[Squannacook]

The greatest scorer was certainly Gretzky, but Orr was the best and most complete hockey player.

Consider for a moment: Could you picture Orr winning the Art Ross as a forward? (yes, cuz he already did the much more difficult feat as a defenceman) And could you picture Gretzky winning the Norris? (No, cuz he wasn't that great a defender).

Orr was dominant from BOTH sides of the ice!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lv0-9Wi713o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0i4zky7w0I

 

[Squannacook]

As for statistics, Gretzky wins going away ... until you dig a little.

A better gauge of all around team play, and one's influence upon your team would be the +/- statistic. Orr's per game +/- lifetime is +.91 -- thus, it's like his team is starting the game 1-0. Gretzky's +/- is .30 something per game -- Orr's is 3x greater than Gretzky's! Plus, Gretzky's last nine years or so he only registered a plus rating once, thus making himself a liability to his team during those years.

Gretzky scored -- Orr scored, defended, and fought like a demon. He truly was the best all around and most COMPLETE hockey player of them all!!

 

[Homeless]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squannacook /img/forum/go_quote.gif As for statistics, Gretzky wins going away ... until you dig a little. A better gauge of all around team play, and one's influence upon your team would be the +/- statistic. Orr's per game +/- lifetime is +.91 -- thus, it's like his team is starting the game 1-0. Gretzky's +/- is .30 something per game -- Orr's is 3x greater than Gretzky's! Plus, Gretzky's last nine years or so he only registered a plus rating once, thus making himself a liability to his team during those years. Gretzky scored -- Orr scored, defended, and fought like a demon. He truly was the best all around and most COMPLETE hockey player of them all!!

Defenseman usually have higher plus minuses due to more time on ice...

 

[Squannacook]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Homeless /img/forum/go_quote.gif Defenseman usually have higher plus minuses due to more time on ice...

Excuse me? And even if it were so (it's NOT), how do you explain the mixture of the next players on the list below Orr?

Player +/- Per Game
Bobby Orr .91
Larry Robinson .53
Mike Bossy .51
Bobby Clarke .44
Serge Savard .44
Denis Potvin .43
Guy Lefluer .40

Notice that Orr is nearly TWICE as high as Robinson (another defenceman) and Bossy (a forward).

What makes this list even more outstounding is that Bossy also had Potvin (also on the list) as a teammate, and Robinson had Savard and Lefleur. Orr played with some great players, but was so far above the field that he didn't receive help as much as produce it for others...

 

[Squannacook]

Gretzky is great -- even the "Great One". But his last seven seasons +/-were
-25, -20, -7, -6, +12, -11, and -19, thus making him a liabilty to his team during those years. Orr never had a negative year, despite playing on one leg most of his career!!

 

[Homeless]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squannacook /img/forum/go_quote.gif Excuse me? And even if it were so (it's NOT), how do you explain the mixture of the next players on the list below Orr?

How do you figure? +/- is directly affected by goals for and against while a given player is on the ice. defenseman generally get more ice time and have a higher rating. I could agree with your argument if +/- was calculated on individual goals, but Orr would have had a high rating even if he was sitting back on the blue line and someone else scored.

All of Gretzky's poor seasons in the +/- category were played on the Kings and Rangers. The Kings were brutal in those years...highest team point total at 88 points. Not even The Great one will have a high plus minus on a team that is 20 games below .500

 

[Homeless]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squannacook /img/forum/go_quote.gif Gretzky is great -- even the "Great One". But his last seven seasons +/-were -25, -20, -7, -6, +12, -11, and -19, thus making him a liabilty to his team during those years.

A liability? +/- does not measure individual performance...that makes no sense. In 1993-94 he had a -25 rating but led the league with 130 points (38 goals 92 assists)...hardly a liability...

 

[Squannacook]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Homeless /img/forum/go_quote.gif A liability? +/- does not measure individual performance...that makes no sense. In 1993-94 he had a -25 rating but led the league with 130 points (38 goals 92 assists)...hardly a liability...

Exactly -- and I agree with you!

But hockey IS NOT an individual game, it is a TEAM game. Gretzky's stats are to be admired, but scoring alone does not tell the total tale of one's OVERALL effect.

Gretzky was ONE dimensional (even though he dominated in this dimension like no other!) -- Orr was the more complete (by far!!) player, and did way more with less!!

 

[AdamCalifornia]

In the same book mentioned above
"The Game I'll Never Forget"
Maurice Richard (pp. 172-173) recalls
Game 2, March 1944 Stanley Cup Playoffs.

Anyway, he also makes the following comment:

The game my be a little faster now and there are a lot more goals scored,
although there aren't as many nice plays as there used to be.
But I suppose I would have scored more goals today if I were playing now. ..