Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 6

[wetcoast]

Esposito was one of the better point scorers in the league in his three full Chicago seasons...with minimal PP time.

He was 7th in a 6 team league his last 3 years with the Black Hawks and with Hull as his Winger.

PP scoring wasn't as high of a % as it would become either.

And if Hull played with Mikta full time at ES we might not even be having this discussion.

Plus the first Boston year before Orr was truly "Orr".

I already addressed this as Orr was already becoming Orr that season, although BlogofMike pointed out his late season scoring rate that continued without Orr in the lineup.

At worst, he seems to project to a Sakic level offensive player if we remove Orr entirely.

I don't think he projects at worst to a Sakic level of offense. That would be underselling Burnaby Joe.

Sakic scored more points than any player during his time in the NHL for starters.

The numbers before and after Boston don't help Phil in that comparison. Sakic has better overall scoring finishes in context than Phil, outside of his time with Orr.

I think my comparison to Nicolls if both players don't play with Orr or Wayne is more likely, based on what each payer did without them.

And shouldn't he get some credit for being Orr's finisher? It's not like any schmuck was going to score 76 goals, even with Orr tilting the ice and Cashman digging pucks out of the corner.

No one is calling Phil a schmuck but it's really a right time right place with the 76 goals.

And I already outlined what a huge impact Orr had on the ice when he played.

It's the best peak impact (of elevating players around him) of all time IMO.

Just like Richard's 50 in 50 in that war year, Richard never had 50 again even with the schedule expanding to 70 games.

 

[MXD]

I haven't exactly been perfect in that regards, but when someone uses totally hyperbolic comparisons (like, Esposito-to-Nicholls) or brings forward unprovable claims (like, there-is-zero-evidence-Esposito-would've-gotten-a-single-Hart-vote-without-Bobby-Orr), it seems "not-engaging" could be a good strategy.

Because, seriously, what's even the point of raising any argument (for or against any player) if it's just gonna end up drowned in posts of very suspect relevance?

The underlined is just... I mean, I guess the "There's-no-evidence-Malkin-gets-a-single-Hart-vote-if-not-playing-on-the-same-team-as-Crosby" claim is about on the same level : Insane and Totally Non-Demonstrable.

 

[bobholly39]

Still way too much talk of Orr in relation to Esposito.

Joe Sakic playoff hero is 100% a product of Patrick Roy. He had 0 success in playoffs before Roy - and none after Roy retired. How is this any different? We still give Joe Sakic full marks for the results he achieved in the playoffs.

Why not do the same for Esposito? 5 Scoring championships, all those records broken, harts, etc etc.

Speaking of Joe Sakic - does anyone here think he'd have won 5 art ross, and destroyed all those scoring records playing with Orr? How about Clarke? Or Trottier? I think Esposito has been pushed back enough. He is very easily the best center here - and I also have him #1 overall.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I don't think he projects at worst to a Sakic level of offense. That would be underselling Burnaby Joe.

See post #388. Even if we discount Esposito's numbers 20% (which is roughly how much his per-game scoring decreased in the games Orr missed), he's still decisively ahead of Sakic as an offensive player (I project Esposito would have had a 7-3 lead in seasons as a top three scorer).

As I explained in that post, it's defensible to rank Sakic ahead if you really value his superior playoff resume and his two-way play. But you're severely under-selling Esposito (and/or overrating Sakic) if you think that they're on par offensively - even after we take into account Orr.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Got my votes in, most interested in seeing the results for the back half of the ballots

 

[wetcoast]

I haven't exactly been perfect in that regards, but when someone uses totally hyperbolic comparisons (like, Esposito-to-Nicholls) or brings forward unprovable claims (like, there-is-zero-evidence-Esposito-would've-gotten-a-single-Hart-vote-without-Bobby-Orr), it seems "not-engaging" could be a good strategy.

Because, seriously, what's even the point of raising any argument (for or against any player) if it's just gonna end up drowned in posts of very suspect relevance?

The underlined is just... I mean, I guess the "There's-no-evidence-Malkin-gets-a-single-Hart-vote-if-not-playing-on-the-same-team-as-Crosby" claim is about on the same level : Insane and Totally Non-Demonstrable.

Well he only got that 15th place vote which is basically irrelevant outside of his years in Boston right.

Also the comparisons to Nicolls were pretty clear numerically no one has a totally challenged them.

 

[Theokritos]

You simply cannot apply modern sensibilities & outrage to what was not only common but expected of players who came up through the Junior ranks in Canada. Pro game in its very earliest incarnations. Ultra violence not uncommon. (...)
Today of course, several generations, totally unacceptable. Certainly dont condone what Shore, Fontinato, Green, Maki, Shack & countless hundreds of others pulled at times but they were products of their generations (...)

While players with their conduct are certainly also products of their time, they are not exhaustively defined by being products. There is an additional ingredient in the mix: their individual character. Otherwise every player of the same generation or era of the game would display the same conduct, which is obviously not the case. It's true it makes little sense to judge past players by the moral standards of today, but there are enough differences between individual players of the same time to observe. For example, even in the 1970s Clarke was one of the dirtier, more ruthless and classless star-calibre players. Meanwhile, Frank Nighbor was renowned as one of the fairest star players of his time.

If one believes that a good hockey player is one who is good at overcoming the opposition with relatively fair and legal means rather than one who succeedes by getting away with dirty stuff, then considerations of fairness have a legit role in determining the ranking, as opposed to off-ice issues without impact on the rink.

 

[MXD]

Well he only got that 15th place vote which is basically irrelevant outside of his years in Boston right.

Also the comparisons to Nicolls were pretty clear numerically no one has a totally challenged them.

...C'mon Hardy.

 

[Staniowski]

Even if we discount Esposito's numbers 20% (which is roughly how much his per-game scoring decreased in the games Orr missed)

No, Esposito's numbers didn't decrease by anywhere close to 20% in games without Orr.

During Esposito's Bruins' years, there is only 3 significant periods of time we have to compare: 1) in '67-'68, Orr missed 27 games, 2) in '68-'69, Orr missed 9 games, and 3) in '72-'73, Orr missed 15 games. Missed games in other seasons are obviously too few to mean anything.

In '67-'68, Orr missed 27 games - this is by far the largest period he missed in any of these seasons. In the 27 games, Esposito's point totals were about 8.2% higher than in the games Orr was playing.

In '72-'73, Orr missed 15 games - this is the 2nd largest period. In the 15 games, Esposito's point totals were about 4.8% lower than in the games Orr was playing.

In '68-'69, Orr missed 9 games - the smallest of the three periods. In the 9 games, Esposito's point totals were about 9.3% lower than in the games Orr was playing.

Just to stress the point, the largest period of missed Orr games resulted in an increase in Esposito scoring; and the 2nd largest period resulted in a decrease of less than 5%. Considering that these 2 periods account for a large majority of Orr's missed games, and with an increase of 8.2% and a decrease of 4.8% in Esposito's scoring during these periods, obviously a decrease of anything close to 20% is impossible. An increase of anything close to 10% is also impossible.

Overall, there is very little difference in Esposito's scoring whether Orr was playing or not. It's certainly much less than 5%.

There is no statistical evidence that Orr affected Esposito's scoring totals in any significant way, period.

In the only 2 other times that Esposito played without Orr during the Bruin years (but for which there is nothing to compare to), Esposito also put up very nice numbers :

1) 1972 Summit Series - 13 points in 8 games by Esposito

2) Beginning of '75-'76 - 16 points in 12 games by Esposito

 

[Kyle McMahon]

He was 7th in a 6 team league his last 3 years with the Black Hawks and with Hull as his Winger.

PP scoring wasn't as high of a % as it would become either.

And if Hull played with Mikta full time at ES we might not even be having this discussion.



I already addressed this as Orr was already becoming Orr that season, although BlogofMike pointed out his late season scoring rate that continued without Orr in the lineup.



I don't think he projects at worst to a Sakic level of offense. That would be underselling Burnaby Joe.

Sakic scored more points than any player during his time in the NHL for starters.

The numbers before and after Boston don't help Phil in that comparison. Sakic has better overall scoring finishes in context than Phil, outside of his time with Orr.

I think my comparison to Nicolls if both players don't play with Orr or Wayne is more likely, based on what each payer did without them.



No one is calling Phil a schmuck but it's really a right time right place with the 76 goals.

And I already outlined what a huge impact Orr had on the ice when he played.

It's the best peak impact (of elevating players around him) of all time IMO.

Just like Richard's 50 in 50 in that war year, Richard never had 50 again even with the schedule expanding to 70 games.

Trying to use league size to dismiss Esposito's Chicago-era scoring finishes is unfounded. When the league doubled in size in 1967-68, the highest anyone on an expansion team placed in scoring was 17th (Andy Bathgate, Penguins). And it has been demonstrated in this thread that Esposito's point production was probably hindered by lack of PP time on top-heavy Black Hawks rosters. Pointing out who so-and-so got to play with as a means of diminishing their accomplishments doesn't hold much water in the Original Six era, either. Most teams had multiple Hall of Famers at any given time. Chicago in the 60's was no different.

You're going to have to explain what made Joe Sakic such a great offensive player in relation to Esposito. Sakic has a 3rd-4th-6th-10th string of finishes when he was an offense-only player in Quebec/early Colorado days. At his peak as an all-around player, he puts together a 5th-8th-2nd-5th-2nd string of finishes. Impressive, but the early 00's were a black hole in terms of offensive talent in the NHL. You'd have to gouge Esposito out of 30-35% of his production to bring him down to a level comparable to Sakic. That seems very extreme.

Nobody will argue that Esposito was in the right place at the right time to take full advantage of Orr's greatness. Why should we not give him credit for doing so? Other players have also found themselves in favourable positions over the course of history. Some took advantage, some failed to do so. Joe Sakic took advantage of the #1 goaltender on this list ending up in Colorado for 8 seasons. He is a rather disappointing minus-15 in the playoffs without Roy's backing, despite decent offensive production. Terry Sawchuk sans Red Kelly is thoroughly unimpressive. Clarke only won Cups when Parent was lights-out. Brodeur has a losing record in 5 of 7 playoff appearances without Scott Stevens in front of him. We could play this game all day...why litigate Esposito specifically?

 

[MXD]

Trying to use league size to dismiss Esposito's Chicago-era scoring finishes is unfounded. When the league doubled in size in 1967-68, the highest anyone on an expansion team placed in scoring was 17th (Andy Bathgate, Penguins). And it has been demonstrated in this thread that Esposito's point production was probably hindered by lack of PP time on top-heavy Black Hawks rosters. Pointing out who so-and-so go to play as a means of diminishing their accomplishments doesn't hold much water in the Original Six era, either. Most teams had multiple Hall of Famers at any given time. Chicago in the 60's was no different.

Your going to have to explain what made Joe Sakic such a great offensive player in relation to Esposito. Sakic has a 3rd-4th-6th-10th string of finishes when he was an offense-only player in Quebec/early Colorado days. At his peak as an all-around player, he puts together a 5th-8th-2nd-5th-2nd string of finishes. Impressive, but the early 00's were a black hole in terms of offensive talent in the NHL. You'd have to gouge Esposito out of 30-35% of his production to bring him down to a level comparable to Sakic. That seems very extreme.

Nobody will argue that Esposito was in the right place at the right time to take full advantage of Orr's greatness. Why should we not give him credit for doing so? Other players have also found themselves in favourable positions over the course of history. Some took advantage, some failed to do so. Joe Sakic took advantage of the #1 goaltender on this list ending up in Colorado for 8 seasons. He is a rather disappointing minus-15 in the playoffs without Roy's backing, despite decent offensive production. Terry Sawchuk sans Red Kelly is thoroughly unimpressive. Clarke only won Cups when Parent was lights-out. Brodeur has a losing record in 5 of 7 playoff appearances without Scott Stevens in front of him. We could play this game all day...why litigate Esposito specifically?

You're much more patient than I am.

 

[Staniowski]

Even if we discount Esposito's numbers 20% (which is roughly how much his per-game scoring decreased in the games Orr missed)

Would you like to explain where you got this 20% decrease for Esposito without Orr?

It's a pretty big mistake.

 

[Thenameless]

I'm not an official participant of this exercise, but I'd like to chime in on Esposito vs Sakic. I don't really have a horse in this race, and I actually personally prefer Sakic, but I think Esposito is superior by a clear margin. As a young hockey card collector in the 70's I remember reading about a lot of the record-breaking feats that Esposito did. Points per season, goals per season, and I think he retired with the most hat tricks at the time. Esposito seemed to raise the bar for previously established offensive limits, and Gretzky did it again in the 80's. Even removing the Gretzky/Lemieux effect, I don't think Sakic had the same impact on the game offensively; actually I'm sure he did not. And as I said, I'm a pretty big Joe Sakic fan being from BC myself. Just my two cents.

 

[seventieslord]

Would you like to explain where you got this 20% decrease for Esposito without Orr?

It's a pretty big mistake.

It's not...

 

[Nick Hansen]

Good video on Russian passing:

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Would you like to explain where you got this 20% decrease for Esposito without Orr?

It's a pretty big mistake.

I was referring to a study done by a reputable member of this forum (I think it was overpass, or maybe reckoning). Their conclusion was Orr impacted Esposito's stats by about 20% on a per-game basis. Unfortunately, the data didn't survive the data migration last year, so I can't quote it directly.

The obvious question is - how do I reconcile their numbers to yours? I'm not sure; I don't know their data source, nor do I know yours. I also don't know which years they were looking at (maybe the excluded 1968, when Orr wasn't yet at his peak, and maybe they took 1976 into account, when there was a huge drop in Esposito's numbers).

 

[Staniowski]

I was referring to a study done by a reputable member of this forum (I think it was overpass, or maybe reckoning). Their conclusion was Orr impacted Esposito's stats by about 20% on a per-game basis. Unfortunately, the data didn't survive the data migration last year, so I can't quote it directly.

The obvious question is - how do I reconcile their numbers to yours? I'm not sure; I don't know their data source, nor do I know yours. I also don't know which years they were looking at (maybe the excluded 1968, when Orr wasn't yet at his peak, and maybe they took 1976 into account, when there was a huge drop in Esposito's numbers).

My data source is the numbers that have been posted in this thread (or possibly the previous thread)...which I borrowed (I assume the raw data is correct), and used for simple calculations....I'm sure everybody who is reading these threads has seen these numbers.

 

[seventieslord]

I was referring to a study done by a reputable member of this forum (I think it was overpass, or maybe reckoning). Their conclusion was Orr impacted Esposito's stats by about 20% on a per-game basis. Unfortunately, the data didn't survive the data migration last year, so I can't quote it directly.

The obvious question is - how do I reconcile their numbers to yours? I'm not sure; I don't know their data source, nor do I know yours. I also don't know which years they were looking at (maybe the excluded 1968, when Orr wasn't yet at his peak, and maybe they took 1976 into account, when there was a huge drop in Esposito's numbers).

This might help, even if post 1 was butchered...

Esposito Without Orr

 

[seventieslord]

1079 in 687 total 67-68 to 75-76

Minus ... From what I can tell, it is based on 47 games without Orr, or 117 if 75-76 is included, or in between that if only Boston time without Orr is included.

@Hawkey Town 18 might be able to help with that.

In any case, he calculated in post 2 Esposito scored 1.36 ppg without Orr. He scored about 1.63 Total in that period, depending on when you draw the line for the calculation. Remove orr's injury games and that would be close to 1.70 with, 1.36 without. Roughly.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

1079 in 687 total 67-68 to 75-76

Minus ... From what I can tell, it is based on 47 games without Orr, or 117 if 75-76 is included, or in between that if only Boston time without Orr is included.

@Hawkey Town 18 might be able to help with that.

In any case, he calculated in post 2 Esposito scored 1.36 ppg without Orr. He scored about 1.63 Total in that period, depending on when you draw the line for the calculation. Remove orr's injury games and that would be close to 1.70 with, 1.36 without. Roughly.

Thanks - that was the post I was looking for (even if I didn't remember who posted it - it's eight years old, after all).

That decrease in PPG (a drop of 0.34, relative to his "with Orr" average of 1.70) is exactly 20%. Now of course it's possible that HT18's numbers are incorrect, but I think this is the study that people have been referring to for years.

Again, not sure how to reconcile that to the numbers Staniowski presented. Seeing as it's about 80 minutes before tonight's voting deadline, I'd suggest we leave it for next week in the event that Esposito is still available.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Don't close the gate quite yet...I'm gonna vote in a bit...

 

[quoipourquoi]

Don't close the gate quite yet...I'm gonna vote in a bit...

You guys are fine. New thread should be up around 8:30-10:00am Eastern.

 

[Staniowski]

Thanks - that was the post I was looking for (even if I didn't remember who posted it - it's eight years old, after all).

That decrease in PPG (a drop of 0.34, relative to his "with Orr" average of 1.70) is exactly 20%. Now of course it's possible that HT18's numbers are incorrect, but I think this is the study that people have been referring to for years.

Again, not sure how to reconcile that to the numbers Staniowski presented. Seeing as it's about 80 minutes before tonight's voting deadline, I'd suggest we leave it for next week in the event that Esposito is still available.

Since everybody has spent 2 or 3 weeks voting on Phil Esposito thinking that these numbers (i.e. 20% decrease without Orr) that you (and others) have quoted are correct, I think you have a responsibility to show your work so that everybody can judge for themselves.

There is a serious error here.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

I think you have a responsibility to show your work so that everybody can judge for themselves.

There is a serious error here.

Could you show your work to exhibit evidence of an error?

 

[Staniowski]

1079 in 687 total 67-68 to 75-76

Minus ... From what I can tell, it is based on 47 games without Orr, or 117 if 75-76 is included, or in between that if only Boston time without Orr is included.

@Hawkey Town 18 might be able to help with that.

In any case, he calculated in post 2 Esposito scored 1.36 ppg without Orr. He scored about 1.63 Total in that period, depending on when you draw the line for the calculation. Remove orr's injury games and that would be close to 1.70 with, 1.36 without. Roughly.

The issue is that this calculation doesn't account for the substantial differences in scoring across different seasons. Almost half of the "without" numbers come in a much lower scoring season.

The other issue is the inclusion of the very small sample numbers in 2 of the seasons, where Esposito only played 2 and 4 games without Orr. There is no justification to include these.

In this calculation, you have to look at each season separately. It's mathematically incorrect if you don't

Very simply:

1) In 47.4% of Orr's total missed games (27 games in '68), Espo's scoring increased by 8.2%.

2) In 26.3% of Orr's total missed games (15 games in '73), Esposito's scoring decreased by 4.8%.

3) In 15.8% of Orr's total missed games (9 games in '69), Esposito's scoring decreased by 9.3%.

That's 90% of Orr's total missed games, with almost no change for Esposito with or without Orr.

(And in almost 75% of Orr's total missed games ('68 and '73), Esposito's scoring increased!).

If there is any decrease in Esposito's numbers without Orr, it's only 2 or 3% - which basically means there is no difference.