how good was Orr ?

[revolverjgw]

I once heard it put that Gretzky dominated on the scoreboard and Orr dominated on the ice.

You heard wrong. Gretzky was the best player on twice as many Cup winning teams as Orr was, so his contributions were also probably fairly ice-related.

 

[#66]

This thread is remarkably Chooch-free so far. Are the rumours of his banning true?

For what? This thread is actually a good example of why chooch is chooch. Plus, aside from the Gretzky bashing, he's not a bad poster.

 

[Zine]

They don't have to, Gretz' career needs no help, BUT, had ORR played as long as he wanted to, as sure as the sun sets in the west ORR would have excelled to the very end and surely affirmed his place as the BEST EVER! Lest we forget ORR's last full year he was 28 yrs. old! Each year of his career he got better and better. Where would he have peaked??

That simple gents. If he played today he'd be head and shoulder above the rest. What Dman in todays NHL has even a snowballs chance in hell to win the Art Ross Trphy??????????????? ANYBODY?

I'm not so sure how better Orr would have been had he continued to play. Would Orr at 35 be significantly better than he was at 27?

Part of Orr's mystique comes from the fact that fans never saw him on the downside of his career. He basically retired in his prime. His stats never took a hit in terms of ppg production or what-not either. Gretzky played waaayyy past his prime and by his late 30's was a shell of his former self.

As someone else pointed out, had Gretzky retired at the same age Orr did, I think he'd be untouchable:

GP G A PTS PIM
696 583 1,086 1,669 323
8 Hart Trophies
7 First All-Star Teams
1 Second All-Star Team
2 Conny Smythe Awards
5 Lester B. Pearson Awards
7 Art Ross Trophies

I mean 8 Harts in 9 years is downright insane. Orr won 3.

 

[arrbez]

For what? This thread is actually a good example of why chooch is chooch. Plus, aside from the Gretzky bashing, he's not a bad poster.

I'm not sure I've ever seen him post in a non-Gretzky thread

 

[#66]

I'm not sure I've ever seen him post in a non-Gretzky thread

Thats the shame of it he actually knows his hockey and alot about the Habs. I agree that he can get annoying but at least he's trying to be that way and again chooch was made just like alot of Crosby haters were made.

 

[#66]

I'm not so sure how better Orr would have been had he continued to play. Would Orr at 35 be significantly better than he was at 27?

Part of Orr's mystique comes from the fact that fans never saw him on the downside of his career. He basically retired in his prime. His stats never took a hit in terms of ppg production or what-not either. Gretzky played waaayyy past his prime and by his late 30's was a shell of his former self.

As someone else pointed out, had Gretzky retired at the same age Orr did, I think he'd be untouchable:

GP G A PTS PIM
696 583 1,086 1,669 323
8 Hart Trophies
7 First All-Star Teams
1 Second All-Star Team
2 Conny Smythe Awards
5 Lester B. Pearson Awards
7 Art Ross Trophies

I mean 8 Harts in 9 years is downright insane. Orr won 3.

The funny thing was that he was still one of the better players in the game.

As for Orr's prime, I think a hockey player peaks at 28-33 so I'm not sure we've even seen his best. Plus I don't think I've ever seen another player own the pace of a game like Orr. Like I said in another post, he seemed to have the puck 80% of the game. From what I've seen of him, Doug Harvey gets an HM but I've never seen him in his prime. Plus he was a different type of player. Drawing players to him in the defensive zone and freeing forwards up with his outlet passes.

 

[KariyaIsGod*]

For what? This thread is actually a good example of why chooch is chooch. Plus, aside from the Gretzky bashing, he's not a bad poster.

How is this thread an example of that?

Preferring Gretzky over Orr is a cause for totally overblown and irrational hate of Wayne???

I don't think so. You can't go wrong choosing either player.

 

[#66]

How is this thread an example of that?

Preferring Gretzky over Orr is a cause for totally overblown and irrational hate of Wayne???

I don't think so. You can't go wrong choosing either player.

It has nothing to do with Gretzky himself or anybody choosing to peg him as the all time best. It does have everything to do with Gretzky fans saying his was the best skater, had the best shot, was great defensively because of something he did with his stick, had better hair than Kurri and so on.

Why couldn't this be an Orr thread? Why does every post that calls someone the best but Gretzky have to be bombarded with stats? People get annoyed with being forced to love a player and makes for an unjust hate. There are debate threads in which people can voice their own opinion and go back and fourth. Just let people have their own opinion without eight posts of "...but Gretzky...".

 

[Rookie Chargers]

If Gretzky was forced to retire after 9 season like Orr did, everyone would be saying the same thing about Wayne.

Ha! Someone has been challenged to a duel. I think he will not be flying down.

 

[Rookie Chargers]

a lot of the youngin's here ask me from time to time.

I got a hold of this....it sums it up better than I can by guys that know alot more than me. But man, he was something to see.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1fMcTq8Esk

Thanks Wally. I have a video ''The Best Of Bobby Orr'' and it is well worth ordering through the internet. I get shivers, goose bumps and teary eyed when I watch it. I also feel a little heart ache and emptiness too. Amazing how watching someone on skates can make you feel that way.

 

[Sens Rule]

I'm not so sure how better Orr would have been had he continued to play. Would Orr at 35 be significantly better than he was at 27?

Part of Orr's mystique comes from the fact that fans never saw him on the downside of his career. He basically retired in his prime. His stats never took a hit in terms of ppg production or what-not either. Gretzky played waaayyy past his prime and by his late 30's was a shell of his former self.

As someone else pointed out, had Gretzky retired at the same age Orr did, I think he'd be untouchable:

GP G A PTS PIM
696 583 1,086 1,669 323
8 Hart Trophies
7 First All-Star Teams
1 Second All-Star Team
2 Conny Smythe Awards
5 Lester B. Pearson Awards
7 Art Ross Trophies

I mean 8 Harts in 9 years is downright insane. Orr won 3.

Had Gretzky retired after 9 seasons his legend would be smaller. He would not be as high on every all-time list as he is. (Howe and Orr and Lemieux would be above him on many lists) Gretzky was a shadow of only his former 200 pt+ early 20's self by the time he retired, he was by no means a shadow of a player. The length of Gretz career adds to his legend and does not subtract. His 1993 playoffs are as mouch of the legend of Gretzky as the Cups he won. He wins the 1994 scoring title.

Orr's short career does not add to his legend it subtracts from it. People who believe Orr is more legendary for having left early in his career and never having to play are forgetting that in his last full season after his knees were shot he led the NHL in scoring and had 46 goals. Then after that he was Canada's best player at the 1976 Canada Cup. Had Orr not been injured there is little reason to think his downside would have come for a very long time. He turned 32 in March of 1980. Most top NHL D-Men are still at their peak at age 32. Bourque's best seasons were in the early 90's, Chelios was at his peak in Chicago in his early to mid 30's. Coffey who is thought to have stuaed to long won the Norris at nearly age 34 in 1995 and had perhaps his best all-around season that year.

If Orr had played longer and not been injured he likely has at least 5 more insanely productive seasons from 75-76 through 79-80. Probably topping 100 points and 30 goals in each one of them and challenging for the scoring title each season. He also likely winning the Norris trophy each year. Also the Bruins were a very good team after Espo and Orr left in the mid-late 70's. With a healthy Orr maybe they win another Stanley Cup?

So assume this is what happened. At the end of 79/80 Orr has 11 straight 100 point seasons, 13 straight Norris trophies. He has likely around 1450 points and 400 goals. And he is only 32. Let's say he plays 3 more years and retires in 1983 at age 35. Those years are great but not as great as Orr has been before. Let's say in 1981 he only gets in 60 games and scores 75 points and finally loses his grip on the Norris and is only a 2nd team All-Star. Then in 1982 he plays the full season puts up 92 points and is again the Norris trophy winner beating out Doug Wilson. In 1983 he decides it will be his last season. He plays 70 games and gets 82 points is a 2nd team All-Star.

So he plays until age 35, that is 17 seasons. He has 11 100 point years, wins 14 Norris Trophies. Is a first team All-Star 14 times and a 2nd team 3 times. He finishes with 1700 points and 460 goals both All-time best marks by a defenceman and at the time of his retirement puts him second to only Gordie Howe in career points.

This is a not improbable scenario for Orr had his knees not been injured and if he had played for as long as Horton, Stevens, Chelios or Bourque his legend would even have been greater.

There is no way that Orr would not have been more highly regarded if he had played a longer career. He left the game at his absolute peak. It is not irrational to think he may have actually had his best 2 or 3 seasons between the age of 27 and 32. He could have topped 140 or 150 points or got 50 goals. He could have won another 2 scoring titles.

If Orr plays 5-10 more seasons he would be the definitve #1 overall player of All-time and not Gretzky.

 

[Gerry4001]

Had Gretzky retired after 9 seasons his legend would be smaller. He would not be as high on every all-time list as he is. (Howe and Orr and Lemieux would be above him on many lists) Gretzky was a shadow of only his former 200 pt+ early 20's self by the time he retired, he was by no means a shadow of a player. The length of Gretz career adds to his legend and does not subtract. His 1993 playoffs are as mouch of the legend of Gretzky as the Cups he won. He wins the 1994 scoring title.

Orr's short career does not add to his legend it subtracts from it. People who believe Orr is more legendary for having left early in his career and never having to play are forgetting that in his last full season after his knees were shot he led the NHL in scoring and had 46 goals. Then after that he was Canada's best player at the 1976 Canada Cup. Had Orr not been injured there is little reason to think his downside would have come for a very long time. He turned 32 in March of 1980. Most top NHL D-Men are still at their peak at age 32. Bourque's best seasons were in the early 90's, Chelios was at his peak in Chicago in his early to mid 30's. Coffey who is thought to have stuaed to long won the Norris at nearly age 34 in 1995 and had perhaps his best all-around season that year.

If Orr had played longer and not been injured he likely has at least 5 more insanely productive seasons from 75-76 through 79-80. Probably topping 100 points and 30 goals in each one of them and challenging for the scoring title each season. He also likely winning the Norris trophy each year. Also the Bruins were a very good team after Espo and Orr left in the mid-late 70's. With a healthy Orr maybe they win another Stanley Cup?

So assume this is what happened. At the end of 79/80 Orr has 11 straight 100 point seasons, 13 straight Norris trophies. He has likely around 1450 points and 400 goals. And he is only 32. Let's say he plays 3 more years and retires in 1983 at age 35. Those years are great but not as great as Orr has been before. Let's say in 1981 he only gets in 60 games and scores 75 points and finally loses his grip on the Norris and is only a 2nd team All-Star. Then in 1982 he plays the full season puts up 92 points and is again the Norris trophy winner beating out Doug Wilson. In 1983 he decides it will be his last season. He plays 70 games and gets 82 points is a 2nd team All-Star.

So he plays until age 35, that is 17 seasons. He has 11 100 point years, wins 14 Norris Trophies. Is a first team All-Star 14 times and a 2nd team 3 times. He finishes with 1700 points and 460 goals both All-time best marks by a defenceman and at the time of his retirement puts him second to only Gordie Howe in career points.

This is a not improbable scenario for Orr had his knees not been injured and if he had played for as long as Horton, Stevens, Chelios or Bourque his legend would even have been greater.

There is no way that Orr would not have been more highly regarded if he had played a longer career. He left the game at his absolute peak. It is not irrational to think he may have actually had his best 2 or 3 seasons between the age of 27 and 32. He could have topped 140 or 150 points or got 50 goals. He could have won another 2 scoring titles.

If Orr plays 5-10 more seasons he would be the definitve #1 overall player of All-time and not Gretzky.

Well put. Makes you wanna cry.

All kids, and everbody else, ever talked about for the last 30 years was Lafleur, Gretzky, Mario, Gretzky, Mario, Gretzky, Mario, Lafleur, Gretzky, Mario, Gretzky, Mario, Gretzky, Jagr, Gretzky, Gretzky, Gretzky, Gretzky, Gretzky... know nothin'.

Orr made the modern game what it is and on top of that, how he was treated by his agent and the Bruins. Well... won't go into that now.

 

[Trottier]

Plus I don't think I've ever seen another player own the pace of a game like Orr.

Bingo. You have to have seen Orr to appreciate his game, his greatness. One respects the fact that many here did not have that privilege, and, as such, have to fall back on stats and trophies.

To those of us who did, such factors are irrelevant. If you saw the guy, you understand. Numbers and silverware were secondary (and he was prolific in accumulating both).

This was perfection on ice.

 

[skullman80]

It makes me sad that I was too young to see a guy like Orr play when he was in the NHL. I feel like I was robbed of something.

 

[KariyaIsGod*]

It has nothing to do with Gretzky himself or anybody choosing to peg him as the all time best. It does have everything to do with Gretzky fans saying his was the best skater, had the best shot, was great defensively because of something he did with his stick, had better hair than Kurri and so on.

Why couldn't this be an Orr thread? Why does every post that calls someone the best but Gretzky have to be bombarded with stats? People get annoyed with being forced to love a player and makes for an unjust hate. There are debate threads in which people can voice their own opinion and go back and fourth. Just let people have their own opinion without eight posts of "...but Gretzky...".

Well, to be fair, he was a very elusive skater blessed with a fair amount of speed. His slapshot is aruguably the most accurate of all-time and his defense is underrated.

To answer your qeustion, it was an ORR supporter who brought up Gretzky in the second post of this thread...

Many people said that there was Bobby Orr and then there was everyone else. These same people claim that they should have invented another league for Bobby Orr.

My Dad has often told me that Gretzky in his prime wouldn't be fit to lace Orr's skates when Orr was in his prime.

There's no forcing to love Gretzky there.

More importantly, if somebody posted a Gretzky thread and I came along saying that Orr didn't deserve to clean the bugs off the front of Wayne's car, you don't tihnk soem Orr fans would react?

 

[Steveorama]

I mean 8 Harts in 9 years is downright insane. Orr won 3.

In fairness, keep in mind Orr was a dman. Since 1950, the Hart has been won by defensemen only 4 times (Orr X 3 and Pronger once).
Most of the hockey writers who vote for the Hart feel the Norris is for the best dman, so how else can you recognize the best forward except with the Hart trophy.
Besides, it is easy for those guys to point at the stats and say, "see, he IS the MVP".
Unless you believe that virtually ALL of the most valuable players are forwards, you have to assume there is a bias there.
I have been watching hockey for over 35 years. Gretzky and Lemieux were absolutely legendary players.
But there was only one Bobby Orr. And if I had to win a hypothetical game today using any player in history, I would choose Orr from his 1969-72 peak as my first choice.
He is the only player I have ever seen who looked...almost out of place on the ice. He looked like a man playing against boys a lot of the time.
For career value, Gretz is the best of all time.
For peak value, I'll take Orr.

 

[pappyline]

In fairness, keep in mind Orr was a dman. Since 1950, the Hart has been won by defensemen only 4 times (Orr X 3 and Pronger once).
Most of the hockey writers who vote for the Hart feel the Norris is for the best dman, so how else can you recognize the best forward except with the Hart trophy.
Besides, it is easy for those guys to point at the stats and say, "see, he IS the MVP".
Unless you believe that virtually ALL of the most valuable players are forwards, you have to assume there is a bias there.
I have been watching hockey for over 35 years. Gretzky and Lemieux were absolutely legendary players.
But there was only one Bobby Orr. And if I had to win a hypothetical game today using any player in history, I would choose Orr from his 1969-72 peak as my first choice.
He is the only player I have ever seen who looked...almost out of place on the ice. He looked like a man playing against boys a lot of the time.
For career value, Gretz is the best of all time.
For peak value, I'll take Orr.

Steveorama, You are almost right on the money. The easiest way for the voters to pick a Hart winner is to look at the scoring leader and this is why Gretz won 8 harts. No way did he really deserve to win that many. You cold also argue that Orr should have won more. you could put up a strong argument that he should of won 8 out of nine. He was certainly the most dominate player during that era. One has to remember the Hart vote is a subjective vote. It is for the most valuable player which can mean different things to different people.

I have been watching hockey for over 50 years and saw Howe, Hull, Orr. gretzy & Lemieux in their prime and Orr was definitely the best. I think if a poll was done of those that saw both Orr & gretzy (and others) in their prime, Orr would win hands down.

 

[Sens Rule]

Steveorama, You are almost right on the money. The easiest way for the voters to pick a Hart winner is to look at the scoring leader and this is why Gretz won 8 harts. No way did he really deserve to win that many. You cold also argue that Orr should have won more. you could put up a strong argument that he should of won 8 out of nine. He was certainly the most dominate player during that era. One has to remember the Hart vote is a subjective vote. It is for the most valuable player which can mean different things to different people.

I have been watching hockey for over 50 years and saw Howe, Hull, Orr. gretzy & Lemieux in their prime and Orr was definitely the best. I think if a poll was done of those that saw both Orr & gretzy (and others) in their prime, Orr would win hands down.

Bobby Clarke won 3 Harts away from Orr. And I think the voters must have been thinking "who is most valuable to their team" which is what they were supposed to do. As great as Orr was Clarke may well have been more valuable to the Flyers than Orr was to the Bruins, or at least it's really close. Clarke was the heart of those teams and at least Orr always had Esposito. I think if the Hart went to the "Most outstanding player" then Orr wins 5 or 6 Hart trophies.

As an aside I think the NHL recently seems to give the Hart to the 'best player' more than they give it to the most valuable player, not all the time but more than they did in the past.

 

[pappyline]

Bobby Clarke won 3 Harts away from Orr. And I think the voters must have been thinking "who is most valuable to their team" which is what they were supposed to do. As great as Orr was Clarke may well have been more valuable to the Flyers than Orr was to the Bruins, or at least it's really close. Clarke was the heart of those teams and at least Orr always had Esposito. I think if the Hart went to the "Most outstanding player" then Orr wins 5 or 6 Hart trophies.

As an aside I think the NHL recently seems to give the Hart to the 'best player' more than they give it to the most valuable player, not all the time but more than they did in the past.

Exactly my point. In the 70's the voters actually voted the Hart according to who they thought was most valuable to their team and i think in previous years this was the way it was done, That is why guys like Al Rollins, Chuck Rayner, and Bobby clark won it. For some reason it became a top scorer award in the 80's. thank god, it has reverted back to an MVP award in recent years.

 

[04' hockey]

You heard wrong. Gretzky was the best player on twice as many Cup winning teams as Orr was, so his contributions were also probably fairly ice-related.

Gretzky also played more than twice as long, SO, 4 cups to 2, same % vs. yrs. played - and Edmonton won without Gretzky, salutations to Mr. Messier, who by the way won a Cup with the NYR.

 

[04' hockey]

Had Gretzky retired after 9 seasons his legend would be smaller. He would not be as high on every all-time list as he is. (Howe and Orr and Lemieux would be above him on many lists) Gretzky was a shadow of only his former 200 pt+ early 20's self by the time he retired, he was by no means a shadow of a player. The length of Gretz career adds to his legend and does not subtract. His 1993 playoffs are as mouch of the legend of Gretzky as the Cups he won. He wins the 1994 scoring title.

Orr's short career does not add to his legend it subtracts from it. People who believe Orr is more legendary for having left early in his career and never having to play are forgetting that in his last full season after his knees were shot he led the NHL in scoring and had 46 goals. Then after that he was Canada's best player at the 1976 Canada Cup. Had Orr not been injured there is little reason to think his downside would have come for a very long time. He turned 32 in March of 1980. Most top NHL D-Men are still at their peak at age 32. Bourque's best seasons were in the early 90's, Chelios was at his peak in Chicago in his early to mid 30's. Coffey who is thought to have stuaed to long won the Norris at nearly age 34 in 1995 and had perhaps his best all-around season that year.

If Orr had played longer and not been injured he likely has at least 5 more insanely productive seasons from 75-76 through 79-80. Probably topping 100 points and 30 goals in each one of them and challenging for the scoring title each season. He also likely winning the Norris trophy each year. Also the Bruins were a very good team after Espo and Orr left in the mid-late 70's. With a healthy Orr maybe they win another Stanley Cup?

So assume this is what happened. At the end of 79/80 Orr has 11 straight 100 point seasons, 13 straight Norris trophies. He has likely around 1450 points and 400 goals. And he is only 32. Let's say he plays 3 more years and retires in 1983 at age 35. Those years are great but not as great as Orr has been before. Let's say in 1981 he only gets in 60 games and scores 75 points and finally loses his grip on the Norris and is only a 2nd team All-Star. Then in 1982 he plays the full season puts up 92 points and is again the Norris trophy winner beating out Doug Wilson. In 1983 he decides it will be his last season. He plays 70 games and gets 82 points is a 2nd team All-Star.

So he plays until age 35, that is 17 seasons. He has 11 100 point years, wins 14 Norris Trophies. Is a first team All-Star 14 times and a 2nd team 3 times. He finishes with 1700 points and 460 goals both All-time best marks by a defenceman and at the time of his retirement puts him second to only Gordie Howe in career points.

This is a not improbable scenario for Orr had his knees not been injured and if he had played for as long as Horton, Stevens, Chelios or Bourque his legend would even have been greater.

There is no way that Orr would not have been more highly regarded if he had played a longer career. He left the game at his absolute peak. It is not irrational to think he may have actually had his best 2 or 3 seasons between the age of 27 and 32. He could have topped 140 or 150 points or got 50 goals. He could have won another 2 scoring titles.

If Orr plays 5-10 more seasons he would be the definitve #1 overall player of All-time and not Gretzky.

What else can or need be said.....as Mr. Howe said when Orr had to retire, "the greatest loss ever for pro hockey".

 

[turnbuckle*]

Let's take it a step further. Scoring went up in the 80's as the league continued to add players - a healthy Orr with his talent may very well have produced another ten 100+ point seasons as the quality of play deteriorated. Can you imagine Orr facing the Maple Leaf/New Jersey Devils teams from the early 80's....he would have had a field day.

Bernie Nicholls scores 70 goals in the 80's....... Orr in his early 30s scores 50+ goals and 160+ points.

I'm willing to bet that a healthy Orr could have played until 1990 (hey..if chelios can play 20+ seasons), and accumulated more than 2,000 points.

Lest we forgtet that Orr still holds records for defencemen despite the league going through an advanced scroing period. We should also remember that he played the majority of his games in the Original Six division - pretty much every game he was facing Montreal, the Rangers, the Leafs....all tough teams in the late 60s and early 70s, yet he still managed to produce astounding point totals.

alas...we will never know what Orr could have done. Pretty hard to discount Gretzky's accomplishments though. I would agree that Gretzky had the greaterst career ever, but Orr in his prime was the greatest player ever IMO. Nobody dominated the game physically like Orr, and he was an incredible passer, which I don't think has been mentioned. Orr's vision was incredible as well, don't fool yourself.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Bingo. You have to have seen Orr to appreciate his game, his greatness. One respects the fact that many here did not have that privilege, and, as such, have to fall back on stats and trophies.

To those of us who did, such factors are irrelevant. If you saw the guy, you understand. Numbers and silverware were secondary (and he was prolific in accumulating both).

This was perfection on ice.

It's kinda funny that this topic is up now, as Father's Day just passed. Ever year at Father's Day (And Christmas and my Dad's Birthday.) I bemoan the lack of a best of Bobby Orr DVD set. Orr was my Dad's favourite player back in the day, and it would be such the perfect gift, something we could both enjoy together, and really, that's what Father's Day should be about.

I'm sure many hockey loving Dad's and and sons of hockey loving Dad's would agree.

I so wish I could get a chance to see Orr play a full game, not just highlights. A real missed oppertunity.

 

[ClassicHockey]

There are plenty of complete games of Orr playing available.

.
I so wish I could get a chance to see Orr play a full game, not just highlights. A real missed oppertunity.

 

[Steveorama]

For those who never saw Orr play a complete game, buy the 1976 Canada Cup DVD set. Orr won MVP in that tourney, yet his knee was so badly injured he could not even practise and needed help to tie up his skates.
Now, imagine the Orr you see playing in those games skating twice as fast...that was Bobby Orr in 1969-72.