View Single Post
12-12-2012, 03:45 PM
Big Phil
Registered User
Big Phil's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,509
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Sure they would have been better with Phil in 77 and also with most of the other 16 guys ahead of Phil in scoring as well perhaps.

We have sooooooo many indicators of Orr influencing Phil game and point totals that's almost ridiculous to suggest otherwise at this point.

What Phil would have been exactly without Orr is debatable but it almost certainly likely he would have been less the player in standing.

IMO he drops down, best case scenario into the 40-50 range of all time players and at worst case right out of the top 100.

As it is I don't really have that much of a problem with Scotty having him at 40ish or in the 15-20 range for centers.
I don't think anyone has ever denied Orr affected Esposito in a positive way. All-time greats have a way of doing this. But let's look at a guy like Coffey vs. Gretzky. It is obvious that Coffey had his point totals as high as he did because of Gretzky, and why wouldn't he? He never had 138 points again for the reason that it is almost absurd for a defenseman to get that many. So there is no doubt he benefitted from Gretzky. But is there not a flip side to it? Gretzky never had a 200 point season again without Coffey. I don't doubt there were times when he missed his old buddy jumping in late on the rush and picking up a drop pass. He lost assists because of this. How do we know? The stats show it.

Now, do we know for sure that Gretzky can't score 200 points without Coffey? No, we don't know this for sure because it didn't happen and he hit 200 so often that I wouldn't bet against him at all. But one thing we do know is that the greatest player of all-time even had a slight let down when Coffey left town. He also had another letdown when he left Edmonton and was in L.A. without Kurri, Messier, etc. Because of this do we discount the incredible music and chemistry that he created with Coffey in Edmonton? No, we don't because we saw both play and realized that each of them were still very talented and dominant.

So why is it alright for every other situation but in Esposito's case he would have suffered significantly? Sinden got rid of Esposito when he realized his play was dropping off and his value was still high. That's how he got Brad Park and Ratelle. If a GM of his own team realized he was on the decline then why does it surprise people when we realize his stats went that way too?

Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Given the before and after Orr in Chicago and NYR and possible lack of playoff scoring success as well, it's reasonable IMO.

Jean Ratelle , is he in the top 100? It's very feasible that without Orr that Phil has a career like Jean or even worse.
Again, I will mention he was on the verge of hitting his peak in Chicago but was traded. This is arguably the worst trade in hockey history for a reason. The Hawks traded him after Esposito got drunk at a year end party and mouthed off at management. Literally, that is almost certainly the reason if you read his book. Owners did stupid stuff like that back then. Look at Jack Adams who basically traded away a dynasty. In Boston he was given the chance to flourish and there are ample examples of an all-time great player that didn't really hit his stride until 25. He then is traded away at 33. The prime years of his life were in Boston, why wouldn't he look like the better player then?

And this is just utter nonsense about Esposito having a career similar - or worse - to Jean Ratelle. For starters, how many Art Ross trophies was Ratelle even able to come close to? Just one in 1972 and he was 24 points away. I've given up even trying to ask the critics on here who these magical players are that steal Esposito's Art Rosses away. There is no way even Bobby Orr's abscence forces a drop in production so sharp that Esposito loses his Art Rosses. He won 5. I have predicted he wins at least 4 of them still and some of them by big margins still. He was the best forward in the world at that time and HawkeyTown also said that according to the data in games played without Orr he still was projected to have great seasons that would have won him the Art Ross.

To his critics, I urge you to explain to me how he loses his Art Ross trophies. Seventieslord, you said on this thread (or the other one) somewhere that you could see him winning just one. Where is the evidence?

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote