Oates vs. Shanahan

[Big Phil]

I'm not as into simply counting up top-10's and using that as the sole argument as some people are, but in this case Oates' domination of an important statistical category is just too much to ignore. I think most can agree that the on-ice player was less than the on-paper player, but that still leaves him as bottom 1/3 HOFer. Oates is certainly not out of place with the Lafontaine's, Mullen's, Federko's, Sittler's, Gartner's, Savard's, and Francis' of the world, and many would argue that he's better than a lot of those guys.

Correct. I've always said Oates was not flashy but effective, very effective. Reminds me of why people would and still do bash Phil Esposito. Very few more effective players in NHL history than him. Obviously this is not to compare Oates to Esposito (Johnny Cochrane wouldn't even try that) but an example of what can pass as dismissing a player's accomplishments.

I do like the players you mentioned at the end. No one would ever kick Savard or Francis out of the HHOF but there is a very good argument he is equal to both of them. The others you mentioned (Lafontaine, Mullen, Federko, Sittler and Gartner) were not better players than him IMO

 

[Canadiens1958]

With / Without Approach

Exactly. You seem to be the only one in here judging Oates and others pretty much entirely on the results of their teams. Teams win and lose games, not players. Determining how much the individual contributed to the wins and losses is the key exercise.

Now I know this will fly in the face of the theory that you generally abide by, but it is possible for a player on a losing team to contribute more towards winning than a player on a championship team. My impression is that you're of the all-or-nothing school of thought. "If a player's team didn't win the Cup, they didn't contribute to winning. Meanwhile, a bit player taken along for the ride, no matter how insignificant their contribution may have been, will be hailed as a hero and a winner."

I favour a with / without approach. In this regard I have recently, within the last few days given, extreme credit and suggested possible HHOF consideration for Fleming Mackell for his efforts on borderline playoff teams that lost in the finals.

Also I made very appreciative comments about Allan Stanley and his efforts with weak New York Ranger teams, in the 1950 playoffs especially, and with the Boston Bruins in the late 1950's. I also pointed out the negative impact his trade from the Bruins had on the Franchise and the postive impact his arrival had on a weak Toronto franchise pointing to Allan Stanley being a main contributor to the Leafs turnaround.

However if the same measure used to appreciate Mackell 's efforts and Stanley's efforts are applied to Adam Oates then he does not pass the test as illustrated in my posts about his time in St.Louis and Boston.

Perhaps your comments are not accurate.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Methodology Issue

It's pretty embarrassing. But you know what's worse? Neely and Loob aren't guys who played decades ago that few or none of us have seen play. We've all seen games that involved them either live (anyone over 30 should have good memories), or on film. And yet, every argument I see revolves entirely around individual or team trophies, all-stars, or points and goal finishes. Not one argument based on what people actually saw with their own two eyes. To anybody who actually watches games, it should be pretty clear who the superior player is.

The Loob dilemma features a methodology issue. Very few if any of Hakan Loob's SEL games were seen by posters here "with their own two eyes" . Likewise it is highly doubtful that the same posters saw "with their own two eyes" any or even a few of Dominik Hasek's Czechoslovakian league games.

Yet the same posters who are very quick to dismiss written presentations of Hakan Loob's achievements in Sweden are equally quick to accept written presentations about Dominik Hasek's Czechoslovakian efforts.

Methodology has to be consistent and unbiased.

 

[overpass]

People are so mysticized by modern coaching philosophy that it suspends their intelligent judgement and reduces it to an exercise in the quality of one's teammates.

ESGA is completely and totally misleading. Is Oates really the player responsible for all of those goals against? Last I checked, there are 12 players on the ice, five of which are Oates' teammates. Any one of those 12 players could be responsible for the goals against or any two or even three or four. So, no, you cannot blame Oates for all goals against while he is on the ice. Of course, Oates is also a forward the primary job of a forward is to CREATE OFFENSE. The primary responsibility of the defense and goaltender is to prevent goals - not the forwards. A forward focuses on defense when he doesn't have the talent to create offense. Defensive play it is NOT preferable to offensive play for a forward, it is a a subsititue for the untalented or a supplement for some. Great offensive forwards are always more valuable than defensive forwards. Always. A forward's primary value is in the offense they create.

Oates is one of the greatest playmakers and creators of offense in the game's history. If he wasn't grinding behind the faceoff circles in his own end - who cares? His job was to create offense and he was one of the very best at his job. Blaming goals against on Oates is like blaming your CEO because the bathrooms are dirty. It isn't his job.

Oates is one of the game's all time greats - and ahead of Shanahan by a comfortable margin.

This thread has moved in a new direction since I last checked, but I have to say something.

Goals prevented count as much as goals scored towards winning. While forwards generally contribute more towards goal scoring, their contributions towards goal prevention are also valuable. In fact, they are equally valuable on the margins, and in some situations more valuable. This is obvious to anyone who thinks about it for a minute, I don't have to prove this.

Of course it's Oates' job to prevent goals against. It's the job of every player on the ice. You are correct that it's rare that a goal against can be blamed on a forward alone. More often the forward makes the first error, a defenceman and/or a goalie also makes an error, and the puck is in the net. But a forward who is good defensively will take the pressure off his defencemen and goalie, and fewer pucks end up in the net. You can choose to estimate the effect of a forward's defence by ESGA, or not, but you have to consider it.

I don't know if you coach or not, but if you did, would you tell your forwards not to worry about playing defence? How do you think that would work out for you? Or would it work great, because you aren't "mysticized by modern coaching philosophy?"

 

[seventieslord]

The Loob dilemma features a methodology issue. Very few if any of Hakan Loob's SEL games were seen by posters here "with their own two eyes" . Likewise it is highly doubtful that the same posters saw "with their own two eyes" any or even a few of Dominik Hasek's Czechoslovakian league games.

Yet the same posters who are very quick to dismiss written presentations of Hakan Loob's achievements in Sweden are equally quick to accept written presentations about Dominik Hasek's Czechoslovakian efforts.

Methodology has to be consistent and unbiased.

You tried that one already. Everyone knows better. Nobody's listening.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I favour a with / without approach. In this regard I have recently, within the last few days given, extreme credit and suggested possible HHOF consideration for Fleming Mackell for his efforts on borderline playoff teams that lost in the finals.

Also I made very appreciative comments about Allan Stanley and his efforts with weak New York Ranger teams, in the 1950 playoffs especially, and with the Boston Bruins in the late 1950's. I also pointed out the negative impact his trade from the Bruins had on the Franchise and the postive impact his arrival had on a weak Toronto franchise pointing to Allan Stanley being a main contributor to the Leafs turnaround.

However if the same measure used to appreciate Mackell 's efforts and Stanley's efforts are applied to Adam Oates then he does not pass the test as illustrated in my posts about his time in St.Louis and Boston.

Perhaps your comments are not accurate.

Well, if you're consistent in your approach everyone is entitled to their own evaluation methods I guess. I feel you over-estimate the impact of single individuals on their teams (since we're not talking about the all-time greats here) while perhaps not giving other factors proper attention, but I won't beat this dead horse any further.

With regards to Loob and the SEL, we have a large enough sample size of his work against the top competition in the world (NHL) that we don't need to resort to guesswork. It seems very unlikely that his game suddenly improved (to the point that he'd be a HOF candidate) upon his return to Sweden at age 30. There is much more latitude when evaluating Hasek. He was a great starter in the NHL as soon as he was given the chance to be, so it's fair to speculate that he may have been that good for several years beforehand.

 

[MS]

I don't need to salvage anything.

I'm really in disbelief at what I am reading.

Join the club.

Some of the schizo-debating in this thread is mindboggling.

Hakan Loob? Seriously?

 

[Ogopogo*]

This thread has moved in a new direction since I last checked, but I have to say something.

Goals prevented count as much as goals scored towards winning. While forwards generally contribute more towards goal scoring, their contributions towards goal prevention are also valuable. In fact, they are equally valuable on the margins, and in some situations more valuable. This is obvious to anyone who thinks about it for a minute, I don't have to prove this.

Of course it's Oates' job to prevent goals against. It's the job of every player on the ice. You are correct that it's rare that a goal against can be blamed on a forward alone. More often the forward makes the first error, a defenceman and/or a goalie also makes an error, and the puck is in the net. But a forward who is good defensively will take the pressure off his defencemen and goalie, and fewer pucks end up in the net. You can choose to estimate the effect of a forward's defence by ESGA, or not, but you have to consider it.

I don't know if you coach or not, but if you did, would you tell your forwards not to worry about playing defence? How do you think that would work out for you? Or would it work great, because you aren't "mysticized by modern coaching philosophy?"

The point is, good forwards are offense first. With everybody focusing on preventing goals, nobody scores - the Calgary Flames know that better than most.

I think telling forwards to focus on offense worked out very well for the Edmonton Oilers dynasty.

 

[overpass]

The point is, good forwards are offense first. With everybody focusing on preventing goals, nobody scores - the Calgary Flames know that better than most.

I think telling forwards to focus on offense worked out very well for the Edmonton Oilers dynasty.

I think the best forwards can take care of both ends. Lesser forwards make have to make a choice, to some degree. If I'm critical of Oates' defensive results, it's only in comparison to the great forwards who could play both ways (like Doug Gilmour).

Even the Oilers tightened up defensively in the playoffs, didn't they? I wasn't watching hockey then but I understand their shots against dropped quite a bit.

 

[Ogopogo*]

I think the best forwards can take care of both ends. Lesser forwards make have to make a choice, to some degree. If I'm critical of Oates' defensive results, it's only in comparison to the great forwards who could play both ways (like Doug Gilmour).

Even the Oilers tightened up defensively in the playoffs, didn't they? I wasn't watching hockey then but I understand their shots against dropped quite a bit.

Depends what you mean by taking care of play in both ends. If you expect a forward to be below the circles in your own end - he is costing your team scoring chances by not being in position to take advantage of turnovers. If you mean putting in effort behind the blueline, of course a forward should do that.

People these days tend to think being a defensive forward is better than being an offensive forward - it is not. Give me a guy that scores 60 and is considered weak defensively over Bob Gainey every single time. There is a reason Lafleur won Hart trophies and Gainey did not.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Interesting..........

Depends what you mean by taking care of play in both ends. If you expect a forward to be below the circles in your own end - he is costing your team scoring chances by not being in position to take advantage of turnovers. If you mean putting in effort behind the blueline, of course a forward should do that.

People these days tend to think being a defensive forward is better than being an offensive forward - it is not. Give me a guy that scores 60 and is considered weak defensively over Bob Gainey every single time. There is a reason Lafleur won Hart trophies and Gainey did not.

So a Sidney Crosby who sweeps pucks away from his own goal line and plays deep in his defensive zone is costing his team scoring chances. Wow incredible. Learn something everyday.

 

[Dark Shadows]

This should be interesting....

 

[Ogopogo*]

So a Sidney Crosby who sweeps pucks away from his own goal line and plays deep in his defensive zone is costing his team scoring chances. Wow incredible. Learn something everyday.

Answer me this: is it better for a forward to be proficient defensively or offensively? Is it better to have Guy Lafleur or Bob Gainey in your lineup.

Don't sit on the fence, make a choice.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Simple Answer

Answer me this: is it better for a forward to be proficient defensively or offensively? Is it better to have Guy Lafleur or Bob Gainey in your lineup.

Don't sit on the fence, make a choice.

Simple answer Sidney Crosby easily over Alexander Ovechkin and Guy Lafleur. Bob Gainey over Rick Middleton like Sam Pollock did..The player willing and capable of doing both is a lot more valuable. Hockey is not an either or sport like baseball - pitcher, DH, but an "and" sport.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Simple answer Sidney Crosby easily over Alexander Ovechkin and Guy Lafleur. Bob Gainey over Rick Middleton like Sam Pollock did..The player willing and capable of doing both is a lot more valuable. Hockey is not an either or sport like baseball - pitcher, DH, but an "and" sport.

Uh, Rick Middleton did do both, and very well I might add. Coaches praised his excellent two way play.

 

[seventieslord]

Also, not sure if the implication is that Gainey "did both", but if it is, I highly disagree. the guy had a career high of 23 goals.

 

[Big Phil]

Answer me this: is it better for a forward to be proficient defensively or offensively? Is it better to have Guy Lafleur or Bob Gainey in your lineup.

Don't sit on the fence, make a choice.

There is no doubt in my mind the correct and smartest choice is Lafleur. Hart trophy voting tends not to lie. Also while I would praise Gainey's defense the truth is if he is your best player you do not win. He is a great role player who you need in certain situations and who will help you win in certain situations but he won't help you win with his offense. Lafleur did. You wouldn't last as a GM long if you choose Gainey over Lafleur

 

[Canadiens1958]

True

Uh, Rick Middleton did do both, and very well I might add. Coaches praised his excellent two way play.

True but no one has ever criticized Sam Pollock for selecting Bob Gainey ahead off Rick Middleton. The choice was the best choice then as it is now.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Viktor Tikhonov

There is no doubt in my mind the correct and smartest choice is Lafleur. Hart trophy voting tends not to lie. Also while I would praise Gainey's defense the truth is if he is your best player you do not win. He is a great role player who you need in certain situations and who will help you win in certain situations but he won't help you win with his offense. Lafleur did. You wouldn't last as a GM long if you choose Gainey over Lafleur

Viktor Tikhonov had a different opinion of Bob Gainey. Question of evaluating Tikhonov's credibility.

 

[Big Phil]

Viktor Tikhonov had a different opinion of Bob Gainey. Question of evaluating Tikhonov's credibility.

We all know the quote he made about Gainey saying: "This is the best player in the world". Now I forget when that was. It was 1979 but I can't remember if it was during the Challenge Cup or the NHL playoffs.

Either way, I respect his opinion and while Gainey was a great player at that time you might need to look into it a bit more. Tikhonov had Kharlamov at that time. He had a player much like Guy Lafleur. He would be more likely to covet a player like Gainey who I don't think the Russians had anyone comparable to defensively.

Hart trophy voting and just sheer utter dominance of the NHL tell a different story of who was more valuable. Lafleur was just too explosive to ignore

 

[Canadiens1958]

Does Not Work

We all know the quote he made about Gainey saying: "This is the best player in the world". Now I forget when that was. It was 1979 but I can't remember if it was during the Challenge Cup or the NHL playoffs.

Either way, I respect his opinion and while Gainey was a great player at that time you might need to look into it a bit more. Tikhonov had Kharlamov at that time. He had a player much like Guy Lafleur. He would be more likely to covet a player like Gainey who I don't think the Russians had anyone comparable to defensively.

Hart trophy voting and just sheer utter dominance of the NHL tell a different story of who was more valuable. Lafleur was just too explosive to ignore

Refer you to your latest poll type thread, Potvin 1975 vs Pronger 2010. Other great comebacks and upsets were always accomplished with defensive players as opposed to offensive players. Prime example being the 2010 Canadiens beating Washington and Pittsburgh with average to above average offensive players willing to play defense.

The 1975 Islanders beat an offensive team - Pittsburgh. Ed Westfall scored the series winner in I believe a 1-0 game seven.

Lafleur's Hart and brief offensive dominance are like the beautiful girl, short term and transient. One minor knee injury - Boutette hit in 1980 and there was nothing to fall back on.

Tikhonov's comment has to be viewed in this light. He saw how fragile Kharlamov's career was and the benefits of what a Bob Gainey brought to the rink.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Uh, Rick Middleton did do both, and very well I might add. Coaches praised his excellent two way play.

You go ahead and take Middleton, I'll take Lafleur. You may be the only one who sees Middleton as the better option.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Simple answer Sidney Crosby easily over Alexander Ovechkin and Guy Lafleur. Bob Gainey over Rick Middleton like Sam Pollock did..The player willing and capable of doing both is a lot more valuable. Hockey is not an either or sport like baseball - pitcher, DH, but an "and" sport.

Sitting on the fence, eh?

It can very much be an either or. If you have first pick in the draft and Lafleur and Gainey are both available, who do you take? Assume the next best player available is Don Luce.

I take Lafleur.

 

[Canadiens1958]

No

Sitting on the fence, eh?

It can very much be an either or. If you have first pick in the draft and Lafleur and Gainey are both available, who do you take? Assume the next best player available is Don Luce.

I take Lafleur.

No. Your point has legs only if you present a fictitious choice that no one ever has to make.

The issue is rather straight forward. Real hockey includes upsets and comebacks. Look at the history of upsets and comebacks. Show us where the offensive team or offensive star led the comeback or the upset. Yet the offensive team or offensive star was inevitably the victim of the upset or comeback.This shatters your theory that offense is needed to win since it is defense that allows teams to comeback when down or accomplish upsets.

This year Washington with Ovechkin, Pittsburgh with Crosby beaten by Montreal. Previously Anaheim over San Jose, San Jose over Detroit, Miracle on Manchester, Islanders down 0-3 comeback to beat Penguins 4-3, Canadiens over Bruins in 1971, featured a comeback and an upset,1967 Leafs, 1953 and 1957 Bruins over Red Wings, 1945 Leafs over Canadiens.Just a short list.

Defense prevails.

 

[Ogopogo*]

No. Your point has legs only if you present a fictitious choice that no one ever has to make.

The issue is rather straight forward. Real hockey includes upsets and comebacks. Look at the history of upsets and comebacks. Show us where the offensive team or offensive star led the comeback or the upset. Yet the offensive team or offensive star was inevitably the victim of the upset or comeback.This shatters your theory that offense is needed to win since it is defense that allows teams to comeback when down or accomplish upsets.

This year Washington with Ovechkin, Pittsburgh with Crosby beaten by Montreal. Previously Anaheim over San Jose, San Jose over Detroit, Miracle on Manchester, Islanders down 0-3 comeback to beat Penguins 4-3, Canadiens over Bruins in 1971, featured a comeback and an upset,1967 Leafs, 1953 and 1957 Bruins over Red Wings, 1945 Leafs over Canadiens.Just a short list.

Defense prevails.

Are you just staying on the fence because you don't want to admit that a great offensive forward is more valuable than a great defensive forward?