HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Messier vs. Esposito

View Poll Results: Esposito vs. Messier
Messier 62 51.24%
Esposito 59 48.76%
Voters: 121. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-22-2012, 10:21 PM
  #51
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,656
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Why?
yeah, why? As someone who has built an ATD squad around each of these two players, and bio'd them extensively, I can't see how Mikita's all-around game would be considered better. He's a better all-around player because he's far superior offensively while also not giving up enough in the physical and defensive sides.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 10:35 PM
  #52
DisgruntledGoat
Registered User
 
DisgruntledGoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,983
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RabbinsDuck View Post
Mikita played a similar rough/dirty game to Messier early in his career, but I believe became a much better player when he was winning Lady Byng votes while still being well above average defensively. Messier was just never that great defensively - his physical edge and speed made him a threat everywhere, but I never viewed him as an elite two-way player. The media loved Messier, but his surprising lack of Selke votes substantiates my observations.
Pre-90s, the Selke was the domain of actual defensive forwards; guys who played on the third-line and checked for a living (with the deserved exception of Clarke).

It wasn't until the Fedorov win in 1994 that it became the, 'give-it-to-whoever-needs-a-trophy' bastardization it currently is.

Had voting tendencies been what they were during Messier's peak, I think he wins a couple.

In the 1987 Canada Cup, Keenan had as much talent at his disposal as any coach ever (including future Selke winner Gilmour, noted shutdown artist Sutter, and two-way star Hawerchuk), and he went with Messier wire-to-wire against the best line in the world at the time.

DisgruntledGoat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 10:37 PM
  #53
RabbinsDuck
Registered User
 
RabbinsDuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Brighton, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 4,728
vCash: 500
Quote:
He's a better all-around player because he's far superior offensively while also not giving up enough in the physical and defensive sides.
Isn't that more than enough?
My understanding is Mikita had a tenacious backcheck (as well as forecheck) and superior understanding of positioning, while I observed Messier having a killer forecheck with little backcheck. Messier floated, plain and simple, a lot. He ramped it up in the playoffs, no doubt, but you did not see that player year-round.

RabbinsDuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 10:41 PM
  #54
RabbinsDuck
Registered User
 
RabbinsDuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Brighton, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 4,728
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DisgruntledGoat View Post
Pre-90s, the Selke was the domain of actual defensive forwards; guys who played on the third-line and checked for a living (with the deserved exception of Clarke).

It wasn't until the Fedorov win in 1994 that it became the, 'give-it-to-whoever-needs-a-trophy' bastardization it currently is.

Had voting tendencies been what they were during Messier's peak, I think he wins a couple.

In the 1987 Canada Cup, Keenan had as much talent at his disposal as any coach ever (including future Selke winner Gilmour, noted shutdown artist Sutter, and two-way star Hawerchuk), and he went with Messier wire-to-wire against the best line in the world at the time.
Agree with your observations but not the conclusions. It was Kurri who would have won a few Selkes, not Messier. Kurri is underrated as a two-way player, while I believe Messier is overrated (mainly b/c of his physical play).

RabbinsDuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 10:43 PM
  #55
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,452
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Really, is he?

Considering he was noticeably a much better player when Orr played with him, that is far from open-and-shut.
It is way fuzzier than you guys make it out to be. Espo just happened to be in his prime at the same time he played with Bobby Orr and the two complimented one another very well.

They each stand on their own merits just fine.

I am really beginning to hate the constant so and so was a product of whatsisname coming up all the time.

In no way shape or form was Phil Esposito a product of Bobby Orr.

Esposito having 126 points when Bobby Orr had 64 makes this an open and shut case.

Does Esposito reach 76 goals and 150+ points without Orr? Probably not.

Does Orr reach 100 assists without Esposito? Probably not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Esposito's stats fell off without Bobby Orr.
Would we ever assume the opposite would happen?

I mean it is Bobby Orr. And Espo was going from the Bruins to the Rangers so not only does he lose Orr he has a much weaker team in general.

He goes from 115 point team to a 67 point team. That is a pretty huge difference.

Not to mention he was in his mid thirties and we know what that means for most scoring starts of his era. His totals were dropping in Boston already.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
This is like a Lidstrom vs Potvin thing for me.

Espo was the clearly the better player at his peak but Messier takes it on career value.
Yeah I'm really torn on this one it is tough to pick. Messier does things that Esposito doesn't.. but Espo peaked soooo high and has good longevity of his own for the era.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred Taylor View Post
How do you explain his 126 point season, leading the league by far when Orr was only a 60 point player? Don't his years in Boston coincide with the average players prime?
Bingo. I guess it was a ton of third assists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
I think his one 126 point season that you refer to looks more like an outlier when you look at what he did before and after Orr.
Haha..

Talk about massaging the facts to fit the narrative.

Yeah, that one season where he was at superstar level before Orr really took off was a fluke, and then the ones after where he went even higher were just a product of Orr.

That sounds a lot more likely than Espo was becoming great as Orr was hitting his stride and then Espo and Orr together were even better and smashed their respective records for forwards and defensemen.

I know which one seems more reasonable to me.


Quote:
The playoff resume by the Moose is simply much greater than Phils offensively and that's before we even get into the other parts of his game that made him great.
I do think Boston underachieved in the playoffs but Espo still has a pretty darn good playoff resume.

Messier's is also very good and he is certainly much more versatile.

I haven't voted yet because I really can't decide. If I was building most styles of teams I would choose Messier easily but picking which players was just plain better is really hard.

BraveCanadian is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 10:57 PM
  #56
DisgruntledGoat
Registered User
 
DisgruntledGoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,983
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RabbinsDuck View Post
Agree with your observations but not the conclusions. It was Kurri who would have won a few Selkes, not Messier. Kurri is underrated as a two-way player, while I believe Messier is overrated (mainly b/c of his physical play).
Hmm. I agree on Kurri being underrated defensively, but I don't like him in his own zone as much as I like Messier. Kurri was good defensively in a, 'get back and cover for Gretzky' kind of way.

Was he ever used in a shutdown role? Did he ever impact games in all three zones? I'm not sure he did.

I will agree that he is exactly the kind of player who would win Selkes in the current voting climate, but I still give Messier a rather large edge regardless.

DisgruntledGoat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 10:58 PM
  #57
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,656
vCash: 500
Quote:
It is way fuzzier than you guys make it out to be. Espo just happened to be in his prime at the same time he played with Bobby Orr and the two complimented one another very well.

They each stand on their own merits just fine.
Yes, Espsosito stands on his own merits. But when it is a question of how he stacks up in comparison to a top-25 player of all-time, the Orr factor has to be discussed. Esposito's record of scoring finishes, for example, cannot be taken at face value, as though he'd have done that with or without Orr.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 10:58 PM
  #58
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,656
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DisgruntledGoat View Post
Hmm. I agree on Kurri being underrated defensively, but I don't like him in his own zone as much as I like Messier. Kurri was good defensively in a, 'get back and cover for Gretzky' kind of way.

Was he ever used in a shutdown role? Did he ever impact games in all three zones?

I do agree that he is the kind of player who would win Selkes in current voting climate, I still give Messier a rather large edge regardless.
Kurri was the guy getting all the Selke votes... and he got an awful lot of them.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 11:07 PM
  #59
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
To be fair, a defenseman is going to be on the ice a little bit more than a forward, even a forward with lots of ice time like Esposito. It stands to reason that they'll be on the ice for more goals for per game.
To be fair Orr was on the ice for 14 less goals for in 28 less games in 68 and 1 less goal in 69 in 7 less games. The missed games make up more than the difference IMO.

Throw in the fact that Orr was on for 15 SHGA in 68 (compared to Phil's 12) and 35-11 in 69, then some of that time difference can be explained with shorthanded time as well.

I rarely use the term absolutely but I'm 99.9% certain that Bobby was the straw (and by quite a bit) stirring that drink in Boston and Phil " the slot machine" was the main benefactor.

Quote:
And look at the team Esposito went to. He scored 42 goals on the 1979 Rangers in a year when he turns 37. I mean, really, we are supposed to drop the notion that the guy couldn't muster 50 goals regularly without Orr? Or even crack 60 a time or two? He's still an elite goal scorer without Orr because he played the slot better than any player in NHL history.
I think that you are really under rating the rangers offense in those years, they could put out a decent PP unit in Phil's years there. Not an all time great team but still this is the late 70's when it wasn't the most difficult league to score in historically.

He is perhaps between a very good to excellent goal scorer without Orr and quite probably, almost definitely not an elite one without the Orr affect IMO. There is simply too much evidence to suggest this.

Quote:
Ratelle was also barely better than him statistically after the trade all the while being on a far better team and not having the same wear and tear as Esposito over the years. When the 1976 Canada Cup came calling Esposito was on the team and not Ratelle as well.
Ratelle was also 2 years older than Phil.

You spoke earlier about Phils 42 goal season which came actually with an influx of talent that year in Hedberg and Nilsson.

Here is how Boston and the NYR stacked up offensively after the trade up to 80 (as both guys didn't play full seasons in 81)

76 Boston 313 (5th)
NYR 262 (11th)

77 Boston 312 (3)
NYR 272 (7)

78 Boston 333 (3)
NYR 279 (6)

79 Both tied for 4th with 316

80 Boston 310 (5)
NYR 308 (6)

(I really need to take the time to learn how to do tables here I think)

Quote:
And I'll say this, which Art Ross does Esposito lose without Orr? My chart above was pretty clear. I'm not sure he loses any of them.
This part is unclear, perhaps Phil matures a bit and might have improves from his from his age 24 season with the Black Hawks, but he did get traded to the Orr Bruins so it's really hard to tell.

From the stats before and after Bosotn (Orr)and the indication of the Orr affect it's also quite likely that he never reaches those heights and wins zero Art Ross trophies as well.

He might win 1 , if everything goes perfect in an Orr less career but it's more likely that he wins zero rather than 2 Art Ross trophies IMO.

I will say this though, we can never measure exactly how one player affects another one but it's much more clear in my mind that Phil gets better because of Orr than say the relationship between Bossy and Trotts for example or Wayne and Juri.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 11:19 PM
  #60
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BM67 View Post
In only 3 full seasons. Messier didn't make the top 10 for the 1st time until his 4th full NHL season, so that's not too bad.
Okay but reaching the top 10 in a 6 team league is easier than in a 21 team league too.

Let's compare how Phil and Mark do at the same age to be fair

Phil 22 is 9th in scoring in a 6 team league so in the middle of the 2nd tier (7-12)
23 is 17th in scoring so in the 3rd tier (13-18)
24 is 7th in scoring so the 1st guy in the 2nd tier

Mark 22 is 29th in scoring in a 21 team league so near middle of 2nd tier (22-42)
23 is 7th in scoring
24 is 12th in scoring

Quote:
He led the NHL in goals, assists and points before he scored 50 goals in a season. Again, not too bad.
No not too bad but still largely Orr driven is the gap between his increase from Chicago to Boston (see the TGF stats for both guys in post 40).

Quote:
A guy that made the top 10 in points in 2 of 3 seasons in Chicago, then finished 1st or 2nd in points 8 straight seasons, couldn't crack the top 10 without Orr?
Once again he reaches top 10 in a 6 team league.

Those 8 seasons are all with Orr.

I might have overstated that he doesn't make the top 10 automatically but it's not a given and certainly a far cry from being 1st or 2nd for 8 straight seasons.


Last edited by Hardyvan123: 11-22-2012 at 11:31 PM.
Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 11:27 PM
  #61
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,164
vCash: 500
Has anyone done an analysis on Esposito's scoring numbers in games with and without Orr? The HSP should have all the data. I wouldn't mind doing the work myself, but it seems like such an obvious project to do I want to make sure someone else hasn't done it already so I don't waste my time.


EDIT: Also, is there a site that allows you to easily view a players stats between specific dates within a season?

Hawkey Town 18 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 11:35 PM
  #62
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,656
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkey Town 18 View Post
Has anyone done an analysis on Esposito's scoring numbers in games with and without Orr? The HSP should have all the data. I wouldn't mind doing the work myself, but it seems like such an obvious project to do I want to make sure someone else hasn't done it already so I don't waste my time.


EDIT: Also, is there a site that allows you to easily view a players stats between specific dates within a season?
it would be interesting to look at ES scoring in games that they each played, and see what percentage of Esposito's points were scored with/without Orr, and vice versa.

I'll tell ya one thing though, the R-on and R-off numbers paint a very clear picture.

Bruins with Orr and Espo on the ice: Unstoppable.
Bruins with just Orr on the ice: Awesome.
Bruins with just Espo on the ice: OK.
Bruins with neither on the ice: an average team.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 11:40 PM
  #63
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
Yeah, that one season where he was at superstar level before Orr really took off was a fluke, and then the ones after where he went even higher were just a product of Orr.

That sounds a lot more likely than Espo was becoming great as Orr was hitting his stride and then Espo and Orr together were even better and smashed their respective records for forwards and defensemen.

I know which one seems more reasonable to me.
Read my posts 40 and 59 in this thread about the TGF for Orr and Phil in 68 and 69 and the more probable conclusion is presented there.

Quote:
I do think Boston underachieved in the playoffs but Espo still has a pretty darn good playoff resume.

Messier's is also very good and he is certainly much more versatile.

I haven't voted yet because I really can't decide. If I was building most styles of teams I would choose Messier easily but picking which players was just plain better is really hard.
Take a closer look at both guys playoff resumes, it's not even close in terms of results versus expectations in individual terms.

Mark is a lock top 10 all time playoff performer and Phil is.... maybe top 50?

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 11:44 PM
  #64
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,164
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
it would be interesting to look at ES scoring in games that they each played, and see what percentage of Esposito's points were scored with/without Orr, and vice versa.

I'll tell ya one thing though, the R-on and R-off numbers paint a very clear picture.

Bruins with Orr and Espo on the ice: Unstoppable.
Bruins with just Orr on the ice: Awesome.
Bruins with just Espo on the ice: OK.
Bruins with neither on the ice: an average team.
Yours is a good idea, and also worth doing, but when I said without Orr, I meant in games that he did not play because he was injured. This would completely eliminate Orr's puck possession contribution to scoring. Has anyone ever done that?

Hawkey Town 18 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 11:46 PM
  #65
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,656
vCash: 500
From 1968-1975:

Orr had an approximate R-on of 2.19 and an R-Off of 1.10.

Esposito was 1.64 and 1.41.

Espo's R-off is so much higher because they obviously weren't on the ice 100% of the time, and the team did much better when Orr was on the ice without Espo, than the other way around.

Using these figures and what we know of their icetime, we should be able to get approximate figures for the R-OE, R-O, R-E, and R-neither.

My guesses for these figures is 2.25, 2.00, 1.25, and 1.00. But I think this can be calculated more precisely using a spreadsheet and trial and error.

Over this time Orr played an estimated 17.46 ES minutes per game and Orr 22.71. Knowing this, and knowing their respective R-on and R-offs, we should be able to figure out their approximate TOI with and without eachother, and if we can do that, then we can calulate their R-OE, R-O, R-E, and R-neither.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2012, 12:28 AM
  #66
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,457
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
He was also in his peak years in Boston. Playing with Orr would make anyone better, not just Esposito. And let's not ignore just how much better Orr was playing with Esposito as well. We tend to gloss over that part, why can't do Hall of Fame players be able to play off each other and make each other better (Bossy, Trottier)?
How can we gloss over the fact that his adjusted PPG was never above 0.95 in 8+ full season with Chi/NYR, and never below 1.24 in Boston? The avg. of his 8 seasonal PPGs in Boston are over 80% higher than the avg. of his seasonal PPGs in Chi/NY!

Of course great players make each other better, but generally the lesser ES player needs the better player a lot more than vice versa. Orr never really played a significant sample w/o Espo (although his PPG in '67 was roughly the same as in his first year w/ Espo in '68), but Espo has samples before and after Boston that suggest his playing with Orr was a huge advantage. During their time together in Boston, Orr was always creating a large ES advantage, while Espo was usually far behind Orr in that regard (even in '69, he had a worse on/off ratio than Orr).

In Chicago:

Espo '65-67 (ages 22-25): 208 gm, 71 G, 169 Pts
Wharram '64-68 (ages 30-34): 351 gm, 147 G, 292 Pts
Mohns '66-68 (ages 31-34): 196 gm, 71 G, 162 Pts

Junior stats aren't the most reliable, but Espo doesn't compare favorably (despite being older) to some of his contemporaries in that regard either:

Espo
1962 (age 19) OHA-Jr. 49 gm, 32 G, 71 Pts

Mikita
1958 (age 17) OHA-Jr. 52 gm, 31 G, 78 Pts
1959 (age 18) OHA-Jr. 45 gm, 38 G, 97 Pts

Ratelle
1960 (age 19) OHA-Jr. 48 gm, 38 G, 96 Pts

Orr
1964 (age 15) OHA-Jr. 56 gm, 29 G, 72 Pts
1965 (age 16) OHA-Jr. 56 gm, 34 G, 93 Pts
1966 (age 17) OHA-Jr. 47 gm, 38 G, 94 Pts

So we have his actual record-breaking seasons during a rather late prime while playing with Orr on an offensive powerhouse in a weak/diluted league with a large disparity between the better O6 teams and the expansion teams... and his play in a small sample of games for a generally superior Canadian squad.

OTOH we have:
- his junior stats when he was not as productive as Mikita, Ratelle, or Orr (who were the same age or younger)
- his time in Chicago, in his early-mid 20s, when he really wasn't more productive than forwards like Mohns & Wharram, who were in their early 30s
- and his time with the Rangers when he immediately went from ~1.5 PPG or more to ~1.0 PPG.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Like I said, I'll give Orr #1 status in 1972. I'd put Esposito over Hull in 1972 but even if some don't who else is near the player that Esposito is in 1972 other than those two?
Ratelle seems at least close that season.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Orr hadn't quite reached the crazy level he would reach by 1969 so this was Espo's Bruins team. Same for 1968. A guy that finished 2nd in scoring behind Mikita should give all of his credit to a sophomore defenseman who missed half the season? I don't think so. There is too much evidence that points to Esposito being an elite individual talent on his own.
He was an elite talent, the question is just how elite?

His ES data suggests his peak was really more from '69-72, when Orr still clearly created more ES advantage than him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Let's also look at the evidence here. Esposito won 5 Art Rosses. They look like this:

1969 - Esposito 126, Hull 107, Howe 103
1971 - Esposito 152, Orr 139, Bucyk 116
1972 - Esposito 133, Orr 117, Ratelle 109
1973 - Esposito 130, Clarke 104, Orr 101
1974 - Esposito 145, Orr 122, Hodge 105

From 1971 to 1974 it is true that Orr was godly at that time but not so in 1969. That being said, take Orr out of the NHL. I still think Esposito wins 5 Art Rosses and as strange as it may sound, he may even win a couple by even bigger degrees (1971, 1974) without Orr. I don't know how that can't answer anyone's question.
Orr always created more advantage at ES than Espo, even in '68 & '69. Even to maintain the same advantage as one has playing with a player at/near the top of the league in points would be amazing, but to increase the advantage w/o that player suggest that Orr was not reliant on Espo and/or that Espo was a real defensive liability.

As far as the Rosses, I don't think he wins close to 5 w/o Orr, although it's difficult to say. Espo had an immediate jump of ~40% in his adjusted PPG from Chi to Bos, and an immediate drop of ~30% in adjusted PPG from Bos to NYR. That suggests a drop of ~30% drop w/o Orr, but let's use a range of 25-30% and see where he would have finished (excluding all other Bruins):

'69- 4th
'70- at best 4th, at worst outside top 10
'71- 1st
'72- at best 3rd, at worst 5th-6th
'73- at best 3rd, at worst 8th
'74- 1st
'75- at best 8th-9th, at worst outside top 10

So that gives Espo two Rosses, even though (outside he & Orr) the competition is unusually weak during that period. Remember, Espo wasn't competing against Europeans. Realize that Messier was not considered an offensive wizard, but still finished 3rd (to Gretzky & his European linemate Kurri) and 2nd (to Gretzky), although Espo would still have more top 5 and top 10 finishes. I think Espo's offensive peak/prime should be compared more to the group of players who would have stood a good chance to win a couple Rosses if not for superior competition: Dionne, Trottier, Bossy, Stastny, Yzerman, Sakic, Lindros, Selanne, Forsberg, Thornton, Ovechkin, Crosby, and Malkin (who actually has done it).


Last edited by Czech Your Math: 11-23-2012 at 12:39 AM.
Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2012, 12:46 AM
  #67
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,909
vCash: 500
I have already stated that I have it Messier based on career value but Espo was an elite player and while Orr definitely helped his point totals, he did do a lot on his own too.
When you look over the R-on/R-off numbers for those Boston teams, you discover pretty quickly that Espo was one of the few players that still maintained an R-on number higher than his R-off.

Yes, Orr was so dominant that just about every player on those teams actually had a lower R-on than R-off.
Orr was Ridiculous with a capital R.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2012, 12:56 AM
  #68
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,194
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
I have already stated that I have it Messier based on career value but Espo was an elite player and while Orr definitely helped his point totals, he did do a lot on his own too.
When you look over the R-on/R-off numbers for those Boston teams, you discover pretty quickly that Espo was one of the few players that still maintained an R-on number higher than his R-off.

Yes, Orr was so dominant that just about every player on those teams actually had a lower R-on than R-off.
Orr was Ridiculous with a capital R.
Another factor is that Esposito actually had really good off-ice comparables.

Cashman - Esposito - Hodge
Bucyk - Stanfield - McKenzie
Marcotte - Sanderson - Westfall

Bucyk is in the HHOF, Hodge and McKenzie were all-stars, the third line was considered the best checking line in hockey. Not to go all All-Time Draft, but every one of those 9 forwards regularly plays in the starting lineup of All-Time Draft teams.

Compare to defense - after Orr, the defense of the Bruins really wasn't that great.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2012, 01:55 AM
  #69
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,656
vCash: 500
I made a spreadsheet that some of the math guys and curious people can play with.

you fill in the yellow boxes with your best guesses and watch what the orange boxes spit out.

It starts with some basic assumptions:

- that their ES ice time as calculated is reasonably accurate
- that their respective R-on and R-offs are 100% correct
- that the team played 46 ES minutes per game
- that the team's total R-on is 1.63 (calculated using Orr's R-on and R-off and his icetime)

from there, you need to make some logical assumptions:

- that Orr and Esposito were not playing together at all times; otherwise they would have the same TOI and R-on.
- That Orr, being the one with more ice time, definitely played at least 5.25 minutes a game without Esposito, and that Esposito likely played at least a few shifts without Orr; whatever time he did represents that much more time that Orr played by himself
- since the highest ratio is Orr's R-on and the lowest is his R-off, that Esposito got better when on the ice with Orr
- That Orr's R-on of 2.19 is based on a higher number achiever when he was on the ice with Espo, and a lower one achieved on the ice by himself, that when weighted, averages to 2.19.
- That Espo's R-on of 1.64 behaves the exact same way.

We don't know enough of the numbers to truly solve for the variables. We have to plug in some numbers with what looks logical to us, in order for the formulas to give us something.

For example, if I say Espo played 3 minutes a game without Orr, this means Orr played 8.25 per game without Espo. I know that Orr's R-on was something above 2.19 with Espo, and something below that without him. So I speculate that it was just 2.00 by himself. I also know that Espo's R-on had to be something below 1.64 without Orr since it was 2.19 at the absolute minimum when he was on the ice with Orr (and that's if he did not help Orr at all). So I speculate it was 1.40.

The two columns in orange then speculate that the team had a ratio of 2.30 with both on the ice, and 1.04 with neither.

the math checks out. ((R-Orr*TOI-Orr) + (R-Espo*TOI-Espo) + (R-both*TOI-both) - (R-neither*TOI-neither))/46 = 1.63, which is the total GF:GA ratio the team had.

it's just a question of what goes in those yellow boxes.

the interesting thing is that you soon learn that you have some constraints to work within.

For example, if Espo had a ratio of 1.64, and was always on the ice with Orr, then Orr's ratio with Esposito would be 1.64 too, and to reach a total ratio of 2.19, he'd have to play at an astronomical level of 4.40 in his other 5.25 minutes without Espo on the ice. That is obviously not plausible. So we know Esposito played a good amount of time without Orr.

and I'm just kinda typing as I "trial and error" my way through this sheet, but I just realized that it will spit out whatever results the formula generates, BUT, if you "check the work" and see what Esposito's R-on is based on the results, it is way off.

For example, if Espo played 3 minutes without Orr, and the other 14.46 with Orr, and they were 2.30 together and he was 1.40 by himself, once weighted out, that says his ratio would be 2.14. But we know it wasn't. We know it was 1.64.

So in one way or another, ((R-Espo*TOI-Espo)+(R-both*TOI-both))/17.46 has to equal 1.64. I've put this calculation in J3.

but if I assume Orr was 2.0 on his own, and Espo played 3 minutes without Orr, then there is no ratio low enough for Espo to have played at, to "drag down" his R-on to just 1.64.

In fact, from playing with this sheet, it seems the only way I can make Espo's R-on come out nice, is to assume Orr was actually better without Espo, and give him a 2.6 on his own, and then Espo would have been a 1.1 on his own, and they's be 2.3 together.

I'm leaving this alone now. Here's the spreadsheet.

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/28241305/orrespo.xls

Stats guys, go ahead and play with it. My head hurts. Please show me what I'm missing.

I think somewhere within this framework lies the key to the "true" answer; I just need someone to take it from here.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2012, 01:57 AM
  #70
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,656
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
The total estimates I have for '68-75 are as follows:

Orr On/Off = 2.18/1.10
Espo On/Off = 1.61/1.40

Assuming there is no correlation between Orr being on/off the ice and Espo being on/off the ice, I came up with at least this one set of estimates:

Orr + Espo = 1.96
Orr, no Espo = 2.35
Espo, no Orr = 1.37
no Orr, no Espo = 0.94


thanks. looks like you ended up coming to the same conclusion I banged my head against the desk for hours to come to.

question: after playing with the spreadsheet, do you see any way in which Espo could have improved Orr's numbers? I had to give up that way of thinking before I could make the numbers come out properly.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2012, 02:12 AM
  #71
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,457
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post


thanks. looks like you ended up coming to the same conclusion I banged my head against the desk for hours to come to.

question: after playing with the spreadsheet, do you see any way in which Espo could have improved Orr's numbers? I had to give up that way of thinking before I could make the numbers come out properly.
Actually, I think there are multiple solutions... but that we need to find solutions where Orr w/ Espo > Orr w/o Espo. So my first solution seems invalid based on that constraint.

I may have found a more singular solution based on these additional constraints:

Orr on/off = 2.19/1.10 = 1.977 = (O+E)/(E-O)
Espo on/off = 1.64/1.41 = 1.149 = (O+E)/(O-E)

About as close as I can get (values were 1.972 and 1.149... as we want closest match for Espo):

E+O 2.36
O-E 2.06
E-O 1.20
-(E,O) 1.04

The question is, how accurate is the assumption that Orr & Espo's ES ice time was not correlated (IOW did they play together more at ES than would be expected by chance)?


Last edited by Czech Your Math: 11-23-2012 at 03:15 AM.
Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2012, 03:11 AM
  #72
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,457
vCash: 50
If we take Orr "out of the equation" and use 1.20 & 1.04 from '68 to '75 for Espo's on & off ratios (keeping ESGA constant for both Espo and Boston), then his "career" ('68-81... no data before '68) ESGF/GF ratio would be ~1.00-1.05, about matching his "career" on/off ratio. This would put him toward the bottom of the range of elite forwards for which I've calculated such numbers (Ovepass has better numbers adjusted for era) along with players like these:

Perreault... lower career number, but had tough comparisons
Messier... had more defensive role and some very difficult comparisons w/ Gretzky
Francis... better career number, had more of a defensive role, but helped by Jagr years and generally easier comparisons
Yzerman... "drove the bus" as an elite point producer, had more defensive role in later years, and had tough comparisons
Brett Hull... pretty similar numbers w/ tough comparisons
Bure... better peak and career numbers, but slightly easier comparisons

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2012, 03:11 AM
  #73
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,909
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
Actually, I think there are multiple solutions... but that we need to find solutions where Orr w/ Espo > Orr w/ Espo. So my first solution seems invalid based on that constraint.

I may have found a more singular solution based on these additional constraints:

Orr on/off = 2.19/1.10 = 1.977 = (O+E)/(E-O)
Espo on/off = 1.64/1.41 = 1.149 = (O+E)/(O-E)

About as close as I can get (values were 1.972 and 1.149... as we want closest match for Espo):

E+O 2.36
O-E 2.06
E-O 1.20
-(E,O) 1.04

The question is, how accurate is the assumption that Orr & Espo's ES ice time was not correlated (IOW did they play together more at ES than would be expected by chance)?
Most likely it's not.
Try plugging in another player from that team, that has a lower R-on than R-off and I think the numbers are going to all whacky in a hurry.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2012, 04:46 AM
  #74
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,457
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Most likely it's not.
Try plugging in another player from that team, that has a lower R-on than R-off and I think the numbers are going to all whacky in a hurry.
Actually, that appears to be a confirmed solution, with almost no change even if Orr and Espo played together almost exclusively at ES:

Orr & Espo = 2.353-2.371
Orr, no Espo = 2.047-2.063
Espo, no Orr = 1.190-1.199
no Orr, no Espo = 1.036-1.044

This is based on these additional paramters:

(O&E)/(O-E) = (E-O)/(-O-E) = 1.61/1.40
(O&E)/(E-O) = (O-E)/(-O-E) = 2.18/1.10


Last edited by Czech Your Math: 11-23-2012 at 01:36 PM. Reason: adjusted ranges for both near-total extremes
Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2012, 04:51 AM
  #75
nik jr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Congo-Kinshasa
Posts: 10,526
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DisgruntledGoat View Post
Pre-90s, the Selke was the domain of actual defensive forwards; guys who played on the third-line and checked for a living (with the deserved exception of Clarke).

It wasn't until the Fedorov win in 1994 that it became the, 'give-it-to-whoever-needs-a-trophy' bastardization it currently is.

Had voting tendencies been what they were during Messier's peak, I think he wins a couple.

In the 1987 Canada Cup, Keenan had as much talent at his disposal as any coach ever (including future Selke winner Gilmour, noted shutdown artist Sutter, and two-way star Hawerchuk), and he went with Messier wire-to-wire against the best line in the world at the time.
high scoring players were selke finalists before '94. gilmour won in '93, with 127p. gilmour also got votes in late '80s and early '90s, as did other 2 way players like larmer or francis. troy murray coincidentally scored 99p, just outside the top 10 in scoring, when he won his selke in '86.

'83: clarke, kurri, gould, lysiak
'84: jarvis, trottier, kurri, middleton
'85: ramsay, jarvis, tonelli, kurri ----- (tonelli scored 100p in '85)


you seem to be focusing on 3 or 4 seasons ('93-'96), when the selke winner scored at least 1.34p per game. in late '90s and prior to the lockout, selke almost always was awarded to a primarily defensive player.

'97: peca
'98: lehtinen
'99: lehtinen
'00: yzerman
'01: madden
'02: peca
'03: lehtinen
'04: draper

selke voting has only been awarded to 2 way players since the lockout. i think several were wrongly awarded, but teams are now regularly using 1st or 2nd lines to check 1st lines. all selke winners since the lockout are used to check scoring lines.


i think it would be unlikely that messier would win a selke. i agree with rabbins that messier was not a great defensive player and that his defensive play is overrated.

nik jr is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:16 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.