Is Orr the best defenseman of all time defensively? If not - where do you rank him?

[Filthy Dangles]

I guess it ultimately depends on how you define 'defense' here?

Orr always had the puck and could totally control the game from a possession standpoint. The opposition can't score when you have the puck, so you're suppressing goals and all attack in that instance.

Or you could define defense as simply play and ability without the puck.....

I think this philosophical difference is causing some of the confusion in this thread.

 

[Theokritos]

Mod note: Folks, several of you need to stop addressing other posters in a condescending fashion. It's not welcome here and it doesn't even matter if you have a point as far as the poster you're addressing is concerned. That's just not the level of discourse we want here.

 

[Canadiens1958]

A few intro points.

Hockey changes very quickly and the definition of a defensive defenseman reflects this. Evident in the swing in the coaches polls referenced during different time frames.

Key point overlooked to date in this discussion. Defensive defenseman individually as opposed to within a unit or a team concept.

During Orr's time the Bruins played individual defense, no defined team structure defensively. Teams like the Canadiens, Leafs, Flyers, Blues, Islanders played unit or team defense. So at various times the lead defenseman on the team stood out.

Bruins outside of Orr were average skaters. As a result the Canadiens could double team Orr at will impacting his offense and his defense. Watch videos of Canadiens / Bruins games with Orr and the double teams are evident and you see the Bruins spacing collapse.

The theory that Orr's offense translated into defense was shown to be false a number of times by the Canadiens scoring late tying and winning goals. Speed on the forecheck limited Orr and the Canadiens would inevitably get the puck in scoring areas to tie or win. Again watch the videos especially 1968, 1969 and 1971 playoffs. Flyers with significantly less speed did the same in the 1974 playoffs.

Individually, spanning the time of his career Orr was the best defenseman.

Team or unit defenseman, Harvey, with Serge Savard and Denis Potvin rounding out the top three, Followed by Lidstrom, Fetisov, Robinson, Chelios as the game moved to three pairings. Pre Red Line, Earl Seibert.

 

[The Panther]

Mod note: Folks, several of you need to stop addressing other posters in a condescending fashion. It's not welcome here and it doesn't even matter if you have a point as far as the poster you're addressing is concerned. That's just not the level of discourse we want here.

If this was referring to me, I was actually trying to be humorous, not condescending, but I guess the difference is subtle on the cold, hard web.

 

[The Panther]

I guess it ultimately depends on how you define 'defense' here?

Orr always had the puck and could totally control the game from a possession standpoint. The opposition can't score when you have the puck, so you're suppressing goals and all attack in that instance.

Or you could define defense as simply play and ability without the puck.....

I think this philosophical difference is causing some of the confusion in this thread.

Man, I'm so with you. Defense should not mean "we-don't-have-the-puck-and-now-I-have-to-scramble-to-cover-my-man". Defense should mean the other team doesn't have the puck. If an all-out offensive top line has the puck all night, then they are the best defensive line.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Because the category is "Best defensive defenseman" could some coaches have taken the stand that Orr was not a defensive defenseman? Hence they could give the other Dmen a little credit.

Just a thought to back a certain agenda.

I thought that would be possible as well, but it didn't stop Salming, Robinson, or Potvin from getting votes in later years... Though of course none of then were close to Orr on the offensive end.

 

[VanIslander]

I remember...

We used to cheer 6'4 220 lbs. Larry Robinson as the model of a defenseman.

Us kids in 1979 thought Bobby Orr that flashy, gimpy kid.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I thought that would be possible as well, but it didn't stop Salming, Robinson, or Potvin from getting votes in later years... Though of course none of then were close to Orr on the offensive end.

But those guys didn't win Norris Trophies every year. Not to mention Art Ross and Hart trophies.

When Orr was playing it was tough for other defensemen to get much recognition.

 

[Big Phil]

It is really hard to decide if he was the "best" defensively. From a pure standpoint, no. Others were better such as Langway, Savard and maybe even Stevens. But in general these guys focused first and foremost on defense. They were known as defensive defensemen. Orr was known as the best overall defenseman ever.

The truth is, he didn't have a weakness in his game, and that included defense. People point to things like Game 2 of the 1971 series vs. Montreal. That was the 5-1 lead the Bruins squandered and Orr was on the ice for several of the Habs goals and didn't look very good. There is one play where Henri Richard is said to skate around him for a goal. Not quite. Richard basically picked the puck up in transition going the other way while Orr was flat footed and it made Orr look like Richard just blew by him - an older Richard. The context is that Richard wasn't a faster skater at the time, he just caught Orr going the other way.

You can find all sorts of clips of all-time great defensemen getting beat defensively at times. Lidstrom never seemed to be able to handle Forsberg for whatever reason and there was that between the legs goal in the 1996 playoffs that Forsberg scored on him. Bourque somehow got beat by luminaries like Bill Lindsay and Brad May for series winning goals in 1996 and 1993. You wonder how the heck Brad May did what he did on that "May Day" goal but is there anyone on the face of the earth, including Bourque, that expected May to make that sort of move? Not me.

The point is you can always find places where a defenseman got beat pretty badly. Makarov walked right around Robinson in the 1984 semi final game in the Canada Cup. It looked bad.

But in general, yeah, Orr was elite defensively too. Sure there was someone who had to be back when he was skating the length of the ice but that happens all of the time. I watch Leaf games today and when Morgan Rielly takes the puck end to end there is always a Leaf that stays back. That's just teamwork. It isn't as if he doesn't hustle back right away if he loses the puck. Orr was the same way, just obviously much better.

 

[Tarantula]

When Orr was on the ice the opposition had the puck less, and therefore couldn't be as much of a threat to score. That equation doesn't factor any where near as much with any other defenseman. That factor is probably why I regard him much higher defensively then other posters. There is only one puck and 60 minutes, possession means so much. Not sure if everyone considered that back in those days.

I also personally do not hold coaches polls in high regard, back then there wasn't anywhere near the coverage and video of games like now.

Just my opinion

 

[Thenameless]

Man, I'm so with you. Defense should not mean "we-don't-have-the-puck-and-now-I-have-to-scramble-to-cover-my-man". Defense should mean the other team doesn't have the puck. If an all-out offensive top line has the puck all night, then they are the best defensive line.

I agree with the philosophy behind what you're saying. You can't loose if your team always has the puck.

On the other hand, if this team above wins a game 8-0, and the goalie gets a shutout, it also doesn't necessarily mean that that goalie "is the best at making saves", especially if he faced zero shots in that game because his skaters were so dominant.

I think it would be fair to say that defensive play with respect to a defenseman, means something more like "when the other team has the puck, what is this defenseman's likelihood of preventing them from scoring?" Because even in Orr's case, the best defenseman ever, his team doesn't always have the puck.

Again, I do think Orr is the best offensively and defensively. This is just food for thought.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Having the puck is not a measure of defense.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

Having the puck is not a measure of defense.

A couple things...

1) If you constantly have the puck, you're probably pretty good without it and getting it back

2) I agree with you but if it accomplishes the same thing, it's a pretty irrelevant distinction, imo.

A few intro points.

Hockey changes very quickly and the definition of a defensive defenseman reflects this. Evident in the swing in the coaches polls referenced during different time frames.

Key point overlooked to date in this discussion. Defensive defenseman individually as opposed to within a unit or a team concept.

During Orr's time the Bruins played individual defense, no defined team structure defensively. Teams like the Canadiens, Leafs, Flyers, Blues, Islanders played unit or team defense. So at various times the lead defenseman on the team stood out.

Bruins outside of Orr were average skaters. As a result the Canadiens could double team Orr at will impacting his offense and his defense. Watch videos of Canadiens / Bruins games with Orr and the double teams are evident and you see the Bruins spacing collapse.

The theory that Orr's offense translated into defense was shown to be false a number of times by the Canadiens scoring late tying and winning goals. Speed on the forecheck limited Orr and the Canadiens would inevitably get the puck in scoring areas to tie or win. Again watch the videos especially 1968, 1969 and 1971 playoffs. Flyers with significantly less speed did the same in the 1974 playoffs.

Individually, spanning the time of his career Orr was the best defenseman.

Team or unit defenseman, Harvey, with Serge Savard and Denis Potvin rounding out the top three, Followed by Lidstrom, Fetisov, Robinson, Chelios as the game moved to three pairings. Pre Red Line, Earl Seibert.

This doesn't seem like the best evidence. You could make a case against and player with anecdotes like this.

 

[Michael Farkas]

If you're measuring defensive ability, by definition you don't have the puck. So evaluating puck skills is not prudent here.

There's overlap, hockey sense, skating, etc. But you don't measure it with possession time. You use the defensive skills suite to evaluate a player's defensive acumen. Whether you want to make assumptions or take shortcuts with it is up to the evaluator (that reads meaner and more accusatory than I intend, I mean for this to be conversational)...

 

[Johnny Engine]

Having the puck is not a measure of defense.

Coincidentally, I was thinking about this a bit on my run this morning - had a bit too much time inside my own brain.
What I came away thinking, is that the three following things mean different things:
- play with and without the puck
- play when your team has the puck vs. when your team doesn't
- play that is primarily intended to score, or play that is primarily intended to prevent offense.

I think the second one is more useful conversational fodder than the first one because Ovechkin hanging out in the circle looking for a pass is definitely not defense, but it's still a useful thing to talk about in certain contexts.
Then the third one is a little more abstract - I'd argue that ragging the puck on the PK, or a long cycle in the offensive zone with a late lead, has more utility in preventing goals than creating them, but I completely get that these things are not what someone like you is looking for when you attempt to identify "good defense".

Anyway, this might all seem very basic and obvious, but it's nonetheless frustrating when a group of people can't stick to one of those three frameworks, and use whichever one seems useful to make (dumb) point at the given moment.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Having the puck is not a measure of defense.

Correct.

That's the Mario/Gretzky theory of defense.

 

[The Panther]

Correct.

That's the Mario/Gretzky theory of defense.

No, it's not. It's the classic Soviet, "puck possession" style of defense. Defense is about teams and 5-man systems (6 with goalie), not individuals.

There's a reason why, when really good teams play really bad teams, the bad teams seldom touch the puck and therefore seldom score. So, at the end of 10 such games, the really good team will have maybe less than 1 goal-per-game against, even though they were seldom in pure defensive, shut-down mode. The reason is that they controlled the puck. When a team controls the puck most of the game, the other team can't score.

 

[scott clam]

Defining the best "defensive" defenseman is almost as dubious as defining the best "defensive" forward.

 

[Big Phil]

Orr always had the puck and could totally control the game from a possession standpoint. The opposition can't score when you have the puck, so you're suppressing goals and all attack in that instance.

This is pretty good here. When you have the puck the other team can't score. There have been plenty of defensemen in NHL history who could rush the puck and were always the first ones back behind the net to rush the puck and set up the offensive plays. I think some of that ties into being good defensively. Obviously you still have to defend and be smart and strong in your own zone, but you should never underrate a defenseman who is able to control the pace of the game by hanging onto the puck.

 

[TheDawnOfANewTage]

I guess it ultimately depends on how you define 'defense' here?

Orr always had the puck and could totally control the game from a possession standpoint. The opposition can't score when you have the puck, so you're suppressing goals and all attack in that instance.

Or you could define defense as simply play and ability without the puck.....

I think this philosophical difference is causing some of the confusion in this thread.

1) Came here to post this.
2) Off topic, but since Dangles already made my point.. this is what worries me about Karlsson. His D was great because he could move crazy well. He ain't moving so far this year so his offense suffers, but it also kills his D game worse than pretty much any guy I can remember. Hope I'm wrong, but somethin to watch for this season.
3) The best Dman is clearly Rory Fitzpatrick. I see no need for discussion.

 

[Johnny4778]

There was a game believe against rangers where Orr held the puck for like 3min 53 seconds on a 5 min major penalty against the bruins. Ended possession with a goal by Orr. So he was a pretty decent penalty killer. One could argue he never played defense that entire penalty because he had the puck? Would love to see a stat for percentage of time the puck is in a player’s possession versus total time on ice. Orr would be at least triple the next closest player in league history. But do not forget Orr could hit like a ton of bricks, could fight, and was a prolific shot blocker, to go along with lightening and explosive speed. No athlete in the history of sports has dominated a game like Orr did. Had he not played defense Gretzky would been chasing Orr records. Had he played a 22 year healthy career like Gretzky or Bourque... he would have been most dominate player in the 80’s too. First knee surgery was before he played in NHL, with today’s technology he would have had a long career and got to play on two legs instead of one.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

There was a game believe against rangers where Orr held the puck for like 3min 53 seconds on a 5 min major penalty against the bruins. Ended possession with a goal by Orr. So he was a pretty decent penalty killer. One could argue he never played defense that entire penalty because he had the puck? Would love to see a stat for percentage of time the puck is in a player’s possession versus total time on ice. Orr would be at least triple the next closest player in league history. But do not forget Orr could hit like a ton of bricks, could fight, and was a prolific shot blocker, to go along with lightening and explosive speed. No athlete in the history of sports has dominated a game like Orr did. Had he not played defense Gretzky would been chasing Orr records. Had he played a 22 year healthy career like Gretzky or Bourque... he would have been most dominate player in the 80’s too. First knee surgery was before he played in NHL, with today’s technology he would have had a long career and got to play on two legs instead of one.

for perspective, Erik Karlsson has played more NHL games than Bobby Orr did. If Karlsson's career was the same length as Orr's he would've retired in 2016-17

Orr's last real season was at age 26 (only played 36 total games in the 3 following years).

His last season, at 26, he posted 36-89-135, +80 and won the Norris/Ross/Pearson. You can easily argue we didnt even get to see the best Orr

 

[Canadiens1958]

No, it's not. It's the classic Soviet, "puck possession" style of defense. Defense is about teams and 5-man systems (6 with goalie), not individuals.

There's a reason why, when really good teams play really bad teams, the bad teams seldom touch the puck and therefore seldom score. So, at the end of 10 such games, the really good team will have maybe less than 1 goal-per-game against, even though they were seldom in pure defensive, shut-down mode. The reason is that they controlled the puck. When a team controls the puck most of the game, the other team can't score.

Pre Soviet hockey.

Did not work well in those days either. Late 1940s Hawks topped the NHL in scoring yet never made the playoffs.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Defining the best "defensive" defenseman is almost as dubious as defining the best "defensive" forward.

Actually, more dubious.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Having the puck is not a measure of defense.

No it is not. Like dogs chasing cars is not a measure of their ability to drive.