Explain why Bobby Orr is consensus best D?

[Voight]

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


Shore won 4.

He did, which is amazing, but that was also with half the teams.

 

[Howie Hodge]

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.

Absolutely.

 

[67 others]

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


Shore won 4.

Defensemen merited such consideration for the Hart before the creation of their own trophy. Once the Norris came out, their consideration dropped to to "Well, they have their own trophy"

 

[67 others]

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.

Nobody would.

Does not really change the fact that they were often top 10 in scoring eclipsing forwards who were playing against those same goalies. In Orr's case, 1st, 2nd or 3rd 6 times.

So yeah, outscoring the Gordie Howe's, Bobby Hull's, Stan Mikita's, Bobby Clarke's and Guy Lafleur's and Marcel Dionne's before his knees were completely toast is pretty damn impressive. His knees were in bad shape early on too and he was still beating them AND playing rock solid defense.

 

[BraveCanadian]

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"?

That is not what you said. But in answer to your question, yes.

 

[zcaptain]

You speak the truth, PS. As you may have guessed, Bobby is my favorite all-time player (being a Bruin fan since 1968) but I too am a REALIST. The only thing I am certain of regarding Bobby is that he was the greatest player of his time and the time before him. Among the players of his day there was an overwhelming consensus he was the best, even Milt Schmidt and Gordie Howe said he was the most talented player they had ever seen and they dated back to the 40's and even 30's. However, you are right to point out that the league was watered down by 50% the year after Bobby came up and continued to add expansion teams at a great pace for the rest of his shortened career. Bobby wouldn't put up anywhere near the numbers as a young player today that he did back then, and even he has pointed that out. He's certainly in the mix as the greatest player ever but not a shoe-in. (I don't know how or if we can even accurately compare defensemen with forwards?) He was an extremely talented player with a revolutionary style which no one knew how to defend against at the time and he had as much heart as talent. He is rightfully a legend and that's where I leave it.

Well, I guess one way to gauge him is how many points he scored against his pears the year before he came into the NHL,
which might indicate how good he was in a non watered down league. (albeit junior)

My understanding of Orr was that he hit the OHL at 14? (Correct me if I am wrong), but my understanding was he was dominating at that age, against guys 19 and 20 years of old that went on to be HOF players in the NHL

So who were the stars in the OHL between 1962 to 1965? Well, in his first year he was at approx. 1.40 points a game,in his second year approx. 1.75 points a game, and in his last year exactly 2.00 points per game. Orr(or) approx.1.60 points per game.

So I could only go back to players born after 1962, but the closest was Bruce Cassidy who had a career average of 1.491, all others born after this have had lesser points per game averages. Conversely, Paul Coffey's (HOF) Junior Career never got over 1.45 points per game in his final season, and his average was approx. 1.30 points per game.

Denis Potvin(HOF) in the same 3 birth years (14, 15 16) scored at a pace of approx. 1.05 pts per game for those 3 years collectively. (He played 6 years in the OHL) (He started at 13 years old, impressive in it's own right) Orr had been in the NHL for 2 seasons at the same age as Potvin's last 2 years, winning a Rookie of the year, followed by what would be a 60 point season today, in his second year....again in the NHL...….

Brad Park.(HOF) I won't even go into...…...just less than the other 2 comparisons

In the end I guess, it is all semantics, and It was just wonderful to be able to watch Orr, and the rest of the greats...…

My biggest dream is, wouldn't it be great to dial it back and have all the greats play against each other, with the same equipment, and the same training, on the same ice, with the same medical available, and the same trainers...…at the same time!

"Rink of Dreams" Really!

 

[zcaptain]

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

Yes, and I believe his first year (in which he scored 41 points at 17 years old) was in the 6 team league...…..

 

[zcaptain]

He did, which is amazing, but that was also with half the teams.

I actually think the first expansion was the 1967 -68 season, a year after Orr came into the league

Pitts, Phili. Stl, LA, Oakland and Minnesota North Stars came in then........suck being old, but I still remember!

 

[BobbyAwe]

Well, I guess one way to gauge him is how many points he scored against his pears the year before he came into the NHL,
which might indicate how good he was in a non watered down league. (albeit junior)

My understanding of Orr was that he hit the OHL at 14? (Correct me if I am wrong), but my understanding was he was dominating at that age, against guys 19 and 20 years of old that went on to be HOF players in the NHL

So who were the stars in the OHL between 1962 to 1965? Well, in his first year he was at approx. 1.40 points a game,in his second year approx. 1.75 points a game, and in his last year exactly 2.00 points per game. Orr(or) approx.1.60 points per game.

So I could only go back to players born after 1962, but the closest was Bruce Cassidy who had a career average of 1.491, all others born after this have had lesser points per game averages. Conversely, Paul Coffey's (HOF) Junior Career never got over 1.45 points per game in his final season, and his average was approx. 1.30 points per game.

Denis Potvin(HOF) in the same 3 birth years (14, 15 16) scored at a pace of approx. 1.05 pts per game for those 3 years collectively. (He played 6 years in the OHL) (He started at 13 years old, impressive in it's own right) Orr had been in the NHL for 2 seasons at the same age as Potvin's last 2 years, winning a Rookie of the year, followed by what would be a 60 point season today, in his second year....again in the NHL...….

Brad Park.(HOF) I won't even go into...…...just less than the other 2 comparisons

In the end I guess, it is all semantics, and It was just wonderful to be able to watch Orr, and the rest of the greats...…

My biggest dream is, wouldn't it be great to dial it back and have all the greats play against each other, with the same equipment, and the same training, on the same ice, with the same medical available, and the same trainers...…at the same time!

"Rink of Dreams" Really!

Yes, but I'm AGREEING, not arguing against, the fact that he was the greatest player ever, up to and including his era. I'm just pointing out that we can't take his stats and automatically apply them, without adjustment, to the modern era, or even the earlier 6 team era. There is a reason Vic Hadfield scored 106 points and 50 goals (78 games) in 1971-72 when the most he ever scored in the 6 team league was 18 goals and 38 points (70 games). Or why Johnny Bucyk had 51 goals and 116 points in 1970-71 at 35 years old when he never came near those numbers as a younger player in the "Original 6". Or why even players like Danny Grant and Ken Hodge got 50 goals in a season in the 70's. The reason is the league was suddenly, and continually for the rest of their careers, watered down by a deluge of expansion teams. Also, in comparison to today and the recent era, goaltenders have much greater technique with better training conditioning, and equipment

 

[BobbyAwe]

...

 

[BobbyAwe]

That is not what you said. But in answer to your question, yes.

 

[therealkoho]

-It would of been way more impressive if there wasnt 12 teams in the league when he was playing with 6 new expansion teams at the height of the expansion era. 6 Teams were added in 1967, and all 6 of those teams added completely sucked. I also must point out that every player in the Orr era was Canadian. Now, Canadian players make up roughly 40% of the NHL since we are at a worldwide level.

-In short, Bobby Orr is arguably one of if not the best skater of all time. Ill give him that. He was terrific in his time. But Orr's stats would plummet in todays NHL. The speed game is much faster and while Orr abused his competition in the 1960s with speed on crap skates, he isnt Pavel Bure fast.

Borje Salming, Ed Kea, Thommie Bergmann ring a bell?

If Orr only had success against the expansion teams then your point would be highly relevant, why do you think he's not Bure fast?

Crap skates would matter if Bobby was wearing Bauer X900's but he was wearing Tacks just like everyone else. He was the fastest player in the NHL during his time, with better medical treatment his knees could've been a lot healthier and how much more dominant would he have been? As it was he played on one knee most of the time.

Players dominate because they have elite skills that surpass those of their contemporaries, there were many great players in his era and he skated by all of them, he outshot all them, he outhit all of them and he could out fight most of them. Don Cherry once said that even though they didn't keep official TOI stats in those days he figured Orr played about 30 mins a night on average and sometimes played an estimated 40mins some nights. Different game I know, but no one else was doing it or could do it

 

[adsfan]

Orr was a defenceman who led the NHL in scoring twice. No other Dman ever led the NHL in scoring (Art Ross).

Orr joined a Bruins team that was at the bottom of the NHL and he helped get them 2 Stanley Cups, their first in 29 years.

Orr won 8 Norris Trophies in a row, plus three consecutive Hart Trophies as the league's most valuable player and a Conn Smythe.

As far as I know, Orr is the only NHL player to win 4 awards in the same season.

Orr changed the game as an offensive defenceman. Previously, all defencemen were the stay-at-home type.

Orr was a demon at chasing the puck carrier and using his speed and stick to back check.

Orr gets my vote as the best Dman of all time. I put him in my top 4 as one of the greatest players of all time.

 

[Sentinel]

He did, which is amazing, but that was also with half the teams.

Half of Orr's teams? True, but that's not something that Beliveau or Richard ever accomplished.

 

[Sentinel]

Orr changed the game as an offensive defenceman. Previously, all defencemen were the stay-at-home type.

AFAIK that's not true at all. Shore, Harvey, and Kelly were anything but.

 

[zcaptain]

Yes, but I'm AGREEING, not arguing against, the fact that he was the greatest player ever, up to and including his era. I'm just pointing out that we can't take his stats and automatically apply them, without adjustment, to the modern era, or even the earlier 6 team era. There is a reason Vic Hadfield scored 106 points and 50 goals (78 games) in 1971-72 when the most he ever scored in the 6 team league was 18 goals and 38 points (70 games). Or why Johnny Bucyk had 51 goals and 116 points in 1970-71 at 35 years old when he never came near those numbers as a younger player in the "Original 6". Or why even players like Danny Grant and Ken Hodge got 50 goals in a season in the 70's. The reason is the league was suddenly, and continually for the rest of their careers, watered down by a deluge of expansion teams. Also, in comparison to today and the recent era, goaltenders have much greater technique with better training conditioning, and equipment

I do understand your point, but one could also argue that everything since the 1967 expansion has been watered down, including Gretzky, Mario, and Crosby. And including McDavid and Mathews.

That is actually why the Orr comparison in his junior years actually has some merit.....because he was so far ahead
of other greats that played before, and after expansion.

The fact that he scored 41 points in the pre-expansion era, at 18 years old is really unbelieveable………

Here is an interesting question though...…….is the new normal, normal? Have the greats since Orr been playing in a
watered down league, as you rightfully asked?

My thoughts on this are...….that you compare 18 year old's across a league (OHL) through it's entirety, and compare....but even still that does not explain future growth/development

It will assuredly be a question of debate to many years...…….all I know is that Orr was incredible, and out shone is piers
substantially during his reign. By using the Domino rationale, he was better than any other Dman, and most probably any other player ever

I can not wait until the next "Bobby Orr", as despite who he would play for, he will be a marvel to watch

 

[BobbyAwe]

I do understand your point, but one could also argue that everything since the 1967 expansion has been watered down, including Gretzky, Mario, and Crosby. And including McDavid and Mathews.

That is actually why the Orr comparison in his junior years actually has some merit.....because he was so far ahead
of other greats that played before, and after expansion.

The fact that he scored 41 points in the pre-expansion era, at 18 years old is really unbelieveable………

Here is an interesting question though...…….is the new normal, normal? Have the greats since Orr been playing in a
watered down league, as you rightfully asked?

My thoughts on this are...….that you compare 18 year old's across a league (OHL) through it's entirety, and compare....but even still that does not explain future growth/development

It will assuredly be a question of debate to many years...…….all I know is that Orr was incredible, and out shone is piers
substantially during his reign. By using the Domino rationale, he was better than any other Dman, and most probably any other player ever

I can not wait until the next "Bobby Orr", as despite who he would play for, he will be a marvel to watch

In Bobby's 2nd year the league went from 6 teams to 12. Over the next 6 years or so of his career, the league added 6 MORE expansion teams. This is like today's NHL going from 31 teams to over 90 teams in the next decade. How much more would Conner McDavid (for example) score if he feasted on this amount of expansion teams for the rest of his career with only the rising population in countries already contributing players to the NHL to dilute it? The reason that the talent pool began to catch up with the number of teams beginning basically after the 1970's, is that there was suddenly, and increasingly, a large number of players coming into the league from Europe and Russia and the U.S. The league is now basically 50% Canadien, 50% "other", which means, (considering that the population of Canada itself is also much bigger now,) the talent pool that supports a 31 team NHL is almost 4 times larger than the talent pool that supported 18 teams in, say, 1974. There's less than twice as many teams but 3 or 4 times as big a talent resource to make up those teams.

 

[adsfan]

AFAIK that's not true at all. Shore, Harvey, and Kelly were anything but.

Orr had six consecutive seasons of over 100 points. The low was 101 points in 63 games in 1972-73 with a high of 139 in 1970-71.

Eddie Shore's top season was 35 points in 48 games in 1932-33 (51 pts in 70 games). Shore won 4 Hart Trophies, including one season with 19 points.

Doug Harvey had 50 points in 70 games in 1956-57 and won 7 Norris Trophies. He seems to be the closest to Orr.

Red Kelly had 70 points in 64 games in 1960-61 and won 1 Norris Trophy and 4 Lady Bing Trophies.

The latter two players actually had some overlap with Orr. Shore could have scored more had he not spent 100 minutes in the penalty box 5 years.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Orr had six consecutive seasons of over 100 points. The low was 101 points in 63 games in 1972-73 with a high of 139 in 1970-71.

Eddie Shore's top season was 35 points in 48 games in 1932-33 (51 pts in 70 games). Shore won 4 Hart Trophies, including one season with 19 points.

Doug Harvey had 50 points in 70 games in 1956-57 and won 7 Norris Trophies. He seems to be the closest to Orr.

Red Kelly had 70 points in 64 games in 1960-61 and won 1 Norris Trophy and 4 Lady Bing Trophies.

The latter two players actually had some overlap with Orr. Shore could have scored more had he not spent 100 minutes in the penalty box 5 years.

Red Kelly played center for Toronto in 1960-61.

Pierre Pilote is probably the closest foreshadowing of Orr in terms of offensive output. But none of those guys played the offensive style Orr did.

 

[Kshahdoo]

Found an interesting opinion on Bobby Orr

"Bobby Orr was not that great defensively. He played as a 4th forward. He would frequently turn over the puck and be caught out of position. He was worth it because of how good offensively he was.

His "great defense" was very similar to Karlsson's, where you can't score if Orr is pushing the play 200 feet away from his net".

And more:

"Tell that to the 73 Rangers and 74 Flyers.

Their strategy, in the playoffs, was to dump the puck in to Orr's side of the ice. In 1973, that strategy led to a 4-1 series win for the Rangers. In 74, the Flyers beat Boston 4-2.

If you contrast that to players that are defensively excellent, like a Scott Stevens or a Nick Lidstrom, it would be considered crazy to actually dump the puck in to their side, because in Stevens case he'd take your head off, and in Lidstrom's case he'd make the perfect outlet pass.

Orr was a gambler. He was the best skater of his generation, but sometimes he'd try to go end to end, and it wouldn't work and the giveaway would directly lead to a goal against. You don't put up 130 points as a defenceman without making a bad play and having that wind up in your own net. Like I said, Erik Karlsson.

From that era, only from the defensive side of things, someone like Larry Robinson was better".

 

[Michael Farkas]

That person stinks. It's not all wrong, but it's conceptually ignorant...

I did a quick hitter here on Orr defensively, for instance... Bobby Orr's defensive prowess

 

[BraveCanadian]

Found an interesting oppinion on Bobby Orr

"Bobby Orr was not that great defensively. He played as a 4th forward. He would frequently turn over the puck and be caught out of position. He was worth it because of how good offensively he was.

His "great defense" was very similar to Karlsson's, where you can't score if Orr is pushing the play 200 feet away from his net".

And more:

"Tell that to the 73 Rangers and 74 Flyers.

Their strategy, in the playoffs, was to dump the puck in to Orr's side of the ice. In 1973, that strategy led to a 4-1 series win for the Rangers. In 74, the Flyers beat Boston 4-2.

If you contrast that to players that are defensively excellent, like a Scott Stevens or a Nick Lidstrom, it would be considered crazy to actually dump the puck in to their side, because in Stevens case he'd take your head off, and in Lidstrom's case he'd make the perfect outlet pass.

Orr was a gambler. He was the best skater of his generation, but sometimes he'd try to go end to end, and it wouldn't work and the giveaway would directly lead to a goal against. You don't put up 130 points as a defenceman without making a bad play and having that wind up in your own net. Like I said, Erik Karlsson.

From that era, only from the defensive side of things, someone like Larry Robinson was better".

I can only assume that was the opinion of someone who doesn't know what they are talking about. The Karlsson comparison is ridiculous.

The reason the tactics of the Rangers and Flyers worked so well was not that Orr was poor defensively.

Orr was one of the better defensemen in his own end as well. It goes without saying that when you play as aggressively as he did you're going to get caught more than a stay-at-homer, but he wasn't a liability by any means. However, similar to more recent one-line teams like Lindros' Flyers, or Marcel Dionne's Kings etc., Orr had no comparable on his club - either on his pairing or down the lineup. This tends to make for tremendous regular season adjusted plus-minus ratings for those type of players, but in the playoffs - where an opponent can gameplan around one key player or one line - you can end up in big trouble.

Throwing it into Orr's corner and forechecking him like mad was for two reasons:

1) by constantly blitzing him to limit the effectiveness of Orr's outlet pass or ability to rush out of the zone, you suppress the entire Boston team since no one else was remotely as good at it.

2) by making Orr work hard all the time and initiating contact with him as much as possible, you wear him down over a series.

 

[PrimumHockeyist]

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 flame wars.

To questions like this I would say, "You had to be there." The experience of seeing and reading about Orr day in day out is what sets him apart. Any statistical evaluation of his defensive game should involve his points and plus-minus, as well as traditional metrics, because in his case offence was part of his defensive game.

For me though, the most mythical thing about Orr occurred in 1976 when he was the Canada Cup MVP on one leg. Bobby Clarke, our captain that year, said he couldn't believe it. Orr could barely walk during most days, but then he'd turn everything around. And when Bobby Clarke speaks of somebody showing character like that, you can bet the character is exceptional.

What's 'mythic' about that, to me, is that Orr only lasted 26 NHL games after CC76 (I think), Something carried him through CC76 that Orr couldn't generate within himself afterwards

Orr was very much like McDavid in the real-time sense. You watched him, you saw that he was just flat-out better that everybody in certain respects. There will always be statistical correlations, but that is different than the direct experience.

 

[MadLuke]

You don't put up 130 points as a defenceman without making a bad play and having that wind up in your own net. Like I said, Erik Karlsson.

That person way to talk is close to quality of argument to something like saying something that rhyme and because it rhyme sound more solid.

One could have said, you do not end up on that list:

Rank	Player	+/-	Season
1.	Bobby Orr*	124	1970-71
2.	Larry Robinson*	120	1976-77
3.	Wayne Gretzky*	100	1984-85
4.	Dallas Smith	98	1970-71
5.	Guy Lafleur*	89	1976-77
	Steve Shutt*	89	1976-77
7.	Mark Howe*	87	1985-86
8.	Brad McCrimmon	86	1985-86
9.	Bobby Orr*	84	1973-74
10.	Bobby Orr*	83	1971-72

if you make bad play (that would be ridiculous to say, you just have to play with or be someone that make more good play than bad play)

 

[seventieslord]

Anyone who thinks Orr wasn't good defensively hasn't taken a good look at his goals against numbers.

(Son of) Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 1

Also if it works Orr's favor over Lemieux, Gretzky's Smythes came in 15-3 and 16-2 runs. Half of Orr playoff runs ended with Boston losing to an underdog opponent (71, 73, 74, 75). Orr has the least impressive playoff record despite playing the highest proportion of his playoff games against...

forums.hfboards.com