Round 2, Vote 11 (HOH Top Defensemen)

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Before we begin, just a recap on how Round 2 will operate:

Round 2

• The top ranked players from the aggregate list will be posted in a thread
• Players will be listed in alphabetical order to avoid creating bias
• Voters will rank their top 10 of the available defensemen
• Final results will be posted and the top 5 vote getters will be added to the final list in order.
• The process will be repeated for the next 5 places with remaining players until a list of 60 players is obtained

These might be tweaked to allow longer or shorter debating periods depending on how the process moves along.

Additionally, there are a couple guidelines we'd ask that everyone agree to abide by:

• Please try to stay on-topic in the thread
• Please remember that this is a debate on opinions and there is no right or wrong. Please try to avoid words like "stupid" "dumb" "wrong" "sophistry" etc. when debating.
• Please treat other debaters with respect
• Please don't be a wallflower. All eligible voters are VERY HIGHLY encouraged to be active participants in the debate.
• Please maintain an open mind. The purpose of the debate is to convince others that your views are more valid. If nobody is willing to accept their opinions as flexible there really is no point in debating.

Eliglible Voters (23):
BiLLYShOE1721; Canadiens1958; chaosrevolver; DaveG; Dennis Bonvie; Der Kaiser; Dreakmur; Epsilon; Hardyvan123; Hawkey Town 18; Hockey Outsider; intylerwetrust; JaysCyYoung; McNuts; MXD; overpass; pappyline; reckoning; seventieslord; TheDevilMadeMe; tarheelhockey; tony D; VanIslander

All posters are encouraged to participate in the debates and discussions, but only those listed above will be eligible for the final votes.

Click to read more...

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Vote 11 will begin now. Votes must be submitted between 6PM EST on Saturday 2/4/12 and 6PM on Monday 2/6/12. Votes received outside this time frame will not be accepted unless you make prior arrangements with me via PM. Voting will run until the deadline or until all voters have sent their vote in, whichever comes first. THESE DEADLINES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE SO PLEASE READ THROUGH THE ENTIRE THREAD.

Please PM me your votes during the above timeframe.

PLEASE NOTE THAT YOU WILL VOTE FOR YOUR TOP 10 OUT OF THE POOL OF ELIGIBLE PLAYERS.

Vote 11 will be for places 51 through 55 on the Top 60 list.

Here are the candidates, listed alphabetically:

Harry Cameron
Art Coulter
Fern Flaman
Harry Howell
Tom Johnson
Vladimir Konstantinov
Sylvio Mantha
Lester Patrick
Harvey Pulford
Alexander Ragulin
Ken Reardon
Allan Stanley
Pat Stapleton
Doug Wilson
Sergei Zubov

Please note that you are voting for your top 10 of the 15 available candidates.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

I believe Konstantinov is the first guy to come up that didn't even make my top 80. As always I will listen to and consider all arguments made, but it's highly likely he won't be in my Top 10.

 

[MXD]

I had Coulter 78 and Konstantinov out.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Norris/All Star voting records:

Parenthesis indicated range of consideration. Note that when Norris votes aren't available, I'm using all-star votes indicated by italics. Harvey Pulford, Lester Patrick, and Alexander Ragulin never played in the NHL and are not included. Harry Cameron retired from the NHL in 1923, before the Hart Trophy was awarded, so he is not included.


Sylvio Mantha (1929-1934): 2nd*, 3rd, 4th, 7th
*2nd in Hart voting among dmen in 1929
(Note that we don't have much beyond the top 2-4 Hart getters from 1923-1930).

Art Coulter (1935-1942): 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 7th, 7th, 9th, 9th

Ken Reardon (1946-1950): 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 4th

Tom Johnson (1954-1962): 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th, 11th
Fern Flaman (1955-1959): 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 5th, 5th
Allan Stanley (1956-1968): 2nd, 3rd, 7th, 8th, 8th, 8th, 10th, 12th*
Harry Howell (1956-1968): 1st, 5th, 6th, 6th, 9th, 9th, 10th

Pat Stapleton (1966-1972): 3rd, 4th, 4th, 7th, 10th (plus 1st, 3/4 in the WHA)**

Doug Wilson (1982-1990): 1st, 3rd, 4th, 4th, 8th

Sergei Zubov (1994, 2000-2007): 3rd, 4th, 8th, 8th, 9th, 9th

Vladimir Konstantinov (1996-1997): 2nd, 4th***

*Stanley actually finished 3rd in All Star voting when he was 7th in Norris voting. It his very unusual for the difference to be that high. He was a 2nd Team All Star 3 times.

**Stapleton jumped to the WHA, where he won the Dennis A Murphy Trophy for best defenseman and was a 1st Team All Star and 2nd Team All Star once each.

***Konstantinov only received Norris votes during two seasons. In 1997, 2nd-5th were only seperated by a few points well behind 1st place Leetch; Vlad finished 2nd in Norris voting, but was a 2nd Team All Star. In 1996, he was 4th in Norris voting but barely missed out on being a 2nd Team All Star. He was also Soviet League All Star in 1990 and 1991.

Obsevations:

• We have quite the battle of Original 6 defensemen going on!
• Ken Reardon is another unique player. Had two unspectacular seasons in 1941 and 1942, left to fight the war for 3 seasons, then returned and was immediately an all-star. 5 straight seasons as an all-star after he retured, then retired immediately.
• Fern Flaman has a very impressive 5 year run, but got no consideration outside that run.
• Tom Johnson won his Norris for stepping up the season his teammate, Doug Harvey, was injured and playing less effectively than usual.
• Sergei Zubov had a spectacular offensive season in 1993-94 - he finished 4th in Norris voting but missed out on being a second team All Star. His defense was very poor at this point and his teammate Brian Leetch (who Zubov outscored) was a 2nd Team All Star. Zubov regularly got a handful of All Star votes again starting in 2000 and had the best season of his career in 2006.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Preliminary thoughts on the new candidates:

Art Coulter is a strong candidate to make my top 5. He was a 2nd Team All Star 4 times against fairly strong competition. He actually finished ahead of Earl Seibert in All Star voting 3 years in a row. He was a great leader and great defensive defenseman and was the cornerstone around which the NY Rangers were built after Frank Boucher, Bill Cook, and Ching Johnson retired. He was probably the best player on the Rangers during their celebrated Cup victory in 1940.

Harvey Pulford is an interesting candidate. The defensive backbone of the Ottawa Silver 7 dynasty before World War 1. Unlike Hod Stuart, he was never in the conversation for the best player in the world and may never have been the best player on his team. But he has amazing longevity for the era and was a key contributer to a dynasty. One of the 12 original inductees into the Hockey Hall of Fame.

Pat Stapleton is a pretty meh candidate for me. Definitely a top 80 defenseman, but is he top 60? Once more offensively oriented half of the Stapleton-White pairing That excelled for Chicago in the early 70s.

Vladimir Konstantov has the worst NHL career of any player available yet. At this point, Duncan Keith has to have had a better NHL career, right? On the other hand, he was a Soviet 1st Team All Star in 1990 and 1991, but over who? Fetisov and Kasatonov left after 1989. I think Konstantinov's status here relies on how we evaluate his Soviet League career before he came over.

Sergei Zubov is the farthest one yet from my top 60. An offensive defenseman who played his entire career during an era where Norris and All Star voting favors offensive defensemen, and he manages just a single 2nd Team All Star nod? He's better than Housley and Gonchar, but I just can't see him making our list over someone like Doug Wilson, and I'm not even sure Wilson is getting in this round.

 

[MXD]

Pat Stapleton is a pretty meh candidate for me. Definitely a top 80 defenseman, but is he top 60?

.

If I'm not too bad at maths, Stapleton was somewhere between 61st an 65th.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Norris/All Star voting records:

Parenthesis indicated range of consideration. Note that when Norris votes aren't available, I'm using all-star votes indicated by italics. Harvey Pulford, Lester Patrick, and Alexander Ragulin, and Jan Suchy never played in the NHL and are not included. Harry Cameron retired from the NHL in 1923, before the Hart Trophy was awarded, so he is not included.


Sylvio Mantha (1929-1934): 2nd*, 3rd, 4th, 7th
*2nd in Hart voting among dmen in 1929
(Note that we don't have much beyond the top 2-4 Hart getters from 1923-1930).

Art Coulter (1935-1942): 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 7th, 7th, 9th, 9th

Ken Reardon (1946-1950): 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 4th

Tom Johnson (1954-1962): 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th, 11th
Fern Flaman (1955-1959): 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 5th, 5th
Allan Stanley (1956-1968): 2nd, 3rd, 7th, 8th, 8th, 8th, 10th, 12th*
Harry Howell (1956-1968): 1st, 5th, 6th, 6th, 9th, 9th, 10th

Pat Stapleton (1966-1972): 3rd, 4th, 4th, 7th, 10th

Doug Wilson (1982-1990): 1st, 3rd, 4th, 4th, 8th

Sergei Zubov (1994, 2000-2007): 3rd, 4th, 8th, 8th, 9th, 9th

Vladimir Konstantinov (1996-1997): 2nd, 4th**

Most Top 2s:
2. Ken Reardon
1. Sylvio Mantha, Tom Johnson, Allan Stanley, Harry Howell, Doug Wilson, Vladimir Konstantinov
0. Art Coulter, Fern Flaman, Pat Stapleton, Sergei Zubov

Most Top 3s:
4. Art Coulter, Ken Reardon
3. Fern Flaman
2. Sylvio Mantha, Allan Stanley, Doug Wilson
1. Tom Johnson, Harry Howell, Pat Stapleton, Sergei Zubov, Vladimir Konstantinov

Most Top 5s:
5. Ken Reardon, Fern Flaman
4. Art Coulter, Doug Wilson
3. Sylvio Mantha*, Tom Johnson, Pat Stapleton
2. Allan Stanley, Harry Howell, Sergei Zubov, Vladimir Konstantinov

Most Placements (sometimes with only a few votes)
8. Art Coulter, Allan Stanley
7. Harry Howell
6. Tom Johnson, Sergei Zubov
5. Ken Reardon, Fern Flaman, Doug Wilson, Pat Stapleton
4. Sylvio Mantha*
3. NONE
2. Vladimir Konstantinov

*Only have top 2-4 Hart voting among defensemen for the first half of his career

 

[Hardyvan123]

Preliminary thoughts on the new candidates:

Art Coulter is a strong candidate to make my top 5. He was a 2nd Team All Star 4 times against fairly strong competition. He actually finished ahead of Earl Seibert in All Star voting 3 years in a row. He was a great leader and great defensive defenseman and was the cornerstone around which the NY Rangers were built after Frank Boucher, Bill Cook, and Ching Johnson retired. He was probably the best player on the Rangers during their celebrated Cup victory in 1940.

Harvey Pulford is an interesting candidate. The defensive backbone of the Ottawa Silver 7 dynasty before World War 1. Unlike Hod Stuart, he was never in the conversation for the best player in the world and may never have been the best player on his team. But he has amazing longevity for the era and was a key contributer to a dynasty. One of the 12 original inductees into the Hockey Hall of Fame.

Pat Stapleton is a pretty meh candidate for me. Definitely a top 80 defenseman, but is he top 60?

Vladimir Konstantov has the worst NHL career of any player available yet. At this point, Duncan Keith has to have had a better NHL career, right? On the other hand, he was a Soviet 1st Team All Star in 1990 and 1991, but over who? Fetisov and Kasatonov left after 1989. I think Konstantinov's status here relies on how we evaluate his Soviet League career before he came over.

Sergei Zubov is the farthest one yet from my top 60. An offensive defenseman who played his entire career during an era where Norris and All Star voting favors offensive defensemen, and he manages just a single 2nd Team All Star nod? He's better than Housley and Gonchar, but I just can't see him making our list over someone like Doug Wilson, and I'm not even sure Wilson is getting in this round.

I don't think that Konstantinov's actual ability and what he did on the ice was all that much different from Reardon's, one happened to play in a weaker era than the other guy and both guys had really short careers.

Zubov is another guy who might be overlooked but hockey analytic s had him as the best Dman in the NHL in 2003 I believe, I will have to pull out the article on it.

still a couple of Norris winners missing and another guy who scored like crazy and wasn't much defensively but is going to be a serious omission considering some of the guy we have in this round and the last.

Some guys are going to be in my top 10 only because the other 5 have really weak cases.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I don't think that Konstantinov's actual ability and what he did on the ice was all that much different from Reardon's, one happened to play in a weaker era than the other guy and both guys had really short careers.

Reardon had 5 elite NHL seasons, Konstantinov had 2! It's an enormous difference if you care about career value. And I know you don't take Konstantinov's 2 All Star nods in the Soviet league seriously, right?

Zubov is another guy who might be overlooked but hockey analytics had him as the best Dman in the NHL in 2003 I believe, I will have to pull out the article on it.

I find that very hard to believe, especially considering his own teammate Derian Hatcher was a Norris finalist in 2003 and Zubov wasn't even close. I remember Zubov was talked about as a serious Norris candidate through the first half of 2006, but then he got injured and Lidstrom and Niedermayer pulled away.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Reardon had 5 elite NHL seasons, Konstantinov had 2! It's an enormous difference if you care about career value. And I know you don't take Konstantinov's 2 All Star nods in the Soviet league seriously, right?



I find that very hard to believe, especially considering his own teammate Derian Hatcher was a Norris finalist in 2003 and Zubov wasn't even close. I remember Zubov was talked about as a serious Norris candidate through the first half of 2006, but then he got injured and Lidstrom and Niedermayer pulled away.

you are right i had the year wrong although in 03 he was a top 4 Dman in Alan Ryder eyes and the top guy by quite a bit in 2006, in fact he writes

My most valuable skater was defenseman Sergei Zubov of the Dallas Stars.

the link can be found here and he does an extensive statistical analysis covering basically every factor that can be measured and has unfortunately only from 2003 onwards but people should really check it out IMO.

http://hockeyanalytics.com/2007/03/2006-nhl-review/

As for Reardon, the term that he was an elite player for 5 seasons just doesn't fit IMO. He was an all star for 5 straight seasons on a team that won 1 Stanley cup. His eliteness wasn't what we would refer to as elite now as in Ray Bourque or Lidstrom elite, somebody had to be on those all star teams didn't they?

I had him in my top 10 last round but once again it was basically only because I found more guys that were available that were worse.

No doubt that he will get inducted this round for a couple of dubious reasons, all star counting and getting his era represented, but does a guy with 341 regular season games and 31 playoff games really belong in our top 60?

If they were bobby Orr type of impact 341 games it would be one thing but he wasn't.

Maybe some guys consider him elite in his missed years but we should really look at the level of competition IMO.

That he is almost a lock for getting in this round and Doug Wilson will no doubt be looking outside again is a question we are going to need an answer for and I can't provide one that makes a lot of sense on the surface of things.

As for Reardon and Konstantinov being pretty similar IMO, it's not that I think the world of Vald but I just don't get the love for Reardon and I doubt that many voters here ever saw him play or are in a real position to verify his "elite" status in a Canadian only league.

I get that the 06 was alot stronger in the alter stages in the 60's but it was really weak in the late 40's

 

[plusandminus]

Still no McCrimmon. Looking at points scored, and all-star nominations, it may be understandable. Looking at +/- (I think he's like 4th all-time among defencemen), team impact and longevity he might deserve to be in the discussion.
Konstantinov was great, but McCrimmon reached a similar peak and lasted for more seasons (I know Konstantinov unfortunately passed away early).

 

[VanIslander]

Harvey Pulford is an interesting candidate. The defensive backbone of the Ottawa Silver 7 dynasty before World War 1. Unlike Hod Stuart, he was never in the conversation for the best player in the world and may never have been the best player on his team. But he has amazing longevity for the era and was a key contributer to a dynasty. One of the 12 original inductees into the Hockey Hall of Fame.

Possibly the greatest defensive defenseman the game has ever seen!

1. According to a newspaper account of the time, he was the defensive star of the first ever Stanley Cup playoff match in a 2-1 loss.

2. He was 3rd in games played for the 1890s (an impressive stat in itself given the dynasty years were years after that.

3. He was the point of the Silver Seven dynasty. He was the defensive defenseman on ice all game as they did back then, front and center in trophy pictures alongside Alf Smith, mentioned often in accounts of the time for his strength and reliability.

4. He was one of the original twelve HHOF inductees, not a big deal, but significant enough, given how some had to wait until later. He was inducted years before Lester Patrick, Graham Drinkwater, Dit Clapper, Moose Johnson, etc.

5. How strong was he? He was a fullback on Ottawa's championship teams in 1898, 1899, 1900 and 1902 (all before the hockey dynasty years) and as the captain of the Rough Riders! He also won four lacrosse titles to show his eye-hand coordination skills. He won two Eastern Canada boxing titles in 1896 and 1898. As a rower, he also won national and U.S. championships. The guy was a monster physically. Here he is, one of the two alpha males, sitting next to Alf Smith in the middle of the front row. The Silver Seven were known for their rough, vicious play. They were the original Broadstreet Bullies.

6. He is more significant than a Tom Johnson or Doug Wilson. I love the Russians but Konstantinov and Ragulin are minor league compared to Pulford in terms of playing for and against the best in an important role.

 

[seventieslord]

Reardon, Patrick, Ragulin and Pulford are locks for me this round. Konstantinov and Zubov are locks not to make it.

Beyond that....

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I still don't have any frame of reference for Pulford. With Hod Stuart, we had all the contemporary reports indicating that he was a candidate for best player in the world. We had all those all-time all-star teams that listed Hod Stuart.

We just don't have that for Pulford. As far as I know, the only objective frame of reference we have is that he was an original inductee into the HHOF:

1945

Donald H. (Dan) Bain
Hobart Amery Hare (Hobey) Baker
Russell (Dubbie) Bowie
Charles Robert (Chuck) Gardiner
Edward George (Eddie) Gerard
Francis (Frank) McGee
Howard William (Howie) Morenz
Thomas N. (Tommy) Phillips
Harvey Pulford
Arthur Howey (Art) Ross
William H. (Hod) Stuart
Georges Vezina

I'm not saying he shouldn't be added this round, but I'm still not convinced that he should be.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Reardon, Patrick, Ragulin and Pulford are locks for me this round. Konstantinov and Zubov are locks not to make it.

Beyond that....

Reardon sure, at this point his all star record is too much to ignore, though I'm still not sure it puts him over Art Coulter or Tom Johnson for me.

Why should Patrick be ranked over Cameron? I'm not saying he shouldn't be, I just want to hear an argument as to why he should be.

Ragulin? I still think he's at best the third best non-NHL Euro not yet on our list (behind 70s Czech Frantisek Pospisil and 70s Soviet Vladimir Lutchenko). Actually, I'm still not entirely sure he's better than late 60s/early 70s Swede Lennart Svedberg. So it's tough for me to vote for him this round, though I'm open to more direct comparisons between him and guys available now.

Already talked about Pulford, I have a really difficult time placing him. Is he just a much more historically significant Derian Hatcher? I don't know. (Hatcher was actually on my top 80 list, though not in the top 60). I'd like to make room for him in the Top 60 though.

Agree with Zubov and Konstantinov. I can't see the case to rank them with Doug Wilson, and Doug Wilson is very borderline for this round.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Earlier, Hardyvan linked to Iain Fyffe's blog called The Meritorious Players of the 1910s

Iain created a formula that tries to estimate a player's HHOF worth based on a statistical look at his career. It attempt to give credit to both offense and defense.

I noticed that Harvey Pulford was ranked very highly by this formula and asked Iain the following:

I might be missing something, but is there a place where you "showed your work" when coming up with these numbers? I'm just trying to reconcile the fact that every first hand account that I've read from the era seems to think of Hod Stuart more highly than Harvey Pulford, yet Pulford ranks quite a bit higher here. How much of that is due to the fact that Pulford simply played a lot longer?

This is his response:

I haven't show every detail of these calculations, no. There's too much to be detailed in a few blog posts. Now, as to how much of this rating comes from Pulford's longer career, that I can detail.

Stuart's career lasted from his age-19 season to his age-27 season. If we take Pulford's numbers from the equivalent seasons in his career, his rating would be 88.6, still higher than Stuart's 82.0 but obviously much closer. This 6.6-point gap shrinks to 3.8 if you take penalties out of the equation. Descriptions of a player's play often fail to consider the cost to his team of the penalties he takes, and we have Stuart taking more recorded penalties than Pulford, so that's an advantage to the Ottawa point man that is not typically considered.

To reconcile the contemporary reports of Stuart, we have to remember how the system works. Although Stuart is known as the best defenceman of his time, there is only so much fudging we can do in the system in his favour. The fact is that he did play for a very bad team in Quebec. His two years in Quebec was for a team with a combined record of 5-11. The system notes that cover-point is possibly the most important position on the ice, and if Stuart were *that* good, surely his team wouldn't have been 1-7 in 1901.

Pulford, on the other hand, spent most of his career playing the second-most important defensive position on a defensively-dominant team, while contributing next to nothing on offence. This leads to big defensive numbers for him. You don't spend that many years starting for a top-class team without scoring anything unless you bring some serious defence to the game.

Stuart was certainly a more *noticeable* player than Pulford, and it's quite possible that the system still undervalues great players on bad teams (such as Stuart in Quebec). There's only so much that can reasonably be done to make the numbers fit the perceptions. But there always remains the possibility that perceptions were a little off, as well.

If you look at the results of the 1900 and 1901 Ottawas, we see a team that increased its marginal goal percentage from .632 to .782. In the off-season they lost Hod and his brother Bruce, and winger Henry Nolan. Replacing them were Rat Westwick, Art Sixsmith and Peg Duval (at cover-point). Pulford was one of the several returnees. Although Hod was still fairly young at this time, the team lost two Hall of Famers (including Hod) and gained back only one, yet improved by .150.

In summary, a player's contemporary reputation does enter into the system - that's where the fudge factors come from. But there's only so much you can reasonably do, since you have to start with the team results. A player like Stuart will never be shown to be a bad or merely middling player by the system, but he won't necessarily turn out to be the absolute best either. On the other hand, Pulford's advantage, without considering longevity, is certainly small enough such that Stuart could easily be on top if the system were more precise.

 

[Sturminator]

Nothing against Pulford, but that is a house of cards if I've ever seen one.

 

[seventieslord]

Reardon sure, at this point his all star record is too much to ignore, though I'm still not sure it puts him over Art Coulter or Tom Johnson for me.

It does for me. How much further back can we realistically place the guy behind three direct contemporaries who all also had five postseason all-star teams?

Why should Patrick be ranked over Cameron? I'm not saying he shouldn't be, I just want to hear an argument as to why he should be.

- Patrick’s very solid all-star record at least helps to serve as evidence that he was more of an all-around player. Cameron seemed to be less highly regarded than players he outscored pretty handily.
- Intangibles are a huge plus for Patrick and a huge minus for Cameron. Opinions will vary on how important that is, of course.
- What Patrick was able to do at age 42 looks great for him.
- 15 years separated their HHOF inductions.
- Both have significant time at forward that I think adds to their resume, and Patrick’s is much more impressive (key cog for a dynasty as opposed to decent mercenary in the WCHL)

I think Cameron might still make my top-5 this round too, though.

Ragulin? I still think he's at best the third best non-NHL Euro not yet on our list (behind 70s Czech Frantisek Pospisil and 70s Soviet Vladimir Lutchenko). Actually, I'm still not entirely sure he's better than late 60s/early 70s Swede Lennart Svedberg. So it's tough for me to vote for him this round, though I'm open to more direct comparisons between him and guys available now.

Well, Pospisil should be up for voting by now, but we can’t control that. Why are you so sure about Lutchenko?

Already talked about Pulford, I have a really difficult time placing him. Is he just a much more historically significant Derian Hatcher? I don't know. (Hatcher was actually on my top 80 list, though not in the top 60). I'd like to make room for him in the Top 60 though.

Absolutely. He was the backbone of a dynasty. Actually, Iain’s paragraph sums it up best. The team had an excellent defensive record and there he was, every year, playing the 2nd-most important role.

 

[seventieslord]

Nothing against Pulford, but that is a house of cards if I've ever seen one.

When there were just 7 men on the ice for the entire game, it made it much easier to attribute defensive results to specific players, certainly easier than any other time in history, even today when more detailed stats are available. I realize there is some fudge factor involved in what he does, but at least it incorporates the contemporary opinions of the players. The amount of research Iain has done into this era of hockey is stunning, and I wouldn’t dismiss the case for Pulford so easily.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

It does for me. How much further back can we realistically place the guy behind three direct contemporaries who all also had five postseason all-star teams?

Don't get me wrong, Reardon is definitely in my top 5 this round (I had him over Larry Murphy who got in last time). The concerns are not just his short career, but the lack of any meaningful playoff record (which is why I'd consider Coulter over him, not sure if I would go that far to actually rank Coulter over him though).

- Patrick’s very solid all-star record at least helps to serve as evidence that he was more of an all-around player. Cameron seemed to be less highly regarded than players he outscored pretty handily.
- Intangibles are a huge plus for Patrick and a huge minus for Cameron. Opinions will vary on how important that is, of course.
- What Patrick was able to do at age 42 looks great for him.
- 15 years separated their HHOF inductions.
- Both have significant time at forward that I think adds to their resume, and Patrick’s is much more impressive (key cog for a dynasty as opposed to decent mercenary in the WCHL)

I think Cameron might still make my top-5 this round too, though.

I don't know how useful it is to compare Lester's All Star record to Cameron, who played in a league that didn't have All Star Teams. Also, isn't it a bit concerning that Lester's brother Frank would sometimes beat him out for PCHA All Star Teams?

The rest of what you say is a really compelling case, however.

Well, Pospisil should be up for voting by now, but we can’t control that. Why are you so sure about Lutchenko?

I guess I'm not sure about Lutchenko. He was a regular Soviet League All Star in the mid-late 70s when they were much stronger than in the 60s-early 70s. Case of the best Soviet defenseman of the late 60s-early 70s (Ragulin) vs the 2nd best (to Vasiliev) of the mid-late 70s when they were stronger. Which one performed better against Canada and Czechslovakia?

I do agree with your larger point that if we should compare Ragulin to the other guys available here; not guys not yet available.

 

[seventieslord]

I don't know how useful it is to compare Lester's All Star record to Cameron, who played in a league that didn't have All Star Teams. Also, isn't it a bit concerning that Lester's brother Frank would sometimes beat him out for PCHA All Star Teams?

that was only in 1912 and 1914. In those seasons Frank outscored Lester 23-10 and 20-10 so it's not surprising that he would be the all-star defenseman over Lester. Also, Frank was a great player (with the lack of GP being the biggest HHOF hurdle for him) and the gap between these two on a per-game or per-season level is certainly not so great that Frank shouldn't have been better in a couple of seasons or that it would look bad for Lester if that happened.

and yeah, I know Cameron's leagues had no all-star teams. I guess what I'm saying is, that makes him less of a sure thing.

I guess I'm not sure about Lutchenko. He was a regular Soviet League All Star in the mid-late 70s when they were much stronger than in the 60s-early 70s. Case of the best Soviet defenseman of the late 60s-early 70s (Ragulin) vs the 2nd best (to Vasiliev) of the mid-late 70s when they were stronger. Which one performed better against Canada and Czechslovakia?

those are my thoughts too. The best of 61-72 versus the 2nd-best of 71-77.

The level of competition is important but so is the degree of dominance. It appears, based on domestic and international all-star teams that Ragulin was much more dominant in his time than Lutchenko was in his. Does the difference in the levels of competition tip the scales in favour of Lutchenko? These two were born just 8 years apart.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Alexander Ragulin

Would love to see the case for him. Other than the love affair with the Big Russian Bear personna we have to look at talent.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Lutchenko

that was only in 1912 and 1914. In those seasons Frank outscored Lester 23-10 and 20-10 so it's not surprising that he would be the all-star defenseman over Lester. Also, Frank was a great player (with the lack of GP being the biggest HHOF hurdle for him) and the gap between these two on a per-game or per-season level is certainly not so great that Frank shouldn't have been better in a couple of seasons or that it would look bad for Lester if that happened.

and yeah, I know Cameron's leagues had no all-star teams. I guess what I'm saying is, that makes him less of a sure thing.



those are my thoughts too. The best of 61-72 versus the 2nd-best of 71-77.

The level of competition is important but so is the degree of dominance. It appears, based on domestic and international all-star teams that Ragulin was much more dominant in his time than Lutchenko was in his. Does the difference in the levels of competition tip the scales in favour of Lutchenko? These two were born just 8 years apart.

Vladimir Lutchenko played against elite NHL players and held his own.

Problem with Alexander Ragulin is that he was able to dominate the Soviet league and show reasonably well against 1960's international competition BUT when he played against the Junior Canadiens with minor pros including Doug Harvey in 1964 and 1965 against Jacques Plante with CHL pros he was not impressive.He would have graded out 3-4 amongst the Soviet dmen. Basically looking at the 4-5 dman types who managed to hang around for parts of a season in the late O6 era because the team needed size.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Reardon had 5 elite NHL seasons, Konstantinov had 2! It's an enormous difference if you care about career value. And I know you don't take Konstantinov's 2 All Star nods in the Soviet league seriously, right?



I find that very hard to believe, especially considering his own teammate Derian Hatcher was a Norris finalist in 2003 and Zubov wasn't even close. I remember Zubov was talked about as a serious Norris candidate through the first half of 2006, but then he got injured and Lidstrom and Niedermayer pulled away.

For what its worth, in Konstantinov's 6 seasons with Detroit he had a better +/- than Lidstrom in both the regular season and playoffs.