If Bobby Orr took a time machine from 1970 to 2017...

[authentic]

You're mixing up two different things here.

The human body has not evolved in the past 40 years, that's an obvious fact. I would argue that even the "hockey body" has just *barely* evolved during that timeframe. Compare Wayne Gretzky's physique to Patrick Kane's. Compare Carey Price's physique to Patrick Roy's. Compare Alex Ovechkin's physique to Mario Lemieux's. There are some differences (players are taller, and they've fine-tuned some aspects of nutrition and training) but by and large, the same general physique that was successful in 1980 is still successful in 2017. People are often shocked at seeing NHL players with their shirts off, because this is one sport where balance, motor coordination, and learned skills are all far more important than muscle mass. If you want to say that today's players are physically superior to those of Orr's era, you're not wrong -- but it's not an overwhelmingly important factor like it would be if we were talking basketball or football.

Separate from that, there's the visible performance on the ice. You're saying we can look at Orr and just "tell" that he's not as good as a modern player. But that's not remotely fair to a guy who's skating on tube skates, carrying a wooden stick, not even wearing a damn helmet, and sweating into a cotton jersey. There are SO many confounding factors involved, it's just crazy. I mean do you really think you could stick Joffrey Lupul in that equipment and he would look like his modern self?

In any case, I hope you don't actually believe your claims that the very best player on earth 40 years ago is worse than the 1000th best today (or whatever a bad AHL player would be). That's a manifestly ridiculous thing to say.

I see no possible way you could definitively say that he's not though. The very best player on earth 40+ years ago was the best player in a drastically different, and far less skilled hockey league. The level of difference there is undeniably vast, and of course it's due to the factors you mentioned I'm not new to the game or it's history, and I'm well aware any modern player wouldn't look nearly as impressive wearing that old equipment.

The main point is, there would be a large period of adjustment, infact it would go far beyond an adjustment, there is no way of telling any player of that time would even easily make the NHL today, including Orr. I get that players have proven to be effective through time and adapt as they got older throughout different eras, and I get that argument, but that's not what's being asked here. I find it extremely hard to believe, that in this time machine scenario, that any version of Orr that actually existed would take a single roster spot from any defenseman if he were invited to training camp. I would like to think he could jump from that time to the current league and be the best, and about a decade ago I convinced myself that may have been true, until I started being honest with myself.

 

[mja]

He'd be the best defenseman in the league. And Gretzky & Lemieux would be the best forwards. Those guys are all extreme outliers. Elite talent is elite talent, no matter the era.

The idea that today's fourth liners are as good as yesteryear's stars is ****ing ridiculous. Careers overlap. Jagr is still a top 6 forward at 45 despite clearly losing several steps. Gordie Howe had a 96 point season in 77-78 at age 49 in the same league 17/18 year old Wayne Gretzky had a 110 point season in just one year later in 78-79. 37 year old Mario Lemieux, a shell of his former self, had 91 points in 67 games in 02-03, beating prime 23 year old Joe Thornton in PPG, the same Joe Thornton who finished 4th in league scoring with 82 points at 36 years old only last year.

 

[Knave]

Let's be honest here.

It's like watching the retired players in their 50s and 60s before the real winter classic takes place.

 

[SpookyTsuki]

Probably get 60-70 points

 

[PensPlz]

Probably get 60-70 points

Only if it were a hot tub time machine.


Just adapting to everyday life alone would be a big enough distraction to not be able to play hockey anywhere near the caliber of modern athletes.

 

[authentic]

He'd be the best defenseman in the league. And Gretzky & Lemieux would be the best forwards. Those guys are all extreme outliers. Elite talent is elite talent, no matter the era.

The idea that today's fourth liners are as good as yesteryear's stars is ****ing ridiculous. Careers overlap. Jagr is still a top 6 forward at 45 despite clearly losing several steps. Gordie Howe had a 96 point season in 77-78 at age 49 in the same league 17/18 year old Wayne Gretzky had a 110 point season in just one year later in 78-79. 37 year old Mario Lemieux, a shell of his former self, had 91 points in 67 games in 02-03, beating prime 23 year old Joe Thornton in PPG, the same Joe Thornton who finished 4th in league scoring with 82 points at 36 years old only last year.

So 49 year old Gordie Howe straight from 1978 puts up how many points in todays NHL?

 

[tarheelhockey]

I see no possible way you could definitively say that he's not though. The very best player on earth 40+ years ago was the best player in a drastically different, and far less skilled hockey league, the difference is huge, and of course it's due to the factors you mentioned I'm not new to the game or it's history, and I'm well aware any modern player wouldn't look nearly as impressive wearing that old equipment.

The main point is, there would be a large period of adjustment, infact it would go far beyond an adjustment, there is no way of telling any player of that time would even easily make the NHL today, including Orr. I get that players have proven to be effective through time and adapt as they got older throughout different eras, and I get that argument, but that's not what's being asked here. I find it extremely hard to believe, that in this time machine scenario, that any version of Orr that actually existed would take a single roster spot from any defenseman if he were invited to training camp. I would like to think he could jump from that time to the current league and be the best, and about a decade ago I convinced myself that may have been true, until I started being honest with myself.

Again, we are talking about the hands-down unanimous best player on Planet Earth over the entirety of his 12 year career, who was by all accounts easily the best player from the origin of the organized game of hockey circa 1870 until at least 1980, a span of 110 years. And by not-uncommon accounts, an even better player than Gretzky and any of his contemporaries, etc etc.

And your contention is that this man could not skate, pass, shoot, and think the game well enough to beat out Guillaume Lepine or Kayle Doetzel for a job.

What's interesting is that you said you were once accepting of a false narrative, until you became more honest with yourself. And here you are doubling down on an obviously dogmatic position...

 

[authentic]

It's like watching the retired players in their 50s and 60s before the real winter classic takes place.

Yep. Goes to show you how much better the 80s and 90s players were than the 60s and 70s. I find it truly remarkable that anyone would seriously argue a player from before 1980 would absolutely be one of the best today with the skill they actually had, or could improve upon in a short period of time with the new equipment. The game then was not comparable in skill level to Junior A hockey from 15 years ago. That's a group of teenagers btw, 99.9% of whom are not even close to approaching the NHL... 15 years ago. Don't even get me started on the goalies.

 

[dd91]

I find it truly remarkable that anyone would seriously argue a player from before 1980 would absolutely be one of the best today with the skill the actually had, or could improve upon in a short period of time with the new equipment. The game then was not comparable in skill level to Junior A hockey from 15 years ago. That's a group of teenagers btw, 99.9% of whom are not even close to approaching the NHL... 15 years ago. Don't even get me started on the goalies.

100% agree here. And it doesn't mean that Orr or Howe should be respected less for what they did and how much they dominated over their peers.

 

[authentic]

Again, we are talking about the hands-down unanimous best player on Planet Earth over the entirety of his 12 year career, who was by all accounts easily the best player from the origin of the organized game of hockey circa 1870 until at least 1980, a span of 110 years. And by not-uncommon accounts, an even better player than Gretzky and any of his contemporaries, etc etc.

And your contention is that this man could not skate, pass, shoot, and think the game well enough to beat out Guillaume Lepine or Kayle Doetzel for a job.

What's interesting is that you said you were once accepting of a false narrative, until you became more honest with yourself. And here you are doubling down on an obviously dogmatic position...

Everything you've said here has nothing to do with the evolution of the game after Orr retired. It's not his fault the game made drastic improvements to the point where a 1970 hockey game is not even comparable in skill level, especially in goaltending, to a modern Junior A game. It's like claiming the best player from a significantly worse league than that will become a great player in the NHL, if we look at it strictly from an observable skills perspective. Yeah, such a player very well could, since every player has worked their way up throughout their lives, and usually the cream rises to the top. The problem is though, that what you say may be even slightly likely if the talent pool was similar in his day as it is today, even if the skill was still what it was, but the fact is it wasn't close. It was strictly Canadian players in a rapidly expanding 6-12 team league, with goalies who didn't go down and their most common form of save was the spread eagle and dead fish. Let's not get started with the pace of the game, the puck movement, and defensive coverage. It was hysterical compared to modern hockey, and I find it shocking that anyone would try to convince anybody he would be anything special in todays NHL. He was the best of his time and as video evidence would suggest, it's probably best to just leave it at that.

 

[KCC]

It's like watching the retired players in their 50s and 60s before the real winter classic takes place.

that's exactly what crossed my mind as I was watching. They looked like they were playing in a senior league or something. But it was a different time for sure and the game has clearly evolved.

 

[tarheelhockey]

To attempt to give a serious answer to the question, the main problems I expect Orr would encounter:

1) Playing with a helmet and visor is a whooooole different game than playing with just your hair. Orr and his peers had to play the game within the boundaries of their willingness to be severely injured and potentially killed. That meant no sliding to block shots, no flying full speed into corners, no trying to concuss anything that moved. The fundamental instincts of the game involved restraint, which is largely gone from today's game. He'd have to re-wire those instincts in order to play in today's NHL, especially when it comes to skating full speed into contact.

2) Modern rockered skates are different enough from old tube skates that you'd expect an adjustment period. So the question is, are you giving him a summer to train and get used to the new balance points? Or are you just throwing him out there in a style of skate he's never worn in his life? That seems significant.

3) Orr's NHL was a read-and-react league, whereas today's NHL is a quick-twitch-reaction type league. He would have to get used to reading the ice differently. Are you expecting Orr to just jump right into a game without knowing his team's system, having to figure it out on the fly, or are you giving him some time to learn the modern game and practice with his teammates?

4) Orr skated 2-3 minute shifts without raising an eyebrow. The short shift game, which began in the 1980s, is one of THE major tide shifts of the past half century. And naturally that has an impact on the human body. A time-machine Orr whose body is adjusted to doing long-shift cardio challenges is going to have a hard time jumping into a game where he's supposed to skate 40 seconds flat-out and then get off the ice. That aspect of the game would, without a doubt, require a change in his physical training in order to keep up.

I mean it's safe to say that if he steps out of the time machine and you throw a stick in his hands and say "go", he's gonna struggle. Anybody would, including modern stars, if they had no idea what was expected of them and were basically just running around figuring it out by trial and error. If you give him a reasonable amount of time to get up to speed on what's happening and how he fits in, that's a very different story.

 

[King 88]

No hope, old stars are over hyped todays players and all athletes are so much more professionals.

 

[authentic]

100% agree here. And it doesn't mean that Orr or Howe should be respected less for what they did and how much they dominated over their peers.

I totally agree as well. It is amazing to look back at how much better Orr was than the rest of the players of his era, but realistically he does not compare in any way at all to the elite players of recent times. He may have skated faster than a few of the slower ones, and that's about all we can say for certain.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Everything you've said here has nothing to do with the evolution of the game after Orr retired. It's not his fault the game made drastic improvements to the point where a 1970 hockey game is not even comparable in skill level, especially in goaltending, to a modern Junior A game. It's like claiming the best player from a significantly worse league than that will become a great player in the NHL, if we look at it strictly from an observable skills perspective. Yeah, such a player very well could, since every player has worked their way up throughout their lives, and usually the cream rises to the top. The problem is though, that what you say may be even slightly likely if the talent pool was similar in his day as it is today, even if the skill was still what it was, but the fact is it wasn't close. It was strictly Canadian players in a rapidly expanding 6-12 team league, with goalies who didn't go down and their most common form of save was the spread eagle and dead fish. Let's not get started with the pace of the game, the puck movement, and defensive coverage. It was hysterical compared to modern hockey, and I find it shocking that anyone would try to convince anybody he would be anything special in todays NHL. He was the best of his time and as video evidence would suggest, it's probably best to just leave it at that.

Let me ask a very simple question:

What do you think a modern game would look like, in terms of speed and strategy, if every shift was at least 2 minutes long, and the stars were routinely double-shifted for 4-5 minutes straight?

Do you think it would look more like that 1970 game, or more like a 2017 junior A game?

 

[tarheelhockey]

It's like watching the retired players in their 50s and 60s before the real winter classic takes place.

that's exactly what crossed my mind as I was watching. They looked like they were playing in a senior league or something. But it was a different time for sure and the game has clearly evolved.

Yes, the game was much slower when players were skating 2-3 minutes at a time... without helmets.

If you watch that film with those factors in mind (never mind the weight of equipment, quality of skates, quality of ice, etc) it very quickly comes to make sense that they're not just flying full-blast up and down the ice like we see today.

 

[authentic]

To attempt to give a serious answer to the question, the main problems I expect Orr would encounter:

1) Playing with a helmet and visor is a whooooole different game than playing with just your hair. Orr and his peers had to play the game within the boundaries of their willingness to be severely injured and potentially killed. That meant no sliding to block shots, no flying full speed into corners, no trying to concuss anything that moved. The fundamental instincts of the game involved restraint, which is largely gone from today's game. He'd have to re-wire those instincts in order to play in today's NHL, especially when it comes to skating full speed into contact.

2) Modern rockered skates are different enough from old tube skates that you'd expect an adjustment period. So the question is, are you giving him a summer to train and get used to the new balance points? Or are you just throwing him out there in a style of skate he's never worn in his life? That seems significant.

3) Orr's NHL was a read-and-react league, whereas today's NHL is a quick-twitch-reaction type league. He would have to get used to reading the ice differently. Are you expecting Orr to just jump right into a game without knowing his team's system, having to figure it out on the fly, or are you giving him some time to learn the modern game and practice with his teammates?

4) Orr skated 2-3 minute shifts without raising an eyebrow. The short shift game, which began in the 1980s, is one of THE major tide shifts of the past half century. And naturally that has an impact on the human body. A time-machine Orr whose body is adjusted to doing long-shift cardio challenges is going to have a hard time jumping into a game where he's supposed to skate 40 seconds flat-out and then get off the ice. That aspect of the game would, without a doubt, require a change in his physical training in order to keep up.

I mean it's safe to say that if he steps out of the time machine and you throw a stick in his hands and say "go", he's gonna struggle. Anybody would, including modern stars, if they had no idea what was expected of them and were basically just running around figuring it out by trial and error. If you give him a reasonable amount of time to get up to speed on what's happening and how he fits in, that's a very different story.

Well yeah, the bolded obviously. I just find it hard to believe he would still end up being that great in the modern NHL even if we give him however long it takes in lower leagues to get used to the modern game, infact I don't even think it would be a given that he would for sure eventually make the NHL. Those factors you listed are actually very big ones, but I'm sure he would more than get the hang of it if he really wanted to. There is a big difference between getting the hang of it though, and going on to become better than players who grew up in the time he travelled by actually playing the game. If he was born in 1987, who knows, maybe he would be one of the best, and maybe he wouldn't. In every possible scenario there are just too many factors involved to tell, but the time machine one is the only one we can speculate on, because it takes what we actually saw and what actually was, and places it into what we actually see and what actually is. See what I'm saying?

 

[tarheelhockey]

Well yeah, the bolded obviously. I just find it hard to believe he would still end up being that great in the modern NHL even if he give him however long it takes in lower leagues to get used to the modern game, infact I don't even think it would be a given that he would for sure eventually make the NHL. Those factors you listed are actually very big ones, but I'm sure he would more than get the hang of it if he really wanted to. There is a big difference between getting the hang of it though, and going on to become better than players who grew up in the time he travelled by actually playing the game. If he was born in 1987, who knows, maybe he would be one of the best, and maybe he wouldn't. In every possible scenario there are just too many factors involved to tell, but the time machine one is the only one we can speculate on, because it takes what we actually saw and what actually was, and places it into what we actually see and what actually is. See what I'm saying?

I mean, if you're basically saying that a person can't learn something starting at age 25 as well as they could have if they started at age 2, then I completely agree.

 

[authentic]

Let me ask a very simple question:

What do you think a modern game would look like, in terms of speed and strategy, if every shift was at least 2 minutes long, and the stars were routinely double-shifted for 4-5 minutes straight?

Do you think it would look more like that 1970 game, or more like a 2017 junior A game?

The skill level and skating ability (the main thing in question here) would obviously still be what it is. The pace of the game though? Still much greater than it was then, but much less than it is today. There would be points where it resembled today's hockey and a lot of it would be much like it was in the 90s. Give them all the old equipment, and yeah of course there will be quite the difference. I believe you know very well though how much better Crosby/McDavid/Karlsson are in actual skill level (regardless of why, and knowing very well you have no idea how they would compare if they switched birthdates) than Orr/Hull/Esposito. We know it makes sense that the roles would be reversed, but then we would be dealing with entirely different players than the ones that actually exist in reality.

 

[authentic]

I mean, if you're basically saying that a person can't learn something starting at age 25 as well as they could have if they started at age 2, then I completely agree.

Well... yeah, that, and the small part about him warping through 40 years of the most evolutionary period of sports history. It would be akin to taking the best Atari player and sending him to the future to dominate modern computer games.

 

[OrrNumber4]

The skill level and skating ability (the main thing in question here) would obviously still be what it is. The pace of the game though? Still much greater than it was then, but much less than it is today. There would be points where it resembled today's hockey and a lot of it would be much like it was in the 90s. Give them all the old equipment, and yeah of course there will be quite the difference. I believe you know very well though how much better Crosby/McDavid/Karlsson are in actual skill level (regardless of why, and knowing very well you have no idea how they would compare if they switched birthdates) than Orr/Hull/Esposito. We know it makes sense that the roles would be reversed, but then we would be dealing with entirely different players than the ones that actually exist in reality.

How do you explain players like Jagr and Selanne dominating several different eras? How do you explain Lemieux crushing his competition at age 37 (and with health problems)?

A counter-argument could be made that the short-shift game has put an emphasis on size, speed, stamina, and strategical execution vs. actual skill, especially for bottom-six players. Players operate in an almost mechanical fashion.

 

[tarheelhockey]

The skill level and skating ability (the main thing in question here) would obviously still be what it is. The pace of the game though? Still much greater than it was then, but much less than it is today.

I don't see the pace of the game being any greater than it was then, if for no other reason than that the game is so highly structured now that it would basically just be two teams in defensive shells all the time.

When trap hockey took over in the late 90s, the solution was to beat teams in transition. Wait for a seam to appear, and haul ass up the ice before it could close up again. When they took the red line out, even more so you needed guys to be flying full speed as much as possible. That turned short shifts into SUPER short shifts, because you needed your guys to be skating full-blast during that split second of opportunity for a stretch pass.

In an NHL with long shifts, those opportunities would be moot. Nobody's going to beat a defenseman to the vertical seam after they've already been skating for 2 minutes. So the solution to the trap would have to be calculated, plodding attacks. Probably something along the lines of approaching your own blue line, drop pass, the next guy gets it almost to the red line, drop pass, the next guy gets it far enough to dump it in, chase, grind, hope for a turnover.

It would be S-L-O-W hockey. I kind of hate that I brought it up, because now I'm imagining having to watch it and it hurts my brain a little.

 

[Eternal Leaf]

He'd get schooled.

I'd rather have Brett Lebda.

 

[authentic]

How do you explain players like Jagr and Selanne dominating several different eras? How do you explain Lemieux crushing his competition at age 37 (and with health problems)?

A counter-argument could be made that the short-shift game has put an emphasis on size, speed, stamina, and strategical execution vs. actual skill, especially for bottom-six players. Players operate in an almost mechanical fashion.

They're all time great hockey players who evolved with the game? I know all about Lemieux's comeback, I witnessed it and it's probably the most impressive performance I've seen in sports history, but I also happen to believe that Lemieux is the best player ever (or would be today if totally healthy and access to today's advantages). But he retired in 2006, not in the 70s...

And yes the modern game does place emphasis on those, except it's not in exchange for actual skill, as you should be able to clearly see for yourself. I personally believe the game is far less entertaining today than it was because of the fast paced, no time no space game it's evolved into. It just makes it that much more impressive that a young player like McDavid is able to score 100 points in such a league.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Well... yeah, that, and the small part about him warping through 40 years of the most evolutionary period of sports history. It would be akin to taking the best Atari player and sending him to the future to dominate modern computer games.

I think it would be more like taking a legendary cross-country runner who has always raced in a track suit and soccer cleats, and throwing him into a 1-mile race against National Team runners wearing proper attire. I mean it's entirely possible that he could be the "best runner" in that race and still not win, on account of being suddenly thrown into a new set of equipment and immediately asked to do something that his body isn't physiologically trained to do at a competitive level.

Give him a reasonable amount of time to re-train and get used to his new environment, and perhaps he actually does start winning that race. At the end of the day he's still a superior athlete to some guy who happened to be good in college. There's a reason he was a legend and millions of other people weren't.

Raise him from the ground up in that environment, and of course he's going to be better than the version of himself that wasn't. That seems like a given.