Who is the greatest of all time?

[1qqaaz]

Gretzky, then Orr, Howe, Lemieux.

[timbit]

IMO, Orr, and not even close.

Changed the game forever.

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by timbit

IMO, Orr, and not even close.

Changed the game forever.

While Orr was the player responsible it could also be said if it wasn't for Harry Sinden telling Orr to play up like a 4th forward it may never have happened.

Esposito said it was the second most important thing to happen in 1969

[MarkGio]

I couldn't take Orr over Gretzky or Lemieux because Orr played through an era where the league went from 6 teams to 18. And Orr had a short career, so all of a sudden the league needs to fill rosters with warm bodies.

Think about that. In less that ten years the needed to obtain 260 jobs, so where did these guys come from? The draft? Well based on a quick Google search, only 19% of NHL picks play NHL games, and this where there's over 400 jobs[1]. Keep in mind, Europeans did not play in the league back then, with the Red Curtain and all that. S

So this massive surge in players meant that most of the league was filled with amateurs. So yeah, a defenseman like Orr could just weave his way through all these guys. It was also a time where players had a smoke on the bench and some guys had other jobs besides playing hockey.

Gretzky played in a more stable league that has only expanded from Orr's 18 to the 10 years of 22 teams, and that last expansion came from an already organized hockey league (WHA). And Lemieux played in another massive surge in jobs during his tenure of the last 8 teams to make up the current 30.

So look at Vegas roster. It's not exactly going to be the dream team when it's taking guys like Kulak or Jokipakka from the Flames. Imagine the kind of competitors that happens when a league goes from six to 18 teams in a short period of time, and during those expansions, teams weren't giving away their good talent like they are with next year's expansion draft.

Bobby Orr was playing against mostly amateurs IMO, so no, he's not in the conversation as GOAT.

[1]http://proicehockey.about.com/od/prospects/f/draft_success.htm

[SixtySix]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

I couldn't take Orr over Gretzky or Lemieux because Orr played through an era where the league went from 6 teams to 18. And Orr had a short career, so all of a sudden the league needs to fill rosters with warm bodies.

Think about that. In less that ten years the needed to obtain 260 jobs, so where did these guys come from? The draft? Well based on a quick Google search, only 19% of NHL picks play NHL games, and this where there's over 400 jobs[1]. Keep in mind, Europeans did not play in the league back then, with the Red Curtain and all that. S

So this massive surge in players meant that most of the league was filled with amateurs. So yeah, a defenseman like Orr could just weave his way through all these guys. It was also a time where players had a smoke on the bench and some guys had other jobs besides playing hockey.

Gretzky played in a more stable league that has only expanded from Orr's 18 to the 10 years of 22 teams, and that last expansion came from an already organized hockey league (WHA). And Lemieux played in another massive surge in jobs during his tenure of the last 8 teams to make up the current 30.

So look at Vegas roster. It's not exactly going to be the dream team when it's taking guys like Kulak or Jokipakka from the Flames. Imagine the kind of competitors that happens when a league goes from six to 18 teams in a short period of time, and during those expansions, teams weren't giving away their good talent like they are with next year's expansion draft.

Bobby Orr was playing against mostly amateurs IMO, so no, he's not in the conversation as GOAT.

[1]http://proicehockey.about.com/od/prospects/f/draft_success.htm

No, only Orr could do it. There isn't any other defenseman "like Orr", hence why he's in the conversation for GOAT. Do you consider Crosby the GOAT? He has the highest average level of competition around him due to the era he plays in, and if Orr is discredited due to the quality of his peers, Crosby should surely be your choice right? But few would choose Crosby despite being the best player of this generation. The reason for this is because players should be judged by how dominating they are/were in comparison to their peers. He may be the best of today's NHL, but he isn't other-worldly like Bobby Orr was. Your argument that Orr wasn't so great because his competition was weak falls apart when you consider that there wasn't any other player from that era who had even a remotely similar impact as Bobby Orr, even against the same "amateur" competition Orr allegedly played against. The general consensus is that there are only two other players in the history of the NHL who were as far ahead of everybody else in their time - Mario Lemieux and Wayne Gretzky. That's why these are the three players that people consider to be the GOAT.

[SixtySix]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Couldn't you just call him the BOAT then? Personally, I think 'best' is actually a stronger word than 'greatest'. Best simply means better than everyone else. "Greater" than everyone else isn't the same to me...it's just having more "greatness" than everyone else...which doesn't necessarily mean you were better...

Fitting that Gretzky is known as 'The Great One' and Lemieux literally translates to "the best".

[FlamesAddiction]

Gretzky then Orr.

I think the only way to assess this fairly is to look at how good the player was relative to their peers at the time. Gretzky was just light years ahead of his peers it was insane. More so than guys like Howe and Lemieux.

Same thing with Orr during his peak. i do wonder what more Lemieux could have done without the back problems and cancer though.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

So this massive surge in players meant that most of the league was filled with amateurs. So yeah, a defenseman like Orr could just weave his way through all these guys. It was also a time where players had a smoke on the bench and some guys had other jobs besides playing hockey.

1970:
Bobby Orr - 120
Phil Esposito - 99
Stan Mikita - 86
Phil Goyette - 78
Walt Tkaczuk - 77

That's the top 5 point scorers in 1970. If it was so easy for 'defenseman like Orr' how come the second place defensemen got 44 points..a third of what Orr got. How come no other player could break 100 points if they were playing against all these scrubs?


Here's the top 3 scorers the year after expansion:

Mikita - 87
Esposito - 84
Howe - 82

The top players of the time, without question, and three hall of famers. They couldn't break 90 points.

Bobby ####ing Hull was 28 years old that year. Bobby Hull (and remember this is the guy who between 1966 and 1968 had the NHL record for most points in a season) in the post-expansion year he put up 75 points. It's insulting to the other absolute greats like Hull to suggest that anyone could go and do what Orr did. One of the greatest forwards of the game ever, in his prime, could not do what Orr did.

When Orr won his first Art Ross with 120 points, only Esposito has scored more...ever. The league record was 126 points. Behind them was Hull with his 107.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Gretzky was just light years ahead of his peers it was insane. More so than guys like Howe and Lemieux.

Disagree, Lemieux would regularly skate through a whole team with two defencemen hanging off him, undress them both then deke the goalie. And these weren't scrubs either, he was making guys like Bourque and Leetch look like pylons.

[jlh2640]

Gretzky