On paper, Phil Esposito has one of the best resumes of any remaining player - six goal-scoring titles (all consecutive), three assist titles, five Art Ross trophies (in a span of six years), not to mention six straight years as a first-team all-star, two Harts and two Pearsons/Lindays. He led the playoffs in goals and points three times in a span of four years. We forget that, for a brief period, Esposito dominated the single-season scoring records. As of 1975, he had scored 60+ goals four times, which nobody else had even done once. He also had six 125+ point seasons (Orr had two, nobody else had ever done that even once).
He had pretty good longevity as a scorer (he was at least top ten in scoring all but once from ages 22 to 32, and was in the top twenty every year from 22 to 35). I know most of us aren't big on career numbers, but when Esposito retired in 1981, he was 2nd all-time in goals and points in the regular season, and 5th all-time in playoff scoring.
The obvious issue with Esposito is there are lingering questions about the extent to which he was a product of Orr. Many of us have touched on this in the last thread, but I'll try to systematically review the evidence.
For the prosecution - Esposito was largely a product of Orr
1. Visual evidence. Have you ever watched the Orr-era Bruins play? No disrespect to Esposito, but it's plainly obvious that it was Orr, not Esposito, who dominated possession and really drove the play.
Defense responds: that's an unfair standard. Nobody is denying that Orr is the better player. He's already been named the 3rd greatest player ever. Esposito is going to be at least 15-20 spots behind him - isn't that enough?
2. Esposito's sudden decline in 1976. The single most damning argument against Esposito is his significant and immediate decline in production in 1976 (he was traded to New York early in the season). After five straight years of 55+ goals and 125+ points, his production plummeted to 35 goals and 83 points. Yes, he was a year older, but surely that doesn't explain a 44 point drop in production overnight.
Defense responds: True, but Esposito was still pretty productive in New York. In his first five years on Broadway, he was 11th in scoring (the same is true if you use a shorter time frame, like first three years). This was in his mid to late 30s. If you only look at players age 30 and beyond (and even this is tough on Phil as he was 33 to 37 during this stretch), only Ratelle outscores him.
Prosecutor responds: Nobody is blaming Esposito for slowing down as he got older. The fact that it was such a sharp drop, immediately after being separated from Orr, is what's so damaging. Ratelle is actually two years older than Esposito, and failing to keep pace with Ratelle doesn't look great. During this period, Espo barely outpaced Jean Pronovost (all in his 30's).
3. Anecdotal evidence. It's disingenuous to argue that Orr didn't help Esposito, when we see Orr did that with numerous other teammates. The clearest example might be Johnny Bucyk. He had a long, healthy career and never placed in the top five in goals, assists or points. But he placed in the top three in all of those categories in 1971 - not saying he's an outright product of Orr, but nobody denies that #4 certainly helped him boost his stats. Or look at Ken Hodge. He had three seasons as a top five scorer in Boston at ages 24 to 29. After Orr was finished, he had two years where he never placed higher than 40th in scoring, then was out of the NHL by 34. We already have a ton of anecdotal evidence that Orr made his teammates better, but the defense wants to pretend that it doesn't apply to their client.
Defense responds: you're ascribing all of those changes to Orr. Wouldn't Esposito have contributed to some of that, given how much ice time he played with Bucyk and Hodge? If anything, this a positive for him.
4. Esposito achieved little in the playoffs without Orr. We'll ignore 1964, Esposito's rookie season. But in those last three years in Chicago, Esposito scored just 8 points in 25 playoffs games (0.32 PPG), after scoring 169 points in 208 games (0.81 PPG) in the regular season. Esposito was also unimpressive in two of his three playoffs post-Orr.
Defense responds: okay, that doesn't look great, but we all know that the 1960s Blackhawks struggled in the playoffs, and it's not fair to give a young second-line player undue blame. You're also glossing over the 1979 playoffs. At age 36, Esposito led the Rangers in goals (outright) and points (tied), and helped drag them to the Stanley Cup finals. He was third in scoring (behind two Canadiens) and was the third oldest player in the postseason.
Prosecution responds: Esposito was impressive in the 1979 playoffs, granted. But it was his one and only successful playoff run without Orr. And how great was it, really? He scored a lot of points, but was on the ice for more ES goals against than any other forward that spring.
5. Esposito's performance in games that Orr missed. Previous studies have shown that Esposito's production decreased by about 20% in the games that Orr missed.
Defense responds: Orr didn't miss too many games during Esposito's prime, so we're dealing with small sample sizes here, which might make these numbers less reliable. Besides, didn't the source data that supported these numbers get lost when HFBoards upgraded servers? Maybe this was all a scheme from the anti-Esposito lobby to destroy the data...
The Court intervenes: we're not here to debate conspiracy theories!
For the defense - Esposito was an all-time great in his own right
1. Performance in Chicago. Esposito spent his first four seasons in Chicago, and he demonstrated that he was a top offensive talent. From 1965 to 1967 (ages 22 to 24), Espo was 8th in goals and 7th in scoring, while getting second-line minutes and limited PP time. In even-strength scoring, he was 4th (behind only his teammates Mikita and Hull, and Norm Ullman) during this period. It probably wasn't Orr directly that allowed Esposito to flourish, it was getting out of Hull and Mikita's shadow and getting more ice time.
Prosecution responds: Nobody is denying that Esposito was a great offensive talent. But there's a big difference between being a good ES contributor (see Henri Richard), and winning five Art Ross trophies. The prosecution agrees that Esposito, even without Orr, would probably challenge for the league lead in goals or points - but he wouldn't win those titles so consistently, or by such large margins.
2. Performance in 1968 and 1969. Orr missed close to half the season in 1968 and scored only 31 points. That year, Esposito was top five in goals, led the league in assists, and was runner-up only to Mikita in scoring. In 1969, Orr missed a bit of time, and was very good (64 points), but still not the league-wrecking prime Orr that we think of. Esposito again led the league in assists, and won the Art Ross trophy decisively.
Prosecution responds: see above. The prosecution has already acknowledged that Esposito was a top offensive talent in his own right. But in 1968, Esposito was very much with the rest of the pack (he was within a few points of Mikita, Howe and Ratelle), with Orr missing almost half the year. The next year, Orr is much healthier and much better, and Esposito`s offense skyrockets. Even if Orr wasn't quite at his absolute peak at that time, this is entirely consistent with the prosecution's contention that Espo needed Orr to dominate the scoring race.
3. 1972 Summit Series. Everybody here recognizes the significance of the Summit Series. Orr didn't play, and Esposito tied for the tournament lead in goals, and led the tournament in scoring outright. Anybody who watched the series would agree that Espo was the catalyst on his line.
Prosecution responds: True, but it was only a sample of eight games - not large enough to truly demonstrate that Esposito was a gamebreaker on his own. Not that we're comparing him to Orr, but Esposito still got to play with a top offensive defenseman during the series (Brad Park). Furthermore, Esposito didn't play in the 1974 series, and he didn't distinguish himself in the 1976 series (where Orr played).
4. Award voting. Esposito won two Hart trophies, and was a finalist three more times. He also won two Pearson/Lindsay trophies. Surely if the people who watched him play consistently voted him as one of the best players in the league, he wasn't a product of Orr.
Prosecution responds. This isn't as impressive as it appears at first glance. Looking at the eight years they overlapped in Boston, Orr finished ahead of Esposito in Hart voting in 1968, 1970, 1971, 1972 and 1975. The only years Esposito finished ahead were two years where Orr was injured (1969 and 1973), and then (inexplicably) 1974. It's more accurate to say that, except in years where Orr was injured, he consistently finished ahead of Espo in Hart voting - which supports the prosecution's case. Furthermore, it's well established that defensemen are at a disadvantage compared to forwards in Hart voting. So the fact that Orr is ahead is that much more damning. And don't even bring up the Pearson - it's too biased against defenseman. In 45 years, a defenseman has only won the award one time.
The Court's decision
On balance, The Court finds the prosecution's evidence more persuasive. The visual evidence (argument #1) is sufficiently damaging to the defense's case, and Esposito's sudden decline without Orr (argument #2) is also convincing. The defense raised some interesting counter-arguments. They've convinced The Court that Esposito would have been a top scorer, even if he had never played with Orr, but there's a big difference between being an Art Ross contender, and someone who re-wrote the records books the way that Esposito did.
To help estimate Orr's impact on Esposito's legacy, The Court removed 20% from Esposito's scoring totals from 1970 to 1975 (doing the same for the other Bruins aside from Orr). In terms of goal-scoring, he would have had 5th, 1st, 1st, 3rd, 1st, and 3rd place finishes. Instead of having six goal-scoring crowns, he'd only have three - still an impressive number, but far less than before (and none of which would be by a large margin). Including the sixties, he'd have eight straight years as a top five goal-scorer.
Applying the same analysis to points, Esposito's stretch from 1970 to 1975 results in 3rd, 2nd, 2nd, 1st, 2nd and T-5th. That means Espo would have had two Art Ross trophies (don't forget the one from 1969), and eight top-five finishes (including 1968 and 1969). This offensive resume is impressive, of course, but far more modest. (Note that The Court has assumed that Orr's production wouldn't have changed, had he not played with the hulking centre). In the Court's view, that pushes him clearly behind the likes of Mikita and even Ovechkin (at least as far as regular season offense is concerned - but it's not like Espo was a great defensive player, and it's been established that he did little of note in the playoffs without Orr).
In summary, The Court acknowledges that Esposito would have been good enough to contend for the Art Ross trophy without Orr. But that doesn't change the fact that his resume would have been far less impressive. Since Esposito's case rests so heavily on his stats and trophy case, it is The Court's judgment that it's too early for the Sault Ste. Marie native.
