Round 2, Vote 10 (HOH Top Defensemen)

[tarheelhockey]

Doug Wilson

"He could skate rings around Pierre Pilote -- backward."

"I've seen Doug play. I also had the privilege of playing with Bobby Hull. Doug's shot is as close as you can come to Bobby Hull's."

NHL Draft - 1977, 6th overall
WHA Draft - 1977, 5th overall

Norris: 1981-82
1st All Star: 1981-82
2nd All Star: 1984-85, 1989-90
Chicago Alternate Captain: 1988-1991
Sharks Captain: 1991-1993
Blackhawks career leader in defensemen goals, points and assists.

Wilson was drafted by Chicago in 1977 and made the Hawks' starting lineup in his first training camp as an 18-year-old. A fluid skater with one of the best shots in the league, he joined the blue line during Bobby Orr's brief final year in the NHL. Like Orr, Wilson was also a scoring threat, though to a lesser degree, of course. In his fifth season in the league, he was the most dominant defenseman in the game. He scored an incredible 39 goals, was selected to the First All-Star Team and won the Norris Trophy to confirm what everyone already knew. He averaged nearly a point a game, was rock solid in his own end of the rink and was a natural leader on and off the ice. In the playoffs, the team made it as far as the semifinals before losing to Vancouver in five games.

Early in the 1987-88 season, Wilson suffered a debilitating shoulder injury that required extensive surgery. At one point, doctors were so shocked by the accumulated damage to the muscle they wondered if he would ever play again. He missed the rest of that season and part of the next, but after months of rehabilitation he recovered fully and played his best hockey in years.

Doug Wilson, a left defenseman with a bullet shot, was the Black Hawks' first choice Tuesday...

"He can really fire the puck," offered Chicago General Manager Tommy Ivan. "So well that we'd even think of giving him a try at left wing. He's got decent size. And we think he can be as tough as he needs to be.

Doug Wilson is on the brink of becoming the highest-scoring defenseman in the Chicago Blackhawks' 54-year history.

More important, at age 22, he has matured into one of the best defensemen in the National Hockey League and seemingly is just starting to scratch the surface of his potential. ...

Not only is Wilson making waves on offense, he's as solid as Gibraltar when the opposition has the puck. Seeing him is believing him when he says: "In some of my best games this year, I haven't gotten a single point."...

[During his disappointing sophomore season] "I had to learn some things -- on the ice and off," Wilson recalls. "I had to learn to make contributing to the team my top priority.

"It used to be that when I missed a night of going out on the town, I thought I really missed something. Now, I want to win first and then have a good time -- not the other way around."

Statistically, Doug Wilson is the most dynamic defenseman in the National Hockey League.

Artistically, the statistics don't do justice to what Wilson has meant for the Black Hawks.

After four productive but not spectacular seasons in the NHL, Wilson is playing the kind of hockey that the Hawks hoped Bobby Orr would still be capable of delivering when they signed him the summer of 1976. ...

But since the Hawks have been giving up goals at a team-record rate, it's only natural to wonder if Wilson is so smitten with offense that he's shirking his defensive responsibilities.

Nothing could be further from the truth. ... Wilson is the team leader with a rating of plus 13. "He's easily our best," said coach Keith Magnuson. "and I think that's significant because it reflects the way he has been playing.

"He's a great hitter [body checker] on open ice, probably the best we've had here since Doug Jarrett. But he has a style all his own. He's so intelligent moving the puck; he's an outstanding skater. He knows when to make a rush and when not to, and he has one of the hardest and best shots in the league."

Through his first four seasons with the Black Hawks, Doug Wilson delivered interludes both good and bad. Inconsistency was the single constant in his creations, and only rarely did he envince the brilliance that made him a first round draft choice in 1977. He possessed abilities that were rare, yet he proffered performances that were indifferent. He was a talent in search of discipline.

He would not confront his predicament until last summer, but then he reordered his mind and dedicated himself to realizing the best that was in him. ...

In the first weeks of his first season in Chicago [he never played in the minors], the 20-year old fulfilled the promise his high selection augered... but then he dipped and disappeared till midyear... "I don't know if I got happy with what happened or what."

On the weekend before the start of sophomore year, Doug Wilson rammed into a goal post and bruised his groin. He never fully recovered from this injury and was further bothered by calcium deposits in his left arm, and when his season was ended early by a separated shoulder, he had scored by five goals and managed but 26 points. As a result, he was without a shred of confidence entering his third year and through its first 25 games, he scored nary a goal and had only five assists. He then resurrected himself and ended with 61 points [ed: this means he scored 12-34-46 in his last 51 games]. ...

He learned how to control his blistering slap shot, which he used to send into the mezzanine, and how to best clear the puck from the slot, which was taught to him by Tony Esposito. Pulford educated him to the nuances of stick handling, and the retired Stan Mikita showed him how to anticipate and create a play.

"Sure, there's been technical improvements in his game, but it goes back to mental attitude. His technical shortcomings were because he wasn't concentrating," says Pulford.

After Doug Wilson scored 87 points in 55 games as a 17-year-old Junior hockey rookie in Ottawa 8 years ago, people started saying he had the potential to be one of the game's best defensemen.

And they kept saying it -- year after year. But now, at last, they've stopped. Potential has been transformed into something tangible. ...

"If Wilson keeps shooting the way he did tonight, he's going to get 50 goals this year," Winnipeg coach Tom Watt said...

"The fact I have only scored six goals this year compared to the 39 I got last year has absolutely no bearing on my performance. Just that I did get that many goals last year has to be attributed mainly to luck."

"That we're winning and are a greatly improved club is very important to me," added Wilson.

The game changes when Doug gets on the ice," said [Black Hawks coach Orval] Tessier. "There are many, many ways he can hurt the other team.

"If I had my choice on who could take a penalty-shot it would be him. He has the most accurate wrist-shot on the team. It's even better than Steve Larmer's."...

"I think he's capable of getting even more assists than he has in the past. Somebody could score a lot of goals if he stood in front of the net when Doug takes that shot. But I can't find any volunteers. They say, 'Who, me? No, thank you! I'm planning on a long career.'

"Doug has to do a little work on his accuracy... I think he's been trying to pick the corners a bit too much. ... It isn't a case of attitude, because Doug Wilson is a totally unselfish hockey player. He passes up goals to feed people who are in a better position. He's not a rah-rah guy, but he will play with a lot of pain. There are times I've known he was sick or hurt and had to play him, and he has given me everything he had."

If you think Tessier was exaggerating about the penalty shot -- on Jan 14, 1985 he actually did select Wilson to take one.

Orr thrived on making end-to-end rushes, but Wilson seldom carries the puck the length of the rink. He penetrates only occasionally, usually as the play is developing. He prefers the long pass to the long rush.

"He uses that pass as a wrist shot," says Tessier. "He'll look, and the puck is gone. And it's right on the money. Doug is very intelligent, and it shows in the way he plays. He anticipates, and he knows players on the other teams -- what they can do and what they can't do."

Another difference between Orr's game and Wilson's can be found within the team context. When Orr was making all those waves on offense for the Bruins, the other defensemen's input was only a ripple. In contrast, Wilson's fellow workers contribute a steady stream of goals and assists.

"He's a great player and a really classy guy. I really like him. He'd fit right in with [the Oilers].

"He was one of the best defensemen we had on Team Canada even though he played sore part of the time. Some guys had problems adjusting to our system, but he certainly didn't."

"I got to know Doug as a person and realize what a great player he is last summer when we played together on Team Canada and won the Canada Cup. It would really be a shame if he were to miss some games in this series. It would make our job a lot easier, but I'd hate to see it."

Wilson's absence plays havoc not only with the Hawks' defense but with their attack. He led the team with a plus-minus rating of 24 and was third in scoring with 76 points on 22 goals and 54 assists.

"Doug will be the first to admit he hasn't played well," coach Mike Keenan said.

"I'm trying to answer the question myself why I'm not playing better," Wilson replied when the question was posed to him.

Keenan ventured that it's a lack of confidence on Wilson's part that might go deeper than the fact that Wilson is making a comeback from a shoulder surgery that put him out for the season last December.

"His lack of confidence could be historical and go back to the team not having had a great deal of success in recent years," Keenan said. ...

"It's a possibility," Wilson said. "But I don't want to use the layoff as an excuse or that as an excuse."

"The relationship I had with Mike Keenan I don't think was conducive to me being happy or playing good hockey."

Year-by-year:

GP | Age | Team | GP | G | A | P | PIM | Honors | Injuries
1977-78 |20 |CHI|77| 14| 20 |34 |72 ||Knee surgery prior to season
1978-79 |21 |CHI|56| 5 |21 |26|37 ||Pre-season groin injury; 2/25/79 - Season-ending shoulder injury
1979-80 |22 |CHI|73| 12 |49| 61 | 70 |Norris (8th)|
1980-81 |23 |CHI|76| 12 |39| 51 | 80 ||
1981-82 |24 |CHI|76| 39 |46| 85 | 54 |Norris (1st), Hart (9th), 1st All Star|11/25/81 - Jaw broken in 4 places
1982-83 |25 |CHI|74| 18 |51 |69 | 58 |Norris (4th), "3rd All Star"| Ankle (Nov), Broken nose (Jan)
1983-84 |26 |CHI|66| 13 |45 |58 | 64 || 3/4/84 - Fractured skull
1984-85 |27 |CHI|78| 22 |54 |76 | 44 | 2nd All Star, Norris (4th), Hart (7th)|
1985-86 |28 |CHI|79| 17 |47 |64 | 80 |"3rd All Star"| 3/16/86 - Concussion
1986-87 |29 |CHI |69| 16 |32 |48 | 36 || 3/8/87 - Knee sprain
1987-88 |30 |CHI |27| 8 |24 |32 | 28 || 12/5/87 - Season-ending shoulder surgery
1988-89 |31 |CHI |66| 15 |47 |62 | 69 || Broken hand (Jan), Bruised shoulder (Mar), Pulled groin (Apr)
1989-90 |32 |CHI |70| 23 |50 |73 | 40 |Norris (3rd), 2nd All Star| Bruised toe (Jan), Pulled groin (Mar), Bruised forearm (Apr)
1990-91 |33 |CHI |51| 11 |29 |40 | 32 || Offseason ankle surgery, reaggravated in Dec
1991-92 |34 |SJS| 44| 9 |19 |28 | 26 || Dislocated thumb (Oct), strained back (Jan), knee injury (Feb)
1992-93 |35 |SJS| 42| 3 |17| 20 | 40 || Shoulder injury (Oct), shoulder injury (Nov), Leg contusion (Dec), broken foot (Jan), strained knee (Feb)

Playoffs

Season | Conference finish | Games | G | A | P | Results
1977-78|4|4|0| 0| 0|Bruins 4 - Black Hawks 0
1978-79|5|-|-|-|-|-
1979-80|3|7 |2 |8 |10 |Black Hawks 3 - Blues 0; Sabres 4 - Black Hawks 0
1980-81|5|3 |0| 3| 3|Flames 3 - Black Hawks 0
1981-82|6|15 |3| 10| 13 |Black Hawks 3 - North Stars 1; Black Hawks 4 - Blues 2; Canucks 4 - Black Hawks 1
1982-83|2|13 |4 |11| 15|Black Hawks 3 - Blues 1; Black Hawks 4 - North Stars 1; Oilers 4 - Black Hawks 0
1983-84|8|5| 0| 3 |3 |North Stars 3 - Black Hawks 2
1984-85|5| 12| 3| 10 |13 |Black Hawks 3 - Red Wings 0; Black Hawks 4 - North Stars 2; Oilers 4 - Black Hawks 2
1985-86|3|3 |1 |1 |2|Maple Leafs 3 - Black Hawks 0
1986-87|6|4 |0| 0| 0 |Red Wings 4 - Blackhawks 0
1987-88|6|-|-|-|-|-
1988-89|8|4| 1| 2| 3|Blackhawks 4 - Red Wings 2; Blackhawks 4 - Blues 1; Flames 4 - Blackhawks 1
1990-91|3| 20| 3| 12| 15|Blackhawks 4 - North Stars 3; Blackhawks 4 - Blues 3; Oilers 4 - Blackhawks 2
1991-92|1|5 |2| 1| 3| North Stars 4 - Black Hawks 2

Points per game, defensemen, 1979-80 to 1989-90:

Rk | Player | GP | G | A | P | PPG
1|Paul Coffey| 733 |283| 669| 952 |1.30
2|Raymond Bourque|794 |230 |610 |840 |1.06
3|Al MacInnis|528| 126| 380| 506 |0.96
4|Gary Suter|362 |77 |268 |345 |0.95
5|Denis Potvin| 593| 155 |394| 549 |0.93
6|Phil Housley|608 |178 |380| 558 |0.92
7|Brian Leetch|157 |36 |105 |141 |0.90
8 | Doug Wilson | 754 | 195 | 484 | 679 | 0.90

Goals, defenseman, single season:

Rk | Player | Season | G
1|Paul Coffey|1985-86|48
2|Bobby Orr|1974-75|46
4|Paul Coffey|1983-84|40
4 | Doug Wilson | 1981-82 | 39
5|Paul Coffey|1984-85|37
6|Bobby Orr|1971-72|37
7|Bobby Orr|1972-73|37
8|Kevin Hatcher|1992-93|34
9|Bobby Orr|1969-70|33
10|Bobby Orr|1973-74|32

International

Year | Tournament | Team | GP | G | A | P
1984-85|Canada Cup | Canada |7| 2| 1| 3
1986-87|Rendez-Vous '87|NHL All Stars| 2 |1| 1| 2

In 1985, Wilson scored with 6 minutes remaining to tie Canada's semifinal game against the Soviets. Canada won in OT, the first time in five years that anyone had eliminated the Soviets in a major tournament, and rolled past Sweden to win gold.

Here, Langway scores late in the second game of Rendez-Vous '87 to bring Canada within a goal. They would go on to lose.



Fundamental to understanding Doug Wilson's career is understanding that he was almost never fully healthy. Based on the research above, I don't think it's far off to say he could have been a MacInnis or better, except that he dealt with a steady stream of injuries which brought him down from stardom midway through his career. Which isn't to say he wasn't still an extremely effective player, of course, scoring upwards of PPG as late as 1990.

His peak was astoundingly high, an excellent defensive player with an offensive output in the Housley-Leetch range. He was by all accounts a great teammate and highly coachable, except for his very early 20s when he was simply acting his age. It's quite easy to find quotes where he deflects praise to 3 or 4 teammates at a time. And his effort was never in question, playing through serious injury to the detriment of his own future health. But he just couldn't escape the injury bug.

Those voters who favor peak performance should give Wilson a long look. Those who favor longetivity and durability are probably not going to like him much.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

His peak was astoundingly high, an excellent defensive player with an offensive output in the Housley-Leetch range. He was by all accounts a great teammate and highly coachable, except for his very early 20s when he was simply acting his age. It's quite easy to find quotes where he deflects praise to 3 or 4 teammates at a time. And his effort was never in question, playing through serious injury to the detriment of his own future health. But he just couldn't escape the injury bug.

Those voters who favor peak performance should give Wilson a long look. Those who favor longetivity and durability are probably not going to like him much.

Good profile, but what are you basing the claim that Wilson was close to Brian Leetch offensively? He broke 70 points 3 times: 85, 76, 73. Leetch (who played in a slightly lower scoring era) broke it 7 times: 102, 88, 85, 79, 79, 78, 71.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Good profile, but what are you basing the claim that Wilson was close to Brian Leetch offensively? He broke 70 points 3 times: 85, 76, 73. Leetch (who played in a slightly lower scoring era) broke it 7 times: 102, 88, 85, 79, 79, 78, 71.

To be completely honest, Leetch's name was conveniently there on the PPG list and he was in the same neighborhood I was looking for. Leetch clearly had better longetivity.

I don't know how much it helps us to look at Wilson's raw point totals, seeing as he had so many partial seasons. In terms of his optimal offensive impact on any given game, he's below Coffey or Orr, but not very far below. I'd say in there with Leetch, Housley, Bourque, prime MacInnis... elite scoring defensemen. Problem is, he was only at optimal level for a short time due to accumulating injuries.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

To be completely honest, Leetch's name was conveniently there on the PPG list and he was in the same neighborhood I was looking for. Leetch clearly had better longetivity.

I don't know how much it helps us to look at Wilson's raw point totals, seeing as he had so many partial seasons. In terms of his optimal offensive impact on any given game, he's below Coffey or Orr, but not very far below. I'd say in there with Leetch, Housley, Bourque, prime MacInnis... elite scoring defensemen. Problem is, he was only at optimal level for a short time due to accumulating injuries.

There's absolutely no way Doug Wilson was close to as good offensively as Leetch, Bourque, or MacInnis, even on a per game level. Phil Housley, sure.

The PPG shown above is before Leetch hit his prime. Leetch PPG for 1990-91 to 1996-97 is 1.03, quite a bit higher than the .90 shown on that table, and that is across a lower scoring era. The table itself has Bourque a clear above Wilson.

 

[tarheelhockey]

There's absolutely no way Doug Wilson was close to as good offensively as Leetch, Bourque, or MacInnis, even on a per game level. Phil Housley, sure.

The PPG shown above is before Leetch hit his prime. Leetch PPG for 1990-91 to 1996-97 is 1.03, quite a bit higher than the .90 shown on that table, and that is across a lower scoring era. The table itself has Bourque a clear above Wilson.

Bummer... I had a huge Wilson/Bourque/MacInnis/Leetch analysis typed up with charts showing each year's raw production, and adjusted production at the same ages, and it all got erased by an auto-logout.

Well. I guess the short version is: Wilson was hardly ever healthy. We can't just take a guy's PPG at face value when he's coming off shoulder or knee surgery, or playing with injuries bad enough to require those surgeries. Not only is there the immediate impact on his game, there's the cumulative effect over the years.

What I was trying to say originally was that at optimal production, Wilson was just about as elite of an offensive blueliner as it comes. You're right that Bourque was on a higher level, because Bourque was a better passer and picked up a lot more assists. As skaters and shooters, they were about equal. I think MacInnis is an excellent comparison, save for the obvious difference in longetivity and development.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Bummer... I had a huge Wilson/Bourque/MacInnis/Leetch analysis typed up with charts showing each year's raw production, and adjusted production at the same ages, and it all got erased by an auto-logout.

Well. I guess the short version is: Wilson was hardly ever healthy. We can't just take a guy's PPG at face value when he's coming off shoulder or knee surgery, or playing with injuries bad enough to require those surgeries. Not only is there the immediate impact on his game, there's the cumulative effect over the years.

What I was trying to say originally was that at optimal production, Wilson was just about as elite of an offensive blueliner as it comes. You're right that Bourque was on a higher level, because Bourque was a better passer and picked up a lot more assists. As skaters and shooters, they were about equal. I think MacInnis is an excellent comparison, save for the obvious difference in longetivity and development.

Ugh, I learned the hard way that if I'm going to make a complicated post to periodically copy the contents into Word so I don't lose it all if that happens.

I don't know, if we're going to pretend these guys were healthy for their whole careers, then does Serge Savard suddenly because a top 15 defenseman of all time? If Georges Boucher didn't injure his knee and kept his offensive production up for 5 more years, he'd probably be voted in already. This seems like a slippery slope to me.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I don't know, if we're going to pretend these guys were healthy for their whole careers, then does Serge Savard suddenly because a top 15 defenseman of all time? If Georges Boucher didn't injure his knee and kept his offensive production up for 5 more years, he'd probably be voted in already. This seems like a slippery slope to me.

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to put Wilson over Boucher purely on this basis. I plan to treat him the same way I did with Savard, which is to vote based on his accomplishments with a bit of extra credit for his lost potential. Or maybe you could say I put a lot of emphasis on the pre-injury peak. Either way.

Just want to be sure Wilson isn't written off as a "one Norris wonder" in the sense of being the Jose Theodore of defensemen. He clearly had multi-Norris capability under better circumstances.

 

[MXD]

Voted!

Comments

- Tarheel made me change my mind about Wilson, in a way that was enough to push him in the Top-10.

- Tom Johnson or Silvio Mantha -- also known as the "somewhat-forgotten-members-of-the-Canadiens-whose-better-asset-is-that-they-played-quite-for-a-long-time-compared-to-Siebert-and-Reardon" -- it's probably the toughest call here. I do think Babe Siebert is a bit below them though. Top-10, of course, but a notch below. Has the competition argument for him, but Shore was just getting old, and he falls in a somewhat common pattern of forwards-getting-postseason-praise in that era.

- I did have Lester Patrick over Harry Cameron but I can't give many other reasons for that than Patrick was just a better teammate and a more complete player than Cameron. For the record, both made my Top-5.

- Reading C1958 on Brewer nearly made me from Brewer from quite a few spots.

 

[MXD]

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to put Wilson over Boucher purely on this basis. I plan to treat him the same way I did with Savard, which is to vote based on his accomplishments with a bit of extra credit for his lost potential. Or maybe you could say I put a lot of emphasis on the pre-injury peak. Either way.

Just want to be sure Wilson isn't written off as a "one Norris wonder" in the sense of being the Jose Theodore of defensemen. He clearly had multi-Norris capability under better circumstances.

Actually, if a player garners lots of post-season attention inspite of injuries, that should indeed be a plus.

Anybody who saw a bit of Wilson know the guy wasn't a 1-year-wonder.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Voted!

Comments

- Tarheel made me change my mind about Wilson, in a way that was enough to push him in the Top-10.
- Tom Johnson or Silvio Mantha -- also known as the "somewhat-forgotten-members-of-the-Canadiens-whose-better-asset-is-that-they-played-quite-for-a-long-time-compared-to-Siebert-and-Reardon" -- it's probably the toughest call here. I do think Babe Siebert is a bit below them though. Top-10, of course, but a notch below. Has the competition argument for him, but Shore was just getting old, and he falls in a somewhat common pattern of forwards-getting-postseason-praise in that era.

- I did have Lester Patrick over Harry Cameron but I can't give many other reasons for that than Patrick was just a better teammate and a more complete player than Cameron. For the record, both made my Top-5.
.

Shore won the 2 Harts immediately before Siebert's Hart and the Hart immediately afterwards. Siebert is one of the guys who won his Hart during Shore's string of 4 Harts in 6 years:


1932–33 Eddie Shore

1933–34 Aurele Joliat

1934–35 Eddie Shore

1935-36 Eddie Shore

1936–37 Babe Siebert

1937–38 Eddie Shore

What you say is true about converted forwards getting a lot of Hart consideration in the late 30s, but Shore was defintely in his prime here.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Hard to tell but based on past rounds, guys that stack up well and don't get talked about much are pretty good bets for top 5.

Is this the case for Murphy or are other guys who also missed the same peak, but in lesser times competition wise going to get in before him?

 

[MXD]

Shore won the 2 Harts immediately before Siebert's Hart and the Hart immediately afterwards. Siebert is one of the guys who won his Hart during Shore's string of 4 Harts in 6 years:


1932–33 Eddie Shore

1933–34 Aurele Joliat

1934–35 Eddie Shore

1935-36 Eddie Shore

1936–37 Babe Siebert

1937–38 Eddie Shore

What you say is true about converted forwards getting a lot of Hart consideration in the late 30s, but Shore was defintely in his prime here.

Indeed, but let's not make it as if Siebert had, "fair and square", beaten Shore for the award either... I mean, Shore played only 20 games that season.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Thanks for the correction. Changed it to "he never played a best-on-best against Canada." It doesn't matter to me when he proved himself against the USSR which in term proved itself against Canada in the Summit Series, but for whatever reason it matters to some people.

I think the lack of comparison of the best on best would serve 2 purposes. One it would give us an idea on how his game might ahve fared against the NHL at the time, albeit in a small sample.

The 2nd thing is that the soviet example doesn't correlate to the NHL competition directly at the time for 2 specific reasons.

The Czechs played with much more importance and outright hatred against the Russians due to political circumstances and their specific performance against the Russians might have been a perfect storm experience.

Perhaps not but the question does make me pause for thought about Suchy.

Furthermore, while the rules might ahve changed about hitting in then offensive zone from the clip we saw their was little to no evidence of this happening between the Russians ans Czechs and where Suchy eluded 2 "attackers" their efforts were extremely weak to say the least.

All that being said while Suchy probably doesn't belong in my personal top 60 list he might make my top 10 as there are seom other weak candidates this round with equally troubling question marks against them IMO.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I think the lack of comparison of the best on best would serve 2 purposes. One it would give us an idea on how his game might ahve fared against the NHL at the time, albeit in a small sample.

The 2nd thing is that the soviet example doesn't correlate to the NHL competition directly at the time for 2 specific reasons.

The Czechs played with much more importance and outright hatred against the Russians due to political circumstances and their specific performance against the Russians might have been a perfect storm experience.

Perhaps not but the question does make me pause for thought about Suchy.

Furthermore, while the rules might ahve changed about hitting in then offensive zone from the clip we saw their was little to no evidence of this happening between the Russians ans Czechs and where Suchy eluded 2 "attackers" their efforts were extremely weak to say the least.

All that being said while Suchy probably doesn't belong in my personal top 60 list he might make my top 10 as there are seom other weak candidates this round with equally troubling question marks against them IMO.

You're putting an awful lot of stock into the fact that Suchy wasn't visibly creamed in the two extremely short clips that we have of his team scoring goals.

On another note, I still fail to see why the rule change is relevant when the Soviets who played under the old rules did just fine against Canada in 1972.

 

[Theokritos]

Originally Posted by Bob Pulford
"He could skate rings around Pierre Pilote -- backward."

Originally Posted by Pierre Pilote
...

What's that with the Wilson vs Pilote thing? I'm just asking because it's not the most obvious comparison (unlike, say, Harvey vs Potvin or Harvey vs Bourque). What prompted Pulford to compare Wilson (favourably) with Pilote? And then you have Pilote talking about Wilson. What's the context of the two quotes?

 

[MXD]

What's that with the Wilson vs Pilote thing? I'm just asking because it's not the most obvious comparison (unlike, say, Harvey vs Potvin or Harvey vs Bourque). What prompted Pulford to compare Wilson (favourably) with Pilote? And then you have Pilote talking about Wilson. What's the context of the two quotes?

My guess : Pilote is a Hawks legend and Pulford was Wilson's GM/coach at that point I guess. With the Hawks. And Pulford played against and with Pilote.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

What's that with the Wilson vs Pilote thing? I'm just asking because it's not the most obvious comparison (unlike, say, Harvey vs Potvin or Harvey vs Bourque). What prompted Pulford to compare Wilson (favourably) with Pilote? And then you have Pilote talking about Wilson. What's the context of the two quotes?

Pulford played against Pilote. He coached Wilson. Wilson & Pilote both played for Chicago.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

What's that with the Wilson vs Pilote thing? I'm just asking because it's not the most obvious comparison (unlike, say, Harvey vs Potvin or Harvey vs Bourque). What prompted Pulford to compare Wilson (favourably) with Pilote? And then you have Pilote talking about Wilson. What's the context of the two quotes?

I guess it's the Chicago connection. Pulford was Wilson's coach in Chicago and perhaps liked blowing smoke up his own player's ass.

Pilote, the old time Chicago defenseman was talking about a modern Chicago player. I put more credibility into what he says, especially since Wilson's shot was apparently his biggest asset. I would rather the quote come from someone outside the Blackhawks organization though.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Final preliminary arguments:

I think these two guys are must-adds this round:

Jan Suchy - I realize he never played a best-on-best against Canada, but any contemporary of Kharlamov and Mikhailov who is spoken of in the same breath as them by European observers should be on the list already. Right now, we only have 3 guys who peaked in Europe in our top 45 and only 1 who never played in the NHL at all. For a list that is supposed to represent all of hockey history, that seems a bit light. And if there is a case to be made that there are non-NHL Europeans left who are better (or even equal) to Suchy, I haven't seen it. Suchy and fellow Czech Pospisil have better records in the World Championships than any Soviet remaining, and Czechs seem to universally consider Suchy better.

Carl Brewer - Great peak and a key member of 3 Stanley Cups in a row - he was actually considered Toronto's #1 defenseman at the beginning of the 3 year run, a job that Tim Horton slowly took over. You can only imagine how much better his all-star record would be if he didn't lose 4 prime years due to a feud with his coach Punch Imlach. In modern times, he could have just asked for a trade and star for another team, and be done with it. At the height of the feud (before Brewer returned to the NHL), Imlach thought Brewer was one of the best two defensemen he had ever coached (along with Horton). Other defensemen Imlach coached included Allan Stanley and a past his prime but still very effective Marcel Pronovost.

I think these two guys should be added sooner, rather than later, and both have good cases for this round too:

Babe Siebert - Unlike Suchy, his non-peak years were spent largely at forward, but at this point, Siebert deserves to be added based off peak alone I think. The only remaining defenseman with 3 First Team All Stars, Siebert accomplished this against competition that included Eddie Shore, Earl Seibert, and Ebbie Goodfellow. He also has a Hart Trophy and a 3rd place finish. Considered one of of the strongest men of his era, Siebert also had great speed, though he had slowed by the time he became a permanent blueliner.

Georges Boucher - An offensive dynamo, Boucher was 1 point away from leading the NHL in points in 1923-24. Contemporaries didn't seem to think of him as highly as Eddie Gerard or Moose Johnson, which leads me to believe he was trading defense for offense (something he was able to do with one of the best defensive forwards of all time - Frank Nighbor - there to cover). Boucher was always a tough player and leader and should get extra credit for reinventing his game as a stay-at-home defensive defenseman after leg injuries took their toll. We are a little light on pre-consolidation guys (as shown by HO's graph), and Boucher seems like the best one left.

Edit: Others are encouraged to make posts like this too, of course.

I'm right with you on this one.

 

[Hardyvan123]

You're putting an awful lot of stock into the fact that Suchy wasn't visibly creamed in the two extremely short clips that we have of his team scoring goals.

On another note, I still fail to see why the rule change is relevant when the Soviets who played under the old rules did just fine against Canada in 1972.

I'm not sold that his elite status would ahve been elite against tougher checking, heck any checking. Maybe there was some going on in Europe at the time, i just haven't seen or heard of it and can't assume any different.

The correlation form the Czechs playing the Russians well to the Russians playing the NHL guys well(who obviously took the Soviets lightly and were without Orr and Hull) doesn't automatically correlate to Suchy doing well against the Canadians but I understand your point it could ahve gone either way.

My beef is that I'd rather have actual proof than assume certain things along with his short peak. It makes the evaluations a lot easier to do.

Like I said before it's pretty moot this round as this group of voters will rank him in the top 3, I'm pretty sure of it.

 

[overpass]

Hard to tell but based on past rounds, guys that stack up well and don't get talked about much are pretty good bets for top 5.

Is this the case for Murphy or are other guys who also missed the same peak, but in lesser times competition wise going to get in before him?

I'm still thinking about Murphy. I haven't been really high on him in some previous rounds because it just seems like he wasn't on the radar as a top defenceman for so much of his career. But at this point his longevity and consistency look really good, and his peak in Pittsburgh isn't too bad at all.

Boucher-Murphy is an interesting comparison. Both seem to have been great supporting pieces on great teams, ideally, playing with great centres and some other great defencemen. Both very skilled offensively, and both had skating issues. Boucher was faster when he was younger from the research I've seen. Maybe Murphy was too, but the Murphy I remember from Detroit and Toronto was slooowww.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Even in Pittsburgh, Murphy was blessed with loads of ice time sending outlet passes up to Mario Lemieux

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I'm not sold that his elite status would ahve been elite against tougher checking, heck any checking. Maybe there was some going on in Europe at the time, i just haven't seen or heard of it and can't assume any different.

The correlation form the Czechs playing the Russians well to the Russians playing the NHL guys well(who obviously took the Soviets lightly and were without Orr and Hull) doesn't automatically correlate to Suchy doing well against the Canadians but I understand your point it could ahve gone either way.

My beef is that I'd rather have actual proof than assume certain things along with his short peak. It makes the evaluations a lot easier to do.

Like I said before it's pretty moot this round as this group of voters will rank him in the top 3, I'm pretty sure of it.

Why make that assumption?

If Bobby Orr played in Europe instead of Canada, I guess you would have assumed he wouldn't be as elite against tough checking either.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Overpass, what are Murphy's R-on numbers at various stages in his career?

My impression of him was always as an excellent complimentary guy, but not somebody who could carry his team on his back. He usually played with Mario Lemieux in Pittsburgh in offensive situations (while Ulf took the more defensive situations) and in Detroit he obviously played with Lidstrom. His stint in Washington was really before my time. I'm wondering if his Pittsburgh and Deteoit numbers are better than the rest of his career.

Even during his peak in Pittsburgh, I thought of him as a guy who was solid but put up tons of points by giving the puck to Mario Lemieux and who probably got a bit too much awards consideration because of it.

 

[overpass]

Overpass, what are Murphy's R-on numbers at various stages in his career?

My impression of him was always as an excellent complimentary guy, but not somebody who could carry his team on his back. He usually played with Mario Lemieux in Pittsburgh in offensive situations (while Ulf took the more defensive situations) and in Detroit he obviously played with Lidstrom. His stint in Washington was really before my time. I'm wondering if his Pittsburgh and Deteoit numbers are better than the rest of his career.

Even during his peak in Pittsburgh, I thought of him as a guy who was solid but put up tons of points by giving the puck to Mario Lemieux and who probably got a bit too much awards consideration because of it.

Player | Start year | End year | GP | EV% | $ESGF/S | $ESGA/S | R-ON | R-OFF | $ESP | $PPP | PP% | TmPP+ | SH% | TmSH+
Larry Murphy | 1981 | 1983 | 236 | 36% | 77 | 72 | 1.07 | 0.90 | 33 | 26 | 65% | 1.02 | 35% | 1.20
Larry Murphy | 1984 | 1989 | 453 | 38% | 76 | 62 | 1.23 | 1.11 | 31 | 23 | 62% | 0.96 | 25% | 0.84
Larry Murphy | 1990 | 1991 | 152 | 38% | 69 | 75 | 0.99 | 0.97 | 29 | 26 | 76% | 1.04 | 11% | 1.04
Larry Murphy | 1992 | 1995 | 292 | 45% | 118 | 86 | 1.38 | 1.05 | 45 | 28 | 80% | 1.11 | 45% | 0.93
Larry Murphy | 1996 | 1997 | 163 | 36% | 74 | 69 | 1.08 | 0.79 | 26 | 33 | 82% | 1.05 | 23% | 1.04
Larry Murphy | 1998 | 2001 | 300 | 40% | 91 | 74 | 1.23 | 1.11 | 34 | 20 | 43% | 1.23 | 40% | 0.75

I've split this up roughly by when Murphy changed teams.

1980-81 to 1982-83: LA Kings.
1983-84 to 1988-89: Washington Capitals
1989-90 to 1990-91: Minnesota North Stars
1991-92 to 1995: Pittsburgh Penguins
1995-96 to 1996-97: Toronto Maple Leafs
1997-98 to 2000-01: Detroit Red Wings

Yes, his Pittsburgh numbers really stick out. His even-strength goals for and even strength points went through the roof. He also had a larger penalty killing role than he did on any other team.

But it wasn't entirely a Lemieux effect. Splitting up his Pittsburgh years into the first two years (when Lemieux was mostly playing) and the second two years (when Lemieux mostly wasn't playing.)

Player | Start year | End year | GP | EV% | $ESGF/S | $ESGA/S | R-ON | R-OFF | $ESP | $PPP | PP% | TmPP+ | SH% | TmSH+
Larry Murphy | 1992 | 1993 | 160 | 46% | 124 | 79 | 1.56 | 1.02 | 44 | 32 | 77% | 1.15 | 48% | 0.82
Larry Murphy | 1994 | 1995 | 132 | 44% | 113 | 92 | 1.23 | 1.09 | 46 | 24 | 82% | 1.08 | 43% | 1.07

His R-ON was definitely better in 92 and 93, but his even strength scoring numbers and ESGF were still up there in 94 and 95. Maybe that was the Jagr effect?

Also, here were Murphy's defensive partners over the years, using crude estimates from HSP data.

1981 and 1982: Dave Lewis, and a bit of Jay Wells.
1983: Insufficient data
1984: Rod Langway
1985 to 1987: Scott Stevens
1988 to 1993: No data.
1994 and 1995: Insufficient data
1996: Kenny Jonsson
1997: Insufficient data
1998 to 2001: Nicklas Lidstrom