What would Bobby Orr's stats look like in this era ?

[kytem2]

Obviously Orr was a great player, possibly the best ever.

However, the opposition he played against was absolutely terrible according to most youtube clips (long and short) available today.

 

[BenchBrawl]

32 goals and 82 assists for 114 points give or take.

I figure he would get a bit more points than Kane, more assists than Karlsson and more goals than Burns.

 

[BenchBrawl]

My estimations for the Big 4:

Player / G / A / PTS

Gretzky - 46 - 110 - 156
Lemieux - 60 - 90 - 150
Howe - 46 - 80 - 126 - (with all-around game)
Orr - 32 - 82 - 114 - (with all-around game)

 

[Sprague Cleghorn]

I just feel like I've got to say something on the subject of bad D or G from the past observed through youtube clips or SN's top goals from X decade.

Those youtube clips are clips of "highlight reel goals". Ususally, these types of goals are the only ones left from the past as they're of course worthy of the highlight reel. No one saves a clip of a tip in, or a "normal" goal unless they're historically significant. A large majority of highlight reel goals usually occur due to bad defense/defensive breakdowns. Of course most defensive breakdowns occur due to mismatches. These clips are just like cherrypicking data. I'll show an example why.

I dont know if you guys remember that Malkin goal in 2012 against the Lightning where he just walked right past everyone. 50 years from now, some guy will see that clip and say "LOL defense was so bad back then. What a pathetic poke check attempt! What was that other guy doing standing around? Conditioning must have been a joke!" while ignoring that it was against the backup G and bottom pairing D. I mean the goaltending of old man Roloson and the defensive play of those bottom pairing defenders is totally representative of today's hockey! Same thing with those Orr clips. As you said, they were against bad players. Was the defensive play of guys like Darryl Maggs representative of the entire era? Can you show me numerous clips of Orr embarassing guys like Savard, Park, legit elite players? Not to mention that the % of Orr's points against such players is not very high.

Defensive systems back in the 70s were much more lax than today, but nowhere near as bad as is usually stereotyped thanks to the cherrypicking of clips. I bet you 30 years from now, the only goals you'll be seeing from today are goals like the Malkin goal mentioned above, the Ovechkin on the back goal, the one where McDavid blew by the two D of the CBJ, that Kadri assist this year etc. If you look closely, they all resulted from terrible D or G, and that is exactly what that guy will be looking at, not the sick dangles. Of course, his natural conclusion, since those clips are the most readily available, is that defense in the 2010s sucked ass.

Rant over.

 

[Sprague Cleghorn]

Anyways, I did a mini project back then. I adjusted every player's stats using production of "first line" players as the point of adjustment. I standardized the data to 2014-15 scoring levels. This method didnt work quite so well for pre-1967 players, but I felt it was a good method for anything after that. Orr's best year was 125 points. He broke the 100 point barrier five times using this method (125, 114, 110, 103, 102). In comparison, no other defenceman broke the 100 point barrier using this method, Gretzky scored 150+ points twice, and Lemieux's best was 147.

 

[Fudgeo]

I just feel like I've got to say something on the subject of bad D or G from the past observed through youtube clips or SN's top goals from X decade.

Those youtube clips are clips of "highlight reel goals". Ususally, these types of goals are the only ones left from the past as they're of course worthy of the highlight reel. No one saves a clip of a tip in, or a "normal" goal unless they're historically significant. A large majority of highlight reel goals usually occur due to bad defense/defensive breakdowns. Of course most defensive breakdowns occur due to mismatches. These clips are just like cherrypicking data. I'll show an example why.

I dont know if you guys remember that Malkin goal in 2012 against the Lightning where he just walked right past everyone. 50 years from now, some guy will see that clip and say "LOL defense was so bad back then. What a pathetic poke check attempt! What was that other guy doing standing around? Conditioning must have been a joke!" while ignoring that it was against the backup G and bottom pairing D. I mean the goaltending of old man Roloson and the defensive play of those bottom pairing defenders is totally representative of today's hockey! Same thing with those Orr clips. As you said, they were against bad players. Was the defensive play of guys like Darryl Maggs representative of the entire era? Can you show me numerous clips of Orr embarassing guys like Savard, Park, legit elite players? Not to mention that the % of Orr's points against such players is not very high.

Defensive systems back in the 70s were much more lax than today, but nowhere near as bad as is usually stereotyped thanks to the cherrypicking of clips. I bet you 30 years from now, the only goals you'll be seeing from today are goals like the Malkin goal mentioned above, the Ovechkin on the back goal, the one where McDavid blew by the two D of the CBJ, that Kadri assist this year etc. If you look closely, they all resulted from terrible D or G, and that is exactly what that guy will be looking at, not the sick dangles. Of course, his natural conclusion, since those clips are the most readily available, is that defense in the 2010s sucked ass.

Rant over.

Well said, I'd love to see some old time NHL hockey if you have any links.

 

[MXD]

That would be heavily dependent on the identity of his head coach.

 

[Sens Rule]

If Karlsson can score 82 points, lead the league in assists and almost certainly carry the puck more than any other player in the league. (I read somewhere he is estimated to have possession of the puck about 3:20 per game, but I don't know where that stat comes from).

I think the only comparable to how Orr would play in the current NHL is Karlsson. No other D plays the same style as Karlsson. No other team has a D be the clear focus of all their offence. No other D plays as many minutes. If Karlsson does have the puck on his stick 3:20 minutes a game. I would expect Orr to have it over 4:00 minutes a game.

So if you assume that Orr would have a similar "role" to Karlsson. Playing about 30 minutes a game, I think he would decidedly outscore Karlsson. I don't know if he would get 114 points this past year, but I think he would get about 100 points.

I think Orr today would flirt with close to one assist per game and get 20-25 goals. Probably getting around 25-75 for 100 points each year of his prime. He would be among the very top of the scoring race each season and depending on if some player had a huge season like Kane did, or not, he could win some Art Ross trophies.

If we assume he had 6 huge mostly full seasons, as he did at his peak, I would expect totals like 102, 97, 104, 96, 98, 105. Or something like that.

He would win every Norris Trophy, most Hart Trophies, lead in assists most seasons, and maybe win an Art Ross or two.

That is what I would expect of a Bobby Orr at his peak now.

 

[rfournier103]

I would like to think that Orr's numbers today would be comparable to his numbers of yesteryear.

His opposition would be better today (better trained, better equipment, etc...), but Orr would ALSO be better today than he was then, too. HIS training, and HIS equipment would be better than what was available to him in the '60s and '70s. I think Orr would be THE dominant defenseman in the NHL and likely considered the best player in the game with ALL things being equal.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Even Strength

The best comparable is Orr vs Karlsson using Even Strength scoring:

Bobby Orr:
http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/o/orrbo01.html

Erik Karlsson:
http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/k/karlser01.html

Karlsson enjoys the edge in ES goals to PP ratio but not in ESG per game. Orr enjoys the edge in all other ES goals, assists and points metrics. Orr was a greater threat in SH situations. 4 on 4 in OT remains a hypothetical in Orr's case.

 

[85highlander]

Can you show me numerous clips of Orr embarassing guys like Savard, Park, legit elite players?

Some of your comments are legit, but it would be folly and historically inaccurate to state that Orr couldn't do or make even the best defenders look silly on occasion.

Certainly some of his stats came against inferior competition (this is true of all superstar players of every era and every sport), but there were other times when he even made the best look foolish.

Check out how he turns Brad Park (since you specifically mentioned his name) into a turnstile at this clip starting at 44 seconds in and following...and watch the replay...Orr is the only one who has a clue as to what is happening. He had lightening quick reflexes that would excel against any competition in every and any era.

 

[MXD]

I would like to think that Orr's numbers today would be comparable to his numbers of yesteryear.

His opposition would be better today (better trained, better equipment, etc...), but Orr would ALSO be better today than he was then, too. HIS training, and HIS equipment would be better than what was available to him in the '60s and '70s. I think Orr would be THE dominant defenseman in the NHL and likely considered the best player in the game with ALL things being equal.

Absolutely.

Still... His numbers would be different on, say, a Claude Julien-led team vs. a Bruce Boudreau-led team.

And he'd be the same player in both cases.

 

[billybudd]

I dont know if you guys remember that Malkin goal in 2012 against the Lightning where he just walked right past everyone. 50 years from now, some guy will see that clip and say "LOL defense was so bad back then. What a pathetic poke check attempt! What was that other guy doing standing around? Conditioning must have been a joke!" while ignoring that it was against the backup G and bottom pairing D. I mean the goaltending of old man Roloson and the defensive play of those bottom pairing defenders is totally representative of today's hockey!

Not to nitpick, but none of that is why that goal happened.

What happened on that play is that the Bolts neutral zone system broke because Chris Kuntiz grabbed the Tampa center and pushed him from his spot in the middle all the way to the boards while Malkin was in the process of gaining speed. This created a giant hole in coverage and left everybody else on the ice flatfooted against a large, skilled forward with great reach/finish coming at them at mach 1. Those "bottom pairing d" didn't have a chance on that play due to something that happened up ice.


On topic, I think 100 points while playing more of a two way game than a guy like EK would probably be the safe, conservative bet.

 

[Sprague Cleghorn]

Well said, I'd love to see some old time NHL hockey if you have any links.

I believe there's a sticky full of these clips in this section.

Some of your comments are legit, but it would be folly and historically inaccurate to state that Orr couldn't do make even the best defenders look silly on occasion.

Certainly some of his stats came against inferior competition (this is true of all superstar players of every era and every sport), but there were other times when he even made the best look foolish.

Check out how he turns Brad Park (since you specifically mentioned his name) into a turnstile at this clip starting at 44 seconds in and following...and watch the replay...Orr is the only one who has a clue as to what is happening. He had lightening quick reflexes that would excel against any competition in every and any era.

What I meant is it is harder to find clips of Orr doing these things on guys like Park etc. then it is against the noob players, not that Orr is incapable of it. This is true anywhere. You'll find many more clips of Crosby scoring highlight reel goals against some guy that will be forgotten than clips of him scoring on guys of Doughty, Hedman etc. caliber.

Not to nitpick, but none of that is why that goal happened.

What happened on that play is that the Bolts neutral zone system broke because Chris Kuntiz grabbed the Tampa center and pushed him from his spot in the middle all the way to the boards while Malkin was in the process of gaining speed. This created a giant hole in coverage and left everybody else on the ice flatfooted against a large, skilled forward with great reach/finish coming at them at mach 1. Those "bottom pairing d" didn't have a chance on that play due to something that happened up ice.


On topic, I think 100 points while playing more of a two way game than a guy like EK would probably be the safe, conservative bet.

Yeah, but the D who wore #7 (Clark?) could have done better than some feeble poke check. I'm pretty sure a guy like Doughty or whatever couldve played that better. Brewer I'm not going to blame since he was covering his side.

Another thing that should probably be discussed is the presence of a player of Phil Esposito's caliber on the team. Esposito's numbers are no doubt inflated by Orr, which Im pretty sure most people agree with. I think what is lost is the effect that Esposito has on Orr too. I calculated the % of points that Orr was in on Esposito and vice versa. I did this for some of their big seasons and I got most of the times around 30%. It's just a matter of how much to substract or if any substracting needs to be done. The latter being based on how Gretzky improved his previous points record by merely 3 points while playing with substantially better players (1982 vs 1986), or Lemieux's big year compared to his others.

 

[billybudd]

Yeah, but the D who wore #7 (Clark?) could have done better than some feeble poke check. I'm pretty sure a guy like Doughty or whatever couldve played that better. Brewer I'm not going to blame since he was covering his side.

Short of diving at Malkin's feet, I don't know what he's supposed to do there. He's not moving and a stronger player with better hand-eye coordination and longer reach who isn't supposed to be there is closing on him at top speed. Clark(?) is positioned (correctly in the Bolts NZ scheme) to retrieve a dump-in, not pick up a guy in a 1 on 1.

I think anybody looks stupid in his situation, no matter what they do.

 

[rfournier103]

Absolutely.

Still... His numbers would be different on, say, a Claude Julien-led team vs. a Bruce Boudreau-led team.

And he'd be the same player in both cases.

Absolutely. When you have a Bobby Orr, you let him do his thing and create a game plan AROUND him. So simple a concept - yet so difficult for some men to grasp...

I think the best coaches are the ones who recognize the strengths and limitations of their players and develop their strategies/game-plans utilizing their players' strengths. Rarely can a coach be successful trying to make a square peg fit into the proverbial round hole.

 

[Bluesguru]

Back then Orr played without limitations. He had no system to adhere too. He even said himself he would have trouble today playing in a system cause that wasn't who he was.
With that said, I'm sure if he played today he'd be a top 5 defenseman but he wouldn't be putting up 100 points today that's for sure.

 

[Rayban*]

My estimations for the Big 4:

Player / G / A / PTS

Gretzky - 46 - 110 - 156
Lemieux - 60 - 90 - 150
Howe - 46 - 80 - 126 - (with all-around game)
Orr - 32 - 82 - 114 - (with all-around game)

Lol you really think Hockey is the only area of professional athletics where the athletes have gotten worse over time?

Most of them would be above average players by todays standards but nowhere near those numbers. Howe would not be the physical force he was in todays game at only 200 lbs.

 

[Pominville Knows]

Lol you really think Hockey is the only area of professional athletics where the athletes have gotten worse over time?

Most of them would be above average players by todays standards but nowhere near those numbers. Howe would not be the physical force he was in todays game at only 200 lbs.

We are not talking about using some time machine to them here at age 25, putting them on the ice as they are in their ancient equipment. We are talking about if they would have grown up here in our age. That means that their training would be modern, their equipment would be modern, their nutrition would be modern, and their schooling would be modern.
Lemieux would probably be 240 pounds with less fat then he had in reality.

 

[The Panther]

Lol you really think Hockey is the only area of professional athletics where the athletes have gotten worse over time?

Most of them would be above average players by todays standards but nowhere near those numbers. Howe would not be the physical force he was in todays game at only 200 lbs.

Maybe the more intelligent way to phrase this thread's topic would be: 'How many points would a player today score, and how good would a D-man today have to be, to equal Bobby Orr's level of play?'

(By the way, Mario Lemieux and Sidney Crosby were teammates, lest we forget. Lemieux, to use the most recent example of the 'big 4', is not some relic of an ancient past. Lemieux scored 76 points in 43 games against players like Justin Williams, Scott Hartnell, the Sedins, Mike Fisher, and Matt Cullen, and many more, who are all playing now.)

 

[Rayban*]

We are not talking about using some time machine to them here at age 25, putting them on the ice as they are in their ancient equipment. We are talking about if they would have grown up here in our age. That means that their training would be modern, their equipment would be modern, their nutrition would be modern, and their schooling would be modern.
Lemieux would probably be 240 pounds with less fat then he had in reality.

And they still would get nowhere near the numbers i quoted. Bobby Orr isn't going to score 100 points in today's nhl.

 

[BenchBrawl]

And they still would get nowhere near the numbers i quoted. Bobby Orr isn't going to score 100 points in today's nhl.

Yet Erik Karlsson scored 82 points.So the greatest offensive defenseman of all-time wouldn't be able to beat him by 18 points?

You seem to be one of those typical ''old players would be worthless in today's game'' type of poster.

Also, Gordie would be a physical force in today's game, even if he wouln't be the toughest player.Size matters but not that much.Howe was a physical beast, very strong and very durable.He would be a strong player in today's NHL and would outscore Patrick Kane if he was teleported from the 50s and given a couple of months to adjust to modern life.

Just google image pictures of Bobby Hull and see how weak those old players look like.

Nutrition and all that crap is severely overrated.Hockey is a fluid game, and the more fluid the game, the more it's about your vision and mental, just as much as your skating skills and natural body balance and mobility (and other skills).Of course you can boost your mobility with training, but very few players can boost theirs to the level of Orr's, even if they train for a thousand years.They just don't have the genetic that Orr has.Just like no player today don't have the brain that Gretzky had.

I'm not sure if there's a single skater in today's NHL who is a better skater than Bobby Orr.

 

[Voight]

Lol you really think Hockey is the only area of professional athletics where the athletes have gotten worse over time?

Most of them would be above average players by todays standards but nowhere near those numbers. Howe would not be the physical force he was in todays game at only 200 lbs.

Howe would be heavier, due to advancements in training/nutrition Don't forget he grew up during the depression in rural Saskatchewan, food was scare up until his teens.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Howe would be heavier, due to advancements in training/nutrition Don't forget he grew up during the depression in rural Saskatchewan, food was scare up until his teens.

Add the fact he'd have modern training Howe would probably be one of the strongest players in the league still. That man was a freak

 

[BobbyAwe]

Yet Erik Karlsson scored 82 points.So the greatest offensive defenseman of all-time wouldn't be able to beat him by 18 points?

The question is, what would Karlsson have looked like on a near-dynasty team in the years immediately after expansion teams suddenly accounted for half the personnel in the league? We have to be realistic. Even Orr has said that, as a young player today, he couldn't get away with half the things he did back then.