Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 6

[Dennis Bonvie]

Give Esposito more credit for what?

He has the worst valley in the playoffs for any player this round and take away Orr from that team he is still probably a top 120 player but way down the list.

As much as I think that Fetisov has some red flags in his NHL play, Esposito has more of them.

Shattering all scoring records.

5 Art Ross trophies. Only Gretzky, Mario and Howe with more.

6 times led the league in goals, 3 times in assists.

only 70 goal scorer outside of the 1980-93 all offense era.

Summit Series.

Things like that.

Last time we did this Esposito was 20th. No one up for this vote was ahead of him. Pretty sure everyone knew he played with Orr. Now Espo's not worthy of top 30. Funny, but Orr also fell in this list.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Give Esposito more credit for what?

He has the worst valley in the playoffs for any player this round and take away Orr from that team he is still probably a top 120 player but way down the list.

As much as I think that Fetisov has some red flags in his NHL play, Esposito has more of them.

What is being considered Esposito's "valley" in the playoffs? The Chicago years?

I would agree that outside of the two Cup wins and Summit Series, Esposito does leave you unsatisfied in the playoffs. In the interests of completeness though, Clarke has a forgettable 1977-79 stretch. Sakic was not very good 1998-2000, or in Quebec. Trottier fell off a cliff after 1983. And Sawchuk has a couple awful years right in his prime. So it's not like others up for debate are devoid of blemishes either.

 

[wetcoast]

My recollection is similar, and I suspect Sakic's #2 Selke finish was more of a result of leading the league in +/- more than being a truly great defensive center.

Of the (NHL) Centers available, I think the defensive value goes:

Clarke
Gap
Trottier
Big Gap
Sakic
Esposito

Taylor is interesting to try and fit in here because of the multi-position situation.

You forgot the large gap between Sakic and Espsotio.

 

[wetcoast]

But Fetisov made his bones in Russia and International play and Fetisov was the glue of the "Russian 5" for Detroit.

Being the glue is extremely subjective and like I have mentioned before every one of the 4 other players in the Russian five had success independent of Fetisov.

His being the glue is worth a great deal less than tangible individual results.

 

[wetcoast]

Would you say the Summit Series was a high-pressure, high stakes 8 games from hell? Did Esposito prove himself in those games? Did Orr make him look good?

Well yes Esposito started off that series lousy and don't forget that the russians weren't matched up well for a guy his size in front of the net and that hitting in international play had just begun compared to the NHL.

I understand the baby boomers and their narrative and nostalgia about Esposito but he has a ton of warts in his resume.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Being the glue is extremely subjective and like I have mentioned before every one of the 4 other players in the Russian five had success independent of Fetisov.

His being the glue is worth a great deal less than tangible individual results.

Individual success is for sports like tennis, golf, boxing, etc. Hockey is a collective team sport and none of the other four Russians had colletive success without Fetisov.

 

[wetcoast]

What is being considered Esposito's "valley" in the playoffs? The Chicago years?

I would agree that outside of the two Cup wins and Summit Series, Esposito does leave you unsatisfied in the playoffs. In the interests of completeness though, Clarke has a forgettable 1977-79 stretch. Sakic was not very good 1998-2000, or in Quebec. Trottier fell off a cliff after 1983. And Sawchuk has a couple awful years right in his prime. So it's not like others up for debate are devoid of blemishes either.

Yes the Chicago years are a much lower valley than sakic for instance.

Clarke brings elite defense, Sakic was actually still scoring in almost all of the down year you mentioned as well.

And like it was mentioned outside of 3 very impressive Orr aided post seasons Phil looks very average and is an ES liability on the ice.

Sakic definitely had more peaks in the playoffs and perhaps Trottier as well, at least in providing something more than just offense.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Well yes Esposito started off that series lousy and don't forget that the russians weren't matched up well for a guy his size in front of the net and that hitting in international play had just begun compared to the NHL.

I understand the baby boomers and their narrative and nostalgia about Esposito but he has a ton of warts in his resume.

So de facto in 1972 the Soviets and other the European players were not NHL ready and would not have been factors in the NHL if we accept your position-bolded.

 

[wetcoast]

So de facto in 1972 the Soviets and other the European players were not NHL ready and would not have been factors in the NHL if we accept your position-bolded.

I think the next wave in 10 years time, ie early 80's would have fared better in the NHL, yes for a variety of reasons.

Nothing is defacto here, pretty much everything in this thread is subjective.

Well the stats for players are defacto.

 

[Canadiens1958]

A couple of things to think about regarding Brodeur's impact as a 3rd defenseman.

In his 20 seasons as a starter for NJ, the Devils only once faced an above average number of PK chances, and usually were well below average in PPOA. In the 4 seasons since they have faced an above average number all 4 seasons.

In the 16 seasons that the NHL recorded faceoffs that Brodeur was a starter, the Devils were never once above average in number of faceoffs/game (They came closest in 08-09 when Brodeur was injured.), and had far and away the fewest faceoffs/game: High: Carolina: 62.84; AVG: 61:48; 29th: NYR: 59.72; NJD: 57.95 (The Rangers are closer to Carolina, than the Devils are to Average.) The Devils FO/G have climbed in each of the last 4 seasons. They were above average for the first time last season, and are currently 3rd highest so far this season. To make it worse, the Devils also have the worst FOW% in the NHL since 2014.

What is the correlation between offensive zone faceoffs and SOGs allowed?

 

[blogofmike]

Yes the Chicago years are a much lower valley than sakic for instance.

Clarke brings elite defense, Sakic was actually still scoring in almost all of the down year you mentioned as well.

And like it was mentioned outside of 3 very impressive Orr aided post seasons Phil looks very average and is an ES liability on the ice.

Sakic definitely had more peaks in the playoffs and perhaps Trottier as well, at least in providing something more than just offense.

I'm open to moving Esposito down ballot, but I think he's getting knocked a little too hard here. In 1965-66 Esposito outscored Mikita at even strength, but a lack of powerplay time deflated Espo's overall numbers while Mikita climbed into 2nd place.

In 1966-67 Esposito was 3rd in ES scoring with 52 ES points, but a lack of PP time dropped him to a tie for 7th overall. Joe Sakic finished 2nd in ES points in his MVP 2001 season - and I can't find any other Top 3 finishes.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Phil Esposito lack of PP time in Chicago, mid 1960s.

Brutal analysis.

Chicago rolled 3 lines with Mikita, Esposito and Hay the top centers. Mikita played the point fairly often.

Not wise to anchor a second center on the PP since it would be rather easy for the opposing coach to then match lines post PP knowing that the non-PP center's line was the only option.

The Hawks did not have the best coaching but Billy Reay was capable enough not to burn match-ups.

 

[blogofmike]

Phil Esposito lack of PP time in Chicago, mid 1960s.

Brutal analysis.

Chicago rolled 3 lines with Mikita, Esposito and Hay the top centers. Mikita played the point fairly often.

Not wise to anchor a second center on the PP since it would be rather easy for the opposing coach to then match lines post PP knowing that the non-PP center's line was the only option.

The Hawks did not have the best coaching but Billy Reay was capable enough not to burn match-ups.

This is the same team that played 4 defenders on the PK in the 62 playoffs...

Regardless, if the point is that Esposito has poor counting numbers in Chicago, there is a partial explanation for that. Had team circumstances forced most other scorers to see such limited PP time, they would have looked worse than Phil.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

Spike seasons are cute but not really useful to assess a player.

Yes- and Druce-ean playoff campaigns in a losing cause that fall sharply outside the general run for a player are even more precious.

[But I suppose that's water-under-the-bridge, now...]

 

[bobholly39]

Yes the Chicago years are a much lower valley than sakic for instance.

Clarke brings elite defense, Sakic was actually still scoring in almost all of the down year you mentioned as well.

And like it was mentioned outside of 3 very impressive Orr aided post seasons Phil looks very average and is an ES liability on the ice.

Sakic definitely had more peaks in the playoffs and perhaps Trottier as well, at least in providing something more than just offense.

Ton of issues with your last few posts about Esposito. You're being way too critical while not applying the same metrics to others. But let's tackle this one.

Chicago years - much lower valley than Sakic. It depends. In Chicago Esposito wasn't yet seen as this great offensive threat, multiple art ross winner who was supposed to be team MVP. Are you saying his chicago playoffs years aren't that good? Sure maybe. But should they count as a big negative for him? Nope. Just as a big neutral, or lack of positive. Some players take a bit longer to get going - this was the start of his career, it took him a few years to really get going big time in the playoffs. Maybe it's a bit of a negative - but it's not the same as if he had had those numbers while in Boston while he was being counted on as the main scorer. Sakic has some of those really bad playoffs in the middle of his peak.

Sakic - Was really bad in 1999. On a team that could have/should have won the cup. 7 points in 13 games in round 2 and 3. In contrast, Forsberg had 16 points in 13 games in round 2 and 3. Sakic's failures are maybe the main reason they the team got eliminated - when he was supposed to be their best player.

in 2000 playoffs - 9 points in 17 games. 5 points in 12 games of rounds 2 and 3 again. Forsberg 11 points in those 12 games. Once again, Sakic can be said to be the main reason why his team was eliminated in the playoffs.

Once Esposito "got good" towards his peak - he never had playoffs where he was truly disappointing in that sense, or where his team lost because of him. Giving too much importance to his first 3-4 years is unfair. I'd rather judge him at his peak/prime - and in those years his playoff numbers are pretty good.

 

[Batis]

But seriously - the discussion is interesting. I'm especially interested in finding out if there seems to be a similar "bias" in MVP voting against Dmen. I think I saw that Vasiliev never had high golden stick finishes, for instance.

Don't know from where you got that idea. As I have already mentioned twice in this thread Vasilievs Izvestia golden stick voting record is strong considering that he was 29 years old when the poll first was conducted in 78/79.

78/79: 2nd at age 29
79/80: 3rd at age 30
80/81: 8th at age 31
81/82: 8th at age 32

Perhaps you were thinking about the Soviet player of the year voting? But even there Vasiliev had a rather strong voting record.

Soviet player of the season, voting finishes:

Fetisov - 1st (1982), 1st (1986), 2nd (1985), 2nd (1988), 3rd (1978), 3rd (1984), 3rd (1989), 4th (1983), 5th (1987)

Vasiliev - 2nd (1979), 3rd (1974), 5th (1980), 6th (1973), 6th (1975), 6th (1981), 7th (1977), 8th (1982), 12th (1976), 14th (1978)

Kasatonov - 5th (1983), 6th (1985), 6th (1987), 7th (1984), 8th (1981), 9th (1982), 9th (1988), 10th (1986), 10th (1989), 16th (1980)

Edit: Note that this is when using the Izvestia golden stick results in 1979 as a replacement for that seasons lack of Soviet player of the year voting.

 

[Sentinel]

What is being considered Esposito's "valley" in the playoffs? The Chicago years?

I would agree that outside of the two Cup wins and Summit Series, Esposito does leave you unsatisfied in the playoffs. In the interests of completeness though, Clarke has a forgettable 1977-79 stretch. Sakic was not very good 1998-2000, or in Quebec. Trottier fell off a cliff after 1983. And Sawchuk has a couple awful years right in his prime. So it's not like others up for debate are devoid of blemishes either.

Except Makarov. I guess his Calgary playoffs can be called "blemish," but... I really don't know.

Individual success is for sports like tennis, golf, boxing, etc. Hockey is a collective team sport and none of the other four Russians had colletive success without Fetisov.

Larionov was quite successful without Fetisov, in both San Jose and Detroit.

 

[Sentinel]

You forgot the large gap between Sakic and Espsotio.

More like "between Esposito and Sakic." Come on, man, Sakic didn't come close to Espo's offense!

 

[Canadiens1958]

1962 Hawks coached by Rudy Pilous did not have Phil Esposito. Strange choices at times since post 1961 SC the team mismanaged their depth.

1965-67 Hawks coached by Billy Reay With Phil Esposito. Different circumstances.

 

[wetcoast]

I'm open to moving Esposito down ballot, but I think he's getting knocked a little too hard here. In 1965-66 Esposito outscored Mikita at even strength, but a lack of powerplay time deflated Espo's overall numbers while Mikita climbed into 2nd place.

In 1966-67 Esposito was 3rd in ES scoring with 52 ES points, but a lack of PP time dropped him to a tie for 7th overall. Joe Sakic finished 2nd in ES points in his MVP 2001 season - and I can't find any other Top 3 finishes.

The valley is specifically in the playoffs, in the regular season he played with Bobby Hull and we know who drove that line.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Well yes Esposito started off that series lousy and don't forget that the russians weren't matched up well for a guy his size in front of the net and that hitting in international play had just begun compared to the NHL.

I understand the baby boomers and their narrative and nostalgia about Esposito but he has a ton of warts in his resume.

Ahem... I'm much younger than a baby-boomer.
And every guy available in this round (or any round) is wrapped in a big red bow of nostalgia.
Esposito produced. He was the offensive measuring stick before Gretzky. Of course he wasn't as good as Bobby Orr (NOBODY was, despite what our voting said), but he still won his Hart Trophies during the Orr era. It is high time he was voted in.

 

[DannyGallivan]

The valley is specifically in the playoffs, in the regular season he played with Bobby Hull and we know who drove that line.

If you want to harp on the Chicago years.

 

[VanIslander]

Vote 6 Candidates

• Bobby Clarke
• Bryan Trottier
• Cyclone Taylor
• Glenn Hall
• Joe Sakic
• Martin Brodeur
• Mike Bossy
• Phil Esposito
• Sergei Makarov
• Terry Sawchuk
• Viacheslav Fetisov

I have a question about each. In original first-name alphabetical order:

Clarke: Having just two 1st team, two 2nd team all star selections, ... only three top-5 in point seasons,... Never top 10 in goals... just five times top-5 in assists.... once a Selke winner... a dirty play artist known to need goon backup to finish what he started... for the life of me: what does Clarke have over ineligibles ( like Yzerman)?

Trottier: Do his two Stanley Cup championship contributions in Pittsburgh as a veteran role player amount to anything in this?

Cyclone: 1. Does a career of 7-11 great seasons equal one of 12-16 in modern times? 2. Who compares in PPG average (to use a Crosby metric) to Cyclone in the PCHA or NHA?

Hall: Did you know that not only did Glenn get selected for the 1st or 2nd all-star honors a record 11 times during the star-laden O6 era, but none of those include the year he won the Conn Smythe (1968) nor the year he backstopped a Game 7 Stanley Cup Final run in which he led in wins, saves and shots against (1965)?!

Sakic: Should he be compared more to Nighbor and Messier or to Forsberg and Yzerman?

Brodeur: He was three times a 1st team all star (over Luongo twice, Turco once), and yet how impressive are compiler stats that come with a long career on a good team?

Bossy: How great is his goals per shot average to his sniper image?

Esposito: How long can a six-time 1st in goals, seven-time top-2 in assists modern offensive talent go without induction?

Makarov: How significant is 16 goals, 31 points over the 1981, 1984 and 1987 Canada Cups?

Sawchuk: How does the fact that he has the same number of 1st & 2nd all star berths as Brodeur and yet more Stanley Cups with stellar numbers in victories for two franchises (1954 Detroit, 1967 Toronto) count in his favour? And how much can one ignore the accolades and respect he has garnered among knowledgeable hockey minds?

Fetisov: Is it significant that the IIHF voted Fetisov overwhelmingly for its Centennial All-star Team with 54 votes? The next closest was Gretzky with 38. Makarov is on the squad with 18 votes.

I'm open to some serious replies.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Well yes Esposito started off that series lousy and don't forget that the russians weren't matched up well for a guy his size in front of the net and that hitting in international play had just begun compared to the NHL.

That's a really poor excuse. The fact is, Esposito used the exact same skill set that saw him score 76 goals the previous season. The Soviets were no different than the NHL's elite defense when it came to defending Esposito.

 

[wetcoast]

Ton of issues with your last few posts about Esposito. You're being way too critical while not applying the same metrics to others. But let's tackle this one.

Chicago years - much lower valley than Sakic. It depends. In Chicago Esposito wasn't yet seen as this great offensive threat, multiple art ross winner who was supposed to be team MVP. Are you saying his chicago playoffs years aren't that good? Sure maybe. But should they count as a big negative for him? Nope. Just as a big neutral, or lack of positive. Some players take a bit longer to get going - this was the start of his career, it took him a few years to really get going big time in the playoffs. Maybe it's a bit of a negative - but it's not the same as if he had had those numbers while in Boston while he was being counted on as the main scorer. Sakic has some of those really bad playoffs in the middle of his peak.

Sakic - Was really bad in 1999. On a team that could have/should have won the cup. 7 points in 13 games in round 2 and 3. In contrast, Forsberg had 16 points in 13 games in round 2 and 3. Sakic's failures are maybe the main reason they the team got eliminated - when he was supposed to be their best player.

in 2000 playoffs - 9 points in 17 games. 5 points in 12 games of rounds 2 and 3 again. Forsberg 11 points in those 12 games. Once again, Sakic can be said to be the main reason why his team was eliminated in the playoffs.

Once Esposito "got good" towards his peak - he never had playoffs where he was truly disappointing in that sense, or where his team lost because of him. Giving too much importance to his first 3-4 years is unfair. I'd rather judge him at his peak/prime - and in those years his playoff numbers are pretty good.

The thing is that at least Sakic was doing some scoring, Esposito in chicago aged 22-24 average in those years

Regular season PPG .8125
Playoffs PPG .32

That makes Dionne look good.

Calling 99 for Sakic really bad when he scored 19-6-13-19 -2 that year surely isn't going to help Esposito when we use the same metric is it?

Sakic also ran into Detroit and Dallas 2 teams that were built for defensive hockey and could have won more SC's in a different environment.

Sure Sakic has some dips in his resume but he also has alot more good to very good to elite years as well.

If Sakic is a 100 in his playoff resume is Esposito even a 60?

I don't think so as he brought nothing but offense and was often a less than average defensive player as well.

Focusing only on his peak, which is Orr aided, and not looking at the whole picture isn't the way to go here IMO.

Even if we are only looking at best playoff performances Sakic has a big 3 as good as Phil and then some very good ones, compared to Esposito.