Toggle sidebar

HOH Top 60 Defensemen of All Time

pappyline

pappyline

Registered User
Jul 3, 2005
4,587
183
Mass/formerly Ont
pappyline said:
For comparison purposes, it would be interesting to include a column in the table showing the ranking from the 2008 top 100 list(Defenseman only not overall). It looks like quite a few shifts so far.
Click to expand...
Don't know how to do a table but i will do it informally.

Current poll, top 60-2009, top 100-2010

Orr 1, 1, 1
harvey 2,2,2
Bourque 3,4,4
Shore 4,3,3
Lidstrom 5,6,7
Potvin 6,7,5
Kelly 7,5,6
Fetisov 8,9,9
Robinson 9,8,8
Chelios 10,10,11
Park 11,11,10
Clancy 12, 13,15
Coffey 13, 12, 12
Pilote 14,13,13
Cleghorn 15,19, 19
Seibert 16, 17,17
Horton 17,18,18
MacInnis 18,-,18
Stevens 19,-,22
Pronger 20,-,-
Gadsby 21.-,20
Salming 22,-,21
Leetch 23,-,25
Clapper 24,16,14
Savard-,-,24

Actually, not a lot of change. Most rankings changed by no more than one.

Clapper drop was due to confusion relating to his Rw years. Interesting that kelly wasn't really penalized much because of his years at centre.

Lidstrom and Pronger came up because they are still active and adding to their portfolio although I do think Pronger is being over-rated. Will be interested in seeing his ranking once people have had time to digest his full career.

Oddities are Cleghorn (up 4) and Stevens (up 3). Didn't really see any persuasive arguments for either to move up so much.

Most of the variables are likely due to the make up of the panels.

Just my thoughts.
 

Hardyvan123

tweet@HardyintheWack
Jul 4, 2010
17,552
24
Vancouver
One wouldn't expect too much different given the involvement of some in the past projects and the information of the top 100 being out there and possibly predetermining the order that certain players come up in which affects the voting process as well.

I know of at least one person which might have participated but for time constraints and too much control of the process in screening, not sure how many others felt this way otherwise the list may have differed more perhaps.
 
TheDevilMadeMe

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,982
Brooklyn
The old lists were shown to slightly favor players who played during the Original 6 period and the 1970s. I'm not passing judgment on whether that is a good thing or a bad thing; it is a numerical fact.

See (this post) on how the Original 6 was favored in the 2009 project.

I'm pretty sure I remember someone analyzing the 2008 project by decade and found that the 1970s were the most represented, with everything before World War 2 and after 1980 less represented. (I think the specifics were that the 50s, 60s, and 70s had the most NHL players but the 70s also added players from Europe. Yet the 80s had fewer NHLers and Europeans).

So I find it interesting that basically every player who went up in ranking either played before World War 2 or after 1980, and every player who went down played between World War 2 and 1980. The big exception is Dit Clapper who is a special case (Tim Horton only went up because Clapper went down).

Al MacInnis stuck out like a sore thumb in the 2008 list for his high ranking relative to contemporaries, and many people wanted to lower his ranking - indeed he went from 64th to not in the top 70 in the 2009 list. Looks like the 2011 Defenseman project took the opposite approach - rather than lowering MacInnis down to the level of Stevens and Leetch, we raised Stevens and Leetch closer to the level of MacInnis.

If you think the high representation of the Original 6 period and the 1970s in the previous lists were unjustified, then this is a positive development. If you think the Original 6 and the 1970s represented the Golden Age of Hockey and had more great players, this is a negative development.

It's only a small change as pappy points out, but it does seem to represent a slight shift in the collective viewpoint of this board.
 
Last edited:

canucks4ever

Registered User
Mar 4, 2008
3,997
67
is it just me or could stevens be ranked ahead of macinnis and pilote. He's the leader of a mini-dyansty, they are not. People always say stevens was one dimensional pre 1995, then how did he get so many norris votes in 1988 and 1992? I would have ranked him above al, al played on better offensive teams and accomplished nothing from 1990-2003 in the playoffs.
 
TheDevilMadeMe

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,982
Brooklyn
ushvinder said:
is it just me or could stevens be ranked ahead of macinnis and pilote. He's the leader of a mini-dyansty, they are not. People always say stevens was one dimensional pre 1995, then how did he get so many norris votes in 1988 and 1992? I would have ranked him above al, al played on better offensive teams and accomplished nothing from 1990-2003 in the playoffs.
Click to expand...

I would have ranked Stevens over MacInnis :)

At least they are close this time
 

dirtyman*

Guest
Weird not seeing Niedermayer in the top 10 , let alone the top 20.
 
Dennis Bonvie

Dennis Bonvie

Registered User
Dec 29, 2007
29,622
18,154
Connecticut
ushvinder said:
is it just me or could stevens be ranked ahead of macinnis and pilote. He's the leader of a mini-dyansty, they are not. People always say stevens was one dimensional pre 1995, then how did he get so many norris votes in 1988 and 1992? I would have ranked him above al, al played on better offensive teams and accomplished nothing from 1990-2003 in the playoffs.
Click to expand...

Better offensive teams?

But Stevens played on better teams, period.

Don't better teams accomplish more?
 
Epsilon

Epsilon

#basta
Oct 26, 2002
48,464
369
South Cackalacky
Dennis Bonvie said:
Better offensive teams?

But Stevens played on better teams, period.

Don't better teams accomplish more?
Click to expand...

Another thing worth remembering is those Stevens-captained Devils teams routinely finished near the top of the league in scoring. The fact that the Devils were absolutely suffocating defensively, and that they never had many flashy/"big-name" offensive players, led people to believe that they weren't good offensively. A dedicated smear campaign to label them as boring by the Toronto media (during the time period where they were beating the Leafs in the playoffs) didn't help matters.

MacInnis played on better "paper offensive teams" in terms of having more big names who were known for being offensive players, but they weren't always as effective as the Devils.
 

Hardyvan123

tweet@HardyintheWack
Jul 4, 2010
17,552
24
Vancouver
dirtyman said:
Weird not seeing Niedermayer in the top 10 , let alone the top 20.
Click to expand...

I like Nieds but there is no way he is a top 10 guy, I could see top 20 with different criteria though.

seventieslord said:
No, not really.

Do you think he did more than Brian Leetch?
Click to expand...

No he didn't do more than Leetch but I think he is getting undervalued in this project just like Leetch did. Just my opinion.

Epsilon said:
Another thing worth remembering is those Stevens-captained Devils teams routinely finished near the top of the league in scoring. The fact that the Devils were absolutely suffocating defensively, and that they never had many flashy/"big-name" offensive players, led people to believe that they weren't good offensively.[/B] A dedicated smear campaign to label them as boring by the Toronto media (during the time period where they were beating the Leafs in the playoffs) didn't help matters.

MacInnis played on better "paper offensive teams" in terms of having more big names who were known for being offensive players, but they weren't always as effective as the Devils.
Click to expand...

I think it's fair on paper to say that those devils teams weren't that great offensively. Their system and counterattack led to most of their goals and the clutch and grab era and Broduer puck handling as the 3rd Dman also help in this matter.

From 95-03 I dare anyone to actually argue that the Devils' actual skillset on offensive was ever top 5. Maybe TDMM could elaborate as he has watched then more closely.
 
TheDevilMadeMe

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,982
Brooklyn
The Devils were very good offensively in 1999, 2000, and 2001 when they moved away from the Jacques Lemaire trap. Especially 2000 and 2001 with the emergence of the A line, Gomez and Rafalski as rookies, and the trade for Mogilny. But yeah, they embarrassed Toronto in the playoffs, so they were boring.

Under coach Lemaire in te late 90s and Burns for a few years in the 00s, they were very defensive minded as a team and didn't score as much.
 
Dennis Bonvie

Dennis Bonvie

Registered User
Dec 29, 2007
29,622
18,154
Connecticut
TheDevilMadeMe said:
The Devils were very good offensively in 1999, 2000, and 2001 when they moved away from the Jacques Lemaire trap. Especially 2000 and 2001 with the emergence of the A line, Gomez and Rafalski as rookies, and the trade for Mogilny. But yeah, they embarrassed Toronto in the playoffs, so they were boring.

Under coach Lemaire in te late 90s and Burns for a few years in the 00s, they were very defensive minded as a team and didn't score as much.
Click to expand...

I agree, I think the coaching had a big influence on the Devils offensive output.

As for Toronto, when you manager 6 shots on goal in a game 6 of a playoff series in your own building, seems to me the media should have considered the Leafs the boring team.
 
TheDevilMadeMe

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,982
Brooklyn
2 Questions:

1) Does anybody know Eddie Gerard's jersey number or where to find it?

2) Does anyone want us to list all the jersey numbers a player used, like the Top 100 project? I think that would get too messy. For example, Bill Quackenbush wore #3, #15, and #16 with Detroit at various times. But he wore #11 his whole time in Boston, so that's what I used, despite the fact that he accomplished slightly more in Detroit.
 
overpass

overpass

Registered User
Jun 7, 2007
5,271
2,808
TheDevilMadeMe said:
2 Questions:

1) Does anybody know Eddie Gerard's jersey number or where to find it?

2) Does anyone want us to list all the jersey numbers a player used, like the Top 100 project? I think that would get too messy. For example, Bill Quackenbush wore #3, #15, and #16 with Detroit at various times. But he wore #11 his whole time in Boston, so that's what I used, despite the fact that he accomplished slightly more in Detroit.
Click to expand...

1. I would suggest checking with an SIHR member.

2. I'd rather not post every number. One number sounds fine to me.
 
MXD

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,831
16,564
Is it me or former Habs just keep falling and falling for no reason whatsoever?!?!?!
 

Hardyvan123

tweet@HardyintheWack
Jul 4, 2010
17,552
24
Vancouver
MXD said:
Harvey is stable at 2nd. Robinson fell. Savard fell.
Click to expand...

Robinson is 9th, I can see the argument that he could jump Fetisov but who else could he really jump on this list?

As for Savard I have no problem with his ranking and he could have slid farther as there were alot of 2 way Dmen that could be ranked ahead of him and he was , to some, only the 3rd best Dman on his team for some seasons.

Savard is just one of those guys that could be ranked 25-40ish and not raise too many eyebrows IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Ad

Latest posts

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom