I already responded to this but I clicked quote so I'll do it again. If Orr isn't guaranteed the Hart when he wins the Art Ross and is only 17 points back of the single season record, why does he win it when he's 40 back of the guy who set the record that season? Of course I don't think he'd hit 175 because that's based on 1970 adjusted points going to 1982. Scroll to the bottom and I'm sure you'll dislike what you see.
Here's the Oilers from Coffey's peak (84-86):
GP
Gretzky GP
TEAM
TGF 84-86
GF/G
GF/80
3
9
DET
63
7.00
560
3
9
TML
60
6.67
533
3
9
QUE
56
6.22
498
8
24
VAN
140
5.83
467
8
24
WPG
140
5.83
467
3
9
CHI
52
5.78
462
3
9
PIT
52
5.78
462
8
24
LAK
138
5.75
460
3
9
MIN
49
5.44
436
3
8
HAR
43
5.38
430
8
23
CGY
122
5.30
424
3
9
StL
47
5.22
418
3
9
NJ
46
5.11
409
3
8
WAS
40
5.00
400
3
8
NYI
37
4.63
370
3
9
NYR
40
4.44
356
3
8
BOS
34
4.25
340
3
9
BUF
36
4.00
320
3
9
MTL
33
3.67
293
3
8
PHI
26
3.25
260
3 seasons fits Coffey's peak and gives a solid sample size when some teams play 3 times a year. Sample size is important because in a previous thread I showed that Gretzky scored at a 272 point pace against Rod Langway in his Norris seasons so I thought 2 wasn't enough. Someone can use this to analyze Coffey while I analyze Gretzky some more.
The Flyers were Edmonton's worst matchup for goal scoring. In 13 regular season and playoff games from this time (see previous post), Gretzky has 12 goals and 12 assists in 13 games against Philly, or 1 point back of 2 per game. That 80 game average wins an Art Ross in any year from 84-86 (over Lemieux's 141 from 1986).
Montreal was the other tough matchup.
Date
Result
EDM
MTL
G
A
PTS
29-Oct-83
W
3
1
1
1
04-Mar-84
W
6
1
2
1
3
15-Mar-84
L
2
3
1
1
14-Nov-84
L
2
4
0
10-Jan-85
W
5
2
1
2
3
27-Feb-85
L
1
4
1
1
20-Nov-85
W (OT)
5
4
1
1
2
11-Jan-86
W
6
3
1
3
4
24-Feb-86
W
3
2
1
1
2
9 games
6-3-0
33
24
7
10
17
Gretzky's 80 game average still yields an Art Ross win as he's still 1 point behind 2 PPG. There may be a matchup where this isn't true, but with most matchups, it probably is. (Or you could expand the sample until it includes Gretzky getting a 5 point game. Which probably happens at some point. See the Philly chart again.) This shows that you can juggle divisions and schedules all you want, Gretzky would still score at a Top-1 pace against the Flyers and Habs who were Cup winners/finalists in this span, even if he only played these teams.
(Coffey had 2 goals and 7 assists against Montreal. 4 of his 9 points involved Gretzky.)
I agree with most of Dark Shadows points, but would also like to hypothesize that the Seals played enough of their fellow expansion teams to keep their GA total that "low." If a JV squad can play a JV squad like Buffalo half the time, they are less outclassed by comparison. The other half of the time the Habs/Bruins/Rangers/Hawks are probably beating them thoroughly.
The 80s were a higher scoring environment in general. But the 70s had its moments. Particulalry when top teams like Boston met poor teams like Oakland.
The scoring from Edmonton vs Montreal in the mid 80s works out to Oilers 3.67, Habs 2.67, so it's a lower scoring environment than Boston vs. Oakland which was a higher scoring and more one sided (some might say imbalanced) environment. From 1967-68 to 1974-75 Boston outscored the Seals 4.83 to 2.50. So for at least 6 games, Orr was effectively playing in the 1980s.
That's where the advantage for Orr comes in. Orr had the offensive powerhouse team to play with against the expansion division in roughly half of the schedule. The goals per game from these games are high and very one-sided. They are balanced by Boston playing in tighter games vs the Rangers and Black Hawks who were closer in skill level, and the Seals playing the North Stars et al who were close to their skill level. East vs West games provided just as much of an opportunity to score if you were on a good Eastern team.
But to use Coffey vs. Habs and Orr vs. Seals is cherrypicking a situation where TG/G is a goal higher and Boston gets that goal, even if I only used that since I had the info for Seals/Bruins and Oilers/Habs close at hand.
As a companion piece to Overpass's 1968 breakdown, here is Boston in 1970 when Orr played the full slate:
/shows hand
Vs O6
40 Games 115GF, 128GA
2.875GF/G, 3.2GA/G, 6.075 TG/G
Vs E6
36 Games 162 GF 88 GA
4.5 GF/G, 2.44GA/G, 6.94 TG/G
Boston's offense is below the league average against the O6. Extrapolate that to a full season and that team is in NINTH PLACE in a 12 team league with 218.5 GF, with only expansion teams below them.
Of the 0.9 GPG increase in E6 games, Boston gets to score 1.6 of them. Because they are playing an inferior opponent, the TG/G isn't as high as the 80s even though Boston's GF/G pace is (360 GF/80). In fact Boston's GF/G is so high against the E6, that the Pittsburgh Penguins have never matched that pace in franchise history. Think about that. They had Mario Lemieux. In the 80s. And in low scoring/tight-checking 1970, the Bruins are beating every Mario Lemieux team ever in UNADJUSTED goals per game against E6 teams while they score at a lower rate than 3 of 6 expansion teams against the O6.
You know seventieslord, I think the E6 may have helped pad Orr's stats (well, everyone on Boston really) in his first Hart season. You may even have to rethink the basis for the "best per game player" copyright due to quality of competition.
Wayne Gretzky was a Hart-calibre player scoring at an Art Ross pace against anyone and everyone.
In Orr's very best season, he may have been much less effective against non-expansion teams. Orr70 is almost certainly not a minus player against the O6, but there's actually a slight possibility of that given those numbers.
Please let someone have a game-by-game or team-by-team breakdown done already.
I don't want to keep looking at boxscores.
Those are boston bruins numbers, not bobby orr's numbers. Boston scored at a significantly lower rate during the 30-35 minutes orr wasnt on the ice.
You said earlier that Orr scored at a rate of 1.91 ppg against E6, and 1.51 ppg against the o-6. The post above me is interesting because it reveals that in coffey's best season he scored at a pace of 2.44 ppg against the worst teams of 1986, and 1.23 ppg against the other 14 teams. Pretty big gap in offense.
As a companion piece to Overpass's 1968 breakdown, here is Boston in 1970 when Orr played the full slate:
/shows hand
Vs O6
40 Games 115GF, 128GA
2.875GF/G, 3.2GA/G, 6.075 TG/G
Vs E6
36 Games 162 GF 88 GA
4.5 GF/G, 2.44GA/G, 6.94 TG/G
Boston's offense is below the league average against the O6. Extrapolate that to a full season and that team is in NINTH PLACE in a 12 team league with 218.5 GF, with only expansion teams below them.
The hits keep coming.
First of all, they would have finished 8th, not 9th, but that's not important because the whole concept is silly. You're comparing a teams record against only the Original 6 teams against the records of other teams who played half the schedule against expansion clubs. Of course the first team will look bad. To put it into perspective, Montreal had the best GPG vs O6 teams that year, but would only finish 5th in GF by your method. So if the best team was 5th, who were the top four teams? It's ridiculous.
But let's forget about that for a second. Boston did in fact score more against the expansion teams that season. How much of that was Orr? Let's look at the breakdown for Orr and Esposito that season (unfortunately the HSP gives Orr one less point than his record, and gives Esposito one extra point):
Against the expansion teams:
Player
GP
Pts
PPG
Bobby Orr
36
68
1.89
Phil Esposito
36
65
1.81
And against the Original 6 teams:
Player
GP
Pts
PPG
Bobby Orr
40
51
1.28
Phil Esposito
40
35
0.88
Both players scored more against the weaker teams (as almost other player would); but while Orr was scoring 48% higher per game against expansion teams, Esposito was scoring 106% higher against them. I think we've discovered which Bruin was guilty of inflating their numbers against the weak clubs, and it wasn't Orr.
But let's apply your earlier logic about the Bruins as a team to those two players individual totals. If we throw away their games against the expansion clubs, and take only their PPG against the other five established clubs and extrapolate it over a full season, Orr ends up with 97 points and Esposito gets 67. Now doing what you did earlier, and using those prorated numbers against only the good clubs for Orr and Espo, but letting all the other players like Mikita, Hull, and Mahovlich keep their totals (including all their games against the bad teams), what is the end result?
Orr still wins the scoring title, 11 points ahead of Mikita.
How about doing the same thing with Paul Coffey's 85-86 season? Since we took away games against the six expansion teams from Orr's season, we'll talk away games against the six weakest teams from Coffey's season. As I posted earlier, he had 58 points in 47 games against the other 14 teams. But the HSP is missing two of his points, so I'll be charitable and assume he got both of those against good teams. So let's give him 60 points in 47 games. When you extrapolate those numbers as we did earlier for Orr, what happens?
Coffey ends up with 102 points, which would put him 11th in the scoring race that season.
Orr finishes 1st in his adjusted season, Coffey finishes 11th in his.
If you're going to argue that Gretzky was better than Orr, then fine. I've defended Gretzky's accomplishments on this board against his detractors several times, and if pressed I'd probably put Gretzky ahead of Orr (though great arguments could be made for both of them, as well as Howe. Lemieux is a clear step behind them).
But Orr vs. Coffey? It's not even close. Even just looking at only their offence, Orr is still far ahead. No cherry-picking of statistics or baseless assumptions about competition levels has proven otherwise.
First of all, they would have finished 8th, not 9th, but that's not important because the whole concept is silly. You're comparing a teams record against only the Original 6 teams against the records of other teams who played half the schedule against expansion clubs. Of course the first team will look bad. To put it into perspective, Montreal had the best GPG vs O6 teams that year, but would only finish 5th in GF by your method. So if the best team was 5th, who were the top four teams? It's ridiculous.
Fair methodological point. There was no way to use the same numbers Overpass did as Orr played the full slate. I should have tried something else.
Quote:
But let's forget about that for a second. Boston did in fact score more against the expansion teams that season. How much of that was Orr? Let's look at the breakdown for Orr and Esposito that season (unfortunately the HSP gives Orr one less point than his record, and gives Esposito one extra point):
Against the expansion teams:
Player
GP
Pts
PPG
Bobby Orr
36
68
1.89
Phil Esposito
36
65
1.81
And against the Original 6 teams:
Player
GP
Pts
PPG
Bobby Orr
40
51
1.28
Phil Esposito
40
35
0.88
Both players scored more against the weaker teams (as almost other player would); but while Orr was scoring 48% higher per game against expansion teams, Esposito was scoring 106% higher against them. I think we've discovered which Bruin was guilty of inflating their numbers against the weak clubs, and it wasn't Orr.
It's neither here nor there for this thread, but to quickly defend Esposito, we also "discovered" the opposite in 1971, when the table looks like this:
Player
GP
Pts
PPG
Espo vs O6
30
61
2.03
Orr vs E8
48
93
1.94
Espo vs E8
48
86
1.79
Orr vs O6
30
46
1.53
Quote:
But let's apply your earlier logic about the Bruins as a team to those two players individual totals. If we throw away their games against the expansion clubs, and take only their PPG against the other five established clubs and extrapolate it over a full season, Orr ends up with 97 points and Esposito gets 67. Now doing what you did earlier, and using those prorated numbers against only the good clubs for Orr and Espo, but letting all the other players like Mikita, Hull, and Mahovlich keep their totals (including all their games against the bad teams), what is the end result?
Orr still wins the scoring title, 11 points ahead of Mikita.
How about doing the same thing with Paul Coffey's 85-86 season? Since we took away games against the six expansion teams from Orr's season, we'll talk away games against the six weakest teams from Coffey's season. As I posted earlier, he had 58 points in 47 games against the other 14 teams. But the HSP is missing two of his points, so I'll be charitable and assume he got both of those against good teams. So let's give him 60 points in 47 games. When you extrapolate those numbers as we did earlier for Orr, what happens?
Coffey ends up with 102 points, which would put him 11th in the scoring race that season.
Orr finishes 1st in his adjusted season, Coffey finishes 11th in his.
There's also 1983-84, where Coffey finished 2nd to Gretzky. (I missed 2 of his points, so this is based on Coffey scoring 124 points instead of 126.)
If we expand the sample size to the bottom 8 teams to get as close as possible to the GP count in your comparison, Coffey looks like this:
GP
Pts
PPG
Pts/80GP
Bottom 8
29
46
1.586
126.897
Top 12
51
78
1.529
122.353
And Coffey finishes 2nd to Gretzky with virtually the same point count against top teams as he gets against bottom teams.
Quote:
If you're going to argue that Gretzky was better than Orr, then fine. I've defended Gretzky's accomplishments on this board against his detractors several times, and if pressed I'd probably put Gretzky ahead of Orr (though great arguments could be made for both of them, as well as Howe. Lemieux is a clear step behind them).
Agreed on the Gretzky being #1 thing. And Lemieux at #4 though he might look better in a world without Gretzky. Howe vs Orr is tough to judge.
Quote:
But Orr vs. Coffey? It's not even close. Even just looking at only their offence, Orr is still far ahead. No cherry-picking of statistics or baseless assumptions about competition levels has proven otherwise.
It's not completely baseless. Others believe competition was imbalanced in the 1970s moreso than any other period. From the +/- anomalies thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord
it should be noted that all of these players, except Bossy, spent significant time in the NHL in the 1970s... when the gap between the best and worst teams was at its highest. that's why they are all at the top.
Also we singled out the weakest teams for Coffey84 and 86 but not Orr 70. The Blues were the best E6 team and the only ones better than the O6 Leafs who were 7th in points. How are 1970 Bobby Orr's point totals affected if he we swap the Leafs and Blues so his splits are against the bottom 6 vs the top 5 like we've done for Coffey?
Agreed on the Gretzky being #1 thing. And Lemieux at #4 though he might look better in a world without Gretzky. Howe vs Orr is tough to judge.
Very true and both would (imagine Gretzky in a world without Mario, no one would have even been close in offensive production, Steve Yzerman one season would have been 75%), and vice versa.
It's not completely baseless. Others believe competition was imbalanced in the 1970s moreso than any other period. From the +/- anomalies thread:
If you want to argue goal differentials would have been higher in the 70's, sure. But when it comes to scoring, it was much much easier to score in the 80's than in the early/mid 70's and I already covered why earlier. In the mid 80's, half the league was giving up as many, if not far more goals than the worst seals team of the early 70's. Because 70's was more defensive hockey.
For instance. Would it surprise you to see that the 83-84 119 point Oilers, even prorated to 76 games, had a worse goals against than any team in 1969-70? In fact, every single team in the Campbell conference had a worse goals against than the absolute worst bottom feeding 69-70 team. Very telling. In essence, the Oilers were playing teams worse than the Seals Defensively the entire season.
Last edited by Dark Shadows: 03-10-2012 at 08:41 AM.
Also we singled out the weakest teams for Coffey84 and 86 but not Orr 70. The Blues were the best E6 team and the only ones better than the O6 Leafs who were 7th in points. How are 1970 Bobby Orr's point totals affected if he we swap the Leafs and Blues so his splits are against the bottom 6 vs the top 5 like we've done for Coffey?
Let someone else answer that... because the above has nothing to do with what I was originally responding to.
Let someone else answer that... because the above has nothing to do with what I was originally responding to.
I was quoting you as evidence. Also wanted the list from your post but forgot that quotes of quotes don't come in. D'oh.
I understand the confusion given the format I've been using, but the question of how Orr did against good/bad as opposed to O6/E6 AND your quote AND the paragraph above your quote was all in response to reckoning's last point.
To further elaborate. Just prorate Orr's numbers vs the worst 3 teams for goals against in 1969-70 to 80 games and you would get a good indication of what his numbers might be like since the majority of the league were worse at keeping pucks out of the net in the 80's than the worst 70's team. His goals against would probably increase as well, but not to the level Coffey's was at since Orr was light years ahead defensively as well.
Seeing Orr with 150-170 points in the 80's, while Coffey's best numbers as an Oiler dropped a bit, probably around to 100-110 points.
In the end, what I am trying to say is, you say Coffey is closer offensively than most people think, and I highly Disagree. The league parity may have been lower, but teams played a far far more defensive style which made it much much harder to score in Orr's day than Coffey's. In Coffey's day, it was like playing worse defensive teams than the Seals all season.
Last edited by Dark Shadows: 03-11-2012 at 03:15 PM.
Maybe it's close enough on some "scale", but it's not close enough to actually make me seriously wonder. Orr, clearly, without doubt. Mercy to the great Paul Coffey.
Orr by a mile. Numbers aren't comparable because the era's that they played were different. At Coffey's peak, the average goals scored per game was nearly 2 more than during Orr's peak which makes Orr's accomplishments even more remarkable. Until another defenseman wins an Art Ross, Orr is in a league of his own when comes to offense by a defenseman.
