View Single Post
Old
12-12-2012, 05:08 PM
  #226
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,638
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Seventieslord, you said on this thread (or the other one) somewhere that you could see him winning just one. Where is the evidence?
Evidence has been provided that shows that Espositoís production would decline by a minimum of 20%, but you donít believe that itís evidence. The scoring finishes I provided were meant to be rough guesses and of course didnít account for the fact that other Bruins players that usually dotted the top-10 would see their scoring totals drop by about the same degree. With or without Orr, Iím sure Espo outscores them all by the same relative degree.

To be as optimistic for Espo as intellectually possible, youíd have to chop off 20% for him (which is only the bare minimum demonstrated by stats, but the residual effects could have been quite a bit worse on him). Based on that, he loses to Hull in 1969 and Ratelle in 1972. In 1973 he pretty much ties Clarke. Itís difficult to imagine him not winning in 1971 and 1974.

To be as hard on him as possible, you would go from pretending Orr didnít exist, and instead assume he did and played for a different strong team like the Rangers, Hawks, Flyers or Habs. Then bump up their forwardsí scoring by 25% and see what the scoring races look like. You could also start to look at chopping more than 20% off his totals because as a player who, despite all his excellent offensive stats, was giving up a lot of goals to have a non-Orr on-ice ratio in the 1.20 range, his numbers start to look implausible (i.e. to have 80 ESP in a season means he was on the ice for about 112 ESG, for an average of 93 ESGA per season Ė itís really unlikely he goes +112, -93 in an average season; +96, -80 is a much more plausible estimate). With all that said, he might still win in 1971 and 1974, but those margins would be razor thin.

This is all speculation, and of course youíll dismiss it, but there is numerical logic behind it.

Quantity matters, as Iím sure youíll agree, and not all Art Rosses are created equal. So if they were by thin margins with less gaudy totals, yes, that changes things a lot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
I guess I will assume as a moderator you are privy to votes? This I didn't know, but if this is true that by your count the "serious" voters have Messier ahead 20-17 then what's wrong with that?
I didnít say anything was wrong with it. I am only playing the ďsocial proofĒ game because you are. And IIRC, I was always able to see who voted for whom in a public poll even before I was a mod, just by clicking the number of votes. Let me know if that works for you.

Quote:
I stand by my usual comment on this issue.
Of course you do.

Quote:
Who knows? All I know is that it is significantly harder without either one of those two guns.
The numbers clearly demonstrate that itís significantly harder without Orr, not necessarily without Esposito. A Bruins team with Orr and without Espo would have a GF:GA ratio of about 1.5 over those 8 years. Any team that scores 1.5X as many goals as it allows is going to be a perennial contender. A Bruins team with Espo and without Orr would have been around 1.1. Thatís a team that has to get lucky to win it. I know you donít believe in those numbers, but then, why would you?

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote