HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
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
12-12-2012, 06:08 PM
  #226
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,952
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
Old
12-13-2012, 01:01 AM
  #227
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,469
vCash: 500
[QUOTE]
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Evidence has been provided that shows that Esposito’s production would decline by a minimum of 20%, but you don’t believe that it’s evidence. The scoring finishes I provided were meant to be rough guesses and of course didn’t 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, I’m sure Espo outscores them all by the same relative degree.

To be as optimistic for Espo as intellectually possible, you’d 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. It’s difficult to imagine him not winning in 1971 and 1974.

To be as hard on him as possible, you would go from pretending Orr didn’t exist, and instead assume he did and played for a different strong team like the Rangers, Hawks, Flyers or Habs. Then bump up their forwards’ 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 – it’s 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.

Quantity matters, as I’m sure you’ll 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
I've said it before, you are overanalyzing things way too much. Look at 1969. On the surface as it is he had 126 points. Hull is 2nd at 107. Does Esposito lose 19 points without Orr despite the fact that Orr hadn't hit his superhuman seasons yet? Hard to say, but showing what he did without Orr in that very season projects him to have 115 points. Take that or leave it.

Impossible for him to lose in 1971 and 1974 as well. Way too far of a gap with the next best players. He wins those Art Rosses and he wins them significantly - again - without Orr.

1972 he had 133 points while the next best non-Bruin was Ratelle at 109. Does Esposito lose 24 points without Orr? Orr played a full season so we don't know for sure at all. It's hard to imagine Esposito taking that big of a drop. Two things, no one would have put Ratelle as the better player at that either, despite his spike season. Secondly, that autumn was the Canada/Russia series. Ratelle had 4 points in 6 games while Esposito had 13 points in 8 games. Over the course of a full season Esposito has 126 points against the Russians who were a great team. He is doing this against a very good team and doesn't have the benefit of playing the California Seals at this time either. It is a small sample size, but from a projection standpoint Esposito keeps up his normal production in international play that he did in the NHL, and this is without Orr and with all the pressure being on him to lead. Compare it to Ratelle and there is no contest.

1973 had Orr miss some time. Esposito had 130 points compared to second place Clarke's 104. Orr missed 15 games. In those 15 games Esposito had 24 points. It projects to 125 points for a season. He was still the prominent forward in the NHL without Orr, and if there is a season that proves it, it would be this one. He wouldn't have lost 26 points in the scoring race to lose to Clarke.

In total he wins in 1971, 1973 and 1974 clearly. Both 1971 and 1974 he still stomps the competition. 1973 he is a little closer but could still have won the scoring title by as much as 20 points. 1972 it would be hard to imagine him giving up 24 points in order for Ratelle to win it. 1969 is more or less like 1972 but perhaps a little closer, and it is Bobby Hull who is right there. No doubt he wins at least 3 of these. Almost certainly 1972 as well which would still give him 4 in a row. Maybe he loses it in 1969. Maybe. I might just give you that one year, or not.

Simple analysis right there and probably more accurate than anything else out there because it doesn't beat the thing to death. The guy could score at will, it was just that simple.


Quote:
The numbers clearly demonstrate that it’s 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. That’s a team that has to get lucky to win it. I know you don’t believe in those numbers, but then, why would you?
Because they are an over analysis of things. We don't know a number of factors here such as who would replace each star and how they would fare. We don't know how each star would have done without the other either, so those numbers are more or less just wishful thinking and at best a hypothetical situation. We're asking how a team would do if they take one of their top two players off. I still think there are Cups to be won either way. Orr was just, Orr, enough said. Esposito we saw the way he led Canada in 1972, the Rangers in 1979 and how Boston fared when he was injured in the 1973 postseason. The guy led the NHL in playoff points three times. This isn't exactly someone we can replace by hoping Wayne Cashman finds his offensive groove.

Find other teams like Boston and remove one of their top 2 players. Do they win? This is nothing new here. All teams would have a bigger disadvantage. Philly without either one of Clarke or Parent for instance.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2012, 06:02 AM
  #228
FakeKidPoker*
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,679
vCash: 500
Never saw Espo play but Messier.

Who has to be the most underrated player on HFboards

FakeKidPoker* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2012, 06:38 AM
  #229
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,576
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FakeKidPoker View Post
Never saw Espo play but Messier.

Who has to be the most underrated player on HFboards
Messier is one of the most overrated players in hockey... and I don't see much on HF about him in general.

So I would have to disagree.

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2012, 11:46 AM
  #230
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,952
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
I've said it before, you are overanalyzing things way too much.
Says the guy who just posted 6 paragraphs on it?

"it's getting too numbery in here! Quick, discount all statistical work done in the thread as overanalyzing!!!"

Quote:
Look at 1969. On the surface as it is he had 126 points. Hull is 2nd at 107. Does Esposito lose 19 points without Orr despite the fact that Orr hadn't hit his superhuman seasons yet? Hard to say, but showing what he did without Orr in that very season projects him to have 115 points. Take that or leave it.
Thanks, but I’ll leave it. I prefer a bigger sample size, for obvious reasons…

Quote:
Because they are an over analysis of things. We don't know a number of factors here such as who would replace each star and how they would fare. We don't know how each star would have done without the other either, so those numbers are more or less just wishful thinking and at best a hypothetical situation. We're asking how a team would do if they take one of their top two players off. I still think there are Cups to be won either way. Orr was just, Orr, enough said. Esposito we saw the way he led Canada in 1972, the Rangers in 1979 and how Boston fared when he was injured in the 1973 postseason. The guy led the NHL in playoff points three times. This isn't exactly someone we can replace by hoping Wayne Cashman finds his offensive groove.

Find other teams like Boston and remove one of their top 2 players. Do they win? This is nothing new here. All teams would have a bigger disadvantage. Philly without either one of Clarke or Parent for instance.
Considering who would replace either player is too much of a variable that is impossible to account for. Removing them entirely can be done reasonably accurately because we now know how good the Bruins were on the ice with only Orr and with only Esposito. The results aren’t pretty for Espo so of course you’ll say the above.

Including Espo as “one of their top 2 players” is a disservice to Orr. The short answer to your question is, yes, if you remove “one of their top 2 players” they can still win quite easily, if the one you remove is the 2nd best, and he’s that far behind the best as an overall player.


Last edited by seventieslord: 12-13-2012 at 05:26 PM.
seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2012, 05:53 PM
  #231
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,469
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Says the guy who just posted 6 paragraphs on it?

"it's getting too numbery in here! Quick, discount all statistical work done in the thread as overanalyzing!!!"
I still simplified the stats though. It isn't hard to see the guy is still a perennial Art Ross winner without #4.

Quote:
Considering who would replace either player is too much of a variable that is impossible to account for. Removing them entirely can be done reasonably accurately because we now know how good the Bruins were on the ice with only Orr and with only Esposito. The results arenít pretty for Espo so of course youíll say the above.

Including Espo as ďone of their top 2 playersĒ is a disservice to Orr. The short answer to your question is, yes, if you remove ďone of their top 2 playersĒ they can still win quite easily, if the one you remove is the 2nd best, and heís that far behind the best as an overall player.
Alright but seriously, the guy had 27 points in three rounds in 1970. That's staggering, especially at that time. That is nearly impossible to replace. Whether they still win a Cup or not isn't something I can predict but we would have to ask ourselves just how a player like Bucyk would react to being the best Bruin forward and face some tougher assignments. Hard to imagine those points being accounted for.

I think you seem to be making up your mind on things. It isn't a disservice to Orr to call Esposito the 2nd best Bruin. No one argues Orr was better. However, your posts are growing increasingly dismissive regarding the impact Esposito had on the Bruins. To me it isn't any coincidence either that the team got good once he arrived. Coupled with Orr's emergence we ended up seeing what we saw. I've never heard anyone more or less dismiss Esposito to the extent you have on these boards. Any historian worth their salt would look at those Bruins championships and realize Orr is #1 followed by another dominating prescence. Do you realize how many other players in NHL history would be second fiddle to Orr? Probably all but two or three.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2012, 06:13 PM
  #232
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,952
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
I still simplified the stats though. It isn't hard to see the guy is still a perennial Art Ross winner without #4.



Alright but seriously, the guy had 27 points in three rounds in 1970. That's staggering, especially at that time. That is nearly impossible to replace. Whether they still win a Cup or not isn't something I can predict but we would have to ask ourselves just how a player like Bucyk would react to being the best Bruin forward and face some tougher assignments. Hard to imagine those points being accounted for.

I think you seem to be making up your mind on things. It isn't a disservice to Orr to call Esposito the 2nd best Bruin. No one argues Orr was better. However, your posts are growing increasingly dismissive regarding the impact Esposito had on the Bruins. To me it isn't any coincidence either that the team got good once he arrived. Coupled with Orr's emergence we ended up seeing what we saw. I've never heard anyone more or less dismiss Esposito to the extent you have on these boards. Any historian worth their salt would look at those Bruins championships and realize Orr is #1 followed by another dominating prescence. Do you realize how many other players in NHL history would be second fiddle to Orr? Probably all but two or three.
No doubt Bucyk scored more points thanks to Orr as well. I touched on that already. But the thing about Orr is, as the numbers clearly state, he was generating tons of offense regardless of who was on the ice with him. So Itís not a question of who fills in for Phil or gets harder matchups. Most of those goals, they still happen, and of course, all Orrís points arenít unassisted goals, so there are a couple more points awarded on most of them. Those points donít all go missing; most of them just get scored by some other players.

You also havenít explained why Esposito was a drastically different player when on the ice by himself.

Anyway, youíre the hockey authority, I think Iíll defer to you on this one. Good day.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2012, 03:27 AM
  #233
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,469
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
No doubt Bucyk scored more points thanks to Orr as well. I touched on that already. But the thing about Orr is, as the numbers clearly state, he was generating tons of offense regardless of who was on the ice with him. So Itís not a question of who fills in for Phil or gets harder matchups. Most of those goals, they still happen, and of course, all Orrís points arenít unassisted goals, so there are a couple more points awarded on most of them. Those points donít all go missing; most of them just get scored by some other players.

You also havenít explained why Esposito was a drastically different player when on the ice by himself.

Anyway, youíre the hockey authority, I think Iíll defer to you on this one. Good day.
Orr would make anyone better on the ice. In fact, Orr would make the whole situation better. I thought we went over this before and you seem to be missing out on something, I actually agree with you on this one. In fact, no one should disagree. Orr was simply who he was and he would elevate any player while on the ice with them.

But I guess I'll ask you directly then. How do you explain these mere "coincidences" on things like Esposito showing up in 1967-'68 and the Bruins all of the sudden becoming a dominant force. It started in 1967-'68 you know. Bucyk had his first post season all-star selection that year, etc. To say that Orr was a factor is obvious, but to say Esposito wasn't a huge factor as well is shortchanging the guy. Why do you have a hard time saying "Yes, Orr was the engine, but Esposito was also an all-time great who helped put them over the top." I really don't see a lot of difference between Orr and Esposito and Howe and Lindsay. Lots of comparables there. Each team had their two superstars and one was better than the other, but the second one was still a major factor.

Also, I already mentioned, Esposito did just fine without Orr even playing. He still racked up his point totals. You can see this on a season to season basis. Even in 1975-'76 he had 16 points in 12 games before leaving the Bruins. This is definitely a different Esposito from 1971, yet there he was still projecting a 100 point year on the bruins sans Orr.

I've noticed one thing with you and that is that you rely solely on stats when you make a decision. Stats are a tool you use, they don't explain everything. It would be hard to watch Esposito play and assume he is nothing more than a 30-40 goal man without Orr. Just saying.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2012, 04:33 AM
  #234
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,699
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
But I guess I'll ask you directly then. How do you explain these mere "coincidences"
That's a really interesting question, Phil, for more reasons than one. It doesn't seem like Bucyk's production jumped until '71, which coincides with what was by far Orr's best ES data.

I'd put Espo ~40th-50th before I'd put him in the top 10... or even top 20. I could see putting him somewhere between 20 & 50... so maybe 30-40 is a likely range. Yes, he was an all-time great, but there's just too many questions, and I don't see the answers as mostly favoring Espo.


Last edited by Czech Your Math: 12-14-2012 at 05:28 AM.
Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2012, 08:27 AM
  #235
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,970
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Orr would make anyone better on the ice. In fact, Orr would make the whole situation better. I thought we went over this before and you seem to be missing out on something, I actually agree with you on this one. In fact, no one should disagree. Orr was simply who he was and he would elevate any player while on the ice with them.

But I guess I'll ask you directly then. How do you explain these mere "coincidences" on things like Esposito showing up in 1967-'68 and the Bruins all of the sudden becoming a dominant force. It started in 1967-'68 you know. Bucyk had his first post season all-star selection that year, etc. To say that Orr was a factor is obvious, but to say Esposito wasn't a huge factor as well is shortchanging the guy. Why do you have a hard time saying "Yes, Orr was the engine, but Esposito was also an all-time great who helped put them over the top." I really don't see a lot of difference between Orr and Esposito and Howe and Lindsay. Lots of comparables there. Each team had their two superstars and one was better than the other, but the second one was still a major factor.

Also, I already mentioned, Esposito did just fine without Orr even playing. He still racked up his point totals. You can see this on a season to season basis. Even in 1975-'76 he had 16 points in 12 games before leaving the Bruins. This is definitely a different Esposito from 1971, yet there he was still projecting a 100 point year on the bruins sans Orr.

I've noticed one thing with you and that is that you rely solely on stats when you make a decision. Stats are a tool you use, they don't explain everything. It would be hard to watch Esposito play and assume he is nothing more than a 30-40 goal man without Orr. Just saying.
Excellent post and right on the money

Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2012, 09:12 AM
  #236
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,889
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeBlondeDemon10 View Post
Interesting that both these guys fed off of the greatness of the top 2 players in NHL history. And you could throw Hull (number 7? in the top 100) in there for the early part of Espo's career. Espo was definitely the more offensively gifted. He just had a knack for touching the puck at the right time. However, Messier became elite in my mind when he led the Rangers to a SC. For that he ekes by Espo. Which makes me wonder about Messier's ranking in the top 100. Is he too high (no. 12)? I think so.
How many cups did Esposito win without Orr? How many did Mess win without Gretzky?

patnyrnyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2012, 12:57 PM
  #237
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,952
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Orr would make anyone better on the ice. In fact, Orr would make the whole situation better. I thought we went over this before and you seem to be missing out on something, I actually agree with you on this one. In fact, no one should disagree. Orr was simply who he was and he would elevate any player while on the ice with them.
ok.

Quote:
But I guess I'll ask you directly then. How do you explain these mere "coincidences" on things like Esposito showing up in 1967-'68 and the Bruins all of the sudden becoming a dominant force. It started in 1967-'68 you know. Bucyk had his first post season all-star selection that year, etc. To say that Orr was a factor is obvious, but to say Esposito wasn't a huge factor as well is shortchanging the guy.
Orr developing from age 18-21 was obviously an incredibly huge factor.

Quote:
Why do you have a hard time saying "Yes, Orr was the engine, but Esposito was also an all-time great who helped put them over the top."
I don't.

Quote:
I really don't see a lot of difference between Orr and Esposito and Howe and Lindsay. Lots of comparables there. Each team had their two superstars and one was better than the other, but the second one was still a major factor.
So?

The secondary "major factor" can still be a very minor factor in comparison to an even bigger factor.

Quote:
Also, I already mentioned, Esposito did just fine without Orr even playing. He still racked up his point totals. You can see this on a season to season basis. Even in 1975-'76 he had 16 points in 12 games before leaving the Bruins. This is definitely a different Esposito from 1971, yet there he was still projecting a 100 point year on the bruins sans Orr.
He was projecting to be a 100 point player who still managed to post a negative +/-. There's "doing just fine" and then there's "compiling points while being poor defensively".

Quote:
I've noticed one thing with you and that is that you rely solely on stats when you make a decision. Stats are a tool you use, they don't explain everything. It would be hard to watch Esposito play and assume he is nothing more than a 30-40 goal man without Orr. Just saying.
Funny, someone who watched him regularly didn't seem to be so visually impressed (and neither am I from what I've seen), so apparently it is not that hard to say that.

Have you ever told anyone how old you actually are? You talk like you're 60 and were an adult who was able to watch hockey with a critical eye throughout Espo's prime but I highly doubt that.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2012, 01:55 PM
  #238
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,576
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
He was projecting to be a 100 point player who still managed to post a negative +/-. There's "doing just fine" and then there's "compiling points while being poor defensively".
Mark Messier
88-89, 72GP, 33-61-94, -5
92-93, 75GP, 25-66-91, -6

Hmm...

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2012, 02:10 PM
  #239
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,952
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
Mark Messier
88-89, 72GP, 33-61-94, -5
92-93, 75GP, 25-66-91, -6

Hmm...
Messier had very heavy defensive responsibilities. Did Esposito?

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2012, 02:30 PM
  #240
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,576
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Messier had very heavy defensive responsibilities. Did Esposito?
When he was playing on Edmonton's top line or New York's top line?

In Edmonton, Craig MacTavish was the main checking center for many years - including 1988-89. Very unheralded guy.

In New York in 1992-93, he had Darren Turcotte playing that role.

Neither of those teams stressed defense from scoring lines, and they were built in fact with the opposite in mind (NYR was "Edmonton East") so the idea that Messier had heavy defensive responsibilities is silly. Maybe in the late 90s in the DPE I could buy that argument. But not when New York was trying to re-build the Oilers to win a Cup.

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2012, 03:44 PM
  #241
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,952
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
When he was playing on Edmonton's top line or New York's top line?

In Edmonton, Craig MacTavish was the main checking center for many years - including 1988-89. Very unheralded guy.

In New York in 1992-93, he had Darren Turcotte playing that role.

Neither of those teams stressed defense from scoring lines, and they were built in fact with the opposite in mind (NYR was "Edmonton East") so the idea that Messier had heavy defensive responsibilities is silly. Maybe in the late 90s in the DPE I could buy that argument. But not when New York was trying to re-build the Oilers to win a Cup.
plenty of quotes from the 1988-1994 range talk about him as exellent defensively or even the best two-way player in the game. You don't get that reputation by not getting defensive matchups.

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...6&postcount=69

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2012, 06:00 PM
  #242
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,469
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
That's a really interesting question, Phil, for more reasons than one. It doesn't seem like Bucyk's production jumped until '71, which coincides with what was by far Orr's best ES data.

I'd put Espo ~40th-50th before I'd put him in the top 10... or even top 20. I could see putting him somewhere between 20 & 50... so maybe 30-40 is a likely range. Yes, he was an all-time great, but there's just too many questions, and I don't see the answers as mostly favoring Espo.
I don't put Esposito as a top 10 player either (you are talking about players and not centers I presume). I put him in that neat little crop of centers such as Mikita, Messier, Trottier, Clarke, Yzerman, Schmidt, Sakic, etc. He is middle of the pack with them in my opinion.

I don't know why Bucyk's numbers jumped so high starting in 1971. But everyone on the Bruins got a jump that they had never seen before. Hodge, Espo, Orr, Bucyk, etc. This was one of the most offensive teams ever assembled. Maybe the new expansion that year helped pad a few totals but I think they were all just coming together at that time. Bucyk did jump to a point a game guy again once Esposito arrived if that means anything. That 116 point year in 1971 was just his spike year I guess. But again I'll say just because I am making a case for Esposito it doesn't mean I don't realize the monumental impact that Orr made as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
The secondary "major factor" can still be a very minor factor in comparison to an even bigger factor.
Well, except it wasn't. You know enough about hockey history right? Well, when people talk about the Red Wings teams they mention Howe and Lindsay right? The #1 man was Howe, but then again that isn't exactly a knock on Lindsay. Or Gretzky and Messier or Gretzky and Kurri get lumped together with the Oilers. Gretzky was still #1 but are we trying to say the other Oiler superstars weren't integral as well? It is the same with Boston. Those Bruins team were all about Orr and Esposito. I think every historian will recognize this. Everyone who played around then thought so too. I mean we are talking about a guy who was very compatable with Orr in Hart voting. 1974 is an example. I think Orr could have won it too, but Esposito wasn't just a passenger. He led the NHL in points with 145 to Orr's 122 and in goals with 68. Here's the kicker, 50 of them were at even strength. Esposito's plus/minus was phenomenal that year at +51. All these things I am sure were taken into effect.

Esposito wins the Pearson award in 1971. Orr won the Hart. I mean, no doubt give the full advantage to Orr over those years and why shouldn't we, but even in the voting history it should show you that the NHL didn't agree with the assesment that you are giving Esposito, and they did this right after they witnessed that particular season too. So I think you need to give the guy a lot more credit, in my opinion.

Quote:
He was projecting to be a 100 point player who still managed to post a negative +/-. There's "doing just fine" and then there's "compiling points while being poor defensively".
To be fair, the man was -1 after 12 games in 1975-'76 on Boston. Maybe he's +10 for that matter, who knows, but it is very clear this was the beginning of Esposito's decline with or without Orr. Even in 5-on-5 play you could start seeing that a bit in 1974-'75. The man was starting to age like every other mortal before him. You can't put up gaudy numbers forever.


Quote:
Funny, someone who watched him regularly didn't seem to be so visually impressed (and neither am I from what I've seen), so apparently it is not that hard to say that.

Have you ever told anyone how old you actually are? You talk like you're 60 and were an adult who was able to watch hockey with a critical eye throughout Espo's prime but I highly doubt that.
Well I saw him and yes I use my eyes to my advantage as well. As far as being visually impressed he wasn't Guy Lafleur. Esposito wasn't without skill but he did things more subtle. So yeah, you aren't going to talk about him flying down the wing with his mane of hair but that's hardly the issue here. He was a dominant force on the ice and that was a given when you watched him. I remember the Espo/Orr combo vividly in the 1970s, no one who saw them wouldn't.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2012, 06:03 PM
  #243
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,952
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
I don't put Esposito as a top 10 player either (you are talking about players and not centers I presume). I put him in that neat little crop of centers such as Mikita, Messier, Trottier, Clarke, Yzerman, Schmidt, Sakic, etc. He is middle of the pack with them in my opinion.

I don't know why Bucyk's numbers jumped so high starting in 1971. But everyone on the Bruins got a jump that they had never seen before. Hodge, Espo, Orr, Bucyk, etc. This was one of the most offensive teams ever assembled. Maybe the new expansion that year helped pad a few totals but I think they were all just coming together at that time. Bucyk did jump to a point a game guy again once Esposito arrived if that means anything. That 116 point year in 1971 was just his spike year I guess. But again I'll say just because I am making a case for Esposito it doesn't mean I don't realize the monumental impact that Orr made as well.



Well, except it wasn't. You know enough about hockey history right? Well, when people talk about the Red Wings teams they mention Howe and Lindsay right? The #1 man was Howe, but then again that isn't exactly a knock on Lindsay. Or Gretzky and Messier or Gretzky and Kurri get lumped together with the Oilers. Gretzky was still #1 but are we trying to say the other Oiler superstars weren't integral as well? It is the same with Boston. Those Bruins team were all about Orr and Esposito. I think every historian will recognize this. Everyone who played around then thought so too. I mean we are talking about a guy who was very compatable with Orr in Hart voting. 1974 is an example. I think Orr could have won it too, but Esposito wasn't just a passenger. He led the NHL in points with 145 to Orr's 122 and in goals with 68. Here's the kicker, 50 of them were at even strength. Esposito's plus/minus was phenomenal that year at +51. All these things I am sure were taken into effect.

Esposito wins the Pearson award in 1971. Orr won the Hart. I mean, no doubt give the full advantage to Orr over those years and why shouldn't we, but even in the voting history it should show you that the NHL didn't agree with the assesment that you are giving Esposito, and they did this right after they witnessed that particular season too. So I think you need to give the guy a lot more credit, in my opinion.



To be fair, the man was -1 after 12 games in 1975-'76 on Boston. Maybe he's +10 for that matter, who knows, but it is very clear this was the beginning of Esposito's decline with or without Orr. Even in 5-on-5 play you could start seeing that a bit in 1974-'75. The man was starting to age like every other mortal before him. You can't put up gaudy numbers forever.




Well I saw him and yes I use my eyes to my advantage as well. As far as being visually impressed he wasn't Guy Lafleur. Esposito wasn't without skill but he did things more subtle. So yeah, you aren't going to talk about him flying down the wing with his mane of hair but that's hardly the issue here. He was a dominant force on the ice and that was a given when you watched him. I remember the Espo/Orr combo vividly in the 1970s, no one who saw them wouldn't.
sorry, I missed that, how old are you?

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2012, 06:14 PM
  #244
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,469
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
sorry, I missed that, how old are you?
Old enough to have seen them both play in the 1970s.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2012, 06:22 PM
  #245
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,952
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Old enough to have seen them both play in the 1970s.
all that says is you're at least 34. Why is it a secret? Doesn't it add credibility? You certainly like to use my youth against me whenever you get a chance...

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2012, 06:27 PM
  #246
habsfanatics
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 4,077
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
sorry, I missed that, how old are you?
Relevance?

habsfanatics is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2012, 06:29 PM
  #247
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 40,951
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsfanatics View Post
Relevance?
Well, if he was 5 years old when Esposito played with Orr, his statements that "I saw him play and you didn't" don't really mean very much.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2012, 07:43 PM
  #248
habsfanatics
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 4,077
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Well, if he was 5 years old when Esposito played with Orr, his statements that "I saw him play and you didn't" don't really mean very much.
Well, who cares? This is the history of hockey, we all rank players we haven't seen, but the way Phil supports his opinion of Espo, I find it kind of presumptuous and uncalled for to suggest he has been lying all this time. From his strong viewpoint, and his declaration that he has seem they both play extensively I find it a bit offensive to question if what he is saying is really true. We'll never know for sure, so why bring it up.

If Phil comes on here and says he's 87 years old, does that solve it? Or is he lying again? I don't blame him for not taking part in that meaningless dialogue. He can't win even if he is old enough. I haven't seen him post anything to suggest he has a history of of ************, until then, I'll take him at his word.

habsfanatics is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-15-2012, 09:10 AM
  #249
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,469
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
all that says is you're at least 34. Why is it a secret? Doesn't it add credibility? You certainly like to use my youth against me whenever you get a chance...
I was born in the 1950s. I am in my late 50s. And I don't hold your youth against you, I just notice you rely solely on stats in these types of debates and never use your past experiences. Nowadays we can even watch old videos and look up old newspaper clippings so there is hardly an excuse to not know about the past before we were born. This is something I just notice you don't do a lot on here. Stats are part of the battle but they aren't everything. And in this case Esposito's stats don't exactly work well in your favour of criticizing him. Your basis against Esposito has been pure speculation up to this point. If Tim Kerr, John Leclair, etc. racked up 50 goals religiously why is it hard for you to see a much superior player like Esposito be a 60 goal man even without Orr? He had 42 when he was 36 years old.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-15-2012, 09:13 AM
  #250
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,469
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsfanatics View Post
Well, who cares? This is the history of hockey, we all rank players we haven't seen, but the way Phil supports his opinion of Espo, I find it kind of presumptuous and uncalled for to suggest he has been lying all this time. From his strong viewpoint, and his declaration that he has seem they both play extensively I find it a bit offensive to question if what he is saying is really true. We'll never know for sure, so why bring it up.

If Phil comes on here and says he's 87 years old, does that solve it? Or is he lying again? I don't blame him for not taking part in that meaningless dialogue. He can't win even if he is old enough. I haven't seen him post anything to suggest he has a history of of ************, until then, I'll take him at his word.
Come on, I am not THAT old....... I didn't fight in World War 2. I basically have a memory from the 1960s onward. Can't remember the Rocket playing at all.

Big Phil 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 06:03 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.