Explain why Bobby Orr is consensus best D?

[DannyGallivan]

I'm really not sure there's any legitimate way to put Lemieux first. Gretzky's got him edged in just about every career offensive category imaginable.

If you like to judge things on peak, Orr and Gretzky still come out favorably to Lemiuex. And Howe comes pretty close.

If longevity is your king, Howe is easily best of all time, and Gretzky played many, many, many more games than Lemiuex at a super-high level.

Think offense is overrated? Orr and Howe are both recognized as having far more well-rounded games than Lemieux, and there's really not much reason to argue Lemieux over Gretzky in this metric either.

What ifs? Orr reached God mode faster than Lemieux and played defense, a position typically more forgiving to aging. So give them both perfectly healthy careers, and I think Lemieux is still looking up. And who knows how insane Gretzky's 90's would have been if not for his injury?

Are you a Cup counter or like team success (President's trophies, wins, etc.) to judge individuals? Gretzky and Howe have him beat, and Orr might match him.

Playoffs and best-of-best? Orr, Lemieux, and Gretzky all have two Smythes (it wasn't awarded at the start of Howe's career), but Gretzky, at least, had more, and more dominant, great runs than Lemieux.

International resumes? Once again, Gretzky's is better.

Heck, even in the eye test (which is one category where Lemieux probably does trump Gretzky), I'd give Orr the edge as the most dominant looking player I've ever seen. Lemieux was probably the second most apparent "man among boys" out there, but #4 *looked* like he was crushing the competition more than anyone else I've ever seen.

I do think Lemieux belongs in the Big 4, but he's the only member of that group who I just can't see putting first. No matter what criteria you chose, I think at least one other member of the Big 4 has him beat, and even if you want to average things across multiple criteria, I don't see any way to line them up so Lemieux comes out on top. I guess maybe if you want to base it solely on "what player, based on the eye test, looked like he was the most offensively dominant player of all time?", Lemieux might be the legit pick?

Officially, I say and always will say that Orr is the best player who ever lived. However, as a challenge I will start a thread (eventually) stating the case that Lemieux is at least the greatest forward of all time. This is just for a challenge. Sneak preview... Lemieux did as much as Gretzky with less assistance, he overcame more (to me, his Art Ross the year he came back from Hodgekins and caught Lafontaine is among the greatest feats in the history of sports). Again, the popular choice is Gretzky, so I'll just see how well of a case I can make for Lemieux. No time now, though. By comparison, it was laughably easy to make a case for Orr to be considered the best player in history.

 

[PenguinSpeed]

I'm really not sure there's any legitimate way to put Lemieux first. Gretzky's got him edged in just about every career offensive category imaginable.

If you like to judge things on peak, Orr and Gretzky still come out favorably to Lemiuex. And Howe comes pretty close.

If longevity is your king, Howe is easily best of all time, and Gretzky played many, many, many more games than Lemiuex at a super-high level.

Think offense is overrated? Orr and Howe are both recognized as having far more well-rounded games than Lemieux, and there's really not much reason to argue Lemieux over Gretzky in this metric either.

What ifs? Orr reached God mode faster than Lemieux and played defense, a position typically more forgiving to aging. So give them both perfectly healthy careers, and I think Lemieux is still looking up. And who knows how insane Gretzky's 90's would have been if not for his injury?

Are you a Cup counter or like team success (President's trophies, wins, etc.) to judge individuals? Gretzky and Howe have him beat, and Orr might match him.

Playoffs and best-of-best? Orr, Lemieux, and Gretzky all have two Smythes (it wasn't awarded at the start of Howe's career), but Gretzky, at least, had more, and more dominant, great runs than Lemieux.

International resumes? Once again, Gretzky's is better.

Heck, even in the eye test (which is one category where Lemieux probably does trump Gretzky), I'd give Orr the edge as the most dominant looking player I've ever seen. Lemieux was probably the second most apparent "man among boys" out there, but #4 *looked* like he was crushing the competition more than anyone else I've ever seen.

I do think Lemieux belongs in the Big 4, but he's the only member of that group who I just can't see putting first. No matter what criteria you chose, I think at least one other member of the Big 4 has him beat, and even if you want to average things across multiple criteria, I don't see any way to line them up so Lemieux comes out on top. I guess maybe if you want to base it solely on "what player, based on the eye test, looked like he was the most offensively dominant player of all time?", Lemieux might be the legit pick?

-1990s Points Per game is the single greatest stretch of dominance over anyone any era all time any time over 10 years.

1990s, the entire decade

Lemieux- 2.063 points per game
Gretzky- 1.37
Lindros- 1.35
Jagr- 1.32
Lafontaine- 1.29
Selanne- 1.29
Sakic- 1.27
Forseberg- 1.24

-Not only was the 1990's the best generation of talent in NHL history, but Lemieux not beat, not destroyed, not physically annihilated and manhandled, but absolutely embarrassed everyone in the 1990s including Wayne Gretzky in overall points per game.

 

[tony d]

Because he changed the way the game was played for defense. His point totals were ridiculous for a defenseman. He's not my best ever- that's Gretzky- but he's #2 all time for me.

 

[PenguinSpeed]

8x Norris
3x Hart
Calder
8x AS-1
2x Ross
5x led in assists
2x Cup
2x Smythe
1.39 career ppg...for a defenseman
915 pts

oh yeah, and he did all of that by the age of 26!

He played his last game of significance at 26. Over the next 3 years he'd only play 30 games total due to his knees.

The heights he (and we) were robbed of are insane to think about. And lets not forget, the only reason we were robbed was because of the medical tech of the time. If they had arthroscopic surgery back then, he misses 6 months and then is fine.

Give Orr 20 seasons, and we get to see 1. him play in the high flying 80s, and 2. play next to Ray Bourque.

Conservatively we'd be looking at 12-14 Norris trophies, 4-5 Harts, 1-2 more Cups (they for sure win in 79 with him) and 1,800 points.

To put his accomplishments in persepective, look at Erik Karlsson. At 27, he is already older than Orr was when he stopped playing. And in only 30 fewer games, Karlsson has 400 fewer points than Orr scored and scores an entire .50 ppg lower than Orr did. As great as Karlsson is offensively, his best season is 60 points lower than Orr's. That's the level of greatness we are talking about.

Or compare him to Crosby. Orr's best season (139pts) is 19 more than Crosby's best. His best assist total is 18 more (84 vs 102)

For all the offense, Orr was the best defensive D in the league too. He is +574 over his 657 games, with seasons of +124, +85, +83, +80.

Defensemen dream of having 1/4 of the career that Orr had.

-It would of been way more impressive if there wasnt 12 teams in the league when he was playing with 6 new expansion teams at the height of the expansion era. 6 Teams were added in 1967, and all 6 of those teams added completely sucked. I also must point out that every player in the Orr era was Canadian. Now, Canadian players make up roughly 40% of the NHL since we are at a worldwide level.

-In short, Bobby Orr is arguably one of if not the best skater of all time. Ill give him that. He was terrific in his time. But Orr's stats would plummet in todays NHL. The speed game is much faster and while Orr abused his competition in the 1960s with speed on crap skates, he isnt Pavel Bure fast.

 

[PenguinSpeed]

-1990s Points Per game is the single greatest stretch of dominance over anyone any era all time any time over 10 years.

1990s, the entire decade

Lemieux- 2.063 points per game
Gretzky- 1.37
Lindros- 1.35
Jagr- 1.32
Lafontaine- 1.29
Selanne- 1.29
Sakic- 1.27
Forseberg- 1.24

-Not only was the 1990's the best generation of talent in NHL history, but Lemieux not beat, not destroyed, not physically annihilated and manhandled, but absolutely embarrassed everyone in the 1990s including Wayne Gretzky in overall points per game.

-And Please, spare me the Wayne Gretzky injury. Mario Lemieux had hodgkins Lymphoma Cancer in 1993 and put up 160 points in 60 games while receiving radiation treatment for Cancer. This was by far the most impressive feat in NHL history and Ill debate this fact with anyone that a player with Cancer in his body won the Art Ross Trophy by 12 points playing 24 less games then the rest of the entire field. 160 points in 60 games while having radiation treatment for Cancer and still annihilated the field. Have at it.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Get back on topic. Gretzky, Howe, and Lemieux do not belong in this topic.

 

[steve141]

I mean, obviously he was amazing and i can surely see why people would rank him nr 1. But is it really that surefire? I mean he had 6 amazing seasons on a stacked team, 3 decent ones and two really short ones. Meanwhile guys like Bourque and Potvin and Lidström were amazing for a much longer time. I know about how he revolutionized the position and all but still. Maybe in a different environment with healthy knees he becomes more human and then loses a bit of his mythical status?

Just a quick comment on this. That team wasn't really that stacked, he was the one who made it look stacked. Look at the players on his team before and after playing with Orr. Their numbers all went up dramatically when Orr stepped on the ice.

 

[PenguinSpeed]

-Getting back on topic. Lets compare Orr with other defensive players. I dont think players like Ray Bourque are all that special. 19 time all star was manhandled and abused by Lemieux / Jagr. Please dont mention as an all time great when you get smoked and embarrassed in the playoffs then leave to form an already established all star team in colorado.

-Orr vs Lidstrom. Thats a real debate. Sell me why Orr is better besides points? Because in expansion era points mean squat.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

I'm really not sure there's any legitimate way to put Lemieux first. Gretzky's got him edged in just about every career offensive category imaginable.

If you like to judge things on peak, Orr and Gretzky still come out favorably to Lemiuex. And Howe comes pretty close.

If longevity is your king, Howe is easily best of all time, and Gretzky played many, many, many more games than Lemiuex at a super-high level.

Think offense is overrated? Orr and Howe are both recognized as having far more well-rounded games than Lemieux, and there's really not much reason to argue Lemieux over Gretzky in this metric either.

What ifs? Orr reached God mode faster than Lemieux and played defense, a position typically more forgiving to aging. So give them both perfectly healthy careers, and I think Lemieux is still looking up. And who knows how insane Gretzky's 90's would have been if not for his injury?

Are you a Cup counter or like team success (President's trophies, wins, etc.) to judge individuals? Gretzky and Howe have him beat, and Orr might match him.

Playoffs and best-of-best? Orr, Lemieux, and Gretzky all have two Smythes (it wasn't awarded at the start of Howe's career), but Gretzky, at least, had more, and more dominant, great runs than Lemieux.

International resumes? Once again, Gretzky's is better.

Heck, even in the eye test (which is one category where Lemieux probably does trump Gretzky), I'd give Orr the edge as the most dominant looking player I've ever seen. Lemieux was probably the second most apparent "man among boys" out there, but #4 *looked* like he was crushing the competition more than anyone else I've ever seen.

I do think Lemieux belongs in the Big 4, but he's the only member of that group who I just can't see putting first. No matter what criteria you chose, I think at least one other member of the Big 4 has him beat, and even if you want to average things across multiple criteria, I don't see any way to line them up so Lemieux comes out on top. I guess maybe if you want to base it solely on "what player, based on the eye test, looked like he was the most offensively dominant player of all time?", Lemieux might be the legit pick?

tbf mario also has the other three beaten in the all important criterion of presentism.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

-Getting back on topic. Lets compare Orr with other defensive players. I dont think players like Ray Bourque are all that special. 19 time all star was manhandled and abused by Lemieux / Jagr. Please dont mention as an all time great when you get smoked and embarrassed in the playoffs then leave to form an already established all star team in colorado.

-Orr vs Lidstrom. Thats a real debate. Sell me why Orr is better besides points? Because in expansion era points mean squat.

Orr was one of the best defensive defensemen in the league, while outscoring every forward in the league.

So in a way, "points" are why he's better than Lidstrom. But points are why Crosby is better than Bergeron, so...

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Your perogative. The situations are different.

Defencemen mature better. Compare to Nicklas Lidstrom who took close to 700 RS games to win his first Norris.

and it took bourque almost exactly 500 games. split the difference and that’s almost exactly how many games orr played up to the end of his laat full season, capped off with the norris, pearson, and art ross of course.

my thing with orr is, if you take away his first three years, you’ taking away what is a hall of fame peak for most players. 1, 1, 3 for the norris, 3, 4, 6 for the hart; that’s the equivalent larry robinson’s best three regular seasons.

so after that, six seasons that blow away any six consecutive seasons anyone not named gordon or wayne ever had. three straight harts, before they got sick of giving it to him. only once finished lower than second in scoring (third, because he missed 15 games), only once didn’t lead the league in assists (same season), never finished lower than third for the mvp (and almost certainly would have won it every year, if not for defenseman bias), and mind-bogglingly finished top ten in goals three times as a defenseman, to go with his three finals, two cups, two smythes.

those are just paper accomplishments but man, an incomprehensible six years.

 

[Canadiens1958]

-Getting back on topic. Lets compare Orr with other defensive players. I dont think players like Ray Bourque are all that special. 19 time all star was manhandled and abused by Lemieux / Jagr. Please dont mention as an all time great when you get smoked and embarrassed in the playoffs then leave to form an already established all star team in colorado.

-Orr vs Lidstrom. Thats a real debate. Sell me why Orr is better besides points? Because in expansion era points mean squat.

Orr was the best overall skater in the history of the NHL while Lidstrom was a high average solid skater. This allowed Orr to play a 200 foot game while Lidstrom played to the top of the faceoff circles in the offensive zone.

Orr was excellent managing a shift that ran upwards of two minutes. Lidstrom played in the short shift era, mainly one attack or one defensive zone start per shift.

Orr adapted very quickly to a complex structured NHL while Lidstrom took roughly seven seasons to find his comfort zone.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

-Getting back on topic. Lets compare Orr with other defensive players. I dont think players like Ray Bourque are all that special. 19 time all star was manhandled and abused by Lemieux / Jagr. Please dont mention as an all time great when you get smoked and embarrassed in the playoffs then leave to form an already established all star team in colorado.

-Orr vs Lidstrom. Thats a real debate. Sell me why Orr is better besides points? Because in expansion era points mean squat.

Wow, every point here seems wrong.

 

[Tarantula]

Nobody skated around their opposition like Orr did. He could kill a penalty pretty much by hinself as he did against the Rangers during the 72 finals, on one knee.

I know + and - are verboten in this day but see how much ahead of the rest of the league the last season he won a scoring title. Something like 80 overall.

His scoring and points exploits are well documented, but it was his ability to skate and puck handle that also kept opponents off the score sheet. They play the game with one puck and Orr kept it in Bruins control when he was on the ice.

 

[Jeffrey Pedler]

He changed the game. Just the way he could control the puck. No other defenceman was even close to putting up those type of points. After he came along, you started seeing other defenceman get double digit goals.

 

[Howie Hodge]

All you had to do was watch him to answer the question.

Several have posted what attributes made him so special.

The ultimate answer to me was his being the best player in the 1976 Canada Cup, and playing on one good leg; his left knee was shot.

Anyone who can't see how great he was needs to watch more clips of him.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Just a random question: Who is better defensively, Orr or Bourque?

What do you guys think of this tier ranking for defensive play among the usual Top 7:

Harvey
Lidstrom
Orr-Bourque
Potvin-Shore
Kelly

Note: No tier means bad defensively, they're all good.

Am I underrating Kelly? Any thoughts or ranking of your own?

 

[ted2019]

Because he was revolutionary.

 

[Sentinel]

Can someone explain to me what "he changed the game" means? Did defensemen start imitating him? Skating faster? Seeing and reading the game better after watching him? How did Orr change the game?

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Can someone explain to me what "he changed the game" means? Did defensemen start imitating him? Skating faster? Seeing and reading the game better after watching him? How did Orr change the game?

i'm no expert on 60s/70s hockey but my understanding is that to keep up with orr's bruins opposing coaches had to open up their systems and take more risks, leading to more freedom for defensemen to rush the puck or do other risky offensive things. as a result, the game itself opened up. kind of the opposite of what happened in the second half of the 90s.

and of course orr wasn't the first defenseman to ever rush the puck. but i think his influence is that, because of what i described above, rushing became part of the arsenal of more defensemen, and you could rush the puck even if you weren't the best of the best, so it no longer just guys like shore, kelly, harvey, young horton, young savard who were allowed to skate with it.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Just a random question: Who is better defensively, Orr or Bourque?

What do you guys think of this tier ranking for defensive play among the usual Top 7:

Harvey
Lidstrom
Orr-Bourque
Potvin-Shore
Kelly

Note: No tier means bad defensively, they're all good.

Am I underrating Kelly? Any thoughts or ranking of your own?

Definitely best hybrid defenceman / forward of all time who loses ranking points as a defenceman because his 1954-60 partial seasons as a forward impacted Norris and AST voting.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Can someone explain to me what "he changed the game" means? Did defensemen start imitating him? Skating faster? Seeing and reading the game better after watching him? How did Orr change the game?

At the youth level, coaches would put their best skater, as long as he could skate backwards, on defence instead of center so that he could get extra ice time.

 

[Merya]

Your perogative. The situations are different.

Defencemen mature better. Compare to Nicklas Lidstrom who took close to 700 RS games to win his first Norris.

Indeed. Orr has the best "what if" career of anyone ever. But it wasn't to be. Orr was phenomenal in his short career against the weakest teams ever in NHL history. But those knees are part of his career. Orr is honestly the most romantisized player of all time. The king of could'vebeen.
Too short career for me.

 

[Passchendaele]

Your perogative. The situations are different.

Defencemen mature better. Compare to Nicklas Lidstrom who took close to 700 RS games to win his first Norris.

Part of what made Orr so effective and special was his skating ability though..

Like it or not, it would have gone downhill in his 30s.

Lidstrom wasn't exactly a speed wizard, nor did he take off in the offensive zone as often as Orr did, so the comparison can't be really made.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

i’d like to hear more about orr on the pp. by reputation he was either the best ever or 1a with mario. but what were his strengths? QBing? shooting?