HOH Top 60 Defensemen of All-Time (Preliminary and General Discussion)

[tarheelhockey]

C1958 does have a point here, if the list is supposed to be "Greatest Defensemen" then Clapper's time at RW is tangential. It's tougher with guys who frequently switched back and forth, but in cases like Clapper where he made a clear change in position it doesn't make much sense to give him anything more than brownie points for playing well at a position other than D. If the list were "Greatest Players Who Were Defensemen", then it would be more appropriate to give major consideration to his time on the wing.

 

[Hardyvan123]

C1958 does have a point here, if the list is supposed to be "Greatest Defensemen" then Clapper's time at RW is tangential. It's tougher with guys who frequently switched back and forth, but in cases like Clapper where he made a clear change in position it doesn't make much sense to give him anything more than brownie points for playing well at a position other than D. If the list were "Greatest Players Who Were Defensemen", then it would be more appropriate to give major consideration to his time on the wing.

I understand what you are saying here but people have to decide how to treat this issue.

It's possible by being very strict and only using Clappers time here on D then his time on the RW section that he might get rated, for arguments sake, 100th best at each position when the guy rating him has him 50th overall.

For players like him and Red Kelly I will rate them both as Dmen and evaluate their entire careers for the D ranking as I will not rate them when we talk about the forwards.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

You are misrepresenting the situation.

No, you're ignoring the complexity of the issue, which is that most people consider longevity when ranking players. Giving a player credit for 10 seasons twice is not the same as giving him credit for 20 seasons, since players who play 20 seasons are much rarer than those who play ten. Maintaining NHL-level ability for 20 seasons is not an easy task, and even many great players don't do it. Failing to give Clapper credit for that aspect of his career will strike many as shortchanging him.

Clapper had 10 seasons NHL longevity as RW with various honours. If he retires at that point or plays as a RW in the minors the issue is closed.

Indeed, and in your proposed system when ranking RW we would have to pretend that he did retire or go to the minors, which he did not do.

Evaluate the 10 years as a RW in the context of RWers, 10 years as a defenceman in the context of dmen. reflecting the two stages of his career. Then evaluate him as a player at the appropriate time combining both.

Whoops. Here's where you fall down. We're not ranking players here, we're ranking defencemen. That's my whole point. You started out saying you would only consider his D years when ranking him at D; now you seem to be saying you need to combine his D and RW years to evaluate him?

 

[Iain Fyffe]

For players like him and Red Kelly I will rate them both as Dmen and evaluate their entire careers for the D ranking as I will not rate them when we talk about the forwards.

This is a valid approach. It's how Bill James did it in his Historical Baseball Abstract (ranking players only at their main position), because he realized that knocking 50% off a player's career (for example) can cut his apparent value by 75% (for example).

 

[Canadiens1958]

Recognizing

No, you're ignoring the complexity of the issue, which is that most people consider longevity when ranking players. Giving a player credit for 10 seasons twice is not the same as giving him credit for 20 seasons, since players who play 20 seasons are much rarer than those who play ten. Maintaining NHL-level ability for 20 seasons is not an easy task, and even many great players don't do it. Failing to give Clapper credit for that aspect of his career will strike many as shortchanging him.


Indeed, and in your proposed system when ranking RW we would have to pretend that he did retire or go to the minors, which he did not do.


Whoops. Here's where you fall down. We're not ranking players here, we're ranking defencemen. That's my whole point. You started out saying you would only consider his D years when ranking him at D; now you seem to be saying you need to combine his D and RW years to evaluate him?

Giving Clapper credit for twenty years in the NHL - 10 at each position. If any thing you are the one shortchanging other players since the real measure is games played:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=games_played

Even in the pre 1967 era 833 games is not that unusual.

No need to pretend just recognize the position change.

As a dman you consider his seasons as a defenceman. As an NHL player you would consider both. Playing two distinct positions at an elite NHL level is more impressive than playing one. This is recognized and no one gets shortchanged.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Giving Clapper credit for twenty years in the NHL - 10 at each position. If any thing you are the one shortchanging other players since the real measure is games played:

Sigh. I should have realized that using obvious shorthand for purposes of discussion was a mistake. So, if we're going to start being pedantic I'll point out that the first part of your post above isn't a sentence and doesn't make grammatical sense; and that anything is one word, not two.

As a dman you consider his seasons as a defenceman. As an NHL player you would consider both. Playing two distinct positions at an elite NHL level is more impressive than playing one. This is recognized and no one gets shortchanged.

But we're not ranking players here, we're ranking positions. (I believe I've mentioned that.) You do realize that by using your system Clapper could be out of the top 100 at both of his positions, yet still be a top-50 player overall? Does that not strike you as incongruous and undesirable?

Even in the pre 1967 era 833 games is not that unusual.

Really? Clapper's 833 games was not unusual for his time? That must be why when he retired, no one had ever played that many NHL games, and why he held the career games played record for 12 years. This is a big miss, even for you.

"Pre-1967" is not adequate when discussing games played. Clapper never had a chance to play more than 50 games in a season. Maurice Richard, who was the man to pass him first, did so while playing 70 games a season.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Realities

Sigh. I should have realized that using obvious shorthand for purposes of discussion was a mistake. So, if we're going to start being pedantic I'll point out that the first part of your post above isn't a sentence and doesn't make grammatical sense; and that anything is one word, not two.


But we're not ranking players here, we're ranking positions. (I believe I've mentioned that.) You do realize that by using your system Clapper could be out of the top 100 at both of his positions, yet still be a top-50 player overall? Does that not strike you as incongruous and undesirable?


Really? Clapper's 833 games was not unusual for his time? That must be why when he retired, no one had ever played that many NHL games, and why he held the career games played record for 12 years. This is a big miss, even for you.

"Pre-1967" is not adequate when discussing games played. Clapper never had a chance to play more than 50 games in a season. Maurice Richard, who was the man to pass him first, did so while playing 70 games a season.

We'll worry about how Clapper is ranked when I rank him. Then you can comment about incongruous and desirable.

Actually Richard started NHL career during 50 game regular seasons, the played 60 game seasons before the NHL went to the 70 game season - 1949-50 season.

Clapper's last two seasons saw him play 30 / 50 games and 6 / 60 while coaching the Bruins in 1946-47.

 

[tarheelhockey]

It's possible by being very strict and only using Clappers time here on D then his time on the RW section that he might get rated, for arguments sake, 100th best at each position when the guy rating him has him 50th overall.

Trying to think about the different scenarios being projected here.

STRICT: Clapper gets credit only for his seasons at D. The seasons at F are ignored entirely.
Pros: This will give us the purest form of "top defensemen" list. In theory, it doesn't really matter what Clapper did at forward if we're comparing him as a defenseman. If his achievements at D don't stack up to guys in the top-50, it doesn't make sense to rank him top-50 based on a being a good winger.
Cons: Some players who are generally held in very high esteem could be ranked low or left off the list entirely. This could compromise the credibility of the final product.

MODERATE: Clapper is compared to other players as a defenseman, but his versatility and longevity are recognized as tangential positives.
Pros: Basically, Clapper would be ranked ahead of "pure defensemen" who have comparable achievements at the position. This would move him up the list somewhat while preventing him from overtaking players who clearly did more at D.
Cons: Chances are, neither side is going to be completely satisfied with how Clapper's forward seasons are treated. This solution is somewhat ambiguous in the sense that it only vaguely defines the value of Clapper's forward seasons.

LIBERAL: Clapper is given full credit for his seasons at forward.
Pros: Ensures that a great player will be ranked among those who are generally considered his peer-group in the all time sense. Not many players have been prolific at multiple positions and this method would ensure that those players are credited.
Cons: Could compromise the credibility of the final product and opens up a bit of a Pandora's box. How are we planning to treat Sergei Fedorov under this standard?


My take: Personally I think that Clapper's versatility and longevity are noteworthy in the conversation and should certainly set him apart as a special case. However, I'm leery of giving him "direct" credit for what he did as a forward, when we are supposed to be ranking defensemen. I don't see a huge problem with a top-30 overall player being the 60th-ranked defenseman and 60th-ranked forward, if in fact that's where his achievements at each position cause him to land. We already have a top-100(ish) list if we need to reference his all time placement. So I'm in the moderate category, leaning slighty toward strict.

I do think, quite strongly in fact, that we should agree on one of these approaches as a group before we start submitting rankings. Going into the voting round with mixed methodology isn't going to do our results any favors. We should agree to either recognize the F seasons or not, and generally agree upon how we are supposed to view them... not necessarily how much weight they are given, but what we are supposed to make of them when formulating our comparisons.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Trying to think about the different scenarios being projected here.

STRICT: Clapper gets credit only for his seasons at D. The seasons at F are ignored entirely.
Pros: This will give us the purest form of "top defensemen" list. In theory, it doesn't really matter what Clapper did at forward if we're comparing him as a defenseman. If his achievements at D don't stack up to guys in the top-50, it doesn't make sense to rank him top-50 based on a being a good winger.
Cons: Some players who are generally held in very high esteem could be ranked low or left off the list entirely. This could compromise the credibility of the final product.

MODERATE: Clapper is compared to other players as a defenseman, but his versatility and longevity are recognized as tangential positives.
Pros: Basically, Clapper would be ranked ahead of "pure defensemen" who have comparable achievements at the position. This would move him up the list somewhat while preventing him from overtaking players who clearly did more at D.
Cons: Chances are, neither side is going to be completely satisfied with how Clapper's forward seasons are treated. This solution is somewhat ambiguous in the sense that it only vaguely defines the value of Clapper's forward seasons.

LIBERAL: Clapper is given full credit for his seasons at forward.
Pros: Ensures that a great player will be ranked among those who are generally considered his peer-group in the all time sense. Not many players have been prolific at multiple positions and this method would ensure that those players are credited.
Cons: Could compromise the credibility of the final product and opens up a bit of a Pandora's box. How are we planning to treat Sergei Fedorov under this standard?


My take: Personally I think that Clapper's versatility and longevity are noteworthy in the conversation and should certainly set him apart as a special case. However, I'm leery of giving him "direct" credit for what he did as a forward, when we are supposed to be ranking defensemen. I don't see a huge problem with a top-30 overall player being the 60th-ranked defenseman and 60th-ranked forward, if in fact that's where his achievements at each position cause him to land. We already have a top-100(ish) list if we need to reference his all time placement. So I'm in the moderate category, leaning slighty toward strict.

I do think, quite strongly in fact, that we should agree on one of these approaches as a group before we start submitting rankings. Going into the voting round with mixed methodology isn't going to do our results any favors. We should agree to either recognize the F seasons or not, and generally agree upon how we are supposed to view them... not necessarily how much weight they are given, but what we are supposed to make of them when formulating our comparisons.

Too late for that, isn't it?

I already submitted my list, as it was suggested we don't all wait until the last minute and then inundate the moderators with lists.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Too late for that, isn't it?

I already submitted my list, as it was suggested we don't all wait until the last minute and then inundate the moderators with lists.

It should at least be clarified at some point. We have been going with a standard of everyone deciding their own weights and measures, but this issue in particular is one where I think we should have a bit of guidance from on high. It's desirable to have a diversity of opinion on what makes a player great, but when we start getting a diversity of opinion on the methodology of the list itself, that's got the potential to really make a mess of things. Particularly since we have two more lists to develop after this one, and the group opinion on these issues could vary widely in the time it takes to get it all done.

I for one would appreciate at least a clear set of guidelines on whether we are viewing entire careers as a whole, positional play in isolation, or a mix of the two.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Actually Richard started NHL career during 50 game regular seasons, the played 60 game seasons before the NHL went to the 70 game season - 1949-50 season.

And when he actually surpassed Clapper's record (in 1956/57), the schedule was 70 games, and it had been so for eight seasons. Thus, he broke the record while playing 70 games a season. Which is what I said.

We'll worry about how Clapper is ranked when I rank him. Then you can comment about incongruous and desirable.

That would be possible only if we were doing positional rankings and overall rankings at the same time. Otherwise there would be no way to know whether you ranked Clapper low because you only considered his D years, or because that's just where you think he belongs.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

It should at least be clarified at some point. We have been going with a standard of everyone deciding their own weights and measures, but this issue in particular is one where I think we should have a bit of guidance from on high. It's desirable to have a diversity of opinion on what makes a player great, but when we start getting a diversity of opinion on the methodology of the list itself, that's got the potential to really make a mess of things. Particularly since we have two more lists to develop after this one, and the group opinion on these issues could vary widely in the time it takes to get it all done.

I for one would appreciate at least a clear set of guidelines on whether we are viewing entire careers as a whole, positional play in isolation, or a mix of the two.

We briefly tried to establish "guidance from up high," but it seemed we couldn't agree to a standard, so we figured that it was consistent with the organic nature of this project for everyone to use the standard he thinks is best.

There was definitely a push at the beginning for people to adopt what you called the "liberal" standard - strictly classify each player as a certain position and evaluate his whole career - but not everyone agreed with the approach.

 

[amnesiac]

can we post our lists here for fun, or better not?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

can we post our lists here for fun, or better not?

Everyone's personal lists are going to be posted at the end of the project. Now is not the time to post them:

Preliminary Discussion Thread

• Anyone may participate in this thread, even if he does not plan on taking part in the voting phase
• Any defenseman may be discussed
• Posters are encouraged to share information about defensemen in this thread and to take information shared into account when constructing their own lists
• Brief comparisons between players are permitted, but detailed cases and debates should be saved for Round 2 of Voting.
• Please do NOT rank players outright in the preliminary thread.

 

[overpass]

It should at least be clarified at some point. We have been going with a standard of everyone deciding their own weights and measures, but this issue in particular is one where I think we should have a bit of guidance from on high. It's desirable to have a diversity of opinion on what makes a player great, but when we start getting a diversity of opinion on the methodology of the list itself, that's got the potential to really make a mess of things. Particularly since we have two more lists to develop after this one, and the group opinion on these issues could vary widely in the time it takes to get it all done.

I for one would appreciate at least a clear set of guidelines on whether we are viewing entire careers as a whole, positional play in isolation, or a mix of the two.

I don't know that we've ever had enough of a consensus to issue guidance from on high. At this point it seems a bit late to do so, since people have been submitting their lists already.

Yes, the lack of clarification adds some ambiguity to the process and the result. But we already have some ambiguity in the list definition, in that we've never clarified whether the list is looking for the most accomplished careers, or the best players at their peak.

If we don't clarify this, some people may not be on the same page when debating, say, Red Kelly vs Chris Chelios, because some people will completely ignore Kelly's play at C and others will put some value on it. But a similar thing already happened in the top 100 project with career vs peak when we were debating, say, Eric Lindros vs Ron Francis.

Breaking down the project title: "HOH Top 60 Defensemen of All-Time"

What is all-time? We've decided that all eras must be considered, but there is no official definition given. There is a group consensus that we don't want lists with all modern players because previous players were inferior - that's not the spirit of the project. Earlier eras also played within a continuous tradition of top-level hockey competition that drew the best players in the world, and the best players from those eras should be recognized. But the exact point at which "hockey history" starts has not been defined. To some degree that is up to the participants

What is "Top"? Best for one game? Best peak? Best sustained prime as an all-star level player? Most accomplished career? Again, up to the participants, as long as it's not something like "most points" or "best hair".

Who is a defenseman? Red Kelly? Babe Siebert? Sergei Fedorov? IMO this can also be left up to the participants.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I don't know that we've ever had enough of a consensus to issue guidance from on high. At this point it seems a bit late to do so, since people have been submitting their lists already.

Yes, the lack of clarification adds some ambiguity to the process and the result. But we already have some ambiguity in the list definition, in that we've never clarified whether the list is looking for the most accomplished careers, or the best players at their peak.

If we don't clarify this, some people may not be on the same page when debating, say, Red Kelly vs Chris Chelios, because some people will completely ignore Kelly's play at C and others will put some value on it. But a similar thing already happened in the top 100 project with career vs peak when we were debating, say, Eric Lindros vs Ron Francis.

Breaking down the project title: "HOH Top 60 Defensemen of All-Time."

What is all-time? We've decided that all eras must be considered, but there is no official definition given. There is a group consensus that we don't want lists with all modern players because previous players were inferior - that's not the spirit of the project. Earlier eras also played within a continuous tradition of top-level hockey competition that drew the best players in the world, and the best players from those eras should be recognized. But the exact point at which "hockey history" starts has not been defined. To some degree that is up to the participants

What is "Top"? Best for one game? Best peak? Best sustained prime as an all-star level player? Most accomplished career? Again, up to the participants, as long as it's not something like "most points" or "best hair".

Who is a defenseman? Red Kelly? Babe Siebert? Sergei Fedorov? IMO this can also be left up to the participants.

to me it seems clear, the best careers of all-time, with some consideration that all periods be covered.

IMO there will be many more post 06 players than before if we are going to talk about truly the best. Others might not agree, that is something to hash out once all the lists are in.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Again, up to the participants, as long as it's not something like "most points" or "best hair".

Shoot, now I'm gonna have to start my list all over again

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Shoot, now I'm gonna have to start my list all over again

Yeah, better remove Al Iafrate from your #1 spot.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

to me it seems clear, the best careers of all-time, with some consideration that all periods be covered.

IMO there will be many more post 06 players than before if we are going to talk about truly the best. Others might not agree, that is something to hash out once all the lists are in.

Why is that clear?

"HOH Top 60 Defensemen of All-Time" clearly makes no mention of best career.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Why is that clear?

"HOH Top 60 Defensemen of All-Time" clearly makes no mention of best career.

Exactly, I mean for me, Lidstrom might have the better overall career than Bourque (more hardware anyway) but Bourque is the better player on most lists.

And...Bobby Orr, one of the shorter career's that will be on the list but that's not going to keep him from locking down the #1 spot even before any voting is done heh

 

[Hardyvan123]

Exactly, I mean for me, Lidstrom might have the better overall career than Bourque (more hardware anyway) but Bourque is the better player on most lists.

And...Bobby Orr, one of the shorter career's that will be on the list but that's not going to keep him from locking down the #1 spot even before any voting is done heh

Maybe it's just me but "all-time" implies everything that has gone on since hockey started.

If we were looking for who would you want in a game 7 then it would have been worded that way I would venture to guess.

So when we look at individual players we would look at everything they did.

Peak, prime, carer, playoff, international and other intangibles such as leadership would be all considered.

While some might have Bourque and Lidstrom ranked differently, and for different reasons, I don't think there will be any surprise to who will be 1st overall.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Selective stats. Time on Ice still dominated by Canadians.Someone has to do the heavy lifting.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=time_on_ice

some interesting stuff here are the top seasons by Dmen since they have kept the stat which is 99

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=time_on_ice

Non Canadian players seem to be represented quite well on this list.

Also on the previous list we need to look at the top 30, since there are 30 teams and literally 30 potential "horses" back on the D. The breakdown isn't quite as Canadian heavy as we go through 1-30

 

[Rhiessan71]

some interesting stuff here are the top seasons by Dmen since they have kept the stat which is 99

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=time_on_ice

Non Canadian players seem to be represented quite well on this list.

Also on the previous list we need to look at the top 30, since there are 30 teams and literally 30 potential "horses" back on the D. The breakdown isn't quite as Canadian heavy as we go through 1-30

Yeah, I have 3 Euro's and 1 Yank in my top 15.

Gotta say though, getting into the mid 20's was pretty easy, after that....not so much at all. Really tough actually heh.

Maybe it's just me but "all-time" implies everything that has gone on since hockey started.

If we were looking for who would you want in a game 7 then it would have been worded that way I would venture to guess.

So when we look at individual players we would look at everything they did.

Peak, prime, carer, playoff, international and other intangibles such as leadership would be all considered.

While some might have Bourque and Lidstrom ranked differently, and for different reasons, I don't think there will be any surprise to who will be 1st overall.

It certainly wasn't stated to be the best career, it's best player. Use your own criteria and weights to determine what that means to you.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

I have no problem viewing a Top 20 defenseman of today's integrated NHL as similar to a Top 10 all-Canadian defenseman of the past. Same goes with a Top 10 defenseman of modern day vs. a Top 5 all-Canadian league.

It gets tricky when I consider Top 1-3 -- but it is impossible to not consider that players like Lidstrom, Chara, Suter, Markov, Gonchar, Rafalski, Visnovsky, Enstrom, etc.... simply did not exist for the most part in the Pre-expansion NHL, and even later.

 

[Canadiens1958]

2011-12 Toi

some interesting stuff here are the top seasons by Dmen since they have kept the stat which is 99

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=time_on_ice

Non Canadian players seem to be represented quite well on this list.

Also on the previous list we need to look at the top 30, since there are 30 teams and literally 30 potential "horses" back on the D. The breakdown isn't quite as Canadian heavy as we go through 1-30

Looking at the top 30 for the 2010-11 season in terms of TOI yields a different picture:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=time_on_ice

Canadians dominate the top 12. 9 different defencemen of the first 12

Sure Lidstrom appears regularly on your list but he is only eligible once on a year per season by year study.