I won member of the year award for my business group. One of the gifts was two seats on the glass? on the fifty ice line (meters)? when Gretzky was playing for the kings. Yawn, gave them to my wife and daughter. At least they had a good time.
I won sales man of the year award from my company. One of the suppliers booked a box suite at the pond to watch the Ducks. I was almost forced to go my the owner. I went, hot girls serving open bar drinks, great food spread which they also served us. As soon as the opening duck came down the wire I left. Oh ya also won the the Italian California Federation Turkey shoot that year, I was the A player, celeb was Vince Ferragamo, now that was a fun time. Also won two other Golf Tournaments that year. So ya, 5 awards/trophy's in one year. Cheers.
@Goldenage said:
If you lean towards offensive guys then you’ve got to score.
Lemieux was far Superior to Gretzky in 1987. 11 goals to 3.
He had more game winning goals than Gretzky had total goals for the tournament.
Mario was definitely the best player at that tournament. He was just coming into his true prime and was out of this world playing with teammates that didn't suck for the first time.
Well, I remember watching the tournament at the time. Maybe five years later, I bought the "Blades of Summer" VHS tape and probably watched that a half dozen times over the next 10 years (at least until DVD completely replaced VHS).
So, it has been awhile. Based upon the opinions here, I thought I would re-watch some 87 Canada Cup just to see if my original perception was wrong. Just Gretzky and Lemieux points:
Mario Lemieux was, indeed, unbelievable. That said, after re-watching these - and you can accuse me of wearing Gretzky tinted glasses - I have to say, I stand by my initial assessment, and, in fact, solidified it. That takes nothing away from Mario's clutch goal scoring and I won't begrudge anyone considering him to have had a better tournament. I should point out that 14 of Gretzky's assists were primary and his secondary ones were the ones that led to the scoring chance. Seven of those primary assists were to Lemieux.
@In4apenny said:
I won member of the year award for my business group. One of the gifts was two seats on the glass? on the fifty ice line (meters)? when Gretzky was playing for the kings. Yawn, gave them to my wife and daughter. At least they had a good time.
I won sales man of the year award from my company. One of the suppliers booked a box suite at the pond to watch the Ducks. I was almost forced to go my the owner. I went, hot girls serving open bar drinks, great food spread which they also served us. As soon as the opening duck came down the wire I left. Oh ya also won the the Italian California Federation Turkey shoot that year, I was the A player, celeb was Vince Ferragamo, now that was a fun time. Also won two other Golf Tournaments that year. So ya, 5 awards/trophy's in one year. Cheers.
Yet none of those were the Catalina Wine Mixer - Pow! Pow!
@In4apenny said:
I won member of the year award for my business group. One of the gifts was two seats on the glass? on the fifty ice line (meters)? when Gretzky was playing for the kings. Yawn, gave them to my wife and daughter. At least they had a good time.
I won sales man of the year award from my company. One of the suppliers booked a box suite at the pond to watch the Ducks. I was almost forced to go my the owner. I went, hot girls serving open bar drinks, great food spread which they also served us. As soon as the opening duck came down the wire I left. Oh ya also won the the Italian California Federation Turkey shoot that year, I was the A player, celeb was Vince Ferragamo, now that was a fun time. Also won two other Golf Tournaments that year. So ya, 5 awards/trophy's in one year. Cheers.
Yet none of those were the Catalina Wine Mixer - Pow! Pow!
I did play the 9 hole course twice to make 18. Funky little layout. Lots of wild life, boars, giant eagles, and buffalo on the back side. Don't know if the buffalo's are still there. Nothing else to do except sample the local pubs, which we did. Cheers.
@Goldenage said:
If you lean towards offensive guys then you’ve got to score.
Lemieux was far Superior to Gretzky in 1987. 11 goals to 3.
He had more game winning goals than Gretzky had total goals for the tournament.
Mario was definitely the best player at that tournament. He was just coming into his true prime and was out of this world playing with teammates that didn't suck for the first time.
Well, I remember watching the tournament at the time. Maybe five years later, I bought the "Blades of Summer" VHS tape and probably watched that a half dozen times over the next 10 years (at least until DVD completely replaced VHS).
So, it has been awhile. Based upon the opinions here, I thought I would re-watch some 87 Canada Cup just to see if my original perception was wrong. Just Gretzky and Lemieux points:
Mario Lemieux was, indeed, unbelievable. That said, after re-watching these - and you can accuse me of wearing Gretzky tinted glasses - I have to say, I stand by my initial assessment, and, in fact, solidified it. That takes nothing away from Mario's clutch goal scoring and I won't begrudge anyone considering him to have had a better tournament. I should point out that 14 of Gretzky's assists were primary and his secondary ones were the ones that led to the scoring chance. Seven of those primary assists were to Lemieux.
You lean towards offense and Gretzky, and that’s how you see hockey. That’s fine. That’s how you enjoy the sport.
I’m a full ice guy, and when Gretzky is the only minus for Canadas top 7 leading scorers, and Lemieux is a +5 and Larry Murphy is the leading defensive scorer and a plus 8, I think you must see how your mind works.
You see Gretzky as great even though his defensive work is non-existent most nights. That’s fine. You enjoy offense, and do not consider defensive work as important.
Regardless of whether anyone agrees with the points made in the articles, here are a couple interviews with Orr where he discusses his opinion of the best. I pulled these up as curiosity, not to use as proof of anything. Take the PR grain of salt if you like, but nonetheless:
Interview with Orr, where Orr says Howe is the best but gives a nod to McDavid's eventual potential too:
@miwlvrn said:
Regardless of whether anyone agrees with the points made in the articles, here are a couple interviews with Orr where he discusses his opinion of the best. I pulled these up as curiosity, not to use as proof of anything. Take the PR grain of salt if you like, but nonetheless:
Interview with Orr, where Orr says Howe is the best but gives a nod to McDavid's eventual potential too:
Means nothing.
Everyone knows Bobby is the most modest, kindest guy around.
He even went to refs during games to tell them Cashman deflected my shot in, so give it to him.
You take the words of coaches and lesser players, not the words of the greatest players. Surprised you posted that. No great hockey player ever says they are the best.
@miwlvrn said:
Regardless of whether anyone agrees with the points made in the articles, here are a couple interviews with Orr where he discusses his opinion of the best. I pulled these up as curiosity, not to use as proof of anything. Take the PR grain of salt if you like, but nonetheless:
Interview with Orr, where Orr says Howe is the best but gives a nod to McDavid's eventual potential too:
Means nothing.
Everyone knows Bobby is the most modest, kindest guy around.
He even went to refs during games to tell them Cashman deflected my shot in, so give it to him.
You take the words of coaches and lesser players, not the words of the greatest players. Surprised you posted that. No great hockey player ever says they are the best.
It was a feel-good piece to show none of them were conceited (like some athletes we could name). It was not meant to prove an argument. Surprised you missed the point of that.
@miwlvrn said:
Regardless of whether anyone agrees with the points made in the articles, here are a couple interviews with Orr where he discusses his opinion of the best. I pulled these up as curiosity, not to use as proof of anything. Take the PR grain of salt if you like, but nonetheless:
Interview with Orr, where Orr says Howe is the best but gives a nod to McDavid's eventual potential too:
Means nothing.
Everyone knows Bobby is the most modest, kindest guy around.
He even went to refs during games to tell them Cashman deflected my shot in, so give it to him.
You take the words of coaches and lesser players, not the words of the greatest players. Surprised you posted that. No great hockey player ever says they are the best.
It was a feel-good piece to show none of them were conceited (like some athletes we could name). It was not meant to prove an argument. Surprised you missed the point of that.
It was a dumb question from the reporter, which happens a lot with reporters. I’m just surprised you posted a dumb question from them.
The feel good part was noticed. They all are humble in front of the microphone
@Goldenage said:
Here’s a simple question based on Orr and Gretzky per game data.
In 10 games Orr gets you 14 points and because of his great defensive work is on ice for 5 goals against.
In 10 games Gretzky gets you 20 points and because of his limited defensive work is on ice for 16-17 goals against.
Who is much more valuable to your hockey team ?
If you say Gretzky, then I will be lost for words.
1) I am not entirely sure how you came up with some of those numbers; and
2) For Orr, you're saying that any good that happens on the ice is 100% attributable to Orr, while for Gretzky, any bad that happens on the ice is 100% attributable to Gretzky.
The 10 game stats are:
Prime Seasons - Orr 66-67 through 74-75, ages 18 to 26, 621 games, while Gretzky is 79-80 through 87-88, ages 19-27, 696 games
Per 10 games, Orr gets 14 points, his team scored 27 goals and gave up 14 goals, He is a +9 at even strength. For the 27 goals his team scores, he is directly involved in 52% of them.
Per 10 games, Gretzky gets 24 points. his team scored 29 goals and gave up 16 goals. He is a +8 at even strength. For the 29 goals his team scores, he is directly involved in 82% of them.
For their entire careers - Orr 657 games (the additional 36 games made virtually no change to Orr), Gretzky 1,487 games (562 after the age of 30)
In 10 games, Orr gets 14 points, his team scored 27 goals and gave up 13 goals, He is a +9 at even strength. For the 27 goals his team scores, he is directly involved in 52% of them.
In 10 games, Gretzky gets 19 points. his team scored 24 goals and gave up 15 goals. He is a +4 at even strength. For the 24 goals his team scores, he is directly involved in 81% of them.
If anyone wants to see the numbers, I'll post them. You're free to come to your own conclusions.
@miwlvrn said:
Regardless of whether anyone agrees with the points made in the articles, here are a couple interviews with Orr where he discusses his opinion of the best. I pulled these up as curiosity, not to use as proof of anything. Take the PR grain of salt if you like, but nonetheless:
Interview with Orr, where Orr says Howe is the best but gives a nod to McDavid's eventual potential too:
@miwlvrn said:
Regardless of whether anyone agrees with the points made in the articles, here are a couple interviews with Orr where he discusses his opinion of the best. I pulled these up as curiosity, not to use as proof of anything. Take the PR grain of salt if you like, but nonetheless:
Interview with Orr, where Orr says Howe is the best but gives a nod to McDavid's eventual potential too:
@Goldenage said:
Here’s a simple question based on Orr and Gretzky per game data.
In 10 games Orr gets you 14 points and because of his great defensive work is on ice for 5 goals against.
In 10 games Gretzky gets you 20 points and because of his limited defensive work is on ice for 16-17 goals against.
Who is much more valuable to your hockey team ?
If you say Gretzky, then I will be lost for words.
1) I am not entirely sure how you came up with some of those numbers; and
2) For Orr, you're saying that any good that happens on the ice is 100% attributable to Orr, while for Gretzky, any bad that happens on the ice is 100% attributable to Gretzky.
The 10 game stats are:
Prime Seasons - Orr 66-67 through 74-75, ages 18 to 26, 621 games, while Gretzky is 79-80 through 87-88, ages 19-27, 696 games
Per 10 games, Orr gets 14 points, his team scored 27 goals and gave up 14 goals, He is a +9 at even strength. For the 27 goals his team scores, he is directly involved in 52% of them.
Per 10 games, Gretzky gets 24 points. his team scored 29 goals and gave up 16 goals. He is a +8 at even strength. For the 29 goals his team scores, he is directly involved in 82% of them.
For their entire careers - Orr 657 games (the additional 36 games made virtually no change to Orr), Gretzky 1,487 games (562 after the age of 30)
In 10 games, Orr gets 14 points, his team scored 27 goals and gave up 13 goals, He is a +9 at even strength. For the 27 goals his team scores, he is directly involved in 52% of them.
In 10 games, Gretzky gets 19 points. his team scored 24 goals and gave up 15 goals. He is a +4 at even strength. For the 24 goals his team scores, he is directly involved in 81% of them.
If anyone wants to see the numbers, I'll post them. You're free to come to your own conclusions
Orr averaged 1.39 ppg
He was a + 0.91 his career.
Gretzky average 2 points per game
He was a + 0.35 his career
In 10 games Orr gets you 14 points, is a plus 0.91 per game, so the opponent scored 5 goals against him
In the 10 games Gretzky gets 20 points and the opponent scored 16-17 against him because he is a + 0.35 per game.
@Goldenage said:
Here’s a simple question based on Orr and Gretzky per game data.
In 10 games Orr gets you 14 points and because of his great defensive work is on ice for 5 goals against.
In 10 games Gretzky gets you 20 points and because of his limited defensive work is on ice for 16-17 goals against.
Who is much more valuable to your hockey team ?
If you say Gretzky, then I will be lost for words.
1) I am not entirely sure how you came up with some of those numbers; and
2) For Orr, you're saying that any good that happens on the ice is 100% attributable to Orr, while for Gretzky, any bad that happens on the ice is 100% attributable to Gretzky.
The 10 game stats are:
Prime Seasons - Orr 66-67 through 74-75, ages 18 to 26, 621 games, while Gretzky is 79-80 through 87-88, ages 19-27, 696 games
Per 10 games, Orr gets 14 points, his team scored 27 goals and gave up 14 goals, He is a +9 at even strength. For the 27 goals his team scores, he is directly involved in 52% of them.
Per 10 games, Gretzky gets 24 points. his team scored 29 goals and gave up 16 goals. He is a +8 at even strength. For the 29 goals his team scores, he is directly involved in 82% of them.
For their entire careers - Orr 657 games (the additional 36 games made virtually no change to Orr), Gretzky 1,487 games (562 after the age of 30)
In 10 games, Orr gets 14 points, his team scored 27 goals and gave up 13 goals, He is a +9 at even strength. For the 27 goals his team scores, he is directly involved in 52% of them.
In 10 games, Gretzky gets 19 points. his team scored 24 goals and gave up 15 goals. He is a +4 at even strength. For the 24 goals his team scores, he is directly involved in 81% of them.
If anyone wants to see the numbers, I'll post them. You're free to come to your own conclusions
Orr averaged 1.39 ppg
He was a + 0.91 his career.
Gretzky average 2 points per game
He was a + 0.35 his career
In 10 games Orr gets you 14 points, is a plus 0.91 per game, so the opponent scored 5 goals against him
In the 10 games Gretzky gets 20 points and the opponent scored 16-17 against him because he is a + 0.35 per game.
It’s simple math.
The math equation is missing critical variables. +/- does not count during PP/PK. Without including TOI for even strength vs. PP/PK, you cannot calculate an accurate comparison of the statistics you are presenting.
I’m not going to do the math, but since you’re back in the thread after leaving twice maybe you’ll do it. Plus minus doesn’t include power play points for or short-handed goals against (one of the weaknesses in the stat, if you ask me). If Gretzky scored 10 of those 20 points on the PP and gave up none when short handed, his “real” +/- in your scenario in those games would go up to .85. If he also gave up 10 SHG against, then it’s a wash and .35 is the number.
Orr was proficient on the PP but likely on the ice for more short handed goals against than Gretzky was, just given Orr’s position and defensive acumen. So I don’t think you can just say “+/- means that many goals were scored against him” when PPG for and against aren’t included in the stat.
Orr’s +/- with PPP included is 1.38; Gretzky’s is .95. No clue how many SHG were scored against each, though, so those numbers would come down - both have a ton of short-handed points so the played plenty with a man down. Both players scored more than 30% of their points on the power play, but Orr probably yielded more PPG against per game than Gretzky.
You can get closer to an accurate calc if you first subtract career PP points from total career points and compare that figure with +/-. But, it isn't a completely fair representation of the overall stat you're looking for since PP points dramatically affect the score of a game or 10.
@Goldenage said:
Orr averaged 1.39 ppg
He was a + 0.91 his career.
Gretzky average 2 points per game
He was a + 0.35 his career
In 10 games Orr gets you 14 points, is a plus 0.91 per game, so the opponent scored 5 goals against him
In the 10 games Gretzky gets 20 points and the opponent scored 16-17 against him because he is a + 0.35 per game.
It’s simple math.
You are conflating points with +/-. While related, they are two different concepts. Below is the "Prime Years" comparison:
So, for Orr, he played 621 games (GP), scored 870 points (PTS), was on the ice for 1,667 goals scored (TGF), of which 534 were on the powerplay (PPGF) leaving a net even-strength goals scored of 1,133 (EVGF). He was on the ice for 841 goals against (TGA), of which 272 were on the powerplay (PPGA) leaving a net even-strength goals against of 569 (EVGA). Plus/(Minus) is EVGF less EVGA or 564.
For 10 Games:
PTS/GP= PPG x 10 870/621=1.39 x 10 = 14 points per 10 games
TGF/GP=Goals for per game on the ice x 10 1,667/621=2.68 x 10 = 27 goals scored for while on the ice per 10 games
TGA/GP=Goals against per game on the ice x 10 841/621=1.35 x 10 = 14 goals scored against while on the ice per 10 games
+/- per game is (EVGF - EVGA)/GP or (1,133-569)/621 = 0.908 x 10 = +9 per ten games
Note - as a proof, you can see that the amounts calculated for power play goals per 10 games plus even strength goals per 10 games equals the totals goals for per 10 games - the same goes for goals against
Of the 1,667 goals the Bruins scored while Orr was on the ice, he scored or had the primary or secondary assist on 870 of them, or 52% (870/1,667)
I will add that for those that hate +/-, the "directly involved" percentage is a decent indicator of who is doing the driving and who is in the supporting role (say Dallas Smith in Orr's case). I believe the data is there to isolate it down to just even strength points for an even better analysis.
@miwlvrn said:
You can get closer to an accurate calc if you first subtract career PP points from total career points and compare that figure with +/-. But, it isn't a completely fair representation of the overall stat you're looking for since PP points dramatically affect the score of a game or 10.
The TGF TGA kinda takes that into account. The above indicates that when Orr is on the ice, the Bruins are "winning" 2.68 to 1.35. That is inclusive of all activity, regardless if it is short-handed, power-play or even-strength.
Bottom line is that I don't think +/- per game is a reasonable way of measuring the value of defense. @Goldenage doesn't seem to understand what it measures (hint: Gretzky's teams and even the Bruins sometimes scored with Gretzky or Orr on the ice, but they didn't get a point). +/- largely exists because, like fielding percentage, it is trivially easy to calculate. Points per game is more relevant, but very good examples have been shown here as to why it shouldn't be taken in a vacuum.
Really, this whole thread boils down to "Bobby Orr is my favorite player. If you use just these stats, it proves that he was the greatest ever."
There is no disagreement that Bobby Orr was great, but @Goldenage has yet to respond to the argument that it is difficult to call someone the best ever who didn't skate meaningful minutes after his 27th birthday. Never mind the undisputed best ever.
@burghman said:
I’m not going to do the math, but since you’re back in the thread after leaving twice maybe you’ll do it. Plus minus doesn’t include power play points for or short-handed goals against (one of the weaknesses in the stat, if you ask me).
Short-handed goals against count as a minus for the guys on the power play.
Bobby was a (still good but) far less impressive +0.53 per game against Original 6 teams. Just 0.30 against Montreal and .245 against Chicago. He was a +1.20 per game against expansion teams.
So, yeah, yet another way that his stats are inflated by NHL expansion during his career.
@burghman said:
I’m not going to do the math, but since you’re back in the thread after leaving twice maybe you’ll do it. Plus minus doesn’t include power play points for or short-handed goals against (one of the weaknesses in the stat, if you ask me).
Short-handed goals against count as a minus for the guys on the power play.
Yeah, that was poorly worded - I meant goals given up by the short-handed team while on the PK.
@Tabe said:
Bobby was a (still good but) far less impressive +0.53 per game against Original 6 teams. Just 0.30 against Montreal and .245 against Chicago. He was a +1.20 per game against expansion teams.
So, yeah, yet another way that his stats are inflated by NHL expansion during his career.
You earned your LOL.
Go compare Bobby’s postseason ppg to Coffeys. These are against the best teams that year in the NHL.
1.25 Bobby Orr
1.00 Paul Coffey
Coffey played on two good legs with two of the greatest point producers ever.
@daltex said:
Bottom line is that I don't think +/- per game is a reasonable way of measuring the value of defense. @Goldenage doesn't seem to understand what it measures (hint: Gretzky's teams and even the Bruins sometimes scored with Gretzky or Orr on the ice, but they didn't get a point). +/- largely exists because, like fielding percentage, it is trivially easy to calculate. Points per game is more relevant, but very good examples have been shown here as to why it shouldn't be taken in a vacuum.
Really, this whole thread boils down to "Bobby Orr is my favorite player. If you use just these stats, it proves that he was the greatest ever."
There is no disagreement that Bobby Orr was great, but @Goldenage has yet to respond to the argument that it is difficult to call someone the best ever who didn't skate meaningful minutes after his 27th birthday. Never mind the undisputed best ever.
You earned your LOL.
Bobby played 8 years. Unequalled plus minus and ppg for defensemen.
Jim Brown played 9 years. #1 in rushing yards per game for running backs. Stopped at age 29 to Bobby’s 28.
Jim Brown played 9 years. #1 in rushing yards per game for running backs. Stopped at age 29 to Bobby’s 28.
Both considered the best ever.
Some consider Brown the best ever, but there is a very large contingency that puts him at #2. Count me in among those who have Barry Sanders as #1 RB over Jim Brown. Yes, it is subjective and debatable, and there is no definitively correct answer on that.
@Tabe said:
Bobby was a (still good but) far less impressive +0.53 per game against Original 6 teams. Just 0.30 against Montreal and .245 against Chicago. He was a +1.20 per game against expansion teams.
So, yeah, yet another way that his stats are inflated by NHL expansion during his career.
You earned your LOL.
Go compare Bobby’s postseason ppg to Coffeys. These are against the best teams that year in the NHL.
1.25 Bobby Orr
1.00 Paul Coffey
Coffey played on two good legs with two of the greatest point producers ever.
Orr played on one good leg.
Nice try
Orr - GOAT
I can hardly imagine why Coffey, who played 120 more playoff games, all the way to age 37, might have had a lower PPG.
Weird that you keep comparing Orr to Coffey. "HE'S BETTER THAN A GUY NOBODY SAYS IS IN THE TOP 20 EVER!" is not exactly the awesome comeback you think it is.
@daltex said:
Bottom line is that I don't think +/- per game is a reasonable way of measuring the value of defense. @Goldenage doesn't seem to understand what it measures (hint: Gretzky's teams and even the Bruins sometimes scored with Gretzky or Orr on the ice, but they didn't get a point). +/- largely exists because, like fielding percentage, it is trivially easy to calculate. Points per game is more relevant, but very good examples have been shown here as to why it shouldn't be taken in a vacuum.
Really, this whole thread boils down to "Bobby Orr is my favorite player. If you use just these stats, it proves that he was the greatest ever."
There is no disagreement that Bobby Orr was great, but @Goldenage has yet to respond to the argument that it is difficult to call someone the best ever who didn't skate meaningful minutes after his 27th birthday. Never mind the undisputed best ever.
You earned your LOL.
Bobby played 8 years. Unequalled plus minus and ppg for defensemen.
Jim Brown played 9 years. #1 in rushing yards per game for running backs. Stopped at age 29 to Bobby’s 28.
Both considered the best ever.
Moving the goalposts once again. It is rare to hear someone say that Brown is the best football player ever. If your argument is only that Orr is the best defenseman ever, then I'm not the only one to have misunderstood this thread.
@Tabe said:
Bobby was a (still good but) far less impressive +0.53 per game against Original 6 teams. Just 0.30 against Montreal and .245 against Chicago. He was a +1.20 per game against expansion teams.
So, yeah, yet another way that his stats are inflated by NHL expansion during his career.
You earned your LOL.
Go compare Bobby’s postseason ppg to Coffeys. These are against the best teams that year in the NHL.
1.25 Bobby Orr
1.00 Paul Coffey
Coffey played on two good legs with two of the greatest point producers ever.
Orr played on one good leg.
Nice try
Orr - GOAT
I can hardly imagine why Coffey, who played 120 more playoff games, all the way to age 37, might have had a lower PPG.
Weird that you keep comparing Orr to Coffey. "HE'S BETTER THAN A GUY NOBODY SAYS IS IN THE TOP 20 EVER!" is not exactly the awesome comeback you think it is.
By point shares Coffey is eleventh, FWIW. As far as defensemen are concerned he's only behind Bourque, Lidstrom, and MacInnis. Again, FWIW.
@Tabe said:
Bobby was a (still good but) far less impressive +0.53 per game against Original 6 teams. Just 0.30 against Montreal and .245 against Chicago. He was a +1.20 per game against expansion teams.
So, yeah, yet another way that his stats are inflated by NHL expansion during his career.
You earned your LOL.
Go compare Bobby’s postseason ppg to Coffeys. These are against the best teams that year in the NHL.
1.25 Bobby Orr
1.00 Paul Coffey
Coffey played on two good legs with two of the greatest point producers ever.
Orr played on one good leg.
Nice try
Orr - GOAT
I can hardly imagine why Coffey, who played 120 more playoff games, all the way to age 37, might have had a lower PPG.
Weird that you keep comparing Orr to Coffey. "HE'S BETTER THAN A GUY NOBODY SAYS IS IN THE TOP 20 EVER!" is not exactly the awesome comeback you think it is.
Gretzky 2.0 points per game.
Gretzky + 0.35 per game.
In 10 games Orr gets 14 points and gives up 5 goals.
In 10 games Gretzky gets 20 points and gives up 16-17 goals.
Bobby Orr is MUCH better for your team because he dominated offensively and defensively.
Gretzky played offense only.
You're cherry picking prime years played again and again, this was proved wrong already, just stop...
Again, you (Goldenage) are conflating points with +/-.
+/- has nothing to do with points.
They are completely disconnected.
A player gets a "+" if he is on the ice when his team scores a goal when not on the powerplay (effectively, even strength) whether he gets a point or not. He gets a "-" if he is on the ice when his team is score upon, except when they are short-handed.
For the stats above, per 10 games, Orr was on the ice for 18.2 EVGF and 9.2 EVGA for a plus 9 (18.2 - 9.2). Or 564/870 x 10 = 9 ("+/-"/GP x 10 games).
Again, points are irrelevant and disconnected from "+/-". Try your methodology to just the 70-71 season for Orr and Dallas Smith and see if it makes any sense.
FWIW, for the above comparable years, Orr averaged 0.92 even-strength points per game (0.47 power play points per game). He had points on 50% of his team's even strength goals.
Gretzky averaged 1.77 even-strength points per game (0.63 power play points per game). He had points on 85% of his team's even strength goals.
@Tabe said:
Bobby was a (still good but) far less impressive +0.53 per game against Original 6 teams. Just 0.30 against Montreal and .245 against Chicago. He was a +1.20 per game against expansion teams.
So, yeah, yet another way that his stats are inflated by NHL expansion during his career.
You earned your LOL.
Go compare Bobby’s postseason ppg to Coffeys. These are against the best teams that year in the NHL.
1.25 Bobby Orr
1.00 Paul Coffey
Coffey played on two good legs with two of the greatest point producers ever.
Orr played on one good leg.
Nice try
Orr - GOAT
I can hardly imagine why Coffey, who played 120 more playoff games, all the way to age 37, might have had a lower PPG.
Weird that you keep comparing Orr to Coffey. "HE'S BETTER THAN A GUY NOBODY SAYS IS IN THE TOP 20 EVER!" is not exactly the awesome comeback you think it is.
Then refer to the simple math please
You’re ignoring many posts that have shown your “simple math” is blatantly wrong. The only conclusion now is this truly is just a “he’s my favorite player and I’ll ignore all comers” thread.
Bobby Orr is God reincarnate and there is no close second. You are not allowed to argue, or you'll be bombarded with photos of blocked shots
99 was only a product of the guys around him. He was made whole by the likes of major HOFers Kevin Lowe and Glenn Anderson, not the other way around.
Ben Bishop is a superior goalie to the two winningest goalies in the history of the NHL (including postseason wins) because he saved more shots on average. Hell, Corey Schneider is #11 all-time in that stat, time to reserve his wing in Toronto!
+/- per game is THE most important stat when it comes to evaluating NHL level talent. One only need be on the ice for even strength and shorthanded goals to have a true impact on the ranks of greatness, not necessarily have a hand in them.
i've been watching hockey all wrong my entire life!!
Main collecting focus is Patrick Roy playing days 85/86-02/03, expect 1/1, National/All-Star stamped cards.PC Completion: 2,548/2,952; 86.31% My Patrick Roy PC Website:https://proy33collector.weebly.com
Gretzky 2.0 points per game.
Gretzky + 0.35 per game.
In 10 games Orr gets 14 points and gives up 5 goals.
In 10 games Gretzky gets 20 points and gives up 16-17 goals.
Bobby Orr is MUCH better for your team because he dominated offensively and defensively.
Gretzky played offense only.
You're cherry picking prime years played again and again, this was proved wrong already, just stop...
Again, you (Goldenage) are conflating points with +/-.
+/- has nothing to do with points.
They are completely disconnected.
A player gets a "+" if he is on the ice when his team scores a goal when not on the powerplay (effectively, even strength) whether he gets a point or not. He gets a "-" if he is on the ice when his team is score upon, except when they are short-handed.
For the stats above, per 10 games, Orr was on the ice for 18.2 EVGF and 9.2 EVGA for a plus 9 (18.2 - 9.2). Or 564/870 x 10 = 9 ("+/-"/GP x 10 games).
Again, points are irrelevant and disconnected from "+/-". Try your methodology to just the 70-71 season for Orr and Dallas Smith and see if it makes any sense.
FWIW, for the above comparable years, Orr averaged 0.92 even-strength points per game (0.47 power play points per game). He had points on 50% of his team's even strength goals.
Gretzky averaged 1.77 even-strength points per game (0.63 power play points per game). He had points on 85% of his team's even strength goals.
Of course no one ever said Dallas Smith was in the top 100 players of all time, though probably in the top 500. Yes, I know that that is the point, and that any statistical methodology that shows Smith as elite is extremely suspect.
Gretzky 2.0 points per game.
Gretzky + 0.35 per game.
In 10 games Orr gets 14 points and gives up 5 goals.
In 10 games Gretzky gets 20 points and gives up 16-17 goals.
Bobby Orr is MUCH better for your team because he dominated offensively and defensively.
Gretzky played offense only.
You're cherry picking prime years played again and again, this was proved wrong already, just stop...
Again, you (Goldenage) are conflating points with +/-.
+/- has nothing to do with points.
They are completely disconnected.
A player gets a "+" if he is on the ice when his team scores a goal when not on the powerplay (effectively, even strength) whether he gets a point or not. He gets a "-" if he is on the ice when his team is score upon, except when they are short-handed.
For the stats above, per 10 games, Orr was on the ice for 18.2 EVGF and 9.2 EVGA for a plus 9 (18.2 - 9.2). Or 564/870 x 10 = 9 ("+/-"/GP x 10 games).
Again, points are irrelevant and disconnected from "+/-". Try your methodology to just the 70-71 season for Orr and Dallas Smith and see if it makes any sense.
FWIW, for the above comparable years, Orr averaged 0.92 even-strength points per game (0.47 power play points per game). He had points on 50% of his team's even strength goals.
Gretzky averaged 1.77 even-strength points per game (0.63 power play points per game). He had points on 85% of his team's even strength goals.
Of course no one ever said Dallas Smith was in the top 100 players of all time, though probably in the top 500. Yes, I know that that is the point, and that any statistical methodology that shows Smith as elite is extremely suspect.
Sorry, the point wasn't to compare Smith to Orr. The point was to say that when you do the 10 game calculation for Smith using the same methodology as Goldenage, Smith, iirc, scores 6 points and is on the ice for a NEGATIVE seven, -7, goals, which, clearly, makes no sense. Conflating points with +/- is like using a mixed metaphor.
@rmh111985 said:
To recap what we've learned here:
Bobby Orr is God reincarnate and there is no close second. You are not allowed to argue, or you'll be bombarded with photos of blocked shots
99 was only a product of the guys around him. He was made whole by the likes of major HOFers Kevin Lowe and Glenn Anderson, not the other way around.
Ben Bishop is a superior goalie to the two winningest goalies in the history of the NHL (including postseason wins) because he saved more shots on average. Hell, Corey Schneider is #11 all-time in that stat, time to reserve his wing in Toronto!
+/- per game is THE most important stat when it comes to evaluating NHL level talent. One only need be on the ice for even strength and shorthanded goals to have a true impact on the ranks of greatness, not necessarily have a hand in them.
i've been watching hockey all wrong my entire life!!
Especially looking forward to your teams, if you’re brave enough to respond.
My favorite threads on the internet are ones with 100+ posts where there's no possible right answer HA!
To answer the original question from like 6 years ago, I'd strongly suspect had there been 5 awards to give out, Don Hutson probably has a shot in 1940 or 41 (MVP, DPOY, Best receiver - led in TDs, Best Corner - led in INTs, and there were no playoffs besides one game so it's tough to assign that. Bill Russell probably would have in the 1959 season (MVP, DPOY, Best Center, Playoff MVP, Finals MVP etc).
Orr is my favorite Boston athlete ever and if I had a vote (I don't), he'd have it for most talented hockey player ever but the NHL gives out awards for who has the best smile and most friendly personality. Other leagues (at least until very recently) didn't do that. So "5 trophies" is never going to be a level playing field.
Comments
I won member of the year award for my business group. One of the gifts was two seats on the glass? on the fifty ice line (meters)? when Gretzky was playing for the kings. Yawn, gave them to my wife and daughter. At least they had a good time.
I won sales man of the year award from my company. One of the suppliers booked a box suite at the pond to watch the Ducks. I was almost forced to go my the owner. I went, hot girls serving open bar drinks, great food spread which they also served us. As soon as the opening duck came down the wire I left. Oh ya also won the the Italian California Federation Turkey shoot that year, I was the A player, celeb was Vince Ferragamo, now that was a fun time. Also won two other Golf Tournaments that year. So ya, 5 awards/trophy's in one year. Cheers.
Well, I remember watching the tournament at the time. Maybe five years later, I bought the "Blades of Summer" VHS tape and probably watched that a half dozen times over the next 10 years (at least until DVD completely replaced VHS).
So, it has been awhile. Based upon the opinions here, I thought I would re-watch some 87 Canada Cup just to see if my original perception was wrong. Just Gretzky and Lemieux points:
and for those with more time:
https://youtu.be/DYMlZ8TiJX4
https://youtu.be/ImC9EN7Vxyg
Mario Lemieux was, indeed, unbelievable. That said, after re-watching these - and you can accuse me of wearing Gretzky tinted glasses - I have to say, I stand by my initial assessment, and, in fact, solidified it. That takes nothing away from Mario's clutch goal scoring and I won't begrudge anyone considering him to have had a better tournament. I should point out that 14 of Gretzky's assists were primary and his secondary ones were the ones that led to the scoring chance. Seven of those primary assists were to Lemieux.
Yet none of those were the Catalina Wine Mixer - Pow! Pow!
I did play the 9 hole course twice to make 18. Funky little layout. Lots of wild life, boars, giant eagles, and buffalo on the back side. Don't know if the buffalo's are still there. Nothing else to do except sample the local pubs, which we did. Cheers.
You lean towards offense and Gretzky, and that’s how you see hockey. That’s fine. That’s how you enjoy the sport.
I’m a full ice guy, and when Gretzky is the only minus for Canadas top 7 leading scorers, and Lemieux is a +5 and Larry Murphy is the leading defensive scorer and a plus 8, I think you must see how your mind works.
You see Gretzky as great even though his defensive work is non-existent most nights. That’s fine. You enjoy offense, and do not consider defensive work as important.
Gordie was different then Gretzky and more tenacious like Bobby Clarke. Played all three zones hard. #1 all time forward imo.
At the age of 40 Gordie was a +45.
At the age of 50 with Hartford he was a +9.
Can Gretzky carry his jock ?
https://www.nhl.com/player/gordie-howe-8448000
He played against the six best goalies in the world in the original six. Imagine Ruth only hitting against the six best pitchers.
66&99 were the two most gifted point producers ever.
Gordie was the best all around forward ever.
Bobby the best hockey player ever.
Here’s a simple question based on Orr and Gretzky per game data.
In 10 games Orr gets you 14 points and because of his great defensive work is on ice for 5 goals against.
In 10 games Gretzky gets you 20 points and because of his limited defensive work is on ice for 16-17 goals against.
Who is much more valuable to your hockey team ?
If you say Gretzky, then I will be lost for words.
Regardless of whether anyone agrees with the points made in the articles, here are a couple interviews with Orr where he discusses his opinion of the best. I pulled these up as curiosity, not to use as proof of anything. Take the PR grain of salt if you like, but nonetheless:
Interview with Orr, where Orr says Howe is the best but gives a nod to McDavid's eventual potential too:
https://www.thescore.com/nhl/news/1973457
Interview with Orr/Gretzky/Lemieux where all pick Howe:
https://sports.yahoo.com/news/bobby-orr-trolls-wayne-gretzky-at-nhl-100-greatest-players-023650382.html
Means nothing.
Everyone knows Bobby is the most modest, kindest guy around.
He even went to refs during games to tell them Cashman deflected my shot in, so give it to him.
You take the words of coaches and lesser players, not the words of the greatest players. Surprised you posted that. No great hockey player ever says they are the best.
It was a feel-good piece to show none of them were conceited (like some athletes we could name). It was not meant to prove an argument. Surprised you missed the point of that.
It was a dumb question from the reporter, which happens a lot with reporters. I’m just surprised you posted a dumb question from them.
The feel good part was noticed. They all are humble in front of the microphone
Linus would be a better hockey reporter.
1) I am not entirely sure how you came up with some of those numbers; and
2) For Orr, you're saying that any good that happens on the ice is 100% attributable to Orr, while for Gretzky, any bad that happens on the ice is 100% attributable to Gretzky.
The 10 game stats are:
Prime Seasons - Orr 66-67 through 74-75, ages 18 to 26, 621 games, while Gretzky is 79-80 through 87-88, ages 19-27, 696 games
Per 10 games, Orr gets 14 points, his team scored 27 goals and gave up 14 goals, He is a +9 at even strength. For the 27 goals his team scores, he is directly involved in 52% of them.
Per 10 games, Gretzky gets 24 points. his team scored 29 goals and gave up 16 goals. He is a +8 at even strength. For the 29 goals his team scores, he is directly involved in 82% of them.
For their entire careers - Orr 657 games (the additional 36 games made virtually no change to Orr), Gretzky 1,487 games (562 after the age of 30)
In 10 games, Orr gets 14 points, his team scored 27 goals and gave up 13 goals, He is a +9 at even strength. For the 27 goals his team scores, he is directly involved in 52% of them.
In 10 games, Gretzky gets 19 points. his team scored 24 goals and gave up 15 goals. He is a +4 at even strength. For the 24 goals his team scores, he is directly involved in 81% of them.
If anyone wants to see the numbers, I'll post them. You're free to come to your own conclusions.
Yes. Gretzky is the lesser player of those three.
Orr averaged 1.39 ppg
He was a + 0.91 his career.
Gretzky average 2 points per game
He was a + 0.35 his career
In 10 games Orr gets you 14 points, is a plus 0.91 per game, so the opponent scored 5 goals against him
In the 10 games Gretzky gets 20 points and the opponent scored 16-17 against him because he is a + 0.35 per game.
It’s simple math.
The math equation is missing critical variables. +/- does not count during PP/PK. Without including TOI for even strength vs. PP/PK, you cannot calculate an accurate comparison of the statistics you are presenting.
I’m not going to do the math, but since you’re back in the thread after leaving twice maybe you’ll do it. Plus minus doesn’t include power play points for or short-handed goals against (one of the weaknesses in the stat, if you ask me). If Gretzky scored 10 of those 20 points on the PP and gave up none when short handed, his “real” +/- in your scenario in those games would go up to .85. If he also gave up 10 SHG against, then it’s a wash and .35 is the number.
Orr was proficient on the PP but likely on the ice for more short handed goals against than Gretzky was, just given Orr’s position and defensive acumen. So I don’t think you can just say “+/- means that many goals were scored against him” when PPG for and against aren’t included in the stat.
Orr’s +/- with PPP included is 1.38; Gretzky’s is .95. No clue how many SHG were scored against each, though, so those numbers would come down - both have a ton of short-handed points so the played plenty with a man down. Both players scored more than 30% of their points on the power play, but Orr probably yielded more PPG against per game than Gretzky.
Now… calculate!
Jim
You can get closer to an accurate calc if you first subtract career PP points from total career points and compare that figure with +/-. But, it isn't a completely fair representation of the overall stat you're looking for since PP points dramatically affect the score of a game or 10.
You are conflating points with +/-. While related, they are two different concepts. Below is the "Prime Years" comparison:
So, for Orr, he played 621 games (GP), scored 870 points (PTS), was on the ice for 1,667 goals scored (TGF), of which 534 were on the powerplay (PPGF) leaving a net even-strength goals scored of 1,133 (EVGF). He was on the ice for 841 goals against (TGA), of which 272 were on the powerplay (PPGA) leaving a net even-strength goals against of 569 (EVGA). Plus/(Minus) is EVGF less EVGA or 564.
For 10 Games:
PTS/GP= PPG x 10 870/621=1.39 x 10 = 14 points per 10 games
TGF/GP=Goals for per game on the ice x 10 1,667/621=2.68 x 10 = 27 goals scored for while on the ice per 10 games
TGA/GP=Goals against per game on the ice x 10 841/621=1.35 x 10 = 14 goals scored against while on the ice per 10 games
+/- per game is (EVGF - EVGA)/GP or (1,133-569)/621 = 0.908 x 10 = +9 per ten games
Note - as a proof, you can see that the amounts calculated for power play goals per 10 games plus even strength goals per 10 games equals the totals goals for per 10 games - the same goes for goals against
Of the 1,667 goals the Bruins scored while Orr was on the ice, he scored or had the primary or secondary assist on 870 of them, or 52% (870/1,667)
I will add that for those that hate +/-, the "directly involved" percentage is a decent indicator of who is doing the driving and who is in the supporting role (say Dallas Smith in Orr's case). I believe the data is there to isolate it down to just even strength points for an even better analysis.
The TGF TGA kinda takes that into account. The above indicates that when Orr is on the ice, the Bruins are "winning" 2.68 to 1.35. That is inclusive of all activity, regardless if it is short-handed, power-play or even-strength.
Bottom line is that I don't think +/- per game is a reasonable way of measuring the value of defense. @Goldenage doesn't seem to understand what it measures (hint: Gretzky's teams and even the Bruins sometimes scored with Gretzky or Orr on the ice, but they didn't get a point). +/- largely exists because, like fielding percentage, it is trivially easy to calculate. Points per game is more relevant, but very good examples have been shown here as to why it shouldn't be taken in a vacuum.
Really, this whole thread boils down to "Bobby Orr is my favorite player. If you use just these stats, it proves that he was the greatest ever."
There is no disagreement that Bobby Orr was great, but @Goldenage has yet to respond to the argument that it is difficult to call someone the best ever who didn't skate meaningful minutes after his 27th birthday. Never mind the undisputed best ever.
Short-handed goals against count as a minus for the guys on the power play.
Bobby was a (still good but) far less impressive +0.53 per game against Original 6 teams. Just 0.30 against Montreal and .245 against Chicago. He was a +1.20 per game against expansion teams.
So, yeah, yet another way that his stats are inflated by NHL expansion during his career.
Yeah, that was poorly worded - I meant goals given up by the short-handed team while on the PK.
Jim
You earned your LOL.
Go compare Bobby’s postseason ppg to Coffeys. These are against the best teams that year in the NHL.
1.25 Bobby Orr
1.00 Paul Coffey
Coffey played on two good legs with two of the greatest point producers ever.
Orr played on one good leg.
Nice try
Orr - GOAT
You earned your LOL.
Bobby played 8 years. Unequalled plus minus and ppg for defensemen.
Jim Brown played 9 years. #1 in rushing yards per game for running backs. Stopped at age 29 to Bobby’s 28.
Both considered the best ever.
Marcus Allen played 15 years. No one puts Allen ahead of Brown just because he played longer.
Some consider Brown the best ever, but there is a very large contingency that puts him at #2. Count me in among those who have Barry Sanders as #1 RB over Jim Brown. Yes, it is subjective and debatable, and there is no definitively correct answer on that.
This thread get more crazy by the day.
I can hardly imagine why Coffey, who played 120 more playoff games, all the way to age 37, might have had a lower PPG.
Weird that you keep comparing Orr to Coffey. "HE'S BETTER THAN A GUY NOBODY SAYS IS IN THE TOP 20 EVER!" is not exactly the awesome comeback you think it is.
Moving the goalposts once again. It is rare to hear someone say that Brown is the best football player ever. If your argument is only that Orr is the best defenseman ever, then I'm not the only one to have misunderstood this thread.
By point shares Coffey is eleventh, FWIW. As far as defensemen are concerned he's only behind Bourque, Lidstrom, and MacInnis. Again, FWIW.
It’s simple math.
Orr 1.4 points per game
Orr. +0.9 per game.
Gretzky 2.0 points per game.
Gretzky + 0.35 per game.
In 10 games Orr gets 14 points and gives up 5 goals.
In 10 games Gretzky gets 20 points and gives up 16-17 goals.
Bobby Orr is MUCH better for your team because he dominated offensively and defensively.
Gretzky played offense only.
Then refer to the simple math please
For Tabe. It’s simple really.
Gordie was a +45 at age 40.
He was a +9 at age 50.
He played like Orr.
No excuses for Gretzky of Coffey.
A healthy Orr plays to age 38 with Park and Bourque and they are easily a +100 per season.
He never had a great D man like those two with him for a full season.
You're cherry picking prime years played again and again, this was proved wrong already, just stop...
Again, you (Goldenage) are conflating points with +/-.
+/- has nothing to do with points.
They are completely disconnected.
A player gets a "+" if he is on the ice when his team scores a goal when not on the powerplay (effectively, even strength) whether he gets a point or not. He gets a "-" if he is on the ice when his team is score upon, except when they are short-handed.
For the stats above, per 10 games, Orr was on the ice for 18.2 EVGF and 9.2 EVGA for a plus 9 (18.2 - 9.2). Or 564/870 x 10 = 9 ("+/-"/GP x 10 games).
Again, points are irrelevant and disconnected from "+/-". Try your methodology to just the 70-71 season for Orr and Dallas Smith and see if it makes any sense.
FWIW, for the above comparable years, Orr averaged 0.92 even-strength points per game (0.47 power play points per game). He had points on 50% of his team's even strength goals.
Gretzky averaged 1.77 even-strength points per game (0.63 power play points per game). He had points on 85% of his team's even strength goals.
You’re ignoring many posts that have shown your “simple math” is blatantly wrong. The only conclusion now is this truly is just a “he’s my favorite player and I’ll ignore all comers” thread.
Jim
You're better off just saying that the late 60's and 70's were your favorite era of hockey and you prefer the players that played then.
To recap what we've learned here:
Bobby Orr is God reincarnate and there is no close second. You are not allowed to argue, or you'll be bombarded with photos of blocked shots
99 was only a product of the guys around him. He was made whole by the likes of major HOFers Kevin Lowe and Glenn Anderson, not the other way around.
Ben Bishop is a superior goalie to the two winningest goalies in the history of the NHL (including postseason wins) because he saved more shots on average. Hell, Corey Schneider is #11 all-time in that stat, time to reserve his wing in Toronto!
+/- per game is THE most important stat when it comes to evaluating NHL level talent. One only need be on the ice for even strength and shorthanded goals to have a true impact on the ranks of greatness, not necessarily have a hand in them.
i've been watching hockey all wrong my entire life!!
Main collecting focus is Patrick Roy playing days 85/86-02/03, expect 1/1, National/All-Star stamped cards.PC Completion: 2,548/2,952; 86.31% My Patrick Roy PC Website:https://proy33collector.weebly.com
Of course no one ever said Dallas Smith was in the top 100 players of all time, though probably in the top 500. Yes, I know that that is the point, and that any statistical methodology that shows Smith as elite is extremely suspect.
Sorry, the point wasn't to compare Smith to Orr. The point was to say that when you do the 10 game calculation for Smith using the same methodology as Goldenage, Smith, iirc, scores 6 points and is on the ice for a NEGATIVE seven, -7, goals, which, clearly, makes no sense. Conflating points with +/- is like using a mixed metaphor.
All time team Canada power play unit.
Gretzky
Lemieux
Howe
Orr
someone else
All time team Canada protects a one goal lead with a minute left unit.
Howe
Clarke
someone else
Orr
Robinson
Howe and Orr easily make both units.
Let’s see everyone else’s two units.
Basically your all time Canadian offensive and defensive teams. A defensive team that could also get you goals.
Especially want to hear reasons why you took a player over Howe or Orr on either squad.
Can’t wait to hear. !
Don’t be shy !
Be brave !
Especially looking forward to your teams, if you’re brave enough to respond.
😎
My favorite threads on the internet are ones with 100+ posts where there's no possible right answer HA!
To answer the original question from like 6 years ago, I'd strongly suspect had there been 5 awards to give out, Don Hutson probably has a shot in 1940 or 41 (MVP, DPOY, Best receiver - led in TDs, Best Corner - led in INTs, and there were no playoffs besides one game so it's tough to assign that. Bill Russell probably would have in the 1959 season (MVP, DPOY, Best Center, Playoff MVP, Finals MVP etc).
Orr is my favorite Boston athlete ever and if I had a vote (I don't), he'd have it for most talented hockey player ever but the NHL gives out awards for who has the best smile and most friendly personality. Other leagues (at least until very recently) didn't do that. So "5 trophies" is never going to be a level playing field.
My Podcast - Now FEATURED on iTunes
For Canada, my forwards for that situation would be Bob Gainey, Patrice Bergeron and probably Gordie Howe.