I am too young to remember him playing for the Bruins, but I grew up knowing that he was the king of the NHL. Almost everyone said he was the greatest ever. Though none of us remembered him, we used to argue and sometimes actually fight over who was going to be Bobby Orr when we played street hockey. He was and still is that much of a legend.
I actually have a Bobby Orr jersey on its way to my house, and I hope it comes today! I also hope they don’t mistakenly send me a Maple Leafs jersey…
So… there are actually a couple of posts about Orr that I want to share. I cut and saved them when the forum went through the so-called upgrade a while back. The first was from a poster named
@DannyGallivan. His post about Orr is my favorite hockey-related post I’ve ever read here. This was from a thread that asked if Orr was still considered the best defenseman ever:
“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.”
Pretty compelling argument, huh?
The next post I’m going to share is another rescue from the forum reboot. This is actually my favorite post that I have ever written. The topic was ‘who would have had the better career if they hadn’t gotten injured? Orr or Lemieux?’
Here’s my answer (slightly edited):
“Both players have two Stanley Cup championships. Both have two Conn Smythe awards. Pretty even there. Lemieux has six Art Ross awards to Orr's two. However, since Orr is a defenseman, I think the fact he has even one Art Ross on his resume is more impressive since no other defenseman has had one. Has another defenseman even finished number two in scoring? If so, my money would be on Paul Coffey. I digress...
I guess I'm going to make my stand based on one series. That would be the infamous 1979 "Too Many Men on the Ice" series against the Canadiens. I was four years old at the time, so I don't remember it. I had other priorities and it was on past my bedtime.
Anyway, the Bruins battled the mighty dynastic Canadiens to an absolute standstill and it took a colossal Bruins blunder and the greatest goal Guy LaFleur ever scored for Montreal to win the series. As it stands, it is in my opinion the greatest series in NHL history. I despise the result, but for drama, I can't think of a better series ever.
So what happens if a healthy Bobby Orr (still playing for Boston) plays in that series in an alternate timeline?
I have to believe that a healthy Orr would have been the difference in Game 7.
Let’s assume that Coach Cherry still replaces Cheevers with Gilbert after Game Two.
In our universe, Games One; Two; and Five were decided by two; three; and four goals respectively. In the alternate universe, I'll assume that Montreal still wins those games - but with the addition of Bobby Orr, the scores are much closer.
I'll also assume that the Bruins win Games Three, Four, and Six at home just as they did in our timeline. In our universe, Games Three and Four were decided by one goal. Game Six was decided by three goals. The Bruins were gaining momentum.
Which brings us to Game Seven. History as we know it has the Bruins losing 5-4 in overtime.
But with Orr and Park on defense together, once the Bruins built their lead, they would more likely than not add to it, or at least maintain it. But how would Orr do offensively? There really IS no way of knowing. What I did was take Orr's career playoff stats and average them out like he was in a bowling league. In 74 career playoff games, Orr averaged .351 goals per game; .891 assists per game; and 1.243 points per game. So, over this seven game series, lets say he had a line of 3-6-9. I did a little rounding up to make some of the numbers work. I don't think that's a bad line for this series. It puts Orr behind Guy Lafleur's 12 points and ties Jean Ratelle's 9 points for the series. Very good for a defenseman, I think.
I believe that Orr sets up at least one more Boston goal in regulation and the Bruins survive the Montreal onslaught in the third period. The too many men on the ice penalty becomes a footnote as the Bruins hold on for a 5-4 win in regulation and easily dispose of the Rangers in the Finals.
So, what's my point? My point is that Orr earns a signature playoff triumph against a dragon he was never able to slay in our timeline. What is or would be Mario's? This wasn't trouncing the expansion St. Louis Blues in a four game sweep. This was a hockey donnybrook that resulted in a 15 round knockout. Yes, Orr still has his iconic 1970 Cup-clincher, but he never had a series like this one. Only the 2004 ALCS triumph of the Red Sox over the Yankees could compare to the '79 Semi-Final had it gone the Bruins' way. It paves the way for a THIRD Stanley Cup championship for Orr; possibly a third Conn Smythe (however, I think Gilles Gilbert gets it); and makes Orr a hero in a bitterly contested series for the ages. Orr's Bruins even take a nice big bite out of the Montreal dynasty to boot. Even had Mario Lemieux remained healthy, would he EVER have faced anyone as fearsome as the 1979 Canadiens? No. No way in hell.
This one game in this one series changes so much for Bobby Orr. Leaving 1979 aside for a moment - could there have been other Stanley Cup championships? Maybe. More scoring and bigger stats? Absolutely. The whole structure of the NHL changes with a healthy Orr skating for the Boston Bruins.”
Happy birthday, Mr. Orr.
Thank you for everything.