"Better Career" Esposito or Crosby?

[LeBlondeDemon10]

if it was so easy to score in the 70s, how come more players didnt rack up 125+ point seasons or 60+ goal seasons...or just run up the score like Esposito must've done? How come Espo managed to outscore everyone else in that time by 200 points and 20% (including Orr). Maybe its because he actually was that damn good

btw, the 80s are truly where rapid expansion inflated individual scoring to unrealistic heights. The WHA merger instantly watered down the league far more than it ever had been or will be. It was the 80s that saw 15+ 100pt players and 40+ 40g scorers per season. You had JAGs like Blaine Stoughton scoring 52 goals (1982), or Dave Taylor scoring 112 and 106 in consecutive seasons (81, 82).

Not true. Professional hockey contracted from 34 teams in 74-75 to 21 teams in 79-80.

 

[Michael Farkas]

if it was so easy to score in the 70s, how come more players didnt rack up...

The position of defense had not fully evolved yet. Orr helped really spark a revolution, but that cannot have been realized by 1975 obviously. If you don't have a #1 PMD, you likely don't have a lot of points at center...through the end of the sponsorship era, most teams had D -> C zone exit structure...

Even D to D passing was not really en vogue across the league...

 

[Jets4Life]

And looking at league average actually underrates the difference in scoring difficulty, as the 1970s had so many awful expansion teams bringing down the average.

We have to also keep in mind that during Esposito's prime, there were hardly any Europeans in the NHL and no Russians. The hockey boom in the United States was a decade away, and there were 32 professional hockey teams between the NHL and WHA at one point.

If Crosby had not had the concussion problems he did from 2010-12, this would not even be debatable. Crosby is a better player than Esposito.

 

[Boxscore]

We have to also keep in mind that during Esposito's prime, there were hardly any Europeans in the NHL and no Russians.

We also need to keep in mind that Esposito was an absolute force against the brilliant Soviet powerhouse in 72 and awesome in other tournaments. If there were any reservations about how a player like Espo would have held up against the greatest Euros of his day--they were pulverized in 72. He scored at a 1.65 PPG pace and lead the tournament in scoring. And, that Soviet team was a million times better than the Ryan Miller USA team that Sid had to squeeze through in OT.

Esposito's peak was clearly more dominant than Crosby's...

2 Harts
5 Art Rosses
6 "Rocket Richards"
2 Cups
2 Lindsays
10 All-star games
36 career hat tricks
Elite standout in the most important International hockey tournament in history

... Crosby wasn't that dominant as his best. He just wasn't.

 

[The Panther]

There's room for some nuance here. I think most of us feel that Crosby is the better athlete, has better longevity, is a more complete player, and no doubt a better teammate / 'leader', etc. As I mentioned, back on page 2 or something, Crosby was always in the conversation for "best player in the world" from around 2006 to 2017, if not longer. That latter point in itself might be the best argument for placing him above Esposito, since Phil was never really in that conversation (vs. Orr, which made it difficult), though maybe you can make the case that Phil was the best player in 1968-69 over Orr and Hull. (Phil did win a couple Hart trophies vs. Orr later on, but I think we mostly agree that was kind of sketchy voting.)

Crosby is an era of deeper competition (and obviously an era harder to dominate statistically, but we all know that), but then again he hasn't had peer competition as strong as Espo's because Espo was competing against Orr, who is generally acknowledged as one of the three greatest players in history. So, maybe one way of looking at this is: Remove Orr from the competition, and then would Phil Esposito have been considered the game's best player and for how long?

My guess is that in that scenario, Espo and Crosby's periods and titles as "best player in the world" would be about the same. Espo might have a couple fewer scoring titles, but maybe for most of the seasons from 1968-69 through 1974-75 he'd have been considered the best player (or co-best, at first, with Bobby Hull).

As Boxscore suggests, above, I do not put any weight in Crosby's playing against a more international League because when Esposito played against the best international players, he was dominant (not only in '72 without Orr, but again in '76). By contrast, Crosby's international resume is not very impressive. I mean, I don't think it's distinguishable from, say, Jonathan Toews or whoever.


So, I'm of two minds about this: I recognize that Crosby is probably the better athlete and certainly plays in the deeper era with more consistent competition -- in fact, Esposito's prime (and Orr's as well) is probably the single weakest period of team competition in NHL history -- and that Crosby has been in the "best player in the world" conversation longer than Espo was. Those are all points to consider. On the other hand, Espo's legacy was both enhanced and reduced by playing with Orr, whose latter-day reputation has been greatly enhanced, seemingly at Espo's expense. What if Crosby's prime had coincided with his teammate being Gretzky or Lemieux? Then, would he ever have been considered the game's best player? Nope. And Espo's dominance at the '72 and '76 series against the best international players proves that he could get it done, big time (incl. without Orr) on the international stage, at a level Crosby hasn't reached (yet). And, at the end of the day, Espo's stats and peer domination of offense dwarfs Crosby's.

So, it can go either way.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

There's room for some nuance here. I think most of us feel that Crosby is the better athlete, has better longevity, is a more complete player, and no doubt a better teammate / 'leader', etc. As I mentioned, back on page 2 or something, Crosby was always in the conversation for "best player in the world" from around 2006 to 2017, if not longer. That latter point in itself might be the best argument for placing him above Esposito, since Phil was never really in that conversation (vs. Orr, which made it difficult), though maybe you can make the case that Phil was the best player in 1968-69 over Orr and Hull. (Phil did win a couple Hart trophies vs. Orr later on, but I think we mostly agree that was kind of sketchy voting.)

Crosby is an era of deeper competition (and obviously an era harder to dominate statistically, but we all know that), but then again he hasn't had peer competition as strong as Espo's because Espo was competing against Orr, who is generally acknowledged as one of the three greatest players in history. So, maybe one way of looking at this is: Remove Orr from the competition, and then would Phil Esposito have been considered the game's best player and for how long?

My guess is that in that scenario, Espo and Crosby's periods and titles as "best player in the world" would be about the same. Espo might have a couple fewer scoring titles, but maybe for most of the seasons from 1968-69 through 1974-75 he'd have been considered the best player (or co-best, at first, with Bobby Hull).

As Boxscore suggests, above, I do not put any weight in Crosby's playing against a more international League because when Esposito played against the best international players, he was dominant (not only in '72 without Orr, but again in '76). By contrast, Crosby's international resume is not very impressive. I mean, I don't think it's distinguishable from, say, Jonathan Toews or whoever.


So, I'm of two minds about this: I recognize that Crosby is probably the better athlete and certainly plays in the deeper era with more consistent competition -- in fact, Esposito's prime (and Orr's as well) is probably the single weakest period of team competition in NHL history -- and that Crosby has been in the "best player in the world" conversation longer than Espo was. Those are all points to consider. On the other hand, Espo's legacy was both enhanced and reduced by playing with Orr, whose latter-day reputation has been greatly enhanced, seemingly at Espo's expense. What if Crosby's prime had coincided with his teammate being Gretzky or Lemieux? Then, would he ever have been considered the game's best player? Nope. And Espo's dominance at the '72 and '76 series against the best international players proves that he could get it done, big time (incl. without Orr) on the international stage, at a level Crosby hasn't reached (yet). And, at the end of the day, Espo's stats and peer domination of offense dwarfs Crosby's.

So, it can go either way.

How do you figure Crosby is "no doubt" the better teammate/leader? Espo's leadership, especially during the Summit Series, is renowned.

And why would you think Orr's reputation has been greatly enhanced? Its just the opposite.

Anyway, on topic here, Crosby is the better overall player. He really has no weaknesses in his game.

 

[Jets4Life]

We also need to keep in mind that Esposito was an absolute force against the brilliant Soviet powerhouse in 72 and awesome in other tournaments. If there were any reservations about how a player like Espo would have held up against the greatest Euros of his day--they were pulverized in 72. He scored at a 1.65 PPG pace and lead the tournament in scoring. And, that Soviet team was a million times better than the Ryan Miller USA team that Sid had to squeeze through in OT.

If you are going to talk about International Hockey Tournaments, Crosby wins hands-down.

-2 Olympic Gold Medals (including GWG in 2010)
-World Junior Hockey Champion 2005
-World Hockey Champion 2015

Esposito's peak was clearly more dominant than Crosby's...

2 Harts
5 Art Rosses
6 "Rocket Richards"
2 Cups
2 Lindsays
10 All-star games
36 career hat tricks

Esposito's prime was at a time where the league was watered down due to rapid expansion, a rival professional league, and almost no players outside Canada (the United States hockey boom had yet to occur). Crosby is without a doubt the better play-maker, has 2 Hart Trophies, 3 Stanley Cups, 3 Ted Lindsay's, 2 Conn Smythe Trophies. As I pointed out earlier.

Elite standout in the most important International hockey tournament in history

Most important tournament is completely subjective. For one thing, Canada was only playing the Soviet Union, not 8 different countries to win the Super Series. 1972 is remembered fondly, since the political climate between North America and the Soviet Union was so intense.

You conveniently left out that Bobby Clarke had intentionally injured arguably the greatest Russian hockey player in history, while they were down in the series 3 games to 1. In other words, Bobby Clarke won Canada the tourney by gooning it up, not by Esposito being clutch.

One can arguably make a point that the 1987 Canada Cup, 2002 Olympics Gold, or the 2010 Olympic Gold were more impressive, as Canada had tougher competition. Crosby was a key contributor to the 2010 and 2014 Olympic Gold Medals.

 

[Sentinel]

The goals per game average since the 67 expansion to the dead puck era of the mid 90s was far higher than when Sidney Crosby played.

With Crosby, all but one NHL season, the average GPG was under 6 goals. With Esposito, it fluctuated from 5.8-7.7, and mainly in the mid 6's when Esposito was in his prime, so to compare their career goals per game average, we have to keep in mind that when Esposito played, teams were on average scoring an extra goal more, than when Crosby was at his peak.

Even with all the adjustments in the world, Crosby never sniffed 76 goals per season. And this was already brought up: Crosby's career isn't over yet. And, unless he recieves another concussion and immediately retires, it's bound to suffer from the tail-end career drop-off.

 

[Video Nasty]

I’ve always been surprised by the majority of this sub forum and at just how quickly Crosby was ranked ahead of Esposito and how little it took to do it. I’m less surprised by the hockey world at large who cares nothing for hockey that wasn’t televised in HD and readily available on YouTube.

I still can’t rank Crosby ahead of Esposito. I don’t care how high scoring was then compared to now. I just don’t see how a guy with 7 consecutive top 2 scoring finishes, 5 Art Rosses and 4 in a row, 2 Harts, 5 top 3 finishes, and 2 Pearsons, and multiple great playoff performances, and owning some of the top records prior to Gretzky showing up loses the battle.

Yes, I know Orr fills in the blanks during almost everything he didn’t win. But Jesus, among all the player in NHL history who have played with all time greats, he is the only one who is routinely punished for it.

There was a point in time when Phil Esposito had the top 5 goal scoring seasons in NHL history and 4 of the top 6 point totals in a season in NHL history, to go with that litany of awards.

Someone in this thread mentioned that his records weren’t given enough time to stick and I think that’s a big part of it.

Anyone have an idea what consensus was for best players of all time prior to the 1979-1980 season?

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

I’ve always been surprised by the majority of this sub forum and at just how quickly Crosby was ranked ahead of Esposito and how little it took to do it. I’m less surprised by the hockey world at large who cares nothing for hockey that wasn’t televised in HD and readily available on YouTube.

I still can’t rank Crosby ahead of Esposito. I don’t care how high scoring was then compared to now. I just don’t see how a guy with 7 consecutive top 2 scoring finishes, 5 Art Rosses and 4 in a row, 2 Harts, 5 top 3 finishes, and 2 Pearsons, and multiple great playoff performances, and owning some of the top records prior to Gretzky showing up loses the battle.

Yes, I know Orr fills in the blanks during almost everything he didn’t win. But Jesus, among all the player in NHL history who have played with all time greats, he is the only one who is routinely punished for it.

There was a point in time when Phil Esposito had the top 5 goal scoring seasons in NHL history and 4 of the top 6 point totals in a season in NHL history, to go with that litany of awards.

Someone in this thread mentioned that his records weren’t given enough time to stick and I think that’s a big part of it.

Anyone have an idea what consensus was for best players of all time prior to the 1979-1980 season?

Not only was he 1 or 2 in scoring every year over 7 years, he was 1st or 2nd in goals, assists and points every single season of that span.

Orr or no Orr, Esposito is the only man in history to accomplish that. Not even Gretzky finished 1st or 2nd in all 3 categories for that many consecutive seasons

 

[Hockeyholic]

Esposito.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Esposito. Not close either.

Given the discussion so far, care to elaborate?

 

[JackSlater]

Espo carried the puck a ton.

Just another misconception of his game.

This is true and comes across after watching just a few Esposito games. He seems to me to be one of the most misunderstood prominent players in hockey history. Esposito was fat and slow, yet he was a very good puck carrier. Stylistically he's different than most would assume and by the same token he also wasn't as good as his resume indicates. He led Canada in its biggest ever international comeback under the most pressure probably any hockey team has faced, and he also was arguably the leader of an underachieving NHL team and nhas a negligible role for Canada in 1976. Playmaker in Chicago, then massive goal totals in Boston. All time great, rarely the best player on his team during his prime. It's a pretty unique situation.

Anyone have an idea what consensus was for best players of all time prior to the 1979-1980 season?

Nothing I've seen indicates that people thought that Esposito was level with the Hull/Beliveau types, to say nothing of Howe and Orr (or even Richard). My sense is that he was regarded generally around a Mikita. It seems like a very strange stance to basically suggest that people at the time just couldn't appreciate Esposito in a way that someone taking a cursory glance at his most basic numbers can decades later. I'd be more interested in why people didn't put Esposito up among the greatest rather than assuming that they were just wrong because they couldn't grasp point totals.

 

[Jets4Life]

Even with all the adjustments in the world, Crosby never sniffed 76 goals per season. And this was already brought up: Crosby's career isn't over yet. And, unless he recieves another concussion and immediately retires, it's bound to suffer from the tail-end career drop-off.

Yet Crosby has is still a superior player to Esposito, so does it really matter?

Whatever dropoff Crosby has, it will almost certainly be better than the dropoff Esposito had once he left Boston. Esposito started his dropoff at 33 (Crosby's current age), immediately when he was traded to the Rangers. He would never score more than 81 points for the remainder of his career. Looking back, before he was traded to Boston at 25, he never had a season which he scored over 61 points.

Esposito was at his peak from 1968-75. During that time, the Bruins were by far, the highest scoring team. They were stacked. Just look at the 1970-71 team. 10 players with over 20 goals, and 4 players with over 100 points. That's second only to the Oiler teams from 1981-86. Esposito was one of the best players ever, and deserves to be in the Hall of Fame, but Crosby's Penguins never had the supporting cast of the Bruins in the first half of the 1970s.

 

[Hischier and Hughes]

It'll be unpopular, but its Esposito. The man is so written off as "product of Orr" that its insulting and not true. No other all time great gets knocked down so much for playing with other greats as Esposito does.

No one writes off Crosby because of Malkin, no one writes off Messier/Coffey because of Gretzky, no one writes off Hull because of Mikita, no one writes off Beliveau because of Richard.

717-873-1590
2x Hart (5x finalist, 1,1,2,2,3)
5x Ross
6x Rocket
6x AS-1
2x AS-2
2x Cup
3x led the playoffs in scoring w 8-10-18 in 10, 13-14-27 in 14, and 9-15-24 in 15
72 Summit Series MVP

His scoring exploits rewrote the history books.

1st to score 60 in a season
1st to score 70 in a season
1st to score 150 points in a season
retired #2 all time in goals, assists, and points behind only Howe

His 6 year stretch from 1968-69 to 1973-74 is criminally underappreciated and frankly has only been matched by Gretzky. In 6 straight years he never finished below 2nd in goals, assists or points winning 5 Ross and 5 Rockets in that span.

Here's his finishes in goals/assists/points in those 6 years

year	goals	assists	points
68-69	2	1	1
69-70	1	2	2
70-71	1	2	1
71-72	1	2	1
72-73	1	1	1
73-74	1	2	1

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

and the years before and after that run would be considered all time efforts despite falling short of the above standard.

1967-68: 4th in goals, 1st in assists, 2nd in points
1974-75: 1st in goals, 5th in assists, 2nd in points

This goaltender I know named Martin Brodeur is constantly knocked down for playing behind a ‘trap’ and having the best defense in hockey for the better part of a decade!

(And having the NHL’s greatest team in history in the 2000 NJ Devils)

 

[Video Nasty]

This is true and comes across after watching just a few Esposito games. He seems to me to be one of the most misunderstood prominent players in hockey history. Esposito was fat and slow, yet he was a very good puck carrier. Stylistically he's different than most would assume and by the same token he also wasn't as good as his resume indicates. He led Canada in its biggest ever international comeback under the most pressure probably any hockey team has faced, and he also was arguably the leader of an underachieving NHL team and nhas a negligible role for Canada in 1976. Playmaker in Chicago, then massive goal totals in Boston. All time great, rarely the best player on his team during his prime. It's a pretty unique situation.



Nothing I've seen indicates that people thought that Esposito was level with the Hull/Beliveau types, to say nothing of Howe and Orr (or even Richard). My sense is that he was regarded generally around a Mikita. It seems like a very strange stance to basically suggest that people at the time just couldn't appreciate Esposito in a way that someone taking a cursory glance at his most basic numbers can decades later. I'd be more interested in why people didn't put Esposito up among the greatest rather than assuming that they were just wrong because they couldn't grasp point totals.

It’s not my stance at all. My stance is I rank Esposito higher than Crosby.

I asked the question of how he was perceived about 40 years ago before Gretzky came along and laid waste to all his goal and point records, among the all time greats out of mere curiosity.

I would assume he would rank absolutely no higher than 5th (excluding goalies)all the way back then, but I’d love to see something like an article someone around here posted here one time about how Gretzky was generally perceived as the greatest ever just 5 or so seasons into his career.

Not sure what’s dropped him all the way down to 24th (excluding goalies) in the latest rendition of this forum’s list or the hockey world in general or pumped Crosby up to 11th (excluding goalies) or 8th among forwards.

 

[Sentinel]

Yet Crosby has is still a superior player to Esposito, so does it really matter?

Whatever dropoff Crosby has, it will almost certainly be better than the dropoff Esposito had once he left Boston. Esposito started his dropoff at 33 (Crosby's current age), immediately when he was traded to the Rangers. He would never score more than 81 points for the remainder of his career. Looking back, before he was traded to Boston at 25, he never had a season which he scored over 61 points.

Esposito was at his peak from 1968-75. During that time, the Bruins were by far, the highest scoring team. They were stacked. Just look at the 1970-71 team. 10 players with over 20 goals, and 4 players with over 100 points. That's second only to the Oiler teams from 1981-86. Esposito was one of the best players ever, and deserves to be in the Hall of Fame, but Crosby's Penguins never had the supporting cast of the Bruins in the first half of the 1970s.

And Esposito beat his teammates by a significant margin. Esposito never had Malkin on his forwards corps.

Crosby's numbers will still drop. They always do with age.

So Crosby started earlier. Big deal. I bet if he began his career on the team with Mikita, he would not be getting first line minutes either. Mid-00s Pens were terrible.

Esposito beats Crosby in virtually every category, except PPG. And that was addressed above.

 

[JackSlater]

It’s not my stance at all. My stance is I rank Esposito higher than Crosby.

I asked the question of how he was perceived about 40 years ago before Gretzky came along and laid waste to all his goal and point records, among the all time greats out of mere curiosity.

I would assume he would rank absolutely no higher than 5th (excluding goalies)all the way back then, but I’d love to see something like an article someone around here posted here one time about how Gretzky was generally perceived as the greatest ever just 5 or so seasons into his career.

Not sure what’s dropped him all the way down to 24th (excluding goalies) in the latest rendition of this forum’s list or the hockey world in general or pumped Crosby up to 11th (excluding goalies) or 8th among forwards.

I'm not saying it's necessarily your stance. I do think that some are looking at things backwards though. I'd be interested in seeing some all time rankings from say 1975 as well but I'm not sure how many exist. I am familiar with a variety of articles from the time and how Esposito is discussed in them, and fairly often he is praised as a great offensive force but there are usually caveats. He doesn't seem to be rated with the players who would have been considered the greatest ever at the time, and as noted in this thread already it seems like people were more willing to elevate Lafleur quickly than they were Esposito. The "why" of that is the interesting part to me.

As for the history section's list, it seems pretty in line with general consensus. When the most prominent player ranking list ever was published by The Hockey News only 17 years after Esposito retired, he was ranked 18th. That was by a very strong panel of hockey people who would have been very familiar with Esposito. Ten years later this section ranked him 20th, and then ten years later 24th. The drop doesn't seem all that significant given the time that passed. I'd also note that from my observation most of the posters who were old enough to have seen a fair bit of Esposito and experienced the general contemporary opinion surrounding him weren't all that high on him relative to the other posters.

Regardless of all that, Esposito is an interesting case. I can't think of an analogue for his career and how he is perceived in any other sport that I'm familiar with. Maybe Gerd Muller in soccer (Crosby as Brazilian Ronaldo or van Basten maybe?), though I'm open to being corrected if that comparison is off.

 

[Sentinel]

How do you figure Crosby is "no doubt" the better teammate/leader? Espo's leadership, especially during the Summit Series, is renowned.

And why would you think Orr's reputation has been greatly enhanced? Its just the opposite.

Anyway, on topic here, Crosby is the better overall player. He really has no weaknesses in his game.

Except one. He missed about half of his prime with injuries. Esposito didn't. Crosby lost Harts to Sedin, Perry, and Benn. Prime Esposito only lost them to Orr and Clarke. Which is more impressive?

Forget the goals (where Esposito blows Crosby out of the water). Even in ASSISTS Esposito lead the league three times, while the mega-elite passer Crosby only managed to do so once.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Except one. He missed about half of his prime with injuries. Esposito didn't. Crosby lost Harts to Sedin, Perry, and Benn. Prime Esposito only lost them to Orr and Clarke. Which is more impressive?

Forget the goals (where Esposito blows Crosby out of the water). Even in ASSISTS Esposito lead the league three times, while the mega-elite passer Crosby only managed to do so once.

Injuries are not a weakness in his game.

But its certainly a reason he missed out on more awards.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Injuries are not a weakness in his game.

I'd argue that the ability to stay healthy is certainly a skill. It's not entirely in a player's control, but then again, neither is goal scoring or anything else.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I'd argue that the ability to stay healthy is certainly a skill. It's not entirely in a player's control, but then again, neither is goal scoring or anything else.

We disagree.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

We disagree.

That’s our right.

 

[The Panther]

If you are going to talk about International Hockey Tournaments, Crosby wins hands-down.

-2 Olympic Gold Medals (including GWG in 2010)
-World Junior Hockey Champion 2005
-World Hockey Champion 2015

First of all, this is a discussion about two players, right -- not about team accomplishments?

Next: Let's see, why didn't Esposito win 2 Gold medals? Oh yeah, because NHLers couldn't play in the Olympics then. If only there was an international tournament in Esposito's day for the best hockey teams to face off... oh yeah, there was! The 1972 Summit series, at which Esposito was the leading scorer and team Canada MVP. And then at the 1976 Canada Cup, old-Esposito scored 4 goals in 7 games, and at the World Championships you mention, he scored 7 goals in 10 games at age 35. Crosby doesn't "win" anything on the basis of his having more opportunity and being on better international teams.

Esposito's prime was at a time where the league was watered down due to rapid expansion, a rival professional league, and almost no players outside Canada (the United States hockey boom had yet to occur).

There was certainly rapid expansion in Esposito's prime, but there was no rival League in 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, or 1971-72 when Espo was totally dominant. In 1968-69, Espo scored the most points in a season in NHL history (126) when the average team's GPG was 2.99, only marginally higher than the NHL GPG when Crosby scored his career-best 120. (Actually, that 1969 season Phil was pacing for 140 points in an 82-games season.) Crosby also depended on the PP for a larger chunk of his points than Esposito did.

You may be right that Esposito benefited from scoring a lot of his points against expansion teams that (or other) seasons -- someone would have to do the breakdown to we could analyze it. But, in any case, every other player in the League those seasons had the same advantages against the same weak teams, and Esposito completely destroyed them all.

You conveniently left out that Bobby Clarke had intentionally injured arguably the greatest Russian hockey player in history, while they were down in the series 3 games to 1.

This has nothing to do with the quality of Esposito's performance.

Crosby was a key contributor to the 2010 and 2014 Olympic Gold Medals.

I personally find Crosby's contribution to international tournaments surprisingly underwhelming. Basically, if he hadn't scored "the Golden goal" (a weak shot that goalies stop 99% of the time) there'd be literally nothing special to remember in his international career after minor hockey.

 

[Jets4Life]

First of all, this is a discussion about two players, right -- not about team accomplishments?

I was responding to a member who was mentioning Esposito's performance in the 72' Summit Series. You can't just randomly move the goalposts, and disqualify Crosby's international achievements.

There was certainly rapid expansion in Esposito's prime, but there was no rival League in 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, or 1971-72 when Espo was totally dominant.

There were anywhere from 12-32 pro hockey teams during Esposito's peak years. However, let's use 1970-71 as an example. 14 teams, with 95% Canadians and no Europeans in the NHL. That is quite the contrast to today, where the talent pool is much greater, due to hockey becoming far more popular in the USA and Scandinavia, and with a significant number of Russian players.

Esposito was dominant, and the best forward on the Bruins, but you can't deny he was lucky enough to play along with not only Bobby Orr, but Ken Hodge, Wayne Cashman, Johnny Bucyk, Wayne Cashman, John McKenzie, etc. Crosby had Malkin, but never really had the supporting cast of forwards that Esposito had.

I personally find Crosby's contribution to international tournaments surprisingly underwhelming. Basically, if he hadn't scored "the Golden goal" (a weak shot that goalies stop 99% of the time) there'd be literally nothing special to remember in his international career after minor hockey.

Crosby was dominant starting with the 2005 WJC (Gold), 2006 World Championships, 2010 Olympics, 2015 World Championships, and the 2016 World Cup. He wasn't that clutch in 2014 Olympics, but let's face it. Crosby is a winner, who has been a key factor on the international success Canada has achieved in the last decade or so.

Crosby likely has 5 more good years to go. I am positive Crosby has at least one more Stanley Cup run, and possibly a couple more 100+ point seasons. He has been the best player of the past 15 years.