Quote:
Originally Posted by looooob
ok now I'm sort of obsessed by this- in 74-75 Bobby Orr won the ART ROSS (all the while also a pedestrian +80), now he did finish 3rd (so was a finalist in modern terms) for the Hart but it was pretty close between him and Parent for 3rd even. (Clarke and Vachon were 1-2)
|
Vachon was killing it. 92.7% when next best goalie is Parent at 91.8% save percentage. The Kings weren't a great team the year before and then got shuffled into a division where the Canadiens were supposed to easily walk away with the division win but ended up barely ahead of the Kings in the standings. They were defensively focused (only finished behind Philly in GAA) but had no star players upfront (Nevin being 35th overall scorer with 72 points in 80 games compared to Orr's 135 and Clarke's 116). So in terms of MVP to their team criteria, probably fair that Vachon was up there as the best player, in the most important role, on a surprisingly good team.
Very much the opposite, the year before the Bruins had won the equivalent of the President Trophy and the top four league leading scorers were Esposito, Orr, Hodge and Cashman, all Bruins. They would eventually lose to the Flyers in the final but they were a clear favourite entering into the 1975 season. But that off-season they got moved to a bad division (Sabres missed playoffs year before, Toronto got the last spot in the East and the Seals were the worst team in the league by far).
So the Bruins were supposed to come out of that division as the easy leaders. Instead they were well behind the Sabres. Despite Orr winning the second Art Ross of his career, the Bruins disappointed.
The Flyers were just sort of doing what they were supposed to do. Easily winning the division. Bobby Clarke also ended the season on fire with like 45 points in 20 games.
So Orr I think had everything working against him that year. His team disappointed. He had good supporting cast (Esposito finishing just behind him in second place in scoring race and had won the Hart the year before). There was probably Orr fatigue (Orr had already won his Art Ross in a much more convincing fashion in 1970), Orr had his own trophy locked up in the Norris (his eighth straight) so it's not like anyone felt they would be snubbing them, and weirdly the introduction of the Leaster B. Pearson award in 1971 had not gone to Orr yet indicating to the media voters that the players themselves didn't see him as the best player (ironically it would go to Orr that year).