Bobby Orr's icetime during his prime

[therealkoho]

Anecdotal only but as someone who saw Orr many times in his prime at MLG

1st PP and rarely came off when the secondary guys came on

1st PK, usually stayed on for the whole thing, one night I watched Orr play keep away from the Leafs for almost the entire two minutes, he got a standing O from the Toronto crowd

If the Bruins were behind Orr rarely came off in 5/5 situations

heres this

http://www.bobbyorr.net/triva/triva.php

Third Season ice time
Coach Harry Sinden knew that he had something very special, and Harry used his superstar's incredible stamina to the Bruins advantage. In his third season, he was on the ice an average of 37 minutes a game. Much of that time he was carrying the puck

.

 

[seventieslord]

Its very possible the number was 35-37 on average and people just called it "40" because at times he did hit or exceed that in important games. I just find 30 to be too far the other way.

...except it's not.

With the numbers being what they are, you are arguing against something that is as good as fact.

I agree that if the scoring rate between Orr and his off ice counterparts gets too out of whack it is pretty unlikely.. but we also have to keep in mind that Bobby was most likely matched up against the tougher ES competition as compared to his off ice counterparts. So looking at scoring rates / 60min in a vacuum isn't as definitive as it might look at face value.

I could accept the rest of the team marginally "outperforming" Bobby over short periods of time against choice competition. In fact they wouldn't be, but the numbers would say they were.

Considering this is Orr... do you really think that is possible?

If we look at 74-75 as another example (his 2nd best season) Orr was on for ~157 / 245 ES goals by Boston. Or 64%.

So, with 46 ES minutes to go around, you could assume Orr was on the ice for 64% of that... or 29 minutes.

Just as long as you understand that it follows that the Bruins didn't score any more often per minute with other defensemen on the ice.

 

[BraveCanadian]

...except it's not.

With the numbers being what they are, you are arguing against something that is as good as fact.

Good one. This is exactly the reason why I challenge it.

Considering this is Orr... do you really think that is possible?

Yup. It isn't like we're talking about maintaining it a long time or against the other teams best. I'm not saying that it happened, I'm saying it is definitely in the realm of possibility.

So, with 46 ES minutes to go around, you could assume Orr was on the ice for 64% of that... or 29 minutes.

Just as long as you understand that it follows that the Bruins didn't score any more often per minute with other defensemen on the ice.

If it makes you feel better make it 26 minutes.

 

[JackSlater]

Yup. It isn't like we're talking about maintaining it a long time or against the other teams best. I'm not saying that it happened, I'm saying it is definitely in the realm of possibility.

The Bruins weren't all that deep, and most of Orr's ice time would coincide with Esposito's as well. It's going to be very hard to prove either way, but it seems unlikely that the other defencemen were outperforming Orr. None of the players likely to play while Orr was out were all that good. That would lower Orr's time played numbers a little bit from where you're estimating... but I do think that it's reasonable that Orr played more than 30 minutes on average considering lesser defenceman have averaged near that number even in recent seasons.

 

[seventieslord]

Good one. This is exactly the reason why I challenge it.

Look, don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to make a blanket statement that "stats = facts". But we've both seen these figures broken down and it quickly became clear that it would be absurd for them to be wrong to anything close to the degree that you are saying.

 

[reckoning]

Please note that if we assume Orr playing approximately 35 minutes a game on average and the time he plays on PP and SH remains the same, the respective scoring paces are 5.29 with Orr and 4.44 without, which start to look reasonable. But the calcualtions would indicate that anything over 37 minutes / game on average would be highly questionable becouse at that point Boston would be scoring at same or better pace on ES while Orr is not on ice as with Bobby.

Thanks. I was going to try to figure out at what point his estimated ice time would tip into being unrealistic, but it looks like you worked it out. 35 minutes does seem believable.

Anecdotal only but as someone who saw Orr many times in his prime at MLG

1st PP and rarely came off when the secondary guys came on

1st PK, usually stayed on for the whole thing, one night I watched Orr play keep away from the Leafs for almost the entire two minutes, he got a standing O from the Toronto crowd

If the Bruins were behind Orr rarely came off in 5/5 situations

Thanks for providing that info. I've heard that he was always out there on the penalty kill, so I was surprised that the other defencemen all had significant PGA numbers. It could be that Orr was so much better than them at killing penalties that they were giving up comparable amounts of goals despite Orr playing twice as much as the rest of them. Plus, Orr usually had about 100 PMs a season, and he obviously couldn't kill a penalty that he took.

About him rarely coming off when they were behind: were there many games where Boston was far ahead of Toronto, and how much time would he see late in those games. I'd imagine that from '70 to '72 when Boston was really rolling that a lot of their games were pretty much decided long before the third period. It wouldn't make sense to keep him out there and risking injury in those situations.

If we look at 74-75 as another example (his 2nd best season) Orr was on for ~157 / 245 ES goals by Boston. Or 64%.

If there was a season where he came close to 40 a game, 74-75 would be it. Cherry loved him and played him as much as possible. Plus Boston wasn't the powerhouse they once were, so he had to carry the team more than usual.

Whatever Orr's icetime was that year, it was probably the most any player has logged in the post-expansion era.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I actually watched an old Bruin/Habs playoff game from '71 a few weeks ago and while I didn't have an actual stop watch going, if he played less than 35 minutes minimum, I'd eat my hat.

 

[seventieslord]

If there was a season where he came close to 40 a game, 74-75 would be it. Cherry loved him and played him as much as possible. Plus Boston wasn't the powerhouse they once were, so he had to carry the team more than usual.

Whatever Orr's icetime was that year, it was probably the most any player has logged in the post-expansion era.

that is, in fact, the highest estimate of his career - 32.86 minutes per game.

He averaged roughly 30.4 in the 7 seasons prior, according to the model.

It is actually the highest estimated total in the file - good call.

It's 0.9 minutes ahead of the next-highest result - JC Tremblay's 1969. There are just 5 results within 0.9 minutes of that result, and 19 within 0.9 minutes of that.

Orr ends up 1st, 3rd, 5th, 12th, 18th, and 25th on the list, which is pretty amazing.

Stapleton, Pronger and Potvin show up 2X in the top-25. Salming shows up 3X.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I actually watched an old Bruin/Habs playoff game from '71 a few weeks ago and while I didn't have an actual stop watch going, if he played less than 35 minutes minimum, I'd eat my hat.

I'd be very surprised if he played less than 35 minutes per game when (relatively healthy) in the playoffs.

Looking at all these numbers and anecdotes it looks like maybe 35ish might be his average. 40 looks too high as an average but he no doubt hit that number fairly often. 30 is too low as an average based on how they played at the time and how much he produced.

 

[BraveCanadian]

If there was a season where he came close to 40 a game, 74-75 would be it. Cherry loved him and played him as much as possible. Plus Boston wasn't the powerhouse they once were, so he had to carry the team more than usual.

Whatever Orr's icetime was that year, it was probably the most any player has logged in the post-expansion era.

Yeah that is kind of what I was thinking as well. He was an even bigger portion of the team that year.

 

[plusandminus]

Here's why the average of 40 minutes a game doesn't make sense. I'll use 70-71 as an example since Orr played in every game that year.

The Bruins had 289 powerplays and scored on 80 of them. So if we count 2 minutes for each PP and subtract a minute for every one they scored on, then divide that by the number of minutes in the season, it works out to about 6 minutes a game. For penalty killing, the same thing works out to about 8 minutes a game.

So the average for Boston that year per game by situation was:

Power Play: 6 minutes
Shorthanded: 8 minutes
Even Strength: 46 minutes

The Bruins had 5 defencemen that year. Their goals for/against numbers were:

Player|GP|TGF|PGF|TGA|PGA
Bobby Orr|78|258|79|85|30
Ted Green|78|125|1|99|12
Don Awrey|74|116|2|87|13
Dallas Smith|73|154|4|84|28
Rick Smith|67|63|0|48|15

You got the stats from bobbyorr.net, right?

I continue on your good post, and make some corrections to it and the replies it generated.

First, I expand your table, adding +/- and making seperating Total, ES, PP and SH.
..F stands for goals forward, and ..A stands for goals against.
Note how I treat PP and SH completely seperate. SHA is goals scored against while playing shorthanded.
I also add Boston's total stat. Their +/- should be 399-294 - 8 + 53 = 105+45 = +150
You may want to note that Boston was 25-53 in SH, thus scoring a goal forward for every goal allowed.
ES is +/- for ES only.

Boston|78|150|192||399|207||148|294|146|| 80| 8|| 25| 53
Player|GP|+/-|Tot||TGF|TGA||ES |ESF|ESA||PPF|PPA||SHF|SHA
Orr |78|124|173||258| 85|| | | || 79| || | 30
Green |78| 37| 26||125| 99|| | | || 1| || | 12
Awrey |74| 40| 29||116| 87|| | | || 2| || | 13
Dallas|73| 94| 70||154| 84|| | | || 4| || | 28
Rick |67| 30| 15|| 63| 48|| | | || 0| || | 15

PP: Orr on ice for 79 goals out of 80! Seems like playing nonstop, i.e. 6 mins per game.
SH: Orr on ice for 30 g
We indeed get the impression Orr played basically nonstop at PP, i.e. 6 mins.
I'm also OK with the estimation that Orr played 5 mins in PK.
Thus a special teams total of 11 mins.
To that we should add the ES time.
We don't seem to have available stats, so we have to use the stats above.
First we input the possible ranges for PPA and SHF.

Boston|78|150|192||399|207||148|294|146|| 80| 8|| 25 | 53
Player|GP|+/-|Tot||TGF|TGA||ES |ESF|ESA||PPF|PPA||SHF |SHA
Orr |78|124|173||258| 85|| | | || 79|0-8||0-25| 30
Green |78| 37| 26||125| 99|| | | || 1|0-8||0-25| 12
Awrey |74| 40| 29||116| 87|| | | || 2|0-8||0-25| 13
Dallas|73| 94| 70||154| 84|| | | || 4|0-8||0-25| 28
Rick |67| 30| 15|| 63| 48|| | | || 0|0-8||0-25| 15

I know the ranges for PPA and SHF might be narrowed by adopting common sense, but's let's wait doing that.

Now we also knows the ranges for ESF and ESA, by subtracting, etc.
For Orr:
ES goals forward: 258-79 = 179. Then consider 0 to 25 SH goals forward, thus giving 154-179.
ES goals against: 85-30 = 55. Then consider 0 to 8 goals against during own powerplay, thus giving 47-55

Boston|78|150|192||399|207||148| 294 | 146 || 80| 8|| 25 | 53
Player|GP|+/-|Tot||TGF|TGA||ES | ESF | ESA ||PPF|PPA||SHF |SHA
Orr |78|124|173||258| 85|| |154-179|47-55|| 79|0-8||0-25| 30
Green |78| 37| 26||125| 99|| | 99-124|79-87|| 1|0-8||0-25| 12
Awrey |74| 40| 29||116| 87|| | 89-114|66-74|| 2|0-8||0-25| 13
Dallas|73| 94| 70||154| 84|| |125-150|48-56|| 4|0-8||0-25| 28
Rick |67| 30| 15|| 63| 48|| | 28- 63|25-33|| 0|0-8||0-25| 15

We can rest here. We know that out of 294 goals forward, Orr was on the ice for 154 to 179.


Now, I step out of the facts, and start speculating.
Let's say Boston scored exactly as much on ES with Orr on the ice, as without him.
154 out of 294 = .5238 which we multiply with an estimated total team ES time of 46, giving 24 ES min per game.
179 out of 294 = .0688 which we multiply with an estimated total team ES time of 46, giving 28 ES min per game.

If I am to guess, I would guess Orr was on the ice for most of the goals Boston scored SH.
If so, 154 may be far closer to the truth than 179, thus making 24 ES mins more likely than 28 mins.

Also, we might think Boston scored more with Orr on the ice than without him, which will make mins go down further.
Perhaps we'll end up with Orr playing:
PP: 6 mins out of 6
SH: 5 mins out of 8
ES: 20-23 mins out of 46
Tot: 31-34 mins out of 60

If that is the average, I could think that Orr played more in even games than vs weaker teams.
Thus he might perhaps have averaged like 25-30 mins vs weak teams, and 35-40 mins vs strong teams.

Finally, look at the quotes here in the thread. They tell, black on white, how much Orr used to play.


I may continue trying to calculate some more facts.
It really would have been easier if I had real info regarding the things missing in my first table.
Surely, since they calculated +/-, the ES information should be obtainable?

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

If the stars of the NHL were getting such ridiculous ice time in the 70's, it might help explain why many of the stars who broke in in the late 60's and early to mid 70's had relatively short careers, and/or peaks in comparison to players of other era's.

The talent pool was depleted do to the NHL expanding rapidly and the WHA, therefore, perhaps, teams had to overrely on their best players due to lack of depth and hence those said players got burned out faster than their counterparts from other eras.

 

[plusandminus]

I continued counting, from the last of the tables containing facts...

Boston|78|150|192||399|207||148| 294 | 146 || 80| 8|| 25 | 53
Player|GP|+/-|Tot||TGF|TGA||ES | ESF | ESA ||PPF|PPA||SHF |SHA
Orr |78|124|173||258| 85|| |154-179|47-55|| 79|0-8||0-25| 30
Green |78| 37| 26||125| 99|| | 99-124|79-87|| 1|0-8||0-25| 12
Awrey |74| 40| 29||116| 87|| | 89-114|66-74|| 2|0-8||0-25| 13
Dallas|73| 94| 70||154| 84|| |125-150|48-56|| 4|0-8||0-25| 28
Rick |67| 30| 15|| 63| 48|| | 28- 63|25-33|| 0|0-8||0-25| 15

Since Orr seemed to play basically nonstop in PP, we may assume his PP +/- is 79-8.
We may also think that other defensemen basically didn't play PP.

Boston|78|150|192||399|207||148| 294 |146|| 80| 8|| 25 | 53
Player|GP|+/-|Tot||TGF|TGA||ES | ESF |ESA||PPF|PPA||SHF |SHA
Orr |78|124|173||258| 85|| |154-179| 47|| 79| 8||0-25| 30
Green |78| 37| 26||125| 99|| | 99-124| 87|| 1| 0||0-25| 12
Awrey |74| 40| 29||116| 87|| | 89-114| 74|| 2| 0||0-25| 13
Dallas|73| 94| 70||154| 84|| |125-150| 56|| 4| 0||0-25| 28
Rick |67| 30| 15|| 63| 48|| | 28- 63| 33|| 0| 0||0-25| 15

Adding ESF for all defensemen gives 299. On the other hand 146*2=292.
These two sums doesn't have to be equal. For example penalized players jump into the play.
If one assume a PK unit of 2 defensemen and 2 forwards, it's not unlikely the penalized player being a defenseman too.
For example, Orr himself had 91 penalty mins.
Btw, if looking at penalty minutes, one should consider that a penalty doesn't necessarily give the opposing team a PP. Often one from each team may get penalized, etc.

We also know from hockey-reference.com, that Orr scored 3 SH goals, while Dallas scored 2. So Orr was on the ice for at least 3, probably far more, SH goals.

Boston|78|150|192||399|207||148| 294 |146|| 80| 8|| 25 | 53
Player|GP|+/-|Tot||TGF|TGA||ES | ESF |ESA||PPF|PPA||SHF |SHA
Orr |78|124|173||258| 85|| |154-176| 47|| 79| 8||3-25| 30
Green |78| 37| 26||125| 99|| | 99-124| 87|| 1| 0||0-25| 12
Awrey |74| 40| 29||116| 87|| | 89-114| 74|| 2| 0||0-25| 13
Dallas|73| 94| 70||154| 84|| |125-148| 56|| 4| 0||2-25| 28
Rick |67| 30| 15|| 63| 48|| | 28- 63| 33|| 0| 0||0-25| 15

We know that forwards Westfall, Marcotte, Sandersen and Esposito scored 7+6+6+1 = 20 SH goals.
But we have no idea which defensemen was on the ice.
Orr and Dallas seems to have been in for the most goals against on SH.
I am tempted to make guesses, assuming a pair of defensemen usually played SH.

Boston|78|150|192||399|207||148| 294 |146|| 80| 8|| 25 | 53
Player|GP|+/-|Tot||TGF|TGA||ES | ESF |ESA||PPF|PPA||SHF |SHA
Orr |78|124|173||258| 85|| |154-164| 47|| 79| 8||15-25| 30
Green |78| 37| 26||125| 99|| | 99-112| 87|| 1| 0||0-12 | 12
Awrey |74| 40| 29||116| 87|| | 89-102| 74|| 2| 0||0-12 | 13
Dallas|73| 94| 70||154| 84|| |125-135| 56|| 4| 0||15-25| 28
Rick |67| 30| 15|| 63| 48|| | 28- 51| 33|| 0| 0||0-12 | 15

Fine tuned guesses:

Boston|78|150|192||399|207||148|294|146|| 80| 8|| 25| 53
Player|GP|+/-|Tot||TGF|TGA||ES |ESF|ESA||PPF|PPA||SHF|SHA
Orr |78|124|173||258| 85||113|160| 47|| 79| 8|| 19| 30
Green |78| 37| 26||125| 99|| 32|119| 87|| 1| 0|| 5| 12
Awrey |74| 40| 29||116| 87|| 35|109| 74|| 2| 0|| 5| 13
Dallas|73| 94| 70||154| 84|| 78|134| 56|| 4| 0|| 16| 28
Rick |67| 30| 15|| 63| 48|| 25| 58| 33|| 0| 0|| 5| 15

These above guesses are of course questionable.
For example, it seems Orr wasn't on the ice for as many ES goals forward as one would expect, when comparing him to his teammates.
According to the guess, Orr was on the ice for 160 out of 294 ES goals forward, that's only .5442. That corresponds to 25 mins.

But did the team tend to score more in ES with Orr on ice, than without him. Probably. But on the other hand, Orr may have played more versus strong opposition, while his teammates may have played more versus weak opposition. Against weak competition, Esposito and the other guys may still, if they played, have helped the other defensemen stats.

So I choose to guess he played about 50 % of the ES time. That would mean 23 mins.
ES 23, PP 6, SH 5, Total 34.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Another old thread, but hey, digging into the past is what I do.

My ice time estimator was referenced upthread. It's since gone significant revision, though the results have never been released to date.

My best estimates are that Orr played, on average, just under 30 minutes per game most years. Due to the fact that these estimates are based on the component parts of plus-minus, the "Gretzky/Orr effect" means that the estimates should be, if anything, a bit high. An adjustment is built into the system for that, but of course we'll never know for sure. The following numbers are all based on these estimates.

Orr's year-by-year numbers:

1967/68 28:53
1968/69 29:13
1969/70 29:37
1970/71 29:44
1971/72 29:55
1972/73 30:17
1973/74 28:38
1974/75 30:13

He led the league in average ice time in all of these years except 1968/69, when he was second behind J-C Tremblay, and in 1971/72, when he was behind Carol Vadnais. I'm inclined to believe that Vadnais' numbers that year are a result of statistical flukes, but again we can't be sure.

For comparison, here's Dallas Smith over the same time period:

1967/68 25:05
1968/69 24:56
1969/70 23:57
1970/71 25:02
1971/72 25:26
1972/73 23:43
1973/74 20:49
1974/75 21:39

So although Orr had the most ice time of all Boston defenders, it wasn't by a huge margin. Ted Green played over 26 minutes in a few years with Orr, and Don Awrey was usually between 22 and 25 minutes.

Orr surely played over 40 minutes in some games, with an average ice time that high. But it would have been far from a common occurrence, and I think the best evidence suggests that he played about half the game, on average.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Orr surely played over 40 minutes in some games, with an average ice time that high. But it would have been far from a common occurrence, and I think the best evidence suggests that he played about half the game, on average.

I can't help but feel we are missing something.

I'm sure your model is a reasonable one, but there are so many contemporary citations that talk about the star players playing much more.

Can that many of them have not known how to use a stopwatch?

I know based on the numbers above that anything more than 35-37 minutes a game by Bobby Orr starts to stop passing the smell test as far as production by him on the ice vs. him off the ice goes, but I feel there must be some other factor we are overlooking.

There are so many references to Orr and other contemporary defensemen playing 30-40 minutes a night.

For example here is another article talking about Dave Burrows of the Penguins averaging 30 minutes a game in 1975, and admitting that playing 40 minutes a game like he had two seasons previous would be a bit much for him now:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=djft3U1LymYC&dat=19751014&printsec=frontpage&hl=en (page 13 in the google search)


An article about Bobby Hull in the Hartford Courant Jan 2, 1969:

"Most forwards play about 20 minutes of a game, but the norm for Hull is no less than 30 and often as high as 40. The Black Hawk left winger is so respected.."


Salming NYT Apr 17, 1977:

"I've been playing conservatively all the time anyway because I'm playing so much , maybe 40 minutes a game." (probably a high estimate but by 10+ minutes????)


Lafleur LA Times May 16, 1978:

"At the end of an evening when he has played 35 or 40 minutes Lafleur does not appear exhausted. But is he exhausted? 'No' he says"


Gretzky SI Jan 23 1984:

"Gretzky plays 26 to 28 minutes per game skating a regular shift, killing penalties and working the power plays."


Orr The Windsor Star Apr 17 1970:

"It seems he's on the ice for 50 minutes a game" - Giacomin (obvious exaggeration)


Even guys who are obviously injured:


Brad Park The Montreal Gazette May 6, 1976:

"Despite a grievous knee injury that requires hours of ice-packs after the game and during off-days, he has been averaging over 35 minutes a game."

Bobby Orr The Montreal Gazette Nov 28, 1975

"Right from the very first game, he's played something like 35 minutes a game. His knee is getting better every day.." - Cherry


The Michigan Daily May 16 1974:

"His normal strategy of playing Orr and Esposito 40 minutes a game has failed miserably. Both have shown the strain..." (this one is in the playoffs)


Bangor Daily News Apr 14, 1972

"Although bothered by a knee ailment, Orr averaged about 35 minutes a game"


Montreal Gazette Oct 27, 1976 (Orr well past prime after 5 knee surgeries playing with Chicago):

"he plays around 35 minutes a game"


Now obviously some of these might be exaggerated (and some are playoffs) but exaggerated by a full 5-10+ minutes a game on average?

 

[Iain Fyffe]

There are so many references to Orr and other contemporary defensemen playing 30-40 minutes a night.

I absolutely believe that defencemen did play 30-40 minutes some nights. But there are several problems with these observations, such as being estimates without being tracked reliably, and cherry-picking the big ice-time nights while neglecting the others. If Orr plays 40 minutes in a game, that sticks in your brain; if he plays 25 the next night, that's unremarkable and soon forgotten. It's a common cognitive bias.

An article about Bobby Hull in the Hartford Courant Jan 2, 1969:

"Most forwards play about 20 minutes of a game, but the norm for Hull is no less than 30 and often as high as 40. The Black Hawk left winger is so respected.."

My estimates agree that most of the good forwards in Hull's time played about 20 minutes per game. But I have him with 23 minutes in 1967/68 and 24:27 in 1968/69.

There's only so much ice-time to go around, and if Hull were really playing 35 minutes per game, we would expect the other Chicago left wings to have much lower scoring totals and TGF and TGA numbers than they actually do.

Remember that the Orr/Gretzky Effect will tend to cause mathematical ice time estimates to be high for elite players. Hull was a player who could create goals by himself. Using his TGF numbers should inflate his ice time, not reduce it.

Salming NYT Apr 17, 1977:

"I've been playing conservatively all the time anyway because I'm playing so much , maybe 40 minutes a game." (probably a high estimate but by 10+ minutes????)

Here's another problem: the quote is context-free. When he talks about how much he's playing, what time period is he talking about? The last few games? The last few weeks? Playing a lot over a stretch of time is understandable, but it does not necessarily translate to such minutes over a full season.

Lafleur LA Times May 16, 1978:

"At the end of an evening when he has played 35 or 40 minutes Lafleur does not appear exhausted. But is he exhausted? 'No' he says"

Again, this talks about when he plays 35 minutes. It doesn't say that he usually plays 35 minutes or how often, just that he's not worn out when he does.

Gretzky SI Jan 23 1984:

"Gretzky plays 26 to 28 minutes per game skating a regular shift, killing penalties and working the power plays."

This is certainly not out of line with current forwards, some of which play 24 minutes. I estimate that Mario played just over 30 minutes per game in 1988/89, which is quite possible since he seemed to be one the ice for nearly every second of Pittsburgh's power-plays. I suspect that estimate is a touch high due to the Orr/Gretzky Effect, but I doubt it's high by more than a minute.

Brad Park The Montreal Gazette May 6, 1976:

"Despite a grievous knee injury that requires hours of ice-packs after the game and during off-days, he has been averaging over 35 minutes a game."

Again, has been averaging over 35 minutes a game over what time period?

 

[BraveCanadian]

I'd say that there are also the same sort of problems with estimates based on models of player usage that are in turn based on assumptions made 30 years after the fact.

The issue for me is that I have a hard time believing so many people who played with these players, actually watched these players play, or were responsible for giving them the ice time in the first place, were off by 5-10+ minutes a game when they say "averaged 35 or 40 minutes a game".

Particularly concerning Orr, there is reference after reference to him averaging 35+ minutes a game in his prime. Even outside his prime when broken down.

These are big discrepancies between the first hand accounts and the estimates here. I don't like the "we're smarter than them with our very limited data from the time" method of whitewashing the issue.

I understand that the GF rate for different players on the team eventually stops passing the smell test (as we found out earlier in the thread), but on the other hand, that assumes that all GF are equally as difficult. That is not the case. Offensive zone vs. defensive zone faceoffs to start the ice time as well as matchups play heavily into what the expected scoring rate for each player/unit would be.

It might very well be that the players playing the leftover time have an easier time scoring because they aren't facing the better defensive units, as an example, while the stars were primarily facing each other and making life more difficult for each other.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

The issue for me is that I have a hard time believing so many people who played with these players, actually watched these players play, or were responsible for giving them the ice time in the first place, were off by 5-10+ minutes a game when they say "averaged 35 or 40 minutes a game".

If you can show me something where someone was actually making an effort to track such a thing and then provided the results, then I'd be inclined to accept it. But all the quotes available seemed to be based off of personal impressions and estimates.

"How much does Bobby Hull play?"
"Oh, I'd say 35 minutes a game. Not that I've actually tried to track it."

Being off by 5 or 10 minutes in some cases using these methods would not strike me as stange. Humans are not very good at estimating such things (with this degree of precision) based on their personal observations; this is why we write things down, so we know that everything is accounted for and so we don't have to rely on spotty human memory.

Particularly concerning Orr, there is reference after reference to him averaging 35+ minutes a game in his prime. Even outside his prime when broken down.

I'll say again; if he averaged 30 minutes a game chances are he played 35+ with relative frequency. And if we rely on human observation, the big games are more likely to be remembered.

These are big discrepancies between the first hand accounts and the estimates here.

The thing is, I don't think we have any actual first-hand accounts here. We have contemporary estimates that seem to be based on personal observation only. A first-hand account would be "Orr, Feb 17, 1971 against Montreal, played 37 minutes" with somebody actually tracking his ice time.

I don't like the "we're smarter than them with our very limited data from the time" method of whitewashing the issue.

We're not smarter than them. Why would we expect them to be able to tell us what the numbers are when no one thought much about it at the time? It was not something that was recorded, not something that was tracked and analyzed on daily basis like it is now.

It might very well be that the players playing the leftover time have an easier time scoring because they aren't facing the better defensive units, as an example, while the stars were primarily facing each other and making life more difficult for each other.

It's not just TGF, though. There's also TGA to consider. And if the stars were facing each other, then presumably the second-tier players were facing each other, and the third-liners facing each other, etc. So each group is facing a group roughly equivalent in talent, which should lead to roughly equivalent goal rates.

 

[overpass]

I think a fair assumption is that (GF+GA) rates at even strength are constant. Consider that at 5-on-4, overall scoring rates aren't much higher than 5-on-5, it's just that one team score most of the goals. Similarly, Orr's great possession play may have reduced GA as much as it increaed GF.

Even with this conservative assumption, I believe Orr was usually on for slightly less than half of ES goals, so after including special teams he couldn't have been much over 30 minutes per game.

Like Iain, I have a hard time taking reported average ice times at face value before it was systematically recorded. SI wrote in a 1982 article that Gretzky averaged 38 minutes per game, which is way too high even with conservative assumptions.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Similarly, Orr's great possession play may have reduced GA as much as it increaed GF.

This is the reason I don't think the Orr/Gretzky Effect is as large as some people assume it must be. You can't give up a goal when you always have the puck on your stick. So higher GF rates and lower GA rates.

 

[Canadiens1958]

D-Men Minutes, Media and Models

Let's start with the simple one first. Media reports and player recollections.No one scouts or makes game plans based on media reports since they tend to support a marketable story.Player recollections are iffy at best as well. Bobby Hull had games when he had significant extra ice time - going for fifty goals, injured or penalized LW team mates , etc but such games were few and far between.

Models. Base them on after the fact data and you will be wrong more often than not. Base them on how the game was coached and the relate strategies in a specific era and you should be close.

Example. In the O6 era teams basically went with three lines with two d-men pairings there was a 5th or 6th d-man who played enough to stay fresh, cover in injury / penalty situations or act as swing players. Example Talbot and Roberts with the Canadiens in the Laperriere/Harper, Tremblay/Harris era were given forward assignments during the PK, swing forwards during injuries, etc plus some time as d-men as if necessary per game conditions.

Coaching strategies. The ideal was having your best defensive pairing on the ice to start and finish each period. NHL not youth hockey where everyone gets equal ice time. This would be accomplished simply by dividing each period into an equal odd number of shifts of more or less equal length. This breaks down to x shifts for the second d-men pairing per period and x+1 shifts for the first d-men pairing. Depending on the desired shift length this would produce app 33-36 minutes for the first pairing and 24-27 minutes for the second pairing.Game circumstances would produce variations dictating how much time filtered down for distribution amongst the 5th and 6th d-men,but the model going in was mainly as outlined.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Depending on the desired shift length this would produce app 33-36 minutes for the first pairing and 24-27 minutes for the second pairing.Game circumstances would produce variations dictating how much time filtered down for distribution amongst the 5th and 6th d-men,but the model going in was mainly as outlined.

In 1968/69, my estimates have the Bruins top pair averaging 28 minutes each, the second pair 24 minutes each, and the fifth defenceman playing about 18.5 minutes. They used almost exactly 5.0 defencemen per game.

The system uses team stats, not league stats, to build the estimates, so as to consider the context in which each individual player played.

 

[BraveCanadian]

It's not just TGF, though. There's also TGA to consider. And if the stars were facing each other, then presumably the second-tier players were facing each other, and the third-liners facing each other, etc. So each group is facing a group roughly equivalent in talent, which should lead to roughly equivalent goal rates.

One nitpick about this during the 70s in particular.. teams were not even close to equivalent in depth/ability.

It was the decade of the have vs. the have not teams.

 

[Canadiens1958]

!968/69

In 1968/69, my estimates have the Bruins top pair averaging 28 minutes each, the second pair 24 minutes each, and the fifth defenceman playing about 18.5 minutes. They used almost exactly 5.0 defencemen per game.

The system uses team stats, not league stats, to build the estimates, so as to consider the context in which each individual player played.

1968/69 is a little beyond the O6 era.Regardless your numbers might be worth re-considering.

Basically a game offers 120 minutes of ice time for defensemen. your numbers yield 56 + 48 +18.5 = 122.5 minutes for 5 d-men which would be within allowable margins of error. But the Bruins featured a a four forward power play with Fred Stanfield dropping back to play the other point mainly with Bobby Orr.

Time to juggle your numbers.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

1968/69 is a little beyond the O6 era.Regardless your numbers might be worth re-considering.

I picked 1968/69 because the year before, Orr missed a bunch of games. And when you say "a little beyond", the emphasis is on the little, right?

Basically a game offers 120 minutes of ice time for defensemen. your numbers yield 56 + 48 +18.5 = 122.5 minutes for 5 d-men which would be within allowable margins of error.

You've failed to consider that I was reporting approximate per-game numbers. Remember that Orr and Green both missed a handful of games, and I was only using the numbers for Doak and Rick Smith as the fifth man, while there were a few others as well. So just adding these number up is not going to give you the totals you think it will.

But the Bruins featured a a four forward power play with Fred Stanfield dropping back to play the other point mainly with Bobby Orr.

Time to juggle your numbers.

Someone must have forgotten to tell Ted Green, who was on the ice for 41 of the Bruins' 60 PPG that season, third-highest total on the team behind Esposito and Orr.

But don't worry, the system accounts for this by using actual team stats to arrive at the estimates. Only 32% of the team PGF are by defencemen (less than the 40% you'd expect for ESG, which confirms that they did use a forward on the point at times), while just over 50% of the PGA are by defencemen (which is what you'd expect), and this system uses these facts to derive the estimates.

Stanfield's numbers, by the way, do confirm that he played the point on the PP when he did play. Not necessarily all the time, but often. For all of the forwards who played regularly on the PP, they each scored a point on at least 60% of the PPG they were on the ice for (Espo is highest at 76%), even Ron Murphy who got a fair share of PP time. The two blueliners, Orr and Green, scored points on less than 40% of the PPG they were on the ice for. Stanfield sits at 46%, which is low enough that he could conceivably have only played the point with the man advantage.