Orr versus Gretzky

[johnmd20]

I'm torn on this one(lean towards Gretzky b/c of the longevity) but I do want to say that saying, 'put 'em all on a pond and Orr gets picked first everytime' is a pretty lousy argument for best of all time. All time includes the entire career, not just the respective peak. Breaking down their careers to a contest about who gets picked first on a playground is not really helpful when trying to figure out who is the best.

 

[Leather]

No, but it's a point of consideration. Peak vs. longevity is almost always central to these type of discussions. You fall on the longevity side, some don't.

 

[TheoShmeo]

And I don't think people would be talking about the pick em point as much if it didn't originate with Gordie Howe. The perspective of a true all time great as to the relative merits at peak of Orr and Gretzky is, at the least, an interesting data point.

 

[SumnerH]

I'm torn on this one(lean towards Gretzky b/c of the longevity) but I do want to say that saying, 'put 'em all on a pond and Orr gets picked first everytime' is a pretty lousy argument for best of all time. All time includes the entire career, not just the respective peak.

You're stating opinion as fact here. To me, the best of all time is more about peak than longevity--at their best, who was better. Not who was almost as good for a lot longer. Now, it's got to be a long enough peak to establish that it's not fluky, but 5-6 years is plenty for that. Total career value is another conversation--an interesting one, but different from the question of who was the best.

 

[FL4WL3SS]

You're stating opinion as fact here. To me, the best of all time is more about peak than longevity--at their best, who was better. Not who was almost as good for a lot longer. Now, it's got to be a long enough peak to establish that it's not fluky, but 5-6 years is plenty for that. Total career value is another conversation--an interesting one, but different from the question of who was the best.

I had a post typed up almost word for word with this.

 

[johnmd20]

You're stating opinion as fact here. To me, the best of all time is more about peak than longevity--at their best, who was better. Not who was almost as good for a lot longer. Now, it's got to be a long enough peak to establish that it's not fluky, but 5-6 years is plenty for that. Total career value is another conversation--an interesting one, but different from the question of who was the best.

I am sorry for the confusion. To me, best of all time is the entire career, not just the peak. But other's feel differently and that is cool.

 

[joe dokes]

.

My one regret with Orr is not how he would have matched up against Gretzky had Orr played longer. Even if healthy, he would have been 31 when Gretzky entered the league, and likely would have been past his best years. It is instead that we only got to see 10 games of Orr paired with Brad Park, who was often considered the 2nd best defenseman of the early 1970's. .

One of the many reasons it was too bad that Orr missed the '72 Summit Series. (on the team but didn't play)

 

[mauf]

I'm torn on this one(lean towards Gretzky b/c of the longevity) but I do want to say that saying, 'put 'em all on a pond and Orr gets picked first everytime' is a pretty lousy argument for best of all time. All time includes the entire career, not just the respective peak. Breaking down their careers to a contest about who gets picked first on a playground is not really helpful when trying to figure out who is the best.

It also disregards the importance of specialization in a team sport like hockey. A center and a defenseman have different jobs. Sure, Orr would've made a far been center than Gretzky would've made a defenseman, but that's a curiosity, not a persuasive argument that Orr was the better player.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

It also disregards the importance of specialization in a team sport like hockey. A center and a defenseman have different jobs. Sure, Orr would've made a far been center than Gretzky would've made a defenseman, but that's a curiosity, not a persuasive argument that Orr was the better player.

The argument that Orr is better is not that argument. It is this one: Orr provided a level of offense comparable to that of the league's elite offensive forwards as a defenseman. Imagine a Ted Williams-level hitter who was also an elite SS.

 

[luckiestman]

The argument that Orr is better is not that argument. It is this one: Orr provided a level of offense comparable to that of the league's elite offensive forwards as a defenseman. Imagine a Ted Williams-level hitter who was also an elite SS.

Did you just compare Bobby Orr to a young Alex Rodriguez?

 

[Eddie Jurak]

Did you just compare Bobby Orr to a young Alex Rodriguez?

No, because as a hitter, ARod <<< Ted Williams.

 

[moretsyndrome]

It also disregards the importance of specialization in a team sport like hockey. A center and a defenseman have different jobs. Sure, Orr would've made a far been center than Gretzky would've made a defenseman, but that's a curiosity, not a persuasive argument that Orr was the better player.

That's not entirely true. Hockey, soccer and basketball are games that involve constant free transitions between defense and offense. Therefore you can compare defensive and offensive specialists like Orr and Gretzky unlike Pedro and Mantle, or Brady and LT.

The 'best player on the pond' argument absolutely factors in specialization and somewhat - even in its fantastic state - normalizes for it. I say that knowing it was a slightly buzzed exaggeration on my part when I posted it (I can't speak for Gordie), and that sentimentality plays a huge part in any analysis I could ever offer up regarding Bobby Orr.