Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 5

DannyGallivan

Your world frightens and confuses me
Aug 25, 2017
7,576
10,182
Melonville
Near point per game player which is a steep decline from his regular season production.

Was he really that much better than Macleish is 74? Big scoring gap, MacLeish with half the PIMs and twice the game winning goals.

Same thing next year.

76 was Reggie Leach. No other way to put it.
Macleish and Leach were talented offensive players. After all, the Flyers won the Stanley Cup... they needed a little more than Clarke and Parent. ;)
And don't you think that Clarke was a little responsible for Leach?

I look at Clarke like a dirty Henri Richard, only with a lot less support.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ImporterExporter

seventieslord

Student Of The Game
Mar 16, 2006
36,130
7,215
Regina, SK
Near point per game player which is a steep decline from his regular season production.

Was he really that much better than Macleish is 74? Big scoring gap, MacLeish with half the PIMs and twice the game winning goals.

Same thing next year.

76 was Reggie Leach. No other way to put it.

Sure, 76 was Reggie Leach, if you agree 2014 was Justin Williams, and 2006 was Jonathan Cheechoo, and 2003 was Milan Hejduk, and 2018 was Jake Guentzel, and 1990 was Craig Simpson, and....
 
  • Like
Reactions: ImporterExporter

Kyle McMahon

Registered User
May 10, 2006
13,301
4,353
I really hate this line of reasoning. The only thing that should ever matter in a voting round should be how one player compares to the other 9-10 eligible players, and vote accordingly. Anything else and you're just trying to "fix" the results.

Voting Nighbor because the best of pre-consolidation deserves to be top 20 is wrong
just like voting Hasek bc Roy already went, and how far behind can Hasek be, is wrong
just like voting Lidstrom because Bourque already went and how far behind can he be is wrong
just like *not* voting Roy in on purpose because you want to wait till Hasek is available to compare him to is wrong
etc.

The process we agreed upon was taking the 120 list of all voters and using that to come up with new candidates each round. It's probably possible to make a few tweaks to that to improve in a future project if people really want to - but since that's what was agreed upon i really think the only valid reasoning within a round is comparing players to each other, and ignoring everyone not in the round.

I agree with that, but it is also generally assumed that we evaluate players based on the level at which they stood out among their contemporaries.

For the most part, that's how things have shaken out. The "best of their era" guys are all in the top 12. I mean, guys like Esposito and Mikita have reasons on the surface why we'd prefer them to a Morenz or a Crosby. But as a whole, we got past the stats/trophy counting and ranked the latter two accordingly. Because they were the best players of their era. Took a bit of guesswork and digging with Morenz, but Crosby of course we all saw what we saw the last 12 seasons and concluded that nobody has been better.

So my question is, why do we have such significant doubts about Nighbor that we didn't have for anyone else? Everyone else that we ranked as the best player of their era via the aggregate list was admitted to the club at least two votes ago after having their case reviewed in depth. Did we make a mistake with Nighbor becoming available when he did? I don't think so, he hasn't really had a bunch of negatives brought to light, like a Shore for example. Questions about his offense, but certainly nothing I'd call damning criticism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: seventieslord

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,981
Brooklyn
Can you explain your reasoning for having Esposito and Lafleur so far apart? I like the rest of your post, but to me those 2 are both offensive first forwards, with outstanding peaks (both regular season and playoffs) who are extremely similar in their resumes.

Shouldn't they be closer? Is it just the Orr effect for you penalizing Esposito more than most, or something else?

See @Hockey Outsider's post about what Esposito's production would likely look like without Orr. It's slightly below Lafleur's.

Then consider
1) Lafleur was better defensive player (not that Lafleur was great, but Espo was terrible)
2) Lafleur was a playoff god in a way that Esposito wasn't

Or to put it another way, Esposito's peak depended on teammates controlling possession (Orr in Boston, Park in CC) and winning corner battles (Espo's wingers), while Espo largely waited for the puck to come to him. Lafleur was a lot more self-sufficient.

____

Re: Mikita, he was also more self-sufficient and better defensively than Esposito.
 

tony d

Registered User
Jun 23, 2007
76,594
4,555
Behind A Tree
Another week begins, some good new names available now including Bobby Clarke. My ? to everyone is with Mikita still there, will Mikita go higher than Clarke on the final list or will Clarke place ahead of Mikita. That could be a debate this week.
 

Nick Hansen

Registered User
Sep 28, 2017
3,122
2,652
Another week begins, some good new names available now including Bobby Clarke. My ? to everyone is with Mikita still there, will Mikita go higher than Clarke on the final list or will Clarke place ahead of Mikita. That could be a debate this week.

Either way, I'd like to see somebody try and really make the case for Mikita this time around. This is the third round he's in, right? After all he received two 1st place votes and a 2nd last vote.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,981
Brooklyn
Either way, I'd like to see somebody try and really make the case for Mikita this time around. This is the third round he's in, right? After all he received two 1st place votes and a 2nd last vote.

The case is that Mikita was almost as good as Jagr as a regular season scorer, while developing into a fine two-way player in the second half of his career, as his offense dropped off.

That said, I'm not sure Mikita should make it over his teammate Glenn Hall.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DannyGallivan

DannyGallivan

Your world frightens and confuses me
Aug 25, 2017
7,576
10,182
Melonville
Either way, I'd like to see somebody try and really make the case for Mikita this time around. This is the third round he's in, right? After all he received two 1st place votes and a 2nd last vote.
What's the poor guy gotta do? Same for Esposito and Lafleur. Multiple Hart and Art Ross Trophies. And although he wasn't a multiple Cup winner, he does have a ring. He beat out the likes of Hull and Beliveau for his Hart Trophies. He came in second to Gordie Howe another time, despite having more first place votes than Gordie (Sawchuk, who came in third, had more first place votes than both of them FYI).

Right now, Mikita is in my top four but he is vulnerable. However, it's going to take some convincing for me to move him out. Unlike some others, I like Esposito more than Mikita in the top four, and Lafleur is my number one right now. Clarke, Nighbor, Ovechkin and Messier are all knocking at the door.
 

The Macho King

Back* to Back** World Champion
Jun 22, 2011
48,759
29,260
What's the poor guy gotta do? Same for Esposito and Lafleur. Multiple Hart and Art Ross Trophies. And although he wasn't a multiple Cup winner, he does have a ring. He beat out the likes of Hull and Beliveau for his Hart Trophies. He came in second to Gordie Howe another time, despite having more first place votes than Gordie (Sawchuk, who came in third, had more first place votes than both of them FYI).

Right now, Mikita is in my top four but he is vulnerable. However, it's going to take some convincing for me to move him out. Unlike some others, I like Esposito more than Mikita in the top four, and Lafleur is my number one right now. Clarke, Nighbor, Ovechkin and Messier are all knocking at the door.
Despite my membership in the Defensemen union, I think this might be either a 5F or a 4F-1G round. I could see me being convinced at adding either Hall or Brodeur (Sawchuk is at least two votes too early for me to consider adding him).
 

blogofmike

Registered User
Dec 16, 2010
2,181
928
Lafleur, Espo and Mikita have some crazy similarities.

Peaks:

Lafleur 3 Ross, 6 straight seasons of 119+ points
Mikita 4 Ross, (actual offensive numbers in those peak years a bit more underwhelming than other 2, but still 4 Ross)
Esposito 5 Ross, 6 seasons of 126+ points

Outside of peak:

Lafleur - outside of 6 years, not much
Esposito - outside of 6 years, not much (more than Lafleur though)
Mikita - Outside of (6-8?) years, also not much (though probably better than other 2)

I think Esposito is a little undervalued some years. In Mikita's 4th Ross year, he had 87 points and was Even. That year Phil Esposito had 84 points and was a +18.

So when you say Esposito doesn't have much outside the 6 125+ point years, it is a little odd to see some say that Mikita is a lock - since Phil in his 8th best season was Mikita's equal offensively in a Top 4 Mikita year, and probably only behind him marginally once other intangibles are accounted for. (Then again, based on my original list, he'd have been in by now too.)

And even then, Mikita's intangibles are a bit too intangible for my liking. The other team was racking up a lot of goals in the playoffs for such a great 2-way player, with Mikita being on-ice for 0.87 minuses per game after 1962, and Esposito being on for 0.90 minuses in the higher scoring expansion era, after being traded (including the 7 minuses in 29 playoff GP during his Chicago tenure artificially lowers his number.)

And that may not be his fault, but he seems to be a clear level below peak Esposito and peak Lafleur offensively, so if he's not knocking opponent goals off the board, and he's the weakest playoff performer, it's tough. I think Mikita can longevity his way past Guy Lafleur. I don't know if he can do the same with Phil Esposito.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,981
Brooklyn
Posts about Brodeur, Hall, and Sawchuk from the HOH Top Goalies project (mostly links)

Round 2, Vote 1 (HOH Top Goaltenders)

Terry Sawchuk and Glenn Hall from Sports Illustrated (if you only click on one link in this post, click on this one):
Round 2, Vote 1 (HOH Top Goaltenders)
TheDevilMadeMe said:
One thing I take away is how often the 60s Chicago Blackhawks are described as a "run and gun" team. Relevant to this project, it really helps explain how Hall was the one who broke the mold of "1st Team All Star = lowest GAA."

Relevant to future projects, it really helps put the offensive stats of Bobby Hull and Stan Mikita into perspective.

Hall clearly the best regular season goalie of his era (11 time 1st or 2nd Team All-Star!!!):
hockey outsider said:
Hall was clearly regarded as the best goalie of his era if we look at Hart voting. Additionally, if we look at his all-star voting record (7 first all-star selections and 11 total; Sawchuk and Plante both have 3 first and 7 total), Hall again distinguishes himself from his peers. Eleven all-star nods in fourteen seasons is a staggering level of high-quality consistency, almost on par with Howe and Bourque (the epitome of high quality consistency at their respective positions). This presents a strong prima facie case that Hall should be ranked higher than Sawchuk and Plante.

However, this assumption could be overcome if we demonstrate that 1) the Hart and all-star voters ranked Hall too high and/or 2) Hall has a weaker playoff resume than the others. I haven't seen any support for the first point (in fact, there's an interesting linksuggesting that Hall is really the only goalie from 1935 to 1970 to beat the "best GAA = best goalie" mindest which shows that, if anything, the people who watched Hall play looked deeper than the conventional statistics). Overpass had a great post showing that Hall was a fairly weak playoff performer*. Is that enough to offset Hall's clearly superior regular season performance? I'm not sure, that's why I'm throwing the question out there.

Hall would be my #1 this round if it weren't for the playoffs. See the posts below on his playoffs - he wasn't terrible (better career stats than Sawchuk...) but probably should have been better.

Glenn Hall in the playoffs
hockey outsider said:
For what it's worth, Hall actually has a 91.3% career playoff save percentage, as documented in Klein & Reif's "The Hockey Compendium" (2001 edition), compared to Plante's 92.2% and Sawchuk's 91.4%.

Glenn Hall in the playoffs summary 1956-1967: Round 2, Vote 1 (HOH Top Goaltenders)
overpass said:
Falling behind in the first period was a major problem for Hall and his teammates. It looks like the skaters should receive a bit more blame for their inability to score, but Hall could have performed better as well.

Hall struggled when his team had fallen behind, performing the worst in these situations in both the second and third period. Considering that his team tended to fall behind, this was a bad combination.

Hall played well with the lead - he just didn't get a lead very often.

The team had mixed results with the score tied. They struggled in the second period but did well in the third - but the difference was almost entirely because the skaters could score in the third but not the second. Hall's individual stats were stronger in the second than in the third when tied, and were about average overall.


Overall it's clear Hall had a bit of an uphill battle much of the time. His teams tended to be outshot by their opponents and he would have had to win the goaltending battle for his team to have a chance. He didn't do so often enough.

Glenn Hall in the playoffs year by year: Round 2, Vote 1 (HOH Top Goaltenders)
overpass said:
Overall, it looks as if Hall had more shaky playoff performances than strong playoff performances. He had some tough matchups in the late 1950s against the dynasty Canadiens, but other than that his teams lost some very winnable series.

One thing to consider is that his teams were almost always outshot, so there's certainly blame to go around

Sawchuk's mediocrity after his 5 year peak:
BM67 said:
When Goalie's World did their all-time goalie ranking in 2000, they said their biggest argument against Sawchuck being #1 is that he was never a 1st All-star after Hall and Plante were in the NHL.

Sawchuck first 5 (full) years vs rest of career (15 years, from 55-56 on)
345 games 199 wins 57 shutouts 1.94 GAA 3 1st A-S 2 2nd A-S 3 Vezina 3 Cups
626 games 248 wins 46 shutouts 2.82 GAA 0 1st A-S 2 2nd A-S 1 Vezina 1 Cup

Plante first 5 (full) years vs rest of career (11 years, from 59-60 on)
331 games 187 wins 44 shutouts 2.02 GAA 2 1st A-S 2 2nd A-S 4 Vezina 5 Cups
506 games 250 wins 38 shutouts 2.61 GAA 1 1st A-S 2 2nd A-S 3 Vezina 1 Cup

Hall first 5 (full) years vs rest of career (11 years, from 60-61 on)
358 games 154 wins 31 shutouts 2.52 GAA 3 1st A-S 1 2nd A-S 0 Vezina 0 Cups
548 games 253 wins 53 shutouts 2.48 GAA 4 1st A-S 3 2nd A-S 3 Vezina 1 Cup

TheDevilMadeMe said:
Regular season dynasty years (1950-51 to 1954-55)
195-78-65 W-L-T
56 shutouts
3 1st Team All Stars; 2 2nd Team All Stars
+186.8 Goals Versus Threshold (+38.6 +38.6, +34.3, +41.0, +34.3)

Regular season rest of career
252-252-107 W-L-T
47 shutouts
2 2nd Team All Stars
+55.1 Goals Versus Threshold

Playoffs dynasty years
28-17
8 shutouts
3 Cups in 5 years
+6.4 Goals Versus Threshold (-15.3, +13.7, -3.9,, +6.9, +5.0)

Playoffs rest of career
26-31
4 shutouts
-10.2 Goals Versus Threshold

Detailed look at the playoffs of Sawchuk:
Sawchuk 1951 playoffs: Round 2, Vote 1 (HOH Top Goaltenders)
Sawchuk 1952 playoffs: Round 2, Vote 1 (HOH Top Goaltenders)
Sawchuk 1953 playoffs: Round 2, Vote 1 (HOH Top Goaltenders)
Sawchuk 1954 playoffs: Round 2, Vote 1 (HOH Top Goaltenders)
Sawchuk 1955 playoffs: Round 2, Vote 1 (HOH Top Goaltenders)

Did Sawchuk lack stamina?
The awards voters voted twice during the O6 period - at the halfway point and at the end of the season. Most of Sawchuk's recognition after the dynasty came in first half of the season votes; he received very little recognition at the end of the season: Round 2, Vote 1 (HOH Top Goaltenders)

The case for Sawchuk
overpass said:
The case for Terry Sawchuk is pretty straightforward. Peak and career. He had an incredible five year run after breaking into the NHL, to the point where he was considered the greatest goaltender ever by many after those five seasons. And while the rest of his career was up and down due to his alcoholism and injury issues, he still set the all-time record for wins and shutouts.

I'm not sure that Sawchuk's peak has been fully discussed yet. Comtemporary observers wrote about his performance in the early 50s like we write about Hasek in the late 90s.

The effects of modern goalie competition (1 year wonders + Europeans) on Brodeur's trophy case:
Brodeur actual All-Star Teams = 3 First Teams, 4 Second Teams.
Brodeur no Europeans = 9 First Teams, 1 Second Teams.
Brodeur no Europeans or Americans = 10 First Teams, 1 Second Teams.

Full post on why is significantly more difficult to repeat as the top goalie in the modern league than it was in the original 6: Round 2, Vote 1 (HOH Top Goaltenders)
Full post on Brodeur's awards recognition in a league without Europeans: Round 2, Vote 1 (HOH Top Goaltenders)

The effects of NJ's historically stingy shot counter on Brodeur's save percentages:
Round 2, Vote 1 (HOH Top Goaltenders)
Summary - His Vezina year save percentage rankings of 3, 8, 13, 14 skyrocket to 1, 2, 4, 6 if we only look at road save percentages

More on the difference in shotcounting between arenas: Round 2, Vote 1 (HOH Top Goaltenders)

Brodeur 2012 playoffs
Round 2, Vote 1 (HOH Top Goaltenders)
 
Last edited:

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,981
Brooklyn
I think Esposito is a little undervalued some years. In Mikita's 4th Ross year, he had 87 points and was Even. That year Phil Esposito had 84 points and was a +18.

Writers easily thought Mikita had the better season. He won the Hart Trophy. Esposito was 6th, behind his teammate, young Bobby Orr (4th in Hart voting, Norris Trophy).

Mikita also won 1st Team All-Star center in a landslide:
CENTER: (216/216, 108-108) Stan Mikita 96 (60-36); Phil Esposito 38 (14-24); Jean Beliveau 28 (3-25); Jean Ratelle 21 (0-21); Mike Walton 15 (15-0); Fred Stanfield 5 (5-0); Norm Ullman 5 (4-1); Phil Goyette 5 (4-1); Alex Delvecchio 3 (3-0)

Any reference to Esposito in Boston HAS to account for the Bobby Orr effect.

Orr only played 46 of 74 games and still finished 4th in Norris voting. And this was before Orr exploded offensively. Anyone have Esposito's stats with and without Orr that year?
 

Nick Hansen

Registered User
Sep 28, 2017
3,122
2,652
Writers easily thought Mikita had the better season. He won the Hart Trophy. Esposito was 6th, behind his teammate, young Bobby Orr (4th in Hart voting, Norris Trophy).

Mikita also won 1st Team All-Star center in a landslide:
CENTER: (216/216, 108-108) Stan Mikita 96 (60-36); Phil Esposito 38 (14-24); Jean Beliveau 28 (3-25); Jean Ratelle 21 (0-21); Mike Walton 15 (15-0); Fred Stanfield 5 (5-0); Norm Ullman 5 (4-1); Phil Goyette 5 (4-1); Alex Delvecchio 3 (3-0)

Any reference to Esposito in Boston HAS to account for the Bobby Orr effect.

Orr only played 46 of 74 games and still finished 4th in Norris voting. And this was before Orr exploded offensively. Anyone have Esposito's stats with and without Orr that year?

Phil Esposito Without the Orr Factor
 

Nick Hansen

Registered User
Sep 28, 2017
3,122
2,652
Sawchuk seems rather unique to me. Comes into the league exploding for a few years and then has a long career being middle of the road.

Hard case to judge as he's a goaltender. No real comparable I can think of.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,981
Brooklyn

Thanks. This is important enough to actually quote the source data:

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

Seems Espo got his points honestly in 1968, at least. Makes one wonder why he fell so far behind in awards voting - probably his terrible defensive play was a factor.

Next question - Esposito's plus/minuses with and without Orr. I know there is a pretty big difference, there, though I'm not sure if 1967-68 is affected.
 

Kyle McMahon

Registered User
May 10, 2006
13,301
4,353
Clarke always underwhelmed me as far as a postseason player goes. I'm open to hearing the counter to that.

I looked at Clarke more in depth to see if anything stood out in the playoffs, good or bad.

Offense:

Clarke was a very consistent scorer. He showed up and got his points regardless of the quality of opposition. Incredibly, he only played 12 career playoff games against teams with a losing record. I would have expected that total to be quite a bit higher given Philadelphia's strong regular seasons coupled with a high percentage of teams qualifying for the playoffs from 1975 onwards. The only punching bags Clarke ever saw were in brief preliminary round series against the late 70's Rockies, Canucks, and first-year Oilers. Overall, Clarke played 110 playoff games from 1973-1980, what we would probably consider his prime. 53 of those games came against what I would consider elite Cup-contender opposition.

Broken down by individual series, it's almost uncanny how consistent his production was. In 19 best-of-seven series, he produced between four and seven points on 15 occasions. The closest thing we ever saw to an offensive outburst from Clarke was 8 points in 5 games against the 1980 North Stars. The only dud series was a disastrous 0-point, minus-11 series against the Rangers in 1979 (which is so bad compared to every other series he ever played that I have to suspect he was injured).

Bottom line is, Clarke was never going to steal you a series on the basis of his offense, but he showed up and gave his teams a chance in that regard almost every time. He could be contained offensively, but very rarely shut down.

Defense:

I decided to take a look at what the opposition's #1 center did against the Flyers during Clarke's prime years. This is an inexact science; I don't know how often Clarke was directly matched against the players below, others may be able to chime in here. But whether he was directly matched or not, I think it is fair to say that the job of the #1 center is usually to outplay the opposition's #1 center in a playoff series.

1973

Flyers lost a reasonably close 5-game series to the 120-point eventual champion Canadiens. I'm not sure who of Lemaire, Richard, or Mahovlich he'd have seen the bulk of his ice time against. Clarke scored 3 ES points, but was a -2. Henri Richard had a strong series and may have gotten the better of him. Lemaire's stat line is non-descript, and Mahovlich was bad at -4 with no ES points.

1974

Clarke looks pretty ordinary against the Rangers in the semi final, (4 points, -1), but absolutely buried Jean Ratelle, who went -6 without any ES points. Clear win for Clarke here.

Phil Esposito fares little better in the famous upset in the SC Final. His -3 is directly opposite to Clarke's +3, and Espo only had two ES points in the series, which is one of the worst in his career.

1975

The Flyers washed Toronto in the quarter-final, Darryl Sittler with 0 ES points, -4.

Not sure about the semi-final. Clarke and Denis Potvin both had a good series. The Islanders didn't have any elite centers on their roster at this time.

Neither Clarke nor Perreault gave up much at ES. Clarke did his scoring on the PP, Perreault did little at either ES or PP, but did finish +1 despite the lack of scoring. Both players were better at home than on the road in this series.

1976

Sittler gets his points (5 at ES), but it seems they must have come at somebody else's expense. Clarke scored well too, and was a +6, while Sittler had an ugly -5.

Clarke seems to have dominated Jean Ratelle again, now a Boston Bruin. Just two ES points and a -3 for Ratelle as Philly beat the Bruins easily.

The Final against Montreal (127 point season) might be Clarke's first match-up loss since those same Habs in 1973. Clarke and Lemaire were both -1, while Peter Mahovlich ended up +4 with 3 ES points. Depending who mainly went against Clarke, it's either a saw-off or a loss.

1977

Sittler is again a victim here, -3 despite scoring a good amount of points again. +4 for Clarke.

Ratelle and Boston get their revenge. Clarke is a -4, with Ratelle (5 ES points, +5) appearing to be the benefactor.

1978

Clarke doesn't look great, going -1 against Buffalo. But Perreault is held in check with just 1 ESP and a -3 rating.

Ratelle kills the Flyers for the second year in a row. Clarke is -3.

1979

That awful series I alluded to above. I'm not sure who Clarke was playing against here, but he was -11 in a 5-game loss. Instinctively you'd think Esposito, but Phil was only an Even plus/minus player despite score 6 ES points.

1980

Clarke (+1) appears to have outplayed young Gretzky (-3) in a preliminary round.

He definitely outplayed old Phil Esposito (-2) in this series. +2 despite just two points would indicate a strong defensive effort.

Clarke was good in the Final as well (7 points, +3), and closed the playoffs +10 despite a somewhat modest (for that era) 20 points in 19 games. Trottier and Goring both had a solid series, neither finished a minus player. Hard to say exactly who was playing who in this one.

Conclusion:

Up through 1976, there is little not to like about Clarke in the post-season. It is often remarked that an offensive player did or did not outscore their defensive deficiencies. I think this is a case where we can say the opposite. Clarke's defensive play was so strong that it easily covered for his weak-ish (by standards of the players in this vote) offensive production.

This seems to have stopped quite abruptly in the spring of 1977, however. Clarke all of a sudden has a string of 19 games spread over four playoff series where he's a hideous -19. 13 points in these games is a drop in production, but it's really not a huge step down from where he was at before. Nowhere near big enough to explain that minus-19.

Clarke returned to previous form in 1980 though. He seems to have been no less effective in this almost-Cup win than in 1974-1976. His play remained strong throughout the rest of his career, though the Flyers never went deep in the playoffs again. He had 16 points/+6 in the last 22 games of his playoff career.

Possible Explanation for the "Down Years"?:

It's difficult to look past the fact that Clarke's best playoff series line up so well with years where Bernie Parent was in net. He was there in 1974, 1975, and 1976...but was injured against Boston that year and didn't play most of the semi-final or any of the final. In 1977 he only played three games, and that's right when we see Clarke experience this sudden drop in goal prevention. He was back for all of 1978, however. In 1979 (the year of that awful series), Parent was done for good and didn't play at all in the playoffs. Pete Peeters and then Pelle Lindbergh re-established stability at the goaltender position from 1980 onwards, where Clarke's defensive play seems to have returned to form. The flip side of this argument is, just give Clarke a solid netminder, and he'll do great things...but I must admit, the strong overlap of Clarke's great numbers with years of good/great goaltending is a little concerning for me.
 

blogofmike

Registered User
Dec 16, 2010
2,181
928
Thanks. This is important enough to actually quote the source data:

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

Seems Espo got his points honestly in 1968, at least. Makes one wonder why he fell so far behind in awards voting - probably his terrible defensive play was a factor.

Next question - Esposito's plus/minuses with and without Orr. I know there is a pretty big difference, there, though I'm not sure if 1967-68 is affected.

1st half / 2nd half voting.

1st half, he was one of 4 39 point scorers on Boston (Stanfield had 40): NHL.com - Stats

2nd half, he deserved votes if they followed the system as intended: NHL.com - Stats

But it seems he didn't get any support, and I doubt people actually disregarded 1st half results, and instead voted for the best player on the best team (Beliveau), the Ross winner (Mikita) or the guy who played well in spite of his bad team (Howe).

TLDR: 1st half / 2nd half awards are dumb.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheDevilMadeMe

blogofmike

Registered User
Dec 16, 2010
2,181
928
I looked at Clarke more in depth to see if anything stood out in the playoffs, good or bad.

Offense:

Clarke was a very consistent scorer. He showed up and got his points regardless of the quality of opposition. Incredibly, he only played 12 career playoff games against teams with a losing record. I would have expected that total to be quite a bit higher given Philadelphia's strong regular seasons coupled with a high percentage of teams qualifying for the playoffs from 1975 onwards. The only punching bags Clarke ever saw were in brief preliminary round series against the late 70's Rockies, Canucks, and first-year Oilers. Overall, Clarke played 110 playoff games from 1973-1980, what we would probably consider his prime. 53 of those games came against what I would consider elite Cup-contender opposition.

Broken down by individual series, it's almost uncanny how consistent his production was. In 19 best-of-seven series, he produced between four and seven points on 15 occasions. The closest thing we ever saw to an offensive outburst from Clarke was 8 points in 5 games against the 1980 North Stars. The only dud series was a disastrous 0-point, minus-11 series against the Rangers in 1979 (which is so bad compared to every other series he ever played that I have to suspect he was injured).

Bottom line is, Clarke was never going to steal you a series on the basis of his offense, but he showed up and gave his teams a chance in that regard almost every time. He could be contained offensively, but very rarely shut down.

Defense:

I decided to take a look at what the opposition's #1 center did against the Flyers during Clarke's prime years. This is an inexact science; I don't know how often Clarke was directly matched against the players below, others may be able to chime in here. But whether he was directly matched or not, I think it is fair to say that the job of the #1 center is usually to outplay the opposition's #1 center in a playoff series.

1973

Flyers lost a reasonably close 5-game series to the 120-point eventual champion Canadiens. I'm not sure who of Lemaire, Richard, or Mahovlich he'd have seen the bulk of his ice time against. Clarke scored 3 ES points, but was a -2. Henri Richard had a strong series and may have gotten the better of him. Lemaire's stat line is non-descript, and Mahovlich was bad at -4 with no ES points.

1974

Clarke looks pretty ordinary against the Rangers in the semi final, (4 points, -1), but absolutely buried Jean Ratelle, who went -6 without any ES points. Clear win for Clarke here.

Phil Esposito fares little better in the famous upset in the SC Final. His -3 is directly opposite to Clarke's +3, and Espo only had two ES points in the series, which is one of the worst in his career.

1975

The Flyers washed Toronto in the quarter-final, Darryl Sittler with 0 ES points, -4.

Not sure about the semi-final. Clarke and Denis Potvin both had a good series. The Islanders didn't have any elite centers on their roster at this time.

Neither Clarke nor Perreault gave up much at ES. Clarke did his scoring on the PP, Perreault did little at either ES or PP, but did finish +1 despite the lack of scoring. Both players were better at home than on the road in this series.

1976

Sittler gets his points (5 at ES), but it seems they must have come at somebody else's expense. Clarke scored well too, and was a +6, while Sittler had an ugly -5.

Clarke seems to have dominated Jean Ratelle again, now a Boston Bruin. Just two ES points and a -3 for Ratelle as Philly beat the Bruins easily.

The Final against Montreal (127 point season) might be Clarke's first match-up loss since those same Habs in 1973. Clarke and Lemaire were both -1, while Peter Mahovlich ended up +4 with 3 ES points. Depending who mainly went against Clarke, it's either a saw-off or a loss.

1977

Sittler is again a victim here, -3 despite scoring a good amount of points again. +4 for Clarke.

Ratelle and Boston get their revenge. Clarke is a -4, with Ratelle (5 ES points, +5) appearing to be the benefactor.

1978

Clarke doesn't look great, going -1 against Buffalo. But Perreault is held in check with just 1 ESP and a -3 rating.

Ratelle kills the Flyers for the second year in a row. Clarke is -3.

1979

That awful series I alluded to above. I'm not sure who Clarke was playing against here, but he was -11 in a 5-game loss. Instinctively you'd think Esposito, but Phil was only an Even plus/minus player despite score 6 ES points.

1980

Clarke (+1) appears to have outplayed young Gretzky (-3) in a preliminary round.

He definitely outplayed old Phil Esposito (-2) in this series. +2 despite just two points would indicate a strong defensive effort.

Clarke was good in the Final as well (7 points, +3), and closed the playoffs +10 despite a somewhat modest (for that era) 20 points in 19 games. Trottier and Goring both had a solid series, neither finished a minus player. Hard to say exactly who was playing who in this one.

Conclusion:

Up through 1976, there is little not to like about Clarke in the post-season. It is often remarked that an offensive player did or did not outscore their defensive deficiencies. I think this is a case where we can say the opposite. Clarke's defensive play was so strong that it easily covered for his weak-ish (by standards of the players in this vote) offensive production.

This seems to have stopped quite abruptly in the spring of 1977, however. Clarke all of a sudden has a string of 19 games spread over four playoff series where he's a hideous -19. 13 points in these games is a drop in production, but it's really not a huge step down from where he was at before. Nowhere near big enough to explain that minus-19.

Clarke returned to previous form in 1980 though. He seems to have been no less effective in this almost-Cup win than in 1974-1976. His play remained strong throughout the rest of his career, though the Flyers never went deep in the playoffs again. He had 16 points/+6 in the last 22 games of his playoff career.

Possible Explanation for the "Down Years"?:

It's difficult to look past the fact that Clarke's best playoff series line up so well with years where Bernie Parent was in net. He was there in 1974, 1975, and 1976...but was injured against Boston that year and didn't play most of the semi-final or any of the final. In 1977 he only played three games, and that's right when we see Clarke experience this sudden drop in goal prevention. He was back for all of 1978, however. In 1979 (the year of that awful series), Parent was done for good and didn't play at all in the playoffs. Pete Peeters and then Pelle Lindbergh re-established stability at the goaltender position from 1980 onwards, where Clarke's defensive play seems to have returned to form. The flip side of this argument is, just give Clarke a solid netminder, and he'll do great things...but I must admit, the strong overlap of Clarke's great numbers with years of good/great goaltending is a little concerning for me.

According to Sports Illustrated, Clarke beat Esposito on 48 of 66 faceoffs in the first three games on the Finals. He was also a key man in getting the puck off of Orr as a forechecker.
 

ImporterExporter

"You're a boring old man"
Jun 18, 2013
18,846
7,871
Oblivion Express
I looked at Clarke more in depth to see if anything stood out in the playoffs, good or bad.

Offense:

Clarke was a very consistent scorer. He showed up and got his points regardless of the quality of opposition. Incredibly, he only played 12 career playoff games against teams with a losing record. I would have expected that total to be quite a bit higher given Philadelphia's strong regular seasons coupled with a high percentage of teams qualifying for the playoffs from 1975 onwards. The only punching bags Clarke ever saw were in brief preliminary round series against the late 70's Rockies, Canucks, and first-year Oilers. Overall, Clarke played 110 playoff games from 1973-1980, what we would probably consider his prime. 53 of those games came against what I would consider elite Cup-contender opposition.

Broken down by individual series, it's almost uncanny how consistent his production was. In 19 best-of-seven series, he produced between four and seven points on 15 occasions. The closest thing we ever saw to an offensive outburst from Clarke was 8 points in 5 games against the 1980 North Stars. The only dud series was a disastrous 0-point, minus-11 series against the Rangers in 1979 (which is so bad compared to every other series he ever played that I have to suspect he was injured).

Bottom line is, Clarke was never going to steal you a series on the basis of his offense, but he showed up and gave his teams a chance in that regard almost every time. He could be contained offensively, but very rarely shut down.

Defense:

I decided to take a look at what the opposition's #1 center did against the Flyers during Clarke's prime years. This is an inexact science; I don't know how often Clarke was directly matched against the players below, others may be able to chime in here. But whether he was directly matched or not, I think it is fair to say that the job of the #1 center is usually to outplay the opposition's #1 center in a playoff series.

1973

Flyers lost a reasonably close 5-game series to the 120-point eventual champion Canadiens. I'm not sure who of Lemaire, Richard, or Mahovlich he'd have seen the bulk of his ice time against. Clarke scored 3 ES points, but was a -2. Henri Richard had a strong series and may have gotten the better of him. Lemaire's stat line is non-descript, and Mahovlich was bad at -4 with no ES points.

1974

Clarke looks pretty ordinary against the Rangers in the semi final, (4 points, -1), but absolutely buried Jean Ratelle, who went -6 without any ES points. Clear win for Clarke here.

Phil Esposito fares little better in the famous upset in the SC Final. His -3 is directly opposite to Clarke's +3, and Espo only had two ES points in the series, which is one of the worst in his career.

1975

The Flyers washed Toronto in the quarter-final, Darryl Sittler with 0 ES points, -4.

Not sure about the semi-final. Clarke and Denis Potvin both had a good series. The Islanders didn't have any elite centers on their roster at this time.

Neither Clarke nor Perreault gave up much at ES. Clarke did his scoring on the PP, Perreault did little at either ES or PP, but did finish +1 despite the lack of scoring. Both players were better at home than on the road in this series.

1976

Sittler gets his points (5 at ES), but it seems they must have come at somebody else's expense. Clarke scored well too, and was a +6, while Sittler had an ugly -5.

Clarke seems to have dominated Jean Ratelle again, now a Boston Bruin. Just two ES points and a -3 for Ratelle as Philly beat the Bruins easily.

The Final against Montreal (127 point season) might be Clarke's first match-up loss since those same Habs in 1973. Clarke and Lemaire were both -1, while Peter Mahovlich ended up +4 with 3 ES points. Depending who mainly went against Clarke, it's either a saw-off or a loss.

1977

Sittler is again a victim here, -3 despite scoring a good amount of points again. +4 for Clarke.

Ratelle and Boston get their revenge. Clarke is a -4, with Ratelle (5 ES points, +5) appearing to be the benefactor.

1978

Clarke doesn't look great, going -1 against Buffalo. But Perreault is held in check with just 1 ESP and a -3 rating.

Ratelle kills the Flyers for the second year in a row. Clarke is -3.

1979

That awful series I alluded to above. I'm not sure who Clarke was playing against here, but he was -11 in a 5-game loss. Instinctively you'd think Esposito, but Phil was only an Even plus/minus player despite score 6 ES points.

1980

Clarke (+1) appears to have outplayed young Gretzky (-3) in a preliminary round.

He definitely outplayed old Phil Esposito (-2) in this series. +2 despite just two points would indicate a strong defensive effort.

Clarke was good in the Final as well (7 points, +3), and closed the playoffs +10 despite a somewhat modest (for that era) 20 points in 19 games. Trottier and Goring both had a solid series, neither finished a minus player. Hard to say exactly who was playing who in this one.

Conclusion:

Up through 1976, there is little not to like about Clarke in the post-season. It is often remarked that an offensive player did or did not outscore their defensive deficiencies. I think this is a case where we can say the opposite. Clarke's defensive play was so strong that it easily covered for his weak-ish (by standards of the players in this vote) offensive production.

This seems to have stopped quite abruptly in the spring of 1977, however. Clarke all of a sudden has a string of 19 games spread over four playoff series where he's a hideous -19. 13 points in these games is a drop in production, but it's really not a huge step down from where he was at before. Nowhere near big enough to explain that minus-19.

Clarke returned to previous form in 1980 though. He seems to have been no less effective in this almost-Cup win than in 1974-1976. His play remained strong throughout the rest of his career, though the Flyers never went deep in the playoffs again. He had 16 points/+6 in the last 22 games of his playoff career.

Possible Explanation for the "Down Years"?:

It's difficult to look past the fact that Clarke's best playoff series line up so well with years where Bernie Parent was in net. He was there in 1974, 1975, and 1976...but was injured against Boston that year and didn't play most of the semi-final or any of the final. In 1977 he only played three games, and that's right when we see Clarke experience this sudden drop in goal prevention. He was back for all of 1978, however. In 1979 (the year of that awful series), Parent was done for good and didn't play at all in the playoffs. Pete Peeters and then Pelle Lindbergh re-established stability at the goaltender position from 1980 onwards, where Clarke's defensive play seems to have returned to form. The flip side of this argument is, just give Clarke a solid netminder, and he'll do great things...but I must admit, the strong overlap of Clarke's great numbers with years of good/great goaltending is a little concerning for me.

Incredibly informative. Thank you. 70s were a little before my time so this in depth analysis is much appreciated.
 

Dennis Bonvie

Registered User
Dec 29, 2007
29,425
17,842
Connecticut
See @Hockey Outsider's post about what Esposito's production would likely look like without Orr. It's slightly below Lafleur's.

Then consider
1) Lafleur was better defensive player (not that Lafleur was great, but Espo was terrible)
2) Lafleur was a playoff god in a way that Esposito wasn't

Or to put it another way, Esposito's peak depended on teammates controlling possession (Orr in Boston, Park in CC) and winning corner battles (Espo's wingers), while Espo largely waited for the puck to come to him. Lafleur was a lot more self-sufficient.

____

Re: Mikita, he was also more self-sufficient and better defensively than Esposito.

Esposito was a better defensive player than Lafleur.

Esposito was pretty good along the boards also.

Esposito had the puck a lot.

Its incredible the perceptions of Esposito. Scored 152 points and 76 goals in 1971. Breaking the record of 126 points (which he held)
and 58 goals (held by Hull). Yet all he did was wait for his teammates to get him the puck.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad