What's The Argument For Lemieux Over Orr?

[Overrated]

I don’t know, define toughest era I guess.

Orr played when there were bench clearing brawls,
Played against the broad street bullies.
I don’t think Lemieux had nothing as tough as that.
Guess it all depends on toughest era definition.

I meant the era with the deepest talent pool. Some have disagreed here but that's what I meant. Not the toughest as in the most rough and violent.

 

[blogofmike]

Orr was losing harts to esposito. Who added nothing but offense. Losing to espo 153 point year. Now imagine orr in a league where lemieux is going 199 and 160 in 60. Throw in a 46 game point streak n a 44 point playoff. Gretzky being alive is the only reason this is a discussion. Like i said. If 99 was better so was 66.

I know right? It's almost like Esposito broke the single season points record by 26 and the single season goals record by 22 in the same year or something...

I always thought Orr won the Hart Trophy in 1971 when Espo scored 152 points.

 

[Mike C]

Orr was losing harts to esposito. Who added nothing but offense. Losing to espo 153 point year. Now imagine orr in a league where lemieux is going 199 and 160 in 60. Throw in a 46 game point streak n a 44 point playoff. Gretzky being alive is the only reason this is a discussion. Like i said. If 99 was better so was 66.

I'm confused. You're saying Espo added nothing but offense?

 

[bobholly39]

For what it's worth - I generally am of the opinion that Lemieux and Orr are both better than Gretzky. "At their very best", I think they were the 2 most talented players ever, with Gretzky falling to #3.

I also think Lemieux is more talented than Orr. Orr can stand out more as a defender, and in his era too he stood out a lot, but I think if they played at the same time at their very best, Lemieux was more skilled/talented.

And if all of Gretzky, Lemieux and Orr had a healthy peak in the same exact year - and if they had a contest at start of season saying "let's see who can win the hart" - despite both Orr/Lemieux being "better", I'm sure Gretzky finds a way to win still. He'd want it more.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Wake up n smell the coffee.
This will sadly be ignored

As it should be.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Leading in +/- can be misleading.

Orr led the NHL in 1975 by a narrow margin, and a very similar margin to Gretzky in 1982.

Here's how the +/- looks when you slowly remove the worst teams.

	Gretzky	Engblom		Orr	Clarke
vs All teams	80​	78​	vs All Teams	80​	79​
no Rockies	71​	70​	no Caps	60​	76​
no Wings	66​	71​	no Scouts	55​	67​
no Leafs	60​	72​	no Seals	45​	64​
no Whalers	60​	58​	no Stars	41​	55​
no Kings	54​	55​	no Wings	30​	51​
no Capitals	51​	53​

Lemieux only led the NHL once, but here's how he looks against Orr in 1970.

	Lemieux	Bourque		Orr	Brewer
vs All Teams	55​	38​	vs All Teams	54​	43​
no Sharks	49​	36​	no Kings	40​	37​
no Sens	45​	32​	no Flyers	33​	35​
no TBL	45​	32​	no Seals	21​	27​
no Whalers	42​	25​	no Stars	12​	23​
no Oilers	43​	25​	no Pens	5​	20​

The plus/minus doesn't fall off quite so quickly for anybody else, as it does for Bobby Orr. For Gretzky and Lemieux, the relationship between them and Engblom and Bourque doesn't change much.

Edit: Should note Bourque was 3rd in 1992-93, but I used him because #2 was a Lemieux teammate, Larry Murphy.

Orr was +20 against the Capitals. They only played 5 times lol.

My argument for Lemieux is this (I have him #2).

Gretzky is the undisputed GOAT. Please don't say it's not undisputed, the 3-4% of ppl who would have someone else are an anomaly and I think it's just a contrarian view anyways, not sure anyone really believes it.

I mean, the Earth being a sphere is disputed, so the concept of something being "undisputed" is highly overrated lol. It only takes one loon to dispute something.

That said, I agree with your point: No player even comes close to having a reasonable case over Gretzky.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Orr played with Esposito for eight years. Orr finished ahead in Hart voting five times (1968, 1970, 1971, 1972 and 1975).

Esposito finished ahead three times (1969, 1973, and 1974). In 1973, Orr missed 15 games. It's not good that he was injured, but it's not like they were both healthy and the voters said that Esposito was better.

Then consider that the Hart voters have heavily preferred forwards over defensemen over the past 70 years (ever since defensemen got the Norris trophy). Also consider that Orr won the Conn Smythe both times the Bruins won the Cup. Orr probably should have finished ahead of Esposito in 1974 but overall he looks really good by this metric.

"Really good" - sure. That's an understatement. But it doesn't comport to the assertion that he was on Gretzky's level.

If Orr was as great as his supporters claim, there wouldn't have been any doubt and Orr would not have been losing MVPs to multiple players in all but 3 seasons.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Orr was +20 against the Capitals. They only played 5 times lol.



I mean, the Earth being a sphere is disputed, so the concept of something being "undisputed" is highly overrated lol. It only takes one loon to dispute something.

That said, I agree with your point: No player even comes close to having a reasonable case over Gretzky.

And yet most people that saw them both play would take Orr.

 

[KevinFinnerty]

I have Orr number 2 as well

Who was a better player, Hasek or Jagr?

 

[Midnight Judges]

And yet most people that saw them both play would take Orr.

Even if that were true - which it isn't - I wouldn't care.

You can find nostalgists in every era. During the majority of Sidney Crosby's career, many people claimed with a straight face that he would have been the 5th-7th best player during the 80s or 50s.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

"Really good" - sure. That's an understatement. But it doesn't comport to the assertion that he was on Gretzky's level.

If Orr was as great as his supporters claim, there wouldn't have been any doubt and Orr would not have been losing MVPs to multiple players in all but 3 seasons.

You are confusing most valuable player with best player.

Bobby Clarke won two Hart Trophies over Orr. He probably was more valuable to his team, but he wasn't a better player than Orr. And neither was Espo when he won it.

 

[Midnight Judges]

You are confusing most valuable player with best player.

No. You are confused.

The "Most valuable player" is the player most people would "take." (your word).

 

[Midnight Judges]

Bobby Clarke won two Hart Trophies over Orr. He probably was more valuable to his team, but he wasn't a better player than Orr. And neither was Espo when he won it.

If Orr was anywhere near Gretzky's level, this wouldn't be an issue.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Even if that were true - which it isn't - I wouldn't care.

You can find nostalgists in every era. During the majority of Sidney Crosby's career, many people claimed with a straight face that he would have been the 5th-7th best player during the 80s or 50s.

Neither of us know that for sure, right?

But the fact that you don't care even if it were true says a lot.

As for the Crosby comment, I never heard that claim about him. What I heard mostly was that he could be a top 10 player all-time. Even from those of us who saw Orr play.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Neither of us know that for sure, right?

I would hope you knew it - it was your assertion.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

You are confusing most valuable player with best player.

Bobby Clarke won two Hart Trophies over Orr. He probably was more valuable to his team, but he wasn't a better player than Orr. And neither was Espo when he won it.

Nevermind Clarke winning the 75 Hart, Orr finishing 3rd is one of the most embarrassing voting results ever.

IDK if it was voter fatigue or the defenseman aspect but how does Orr finish 3rd with 46-89-135, +80 ?

He won the Ross by 8

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I would hope you knew it - it was your assertion.

It's still my assertion.

No. You are confused.

The "Most valuable player" is the player most people would "take." (your word).

Yep, I'm confused now.

What are you talking about?

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

It's still my assertion.


Yep, I'm confused now.

What are you talking about?

Pointing out how bad some of the 70s Hart voting was in retrospect

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I would hope you knew it - it was your assertion.

"No player even comes close to having a reasonable case over Gretzky."

That was your assertion. It's certainly not a fact.

 

[Michael Farkas]

To me, outright dismissing Lemieux and Orr compared to Gretzky as if we were calling out names like Norm Ullman or Pierre Turgeon where it's like, "yeah, no chance, pal..." is a failure in the evaluation process. And/or an over-reliance on counting stats...in which case, I'd frame that under "failure in the evaluation process".

That's not to say that having Gretzky at 1 is wrong by any means. But the notion that anything else is unreasonable doesn't give me a lot of confidence in the mental process/processor of the folks saying it...

 

[Midnight Judges]

Indeed reality has a well-known pro-Gretzky bias.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

To me, outright dismissing Lemieux and Orr compared to Gretzky as if we were calling out names like Norm Ullman or Pierre Turgeon where it's like, "yeah, no chance, pal..." is a failure in the evaluation process. And/or an over-reliance on counting stats...in which case, I'd frame that under "failure in the evaluation process".

That's not to say that having Gretzky at 1 is wrong by any means. But the notion that anything else is unreasonable doesn't give me a lot of confidence in the mental process/processor of the folks saying it...

i think in general a lot of this thread is just people really wanting absolutes in a world that isn’t offering any

 

[VistamarCroissants]

None... Bobby Orr is the best player ever.
Watching Orr is like watching a hybrid of prime Mario and Kharlamov with added superb defensive skills

 

[JackSlater]

Nevermind Clarke winning the 75 Hart, Orr finishing 3rd is one of the most embarrassing voting results ever.

IDK if it was voter fatigue or the defenseman aspect but how does Orr finish 3rd with 46-89-135, +80 ?

He won the Ross by 8

You don't need to point to just one reason that it wasn't Orr, these trophies have dumb results all the time. They get it wrong with regularity, even though Clarke probably does have at least some case in a pure value sense. Orr, even past his best by 1975, was obviously the best player in the NHL that year. Whether or not he got the Hart trophy is trivial. Lemieux was the best player in the world plenty of times when he didn't get the Hart as well. It's just a trophy, not an objective or definitive proof of who was best (or even thought to be best) at a given time.

Does anyone want to take a crack at comparing Orr and Lemieux as actual players? A player isn't a series of accomplishments or checks on a list. Orr was a better skater, the degree to which he was better is the interesting point. Orr was obviously a lot better defensively. Lemieux had the better shot. What else?

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

As it should be.

No when it doesnt fit youer narrative