Round 2, Vote 2 (HOH Top Defensemen)

[overpass]

Original Six defencemen situational scoring

I posted the numbers for Kelly last round. These does not include his great 49/50, 50/51, and 51/52 seasons, because the Hockey Summary Project is not complete for those seasons. Numbers below are taken from Hockey Summary Project boxscore data.

Top-scoring Defencemen, 52/53 to 59/60

Player | GP | G | A | P | ESG | ESA | ESP | PPG | PPA | PPP | ESP/70 | PPP/70 | P/70
Red Kelly | 470 | 110 | 195 | 305 | 67 | 121 | 188 | 35 | 67 | 102 | 28 | 15 | 45
Doug Harvey | 534 | 49 | 249 | 298 | 31 | 115 | 146 | 18 | 132 | 150 | 19 | 20 | 39
Bill Gadsby | 548 | 66 | 232 | 298 | 39 | 133 | 172 | 23 | 92 | 115 | 22 | 15 | 38
Marcel Pronovost | 533 | 54 | 132 | 186 | 44 | 106 | 150 | 6 | 21 | 27 | 20 | 4 | 24
Allan Stanley | 466 | 42 | 137 | 179 | 31 | 77 | 108 | 10 | 50 | 60 | 16 | 9 | 27
Tim Horton | 501 | 34 | 140 | 174 | 30 | 108 | 138 | 3 | 25 | 28 | 19 | 4 | 24
Tom Johnson | 544 | 40 | 127 | 167 | 28 | 95 | 123 | 10 | 29 | 39 | 16 | 5 | 21
Fern Flaman | 524 | 18 | 124 | 142 | 14 | 113 | 127 | 3 | 8 | 11 | 17 | 1 | 19

As noted previously, Kelly recorded more points at even strength and fewer points on the power play than his contemporary Doug Harvey.

Top-scoring Defencemen, 57/58 to 66/67

Player | GP | G | A | P | ESG | ESA | ESP | PPG | PPA | PPP | ESP/70 | PPP/70 | P/70
Pierre Pilote | 657 | 70 | 346 | 416 | 37 | 220 | 257 | 31 | 119 | 150 | 27 | 16 | 44
Bill Gadsby | 670 | 55 | 221 | 276 | 38 | 142 | 180 | 14 | 73 | 87 | 19 | 9 | 29
Tim Horton | 588 | 71 | 202 | 273 | 54 | 154 | 208 | 14 | 38 | 52 | 25 | 6 | 33
Allan Stanley | 638 | 52 | 196 | 248 | 39 | 147 | 186 | 11 | 36 | 47 | 20 | 5 | 27
Harry Howell | 691 | 56 | 173 | 229 | 50 | 119 | 169 | 5 | 49 | 54 | 17 | 5 | 23
Jean-Guy Talbot | 663 | 35 | 181 | 216 | 29 | 146 | 175 | 2 | 31 | 33 | 18 | 3 | 23

Pilote was the most skilled and productive offensive defenceman of the 1960s. In fact, he was almost the only offensive defenceman of the 1960s. His power play role and production was a long way ahead of any other blueliner of his time.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Would it be fair to say Pilote was an influence on the rushing defensemen of the Orr era? Or simply building on what others had done before?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Pierre Pilote II

Would it be fair to say Pilote was an influence on the rushing defensemen of the Orr era? Or simply building on what others had done before?

Pierre Pilote was a puck moving defenseman. Hawks used Mikita and Bobby Hull to rush. Pilote was very good on the point during the PP.

 

[Dreakmur]

Red Kelly: 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 6th (would have 3 more 1sts and some more high finishes if the Norris existed his whole career)

Before the Norris was introduced, Kelly received 4th, 1st, 1st, and 1st in All-Star voting among defensemen. Asside from winning a Norris, he was 2nd, 2nd, and 3rd in voting.

His overall voting, if the Norris existed his whole career, would look like this:
1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 4th (all between 1950 and 1957)

 

[overpass]

Was Denis Potvin elite at both ends of the ice at the same time?

In the last ATD, Sturminator (who watched Potvin play quite a bit as a fan of hockey in the NYC area in the 70s) claimed that he was not:



(emphasis mine)

Questions:

1) Do any of the older posters find merit in what Sturm said? Basically, that Potvin was elite offensively and good defensively in late 70s, and good offensively and elite defensively in the early 80s, but not elite at the same time.

2) Overpass, is there any statistical breakdown that might shed light on the first and second half of Potvin's career?

Good question. I think it's likely that Potvin peaked earlier offensively than he did defensively.

It's hard to prove this kind of question statistically...but that's never stopped me before, so here goes. A glossary of the acronyms and stats I'm using is linked here, but I'll try to provide enough commentary so it's easy to follow.

For this analysis, I'll take Potvin's 1979-80-season as a turning point. He missed a large part of the season with a thumb injury, which may have affected his game in the following seasons. This season was the first in which the Islanderd won the Stanley Cup, so he may have changed his game and/or the team changed his role. There's also an important statistical change after that season, which I'll get to later.

Leaving Potvin's injury-shortened 1979-80 season out of it, I'll compare his four season stretch from 75/76 to 78/79 with his four season stretch from 80/81 to 83/84.

First, it's clear that Potvin's offensive peak came during the late 1970s. You can see that from his hockey card stats. Here's a table that shows the same thing.

Player | Seasons | $ESP/70 | $PPP/70
Denis Potvin | 1976-79 | 50 | 55
Denis Potvin | 1981-84 | 36 | 40

Potvin's offensive totals dropped off both at even strength and on the power play in the early 1980s, when compared to his peak offensive years in the late 1970s.

Player | Seasons | PP% | TmPP+
Denis Potvin | 1976-79 | 98% | 1.49
Denis Potvin | 1981-84 | 91% | 1.26

The New York Islanders had an all-time great power play in the late 1970s, which ran at up to 30%, and scored at a rate 49% higher than league-average. Potvin put up huge power play numbers during this time. During the dynasty years, the power play numbers for Potvin and the rest of the team came back to Earth a bit.

Player | Seasons | EV% | $ESGF/70 | $ESGA/70 | R-ON | R-OFF
Denis Potvin | 1976-79 | 48% | 110 | 66 | 1.66 | 1.53
Denis Potvin | 1981-84 | 40% | 94 | 57 | 1.65 | 1.30

Looking specifically at Potvin's even strength numbers, it's clear that something changed around 1980. His role decreased significantly, going from being on the ice for 48% of ES goals in the 70s to being on the ice for 40% of ES goals in the 80s. Both his on-ice GF and GA declined. (And this stat is adjusted for % of games played, so it's not because he played fewer games.)This could reflect either decreased ice time or a more defensive style of play, or a combination of the two.

Year | Potvin EV%
1976 | 45%
1977 | 51%
1978 | 48%
1979 | 46%
1980 | 51%
1981 | 40%
1982 | 39%
1983 | 39%
1984 | 40%

Looking at Potvin's decline in the EV% stat by year, it was a sharp decrease around 1980, not a gradual decline.

How much did league-wide changes in strategy have to do with this? The NHL was transitioning from 5 regular defencemen to 6 regular defencemen per team around this time.

76-79 Player | EV% | 81-84 Player | EV%
Ian Turnbull | 52% | Dave Babych | 48%
Larry Robinson | 48% | Willie Huber | 47%
Brad Park | 48% | Reed Larson | 46%
Denis Potvin | 48% | Brian Engblom | 46%
Borje Salming | 48% | Larry Robinson | 45%
Dave Burrows | 48% | Borje Salming | 44%
Guy Lapointe | 46% | Randy Carlyle | 43%
Barry Gibbs | 46% | Rod Langway | 43%
Serge Savard | 46% | Rob Ramage | 42%
Phil Russell | 45% | Phil Russell | 42%
Jerry Korab | 44% | Paul Coffey | 42%
Gary Sargent | 44% | Greg Smith | 41%
Bob Murdoch | 44% | Craig Hartsburg | 41%
Bill Hajt | 44% | Gordie Roberts | 41%
Carol Vadnais | 43% | Barry Back | 41%
Ron Stackhouse | 43% | Mario Marois | 40%
Ron Greschner | 42% | Ray Bourque | 40%
Mike Christie | 42% | Paul Reinhart | 40%
Bob Dailey | 41% | Denis Potvin | 40%
Dennis Kearns | 41% | Doug Wilson | 40%

The above table compares the top 20 defencemen in EV% in 76-79 to the top 20 defencemen in EV% in 81-84. It's clear that the role of top-pairing defencemen was decreasing at even strength, as teams spread the minutes around. Even so, Potvin ranked a lot higher on the 70s list than he did on the 80s list, so the change in Long Island was more extreme than most.

Potvin's decreased ESGF and ESGA numbers could have been a result of one or more of the following:
1. Playing fewer minutes as the team spread the regular season workload around.
2. Playing more conservatively and defensively, preventing goals against but taking away from the team's offence.

The statistics can shed no light on which of those two factors caused the decrease.

Potvin's penalty kill numbers were similar in both time periods.

Player | Seasons | SH% | TmSH+
Denis Potvin | 1976-79 | 57% | 0.72
Denis Potvin | 1981-84 | 54% | 0.73

Neither Potvin's role nor the Islanders' team success on the PK increased in the 1980s - he had been playing a major role here since the beginning of his career.

One thing the stats don't capture is the quality of competition. I have no idea if Potvin was used in a shutdown role more often as his career progressed.

Another non-regular season stats consideration is that Potvin's shutdown job on Wayne Gretzky came during the 1980s, when his scoring was down from his peak.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Was Denis Potvin elite at both ends of the ice at the same time?

In the last ATD, Sturminator (who watched Potvin play quite a bit as a fan of hockey in the NYC area in the 70s) claimed that he was not:



(emphasis mine)

Questions:

1) Do any of the older posters find merit in what Sturm said? Basically, that Potvin was elite offensively and good defensively in late 70s, and good offensively and elite defensively in the early 80s, but not elite at the same time.

2) Overpass, is there any statistical breakdown that might shed light on the first and second half of Potvin's career?

His offensive stats, while still decent weren't as good in the regular season during the 4 cup run than before it and while maybe he wasn't defensively elite during his younger years he wasn't Paul Coffey bad either.

Just ask Bill Derlago about his hip check during his 101 point season at age 25.

 

[Hardyvan123]

No merit in the claim made by Sturminator. Observe the Islanders GAA from the expansion season of 1972-73 onwards to the end of Potvin's career.

1972-73: 347 GA last of 16 teams
1973-74: 247 GA 8th. Arrival of Al Arbour and Denis Potvin
1974-75: 221 GA 3rd
1975-76: 190 GA 2nd behind MTL
1976-77: 193 GA 2nd "
1977-78: 210 GA 3rd "
1978-79: 214 GA 2nd "

After the expansion 1972-73 expansion season, Al Arbour was hired as coach while Denis Potvin was drafted #1 overall as the cornerstone defenseman. Net result the GA dropped by 100. Conversely the GF increased by 12 to 182. Rather obvious that the initial strength and contribution was at the defensive end. 1974-75 saw a further drop in GA by 26 while GF increased by 82. The last 4 pre dynasty seasons saw the team second over all to the dynasty Canadiens defensively - a team lead by Ken Dryden and the big three.

Potvin's main contribution to the Islanders during the pre dynasty era was his defensive abilities.The offense followed as it often does since defense generates offense and as players who had offensive skills while being responsible defensively were added Potvin's offensive numbers followed.

1979-80: 247 GA, 4th. Potvin injured more than 1/2 the season.
1980-81: 260 GA, 4th.
1981-82: 250 GA, 2nd.
1982-83: 226 GA, 1st.

1979-80 is very telling. Potvin missed more than half the season with an injury and the GA went up by 33. On the other hand th GF dropped from 358 to 281 indicating how much Potvin's ability on defense producing offense via a transition game was missed. The following season Potvin was back but the Islanders defensive game did not fully return but their offense bounced back very nicely, GF from 281 to 355. The last two dynasty seasons saw a return to a strong defense in a league where offense was dominating.

1983-84: 269 GA, 4th
1984-85: 312 GA, 11th
1985-86: 284 GA, 5th
1986-87: 281 GA, 9th
1987-88: 267 GA, 4th

Post dynasty the defense weakened.

Denis Potvin was strong defensively when he entered the NHL and progressed defensively thru the Islander dynasty era. The offensive skills developed later helped by the arrival of the other Islanders' offensive stars.

Interesting stuff and while Potvin was the best player on his team in his rookie season your stats still don't give a clear cause and affect.

Scrolling through the schedule between the 2 seasons, it seems that Arbour had the whole team playing more defensively than the season before in which the team had 13 games in which they gave up more than 7 goals (including 7 of their 1st 20 games).

Obviously the expansion Islanders took a while to settle downl and didn't give up as many blowouts after the 1st 20 games in their 1st season and Arbour reduced it even more in his 1st year there.

Potvin helped to be sure but he was far from the sole reason of the huge decline in GAA in 74.

 

[Canadiens1958]

My Point

Interesting stuff and while Potvin was the best player on his team in his rookie season your stats still don't give a clear cause and affect.

Scrolling through the schedule between the 2 seasons, it seems that Arbour had the whole team playing more defensively than the season before in which the team had 13 games in which they gave up more than 7 goals (including 7 of their 1st 20 games).

Obviously the expansion Islanders took a while to settle downl and didn't give up as many blowouts after the 1st 20 games in their 1st season and Arbour reduced it even more in his 1st year there.

Potvin helped to be sure but he was far from the sole reason of the huge decline in GAA in 74.

Never claimed what you allege. My point in the context of questions raised by TDMM is that Potvin's main contribution was defensive as opposed to offensive as claimed or portrayed by others.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Something else happened in 1979-80: The WHA folded, giving the NHL a major influx of talent. Combined with the contraction of the Cleveland Barons in 1978-79, the NHL really only added 3 teams while absorbing the WHA talent pool. Also, the trickle of talent from Europe picked up steam in the early 80s.

From wikipedia:

By 1976, it had become evident that many of the WHA's franchises were teetering on the verge of financial collapse, with stable teams few and far between, and that the (at one time) combined 30 teams of the NHL and WHA had badly strained the talent pool.

By 1979-80, there were 21 teams in the NHL and no WHA.

I have wondered for awhile if the dillution of the talent pool in the mid-late 70s (and the unequal distribution of talent due to rapid expansion) was one of the reasons that so many mid-late 70s defensemen were so visually impressive compared to the stars who came after them.

At the height of the WHA, you had as many professional teams in North America as there are today but with virtually no European talent to help fill them out, like there is today. So, maybe it was just a bit easier for guys like Potvin, Robinson, and Park to skate around the other team like they were pylons.

Don't think the WHA was depriving the NHL of talent?

The final two seasons of the WHA saw the debut of many superstars, some of which became hockey legends in the NHL. They included Wayne Gretzky, Mark Messier, Ken Linseman, and Mike Gartner. The Birmingham franchise alone would feature future NHLers Rick Vaive, Michel Goulet, Rob Ramage, Craig Hartsburg and Gaston Gingras.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Never claimed what you allege. My point in the context of questions raised by TDMM is that Potvin's main contribution was defensive as opposed to offensive as claimed or portrayed by others.

Okay no problem it seemed to be inferred by lack of discussing anythign else but thsi is the topic about Potvin and the like so that's fair.

Your last point though doesn't really wash though.

There was nothing wrong with Potvin's skillset from his 1st season onwards, he was an extremely skilled offensive Dman he just couldn't get it done alone in the stats department.

That's why his leading the team in scoring his 1st 4 years is so impressive to me.

Not even Orr did that.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

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.

Via pnep on this thread on top penalty killing units, Chris Chelios has a wide lead over other defensemen in the category "number of times on the top PK pairing of a top 3 PK in the league" since the 1967 expansion:

Chris Chelios (9 times)
Bill Hajt (6 times)
Dennis Potvin (5 times)
Raymond Bourque (5 times)
Serge Savard (4 times)
Mike Ramsey (4 times)
Scott Stevens (4 times)
Tim Horton (4 times)
Nicklas Lidstrom (4 times)

Al MacInnis surprisingly appears on the list twice (once paired with Brad McCrimmon, once with Chris Pronger). This is a bit surprising because he averaged relatively low PK time over his career. Larry Robinson appears once (Robinson was the top Montreal defenseman at even strength but seems to have taken a lesser special teams role to Savard and Lapointe).

I know a couple of Wings fans have said that the only thing Chelios did better than Lidstrom when they played together was kill penalties, because Chelios was so dominant in front of the net. (I'd find the posts, but alas, broken search function).

I don't think this replaces overpass's PP/PK stats, but they supplement it

 

[Pear Juice]

What do you guys make of Fetisov's domination of the Soviet league? He won 9 all star selections in 11 years. He won the award for best player twice. It's a dominance strikingly similar to that of Bobby Orr. His CSKA Moscow won the league every year during his tenure there (they haven't won since he and the rest of the green unit left).

It's easy to question the strength of the Soviet league due to CSKAs dominance and talent acquisition superposition, but of the different games played between 1975-1990 between CSKA and NHL teams, including the Super Series, CSKA has a record of 26 wins, 8 losses and 2 ties. Very dominant. In fact, all of the Soviet teams that played in the Super Series except Dynamo Riga are above .500. It's worth mentioning that these games were all home games for the NHL teams aswell. The top echelons of the Soviet league during the 1970s and 1980s has to be considered at or very close to the level of the NHL, which makes Fetisov's dominance particularly impressive.

It's way too easy to just look at Fetisov's NHL career during the 90s when he was a 32-year old past his prime and affected by the bad breakup from CSKA. Potvin, at the same age, was worn out and hung up his skates just three years later.

 

[VMBM]

I was thinking both pre NHL and total evaluation since the NHL numbers we can compare with players of the day.

Larinov at 5th seems strange to me as center is a very important position in Russian systems almost like a mid fielder in soccer.

Any Russians in the house?

No, just a Finnish old-timer, who watched the Green Unit throughout the Eighties.

I'm not sure, but I believe that like me, Zine is someone who saw them play for USSR/CSKA in the 1980s, and well, I would rank them in that order too. Kasatonov and Larionov would be too close to call, though.

Pre-NHL, Larionov was clearly in the shadow of Krutov and especially Makarov and certainly behind Fetisov, if you can compare dmen with forwards (apparently you can!). Numbers, awards, all-star berths, you name it, Larionov was behind Krutov and Makarov.

Larionov showed the best adaptability & durability in the NHL (though Makarov outperformed him at first),but I think it's not nearly enough to place him above Makarov and Fetisov. It's enough to put him above Kasatonov and Krutov IMO, though.

Despite their problems, Tikhonov clearly appreciated Larionov, that much I've gathered. But IMO Krutov and Makarov (and certainly Fetisov and Kasatonov) didn't need Larionov at all to play great. Proof:

1987 Canada Cup
Where was Larionov? Not a single point in the finals, despite playing with Krutov and Makarov who were simply terrific. Even the 2nd line center Vyacheslav Bykov scored 5 points in those three final games, I think. The color commetator Ron Reusch talks about Larionov having some injury, which never comes quite clear (what it is).

1985-86 Super Series
Who was centering Krutov and Makarov (+ Fetisov and Kasatonov) during the series? Well, it was a guy called Victor Tyumenev, hardly a superstar. Yet CSKA had its best ever series against NHL teams (e.g. beating the Oilers 6-3 and crushing the future SC champions Montreal 6-1) and the top line played brilliantly.

And let's stop the nonsense, okay? Anyone who knows anything knows that Vyacheslav Fetisov was/is a legend even without "the 5-man unit". Why do you think that he - along with Makarov - stood out in the first place? You think everyone was fooled by "the 5-man unit"? Geez.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I have wondered for awhile if the dillution of the talent pool in the mid-late 70s (and the unequal distribution of talent due to rapid expansion) was one of the reasons that so many mid-late 70s defensemen were so visually impressive compared to the stars who came after them.

Absolutely, in my opinion.

This is also why all the biggest goal differentials were during that time.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Teams and Organizations

Something else happened in 1979-80: The WHA folded, giving the NHL a major influx of talent. Combined with the contraction of the Cleveland Barons in 1978-79, the NHL really only added 3 teams while absorbing the WHA talent pool. Also, the trickle of talent from Europe picked up steam in the early 80s.

From wikipedia:



By 1979-80, there were 21 teams in the NHL and no WHA.

I have wondered for awhile if the dillution of the talent pool in the mid-late 70s (and the unequal distribution of talent due to rapid expansion) was one of the reasons that so many mid-late 70s defensemen were so visually impressive compared to the stars who came after them.

At the height of the WHA, you had as many professional teams in North America as there are today but with virtually no European talent to help fill them out, like there is today. So, maybe it was just a bit easier for guys like Potvin, Robinson, and Park to skate around the other team like they were pylons.

Don't think the WHA was depriving the NHL of talent?

The facts are not in dispute about the WHA and the influx of European talent in the seventies. The conclusion is rather iffy.

O6 era saw a league where the NHL teams showed a range in talent, largely a function of the owners willingness to spend. Key point was that teams had a high degree of cohesiveness on the ice. As long as ownership and management kept pace every team could compete.

Likewise with the initial expansions. With proper ownership and management cohesive teams that could compete were easy to build - early Blues, Flyers, Sabres, Islanders.

The arrival of the WHA combined with the initial European influx did not change the quantity of available talent rather it impacted on the ability of organizations to build cohesive teams with any degree of continuity.

Net result was that from 1979-80 into the mid 1980's you saw scoring increase because the vast majority of teams below the top 5 lacked the team cohesiveness to play solid defense. Structured growth and team building had been removed from the NHL during the WHA era and was replaced by a patchwork approach which inevitably breaksdown.

Similar to today where there are plenty of one dimensional teams due to free agency and the salary cap. Throw in injuries and you have teams that are not building for long term success but are hanging in while trying to catch the wave during the playoffs.

 

[overpass]

Something else happened in 1979-80: The WHA folded, giving the NHL a major influx of talent. Combined with the contraction of the Cleveland Barons in 1978-79, the NHL really only added 3 teams while absorbing the WHA talent pool. Also, the trickle of talent from Europe picked up steam in the early 80s.

From wikipedia:



By 1979-80, there were 21 teams in the NHL and no WHA.

I have wondered for awhile if the dillution of the talent pool in the mid-late 70s (and the unequal distribution of talent due to rapid expansion) was one of the reasons that so many mid-late 70s defensemen were so visually impressive compared to the stars who came after them.

At the height of the WHA, you had as many professional teams in North America as there are today but with virtually no European talent to help fill them out, like there is today. So, maybe it was just a bit easier for guys like Potvin, Robinson, and Park to skate around the other team like they were pylons.

I have wondered the same thing.

Looking at the players up for vote so far in this list, the top defencemen list people post around here, the All-time draft on this site, etc, everyone seems to agree that a disproportionately high number of great defencemen entered the league between about 1967 and 1984.

Possible reasons for this.

1. Expansion and a decrease in the quality of play made it easier for defencemen to stand out.

2. A higher proportion of the best players were assigned to defence or chose to play defence during this time (possibly a Bobby Orr copycat effect.)

3. A combination of 1 and 2 - because it was easier for top defencemen to stand out, more of the top players were steered into playing defence.

Looking at specific examples, Mark Howe was converted to defence four games into his NHL career in 1979., because that's where he could affect the game the most. If Howe was born 20 years later, I think he probably would have played centre and been one of the top two-way centres in the league. Larry Robinson played forward in junior and was converted to defence. I have a hard time picturing him as a forward, but who knows, maybe he plays forward in another era.

Generally speaking, there seems to be a correlation between average quality of play and the performance of defencemen. The 1960s NHL was a mature, high quality league with a very strong generation of Canadian forwards packed into six teams. But it had a shortage of offensive defencemen, with only Pierre Pilote standing out. Did the quality of the league mean that it was inherently more difficult for defencemen to have an offensive impact, and the best offensive players were steered toward forward? Maybe. You could make the same argument about hockey in the last decade or two, as fewer great defencemen have been developed.

Absolutely, in my opinion.

This is also why all the biggest goal differentials were during that time.

I am also convinced that it was easier to put up big plus-minus numbers in the 1970s, even when adjusted for team. There are just too many big numbers in the 1970s, and it fits with the talent dilution theory.

Getting back to Potvin, I think the change around 1980 was too sudden to attribute solely to changes in league strength. I think changes in Potvin's game because of injury, maturation, or changing team needs were the biggest factor. But it's very likely that league quality was also a factor to some degree. Many other top 70s defencemen had trouble maintaining their performance in the 1980s, unlike the 80s defencemen in the 1990s. I know Canadiens1958 has attributed this to injuries, which certainly play a part. But Potvin's contemporary Borje Salming, for example, saw his play decline in the early 80s, and I'm not aware of any injuries that would have caused that.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Injuries

I have wondered the same thing.

Looking at the players up for vote so far in this list, the top defencemen list people post around here, the All-time draft on this site, etc, everyone seems to agree that a disproportionately high number of great defencemen entered the league between about 1967 and 1984.

Possible reasons for this.

1. Expansion and a decrease in the quality of play made it easier for defencemen to stand out.

2. A higher proportion of the best players were assigned to defence or chose to play defence during this time (possibly a Bobby Orr copycat effect.)

3. A combination of 1 and 2 - because it was easier for top defencemen to stand out, more of the top players were steered into playing defence.

Looking at specific examples, Mark Howe was converted to defence four games into his NHL career in 1979., because that's where he could affect the game the most. If Howe was born 20 years later, I think he probably would have played centre and been one of the top two-way centres in the league. Larry Robinson played forward in junior and was converted to defence. I have a hard time picturing him as a forward, but who knows, maybe he plays forward in another era.

Generally speaking, there seems to be a correlation between average quality of play and the performance of defencemen. The 1960s NHL was a mature, high quality league with a very strong generation of Canadian forwards packed into six teams. But it had a shortage of offensive defencemen, with only Pierre Pilote standing out. Did the quality of the league mean that it was inherently more difficult for defencemen to have an offensive impact, and the best offensive players were steered toward forward? Maybe. You could make the same argument about hockey in the last decade or two, as fewer great defencemen have been developed.



I am also convinced that it was easier to put up big plus-minus numbers in the 1970s, even when adjusted for team. There are just too many big numbers in the 1970s, and it fits with the talent dilution theory.

Getting back to Potvin, I think the change around 1980 was too sudden to attribute solely to changes in league strength. I think changes in Potvin's game because of injury, maturation, or changing team needs were the biggest factor. But it's very likely that league quality was also a factor to some degree. Many other top 70s defencemen had trouble maintaining their performance in the 1980s, unlike the 80s defencemen in the 1990s. I know Canadiens1958 has attributed this to injuries, which certainly play a part. But Potvin's contemporary Borje Salming, for example, saw his play decline in the early 80s, and I'm not aware of any injuries that would have caused that.

Borje Salming:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/s/salmibo01.html

Note that he missed 20 games during the 1974-75 season. From 1975-76 thru 1979-80 averaged near complete seasons. Post 1979-80 averages well over 10 games missed per season. The 8 game suspension does not change much.

Wear and tear is covered by the injury umbrella. Another consideration when evaluating the impact of injuries is the issue of how concussions were treated historically. The "Bell Rung" / "Play thru it" approach did not extend careers nor did it enhance performance.

These injury related factors cannot be ignored.

 

[tarheelhockey]

The following is purely unresearched speculation from someone who is neither old enough nor Canadian enough to know if it holds up to scrutiny. But I think it's worth considering in relation to the talent-dilution theory.

Defensemen who entered the league between, say, 1964 and 1974 would have been born around 1945-1955 and had much of their hockey training in the late 1950s and early/mid 1960s. From what I understand, public indoor ice rinks became prevalent around that same postwar period, with many communities switching over from seasonal outdoor ice to permanent indoor ice as their primary venues for hockey training and games. At the same time, in the more general culture, the advent of television and other factors caused the popularity of professional sports to skyrocket. Professional salaries reached living-wage levels, and elite athletes were actually pretty well paid relative to the rest of the population by 1970.

I think it's reasonable to believe that these factors in combination would have led boys of the 1950s and 1960s to take hockey training, and the prospect of making a living at the elite level, more seriously than those only 10 or 20 years younger. I certainly have the impression that by 1960, someone who was showing serious potential as a young athlete would have been in the mentality of attending summer camps at an indoor rink and seriously considering hockey as a superior alternative to working at the fish factory.

If my understanding of these things is correct, is it reasonable to assume that the level of Canadian talent available to these leagues would have also risen significantly within the span of a decade or so? That is, if we could time-warp back to 1968 and talk to a junior league coach, would he say something like "I can't believe how much better these athletes are than when I started 20 years ago"?

If that is in fact the case, I'm inclined to think that this improvement in talent feeders would largely offset the talent-dilution issue... perhaps not entirely offset it, but make up a significant part of the difference. That would suggest that C1958's on the right track in pointing toward team management rather than raw talent as the largest factor in the skewed stats of that era. The athletes could actually have been quite a bit better, but the other aspects of putting together a competitive hockey team were suffering.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Foster Hewitt

The following is purely unresearched speculation from someone who is neither old enough nor Canadian enough to know if it holds up to scrutiny. But I think it's worth considering in relation to the talent-dilution theory.

Defensemen who entered the league between, say, 1964 and 1974 would have been born around 1945-1955 and had much of their hockey training in the late 1950s and early/mid 1960s. From what I understand, public indoor ice rinks became prevalent around that same postwar period, with many communities switching over from seasonal outdoor ice to permanent indoor ice as their primary venues for hockey training and games. At the same time, in the more general culture, the advent of television and other factors caused the popularity of professional sports to skyrocket. Professional salaries reached living-wage levels, and elite athletes were actually pretty well paid relative to the rest of the population by 1970.

I think it's reasonable to believe that these factors in combination would have led boys of the 1950s and 1960s to take hockey training, and the prospect of making a living at the elite level, more seriously than those only 10 or 20 years younger. I certainly have the impression that by 1960, someone who was showing serious potential as a young athlete would have been in the mentality of attending summer camps at an indoor rink and seriously considering hockey as a superior alternative to working at the fish factory.

If my understanding of these things is correct, is it reasonable to assume that the level of Canadian talent available to these leagues would have also risen significantly within the span of a decade or so? That is, if we could time-warp back to 1968 and talk to a junior league coach, would he say something like "I can't believe how much better these athletes are than when I started 20 years ago"?

If that is in fact the case, I'm inclined to think that this improvement in talent feeders would largely offset the talent-dilution issue... perhaps not entirely offset it, but make up a significant part of the difference. That would suggest that C1958's on the right track in pointing toward team management rather than raw talent as the largest factor in the skewed stats of that era. The athletes could actually have been quite a bit better, but the other aspects of putting together a competitive hockey team were suffering.

Foster Hewitt and the radio drove interest in the NHL and hockey in general. Televised hockey -"Hockey Night in Canada" built on the popularity and acted as a teaching aid for all the youngsters watching.

Pre WWII there were two arena mini booms. Twenties in certain industrial towns and thirties during the depression as part of job creation projects. The communities that had early arenas developed more players than those with outdoor facilities. Example Verdun, independent suburb on the southwest border of Montreal, developed a disproportionate number of NHL players from the mid thirties into the sixties after the Verdun Auditorium was built.

Once the post WWII arena building boom started you had a situation where ice time was guaranteed for games and elite practices. No longer were schedules at the mercy of the weather. On the other hands kids could skate, work on techniques,play informal games on the outdoor rinks as well. Many organizations keep their outdoor rinks going for practices - proximity being a factor plus they were necessary to get youngsters started.

The available talent question is interesting but has to be answered while considering the two other issues you raised. The talent was available to expand the NHL in the mid 1950s. The NHL went thru a contraction period in the thirties since a lack of adequate arenas reduced revenues. Ottawa lost their team for this reason, Montreal lost the Maroons and the Canadiens almost followed until the original Forum underwent a renovation/expansion - just two examples. 1967 expansion was possible because of the arena boom in the USA.

The other issue was salaries. TV revenues, increased arena revenues made it possible for salaries to increase and make hockey a viable career alternative.

Overall you raise valid points. Too often the easy answer of expansion of WHA players is used but these factors came with expansion owners, management and coaches which were a much greater drag on the growth and quality of the game.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

No, just a Finnish old-timer, who watched the Green Unit throughout the Eighties.

I'm not sure, but I believe that like me, Zine is someone who saw them play for USSR/CSKA in the 1980s, and well, I would rank them in that order too. Kasatonov and Larionov would be too close to call, though.

Pre-NHL, Larionov was clearly in the shadow of Krutov and especially Makarov and certainly behind Fetisov, if you can compare dmen with forwards (apparently you can!). Numbers, awards, all-star berths, you name it, Larionov was behind Krutov and Makarov.

Larionov showed the best adaptability & durability in the NHL (though Makarov outperformed him at first),but I think it's not nearly enough to place him above Makarov and Fetisov. It's enough to put him above Kasatonov and Krutov IMO, though.

Despite their problems, Tikhonov clearly appreciated Larionov, that much I've gathered. But IMO Krutov and Makarov (and certainly Fetisov and Kasatonov) didn't need Larionov at all to play great. Proof:

1987 Canada Cup
Where was Larionov? Not a single point in the finals, despite playing with Krutov and Makarov who were simply terrific. Even the 2nd line center Vyacheslav Bykov scored 5 points in those three final games, I think. The color commetator Ron Reusch talks about Larionov having some injury, which never comes quite clear (what it is).

1985-86 Super Series
Who was centering Krutov and Makarov (+ Fetisov and Kasatonov) during the series? Well, it was a guy called Victor Tyumenev, hardly a superstar. Yet CSKA had its best ever series against NHL teams (e.g. beating the Oilers 6-3 and crushing the future SC champions Montreal 6-1) and the top line played brilliantly.

And let's stop the nonsense, okay? Anyone who knows anything knows that Vyacheslav Fetisov was/is a legend even without "the 5-man unit". Why do you think that he - along with Makarov - stood out in the first place? You think everyone was fooled by "the 5-man unit"? Geez.

Excellent stuff.

What I remember of the Green Unit was thinking that Krutov was every bit as good as Makarov, much as I thought Petrov was at the same level as Maltsev & Mikhilov earlier. Of course, I didn't see these players as often as you did.

Comparing these players that started in the Soviet Union and ended in the NHL is so difficult. They come from polar opposite societies, cultures and hockey environments. While Larionov and Makarov were not effected as much by the change, obviously Fetisov and Krutov were. That is why I pretty much throw out Fetisov's years in the NHL.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Once the post WWII arena building boom started you had a situation where ice time was guaranteed for games and elite practices. No longer were schedules at the mercy of the weather. On the other hands kids could skate, work on techniques,play informal games on the outdoor rinks as well. Many organizations keep their outdoor rinks going for practices - proximity being a factor plus they were necessary to get youngsters started.

How about coaching/training methods during that period? Personally I perceive a culture shift between 1950 and 1970, toward a more organized and advancement-oriented approach.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Hockey Players as Athletes

How about coaching/training methods during that period? Personally I perceive a culture shift between 1950 and 1970, toward a more organized and advancement-oriented approach.

From the start of organized hockey into the 1970s youngster playing hockey also played other sports. Many of the early stars excelled at Lacrosse, Lionel Conacher was a multi-sport star. Red Kelly boxed, Doug Harvey was a star baseball and football player. As youngsters they tended to be in competitive shape year round. Most sports organizations from park, community, school levels offered multiple sports. In the Montreal area the exclusive hockey organizations started in the early 1950's gradually taking over the sport by the late 1970's.

Coaching into the 1980s focused more on the basics,skill development, techniques and the inside game as opposed to systems, strategies and the elite advancement approach that is dominant today.
The basic difference would best be illustrated by the situation where you could see the work done to eliminate weaknesses that a player had years ago. Today you see how the coach mitigates the weaknesses by the way the player is used and the roles he is given.

Example at the NHL level is pairing a veteran dman say a Roman Hamrlik with a young Dion Phaneuf or a Hal Gill with a P.K. Subban since the veteran will mitigate the youngsters defensive mistakes or verbally QB him thru defensive situations. Years ago you could pair youngsters - Brewer and Baun, Laperriere and Harper because at a young age they had the ability to think the game, especially from the defensive end.

This was the main strength of Bobby Orr, Denis Potvin and Ray Bourque. Others like Brad Park(Tim Horton), Chris Chelios(Larry Robinson), Nicklas Lidstrom(Salming/McCrimmon) required some time with older dmen - names bracketed.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Others like Brad Park(Tim Horton), Chris Chelios(Larry Robinson), Nicklas Lidstrom(Salming/McCrimmon/Coffey) required some time with older dmen - names bracketed.

Just wanted to add this since I picked it up from research during the previous thread, and Coffey's currently on our list of candidates. He definitely had an influence in giving Lidstrom some space to grow during the early part of his career. Coffey would rush up the ice while Lidstrom played the more conservative role as a puck-mover and defensive conscience... and of course developed into a premier player in those exact roles. In some ways, his early years with Coffey molded him into an anti-Coffey.

Coffey isn't known for his leadership capacity but it might be interesting to know more about that relationship. Perhaps he was better as a mentor than as a general.

 

[Pear Juice]

Comparing these players that started in the Soviet Union and ended in the NHL is so difficult. They come from polar opposite societies, cultures and hockey environments. While Larionov and Makarov were not effected as much by the change, obviously Fetisov and Krutov were. That is why I pretty much throw out Fetisov's years in the NHL.

I tend to agree. Fetisov's NHL years didn't add very much to his overall resume. But I do think his Soviet resume is good enough to challenge for #5.

I missed the 80s and didn't get to see much of the green unit or the absolutely terrible Swedish records against the Soviets. When I speak to people who followed Swedish hockey back then though they always speak very highly of Krutov. I kind of thought this was due to him being particularly good against Sweden, but it seems the same applies to Finland, according to VMBM.

I'm curious what you mean when you say that Fetisov and Krutov were the most affected by the change in environment? From the interviews I've seen with Fetisov (there's a very long one in the Swedish documentary CCCP Hockey) he seems to be the original trailblazer together with Larionov.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Paul Coffey

Just wanted to add this since I picked it up from research during the previous thread, and Coffey's currently on our list of candidates. He definitely had an influence in giving Lidstrom some space to grow during the early part of his career. Coffey would rush up the ice while Lidstrom played the more conservative role as a puck-mover and defensive conscience... and of course developed into a premier player in those exact roles. In some ways, his early years with Coffey molded him into an anti-Coffey.

Coffey isn't known for his leadership capacity but it might be interesting to know more about that relationship. Perhaps he was better as a mentor than as a general.

Aware of the Paul Coffey connection but did not really want to go there.

Leadership has many facets. There are the various prototypes that fill the accepted definitions of leadership. Then there are other types of leadership - allowing the younger partner the opportunity to play instead of always demanding the puck in key situations. Confidence that your young partner covers for you just as well as veterans did in the past. Defining and sharing responsibilities on the ice not just theoretically in practice or during chalk sessions.

Another interesting comparable would be Bourque / McCrimmon who played together at various times as rookies - both were first round 1979 draft picks of the Bruins and Lidstrom / McCrimmon a youngster / veteran relationship.