How did Clarke win the Hart over Orr in '75?

[canucks4ever]

Bobby Clarke won the Hart Trophy in 1973 and 1976. Both were well deserved.Brief analysis follows.

The 1973-73 Flyers were not a play-off team at the start of the season - having finished fifth the previous season - Shero's first as head coach.The goaltending was at best iffy - Favell/Belhumeur/Taylor while the defense was old and/or slow but mean. The forwards outside Clarke and MacLeish were journeymen or unproven - Barber.

Yet the team improved by 19 points. Clarke helped make Bill Barber, a rookie, an important contributor. Shero's defense relied on two key elements. the ability of the tough defense to clear the slot and keep the attack to the outside. The ability of the centers to forecheck - an area where Clarke had no equal thus preventing the outlet pass which was the weakness of the slow defense. Also Clarke excelled at getting back and shutting down the oppositions east/west game in the defensive zone, taking a load off the slow defense.Offensively Clarke drove the power play and contributed first line production to go along with great defense.

Other Hart candidates.Orr was coming off a knee injury and missed a number of games. Esposito had a great year but the Bruins never came together as a team. They changed coaches 2/3 of the way thru the season, Guidolin replaced Johnson. Nice end of season run made their record look good, still 12 points below the previous, but they were quickly eliminated in the playoff.

Other top teams. Canadiens were very balanced without standouts. Rangers and Hawks had no players that contributed as much as Clarke did to the Flyers.

A few comments about Bernie Parent and the Flyers success.Saw Bernie Parent play in the old MMJHL - Bombardiers de Rosemont, before his OHA days. Led a very average team to the league championship.

Bernie Parent was an excellent goalie, definite HHOFer but he needed to play on a team that was defensively disciplined. He was a big goalie for his time, not like Dryden big, great at covering the angles but he was not the most fluid or agile of goalies. Until he came to the Flyers for the second time he was viewed as a bit of an under achiever. Second time around with the Flyers saw the ideal blend between a goalies strengths and a teams defensive system. Bernie Parent was an important contributer to the 1974 and 1975 Flyers Stanley Cup victories but the results have to be taken within a certain context - the 1975-76 season.

During the 1975-76 season Bernie Parent missed all but 11 games due to injury but the Flyers had their best regular season while Bobby Clarke contiinued outstanding offensive,defensive play and team leadership. The Canadiens had a better year and won the Stanley Cup.

The Hart Trophy deservedly went to Bobby Clarke.The Flyers with Clarke leading the way had a great season without Bernie Parent for virtually the whole season.

As for the canard that Bernie Parent would have made the difference in the SC Final - a four game Montreal sweep. Not a chance. First the Flyers were tired after a long season plus two physical playoff rounds against the Leafs and Bruins while the Canadiens were relatively fresh. The Robinson hit on Dornhoefer in game one put an end to any ideas the Flyers had about playing a physical game. The Flyers could not skate with the Canadiens.Shero at best was able to match Bowman strategically.

Bernie Parent would not have changed any of these factors.

So, you only use the first place finish if it suits your argument. Also dismissing parent by saying he needed to play on excellent defensive teams is pretty lame, when you consider that he was always among the league leaders in save percentage, even before 1974. I dont think clarke would have the same amount of success if he played on crappy teams.

If clarke deserved all 3 of his harts, and espo deserved the 1974 hart over orr, then why do you rank orr as the greatest player of all times? I have seen your list, you ranked orr first.

 

[JackSlater]

The Bruins 1974-75 season was a roller coaster ride:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/BOS/1975_games.html

If you look at the game by game results it becomes clear that the Bruins had a hard time thru November and a tough time at the end of the season. The team and individual totals were inflated by results obtained against sub 500 teams. Don Cherry would get out-coached by the better and more experienced coaches and would over play his stars. Bobby Orr's stats are impressive but they did not make the Bruins better since they were a good distance from the top three teams.

That last sentence is very faulty reasoning. The reasons you've listed for Orr not being MVP essentially add up to faulting him for his team not winning the most games in the NHL, as though that were a direct reflection on his play.

The Flyers with Bobby Clarke actually improved on their previous season. They were very strong against the top teams at home and on the road.. Bobby Clarke was the offensive and defensive leader regularly shutting down the oppositions top line while generating offense and driving a strong power play with very little support from the d-men.

Clarke was definitely the deserving Hart winner.

Best player on the best team does not equate to deserving MVP winner. That the Flyers improved upon the previous season is also unimportant.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Oh Well..............

Just some comments. Most valuable over the course of an NHL season and the greatest over the course of a career during the history of the NHL are distinct concepts and most people with a basic education do not have a problem understanding the distinction.

SV%. Probably the most misused goalie stat going see - Michael Leighton,Craig Anderson being prime examples.Compare Anderson's Colorado and Ottawa numbers this season. He did not change but he went to a team with a suitable defensive system that showcased his strengths. Put a goalie in a suitable system and their SV% numbers will be great.Remove the system and their numbers suffer.Add elite defensive players to the system and they look even better.

Centers like Bobby Clarke, Dave Keon, Henri Richard, Bryan Trottier, Jacques Lemaire, Pavel Datsyuk, Jordan Staal,Ryan Kesler, Jonathan Toews, Dave Bolland will always make teams better because any coach with the least bit of ability will be able to put together a defensive system that will make the team more than competitive.

 

[canucks4ever]

Just some comments. Most valuable over the course of an NHL season and the greatest over the course of a career during the history of the NHL are distinct concepts and most people with a basic education do not have a problem understanding the distinction.

SV%. Probably the most misused goalie stat going see - Michael Leighton,Craig Anderson being prime examples.Compare Anderson's Colorado and Ottawa numbers this season. He did not change but he went to a team with a suitable defensive system that showcased his strengths. Put a goalie in a suitable system and their SV% numbers will be great.Remove the system and their numbers suffer.Add elite defensive players to the system and they look even better.

Centers like Bobby Clarke, Dave Keon, Henri Richard, Bryan Trottier, Jacques Lemaire, Pavel Datsyuk, Jordan Staal,Ryan Kesler, Jonathan Toews, Dave Bolland will always make teams better because any coach with the least bit of ability will be able to put together a defensive system that will make the team more than competitive.

No, your claiming clarke was legitimately better than orr during 2 out of orr's 6 beat seasons, and that he deserved his hart in 76. By that account, your making it seem like clarke and orr are neck and neck with each other.

How come broduer's save percentages in his prime were mediocre, how come hasek's save percentage dropped when he went to detriot? There goes your save pecentage theory out of the window.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

No, your claiming clarke was legitimately better than orr during 2 out of orr's 6 beat seasons, and that he deserved his hart in 76. By that account, your making it seem like clarke and orr are neck and neck with each other.

How come broduer's save percentages in his prime were mediocre, how come hasek's save percentage dropped when he went to detriot? There goes your save pecentage theory out of the window.

He didn't say Clarke was better than Orr, he said he was more valuable in terms of contributing to team success.

I have no idea where you are going with your save percentage comments.

 

[canucks4ever]

If being the main contributor to team success is what wins a hart trophy, tony esposito would have won it in 1980.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Faulty reasoning.

That last sentence is very faulty reasoning. The reasons you've listed for Orr not being MVP essentially add up to faulting him for his team not winning the most games in the NHL, as though that were a direct reflection on his play.



Best player on the best team does not equate to deserving MVP winner. That the Flyers improved upon the previous season is also unimportant.

Speaking of faulty reasoning, especially coming from one who has admitted that he did not see the seasons in question. The reasoning is very straight forward. The play of Bobby Clarke led his team to a tie for the best record in the NHL. So no one is faulting Orr for anything. Just rewarding Bobby Clarke for contributing to the Flyers success.

Bolded. Which is why Guy Lafleur did not win in 1976. That the Flyers improved AFTER two SC victories and AFTER losing their HOF goalie for all but 11 games while Bobby Clarke had his BEST offensive and defensive season certainly deserves MVP consideration.

Trust you can make a case why Clarke should not have won the Hart in 1976. If not then....................

 

[RabbinsDuck]

No, your claiming clarke was legitimately better than orr during 2 out of orr's 6 beat seasons, and that he deserved his hart in 76. By that account, your making it seem like clarke and orr are neck and neck with each other.

How come broduer's save percentages in his prime were mediocre, how come hasek's save percentage dropped when he went to detriot? There goes your save pecentage theory out of the window.

Oh come on, Hasek was 37 at the time. Jeeze.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

If being the main contributor to team success is what wins a hart trophy, tony esposito would have won it in 1980.

But he didn't... Unlike Bobby Clarke.

 

[canucks4ever]

Speaking of faulty reasoning, especially coming from one who has admitted that he did not see the seasons in question. The reasoning is very straight forward. The play of Bobby Clarke led his team to a tie for the best record in the NHL. So no one is faulting Orr for anything. Just rewarding Bobby Clarke for contributing to the Flyers success.

Bolded. Which is why Guy Lafleur did not win in 1976. That the Flyers improved AFTER two SC victories and AFTER losing their HOF goalie for all but 11 games while Bobby Clarke had his BEST offensive and defensive season certainly deserves MVP consideration.

Trust you can make a case why Clarke should not have won the Hart in 1976. If not then....................

Maybe the fact that a defenseman scored 98 points in 1976 while being among the best defensive d-man on the ice, sounds more impressive than a 2 way forward scoring 119 points. Denis Potvin is always ranked higher than clarke on this board,neither of them are longevity kings. Potvin at his best was better than clarke at his best. The hart trophy is a forward bias award.

 

[canucks4ever]

But he didn't... Unlike Bobby Clarke.

who was the main contributor to team success in 1980? If you dont think the hart trophy has a forward bias than i dont even wanna bother responding.

 

[JackSlater]

Speaking of faulty reasoning, especially coming from one who has admitted that he did not see the seasons in question. The reasoning is very straight forward. The play of Bobby Clarke led his team to a tie for the best record in the NHL. So no one is faulting Orr for anything. Just rewarding Bobby Clarke for contributing to the Flyers success.

Orr also contributed to the success of the Bruins. That the Flyers had more success than the Bruins is not enough to conclude that Clarke contributed more than Orr did.

Bolded. Which is why Guy Lafleur did not win in 1976. That the Flyers improved AFTER two SC victories and AFTER losing their HOF goalie for all but 11 games while Bobby Clarke had his BEST offensive and defensive season certainly deserves MVP consideration.

Trust you can make a case why Clarke should not have won the Hart in 1976. If not then....................

I have no issue with Clarke in 1976, and would say that he was a deserving winner. 1976 has nothing to with with 1975 though. That the Flyers were better in 1975 than in 1974 does not matter, especially since Clarke was on the team both years.

 

[Canadiens1958]

1980 Hart

Without Gretzky in 1980 the Oilers finish a distant dead last. With Gretzky they made the playoffs and competed every game.

The 1980 Hawks won the weakest division in the NHL even though they gave up more goals than they scored. Esposito had a GAA that was just under 3.00 while playing 69 games. Gretzky's contribution was much greater.

The point could be made that the 1970 Hart should have gone to Tony Esposito since he was part of the greatest turn around - led the Hawks from last to first - tied in points with Boston. Orr had his first really great year as well and won the Hart.

At that time the voters still had the perception that a starting goalie had to play more than the 63 games that Esposito played. Giacomin, Gary Smith and Rogie Vachon all played a few more games. Also while Toney Esposito did have an impressive 15 shutouts this was balanced by games where he looked bad - a problem that plagued his career. Example game 7, 1971 SC finals.

 

[canucks4ever]

Without Gretzky in 1980 the Oilers finish a distant dead last. With Gretzky they made the playoffs and competed every game.

The 1980 Hawks won the weakest division in the NHL even though they gave up more goals than they scored. Esposito had a GAA that was just under 3.00 while playing 69 games. Gretzky's contribution was much greater.

The point could be made that the 1970 Hart should have gone to Tony Esposito since he was part of the greatest turn around - led the Hawks from last to first - tied in points with Boston. Orr had his first really great year as well and won the Hart.

At that time the voters still had the perception that a starting goalie had to play more than the 63 games that Esposito played. Giacomin, Gary Smith and Rogie Vachon all played a few more games. Also while Toney Esposito did have an impressive 15 shutouts this was balanced by games where he looked bad - a problem that plagued his career. Example game 7, 1971 SC finals.

LOL, no one on the blackhawks even scored above 70 points that year. I love it how espo's GAA is the criteria to determine how successfull his season was. If you did research you would know that he had the best save percentage and um, this was a run n gun season, did you expect his GAA to be below 2?

87 points in the scoring race is far more impressive than 69. The oilers finished 16th out of 21 teams. His Hart was clearly based on 'most outstanding season.' The vancouver canucks, pittsburgh freakin penguins and atlanta flames all ended up higher in the scoring race than edmonton, yeah he sure contributed more to team success than tony esposito, what a joke. You use double standards all the time.

In 1980, Tony had to face 30 shots a game. He played more games than any other goalie, had the best save percentage. His team finished with 87 points despite not having a single forward among the top 35 scorers, and you are arguing that gretzky made a greater contribution, your criteria for hart seems to change every 5 minutes.

This was 1980, you cant use the 'crappy team' excuse for getzky. Nearly half the teams in the league had 1 good player with horrible supporting casts.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Sophistry

Orr also contributed to the success of the Bruins. That the Flyers had more success than the Bruins is not enough to conclude that Clarke contributed more than Orr did.



I have no issue with Clarke in 1976, and would say that he was a deserving winner. 1976 has nothing to with with 1975 though. That the Flyers were better in 1975 than in 1974 does not matter, especially since Clarke was on the team both years.

Your attempts at sophistry do not work. You did not see any of the games or the seasons in question. That you have not denied.

Obviously those that actually saw the seasons and the games hold, share and voted a different conclusion then the one you would like. Too bad.

That the Flyers were better in 1975 than 1974 matters significantly since there is a correlation with the improved offensive and defensive play of Bobby Clarke,stats supported -see link,significantly from 1974 to 1975.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/c/clarkbo01.html

 

[WingsFan95]

Very few bigger Orr fans than myself, and I'll say this; Clarke deserved it. Big time.

I don't see how he was that much ahead.

I get the ES goals, but doesn't that count on his PP goals too?

 

[JackSlater]

Your attempts at sophistry do not work. You did not see any of the games or the seasons in question. That you have not denied.

Obviously those that actually saw the seasons and the games hold, share and voted a different conclusion then the one you would like. Too bad.

I see that you do not like basic logic. Your first sentence conveys this. Your implication that Clarke is more valuable because his team was more successful is not logically valid. Hockey is a team sport. You are correct that I did not watch the season, as I have already stated, but I doubt that even matters since someone who did watch games that season is only providing such inconsequential evidence.

The implication of your second set of sentences is that if the voters all agreed on something, it must be true. In addition to being poor reasoning given that all people who viewed the season did not vote the same way, which contradicts your statement, it also implies that there is no point in discussing award winners. The voters voted for them, and thus they are the only legitimate choice!

That the Flyers were better in 1975 than 1974 matters significantly since there is a correlation with the improved offensive and defensive play of Bobby Clarke,stats supported -see link,significantly from 1974 to 1975.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/c/clarkbo01.html

First off, correlation does not imply causation. If it did, you would have made a valuable point. Second, the MVP award is for a given season, and as such the results of any other season are not worth considering.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I was not born until 79, so inject no opinion on this.

But I find it quite telling that in this thread, people who watched the sport at the time say Clarke deserved it, while the really strong arguments for Orr are from people who didn't watch the seasons in question

 

[fan67]

I was not born until 79, so inject no opinion on this.

But I find it quite telling that in this thread, people who watched the sport at the time say Clarke deserved it, while the really strong arguments for Orr are from people who didn't watch the seasons in question

What are you getting at!? Are you trying to tell me that you actually have to watch the game? Modern statistics>old eyes!

I know that sarcasm doesn't always translate to the written word, so to those in limbo I was being facetious.

I'm of the opinion that I can be knowledgeable of a topic, without the experience, while never being an expert. For example I've read a lot about world war 2, both through school and personal interest, but when I hear my Grandpa get into where he was when the bombs fell on Belfast, I realize how little I really know.

And alas back to the point you raised; while I enjoy discussing the likes of Bobby Orr, and Bobby Clarke, I do not have the audacity to consider myself an authority...however many do.

It's akin to taking a business course and challenging the wisdom of a 20year manager. It's an age thing, the youth of today challenges the knowledge of the youth of yesterday. Take comfort in knowing that their children will challenge our perceived facts.

 

[fan67]

...and the Hart has a tremendous bias towards forwards. And on top of that the meaning of the award is ever changing; one year it's most outstanding player, another it's most valuable player to his team, and more often than not it goes hand in hand with Ross

 

[Canadiens1958]

Sophistry II

I see that you do not like basic logic. Your first sentence conveys this. Your implication that Clarke is more valuable because his team was more successful is not logically valid. Hockey is a team sport. You are correct that I did not watch the season, as I have already stated, but I doubt that even matters since someone who did watch games that season is only providing such inconsequential evidence.

The implication of your second set of sentences is that if the voters all agreed on something, it must be true. In addition to being poor reasoning given that all people who viewed the season did not vote the same way, which contradicts your statement, it also implies that there is no point in discussing award winners. The voters voted for them, and thus they are the only legitimate choice!



First off, correlation does not imply causation. If it did, you would have made a valuable point. Second, the MVP award is for a given season, and as such the results of any other season are not worth considering.

Given that you manage to reach the conclusion all voters agreed on something when the facts and presentations to date clearly show that only most of the voters picked Bobby Clarke as the Hart winner should precludes any further drivel from you about logic and the resulting attempts at sophistry.

Your last phrase is a clear illustration that you did not see the seasons in question nor have you taken the time to properly look at the stats from the seasons in question.

The major difference between the 1973-74 and 1974-75 Flyers was that there were significant drops in the offensive and defensive contributions from the bottom 6 forwards from the 1973-74 season to the 1974-75 season. Usually such a drop would impact the team performance BUT the dramatic increase in Bobby Clarke's offensive and defensive performance more than compensated for the drops and was the key element in producing a better overall Flyer record in 1974-75. So you have correlation and causation justifying the 1975 Hart Trophy. Clarke's stats posted previously.

 

[VMBM]

But I find it quite telling that in this thread, people who watched the sport at the time say Clarke deserved it, while the really strong arguments for Orr are from people who didn't watch the seasons in question

Not to mention that very often they seem to be those who can't get over the fact that Clarke was a dirty SOB and not a very flashy player.

Edit:
It hasn't been an issue/argument here, though

 

[JackSlater]

I was not born until 79, so inject no opinion on this.

But I find it quite telling that in this thread, people who watched the sport at the time say Clarke deserved it, while the really strong arguments for Orr are from people who didn't watch the seasons in question

This isn't just a standard case of multiple players having similarl but great seasons and vying for the Hart trophy. This is a defenceman winning the scoring title and also providing elite defence. Saying that Clarke deserved to win because his team was better or because the voters voted for him (and thus it is the correct result!) is not sufficient evidence that Clarke was the deserving MVP.

Given that you manage to reach the conclusion all voters agreed on something when the facts and presentations to date clearly show that only most of the voters picked Bobby Clarke as the Hart winner should precludes any further drivel from you about logic and the resulting attempts at sophistry.

What are you talking about? I stated that they did not all vote the same way. You stated that those who saw the season shared the same opinion and voted that way, which is clearly not true. Unless the voters for the Hart trophy are infallible the portion of your post that I quoted is pointless, as it is only an attempt to justify your position by siding with the popular opinion of the time.

Your last phrase is a clear illustration that you did not see the seasons in question nor have you taken the time to properly look at the stats from the seasons in question.

The major difference between the 1973-74 and 1974-75 Flyers was that there were significant drops in the offensive and defensive contributions from the bottom 6 forwards from the 1973-74 season to the 1974-75 season. Usually such a drop would impact the team performance BUT the dramatic increase in Bobby Clarke's offensive and defensive performance more than compensated for the drops and was the key element in producing a better overall Flyer record in 1974-75. So you have correlation and causation justifying the 1975 Hart Trophy. Clarke's stats posted previously.

Once again, correlation does not imply causation. You have not proven causation. The one point increase in standings from one year to the next is not nearly enough to prove that Clarke was more valuable than Orr as it is completely extraneous to the discussion. Ultimately this does not relate to the 1975 Hart trophy. If Clarke was more valuable in 1975 than in 1974 that is all well and good, but it only matters in this discussion if he was more valuable in 1974 than Orr was in 1975. That would allow us to conclude that Clarke was maore valuable than Orr in 1975. Your evidence still amounts to nothing beyond Clarke being the deserving MVP because his team played better than Orr's, and because most voters voted that way.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Sophistry III

Interesting that the troll has not provided any evidence to support the position that Bobby Orr should have won the 1975 Hart Trophy. Beyond his futile attempts at sophistry there is nothing but the usual hot air.

Step up with documented recollections, analysis and data to support your point.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Orr was a beast on offense, but it's true that it could affect his defensive game, especially against good teams. Watch this clip of game 2 of the first round of the playoffs '71 against the Habs, Orr has a few points early in the game but he looks like a dummy on most of Mtl goals, and notice where he is on the 7th goal by Mtl, the breakaway by Mahovlich... right in front of the Canadians net, not a very responsible play for a defenseman.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_hCn-UqcFs

That is impossible. Don't you know Orr had this unique ability in the history of hockey to be an Art Ross winning defenseman while never taking the risks that occasionally burned him?

I believe Orr is probably the best all around per game player in the history of the league and certainly capable of being a shutdown type defenseman when the situation called for it and he didn't take risks.. but this hfboards groupthink where he is capable of being in two places at once and is completely infallible is just nostalgia - as evidenced a couple of times in the video you posted.

That being said, Orr is still the best defenseman in the history of the league quite easily.

As an aside, wow.. that goal by Henri Richard was great. The steal and blocking the defender out and a nice move on the goal.