View Single Post
12-11-2012, 01:38 PM
Student Of The Game
seventieslord's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 31,031
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
For starters, this is a mere projection of how he does in a full season in his prime without Orr. We have enough sample sizes in certain seasons to see that he really could carry a team on his own.
No one is saying he couldn’t carry a team on his own or be a star. Or, at least, I’m certainly not.

Averaging (what is it 106 points?) a season from 1967-'1976 in games without Orr is still the best player in the world because it includes 1968 which was a year where the Art Ross winner gets 87 points and 1976 when he was starting to be over the hill.
And I removed those two years fro you so I have no idea why you’re still talking about them.

Anyway, I can't convince you that it's not something that hurts him, you see it how you want and it is what it is. Esposito immediately was asked to have a bigger role in 1967-'68 and he thrived with a half season Orr. Plenty of players have been given that exact same treatment. You can find many all-time greats that took a few years before breaking out. Without Orr he's a 120 point man in his prime at least. Hard to argue that otherwise. The guy isn't losing anymore than 30 points without Orr in 1971.
The only thing you have proven is that Esposito was, himself, a very good player. OF COURSE HE WAS.

You severely downlplay Orr’s influence as far as how it affected what happened on the ice, though. The difference in that team’s performance with and without him was night and day. Their goal differential doubled. And we already know it wasn’t just because they loaded up with Orr and Espo at the same time.

Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
No, he wasn't Adam Oates, but someone asked if he is among the top 50 playmakers of all-time, and he can't be off that list in my opinion. Esposito was subtle, much like his goal scoring. Again, he was substance rather than style in all facets of his game. This is what always seems to knock him down a peg in all-time rankings.
Yes, of course he is in the top-50 playmakers of all-time. Whether it was in the “classic” sense or not, at some point you have to look at how many assists a player compiled and give credit.

Originally Posted by Ogopogo View Post
That is because you value style over substance. To me, substance is what matters. Prettiness is irrelevant, production matters.
It’s not about style vs. substance. It’s about context and watching how those assists transpire. You are clearly making no attempt whatsoever to separate Esposito from his unique team situation and are taking all his assists at face value, if you think he is the #7 playmaker of all-time.

Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
So if Phil shoots at the net, something he led the league in 4 years in a row, then someone else scores we are going to call him a play maker?
In fairness… yes. That’s still “making the play”. He did something that led to a goal. It’s not easy to put a lot of pucks on the net. That is a skill.

Originally Posted by Ogopogo View Post
Orr is behind Phil because he didn't play a full career. Unlike many, I don't give him credit for games not played and assists not earned. If he could have stayed healthy, he could have finished higher.
So Orr is not as good a playmaker because he got injured?

Sounds like your list is little more than some form of “adjusted assists compiled” with absolutely no regard for actual on-ice play.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote