Bobby Orr- what was his greatest attribute?

[BobbyAwe]

With all due respect, have you ever watched his highlights or some old game footage? He basically just skated around everyone.

But how good were the skaters he was skating around? It's all relative. Bobby himself said "I wouldn't get away with half the stuff I did back then against the players in today's game." Watch a lot of those goals on the old highlight vids too - the average NHL goalie today would have stopped most of them.

Don't get mad. I'm not saying Orr was not great. I'm saying he WAS the greatest of his time and the time before him, and MIGHT be the greatest of all time - but he wouldn't dominate the game to the EXTENT he did back then.

 

[Canadiens1958]

But how good were the skaters he was skating around? It's all relative. Bobby himself said "I wouldn't get away with half the stuff I did back then against the players in today's game." Watch a lot of those goals on the old highlight vids too - the average NHL goalie today would have stopped most of them.

Don't get mad. I'm not saying Orr was not great. I'm saying he WAS the greatest of his time and the time before him, and MIGHT be the greatest of all time - but he wouldn't dominate the game to the EXTENT he did back then.

But he would easily dominate modern defencemen by a greater margin.

 

[57special]

We know of the greatness of great #4, but what above anything else and all the things he could do well made Orr the hockey immortal that he was?

Was it the skating? The passing? The rushing? His ability to shoot? His mastery/connection with great teammates (Espo/Bucyk)? Speed? His sense of the game?

Yes.

 

[BobbyAwe]

But he would easily dominate modern defencemen by a greater margin.

How can you say that? Are modern defensemen slower, smaller, and weaker shooting than the D-men of Orr's day? No, no, and no. There was a huge gap in quality between the best players of Bobby's day and the average/mediocre players, also between teams, as Orr played his entire career (except for year one) in a league that was constantly and increasingly being watered down by expansion. Look at the disparity between the best plus/minus stats back then and those of the best players today. The only active player in the top 50 in all time plus/minus is Chara and he's 48th!

 

[Filthy Dangles]

But how good were the skaters he was skating around? It's all relative. Bobby himself said "I wouldn't get away with half the stuff I did back then against the players in today's game." Watch a lot of those goals on the old highlight vids too - the average NHL goalie today would have stopped most of them.

Don't get mad. I'm not saying Orr was not great. I'm saying he WAS the greatest of his time and the time before him, and MIGHT be the greatest of all time - but he wouldn't dominate the game to the EXTENT he did back then.

It's impossible to say how he he'd do and pointless in even trying to discuss it. His peers had the same access to diet/nutrition, strength training and skate technology that he did and he was in a league of his own. Like you say it's all relative and relative to his peer and era he was so far ahead it wasn't even close.

 

[DannyGallivan]

But how good were the skaters he was skating around? It's all relative. Bobby himself said "I wouldn't get away with half the stuff I did back then against the players in today's game." Watch a lot of those goals on the old highlight vids too - the average NHL goalie today would have stopped most of them.

Don't get mad. I'm not saying Orr was not great. I'm saying he WAS the greatest of his time and the time before him, and MIGHT be the greatest of all time - but he wouldn't dominate the game to the EXTENT he did back then.

You've fallen into the trap of comparing eras. If you choose to improve the field by comparing them to the modern player, then you need to give Orr the same equipment, training, nutrition and evolutionary development as well.

Wow, I said about the exact same thing as Filthy Dangles. I should have read his post first and just pressed "like".

 

[Canadiens1958]

How can you say that? Are modern defensemen slower, smaller, and weaker shooting than the D-men of Orr's day? No, no, and no. There was a huge gap in quality between the best players of Bobby's day and the average/mediocre players, also between teams, as Orr played his entire career (except for year one) in a league that was constantly and increasingly being watered down by expansion. Look at the disparity between the best plus/minus stats back then and those of the best players today. The only active player in the top 50 in all time plus/minus is Chara and he's 48th!

Look at the strata of defencemen just below Orr who were contemporary.

Pre 1970 Serge Savard before the two major leg injuries, outperformed Orr in the 1969 playoffs head-to-head,winning the Smythe. Name a defenceman today capable of such play.

Salming, Park, Denis Potvin, Larry Robinson,easily better than any defencemen playing last season.

Difference being that a specific skill may rank highly, the overall tool box is lacking. Chara, weak skater and passer. Gets by on reach because height appropriate sticks are allowed.

 

[DannyGallivan]

How can you say that? Are modern defensemen slower, smaller, and weaker shooting than the D-men of Orr's day? No, no, and no. There was a huge gap in quality between the best players of Bobby's day and the average/mediocre players, also between teams, as Orr played his entire career (except for year one) in a league that was constantly and increasingly being watered down by expansion. Look at the disparity between the best plus/minus stats back then and those of the best players today. The only active player in the top 50 in all time plus/minus is Chara and he's 48th!

Modern players have been stripped of the creativity that helped make Orr so great. As long as he was allowed to do his thing, his creativity (and athletic ability to make that creativity a reality) would automatically put him ahead of all modern defensemen.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Look at the strata of defencemen just below Orr who were contemporary.

Pre 1970 Serge Savard before the two major leg injuries, outperformed Orr in the 1969 playoffs head-to-head,winning the Smythe. Name a defenceman today capable of such play.

Salming, Park, Denis Potvin, Larry Robinson,easily better than any defencemen playing last season.

Difference being that a specific skill may rank highly, the overall tool box is lacking. Chara, weak skater and passer. Gets by on reach because height appropriate sticks are allowed.

"Salming, Park, Denis Potvin, Larry Robinson,easily better than any defencemen playing last season."

Agreed. And Orr was so much better than even them.

 

[BobbyAwe]

Look at the strata of defencemen just below Orr who were contemporary.

Pre 1970 Serge Savard before the two major leg injuries, outperformed Orr in the 1969 playoffs head-to-head,winning the Smythe. Name a defenceman today capable of such play.

Salming, Park, Denis Potvin, Larry Robinson,easily better than any defencemen playing last season.

Difference being that a specific skill may rank highly, the overall tool box is lacking. Chara, weak skater and passer. Gets by on reach because height appropriate sticks are allowed.

How do you determine the best D-men of that era were better than the best of today? Are you sure some of it is not due to sentimentality? The first indication that something is awry with your reasoning is that the talent pool for the NHL is so much greater now (bigger population in Canada to draw from, not to mention Europe and Russia and the U.S. which were pretty much uninvolved back then) that it is LIKELY that the best 5 or 10 players today are better than MOST of the best 5 or 10 of Orr's era. It's not impossible that the reverse would be true but it is highly unlikely.

Compare for instance, Orr's points per game with Karlsson's. Orr had 915 points in 657 games, Karlsson has now played almost the same number of games and has 518 points in 627 games. That means Orr's ppg was 1.39 to Karlsson's .83 - Orr scored 68% more points over roughly the same number of games. Are we to honestly believe that if Orr and Karlsson played in the same era, same league, and on equivalent teams, that Orr would score 68% MORE points than Karlsson? That's kind of ridiculous isn't it? I'm not saying that Orr wouldn't be better than Karlsson if they were contemporaries, but 68% better? It's just not realistic.

 

[BenchBrawl]

How do you determine the best D-men of that era were better than the best of today? Are you sure some of it is not due to sentimentality? The first indication that something is awry with your reasoning is that the talent pool for the NHL is so much greater now (bigger population in Canada to draw from, not to mention Europe and Russia and the U.S. which were pretty much uninvolved back then) that it is LIKELY that the best 5 or 10 players today are better than MOST of the best 5 or 10 of Orr's era. It's not impossible that the reverse would be true but it is highly unlikely.

Compare for instance, Orr's points per game with Karlsson's. Orr had 915 points in 657 games, Karlsson has now played almost the same number of games and has 518 points in 627 games. That means Orr's ppg was 1.39 to Karlsson's .83 - Orr scored 68% more points over roughly the same number of games. Are we to honestly believe that if Orr and Karlsson played in the same era, same league, and on equivalent teams, that Orr would score 68% MORE points than Karlsson? That's kind of ridiculous isn't it? I'm not saying that Orr wouldn't be better than Karlsson if they were contemporaries, but 68% better? It's just not realistic.

The 70s are notorious for having the toughest group of high-end defensemen (with perhaps the 90s).Nothing to do with sentimentality.You also had guys like Savard and Lapointe, whom he didn't name.

Then the current crop of top defensemen is among the weakest ever.Karlsson had a great run for a while but last year was not as good.Also, for some of his best offensive seasons he wasn't very good defensively.The window where he was good at both ends was relatively small.

 

[BobbyAwe]

Modern players have been stripped of the creativity that helped make Orr so great. As long as he was allowed to do his thing, his creativity (and athletic ability to make that creativity a reality) would automatically put him ahead of all modern defensemen.

But maybe a lot of his creativity was so effective because he was playing against a lot of guys who would have STILL BEEN IN THE MINORS if the league had not expanded from 6 to 18 teams in the same 10 or so years that comprised the bulk of his career? How many more goals/points would Ovechkin or Crosby have scored if the league had TRIPLED in size during their career (from adding minor league teams), instead of basically not expanding at all?

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

But maybe a lot of his creativity was so effective because he was playing against a lot of guys who would have STILL BEEN IN THE MINORS if the league had not expanded from 6 to 18 teams in the same 10 or so years that comprised the bulk of his career? How many more goals/points would Ovechkin or Crosby have scored if the league had TRIPLED in size during their career (from adding minor league teams), instead of basically not expanding at all?

the 70s expansions introduced more NHL caliber talent, it did not influx a bunch of AHL scrubs.

Before the expansion from 6, the AHL was no different than what would happen today if you shrunk the league down to 6. All of those players that dont make one of the 6 teams would be in another league. This doesn't make them any worse than they are today, its just a matter of job availability.

Same goes for the 2nd expansion where they added WHA teams. These were established teams from a good professional league. Again, not a bunch of scrubs getting thrown to the wolves.

You also ignore the benefits of playing in a 30+ team league, mainly there is a much bigger dilution of talent than in Orr's day. Instead of playing against a team loaded with HOF'ers and top talent, modern stars get to play more against average players because each team only has so much top level talent.

 

[Canadiens1958]

How do you determine the best D-men of that era were better than the best of today? Are you sure some of it is not due to sentimentality? The first indication that something is awry with your reasoning is that the talent pool for the NHL is so much greater now (bigger population in Canada to draw from, not to mention Europe and Russia and the U.S. which were pretty much uninvolved back then) that it is LIKELY that the best 5 or 10 players today are better than MOST of the best 5 or 10 of Orr's era. It's not impossible that the reverse would be true but it is highly unlikely.

Compare for instance, Orr's points per game with Karlsson's. Orr had 915 points in 657 games, Karlsson has now played almost the same number of games and has 518 points in 627 games. That means Orr's ppg was 1.39 to Karlsson's .83 - Orr scored 68% more points over roughly the same number of games. Are we to honestly believe that if Orr and Karlsson played in the same era, same league, and on equivalent teams, that Orr would score 68% MORE points than Karlsson? That's kind of ridiculous isn't it? I'm not saying that Orr wouldn't be better than Karlsson if they were contemporaries, but 68% better? It's just not realistic.

Nice choice for a comparable, Orr vs Karlsson.One-on-one does Orr get trapped on the boards by a Matt Cooke level skater?

Quinn hit on Orr required a Leaf funneling Orr, taking away the inside move.

Orr +582 vs Karlsson -37, obvious who was better defensively.Age favours Orr especially adjusting for length of season. Orr at 18 was in the NHL scoring 41 PTS. Karlsson SEL at the same age, scored 10 pts.

Orr would definitely be at least 68% better.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Nice choice for a comparable, Orr vs Karlsson.One-on-one does Orr get trapped on the boards by a Matt Cooke level skater?

Quinn hit on Orr required a Leaf funneling Orr, taking away the inside move.

Orr +582 vs Karlsson -37, obvious who was better defensively.Age favours Orr especially adjusting for length of season. Orr at 18 was in the NHL scoring 41 PTS. Karlsson SEL at the same age, scored 10 pts.

Orr would definitely be at least 68% better.

to put it another way.

Karlsson is 27 years old.

By 27 years old, Bobby Orr had:

3x Hart
8x Norris
8x AS-1
Calder
2x Ross
2x Cup
2x Smythe
5x led in assists
6x 100+ pt seasons
888 points in 631 games

or this...Bobby Orr career PPG is 1.39, Crosby's career PPG is 1.29

 

[BobbyAwe]

The 70s are notorious for having the toughest group of high-end defensemen (with perhaps the 90s).Nothing to do with sentimentality.You also had guys like Savard and Lapointe, whom he didn't name.

Then the current crop of top defensemen is among the weakest ever. Karlsson had a great run for a while but last year was not as good. Also, for some of his best offensive seasons he wasn't very good defensively.The window where he was good at both ends was relatively small.

But again, you can only DIRECTLY compare the players of a certain era against the players they actually played with or against. Otherwise, we just have to use common sense to draw a somewhat accurate picture of how they would compare? Look at the stats of most of the 6 team league players that played into the 70's. Guys like Vic Hadfield and Ken Hodge suddenly scored 50 goals when they were average players in the 6 team league (and I am not sure that Hodge was even considered "average" before?) Bucyk scored 116 points in 1970-71 after the expansion, at the age of 35, when the most points he ever had in the 6 team league was 66, when he was 27 years old. Esposito was considered a GOOD player with the Hawks, but no one, including himself, ever DREAMED he would score 76 goals in a season later on - and he WOULDN'T have, had the league not expanded so drastically.

Also we have to realize that sports legends always GROW in stature over time. There is always a mythos that gets attached, progressively, to the old timers. It's just a human foible that is especially true of sports fans. Again, I have to emphasize that I agree Orr was CLEARLY the greatest of his time, with a shot at being the greatest of ALL time, but you can't just take his stats from the 70's and blindly assume he would equal them today. It's a different game. It's a lower scoring game. There are more players from all over the world involved.

 

[JackSlater]

I agree that it is clearly skating, but Orr's hockey sense was top tier and I suspect that he would still have been an all star even with average skating, along the lines of what we saw in the Canada Cup. Similar to Lemieux, who had the hockey sense to be a star even if his puck skills weren't the best ever.

 

[DannyGallivan]

But maybe a lot of his creativity was so effective because he was playing against a lot of guys who would have STILL BEEN IN THE MINORS if the league had not expanded from 6 to 18 teams in the same 10 or so years that comprised the bulk of his career? How many more goals/points would Ovechkin or Crosby have scored if the league had TRIPLED in size during their career (from adding minor league teams), instead of basically not expanding at all?

How many more points would Orr have scored if he played against 30 other teams? The minors in those days still had a lot of good talent. How many less points would Crosby and Ovechkin have if all the talent was centred on a dozen teams. Even if you want to use the excuse that foreign markets hadn't really been tapped for players, then put all the best Canadian players on 12 teams and see how Crosby (or a much better comparison, Karllson or Hedman or Doughty) would do.

You don't have to be a good chess player to have a counter move for every argument against Orr's greatness. If only school was this easy back in the day.

 

[BobbyAwe]

to put it another way.

Karlsson is 27 years old.

By 27 years old, Bobby Orr had:

3x Hart
8x Norris
8x AS-1
Calder
2x Ross
2x Cup
2x Smythe
5x led in assists
6x 100+ pt seasons
888 points in 631 games

or this...Bobby Orr career PPG is 1.39, Crosby's career PPG is 1.29

In MLB, the last player to hit .400 or better batting average, in a single season, occurred in 1941. (before that it also happened about a dozen times) Since 1941 NO ONE in MLB has hit .400 - that's in 77 YEARS. Now, put on your thinking cap Would you assume the reason for this is because the hitters of 77 or even 100 years ago were that much BETTER than the hitters since 1941, OR do you think it is because the PITCHING has gotten better since then(especially considering the greater usage of relief pitching) and also that there may be some other factors which make it more difficult to hit .400?

Which is the more logical assumption?

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

His greatest attribute was skating, and an NHL which was years (maybe even decades) off from having any sort of coaching that could adapt to defending an offensive D-man at Orr's caliber.

 

[BobbyAwe]

How many more points would Orr have scored if he played against 30 other teams? The minors in those days still had a lot of good talent. How many less points would Crosby and Ovechkin have if all the talent was centred on a dozen teams. Even if you want to use the excuse that foreign markets hadn't really been tapped for players, then put all the best Canadian players on 12 teams and see how Crosby (or a much better comparison, Karllson or Hedman or Doughty) would do.

You don't have to be a good chess player to have a counter move for every argument against Orr's greatness. If only school was this easy back in the day.

I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand? There are a LOT more good players in the world today than in the 1970's because the size of the hockey talent pool in the world has DRASTICALLY increased and includes many players from other countries which were not sending players to the NHL in any real numbers back then. Take the 1972 Summit Series for instance. The Soviet all-stars lost by only one game to the NHL stars. Everyone was shocked at how good the Russians were. They represented a whole other league of quality players that were not in the NHL yet. There was also the WHA, admittedly not as good as the NHL, but there were some good players there who were not in the NHL yet. Right about the end of Bobby's career there began to be an influx of Swedes, and then the WHA ended and the Oilers (i.e.) were grated in, and over the next decade or two many Russians and former Soviet block countries players started arriving. Plus during all that time, the population in Canada was increasing and the number of junior leagues and the extent of scouting and developmental opportunities was growing. The NHL in Bobby's heyday compared to today's NHL would be like an All-County Soccer team compared to an All-STATE team. (okay, maybe not that big a difference but you get the idea?)

BTW - I'm not questioning "Orr's greatness", I'm questioning that he would be better than the best players of today to the DEGREE he was better than the players of his day. That's not a put down of Orr, it's just REALISTIC, and even Bobby agrees with that.

 

[Canadiens1958]

In MLB, the last player to hit .400 or better batting average, in a single season, occurred in 1941. (before that it also happened about a dozen times) Since 1941 NO ONE in MLB has hit .400 - that's in 77 YEARS. Now, put on your thinking cap Would you assume the reason for this is because the hitters of 77 or even 100 years ago were that much BETTER than the hitters since 1941, OR do you think it is because the PITCHING has gotten better since then(especially considering the greater usage of relief pitching) and also that there may be some other factors which make it more difficult to hit .400?

Which is the more logical assumption?

1941, Ted Williams, last of the complete hitters in spite of his insistance about beating the shift.

Name a complete hitter today and you will have the answer to your question.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

In MLB, the last player to hit .400 or better batting average, in a single season, occurred in 1941. (before that it also happened about a dozen times) Since 1941 NO ONE in MLB has hit .400 - that's in 77 YEARS. Now, put on your thinking cap Would you assume the reason for this is because the hitters of 77 or even 100 years ago were that much BETTER than the hitters since 1941, OR do you think it is because the PITCHING has gotten better since then(especially considering the greater usage of relief pitching) and also that there may be some other factors which make it more difficult to hit .400?

Which is the more logical assumption?

actually, by your logic we should have seen multiple .400 hitters since Ted Williams considering all of the rule changes that have been added to aid hitters

the mound was lowered
the strike zone has shrunk, multiple times
less and less foul territory in new parks
the DH was introduced
ball doctoring was outlawed

notice how every offensive record has been passed EXCEPT batting average?

single season HR, RBI, Slugging%, stolen bases have all fallen multiple times and there have been multiple triple crown winners...yet.406 remains untouched

and its because, like Orr, Ted Williams is that much better than everyone else

 

[Canadiens1958]

I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand? There are a LOT more good players in the world today than in the 1970's because the size of the hockey talent pool in the world has DRASTICALLY increased and includes many players from other countries which were not sending players to the NHL in any real numbers back then. Take the 1972 Summit Series for instance. The Soviet all-stars lost by only one game to the NHL stars. Everyone was shocked at how good the Russians were. They represented a whole other league of quality players that were not in the NHL yet. There was also the WHA, admittedly not as good as the NHL, but there were some good players there who were not in the NHL yet. Right about the end of Bobby's career there began to be an influx of Swedes, and then the WHA ended and the Oilers (i.e.) were grated in, and over the next decade or two many Russians and former Soviet block countries players started arriving. Plus during all that time, the population in Canada was increasing and the number of junior leagues and the extent of scouting and developmental opportunities was growing. The NHL in Bobby's heyday compared to today's NHL would be like an All-County Soccer team compared to an All-STATE team. (okay, maybe not that big a difference but you get the idea?)

BTW - I'm not questioning "Orr's greatness", I'm questioning that he would be better than the best players of today to the DEGREE he was better than the players of his day. That's not a put down of Orr, it's just REALISTIC, and even Bobby agrees with me.

Over an 8 game series. Would the have sustained the level of play over a season? Doubtful since they lost the last three games at home.

Internationals are now part of the landscape. Some could have played in the fifties but were making more money at home.

Has any International player produced the sustained level of NHL greatness that Howe, Orr, and other Canadiens did? A few come close if the mid-career valleys are bridged.

 

[DannyGallivan]

I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand? There are a LOT more good players in the world today than in the 1970's because the size of the hockey talent pool in the world has DRASTICALLY increased and includes many players from other countries which were not sending players to the NHL in any real numbers back then. Take the 1972 Summit Series for instance. The Soviet all-stars lost by only one game to the NHL stars. Everyone was shocked at how good the Russians were. They represented a whole other league of quality players that were not in the NHL yet. There was also the WHA, admittedly not as good as the NHL, but there were some good players there who were not in the NHL yet. Right about the end of Bobby's career there began to be an influx of Swedes, and then the WHA ended and the Oilers (i.e.) were grated in, and over the next decade or two many Russians and former Soviet block countries players started arriving. Plus during all that time, the population in Canada was increasing and the number of junior leagues and the extent of scouting and developmental opportunities was growing. The NHL in Bobby's heyday compared to today's NHL would be like an All-County Soccer team compared to an All-STATE team. (okay, maybe not that big a difference but you get the idea?)

BTW - I'm not questioning "Orr's greatness", I'm questioning that he would be better than the best players of today to the DEGREE he was better than the players of his day. That's not a put down of Orr, it's just REALISTIC, and even Bobby agrees with that.

Again, if you're going to pull Orr out from the 70's and put him in 2018, then you've also given him the benefit of a lifetime of superior coaching, conditioning, training, and equipment that would have been considered space age in 1970. Man, how much better would Bobby be if he grew up in the modern age?

This is a debate that's impossible to prove either way 100 per cent. But perhaps... just perhaps... Orr would be even more dominant given all the modern advantages.

And as far as the series with the Soviets are concerned, Canada was playing without Orr or Bobby Hull. Even adding one of those players (never mind both) would have given Canada a much less dramatic (and therefore less memorable victory). I'd given the Soviets game one, cuz we were out of shape and unprepared, but we would have won by a much larger margin in game two, would have coasted to victory in Winnipeg in game three (that game ended in a tie), perhaps still would have lost in Vancouver because they played so poorly as a team, but would have likely swept the Soviets in Moscow (by lopsided scores).