Rod Langway 1982-1984 question.

[The Panther]

4 of the top 5 players over that 2 year period were Oilers with Gretzky on top by quite a bit.

Coffey was in fact "sheltered" by Wayne and the Oilers in this regard and didn't tilt the ice in the way one thinks by looking at his points, team situation and career much like Mario.

Well, the top Oilers' Dmen were:
+109 Coffey
+98 Huddy
+68 Gregg
+58 Jackson
+53 Fogolin
+51 Lowe

Coffey's plus/minus those two seasons almost doubles every other Dman (excepting his partner).

 

[The Panther]

Coffey would have been a better player had he been better defensively, obviously, but I think that people get too caught up in the name of the position. It's a small thing but I do believe that if the players who stay high in the offensive zone were called guards rather than defencemen, as is the case in basketball where that position has similar origins, people would think of the position a bit differently. In the end the goal is just to be as effective as possible to help the team win.

That's exactly how I feel, too.

Don't get me wrong. If you're a defenseman in the Norris conversation, you have to show the results on the ice. But the purpose of the sport is to outscore the other team, not to be the best defensively in a vacuum. If you're helping your team outscore the other team more than anyone else is, you're probably the best defenseman regardless of your style.

 

[seventieslord]

There's no such thing as "doubling" someone else's plus minus since it's a number that can be positive or negative. How do you describe a +20 vs. a -5? Is it negative four times as high?

It's also pretty liberal use of the term "almost doubling" since 109 is just 60% more than 68.

Coffey's ESGF:ESGA ratio over those two seasons was 1.54, but three others were 1.53, 1.49 and 1.43. Only Lowe (1.15) and Fogolin (1.19) lagged behind the rest.

Converted to GF% (a stat used more often today), Coffey's was 0.60 and the lowest defenseman on the team was 53%, so although he was outperforming everyone else, let's pump the brakes on the degree to which he was actually doing so.

 

[mahomes95]

This is why the Norris isn't as prestigious as the art ross, a silly award based on opinion.

 

[Staniowski]

It's very interesting - and a bit funny - that there seems to be a lot of people who actually believe that Langway won his two Norris Trophies due to a backlash / over-correction, and that voters didn't really believe he deserved them. It's not true at all. The voters definitely believed he deserved them. And he could've easily won more than two.

If his '83 and '84 play was moved to the '81 and '82 seasons, he would've won those also.

A couple points on where people are going wrong on this:

1. The backlash people are trying to describe was merely a dislike of Paul Coffey. They didn't think he was a real defenseman. Same with Reed Larson and others. Eventually Coffey became too high scoring to ignore, but he was always controversial, and he still is.

2. Langway and Coffey emerged as NHL stars at exactly the same time, and I think that's the main reason why people are mistakenly connecting Coffey's lack of votes and Langway's votes. There wasn't actually a connection between them.

3. People are underestimating Langway, and overestimating Potvin, Robinson, Bourque and Howe.

Langway was the top D in Hart voting 3 years in a row, and generally regarded as the best NHL D in two consecutive best-on-best tournaments ('81 and '84 Canada Cups).

 

[Midnight Judges]

Langway was the top D in Hart voting 3 years in a row, and generally regarded as the best NHL D in two consecutive best-on-best tournaments ('81 and '84 Canada Cups).

Yes, but we in the history forum - 40 years removed - know better than the people who were living it in real time.

 

[wetcoast]

Yes, but we in the history forum - 40 years removed - know better than the people who were living it in real time.

Sure Langway probably played just the same overall from 81-82 and wasn't one of the 21 guys getting Hart votes then changes teams, looks worse statistically and then is 4th in Hart voting...nothing to see here folks just drink the kool-aid eh?

The thing is that people should question even their most strongly held beliefs on players to test the strength and validity of their arguments, unfortunately some simply aren't interested in doing that, more so on the main boards than here though.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Sure Langway probably played just the same overall from 81-82 and wasn't one of the 21 guys getting Hart votes then changes teams, looks worse statistically and then is 4th in Hart voting...nothing to see here folks just drink the kool-aid eh?

The thing is that people should question even their most strongly held beliefs on players to test the strength and validity of their arguments, unfortunately some simply aren't interested in doing that, more so on the main boards than here though.

Ha! That's rich. Yeah no doubt some prefer to be untethered to contemporary accounts so they can revise history at will.

You unintentionally highlight an interesting point:

The Canadiens with Rod Langway surrendered 232 and 223 goals in '81 and '82. Then after Langway left they gave up 286 in '83. That's an enormous difference. Not coincidentally, the Capitals goals against went down by almost the exact same amount. The Canadiens got significantly worse at the exact same time that the Washington Capitals got significantly better, and that corresponds with the movement of Rod Langway.

 

[rmartin65]

Yes, but we in the history forum - 40 years removed - know better than the people who were living it in real time.

This is a pretty weak argument, IMO. People have favorites, people buy into narratives that look bad in hindsight, people just sometimes make the wrong call.
You yourself like to criticize awards- Crosby's CS wins coming to mind.

 

[Midnight Judges]

This is a pretty weak argument, IMO. People have favorites, people buy into narratives that look bad in hindsight, people just sometimes make the wrong call.
You yourself like to criticize awards- Crosby's CS wins coming to mind.

I don't think those things are mutually exclusive. There is absolutely a pro-Crosby bias in some of the hockey media and fandom. It is easily demonstrable. That doesn't mean respect for contemporary accounts needs to go to zero. There is plenty of room for nuance there. Nevermind that I am disagreeing with some of the pro-Crosby media in real time, not through 40 years of unreliable human memory.

Is anyone alleging a massive pro-Langway bias?

 

[rmartin65]

I don't think those things are mutually exclusive. These is absolutely a pro-Crosby bias in some of the hockey media and fandom. It is easily demonstrable. That doesn't mean respect for contemporary accounts need to go to zero.

But nobody is saying that “respect for contemporary accounts need to go to zero” in the case of Langway. People are just challenging his legacy in the same way you challenge Crosby’s.

 

[Midnight Judges]

But nobody is saying that “respect for contemporary accounts need to go to zero” in the case of Langway. People are just challenging his legacy in the same way you challenge Crosby’s.

It's not the same though. I am not 30 or 40 or 50 years removed from the events of Crosby's career.

 

[rmartin65]

It's not the same though. I am not 30 or 40 or 50 years removed from the events of Crosby's career.

So some 20 year-old in 2050 can't claim that Crosby's CS wins aren't legitimate? They have to just throw their hands up and say Crosby was a deserving winner of the CS those years because he was awarded those trophies?

 

[Midnight Judges]

So some 20 year-old in 2050 can't claim that Crosby's CS wins aren't legitimate? They have to just throw their hands up and say Crosby was a deserving winner of the CS those years because he was awarded those trophies?

There are plenty of contemporary people saying - in writing - that Crosby's 2016 Conn Smythe win was not deserved. They can point to those accounts in addition to the massive statistical weaknesses in Crosby's 2016 65 point / 21 goal pace as a minus player while another more deserving player was at a 33 goal / 104 point pace as a plus player while also contributing far more defensively.

I don't know why you're lumping the 2017 win in there. That one was fine.

 

[rmartin65]

There are plenty of contemporary people saying - in writing - that Crosby's 2016 Conn Smythe win was not deserved. They can point to those accounts in addition to the massive statistical weaknesses in Crosby's 2016 65 point / 21 goal pace as a minus player while another more deserving player was at a 33 goal / 104 point pace as a plus player while also contributing far more defensively.

And it seems like there are similar discussions surround Langway’s wins.

I don't know why you're lumping the 2017 win in there. That one was fine.

That’s my bad, I assumed you had a problem with both. I don’t have a problem with either won, for what it is worth. The 2016 win is a weak one, but I don’t think there was a standout winner that year.

 

[Moose Head]

Ha! That's rich. Yeah no doubt some prefer to be untethered to contemporary accounts so they can revise history at will.

You unintentionally highlight an interesting point:

The Canadiens with Rod Langway surrendered 232 and 223 goals in '81 and '82. Then after Langway left they gave up 286 in '83. That's an enormous difference. Not coincidentally, the Capitals goals against went down by almost the exact same amount. The Canadiens got significantly worse at the exact same time that the Washington Capitals got significantly better, and that corresponds with the movement of Rod Langway.

There was more to those two franchises going in opposite directions than just Langway moving. Everybody knew the habs were in a state of decline and the Caps were on the rise regardless if Langway changed teams or not. The lopsided trade just quickened the process, but the teams going in opposite directions was inevitable. The Habs underwent a complete makeover subsequent to this season because the writing was on the wall for that core.

 

[JackSlater]

Ha! That's rich. Yeah no doubt some prefer to be untethered to contemporary accounts so they can revise history at will.

You unintentionally highlight an interesting point:

The Canadiens with Rod Langway surrendered 232 and 223 goals in '81 and '82. Then after Langway left they gave up 286 in '83. That's an enormous difference. Not coincidentally, the Capitals goals against went down by almost the exact same amount. The Canadiens got significantly worse at the exact same time that the Washington Capitals got significantly better, and that corresponds with the movement of Rod Langway.

I think that the issue you are running into is that these things also correspond to Engblom moving and Jarvis moving, to say nothing of Washington getting a better goaltender and stable coaching. Washington took two top defencemen and an elite defensive centre from Montreal - it was not just Langway, though he ended up being the best player in the trade. If you want to try and claim that people are going against contemporary opinion, and Langway's Norris wins were a debated topic, then look at this article from shortly after the trade:

https://vault.si.com/vault/1982/11/01/whos-on-top-in-the-swap

Engblom is implied to be the main piece, Langway and Engblom are called the best defensive pair in the NHL, and Jarvis is referred to as a peerless defensive centre. That's the view from the time of the trade, so they don't even know that Washington has upgraded its goaltending or the Stevens is going to be an impactful rookie on defence. It can be easy to put a big turnaround on one player, and that story has won Messier a landslide Hart trophy voting result and nearly won Shaquille O'Neal the 2005 MVP for example, but it's rarely that simple. I'm not sure that a team ever added to its defence in the way that Washington did heading into 1983 in NHL history, and it is not just adding Langway even though he was the biggest piece.

 

[Midnight Judges]

I think that the issue you are running into is that these things also correspond to Engblom moving and Jarvis moving, to say nothing of Washington getting a better goaltender and stable coaching. Washington took two top defencemen and an elite defensive centre from Montreal - it was not just Langway, though he ended up being the best player in the trade. If you want to try and claim that people are going against contemporary opinion, and Langway's Norris wins were a debated topic, then look at this article from shortly after the trade:

https://vault.si.com/vault/1982/11/01/whos-on-top-in-the-swap

Engblom is implied to be the main piece, Langway and Engblom are called the best defensive pair in the NHL, and Jarvis is referred to as a peerless defensive centre. That's the view from the time of the trade, so they don't even know that Washington has upgraded its goaltending or the Stevens is going to be an impactful rookie on defence. It can be easy to put a big turnaround on one player, and that story has won Messier a landslide Hart trophy voting result and nearly won Shaquille O'Neal the 2005 MVP for example, but it's rarely that simple. I'm not sure that a team ever added to its defence in the way that Washington did heading into 1983 in NHL history, and it is not just adding Langway even though he was the biggest piece.

Yeah I don't disagree with anything you said really. Hockey is a team sport and one guy can only do so much. I seriously doubt it would even be possible for 1 player to account for the differences those two teams experienced defensively in that time frame.

That said, the defensive contrast between '82 and '83 on the Caps and Habs must have been glaring to everyone. It's understandable that the voters would seek out someone to credit for it. The context is that the Capitals were a new all-time unbelievably bad franchise that had never even been to the playoffs. And now they're a decent team? It would have been a fun story.

 

[JackSlater]

Yeah I don't disagree with anything you said really. Hockey is a team sport and one guy can only do so much. I seriously doubt it would even be possible for 1 player to account for the differences those two teams experienced defensively in that time frame.

That said, the defensive contrast between '82 and '83 on the Caps and Habs must have been glaring to everyone. It's understandable that the voters would seek out someone to credit for it. The context is that the Capitals were a new all-time unbelievably bad franchise that had never even been to the playoffs. And now they're a decent team? It would have been a fun story.

That's pretty much exactly what took place I believe. Definitely a good story as Washington had been a putrid franchise and Langway and company gave them some dignity in a hurry.

I do think that sometimes a team wins an individual trophy, but it's rare for skaters. Happens with some regularity when it comes to the Vezina, at least in my opinion. Especially in Boston in the last 15 years or so.

 

[wetcoast]

Ha! That's rich. Yeah no doubt some prefer to be untethered to contemporary accounts so they can revise history at will.

You unintentionally highlight an interesting point:

The Canadiens with Rod Langway surrendered 232 and 223 goals in '81 and '82. Then after Langway left they gave up 286 in '83. That's an enormous difference. Not coincidentally, the Capitals goals against went down by almost the exact same amount. The Canadiens got significantly worse at the exact same time that the Washington Capitals got significantly better, and that corresponds with the movement of Rod Langway.

Sometimes people forget that Doug Jarvis (great on the PK and in the dot) and Brian Engblom also went from the Has to the Capitals in the same year.

The thing is that you sort of made my point by looking at the differences and stopping at Langway.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

tbf, rick green and ryan walter were also excellent defensive players, albeit not elite like langway and jarvis

 

[Staniowski]

tbf, rick green and ryan walter were also excellent defensive players, albeit not elite like langway and jarvis

Ryan Walter and Rick Green were both better players than Doug Jarvis, though. Walter and Green were both all-around players and were important to the Habs during that era.

Rick Green didn't score much but he had some talent. He was actually good enough (or almost) to play for Team Canada in Canada Cups.

The "Langway trade" was interesting because the Habs didn't actually miss anybody (very much, and over the long haul) that they traded away, partly because of Chelios, Ludwig, Carbonneau, McPhee, Skrudland, etc. who soon came along, and also because Walter and Green fit in so well.

 

[tarheelhockey]

It's very interesting - and a bit funny - that there seems to be a lot of people who actually believe that Langway won his two Norris Trophies due to a backlash / over-correction, and that voters didn't really believe he deserved them.

I don't think I've seen anyone actually make that argument. The discussion is around competing narratives that existed at the time, regarding the purpose of the Norris and the definition of an outstanding defenseman. Langway represented an archetype which was in competition with the Coffey archetype, with the Potvin archetype kind of fading to the background temporarily. It was a vote about the best player, but it was also a referendum on the state of the game.

To reiterate what was said upthread -- this debate was written about extensively. It was the hot topic of the time. There's no revisionism in pointing it out.

While it's totally fair to say that the people who voted for Langway really did feel he deserved the #1 spot, it's also totally fair to point out Langway as the #1 defenseman in the league was a minority view in 1983, to the tune of 60% of the voters preferring someone else as their #1.

That said, the defensive contrast between '82 and '83 on the Caps and Habs must have been glaring to everyone. It's understandable that the voters would seek out someone to credit for it. The context is that the Capitals were a new all-time unbelievably bad franchise that had never even been to the playoffs. And now they're a decent team? It would have been a fun story.

While not a perfect comparable, it's not that far removed from how we evaluate Matthew Tkachuk in July 2023.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Ryan Walter and Rick Green were both better players than Doug Jarvis, though. Walter and Green were both all-around players and were important to the Habs during that era.

Rick Green didn't score much but he had some talent. He was actually good enough (or almost) to play for Team Canada in Canada Cups.

The "Langway trade" was interesting because the Habs didn't actually miss anybody (very much, and over the long haul) that they traded away, partly because of Chelios, Ludwig, Carbonneau, McPhee, Skrudland, etc. who soon came along, and also because Walter and Green fit in so well.

ot but it’s kinda interesting that the habs acquired two 1OAs, a 2OA, and a 3OA in the early 80s. three washington high picks in a row in the late 70s.

rick green had been the first pick in 1976, robert picard was the third pick in 1977, and bobby smith and ryan walter were the first two picks in 1978.

picard is best known for being traded for the patrick roy pick but he was a 900 game/400+ pt NHL dman, with a 20 goal, 65 pt season under his belt when the habs got him. like engblom, jarvis, and laughlin another legit good player who was never missed because better versions of him were on the way into the lineup.

 

[crobro]

I really Don’t think that the overall play of Rod Langway 82-84 was the determining factor in winning the Norris , East Coast voting bias was real I believe the two sports editors of the two major Daily’s in each city did the voting.Secondly Langway wasn’t the best amongst his peers He won as a result of Washington’s step up to playoff contender so he won as the defacto “Most Valuable to his team.”

There should be an Irving Grundman statue Outside their Arena regardless.