View Single Post
05-07-2008, 07:29 PM
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,125
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by cfy View Post
This is really an excellent write-up, and I really enjoy the approach to go back to timely articles to make conclusions on Players or Teams or anything else.

I'm personally reading up on Paul Coffey throughout the 1980's and early 1990's and also Ray Bourque as a comparison to see the play and status of these two in relation to each other.

I find it much better than Awards Voting which I feel only gives other peoples' opinions without even the reasoning behind it or even Stats, which are better, but only gleam info on limited areas of generally Offensive performance. It is the closest thing to watching the games.
Thanks very much. Reading hockey articles in old newspapers is an interesting hobby, despite the eye strain it causes. I agree that it gives you more information than looking at statistics or even looking at awards -- though of course it's pretty time-consuming so I usually only do it when I'm looking for a fact/story about a specific player/season.

Originally Posted by cfy View Post
Out of curiosity, did you use other Sources besides the Toronto Star? I use a searchable database and find that the most (and best) articles for general information and Player Profiles come from either the Boston Globe or the Washington Post, and the game recap information is usually from the local city papers.
I only have access to Canadian newspapers and, generally, the Toronto Star and Globe & Mail are by far the most thorough and reliable. To be really thorough, I probably could/should have double-checked everything in the G&M. I'd like to try some American newspapers, but I don't have free online access to them.

Originally Posted by cfy View Post
I think your treatment of Marcel Dionne is very fair except I think that the inconsistency bit may be slightly overplayed.
You might be right. I suppose that Dionne having only two good games in a series would be more noticeable than, say, Lafleur having two great games, as he'd also have Dryden, Robinson, etc., also probably stealing a game along the way.

Originally Posted by cfy View Post
Lastly, I would point out that one thing makes Dionne's Playoff resume look a lot more impressive, at least in my eyes. In the three years that the Kings went past the first round, Marcel Dionne had:

28 Games - 18 Goals - 14 Assists - 32 Points
This is a good point - when Dionne stepped it up, the Kings performed well (going 2-1 as favourites, and winning arguably the largest upset in NHL playoff history). It really shows how much the Kings relied on Dionne - their playoffs depended so heavily on how well he performed.

Hockey Outsider is offline   Reply With Quote