Phil Esposito Without the Orr Factor

[BenchBrawl]

If Phil Esposito maintains the same stat line but we ignore that Bobby Orr was there to boost him (assume Orr is replaced by a good #1 defenseman but that Esposito is the best player in Boston), where does he ranks all-time in your opinion?

 

[Joedaman55]

If Phil Esposito maintains the same stat line but we ignore that Bobby Orr was there to boost him (assume Orr is replaced by a good #1 defenseman but that Esposito is the best player in Boston), where does he ranks all-time in your opinion?

I thought there was an HF post that measured the factor of playing with better players is not conclusive whether it makes your stat line better or worse for all time great players. I think you have players like Kevin Stevens, etc. who benefitted from having all time greats playing with them but for others I'm unsure. This pattern has occurred in other sports as well.

I haven't watched much of the Bruins games but based on that kind of thinking I'm not sure if Orr has any effect (could be positive because he is playing with an all time great, could be negative because in another situation he becomes even more of the focal point).

 

[MXD]

If Phil Esposito maintains the same stat line but we ignore that Bobby Orr was there to boost him (assume Orr is replaced by a good #1 defenseman but that Esposito is the best player in Boston), where does he ranks all-time in your opinion?

Without getting into specifics, and without thinking much about it, he passes Morenz. Might not be considered better Beliveau due to not-quite-the-same-intangibly-and-defensively.

But then, it creates some consistency problem with Lemieux.

That involves all his teammates keeping the same output, and Espo getting some serious credit for making some players better than they were for a few seasons.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I thought there was an HF post that measured the factor of playing with better players is not conclusive whether it makes your stat line better or worse for all time great players. I think you have players like Kevin Stevens, etc. who benefitted from having all time greats playing with them but for others I'm unsure. This pattern has occurred in other sports as well.

I haven't watched much of the Bruins games but based on that kind of thinking I'm not sure if Orr has any effect (could be positive because he is playing with an all time great, could be negative because in another situation he becomes even more of the focal point).

I doubt this applies to the Esposito - Orr situation.It's clear Esposito's stats were boosted to some degree, but how much is an open question.

Anyway, people almost consensually disagree with you given where they rank Esposito.If they thought Esposito's stat line was his true value he would be ranked much higher.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Without getting into specifics, and without thinking much about it, he passes Morenz. Might not be considered better Beliveau due to not-quite-the-same-intangibly-and-defensively.

But then, it creates some consistency problem with Lemieux.

That involves all his teammates keeping the same output, and Espo getting some serious credit for making some players better than they were for a few seasons.

What his teammates do is up for debate but let's say we ignore it and just compare Esposito with stars of other teams.Can he pass Béliveau? Mario?

 

[MXD]

What his teammates do is up for debate but let's say we ignore it and just compare Esposito with stars of other teams.Can he pass Béliveau? Mario?

Hard to tell, because one of the reasons Mario is (where he is) is that he made everyone better than they were. I still think Beliveau would remain ahead due to intangibles alone.

 

[The Panther]

There seems to be all this suspicion towards Espo's legacy. The guy has more impressive scoring results than Mario Lemieux, was a multiple-Cup winner, was the (effective) MVP of the '72 Summit Series (without Orr), set all-time records for goals and points that lasted a decade, won Hart Trophies over prime-Orr, led the Rangers in scoring to the Cup Final (whilst having regular 40-ish goal seasons), and yet he gets no respect.

I think it's partially a general assumption (wrongly) that Orr created him (which doesn't explain how Orr didn't 'create' anyone else to even half Espo's numbers) and partially the fact that his peak era is before most Internet-ers were watching, and a lot of his scoring wasn't filmed.

 

[Voight]

His MVP record is better

 

[mcauliffe]

If Phil Esposito maintains the same stat line but we ignore that Bobby Orr was there to boost him (assume Orr is replaced by a good #1 defenseman but that Esposito is the best player in Boston), where does he ranks all-time in your opinion?

We are essentially transforming Phil Esposito into a better player than what he really was, but let's play along. Without Orr but with the same track record, Espo suddenly becomes the late-blooming über-general of the mightiest offensive machine the league had seen up to that point. He piles up two more scoring titles and arguably three more MVPs and two playoff MVPs to his resume. He remains the only player to reach 60 goals in a season before '76, and he does it four times before anybody else does it once, but now he does it without the BobbyOrr-related second-guessing. All of a sudden, he wins a bunch of scoring titles by a 25-to-40 point margin.

Add his Summit Series achievements, and I believe he takes Orr's spot within the big four, and (in my opinion) he's battling Mario for the title of third-best player of all-time.

 

[Regal]

I thought there was an HF post that measured the factor of playing with better players is not conclusive whether it makes your stat line better or worse for all time great players. I think you have players like Kevin Stevens, etc. who benefitted from having all time greats playing with them but for others I'm unsure. This pattern has occurred in other sports as well.

I haven't watched much of the Bruins games but based on that kind of thinking I'm not sure if Orr has any effect (could be positive because he is playing with an all time great, could be negative because in another situation he becomes even more of the focal point).

I would say that the consensus seems to be more that elite players' numbers are only significantly affected by playing with players that are better than them. So while Esposito is an all time great, playing with an even better all time great is seen as impacting his numbers. Kurri gets a similar treatment. And while I think Esposito gets underrated a bit because of it, and is often seen as just a net-front presence by some, it does make sense. He was one of the most talented players of all time in the offensive zone, but wasn't a strong three-zone player. Having Orr tilt the ice so that Espo had more time to do his thing offensively probably maximized his strengths more than any other player could have.

As for the question, I think he'd probably make the big 4 (assuming Orr doesn't exist, and isn't just on another team), as the dominance of his Art Ross wins would be up there with Howe and Lemieux for a period of 7 years. I think he'd be behind Howe due to longevity, though he'd have a longer extended peak, and competing with Lemieux. He'd have health, and likely a couple awards on Lemieux, but I think Lemieux's per game dominance would be seen as greater, as well as the length of time as an otherwordly scorer.

 

[KMart27]

In 1968-1969 he becomes the first player to score 100 points and ends up with 126. Orr was on that team too but he had 64 points, Bucyk 66, and Hodge 90 so Esposito was clearly the best offensive player on the team that year. From that season to 1971-1972 he had 79 points in 46 games. That's production that few players have matched in the playoffs.

 

[mcauliffe]

I'm not sure if Orr has any effect (could be positive because he is playing with an all time great, could be negative because in another situation he becomes even more of the focal point).

Espo's Chicago years tell the story. By the summer of '67, he has never scored more than 27 goals or 61 points. Fine numbers for that era, especially playing behind Mikita, and he's still clearly developing, AND apparently Bobby Hull went bonkers when he heard of the trade.

But throughout the history of the NHL, megastars are clearly established as megastars by the time they're 25. Morenz, Shore (third in Hart voting at 25 and huge reputation coming from the Western League,) Richard, Howe, Béliveau, Orr, Clarke, Lafleur, Trottier, Bossy, Gretzky, Lemieux, Crosby, Ovy... If you're it, by the time you're 25 we know you're it. When Espo turned 25 nobody in the world tought they were watching the first player that would shatter the 100-point barrier or the guy that would reach 76 goals and 152 points. Had he stayed in Chicago, or had he joined a Orr-less Bruins team, I guess he would have kept on developing, and might have contended for a scoring title at some point. But Bobby Orr changes the deal, and Espo is the first beneficiary of that new deal. To his eternal credit, he made the absolute most of it, and for that alone, it gets him a spot among the top 20-25 players of all-time.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Phil Esposito

Phil Esposito was a very average skater who enjoyed the benefit of playing with two of the best/strongest skaters of the sixties/seventies with Chicago then Boston in Bobby Hull and Bobby Orr. Even with Team Canada in 1972 he was surrounded with excellent skaters.

Traded to New York he reverted back to expectations, a solid scorer but weak defensively.

Put another way, O6 era/1967 expansion, Phil Esposito was not a center who would have played with Montréal(Beliveau,Henri Richard,Backstrom) and Toronto because his skating was not strong enough for complete center responsibilities. Detroit he could have played the 3rd center role behind Delvecchio and Ullman if he had older experienced wingers as opposed to young speedsters, Henderson, etc. Fortunate to play with Chicago behind Mikita,then Boston. Also both Chicago and Boston had smaller home rinks with a smaller neutral zone that helped Esposito.

 

[Big Phil]

We are essentially transforming Phil Esposito into a better player than what he really was, but let's play along. Without Orr but with the same track record, Espo suddenly becomes the late-blooming über-general of the mightiest offensive machine the league had seen up to that point. He piles up two more scoring titles and arguably three more MVPs and two playoff MVPs to his resume. He remains the only player to reach 60 goals in a season before '76, and he does it four times before anybody else does it once, but now he does it without the BobbyOrr-related second-guessing. All of a sudden, he wins a bunch of scoring titles by a 25-to-40 point margin.

Add his Summit Series achievements, and I believe he takes Orr's spot within the big four, and (in my opinion) he's battling Mario for the title of third-best player of all-time.

I think he gets more respect for sure. Does he rank higher? He would, I think. Because he adds more hardware. This is so hypothetical though. Esposito had an all-time great career as it stands. But that being said, there is one thing he loses out against the Mario or even Beliveau comparison. He didn't hit the ground running right away. He didn't bust out until he was 25 and then started to decline at 33. Mario hits the ground running and never stops until he retires. When he comes back he is still better than Esposito was in his old age. Beliveau is just simply never declinging, not even by 1971. So Esposito would still be behind those two.

 

[boredmale]

I guess one could ask what would Bobby Orr be without the Esposito factor

Traded to New York he reverted back to expectations, a solid scorer but weak defensively.

It should be noted in the 70s many players started to be over the hill in their early 30s and he produced well into his late 30s(which wasn't the norm)

 

[Killion]

Phil Esposito was a very average skater...

... huh? "average".... I would say "unique" and thats being kind C58.

 

[Passchendaele]

Esposito finished 9th and 7th in scoring from the 2nd line. Tells you all you need to know.

 

[The Panther]

I guess one could ask what would Bobby Orr be without the Esposito factor

I know you're just playing Devil's Advocate, but that's actually a relevant point. Question: Did Orr ever achieve anything great at the pro or international level without Esposito as his teammate? Answer: No. But Esposito sort-of did. Without Orr, he was:
- 9th in scoring, 1965
- 7th in scoring, 1967
- 1st in goals and points, 1972 Summit Series
- 8th in goals, 1979
- 3rd in playoff goals & points, 1979 (Cup Finalist)

It should be noted in the 70s many players started to be over the hill in their early 30s and he produced well into his late 30s(which wasn't the norm)

That's exactly right. From 1976 to 1980 (aged 34-38), without Orr, Esposito was 9th in goals, and every other player from 1st to 15th place was at least 8 years younger than him. [Incidentally, his 9th-place for those 4 seasons is better than Crosby's goals-finishes for the past 4 seasons... and Crosby isn't nearly as 'old' as Esposito was.]

While it's true that Esposito didn't dominate scoring like Mario Lemieux without Bobby Orr and the high-scoring Bruins, I hope the above facts will help dispel the idea that he was 'created by Orr' or whatever nonsense is going around.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Dickie Moore

Esposito finished 9th and 7th in scoring from the 2nd line. Tells you all you need to know.

Dickie Moore won two NHL scoring championships as the second line LW. Like Esposito, Moore had the benefit of playing on the first PP unit. Esposito was the first unit center while Mikita played the point.

 

[member 51464]

There seems to be all this suspicion towards Espo's legacy. The guy has more impressive scoring results than Mario Lemieux, was a multiple-Cup winner, was the (effective) MVP of the '72 Summit Series (without Orr), set all-time records for goals and points that lasted a decade, won Hart Trophies over prime-Orr, led the Rangers in scoring to the Cup Final (whilst having regular 40-ish goal seasons), and yet he gets no respect.

I think it's partially a general assumption (wrongly) that Orr created him (which doesn't explain how Orr didn't 'create' anyone else to even half Espo's numbers) and partially the fact that his peak era is before most Internet-ers were watching, and a lot of his scoring wasn't filmed.

Why isn't Esposito considered in the Big 4 then, or making it a Big 5? As a lifelong Penguins fan, I am quick to admit I think Mario is easily the weakest of the big 4, but the above makes me wonder why he is seen over Espo if true.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

surely someone has espo's numbers from the stretches that orr was injured in '68, '69, and '73 right?

 

[Thenameless]

Why isn't Esposito considered in the Big 4 then, or making it a Big 5? As a lifelong Penguins fan, I am quick to admit I think Mario is easily the weakest of the big 4, but the above makes me wonder why he is seen over Espo if true.

Because Lemieux was better than Esposito, and by quite a margin. I've seen the analyses where Esposito demonstrates that he was very capable in Boston even when Orr was injured, but there's still no denying that Orr was a big help to his career.

I have utmost respect for Phil Esposito, and even enjoy reading and hearing about his antics in his post-playing days. He is an all-time great without question, and is unfairly forgotten by many.

But, if Esposito and Lemieux were to come into the NHL during the same year as rookies, 30 out of 30 NHL GM's are drafting Lemieux first overall.

 

[Czech Your Math]

I think he gets more respect for sure. Does he rank higher? He would, I think. Because he adds more hardware. This is so hypothetical though. Esposito had an all-time great career as it stands. But that being said, there is one thing he loses out against the Mario or even Beliveau comparison. He didn't hit the ground running right away. He didn't bust out until he was 25 and then started to decline at 33. Mario hits the ground running and never stops until he retires. When he comes back he is still better than Esposito was in his old age. Beliveau is just simply never declinging, not even by 1971. So Esposito would still be behind those two.

The increased hardware alone would propel him higher, as would the lack of uncertainty about who was driving the bus at times. He definitely passes Mikita and is a top 5 center (although to those highly valuing team success, Messier might still have an argument). It would be a difficult comparison with Beliveau (the same can be said of other elite offensive forwards), but a very interesting one. I would expect opinions to range a lot. I doubt he would eclipse Lemieux. I think Lemieux's ultimate peak and probably playoff edges, along with much more uncertainty about the quality of both team & player competition during Espo's peak/prime would be more than enough to overcome Mario's lack of durability & longevity.

 

[Black Gold Extractor]

Why isn't Esposito considered in the Big 4 then, or making it a Big 5? As a lifelong Penguins fan, I am quick to admit I think Mario is easily the weakest of the big 4, but the above makes me wonder why he is seen over Espo if true.

Esposito has better scoring results versus his peers than Lemieux (The Panther is probably referring to VsX) because he played largely complete seasons, and VsX doesn't account for injury time. One has to remember, though, that Lemieux still managed one additional Art Ross win (6 to 5) despite his spotty health.

Esposito without Orr still would have been the best offensive forward of the early 70's. From 68-69 through 74-75, he had 912 points in 539 games, followed by Ratelle with 585 points in 516 games. Esposito averaged 130+ points per 78-game season. No one else even averaged a 90-point pace per 78-game season (Ratelle averages 88 points). Looking at peer comparison, just remember that today, the Art Ross runner-up always seems to score just under 90 points. Today, Esposito-like scorer (boosted by an Orr-like defenseman) would be averaging 130 points per 82 games.

How much of Esposito's offense are we willing to attribute to Orr? Year by year,

Esposito hit 126 points in 74 games when Orr had 64 points in 67 games. That would have been Esposito's Art Ross even without Orr (since Orr was still one year away from becoming superhuman).

In 69-70, Orr had 120 points while Esposito had only 99... but that was over Mikita's 86 and Goyette's 78. Without Orr, Esposito would have had a shot at the Art Ross himself, although depending on how much you think Orr helped Esposito, you might assume Esposito would have more likely finished second behind Mikita. Esposito would have at least been an Art Ross contender.

In 70-71, Esposito set records for goals and points (76 and 152). The next three scorers were all from Boston (Orr, Bucyk, and Hodge). The next closest non-Bruin scorer was Hull with 96 points. If you think Orr boosted Esposito, then it's logical to assume that Orr also boosted Bucyk and Hodge. Minus Orr, Esposito would have still won that Art Ross. Esposito had a 56-point lead over Hull, after all. That's not disappearing even without Orr.

In 71-72, Esposito had 133 points, followed by Orr with 117 and Ratelle with 109. Without Orr, Esposito would have at least been an Art Ross contender if you think his 24-point lead over Ratelle would have evaporated.

In 72-73, Esposito had 130 points, followed by Clarke with 104 and Orr with 101. Again, Esposito would have at least been an Art Ross contender (even if Clarke would have definitely been the better player by this point).

In 73-74, Esposito had 145 points, followed by three Bruins once more (Orr, Hodge, and Cashman). The highest scoring non-Bruin was Clarke with 87 points. Again, assuming Orr boosted all Boston players, without Orr, Esposito would have definitely won the Art Ross. A 58-point lead wouldn't entirely evaporate.

In 74-75, Orr was the Art Ross winner. Esposito led the next-leading scorer (Dionne) by only 6 points. Chances are that Dionne would have won this race without Orr.

In summary, over Esposito's prime minus Orr, it's safe to guess:

1967-68: top-5 scorer
1968-69: Art Ross win
1969-70: Art Ross contender
1970-71: Art Ross win
1971-72: Art Ross contender
1972-73: Art Ross contender
1973-74: Art Ross win
1974-75: top-10 scorer

That's a pretty impressive prime in terms of offense.

 

[Sprague Cleghorn]

Esposito finished 9th and 7th in scoring from the 2nd line. Tells you all you need to know.

Not entirely true since he was Hull's center. Hull's line was as much a first line as Mikita's line. Modern comparables would be Sakic and Forsberg, or Crosby and Malkin. And as C58 pointed out, Esposito saw 1st unit PP time.

...

A year ago, I went and accounted for all of Esposito's points during some of his biggest seasons using the data acquired from HSP. The seasons I did it for were 1969, 1971, 1973 and 1974. I also did 1967 out of curiosity when he was with Chicago, but that's not really pertinent to the topic here.

Here are the seasons, and the percentage of Esposito's points that Orr was directly involved in, Espo's points if you removed all of Orr's involvement, and his rank in the scoring race minus all Bruins players:

1969: 17.5%, 104 P, 2nd
1971: 30.3%, 106 P, 1st
1973: 31.5%, 89 P, 11th
1974: 37.2%, 91 P, 1st

Of course it wouldn't make sense to subtract every one of Espo's points that Orr was in on, but just something I thought could be interesting. Also, for comparison's sake, the 30% range is also the same that Coffey was in on on both Gretzky's and Lemieux's biggest seasons.