| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
 Posted - 05/24/2007 : 17:22:52
|
I perceive it differently. His job was to be responsible defensively and focus on offensive. By saying he's sub par, are you not saying he was irresponsible defensively?? If so, what made him irresponsible?? I don't remember him turning the puck over in his end or making poor passes out of his zone, do you?? He did the exact defensive job he was asked to do, therefore he was average at least. If his job was to be more defensive, I would agree that he was sub-par. However, I feel he did exactly what was asked of him, so he is average at the very least.
And I don't recall a single playoff series the Oilers lost because of poor defensive play by Gretzky. It's not what could have happened, what did happen?? What play off series did Gretzky's defensive play negatively influence??
I Love your Kids, IHC is the man, and The Oilers Rule. Does that make me insane?? |
 |
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2007 : 11:23:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
I perceive it differently. His job was to be responsible defensively and focus on offensive. By saying he's sub par, are you not saying he was irresponsible defensively?? If so, what made him irresponsible?? I don't remember him turning the puck over in his end or making poor passes out of his zone, do you?? He did the exact defensive job he was asked to do, therefore he was average at least. If his job was to be more defensive, I would agree that he was sub-par. However, I feel he did exactly what was asked of him, so he is average at the very least.
And I don't recall a single playoff series the Oilers lost because of poor defensive play by Gretzky. It's not what could have happened, what did happen?? What play off series did Gretzky's defensive play negatively influence??
I Love your Kids, IHC is the man, and The Oilers Rule. Does that make me insane??
I think you're letting his legend grow beyond reality. You don't remember him turning the puck over or making a bad pass? This is what I mean when I say some people are fabricating their memories. Let me assure you he turned the puck over and not all of his passes hit their mark. And when it happened when he was behind the net (his office), he basically had no chance of getting back with the play. Even when it happened elsewhere on the ice he just didn't give a whole lot of effort to backcheck. In that game i just recently watched that I mentioned earlier I noticed it several times where he could have skated hard back with them and backchecked but didn't.
He may not have cost the Oilers any series. The oilers were an offensive juggernaut though and had guys like Messier and Tikkanen playing good two way hockey to cover
I do think he very well could have cost his other teams series and games though. While with LA for instance, his offense alone wasn't getting the job done because other teams were consistently beating them. He was putting up great numbers but that wasn't winning them games. So like I said before, maybe if he and the rest of his team had played better two way hockey the could have won more. Despite what many around these parts think, defense can and does win hockey games. I honestly believe that he was more concerned about breaking records than he was about doing whatever it took to win games.
In 94 Gretzky wins the scoring race with 130 points while being a -25, with 109 ESGA and LA comes nowhere near the playoffs. It's also the year he scored #802. Sort of shows where his focus was.
Yzerman was a completely one dimensional player for the first part of his career. But he realized he needed to do more to help his team win (which they did) and he became an excellent two way player.
The only reason Gretzky wouldn't play that way is because he was too concerned with personal records. That is what I believe. I will agree to disagree with you on this though Beans. We can't all agree on everything. It would be a mighty boring world if we did.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
|
|
|
Guest9995
( )
|
Posted - 05/25/2007 : 13:51:02
|
We have no way of knowing for sure what was inside of Gretzky's head, whether he was sacrificing his defensive game just to break records, but I do know this much.... When asked during his retirement press conference why he didn't play one or two seasons more and break the 3000 point barrier, her was his response: He said, simply, "Because in all my discussions with my wife on whether to continue playing or not, points and records never came up. The only concerns have been team concerns...winning the Stanley Cup."
Now, if records were so important to him, then why did he not want the most unthinkable record of all, 3000 points? That's 3 one thousand point careers rolled into one. Unbelievable. Yet he passed on it because he cared more about winning.
I don't buy the argument that Gretzky had a bad plus/minus because he wanted to score goal number 802. That is a flawed argument for so many reasons. Here's a couple of them: One, Gretzky would have broken that record the year after anyway even if he had only scored 20 goals per season. Secondly, Gretzky broke records almost every year of his entire career, so naturally his bad plus/minus years would overlap his record breaking years....so I don't understand the point. Thirdly, Gretzky had several dazzling plus minus years (+98 one year) where he broke far more records. Fourthly, take a look at the rest of Gretzky's teammates' plus/minus stats in 1994. I think his bad plus/minus was more a reflection of the team than his individual play.... The list goes on, but I cannot buy this argument about goal number 802 being the reason for his poor plus/minus. A huge stretch of the imagination would be an understatement. |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2007 : 14:15:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest9995
We have no way of knowing for sure what was inside of Gretzky's head, whether he was sacrificing his defensive game just to break records, but I do know this much.... When asked during his retirement press conference why he didn't play one or two seasons more and break the 3000 point barrier, her was his response: He said, simply, "Because in all my discussions with my wife on whether to continue playing or not, points and records never came up. The only concerns have been team concerns...winning the Stanley Cup."
Now, if records were so important to him, then why did he not want the most unthinkable record of all, 3000 points? That's 3 one thousand point careers rolled into one. Unbelievable. Yet he passed on it because he cared more about winning.
I don't buy the argument that Gretzky had a bad plus/minus because he wanted to score goal number 802. That is a flawed argument for so many reasons. Here's a couple of them: One, Gretzky would have broken that record the year after anyway even if he had only scored 20 goals per season. Secondly, Gretzky broke records almost every year of his entire career, so naturally his bad plus/minus years would overlap his record breaking years....so I don't understand the point. Thirdly, Gretzky had several dazzling plus minus years (+98 one year) where he broke far more records. Fourthly, take a look at the rest of Gretzky's teammates' plus/minus stats in 1994. I think his bad plus/minus was more a reflection of the team than his individual play.... The list goes on, but I cannot buy this argument about goal number 802 being the reason for his poor plus/minus. A huge stretch of the imagination would be an understatement.
I believe his quote about as much as I believe his wife is innocent in the betting scandal. He's smart enough to know what he should and shouldn't say to put the proper spin on things.
What about the countless times he said his goal was to break this record or that record.
And he passed on the 3000 point record but I guess he passed on the chance for more Cups too then didn't he.
As for your last paragraph, you're right, you don't get the point.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
|
|
|
99pickles
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
671 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2007 : 03:41:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
As I recall, Bernie was not very good defensively (either ) but I don't think he beats Pavel Bure for this honor.
More importantly, I think you are not giving Bernie enough credit, 99pickles (are you a pickle fan by the way - new dill or old?).
Sorry, food distraction - but take a look at his pre-Gretzky numbers below:
1983-84 78 41 54 95
1984-85 80 46 54 100
1985-86 80 36 61 97
1986-87 80 33 48 81
1987-88 65 32 46 78
He was no slouch offensively even before Wayne arrived. The fact that he went up to 150 points with Wayne of course had a lot to do with Wayne, but give Bernie some credit for "rising to the occasion" on his own.
Kind of reminds me of when Steffie Graf won everything in sight after Monica Seles was stabbed by that maniac. Some people held it against Graf. But what was she supposed to do - not try to win? Similarly, what was Bernie supposed to do when he was getting more chances due to Gretzky, not try to score?
Pickles - you seem like a good guy and therefore I think you'll agree with me that Nicholls deserves more than being labelled a guy "who only had a career" cause of Gretzky.
Hey - I am just spiffballing some ideas to the nature of the thread "who was the worst defensive player ever" without it becoming just another Anti-Gretzky/Pro-Gretzky thread. I just picked a guy that people pile onto just to kickstart things. I feel a little bad for the guy now However, after his 1 1/2 seasons with Wayne (yep that's right - he was his teammate for only 127 games and both of them missed a couple of those) his numbers dropped to a lower level OVERNIGHT. But... his pre-Gretzky totals are very strong numbers. I should not have suggested he only had a career due to the Great One. Especially when I wanted to get AWAY from any connections to Gretzky anyways.
Now, I want to address a couple things here...
To Guest 5294: Nicholls did in fact play on Gretzky's line. Bernie is a centre/right wing (not just a centre) and due to line shuffling and injuries they played together, and they were on the top PP unit together. I don't think he magically skyrocketed from 78 to 150 points playing behind Gretzky and not with him.
To willus: If Nicholls led this ESGA stat, I would be scratching my head in disbelief and shock. I would immediately investigate how this was so.
But it is Gretzky AND Lemieux who lead this category by a large margin.So to say that they are the 2 worst defensive players of their era (you can't say just Getzky now - Lemieux's there too) because of this stat (plus other great players on this list) to me discredits it substantially. Unfortunately, ESGA is only half the story. Why don't we look at the ESGF category and call the leaderboard of that list the GREATEST defensive players of all-time. Will someone please post THAT list ?? Why not ?!? OHHH, right, because that is crazy talk.
It is the net result, +/-, that most correctly indicates a player's relative value or ability. Even then, many people (including myself) don't put too much overstock in that stat. Why? Even mediocre teams with no players above Even +/- have some solid defensive players. To me this is a team stat. 
Keep a couple other things in mind : It cannot be argued that players with extremely high point totals that also have high ESGA must be even worse defensively because ESGA is a gross stat that doesn't even include whether you scored 5 points or 155 points yourself. Not to mention that a team's highest point scorer has many PP points that aren't even part of ESGA or +/- anyways.
(and, ohhh yes - I am a big pickle fan. i am finding it very difficult to find good crunchy dills here in the south though ! Thanx andyhack. |
|
|
|
99pickles
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
671 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2007 : 03:50:37
|
I forgot two things - I believe earlier in this thread I called Nikolai Borschevsky the player with, possibly, the worst defensive play ever. I also made a crack at his expense somewhere else too. Why don't Leaf fans ever defend THAT guy ?!?
TCTitans beat me to the punch here : the worst defensive player ever ? Probably a sea of guys that lasted only a couple games due to their lack of...drumroll...wait for it....Defensive play !! |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2007 : 09:10:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by 99pickles
quote:
To willus: If Nicholls led this ESGA stat, I would be scratching my head in disbelief and shock. I would immediately investigate how this was so.
But you aren't scratching your head that Gretzky leads this list? Why is that?
quote:
But it is Gretzky AND Lemieux who lead this category by a large margin.So to say that they are the 2 worst defensive players of their era (you can't say just Getzky now - Lemieux's there too) because of this stat (plus other great players on this list) to me discredits it substantially. Unfortunately, ESGA is only half the story. Why don't we look at the ESGF category and call the leaderboard of that list the GREATEST defensive players of all-time. Will someone please post THAT list ?? Why not ?!? OHHH, right, because that is crazy talk.
It is the net result, +/-, that most correctly indicates a player's relative value or ability. Even then, many people (including myself) don't put too much overstock in that stat. Why? Even mediocre teams with no players above Even +/- have some solid defensive players. To me this is a team stat.
Keep a couple other things in mind : It cannot be argued that players with extremely high point totals that also have high ESGA must be even worse defensively because ESGA is a gross stat that doesn't even include whether you scored 5 points or 155 points yourself. Not to mention that a team's highest point scorer has many PP points that aren't even part of ESGA or +/- anyways.
Remember, we weren't measuring the players overall worth in this thread. We're determining the worst defensive player. So bringing in offensive stats has little relevance. I understand the best defense is a good offense theory but we are looking strictly at defensive play here.
Isn't it funny though that to measure a players offensive abilities people will immediately point to their point production to support their claim of who they like. But when trying to determine the defensive value, well you can't use the stats because they are flawed. Funny when dissected though that they all point to the same conclusion. If you want to go the stats are flawed route, the points stats are flawed as well. Gretzky played on quite possibly the most offensive team in history during the 80's with a watered down league, awful defense and goaltending and the highest goal scoring era ever. All of this served to inflate his offensive stats. All of his 200 point seasons came in the 6 or 7 years after the expansion and league merger.
So what. He is still the most offensive player ever.
But don't use the defensive stats that over his entire career point to the same thing. Weak defensive play.
Quite the double standard you guys have.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
|
|
|
99pickles
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
671 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2007 : 11:58:19
|
quote:To willus: If Nicholls led this ESGA stat, I would be scratching my head in disbelief and shock. I would immediately investigate how this was so.
But you aren't scratching your head that Gretzky leads this list? Why is that? -willus
I would be scratching my head about Nicholls because it would have been soo random. I am not scratching my head about Gretzky because, as I've said, Lemiux and others are up there too.
"Remember, we weren't measuring the players overall worth in this thread. We're determining the worst defensive player. So bringing in offensive stats has little relevance. I understand the best defense is a good offense theory but we are looking strictly at defensive play here." - willus
I was RESPONDING (as it says in the paragraph) to the earlier statement that said something along the lines of "and Gretzky had the most points, so to have so many ESGA means he was even worse defensively" The rest of my comment on that clearly stands : whether you scored 5 points in a season, or 155 pts. in a season, it has NO bearing (could I be Not using Gretzky's offensive numbers any more than that ?!?) because ESGA has nothing to do with how many points you or your teammates/linemates score. It is a gross stat, not a net stat - so to try and use Gretzky's offense AGAINST him on this issue is also moot. That is why I am arguing AGAINST using Gretzky's offensive stats on this ESGA thing. Otherwise we would then be arguing Plus/Minus.
"Isn't it funny though that to measure a players offensive abilities people will immediately point to their point production to support their claim of who they like. But when trying to determine the defensive value, well you can't use the stats because they are flawed." - willus
That is why I am saying you CANNOT use Gretzky's, Lemieux's - or ANY player's for that matter - offensive output against them on this issue. It is the exact opposite of hypocritical. (is there a word for that ??javascript:insertsmilie('')
Smile And I admit that this stat is only one half of plus minus (a suspect stat) In no way can it , on its own, indicate any player's overall defensive ability. Not any more than saying that ESGFor says the opposite with no room for discussion.
Like I said, let's put up the leaderboard of ESGF of careers and call that list the BEST defensive players of all time. What names would be there ??
Willus, do you admit that Lemieux is, therefore, the 2nd worst defensive player of all time by a .02 whisker ? 
You know what else is interesting about this stat? The personal PPG of many of those guys on that list outways (significantly in many cases) their ESGA/Game. So I guess that means they could singlehandedly defeat teams. Did I just make a statistic say something untrue I guess they can do that sometimes |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2007 : 16:18:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by 99pickles
issue. It is the exact opposite of hypocritical. (is there a word for that ??javascript:insertsmilie('')
Smile
Interestingly, there is such a word Pickles-san. The word is "lacitircopyh".
And may I say on behalf of all members here that, whether this thread is "lacitircopyh" or not, it is clearly one of the longest and most CONFUSING threads on this site (especially NOT RECOMMENDED for a guy with a toothache!)! |
Edited by - andyhack on 05/26/2007 16:21:45 |
|
|
|
99pickles
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
671 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2007 : 16:40:09
|
Andy, that is the most enjoyable post I've seen in some time ! My wife jumped when I laughed out loud.
Unfortunately, this has gone into a couple of different directions but there are some interesting comments though. It is also a good way to learn about fellow posters too !! I need to look some things up due to this thread ! |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2007 : 19:14:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
quote:
Originally posted by 99pickles
issue. It is the exact opposite of hypocritical. (is there a word for that ??javascript:insertsmilie('')
Smile
Interestingly, there is such a word Pickles-san. The word is "lacitircopyh".
And may I say on behalf of all members here that, whether this thread is "lacitircopyh" or not, it is clearly one of the longest and most CONFUSING threads on this site (especially NOT RECOMMENDED for a guy with a toothache!)!
Now can you pronounce it?
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2007 : 21:22:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by 99pickles
quote:
I was RESPONDING (as it says in the paragraph) to the earlier statement that said something along the lines of "and Gretzky had the most points, so to have so many ESGA means he was even worse defensively" The rest of my comment on that clearly stands : whether you scored 5 points in a season, or 155 pts. in a season, it has NO bearing (could I be Not using Gretzky's offensive numbers any more than that ?!?) because ESGA has nothing to do with how many points you or your teammates/linemates score. It is a gross stat, not a net stat - so to try and use Gretzky's offense AGAINST him on this issue is also moot. That is why I am arguing AGAINST using Gretzky's offensive stats on this ESGA thing. Otherwise we would then be arguing Plus/Minus.
Ok, I misunderstood what you were saying.
quote:
"Isn't it funny though that to measure a players offensive abilities people will immediately point to their point production to support their claim of who they like. But when trying to determine the defensive value, well you can't use the stats because they are flawed." - willus
That is why I am saying you CANNOT use Gretzky's, Lemieux's - or ANY player's for that matter - offensive output against them on this issue. It is the exact opposite of hypocritical. (is there a word for that ??javascript:insertsmilie('')
Smile And I admit that this stat is only one half of plus minus (a suspect stat) In no way can it , on its own, indicate any player's overall defensive ability. Not any more than saying that ESGFor says the opposite with no room for discussion.
I wasn't saying use their offensive stats to say they weren't good defensively. I was referring to the career esga and esga per game stats to say that and that people just dismiss those stats because they feel they are flawed.
quote:
Willus, do you admit that Lemieux is, therefore, the 2nd worst defensive player of all time by a .02 whisker ?
Yes i would say Lemieux was very close to Gretzky in this category.
quote:
You know what else is interesting about this stat? The personal PPG of many of those guys on that list outways (significantly in many cases) their ESGA/Game. So I guess that means they could singlehandedly defeat teams. Did I just make a statistic say something untrue I guess they can do that sometimes
Well this doesn't actually make sense but I know what you are trying to say.
But see, there you go bringing in the offensive numbers to deflect attention away from the poor defensive play.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
|
|
|
99pickles
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
671 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2007 : 00:36:05
|
| You missed the point there willus, if you read the last sentence it is there. |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2007 : 07:08:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by 99pickles
You missed the point there willus, if you read the last sentence it is there.
I got what you were saying Pickles. It was sarcasm to make your point that stats can be made to say anything.
My comment was made in jest.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
|
|
|
Guest2356
( )
|
Posted - 05/27/2007 : 10:21:36
|
| the guy I would least like on the ice would have to be Breeze-bois, MTL then Colorado |
|
|
|
99pickles
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
671 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2007 : 11:09:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
quote:
Originally posted by 99pickles
You missed the point there willus, if you read the last sentence it is there.
I got what you were saying Pickles. It was sarcasm to make your point that stats can be made to say anything.
My comment was made in jest.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper"
Understood |
|
|
|
Guest0956
( )
|
Posted - 05/27/2007 : 14:55:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
quote:
Originally posted by Guest9995
We have no way of knowing for sure what was inside of Gretzky's head, whether he was sacrificing his defensive game just to break records, but I do know this much.... When asked during his retirement press conference why he didn't play one or two seasons more and break the 3000 point barrier, her was his response: He said, simply, "Because in all my discussions with my wife on whether to continue playing or not, points and records never came up. The only concerns have been team concerns...winning the Stanley Cup."
Now, if records were so important to him, then why did he not want the most unthinkable record of all, 3000 points? That's 3 one thousand point careers rolled into one. Unbelievable. Yet he passed on it because he cared more about winning.
I don't buy the argument that Gretzky had a bad plus/minus because he wanted to score goal number 802. That is a flawed argument for so many reasons. Here's a couple of them: One, Gretzky would have broken that record the year after anyway even if he had only scored 20 goals per season. Secondly, Gretzky broke records almost every year of his entire career, so naturally his bad plus/minus years would overlap his record breaking years....so I don't understand the point. Thirdly, Gretzky had several dazzling plus minus years (+98 one year) where he broke far more records. Fourthly, take a look at the rest of Gretzky's teammates' plus/minus stats in 1994. I think his bad plus/minus was more a reflection of the team than his individual play.... The list goes on, but I cannot buy this argument about goal number 802 being the reason for his poor plus/minus. A huge stretch of the imagination would be an understatement.
I believe his quote about as much as I believe his wife is innocent in the betting scandal. He's smart enough to know what he should and shouldn't say to put the proper spin on things.
What about the countless times he said his goal was to break this record or that record.
And he passed on the 3000 point record but I guess he passed on the chance for more Cups too then didn't he.
As for your last paragraph, you're right, you don't get the point.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper"
No one ever said Gretzky didn't want to break records. Did I say that? I said I doubt he valued them over winning, as simple as that, which explains why he retired before hitting 3000 points when he could have easily done so. Your point about him passing on winning more cups is off base. The Rangers missed the playoffs for how many years in a row? His last two seasons and how many after? Didn't look like a cup winning team to Gretzky or anyone else....so he didn't exactly pass on any opportunity. In fact, Gretzky even stated that had the Rangers made any effort to win (by getting some good players like Pavel Bure or Jagr), he would have stayed.
As for your last sentence, I don't understand why you are being so condescending and rude. I suppose that is easier than refuting the actual points expressed in that last paragraph you dismiss so readily. |
|
|
|
Guest7022
( )
|
Posted - 05/27/2007 : 17:54:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest0956
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
quote:
Originally posted by Guest9995
We have no way of knowing for sure what was inside of Gretzky's head, whether he was sacrificing his defensive game just to break records, but I do know this much.... When asked during his retirement press conference why he didn't play one or two seasons more and break the 3000 point barrier, her was his response: He said, simply, "Because in all my discussions with my wife on whether to continue playing or not, points and records never came up. The only concerns have been team concerns...winning the Stanley Cup."
Now, if records were so important to him, then why did he not want the most unthinkable record of all, 3000 points? That's 3 one thousand point careers rolled into one. Unbelievable. Yet he passed on it because he cared more about winning.
I don't buy the argument that Gretzky had a bad plus/minus because he wanted to score goal number 802. That is a flawed argument for so many reasons. Here's a couple of them: One, Gretzky would have broken that record the year after anyway even if he had only scored 20 goals per season. Secondly, Gretzky broke records almost every year of his entire career, so naturally his bad plus/minus years would overlap his record breaking years....so I don't understand the point. Thirdly, Gretzky had several dazzling plus minus years (+98 one year) where he broke far more records. Fourthly, take a look at the rest of Gretzky's teammates' plus/minus stats in 1994. I think his bad plus/minus was more a reflection of the team than his individual play.... The list goes on, but I cannot buy this argument about goal number 802 being the reason for his poor plus/minus. A huge stretch of the imagination would be an understatement.
I believe his quote about as much as I believe his wife is innocent in the betting scandal. He's smart enough to know what he should and shouldn't say to put the proper spin on things.
What about the countless times he said his goal was to break this record or that record.
And he passed on the 3000 point record but I guess he passed on the chance for more Cups too then didn't he.
As for your last paragraph, you're right, you don't get the point.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper"
No one ever said Gretzky didn't want to break records. Did I say that? I said I doubt he valued them over winning, as simple as that, which explains why he retired before hitting 3000 points when he could have easily done so. Your point about him passing on winning more cups is off base. The Rangers missed the playoffs for how many years in a row? His last two seasons and how many after? Didn't look like a cup winning team to Gretzky or anyone else....so he didn't exactly pass on any opportunity. In fact, Gretzky even stated that had the Rangers made any effort to win (by getting some good players like Pavel Bure or Jagr), he would have stayed.
As for your last sentence, I don't understand why you are being so condescending and rude. I suppose that is easier than refuting the actual points expressed in that last paragraph you dismiss so readily.
No serious team wanted gretzky when he wanted out of Edmonton or out of LA. Rememeber those ESGA and long shifts standing catching his breath.
Keenan was quoted as saying that 99 didnt keep himself in shape when he was with the Blues. |
|
|
|
stastnysforever
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
301 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2007 : 18:54:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
quote:
Originally posted by 99pickles
issue. It is the exact opposite of hypocritical. (is there a word for that ??javascript:insertsmilie('')
Smile
Interestingly, there is such a word Pickles-san. The word is "lacitircopyh".
And may I say on behalf of all members here that, whether this thread is "lacitircopyh" or not, it is clearly one of the longest and most CONFUSING threads on this site (especially NOT RECOMMENDED for a guy with a toothache!)!
I've never actually laughed out loud because of something someone wrote in a conversation until this
what do Calgary and a tea bag have in common- they're both only good for one cup |
|
|
|
stastnysforever
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
301 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2007 : 18:57:02
|
no there was actually another time today when somebody wrote something hilarious to my sister on msn and I was laughing so hard I thought I would just die rite there
what do Calgary and a tea bag have in common- they're both only good for one cup |
|
|
|
Guest0956
( )
|
Posted - 05/29/2007 : 19:43:02
|
quote:
No serious team wanted gretzky when he wanted out of Edmonton or out of LA. Rememeber those ESGA and long shifts standing catching his breath.
Thanks for the laugh! I somehow think teams would want to have a 2 time Conn Smythe Trophy winner and owner of practically every playoff record there is. I guess no one wanted Michael Jordon before he left the Bulls either. Or maybe it's more like no one could afford either of them except for a handful of teams. I think people remember Gretzky's highest ever ESGF more than his ESGA. Has something to do with having a career +503...one of the highest ever, incidentally. |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2007 : 20:02:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest0956
quote:
No serious team wanted gretzky when he wanted out of Edmonton or out of LA. Rememeber those ESGA and long shifts standing catching his breath.
Thanks for the laugh! I somehow think teams would want to have a 2 time Conn Smythe Trophy winner and owner of practically every playoff record there is. I guess no one wanted Michael Jordon before he left the Bulls either. Or maybe it's more like no one could afford either of them except for a handful of teams. I think people remember Gretzky's highest ever ESGF more than his ESGA. Has something to do with having a career +503...one of the highest ever, incidentally.
See, this is what I'm talking about. You'll use the stat when it supports your cause but dismiss it when it doesn't.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
|
|
|
PainTrain
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1393 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2007 : 20:32:39
|
Bill Mikkelson holds the record for worst plus/minus in a season with -82. Givin' he was on the Washington Capitals when they just blew.
1968 Elmer Vasko, Minnesota -36
1969 J.P. Parise, Minnesota -44
1970 Bill McCreary, St. Louis -44
1971 Doug Roberts, California -56
1972 Gil Perreault, Buffalo -40
Real Lemieux, Los Angeles -40
1973 Bill Mikkelson, NY Islanders -54
1974 Reggie Leach, California -61
1975 Bill Mikkelson, Washington -82
1976 Larry Johnston, Kansas City -61
1977 Al Cameron, Detroit -43
1978 Brad Maxwell, Minnesota -57
1979 Rick Green, Washington -45
1980 Steve Sullivan, Winnipeg -45
1981 Dave Babych, Winnipeg -61
1982 Dwight Foster, Colorado -53
1983 Doug Sulliman, Hartford -57
1984 Pat Boutette, Pittsburgh -58
1985 Doug Shedden, Pittsburgh -51
1986 Randy Ladoucer, Detroit -54
1987 Grant Ledyard, Los Angeles -40
1988 Brian MacLellan, Minnesota -44
1989 Tom Fergus, Toronto -38
1990 Bryan Fogarty, Quebec -47
1991 Vincent Damphousse, Toronto -31
1992 Paul Fenton, San Jose -39
1993 Neil Wilkinson, San Jose -50
Rob Zettler, San Jose -50
Doug Zmolek, San Jose -50
1994 Gord Dineen, Ottawa -52
1995 Chris Dahlquist, Ottawa -30
1996 Craig Janney, San Jose -35
1997 Alexandre Daigle, Ottawa -33
1998 Paul Ysebaert, Tampa Bay -43
1999 Darcy Tucker, Tampa Bay -34
2000 Yannick Tremblay, Atlanta -42
2001 Patrice Brisebois, Montreal -31
2002 Tyler Wright, Columbus -40
2003 Wayne Primeau, Pittsburgh -30
2004 Rico Fata, Pittsburgh -46
2006 Mark Recchi, Carolina -36
That's the worst plus/minus in each year. Can't find the worst in a career.
But it's hard to say who is the worst, they're are a lot of good ones and a lot of bad deffensive players. |
|
|
|
PuckNuts
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2414 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2007 : 17:20:05
|
Worst all-time +/- since 1968
quote:
Originally posted by PuckNuts
Worst all-time +/- since 1968, no filtering...
Rnk _ PLAYER __________ GP __ +/- _ ES Dif/G
1 _ STEWART, BOB ______ 575 _ -260 _ -0.452
2 _ LEVER, DON ________ 1020 _ -240 _ -0.235
3 _ CROTEAU, GARY _____ 684 _ -227 _ -0.332
4 _ BABYCH, DAVE ______ 1195 _ -223 _ -0.187
5 _ CHARRON, GUY ______ 734 _ -208 _ -0.283
6 _ HUBER, WILLIE _______ 655 _ -203 _ -0.310
7 _ CIRELLA, JOE ________ 828 _ -201 _ -0.243
8 _ LYNCH, JACK ________ 382 _ -197 _ -0.516
9 _ BOLDIREV, IVAN _____ 1052 _ -190 _ -0.181
10 _ SILLINGER, MIKE _____ 908 _ -181 _ -0.174
11 _ BUCHBERGER, KELLY _ 1182 _ -177 _ -0.150
12 _ DAIGLE, ALEXANDRE __ 616 _ -176 _ -0.286
13 _ PETIT, MICHEL _______ 827 _ -172 _ -0.208
14 _ RAMAGE, ROB ______ 1044 _ -171 _ -0.164
15 _ DeBLOIS, LUCIEN _____ 993 _ -170 _ -0.171
16 _ GILBERTSON, STAN ___ 428 _ -168 _ -0.393
17 _ LIBETT, NICK ________ 982 _ -167 _ -0.170
18 _ JOLY, GREG ________ 365 _ -163 _ -0.447
19 _ NEUFELD, RAY ______ 595 _ -163 _ -0.274
20 _ KEARNS, DENNIS _____ 677 _ -158 _ -0.233
21 _ McBAIN, ANDREW ____ 608 _ -151 _ -0.248
22 _ MIKKELSON, BILL _____ 147 _ -147 _ -1.000
23 _ MULLER, KIRK _______ 1349 _ -146 _ -0.108
24 _ HICKE, ERNIE ________ 520 _ -145 _ -0.279
25 _ PAIEMENT, WILF ______ 946 _ -140 _ -0.148
Is this the Mike Sillinger that never has a chance to unpack his suitcase before he is on the move again...
Lead, follow, or get out of the way...
I don't necessarily agree with everything I say.
- - Marshall McLuhan
|
Edited by - PuckNuts on 05/30/2007 17:20:56 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Who was the worst defensive player ever 
