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

[MXD]

Coffey must've killed penalties regularly unless he was surprisingly offensively effective the few times he did it.

If he killed penalties in 1988-89, he was absolutely awful (at scoring goals while doing so) because 0 points.
(this could partly explain the +/- discrepancy with Lemieux : Lemieux didn't get to +41 by scoring SHG, but he had 18 pts that season, including 13 goals)

 

[Sentinel]

A whole bunch of Russians are missing from this list. Plus three Wings and an Islander who are way below where I have it.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Here's an old post from 2011 where I argue that Chelios is a bit better than Robinson - blasphemy, I know.

Challenging the consensus: Chelios is (slightly) better than Robinson

Offense. A simplistic comparison would show that they scored virtually the same number of points despite Chelios playing an extra 267 games (which makes it look like Robinson is better). However, we need to take into account two important considerations - first, that Chelios played 391 games after age 40 (which drags down his per-game average) and that he spent a fair amount of time in the Dead Puck Era.

If we look at their performance through age 40 (Robinson's last season), we see that they scored the same amount of points per game (0.69 each - link). All things considered, this would be a point in Chelios' favour given that he never played on a team as stacked as the Canadiens dynasty, and given that he spent six of those seasons in the Dead Puck Era.

Despite Robinson playing in far more favourable situations (on arguably the greatest team of all-time and generally during a higher-scoring era), their offensive peaks are surprisingly similar (Robinson averaged 74 points over his best five seasons, Chelios averaged 69 points - not necessarily consecutive for either player). Given the context, I am considering this a draw.

Over Robinson's best five seasons (1977 to 1981), he was third in scoring among blueliners. Over Chelios's best five seasons (1993 to 1997) he was fifth. Link 1. Link 2. However, competition matters - if we look at the quality of players on each list, Chelios was facing off against seven actual or potential Hall of Fame defensemen (Bourque, Coffey, Leetch, Murphy, MacInnis, Zubov and Lidstrom) compared to just three for Robinson (Potvin, Salming and Park).

All things considered, I'd consider offense a draw.

Defense. These are two of the best shutdown blueliners of all-time. Robinson was named the best defensive defenseman in 1976, 1979 and 1981. Chelios was named the best defensive defenseman in 1993, and was runner-up to Bourque in 1994. Link.

I feel that Robinson was somewhat better at even-strength (as he was better at reading plays and positioning himself appropriately), but Chelios was better on the penalty kill (I've never seen anybody better at clearing the crease). Chelios also logged absurd amounts of ice time on the penalty kill (leading the league in PK TOI per game in 1998 and 2001, at ages 36 and 39!)

Overall I'd call defensive play a draw.

Awards

Here's how Robinson fared in Norris voting (I'm only including seasons where they have at least 5% of the minimum votes to avoiding count a single third-place vote as "top ten" ranking):

1st: 1977, 1980
2nd: 1978 (Potvin)
3rd: 1978, 1981, 1986
5th: 1982

Here's how Chelios fared:

1st: 1989, 1993, 1996
2nd: 1995 (Coffey), 2002 (Lidstrom)
3rd: 1991
4th: 1997
6th: 2000

Despite peaking during the greatest era for top-end defenseman talent, Chelios won more Norris trophies and placed in the top two 5 times (compared to Robinson's 3 times). They have the same number of seasons in the top three and top five.

Chelios has more years as a first-team all-star (5-3) and more years as a first- or second-team all-star (7-6).

Both players got some scattered Hart votes during their career. Robinson earned more than 5% of the votes once (in 1977 with a 10% share), and Chelios never did so.

All things considered, Chelios gets the edge in this category.

Playoffs

Robinson won 6 Stanley Cups to Chelios's 3. Let's dig deeper than relying on the simplistic "Cup counting".

On a per-game basis, Robinson appears to have outscored Chelios (0.63 ppg compared to 0.54 ppg). However, Robinson retired at age 40 while Chelios played another 56 games in a purely defensive role, which skews his numbers down. If we stop at age 40, Chelios scored 136 points in 210 playoff games - 0.65 ppg. This means that Chelios, through age 40, scored more in the playoffs than Robinson, despite generally playing on weaker teams in a lower-scoring era, while being his equal defensively!

Robinson won the Conn Smythe in 1978, and deservedly so. This performance was a bit better than Chelios in 1992 (21 points in 18 games), but it's not by a huge margin.

Peak

I'm tempted to call it a draw. Both were elite shutdown blueliners. As I showed earlier, Robinson was about 7% more productive offensively over their best five seasons, but I think that's largely due to era and team considerations. Neither player had any serious Hart consideration. Robinson has a Smythe, but Chelios won more Norris trophies and had more first-team and total (first & second) all-star selections playing in a tougher era. This is a draw.

Longevity

Robinson had his last season as an elite player in 1986, at age 34 (when he won the Norris). That would give him an advantage against most blueliners, but not against Chelios. From age 34 onwards, Chelios won another Norris trophy, was runner-up to Lidstrom at age 40, and was also a second-team all-star at age 35.

It's important to emphasize that Chelios wasn't just hanging on, playing 15 minutes per game on a crappy expansion team. He logged enormous amounts of ice time while playing on one of the best and deepest teams in the NHL. Chelios was 2nd in total ice time (to Bourque) in 1998, 10th in 1999, 7th in 2000 and 15th in 2002 (covering ages 36 to 40).

I don't necessarily think that what Chelios did at age 44+ plus is all that relevant (playing 2nd or 3rd pairing minutes), but the fact that he was a first- or second-team all-star three times, and logged incredible ice time while playing on arguably the NHL's best team, from ages 34+, gives him a tremendous advantage over Robinson.

Intangibles

Physical play. Robinson was larger and stronger, but Chelios was more aggressive and had a nasty mean streak. Both were among the most intimidating players of their era. This is a draw.

Discipline. Robinson was remarkably disciplined (recording more than 50 PIM just three times in his career, with a career high of 76). In contrast, Chelios recorded 100+ PIM thirteen times, including three seasons with 200+ PIM. Robinson was significantly more disciplined.

Durability. Both players were very durable, especially considering the amount of ice time they played. From 1974 to 1987, Robinson played in 1,039 out of a possible 1,118 games (92.9%). From 1987 to 2000, Chelios played in 1,030 out of a possible 1,106 games (93.1%). They played essentially the same percentage of games over essentially the same length of time. What gives Chelios is edge is playing another 435 out of a possible 492 games (88.4%) from 2002 to 2008, ages 40 to 46!

Conclusion

In summary, Chelios has the following advantages:

- Norris trophy consideration
- all-star consideration
- longevity (decisive)
- durability

The following are draws:

- defensive play
- peak performance
- physical play
- offence

Robinson has the following advantages:

- discipline (decisive)
- number of Stanley Cups won
- a Conn Smythe

It's close and they're similar players, but Chelios should be ranked higher.

 

[Sentinel]

I don't even have Coffey in the top 50.

I'm sorry, but I refuse to put a player who was quite bad at actual defending that high. Points be damned. He was no Bobby Orr although I often hear him referred to as a poor man's Orr, at least offensively. That's BS. One, Orr was (should have been) the league MVP every year he played a full or near full season. Period. Coffey played with Gretzky and Mario for a big part (prime/peak) of his career. He was a passenger and took advantage of a wide open era where his weaknesses were overlooked. One of the most overrated hockey players I've ever seen.

Except Coffey has actually BEATEN Orr for the number of goals in a season. Calling him a passenger is ridiculous.

Then again, I don't have Hall in my Top 50 and Cook in my Top 60.

 

[Nick Hansen]

If he killed penalties in 1988-89, he was absolutely awful (at scoring goals while doing so) because 0 points.
(this could partly explain the +/- discrepancy with Lemieux : Lemieux didn't get to +41 by scoring SHG, but he had 18 pts that season, including 13 goals)

He obviously didn't do it every year of his career but for most of his EDM years it seems he did. Orr isn't really particularly much more impressive, if at all, when comparing SH scoring.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

While Coffey is likely going to finish 9th or 10th on my list this round (based on what I finally decide to do with Lalonde), 2 brief points:

1) His 94-95 season shows that he could be a great player on a team that wasn't a run-and-gun Gretzky or Lemieux situation.
2) Unfortunately, we can't NR anyone this round

Should note 94-95 season was only 48 games. May have been hard for Coffey to sustain his pace in a regular schedule.

Why so down on Lalonde?

Like Cook, Lalonde came into the NHL at age 30.

In five seasons he led the league in scoring twice, 2nd once and 4th once. First, second, third and fourth in goals. First, second and 5th in assists. Outscored the younger Frank Nighbor consistently.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Should note 94-95 season was only 48 games. May have been hard for Coffey to sustain his pace in a regular schedule.

Why so down on Lalonde?

Like Cook, Lalonde came into the NHL at age 30.

In five seasons he led the league in scoring twice, 2nd once and 4th once. First, second, third and fourth in goals. First, second and 5th in assists. Outscored the younger Frank Nighbor consistently.

Like I said in the last thread, I just don't know what to do with Lalonde. Is he closer to Nighbor and Taylor or closer to Joe Malone?

How much of a difference-maker was he in terms of team success? That's important when everyone played 60 minutes. How much did his bad temper hurt his team vs how much his physical play helped?

It should be remembered that everything of note Lalonde did was done when only half the talent was in the NHL (of course, the same was true for Nighbor and Taylor and for pre-age-30 Bill Cook).

I also have a tough time voting for Lalonde when fellow penalty magnet Lindsay is available, when Lindsay's contributions are more fleshed out to me.

(As for outscoring Nighbor, Nighbor isn't on our list based on his goal scoring, that's for sure)

_________________

Edit: To be clear, I'm not set on ranking Lalonde last. For me, he's the wild card I could rank anywhere from mid-range to last.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Is there any evidence, somewhere, to the effect that Sawchuk's skills (and not only his stamina) dwindled right as the curtain fell on the Red Wings dynasty? That would... Probably HELP him at this point in the grand scheme of things.

I mean, Ken Dryden could actually play great hockey and assume starting duties while manning the crease of a non-powerhouse (and there's actually pretty damning evidence to the effect that the Canadiens were good specifically BECAUSE of him in the first half of his career). He made the difference. Something Terry Sawchuk never, ever did (except negatively for a few playoffs rounds).

I'm totally open to the idea that Terry Sawchuk should not even be ranked in our final list.

Terry Sawchuk is still the runner-up in career shutouts to Martin Brodeur (125) with 103. Brodeur played 295 more games.

That's a pretty significant stat when considering if he made a difference.

 

[bobholly39]

This is where I have a problem with how you present your positions.

It's all about numbers with you. That isn't hockey. Yeah, it's a part of it, maybe even a big part but take it from somebody who used to say a lot of the things you are in this project. The longer you watch the game, the more you study it and understand what works and doesn't the more you know that numbers can be very, very misleading on the surface. Coffey, as a Dman, played one way. And if the only argument you have is that it was the era, and what the team wanted, then I can point to other Dmen who were plenty good at moving the puck and creating offense, in the same exact era that didn't ignore the primary responsibility of the position itself.

Ray Bourque is somebody who should be able to just laugh in the face of Coffey, comparatively speaking. He was almost as good offensively while actually being a really strong player in his own end. Elite if you're just going H2H with Coffey.

Adjusted Even-Strength Plus-minus 1960-2017

Special teams roles - 1960-2017

Reference - VsX comprehensive summary (1927 to 2018)

Look at where Bourque is all time and look at Coffey. You want numbers that go beyond just simple scoring totals.

RB has the 2nd highest adjusted +/- ever. EVER. Coffey is waaaaaaaay down the list.

Coffey gave you about 10% more production offensively than Bourque. But then again, RB gave you God only knows how much more value defensively and on special teams.

Bourque was every bit as good as Coffey on the PP. He was a great PK'er as well and used very heavily in both roles.

So how is it that Bourque could post such great offensive numbers while actually being used in a shutdown role in his own end, during the same time frame as Coffey?

Are you kidding me? After all the whining you do about Jagr - you're going to pimp out the stat in which he ranks #1 ALL TIME as the main reason to push Coffey down?

So adjusted plus/- only matters when it's convenient, is that it? That's hilarious coming from you.

I'm not sure why we're even discussing Bourque in-depth. He's not up for voting, he got ranked a long time ago. I only made a reference to Bourque in passing to avoid people responding with "high scoring era" to dismiss Coffey's totals. Since he was up against arguably the 2nd best defenseman all time, and one of the best offensive ones, and still destroyed him head to head, I mentioned him, that's it. I'm not saying Coffey should rank above Bourque.

And how in the world is 138 points (Coffey's high) to 96 (Bourque's high) 10% more offense? That's 44% higher.

If you want to take their best 5 seasons, Coffey is at 138, 126, 121, 113, 103. 601 total points.
Bourque is at 96, 95, 94, 91 and 86. 462 total points.

30% Higher over 5 years.

Going back to your first sentence - the one who misrepresents his positions isn't me, it's you.

To sum up:

10% higher offense for Coffey you stated? Nope. 44% more in peak year, 30% more in best 5 year stretch.

And i'm waiting for you to explain why adjusted +/- is essential for Coffey but wasn't worth discussing for Jagr.

 

[MXD]

Terry Sawchuk is still the runner-up in career shutouts to Martin Brodeur (125) with 103. Brodeur played 295 more games.

That's a pretty significant stat when considering if he made a difference.

Shutouts on a high-powered dynasty = Not necessarily making any difference whatsoever
(you do have a point for shutouts, however)

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Terry Sawchuk is still the runner-up in career shutouts to Martin Brodeur (125) with 103. Brodeur played 295 more games.

That's a pretty significant stat when considering if he made a difference.

I think Sawchuk goes pretty high on my ballot this round.

But it should be noted that 56 of his 103 career shutouts happened in the 5 years between 1950-51 and 1954-55. So for posters who wonder if he was partly a product of his dynasty, pointing to shutouts doesn't necessarily help his case.

That said, I sort of think of Sawchuk vs. Dryden as similarly to Hockey Outsider - there is enough value in Sawchuk even being a league average goalie in a 6 team league for so long after the dynasty that I would be hard pressed not to vote him over Dryden.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Like I said in the last thread, I just don't know what to do with Lalonde. Is he closer to Nighbor and Taylor or closer to Joe Malone?

How much of a difference-maker was he in terms of team success? That's important when everyone played 60 minutes. How much did his bad temper hurt his team vs how much his physical play helped?

It should be remembered that everything of note Lalonde did was done when only half the talent was in the NHL (of course, the same was true for Nighbor and Taylor and for pre-age-30 Bill Cook).

I also have a tough time voting for Lalonde when fellow penalty magnet Lindsay is available, when Lindsay's contributions are more fleshed out to me.

(As for outscoring Nighbor, Nighbor isn't on our list based on his goal scoring, that's for sure)

_________________

Edit: To be clear, I'm not set on ranking Lalonde last. For me, he's the wild card I could rank anywhere from mid-range to last.

But Lindsay was only the 4th best player on his team. Lalonde was always The Man.

And be sure to consider Chelios' PIMs like Lindsay & Lalonde. Chelios' penalty totals were outrageous.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Intangibles

Physical play. Robinson was larger and stronger, but Chelios was more aggressive and had a nasty mean streak. Both were among the most intimidating players of their era. This is a draw.

I'm too busy to respond to the entire thing right now, but calling this a draw is extremely favorable to Chelios IMO.Chelios was more aggressive but Robinson was a deterrent in a violent era when this mattered a great deal.The "endboss" factor.There's just no way Chelios' physical dimension can compete with what it meant to have Robinson on your team in the 70s.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

But Lindsay was only the 4th best player on his team. Lalonde was always The Man.

And be sure to consider Chelios' PIMs like Lindsay & Lalonde. Chelios' penalty totals were outrageous.

I not entirely sure Lalonde was better than Vezina, but that's only semi-relevant here.

Not entirely sure Sawchuk was better than Lindsay, and that does seem relevant here.

I do agree with you that Chelios' penalty accumulation was important, though I remember he got his share of coincidentals by being such pain in the ass

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'm too busy to respond to the entire thing right now, but calling this a draw is extremely favorable to Chelios IMO.Chelios was more aggressive but Robinson was a deterrent in a violent era when this mattered a great deal.The "endboss" factor.There's just no way Chelios's physical dimension can compete with that it meant to have Robinson on your team in the 70s.

Maybe they were both perfect for their eras. Chelios is the best crease-clearer I've ever seen, and he played when that was the preferred method of defense, especially on the PK

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I mean if you're trying to tell me Orr is better than Coffey - save your breath and grab some coffee?

Coffey's highest point totals are: 138, 126, 121, 113, 103.
Outside of Orr, the next best defensemen in history are:

Macinnis 103
Leetch 102
Potvin 101

So he'd have the 5 highest scoring seasons for a defenseman ever.

All of those guys played in a very high scoring era too - so it's not like it's some huge boost to Coffey. If you remove Orr Bourque becomes attractive as the best defender of all-time, and head to head Coffey destroys him offensively.

We do a lot of "if you remove Gretzky and Lemieux" exercises for forwards. If you do the same for Orr with Coffey - his numbers are staggering. Very strong playoff producer too.

Obviously there's the Gretzky effect (and the Lemieux effect) - but i'd love to see someone do a deeper dive on that. Do we credit Gretzky/Lemieux for Coffey's production, or vise versa? Or do they cancel each other out as equal participants in that relationship? The only times a forward came close to 200 points is when they had Coffey on their team.

Orr's top 5 scoring seasons include two Art Ross Trophies, something no other defenseman has done.

Coffey's top 5 include two seasons that he was a minus (-10, -25) player, something no other defenseman has come close to when scoring 100 points.

 

[The Macho King]

Here's an old post from 2011 where I argue that Chelios is a bit better than Robinson - blasphemy, I know.

Challenging the consensus: Chelios is (slightly) better than Robinson

Offense. A simplistic comparison would show that they scored virtually the same number of points despite Chelios playing an extra 267 games (which makes it look like Robinson is better). However, we need to take into account two important considerations - first, that Chelios played 391 games after age 40 (which drags down his per-game average) and that he spent a fair amount of time in the Dead Puck Era.

If we look at their performance through age 40 (Robinson's last season), we see that they scored the same amount of points per game (0.69 each - link). All things considered, this would be a point in Chelios' favour given that he never played on a team as stacked as the Canadiens dynasty, and given that he spent six of those seasons in the Dead Puck Era.

Despite Robinson playing in far more favourable situations (on arguably the greatest team of all-time and generally during a higher-scoring era), their offensive peaks are surprisingly similar (Robinson averaged 74 points over his best five seasons, Chelios averaged 69 points - not necessarily consecutive for either player). Given the context, I am considering this a draw.

Over Robinson's best five seasons (1977 to 1981), he was third in scoring among blueliners. Over Chelios's best five seasons (1993 to 1997) he was fifth. Link 1. Link 2. However, competition matters - if we look at the quality of players on each list, Chelios was facing off against seven actual or potential Hall of Fame defensemen (Bourque, Coffey, Leetch, Murphy, MacInnis, Zubov and Lidstrom) compared to just three for Robinson (Potvin, Salming and Park).

All things considered, I'd consider offense a draw.

Defense. These are two of the best shutdown blueliners of all-time. Robinson was named the best defensive defenseman in 1976, 1979 and 1981. Chelios was named the best defensive defenseman in 1993, and was runner-up to Bourque in 1994. Link.

I feel that Robinson was somewhat better at even-strength (as he was better at reading plays and positioning himself appropriately), but Chelios was better on the penalty kill (I've never seen anybody better at clearing the crease). Chelios also logged absurd amounts of ice time on the penalty kill (leading the league in PK TOI per game in 1998 and 2001, at ages 36 and 39!)

Overall I'd call defensive play a draw.

Awards

Here's how Robinson fared in Norris voting (I'm only including seasons where they have at least 5% of the minimum votes to avoiding count a single third-place vote as "top ten" ranking):

1st: 1977, 1980
2nd: 1978 (Potvin)
3rd: 1978, 1981, 1986
5th: 1982

Here's how Chelios fared:

1st: 1989, 1993, 1996
2nd: 1995 (Coffey), 2002 (Lidstrom)
3rd: 1991
4th: 1997
6th: 2000

Despite peaking during the greatest era for top-end defenseman talent, Chelios won more Norris trophies and placed in the top two 5 times (compared to Robinson's 3 times). They have the same number of seasons in the top three and top five.

Chelios has more years as a first-team all-star (5-3) and more years as a first- or second-team all-star (7-6).

Both players got some scattered Hart votes during their career. Robinson earned more than 5% of the votes once (in 1977 with a 10% share), and Chelios never did so.

All things considered, Chelios gets the edge in this category.

Playoffs

Robinson won 6 Stanley Cups to Chelios's 3. Let's dig deeper than relying on the simplistic "Cup counting".

On a per-game basis, Robinson appears to have outscored Chelios (0.63 ppg compared to 0.54 ppg). However, Robinson retired at age 40 while Chelios played another 56 games in a purely defensive role, which skews his numbers down. If we stop at age 40, Chelios scored 136 points in 210 playoff games - 0.65 ppg. This means that Chelios, through age 40, scored more in the playoffs than Robinson, despite generally playing on weaker teams in a lower-scoring era, while being his equal defensively!

Robinson won the Conn Smythe in 1978, and deservedly so. This performance was a bit better than Chelios in 1992 (21 points in 18 games), but it's not by a huge margin.

Peak

I'm tempted to call it a draw. Both were elite shutdown blueliners. As I showed earlier, Robinson was about 7% more productive offensively over their best five seasons, but I think that's largely due to era and team considerations. Neither player had any serious Hart consideration. Robinson has a Smythe, but Chelios won more Norris trophies and had more first-team and total (first & second) all-star selections playing in a tougher era. This is a draw.

Longevity

Robinson had his last season as an elite player in 1986, at age 34 (when he won the Norris). That would give him an advantage against most blueliners, but not against Chelios. From age 34 onwards, Chelios won another Norris trophy, was runner-up to Lidstrom at age 40, and was also a second-team all-star at age 35.

It's important to emphasize that Chelios wasn't just hanging on, playing 15 minutes per game on a crappy expansion team. He logged enormous amounts of ice time while playing on one of the best and deepest teams in the NHL. Chelios was 2nd in total ice time (to Bourque) in 1998, 10th in 1999, 7th in 2000 and 15th in 2002 (covering ages 36 to 40).

I don't necessarily think that what Chelios did at age 44+ plus is all that relevant (playing 2nd or 3rd pairing minutes), but the fact that he was a first- or second-team all-star three times, and logged incredible ice time while playing on arguably the NHL's best team, from ages 34+, gives him a tremendous advantage over Robinson.

Intangibles

Physical play. Robinson was larger and stronger, but Chelios was more aggressive and had a nasty mean streak. Both were among the most intimidating players of their era. This is a draw.

Discipline. Robinson was remarkably disciplined (recording more than 50 PIM just three times in his career, with a career high of 76). In contrast, Chelios recorded 100+ PIM thirteen times, including three seasons with 200+ PIM. Robinson was significantly more disciplined.

Durability. Both players were very durable, especially considering the amount of ice time they played. From 1974 to 1987, Robinson played in 1,039 out of a possible 1,118 games (92.9%). From 1987 to 2000, Chelios played in 1,030 out of a possible 1,106 games (93.1%). They played essentially the same percentage of games over essentially the same length of time. What gives Chelios is edge is playing another 435 out of a possible 492 games (88.4%) from 2002 to 2008, ages 40 to 46!

Conclusion

In summary, Chelios has the following advantages:

- Norris trophy consideration
- all-star consideration
- longevity (decisive)
- durability

The following are draws:

- defensive play
- peak performance
- physical play
- offence

Robinson has the following advantages:

- discipline (decisive)
- number of Stanley Cups won
- a Conn Smythe

It's close and they're similar players, but Chelios should be ranked higher.

I don't know if I agree with all of the conclusions you reach here, but I appreciate the effort.

For the record, I don't think Chelios over Robinson is sacrilege. Chelios is what we all pretend Pronger was. I feel like if he didn't play until he was 83 he would be regarded more highly among modern fans, but I think when your memories of Chelios are him as a 17 minute a night defensive specialist instead of a two-way beast with a mean streak that makes anyone not named Sprague Cleghorn say "maybe you should cool it a bit", it's harder to appreciate him.

Edit: but I also agree with @BenchBrawl in that I think you've been a bit forgiving of Chelios in ranking some of those factors a draw.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I not entirely sure Lalonde was better than Vezina, but that's only semi-relevant here.

Not entirely sure Sawchuk was better than Lindsay, and that does seem relevant here.

I do agree with you that Chelios' penalty accumulation was important, though I remember he got his share of coincidentals by being such pain in the ass

Not to mention misconducts for same said reason.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Except Coffey has actually BEATEN Orr for the number of goals in a season. Calling him a passenger is ridiculous.

Then again, I don't have Hall in my Top 50 and Cook in my Top 60.

I'm shocked he beat Orr.

I mean he didn't play in the most wide open era for scoring ever. Orr with some dude named Wayne f***ing Gretzky.

As I said. He's one of the most overrated players that will be on this list.

We shit on Esposito a bit for playing with Orr. Not shitting on Coffey for playing with Gretzky would be comical.

 

[The Macho King]

I'm honestly shocked Coffey is even up. I thought I was being generous having him at 55.

I just don't see it. In 85 he wins over Bourque by scoring like 35 more points, but I'll be damned if even pre-peak Bourque isn't worth 35 more points defensively than Coffey. 86 - fine. He was way ahead of the field by like 50 points (Howe finished second and I think he probably should have won but fine, I'm fine giving an offensive player a bone every now and then if it's not criminal). Setting the goals record had a lot to do with that.

I mean - he's a guy that put up absurd points, but this guy was *bad* defensively. Like - EK gets a ton of shit for his defense, but that dude is leaned on (or at least was in Ottawa). Coffey had the benefit of playing behind two guys already on our list (one at the top) during his peak, including one more who will show up later on this list. On top of it, for his second act he gets to play behind two OTHER players already on the list (well, three if you count Trottier). And then he wins a Norris in a shortened season that he didn't deserve. His one way play outpaced Chelios by 20 points, but Chelios was the best pure defender in the league by a mile while putting up great numbers.

Anyway - I have more to say on this. Coffey is not an offensive driver like is being suggested here. He benefitted from playing on great offenses - he didn't make them great.

He doesn't really break out until 82, but he's basically just a PPG, so I wouldn't say his real breakout is until 84. Gretzky has already had 137, 164, 212, and 196 points before then. If you want to contend that Coffey's 86 points were instrumental in Wayne's 212, that's a burden you're going to have to lift. 87 was his last season in Edmonton, and he only played 59 games, scoring only 67 points. Wayne scored 183.

He played in Pitt from 88 to 92, but 88 he missed about half the season with injury. Mario still scored 168 points and won his first Art Ross. In 93, the season after Coffey leaves, Mario has arguably his best season, scoring 160 points in 60 games. Didn't seem to need Coffey to score.

But Coffey DID need Wayne and Mario. He scores 87 points in 93 (playing part of the season with Wayne before he's traded) and only scores 87 points in 80 games. Notably, the Kings went to the Finals that year AFTER he was traded. The next three seasons? Basically a PPG player. Fine - but that's Housley/Mike Green level, not top 50 player of all-time level.

Coffey won the f***ing lottery with his situation. I firmly believe he's no better than Housley, but I'll at least give him the credit for putting up the numbers he did despite his situation. For all Espo got dragged for playing with Orr, he at least had *some* resume without him that made him top 100 worthy. Coffey - take away 99 and 66 - doesn't sniff this list.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Orr's top 5 scoring seasons include two Art Ross Trophies, something no other defenseman has done.

Coffey's top 5 include two seasons that he was a minus (-10, -25) player, something no other defenseman has come close to when scoring 100 points.

Yuuuup.

Over-rated. Clap, clap clap.

 

[Sentinel]

I'm shocked he beat Orr.

I mean he didn't play in the most wide open era for scoring ever. Orr with some dude named Wayne ****ing Gretzky.

As I said. He's one of the most overrated players that will be on this list.

We **** on Esposito a bit for playing with Orr. Not ****ting on Coffey for playing with Gretzky would be comical.

Imagine that: I don't shit on Esposito (criminally underrated in this project) and don't shit on Coffey (even more underrated). I don't care who you play with: if you beat Orr, you are pretty frigging great. Kinda like Esposito.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Anyway - I have more to say on this. Coffey is not an offensive driver like is being suggested here. He benefitted from playing on great offenses - he didn't make them great.

There is no way that a player who is as naturally gifted of a skater as Paul Coffey (we’re talking, like, top in history next to Orr and McDavid) is “not a an offensive driver”. With his wheels alone, he’d have to be an incompetent passer to not be considered a great offensive catalyst.

Strictly talking toolbox here, tell me we have another eligible player who skates like Paul Coffey.

He doesn't really break out until 82, but he's basically just a PPG, so I wouldn't say his real breakout is until 84.

If we’re discounting a 2x All-Star for having not broken out, then I want a recount on Ray Bourque pre-1983. I mean, whether we count it as 1982-1996 or 1984-1996, it is not an insignificant amount of relevant hockey with largely positive contributions. Yes, trying to outscore another team to death is a different approach than that of the more passive Chelios, but a forward with 1412 points across a period of 1137 games would probably be eligible around this time too... that’s essentially Yzerman’s numbers before his drop-off.

Frankly, what’s the justification for Bossy over Coffey? 3rd best player on a dynasty in the high-scoring era but without Coffey’s longevity and proof of replicated success in Detroit.

 

[bobholly39]

Yuuuup.

Over-rated. Clap, clap clap.

Instead of clapping you should respond to my earlier post and explain why 44% is the new 10% and explain why you feel so strongly about adjusted plus minus for Coffey but it wasnt applicable for Jagr

 

[The Macho King]

There is no way that a player who is as naturally gifted of a skater as Paul Coffey (we’re talking, like, top in history next to Orr and McDavid) is “not a an offensive driver”. With his wheels alone, he’d have to be an incompetent passer to not be considered a great offensive catalyst.

Strictly talking toolbox here, tell me we have another eligible player who skates like Paul Coffey.

Frankly, what’s the justification for Bossy over Coffey? 3rd best player on a dynasty in the high-scoring era but without Coffey’s longevity and proof of replicated success in Detroit.

He's an offensive driver in the sense a PPG-quality player (absent extenuating factors) is a play driver. From the D? Fine, that's impressive in its own way. It got Housley into the HHOF, after all.

He's a defenseman. The quality of his D goes pretty f***ing far in rating him. Excusing era or whatever, the dude was blessed to play behind the two most dominant offensive players for the vast majority of his career.

As far as Bossy over Coffey? We're not talking about "third best player on a dynasty"-type play here. We're talking "got to play behind the most gifted offensive player in the history sport, and oh also got to play behind number 2"-type of a comparison. I love Potvin. I love Trottier. They ain't Gretzky and Mario.