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

[Dennis Bonvie]

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.

If Orr misses the season that year, Bruins miss the playoffs.

Not sure if Clarke missing the season means Philly misses the playoffs. Two reasons:

Bernie Parent and Fred Shero

Also, Orr had a +80, Clarke +79, but Philly had 6 other players that were +40 or better and another one at +39. Boston had one player at +43 and the next highest was +30. This would lead me to believe Orr was a more significant factor than Clarke.

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

If Orr misses the season that year, Bruins miss the playoffs.

Not sure if Clarke missing the season means Philly misses the playoffs. Two reasons:

Bernie Parent and Fred Shero

Also, Orr had a +80, Clarke +79, but Philly had 6 other players that were +40 or better and another one at +39. Boston had one player at +43 and the next highest was +30. This would lead me to believe Orr was a more significant factor than Clarke.

Just as an aside, even without Orr, Boston would still finish ahead of California's 51pts and make the playoffs.

The Flyers were in the tougher division and would have to beat Atlanta's 83pts in order to make the playoffs. In addition, with no Clarke to face, chances are Atlanta improves on the 83 pts as well.

 

[Canadiens1958]

IF and the Transition Game

If Orr misses the season that year, Bruins miss the playoffs.

Not sure if Clarke missing the season means Philly misses the playoffs. Two reasons:

Bernie Parent and Fred Shero

Also, Orr had a +80, Clarke +79, but Philly had 6 other players that were +40 or better and another one at +39. Boston had one player at +43 and the next highest was +30. This would lead me to believe Orr was a more significant factor than Clarke.

If is a mighty big word.

Facts. 1975-76 Flyers with Parent for only 11 games and Bruins with Orr for only 10 games and Park for only 43 both improved their performance from 1974-75. 1974-75 Bruins goaltending was very weak. Gilbert, Broderick.

Facts injured Clarke. Bobby Clarke missed 18 games during the 1981-82 season while playing a good part of the season injured . Flyers GAA 1980-81/1981-82/1982-83 were respectively 249/313/240. Note, Mark Howe arrived after the 1981-82 season.

Regardless of how great a defenseman may be, he alone cannot impact the other teams transition game whereas centers with the ability to forecheck or at least a sense of defensive positioning in the offensive zone, will seriously impact the oppositions transition game. This has been shown constantly throughout hockey history after the introduction of the Red Line. The late forties/early fifties Leafs with Ted Kennedy, The Canadiens from 1955-1979 mainly with Beliveau/H.Richard with help from Backstrom,Lemaire and Jarvis.The Flyers with Clarke, The Islanders with Trottier. later Goring, right on up to the Red Wings under Bowman and Babcock with various centers from Yzerman - once he caught on, to Datsyuk.
These teams won many cups without necessarily having the best goaltending or the best defensemen in the league.

The Bruins with Derek Sanderson had a center, briefly, that could impact the other teams transition game and before his issues became a problem they won two cups.

 

[JackSlater]

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.

I like how you don't bother trying to defend your points (which are essentially worthless) and instead resort to calling me a "troll" and once again accusing me of sophistry, mainly because you seem incapable of following basic logic. You have not proven that Clarke was more valuable than Orr. All you have demonstrated was that the voters selected Clarke, and that Clarke and the Flyers improved from 1974 to 1975. You have used this information as proof that Clarke was the deserving MVP, but unfortunately that leap is not valid. Your inability to actually defend your points (instead resulting to humourous name calling) makes your position appear even weaker. I believe that there are some valuable points in Clarke's favour, but you haven't even brought a single one up.

The case for Orr is obvious. Orr was the leading scorer in the NHL. Clarke was sixth. They had the same number of assists, but Orr had 19 more goals. While outscoring every other player in the NHL Orr also happened be a defenceman. As Clarke was probably the best defensive forward ever and was at the peak of his abilities in 1975 I won't give Orr a large edge defensively even though he was a defenceman. You can also see the information posted by Dennis Bonvie regarding plus minus, which you failed to address even though you quoted the post.

Let's look at GVT. Orr gets 48.5 as his score. This is a higher score than has ever been achieved by any skater other than Orr. Clarke's score was 27.9, which is an excellent score but still less than half of Orr's. Philadelphia clearly had the superior roster at the time, and had the benefit of far superior coaching. This would give Clarke advantages statistically over Orr, and yet Orr still impresses more than Clarke in this regard. This would also make it more difficult for Clarke to be more valuable, considering his team would likely be more able to succeed without him. You will notice that this evidence, while clearly far from perfect, actually pertains to who was the most valuable player in 1975. I am hopeful that you will respond in kind.

 

[Canadiens1958]

The GVT Agenda

So now we know your agenda - GVT. The system that ranks Phil Houisley#26 ahead of approx a hundred better players presented by the folks that initially blended Syl Apps Sr and Syl Apps Jr as one player.

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=777912&highlight=gvt

The thread above has sufficient critiques of the GVT to effectively render it useless for pre 1997-98 comparisons of NHL talent and seasons.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

If is a mighty big word.

Facts. 1975-76 Flyers with Parent for only 11 games and Bruins with Orr for only 10 games and Park for only 43 both improved their performance from 1974-75. 1974-75 Bruins goaltending was very weak. Gilbert, Broderick.

Facts injured Clarke. Bobby Clarke missed 18 games during the 1981-82 season while playing a good part of the season injured . Flyers GAA 1980-81/1981-82/1982-83 were respectively 249/313/240. Note, Mark Howe arrived after the 1981-82 season.

Regardless of how great a defenseman may be, he alone cannot impact the other teams transition game whereas centers with the ability to forecheck or at least a sense of defensive positioning in the offensive zone, will seriously impact the oppositions transition game. This has been shown constantly throughout hockey history after the introduction of the Red Line. The late forties/early fifties Leafs with Ted Kennedy, The Canadiens from 1955-1979 mainly with Beliveau/H.Richard with help from Backstrom,Lemaire and Jarvis.The Flyers with Clarke, The Islanders with Trottier. later Goring, right on up to the Red Wings under Bowman and Babcock with various centers from Yzerman - once he caught on, to Datsyuk.
These teams won many cups without necessarily having the best goaltending or the best defensemen in the league.

The Bruins with Derek Sanderson had a center, briefly, that could impact the other teams transition game and before his issues became a problem they won two cups.

Wonderful.

Not sure what any of this has to do with Clark being more valuable than Orr in 74-75, though.

By the way, the Flyers improved without Parent because they scored 55 more goals the next season. Not quite the same team as 74-75.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Just as an aside, even without Orr, Boston would still finish ahead of California's 51pts and make the playoffs.

The Flyers were in the tougher division and would have to beat Atlanta's 83pts in order to make the playoffs. In addition, with no Clarke to face, chances are Atlanta improves on the 83 pts as well.

Correct, my mistake.

Completely forgot about the old playoff format.

 

[Canadiens1958]

More Valuable

Wonderful.

Not sure what any of this has to do with Clark being more valuable than Orr in 74-75, though.

By the way, the Flyers improved without Parent because they scored 55 more goals the next season. Not quite the same team as 74-75.

Most valuable or in this specific case more valuable often comes down to how one player compensates for a team's weaknesses vs how another player compensates for his team's weaknesses.

At times a player's performance when compensating may be more impressive than another player's but in terms of value to the team it does not compensate for the weaknesses but masks the weaknesses in a fashion that may even prolong the solution.

Prime example would be post 1955 Gordie Howe with the Detroit Red Wings. During this period Howe won a number of Hart Trophies, was a work horse who surpassed all expectations. However the Red Wings did not win any Stanley Cups in spite of a few -opportunities including five trips to the finals.

This pertains to the Orr / Clarke debate and the 1975 Hart from the standpoint that Orr's impressive performance did little to change the fundemental Bruin weaknesses detailed in this thread and elsewhere while Clarke's performance though perhaps less impressive statistically did a great deal to compensate for the Flyers weaknesses.

 

[JackSlater]

So now we know your agenda - GVT. The system that ranks Phil Houisley#26 ahead of approx a hundred better players presented by the folks that initially blended Syl Apps Sr and Syl Apps Jr as one player.

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=777912&highlight=gvt

The thread above has sufficient critiques of the GVT to effectively render it useless for pre 1997-98 comparisons of NHL talent and seasons.

Good job discovering my agenda! It has nothing to do with the season in question being only the second time a defenceman has ever won the scoring title, while also providing very strong defence. The thread above does little to dissuade me from valuing those numbers, especially when comparing two player from the same season. If the numbers said that there was a small gap between Clarke and Orr then they would not be worth mentioning, but Orr is doubling Clarke. That is a massive gap that cannot be so easily dismissed. I will say though that I suspect the numbers overstate Orr's superiority to Clarke that season.

Anyway, if you do not feel the need to actually provide additional (pertinent) evidence or even address the evidence in Orr's favour, there is little need in persisting on my end at least.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Good job discovering my agenda! It has nothing to do with the season in question being only the second time a defenceman has ever won the scoring title, while also providing very strong defence. The thread above does little to dissuade me from valuing those numbers, especially when comparing two player from the same season. If the numbers said that there was a small gap between Clarke and Orr then they would not be worth mentioning, but Orr is doubling Clarke. That is a massive gap that cannot be so easily dismissed. I will say though that I suspect the numbers overstate Orr's superiority to Clarke that season.

I have a lot of respect for what GVT is trying to do, but the list of the top players (Housley at 26 LMAO) is pretty damning to the stat itself. Overpass lists the flaws in the stat in that thread.

Anyway, if you do not feel the need to actually provide additional (pertinent) evidence or even address the evidence in Orr's favour, there is little need in persisting on my end at least.

I think it's quite clear Orr was the best player in the league that year, but I can certainly see arguments for Clarke being more valuable. For one, the fact that the people who actually watched them play voting for Clarke is, in fact, evidence, though obviously not definitive.

 

[JackSlater]

I have a lot of respect for what GVT is trying to do, but the list of the top players (Housley at 26 LMAO) is pretty damning to the stat itself. Overpass lists the flaws in the stat in that thread.

There is no question that there are problems, but as I said the gap is massive. Unless you consider the whole statistic to be worthless, that is a noteworthy result. It is saying that Orr is basically as valuable as two Clarkes, and it isn't as if Clarke is being ranked poorly compared to the other elite players that season. The problems are somewhat alleviated by Orr and Clarke being compared in the same season and that they played in generally similar situations (Clarke is probably more disadvantaged here). GVT just augments the main argument, that Orr is simply the clear superior player that year and played on a team of similar (if not inferior) strength. Philosophy on what constitutes MVP is likely a big difference here.

I think it's quite clear Orr was the best player in the league that year, but I can certainly see arguments for Clarke being more valuable. For one, the fact that the people who actually watched them play voting for Clarke is, in fact, evidence, though obviously not definitive.

Yes that is true, there are plently of arguments for Clarke and the votes are a part of that. My main objection to the repeated referencing of the votes is that they were already known (referencing them additional times does not make them more meaningful) and that they were presented as being definitive proof of Clarke's worthiness.

 

[Canadiens1958]

1974-75 Bruins

The 1974-75 season was an expansion year so the established teams had to plug roster spots over and above those created by the WHA raids. Also the divisions were realigned.

The Bruins had a new coach - Don Cherry, learning the job of coaching in the NHL on the fly, surrounded by players who were part of the championship Bruin teams, great stars - Orr, Esposito,injured -Cashman, but aging - Bucyk,Hodge, Smith or up and coming future NHL regulars - O'Reilly, Savard or transients - see link, with little goaltending:

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

Net result was the only Boston team from the Orr era that lacked an identity or team cohesiveness. Watching one of there games you never new which team would show up, a re-tooling of the Big Bad Bruins or an expansion team with a couple of stars. Regardless because Bobby Orr would be playing you knew that at least you would be entertained with a display of great individual hockey skills.

The team finished second in their division - 19 points behind Buffalo, never competing for first, 16 points ahead of Toronto, never being challenged for second and a few time zones ahead of California.Even though Bobby Orr had a great individual season, the team never came together as a unit and quickly disappeared in the playoffs.

Some claim that Orr's great individual performance merits a Hart Trophy. They offer quaint stats like GVT as support - historically almost useless as an indicator of team contributions but a great fantasy hockey tool where a Phil Housley is close in value to great defensemen like Orr, Potvin, Robinson, etc.

Hart winners are recognized mainly for team contributions even when they accomplish great individual feats. Conversely some are recognized even though they did not have statistical success but brought attributes, qualities or performances to their team that allowed the team to overachieve.

Like others before and after him Bobby Orr's efforts though individually impressive did little for the success of the team and like other great individual performances - Bobby Hull during the 1961-62 season, Girdie Howe 1950-51, Mario Lemieux 1991-92 the results did not merit the Hart Trophy.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

There are a lot of in depth arguments here for both sides, especially for Clarke.

But I'm pretty sure the voters for the Hart that year didn't really go into that kind of deep analysis.

Which brings us back to the original question: How did Clarke win over Orr?

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

Which brings us back to the original question: How did Clarke win over Orr?

Basically, by being the MVP of the best team. That's it in a nutshell. The criteria among media for the MVP seems to change from year to year, depending who in the media have the loudest voices and that's basically what they used that season.

Orr got the Pearson for outstanding player, and rightfully so. Players in the 70's made some odd choices that decade, but that's one year they got it right.

 

[Hardyvan123]

There are a lot of in depth arguments here for both sides, especially for Clarke.

But I'm pretty sure the voters for the Hart that year didn't really go into that kind of deep analysis.

Which brings us back to the original question: How did Clarke win over Orr?

If we had a breakdown of who voted for which player then we could ask.

Baseball does this and hockey seems to copy baseball in so many ways this would be another good one.

Basically, by being the MVP of the best team. That's it in a nutshell. The criteria among media for the MVP seems to change from year to year, depending who in the media have the loudest voices and that's basically what they used that season.

Orr got the Pearson for outstanding player, and rightfully so. Players in the 70's made some odd choices that decade, but that's one year they got it right.

A lot of people and voters I would suspect equate the Hart with the best player in the league that year, being most valuable to your team is very dubious and if that where really the criteria why don't goalies win it more often?

Players on good teams get shafted and the whole value of the Hart is rather dubious.

 

[JackSlater]

A lot of people and voters I would suspect equate the Hart with the best player in the league that year, being most valuable to your team is very dubious and if that where really the criteria why don't goalies win it more often?

Players on good teams get shafted and the whole value of the Hart is rather dubious.

I disagree that players on good teams get shafted in general. It's pretty clear that in this case Clarke won in large part because his team was so strong. I would even guess that some would make the (laughable) point that Orr's great performances had lesser value simply because his team did not perform as well as Clarke's.

 

[Poignant Discussion*]

I like how you don't bother trying to defend your points (which are essentially worthless) and instead resort to calling me a "troll" and once again accusing me of sophistry, mainly because you seem incapable of following basic logic. You have not proven that Clarke was more valuable than Orr. All you have demonstrated was that the voters selected Clarke, and that Clarke and the Flyers improved from 1974 to 1975. You have used this information as proof that Clarke was the deserving MVP, but unfortunately that leap is not valid. Your inability to actually defend your points (instead resulting to humourous name calling) makes your position appear even weaker. I believe that there are some valuable points in Clarke's favour, but you haven't even brought a single one up.

The case for Orr is obvious. Orr was the leading scorer in the NHL. Clarke was sixth. They had the same number of assists, but Orr had 19 more goals. While outscoring every other player in the NHL Orr also happened be a defenceman. As Clarke was probably the best defensive forward ever and was at the peak of his abilities in 1975 I won't give Orr a large edge defensively even though he was a defenceman. You can also see the information posted by Dennis Bonvie regarding plus minus, which you failed to address even though you quoted the post.

Let's look at GVT. Orr gets 48.5 as his score. This is a higher score than has ever been achieved by any skater other than Orr. Clarke's score was 27.9, which is an excellent score but still less than half of Orr's. Philadelphia clearly had the superior roster at the time, and had the benefit of far superior coaching. This would give Clarke advantages statistically over Orr, and yet Orr still impresses more than Clarke in this regard. This would also make it more difficult for Clarke to be more valuable, considering his team would likely be more able to succeed without him. You will notice that this evidence, while clearly far from perfect, actually pertains to who was the most valuable player in 1975. I am hopeful that you will respond in kind.

You think anyone who didn't watch these seasons have ANY clue what happened over someone who watched the season?

The voters chose Clarke instead of the golden boy Orr....

That should give you an idea of what people who WATCHED the games being played thought. Not some 15 year old who pulls up a few stats and "trys" to make an argument.

P.S.

A suggestion, next time don't debate about a subject you were not around for and especially with someone who was around for it...it makes you look rather silly

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

It would be interesting if someone who thinks Orr was robbed would do a google archives search for newspaper articles to see what the sentiment in the press was after the awards were announced.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Background

It would be interesting if someone who thinks Orr was robbed would do a google archives search for newspaper articles to see what the sentiment in the press was after the awards were announced.

From the award sticky in this thread see post #15. Thanks to reckoning. The 1975 and 1976 was not even close Clarke almost doubled Orr, even Vachon was viewed more favourably:

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=145895


Also Bobby Clarke won the 1975 Lou Marsh Award:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...pg=4066,2230654&dq=1975+lou+marsh+award&hl=en

Bobby Orr was not even mentioned as a candidate.

Other than some lone dissenter trying to get some publicity, I doubt that 1975 critiques of the Hart voting would exist.

 

[JackSlater]

You think anyone who didn't watch these seasons have ANY clue what happened over someone who watched the season?

You're right, I'm sure I have absolutely no clue what happened that season. Bobby Orr led the NHL in scoring as a defenceman. Orr is generally considered a strong contender for greatest player ever, and yet only played six peak level season, with this season being one. In spite of that, how can I be sure that Orr was even good that year without having seen him on HNIC a few times that year? Clearly impossible. How do I know that Clarke was exceptional both offensively and defensively that year without seeing a handful of Philadelphia games from that season live? Once again definitely not possible.

The voters chose Clarke instead of the golden boy Orr....

That should give you an idea of what people who WATCHED the games being played thought. Not some 15 year old who pulls up a few stats and "trys" to make an argument.

Yes I am aware that the voters chose Clarke. Last year Henrik Sedin won the Hart, and even though I was apparently 14 at the time I saw he and many of the other elite players play multiple times. In spite of this, I did not believe he should have won the trophy. Shocking! How could someone who saw the season in question actually disagree with the voting results? I would be interested in hearing any infomation you have regarding why Clarke was the deserving winner, other than noting the voting results.

P.S.

A suggestion, next time don't debate about a subject you were not around for and especially with someone who was around for it...it makes you look rather silly

I look forward to you chastising future generations for disagreeing with the opinion of some of the scholars on the main NHL board here who have watched this season. After all, history has clearly shown that contemporary opinion is beyond reproach. Thanks for the tip on how to not appear silly by the way. My tip for you in that regard is to find the plural form of the word "try". Anyway, all joking aside there is clearly a great deal of value in contemporary opinion. That being said, I don't believe that contemporary opinion alone justifies a decision. There have been additional points made for Clarke in this thread, some of them noteworthy, and it's pretty clear that his season was exceptional. I'm still struggling to figure out how Clarke was more exceptional than Orr that year, and if he wasn't, how he could have been more valuable to his team than Orr, who was on a team that was likely inferior.

It would be interesting if someone who thinks Orr was robbed would do a google archives search for newspaper articles to see what the sentiment in the press was after the awards were announced.

Considering the voting I really doubt that there was negative sentiment toward Clarke winning. I agree with the above post in this regard.

 

[reckoning]

As earlier mentioned by C-1958, the most striking thing about that season was how many blowouts the Bruins had against weak teams: 12-1 over Washington, 11-3 over the Rangers, 10-4 over Washington, 10-1 over Minnesota, 9-4 over Detroit, 8-0 over Washington, 8-0 over Minnesota, etc. It makes Don Cherry's lectures in recent years about running up the score on opponents seem a bit hypocritical, but it raises an interesting point about how valuable a players offensive contributions are. If you beat Washington 12-1, it doesn't really matter if you had 4, 6, 8, or 0 points. The team was going to win anyways.

I went through the summaries for Boston and Philadelphia that year, and tried to determine what the game results would be if goals that Orr and Clarke had points on were taken away, as that might give an indication of how "valuable" their offence was to their teams wins. I fully realize that there are flaws with this, it's presumptuous to assume that the rest of the game wouldn't change, but I think it's a bit better than just using point totals for the season:

I found 7 games Boston won that would have been losses without Orr's points, 6 games they won that would've been ties, and 9 ties that would've been losses. Total of 29 points.

For Philly, there were 6 wins that would've been losses without Clarke's points, 10 wins that would've been ties, and 6 ties that would've been losses. Total of 28 points.

Orr still comes out ahead 29-28, but it's basically a dead heat and far closer than the gap in their total points (135-116).

Also interesting that the percentage of their teams goals that they had points on were almost identical. Orr at 39.1%, Clarke at 39.6%; though Marcel Dionne at 46.7% was far ahead of Both of them.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

It should be remembered that there was no center ice package back then. Nobody was taping games. There was no cable. With 18 teams in the league there were not many people that got to see a lot of anyone who played outside of their own team's local TV area. I saw Bobbie Clake play that year when Philly played Boston. That was it. And being only 22 then, I certainly wasn't watching for with an evaluating eye.

 

[cam0426]

How did Clarke win the Hart over Orr in 75?

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.[/QUOTE]

I was amazed watching this clip at how many Montreal goals were scored with both Orr and Derek Sanderson on the ice. Sanderson was the best defensive forward I personally have ever seen an Orr was also tremendous on defense.

Guess this just shows that as good as an athlete may be they are also human and make errors.

Craig