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

[wetcoast]

Sorry... but that list is... just wrong. You just randomly listed a bunch of H of F defensemen with little or no thought or evidence over how they compared to Orr. Why didn't you toss in Neidermayer, Salming and Guy Lapointe too?

Until your list, this was the most random thing I'd ever seen...

your GIF is way more random but oddly cool too.

 

[wetcoast]

Tough question, but I think a poll of players who actually face them would be the best. Would love to see that kind of poll... the old "what player is toughest to play against" kind of question.

But that is an entirely different question that "which defenseman is the best defensively" though right?

Chris Tanev is extremely good defensively but I doubt he would ever come up on a list of toughest players to play against.

 

[Hanji]

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.

Is there video or documented evidence of this? I too believe Orr was the greatest ever, but what you’re describing defies common logic.

 

[wetcoast]

Pre Soviet hockey.

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

I really doubt that the late 40's Black Hawks were playing possession Soviet style of hockey though.

 

[ImporterExporter]

He's in the conversation. Differently style of defensive dominance than any other player in history but like others have said he was nearly flawless. Best player to ever set foot on a hockey rink.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I'm gonna try to lure @Number8 onto the history board, this seems like a good thread to use as bait...

 

[Cyclones Rock]

I'm a huge Gretzky fan, but if Orr would have had anything near a full career, then I don't think there would be much debate about GOAT. Among defencemen, he is peerless.

Orr was tough as nails as well. I remember watching him bloody Keith Magnuson who was a pretty tough customer.

 

[Number8]

I'm gonna try to lure @Number8 onto the history board, this seems like a good thread to use as bait...

Bait taken!

I’m going to read through the thread. Be interested to see the views.

That said, off the cuff I do not think that Bobby Orr was the greatest defensive defenseman of all time. However, he was an excellent defensive defenseman. His game changing approach to D in the offensive zone overshadowed that part of his game.

I do think he was the greatest offensive defenseman we’ve ever seen — or likely to see. So much so, that combined with his solid ability on the defensive side of the game, I consider him to be the best overall defenseman of all time. Arguably the best hockey player of all time — emphasis on arguably because I respect that the debate can and should include Gretzky and Howe.

I shudder to think what the man would have done with modern medicine/pt and equipment. I say that because his healthy career was so short. I know that can be said for many older generation players but his skating, even on those old steel stem skates with padded lint, was extraordinary.

 

[Torspo21]

Isn´t offense the best defense? When you have the puck, your opponent can not score...

 

[sr edler]

You got it backwards, Mint. It's defense that's the best offense.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Is there video or documented evidence of this? I too believe Orr was the greatest ever, but what you’re describing defies common logic.

"Orr held the puck for like 3min 53 seconds...."

Sounds more like legend than fact.

The key word there is like. Maybe 1:53 is like 3:53. That's still crazy.

 

[BobbyAwe]

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

You beat me to it. I was just going to say that if a player has possession of the puck he IS playing defense at that moment, no matter what zone he is in. It's pretty certain that Orr had possession of the puck, game in and game out, for more minutes than anyone else, at least in his era. I remember watching him and the commentators regularly making a point of that. If you are controlling the puck, you are accomplishing defense and possibly also offense at the same moment.
When they speak of great defensive defensemen, they are usually speaking of defensemen who WEREN'T outstanding offensively. Obviously Orr doesn't fit into that mold - but when he had the puck (which was more than anyone else) he was doing the job defensively also. The lines between offense and defense become blurred.

 

[BobbyAwe]

Is there video or documented evidence of this? I too believe Orr was the greatest ever, but what you’re describing defies common logic.

The 3:53 sounds dubious to me also, but I DO remember Bobby ragging the puck for extremely long intervals killing off a penalty - no one else at the time was doing anything like it.

Lanny McDonald on Orr's penalty killing...

 

[DannyGallivan]

When they speak of great defensive defensemen, they are usually speaking of defensemen who WEREN'T outstanding offensively

This.
Some people confuse stay at home defensemen with defensive defensemen. Or, they fall into the "Paul Coffey" line of thinking (a guy that good offensively is totally ignoring his end of the ice).

 

[Filthy Dangles]

Y The lines between offense and defense become blurred.

This is a good point, not just with Bobby but with the game in general. Unlike sports like football and baseball where teams take static turns on offense/defense, possession not only changes so often in hockey but it's actually often undefined. I've always had that philosophical problem with wanting to define each event or thing in hockey as offense or defense.

 

[bobholly39]

I'm a huge Gretzky fan, but if Orr would have had anything near a full career, then I don't think there would be much debate about GOAT. Among defencemen, he is peerless.

Orr was tough as nails as well. I remember watching him bloody Keith Magnuson who was a pretty tough customer.

I agree that Orr > Gretzky becomes very plausible if Orr plays a full career.

Only plausible though - since the truth is we have no idea how he would have aged/declined. Gretzky has one of the best 2nd halves to a career ever - while at the same time also having one of the steepest decline (by virtue of how insane his first half was). Can't just assume Orr would have maintained his pace better.

But yes - highly possible.

 

[Midnight Judges]

I agree that Orr > Gretzky becomes very plausible if Orr plays a full career.

I don't see how. Even if we pretend Gretzky's career only consisted of his first 9 seasons, he still beats Orr fairly easily.

 

[Sheppy]

I don't see how. Even if we pretend Gretzky's career only consisted of his first 9 seasons, he still beats Orr fairly easily.

It kind of depends how you look at it. They both were so much better than their peers...

1969-70 - Orr - 120 points, next closest 44
1970-71 - Orr - 139 points, next closest 63
1971-72 - Orr - 117 points, next closest 73
1972-73 - Orr - 101 points, next closest 54
1973-74 - Orr - 122 points, next closest 82
1974-75 - Orr - 135 points, next closest 76

Then injury, he had 18 points in 10 games, and the next year 23 in 19.

It's ridiculous, actually.

 

[bobholly39]

I don't see how. Even if we pretend Gretzky's career only consisted of his first 9 seasons, he still beats Orr fairly easily.

Orr's career is 9 full seasons and so is Gretzky's Edmonton careers. Head to head they're pretty close. I agree with you, advantage Gretzky, but i'd bet a lot of people may not agree, and regardless, it's at least closer than pretty much any other player in history gets to #99.

Gretzky's 2nd half is quite weak vs his first half. Like - a lot. It's still a fantastic level of play - but compared to his first half it's a very, very steep decline.

1. It's possible that Orr ages better
2. Defenseman tend to age better overall

So I guess it comes down to - Gretzky's 2nd half to his career is quite vulnerable to a player as talented as Orr - a player who, we simply have no idea how he would age/what his consistency would be like, since age 26 was his last full season.

 

[The Panther]

I think with Gretzky we've got 12 world-beating NHL seasons in a row (1979-80 through 1990-91), including four superb best-on-best international performances, and with Orr we've got 6 superb and 2 great NHL seasons in a row, and one very good best-on-best international tournament. So, clearly advantage Gretzky, based on that.

Then, Gretzky has way more hardware, even factoring in certain anti-defenceman biases (like Hart voting, where Orr should have won a couple more).

Then, Gretzky has twice as many Cups as Orr, despite playing in a more competitive era. And three international tournament wins vs. one for Orr.

Based on all this, I think Gretzky gets the nod over Orr without much question.

The negative side for Gretzky is his 1991-92 onward (eight seasons, including two 1/2 seasons). For the first three of those, he's merely great-to-outstanding, but no longer superhuman. And for the next four, he's very good but no longer great-to-outstanding. And for the last one, he's old and done.

But I personally don't hold players' post-prime years against them, as long as the prime years are long enough and consistent enough. Obviously, from 1979 to 1991, Gretzky's prime years are 'high' enough to beat anyone and probably more consistent than any forward ever. 12 seasons in a row, with attendant Canada Cup and Stanley Cup wins, is way more than enough for me -- especially when the player in comparison (Orr) had a shortened career. With Orr, we'll never know what would have been, could have gone either way. We have to just judge on what actually happened.

 

[jgatie]

Is there video or documented evidence of this? I too believe Orr was the greatest ever, but what you’re describing defies common logic.

The poster is a bit off. It wasn't a major, and it was against the Seals, not the Rangers.

Documentation from two sources:

Here's Espo's version of it:

Elusive, Inscrutable and Still Incomparable: Bobby Orr

During one penalty kill against the old Seals in Oakland, Orr swooped behind goal in possession, tussled with an opponent and lost a glove. "He went around by the blue line, came back, picked up his glove—still had the puck," Esposito says. "[Goalie] Gerry Cheevers was on the bench, and I'm standing there andI hear Cheesy say to me, 'Espo, you want The Racing Form?' I said, 'Might as well; I'm not touching the puck!' Bobby killed about a minute and 10, 20seconds of that penalty—and then ...," with even the Oakland players cheering now, "... he scored. Greatest thing I ever saw."

Here's Don Cherry's:

99: Stories of the Game