What's The Argument For Lemieux Over Orr?

[FerrisRox]

I'll give you Carbonneau, but the other 3 were nowhere near their peaks. he whole story.

Roy played behind a Norris-trophy and Stanley Cup champion Chris Chelios.

It would take a hell of an argument to suggest him winning the Norris trophy and the Stanley Cup is "nowhere near his peak."

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

I'll give you Carbonneau, but the other 3 were nowhere near their peaks. Also the 2002 Wings were pretty good.


Yep, Coffey was on ice for a lot of goals, especially early on. Mike Farkas gave a mature and reasonable explanation for that above. I on the other hand...

Post Francis-trade Coffey's a -1 (same as Larry Murphy) and in the playoffs he was also a -1 (a +1 before he broke his jaw and was then used only on the PP - where he COULDN'T record a plus). Nevertheless, if we're being +/- determinists here, that -1 makes Coffey a better playoff performer than 1970-71 Bobby Orr.

12 points in 7 games from a defender and still a -2? WOW! Sometimes points don't tell the whole story.

The hell they weren't.

Gainey was only 32 in 86 and had the 2nd best playoffs of his career. Chelios was 2nd in Calder voting in 85 and won a Norris in MTL, in 86 Big Bird had 85 points and was 3rd in Norris voting.

 

[Mike C]

If God was reincarnated on ice he would be a 91 playoff mario. Orr never reached that level.

Orr was a defenseman

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

If God was reincarnated on ice he would be a 91 playoff mario. Orr never reached that level.

Pens were lucky to get out of the first round in 91. The under .500 Devils led the series 3-2 before the Pens pulled it out. Mario was 3-5-8 and -3 (worst on the team).

Pens also played the mediocre Caps (37-36-7) in round 2 and the surprising North Stars (27-39-7) in the finals.

Mario got better as the playoffs went on. He was truly dominate against the Bruins in round 3 and again in the finals. Against the Bruins he made Bourque & Sweeney look like AHLers a few times.

Game 6 of the finals the Pens won 8-0 in Minnesota. I'd imagine that was the biggest blowout in a Stanley Cup final (last) game.

Oddly the Pens lost the first game of each series that year. Mario was -7 in those 4 games.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

If God was reincarnated on ice he would be a 91 playoff mario. Orr never reached that level.

'72 Orr did. 24 pts in 15 games while being the best defender in the league is better than 91 Mario with how close their PPGs were (1.6 for Orr vs 1.9 for Mario)

 

[Midnight Judges]

Might have, but Barrasso...

Unless Lemieux's 18 pts in 11 games is gonna get dragged for the loss, in which case, you've already made up your mind about Lemieux...

People let the top six talent cloud their judgment...but outside of the 1990-1993 area, the Penguins roster is Lemieux and dog ****...or a top-six that can score and dog ****. He came into a franchise that had existed for over 15 years, never played for another team, and still played for two expansion-level clubs...

And look, it is what it is...but if Orr gets credit for dragging Boston out of the sewer, and Gretzky gets credit for dragging LA out of the sewer, and Hasek gets credit for having a star-less, regular DPE team around him...kinda feels right to give Mario some pretty significant credit, it wasn't a franchise terribly intent on doing well...

Is anybody else going to take issue with the assertion that a team with 5 hall of famers on it (as was the case in 1996), including a top 10 player of all time, was "Lemieux and dog****?"

The 94 Pens had Larry Murphy, Ron Francis, Jaromir Jagr, and Luc Robataille. Most star players would dream of having support of that caliber.

Don't get me wrong, I realize depth can be just as important - and even more important than top end star power, but I think you exaggerate a bit here.

Mario's Pens missed the playoffs in 5 of his first 6 seasons, and this was back when 16 out of 21 teams made it in. That is not a good result! It wasn't until the Pens were a well-constructed team that they had success.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I think people didn't take too much issue with it, considering you just effectively agreed with it haha

This is the '89 Pens: 1988-89 Pittsburgh Penguins Roster, Stats, Injuries, Scores, Results, Shootouts | Hockey-Reference.com - got this team to the playoffs, swept the Rangers, and almost got by Philadelphia...but ya know...Barrasso. Super HOF goalie. *cough*

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Gretzky lost in 86, when he shouldn't have. Orr lost in 1971, when he shouldn't have. To me - those are both bigger losses than Penguins in 1993.

a sideways comment on the main issue here, but all those years get lumped together in my mind, along with that one year the patriots swept the entire season before losing in the superbowl and the year the golden state warriors broke chicago’s record. probably other examples that i’m not remembering.

i feel like in all these cases a team that had won and was set up to keep winning took it for granted that they were going to coast to a championship as a superteam and so they tried to grab some other fruit along the way. boston with the ridiculous regular season scoring records and having basically their entire top six in the top ten; gretzky gunning for two assists a game; new england with the perfect season; golden state surpassing the bulls and steph going for 400 threes; and mario’s furious finish to catch lafontaine and then leave him in the dust plus the win streak record to close out the regular season.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Pens were lucky to get out of the first round in 91. The under .500 Devils led the series 3-2 before the Pens pulled it out. Mario was 3-5-8 and -3 (worst on the team).

Pens also played the mediocre Caps (37-36-7) in round 2 and the surprising North Stars (27-39-7) in the finals.

Mario got better as the playoffs went on. He was truly dominate against the Bruins in round 3 and again in the finals. Against the Bruins he made Bourque & Sweeney look like AHLers a few times.

Game 6 of the finals the Pens won 8-0 in Minnesota. I'd imagine that was the biggest blowout in a Stanley Cup final (last) game.

Oddly the Pens lost the first game of each series that year. Mario was -7 in those 4 games.

17 in first 12. 27 in final 11.

'72 Orr did. 24 pts in 15 games while being the best defender in the league is better than 91 Mario with how close their PPGs were (1.6 for Orr vs 1.9 for Mario)

No..... lemieux would have scored 60 in a 72 run. With that watered down league

Orr was a defenseman

In position onlu. Lets not act like he was lidstrom out there

 

[Bear of Bad News]

No..... lemieux would have scored 60 in a 72 run. With that watered down league

If it matters to you, these are the exact type of statements that make you lose credibility on other topics around here.

 

[Mike C]

17 in first 12. 27 in final 11.


No..... lemieux would have scored 60 in a 72 run. With that watered down league


In position onlu. Lets not act like he was lidstrom out there

Let's not act like he was in front of the net all the time either

 

[overpass]

No..... lemieux would have scored 60 in a 72 run. With that watered down league

Orr didn't run up his playoff scoring totals in 1972 against a watered down league.

In the first round, he faced a Toronto team with:

• Maybe the best two forechecking centres in the league, Dave Keon and Norm Ullman.
• Two wingers who would excel on Team Canada's checking line later that year in the Summit Series, Paul Henderson and Ron Ellis.
• A young Darryl Sittler as the #3 centre.
• Bernie Parent in goal, just two years before he won his first Stanley Cup and Conn Smythe trophy.

And Orr still scored 9 points in 5 games.

Then he played the St Louis Blues. They weren't the strongest opponent and Boston beat them easily, but it was also Orr's lowest scoring playoff series with 7 points. It's not as if he ran up the score to inflate his scoring totals.

Finally he played a loaded Rangers team in the final, probably a better and deeper team than any Lemieux faced. There was absolutely nothing watered down about that roster.

• Even with their #1 C Jean Ratelle injured, they had Bobby Rousseau, a brilliant playmaker and one of the key men on Montreal's 1960s dynasty, taking his place between Vic Hadfield and Rod Gilbert on the "Goal-a-Game Line". Hadfield and Gilbert knew each other inside out after playing five years together on the same line.
• Walt Tkaczuk was a first-class two-way #2C, strong and skilled and two years removed from leading the league in even strength points. He formed the "Bulldog Line" with LW Bill Fairbairn and RW Gene Carr. Carr was considered maybe the fastest skater in the league (although he maintained Orr was the fastest).
• Pete Stemkowski, former playoff hero for the 1967 Leafs, was the #3C, with solid Original Six veteran checkers Ted Irvine and Bruce MacGregor on his wings. MacGregor and Carr between them took turns shutting down Yvan Cournoyer in the Rangers' victory over the defending champion Canadiens.
• Even after those 3 lines, the Rangers had Phil Goyette and Ron Stewart as spare forwards, both smart two-way veterans with tons of playoff experience in the Original Six league.
• The Rangers had two very strong pairings on the blueline as well. Brad Park, the #2 defenceman in the world, was paired with Dale Rolfe, a huge, smart blueliner out of Eddie Shore's Springfield finishing school for defencemen.
• The second pairing was Rod Seiling, who would play for Team Canada in the Summit Series later that year, and Jim Neilson, a former postseason all-star. Seiling and Neilson had five years of history playing together and would have been a top pairing on most teams. Far better than any second pairing of any team Mario played.
• Eddie Giacomin and Gilles Villemure were among the best goaltending duos in the league.

And Orr had 4 goals, 8 points, and +7 in 6 games against this loaded lineup, despite playing with an injured left knee.

In position onlu. Lets not act like he was lidstrom out there

Boston won Game 6 by a score of 3-0, shutting the Rangers out in MSG. In the second period, per Sports Illustrated, Orr was the key man in killing off some Boston penalties.

Orr returned to the ice early in the second period and stymied the Rangers with a masterful demonstration of penalty killing. Boston had to play shorthanded for a stretch of three minutes and 22 seconds, including 48 seconds when the Rangers had a two-man advantage, and Orr spent much of that time in a typical game of keepaway. He would get the puck behind his net and skate slowly into center ice, then turn around and return to square one as the Rangers chased him in an agony of frustration. When they closed in, he would flip the puck to the end of the rink. After two periods it was still 1-0.

Let's not pretend Orr wasn't a great defender. He led Boston in playing a brilliant defensive road game to clinch the Cup, against another great team, and he scored the first goal and set up the second.

All of this was on 1.5 knees. Again, Sports Illustrated:

Despite Orr's heroics, it was obvious throughout the series that his movements were restricted by his injured knee. "Sure, it got sore," he said, "and it gave out sometimes when I made a sharp cut to change direction. It even locked on me at times. So I didn't rush the puck as often as I used to. Maybe I'm just getting lazy." Sanderson laughed at that remark. "Bobby's going more for brains and instinct than skating and speed," he said. "He can beat you any way he wants."

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

17 in first 12. 27 in final 11.


No..... lemieux would have scored 60 in a 72 run. With that watered down league


In position onlu. Lets not act like he was lidstrom out there

BS.

Tough argument to pose for a player that didn't play defensively at all.

 

[Michael Farkas]

We're not going to try to pass off Orr as a lousy defender are we...?

 

[Gorskyontario]

Imagine Eric Lindros, but twice as gifted offensively.

Lindros was probably 2-3x stronger than Lemieux. Are you serious? Lol. Obviously not as good a hockey player.

 

[Garbageyuk]

Yes, he should.

Also, "Hasek lite" they all had roughly the same amount of NHL seasons...

Let's not pretend like Lemieux didn't get it done internationally too. Lemieux was also a way better playoff player.

Hasek was great in the playoffs too. Think about this though; if Hasek was taken off those ‘99 Sabres, and Lemieux was added, do they still make the finals?

Let’s not replace Hasek with another goaltender - he’s simply being subtracted from the roster. One of the backups (who were decent) assume the starting goaltender role. Roloson and Biron were the backups that year.

Likewise, Lemieux is added, so he doesn’t replace anyone on the roster - Peca slides to 2C, Holzinger to 3C, and so on.

Do the Sabres still make finals in this scenario? I really don’t think so. Thoughts?

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

If it matters to you, these are the exact type of statements that make you lose credibility on other topics around here.

It is a literal fact that lemieux dominated the toughest era in talent in nhl history and that that orrs time was far weaker. Are we really going to deny this?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

It is a literal fact that lemieux dominated the toughest era in talent in nhl history and that that orrs time was far weaker. Are we really going to deny this?

Yep.

 

[blogofmike]

Roy played behind a Norris-trophy and Stanley Cup champion Chris Chelios.

It would take a hell of an argument to suggest him winning the Norris trophy and the Stanley Cup is "nowhere near his peak."

The hell they weren't.

Gainey was only 32 in 86 and had the 2nd best playoffs of his career. Chelios was 2nd in Calder voting in 85 and won a Norris in MTL, in 86 Big Bird had 85 points and was 3rd in Norris voting.

As shown in the reply by @BigBadBruins7708, we were talking specifically about 1986. Use of the word "peak" is overstating the case for the 1986 Canadiens.

Chris Chelios received 0 Norris votes in 1984, 1985, 1986, and 1987.

The fact that he won Norris Trophies in other seasons, would suggest peak Chelios was a few years off. Robinson was 3rd in voting, but he obviously had better showings in the late 1970s.

As for Gainey, I guess we're saying he peaked with his 1979 Smythe run, but if you're going by points to determine his 2nd best playoffs, his 9 points in 15 games in 1978 might be better than the 10 points in 20 games in 1986 (half the scoring rate of peak Bob Gainey). He's a guy with 4 straight Selkes (and some time before where he was good, but the award that was kind of invented for him didn't exist,) but Bob Gainey hadn't been a Selke finalist since 1982.

Kind of a small sample size, no?

Maybe we should go to 1982 Oilers losing in best of five to the terrible Kings.

Gretzky 12 point and -1 in 5 games. A -4 in the decisive 5th game. Or Messier -4 in 5 games.

At least Orr's series was against a Montreal team that had 10 Hall of Famers on it.

Yep, people get minuses.

The thing is Wayne Gretzky is the best playoff performer of the bunch. and he has lots of better playoff runs. 1982 isn't in his top 10. 1971 is in Orr's Top 5.

While the 71 Habs had Hall of Famers, none of those guys were at their peak (and I'm sure that Rogie Vachon's HHOF status was crucial, considering the 0 minutes of hockey he played that spring.)

The 1971 Habs were 13-16-1 against the Original 6 during the regular season. They were also the only Original 6 team that lost a playoff game to an expansion team in the first 5 years of expansion (1968-1972,) somehow dropping 2 games to the Minnesota North Stars. For reference, the Expansion 6 was 0-24 in every other series they played in that time span.

As for upsets, those happened to all of them; however, A) They happened less often to Gretzky teams, and B) Gretzky and Lemieux teams were capable of pulling off upsets themselves. Orr's relatively thin playoff record has no series wins, except when he's playing as a favourite with home-ice advantage.

Team Series Results
As Favourite (Team had better RS record)
Gretzky 19-6
Orr/Lemieux 9-4
Howe 9-5

Even (Same Points Total by Both Teams)
Lemieux 2-0
Gretzky 1-0

Underdog (Other Team had better RS record)
Gretzky 10-6
Lemieux 3-2
Howe 4-9
Orr 0-2

 

[Michael Farkas]

Hasek was great in the playoffs too. Think about this though; if Hasek was taken off those ‘99 Sabres, and Lemieux was added, do they still make the finals?

Let’s not replace Hasek with another goaltender - he’s simply being subtracted from the roster. One of the backups (who were decent) assume the starting goaltender role. Roloson and Biron were the backups that year.

Likewise, Lemieux is added, so he doesn’t replace anyone on the roster - Peca slides to 2C, Holzinger to 3C, and so on.

Do the Sabres still make finals in this scenario? I really don’t think so. Thoughts?

Hasek was uneven in the playoffs for my tastes.

Obviously, it's hard to say. I don't think it's a particularly useful question because of what's involved. If you have Lemieux, you're going to build with Lemieux in mind. If you have Hasek, you're going to build with Hasek in mind. Swapping them out for each other is really complex math.

Lemieux tended to last a while in the playoffs when he made it. He made it 8 times: 2 Cups, 2 Conf Finals, 2 game 7's of round 2.

And around this time, this bumble**** with this export level of puck tracking...



Put up a - to use the God stat - .922 save pct. in '97 when Hasek didn't participate. But only got 22 goals of support in 10 games (5 of those goals came in one of those games). So, maybe Mario scores the goal they needed.

Obviously, we'll never know and in a lot of ways it's an impossible question...but all things being equal, I'd much rather go into a playoff series with Lemieux than Hasek. No doubt. The question about whether it's Lemieux on Buffalo, ehhhh, maybe that adds some thought.

The inverse though...Hasek on usually defense-less Pittsburgh...? There isn't a team there anymore haha. They might not make it out of the first round more than a couple times from 1990 to 2001. Their best chance would have been in '98, the Constantine year. That year and probably '93 are the only years I could see them advancing beyond the second round if Hasek is there for all of it...

 

[Bear of Bad News]

It is a literal fact that lemieux dominated the toughest era in talent in nhl history and that that orrs time was far weaker. Are we really going to deny this?

Hey, I can't force you to take my advice. I just thought I'd help.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Yep, people get minuses.

The thing is Wayne Gretzky is the best playoff performer of the bunch. and he has lots of better playoff runs. 1982 isn't in his top 10. 1971 is in Orr's Top 5.

While the 71 Habs had Hall of Famers, none of those guys were at their peak (and I'm sure that Rogie Vachon's HHOF status was crucial, considering the 0 minutes of hockey he played that spring.)

The 1971 Habs were 13-16-1 against the Original 6 during the regular season. They were also the only Original 6 team that lost a playoff game to an expansion team in the first 5 years of expansion (1968-1972,) somehow dropping 2 games to the Minnesota North Stars. For reference, the Expansion 6 was 0-24 in every other series they played in that time span.

As for upsets, those happened to all of them; however, A) They happened less often to Gretzky teams, and B) Gretzky and Lemieux teams were capable of pulling off upsets themselves. Orr's relatively thin playoff record has no series wins, except when he's playing as a favourite with home-ice advantage.

Team Series Results
As Favourite (Team had better RS record)
Gretzky 19-6
Orr/Lemieux 9-4
Howe 9-5

Even (Same Points Total by Both Teams)
Lemieux 2-0
Gretzky 1-0

Underdog (Other Team had better RS record)
Gretzky 10-6
Lemieux 3-2
Howe 4-9
Orr 0-2

You are basing performance strictly on point totals. When comparing the greatest offensive players ever to a defenseman. Seems like a stacked deck.

Anyway, my post was about how small sample sizes can make anyone look much better or much worse than they really are. Can you agree on that?

 

[Garbageyuk]

Hasek was uneven in the playoffs for my tastes.

Uh what?? He’s 1st all time in save-percentage among goaltenders with at least 100 playoff games played. Look up the murderers row of legends he’s ahead of by that metric.

The 100 game threshold isn’t just some arbitrary mark either. Save-percentage tends to regress hard toward the mean with increasing games played, regardless of whether it’s the same season or not.

At his zenith (1997-98 to 1998-99), he put up a .938 save-percentage in a combined 34 playoff games where his two best defensemen by a landslide were Jason Woolley and Alexei Zhitnik - two undersized guys that would be on the bottom pairing on most other teams. That ‘99 Sabres team had absolutely no business being anywhere near the finals, and it took some funny business by the absolute powerhouse Stars (the controversial goal) for them to overcome Hasek.

He also dragged the Czech national team to gold at the ‘98 Olympics over the best roster Canada ever iced, in what is probably the greatest goaltending performance of all time (the tournament as a whole, not just the gold medal game).

Swapping them out for each other is really complex math.

It really isn’t, unless you make it that way. It’s a hypothetical question, so there’s no sense in talking about team building and things like that because that makes it an entirely different question.

Simply remove Hasek from the ‘99 Sabres and insert Lemieux in the manner I described, then speculate as to whether they still make the finals.

If you don’t want to answer the question, just say that instead of turning it into a different question entirely and saying you can’t answer it due to outside variables that you introduced yourself.

The inverse though...Hasek on usually defense-less Pittsburgh...? There isn't a team there anymore haha. They might not make it out of the first round more than a couple times from 1990 to 2001.

I really don’t think you realize how bad those Sabres teams that Hasek played on are. Conversely, if you subtract Lemieux from the championship Pens from the early 90s and add prime Hasek, I think there’s a very good chance they still win both years.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Hasek was uneven in the playoffs for my tastes.

Obviously, it's hard to say. I don't think it's a particularly useful question because of what's involved. If you have Lemieux, you're going to build with Lemieux in mind. If you have Hasek, you're going to build with Hasek in mind. Swapping them out for each other is really complex math.

Lemieux tended to last a while in the playoffs when he made it. He made it 8 times: 2 Cups, 2 Conf Finals, 2 game 7's of round 2.

And around this time, this bumble**** with this export level of puck tracking...



Put up a - to use the God stat - .922 save pct. in '97 when Hasek didn't participate. But only got 22 goals of support in 10 games (5 of those goals came in one of those games). So, maybe Mario scores the goal they needed.

Obviously, we'll never know and in a lot of ways it's an impossible question...but all things being equal, I'd much rather go into a playoff series with Lemieux than Hasek. No doubt. The question about whether it's Lemieux on Buffalo, ehhhh, maybe that adds some thought.

The inverse though...Hasek on usually defense-less Pittsburgh...? There isn't a team there anymore haha. They might not make it out of the first round more than a couple times from 1990 to 2001. Their best chance would have been in '98, the Constantine year. That year and probably '93 are the only years I could see them advancing beyond the second round if Hasek is there for all of it...

Not seeing the uneven playoffs from Hasek. He has 1 bad playoff.

 

[Gorskyontario]

It is a literal fact that lemieux dominated the toughest era in talent in nhl history and that that orrs time was far weaker. Are we really going to deny this?

Somehow your posts here make less than zero sense. I'm not entirely sure how you accomplished this, and I'm not sure how I feel about it.