I'm saying if Orr's dominance was to the degree many of you claim, he should have led the Bruins to more Cups. It's not like the Bruins were chopped liver at the time. I believe someone who truly transcended hockey should have been able to lead teams much worse than Boston of the time to more than 2 Cups. Orr wasn't 'that' good... No one has been.
Rather interesting logical leap.
Let's look at Gordie Howe in the same light. Howe's prime is 1950-55.1950 the Red Wings won the Cup with Gordie Howe missing almost all of the playoffs after suffering a near fatal skull fracture during the first game of the semi finals against Toronto. In 1951 and 1953 with a healthy Gordie Howe the Red Wings were eliminated in the first round, upset by teams that were app 30 points behind them in the playoffs.
After 1955 Gordie Howe's longevity did not produce any Stanley Cups for the Red Wings.
Per complete season Bobby Orr has a better SC per season ratio than Gordie Howe.
rabbinsduck, my gut tells me that greatness for most of us is more abstract than it is for you. what i mean is, it's not a matter of calculating a player's performance in a given season (arbitrarily: orr 97, gretzky 95, howe 90) and then multiplying it by seasons played, or prime seasons, or whathaveyou. the idea that orr gets a 0 for seasons he didn't play doesn't work for me here.
i might be tempted to use this method to compare, say, bourque over potvin, because their primes were so similar but bourque maintained that level for a much longer time. but the cumulative method doesn't work for the big three (maybe even the big four, but i'm not so sure about lemieux), because orr, gretzky, and howe each brought something completely unprecedented and, i would argue, unquantifiable to the game. that's how great they each were in their own ways.
so in the end, for me at least, it comes down to whose contribution to the game in an abstract sense is best. of course howe's longevity and consistency over that time count as part of his greatness-- those are among his great achievements. but what orr did was so magical for many of us that it trumps both howe's great dominance in his early 50s peak and his excellence over the extraordinary length of his career. i don't think there's much of a gap between orr, gretzky, and howe, but for me there is one.
Scotty Bowman has said that Orr is the best he's ever seen. 'enuff said!
True but if I had a list of players that hockey authorities claimed is the best ever, probably an entire roll of toilet paper wouldn't be long enough to hold the entire list.
True but if I had a list of players that hockey authorities claimed is the best ever, probably an entire roll of toilet paper wouldn't be long enough to hold the entire list.
Really?....here's hoping you get a different brand of toilet paper!
Well count me in as another oldtimer who has seen both Howe and Orr. Had there been a draft then, Orr and I would have been in the same draft.
When I was a kid, living in Southern Ontario, I and most of my friends were Detroit fans for one reason, Gordie Howe. He was the man. He was just so great and we all thought, boy could there ever be a better hockey player? Come to find out when Orr broke into the league that apparently there could indeed be a better hockey player. You have to understand that anyone who knew anything about hockey at the time was floored at what we were seeing Orr do. This wasn't someone being dominant but was more akin to him playing in a league down from where he should have been, except of course there wasn't a better league to go to. Now I ask myself if there could be a better hockey player than Orr and by the looks of things, I don't think so. He was literally elite in every category of importance. No one before and no one since.
Length of career does nothing but help judge who had the best career. It certainly does not tell you who the better hockey player was. Focus on prime or peak, whatever you wish to call it, but when a player was at his best. Compiling points as a role player when they are at 60 or 70 percent of what they once were does nothing to define how great a player was. At the height of their powers how much of an impact did they have on the games they played. That is what's important.
Durability as a knock against Orr is silly to me. People will go on about his career being shortened because he played recklessly. It's a crock of crap. Many players played a reckless game and played long careers. The difference was none of them were unstoppable the way Orr was and consequently the dirty tactics came out to try and stop him. Watch the highlight videos and you will see plenty of examples of dirty, deliberate and flagrant knee on knee hits. When a guy like Frank Mahovlich does it, you know something is rotten in Denmark.
Oh and my top 4 ranking is virtually identical to the other oldtimers here. Must just be coincidence though. That or we are just pining for the old days, right gentlemen?
1-Orr
2-Howe
3-Lemieux
4-Gretzky
It appears most people here feel Howe's career was better than Orr's.
And Orr was a better player than Howe.
Reviewing the actual poll, its simply Howe vs. Orr. So everyone can be right (and wrong).
And the interesting thing about these two is, it probably wouldn't help to specify whether we're discussing peak vs career (see: discussion of dominance, whether longevity resulted in Cups, etc), or even the hypothetical "one game". So, you just kinda sit back and let whatever happens happen.
I think there are many "snapshots" you could take at any point in their respective careers that could convince you that one was "better" than the other (Howe in the early '50s, Orr in the early '70s for example). I've always considered Orr a "better" hockey player, but ironically, when it comes to "all-time ranking" or even the "one game" I still can't choose Orr over Howe. It really doesn't make sense. Maybe I have notions of Orr being great to watch and fantastically talented, but not impervious to harm vs Howe who may not have been exciting to watch (still highly debatable perhaps) but was similarly gifted as an athlete and pretty much invincible. Maybe I just can't shake notions of career value when it comes to some of the players in this echelon. Maybe it's simply "style".
I dunno. I'll likely never be able to properly express it, and this is one of the few times when I fear that no amount of evidence or persuasion could change my mind. I will always vote Gretzky over Lemieux, too, so someone could probably make a case for mild retardation.
IMO Bobby Orr could be considered the best player to ever play the game... yes I said i. Many of us were not around back then, but oh boy if he did not have severe knee problems throughout his career, he would be the nicknamed the great one, not Gretzky. No disrespect to Gretz, but Orr was just that good.
Anyone I've ever heard talk about these two players, who have also had the pleasure of actually seeing them play, usually say Orr is the best player they've ever seen. I have to go with that. My vote is for #4 Bobby Orr.
And the interesting thing about these two is, it probably wouldn't help to specify whether we're discussing peak vs career (see: discussion of dominance, whether longevity resulted in Cups, etc), or even the hypothetical "one game". So, you just kinda sit back and let whatever happens happen.
I think there are many "snapshots" you could take at any point in their respective careers that could convince you that one was "better" than the other (Howe in the early '50s, Orr in the early '70s for example). I've always considered Orr a "better" hockey player, but ironically, when it comes to "all-time ranking" or even the "one game" I still can't choose Orr over Howe. It really doesn't make sense. Maybe I have notions of Orr being great to watch and fantastically talented, but not impervious to harm vs Howe who may not have been exciting to watch (still highly debatable perhaps) but was similarly gifted as an athlete and pretty much invincible. Maybe I just can't shake notions of career value when it comes to some of the players in this echelon. Maybe it's simply "style".
I dunno. I'll likely never be able to properly express it, and this is one of the few times when I fear that no amount of evidence or persuasion could change my mind. I will always vote Gretzky over Lemieux, too, so someone could probably make a case for mild retardation.
I found this to be an interesting take on it. I really don't think it matters who you choose as a case can be made for either player in both debates and no matter what, no one's wrong. To me its like really wanting an apple with the choice of a granny smith or a red delicious. Either way, you're getting an apple. There's no wrong choice, all 4 of them, we're just that good. I think it boils down to who you prefer or like better, I prefer Lemieux over Gretzky, and I'm pretty even with Orr and Howe. Anyways, I liked you're take on it. It was interesting to read.
Well count me in as another oldtimer who has seen both Howe and Orr. Had there been a draft then, Orr and I would have been in the same draft.
When I was a kid, living in Southern Ontario, I and most of my friends were Detroit fans for one reason, Gordie Howe. He was the man. He was just so great and we all thought, boy could there ever be a better hockey player? Come to find out when Orr broke into the league that apparently there could indeed be a better hockey player. You have to understand that anyone who knew anything about hockey at the time was floored at what we were seeing Orr do. This wasn't someone being dominant but was more akin to him playing in a league down from where he should have been, except of course there wasn't a better league to go to. Now I ask myself if there could be a better hockey player than Orr and by the looks of things, I don't think so. He was literally elite in every category of importance. No one before and no one since.
Length of career does nothing but help judge who had the best career. It certainly does not tell you who the better hockey player was. Focus on prime or peak, whatever you wish to call it, but when a player was at his best. Compiling points as a role player when they are at 60 or 70 percent of what they once were does nothing to define how great a player was. At the height of their powers how much of an impact did they have on the games they played. That is what's important.
Durability as a knock against Orr is silly to me. People will go on about his career being shortened because he played recklessly. It's a crock of crap. Many players played a reckless game and played long careers. The difference was none of them were unstoppable the way Orr was and consequently the dirty tactics came out to try and stop him. Watch the highlight videos and you will see plenty of examples of dirty, deliberate and flagrant knee on knee hits. When a guy like Frank Mahovlich does it, you know something is rotten in Denmark.
Oh and my top 4 ranking is virtually identical to the other oldtimers here. Must just be coincidence though. That or we are just pining for the old days, right gentlemen?
1-Orr
2-Howe
3-Lemieux
4-Gretzky
Good Post. The bolded is exactly how I feel about judging players.
For a long time, this was an easy question for me to answer; I always picked Orr over Howe. Recently, though, I've done more thinking about it and I'm starting to lean towards Howe as it's more in line with my general philosophy of judging players by looking at their careers as a whole rather than focusing on their peaks.
Well count me in as another oldtimer who has seen both Howe and Orr. Had there been a draft then, Orr and I would have been in the same draft.
When I was a kid, living in Southern Ontario, I and most of my friends were Detroit fans for one reason, Gordie Howe. He was the man. He was just so great and we all thought, boy could there ever be a better hockey player? Come to find out when Orr broke into the league that apparently there could indeed be a better hockey player. You have to understand that anyone who knew anything about hockey at the time was floored at what we were seeing Orr do. This wasn't someone being dominant but was more akin to him playing in a league down from where he should have been, except of course there wasn't a better league to go to. Now I ask myself if there could be a better hockey player than Orr and by the looks of things, I don't think so. He was literally elite in every category of importance. No one before and no one since.
Length of career does nothing but help judge who had the best career. It certainly does not tell you who the better hockey player was. Focus on prime or peak, whatever you wish to call it, but when a player was at his best. Compiling points as a role player when they are at 60 or 70 percent of what they once were does nothing to define how great a player was. At the height of their powers how much of an impact did they have on the games they played. That is what's important.
Durability as a knock against Orr is silly to me. People will go on about his career being shortened because he played recklessly. It's a crock of crap. Many players played a reckless game and played long careers. The difference was none of them were unstoppable the way Orr was and consequently the dirty tactics came out to try and stop him. Watch the highlight videos and you will see plenty of examples of dirty, deliberate and flagrant knee on knee hits. When a guy like Frank Mahovlich does it, you know something is rotten in Denmark.
Oh and my top 4 ranking is virtually identical to the other oldtimers here. Must just be coincidence though. That or we are just pining for the old days, right gentlemen?
1-Orr
2-Howe
3-Lemieux
4-Gretzky
In theory you would only need to see Orr play a handful of games to realize that his on-ice skills were the best ever. I don't disagree with that.
So if he only played 10 NHL games but proved he had the best on-ice skills ever prior to suffering a carer-ending injury, where would he rank then? Where do we draw the line? We're talking about 30 years versus 9 here.
Anyone I've ever heard talk about these two players, who have also had the pleasure of actually seeing them play, usually say Orr is the best player they've ever seen. I have to go with that. My vote is for #4 Bobby Orr.
I just have one question about this - how many of theses people were actually old enough to appreciate Howe in the early 1950s, when he was in his prime? Howe was still a superstar from the late 50s-60s (and a star beyond that), but he wasn't at the level he was in the early 50s.
I just have one question about this - how many of theses people were actually old enough to appreciate Howe in the early 1950s, when he was in his prime? Howe was still a superstar from the late 50s-60s (and a star beyond that), but he wasn't at the level he was in the early 50s.
I'd like to know if Howe actually was a better player in the early 1950s. His scoring stats are better in the early 1950s, but his decline in scoring in the middle of the decade could be explained by a combination of weaker linemates (Abel retired, Lindsay was getting older), greater defensive responsibilities as Detroit's forward depth decreased, and a general increase in league quality.
If Howe's peak is defined as his high-scoring seasons in the early 1950s, his last peak season came at the age of 25, and his peak was over at 26. That's a highly unusual aging pattern. Have there been any other star forwards whose peak was over at age 26, where injury wasn't a factory? I can't think of any. Or did Howe have an injury that slowed him around this time, like Gretzky's back injury that ended his peak?
In the absence of any reason for Howe's decline, I have a hard time believing that Gordie Howe at 22 was a significantly better player than Gordie Howe at 26.
I´ve always had the feeling that he was a little, but still clearly, behind the other big three when it comes to offensive peer domination.
I will base this on point per game placement in relation to their peers since I think this is the best measure of this. you could argue placement in scoring race but I think this is a better value of domination when on the ice.
I will remove Grezky and Lemiex from each others numbers since it would be strange not to when comparing all 4.
I will also remove Esposito from Orrs numbers. you could argue that Esposito could have gotten those points anyway but when looking at the inflated numbers of other Bruins (they were often in places 1-4 in ppg) I think it would be strange to assume that Orr was not a heavy influence on Esposito aswell and I think it is harder for a Defenceman, no matter how good, to outscore all forwards on his team if they hold a very high quality.
1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2 (espo beats him in all but one of these seasons)
Howe only had 4 consecutive season were he led the league were Gretzky and Lemieux had 14 and 10 respectively. I think this is a big enough cap to say that offencive dominance is not close. They also dominated this metric with much larger gaps than Howe .
but I would still say Orr is the most impressive. take away Espo and he led the league through his prime up until his retirement. as a defenceman. It took a freak year from Ratalle to stop him from doing it for 6 consecutive seasons. I would guess that no other defenceman has ever been close to leading the league even once. Even if you count Espo he almost has as many top 2 placements as Howe (5 to 7). it´s actually 5 to 4 in Orrs favour if you count at the same age as his retirement.
so you have three players who dominated the best in the league on a per game basis all through there careers and one who did it for a few years at the start and the stayed among the best for all through his career
I think you must value longevity very highly to overlook this what I would consider large gap in ppg dominance over peers.
I think this fits with the opinion of those who have seen them all but I´m interested in other opinions if you disagree with this summary.
I´ve always had the feeling that he was a little, but still clearly, behind the other big three when it comes to offensive peer domination.
I will base this on point per game placement in relation to their peers since I think this is the best measure of this. you could argue placement in scoring race but I think this is a better value of domination when on the ice.
I will remove Grezky and Lemiex from each others numbers since it would be strange not to when comparing all 4.
I will also remove Esposito from Orrs numbers. you could argue that Esposito could have gotten those points anyway but when looking at the inflated numbers of other Bruins (they were often in places 1-4 in ppg) I think it would be strange to assume that Orr was not a heavy influence on Esposito aswell and I think it is harder for a Defenceman, no matter how good, to outscore all forwards on his team if they hold a very high quality.
1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2 (espo beats him in all but one of these seasons)
Howe only had 4 consecutive season were he led the league were Gretzky and Lemieux had 14 and 10 respectively. I think this is a big enough cap to say that offencive dominance is not close. They also dominated this metric with much larger gaps than Howe .
but I would still say Orr is the most impressive. take away Espo and he led the league through his prime up until his retirement. as a defenceman. It took a freak year from Ratalle to stop him from doing it for 6 consecutive seasons. I would guess that no other defenceman has ever been close to leading the league even once. Even if you count Espo he almost has as many top 2 placements as Howe (5 to 7). it´s actually 5 to 4 in Orrs favour if you count at the same age as his retirement.
so you have three players who dominated the best in the league on a per game basis all through there careers and one who did it for a few years at the start and the stayed among the best for all through his career
I think you must value longevity very highly to overlook this what I would consider large gap in ppg dominance over peers.
I think this fits with the opinion of those who have seen them all but I´m interested in other opinions if you disagree with this summary.
thoughts?
season by season doesn't tell as good of a story as whole careers do. Plus using per-game averages credits players for not playing games.
Take the best 10-year period for each player and take a look at the league's PPG leaders throughout that 10-year period. You will of course find that each of these players was the leader in that time. How much did they beat #2 by, percentage-wise? What about #3? What about #10? That will give you a better idea of who sustained their dominance the most. (but at the same time, remember, this is per-game and having the durability to play a higher percentage of games needs to be rewarded)
I'd like to know if Howe actually was a better player in the early 1950s. His scoring stats are better in the early 1950s, but his decline in scoring in the middle of the decade could be explained by a combination of weaker linemates (Abel retired, Lindsay was getting older), greater defensive responsibilities as Detroit's forward depth decreased, and a general increase in league quality.
If Howe's peak is defined as his high-scoring seasons in the early 1950s, his last peak season came at the age of 25, and his peak was over at 26. That's a highly unusual aging pattern. Have there been any other star forwards whose peak was over at age 26, where injury wasn't a factory? I can't think of any. Or did Howe have an injury that slowed him around this time, like Gretzky's back injury that ended his peak?
In the absence of any reason for Howe's decline, I have a hard time believing that Gordie Howe at 22 was a significantly better player than Gordie Howe at 26.
The decline in Gordie Howe's productivity coincided with coach Tommy Ivan leaving the Red Wings after the 1954 Stanley Cup There was an internal power struggle in the Norris estate which saw the side backing Jack Adams come out victorious. This produced the following.
New head coach Jimmy Skinner who wanted a more balanced team - see the 1955 SC champions and Jack Adams trading players just to show people that he could.
Skinner after a few bumps in the road won a Stanley Cup his first year.Lost in the finals his second and led the Wings to a surprise firat place finish his third but was upset in the semis by Boston. Adams promptly traded a number of players - Hall, Lindsay, Bucyk plus others. This produced a rift and midway into the 1957-58 season Jimmy Skinner was replaced by Sid Abel. The Red Wings drifted until Adams was fired in 1963 then started a bounce back that focused on the Toronto model of veteran players that fizzled after 1966.
After Tommy Ivan left in 1954 Gordie Howe played on a fairly dysfunctional team for approximately nine seasons. There were a few excellent players - Delvecchio, Ullman, Kelly, Pronovost, Sawchuk, later Gadsby but the gap to the support players was great.
Playing mainly with Alex Delvecchio at center sometimes on the LW, Howe was never on a line where the third player was a force. He and Delvecchio would make the third player look better than he was but it was still a lag on the line.
The other teams quickly realized this and would adjust defensively forcing Howe and Delvecchio to play at a disadvantage. This impacted Howe's numbers to a large extent.
By the early 1960's Howe had lost a step maybe two. Until his first retirement he relied heavily on knowledge and positioning to be effective.
Thanks to 85highlander for the video clip.
Two attempts to injure Orr's knee in the same rush. Mahovlich connected.
Not much evidence there of Orr being reckless but there is definitely evidence of him being a target for dirty hits. If you think this was an isolated incident there are several other videos you can find with intentional knee on knee contact.
Thanks to 85highlander for the video clip.
Two attempts to injure Orr's knee in the same rush. Mahovlich connected.
Not much evidence there of Orr being reckless but there is definitely evidence of him being a target for dirty hits. If you think this was an isolated incident there are several other videos you can find with intentional knee on knee contact.
There was no need to target Howe's knees, he wasn't near the skater Orr was. Howe was rather average in the speed department. Orr would constantly beat guys with speed and a quick little fake leaving little else for the man covering him but to stick out a knee for some contact.
It is really unfortunate, when you think about it, how Orr's Bruins only won two cups. But they ran into a red-hot Dryden in '71 (with that atrocious game 2) and then Parent and the Broad Street Bullies in '74. And then the WHA poached their players in '73...
Last edited by OrrNumber4: 06-20-2010 at 02:38 AM.
