By the way, can we agree that "save percentage per game" is the most worthless stat ever used for comparison purposes on this site, vastly worse than fielding percentage in baseball? I have absolutely no idea who the top players are in that stat, but Dryden is far "better" than Hasek .00232 to .00125. No idea what that purports to show, though.
No. While I agree save percentage is not a perfect stat, it is far, far better than +/-. However, I will say that a hockey team with several good/smart defenseman will limit the number of tough saves a goalie has to make, greatly influencing his save percentage.
I pretty much agree with you about save percentage, but we were asked to consider "save percentage per game" which is about as valuable a stat as "fan attendance when player was skating". It is dangerous to further divide rate stats in a way that is not necessarily dangerous with cumulative stats.
By the way, can we agree that "save percentage per game" is the most worthless stat ever used for comparison purposes on this site, vastly worse than fielding percentage in baseball? I have absolutely no idea who the top players are in that stat, but Dryden is far "better" than Hasek .00232 to .00125. No idea what that purports to show, though.
No. While I agree save percentage is not a perfect stat, it is far, far better than +/-. However, I will say that a hockey team with several good/smart defenseman will limit the number of tough saves a goalie has to make, greatly influencing his save percentage.
Sometimes the eye test is just as valuable, as long as you can put bias aside. Many here can't/won't.
That's definitely one valid way to consider save % stats; but, you can also take a look at goalies playing on relatively weak teams with lower tier D in front too. On a team like that, a goalie faces a whole lot more rubber than he would on a higher ability team. The shot volume alone can contribute to a more favorable save %, but also, a team like that gives up a higher percentage of quality goal scoring opportunities as compared to a Cup contending team. Look at Luongo's stats from 2003-04 for example. Awesome save % and he was getting constantly shelled with not enough support in front. A lesser goalie on that same team would have had a far worse save %.
There are a lot of aspects that can influence a save %, but the good goalies have a good stat line on that item, regardless of how the shots came.
First, I should have reiterated that I am not trying to argue that Coffey was on or near Orr's level. I believe my comments about advanced +/- analysis speak for themselves.
I was simply countering your argument that Bossy and Lemieux were at Gretzky's level but that no one came close to Orr. While I agree, to an extent, on the first part, the second part isn't as clear as you think it is. On the +/-, I probably could have added Larry Robinson.
None of these analysis are infallible as they are actually multi-factorial. Orr comes off as visually head and shoulders above everyone else as he skated circles around everyone. And he only had a prime. It is unfortunate he was unable to play longer. Statistically, he also comes of as dominant, but there are others closer than you think.
At first glance, Gretzky does not come off as physically dominant as Orr or Lemieux. Make no mistake, though, Gretzky did everything at an above average skill level. However, it was ability to see the game that put him at another level. Consequently, his name papers the record book like no one in any other sport.
Good heavens.
You’re actually going to with a straight face compare only Coffeys offensive production playing with Gretzky and Lemieux to Bobby Orr ?
Lol
You seem to be forgetting about Phil Esposito, who was no slouch. I have a lot of respect for Esposito. As mentioned before, I am a huge fan of the Summit Series. Esposito was the dominant player for Canada and the leader of the team. That is saying a lot considering the dramatics of Henderson and the heart of Clarke.
Below are some stats for Coffey, Lemieux, Gretzky, Orr and Esposito. I don't think anyone can look at these and come to a definitive conclusion that Orr carried Esposito, while Gretzky and Lemieux carried Coffey. At least not to the extent that you appear to be doing.
Then do me a favor. Compare his offensive production without them per game to Bobby Orr.
Age begins to be too much of a factor. Again, I am not arguing that Coffey is on par with Orr. What I am arguing is that when you adjust per game stats to roughly equivalent prime years, Orr is not head and shoulders above everyone else, at least not to the extent to which you are implying.
If Orr had 99&66 he’d average 2+ points per game. Easily
Will wait for Coffeys numbers.
Also, to the person who mentioned Gordie Howe, as a still good player at his advanced age: a bump in productivity coinciding with the expansion is not much of a surprise. For other reference, review some of the career years in MLB in 1961, 1962 and 1969. This does not diminish the fact that Howe was a unique specimen.
@georgebailey2 said:
First, I should have reiterated that I am not trying to argue that Coffey was on or near Orr's level. I believe my comments about advanced +/- analysis speak for themselves.
I was simply countering your argument that Bossy and Lemieux were at Gretzky's level but that no one came close to Orr. While I agree, to an extent, on the first part, the second part isn't as clear as you think it is. On the +/-, I probably could have added Larry Robinson.
None of these analysis are infallible as they are actually multi-factorial. Orr comes off as visually head and shoulders above everyone else as he skated circles around everyone. And he only had a prime. It is unfortunate he was unable to play longer. Statistically, he also comes of as dominant, but there are others closer than you think.
At first glance, Gretzky does not come off as physically dominant as Orr or Lemieux. Make no mistake, though, Gretzky did everything at an above average skill level. However, it was ability to see the game that put him at another level. Consequently, his name papers the record book like no one in any other sport.
Good heavens.
You’re actually going to with a straight face compare only Coffeys offensive production playing with Gretzky and Lemieux to Bobby Orr ?
Lol
You seem to be forgetting about Phil Esposito, who was no slouch. I have a lot of respect for Esposito. As mentioned before, I am a huge fan of the Summit Series. Esposito was the dominant player for Canada and the leader of the team. That is saying a lot considering the dramatics of Henderson and the heart of Clarke.
Below are some stats for Coffey, Lemieux, Gretzky, Orr and Esposito. I don't think anyone can look at these and come to a definitive conclusion that Orr carried Esposito, while Gretzky and Lemieux carried Coffey. At least not to the extent that you appear to be doing.
Then do me a favor. Compare his offensive production without them per game to Bobby Orr.
Age begins to be too much of a factor. Again, I am not arguing that Coffey is on par with Orr. What I am arguing is that when you adjust per game stats to roughly equivalent prime years, Orr is not head and shoulders above everyone else, at least not to the extent to which you are implying.
If Orr had 99&66 he’d average 2+ points per game. Easily
Will wait for Coffeys numbers.
Also, to the person who mentioned Gordie Howe, as a still good player at his advanced age: a bump in productivity coinciding with the expansion is not much of a surprise. For other reference, review some of the career years in MLB in 1961, 1962 and 1969. This does not diminish the fact that Howe was a unique specimen.
I’m not at all forgetting Esposito.
Are you with a straight face comparing Esposito to Gretzky and Lemieux. ???
Look at Espositos numbers with and without Orr in the NHL. He was not even half a Gretzky or Lemieux. Lol.
By the way, can we agree that "save percentage per game" is the most worthless stat ever used for comparison purposes on this site, vastly worse than fielding percentage in baseball? I have absolutely no idea who the top players are in that stat, but Dryden is far "better" than Hasek .00232 to .00125. No idea what that purports to show, though.
No. While I agree save percentage is not a perfect stat, it is far, far better than +/-. However, I will say that a hockey team with several good/smart defenseman will limit the number of tough saves a goalie has to make, greatly influencing his save percentage.
Sometimes the eye test is just as valuable, as long as you can put bias aside. Many here can't/won't.
That's definitely one valid way to consider save % stats; but, you can also take a look at goalies playing on relatively weak teams with lower tier D in front too. On a team like that, a goalie faces a whole lot more rubber than he would on a higher ability team. The shot volume alone can contribute to a more favorable save %, but also, a team like that gives up a higher percentage of quality goal scoring opportunities as compared to a Cup contending team. Look at Luongo's stats from 2003-04 for example. Awesome save % and he was getting constantly shelled with not enough support in front. A lesser goalie on that same team would have had a far worse save %.
There are a lot of aspects that can influence a save %, but the good goalies have a good stat line on that item, regardless of how the shots came.
I am a huge fan of goaltenders and played goal myself (unfortunately, only dek hockey, but at tournament level).
I grew up WORSHIPPING Bernie Parent, who, arguably, had the two greatest statistical season ever played in 73-74 and 74-75.
However, I am under no delusion regarding the absolute evolution of quality of goaltending that has occurred: technique, equipment and physical size. It is almost amazing that anyone scores now.
That said, if asked for an all-time goaltender, I would probably flip a coin between Brodeur and Hasek. Although, I probably would go with Brodeur as you can pick him and know that you can throw him out there 70 games a year for 15 years.
Dryden carried the Canadiens in 1971. After that he just needed to be a great team goalie. And he was. He made all of the necessary saves, but he didn't have to be the best player on the ice for them to win.
In one of the Summit Series retrospectives, Serge Savard said (I'm paraphrasing a bit", "Ken Dryden....great hall of fame goalie, but he never could put together a great game against the Soviets."
I don't rank Roy as high as Hasek and Brodeur as I am tarnished by the fact that he never really played well against the Flyers.
Are you with a straight face comparing Esposito to Gretzky and Lemieux. ???
Look at Espositos numbers with and without Orr in the NHL. He was not even half a Gretzky or Lemieux. Lol.
Um...I have looked at Esposito's stats. His stats as a 2nd line player in Chicago were pretty damn good, particularly in relation to the rest of the league. When he got first unit power play time in Boston, combined with teaming up with Orr, Hodge and Bucyk, and the dilution from expansion, his stats exploded. Orr's point production benefited from Esposito's ability to plant himself in front of the net on the powerplay and score "garbage" goals. This was an ability he was developing in his prime on his own, which he used to great effect in the Summit Series without Orr. He was the next iteration of the power forward. As such, being a person over the age of 33 becomes hazardous to your statistics. It is no surprise at all that his stats diminished. The amazing part is that they didn't completely fall of a cliff like most power forwards. He was still about a point per game player through the age of 37.
Lemieux had an exponential jump in his PPG upon Coffey's arrival. I am not arguing a direct correlation that it was solely due to Coffey's arrival, but it no doubt had a positive impact.
Clearly there is a symbiotic relationship among the players mentioned. By looking at the numbers, on the surface, they would imply that, initially, Esposito's increased production coincided with Orr's. Orr didn't play long enough to argue the converse.
Then, when you look at Coffey, his production shifting from Gretzky to Lemieux remained somewhat consistent, while Lemieux's production went up.
Again, as far as Coffey without either Gretzky or Lemieux, what can you say? I mean, it sucks as a hockey player when you get into your mid-thirties. Some decline slower, but everyone declines. Coffey in Philadelphia was a train wreck. Orr never got to have that problem.
By the way, can we agree that "save percentage per game" is the most worthless stat ever used for comparison purposes on this site, vastly worse than fielding percentage in baseball? I have absolutely no idea who the top players are in that stat, but Dryden is far "better" than Hasek .00232 to .00125. No idea what that purports to show, though.
No. While I agree save percentage is not a perfect stat, it is far, far better than +/-. However, I will say that a hockey team with several good/smart defenseman will limit the number of tough saves a goalie has to make, greatly influencing his save percentage.
I pretty much agree with you about save percentage, but we were asked to consider "save percentage per game" which is about as valuable a stat as "fan attendance when player was skating". It is dangerous to further divide rate stats in a way that is not necessarily dangerous with cumulative stats.
By the way, can we agree that "save percentage per game" is the most worthless stat ever used for comparison purposes on this site, vastly worse than fielding percentage in baseball? I have absolutely no idea who the top players are in that stat, but Dryden is far "better" than Hasek .00232 to .00125. No idea what that purports to show, though.
No. While I agree save percentage is not a perfect stat, it is far, far better than +/-. However, I will say that a hockey team with several good/smart defenseman will limit the number of tough saves a goalie has to make, greatly influencing his save percentage.
I pretty much agree with you about save percentage, but we were asked to consider "save percentage per game" which is about as valuable a stat as "fan attendance when player was skating". It is dangerous to further divide rate stats in a way that is not necessarily dangerous with cumulative stats.
Save percentage per game...............ridiculous.
By the way, can we agree that "save percentage per game" is the most worthless stat ever used for comparison purposes on this site, vastly worse than fielding percentage in baseball? I have absolutely no idea who the top players are in that stat, but Dryden is far "better" than Hasek .00232 to .00125. No idea what that purports to show, though.
No. While I agree save percentage is not a perfect stat, it is far, far better than +/-. However, I will say that a hockey team with several good/smart defenseman will limit the number of tough saves a goalie has to make, greatly influencing his save percentage.
Sometimes the eye test is just as valuable, as long as you can put bias aside. Many here can't/won't.
That's definitely one valid way to consider save % stats; but, you can also take a look at goalies playing on relatively weak teams with lower tier D in front too. On a team like that, a goalie faces a whole lot more rubber than he would on a higher ability team. The shot volume alone can contribute to a more favorable save %, but also, a team like that gives up a higher percentage of quality goal scoring opportunities as compared to a Cup contending team. Look at Luongo's stats from 2003-04 for example. Awesome save % and he was getting constantly shelled with not enough support in front. A lesser goalie on that same team would have had a far worse save %.
There are a lot of aspects that can influence a save %, but the good goalies have a good stat line on that item, regardless of how the shots came.
Well said. Luongo was an all time great.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
With Orr, I think it's worth noting what a dramatic effect that expansion had on his numbers.
Bobby vs the other Original Six: 352 pts in 307 games - 1.15 PPG, including less than 1 PPG versus Chicago and Montreal.
Bobby vs the expansion teams - 563 pts in 350 games - 1.61 PPG
In other words, Bobby Orr with no diminishing or old man years was 0.06 PPG better against the Original Six than Paul Coffey, who played until he was 39, was against everyone for his entire career.
@Tabe said:
With Orr, I think it's worth noting what a dramatic effect that expansion had on his numbers.
Bobby vs the other Original Six: 352 pts in 307 games - 1.15 PPG, including less than 1 PPG versus Chicago and Montreal.
Bobby vs the expansion teams - 563 pts in 350 games - 1.61 PPG
In other words, Bobby Orr with no diminishing or old man years was 0.06 PPG better against the Original Six than Paul Coffey, who played until he was 39, was against everyone for his entire career.
You’re comparing Coffeys numbers in a 20+ team league to Orr’s numbers against Chicago and Montreal ?
Lol
Then why not compare Coffeys numbers against the Islanders to Orr’s numbers against those two ?
Those two very good teams with the Summot Series goalies Dryden and Esposito.
That would be a better comparison than Coffeys numbers against a watered down league like he had with the WHA inclusion.
You’re comparing Coffeys numbers in a 20+ team league to Orr’s numbers against Chicago and Montreal ?
Lol
Then why not compare Coffeys numbers against the Islanders to Orr’s numbers against those two ?
Those two very good teams with the Summot Series goalies Dryden and Esposito.
That would be a better comparison than Coffeys numbers against a watered down league like he had with the WHA inclusion.
The league tripled in size during Orr's career with Boston. Any "watering down" of the league during Coffey's league tenure in comparison to the ridiculous watering down during Orr's time is more than offset by the fact that Coffey wasn't finished as a player at 26.
Fact is, Orr feasted on terrible expansion teams. In 1969/70, the first time he led the league in scoring, he had 69 points in just 36 games against expansion teams. The following year, it was 93 points in 46 games against expansion teams. In 1974/75, it was 99 in 56 games including 16 points in just 5 games against the worst team ever (Washington).
Meanwhile, in Coffey's career, which was more than double the length of Orr's career with Boston, the league went from 22 teams to 30 - adding just 8 teams in 21 years as opposed to 12 teams in Orr's 10 years in Boston. AND during his career, the league significantly upgraded their talent by importing a raft of European talent along with a whole pile of greatly-improved American talent.
Since you asked, Coffey had 78 points in 66 games against the Islanders - 1.18 points per game, higher than Orr's overall numbers against the Original Six. Orr vs Chicago - 0.98. Orr vs Montreal - 0.94 So Coffey vs the Islanders significantly outperformed Orr vs Montreal & Chicago while, again, not being finished at age 26.
Orr put up amazing numbers but it's simply a reflection of reality to point out that his numbers were boosted greatly by playing against expansion teams. And, no, that's not a knock on him.
You’re comparing Coffeys numbers in a 20+ team league to Orr’s numbers against Chicago and Montreal ?
Lol
Then why not compare Coffeys numbers against the Islanders to Orr’s numbers against those two ?
Those two very good teams with the Summot Series goalies Dryden and Esposito.
That would be a better comparison than Coffeys numbers against a watered down league like he had with the WHA inclusion.
The league tripled in size during Orr's career with Boston. Any "watering down" of the league during Coffey's league tenure in comparison to the ridiculous watering down during Orr's time is more than offset by the fact that Coffey wasn't finished as a player at 26.
Fact is, Orr feasted on terrible expansion teams. In 1969/70, the first time he led the league in scoring, he had 69 points in just 36 games against expansion teams. The following year, it was 93 points in 46 games against expansion teams. In 1974/75, it was 99 in 56 games including 16 points in just 5 games against the worst team ever (Washington).
Meanwhile, in Coffey's career, which was more than double the length of Orr's career with Boston, the league went from 22 teams to 30 - adding just 8 teams in 21 years as opposed to 12 teams in Orr's 10 years in Boston. AND during his career, the league significantly upgraded their talent by importing a raft of European talent along with a whole pile of greatly-improved American talent.
Since you asked, Coffey had 78 points in 66 games against the Islanders - 1.18 points per game, higher than Orr's overall numbers against the Original Six. Orr vs Chicago - 0.98. Orr vs Montreal - 0.94 So Coffey vs the Islanders significantly outperformed Orr vs Montreal & Chicago while, again, not being finished at age 26.
Orr put up amazing numbers but it's simply a reflection of reality to point out that his numbers were boosted greatly by playing against expansion teams. And, no, that's not a knock on him.
Watering down ? No
Montreal had Worsley, Vachon, Tony Esposito in 1968 and Dryden on the way.
Boston had Cheevers and Parent.
There were many HOF goalies who weren’t playing during original 6.
1980-1986 was the worst goalie talent the NHL ever saw. 1986 on it got better.
Coffey played 90% of his postseason career with Gretzky, Lemieux, and Yzerman and still couldn’t match Orr’s postseason points per game numbers. What does that tell you ?
Orr averaged 1.2 ppg in the postseason. 1.4 ppg his career regular season.
You’re comparing Coffeys numbers in a 20+ team league to Orr’s numbers against Chicago and Montreal ?
Lol
Then why not compare Coffeys numbers against the Islanders to Orr’s numbers against those two ?
Those two very good teams with the Summot Series goalies Dryden and Esposito.
That would be a better comparison than Coffeys numbers against a watered down league like he had with the WHA inclusion.
The league tripled in size during Orr's career with Boston. Any "watering down" of the league during Coffey's league tenure in comparison to the ridiculous watering down during Orr's time is more than offset by the fact that Coffey wasn't finished as a player at 26.
Fact is, Orr feasted on terrible expansion teams. In 1969/70, the first time he led the league in scoring, he had 69 points in just 36 games against expansion teams. The following year, it was 93 points in 46 games against expansion teams. In 1974/75, it was 99 in 56 games including 16 points in just 5 games against the worst team ever (Washington).
Meanwhile, in Coffey's career, which was more than double the length of Orr's career with Boston, the league went from 22 teams to 30 - adding just 8 teams in 21 years as opposed to 12 teams in Orr's 10 years in Boston. AND during his career, the league significantly upgraded their talent by importing a raft of European talent along with a whole pile of greatly-improved American talent.
Since you asked, Coffey had 78 points in 66 games against the Islanders - 1.18 points per game, higher than Orr's overall numbers against the Original Six. Orr vs Chicago - 0.98. Orr vs Montreal - 0.94 So Coffey vs the Islanders significantly outperformed Orr vs Montreal & Chicago while, again, not being finished at age 26.
Orr put up amazing numbers but it's simply a reflection of reality to point out that his numbers were boosted greatly by playing against expansion teams. And, no, that's not a knock on him.
Watering down ? No
Montreal had Worsley, Vachon, Tony Esposito in 1968 and Dryden on the way.
Boston had Cheevers and Parent.
There were many HOF goalies who weren’t playing during original 6.
1980-1986 was the worst goalie talent the NHL ever saw. 1986 on it got better.
Coffey played 90% of his postseason career with Gretzky, Lemieux, and Yzerman and still couldn’t match Orr’s postseason points per game numbers. What does that tell you ?
Orr averaged 1.2 ppg in the postseason. 1.4 ppg his career regular season.
Not a huge drop against the better clubs.
Expansion had little effect on his numbers..
But of course Orr wasn't feasting on the likes of Cheevers. He was feasting on the likes of Michel Belhumeur who had three ties and no wins in 35 games for the aforementioned Capitals with a 5.37 GAA. (Low and Adams weren't much better). I'm not sure how many of Orr's 16 points were against Belhumeur, but I know he didn't face him ay less than he faced Cheevers, which was the entire point. You'll have to explain to me what possible relevance Dryden has to the 1968 Canadiens. I'm too dizzy following your various contortions to show that Orr was the greatest.
Regardless, you've never addressed the elephant in the room; that Orr was effectively finished by his 27th birthday. That his "old man" years cover twenty-six games that were pretty bad to, say, Zdeno Chara's post-Boston "old man" years.
After Orr signed with Chicago, the Black Hawks gave him permission to play for Team Canada in the 1976 Canada Cup tournament. Orr did not play in the 1972 Summit Series against the Soviet Union, and he wanted badly to play for Canada. Orr had been unable to play in the Summit Series due to knee surgery, although he did participate as a non-player. Orr's participation in the Canada Cup was considered ill-conceived and Eagleson later thought it may have been the 'last straw' that killed his career. Orr himself said that he knew before the tournament that "I knew I didn't have much longer. That series didn't do it. I thought I could get the next season in, but not much after that. I knew, looking at that team, I wouldn't have to do as much. I wouldn't have traded it for anything.
Despite his knee, Orr's performance in the Canada Cup led to him being named to the tournament All-Star team and he was named the overall MVP for the tournament. According to teammate Bobby Clarke, Orr "would hardly be able to walk on the morning of the game, and he would hardly be able to walk in the afternoon, and then, at night, he would be the best player on one of the greatest teams ever assembled. He was the best player in every game; he was the best player in the tournament. He couldn't skate like he used to, but he could still go." According to teammate Darryl Sittler, "Bobby Orr was better on one leg, than anybody else was on two.
So much for saying Orr was only good against "watered down" talent.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
So much for saying Orr was only good against "watered down" talent.
Literally no one has said anything even remotely close to this. Saying Orr feasted on expansion teams - which is absolutely indisputable - is not the same thing as saying he was only good against watered down talent.
@Goldenage said:
The “watered down” St Louis team in the 1969-70 Cup final had Glen Hall and Jacques Plante as goalies. They only won the Vezina that year.
No, they didn't.
Glenn Hall was 38 and a sub-.500 goalie with a nearly 3.00 GAA that year.
Plante played well but was still 41. In the Finals, Plante was the #3 goalie and played just 24 minutes.
And neither guy was considered the #1 goalie for the Finals. All-time legend Ernie Wakeley, who was pulled after 2 games with an .807 save %, was the #1.
But, yes, Orr played well in the Finals against an expansion team with two senior citizens and a journeyman castoff in the net.
@Goldenage said:
The “watered down” St Louis team in the 1969-70 Cup final had Glen Hall and Jacques Plante as goalies. They only won the Vezina that year.
The following information is context for those that don't know the set-up in 69-70 and how the Vezina was awarded at that time. This is NOT a knock on Orr.
The Vezina was awarded to the goaltenders who played more than 25 games for the team which allowed the fewest goals against. In 69-70, Chicago (Tony Esposito) won the Vezina, though St. Louis finished 2nd in the league (they did win it in 68-69). Plante was 41. Ernie Wakely played the 2nd most games. This was Hall's last season at age 38. IIRC, he was pressed into duty in the games 3 and 4 in desperation. In game 1, Plante got knocked out (concussed) by a shot. Wakely came in and got blitzed the rest of the way and then got blown out in game 2.
This was the last season in which the original six were in the East Division and the expansion teams were in the West Division. Each team played 40 divisional games (8 x 5) and 36 games against the other division (6 x 6). The 6 teams in the East scored 1,485 goals and the West 1,164. If I were to guess, I would assume that divisional play was probably break-even, with the 321 goal differential being inter-divisional. The Blues were the class of the offensively anemic West, finishing 37-27-12, 22 points ahead of the Penguins (26-38-12), led in scoring by Phil Goyette (78) and Red Berenson (72). Other than the Blues, the only other West team to score over 200 goals was Minnesota.
The set-up in the first three years of expansion guaranteed an East/West final by having the quarter and semis being intra-divisional. The Blues represented the West Division in each of the first three seasons and were swept each time. The Flyers became the next expansion team to reach the Finals in 74.
The previous year is, well, the previous year. Hall was nowhere near the same in 1970 as I showed. And Plante basically didn't play.
So tell me again how Orr was facing amazing goalies in the 1970 Finals.
Orr had 5 points against St. Louis in the 1970 finals and was a plus 10.
Esposito had 8 points and was a
plus 3.
Orr faced the Vezina winner that season in the semifinal and the previous year Vezina winners in the final. What more would you like ?
So....... you can't "tell me again how Orr was facing amazing goalies in the 1970 Finals".
Got it.
What goalies did the year before doesn't mean a thing. NHL history is littered with one year wonder goalies (see Hammond, Andrew. Hall & Plante obviously were not one year wonders).
Since you reference this quite a bit, I decided to look it up. I wasn’t surprised to find that it is not true. Here is the full Scotty Bowman quote:
“Gretzky was an offensive machine; Orr changed the whole game from a defensive standpoint. Two different players, though, and one played twice as long as the other. Bobby had to retire at 30, but he was basically done at 28. I mean, if you’re starting a team, you couldn’t go wrong with either. The guy who sometimes gets short-changed because he didn’t play his entire career in the NHL is Bobby Hull. And I still believe, if you wanted to take the mold of a hockey player for size, strength, offense, defense, the full package, you go with Gordie Howe. Plus, he had a mean streak.”
So much for saying Orr was only good against "watered down" talent.
Literally no one has said anything even remotely close to this. Saying Orr feasted on expansion teams - which is absolutely indisputable - is not the same thing as saying he was only good against watered down talent.
I guess I need to draw it out with a longer explanation;
It's TOTALLY disputable! I assume you played sports. Do/did you put out the same effort against a team/person you were destroying, or did you play harder when the competition was tougher?
It was suggested that Orr produced better numbers than he should have because of expansion. On it's face, that sounds like a very good argument, but it doesn't prove anything. Orr might have scored just as well against better opposition, he might have been more motivated and scored MORE if the competition was better.
I have to think that playing 70 games a year on a team that won most of their games would made it easy to take a period off once in a while.
OBVIOUSLY, if he was "the best player on the ice" (or close to it) in an international competition when his knees had been operated on several times and he was near the end of his career, certainly refutes the evidence that his value should be diminished because of the competition.
I think Orr was as good as he wanted to be for about 6 years regardless of the opponent, best defender in his sport and at the same time one of the top offensive players. Unfortunately his career was short.
I would pick Howe over him as a GOAT because of the longer career and great all around ability.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
It's TOTALLY disputable! I assume you played sports. Do/did you put out the same effort against a team/person you were destroying, or did you play harder when the competition was tougher?
It was suggested that Orr produced better numbers than he should have because of expansion. On it's face, that sounds like a very good argument, but it doesn't prove anything. Orr might have scored just as well against better opposition, he might have been more motivated and scored MORE if the competition was better.
I have to think that playing 70 games a year on a team that won most of their games would made it easy to take a period off once in a while.
OBVIOUSLY, if he was "the best player on the ice" (or close to it) in an international competition when his knees had been operated on several times and he was near the end of his career, certainly refutes the evidence that his value should be diminished because of the competition.
I think you're misunderstanding the data. Orr had distinctly better results against the expansion teams, which puts rather a different gloss on your post. It would be like suggesting that a player last year had better results against the Yotes than against the Lightning because he decided to bear down in Phoenix. Pretty silly.
It's TOTALLY disputable! I assume you played sports. Do/did you put out the same effort against a team/person you were destroying, or did you play harder when the competition was tougher?
In general, yes.
The point is this: GoldenAge has repeatedly cited Orr's PPG numbers and the like. I'm simply pointing out that those numbers are inflated because of expansion (and, of course, by the fact that he never experienced any age-related decline). That cannot be disputed. The numbers are right there. His scoring went up 40% against expansion teams.
It was suggested that Orr produced better numbers than he should have because of expansion. On it's face, that sounds like a very good argument, but it doesn't prove anything. Orr might have scored just as well against better opposition, he might have been more motivated and scored MORE if the competition was better.
Except, well, he didn't. Against the best teams of his era - Chicago and Montreal - he was under a point per game, far below his career 1.39 PPG overall. Obviously, you'd expect his numbers to go down somewhat but they dropped 31% against his career numbers and 41% compared to his career expansion opponent numbers.
I have to think that playing 70 games a year on a team that won most of their games would made it easy to take a period off once in a while.
This isn't exactly the compliment you think.
OBVIOUSLY, if he was "the best player on the ice" (or close to it) in an international competition when his knees had been operated on several times and he was near the end of his career, certainly refutes the evidence that his value should be diminished because of the competition.
Didn't say that either. One can be the best and also have their numbers inflated by inferior competition. At no time have I said Orr wasn't the best player of his era. What I said was that his PPG and career numbers are inflated by the league tripling in size during his career. And I backed that up with hard numbers.
Orr [...] best defender in his sport and at the same time one of the top offensive players. Unfortunately his career was short.
I'll agree with this.
All I'm doing is pointing out some context for Orr's incredible numbers. He dominated an expansion era - an era that featured one team who played a pair of goalies in 43 games without either one of them recording a win.
Since you reference this quite a bit, I decided to look it up. I wasn’t surprised to find that it is not true. Here is the full Scotty Bowman quote:
“Gretzky was an offensive machine; Orr changed the whole game from a defensive standpoint. Two different players, though, and one played twice as long as the other. Bobby had to retire at 30, but he was basically done at 28. I mean, if you’re starting a team, you couldn’t go wrong with either. The guy who sometimes gets short-changed because he didn’t play his entire career in the NHL is Bobby Hull. And I still believe, if you wanted to take the mold of a hockey player for size, strength, offense, defense, the full package, you go with Gordie Howe. Plus, he had a mean streak.”
The previous year is, well, the previous year. Hall was nowhere near the same in 1970 as I showed. And Plante basically didn't play.
So tell me again how Orr was facing amazing goalies in the 1970 Finals.
Orr had 5 points against St. Louis in the 1970 finals and was a plus 10.
Esposito had 8 points and was a
plus 3.
Orr faced the Vezina winner that season in the semifinal and the previous year Vezina winners in the final. What more would you like ?
So....... you can't "tell me again how Orr was facing amazing goalies in the 1970 Finals".
Got it.
What goalies did the year before doesn't mean a thing. NHL history is littered with one year wonder goalies (see Hammond, Andrew. Hall & Plante obviously were not one year wonders).
Plante and Hall…..”one year wonder goalies”. !!!!!!!!! Love it !!!!!
Thanks for that. Enjoyed the laugh.
Boston also faced the following years Vezina winners in the first round. Is Giacomin one of your one year guys too ? Lol
Tell me a team that faced three straight HOF goalies and 3 Vezina winners like that in one Cup run.
It's TOTALLY disputable! I assume you played sports. Do/did you put out the same effort against a team/person you were destroying, or did you play harder when the competition was tougher?
It was suggested that Orr produced better numbers than he should have because of expansion. On it's face, that sounds like a very good argument, but it doesn't prove anything. Orr might have scored just as well against better opposition, he might have been more motivated and scored MORE if the competition was better.
I have to think that playing 70 games a year on a team that won most of their games would made it easy to take a period off once in a while.
OBVIOUSLY, if he was "the best player on the ice" (or close to it) in an international competition when his knees had been operated on several times and he was near the end of his career, certainly refutes the evidence that his value should be diminished because of the competition.
I think you're misunderstanding the data. Orr had distinctly better results against the expansion teams, which puts rather a different gloss on your post. It would be like suggesting that a player last year had better results against the Yotes than against the Lightning because he decided to bear down in Phoenix. Pretty silly.
Ok.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
It's TOTALLY disputable! I assume you played sports. Do/did you put out the same effort against a team/person you were destroying, or did you play harder when the competition was tougher?
In general, yes.
The point is this: GoldenAge has repeatedly cited Orr's PPG numbers and the like. I'm simply pointing out that those numbers are inflated because of expansion (and, of course, by the fact that he never experienced any age-related decline). That cannot be disputed. The numbers are right there. His scoring went up 40% against expansion teams.
It was suggested that Orr produced better numbers than he should have because of expansion. On it's face, that sounds like a very good argument, but it doesn't prove anything. Orr might have scored just as well against better opposition, he might have been more motivated and scored MORE if the competition was better.
Except, well, he didn't. Against the best teams of his era - Chicago and Montreal - he was under a point per game, far below his career 1.39 PPG overall. Obviously, you'd expect his numbers to go down somewhat but they dropped 31% against his career numbers and 41% compared to his career expansion opponent numbers.
I have to think that playing 70 games a year on a team that won most of their games would made it easy to take a period off once in a while.
This isn't exactly the compliment you think.
OBVIOUSLY, if he was "the best player on the ice" (or close to it) in an international competition when his knees had been operated on several times and he was near the end of his career, certainly refutes the evidence that his value should be diminished because of the competition.
Didn't say that either. One can be the best and also have their numbers inflated by inferior competition. At no time have I said Orr wasn't the best player of his era. What I said was that his PPG and career numbers are inflated by the league tripling in size during his career. And I backed that up with hard numbers.
Orr [...] best defender in his sport and at the same time one of the top offensive players. Unfortunately his career was short.
I'll agree with this.
All I'm doing is pointing out some context for Orr's incredible numbers. He dominated an expansion era - an era that featured one team who played a pair of goalies in 43 games without either one of them recording a win.
Well, I'm not getting all the information posted here. so I'll bow out.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Comments
Enjoy talking about great hockey players all the time.
Lots of fun for me. Thanks
Here’s a little commercial break if this conversation is too intense for some of you.
I pretty much agree with you about save percentage, but we were asked to consider "save percentage per game" which is about as valuable a stat as "fan attendance when player was skating". It is dangerous to further divide rate stats in a way that is not necessarily dangerous with cumulative stats.
That's definitely one valid way to consider save % stats; but, you can also take a look at goalies playing on relatively weak teams with lower tier D in front too. On a team like that, a goalie faces a whole lot more rubber than he would on a higher ability team. The shot volume alone can contribute to a more favorable save %, but also, a team like that gives up a higher percentage of quality goal scoring opportunities as compared to a Cup contending team. Look at Luongo's stats from 2003-04 for example. Awesome save % and he was getting constantly shelled with not enough support in front. A lesser goalie on that same team would have had a far worse save %.
There are a lot of aspects that can influence a save %, but the good goalies have a good stat line on that item, regardless of how the shots came.
Do you see my avatar?
At my age ? Lol
Even glasses don’t help . Lol
Sorry
First, I should have reiterated that I am not trying to argue that Coffey was on or near Orr's level. I believe my comments about advanced +/- analysis speak for themselves.
I was simply countering your argument that Bossy and Lemieux were at Gretzky's level but that no one came close to Orr. While I agree, to an extent, on the first part, the second part isn't as clear as you think it is. On the +/-, I probably could have added Larry Robinson.
None of these analysis are infallible as they are actually multi-factorial. Orr comes off as visually head and shoulders above everyone else as he skated circles around everyone. And he only had a prime. It is unfortunate he was unable to play longer. Statistically, he also comes of as dominant, but there are others closer than you think.
At first glance, Gretzky does not come off as physically dominant as Orr or Lemieux. Make no mistake, though, Gretzky did everything at an above average skill level. However, it was ability to see the game that put him at another level. Consequently, his name papers the record book like no one in any other sport.
You seem to be forgetting about Phil Esposito, who was no slouch. I have a lot of respect for Esposito. As mentioned before, I am a huge fan of the Summit Series. Esposito was the dominant player for Canada and the leader of the team. That is saying a lot considering the dramatics of Henderson and the heart of Clarke.
Below are some stats for Coffey, Lemieux, Gretzky, Orr and Esposito. I don't think anyone can look at these and come to a definitive conclusion that Orr carried Esposito, while Gretzky and Lemieux carried Coffey. At least not to the extent that you appear to be doing.
Age begins to be too much of a factor. Again, I am not arguing that Coffey is on par with Orr. What I am arguing is that when you adjust per game stats to roughly equivalent prime years, Orr is not head and shoulders above everyone else, at least not to the extent to which you are implying.
Also, to the person who mentioned Gordie Howe, as a still good player at his advanced age: a bump in productivity coinciding with the expansion is not much of a surprise. For other reference, review some of the career years in MLB in 1961, 1962 and 1969. This does not diminish the fact that Howe was a unique specimen.
Save percentage is a good stat. Very good but not perfect.
Look at Bernie Parents save percentage on good and bad teams.
Same great goalie, but lots more wins and shutouts on better teams.
Great, great goalie !!!
https://www.hockey-reference.com/players/p/parenbe01.html
I’m not at all forgetting Esposito.
Are you with a straight face comparing Esposito to Gretzky and Lemieux. ???
Look at Espositos numbers with and without Orr in the NHL. He was not even half a Gretzky or Lemieux. Lol.
I am a huge fan of goaltenders and played goal myself (unfortunately, only dek hockey, but at tournament level).
I grew up WORSHIPPING Bernie Parent, who, arguably, had the two greatest statistical season ever played in 73-74 and 74-75.
However, I am under no delusion regarding the absolute evolution of quality of goaltending that has occurred: technique, equipment and physical size. It is almost amazing that anyone scores now.
That said, if asked for an all-time goaltender, I would probably flip a coin between Brodeur and Hasek. Although, I probably would go with Brodeur as you can pick him and know that you can throw him out there 70 games a year for 15 years.
Dryden carried the Canadiens in 1971. After that he just needed to be a great team goalie. And he was. He made all of the necessary saves, but he didn't have to be the best player on the ice for them to win.
In one of the Summit Series retrospectives, Serge Savard said (I'm paraphrasing a bit", "Ken Dryden....great hall of fame goalie, but he never could put together a great game against the Soviets."
I don't rank Roy as high as Hasek and Brodeur as I am tarnished by the fact that he never really played well against the Flyers.
I suggest we just take the letter N and I out off Norris trophy.
😎
Um...I have looked at Esposito's stats. His stats as a 2nd line player in Chicago were pretty damn good, particularly in relation to the rest of the league. When he got first unit power play time in Boston, combined with teaming up with Orr, Hodge and Bucyk, and the dilution from expansion, his stats exploded. Orr's point production benefited from Esposito's ability to plant himself in front of the net on the powerplay and score "garbage" goals. This was an ability he was developing in his prime on his own, which he used to great effect in the Summit Series without Orr. He was the next iteration of the power forward. As such, being a person over the age of 33 becomes hazardous to your statistics. It is no surprise at all that his stats diminished. The amazing part is that they didn't completely fall of a cliff like most power forwards. He was still about a point per game player through the age of 37.
Lemieux had an exponential jump in his PPG upon Coffey's arrival. I am not arguing a direct correlation that it was solely due to Coffey's arrival, but it no doubt had a positive impact.
Clearly there is a symbiotic relationship among the players mentioned. By looking at the numbers, on the surface, they would imply that, initially, Esposito's increased production coincided with Orr's. Orr didn't play long enough to argue the converse.
Then, when you look at Coffey, his production shifting from Gretzky to Lemieux remained somewhat consistent, while Lemieux's production went up.
Again, as far as Coffey without either Gretzky or Lemieux, what can you say? I mean, it sucks as a hockey player when you get into your mid-thirties. Some decline slower, but everyone declines. Coffey in Philadelphia was a train wreck. Orr never got to have that problem.
Crazy stat ? Chris Chelios played a 1000 more NHL games than Orr . That seems crazy.
WOW! That's insane! That has to factor into the discussion. It would be like Mike Trout not playing again after this season.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
Save percentage per game...............ridiculous.
Well said. Luongo was an all time great.
I'm with you on the glasses. Here is a larger version of my avatar.
With Orr, I think it's worth noting what a dramatic effect that expansion had on his numbers.
Bobby vs the other Original Six: 352 pts in 307 games - 1.15 PPG, including less than 1 PPG versus Chicago and Montreal.
Bobby vs the expansion teams - 563 pts in 350 games - 1.61 PPG
In other words, Bobby Orr with no diminishing or old man years was 0.06 PPG better against the Original Six than Paul Coffey, who played until he was 39, was against everyone for his entire career.
You’re comparing Coffeys numbers in a 20+ team league to Orr’s numbers against Chicago and Montreal ?
Lol
Then why not compare Coffeys numbers against the Islanders to Orr’s numbers against those two ?
Those two very good teams with the Summot Series goalies Dryden and Esposito.
That would be a better comparison than Coffeys numbers against a watered down league like he had with the WHA inclusion.
The league tripled in size during Orr's career with Boston. Any "watering down" of the league during Coffey's league tenure in comparison to the ridiculous watering down during Orr's time is more than offset by the fact that Coffey wasn't finished as a player at 26.
Fact is, Orr feasted on terrible expansion teams. In 1969/70, the first time he led the league in scoring, he had 69 points in just 36 games against expansion teams. The following year, it was 93 points in 46 games against expansion teams. In 1974/75, it was 99 in 56 games including 16 points in just 5 games against the worst team ever (Washington).
Meanwhile, in Coffey's career, which was more than double the length of Orr's career with Boston, the league went from 22 teams to 30 - adding just 8 teams in 21 years as opposed to 12 teams in Orr's 10 years in Boston. AND during his career, the league significantly upgraded their talent by importing a raft of European talent along with a whole pile of greatly-improved American talent.
Since you asked, Coffey had 78 points in 66 games against the Islanders - 1.18 points per game, higher than Orr's overall numbers against the Original Six. Orr vs Chicago - 0.98. Orr vs Montreal - 0.94 So Coffey vs the Islanders significantly outperformed Orr vs Montreal & Chicago while, again, not being finished at age 26.
Orr put up amazing numbers but it's simply a reflection of reality to point out that his numbers were boosted greatly by playing against expansion teams. And, no, that's not a knock on him.
Watering down ? No
Montreal had Worsley, Vachon, Tony Esposito in 1968 and Dryden on the way.
Boston had Cheevers and Parent.
There were many HOF goalies who weren’t playing during original 6.
1980-1986 was the worst goalie talent the NHL ever saw. 1986 on it got better.
Coffey played 90% of his postseason career with Gretzky, Lemieux, and Yzerman and still couldn’t match Orr’s postseason points per game numbers. What does that tell you ?
Orr averaged 1.2 ppg in the postseason. 1.4 ppg his career regular season.
Not a huge drop against the better clubs.
Expansion had little effect on his numbers..
The “watered down” St Louis team in the 1969-70 Cup final had Glen Hall and Jacques Plante as goalies. They only won the Vezina that year.
Orr was a plus 2.5 per game in that final against St. Louis.
Never been matched, nor will it.
But of course Orr wasn't feasting on the likes of Cheevers. He was feasting on the likes of Michel Belhumeur who had three ties and no wins in 35 games for the aforementioned Capitals with a 5.37 GAA. (Low and Adams weren't much better). I'm not sure how many of Orr's 16 points were against Belhumeur, but I know he didn't face him ay less than he faced Cheevers, which was the entire point. You'll have to explain to me what possible relevance Dryden has to the 1968 Canadiens. I'm too dizzy following your various contortions to show that Orr was the greatest.
Regardless, you've never addressed the elephant in the room; that Orr was effectively finished by his 27th birthday. That his "old man" years cover twenty-six games that were pretty bad to, say, Zdeno Chara's post-Boston "old man" years.
It wasn’t addressed because it makes him look even more impressive.
He played his entire career on one good leg, while Coffey played on two.
He had 10-20 surgeries on his left knee.
Orr is unmatched per game even though he could hardly skate sometimes.
Just look at his horrible 73 postseason numbers to prove it.
He won the 76 Canada Cup MVP over Robinson and Potvin, and all the HOF forwards when Bobby Clarke said he couldn’t even get out of bed in the morning
Would you like me to go into more details, or leave it at that ?
😎
5 games played
2 points
-4
Sound like a healthy Orr to you in the 72-73 postseason?
He was really in pain many times, and sometimes he felt better.
He was laboring in the 1974-75 finals against the Flyers also.
He was a guy who would kill entire two minute power plays by just holding onto the puck when he was healthy
1976 Canada Cup;
After Orr signed with Chicago, the Black Hawks gave him permission to play for Team Canada in the 1976 Canada Cup tournament. Orr did not play in the 1972 Summit Series against the Soviet Union, and he wanted badly to play for Canada. Orr had been unable to play in the Summit Series due to knee surgery, although he did participate as a non-player. Orr's participation in the Canada Cup was considered ill-conceived and Eagleson later thought it may have been the 'last straw' that killed his career. Orr himself said that he knew before the tournament that "I knew I didn't have much longer. That series didn't do it. I thought I could get the next season in, but not much after that. I knew, looking at that team, I wouldn't have to do as much. I wouldn't have traded it for anything.
Despite his knee, Orr's performance in the Canada Cup led to him being named to the tournament All-Star team and he was named the overall MVP for the tournament. According to teammate Bobby Clarke, Orr "would hardly be able to walk on the morning of the game, and he would hardly be able to walk in the afternoon, and then, at night, he would be the best player on one of the greatest teams ever assembled. He was the best player in every game; he was the best player in the tournament. He couldn't skate like he used to, but he could still go." According to teammate Darryl Sittler, "Bobby Orr was better on one leg, than anybody else was on two.
So much for saying Orr was only good against "watered down" talent.
Literally no one has said anything even remotely close to this. Saying Orr feasted on expansion teams - which is absolutely indisputable - is not the same thing as saying he was only good against watered down talent.
No, they didn't.
Glenn Hall was 38 and a sub-.500 goalie with a nearly 3.00 GAA that year.
Plante played well but was still 41. In the Finals, Plante was the #3 goalie and played just 24 minutes.
And neither guy was considered the #1 goalie for the Finals. All-time legend Ernie Wakeley, who was pulled after 2 games with an .807 save %, was the #1.
But, yes, Orr played well in the Finals against an expansion team with two senior citizens and a journeyman castoff in the net.
The previous year.
Orr was only on the ice for one goal against in the Black Hawk series and no goals against in the Blues series.
In all his ice time in those two series one goal went in for the opponent.
Take your time to try to find another player who did that in a semifinal and final.
He dominated both ends of the ice.
GOAT
Fearless . Ruthless. Relentless.
It’s why his plus minus per game is unreachable. No one is even close.
Face first.
Please find pics of Gretzky, Lemieux, or Coffey doing this. Lol
The plus minus per game king at work. Beautiful !
The previous year is, well, the previous year. Hall was nowhere near the same in 1970 as I showed. And Plante basically didn't play.
So tell me again how Orr was facing amazing goalies in the 1970 Finals.
That is truly remarkable.
Orr had 5 points against St. Louis in the 1970 finals and was a plus 10.
Esposito had 8 points and was a
plus 3.
Orr faced the Vezina winner that season in the semifinal and the previous year Vezina winners in the final. What more would you like ?
Tabe,
Just bought this yesterday. Isn’t she a beauty !
Hope to get some ink on it one day.
The following information is context for those that don't know the set-up in 69-70 and how the Vezina was awarded at that time. This is NOT a knock on Orr.
The Vezina was awarded to the goaltenders who played more than 25 games for the team which allowed the fewest goals against. In 69-70, Chicago (Tony Esposito) won the Vezina, though St. Louis finished 2nd in the league (they did win it in 68-69). Plante was 41. Ernie Wakely played the 2nd most games. This was Hall's last season at age 38. IIRC, he was pressed into duty in the games 3 and 4 in desperation. In game 1, Plante got knocked out (concussed) by a shot. Wakely came in and got blitzed the rest of the way and then got blown out in game 2.
This was the last season in which the original six were in the East Division and the expansion teams were in the West Division. Each team played 40 divisional games (8 x 5) and 36 games against the other division (6 x 6). The 6 teams in the East scored 1,485 goals and the West 1,164. If I were to guess, I would assume that divisional play was probably break-even, with the 321 goal differential being inter-divisional. The Blues were the class of the offensively anemic West, finishing 37-27-12, 22 points ahead of the Penguins (26-38-12), led in scoring by Phil Goyette (78) and Red Berenson (72). Other than the Blues, the only other West team to score over 200 goals was Minnesota.
The set-up in the first three years of expansion guaranteed an East/West final by having the quarter and semis being intra-divisional. The Blues represented the West Division in each of the first three seasons and were swept each time. The Flyers became the next expansion team to reach the Finals in 74.
So....... you can't "tell me again how Orr was facing amazing goalies in the 1970 Finals".
Got it.
What goalies did the year before doesn't mean a thing. NHL history is littered with one year wonder goalies (see Hammond, Andrew. Hall & Plante obviously were not one year wonders).
>
Since you reference this quite a bit, I decided to look it up. I wasn’t surprised to find that it is not true. Here is the full Scotty Bowman quote:
“Gretzky was an offensive machine; Orr changed the whole game from a defensive standpoint. Two different players, though, and one played twice as long as the other. Bobby had to retire at 30, but he was basically done at 28. I mean, if you’re starting a team, you couldn’t go wrong with either. The guy who sometimes gets short-changed because he didn’t play his entire career in the NHL is Bobby Hull. And I still believe, if you wanted to take the mold of a hockey player for size, strength, offense, defense, the full package, you go with Gordie Howe. Plus, he had a mean streak.”
Source:
https://www.nhl.com/blackhawks/news/ask-the-oracle-bowman-on-scouting-cup-hangovers-and-gretzky-vs-orr/c-547480
I guess I need to draw it out with a longer explanation;
It's TOTALLY disputable! I assume you played sports. Do/did you put out the same effort against a team/person you were destroying, or did you play harder when the competition was tougher?
It was suggested that Orr produced better numbers than he should have because of expansion. On it's face, that sounds like a very good argument, but it doesn't prove anything. Orr might have scored just as well against better opposition, he might have been more motivated and scored MORE if the competition was better.
I have to think that playing 70 games a year on a team that won most of their games would made it easy to take a period off once in a while.
OBVIOUSLY, if he was "the best player on the ice" (or close to it) in an international competition when his knees had been operated on several times and he was near the end of his career, certainly refutes the evidence that his value should be diminished because of the competition.
I think Orr was as good as he wanted to be for about 6 years regardless of the opponent, best defender in his sport and at the same time one of the top offensive players. Unfortunately his career was short.
I would pick Howe over him as a GOAT because of the longer career and great all around ability.
I think you're misunderstanding the data. Orr had distinctly better results against the expansion teams, which puts rather a different gloss on your post. It would be like suggesting that a player last year had better results against the Yotes than against the Lightning because he decided to bear down in Phoenix. Pretty silly.
In general, yes.
The point is this: GoldenAge has repeatedly cited Orr's PPG numbers and the like. I'm simply pointing out that those numbers are inflated because of expansion (and, of course, by the fact that he never experienced any age-related decline). That cannot be disputed. The numbers are right there. His scoring went up 40% against expansion teams.
Except, well, he didn't. Against the best teams of his era - Chicago and Montreal - he was under a point per game, far below his career 1.39 PPG overall. Obviously, you'd expect his numbers to go down somewhat but they dropped 31% against his career numbers and 41% compared to his career expansion opponent numbers.
This isn't exactly the compliment you think.
Didn't say that either. One can be the best and also have their numbers inflated by inferior competition. At no time have I said Orr wasn't the best player of his era. What I said was that his PPG and career numbers are inflated by the league tripling in size during his career. And I backed that up with hard numbers.
I'll agree with this.
All I'm doing is pointing out some context for Orr's incredible numbers. He dominated an expansion era - an era that featured one team who played a pair of goalies in 43 games without either one of them recording a win.
You didn’t look hard enough.
It is 100% accurate.
https://forums.hfboards.com/threads/scotty-bowmans-top-100-canadian-players.1299145/
Plante and Hall…..”one year wonder goalies”. !!!!!!!!! Love it !!!!!
Thanks for that. Enjoyed the laugh.
Boston also faced the following years Vezina winners in the first round. Is Giacomin one of your one year guys too ? Lol
Tell me a team that faced three straight HOF goalies and 3 Vezina winners like that in one Cup run.
Good luck looking !!!!
Someone please help me.
I just googled Coffey, Lemieux, Gretzky block shot and found nothing.
Could someone please post a picture.
Thank you 😊
Did Gretzky face Hasek a lot ? Nope
Did Orr face Dryden a lot ? Yep
Besides a 10 year veteran Billy Smith, did Gretzky ever face a HOF goalie in the finals ? Nope
Did Orr constantly see HOF Vezina winners during the postseason and finals ?
Yep
Gretzky and Coffey feasted on non-HOF Vezina winning goalies their entire postseason careers.
Watch Hasek stone Lemieux on breakaways in the 1992 final when he replaced Belfour.
That’s what Orr dealt with Dryden.
Did Gretzky ever face that in his Cup winning years ? Nope
George Bailey,
How many HOFs on the 85 and 87 flyers teams the Oilers beat ?
Had to be the weakest Cup finals teams ever with zero superstar power. Oilers struggled too.
Brad Marsh
Dave Brown
Murray Craven, Sutter, and company.
What a weak team. Mark Howe the only one ?
Mark Howe barely made it too.
https://syndication.bleacherreport.com/amp/756686-mark-howes-induction-in-the-hockey-hall-of-fame-creates-mixed-reaction.amp.html
Ok.
Well, I'm not getting all the information posted here. so I'll bow out.
Tony Esposito and Dryden are two of the greatest of all time.
Imagine if Gretzky faced Hasek on a great Montreal team or Parent on those Flyer teams.
That’s what Orr dealt with against Chicago and Montreal.
Good Lord, look at the goalies Gretzky faced in the 1985 playoffs and finals, and all his other series victories. Do you see any HOFers ?