Round 2, Vote 3 (HOH Top Centers)

[tony d]

Is there anyone who doesn't have Espo 1st? I just can't see anyone overlooking his offensive dominance.

Trottier is #1 for me of the players up for debate in this round of voting but Espo's #2 I think.

 

[ted2019]

Dionne back to back with Sakic? I just can't see it. The two of them are close in regular season offensive value, but then Sakic completely blows Dionne away in defense, leadership, and playoffs. IMO, there should be a very sizable gap between the two of them.

And what is the argument for Dionne over Esposito (or Trottier for that matter)?

That's why I said that everything this round can change. Dionne was a great player with lousy teammates most of His career. Even with the adjusted stats, He still had 1493 Points in 1348 games. He had basically Dave Taylor and a couple of seasons of Charlie Simmer. He lead the Kings in scoring 8 years straight and had on average of 25 more points then the 2nd place point leader on the team. The only reason He didn't lead the team in scoring in 1983-84, was due to the fact that He got injured and had only 92 Points in 66 Games and then He only lost out on the team scoring lead by 3 points. The following season in 1984-85, He was back to leading the Kings in scoring with 126 Points and lead the 2nd place Point getter by 26 Points. It wasn't until His age 34 season ( His last full year as a King) that he didn't lead the team in scoring.

I do agree that Dionne's playoff stats aren't that great, but it wasn't His fault that He was the only top flight talent on the team. Dionne 0.91 PPG in 49 playoff games.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Depends on how you define "generation", but in the early 1980s we had all of Gretzky, Trottier, Messier, Dionne and Lemieux playing in their impact years at the same time. Of course Messier was on the wing at that time. And Clarke was still kicking around too, if you want to include him.

That just seems like an incredible concentration of top-12'ers... half of them not just in the league, but in or close to their peaks, at the same time?

It's something to at least contemplate before we sign our names to it.

Not really sure how much actual overlap there really is with this group of players. By the time Mario has his rookie season, trotts is done , as an impact player and dionne had his last elite season.

Some period at the end of the day is going to have a high concentration of centers, in the Dman project it was the 70's, which still to me seems really strange to tell you the truth but that is a whole other matter.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Not really sure how much actual overlap there really is with this group of players. By the time Mario has his rookie season, trotts is done , as an impact player and dionne had his last elite season.

Trottier and Dionne were both 90+ point players after Mario came into the league. Sure they were past their absolute peak, but they were hardly beyond their "impact" stages.

Some period at the end of the day is going to have a high concentration of centers, in the Dman project it was the 70's, which still to me seems really strange to tell you the truth but that is a whole other matter.

In both the defensemen and goalie projects, we ended up with a concentration of all time greats in the 1970s (5 of the top 11 defensemen, 5 of the top 8 goalies) and we are on the verge of a similar concentration of all time great centers only a decade later.

Three possible explanations:

1) By random chance, the world happened to produce more hockey talent between about 1948 and 1961 than during any other period.

2) For logical reasons that we may or may not be able to uncover, the world happened to produce more hockey talent between about 1948 and 1961 than during any other period.

3) Our evaluations are being skewed by some form of systemic bias.


#1 seems kind of unlikely, though not impossible. #2 and #3 have both been defended on this forum in previous threads.

 

[BraveCanadian]

1) By random chance, the world happened to produce more hockey talent between about 1948 and 1961 than during any other period.
...

#1 seems kind of unlikely, though not impossible. #2 and #3 have both been defended on this forum in previous threads.

The baby boom coupled with a huge expansion of the middle class (and its associated infrastructure) doesn't make it seem that unlikely to me.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Is there anyone who doesn't have Espo 1st? I just can't see anyone overlooking his offensive dominance.

He isn't in my top 4 as his dominance seems to be either

A) too related to Orr or

B) his start and finish to his career, ie his time outside of Boston is weaker than many others in this round.

If one is primarily a peak guy and thinks that Esposito has similar seasons without Orr, or at least nothing drastically less, then I can see him in the top 4 but I don't see it.

It's just too easy to put him first by simply looking at the numbers, if one looks closely there are enough questions and red flags for Phil IMO.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I don't think anyone here would give Mike Gartner any consideration as even a top 20 right winger, let alone top 10. Heck, most probably wouldn't even glance at him for the top 30.

Pretty much this, there is no doubt Phil is a top 20 center even if one takes my POV to it's extreme conclusion, Mike probably doesn't even make it as a top 40 winger really.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Trottier and Dionne were both 90+ point players after Mario came into the league. Sure they were past their absolute peak, but they were hardly beyond their "impact" stages.

The top 20 in scoring that year had 95 plus points, sure Trotts was more relevant than Mario that year but the overlap was very very slight.

In both the defensemen and goalie projects, we ended up with a concentration of all time greats in the 1970s (5 of the top 11 defensemen, 5 of the top 8 goalies) and we are on the verge of a similar concentration of all time great centers only a decade later.

Three possible explanations:

1) By random chance, the world happened to produce more hockey talent between about 1948 and 1961 than during any other period.

2) For logical reasons that we may or may not be able to uncover, the world happened to produce more hockey talent between about 1948 and 1961 than during any other period.

3) Our evaluations are being skewed by some form of systemic bias.


#1 seems kind of unlikely, though not impossible. #2 and #3 have both been defended on this forum in previous threads.

I think a lot of the issue is with #3 and it's basically the NHL being separate from the European players, that's why I like to look at how guys compare against all Canadians in later days and the absolute refusal to even look at that metric by some could be called "systematic basis".

As for the reason behind it who knows.

Also the 70's probably had the least competitive league, in terms of parity, than many other time periods and players stood out more obviously in such circumstances.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Non-sequitur: I watched Phil Esposito play (as I try to do with as many as these guys as I can, so I can determine who was a product of what or who was aided by this or not helped by that)...Esposito could play. He could really play. He was aided by having a #1 PMD with the capability of Orr, no doubt. But Espo would have been terrific with or without him. Let's not sleep on him. I thought he would have been just fine going in with the last group. He really shouldn't slip too far here...or at all probably...

Re: Yzerman and Sakic when they first came into the league. I was talking to a friend of mine who used to scout for the Nordiques when they got Sakic (the extra first they acquired that year for Dale Hunter was with Sakic in mind...though the owner (Marcel Aubut) was more interested in Stephane Quintal and may have strong-armed the staff into taking him had Boston not selected him the pick before...anyway...). He said that Yzerman was probably better defensively coming out, he was a Peterborough guy, and they prided themselves on two-way players. Sakic took a little time to develop on that front and was counted on so heavily to provide offense for a club with so little depth. I know this was a discussion in the previous round, so there's a tiny bit of inside baseball on it.

 

[reckoning]

One important factor that needs to be considered regarding Apps and Schmidt is the effect on World War II on their careers. They both lost a significant amount of time because of it.

Apps lost two full seasons when he was age 28-29. Schmidt lost three full seasons when he was age 24-26. Imagine if you deleted two or three full seasons from the record of Esposito, Dionne or Trottier from when they were in their 20s. Their accumulated career honours (top 10 finishes, All-Star selections, finishes in Hart voting, etc.) would take quite a hit.

Some will say that players can't be credited with time they didn't play, but in my opinion WW2 is a special case. It's not like losing time due to injuries from playing recklessly or not training properly, and it's certainly not like losing time due to a contract holdout. They lost that time through no fault of their own whatsoever.

And they were prime years. Apps had been top 5 in PPG in each of the seven seasons before he left, then he finishes in the top 5 again when he comes back. It's a safe assumption that he would've been one of the top scorers in those two missing seasons had he not been called to duty.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

He isn't in my top 4 as his dominance seems to be either

A) too related to Orr or

B) his start and finish to his career, ie his time outside of Boston is weaker than many others in this round.

If one is primarily a peak guy and thinks that Esposito has similar seasons without Orr, or at least nothing drastically less, then I can see him in the top 4 but I don't see it.

It's just too easy to put him first by simply looking at the numbers, if one looks closely there are enough questions and red flags for Phil IMO.

I hope no other voters are buying this, although it appears from the last vote that isn't the case. I find it embarrassing to our efforts to have Esposito 9th, let alone somewhere in the mid teens.

Just my opinion.

 

[jigglysquishy]

I hope no other voters are buying this, although it appears from the last vote that isn't the case. I find it embarrassing to our efforts to have Esposito 9th, let alone somewhere in the mid teens.

Just my opinion.

People are overrating Orr's impact on Espo's points. You'd think Orr was bouncing pucks off Espo the way people talk of him.

 

[VanIslander]

Orr and Esposito seem like they have complementary skills to help each other thrive.

You'd think Orr was bouncing pucks off Espo the way people talk of him.

That'd be one helluva t.v. commercial, like those where they trick shot off of things.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I hope no other voters are buying this, although it appears from the last vote that isn't the case. I find it embarrassing to our efforts to have Esposito 9th, let alone somewhere in the mid teens.

Just my opinion.

This pretty closely mimics my opinion right now. Espo was a damn fine player. And he dominated the 70's in terms of offense.

Did Orr help? Damn right he did. But it's not like Esposito is some scrub. He's not some Rob Brown. Just like Coffey helped Gretzky and Lemieux and Messier.

I think we're really over-thinking ourselves here, personally. Lemieux was being talked about as not top 2 or 3 or whatever that nonsense was...now Esposito is gonna end up, where? It's getting a little too "cute" now, I think.

Can we get some video evidence of how Esposito wasn't up to snuff (relative to the field) and how Orr totally made him? Instead of just guessing at it because Esposito wasn't as productive outside of his prime...

 

[Killion]

This pretty closely mimics my opinion right now. Espo was a damn fine player. And he dominated the 70's in terms of offense.

Did Orr help? Damn right he did. But it's not like Esposito is some scrub. He's not some Rob Brown. Just like Coffey helped Gretzky and Lemieux and Messier.

I think we're really over-thinking ourselves here, personally. Lemieux was being talked about as not top 2 or 3 or whatever that nonsense was...now Esposito is gonna end up, where? It's getting a little too "cute" now, I think.

Ya, not buying this argument that Orr made Esposito. When asked about his former linemates outstanding production in Boston, Bobby Hull answered with "well, when he was in Chicago he had to feed me the puck all the time and now he can keep it" or words to that affect. That Esposito was essentially forced to play toady to Hull, which he was. Hull was the star, the scoring threat. Phils J.O.B. was to feed him. In Boston, he was accused of being selfish. Didnt pass the puck enough. Sure there were set-up's & rebounds from Orr, but was Orr responsible for Esposito being at the right place and at the right time instinctively as Big Phil more often than not was? Absolutely not. Esposito was one Hell of a player and a real force out there from the blue-line in, particularly from the top of the face-off circles & in-between the hash-marks to the crease, and despite his size, took a beating without really retaliating the way most normal people & players would given that kind of provocation and under the circumstances of what was then some beyond dirty hockey.

 

[Sturminator]

One important factor that needs to be considered regarding Apps and Schmidt is the effect on World War II on their careers. They both lost a significant amount of time because of it.

Apps lost two full seasons when he was age 28-29. Schmidt lost three full seasons when he was age 24-26. Imagine if you deleted two or three full seasons from the record of Esposito, Dionne or Trottier from when they were in their 20s. Their accumulated career honours (top 10 finishes, All-Star selections, finishes in Hart voting, etc.) would take quite a hit.

Some will say that players can't be credited with time they didn't play, but in my opinion WW2 is a special case. It's not like losing time due to injuries from playing recklessly or not training properly, and it's certainly not like losing time due to a contract holdout. They lost that time through no fault of their own whatsoever.

And they were prime years. Apps had been top 5 in PPG in each of the seven seasons before he left, then he finishes in the top 5 again when he comes back. It's a safe assumption that he would've been one of the top scorers in those two missing seasons had he not been called to duty.

Not playing NHL hockey for those years likely extended their respective peaks, though, especially in the case of Schmidt, who played a rough, aggressive style. The human body is capable of sustaining an athletic peak well into the mid or even late 30's if fitness is maintained and no injuries occur. Players of earlier generations mostly flamed out earlier due to getting physically worn down and not having the training/medical knowledge or technology to compensate, as we do today.

Missing out on those war years also meant missing out on the wear and tear of the NHL during that period of time for players like Apps and Schmidt. I don't think it's a 1-for-1 kind of exchange, but I absolutely do think that getting a "break" like that added time to the end of their respective peaks/careers, and we should keep that in mind.

 

[ted2019]

This pretty closely mimics my opinion right now. Espo was a damn fine player. And he dominated the 70's in terms of offense.

Did Orr help? Damn right he did. But it's not like Esposito is some scrub. He's not some Rob Brown. Just like Coffey helped Gretzky and Lemieux and Messier.

I think we're really over-thinking ourselves here, personally. Lemieux was being talked about as not top 2 or 3 or whatever that nonsense was...now Esposito is gonna end up, where? It's getting a little too "cute" now, I think.

Can we get some video evidence of how Esposito wasn't up to snuff (relative to the field) and how Orr totally made him? Instead of just guessing at it because Esposito wasn't as productive outside of his prime...

Just because Orr was in Boston at the time Espo was, people act like Espo is some sort of scrub now. I would consider and compare Espo to a player that I admired when watching the Flyers in the 80's and that's Tim Kerr. Sure, Kerr didn't pass like Espo, but He was a mountain of a man that You couldn't move from the front of the net. Kerr didn't have the talent of Esposito, but He was as physically imposing as Esposito was. Kerr & Esposito were similar players in front of the net and on the PP. If Kerr didn't get hurt, He could've been an Esposito lite in terms of scoring.

 

[sr edler]

Is there anyone who doesn't have Espo 1st? I just can't see anyone overlooking his offensive dominance.

I think it's safe to say that now when the Nighbor hype train has left the station for good, Esposito looks to be in good position to finish at one of the top spots in this round. I would be surprised if we had to vote for him in the next round I can't see why it would be so controversial to have Nighbor in front of Espo though. One of them could be the best at both ends of the table, while the other sat in the slot most of the time.

I think the "case against Espo" isn't only about how Orr helped him offensively, but how his own playing style helped him offensively. We're talking about a player here who reportedly had problems with changing on the fly. I think as a center you're supposed to play a bit more at both ends of the rink. You don't have to be Selke, but at least help out. I remember when Ovechkin had that season with 528 shots on goal, Espo said something about how it reminded him of himself. Being compared to Ovechkin's isn't necessarily a bad thing though, except when it comes to two way play.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Non-sequitur: I watched Phil Esposito play (as I try to do with as many as these guys as I can, so I can determine who was a product of what or who was aided by this or not helped by that)...Esposito could play. He could really play. He was aided by having a #1 PMD with the capability of Orr, no doubt. But Espo would have been terrific with or without him. Let's not sleep on him. I thought he would have been just fine going in with the last group. He really shouldn't slip too far here...or at all probably...

Re: Yzerman and Sakic when they first came into the league. I was talking to a friend of mine who used to scout for the Nordiques when they got Sakic (the extra first they acquired that year for Dale Hunter was with Sakic in mind...though the owner (Marcel Aubut) was more interested in Stephane Quintal and may have strong-armed the staff into taking him had Boston not selected him the pick before...anyway...). He said that Yzerman was probably better defensively coming out, he was a Peterborough guy, and they prided themselves on two-way players. Sakic took a little time to develop on that front and was counted on so heavily to provide offense for a club with so little depth. I know this was a discussion in the previous round, so there's a tiny bit of inside baseball on it.

That was my feeling as well but it looks like Sakic developed quite nicely defensively by year 4 at least, which was earlier than my perception had him doing so.

Both guys are close by Sakic is slightly ahead IMO.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I hope no other voters are buying this, although it appears from the last vote that isn't the case. I find it embarrassing to our efforts to have Esposito 9th, let alone somewhere in the mid teens.

Just my opinion.

Let me be clear on this Phil most likely is a top 20 center with or without Orr. But let's also not forget how he started and finished his career as well, compared to others in this round and the guys who were already selected.

Phil has a great peak, Orr aided or not, but his resume or case slips with the beginning of his career, especially those playoffs, the later part of his career isn't as impressive as it looks either and his less than stellar ES play starting in Boston and carrying on in New York.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Not playing NHL hockey for those years likely extended their respective peaks, though, especially in the case of Schmidt, who played a rough, aggressive style. The human body is capable of sustaining an athletic peak well into the mid or even late 30's if fitness is maintained and no injuries occur. Players of earlier generations mostly flamed out earlier due to getting physically worn down and not having the training/medical knowledge or technology to compensate, as we do today.

Missing out on those war years also meant missing out on the wear and tear of the NHL during that period of time for players like Apps and Schmidt. I don't think it's a 1-for-1 kind of exchange, but I absolutely do think that getting a "break" like that added time to the end of their respective peaks/careers, and we should keep that in mind.

Interesting perspective and something I hadn't really thought of before.

I was under the assumption that most guys were still playing hockey and/or training in the army and was taking an average of before and after to make an educated guess on how they would have done.

Same for lockouts.

That being said being top 5 in a 6-7 team league isn't necessarily impressive as a top 5 in a larger league with more players have top line duties and PP opportunities and the likelihood of variance being greater as well.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Let me be clear on this Phil most likely is a top 20 center with or without Orr. But let's also not forget how he started and finished his career as well, compared to others in this round and the guys who were already selected.

Phil has a great peak, Orr aided or not, but his resume or case slips with the beginning of his career, especially those playoffs, the later part of his career isn't as impressive as it looks either and his less than stellar ES play starting in Boston and carrying on in New York.

You're way overstating here.

It was a two-way street. No way Orr tops 100 assists without Esposito finishing plays, either.

Trottier is a product of Bossy, Esposito is a product of Orr, Gretzky played on the Oilers..

Hockey is a team game and there is no doubt that team style of play and teammates make an impact on a player's fortunes.. but come on.

There has been a definite creeping up of the so and so was a product of the player I like better phenomena lately on the boards..

 

[BraveCanadian]

That was my feeling as well but it looks like Sakic developed quite nicely defensively by year 4 at least, which was earlier than my perception had him doing so.

Both guys are close by Sakic is slightly ahead IMO.

Sakic Year 5 in Quebec was actually a 100 point club by that point with a +50 goal differential and Sakic was a minus 100 point player.

So no.

The upgrading of Sakic's career long defense around here is crazy.

Like I said earlier, I think I'm the first person to choose him over Yzerman in the ATD so don't get me wrong.. but I don't peg him as this two-way elite scoring centerman for 20 years straight. Similar to Yzerman he developed as the role of a front line center changed in the league.

IMO, he started off not as good as Yzerman, never got as good defensively as Yzerman, but did keep scoring longer than Yzerman.

At his peak, yes he was very good defensively and offensively at the same time and that is to his credit but damn guys..

 

[Hardyvan123]

You're way overstating here.

It was a two-way street. No way Orr tops 100 assists without Esposito finishing plays, either.

Really no way?

Well in 77 a pretty much washed up Orr had a line of 20-4-19-23 plus 6 on that Hawks team.

I suggest that it's much more likely and probable, from all that we know from both players, that Orr racks up 100 assists alot easier and more likely than Phil racking up anything over 55 goals or 110ish points.

Trottier is a product of Bossy, Esposito is a product of Orr, Gretzky played on the Oilers..

All 3 of these relationship aren't the same, just compare Phil and Bryan in their 1st 2 years in the NHL, you know the one where Phil is playing with another guy named Bobby and Bryan with Billy Harris. Trottier had 95 points as a rookie in the NHL while playing excellent defense, you of all people should know how much better Bryan was without Bossy, than your comment implies.

Hockey is a team game and there is no doubt that team style of play and teammates make an impact on a player's fortunes.. but come on.

And we have all of those red flags, or question marks for Phil outside of his time with Orr, which quiet frankly deserves a much larger..."but come on" right?

There has been a definite creeping up of the so and so was a product of the player I like better phenomena lately on the boards..

It's a fair question to ask, when the evidence is there to support it like in the case of Phil, we need to take it seriously.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

Trottier is #1 for me of the players up for debate in this round of voting but Espo's #2 I think.

Your 1-2 here matches mine precisely.

I'll bring up Trottier in-depth when I have more time to do him justice, but it's important to remember what he was in his prime- Mega-skilled. Physical presence. Defensively responsible. Playoff God. Perhaps the most weakness-free set of characteristics on this list since we put Le Gros Bill on the podium.

Longevity is the knock, I'm sure... but even when his scoring tailed off, players like Lemieux & Jagr gave credit to his contributions for Pittsburgh- and I don't think it was just teammates being polite to teammates, either.

I have little doubt that even when not showing up in the line-score, his winning ways contributed in a way that doesn't always show up on the stat-sheet.