Your Mt.Rushmore of OVERRATED and Mt.Rushmore of UNDERRATED ... all time

[Staniowski]

I was wondering who would have the biggest gap between their contemporaneous reputation at the time from people watching them versus where they are now in the negative.

Esposito and Richard ? He went from a fixture in the group battling for the 5th best player ever title conversation from out of the top 20 of some in the last 15 years it seems.

Esposito was one of the great that turned into a product of Orr and weak era in the eyes of many.

The general perception of Esposito hasn't changed very much, actually, from the time that he played for the Bruins, or from the late '70s and into the '80s.

He was never really accepted as being a great offensive player in comparison to Howe, Beliveau, Hull, etc. by most people.

Esposito has always been misunderstood, in some ways.

 

[JackSlater]

In keeping with the NY Metropolitan theme

Both underrated.

Chico Resch--the face of 2 franchises for a long while each

Bryan Trottier--one of the most complete players in NHL history and the most indespensible of the Dyansty teams. If that isn't enough, he won 2 more cups with Penguins

I'll also kick in Bobby Clarke as underrated. A lot of players from the old days become more underappreciated as time goes on

Clarke is definitely underrated now. He's the rich man's version of the Toews/Kopitar/Bergeron/Barkov types that tend to keep winning Stanley Cups at the top of lineups.

Yeah, this is wrong. Maurice Richard is getting underrated now.

See the contemporary "monthly leaders" thread that spans NHL history and you'll see Richard up among the top four or five players of all time.

Also, Richard wasn't constantly surrounded by Hall of Famers as you imply. When Montreal won its 5-straight Cups from 1956 to 1960, Richard was mostl past his prime already (though he was still a playoff hero as late as 1958). When Richard joined the Canadiens, they sucked, then they got really really good near war's end (partly due to other clubs' losing too many players), then they sucked again, then they got really good, then averaged out, then the 5-year dynasty.

People tend to want to over-simplify things like you did, but the reality is always more nuanced.

Anyway, Richard is there with Gretzky and a couple others as the greatest playoff performer in history. Also retired as the #1 goal scorer in history. No way he's overrated.

I agree that Richard is getting underrated in some sense. It seems unlikely to me that the people who followed him were hopeless rubes, which is sort of the implication that exists with some Richard takes, while people today just looking at his numbers certainly know more. There's mythmaking with Richard for certain but it seems unlikely that the guy who was the best player of the first seventy years of hockey or so is rated as poorly as he sometimes is now.

The general perception of Esposito hasn't changed very much, actually, from the time that he played for the Bruins, or from the late '70s and into the '80s.

He was never really accepted as being a great offensive player in comparison to Howe, Beliveau, Hull, etc. by most people.

Esposito has always been misunderstood, in some ways.

I agree that Esposito was never regarded in that that way really. I also don't think he should have been at any point, but I do think that how Esposito played is very misunderstood.

 

[DitchMarner]

I've read comments saying Richard is overrated because he only won one Hart and never won an Art Ross. I'm not sure the reasoning is any deeper than that. Of course, he finished second in points and top three in Hart voting on multiple occasions.

 

[Mike C]

Clarke is definitely underrated now. He's the rich man's version of the Toews/Kopitar/Bergeron/Barkov types that tend to keep winning Stanley Cups at the top of lineups.



I agree that Richard is getting underrated in some sense. It seems unlikely to me that the people who followed him were hopeless rubes, which is sort of the implication that exists with some Richard takes, while people today just looking at his numbers certainly know more. There's mythmaking with Richard for certain but it seems unlikely that the guy who was the best player of the first seventy years of hockey or so is rated as poorly as he sometimes is now.



I agree that Esposito was never regarded in that that way really. I also don't think he should have been at any point, but I do think that how Esposito played is very misunderstood.

Espo was known as a "garbage man", just picking up rebounds from the slot. That was only a part of his game. He was a beast in corners and behind the net. He drew defenders to him, had GREAT balance and I saw him freeze countless pucks for zone faceoffs. He was smart and intuitive and while not Bob Gainey, he was solid defensively when it mattered. Truly an all time great

 

[JackSlater]

I've read comments saying Richard is overrated because he only won one Hart and never won an Art Ross. I'm not sure the reasoning is any deeper than that. Of course, he finished second in points and top three in Hart voting on multiple occasions.

Yeah that is part of it. People experiencing something don't need to grasp at trophies for meaning, it makes sense at the time in a way that is harder to grasp decades afterward. Off the top of my head consider who the consensus best defenceman in hockey has been for a few years now and how many Norris trophies he has. As you alluded to as well, the binary nature of the trophies can obscure things. You could give Richard literally just two more points over the course of his career (an assist in 1947 and a goal in 1955) and he suddenly has two Art Ross trophies by adding essentially no value at all. It doesn't matter at the time but it does when you aren't familiar with the player.

Espo was known as a "garbage man", just picking up rebounds from the slot. That was only a part of his game. He was a beast in corners and behind the net. He drew defenders to him, had GREAT balance and I saw him freeze countless pucks for zone faceoffs. He was smart and intuitive and while not Bob Gainey, he was solid defensively when it mattered. Truly an all time great

I agree that Esposito was caricatured as a garbage man. Not sure about him being solid defensively or even going to the corners all that often. You can easily watch Esposito and see for example what a great stickhandler he was and how valuable he was early on in his Boston years in transition. He's a very unique player.

 

[Mike C]

Yeah that is part of it. People experiencing something don't need to grasp at trophies for meaning, it makes sense at the time in a way that is harder to grasp decades afterward. Off the top of my head consider who the consensus best defenceman in hockey has been for a few years now and how many Norris trophies he has. As you alluded to as well, the binary nature of the trophies can obscure things. You could give Richard literally just two more points over the course of his career (an assist in 1947 and a goal in 1955) and he suddenly has two Art Ross trophies by adding essentially no value at all. It doesn't matter at the time but it does when you aren't familiar with the player.



I agree that Esposito was caricatured as a garbage man. Not sure about him being solid defensively or even going to the corners all that often. You can easily watch Esposito and see for example what a great stickhandler he was and how valuable he was early on in his Boston years in transition. He's a very unique player.

His girth was the key to him when he was in puck battles and behind the net. People bounced off him thus allowing his mates to be open for a pass or to swoop in for a loose puck. He wasn't a superstar in that area defensively but was effective when he had to be

 

[SealsFan]

I remember the criticisms of Esposito and thinking, well if it's so easy why aren't more players scoring 76 goals? He also had a big stride which allowed him to cover a lot of ice without looking like he was expending much effort.

 

[JackSlater]

His girth was the key to him when he was in puck battles and behind the net. People bounced off him thus allowing his mates to be open for a pass or to swoop in for a loose puck. He wasn't a superstar in that area defensively but was effective when he had to be

Honestly Esposito is probably the laziest star I have ever seen, and his linemates did most of the work in terms of winning puck battles. My sense is that early Boston Esposito was more industrious, based on having seen a few games at least. Esposito was big, smart, and had a great stick so he could win battles too but I don't see him doing it all that much in corners. In front of the net, sure. A lot of time floating in the slot, which did work most of the time.

 

[blogofmike]

Honestly Esposito is probably the laziest star I have ever seen, and his linemates did most of the work in terms of winning puck battles. My sense is that early Boston Esposito was more industrious, based on having seen a few games at least. Esposito was big, smart, and had a great stick so he could win battles too but I don't see him doing it all that much in corners. In front of the net, sure. A lot of time floating in the slot, which did work most of the time.

Esposito benefitted from Boston in general. Smaller ice, and a line that was focused on getting the puck to him or towards the net for the rebound. Orr helps, but in 1970-71 for example, Esposito scored 108 of his 152 points without Orr factoring in.

In Chicago, it was the Bobby Hull show, and Mikita centred the power play.

In New York, Emile Francis was blowing up the team. Espo got PP time, but the team wasn't particularly good until 78-79 when Hedberg and Nilsson came in and Shero was named coach (Espo's 4th coach in 4 seasons with New York.)

 

[JackSlater]

Esposito benefitted from Boston in general. Smaller ice, and a line that was focused on getting the puck to him or towards the net for the rebound. Orr helps, but in 1970-71 for example, Esposito scored 108 of his 152 points without Orr factoring in.

In Chicago, it was the Bobby Hull show, and Mikita centred the power play.

In New York, Emile Francis was blowing up the team. Espo got PP time, but the team wasn't particularly good until 78-79 when Hedberg and Nilsson came in and Shero was named coach (Espo's 4th coach in 4 seasons with New York.)

That seems accurate to me. Full credit to Esposito that if you build a line around him then he will score a ton. Great offensive player. Cashman and Hodge were good to great supporting players who mainly shoveled the puck to Esposito. Worked a lot of the time for Boston and worked for Canada in 1972 when Esposito was by far the best offensive player on the team.

I'm not really convinced that if you put say Yzerman or Sakic into the late 1960s early 1970s NHL, gave them very good linemates (plus Orr in general) dedicated to getting them the puck, told them to not worry about defence and allowed them to take shifts as long as they wanted, that they couldn't have attained similar or better results. That's speculation obviously but I do think that watching Esposito play games from his prime years would help people understand his style of play better and also why his acclaim doesn't match his on paper accolades. The same is true for Mikita to a degree.

 

[Michael Farkas]

*squinting* didn't that sort of happen with Dionne? Except he was a better playmaker, so he was shoveling pucks to everyone else and he retired top...3 (?) in points all time?

Not perfect, but that sorta kinda happened and he ended challenging Howe for most points all time...

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Honestly Esposito is probably the laziest star I have ever seen, and his linemates did most of the work in terms of winning puck battles. My sense is that early Boston Esposito was more industrious, based on having seen a few games at least. Esposito was big, smart, and had a great stick so he could win battles too but I don't see him doing it all that much in corners. In front of the net, sure. A lot of time floating in the slot, which did work most of the time.

Disagree.

Espo worked his ass off for the Bruins.

That seems accurate to me. Full credit to Esposito that if you build a line around him then he will score a ton. Great offensive player. Cashman and Hodge were good to great supporting players who mainly shoveled the puck to Esposito. Worked a lot of the time for Boston and worked for Canada in 1972 when Esposito was by far the best offensive player on the team.

I'm not really convinced that if you put say Yzerman or Sakic into the late 1960s early 1970s NHL, gave them very good linemates (plus Orr in general) dedicated to getting them the puck, told them to not worry about defence and allowed them to take shifts as long as they wanted, that they couldn't have attained similar or better results. That's speculation obviously but I do think that watching Esposito play games from his prime years would help people understand his style of play better and also why his acclaim doesn't match his on paper accolades. The same is true for Mikita to a degree.

That would be Gretzky and Mario, not Espo.

 

[JackSlater]

Disagree.

Espo worked his ass off for the Bruins.



That would be Gretzky and Mario, not Espo.

None of the three of them played much of any defence.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

None of the three of them played much of any defence.

Espo not to the same extent at all.

He would at least go deep into the defensive zone if need be.

 

[centipede2233]

My underrated Mount Rushmore is Zubov, Belfour, Messier and Carbenneau.

 

[K Fleur]

Does Mark have a brother?

 

[Albatros]

Does Mark have a brother?

Underrated no less.

 

[Reindl87]

Overrated:
Ovechkin
Kane / Lindros
 Kopitar
Guerin


Underrated;
Malkin / Kucherov
Bure
Statsny
Francis

 

[TheAngryHank]

Underrated Kovalchuk, the grind line.

 

[WalterLundy]

Overrated:
Patrick Kane
Sidney Crosby
Mark Messier
Eric Lindros

Underrated:
Wayne Gretzky
Phil Esposito
Jaromir Jagr
Marcel Dionne

Crosby is in the top 10 for sure and can be anywhere from 5-8 reasonably for me but the way he is talked about is a bit much. Nothing I’ve ever said about Crosby has been bad but you get accused of being a hater by accurately rating him. Jagr was better than he ever was I saw both at their bests. Never was super impressed with Kane. Lindros had so much potential but he’s a bit over glorified on here. Esposito gets treated unfairly and is overlooked on here. Didn’t get to see much of his career but the more I look the more I feel he is relatively disrespected. Jagr is the clearly 4th best forward I’ve ever seen behind Gretzky, Lemieux and McDavid. He’s better than Crosby and Malkin ever were.

Wayne Gretzky I included as although he is the consensus goat in the hockey world on this site in particular he is actually underrated. It’s straight up bizarre stuff. He is the most dominant athlete in the history of the big 4 sports and has virtually every record ever yet is perpetually doubted on here. From 1980-1991 (his prime) he had 2142 points with the next closest at 1119. He was doubling the average point production of the top 10 from the range who are all HOF members. For assists in the range he had 1424 with the next closest at 738. Clears the second best point producer of the range by 305 off of assists alone. For goals he had 718 in the range with nobody else over 500. There is always some excuse or complaint about it and usually it’s from people that didn’t even see him play in his prime or from fans of another player that only saw Gretzky as a shell of himself in the 90s (who still had the most points in the 90s by the way). To me I’ve always thought it was silly.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Underrated Kovalchuk, the grind line.

I'll go overrated on Kovalchuk.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Overrated:
Ovechkin
Kane / Lindros
 Kopitar
Guerin


Underrated;
Malkin / Kucherov
Bure
Statsny
Francis

How is Kucherov underrated?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Overrated:
Patrick Kane
Sidney Crosby
Mark Messier
Eric Lindros

Underrated:
Wayne Gretzky
Phil Esposito
Jaromir Jagr
Marcel Dionne

Crosby is in the top 10 for sure and can be anywhere from 5-8 reasonably for me but the way he is talked about is a bit much. Nothing I’ve ever said about Crosby has been bad but you get accused of being a hater by accurately rating him. Jagr was better than he ever was I saw both at their bests. Never was super impressed with Kane. Lindros had so much potential but he’s a bit over glorified on here. Esposito gets treated unfairly and is overlooked on here. Didn’t get to see much of his career but the more I look the more I feel he is relatively disrespected. Jagr is the clearly 4th best forward I’ve ever seen behind Gretzky, Lemieux and McDavid. He’s better than Crosby and Malkin ever were.

Wayne Gretzky I included as although he is the consensus goat in the hockey world on this site in particular he is actually underrated. It’s straight up bizarre stuff. He is the most dominant athlete in the history of the big 4 sports and has virtually every record ever yet is perpetually doubted on here. From 1980-1991 (his prime) he had 2142 points with the next closest at 1119. He was doubling the average point production of the top 10 from the range who are all HOF members. For assists in the range he had 1424 with the next closest at 738. Clears the second best point producer of the range by 305 off of assists alone. For goals he had 718 in the range with nobody else over 500. There is always some excuse or complaint about it and usually it’s from people that didn’t even see him play in his prime or from fans of another player that only saw Gretzky as a shell of himself in the 90s (who still had the most points in the 90s by the way). To me I’ve always thought it was silly.

This is a fascinating post.

Especially the bolded part.

 

[WalterLundy]

This is a fascinating post.

Especially the bolded part.

I’m glad it captivated you. Jagr at his best was better than Crosby. By the way Bobby Orr wasn’t better than Wayne Gretzky.

 

[jigglysquishy]

At their best, I'm pretty confident that Orr was better than Gretzky.

The real challenge though is that Orr is out at that otherworldly level for about 3 years. After his 1972 knee injury he lacks the mobility to be s-tier offensively and defensively at the same time.

So in an all time vote, yes I put Gretzky ahead. But best single season, I put Orr ahead.