"Better Career" Esposito or Crosby?

[Vilica]

I just remembered that I did a whole splits for Esposito's time in Boston with Orr, showing the differences in their performances against +GD/-GD teams. This covers all years between 67-68 and 74-75.

		GP	G	A	P	+/-	Shots	ESG	ESA	PPG	PPA	SHG	SHA
+GD	Total	289	182	217	399	74	1409	106	134	69	77	7	6	Espo
+GD		269	111	246	357	174	1229	73	131	28	103	9	12	Orr
-GD	Total	324	271	326	597	233	1757	180	195	78	127	13	4	Espo
-GD		291	135	337	472	389	1437	90	206	40	115	5	16	Orr
	Total	613	453	543	996	307	3166	286	329	147	204	20	10	Espo
		560	246	583	829	563	2666	163	337	68	218	14	28	Orr
+GD	PG	289	0.630	0.751	1.381		4.875	0.367	0.464	0.239	0.266	0.024	0.021	Espo
+GD		269	0.413	0.914	1.327		4.569	0.271	0.487	0.104	0.383	0.033	0.045	Orr
-GD	PG	324	0.836	1.006	1.843		5.423	0.556	0.602	0.241	0.392	0.040	0.012	Espo
-GD		291	0.464	1.158	1.622		4.938	0.309	0.708	0.137	0.395	0.017	0.055	Orr
	PG	613	0.739	0.886	1.625		5.165	0.467	0.537	0.240	0.333	0.033	0.016	Espo
		560	0.439	1.041	1.480		4.761	0.291	0.602	0.121	0.389	0.025	0.050	Orr

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Breaking it down like this shows that Esposito's goal increase was almost entirely at even strength, while his assist increase was split between ES and PP. Orr, on the other hand, saw most of his scoring increase as a result of even strength assists.

		GF	GA	GF/G	GA/G	GD/G	G%	P%
+GD	Espo	1050	854	3.633	2.955	0.678	0.173	0.380
+GD	Orr	992	803	3.688	2.985	0.703	0.112	0.360
-GD	Espo	1529	882	4.719	2.722	1.997	0.177	0.390
-GD	Orr	1389	777	4.773	2.670	2.103	0.097	0.340
	Espo	2579	1736	4.207	2.832	1.375	0.176	0.386
	Orr	2381	1580	4.252	2.821	1.430	0.103	0.348

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

When you look at more modern teams, that 0.70 GD/G against +GD teams mostly holds up, but the days of a team putting up a +2 GD/G against -GD teams are done. I took a look at the highest GD teams since the lockout, and a couple teams hit 1.7, but mostly they're around 1.3. In fairness to Orr (and Gretzky), their teams put up that +0.7 during their 6-year primes, whereas to match that I'm aggregating a bunch of single seasons from different teams post-lockout.

I have some Crosby numbers, but they're binned into 6 year chunks, and I don't know if I want to post the 05-06 through 10-11 or the 13-14 through 18-19 tables.

 

[VanIslander]

Have you asked yourself...

Who has had the best SINGLE season?
Best 3-year stretch?
Best 5-year stretch?

Regular season + playoffs combined...

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

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.



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.

Bucyk is a Hall of Famer, but only because of Orr and expansion. His best seasons were between the ages of 35 and 40. Huge power play production.

Nice try using Cashman as two guys.

Hodge, Cashman and McKenzie were all products of Orr & Esposito. None were great players.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Bucyk is a Hall of Famer, but only because of Orr and expansion. His best seasons were between the ages of 35 and 40. Huge power play production.

Nice try using Cashman as two guys.

Hodge, Cashman and McKenzie were all products of Orr & Esposito. None were great players.

Seriously, Hodge, Cashman and McKenzie were average to good. No better than a Staal, Kunitz, Kessel, Letang.

Hell, I'd comfortably put Kessel and Letang in front of them

 

[Boxscore]

Seriously, Hodge, Cashman and McKenzie were average to good. No better than a Staal, Kunitz, Kessel, Letang.

Hell, I'd comfortably put Kessel and Letang in front of them

Absolutely. Kessel and Letang are legit star players, unlike Hodge, Cashman and McKenzie--who were more comparable to Staal, Kunitz, and say Talbot.

 

[seventieslord]

Bucyk is a Hall of Famer, but only because of Orr and expansion. His best seasons were between the ages of 35 and 40. Huge power play production.

Nice try using Cashman as two guys.

Hodge, Cashman and McKenzie were all products of Orr & Esposito. None were great players.

Bucyk was once thought of as a top 100 player because of Orr, but he'd be a hall of famer either way.

He had already been top-10 in points three times before Orr began affecting him. And at age 40 in the 75-76 season, he had 86 points without Orr, and nearly a point per game shortened season after that.

Hard to say how many more points Orr's presence accounted for between 70 and 75, but even if it was 100 (17 per season) he still has 1269 points and is definitely a hall of famer.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Bucyk was once thought of as a top 100 player because of Orr, but he'd be a hall of famer either way.

He had already been top-10 in points three times before Orr began affecting him. And at age 40 in the 75-76 season, he had 86 points without Orr, and nearly a point per game shortened season after that.

Hard to say how many more points Orr's presence accounted for between 70 and 75, but even if it was 100 (17 per season) he still has 1269 points and is definitely a hall of famer.

Bucyk had two top-10 seasons in the original 6 (7th & 9th). Actually he had 83 points 75-76 (good for a tie at 20th) at age 40.

With no Orr also comes no Cups.

So no post season all-star berths. No cups. Around a -160. No HOF.

A very good player, though.

 

[seventieslord]

Bucyk had two top-10 seasons in the original 6 (7th & 9th). Actually he had 83 points 75-76 (good for a tie at 20th) at age 40.

With no Orr also comes no Cups.

So no post season all-star berths. No cups. Around a -160. No HOF.

A very good player, though.

the career that you just described is still better than that of Mike gartner, and he's not even a controversial Hall of famer like Andreychuk or ciccarelli.

Bucyk's own long-term inferior teammate, Leo Boivin, got in!

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

the career that you just described is still better than that of Mike gartner, and he's not even a controversial Hall of famer like Andreychuk or ciccarelli.

Bucyk's own long-term inferior teammate, Leo Boivin, got in!

Exactly. Without the Orr years, Bucyk's career would be much like Boivin's.

Gartner had that 700 goal thing (7th all-time).

 

[Sentinel]

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.

I agree with everything you said except this. He was superb in 2015 WHC and excellent in 2016 WCH. I still rank Esposito above in international play.

 

[seventieslord]

Exactly. Without the Orr years, Bucyk's career would be much like Boivin's.

Gartner had that 700 goal thing (7th all-time).

You've got to be kidding man. Boivin's career as good as Bucyk's without Orr? In Boivin's best seasons he was 7th,10th and 11th in all-star voting, plus in two other seasons he made the all-star game, which is like a de facto top-12. Aside from that, nothing looks noteworthy about anything he accomplished. No cups, career -212... Bucyk, on the other hand, was 7th, 9th, 9th, 11th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 14th, 15th in points before Orr exploded offensively. Like clockwork every season, and was in at least five all-star games that Orr had no part in dragging him to. At the time of his retirement, take off 40-60-100 and he's still 7th all-time in goals (top-14 are all in the hall) and 5th all-time in points (top-15 are all in the hall). You really think a guy puts up 83 points at age 40, retires a couple years later 7th in goals and 5th in points, and he's the one of the top-14-15 they leave out of the hall to make the point that it's not all about compiling goals and points? A guy who was as loved and respected as he was? A guy who played the game the "right" way? Not a f***ing chance man.

Gartner, being more goals-focused, was 5th in goals at the time of his retirement but only 18th in points. He didn't have Bucyk's resume overall. And the way they looked at 700 goals in the year 2000 was like the way they looked at 500 goals (which Bucyk would have had with/without Orr) in 1980.

 

[BehindTheTimes]

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

I think it’s Phil easily. I think there’s a lot of projection with Sid, ie he’d be here if it weren’t for this or if weren’t for that. Phil in a walk for me.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

You've got to be kidding man. Boivin's career as good as Bucyk's without Orr? In Boivin's best seasons he was 7th,10th and 11th in all-star voting, plus in two other seasons he made the all-star game, which is like a de facto top-12. Aside from that, nothing looks noteworthy about anything he accomplished. No cups, career -212... Bucyk, on the other hand, was 7th, 9th, 9th, 11th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 14th, 15th in points before Orr exploded offensively. Like clockwork every season, and was in at least five all-star games that Orr had no part in dragging him to. At the time of his retirement, take off 40-60-100 and he's still 7th all-time in goals (top-14 are all in the hall) and 5th all-time in points (top-15 are all in the hall). You really think a guy puts up 83 points at age 40, retires a couple years later 7th in goals and 5th in points, and he's the one of the top-14-15 they leave out of the hall to make the point that it's not all about compiling goals and points? A guy who was as loved and respected as he was? A guy who played the game the "right" way? Not a f***ing chance man.

Gartner, being more goals-focused, was 5th in goals at the time of his retirement but only 18th in points. He didn't have Bucyk's resume overall. And the way they looked at 700 goals in the year 2000 was like the way they looked at 500 goals (which Bucyk would have had with/without Orr) in 1980.

There's no way Bucyk gets 500 goals without Orr.

 

[seventieslord]

There's no way Bucyk gets 500 goals without Orr.

It's easy to say that, but if you look at what he actually did from 1970-75 and make mental adjustments it's pretty hard to get to where you are. I'm knocking off about 17 points in each of those 6 seasons for a total of 100 and you don't think that's harsh enough? That leaves him with 417 points in 464 games, 0.9 ppg. Even though he had 126 in the next 126 games at 40-41 without Orr? Yeah, I don't agree with you there. That's more than harsh enough.

Going by his career breakdown, 40% of his points are goals. If he loses 100 points he loses 40 goals. Still has comfortably more than 500. Disagree? Fine, but all it took for a player retired by 1978 to get in the hall was 393 goals, and we're arguing about whether he'd have had 500 or not. You don't have a leg to stand on here.

 

[wetcoast]

Not to me.

Two of the Big Four couldn't stay health. Did not factor into their greatness.

Also Crosby has played more regular season, playoff and international games than Orr and Lemieux.

Not to mention Espositio's playoff resume in Chicago is nowhere near good enough for anyone to place him as 7th of time.

That's simply too big of a red flag.

 

[wetcoast]

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?

Remove Orr as ever existing and this isn't even a conversation really.

Esposito ascended with and because of Bobby Orr.

Phil had already played with a superstar (and arguably the best player in the world for the 60s) in Bobby Hull and was 25 years old his first season in Boston.

With his regular season and playoff resume in the windy city no one was looking at Phil as even a HHOFer at that point.

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).

See my above comments for context and to compare fairly look at Crosby against the similar bar (ie all other Canadian players).

this isn't even clsoe Crosby blows him out of the water here.

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.

Funny that when Mike Babcock was the coach of the Olympic team and was asked about his own player in Toews, he went on to answer how utterly dominant Crosby was instead.

Summit series is a unique situation were the Russians had limited contact with hitting as per NHL rules and his big body was a situation the Russians hadn't encountered before.

I also don;t think that the Russians were as good as the series totlas show as it was pretty clear that Canada unprepared and didn't take the tournament seriously at the beginning.

Canada Summit at eliteprospects.com

The 76 Canada cup were clearly the Orr and Potvin show and Phil stands out as not being that great defensively in the stats compared to his team mates.

Canada at eliteprospects.com

Phil also played in only a single WC and Crosby had a better showing as a teenager in his WC showing so there is that.

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.

I think the argument for Phil over Crosby ended quite a while ago and was tracking that way from day one.

Crosby hit the ground running and was the captain of a SC team and had won a Hart and Art Ross all before Phil broke out with Orr in Boston at age 25.

The enormous advantage that Crosby has in his first 7 season in the league aged 18-24 is simply too big of a hill to Climb for Phil.

Heck even when Phil broke out in Boston, Crosby still was 4 points of of the Art Ross and a much more dominant player overall than Esposito in their age 25 seasons.

This really should not even be a question at this point.

 

[wetcoast]

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.

Well in that regard Crosby is more "skilled" at staying healthy than 2 of the Big 4.

I don't regard staying healthy as a skill it's more luck and circumstance than anything within any players control.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

It's easy to say that, but if you look at what he actually did from 1970-75 and make mental adjustments it's pretty hard to get to where you are. I'm knocking off about 17 points in each of those 6 seasons for a total of 100 and you don't think that's harsh enough? That leaves him with 417 points in 464 games, 0.9 ppg. Even though he had 126 in the next 126 games at 40-41 without Orr? Yeah, I don't agree with you there. That's more than harsh enough.

Going by his career breakdown, 40% of his points are goals. If he loses 100 points he loses 40 goals. Still has comfortably more than 500. Disagree? Fine, but all it took for a player retired by 1978 to get in the hall was 393 goals, and we're arguing about whether he'd have had 500 or not. You don't have a leg to stand on here.

I concede.

But I still disagree.

The 4 seasons before Orr started in Boston, Murray Oliver & Bucyk were 1 and 2 in scoring for the Bruins. They played together most of that time, Oliver centering Bucyk. Both playing on the power play. 233 and 232 points respectively.

Oliver was moved to Toronto and Bucyk stayed.

Bucyk the Hall of Famer.

Murray who?

 

[Czech Your Math]

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.

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.

Yes, the expansion teams obscured how easy it was to score during that era, at least for the O6 teams (and in the second half of the '70s, the better expansion teams).

	NHL		O6 Avg.			O6 v. O6		O6 v. Exp
Year	Avg.		GF	GA		Avg.		GF	GA
1968	2.79		3.12	2.75		2.97		3.44	2.29
1969	2.98		3.42	2.86		3.25		3.60	2.42
1970	2.90		3.26	2.67		2.96		3.58	2.34
1971	3.12		3.60	2.93		3.15		3.88	2.56
1972	3.07		3.59	2.79		3.14		3.87	2.33
1973	3.28		3.74	3.09		3.43		3.90	2.68
1974	3.20		3.69	2.91		3.42		3.88	2.57
1975	3.43		3.78	3.07		3.43		4.18	2.67
1976	3.41		3.67	3.11		3.29		4.10	2.90
1977	3.32		3.60	3.10		3.28		3.96	2.90

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Note: "O6" includes PHI in '74, and includes PHI/LAK/BUF/NYI in '75-'77. They are included once they have a positive goal differential in a season against the existing "O6" group.

So for the O6 teams, it was more like the 80s in terms of scoring.

 

[Czech Your Math]

Although it was a lot easier to score than it first appears for O6 teams during the expansion era, there's still no denying Espo (along with Orr) was a dominant scorer. I wonder how much of that was due to sort of a lull in talented scorers:

The old guard
-----------------
Howe was 39 in '67-8, the first expansion season, and while well past his peak, still provided some good competition for the first couple of expansion seasons.
Beliveau was 36 in '68 and wasn't much of a factor in terms of the scoring race.
Hull turned 29 during '68 season and he was still good competition for Ross during the first couple of expansion seasons (and for goal-scoring title until he left for WHA).
Mikita was 27 in '68 and provided good competition for the first three expansion seasons.

New guard
--------------
Dionne and especially Lafleur didn't really get into their peak/prime years until '75, which was Espo's last dominant scoring season.
The other newcomers (Clarke, Sittler, Perreault, etc.) weren't really that elite of scorers IMO.

So from '68-75, Espo really only had some good competition in '68, '69 & '75, although given his record-breaking numbers, that may not have mattered all that much. There's still the matter of him playing with Orr on a high-scoring Bruins team in an unbalanced, expanded league which created some unusually advantageous situations for him, his teammates, and most/all of the other O6 teams.

I think it's also important to realize that these effects can compound. That era rivalled the '80s in terms of how easy it was to score for O6 teams (but this was obscured by how relative little the expansion teams scored, which brought down the league averages), which made at least some of the old guard appear perhaps better than they were at that point, which (along with the lack of new strong competitors) made Espo's dominance over that group appear even more impressive, etc. So it's a difficult knot to unravel. I may have been too harsh on Espo in the past, but these issues still remain.

 

[Czech Your Math]

As to the original question, it's especially difficult given the somewhat unique questions Espo's career presents.

Regular Season Scoring: Espo was clearly a much more dominant peak/prime scorer compared to his peers than was Crosby. There's much more uncertainty about Espo's absolute scoring level, but it seems fair to say that he wasn't a worse scorer than Crosby and perhaps significantly better. So I'd give the edge to Espo, just a matter of how clear and how much that edge was.

Career Scoring: In terms of career value from scoring, Crosby currently trails in my "Points Above Replacement Level", but there's a good chance he ends up in Espo's general vacinity by the end of his career.

Points Above Replacement

PLAYER	PAR	Rank	Years	X	PAR	Rank	Years
Gretzky	2,959	1	19		3,015	1	20
HoweG	2,236	2	24		2,323	2	28
Jagr	1,777	3	23		1,957	3	27
Esposito	1,609	4	16		1,609	4	16
Lemieux	1,539	5	12		1,539	5	12
Sakic	1,385	6	17		1,472	6	18
Ovechkin	1,319	9	16		1,412	7	17
HullBo	1,196	13	15		1,385	8	20
Crosby	1,370	7	15		1,370	9	15
Dionne	1,363	8	17		1,363	10	17
Thornton	1,247	10	17		1,325	11	18
Mikita	1,243	11	17		1,243	12	17
Yzerman	1,203	12	18		1,203	13	18
Beliveau	1,194	14	16		1,194	14	16

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Regular Season Even Strength Data: I'd give Crosby an edge in peak/prime here. He has a much clearer and larger edge in career ES data.

Espo	ON	OFF		ON/OFF	ADJ PM
1964	1.50	1.28		1.18	0.8
1965	1.13	1.47		0.77	-12.6
1966	1.54	0.97		1.59	23.8
1967	1.93	1.41		1.36	15.9
1968	1.35	1.22		1.11	6.4
1969	2.02	1.10		1.83	47.6
1970	1.57	1.28		1.23	12.0
1971	2.10	1.86		1.13	11.0
1972	1.92	1.36		1.41	27.6
1973	1.15	1.48		0.78	-22.6
1974	1.57	1.61		0.97	-3.0
1975	1.27	1.47		0.87	-10.9
1976	0.65	1.07		0.61	-22.1
1977	0.81	0.89		0.92	-6.7
1978	0.74	0.90		0.83	-12.6
1979	1.06	1.20		0.88	-9.2
1980	0.88	1.06		0.83	-15.3

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Crosby	ON	OFF		ON/OFF	ADJ PM
2006	1.13	0.54		2.10	50.4
2007	1.45	0.88		1.64	26.4
2008	1.74	1.01		1.73	22.1
2009	1.21	1.16		1.04	3.0
2010	1.31	0.90		1.45	29.3
2011	1.79	0.98		1.82	23.6
2012	2.10	1.08		1.94	15.4
2013	2.24	1.14		1.96	22.9
2014	1.38	0.91		1.52	28.4
2015	1.30	0.96		1.35	16.9
2016	1.45	1.05		1.38	20.0
2017	1.39	1.18		1.18	10.7
2018	1.03	1.01		1.02	1.2
2019	1.42	0.97		1.47	30.5
2020	0.85	1.18		0.72	-11.9
2021	1.29	1.31		0.98	-0.9

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Peak/Prime Playoff Scoring & ES Data: This is adjusted playoffs scoring (based on opponents' regular season GA/GP) adn I made additional adjustment for Espo's era (how opponent fared against "O6" teams, as I described in previous post).

Primes	AGES		YEARS
PLAYER	Beg.	End	Beg.	End	GP	Adj. Pts.	APPG		ON	OFF	PM/GP	OFF/GP	Est. APM
Crosby	20	30	2007	2018	160	167.0	1.04		21	17.6	0.13	0.11	0.08
Esposito	26	37	1968	1979	92	102.1	1.11		28	51.4	0.30	0.56	0.02

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Espo appears to have been a slightly better scorer, and he was also more of a goal scorer. It's difficult to say who was better at ES, as Espo had higher plus-minus on substantially better teams.
I'd give Espo a slight edge here, due to his 0.07 edge in (doubly) adjusted playoff scoring during his prime.

Career Playoff Scoring/ES Data & Team Success: Espo is hurt by his relatively weak performance in the playoffs while with Chicago, so Crosby appears to have the edge here.

	AGES		SEASONS
PLAYER	Beg.	End	Beg.	End	GP	Adj. Pts.	APPG		ON	OFF	PM/GP	OFF/GP	Est. APM
Crosby	19	33	2006	2021	174	177.6	1.02		15	6.0	0.14	0.06	0.11
Esposito	22	38	1964	1980	130	114.1	0.88		25	49.4	0.27	0.54	0.00

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

CONCLUSION: It's too close to call IMO. One can make a good case for each player and it greatly depends on how you interpret Espo's circumstances and data. Espo has a potentially large edge in peak/prime scoring, while Crosby has a clear edge in peak/prime ES data and a larger edge in career ES data. Crosby has an edge in career playoff scoring/ES data as well, but that's a bit trickier to compare fairly.

 

[blogofmike]

Remove Orr as ever existing and this isn't even a conversation really.

Esposito ascended with and because of Bobby Orr.

Phil gets overpenalized for playing with Orr.

In Boston Esposito was capable of being a top scorer without Orr. He scored the 2nd most points in the NHL in a year where Orr missed half the year. Over 74 games, Esposito scored 1.14 PPG. In the 28 games that Orr missed? 32 points in 28 games for an identical 1.14 PPG. (I have those games as Nov 1, Dec 10-24, Jan 18-24, Feb 11- Mar 23).

He thrives in year 2 scoring a record 126 points (1.70 PPG). In 8 games without Orr (Orr missed 9 games from Feb 2-19, but they both missed one) Espo scored 15 points for 1.88 PPG.

In 1972 Summit Series he leads in scoring with 7 goals (possibly 6 if he missed a puck that was going in anyways) and 6 assists in 8 games and is possibly Canada's best player in as series they weren't prepared for.

In 1973, Orr misses 15 games. Espo scores 130 points (1.67 PPG). I found 14 games without Orr (4 games Oct 8-15, 9 games Oct 26 - Nov 16, 1 game on Mar 4, and 1 I didn't catch. We'll call it a 0-point game.) Without Orr he scored 23 points in 14 games for at least 1.64 PPG over 15 games.

Every time Orr missed games, Esposito maintained or increased his point production.

Are these small sample sizes? Sure. But people seem to that think Esposito couldn't score at an Art Ross pace without Bobby Orr. And over 8 seasons in Boston, anyone who thinks that Esposito wasn't a top scorer without Orr is making an argument with a sample size of zero.

Phil had already played with a superstar (and arguably the best player in the world for the 60s) in Bobby Hull and was 25 years old his first season in Boston.

His time with Chicago yielded poor playoff results (though the last few years of Crosby haven't been better,) but he was the league's 3rd best even strength scorer when he left. Crosby didn't click with Kessel, which is why Crosby was outscored 14-10 at even strength by Nick Bonino in a Conn Smythe year.

Funny that when Mike Babcock was the coach of the Olympic team and was asked about his own player in Toews, he went on to answer how utterly dominant Crosby was instead.

They both wear red, and maybe the ownership situation was cloudy with the Norris family, but I'm almost positive the Red Wings and Blackhawks are in fact separate franchises.

Summit series is a unique situation were the Russians had limited contact with hitting as per NHL rules and his big body was a situation the Russians hadn't encountered before.

I also don;t think that the Russians were as good as the series totlas show as it was pretty clear that Canada unprepared and didn't take the tournament seriously at the beginning.

Canada Summit at eliteprospects.com

The 76 Canada cup were clearly the Orr and Potvin show and Phil stands out as not being that great defensively in the stats compared to his team mates.

Canada at eliteprospects.com

Phil also played in only a single WC and Crosby had a better showing as a teenager in his WC showing so there is that.

You sound like the scouts who said Canada would win 8 games to none.

I think the argument for Phil over Crosby ended quite a while ago and was tracking that way from day one.

Crosby hit the ground running and was the captain of a SC team and had won a Hart and Art Ross all before Phil broke out with Orr in Boston at age 25.

The enormous advantage that Crosby has in his first 7 season in the league aged 18-24 is simply too big of a hill to Climb for Phil.

Heck even when Phil broke out in Boston, Crosby still was 4 points of of the Art Ross and a much more dominant player overall than Esposito in their age 25 seasons.

This really should not even be a question at this point.

There is a spell of time immediately after this you should look into. I know Crosby won a single Art Ross Trophy by that point, and that's a HUGE hill to climb. But maybe there's a chance that over the next 6 years Esposito did something cool. As cool as 1 Art Ross Trophy? Probably not. But hey, you never know. I mean it's probably not something crazy, like being the only player other than Wayne Gretzky to have multiple seasons with 99 even strength points, or winning 5 Art Ross Trophies in 6 seasons with Esposito maintaining his scoring average in games without Bobby Orr in every single season where Bobby Orr misses a game.

Because that would be crazy. Even Crosby couldn't have done that...

 

[blueandgoldguy]

Crosby's longevity is amazing. 4th in Hart voting...and a nominee for Ted Lindsay Trophy for best player as voted by the players....14 years after winning his first Hart Trophy. Excellent two-way player at the age of 34 with several impressive playoff runs. No, there are just too many factors in favour of Sid and if he continues his excellent play the next few seasons, the gap between him and Espo will only widen.

 

[daver]

Interested to hear from the Espo > Crosby crowd if there is any other forward other than Wayne, Mario or Howe that would be ahead of Espo and why.

 

[VanIslander]

Esposito retired 2nd all time in career scoring to Gordie Howe and he was 3rd when 18 years later Gretzky retired.
WHEREAS... Crosby isn't top 30 all time in scoring, behind the likes of Turgeon, Andreychuk and Gartner.

Esposito had 5 Art Ross seasons.
WHEREAS... Crosby had 2.

Esposito 3 times led the playoffs in goals and 3 times in points.
WHEREAS Crosby 1 time had the most playoff goals and 1 time the most playoff points.