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

[BenchBrawl]

Seriously this freaking round is unrankable

25 minutes left to decide.

 

[Killion]

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.

Well now. Arent you just the Happy Pacifist my Continental Friend. ... Sorry... But the decades past? No Country for Old Men.... nor for Happy Pacifists. Not in the United States, the Colonies including Canada... not in the UK. Serious culture divide, distinction. And thats a fact.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I think I had my toughest trio to separate yet...and I think it might be a little strange that I can't decipher this...but the order of Bossy, Makarov, and Trottier had me flummoxed...I pray that I don't affect their order with my vote, because they were tough to separate for me...

 

[BenchBrawl]

Voted in-extremis.Regardless of what I did, I felt bad ranking some of those guys at the bottom.

My only certainty was Bobby Clarke at #1.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

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.

To be clear, I didn't do any calculations, so I don't have any work to show. I simply referred to the work that was done, in what I'm sure was good faith, by a longstanding, reputable poster. (In that 2012 thread, there were numerous posters who saw all of his data presented - which is now lost due to data migration that took place in 2017 - and seemed to agree).

I disagree with the implication that posters have to "show their work" when relying on work done by another poster. If that's the case, nobody would quote anybody, and lots of good research would be lost. I think people should be able to confidently quote other posters, as long as they think the work was done in good faith, and as long as the conclusions aren't clearly unreasonable.

Speaking of showing your work - can you give us some data/tables to show us the results for the games Esposito played, but Orr missed? I'm not saying you're wrong, but it would be useful to see the game-by-game breakdowns.

We're now past the voting deadline for the 3rd round. I suspect Esposito will be voted in this round. If it's true that Orr's impact on Esposito has been exaggerated - I don't know what the options are. I know we're not going to re-open the voting for this or previous rounds. If it really was incorrect data, I guess it will be corrected when we do the next iteration of this project in 2028?

 

[ResilientBeast]

Voted in-extremis.Regardless of what I did, I felt bad ranking some of those guys at the bottom.

My only certainty was Bobby Clarke at #1.

Oh boy this is going to be interesting....

 

[Killion]

....If it really was incorrect data, I guess it will be corrected when we do the next iteration of this project in 2028?

... 2028? Do you know how old I am Young Man? Lost my mind years ago, by 2028 I reckon the eyesite'll be gone as well so forget the "corrections". Wont matter to me then, not real passionate about it right now as based on what Ive read very few here appreciate Phil Esposito for what he was as a stand alone act. ... Must be the Lange skates... Hard to take anyone seriously wearing those things, even back in the day, ski boot technology on ice and my God, that Man was indeed one Hell of an Ankle Bender....

 

[Staniowski]

reputable poster

First of all, it doesn't matter if the poster is "reputable". Numbers are numbers. Everybody makes mistakes.

as long as the conclusions aren't clearly unreasonable.

There's a pretty big difference between a 20% decrease for Esposito and essentially no effect at all (possibly a 2 or 3% decrease). When I saw the 20% figure, it certainly caught my eye, I didn't think it was possible. And it's clearly wrong.

I think this qualifies as "unreasonable".

Speaking of showing your work - can you give us some data/tables to show us the results for the games Esposito played, but Orr missed? I'm not saying you're wrong, but it would be useful to see the game-by-game breakdowns.

I don't have the raw game by game data. I'm using the same numbers, by season, that the original poster was using. These numbers have been posted in this thread and in the previous top 100 thread multiple times.

We're now past the voting deadline for the 3rd round. I suspect Esposito will be voted in this round. If it's true that Orr's impact on Esposito has been exaggerated - I don't know what the options are. I know we're not going to re-open the voting for this or previous rounds. If it really was incorrect data, I guess it will be corrected when we do the next iteration of this project in 2028?

Personally, I don't care where Esposito is ranked in this project. But, for anybody who was influenced by the 20% figure (which is clearly wrong), I think it brings his ranking into serious question.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

... 2028? Do you know how old I am Young Man? Lost my mind years ago, by 2028 I reckon the eyesite'll be gone as well so forget the "corrections". Wont matter to me then, not real passionate about it right now as based on what Ive read very few here appreciate Phil Esposito for what he was as a stand alone act. ... Must be the Lange skates... Hard to take anyone seriously wearing those things, even back in the day, ski boot technology on ice and my God, that Man was indeed one Hell of an Ankle Bender....

I would wager good money that you'll still be posting here (only slightly less coherent than you are now :p), enjoying fine whiskey and listening to Wishbone Ash in 2028.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

First of all, it doesn't matter if the poster is "reputable". Numbers are numbers. Everybody makes mistakes.


There's a pretty big difference between a 20% decrease for Esposito and essentially zero difference (possibly a 2 or 3% decrease). When I saw the 20% figure, it certainly caught my eye, I didn't think it was possible. And it's clearly wrong.

I think this qualifies as "unreasonable".


I don't have the raw game by game data. I'm using the same numbers, by season, that the original poster was using. These numbers have been posted in this thread and in the previous top 100 thread multiple times.


Personally, I don't care where Esposito is ranked in this project. But, for anybody who was influenced by the 20% figure (which is clearly wrong), I think it brings his ranking into serious question.

I think you raise a good point about needing to take the difference in scoring across different seasons into account. It's not clear to me if that point was raised in the original thread (from my quick read, it looks like it probably wasn't). To me, this suggests that the data should probably be re-visited.

Unfortunately, since this is the end of the 3rd week where Esposito was eligible for voting (and I suspect he'll be voted in), it's probably too late to impact his ranking for the 2018-19 project. If this point was raised earlier (to be clear, I'm not blaming you for not raising sooner), the voting would have (potentially) been done based on different information. If he's still available next week then hopefully someone (possibly me) will have time to dig into this further.

That being said, if Orr really only had a 2-3% impact on Esposito's numbers, doesn't it seem suspicious that Esposito's per-game scoring jumped about 30% in the first year that he played with Orr (1968), and then dropped about 30% in the first year without him (1976)? Is it just a coincidence that Espo's scoring rate increased and decreased significantly, immediately after joining and leaving the Bruins? To me (and I suspect at least a few others), this was a fairly strong point against him.

 

[wetcoast]

... 2028? Do you know how old I am Young Man? Lost my mind years ago, by 2028 I reckon the eyesite'll be gone as well so forget the "corrections". Wont matter to me then, not real passionate about it right now as based on what Ive read very few here appreciate Phil Esposito for what he was as a stand alone act. ... Must be the Lange skates... Hard to take anyone seriously wearing those things, even back in the day, ski boot technology on ice and my God, that Man was indeed one Hell of an Ankle Bender....

No doubt by then you can lean back and enjoy a nice glass of burgundy and dedicate to your google assistant who will do everything for you.

In fact she might even uncork your wine and determine from your sensory pods when to get excited and really let a good post/proclamation out.

 

[overpass]

I think you raise a good point about needing to take the difference in scoring across different seasons into account. It's not clear to me if that point was raised in the original thread (from my quick read, it looks like it probably wasn't). To me, this suggests that the data should probably be re-visited.

Unfortunately, since this is the end of the 3rd week where Esposito was eligible for voting (and I suspect he'll be voted in), it's probably too late to impact his ranking for the 2018-19 project. If this point was raised earlier (to be clear, I'm not blaming you for not raising sooner), the voting would have (potentially) been done based on different information. If he's still available next week then hopefully someone (possibly me) will have time to dig into this further.

That being said, if Orr really only had a 2-3% impact on Esposito's numbers, doesn't it seem suspicious that Esposito's per-game scoring jumped about 30% in the first year that he played with Orr (1968), and then dropped about 30% in the first year without him (1976)? Is it just a coincidence that Espo's scoring rate increased and decreased significantly, immediately after joining and leaving the Bruins? To me (and I suspect at least a few others), this was a fairly strong point against him.

I would rate Bobby Orr as one of the two unusual statistical advantages that Phil Esposito enjoyed in Boston.

The other factor, and maybe the larger factor that boosted Esposito’s scoring stats was the unusually high playing time he received. Especially in the playoffs, Boston’s second centre Fred Stanfield had low scoring and GA numbers when not on the power play, and Esposito had very high GA numbers in addition to his high scoring stats.

NHL.com - Stats

NHL.com - Stats

The other scoring stars in this round had to split their ice time more evenly. Sakic had the advantage of playing in the TV timeout era when coaches could get their top lines out more, but he had to split those opportunities with Peter Forsberg. Trottier and Bossy played on a team that rolled 3 lines and spotted a fourth. Clarke’s Flyers went 4 centres deep, and Rick MacLeish got a lot of ice time and scoring opportunities from the #2 spot.

The Bruins, on the other hand, basically used Esposito as their first line centre plus their second line centre half the time. So they didn’t get scoring from that second line centre spot, and they needed Esposito to score 1.5 points per game to win. They never gave Fred Stanfield a chance to bring a Rick MacLeish, Bob Bourne, Peter Forsberg type contribution. When they finally started giving Gregg Sheppard #2 centre minutes in the 1974 and 1975 playoffs, Esposito’s scoring dropped below a point per game and Sheppard outscored him.

 

[Staniowski]

That being said, if Orr really only had a 2-3% impact on Esposito's numbers, doesn't it seem suspicious that Esposito's per-game scoring jumped about 30% in the first year that he played with Orr (1968)

Well, in his first year on the Bruins, his power play time (and numbers)obviously increased dramatically. And, in a fairly large sample, he scored more without Orr than with him.

Is it just a coincidence that Espo's scoring rate increased and decreased significantly, immediately after joining and leaving the Bruins?

No, I don't think it's a coincidence at all. But I think there is lots of doubt about whether this was primarily because of Orr. I think Esposito gained a lot of freedom on the Bruins, instantly becoming their #1 forward, rather than the #3 on Chicago. Changing teams can make a huge difference, we've all seen this with many players. I think Esposito could play to his strengths to a much greater extent in Boston.

In the games I've watched of those Bruins, I've always thought Orr and Esposito were independently great players.

In '75-'76, he played 12 games on the Bruins, scoring 16 points...this is a small sample, but his PPG in New York were a lot less than this...but he played those 12 games in Boston without Orr. I don't think it's clear that it's all about Orr.

 

[seventieslord]

	GP with	Pts With	GP w/o	Pts w/o
1968	51.0	57.0	31.0	35.0
1969	71.2	110.1	8.6	14.9
1970	82.0	101.0	0.0	0.0
1971	82.0	141.0	0.0	0.0
1972	79.9	133.0	0.0	0.0
1973	66.2	101.5	15.8	19.6
1974	77.8	133.2	4.3	4.8
1975	81.0	110.0	0.0	0.0
1976	0.0	0.0	12.3	13.9
Total	591.1	886.8	72.0	88.1
68/76 PPG	with Orr:	1.500	W/O Orr:	1.222

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

1.500/1.222 = 1.23. On an adjusted basis, Esposito scored 23% more with Orr than without.

All figures are based on adjusted numbers from hockey-reference. All numbers normalized to an 82-game schedule.

Esposito and Orr missed three games at the same time: once in 68-69, the last game of an extended injury for Orr, and once in 71-72, when they sat out the last two games of the season together. Esposito also missed one game in 74-75, while Orr played the whole season - it is, from what I can tell, the only time Orr played a game without Esposito in the lineup.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

...the order of Bossy, Makarov, and Trottier had me flummoxed...

I don't think Bossy's going anywhere this round, with or without your (our?) support- so don't think you have any worries about that one.

I almost had these guys back-to-back-to-back near the middle of my ballot; (i.e.: Guy One, Interloper, Guy Two, Guy Three).

 

[VanIslander]

How much more did Orr score with Espo than without?

 

[seventieslord]

How much more did Orr score with Espo than without?

.... He played one game in Boston without him

(and his 18-year old rookie season, of course)

 

[VanIslander]

Exactly.

For all we know, their synergy could have benefited Orr to a higher percentage.

This whole approach to depreciating performances is wrongheaded imo. Are we gonna diss Kurri? Discount Coffey? Definitely discount Brent Hull, eh? Just look at his with Oates vs. without Oates scoring rate!

We didn't penalize Plante for having Harvey, Beliveau for his wingers?

Ugh.

 

[seventieslord]

Exactly.

For all we know, their synergy could have benefited Orr to a higher percentage.

Well actually, no. There's no "with or without Esposito" data for Orr, but there's still on ice/off ice data and it's not pretty.

 

[bobholly39]

Exactly.

For all we know, their synergy could have benefited Orr to a higher percentage.

This whole approach to depreciating performances is wrongheaded imo. Are we gonna diss Kurri? Discount Coffey? Definitely discount Brent Hull, eh? Just look at his with Oates vs. without Oates scoring rate!

We didn't penalize Plante for having Harvey, Beliveau for his wingers?

Ugh.

Agree with this very, very much so.

Hoping any further Esposito talk carries over to the result thread as he gets voted in, but we'll see.

 

[wetcoast]

Well actually, no. There's no "with or without Esposito" data for Orr, but there's still on ice/off ice data and it's not pretty.

Plus we have the limited data of Orr in Chicago as well.

 

[BM67]

	GP with	Pts With	GP w/o	Pts w/o
1968	51.0	57.0	31.0	35.0
1969	71.2	110.1	8.6	14.9
1970	82.0	101.0	0.0	0.0
1971	82.0	141.0	0.0	0.0
1972	79.9	133.0	0.0	0.0
1973	66.2	101.5	15.8	19.6
1974	77.8	133.2	4.3	4.8
1975	81.0	110.0	0.0	0.0
1976	0.0	0.0	12.3	13.9
Total	591.1	886.8	72.0	88.1
68/76 PPG	with Orr:	1.500	W/O Orr:	1.222

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

1.500/1.222 = 1.23. On an adjusted basis, Esposito scored 23% more with Orr than without.

All figures are based on adjusted numbers from hockey-reference. All numbers normalized to an 82-game schedule.

Esposito and Orr missed three games at the same time: once in 68-69, the last game of an extended injury for Orr, and once in 71-72, when they sat out the last two games of the season together. Esposito also missed one game in 74-75, while Orr played the whole season - it is, from what I can tell, the only time Orr played a game without Esposito in the lineup.

Esposito played 4 seasons where he played games with and without Orr. In the first 2 his scoring went up without Orr, in the next 2 it went down without Orr. Most of the games without Orr come in the 2 seasons where his scoring went up. Basically, what this chart shows is that Esposito didn't score at the same rate in 1967-68 as he did in 1971-74.

 

[seventieslord]

Esposito played 4 seasons where he played games with and without Orr. In the first 2 his scoring went up without Orr, in the next 2 it went down without Orr. Most of the games without Orr come in the 2 seasons where his scoring went up. Basically, what this chart shows is that Esposito didn't score at the same rate in 1967-68 as he did in 1971-74.

Remove 67-68 and there's still a total difference of 18.6% in the other seasons.

The full seasons they played together are part of the data - it wouldn't make sense to remove them.

 

[Captain Bowie]

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

You're late.

justkiddingyou'redoingagreatjobi'mjustanimpatientchild

 

[Michael Farkas]

Get some prunes, qpq...