Orr Vs Gretzky

[Rhiessan71]

If "the only thing that held Orr back from producing numbers closer to Gretzky was the position he played," then why isn't the fact that Orr's position is a large part of what made him a "superior 2-way player?"

Yep, just like it made Coffey a better 2-way player.....oh wait a minute

 

[bleeney]

Do you have any real arguements? Or is it all speculative nonsense? If, If, and more ifs. Give it up. The guy with more assist than anyone in the history of the game points is undeniably the most gifted offensive talent the league has ever seen and likely will be forever.

If you wanna argue Orr is a better because of the 2way game, go for it, but for offence alone. It isn't even close.

Actually, he has excellent arguments.

Orr's role as a Dman meant that he didn't have nearly as many chances to make offensive plays as Gretzky (a centre) had. That should be obvious to anyone.

Did Gretzky, after setting up Kurri in the slot, have to bolt from his "office" behind the net to rush back deep into his own zone? No. Why would he? He wasn't the last line of defense. He stayed down low, in close proximity to the other team's net. If there was any sustained pressure, he was right there. Orr was the last line of defense, and he took a risk every time he jumped deep into the offensive zone. Is it any wonder Gretzky was in on a lot more scoring plays?

When the opposition was pressing in the Oiler zone, was Gretzky battling deep in the corners, along the boards behind his net, or trying to clear someone from the slot? No. He was stationed high in the defensive zone, waiting to capitalize on turnovers (something he was superb at, btw). When he did get the puck off a turnover, he didn't have to go 200 feet through the entire team to create a scoring chance like Orr did. He had a shorter distance to travel with fewer obstacles. And once he got there, he could stay there.

Orr was a bloody defenseman, whose primary job was to keep the other team from scoring, a task he took very seriously. Not getting the kind of point totals that Gretzky got is primarily a result of his role as a Dman. It doesn't mean that he wasn't in the same league as Gretzky when it came to offensive talent.

Sheeesh!

In my 40+ yeas of watching hockey, there are three players whose offensive gifts put them on a different level from anybody else I've seen: Orr, Gretzky and Lemieux. Each of them, in their own way, were virtually impossible to defend against.

 

[BraveCanadian]

In '83 and '84 the Isles were more successful in shutting down the production of Gretzky, a centre (10 points in 9 games), than the '71 Habs and '74 Flyers (both Stanley Cup champs with Conn Smythe winning, HOF goalies) were against Orr, a defenseman (19 points in 13 games).

The problem is that you are cherry picking to prove your point.

What about what Orr did in 73? What about what Gretzky did in the finals in 85 87 and 88?

 

[BraveCanadian]

The Bruins were so far ahead of the pack because they were the first team to run and gun offense to that level while everyone else was still playing defense first, and, specifically because of Bobby Orr's ability to play superb defense at the same time.


AND Orr was renowned for taking it easy on the weaker teams.

Please explain Bobby being on the ice for 258 goals in 71 and 209 in 72 then.. I'd love to know how that is "taking it easy".

Just to put that in perspective.. the 2nd best team in 71 scored a total of 291 goals.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Please explain Bobby being on the ice for 258 goals in 71 and 209 in 72 then.. I'd love to know how that is "taking it easy".

Just to put that in perspective.. the 2nd best team in 71 scored a total of 291 goals.

The fact that he would intentionally stop trying to score once the score was 4-0 or worse? Shooting it directly into a goaltenders chest for an easy save? When he could have in fact, feasted like the 80's teams did on the weaker teams, but he didn't. Orr routinely passed up on goals and points when they were beating up the weaker teams and that is something you will hear not only from me, but from just about everyone who watched him play.

And Orr scored almost at the exact same pace against some of the deep, extremely talented original 6 teams loaded with stars that anyone would have had trouble scoring against. If he were munching on the easy teams as you imply he would have scored far less against the best teams and far more against the weak teams. He didn't. Thus, disproving your entire theory.

and again, you keep bringing up this "The next team only had 291 goals. How many times does it have to be repeated? They were playing defense first systems. Which meant fewer goals could be scored against them as well.

As the 70's went on, you will notice more and more teams with 300+ goals for, while also noticing more and more teams with worse goals against because they were slowly following the revolutionary example Orr set. Teams were letting their defensemen get more and more involved, and since few could play Orr's type of offensive game while also playing the brilliant defense, goals against kept going up.

In Gretzky's first 200+ point year, you had teams like Toronto finishing with 56 points. Terrible, yet they scored 298 goals, which would be a lot by early 70's standards, yet they let in 380 goals.

In the 80's, just about everyone was playing offense first, making it possible for all those players to hit 100+ points and all those teams to have those horrendous goals against. It was virtually like having 12+ teams worse at keeping pucks out of the net than the Seals and then 5 more nearly as bad. Leading to the highest scoring era ever.

 

[bleeney]

The problem is that you are cherry picking to prove your point.

What about what Orr did in 73? What about what Gretzky did in the finals in 85 87 and 88?

I wasn't "cherry picking".

Re-read my original post. Please...

I said:

But the fact remains that Gretzky feasted against lesser teams, and sometimes, when he faced the very best, there was a marked difference in his production compared to when he played teams like the Kings or North Stars. I'm not saying every great team was able to slow him down like that (he shredded the Habs in '81, with 11 points in 3 games). But it did happen. Particularly against the NYI.

In this quote, I did mention the '85 finals. But as you can see, the main point was how the NYI were able to reduce Gretzky to a mere mortal compared to his unbelievable, record-breaking performances against the weak sisters of the league (something no one could do to Orr). They did this on two occasions:

*In the '83 playoffs, he had a combined 12G, 26A for 38Pts in 16 games (2.375 ppg) against the Jets, Flames and Hawks. Against Billy Smith and the NYI in the finals, he had 0G, 4A for 4Pts (1.0 ppg).
*In the '84 playoffs, he had a combined 9G, 20A, for 29Pts in 14 games (2.07 ppg) against the Jets, Flames and North Stars. Against Billy Smith and the NYI in the finals, he had 4G, 2A in 5 games (1.25 ppg).
*In the '85 playoffs, against the Kings, Jets and Hawks, he had a combined 10G, 26A for 36Pts in 13 games (2.77 ppg). Against Lindbergh and the Flyers, he had an unreal 7G, 4A for 11Pts in just 5 games (2.2 ppg)

And I did mention the '73 playoffs:

The only time Orr was really contained was in the '72-73 playoffs against the Rangers, when he had 2 points in 5 games. But that year was an off year for Orr and for the Bruins in general. They'd lost a quarter of their team to the WHA and through the expansion draft. Espo blew his knee out early in game two and was lost for the playoffs. And Orr was not 100% either. Those such as myself who watched him during this time could not help but notice that he was not the same player after his major knee surgery in '72. It not only kept him out of the series against the Russians, it hampered him all year long:
"Before the 1972-72 season began, Orr had an operation on one of his bad knees. He returned for the 1972-73 campaign a slower skater than before...
"Like many Orr-watchers, Park noticed the change in Bobby's style. And once again, he couldn't keep his mouth shut. "Last year," he said, "when Bobby hit our blueline he was accelerating. Now he's just moving regularly when he hits the line. What that means is that we-the defensemen-can angle Orr against the boards because he does not have the spurt to go around us."
-from Hockey's Greatest Rivalries by Stan Fischler; pg 57

 

[BraveCanadian]

I wasn't "cherry picking".

Yes, but was Gretzky's shredding of the Habs and Orr's shutdown in 73 in those stats?

Or is the whole argument that a 5 time finalist was able to slow Gretzky down?

With Orr only having played 74 games it is really hard to compare because that is a pretty short playoff career compared to a guy who played 208 games.

By your own admission he had an off series in 73.. that is at least one series in 74 games so we can expect even if Gretzky were playing just as well he would have close to 3 of those instances based on his games played.

 

[BraveCanadian]

The fact that he would intentionally stop trying to score once the score was 4-0 or worse?

The problem is that the numbers don't match the "facts".

 

[unknown33]

The problem is that the numbers don't match the "facts".

Why not?

 

[BraveCanadian]

Why not?

Because it isn't true.. or at least isn't as true as people are remembering it to be.. I just looked for like 5 minutes for examples where the Bruins won handily with Orr scoring late and found these few examples already. There are several more I came across where he had assists late in blowouts as well.

Oct 16-70 Bruins up 4-1 on the Seals in the 3rd.. Orr scores in the 3rd to make it 5-1

Oct 31-70 Bruins up 3-0 vs. Rangers in the third, Orr scores 1g 1a in the 3rd and the final score is 6-0.

Feb 3 71 Bruins up 6-2 vs LAK in the 2nd, Orr scores to make it 7-2.

Nov 14 71 Bruins up 7-2 on the Kings in the 3rd, Orr adds 1g 1a in the third and the final is 11-2.

Nov 15 1973 (Orrs best game) Bruins up 5-1 on NYR after 2.. Orr scores 2G and 1A in the 3rd. The game ends 10-2.

Now I am not trying to say that he always ran up the score or whatever but he definitely wasn't shutting it down and taking it easy all the time when the Bruins were beating on the red headed step children they had as competition either.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Because it isn't true.. or at least isn't as true as people are remembering it to be.. I just looked for like 5 minutes for examples where the Bruins won handily with Orr scoring late and found these few examples already. There are several more I came across where he had assists late in blowouts as well.

Oct 16-70 Bruins up 4-1 on the Seals in the 3rd.. Orr scores in the 3rd to make it 5-1

Oct 31-70 Bruins up 3-0 vs. Rangers in the third, Orr scores 1g 1a in the 3rd and the final score is 6-0.

Feb 3 71 Bruins up 6-2 vs LAK in the 2nd, Orr scores to make it 7-2.

Nov 14 71 Bruins up 7-2 on the Kings in the 3rd, Orr adds 1g 1a in the third and the final is 11-2.

Nov 15 1973 (Orrs best game) Bruins up 5-1 on NYR after 2.. Orr scores 2G and 1A in the 3rd. The game ends 10-2.

Now I am not trying to say that he always ran up the score or whatever but he definitely wasn't shutting it down and taking it easy all the time when the Bruins were beating on the red headed step children they had as competition either.

I understand what you're trying to say Brave but it actually was a well known fact around the league.
It's not like he totally shut it down, he just wouldn't rush as much and would play more defensively.

You could definitely see the difference between Gretzky and Orr in this regard.
It's also understandable really, I mean it's not like Gretzky would be very effective as a defensive force so his continued offense was his defense in a way.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Because it isn't true.. or at least isn't as true as people are remembering it to be.. I just looked for like 5 minutes for examples where the Bruins won handily with Orr scoring late and found these few examples already. There are several more I came across where he had assists late in blowouts as well.

Oct 16-70 Bruins up 4-1 on the Seals in the 3rd.. Orr scores in the 3rd to make it 5-1

Oct 31-70 Bruins up 3-0 vs. Rangers in the third, Orr scores 1g 1a in the 3rd and the final score is 6-0.

Feb 3 71 Bruins up 6-2 vs LAK in the 2nd, Orr scores to make it 7-2.

Nov 14 71 Bruins up 7-2 on the Kings in the 3rd, Orr adds 1g 1a in the third and the final is 11-2.

Nov 15 1973 (Orrs best game) Bruins up 5-1 on NYR after 2.. Orr scores 2G and 1A in the 3rd. The game ends 10-2.

Now I am not trying to say that he always ran up the score or whatever but he definitely wasn't shutting it down and taking it easy all the time when the Bruins were beating on the red headed step children they had as competition either.

Begun cherry picking conversations for what you will and will not answer now?

And Oh yes Orr was. The idea that you can find some games out of hundreds is really irrelevant. Of course a couple of games are going to have Orr scoring late. And the competition faced by Orr was just as good, if not better than Gretzky's.

Love how you picked the Rangers games. I said he took it easy on weak teams and mostly "Expansion teams", not established strong original 6 teams. I even quoted the old interview.

It certainly is a world apart from routinely scoring a 3 point 4rd period with empty net goal in an 11-4 game or 8-1 in the 80's like Gretzky did.

And again,
And Orr scored almost at the exact same pace against some of the deep, extremely talented original 6 teams loaded with stars that anyone would have had trouble scoring against. If he were munching on the easy teams as you imply he would have scored far less against the best teams and far more against the weak teams. He didn't. Thus, disproving your entire theory.

In any case, I am beginning to see that you are a guy who looks at numbers and makes assumption. You did not see Orr play.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

The fact that he would intentionally stop trying to score once the score was 4-0 or worse? Shooting it directly into a goaltenders chest for an easy save? When he could have in fact, feasted like the 80's teams did on the weaker teams, but he didn't. Orr routinely passed up on goals and points when they were beating up the weaker teams and that is something you will hear not only from me, but from just about everyone who watched him play.

And Orr scored almost at the exact same pace against some of the deep, extremely talented original 6 teams loaded with stars that anyone would have had trouble scoring against. If he were munching on the easy teams as you imply he would have scored far less against the best teams and far more against the weak teams. He didn't. Thus, disproving your entire theory.

and again, you keep bringing up this "The next team only had 291 goals. How many times does it have to be repeated? They were playing defense first systems. Which meant fewer goals could be scored against them as well.

As the 70's went on, you will notice more and more teams with 300+ goals for, while also noticing more and more teams with worse goals against because they were slowly following the revolutionary example Orr set. Teams were letting their defensemen get more and more involved, and since few could play Orr's type of offensive game while also playing the brilliant defense, goals against kept going up.

In Gretzky's first 200+ point year, you had teams like Toronto finishing with 56 points. Terrible, yet they scored 298 goals, which would be a lot by early 70's standards, yet they let in 380 goals.

In the 80's, just about everyone was playing offense first, making it possible for all those players to hit 100+ points and all those teams to have those horrendous goals against. It was virtually like having 12+ teams worse at keeping pucks out of the net than the Seals and then 5 more nearly as bad. Leading to the highest scoring era ever.

I can certainly accept Orr toned it down against lesser teams... I think every star does so to a certain extent (if he cares about the playoffs and getting up for key games), and obviously coaches do (resting stars and giving other players more ice-time). No big-minute player can give 100% effort every single game and expect to have anything in the tank for the post-season.

While it means he might have been able to padd his stats more, it might also mean his career could have been even shorter, playing balls-to-the-wall each and every night. It's not hard to imagine taking it easy some nights benefited him. Whether Orr padded his stats against bad teams or used it as an opportunity to rest a bit, it certainly was an advantage to playing on a stacked team in a weak era.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I understand what you're trying to say Brave but it actually was a well known fact around the league.
It's not like he totally shut it down, he just wouldn't rush as much and would play more defensively.

You could definitely see the difference between Gretzky and Orr in this regard.
It's also understandable really, I mean it's not like Gretzky would be very effective as a defensive force so his continued offense was his defense in a way.

Yeah for sure you're probably right.. I'm just saying that it isn't so cut and dried that "Orr shut it down in blowouts".. he obviously didn't always do that even if he sometimes did.

 

[Dark Shadows]

I can certainly accept Orr toned it down against lesser teams... I think every star does so to a certain extent (if he cares about the playoffs and getting up for key games), and obviously coaches do (resting stars and giving other players more ice-time). No big-minute player can give 100% effort every single game and expect to have anything in the tank for the post-season.

While it means he might have been able to padd his stats more, it might also mean his career could have been even shorter, playing balls-to-the-wall each and every night. It's not hard to imagine taking it easy some nights benefited him. Whether Orr padded his stats against bad teams or used it as an opportunity to rest a bit, it certainly was an advantage to playing on a stacked team in a weak era.

No more than it was for Gretzky, who also played on a stacked team in a weak era. Just as weak as the 70's IMO. 80's Moreso when it comes to scoring since nobody was playing defense

 

[BraveCanadian]

Begun cherry picking conversations for what you will and will not answer now?

Still waiting for the answer about those pluggers playing with Lemieux, myself.

And Oh yes Orr was. The idea that you can find some games out of hundreds is really irrelevant. Of course a couple of games are going to have Orr scoring late. And the competition faced by Orr was just as good, if not better than Gretzky's.

I am sure there are many more examples but I don't really have the time to spend the time going through 100s of games.. I simply refuted this notion that he always shut it down and took it easy when the Bruins were ahead.

Maybe he did sometimes.. but obviously not all the time.

Love how you picked the Rangers games. I said he took it easy on weak teams and mostly "Expansion teams", not established strong original 6 teams. I even quoted the old interview.

Except that blowing out original 6 teams kinda goes counter to the point of all this which is that Orr was doing so well against the "best" teams with hall of fame goalies... doesn't it?

And again,
And Orr scored almost at the exact same pace against some of the deep, extremely talented original 6 teams loaded with stars that anyone would have had trouble scoring against. If he were munching on the easy teams as you imply he would have scored far less against the best teams and far more against the weak teams. He didn't. Thus, disproving your entire theory.

In any case, I am beginning to see that you are a guy who looks at numbers and makes assumption. You did not see Orr play.

And again, which one of those teams compares to the 5 time finalist that was able to slow Gretzky down in that huge 9 game sample?

I don't think you guys get that I am not trying to tear Orr down I am just questioning this comparison of a guy who was done playing in the playoffs by the time he was 26 and was playing in a league that was hugely uneven.. vs. Gretzky being slowed down for 9 games against a 5 time finalist..

 

[RabbinsDuck]

No more than it was for Gretzky, who also played on a stacked team in a weak era. Just as weak as the 70's IMO. 80's Moreso when it comes to scoring since nobody was playing defense

80s had more euros and no competing league in N. America.
Expansion had also slowed to a crawl compared to the 70s.

I really don't see a case for the top-to-bottom talent pool of the 70s being on par with the 80s.

From 1967 to 1974, the NHL grew from 6 teams to 18 teams, growing 300% in only 7 years!

In its first year in 1972, the WHA snagged 67 players from the NHL, and even if they were all bottom-line players (they weren't) that's a significant slice of the pie to add on top of the rapid expansion.

 

[BraveCanadian]

80s had more euros and no competing league in N. America.
Expansion had also slowed to a crawl compared to the 70s.

I really don't see a case for the top-to-bottom talent pool of the 70s being on par with the 80s.

From 1967 to 1974, the NHL grew from 6 teams to 18 teams, growing 300% in only 7 years!

In its first year in 1972, the WHA snagged 67 players from the NHL, and even if they were all bottom-line players (they weren't) that's a significant slice of the pie to add on top of the rapid expansion.

Yeah there was definitely less parity in the 70s than the 80s.

It was feast and famine really and like you say.. with it being prior to the influx of top players from across the pond and even the USA, in addition to the WHA drawing some big names.. I do think the pool of players was stretched a little thin.

Not to take anything away from the Orrs and Espos and Lafleurs etc.. they were good enough to be great regardless. Just something to keep in mind.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Killer Instinct

The issue of elite players padding their stats has gone a bit off track.

Limiting the discussion to the Bruins and Oilers, the numbers generated by Bobby Orr and Wayne Gretzky have to be put in a context.

Both teams suffered embarrassing playoff defeats that resulted in series being lost an potential Stanley Cup appearances.

In 1971 the Bruins blew a 5-1 game 2 lead against the Canadiens, eventually losing the series in 7 while in 1982 the Oilers lost to the kings - blowing a lead in the Miracle on Manchester.

After such experiences teams and players develop the "Killer Instinct" and playing "nice" goes out the window.

Performance against elite teams has to be understood within a context. Elite teams playing against the Bruins and Bobby Orr or the Oilers and Wayne Gretzky would play hockey, trying to win. The weak teams, especially on the road would play a defensive shell trying not to be embarrassed, five men back, tentative offense, etc.Harder to score playing against such an opponent.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Yeah there was definitely less parity in the 70s than the 80s.

It was feast and famine really and like you say.. with it being prior to the influx of top players from across the pond and even the USA, in addition to the WHA drawing some big names.. I do think the pool of players was stretched a little thin.

Not to take anything away from the Orrs and Espos and Lafleurs etc.. they were good enough to be great regardless. Just something to keep in mind.

Yeah but whether the league was watered down or not, it was still a hell of a lot easier to score in the 80's than in the 70's.
Like what usually happens when a team is low on talent, filled with pluggers and grinders?
They play more defensively hoping to "grind out" some wins.

I would think this would be pretty evident after looking at the goals against numbers for the worst teams in the 70's and the average in the 80's.
As has been mentioned, the worst goals against in the 70's is middle of the pack in the 80's...that's a hard fact to ignore.

Also, the parity in the 80's you speak of was from more teams being able to score, it wasn't from more teams being able to stop the scoring.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

The problem is that the numbers don't match the "facts".

Yes they do. The fact that Orr scored at similar rates vs. good and terrible teams absolutely supports the fact that he didn't run up the score against bad teams.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Yeah but whether the league was watered down or not, it was still a hell of a lot easier to score in the 80's than in the 70's.
Like what usually happens when a team is low on talent, filled with pluggers and grinders?
They play more defensively hoping to "grind out" some wins.

I would think this would be pretty evident after looking at the goals against numbers for the worst teams in the 70's and the average in the 80's.
As has been mentioned, the worst goals against in the 70's is middle of the pack in the 80's...that's a hard fact to ignore.

Also, the parity in the 80's you speak of was from more teams being able to score, it wasn't from more teams being able to stop the scoring.

Except that the worst teams in the 70s who were supposedly trying to grind out wins were still getting scored on in droves. So either they actually weren't doing this, or they were terrible at it, or the best teams in the 70s were way way better than the average and below average teams. Any of those possibilities mean you can't use the argument persuasively.

If you factor in that they played less games there were times in the 70s that 1/3 of the teams would be giving up in the neighbourhood of 300+ goals against over an 80 game schedule like in the 80s.

Average scoring was obviously up in the 80s over the 70s so that does have to be kept in mind.. but I think this argument is overstated when you are looking at top teams of the 70s vs. more average ones.

Like if you were to take a team that was actually very close to the average in the 70s and compare it to a team very close to the average in the 80s I think adjusting makes a lot of sense for comparison purposes. However, with the really above or below average teams there are a lot more factors in play and I think the results get worse and worse the farther a team is from the actual average in their year. Just my opinion.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Yes they do. The fact that Orr scored at similar rates vs. good and terrible teams absolutely supports the fact that he didn't run up the score against bad teams.

It sort of degenerated into an all the time argument rather than a playoff stats thing...


However, I still think that the playoff argument is apples and oranges in comparison with Gretzky if the only time Gretzky was slowed down really noticeably in his prime was by the Islanders for 9 games. Even in Orrs short playoff career in comparison to Gretzky he had a bad run against the Rangers in 72-73 and I don't think anyone here can make a good case they were as good as the early 80s Isles.

Gretzky and the Oilers in general got better and better each time they faced the Islanders in those games.

I mean in 83 the Oilers only scored a total of 6 goals in the 4 games and Gretzky was in on 4 of those 6 which I don't think is too bad when you're getting taught a lesson by some veterans like those Isles.

By the last 3 games they played in the 84 finals the Oilers were having their way with the declining Isles.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

It sort of degenerated into an all the time argument rather than a playoff stats thing...


However, I still think that the playoff argument is apples and oranges in comparison with Gretzky if the only time Gretzky was slowed down really noticeably in his prime was by the Islanders for 9 games. Even in Orrs short playoff career in comparison to Gretzky he had a bad run against the Rangers in 72-73 and I don't think anyone here can make a good case they were as good as the early 80s Isles.

Gretzky and the Oilers in general got better and better each time they faced the Islanders in those games.

I mean in 83 the Oilers only scored a total of 6 goals in the 4 games and Gretzky was in on 4 of those 6 which I don't think is too bad when you're getting taught a lesson by some veterans like those Isles.

By the last 3 games they played in the 84 finals the Oilers were having their way with the declining Isles.

Gretzky definitely has the edge in playoffs. No argument there. IMO, Gretzky and Roy are the two best playoff performers of all time.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Except that the worst teams in the 70s who were supposedly trying to grind out wins were still getting scored on in droves. So either they actually weren't doing this, or they were terrible at it, or the best teams in the 70s were way way better than the average and below average teams. Any of those possibilities mean you can't use the argument persuasively.

If you factor in that they played less games there were times in the 70s that 1/3 of the teams would be giving up in the neighbourhood of 300+ goals against over an 80 game schedule like in the 80s.

Average scoring was obviously up in the 80s over the 70s so that does have to be kept in mind.. but I think this argument is overstated when you are looking at top teams of the 70s vs. more average ones.

Like if you were to take a team that was actually very close to the average in the 70s and compare it to a team very close to the average in the 80s I think adjusting makes a lot of sense for comparison purposes. However, with the really above or below average teams there are a lot more factors in play and I think the results get worse and worse the farther a team is from the actual average in their year. Just my opinion.

In Orr's and the Bruins best season in 70/71 the Seals were the worst team allowing 320 goals and that's hardly being scored on in droves compared to 80's teams. Only 2 other teams were even above 300 goals against.
That's 3 teams out of 14 just above 300.

By comparison the 85/86 season which was Gretzky's best season and the Oilers second best, the worst team was Detroit at a whopping 415 goals against, another 4 teams between 372 and 389 and 7 more between 302 and 349.
That's 12 out of 21 teams above 300, most of them well above.

Average goals against in 70/71 244 per team (5 teams worse than the league average 36%)
Average goals against in 85/86 317 per team (7 teams worse than the league average 33%)