ATD Chat Room VII
View Single Post
08-30-2012, 05:44 AM
Join Date: Feb 2010
Originally Posted by
Doubtful. There are a lot of reasons to take McSorley well ahead of Orlando.
- McSorley is a legitimate 4th line goon option as opposed to exclusively a defenseman.
- There is lots of doubt surrounding Orlando’s status as a fighter/tough guy. He collected penalty minutes, but we aren’t really sure of the context. McSorley was a legitimate heavyweight who fought and beat most other heavyweights.
- Even if you give some leeway for the WW2 years, McSorley had a career in the big leagues that was over twice as long.
- McSorley was a leader – was Orlando?
- McSorley was an agitator – was Orlando?
- Was Orlando the type of player you’d ever expect to lead the NHL in +/- if it existed in the 40s?
- No one ever tossed a few all-star votes Orlando’s way; they did to McSorley.
- McSorley signing a contract that temporarily made him hockey’s 16th-highest paid player is good evidence of how he was valued in his role. Would Orlando get paid like that?
- The offensive gap between them can’t be written off as “a bit”. McSorley had a half dozen seasons more impressive than Orlando’s best, and that 11 point season didn’t exactly prove to be sustainable.
- What do we know about Orlando’s defensive game, anyway?
- I don't put much value in being a goon, I value them when they grow out of it and become enforcers.
- Thats because the enforcer/goon status wasn't as defined back then as it is today. Orlando had his fare share of heavyweight fights against guys like Reardon, Stewart, Egan and so on.
- Yes, thats why I said McSorley has longevity. Allthough QHSL wasn't a bad league at the time. Lots of players chose to play there instead of the NHL even Beliveau
- If you mean he led with experience then yes.
- See the Gaye Stewart incident. Yes, Orlando was an agitator.
- +/-? Really? McSorley went from leading the NHL in that regard to being -13. That stat isn't that relevant on an individual level.
- Orlando was thrown a couple of votes in '43.
- It just shows you how inconsistent contracts became when player salaries increased. It was also boosted by the Blues insanity of that time. Pretty weak argument by your standards.
- I would say Marty were about 10% better offensively.
- That he rarely was in a goal against. He usually was out there with Jack Stewart to build a physical wall when protecting leads. Just like Motter and Goodfellow were combined when trying to catch up to a lead.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by jkrx