Dipsy Doodle
Rent A Barn
- May 28, 2006
- 76,583
- 21,124
Clarke's 2 Hart wins against a prime Bobby Orr
- Thread starter Dipsy Doodle
- Start date
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
In no particular order:
1. Pro-forward bias in Hart (and Pearson) voting
2. Voter fatigue with giving the same guy the award year after year
3. MVP is different from best player
4. Clarke was one of the best offensive players in the league while also being one of the best defensive players of all times. Quotes from the era mention Clarke and Orr as the two guys who can take over a game on their own.
Personally, I think Phil Esposito's Harts against a prime Orr (on the same team, no less) are weirder.
1. Pro-forward bias in Hart (and Pearson) voting
2. Voter fatigue with giving the same guy the award year after year
3. MVP is different from best player
4. Clarke was one of the best offensive players in the league while also being one of the best defensive players of all times. Quotes from the era mention Clarke and Orr as the two guys who can take over a game on their own.
Personally, I think Phil Esposito's Harts against a prime Orr (on the same team, no less) are weirder.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Most Valuable
Historically the Hart was awarded to the player viewed as "the Most Valuable" to his team. Especially true for Bobby Clarke.
Historically the Hart was awarded to the player viewed as "the Most Valuable" to his team. Especially true for Bobby Clarke.
Crosbyfan
Registered User
- Nov 27, 2003
- 12,671
- 2,493
In order:
1. Orr missed a number of games when Clarke first won the Hart and most of the season the third time he won.
2. Clarke was very solid all around offensively and defensively, each as needed, and willing to win at all costs.
3. MVP is different from best player and they looked at Clarke's leadership as well in defining MVP. He was seen as the glue that kept the goons together and offensively put them over the top.
4. Clarke was the most skilled player on his team so he stuck out somewhat compared to the Orr/Esposito combo
5. Pro-forward bias in Hart (and Pearson) voting. There was some feeling that the Norris was for defensemen
6. Voter fatigue with giving the same guy the award year after year that was also getting the Norris year after year.
1. Orr missed a number of games when Clarke first won the Hart and most of the season the third time he won.
2. Clarke was very solid all around offensively and defensively, each as needed, and willing to win at all costs.
3. MVP is different from best player and they looked at Clarke's leadership as well in defining MVP. He was seen as the glue that kept the goons together and offensively put them over the top.
4. Clarke was the most skilled player on his team so he stuck out somewhat compared to the Orr/Esposito combo
5. Pro-forward bias in Hart (and Pearson) voting. There was some feeling that the Norris was for defensemen
6. Voter fatigue with giving the same guy the award year after year that was also getting the Norris year after year.
Last edited:
Big Phil
Registered User
- Nov 2, 2003
- 31,703
- 4,146
I can kind of understand his 1973 Hart, no questions there. He had 104 points, only 2nd to Espo who had 130. Orr had 101 that year. So if Orr and Espo split some votes it isn't hard to imagine Clarke winning. 1976 another near no brainer. Orr is injured. Espo is traded to the Rangers and gets only 83 points. Lafleur might have been the best competition for him but Clarke getting it still makes a lot of sense.
On to 1975. Clarke got the benefit of the doubt that year a lot. It isn't a travesty that he won the Hart by any means but this was Orr's year that he won the Art Ross again and got 46 goals. It's hard to imagine a defenseman leading the NHL with 135 points and not winning the Hart. Clarke had 116 points. I guess he was the biggest reason Philly led the NHL in points to so I suppose that held a lot of water. Other than that to show you his all around game he was a 1st team all-star at center despite being outscored by three other centers (Espo, Dionne and Mahovlich).
The ironic thing is Orr won the Pearson but was 3rd in Hart Trophy voting behind Clarke and Vachon. This was the only time that Orr (or any defenseman) has ever won the Pearson voted by the players. Even the first Pearson ever went to Espo and then Ratelle in '71 and '72 both years that Orr won the Hart. Weird how the players wouldn't have voted for him
On to 1975. Clarke got the benefit of the doubt that year a lot. It isn't a travesty that he won the Hart by any means but this was Orr's year that he won the Art Ross again and got 46 goals. It's hard to imagine a defenseman leading the NHL with 135 points and not winning the Hart. Clarke had 116 points. I guess he was the biggest reason Philly led the NHL in points to so I suppose that held a lot of water. Other than that to show you his all around game he was a 1st team all-star at center despite being outscored by three other centers (Espo, Dionne and Mahovlich).
The ironic thing is Orr won the Pearson but was 3rd in Hart Trophy voting behind Clarke and Vachon. This was the only time that Orr (or any defenseman) has ever won the Pearson voted by the players. Even the first Pearson ever went to Espo and then Ratelle in '71 and '72 both years that Orr won the Hart. Weird how the players wouldn't have voted for him
I think Orr's peak is overrated to a degree. Gordie Howe was better offensively, physically and has the huge edge in durability. The only advantage Orr has is superior defense. Then again Orr isn't doug harvey, rod langway or serge savard defensively.
Clarke deserved the 1973 and 1976 hart trophies, however 1975 was a gift. However clarke in 1975 was still better than espo, dionne, lafluer and mahovlich. Them putting up 3-11 extra points doesnt replace the huge edge clarke had in other areas of the game.
Big Phil
Registered User
- Nov 2, 2003
- 31,703
- 4,146
You have to remember, he was a defenseman too. A d-man leading the NHL in points is unfathomable. His peak was about as good as advertised around here. And don't forget he was still stellar defensively
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
If defenseman Orr was better than forward Howe offensively, he'd be the best player of all time by such a huge margin, we wouldn't have these discussions.
Trottier
Very Random
Neither.
Certainly not anyone in his/her right mind, and alive at the time. Honestly.
Dark Shadows
Registered User
I don't think Esposito's Hart's are too strange from a voters perspective given the forward bias that emerged following the Norris trophy.
In 68-69, Orr was phenomenal, and easily the best two way player in the league and set a new record for defenseman scoring, beating the previous number held by Pilote by 5 points. However, he was not yet hitting the gross numbers he would be hitting just a year later(Effectively doubling his scoring).
Esposito that year set a new forward scoring record, beating the previous record by around 30 points, and along with Howe and Hull, became the first players ever to hit over 100+ points.
His second Hart over Orr is far more questionable. But still, he scored 68 goals and 145 points. No small feat. And back then, people saw Esposito for what he was. A great player. Unlike today, where detractors like Ushvinder who never saw him play will try to demean his accomplishments by calling him a leach.
Regarding Clarke's Hart's, they were not all that strange. The term most valuable player often was interchangeable between "best player" and "More valuable to his team. Clarke was not as good as Orr, but he played for a weaker team and was still excellent by anyone else's standards, thus....
Errrr. Orr was not those 3 defensively true, Mostly because he gambled more, and despite usually getting back on time, a guy who does not gamble at all but has near the same defensive skillset will be more valuable defensively, but Orr was still top 10 defensively all time. The only penalty killer who can be mentioned in the same breath as him is Harvey
His defensive advantage over Howe is substantial given the closer offensive game. Orr's peak value is unmatched by any other player in the history of the game.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Post 1972 Summit Series
Perceptions of the leadership roles and the value of the various NHL stars changed after the 1972 Summit Series. Bobby Orr did not participate in the Summit Series since he was recovering from knee surgery. As a result voters and hockey fans gained an additional perspective of players like Phil Esposito and Bobby Clarke and for a few years this was reflected in Hart Trophy voting which focused on the value of the specific player to his team during a season. Previously Phil Esposito was viewed as the result of Bobby orr's skills. After 1972 the perception changed.
The skills of other players were also viewed in a different light - Bill White, Pete Mahovlich, Gary Bergman to name a few, started to get recognition.
Perceptions of the leadership roles and the value of the various NHL stars changed after the 1972 Summit Series. Bobby Orr did not participate in the Summit Series since he was recovering from knee surgery. As a result voters and hockey fans gained an additional perspective of players like Phil Esposito and Bobby Clarke and for a few years this was reflected in Hart Trophy voting which focused on the value of the specific player to his team during a season. Previously Phil Esposito was viewed as the result of Bobby orr's skills. After 1972 the perception changed.
The skills of other players were also viewed in a different light - Bill White, Pete Mahovlich, Gary Bergman to name a few, started to get recognition.
Big Phil
Registered User
- Nov 2, 2003
- 31,703
- 4,146
I agree with you on all the stuff you said about Esposito and stuff but I think your last statement is debatable. There was a poll done a while back comparing a 1971 Orr to a 1986 Gretzky. I do not remember how the poll went but I picked Gretzky. It's close I will give you that but to say it's "unmatched" I disagree with
Mayor Bee
Registered User
- Dec 29, 2008
- 18,085
- 531
When I started doing football research, one of the big things is "who had the best season in a given year?" Even as strict quantification, I would usually arrive at two different qualifications, then I would be looking at my own inherent bias as a tiebreaker. Basically, I was trying to retroactively determine who the best was...whether to set aside the various formulae or not before realizing that it was inconsistent.
Essentially, in some cases it would be "Who produced the most?" (in years where a guy was vastly superior), and in some it would be "Who was most indispensible to his team?" (for closer years either through the numbers or in the standings). But I personally didn't have any consistency, and I was trying to have it.
Now consider that each voter would be fighting this internal battle when casting a ballot. If there's 50 voters, 10 may give it to the most productive or best player no matter what, 10 may give it to the most valuable to his team no matter what, and 30 may go back and forth.
Add in some of the standard variables, such as:
-- Is this player largely unrecognized and at the end of his career and in the MVP mix (i.e. a Mike Gartner or Ron Francis type)?
-- Did this player have a breakout year along with his team?
-- Did this player have a breakout year that was roughly on par with perennial MVP candidates?
-- Did the player lead the league in a notable category (goals or points) by a decent margin?
-- Did the player's team make the playoffs over the team of a more productive player?
-- And so on
I could probably find a good 20 examples in both baseball and football of an MVP winner who was clearly less deserving of the award than another play, but the biases of the voters held a huge sway.
Essentially, in some cases it would be "Who produced the most?" (in years where a guy was vastly superior), and in some it would be "Who was most indispensible to his team?" (for closer years either through the numbers or in the standings). But I personally didn't have any consistency, and I was trying to have it.
Now consider that each voter would be fighting this internal battle when casting a ballot. If there's 50 voters, 10 may give it to the most productive or best player no matter what, 10 may give it to the most valuable to his team no matter what, and 30 may go back and forth.
Add in some of the standard variables, such as:
-- Is this player largely unrecognized and at the end of his career and in the MVP mix (i.e. a Mike Gartner or Ron Francis type)?
-- Did this player have a breakout year along with his team?
-- Did this player have a breakout year that was roughly on par with perennial MVP candidates?
-- Did the player lead the league in a notable category (goals or points) by a decent margin?
-- Did the player's team make the playoffs over the team of a more productive player?
-- And so on
I could probably find a good 20 examples in both baseball and football of an MVP winner who was clearly less deserving of the award than another play, but the biases of the voters held a huge sway.
Dark Shadows
Registered User
I remember, because I had posted a rebuttal to your post
http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=21762722&postcount=36
reckoning
Registered User
- Jan 4, 2005
- 7,022
- 1,268
Voters are often swayed by what happens near the end of the season more than any other stretch of the year. It's what's freshest in their minds at the time. In the 1974-75 season, the Bruins finished by winning only 2 of their last 12 games, and the 94 points they finished with was far below the standards they had set over the first half of the season. I'm not trying to imply that this was Orr's fault in any way whatsoever, but the MVP doesn't often go to someone on a team considered as underachievers in that particular year.
By comparison, the Flyers (led by Clarke) finished the season on a 14 game unbeaten streak.
By comparison, the Flyers (led by Clarke) finished the season on a 14 game unbeaten streak.
bobby orr was just the most important player to the league yr in and yr out while he played with 2 decent knees
