Yes, team strength has nothing to do with individual performance. I forgot there is no number for that so it doesn't exist.
Well, then demonstrate that just being on a better team makes a player's numbers better. Linemates matter, that much is obvious. Does just being on a good team matter? You seem to think so. Prove it!
No, it could be that you have a player like Scott Stevens who is fully capable of putting up 70 points in a season if he played offensively, but who buys into a team system and a risk/reward system that means he sacrifices offense to do what needs to be done. It is an extreme example but anywhere along the scale is possible.
1) Stevens was not capable of 70 points anymore even if he was getting PP time
2) Stevens' PP time dropped considerable after 1994 (frm 4.3 minutes per game 1987-1994, to 1.4 minutes per game 1995-2002) so much of his lower numbers wasn't due to him "buying into" anything at all, but the coach's usage. Unless you believe he got as much PP time as he asked for, and stopped asking
The vast majority of people here don't give it much consideration at all except to tear down offensive totals of the 80s and play up every other time.
This makes no sense. First you say the style of play a team uses matters. I say I agree, and cite a 1980s winger as proof (as in, it's well-known that his team played a defensive style and he's better than his numbers show) - you then add that people don't consider this when tearing down 1980s offensive totals. I don't see the connection here. One of the main arguments is "well, the 1980s were so offensive, you have to understand every team played an offensive style" - so if Boston's defensive style causes this player to be underrated, how can other teams'
offensive styles be used to defend others?
It's all stats, and no it isn't minor. Just like Stevens sacrifice, UNDRAFTED PLAYER was supposed to be the next rushing defenseman but he was reined in.. maybe he ended up better overall but it certainly curtailed his offensive totals.
I think everyone who rates UNDRAFTED PLAYER understands what "could have" been and that he was probably more talented than his early numbers indicated (now we're back to team
defensive styles underrating players!) However, what happened happened, and yes, his legacy probably got "edited" by coaching, but that's the way it goes sometimes. In judging UNDRAFTED PLAYER's ATD offensive production, I think mostly about what was, and a little about what could have been. I think everybody does just that, probably just to slightly varying degrees. I think that's more than fair.
Of course it isn't a major consideration because again, you don't have a number for it so it is ignored.
No. I told you it is a minor consideration because it rarely happens. "vs. #2" comparisons work very well in cases where there is one outlier (or no real outliers) and then "the pack"... which is most seasons. I gave a couple of examples of when there are 2 outliers, but they are very uncommon in the grand scheme of things. "you don't have a number for it" is ridiculous. Of course we do. It's just not a major consideration, as I said.
If your point regarding Seibert was that he was way behind the leaders in those categories, but at the same time we know he was top 10 12 times and top 5 8 times.. then you better start reeling in your opinion of the top 3-4 guys as well because either they are outliers or the competition was horrible.
Those guys were partially outliers (Shore, Clancy) and the competition for
offensive defensemen in general wasn't great. TDMM covered this already though.
How can Seibert be overrated in the top 5 8 times and the guys ahead of him get off unscathed?
Umm, well for one thing, they're ahead of him.
And no one said he was overrated, Seibert's offensive legacy is just as much as in danger of being overrated as 30 other pre-expansion defensemen with relatively similar offensive records. His is pretty good, it just needed to be put into better context; if what he did was impressive as scoring 600 points in the last dozen years that is pretty awesome, it's just not comparable to actually finishing top-10 13 times and top-5 8 times in a modern sense. A guy who did that would have almost 1000 points.
Your last couple of posts indicate you think we are trashing Seibert somehow. Jarek's research clearly indicates Seibert had an offensive edge to him, and my own number crunching showed this was true as well. With that said, as offensive as he was, he was still generally about 30% behind the defense scoring leaders.
