Round 2, Vote 2 (HOH Top Defensemen)

[JaysCyYoung]

Really? You don't think Coffey's peak is as good as Potvin's? Coffey won two consecutive Norrises, finishing third in scoring in 85-86 with 138 points, behind Gretzky's best year at 215, and a 141-point effort from Mario Lemieux. He finished second behind Gretzky in 83-84. He finished top-five in scoring three times, with two more sixth-place finishes and a ninth-place finish. He was not a Scott Stevens or Adam Foote defensively but he wasn't going to cost your team the game. I bet Edmonton fans wished they still had Coffey when Steve Smith scored in 1989...

Absolutely not, and I am a person in the HOH section that thinks that Coffey's defensive shortcomings were somewhat exaggerated during his career. One can not simply compare an offensively-oriented defender such as Coffey, whose primary role during his career was to generate offence, with stalwarts such as Denis Potvin and Red Kelly, who managed to be proficient (even dominant) at both ends of the ice. Their peaks are higher largely because they were such formidable all-around defencemen. I'm open to the argument that Coffey's supreme skating ability, possibly only matched by Orr (and who certainly is only Coffey's equal in terms of pure offensive talent), led him to recover more quickly than other primarily offensive defenders, but he still doesn't approach the pursuit of defensive perfection like a Red Kelly or a Denis Potvin.

Two-way play is extremely important when looking at the context of history and the number of great players in this league. While Coffey's skill with the puck and at generating offence, especially with the man advantage, is unquestioned, there are enough concerns about his defensive miscues, and particularly his rather poor career finish upon leaving Detroit, that call into question his status when in a direct comparison against other all-time greats. I know that I had Coffey at number ten on my original list that I submitted to the committee, but looking back on the rankings I think it's clear that I had him somewhat too high if we're taking into account all aspects of his career at a defenceman. Eight scoring titles amongst defenders is something that not even Orr managed to accomplish (he had seven), so that's certainly a tremendous feather in Coffey's hat, but in terms of an overall game I think that Potvin was a more complete player and should be given credit for that.

The only thing preventing Coffey from ever seriously challenging for the Hart during his peak is the fact that he played with Gretzky; and he still finished as high as fourth. Which is almost as silly as Gretzky and Fuhr both being finalists in 1988. I do wonder how many writers actually put two players from the same team on one ballot for most valuable player.

Actually, the only thing preventing Coffey from ever seriously challenging for the Hart Trophy was the presence of Ray Bourque, who managed to capture 2 runner-up placements in the MVP vote (and is the defacto legitimate winner in 1990 if we are being completely honest) and two scoring titles amongst defencemen himself (while also being a top ten placement on nineteen total occasions). And Bourque was a much more well-rounded two-way performer than Coffey ever was, even in his heyday. Bourque virtually willed less-talented Boston teams to the Stanley Cup Finals in 1988 and 1990 (although the 1990 team was very talented Bourque was the undisputed on-ice general from start to finish that season) and was almost Coffey's peer in terms of offensive production. But when you add in his ability to play in all situations and be an incredibly dominant defensive player it is clear that Coffey was never going to be deemed the more valuable player between the two.

 

[overpass]

It seemed like Eddie Shore's PIM totals were an issue in the previous vote's discussion. Should Chris Chelios' high PIM totals also be counted as a negative?

 

[Pear Juice]

It seemed like Eddie Shore's PIM totals were an issue in the previous vote's discusion. Should Chris Chelios' high PIM totals be counted as a negative?

If one has an issue with Eddie Shore having high PIM totals, then surely that should be an issue in all other cases as well. Consistancy in reasoning is key in such an exercise as this.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

For me personally, I believe Potvin sits in the front seat for now. Fetisov and Kelly are the most likely to challenge him. Fetisov's time at CSKA Moscow is actually quite similar both in length, leadership and dominance to Potvin's time as a pinnacle defender (1974-1985) at the Isles.

Fetisov played much longer than Potvin past his prime. Him not being the same kind of player we saw during the 80s could be due to numerous factors. The afore-mentioned car accident, his move to the US, his fallout with Tikhonov, his breakup with longtime friend Alexei Kasatonov (which they still haven't resolved) and him missing his former line mates. Many difficult things hit Fetisov during a rather small time frame. Few players have had to cope with such massive changes during their careers.

----------------------------------------

Paul Coffey is probably the hardest pill to digest. Where in the world do I rank him? Such a massive, nearly unprecedented contribution on the offensive side, yet so many question marks regarding basically everything else. Physical play? Defensive awareness? Positional play? Leadership? Few people seem to describe him as bad defensively, but he's absolutely not a top defensive contributor. It'll take a well calibrated balance to figure out the curious case that is Paul Coffey.

-----------------------------------------

I have to agree with the above posters that Al MacInnis need some very well-presented arguments to make my top names from this round. I don't think he's that far off from the bottom end though.

Have to agree, Coffey is a tough case.

While he was playing I was one of those that described him as bad defensively. I think he improved once he got to Detroit. And because I got to watch him play in Hartford with obvious intent to force a trade, perhaps I'm a little biased. But as it stands now he'll be on the lower end of this list for me.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

It seemed like Eddie Shore's PIM totals were an issue in the previous vote's discussion. Should Chris Chelios' high PIM totals also be counted as a negative?

They are an issue, but:

1) Are there specific instances of Chelios hurting his team in the playoffs by taking penalties? He has a rep around here as a great playoff performer.

2) Chelio's high PIM totals are mitigated somewhat by the fact that he is one of just a handful of players to have a case as the best non-goalie penalty killer of all-time (or at least the modern era, when we have better special teams records). I'll post more on this later.

 

[overpass]

If one has an issue with Eddie Shore having high PIM totals, then surely that should be an issue in all other cases as well. Consistancy in reasoning is key in such an exercise as this.

Yes, if the only issue is the quantity of PIMs I would agree.

The "quality" of Chelios and Shore' PIMs is also a factor.

 

[Pear Juice]

Yes, if the only issue is the quantity of PIMs I would agree.

The "quality" of Chelios and Shore' PIMs is also a factor.

I have an issue with Shore playing a violent and reckless type of hockey. I believe that this issue also applies to Chelios. They both stepped over the line quite a number of times. It's not entirely (though mostly) about hurting your team for me, it's somewhat about sportsmanship aswell. Chelios could be a downright dirty player at times. I guess it's probably my chicken genes

 

[Canadiens1958]

Chris Chelios

It seemed like Eddie Shore's PIM totals were an issue in the previous vote's discussion. Should Chris Chelios' high PIM totals also be counted as a negative?

Most definitely but in context.

Chris Chelios saw his PIMs per game go from 1.75 in the regular season to 1.59 in the playoffs. Shore showed a significant opposite trend.

Eddie Shore played at a time when the playoff formats varied from total goals to various best of. Also different rules regarding coincidental penalties applied post 1984. Then you have to consider the impact of losing the #1 offensive dman of an era vs Chelios who was not the #1 offensive defensman of his era, often 2nd best offensively on his own team.

 

[reckoning]

There is one interesting statistic that may help show the worth of King Clancy: Ottawa's record the year before and the year after they sold him to Toronto.

Season|W|L|T|Pts|Pct|Rank
29-30|21|15|8|50| .568 |4th
30-31|10|30|4|24| .273 |9th

Now Ottawa had been slowly letting the stars from their glory days leave throughout the late-20s, but they were still able to stay respectable on the ice. However after losing Clancy the team totally fell apart. For the two seasons above, they had the same coach, same goalie and pretty much the same roster. The only major difference was that Clancy was gone.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I have an issue with Shore playing a violent and reckless type of hockey. I believe that this issue also applies to Chelios. They both stepped over the line quite a number of times. It's not entirely (though mostly) about hurting your team for me, it's somewhat about sportsmanship aswell. Chelios could be a downright dirty player at times. I guess it's probably my chicken genes

I always had the impression that hockey in Eddie Shore's era (and earlier) was quite a bit less sportsman-like than any other time.

 

[reckoning]

No Salming or other European at all added. So only 2 out of 15 highest on original long list were European.

Keep in mind that European hockey was substantially behind Canada up to the late-60s, so naturally there's going to be more Canadians on the list since there's over 50 more years of Canadian hockey to choose from.

There's really no argument for Salming being considered for the top 15. His career was roughly at the same time as Robinson and Potvin, and throughout those years they were clearly at a higher level than him.

 

[Canadiens1958]

IIHF Rule Changes in 1969

Keep in mind that European hockey was substantially behind Canada up to the late-60s, so naturally there's going to be more Canadians on the list since there's over 50 more years of Canadian hockey to choose from.

There's really no argument for Salming being considered for the top 15. His career was roughly at the same time as Robinson and Potvin, and throughout those years they were clearly at a higher level than him.

Applies to hockey in th USA as well. 1969 IIHF rule changes re checking and red line, detailed previously impacted on hockey development in the USA as much as it did in Europe. Europe started producing defensemen as did the USA - see Chelios and others. Just like European defensemen there are no pre 1969 USA defensemen up for consideration.

 

[overpass]

It's interesting that King Clancy was one year younger than Eddie Shore. But Clancy was the better player for the first part of their careers, in part because Shore started playing hockey relatively late.

Clancy was clearly the better player through 1926-27. He was top-10 in Hart voting with substantial votes (8th, 8th, 5th) from 1924-25 through 1926-27, while Shore was establishing himself in the Western league and then the NHL. Clancy outplayed Shore in the 1927 Stanley Cup final as Ottawa beat Boston.

Shore caught up to Clancy in 1927-28, as he finished 3rd in Hart voting, while Clancy was not in the top 6. A poll of ten NHL managers had 9 of 10 selecting Shore as the first team right defence for 1927-28, with Clancy finishing as the second team RD. The next season Shore was 3rd and Clancy was 5th in Hart voting, and in 1929-30 Clancy was 4th and Shore was not in the top 8. Hart voting alone is an imprecise measure so it's not clear who was better in these three seasons, although Shore appears to have the edge in the first two seasons. In any case they were both among the best in the league.

Starting in 1930-31, Shore was clearly better. While he just edged Clancy for 2nd in Hart voting, he led convincingly in All-star voting among defencemen. He finished well ahead of Clancy in awards voting in all subsequent seasons, with the exception of 1933-34 when the Ace Bailey incident derailed Shore's season. Clancy ended up retiring at the age of 33 due to ineffective play, but he had played 15 seasons after starting in the NHL at age 18. Shore retired at age 37 to pursue his interests as a team owner, although he was still NHL calibre.

Here's a record of a late-career Clancy-Shore interaction.

Lewiston Daily Sun, Nov 24, 1936:

Clancy probably won the Stanley Cup semi-final series against Boston last season by talking the blustering Eddie Shore into a penalty. Shore had been assessed a minor penalty—two minutes in the red stall—and was on his way out of the game when Clancy skated up to him. “Eddie,” sympathized Clancy, “the referee gave you a bum rap on that one. You don’t deserve a penalty at all.”

Shore blew up. He shot the puck at the referee, who plastered a. 10-minute misconduct penalty on the Bruin star. That’s just what the scheming Clancy wanted. With Shore absent, the Maple Leafs turned the tide, won the game and the serles.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Observation: how Park would have fared in Norris voting without Orr

As many of you know, Brad Park was runner-up for the Norris trophy six times (four times to Orr, twice to Potvin). It's important to consider the number of available votes that Park earned, relative to other Norris finalists. If Park was just barely finishing in second place, then perhaps Tremblay, White, etc, would have beat him in an Orr-free world.

Norris trophy finalists, 1970-1974

1970 (max 180): Orr 180, Park 58, Brewer 22
1971 (max 210): Orr 208, Park 57, Tremblay 35
1972 (max 210): Orr 204, Park 117, White 25
1973 (max 240): Orr 224, Lapointe 58, Park & White tied at 36
1974 (max 240): Orr 236, Park 98, White 44

We all know that Orr dominated the voting by enormous margins, but Park was also far ahead of everyone else. In three of the years he finished second to Orr (1970, 1972, 1974), Park earned more than twice as many Norris trophy votes as anyone else!

Total Norris votes, 1970-1974, adjusted to max 240 votes per year

Maximum possible for any one player - 1,200
Bobby Orr - 1,171
Brad Park - 410
Bill White - 119
Guy Lapointe - 66
Jacques Laperriere - 52
JC Tremblay - 49
Pat Stapleton - 46
Carl Brewer - 29
Serge Savard - 23
Jim Neilson - 22

Over this five year stretch, Park was very far ahead of every defenseman aside from Orr in Norris voting. It's unreasonable to suggest that if Orr didn't exist, the voters would suddenly start massively shifting around their votes. Thus, I'm comfortable saying that had he not had the misfortune of facing off against Orr, Park likely would have won four Norris trophies (and finished runner-up in 1976 and 1978, and third in 1971*).

That being said, before we put Park ahead of Chelios and Robinson, it's worth noting that Park's prime competition for the Norris (White, Lapointe, Laperriere) is below average by historical standards. This argument was used against Lidstrom in the previous round so, to be consistent, we need to take it into account in evaluating Park here.

* I'm not sure why, but Park finished 2nd in Norris voting but 3rd in year-end all-star voting. My understanding is that the same sportswriters vote for the Norris and all-star teams so I don't know why their opinions would be inconsistent. To be conservative let's assume he finished 3rd this year.

Fun fact about Park: he finished top five in playoff scoring during the 1970s, which is extremely impressive given that he's 1) a defenseman and 2) never played on a Stanley Cup winning team.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'm fairly confident in saying that but for Bobby Orr, Brad Park would have 4 Norrises... and they'd be 4 of the weakest Norrises of all-time, with MUCH weaker competition than Lidstrom faced on average.

Compare to Chelios who actually did beat out prime Ray Bourque (and Al MacInnis and Paul Coffey) for 3 Norrises, the first two in convincing fashion. Here are the years when Chelios finished top 5 in Norris voting - talk about competition!

1988-89: Chris Chelios, Mtl 226 (37-12-5); Paul Coffey, Pit 115 (14-14-3); Al MacInnis, Cgy 57 (3-10-12); Ray Bourque, Bos 56 (3-8-17); Steve Duchesne, LA 30 (2-5-5)

1990-91: Ray Bourque 257 (35-27-1); Al MacInnis 228 (27-28-9); Chris Chelios 56 (2-9-19); Brian Leetch 30 (2-0-20); Paul Coffey 8 (0-0-8)

1992-93: Chris Chelios 201 (33-10-6); Ray Bourque 97 (6-19-10); Larry Murphy 93 (9-11-15); Kevin Hatcher 17 (0-5-2); Phil Housley 16 (1-2-5)

1994-95: Paul Coffey 69 (12-3-0); Chris Chelios 39 (2-9-2); Ray Bourque 20 (1-1-12); Larry Murphy 7 (0-2-3) (weird voting with the lockout)

1995-96: Chris Chelios 408 (22-19-9-3-1); Ray Bourque 403 (23-16-8-7-0); Brian Leetch 245 (6-6-23-7-7); Vladimir Konstantinov 131 (2-6-7-10-4); Paul Coffey 83 (0-4-2-12-9)

1996-97: Brian Leetch 494 (42-8-3-1-0); Vladimir Konstantinov 178 (2-10-13-6-5); Sandis Ozolinsh 176 (2-12-9-8-3); Chris Chelios 172 (0-7-18-9-6); Scott Stevens 171 (7-8-4-7-4)

2001-02: Nicklas Lidstrom, Det 472 (29-20-7-2-1); Chris Chelios, Det 431 (28-10-13-4-4); Rob Blake, Col 321 (4-19-22-12-2); Sergei Gonchar, Was 147 (0-6-6-22-9); Chris Pronger, StL 62 (0-4-1-8-5)

Note also that Chelios, as a defense-first defenseman (especially in later years) was at a disadvantage, as postexpansion voters often look to stats first.

 

[overpass]

Regular season adjusted stats for post-1967 defencemen​

Career Stats

Player | Start | End | GP | EV% | R-ON | R-OFF | $ESP/S | $PPP/S | PP% | TmPP+ | SH% | TmSH+
Brad Park | 1969 | 1985 | 1115 | 42% | 1.40 | 1.20 | 36 | 32 | 80% | 1.16 | 43% | 0.84
Larry Robinson | 1973 | 1992 | 1384 | 43% | 1.60 | 1.34 | 35 | 19 | 49% | 1.14 | 45% | 0.85
Denis Potvin | 1974 | 1988 | 1060 | 43% | 1.49 | 1.23 | 40 | 41 | 86% | 1.18 | 53% | 0.82
Paul Coffey | 1981 | 2001 | 1409 | 43% | 1.23 | 1.21 | 46 | 35 | 78% | 1.13 | 28% | 0.82
Al MacInnis | 1982 | 2004 | 1416 | 38% | 1.41 | 1.12 | 32 | 42 | 86% | 1.18 | 39% | 0.93
Chris Chelios | 1984 | 2010 | 1651 | 39% | 1.27 | 1.18 | 27 | 20 | 52% | 1.02 | 57% | 0.85
Vyacheslav Fetisov | 1990 | 1998 | 546 | 33% | 1.33 | 1.21 | 28 | 8 | 27% | 1.03 | 27% | 0.92

Prime Stats

Player | Start (Prime) | End (Prime) | GP | EV% | R-ON | R-OFF | $ESP/S | $PPP/S | PP% | TmPP+ | SH% | TmSH+
Brad Park | 1970 | 1978 | 613 | 47% | 1.53 | 1.26 | 46 | 35 | 84% | 1.23 | 49% | 0.82
Larry Robinson | 1977 | 1986 | 731 | 48% | 1.66 | 1.35 | 40 | 28 | 66% | 1.20 | 58% | 0.83
Denis Potvin | 1976 | 1984 | 623 | 44% | 1.65 | 1.41 | 44 | 47 | 95% | 1.36 | 56% | 0.74
Paul Coffey | 1982 | 1987 | 458 | 45% | 1.47 | 1.39 | 60 | 38 | 83% | 1.19 | 34% | 0.69
Al MacInnis | 1989 | 2003 | 1043 | 41% | 1.42 | 1.11 | 34 | 42 | 88% | 1.20 | 43% | 0.92
Chris Chelios | 1988 | 1998 | 803 | 44% | 1.33 | 1.21 | 30 | 30 | 79% | 0.99 | 61% | 0.86

Stats Glossary
EV%: The percentage of the team’s even-strength goals the player was on the ice for, on a per-game basis.

R-ON: The team’s GF/GA ratio while the player is on the ice at even strength.

R-OFF: The team’s GF/GA ratio while the player is off the ice at even strength.

$ESP/S: Even strength points per season, adjusted to a 200 ESG per team-season scoring level.

$PPP/S: Power play points per season, adjusted to a 70 PPG per team-season scoring level and a league-average number of power play opportunities.

PP%: The percentage of the team’s power play goals for which the player was on the ice.

TmPP+: The strength of the player’s team on the power play. 1.00 is average, higher is better.

SH%: The percentage of the team’s power play goals against for which the player was on the ice.

TmSH+: The strength of the player’s team on the penalty kill. 1.00 is average, lower is better.


What does it all mean?

Now that some of the great all-around defencemen are out of the way, some of the candidates start to show some weaknesses. I have recycled some sentences below for the repeat candidates, but also changed some because they are being compared to difference players.

A note on the team-based stats - the lack of parity in the 1970s NHL made it easier to put up high numbers in these stats.

Brad Park was very good at everything. I think he was probably a notch below the best on the power play (Coffey, MacInnis, Potvin from this group), and probably a notch below the best penalty killers (Chelios, Robinson, Potvin from this group). And maybe Larry Robinson was better at even strength. Park was an all-rounder.

Denis Potvin was a great defenceman in all aspects of the game, and the numbers bear that out. Now that he's no longer being compared to Orr, Lidstrom, and Bourque, he`s probably the most well-rounded defenceman left. He's a contender for the best power play player left, along with MacInnis and Coffey. (Hard to say about Clancy and Kelly, both were great offensive defenceman as well.) He played a major role on some excellent penalty kills, similar to Chelios and Robinson. And his even strength numbers are excellent as well.

Larry Robinson had outstanding even-strength numbers first and foremost. His career +720 is excellent no matter how much you adjust it for team strength, and his even strength scoring was comparable to Potvin and Park. His career special teams numbers are a bit lower because he started off on a loaded Habs team and played until he was the oldest player in the league. Looking at just his prime numbers, his PK numbers are up there with the rest of the group, but he was a step down on the power play.

Paul Coffey was an offensive defenceman, in the positive and negative sense. His even strength point totals were through the roof. So were his even strength goals against totals. He was a great power play quarterback (although not a clear #2 overall, as he was for overall blueline scoring.) On the penalty kill, he was a contributor and a shorthanded threat, but not a defensive mainstay.

Al MacInnis was an incredible power play weapon first and foremost. Arguably top-5 ever among all players in that aspect of the game. He has some gaudy plus-minus numbers as well, but notice that those came in a smaller role (as measured by EV%) than the rest of the d-men here. MacInnis probably saw his plus-minus boosted by playing in fewer shutdown matchup situations and in more offensive zone situations, compared to most other d-men here. His penalty killing numbers show that his defensive play was fine but not a strength when compared to the other players listed here. MacInnis also had great longevity, with two of the best age 35+ seasons ever in 98-99 and 02-03.

Chris Chelios was an outstanding defensive defenceman for an extremely long time, who also brought some pretty good offence in his prime. May have had the most defensive role of anyone here in terms of tough matchups and faceoff locations, which would hurt his plus-minus. He was as good as any d-man listed here on the penalty kill, maybe the best.

Vyacheslav Fetisov is included here for the sake of completeness, but it's clear he was past his prime in the NHL.

 

[overpass]

My earlier post mentioned Paul Coffey's high goals against. Here are some numbers to quantify that.

Leading defencemen in even strength points, 1981-82 through 1986-87

Paul Coffey | GP | ESP | ESGF | ESGA | ESP/G | ESGF/G | ESGA/G
Paul Coffey | 458 | 388 | 812 | 551 | 0.85 | 1.77 | 1.20
Ray Bourque | 433 | 269 | 593 | 382 | 0.62 | 1.37 | 0.88
Doug Wilson | 442 | 233 | 554 | 471 | 0.53 | 1.25 | 1.07
Mark Howe | 442 | 225 | 603 | 364 | 0.51 | 1.36 | 0.82
Larry Murphy | 471 | 220 | 514 | 441 | 0.47 | 1.09 | 0.94
Reed Larson | 461 | 217 | 558 | 593 | 0.47 | 1.21 | 1.29
Denis Potvin | 416 | 210 | 533 | 349 | 0.50 | 1.28 | 0.84
Reijo Ruotsalainen | 405 | 197 | 442 | 353 | 0.49 | 1.09 | 0.87
Larry Robinson | 440 | 195 | 620 | 442 | 0.44 | 1.41 | 1.00
Phil Housley | 382 | 186 | 369 | 336 | 0.49 | 0.97 | 0.88

ESP = even strength points, ESGF = even strength goals for, ESGF = even strength goals against, /G = per game.

Coffey scored even strength points at a rate 40% higher than Ray Bourque, and 70% higher than the next best d-men in this area (Wilson, Howe, Potvin, etc).

Coffey's ESGF were about 30% higher than Robinson, Bourque, Howe, Potvin. But his ESGA were about 40% higher than Howe, Bourque, and Potvin.

It appears that a lot of Coffey's scoring came by trading defence for offence.

Note: This is regular season only. It's possible that Coffey tightened up his defensive game in the playoffs - the Oilers as a team generally lowered their shots against by a fair bit in the playoffs.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Doug Harvey and the Canadiens saw a favourable 8 and 2 swing between regular season and playoffs. Basic issue is that during the eras applicable time frames the Red Wings were upset by the third place team three times plus every year in the playoffs they had a HHOF goalie while the third place team did not.

What happened to the defense and what was Kelly's role?

Let's slow down a bit here.

You are going to focus on his non Stanley cups years and not the whole picture of his career as he happen to be part of 7 Stanley Cups were he was a key competent of those 7 Cups.

Now I'm fully aware that teams win Cups and not individual players but it does matter a bit more for top tier players, of which Red Kelly was.

Kelly played more games and was 6th in points and was maybe a close 2nd (after Harvey) to defensive impact during his career in the playoffs.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points

Where were you when Shore's 2 cups came up?

 

[Hardyvan123]

My earlier post mentioned Paul Coffey's high goals against. Here are some numbers to quantify that.

Leading defencemen in even strength points, 1981-82 through 1986-87

Paul Coffey | GP | ESP | ESGF | ESGA | ESP/G | ESGF/G | ESGA/G
Paul Coffey | 458 | 388 | 812 | 551 | 0.85 | 1.77 | 1.20
Ray Bourque | 433 | 269 | 593 | 382 | 0.62 | 1.37 | 0.88
Doug Wilson | 442 | 233 | 554 | 471 | 0.53 | 1.25 | 1.07
Mark Howe | 442 | 225 | 603 | 364 | 0.51 | 1.36 | 0.82
Larry Murphy | 471 | 220 | 514 | 441 | 0.47 | 1.09 | 0.94
Reed Larson | 461 | 217 | 558 | 593 | 0.47 | 1.21 | 1.29
Denis Potvin | 416 | 210 | 533 | 349 | 0.50 | 1.28 | 0.84
Reijo Ruotsalainen | 405 | 197 | 442 | 353 | 0.49 | 1.09 | 0.87
Larry Robinson | 440 | 195 | 620 | 442 | 0.44 | 1.41 | 1.00
Phil Housley | 382 | 186 | 369 | 336 | 0.49 | 0.97 | 0.88

ESP = even strength points, ESGF = even strength goals for, ESGF = even strength goals against, /G = per game.

Coffey scored even strength points at a rate 40% higher than Ray Bourque, and 70% higher than the next best d-men in this area (Wilson, Howe, Potvin, etc).

Coffey's ESGF were about 30% higher than Robinson, Bourque, Howe, Potvin. But his ESGA were about 40% higher than Howe, Bourque, and Potvin.

It appears that a lot of Coffey's scoring came by trading defence for offence.

Note: This is regular season only. It's possible that Coffey tightened up his defensive game in the playoffs - the Oilers as a team generally lowered their shots against by a fair bit in the playoffs.

Coffey's plus/minus numbers outside of 84 and 85 (I don't have any plus/minus stats before 84 playoffs) is a minus 5 and it's not like he was seeing the other teams best offensive players in those situations either.

TDMM asked an interesting question earlier on how we would treat Coffey if he was a one dimensional forward.

To me the fact is that he played defense and that's how I'm judging him in this project,although that might be an unfair way to look at it but there is no way to predict how Coffey's career would have gone if he actually had played as a forward.

 

[Hardyvan123]

It seemed like Eddie Shore's PIM totals were an issue in the previous vote's discussion. Should Chris Chelios' high PIM totals also be counted as a negative?

I personally think that the PIM of players should be such a small point as to be almost non existent.

Along with those PIM's of Chelios and Potvin came a reputation that there was a price to be paid while those two players were on the ice and we can't accurately measure how much of an impact this had on other forwards who played against Chelios and Potvin but anyone watching these 2 players knows that certain players shy away from the heavy traffic that these 2 guys created.

The PIM's and reputation of Pronger, Derian Hatcher and Stevens also are examples of this in the clutch and grab era.

Shore is probably the best example of players that I haven't seen but once again that's very hard to judge.

 

[Hardyvan123]

They are an issue, but:

1) Are there specific instances of Chelios hurting his team in the playoffs by taking penalties? He has a rep around here as a great playoff performer.

2) Chelio's high PIM totals are mitigated somewhat by the fact that he is one of just a handful of players to have a case as the best non-goalie penalty killer of all-time (or at least the modern era, when we have better special teams records). I'll post more on this later.

I think that if one wants to present an argument that high PIM's of any player is a negative,they would have to do a breakdown of each penalty and the time and circumstances that it occurred in the game. For instance a 2-5-10 coincidental at the end of the game (with the score not in doubt) doesn't mean anything really.

Personally I think the balance between deterring offensive players with physical play can be offset by any PIM argument in respect to Chelios.

 

[MXD]

Is there somebody that could come up with the yearly average PIMs, or even more, the yearly average PIMs by TOI

Something tells me that Chelios PIM's numbers aren't that terrible except for 5 or 6 years, and that his PIMs to TOIs numbers are far from completely shoddy?

(of course, the same can be said for Shore, but Shore had other things going against him...)

Is there also a way of breaking down the PIMs, in a less painful way than simply looking at the game recaps?

 

[Hardyvan123]

There is one interesting statistic that may help show the worth of King Clancy: Ottawa's record the year before and the year after they sold him to Toronto.

Season|W|L|T|Pts|Pct|Rank
29-30|21|15|8|50| .568 |4th
30-31|10|30|4|24| .273 |9th

Now Ottawa had been slowly letting the stars from their glory days leave throughout the late-20s, but they were still able to stay respectable on the ice. However after losing Clancy the team totally fell apart. For the two seasons above, they had the same coach, same goalie and pretty much the same roster. The only major difference was that Clancy was gone.

I haven't looked, perhaps I should and will, but how did the team fare in 29?

Also it's not outside of the realm of possibility that Ottawa was going to have a "down" year even if Clancy had stayed there.

There is some variance and luck involved although C1958 will disagree and perhaps maybe it was coaching or management?

with a quick glance it appears that Clancy was the primary factor on the differences although there are other indicators as well and it must be noted that on smaller playing rosters a single player has more "impact" than in later years with larger rosters.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Regular season adjusted stats for post-1967 defencemen​

Career Stats

Player | Start | End | GP | EV% | R-ON | R-OFF | $ESP/S | $PPP/S | PP% | TmPP+ | SH% | TmSH+
Brad Park | 1969 | 1985 | 1115 | 42% | 1.40 | 1.20 | 36 | 32 | 80% | 1.16 | 43% | 0.84
Larry Robinson | 1973 | 1992 | 1384 | 43% | 1.60 | 1.34 | 35 | 19 | 49% | 1.14 | 45% | 0.85
Denis Potvin | 1974 | 1988 | 1060 | 43% | 1.49 | 1.23 | 40 | 41 | 86% | 1.18 | 53% | 0.82
Paul Coffey | 1981 | 2001 | 1409 | 43% | 1.23 | 1.21 | 46 | 35 | 78% | 1.13 | 28% | 0.82
Al MacInnis | 1982 | 2004 | 1416 | 38% | 1.41 | 1.12 | 32 | 42 | 86% | 1.18 | 39% | 0.93
Chris Chelios | 1984 | 2010 | 1651 | 39% | 1.27 | 1.18 | 27 | 20 | 52% | 1.02 | 57% | 0.85
Vyacheslav Fetisov | 1990 | 1998 | 546 | 33% | 1.33 | 1.21 | 28 | 8 | 27% | 1.03 | 27% | 0.92

Prime Stats

Player | Start (Prime) | End (Prime) | GP | EV% | R-ON | R-OFF | $ESP/S | $PPP/S | PP% | TmPP+ | SH% | TmSH+
Brad Park | 1970 | 1978 | 613 | 47% | 1.53 | 1.26 | 46 | 35 | 84% | 1.23 | 49% | 0.82
Larry Robinson | 1977 | 1986 | 731 | 48% | 1.66 | 1.35 | 40 | 28 | 66% | 1.20 | 58% | 0.83
Denis Potvin | 1976 | 1984 | 623 | 44% | 1.65 | 1.41 | 44 | 47 | 95% | 1.36 | 56% | 0.74
Paul Coffey | 1982 | 1987 | 458 | 45% | 1.47 | 1.39 | 60 | 38 | 83% | 1.19 | 34% | 0.69
Al MacInnis | 1989 | 2003 | 1043 | 41% | 1.42 | 1.11 | 34 | 42 | 88% | 1.20 | 43% | 0.92
Chris Chelios | 1988 | 1998 | 803 | 44% | 1.33 | 1.21 | 30 | 30 | 79% | 0.99 | 61% | 0.86

Stats Glossary
EV%: The percentage of the team’s even-strength goals the player was on the ice for, on a per-game basis.

R-ON: The team’s GF/GA ratio while the player is on the ice at even strength.

R-OFF: The team’s GF/GA ratio while the player is off the ice at even strength.

$ESP/S: Even strength points per season, adjusted to a 200 ESG per team-season scoring level.

$PPP/S: Power play points per season, adjusted to a 70 PPG per team-season scoring level and a league-average number of power play opportunities.

PP%: The percentage of the team’s power play goals for which the player was on the ice.

TmPP+: The strength of the player’s team on the power play. 1.00 is average, higher is better.

SH%: The percentage of the team’s power play goals against for which the player was on the ice.

TmSH+: The strength of the player’s team on the penalty kill. 1.00 is average, lower is better.


What does it all mean?

Now that some of the great all-around defencemen are out of the way, some of the candidates start to show some weaknesses. I have recycled some sentences below for the repeat candidates, but also changed some because they are being compared to difference players.

A note on the team-based stats - the lack of parity in the 1970s NHL made it easier to put up high numbers in these stats.

Brad Park was very good at everything. I think he was probably a notch below the best on the power play (Coffey, MacInnis, Potvin from this group), and probably a notch below the best penalty killers (Chelios, Robinson, Potvin from this group). And maybe Larry Robinson was better at even strength. Park was an all-rounder.

Denis Potvin was a great defenceman in all aspects of the game, and the numbers bear that out. Now that he's no longer being compared to Orr, Lidstrom, and Bourque, he`s probably the most well-rounded defenceman left. He's a contender for the best power play player left, along with MacInnis and Coffey. (Hard to say about Clancy and Kelly, both were great offensive defenceman as well.) He played a major role on some excellent penalty kills, similar to Chelios and Robinson. And his even strength numbers are excellent as well.

Larry Robinson had outstanding even-strength numbers first and foremost. His career +720 is excellent no matter how much you adjust it for team strength, and his even strength scoring was comparable to Potvin and Park. His career special teams numbers are a bit lower because he started off on a loaded Habs team and played until he was the oldest player in the league. Looking at just his prime numbers, his PK numbers are up there with the rest of the group, but he was a step down on the power play.

Paul Coffey was an offensive defenceman, in the positive and negative sense. His even strength point totals were through the roof. So were his even strength goals against totals. He was a great power play quarterback (although not a clear #2 overall, as he was for overall blueline scoring.) On the penalty kill, he was a contributor and a shorthanded threat, but not a defensive mainstay.

Al MacInnis was an incredible power play weapon first and foremost. Arguably top-5 ever among all players in that aspect of the game. He has some gaudy plus-minus numbers as well, but notice that those came in a smaller role (as measured by EV%) than the rest of the d-men here. MacInnis probably saw his plus-minus boosted by playing in fewer shutdown matchup situations and in more offensive zone situations, compared to most other d-men here. His penalty killing numbers show that his defensive play was fine but not a strength when compared to the other players listed here. MacInnis also had great longevity, with two of the best age 35+ seasons ever in 98-99 and 02-03.

Chris Chelios was an outstanding defensive defenceman for an extremely long time, who also brought some pretty good offence in his prime. May have had the most defensive role of anyone here in terms of tough matchups and faceoff locations, which would hurt his plus-minus. He was as good as any d-man listed here on the penalty kill, maybe the best.

Vyacheslav Fetisov is included here for the sake of completeness, but it's clear he was past his prime in the NHL.

I know that it would be a lot of work but it would be very interesting to see Fetisov on a table with others aged 31-39?

Like I stated before his NHL numbers are really troubling and I know that there are other issues like the death in the family in 85.

I ran this, and I know that point shares aren't teh ebst tool but it gives a reference point and Fetisov came in 20th overall and 14th defensively.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...t&c3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=ps

 

[Canadiens1958]

Red Kelly

Let's slow down a bit here.

You are going to focus on his non Stanley cups years and not the whole picture of his career as he happen to be part of 7 Stanley Cups were he was a key competent of those 7 Cups.

Now I'm fully aware that teams win Cups and not individual players but it does matter a bit more for top tier players, of which Red Kelly was.

Kelly played more games and was 6th in points and was maybe a close 2nd (after Harvey) to defensive impact during his career in the playoffs.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points

Where were you when Shore's 2 cups came up?

Red Kelly was part of 8 SC wins, not 7. 4 with Detroit and 4 with Toronto.

Every season that he played in the NHL the team issue favoured him as he played in front of a HHOF quality goaltender and very responsible defensive forwards a short list would be Delvecchio, Pavelich, Skov with Detroit plus Keon, Armstrong, Pulford with Toronto.

No other player has played in front of such quality goaltenders for so long. Yet the pattern described previously continued with Toronto, producing a 4-4 split.

Unlike Harvey's situation where there was a clear link to injuries and/or suspensions this is not the case for Kelly. 1961 was the only playoff year that his team was impacted by injuries going in - Armstrong and Bower.