If Orr started playing in todays NHL

[RabbinsDuck]

In 1968 Orr finished 4th in hart voting and got 28 first place votes, do you really think this was based on his 31 points?

I'm ok with accepting Orr was better defensively when he was scoring 31 points versus his 100+ pt seasons

 

[Dark Shadows]

Let's not ignore he was tied with Arbour and Harris that year. Where would you rank them all-time defensively?

What does their all time ranking have to do with their play that year?

 

[Dreakmur]

Let's not ignore he was tied with Arbour and Harris that year. Where would you rank them all-time defensively?

Does it matter who he was tied with? You asked for proof that he was viewed as the best defensive defenseman. I think a coach's poll should do the trick...

 

[Boxscore]

Orr is the better all-around defenseman, by a fair amount, but Lidstrom was definitely better defensively - and has a fair chance at making a dent in Orr's 8 Norris trophies if they found themselves playing in the same era. That's all I have claimed.

Unfortunately, we will never have the chance to see Orr and Lidstrom vs. each other. But, I still don't think Lidstrom would touch Orr in Norris voting head-to-head, and this is no slight againt Lidstrom, as I consider him one of the best of all-time. But not only was Orr on par with Lidstrom defensively (for your sake, I will even say "close" to him), he was superior offensively and played a lot more physical and spirited game. All in all, there would be no fair way to award Lidstrom the Norris over Orr if they were in the same era. I just don't see it. Orr was just way too dominant. It has been said that Brad Park had the misfortune of playing during Orr's reign because he will never get the recognition he deserves. I think the same would have been said about Lidstrom - "Great defenseman who was in the shadow of Orr."

 

[RabbinsDuck]

What does their all time ranking have to do with their play that year?

Are you going to pick up the mantle that Orr was better than Lidstrom defensively or are you just quibbling for a Racial Slurrdly argument?

The point is, find me a defensive defenseman in the 00s viewed on an equal or better level defensively than Lidstrom as compared to the stock I listed earlier vs. Orr.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Unfortunately, we will never have the chance to see Orr and Lidstrom vs. each other. But, I still don't think Lidstrom would touch Orr in Norris voting head-to-head, and this is no slight againt Lidstrom, as I consider him one of the best of all-time. But not only was Orr on par with Lidstrom defensively (for your sake, I will even say "close" to him), he was superior offensively and played a lot more physical and spirited game. All in all, there would be no fair way to award Lidstrom the Norris over Orr if they were in the same era. I just don't see it. Orr was just way too dominant. It has been said that Brad Park had the misfortune of playing during Orr's reign because he will never get the recognition he deserves. I think the same would have been said about Lidstrom - "Great defenseman who was in the shadow of Orr."

I think Lidstrom would beat Orr when Orr won the Norris with 31 pts in 1968... And that is not the only year.

I think Harvey, Kelly, Shore, Bourque, Potvin and a number of other defensemen who had high peaks could also beat Orr for a few Norrises. Orr is the best, but I do not pretend to think all 8 of his Norrises were beyond reproach.

 

[Boxscore]

Not that I really want to go here, but based on what we know about Lidstrom's personality and makeup, do you think he still would have been as great if he had to play during Orr's specific era? I don't know the answer to this, but I will say, it took a different type of player to compete then. Look at what Borje Salming had to go through to find his place in the NHL, and by all accounts Salming had a lot more grit to his game than Lidstrom. How would Lidstrom react to teams like the Bullies running him every chance they had? Could Lidstrom thrive (and dominate as Orr did) in that type of intimidating environment? I'm not sure. I will say this, Lidstrom will still the best defenseman on the ice during the DET vs. COL blood games, and in 70s you would assume that the Wings would have an enforcer to protect him, but that era was nasty, it tested a player's guts each night for sure.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Not that I really want to go here, but based on what we know about Lidstrom's personality and makeup, do you think he still would have been as great if he had to play during Orr's specific era? I don't know the answer to this, but I will say, it took a different type of player to compete then. Look at what Borje Salming had to go through to find his place in the NHL, and by all accounts Salming had a lot more grit to his game than Lidstrom. How would Lidstrom react to teams like the Bullies running him every chance they had? Could Lidstrom thrive (and dominate as Orr did) in that type of intimidating environment? I'm not sure. I will say this, Lidstrom will still the best defenseman on the ice during the DET vs. COL blood games, and in 70s you would assume that the Wings would have an enforcer to protect him, but that era was nasty, it tested a player's guts each night for sure.

Lidstrom played the main role in shutting down Lindros and the Legion of Doom in '97... And that was before his defensive peak.
I think he has proven to have the ability to take on physical opponents.

Who in the 70s matched the menacing size/power plus skill as Lindros?

 

[Boxscore]

I think Lidstrom would beat Orr when Orr won the Norris with 31 pts in 1968... And that is not the only year.

I think Harvey, Kelly, Shore, Bourque, Potvin and a number of other defensemen who had high peaks could also beat Orr for a few Norrises. Orr is the best, but I do not pretend to think all 8 of his Norrises were beyond reproach.

Those defenders are the elite of the elite, I agree. But man, with Orr playing his game of keep-a-way while putting up 100+ point seasons, I just don't see the case of those guys being overall packages enough to steal a Norris away from him. Orr was just so universally dominant that you would have to make a case that any of those guys were SO MUCH better defensively that they were more dominant than an all-around Orr.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Those defenders are the elite of the elite, I agree. But man, with Orr playing his game of keep-a-way while putting up 100+ point seasons, I just don't see the case of those guys being overall packages enough to steal a Norris away from him. Orr was just so universally dominant that you would have to make a case that any of those guys were SO MUCH better defensively that they were more dominant than an all-around Orr.

I agree!
Not sure where any of my points ever implied Orr was not easily the best all-around defenseman ever.

EDIT: Though I maintain Orr does not win 8 Norrises against those guys, only the 'most'.

 

[Boxscore]

Lidstrom played the main role in shutting down Lindros and the Legion of Doom in '97... And that was before his defensive peak.
I think he has proven to have the ability to take on physical opponents.

Who in the 70s matched the menacing size/power plus skill as Lindros?

Well, funny you should ask that. I live in Philly and have been a Flyers die-hard for over 35 years. And I will tell you this much, in the 97 series, Bowman outsmarted the Flyers. Lidstrom and the Wings beat the Flyers through quick transition and smart hockey. The Flyers never had the chance to get physical because the Wings suffocated and frustrated them. On top of that, as physical as Lindros was, he lacked the killer mentality of some of those 70s players. Lindros would destroy people with powerful hits, but players like Clarke would have given Lidstrom nightmares. Orr's era was full of goonery and mayhem. Team's like the Bullies used brutal intimidation as a weapon, which is something the 90s version of the Flyers were never able to do. Even though the Legion of Doom was big and strong, LeClair and Renberg were cotton candy compared to the animals in Orr's era. I'm not talking "physical" as in finishing checks on Lidstrom (which is pretty much all he's had to deal with throughout his career). I'm talking about nasty intimidation, sticks to the face, chops to the legs and relentless abuse. Teams would toss the puck into Orr's corner just so he had to curl on his bad knee and then they would nail him in the corner. They expoited his injury and used it against him any chance they could. The way the game is/has been played during Lidstrom's era, there is a lot more protection from the officials.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Well, funny you should ask that. I live in Philly and have been a Flyers die-hard for over 35 years. And I will tell you this much, in the 97 series, Bowman outsmarted the Flyers. Lidstrom and the Wings beat the Flyers through quick transition and smart hockey. The Flyers never had the chance to get physical because the Wings suffocated and frustrated them. On top of that, as physical as Lindros was, he lacked the killer mentality of some of those 70s players. Lindros would destroy people with powerful hits, but players like Clarke would have given Lidstrom nightmares. Orr's era was full of goonery and mayhem. Team's like the Bullies used brutal intimidation as a weapon, which is something the 90s version of the Flyers were never able to do. Even though the Legion of Doom was big and strong, LeClair and Renberg were cotton candy compared to the animals in Orr's era.

I find it ignorant to think a player of Lidstrom's intelligence and skill would not be able to adjust. Here's a guy who did well in the high-scoring early 90s, went on to be the best in the clutch & grab era and then continued to be the best post-lockout. That's 3 distinct eras he excelled in.

Heck, he's bigger than Bobby Clarke.

 

[Boxscore]

I find it ignorant to think a player of Lidstrom's intelligence and skill would not be able to adjust. Here's a guy who did well in the high-scoring early 90s, went on to be the best in the clutch & grab era and then continued to be the best post-lockout. That's 3 distinct eras he excelled in.

Heck, he's bigger than Bobby Clarke.

I'm not saying Lidsrom wouldn't be able to adjust. Lidstrom is one of the greatest all-time, period. All I am saying is, Orr's era was a lot more taxing from an intimidation standpoint, and Lidstrom is one of those mellow players who would have had to deal with a lot more nasty than he does now. I asked, could it have changed his game at all? Not sure and we'll never know the answer. Regardless, Lidstrom is an all-time great and I will never dispute that fact. I've just always been impressed that as a highly-skilled player, Orr was able to dominate during that era. I mean those guys ran him hard and his knees were like shredded pork.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Harry Sinden (Orr's coach) would probably disagree with you. He said he'd rather have Bourque protecting a one-goal lead. And most here consider Lidstrom a bit better than Bourque in his own zone.

Yes, I have also seen Harry Sinden quotes where he mentioned something along the lines of yeah, sure Orr made mistakes and got caught from time to time. But he did so much so well that they were overlooked.

Obviously his pluses way way way outweighted his minuses.

But anyone trying to say he was the best defensive defenseman of all time at the same time as being an Art Ross scoring defenseman is living in a fantasy world.

You can't be in two places at once, and sure he was among the fastest skaters ever for getting back but that doesn't change the fact that rushing defensemen take risks and get caught now and again. Even Jesus.

Now when Orr decided to hang back and play it safe I am sure he is among the very top guys defensively ever.. but how often did he do that on that powerhouse team? They were lapping the competition largely because of the offense and transition game he gave them. And it is hard to be scored on when you have the puck too.

And I love Bobby Orr.. just recently finished reading another book about him!

 

[BraveCanadian]

Teams would toss the puck into Orr's corner just so he had to curl on his bad knee and then they would nail him in the corner. They expoited his injury and used it against him any chance they could. The way the game is/has been played during Lidstrom's era, there is a lot more protection from the officials.

Players take advantage of injury today too.. don't kid yourself.

Ask Eric Lindros or Marc Savard, for example.

 

[lextune]

if you think Orr is considered one of the best defensive defensemen of all-time, like Lidstrom is, you are fooling yourself.

Seriously? Of course he is.

 

[Retsmra2010*]

Any cursory glance of Orr shows he was no Harvey/Savard/Langway/Lidstrom when it comes to defense. He simply played the game differently; in a way which allowed him to dominate much more, but far from the guy you want as your ultimate defense on a PK with a 1 goal lead as the above are.

This is a load of crap. Penalty killing is based on hard work and having no fear. Orr was both of these things and had the talent to boot. Such complete ignorance. How can someone who doesn't understand what it takes to succeed as a PKer even begin to comment on things of this scope?


Subject to the same technologies as today, Orr would dominate the game at both ends of the ice like he did back in his day - the only thing you can argue about is the amount of points he would put up because it's an imperfect science - but he'd lead the league to be sure.

 

[Retsmra2010*]

Unfortunately, we will never have the chance to see Orr and Lidstrom vs. each other. But, I still don't think Lidstrom would touch Orr in Norris voting head-to-head, and this is no slight againt Lidstrom, as I consider him one of the best of all-time. But not only was Orr on par with Lidstrom defensively (for your sake, I will even say "close" to him), he was superior offensively and played a lot more physical and spirited game. All in all, there would be no fair way to award Lidstrom the Norris over Orr if they were in the same era. I just don't see it. Orr was just way too dominant. It has been said that Brad Park had the misfortune of playing during Orr's reign because he will never get the recognition he deserves. I think the same would have been said about Lidstrom - "Great defenseman who was in the shadow of Orr."

Lidstrom in his prime(in terms of Norris voting) would be what Park was to Orr.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I find it ignorant to think a player of Lidstrom's intelligence and skill would not be able to adjust. Here's a guy who did well in the high-scoring early 90s, went on to be the best in the clutch & grab era and then continued to be the best post-lockout. That's 3 distinct eras he excelled in.

Heck, he's bigger than Bobby Clarke.

Did well?

You're comparing a guy with Bobby Orr and you are saying he "did well" in the high scoring early 90's?

I think you are correct, he did well then. Never an all-star, but did well. An arguement against Lidstrom, I would think, not for him.

 

[Fredrik_71]

If Orr played today he would be considered a rover

/Cheers

 

[Boxscore]

Players take advantage of injury today too.. don't kid yourself.

Ask Eric Lindros or Marc Savard, for example.

True. But my point was, if Lidstrom played in the 70s, he would have had to endure a TON more of abuse, including "intimidation" as a tactic, nasty stickwork and players who had the mentality of trying to injure him at all costs. Luckily for Lidstrom, he has not had to face much of this throughout his career. Orr faced it night after night. But, maybe that stuff wouldn't affect Lidstrom at all, I'm just saying it's something to consider.

 

[finchster]

I think Lidstrom would beat Orr when Orr won the Norris with 31 pts in 1968... And that is not the only year.

Kind of an unfair comparison considering Orr was 19 that season; Lidstrom at 19 was playing in Sweden and wouldn’t have been a Norris threat for another 8-9 years. But sure, if you want to compare 19 year old Orr against 35 year old Lidstrom or whatever version of Lidstrom you want then perhaps Lidstrom could have won one or two over Orr. Unfortunately, it that type of comparison doesn’t make any sense.

 

[Reasoned Opinion]

People are the best here though! Still Orr = Overrated

Orr = Overrated is similar to the following:

Oxygen = overrated
Potable water = overrated
Pretty women = overrated
Hockey itself = overrated


The guy seems to have committed the crime of being born into an era before the hype and insanity of the internet and all its trappings. His brain and physical attributes in today's world would have created a player more in tune with today's game but to assume that makes him overrated.....heavy, and prolonged, sigh.

 

[Boxscore]

But anyone trying to say he was the best defensive defenseman of all time at the same time as being an Art Ross scoring defenseman is living in a fantasy world.

I don't think Orr was the best defensive defenseman of all-time, per se, but he was very, very good and could rival anyone in all-situation play. And, due to his physical element and penchant for blocking a ton of shots, I would rate Orr equal to (if not a bit better than) Lidstrom in a role where goal prevention was the main focus. Let me try to break it down like this:

- If I wanted a defenseman to go into the corners and battle a forward for a loose puck, I would choose Orr over Lidstrom.

- If I wanted a defenseman who would sacrifice his body to block shots, I would choose Orr over Lidstrom.

- If I wanted a positional defenseman, someone who was highly-skilled at positioning his opponents outside of high scoring % areas, I might take Lidstrom over Orr.

- If I wanted a defenseman who was super poised, cool and rarely took a penalty that put his team a man down, I would take Lidstrom.

- If I wanted a general, a leader, someone to orchestrate the play from the back-end, I would be equally as happy with Orr and Lidstrom.

- If I wanted a defenseman who would deliver a nice bodycheck or lay a bit of lumber on their opponent, I would choose Orr.

- If I wanted a defenseman who rarely made a bad decision with the puck in his own end, I might choose Lidstrom over Orr.

- If I wanted a defenseman who would clear the porch, I would choose Orr over Lidstrom (although there were better crease-clearers than Orr).

- If I wanted a transition defenseman who could switch from defense to offense in a second and lead the rush out of his zone, was there anyone EVER better than Orr?

So, really, I keep going back to this, but we need to define "defensive defenseman" more clearly. I mean, if the ultimate object of "defense" is to prevent the opponent from scoring, then a player like Orr who could basically control the tempo of a game and carry the puck at will is paramount. There have been better shot blockers than Orr, harder hitters, meaner crease-clearers, and cooler-headed players, but Orr was certainly the best COMBINED PACKAGE of everything a defenseman could offer.

 

[BraveCanadian]

but Orr was certainly the best COMBINED PACKAGE of everything a defenseman could offer.

I don't think anyone is going to dispute that.