to stop the other team from scoring. He was a great two-way player, people forget that. Gretzky could skate and score, but he wasn't physical, he didn't play particularly good defense and he couldn't carry a team on his back like Orr could.

Orr was, to me, hands down the best hockey player that ever lived. Gretzky is hands down the most dominant scorer that ever lived.

Moosey · Mar 25, 2016

FL4WL3SS said:
The game is more than offense and Bobby Orr was a defenseman. Give Bobby another 10 healthy years in the league and his numbers would be as dominant as Gretzky's.

Bobby would go end to end with the puck and then make it back down the ice to stop the other team from scoring. He was a great two-way player, people forget that. Gretzky could skate and score, but he wasn't physical, he didn't play particularly good defense and he couldn't carry a team on his back like Orr could.

Orr was, to me, hands down the best hockey player that ever lived. Gretzky is hands down the most dominant scorer that ever lived.

That's closer to the breakdown I would make, which is just a simpler: Orr is the best defenseman of all time, Gretzky is the best offensive player of all time. Orr is a more complete player. Gretzky's dominance just wins out for me. His stat blocks are downright comical. In terms of carrying a team, that's a tough one for me to quantify. Gretzky absolutely made everyone around him better, usually a lot better. However, when Mark Messier is your second line center...how much do you lose? I get it, but again seems like punishing Gretzky for the era and team on which he played. There was no one better on the ice when he was on it. The same is true of Orr.

Honestly, a lot of my conversations ended up with my Dad like this; the positional differences make it difficult, let's stop arguing and say Defense: Orr, Offense: Gretzky. That and by this time the next period was about to start on WFSB.

pedro1918 · Mar 25, 2016

FarvinMoosey said:
Also, regarding that Howe quote, when did he say it? Didn't he start to get pissy when Gretzky was coming up on his points record and started arguing about how his WHA numbers were important too?

You see, here's the thing: Howe is correct no matter when he said it.

Moosey · Mar 25, 2016

pedro1918 said:
You see, here's the thing: Howe is correct no matter when he said it.

I just like to call Gordie Howe pissy. The quote is nice, I get what he's saying, but I don't really find it to be terribly enlightening in either direction.

Ale Xander · Mar 25, 2016

mikeford said:
Lemieux.

But yes, Orr > Gretzky.

FL4WL3SS said:
The game is more than offense and Bobby Orr was a defenseman. Give Bobby another 10 healthy years in the league and his numbers would be as dominant as Gretzky's.

Bobby would go end to end with the puck and then make it back down the ice to stop the other team from scoring. He was a great two-way player, people forget that. Gretzky could skate and score, but he wasn't physical, he didn't play particularly good defense and he couldn't carry a team on his back like Orr could.

Orr was, to me, hands down the best hockey player that ever lived. Gretzky is hands down the most dominant scorer that ever lived.

I agree with both of these, but I didn't see Orr play nor did I see the Gretzky Oilers more than a year or two.

However, I have to also agree with Howe, but in a different way. I would be interested to see how many of these 100 mythical games would 5 or 6 Gretzkys lose not only to Orr and Lemieux, but also to the modern 3-way centers (offense, defense, and the dreaded intangibles) of the Yzerman/Forsberg/Sakic/Datsyuk/Toews of the world, and Messier on his own team/era. And what about to 5/6 defensemen like a Stevens or Pronger.

----
But yes, the Gretsky stats are out of this world.

kartvelo · Mar 25, 2016

Yeah, it's Orr. You watched him play and sometimes just had to laugh at how outrageously talented he was in every facet of the game. Juking out four defenders at the blue line. Passing in front of the net over his shoulder while on his back. Killing penalty after penalty while opposing players chased futilely. Crumpling someone on defense and then beating everybody down the ice to take a shot on goal. Playing goalie on an empty net. He made others look like they were standing still or were just learning how to skate.

Eddie Jurak · Mar 25, 2016

It's too bad there are no possession metrics from back then. But that, I'm sure, would be another argument for Orr. The +/- numbers and the ridiculous On/Off goals for and against are a pretty good proxy of Orr's possession. I suspect he had a more subtstatial effect on overall puck possession than any player before or since.

mauf · Mar 25, 2016

If you believe that Gretzky spent his prime years skating with 2-3 of the 15 best players of all time (Kurri and Coffey, plus Messier on power plays), then I see the case for Orr. But if you believe, as I do, that Gretzky made Kurri and Coffey what they were, then I think you've got to go with Gretzky.

Which is not to say that Orr wasn't the 2nd or 3rd best player ever (depending how you think about Gordie Howe).

Time to Mo Vaughn · Mar 25, 2016

Man, it looks like hockey was really bad in the 70s.

SumnerH · Mar 25, 2016

maufman said:
If you believe that Gretzky spent his prime years skating with 2-3 of the 15 best players of all time (Kurri and Coffey, plus Messier on power plays), then I see the case for Orr. But if you believe, as I do, that Gretzky made Kurri and Coffey what they were, then I think you've got to go with Gretzky.

Which is not to say that Orr wasn't the 2nd or 3rd best player ever (depending how you think about Gordie Howe).

And Lemieux.

21st Century Sox · Mar 25, 2016

drleather2001 said:
Gretzky was amazing, but his numbers came in a period in hockey that was analogous to the period of 1993-2005 for baseball (or 2005-2015 in football). There was about 20% more scoring during Gretzky's peak than Orr's.

True, but Gretzky was like '99 Pedro those years...

https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/paine-gretsky-1.png?w=575&h=510

The stat that jumps out at me is if Gretzky never scored a goal - He would still be the NHL all time points leader. Crazy. I know he had longevity, but man....

This is a great topic. Can't decide...made tougher by being too young to have watched Orr. I was like 9 years old and he was done in Boston.

mauf · Mar 25, 2016

SumnerH said:
And Lemieux.

He's in the next group behind those three -- although neither Orr nor Gretzky was renowned for his defense, Mario Lemieux made them look like Zdeno Chara. I'm not sure Lemieux knew what a backcheck was.

The Napkin · Mar 25, 2016

mikeford said:
Lemieux.

But yes, Orr > Gretzky.

This is the correct answer.

GreenMonster49 · Mar 25, 2016

Orr has the single-season record for +/- at +124 for 1970-71 along with 3 other seasons in the top 15. (Gretzky has 3 in the top 15, plus two more in the top 20.) Orr's season was good enough that #4 all time is still:

Dallas Smith.

Bonus Gretzky fun fact: His 163 assists in 1985-1986 are higher than all but 11 single-season point totals. Of those 11 seasons, nine are his and the other two are Lemieux's.

Eddie Jurak · Mar 25, 2016

It should also be noted that Orr would have beaten the ever loving shit out of Gretzky if it had ever come to that.

joe dokes · Mar 25, 2016

When Orr had 46 goals, only 37 players had more than 30. When Gretzky had 92, 68 players did.
I think Orr was the best of his time by a greater margin than Gretzky was.

Too bad there's no TOI numbers for Orr.

Moosey · Mar 25, 2016

joe dokes said:
When Orr had 46 goals, only 37 players had more than 30. When Gretzky had 92, 68 players did.
I think Orr was the best of his time by a greater margin than Gretzky was.

Too bad there's no TOI numbers for Orr.

Im sorry, the number that jumps out there is 92. Of all the arguments that are pro Orr, which are very compelling, I don't think trotting out the single season scoring record helps. I mean shit, that year Gretzky scored almost 44% more goals than Mike Bossy, who would be in my top 3 of best pure goal scorers of all time. Again, Gretzky wasn't just surpassing his peers, he was straight annihilating them in a lot of cases.

Eddie Jurak · Mar 25, 2016

FarvinMoosey said:
Im sorry, the number that jumps out there is 92. Of all the arguments that are pro Orr, which are very compelling, I don't think trotting out the single season scoring record helps. I mean shit, that year Gretzky scored almost 44% more goals than Mike Bossy, who would be in my top 3 of best pure goal scorers of all time. Again, Gretzky wasn't just surpassing his peers, he was straight annihilating them in a lot of cases.

And Orr did not do the exact same thing?

Moosey · Mar 25, 2016

Eddie Jurak said:
And Orr did not do the exact same thing?

Never said that. I am not vehemently against someone saying Orr is the greatest of all time. I think it's a great conversation. My point above is don't make your case by trotting out 92 goals as part of pro-Orr evidence.

shaggydog2000 · Mar 25, 2016

I never saw Orr play, except on videotapes (and on film in The Friends of Eddie Coyle, the best Boston movie of all time), and by the time I was watching hockey all the time, Gretzky had passed out of his prime. He was still clearly talented, but no longer a sublime talent. But I was right there for Lemieux's dominance, and I simply can't comprehend anyone getting chemo one day, and then destroying the Bruins at the Garden the next. You'd read in the paper that he might miss the game in Boston because of treatment, and I'd think we'd have an advantage, but sure enough he'd be on the ice completely owning the puck. He's the best player I got to watch, and it was a weird love/hate relationship with a guy that talented who stood in the way of your favorite team's cup dreams every year.

terrynever · Mar 25, 2016

Bobby Orr is the player who forced me to become a hockey fan in the late 1960s. He made the sport relevant to those of us who grew up in non-hockey regions of the country. You couldn't take your eyes off the guy, even in the early 1970s as the knee injuries started to add up. Gretzky was amazing, too, in a different way. He seemed to be one pass ahead of everyone else. Not sure how you pick one over the other. They both defined their sport in different eras.

Eddie Jurak · Mar 25, 2016

So, hockey-reference has a way of getting at how the era affected Gretzky's numbers.

I assume they have adjusted everyone's goal and point totals based on league averages.

Gretzky's career stats were: 1487 games, 894 goals, 1963 assists, 2857 points.

His adjusted totals get bumped down a bit: 758 goals, 1717 assists, 2745 points. His later career numbers (when offense was gone) actually get bumped up a bit, while his 92 goal season (1981-82) gets adjusted down to 68-88-156, not even his best. Orr would have loved to have some of that 1981-82 action.

moretsyndrome · Mar 25, 2016

Put 'em all in a pond at their respective peaks. Every single time, age 22 Orr gets picked first.

Granite Sox · Mar 25, 2016

Eddie Jurak said:
It should also be noted that Orr would have beaten the ever loving shit out of Gretzky if it had ever come to that.

Orr was a pretty ferocious fighter as well. He was obviously more valuable on the ice than in the penalty box, but every now and then he would lay down a reckoning on an opposing player who got under his skin. There was a Pavlovian response from the rest of the team when Orr got in fights... Pie, Turk, Hodge, and especially Cashman would just lose their shit trying to kill the other team after Orr got into a scrap. It was actually fairly terrifying.

As all around hockey gods, it's Orr > Gretzky, and it's not close. Mr. Hockey knew whereof he spoke.

Rough Carrigan · Mar 25, 2016

I only saw Gretzky play live once, in St. Louis in, IIRC, 1985 at the height of the Oiler dynasty.
He played no defense.
I don't mean that he wasn't really into checking or keeping to his man.
He stood around at the logo while the Blues were peppering Fuhr with shot after shot in some stretches.
Bobby Orr never eschewed half the fucking game.

kenneycb · Mar 26, 2016

I would've loved to have this discussion if Lemiuex's back wasn't made of tissue paper. And if he didn't smoke a pack a day. And that whole cancer thing. 91 points in 67 games in 2003 is absurd. For reference, Forsberg won the scoring title with 106 points at 30. Mario was 38. Also, RIP Pavol Demitra.

joe dokes · Mar 26, 2016

FarvinMoosey said:
Im sorry, the number that jumps out there is 92. Of all the arguments that are pro Orr, which are very compelling, I don't think trotting out the single season scoring record helps. I mean shit, that year Gretzky scored almost 44% more goals than Mike Bossy, who would be in my top 3 of best pure goal scorers of all time. Again, Gretzky wasn't just surpassing his peers, he was straight annihilating them in a lot of cases.

Fair point (especially Bossy). But if Orr's peers were D-men, the next was Guy Lapointe with 28 goals or Potvin with 76 pts. (vs 46/135).
No doubt we're in angels on the head of a pin territory.

FL4WL3SS · Mar 26, 2016

Rough Carrigan said:
I only saw Gretzky play live once, in St. Louis in, IIRC, 1985 at the height of the Oiler dynasty.
He played no defense.
I don't mean that he wasn't really into checking or keeping to his man.
He stood around at the logo while the Blues were peppering Fuhr with shot after shot in some stretches.
Bobby Orr never eschewed half the fucking game.

That's really the crux of the argument for me. How can he be the greatest of all time when he ignored half the ice?

I'll probably get skewered for this, but I would take a healthy Cam Neely in his prime over Gretzky. There is not one player I'd take over Orr.

mwonow · Mar 26, 2016

moretsyndrome said:
Put 'em all in a pond at their respective peaks. Every single time, age 22 Orr gets picked first.

QFT, and yep, that's a closer for this debate.

Dummy Hoy · Mar 26, 2016

Plus/Minus is a flawed stat, but Orr's +124 (in 76 games) is silly. He was so good that season that his D partner (the immortal Dallas Smith) was a +94.

Moosey · Mar 26, 2016

FL4WL3SS said:
That's really the crux of the argument for me. How can he be the greatest of all time when he ignored half the ice?

I'll probably get skewered for this, but I would take a healthy Cam Neely in his prime over Gretzky. There is not one player I'd take over Orr.

If you put a healthy in his prime Neely on the ice with Gretzky, Neely scores 100 goals.

timlinin8th · Mar 26, 2016

Dummy Hoy said:
Plus/Minus is a flawed stat, but Orr's +124 (in 76 games) is silly. He was so good that season that his D partner (the immortal Dallas Smith) was a +94.

In that 1970-71 season, the Bruins gave up 207 goals. That +124 means that Orr was only on the ice for 15 of those 207 goals allowed (as he had 139 points that season). Thats just silly.

Not only that, but Orr is #2 all time in plus/minus at a +597... Everyone else in the top ten played over 1000 games in their careers, Orr pulled off this trick in his short 657 game career.

Eddie Jurak · Mar 27, 2016

timlinin8th said:
In that 1970-71 season, the Bruins gave up 207 goals. That +124 means that Orr was only on the ice for 15 of those 207 goals allowed (as he had 139 points that season). Thats just silly.

Not quite that extreme, since it ignores PP production and goals for that did not factors into Orr's scoring.

Here is what I've got on +/- for Orr vs Gretzky.

Ignoring his rookie year (data not available on hockey-reference), and focusing on the 8 years from 1967-68 to his last full year (1974-75), Orr was on the ice for 53% of Bruins ES+SH goals for and 37% of ES+SH goals against.

Do the same calculation for Gretzky during his Edmonton years (this makes Gretzky look better as he was an overall "minus" player after leaving Edmonton), and you get Gretzky on ice for 52% of his team's ES+SH goals for and 43% of ES+SH goals against.

So they are both similar contributors to overall team offense but Orr added significant value on defense.

Of course, Orr almost certainly logged more ice time per game, which would lessen his per minute offensive contribution relative to Gretzky's - but it would also raise his per minute defensive contribution, so it is kind of a wash. It also includes a season (his second year) when Orr played only 46 games, that makes his defensive numbers look better but offensive ones look worse.

We can also look a bit at special teams.

Power play: During that 8-year stretch, Orr was on the ice for 90% of his team's PP goals for and 58% of PP goals against. As an Oiler, Gretzky was on the ice for 83% of his team's PP goals for and 34% of PP goals against.

What this probably says in Orr's case is that he was a mainstay of the Bruins PP and PK units, probably logging a significant majority of those minutes. I would guess that Gretzky was maybe more dominant on the PP and played a whole lot less on the PK.

The main lesson of all of this is here: Gretzky, despite the gaudy offensive totals, was not a bigger contributor to his teams offense than Orr was to his. On a per minute basis, yes, but Orr made up for that by playing more minutes. Offensively, they are basically a wash, defensively, there is no comparison between the two.

timlinin8th · Mar 27, 2016

Eddie Jurak said:
Not quite that extreme, since it ignores PP production and goals for that did not factors into Orr's scoring.

Gah, I had worded the post differently to show it was ES+SH prior to editing and must have deleted it when I edited my post... It was in my brain but not in the typing anymore hah

Moosey · Mar 27, 2016

I expected to be severely swimming against the tide here, but holy smokes. Again, this is a great discussion, but this is becoming a Bobby Orr sploogefest with the exploits of Wayne Gretzky being marginalized.

I feel like people are weaving the nova bright, yet all too short prime of Bobby Orr and extrapolating that out. He was out of the league by 30, he did have shit injuries, and was only able to play 657 games. Those things happened. This isn't a "imagine these guys are the same age at the same time and you get 20 years of their prime out of both of them.' Their careers happened.

Wayne Gretzky's career ended with something like 60+ NHL records, including career short handed goals (which still stands). Argue the defensive disparity but it wasn't enough to keep 99 off the ice on the penalty kill. If the argument to that is something along the lines of "yeah but that was just so he could score short handed goals..." think about that. The point of the game is to score more than the other guys. I don't believe he was the defensive butcher that this thread is making him out to be, nor would I argue he's Bergeron. Still, even if you say he's a defensive negative his extraordinary offensive skills meant he was on the ice in the most defensive setup. He was still a net positive. Even a man down having Gretzky on the ice meant the other team basically had to adjust their own power play because of 99; for different reasons than a great defenseman, but it still happened.

Orr does have silly stats, amazing highlights and an INCREDIBLE legacy. I just cant look at Gretzky's hockey-reference page and say "yup, 2nd place". He led the league in assists from the time he was 19 until 31. In those same years he led the league in points 10 times. Anyone can just keep going on these.

I, like @maufman, believe he very considerably elevated the game of everyone on the ice with him, in some cases vaulting them to Hall of Fame careers because of their time with him.

I honestly won't argue with anyone that firmly believes and picks Orr as the best ever. It's certainly defensible, has merit, and is a great pick.

However, let's give Gretzky his due. This isn't a slam dunk, no comparison, "holy cow why would you even ask!?!?" that not so slowly this thread is becoming.

monty10 · Mar 28, 2016

Anyone remember a player Eric Nesterenko? The guy who played Youngblood's dad in that awesome movie. He played 21 years in the NHL. You don't stay that long with out knowing a little bit about the game. Leafs and the Blackhawks were his clubs. I met him during a round of golf. He could really hit the golf ball at 70ish. Great athlete. 19th hole I asked THE QUESTION? Gordie or Bobby? His response Gordie was ambidextrous. This gave him a tremendous advantage. It would be very close but favoring Gordie. Orr was the better skater. Asked about Gretzky and Lemieux. He kinda sighed and shrugged his shoulders. If a NHL vet lays it out like that. Follow up question. How would they do in the game today? Bobby Orr! No questions asked. Most dominant skater ever.

Eddie Jurak · Mar 28, 2016

FarvinMoosey said:
I expected to be severely swimming against the tide here, but holy smokes. Again, this is a great discussion, but this is becoming a Bobby Orr sploogefest with the exploits of Wayne Gretzky being marginalized.

I feel like people are weaving the nova bright, yet all too short prime of Bobby Orr and extrapolating that out. He was out of the league by 30, he did have shit injuries, and was only able to play 657 games. Those things happened. This isn't a "imagine these guys are the same age at the same time and you get 20 years of their prime out of both of them.' Their careers happened.

That's fair. It is true, and it goes to what question you are asking. Which guy in his prime do you want on the ice in a key game/season? Which guy gets the best of a head to head matchup? Which guy did the most over his career? In some sense we are looking at a typical peak vs total comparison, like Pedro vs. Roger, maybe (minus the "issues" that led to Roger's resurgence after he left Boston). Both have merit.

FarvinMoosey said:
Wayne Gretzky's career ended with something like 60+ NHL records, including career short handed goals (which still stands).

This is all well and good, but it's important to acknowledge the context. Wayne Gretzky played his prime years in an era where goals were easy to come by. If he reaches the NHL in 1970, or 1990, or 2000... then he's still every bit as transcendent a player but he comes nowhere close to 80+ and 90+ goal, 200+ point seasons. Part of that production was the league context. That time in the NHL was very much the offensive equivalent of the recent high offense era in baseball. There are a lot of guys who had nothing whatsoever to do with Wayne Gretzky who put up gaudy offensive numbers, my favorite example being the Bruins' own Keith Crowder, who racked up a 38-goal, point per game season during Gretzky's 215 point year, but there are loads of others. None of this changes Gretzky's level of dominance relative to his peers, but it does affect cross-era comparisons. He would have dominated any era he played in, but part of the reason his raw numbers are so obsecene was the product of that era.

The other issue is that Gretzky and Orr obviously played different positions. Throughout NHL history, forwards have always outscored defensemen handily (the lone sort of exception being Orr himself); I don't think this implies that forwards are superior hockey players. If you are going to go purely on the raw numbers, you are in part crediting Gretzky with playing a position with more offensive responsibilites and less defensive. This isn't a knock on Gretzky's defense; puck possession is THE best defense, period, and Gretzky surely drove puck posession as well as any forward ever has. But he did play a position where he was able to focus more on offense. What if he had spent his career as a defenseman? I think he would have gone down, with Orr, as having been one of the two greatest offensive producers who ever played the position, but his raw offensive numbers would still have been far lower, just because his job on the ice would have been different. (Obviously this would not have been a very good idea, center was a much better fit for his skills, but I'm sure he could have made it work and been an elite player).

At the end of the day, I think Orr is better because he played defense and yet was one of the elite offensive players of his era, position aside. Give him the early 80s for his prime years and he is probably racking up a couple of 50 and 60 goal seasons.

yeahlunchbox · Mar 28, 2016

For all of Gretzky's great offensive numbers, there's been only one defenseman to lead the NHL in points. That is Bobby Orr, who did it twice. A defenseman leading the NHL in points is far more impressive to me then what Gretzky did.

Greg29fan · Mar 28, 2016

I'm biased of course but I'm taking Mario over anybody, as much as I respect both Orr and Gretzky.

Yes, I know the era but he scored 85 goals and had 199 points with Robbie Brown and Bob Errey as his wingers. That should be humanly impossible. His 92-93 season was on pace to be historic, challenging all of Gretzky's scoring records, until his cancer diagnosis. He missed two months and still won the Art Ross.

I would have loved to have seen him healthy his entire career and not plagued by his health.

lexrageorge · Mar 28, 2016

I don't have a dog in the Gretzky vs. Lemieux fight, so I'll instead point to the following:

That Soviet team was stacked, but the two best players on the ice in that series were #99 and #66.

On Gretzky vs. Orr, I don't feel it's necessary to take sides. Orr could and did do more on the defensive end of the ice, and his highlight videos are definitely more exciting to watch. But, contrary to popular belief, Gretzky was no slouch defensively., and he was surprisingly strong in front of the net. Both could take over a game or series like noone else. Orr was skating on one knee during the 1974 playoffs, and he still managed 3 goals and 4 assists in the Finals against the Flyers. And then there was his 9 points in 7 games in the 1976 Canada Cup series while recovering from his umpteenth surgery on his knee.

My one regret with Orr is not how he would have matched up against Gretzky had Orr played longer. Even if healthy, he would have been 31 when Gretzky entered the league, and likely would have been past his best years. It is instead that we only got to see 10 games of Orr paired with Brad Park, who was often considered the 2nd best defenseman of the early 1970's. I still believe the Bruins would have won one of those Cups won by the Habs in the late 1970's had Orr still been healthy and on the Bruins. And a photo of Orr, Park, and Bourque on the same team would have been iconic. I would also like to believe that Sinden may have been less tempted to Kluzak the #1 draft pick in the 1982 draft had Orr been able to stick around through the early 1980's, but that's probably too much to ask.

Orr versus Gretzky

Skrub's sympathy case

given himself a skunk spot

Well-Known Member

Member

Member

canderson-lite

Mooseyed Farvin

woolwich!

Well-Known Member

Member

Mooseyed Farvin

Member

Mooseyed Farvin

Hamilton

Well-Known Member

canderson-lite

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers

RIP Dernell

Malt Liquor Picker

Member

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers

Skrub's sympathy case

wise ass al kaprielian

Well-Known Member

canderson-lite

Member

Mooseyed Farvin

canderson-lite

Mooseyed Farvin

Member

Well-Known Member

canderson-lite

Member

Member

reasons within Reason

Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play

Member

Member

Member

Angry Pissbum

Mooseyed Farvin

Member

canderson-lite

Member

Mooseyed Farvin

New Member

canderson-lite

Member

Member

Member