Comments on: All Time Player http://www.boltsmag.com/2005/03/10/all-time-player-for-the-bolts/ Tampa Bay Lightning Weblog Tue, 17 Mar 2009 23:26:16 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Boltsmag » Jes covers the Bolts better than I do http://www.boltsmag.com/2005/03/10/all-time-player-for-the-bolts/comment-page-1/#comment-804 Boltsmag » Jes covers the Bolts better than I do Wed, 17 Aug 2005 19:18:01 +0000 /?p=479#comment-804 [...] I’ve said in the past, after being told Lecavalier was the best player in franchise history, that he wasn’t even the best player currently on the team. He’s the franchise player because of what we have labeled him since his drafting. All the while the true performer — his former line-mate at Rimouski and Notre Dame, Brad Richards — gets overlooked and undermined. [...] [...] I’ve said in the past, after being told Lecavalier was the best player in franchise history, that he wasn’t even the best player currently on the team. He’s the franchise player because of what we have labeled him since his drafting. All the while the true performer — his former line-mate at Rimouski and Notre Dame, Brad Richards — gets overlooked and undermined. [...]

]]> By: Gary http://www.boltsmag.com/2005/03/10/all-time-player-for-the-bolts/comment-page-1/#comment-462 Gary Fri, 11 Mar 2005 06:10:52 +0000 /?p=479#comment-462 Zamuner was always my favorite player back in the day. Bradley, Gratton, Hamrlik, Selivanov… whatever. Before the Bolts sucked hind tit in the league, and before they mounted their comeback to be Stanley Cup Champions… the only thing keeping them alive was goaltending. Name your favorite goalie here. Only recently (last few years) have the Lightning been able to get some defense on the ice, which gave the attackers the freedom to feel like they can stop hedging their bets d-wise and get into the zone, all out, and take some shots. Hence, the scoring. I guess it all falls out the way you choose to look at things. All time best player for the Lightning? I’d have to agree w/ John: Brad Richards. Then again, living near D.C. for the past 7 or so years: Recent Caps nominees? Bondra, Kolzig… and the Oscar goes to… Steve Konowalchuk. Zamuner was always my favorite player back in the day.

Bradley, Gratton, Hamrlik, Selivanov… whatever. Before the Bolts sucked hind tit in the league, and before they mounted their comeback to be Stanley Cup Champions… the only thing keeping them alive was goaltending. Name your favorite goalie here. Only recently (last few years) have the Lightning been able to get some defense on the ice, which gave the attackers the freedom to feel like they can stop hedging their bets d-wise and get into the zone, all out, and take some shots. Hence, the scoring. I guess it all falls out the way you choose to look at things.

All time best player for the Lightning? I’d have to agree w/ John: Brad Richards.

Then again, living near D.C. for the past 7 or so years: Recent Caps nominees? Bondra, Kolzig… and the Oscar goes to… Steve Konowalchuk.

]]> By: Puck Stops Here http://www.boltsmag.com/2005/03/10/all-time-player-for-the-bolts/comment-page-1/#comment-461 Puck Stops Here Fri, 11 Mar 2005 03:23:06 +0000 /?p=479#comment-461 Interesting comments. I will address them in some detail in a further post on my blog - probably tomorrow (Friday). I think the disagreement comes down to how the all time best player is defined. In principle, I would define it as the player who would produce the most cumulative value to his team over his tenure with the club to date (I refuse to project into the future because those projections are often wrong) above the level of the average replacement player. I am vague on purpose with some of those terms. By cumulative value I mean some concept similar to "win shares" that Bill James has defined in baseball. However, I do not believe that hockey is a sport that can be statistically analyzed on the level baseball can to produce such a stat. Nevertheless, as fans we have a general idea who should have produced the most "cumulative value". And we can argue about our opinions on this. By the average replacement player, I mean quite literally the average guy floating around the NHL at the time. If the average forward scores 25 points a year with no significant contribution to defence or leadership etc, then a player only really contributes value to his team by being better than that level. I posted my opinions so that we could discuss hockey. The good parts of hockey. I'm tired of the negativity of the lockout. If we can discuss the days past when this wasn't always the case, I think this is a positive thing. Interesting comments. I will address them in some detail in a further post on my blog – probably tomorrow (Friday). I think the disagreement comes down to how the all time best player is defined.

In principle, I would define it as the player who would produce the most cumulative value to his team over his tenure with the club to date (I refuse to project into the future because those projections are often wrong) above the level of the average replacement player.

I am vague on purpose with some of those terms. By cumulative value I mean some concept similar to “win shares” that Bill James has defined in baseball. However, I do not believe that hockey is a sport that can be statistically analyzed on the level baseball can to produce such a stat. Nevertheless, as fans we have a general idea who should have produced the most “cumulative value”. And we can argue about our opinions on this. By the average replacement player, I mean quite literally the average guy floating around the NHL at the time. If the average forward scores 25 points a year with no significant contribution to defence or leadership etc, then a player only really contributes value to his team by being better than that level.

I posted my opinions so that we could discuss hockey. The good parts of hockey. I’m tired of the negativity of the lockout. If we can discuss the days past when this wasn’t always the case, I think this is a positive thing.

]]>