Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 8

[bobholly39]

And yet Chris Chelios, playing at almost the exact same time, has an almost identical Norris record, despite not having the advantage of eye-popping point totals.

Here are the complete Norris voting records of the 4 defensemen available this round:

Chelios: 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 4, 6, 6, 6, 6
Coffey: 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 7, 9

Robinson: 1, 1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 5
Park: 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 8, 8, 9

Full records by season:

That's the definition of double dipping. You either count awards, or you look at stats - you don't look at awards and then further devalue them by saying it's because of stats. If we're comparing Norris records you compare them head to head.

What you're basically showing is that Paul Coffey has the best Norris record in this round of defensemen (including Chelios). While Coffey relied mostly on offense for his awards - others didn't - but he still comes out on top in Norris recognition (both in terms of top votes, and longevity for # of seasons as a top contender).

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Ted Lindsay beyond the offense

One of the best agitators, pound for pound tough guys, and leaders of all-time. At least one journalist also noted his defensive ability.

Seemed to have a significant impact on Detroit's record when he was traded, then briefly came back.

REPOST FROM HOH TOP WINGERS PROJECT:

Ted Lindsay

I've seen a few posts that seem to consider Ted Lindsay a step down from Mike Bossy, and I disagree. Both were key members of dynasties. Both were overshadowed by teammates in Hart voting. Lindsay's stats compared to his peers are quite a bit better than Bossy's, but you can say that they were inflated by playing with Gordie Howe.

Lindsay contributed quite a bit other than offense. One of the best agitators, pound for pound tough guys, and leaders of all-time:

He was only 5'8" and 160 pounds but could hold his own in fights and in the corners with much larger opponents. But Lindsay was also a gifted offensive player, a natural goal scorer who set records for a left wing and made up one third of Detroit's famous Production Line in the 1940s and 1950s. Nine times he was an All-Star, eight of those selections to the First Team. Such a combination, in such a small, powerful package, hadn't been seen in the National Hockey League before the arrival of Terrible Ted Lindsay, and it hasn't been seen since.

I had the idea that I should beat up every player I tangled with and nothing ever convinced me it wasn't a good idea.

I hated that SOB. Right from the very first game.

He was the leader of the Red Wings every night he went on the ice. Nobody else, he was the motivator, he was the leader, and he was not a big man. He might have been the best left winger of all time, complete. I mean, when you talk about greatness, you have to talk about people who absolutely hate to lose.

On any list of the greatest left wings to play, Ted Lindsay had to be right at the very top. With his leadership, his determination, his scoring stats, his toughness, his defensive ability, his ability to get under the skin of opponents... He was lucky he didn't have to face a lynch mob of the other players in the league!

Ted Lindsay was one of those guys who was a fiesty, fiesty player on the ice. He gave it 100% all the time, and likely one of the greatest, if not the best left winger of them all.

The reason why we had success - everybody could shoot and score, everybody could carry the puck, and everybody's full intent was, "if I had to hit somebody, I would do so." I didn't find it was fun to hide behind somebody, and all three of us had those particular ingredients, so nobody could concentrate on Ted Lindsay, or Gordie Howe, or Sid Abel, we all did it.

Lindsay was the first player to lift the Cup and skate around the rink with it, starting a great tradition.

A story about Lindsay's fearlessness/recklessness/trolling

Prior to the third game of (a series) against Toronto, the local paper reported that several fans had issued death threats toward both Lindsay and Howe for an alleged injury to the Leaf's Tod Sloan. The game went on as planned despite the threat of a shooting. After Lindsay scored the game winning goal in overtime, he held his stick like a rifle and pointed it at the crowd taunting the Maple Leaf faithful.

The end of his career in Detroit

At the age of 31, Ted Lindsay finished 2nd in NHL scoring (to Howe of course) and led the league in assists. He was then traded to Chicago for his role in starting the NHLPA (the reason the Pearson Trophy was re-named the Lindsay Trophy).

Lindsay tried to play hard, but his heart was still in Detroit. After 3 seasons in Chicago, he retired. 4 years later, he made a one-year comeback with the Wings, and the team finished first in the NHL in the regular season for the first time since before Lindsay left. Lindsay retired for good and the Hall of Fame waived the waiting period.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

REPOST FROM THE HOH TOP WINGERS PROJECT

Ted Lindsay vs Mike Bossy

I see a lot of posters who are ranking Bossy over Lindsay, but what's the case?

Lindsay has a significant advantage in scoring versus his peers. And we know he brings a lot more to the table than just scoring.

Ted Lindsay points finishes: 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 7th, 9th
Mike Bossy points finishes: 2nd, 4th, 4th, 4th, 5th, 5th, 6th, 6th
Bossy all Oilers removed: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 6th

Even if you remove all Oilers (which is awfully generous to Bossy), Lindsay is a better point producer by a fair margin. This is supported by an substantial difference in their 7 year VsX scores:

Lindsay: 104.8
Bossy: 94.4

Ted Lindsay goals finishes: 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 9th
Mike Bossy goals finishes: 1st, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 7th
Bossy all Oilers removed: 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th

Bossy was the better goal scorer, and if you remove all Oilers, he certainly looks a lot better. There were seasons when up to 3 Oilers all finished in the top 5 in goal scoring.

We also have circumstantial evidence that Lindsay was a difference maker: The Wings finished 1st in the regular season the year he came out of retirement, for the first time since before he was traded away. Bossy, on the other hand, turned Brent Sutter into a 100-point player when Trottier was out. These are clearly both guys who could have been "the man" on less stacked teams, but instead were key cogs in dynasties.

It's fair to knock Lindsay for playing with Howe (and Kelly) - if you didn't, he'd have a case vs Hull, Richard, and Jagr - seriously, look how his raw scoring placements and VsX compare, then consider his overall game. But how far do you knock him?

It's already knocking Lindsay pretty far to consider him Bossy's equal as a point producer. Bossy would then be the better goal scorer, with Lindsay the better all-round player.

 

[bobholly39]

: affects New England accent : "ask not what Coffey meant for Gretzky and Lemieux; ask what Gretzky and Lemieux meant for Coffey."

Would love for someone to dig deeper into this. I'm probably higher on Gretzky/Lemieux in this project than almost all other voters - so you don't have to sell me on the fact that Gretzky and Lemieux may have had a huge positive effect on Coffey.

But the opposite is also possible (plausible.....likely....certain?). Maybe Coffey should be given more recognition for helping those 2 reach those heights.

I'm not really sure what the best way to analyze this is. I didn't like what we did with Espo and Orr - considered "games missed by Orr" and how Espo did in those games. Sample size is way too small within seasons, and sometimes overall team strategy change when you're missing your best player, i'm not sure it was super accurate.

But if someone has some data, or perspective to provide on how much merit Coffey should be given for the insane offensive peaks of Gretzky/Lemieux i'd love to hear it - positive or negative for Coffey.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

That's the definition of double dipping. You either count awards, or you look at stats - you don't look at awards and then further devalue them by saying it's because of stats. If we're comparing Norris records you compare them head to head.

What you're basically showing is that Paul Coffey has the best Norris record in this round of defensemen (including Chelios). While Coffey relied mostly on offense for his awards - others didn't - but he still comes out on top in Norris recognition (both in terms of top votes, and longevity for # of seasons as a top contender).

Are you denying that a player gets at least some votes simply for putting up hockey card stats? The only "advantage" Coffey has over Chelios in voting is some 6th-9th place finishes.

Anyone even remotely familiar with Norris voting trends knows that they favor high scoring defensemen, especially in modern times.

 

[MXD]

That's the definition of double dipping. You either count awards, or you look at stats - you don't look at awards and then further devalue them by saying it's because of stats. If we're comparing Norris records you compare them head to head.

What you're basically showing is that Paul Coffey has the best Norris record in this round of defensemen (including Chelios). While Coffey relied mostly on offense for his awards - others didn't - but he still comes out on top in Norris recognition (both in terms of top votes, and longevity for # of seasons as a top contender).

What he's saying is that Norris award voting tend to be overly influenced by raw point totals, and there's absolutely no double dipping there.

We MIGHT question whether TDMM's statement reflects, in all relevant times, the reality (Hello Rod Langway), but doing the contrary would be acknowledging the award voting process (for the Norris at least) is flawed and staunchly refusing to take this into consideration.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

What he's saying is that Norris award voting tend to be overly influenced by raw point totals, and there's absolutely no double dipping there.

We MIGHT question whether TDMM's statement reflects, in all relevant times, the reality (Hello Rod Langway), but doing the contrary would be acknowledging the award voting process (for the Norris at least) is flawed and staunchly refusing to take this into consideration.

And specifically those lower Norris finishes 5th, 6th, 9th, etc. There are always SOME writers who throw votes to high scorers.

Even if one thinks the top 3 in Norris voting is usually correct (...), there are guys who get thrown votes absolutely on the basis of hockey card stats alone.

In other words, in a year that neither Chelios nor Coffey actually deserved the award, a few lazy writers will still throw some votes to the high scorer, and not the other way around.

Edit: And Langway was clearly the exception who proves the rule. Writers who recognized that they usually favored offense too much went way out of their way to do the opposite for a couple years.

 

[quoipourquoi]

What years specifically did Coffey receive an undeserved rank?

 

[bobholly39]

Are you denying that a player gets at least some votes simply for putting up hockey card stats? The only "advantage" Coffey has over Chelios in voting is some 6th-9th place finishes.

Anyone even remotely familiar with Norris voting trends knows that they favor high scoring defensemen, especially in modern times.

Your initial post seemed to want to try and rebutt Coffey's greatness/longevity by making Chelios appear better with Norris record. What i'm saying is - your post doesn't show that. Norris voting to me is clearly Coffey > Chelios (maybe not by a lot, but it's still in favor of Coffey).

I don't disagree that statistics are an easy way to earn votes - but so what? It's not like it's unwarranted. I don't think so anyways. High enough offense should warrant Norris consideration.

 

[MXD]

Mario Lemieux had his more impressive season (1993) with Larry Murphy as the main piece on Pittsburgh's defense.
In his other very, very impressive season (1989), Lemieux finished the season with +41 and Coffey with -10. And that's on a -9 team.

(In 1989, Lemieux had 18 SH points. Coffey had exactly zero. This partly explains that.)

 

[MXD]

What years specifically did Coffey receive an undeserved rank?

It's not whether he deserved it. It's mostly about whether a more deserving player, or even an equally deserving player, didn't get any support because PPPPOOOOIINNNNTSSS!!!

Oh and 2nd in 88-89? If that's not evidence of points weighting too much at the expense of everything else, I don't know what it is. Coffey didn't outperform his team (and got to 113 points in the first place by virtue of getting 64 points on the PP while playing with the best PP player of all time. And you know what? ... That's not even Lemieux's most impressive PP season in the grand scheme of things!... So it's not like Coffey "made" Lemieux.

So : Coffey got an undeserved 2nd over Al McInnis at the very least (and there might have been some serious vote-splitting here, too -- see below). And that's also where I have to mention that he didn't really beat Raymond Bourque : he just played 20 more games than Bourque.

Other players getting Norris support that season : Suter, McCrimmon, Duchesne, Lowe, Housley, Stevens, Leetch (rookie), Paul Reinhart on his last miles and ... Craig Ludwig's shinpads.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

What years specifically did Coffey receive an undeserved rank?

This is where you ask me to do literally hours of work to prove something that should be obvious to anyone who has watched the game and followed awards voting for more than a few years - namely, that at least some percentage of writers each year, rely largely on traditional hockey card stats in their voting.

It makes sense to an extent - with 20+ teams, nobody can thoroughly watch all of them, so stats are a crutch.

 

[bobholly39]

I feel as though there's too much desire for participants in this project to come across as "edgy" and "different" in certain regards. I don't deny the value of digging deeper in some data - but there seems to be too big of a propensity to dismiss stats and award voting.

Specifically offense vs defense. There's too much of a defense > offense vibe around here. The hockey world has always recognized offense more. Gretzky was winning those hart trophies - not Bourque or Messier. Espo beat Orr with enough offense. Guy Carbonneau and Bob Gainey were never in discussion for the best players in the world (nor close).

Keeping it relevant to this stage of voting - Steve Yzerman. Big offensive guru to defensive master. It also coincides with going from high hart recognition to barely marginal votes after his transformation.

Paul Coffey is almost all about offense. I don't think that should be seen as a bad thing.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Edit: Nevermind, maybe I'm just edgy

 

[DannyGallivan]

Edit: And Langway was clearly the exception who proves the rule. Writers who recognized that they usually favored offense too much went way out of their way to do the opposite for a couple years.

I suspect there was the possibility that part of the reason Langway won his Norris Trophies was because he was a novelty... an effective stay-at-home-limited-offense defenseman in an era where everybody wanted to be Bobby Orr. Of course, we'll examine this further when his name comes up.

 

[sr edler]

I had the idea that I should beat up every player I tangled with and nothing ever convinced me it wasn't a good idea.

Lindsay feels like an upgraded version of Cully Wilson, and I'm not saying that as a slight as Wilson led a defending Stanley Cup champion team in scoring.

 

[bobholly39]

Mario Lemieux had his more impressive season (1993) with Larry Murphy as the main piece on Pittsburgh's defense.
In his other very, very impressive season (1989), Lemieux finished the season with +41 and Coffey with -10. And that's on a -9 team.

(In 1989, Lemieux had 18 SH points. Coffey had exactly zero. This partly explains that.)

Yeah 1993 is the only one out of Lemieux and Gretzky's best without Coffey. Still it's only once Coffey joined Pitt that Lemieux started hitting those crazy #s for the first time, no? Coincidence, or direct correlation (and to what extent)? He was with Gretzky in Edmonton too in his best years.

Says the guy who ranks Coffey higher than (almost?) anyone else.

Than who though? I'd expect in other all-time hockey lists Paul Coffey ranks higher than what we're going to rank him in this project. He was ranked 29th by The Hockey News in 1998 for example.

Which is what i'm saying. We're being too harsh on offense and trying too much to rewrite history and dismiss award voting in some cases.

 

[sr edler]

I feel as though there's too much desire for participants in this project to come across as "edgy" and "different" in certain regards.

I'm trying to hold a pretty low profile myself, I let out all my edginess in other threads.

 

[quoipourquoi]

This is where you ask me to do literally hours of work to prove something that should be obvious to anyone who has watched the game and followed awards voting for more than a few years - namely, that at least some percentage of writers each year, rely largely on traditional hockey card stats in their voting.

It makes sense to an extent - with 20+ teams, nobody can thoroughly watch all of them, so stats are a crutch.

I was thinking more of something like you saying 1983 and 1996 or 1987 when he missed time and then I’d do the work to dig up articles about him in those years.

Otherwise we’re just dealing with the hypothetical that he may or may not deserve to have an equal Norris record.

 

[bobholly39]

Mario Lemieux had his more impressive season (1993) with Larry Murphy as the main piece on Pittsburgh's defense.
In his other very, very impressive season (1989), Lemieux finished the season with +41 and Coffey with -10. And that's on a -9 team.

(In 1989, Lemieux had 18 SH points. Coffey had exactly zero. This partly explains that.)

Sorry to quote you a second time but i just wanted to specify my question.

For Esposito - we didn't take his offense at face value, because we said Orr influenced him heavily. (some estimates of - 20% were discussed).

When Kurri comes up - we won't take his offense at face value because Gretzky has influenced him greatly.

Jagr vs Lemieux? Less of an effect. They helped each other for sure but it's nowhere near Espo or Kurri.

How does Coffey compare? Was he only hitting those numbers because of Gretzky (and then - Lemieux)? Do we treat him more like Jagr where he maybe gets some benefit, but mostly can take his numbers at face value? Is it even a bit in the other directions - where we start claiming Coffey should get more of the credit for Gretzky and Lemieux's offensive peaks?

 

[MXD]

Yeah 1993 is the only one out of Lemieux and Gretzky's best without Coffey. Still it's only once Coffey joined Pitt that Lemieux started hitting those crazy #s for the first time, no? Coincidence, or direct correlation (and to what extent)? He was with Gretzky in Edmonton too in his best years.

Was Gretzky supposed to have his best years WITHOUT Coffey?
I mean... Gretzky had his best years with Kurri. And, dare I say, with Lee Fogolin, too.

It just means that they were playing with Gretzky up until the latter turned 27. And at that time, it was the age at which offensive players started to lose some ground.

Denis Savard, Michel Goulet and Peter Stastny all had their best seasons before 27. No thinking man would attribute that to Doug Wilson or Mario Marois leaving/slowing down or whatever.

 

[MXD]

Sorry to quote you a second time but i just wanted to specify my question.

For Esposito - we didn't take his offense at face value, because we said Orr influenced him heavily. (some estimates of - 20% were discussed).

When Kurri comes up - we won't take his offense at face value because Gretzky has influenced him greatly.

Jagr vs Lemieux? Less of an effect. They helped each other for sure but it's nowhere near Espo or Kurri.

How does Coffey compare? Was he only hitting those numbers because of Gretzky (and then - Lemieux)? Do we treat him more like Jagr where he maybe gets some benefit, but mostly can take his numbers at face value? Is it even a bit in the other directions - where we start claiming Coffey should get more of the credit for Gretzky and Lemieux's offensive peaks?

Esposito and Jagr were assessed quite appropriately (and a bit generously for the former).

 

[sr edler]

Coffey's plus/minus in PIT from 1988–1991 is very suspect, especially in 1991 when most of the team had turned the table towards plus. He also took quite a lot of penalties. Why does a guy with such epic skating take so many penalties?

 

[MXD]

Oh, and if this group was Defense > Offense, Serge Savard, Ching Johnson, Black Jack Stewart and Rod Langway would be up for voting.

 

[kruezer]

I have a question. Should we view Paul Coffey from his rookie year to 85-86 different than his last year in EDM and his career in Pittsburgh? Did the back injuries change his game from a dominant ES player to a PP focused guy moreso than the trade? His PP #s of course jumped in Pittsburgh.

I don't believe PC was ever dominant in his own zone, but was his ability to control the puck changed due to the injuries moreso than Mario or Wayne? His stats looked better in Detroit of course afterward, but surely that was the function of a stronger D core that gave him less ES responsibilities. I could be wrong there though.