Epsilon
#basta
I'm sure I'm opening myself up to get pummeled here, but that's okay I just want a discussion about something that most definitely does not involve Steve Yzerman.
Bobby Orr comfortably won the 1967-68 Norris trophy over JC Tremblay and others:
NORRIS: (216/216, 108-108)
1. Bobby Orr, Bos 68 (56-12)
2. J.C. Tremblay, Mtl 31 (5-26)
3. Tim Horton, Tor 30 (22-8)
4. Jim Neilson, NYR 26 (0-26)
5. Jacques Laperriere, Mtl 15 (3-12)
6. Pierre Pilote, Chi 11 (11-0)
7. Bill White, LA 9 (1-8)
8. Mike McMahon, Min 8 (0-8)
9. Ted Green, Bos 6 (0-6)
10. Harry Howell, NYR 5 (3-2)
11. Gary Bergman, Det 4 (4-0)
Also, he finished a comfortable 4th overall in Hart trophy voting, ahead of Howe and Esposito:
1967-68
HART: (216/216, 108-108)
1. Stan Mikita, Chi C 52 (34-18)
2. Jean Beliveau, Mtl C 43 (4-39)
3. Bobby Hull, Chi LW 32 (32-0)
4. Bobby Orr, Bos D 29 (29-0)
5. Gordie Howe, Det RW 16 (4-12)
6. Phil Esposito, Bos C 11 (0-11)
Now, Orr played only 46 games in a 74 game season, so only 62% of the games. He scored 11 goals and 20 assists for 31 points, while being an impressive +30. If pro-rated to 74 games, this comes to 16 goals and 32 assits for 48 points while being +48.
These numbers are quite good, especially in the context of the time period, but they don't strike me as so overwhelming (at least offensively) compared to the league leaders at the time (of course, I'm not arguing any of those offensive leaders deserved the Norris, as none of them are/were regarded as great defensive players). Moreover, the two players who finished behind him in the Hart trophy voting were 3rd and 2nd in the NHL in scoring respectively, behind Hart and Art Ross winner Stan Mikita.
This is of course just a look at the most basic numerical metrics, so I'm not taking a strong opinion on this issue but more putting out there for discussion:
Was Orr's play that season so good to warrant him convincingly beating lesser offensive players, but very good defensive ones, such as Tremblay, Horton, and Howell that played almost full seasons for their respective teams? Feel free to offer up first-hand accounts, advanced statistics, quotes, etc. (but lets go easy on the Legends of Hockey-type fluff and flowery writing). Was his impact in 46 games really so much that such a high Hart trophy finish was warranted? Or is some of this attributable to the fact that everyone expected Orr to be a superstar, and they voted that way a bit too soon?
Incidentally, none of this is intended to be any sort of argument as to Orr's all-time position; I don't think this one season, if one were inclined to downgrade it, affects his "resume" all that much. So it's more about looking at this year in isolation, and not thinking about anything that came after.
Bobby Orr comfortably won the 1967-68 Norris trophy over JC Tremblay and others:
NORRIS: (216/216, 108-108)
1. Bobby Orr, Bos 68 (56-12)
2. J.C. Tremblay, Mtl 31 (5-26)
3. Tim Horton, Tor 30 (22-8)
4. Jim Neilson, NYR 26 (0-26)
5. Jacques Laperriere, Mtl 15 (3-12)
6. Pierre Pilote, Chi 11 (11-0)
7. Bill White, LA 9 (1-8)
8. Mike McMahon, Min 8 (0-8)
9. Ted Green, Bos 6 (0-6)
10. Harry Howell, NYR 5 (3-2)
11. Gary Bergman, Det 4 (4-0)
Also, he finished a comfortable 4th overall in Hart trophy voting, ahead of Howe and Esposito:
1967-68
HART: (216/216, 108-108)
1. Stan Mikita, Chi C 52 (34-18)
2. Jean Beliveau, Mtl C 43 (4-39)
3. Bobby Hull, Chi LW 32 (32-0)
4. Bobby Orr, Bos D 29 (29-0)
5. Gordie Howe, Det RW 16 (4-12)
6. Phil Esposito, Bos C 11 (0-11)
Now, Orr played only 46 games in a 74 game season, so only 62% of the games. He scored 11 goals and 20 assists for 31 points, while being an impressive +30. If pro-rated to 74 games, this comes to 16 goals and 32 assits for 48 points while being +48.
These numbers are quite good, especially in the context of the time period, but they don't strike me as so overwhelming (at least offensively) compared to the league leaders at the time (of course, I'm not arguing any of those offensive leaders deserved the Norris, as none of them are/were regarded as great defensive players). Moreover, the two players who finished behind him in the Hart trophy voting were 3rd and 2nd in the NHL in scoring respectively, behind Hart and Art Ross winner Stan Mikita.
This is of course just a look at the most basic numerical metrics, so I'm not taking a strong opinion on this issue but more putting out there for discussion:
Was Orr's play that season so good to warrant him convincingly beating lesser offensive players, but very good defensive ones, such as Tremblay, Horton, and Howell that played almost full seasons for their respective teams? Feel free to offer up first-hand accounts, advanced statistics, quotes, etc. (but lets go easy on the Legends of Hockey-type fluff and flowery writing). Was his impact in 46 games really so much that such a high Hart trophy finish was warranted? Or is some of this attributable to the fact that everyone expected Orr to be a superstar, and they voted that way a bit too soon?
Incidentally, none of this is intended to be any sort of argument as to Orr's all-time position; I don't think this one season, if one were inclined to downgrade it, affects his "resume" all that much. So it's more about looking at this year in isolation, and not thinking about anything that came after.