View Single Post
Old
11-25-2012, 12:03 PM
  #57
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,271
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Nobody else here has even given a second thought to the fact that Orr also benefitted greatly from Esposito?
It's pretty clear who drove the bus in the entirety of that relationship and it has been pointed out, had he played on a different 06 team he would have had some good talent to work with as well.

Quote:
The 1969 Hart voting looked like this:

Esposito - 133
Beliveau - 47
Orr - 44

Is it fair to say the people who watched the games at that time had a decent enough say? I am not saying Orr wasn't a great defenseman then, he just hadn't hit his superhuman level yet and even the stats show this. Orr was a +65 in 1969 which is incredible while Esposito was hardly far behind at +56. Orr had 283 shots in 1969 which is incredible again, but it pales in comparison to what he had later and even Esposito had 351 shots in 1969 while getting anywhere from 400-550 in later years.
I think it's pretty obvious that voters were looking at the bright shiny object in the room (Phil's record breaking point mark), and not looking as in depth as we are here.

The goal scoring leader and 2nd in points Hull finished in a tie with Howe who was 3rd in scoring. The Hart winner from the year before Mikita doesn't even show up in the top 14 voting in the Hart despite being 4th in overall scoring with 97 points, which was 10 more than in his Hart year were he lead the league with 87 points.[/B]

Frankly I wouldn't put too much stock what the voters were doing in 69.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
That was closer to what I thought, although his being on the second PP unit sort of muddles things a bit.



Thanks for posting that info. It helps, although it's still difficult to fairly examine his career, due to him playing his prime years ('65-'75) with Hull & Orr. Expansion makes it especially tough, since he was on a stacked team that was clearly superior to the majority of teams. It looks to me like:

pre-NHL: Very good numbers, but not good enough to suggest he was nearly as productive as he became.

Chicago: Strong ES numbers, but Hull was basically driving the bus, so it's tough to say just how good he was then (esp. with his weaker playoff numbers and being traded).

early Boston ('68-'71): This is the only period in his prime where he appears to have been driving the bus, particularly in '68 & '69, or at least sharing the load with Orr. His ES on/off data is solid, but Orr's are still stronger even in those first two seasons. His superior team in league of mostly inferior teams still makes it difficult to fully assess just how great he was during this period, but it's the most favorable period for him.

later Boston ('72-'75): While still a great offensive player, as you said, he became more reliant on Orr and the PP to keep his numbers in the stratosphere. He seems a defensive liability at this point and was probably fortunate to be in such a good situation.

Rangers: He still puts up some solid seasons, esp. given his age and the team's (lack of) quality. It's the large, immediate decrease in production upon leaving Boston that seems to confirm that his later years in Boston were in large part a product of circumstance.
This is a pretty good summation of Phil's career IMO.

Also Overpass are the R-on and R-off numbers available somewhere for all players? More information makes for a better picture.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote