Bryan Trottier

[redbull]

Nothing personal, but this is a case of where stereotypes can run into problems. Case in point:

No Al Arbour team was EVER "offense-first". The team that won the Stanley Cups, 1980-83 was built on a foundation of strong defense. Arbour saw to it his first year with the franchise, when he reduced the team's GA by 100. (Yes, 100.)

It is precisely because his teams were defensively disciplined, first and foremost, that they shut down the offensive Oilers machine in the '83 Finals. (And, likewise, once the Oilers embraced a modicum of defensive awareness, along with more discipline, patience, and the willingness to pay the price* they were ready to dethrone NYI the following season).

*That's not my analysis; Wayne Gretzky said as much.

But even without 99's words - you could see it by watching the games - especially once they went back to edmonton for the final three games. Oilers beat them at their own game, which was shocking to me. Just as shocking as how easily the islanders swept them the year before.

I still find it amazing at how the players and the hockey experts that went through those wars, even the oilers themselves talk about how amazing those islanders teams were, yet there are so many doubters who, based largely on stats, dismiss the success to a large degree, especially of the key players. Lou lamoriello, bryan burke, mike keenen - all have talked about that dynasty team, modeling their teams, etc.

Such is life.

 

[Sorge Georos]

You are, of course, absolutely correct.

A great example, ironically, is NYI, pre-Butch Goring. Come playoff time, if you tamed Gillies/Trottier/Bossy (and took the body on Potvin relentlessly), you beat NYI. It was proven multiple times in the late 70s.

This thread is at time HF at its very best, and at times, it's worst. We're talking about a guy who's considered by many in the game as the most complete player of his time...and we're going to narrow his on-ice value to a overly simplistic side-by-side offensive stat comparison with another great player, let alone one who's game was entirely different? Limiting a discussion of #19 to bean counter metrics (home runs and RBI, home runs and RBIs...the M.O. of the sabremeticians) is akin to evaluating Michael Jordan based exclusively for his field goal shooting. Or Willie Mays solely on home runs.

Guy Lafleur was a supreme offensive game breaker. Bryan Trottier was the classic complete hockey player. Like comparing a QB and wide receiver. One can do it (and it sure has been done here!) but it ultimately renders little in the way of insight. Just my opinion.

No offense, Trots, but this is absolutely the opposite of what sabermatricians do. Baseball is not hockey. Statistics are the best way to quantify a player's performance in baseball whereas in hockey, there is no statistic to measure defensive ability.

 

[Trottier]

No offense, Trots, but this is absolutely the opposite of what Sabrematricians do. Baseball is not hockey. Statistics are the best way to quantify a player's performance in baseball whereas in hockey, there is no statistic to measure defensive ability.

You took my sarcasm literally.

And, I agree entirely. Statistics do not quantify a hockey player's performance as fully as they do in baseball. (And, it goes beyond defense, IMO.)

Problem is, increasingly, this board is populated with some who believe otherwise and mistake informed hockey discussion with statistical recitals. In other words, whoever has the most "home runs" is the "bestest". In that world, J. Toews is "overrated" while meanwhile, hollow point compilers like Brad Boyes and Maxim Afinigenov are awesome.

Let me be clear: I respect fully those here who compile and meticulously interpret numbers. And I'm far from statistcally naive or adverse myself. However, there is a huge difference between using statistics to support a point of view...and substituting them for a point of view.

I'm not anti-statistics, at all. I just happen to also be pro-observation and pro-critical thought.

But that's just my opinion.

 

[unknown33]

In that world, J. Toews is "overrated" while meanwhile, hollow point compilers like Brad Boyes and Maxim Afinigenov are awesome.

When a poster on this board tries to make a case for Toews to be included into the HOH Top 100 List he indeed is overrated by some.

Still terribly underrated by others who try to deny him a Top 10 forward spot solely because of his 'low' regular season scoring ignoring the more important parts.

Like leading his team to a Stanley Cup.

 

[Trottier]

When a poster on this board tries to make a case for Toews to be included into the HOH Top 100 List he indeed is overrated by some.

Still terribly underrated by others who try to deny him a Top 10 forward spot solely because of his 'low' regular season scoring ignoring the more important parts.

Like leading his team to a Stanley Cup.

I was not speaking to his ranking on any all-time list, that's silly and premature beyond any consideration. If was the latter point (boldfaced), which one has seen quite often on the main board since June.

But so it goes among fantasy league types who populate the main board. Win championships and your value diminishes. Produce niiiiiice personal numbers on a lousy team? You're gold!

Ask Tomas Vokoun, among others.

 

[unknown33]

But so it goes among fantasy league types who populate the main board. Win championships and your value diminishes. Produce niiiiiice personal numbers on a lousy team? You're gold!

Agreed.

Yet there are still very good players playing on bad teams.

 

[Trottier]

Agreed.

Yet there are still very good players playing on bad teams.

Never suggested otherwise. But they are typically elevated to martyr status around here (main board especially).

 

[God Bless Canada]

I don't think he is underappreciated here (HOH board). I could quibble with how a few rank him relative to contemporaries like Clarke, Sakic, Messier and Yzerman, but it's a matter of opinion. And, I'm yet to find a single HOH poster who does not include him among the best of the very best.



When viewed strictly in offensive statistical terms, you are correct. Which, of course, is ironic, because the unique greatness of his game was his extremely high ability in the non-obvious, non-sexy (and thus under-appreciated by some) aspects that require more than simply reciting numbers...oh, while by the way, accumulating 500+ goals and 1,200+ points. Case in point: his important role on the Pens' Cup winners at the end of his career. Trottier was taking the top defensive assignments (and contributing modest offense) while Mario and Francis went to town on the other team's lines. Of the guys you mention above, Sakic and Messier certainly never contributed like that at the end of their careers.



His own coach disagrees with you.

And "at best"?

But alas, offensive stats win the day on HF. Hence Bossy is viewed more favorably by some today, when such was NEVER the case in their time.

I thank God Trottier and Bobby Clarke played when they did. Were they skating today, Generation Nuu NHL (not directed at you) would likely be mocking them for "being overrated for intangibles".

As always, leave it to the best that HF has to offer to explain it. Chapeau, old friend, chapeau.

As for the inspiration to Trott's user name...

I had Bryan Trottier at No. 26 on my top 100 list. So maybe take it with a grain of salt when I say that he's not underrated around here. I think he gets the full credit he deserves. I think we would all agree that a top 50 list without Bryan Trottier would be incomplete. And it's the only way you could use incomplete and Bryan Trottier in the same sentence, because he's one of the most complete players the game will ever see.

The number crunchers love him because of the scoring title, those assist titles, and all of those top 10 finishes. Guys like me and Trottier love him because of the way he played and the impact he had on a dynasty. The Cup counters love him because he has six rings. There's really nothing not to like about Bryan Trottier.

A product of Bossy? I believe he set a league record for points in a season by a rookie.

Longevity? He was a Cup champ at 34 and 35. The best team in hockey obviously thought he was still capable of doing something right if they kept him around that long. His numbers waned after 87-88 (when he was 31), but keep in mind that it happened to a lot of guys who were cogs on dynasties for the 70s Habs, and the 80s Islanders and Oilers. Keep in mind that by the time the opening game of 1989-90 rolled around, he had played 13 seasons and nearly 1,200 games (including playoffs), with five trips to the Stanley Cup final under his belt. That's a lot of hockey, with not a lot of rest.

And keep in mind that in those final two seasons on the Island, the Islanders weren't exactly brimming with talent. Especially on the wing. Their two best offensive talents (Lafontaine and Brent Sutter), were centres, so it didn't leave Trottier much to work with. He wasn't going to put up 100 points, or even 80 points, but he probably does better than 69 points in 132 games if he has reasonable linemates.

He came in at No. 30 on THN's list of the top 100 NHL players ever. Guys who watched him play rated him very highly. Guys who had been watching the game almost since the NHL's inception in 1917 - and had memories quicker than any of us - had him No. 30. I had Trotts ahead of Henri Richard, but I don't fault anyone who voted for Richard - the on-ice genius with 11 Cups - ahead of Trottier.

For the record, I had Lafleur and Esposito ahead of Trottier, but I had Trottier ahead of Bossy.

 

[Hawksfan12*]

You took my sarcasm literally.

And, I agree entirely. Statistics do not quantify a hockey player's performance as fully as they do in baseball. (And, it goes beyond defense, IMO.)

Problem is, increasingly, this board is populated with some who believe otherwise and mistake informed hockey discussion with statistical recitals. In other words, whoever has the most "home runs" is the "bestest". In that world, J. Toews is "overrated" while meanwhile, hollow point compilers like Brad Boyes and Maxim Afinigenov are awesome.

Let me be clear: I respect fully those here who compile and meticulously interpret numbers. And I'm far from statistcally naive or adverse myself. However, there is a huge difference between using statistics to support a point of view...and substituting them for a point of view.

I'm not anti-statistics, at all. I just happen to also be pro-observation and pro-critical thought.

But that's just my opinion.

Love this.