View Single Post
Old
09-05-2008, 11:46 AM
  #37
dcinroc
 
dcinroc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Taipei, Taiwan
Country: United States
Posts: 515
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ushvinder View Post
Well he is correct on one aspect, the quality of hockey was considerably lower.During bobby orr's era, you had a few great players and a bunch of bums. That era really didnt have many good or very good players.

Another thing about that era is that teams were so lopsided. The bruins, canadiens, blackhawks, rangers and flyers had all the good players, while the other 10 teams were left with bums.

I mean really just look at the depth of the nhl in the 1970-71 season. Outside of the 4 top teams, you really couldn't even name a player from the other 10 teasm that scored 80 points. While orr was on the team that had 7 guys score more than 70 points.
Why is the 70-71 season so important? Look at the year before and the year after and it isn't so lopsided. It's just an outlier year, statistically speaking.

In 70-71, only 6 players in the NHL scored more than 80 points and 4 were on Boston. The other 2 were Bobby Hull (96 points for Chicago) and Norm Ullman (85 pts for Toronto). The Stanely Cup champions that year (Montreal) had only 2 players with 70+ points. Indeed, only 16 players in the entire NHL cracked 70 points that year.

Orr, Esposito, Hodge and Bucyk all had the highest point totals of their careers that year. Doesn't really tell us much of anything, except that Boston was on fire that season.

Certainly the teams were lopsided, it's called expansion. Yet, by 74 one of those expansion clubs was winning the Stanley Cup, and in 75 it was an all-expansion team final.

NHL expansion isn't what diluted talent in the 70s, it was the WHA combined with expansion, but that had its greatest effect from 75-79.

dcinroc is offline   Reply With Quote