Round 2, Vote 2 (HOH Top Centers)

[Canadiens1958]

1978-79 Phil Esposito

A few facts about Phil Esposito's 1978-79 season. First time in his career that Phil Esposito was on an NHL team that was four deep at center:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/NYR/1979.html

Four centers on the 1978-79 Rangers. Phil Esposito, Ulf Nilsson(scoring leader if viewed on a PPG basis), Ron Duguay, Walt Tkaczuk.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

A few facts about Phil Esposito's 1978-79 season. First time in his career that Phil Esposito was on an NHL team that was four deep at center:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/NYR/1979.html

Four centers on the 1978-79 Rangers. Phil Esposito, Ulf Nilsson(scoring leader if viewed on a PPG basis), Ron Duguay, Walt Tkaczuk.

I don't think Duguay played much center. Perhaps when Nilsson was out.

Judging by their points, if all 4 guys centered different lines, they must have had a great 4th line. Since Nick Fotiu played 71 games (and scored 8 points) and Walt Tkaczuk was the center with the least points (42) the numbers don't add up.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Four Deep

I don't think Duguay played much center. Perhaps when Nilsson was out.

Judging by their points, if all 4 guys centered different lines, they must have had a great 4th line. Since Nick Fotiu played 71 games (and scored 8 points) and Walt Tkaczuk was the center with the least points (42) the numbers don't add up.

Four deep does not mean rolling four lines evenly. More line-up flexibility with better match-up options, more flexibility plus four rested centers against tired centers if the opposition is only three deep at center.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Sure Phil has longevity on Clarke but it's not as meaningful as the longevity that guys like moose, Mikita, Sakic, Yzerman, Taylor or nighbour had.
Those NYR teams were bad in part due to Phil being a poor man's Mario, ie still a great PP guy but really well below average ES for the league in terms of his impact.

We saw signs of this less than impact full play at ES in Boston as well.

If we look at the whole picture of what hockey is about, ie. winning games and any players impact on doing that Clarke had more impact than Phil did and so did most of the players up for voting this round IMO.

Well, Esposito was a captain (and top score for) a team that went to the Cup finals (and lost to a dynasty team) when he was 36. Clarke was two years retired at 36. Mikita's last playoff finals was when he was 30. Messier's last playoffs were when he was 36. Nighbor no playoffs after 35.

Looks like Phil's impact on winning was still pretty good late in his career.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Four deep does not mean rolling four lines evenly. More line-up flexibility with better match-up options, more flexibility plus four rested centers against tired centers if the opposition is only three deep at center.

So the Rangers were not using 4 lines and they had 4 centers that scored:

78 points in 80 games
66 points in 59 games
63 points in 79 games
42 points in 77 games

I'm pretty sure Esposito, Nillson and Tkaczuk didn't play wing.

That would leave Dugauy playing wing, except when Nilsson was out.

Just a theory.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Not the Point

So the Rangers were not using 4 lines and they had 4 centers that scored:

78 points in 80 games
66 points in 59 games
63 points in 79 games
42 points in 77 games

I'm pretty sure Esposito, Nillson and Tkaczuk didn't play wing.

That would leave Dugauy playing wing, except when Nilsson was out.

Just a theory.

Not the point.

Previously with Chicago and Boston, Esposito played on three center teams with Mikita and Sanderson during their high PIM phase so that meant that the two remaining centers would have to assume a heavier and out of game plan workload. Boston was really problematic since two centers - Esposito and Stanfield played a lot of PP minutes. Post PP if Sanderson was penalized or unavailable Boston had to play a gassed center.

Similarly Philly with Bobby Clarke. They were at least four deep at center with the likes of Clarke, MacLeish, Kindrachuk, Clement, Crisp so even if they were exchanging centers via penalties their edge was still from 4/5 to 3 down to 3/4 to 2.With little exception this gave Philly a massive edge against three center teams.

This was the big obstacle for Philly playing Montreal that could run 6-7 players at center.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Well, Esposito was a captain (and top score for) a team that went to the Cup finals (and lost to a dynasty team) when he was 36. Clarke was two years retired at 36. Mikita's last playoff finals was when he was 30. Messier's last playoffs were when he was 36. Nighbor no playoffs after 35.

Looks like Phil's impact on winning was still pretty good late in his career.

Need to also look at when players became impact players. It's not about old age, it's about length. If someone is an impact player from 19-34 it should be viewed the same as someone who was from 24-39.


This isn't in reference to any particular player that you mentioned, just a general criticism about longevity comparisons

 

[MXD]

Voted.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Need to also look at when players became impact players. It's not about old age, it's about length. If someone is an impact player from 19-34 it should be viewed the same as someone who was from 24-39.


This isn't in reference to any particular player that you mentioned, just a general criticism about longevity comparisons

This is true, but especially when it comes to when a player becomes an impact player, you have to look to see whether he was a guy who had an opportunity to do so from the start. For example, I do think it's relevant that Esposito received very little PP time in Chicago because Mikita was entrenched as the #1 center.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Interpretation

This is true, but especially when it comes to when a player becomes an impact player, you have to look to see whether he was a guy who had an opportunity to do so from the start. For example, I do think it's relevant that Esposito received very little PP time in Chicago because Mikita was entrenched as the #1 center.

Mikita received extra PP time because he could play the point and did while Esposito and Hull manned two of the forward positions. When Mikita played center on the PP, Hull and Pilote played the two points because Hull could and Esposito could not. Likewise in Boston where Stanfield and Orr played the points because Esposito could not.

So if the point is that Mikita had greater diversity as a center than Esposito the PP time issue matters.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Well, Esposito was a captain (and top score for) a team that went to the Cup finals (and lost to a dynasty team) when he was 36. Clarke was two years retired at 36. Mikita's last playoff finals was when he was 30. Messier's last playoffs were when he was 36. Nighbor no playoffs after 35.

Looks like Phil's impact on winning was still pretty good late in his career.

Man every player would look great if we only looked at part of their resume like this.

He had a very good playoffs but let's not take his regular season or his playoff run that year out of context (especially with his late career compiling numbers).

His scoring didn't compensate for his lack of effectiveness at ES during his time in the Big Apple. Even on a poor team Phil stands out as a defensive black hole in New York.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=goals

Here is his plus/minus during that time in New york, along with his other counting stats....looks like a guy compiling to me, especially when compared with Mikita during the same age comp or any other aging player in this round.

Here is Mikita to compare over the same ages 33-38

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=goals

 

[Hardyvan123]

This is true, but especially when it comes to when a player becomes an impact player, you have to look to see whether he was a guy who had an opportunity to do so from the start. For example, I do think it's relevant that Esposito received very little PP time in Chicago because Mikita was entrenched as the #1 center.

Okay Hang on a second here, Mikita is getting flack for not being the stud on his team, that title goes to Bobby hull, but while we can see the lack of PP time in Chicago as part of Phil's resume we should also include the fact that at ES Phil was playing with Bobby Hull, the points tell us that.

I have no problem with the idea that Phil might have emerged as a slightly better scorer with the Hawks had he not been traded and received more PP time there, but nothing points to his explosion more than Bobby Orr does, both before and after his time in Boston.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Okay Hang on a second here, Mikita is getting flack for not being the stud on his team, that title goes to Bobby hull, but while we can see the lack of PP time in Chicago as part of Phil's resume we should also include the fact that at ES Phil was playing with Bobby Hull, the points tell us that.

I have no problem with the idea that Phil might have emerged as a slightly better scorer with the Hawks had he not been traded and received more PP time there, but nothing points to his explosion more than Bobby Orr does, both before and after his time in Boston.

Bobby Hull wasn't exactly known for making his linemates better, at least not the 60s version of Bobby Hull.

No, I don't think Esposito wins 5 scoring titles by Mario Lemieux / Gordie Howe margins without Orr.

 

[Hardyvan123]

both were four year veterans when these scouting reports were written.

Interesting stuff and thanks for digging that up.

Brave Canadian was right these guys are both very close in very many ways.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Man every player would look great if we only looked at part of their resume like this.

He had a very good playoffs but let's not take his regular season or his playoff run that year out of context (especially with his late career compiling numbers).

His scoring didn't compensate for his lack of effectiveness at ES during his time in the Big Apple. Even on a poor team Phil stands out as a defensive black hole in New York.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=goals

Here is his plus/minus during that time in New york, along with his other counting stats....looks like a guy compiling to me, especially when compared with Mikita during the same age comp or any other aging player in this round.

Here is Mikita to compare over the same ages 33-38

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=goals

In his last 8 seasons Wayne Gretzky was a -76.

When you get lots of ice time on lousy teams, your +/- will be lousy.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Bobby Hull wasn't exactly known for making his linemates better, at least not the 60s version of Bobby Hull.

No, I don't think Esposito wins 5 scoring titles by Mario Lemieux / Gordie Howe margins without Orr.

Of course Howe and Mario are not involved in the voting here.

And does Howe score that much without Lindsay and Kelly? Or Mario without Coffey or Jagr?

 

[Canadiens1958]

1960s Bobby Hull

Bobby Hull wasn't exactly known for making his linemates better, at least not the 60s version of Bobby Hull.

This is very debatable.

1959-60 playing with two rookies Murray Balfour and Bill Hay:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/CBH/1960.html

Bobby Hull won the Art Ross while Hay won the Calder. 1960-61 Hay led the Hawks in scoring.


1962-63 Hawks injury plagued season:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/CBH/1963.html

compared to 1963-64:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/CBH/1964.html

when the team was very healthy, driven by Hull and Mikita, linemates numbers rose. Then 1964-65 when Phil Esposito replaced Bill Hay on the line with Bobby Hull:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/CBH/1965.html

Esposito's numbers went up significantly from 1963-64 while Hay's numbers went down accordingly.

Back to the key element here, the roles of Esposito and Mikita as Hawk centers. Clearly both have been misunderstood to an extent.

Playing with Bobby Hull was a benefit to Bill Hay - putting his playmaking skills in evidence and Phill Esposito - accenting his goalscoring attributes. The lack of an appropriate RW after the loss of Murray Balfour hurt both.

Stan Mikita was also a benefit to his linemates. Ken Wharram was ideal at RW as he was a lead winger that forced the teams to respect the right side, while Bobby Hull on his line forced the respect on the left side. . Combined on the PP Hull and Wharram were ideal regardless of the center or point situation. McDonald and Mohns with Mikita were gran excellent match as the trailing winger on the left side.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

This is very debatable.

1959-60 playing with two rookies Murray Balfour and Bill Hay:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/CBH/1960.html

Bobby Hull won the Art Ross while Hay won the Calder. 1960-61 Hay led the Hawks in scoring.


1962-63 Hawks injury plagued season:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/CBH/1963.html

compared to 1963-64:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/CBH/1964.html

when the team was very healthy, driven by Hull and Mikita, linemates numbers rose. Then 1964-65 when Phil Esposito replaced Bill Hay on the line with Bobby Hull:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/CBH/1965.html

Esposito's numbers went up significantly from 1963-64 while Hay's numbers went down accordingly.

Back to the key element here, the roles of Esposito and Mikita as Hawk centers. Clearly both have been misunderstood to an extent.

Playing with Bobby Hull was a benefit to Bill Hay - putting his playmaking skills in evidence and Phill Esposito - accenting his goalscoring attributes. The lack of an appropriate RW after the loss of Murray Balfour hurt both.

Stan Mikita was also a benefit to his linemates. Ken Wharram was ideal at RW as he was a lead winger that forced the teams to respect the right side, while Bobby Hull on his line forced the respect on the left side. . Combined on the PP Hull and Wharram were ideal regardless of the center or point situation. McDonald and Mohns with Mikita were gran excellent match as the trailing winger on the left side.

Well, you certainly seem to have changed your mind since the 2009 top 100 project when you said that Bobby Hull held back his teammates, in particular Bill Hay and Phil Esposito
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=20566092&postcount=218

Anyway, when you have Glenn Hall complaining about how Bobby Hull didn't pass enough and quotes from the 1971 playoffs about how the new version of Bobby Hull is much better at using his linemates, I do question how much he really helped his linemates in the 1960s.

 

[Hardyvan123]

In his last 8 seasons Wayne Gretzky was a -76.

When you get lots of ice time on lousy teams, your +/- will be lousy.

And I will be in the minority here and have been in the past, saying that he wasn't as good, or had as much impact, as his scoring stats indicated either (over that last 8 year stretch).

Come on Phil was pretty much a black hole on ES during his time with the Rangers, or did he simply have incredibly bad luck over those 5 years?

Mikita aged much better as did Yzerman and Sakic...heck Clarke probably might have aged better as well but we don't know that at all.

 

[Killion]

Anyway, when you have Glenn Hall complaining about how Bobby Hull didn't pass enough and quotes from the 1971 playoffs about how the new version of Bobby Hull is much better at using his linemates, I do question how much he really helped his linemates in the 1960s.

It is debatable, absolutely. Hays' numbers were certainly respectable for the era though you'll note the serious drops in goal production when playing without Hull as opposed to playing with him, yet even there there are some spotty seasons. Esposito as well, respectable but not exactly stellar despite being quite the scoring machine in the minors & junior. You can only attribute so much to Phil Esposito's comments that Billy Reay never seemed to have the confidence in him that he felt he'd earned & deserved as Reay had him Centering the games greatest player at that time. Hull was a bit of a solo act in the early 60's, no question about that, though I do think he did elevate the games of his Centers, opposite Wingers & Defenceman.... Id not heard that comment from Hall before, but yes, quite accurate from what I remember in following Hull's career from about 1960 to 1972. His game did evolve, no question about that.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Vote 2 over at 11:00pm EST on 11/12

This round of voting will end at 11:00pm EST on Tuesday 11/12.

So far I have received votes from: bigbuffalo313, Canadiens1958 , Dennis Bonvie, hardyvan123 , intylerwetrust, Jigglysquishy, MadArcand, MXD, reckoning, Rob Scuderi, Sturminator, ted1971, the edler, tony D, VanIslander




*For those that like to wait up for the voting results...they probably won't be posted until around 2-3am EST Wednesday morning

 

[Canadiens1958]

Linemate Reciprocity

Well, you certainly seem to have changed your mind since the 2009 top 100 project when you said that Bobby Hull held back his teammates, in particular Bill Hay and Phil Esposito
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=20566092&postcount=218

Anyway, when you have Glenn Hall complaining about how Bobby Hull didn't pass enough and quotes from the 1971 playoffs about how the new version of Bobby Hull is much better at using his linemates, I do question how much he really helped his linemates in the 1960s.

Flattered by the fact that my comments are referenced over the years. In response to the above, I again offer your comment:

Bobby Hull wasn't exactly known for making his linemates better, at least not the 60s version of Bobby Hull.

I clearly showed the connection between Hull's efforts when healthy and the results generated by first Bill Hay, later Phil Esposito. I also clearly qualified the "better" as being one-dimensional for both players.
Elite centers as discussed in this project are considered from the standpoint of their overall game which is multi-dimensional.

Other aspects of Hay's or Esposito's game stagnated - defense particularly cost the Hawks dearly in the playoffs against the Red Wings from 1963 onwards. This was clearly illustrated previously in these discussions when the Hawks' playoff shortcomings at center were explained.

 

[sr edler]

Overlooking 1924 when the Canadiens beat Calgary two straight, outscoring them 9 - 1. Also Seattle was mainly the great Toronto time imported from the east so the west on a league basis could not handle what was basically an eastern team. Canadiens had problems with the Toronto team in the east so.....

Yeah, I forgot about 1924. That was pretty much a new Montreal team from the Mets series in 1917 & 1919, with Lalonde & Pitre gone and with Morenz, Joliat and the Cleghorn brothers on board. I can agree that the East had a bit better top end teams in the 1920–1926 span, when the PCHA & WCHL merged and the numbers of teams there spread the talent more even. An example of that is the Victoria Cougars who won the Cup in 1925. Victoria the two earlier years were basically Frank Fredrickson & Slim Halderson and a bunch of grinders but then in 1924–25 the old Seattle–Toronto squad of Holmes, Walker & Foyston hopped on and the team made two straight finals.

The 1920–1926 period can't be applied much on Cyclone Taylor though as he was 36 in 1920 and practically retired. I don't think one can look at his numbers in the NHA & PCHA without context and say that he feasted on a weaker league. Seattle had a great team, Portland was strong defensively and Victoria was decent. A lot of great players from the NHA like Lalonde, Pitre, Hyland and Gordon Roberts played sporadically in the West and while all of them put up great numbers noone of them separated themselves from the pack like Taylor did. Roberts scored much like Bernie Morris. Cyclone played cover point in the NHA I think, or rover, and what he could have done as a center in that league we'll never know.

 

[MXD]

A lot of great players from the NHA like Lalonde, Pitre, Hyland and Gordon Roberts played sporadically in the West and while all of them put up great numbers noone of them separated themselves from the pack like Taylor did. Roberts scored much like Bernie Morris. Cyclone played cover point in the NHA I think, or rover, and what he could have done as a center in that league we'll never know.

....

Lalonde led the PCHA in scoring during his LONE season (his lead might have been bigger -- what's with the missing game anyways?), and if Taylor's seasons past 33 can be discounted, well, it's safe to say we HAVE to do the same with Lalonde.... right?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I finally voted. Have to say, it was the toughest round to vote in for any of the positional projects so far. Just so many factors to weigh for centers.