If Orr started playing in todays NHL

[Rhiessan71]

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?

Unfortunately for your side of the argument, players like Bourque, Lidstrom, Recchi, Lemieux, Sakic, Yzerman, just to name a handful of the 20ish year players, tend to support the opposite rather convincingly.
As in actual real proof that for some reason you say doesn't exist heh.
I mean we're not talking about 3rd and 4th liners here from each era, we're talking about the best and the best always seem to find a way to adapt and excel no matter the charges or circumstances.

In fact, it's only your side of the argument has yet to present any kind of real evidence other than unproven theories and opinion.

So basically, "we" are going to continue to truck these players out over and over again until either you actually manage to prove otherwise or it finally sinks in.
I am betting on the later.

 

[Hardyvan123]

There was a sight more than just 20 in the '76 Canada Cup Tournament and they were the world's best to boot....who won that MVP again?

I'd have to go back and watch the tournament again but maybe the voters knew that it was Orr's swansong and gave him preference over some equally deserving candidates like Potvin or some other players. Like I said I'm not on expert on the 76 series and will ahve to watch it again some time.





[BOLD]Your whole argument for any of the past greats is to say they weren't that good, the league was that bad.
You continue to fly this argument in the face of the parade of cross-generational players presented that negate almost all doubt.

I'm sorry but until you can explain why Lidstrom, who is quite noticeably below the level he was 10 years, is still one of the top D-men in the league. How was Sakic able to considered one of the best in the league late in his career when in his prime he couldn't hold a candle to Gretz or Lemieux.
Jagr, there wasn't even a single player that could hold a candle to him just a few years ago and he was easily out shone by #99 and #66 before that.
There is only one explanation....the League is simply not as good or as talented as you believe it to be.
Faster for sure but not more talented, robots that can skate really fast.

Training level is variable, actual Talent level is not.[/QUOTE]

Drop the straw man I never said that Orr was bad, I'm just arguing that his level of dominance was in part to talent and also in part to the level of the league.

To say that Orr would dominate the same or very close to the same level today as he did in his era is to assume that the rest of the league has stayed the same and clearly it has not.

The cross generational talent argument is interesting when one picks out a season here or a season there, that bucks the trend, but sometimes the exception proves the rule.

Not sure which Sakic season you are talking to but the 01 and 04 seasons where he finished 2nd wasn't actually the high point of skilled talented players in the league playing at their peak and he had some less than superstar seasons surrounding those top finishes as well. 04 Forsberg missed quite a bit of time and 01 around 9 games so maybe that had something to do with his surge or maybe it didn't who knows it can be spun many different ways.

Just like Mario's 142 PPG pace which came over only 43 games and was surrounded by a 122 points in 76 games in 97 when he was 31.

Sure Mario led the league but he didn't come close to dominating the field in any way like he did previously, maybe just maybe something had changed?

Sure Jagr couldn't hold a candle to Wayne and Mario when he was 22 and under but he wasn't that far of point wise from Mario after his age 22 season so lets not over exaggerate the dominance of Mario over him at comparable ages.

Funny how you didn't even touch the 3 56 goal scorers that led the league in 1980 though maybe it's later in the thread.

 

[Hardyvan123]

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.

Well we all kinda know that Cheech was Thorton sideshow that year and yes it was a perfect storm. At least the other 4 guys in the top 5 that year were decent scorers compared to Stoughton who topped 50 twice in his short career.

as I posted earlier there were something like 4 times the number of 50 goal scoring seasons in the 80's compared to the 21st Century's 1 decade (and they even had 9 more teams so more opportunity to do it then).

These perfect storms aside do you not think that it might have been somewhat easier to score for everyone in the 80's than in the last decade? Or are todays players really that bad compared to the stars of the 80's which several posters have indicated so far in this post.

 

[Hardyvan123]

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.

In 75 Potvin was 21 years old although i was thinking what if Orr had stayed healthy but suffered a gradual decline due to age and had scored at a lower rate than Potvin in his 2 best years 79-80 PPG.
Certainly his level of dominance would have been narrowed much more that any competition Park ever offered to him.

Something we will never know but I wonder if it would have taken any shine from the God like status that Orr has.

I've said it before and will say it again, Orr was the best player in his era and also maybe the Canada showing against Russia in the 72 series really showed that Canadian Hockey, and it's stars might not have been all that great as some make them out to be.

I'm just not very sure, actually I'm quite positive unless some rules were changed, that any Dman could crack over a 100 points in todays NHL and that opinion doesn't diminish what Orr was in his time or his place in history.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I'd have to go back and watch the tournament again but maybe the voters knew that it was Orr's swansong and gave him preference over some equally deserving candidates like Potvin or some other players. Like I said I'm not on expert on the 76 series and will ahve to watch it again some time.

Oh I never said it wasn't a close call on that MVP but at the same time....the guy could barely freakin walk, couldn't practice at all, his one knee was completely gone and his other was in very bad shape and he was no where near the top of his game.
Yet was still one of the very best in the entire tournament going up against the best in the world.
Honestly, if you can't understand just how good he had to have been to still play that well at that level despite how bad a shape he was in.....

Drop the straw man I never said that Orr was bad, I'm just arguing that his level of dominance was in part to talent and also in part to the level of the league.

Don't try that straw man crap again dude.
You constantly take away from what Orr did due to the "watered down" argument and then try and compare him to other D-men when he was blowing away forwards.
I told you before your first and biggest mistake in all this is the lowering of Orr to a mere D-man.
The only thing the "watered down" argument gets you is the possibility that Orr's point totals were a lil inflated but then so would of everyone else's.
It does absolutely nothing to take away from how bad he dominated every other player, forwards definitely included, that played at the same time under the same conditions and perks.

IMO your argument holds no weight as it's build on a flawed premise to begin with.
You called me out earlier for inferring that you were saying that only Orr's points would be affected if the league wasn't as watered down.
What you missed here is that for your theory to hold any water at all, it would have to be only Orr's points dropping because if everyone's points drop then Orr's dominance doesn't change one bit.
Do you not understand this?

To say that Orr would dominate the same or very close to the same level today as he did in his era is to assume that the rest of the league has stayed the same and clearly it has not.

Well like I said, first off you keep restricting Orr to only being comparable to other D-men and so what if he couldn't get 139 points today, if he posted 100-110, would that be any less dominant...no it wouldn't!

The cross generational talent argument is interesting when one picks out a season here or a season there, that bucks the trend, but sometimes the exception proves the rule.

Not sure which Sakic season you are talking to but the 01 and 04 seasons where he finished 2nd wasn't actually the high point of skilled talented players in the league playing at their peak and he had some less than superstar seasons surrounding those top finishes as well. 04 Forsberg missed quite a bit of time and 01 around 9 games so maybe that had something to do with his surge or maybe it didn't who knows it can be spun many different ways.

Just like Mario's 142 PPG pace which came over only 43 games and was surrounded by a 122 points in 76 games in 97 when he was 31.

Sure Mario led the league but he didn't come close to dominating the field in any way like he did previously, maybe just maybe something had changed?

Sure Jagr couldn't hold a candle to Wayne and Mario when he was 22 and under but he wasn't that far of point wise from Mario after his age 22 season so lets not over exaggerate the dominance of Mario over him at comparable ages.

I like that, you subtlety accuse me of cherry picking yet do the exact same by leaving any mention of Bourque, Recchi and Lidstrom out of your counter argument.
I mean I understand the rational there as you obviously have no counter with those guys but lets keep it real here my friend.
You can try to spin and break down every example all you want but at the end of the day the list is far too large to be explained individually.
That there is such a large list in the first place is big point in itself.

Funny how you didn't even touch the 3 56 goal scorers that led the league in 1980 though maybe it's later in the thread.

Funny, how so? Someone else already answered that one and I didn't feel I needed to.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Unfortunately for your side of the argument, players like Bourque, Lidstrom, Recchi, Lemieux, Sakic, Yzerman, just to name a handful of the 20ish year players, tend to support the opposite rather convincingly.
As in actual real proof that for some reason you say doesn't exist heh.
I mean we're not talking about 3rd and 4th liners here from each era, we're talking about the best and the best always seem to find a way to adapt and excel no matter the charges or circumstances.

In fact, it's only your side of the argument has yet to present any kind of real evidence other than unproven theories and opinion.

So basically, "we" are going to continue to truck these players out over and over again until either you actually manage to prove otherwise or it finally sinks in.
I am betting on the later.

Bourque and Lidstrom are both Dmen and Dmen generally can maintain a higher level as they age as the positional requirements are quite different than for forwards.

Yzerman, Sakic and even Lemieux saw their scoring change quite a bit over time as well and generally it is fair to say that they all scored much higher in the high flying 80's and early 90's rather than the clutch and grab era and beyond. Sakic and Lemiuex both had one season aberrations surrounded by lesser seasons and at the end of the day the general trend, even for stars like Wayne and Mario was that their dominance came very early and both of their levels of dominance diminished after their age 25 and 22 season respectively.

the game has changed and become much harder to score in for everyone and that would apply to any player from the past as well.

Of the big 3 mentioned I think Wayne would have the best chance of being the best of the 3 in todays NHL but I'm not sure that he's crack 150 points at his peak in the way the NHL is structured today.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Bourque and Lidstrom are both Dmen and Dmen generally can maintain a higher level as they age as the positional requirements are quite different than for forwards.

What position did Orr play again, I forget

Yzerman, Sakic and even Lemieux saw their scoring change quite a bit over time as well and generally it is fair to say that they all scored much higher in the high flying 80's and early 90's rather than the clutch and grab era and beyond. Sakic and Lemiuex both had one season aberrations surrounded by lesser seasons and at the end of the day the general trend, even for stars like Wayne and Mario was that their dominance came very early and both of their levels of dominance diminished after their age 25 and 22 season respectively.

the game has changed and become much harder to score in for everyone and that would apply to any player from the past as well.

I think you should do yourself a favor and take another look at these "aberrations surrounded by lesser seasons" you mention, try looking at the context as Sakic's 03/04 season might look that way at first until you see that he was actually 3rd in league scoring and only 7 points off the leader.
Again with Sakic I believe you failed to note that his 81 points in 99/00 was in a mere 60 games, the year before his "aberration" 00/01 season of 118.
I'm also sure you are referring to Lemieux's 96/97 season while not even knowing that he was being affected by an infection from his back surgery. I mean he only had 122 points, terribly bad year for him right....still good enough for the Art Ross by 13 points.
Even in Mario's 02/03 season, a full year would of put him on pace to win another Art Ross with 111 points.

Yeah, I'm sorry but simply looking at point totals from year to year without their context is not going to serve you well here my friend, try again.

Of the big 3 mentioned I think Wayne would have the best chance of being the best of the 3 in todays NHL but I'm not sure that he's crack 150 points at his peak in the way the NHL is structured today.

Obviously we disagree, 150 would be a normal year with upwards of 170-180 in a peak year IMO.

 

[Stray Wasp]

Well we all kinda know that Cheech was Thorton sideshow that year and yes it was a perfect storm. At least the other 4 guys in the top 5 that year were decent scorers compared to Stoughton who topped 50 twice in his short career.

as I posted earlier there were something like 4 times the number of 50 goal scoring seasons in the 80's compared to the 21st Century's 1 decade (and they even had 9 more teams so more opportunity to do it then).

These perfect storms aside do you not think that it might have been somewhat easier to score for everyone in the 80's than in the last decade? Or are todays players really that bad compared to the stars of the 80's which several posters have indicated so far in this post.

To the bolded part, unequivocally yes. You may struggle to find a post where I state otherwise.

What is very much open to debate in my mind is the degree to which it is easier to score. We agree that circa 79-96 there are instances of players scoring 50 goals and/or 100 points that, with hindsight, causes a bemused shake of the head. Yet even without resorting to adjusted stats-which I find interesting but unsatisfactory-all you have to do is up the statistical ante a little and the wheat separates from the chaff. Perhaps that's an arbitrary use of statistics, perhaps not.

Look at the 60 goal, 120 point club in the eighties and the numbers thin out markedly-even more so for players who broke that barrier repeatedly. Yet 120 points would get one nowhere near winning the Ross at the time, because Gretzky and Lemieux were so far ahead. I don't think the many environmental factors that made that era high-scoring can completely explain that away. So I'm not yet convinced that environmental factors tell the whole story of what we're seeing now. After all, if we end up agreeing that to some degree 05-06 season scoring should be taken with a pinch of salt, we're talking about an "era" that's only four full seasons long. Hardly time for discerning major trends.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

What position did Orr play again, I forget



I think you should do yourself a favor and take another look at these "aberrations surrounded by lesser seasons" you mention, try looking at the context as Sakic's 03/04 season might look that way at first until you see that he was actually 3rd in league scoring and only 7 points off the leader.
Again with Sakic I believe you failed to note that his 81 points in 99/00 was in a mere 60 games, the year before his "aberration" 00/01 season of 118.
I'm also sure you are referring to Lemieux's 96/97 season while not even knowing that he was being affected by an infection from his back surgery. I mean he only had 122 points, terribly bad year for him right....still good enough for the Art Ross by 13 points.
Even in Mario's 02/03 season, a full year would of put him on pace to win another Art Ross with 111 points.
Yeah, I'm sorry but simply looking at point totals from year to year without their context is not going to serve you well here my friend, try again.



Obviously we disagree, 150 would be a normal year with upwards of 170-180 in a peak year IMO.

Forsberg was on pace for 116 that year, so the actual Art Ross winner would have still won the Art Ross. Just nitpicking.

 

[JackSlater]

In 75 Potvin was 21 years old although i was thinking what if Orr had stayed healthy but suffered a gradual decline due to age and had scored at a lower rate than Potvin in his 2 best years 79-80 PPG.
Certainly his level of dominance would have been narrowed much more that any competition Park ever offered to him.

Something we will never know but I wonder if it would have taken any shine from the God like status that Orr has.

What is your point? Obviously Potvin is better than Park and Orr/Potvin < Orr/Park. Orr still blows Potvin away pretty easily though. As far as Orr failing to outscore Potvin, let's look at Potvin's biggest year. In 1979 Potvin scored 101 points. In Orr's last six healthy seasons he scored over 101 points every year except one, and during that season he played only 63 games. Orr averages 122 points over those seasons, even when you don't account for his missed games. Keep in mind, goals per game in the NHL was lower in every one of those seasons than it was in 1979. In Orr's last healthy season he scored 135 points, well above Potvin's 101 and only four years earlier. It's important to note as well that Esposito was not as dominant in 1975 as he had been in the earlier years of Orr's dominance. There is really no reason to believe that healthy Orr, even though he had aged to the ripe old age of 31 in 1979, would not be able to outscore Potvin. Keep in mind as well that defencemen generally have peaks/primes that last later into their careers.

I've said it before and will say it again, Orr was the best player in his era and also maybe the Canada showing against Russia in the 72 series really showed that Canadian Hockey, and it's stars might not have been all that great as some make them out to be.

Other than goaltending the Canadians outplayed the Soviets pretty handily in my estimation, and that is without considering preparation/chemistry and various other issues. Sure a few guys like Kharlamov would have been elite NHL players, but is there any reason to believe that they would have considerably outscored someone like Esposito? Not really, which would mean that they likely aren't blowing Orr away either, so his dominance offensively is hardly reduced. If you want to think of it another way, just discount any Europeans or even Americans. Have any defencemen or forwards dominated just their Canadian peers to the same degree that Orr has, or even close to the same degree, other than Lemieux or Gretzky?

I'm just not very sure, actually I'm quite positive unless some rules were changed, that any Dman could crack over a 100 points in todays NHL and that opinion doesn't diminish what Orr was in his time or his place in history.

Are you honestly saying that you do not believe Orr, at his peak could outscore Mike Green, on pace through 68 games to score 88 points two years ago, by 15%? Actually answer this question please.

Of the big 3 mentioned I think Wayne would have the best chance of being the best of the 3 in todays NHL but I'm not sure that he's crack 150 points at his peak in the way the NHL is structured today.

I'll pose this question again, since you are once again implying that someone like Lemieux would only have a chance at being the best player today. 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?

 

[utah]

I'll let you guys debate how he'd do in today's NHL, or if he is as good as this player or that player.....

and I'll smile, thinking about how amazing he was to watch play.....which I did through his whole career.

I even had the pleasure to watch him play, in person one time. The night, that Wayne Maki just about ended Ted Green's career with stick blow to the head. That's the game I saw, and Orr was amazing to watch in person.

It's kind of funny to read all the posts about Orr not being good defensively. Those who think that, could not have possibly watched him play in his prime. Good defensively??? He could take the puck, and play keep away for two full minutes to kill a penalty. Name me one player in the NHL today, who could do that.....let alone a D-man.

He did it all, better than anyone in his era.

Could he play in today's NHL. Sure, and he'd be amazing because talent and ability is talent and ability. He'd learn the systems. He'd find a away to exploit them to his benefit. He'd benefit from today's medical improvements, training regimes, and he'd benefit from the advanced equipment, just like all of today's players do.

 

[chcl]

It's kind of funny to read all the posts about Orr not being good defensively. Those who think that, could not have possibly watched him play in his prime. Good defensively??? He could take the puck, and play keep away for two full minutes to kill a penalty. Name me one player in the NHL today, who could do that.....let alone a D-man.

It does not happen these days because hockey has evolved and is pushing closer towards the limits of the game. It is just like when you watch old games of soccer. Some players can do some ridiculous things but just look how much time they have with the ball without getting attacked. Leonel Messi would be able to play keep away for ages with those old players but todays game is so much faster.

If Orr tried to play the same way he did back then would be destroyed. Utterly destroyed. Of course he would have to change his game and the result of that no one knows.

 

[Blues88]

Unfortunately for your side of the argument, players like Bourque, Lidstrom, Recchi, Lemieux, Sakic, Yzerman, just to name a handful of the 20ish year players, tend to support the opposite rather convincingly.
As in actual real proof that for some reason you say doesn't exist heh.
I mean we're not talking about 3rd and 4th liners here from each era, we're talking about the best and the best always seem to find a way to adapt and excel no matter the charges or circumstances.

In fact, it's only your side of the argument has yet to present any kind of real evidence other than unproven theories and opinion.

So basically, "we" are going to continue to truck these players out over and over again until either you actually manage to prove otherwise or it finally sinks in.
I am betting on the later.

Did you happen to read anything I wrote?

Its funny you'd mention unproven theories and opinion when the facts trumped up for responses to Orr being the best defensive defenseman were anecdotal quotes by those who saw him play. That would be fine if that wasnt merely educated opinion. Much like me saying Mario Lemieux was the best player I have ever seen and did more offensively than anyone else.

I have no argument against Orr's greatness and transcendence. What you've apparently been blinded by is any dissention that you immediately view as "disrespectful", "nu school" or worse, "wrong". My issue is speaking in CERTAINTY that anything new would dominate anything old and vice versa. My problem is the amount of ire aroused by "nu nhl" fans proclaiming there to be far more skill these days, getting berated by "true fans" for their shortsightedness, and then reading threads like this. Mostly definitive accounts of just how much the league hasn't improved and players of yesteryear would continue their dominance in this day and age.

I never said definitively that older players wouldnt do x and would do y, which makes your mentioning of players who have played in the last 20 years irrelevant. With the examples you gave you were able to demonstrate that great players adapt (obvious) but the 80's werent the 60's. The complexion of the league is different, more diverse even when your examples came into the league. The only one you listed who could come close to "proving" any point you may have (though I'm lost as to what that is ultimately) is Bourque who played entirely through the 80's and past the first lockout.

Let me say this in a different way, though it will probably be inconsequential in the long run.
There are too many variables.
"If you give Bobby Orr todays equipment and training". This demonstates a variable-a difference between past and present and ultimately means Orr would have to have a crutch in todays game to make it a fair comparison. The same goes for a guy like Ovechkin or Crosby or whoever. "Give him leather gloves and bad skates and live that lifestyle. See how they do then". Same difference. Same crutch.

Again, I dont claim anything other than nausia at all the certainty that player x from year x would dominate in year y and vice versa. Its absurd and just like "new better than old" fans look like ignorant, blinded fan boys, "old better than new" fans create a sense that no one will ever be as great as their favorite players and its not realistic to think otherwise. It will always devolve into this until someone plainly states that players can be great in any period independent of how they would hypothetically compare in different eras.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Did you happen to read anything I wrote?

Its funny you'd mention unproven theories and opinion when the facts trumped up for responses to Orr being the best defensive defenseman were anecdotal quotes by those who saw him play. That would be fine if that wasnt merely educated opinion. Much like me saying Mario Lemieux was the best player I have ever seen and did more offensively than anyone else.

I have no argument against Orr's greatness and transcendence. What you've apparently been blinded by is any dissention that you immediately view as "disrespectful", "nu school" or worse, "wrong". My issue is speaking in CERTAINTY that anything new would dominate anything old and vice versa. My problem is the amount of ire aroused by "nu nhl" fans proclaiming there to be far more skill these days, getting berated by "true fans" for their shortsightedness, and then reading threads like this. Mostly definitive accounts of just how much the league hasn't improved and players of yesteryear would continue their dominance in this day and age.

I never said definitively that older players wouldnt do x and would do y, which makes your mentioning of players who have played in the last 20 years irrelevant. With the examples you gave you were able to demonstrate that great players adapt (obvious) but the 80's werent the 60's. The complexion of the league is different, more diverse even when your examples came into the league. The only one you listed who could come close to "proving" any point you may have (though I'm lost as to what that is ultimately) is Bourque who played entirely through the 80's and past the first lockout.

Let me say this in a different way, though it will probably be inconsequential in the long run.
There are too many variables.
"If you give Bobby Orr todays equipment and training". This demonstates a variable-a difference between past and present and ultimately means Orr would have to have a crutch in todays game to make it a fair comparison. The same goes for a guy like Ovechkin or Crosby or whoever. "Give him leather gloves and bad skates and live that lifestyle. See how they do then". Same difference. Same crutch.

Again, I dont claim anything other than nausia at all the certainty that player x from year x would dominate in year y and vice versa. Its absurd and just like "new better than old" fans look like ignorant, blinded fan boys, "old better than new" fans create a sense that no one will ever be as great as their favorite players and its not realistic to think otherwise. It will always devolve into this until someone plainly states that players can be great in any period independent of how they would hypothetically compare in different eras.

I hardly think proving that Orr may not of been the very best D-man defensively every year, only one of the best means much my friend. It's a moot point on your part and hardly constitutes proof of anything towards the big picture.
When people talk of how good Orr was defensively it's about showing that even though he was blowing everyone else away offensively, he was still a top player defensively and that part of his game didn't suffer.
As opposed to Coffey who's effort, play and reliability defensively was noticeably lacking.

As far as the rest of your post...I rarely if ever flat out say you're wrong, I say I disagree and then provide examples and points why I disagree.
Last I checked that's how it's supposed to be done and if you're getting upset because disproving my points is hard well...suck it up

With regards to "old vs nu", you'll have to excuse me if I value my 35+ years of watching and following hockey over others who didn't even see Bourque win his Cup with the Av's let alone saw Gretzky or Lemieux at their best.
If that makes me arrogant in your eyes then so be it, I'll live.

 

[Blues88]

I hardly think proving that Orr may not of been the very best D-man defensively every year, only one of the best means much my friend. It's a moot point on your part and hardly constitutes proof of anything towards the big picture.
When people talk of how good Orr was defensively it's about showing that even though he was blowing everyone else away offensively, he was still a top player defensively and that part of his game didn't suffer.
As opposed to Coffey who's effort, play and reliability defensively was noticeably lacking.

As far as the rest of your post...I rarely if ever flat out say you're wrong, I say I disagree and then provide examples and points why I disagree.
Last I checked that's how it's supposed to be done and if you're getting upset because disproving my points is hard well...suck it up

With regards to "old vs nu", you'll have to excuse me if I value my 35+ years of watching and following hockey over others who didn't even see Bourque win his Cup with the Av's let alone saw Gretzky or Lemieux at their best.
If that makes me arrogant in your eyes then so be it, I'll live.

Disproving an opinion is pretty difficult to do, and since you've basically addressed nothing I've said what's left to say?

I sense you like to scan for hot button items within a post and react to those, possibly without fully digesting what was said. I merely used examples given in this thread (as it was a big discussion a few pages ago) about Orr being THE best defensive defenseman, someone asking for proof and receiving old quotes to somehow "prove" his prowess. I'm not even disputing those OPINIONS of Orr because they came from the mouths of people who were FAR more knowlegable about the game than I. I am simply stating that if thats the kind of "proof" thats appropriate one could prove many things that may or may not be entirely accurate.

If youre arrogant, thats fine. Its natural and it comes with being dedicated and passionate and understanding something more in depth than others. You gain perspective that others arent privy to and it opens up endless possiblities to love or hate how the game is played and the players who play it through the years. You just cant seem to acknowledge that there is virtually no unflawed way of making any definitive statements as it pertains to players era jumping. So again, for the 3rd time, what do threads like this prove? Can legends not be legends until its proven beyond a reasonable doubt that their talent will NEVER be eclipsed. Isnt that a little self serving and naive?

I'm not upset at all, quite the contrary.

I'm debating.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Disproving an opinion is pretty difficult to do, and since you've basically addressed nothing I've said what's left to say?

I sense you like to scan for hot button items within a post and react to those, possibly without fully digesting what was said. I merely used examples given in this thread (as it was a big discussion a few pages ago) about Orr being THE best defensive defenseman, someone asking for proof and receiving old quotes to somehow "prove" his prowess. I'm not even disputing those OPINIONS of Orr because they came from the mouths of people who were FAR more knowlegable about the game than I. I am simply stating that if thats the kind of "proof" thats appropriate one could prove many things that may or may not be entirely accurate.

If youre arrogant, thats fine. Its natural and it comes with being dedicated and passionate and understanding something more in depth than others. You gain perspective that others arent privy to and it opens up endless possiblities to love or hate how the game is played and the players who play it through the years. You just cant seem to acknowledge that there is virtually no unflawed way of making any definitive statements as it pertains to players era jumping. So again, for the 3rd time, what do threads like this prove? Can legends not be legends until its proven beyond a reasonable doubt that their talent will NEVER be eclipsed. Isnt that a little self serving and naive?

I'm not upset at all, quite the contrary.

I'm debating.

You have to understand though that some of the things you mentioned aren't really that relevant in the overall argument.

Just because all those pages were wasted debating whether Orr was THE best defensive d-man or just one of the best of his era does not mean it's all that important of a point.
Kinda like arguing over which was more important, the 7th goal or the 8th goal in a 8-0 victory.
Same with the "watered down" league argument, all that argument does is reduce player points across the board, doesn't diminish anyone's dominance over his peers.

In fact, the only argument that I believe has any weight to it against Orr in this whole thread was about how Orr wouldn't have as much of a speed advantage today.
I still believe he would be among the fastest in league today quite easily, there just wouldn't be as many players that he could leave in the dust.

As far as opinion vs fact goes...the facts are on the side of the "older" crowd and the endless list of players with 15-20+ years played.
The "newer" crowd has nothing but opinion. I mean there are some decent theories but that's all they are just like Adjusted Stats, nice theory but they actually aren't real.


A guy like me, who's watched and studied the game for so damned long having watched star player after star player stay ahead of and continue to adjust to the game year after year, it just baffles me to hear some of the crap around here.
At some point people have to realise this game is more about talent and hockey IQ than about how big or how fast you are.
Especially after watching the Habs game tonight seeing a freakin 43 year old Recchi out there when according to most theories here, the guy shouldn't even be able to lace his own skates up let alone keep up to these "new" players heh.

 

[Dalton]

Here's the whole Legends of Hockey 3 part series on Bobby Orr.







Obviously the problem here is that some people never got to see him play. He wasn't just brilliant on offence but defence too.

As some posters have alluded to, University grads today may know more about gravity than Newton but who in their right mind mind thinks they are smarter? Who in full possession of their faculties believes that Newton wouldn't still be a genius if he was born today?

Who seriously thinks that if they were transplanted back in the past and lived the same life as was available then to Newton that they would have discovered the inverse square law, realized that what Keppler was describing was the same as an apple falling off a tree and discovered a mathematical method to analyze continuity before Newton or instead of him? Ran the Bank of England, giving us compound interest, held the Lucasian Chair of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge, England.

True historians have no difficulty placing Keppler, Newton and Einstein in their place among the greats. A concept that consistently eludes some in this history forum. Gauss, Bach, DaVinci, Euclid, Shakespeare. Yes all of us or the best of us could go back to their day live according to that time and beat them to the punch. Without the benefit of learning from them.

When a defenceman comes along and dominates better than Orr then we have a debate. Same with Gretzky, Lemeiux, Howe, Hull, Harvey, Sawchuk, Hainsworth and others.

Posters talk about the overlap of players playing, how about the overlap of observers? That's legitimate. Especially among the players and other pros in the game. That's why these rankings turn out as they do not because of some bizarre, conspiratorial, acquiescence to the good old days. If that were true guys like Orr, Gretzky and Lemeiux wouldn't have got their due in the first place.

Too bad we weren't all as smart as our smartest predecessors.

 

[Dalton]

You have to understand though that some of the things you mentioned aren't really that relevant in the overall argument.

Just because all those pages were wasted debating whether Orr was THE best defensive d-man or just one of the best of his era does not mean it's all that important of a point.
Kinda like arguing over which was more important, the 7th goal or the 8th goal in a 8-0 victory.
Same with the "watered down" league argument, all that argument does is reduce player points across the board, doesn't diminish anyone's dominance over his peers.

In fact, the only argument that I believe has any weight to it against Orr in this whole thread was about how Orr wouldn't have as much of a speed advantage today.
I still believe he would be among the fastest in league today quite easily, there just wouldn't be as many players that he could leave in the dust.

As far as opinion vs fact goes...the facts are on the side of the "older" crowd and the endless list of players with 15-20+ years played.
The "newer" crowd has nothing but opinion. I mean there are some decent theories but that's all they are just like Adjusted Stats, nice theory but they actually aren't real.


A guy like me, who's watched and studied the game for so damned long having watched star player after star player stay ahead of and continue to adjust to the game year after year, it just baffles me to hear some of the crap around here.
At some point people have to realise this game is more about talent and hockey IQ than about how big or how fast you are.
Especially after watching the Habs game tonight seeing a freakin 43 year old Recchi out there when according to most theories here, the guy shouldn't even be able to lace his own skates up let alone keep up to these "new" players heh.

I wouldn't be to quick to say that given there is a bit of difference between NHL speed and Olympic speed. Not to mention the intelligence factor in manoeuvring around. Orr was fast but he also had finesse going for him. That was one of his skills. He may well have been just as capable of going end to end on a regular basis today as he was then.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I wouldn't be to quick to say that given there is a bit of difference between NHL speed and Olympic speed. Not to mention the intelligence factor in manoeuvring around. Orr was fast but he also had finesse going for him. That was one of his skills. He may well have been just as capable of going end to end on a regular basis today as he was then.

Oh definitely.

Orr's speed wasn't just about how fast he could go in a straight line, his acceleration was just stupid and except for Gretzky, I have yet to see another player that could "shift" himself 10 feet to the left or the right at top speed like Orr could.

Their instincts were just unmatched, it was like the nano second that a defender shifted his weight one way, even just a little, they were gone the other way.

 

[Stray Wasp]

It is just like when you watch old games of soccer. Some players can do some ridiculous things but just look how much time they have with the ball without getting attacked. Leonel Messi would be able to play keep away for ages with those old players but todays game is so much faster.

If Orr tried to play the same way he did back then would be destroyed. Utterly destroyed. Of course he would have to change his game and the result of that no one knows.

My love of soccer reinforces my belief that Orr-or any great-could succeed now. (Apologies to anyone who cares not a jot for soccer. Personally, I find watching one sport can deepen my understanding of others.)

My point is that in soccer the typical player is stronger, fitter and faster than ever before too but the dominant team at the highest level (Spain) is where it is because of footballing intelligence and technical skill (many of the Spanish team's key players are small, lightweight and can't run fast). No matter how fast the speed of the game gets, the ball moves faster than the man. A fact which becomes exacerbated when the ball is moved with a level of skill and imagination that the average player cannot conceive. Might that be true of hockey?

Meanwhile, as soccer gets quicker, their remain plenty of players who-no matter how much time and space they get-are unable to run the ball out of defense, dribble or pass the ball incisively over a distance greater than ten yards. In the same way that for all hockey has changed, many teams are screaming out for a PMD who can defend to a high standard. (Even Orr's sternest critic might grant that he could fill that criteria in the modern age).

Meanwhile, in soccer people keep predicting the death of dribbling and the midfield playmaker. Despite being styles of play that improved defending and athleticism were supposed to have made obsolete, both have re-emerged. Nor is the old-school centre-forward finished, despite premature claims to the contrary. (Sweeping generalisations always reveal their flaws in soccer eventually). Ryan Giggs and Paolo Maldini are soccer stars whose career spans different eras in the sport too, like say, Lidstrom. Like hockey, there is no instance of an entire generation of soccer greats being left behind because the sport changed radically overnight.

There are complaints that the modern soccer player is coached to perform robotically. Too many teams play well-organised defence whilst offering sterility in attack. Yet whenever it seems the game is being strangled to death, remarkable talents emerge that systems can't subdue and received wisdoms about what is possible take a battering.

I could say the same things about cricket too, but I may have drifted too far off topic already.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

I just don't see how people don't understand how it's harder to stand out today. No one has said anything like Orr, Lemieux and Gretzky weren't natural freaks, they were and their true greatness is understood. What Stray Wasp is saying is the same with hockey, if everyones robotic, more well coached, plays more of a team game, in a salary cap era, with 30 teams in a league with deeper talent than we've ever seen, then how wouldn't it be harder to stand out?

 

[BraveCanadian]

My point is that in soccer the typical player is stronger, fitter and faster than ever before too but the dominant team at the highest level (Spain) is where it is because of footballing intelligence and technical skill (many of the Spanish team's key players are small, lightweight and can't run fast). No matter how fast the speed of the game gets, the ball moves faster than the man.

This is a point that I make all the time.

it doesn't matter how fast you are, you can't outrun the puck.

Particularly with players like Gretzky, Lemieux and Orr.. their vision and sense of where to be was one of the most potent parts of their arsenal.

Gretzky moreso than any player in the history of the sport.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I just don't see how people don't understand how it's harder to stand out today. No one has said anything like Orr, Lemieux and Gretzky weren't natural freaks, they were and their true greatness is understood. What Stray Wasp is saying is the same with hockey, if everyones robotic, more well coached, plays more of a team game, in a salary cap era, with 30 teams in a league with deeper talent than we've ever seen, then how wouldn't it be harder to stand out?

First you have to accept that the league is actually more deeply talented now than previously instead of just faster than before.
It's been pretty obvious imo the last few years that talent has taken a back seat to speed since the lockout.

Second, you pretty much answered your own question there by talking about everyone being robots. It wouldn't take much for a very creative and offensively gifted player like Gretzky, Lemieux or Orr to stand amongst those robots.

 

[Hardyvan123]

What is your point? Obviously Potvin is better than Park and Orr/Potvin < Orr/Park. Orr still blows Potvin away pretty easily though. As far as Orr failing to outscore Potvin, let's look at Potvin's biggest year. In 1979 Potvin scored 101 points. In Orr's last six healthy seasons he scored over 101 points every year except one, and during that season he played only 63 games. Orr averages 122 points over those seasons, even when you don't account for his missed games. Keep in mind, goals per game in the NHL was lower in every one of those seasons than it was in 1979. In Orr's last healthy season he scored 135 points, well above Potvin's 101 and only four years earlier. It's important to note as well that Esposito was not as dominant in 1975 as he had been in the earlier years of Orr's dominance. There is really no reason to believe that healthy Orr, even though he had aged to the ripe old age of 31 in 1979, would not be able to outscore Potvin. Keep in mind as well that defencemen generally have peaks/primes that last later into their careers.



Other than goaltending the Canadians outplayed the Soviets pretty handily in my estimation, and that is without considering preparation/chemistry and various other issues. Sure a few guys like Kharlamov would have been elite NHL players, but is there any reason to believe that they would have considerably outscored someone like Esposito? Not really, which would mean that they likely aren't blowing Orr away either, so his dominance offensively is hardly reduced. If you want to think of it another way, just discount any Europeans or even Americans. Have any defencemen or forwards dominated just their Canadian peers to the same degree that Orr has, or even close to the same degree, other than Lemieux or Gretzky?



Are you honestly saying that you do not believe Orr, at his peak could outscore Mike Green, on pace through 68 games to score 88 points two years ago, by 15%? Actually answer this question please.



I'll pose this question again, since you are once again implying that someone like Lemieux would only have a chance at being the best player today. 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?

I'll get to the outscoring green by 15% part 1st. His 88 PPG pace is 8 points better than any season in the 21st Century. He played in the perfect situation, as he was allowed to join in the attacking style that Washington played that year.

When Orr played he was allowed, and able to because of the talent level (or lack or it), to play as a modern day rover.

If he was allowed to attack any time he wanted and actually played an offensive game 1st and foremost with little to no attention to to detail he might in a perfect storm season crack 100 points , but he wouldn't even do it all the time in a perfect situation in the 2010 NHL.

Checking is too good, goalies equipment and technically are too hard to beat (compared to the toothpicks in net during Orr's day and how they played stand up), teams play more systems and almost all players block shots now as well.

I honestly don't think that most coaches would allow Orr to play the same way that he did in his time and that would severely cut his scoring opportunities that succeeded to the level that 80-95 points might be possible in the right situations.

On to Lemieux, I'm not sure on how many seasons he was the best player in the NHL but scoring the most points and being the best player don't always equate to the same thing IMO.

The previous 2 Hart winners beofre Mario's last one in 96, Lindros with 115 points in 73 games and Federov with 107 points in 78 games were all round excellent players who brought a lot more to their game than Mario's secondary impact beyond his points.

Put another way, if GMs and coaches were asked to build a team around a player in 96 (for one season so age wouldn't matter), I think Lindros, Federov, Forsberg and the Moose might have been in the mix with Mario as well.

Mario was the most offensively gifted player that I have ever seen but he doesn't have the label of a winner like Wayne, and quite a few others deservedly have.

I'm sure Orr would have outscored Potvin, I only point this out because if anyone other than Brad Park had come close to Orr it might bring him back to earth a bit, well not for everyone I know, and also I think Potvin gets under appreciated by a lot of people on these boards as well.

My comment on the 72 series was more of a statement of the game in the NHL at that time ( I know they didn't have Hull or Orr) but frankly the fact that the Russians came so far in such a small amount of time was amazing and I think part of it was that maybe the NHL wasn't as kick ass as everyone makes them out to be at that point.

 

[JackSlater]

First you have to accept that the league is actually more deeply talented now than previously instead of just faster than before.
It's been pretty obvious imo the last few years that talent has taken a back seat to speed since the lockout.

Second, you pretty much answered your own question there by talking about everyone being robots. It wouldn't take much for a very creative and offensively gifted player like Gretzky, Lemieux or Orr to stand amongst those robots.

There is more to talent than just creativity. Speed is part of talent, for instance.Luckily in Orr's case he had both speed and creativity to spare.