Sick of hearing Sidney Crosby's name

[zettie85 106]

I'm not dissing Orr by any stretch, but +/- numbers are grossly inflated during the 70s. It was higher scoring than today, and there were some truly terrible expansion teams in that era.

Larry Robinson put up +120 in '77

Denis Potvin was +71 in '79

Don't get me wrong, all 3 were great players, true Hall or Famers, but you can't tell me that they were superior to the great players that followed in the next generation - Bourque, Chelios, Lidstrom etc- just because of a higher plus/minus number?

You can prove anything with statistics, and zackmorris kinda has a point - in 20 years time, fans who never saw Lidstrom play will hype his play too. The biggest thing holding him back in peoples all-time rankings is the fact that he hasn't been retired long enough.

....And he is a Swede who won't get the love of Orr because Cherry won't give it to him in Canada.

[StevieY'sguy 1]

egroen, you are correct, good call, Richard never led the league in scoring (although he did finish 2nd by a single point twice if that counts for anything lol) as far as the other players who you think may be in the club, PM me a list and ill be more than happy to double check my research but I do know off the top of my head that Ted Lindsay never won the Hart and thus didn't make the list....

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

I wonder, can we petition the mods to create a sub forum dedicated to all things Sidney Crosby?

This place would be a lot more fun to visit if all the Crosby bashing and defending could be isolated to its own section of the board.

Normally this wouldn't be necessary, but clearly, after years of this s*** there seems to be no end in sight to the namby, pamby, incessant whining that goes on every single week with a brand new thread devoted to crying over how much Crosby hype there is.

The NHL doesn't need to hype Crosby. They could just link people to LGW and get all the Crosby exposure they'll ever need.

[cjm502 165]

I'm gonna keep this short and sweet because with a post that is as ignorant as that one it is clear that you don't have a clue what you are talking about and therefore I won't take the time to waste a long post pointing out just how wrong you are (although I would enjoy it)....

1. Lidstrom's 4 best plus/minus ratings (In a watered down NHL compared to what Orr played in) +43, +40,+40,+40

Bobby Orr's 4 best plus/minus ratings: +124, +86, +84, +80

2. According to some guy named Gordie Howe (although you probably think he's overrated too right??), Bobby Orr could have never scored a goal in the NHL and still would have been one of the top 5 players of all time...not bad for a guy who was just a "juiced up Mike Green"

Lets not even bring up when Orr's career ended. If he had some better knees who knows what he could have done. No one in his era was even close to as good as he was. Heck, if Orr didnt have to quit hockey early I would feel comfortable saying he could have doubled his amount of Norris trophies, but that didnt happen. One can dream right? And lets not take anything away from Lids. It is arguable where he belongs on the list of top defenseman, but there is no doubt Mr. Orr holds the crown.

Edited February 22, 2010 by cjm502

[Doc Holliday 1,888]

I'm not dissing Orr by any stretch, but +/- numbers are grossly inflated during the 70s. It was higher scoring than today, and there were some truly terrible expansion teams in that era.

Larry Robinson put up +120 in '77

Denis Potvin was +71 in '79

Don't get me wrong, all 3 were great players, true Hall or Famers, but you can't tell me that they were superior to the great players that followed in the next generation - Bourque, Chelios, Lidstrom etc- just because of a higher plus/minus number?

You can prove anything with statistics, and zackmorris kinda has a point - in 20 years time, fans who never saw Lidstrom play will hype his play too. The biggest thing holding him back in peoples all-time rankings is the fact that he hasn't been retired long enough.

No, I can say that Orr is superior because according to just about everyone (his peers, coaches, opponents, etc.) Bobby Orr was and is the best defenseman to ever lace up the skates. Period.

[egroen 384]

egroen, you are correct, good call, Richard never led the league in scoring (although he did finish 2nd by a single point twice if that counts for anything lol) as far as the other players who you think may be in the club, PM me a list and ill be more than happy to double check my research but I do know off the top of my head that Ted Lindsay never won the Hart and thus didn't make the list....

I just went over it -- and I was very surprised to see, outside of Richard, the list is absolutely correct.

Very surprised.

Ultimately - lead scoring forwards are not captains as often as you would think. Defensemen and defensive forwards are actually more common.

There are a bunch of guys who fall barely short - finishing 2nd in league scoring (like Abel, Messier, Richard, Nighbor, Clarke) or were surprisingly not captains when they won (like Howe).

Good trivia question, but I put it up there in importance with Messier being the only player to ever captain 2 NHL teams to a Cup, or Lidstrom being the only european captain to win a Cup (interesting, but not necessarily indicative of their greatness).

Edited February 22, 2010 by egroen

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

No, I can say that Orr is superior because according to just about everyone (his peers, coaches, opponents, etc.) Bobby Orr was and is the best defenseman to ever lace up the skates. Period.

It's so hard to compare. I've seen Listrom play hundreds and hundreds of games so I have no problem saying that he's the best I have seen. But i'm 33 years old. I didn't grow up watching Orr.

Different eras, different leagues (essentially), watered down modern day talent and over expansion are only one side of a coin that includes enhanced equipment, lethal sticks that make everybody Al MacInnis, faster, bigger, stronger players, improved off season training, etc.......

There are pros and cons to each era and people tend to pick and choose the attributes that fit their argument the best.

You take a guy like Gordie who says Orr is the best. I'd say Gordie knows a thing or two. However, Gordie also never tried to beat Nick Lidstrom one on one. He's seen other players do it. But those players aren't Gordie Howe either.

It's an endless debate to which no certain, correct answer will ever be found imo.

I prefer to say Orr was the best of his time.

I'll stick to saying Lidstrom is the best of his time.

Where guys like Harvey, Bourque, etc...fit into that equation, i'll let the "experts" make their ever changing lists each year. Nobody pays me enough money to anguish over this kind of s***.

[egroen 384]

It's so hard to compare. I've seen Listrom play hundreds and hundreds of games so I have no problem saying that he's the best I have seen. But i'm 33 years old. I didn't grow up watching Orr.

Different eras, different leagues (essentially), watered down modern day talent and over expansion are only one side of a coin that includes enhanced equipment, lethal sticks that make everybody Al MacInnis, faster, bigger, stronger players, improved off season training, etc.......

There are pros and cons to each era and people tend to pick and choose the attributes that fit their argument the best.

You take a guy like Gordie who says Orr is the best. I'd say Gordie knows a thing or two. However, Gordie also never tried to beat Nick Lidstrom one on one. He's seen other players do it. But those players aren't Gordie Howe either.

It's an endless debate to which no certain, correct answer will ever be found imo.

I prefer to say Orr was the best of his time.

I'll stick to saying Lidstrom is the best of his time.

Where guys like Harvey, Bourque, etc...fit into that equation, i'll let the "experts" make their ever changing lists each year. Nobody pays me enough money to anguish over this kind of s***.

Anguish??? It's fun!

[StevieY'sguy 1]

I just went over it -- and I was very surprised to see, outside of Richard, the list is absolutely correct.

Very surprised.

Ultimately - lead scoring forwards are not captains as often as you would think. Defensemen and defensive forwards are actually more common.

There are a bunch of guys who fall barely short - finishing 2nd in league scoring (like Abel, Messier, Richard, Nighbor, Clarke) or were surprisingly not captains when they won (like Howe).

Good trivia question, but I put it up there in importance with Messier being the only player to ever captain 2 NHL teams to a Cup, or Lidstrom being the only european captain to win a Cup (interesting, but not necessarily indicative of their greatness).

That's a fair assesment of the information in my opinion... by no means would i stake a case for or against one player based on a single (albeit interesting) fact such as this, and I'm certainly not saying that he deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as great players such as that--yet; but I do feel that given the very remarkable start to his career that he does deserve alot of recognition, and so does Ovechkin..but the major underlying difference between the two that people just do not seem to understand is that when there are two players that are clearly the the best players in the league and one is born in North America while the other is born in Russia the North American player will get the edge in press coverage 10 times out of 10....no one says it's right or fair but that is the way it is plain and simple when you are trying to sell a league to North Americans. The fact that Crosby is exceedingly docile and politically correct is a cherry on top for the execs of the NHL who will never have to be worried about dealing with a PR disaster (a la Kobe Bryant's rape case with the NBA). I'm not defending the quantity of how much Crosby is shown (although as I said most of it I believe is warranted) but simply the stance that he is the posterboy in general.

[Lovin Jiri Fischer 147]

I wonder, can we petition the mods to create a sub forum dedicated to all things Sidney Crosby?

This place would be a lot more fun to visit if all the Crosby bashing and defending could be isolated to its own section of the board.

Normally this wouldn't be necessary, but clearly, after years of this s*** there seems to be no end in sight to the namby, pamby, incessant whining that goes on every single week with a brand new thread devoted to crying over how much Crosby hype there is.

The NHL doesn't need to hype Crosby. They could just link people to LGW and get all the Crosby exposure they'll ever need.

ORRRR you could just isolate it from your mind and not read it when you see it in the title.

[Original-Six 254]

How did this thread go from hating Crosby too Orr is the greatest D-Man to ever play?

[Guest zackmorris]

I'm gonna keep this short and sweet because with a post that is as ignorant as that one it is clear that you don't have a clue what you are talking about and therefore I won't take the time to waste a long post pointing out just how wrong you are (although I would enjoy it)....

1. Lidstrom's 4 best plus/minus ratings (In a watered down NHL compared to what Orr played in) +43, +40,+40,+40

Bobby Orr's 4 best plus/minus ratings: +124, +86, +84, +80

2. According to some guy named Gordie Howe (although you probably think he's overrated too right??), Bobby Orr could have never scored a goal in the NHL and still would have been one of the top 5 players of all time...not bad for a guy who was just a "juiced up Mike Green"

Yeah Steve just like the last time you got cocky with me. Difference is, this is an opinion. So shut the f*** up and just converse with me like something other than a loudmouth prick, ya?

Ah hell, the other guy kinda shot down the whole plus/minus thing anyway. But my point was proven, I'd bet my last dime these people acting like my opinion is laughable, haven't seen more than a handful of Orr games (and that's being generous, the number is likely zero). It's just taboo to suggest anyone is even close to Orr.

Orr didn't have much in the way of defensive competition or the type of offensive players coming at him Lidstrom did.

Everyone just brings up points. Everyone is usually in agreement that defense comes first but it's like as soon as someone scores a s***-ton of points, we get caught up in the excitement and our priorities go all outta wack. I'm just saying, Lidstrom can contribute offensively enough that defense is still the most important factor to me. And no one throughout history can play as solid, lock down, consistent defense as Lidstrom. Orr faced Esposito and Hull, yeah, and didn't have many defenders as competition back then.

The measures most people are using to compare, just aren't logical most of the time. Coaches opinions? Teammates opinions? Most of the time in sports they're biased as hell and don't care, or spent too much time with one player and not enough with another and that's with both players playing currently. Nevermind one that retired decades ago. Just like when Howe said Orr was the best. I guarantee Gordie would have an easier time beating Orr one on one than Nick, who is pretty much unbeatable. Points were also a hell of alot easier to come by back then. In that era, most defensemen could pass the puck and thank someone else for the assist. Nick came around in the age of no offense, defensively based hockey. He had a hell of alot more competition for the Norris trophies anyway.

I'm just saying at the end of the day, I'll take flawless defense over 120 points from a guy who was about as good as Chelios defensively. Orr wasn't bad on D at all but if he scored 60 points a year and was judged on his D (like he should be, otherwise he's a forward who just starts our deeper) he'd be no better than Harvey, Bourque or Lids.

[GMRwings1983 8,803]

Can we all agree, though, that Sidney Crosby is a much better player than Bobby Orr?

[esteef 2,679]

Can we all agree, though, that Sidney Crosby is a much better player than Bobby Orr?

Yep, too bad it's all his fault Canada lost to the Americans yesterday.

esteef

[zettie85 106]

ORRRR you could just isolate it from your mind and not read it when you see it in the title.

Everybody needs a little Crosby in their lives. Everyone who replies they don't is obviously reading this thread. Check mate.

Edited February 22, 2010 by zettie85

[toby91_ca 620]

Orr wasn't bad on D at all but if he scored 60 points a year and was judged on his D (like he should be, otherwise he's a forward who just starts our deeper) he'd be no better than Harvey, Bourque or Lids.

But he didn't score 60pts a year, so how can you ignore that? You think defensemen shoudl just be judged on their D? Do you really think Lidstrom would have won all the Norris trophies he has if he only put up 15-20pts a year?

[wings1110 184]

I just want the NHL's advertising campaign to feature all kinds of players yes stars like crosby but also the work horses of the league guys like helm and draper. and im not trying to start a fightin debate here but fighting and hitting sells put all kinds of players in there guys like kronwall making hits, the games not all goals there are important elements like defense, how many commercials are there about players that play strong defensively?

[esteef 2,679]

[egroen 384]

Yeah Steve just like the last time you got cocky with me. Difference is, this is an opinion. So shut the f*** up and just converse with me like something other than a loudmouth prick, ya?

Ah hell, the other guy kinda shot down the whole plus/minus thing anyway. But my point was proven, I'd bet my last dime these people acting like my opinion is laughable, haven't seen more than a handful of Orr games (and that's being generous, the number is likely zero). It's just taboo to suggest anyone is even close to Orr.

Orr didn't have much in the way of defensive competition or the type of offensive players coming at him Lidstrom did.

Everyone just brings up points. Everyone is usually in agreement that defense comes first but it's like as soon as someone scores a s***-ton of points, we get caught up in the excitement and our priorities go all outta wack. I'm just saying, Lidstrom can contribute offensively enough that defense is still the most important factor to me. And no one throughout history can play as solid, lock down, consistent defense as Lidstrom. Orr faced Esposito and Hull, yeah, and didn't have many defenders as competition back then.

The measures most people are using to compare, just aren't logical most of the time. Coaches opinions? Teammates opinions? Most of the time in sports they're biased as hell and don't care, or spent too much time with one player and not enough with another and that's with both players playing currently. Nevermind one that retired decades ago. Just like when Howe said Orr was the best. I guarantee Gordie would have an easier time beating Orr one on one than Nick, who is pretty much unbeatable. Points were also a hell of alot easier to come by back then. In that era, most defensemen could pass the puck and thank someone else for the assist. Nick came around in the age of no offense, defensively based hockey. He had a hell of alot more competition for the Norris trophies anyway.

I'm just saying at the end of the day, I'll take flawless defense over 120 points from a guy who was about as good as Chelios defensively. Orr wasn't bad on D at all but if he scored 60 points a year and was judged on his D (like he should be, otherwise he's a forward who just starts our deeper) he'd be no better than Harvey, Bourque or Lids.

Well go ahead and watch a game then:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=75...7941&hl=en#

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=19...597282546641557

You'll notice Orr (in addition to being by far the fastest skater on the ice and the best puck handler) is almost always the first Bruin's defenseman back, is physical, blocks shots, goes into corners, is always in position and is out there for every single Bruin's penalty kill.

Boston was an offensive juggernaut at the time, but they were also defensively solid. They had the #1 PK in the NHL as well, and Orr was their #1 penalty killer, on the ice for a full 65% of Boston's PKs (not even Lidstrom is that high).

Bobby Orr's Legends of Hockey clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRcvrUF5l7Y...player_embedded

If Orr only scored 60 points a year, he would still be one of the greatest defenseman ever... but the fact is he doubled it.

[zettie85 106]

But he didn't score 60pts a year, so how can you ignore that? You think defensemen shoudl just be judged on their D? Do you really think Lidstrom would have won all the Norris trophies he has if he only put up 15-20pts a year?

Not just on their defence but I think that is where it has to start. The thing that bugs a lot of people is that Nik may have won those Norris trophies if he wasn't as good at defending as he is. I think a defencman has to be solid at the back to even get a whiff of Norris acknowledgment. Something Mike Green is not yet he gets included. There is no denying Orr was great but who is to say he was a better D-man then Lidstrom. Offencively yes but when it comes to defending, he probably wasn't at Nik's standards. Also the Bruins teams of the 70's were excellent. He was a huge part of that but to think his big +/- numbers were just because he alone was great is absurd.

[StevieY'sguy 1]

Not just on their defence but I think that is where it has to start. The thing that bugs a lot of people is that Nik may have won those Norris trophies if he wasn't as good at defending as he is. I think a defencman has to be solid at the back to even get a whiff of Norris acknowledgment. Something Mike Green is not yet he gets included. There is no denying Orr was great but who is to say he was a better D-man then Lidstrom. Offencively yes but when it comes to defending, he probably wasn't at Nik's standards. Also the Bruins teams of the 70's were excellent. He was a huge part of that but to think his big +/- numbers were just because he alone was great is absurd.

Steve Yzerman, Igor Larionov, Slava Fetisov, Brendan Shanahan, Luc Robitaille, Brett Hull, Chris Chelios, Igor Larionov, Sergei Fedorov, Dominic Hasek, Chris Osgood, Mike Vernon, Henrik Zetterberg, Pavel Datsyuk...I'd say Nick Lidstrom played with some pretty excellent players and on some pretty excellent teams as well.

[egroen 384]

Not just on their defence but I think that is where it has to start. The thing that bugs a lot of people is that Nik may have won those Norris trophies if he wasn't as good at defending as he is. I think a defencman has to be solid at the back to even get a whiff of Norris acknowledgment. Something Mike Green is not yet he gets included. There is no denying Orr was great but who is to say he was a better D-man then Lidstrom. Offencively yes but when it comes to defending, he probably wasn't at Nik's standards. Also the Bruins teams of the 70's were excellent. He was a huge part of that but to think his big +/- numbers were just because he alone was great is absurd.

+/- without context is pretty useless.

But there is a reason Lidstrom has consistently led the Red Wings in +/-, including this year despite his offense being down.

To put Orr in perspective -

In 1975 Orr's +/- was +80 and he had 135 pts.

Esposito was the Bruin's leading forward with 127 pts, but he was only a +17.

Pretty much every single year Orr would literally double the next highest player's +/- on his team.

[SiLkK19 67]

Lol seriously LOL.

[zettie85 106]

Steve Yzerman, Igor Larionov, Slava Fetisov, Brendan Shanahan, Luc Robitaille, Brett Hull, Chris Chelios, Igor Larionov, Sergei Fedorov, Dominic Hasek, Chris Osgood, Mike Vernon, Henrik Zetterberg, Pavel Datsyuk...I'd say Nick Lidstrom played with some pretty excellent players and on some pretty excellent teams as well.

I wasn't saying Lidstrom didn't have a good team. Orr wasn't the reason they were great. He was part of it.

[donfishmaster 62]

GETTING BACK TO THE MAIN TOPIC...

I find it much more fun to mentally replace the word "Crosby" with "Whiny Little Pig-Copulator Ass-Cowboy."

Then, I don't mind hearing his name so much!