If Orr started playing in todays NHL

[Seanconn*]

I made this thread kind of half jokingly, because I was baffled by how many people thought Gretzky would be "dominated" or barely a factor in the NHL today...

some of the comments in this thread... just wow. you need to watch more clips of Orr on youtube.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

I made this thread kind of half jokingly, because I was baffled by how many people thought Gretzky would be "dominated" or barely a factor in the NHL today...

some of the comments in this thread... just wow. you need to watch more clips of Orr on youtube.

Watching overall games would help get a better perspective.

 

[reckoning]

Because some hockey fans are strange, honestly. In baseball, most historians say that if a drunken, overweight Babe Ruth could hit more HRs than entire teams while swinging that club, he would have no problem dominating the game today. Basketball fans say the same about Michael Jordan. Even in the music genre, you never hear music enthusiasts claiming the hottest new band is as good or better than the Beatles. When will there ever be another Michelangelo? Umm, probably never.

Hell, there's a reason The Godfather and Citizen Kane are still revered as the best motion pictures of all-time by film buffs. Bach and Mozart are still considered the best classical composers of all-time. My point being, greatness is greatness. And every 1,000 years, 100 years or 50 years or whatever, we are blessed with the chance to witness unique talent that will never be matched again. Bobby Orr and Wayne Gretzky are those talents when it comes to all-time NHL forwards and defensemen. Plain and simple.

Only in hockey, for some odd reason, do modern fans thrive on discrediting what the all-time greats in past years accomplished. And to be honest, I don't understand it. To say ridiculous things like Orr wouldn't be able to go end-to-end today, or that Orr wouldn't win as many Norris trophies today because the overall talent in the NHL is better is just like saying Mozart would "just be a real good composer today" because music schools have improved. It's utterly ridiculous, ignorant and disrespectful.

I totally agree with everything you said there. I've often wondered why fans of baseball, football, etc. for the most part respect the accomplishments and abilities of the legends of the past. But a small, yet vocal, group of hockey fans seem intent on urinating on the games history.

 

[Gobo]

I could see him having 30 goal, 70 assist seasons on average.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Watching overall games would help get a better perspective.

This is true.

Even better, being in the building when he played.

 

[Sens Rule]

I could see him having 30 goal, 70 assist seasons on average.

Yes probably, and for many, many years if he could have had better surgeries on his knee. He would have faced Gretzky.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Truth.

But, oddly, refuted here.



This sentence implies relativity between Robert Gordon Orr and the so called "many great passers and rushers in today's NHL".

There is none, whatsoever.

None, whatsoever?

So what exactly is the gap then between Orr and his competition compared to the best Dmen of today.

I see lots of extremely fast and talented Dmn in the league, perhaps their, and the league's in general, level of talent doesn't let them stand out as much due to the higher level of competition and overall play.

Orr is one of the all time greats but he played in a perfect storm of Boston and in the watered down late 60's and early 70's.

Surely some of his dominance can be attributed to that?

 

[Hardyvan123]

"I would say I've never seen a guy who did as much offensively and
defensively as much as that young man did."
-Gordie Howe - "Mr. Hockey"


"If Bobby Orr has a problem, it's that he has no fear. If nothing else
will do, I swear he'll use his head to block a shot."
-Gerry Cheevers, HOF goaltender

"He ought to get his name on the Vezina Trophy. He blocks more shots
than the goalies." - Phil Esposito, Bruin HOFer

"He's the first one up the ice and the first one back."
- Emile Francis, Rangers Coach

"I might as well enjoy it (Norris Trophy) now, because I expect it's
going to belong to Bobby Orr from now on."
- Harry Howell, NY Ranger - 1967

No exaggeration there at all.

 

[Hardyvan123]

You tell me better defencemen defensively than Orr form 1966-1976

Kinda curious as to the level of his competion in those eyars as well.

Not that I buy the Bourque's competition was better than Lidstrom's but Orr played in a really weak era overall were a guy of his talents seized on the opportunity provided.

He would be just as talented today but do people really think that he would have the opportunity to rack up 100 plus points in today's NHL?

IMO the game and the role of Dmen in particular has changed too much for any Dman to get 100 plus points.

I doubt that will ever happen again unless there is a drastic change in the rules, like making the nets bigger).

 

[Hardyvan123]

Those defenders are the elite of the elite, I agree. But man, with Orr playing his game of keep-a-way while putting up 100+ point seasons, I just don't see the case of those guys being overall packages enough to steal a Norris away from him. Orr was just so universally dominant that you would have to make a case that any of those guys were SO MUCH better defensively that they were more dominant than an all-around Orr.

Just wondering how much of Orr's keep-a-way game was due to the watered down era and how much was due to his talent.

IMO it's more talent than era but my main point here is that part of his dominance was due to the times as well.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Orr = Overrated is similar to the following:

Oxygen = overrated
Potable water = overrated
Pretty women = overrated
Hockey itself = overrated


The guy seems to have committed the crime of being born into an era before the hype and insanity of the internet and all its trappings. His brain and physical attributes in today's world would have created a player more in tune with today's game but to assume that makes him overrated.....heavy, and prolonged, sigh.

That's too funny and it's the 1st time that I have ever heard that Orr's era somehow diminishes how he is viewed as a player.

His era helped him immensely IMO.

 

[Hardyvan123]

He would be a scrub. Maybe 45 points a year.

Do I actually believe that? NO. It's just what this board has taught me over the last few days.

Really, who has said, in all seriousness, that he would be a scrub or get as low as 45 points in a year.

I really must have missed that post, enlighten us please as to which posts you are referring to.

 

[Hardyvan123]

While I agree, no player can be in two places at once, Orr was better at attempting it than anyone in history, at least while his knees still had some juice.

There is a segment in the this video that shows how quickly Orr could transition -- not just from defense to offense, but here from off to def to off while finishing down in the slot. It starts at about 4minutes and 15secs in.

Ken Dryden looks like a stickman in net on that video although I'm pretty sure that doesn't mean anything

 

[Hardyvan123]

The point is that during Orr's day and during the 80's with Coffey and Bourque etc. it was fairly common.

Now it is the exception.

Exactly

 

[Hardyvan123]

Because some hockey fans are strange, honestly. In baseball, most historians say that if a drunken, overweight Babe Ruth could hit more HRs than entire teams while swinging that club, he would have no problem dominating the game today. Basketball fans say the same about Michael Jordan. Even in the music genre, you never hear music enthusiasts claiming the hottest new band is as good or better than the Beatles. When will there ever be another Michelangelo? Umm, probably never.

Hell, there's a reason The Godfather and Citizen Kane are still revered as the best motion pictures of all-time by film buffs. Bach and Mozart are still considered the best classical composers of all-time. My point being, greatness is greatness. And every 1,000 years, 100 years or 50 years or whatever, we are blessed with the chance to witness unique talent that will never be matched again. Bobby Orr and Wayne Gretzky are those talents when it comes to all-time NHL forwards and defensemen. Plain and simple.

Only in hockey, for some odd reason, do modern fans thrive on discrediting what the all-time greats in past years accomplished. And to be honest, I don't understand it. To say ridiculous things like Orr wouldn't be able to go end-to-end today, or that Orr wouldn't win as many Norris trophies today because the overall talent in the NHL is better is just like saying Mozart would "just be a real good composer today" because music schools have improved. It's utterly ridiculous, ignorant and disrespectful.

Bobby Orr dominated - repeat, DOMINATED - his era. He was a defenseman outscoring all-time greats and Hall of Famers like Lafluer, Perreault, Mikita, Esposito, and Clarke. I think it's safe to say he would be a safe bet to beat out Henrik Sedin for the Art Ross and Duncan Keith for the Norris. Some of the statements discrediting Robert Orr in this thread are unbelievable.

The Babe Ruth comp was very weak for a number of reasons, the 1st being that he only played in a white league. It really would be the equivalent of a Canadian only NHL in 2010.

He also hit so many home runs because he actually was trying to do that while the convention of the times was for star players to just get on base with any hit at all.

He was no doubt a great HR hitter, and a great player overall but it is only conjecture of how dominant he would have been in another lineup or team or if other star players tried to play the long ball like he did.

 

[Rhiessan71]

The Babe Ruth comp was very weak for a number of reasons, the 1st being that he only played in a white league. It really would be the equivalent of a Canadian only NHL in 2010.

He also hit so many home runs because he actually was trying to do that while the convention of the times was for star players to just get on base with any hit at all.

He was no doubt a great HR hitter, and a great player overall but it is only conjecture of how dominant he would have been in another lineup or team or if other star players tried to play the long ball like he did.

This is total fallacy and you would get destroyed if you posted such in a Baseball History forum.
One of the bigger reasons why the long-ball was not considered a legitimate weapon in early baseball strategies was because of the size of the Ballparks. They were enormous with most pushing over 500 feet to center and some over a whopping 600 feet.
A player had to have ridiculous power to consistently hit homeruns at that time.

The point about a White only league has some merit in Ruth's case but has no merit for Gretzky, Lemieux and Orr as all 3 played internationally against the world's best and dominated them just the same.

Orr on barely one knee and couldn't even practice for the pain he was in was still the '76 Canada Cup MVP so it wasn't just NHL players that he outshone.

 

[Hardyvan123]

This is total fallacy and you would get destroyed if you posted such in a Baseball History forum.
One of the bigger reasons why the long-ball was not considered a legitimate weapon in early baseball strategies was because of the size of the Ballparks. They were enormous with most pushing over 500 feet to center and some over a whopping 600 feet.
A player had to have ridiculous power to consistently hit homeruns at that time.

The point about a White only league has some merit in Ruth's case but has no merit for Gretzky, Lemieux and Orr as all 3 played internationally against the world's best and dominated them just the same.

Orr on barely one knee and couldn't even practice for the pain he was in was still the '76 Canada Cup MVP so it wasn't just NHL players that he outshone.

Size of ballparks was also another factor as well as many others.

As for Orr in the Canada Cup, it's not like the teams from Europe overall competed as well as they have recently against the top teams like Canada and the USSR back in 76.

Orr was the best player during his time in the NHL but part of his overall greatness can be attributed to the watered down nature of the league as well, not to mention the way the game was played.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Size of ballparks was also another factor as well as many others.

NO! It was not JUST another reason, it was the only major reason period.
All other reasons were in the minor category.

As for Orr in the Canada Cup, it's not like the teams from Europe overall competed as well as they have recently against the top teams like Canada and the USSR back in 76.

Orr was the best player during his time in the NHL but part of his overall greatness can be attributed to the watered down nature of the league as well, not to mention the way the game was played.

You can't have it both ways dude.

You can't sit there and say that Orr was only great because of a watered down, low European content NHL and then turn around and dismiss his strong showing against the best of that European content because they supposedly didn't "compete" well.
Make up your mind.

 

[Stray Wasp]

None, whatsoever?

So what exactly is the gap then between Orr and his competition compared to the best Dmen of today.

I see lots of extremely fast and talented Dmn in the league, perhaps their, and the league's in general, level of talent doesn't let them stand out as much due to the higher level of competition and overall play.

Orr is one of the all time greats but he played in a perfect storm of Boston and in the watered down late 60's and early 70's.

Surely some of his dominance can be attributed to that?

I feel that the "perfect storm" argument is a deeply partial interpretation of Orr's career. Once more, it suggests that every aspect of his NHL experience was perfect from day one until the end. Which is manifestly untrue. (I'd go so far as to say that when discussing any player who enjoys sustained elite-level success, talk of "perfect storms" is rather foolish. Otherwise, we reach the farcical dead-end in which someone is diminished unless they played on a bad team for many years.)

If you can say with a straight face that the condition of Orr's knees was "perfect" for an NHLer then congratulations, you are Buster Keaton's heir.

Orr joined the Bruins in the O6 era, the club having failed to reach the playoffs in seven years. If my team underwent such a sequence, "perfect" isn't the first word that would come to mind. When Orr joined the Bruins, Johnny Bucyk was already past thirty. The team had scored fewest goals in the league five years out of the past six.

What did he achieve with a sub-par, low-scoring team in an ultra-competitive league? Why, a second all-star team place and 41 points. The all-star nod speaks for itself. Between 49-67, few defensemen broke the 40 point barrier (during three seasons in the sixties, no one managed it at all). Orr at eighteen needed 61 games.

An eighteen year-old Brad Park didn't make the NHL and despite the talent pool being watered down by expansion in time for his rookie year, Park didn't break the 40 point barrier until his third season. Since Park was a great defenseman born within months of Orr who suffered from dodgy knees, I think that's a fair yardstick for showing just how impressive Orr's short time of 06 hockey was. Not dominant perhaps, but we've reached a strange place if we're to take points off a teenage 06-era defenseman for not utterly dominating the league. Since he was so good, so young, its not outrageous to extrapolate that he'd have dominated a six-team league soon enough.

Perhaps Orr deserves the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Boxscore]

The Babe Ruth comp was very weak for a number of reasons, the 1st being that he only played in a white league. It really would be the equivalent of a Canadian only NHL in 2010.

He also hit so many home runs because he actually was trying to do that while the convention of the times was for star players to just get on base with any hit at all.

He was no doubt a great HR hitter, and a great player overall but it is only conjecture of how dominant he would have been in another lineup or team or if other star players tried to play the long ball like he did.

Let's not even mention that Ruth was also an awesome pitcher. Like I said, greatness is greatness. I see no reason to discredit what the greats (in all walks of life) have accomplished.

 

[Boxscore]

Just wondering how much of Orr's keep-a-way game was due to the watered down era and how much was due to his talent.

IMO it's more talent than era but my main point here is that part of his dominance was due to the times as well.

And I could easily say, I wonder how much of a modern player's success (i.e. Crosby) is due to the fact that there is no longer a red line, no more obstruction, and that the officiating has never been more beneficial for superstars in the NHL. Orr, Lemieux, Lindros and Jagr even, had to battle through a lot more obstruction to score goals. And, in Orr's era, superstars had to battle through nasty intimidation on a nightly basis. The players of today have none of those issues; it is a lot more comfortable to be an NHL superstar today.

I am not discrediting how great players like Crosby and Ovechkin are, but my point being, you could take any era in NHL history and make a case of why/wow it has benefits slanted in the favor of the stars of that era.

Orr's era:
Pros: Very little European influence; league-wide talent pool less dynamic; Less smothering defensive coaching systems; smaller goalie equipment; less complex goalie techniques.

Cons: Physically intimidating; poor equipment; less advanced medicine; more obstruction and tighter checking; no two-line pass; less efficient travel; poor media coverage and limited mainstream marketing.

Current era:
Pros: No obstruction; no red line; less physical abuse; better equipment; better training facilities; better travel; better media coverage and marketing.

Cons: Better league-wide talent; larger goalie equipment; larger players/equipment (less room on ice); more complex coaching systems.

The fact is, there are pros and cons of each era. One could say it is harder for current players to score goals because team defense has improved, but on the other hand you could say it was harder to score in past eras because opponents would stick you, hook you, and in some cases, grab you and hold you. Today's players also have state-of-the-art composite sticks that are super light, strong and flexible with mastered curves to help players pick their spots. It's all relative.

 

[JackSlater]

Orr is one of the all time greats but he played in a perfect storm of Boston and in the watered down late 60's and early 70's.

Clearly the era Orr played in helped him get the points that he did. It also probably reduced how good he was defensively. Anyway, I would like to hear how being on Boston really helped Orr. Esposito was great, but if you take Orr away it isn't as if those were loaded teams.

Kinda curious as to the level of his competion in those eyars as well.

Not that I buy the Bourque's competition was better than Lidstrom's but Orr played in a really weak era overall were a guy of his talents seized on the opportunity provided.

He would be just as talented today but do people really think that he would have the opportunity to rack up 100 plus points in today's NHL?

IMO the game and the role of Dmen in particular has changed too much for any Dman to get 100 plus points.

I doubt that will ever happen again unless there is a drastic change in the rules, like making the nets bigger).

Two years ago Mike Green was on pace for 88 points. This was not after only 20 games or so, but after 68 games. Do you really think that a peak/prime Orr couldn't routinely outscore healthy Green by 15% and get 100 points? Congratulations on shattering the consecutive posts record by the way.

 

[CarlWinslow]

Kinda curious as to the level of his competion in those eyars as well.

Not that I buy the Bourque's competition was better than Lidstrom's but Orr played in a really weak era overall were a guy of his talents seized on the opportunity provided.

He would be just as talented today but do people really think that he would have the opportunity to rack up 100 plus points in today's NHL?

IMO the game and the role of Dmen in particular has changed too much for any Dman to get 100 plus points.

I doubt that will ever happen again unless there is a drastic change in the rules, like making the nets bigger).

If Mike Green can get around 80 points, Orr could certainly eclipse 100.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

And I could easily say, I wonder how much of a modern player's success (i.e. Crosby) is due to the fact that there is no longer a red line, no more obstruction, and that the officiating has never been more beneficial for superstars in the NHL. Orr, Lemieux, Lindros and Jagr even, had to battle through a lot more obstruction to score goals. And, in Orr's era, superstars had to battle through nasty intimidation on a nightly basis. The players of today have none of those issues; it is a lot more comfortable to be an NHL superstar today.

I am not discrediting how great players like Crosby and Ovechkin are, but my point being, you could take any era in NHL history and make a case of why/wow it has benefits slanted in the favor of the stars of that era.

Orr's era:
Pros: Very little European influence; league-wide talent pool less dynamic; Less smothering defensive coaching systems; smaller goalie equipment; less complex goalie techniques.

Cons: Physically intimidating; poor equipment; less advanced medicine; more obstruction and tighter checking; no two-line pass; less efficient travel; poor media coverage and limited mainstream marketing.

Current era:
Pros: No obstruction; no red line; less physical abuse; better equipment; better training facilities; better travel; better media coverage and marketing.

Cons: Better league-wide talent; larger goalie equipment; larger players/equipment (less room on ice); more complex coaching systems.

The fact is, there are pros and cons of each era. One could say it is harder for current players to score goals because team defense has improved, but on the other hand you could say it was harder to score in past eras because opponents would stick you, hook you, and in some cases, grab you and hold you. Today's players also have state-of-the-art composite sticks that are super light, strong and flexible with mastered curves to help players pick their spots. It's all relative.

I agree with your overall breakdown of the era's except two parts. There was more obstruction in Orr's day, but it was in no way tighter checking. Not remotely close there so I had to point it out. Secondly, while there may have been more physical abuse in the form of cheapshots, slashing, etc. the league was definitely not more physical overall, not really that close either.

 

[habsjunkie2*]

Just wondering how much of Orr's keep-a-way game was due to the watered down era and how much was due to his talent.

IMO it's more talent than era but my main point here is that part of his dominance was due to the times as well.

Orr played during the most watered down era in NHL history on a team that was ridiculously good compared to it's competition and only managed 2 cups. I hate to say it, but he's overrated in my eyes. The best defencemen ever, sure, but ppl here act like he could walk on water.