Voting Record - quoipourquoi, Canadiens1958, steve141

[Dingo]

I'm jumping in here. Coffey is such a damn hard player to 'rank' (if such things are important). I struggle with him myself.

There's no denying three Norris trophies over an 11-season span. There's no denying that on a per-game basis he was the 2nd -- and a case could be made for 1st -- best offensive Dman of all-time. He's probably the greatest hockey skater of all-time. And more importantly, all the teams he played for -- Edmonton, Pittsburgh, Detroit, Philly -- made the Cup Finals and were highly competitive teams. His international record is also impressive.

So, yeah, I can't argue with anyone ranking Coffey ahead of Chelios and Park. (To confess my biases, I always thought Chelios was slightly over-rated and I never saw Park play.)

Larry Robinson is another question.

I dunno. As Coffey is basically the only 'rover' since the 1920s, it's hard to evaluate him!

With Coffey I always look at how Gretzky’s numbers became Lemieux-like and Lemieux’s became Gretzky-like when he was traded to Pitts.
He may have been poor defensively (I can’t really say, I was a kid in the 80s, and he hasn’t caught me as particularly good or bad in the 84 or 87 CC upon adult viewing), but he was a heck of a catalyst.

I think Karlsson is/was a rover, too. Housley as well?

For my money, he is in Chelios’ ballpark, if nothing else, I can’t speak to Park, and I’d have Robinson over him, but they are so different it can always be argued.

 

[Canadiens1958]

The 1980s Oilers during Gretzky's tenure, tended to be defensive disasters, collectively. Terry Jones recalls:

Oilers ’84: The time they lost 11-0, and more blowouts

Top 50 Plus/Minus. Given that the NHL data bank offers 121 pages of +/- data, for 6030 players since the start of the 1959-60 season, referring to the equivalent of less than 1% 0f the available data is meaningless, moreso when cherry picking performance by position:

http://www.nhl.com/stats/player?agg...ype=2&filter=gamesPlayed,gte,1&sort=plusMinus

The absolute value of the lowest will not approach the highest. Basic Darwinism.

 

[The Panther]

The 1980s Oilers during Gretzky's tenure, tended to be defensive disasters, collectively.

No, they didn't.

1981-82
7th in defence (3rd in Campbell), +122 differential
1982-83
11th in defence (4th in Campbell), +109 differential
1983-84
10th in defence (3rd in Campbell), +132 differential
1984-85
8th in defence (2nd in Campbell), +103 differential
1985-86
13th in defence (3rd in Campbell), +116 differential
1986-87
10th in defence (3rd in Campbell), +88 differential
1987-88
8th in defence (2nd in Campbell), +75 differential

So, for the last 7 seasons Gretzky was in Edmonton (all the seasons they had a winning record), they averaged 9th or 10th place of 21 teams in defence, and averaged 3rd (or better) in the "Western" conference. It's hardly "defensive disasters", especially considering they played in the high-scoring Smythe division.

(Also, Gretzky wasn't in the lineup when they lost 11-0 to Hartford.)

After Gretzky was traded, this is how the Oilers did defensively:
1988-89
11th in defence (5th in Campbell), +19 differential

 

[DannyGallivan]

No, they didn't.

1981-82
7th in defence (3rd in Campbell), +122 differential
1982-83
11th in defence (4th in Campbell), +109 differential
1983-84
10th in defence (3rd in Campbell), +132 differential
1984-85
8th in defence (2nd in Campbell), +103 differential
1985-86
13th in defence (3rd in Campbell), +116 differential
1986-87
10th in defence (3rd in Campbell), +88 differential
1987-88
8th in defence (2nd in Campbell), +75 differential

So, for the last 7 seasons Gretzky was in Edmonton (all the seasons they had a winning record), they averaged 9th or 10th place of 21 teams in defence, and averaged 3rd (or better) in the "Western" conference. It's hardly "defensive disasters", especially considering they played in the high-scoring Smythe division.

(Also, Gretzky wasn't in the lineup when they lost 11-0 to Hartford.)

After Gretzky was traded, this is how the Oilers did defensively:
1988-89
11th in defence (5th in Campbell), +19 differential

I don't think this really proves a player (or team's) defensive value as much as it proves that goal differential is a more meaningful stat than either goals against or goals for. Clearly, if you are exceptionally strong in either goals for or goals against (or in the case of Lafleur's late 1970's Habs - both), you will have an impressive positive goal differential. It wasn't that Edmonton could keep the puck out of their net (which team of that era could, really), but it was a moot point when Gretzky and the gang could fill the other net with such ferocity. And I would suggest that a middle-of-the-road defensive team (such as the Oilers) in that era could be described as defensive disasters in most other eras. The fact is, style of play, a lack of parity and the evolution of offensive hockey was more to blame for the "lack of defense" in that era than the goaltending.

It was the dark ages for two-way forwards. Goal scorers, for the most part, had their role and they stuck to it. No coach would ever handcuff Gretzky by forcing him to play a 200 foot game.

 

[Canadiens1958]

No, they didn't.

1981-82
7th in defence (3rd in Campbell), +122 differential
1982-83
11th in defence (4th in Campbell), +109 differential
1983-84
10th in defence (3rd in Campbell), +132 differential
1984-85
8th in defence (2nd in Campbell), +103 differential
1985-86
13th in defence (3rd in Campbell), +116 differential
1986-87
10th in defence (3rd in Campbell), +88 differential
1987-88
8th in defence (2nd in Campbell), +75 differential

So, for the last 7 seasons Gretzky was in Edmonton (all the seasons they had a winning record), they averaged 9th or 10th place of 21 teams in defence, and averaged 3rd (or better) in the "Western" conference. It's hardly "defensive disasters", especially considering they played in the high-scoring Smythe division.

(Also, Gretzky wasn't in the lineup when they lost 11-0 to Hartford.)

After Gretzky was traded, this is how the Oilers did defensively:
1988-89
11th in defence (5th in Campbell), +19 differential

Never top 5 which is telling, let alone #1. Also you forgot 1979-80 and 1980-81, when they were 20th and 15th respectively in GA.

 

[The Panther]

Never top 5 which is telling, let alone #1. Also you forgot 1979-80 and 1980-81, when they were 20th and 15th respectively in GA.

What is it "telling" us? That they weren't good enough to win the Cup? I guess you've figured out why they failed so badly.

(As everyone realizes, I didn't forget 1979-80 and 1980-81, but didn't list them as the Oilers were a new expansion team developing.)

 

[Canadiens1958]

What is it "telling" us? That they weren't good enough to win the Cup? I guess you've figured out why they failed so badly.

(As everyone realizes, I didn't forget 1979-80 and 1980-81, but didn't list them as the Oilers were a new expansion team developing.)

Like Las Vegas, Montreal Maroons, Minnesota Wild, Florida Panthers.

 

[TheEye]

The 1980s Oilers during Gretzky's tenure, tended to be defensive disasters, collectively. Terry Jones recalls:

Oilers ’84: The time they lost 11-0, and more blowouts

Top 50 Plus/Minus. Given that the NHL data bank offers 121 pages of +/- data, for 6030 players since the start of the 1959-60 season, referring to the equivalent of less than 1% 0f the available data is meaningless, moreso when cherry picking performance by position:

http://www.nhl.com/stats/player?agg...ype=2&filter=gamesPlayed,gte,1&sort=plusMinus

The absolute value of the lowest will not approach the highest. Basic Darwinism.

Remember the time the Montreal Canadiens lost 10-2 to Chicago Blackhawks on April 5th, 1970?

Montreal Canadiens at Chicago Black Hawks Box Score — April 5, 1970 | Hockey-Reference.com

Blowout scores are not hard to find if one searches for them. Peruse the 1973-74 Montreal Canadiens game log and you will discover a season littered with blowout losses. A team coached by Scotty Bowman and led by Henri Richard, nonetheless.

1973-74 Montreal Canadiens Team Gamelog | Hockey-Reference.com

I'm not completely certain what you're referring to with respect to the top 50 plus/minus data. Are you insinuating the top 50 data is irrelevant because it merely represents less than 1% of the available data? If this is what you're suggesting, it can be posited that the top ordering in all data sets is irrelevant. The express purpose of data sets is to differentiate. One cannot dispose of them simply because they disagree with the differentiation. The exposition of data is supposed to enlighten and allow one to consider a revision of their hypothesis. Considering an alternative hypothesis because one doesn't like the supplementary information gleaned from the data set suggests intellectual dishonesty.

As I've recently stated, there's obvious rationale why 35 of the top 50 plus/minus seasons occurred during the 1970s. It undoubtedly reflects something of importance but, in my humble opinion, the representation provided by this data set does not reflect the most competent defensive players of all-time. That said, it assuredly does not make the data set irrelevant simply because it exposes an inconvenient truth.

Finally, is it equally not cherry picking when one focuses on a singular 11-0 loss instead of the five Stanley Cups won by the team, over a seven year span?

 

[Doctor No]

Remember the time the Montreal Canadiens lost 10-2 to Chicago Blackhawks on April 5th, 1970?

Montreal Canadiens at Chicago Black Hawks Box Score — April 5, 1970 | Hockey-Reference.com

I would *hope* that everyone reading this thread remembers that game, because it featured a unique occurrence (one that makes the "blowout" less remarkable).

(I do agree with the thesis on cherry picking, however.)

 

[TheEye]

Like Las Vegas, Montreal Maroons, Minnesota Wild, Florida Panthers.

The Edmonton Oilers have won five Stanley Cups. The Las Vegas Knights, Minnesota Wild and Florida Panthers have won zero Stanley Cups, combined. Considering a Montreal Maroons team that folded in 1938 demonstrates scarce relevance to this discussion.

 

[TheEye]

I would *hope* that everyone reading this thread remembers that game, because it featured a unique occurrence (one that makes the "blowout" less remarkable).

(I do agree with the thesis on cherry picking, however.)

The choice of the 1970 game is an oblique reference to cherry picking, as the Oilers were without both Gretzky and Kurri in the 11-0 loss to the Hartford Whalers. Perhaps this is an important detail to consider when trying to knock Gretzky down a peg, or seven?

Edmonton Oilers - Hartford Whalers - February 12th, 1984

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Some of the arguments presented here are as bizarre as the rankings they are trying to defend.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

The choice of the 1970 game is an oblique reference to cherry picking, as the Oilers were without both Gretzky and Kurri in the 11-0 loss to the Hartford Whalers. Perhaps this is an important detail to consider when trying to knock Gretzky down a peg, or seven?

Edmonton Oilers - Hartford Whalers - February 12th, 1984

I was at that game. Sunday late afternoon, after Oilers had lost to Boston the night before.

If Messier wasn't hungover or on the take, you would have said he didn't belong in the NHL based on that one game.

 

[blueandgoldguy]

So looking at the columns on the first page, the first column is how the participants ranked players prior to the commencement of voting, correct? What are the second and third columns exactly for each individual poster?

Edit: OK, I see now. I took a second look.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

What are the second and third columns exactly for each individual poster?

Final votes in each round.

 

[wetcoast]

Gretzky /Hull. Questions about eras and decline. Gretzky, especially in the early 1980s was dominating the weakest era ever in NHL Hockey. Declined rather quickly as the shortshift became common, facilitating defensive hockey.

Hull, his first 10 NHL seasons was dominating the strongest era in NHL Hockey.

Scotty Bowman ranked Gretzky 5th. Interview in French.

It's a real stretch to say that 80's hockey could have been weaker than the NHL in the 70's.

Literally no quantifiable metric has Gretzky outside of the top 4 all time.

Also any claim to Gretzky's decline being quick is very puzzling looking at the actual evidence provided.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Wayne Gretzky speaks, after the 7:00 minute mark offering perspective and insight into his era and achievements compared to Gordie Howe:

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

The "unrequiteds" (in personal 100 but not advanced by The Panel) for-
@steve141
59. Holeček
60. S. Savard
69. Parent
73. Worters
78. Bower
86. T. Thompson
91. Gerard
92. B. Smith
93. T. Blake
95. Lehman
97. Oates
100. Hainsworth

Not an unusually high number... and you can't say that there isn't a consistent vision here(!)

Cherry Popping Daddies (not on list, but advanced anyway)- not that many...
86. Mikhailov
89. Chara
91. Thornton

To "steve:" I can see staying with Thornton as a "de-listing" that you don't regret... but have you come out of the discussion with any re-appraisal concerning Chara or Mikhailov? Me- I think we went a little wild on Chara... but I'd certainly have a place for him in the top-110 (at least) on a defense-conscious list---

 

[BehindTheTimes]

TheEye has defended his position quite respectfully and quite easily. Gretzky at 7 is indefensible, I'm not sure why some of you are so reluctant to call it what is. Is this some sort of elite boys club where you all need to stick together?

 

[Theokritos]

Is this some sort of elite boys club where you all need to stick together?

Most who have chimed in (either with posts of their own or with a "like") seem to agree with the criticism, no? How many are actually sticking up for that Gretzky ranking?

 

[wetcoast]

What's with the goaltender clumpings on Canadiens1958 list?

Five goalies in a row from 64-68 & six in a row from 84-89.

that's almost statically impossible right? not that this is an objective project, it's very nature is subjective.

Gretzky at 6th with Mario ahead of him makes zero sense.

Ditto Bob Gainey being on the list and also being 2 spots ahead of Datsyuk?

Serge Savard at 45th over the likes of Pronger, Stevens, Leetch, Howe and Salming? Even if one is extremely high on Savard there is a real inconsistency in his placement.

But to me the biggest problem is Jagr at 49th, which isn't defensible by any means is it?

I also wonder if Firsov was a forced 120th spot after reading C1958 comments during the discussion.

 

[MXD]

TheEye has defended his position quite respectfully and quite easily. Gretzky at 7 is indefensible, I'm not sure why some of you are so reluctant to call it what is. Is this some sort of elite boys club where you all need to stick together?

No one agreed with Gretzky at #7 as far as I know.

 

[daver]

Never top 5 which is telling, let alone #1. Also you forgot 1979-80 and 1980-81, when they were 20th and 15th respectively in GA.

Telling what? All teams who finish outside the Top 1/4 in GAA are, in your words, "defensive disasters".

Do you really think that is a reasonable team critique that can then be used as fodder to devalue an individual's place on said team?

 

[VanIslander]

Lalonde before Sakic.
(Keon before Bentley?)
Seibert before Robinson.

I would have liked to hear arguments for those rankings by these three.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Lalonde before Sakic.
(Keon before Bentley?)
Seibert before Robinson.

I would have liked to hear arguments for those rankings by these three.

I had Lalonde ahead of Sakic & Keon ahead of Bentley.

So I'd say those two are reasonable.