What's The Argument For Lemieux Over Orr?

[Bear of Bad News]

I perused this thread and it felt to me like a race as to whom would come up with the worst possible imaginable take.

You're more than welcome to share your own take on the matter.

 

[MXD]

You're more than welcome to share your own take on the matter.

The argument FOR basically boils down to :
- Orr being successful in somewhat iffy era (expansion + WHA)
- Orr's team successes being arguably inferior to what it should've been (compared to Lemieux, where it's about exactly where it should be)
- Orr receving slightly better help as a whole
- Lemieux just plain scored more

So, yeah, there's an argument. It's in no way a good argument, but it's an argument. We aren't assessing, say, Patrick Roy vs. Sean Burke.

 

[Gorskyontario]

I have seen defensemen who remind me of Orr, at least offensively

Who besides Coffey? In terms of consistent rushing ability.

 

[Voight]

A lot of that is Hasek's sample being mostly dead puck era.

Roy played 88 games through the 1992 playoffs with a .908/2.53. Of course, among goalies with 20 GP from 1980-1992, Roy is 1st in save percentage. Hasek, in 6 GP, is .899/2.92, but he hasn't played a full playoff series yet.

Through 1997, Hasek catches up. Roy has 153 games, .917/2.38, while Hasek through 22 GP has .919/2.37. Through this point in time Roy has more Cups and as many Conn Smythes as Hasek has full series played (2 - a loss to the 94 Devils where he played very well, and a loss to the 95 Flyers where he was quite terrible.) But if you're going by averaging stats, they're the same goalie!

Then we hit the dead puck era. Because he has so few games played, and because he mostly deals with weak Eastern Conference teams, Hasek shoots up to .927/2.03 while Roy, through 253 games is at .918/2.30, finishing his career with playoff averages that are slightly worse than Ron Tugnutt. Roy adds a 3rd Smythe and a 4th Cup while Hasek wins his first Cup by posting a .920 (.914 vs the teams in the West, .942 against the weak Eastern representative in the Finals).


That's most of the case. They're about the same in the playoffs, and Lemieux has a really strong Canada Cup that was more impressive than Orr's 76 CC (plus other solid performances as an old guy in 2002 and 2004).

The other thing to argue for Lemieux, is to flip the complete season argument against Orr. Lemieux gives you more kicks at the can while producing at an MVP-ish level. Orr has 6 superb seasons from 69-70 to 74-75. Outside of that he doesn't offer a ton to a Big 4 debate. Lemieux, even in partial seasons, was capable of winning an Art Ross. He had 8 120-point seasons, and his 6 Art Rosses ties Gordie Howe for 2nd.

Adding to your strength of teams point, Roy had to consistently go up against the high powered Stars & Red Wings in the playoffs in the latter half of his career.

 

[MadLuke]

Orr playoff record

Boston not particularly good yet
---
1969: Lost to MTL
1970: cup
1971: Lost to MTL
1972: cup
1973: Lost to Ratelle-Gilbert-Park NYR
1974: Lost to the Clarke-Parent Flyers in the finals
Injuries, the end

Small sample size, one could say quite similar to 90-96 Lemieux in that regard, 2 cups, maybe 1 or 2 lost they should not have had (Isles-Panthers type), but they seem to have only lost to strong teams at least.

hm… ok so mario raised kevin stevens and rob brown and dan quinn

Tocchet, Nedved, Kovalev, probably a good list we could think off.

Jagr 150 pts season was with Lemieux on the PP, but that was an higher scoring season overall, so about the same sound close enough. What a 1999 peak motivated Jagr playing all year with an healthy 89-93 Mario line would have done ? I think more than with Francis, but that speculation.

In 89-90 Coffey scored 22 pts in 21 without Lemieux, (1.05 ppg) 81 in 59 with Lemieux (1.37 ppg), not a large sample size, we cannot use when he played with Gretzky oilers or much the fact that he never rescored 100 pts after Lemieux, has he was getting naturally older and past his peak.

 

[Voight]

The argument FOR basically boils down to :
- Orr being successful in somewhat iffy era (expansion + WHA)
- Orr's team successes being arguably inferior to what it should've been (compared to Lemieux, where it's about exactly where it should be)
- Orr receving slightly better help as a whole
- Lemieux just plain scored more

So, yeah, there's an argument. It's in no way a good argument, but it's an argument. We aren't assessing, say, Patrick Roy vs. Sean Burke.

1993 rings a bell.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

A lot of that is Hasek's sample being mostly dead puck era.

Roy played 88 games through the 1992 playoffs with a .908/2.53. Of course, among goalies with 20 GP from 1980-1992, Roy is 1st in save percentage. Hasek, in 6 GP, is .899/2.92, but he hasn't played a full playoff series yet.

Through 1997, Hasek catches up. Roy has 153 games, .917/2.38, while Hasek through 22 GP has .919/2.37. Through this point in time Roy has more Cups and as many Conn Smythes as Hasek has full series played (2 - a loss to the 94 Devils where he played very well, and a loss to the 95 Flyers where he was quite terrible.) But if you're going by averaging stats, they're the same goalie!

Then we hit the dead puck era. Because he has so few games played, and because he mostly deals with weak Eastern Conference teams, Hasek shoots up to .927/2.03 while Roy, through 253 games is at .918/2.30, finishing his career with playoff averages that are slightly worse than Ron Tugnutt. Roy adds a 3rd Smythe and a 4th Cup while Hasek wins his first Cup by posting a .920 (.914 vs the teams in the West, .942 against the weak Eastern representative in the Finals).


That's most of the case. They're about the same in the playoffs, and Lemieux has a really strong Canada Cup that was more impressive than Orr's 76 CC (plus other solid performances as an old guy in 2002 and 2004).

The other thing to argue for Lemieux, is to flip the complete season argument against Orr. Lemieux gives you more kicks at the can while producing at an MVP-ish level. Orr has 6 superb seasons from 69-70 to 74-75. Outside of that he doesn't offer a ton to a Big 4 debate. Lemieux, even in partial seasons, was capable of winning an Art Ross. He had 8 120-point seasons, and his 6 Art Rosses ties Gordie Howe for 2nd.

On the flip side, Hasek never got to play behind a defensive group in the same realm as prime Gainey/Carbo/Chelios/Robinson

 

[WarriorofTime]

Lemieux Career Playoff Record: 64-43
Hasek Career Playoff Record: 65-49

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Orr playoff record

Boston not particularly good yet
---
1969: Lost to MTL
1970: cup
1971: Lost to MTL
1972: cup
1973: Lost to Ratelle-Gilbert-Park NYR
1974: Lost to the Clarke-Parent Flyers in the finals
Injuries, the end

Small sample size, one could say quite similar to 90-96 Lemieux in that regard, 2 cups, maybe 1 or 2 lost they should not have had (Isles-Panthers type), but they seem to have only lost to strong teams at least.


Tocchet, Nedved, Kovalev, probably a good list we could think off.

Jagr 150 pts season was with Lemieux on the PP, but that was an higher scoring season overall, so about the same sound close enough. What a 1999 peak motivated Jagr playing all year with an healthy 89-93 Mario line would have done ? I think more than with Francis, but that speculation.

In 89-90 Coffey scored 22 pts in 21 without Lemieux, (1.05 ppg) 81 in 59 with Lemieux (1.37 ppg), not a large sample size, we cannot use when he played with Gretzky oilers or much the fact that he never rescored 100 pts after Lemieux, has he was getting naturally older and past his peak.

Should be noted that Pens didn't make the playoffs that season, Mario was -18 and Coffey -25.

Gotta think hard on Coffey's season. 103 points from a defenseman and a -25. WOW!

Sometimes point totals don't really tell the whole story.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Should be noted that Pens didn't make the playoffs that season, Mario was -18 and Coffey -25.

Gotta think hard on Coffey's season. 103 points from a defenseman and a -25. WOW!

Sometimes point totals don't really tell the whole story.

Especially once you get into the whole "best era of Hockey" (heavy quotes on a statement like that), and in terms of trying to compare it with performance applied to the modern day, Lemieux's lack of any interest in the defensive zone becomes problematic as far as building Cup winners. If we're looking through things like scoring average and global talent pool as a means to claim hardest era, by '92, you're still at nearly 90 % of the League being North American compared to around 70 % today.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Gotta think hard on Coffey's season. 103 points from a defenseman and a -25. WOW!

This happens to players that play a lot on bad teams. Coffey probably played like 5, 6, 8, minutes more per game than any other defenseman. Same for Lemieux than any other forward. So yeah, they collected more minuses...but Dan Quinn and Barry Pederson probably accrued more per shift...

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

This happens to players that play a lot on bad teams. Coffey probably played like 5, 6, 8, minutes more per game than any other defenseman. Same for Lemieux than any other forward. So yeah, they collected more minuses...but Dan Quinn and Barry Pederson probably accrued more per shift...

But they didn't put up 103 and 123 point each.

The following season, when the Pens won the Cup, Coffey still put up a -18 and no one else was close to him. Lucky for the Pens he got hurt during the playoffs.

 

[MXD]

1993 rings a bell.

It probably evens out with 1992, with Lemieux being the absolute lone reason why they made it out of the first round when he scored points on something like 70% of team's goals.

That team was at the bottom the NHL in terms of goals allowed.

Also, just to make it clear, I don't think the argument I put forward is great or anything. I don't agree with it myself, and even the facts I laid out are arguably a bit stretched. I just reckon that an argument exists.

 

[blogofmike]

On the flip side, Hasek never got to play behind a defensive group in the same realm as prime Gainey/Carbo/Chelios/Robinson

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

But they didn't put up 103 and 123 point each.

The following season, when the Pens won the Cup, Coffey still put up a -18 and no one else was close to him. Lucky for the Pens he got hurt during the playoffs.

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.

 

[Dingo]

“Chicago knew Hasek was better than Belfour.” That makes total sense since they traded him for Stephane Beauregard

Dirk Graham said the players felt that Hasek was much better. Gonna have to take my word for it, though, haha.

The 2002 Red Wings had the most HOFers on a team ever, right?

Fittingly, that's the team that turned him into being over .500 in the playoffs I believe...

Must be nice.

Lemieux's career is sandwiched with two expansion level clubs.

i mean, he did say 'rarely'

Or, it could be said, "Hasek didn't have good teammates until he was 37, and then he had exceptional teammates"

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

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.

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.

 

[GrumpyKoala]

Bobby Hull needs to be quite a bit higher.

Yeah I can live with that, could be all the way up to 6th depending on what you value.

 

[Mike C]

I'll argue that no one has had a greater year than 1969-70 Orr winning the Hart/Ross/Norris/Cup/Smythe in the same year

Orr's 70-71 regular season was even better. I think that was the first year they tracked plus/minus. Orr was +124

 

[Voight]

It probably evens out with 1992, with Lemieux being the absolute lone reason why they made it out of the first round when he scored points on something like 70% of team's goals.

That team was at the bottom the NHL in terms of goals allowed.

Also, just to make it clear, I don't think the argument I put forward is great or anything. I don't agree with it myself, and even the facts I laid out are arguably a bit stretched. I just reckon that an argument exists.

I disagree, sure he went beast mode in 92 but that team was just as stacked as the one the year before not to mention had Bowman as coach. In 1993 they were by far the best team in the league in the regular season and were picked by many to three peat.

 

[Michael Farkas]

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...

 

[GrumpyKoala]

The argument FOR basically boils down to :
- Orr being successful in somewhat iffy era (expansion + WHA)

It's a good argument but the nhl added 9 team while lemieux was playing the back half of his carrier.

I think both player benefited from playing in era the league was expanding. Lemieux probably even more.

The Whl expansion at least on-boarded semi functional teams in contrast to the 90-00 cannon fodder expansion era.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

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

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

2002 Wings were pretty good.

i mean yeah, four selke centers

It probably evens out with 1992, with Lemieux being the absolute lone reason why they made it out of the first round when he scored points on something like 70% of team's goals.

let us not forget that mario got hurt in the second round and his team dusted off the presidents trophy winners, led by that season’s hart and norris winners, three wins in four games, the loss coming in OT

that 92 penguins team was, let us say, capable

 

[bobholly39]

1993 rings a bell.

I disagree, sure he went beast mode in 92 but that team was just as stacked as the one the year before not to mention had Bowman as coach. In 1993 they were by far the best team in the league in the regular season and were picked by many to three peat.

Such a shitty terrible argument.

1. It's hard to threepeat. Using a "hahah you didn't win a 3rd cup in a row" as some sort of benchmark for a negative is an absolutely ridiculous take.

2. He had chemo and had just come back from treatment that season. He probably shouldn't have been playing at all. Blaming him for a playoff loss (where he still performed really well) is utterly stupid

Finally - 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.

 

[FerrisRox]

Lemieux dominated in the toughest era ever. Orr dominated in the weakest era going back to at least 1955.

I think this is the crux of any credible argument, and the OP completely ignored the physical aspect of Mario's game.

Mario was a beast physically, a big man who moved well and yet was largely impossible to move himself.

Mario was a matchup nightmare cause he couldn't be contained, he couldn't be bodied, and when he wanted to go somewhere - anywhere - he had the size and strength to go there no matter what anyone tried to do to counter it. Mario routinely played with guys draped all over him. That blend of talent and physical prowess was like a unicorn. Imagine Eric Lindros, but twice as gifted offensively.