Lousy Players with good stats?

[canucks4ever]

LOL, he was run out of the league after blowing the playoffs more than once.

No he just didnt re-sign after the lockout. From 2001-2003 he was one of the top netminders and you would be wrong to argue against it. If he played 73 games in 2003, that vezina was going to be his.

There's many goalies in the nhl right now that suck ass, cechmanek would easily still make the nhl, what a joke.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Skills

I never liked the argument that A may be a better player, but B is more "talented". The player who helps his team more and is more effective on the ice is the more talented player. There's more to talent than fancy stickhandling.

Some see the importance of winning games and cups while others prefer skill competitions.

 

[arrbez]

I never liked the argument that A may be a better player, but B is more "talented". The player who helps his team more and is more effective on the ice is the more talented player. There's more to talent than fancy stickhandling.

Agreed. How is Gretzky's vision or Esposito's shot-tipping any less of a talent than Lafleur's speed or Savard's stickhandling? It's not like anyone could learn to pass like Gretzky if they worked hard enough at it. He was born with an amazing ability to see the ice, no different than Pavel Bure being born with amazing skating abilities. It's all the same thing in my books. Granted, some players do a whole lot more with their gifts than others, but "talent" doesn't begin and end with stickhandling.

 

[MS]

No he just didnt re-sign after the lockout. From 2001-2003 he was one of the top netminders and you would be wrong to argue against it. If he played 73 games in 2003, that vezina was going to be his.

There's many goalies in the nhl right now that suck ass, cechmanek would easily still make the nhl, what a joke.

No, he was an average goalie who put up great numbers behind a very good team.

The year after Cechmanek left, the starting job in Philly went to Robert Esche, a sack of goaltending crap if ever there was one, and even Esche was able to put up a 2.04 GAA behind that team.

Brian Boucher, a career backup, put up a 1.91 GAA for Philly as their starter the year before Cechmanek arrived.

Cechmanek was 32 when he went to LA, still well inside his goaltending prime, and he stunk. Was outplayed by a rookie Cristobal Huet, and pretty much played himself out of the NHL past that point.

And that's before getting into his mediocre playoff performances in Philly.

You stick any middling starter onto the 1999-2004 Flyers, and they were going to put up a 2.00 GAA and a .920 save %. Yeah, he was better than Esche and Boucher, but he was not a top-10 NHL goalie no matter what the numbers said.

 

[canucks4ever]

No, he was an average goalie who put up great numbers behind a very good team.

The year after Cechmanek left, the starting job in Philly went to Robert Esche, a sack of goaltending crap if ever there was one, and even Esche was able to put up a 2.04 GAA behind that team.

Brian Boucher, a career backup, put up a 1.91 GAA for Philly as their starter the year before Cechmanek arrived.

Cechmanek was 32 when he went to LA, still well inside his goaltending prime, and he stunk. Was outplayed by a rookie Cristobal Huet, and pretty much played himself out of the NHL past that point.

And that's before getting into his mediocre playoff performances in Philly.

You stick any middling starter onto the 1999-2004 Flyers, and they were going to put up a 2.00 GAA and a .920 save %. Yeah, he was better than Esche and Boucher, but he was not a top-10 NHL goalie no matter what the numbers said.

I dont remember Robert Esche being the runner-up for the vezina, beezer played for Philly and his stats were not elite.

In 2002, Roman Cechmanek put up a 92.1 save % and his backup put up a 90.5 save%. Yeah every goalie would have benefitted from this right. In the playoffs for 2002, he put up a 93.6 save% and recorded a shutout, but wait its his fault they get eliminated in the first round right, just blame the goalie. Dont blame the fact that no one on his team put up more than 2 points during that series.

In 2001, Cechmanek put up a 92.1 save% and boucher put up 87.6%. Lol, i think that speaks for itself.

 

[Tavaresmagicalplay*]

This is called the 'Pete Sykora Thread' most of the time.

One of the best shots in the league. Definitely a high skilled player who produces the amount he should.

The guy on my list has to be Shawn Horcoff. I know he gets first line minutes but honestly I cannot believe how bad this guy is when it comes to handling the puck. The fact that he had a 70 point season is just mind boggling to me. Easily the least skilled player I've ever seen hit that mark. It would be like Samuel Pahlsson scoring 70 points.

 

[seventieslord]

regarding cechmanek in 2003 - he actually had a Luongo year - he was great until the final two games of round 2, then he shat the bed.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

I never liked the argument that A may be a better player, but B is more "talented". The player who helps his team more and is more effective on the ice is the more talented player. There's more to talent than fancy stickhandling.

While true, heck, when all is equal, a coach would choose player A. That said, a scout would choose player B, because they have more ability to be better than player A if applies properly.

 

[Bonzai12]

My nominees -

Alex Tanguay.....Should be donating half of his career proceeds to Peter Forsberg and Joe Sakic....they made him, and now he's just getting by on an old reputation.

Marek Svatos.....Garbage goals mostly...Rarely have seen him create a goal by himself, but on occasion it will happen.

Holmstrom....Same as Svatos, but I haven't seen too many goals actually created by himself.


I think Tanguay is the worst culprit out of anyone I've seen in the NHL though. You can debate others, but Tanguay has the most cheap points career-wise.

 

[Pear Juice]

My nominees -

Alex Tanguay.....Should be donating half of his career proceeds to Peter Forsberg and Joe Sakic....they made him, and now he's just getting by on an old reputation.

Marek Svatos.....Garbage goals mostly...Rarely have seen him create a goal by himself, but on occasion it will happen.

Holmstrom....Same as Svatos, but I haven't seen too many goals actually created by himself.


I think Tanguay is the worst culprit out of anyone I've seen in the NHL though. You can debate others, but Tanguay has the most cheap points career-wise.

Holmström may be the best at his position the last decade, you don't stay on a contending team like the Wings for 13 years if you don't contribute in a special way. He might not be flashy but don't go telling us that he's not worth his points. And in all honesty, they're not that many, his career high is 59 pts and 30 goals. But if anyone in the modern NHL is worth every point he gets, it's Tomas Holmström.

It's quite silly to speak in terms such as: he's a goal scorer, but not very talented. People who score alot of goals in the NHL are _very_ talented. Talent isn't all about speedy skating or being a specatcular dangler. Espo was neither and nobody with their head on the right spot would argue him a nontalented player.

I can't believe that I as a Swede am getting to tell this to Canadian people. If there's anywhere grit, energy and toughness are considered great talents, it's in Canada.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Talent

Holmström may be the best at his position the last decade, you don't stay on a contending team like the Wings for 13 years if you don't contribute in a special way. He might not be flashy but don't go telling us that he's not worth his points. And in all honesty, they're not that many, his career high is 59 pts and 30 goals. But if anyone in the modern NHL is worth every point he gets, it's Tomas Holmström.

It's quite silly to speak in terms such as: he's a goal scorer, but not very talented. People who score alot of goals in the NHL are _very_ talented. Talent isn't all about speedy skating or being a specatcular dangler. Espo was neither and nobody with their head on the right spot would argue him a nontalented player.

I can't believe that I as a Swede am getting to tell this to Canadian people. If there's anywhere grit, energy and toughness are considered great talents, it's in Canada.

Thomas Holmstrom is an excellent example of a player who has the desire and discipline to use his talent game after game in the exact fashion that it provides the greatest benefit to his team

 

[MS]

I dont remember Robert Esche being the runner-up for the vezina, beezer played for Philly and his stats were not elite.

In 2002, Roman Cechmanek put up a 92.1 save % and his backup put up a 90.5 save%. Yeah every goalie would have benefitted from this right. In the playoffs for 2002, he put up a 93.6 save% and recorded a shutout, but wait its his fault they get eliminated in the first round right, just blame the goalie. Dont blame the fact that no one on his team put up more than 2 points during that series.

In 2001, Cechmanek put up a 92.1 save% and boucher put up 87.6%. Lol, i think that speaks for itself.

Boucher and Esche are/were crappy NHL goalies, and of course Cechmanek outperformed them more often than not. But the fact remains that Philly's defense was good enough during this period that those guys could still put up numbers close to what Cechmanek put up.

Vanbiesbrouck was nearly done during his time in Philly, put up below-average save percentages, and still had a GAA of 2.19 as a Flyer. And he lost his starting job to Boucher mid-way through the 1999-00 season.

The 2002 playoffs aren't the issue. The issue is the 2001 playoffs, where he outright stunk (.893 save %) and the Ottawa series in 2003 which saw him run out of Philly in the 2003 offseason.

And again, when he was 32 he was outperformed by a rookie Cristobal Huet, lost the starting job he was handed in LA, and was out of the league.

The Vezina voting in 2001 was based on statistics, and if he'd won that year it would be regarded on the same level is Jim Carey winning it in 1996.

And again, I'm not saying he was awful or anything. He was a middling starter out of the 30 in the league, just not the top-5 guy you'd think from looking at the statistics. And I don't think you'll find many people that disagree with me.

 

[NOTENOUGHJTCGOALS]

While true, heck, when all is equal, a coach would choose player A. That said, a scout would choose player B, because they have more ability to be better than player A if applies properly.

If a talented but perimeter player puts up a signifcant number more points then you can definately have an argument his skill is an outweighing factor. I have no problem with that.

However if you take eg a Smyth and an Afinogenov who put up near identical stats I dont think scouts would be foolish enough to take the latter just because his 30 goals were fancy.

If people are saying a Dionne or Stastny type are more skilled than a two way guy with lower numbers those guys actually proved their skill in terms of actual production with a significant gap.

When I see things like Bure or Kovalev are more "skilled" than Yzerman or Sakic I cant buy the argument. They didn't produce offense at a much higher level so how were they more skilled.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Skill / Talent and the Application of Same

If a talented but perimeter player puts up a signifcant number more points then you can definately have an argument his skill is an outweighing factor. I have no problem with that.

However if you take eg a Smyth and an Afinogenov who put up near identical stats I dont think scouts would be foolish enough to take the latter just because his 30 goals were fancy.

If people are saying a Dionne or Stastny type are more skilled than a two way guy with lower numbers those guys actually proved their skill in terms of actual production with a significant gap.

When I see things like Bure or Kovalev are more "skilled" than Yzerman or Sakic I cant buy the argument. They didn't produce offense at a much higher level so how were they more skilled.

Skill and talent have many facets. There are many tests where all the hockey skills may be evaluated. So a Bure or a Kovalev may be more skilled in certain facets than a Sakic or an Yzerman but Sakic and Yzerman may have different skills that are more valuable to the team or they may be better at applying their lesser skills to produce positive results and help the team win.

 

[Pear Juice]

What it all boils down to is the disturbing use of the word talent or talented. Somehow people associate this word alot with the flashy talents (speed skating, dangling, agility). It bugs me beyond reasoning when people claim that the likes of Holmström, Renberg or Smyth are not talented. Heck, Esposito and Messier are mentioned in this thread! There's definitely some public education necessary on the topic of talent.

 

[NOTENOUGHJTCGOALS]

Skill and talent have many facets. There are many tests where all the hockey skills may be evaluated. So a Bure or a Kovalev may be more skilled in certain facets than a Sakic or an Yzerman but Sakic and Yzerman may have different skills that are more valuable to the team or they may be better at applying their lesser skills to produce positive results and help the team win.

I agree with you there. I think the definition of "skill" should be an ability that helps the team succeed. Sakic's and Yzerman's so called lesser skills like the ability to stay healthy and play at a consistently high level end up helping their team win more games in the regular season and playoffs than whatever edge a Turgeon or Bure had in fancy stickhandling and dipsy doodling. Maybe I sound too much like Don Cherry at this point.

 

[Canad93]

ah... the MATS SUNDIN thread.....

Shut up. Now. I'll find you.

 

[Canad93]

So you're saying that Mario could have been a bigger point man or that Rob Brown,if better, would have been?

This sentence is boggling my mind.

 

[foame]

I agree with you there. I think the definition of "skill" should be an ability that helps the team succeed. Sakic's and Yzerman's so called lesser skills like the ability to stay healthy and play at a consistently high level end up helping their team win more games in the regular season and playoffs than whatever edge a Turgeon or Bure had in fancy stickhandling and dipsy doodling. Maybe I sound too much like Don Cherry at this point.

If you're talking about greatness, then I agree. But saying that about the word "skill" is kinda wrong.

Definition of skill: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/skill

When people talk about skill, they mean it in diffirent ways. When they talk about Bure, we know they think he was a good skater and goalscorer. If they say Holmström is skilled, then we have to assume that they mean he's a good at blocking the goalie's view.

I think OP defined his criteria quite well: "Players with deceptive statistical effectiveness"

Players like Bernie Nicholls, Jonathan Cheechoo and moore...

 

[BadHammy*]

If you're talking about greatness, then I agree. But saying that about the word "skill" is kinda wrong.

Definition of skill: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/skill

When people talk about skill, they mean it in diffirent ways. When they talk about Bure, we know they think he was a good skater and goalscorer. If they say Holmström is skilled, then we have to assume that they mean he's a good at blocking the goalie's view.

I think OP defined his criteria quite well: "Players with deceptive statistical effectiveness"

Players like Bernie Nicholls, Jonathan Cheechoo and moore...

Cheech is the king of all 1 season, bs point/goal total players. Hell, I'd have potted 35 that year. I also have to nominate Dino, yeah he had an insane amount of goals, but how many did he really deserve?

 

[stish]

I wish I was a lousy hockey player like Phil Esposito was.

I can remember Esposito stickhandling, playing keep-away with the puck and killing almost a whole penalty by himself. To suggest he had no skills is silly.

 

[crobro]

b.j. macdonald
dan cloutier
daniel marois
gilbert dionne
craig janney
brendan morrison
jim carey
bob chounard
terry ruskowski

 

[Sadekuuro]

I also have to nominate Dino, yeah he had an insane amount of goals, but how many did he really deserve?

Deserve? He had a nose for the net and was willing to pay the price to be in front of it all the time. How does he not deserve them?

 

[Nordic*]

Malik had an úber +/- for being such a lousy player.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Malik had an úber +/- for being such a lousy player.

This is a great example of a player who actually was lousy (by NHL standards) who had a great stat.

Of course, that happens quite a bit with +/-., but Malik is one of the more notable recent examples.