Explain why Bobby Orr is consensus best D?

[Voight]

In short:

- he won the scoring title twice as a freaking defenseman - and it wasn't in a weak era either.
- he won the Hart 3x, winning once is hard enough for a defenceman but 3? Ooof.
- came in 3rd for the Norris as an 18 year old
- every healthy season after that he won it with relative ease
- if he plays an average career of 1,200-1,500 games, he more than likely hits 2,000 points (especially given his career would have stretched into the 80s)
- the lowest he ever placed in voting for any ward was a 6th place Hart finish his rookie year

 

[BobbyAwe]

Simple, compare him to his peers. The guy was putting up 2-3x more points than the 2nd highest scoring dman in the NHL.

No player in the NHL has dominated their peers as much as Orr did during his time. That's the main reason why i think having Orr ahead of Gretzky isn't far fetched (like Bowman does), he re-defined a position and annihilated every other dman in the league in terms of production.

But there is a LOT more talent in the league than there was in his time. The talent pool is always increasing. And also, as far as him scoring twice as much as any other defenseman back then, you have to remember that his style was revolutionary at the time. No one had ever seen a defenseman rush to that extent. Like Babe Ruth in baseball when he came and started hitting all those homeruns. At first he was hitting more homers that most TEAMS, but that couldn't last because soon there were, and have been ever since, players that started hitting a lot of home runs BECAUSE of the influence of Ruth. He changed his game in that respect as Bobby did his in his own way. But neither Babe or Bobby would dominate their respective sports TO THE EXTENT THEY DID WHEN WHAT THEY WERE DOING WAS NEW in generations that came afterwards. It can certainly be argued that Orr was the greatest ever, but he wouldn't dominate the game since then to the EXTENT he did in his own day..

 

[DannyGallivan]

1. Orr did not do more than Wayne Gretzky in each's 8.5 first seasons. I would argue he did notably less.
2. Longevity has a little bit to do with luck, but also a lot to do with a player's awareness and choices. Orr has said several times that he himself is to "blame" for his shortened career, because he intentionally played a rushing style that got him in trouble along the boards, etc. The matter is, would Orr have been "Orr" if he didn't play that style? You could say the same about Lindros. Gordie Howe, after injuries at the start of his career, made a choice to be a mean SOB who elbowed opponents in the head before they had a chance to do the same to him; Gretzky made a choice to play as light as a feather and avoid being hit. Both had long careers. This wasn't all down to luck.

Gretzky's coach/manager made a choice to have Dave Semenko protect his a__. Lindros was made of glass, which was certainly bad luck.

And Orr was a defenseman. He could have been a 200 point centerman as well, but Gretzky would never have been able to play defense like Orr.

Bobby was the best.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Of course there is: Longevity. It is a glaring weakness. Orr played 8.5 seasons (sort of).

Longevity just happens to have an extremely low value among hockey fans relative to fans of other sports.

That said I still think Orr is the greatest D man, as in, if I were a GM knowing I would only get 8.5 seasons of Orr, I still take him over Ray Bourque's 17 consecutive seasons of being a top 5 defenseman plus the rest of his career. If people think that's a no-brainer, then I don't think they have thought things through properly.

Your argument is about who had the better career, not who was the better player.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Your argument is about who had the better career, not who was the better player.

Fully understand, but I hate that distinction.

The objective for every player is precisely the same: to help their team win as much as possible. You can trim it down to a season or a peak or a prime and say one player helped the most in an isolated time frame - while ignoring the larger time frames - but every player and every GM would much rather they do it in a sustained fashion like Ray Bourque, Gordie Howe, and Wayne Gretzky did. To focus on best is to unnecessarily omit key events.

You would say they are the best but not the greatest. I would say that the whole point of being the best is to become the greatest - or as close as possible to it. A 'best' list is insignificant relative to a 'greatest' list.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Fully understand, but I hate that distinction.

The objective for every player is precisely the same: to help their team win as much as possible. You can trim it down to a season or a peak or a prime and say one player helped the most in an isolated time frame - while ignoring the larger time frames - but every player and every GM would much rather they do it in a sustained fashion like Ray Bourque, Gordie Howe, and Wayne Gretzky did. To focus on best is to unnecessarily omit key events.

You would say they are the best but not the greatest. I would say that the whole point of being the best is to become the greatest - or as close as possible to it. A 'best' list is insignificant relative to a 'greatest' list.

Not sure I'm comprehending this correctly.

Does this mean the greatest players were the ones who did the most to help their teams win?

 

[Midnight Judges]

Not sure I'm comprehending this correctly.

Does this mean the greatest players were the ones who did the most to help their teams win?

yes. Whereas best is typically defined in terms of peak effectiveness without regard to durability or longevity.

 

[BraveCanadian]

The talent pool is always increasing.

I agree with some of what you are saying about Ruth and Orr playing in new ways that broke the game in their times but this point quoted above is very much up for debate.

 

[JaegerDice]

The gap between him and the rest of the field at the time he played was larger than the gap between any other elite dman and the field since.

When you're that much better than everybody else you play against, the impression you leave will be larger.

 

[CartographerNo611]

Crosby- 1 season with 120 points (current "best" player)

Orr- 4 seasons with 120 points, 2 with a 130 points... as a defenseman

Coffey- 3 120 point seasons on a Gretzky/Messier team

Karlsson- 0 120 point seasons

 

[Conbon]

Does anyone know where I can watch some Orr footage? I remember watching one game and it seemed he rushed the puck a lot but certainly didn't seem like the best defensively. Curious to see whether it was just the game I watched or whether it's nostalgia/legend influencing people's opinion of him.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Does anyone know where I can watch some Orr footage? I remember watching one game and it seemed he rushed the puck a lot but certainly didn't seem like the best defensively. Curious to see whether it was just the game I watched or whether it's nostalgia/legend influencing people's opinion of him.

The Hockey News had Orr ranked as both the top Defensive Defensman of all time and the top Offensive Defenseman of all time.

 

[JackSlater]

From what I understand of Orr's defence, not having watched him live but having seen various games from different years he played in and having read about him, his defence in the traditional sense was not the best (ie positioning and whatnot) but his overall effectiveness defensively was up there with nearly anyone else. Orr had elite hockey sense and probably the greatest physical tools of any defenceman ever, so when he focused on defence he was elite. Given that Orr was also probably the best offensive player in hockey for most of his career (you can argue Esposito and that's fine) he played a huge role in creating offensively. Of course, dominating the puck offensively through breakouts or even sustained play in the offensive zone helps defensively too.

We also can't forget Orr's high placement when coaches were asked about the best defensive defenceman in hockey. He also won the Norris trophy twice and finished third once (along with 6th, 4th and 3rd in Hart voting) before his point totals became obscene in 1970. Those things don't happen if a player is bad defensively. Bobby Orr before his offensive breakout had a peak better than that of almost any defenceman in history and easily worthy of HHOF enshrinement. This is no defensive slouch.

 

[Tarantula]

His biggest strength defensively was his ability to handle the puck and how he could kick his speed up effortlessly. He would seemingly blow past other players all the time. He didn't need to play regular defensive positioning any where near as often as any one else would have to.

His skating was tops, he looked like he had a manual transmission while everyone else a automatic. He could change gears and effortlessly it seemed wind his speed up in a matter of strides. No one has been that ahead of their peers in this regard as he was.

 

[85highlander]

Orr had elite hockey sense and probably the greatest physical tools of any defenceman ever, so when he focused on defence he was elite.

That "elite hockey sense," and the rockets he had for skates, allowed him to gamble and STILL get back to the defensive end. Notice in this clip how Orr starts in the offensive zone, turns on the jets to retrieve the puck in the defensive zone, carries the puck back into the offensive zone, puts a shot on goal, and finishes near the crease. All in a shift's work for Bobby Orr....

 

[cupcrazyman]

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.

Harry Howell " I'm glad i won the Norris because Bobby Orr is going to win it for the next 7 years " .

 

[reckoning]

Bobby Orr's "with or without you" stats:
Boston
'67: with Orr - 16-36-9 -- without Orr 1-7-1
'68: with Orr - 23-14-9 -- without Orr 14-13-1
'69: with Orr - 38-14-15 -- without Orr 4-4-1
'72: with Orr - 53-12-11 -- without Orr 1-1-0
'73: with Orr - 43-16-4 -- without Orr 8-6-1
'74: with Orr - 49-16-9 -- without Orr 3-1-0
'76: with Orr - 6-1-3 -- without Orr 42-14-14
Chicago
'77: with Orr - 9-7-4 -- without Orr 17-36-7
'79: with Orr - 3-2-1 -- without Orr 26-34-14
Admittedly, the 67 Bruins were bad, and the 68 team was transitioning into becoming a contender. But from 69-74, a team that was always near the top of the NHL standings had a fairly mediocre 16-12-2 record without him.
Small sample size notwithstanding, the Chicago numbers are startling considering how wrecked his knees were by this point in his career.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Bobby Orr's "with or without you" stats:
Boston
'67: with Orr - 16-36-9 -- without Orr 1-7-1
'68: with Orr - 23-14-9 -- without Orr 14-13-1
'69: with Orr - 38-14-15 -- without Orr 4-4-1
'72: with Orr - 53-12-11 -- without Orr 1-1-0
'73: with Orr - 43-16-4 -- without Orr 8-6-1
'74: with Orr - 49-16-9 -- without Orr 3-1-0
'76: with Orr - 6-1-3 -- without Orr 42-14-14
Chicago
'77: with Orr - 9-7-4 -- without Orr 17-36-7
'79: with Orr - 3-2-1 -- without Orr 26-34-14
Admittedly, the 67 Bruins were bad, and the 68 team was transitioning into becoming a contender. But from 69-74, a team that was always near the top of the NHL standings had a fairly mediocre 16-12-2 record without him.
Small sample size notwithstanding, the Chicago numbers are startling considering how wrecked his knees were by this point in his career.

I love it when I see revealing stats that I never thought of nor knew existed. Thanks.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

Watch the tape.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Bobby Orr's "with or without you" stats:
Boston
'67: with Orr - 16-36-9 -- without Orr 1-7-1
'68: with Orr - 23-14-9 -- without Orr 14-13-1
'69: with Orr - 38-14-15 -- without Orr 4-4-1
'72: with Orr - 53-12-11 -- without Orr 1-1-0
'73: with Orr - 43-16-4 -- without Orr 8-6-1
'74: with Orr - 49-16-9 -- without Orr 3-1-0
'76: with Orr - 6-1-3 -- without Orr 42-14-14
Chicago
'77: with Orr - 9-7-4 -- without Orr 17-36-7
'79: with Orr - 3-2-1 -- without Orr 26-34-14
Admittedly, the 67 Bruins were bad, and the 68 team was transitioning into becoming a contender. But from 69-74, a team that was always near the top of the NHL standings had a fairly mediocre 16-12-2 record without him.
Small sample size notwithstanding, the Chicago numbers are startling considering how wrecked his knees were by this point in his career.

i think this tells us two things, neither of which have anything to do with the chicago sample:

1. as i think you're suggesting, orr was vital to that powerhouse boston team. everything that team did on both ends of the ice and in the entire middle went through him. he elevated everyone, whether it's cashman/espo/hodge and bucyk/stanfield/mckenzie no longer outscoring the opposition when he wasn't in the lineup, or marcotte/sanderson/westfall no longer shutting everyone down.

but otoh, it also tells that 2. until '74, they didn't have a suitable orr replacement. because they didn't need one; they had bobby orr and a reasonable expectation that he would be healthy. after that ceased to be the case, they picked up brad park, who could do bobby orr things but not at the bobby orr level. and they destroyed the competition when orr was out of the lineup (42-14-14).

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

so marty brodeur was an amazing goalie right? probably the fifth best goalie of all time, no worse than seventh. now let's imagine his really really fantastic ability to play the puck was unfathomably out of this world. let's pretend he would regularly spring guys on two-on-ones and breakaways. let's say he is so incredibly good at generating offense that in his best years (say, '03 to '08), he's regularly among the league leader in assists and even leads the league a couple of times. let's not to crazy, he's not putting up 100 assists to top thornton in his best years, but pretend brodeur puts up around 60 assists in the '04 season and around 70 in '08.

okay this is still insane right? completely out of the realm of possibility and no one would ever imagine such a thing could ever happen in a million years?

obviously there are magnitudes of degrees that we're jumping here, but you guys get my point?

(no player had ever put up 80 assists in a single season before orr got 102. he beat the old record by 25. he more than doubled the previous record for assists by a defenseman. when he scored 40 goals, actually 46, the previous record for a defenseman was 25.)

 

[James Walker]

Bobby Orr's "with or without you" stats:
Boston
'67: with Orr - 16-36-9 -- without Orr 1-7-1
'68: with Orr - 23-14-9 -- without Orr 14-13-1
'69: with Orr - 38-14-15 -- without Orr 4-4-1
'72: with Orr - 53-12-11 -- without Orr 1-1-0
'73: with Orr - 43-16-4 -- without Orr 8-6-1
'74: with Orr - 49-16-9 -- without Orr 3-1-0
'76: with Orr - 6-1-3 -- without Orr 42-14-14
Chicago
'77: with Orr - 9-7-4 -- without Orr 17-36-7
'79: with Orr - 3-2-1 -- without Orr 26-34-14
Admittedly, the 67 Bruins were bad, and the 68 team was transitioning into becoming a contender. But from 69-74, a team that was always near the top of the NHL standings had a fairly mediocre 16-12-2 record without him.
Small sample size notwithstanding, the Chicago numbers are startling considering how wrecked his knees were by this point in his career.

Now do Orr's plus minus in the playoffs, by season and maybe exclude games against the expansion St. Louis Blues who automatically got into the finals their first 3 seasons.

 

[BobbyAwe]

I agree with some of what you are saying about Ruth and Orr playing in new ways that broke the game in their times but this point quoted above is very much up for debate.

The evolution and development of hockey in Russia, Europe, U.S. and the greater population of Canada since the era of Bobby Orr is "up for debate"?

 

[BobbyAwe]

Crosby- 1 season with 120 points (current "best" player)

Orr- 4 seasons with 120 points, 2 with a 130 points... as a defenseman

Coffey- 3 120 point seasons on a Gretzky/Messier team

Karlsson- 0 120 point seasons

There is no way Orr and Coffey would put up the numbers they did in the 70's/80's as young players in today's game. Goals/points were much easier to come by in their eras. There are several reasons for this but the main one is the goaltending today is far superior. There is really no debate about it.

 

[Sentinel]

In short:

- he won the scoring title twice as a freaking defenseman - and it wasn't in a weak era either.

Well... this was the first expansion. 1970-71 and 74-75 is the era of Dead Wings and California Gold Seals.

- he won the Hart 3x, winning once is hard enough for a defenceman but 3? Ooof.

Shore won 4.