Bobby Orr's defensive prowess

[Amazinmets73]

I'm seeking information on Orr's defense. I've heard a wide array of appraisals, from "Orr was nearly as good at defense as offense" to "Orr was a center who played defense because he was hit less there. He consistently selfishly neglected his position for his rushes leaving his forwards and defense partner to cover for him"

Click to read more...

 

[Staniowski]

Orr was generally excellent defensively...one of the best ever. He was very smart, savvy, and probably the best all-around skater ever....and always willing to get into the heart of the action. All these things made him a standout defensively.

Like everybody, though, he was far from perfect.

 

[blogofmike]

I'm seeking information on Orr's defense. I've heard a wide array of appraisals, from "Orr was nearly as good at defense as offense" to "Orr was a center who played defense because he was hit less there. He consistently selfishly neglected his position for his rushes leaving his forwards and defense partner to cover for him"

He was hit a decent amount. the 73 Rangers and 74 Flyers intentionally dumped the puck to his side to make him work harder and potentially take the body.

It's true that a forward would cover for him. Why wouldn't they? And you could say he neglected his position, but that's probably too harsh a frame. He jumped into the play on offense. It worked out. A lot. He was very good defensively, but he occasionally got burned by positioning, and that 1971 Habs playoff comeback is an example.

I do think we end to overrate him a little based on ratios and plus/minus. After all Boston didn't become a minus team when he left, (as suggested by GF/GA ratios,) and they allowed more or less the same number of goals for years. Towards the end of his prime he was still posting extraordinary numbers against the Caps and Golden Seals, but how many goals would they be expected to score anyways?

 

[DannyGallivan]

I do think we end to overrate him a little based on ratios and plus/minus.

I have to assume that his plus/minus numbers today would only be between plus 10 and plus 20.

Then again, he is 73 years old.

 

[Michael Farkas]

His prime, he was everywhere defensively. The difference between him and other d-men at the time was that he played on his toes, even in the DZ. It led to him jumping and breaking up a lot of plays and passes. His later years with knee injuries are a little more of a mixed bag I'd say...but his early prime, he was everywhere...in a good way.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Plenty of better defensively defenders. But when you combine his offense is why he's the best

 

[jigglysquishy]

There's been lots of great discussion on Orr defensively in the all time list threads. I recall coaches voting for him as best defensive player several times, but post 1973 he was no longer in that category. Still elite defensively, but no longer the league's best.

The fact that he had ~3 years of being arguably the best offensive player (or second to Espo) and best defensive player in the league in difficult to comprehend.

To add to my previous post, here are polls from Orr's prime:

1971 NHL coach's poll: Best defensive defenseman - 3 way tie between Bobby Orr, Al Arbour, Ted Harris
March 13th, 1971 NHL Coaches Poll - Toronto Star

1974 NHL coach's poll: Best defensive defenseman: Bill White. Runners up: Borje Salming, Jacques Laperriere, Rod Seiling, Dave Burrows
March 23rd, 1974 NHL Coaches Poll - Toronto Star

1976 NHL coach's poll: Best Defensive Defenceman - Larry Robinson. Runners up: Bill White, Denis Potvin, Dave Burrows, Terry Harper
Yes, Orr didn't play a full season in 1975-76, but that didn't stop coaches from voting him as the best skater and high in other categories.
February 21st, 1976 NHL Coaches Poll - Toronto Star

I'm including a post by TheDevilMadeMe because he does a better job explaining it than I do.

 

[Big Phil]

If you look hard enough, of course you'll find times Orr made a mistake. Game 2 of the 1971 series vs. Montreal he was bad in that comeback defensively. However, it is worth noting he still had 4 points in that game I believe. So there's that. Even Orr could be caught flat footed against an old Henri Richard. It happens. But he was the whole package, and that includes defensively. Definitely put his body at risk for that as well. There is no situation where you would not want Orr on the ice in a game. How many other defensemen in NHL history do you want on the ice protecting a one-goal lead with a minute left?

 

[BobbyAwe]

If you always have the puck, that's playing defense too...

 

[adsfan]

I'm seeking information on Orr's defense. I've heard a wide array of appraisals, from "Orr was nearly as good at defense as offense" to "Orr was a center who played defense because he was hit less there. He consistently selfishly neglected his position for his rushes leaving his forwards and defense partner to cover for him"

Some of what Orr did with his stick would be illegal now. He was really good at harassing or impeding an opponent puck carrier with his stick without bringing him down. He was like a magician on skates.

He may have been the first defenseman who wasn't a stay-at-home type in the NHL. His bursts of speed up or down the ice were unbelievable. He was a superior skater until the knee injuries caught up with him.

Other players didn't have to cover much for him when the puck ended up in the other goal. The best defense is a good offense! I highlighted his goals and assists.

From hockeydb.com:

Bobby Orr
Defense
Born Mar 20 1948 -- Parry Sound, ONT
Height 6.00 -- Weight 199

--- Regular Season --- ---- Playoffs ----
Season Team Lge GP G A Pts PIM GP G A Pts PIM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1962-63 Oshawa Generals OHA 34 6 15 21 0
1963-64 Oshawa Generals OHA 56 29 43 72 0
1964-65 Oshawa Generals OHA 56 34 59 93 0
1965-66 Oshawa Generals OHA 47 38 56 94 92
1966-67 Boston Bruins NHL 61 13 28 41 102 -- -- -- -- --
1967-68 Boston Bruins NHL 46 11 20 31 63 4 0 2 2 2
1968-69 Boston Bruins NHL 67 21 43 64 133 10 1 7 8 10
1969-70 Boston Bruins NHL 76 33 87 120 125 14 9 11 20 14
1970-71 Boston Bruins NHL 78 37 102 139 91 7 5 7 12 10
1971-72 Boston Bruins NHL 76 37 80 117 106 15 5 19 24 19
1972-73 Boston Bruins NHL 63 29 72 101 99 5 1 1 2 7
1973-74 Boston Bruins NHL 74 32 90 122 82 16 4 14 18 28
1974-75 Boston Bruins NHL 80 46 89 135 101 3 1 5 6 2
1975-76 Boston Bruins NHL 10 5 13 18 22 -- -- -- -- --
1976-77 Chicago Blackhawks NHL 20 4 19 23 25 -- -- -- -- --
1977-78 Did Not Play Ind 0 0 0 0 0
1978-79 Chicago Blackhawks NHL 6 2 2 4 4 -- -- -- -- --
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHL Totals 657 270 645 915 953 74 26 66 92 92

 

[Hockey Outsider]

There's been lots of great discussion on Orr defensively in the all time list threads. I recall coaches voting for him as best defensive player several times, but post 1973 he was no longer in that category. Still elite defensively, but no longer the league's best.

The fact that he had ~3 years of being arguably the best offensive player (or second to Espo) and best defensive player in the league in difficult to comprehend.



I'm including a post by TheDevilMadeMe because he does a better job explaining it than I do.

There's been lots of great discussion on Orr defensively in the all time list threads. I recall coaches voting for him as best defensive player several times, but post 1973 he was no longer in that category. Still elite defensively, but no longer the league's best.

The fact that he had ~3 years of being arguably the best offensive player (or second to Espo) and best defensive player in the league in difficult to comprehend.



I'm including a post by TheDevilMadeMe because he does a better job explaining it than I do.

I was going to post this. Orr tying for first in the "best defensive defenseman" category in the 1971 poll, against two pure shutdown defensemen, speaks volumes.

His absence in the 1974 poll is tough to evaluate. That used to bug me - but all we can say with certainty is, for that particular poll, he wasn't in the top five. We have no idea if he ranked 6th, or 90th. (It wouldn't surprise me if he was still in the top ten, but that's speculation).

 

[PepeBostones]

I come to think of Canada Cup 1976. Bobby Orr could hardly move at all and it hampered his offensive game (still lead all scorers I believe, tied with Denis Potvin) But watch his defensive game against Russia as the best example. Bobby didn't do much attacking in that game but he hardly made a mistake defensively. Great hockey IQ, he read every play perfectly and broke up plays and passing pattern. Never forget that game. Watch when you can.

 

[BobbyAwe]

I come to think of Canada Cup 1976. Bobby Orr could hardly move at all and it hampered his offensive game (still lead all scorers I believe, tied with Denis Potvin) But watch his defensive game against Russia as the best example. Bobby didn't do much attacking in that game but he hardly made a mistake defensively. Great hockey IQ, he read every play perfectly and broke up plays and passing pattern. Never forget that game. Watch when you can.

Along that line, in 1976-77 with Chicago, when NO ONE else in that shape would have still been playing, he still had 23 points in 20 games and was +6. That +6 was the BEST +/- on the team. The ONLY other player that was in the plus column was Phil Russell, who was only a +1. Unbelievable...

 

[Yozhik v tumane]

He may have been the first defenseman who wasn't a stay-at-home type in the NHL

I don’t know about this claim. Guys like Harvey and Pilote had multiple 50+ point seasons (well Harvey had one, but was certainly known to roam all three zones and go end-to-end with the puck on his stick, and averaged 34 points per 70 games throughout his career). In the early days of the NHL, Sprague Cleghorn and Harry Cameron put up several ppg seasons each. Orr was revolutionary, those levels of production from his position was revolutionary, but every defenseman before him wasn’t a stay-at-home type.

 

[The Macho King]

The impression I get is that Orr was always skating - in that he did not play without the puck passively, and relied a lot on his physical gifts. It's probably the type of thing where when he flames out and has a bad game, it ends up looking real f***ing back defensively, but when it works it feels like there's five of him out there.

Can't say what that means vis a vis his ranking historically, though.

 

[VanIslander]

Please show video.

I've only seen highlights of his puck carrying. The two full throwback games I've seen of his Bruins vs. Habs he was meh away from the puck.

Does the emperor have clothes?

 

[Hanji]

Orr is a little overrated defensively. It's not that he couldn't be an elite defensive stalwart, he could when the situation called for it; but he sacraficed some of his defensive prowess when he was revolutionising the offensive side of the game. I don't care how talented someone is, nobody can be in 2 places at once. If memory serves me right he could get himself caught up ice from time to time.

If anything, his best defensive weapon was the ability to control the play and keep the puck off the oppositions stick.

 

[Michael Farkas]

If we have regulars here that haven't seen Bobby Orr in a game (not highlights, but a game), we have real problems...

Here's a quick hitter, I got every attempted zone entry against in the video...

- Jan. 16, 1971 vs Montreal.

0:17 - denied zone entry

4:01 - Good angle on the retrieval

4:55 - Not necessarily a "defensive" play, but if this guy was alleged too far up the ice too often, he's not in position for this retrieval.

5:38 - Good angle, gets inside positioning, makes the only reasonable play which is to get out on his backhand.

5:56 - Gets around on MTL16, matches speed, forces wide, and blocks the shot.

9:40 - Good positioning on the 2 on 1 (this is towards the end of a fairly long shift already). MTL21 winds up for a shot from way out and outside the dot line...so just babysit the lane, make sure he can't get inside on you, but who cares if they take a long shot. He tracks back, gloves the rebound, turns it right into a net-swing exit. Escapes MTL21's hack (MTL22 is in the box because in a similar situation and he tried to tackle Orr, but couldn't take him down).

11:03 - Standard 2v2 rush. Orr just sits on the inside lane and jumps the pass to immediately break it up.

14:27 - What looks like it could be a threatening rush is just a "who cares" slap shot from the blueline. Orr provides partner support and facilitates a clean zone exit.

 

[adsfan]

I don’t know about this claim. Guys like Harvey and Pilote had multiple 50+ point seasons (well Harvey had one, but was certainly known to roam all three zones and go end-to-end with the puck on his stick, and averaged 34 points per 70 games throughout his career). In the early days of the NHL, Sprague Cleghorn and Harry Cameron put up several ppg seasons each. Orr was revolutionary, those levels of production from his position was revolutionary, but every defenseman before him wasn’t a stay-at-home type.

I realize that hockey has changed throughout the decades.

Bobby Orr had 6 seasons where he scored over 100 points. Most of those were 76 game seasons.

If the knees hadn't gone bad, he would have had a few more.

Orr led the NHL in scoring two seasons which were 5 years apart.

I believe that he is the only defenseman in NHL history to win the Art Ross Trophy.

Orr also won those 8 Norris Trophies in a row.

Doug Harvey won 7 with 4 in a row, a miss and then 3 more in a row. Pilote won 3 in a row, which was the longest streak until Lidstrom won 3 in a row twice and won a 7th a few years later. Ray Bourque won 5 over 8 years. Since the Lidstrom era, only Keith and Karlsson have won two.

Cleghorn and Cameron played 20 years or more before the 1953-54 season, when the James Norris Trophy began.

What a shame that they don't get all of the recognition that they deserve!

 

[notDatsyuk]

I realize that hockey has changed throughout the decades.

Bobby Orr had 6 seasons where he scored over 100 points. Most of those were 76 game seasons.

If the knees hadn't gone bad, he would have had a few more.

Orr led the NHL in scoring two seasons which were 5 years apart.

I believe that he is the only defenseman in NHL history to win the Art Ross Trophy.

Orr also won those 8 Norris Trophies in a row.

Doug Harvey won 7 with 4 in a row, a miss and then 3 more in a row. Pilote won 3 in a row, which was the longest streak until Lidstrom won 3 in a row twice and won a 7th a few years later. Ray Bourque won 5 over 8 years. Since the Lidstrom era, only Keith and Karlsson have won two.

Cleghorn and Cameron played 20 years or more before the 1953-54 season, when the James Norris Trophy began.

What a shame that they don't get all of the recognition that they deserve!

Using the Norris trophy is a bit misleading when talking about defensive play.

Doug Harvey won his primarily for his defensive play, when it was awarded for defensive excellence.

Orr was the first real rushing defenceman, aided by the NHL and WHA watering down the talent by going from 6 to 20 teams. He won his Norris trophies mainly for his offence, and offence has been the largest consideration ever since.

He was very good defensively, but not as good without the puck as he was with it.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Harvey also won it for this zone exit ability. One of the first to lure forecheckers in and pass around them. This was a fairly new advent.

 

[adsfan]

Using the Norris trophy is a bit misleading when talking about defensive play.

Doug Harvey won his primarily for his defensive play, when it was awarded for defensive excellence.

Orr was the first real rushing defenceman, aided by the NHL and WHA watering down the talent by going from 6 to 20 teams. He won his Norris trophies mainly for his offence, and offence has been the largest consideration ever since.

He was very good defensively, but not as good without the puck as he was with it.

I have three responses to your post.

1) If not the Norris, what NHL trophy would you select?


2) The WHA started in 1972. Orr already had 5 Norris Trophies by the time they started playing.

Orr started in the NHL in 1966 and won the Calder Memorial Trophy (Rookie of the Year). The next year is when the NHL expanded from 6 to 12 teams and he started his Norris run against all of those more experienced NHL players with 31 points. Since he didn't have that much offense, he must have played some pretty good defense that season!


3) Practically all the defensemen in the NHL in 1966-67 were still there for the 1967-68 season. All six expansion teams played in the West. The Bruins played 24 of 74 (31.6%) games against the West and finished in third place in the East Division.

 

[notDatsyuk]

I have three responses to your post.

1) If not the Norris, what NHL trophy would you select?


2) The WHA started in 1972. Orr already had 5 Norris Trophies by the time they started playing.

Orr started in the NHL in 1966 and won the Calder Memorial Trophy (Rookie of the Year). The next year is when the NHL expanded from 6 to 12 teams and he started his Norris run against all of those more experienced NHL players with 31 points. Since he didn't have that much offense, he must have played some pretty good defense that season!


3) Practically all the defensemen in the NHL in 1966-67 were still there for the 1967-68 season. All six expansion teams played in the West. The Bruins played 24 of 74 (31.6%) games against the West and finished in third place in the East Division.

1) I'm not selecting anything. All I am doing is pointing out that the criteria for the Norris changed a lot, mainly because of Orr.

2) Yes, the NHL expanded in 1968 and the WHA started in 1972. Both were within his playing career, and his string of Norris trophies.

3) Thanks. That pretty much proves my point.

 

[The Panther]

Using the Norris trophy is a bit misleading when talking about defensive play.

Doug Harvey won his primarily for his defensive play, when it was awarded for defensive excellence.

Orr was the first real rushing defenceman, aided by the NHL and WHA watering down the talent by going from 6 to 20 teams. He won his Norris trophies mainly for his offence, and offence has been the largest consideration ever since.

He was very good defensively, but not as good without the puck as he was with it.

I don't think most of your points are sustainable. You may be right that using the Norris trophy can be misleading when talking about "defensive play", but one reason Doug Harvey won Norrises was because of his passing and rushing (and PP) ability. It wasn't solely due to defence.

Your implication is that Orr's rushing ability was aided by the WHA watering down talent, but that is clearly false as he had won five Norrises in a row (which today would be the 2nd-most in history) and had three 115+ point seasons before the WHA existed. So that point has no merit whatsoever.

Then, as another posted pointed out, it doesn't necessarily stand to reason that Orr won the 1968 Norris trophy "mainly for his offence" when he was 11th on his team in scoring and 90th overall. There were nine NHL defencemen that year that outscored him, and yet he won the Norris with more than twice as many votes as any other player.

Then, as has been shown on this forum a few times before, polls of NHL coaches and GMs from the late 60s and early 70s show that Orr -- at that time, before the WHA -- was generally considered one of if not the top defensive player in the game. So, if contemporary coaches and GMs didn't know the truth, then who did...?

And finally, during the four seasons prior to the WHA's existence, Orr was on the ice for 356 goals against Boston in 297 games played, or 1.20 goals against him per game. (If we eliminate PP goals against, he was on for only 230 goals against Boston in 297 games played, or 0.77 goals against him at ES or on the PP per game.)

Boston in total allowed 848 goals against in those same years. So, how much ice was Orr seeing? As he played a lot at ES, and also on the PP and SH, and as Boston sometimes had only four D-men with 65+ games played per season, you'd have to think he was on the ice for at least 30 minutes per game, or 50% of the time at least. Thus, Orr (who also played the PK, don't forget) was on for 356 of 848 goals against, but as he missed 11 or so games, let's say it was probably 356 of 825 or something. At any rate, that number would mean he was on for no more than 43% of the goals against Boston during those four seasons -- probably less, if he was playing more than thirty minutes, as I suspect he was. Anyway, 43%, in itself, means his results were well above average for his team defensively in those seasons (and Boston was the fifth-best defensive team).

And again, if we just isolate his even strength results, he was on for, as I said, 230 goals against those four seasons, or 0.77 per game. So, let's compare those results with the other defencemen who received 2nd or 3rd place Norris finishes within these four years. Here are the results:

Bobby Orr - 0.77
Brad Park - 0.79
Carl Brewer - 0.88
J.C. Tremblay - 0.95
Tim Horton - 0.96
Bill White - 0.99
Ted Green - 1.08

Not one of these guys ever scored even 80 points in season (most half of that), and yet every one of them was on the ice for more ES goals against per game than Bobby Orr was. (Ted Green -- for three seasons -- is particularly notable because he was Orr's teammate and was a defense-only, shut-down kind of guy... Yet, his numbers are worse than Orr's defensively, despite less ice time!)

In conclusion: Since Orr's defensive results are better than all of these guys, just imagine how defensively dominant he'd have been if, like (most of) these guys, he wasn't a rushing defenceman!

 

[notDatsyuk]

I don't think most of your points are sustainable. You may be right that using the Norris trophy can be misleading when talking about "defensive play", but one reason Doug Harvey won Norrises was because of his passing and rushing (and PP) ability. It wasn't solely due to defence.

Your implication is that Orr's rushing ability was aided by the WHA watering down talent, but that is clearly false as he had won five Norrises in a row (which today would be the 2nd-most in history) and had three 115+ point seasons before the WHA existed. So that point has no merit whatsoever.

Then, as another posted pointed out, it doesn't necessarily stand to reason that Orr won the 1968 Norris trophy "mainly for his offence" when he was 11th on his team in scoring and 90th overall. There were nine NHL defencemen that year that outscored him, and yet he won the Norris with more than twice as many votes as any other player.

Then, as has been shown on this forum a few times before, polls of NHL coaches and GMs from the late 60s and early 70s show that Orr -- at that time, before the WHA -- was generally considered one of if not the top defensive player in the game. So, if contemporary coaches and GMs didn't know the truth, then who did...?

And finally, during the four seasons prior to the WHA's existence, Orr was on the ice for 356 goals against Boston in 297 games played, or 1.20 goals against him per game. (If we eliminate PP goals against, he was on for only 230 goals against Boston in 297 games played, or 0.77 goals against him at ES or on the PP per game.)

Boston in total allowed 848 goals against in those same years. So, how much ice was Orr seeing? As he played a lot at ES, and also on the PP and SH, and as Boston sometimes had only four D-men with 65+ games played per season, you'd have to think he was on the ice for at least 30 minutes per game, or 50% of the time at least. Thus, Orr (who also played the PK, don't forget) was on for 356 of 848 goals against, but as he missed 11 or so games, let's say it was probably 356 of 825 or something. At any rate, that number would mean he was on for no more than 43% of the goals against Boston during those four seasons -- probably less, if he was playing more than thirty minutes, as I suspect he was. Anyway, 43%, in itself, means his results were well above average for his team defensively in those seasons (and Boston was the fifth-best defensive team).

And again, if we just isolate his even strength results, he was on for, as I said, 230 goals against those four seasons, or 0.77 per game. So, let's compare those results with the other defencemen who received 2nd or 3rd place Norris finishes within these four years. Here are the results:

Bobby Orr - 0.77
Brad Park - 0.79
Carl Brewer - 0.88
J.C. Tremblay - 0.95
Tim Horton - 0.96
Bill White - 0.99
Ted Green - 1.08

Not one of these guys ever scored even 80 points in season (most half of that), and yet every one of them was on the ice for more ES goals against per game than Bobby Orr was. (Ted Green -- for three seasons -- is particularly notable because he was Orr's teammate and was a defense-only, shut-down kind of guy... Yet, his numbers are worse than Orr's defensively, despite less ice time!)

In conclusion: Since Orr's defensive results are better than all of these guys, just imagine how defensively dominant he'd have been if, like (most of) these guys, he wasn't a rushing defenceman!

Impressive. Absolutely none of that relates to anything that I actually said.