HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Did Bobby Orr play in more diluted era of hockey?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-18-2006, 08:26 PM
  #26
reckoning
Registered User
 
reckoning's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,186
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho Papa Joe
I was wondering if somebody could put together some stats indicating how much he scored against orginal 6 teams vs expansion teams?
I don`t have the numbers for his entire career, but was able to find the summaries for the `70-`71 season. This was Orr`s highest scoring season (139 pts) and should give some representation of who he scored against.

It was a balanced schedule in `70-`71; every team played each other 6 times. Orr didn`t miss any games. Here`s the other 13 teams, from best to worst, their point totals and how Orr did against them:

(109) NY Rangers: G-4; A-5; Pts-9
(107) Chicago: G-2; A-3; Pts-5
(97) Montreal: G-2; A-9; Pts-11
(87) St. Louis: G-3; A-6; Pts-9
(82) Toronto: G-2; A-11; Pts-13
(73) Philadelphia: G-2; A-6; Pts-8
(72) Minnesota: G-1; A-11; Pts-12
(63) Los Angeles: G-3; A-14; Pts-17
(63) Buffalo: G-4; A-6; Pts-10
(62) Pittsburgh: G-3; A-7; Pts-10
(56) Vancouver: G-3; A-8; Pts-11
(55) Detroit: G-1; A-7; Pts-8
(45) California: G-7; A-9; Pts-16

- Orr certainly liked playing against the two California teams, had it not been for expansion his totals would`ve been lower but as mentioned earlier, so would`ve everyone else`s. He was still the best of his time.

- Chicago looks to have done a phenomenal job shutting down both Orr and the entire Bruins team. This was Boston`s monster 57-14-7 year, but Chicago actually had a winning record against them. The Rangers did well against him too, keeping him pointless in 3 games. Both those teams had a trio of great defencemen ( Chi- White, Stapleton, Magnuson; NY- Park, Horton, Seiling) and exceptional goaltending (Chi- Esposito; NY- Giacomin, Villemure). Don`t read too much into his low totals against Detroit; the Bruins usually beat them easy so it was likely a case of Orr choosing not to run up the score.

- Did Orr pad his stats in blowouts? No and yes. There were times when Boston blew out the opposition and Orr didn`t pile up points (i.e. only one assist in a 11-4 win over Detroit). There was also a stretch near the end of the year when they had a long winning streak against mostly bottom-feeders and Orr piled up points there ( 20 pts in 6 games). Also, he had 5 assists in the last two games; easy victories over Toronto and Montreal; which was likely a case of Boston pushing hard to hit 400 goals (they finished with 399).

- Orr was only held pointless in 13 of the 78 games. At one point he had a 16 game point scoring streak, went pointless in a game against Philly, then started a 18 game streak. Had he got a point in that game he`d have a 35 game streak which would`ve shattered the record easily and stood until Gretzky came along.

This was also the year that Phil Esposito scored 76 goals. How many of those 76 goals do you think Orr assisted on? I would`ve guessed around 40. Actually, it was only 23. So even if all the goals Orr assisted on were removed, Esposito still would`ve comfortably led the league in goals. The players who scored the goals on Orr`s 102 assists that year, along with their total goals are:

J. Bucyk 25 (51)
P. Esposito 23 (76)
K. Hodge 9 (43)
E. Westfall 9 (25)
J. McKenzie 7 (31)
D. Sanderson 7 (29)
F. Stanfield 6 (24)
W. Carleton 6 (22)
W. Cashman 3 (21)
D. Marcotte 2 (15)
D. Smith 2 (7)
M. Walton 2 (3)
D. Awrey 1 (4)

reckoning is offline  
Old
03-19-2006, 08:52 AM
  #27
Rather Gingerly 1*
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,832
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cup2006sensrule
Number of Professional Top level teams in North America:

42-43 - 66-67 - 6 NHL
67-68 - 12 NHL
68-69 - 12 NHL
69-70 - 12 NHL
70-71 - 14 NHL
71-72 - 14 NHL
72-73 - 16 NHL 12 WHA - 28 total
73-74 - 16 NHL 12 WHA - 28 total
74-75 - 18 NHL 14 WHA - 32 total
75-76 - 18 NHL 14 WHA - 32 total
76-77 - 18 NHL 12 WHA - 30 total
77-78 - 18 NHL 8 WHA - 26 total
78-79 - 17 NHL 6 WHA - 23 total
79-80 - 90-91 21 NHL
91-92 22 NHL
92-93 24 NHL
93-94 - 97-98 26 NHL
98-99 27 NHL
99-00 28 NHL
00-01 to date 30 teams

Until the early 1970's virtually all the players were from Canada with a few Americans
In the mid 1970's a few Europeans were playing but there were not very many. Most were from Sweden.
Through the 1980's there were more and more Europeans coming into the league but almost all were from Sweden and Finland as the iron curtain was still intact. And almost all of the Europeans that came to play in North America were star players. There were very few Swedes or Finns that came over and played as role players or one the third line or bottom defence pairings. These positions were all filled by Canadians.

In 1989-90 Communism fell and there was a large influx of players from Czechoslovakia and Russia. There were also more and more Scandanzians playing. By the mid 1990's there were Europeans filling all kinds of roles in the NHL. There could be grinders from Europe. I think this was more a factor of salaries exploding and it being beneficial for European players to come to the NHL and make big money even if they weren't stars and less discrimination against Euros in the NHL. Also more and more Americans were in the NHL over time.

The WHA may not have been the calibre of the NHL but they stole a ton of talent from the NHL severely depleting the talent base in the NHL.

I think the most diluted era for talent was the WHA era from 72-73 to 77-78.
Second most diluted 67-68-71-72
Third 78-79-88-89

After communism fell I think the NHL has continued to have a better base of talent even with the expansions in the 1990's. I think now there is more talent depth in the NHL than ever before.
I think the highest caliber of hockey there ever was pre-1967. Some of those teams would not make the playoffs with 5-6 Hall of Famers in their lineups.

The weakest the game was in the '70s when the goon and Broad Street Bullies were running the NHL.

Rather Gingerly 1* is offline  
Old
03-19-2006, 10:43 AM
  #28
chooch*
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 946
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rather Gingerly 1
I think the highest caliber of hockey there ever was pre-1967. Some of those teams would not make the playoffs with 5-6 Hall of Famers in their lineups.

The weakest the game was in the '70s when the goon and Broad Street Bullies were running the NHL.
are you talking overall or by Division? Try the West in the 60's and 80's. The Blues and the Oilers in those decades.

chooch* is offline  
Old
03-19-2006, 11:40 AM
  #29
ClassicHockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 591
vCash: 500
Very, very perceptive. You could also change your word 'running' to 'ruining'.

Actually, the Flyers in the 70's did have an undeserved hand in running the game in the 70's - but that's another story that hockey people know but the Flyers' apologists cannot comprehend.

But aside from that, 'Rather Gingerly' is so correct.

If you were involved in hockey in the 70's during the Flyers' reign of terror, you would have unfortunately seen the coming of the bigger, rougher but less skilled players taking over youth hockey over the smaller, skilled players. Those less aggressive and smaller, but more talented players started to quit hockey or did not enter organized leagues because of the new violence. Unfortunately, minor coaches at the time could see the Flyers' success and tried to build their teams the same way.

If any Flyer fans of that era don't believe that, they would soon realize the truth of the situation if they look back on all the commissions on violence in minor hockey. It was beginning to be a huge problem. I don't suspect many Flyer fans from the Philadelphia area can really understand the true raminifactions because of the way they were taught to view the game.

Although the NHL eventually cleaned up its act, the damage was done. Not only were NHL teams looking for less skilled but more 'goonish' talent, but the negative effect on minor hockey in Canada was disasterous. That is when the small, skilled hockey player started its extinction and the problem still exists today.

That is the Philadelphia Flyers legacy of the 70's - a less talented NHL at the time and negative effect on future talent coming through the ranks.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Rather Gingerly 1
The weakest the game was in the '70s when the goon and Broad Street Bullies were running the NHL.

ClassicHockey is offline  
Old
03-19-2006, 12:05 PM
  #30
#66
Registered User
 
#66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 10,255
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo
How diluted hockey was back then is largely irrelevant. Orr's measure of greatness is how much he dominated his peers. No matter how many teams there were, Orr stood tall among everybody. 3rd greatest career ever no matter what era he was in.
Thats pretty much sums up how I feel about this issue. Every player played against the weak teams. Why single out Orr? Even though I think he gets way to much credit defensively, IMO Bobby Orr dominated the ice like no one else.

#66 is offline  
Old
03-19-2006, 12:07 PM
  #31
Chalupa Batman
Mod Supervisor
 
Chalupa Batman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 22,880
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cup2006sensrule
Stan Fischler is an idiot as he has proven to be for decades.
I had to quit using him as a source for Goaltender Trivia (very early on) simply due to the staggering number of outright factual lies in his works.

Chalupa Batman is offline  
Old
03-19-2006, 12:08 PM
  #32
pappyline
Registered User
 
pappyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Mass/formerly Ont
Country: United States
Posts: 4,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClassicHockey
Very, very perceptive. You could also change your word 'running' to 'ruining'.

Actually, the Flyers in the 70's did have an undeserved hand in running the game in the 70's - but that's another story that hockey people know but the Flyers' apologists cannot comprehend.

But aside from that, 'Rather Gingerly' is so correct.

If you were involved in hockey in the 70's during the Flyers' reign of terror, you would have unfortunately seen the coming of the bigger, rougher but less skilled players taking over youth hockey over the smaller, skilled players. Those less aggressive and smaller, but more talented players started to quit hockey or did not enter organized leagues because of the new violence. Unfortunately, minor coaches at the time could see the Flyers' success and tried to build their teams the same way.

If any Flyer fans of that era don't believe that, they would soon realize the truth of the situation if they look back on all the commissions on violence in minor hockey. It was beginning to be a huge problem. I don't suspect many Flyer fans from the Philadelphia area can really understand the true raminifactions because of the way they were taught to view the game.

Although the NHL eventually cleaned up its act, the damage was done. Not only were NHL teams looking for less skilled but more 'goonish' talent, but the negative effect on minor hockey in Canada was disasterous. That is when the small, skilled hockey player started its extinction and the problem still exists today.

That is the Philadelphia Flyers legacy of the 70's - a less talented NHL at the time and negative effect on future talent coming through the ranks.
Great Post. I saw it first hand as my sons started playing in the 70's. Most of the small skilled kids were relegated to house league and big unskilled kids were picked for rep teams. Even if a smaller kid made it at 12, unless he had an growth spurt he was cut at 14 or 15. Not only did it drive smaller skilled kids out, It also drove late growers out. Some kids are almost at their full height at 13 whereas others could have their growth spurt at 17 or later.

pappyline is offline  
Old
03-19-2006, 01:54 PM
  #33
Rather Gingerly 1*
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,832
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chooch
are you talking overall or by Division? Try the West in the 60's and 80's. The Blues and the Oilers in those decades.
I remember going to the Forum and teams would come in with players like Howe, Ullman, Devechhio, Paul Henderson in the lineup and not make the playoffs. Or the Rangers with Rod Gilbert, Ratelle, Park, Ed Giacimon. I don't think there is a team today that has 5 future Hall of Famers in the lineup. If they did they would be Stanley Cup favorites.

Rather Gingerly 1* is offline  
Old
03-25-2006, 01:24 PM
  #34
04' hockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: City of Brotherly Lo
Posts: 577
vCash: 500
really???????????

Quote:
Originally Posted by ClassicHockey
Very, very perceptive. You could also change your word 'running' to 'ruining'.

Actually, the Flyers in the 70's did have an undeserved hand in running the game in the 70's - but that's another story that hockey people know but the Flyers' apologists cannot comprehend.

But aside from that, 'Rather Gingerly' is so correct.

If you were involved in hockey in the 70's during the Flyers' reign of terror, you would have unfortunately seen the coming of the bigger, rougher but less skilled players taking over youth hockey over the smaller, skilled players. Those less aggressive and smaller, but more talented players started to quit hockey or did not enter organized leagues because of the new violence. Unfortunately, minor coaches at the time could see the Flyers' success and tried to build their teams the same way.

If any Flyer fans of that era don't believe that, they would soon realize the truth of the situation if they look back on all the commissions on violence in minor hockey. It was beginning to be a huge problem. I don't suspect many Flyer fans from the Philadelphia area can really understand the true raminifactions because of the way they were taught to view the game.

Although the NHL eventually cleaned up its act, the damage was done. Not only were NHL teams looking for less skilled but more 'goonish' talent, but the negative effect on minor hockey in Canada was disasterous. That is when the small, skilled hockey player started its extinction and the problem still exists today.

That is the Philadelphia Flyers legacy of the 70's - a less talented NHL at the time and negative effect on future talent coming through the ranks.
Actually the Flyers got "tougher" because THEY were getting beatup every night.
Less talented?, let's see.....Clarke(HOF), Barber(HOF), Leach, MacLeish, Kindrachuk, Dornhoefer..... then, Van Impe, Watson bros., Bladon on "D" and Parent(HOF).....YEAH, pretty talentless group?
Just a great team of the times.

04' hockey is offline  
Old
03-25-2006, 01:47 PM
  #35
chooch*
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 946
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 04' hockey
Actually the Flyers got "tougher" because THEY were getting beatup every night.
Less talented?, let's see.....Clarke(HOF), Barber(HOF), Leach, MacLeish, Kindrachuk, Dornhoefer..... then, Van Impe, Watson bros., Bladon on "D" and Parent(HOF).....YEAH, pretty talentless group?
Just a great team of the times.
Yeah but every team had a couple of HoF back then including the Flyers, Leafs, Bruins etc.

The Habs had 10.

chooch* is offline  
Old
03-25-2006, 02:54 PM
  #36
ClassicHockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 591
vCash: 500
I was going to respond in detail until I saw where you are from and thought it would be no use.

Philly fans of that era just have superficial knowledge and blind bias of really what was happening to the Flyers and the league in the late 60's & 70's. Your post puts you in that group.

There is SO MUCH that you don't know about that era. More than the same old responses that I see here.

Great team of the time? With those guys you pointed out? And what they did to the game?

Keep believing it because it amuses most real students of the game.


Quote:
Originally Posted by 04' hockey
Actually the Flyers got "tougher" because THEY were getting beatup every night.
Less talented?, let's see.....Clarke(HOF), Barber(HOF), Leach, MacLeish, Kindrachuk, Dornhoefer..... then, Van Impe, Watson bros., Bladon on "D" and Parent(HOF).....YEAH, pretty talentless group?
Just a great team of the times.

ClassicHockey is offline  
Old
03-25-2006, 03:20 PM
  #37
04' hockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: City of Brotherly Lo
Posts: 577
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClassicHockey
I was going to respond in detail until I saw where you are from and thought it would be no use.

Philly fans of that era just have superficial knowledge and blind bias of really what was happening to the Flyers and the league in the late 60's & 70's. Your post puts you in that group.

There is SO MUCH that you don't know about that era. More than the same old responses that I see here.

Great team of the time? With those guys you pointed out? And what they did to the game?

Keep believing it because it amuses most real students of the game.
No probs, einstein

BACK to BACK STANLEY CUPS!

accident, HUH?????

btw, I was born in '55

04' hockey is offline  
Old
03-25-2006, 10:00 PM
  #38
ClassicHockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 591
vCash: 500
So typical, just like I thought.

You just can't comprehend beyond brutalizing their way to two Stanley Cups against what they did to the game and what effect their tactics had in minor hockey in Canada.

But then, you really wouldn't know about that would you.

Why can't Philly fans see those Flyer teams more in terms of the larger picture?

Its no use. You wouldn't want to try to understand anyways.




Quote:
Originally Posted by 04' hockey
No probs, einstein

BACK to BACK STANLEY CUPS!

accident, HUH?????

btw, I was born in '55

ClassicHockey is offline  
Old
03-27-2006, 01:34 PM
  #39
Gee Wally
Retired
 
Gee Wally's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: HF retirement home
Country: United States
Posts: 33,791
vCash: 50
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by puckhead103

I wonder if Orr had been born in 1938, not '48, I wonder how Orr's statistics would stand up in tighter checking defensive era of the "Original Six" era...?

if you ever saw him....you'd have your answer.


1938,48, 58, 68, 78, 88, 98, 08,......

Greatness....plain and simple.

__________________

BOSTON STRONG !!!
Gee Wally is offline  
Old
03-27-2006, 03:58 PM
  #40
PurpleShamrock
Registered User
 
PurpleShamrock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: New England
Country: United States
Posts: 2,620
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider
I'm currently reading the 1988-ish version of Stan Fischler's book "The All-New Hockey's 100". He ranks Orr 13th all-time and fifth among defensemen behind Shore, Kelly, Harvey and Potvin. Don't pay Fischler too much attention though; his reasoning is incredibly weak and he has a lot of strange rankings (Larry Robinson at 100; Kevin Lowe at 88; Frank Boucher at 4, and that's not a typo; Guy Lafleur at 51; etc).

I'll summarize Fischler's complaints about Orr.
- Wasn't healthy long enough.
- The post-expansion era was watered-down.
- Orr had "numerous defensive weaknesses".
- He "rarely through a damaging bodycheck".
- He won the Norris due to his offense, not his defense
- He "only played on two Cup winners".
- Orr was selfish because, get this, he didn't pass the puck enough!
- Implied that Orr is overrated because everyone loves his charisma
- Implied that Esposito made Orr great

In my opinion, every single statement here (except the first one) is ridiculous.
Interesting! And did Mr. Fischler specify just what some, or even one, of these "numerous defensive weaknesses" might be?

PurpleShamrock is offline  
Old
03-27-2006, 04:48 PM
  #41
Rookie Chargers
Registered User
 
Rookie Chargers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Quebec
Country: Azores
Posts: 7,751
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Rookie Chargers
Diluted? You say? Because Papa Jagr and Walter Gretzky didn't play against him? Dennis O'Brien wasn't as good as Orr! Dale Rolfe? Ron Harris? Someone should ask Mr. Fischler why these three didn't do better.
Place some of today's player in that era and that is what it was an era as it is today.
Send Jagr into a corner of the ice with Ron Harris, Dennis Hextall or Ted Harris.

Rookie Chargers is offline  
Old
03-28-2006, 10:49 AM
  #42
04' hockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: City of Brotherly Lo
Posts: 577
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ROOKIE CHARGERS
Diluted? You say? Because Papa Jagr and Walter Gretzky didn't play against him? Dennis O'Brien wasn't as good as Orr! Dale Rolfe? Ron Harris? Someone should ask Mr. Fischler why these three didn't do better.
Place some of today's player in that era and that is what it was an era as it is today.
Send Jagr into a corner of the ice with Ron Harris, Dennis Hextall or Ted Harris.
Never quite understood Fischlers' dislike of ORR?
Better yet, place #4 in todays game.....no checking, stick holding, interference, one step above the Ice Capades Butthole hockey.....how many points would ORR get in this "version" of the NHL????????????????
We can only imagine.

04' hockey is offline  
Old
03-28-2006, 11:16 AM
  #43
PurpleShamrock
Registered User
 
PurpleShamrock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: New England
Country: United States
Posts: 2,620
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 04' hockey
Never quite understood Fischlers' dislike of ORR?
Better yet, place #4 in todays game.....no checking, stick holding, interference, one step above the Ice Capades Butthole hockey.....how many points would ORR get in this "version" of the NHL????????????????
We can only imagine.
Indeed Fischler's criticism of Orr smacks of a personal vendetta of some sort. Just out of curiosity, whom did Fischler include in his Top 10?

PurpleShamrock is offline  
Old
03-28-2006, 11:24 AM
  #44
Famous Flames
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Dallas
Country: United States
Posts: 1,012
vCash: 500
It doesn't really matter. Even comparing him just to the other players of his time, what he did was unreal. If Orr hadn't done it, my guess is most people would say it's not possible for a dman to win the Art Ross. Of course, he won it twice.

Famous Flames is offline  
Old
03-28-2006, 12:58 PM
  #45
04' hockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: City of Brotherly Lo
Posts: 577
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chooch
Yeah but every team had a couple of HoF back then including the Flyers, Leafs, Bruins etc.

The Habs had 10.
Man, could you imagine BERNIE PARENT behind Robinson, Savard, LaPointe and Nyrop?

They'd have gone undefeated.

04' hockey is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:37 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.