Round 2, Vote 2 (HOH Top Centers)

Dennis Bonvie

Registered User
Dec 29, 2007
29,206
17,564
Connecticut
The 1970's were arguably the weakest for the NHL given there was the WHA paying twice to three times more in salary, the Soviets and Czechoslovakians were world class but unable to play in the NHL, and there were several weak expansion NHL teams to inflate stats against.

Mikita in the Original Six years versus Esposito in the seventies are two quite different worlds of hockey in terms of level of competition and inclusion of the world's best.

Mikita is less than 2 years older than Esposito. They played in virtually the same time frame.
 
Last edited:

ChiTownPhilly

Not Too Soft
Feb 23, 2010
2,095
1,382
AnyWorld/I'mWelcomeTo
A last reminiscence of Messier on-the-ice

The last time I saw Messier play a game on NHL-ice was likely the last time anyone saw him play-- and that was as part of the 'Legends' game that served as prelude to the Rangers-Flyers Winter Classic. In character, we saw a Messier emotionally involved with the outcome of the game, exhorting teammates, trying to fire-up people, some of whom were 15 or more years older than him. At times, I swear, I feel like I could hear the eyeballs rolling, and see the thought-balloons float up, saying, "lighten up, Francis- it's a Legends game, for Chrissakes."

But, you know, that was just characteristic Messier. He can't make himself not care deeply about the outcome of a game in which he's involved. It's damn hard to measure the value of an attitude like that when the playoffs come around. Most fans would be grateful for that level of passion in the post-season. [As to how that attitude plays when your team makes the mid-January trip to Phoenix-- well, that's not so clear.]

As auditors of the NHL-media-experience, we've been exposed to the "Mark-Messier-Legendary-Leader" meme to the point of near-exhaustion. Like a quality hit song in heavy rotation, getting played over, and over- and over again- many of us have long since passed the point of listener-fatigue. And yet- detach one's feelings from the issue- make a kenosis of the narrative... and one will see that enough of the record backs up the popular impression that it should have a place in our assessment of the man, personal taste (or distaste) to the contrary.
 

Sturminator

Love is a duel
Feb 27, 2002
9,894
1,070
West Egg, New York
Why not, it sure wasn't held against Mario or Morenz in the last round.

Alot of Frank's resume is based of his defensive excellence, when we really don't even know what the standard was back then, it's alot easier to stand out in a small crowd than a larger one.

That an defense being totally different in a forward passing game than one where it isn't allowed.

Also there is a circle to square from the first round, if alot of Morenz's case was how much better he was than everyone else in that CP poll, then we can't turn around and say well Frank was jobbed.

The difference probably was as great as that poll suggested but if one thinks it was a major point in propping Morenz up it would also bring Frank down a bit right?

If you are referring to the results of the poll done in the 1940's (or was it the 1950's?), we cannot assume that all of the writers who voted had seen Nighbor's prime. Certainly some of them had (and three voted for him as the best center of all time, iirc), but the younger ones would have only hazy memories of him, if any at all, while it is likely that almost every voter remembered Howie Morenz with a good deal of clarity. Context matters, and the context of that data (if you're referring to the poll I'm thinking of) was skewed to favor Morenz in comparison to the players of the previous generation.
 
Last edited:

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
Phil didn't really get going until he was 2nd fiddle to Orr in Boston and sure he aged well, but the center he switched places with aged better.

Mikita had a more consistent run and started right from 21 as a superstar (heck his age 20 season was really good too).

I just think too much of Phil's resume depends on the intersection with Orr and at this stage of the voting I give the nod to guys who had a better start (Mikita, Trotts, Sakic, Yzerman ect.), even if they didn't have quite the Orr aided peak.

Phil deserves to be on this list really soon, no doubt, but there are too many other guys with better more complete resumes and with less questions at this point IMO.

I posted this in another thread, but it should be posted here.

Phil Esposito's last year in Chicago - 51 even strength points, 8 power play points
Phil Esposito's first year in Boston - 54 even strength points, 28 power play points, 2nd in overall league scoring (only 3 points behind Mikita)

The main thing that changed when Esposito first switched teams was that he was no longer stuck behind Mikita on the powerplay. A year or two later, Bobby Orr exploded and brought Phil Esposito with him.

IMO, Esposito's first year in Boston (1967-68) is the closest we can get to showing what kind of player Esposito really was under normal #1 center circumstances. He was receiving the first unit PP time that he wasn't getting in Chicago, and while Bobby Orr was already becoming a superstar, he wasn't BOBBY ORR quite yet. What kind of player was Esposito under these circumstances? A guy who was capable of winning the Art Ross in any given year (only 3 points behind Mikita), but not someone who was going to destroy the league by ROFLesque margins like he did in the early 70s with prime Bobby Orr behind him.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
Yet we seem to be in a big rush here to go the other way, don't we?

How many centers here won a LBP as voted on by the other players over a prime Lemieux and Gretzky?

These are the guys people often remove from scoring comparisons because they were automatic.

Yes, that season was that special. Maybe it isn't the third best peak ever but it is pretty damn good.

Messier won 2 (1990, 1992)

And while we're at it, Mike Liut won it in 1981 over the first time Gretzky broke the NHL points record.

Lemieux won the LBP in 1986 when Gretzky outscored him 215-141.

The players of the time, more than the writers, certainly seemed eager to vote for new faces.
 

Hardyvan123

tweet@HardyintheWack
Jul 4, 2010
17,552
24
Vancouver
Yet we seem to be in a big rush here to go the other way, don't we?

How many centers here won a LBP as voted on by the other players over a prime Lemieux and Gretzky?

These are the guys people often remove from scoring comparisons because they were automatic.

Yes, that season was that special. Maybe it isn't the third best peak ever but it is pretty damn good.

Yes but the 2 guys are close with Sakic having 2 more 70 plus point adjusted seasons than Stevie did and (16-14) and also more "elite" ones


Sakic had 6-100 point plus seasons and 2 90 plus ones.

Stevie had 3-100 plus and 3-90 plus ones.

Also Joe had only 30 more adjusted points than Sakic overall, just another example of how close they are, but TDMM points about his playoffs and his offensive and defensive prime being at the same time are quite convincing.

I'm a career guy and see these 2 as clearly ahead of Clarke as well but others might disagree if they are looking only at Harts. that being said both Steve and Joe had more consistent challenges for the Hart than bobby did overall IMO.

How to slot these 2 great long careers with the 2 early ones of Nighbor and Taylor is the tricky question now.
 

Sturminator

Love is a duel
Feb 27, 2002
9,894
1,070
West Egg, New York
Hard to make a case for one of these old-timers over another-- especially since we have to look through the prisms of different leagues AND different rules... but is there any reason to believe that Taylor doesn't deserve to be at least mentioned in the same breath as Nighbor?

It's not at all hard to make the case for Nighbor over Lalonde, as the strong majority of their contemporaries out east who watched both men play have recorded their opinion that Nighbor was the superior player. As always with Taylor...we'll never know for sure.

For me, the deciding criteria here is...gulp, Cup counting. Before you shoot me, remember that in the era in which Taylor and Nighbor competed, hockey was more like basketball, and the "starters" had a much bigger impact on the team's fortunes than even the biggest modern superstars. Taylor was great, but the Cup simply followed Nighbor around. Frank was the winningest player of the east-vs-west era, with five Cups (somebody correct me if I'm wrong here...I don't believe any of the other big winners from that era like Foyston and Holmes exceeded five), twice leading those Cup-winners in postseason scoring despite being known more for his defense. Taylor one only a single cup, in a year in which Nighbor was on his team (the 1915 Vancouver "superteam) - and they tied for points in the playoffs with Nighbor being credited in the press for having also played an outstanding defensive game (as a LW at that point in his career).

It is scant evidence on which to base a definitive comparison, I know, and truly definitive judgments of Taylor will possibly always elude us, but we have to make some kind of comparison based on the information that we have, and at this point I think that comparison favors Nighbor.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
Neither one of those seasons featured Gretzky and Lemieux simultaneously at heights no one else has ever reached.

If you want to talk strictly about removing Gretzky/Lemieux, here is a link to Hockey Outsider's study:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=608582

He concludes that Messier would have picked up the 1987 and 1990 Art Rosses, and added the 1996 Hart to the 2 he already won (1990, 1992).

Yzerman would have picked up the Art Ross and Hart in 1989, but not in any additional season. Yzerman would, however, have picked up the 1st Team AS in 1989, and 2nd Team AS in 1988 and 1990. (As is, Yzerman was an official 1st Team AS just once - in 2000 when he was 1st Team).
 

Sturminator

Love is a duel
Feb 27, 2002
9,894
1,070
West Egg, New York
IMO, Esposito's first year in Boston (1967-68) is the closest we can get to showing what kind of player Esposito really was under normal #1 center circumstances.

An uncharitable person might point to his first year in New York, though if that's the baseline (and he was still considered to be in this prime at the time of the trade), we shouldn't be talking about him, at all, at this point.
 

BraveCanadian

Registered User
Jun 30, 2010
14,522
3,360
Also Joe had only 30 more adjusted points than Sakic overall, just another example of how close they are, but TDMM points about his playoffs and his offensive and defensive prime being at the same time are quite convincing.

I have Sakic a hair above Yzerman myself, as I said up thread. I think(?) I was the first to pick him above Yzerman in the ATD as well.

That being said, I think they are as close as they come and I think people are downplaying Yzerman here.

People say it is a narrative or whatever.. but the guy did win a Stanley Cup and Olympic gold medal on one leg. That isn't a convenient narrative about the type of player and leader Yzerman was - that is a fact.
 
Last edited:

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
An uncharitable person might point to his first year in New York, though if that's the baseline (and he was still considered to be in this prime at the time of the trade), we shouldn't be talking about him, at all, at this point.

33 years old at the time he left for NY - I would say that's quite uncharitable. Especially after overpass's work does a good deal of showing that Esposito's plus/minus had already tanked a couple of years before he left Boston, which is circumstantial evidence supporting the idea that he was being propped up by Bobby Orr and the dominant Boston PP more than he was as a younger player by that point.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
I have Sakic a hair above Yzerman myself, as I said up thread. I think I was the first to pick him above Yzerman in the ATD as well.

That being said, I think they are as close as they come and I think people are downplaying Yzerman here.

As I said, I'm not downplaying Yzerman, so much as saying we should be comparing Sakic to Messier, Clarke, Esposito, and Trottier.
 

Hardyvan123

tweet@HardyintheWack
Jul 4, 2010
17,552
24
Vancouver
I posted this in another thread, but it should be posted here.

Phil Esposito's last year in Chicago - 51 even strength points, 8 power play points
Phil Esposito's first year in Boston - 54 even strength points, 28 power play points, 2nd in overall league scoring (only 3 points behind Mikita)

The main thing that changed when Esposito first switched teams was that he was no longer stuck behind Mikita on the powerplay. A year or two later, Bobby Orr exploded and brought Phil Esposito with him.

IMO, Esposito's first year in Boston (1967-68) is the closest we can get to showing what kind of player Esposito really was under normal #1 center circumstances. He was receiving the first unit PP time that he wasn't getting in Chicago, and while Bobby Orr was already becoming a superstar, he wasn't BOBBY ORR quite yet. What kind of player was Esposito under these circumstances? A guy who was capable of winning the Art Ross in any given year (only 3 points behind Mikita), but not someone who was going to destroy the league by ROFLesque margins like he did in the early 70s with prime Bobby Orr behind him.

Also of note Bobby Hull was in on 73 of Phil's ES points in Chicago and 10 more on the PP. Phil scored 174 points in total with the Hawks.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...TzlMX2RRWXUwb3hzbDIwTUJGbFE&usp=sharing#gid=2

Phil was simply one of the problems in the playoffs with the Hawks as well. He was 29-4-4-8 in the playoffs with the Hawks, presumably playing alot with Hull, of that I don't know.

And age shouldn't matter, Mikita has a much better line despite starting earlier in his 1st 4 years with the Hawks, without hull as a regular line mate (as far as I know) and Stan was well above the PPG mark in the playoffs using the same comparison for age and time in the league ect...

Pappyline could shed some light on Phil and his windy city days to help clarify it here I'm hoping.

Even with his scoring exploits with the Bruins there are too many red flags in his career to slot him in the top 4 in this round IMO.
 

BraveCanadian

Registered User
Jun 30, 2010
14,522
3,360
As I said, I'm not downplaying Yzerman, so much as saying we should be comparing Sakic to Messier, Clarke, Esposito, and Trottier.

I think a reasonable case could be made to put these guys in just about any order depending on your preferences and point of view.

There is just so much center depth that this is going to be a muddy process.
 

Hardyvan123

tweet@HardyintheWack
Jul 4, 2010
17,552
24
Vancouver
If you are referring to the results of the poll done in the 1940's (or was it the 1950's?), we cannot assume that all of the writers who voted had seen Nighbor's prime. Certainly some of them had (and three voted for him as the best center of all time, iirc), but the younger ones would have only hazy memories of him, if any at all, while it is likely that almost every voter remembered Howie Morenz with a good deal of clarity. Context matters, and the context of that data (if you're referring to the poll I'm thinking of) was skewed to favor Morenz in comparison to the players of the previous generation.

I agree that context does matter but if some of the voters here put alot of stock into that poll then something has to give a lil bit too, much like in the Orr/Clarke Harts discussion, there can only be one #1 guy at any time right?

Like I said in another post the pre NHL stuff is really tricky with all the league and player movement and pro hockey being such a new thing and still developing as well. We simply have little real information on the overall level of play and competition from that time.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
Nighbor was widely considered a better player than Lalonde by people who saw them play

1925 All-Time All-Star list published in MacLean's Magazine

Charlie H. Good compiled a list in 1925 of the best all-time positional players. Good was the respected Sporting Editor for the Toronto Daily News until that paper
folded in 1919. Maclean's Magazine asked Good to put a best-of list together for the March 15th edition. Good, in turn, called upon his peers in the sports writing fraternity to submit their picks. From those lists three all-star teams were compile...

The participants : Charles H. Good, W. A. Hewitt, Lester Patrick, J. F. Ahern, Tommy Gorman, W. J. Morrison, Lou Marsh, Bruce Boreham, K. G. H. McConnell, Roy Halpin, Ross Mackay, Harry Scott, O. F. Young, Art Ross, Frank Shaughnessey, James T. Sutherland, Bill Tackabery, Basil O'Meara, Ed. Baker, "Dusty" Rhodes, Walter McMullin, E. W. Ferguson, Joe Kincaid, and W. A. Boys, M.P.

http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/hockhist/message/20402

The list was widely circulated in newspapers at the time. In the west, it was widely criticized as barely representing PCHA/WHL players (indeed Cyclone Taylor as 3rd Team LW shows that most of the panel knew very little about the western leagues).

The list also seems to treat the pre-WW1 generation as almost equal to the generation that came after it, while consensus on the history board here is that pre-WW1 hockey was much weaker.

Disclaimers aside, the list gives us a very good idea of how eastern players from the same generation compare to each other:

1st Team Center: Frank Nighbor
2nd Team Center: Russell Bowie (from the earlier generation)
3rd Team Center: Newsy Lalonde

The Hockey Hall of Fame

The HHOF's first class was in 1945, and contained only deceased players.
The second class (1947) would be the inaugural class for still-living players. Frank Nighbor and Cyclone Taylor were both inducted in 1947.
Newsy Lalonde was not inducted until 1950, the same year as Joe Malone.

The 1950 "best player of the first 50 years of hockey poll"

I don't think this poll says too much about players other than Morenz, since he won in such a landslide, while everyone else picked up scraps. But worth noting the scraps, perhaps:

Howie Morenz: 27
Maurice Richard: 4
Cyclone Taylor: 3
Frank Nighbor: 2
Syl Apps, Turk Broda, Aurel Joliat, Newsy Lalonde, Milt Schmidt, Eddie Shore, Nels Stewart: 1 each
 

VanIslander

A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
Sep 4, 2004
35,134
6,429
I think a reasonable case could be made to put these guys in just about any order depending on your preferences and point of view.

There is just so much center depth that this is going to be a muddy process.
Is it not clear that Stan Mikita is to be ranked higher than Frank Nighbor?

Who prefers Nighbor over Mikita? TDMM?

Some things are perfectly clear.
(Others indeed can be reasoned over, weighed and judged.)
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
Nighbor vs Clarke

I dug up this post from the ATD in 2009, editing it down to the relevant parts. Sturminator, would your analysis change if you were doing this today?

After all you now know about Frank Nighbor, if you still think Bobby Clarke's offensive resume is so much better that's probably because you've never taken a critical look at Clarke, himself. When I equated Nighbor's offensive accomplishments to Clarke's long ago, I assumed that the reader was intimately familiar with Clarke's career, although I see that in this case that is not true. I suppose if I want to make this comparison, it was always going to come to this.

Here is Bobby Clarke's complete regular season top-20 scoring resume, with top-10 finishes bolded:

Points: 10th (71-72), 2nd (72-73), 5th (73-74), 6th (74-75), 2nd (75-76), 8th (76-77), 8th (77-78)

Goals: 13th (71-72), 16th (72-73), 12th (73-74)

Assists: 17th (71-72), 3rd (72-73), 10th (73-74), 1st (74-75), 1st (75-76), 6th (76-77), 4th (77-78), 9th (78-79), 8th (79-80), 5th (82-83)

...and now for Frank Nighbor, I'll be as uncharitable to his scoring finishes as possible, and simply multiply his actual placement by two for every season in which he finished in the top-10 in any category (completely ignoring finishes outside of the top-10). This means that in the cases in which Nighbor finished first, he'll have a 2nd place finish recorded on the following list. Here it is:

Points: 8th (12-13), 6th (14-15), 14th (15-16), 2nd (16-17), 18th (17-18), 4th (18-19), 6th (19-20), 10th (20-21), 16th (23-24), 16th (25-26)

Goals: 8th (12-13), 6th (14-15), 14th (15-16), 2nd (16-17), 6th (18-19), 6th (19-20), 10th (20-21), 20th (23-24)

Assists: 12th (14-15), 12th (17-18), 4th (18-19), 2nd (19-20), 4th (20-21), 16th (21-22), 6th (23-24), 2nd (25-26)

*the reader should note that no assist totals are available (to me, at least; I am not an SIHR member) other than PCHA totals (one season for Nighbor - 14-15) before the inaugural NHL season in 1917-18. Nighbor's "scoring" finishes before that time reflect only his goal-scoring. No adjustment has been made to reflect where he would have placed in a modern-style scoring table given that he was clearly the second greatest playmaker of his era behind Taylor.*

They come out quite nearly even. Clarke has one more top-10 scoring season, but Nighbor 4 more in the top-20, and this is using only goal-scoring to calculate Nighbor's points for the better part of his prime years. Nighbor kills Clarke in goals, and probably after correction for the missing data comes fairly close though short of Clarke in assists. This is using very stringent criteria for Nighbor - multiplying all of his finishes by 2 and not adjusting for how badly he was hurt in the points race by the lack of assist totals - and he still comes out with nearly identical offensive value to that of Bobby Clarke.

Now to address questions of competitive quality. The top peak forwards against whom Nighbor competed were:

Lalonde, Malone, Taylor, Foyston, MacKay, Broadbent, Denneny, Pitre, Noble, Darragh, Dye, Cleghorn and Hyland - leaving out the Joliat/Morenz generation against whom Nighbor competed towards the end of his career (including his last assists crown in 25-26). Now, not all of these players were active during every season of Nighbor's career, but most of them were active and at their peaks during Nighbor's prime scoring years. As we've discussed before through the course of ATD#11 (a discussion to which Spit was not a party, though he could have joined in), this is quite a big generation of talent - on an entirely different level from the pre-NHA generation. When discussing top-10 placements, this is in no way a thin universe of scoringline forwards, and I see no reason to devalue scoring achievements from this era once the two-league effect is accounted for (which I do quite brutally for Nighbor by multiplying his scoring finishes by two).

It's not like Bobby Clarke's era was so much stronger. The mid-70's were a lowpoint for the NHL between the O6 and 80's eras, and Bobby Clarke, himself, got outscored during his prime by names like Pete Mahovlich, Tim Young, Terry O'Reilly, Ken Hodge, Wayne Cashman, Vic Hadfield, etc. Does it make Bobby Clarke any less an offensive force because he sometimes fell short of guys who weren't all time greats? No, just like it doesn't make Nighbor any less a scorer because he occasionally got outscored by the Corb Dennenys of hockey. If these guys had been able to do it for as long as Nighbor and Clarke, they'd be all-time greats, as well.

Look at the top-end competition in Nighbor and Clarke's respective eras. Was Lafleur better than Lalonde? The biggest difference in their careers seems to be Lafleur's playoff performances, not his regular season numbers. Esposito vs. Taylor? I'd probably give it to Espo, but it's debatable. Perreault vs. Malone. Again, highly debatable, and I think Malone probably wins this one. Broadbent vs. Lemaire; Foyston vs. Martin; MacKay vs. Ratelle; Dye vs. Shutt; Denneny vs. Barber, etc. Compare the forward talent between the eras, and it doesn't look particularly different unless you're the kind of person who doesn't realize how great a scorer Mickey MacKay was. The high-end forward talent was probably a bit thicker in the 70's than it was in the teens and Bobby Orr was playing, but a non-biased comparison of eras does not show huge differences in the competitive level among the top scorers. There were a lot more players in the 70's, but the top layer of talent doesn't appear to have been particularly superior.

Only an extremely biased and unfair appraisal of Nighbor's scoring credentials can place him much below Clarke in this area, and there is certainly an argument that Nighbor was actually the better scorer (value of goal-scoring vs. playmaking, etc.). Clarke's goal-scoring credentials are quite weak. How would pure playmaker Bobby Clarke have looked in NHA scoring tables that only counted goals? Offensively, Nighbor and Clarke are on the same level, and defensively, they exist in their own special class, which includes only Bobby Clarke and Frank Nighbor. There simply are no other scoring forwards in hockey history whose defensive games approach this level of dominance.

...

None of these players, including Milt Schmidt, have a defensive value even close to that of Bobby Clarke. Frank Nighbor does. The biggest thing holding Nighbor back from more recognition in the ATD was not his defensive value, on which there is virtually unanimous agreement. The biggest thing keeping Nighbor off of ATD 1st lines and out of the HOH top-50 was a lack of perspective on his scoring feats, due mostly to limited information on NHA scoring and postseason contests during the era. That blind spot has been corrected, and now we know why so many of Nighbor's contemporaries considered him the best player in hockey. Now it makes sense. Now we understand why he got more votes than Lalonde in the "Player of the Half-Century" poll, why he won the 1st Hart trophy in a season in which he placed 8th in points.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
Is it not clear that Stan Mikita is to be ranked higher than Frank Nighbor?

Who prefers Nighbor over Mikita? TDMM?

Some things are perfectly clear.
(Others indeed can be reasoned over, weighed and judged.)

I'm leaning towards liking (alphabetically) Clarke, Esposito, Messier, Mikita, Nighbor, and Sakic finishing out our top 10 overall (with Trottier and Taylor 11th and 12th in either order), but I really don't have the order down at all. Mikita would be near the top of that order, though I'm not sure if I will have him at the top.
 

VanIslander

A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
Sep 4, 2004
35,134
6,429
I'm sorry...

Did I miss the argument for Clarke over Messier?

Link please.

:)

Espo and Mikita I've heard, but Clarke over Mess I can't recall being argued.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
I'm sorry...

Did I miss the argument for Clarke over Messier?

Link please.

:)

Espo and Mikita I've heard, but Clarke over Mess I can't recall being argued.

I had Messier over Clarke heading into the project and I haven't seen anything to make me change my mind, though it's possible that it would happen.

The argument for Clarke would be a more consistent (though shorter) regular season prime, and defensive ability good enough to win the Selke even if he wasn't scoring. Messier was good defensively, but Clarke was elite.

My top 4 if I went off my Round 1 list would be Mikita/Messier, then Nighbor/Sakic, but that is far from set in stone, and maybe I was being too unduly harsh to the 1970s players because I think this forum overrates them just a tad.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
1966-67 Chicago

I posted this in another thread, but it should be posted here.

Phil Esposito's last year in Chicago - 51 even strength points, 8 power play points
Phil Esposito's first year in Boston - 54 even strength points, 28 power play points, 2nd in overall league scoring (only 3 points behind Mikita)

The main thing that changed when Esposito first switched teams was that he was no longer stuck behind Mikita on the powerplay. A year or two later, Bobby Orr exploded and brought Phil Esposito with him.

IMO, Esposito's first year in Boston (1967-68) is the closest we can get to showing what kind of player Esposito really was under normal #1 center circumstances. He was receiving the first unit PP time that he wasn't getting in Chicago, and while Bobby Orr was already becoming a superstar, he wasn't BOBBY ORR quite yet. What kind of player was Esposito under these circumstances? A guy who was capable of winning the Art Ross in any given year (only 3 points behind Mikita), but not someone who was going to destroy the league by ROFLesque margins like he did in the early 70s with prime Bobby Orr behind him.

Basic 1966-67 Chicago lines were Chico Maki - Phil Esposito - Bobby Hull and Ken Wharram - Stan Mikita - Doug Mohns. Plus a third/fourth line Eric Nesterenko/Ken Hodge - Angotti/Boyer/Hodge - Dennis Hull, dictated by injuries, game situations, extra shifting.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/CBH/1967.html

The core PP was basically the Esposito line with Mikita and Pilote playing the points or the Mikita line with Hull and Pilote playing the points. In both cases Bobby Hull was the first option. The difference in PP time was Hull and Mikita getting point time. In Boston Esposito did not play the point. Mainly Orr and Stanfield.

In terms of PP ice time Phil Esposito was not shorted in Chicago. Simply his role was different, doing the board and corner work especially if the Hawks played Wharram instead of Chico Maki on RW.

Interesting tidbit. 1966-67 PPGs, 70 game season Boston 34, Chicago 51. 1967-68 PPGs, 74 game season Boston 45, Chicago 37. Suggesting Phil Esposito may have had a more important role on the Chicago PP than he receives credit for.
 

ChiTownPhilly

Not Too Soft
Feb 23, 2010
2,095
1,382
AnyWorld/I'mWelcomeTo
Taylor one only a single cup, in a year in which Nighbor was on his team (the 1915 Vancouver "superteam) - and they tied for points in the playoffs with Nighbor being credited in the press for having also played an outstanding defensive game (as a LW at that point in his career).
In this pairing, there is a clear "enthusiasm-gap" swinging Nighbor's way- and really, I don't have a big problem with it (at least, as long as Taylor comes close on the heels of Nighbor in our reckoning).

That 1915 Cup you cite- I feel it's only right to point out that Nighbor was nine years younger than Taylor. Good on the 30-something to keep pace with the 20-something, I'd say.;)
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->