Phil Esposito Without the Orr Factor

[Dennis Bonvie]

Please, Mr.Bonvie... wheels had fallen clean-off the Leafs wagon by that time (and here 50yrs on they still havent found them). The Meltdown had begun in the early
60's & I mean while they were winning Cups but by the time the Bruins began their ascendancy circa 67/68 Toronto was completely adrift. Totally dysfunctional.

They were a playoff team, how could they be totally dysfunctional?

Anyway, the original premise (not yours) was that when Esposito went up against a savy defensive center who could skate (Keon) he was held scoreless in the playoffs. But two years later against the same center he's unstoppable. It can't be a team thing in the '69 playoffs but an individual matchup thing in '67.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Sure he capitalized on it. But think about it, he was pretty one dimensional. If other strong players with great shots such as Bobby Hull or Beliveau had been told to hang in the slot and take lots of shots how many goals would they have scored if in their prime post expansion? Thank God they played on the whole ice which is why they are icons and rated ahead of Espo.

Regarding those 2 AR's that he was a lock for, I am not so sure that Orr wasn't a factor even if Orr didn't get the assist. I expect it was Orr who started many of those plays even if he didn't record an assist

Espo was good at what he did but I am not a fan of his style of play.

I still don't know how he got all those assists and would like to hear that explained. I watched his whole career going back to his Blackhawk years.

Talk about sour grapes....

You'd think Chicago fans could get over the worst trade in hockey history by now.

How'd he get all those assists? By making plays in the offensive end, just like everyone else.

 

[pappyline]

Talk about sour grapes....

You'd think Chicago fans could get over the worst trade in hockey history by now.

How'd he get all those assists? By making plays in the offensive end, just like everyone else.

I never liked him on the Hawks either. Big awkward guy who was a terrible skater.

And his big assist play in the the offensive zone was bouncing it off Bucyk's ass by accident when he was was trying to score on the powerplay.

 

[Jumptheshark]

espo topped 30+ goals in 4/5 years in NY

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I was going to do research how Esposito performed in the games that Orr missed, but I double checked the archives and fortunately someone else had already done the work.

Link: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1297021

This post showed that during his time in Boston, Esposito scored 1.66 points per game with Orr in the lineup, and 1.32 points per game without him. That's the difference between a 129 and 103 point pace (over 78 games).

I think that probably overstates the difference because nearly half of the games that Orr missed were in 1968, when Esposito was a very good, but not dominant, scorer. (In fact, he scored more without Orr that season, but the composition of his points was markedly different - he scored more goals and fewer assists with Orr in the lineup).

 

[BenchBrawl]

I was going to do research how Esposito performed in the games that Orr missed, but I double checked the archives and fortunately someone else had already done the work.

Link: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1297021

This post showed that during his time in Boston, Esposito scored 1.66 points per game with Orr in the lineup, and 1.32 points per game without him. That's the difference between a 129 and 103 point pace (over 78 games).

I think that probably overstates the difference because nearly half of the games that Orr missed were in 1968, when Esposito was a very good, but not dominant, scorer. (In fact, he scored more without Orr that season, but the composition of his points was markedly different - he scored more goals and fewer assists with Orr in the lineup).

Interesting.I want to add a thought on this methodology of evaluating the impact of a superior teammate on an inferior one, especially if it's for multiple years; the inferior teammate certainly gains confidence and momentum by benefitting from the superior one, and those factors can continue for some time even if the superior teammate is not there.This is especially true if the inferior teammate is a superstar.

Wasn't John LeClair producing at the same pace or even better without Eric Lindros? My memory could be wrong on that one but that would be a good exemple.

But it's still the best methodology I know, just wanted to put this thought out there.

 

[Killion]

They were a playoff team, how could they be totally dysfunctional?

Anyway, the original premise (not yours) was that when Esposito went up against a savy defensive center who could skate (Keon) he was held scoreless in the playoffs. But two years later against the same center he's unstoppable. It can't be a team thing in the '69 playoffs but an individual matchup thing in '67.

Toronto, after winning the SC in 67 missed the Playoffs entirely in 68, squeaking in in 68/69... get blown apart by the Bruins in Games 1&2 at the Boston Garden, out-Coached, outskated, outhustled, huge disparity in talent... they did manage to get it together just enough to be only losing Games 3&4 back at home by a goal in each game. The lineup was young, you had Gamble in net, Bower well past it, Imlach about to be fired, Ballard & Stafford Smythe in big trouble, everyone wanting out... beyond dysfunctional. Got blown out. Keon was just one guy. He didnt have the kind of support he'd previously been able to rely upon so sure, it hit the fan. That sometimes happens in hockey as you well know. There is some luck involved, and lucky for Esposito & the Bruins in 69, their 1st Round Opponents an organization badly crippled from within.

 

[Killion]

I never liked him on the Hawks either. Big awkward guy who was a terrible skater.

And his big assist play in the the offensive zone was bouncing it off Bucyk's ass by accident when he was was trying to score on the powerplay.

yeah, as I recall, no real middle ground with Esposito amongst fans, players, coaches, media etc. You were either a fan of how
he played & overlooked the lack of grace & elegance, skating deficiency etc or you didnt & had little time for him or for players of his ilk.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Nice

As the saying went, back in the 70's, "Jesus saves and Esposito puts in the rebound."

Concise, historic chuckle. Jesus did not depend on successful goalies, Espo did.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Point

They were a playoff team, how could they be totally dysfunctional?

Anyway, the original premise (not yours) was that when Esposito went up against a savy defensive center who could skate (Keon) he was held scoreless in the playoffs. But two years later against the same center he's unstoppable. It can't be a team thing in the '69 playoffs but an individual matchup thing in '67.

Killion answered most of your question(s).

Basically you need the proper individuals, properly deployed, within a group(team) structure. At various times these individuals will execute beyond expectations or baseline objectives.

1967 semi-finals, Bobby Hull produced at an acceptable level, 6GP 4G
+ 2A = 6PTS but below regular season levels. His linemate Phil Esposito and Chico Maki were held scoreless:

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/leagues/seasons/teams/0000351967.html

Key to the Hawk offence with Bobby Hull on the ice was getting the puck to Hull efficiently(directly) on the transition creating openings and odd man rushes. Keon, dominating the center responsibilities very effectively impeded this, Hull getting the puck across to his linemates.

 

[BobbyAwe]

Part of it was possibly the inflation of scoring from the early-70's to the late-70's. A mere half decade after Esposito's peak, it may have looked more like he was the first of a new wave of high-end scorers that had an added advantage of Orr (a view that wasn't universally held while Esposito and Orr were playing together in Boston). Everyone was scoring more, from Lafleur to Dionne to Trottier to Bossy. The elite seemed to be able to top 120 points regularly... even crack 130+ at the very top. All of a sudden, that scoring domination by Esposito seemed quite small over the new wave of forwards, and given Esposito's post-prime career that was going on simultaneously, perhaps it became easier to give Orr all the credit.

Back then, it might have simply been seen as continual athletic improvement (along the lines of 100-m record times and such) for point totals to go up. Of course, it's obvious now that era effects are in play.

We have to consider the expansion when we evaluate totals on the Boston near-dynasty team of 1970-75 or so. Orr's superhuman point totals for a defenseman, Espo's obliteration of records, Bucyk's 51 goals at 35 years old when he was a 20-25 goal guy during the 60's, Hodge 50 goals which I still can't comprehend, McKenzie 30 goals when he was a journeyman till the expansion, and so forth. I am a Boston fan and this team is still my nostalgic favorite as I began to watch hockey in 1968, but honestly I take the stats of that team with a big dose of salt historically.

 

[BobbyAwe]

Killion answered most of your question(s).

Basically you need the proper individuals, properly deployed, within a group(team) structure. At various times these individuals will execute beyond expectations or baseline objectives.

1967 semi-finals, Bobby Hull produced at an acceptable level, 6GP 4G
+ 2A = 6PTS but below regular season levels. His linemate Phil Esposito and Chico Maki were held scoreless:

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/leagues/seasons/teams/0000351967.html

Key to the Hawk offence with Bobby Hull on the ice was getting the puck to Hull efficiently(directly) on the transition creating openings and odd man rushes. Keon, dominating the center responsibilities very effectively impeded this, Hull getting the puck across to his linemates.

Davey Keon is very underrated historically. Terrific player.

 

[Big Phil]

I was going to do research how Esposito performed in the games that Orr missed, but I double checked the archives and fortunately someone else had already done the work.

Link: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1297021

This post showed that during his time in Boston, Esposito scored 1.66 points per game with Orr in the lineup, and 1.32 points per game without him. That's the difference between a 129 and 103 point pace (over 78 games).

I think that probably overstates the difference because nearly half of the games that Orr missed were in 1968, when Esposito was a very good, but not dominant, scorer. (In fact, he scored more without Orr that season, but the composition of his points was markedly different - he scored more goals and fewer assists with Orr in the lineup).

That is the exact chart I was looking for too. A couple of things, I prefer to look at the season's individually. Because scoring was lower in 1968 than, say, 1972, so combining things into a big ball isn't the way to do it since there are different factors. For example:

1968 - 1.18 PPG without Orr (27 games), 1.10 with Orr
1969 - 1.55 PPG without Orr (9 games), 1.72 with Orr
1972 - 0 points in 2 games without Orr, 1.79 with Orr
1973 - 1.60 PPG without Orr (15 games), 1.68 with Orr
1974 - 1.25 PPG without Orr (4 games), 1.89 with Orr

1976 doesn't count because Orr was injured in all the games Esposito was still a Bruin. Other years Orr played in every game, or at least the ones Esposito played in. So we are left with a couple of telling things here.

For starters, he scored more without Orr in 1968 which is the one year that Orr missed the most time. We have the biggest sample size here and there is no indication that Esposito needs Orr. The next year is Esposito's Hart year and we have a smaller portion (9 games) to judge from and there isn't a whole lot of difference 0.17 PPG more with Orr. 1972 is a bit of a crapshoot. 2 games? Not enough really. I am sure there are other times Esposito AND Orr were pointless. 1973 is the next biggest indication of how things would go after 1968. It's 15 games. Esposito has 0.08 PPG less without Orr. That's a bigger sample size. 1974 is his other Hart year and I don't think 4 games tells us a whole lot. You can't tell me there aren't "droughts" with Orr where he has only 5 points in 4 games in his career.

So in conclusion, 1968 and 1973 are the most telling years and they show no evidence that Esposito wouldn't have still been THE superstar in the NHL without Orr.

How about his combined first four playoff appearances, three with the Hawks, one with the Bruins:

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=1588

Total of 33GP 4G 7A 11PTS

Including a shutout in 1967.

Even the two posters boys for playoff futility amongst centers, post 1967 Joe Thornton -28GP 6G 12A 18PTS and Marcel Dionne 22GP 11G 11A 22PTS leave Phil Esposito in the dust.

Sure he bounced back starting with his fifth season but we have an explanation for the trade from Chicago to Boston. Parts of Esposito's career were far from great.

So how did the rest of the playoff careers go for Thornton and Dionne? Did they pick things up eventually? Did they lead the postseason in scoring three times after they were 24 years old? Did they win two Cups and have three Smythe worthy runs? Did their team fizzle away (1973) once they went down with an injury in the postseason?

See, I am glad people are so obsessed with how Esposito played in the postseason from the ages of 21 to 24 but why is that even a "thing"? Yes, it is included in his overall playoff career but does it really matter once we realized what the big guy actually ended up accomplishing? Basically Esposito's first 5 postseasons are similar to these legends' first ones:

Mark Messier (first three at least)
Pavel Datsyuk
Ted Lindsay
Bryan Trottier (first four at least)
Guy Lafleur (first three, no kidding huh?)
Milt Schmidt (first 4)

So what is the difference with these guys - along with Esposito - and Dionne and Thornton? Well, they actually are considered great postseason performers (Datsyuk probably the worst on there, but still). Yet it didn't start out that way. But does anyone really remember that Lafleur didn't take off in the NHL until 1975? Or that Trottier was part of an Isles team that was thought to be perennial chokers?

No, we look at the whole picture.

 

[Canadiens1958]

What .....?

So how did the rest of the playoff careers go for Thornton and Dionne? Did they pick things up eventually? Did they lead the postseason in scoring three times after they were 24 years old? Did they win two Cups and have three Smythe worthy runs? Did their team fizzle away (1973) once they went down with an injury in the postseason?

See, I am glad people are so obsessed with how Esposito played in the postseason from the ages of 21 to 24 but why is that even a "thing"? Yes, it is included in his overall playoff career but does it really matter once we realized what the big guy actually ended up accomplishing? Basically Esposito's first 5 postseasons are similar to these legends' first ones:

Mark Messier (first three at least)
Pavel Datsyuk
Ted Lindsay
Bryan Trottier (first four at least)
Guy Lafleur (first three, no kidding huh?)
Milt Schmidt (first 4)

So what is the difference with these guys - along with Esposito - and Dionne and Thornton? Well, they actually are considered great postseason performers (Datsyuk probably the worst on there, but still). Yet it didn't start out that way. But does anyone really remember that Lafleur didn't take off in the NHL until 1975? Or that Trottier was part of an Isles team that was thought to be perennial chokers?

No, we look at the whole picture.

Speculation and comparables have limits. You are attempting revisionism of the worst kind.

Historical fact and I have posted to this effect at least twice on this board, Guy Lafleur thru 1975, was a DEFENSIVE liability. Most notably in 1974, first round against the Rangers, playing on a line with Shutt and Henri Richard when he was benched in favour of Claude Larose. Now you are complaining about his offensive numbers. No one scores riding the pines.Teams do not win playing bad defensive hockey.

Schmidt and Lindsay. Playing as underagers in eras when defensive hockey dominated the playoffs.That they played surpasses Esposito who at the same age did not make his day's equivalent of Major Junior. Datsyuk, a depth first center his first season, 4th or 5th on the depth chart depending on game specific needs.

Trottier and Messier. Both played in the NHL at an age when Esposito could not make a Major Junior team. 1961-62 St. Catherines -was a non playoff team that Esposito made as a last year junior.They also contributed more in the NHL as junior agers then Esposito did before his mid 20s.

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/leagues/seasons/teams/0008241962.html

 

[Big Phil]

Speculation and comparables have limits. You are attempting revisionism of the worst kind.

Historical fact and I have posted to this effect at least twice on this board, Guy Lafleur thru 1975, was a DEFENSIVE liability. Most notably in 1974, first round against the Rangers, playing on a line with Shutt and Henri Richard when he was benched in favour of Claude Larose. Now you are complaining about his offensive numbers. No one scores riding the pines.Teams do not win playing bad defensive hockey.

Schmidt and Lindsay. Playing as underagers in eras when defensive hockey dominated the playoffs.That they played surpasses Esposito who at the same age did not make his day's equivalent of Major Junior. Datsyuk, a depth first center his first season, 4th or 5th on the depth chart depending on game specific needs.

Trottier and Messier. Both played in the NHL at an age when Esposito could not make a Major Junior team. 1961-62 St. Catherines -was a non playoff team that Esposito made as a last year junior.They also contributed more in the NHL as junior agers then Esposito did before his mid 20s.

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/leagues/seasons/teams/0008241962.html

I don't think you're seeing what I am saying. The fact that Lafleur didn't burst out in the playoffs and had some trying times - including those years in the regular season - is exactly what I am talking about. It takes even a guy like Lafleur a while before he's "Lafleur". Why should we penalize Esposito just because he's in the same boat? Or Trottier, or Moose or Schmidt or Lindsay or Datsyuk. All were not great playoff performers right away, but are ones we consider to be now (not sure if Datsyuk is "great" as much as he redeemed himself for poor showings early on).

Why are you focusing on what they did at an early age as if that trumps what they did in their prime? You don't think Esposito more than made up for any poor showings in Chicago? Larry Robinson needed a year and a half in the minors before he made the NHL. How many people remember that, or should we remember that? It just means he is a year and a half behind, but I think he more than made up for it.

 

[Canadiens1958]

One Size Fits All

I don't think you're seeing what I am saying. The fact that Lafleur didn't burst out in the playoffs and had some trying times - including those years in the regular season - is exactly what I am talking about. It takes even a guy like Lafleur a while before he's "Lafleur". Why should we penalize Esposito just because he's in the same boat? Or Trottier, or Moose or Schmidt or Lindsay or Datsyuk. All were not great playoff performers right away, but are ones we consider to be now (not sure if Datsyuk is "great" as much as he redeemed himself for poor showings early on).

Why are you focusing on what they did at an early age as if that trumps what they did in their prime? You don't think Esposito more than made up for any poor showings in Chicago? Larry Robinson needed a year and a half in the minors before he made the NHL. How many people remember that, or should we remember that? It just means he is a year and a half behind, but I think he more than made up for it.

I read exactly where you are going. Trying to find a "One Size Fits All", counting explanation limited to offensive numbers. Not buying at all.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Toronto, after winning the SC in 67 missed the Playoffs entirely in 68, squeaking in in 68/69... get blown apart by the Bruins in Games 1&2 at the Boston Garden, out-Coached, outskated, outhustled, huge disparity in talent... they did manage to get it together just enough to be only losing Games 3&4 back at home by a goal in each game. The lineup was young, you had Gamble in net, Bower well past it, Imlach about to be fired, Ballard & Stafford Smythe in big trouble, everyone wanting out... beyond dysfunctional. Got blown out. Keon was just one guy. He didnt have the kind of support he'd previously been able to rely upon so sure, it hit the fan. That sometimes happens in hockey as you well know. There is some luck involved, and lucky for Esposito & the Bruins in 69, their 1st Round Opponents an organization badly crippled from within.

Beat out Detroit & Chicago by 7 and 8 points respectively.

35-26-15. Lost only 26 games out of 76. That is not a crippled, dysfunctional team (yet).

Still the point was that if Keon was just one guy in 69 and it was the team that allowed Espo to go wild, you can't turn around and say Keon in 67 was responsible for shutting Espo down on his own.

 

[Black Gold Extractor]

We have to consider the expansion when we evaluate totals on the Boston near-dynasty team of 1970-75 or so. Orr's superhuman point totals for a defenseman, Espo's obliteration of records, Bucyk's 51 goals at 35 years old when he was a 20-25 goal guy during the 60's, Hodge 50 goals which I still can't comprehend, McKenzie 30 goals when he was a journeyman till the expansion, and so forth. I am a Boston fan and this team is still my nostalgic favorite as I began to watch hockey in 1968, but honestly I take the stats of that team with a big dose of salt historically.

On the other hand, Boston wasn't the only non-expansion team in the league. Every existing team had a shot at beating up the newcomers, but Boston's stars still separated themselves from the pack.

 

[Big Phil]

I read exactly where you are going. Trying to find a "One Size Fits All", counting explanation limited to offensive numbers. Not buying at all.

I am saying that not every all-time great hits the ground running in the postseason or the regular season. Sometimes there are growing pains that come with it. Esposito felt this in Chicago. Once he was "the man" in Boston (at least outside of Orr) he flourished. You can't take back what the guy did, it wasn't an illusion.

Mario Lemieux took 5 seasons just to make the playoffs. I mean, is that ever held against him after all he did? Should it? Maybe when you compare him to Gretzky and such, but that's it.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I never liked him on the Hawks either. Big awkward guy who was a terrible skater.

And his big assist play in the the offensive zone was bouncing it off Bucyk's ass by accident when he was was trying to score on the powerplay.

Sounds like you didn't see much of Esposito when he was a Bruin (outside of the 2nd round of the 1970 playoffs).

 

[Killion]

Beat out Detroit & Chicago by 7 and 8 points respectively.

35-26-15. Lost only 26 games out of 76. That is not a crippled, dysfunctional team (yet).

Still the point was that if Keon was just one guy in 69 and it was the team that allowed Espo to go wild, you can't turn around and say Keon in 67 was responsible for shutting Espo down on his own.

Sure I can, entirely valid.... Were talking about admittedly a small separation in time of just 2 years however, very much an incongruent anomaly. 3 different franchises. Massive personnel changes wrought by Expansion. A completely unexpected SC Victory by the Leafs in 67, last hurrah for a generation of players who found just enough in the tank to get it done despite Imlach & Ownership. Serious, systemic problems that were long festering amongst the players in Toronto. Loyal soldiers just discarded, the future traded, sold away. Blockbuster Blackhawks~Bruins Trade. Superstar ascendant in Boston. 1967 was a World away from 1969. In 67, when Esposito was Centering Hull, his job was to feed #9. In 1969, it was Cash's & Hodges jobs to feed Phil, parked in the Slot. To shut that down Keon needed help from both Wingers & his Defenceman & the Leafs didnt have the personnel capable of playing to Keon's strengths. They all got beat in the corners, along the boards & in open ice by Hodge & Cashman. Outclassed & Outcoached.... And you know, if we went on Regular Season Records, Vancouver Canucks wouldve won the Cup what, 3X's?. Whole new season. Weaknesses, cracks appear.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Difference

I am saying that not every all-time great hits the ground running in the postseason or the regular season. Sometimes there are growing pains that come with it. Esposito felt this in Chicago. Once he was "the man" in Boston (at least outside of Orr) he flourished. You can't take back what the guy did, it wasn't an illusion.

Mario Lemieux took 5 seasons just to make the playoffs. I mean, is that ever held against him after all he did? Should it? Maybe when you compare him to Gretzky and such, but that's it.

Big difference joining a playoff team and enhancing its chances and joining a non-playoff team and getting it to the playoffs given that most no playoff have coaching, management and ownership problems at the core.

 

[Big Phil]

Big difference joining a playoff team and enhancing its chances and joining a non-playoff team and getting it to the playoffs given that most no playoff have coaching, management and ownership problems at the core.

The Bruins didn't make the playoffs in 1967 before Esposito arrived, just saying. They did every year after that until 1997. You think a guy who was three points away from the Art Ross didn't make an instant impact on that team once he arrived?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Overlooking

The Bruins didn't make the playoffs in 1967 before Esposito arrived, just saying. They did every year after that until 1997. You think a guy who was three points away from the Art Ross didn't make an instant impact on that team once he arrived?

Strictly from an offensive standpoint, the other two players that came over with Esposito contributed more. Fred Stanfield 64 PTS and Ken Hodge 56 PTS. Leading Bruin scorer 1966-67 was Bucyk with 48, Pit Martin who went to Chicago scored 42 points. Fred Stanfield alone playing on a line with Bucyk and McKenzie centered a line where the wingers saw 21 and 30 point increases in scoring.

Esposito left in 1975, so the Bruins managed quite well without him, making the playoffs for another 22 seasons.

The increase you attribute to Esposito as a single player as opposed to a trio, were replicated previously in the late 1940s, post trade to NY Buddy O'connor, post trade Roy Conacher to Chicago.1950s post draft pick-up Bronco Horvath in Boston.

Damage to Chicago was not the loss of Esposito but the loss of the forward depth that Stanfield and Hodge brought.

 

[Big Phil]

Strictly from an offensive standpoint, the other two players that came over with Esposito contributed more. Fred Stanfield 64 PTS and Ken Hodge 56 PTS. Leading Bruin scorer 1966-67 was Bucyk with 48, Pit Martin who went to Chicago scored 42 points. Fred Stanfield alone playing on a line with Bucyk and McKenzie centered a line where the wingers saw 21 and 30 point increases in scoring.

Esposito left in 1975, so the Bruins managed quite well without him, making the playoffs for another 22 seasons.

The increase you attribute to Esposito as a single player as opposed to a trio, were replicated previously in the late 1940s, post trade to NY Buddy O'connor, post trade Roy Conacher to Chicago.1950s post draft pick-up Bronco Horvath in Boston.

Damage to Chicago was not the loss of Esposito but the loss of the forward depth that Stanfield and Hodge brought.

The Blackhawks lost a guy who had just finished 7th in scoring in 1967. Fred Stanfield had 1 point in 10 games for the Hawks in 1967. Ken Hodge had 35 points. Esposito was the biggest loss. Sure there was depth taken away too, heck, it was a bad trade historically, one of the most lopsided of all-time, but that isn't because of Hodge and Stanfield, it is because of Esposito. You are meaning to tell me that Stanfield and Hodge made a bigger contribution to the 1968 Bruins than Esposito? Maybe combined, but individually? Not a chance. Either way, the voters thought the way I did a year later when he won the Hart in 1969 with 126 points. Is that enough for you to convince you that Chicago made a huge, huge mistake? How about 4 more scoring titles in a row after that? 6 times leading the NHL in goals?

The way you talk about Esposito was that he was just a throw-in kind of guy.