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

[MXD]

It's not that his 09 season wasn't very good..obviously not many players put up those kind of numbers on defense anymore. However, when you look at his entire career (which is what we are doing) he just doesn't fit the bill, at least from my perspective.

I can't stand Coffey and never could but I don't think there is an argument for him not at least being in the top-20.

Coffey was 17th in my list, and I suspect I'm of thoses who ranked him "low".

The guys below him in my list?
McInnis
Stevens
Savard

While a point can certainly be made for McInnis (effective no1 D-Men for at least 7 or 8 more years than Coffey, better or much better defensively, probably a better offensive contributor from 32 years old onward), i'd honestly be unable to make such a case with Stevens and Savard.

Interestingly, Coffey always ends up really close to Tim Horton is those exercises, which is funny as they are pretty much polar opposites.

 

[MXD]

Reardon lost his age 21,22 and 23 seasons and was done at age 28, it's not like he lost his prime seasons to the war or anything.

Mortson's career is more of an decent guy in a 6 team (30 Dman) league with one great year but I guess it depends on how people juggle the era compared to others at the end of the day.

The thing is -- Reardon was already pretty decent at 20YO.
Try to picture him with WWII Habs. Not impossible to think he'd get 2 AST berths and points in Babe Pratt's territory for those three years, considering the skill there was on this team.

 

[KingGallagherXI]

I sent my list.

For the top 10-20 it was relatively easy because I already had ranked them in the past and knew the players a lot more. For the bottom half of the top 80, I had to research a lot, especially for pre-WWII players and europeans. It was kind of hard...

 

[Hardyvan123]

It's not that his 09 season wasn't very good..obviously not many players put up those kind of numbers on defense anymore. However, when you look at his entire career (which is what we are doing) he just doesn't fit the bill, at least from my perspective.

I can't stand Coffey and never could but I don't think there is an argument for him not at least being in the top-20.

Coffey was 17th on mine as well, ahead of Nieds and behind Pronger as I recall. 18th actually I went back and looked.

Like I said when I posted my list, it would be 7 different lists 7 days a week depending on how I felt on the various factors in evaluating all of the thousands of Dmen over time.

Greens peak and the context in which it took place was enough to put him 80th on the day i finalized my list but I can see guys going other directions and leaving him off entirely. Its kinda weird reflecting back on it because I'm a heavy career guy but I was very tired and had a head cold as well.

 

[Dreakmur]

I'm not sure I expect Coffey to be that polarizing. I think most people would rank him somewhere between 10-20. More interested to see where non-NHL players like Mike Grant, Jan Suchy or Alexander Ragulin end up. I can imagine them anywhere from 20th to outside the list.

I would have Grant aound 30 and the other two around 60.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I would have Grant aound 30 and the other two around 60.

Just curious where you would have Harvey Pulford and Hod Stuart.

 

[Dreakmur]

Just curious where you would have Harvey Pulford and Hod Stuart.

Hod Stuart around 15 - after the group of guys who could arguably take the 10th spot.

Pulford quite a bit lower - I think I had him about 40.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Hod Stuart around 15 - after the group of guys who could arguably take the 10th spot.

Pulford quite a bit lower - I think I had him about 40.

I flipped the 2 around in my rankings with Hod at 40 and Pulford at 37.

I really wonder if anyone else has Hod that high, he only played till age 27 and in the early developmental stages of hockey as well.

I really wanted a separation of time in these lists as it's almost impossible to slot guys that no one ever saw play and not take into account the type of game it was back then.

To be honest some of the pre NHL guys end up just getting slotted because we have to include all eras which is unfair to the overall process IMO but it is what it is.

I will look forward to hearing hods case for being so high when we get to round 2.

This should be an interesting exercise to say the least.

 

[Dreakmur]

I flipped the 2 around in my rankings with Hod at 40 and Pulford at 37.

I really wonder if anyone else has Hod that high, he only played till age 27 and in the early developmental stages of hockey as well.

I really wanted a separation of time in these lists as it's almost impossible to slot guys that no one ever saw play and not take into account the type of game it was back then.

To be honest some of the pre NHL guys end up just getting slotted because we have to include all eras which is unfair to the overall process IMO but it is what it is.

I will look forward to hearing hods case for being so high when we get to round 2.

This should be an interesting exercise to say the least.

I have two reasons for Hod to be that high. First, he was elite in all aspects of the game - he had no weaknesses, and he was considered among the best in every facet of the game. Second, he was considered by many to be the best player in the world. Very few defensemen have been the best player in the world.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I have two reasons for Hod to be that high. First, he was elite in all aspects of the game - he had no weaknesses, and he was considered among the best in every facet of the game. Second, he was considered by many to be the best player in the world. Very few defensemen have been the best player in the world.

Yes I understand the historical perspective but is any consideration given for being the best player in the world in 2000 compared to the early 1900ès or is it given the same weight, treatment or consideration.

There is also the issue of the shortness of his career and I understand some people might value peak over career but we also should evaluate and compare what actually there is in the record and not what might have been, otherwise that really opens Pandoras Box IMO.

I'd be interested in what others think about eh high number of teams, small talent base and evolving nature of the game and how they complied their lists as well.

I thought about doing mine chronologically from earlier to alter then the other way around and ended up doing it randomly, which wasn't ideal either IMO.

One of the reasons I didn't want to do it on a time line was because being the best player (or Dman in the world) would have different values at different times in history and could possibly pre determine the distribution of the 80 players on my list differently than say if I did the list backwards and valued for instance the eyeball test fro players I saw play which would have titled it the other way.

i mean we commonly place a higher value on being player of the year in the USSR circa 1970-1985 than player of the year in Great Britain at any time with Tony Hand being the example. I think we need to do this, at least in part, when comparing guys from different eras of the NHL and pre NHL as well. How much though I have no idea because it would also be unfair to penalize guys from an earlier time to over emphasize it.

It was the biggest hurdle I had in making my list.

I wonder how others got around these questions and what methods they used, it might be help full for the 2nd round.

 

[Dreakmur]

Yes I understand the historical perspective but is any consideration given for being the best player in the world in 2000 compared to the early 1900ès or is it given the same weight, treatment or consideration.

There is also the issue of the shortness of his career and I understand some people might value peak over career but we also should evaluate and compare what actually there is in the record and not what might have been, otherwise that really opens Pandoras Box IMO.

I'd be interested in what others think about eh high number of teams, small talent base and evolving nature of the game and how they complied their lists as well.

I thought about doing mine chronologically from earlier to alter then the other way around and ended up doing it randomly, which wasn't ideal either IMO.

One of the reasons I didn't want to do it on a time line was because being the best player (or Dman in the world) would have different values at different times in history and could possibly pre determine the distribution of the 80 players on my list differently than say if I did the list backwards and valued for instance the eyeball test fro players I saw play which would have titled it the other way.

i mean we commonly place a higher value on being player of the year in the USSR circa 1970-1985 than player of the year in Great Britain at any time with Tony Hand being the example. I think we need to do this, at least in part, when comparing guys from different eras of the NHL and pre NHL as well. How much though I have no idea because it would also be unfair to penalize guys from an earlier time to over emphasize it.

It was the biggest hurdle I had in making my list.

I wonder how others got around these questions and what methods they used, it might be help full for the 2nd round.

I think you are blowing the "short career" a little out of proportion. It's not like he only played a few seasons, or was only a great player for a very short time. Hod Stuart played in top leagues from 1899 to 1907, so that's a 9 year career, which is not substantially shorter than other stars of the era. Considering he was an elite player by his second season, he had an 8-year run as one of the best players in the world. That is a substantial peak.

I did consider era differences when I created my list. If I ignored those factors, Hod Stuart could have easily been #2 after Orr. Hod Stuart was arguably the best offensive defenseman. He was arguably the best defensive defensemn. He was also arguably the toughest defenseman. How many defensemen can make the claim to being ELITE if every aspect of the game.

Hod Stuart was an absolute freak of nature. He was 5-6 inches taller, and 30-40 points heavier than the average player, but he was still considered one of the very best skaters of his era. If you ever watched Eric Lindros in his prime, that's the kind of physical specimen Hod Stuart was.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I think you are blowing the "short career" a little out of proportion. It's not like he only played a few seasons, or was only a great player for a very short time. Hod Stuart played in top leagues from 1899 to 1907, so that's a 9 year career, which is not substantially shorter than other stars of the era. Considering he was an elite player by his second season, he had an 8-year run as one of the best players in the world. That is a substantial peak.

I did consider era differences when I created my list. If I ignored those factors, Hod Stuart could have easily been #2 after Orr. Hod Stuart was arguably the best offensive defenseman. He was arguably the best defensive defensemn. He was also arguably the toughest defenseman. How many defensemen can make the claim to being ELITE if every aspect of the game.

Hod Stuart was an absolute freak of nature. He was 5-6 inches taller, and 30-40 points heavier than the average player, but he was still considered one of the very best skaters of his era. If you ever watched Eric Lindros in his prime, that's the kind of physical specimen Hod Stuart was.

I understand all of these things but I guess I factor in the era a litle bit differtnely. there were maybe a coupole of thousand players at all levels playing hockey at the time and the game was vastly differnt as well.

The assertion of top leagues and best at those 3 things you mentioned were all true but to compare that to an integrated post 1990 NHL is well an inexact science to be true.

IMO, this type of analysis benifits the guy who came 1st and doesn't "truly" give us a picture of who was indeed better and it's only my opinion.

I understand the constraints of this sections "evolution of hockey" but realitically the guy that is right behind Hod Stuart is getting jobbed IMO but that's just my opinion.

That to me is the crux of the oproblem when we are evaluating players form vastly different eras, in every sense of the term.

 

[tony d]

Just sent mine in, will be interested to see the final results of this.

 

[KingGallagherXI]

I have Hod Stuart at 51, I know he was considered the best in the world, but I have a very hard time at giving credibility to pre-WWI players when hockey was still a relatively fringe sport with less minor league players than post WWI, meaning it was statistically easier to stand out and become to best in the world.

I have Ozolinsh at 80. I'm 100% sure there's a better player than him that I forgot on my list, because I'm pretty sure he's not the 80th best dman ever. I'm pretty sure he's better than Mike Green though, who's not on my list.

 

[BenchBrawl]

i will send my list tomorrow , which will be a very very raw list as I didnt have the time to think about this.

i think im gonna use the atd as a platform.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

If you've sent in a list and haven't received a response yet, please send me a PM.

If you haven't sent in any list yet, please do so in the next few days, so if screeners notice a problem with your list, you have time to fix it.

Round 2 will start in early November if everything works out.

 

[Epsilon]

Quick question: I've been super-swamped lately and haven't had time to really dig into this. I made about half my list weeks ago (and spent some time on it) but if I submit one now I'm afraid the 40-80 slots aren't going to be given the amount of attention they probably should, but on the other hand I'd still like to participate in the discussion and voting. Is it better to submit a list with an admittedly poorly-researched bottom half or not put one in at all? I feel bad for not giving it the serious effort it deserves but on the other hand I figure if the rankings in those slots are poorly done that's just going to get straightened out in the debate and voting process. I do feel pretty good with my top 30-40 so it's not like the entire list will be thrown together at the last minute.

 

[overpass]

Quick question: I've been super-swamped lately and haven't had time to really dig into this. I made about half my list weeks ago (and spent some time on it) but if I submit one now I'm afraid the 40-80 slots aren't going to be given the amount of attention they probably should, but on the other hand I'd still like to participate in the discussion and voting. Is it better to submit a list with an admittedly poorly-researched bottom half or not put one in at all? I feel bad for not giving it the serious effort it deserves but on the other hand I figure if the rankings in those slots are poorly done that's just going to get straightened out in the debate and voting process. I do feel pretty good with my top 30-40 so it's not like the entire list will be thrown together at the last minute.

You wouldn't be the first to struggle with the 40-80 range. It's a challenge for sure.

On the other hand, the points in those spots will be important, especially when it comes down to the last few spots on the list.

It really depends on how well you can do that last half, and you know that best. If you don't have any knowledge of, say, pre-WWII players, and you don't have any time to look into that, the second half of your list might not be good enough. If you have a bit of knowledge and can think you can give it a decent shot, even if it's not as well researched as you would prefer, go for it. You don't have to be a card-carrying SIHR expert to participate in this, just interested in hockey history, willing to consider all eras and give it your best shot.

Lists don't have to be perfect but they should be as unbiased as possible. This is important, especially if you aren't the only one facing this dilemma. We don't want several lists coming in, all with the latter half of the list biased in the same direction solely because of a lack of research/knowledge.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I have Hod Stuart at 51, I know he was considered the best in the world, but I have a very hard time at giving credibility to pre-WWI players when hockey was still a relatively fringe sport with less minor league players than post WWI, meaning it was statistically easier to stand out and become to best in the world.

I have Ozolinsh at 80. I'm 100% sure there's a better player than him that I forgot on my list, because I'm pretty sure he's not the 80th best dman ever. I'm pretty sure he's better than Mike Green though, who's not on my list.

I'm pretty sure he isn't.

Though neither is on my list, Green probably will be down the road. I guess I saw too much of Ozolinsh later in his career to consider him for top anything.

 

[MXD]

He and Housley.

Quite a difference between Housley and Green offensively... And Green's sorta physical play doesn't close that gap, at all.

Lets not forget to invite Coffey to the party either.

Seriously though its not like any of our 80th guys are going to make the top 60 list.

C'mon... Coffey is probably Top-20 material.

I'm not sure I expect Coffey to be that polarizing. I think most people would rank him somewhere between 10-20. More interested to see where non-NHL players like Mike Grant, Jan Suchy or Alexander Ragulin end up. I can imagine them anywhere from 20th to outside the list.

41, 39 and 52. Thought I was a bit mean to Ragulin, in retrospective.

I have Hod Stuart at 51, I know he was considered the best in the world, but I have a very hard time at giving credibility to pre-WWI players when hockey was still a relatively fringe sport with less minor league players than post WWI, meaning it was statistically easier to stand out and become to best in the world.

I have Ozolinsh at 80. I'm 100% sure there's a better player than him that I forgot on my list, because I'm pretty sure he's not the 80th best dman ever. I'm pretty sure he's better than Mike Green though, who's not on my list.

I would never have put Ozolinsh at 80, but I'm 100% convinced he did more than Green at this point.


And now, I realize I had S. Mantha at 61...

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I would never have put Ozolinsh at 80, but I'm 100% convinced he did more than Green at this point.

At this point Green has already been a first team all-star twice.

 

[seventieslord]

I would never have put Ozolinsh at 80, but I'm 100% convinced he did more than Green at this point.

At this point Green has already been a first team all-star twice.

Wasn't Ozolinsh once as well? Then throw in his other fine offensive seasons and its a no brainer.... for now.

Neither should be near anyone's top-80 list. Desjardins, suter and Derian Hatcher were my honorable mentions.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Quite a difference between Housley and Green offensively... And Green's sorta physical play doesn't close that gap, at all.



C'mon... Coffey is probably Top-20 material.



41, 39 and 52. Thought I was a bit mean to Ragulin, in retrospective.



I would never have put Ozolinsh at 80, but I'm 100% convinced he did more than Green at this point.


And now, I realize I had S. Mantha at 61...

I have Coffey top 20 as well.

The reference was to Housley being considered for the forwards and then Green was added and I added the quip about Coffey which fits IMO.

 

[MXD]

Wasn't Ozolinsh once as well? Then throw in his other fine offensive seasons and its a no brainer.... for now.

Neither should be near anyone's top-80 list. Desjardins, suter and Derian Hatcher were my honorable mentions.

First two are in my list. Always thought Hatcher was overrated, but had it been a Top-90, I'd have given him a long look.

 

[VanIslander]

I have Coffey top 20 as well.

I do too (in the list I put in last month) but I was tempted to put him nearer to 30th. None of the other defensively-challenged offensive defensemen talked about are top-80 imo. A defenseman's primary job is to defend imo and is to be judged accordingly. Of course, surging up ice on transition and slapping shots at the net are part of the position, especially in the recent eras, but it's not quite as important to a blueliner's primary job. Coffey is a special talent and I had a love-hate relationship (he was my hero when I cheered him in Edmonton), as his defense sucked royally in Detroit and wasn't great in Pittsburgh. Going to games live I got to see a lot of Coffey and the only player I've seen play worse defense was Pavel Bure, and - well - the Rocket's job was offense! His linemates covered for him defensively.