Bobby Orr versus Nicklas Lidström

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

1 minute ago, kipwinger said:

Lol.  Got a little carried away with my Lidstrom love apparently. 

For a moment, I thought you were talking about Lilja.  

[toby91_ca 620]

52 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

Orr dazzles because of all the points he put up.  Lidstrom didn't play in an era of high scoring yet still DOMINATED offensively from the blue line during his time.  Additionally Lidstrom played elite defense.  He was better than Erik Karlsson offensively, and better than anyone defensely, something Orr didn't really do.  Orr was the first "defenseman who played like an extra forward".  All things considered, if I'm drafting for today's game I'm drafting Lidstrom.  I'd probably draft him in 1975 too.  He was just too good at everything to take a back seat to anyone.

Edit: Same logic I'd use to pick Crosby over Ovechkin in today's game.  Ovechkin is exponentially better than basically every other winger in NHL history.  Adjusted for era he's probably even better than that.  But Crosby is better in multiple facets of the game, which gives him the nod in my opinion.  Being better in many areas is more useful than being WAY better in one area.

Couple things: Lidstrom NEVER dominated offensively, he was one of the better offensive dmen during much of his career, but he never dominated.  The better argument is consistency and longevity I suppose.  He did finish top 2 scoring for dmen for 5 years in a row, but never lead anyone else by that significant of a margin.

With Orr, dominate is probably not a strong enough word, Gretzky is the only player that dominated the competition like Orr.  Orr lead dmen is scoring for 7 straight years with the following points between him and #2 in those years: 9, 76, 76, 44, 47, 40, 59...that's domination.  It's also important to understand that 44 more points isn't Orr scoring 170pts and #2 scoring 126, it's Orr scoring 100 and number 2 scoring 56...he was doubling #2's output a lot of years.

Scoring was definitely higher in Orr's day, but not as significant as most would think (during Orr's career, GPG was 6.3, during Lidstrom's it was 5.7).

Edit: also, I can only go by what I've heard and read and saw people say, but suggesting Orr was all offensive an no defense is false, he was known as one of, if not the best defensively during his time as well.

Edited January 10, 2017 by toby91_ca

[kipwinger 8,524]

9 minutes ago, toby91_ca said:

Couple things: Lidstrom NEVER dominated offensively, he was one of the better offensive dmen during much of his career, but he never dominated.  The better argument is consistency and longevity I suppose.  He did finish top 2 scoring for dmen for 5 years in a row, but never lead anyone else by that significant of a margin.

With Orr, dominate is probably not a strong enough word, Gretzky is the only player that dominated the competition like Orr.  Orr lead dmen is scoring for 7 straight years with the following points between him and #2 in those years: 9, 76, 76, 44, 47, 40, 59...that's domination.  It's also important to understand that 44 more points isn't Orr scoring 170pts and #2 scoring 126, it's Orr scoring 100 and number 2 scoring 56...he was doubling #2's output a lot of years.

Scoring was definitely higher in Orr's day, but not as significant as most would think (during Orr's career, GPG was 6.3, during Lidstrom's it was 5.7).

I don't think this argues against Lidstrom being a dominant offensive defenseman.  The fact that other people did it too doesn't mean he didn't.  That's like saying Yzerman wasn't dominant in 1988 because Lemieux and Gretzky scored more that season.  They were all, obviously, dominant.  Lidstrom was a dominant offensive defenseman during his era regardless of what others did as well. 

Edited January 10, 2017 by kipwinger

[kickazz 5,459]

1 hour ago, puckbags said:

I will always take Lidstrom in this argument. For one I didn't see Orr play. There is no argument that Orr was the greatest offensive d man off all time. The numbers don't lie.  One of my criteria is longevity.  Lids played 1564 regular season games. Orr played 657.  Lidstrom also played in an era of longer seasons, longer playoffs, olympics, all star games, world cups, extended pre seasons etc... and he did so with basically 0 serious injuries in his career. 94-95 was the only season Lidstrom played under 70 games. He played 80 games or more 14 times in his career in an era where the game was/is bigger and faster.  I think it's these 2 on the top and everyone else is a giant step down the ladder.  Good argument either way though 

Longevity sure but Lidstrom also played in an era where modern medicine and workout regimens improved exponentially.

Sidney Crosby's injury he suffered years ago would have been career ending in the 60s and 70s. But here he is still racking up points and writing his own legend. 

Orr's knees would likely have faired better under the surgeons of the 21st century

Edited January 10, 2017 by kickazz

[puckbags 863]

36 minutes ago, GMRwings1983 said:

Esposito was an outlier when it came to SOG.  Same with scoring.  He was a great player that often gets overlooked because of Orr.

I don't believe there was more scoring in the 70's, but I could be wrong.  Even if I'm wrong, if you adjust Orr's numbers, he'd still score more than Lidstrom and lead the league in scoring for his era.  Point is, he's a defenseman that led the league in scoring.  Era has nothing to do with that.  Era only influences exactly how many points the player scores.  Gretzky wouldn't score 237 points if you adjust his numbers for this era.  However, I bet he'd still score way more than anyone else and win the Art Ross trophy comfortably.    

BTW, Orr was by accounts, very good defensively also.  He's not just some guy that scored goals and didn't try in his own end, like Coffey or Leetch.  

Pretty funny. Espo had 550 shots that year and 2nd in shots was Orr at 392.  Did Espo count his warmup shots? Did he shoot pucks from the hallway?

5 minutes ago, kickazz said:

Longevity sure but Lidstrom also played in an era where modern medicine and workout regimens improved exponentially.

Sidney Crosby's injury he suffered years ago would have been career ending in the 60s and 70s. But here he is still racking up points and writing his own legend. 

Orr's knees would likely have faired better under the surgeons of the 21st century

And if concussions were diagnosed properly in the 60's and 70's there probably would't have been enough players to keep the league going.  

[kickazz 5,459]

45 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

 

Edit: Which is why I break this discussion down to "who would I rather have" vs. "who was better statistically".  There's no debate if you're only discussing the latter.

Well, if was short term I'd rather have Orr. If it was long term probably Lidstrom. For instance if I'm going for a rental at trade deadline, I'd go for Orr.

Edited January 10, 2017 by kickazz

[Echolalia 2,961]

29 minutes ago, toby91_ca said:

Well, that's your opinion, but I'm pretty sure most of the experts, when they consider who is the best of all time, are using the later as a way to measure and equate.  Otherwise, it's clear by watching video that Howe could not make an NHL roster in today's NHL, yet he's still up there on the all-time best list.

I agree, and its the way that most posters here evaluate players between generations as well.  I disagree that it accurately answers "the best of all time" though, because "all time" doesn't put asterisks on previous generations to make up for the advances that have happened in the game since then.  "All time" is a singular term, encompassing the entirety of the league existence as a single unit, and not fragmented the way that most of the experts and fans approach it today.  That's why I feel like a more accurate question to people who bring forth that argument is "who most handedly dominated their respective era", because as you said, its clear that most players from the past, particular the farther back you go would struggle today.  But that's not to say they weren't revolutionary or great athletes.  I think Orr dominated his generation more than Lidstrom did.  But I think if Lidstrom and Orr were on the ice together it wouldn't even be close who was the better of the two.

[kipwinger 8,524]

2 minutes ago, kickazz said:

Well, if was short term I'd rather have Orr. If it was long term probably Lidstrom 

Right, but I think that's unreasonable.  Just like comparing modern medicine, training, etc.  You can't change what already was.  It's a question of "would you rather have Lidstrom (given his career) vs. Orr (given his career)".  To me that's a no brainer.  It's worthless to speculate about "if X happened" or "if Y didn't happen".  If Lindros didn't have concussions he might be one of the best ever, but he did, so he wasn't.  Lidstrom had less impact than Orr on any individual game, but he made a huge impact on WAY MORE games.  To me that makes him the better defenseman overall. 

[DickieDunn 2,571]

Modern medicine extends Orr's career a long way.

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk

[kipwinger 8,524]

1 minute ago, DickieDunn said:

Modern medicine extends Orr's career a long way.

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk
 

And adjust Lidstrom and Orr's career numbers for era and they converge to almost the exact same level of output.  1.39 points per game for Orr and 1.33 for Lidstrom.  That argument works both ways. 

[toby91_ca 620]

7 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

And adjust Lidstrom and Orr's career numbers for era and they converge to almost the exact same level of output.  1.39 points per game for Orr and 1.33 for Lidstrom.  That argument works both ways. 

What kind of crazy math did you use to get 1.33 for Lidstrom??  1.39 for Orr is his career average, so I'm assuming you'd bump up Lidstrom's to consider the higher scoring era Orr played in.....my math shows 0.81 for Lidstrom doing that.

[kipwinger 8,524]

6 minutes ago, toby91_ca said:

What kind of crazy math did you use to get 1.33 for Lidstrom??  1.39 for Orr is his career average, so I'm assuming you'd bump up Lidstrom's to consider the higher scoring era Orr played in.....my math shows 0.81 for Lidstrom doing that.

I thought your numbers were the league averages for the era.  When you adjust for era you generally use league averages for all players, or a random sample of players, to show that players in general scored more in one era or another.  Talking about an individual player's averages doesn't tell you anything about the era.  I misunderstood your initial post. 

Also, upon re-reading your post I think you'd want to use points per game to establish whether there was more scoring and not goals per game. 

Edited January 10, 2017 by kipwinger

[toby91_ca 620]

1 minute ago, kipwinger said:

I thought your numbers were the league averages for the era.  When you adjust for era you generally use league averages for all players, or a random sample of players, to show that players in general scored more in one era or another.  Talking about an individual player's averages doesn't tell you anything about the era.  I misunderstood your initial post. 

I was just mentioning overall scoring for the different eras as someone commented that they weren't sure Orr really played in a high scoring era (he didn't play in the 80s).  They were correct, while the 70s had higher scoring, it was that signifcant.

[kipwinger 8,524]

Just now, toby91_ca said:

I was just mentioning overall scoring for the different eras as someone commented that they weren't sure Orr really played in a high scoring era (he didn't play in the 80s).  They were correct, while the 70s had higher scoring, it was that signifcant.

See my edit above.  You used goals per game, which I don't think is a good measure.  It would be better to use points per game to identify differences in scoring.  Especially considering both Lidstrom AND Orr were primarily assist machines. 

[toby91_ca 620]

Just now, kipwinger said:

See my edit above.  You used goals per game, which I don't think is a good measure.  It would be better to use points per game to identify differences in scoring.  Especially considering both Lidstrom AND Orr were primarily assist machines. 

GPG as in total goals scored in each game by both teams, that's the only measure of scoring when you are talking higher scoring eras. It's simply taking total goals scored for the whole year by all teams divided by games played.

I wonder if an argument could be made that assists are easier to come by in today's game with all the technology and ensuring every earned assist is credited, vs back in the 70s.  I don't necessarily agree with that though  I could just as easily argue assists may be awarded to certain players that really shouldn't have gotten them (which wouldn't happen today) - always an argument on the other side.

[kipwinger 8,524]

2 minutes ago, toby91_ca said:

GPG as in total goals scored in each game by both teams, that's the only measure of scoring when you are talking higher scoring eras. It's simply taking total goals scored for the whole year by all teams divided by games played.

I wonder if an argument could be made that assists are easier to come by in today's game with all the technology and ensuring every earned assist is credited, vs back in the 70s.  I don't necessarily agree with that though  I could just as easily argue assists may be awarded to certain players that really shouldn't have gotten them (which wouldn't happen today) - always an argument on the other side.

Using goals per game factors in unassisted goals though, which ruins the sample.  Again, the best way to do it is average all players individual points per game.  Or do the same for a random sample.  Goals per game doesn't reflect assists accurately and given that most of Orr and Lidstrom's contribution were assists I think it would be a bad measure. 

[xault 272]

Orr can be augured as the greatest player of all time. I love Lidstrom, but he's a top 3-5 Dman of all time. Not top 3 or even 5 player of all time.

Edited January 11, 2017 by xault

[shocky2002 36]

Would love to see a 70s player try to defend the likes of forsberg, sakic, jagr etc. They get absolutely destroyed. Anyone with a brain knows this unless you're 60 and wrong 

[kliq 3,755]

I see the troll is back

[Jacksoni 418]

Well I did create this thread and have not made any posts about what I think about this matter, I thought I'd give it some time and in my opinion it paid off, some really great posts and discussions about these two giants in hockey. A great thanks for all involved, I really couldn't find one non-constructive post until Shocky sneaked in right at the end.
Here are my thoughts:

1. Neither one is a bad choice. With different skillsets, eras, they are the pinnacle of what talent, skill and determination will get you. On top of that I believe they are so gifted that it would translate to any era. Lidström would defend Rocket Richard with honors (don't get me started on him by the way). Orr would command the puck against Edmonton 1986.
    
2. Unknowingly of his future knee injury I would pick Bobby Orr every time, all the time. I love Lidström, I have studied him extensively, he doesn't need any justification for going up against Orr. But even he himself has said Orr is number one. Tarasov, the creator of the russian hockey before it was militarized said Orr, Babcock said Orr and Scotty Bowman said Orr. I have watched over 30 games studying him and I probably would pick him even if I knew his knee would blow before 30. He packed the house and made many Boston kids stars after his retirement. Orr is the only player I would consider if I had to pick 5 clones to play every position on the ice. He is the penultimate top 3 of all time together with Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemieux.

With that said I don't have to give an account to what Lidström has given us for so long. I still miss him while watching games. His skill and longevity places him right behind Orr in my mind but ahead of Red Kelly, Ray Borque and Doug Harvey. On top of that he's really smart (not a surprise, considering his game) - he has coauthored academic publications from reputable universities in Sweden after his retirement. A perfect human.

Edited January 13, 2017 by Jacksoni

[DickieDunn 2,571]

I'd have liked to see a young Fetisov and Larionov start in the NHL when they were 20 or 21 and see what they would have done

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

14 hours ago, shocky2002 said:

Would love to see a 70s player try to defend the likes of forsberg, sakic, jagr etc. They get absolutely destroyed. Anyone with a brain knows this unless you're 60 and wrong 

No player in the 30's or 40's could defend Gustav Nyquist, if he was transported to the past via time machine.  Rocket Richard transported to today's NHL would not score 20 goals in any season.

You're looking at this all wrong.  You have to compare relative to the era.  Anyone with a brain should be able to see that.  

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

8 minutes ago, GMRwings1983 said:

No player in the 30's or 40's could defend Gustav Nyquist, if he was transported to the past via time machine.  Rocket Richard transported to today's NHL would not score 20 goals in any season.

You're looking at this all wrong.  You have to compare relative to the era.  Anyone with a brain should be able to see that.  

You're 60 and wrong

[Krayzie_Bone 58]

For a full career lindstrom for one year orr.

[DickieDunn 2,571]

54 minutes ago, GMRwings1983 said:

No player in the 30's or 40's could defend Gustav Nyquist, if he was transported to the past via time machine.  Rocket Richard transported to today's NHL would not score 20 goals in any season.

You're looking at this all wrong.  You have to compare relative to the era.  Anyone with a brain should be able to see that.  

Richard at 26 popped into this era with his original gear, no.  Richard coming into the NHL at 18, having grown up in this era and with his size adjusted to how big players are now would still be one of the best players in the NHL.  Same with Howe, Orr, Harvey, Robinson, Lemieux, Abel, and all the other all time greats.  I'd like to see some of the guys scoring 30 goals now with the new composite sticks that add 10 mph to your shot score with the lumber they used back in the 50s and 60s.