Lemieux vs. Orr: The two greatest injury-stunted careers

rfournier103

Black & Gold ‘till I’m Dead & Cold.
Sponsor
Dec 17, 2011
8,382
17,164
Massachusetts
Interesting but there is one dragon that Bobby Orr could not slay, namely the small ice surface at the Boston Garden the produced rosters of at best average skaters who could not skate well enough on a regulation rink to compete.

You make a good point regarding the rink size. The fact that Bruins ownership was always too cheap to fix the sheet size bothered me back in the day. God forbid we lose two rows in order to comply with league rules! If you ever want to know my uncensored opinion of Bruins ownership, pm me and I’ll happily tell you.
 

Michael Farkas

Celebrate 68
Jun 28, 2006
13,451
7,992
NYC
www.hockeyprospect.com
Die hard Pens fan here. Would have been nice, but Orr would have had the bigger impact. Only had one team to get by, for starters...

For closers, those 90s Pens teams were top heavy...Lemieux played and it wasn't enough. No depth, no defense, wonky goaltending...if you're trying to score away your problems, I can think of worse guys than Lemieux to do it with...but the only time that immediately comes to mind is Jagr's signature playoff performance on one leg against New Jersey in 1999, if he wasn't alone, maybe they make some waves that year, but they wouldn't have beaten Dallas probably...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sentinel

The Panther

Registered User
Mar 25, 2014
19,211
15,787
Tokyo, Japan
I can see the Pens with Mario competing better in 1994 and 1995 (not necessarily winning), but I have the feeling that after that, they were kind of done. Mario was there in '96 and they lost to Florida, and the team was trending down in 1996-97.

But I think Boston with a healthy Orr from 1975 to 1984 has a better chance of another Cup. Boston was already a very top-level team in many of those seasons without him, and they would have been even better with him.
1976: 113 points (3rd overall)
1977: 106 points (tied 3rd overall)
1978: 113 points (2nd overall)
1979: 100 points (3rd overall)
1980: 105 points (4th overall)

1983: 110 points (1st overall)
1984: 104 points (tied 2nd overall)

As it was, the Bruins lost the '78 Final in a six-game series, and were a third-period blown lead away from the Finals in '79, where they almost surely would have won the Cup over the Rangers. In '83 they were best team in the NHL over the season, but couldn't get past the Islanders in a six-game Conference series. Does a 35-year-old Orr, in full health, turn the tide there?

Of course, if you take this speculation to its extreme, then we might say that the Bruins in 1978-79 would have been better than a 100-point team, and thus would have drafted later, and thus might not have gotten Ray Bourque...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sentinel

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,779
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
I can see the Pens with Mario competing better in 1994 and 1995 (not necessarily winning), but I have the feeling that after that, they were kind of done. Mario was there in '96 and they lost to Florida, and the team was trending down in 1996-97.

But I think Boston with a healthy Orr from 1975 to 1984 has a better chance of another Cup. Boston was already a very top-level team in many of those seasons without him, and they would have been even better with him.
1976: 113 points (3rd overall)
1977: 106 points (tied 3rd overall)
1978: 113 points (2nd overall)
1979: 100 points (3rd overall)
1980: 105 points (4th overall)

1983: 110 points (1st overall)
1984: 104 points (tied 2nd overall)

As it was, the Bruins lost the '78 Final in a six-game series, and were a third-period blown lead away from the Finals in '79, where they almost surely would have won the Cup over the Rangers. In '83 they were best team in the NHL over the season, but couldn't get past the Islanders in a six-game Conference series. Does a 35-year-old Orr, in full health, turn the tide there?

Of course, if you take this speculation to its extreme, then we might say that the Bruins in 1978-79 would have been better than a 100-point team, and thus would have drafted later, and thus might not have gotten Ray Bourque...

Bourque was drafted using a first round pick acquired from Los Angeles for goalie Ron Grahame.
 

VanIslander

A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
Sep 4, 2004
35,261
6,476
South Korea
Stanley Cups aside... I've always respected the Lester Pearson/Ted Lindsay Award because it's the players voting on whom they think is best, and they are in a good position to know!

Orr only got 1, after Espo got 2. How many more would an always healthy Orr have gotten? At the tail end of the 70s Lafleur got 3 and Dionne 2 of which Orr might have taken one or two.

Lemieux got 4, a couple of them after returns from injury. Would Jagr still have gotten his 2 when Lemieux didn't play if a healthy Mario had been on the ice?
 

Dennis Bonvie

Registered User
Dec 29, 2007
29,393
17,823
Connecticut
Stanley Cups aside... I've always respected the Lester Pearson/Ted Lindsay Award because it's the players voting on whom they think is best, and they are in a good position to know!

Orr only got 1, after Espo got 2. How many more would an always healthy Orr have gotten? At the tail end of the 70s Lafleur got 3 and Dionne 2 of which Orr might have taken one or two.

Lemieux got 4, a couple of them after returns from injury. Would Jagr still have gotten his 2 when Lemieux didn't play if a healthy Mario had been on the ice?

In the first year of the award Orr had a +124 with 139 points, but lost out to Esposito (76 goals, 152 points, +69).

In the next season, Orr (again) led the league with +83 and scored 117 points, but lost to Jean Ratelle (109 points).

In the next season, Orr had a +55 and scored 101 points, but lost to Bobby Clarke (104 points, +32).

In the next season, Orr (again) led the league with +84 and scored 122 points, but lost to Esposito (68 goals, 145 points, +51).

In conclusion, it seems either the players were not very good at picking the best player, or there was a rule against voting for Bobby Orr (which was changed the next season). Should also be noted that the season before the Lester Pearson/Ted Lindsay Award was started, Orr won the Ross, Norris, Hart and Conn Smythe Trophies. So he might have won the Lindsay also.
 

rfournier103

Black & Gold ‘till I’m Dead & Cold.
Sponsor
Dec 17, 2011
8,382
17,164
Massachusetts
upload_2018-10-14_14-29-34.jpeg


What could have been. They were together for 10 games.
 

vadim sharifijanov

Registered User
Oct 10, 2007
28,778
16,216
from the terry fox/gretzky thread--


that photo must have been 1980. orr had been formally retired for a year by then, and hadn't played since the fall of 1978.

i kind of imagine orr standing there looking back at his career and what could have been and in that moment any shred of bitterness or regret or what-could-have-been evaporates into the parry sound ether.
 

tony d

Registered User
Jun 23, 2007
76,594
4,555
Behind A Tree
Orr. Got to think if not for injuries to them both both would rank higher on an all time list than Gretzky. It's really to bad Orr played his last full yr. at 26.
 

DannyGallivan

Your world frightens and confuses me
Aug 25, 2017
7,576
10,182
Melonville
I am sure that Gretzky and Howe have been the greatest in terms of combining peak and career accomplishments both in the regular season and playoffs. They did it. No what ifs needed.

In contrast, Orr and Lemieux are arguably more talented, but certainly less accomplished due to injuries that were more crippling than Gretz's back.

WHICH ONE WOULD BE GREATER WITHOUT INJURIES, LEMIEUX OR ORR?
Orr, simply because he was the greater of the two alienesque talents.

... but I think Lemieux's legacy would have benefited the most. In my books, Orr is the best in history, so even if he was healthy for 20 years there's no further he could climb. However, Lemieux may have ended up the consensus best forward if he had 20 healthy years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rfournier103

rfournier103

Black & Gold ‘till I’m Dead & Cold.
Sponsor
Dec 17, 2011
8,382
17,164
Massachusetts
Orr, simply because he was the greater of the two alienesque talents.

... but I think Lemieux's legacy would have benefited the most. In my books, Orr is the best in history, so even if he was healthy for 20 years there's no further he could climb. However, Lemieux may have ended up the consensus best forward if he had 20 healthy years.

I was hoping you would chime in, DannyGallivan.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DannyGallivan

Troubadour

Registered User
Feb 23, 2018
1,157
842
Lemieux.

He would have topped Gretzky's career point totals, he would have totally demolished the post-Iron-Curtain era, he would have possibly gone over 230-240 points in his best year.

Plus, everyone has been saying Orr.
 
  • Like
Reactions: shills

67 others

Registered User
Jul 30, 2010
2,617
1,723
Moose country
It's Orr.

He never was fully healthy, playing on various knee issues through his career.

Also don't forget Orr played his last real season at age 26.

3x Hart
2x Ross
2x Cup
2x Smythe
8x Norris
1.39 ppg, 915pts in 657 games

All by age 26.

If he has health and plays to 35 that means we get to see him in the high flying 80s next to Bourque.

It's not out of the question to figure he missed out on

1-3 Harts
1-3 Ross
2 Cups (74 and 79 for sure)
5-8 Norris
800-1000 points.

If Orr had a full career the debate with Gretzky for GOAT is neck and neck
I recently rewatched a 1971 game with Bobby Orr. Then I rewatched a 1974 game with Bobby Orr.


I can't get over how VISIBLY hobbled his skating was in 1974 compared to how he was flying in 1971. Make no mistake, he was still explosive and shifty as all heck. But he was more like a Demigod in 1974 than the full blown Jesus on skates he was in 1971's game.
 

Dennis Bonvie

Registered User
Dec 29, 2007
29,393
17,823
Connecticut
I recently rewatched a 1971 game with Bobby Orr. Then I rewatched a 1974 game with Bobby Orr.


I can't get over how VISIBLY hobbled his skating was in 1974 compared to how he was flying in 1971. Make no mistake, he was still explosive and shifty as all heck. But he was more like a Demigod in 1974 than the full blown Jesus on skates he was in 1971's game.

And he won the scoring title in 74-75.
 

Troubadour

Registered User
Feb 23, 2018
1,157
842
What season was this??

92/93, based on his pre-diagnosis play. Of course he would have slowed down, but he would have possibly finished with a higher PPG than he did. Had he played all 84 games, 230-240 points wouldn't have been impossible.
 

rfournier103

Black & Gold ‘till I’m Dead & Cold.
Sponsor
Dec 17, 2011
8,382
17,164
Massachusetts
Die hard Pens fan here. Would have been nice, but Orr would have had the bigger impact. Only had one team to get by, for starters...

One team? You mean the Canadiens? The dynasty from the 70s? Yeah, no problem.

Lemieux never faced anyone that good. After the Canadiens dynasty waned, then there was the Islanders. They weren’t half bad, either. Not to mention the Flyers were pretty good, too.

As great as Orr was, there were several GREAT teams that he would have had to contend with had his career lasted longer. Lemieux has far easier competition.
 

BigBadBruins7708

Registered User
Dec 11, 2017
13,671
18,503
Las Vegas
One team? You mean the Canadiens? The dynasty from the 70s? Yeah, no problem.

Lemieux never faced anyone that good. After the Canadiens dynasty waned, then there was the Islanders. They weren’t half bad, either. Not to mention the Flyers were pretty good, too.

As great as Orr was, there were several GREAT teams that he would have had to contend with had his career lasted longer. Lemieux has far easier competition.

not to mention the Broad Street Bullies, Islanders dynasty and Oilers dynasty

From 1968 to 1988, only 4 teams won a Cup, literally 3 of the biggest dynasties in league history fell in these 20 years...In order:

Canadiens
Canadiens
Bruins
Canadiens
Bruins
Canadiens
Flyers
Flyers
Canadiens
Canadiens
Canadiens
Canadiens
Islanders
Islanders
Islanders
Islanders
Oilers
Oilers
Canadiens
Oilers
OIlers
 

The Panther

Registered User
Mar 25, 2014
19,211
15,787
Tokyo, Japan
92/93, based on his pre-diagnosis play. Of course he would have slowed down, but he would have possibly finished with a higher PPG than he did. Had he played all 84 games, 230-240 points wouldn't have been impossible.
Of course nothing's impossible, but Lemieux's pre-diagnosis play in 1992-93 was actually at the pace of 104 points in 40 games. Mathematically, this projects to an 80-game (Gretzky's highest total) point total of 208, while in the full 84 games to 218.

The thing is, did Lemieux normally sustain his pace in the second half as in the first half? My point is that he didn't, aside from his rookie year, for obvious reasons. In 1985-86, he scored at exactly the same pace in the second half as in the first. In 1987-88, he had 87 points in 40 games, and then 81 in 37 -- those are exactly the same pace. In 1988-89, he had 113 points in the first 40 games (2.83 PPG) and then 86 in 36 (2.39 PPG), a significant drop. In 1989-90, he had 80 points in 40 games (2.00 PPG), and then 43 in 19 (2.26 PPG), but that's too small a sample size for me to really rely on it (he went down to injury in the second half and came back for the last game). In 1995-96, he had 104 points in 40 games (2.60 PPG), and then 57 points in 30 games (1.9 PPG). In 1996-97, he had 70 points in 40 games (1.75 PPG) and then 52 points in 36 games (1.44 PPG). Famously, in 2002-03 he had 68 points in the first 40 games (1.70 PPG), and then 23 points in 27 games after that (0.85 PPG).

Two seasons are exceptions to this rule: 1991-92 and 1992-93. The common factor in each is that he got injured, had time off, and came back.

In 1991-92, he had 75 points in 38 games before injury (1.97 PPG), and then 56 points in 26 games after injury (2.15 PPG). And, as we've (sort of) noted, in 1992-93, he had 104 points in 40 games up to his diagnosis (2.60 PPG), and then 56 points in 20 games after (2.80 PPG). Strange as it sounds, it seems as if Lemieux produced at a higher rate after extended rests... even due to injury.

At no time during his "healthy" seasons did Lemieux increase his pace in the second half over the first half. Therefore, I see no logical reason to guess that a healthy Lemieux in 1992-93 would have increased his pace of 2.60 PPG to reach 230-240 points (though, of course, anything's possible). Indeed, we saw his scoring pace slow down immediately once the Pens' crazy winning streak ended at the end of the season, and through the playoffs.
 

bobholly39

Registered User
Mar 10, 2013
22,241
14,861
Lemieux left a LOT more on the table imo.
I think we saw Orr's best - if he played another 10 years, it would simply have been more of the same, and possibly a quick decline too (he was getting at that age where he might have slowed down soon).

I truly feel we only ever got to see glimpses of Lemieux at his best. Which is why it's so frustrating. I think in terms of peak ability to dominate a hockey game - Lemieux had the potential to firmly establish himself as the best ever (ie best peak season). No one denies his talent.

To the OP i still answer Orr though. Orr was more consistent than Lemieux - injuries hurt Lemieux, but it wasn't only injuries early in his career as he was a bit lazy/took a while to get going. So in a perfectly healthy, full career, I still think Orr ends up greater - even though Lemieux is the one who left more on the table, if that makes sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rfournier103

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad