Bobby Orr vs any other Dman, who would you draft?

[BigBadBruins7708]

For a whole career I’d take Bourque. Folks need to remember Orr didn’t win Cups on his own, he played on an overpowered dynasty and even then only won 2 with a lot of playoff flops thrown in. Hockey simply doesn’t work like “he gives you 8 great shots at the Cup”, the team matters just as much for him as for anyone.

To have the best shot at winning as many Cups as possible, at any position I’d take 20 years of a guy who’s often #1 and always top-4, over a guy who’s #1 every year for 8 years. To make it simple, here’s the trade in terms of Norris finishes:

Orr: 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 3
Bourque: 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 7, 7

Basically you downgrade three 1s to become 2s instead, in order to gain all of the bolded numbers.

This incorrect history rewriting about the Orr Bruins needs to die. They were not a juggernaut, at all. They were close to being a 2 man team.

There were only 4 HOF'ers on those teams.

Orr
Esposito
Bucyk who's only in the Hall because of Orr
Cheevers who's considered the worst induction ever

Beyond that they had some good depth st forward but the defense was not good. The 2nd and 3rd best D on those teams were Dallas Smith and Ted Green.

Lastly, the reason they didn't win more is because of the actual juggernaut of the 70s, the Habs. You know, the team with 9 HOF'ers on it including Lafleur, Dryden and Robinson.

 

[dgibb10]

That assumes that all of the guys listed gives their teams an equal chance to win each year, so yeah the more years the better.

But if having Orr gives you a 30% chance to win at his peak for 10 years, while Bourque gives you a 15% chance to win over the entire 20 years, I'd rather the guy who gives me a greater chance to win in a given season, even if the window is smaller.

A) Orr only played 9 years

B) Assuming the difference between Orr and Bourque is worth a 15% decrease to your odds of winning a cup is WILD. maybe back when there was 12 teams, but absolutely not in a 32 team league. (for context, the Oilers and McDavid are the favourites in this coming year, and have implied odds of about 12% to win the cup).

Would you say replacing McDavid with say, Nathan Mackinnon would give the oilers a 0% chance of winning the cup?

And b, even if your math was right, you'd still be better of with 21 years at 15% each vs 9 years at 30% each.

With bourque you'd win 3.15 expected cups, and have a 96.7% chance of winning at least 1 cup
With orr you'd win 2.7 expected cups, and have a 96% chance of winning at least 1 cup.

 

[Albatros]

There were only 4 HOF'ers on those teams.

Orr
Esposito
Bucyk who's only in the Hall because of Orr
Cheevers who's considered the worst induction ever

"Only". Besides Ratelle, Park, and Plante are also in the HHoF, even if their Bruins careers coinciding with Orr were shorter.

 

[Video Nasty]

If it’s an entire career (18-22 seasons), Orr is the no-brainer.

If it’s the amount of seasons we got from all three, it’s Bourque.

 

[tarheelhockey]

This incorrect history rewriting about the Orr Bruins needs to die. They were not a juggernaut, at all. They were close to being a 2 man team.

There were only 4 HOF'ers on those teams.

Orr
Esposito
Bucyk who's only in the Hall because of Orr
Cheevers who's considered the worst induction ever

Beyond that they had some good depth st forward but the defense was not good. The 2nd and 3rd best D on those teams were Dallas Smith and Ted Green.

Lastly, the reason they didn't win more is because of the actual juggernaut of the 70s, the Habs. You know, the team with 9 HOF'ers on it including Lafleur, Dryden and Robinson.

They were the only team ever to have the 1-2-3-4 top scorers in the NHL, while simultaneously having the best defenseman of all time, at the time the most prolific goal scorer in history, and at worst a solid #1 goalie in Cheevers (who is nowhere near as bad a HHOF induction as Kevin Lowe).

Dallas Smith and Ted Green were stout, reliable defensemen on a team that finished #1 in scoring 7 years in a row. There’s a reason those teams also finished in the top handful for defense every year. Hell, Ted Green was a Norris finalist.

You’re also neglecting to mention several excellent support forwards like Ken Hodge, Wayne Cashman, Derek Sanderson. And even some of the lower end guys were really solid reliable depth, like Pie McKenzie, Ed Westfall, Fred Stanfield, Don Marcotte. The idea of them being a “2 man team” is pretty wild.

To your point about the Habs — during Orr’s career in Boston, the Bruins and Habs played in the same division every year but the final two. Each team won that division 3 times apiece, and both of them won their separate divisions both of the other two years. Yes the Habs were a juggernaut, but so were the Bruins.

Besides, there was no particular reason they should have lost to Montreal in 1971, when they were one of the best regular season teams of all time and then flamed out in the first round. And then they were the favorites in their playoff loss in ‘73 (Rangers), and again in ‘74 (Flyers), and again in ‘75 (Blackhawks). What did the juggernaut Habs have to do with all of that? They were a legit dynasty roster with respectable but not great team results.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Do you run your opinion by every Sens fan before you post so you don't hurt their feelings?

It's true - we have a Microsoft Teams channel where folks vet their posts before they go live.

 

[NyQuil]

It's true - we have a Microsoft Teams channel where folks vet their posts before they go live.

First rule of HF Microsoft Teams channel…

 

[tarheelhockey]

What the world needs is an HFmods Teams channel.

 

[Fantomas]

For a whole career I’d take Bourque. Folks need to remember Orr didn’t win Cups on his own, he played on an overpowered dynasty and even then only won 2 with a lot of playoff flops thrown in. Hockey simply doesn’t work like “he gives you 8 great shots at the Cup”, the team matters just as much for him as for anyone.

To have the best shot at winning as many Cups as possible, at any position I’d take 20 years of a guy who’s often #1 and always top-4, over a guy who’s #1 every year for 8 years. To make it simple, here’s the trade in terms of Norris finishes:

Orr: 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 3
Bourque: 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 7, 7

Basically you downgrade three 1s to become 2s instead, in order to gain all of the bolded numbers.

This is very flawed thinking. You're assuming that those 1s and 2s are equal, but they're not.

Let's make some analogies. Duncan Keith won two Norris trophies. But that doesn't mean his Norris seasons were as good as Orr's Norris seasons. In the same way that Taylor Hall's Hart trophy season wasn't as good as Gretzky's Hart trophy seasons. Gretzky's are more dominant.

Orr at his best is much, much better than Bourque. The seasons in which he won the Norris are much better than those of Bourque.

 

[tarheelhockey]

This is very flawed thinking. You're assuming that those 1s and 2s are equal, but they're not.

Let's make some analogies. Duncan Keith won two Norris trophies. But that doesn't mean his Norris seasons were as good as Orr's Norris seasons. In the same way that Taylor Hall's Hart trophy season wasn't as good as Gretzky's Hart trophy seasons. Gretzky's are more dominant.

Orr at his best is much, much better than Bourque. The seasons in which he won the Norris are much better than those of Bourque.

Kind of missing the point.

Yes, you downgrade from the very best of Bobby Orr to the very best of Ray Bourque, which is to say another Hart-level player who had one of the highest defenseman peaks ever. It wasn’t Orr level, but peak Bourque was way beyond a Duncan Keith or Taylor Hall.

By making that downgrade, you pick up an entire decade of Norris-contending performance.

To put it another way — the value-add of Orr over Bourque for 8 years is much, much smaller than the value-add of Bourque over an empty jersey for 12 years.

 

[Goptor]

Its interesting because Orr was great right away in the league and then is gone quickly while Hasek was out of the league for a while and then comes in and is great.

If you already have a good team, adding Orr to it right away would be better than waiting for Lidstrom to put his game together. Bourque was good out of the gate so he's a different story.
Very difficult choice.

If your team is currently bad, then maximizing future years is best and Orr would no longer be the best choice.

 

[TruePowerSlave]

20 years of elite play from Bourque, assuming Orr still gets injured early in this scenario.

 

[bobholly39]

Kind of missing the point.

Yes, you downgrade from the very best of Bobby Orr to the very best of Ray Bourque, which is to say another Hart-level player who had one of the highest defenseman peaks ever. It wasn’t Orr level, but peak Bourque was way beyond a Duncan Keith or Taylor Hall.

By making that downgrade, you pick up an entire decade of Norris-contending performance.

To put it another way — the value-add of Orr over Bourque for 8 years is much, much smaller than the value-add of Bourque over an empty jersey for 12 years.

It depends how you look at it.

And Bourque is actually an excellent example, since Bourque wasn't able to help Boston win a cup. They did have the absolute best teams? No - but they had decent teams, and peak Bourque couldn't bring them over the edge to win a cup.

The value in peak Orr is that he was so good - that during those ~5-7 years, he gives a team a much better chance at winning the cup. So swap Bourque out for peak Orr in Bourque's best years in Boston - and good chance Boston wins a cup or two

I definitely voted Orr here.

20 years of elite play from Bourque, assuming Orr still gets injured early in this scenario.

Good point. In a redraft, usually it's "luck of the draw" for injuries, so you can't assume same injuries happen exactly the same.

And Orr is actually a good example of a player who probably does a lot better with modern healthcare in treating his injuries and playing longer.

For what it's worth - I voted Orr despite assuming he still gets injured in the same way. Because otherwise, it's Orr with even greater certainty.

 

[KevinRedkey]

I don't think the gap in talent between Orr and Bourque is big enough to make up for 1000 NHL games. Orr's career games played was essentially current McDavid.

 

[JackSlater]

It depends how you look at it.

And Bourque is actually an excellent example, since Bourque wasn't able to help Boston win a cup. They did have the absolute best teams? No - but they had decent teams, and peak Bourque couldn't bring them over the edge to win a cup.

The value in peak Orr is that he was so good - that during those ~5-7 years, he gives a team a much better chance at winning the cup. So swap Bourque out for peak Orr in Bourque's best years in Boston - and good chance Boston wins a cup or two

I definitely voted Orr here.



Good point. In a redraft, usually it's "luck of the draw" for injuries, so you can't assume same injuries happen exactly the same.

And Orr is actually a good example of a player who probably does a lot better with modern healthcare in treating his injuries and playing longer.

For what it's worth - I voted Orr despite assuming he still gets injured in the same way. Because otherwise, it's Orr with even greater certainty.

While I don't think that this is the way anyone really should consider this poll, I'm going to think of it in a different way. If you dropped Orr and his career plays out the same way health wise onto Bourque's or Lidstrom's teams, how many Stanley Cups do you think they win?

Orr started at 18 and finished third for the Norris, he won the next two Norris trophies despite some health issues but he was merely excellent but not untouchable. For the next six seasons Orr is untouchably good, featuring quite possibly the best peak ever, and after that he plays no meaningful games.

Bourque was elite, just like Orr was, right from the beginning, but his peak is obviously not as good. Boston had good rosters with Bourque through the early 90s, but never won the Stanley Cup with him. If Orr ends up there then in 1980, 1981, and 1982 you're getting a better defenceman than Bourque was but not drastically so. It gets interesting after that. 1983, 1984, and 1985 Boston get peak Orr, and 1986, 1987, and 1988 Boston get Orr at a level no other defenceman can really reach. Admittedly Bourque by 1987 and 1988 is still one of the best defenceman peaks ever. I think Boston has solid odds of winning at least one Stanley Cup over this span with Orr rather than Bourque, possibly more. In 1983 for example, it isn't that hard to imagine Boston (lost in six to New York in the Prince of Wales finals) beating out the Islanders as they were by 1983 and then having some success against the Oilers. Peak Orr is a game changer and the 1980s Bruins teams were a fairly strong supporting cast, but the main issue is facing off against dynasty teams. 1986 also stands out as a year where prime Orr could make a difference in a tight series (against eventual champion Montreal) where Bourque went scoreless.

Lidstrom is a trickier thought. Lidstrom wasn't elite to start off his NHL career, so Orr is a pretty big advantage throughout the first nine years. Of course Detroit doesn't win the 2002 or 2008 Stanley Cups with Orr because in this exercise he's essentially retired due to health. That's a big negative. First off, I have no doubt that Detroit still wins the 1997 and 1998 Stanley Cups with prime Orr. Of course I also recognize that roster decisions would be different with Orr on the roster but for simplicity I'll assume the Detroit supporting cast is fairly similar. The question is whether having Orr rather than Lidstrom can bring Detroit two or more Stanley Cups from the 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1999, and 2000 seasons. Again I think that there are good odds that Orr with Detroit's supporting cast could do it. Detroit made the finals in 1995 (and got destroyed) but I could see things going the other way with Orr, both because Orr would be at his peak in 1995 and also because Orr is probably the player most singularly built to break through the trap. I'd also give Detroit strong odds of getting through Colorado (and an easy finals matchup) with peak Orr in 1996. 1993 is interesting as Detroit gets upset (somewhat) by Toronto in a series with several close losses - Norris quality Orr probably gets Detroit through that series, and it's a relatively easy road to the Stanley Cup after that. 1994 saw Detroit get completely upset by San Jose - I think 20 year old Orr makes a difference there, and after that it's a pretty easy road at least to the finals. New York is a tough team, but they did almost lose to a fairly mediocre Vancouver team over a seven game final. I don't know if Orr makes a difference in 1999 when Detroit was fairly worn down and Lidstrom was already Norris quality. It's possible Orr makes a difference in 2000 but again Lidstrom was elite at this point, if not prime Orr level. This is a higher risk/reward situation than Orr switching with Bourque because Detroit did win four Stanley Cups with Lidstrom

This is a longwinded way of saying that I think it's entirely possible that teams like Boston or Detroit could have won more Stanley Cups if they'd had Orr and his massive peak, even if the window is shorter than the ~20 years of excellence from Bourque and Lidstrom. Again though I don't know if we are even supposed to consider only getting Orr for 9 years in this thread.

 

[Fantomas]

Kind of missing the point.

Yes, you downgrade from the very best of Bobby Orr to the very best of Ray Bourque, which is to say another Hart-level player who had one of the highest defenseman peaks ever. It wasn’t Orr level, but peak Bourque was way beyond a Duncan Keith or Taylor Hall.

By making that downgrade, you pick up an entire decade of Norris-contending performance.

To put it another way — the value-add of Orr over Bourque for 8 years is much, much smaller than the value-add of Bourque over an empty jersey for 12 years.

"Much much smaller?" You're wrong about this and are clearly underrepresenting the value Orr brought.

Orr is basically the defensive version of Gretzky, with production that towers over everyone else. Bourque gives you consistent excellence, but not at that level, or even close to it.

Use any basic era-adjusted stat to asess these players' offensive production. Goals created for example, and you will see that Orr at his peak is putting up seasons at around 42-44 goals created. Bourque's very best is 28, but his typical is closer to 25. You can use other era-adjusted stats and you'll end up with comparable information. If you like points, you can use points.

What this tells you is that Orr was more than 1.5 times more productive than Bourque in his typical season, at least offensively. This is how much better he was. For a championship-contending team this is a massive difference maker. As we know, in Bourque's case his teams typically came up short. You insert Orr in his place, and those playoffs losses turn into wins and cups.

Clearly you're calculating something in your head when you're comparing these players but you're not calculating it right. Look at the actual numbers. The difference season for season between Orr and Bourque is huge. Granted, Bourque's cumulative value over his entire career eclipses Orr, but as mentioned by others in this thread this doesn't get you Stanley cups.

 

[Fantomas]

Bourque was elite, just like Orr was, right from the beginning, but his peak is obviously not as good. Boston had good rosters with Bourque through the early 90s, but never won the Stanley Cup with him. If Orr ends up there then in 1980, 1981, and 1982 you're getting a better defenceman than Bourque was but not drastically so.

Wrong. You're getting a drastically better defenseman. Look at the numbers.

What makes Bourque exceptional is his consistent excellence. He's the ultimate Steady Eddie defenseman. Always healthy, always all-star level. But he's not in that upper-tier top-4 of players (Gretz, Orr, Howe, Mario) because he was never hugely dominant.

It is generally known how uniquely dominant Gretzky was in his prime. Not sure why the same respect isn't granted (by some people) to Orr. It's been documented and all clear for the eyes to see. He's not a little better than others, he's a lot better.

 

[tarheelhockey]

It depends how you look at it.

And Bourque is actually an excellent example, since Bourque wasn't able to help Boston win a cup. They did have the absolute best teams? No - but they had decent teams, and peak Bourque couldn't bring them over the edge to win a cup.

The value in peak Orr is that he was so good - that during those ~5-7 years, he gives a team a much better chance at winning the cup. So swap Bourque out for peak Orr in Bourque's best years in Boston - and good chance Boston wins a cup or two

I definitely voted Orr here.

How much more likely is it really, though? Are the .500-ish Bruins of the early and mid 1980s going to beat the Islanders dynasty or the Oilers dynasty because they upgraded one player?

The thing is, we’ve actually seen this kind of scenario over and over. Gretzky goes to the Kings, they go to the Finals one time and get smoked. The Lemieux era Penguins didn’t get anything done other than when they stacked up a super-team for a few years. The Orr era Bruins didn’t get it done outside of a brief window when they were a super-team. Gordie Howe never won a Cup outside of the early 50s when the Wings were loaded. McDavid’s Oilers are still Cupless after a decade, and came awfully close to getting swept in their only Finals run. Bourque only won with a super team, Lidstrom only won with a super team, Jagr only won with a super team. These are the most dominant players in history, and combined they have zero Cup rings where they carried a mediocre club.

In Bourque’s case, the best window of opportunity coincided with his peak as a Hart contender, dominating all facets of the game. In that context they went to the Finals twice and got smoked twice, with Bourque’s on/off ice stats being legendarily one-sided. Without him on the ice, the Bruins got pummeled. I can’t imagine that changing just by replacing him with Orr, and I can’t imagine how Orr would have added to Bourque’s already extreme net-positive to the tune of adding 2-3 more goals per game in order to hang in the series. More likely, Orr would have played a bit better than Bourque and they still would have gotten smoked in a not particularly close series.

"Much much smaller?" You're wrong about this and are clearly underrepresenting the value Orr brought.

Orr is basically the defensive version of Gretzky, with production that towers over everyone else. Bourque gives you consistent excellence, but not at that level, or even close to it.

Use any basic era-adjusted stat to asess these players' offensive production. Goals created for example, and you will see that Orr at his peak is putting up seasons at around 42-44 goals created. Bourque's very best is 28, but his typical is closer to 25. You can use other era-adjusted stats and you'll end up with comparable information. If you like points, you can use points.

What this tells you is that Orr was more than 1.5 times more productive than Bourque in his typical season, at least offensively. This is how much better he was. For a championship-contending team this is a massive difference maker. As we know, in Bourque's case his teams typically came up short. You insert Orr in his place, and those playoffs losses turn into wins and cups.

Clearly you're calculating something in your head when you're comparing these players but you're not calculating it right. Look at the actual numbers. The difference season for season between Orr and Bourque is huge. Granted, Bourque's cumulative value over his entire career eclipses Orr, but as mentioned by others in this thread this doesn't get you Stanley cups.

Cool. So tell me how many Cups actual Wayne Gretzky won when he joined a mid-range team.

This is hockey, not basketball. Having the best player on the ice doesn’t mean you blow the other team away. If you want to talk statistical value-adds, check Bourque’s Finals performances...then look at the scoreboard. Cups are a total team effort, not one guy wearing a cape.

 

[Fantomas]

Cool. So tell me how many Cups actual Wayne Gretzky won when he joined a mid-range team.

This is hockey, not basketball. Having the best player on the ice doesn’t mean you blow the other team away.

This is your best response? You want to try again?

 

[JackSlater]

Wrong. You're getting a drastically better defenseman. Look at the numbers.

I'm talking about the 18, 19, and 20 year old versions of Orr in those years. Basically starting Orr's career where Bourque's started as a 20 year old. Once Orr hit his fourth season he reached a level Bourque never touched.

 

[Chainshot]

Orr easily.

 

[Fantomas]

I'm talking about the 18, 19, and 20 year old versions of Orr in those years. Basically starting Orr's career where Bourque's started as a 20 year old. Once Orr hit his fourth season he reached a level Bourque never touched.

Good, I'm glad common sense prevails.

 

[Lshap]

What the world needs is an HFmods Teams channel.

It's on the agenda for the annual moderator vacation in Jamaica.

A sincere thank-you to all the site sponsors.

 

[PatriceBergeronFan]

If your goal is to win a championship, your best bet is getting 20+ years of a guy and as many legitimate chances at winning as possible.

Not when one is Orr. Bourque can be appealing but this is easily Orr.

 

[Lshap]

This is your best response? You want to try again?

He makes a legitimate point. Obviously, adding an all-time great player improves a team's chances, but the effect may be less than we think. Gretzky was traded in his prime and couldn't push a solid LA team to a Cup.

Another factor is that while Orr was inarguably the best player in the league, his prime coincided with one of the NHL's weakest eras, the first few years after expansion.