Gretzky was not the most prolific scorer of his era. Mario was side by side with him.
Paul Coffeys ppg isn’t even close to Orrs ppg. And Coffey played in the high scoring era with both Wayne and Mario.
@Tabe said:
In my eyes, it's Mario all the way. He put up basically the numbers as Gretzky while playing much of his career in an era where they actually played defense, unlike Wayne's big years. As for Orr, he stood out because of his skating. He was well ahead of his peers in that respect, playing in an era where hardly anyone could skate. If he played today, he'd be required to play more defense and his standout skill - skating - would be somewhat neutered since pretty much every guy can skate.
Put another way, in any given era, which guy is most likely to lead the league in scoring? Mario.
I like what you’re saying, but if today’s game is a speed game, then Orr gets the vote.
He’s quicker than McDavid. Even Gretzky has made mention of the poor skates used in Orrs day. Those guys skated poorly for a reason.
The hockey experts have said that Orr and McDavid have the quickest feet all time. Not strides, but feet.
Mario was fast, and had that reach, so I have no problem with him being the greatest offensively.
But if you’re talking about the complete hockey player in every aspect of the game, then it’s easily Bobby Orr. His unequalled plus minus speaks to that. He was so dominant when he was on the ice. He shut down the other team while leading his team and the league in scoring. Wayne and Mario’s plus minus doesn’t even come close to Orr because they couldn’t play in the defensive zone like Orr.
I agree with just about everything you say, but plus/minus is a horrible way to compare hockey players.
Why do you feel plus minus is a horrible way to compare players ?
I played hockey, and the guys who could control the puck, skate better, shoot accurately, and defend were the great ones.
We all remember how dominant Robinson, Savard, Gainey, Shutt and Lafluer were. They could skate, defend, and score.
The truth is Robinson’s career plus minus per season isn’t even close to Orr, and Larry played with amazing teams.
Bobby Orr was the team. In my view he is along with perhaps Wilt Chamberlain the only players who were so dominant that they elevate above everyone else.
You played hockey and you don't know why +/- is a horrible way to rate a player?
In a nutshell, your number is controlled by the other players more than it is by you. A great player on a bad line, or with a poor goalie looks a lot worse than he really is. An average player on a good line will look a lot better than he really is.
Add this to how much time on the ice a guy plays and the meaningfulness of the number gets worse, as he's playing with even more different guys.
Orr simply didn't play long enough to be the GOAT in my mind. He certainly was the best of his time and it wasn't even close.
Gretzky was the most prolific scorer of the high scoring era and he did it for 20 years. was still leading the league in assists when he was 37 years old.
Are you really saying that Dallas Smith and Wayne Cashman has more of an impact on Orrs plus minus than Orr did ?
Are you saying that Orrs phenomenal career plus minus was so dominant because of Gerry Cheevers and Gilles Gilbert ?
I thought you said you played hockey?
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@Tabe said:
In my eyes, it's Mario all the way. He put up basically the numbers as Gretzky while playing much of his career in an era where they actually played defense, unlike Wayne's big years. As for Orr, he stood out because of his skating. He was well ahead of his peers in that respect, playing in an era where hardly anyone could skate. If he played today, he'd be required to play more defense and his standout skill - skating - would be somewhat neutered since pretty much every guy can skate.
Put another way, in any given era, which guy is most likely to lead the league in scoring? Mario.
I like what you’re saying, but if today’s game is a speed game, then Orr gets the vote.
He’s quicker than McDavid. Even Gretzky has made mention of the poor skates used in Orrs day. Those guys skated poorly for a reason.
The hockey experts have said that Orr and McDavid have the quickest feet all time. Not strides, but feet.
Mario was fast, and had that reach, so I have no problem with him being the greatest offensively.
But if you’re talking about the complete hockey player in every aspect of the game, then it’s easily Bobby Orr. His unequalled plus minus speaks to that. He was so dominant when he was on the ice. He shut down the other team while leading his team and the league in scoring. Wayne and Mario’s plus minus doesn’t even come close to Orr because they couldn’t play in the defensive zone like Orr.
I agree with just about everything you say, but plus/minus is a horrible way to compare hockey players.
Why do you feel plus minus is a horrible way to compare players ?
I played hockey, and the guys who could control the puck, skate better, shoot accurately, and defend were the great ones.
We all remember how dominant Robinson, Savard, Gainey, Shutt and Lafluer were. They could skate, defend, and score.
The truth is Robinson’s career plus minus per season isn’t even close to Orr, and Larry played with amazing teams.
Bobby Orr was the team. In my view he is along with perhaps Wilt Chamberlain the only players who were so dominant that they elevate above everyone else.
You played hockey and you don't know why +/- is a horrible way to rate a player?
In a nutshell, your number is controlled by the other players more than it is by you. A great player on a bad line, or with a poor goalie looks a lot worse than he really is. An average player on a good line will look a lot better than he really is.
Add this to how much time on the ice a guy plays and the meaningfulness of the number gets worse, as he's playing with even more different guys.
Orr simply didn't play long enough to be the GOAT in my mind. He certainly was the best of his time and it wasn't even close.
Gretzky was the most prolific scorer of the high scoring era and he did it for 20 years. was still leading the league in assists when he was 37 years old.
Are you really saying that Dallas Smith and Wayne Cashman has more of an impact on Orrs plus minus than Orr did ?
Are you saying that Orrs phenomenal career plus minus was so dominant because of Gerry Cheevers and Gilles Gilbert ?
I thought you said you played hockey?
Answer ? Cheevers had more of an influence than Orr on Orrs plus minus ? His save percentage was similar to most nhl goalies.
@Tabe said:
In my eyes, it's Mario all the way. He put up basically the numbers as Gretzky while playing much of his career in an era where they actually played defense, unlike Wayne's big years. As for Orr, he stood out because of his skating. He was well ahead of his peers in that respect, playing in an era where hardly anyone could skate. If he played today, he'd be required to play more defense and his standout skill - skating - would be somewhat neutered since pretty much every guy can skate.
Put another way, in any given era, which guy is most likely to lead the league in scoring? Mario.
I like what you’re saying, but if today’s game is a speed game, then Orr gets the vote.
He’s quicker than McDavid. Even Gretzky has made mention of the poor skates used in Orrs day. Those guys skated poorly for a reason.
The hockey experts have said that Orr and McDavid have the quickest feet all time. Not strides, but feet.
Mario was fast, and had that reach, so I have no problem with him being the greatest offensively.
But if you’re talking about the complete hockey player in every aspect of the game, then it’s easily Bobby Orr. His unequalled plus minus speaks to that. He was so dominant when he was on the ice. He shut down the other team while leading his team and the league in scoring. Wayne and Mario’s plus minus doesn’t even come close to Orr because they couldn’t play in the defensive zone like Orr.
I agree with just about everything you say, but plus/minus is a horrible way to compare hockey players.
Why do you feel plus minus is a horrible way to compare players ?
I played hockey, and the guys who could control the puck, skate better, shoot accurately, and defend were the great ones.
We all remember how dominant Robinson, Savard, Gainey, Shutt and Lafluer were. They could skate, defend, and score.
The truth is Robinson’s career plus minus per season isn’t even close to Orr, and Larry played with amazing teams.
Bobby Orr was the team. In my view he is along with perhaps Wilt Chamberlain the only players who were so dominant that they elevate above everyone else.
You played hockey and you don't know why +/- is a horrible way to rate a player?
In a nutshell, your number is controlled by the other players more than it is by you. A great player on a bad line, or with a poor goalie looks a lot worse than he really is. An average player on a good line will look a lot better than he really is.
Add this to how much time on the ice a guy plays and the meaningfulness of the number gets worse, as he's playing with even more different guys.
Orr simply didn't play long enough to be the GOAT in my mind. He certainly was the best of his time and it wasn't even close.
Gretzky was the most prolific scorer of the high scoring era and he did it for 20 years. was still leading the league in assists when he was 37 years old.
Are you really saying that Dallas Smith and Wayne Cashman has more of an impact on Orrs plus minus than Orr did ?
Are you saying that Orrs phenomenal career plus minus was so dominant because of Gerry Cheevers and Gilles Gilbert ?
I thought you said you played hockey?
Answer ? Cheevers had more of an influence than Orr on Orrs plus minus ? His save percentage was similar to most nhl goalies.
Was Orr out there a lot with Phil? That would certainly help.
It really is a simple concept. There's 5 guys out there at the same time that influence your number. It's not a good way to compare players. It's a simple fact.
I have also said several times that as far as talent goes, Orr might have been the best, his short career hurts him in any kind of GOAT discussion.
Not going to debate it any more. You may (or may not) have played hockey, but you don't seem to understand it.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@Tabe said:
In my eyes, it's Mario all the way. He put up basically the numbers as Gretzky while playing much of his career in an era where they actually played defense, unlike Wayne's big years. As for Orr, he stood out because of his skating. He was well ahead of his peers in that respect, playing in an era where hardly anyone could skate. If he played today, he'd be required to play more defense and his standout skill - skating - would be somewhat neutered since pretty much every guy can skate.
Put another way, in any given era, which guy is most likely to lead the league in scoring? Mario.
I like what you’re saying, but if today’s game is a speed game, then Orr gets the vote.
He’s quicker than McDavid. Even Gretzky has made mention of the poor skates used in Orrs day. Those guys skated poorly for a reason.
The hockey experts have said that Orr and McDavid have the quickest feet all time. Not strides, but feet.
Mario was fast, and had that reach, so I have no problem with him being the greatest offensively.
But if you’re talking about the complete hockey player in every aspect of the game, then it’s easily Bobby Orr. His unequalled plus minus speaks to that. He was so dominant when he was on the ice. He shut down the other team while leading his team and the league in scoring. Wayne and Mario’s plus minus doesn’t even come close to Orr because they couldn’t play in the defensive zone like Orr.
I agree with just about everything you say, but plus/minus is a horrible way to compare hockey players.
Why do you feel plus minus is a horrible way to compare players ?
I played hockey, and the guys who could control the puck, skate better, shoot accurately, and defend were the great ones.
We all remember how dominant Robinson, Savard, Gainey, Shutt and Lafluer were. They could skate, defend, and score.
The truth is Robinson’s career plus minus per season isn’t even close to Orr, and Larry played with amazing teams.
Bobby Orr was the team. In my view he is along with perhaps Wilt Chamberlain the only players who were so dominant that they elevate above everyone else.
You played hockey and you don't know why +/- is a horrible way to rate a player?
In a nutshell, your number is controlled by the other players more than it is by you. A great player on a bad line, or with a poor goalie looks a lot worse than he really is. An average player on a good line will look a lot better than he really is.
Add this to how much time on the ice a guy plays and the meaningfulness of the number gets worse, as he's playing with even more different guys.
Orr simply didn't play long enough to be the GOAT in my mind. He certainly was the best of his time and it wasn't even close.
Gretzky was the most prolific scorer of the high scoring era and he did it for 20 years. was still leading the league in assists when he was 37 years old.
Are you really saying that Dallas Smith and Wayne Cashman has more of an impact on Orrs plus minus than Orr did ?
Are you saying that Orrs phenomenal career plus minus was so dominant because of Gerry Cheevers and Gilles Gilbert ?
I thought you said you played hockey?
Answer ? Cheevers had more of an influence than Orr on Orrs plus minus ? His save percentage was similar to most nhl goalies.
Was Orr out there a lot with Phil? That would certainly help.
It really is a simple concept. There's 5 guys out there at the same time that influence your number. It's not a good way to compare players. It's a simple fact.
I have also said several times that as far as talent goes, Orr might have been the best, his short career hurts him in any kind of GOAT discussion.
Not going to debate it any more. You may (or may not) have played hockey, but you don't seem to understand it.
Understand it ? I think a mirror is needed here.
Bobby Orr had a career plus .90 per game.
The “great” Niklas Lidstrom had a .29 plus per game. He played on some incredible teams.
Gretzky was so poor defensively that he finished with a plus .37 per game.
Bryan Trottier finished with a .35, lower than Potvins .42 because Potvin was a better two way player.
If you aren’t convinced yet, consider Bobby Clarke and Larry Robinson. Two of the greatest two way players of your era. Clarke was a .45 and Robinson a .53
They are the two who were the best two way players in history behind the incomparable Bobby Orr. Orr finished his career with a .90 and it didn’t matter if Parent, Dryden, Smith, or Cheevers was his goalie, he still blows everyone way out of the water.
Bobby Orr was the most dominant two way player to ever play the game.
+/- isn't worthless, but it requires a lot of context before it's useful. There have been a lot of plus players who had the privilege of skating in front of Martin Brodeur and a lot of minus players who skated in front of Kari Lehtonen who would switch their +/- status if they switched goalies. Rather than compare two players on two different teams using their +/-, compare them first to their own teams' +/-, then to each other. It should also be adjusted for time on ice, but that stat isn't available for Orr or any player until recently.
A player who is +20 on a team that is +400 is not as impressive as a player who is -1 on a team that is -400.
Another problem with +/- is that a player who plays a lot of PP can only get minuses, but no pluses, and players who play a lot of PK can only get pluses, no minuses. If a player does both, or neither, it should even out, but a lot of players do one and not the other.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
I like your statement, but I think you would adjust your reasoning a bit if you looked at the all time save percentage leaders in the nhl.
Yes it helps to have a better goalie, but the difference in save percentage stats doesn’t swing the pendulum.
If Hasek stops 92 out of 100, which he did, and Ryan Miller stops 91.5 out of 100, which he did (both ahead of Brodeur), it is not that significant.
Goalies do not have much of an impact on a players plus minus only because the majority of them are equal in stopping the puck.
King Henrik was a lifetime better shot blocker than Brodeur, but none of the Ranger players were great like Orr to take advantage of playing with the King.
Heck, even Scott Stevens plus minus during the Brodeur years is nothing compared to Orr.
@dallasactuary said:
+/- isn't worthless, but it requires a lot of context before it's useful. There have been a lot of plus players who had the privilege of skating in front of Martin Brodeur and a lot of minus players who skated in front of Kari Lehtonen who would switch their +/- status if they switched goalies. Rather than compare two players on two different teams using their +/-, compare them first to their own teams' +/-, then to each other. It should also be adjusted for time on ice, but that stat isn't available for Orr or any player until recently.
A player who is +20 on a team that is +400 is not as impressive as a player who is -1 on a team that is -400.
Another problem with +/- is that a player who plays a lot of PP can only get minuses, but no pluses, and players who play a lot of PK can only get pluses, no minuses. If a player does both, or neither, it should even out, but a lot of players do one and not the other.
Maybe not worthless, but it might be the statistic in all of sports with the least value in evaluating a player.
Even with a great goalie, unless you are allowing zero goals while on the ice, you probably need another scorer on the ice at the same time. I'm assuming Mr. Orr had Phil Esposito, who led the league in goals scored for 6 straight years.
Look at Gretzky's +/-;
Edmonton 9 years +553
LA 8 years -5
I guess he was 500 times the player in Edmonton, he should have retired at 30. He was a below average player after that.
In 1962-63 Gordy Howe scored 86 points and was a +23
In 1963-64 Gordy Howe scored 73 points and was a -10
In 1964-65 he scored 76 points and was a +22
That one game in he missed 1964 really hurt him.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Gretzky’s best season was 208 points and plus 100. Not as good as Orrs, especially being that he out scored Bobby by 70 points, but was still 24 behind him in plus minus. Need to do a little bit more back checking Wayne.
We all saw Wayne play. In Edmonton he stayed at center ice a lot waiting for the D and Anderson to get him the puck.
Gretzky was a candy ...... who could not be physical. He was all offense and very little defense.
@Goldenage said:
Gretzky’s best season was 208 points and plus 100. Not as good as Orrs, especially being that he out scored Bobby by 70 points, but was still 24 behind him in plus minus. Need to do a little bit more back checking Wayne.
We all saw Wayne play. In Edmonton he stayed at center ice a lot waiting for the D and Anderson to get him the puck.
Gretzky was a candy ...... who could not be physical. He was all offense and very little defense.
I put Howe over Gretzky for the reasons you state. But Howe is already part of the the Brady slash line, because Brady is the Mantle/Aaron/Howe of quarterbacks all rolled into one.
@Goldenage said:
Gretzky’s best season was 208 points and plus 100. Not as good as Orrs, especially being that he out scored Bobby by 70 points, but was still 24 behind him in plus minus. Need to do a little bit more back checking Wayne.
We all saw Wayne play. In Edmonton he stayed at center ice a lot waiting for the D and Anderson to get him the puck.
Gretzky was a candy ...... who could not be physical. He was all offense and very little defense.
is this a sarcastic thread or factual take or what ?
i dont have the patience to follow these threads where on page 2 the op has flip flopped
@Goldenage said:
Gretzky’s best season was 208 points and plus 100. Not as good as Orrs, especially being that he out scored Bobby by 70 points, but was still 24 behind him in plus minus. Need to do a little bit more back checking Wayne.
We all saw Wayne play. In Edmonton he stayed at center ice a lot waiting for the D and Anderson to get him the puck.
Gretzky was a candy ...... who could not be physical. He was all offense and very little defense.
is this a sarcastic thread or factual take or what ?
i dont have the patience to follow these threads where on page 2 the op has flip flopped
Those are called stevek threads btw
No Flip flop here Mr. Gore (as in Frank). Gretzky does have all those records and Brady can match him.
But Bobby Orr was a better all around player.
@dallasactuary said:
+/- isn't worthless, but it requires a lot of context before it's useful. There have been a lot of plus players who had the privilege of skating in front of Martin Brodeur and a lot of minus players who skated in front of Kari Lehtonen who would switch their +/- status if they switched goalies. Rather than compare two players on two different teams using their +/-, compare them first to their own teams' +/-, then to each other. It should also be adjusted for time on ice, but that stat isn't available for Orr or any player until recently.
A player who is +20 on a team that is +400 is not as impressive as a player who is -1 on a team that is -400.
Another problem with +/- is that a player who plays a lot of PP can only get minuses, but no pluses, and players who play a lot of PK can only get pluses, no minuses. If a player does both, or neither, it should even out, but a lot of players do one and not the other.
Maybe not worthless, but it might be the statistic in all of sports with the least value in evaluating a player.
Even with a great goalie, unless you are allowing zero goals while on the ice, you probably need another scorer on the ice at the same time. I'm assuming Mr. Orr had Phil Esposito, who led the league in goals scored for 6 straight years.
Look at Gretzky's +/-;
Edmonton 9 years +553
LA 8 years -5
I guess he was 500 times the player in Edmonton, he should have retired at 30. He was a below average player after that.
In 1962-63 Gordy Howe scored 86 points and was a +23
In 1963-64 Gordy Howe scored 73 points and was a -10
In 1964-65 he scored 76 points and was a +22
That one game in he missed 1964 really hurt him.
Edmonton won a cup without Gretzky. Gretzky didn’t win a cup without Edmonton. The Oilers helped Wayne’s career immensely.
Which is why his plus minus was so good in Edmonton.
Wayne couldn’t dominate on an average team the way Orr could.
Look at Gretzky's +/-;
Edmonton 9 years +553
LA 8 years -5
I guess he was 500 times the player in Edmonton, he should have retired at 30. He was a below average player after that.
Same player, obviously, but playing without Jari Kurri. Gretzky never could be bothered to play defense and with Kurri on his line he could get away with that and just concentrate on scoring. Without Kurri, Gretzky kept concentrating only on scoring, but that meant watching a lot more pucks go in his own net.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@Tabe said:
In my eyes, it's Mario all the way. He put up basically the numbers as Gretzky while playing much of his career in an era where they actually played defense, unlike Wayne's big years. As for Orr, he stood out because of his skating. He was well ahead of his peers in that respect, playing in an era where hardly anyone could skate. If he played today, he'd be required to play more defense and his standout skill - skating - would be somewhat neutered since pretty much every guy can skate.
Put another way, in any given era, which guy is most likely to lead the league in scoring? Mario.
I like what you’re saying, but if today’s game is a speed game, then Orr gets the vote.
He’s quicker than McDavid. Even Gretzky has made mention of the poor skates used in Orrs day. Those guys skated poorly for a reason.
The hockey experts have said that Orr and McDavid have the quickest feet all time. Not strides, but feet.
Mario was fast, and had that reach, so I have no problem with him being the greatest offensively.
But if you’re talking about the complete hockey player in every aspect of the game, then it’s easily Bobby Orr. His unequalled plus minus speaks to that. He was so dominant when he was on the ice. He shut down the other team while leading his team and the league in scoring. Wayne and Mario’s plus minus doesn’t even come close to Orr because they couldn’t play in the defensive zone like Orr.
I agree with just about everything you say, but plus/minus is a horrible way to compare hockey players.
Why do you feel plus minus is a horrible way to compare players ?
I played hockey, and the guys who could control the puck, skate better, shoot accurately, and defend were the great ones.
We all remember how dominant Robinson, Savard, Gainey, Shutt and Lafluer were. They could skate, defend, and score.
The truth is Robinson’s career plus minus per season isn’t even close to Orr, and Larry played with amazing teams.
Bobby Orr was the team. In my view he is along with perhaps Wilt Chamberlain the only players who were so dominant that they elevate above everyone else.
You played hockey and you don't know why +/- is a horrible way to rate a player?
In a nutshell, your number is controlled by the other players more than it is by you. A great player on a bad line, or with a poor goalie looks a lot worse than he really is. An average player on a good line will look a lot better than he really is.
Add this to how much time on the ice a guy plays and the meaningfulness of the number gets worse, as he's playing with even more different guys.
Orr simply didn't play long enough to be the GOAT in my mind. He certainly was the best of his time and it wasn't even close.
Gretzky was the most prolific scorer of the high scoring era and he did it for 20 years. was still leading the league in assists when he was 37 years old.
Are you really saying that Dallas Smith and Wayne Cashman has more of an impact on Orrs plus minus than Orr did ?
Are you saying that Orrs phenomenal career plus minus was so dominant because of Gerry Cheevers and Gilles Gilbert ?
I thought you said you played hockey?
Answer ? Cheevers had more of an influence than Orr on Orrs plus minus ? His save percentage was similar to most nhl goalies.
Was Orr out there a lot with Phil? That would certainly help.
It really is a simple concept. There's 5 guys out there at the same time that influence your number. It's not a good way to compare players. It's a simple fact.
I have also said several times that as far as talent goes, Orr might have been the best, his short career hurts him in any kind of GOAT discussion.
Not going to debate it any more. You may (or may not) have played hockey, but you don't seem to understand it.
Understand it ? I think a mirror is needed here.
Bobby Orr had a career plus .90 per game.
The “great” Niklas Lidstrom had a .29 plus per game. He played on some incredible teams.
Gretzky was so poor defensively that he finished with a plus .37 per game.
Bryan Trottier finished with a .35, lower than Potvins .42 because Potvin was a better two way player.
If you aren’t convinced yet, consider Bobby Clarke and Larry Robinson. Two of the greatest two way players of your era. Clarke was a .45 and Robinson a .53
They are the two who were the best two way players in history behind the incomparable Bobby Orr. Orr finished his career with a .90 and it didn’t matter if Parent, Dryden, Smith, or Cheevers was his goalie, he still blows everyone way out of the water.
Bobby Orr was the most dominant two way player to ever play the game.
The fact you put great in quotations when discussing Nicklas Lidstrom is just embarrassing. Good grief.
Brad McCrimmon once had a +86 season. Does anybody really think he was elite? Of course not. He was very good but not great.
+/- is a horrible stat for judging players. A soft goal from your goalie, a bad giveaway, etc, all can penalize guys who did nothing wrong - or reward guys who did nothing right.
As for Orr, it's probably no coincidence that his dominance, and his +/-, coincided with the league doubling in size.
@Tabe said:
In my eyes, it's Mario all the way. He put up basically the numbers as Gretzky while playing much of his career in an era where they actually played defense, unlike Wayne's big years. As for Orr, he stood out because of his skating. He was well ahead of his peers in that respect, playing in an era where hardly anyone could skate. If he played today, he'd be required to play more defense and his standout skill - skating - would be somewhat neutered since pretty much every guy can skate.
Put another way, in any given era, which guy is most likely to lead the league in scoring? Mario.
I like what you’re saying, but if today’s game is a speed game, then Orr gets the vote.
He’s quicker than McDavid. Even Gretzky has made mention of the poor skates used in Orrs day. Those guys skated poorly for a reason.
The hockey experts have said that Orr and McDavid have the quickest feet all time. Not strides, but feet.
Mario was fast, and had that reach, so I have no problem with him being the greatest offensively.
But if you’re talking about the complete hockey player in every aspect of the game, then it’s easily Bobby Orr. His unequalled plus minus speaks to that. He was so dominant when he was on the ice. He shut down the other team while leading his team and the league in scoring. Wayne and Mario’s plus minus doesn’t even come close to Orr because they couldn’t play in the defensive zone like Orr.
I agree with just about everything you say, but plus/minus is a horrible way to compare hockey players.
Why do you feel plus minus is a horrible way to compare players ?
I played hockey, and the guys who could control the puck, skate better, shoot accurately, and defend were the great ones.
We all remember how dominant Robinson, Savard, Gainey, Shutt and Lafluer were. They could skate, defend, and score.
The truth is Robinson’s career plus minus per season isn’t even close to Orr, and Larry played with amazing teams.
Bobby Orr was the team. In my view he is along with perhaps Wilt Chamberlain the only players who were so dominant that they elevate above everyone else.
You played hockey and you don't know why +/- is a horrible way to rate a player?
In a nutshell, your number is controlled by the other players more than it is by you. A great player on a bad line, or with a poor goalie looks a lot worse than he really is. An average player on a good line will look a lot better than he really is.
Add this to how much time on the ice a guy plays and the meaningfulness of the number gets worse, as he's playing with even more different guys.
Orr simply didn't play long enough to be the GOAT in my mind. He certainly was the best of his time and it wasn't even close.
Gretzky was the most prolific scorer of the high scoring era and he did it for 20 years. was still leading the league in assists when he was 37 years old.
Are you really saying that Dallas Smith and Wayne Cashman has more of an impact on Orrs plus minus than Orr did ?
Are you saying that Orrs phenomenal career plus minus was so dominant because of Gerry Cheevers and Gilles Gilbert ?
I thought you said you played hockey?
Answer ? Cheevers had more of an influence than Orr on Orrs plus minus ? His save percentage was similar to most nhl goalies.
Was Orr out there a lot with Phil? That would certainly help.
It really is a simple concept. There's 5 guys out there at the same time that influence your number. It's not a good way to compare players. It's a simple fact.
I have also said several times that as far as talent goes, Orr might have been the best, his short career hurts him in any kind of GOAT discussion.
Not going to debate it any more. You may (or may not) have played hockey, but you don't seem to understand it.
Understand it ? I think a mirror is needed here.
Bobby Orr had a career plus .90 per game.
The “great” Niklas Lidstrom had a .29 plus per game. He played on some incredible teams.
Gretzky was so poor defensively that he finished with a plus .37 per game.
Bryan Trottier finished with a .35, lower than Potvins .42 because Potvin was a better two way player.
If you aren’t convinced yet, consider Bobby Clarke and Larry Robinson. Two of the greatest two way players of your era. Clarke was a .45 and Robinson a .53
They are the two who were the best two way players in history behind the incomparable Bobby Orr. Orr finished his career with a .90 and it didn’t matter if Parent, Dryden, Smith, or Cheevers was his goalie, he still blows everyone way out of the water.
Bobby Orr was the most dominant two way player to ever play the game.
The fact you put great in quotations when discussing Nicklas Lidstrom is just embarrassing. Good grief.
Brad McCrimmon once had a +86 season. Does anybody really think he was elite? Of course not. He was very good but not great.
+/- is a horrible stat for judging players. A soft goal from your goalie, a bad giveaway, etc, all can penalize guys who did nothing wrong - or reward guys who did nothing right.
As for Orr, it's probably no coincidence that his dominance, and his +/-, coincided with the league doubling in size.
Thank you, thank you thank you!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Look at Gretzky's +/-;
Edmonton 9 years +553
LA 8 years -5
I guess he was 500 times the player in Edmonton, he should have retired at 30. He was a below average player after that.
Same player, obviously, but playing without Jari Kurri. Gretzky never could be bothered to play defense and with Kurri on his line he could get away with that and just concentrate on scoring. Without Kurri, Gretzky kept concentrating only on scoring, but that meant watching a lot more pucks go in his own net.
Kurri actually followed Gretzky to the Kings and had much worse +/- numbers as well with the Kings.
There are 5 other players on the ice at the same time directly helping/hurting your number.
Using that number to evaluate one of those 6 players is simply ridiculous.
Now others are bringing in Championships, my god it simply can't get any worse!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
I've posted this once before in a non hockey thread but since we are having a rare good puck discussion I figured what the heck. I'm pretty good friends with Peter Forsberg. When ever I want to get under his skin I'll bring up old Red Wing stories. What a rivalry. He remembers every shift. I pick his brain a lot. Whenever, he wants to get under my skin he elbows me. I stop.
One of the great two way players of all time as well as very physical. Member of the top 100 NHL players of all time. A really good dude
Peter and myself. Up until this year we saw each other once a year in the US and once a year in Europe.
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Tabe, this is from 2008 the day after winning the Cup. Photo taken in LA. Lidstrom, Osgood and myself and the wheeling of the Cup.
Damn Photobucket.
mark
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
@Tabe said:
Peter was an amazing player. Shame he wasted his career in Denver
Forsberg started the brawl that included the Lemieux turtle with a nasty elbow on Igor Larionov.
Peter tells the story well. He still gets heated when we talk about the rivalry. Spittle sometimes comes out of his mouth. As you know it was one of the best in sports for awhile. They were death matches and must see TV. I love going to games with Peter. I know hockey pretty well but to hear it from him is another matter
He hates Maltby and Draper ; )
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
@Tabe said:
In my eyes, it's Mario all the way. He put up basically the numbers as Gretzky while playing much of his career in an era where they actually played defense, unlike Wayne's big years. As for Orr, he stood out because of his skating. He was well ahead of his peers in that respect, playing in an era where hardly anyone could skate. If he played today, he'd be required to play more defense and his standout skill - skating - would be somewhat neutered since pretty much every guy can skate.
Put another way, in any given era, which guy is most likely to lead the league in scoring? Mario.
I like what you’re saying, but if today’s game is a speed game, then Orr gets the vote.
He’s quicker than McDavid. Even Gretzky has made mention of the poor skates used in Orrs day. Those guys skated poorly for a reason.
The hockey experts have said that Orr and McDavid have the quickest feet all time. Not strides, but feet.
Mario was fast, and had that reach, so I have no problem with him being the greatest offensively.
But if you’re talking about the complete hockey player in every aspect of the game, then it’s easily Bobby Orr. His unequalled plus minus speaks to that. He was so dominant when he was on the ice. He shut down the other team while leading his team and the league in scoring. Wayne and Mario’s plus minus doesn’t even come close to Orr because they couldn’t play in the defensive zone like Orr.
I agree with just about everything you say, but plus/minus is a horrible way to compare hockey players.
Why do you feel plus minus is a horrible way to compare players ?
I played hockey, and the guys who could control the puck, skate better, shoot accurately, and defend were the great ones.
We all remember how dominant Robinson, Savard, Gainey, Shutt and Lafluer were. They could skate, defend, and score.
The truth is Robinson’s career plus minus per season isn’t even close to Orr, and Larry played with amazing teams.
Bobby Orr was the team. In my view he is along with perhaps Wilt Chamberlain the only players who were so dominant that they elevate above everyone else.
You played hockey and you don't know why +/- is a horrible way to rate a player?
In a nutshell, your number is controlled by the other players more than it is by you. A great player on a bad line, or with a poor goalie looks a lot worse than he really is. An average player on a good line will look a lot better than he really is.
Add this to how much time on the ice a guy plays and the meaningfulness of the number gets worse, as he's playing with even more different guys.
Orr simply didn't play long enough to be the GOAT in my mind. He certainly was the best of his time and it wasn't even close.
Gretzky was the most prolific scorer of the high scoring era and he did it for 20 years. was still leading the league in assists when he was 37 years old.
Are you really saying that Dallas Smith and Wayne Cashman has more of an impact on Orrs plus minus than Orr did ?
Are you saying that Orrs phenomenal career plus minus was so dominant because of Gerry Cheevers and Gilles Gilbert ?
I thought you said you played hockey?
Answer ? Cheevers had more of an influence than Orr on Orrs plus minus ? His save percentage was similar to most nhl goalies.
Was Orr out there a lot with Phil? That would certainly help.
It really is a simple concept. There's 5 guys out there at the same time that influence your number. It's not a good way to compare players. It's a simple fact.
I have also said several times that as far as talent goes, Orr might have been the best, his short career hurts him in any kind of GOAT discussion.
Not going to debate it any more. You may (or may not) have played hockey, but you don't seem to understand it.
Understand it ? I think a mirror is needed here.
Bobby Orr had a career plus .90 per game.
The “great” Niklas Lidstrom had a .29 plus per game. He played on some incredible teams.
Gretzky was so poor defensively that he finished with a plus .37 per game.
Bryan Trottier finished with a .35, lower than Potvins .42 because Potvin was a better two way player.
If you aren’t convinced yet, consider Bobby Clarke and Larry Robinson. Two of the greatest two way players of your era. Clarke was a .45 and Robinson a .53
They are the two who were the best two way players in history behind the incomparable Bobby Orr. Orr finished his career with a .90 and it didn’t matter if Parent, Dryden, Smith, or Cheevers was his goalie, he still blows everyone way out of the water.
Bobby Orr was the most dominant two way player to ever play the game.
The fact you put great in quotations when discussing Nicklas Lidstrom is just embarrassing. Good grief.
Brad McCrimmon once had a +86 season. Does anybody really think he was elite? Of course not. He was very good but not great.
+/- is a horrible stat for judging players. A soft goal from your goalie, a bad giveaway, etc, all can penalize guys who did nothing wrong - or reward guys who did nothing right.
As for Orr, it's probably no coincidence that his dominance, and his +/-, coincided with the league doubling in size.
FYI- Brad McCrimmon and Mark Howe formed a better defensive team with the help of great back checking players in Philadelphia like Poulin, Sutter, Tocchett, and Craven.
Mike Keenan put in a defensive back checking system that almost led them to a Stanley Cup win over the Oilers in 1985.
Mark Howe and Brad McCrimmon was one of the best defensive pairings all time.
Eric Desjardin was very good too later on for the Flyers.
LMK whenever you want to discuss Lidstrom vs. Orr. Just bring your own shovel to bury yourself.
Serge Savard said there are stars, and there are superstars, and then there’s Bobby Orr. Bobby Clarke said it was too bad there wasn’t a higher league for Orr to play in. Derek Sanderson said no one on the Bruins bench ever wanted to have Bobby giving them the stare, because if he stared at you, it meant you needed to give more. Orr blocked a Hull slap shot in an All Star game. That’s how Bobby played. 100% every game. He led by example, and no one even comes close to how dominant he was. You couldn’t skate with him, catch him, only fear him. Larry Robinson said he couldn’t keep up with him as his D partner for Canada. This was perhaps the 2nd greatest d man of all time. Did you ever hear Mario say he couldn’t keep up with Wayne ?
@daltex said:
I'm confused. Is the OP's argument that Gretzky is the GOAT, but Orr is even better?
Indeed. Orr is GTGOAT
Greater Then GOAT
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
@daltex said:
I'm confused. Is the OP's argument that Gretzky is the GOAT, but Orr is even better?
It's apparently that Orr was really really great therefore Nicklas Lidstrom couldn't have been great. Or something.
There was only one great defenseman ever in the NHL. To say there were others is to put them on the same turf as Orr. You can say Howe, Gretzky, and Lemieux were great forwards. Maybe throw in Bossy. Maybe a few others.
Lots of goalies were great. Anyone with a lifetime save percentage over 91.5
But there was one defenseman who was just head and shoulders above all his peers.
If Wayne Gretzky was married to the world's richest supermodel an army of jealous old men would not be so very impressed with his accomplishments on the ice. 💰+👙= 👽 👴
@Hydrant said:
If Wayne Gretzky was married to the world's richest supermodel an army of jealous old men would not be so very impressed with his accomplishments on the ice. 💰+👙= 👽 👴
Damn hydrant has the best emoji's of all time!
If I read correctly- Money + bikini = alien grandpa.
Don't know what it means but that is cool as heck.
@daltex said:
I'm confused. Is the OP's argument that Gretzky is the GOAT, but Orr is even better?
It's apparently that Orr was really really great therefore Nicklas Lidstrom couldn't have been great. Or something.
There was only one great defenseman ever in the NHL. To say there were others is to put them on the same turf as Orr. You can say Howe, Gretzky, and Lemieux were great forwards. Maybe throw in Bossy. Maybe a few others.
Lots of goalies were great. Anyone with a lifetime save percentage over 91.5
What color is the sky in your world? Braden Holtby is great but Patrick Roy, Martin Brodeur, and Terry Sawchuk aren't?
Comments
Gretzky was not the most prolific scorer of his era. Mario was side by side with him.
Paul Coffeys ppg isn’t even close to Orrs ppg. And Coffey played in the high scoring era with both Wayne and Mario.
By the way Orr fans, watch this video. Looks like they went after his knees when he was crossing the blue line and Mahovlich just blew him up.
CHEAP!
I thought you said you played hockey?
Answer ? Cheevers had more of an influence than Orr on Orrs plus minus ? His save percentage was similar to most nhl goalies.
Was Orr out there a lot with Phil? That would certainly help.
It really is a simple concept. There's 5 guys out there at the same time that influence your number. It's not a good way to compare players. It's a simple fact.
I have also said several times that as far as talent goes, Orr might have been the best, his short career hurts him in any kind of GOAT discussion.
Not going to debate it any more. You may (or may not) have played hockey, but you don't seem to understand it.
Understand it ? I think a mirror is needed here.
Bobby Orr had a career plus .90 per game.
The “great” Niklas Lidstrom had a .29 plus per game. He played on some incredible teams.
Gretzky was so poor defensively that he finished with a plus .37 per game.
Bryan Trottier finished with a .35, lower than Potvins .42 because Potvin was a better two way player.
If you aren’t convinced yet, consider Bobby Clarke and Larry Robinson. Two of the greatest two way players of your era. Clarke was a .45 and Robinson a .53
They are the two who were the best two way players in history behind the incomparable Bobby Orr. Orr finished his career with a .90 and it didn’t matter if Parent, Dryden, Smith, or Cheevers was his goalie, he still blows everyone way out of the water.
Bobby Orr was the most dominant two way player to ever play the game.
+/- isn't worthless, but it requires a lot of context before it's useful. There have been a lot of plus players who had the privilege of skating in front of Martin Brodeur and a lot of minus players who skated in front of Kari Lehtonen who would switch their +/- status if they switched goalies. Rather than compare two players on two different teams using their +/-, compare them first to their own teams' +/-, then to each other. It should also be adjusted for time on ice, but that stat isn't available for Orr or any player until recently.
A player who is +20 on a team that is +400 is not as impressive as a player who is -1 on a team that is -400.
Another problem with +/- is that a player who plays a lot of PP can only get minuses, but no pluses, and players who play a lot of PK can only get pluses, no minuses. If a player does both, or neither, it should even out, but a lot of players do one and not the other.
I like your statement, but I think you would adjust your reasoning a bit if you looked at the all time save percentage leaders in the nhl.
Yes it helps to have a better goalie, but the difference in save percentage stats doesn’t swing the pendulum.
If Hasek stops 92 out of 100, which he did, and Ryan Miller stops 91.5 out of 100, which he did (both ahead of Brodeur), it is not that significant.
Goalies do not have much of an impact on a players plus minus only because the majority of them are equal in stopping the puck.
King Henrik was a lifetime better shot blocker than Brodeur, but none of the Ranger players were great like Orr to take advantage of playing with the King.
Heck, even Scott Stevens plus minus during the Brodeur years is nothing compared to Orr.
the nhl has changed too much for anyone to get 92 goals so the rules protect gretzky from being caught
That was the most exciting period in hockey , conversly the nfl is at its highest scoring era so that and bradys long career account for his records
Maybe not worthless, but it might be the statistic in all of sports with the least value in evaluating a player.
Even with a great goalie, unless you are allowing zero goals while on the ice, you probably need another scorer on the ice at the same time. I'm assuming Mr. Orr had Phil Esposito, who led the league in goals scored for 6 straight years.
Look at Gretzky's +/-;
Edmonton 9 years +553
LA 8 years -5
I guess he was 500 times the player in Edmonton, he should have retired at 30. He was a below average player after that.
In 1962-63 Gordy Howe scored 86 points and was a +23
In 1963-64 Gordy Howe scored 73 points and was a -10
In 1964-65 he scored 76 points and was a +22
That one game in he missed 1964 really hurt him.
Bobby Orr in 1970 led the league with 139 points and a 124 plus minus. He was slightly over 1.5 points a game and a plus 1.5 per game.
An absolutely sick statistic that WILL NEVER be broken.
What he did in 1970 was more dominant than Secretariat at Belmont.
Gretzky’s best season was 208 points and plus 100. Not as good as Orrs, especially being that he out scored Bobby by 70 points, but was still 24 behind him in plus minus. Need to do a little bit more back checking Wayne.
We all saw Wayne play. In Edmonton he stayed at center ice a lot waiting for the D and Anderson to get him the puck.
Gretzky was a candy ...... who could not be physical. He was all offense and very little defense.
I put Howe over Gretzky for the reasons you state. But Howe is already part of the the Brady slash line, because Brady is the Mantle/Aaron/Howe of quarterbacks all rolled into one.
is this a sarcastic thread or factual take or what ?
i dont have the patience to follow these threads where on page 2 the op has flip flopped
Those are called stevek threads btw
No Flip flop here Mr. Gore (as in Frank). Gretzky does have all those records and Brady can match him.
But Bobby Orr was a better all around player.
Orr burned too brightly .
Wayne was amazing at pure scoring but he was also in the right place at the right time.
if he was small and not fighting so what ? Why do you want a 92 goal scorer in the box ?
Semenko and mcsorely could fight for him !
Edmonton was like a team someone with cheat codes put together on nhl 94
Edmonton won a cup without Gretzky. Gretzky didn’t win a cup without Edmonton. The Oilers helped Wayne’s career immensely.
Which is why his plus minus was so good in Edmonton.
Wayne couldn’t dominate on an average team the way Orr could.
Same player, obviously, but playing without Jari Kurri. Gretzky never could be bothered to play defense and with Kurri on his line he could get away with that and just concentrate on scoring. Without Kurri, Gretzky kept concentrating only on scoring, but that meant watching a lot more pucks go in his own net.
The fact you put great in quotations when discussing Nicklas Lidstrom is just embarrassing. Good grief.
Brad McCrimmon once had a +86 season. Does anybody really think he was elite? Of course not. He was very good but not great.
+/- is a horrible stat for judging players. A soft goal from your goalie, a bad giveaway, etc, all can penalize guys who did nothing wrong - or reward guys who did nothing right.
As for Orr, it's probably no coincidence that his dominance, and his +/-, coincided with the league doubling in size.
Thank you, thank you thank you!
Kurri actually followed Gretzky to the Kings and had much worse +/- numbers as well with the Kings.
There are 5 other players on the ice at the same time directly helping/hurting your number.
Using that number to evaluate one of those 6 players is simply ridiculous.
Now others are bringing in Championships, my god it simply can't get any worse!
I've posted this once before in a non hockey thread but since we are having a rare good puck discussion I figured what the heck. I'm pretty good friends with Peter Forsberg. When ever I want to get under his skin I'll bring up old Red Wing stories. What a rivalry. He remembers every shift. I pick his brain a lot. Whenever, he wants to get under my skin he elbows me. I stop.
One of the great two way players of all time as well as very physical. Member of the top 100 NHL players of all time. A really good dude
Peter and myself. Up until this year we saw each other once a year in the US and once a year in Europe.
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Peter was an amazing player. Shame he wasted his career in Denver
Forsberg started the brawl that included the Lemieux turtle with a nasty elbow on Igor Larionov.
Shame he could never stay healthy because he was a dominant force on the ice.
Tabe, this is from 2008 the day after winning the Cup. Photo taken in LA. Lidstrom, Osgood and myself and the wheeling of the Cup.
Damn Photobucket.
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Peter tells the story well. He still gets heated when we talk about the rivalry. Spittle sometimes comes out of his mouth. As you know it was one of the best in sports for awhile. They were death matches and must see TV. I love going to games with Peter. I know hockey pretty well but to hear it from him is another matter
He hates Maltby and Draper ; )
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Awesome pics, Mark.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
FYI- Brad McCrimmon and Mark Howe formed a better defensive team with the help of great back checking players in Philadelphia like Poulin, Sutter, Tocchett, and Craven.
Mike Keenan put in a defensive back checking system that almost led them to a Stanley Cup win over the Oilers in 1985.
Mark Howe and Brad McCrimmon was one of the best defensive pairings all time.
Eric Desjardin was very good too later on for the Flyers.
LMK whenever you want to discuss Lidstrom vs. Orr. Just bring your own shovel to bury yourself.
Serge Savard said there are stars, and there are superstars, and then there’s Bobby Orr. Bobby Clarke said it was too bad there wasn’t a higher league for Orr to play in. Derek Sanderson said no one on the Bruins bench ever wanted to have Bobby giving them the stare, because if he stared at you, it meant you needed to give more. Orr blocked a Hull slap shot in an All Star game. That’s how Bobby played. 100% every game. He led by example, and no one even comes close to how dominant he was. You couldn’t skate with him, catch him, only fear him. Larry Robinson said he couldn’t keep up with him as his D partner for Canada. This was perhaps the 2nd greatest d man of all time. Did you ever hear Mario say he couldn’t keep up with Wayne ?
I'm confused. Is the OP's argument that Gretzky is the GOAT, but Orr is even better?
Indeed. Orr is GTGOAT
Greater Then GOAT
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
It's apparently that Orr was really really great therefore Nicklas Lidstrom couldn't have been great. Or something.
There was only one great defenseman ever in the NHL. To say there were others is to put them on the same turf as Orr. You can say Howe, Gretzky, and Lemieux were great forwards. Maybe throw in Bossy. Maybe a few others.
Lots of goalies were great. Anyone with a lifetime save percentage over 91.5
But there was one defenseman who was just head and shoulders above all his peers.
If Wayne Gretzky was married to the world's richest supermodel an army of jealous old men would not be so very impressed with his accomplishments on the ice. 💰+👙= 👽 👴
Damn hydrant has the best emoji's of all time!
If I read correctly- Money + bikini = alien grandpa.
Don't know what it means but that is cool as heck.
Green with envy grandpa.
I didn't want to stir the pot, but I was confused as well.
What color is the sky in your world? Braden Holtby is great but Patrick Roy, Martin Brodeur, and Terry Sawchuk aren't?
Orr is the double goat.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.