Explain why Bobby Orr is consensus best D?

[YippieKaey]

I mean, obviously he was amazing and i can surely see why people would rank him nr 1. But is it really that surefire? I mean he had 6 amazing seasons on a stacked team, 3 decent ones and two really short ones. Meanwhile guys like Bourque and Potvin and Lidström were amazing for a much longer time. I know about how he revolutionized the position and all but still. Maybe in a different environment with healthy knees he becomes more human and then loses a bit of his mythical status?

I approach this with humility and admitted ignorance so please, no flamewars.

Click to read more...

 

[Pominville Knows]

He was the clearly best offensive defenseman ever and amongst the best defensively. That is why.

 

[Plural]

Personally the reason why I think Bobby Orr is the best/greatest is because nobody else hit that same level of play even for a half a season. Being great for a long time is valuable and in the case of Howe vs. Lemieux it certainly makes the debate for Gordie over Mario reasonable. But the important part is that Howe actually did (or at least arguably hit) hit the same level of play as Lemieux did. Maybe it was shorter lived but they both were comparable at their best in terms of greatness. You can't say the same about Orr and any other defenseman that ever played.

So even if players like Lidstrom and Bourque have longevity in spades (heck Ray probably has almost three times as many elite seasons as Orr) it's hard to rank them ahead of Orr because Orr simply was better player. Ray Whitney played over 1300 games during his career and you never hear anyone even suggesting that he should be considered better or greater player than Pavel Bure. Now I'm not sure if the difference between Whitney and Bure is similar as the difference between Bourque and Orr. But the principle stays the same. Longevity matters but it can't vault you over another player who simply was better. At the very least the player needs to have some sustained time playing on a comparable level than the guy with shorter career.

 

[ricky0034]

even with his shortened career he still won the most Norris trophies

they were all consecutive too

 

[Cursed Lemon]

Well, I mean, he won the Norris every full year he played except for his rookie season. He also has two Art ross trophies as a defenseman.

 

[koyvoo]

There probably was never a clearer and truer example of the phrase a man amongst boys. It truly looked like he was a full grown adult competiting with teenagers.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

I mean, obviously he was amazing and i can surely see why people would rank him nr 1. But is it really that surefire? I mean he had 6 amazing seasons on a stacked team, 3 decent ones and two really short ones. Meanwhile guys like Bourque and Potvin and Lidström were amazing for a much longer time. I know about how he revolutionized the position and all but still. Maybe in a different environment with healthy knees he becomes more human and then loses a bit of his mythical status?

I approach this with humility and admitted ignorance so please, no flamewars.

8x Norris
3x Hart
Calder
8x AS-1
2x Ross
5x led in assists
2x Cup
2x Smythe
1.39 career ppg...for a defenseman
915 pts

oh yeah, and he did all of that by the age of 26!

He played his last game of significance at 26. Over the next 3 years he'd only play 30 games total due to his knees.

The heights he (and we) were robbed of are insane to think about. And lets not forget, the only reason we were robbed was because of the medical tech of the time. If they had arthroscopic surgery back then, he misses 6 months and then is fine.

Give Orr 20 seasons, and we get to see 1. him play in the high flying 80s, and 2. play next to Ray Bourque.

Conservatively we'd be looking at 12-14 Norris trophies, 4-5 Harts, 1-2 more Cups (they for sure win in 79 with him) and 1,800 points.

To put his accomplishments in persepective, look at Erik Karlsson. At 27, he is already older than Orr was when he stopped playing. And in only 30 fewer games, Karlsson has 400 fewer points than Orr scored and scores an entire .50 ppg lower than Orr did. As great as Karlsson is offensively, his best season is 60 points lower than Orr's. That's the level of greatness we are talking about.

Or compare him to Crosby. Orr's best season (139pts) is 19 more than Crosby's best. His best assist total is 18 more (84 vs 102)

For all the offense, Orr was the best defensive D in the league too. He is +574 over his 657 games, with seasons of +124, +85, +83, +80.

Defensemen dream of having 1/4 of the career that Orr had.

 

[Asheville]

His drop off in play from regular season to playoffs bothers me and is why he is not the GOAT for me. Just two titles in three finals seems off, especially in an era of so much sudden dilution.

Having said that, yes, he did more in his brief career than any defenseman ever.

But don't count me among the "what if" crowd, as I believe his shortened time was a direct result of his playing style. There is no sense in projecting what long careers would have looked like for the Bossys, Bures, Lindroses, etc. as their styles were only sustainable in a short burst.

Gretzky's legacy took a hit because he was healthy enough to have suffered through the natural decline that comes with aging/large sample size.

Orr should not be rewarded for playing a single hypothetical minute longer than he ever would have.

 

[Jack Straw]

I wouldn't say that those Bruins teams were as stacked as the OP might think. Esposito was obviously great at what he did, but what he did was pretty limited and it wouldn't have been nearly as successful if he hadn't been playing with Orr. Johnny Bucyk is also a HOFer but he was already getting to the latter part of his career. Guys like Cashman, Hodge, Sanderson, Dallas Smith... they were good players but not great.

And if you never saw them play, you might not realize how much Orr made that whole thing go. He played ridiculous minutes- ES, PP, PK. He ran the offense like an NBA point guard.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

His drop off in play from regular season to playoffs bothers me and is why he is not the GOAT for me. Just two titles in three finals seems off, especially in an era of so much sudden dilution.

Having said that, yes, he did more in his brief career than any defenseman ever.

But don't count me among the "what if" crowd, as I believe his shortened time was a direct result of his playing style. There is no sense in projecting what long careers would have looked like for the Bossys, Bures, Lindroses, etc. as their styles were only sustainable in a short burst.

Gretzky's legacy took a hit because he was healthy enough to have suffered through the natural decline that comes with aging/large sample size.

Orr should not be rewarded for playing a single hypothetical minute longer than he ever would have.

i know, right? slacker dropped all the way to 1.24 ppg in the playoffs. Orr not winning more Cups is more about running into the 70s Canadiens than it is about him.

also his knee injuries had nothing to do with his playing style. He blew his knee out as a rookie while getting checked into the boards. The issue is back then, the surgery was fully open and involved removing cartilage. As a result his knee was bone on bone, which caused his other knee issues down the road.

 

[DannyGallivan]

I mean, obviously he was amazing and i can surely see why people would rank him nr 1. But is it really that surefire? I mean he had 6 amazing seasons on a stacked team, 3 decent ones and two really short ones. Meanwhile guys like Bourque and Potvin and Lidström were amazing for a much longer time. I know about how he revolutionized the position and all but still. Maybe in a different environment with healthy knees he becomes more human and then loses a bit of his mythical status?

I approach this with humility and admitted ignorance so please, no flamewars.

Actually, he was the best player of all time, not just the best defenseman.

1. He was the best - at everything. Some players skated fast, shot hard, etc., but Orr's skill, speed and athletism made him both the best defensive and offensive defenseman of all time. He could also hit, block shots and fight. There were no holes in his game. None.

2. Two time Art Ross winner - as a defenseman! No player before or since has done that. Oh, there's also the Three Harts, Two Conn Smythes and Two Stanley Cups... in ten years. He has six straight seasons of over 100 points (would have been more, but he missed almost all of the next two seasons before forced retirement). We're talking point totals of 120, 139, 117, 101 (in 63 games), 122 and 135. His goal totals during those six years were 33, 37, 37, 29 (in 63 games), 32 and 46. As a defenseman!

When some people (falsely ) suggest that Gretzky is the greatest of all time, I ask what kind of totals Orr would have gotten if he played centre. 200 points? Definitely. 230? Wouldn't put it past him. Then, I ask, what kind of a defenseman do you think Gretzky would have made? That's a laughable thought. Orr simply did everything better than anybody else.

3. Eight consecutive Norris Trophies.

4. His plus/minus in 1970-71 was 124. Soak that in for awhile. PLUS 124. His superstar teammate, Espo, who won the Art Ross that year, had 53 plus points less!

5. Think he was all offense? That same year, Orr was only on the ice for 55 even-strength goals against in 78 games.

6. Orr retired after the 1978-79 season with 270 goals and 645 assists for 915 points in 657 games, an average of 1.39 points per game as a defenceman. That's currently fourth best in history (only three of the greatest forwards of all time have more... Gretzky, Lemieux and Bossy). Orr’s career plus/minus record was plus-597. Again, that’s not a typo. Plus-597!

Gretzky's career plus/minus was far less at a plus-518, despite playing 830 more games than Orr.

7. His knees were so bad by 1976 that he missed almost the entire season. He had trouble getting in and out of cars. He had trouble walking. But he had no problem winning the MVP of the first Canada Cup on one leg.

I can go on, but I think I made more of enough of a case. By the way, Orr wasn't even my favorite player growing up... it was Guy Lafleur. He wasn't even my favorite Bruin... it was Espo. But the evidence to his greatness is overwhelming and hard to comprehend.

 

[DANOZ28]

ORR changed the game is the way i've heard it described. very few can say that.

 

[solidmotion]

I mean, obviously he was amazing and i can surely see why people would rank him nr 1. But is it really that surefire? I mean he had 6 amazing seasons on a stacked team, 3 decent ones and two really short ones. Meanwhile guys like Bourque and Potvin and Lidström were amazing for a much longer time. I know about how he revolutionized the position and all but still. Maybe in a different environment with healthy knees he becomes more human and then loses a bit of his mythical status?

I approach this with humility and admitted ignorance so please, no flamewars.

first of all, he won the norris in 2 of the 3 seasons you're counting as "decent," and the calder in the other one. so it's really 9 amazing seasons. or let's say, 3 amazing seasons and 6 that are head-and-shoulders above anything any other defenseman has ever achieved.

re this alleged playoff decline... he won the smythe in both cup wins, led in assists in the finals run... 12 pts in 7 games in the loss to the canadiens in 71... idk.

 

[DannyGallivan]

His drop off in play from regular season to playoffs bothers me and is why he is not the GOAT for me. Just two titles in three finals seems off, especially in an era of so much sudden dilution.

Having said that, yes, he did more in his brief career than any defenseman ever.

But don't count me among the "what if" crowd, as I believe his shortened time was a direct result of his playing style. There is no sense in projecting what long careers would have looked like for the Bossys, Bures, Lindroses, etc. as their styles were only sustainable in a short burst.

Gretzky's legacy took a hit because he was healthy enough to have suffered through the natural decline that comes with aging/large sample size.

Orr should not be rewarded for playing a single hypothetical minute longer than he ever would have.

Based soley on the games he did play, he's the greatest player of all time. If you want more detail, look at my post, three above.

 

[DannyGallivan]

His drop off in play from regular season to playoffs bothers me and is why he is not the GOAT for me. Just two titles in three finals seems off, especially in an era of so much sudden dilution.

Having said that, yes, he did more in his brief career than any defenseman ever.

But don't count me among the "what if" crowd, as I believe his shortened time was a direct result of his playing style. There is no sense in projecting what long careers would have looked like for the Bossys, Bures, Lindroses, etc. as their styles were only sustainable in a short burst.

Gretzky's legacy took a hit because he was healthy enough to have suffered through the natural decline that comes with aging/large sample size.

Orr should not be rewarded for playing a single hypothetical minute longer than he ever would have.

You call two Conn Smythe wins a drop off?
Two titles hurts him? That's as many as Mario won. It is a team game, and give some credit the Flyers and Habs.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

You call two Conn Smythe wins a drop off?
Two titles hurts him? That's as many as Mario won. It is a team game, and give some credit the Flyers and Habs.

hell, the fact that he is considering:

1.24 career playoff ppg
2 Cups
2 Smythes

as "a drop off in play that bothers him" really is telling as to how great Orr was.

 

[Rubi]

If you ever watched him play his whole career it would never occur to you to ask that question. I'm of an age where I was fortunate enough to do just that. The guy revolutionized the defensive position. A real shame that he was only able to play 12 seasons / 657 games (and you really can't even count the last 3 season as he played so few games in so much pain). If medicine and knee surgery was like it is today, back when Bobby played, he would have played at least a 1000 games and been untouchable in the record books.

 

[Thenameless]

Actually, he was the best player of all time, not just the best defenseman.

1. He was the best - at everything. Some players skated fast, shot hard, etc., but Orr's skill, speed and athletism made him both the best defensive and offensive defenseman of all time. He could also hit, block shots and fight. There were no holes in his game. None.

2. Two time Art Ross winner - as a defenseman! No player before or since has done that. Oh, there's also the Three Harts, Two Conn Smythes and Two Stanley Cups... in ten years. He has six straight seasons of over 100 points (would have been more, but he missed almost all of the next two seasons before forced retirement). We're talking point totals of 120, 139, 117, 101 (in 63 games), 122 and 135. His goal totals during those six years were 33, 37, 37, 29 (in 63 games), 32 and 46. As a defenseman!

When some people (falsely ) suggest that Gretzky is the greatest of all time, I ask what kind of totals Orr would have gotten if he played centre. 200 points? Definitely. 230? Wouldn't put it past him. Then, I ask, what kind of a defenseman do you think Gretzky would have made? That's a laughable thought. Orr simply did everything better than anybody else.

3. Eight consecutive Norris Trophies.

4. His plus/minus in 1970-71 was 124. Soak that in for awhile. PLUS 124. His superstar teammate, Espo, who won the Art Ross that year, had 53 plus points less!

5. Think he was all offense? That same year, Orr was only on the ice for 55 even-strength goals against in 78 games.

6. Orr retired after the 1978-79 season with 270 goals and 645 assists for 915 points in 657 games, an average of 1.39 points per game as a defenceman. That's currently fourth best in history (only three of the greatest forwards of all time have more... Gretzky, Lemieux and Bossy). Orr’s career plus/minus record was plus-597. Again, that’s not a typo. Plus-597!

Gretzky's career plus/minus was far less at a plus-518, despite playing 830 more games than Orr.

7. His knees were so bad by 1976 that he missed almost the entire season. He had trouble getting in and out of cars. He had trouble walking. But he had no problem winning the MVP of the first Canada Cup on one leg.

I can go on, but I think I made more of enough of a case. By the way, Orr wasn't even my favorite player growing up... it was Guy Lafleur. He wasn't even my favorite Bruin... it was Espo. But the evidence to his greatness is overwhelming and hard to comprehend.

This is basically where I stand when it comes to Bobby Orr. When it comes to offensive ability, Gretzky and Lemieux might have been his equal or even slightly better, but once you consider the 200-foot game, no one compares to Bobby Orr. He was simply the best player overall to ever play the game. Guy Lafleur is also my favourite player.

 

[Crosbyfan]

There probably was never a clearer and truer example of the phrase a man amongst boys. It truly looked like he was a full grown adult competiting with teenagers.

...arguably even when as a teenager he competed against adults.

 

[Asheville]

Actually, he was the best player of all time, not just the best defenseman.

1. He was the best - at everything. Some players skated fast, shot hard, etc., but Orr's skill, speed and athletism made him both the best defensive and offensive defenseman of all time. He could also hit, block shots and fight. There were no holes in his game. None.

2. Two time Art Ross winner - as a defenseman! No player before or since has done that. Oh, there's also the Three Harts, Two Conn Smythes and Two Stanley Cups... in ten years. He has six straight seasons of over 100 points (would have been more, but he missed almost all of the next two seasons before forced retirement). We're talking point totals of 120, 139, 117, 101 (in 63 games), 122 and 135. His goal totals during those six years were 33, 37, 37, 29 (in 63 games), 32 and 46. As a defenseman!

When some people (falsely ) suggest that Gretzky is the greatest of all time, I ask what kind of totals Orr would have gotten if he played centre. 200 points? Definitely. 230? Wouldn't put it past him. Then, I ask, what kind of a defenseman do you think Gretzky would have made? That's a laughable thought. Orr simply did everything better than anybody else.

3. Eight consecutive Norris Trophies.

4. His plus/minus in 1970-71 was 124. Soak that in for awhile. PLUS 124. His superstar teammate, Espo, who won the Art Ross that year, had 53 plus points less!

5. Think he was all offense? That same year, Orr was only on the ice for 55 even-strength goals against in 78 games.

6. Orr retired after the 1978-79 season with 270 goals and 645 assists for 915 points in 657 games, an average of 1.39 points per game as a defenceman. That's currently fourth best in history (only three of the greatest forwards of all time have more... Gretzky, Lemieux and Bossy). Orr’s career plus/minus record was plus-597. Again, that’s not a typo. Plus-597!

Gretzky's career plus/minus was far less at a plus-518, despite playing 830 more games than Orr.

7. His knees were so bad by 1976 that he missed almost the entire season. He had trouble getting in and out of cars. He had trouble walking. But he had no problem winning the MVP of the first Canada Cup on one leg.

I can go on, but I think I made more of enough of a case. By the way, Orr wasn't even my favorite player growing up... it was Guy Lafleur. He wasn't even my favorite Bruin... it was Espo. But the evidence to his greatness is overwhelming and hard to comprehend.

Cool story. I'm not punishing Gretzky for being healthy enough to play a long career that HURT his stats. Orr has the luxury of having a short career that only reflected his prime, with the benefit of no natural decline.

I'll just arbitrarily cut Gretzky's career off after his Oiler days and you can chew on that.

 

[lifelonghockeyfan]

Too bad Orr career was shortened by injured, and even when he played he had those poor knees.

For his career might have been the greatest player time, without question. If folks want to have Gretzky or Howe or maybe even Lemieux, as GOAT that's OK too. But Orr kinda revolutionized how Dmen played, and he was just so much better than anyone else.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Cool story. I'm not punishing Gretzky for being healthy enough to play a long career that HURT his stats. Orr has the luxury of having a short career that only reflected his prime, with the benefit of no natural decline.

I'll just arbitrarily cut Gretzky's career off after his Oiler days and you can chew on that.

Your perogative. The situations are different.

Defencemen mature better. Compare to Nicklas Lidstrom who took close to 700 RS games to win his first Norris.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Cool story. I'm not punishing Gretzky for being healthy enough to play a long career that HURT his stats. Orr has the luxury of having a short career that only reflected his prime, with the benefit of no natural decline.

I'll just arbitrarily cut Gretzky's career off after his Oiler days and you can chew on that.

I've always said that it's a four horse race for greatest of all time, and a compelling case can be made for either of Orr, Gretzky, Lemieux, or Howe. For my money, it's Orr.

 

[Rubi]

Reading this thread has got me reminiscing about Bobby Orr. You'll have to forgive the ramblings of an old man.

I used to own his rookie card. I was a kid then and got it when it came out in 1966. You got the cards in a pack along with some crappy gum. You'd chew the gum til it had no flavor left (which was like 5 minutes max) then spit it out. Back then kids collected hockey cards but they didn't save them like they do today. They clipped them on to bicycle spokes for the sound they made or they would throw them against a wall and their buddies would throw theirs too and the closest to the wall would win the cards. I don't suppose kids do that anymore. I wish I still had that rookie card.

If I could have a 1 hour dinner with any hockey player in the world, past or present, dead or alive, I'd choose Bobby Orr. I would love to listen to his stories and ask him questions and get his thoughts on hockey.. past and present.

Also from what I understand, Bobby Orr is a true gentleman and doesn't have a bad word to say about anybody. Although, I may have to give Bobby an exception to that when it comes to Allan Eagleson, which is perfectly understandable.

Its rare in the sporting world to find an all star pro athlete that isn't full of themselves. Bobby is one of those exceptions. Quiet, shuns publicity, and is an all around good guy.

Now all this in itself isn't enough to make him the greatest defenseman to play the game, or arguably the greatest player, but combine this with his on ice talent certainly makes him one hell of a man.

 

[overg]

I've always said that it's a four horse race for greatest of all time, and a compelling case can be made for either of Orr, Gretzky, Lemieux, or Howe. For my money, it's Orr.

I'm really not sure there's any legitimate way to put Lemieux first. Gretzky's got him edged in just about every career offensive category imaginable.

If you like to judge things on peak, Orr and Gretzky still come out favorably to Lemiuex. And Howe comes pretty close.

If longevity is your king, Howe is easily best of all time, and Gretzky played many, many, many more games than Lemiuex at a super-high level.

Think offense is overrated? Orr and Howe are both recognized as having far more well-rounded games than Lemieux, and there's really not much reason to argue Lemieux over Gretzky in this metric either.

What ifs? Orr reached God mode faster than Lemieux and played defense, a position typically more forgiving to aging. So give them both perfectly healthy careers, and I think Lemieux is still looking up. And who knows how insane Gretzky's 90's would have been if not for his injury?

Are you a Cup counter or like team success (President's trophies, wins, etc.) to judge individuals? Gretzky and Howe have him beat, and Orr might match him.

Playoffs and best-of-best? Orr, Lemieux, and Gretzky all have two Smythes (it wasn't awarded at the start of Howe's career), but Gretzky, at least, had more, and more dominant, great runs than Lemieux.

International resumes? Once again, Gretzky's is better.

Heck, even in the eye test (which is one category where Lemieux probably does trump Gretzky), I'd give Orr the edge as the most dominant looking player I've ever seen. Lemieux was probably the second most apparent "man among boys" out there, but #4 *looked* like he was crushing the competition more than anyone else I've ever seen.

I do think Lemieux belongs in the Big 4, but he's the only member of that group who I just can't see putting first. No matter what criteria you chose, I think at least one other member of the Big 4 has him beat, and even if you want to average things across multiple criteria, I don't see any way to line them up so Lemieux comes out on top. I guess maybe if you want to base it solely on "what player, based on the eye test, looked like he was the most offensively dominant player of all time?", Lemieux might be the legit pick?