What if there WAS a "Coffey Trophy"?

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Triffy made a thread about this a few months ago (called "most points by a defensemen annually"), and pnep posted charts of the top 3 d-men in scoring for each NHL season.

i tried to link to it, but the charts are so huge, that it crashed my internet browser.

it was made about 9 months ago.

I'll see if I can get it in here. Thought I saw something a while ago, but the search function really hurts my computer in the staff room.

edit: found it. Dude, that was last year, not a few months ago. Here it is: http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=552713

 

[Lososaurus]

I'd rather like to see a defensive defenseman trophy, for responsibility in their own zone and general defense.

Stay at home defenseman and defensive defenseman get no love.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Accuracy

Sorry, I should have said that over 90% of forwards who have won the Hart (since we're talking about forwards) just happen to be the Art Ross winner. Of course, some defensemen and goalies have stolen the rare Hart, and semi-obviously they weren't the league's leading scorers. Mikita (Art Rosses, no Hart), Messier and Clarke (Harts, no Art Ross) are deviations from the trend.

If your next argument is that goals have always been clearly defined, why is the Richard trophy so new? In fact, goals AND assists have been clearly defined since decades before the existence of the Richard trophy, so what is your point?

And finally, I'll support the elimination of "questionable" assists if you support the elimination of empty net goals from statistical totals, but you're still stretching there. I'm not going to argue this useless tangent past the point that shots that result in rebounds create secondary goal scoring chances, and if someone puts one in, why not give an assist? The guy could have shot into the chest or glove, but he challenged the goalie to the point where he couldn't recover in time to stop the goal, so...

Anyway, I didn't bring up the playmaker award, someone else did. I'm interested mostly in defensemen, since they lack the recognition through hardware relatively.

The 90% does not apply to forwards either - Teeder Kennedy, Jean Beliveau, Gordie Howe and others besides the ones you listed won Harts without winning the Ross the same year.

Richard Trophy is new because the NHL wanted to formalize the recognition of the leading goal scorer and honor a hockey legend.The leading goal scorer had been recognized for years without a formal trophy being awarded.

Point is that going back to 1893 you do not have any doubt who the leading goal scorer was in any league that was eligible to play for the Stanley Cup. This is not true for assists since the crediting of assists was evolving regularly into the 1930's and even since there have been minor tweaks.

If your issue is trophies for defensemen then work on a metric that integrates minutes played, goals on the ice against, shots blocked, body checks, PK efficiency, goals scored while penalized, and other strictly defensive criteria and something may evolve.

 

[lextune]

....just a quick note here; it would have to be called the Orr Trophy.

Only defenseman to win the scoring title, (twice no less), why name it after his lesser copy....

 

[SPORTSMANIAC]

....just a quick note here; it would have to be called the Orr Trophy.

Only defenseman to win the scoring title, (twice no less), why name it after his lesser copy....

Bingo and I am not taking anything away from Coffey but Orr changed how the position is played.

This year I can't see Mike Green winning the Norris but he should be deserved a reward as the top scoring defenseman.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

If anything, the benefit of the Coffey trophy is how it would change Norris voting.

Agreed 100% Take last year, for instance. With a Coffey trophy, would Mike Green be in a position to potentially win the Norris while playing as a 4th forward?

Edit: Or do you mean the Coffey/Orr trophy winner would almost automatically be a finalist for the Norris then? It's hard to predict.

 

[nik jr]

I'll see if I can get it in here. Thought I saw something a while ago, but the search function really hurts my computer in the staff room.

edit: found it. Dude, that was last year, not a few months ago. Here it is: http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=552713

9 months ago is last year.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

....just a quick note here; it would have to be called the Orr Trophy.

Only defenseman to win the scoring title, (twice no less), why name it after his lesser copy....

Yeah, I'd say fair enough, but as an "offensive defenseman" trophy, I opted for the name of a player whose reputation is built almost exclusively on his offensive play, not the guy who was basically the best at everything (the Norris, or "best all-round defenseman", should be the Orr trophy. No doubt).

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Agreed 100% Take last year, for instance. With a Coffey trophy, would Mike Green be in a position to potentially win the Norris while playing as a 4th forward?

Edit: Or do you mean the Coffey/Orr trophy winner would almost automatically be a finalist for the Norris then? It's hard to predict.

I think so. The Art Ross winner is almost always a candidate for the Hart trophy, so I don't see why the trend wouldn't be the same if there was such a trophy for defensemen. And I think that would affect not only voting results for the trophies, but how those players would get ranked in the top 100 list (if only slightly).

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Okay, here's the premise: I see lots of good arguments during the ranking of top forwards all time, and of course hardware comes into play a lot. Specifically, I see arguments in favour of players like Sakic, Yzerman, and Fedorov being places higher than other similarly talented offensive forwards because of their defense, and Selke trophies are there to support the claim. To the extreme, there are players like Bob Gainey whose defensive game is deemed all that is necessary to justify a fairly high ranking against other forwards that may have been "more (offensively) talented."

Now, to spin that in the other direction, defensemen do get consideration for the number of points they scored in their career, but arguments boil down to number of Hart, Conn Smythes, and, of course, Norris trophies.

So, what if there had traditionally been a trophy for the best offensive defenseman in the league going back the same number of years as the Norris? Kind of like a defensemen's Art Ross. Would the simple fact of having that hardware in the trophy case sway that debate, and would the number of "Coffey" trophies compared to the next guy with similar stats and trophies otherwise affect people's rankings?

I'd like to lean on pnep and Hockey Outsider, the ultimates in statistical historians, to provide a list of defensemen who led all defensemen in scoring each year going back to the first Norris (=Coffey trophy winner); or just a table with the names and how many times they would have won. And as the rest of you check out the list, does the recognition of this award (if considered as legit as an Art Ross or Selke) provoke any change in your rankings?

Link to HOH Top 100: http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=486479

edited to show just defensemen rankings:

I think it might affect the rankings for players that voters never saw play. But most of the voters here have seen a lot of the best defesnemen and understand why a Rod Langway could win a Norris over a Paul Coffey. Looking at stats without seeing them play, Langway's Norris Trophies make no sense.

 

[kmad]

I think so. The Art Ross winner is almost always a candidate for the Hart trophy, so I don't see why the trend wouldn't be the same if there was such a trophy for defensemen.

The difference here is that forwards are traditionally counted on for offense while defensemen are traditionally counted on for defense. As mentioned before in the thread, a better comparison would be the Selke trophy, but it's a flawed comparison, since:

a) There are more forwards than defensemen, meaning that the position's inherent expectations can be more easily assumed by the other players on the line;

b) A forward doesn't ever put his team at risk when he contributes defensively;

c) The glory of hockey is in scoring goals - the Selke trophy in my opinion acts as somewhat of a consolation prize for guys like Lehtinen and Carbonneau who devote their world-class hockey skills to unglamorous defensive play rather than flashy goal-scoring. The forsaking of defensive duties to try to rack up points shouldn't be awarded in the same regard.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

The difference here is that forwards are traditionally counted on for offense while defensemen are traditionally counted on for defense. As mentioned before in the thread, a better comparison would be the Selke trophy, but it's a flawed comparison, since:

a) There are more forwards than defensemen, meaning that the position's inherent expectations can be more easily assumed by the other players on the line;

b) A forward doesn't ever put his team at risk when he contributes defensively;

c) The glory of hockey is in scoring goals - the Selke trophy in my opinion acts as somewhat of a consolation prize for guys like Lehtinen and Carbonneau who devote their world-class hockey skills to unglamorous defensive play rather than flashy goal-scoring. The forsaking of defensive duties to try to rack up points shouldn't be awarded in the same regard.

Well done rookie.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

I think it might affect the rankings for players that voters never saw play. But most of the voters here have seen a lot of the best defesnemen and understand why a Rod Langway could win a Norris over a Paul Coffey. Looking at stats without seeing them play, Langway's Norris Trophies make no sense.

Totally agree. Heck this is the only forum around here that doesn't make me feel old as a 32 year old, so...

And I should say that I don't really feel strongly one way or the other about this offensive defenseman trophy thing. Just reading the "Malkin perfect season" thread and others about the best players in the league and whether or not so-and-so should get into the Hall of Fame got me thinking about trophies and, being a defenseman myself, curiosity led to thread creation.

edit: especially when my brain got on the train of thought making connections between Art Ross and Norris candidacy versus Hart candidacy, etc. Again, being a Richard or Art Ross winner (offensive awards) seems to give you a head start on a Hart trophy compared to those up for Norris and Selke trophies (which reward more well-rounded play. So again, was just curious, if there was an offensive award for defensemen, how much do people think that would affect candidacy for Hart trophies, etc, and how much might that affect rankings/arguments for/against entry to the Hall, etc. The point was made earlier that there is a difference between awards that are/aren't voted for, and that is certainly valid.

 

[Stonefly]

Yeah, I'd say fair enough, but as an "offensive defenseman" trophy, I opted for the name of a player whose reputation is built almost exclusively on his offensive play, not the guy who was basically the best at everything (the Norris, or "best all-round defenseman", should be the Orr trophy. No doubt).

Agreed. Naming an offensive defenceman award after Orr would be an insult to the man.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Interesting topic. In theory, the Norris trophy is based on "all around play", so it should already take offense and defense into account. (Whether voters actually take both into account equally if up for debate, though).

On one hand, adding a Coffey trophy might lead to offensive blueliners getting overrated. Since offense should already be taken into account when voting for the Norris, you'd be double-counting offense with the Coffey award.

On the other hand, we've seen that voters have sometimes changed their voting styles when new awards are added. Up until 1954, when the first Norris trophy was awarded, defensemen routinely earned a lot of Hart trophy votes. Since then, aside from Orr and Bourque, there really haven't been any defenseman that have consistently done well in Norris voting. The voters might have thought that since defensemen already have their own award, they don't need the Hart. If the Coffey award were added, perhaps the Norris would start favouring more defensive blueliners, with less emphasis on scoring.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Interesting topic. In theory, the Norris trophy is based on "all around play", so it should already take offense and defense into account. (Whether voters actually take both into account equally if up for debate, though).

On one hand, adding a Coffey trophy might lead to offensive blueliners getting overrated. Since offense should already be taken into account when voting for the Norris, you'd be double-counting offense with the Coffey award.

On the other hand, we've seen that voters have sometimes changed their voting styles when new awards are added. Up until 1954, when the first Norris trophy was awarded, defensemen routinely earned a lot of Hart trophy votes. Since then, aside from Orr and Bourque, there really haven't been any defenseman that have consistently done well in Norris voting. The voters might have thought that since defensemen already have their own award, they don't need the Hart. If the Coffey award were added, perhaps the Norris would start favouring more defensive blueliners, with less emphasis on scoring.

Yeah, I was thinking about that. Wouldn't be a bad thing, imo. One thing I have been neglecting to include is the LBP trophy, btw. Where as the Hart is "most valuable" player, and the LBP is "most outstanding" player, I wonder if defensemen like Lidstrom (generally reknown for his outstanding defense, but also tends to be a perennial challenger for most points among defensemen) might get more love in Hart AND/OR LBP voting if the people with the votes started feeling more reluctant to "exclude" someone who is being honoured/recognizezed as the best defensive AND offensive defenseman of the year.

I mean, the Hart (and presumably LBP, although that falls on the players) candidates this year include the top point getter, the guy who is possibly the most valuable to his team, and a guy who is in the top tier of offensive AND defensive forwards (albeit on a rather stacked team). Would it be a bad thing if the Lidstroms, Markovs, Niedermayers and Charas (who excel at both facets of backline duties) started getting a little more favouritism, even if they are inserted basically as the 3rd option of 3 on the Hart/LBP ballot? And would it be terrible if some of the more smothering/shutdown defensemen started getting more love (despite possible short-comings offensively) due to the existence of an offensive defenseman award? I don't think so. Might even promote the offensive game the league is looking for if all 5 skating positions have incentives to excel offensively.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

If the Coffey award were added, perhaps the Norris would start favouring more defensive blueliners, with less emphasis on scoring.

That would be my hope. Scoring should always be taken into consideration for the Norris, but an 'Art Ross' type award for defensemen might help take some of the over-emphasis on scoring away from the Norris.

I have a feeling if there was not an Art Ross Trophy, the winner of the Hart would be the top scorer in the league a lot more often than it is now.

 

[nmbr_24]

It's just my opinion, but if there was to be a Coffey trophy for the best offensive defenseman, there should also be an award for the best defensive defenseman, maybe something like this:

Norris=Best defensive defenseman
Coffey=Best offensive defenseman
Orr=Best defenseman


When I think of Paul Coffey, I think of a guy who had great skating ability and offensive weapons, but was pretty darn bad defensively, naming a trophy after him just doesn't feel right to me unless there is a defensive trophy as well.