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.