Rod Langway 1982-1984 question.

[Rygu]

I didn't start watching hockey until the late 80's so my knowledge on Langway isn't great. He obviously won the Norris in 82-83 and 83-84 but I notice in 83-84 Paul Coffey had 93 more points including 40 goals. Was he that much of a defensive juggernaut for those 2 seasons to win with such a low point total? I certainly have nothing against him winning as it is for the best d-man.

To those who saw him play was he that defensively dominant for those 2 seasons? Just trying to learn more about past greats.

Click to read more...

 

[brachyrynchos]

The Caps didn't make until Langway (and rookie Scott Stevens) arrived in WSH. They made it every year until Rod's final season in 92-93. On the slow side when it came to skating, but his positioning was excellent, played the body without being dirty. Not known for his offense, but scored few big goals in the playoffs, OT vs the Rangers in 90, his first goal in over a year. Great leader and great team guy.

 

[Michael Farkas]

With permission, I'm bumping this old thread. Scouting season is over and I had a couple days off, so I gave myself a make-work project and figured a couple of you guys might like it too...

I did a shift-by-shift video of Rod Langway. This is game 2 of the 1984 Patrick Division Final vs the Islanders. Apologies for the lack of sound, I actually double dipped another video out of this and splitting up the audio would be even more work...



Ice time:
1st per: 10:40
2nd per: 9:11
3rd per: 11:04* (* - I don't have the first 14 seconds of the broadcast in the 3rd, but I know Langway played it, as there was no change before the ensuing faceoff)
OT per: 3:09
---
Thru regulation: 30:55 (!)
Total: 34:04

 

[MadLuke]

Ability to clear his zone (pass or otherwise) without creating icing, protecting the blue line he seems really good with the puck (which is a necessity to be that good defensively), decision making, seem all around really impressive, at 30:03 for example double pressure, perfect little pass on the tape and the puck is out.

 

[MS]

I didn't start watching hockey until the late 80's so my knowledge on Langway isn't great. He obviously won the Norris in 82-83 and 83-84 but I notice in 83-84 Paul Coffey had 93 more points including 40 goals. Was he that much of a defensive juggernaut for those 2 seasons to win with such a low point total? I certainly have nothing against him winning as it is for the best d-man.

To those who saw him play was he that defensively dominant for those 2 seasons? Just trying to learn more about past greats.

The 1981 and 1982 Norris trophies were given to Randy Carlyle and Doug Wilson for having the most points and traditionalists were outraged at the thought to giving it to the even more offensive/less defensive Paul Coffey so there was this massive over-correction by voters to give it to the 'best defensive defender'. And in the process they bypassed the actual best defenders in the NHL who were Ray Bourque/Mark Howe/Denis Potvin.

Norris voting from 1981-84 is a total disaster. Potvin should have won in '81, Howe in '83, and Bourque in '84.

 

[Michael Farkas]

He has pretty rudimentary technical skills...his passing is heavy, slow release...but it's accurate and smart. Not that good of a skater, but again, smart enough to make it a non-issue.

Scott Stevens (basically the only other LD that could get into the game) was pretty sloppy and raw in this one. You can sometimes catch him in the Potvin video...

 

[Staniowski]

The 1981 and 1982 Norris trophies were given to Randy Carlyle and Doug Wilson for having the most points and traditionalists were outraged at the thought to giving it to the even more offensive/less defensive Paul Coffey so there was this massive over-correction by voters to give it to the 'best defensive defender'. And in the process they bypassed the actual best defenders in the NHL who were Ray Bourque/Mark Howe/Denis Potvin.

Norris voting from 1981-84 is a total disaster. Potvin should have won in '81, Howe in '83, and Bourque in '84.

No, this backlash-over-correction story is a completely made-up story that didn't actually happen. There isn't one speck of evidence that it happened.

What did happen were discussions about Coffey vs Langway, who a lot of people thought were the NHL's two best defensemen, and which presented such a contrast in their styles of play. It had nothing to do with Carlyle and Wilson. Carlyle was just a bad choice, and there's no problem with Wilson. But, there were certainly many people who had problems with Coffey, saying he wasnt a real defenseman, etc.

 

[MS]

No, this backlash-over-correction story is a completely made-up story that didn't actually happen. There isn't one speck of evidence that it happened.

What did happen were discussions about Coffey vs Langway, who a lot of people thought were the NHL's two best defensemen, and which presented such a contrast in their styles of play. It had nothing to do with Carlyle and Wilson. Carlyle was just a bad choice, and there's no problem with Wilson. But, there were certainly many people who had problems with Coffey, saying he wasnt a real defenseman, etc.

It absolutely happened.

There was considerably backlash over the 1981 and 1982 winners that an award that was supposed to be about defending was becoming a 'most points' trophy.

Then in 1983 you have a guy in Paul Coffey who is even worse at defending than the 81 and 82 winners leading defenders in points and nobody wants to vote for him, and instead of just voting for the best all-around defender which was Mark Howe they over-compensated and voted for Rod Langway who was the best pure defensive defender.

Voters also love narratives and that was Washington's big turnaround season and Langway's part in that was one of the big stories of the year. But the problem with that is that 82-83 was Mark Howe's first year in Philly, too, and they improved even more defensively than the Capitals did.

There is absolutely no way that Rod Langway was so much better at defense than Bourque/Howe/Potvin - three of the best all-around defenders to ever play - that it made up for a 40 or 50 point offensive differential in those years.

Those votes became a binary thing between the two guys at opposite ends of the spectrum and the best players in the middle got ignored.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I'm not going to pick sides in this, as I don't know the answer. But Langway was definitely better defensively than Bourque in that time period for me...

It's easier to destroy than it is to create. So if you get comparable defense, then offense creation should be key...even in a "backlash" scenario...

I'm the last guy to just click "sort by points" and render a decision, clearly...but **** man, from 1983 to 1985, Langway won two Norris Trophies and finished third in another...he ranked 47th in defensive scoring over that time...Howe had twice as many points - twice! Potvin had over 200 points, Langway had 91 in 239 games. Hell, Kevin Lowe outproduced him, even at ES. Behn Wilson did too in way fewer games...

I don't know, that's such a bad argument...but Langway finished 2nd in Hart voting behind 200+ point Gretzky...Langway even got a first place vote. He was so much better than, say, Mike Ramsey (only one top 10 Norris finish - 7th)...Brad McCrimmon? 4th and 6th in Norris voting all time, nothing else. Larry Murphy hardly got any Norris attention until being dealt to Pittsburgh - but as you can see in the video, he's Langway's partner!

Look, I'm not saying I know...I didn't live through this. I know the end of the sponsorship era and absorption of a minor league created a weird time in the league...but it's tough to figure this all out. Why was Langway sooooooo anointed? It feels like it would be like, I don't know, like if Ryan McDonagh won the Norris a bunch from 2016 to 2018...

 

[The Panther]

This is how I would "retro-vote" the Norris winners in the 1980s:

1980
Larry Robinson
I agree with this actual "win".
1981
Denis Potvin (actual 2nd)
Carlyle winning this remains utterly bizarre. Like... what were people thinking?
1982
Larry Robinson (actual 5th)
This is one of those seasons where it's hard to choose. Bourque and Potvin probably missed too many games apiece for either to win, so they're out. Doug Wilson won mainly on account of his eye-popping 39 goals (which is certainly impressive), but he was also the anchor of a very high-event team (not a very good one) that gave up a lot of goals against. And since he was outscored by 4 points by young Coffey, whose team and ES results were vastly superior, why give it to Wilson? I go with the the veteran, Robinson, who anchored the best defensive team of the entire decade (or at least until '89) and also contributed a lot of offence. Hartsburg was good, too -- maybe's he 2nd or 3rd.
1983
Mark Howe (actual 2nd)
The two best D-men at this moment were probably Ray Bourque and Mark Howe (Coffey rising). But Bourque (again) missed a few too many games (Potvin missed some, too). Langway no doubt was really good, but Howe was just as good defensively and vastly superior offensively. So, I'd give to Mark Howe, with Langway maybe 2nd, Bourque 3rd.
1984
Paul Coffey (actual 2nd)
Toss-up between Bourque and Coffey, but since Coffey's team improved a bit and Bourque's declined a bit, and because Coffey was the first Dman since Orr to score 40 goals and 100+ points, I'll go with him. Bourque a very close 2nd. Maybe Potvin 3rd, as this was sort-of his last monster season. Langway won this one, which was overkill. In reality, he was maybe 5th.
1985
Paul Coffey
I agree with this actual "win". The more so in that Potvin started to decline a bit (he was still awesome, mind), Bourque's team was entering a two-to-three-year decline (Coffey doubled Bourque's plus/minus), and Howe provided less than half of Coffey's offense. By the way, voters really crapped all over Potvin this season---as the Islanders fell in the standings---as he didn't get a single Norris vote despite a 68-point, +32 season!
1986
Mark Howe (actual 2nd)
Controversial, perhaps, as Coffey broke Orr's goals record (and "primary points" record), but the Flyers were close to Edmonton in the standings and Howe's ridiculous +87, with well over a point per game, was tops in the League. Order here, maybe Howe --> Coffey --> Robinson.
1987
Ray Bourque
I agree with this actual "win". And I think the Bourque --> Howe --> L. Murphy order was exactly correct. See, people?? Larry Murphy was awesome long before he went to Pittsburgh.
1988
Ray Bourque
I agree with this actual "win".
1989
Chris Chelios
I agree with this actual "win". But Coffey shouldn't have been 2nd. It should have been Chelios --> MacInnis --> Bourque (who missed 1/4 of the season).

 

[JackSlater]

This is how I would "retro-vote" the Norris winners in the 1980s:

1980
Larry Robinson
I agree with this actual "win".
1981
Denis Potvin (actual 2nd)
Carlyle winning this remains utterly bizarre. Like... what were people thinking?
1982
Larry Robinson (actual 5th)
This is one of those seasons where it's hard to choose. Bourque and Potvin probably missed too many games apiece for either to win, so they're out. Doug Wilson won mainly on account of his eye-popping 39 goals (which is certainly impressive), but he was also the anchor of a very high-event team (not a very good one) that gave up a lot of goals against. And since he was outscored by 4 points by young Coffey, whose team and ES results were vastly superior, why give it to Wilson? I go with the the veteran, Robinson, who anchored the best defensive team of the entire decade (or at least until '89) and also contributed a lot of offence. Hartsburg was good, too -- maybe's he 2nd or 3rd.
1983
Mark Howe (actual 2nd)
The two best D-men at this moment were probably Ray Bourque and Mark Howe (Coffey rising). But Bourque (again) missed a few too many games (Potvin missed some, too). Langway no doubt was really good, but Howe was just as good defensively and vastly superior offensively. So, I'd give to Mark Howe, with Langway maybe 2nd, Bourque 3rd.
1984
Paul Coffey (actual 2nd)
Toss-up between Bourque and Coffey, but since Coffey's team improved a bit and Bourque's declined a bit, and because Coffey was the first Dman since Orr to score 40 goals and 100+ points, I'll go with him. Bourque a very close 2nd. Maybe Potvin 3rd, as this was sort-of his last monster season. Langway won this one, which was overkill. In reality, he was maybe 5th.
1985
Paul Coffey
I agree with this actual "win". The more so in that Potvin started to decline a bit (he was still awesome, mind), Bourque's team was entering a two-to-three-year decline (Coffey doubled Bourque's plus/minus), and Howe provided less than half of Coffey's offense. By the way, voters really crapped all over Potvin this season---as the Islanders fell in the standings---as he didn't get a single Norris vote despite a 68-point, +32 season!
1986
Mark Howe (actual 2nd)
Controversial, perhaps, as Coffey broke Orr's goals record (and "primary points" record), but the Flyers were close to Edmonton in the standings and Howe's ridiculous +87, with well over a point per game, was tops in the League. Order here, maybe Howe --> Coffey --> Robinson.
1987
Ray Bourque
I agree with this actual "win". And I think the Bourque --> Howe --> L. Murphy order was exactly correct. See, people?? Larry Murphy was awesome long before he went to Pittsburgh.
1988
Ray Bourque
I agree with this actual "win".
1989
Chris Chelios
I agree with this actual "win". But Coffey shouldn't have been 2nd. It should have been Chelios --> MacInnis --> Bourque (who missed 1/4 of the season).

I don't completely agree but it's better than the actual results.

And yes, Langway did get Norris trophies because writers wanted to make a point about offence only defencemen and "correct" things somewhat. That plus Washington's team turnaround. It was dumb but award voting is often dumb.

 

[MS]

It's worth noting as well that All-Star voting seems less prone to agenda biases than trophy voting, and the voters gave Potvin in '81 and Howe in '83 comfortable wins as the best defender per All-Star voting in those years.

 

[Staniowski]

Those votes became a binary thing between the two guys at opposite ends of the spectrum and the best players in the middle got ignored.

It wasn't "a binary thing". Here is the 1st-place Norris votes in Langway's first win:

Langway - 24
Bourque - 19
Howe - 13
Wilson - 2

Coffey zero.

Everybody was free to vote for Bourque or Howe and many did.

 

[Staniowski]

It absolutely happened.

There was considerably backlash over the 1981 and 1982 winners that an award that was supposed to be about defending was becoming a 'most points' trophy.

Then in 1983 you have a guy in Paul Coffey who is even worse at defending than the 81 and 82 winners leading defenders in points and nobody wants to vote for him, and instead of just voting for the best all-around defender which was Mark Howe they over-compensated and voted for Rod Langway who was the best pure defensive defender.

Voters also love narratives and that was Washington's big turnaround season and Langway's part in that was one of the big stories of the year. But the problem with that is that 82-83 was Mark Howe's first year in Philly, too, and they improved even more defensively than the Capitals did.

There is absolutely no way that Rod Langway was so much better at defense than Bourque/Howe/Potvin - three of the best all-around defenders to ever play - that it made up for a 40 or 50 point offensive differential in those years.

Those votes became a binary thing between the two guys at opposite ends of the spectrum and the best players in the middle got ignored.

You (and others) have talked for many, many years about this huge backlash and "over-correction" story that occurred in Norris voting in the early '80s....the story is, basically, that for 4 or 5 or 6 years, voters were inexplicably voting for somebody they didn't want to vote for. Nobody ever explains why the voters simply didn't just vote for who they thought was the best defenseman.

In any case, the story is not true.

There is no evidence whatsoever that this backlash story happened, and there is no record that voters regretted their votes or were voting for somebody they didn't want to vote for.

 

[tarheelhockey]

You (and others) have talked for many, many years about this huge backlash and "over-correction" story that occurred in Norris voting in the early '80s....the story is, basically, that for 4 or 5 or 6 years, voters were inexplicably voting for somebody they didn't want to vote for. Nobody ever explains why the voters simply didn't just vote for who they thought was the best defenseman.

In any case, the story is not true.

There is no evidence whatsoever that this backlash story happened, and there is no record that voters regretted their votes or were voting for somebody they didn't want to vote for.

Naturally there is no evidence of voters being Shangai'd into changing their ballots. But there absolutely was an awareness of the polarity between pure-offense Coffey and pure-defense Langway creating skewed results, particularly at the expense of all-round better defensemen (namely Robinson, Potvin, Bourque).

This is easily found in newspaper articles of the time.

 

[JackSlater]

You (and others) have talked for many, many years about this huge backlash and "over-correction" story that occurred in Norris voting in the early '80s....the story is, basically, that for 4 or 5 or 6 years, voters were inexplicably voting for somebody they didn't want to vote for. Nobody ever explains why the voters simply didn't just vote for who they thought was the best defenseman.

In any case, the story is not true.

There is no evidence whatsoever that this backlash story happened, and there is no record that voters regretted their votes or were voting for somebody they didn't want to vote for.

From what you are claiming it seems like you don't even understand what is being discussed. The reason they voted for someone who obviously wasn't the best defenceman is exactly what you are arguing against - they did not like the way the position and the award were trending. No one has ever talked about people voting for someone they didn't want to vote for or that anyone regretted their votes but you.

It's pretty obvious what happened. Award voting gets stupid sometimes, there usually isn't a smoking gun where each and every voter comes forward to give "evidence".

 

[Staniowski]

From what you are claiming it seems like you don't even understand what is being discussed. The reason they voted for someone who obviously wasn't the best defenceman is exactly what you are arguing against - they did not like the way the position and the award were trending. No one has ever talked about people voting for someone they didn't want to vote for or that anyone regretted their votes but you.

It's pretty obvious what happened. Award voting gets stupid sometimes, there usually isn't a smoking gun where each and every voter comes forward to give "evidence".

I don't misunderstand at all.

What I'm saying is, the voters who gave 1st-place votes to Langway (in '83 and '84, and other years) did so because they thought he was the best D in the NHL in those seasons.

There were a lot of people who thought he was the best D in the league for a period of time. His Norris wins were not controversial at all.

 

[MS]

You (and others) have talked for many, many years about this huge backlash and "over-correction" story that occurred in Norris voting in the early '80s....the story is, basically, that for 4 or 5 or 6 years, voters were inexplicably voting for somebody they didn't want to vote for. Nobody ever explains why the voters simply didn't just vote for who they thought was the best defenseman.

In any case, the story is not true.

There is no evidence whatsoever that this backlash story happened, and there is no record that voters regretted their votes or were voting for somebody they didn't want to vote for.

I have books from the era discussing this. It's definitely a thing.

There was *absolutely* frustration at that time that post-Orr the award which was supposed to be about defending had become an exercise in point-counting, with the Carlyle award where he racked up a pile of PP points but probably wasn't really even one of the best 10 defenders in the NHL being the most egregious. It was considered a travesty that if Doug Harvey played in 1982 he wouldn't even be considered for the Norris.

And into that spotlight walked Rod Langway in the perfect place at the perfect time as a throwback defender and probably the best pure defensive defender in the NHL having a massive impact on the Washington franchise in their turnaround.

I don't think at all that the voters 'regretted' their votes or 'were voting for someone they didn't want to vote for'. They were trying to correct a wrong that had happened in previous years and were trying to vote closer to the spirit of the award, but over-corrected and bypassed the middle ground which were the elite two-way defenders of the time like Howe/Bourque/Potvin.

I don't misunderstand at all.

What I'm saying is, the voters who gave 1st-place votes to Langway (in '83 and '84, and other years) did so because they thought he was the best D in the NHL in those seasons.

There were a lot of people who thought he was the best D in the league for a period of time. His Norris wins were not controversial at all.

Well, the voters in 1983 voted for Langway for the Norris and Howe for the best defender in AS voting, so that claim is definitely debatable for that year, anyway.

And I'm not saying that they were controversial at the time. But something wasn't controversial at the time can be exposed as wrong or strange with the benefit of hindsight - my favourite is always the Bob Welch vs. Roger Clemens 1990 AL Cy Young award.

 

[MadLuke]

Maybe there is 2 different conversation going on, was it a lot of reaction and speculation at the time, versus what the voters did.

Voters are often a less informed in some ways and when the vote is anonymous a more heteroclite less coordinated group that we think (and sometime the opposite they talk more that we think and care a lot about the feedback)

 

[Staniowski]

Naturally there is no evidence of voters being Shangai'd into changing their ballots. But there absolutely was an awareness of the polarity between pure-offense Coffey and pure-defense Langway creating skewed results, particularly at the expense of all-round better defensemen (namely Robinson, Potvin, Bourque).

This is easily found in newspaper articles of the time.

Yes, there were discussions about the very big differences between Coffey and Langway, which I've already mentioned. But voters were not voting for Langway at the expense of better defensemen (or who they thought were better defensemen).

The problem with this subject is that there are now multiple generations of hockey fans who don't have any knowledge of Rod Langway, and they're trying to figure out how he won two Norris Trophies. But, many people at the time thought Langway was the NHL's best defenseman, he could have easily won more than two Norris Trophies and it wouldn't have been controversial.

People are free to disagree with Langway winning, but it's not accurate that most people thought Bourque, Potvin, etc. were better at the time. This wasn't the Potvin of '77, nor the Bourque of '88. But it was Langway at his absolute best.

 

[FerrisRox]

The problem with this subject is that there are now multiple generations of hockey fans who don't have any knowledge of Rod Langway, and they're trying to figure out how he won two Norris Trophies. But, many people at the time thought Langway was the NHL's best defenseman, he could have easily won more than two Norris Trophies and it wouldn't have been controversial.

I think there's a lot of truth in here.

The amount of noise about Rod Langway's Norris trophies gets louder all the time and it's no coincidence that it gets louder the further we get away from his actual career.

As someone who was following the league during the Washington era of his career, there was absolutely zero controversy regarding him winning either of his Norris trophies at the time.

I don't remember much of anything about those wins in the 90's either. It wasn't until we got into the 2000's that his Norris trophies started to become "controversial" and the narrative was usually driven by a stat watcher who never saw Langway play a game.

 

[Michael Farkas]

For whatever it's worth - obviously voted on by the same folks - but he was the top d-man for Hart Trophy voting for three straight years too...which I think I actually find just as fascinating, maybe even a little more...

 

[JackSlater]

I don't misunderstand at all.

What I'm saying is, the voters who gave 1st-place votes to Langway (in '83 and '84, and other years) did so because they thought he was the best D in the NHL in those seasons.

There were a lot of people who thought he was the best D in the league for a period of time. His Norris wins were not controversial at all.

Considering you invented things to argue against and seemed to avoid the actual point, I'd say that you did misunderstand. I don't really buy that most of the voters actually believed that Langway was the best defenceman in the NHL, it's too absurd honestly even with Langway being probably the best defensive player at the time. It happens in sports, hockey included, all the time where someone gets an award for reasons different from the actual criteria of the award. I do believe that he was the guy that they wanted to award however, and the reasons have been discussed many times.

 

[quietbruinfan]

I watched it and read about it. There was definitely a backlash. Bourque did not have much of a year in 81 and still think he should have won.

 

[The Panther]

For whatever it's worth - obviously voted on by the same folks - but he was the top d-man for Hart Trophy voting for three straight years too...which I think I actually find just as fascinating, maybe even a little more...

I believe one voter voted Langway 1st (!) for the Hart trophy in 1985.... a year when he didn't even come close to the Norris. (Of course, another idiot voted Brian Sutter first.)