Paul Coffey vs. Erik Karlsson

[Ben White]

lol - talk about arguing in bad faith...

True Karlsson led the league in assists once and Coffey didn't - but Coffey did finish beyind #2 in league behind peak Gretzky twice - and #3 beyind Gretzky/Lemieux once.

If anything - that's actually advantage Coffey with any amount of context...

I disagree, lots of skilled players, let alone HOFers, could finish second in assists playing with Wayne and Mario, what kind of argument is that really? Ironic you’re accusing me of arguing in bad faith. As a Dman being the top dog on a mediocre team with Bobby Ryan as your best teammate and finish league #1 in assists, now that speaks in favor of Karlsson.

 

[Ben White]

This whole top dog thing makes no sense. Karlsson fans arguing Coffey’s statistical dominance over Karlsson due to Coffey playing with better players but the n make the argument that Karlsson has been too dig more than Coffey….we’ll of course….if he doesn’t play with better players like Coffey doesn’t he have a much better chance to be top dog?

What kind of “statistical dominance” are you talking about anyway? They are basically a wash statistically compared to number of full enough seasons and scoring environment, despite EK having much less support.

 

[Ben White]

With EK vs Coffey it more or less always comes down to these apples vs oranges comparisons. Their situations were so diametrically different that “both sides” are trying to use different kinds of what if arguments to trump the other. No, we don’t know what Coffey could’ve done if he played for teams where he would’ve been the top dog, likewise we don’t know what Karlsson could’ve done playing for stacked dynasties with other generational talents. Coffey did great in his situation and Karlsson did great in his. It depends what you find more impressive: dragging mediocre teams as the top dog and having some success or being one of several pieces on actual cup winning teams. They’re statistically very close everything considered. It’s a Crosby vs Jagr situation, Lidstrom vs Bourque.

 

[Ben White]

No need....

Playoffs - Coffey, obviously. Look at 1985 for peak playoffs, look at his overall body of work. Pretty obvious.

Career - Coffey, obviously. Karlsson is still only 32 and adding I suppose - so maybe we wait and see - but for now, Coffey definitely ahead

Peak - Coffey from 1984 to 1986 scored 126, 121 and 138 points. Also scored 40, 37 and 48 goals. His best season is definitely better than Karlsson's - and his best 3 year stretch Karlsson also doesn't have 3 seasons that quite hold up

Prime - This again is Coffey. Depends what you consider prime to be - both have hits and misses in their primes.

There's no case for Karlsson over Coffey

Despite Karlsson’s injuries and barely having 3 consecutive healthy seasons his entire career, EK’s 2015 to 2017 seasons are as good or better than any 3 years stretch for Coffey (Norris + runner up + runner up, and you’d have to be a real hater to not acknowledge EK deserving those other to Norrises, + the monster playoff run in 2017) and doing it on a mediocre Ottawa team with a lot lesser teammates than Coffey ever played with.

 

[Toby91ca]

With EK vs Coffey it more or less always comes down to these apples vs oranges comparisons. Their situations were so diametrically different that “both sides” are trying to use different kinds of what if arguments to trump the other. No, we don’t know what Coffey could’ve done if he played for teams where he would’ve been the top dog, likewise we don’t know what Karlsson could’ve done playing for stacked dynasties with other generational talents. Coffey did great in his situation and Karlsson did great in his. It depends what you find more impressive: dragging mediocre teams as the top dog and having some success or being one of several pieces on actual cup winning teams. They’re statistically very close everything considered. It’s a Crosby vs Jagr situation, Lidstrom vs Bourque.

I don't disagree with this....very hard to compare guys, not only in different situations, but in different eras. Obviously the raw stats of Coffey dwarf Karlsson's. If you want to try and era adjust the stats, through to the same age (Karlsson's)....I picked an average of 3 goals per game per team and adjusted that way....Karlsson's stats would change too much as he's played in years above 3 goals per game and years below, so average isn't too far off.....920 games, 187 goals, 797 points. Coffey would be 1,033 games, 273 goals, 1,027 points. Then the discussion starts about, yeah, Coffey had more talent to work with.....but that's where you really don't know how would have happened.

 

[Toby91ca]

Despite Karlsson’s injuries and barely having 3 consecutive healthy seasons his entire career, EK’s 2015 to 2017 seasons are as good or better than any 3 years stretch for Coffey (Norris + runner up + runner up, and you’d have to be a real hater to not acknowledge EK deserving those other to Norrises, + the monster playoff run in 2017) and doing it on a mediocre Ottawa team with a lot lesser teammates than Coffey ever played with.

I think Coffey's 1984-1986 were pretty good years, which was (runner up + Norris + Norris).

 

[wetcoast]

Sure, if you wanna ignore all context. A common decease around here…

So is that really the choices here, ignoring context or your position which is to over empathize any metric for EK and then "ignore" reality?

Similar players one guys just did it more consistently and longer but both get over rated IMO.

Basically the argument for EK65 is that he played for worse teams, how is that working out for you?

 

[wetcoast]

What kind of “statistical dominance” are you talking about anyway? They are basically a wash statistically compared to number of full enough seasons and scoring environment, despite EK having much less support.

They aren't a wash statically and Coffey ahs a very long consecutive prime.

Also just to be fair Coffey wouldn't have been second fiddle in his prime years to an older Burns would he?

I'm surprised that the voting is only 39-15 for Coffey here really as it's not close at all.

 

[Steven Toast]

They are basically a wash statistically compared to number of full enough seasons and scoring environment

They absolutely are not.

Top 5 seasons from each player, by raw totals and adjusted numbers.

Coffey raw totals:

48-90-138​

40-86-126​

37-84-121​

30-83-113​

29-74-103​

​

Karlsson raw totals:

25-75-101​

16-66-82​

19-59-78​

20-54-74​

17-54-71​

​

Coffey adjusted totals:

37-71-108​

31-69-100​

24-76-100​

29-67-96​

25-69-94​

​

Karlsson adjusted totals:

24-72-96​

18-74-92​

21-65-86​

23-59-82​

19-59-78​

​

There is a clear level of separation between the two in terms of offensive production. Coffey also has a far more impressive playoff career, and was also better defensively than EK (who is one of the least effective in the league).

It’s a Crosby vs Jagr situation, Lidstrom vs Bourque.

Except EK is not in the same tier as any of these players...

 

[Steven Toast]

I think Coffey's 1984-1986 were pretty good years, which was (runner up + Norris + Norris).

125-260-385 in 239 GP, and 21-48-69 47 GP in the playoffs.

 

[bobholly39]

I disagree, lots of skilled players, let alone HOFers, could finish second in assists playing with Wayne and Mario, what kind of argument is that really? Ironic you’re accusing me of arguing in bad faith. As a Dman being the top dog on a mediocre team with Bobby Ryan as your best teammate and finish league #1 in assists, now that speaks in favor of Karlsson.

If you want to argue how relevant/useful it is to count leading league in assists - or how much it helps/hurts to have stronger teammates - fine, we can discuss this. And of course playing in Edmonton was helpful to Coffey.

But on your last post you were using Karlsson leading league in assists and Coffey not as some sort of statistical differentiator, while not recognizing that he should actually trail Coffey. Any sensible statistical counting usually excludes peak Lemieux/Gretzky from the equation because of how much of an outlier they are offensively.

Without Lemieux/Gretzky - it's advantage Coffey 3 to 1 vs Karlsson for leading league in assists.

How meaningful/valuable that is is up for debate.

Despite Karlsson’s injuries and barely having 3 consecutive healthy seasons his entire career, EK’s 2015 to 2017 seasons are as good or better than any 3 years stretch for Coffey (Norris + runner up + runner up, and you’d have to be a real hater to not acknowledge EK deserving those other to Norrises, + the monster playoff run in 2017) and doing it on a mediocre Ottawa team with a lot lesser teammates than Coffey ever played with.

I don't care about consecutive seasons for peak. Coffey just happened to have 3 consecutive great seasons, which is why I used the term consecutive. My point is best ~3 years I give the edge to Coffey. Better playoff peak - also Coffey.

Peak Karlsson is pretty good - Coffey was just better and had the better seasons. You can talk about 2017 playoffs for Karlsson all you want - obviously great - but Coffey 1985 playoffs is definitely better.

Maybe without any major injuries Karlsson could have put together a better career, with less dips, and matched/surpassed Coffey. Maybe. I don't think at their best they're very far off per se - but it doesn't change the fact that Coffey has the better peak, prime, career and playoff resume than Karlsson does.

They aren't a wash statically and Coffey ahs a very long consecutive prime.

Also just to be fair Coffey wouldn't have been second fiddle in his prime years to an older Burns would he?

I'm surprised that the voting is only 39-15 for Coffey here really as it's not close at all.

Don't be too surprised. It's weird on HF - but anytime you talk about 90s players (Fedorov, Forsberg, Lindros, Lidstrom, Pronger, Hasek, etc) nostalsgia kicks in and they often get overrated.

Whenever you talk about 80s players - it seems like it's too far off and they often get underrated (Bourque, Coffey, Roy, etc).

 

[Janvonpobben]

One played with #99 and #66 and the other Mark Stone as best player. Enough said.

 

[DJB]

I’d like to have seen EK with Gretzky, Lemieux, Kurri, Messier , Jagr in their prime

 

[Agent Zub]

Jeez wonder if I'd be a better player with Gretzky, Lemieux, Yzerman, Fedorov as my centers or Kyle Turris and Logan Couture.

Not even taking into account the rest of the teams.

 

[Regal]

One played with #99 and #66 and the other Mark Stone as best player. Enough said.

Except not when the one who played with #99 and #66 has the better resume

 

[Hockey Outsider]

From 1990 to 1992, Lemieux missed a lot of games. We can look at how Coffey did in the games with and without #66:

- With Lemieux: 127 games, 35 G, 124 A, 159 pts (1.25 PPG)
- Without #66: 83 games, 27 G, 73 A, 101 pts (1.22 PPG)

Lemieux didn't have a big impact on Coffey's production, at least during this period. Coffey averaged 103 points per 82 games in the games that Lemieux played, and 100 points per 82 games in the games that Lemieux missed.

Granted, Coffey wouldn't have scored 138 points without Gretzky or Lemieux. But the impact that they had on his production shouldn't be exaggerated either.

 

[Conbon]

Really weird arguments. First of all it’s not true that players who are injury prone, and therefore plays less full seasons, see a rise in ppg, it’s often the opposite. That has to be looked at from case to case and Karlsson very clearly has a lower ppg in his injury riddled/shortened seasons.

Second, just as I wrote, it’s not that impressive to have more high finishes if you’re not the top dog on your team especially playing behind #99 and #66, yes Coffey has that one shortened season as the top dog but that doesn’t mean jack in the “more finishes” argument.

Man these weaker team arguments are going to look really stupid this year if Karlsson doesn't outdo what he did last year now that he's on Pittsburgh but I'm sure there will be an excuse.

 

[Video Nasty]

Coffey.

The view that his success can only be tied to Gretzky, Lemieux, and the other great players he shared ice time with is so myopic.

It should not be seen as a negative that he found chemistry with some of the greatest talents of his day and that he always had a job on a top team.

News flash, that’s actually a positive and is a point in his favor.

 

[psycat]

Peak = debatable, Prime = around even, Career = clearly Coffey. So Coffey overall but similiar caliber of players with very different career paths.

 

[The Tourist]

Coffey but it's not by a huge margin. All time, Coffey is in that 10-15 range for dmen and Karlsson is probably in the 15-20 range.

 

[norrisnick]

I would categorize myself as a "hater" of both players. It's Coffey, quite comfortably.

 

[K1984]

All this, but it's also quite a coincidence that 9 of the top 10 highest scoring seasons of all time had Paul Coffey moving the puck up ice.

View attachment 743929

If it's one thing Coffey could do, it's facilitate offense. Over the 15 seasons from '81-'82 through '95-'96 Coffey was the 2nd leading scorer in the NHL.

View attachment 743932

You usually see Messier and Kurri listed right under Gretzky for best Oiler players of that era, but you could make a strong argument that Coffey could be as high as #2 on that list. He could have easily won the Conn Smythe in '85 as well if he didn't play with Gretzky. Could make an argument there that he should have won it ahead of Gretzky even.

 

[bert]

Coffey by far.

Was never even the best player on his team. Or even second best player.

 

[dukeofjive]

Hard to say really, but i am going to guess that maybe 10% or less of people who post here have seen coffee play, stats do not tell the whole story.

 

[Steven Toast]

Was never even the best player on his team. Or even second best player.

Even if this was true (its absolutely not), doesn't mean EK is better.

Coffey was the best player on his team in 1995. He was the second best player on his team in 1985, 1986, 1989, 1990, 1991, and arguably 1993.

Karlsson wouldn't be the best player on his team if he played with 99 or 66 either. Only 1 or 2 players in history would be.

Find a proper arguement in support of your player.