Explain why Bobby Orr is consensus best D?

[The Panther]

Just seeing some of this third period, Boston @ Toronto, Oct. 28th 1966 --- Bobby Orr is 18 years old and it's his fourth NHL game. (It's the final season of the "original six".)

Impressive shift by Orr starting around here... He's defensively solid and nearly sets up a game-winner:

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Just seeing some of this third period, Boston @ Toronto, Oct. 28th 1966 --- Bobby Orr is 18 years old and it's his fourth NHL game. (It's the final season of the "original six".)

Impressive shift by Orr starting around here... He's defensively solid and nearly sets up a game-winner:

Just seeing some of this third period, Boston @ Toronto, Oct. 28th 1966 --- Bobby Orr is 18 years old and it's his fourth NHL game. (It's the final season of the "original six".)

Impressive shift by Orr starting around here... He's defensively solid and nearly sets up a game-winner:

Instant exceleration. Orr used it both offensively and defensively.

Going to the end of the game, 18 year-old Orr is on the ice in a 3-3 game and brings the crowd to its feet with one more rush up ice.

 

[40BayStreet]

If you're a stats guy, look up the stats.
If you're an eye test guy, watch what he was doing.
If you're a Hockey Historian, look at how he changed the game.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I never watched Shore play, or a young Doug Harvey. All I can say is that Orr revolutionized the game. Before him, there were offensive Dmen like King Clancy, Red Kelly, and Doug Harvey, but no one dominated, and rushed the puck the way Orr did. He spawned a whole new way of playing for Dmen, and for offenses in general. Generational doesn’t even begin to cover what he did… more like he discovered a new dimension to hockey.

Orr was a phenomenon. He burst onto the scene and did things we had never seen before on a regular basis, and made other great players in the league look like minor leaguers. The only thing that could stop him was the odd hit(I.e. Pat Quinn), and his own body(knees). If he played in the modern era with arthroscopic surgery and far more protective rules against blindside and predatory hits he would’ve been far and away the best player to ever play.

I know this is the narrative, but Orr was doing something that had been seen before. Being a rover just fell out of favour for a while.

 

[57special]

I know this is the narrative, but Orr was doing something that had been seen before. Being a rover just fell out of favour for a while.

Maybe, back in the teens and 20's. However, Rover was an actual position, way back when they had 7 men on a team. It was part of that position to move all over the ice, but not necessarily to have a job to do in any one place. Orr would jump into, and lead the play into the offensive end(and back again, if he felt like it), but he also blocked shots like very few did back then, and was an excellent defender. Also could be physical with the best of them, if need be.

Offensive Dmen before Orr was guys like Pierre Pilote.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Yeah, I think the idea that "well, because a rover did it..." is a little off the mark. That's not that different than saying, "Orr isn't [this] because Howie Morenz also did [that]..."

It seems probable that Eddie Shore did this kind of stuff, but in a more clumsy fashion. Orr was better than everyone and he's on a copious amount of film doing it...

 

[KillerMillerTime]

Maybe, back in the teens and 20's. However, Rover was an actual position, way back when they had 7 men on a team. It was part of that position to move all over the ice, but not necessarily to have a job to do in any one place. Orr would jump into, and lead the play into the offensive end(and back again, if he felt like it), but he also blocked shots like very few did back then, and was an excellent defender. Also could be physical with the best of them, if need be.

Offensive Dmen before Orr was guys like Pierre Pilote.

He had the hardest and most accurate shot by a dman by far for about six years. It wasn't until Dennis Potvin and Reed Larson came in that people saw another dman with a very hard shot.

 

[Mike C]

Just wanted to quote this for emphasis. Orr's Bruins were not "stacked". They were an average team. He was an excellent player. Simple as that.

2.10 GF:GA at even strength with Orr on the ice, 1.05 without him. That says it all.

The perception of stacking is in large part due to how great #4 was and how much better everyone else became simply because of his presence

As someone astutely posted, it's like penalizing the guy for being so great

 

[jd1970]

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

 

[Fish on The Sand]

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.

I agree with most of what you said, but +/- has literally nothing to do with how strong or weak defensively somebody is. It is every bit an offensive stat as a defensive one, and is far more of a team stat than an individual one.

Orr primarily had strong+/- because he played on a strong team.

Put Orr on a garbage team and while he'd still be the same great player he'd have a much worse +/-.

 

[KillerMillerTime]

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

For some reason as a Bruin fan who hated the Sabres, I still remember a SI article
fairly early in Housley's rookie year, titled, "Maybe Orr, Maybe Not." It irked me comparing him to Orr literally less than 7 months after playing for South St. Paul HS, though Bowman was really savvy also taking Barrasso top 10 out of Acton-Boxboro HS the next year in '83.

Bowman took a hell of a chance doing that, so I wonder if the success of
Bobby Carpenter, coming out of a Mass HS program to a 32 Goal season his rookie year, made him not think twice.

 

[KillerMillerTime]

Just seeing some of this third period, Boston @ Toronto, Oct. 28th 1966 --- Bobby Orr is 18 years old and it's his fourth NHL game. (It's the final season of the "original six".)

Impressive shift by Orr starting around here... He's defensively solid and nearly sets up a game-winner:

Orr, Green, Awrey and Smith was their 4D 1967-68 and 1968-69 from this team.

Hard to believe Ed Westfall was on the PP late, instead of McKenzie. Some strange player utilization by Sinden. Incidentally, Oliver got crushed on the boards and was shaken up.

 

[Albatros]

Orr's Bruins were not "stacked". They were an average team.

In that expansion era the Atlanta Flames and the Minnesota North Stars came to be average teams. The Bruins were a powerhouse after 1967.

 

[KillerMillerTime]

In that expansion era the Atlanta Flames and the Minnesota North Stars came to be average teams. The Bruins were a powerhouse after 1967.

Boston was very close to winning a Cup in 1969. We will never know what real impact
Pat Quinn's crushing check had on Orr in the Montreal series. He was concussed
by Quinn and knowing today what concussions do it may have cost Boston
the Cup in 1969. That Boston vs Montreal series was a good one. I believe Boston lost
3 OT games.

 

[KillerMillerTime]

Indeed. Orr has the best "what if" career of anyone ever. But it wasn't to be. Orr was phenomenal in his short career against the weakest teams ever in NHL history. But those knees are part of his career. Orr is honestly the most romantisized player of all time. The king of could'vebeen.
Too short career for me.

You had too see him on a nightly basis. He scored the most spectacular goal I ever saw and it wasn't the flying Bobby.

He back handed a goal top corner from the corner...lol. I think it was against Montreal and possibly Dryden but not sure.

If someone has the video they should post it.

 

[RRhoads]

I find it hard to compare them different eras. Most dominant defenseman of any era? Most definitely.

 

[seventieslord]

In that expansion era the Atlanta Flames and the Minnesota North Stars came to be average teams. The Bruins were a powerhouse after 1967.

Yes, they were a powerhouse.... when Orr was on the ice.

When he wasn't.... average.

This is not a matter of opinion.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

In that expansion era the Atlanta Flames and the Minnesota North Stars came to be average teams. The Bruins were a powerhouse after 1967.

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

 

[MadLuke]

A team that still outscore the opposition when they're best player (often playing with there best player) are not necessarily average, it depends, I imagine it could have been superb in that era to do so. I doubt it was something the Flames-Wings-Pens were able to do.

And I feel it could be a depend on the season type of things.

Are they be Rangers/Hawks level of that era with a Park like level of D instead of Orr, better/worse? And would it be what people mean by powerhouse ? Or they have Bruins-Mtl level of that era in mind (maybe people speak over each other not disagreeing but using subjective unclear concept like powerhouse).

 

[Albatros]

Yes, they were a powerhouse.... when Orr was on the ice.

When he wasn't.... average.

This is not a matter of opinion.

They always had multiple other HHoFers and kept winning also after Orr's departure. Made back-to-back cup finals immediately without him. That's extremely far from an average team.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I agree with most of what you said, but +/- has literally nothing to do with how strong or weak defensively somebody is. It is every bit an offensive stat as a defensive one, and is far more of a team stat than an individual one.

Orr primarily had strong+/- because he played on a strong team.

Put Orr on a garbage team and while he'd still be the same great player he'd have a much worse +/-.

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.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

They always had multiple other HHoFers and kept winning also after Orr's departure. Made back-to-back cup finals immediately without him. That's extremely far from an average team.

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

 

[Mike C]

If you're a stats guy, look up the stats.
If you're an eye test guy, watch what he was doing.
If you're a Hockey Historian, look at how he changed the game.

And if you're an idiot, keep telling us how overrated he is

 

[seventieslord]

They always had multiple other HHoFers and kept winning also after Orr's departure. Made back-to-back cup finals immediately without him. That's extremely far from an average team.

I really don't care if there were multiple hall of famers involved. You can namedrop whoever you want. Scoring and allowing almost the exact same number of goals is exactly what an average team would do, and it's exactly what the Bruins did when Bobby Orr was not on the ice. This is a fact. I don't know why it's so hard for you to acknowledge.

 

[Albatros]

I really don't care if there were multiple hall of famers involved. You can namedrop whoever you want. Scoring and allowing almost the exact same number of goals is exactly what an average team would do, and it's exactly what the Bruins did when Bobby Orr was not on the ice. This is a fact. I don't know why it's so hard for you to acknowledge.

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.