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

[wetcoast]

You do realize that if Nichols had 7 150 point seasons instead of 1 - even if Gretzky was the consensus main reason why and even if Gretzky topped him in points every one of those years - he'd likely *still* already be up for voting?

I'm not advocating Nicolls for induction on this list but your point does more to back up my comparison to Esposito.

 

[overg]

One argument that's been floated is that Esposito's scoring went up about 20% with Orr on the ice. Presuming that's roughly accurate, I still don't see that as a reason to "adjust" Esposito's points down by a full 20%.

Although not everyone got to play with Bobby Orr, plenty of stars have gotten to play with other stars. Makarov had Fetisov and the Green Unit. Trottier had Potvin and Bossey. Sakic had Forsberg drawing away defensive coverage. Etc. Etc. Unless you want to manually adjust everyone to account for the presence of their best ice-mate, you're way over-penalizing Esposito.

I have similar concerns about Seventies' adjustments to Brodeur's numbers. Even if he should rightfully get the biggest adjustments of any goalie out there, if only Brodeur is being adjusted, you're over punishing or over rewarding him.

At the end of the day, every player had a unique situation. While it certainly makes sense to account for a player who had an overly good or overly bad situation, if you're only making adjustments to some players but not all, there's a big danger of over-adjusting.

 

[wetcoast]

Since when do points not matter - and driving the bus matters more?

I mean no one here is arguing that Phil Esposito should rank above Bobby Orr.

Well which one is it then?

Your 2 statements seem to contradict each other.

Driving the bus and contributing to winning hockey games has always mattered more than points.

But Esposito scored all those points. That's what matters. It doesn't matter if you think Orr is the sole reason why he did (he isn't) - scoring all those points and breaking all those records and destroying the league scoring all those years needs to count for a lot, on its own.

Well that's the crux of the matter, if you think Esposito does that or comes close without Orr then sure by all means vote him #1 and put goalies, defenseman and 2 way players on the bottom of your list each round it scoring is what really matters.

Esposito should absolutely go this round. I have him at #1.

We obviously are going to agree to disagree.

 

[wetcoast]

On one hand, you are saying Esposito is a product of Orr, but on the other hand completely dismiss the fact that having Orr on your team, makes it twice as hard to win the Hart. The fact that Espo WON TWO HARTS OVER A GENERATIONAL PHENOM like Orr is much more impressive than Clarke's Harts, where he was the only true star on his team.

You are the one bringing up Harts, I was simply responding to you.

There is really zero evidence that Esposito gets even a single Hart vote without Orr.

Well I guess you could bring up his 15th place finish in 78-79 but that really doesn't help the case for Big Phil

So when a famous offense-only forward gets the same +/- as a famous two-way player, while handily outscoring him, it is somehow a detriment to the former? Are you for real?

Well when he outscores him 13 to 6 in the 8 games and they are both plus 2 one can say that Phil is outscoring his lack of defense sure but he is still a lousy defensive player and it's a huge 8 game sample.

So you are citing this all-time famous act of unsportsmanship and cheating as a boost to Clarke? Are you for real?

I personally hated it but I can't dispute the positive affect it had on the Canadian chances of winning.

So, less than HALF of Esposito's highest. Ni-i-ice.

Once again you are avoiding the Orr thing, outside of Boston Phil was a good goal scorer not a great one.

Yeah, a tiny bit better.

Sure but that is the biggest strength or argument for Clarke against Clarke least strong point, kinda cherry picking and nt a big deal when talking about the best players of all time.

His entire prime was with Orr. Are you for real? A post-prime, Rangers Espo still did better than Clarke's high water mark season.

In goal scoring while being a defensive disaster sure but read above.

Why would Espo play defense, if he had Orr?

Maybe to win games and have a bigger impact?

Orr played both ways, lots of players do to win.

In fact a player you advocated for in the preliminary threads gave up some offense for defensive play or did you forget about him already?

No. The Slash was the biggest travesty.

We can agree there but are you really going to knock Clarke down any spots in the rankings over this?

Because you keep bringing up Orr and other teammates. Those "8 games" (the biggest games of their respective careers) is where their team was one and the same, and Esposito thumped Clarke handily. If not for The Slash, which in many people's minds STOLE the victory from Canada ("couldn't win without goonery and cheating, could they?"), nobody would even remember Clarke.

Well you would remember Clarke as you asserted early about trusting the Hart voters.

This thread is about the top 100 players of all time, not top 100 personal grievances people have with players.

 

[wetcoast]

One argument that's been floated is that Esposito's scoring went up about 20% with Orr on the ice. Presuming that's roughly accurate, I still don't see that as a reason to "adjust" Esposito's points down by a full 20%.

Although not everyone got to play with Bobby Orr, plenty of stars have gotten to play with other stars. Makarov had Fetisov and the Green Unit. Trottier had Potvin and Bossey. Sakic had Forsberg drawing away defensive coverage. Etc. Etc. Unless you want to manually adjust everyone to account for the presence of their best ice-mate, you're way over-penalizing Esposito.

I have similar concerns about Seventies' adjustments to Brodeur's numbers. Even if he should rightfully get the biggest adjustments of any goalie out there, if only Brodeur is being adjusted, you're over punishing or over rewarding him.

At the end of the day, every player had a unique situation. While it certainly makes sense to account for a player who had an overly good or overly bad situation, if you're only making adjustments to some players but not all, there's a big danger of over-adjusting.

I tend to agree with alot in this post, that's why it's important to look at the whole picture, ie Phil with the Black Hawks and Hull and post Ratelle trade to get more information.

Sadly some people here would rather focus on a 8 game sample instead of the larger picture.

 

[Captain Bowie]

I tend to agree with alot in this post, that's why it's important to look at the whole picture, ie Phil with the Black Hawks and Hull and post Ratelle trade to get more information.

Sadly some people here would rather focus on a 8 game sample instead of the larger picture.

With lines like this, it is becoming more clear you are not interested in discussing in good faith, but rather taking pot shots and building straw men. The good news is it seems like Phil has a good chance of getting through this round, despite the protests of some. And Like Jagr before, that means we don't have to discuss him any more, because not all of the discussions about him have been fruitful. And like Jagr, the people that would like to continue to argue about him can do so in the results thread.

I will be voting shortly.

 

[blogofmike]

I have a little bit of time here so I will address a couple of points on the Orr affect on Esposito.

Some have asserted that in 68 Phil had a great season before Orr was Orr and that's not entirely true.

Any idea why Esposito's ES scoring was almost exactly what it was the year before? Or why Esposito closed out the year with 28 points in the 21 games after Orr registered his final point of the season? (23 in 17 games without Orr, 5 in the final 4 games, but Orr had no points).

The thing about Bobby Orr, is that Orr running the show comes with an opportunity cost. Jagr is comparable to Esposito as a scorer, and proximity to Lemieux wasn't just a matter of collecting points that magically fell from the sky. Jagr's better statistical seasons came when Lemieux wasn't there (except 1996, but he was on a separate line at ES, and the Pens had enough PP goals that Jagr's diminished PP role still yielded a bunch of points.)

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

...are you really going to knock Clarke down any spots in the rankings over this?

I was (until now) fastidiously avoiding weighing in on this topic, as I thought it might prove a distraction from more material considerations- but- since you opened this door, I'm going to walk the hell through it.

Self-quotation, from an earlier phase in our project:

'...lest some might think that judging on account of... the Clarke slash constitutes some kind of beyond-category moralizing, I'd say "false" to that. Our mission is to judge the players "on their performance as hockey players." So- if there's an on-ice incident that brings shame and disrepute to the game, then it's perfectly legitimate to hold that against a player's memory.'

The only thing I find terribly wrong with that, in retrospect, is that I used the singular ("incident") and would have been well-justified, and more accurate, by using the plural ("incidents").

I really didn't want this to become that big of a 'thing,' but participants here-and-there have been attempting to mute this consideration pre-emptively. Ultimately, you're responsible for your Vote. [Presuming, of course, that you Vote.] If you think items like willful attempts to injure count for nothing [or worse- wind up being somehow weirdly admired], that's on you. It won't count that way as far as I'm concerned... and I'm not likely to be induced into changing my viewpoint on this matter.

 

[Killion]

I tend to agree with alot in this post, that's why it's important to look at the whole picture, ie Phil with the Black Hawks and Hull and post Ratelle trade to get more information.

Sadly some people here would rather focus on a 8 game sample instead of the larger picture.

Yeah. I also like to look at a players Junior & or Senior career, Minor Pro and I mean beyond just the numbers though those important.... In Phil's case with Sarnia at the Jr.B level, the TeePee's in Jr.A. In the case of the former, guy did seriously light it up; at the Jr.A level not quite so much however his numbers really quite respectable. Real anomaly as a player. Off beat. Outlier. Easy to criticize as he was. Skating, unwillingness to fight cause for concern early on.

 

[wetcoast]

With lines like this, it is becoming more clear you are not interested in discussing in good faith, but rather taking pot shots and building straw men. The good news is it seems like Phil has a good chance of getting through this round, despite the protests of some. And Like Jagr before, that means we don't have to discuss him any more, because not all of the discussions about him have been fruitful. And like Jagr, the people that would like to continue to argue about him can do so in the results thread.

I will be voting shortly.

Well you've got a point there and I should have toned it down on that last line and just made the point.

While my choice of words may have been poor, not really sure that your comment that I'm arguing in bad faith passes the smell test though.

I'm at least backing up assertions and looking at the questions I'm asking.

I'll leave it at that.

 

[Killion]

Well you've got a point there and I should have toned it down on that last line and just made the point.

While my choice of words may have been poor, not really sure that your comment that I'm arguing in bad faith passes the smell test though.

I'm at least backing up assertions and looking at the questions I'm asking.

I'll leave it at that.

... huh. Not seeing it (arguing in bad faith). Critical, demanding, objective. Ive always appreciated that in Posters & encouraged it when Moderating..... My advice? Keep On Keepin On. Appreciate your knowledge, passion.

 

[Captain Bowie]

... huh. Not seeing it (arguing in bad faith). Critical, demanding, objective. Ive always appreciated that in Posters & encouraged it when Moderating..... My advice? Keep On Keepin On. Appreciate your knowledge, passion.

Because the Summit Series was mentioned, it was twice brought up as if it was the sole or main argument in favor of Phil, a claim of course no one made.

But I'm over it. Tomorrow is a new round and everyone gets to start fresh.

 

[wetcoast]

Any idea why Esposito's ES scoring was almost exactly what it was the year before?

Why wouldn't it be, he was taking more shots and playing with Orr as apposed to Hull, I wouldn't expect his ES scoring to go down.

Or why Esposito closed out the year with 28 points in the 21 games after Orr registered his final point of the season? (23 in 17 games without Orr, 5 in the final 4 games, but Orr had no points).

He was taking more SOG, and had 2 four point games against recent expansion teams in LA and St Louis and two 3 point games against his former team the Black Hawks.

He did some of his best work that year against the Hawks, both with and without Orr.

The Bruins went 11-9-2 in those final 21 games but were only 1-3 in the last 4 games when Orr was back.

I wouldn't read a ton into it as there are lots of moving parts as last 4 games were against 06 teams and there were more expansion team games for Phil in the other 17 (7 games total).

The thing about Bobby Orr, is that Orr running the show comes with an opportunity cost. Jagr is comparable to Esposito as a scorer, and proximity to Lemieux wasn't just a matter of collecting points that magically fell from the sky. Jagr's better statistical seasons came when Lemieux wasn't there (except 1996, but he was on a separate line at ES, and the Pens had enough PP goals that Jagr's diminished PP role still yielded a bunch of points.)

I think Jagr demonstrated alot more outside of Mario than Phil did from Orr, so I'm not really buying the comparison.

Orr was also a 200 foot impact player, while Mario was a super charged version of Esposito or in other words offense is all he brought.

But the opportunity lost point does have some limited merit, just not sure it translates as well form a Dman like Orr to a guy like Mario a great deal.

I think that if we look at the total picture there is more than enough to have others go this round before Esposito.

 

[wetcoast]

I was (until now) fastidiously avoiding weighing in on this topic, as I thought it might prove a distraction from more material considerations- but- since you opened this door, I'm going to walk the hell through it.

Self-quotation, from an earlier phase in our project:

'...lest some might think that judging on account of... the Clarke slash constitutes some kind of beyond-category moralizing, I'd say "false" to that. Our mission is to judge the players "on their performance as hockey players." So- if there's an on-ice incident that brings shame and disrepute to the game, then it's perfectly legitimate to hold that against a player's memory.'

The only thing I find terribly wrong with that, in retrospect, is that I used the singular ("incident") and would have been well-justified, and more accurate, by using the plural ("incidents").

I really didn't want this to become that big of a 'thing,' but participants here-and-there have been attempting to mute this consideration pre-emptively. Ultimately, you're responsible for your Vote. [Presuming, of course, that you Vote.] If you think items like willful attempts to injure count for nothing [or worse- wind up being somehow weirdly admired], that's on you. It won't count that way as far as I'm concerned... and I'm not likely to be induced into changing my viewpoint on this matter.

For the record I didn't like the slash, didn't like the way Messier conducted himself at times, or Shore or others coming up, but they are a product of their times in that sense and wouldn't hold it against them in any sense for this project if I had a vote.

If someone is doing it against Clarke I hope there were consistent with Shore.

 

[Captain Bowie]

For the record I didn't like the slash, didn't like the way Messier conducted himself at times, or Shore or others coming up, but they are a product of their times in that sense and wouldn't hold it against them in any sense for this project if I had a vote.

If someone is doing it against Clarke I hope there were consistent with Shore.

It was certainly discussed for Messier and Shore especially.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

You are the one bringing up Harts, I was simply responding to you.

There is really zero evidence that Esposito gets even a single Hart vote without Orr.

Well I guess you could bring up his 15th place finish in 78-79 but that really doesn't help the case for Big Phil




Well when he outscores him 13 to 6 in the 8 games and they are both plus 2 one can say that Phil is outscoring his lack of defense sure but he is still a lousy defensive player and it's a huge 8 game sample.




I personally hated it but I can't dispute the positive affect it had on the Canadian chances of winning.




Once again you are avoiding the Orr thing, outside of Boston Phil was a good goal scorer not a great one.



Sure but that is the biggest strength or argument for Clarke against Clarke least strong point, kinda cherry picking and nt a big deal when talking about the best players of all time.



In goal scoring while being a defensive disaster sure but read above.




Maybe to win games and have a bigger impact?

Orr played both ways, lots of players do to win.

In fact a player you advocated for in the preliminary threads gave up some offense for defensive play or did you forget about him already?




We can agree there but are you really going to knock Clarke down any spots in the rankings over this?



Well you would remember Clarke as you asserted early about trusting the Hart voters.

This thread is about the top 100 players of all time, not top 100 personal grievances people have with players.

This just seems like an odd thing to say. We saw Bobby Clarke get heavy Hart support in the 70's on a team where he was clearly the prime mover. If you remove Orr from Boston, Esposito would have been in a very similar situation. There's no reason to think he wouldn't have had Hart support, unless we're going to the (IMO, ridiculous) extreme of supposing Esposito was only a Bernie Nicholls-level player.

But alright, say we are going to heavily discount Esposito offense due to the Orr effect. Is it not appropriate to also be as stringent in regard to Parent's effect on Clarke's goal prevention? At least one participant with first-hand viewings has expressed the opinion that Parent indeed deserves a large share of credit. And it is an unavoidable fact that Clarke's peak years coincide perfectly with Parent's, and Bobby suddenly had a noticeable drop in goal prevention in the late 70's when the goaltending situation went down hill.

 

[wetcoast]

... huh. Not seeing it (arguing in bad faith). Critical, demanding, objective. Ive always appreciated that in Posters & encouraged it when Moderating..... My advice? Keep On Keepin On. Appreciate your knowledge, passion.

Actually I thought you would suggest bringing out the boxing gloves

 

[Captain Bowie]

Actually I thought you would suggest bringing out the boxing gloves

Nah that's C1958, he's the one always talking about old-time players and their boxing careers.

 

[wetcoast]

It was certainly discussed for Messier and Shore especially.

I'll take your word for it, my memory is unclear.

My only point on that was consistency and for myself I try to put a player in the context of the era he played in.

Another example might be current guys who held out to be traded ect and guys pre NHL who changed teams like the weather.

Or missed wars years and lockouts.

 

[Killion]

If you think items like willful attempts to injure count for nothing [or worse- wind up being somehow weirdly admired], that's on you. It won't count that way as far as I'm concerned... and I'm not likely to be induced into changing my viewpoint on this matter.

Yeah, see, Chi'Town, I think your reading too much into this in "assigning motive" to the Poster (something that is supposed to be Verboten on this site btw)... looking at these "incidents" through the prism of modern sensibilities & decorum. Look at what happened to Bertuzzi's career after his attack on Moore. Wasnt the same player. Really 2 Victims in that case as not only did it wreck Steve Moores career, it completely derailed Todd's & that guy was an absolute force. Tremendous player prior to that mindless act of violence. Messed himself up real good in playing to an antiquated Code.

Back in the day however, no. You simply cannot apply modern sensibilities & outrage to what was not only common but expected of players who came up through the Junior ranks in Canada. Pro game in its very earliest incarnations. Ultra violence not uncommon. War. I played during the most recent era, late 60's early 70's and absolutely, Hit Men all over the place. Put you right out of the game altogether if they could and that was standard operating procedure. Today of course, several generations, totally unacceptable. Certainly dont condone what Shore, Fontinato, Green, Maki, Shack & countless hundreds of others pulled at times but they were products of their generations, The Game. Past is a different country, do things differently back there Man.

 

[blogofmike]

Why wouldn't it be, he was taking more shots and playing with Orr as apposed to Hull, I wouldn't expect his ES scoring to go down.

But Phil was still racking up points, even in games Orr didn't play, and there wasn't any dropoff in his scoring rate. It seems really unlikely that Esposito was highly dependent upon Bobby Orr to pad his point totals in Orr's 31 point year.

 

[wetcoast]

This just seems like an odd thing to say. We saw Bobby Clarke get heavy Hart support in the 70's on a team where he was clearly the prime mover.

I'll get to this on the next point.

If you remove Orr from Boston, Esposito would have been in a very similar situation. There's no reason to think he wouldn't have had Hart support, unless we're going to the (IMO, ridiculous) extreme of supposing Esposito was only a Bernie Nicholls-level player.

Sure if you believe in an alternate universe that Phil gets traded to boston and Bobby Orr was playing say with Chicago or Toronto instead of Boston and Phil has similar or even 80 percentile success that he did then that's a good argument.

I just don't buy the argument that Phil would have achieved the 80 percentile mark of what he did in Boston if Orr wasn't there.

And if Orr had played on another team then all bets would be off IMO.

Phil just didn't show enough indicators of eliteness before or after Orr to mitigate my concerns.

But alright, say we are going to heavily discount Esposito offense due to the Orr effect. Is it not appropriate to also be as stringent in regard to Parent's effect on Clarke's goal prevention? At least one participant with first-hand viewings has expressed the opinion that Parent indeed deserves a large share of credit. And it is an unavoidable fact that Clarke's peak years coincide perfectly with Parent's, and Bobby suddenly had a noticeable drop in goal prevention in the late 70's when the goaltending situation went down hill.

I think this is valid, especially for the 2 SC runs but 70's lord did bring up some very good evidence of his scoring on and off ice numbers in Philly that help Clarke build his case.

I think having Reggie Leach for a while before he totally succumbed to his demons helped clarke offensively as well.

Most of the case for Clarke is 2 way play and leadership, which stands on it's own pretty well.

I wouldn't have Clarke going in this round either and can think of at least 2 centers not on the ballot who would definitely be above both guys.

Sakic is ahead of both of them IMO as well.

 

[Killion]

Actually I thought you would suggest bringing out the boxing gloves

From me you will always receive the unexpected.... float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.

 

[wetcoast]

But Phil was still racking up points, even in games Orr didn't play, and there wasn't any dropoff in his scoring rate. It seems really unlikely that Esposito was highly dependent upon Bobby Orr to pad his point totals in Orr's 31 point year.

That might be the case for that time period selected.

And it's a plus for Phil no doubt, but its still a snapshot, mind you a bigger snapshot than just a playoff round or exhibition series.

I would be more swayed if that happened before and/or after Orr with any great degree but it didn't.

It might into be a great comparable but we often see spikes in scoring when players get traded at the trade deadline, then they regress to norm the following season.

The thing is that Orr was still on his upswing in his career so it's a what if still (If Phil could have continued that upward climb without Orr).

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I'll get to this on the next point.



Sure if you believe in an alternate universe that Phil gets traded to boston and Bobby Orr was playing say with Chicago or Toronto instead of Boston and Phil has similar or even 80 percentile success that he did then that's a good argument.

I just don't buy the argument that Phil would have achieved the 80 percentile mark of what he did in Boston if Orr wasn't there.

And if Orr had played on another team then all bets would be off IMO.

Phil just didn't show enough indicators of eliteness before or after Orr to mitigate my concerns.

I think this is valid, especially for the 2 SC runs but 70's lord did bring up some very good evidence of his scoring on and off ice numbers in Philly that help Clarke build his case.

I think having Reggie Leach for a while before he totally succumbed to his demons helped clarke offensively as well.

Most of the case for Clarke is 2 way play and leadership, which stands on it's own pretty well.

I wouldn't have Clarke going in this round either and can think of at least 2 centers not on the ballot who would definitely be above both guys.

Sakic is ahead of both of them IMO as well.

Esposito was one of the better point scorers in the league in his three full Chicago seasons...with minimal PP time. Plus the first Boston year before Orr was truly "Orr". At worst, he seems to project to a Sakic level offensive player if we remove Orr entirely. And shouldn't he get some credit for being Orr's finisher? It's not like any schmuck was going to score 76 goals, even with Orr tilting the ice and Cashman digging pucks out of the corner.