If Orr started playing in todays NHL

[chcl]

Well you see, there is this thing called natural talent.
No amount of training and practice is going to make you a great player if you don't have the talent to begin with.

There is no player in the league today that comes close to matching the natural talent level of Gretzky, Lemieux or Orr.
Especially Lemieux or Orr physically. Gretzky wasn't as physically talented as either of those two but his hockey sense and instincts were almost super human.

Gretzky sacrificed A LOT of hours as a kid to become that good. I'm not saying he did not have natural talent (of course he did) but it is hard to isolate it.

But I will give another example of a player that pretty much everyone saw as extremely talented: Eric Lindros. Everyone could see that Lindros would dominate NHL. Everyone could see that he would be winning award after award. But sadly it just did not happen.

Had Eric played 20 years earlier we might have talked about how Lindros might have been better than Lemieux because he dominated so much.

 

[Stray Wasp]

To make the arguemeents that all 3 of these palyers would dominait in the same way, then you are going to have to bring along the 3 goal scoring leaders (Blaine Stoughton, Charlie Simmer and Danny Gare) from 80 for exmaple and defend that they are going to lead the NHL in scoring today and/or score 56 goals in todays NHL.

Just to be reasonable try to argue that any of these guys could score 50 goals or even be in the top 5 in goal scoring today.

I can already see the ..."well Wayne, Mario and Bobby were superhuman arguements (which won't hold very much water when one stops to think about how the 3 above goal scoreres would do in todays NHL).

To sum up all 3 of the past greats were the best of the best of their era but to misplace their domaince of the past onto todays NHL is extremely likely to say the least and an insult to the stars and players who play in todays NHL IMO.

All 3 would do very well and might even be the best in the league but to transfer past domaince into todays NHL is about as likely as the 3 top goal scorers from repeating their feat in todays NHL.

To the bolded part, Jonathan Chechoo? 56 goals wasn't it?

Bill Guerin (twice) and Scott Young scoring 40 in the DPE? You seem fonder of adjusted stats than I am, so I'll let you get your calculator out.

One can pounce triumphantly upon anomalies if one wishes, but any honest observer will point out that anomalies occur in every era.

By the bye, it has been said by some in this section that Cheechoo's season was a by-product of a kind of bedding-in period whilst the league adjusted to the new rules. Such seasons often throw up wild cards.

Perhaps we should judge 79-80 by the same token. It too was a bedding-in season, thanks to the league's expansion and the resultant rejig of scheduling. Lafleur got injured, the Islanders were wrestling with the fallout of the previous year's playoff series with Toronto, which affected Bossy. Gretzky was an 18 year-old rookie. Although perhaps that's no excuse for his failure to lead the league in goalscoring. After all, when Crosby was 18 he won the Rich...No, wait a minute.

As for Lemieux, even his most stringent critic might give him a pass for not being top goal-scorer that season, on account of him being 14. So someone had to win the goalscoring title and it happened to be that trio. (Simmer would have won the title if not for injury and he benefitted from playing on a great line-just like superb linemates helped Cheechoo. Funny that if one is inclined to see them, we've got parallels bridging those two different eras.)

"Perfect storms" aren't just the province of great players from the past. Sometimes very good players enjoy them too. What seperates the great from the good is consistency. Stoughton, Gare and Simmer were not playmakers. Gretzky surpassed 56 goals five times, Lemieux four and they still found time to feed others relentlessly.

Crosby is getting better at goalscoring, but he still hasn't surpassed Chechoo's season once. We can argue about what that means-again-but we can't deny that it's true.

 

[Stray Wasp]

But I will give another example of a player that pretty much everyone saw as extremely talented: Eric Lindros. Everyone could see that Lindros would dominate NHL. Everyone could see that he would be winning award after award. But sadly it just did not happen.

Had Eric played 20 years earlier we might have talked about how Lindros might have been better than Lemieux because he dominated so much.

Except that in any era, a player who doesn't keep his head up is in trouble, no matter his size and skill.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Gretzky sacrificed A LOT of hours as a kid to become that good. I'm not saying he did not have natural talent (of course he did) but it is hard to isolate it.

The whole point about Gretzky from day 1 is that his physical abilities were not the best even in the 80's.
He was never that fast, he definitely wasn't very big, his shot was not going to break any speed records.

What he did he did on instinct, hockey sense and anticipation and we most definitely have NOT seen any player even remotely close since.

Crosby may very well be and prolly is more physically talented than Gretzky but so were a lot of players, even in the 80's.

Gretzky's "Hockey IQ" is what separated him from everyone else and in that regard Crosby or anyone else for that matter is even in the same area code.
Even Lemieux and Orr weren't as "smart" as Gretzky, closer than anyone else though, they just had better physical tools.

The funniest thing about all this crap is that the reasons being given for why Gretzky wouldn't be able to dominate today are exactly the same as the ones used in the 80's to say the exact same thing....now that's funny.

 

[Dalton]

After Orr there was no way anyone could ever be that dominant again. But then came Gretzky. If those of us who've seen them both and those who've seen neither are lucky another guy will come along and only then, IMHO will people who've seen neither understand just how good those guys were. Just like people who never saw Orr but saw Gretzky could hear from us who saw both. 'That's what I'm talking about. This is what it was like to watch Orr play.'

 

[Infinite Vision*]

To the bolded part, Jonathan Chechoo? 56 goals wasn't it?

Bill Guerin (twice) and Scott Young scoring 40 in the DPE? You seem fonder of adjusted stats than I am, so I'll let you get your calculator out.

One can pounce triumphantly upon anomalies if one wishes, but any honest observer will point out that anomalies occur in every era.

By the bye, it has been said by some in this section that Cheechoo's season was a by-product of a kind of bedding-in period whilst the league adjusted to the new rules. Such seasons often throw up wild cards.

Perhaps we should judge 79-80 by the same token. It too was a bedding-in season, thanks to the league's expansion and the resultant rejig of scheduling. Lafleur got injured, the Islanders were wrestling with the fallout of the previous year's playoff series with Toronto, which affected Bossy. Gretzky was an 18 year-old rookie. Although perhaps that's no excuse for his failure to lead the league in goalscoring. After all, when Crosby was 18 he won the Rich...No, wait a minute.

As for Lemieux, even his most stringent critic might give him a pass for not being top goal-scorer that season, on account of him being 14. So someone had to win the goalscoring title and it happened to be that trio. (Simmer would have won the title if not for injury and he benefitted from playing on a great line-just like superb linemates helped Cheechoo. Funny that if one is inclined to see them, we've got parallels bridging those two different eras.)

"Perfect storms" aren't just the province of great players from the past. Sometimes very good players enjoy them too. What seperates the great from the good is consistency. Stoughton, Gare and Simmer were not playmakers. Gretzky surpassed 56 goals five times, Lemieux four and they still found time to feed others relentlessly.

Crosby is getting better at goalscoring, but he still hasn't surpassed Chechoo's season once. We can argue about what that means-again-but we can't deny that it's true.

Joe Thornton + year right after lockout + Cheechoo at that time was a better player than any you mentioned.

Also, can we stop judging players on arbitrary numbers? Any knowledgable hockey person can tell Crosby right now/last year was a better goalscorer than Cheechoo was in 05-06, it takes even more knowledge to realize he also had the better goalscoring performance, based on results.

This year he still leads even strength points 46 to 44 over Stamkos, who plays with St. Louis, and has played 54 games compared to Crosby's 41.

Crosby was on pace for 64 goals this year, 1 less than Ovechkin's best, while being on pace for 21 more assists and way better defensively/shootouts and worse linemates on top of that.

He's also been without question the best playoff player in the league since he's entered, and is younger than everyone he's competing with.

 

[seventieslord]

Joe Thornton + year right after lockout + Cheechoo at that time was a better player than any you mentioned.

Also, can we stop judging players on arbitrary numbers? Any knowledgable hockey person can tell Crosby right now/last year was a better goalscorer than Cheechoo was in 05-06, it takes even more knowledge to realize he also had the better goalscoring performance, based on results.

This year he still leads even strength points 46 to 44 over Stamkos, who plays with St. Louis, and has played 54 games compared to Crosby's 41.

Crosby was on pace for 64 goals this year, 1 less than Ovechkin's best, while being on pace for 21 more assists and way better defensively/shootouts and worse linemates on top of that.

He's also been without question the best playoff player in the league since he's entered, and is younger than everyone he's competing with.

Very good points.

I actually didn't realize Crosby was that much better a producer at ES than Stamkos.

You brought out the ol' rolled up newspaper for the stray wasp.

 

[Boxscore]

After Orr there was no way anyone could ever be that dominant again. But then came Gretzky. If those of us who've seen them both and those who've seen neither are lucky another guy will come along and only then, IMHO will people who've seen neither understand just how good those guys were. Just like people who never saw Orr but saw Gretzky could hear from us who saw both. 'That's what I'm talking about. This is what it was like to watch Orr play.'

Nah, forget about what everyone in the video said. The guys on here think Orr might be as dominant as Mike Green.

 

[JackSlater]

Most of the point is that I recognize that some of Orr's domainace was due to the nature of the league (and maybe some of the other stars he topped 2 times in scoring were not as great as some make them out to be).

Part of the whole problem in the way some in the history section view Wayne, Mario and Bobby is that they place all of thier dominance on natural skill and talent and do not attribue any of their domaince to a weaker league.

Then they do the opposite with modern players thoughn as if the level of the league stays the same throught time.

It is not a "the new NHL is better" arguement that is so dispised in this section that is the problem but rather the lack of acknowledgment that as the talent level goes up it becomes increasingly harder for any player to domainte.

Every time this is brought up people go back to defending already established postions instead of actually stopping and thinking about how the NHL was in 1970, 1982 and 2010.

Just the mere mention that hockey gods like Wayne, Bobby and Mario might dip any amount in dominance in 2010 is met with blind nostalga that it just can't be possible.

To make the arguemeents that all 3 of these palyers would dominait in the same way, then you are going to have to bring along the 3 goal scoring leaders (Blaine Stoughton, Charlie Simmer and Danny Gare) from 80 for exmaple and defend that they are going to lead the NHL in scoring today and/or score 56 goals in todays NHL.

Just to be reasonable try to argue that any of these guys could score 50 goals or even be in the top 5 in goal scoring today.

I can already see the ..."well Wayne, Mario and Bobby were superhuman arguements (which won't hold very much water when one stops to think about how the 3 above goal scoreres would do in todays NHL).

To sum up all 3 of the past greats were the best of the best of their era but to misplace their domaince of the past onto todays NHL is extremely likely to say the least and an insult to the stars and players who play in todays NHL IMO.

All 3 would do very well and might even be the best in the league but to transfer past domaince into todays NHL is about as likely as the 3 top goal scorers from repeating their feat in todays NHL.

Most people seem to agree that it is harder to dominate today due to the larger talent pool, but you arrive at very strange conclusions. You say that Gretzky, Lemieux and Orr "might even" be the best players in the world today, when they were clearly head and shoulders above everyone else in their times. That is a ridiculous argument and there is no evidence to support it. Just 15 years ago Mario Lemieux was clearly the best player in the NHL. This is a Lemieux that was already past his prime and injury riddled. He was clearly the best, in a talent pool that is roughly the same size as today. What logical reason is there to believe that Lemieux, who was so far ahead of everyone else even though he was past his best and injured and even though the talent pool was basically the same size as today, would not currently be the best player? There is none. It is obvious to any rational person that he would be. Then there is Gretzky, who was at least as good as Lemieux. If Lemieux would be the clear best player today, and he would be, obviously Gretzky would be as well. This isn't even taking into account the fact that a nearly washed up Gretzky finished 3rd in NHL scoring just 13 years ago on a weak team.

As far as Orr goes, you love pointing out the weakness of the NHL during his career, but that does not explain Orr's dominance relative to the other NHL stars. Even if the NHL had stayed at six teams and the WHA had never formed, there is no reason to believe that Orr's relative dominance would be changed. He likely wouldn't score as many points, but neither would the other players, and his point totals relative to everyone else would be just as impressive. You can consider his defensive abilities in the same manner. A player like Ray Bourque was able to join the NHL 5 years after Orr's last meaningful year and was still an elite player 21 years later in 2001, against a talent pool basically equal to that of today. Only five years separate the careers of Bourque and Orr, and Orr was so clearly superior that no one would say they were even close. Since 40 year old Bourque was able to be elite in 2001, and we know he wasn't close to Orr's ability, it should be apparent that Orr would be extremely likely to be the obvious best player today.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Nah, forget about what everyone in the video said. The guys on here think Orr might be as dominant as Mike Green.

Not saying that it isn't true.. but when was the last time you saw a legends of hockey where they had anything bad to say about the person being remembered?

In 30 years maybe there will be one of Mike Green too.


(and no, Mike Green isn't even close to Bobby Orr)

 

[BraveCanadian]

Most people seem to agree that it is harder to dominate today due to the larger talent pool, but you arrive at very strange conclusions. You say that Gretzky, Lemieux and Orr "might even" be the best players in the world today, when they were clearly head and shoulders above everyone else in their times. That is a ridiculous argument and there is no evidence to support it. Just 15 years ago Mario Lemieux was clearly the best player in the NHL. This is a Lemieux that was already past his prime and injury riddled. He was clearly the best, in a talent pool that is roughly the same size as today. What logical reason is there to believe that Lemieux, who was so far ahead of everyone else even though he was past his best and injured and even though the talent pool was basically the same size as today, would not currently be the best player? There is none. It is obvious to any rational person that he would be. Then there is Gretzky, who was at least as good as Lemieux. If Lemieux would be the clear best player today, and he would be, obviously Gretzky would be as well. This isn't even taking into account the fact that a nearly washed up Gretzky finished 3rd in NHL scoring just 13 years ago on a weak team.

As far as Orr goes, you love pointing out the weakness of the NHL during his career, but that does not explain Orr's dominance relative to the other NHL stars. Even if the NHL had stayed at six teams and the WHA had never formed, there is no reason to believe that Orr's relative dominance would be changed. He likely wouldn't score as many points, but neither would the other players, and his point totals relative to everyone else would be just as impressive. You can consider his defensive abilities in the same manner. A player like Ray Bourque was able to join the NHL 5 years after Orr's last meaningful year and was still an elite player 21 years later in 2001, against a talent pool basically equal to that of today. Only five years separate the careers of Bourque and Orr, and Orr was so clearly superior that no one would say they were even close. Since 40 year old Bourque was able to be elite in 2001, and we know he wasn't close to Orr's ability, it should be apparent that Orr would be extremely likely to be the obvious best player today.

Rational has no place here.

Players are bigger, faster, stronger. Didn't you get the memo?

 

[Stray Wasp]

Joe Thornton + year right after lockout + Cheechoo at that time was a better player than any you mentioned.

Also, can we stop judging players on arbitrary numbers? Any knowledgable hockey person can tell Crosby right now/last year was a better goalscorer than Cheechoo was in 05-06, it takes even more knowledge to realize he also had the better goalscoring performance, based on results.

This year he still leads even strength points 46 to 44 over Stamkos, who plays with St. Louis, and has played 54 games compared to Crosby's 41.

Crosby was on pace for 64 goals this year, 1 less than Ovechkin's best, while being on pace for 21 more assists and way better defensively/shootouts and worse linemates on top of that.

He's also been without question the best playoff player in the league since he's entered, and is younger than everyone he's competing with.

For me, though, the bolded part is the important point. As you rightly say, this season Crosby was combining dominating overall performance with dominating scoring to a degree we hadn't seen before, in spite of imperfect circumstances. That's what history tells us the greatest players do and it makes me wonder about what we've seen since 2005.

Despite players enjoying far less of a free rein that they once did and despite the competition, Ovechkin won the Richard by a street in 07-08. Granted, perhaps we should just expect isolated seasons of huge dominance rather than sustained periods as we've seen in the past. But I'm not certain of that yet.

Since I think Crosby is the best, my playing with stats is my own tool to try and fix in my mind what's elite, what is great and what is stratospheric these days-the better to evaluate his achievements. I'll reiterate that Crosby passes the eye test with me. (Worryingly, I too think Crosby's scoring now is better than Cheechoo's then, so perhaps the gap in knowledge dominance is diminishing too). It's no revelation that mere stats don't define greatness, but it's unavoidable that up to now, the greats have had incredible stats backing up the eye test. When Mario came back in 00-01, it made me revisit what I thought was possible in the DPE. I don't think I'm the only person who had that reaction. I'm accustomed to great sportsmen pushing the limits and making me revise what I think is possible-hockey isn't the only sport on the planet where coaching and conditioning has improved and the talent pool deepened. Yet there isn't a worldwide embargo on sporting dominance.

Here's my thought process: I know that 100 points in the 80s isn't equivalent to 100 points now. So I wonder what's the modern equivalent of 150-160 in the 80s. Is it 100? 120?

I've said before, I think 140 points-which would likely win the Ross by a huge 20 to 30 points-is feasible. I can't shake the feeling that's not expecting too much from our very best. Maybe it's even equivalent to 200 in the 80s.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Most people seem to agree that it is harder to dominate today due to the larger talent pool, but you arrive at very strange conclusions. You say that Gretzky, Lemieux and Orr "might even" be the best players in the world today, when they were clearly head and shoulders above everyone else in their times. That is a ridiculous argument and there is no evidence to support it. Just 15 years ago Mario Lemieux was clearly the best player in the NHL. This is a Lemieux that was already past his prime and injury riddled. He was clearly the best, in a talent pool that is roughly the same size as today. What logical reason is there to believe that Lemieux, who was so far ahead of everyone else even though he was past his best and injured and even though the talent pool was basically the same size as today, would not currently be the best player? There is none. It is obvious to any rational person that he would be. Then there is Gretzky, who was at least as good as Lemieux. If Lemieux would be the clear best player today, and he would be, obviously Gretzky would be as well. This isn't even taking into account the fact that a nearly washed up Gretzky finished 3rd in NHL scoring just 13 years ago on a weak team.

As far as Orr goes, you love pointing out the weakness of the NHL during his career, but that does not explain Orr's dominance relative to the other NHL stars. Even if the NHL had stayed at six teams and the WHA had never formed, there is no reason to believe that Orr's relative dominance would be changed. He likely wouldn't score as many points, but neither would the other players, and his point totals relative to everyone else would be just as impressive. You can consider his defensive abilities in the same manner. A player like Ray Bourque was able to join the NHL 5 years after Orr's last meaningful year and was still an elite player 21 years later in 2001, against a talent pool basically equal to that of today. Only five years separate the careers of Bourque and Orr, and Orr was so clearly superior that no one would say they were even close. Since 40 year old Bourque was able to be elite in 2001, and we know he wasn't close to Orr's ability, it should be apparent that Orr would be extremely likely to be the obvious best player today.

Rational has no place here.

Players are bigger, faster, stronger. Didn't you get the memo?

Just want to clarify here, you're saying the degree in which Orr was able to seperate himself statistically wouldn't have been lessened if he played in this deeper 30 team league, with salary caps and no weak teams to feast on, and no stacked team to play with? Also considering he wouldn't have quite the same freedom in today's game to begin with.

I want to know what Brave thinks especially because he agrees that the seventies was an easier time to seperate yourself from others due to the parity level, and he also agrees that who you play with and the situation you're in has an affect on someone's statistical results, even regarding the absolute best players.

Also, just to be clear I think Orr at the very least in today's game would be better offensively than Mike Green, and as good defensively as Lidstrom. He just wouldn't be able to double other defenseman in points, hence not being seen as quite as dominant as he was.

Accurate enough?

 

[BraveCanadian]

Just want to clarify here, you're saying the degree in which Orr was able to seperate himself statistically wouldn't have been lessened if he played in this deeper 30 team league, with salary caps and no weak teams to feast on, and no stacked team to play with? Also considering he wouldn't have quite the same freedom in today's game to begin with.

I want to know what Brave thinks especially because he agrees that the seventies was an easier time to seperate yourself from others due to the parity level, and he also agrees that who you play with and the situation you're in has an affect on someone's statistical results, even regarding the absolute best players.

Also, just to be clear I think Orr at the very least in today's game would be better offensively than Mike Green, and as good defensively as Lidstrom. He just wouldn't be able to double other defenseman in points, hence not being seen as quite as dominant as he was.

Accurate enough?

I think that the average moving up has much less effect on completely ridiculous outliers like Orr/Gretzky/Lemieux.

Being good in science class now with all the knowledge available to us doesn't make us able to make 100 year leaps in thinking like an Einstein, I'm sorry to say.

I do think that who players play with affects their totals absolutely. It is a team game and anyone who suggests otherwise is cherrypicking.

I also think that because there is so much more parity in the league and an array of talent producing nations now, that it would be very very difficult for a defenseman to score 139 or a forward to score 200.

However, that doesn't mean that a Gretzky/Lemieux would not still be clearly better than anyone playing today by a solid margin and likewise with Orr. Perhaps Orr wouldn't be challenging for the scoring title every year but he would certainly be a clear step up from Mike Green offensively and way better than him defensively. That should be clear to anyone.

They were off the scale.

 

[JackSlater]

Just want to clarify here, you're saying the degree in which Orr was able to seperate himself statistically wouldn't have been lessened if he played in this deeper 30 team league,

If he played in a deeper league then the talent level and talent pool would be higher and his domination would be somewhat reduced. As I said, I was refering to a theoretical league during Orr's time that had only the original six franchises and did not have the WHA drawing some of the talent away. This was to counter the assertion that Orr dominated to the ridiculous extent that he did because the talent level in the NHL at that time was low. In that situation, Orr's points would clearly go down. The same thing would happen to everyone else. I see no reason to think that the ratio of (Orr's points)/(other elite player's points) should change very much, and that is what is really important, not the absolute scoring numbers.

with salary caps and no weak teams to feast on,

To be honest I can see a team the calibre of the Bruins being kept together in spite of the salary cap. Their success was largely dependent on two players who would only be able to make a given percentage of that cap. This scenario does not matter though as it has nothing to do with what I was talking about, the theoretical six team/no WHA NHL of the 70s. The weak teams don't matter very much because players get roughly the same opportunity to beat up on those teams, not just Orr.

and no stacked team to play with? Also considering he wouldn't have quite the same freedom in today's game to begin with.

Orr didn't play with a stacked team. If his team was "stacked" it was mainly because of the dominance he provided. I am aware that he very likely does not get the same freedoms today, which I think I mentioned in my first post in this thread. That being said, the potential change in play today has nothing to do with the theoretical league I was refering to.

Also, just to be clear I think Orr at the very least in today's game would be better offensively than Mike Green, and as good defensively as Lidstrom. He just wouldn't be able to double other defenseman in points, hence not being seen as quite as dominant as he was.

Accurate enough?

True, as the talent pool has grown substantially since the 70s.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

If he played in a deeper league then the talent level and talent pool would be higher and his domination would be somewhat reduced. As I said, I was refering to a theoretical league during Orr's time that had only the original six franchises and did not have the WHA drawing some of the talent away. This was to counter the assertion that Orr dominated to the ridiculous extent that he did because the talent level in the NHL at that time was low. In that situation, Orr's points would clearly go down. The same thing would happen to everyone else. I see no reason to think that the ratio of (Orr's points)/(other elite player's points) should change very much, and that is what is really important, not the absolute scoring numbers.



To be honest I can see a team the calibre of the Bruins being kept together in spite of the salary cap. Their success was largely dependent on two players who would only be able to make a given percentage of that cap. This scenario does not matter though as it has nothing to do with what I was talking about, the theoretical six team/no WHA NHL of the 70s. The weak teams don't matter very much because players get roughly the same opportunity to beat up on those teams, not just Orr.



Orr didn't play with a stacked team. If his team was "stacked" it was mainly because of the dominance he provided. I am aware that he very likely does not get the same freedoms today, which I think I mentioned in my first post in this thread. That being said, the potential change in play today has nothing to do with the theoretical league I was refering to.



True, as the talent pool has grown substantially since the 70s.

Fair enough, that's my main point really.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'm pretty sure when you have a player with Orr's talent that the coaches let him play the way he wants. Put it this way, a GOOD coach would do that and not get all "Jacques Lemaire and Ken Hitchcock" on him.

Orr would be the best defenseman in the game. Nothing against the d-men playing in 2011 but the best right now are the likes of Lidstrom (still good), Letang and Big Buff with Chara in the mix as well. With Orr's speed, creativity, hockey sense and overall skill set there is no way a player like him wouldn't be able to dominate today

I don't know. I can picture Jacques Lemaire benching a rookie Orr for taking too many chances.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I don't know. I can picture Jacques Lemaire benching a rookie Orr for taking too many chances.

Yup. Especially in a situation like Niedermayer was early in his career where they had decided they were going to play defense-first.

 

[seventieslord]

If he played in a deeper league then the talent level and talent pool would be higher and his domination would be somewhat reduced. As I said, I was refering to a theoretical league during Orr's time that had only the original six franchises and did not have the WHA drawing some of the talent away. This was to counter the assertion that Orr dominated to the ridiculous extent that he did because the talent level in the NHL at that time was low. In that situation, Orr's points would clearly go down. The same thing would happen to everyone else. I see no reason to think that the ratio of (Orr's points)/(other elite player's points) should change very much, and that is what is really important, not the absolute scoring numbers.

Agree.

Orr didn't play with a stacked team. If his team was "stacked" it was mainly because of the dominance he provided.

This is also proven in GF/GA numbers. The team was barely average without him on the ice.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

This is also proven in GF/GA numbers. The team was barely average without him on the ice.

GF/GA numbers prove the other defensemen on the Bruins were average at best.

Their group of forwards was very stacked, however.

Cashman-Esposito-Hodge
Bucyk-Stanfield-McKenzie
Marcotte-Sanderson-Westfall

Every single one of those guys is an ATD mainstay.

 

[BraveCanadian]

GF/GA numbers prove the other defensemen on the Bruins were average at best.

Their group of forwards was very stacked, however.

Cashman-Esposito-Hodge
Bucyk-Stanfield-McKenzie
Marcotte-Sanderson-Westfall

Every single one of those guys is an ATD mainstay.

Not to mention he probably played 3/4s of the game

 

[Rhiessan71]

Not to mention he probably played 3/4s of the game

...and yet the stats don't hold those forwards in a much more favorable light than Orr's defense partners when he wasn't on the ice.

Even watching the games, you could see the difference.


We can have this argument again I guess but I assure it won't turn out any better for ya's than it did last time

 

[seventieslord]

Orr's GF/GA figures indicate he played about half the game.

Which forwards were on the ice with and without Orr throughout his Boston tenure? I'm not sure. But the team's goal differential went from 1.08 to 2.02. There were ATD defensemen on that team too.

 

[canucks4ever]

Bobby Orr dominated his position like no other player. In 1972 and 1974 Brad Park produced 'norris caliber' seasons but Orr completely undressed him. In 1975 Potvin put up a great season, yet was dwarfed by orr who basically doubled his production. These posters can discredit him as much as they want, Orr was the ultimate alpha dog.

 

[Blues88]

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.

Only about as ridiculous as saying IN FACT that players of yesteryear would dominate the sport that they helped innovate. And thats the thing with most of the examples you've given....these people innovated and were so dominant because they changed the game in their time and place. I've never understood the constant insistence that it's somehow wrong or disingenuous to suggest that players who dominated and transcended their sport wouldnt have anything but an easy time continuing that dominance in todays climate. Bobby Orr changed how a generation of kids after him approached and played the game. Just as he watched the elite before him and was provided a foundation, he too has provided his own foundation that players after him adopted and refined.

For the amount of complaining and berating of "nu nhl" fans that seemingly "dont get it" with hollow observations of old timers being pylons, there are self serving threads like this one which illustrate that although your opinion may be different, the bottom line is still the same.

Old timers would dominate now=New schoolers would dominate then. Both get pretty tired and since there is no unflawed way to prove any of this beyond anecdotal evidence....whats the point?