That's Plante, who played for Montreal in the 50's, while Orr played (mainly) in the 70's. I get the point, but even if you take into account the inflation of his era vs Lidstrom's era, his numbers are still phenomenal. The only defencemen that could come close to his numbers are Coffey and Art Ross. The fact remains that Orr may of been the best hockey player of all-time. He revolutionized how defencemen played the game, and every game he played (pre-knee injury) he was the best player on the ice and dominated. And take this for what it's worth, but there are numerous stories of Orr being so humble he held of scoring as much as he could so Esposito wouldn't get pissed (for example Don Cherry's book). I honestly think anyone who would take Lidstrom (who was a worldclass defencemen) over Orr either knows nothing about the NHL pre-2000 or they're fucked in the head. Edit: Just looked up and found there isn't a huge difference in scoring between the two era's (post lockout about 5.3-6 GPG, the early 70's about 6.2-6.85). Bobby Orr didn't play in the 80's, there isn't a 2GPG difference.