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

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

If I'm an owner I push for Lidstrom/Bourque. If I'm GM then it's Orr.

 

[BraveCanadian]

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.

I get his point that hockey is more of a team sport than basketball (for example) in terms of star impact, but a defenseman like Orr plays a lot more than a forward so he's closer to the basketball example than most forwards.

And while Gretzky didn't have many prime seasons in LA before getting Sutered, he was still good enough post-prime to get a decent LA team within reach of a Cup. He might have pulled it out 3 years earlier.

 

[Albatros]

Back in the day also Gretzky played bigger minutes than top defensemen today, the game has changed.

 

[Poppy Whoa Sonnet]

You won't be working for the team in 9 years anyway

 

[tarheelhockey]

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

No, I’ll wait for you to give an answer to the question.

In fact, I’ll make it easier and expand the parameters.

Wayne Gretzky
Geordie Howe
Mario Lemieux
Bobby Orr

There’s your big 4. Now let’s include the top defensemen after Orr.

Ray Bourque
Doug Harvey
Nicklas Lidstrom

For good measure, let’s include the forwards who routinely get included in the conversation for #5.

Jean Beliveau
Sidney Crosby
Bobby Hull
Connor McDavid
Maurice Richard


Out of all those names, and the hundreds of years their collective careers represent, which of them ever won a Stanley Cup without being surrounded by a constellation of high-end Hall of Famers?

Answer: Beliveau (‘65), Crosby (‘17/‘18), and Lidstrom (‘08)

How did they do it? All three are rated among the all-time elite for playing at an all star level well into their 30s, which gave their teams a shot at success year after year. The longer they played, the more likely it became that they would find their way to a successful Cup run — especially as their teams rebuilt new cores and tried different approaches. And yes, luck is a factor as always. The more tickets you have in the raffle, the better your chances of drawing the lucky number.

For all the talk about how Orr would elevate a mediocre team into Cup success, he didn’t actually do anything like that in reality. Nobody ever did, except through hanging around until the stars aligned. That’s the nature of hockey and especially the nature of the Stanley Cup playoffs.

 

[Caps8112]

didnt get to watch Orr play. Assuming by his big 4 status and all the lore that he singlehandedly won games and made the bruins great. Lidstrom is one of my favorite players ever but he may have done this a few times but I doubt it was anywhere near what Orr did. Same for Bourque. Its not a knock either of thrm.

 

[Mike C]

I'll take 8 years of Orr over 20 years of any other defender in history.

I'll even go as far as to say Gretzky is the only player that could tempt me to not pick Orr

Thank you!! I've been saying this for decades

 

[I Hate Blake Coleman]

I'd draft Orr over anyone ever.

 

[Mike C]

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

Potvin would be second in my view.

 

[Mike C]

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.

Orr played on one leg in an era where sports medicine was an ice pack and an ace bandage. His last full season was at 26 years old and his ability transcended expansion and everything else. He also revolutionized the way the game was played.

As for Gretzky, I'll factor in that he probably had played the equivalent of what? say threw, two extra seasons with deep playoff runs and international competition. His body after the trade was not the same as his age

 

[dgibb10]

No, I’ll wait for you to give an answer to the question.

In fact, I’ll make it easier and expand the parameters.

Wayne Gretzky
Geordie Howe
Mario Lemieux
Bobby Orr

There’s your big 4. Now let’s include the top defensemen after Orr.

Ray Bourque
Doug Harvey
Nicklas Lidstrom

For good measure, let’s include the forwards who routinely get included in the conversation for #5.

Jean Beliveau
Sidney Crosby
Bobby Hull
Connor McDavid
Maurice Richard


Out of all those names, and the hundreds of years their collective careers represent, which of them ever won a Stanley Cup without being surrounded by a constellation of high-end Hall of Famers?

Answer: Beliveau (‘65), Crosby (‘17/‘18), and Lidstrom (‘08)

How did they do it? All three are rated among the all-time elite for playing at an all star level well into their 30s, which gave their teams a shot at success year after year. The longer they played, the more likely it became that they would find their way to a successful Cup run — especially as their teams rebuilt new cores and tried different approaches. And yes, luck is a factor as always. The more tickets you have in the raffle, the better your chances of drawing the lucky number.

For all the talk about how Orr would elevate a mediocre team into Cup success, he didn’t actually do anything like that in reality. Nobody ever did, except through hanging around until the stars aligned. That’s the nature of hockey and especially the nature of the Stanley Cup playoffs.

Especially in a 32 team league.

Even the team with the best player in the world by far in McDavid, the favourites to win the cup, has implied cup odds of just 12% going into next year (based on vegas lines)

 

[shakes the clown]

Orr.

If you are drafting him today, you can probably get his knees fixed.

That’s actually a really good point. Orr all day long.

 

[SillyRabbit]

That’s actually a really good point. Orr all day long.

I mean that defeats the purpose of this poll so I don't know why people keep assuming this.

The OP clearly meant that you get Orr with the same career length and same injuries.

There would be no point in creating a poll called "Orr for 20 years or some other defenceman for 20 years?"

 

[EXTRAS]

I mean bourque was on some decent bruins teams and never won a cup with them, so doesn't really make sense to take a guy who hasn't proven he nearly guarantees you a cup. May be controversial but there are a few fellas I'd take over him even if they aren't considered that calibre of dman. A few guys who carried pretty mediocre teams to finals appearances multiple times.

 

[shakes the clown]

I mean that defeats the purpose of this poll so I don't know why people keep assuming this.

The OP clearly meant that you get Orr with the same career length and same injuries.

There would be no point in creating a poll called "Orr for 20 years or some other defenceman for 20 years?"

then the exercise is flawed. It's a fact of medical evolvement that if Orr had those knee injuries today he would have a much longer and productive career. He would also have better equipment and training.

 

[Toby91ca]

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.

Quick nitpick here. Just purely from a math perspective, I’d assume expected cups would be 0 for both since you’d look at each year in isolation. There is a much higher chance of not winning vs winning. You can’t take 15% which equals 0.15 cups per year times 21 years to get 3.15 expected cups. I have no idea where the 96.7% comes from.

That said, the guy playing longer is going to give you better chances overall, no matter how low those chances may be

 

[dgibb10]

Quick nitpick here. Just purely from a math perspective, I’d assume expected cups would be 0 for both since you’d look at each year in isolation. There is a much higher chance of not winning vs winning. You can’t take 15% which equals 0.15 cups per year times 21 years to get 3.15 expected cups. I have no idea where the 96.7% comes from.

That said, the guy playing longer is going to give you better chances overall, no matter how low those chances may be

Expected successes = probability of success*number of trials, assuming all trials are independent of eachother

In terms of probabilities: 0.85^21=0.033
85% chance of not winning the cup each year to the power of 21 years, means that you have a 3.3% chance of not winning the cup a single time in the overall 21 years. Or, alternatively, you have a 96.7% of winning at least one cup

 

[Lshap]

Orr played on one leg in an era where sports medicine was an ice pack and an ace bandage. His last full season was at 26 years old and his ability transcended expansion and everything else. He also revolutionized the way the game was played.

As for Gretzky, I'll factor in that he probably had played the equivalent of what? say threw, two extra seasons with deep playoff runs and international competition. His body after the trade was not the same as his age

Isn't his injury kind of the point? If Orr played a full career this poll wouldn't exist. I watched Orr play. Yes, he was the best. No, he wasn't superhuman. He'd be my pick if I could cherry-pick the roster and the timing, but the more uncertain the team, the more tempted I'd be to draft the player who would contribute for twice as long.

 

[Mike C]

Isn't his injury kind of the point? If Orr played a full career this poll wouldn't exist. I watched Orr play. Yes, he was the best. No, he wasn't superhuman. He'd be my pick if I could cherry-pick the roster and the timing, but the more uncertain the team, the more tempted I'd be to draft the player who would contribute for twice as long.

depends on the variables. we can pick with the imagination that maybe he'd stay healthy. in today's day and age, with the advancement of sports medicine and surgical procedures. i'm sure guys like orr, namath and maravich would have had different careers

i saw the scar on pistol pete's knee and i literally almost threw up in the locker room

all in all, everything being eqaul....i'd pick orr and spin my wheels

 

[BraveCanadian]

Expected successes = probability of success*number of trials, assuming all trials are independent of eachother

In terms of probabilities: 0.85^21=0.033
85% chance of not winning the cup each year to the power of 21 years, means that you have a 3.3% chance of not winning the cup a single time in the overall 21 years. Or, alternatively, you have a 96.7% of winning at least one cup

That isn't even remotely true. At no time does the NHL have parity like that.

 

[dgibb10]

That isn't even remotely true. At no time does the NHL have parity like that.

What are you talking about?

A) if you're questioning the math, you're wrong, plain and simple
b) if you're questioning 15% odds of winning a cup in any given year, I was not the one who came up with that. (the cup favourites in a 32 team league have about 12% odds to win the cup based on gambling lines)

 

[BraveCanadian]

What are you talking about?

A) if you're questioning the math, you're wrong, plain and simple
b) if you're questioning 15% odds of winning a cup in any given year, I was not the one who came up with that. (the cup favourites in a 32 team league have about 12% odds to win the cup based on gambling lines)

Pressing X to doubt on anything that uniform in a 21 or 32 team league. Especially over decades.

 

[Johnny Tomala]

Lidstrom, Orr career was too short.

 

[wetcoast]

For me even though Orr is the best one here, I'd take either over him. Since I have to only pick one I'll take the 1000 extra games of Bourque over the better player in Orr and IMO he just edges out Lidstrom overall.

Changed my answer to Orr, as it was pointed out that today they'd be able to fix Orrs' knees.

Then this wouldn't be a poll question then so I think we take them knowing what we know.

I slightly prefer Lidstrom to Bourque but you take the extra years here.

But to play Devils advocate the bruins did have Park and Bourque after Orr but maybe that's just luck on second thought.

In that thought experiment after Potvin what did the NYI have on the back end....so off the top of my head it's makes the Boston situation unique.

 

[Crow]

It’s no doubt Bourque in my mind if we are considering who had the most value over their entire careers but I don’t think that’s what being asked. Lidstrom would be up there in the top 4 or so too.

It’s Orr anyway. Probably the best Blackhawk ever.