View Single Post
11-02-2012, 04:17 PM
Big Phil
Registered User
Big Phil's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,509
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by shazariahl View Post
Besides, complaining he didn't accomplish enough after 28 while comparing him to Orr is just strange - Orr didn't accomplish anything after that age while Gretzky still won more scoring titles and led the league in assists many more times. He also garnered several more all-star selections.

Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
I think Orr probably deserved the Hart in '74, as Espo's overall game had really gone downhill at that point. Still a tremendous season by Espo, esp. at that age. The '69 season is interesting, given that Espo basically doubled Orr's point total and had ~75% higher PPG that season. What changed after that which allowed Orr to score so many more points, without it changing Espo's production more substantially?

People do seem to give a lot of extra credit for lost production to players affected by injuries. I think in many, if not most cases, the player could have played a slightly less intense game, probably had a bit lower peak and bit longer career, but not sure how much more career value (if any) they would have added by doing so. Injuries are an unfortunate part of the game, but it does a disservice to those players that properly paced themselves when possible to avoid excessive injury, to project much longer careers at the same level for players who played a more aggressive style which often resulted in injury.
For the first paragraph, I really think it was just age and maturity with Orr. By 1970 he was otherworldly. He was still 20 years old in 1968-'69 so he hadn't quite burst out. In 1974 the writers favoured Esposito's 68 goal 145 point season for the Hart. Orr had 122 points. I really don't know why Espo won the Hart in 1974 when he and Orr had a statistical season similar to 1971 and Orr won it. Bernie Parent, not Orr, was 2nd in Hart voting as well. We can't say Orr wasn't revered or adored by the media either so I really don't know why 1974 is singled out. Not that Esposito didn't have a marvelous season either.

As for the other paragraph you have a point. Orr could have done different things to prolong his career. Is he as good as he ends up being in, say, 1971 or 1971? Who knows. But it was more of a reckless style with Orr too. It has been often said of him that he went "where angels feared to tread". The corners, or carrying the puck end to end and being a target. Even the 1976 Canada Cup. That really put a dagger on his career even if it was on the decline as it was. Maybe Orr plays well into the 1980s if he learns to pace himself better. Or.............maybe he's Sergei Fedorov. Yes, Fedorov had a long career but took many years off in the regular season which hurts him on an all-time ranking. Could we have seen a better Fedorov? I think so. But which version is better, the one who paces himself or the one who goes full throttle and is done by 28?

To me it is just another example of how hockey sense is the most important quality in the NHL. Gretzky played 20 seasons and never took his foot off the pedal. He'd have a 6 point game and then gun for 7 the next one. But he also knew he wasn't a big man and tried not to take a physical toll on his body. We all know Orr had hockey sense, but I just think there are times when he ignored it when it might have saved him.

Originally Posted by Dennis Bonvie View Post
The problem is that I'm not looking at resumes, I'm looking at players.

When well known hockey people are asked who the best player was they ever saw, no one ever says, "Howe, because he was great for so long." Or Orr was great, but he didn't play long enough." They just tell you the player (or players) they thought were the best. That's how I look at this. There is no set criteria. If its going to be about best career, fine, but that's not stated criteria currently. (or is it?)
But even then, let's look at the big 4 here. Take their best seasons in NHL history. Howe in 1952 or 1953. Lemieux anywhere from 1989 to 1993. Orr would probably be 1971 or 1972. Gretzky in 1985 or 1986. Let's just take Orr and Gretzky for a second and compare them. Forget about the second best peer in the NHL at that time and how much further they were away from them. Just look at their best seasons. Orr in 1971 and Gretzky in 1986. If you want to say Orr was equal I can live with that. But personally I don't see how Orr can surpass the Great One at his absolute peak either. We're talking about a guy who had 163 assists in a season. Can you say with absolute confidence that the best we saw of Orr was superior to the best we saw of Gretzky?

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote