View Single Post
08-18-2009, 11:00 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 8,670
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
That's a rather interesting way to look at it; however, don't hold your break expecting others to buy into it, because I suspect the most important criteria with most of us is the degree to which the player dominated his peers... not how another player changed how he was perceived.

Fact is, he was named the second-best all-around defenseman numerous times, behind the best per-game player in the history of hockey.
The same thing you see with the guys who theoretically would've won Hart's without Gretzky and Lemieux being in the mix. I often see being runner up to Gretzky being a much lesser offensive player. A guy such as Langway, a goalie, or a good offensive player with two-way presence. But take away Gretzky/Lemieux and the bulk of the votes probably just shift to the next highest scorer.

Without Orr how did Park finish in terms of defenseman scoring? I would think he did place quite highly, but the voting may have been skewed towards someone else without Orr there.

The thing about the argument in Park's favour is that you assume by dropping Orr the rest of the votes all stay the same.

NOTENOUGHBREWER is offline   Reply With Quote