Tell me again how Gretzky is not #1. Because I still have not seen it in this thread or reality. No need to post the other meaningful stats because they are laughable.
@FirstBeard said:
Tell me again how Gretzky is not #1. Because I still have not seen it in this thread or reality. No need to post the other meaningful stats because they are laughable.
@FirstBeard said:
Tell me again how Gretzky is not #1. Because I still have not seen it in this thread or reality. No need to post the other meaningful stats because they are laughable.
How many HOFs on the 85 and 87 flyers teams the Oilers beat ?
Had to be the weakest Cup finals teams ever with zero superstar power. Oilers struggled too.
Brad Marsh
Dave Brown
Murray Craven, Sutter, and company.
What a weak team. Mark Howe the only one ?
At this point, I have to ask are you serious in this thread or are you posting stuff to get reactions akin to a WWE heel?
Tell me the difference between others saying Orr played against watered down competition to me saying Gretzky did ?
That is your interpretation of what is being posted, that is not necessarily what is being argued.
The crux of the argument, and correct me if I'm wrong, is:
1) Orr's per game statistics, particularly PPG and "+/-", clearly demonstrate that Orr is the greatest player of all-time, by far;
2) Gretzky's stats are matched or exceeded by Lemieux and Bossy, while no one can touch Orr; and
3) Any analysis of Coffey is invalid since he played with Gretzky and Lemieux.
What is being countered is:
Orr (and Bossy) only had prime years and never played beyond the age of 30, thus any per game analysis should be done over similar game amounts and/or ages in order to provide a more equivalent analysis.
When this is done, argument 2) is eliminated for PPG (see page 3 and 4 of this thread) and weakened for "+/-".
"+/-" is more nuanced. As an additional data point, Larry Robinson until the age of 30 played 673 games and was +526, while Orr was 657 GP +582. There are no TOI stats from that period. However, from my own recollection and by all written accounts, I wouldn't be shocked if Orr averaged 30+ minutes per game throughout that entire time frame, where the Bruins were the 1st or 2nd best team in the league a majority of the time. While guys like Hodge, MacKenzie, Sanderson (among others) were not hall of famers, they were all-star caliber players during those years. And while this may be over-generalizing, one-half of the games played during that era were 4-3 games and half were 6-2, as the league was absorbing the expansion of that era. This is not Orr's fault, nor is it any denigration to Orr's superiority to the league. He still put up those statistics during that specific period and no one else did. What I am saying is that the combination of those three components contributed to those stats and should be taken into consideration when evaluating against players from different time frames. Robinson benefited from being on really strong Canadiens teams as Gretzky, likewise, benefited from being on strong Oilers teams. And there also were plenty of bad teams for both to play against. However, playing 5 to 10 minutes (I am guessing) more per game is where Orr probably pads his advantage. Even if he had only played 27 minutes per game, he would probably be the best, but his advantage wouldn't be as obvious.
Let's look at 3) again.
From 68-76, there is a really strong argument that the best player in the NHL not named Orr was Phil Esposito, at least offensively. He won the Art Ross trophy five times and was MVP twice. He shattered scoring records during that time frame and his goals/points/PPG amounts were significantly higher than anyone else in the league, with Orr being 2nd. As stated and shown on page 4 of this thread (and if you comb through his stats), his point production increases preceded Orr's with the primary driver being the addition of 1st power play unit time in Boston (in Chicago, he was blocked by Makita and Hull) and being teamed with Orr, Hodge and Bucyk. Just because Esposito's point production increase preceded Orr's doesn't explicitly mean that Orr's increase was driven solely by Esposito's arrival. That would be a too simplistic conclusion. Clearly though, there is a symbiotic relationship between the two players where they both benefited from the fact that the two top players in the league at the time were on the same team.
Likewise, just because Mario Lemieux had a significant jump in his PPG statistics upon the arrival of Paul Coffey in 87-88, that doesn't mean that was a direct correlation attributable to Coffey. Again, too simplistic of an analysis, though, clearly his arrival had some positive impact.
The point being that you cannot completely discount Coffey's statistics in PPG because he was playing with the top PPG players during those years while simultaneously elevating Orr's PPG stats while he, too, played with the top PPG player during his years.
The conclusion here is:
1) Orr is clearly a superior player to Coffey;
2) When just looking at PPG, when adjusted to equivalent prime years, Coffey actually comes within earshot of Orr; and
3) Coffey actually comes a bit closer to Orr in PPG (when adjusted to equivalent prime years) than Lemieux does to Gretzky in PPG or Bossy does to Gretzky in GPG.
None of this invalidates anyone's opinion that Orr (or Lemieux) was the GOAT or that Mike Bossy was the greatest goal scorer of all-time. In the end, those evaluations are subjective.
I do object to the snarky "LOL" and other dismissive comments (many of which could be countered if I had the time, energy or desire to address). I don't believe I have been anything but respectful towards you. Clearly, Tabe and I have put quite a bit of thought behind what we have written and have backed them up with concrete statistics (regardless of the fact that there are always qualifiers and some subjectivity in the conclusions to be made from those statistics). We may have been born at night, but not last night.
The mid-80s Flyers comments sort of told me all I needed to know. For perspective, I have watched (or listened to) pretty much every single Flyers game since the start of the 1971 season. Those mid-80's teams that went to the finals had the best regular season record in 84-85 and the 2nd best in 85-86 and 86-87. Those teams were the deepest teams the Flyers ever had. Of the players on those teams, the weakest were Dave Brown and Lindsay Carson. But even Dave Brown was "good enough" to win a Cup with Edmonton since every team carried an enforcer. Have you actually ever seen Murray Craven's stats? While only Howe is in the HOF, Tim Kerr (injuries, VERY equivalent to Cam Neely) , Brian Propp and Rick Tocchet borderline HHOF candidates, with Propp (87) and Tocchet (87 and 91) playing on Canada Cup teams. Lindbergh and Hextall were the Vezina Trophy winners (which was now the most valuable goaltender) in the years they went to finals, with Hextall winning the Conn Smythe. Had Lindbergh not plowed his car into a wall, he may have had a HOF career - he was well on his way.
“Nothing is as good as it used to be, and it never was. The “golden age of sports,” the golden age of anything, is the age of everyone’s childhood.”
― Ken Dryden, The Game
“I know that pucks are now shot faster by more fast shooters. I know that players train harder and longer, and receive better coaching. I know that in any way an athlete can be measured--in strength, in speed, in height or distance jumped--he is immensely superior to the one who performed twenty years ago. But measured against a memory, he has no chance. I know what I feel.”
― Ken Dryden, The Game
End of rant.
Edit to add - in honor of the 50th anniversary of the most dramatic sporting event in history - the 1972 Summit Series - I recommend looking up and watching the many videos on YouTube. In particular, there is a documentary narrated by Peter Coyote that is excellent. https://youtu.be/WPzaVDilFEI
It's TOTALLY disputable! I assume you played sports. Do/did you put out the same effort against a team/person you were destroying, or did you play harder when the competition was tougher?
It was suggested that Orr produced better numbers than he should have because of expansion. On it's face, that sounds like a very good argument, but it doesn't prove anything. Orr might have scored just as well against better opposition, he might have been more motivated and scored MORE if the competition was better.
I have to think that playing 70 games a year on a team that won most of their games would made it easy to take a period off once in a while.
OBVIOUSLY, if he was "the best player on the ice" (or close to it) in an international competition when his knees had been operated on several times and he was near the end of his career, certainly refutes the evidence that his value should be diminished because of the competition.
I think you're misunderstanding the data. Orr had distinctly better results against the expansion teams, which puts rather a different gloss on your post. It would be like suggesting that a player last year had better results against the Yotes than against the Lightning because he decided to bear down in Phoenix. Pretty silly.
Tell me again how Gretzky is not #1. Because I still have not seen it in this thread or reality. No need to post the other meaningful stats because they are laughable.
That is more than half a point per game difference and Gretzky did if for a far far FAR longer time.
Absolutely correct, but most of his scoring (nearly 2 to 1) were assists, which is fine, and you are ignoring defensive play completely, which you have done.
Lemieux was better at actually putting the puck in the net, but then you need to decide how he could be better than Wayne who played in 600 more games and still had a better PPG.
I think Lemieux was a better defensive player, but didn't put forth the effort as much as he could/should have.
Orr was the absolute best player both defensively and right up there offensively, but for a very short time.
Howe was a tremendous scorer when nobody was scoring 100 points a season (which he finally did at the age of 40), so while he dominated his PPG was lower. He also was a big strong tough player, which Wayne was none of the above. Howe also rarely missed any games, so he was there every game, and for the longest career.
Gretzky comes the closest to matching Howe's longevity and he was done at 38. Howe returned to the NHL at 50 and scored 41 points, playing in 80 games.
To simply boil it down to PPG only (maybe) determines the best scorer, not necessarily the best player.
I would give the GOAT to Howe, but the "Best Ever" to Orr.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Tell me a team that faced three straight HOF goalies and 3 Vezina winners like that in one Cup run.
Good luck looking !!!!
1999 Dallas Stars. 3 straight were Grant Fuhr, then Patrick Roy, then Dominik Hasek.
I'm sure that there are probably a few others, but this is the first one that came to mind
If Fleury gets in, the 2008 Red Wings. too.
Although, I am not sure what, if anything, this is supposed to mean.
For example, Bernie Parent (my all-time personal favorite) is a HOFer and 2x Vezina winner, but facing him in the play-offs in any years other than 74 or 75 is a dramatically different experience. If he had played a minute in the 76 finals, the 76 Canadiens would have met the criteria, too, but Shero went with Stephenson after Parent, who had missed a majority of the season with a neck injury, struggled against the Leafs and lost the first game against Boston in the semis.
What goalies did the year before doesn't mean a thing. NHL history is littered with one year wonder goalies (see Hammond, Andrew. Hall & Plante obviously were not one year wonders).
Plante and Hall…..”one year wonder goalies”. !!!!!!!!! Love it !!!!!
You're funny. You literally quote me saying that they weren't one year wonder goalies and then mock me for saying that - even though I didn't.. Did you actually read what you were responding to?
I love that you post this particular picture of Orr blocking a shot. The full video of this play shows Orr playing atrocious defense, playing neither the man nor the puck and having to dive to recover to block a second shot that good defense would have prevented in the first place.
During Orr's tenure with Boston, he faced Dryden 14 times in the regular season, possibly less. Dryden faced Boston 14 times in those years, I haven't checked the scoresheets to see if Orr played in all of them.
14 is more than a couple but it's not exactly "a lot".
And Gretzky faced Hasek 15 times, so more times than Orr faced Dryden in the regular season.
Orr faced Dryden in just one playoff series - 1971, a 7-game series that Boston lost when Orr was unable to put up even a single point against the rookie Dryden in games 6 and 7 of the series while also committing a penalty in game 6 that led to a Montreal power play goal.
In 1982 at the age of 21, Gretzky average 2.4 points per game in the postseason but couldn’t lead his team with Messier and Coffey past LA in the first round of the playoffs.
He was a minus 1.
That’s Gretzky. Scoring points but never playing defense.
At age 21 Bobby Orr led his team to a Stanley Cup championship, winning five major trophies in one year.
He was a +24 that postseason.
You all are ignoring the plus minus side of Gretzky, Lemieux, and Orr.
I did not get the impression that posters here had been ignoring plus/minus. The thread seems to focus primarily on a comparison of Edmonton Gretzky vs. Boston Orr. The plus/minus stats for both players from those portions of their career is a fair comparison based on age of player, quantity of years, quantity of games played, and quality of teammates. Over those portions of their respective careers, the two players have relatively comparable plus-minus stats without a statistically significant advantage for one over the other.
@miwlvrn said:
I did not get the impression that posters here had been ignoring plus/minus. The thread seems to focus primarily on a comparison of Edmonton Gretzky vs. Boston Orr. The plus/minus stats for both players from those portions of their career is a fair comparison based on age of player, quantity of years, quantity of games played, and quality of teammates. Over those portions of their respective careers, the two players have relatively comparable plus-minus stats without a statistically significant advantage for one over the other.
I always take Gretzky over Lemieux because of that, but no way a healthy Bobby Orr has those atrocious plus minus numbers Wayne had with LA.
That is a nice sentiment. How would plan to prove that?
Take a look at the plus/minus of a few dozen good to great players and see what happens, in general, after the age of 30. Some, who adjust their role, fare better, but they all decline, some more than others depending on whether they change teams or the status of their teams.
"String theory, multidimensional reality and matter displacement, all real? I knew it!" - Peter Parker
Additionally, it is worth noting a couple more general things when considering +/-
Collected data of Time On Ice statistics are excellent beginning with the 2007-08 season. Before that, the stats under that categorical umbrella is almost non-existent. Players who spend a significant percentage of their time on Power Play and Penalty Kill results in that TOI affecting their +/-. +/- not counting on PP/PK makes it a less comparable stat in many regards.
Also, Defence of course log much higher TOI/game than Forwards.
@Goldenage said:
Remember, Brad Marsh and Ed Hospidar were regular shift D men for Stanley Cup final teams during then.
Brad Marsh was a 2nd pair defensemen with Doug Crossman. He was captain of the Flames when he was traded to the Flyers. Although both developed back issues later in their careers, Marsh played in over 1,000 games and Crossman in 914.
Marsh played in one AS game, finished 7th in the Norris voting in 84-85 and twice received votes for the post-season all-star teams. Crossman played in once received votes for the post-season all-star team and was a member of the 1987 Canada Cup team.
I will admit that I wasn't a huge fan of Marsh because I thought he focused too much on blocking shots rather than being in position to clear rebounds. He was still a pretty good defensemen. Not many players get to play 1,000 NHL games if they suck.
Ed Hospodar was the 6/7th defenseman, who played sporadically. When he did, he got maybe 6 to 10 minutes a game and brought an edge to his game as he was a willing fighter. He played in 18 of 19 play-off games in 85 and 5 of 26 games in 87.
The Flyers' 2nd pairing was comparable to the Bruins 2nd pairing in 1970 and 1972 (when they add Vadnais, who was the best of the both teams' pairings).
I always take Gretzky over Lemieux because of that, but no way a healthy Bobby Orr has those atrocious plus minus numbers Wayne had with LA.
That is a nice sentiment. How would plan to prove that?
1966 Bruins 17-43-10.
Bobby Orr 18 years old.
He’s a plus 1 for the entire season.
He’s playing against Original 6 quality older men on a horrible team and is a plus for the season.
You didn't understand the question. What were Bobby Orr's stats at age 34?
That’s a dumb question. Orr would never be a minus though. You never saw him play. As fast as McDavid and more heart and toughness than Clarke. I love Clarke too. Best two way forward ever.
@miwlvrn said:
I did not get the impression that posters here had been ignoring plus/minus. The thread seems to focus primarily on a comparison of Edmonton Gretzky vs. Boston Orr. The plus/minus stats for both players from those portions of their career is a fair comparison based on age of player, quantity of years, quantity of games played, and quality of teammates. Over those portions of their respective careers, the two players have relatively comparable plus-minus stats without a statistically significant advantage for one over the other.
Any hockey stat that is effected by 5 guys you are playing with (not to mention the lines you are playing against) is useless.
All you have to do is look at players +/- from year to year and you will see wild swings from guys being + then being - then back to +. guys forgetting how to play for a year or two, then remembering?
More likely gaining or losing a good linemate, or changing lines completely.
Perfect example Minnesota's current "number one" center Ryan Hartman. In 5 full years in the league he had one year as a +13 and four more as about a +1, then he gets on a line with Kaprizov and Zuccarello, suddenly he becomes a +31.
I watched just about every game last year and Hartman should have been even better. He must have blown 10-15 scoring chances when Kaprizov put him in all alone with unbelievable passes. Had he converted these chances Not only Hartman, but everyone else on the line "gets better" as well.
Additionally +/- will tell you that Hartman is actually a little better than Kaprizov who was a +27.
A stat that says these two players are anywhere near equal is a piece of garbage.
The other player on that line Mats Zuccarello, was a solid +15 player for the Rangers three out of four years. Then dropped to a -10 player his last year there and first year in Minnesota, suddenly becomes a better player than ever with Kaprizov, who was able to convert on Zucc's passes, increasing his assist total (and +/_ as well).
The +/- numbers on all three were also helped a lot when Cam Talbot was acquired, much improving the goaltending.
Ignore the +/-
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Meanwhile Gretzky at 21 couldn’t be a plus against LA in the postseason against a watered down league.
I suppose you don't realize how silly that sounds. This has got to be an act.
Not all of Orr's play-off series were rainbows and unicorns (there were two where he was a minus and they lost: 68 Canadiens 0-4 -1; 73 Rangers 1-4 -4). But I am not about to denigrate Orr because his team didn't win and he was a minus in the series.
"But is was the Kings and the Kings sucked! Therefore Gretzky sucked! and all of their Stanley Cups came against teams that sucked with sucky players that sucked."
The years have been littered with first place teams getting knocked out in opening rounds by bottom seeds. Some of those teams later won Cups. Does that diminish Vasilevsky and Ovechkin in your mind? I suppose it does.
Also, when you mention "water downed league", you REALLY do not know what you're talking about, but the explanation would take so long that it would make previous posts look like sound bites (and you would dismiss it anyway).
That’s a dumb question. Orr would never be a minus though. You never saw him play. As fast as McDavid and more heart and toughness than Clarke. I love Clarke too. Best two way forward ever.
>
No it's not a dumb question. Most of your argument is predicated on Orr's per game stats and how they are superior to everyone else. Orr never had any seasons beyond the age of 30 (28 really) to drag down those averages as every player does decline with age. Maybe Orr's decline would have been gradual, but maybe not. No one knows.
So, a more fair comparison is to look at those other players up to age 30 to get an apples to apples comparison (or at least a much better comparison).
Based upon all of your dismissive comments, Gretzky may have looked better in you eyes if had been hit by a truck in 1991 and had a 12 year career with 925 GP, 718 goals, 2,142 points, +606, 9 Hart , 9 Art Ross, 2 Conn Smythe and 4 Stanley Cups.
Edit to add - Yes, I saw him play. Live at least once in 1971 and on TV every time they played the Flyers and when their play-off games were on TV. I also have watched multiple games from the late 60's early 70's on YouTube. That is just another dismissive comment.
It's fun to talk hockey but not to argue it. In case anyone enjoys discussing the game instead of making a trial case out of it: Subjectively, I'd assume just about everyone would agree that Orr and Lidstrom are the two greatest defencemen ever. But I don't think you can differentiate enough to rank the next 3 against each other, without just calling it a tie. For example, since they played within completely different eras, I would say that it is not possible to determine objectively who stacks up where among Eddie Shore, Doug Harvey and Ray Bourque. Maybe Coffey isn't 6th and some people think he cracks into the top 5. I'm not looking to prove a rank list; this is just the Defence thought that is bouncing around inside my head at the moment.
@Goldenage said:
Remember, Brad Marsh and Ed Hospidar were regular shift D men for Stanley Cup final teams during then.
Very few HOF D men and goalies during that time.
Ray Bourque. An old Potvin.
Steven’s and Chelios just getting started.
There are others (Larry Robinson, Brad Park, Guy Lapointe and Borje Salming come to mind); but when it comes to defending against forwards, it is important to also credit forwards filling that role (during the years in question as well as other eras too), such as Bob Gainey and Guy Carbonneau, et. al.
@Goldenage said:
Remember, Brad Marsh and Ed Hospidar were regular shift D men for Stanley Cup final teams during then.
Very few HOF D men and goalies during that time.
Ray Bourque. An old Potvin.
Steven’s and Chelios just getting started.
There are others (Larry Robinson, Brad Park, Guy Lapointe and Borje Salming come to mind); but when it comes to defending against forwards, it is important to also credit forwards filling that role (during the years in question as well as other eras too), such as Bob Gainey and Guy Carbonneau, et. al.
Wilson and Langway are also in the HOF and won 3 Norris trophies between them.
@Goldenage said:
Tabe wants to use the word atrocious to describe Orr on defense.
HUGE LOL goes out to Tabe for that one.
I’m guessing Tabe that Gretzky’s minus 1 with 12 points in 5 games is because of STELLAR defense !
How come didn't you come back and talk some more about how Orr played against Dryden "a lot" and Gretzky didn't play against Hasek "a lot" when it was pointed out Gretzky played against Hasek more?
Or talk about Orr being so amazing but, against a rookie Dryden, was a -3 with zero points and a key penalty in games 6 & 7 against Montreal in the playoffs when it counted most? I thought +/- was the greatest stat ever?
Refer back to page 3. While your main points are valid, it can be a telling stat when put into a different perspective.
>
>
I apologize. +/- might have some value if you adjust the circumstances.
I tried for the 6th time to read what you posted and for the 6th time I gave up with a massive headache. Your analysis may be spot on, but people here aren't doing anything but regurgitating stats. They are looking for a number that proves one player is better than another, and +/- is the worst number you can use.
You can over analyze anything. The simple fact of the matter is your +/- depends on the guys you play with as much as, or more than how well you play, so if your a great player (usually who we are comparing) you get a huge benefit if you play on a top line, with a good set of D men and a good/great goalie. If you are a great player stuck on a line with a crappy player (or two) and your team plays lousy defense, you are doomed. Conversely, if you suck, and play on a great line with a great defense, you look superb.
My post above shows exactly how Ryan Hartman, a decent, hard working center, playing with two gifted wings and a solid defense/goalie behind him can look like an all star. Hartman is a solid player and I like him, but he is not as good as Zuccarello and MILES AND MILES below Kaprizov in talent. Yet Hartman has a "better" +/-.
I have loved hockey all my life and been watching since about 1967 when the North Stars started here in Minnesota. +/- always seemed like a good stat, until I looked closer and saw great players in their prime being a big + player one year and a big - player the next, even if they scored a similar number of points. They didn't get better or worse.........their team mates did.
Look at Mike Modano's 1995-96 season compared to the next, Virtually the same production and yet he goes from a -12 to a +43. Then look at 1998-99 through 2000-2001. +29, 0. +26. All similar years in games played and scoring.
Could it be that as a team they gave up 100 less goals in 1996-97? Could it be that his team went from a 6th place finish to a 1st? Adding Darrly Sydor and Sergei Zubov is what made Modano a better +/- player and Dallas a better team.
Ignore the +/- when comparing players, especially if one played with great players and one did not, but in general, just ignore it.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
GOAT is a personal opinion. Statistical comparisons are only part of the equation.
I’ve only seen Orrs play in highlights. He was very talented. The best defenceman to ever play the game.
GOAT of hockey is Gretzky. Teams began to shadow/double team him because he was that talented. It still didn’t work. The only thing that slowed him down was age.
But if you believe the GOAT is Orr, Lemieux, Howe….that’s great!!! No need to argue…
Comments
Tell me again how Gretzky is not #1. Because I still have not seen it in this thread or reality. No need to post the other meaningful stats because they are laughable.
Gretzky averaged 1.921 ppg
Lemeiux 1.883
Orr 1.393
That is more than half a point per game difference and Gretzky did if for a far far FAR longer time.
Gretzky has an equal in ppg in Lemieux
Orr has no equal in ppg. Coffey isn’t close.
Orr’s plus minus per game is +0.9
Gretzky’s is +0.25
Orr per game has no equal.
GOAT
No one is even remotely close to Orr in plus minus per game.
He dominated both ends of the ice.
GOAT
#2 ppg Coffey had 66&99 over half his career. #3 Potvin had #1 in goals per game Bossy his entire career.
Orr had none of that.
If he were in their shoes, he’d be much higher in ppg and they would be lower if they were in his shoes.
At this point, I have to ask are you serious in this thread or are you posting stuff to get reactions akin to a WWE heel?
Tell me the difference between others saying Orr played against watered down competition to me saying Gretzky did ?
So Lemieux is better than Orr as well. Got it.
That is your interpretation of what is being posted, that is not necessarily what is being argued.
The crux of the argument, and correct me if I'm wrong, is:
1) Orr's per game statistics, particularly PPG and "+/-", clearly demonstrate that Orr is the greatest player of all-time, by far;
2) Gretzky's stats are matched or exceeded by Lemieux and Bossy, while no one can touch Orr; and
3) Any analysis of Coffey is invalid since he played with Gretzky and Lemieux.
What is being countered is:
Orr (and Bossy) only had prime years and never played beyond the age of 30, thus any per game analysis should be done over similar game amounts and/or ages in order to provide a more equivalent analysis.
When this is done, argument 2) is eliminated for PPG (see page 3 and 4 of this thread) and weakened for "+/-".
"+/-" is more nuanced. As an additional data point, Larry Robinson until the age of 30 played 673 games and was +526, while Orr was 657 GP +582. There are no TOI stats from that period. However, from my own recollection and by all written accounts, I wouldn't be shocked if Orr averaged 30+ minutes per game throughout that entire time frame, where the Bruins were the 1st or 2nd best team in the league a majority of the time. While guys like Hodge, MacKenzie, Sanderson (among others) were not hall of famers, they were all-star caliber players during those years. And while this may be over-generalizing, one-half of the games played during that era were 4-3 games and half were 6-2, as the league was absorbing the expansion of that era. This is not Orr's fault, nor is it any denigration to Orr's superiority to the league. He still put up those statistics during that specific period and no one else did. What I am saying is that the combination of those three components contributed to those stats and should be taken into consideration when evaluating against players from different time frames. Robinson benefited from being on really strong Canadiens teams as Gretzky, likewise, benefited from being on strong Oilers teams. And there also were plenty of bad teams for both to play against. However, playing 5 to 10 minutes (I am guessing) more per game is where Orr probably pads his advantage. Even if he had only played 27 minutes per game, he would probably be the best, but his advantage wouldn't be as obvious.
Let's look at 3) again.
From 68-76, there is a really strong argument that the best player in the NHL not named Orr was Phil Esposito, at least offensively. He won the Art Ross trophy five times and was MVP twice. He shattered scoring records during that time frame and his goals/points/PPG amounts were significantly higher than anyone else in the league, with Orr being 2nd. As stated and shown on page 4 of this thread (and if you comb through his stats), his point production increases preceded Orr's with the primary driver being the addition of 1st power play unit time in Boston (in Chicago, he was blocked by Makita and Hull) and being teamed with Orr, Hodge and Bucyk. Just because Esposito's point production increase preceded Orr's doesn't explicitly mean that Orr's increase was driven solely by Esposito's arrival. That would be a too simplistic conclusion. Clearly though, there is a symbiotic relationship between the two players where they both benefited from the fact that the two top players in the league at the time were on the same team.
Likewise, just because Mario Lemieux had a significant jump in his PPG statistics upon the arrival of Paul Coffey in 87-88, that doesn't mean that was a direct correlation attributable to Coffey. Again, too simplistic of an analysis, though, clearly his arrival had some positive impact.
The point being that you cannot completely discount Coffey's statistics in PPG because he was playing with the top PPG players during those years while simultaneously elevating Orr's PPG stats while he, too, played with the top PPG player during his years.
The conclusion here is:
1) Orr is clearly a superior player to Coffey;
2) When just looking at PPG, when adjusted to equivalent prime years, Coffey actually comes within earshot of Orr; and
3) Coffey actually comes a bit closer to Orr in PPG (when adjusted to equivalent prime years) than Lemieux does to Gretzky in PPG or Bossy does to Gretzky in GPG.
None of this invalidates anyone's opinion that Orr (or Lemieux) was the GOAT or that Mike Bossy was the greatest goal scorer of all-time. In the end, those evaluations are subjective.
I do object to the snarky "LOL" and other dismissive comments (many of which could be countered if I had the time, energy or desire to address). I don't believe I have been anything but respectful towards you. Clearly, Tabe and I have put quite a bit of thought behind what we have written and have backed them up with concrete statistics (regardless of the fact that there are always qualifiers and some subjectivity in the conclusions to be made from those statistics). We may have been born at night, but not last night.
The mid-80s Flyers comments sort of told me all I needed to know. For perspective, I have watched (or listened to) pretty much every single Flyers game since the start of the 1971 season. Those mid-80's teams that went to the finals had the best regular season record in 84-85 and the 2nd best in 85-86 and 86-87. Those teams were the deepest teams the Flyers ever had. Of the players on those teams, the weakest were Dave Brown and Lindsay Carson. But even Dave Brown was "good enough" to win a Cup with Edmonton since every team carried an enforcer. Have you actually ever seen Murray Craven's stats? While only Howe is in the HOF, Tim Kerr (injuries, VERY equivalent to Cam Neely) , Brian Propp and Rick Tocchet borderline HHOF candidates, with Propp (87) and Tocchet (87 and 91) playing on Canada Cup teams. Lindbergh and Hextall were the Vezina Trophy winners (which was now the most valuable goaltender) in the years they went to finals, with Hextall winning the Conn Smythe. Had Lindbergh not plowed his car into a wall, he may have had a HOF career - he was well on his way.
“Nothing is as good as it used to be, and it never was. The “golden age of sports,” the golden age of anything, is the age of everyone’s childhood.”
― Ken Dryden, The Game
“I know that pucks are now shot faster by more fast shooters. I know that players train harder and longer, and receive better coaching. I know that in any way an athlete can be measured--in strength, in speed, in height or distance jumped--he is immensely superior to the one who performed twenty years ago. But measured against a memory, he has no chance. I know what I feel.”
― Ken Dryden, The Game
End of rant.
Edit to add - in honor of the 50th anniversary of the most dramatic sporting event in history - the 1972 Summit Series - I recommend looking up and watching the many videos on YouTube. In particular, there is a documentary narrated by Peter Coyote that is excellent.
https://youtu.be/WPzaVDilFEI
1999 Dallas Stars. 3 straight were Grant Fuhr, then Patrick Roy, then Dominik Hasek.
I'm sure that there are probably a few others, but this is the first one that came to mind
Ok.> @FirstBeard said:
Absolutely correct, but most of his scoring (nearly 2 to 1) were assists, which is fine, and you are ignoring defensive play completely, which you have done.
Lemieux was better at actually putting the puck in the net, but then you need to decide how he could be better than Wayne who played in 600 more games and still had a better PPG.
I think Lemieux was a better defensive player, but didn't put forth the effort as much as he could/should have.
Orr was the absolute best player both defensively and right up there offensively, but for a very short time.
Howe was a tremendous scorer when nobody was scoring 100 points a season (which he finally did at the age of 40), so while he dominated his PPG was lower. He also was a big strong tough player, which Wayne was none of the above. Howe also rarely missed any games, so he was there every game, and for the longest career.
Gretzky comes the closest to matching Howe's longevity and he was done at 38. Howe returned to the NHL at 50 and scored 41 points, playing in 80 games.
To simply boil it down to PPG only (maybe) determines the best scorer, not necessarily the best player.
I would give the GOAT to Howe, but the "Best Ever" to Orr.
Thank you all for this thread. I have learned a lot.
If Fleury gets in, the 2008 Red Wings. too.
Although, I am not sure what, if anything, this is supposed to mean.
For example, Bernie Parent (my all-time personal favorite) is a HOFer and 2x Vezina winner, but facing him in the play-offs in any years other than 74 or 75 is a dramatically different experience. If he had played a minute in the 76 finals, the 76 Canadiens would have met the criteria, too, but Shero went with Stephenson after Parent, who had missed a majority of the season with a neck injury, struggled against the Leafs and lost the first game against Boston in the semis.
You're funny. You literally quote me saying that they weren't one year wonder goalies and then mock me for saying that - even though I didn't.. Did you actually read what you were responding to?
I love that you post this particular picture of Orr blocking a shot. The full video of this play shows Orr playing atrocious defense, playing neither the man nor the puck and having to dive to recover to block a second shot that good defense would have prevented in the first place.
During Orr's tenure with Boston, he faced Dryden 14 times in the regular season, possibly less. Dryden faced Boston 14 times in those years, I haven't checked the scoresheets to see if Orr played in all of them.
14 is more than a couple but it's not exactly "a lot".
And Gretzky faced Hasek 15 times, so more times than Orr faced Dryden in the regular season.
Orr faced Dryden in just one playoff series - 1971, a 7-game series that Boston lost when Orr was unable to put up even a single point against the rookie Dryden in games 6 and 7 of the series while also committing a penalty in game 6 that led to a Montreal power play goal.
In 1982 at the age of 21, Gretzky average 2.4 points per game in the postseason but couldn’t lead his team with Messier and Coffey past LA in the first round of the playoffs.
He was a minus 1.
That’s Gretzky. Scoring points but never playing defense.
At age 21 Bobby Orr led his team to a Stanley Cup championship, winning five major trophies in one year.
He was a +24 that postseason.
You all are ignoring the plus minus side of Gretzky, Lemieux, and Orr.
No one has yet to address it.
Tabe wants to use the word atrocious to describe Orr on defense.
HUGE LOL goes out to Tabe for that one.
I’m guessing Tabe that Gretzky’s minus 1 with 12 points in 5 games is because of STELLAR defense !
I did not get the impression that posters here had been ignoring plus/minus. The thread seems to focus primarily on a comparison of Edmonton Gretzky vs. Boston Orr. The plus/minus stats for both players from those portions of their career is a fair comparison based on age of player, quantity of years, quantity of games played, and quality of teammates. Over those portions of their respective careers, the two players have relatively comparable plus-minus stats without a statistically significant advantage for one over the other.
https://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=2035
https://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=4085
I always take Gretzky over Lemieux because of that, but no way a healthy Bobby Orr has those atrocious plus minus numbers Wayne had with LA.
Wayne was lucky the Islanders got old and the NHL was weak defensively and goalie wise between 1983-1988.
Looking at the postseason goalies he faced during that time is funny.
Remember, Brad Marsh and Ed Hospidar were regular shift D men for Stanley Cup final teams during then.
Very few HOF D men and goalies during that time.
Ray Bourque. An old Potvin.
Steven’s and Chelios just getting started.
That is a nice sentiment. How would plan to prove that?
Take a look at the plus/minus of a few dozen good to great players and see what happens, in general, after the age of 30. Some, who adjust their role, fare better, but they all decline, some more than others depending on whether they change teams or the status of their teams.
"String theory, multidimensional reality and matter displacement, all real? I knew it!" - Peter Parker
Additionally, it is worth noting a couple more general things when considering +/-
Collected data of Time On Ice statistics are excellent beginning with the 2007-08 season. Before that, the stats under that categorical umbrella is almost non-existent. Players who spend a significant percentage of their time on Power Play and Penalty Kill results in that TOI affecting their +/-. +/- not counting on PP/PK makes it a less comparable stat in many regards.
Also, Defence of course log much higher TOI/game than Forwards.
1966 Bruins 17-43-10.
Bobby Orr 18 years old.
He’s a plus 1 for the entire season.
He’s playing against Original 6 quality older men on a horrible team and is a plus for the season.
Meanwhile Gretzky at 21 couldn’t be a plus against LA in the postseason against a watered down league.
Brad Marsh was a 2nd pair defensemen with Doug Crossman. He was captain of the Flames when he was traded to the Flyers. Although both developed back issues later in their careers, Marsh played in over 1,000 games and Crossman in 914.
Marsh played in one AS game, finished 7th in the Norris voting in 84-85 and twice received votes for the post-season all-star teams. Crossman played in once received votes for the post-season all-star team and was a member of the 1987 Canada Cup team.
I will admit that I wasn't a huge fan of Marsh because I thought he focused too much on blocking shots rather than being in position to clear rebounds. He was still a pretty good defensemen. Not many players get to play 1,000 NHL games if they suck.
Ed Hospodar was the 6/7th defenseman, who played sporadically. When he did, he got maybe 6 to 10 minutes a game and brought an edge to his game as he was a willing fighter. He played in 18 of 19 play-off games in 85 and 5 of 26 games in 87.
The Flyers' 2nd pairing was comparable to the Bruins 2nd pairing in 1970 and 1972 (when they add Vadnais, who was the best of the both teams' pairings).
You didn't understand the question. What were Bobby Orr's stats at age 34?
And to provide the closest equivalent to the point I suppose you were trying to make:
1979-80 Oilers 28-39-13 as an expansion team.
Wayne Gretzky 19 years old.
He’s a plus 14 for the entire season and wins the Hart Trophy.
Doug Crossman was horrible, and D men were so bad at the time that he was considered for Team Canada.
That’s a dumb question. Orr would never be a minus though. You never saw him play. As fast as McDavid and more heart and toughness than Clarke. I love Clarke too. Best two way forward ever.
Two of my favorites
I totally ignore +/-.
Any hockey stat that is effected by 5 guys you are playing with (not to mention the lines you are playing against) is useless.
All you have to do is look at players +/- from year to year and you will see wild swings from guys being + then being - then back to +. guys forgetting how to play for a year or two, then remembering?
More likely gaining or losing a good linemate, or changing lines completely.
Perfect example Minnesota's current "number one" center Ryan Hartman. In 5 full years in the league he had one year as a +13 and four more as about a +1, then he gets on a line with Kaprizov and Zuccarello, suddenly he becomes a +31.
I watched just about every game last year and Hartman should have been even better. He must have blown 10-15 scoring chances when Kaprizov put him in all alone with unbelievable passes. Had he converted these chances Not only Hartman, but everyone else on the line "gets better" as well.
Additionally +/- will tell you that Hartman is actually a little better than Kaprizov who was a +27.
A stat that says these two players are anywhere near equal is a piece of garbage.
The other player on that line Mats Zuccarello, was a solid +15 player for the Rangers three out of four years. Then dropped to a -10 player his last year there and first year in Minnesota, suddenly becomes a better player than ever with Kaprizov, who was able to convert on Zucc's passes, increasing his assist total (and +/_ as well).
The +/- numbers on all three were also helped a lot when Cam Talbot was acquired, much improving the goaltending.
Ignore the +/-
I suppose you don't realize how silly that sounds. This has got to be an act.
Not all of Orr's play-off series were rainbows and unicorns (there were two where he was a minus and they lost: 68 Canadiens 0-4 -1; 73 Rangers 1-4 -4). But I am not about to denigrate Orr because his team didn't win and he was a minus in the series.
"But is was the Kings and the Kings sucked! Therefore Gretzky sucked! and all of their Stanley Cups came against teams that sucked with sucky players that sucked."
The years have been littered with first place teams getting knocked out in opening rounds by bottom seeds. Some of those teams later won Cups. Does that diminish Vasilevsky and Ovechkin in your mind? I suppose it does.
Also, when you mention "water downed league", you REALLY do not know what you're talking about, but the explanation would take so long that it would make previous posts look like sound bites (and you would dismiss it anyway).
Refer back to page 3. While your main points are valid, it can be a telling stat when put into a different perspective.
PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT
Orr would never be a minus though. You never saw him play.
Please refer to this quote and think twice about whether you want to continue arguing with this guy.
>
No it's not a dumb question. Most of your argument is predicated on Orr's per game stats and how they are superior to everyone else. Orr never had any seasons beyond the age of 30 (28 really) to drag down those averages as every player does decline with age. Maybe Orr's decline would have been gradual, but maybe not. No one knows.
So, a more fair comparison is to look at those other players up to age 30 to get an apples to apples comparison (or at least a much better comparison).
Based upon all of your dismissive comments, Gretzky may have looked better in you eyes if had been hit by a truck in 1991 and had a 12 year career with 925 GP, 718 goals, 2,142 points, +606, 9 Hart , 9 Art Ross, 2 Conn Smythe and 4 Stanley Cups.
Edit to add - Yes, I saw him play. Live at least once in 1971 and on TV every time they played the Flyers and when their play-off games were on TV. I also have watched multiple games from the late 60's early 70's on YouTube. That is just another dismissive comment.
That’s it for me guys.
Scotty Bowman and I agree on who was the best ever, and others who never saw Orr from age 18-26 on channel 38 in Boston can disagree.
Randy Holt played with and against Orr and told me Orr was much better than 99 and he played against him too.
Everyone is entitled to their opinions.
Enjoyed the chat.
It's fun to talk hockey but not to argue it. In case anyone enjoys discussing the game instead of making a trial case out of it: Subjectively, I'd assume just about everyone would agree that Orr and Lidstrom are the two greatest defencemen ever. But I don't think you can differentiate enough to rank the next 3 against each other, without just calling it a tie. For example, since they played within completely different eras, I would say that it is not possible to determine objectively who stacks up where among Eddie Shore, Doug Harvey and Ray Bourque. Maybe Coffey isn't 6th and some people think he cracks into the top 5. I'm not looking to prove a rank list; this is just the Defence thought that is bouncing around inside my head at the moment.
There are others (Larry Robinson, Brad Park, Guy Lapointe and Borje Salming come to mind); but when it comes to defending against forwards, it is important to also credit forwards filling that role (during the years in question as well as other eras too), such as Bob Gainey and Guy Carbonneau, et. al.
Wilson and Langway are also in the HOF and won 3 Norris trophies between them.
On that play, it absolutely was atrocious. Unless you think are SUPPOSED to not play the puck or any attacking player.
How come didn't you come back and talk some more about how Orr played against Dryden "a lot" and Gretzky didn't play against Hasek "a lot" when it was pointed out Gretzky played against Hasek more?
Or talk about Orr being so amazing but, against a rookie Dryden, was a -3 with zero points and a key penalty in games 6 & 7 against Montreal in the playoffs when it counted most? I thought +/- was the greatest stat ever?
>
>
I apologize. +/- might have some value if you adjust the circumstances.
I tried for the 6th time to read what you posted and for the 6th time I gave up with a massive headache. Your analysis may be spot on, but people here aren't doing anything but regurgitating stats. They are looking for a number that proves one player is better than another, and +/- is the worst number you can use.
You can over analyze anything. The simple fact of the matter is your +/- depends on the guys you play with as much as, or more than how well you play, so if your a great player (usually who we are comparing) you get a huge benefit if you play on a top line, with a good set of D men and a good/great goalie. If you are a great player stuck on a line with a crappy player (or two) and your team plays lousy defense, you are doomed. Conversely, if you suck, and play on a great line with a great defense, you look superb.
My post above shows exactly how Ryan Hartman, a decent, hard working center, playing with two gifted wings and a solid defense/goalie behind him can look like an all star. Hartman is a solid player and I like him, but he is not as good as Zuccarello and MILES AND MILES below Kaprizov in talent. Yet Hartman has a "better" +/-.
I have loved hockey all my life and been watching since about 1967 when the North Stars started here in Minnesota. +/- always seemed like a good stat, until I looked closer and saw great players in their prime being a big + player one year and a big - player the next, even if they scored a similar number of points. They didn't get better or worse.........their team mates did.
Look at Mike Modano's 1995-96 season compared to the next, Virtually the same production and yet he goes from a -12 to a +43. Then look at 1998-99 through 2000-2001. +29, 0. +26. All similar years in games played and scoring.
Could it be that as a team they gave up 100 less goals in 1996-97? Could it be that his team went from a 6th place finish to a 1st? Adding Darrly Sydor and Sergei Zubov is what made Modano a better +/- player and Dallas a better team.
Ignore the +/- when comparing players, especially if one played with great players and one did not, but in general, just ignore it.
Ignore is not only for +/-.
I can’t believe this thread is still going….
GOAT is a personal opinion. Statistical comparisons are only part of the equation.
I’ve only seen Orrs play in highlights. He was very talented. The best defenceman to ever play the game.
GOAT of hockey is Gretzky. Teams began to shadow/double team him because he was that talented. It still didn’t work. The only thing that slowed him down was age.
But if you believe the GOAT is Orr, Lemieux, Howe….that’s great!!! No need to argue…
Wait. So the whole argument is "You don't understand. I watched him on TV!"?
Randy Holt played ONE game against Orr. And he didn't play ANY games with Orr.
But, sure, he's the expert here.
Bowman is the expert compared to anyone here, and what Randy told me is true. See for yourself.
https://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/CBH/1977.html
Like Bowman, Don Cherry compares 99 to #4.
When Patrick was on he was excellent, and when he was off he was terrible.
He was very bad this year with some embarrassing games. He had other years like this too.
https://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/MTL/1993.html
You’re right. Evaluating what players did in both ends of the ice comes from data only, and not watching them a lot.
You earned your lol.
Example. One third baseman with 900 field percentage has a season of easy groundouts on astroturf.
Other 3B with same percentage makes amazing plays on grass and dirt with Rocket arm and speed fielding bunts.
Yeah, watching is not necessary. Lol
See any shoulder pads or chest protection. ?
That’s right. He wasn’t wearing any.
Seeing what he did teaches us how fearless he was to help his team win.