Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Lidstrom or Orr


  • Please log in to reply
50 replies to this topic

#21 Ally

Ally

    just figured out how to change my title

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 487 posts
  • Location:Canada

Posted 24 June 2013 - 05:35 PM

It's not just the size of the goalie equipment but the size of the goalies themselves that has changed.
I'm also too young to answer this question and the eras are too far apart, too many factors.

 
"Everything he does is exciting to watch.” -Holmstrom describes Datsyuk


#22 Johnz96

Johnz96

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 05:42 PM

 

Oh here we go again.  Here's three pictures, one from a goalie today (2013), the next from a goalie the year before Bettman took over (1992), and one from twenty years before that (1972).  To me it seems like the size of goalie equipment has changed less in the last twenty years than it did in the twenty before that.  So I'm guessing this argument of yours is simply another attempt to blame Gary Bettman for something that you don't happen to like, whether he's at fault or not. 

 

 

Pekka%20Rinne.jpg

 

 

tumblr_m1idj8TTkm1qm9rypo1_1280.jpg

 

 

plante.jpg

GOCGOC34A.jpg



#23 GMRwings1983

GMRwings1983

    The Killer is Me

  • Silver Booster
  • 20,639 posts
  • Location:Jerkwater, USA

Posted 24 June 2013 - 06:53 PM

If Orr was so bad defensively, how come his plus/minus was so absurdly good?  I mean, I realize it's a somewhat overrated stat, but the guy put up insane plus/minus numbers.  

 

It's easy to say that a guy you saw play was better than some other guy you never saw play.  People do that with Lebron vs. Jordan comparisons.  

 

But if you're a true student of the game and its history, you'll know from hearing stories about Orr and from looking at his stats, that he was miles above anyone else.  

 

And it's not just talent and performance related.  You also have to look at how he changed the game for that position.  He paved the way for defensemen like Coffey, Bourque and Leetch to attack more.  How has Lidstrom changed the game?


According to my profile, my reputation is excellent. LOL.

#24 Johnz96

Johnz96

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 07:01 PM

If Orr was so bad defensively, how come his plus/minus was so absurdly good?  I mean, I realize it's a somewhat overrated stat, but the guy put up insane plus/minus numbers.  

 

It's easy to say that a guy you saw play was better than some other guy you never saw play.  People do that with Lebron vs. Jordan comparisons.  

 

But if you're a true student of the game and its history, you'll know from hearing stories about Orr and from looking at his stats, that he was miles above anyone else.  

 

And it's not just talent and performance related.  You also have to look at how he changed the game for that position.  He paved the way for defensemen like Coffey, Bourque and Leetch to attack more.  How has Lidstrom changed the game?

Lidstrom is the 2nd best defenseman I ever saw and it's not even close. Gretzky would never have scored nearly as many points as he did if it wasn't for Orr.



#25 GMRwings1983

GMRwings1983

    The Killer is Me

  • Silver Booster
  • 20,639 posts
  • Location:Jerkwater, USA

Posted 24 June 2013 - 07:09 PM

 

Goalies these days actually know how to go down and get back up in a timely fashion. They don't just lay on their back flailing their legs around hoping to miracle a save.

 

It seems like 50% of the highlights from that era involve the goalie comically over-committing, and not being able to recover.

 

Except, no one besides Orr put up even remotely as many points back then from the blueline.  How come nobody else did that if Orr was just taking advantage of poor goaltending?  Is it because there were no other good defensemen back then?  Hardly.  

 

This argument is flawed, because to me if a guy dominates his era and is far above others, he's truly amazing and could have succeeded in any era with improved modern day training and equipment.  

 

Same thing with people who say that Wilt Chamberlain only dominated because he was so tall compared to others of his era?  Well, how come Bill Russell didn't easily score 50 points a season, since he was really tall too?  

 

Relative to their eras and their competition, Orr was twice as good as Lidstrom.  And I'd argue there were more good defensemen in Orr's prime than there were in Lidstrom's, as relative competition.  


According to my profile, my reputation is excellent. LOL.

#26 kipwinger

kipwinger

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,540 posts
  • Location:Mt. Pleasant, MI

Posted 24 June 2013 - 07:24 PM

 

 

essensa.jpg

Bob Essensa circa 93-94

essensa.jpg

A few years later with the Oilers. The net (and he is deeper in it even) and even the stick look so much smaller than in the pic above.

 

Dude if you're trying to argue that goalie equipment changed more in the last twenty years than it did in the twenty before that you're insane.  You can't make the argument.  Visual evidence abounds.  Try as you might, you can't blame the increase in goalie equipment size on Bettman.  It was a trend that was happening long before he came around.  If you want, I'll look up some more goalies from 1973 but I'm fairly sure we all know how that's going to end.  Give it up, Bettman didn't increase goalie pad size...it was already happening.


GMRwings:  "Well, in other civilized countries, 16 years old isn't considered underage.  For instance, I believe the age of consent is 16 in Canada.  There's some US states where it's 16 as well.  

 

Get off the high horse.  Not like she was 10."

 

"Some girls are 17 even though they look 25."

 

 


#27 Dave

Dave

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,173 posts
  • Location:Chesapeake, Virginia

Posted 24 June 2013 - 08:02 PM

 
Except, no one besides Orr put up even remotely as many points back then from the blueline.  How come nobody else did that if Orr was just taking advantage of poor goaltending?  Is it because there were no other good defensemen back then?  Hardly.  
 
This argument is flawed, because to me if a guy dominates his era and is far above others, he's truly amazing and could have succeeded in any era with improved modern day training and equipment.  
 
Same thing with people who say that Wilt Chamberlain only dominated because he was so tall compared to others of his era?  Well, how come Bill Russell didn't easily score 50 points a season, since he was really tall too?  
 
Relative to their eras and their competition, Orr was twice as good as Lidstrom.  And I'd argue there were more good defensemen in Orr's prime than there were in Lidstrom's, as relative competition.  


It's the same reason Royce Gracie dominated in the early years of UFC, then proceeded to get dominated by the later generations of fighters.

Was Orr better than his competition of the time? Absolutely, no question. However, his competition is so far below today's NHL that his gaudy numbers would never happen in today's game.

Another good comparison would be Maltby dominating in juniors. He was way better than his competition, but he couldn't dominate like that against higher skilled players.

#28 Johnz96

Johnz96

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 08:09 PM

 

Dude if you're trying to argue that goalie equipment changed more in the last twenty years than it did in the twenty before that you're insane.  You can't make the argument.  Visual evidence abounds.  Try as you might, you can't blame the increase in goalie equipment size on Bettman.  It was a trend that was happening long before he came around.  If you want, I'll look up some more goalies from 1973 but I'm fairly sure we all know how that's going to end.  Give it up, Bettman didn't increase goalie pad size...it was already happening.

You're right about the size it was atrend that started long before Bettman became commissioner but it has improved in so many other ways, it's much lighter, more flexible, more protective and scientifically designed to absorb rebounds. Pockets in the catchhing glove have increased since Bettman became commish more than ever however. They try to make it look like they're addressing the problem by slightly reducing the goalie pads but the shoulder pads chest protector, gloves have grown a lot more.

And yes I do blame Bettman. Because of Orr and the changing role of defensemen scoring increased in the 70s almost as much as it decreased in the 90s. Bettman has always tried to make it look like he is trying to increase scoring (lot of silly rule changes made to increase scoring when he really didn't want to when all he had to do was reduce goalie equipment and it would have had a bigger difference than any of the rules implemented. The dead puck era (rendered hockey almost unwatchable) was also to decrease scoring and restrict talent and skill to give weaker teams a better chance. And he held hockey hostage until the cap was finally instituted.


Edited by Johnz96, 24 June 2013 - 08:10 PM.


#29 midnightpulp

midnightpulp

    Prospect

  • Restricted
  • 48 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 08:12 PM

Imo Bobby Orr in his prime is the real deal.. but guy played half the years Lidstrom did and subsequently, half the cups. 

 

Lidstrom to build a franchise around, tbh.



#30 GMRwings1983

GMRwings1983

    The Killer is Me

  • Silver Booster
  • 20,639 posts
  • Location:Jerkwater, USA

Posted 24 June 2013 - 08:20 PM

It's the same reason Royce Gracie dominated in the early years of UFC, then proceeded to get dominated by the later generations of fighters.

Was Orr better than his competition of the time? Absolutely, no question. However, his competition is so far below today's NHL that his gaudy numbers would never happen in today's game.

Another good comparison would be Maltby dominating in juniors. He was way better than his competition, but he couldn't dominate like that against higher skilled players.

 

Not true.  There were a lot more legendary defensemen in Orr's era than in 2001-2012, which is when Lidstrom won his Norris trophies.

 

Pronger, Niedermayer and Chara aren't as good as Brad Park, Serge Savard, Larry Robinson, Guy Lapointe, etc.  

 

And today's NHL defensemen are even worse than the previous era.  

 

If Orr played today, he probably wouldn't score 120 points, but I have no doubt that he'd be the leading scorer amongst defensemen by a wide margin every year.  



Imo Bobby Orr in his prime is the real deal.. but guy played half the years Lidstrom did and subsequently, half the cups. 

 

Lidstrom to build a franchise around, tbh.

 

Longevity is in Lidstrom's favor, but there are a multitude of players who had more longevity than Orr.  Lemieux has the same argument against him.  

 

That would factor into a Orr vs. Gretzky debate, when we're discussing who the best ever is, period.  But not in this debate.  I rank Orr ahead of Lidstrom regardless of his career being cut short.  I think he was that much better than anyone else at his position. 


Edited by GMRwings1983, 24 June 2013 - 08:18 PM.

According to my profile, my reputation is excellent. LOL.

#31 Johnz96

Johnz96

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 08:34 PM

 

Not true.  There were a lot more legendary defensemen in Orr's era than in 2001-2012, which is when Lidstrom won his Norris trophies.

 

Pronger, Niedermayer and Chara aren't as good as Brad Park, Serge Savard, Larry Robinson, Guy Lapointe, etc.  

 

And today's NHL defensemen are even worse than the previous era.  

 

If Orr played today, he probably wouldn't score 120 points, but I have no doubt that he'd be the leading scorer amongst defensemen by a wide margin every year.  



 

Longevity is in Lidstrom's favor, but there are a multitude of players who had more longevity than Orr.  Lemieux has the same argument against him.  

 

That would factor into a Orr vs. Gretzky debate, when we're discussing who the best ever is, period.  But not in this debate.  I rank Orr ahead of Lidstrom regardless of his career being cut short.  I think he was that much better than anyone else at his position. 

Orr career was cut short because he played with reckless abandon and no regard for his body, with today's training and medicine he probably would have been able to play much longer despite being so reckless


Edited by Johnz96, 24 June 2013 - 08:35 PM.


#32 GMRwings1983

GMRwings1983

    The Killer is Me

  • Silver Booster
  • 20,639 posts
  • Location:Jerkwater, USA

Posted 24 June 2013 - 08:41 PM

Orr career was cut short because he played with reckless abandon and no regard for his body, with today's training and medicine he probably would have been able to play much longer despite being so reckless

 

Probably.

 

With today's training and medicine, I think he'd be the best player in the league again.  So that's why I don't care about all the goaltending argument crap.  Yeah goalies are better now, but Orr would be trained differently now too.  It would cut his stats down a little, but he'd still be the best.  

 

Same with Gretzky, who played in the high scoring 80's, when goalies weren't that good either.  With today's training, Wayne would still be the best in the world be a wide margin.  His vision on the ice was amazing.  


Edited by GMRwings1983, 24 June 2013 - 08:41 PM.

According to my profile, my reputation is excellent. LOL.

#33 kipwinger

kipwinger

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,540 posts
  • Location:Mt. Pleasant, MI

Posted 24 June 2013 - 09:52 PM

Lidstrom, bar none.  Orr didn't play defense.  He had a good plus/minus because he put up a zillion points.  Tighter defense and better goaltending would expose his "offensive prowess" and his defensive numbers would likewise suffer.  Orr's over rated, Lids played in a time when scoring was harder, defensive assignments were tougher, and going "coast to coast" was almost unheard of.  Even then he managed to win 7 Norris Trophies and and twice as many Stanley Cups and he was a factor in every one of them.  Bobby was good, but score 150 going end to end against Weber, Suter, and Rinne.  Not happening buddy. 


GMRwings:  "Well, in other civilized countries, 16 years old isn't considered underage.  For instance, I believe the age of consent is 16 in Canada.  There's some US states where it's 16 as well.  

 

Get off the high horse.  Not like she was 10."

 

"Some girls are 17 even though they look 25."

 

 


#34 GMRwings1983

GMRwings1983

    The Killer is Me

  • Silver Booster
  • 20,639 posts
  • Location:Jerkwater, USA

Posted 24 June 2013 - 10:00 PM

Lidstrom, bar none.  Orr didn't play defense.  He had a good plus/minus because he put up a zillion points.  Tighter defense and better goaltending would expose his "offensive prowess" and his defensive numbers would likewise suffer.  Orr's over rated, Lids played in a time when scoring was harder, defensive assignments were tougher, and going "coast to coast" was almost unheard of.  Even then he managed to win 7 Norris Trophies and and twice as many Stanley Cups and he was a factor in every one of them.  Bobby was good, but score 150 going end to end against Weber, Suter, and Rinne.  Not happening buddy. 

 

On that logic, Gretzky was overrated too.  Score 237 points against Price, Kiprusoff or Lundqvist.  Couldn't do it.

 

Flawed logic.  Orr wouldn't score 150 points in today's league, but I firmly believe he'd lead defensemen in scoring easily.  If he was that far advanced in his era and that good at reading the game, with today's training and equipment, he'd be ahead of this generation of players as well.   

 

Once again, how come nobody else scored that many points back then on defense?  Oh yeah, that's right, because Larry Robinson, Brad Park, Denis Potvin and others were all overrated.   :rolleyes:     And I could also mention others who played in the 80's, when goalies were even worse and scoring was at its highest.  


Edited by GMRwings1983, 24 June 2013 - 10:12 PM.

According to my profile, my reputation is excellent. LOL.

#35 Johnz96

Johnz96

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 10:13 PM

 

Not true.  There were a lot more legendary defensemen in Orr's era than in 2001-2012, which is when Lidstrom won his Norris trophies.

 

Pronger, Niedermayer and Chara aren't as good as Brad Park, Serge Savard, Larry Robinson, Guy Lapointe, etc.  

 

And today's NHL defensemen are even worse than the previous era.  

 

If Orr played today, he probably wouldn't score 120 points, but I have no doubt that he'd be the leading scorer amongst defensemen by a wide margin every year.  



 

Longevity is in Lidstrom's favor, but there are a multitude of players who had more longevity than Orr.  Lemieux has the same argument against him.  

 

That would factor into a Orr vs. Gretzky debate, when we're discussing who the best ever is, period.  But not in this debate.  I rank Orr ahead of Lidstrom regardless of his career being cut short.  I think he was that much better than anyone else at his position. 

Orr was great defensively he blocked shots hit, cleared the fron of the net battled in the cornewrs and when he was on the ice the other team rarely had the puck, He was always determined to get it from them and usually did.
No comparison not even close.



#36 AtomicPunk

AtomicPunk

    Nobody rules these streets at night like me...

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,099 posts
  • Location:Home of the Wings

Posted 24 June 2013 - 11:25 PM

Different eras.


I am a victim of the science age...the underground.

Feed the Swede! - RETIRED 2012

#37 St. Michael (the Red Wing)

St. Michael (the Red Wing)

    Heavenly With the Puck

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,822 posts
  • Location:Mankato, MN

Posted 24 June 2013 - 11:49 PM

Different eras indeed.

 

Both are the best of their eras hands down.

 

Really wonder if anyone on this forum ever watched Orr play. Not counting highlights. Highly doubt it and if so not in his prime.

 

League was different then as it is now.



#38 Johnz96

Johnz96

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 25 June 2013 - 12:04 AM

Different eras indeed.

 

Both are the best of their eras hands down.

 

Really wonder if anyone on this forum ever watched Orr play. Not counting highlights. Highly doubt it and if so not in his prime.

 

League was different then as it is now.

I watched him. I had a Bobby Orr sweater and lunch box when I was a kid. Even when he played for Chicago he was better than any other player I ever saw and  In the 76 Canada Cup.



#39 St. Michael (the Red Wing)

St. Michael (the Red Wing)

    Heavenly With the Puck

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,822 posts
  • Location:Mankato, MN

Posted 25 June 2013 - 12:07 AM

I watched him. I had a Bobby Orr sweater and lunch box when I was a kid. Even when he played for Chicago he was better than any other player I ever saw and  In the 76 Canada Cup.

 

I'm 32 years old.

 

How old are you?



#40 St. Michael (the Red Wing)

St. Michael (the Red Wing)

    Heavenly With the Puck

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,822 posts
  • Location:Mankato, MN

Posted 25 June 2013 - 12:30 AM

Hmmm I wonder. My pops a die hard Sharks fan and before that a die hard SEALS fan (in the NHL from what 67-76?) says tough call between Orr and Lidstrom. He's not even a Wings fan.

 

My pops is at the age of 62. 30 years older than me.

 

Different eras.

 

He loved Orr as he respected Lids

 

That's a true hockey fan with much respect.

 

Carry on dude....


Edited by St. Michael (the Red Wing), 25 June 2013 - 12:41 AM.






Similar Topics Collapse

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users