• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

Leaf Rumours

JaysCyYoung said:
What in God's name are you talking about?

No one touches Orr offensively. It's not really debateable. I don't even know why you would ask someone to prove such an obvious point.
Click to expand...

Because of the conversation we were just having. I said my ideal dman would be a combo of Robinson, Stevens and Pronger with Bobby Orr's offense. You said that would be Eddie Shore. I then pointed out that Shore was nowhere near the size of those guys and had nowhere near the offense. Then you argued that Shore's numbers absurd.... then I said Orr's were absurd+++, then you said "don't make me put down Orr."
 
Habspatrol said:
I'd probably include Robinson as my idea of the ideal Dman. Obviously if he scored more he'd have been even better.

I'm thinking some cross between Robinson, Pronger and Stevens with Bobby Orr's offensive talent.
Click to expand...

JaysCyYoung said:
So Eddie Shore?

url
Click to expand...

Habspatrol said:
Except Eddie Shore wasn't even 6' tall or 200 lbs.... and he was about a half point per game dman rather than well over a point per game like Orr... other than that? Sure.
Click to expand...

JaysCyYoung said:
Eddie Shore's offensive totals were ABSURD for a defenceman in his time period.
Click to expand...

Habspatrol said:
...and Orr's were absurd+++ for a dman in any era.
Click to expand...

JaysCyYoung said:
Okay, please don't piss me off. I've already had to basically put-down my third favourite defenceman of all-time in Listrom due to the historical ignorance of many on here. Don't make me put down number one on my list.

I worship Bobby practically.
Click to expand...

:deal:
 
The point HP is that if your "ideal defenceman" has Bobby Orr's offence, then your ideal defenceman is going to have to be Bobby Orr. Because no one else has ever come close to touching his offence. If you're going to make an argument about your ideal defenceman being physical and a hard hitter and all that stuff (which I agree with), then it's kind of silly to insist on adding Orr's offence. Obviously you could argue that you are looking for a mutant d-man who doesn't exist, but I'm not sure what the point of that would be.

My ideal defenceman has Chara's size, Orr's offence, Stevens' toughness, Chelios' longevity, Lidstrom's hockey IQ, Babe Ruth's personality, Bill Russell's championships, and Jesus' ability to walk on water.
 
Last edited:
Habspatrol said:
:deal:
Click to expand...

Yeah, you didn't really prove anything. I NEVER once claimed there has ever been a defenceman in history better than Bobby Orr offensively (and quite frankly only Coffey approaches him). I merely discounted your assumption that Shore's offensive totals were not incredible during the period in which he played when a double-digit goal-scoring defenceman was like Orr scoring 100 for the first time.

They are merely era-based equivalents.
 
With adjusted numbers from hockey reference:

1. Ray Bourque - 1579 points (adj. 1426)
2. Paul Coffey - 1531 points (adj. 1347)
3. Al MacInnis - 1274 points (adj. 1200)
4. Phil Housley - 1232 points (adj. 1148)
5. Larry Murphy - 1216 points (adj. 1097)
6. Nicklas Lidstrom - 1088 points (adj. 1176)
7. Denis Potvin - 1052 points (adj. 882)
8. Brian Leetch - 1028 points (adj. 1039)
9. Larry Robinson - 958 points (adj. 800)
10. Chris Chelios - 948 points (adj. 908)
11. Bobby Orr - 915 points (adj. 878)
 
Last edited:
axlsalinger said:
The point HP is that if your "ideal defenceman" has Bobby Orr's offence, then your ideal defenceman is going to have to be Bobby Orr. Because no one else has ever come close to touching his offence. If you're going to make an argument about your ideal defenceman being physical and a hard hitter and all that stuff (which I agree with), then it's kind of silly to insist on adding Orr's offence. Obviously you could argue that you are looking for a mutant d-man who doesn't exist, but I'm not sure what the point of that would be.

My ideal defenceman has Chara's size, Orr's offence, Stevens' toughness, Chelios' longevity, Lidstrom's hockey IQ, Babe Ruth's personality, Bill Russell's championships, and Jesus' ability to walk on water.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I suppose listing Robinson, Stevens and Pronger then adding Orr's offense was a little silly. Why not just add Gretzky's offense?

I guess Orr being the greatest ever makes him the closest thing to a perfect dman we've seen. That said, my ideal dman is still a physical beast that strikes fear into forwards.

Chris Pronger from 1999-2000 was as close to ideal ever for me. Obviously even more offense would be better. Larry Robinson for most of the 70s was close to ideal.
 
JaysCyYoung said:
Yeah, you didn't really prove anything. I NEVER once claimed there has ever been a defenceman in history better than Bobby Orr offensively (and quite frankly only Coffey approaches him). I merely discounted your assumption that Shore's offensive totals were not incredible during the period in which he played when a double-digit goal-scoring defenceman was like Orr scoring 100 for the first time.

They are merely era-based equivalents.
Click to expand...

Where was I trying to prove anything? Let alone that Orr wasn't the best. Everyone knows that he's the best dman ever.

Obviously my "ideal" dman doesn't exist. The only thing I argued was that Eddie Shore meets virtually none of my criteria for the ideal dman. He's wasn't big and he never put up Bobby Orr type numbers.
 
BG said:
With adjusted numbers from hockey reference:

1. Ray Bourque - 1579 points (adj. 1426)
2. Paul Coffey - 1531 points (adj. 1347)
Click to expand...
I find this extremely tough to swallow.

Bourque played from 1979-2001 and Coffey played from 1980-2001... how can the adjustment change Bourque's edge in points from 48 to 79 points? They virtually played the exact same years.
 
Its probably because Coffey scored more in higher scoring years, and thouhg Bourque never had the huge years Coffey did, he put up more points in the lower scoring years.
 
leafman101 said:
Its probably because Coffey scored more in higher scoring years, and thouhg Bourque never had the huge years Coffey did, he put up more points in the lower scoring years.
Click to expand...

So wouldn't he lose points for not being able to score more points in a high scoring era?

Bottom line, in my books if two people played through the exact same years their adjustments should be very close. I could see 48 going to a 50-52 point spread... but 79? That's some faulty adjusting IMO.
 
Well relatively speaking Coffey's big 130+ point seasons will fall more than Bourques 80-90 point years in the 80's and early 90's. While Bourque scored more than Coffey when the game tightened up.
 
I suppose I understand the theory, I just disagree.

Crosby and Ovechkin have been in the league for the exact same years. You'd have a hard time convincing me that any sort of adjustment should change their point differential significantly.
 
Habspatrol said:
Where was I trying to prove anything? Let alone that Orr wasn't the best. Everyone knows that he's the best dman ever.

Obviously my "ideal" dman doesn't exist. The only thing I argued was that Eddie Shore meets virtually none of my criteria for the ideal dman. He's wasn't big and he never put up Bobby Orr type numbers.
Click to expand...

Again, NO ONE (other than Coffey) put up Bobby Orr-type numbers. You should have just said Bobby Orr, like a previous poster mentioned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top