Explain why Bobby Orr is consensus best D?

[seventieslord]

What you're trying to say then is that the Bruins even completely without their top line was still as good as the average team.

No. That's not how it worked. There was never a dedicated five man unit that Orr played on. Every forward on the team over an eight year period played hundreds of minutes with Orr, hundreds without. Some were better than others of course, but in total, they barely kept their heads above water without him.

 

[Fish on The Sand]

Orr was a +1 as an 18 year-old in the original six's last season on the worst team in the league.

All the other defensemen were minuses. Only Ed Westfall was a +1 for the forwards.

Orr was a +55 in 1972-73 when Espo was a +17.

Orr was +574 in 624 games for Boston. Espo was +306 in 631 games for Boston.

Orr led the Bruins in Plus/Minus every year, and by a lot.

He also led the league in plus/minus 6 times, 3rd once and 4th once.

Only Larry Robinson has a higher plus/minus in his carrer. Of course, he played 1384 games.

Yes, he was a god, but Michael Rozsival, Marek Malik, and Thomas Vanek all have +/- titles.

In the case of Malik, he was consistently a top +/- performer for a half decade on multiple teams. Nobody would consider any of them defensive gods.

Orr is everything he's cracked up to be, but +/- just simply doesn't measure defence. I would argue it's actually more of an offensive metric than a defensive metric, because a stay at home defender who doesn't give up many goals won't be able to build up a super strong rating, whereas an offensive wizard will be able to run up high totals without getting hurt as much on the backend by virtue of always having the puck.

 

[Albatros]

No. That's not how it worked. There was never a dedicated five man unit that Orr played on. Every forward on the team over an eight year period played hundreds of minutes with Orr, hundreds without. Some were better than others of course, but in total, they barely kept their heads above water without him.

In 1970-71 alone they had four 100-point scorers in that team. Up until then only two other players in league history had ever scored 100.

 

[sdf]

When i watch on those old players there is something unprofessional in the way how they skates and moves, and this bobby not exception

 

[BraveCanadian]

What you're trying to say then is that the Bruins even completely without their top line was still as good as the average team.

Yes, while Orr was undoubtably the best player in the world and best one the team, I think it is very reductionist to use adjusted plus minus to declare that he was the singular reason the Bruins were anything but an average team.

Adjusted plus minus will always flatter individuals or lines without off ice comparables or similar deployments and Orr was certainly unique at the time. Espo’s line was the big scoring line and I’m sure that Orr was matched with the top 6 as much as possible.

Meanwhile, the traditional checking lines at the time are likely taking the tough assignments against the other teams best players and more defensive zone draws etc.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Yes, while Orr was undoubtably the best player in the world and best one the team, I think it is very reductionist to use adjusted plus minus to declare that he was the singular reason the Bruins were anything but an average team.

Adjusted plus minus will always flatter individuals or lines without off ice comparables or similar deployments and Orr was certainly unique at the time. Espo’s line was the big scoring line and I’m sure that Orr was matched with the top 6 as much as possible.

Meanwhile, the traditional checking lines at the time are likely taking the tough assignments against the other teams best players and more defensive zone draws etc.

And yet Orr's actual plus/munis figures dwarf that of th Esposto line.

In 1969-70 Espo was +26, Cashman +22, Hodge +17. Or was +54.

In 1970-71 Espo and Hodge were both +69, Cashman +59. Or was +124.

In 1971-72 Espo was +54, Cashman +41, Hodge +39. Or was +83.

In 1972-73 Espo was +17, Cashman +5, Hodge +11. Or was +55.

In 1973-74 Espo was +51, Cashman +48, Hodge +40. Or was +84.

In 1974-75 Espo was +17, Cashman +8, Hodge +7. Or was +80.

Fair to say everyone on the Bruins benefitted from being on the ice with Orr.

 

[BraveCanadian]

And yet Orr's actual plus/munis figures dwarf that of th Esposto line.

In 1969-70 Espo was +26, Cashman +22, Hodge +17. Or was +54.

In 1970-71 Espo and Hodge were both +69, Cashman +59. Or was +124.

In 1971-72 Espo was +54, Cashman +41, Hodge +39. Or was +83.

In 1972-73 Espo was +17, Cashman +5, Hodge +11. Or was +55.

In 1973-74 Espo was +51, Cashman +48, Hodge +40. Or was +84.

In 1974-75 Espo was +17, Cashman +8, Hodge +7. Or was +80.

Fair to say everyone on the Bruins benefitted from being on the ice with Orr.

This is the same argument again. No one is saying Orr wasn’t the main driver of the team or the best player in the world.

I do take issue with the use of adjusted plus minus to say that the team minus him was strictly average. There are a lot of variables.

 

[overpass]

Yes, while Orr was undoubtably the best player in the world and best one the team, I think it is very reductionist to use adjusted plus minus to declare that he was the singular reason the Bruins were anything but an average team.

Adjusted plus minus will always flatter individuals or lines without off ice comparables or similar deployments and Orr was certainly unique at the time. Espo’s line was the big scoring line and I’m sure that Orr was matched with the top 6 as much as possible.

Meanwhile, the traditional checking lines at the time are likely taking the tough assignments against the other teams best players and more defensive zone draws etc.

Did you see this post I made about Orr and his game-by-game plus-minus correlations with teammates?

D-partners of the greats

Using the game-by-game plus-minus correlation method I outlined here, I'm going to go through the careers of some of the great defencemen from 1960 to 2000 and identify who their defence partners were. Starting with the great Bobby Orr. I'm bolding anything about 0.7 as more-or-less a full...

forums.hfboards.com

Based on the results, I would say Orr under Harry Sinden did not play a disproportionate amount of EV time with Esposito. On the other hand, Bep Guidolin and Don Cherry did play them together at EV more often, which probably helped boost their stats and mask their decline in their last years together.

 

[KillerMillerTime]

Orr and Espo were a powerhouse, the Bruins roster wasn't

Bucyk-Stanfield-McKenzie were a fine line.

 

[MadLuke]

I do take issue with the use of adjusted plus minus to say that the team minus him was strictly average. There are a lot of variables.

For one, I would like to see the other good and average teams minus their best defenseman to have a feal what it look like, still over 1 when your first pair of D is not on the ice does not scream average to me.

The idea that Orr main factor for is abnormal +/- does not pass the smell test to me at all, some season he is like +50 above anyone else on his team. But that Bruins would have been just average in 70-71 with a regular number 1 D instead of Orr (if that what people mean) does not pass the smell test either, average among 06 team maybe.... but relative to that league ?

85-87 OIlers had similar R-off value (1.01, 1.07) when Gretzky was off the ice, were they just average for their bottom 11 forward, goaltender and top 6D teams relative to the other teams bottom 11-D-G ?, (Like for when Coffey or Kurri play with Gretzky here), How much of Orr ice time match Esposito first line for example, obviously complicate the question)

 

[Victorias]

It might make sense to talk about the quality of Orr’s teammates if his GOAT case was based on Cup wins, but obviously it’s not. What does it say that despite playing with an all-time great C in Espo and franchise legends like Bucyk and Hodge, there was never any question about who the best or most important player on that team was? Or for that matter, the best or most important player in the league.

I don’t think the same can be said for Harvey and Lidstrom. Bourque, meanwhile, was clearly the best player on the Bruins during his prime, but he was never the best player in the league for any extended period.

 

[MadLuke]

there was never any question about who the best or most important player on that team was?

I am not sure how that match Esposito Hart trophy track record, all bias around that trophy aside, would we not expect some voter voted for who they thought was the most important player on that team ?

 

[BraveCanadian]

85-87 OIlers had similar R-off value (1.01, 1.07) when Gretzky was off the ice, were they just average for their bottom 11 forward, goaltender and top 6D teams relative to the other teams bottom 11-D-G ?, (Like for when Coffey or Kurri play with Gretzky here), How much of Orr ice time match Esposito first line for example, obviously complicate the question)

There is no way they were only average without Gretzky on the ice when they follow up with another 100 point center who was pretty good defensively in Mark Messier who generally had Glenn Anderson on his right side. I think player/line roles and deployment affects these numbers a lot. We have to be missing something.

 

[KillerMillerTime]

They replaced Orr with Park (2nd best defenseman at that time), so it wasn't that dramatic a change.

Park didn't separate from the other best Dmen in 1976-77 and 1977-78. Potvin, Robinson and Salming were very close (Salming) or better than Park the two years they went to the SCF.

By 1978-79, Park similar to Orr had bad knees. Yet Boston still had a very strong season in 1978-79 with Park missing almost 50% of the season.
They managed with a D Corp of Milbury, Redmond, Sims, Doak, and R. Smith. Gilbert\Cheevers provided rock solid tending. Only The Habs and Islanders were better
that year.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Park didn't separate from the other best Dmen in 1976-77 and 1977-78. Potvin, Robinson and Salming were very close (Salming) or better than Park the two years they went to the SCF.

By 1978-79, Park similar to Orr had bad knees. Yet Boston still had a very strong season in 1978-79 with Park missing almost 50% of the season.
They managed with a D Corp of Milbury, Redmond, Sims, Doak, and R. Smith. Gilbert\Cheevers provided rock solid tending. Only The Habs and Islanders were better
that year.

OK, they replaced Orr with one of the best defensemen in the game.

Much credit to Don Cherry, being the perfect coach for those Bruins teams.

At that point, Ratelle was a better player than Esposito. They also added McNabb and Middleton up front in 1976-77. Terry O'Reilly was their leading scorer in 1977-78 with 90 points. And with Jonathan, Wensink, Cashman and O'Reilly they were an intimidating force.

 

[KillerMillerTime]

OK, they replaced Orr with one of the best defensemen in the game.

Much credit to Don Cherry, being the perfect coach for those Bruins teams.

At that point, Ratelle was a better player than Esposito. They also added McNabb and Middleton up front in 1976-77. Terry O'Reilly was their leading scorer in 1977-78 with 90 points. And with Jonathan, Wensink, Cashman and O'Reilly they were an intimidating force.

Yes Cherry and Sinden did good jobs after Philly eliminated them in the SF.
Sinden stole Middleton and McNab though McNab had the bigger impact
in the '77 and '78 SCF runs. Middleton broke out in '78-79 but they got very good play
out of players that were part of at least one of the 3 "Orr" Cup runs.

Cheevers or Gilbert were part of all 5 SCF appearances and both were on the
77 and 78 Finalists. Doak, R. Smith and Sims on D and quite a few forwards
in Marcotte, Cashman, O'Reilly, Shepard, Schmautz and even Bucyk in '77 were important players and augmented Ratelle, McNab and Middleton.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Yes Cherry and Sinden did good jobs after Philly eliminated them in the SF.
Sinden stole Middleton and McNab though McNab had the bigger impact
in the '77 and '78 SCF runs. Middleton broke out in '78-79 but they got very good play
out of players that were part of at least one of the 3 "Orr" Cup runs.

Cheevers or Gilbert were part of all 5 SCF appearances and both were on the
77 and 78 Finalists. Doak, R. Smith and Sims on D and quite a few forwards
in Marcotte, Cashman, O'Reilly, Shepard, Schmautz and even Bucyk in '77 were important players and augmented Ratelle, McNab and Middleton.

And as much as it pains me to say it, Mike Milbury was really good in those seasons.

 

[KillerMillerTime]

And as much as it pains me to say it, Mike Milbury was really good in those seasons.

Yes he absolutely was. Making the '76 US Canada Cup Team jump started
that season for him.

 

[Mike C]

As a Sabres fan, I hated Bobby Orr because he was so dominant. He dictated play.

As a NYI fan, I felt the same about Gretzky

 

[KillerMillerTime]

As a NYI fan, I felt the same about Gretzky

Yeah, but at least your team split with Gretzky, including sweeping them in 1983.

 

[The Panther]

There is no way they were only average without Gretzky on the ice when they follow up with another 100 point center who was pretty good defensively in Mark Messier who generally had Glenn Anderson on his right side. I think player/line roles and deployment affects these numbers a lot. We have to be missing something.

The 80s' Oilers without Gretzky were certainly (at least in theory) better than average. That is, if the team had been built around, say, Mark Messier as their leadership / #1C / top guy, they would have done very well in the Smythe division and competed for a Cup or two. They might not have got there as fast as they did, and they might not have lasted as long as they did, but I still think they would have got there, if perhaps in a less dominating fashion.

But I think those underwhelming Gretzky-off-the-ice numbers tell us two interesting things (one about the team and one about Gretzky):

1) The Oilers with Gretzky (esp. up to 1986) were not a "normal" team in terms of offensive and defensive strategy. Their tendency, esp. against weaker clubs, was to blow them away in the first half of games (like, taking a 6-1 lead five minutes into the second period) so that the game was effectively over, and then play 'shinny' the rest of the night (giving up all sorts of chances---and thus goals---against). While this didn't much affect wins and losses, it did affect their goals against. A game that for most great teams in history would have ended 4-1 would end 7-5 or whatever, thus ballooning the goaltenders' GAAs and also reducing the goals for/against ratio.

2) Gretzky was not a normal superstar offensive player. What I mean is what Mark Howe said when he described Gretzky as determined, from the drop of the puck to the buzzer at 60 minutes, to get the puck into the other team's net as many times as possible. He never let up, even with one minute left in a game the Oilers were leading 12-2. And as we know, he was effective offensively whether on the ice with Kurri and Coffey or with McSorley and Muni.

I mean, check out the Oilers' plus/minus results here, at the end of January 1987 (after 52 games). There are a lot of good players on this club (mid-dynasty), so how can the plus/minus be this?:
+64 Gretzky (129 PTS)
+40 Tikkanen (55 PTS)
+38 Muni (17 PTS)
+30 Lowe (23 PTS)
+30 Kurri (73 PTS)
+28 Gregg (18 PTS)
+21 Anderson (52 PTS)
+20 Krushelnyski (36 PTS)
+12 Messier (74 PTS)
+12 Coffey (43 PTS)

Obviously, Gretzky was capable of going out and creating goals at even strength by his own initiative.

 

[Mike C]

Yeah, but at least your team split with Gretzky, including sweeping them in 1983

Fair enough but I knew he just had to get the first one and it was all over!