Voting Record - VanIslander, Mike Farkas, tony d

[Michael Farkas]

Unrelated: This past season was the first season Crosby deserved Selke votes in the regular season. Anything he gets this year is legit. Previous years...pass.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Don't forget that the Hart is a totally flawed and subjective award. If you read the scribes from those days, even in the years that Orr wasn't winning the Hart, nobody was suggesting anybody else in the NHL was better... or even close.

That is just plain false:

While Orr's quality is undeniable, his indispensability is not. With Orr in the Bruins’ line‐up, abetted by the prolific Phil Esposito, Boston failed to win the Stanley Cup in 1973, 1974 and 1975. Orr has conned experts with his scoring leadership. In fact, as a defenseman he is, at best, just average.

“Even with Orr,” says the Montreal Gazette's respected hockey analyst, Al Strachan, “the Bruins’ style has not been that successful. It does no good to blast the lowly teams out of the arena if you lose the close games to the good teams. Last year, the Bruins outscored their opponents by 100 goals, but won only 40 of 80 games.”

Fred Shero, the Philadelphia coach, has said that Orr's style would disqualify him for the Flyers. Orr is too much the individualist, too little the team player.

Bobby Orr's Return: Does It Matter?

The Hart is nothing more than the record of what the scribes actually thought, on record, year over year, so I am not understanding why you are attacking the subjectivity of the Hart trophy while completely relying on the subjectivity of the writings of Hart voters (scribes - journalists). Nevermind that the players validated via the Pearson that Orr wasn't regarded as the best player every year either.

Contrast this with Wayne Gretzky. He was regarded as the greatest player for 8 years straight, in the news and on-the-record voting. This is validated by the player's vote as well - with a much higher frequency.

I just don't see a case for Orr. Not remotely.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Without clicking, that's gotta be Stan Fischler again...the only person on the planet who could possibly think something like this...

It's like citing the National Enquirer in a New England Journal of Medicine article about humans being impregnated by aliens...

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Without clicking, that's gotta be Stan Fischler again...the only person on the planet who could possibly think something like this...

It's like citing the National Enquirer in a New England Journal of Medicine article about humans being impregnated by aliens...

Yes, that was a Sam Fischler article. Link: Bobby Orr's Return: Does It Matter?

It's well-documented that he has some bizarre opinions and he seems to be heavily biased against Orr (ranking him behind Syl Apps and Frank Boucher, for example). Not that we should dismiss his opinions outright, but we have to question his bias.

For example, Fischler quotes Al Strachan (who, from what I know, doesn't have any particular anti-Orr bias) - but the quote just doesn't make sense. Strachan criticized the Bruins for not winning more games given their goal differential. During the year he's referring to (1975), the Bruins had the 5th best goal differential in the league (by ratio) and 4th best goal differential (by absolute number). They were 5th in the league in wins and points - pretty much exactly what we'd expect. So Strachan's statement doesn't make any logical sense, and I'm guessing because Fischler was so intent on pushing his anti-Orr agenda, he didn't scrutinize it to make sure it was actually valid.

 

[DannyGallivan]

I just don't see a case for Orr. Not remotely.

Do you watch hockey, or do you just read article and box scores?

 

[DannyGallivan]

Yes, that was a Sam Fischler article. Link: Bobby Orr's Return: Does It Matter?

It's well-documented that he has some bizarre opinions and he seems to be heavily biased against Orr (ranking him behind Syl Apps and Frank Boucher, for example). Not that we should dismiss his opinions outright, but we have to question his bias.

For example, Fischler quotes Al Strachan (who, from what I know, doesn't have any particular anti-Orr bias) - but the quote just doesn't make sense. Strachan criticized the Bruins for not winning more games given their goal differential. During the year he's referring to (1975), the Bruins had the 5th best goal differential in the league (by ratio) and 4th best goal differential (by absolute number). They were 5th in the league in wins and points - pretty much exactly what we'd expect. So Strachan's statement doesn't make any logical sense, and I'm guessing because Fischler was so intent on pushing his anti-Orr agenda, he didn't scrutinize it to make sure it was actually valid.

Didn't Fischler also list Gretzky at number 13 in one of his Hockey's Top 100 books from 30 years ago? I think he had Shore at number two.

 

[DannyGallivan]

"Fred Shero, the Philadelphia coach, has said that Orr's style would disqualify him for the Flyers. Orr is too much the individualist, too little the team player."

...talk about out of context. Ask Shero again if he'd have supported a trade for Barry Ashbee or Moose Dupont for Bobby Orr straight up. I don't know how getting 102 assists in one season, while accumulating a plus minus stat that seemed right out of science fiction, qualifies someone as individualistic. Few teams had a player that COULD do everything by themselves from time to time. Boston was one of them.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Didn't Fischler also list Gretzky at number 13 in one of his Hockey's Top 100 books from 30 years ago? I think he had Shore at number two.

I have one of his top 100 books - I think it was from the late 1980s. I'd have to dig it out.

But I remember Shore was one of the players he thought very highly of (in addition to Frank Boucher, who was definitely in his top ten and might have been in his top five). I remember he had low opinions of Lafleur and Mikita (out of the top 40, if I remember correctly). (And remember, that's from the late eighties - so players like Crosby, Ovechkin, Jagr, Lidstrom, Roy, Hasek, Sakic, Yzerman weren't in front of them - so that's a really low ranking at that point in time).

To his credit, Fischler's actual write-ups about the players (their styles, amusing anecdotes, etc) were actually very interesting to read. So there was still some value in the book as a historical resource - just not a good ranking.

 

[Midnight Judges]

For example, Fischler quotes Al Strachan (who, from what I know, doesn't have any particular anti-Orr bias) - but the quote just doesn't make sense. Strachan criticized the Bruins for not winning more games given their goal differential. During the year he's referring to (1975), the Bruins had the 5th best goal differential in the league (by ratio) and 4th best goal differential (by absolute number). They were 5th in the league in wins and points - pretty much exactly what we'd expect. So Strachan's statement doesn't make any logical sense, and I'm guessing because Fischler was so intent on pushing his anti-Orr agenda, he didn't scrutinize it to make sure it was actually valid.

Perhaps he is referring to playoff losses.

For a team to have a goal differential of +100 and only win half their games does seem odd to me. My Caps were -265 that season lol. Maybe that contributed to things.

EDIT: ^^^ That was actually a guess but in reality the Bruins beat the Caps 12-1, 10-4, 8-0, 8-2, and then tied the other game 3-3. So +31 of their goal differential came against the worst team of all time.

 

[DannyGallivan]

I have one of his top 100 books - I think it was from the late 1980s. I'd have to dig it out.

But I remember Shore was one of the players he thought very highly of (in addition to Frank Boucher, who was definitely in his top ten and might have been in his top five). I remember he had low opinions of Lafleur and Mikita (out of the top 40, if I remember correctly). (And remember, that's from the late eighties - so players like Crosby, Ovechkin, Jagr, Lidstrom, Roy, Hasek, Sakic, Yzerman weren't in front of them - so that's a really low ranking at that point in time).

To his credit, Fischler's actual write-ups about the players (their styles, amusing anecdotes, etc) were actually very interesting to read. So there was still some value in the book as a historical resource - just not a good ranking.

I agree 100 percent. I have a couple of them. It was actually my first real education on the players from 100 years ago. However, I did find much of his rankings insane. Can't argue against Howe at number one, but some of those rankings... sheesh.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Yes, that was a Sam Fischler article. Link: Bobby Orr's Return: Does It Matter?

It's well-documented that he has some bizarre opinions and he seems to be heavily biased against Orr (ranking him behind Syl Apps and Frank Boucher, for example). Not that we should dismiss his opinions outright, but we have to question his bias.

For example, Fischler quotes Al Strachan (who, from what I know, doesn't have any particular anti-Orr bias) - but the quote just doesn't make sense. Strachan criticized the Bruins for not winning more games given their goal differential. During the year he's referring to (1975), the Bruins had the 5th best goal differential in the league (by ratio) and 4th best goal differential (by absolute number). They were 5th in the league in wins and points - pretty much exactly what we'd expect. So Strachan's statement doesn't make any logical sense, and I'm guessing because Fischler was so intent on pushing his anti-Orr agenda, he didn't scrutinize it to make sure it was actually valid.

Yes, and let me go full disclosure here, I've talked to Stan a few times from when I used to be more involved with media (even got him to comment on some of our work here in private)...he's a fascinating guy to talk to...and in private, he's a little more "aw schucks" about all the Gretzky/Orr stuff...not that it's all a front or anything, but he's not on a rampage to be belligerent (like some here, for instance)...he wants to have an interesting story to tell, he wants to have interesting things to say...sometimes it's good, provocative stuff...sometimes it's just smoke and mirrors...

I liken it to asking Donald Trump about how the economy functions or Keith Richards how to play a smooth, melodic guitar...there's going to be some interesting points and there's going to be some times where you'll want to just change the subject...

 

[ImporterExporter]

That is just plain false:







Bobby Orr's Return: Does It Matter?

The Hart is nothing more than the record of what the scribes actually thought, on record, year over year, so I am not understanding why you are attacking the subjectivity of the Hart trophy while completely relying on the subjectivity of the writings of Hart voters (scribes - journalists). Nevermind that the players validated via the Pearson that Orr wasn't regarded as the best player every year either.

Contrast this with Wayne Gretzky. He was regarded as the greatest player for 8 years straight, in the news and on-the-record voting. This is validated by the player's vote as well - with a much higher frequency.

I just don't see a case for Orr. Not remotely.

That's because people like you don't give a shit about defensive impact/ability or the context that not playing D makes it easier to pad offensive totals, especially in the roaring 80's. Dismissing the discussion outright is just plain lazy.

It's why some people think Jagr is a top 10 player ever. It's why you think Ovechkin is a better player than Crosby and probably a top 10 player ever.

But how many titles did 99 win after he was sent to LA? Yet somebody like Messier won a Cup as a THE guy in Edmonton and then again in NY.

Most of the guys who won the most were solid 2 way players and or/studs.

That isn't a coincidence.

 

[Midnight Judges]

That's because people like you don't give a **** about defensive impact/ability or the context that not playing D makes it easier to pad offensive totals, especially in the roaring 80's. Dismissing the discussion outright is just plain lazy.

It's why some people think Jagr is a top 10 player ever. It's why you think Ovechkin is a better player than Crosby and probably a top 10 player ever.

But how many titles did 99 win after he was sent to LA? Yet somebody like Messier won a Cup as a THE guy in Edmonton and then again in NY.

Most of the guys who won the most were solid 2 way players and or/studs.

That isn't a coincidence.

Once again, you misstate my opinion.

I think defense is quite important and rankings ought to reflect it to a large degree. It's just that over the balance of his career, Crosby's defense isn't worth much of anything. He has been overwhelmingly deployed for offense, he barely plays the PK, and he hasn't been particularly effective defensively anyway - even when he is trying. There is nothing noteworthy there.

I don't know why this is relevant regarding Bobby Orr. He wasn't the most positionally responsible defenseman, and his opponents exploited it. If anything, emphasizing defense would reduce his ranking - just as it would Erik Karlsson's.

 

[DannyGallivan]

I don't know why this is relevant regarding Bobby Orr. He wasn't the most positionally responsible defenseman, and his opponents exploited it.

He didn't need to be a stay at home defenseman. He was Bobby Orr. If you have a Ferrari, you don't limit it to school zones.

Yes, Orr himself admits that his teammates allowed him his free-wheeling style, but he also had the ability to get back into position when need be. Also, for what it's worth, The Hockey News ranked Orr both the Greatest Defensive Defenseman and the Greatest Offensive Defensemen (two different lists) in their "Best of Everything" issue.

 

[Midnight Judges]

He didn't need to be a stay at home defenseman. He was Bobby Orr. If you have a Ferrari, you don't limit it to school zones.

How dare you equate playing defense with driving a station wagon!

 

[DannyGallivan]

How dare you equate playing defense with driving a station wagon!

Well, defensive defense... it's more like a mini-van. A station wagon would be so much cooler.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Once again, you misstate my opinion.

I think defense is quite important and rankings ought to reflect it to a large degree. It's just that over the balance of his career, Crosby's defense isn't worth much of anything. He has been overwhelmingly deployed for offense, he barely plays the PK, and he hasn't been particularly effective defensively anyway - even when he is trying. There is nothing noteworthy there.

I don't know why this is relevant regarding Bobby Orr. He wasn't the most positionally responsible defenseman, and his opponents exploited it. If anything, emphasizing defense would reduce his ranking - just as it would Erik Karlsson's.

Are you seriously comparing Orr & Karlsson defensively?

 

[ImporterExporter]

Was there a flaw in Orr's GAME?

Like seriously, beyond the misfortune of having a giant target on his back, in an era where over the line physical stuff was common, game to game, and also not having modern medicine and tech to fix his knees, where was his weakness?

The guy's on/off differentials are insane. He impacted the game, at an elite rate, over every inch of the ice. Offensively, defensively, it didn't matter. He was tough as nails, scrapped with plenty of folks, had an edge to go with all the flair.

I honestly will never understand how someone can watch Wayne Gretzky, then Bobby Orr and say the former was a better HOCKEY player.

It's why I have Orr AND Howe over Gretzky all time.

Those two were just the pinnacle of what I'd want in the "perfect" hockey player, in any era.

 

[daver]

That's because people like you don't give a **** about defensive impact/ability or the context that not playing D makes it easier to pad offensive totals, especially in the roaring 80's. Dismissing the discussion outright is just plain lazy.

It's why some people think Jagr is a top 10 player ever. It's why you think Ovechkin is a better player than Crosby and probably a top 10 player ever.

But how many titles did 99 win after he was sent to LA? Yet somebody like Messier won a Cup as a THE guy in Edmonton and then again in NY.

Most of the guys who won the most were solid 2 way players and or/studs.

That isn't a coincidence.

How do establish that Messier was THE guy on the 1990 Oilers and the '94 Rangers while not giving Wayne the same credit for being THE guy on the Oilers' four Cup runs plus two other SCFs?