| Author |
 Topic  |
|
tctitans
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
931 Posts |
 Posted - 03/08/2007 : 09:57:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
He has 1531 career points and 1654 even strength goals against.
He's +300 for his career because he played on the high scoring Oilers.
What I'm saying is, is that his offense doesn't overcome his defensive liabilities.
No matter which way you want to spin it... he was on the ice for a lot more goals for,
than against.
I'm not saying that he'd be my 2nd D pick if I was drafting a team, that would depend on what the goal of my team was and what the rest of the team looked like. But Coffey is still a solid #2 in my books for the most skilled D man of all times.
|
 |
|
|
admin
Forum Admin
Canada
2338 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2007 : 10:31:04
|
This is a tough one because guys like Bourque, Potvin, etc. were the full package. Obviously there are many ways to rate someone as a player. Goals and assists are the most often used for forwards. GAA, wins, Shutouts etc for Goailes. For defensemen it has always been a mix of ability to both score and prevent goals. I wont even mention +/- as that stat is useless anyways.
Although niether are in the same category as anyone listed here, Ed Jovanovski and Willie Mitchell have been compared quite a lot here in the Vancouver Market. The reason being that the Canucks negelected to sign Jovo to $6 million plus, and took the cheaper, safer, less offensively talented guy in Mitchell for $3.5 million. He doesnt score goals, but he is a warrior when in counts. His stick skills and shutdown abilities are worth much more than Jovanovski's ability to QB the PP.
Anyways, that was off topic, but my point is that defensemen are probably the hardest position to rate, or compare. A checking forward is rarley considered great, but a checking defensemen often is.
Paul Coffey should have been a forward. It would make things easier on us. |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2007 : 10:37:17
|
| Agreed Admin. I am of the same opinion, He should have been a forward. |
|
|
|
tctitans
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
931 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2007 : 12:10:03
|
I also agree with Admin tha Dmen are very hard to analyze and compare. It all depends on your evaluation criteria for what your top list will look like, and for Dmen, there are quite a number of legitimate criteria sets than can be used.
Depending on what criteria is used, there will be a different top list for each set.
I agree that Coffey had the skill to be a forward, but whether he should be one or not is quite debatable. Don't forget that it's not only the individuals skill, but how they are coached to play. I still believe that Coffey was better defensively that people give him credit for, but he was coached into a different niche roles because of his great offensive skill. In many cases, Coffey played the rover position (a throwback to the NHL days of old), and did in fact, act like a 4th forward. But because he was lightning quick to get back, he was one of the few Dmen that could be used in such a capacity.
The guy was just phenomenal. Even as his career started winding down in Detroit, he had 77, 58, and 74 point seasons (all a +, +28, +18, +19).
That's one thing that I completely disagree with you on Admin, is that I believe the +/- is the most important stat a player can have. You can throw away Goals, Assist, PIM, GAA, SV%, and all other stats. The bottom-line to success is WINS, and only WINS. If your team has a good +/- ratio 5-on-5, then, to me, that goes a looonng way to putting W's in the win column. Sure, special teams will come into play as well, but you get my drift... In my coaching days, I would most certainly reward my + players in many circumstances. (it's a good tool to to help develop 2-way players).
|
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2007 : 12:24:42
|
Not to speak for Admin but i think I know what he means about the +/- stat.
On an individual basis it's subject to outside influences. A player can have a good plus/minus rating on a great team and then be traded to a horrible team and it goes into the toilet. It is very much affected by the players around you. |
|
|
|
admin
Forum Admin
Canada
2338 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2007 : 12:29:54
|
Well written article on the plus/minus stat:
http://www.lcshockey.com/content/072206.asp
It is a very skewed stat in my opinion. First, it is basically a reflection of the skill of the team the player plays for. Secondly, it has to do with the skill level of a players linemates. If a player plays with good players, he has a better chance to have a strong plus minus. The opposite should occur if he plays with crap players. Third, it has to do with the situation the player is given. If you play on the top defensive pairing battling against the oppostiions stars every game, then you are more likely to be a minus player. Fourth, it fails to take into account the powerplay, and since it is such a huge part of today's NHL - that also makes it flawed.
|
|
|
|
PuckNuts
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2414 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2007 : 13:17:46
|
I think a player should be given a minus if his team is scored on while he is in the penalty box...
Light travels faster than sound, this is why some people appear bright, until they speak... |
|
|
|
tctitans
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
931 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2007 : 14:11:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by admin
Well written article on the plus/minus stat:
http://www.lcshockey.com/content/072206.asp
It is a very skewed stat in my opinion. First, it is basically a reflection of the skill of the team the player plays for. Secondly, it has to do with the skill level of a players linemates. If a player plays with good players, he has a better chance to have a strong plus minus. The opposite should occur if he plays with crap players. Third, it has to do with the situation the player is given. If you play on the top defensive pairing battling against the oppostiions stars every game, then you are more likely to be a minus player. Fourth, it fails to take into account the powerplay, and since it is such a huge part of today's NHL - that also makes it flawed.
i understand your points, and they are valid (I havent read the article yet, but I will). I agree it is very difficult to compare apples-to-apples with +/-, especially from team to team. Relatively, within a team, it's a little easier, but then the coach must again factor in other things. I still think it is an incredibly important stat that should not be discarded. The same arguments against +/- could be used for all other stats too (G/A/ ..) like how much PP time they get, their linemates, team philosophy (offense vs defense) etc.. Stats in general are not absolute, but they are valuable when analyzed and put into context (still subjective to a degree mind you). |
|
|
|
tctitans
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
931 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2007 : 14:12:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by PuckNuts
I think a player should be given a minus if his team is scored on while he is in the penalty box...
Light travels faster than sound, this is why some people appear bright, until they speak...
The philosophy of this I agree with.. however it doesnt factor in
1) 'good penalties' : Perhaps he shouldnt get a -1 for taking a good penalty
2) 'baad referees' : Too many horrid and phantom calls these days... |
Edited by - tctitans on 03/08/2007 14:13:44 |
|
|
|
tctitans
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
931 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2007 : 14:20:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by admin
Well written article on the plus/minus stat:
http://www.lcshockey.com/content/072206.asp
Interesting aricle (Thanks Admin), however I think it just points out the obvious that Hockey stats are not an exact science and need to be intrepreted in context. I would accept this as an axiom. |
|
|
|
Guest4809
( )
|
Posted - 03/08/2007 : 16:37:23
|
Willus3,
Didin't mean to imply that Orr was "just okay" defensively. I meant to say that Coffey was "just okay" defensively. Although he was not the best defensive dman of his era, (Serge Savard perhaps...) Orr was very good on D, especially on the penalty kill. Interesting question about drafting Orr or Bourque, knowing what we know now. Do you take Bourque's brilliance for 20 years, or Orr's uber-brilliance for 9 years. Over the long haul, I'd take Bourque, but only because of the longevity. But how long could Orr have lasted if he played during the era of arthroscopic knee surgery? |
|
|
|
Guest4809
( )
|
Posted - 03/08/2007 : 16:49:21
|
Tctitans,
Curious about your take on the +/- issue. What's your view on Robinson then, best +/- player ever at 731. How does he compare to Coffey? Or to anyone else for that matter? Second is Bourque at 528, then Orr and Gretzky, both at 517.
|
|
|
|
tctitans
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
931 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2007 : 17:13:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4809
Tctitans,
Curious about your take on the +/- issue. What's your view on Robinson then, best +/- player ever at 731. How does he compare to Coffey? Or to anyone else for that matter? Second is Bourque at 528, then Orr and Gretzky, both at 517.
I absolutely love Robinson. He was one of the most complete packages ever - he was even a tough bastard in a fight.
After all the discussions, my stance is firm. VERY Firm... It's almost impossible to declare an opinion on a list of 'best' anything, without first determining the precise criteria. ;) I've never seen the likes of Harvey or Shore play, so I don't have a good frame of reference for them. On the other hand, I was lucky enough to watch Robinson and his greatness.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Rate Paul Coffey's Play 
