Round 2, Vote 3 (HOH Top Defensemen)

[Hawkey Town 18]

I realize it might go against conventional thought, but I'm finding it really hard not to rank Horton as marginally below Pronger and Stevens. I think they are all really close, as guys who were among the best of their respective eras, but not the absolute best. And all three guys have their values increased quite a bit by a period of consistent dominance in the playoffs. When three guys are that close, I look at what one of them might be lacking. And I just see Horton lacking that one dominant regular season like Stevens in 93-94 or Pronger in 1999-00.

Thoughts?

I see Pronger's lack of durability as the biggest difference between these 3 (in his defense, on a per game basis he was probably the best of the 3 during prime years). I think you are correct that Horton has the weakest peak regular season, but he also probably has the highest peak playoff season. Horton and Stevens also were the "cornerstones" of dynasties. IMO the tough decision is between Horton and Stevens with Pronger being a very close, but clear, 3rd.


Either way you cut it, I think it's a round too early for all 3 of these guys, so hopefully we can discuss this more next vote.

 

[pdd]

Eddie Shore. Considered one of the greatest defensemen ever. Nearly killed Ace Bailey in a boarding incident, and ended his career.

Sprague Cleghorn. Considered one of the greatest defensemen ever. Cross-checked Lionel Hitchman in the FACE. Convicted of assault and fined $50.

I'm noticing a pattern for early-NHL defensemen. Try to kill people when on the ice, and you're a great defenseman. In fact, that has been encouraged for ages. Bobby Clarke was cheered as a hero for wrecking Kharlamov's ankle. Scott Stevens was cheered for a dirty hit on Eric Lindros (although most of his big hits were clean) and Kasparaitis was loved for his constant flying elbows.

I wonder how things would be if those players played today.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Eddie Shore. Considered one of the greatest defensemen ever. Nearly killed Ace Bailey in a boarding incident, and ended his career.

Sprague Cleghorn. Considered one of the greatest defensemen ever. Cross-checked Lionel Hitchman in the FACE. Convicted of assault and fined $50.

I'm noticing a pattern for early-NHL defensemen. Try to kill people when on the ice, and you're a great defenseman. In fact, that has been encouraged for ages. Bobby Clarke was cheered as a hero for wrecking Kharlamov's ankle. Scott Stevens was cheered for a dirty hit on Eric Lindros (although most of his big hits were clean) and Kasparaitis was loved for his constant flying elbows.

I wonder how things would be if those players played today.

Your logic is astounding.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I see Pronger's lack of durability as the biggest difference between these 3 (in his defense, on a per game basis he was probably the best of the 3 during prime years). I think you are correct that Horton has the weakest peak regular season, but he also probably has the highest peak playoff season. Horton and Stevens also were the "cornerstones" of dynasties. IMO the tough decision is between Horton and Stevens with Pronger being a very close, but clear, 3rd.


Either way you cut it, I think it's a round too early for all 3 of these guys, so hopefully we can discuss this more next vote.

Higher than Stevens' 2000 or Pronger's 2006? Please explain further if you can.

I assume you are talking about the year he led the Leafs in playoff scoring and they won the Cup? It might be better than the best playoff performances by defensemen in the last 15 years, but I'm not sure about it. I feel that Horton has a rep as the ultimate playoff performer, and I don't think I've ever seen it really fleshed out.

 

[seventieslord]

I never said that twice as many teams would be twice as good just that an 8th place finish in 67 isn't the same as an 8th place finish in 69.

More specifically given those two years in the example it shows quite clearly the huge impact it had on offensive numbers overall for individual skaters. for example the 8th leading point getter in 67 had 61 points and the 16th had 47. In 69 the 8th player had 82 points and the 16th had 70, which was 3 points more than the 8th guy in 67.

In 69 the 21st top scoring player was the 1st dman with 64 points and in 67 we have Pilote who is up for debate in this section with a 12th place with 62 points and in 9th was Doug Mohns but I'm not sure he played the whole season as a Dman.

Now some are going to argue that 12th in 67 is the same as 12th in 69 but how are they going to account for the best scoring Dman at 21st who happened to win his 2nd of 8 straight Norris trophies and is known as Robert Gordon Orr?

I for one would say that the guy in 69 finishing 21st in overall scoring had a better season than the guy finishing 12th in 67 but that's just me.

The fact of the matter is that as a league has more teams and at a mature rate then there is a major difference in the possibilities of top 5,10, 15, 20 finishes ect...

Are you really not seeing this for what it is - the fact that there were now twice as many first line jobs and first PP unit spots?

The players weren't any better or worse (except for the very marginal improvement in the pool of available players we would expect to see from one season to the next) - and using point totals to claim otherwise makes one look pretty ridiculous.

(Mohns was a forward with Chicago)

This was the first mention of Cleghorn's position... and it apparently has him at center.

Yes, Cleghorn was a forward full time in his first season. He also had a few isolated spots as a forward in the few years after that, but it appears to be really rare.

Ross was definitely an instigator and aggitator. He had a rep similar to King Clancy as a small man who would fight anyone anytime and usually lose.

5'11", 190 in the 1900s and 1910s is not small!

But the larger point I'm trying to make, is that his contemporaries didn't talk about him as "Sprague Cleghorn, the guy who injures everybody's best player". They knew him as a startlingly fast puck-rusher with an impeccable sense of timing at both ends of the ice, a natural intelligence for creating open ice on the rush, a shot apparently as hard as anyone's at the time with considerable elevation and accuracy, and a general sense of assertiveness and strength that seems to have simply bowled over anyone short of a Clancy or Lalonde type of opponent. How many defenseman on our list can legitimately be described as elite at both ends of the ice starting in their early 20s and continuing almost unabated until their late 30s? That's what people knew Cleghorn for at the time, not so much for the colorful accounts of his trips to the police station.

This is a really good paragraph.

No other player up for voting this round has ever come close to being such a detriment to his own team.

Funny, I thought overpass demonstrated the exact opposite.

Looking at Sprague Cleghorn, the issue of his skills has to be viewed in terms of an entire career spent in the pre forward pass era and at a time when it was possible to play all five skaters behind the defensive blue line - forwards did not have to clear the zone once the puck exited. As such the defensemen did not have to worry about defending the forward pass and all the related defensive responsibilities. Also until the spring of 1939 icing was acceptable and made playing defense easier.

So... are we supposed to think that the era he played in somehow made him better, or worse? he was what he was. He played in the rules of his era, just like all his peers did. The same can be said for every other player voting in this round. Let's focus on what makes them different, not what every single one of them has in common.

 

[seventieslord]

Eddie Shore. Considered one of the greatest defensemen ever. Nearly killed Ace Bailey in a boarding incident, and ended his career.

Sprague Cleghorn. Considered one of the greatest defensemen ever. Cross-checked Lionel Hitchman in the FACE. Convicted of assault and fined $50.

I'm noticing a pattern for early-NHL defensemen. Try to kill people when on the ice, and you're a great defenseman. In fact, that has been encouraged for ages. Bobby Clarke was cheered as a hero for wrecking Kharlamov's ankle. Scott Stevens was cheered for a dirty hit on Eric Lindros (although most of his big hits were clean) and Kasparaitis was loved for his constant flying elbows.

I wonder how things would be if those players played today.

Your logic is astounding.

haha.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Higher than Stevens' 2000 or Pronger's 2006? Please explain further if you can.

I assume you are talking about the year he led the Leafs in playoff scoring and they won the Cup? It might be better than the best playoff performances by defensemen in the last decade+, but I'm not sure about it. I feel that Horton has a rep as the ultimate playoff performer, and I don't think I've ever seen it really fleshed out.

Yes that was the season I was referring to. It's the highest scoring playoff for a defensemen pre-expansion, and we know Horton was good defensively. The Leafs beat the Rangers and Hawks that year, who featured the top 3 scorers in the NHL. It would be nice to get some more detail on matchups. I think it's safe to assume he was regularly up against one of Hull or Mikita in the Finals, not sure if he was responsible for shutting down Bathgate...hopefully I will have time to look into that further next round. It would be great to hear from some of the guys that remember watching that playoff year.

Sidenote: I tried looking up the list of retro-Conn Smythes to get a quick summary of Horton's performance, but I could not find it. Has that list been taken down?

 

[Hardyvan123]

Higher than Stevens' 2000 or Pronger's 2006? Please explain further if you can.

I assume you are talking about the year he led the Leafs in playoff scoring and they won the Cup? It might be better than the best playoff performances by defensemen in the last decade+, but I'm not sure about it. I feel that Horton has a rep as the ultimate playoff performer, and I don't think I've ever seen it really fleshed out.

Not sure Horton had a better peak playoff season than either Leetch or Mac who both were fully deserving of their Conn Smythe trophies.

C1958 brought up some interesting views on the pre forward pass era and it reinforced my feelings of doing a pre and post something (WW2 maybe?) but I'm forced to consider way too much varying information here (as we all are) and will probably vote Tuesday night.

Park, Pilote and Cleghorn all dropped a little bit in my view for different reasons.

Earl Seibert I'm still not sure where he is going to slot yet.

 

[overpass]

I'm not a fan of Cleghorn's dirty style of play, but from a rankings perspective the thing that bothers me is that he seemed to have his own agenda to some degree, separate from the team. For example, C. Michael Hiam wrote that Sprague and Odie, when on separate teams, would compare notes on which players around the league were due a good beating.

Not a big deal when compared to the rest of his resume, but I prefer players to be dedicated to team success, not personal vendettas.

On another note, I've looked for material on Earl Seibert but haven't come up with much. I knw about his all star voting record and his basic attributes as a player, but not much more. Maybe we can discuss him more next round, depending on how the voting goes.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Are you really not seeing this for what it is - the fact that there were now twice as many first line jobs and first PP unit spots?

The players weren't any better or worse (except for the very marginal improvement in the pool of available players we would expect to see from one season to the next) - and using point totals to claim otherwise makes one look pretty ridiculous.

Yes I can see this 1st sentence exactly as you wrote it and often top 5,10 ect finishes are trotted out from 06 and a larger league like they have the exact same meaning, it's not clear to me that everyone else sees what you and I see, that's my point in bringing it up.

The fact that there are more opportunities for different players for #1 line spots and PP duty makes the achievement of a top 5,10 ect finish more difficult as well which is often dismissed or severely downplayed for some reason.

In fact I clearly remember a very good post, in every other way, that directly compared scoring finishes between 2 different Dmen from different sized leagues and I'm pretty sure we will see this happen again as more 06 Dmen come up for discussion.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Yes that was the season I was referring to. It's the highest scoring playoff for a defensemen pre-expansion, and we know Horton was good defensively. The Leafs beat the Rangers and Hawks that year, who featured the top 3 scorers in the NHL. It would be nice to get some more detail on matchups. I think it's safe to assume he was regularly up against one of Hull or Mikita in the Finals, not sure if he was responsible for shutting down Bathgate...hopefully I will have time to look into that further next round. It would be great to hear from some of the guys that remember watching that playoff year.

Sidenote: I tried looking up the list of retro-Conn Smythes to get a quick summary of Horton's performance, but I could not find it. Has that list been taken down?

I'm no longer sure Horton was Toronto's top defensive guy. He was their best overall defenseman, but was he the best defensively?

In 1958-59, Horton was paired on the blue line with Allan Stanley. Stanley's solid play allowed Horton to take a few more chances carrying the puck, knowing he had the speed to recover should he lose possession and that Stanley would be there to back him up. With Bobby Baun and Carl Brewer also starring on defense, the Leafs had a core of skilled, rugged and reliable defensemen. And the defense was the foundation of a Toronto team that won the Stanley Cup in 1962, 1963 and 1964, with Horton earning a spot on the Second All-Star Team in 1963 and First Team honours in 1964

Horton was paired with Allan Stanley on defense through the sixties, and with Baun and Brewer as the other tandem, the Leafs had as formidable a defense as anyone in the NHL. In the case of Stanley and Horton, Allan was the more defensive-minded of the duo, while Tim had more offensive prowess. "Horton is typical of the new type of defenseman who must be equally adept on attack and defense," wrote Canadian Weekly in 1965. Toronto won the Stanley Cup three straight seasons between 1960 and 1963. Coach Punch Imlach commented, "I think Horton, more than any other one player, was the key to those glory days."

In 1961-62, Horton was 3rd in scoring among defensemen, but was not a First or Second Team All Star. First Team was Doug Harvey (6th in scoring among D) and Jean Guy Talbot in his career year (1st in scoring among D). Second team was Pierre Pilote (2nd in scoring among D) and Carl Brewer (9th in scoring among D). Horton outscored his teammate Brewer 38-23, yet Brewer was the 2nd Team All Star.

In 1962-63, Brewer and Horton tied with 25 points, but Brewer was the first team All-Star and Horton was the 2nd Team All Star.

Horton was a 1st Team All-Star for the first time in 1963-64.

From the all-star voting, it appears that Carl Brewer had a better defensive reputation than Horton in the regular season for the first 2 of the 4 Cups.

And these weren't the first years that a teammate of Tim's got more awards recognition than him despite being outscored. As I said previously:

I'm also not convinced that Horton was always elite defensively himself. For example, in 1959-60, Horton was 3rd in scoring among defensemen but was not a First or Second Team All Star. First Team was Harvey and Marcel Pronovost (both of whome Horton outscored). Second Team was Pilote and Allan Stanley. Pilote blew Horton away offensively but Stanley (Horton's partner in Toronto) only outscored him 33-30.

I don't know what to think of this; maybe I'm looking too much into it. But I think if there's any player whose legend might have grown greater than his accomplishments, Horton was in the perfect position - Maple Leafs hero during the "Golden Age of Hockey," died young, started a donut chain that exploded after his death.

On the other hand, Punch Imlach called Horton the most important piece of the dynasty, and I don't find that hard to believe.

I tried to find specific information about Horton's playoff exploits to support the legend and it was surprisingly difficult. But I could have tried harder.

 

[tarheelhockey]

We are looking at the top defensemen of all time. Yet we are not looking at the impact of rule changes that impacted the game and the position in question.

Looking at Sprague Cleghorn, the issue of his skills has to be viewed in terms of an entire career spent in the pre forward pass era and at a time when it was possible to play all five skaters behind the defensive blue line - forwards did not have to clear the zone once the puck exited. As such the defensemen did not have to worry about defending the forward pass and all the related defensive responsibilities. Also until the spring of 1939 icing was acceptable and made playing defense easier.

That's an interesting angle, and I'm not sure what to make of it from a rankings standpoint. Cleghorn certainly seems to have made the most of the offensive potential of his position as it was defined at the time. Was it really less athletically demanding than what came later? I have no idea. We might run into similar concerns with goalies.

Likewise the offensive skills were rather limited. The defenseman did not have to make the wide range of forward passes. So the issue of assists has to be viewed in context. Rushing defenseman - big difference between a skill rush and a bull rush:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/c/cleghsp01.html

Sprague Cleghorn was almost six foot tall and weighed 190 lbs, much bigger than the typical NHL player of his era. Bull rush - no different than the big kid with average skating skills playing single letter hockey today that simply bulls his way up ice.

At least one article I posted contradicts that point directly. Cleghorn thrived in an open game where bull rushes were conspicuously absent. Numerous times he is remarked upon for his top-class speed and "serpentine" passage through the opposing defense. He is noted to have scored all alone on breakaways, including on a 3-on-5 PK with a minute left and trailing by 1. It doesn't appear that he was at all defined as a bull-rusher; if anything he used his size advantage at the other end of the rink, and transitioned famously to a speed-rushing game. Like an early hybrid of Pronger and Coffey.

Cleghorn's own team suspended him for the entire playoffs. All but two teams voted to permanently bar him from the league. That's a huge deal in any era, and is a major drawback of him as a player.

This is the kind of thing I mean about letting narratives get hijacked by sensationalism. The way you phrase it, it sounds like Cleghorn's team decided of their own volition that they didn't want him during a playoff marathon. In reality, the "entire playoffs" was their one remaining game against Ottawa. Cleghorn was going to be suspended by the league regardless; instead, his manager (who was undoubtedly irate about the situation) took the proactive step of simply removing him from the payroll. At a time when managers carried more influence and discipline was less formal, that wasn't a completely unbelievable thing to do. No doubt this incident counts as a negative, similar to Pronger's suspension in the Finals, but it reaches mythological levels when framed as "his own team didn't want him in the playoffs".

Similarly, as pointed out upthread his expulsion was supported by Ottawa and one of the three other teams. It's notable, sure. His linemate, Coutu, actually was expelled from the league, and Shore came very close to getting that kind of sentence as well... and all three of these guys were on the same roster! A lifetime ban wasn't that foreign a notion during a period when sports leagues in general were reining in a very high level of violence across the board.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Tim Horton

I'm no longer sure Horton was Toronto's top defensive guy. He was their best overall defenseman, but was he the best defensively?





In 1961-62, Horton was 3rd in scoring among defensemen, but was not a First or Second Team All Star. First Team was Doug Harvey (6th in scoring among D) and Jean Guy Talbot in his career year (1st in scoring among D). Second team was Pierre Pilote (2nd in scoring among D) and Carl Brewer (9th in scoring among D). Horton outscored his teammate Brewer 38-23, yet Brewer was the 2nd Team All Star.

In 1962-63, Brewer and Horton tied with 25 points, but Brewer was the first team All-Star and Horton was the 2nd Team All Star.

Horton was a 1st Team All-Star for the first time in 1963-64.

From the all-star voting, it appears that Carl Brewer had a better defensive reputation than Horton in the regular season for the first 2 of the 4 Cups.

And these weren't the first years that a teammate of Tim's got more awards recognition than him despite being outscored. As I said previously:



I don't know what to think of this; maybe I'm looking too much into it. But I think if there's any player whose legend might have grown greater than his accomplishments, Horton was in the perfect position - Maple Leafs hero during the "Golden Age of Hockey," died young, started a donut chain that exploded after his death.

On the other hand, Punch Imlach called Horton the most important piece of the dynasty, and I don't find that hard to believe.

I tried to find specific information about Horton's playoff exploits to support the legend and it was surprisingly difficult. But I could have tried harder.

Tim Horton and Allan Stanley were on the ice against the oppositions top big players as often as possible - Gordie Howe, Bobby Hull, Jean Beliveau, Andy Bathgate. Critical at playoff time.Horton was one of the rare defensemen that could compete physically with Gordie Howe. hence his value to the Leafs.

 

[Hardyvan123]

That's an interesting angle, and I'm not sure what to make of it from a rankings standpoint. Cleghorn certainly seems to have made the most of the offensive potential of his position as it was defined at the time. Was it really less athletically demanding than what came later? I have no idea. We might run into similar concerns with goalies.



At least one article I posted contradicts that point directly. Cleghorn thrived in an open game where bull rushes were conspicuously absent. Numerous times he is remarked upon for his top-class speed and "serpentine" passage through the opposing defense. He is noted to have scored all alone on breakaways, including on a 3-on-5 PK with a minute left and trailing by 1. It doesn't appear that he was at all defined as a bull-rusher; if anything he used his size advantage at the other end of the rink, and transitioned famously to a speed-rushing game. Like an early hybrid of Pronger and Coffey.

Surely you can guess as to how much more difficult or easier it might be to play defense if a player could ice the puck without icing and the opposition couldn't use a forward pass?

We all have to take everything into consideration and the pre forward pass guys are really hard to rank in this type of project but we are all stuck with the "historical albatross" that exists here.

At the end of the day the inclusion of such early players always us to take an educated guess and not much more IMO.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Tim Horton and Allan Stanley were on the ice against the oppositions top big players as often as possible - Gordie Howe, Bobby Hull, Jean Beliveau, Andy Bathgate. Critical at playoff time.Horton was one of the rare defensemen that could compete physically with Gordie Howe. hence his value to the Leafs.

Right, that sounds like it's probably true.

But do you have any idea why Carl Brewer might have been an All Star over Horton the first two years of the dynasty, despite Horton's higher point totals?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Surely you can guess as to how much more difficult or easier it might be to play defense if a player could ice the puck without icing and the opposition couldn't use a forward pass?

We all have to take everything into consideration and the pre forward pass guys are really hard to rank in this type of project but we are all stuck with the "historical albatross" that exists here.

At the end of the day the inclusion of such early players always us to take an educated guess and not much more IMO.

It's easier to play defense without the forward pass, but it makes going end to end (like Cleghorn and Clancy did) much more important to the offense.

(Edit: And as applies to Clancy, he clearly excelled with the forward pass, as well).

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Paul Coffey

I feel like we have done a good job of identifying his positives and negatives, but no one has shown how those relate/compare to the other players. I know this isn't news to anyone, Coffey is known as being very difficult to rank. Does anyone have a way to help with this? I don't see him being ranked worse than 5th on my list, but he could be anywhere 1-5 in that range.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Voting

Right, that sounds like it's probably true.

But do you have any idea why Carl Brewer might have been an All Star over Horton the first two years of the dynasty, despite Horton's higher point totals?

Variety of factors. Horton and Stanley split votes, were a bit slower than Brewer. Brewer was more suited for the regular season speed game.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I feel like we have done a good job of identifying his positives and negatives, but no one has shown how those relate/compare to the other players. I know this isn't news to anyone, Coffey is known as being very difficult to rank. Does anyone have a way to help with this? I don't see him being ranked worse than 5th on my list, but he could be anywhere 1-5 in that range.

Brad Park and Paul Coffey have been compared numerous times on these boards in the past. Do a search and you should be able to find some things. You don't necessarily have to agree with the conclusions, but I found reading those old threads helpful.

Then it just comes down to comparing him to other offensive defensemen like Clancy and Pilote and weighting Coffey's extra offense vs. their extra defense.

For me, Coffey and Cleghorn were the hardest two guys to rank this round.

 

[JaysCyYoung]

I found ranking Cleghorn insanely difficult as well. He could have ranked as high as second and as low as tenth. It really was a crapshoot.

Thankfully posters such as overpass and TDMM provided some excellent old articles that allowed for a more well-informed analysis to be performed. I was content with my final list submission in the end despite the difficulties of ordering names in this round.

 

[overpass]

Right, that sounds like it's probably true.

But do you have any idea why Carl Brewer might have been an All Star over Horton the first two years of the dynasty, despite Horton's higher point totals?

One thing about Brewer's scoring totals is that he was rarely used on the power play in Toronto, possibly because his shot wasn't very hard. His scoring numbers were pretty good at even strength.

Which doesn't answer your question either. If Horton and Stanley are playing against the top lines and playing on the power play, why was Brewer getting votes as the better defenceman?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Distinction

One thing about Brewer's scoring totals is that he was rarely used on the power play in Toronto, possibly because his shot wasn't very hard. His scoring numbers were pretty good at even strength.

Which doesn't answer your question either. If Horton and Stanley are playing against the top lines and playing on the power play, why was Brewer getting votes as the better defenceman?

Have to make a distinction between the physical requirements of playing against the two top lines. The leading teams had a least two top lines. Advantages to having Horton and Stanley on the ice against the Howe, Beliveau, B.Hull lines while the Brewer and Baun pairing face Ullman, H.Richard, Mikita. Brewer`s AS votes reflect his success in this area.

Granted with three lines and two pairings the line jockeying did not always go as planned plus you had the additional issue of who the Keon line was playing against.

Re the PP run by the Leafs. Eventually Kent Douglas became a bit of a PP specialist - short term. Imlach did not like to split his pairings for the PP. Playing Brewer on the PP would require playing Baun on the PP. Not the optimum alternative to Horton and Stanley.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Surely you can guess as to how much more difficult or easier it might be to play defense if a player could ice the puck without icing and the opposition couldn't use a forward pass?

I'd be very hesitant to classify it as "easier" or "more difficult". A lot of other rules were different as well, and in a state of flux from year-to-year. The introduction of the neutral zone and forward passing therein came in Cleghorn's first year in the NHL (though he had previously played with a neutral zone in the NHA) and offsides wasn't fully modernized until after he retired. My impression, and it's only an impression, is that offenses were designed around full-speed, north-south zone entry with one-on-one moves and drop-passing to advance the puck to the goal, and the defense was largely tasked with facing forwards who were coming through their lanes at full-speed, with straight-up body checks and poke checks being the primary tools for disrupting the offense. I don't get the sense that the job was "easier" per se, just very different from what it would be later on.

This vid was posted some time ago, and it gives a sense of the pace of the game and the importance of footspeed under these rules. Bear in mind this was from 1929, so it may still not quite capture what was happening in a typical game circa 1915 or 1920.



As one of the fastest skaters in the league and a deft poke-checker with a large wingspan for his day, Cleghorn would have been a fairly difficult guy to beat under any set of rules. The fact that he was brilliant in transition (see the Ottawa Free Press article from 2/14/16) made him even more deadly within the context of 1910s-20s hockey, as he was basically able to function as an extra forward attacker in the event of a turnover. Is that "easier" than what Coffey was doing 60 years later? I have no idea.

It was simply a different position, a different set of duties. Even an educated guess is murkier than it seems at first glance.

One last item of interest here is an article from the Victoria Daily Times from 3/23/25, concerning the Habs' loss to Victoria under PCHA rules with forward passing.

Canadiens might have held the score much closer had they taken the game and particularly the western rules more seriously. An effort was made to explain fully the new forward pass to them, but they thought they could familiarize themselves with it within a few minutes of play. They never solved the play, which Victoria has developed on this new rule, once during the night, and that is why Sprague Cleghorn and Coutu were made to look so foolish so many times. After the game Vezina said he never saw so many pucks in his life.

The article goes on to say that Victoria rotated their players throughout the game in 10-minute shifts while the Habs played all 60 minutes straight, which had predictable results. Still, the final score of the game was only 3-1, a lot closer than one might expect.

It's kind of funny to imagine these teams making a 3,000 mile journey by train, then having to play for the Stanley Cup under completely different rules under the impression that they could just figure it out as they went along. I'd love to have been a fly on the dressing room wall.

 

[overpass]

I'm having the same problem as MXD - having a lot of trouble separating the 11-19 defencemen for this vote.

I've gone through the pros and cons of each candidate, so I might as well post them here.

King Clancy

Pros: Consistently finished high in Hart voting. Best defenceman in hockey for a few years before Eddie Shore emerged. Made a major impact on Toronto (positive) and Ottawa (negative) when he was traded. Very good scoring stats, and his defensive play was praised by contemporaries. Great team player and leader, with a single-minded focus on winning.

Cons: Rarely placed on all-time teams (possibly overshadowed by contemporary Shore.)

Sprague Cleghorn

Pros: Played for a very long time at a high level - over 20 years total, and over 15 years as an elite defenceman. Frequently mentioned as the best defenceman in hockey earlier in his career, and had strong finishes in Hart voting later in his career. Had a big positive impact on every team he played for. Offensive numbers and reputation were very good, and he was probably even better defensively. Years later, many people remembered him as the best or among the best defenceman from hockey's early years.

Cons: Competition level - hockey was still developing to some degree, and the best players were in 2-3 different leagues. His violent play could have a negative effect on his own team at times, and he may have had his own agenda in looking to inflict punishment on opponents.

Paul Coffey

Pros: Magnificent offensive player - 2nd best scoring defenceman ever. Major contributor to a dynasty. Major contributor to Gretzky and Lemieux's high-scoring seasons. Strong Norris trophy record. Played a major role in multiple Canada Cups.

Cons: Defensive play was questionable, although he probably improved on that in big games during his peak. Later in his career, he was just poor defensively - plus-minus was bad in regular season and playoffs. Traded away several times in the second half of his career, and his teams frequently continued to win or had even more success after he left. Needed to play in a system optimized to his strengths, and was probably in the absolute best situation for him in Edmonton.

Tim Horton

Pros: Traditionally rated very highly - THN had him 42nd on their Top 100 list in 1997. Arguably the biggest contributor to a dynasty and the best playoff performer. Excellent defensively, and good offensively in an era and on a team that did not encourage offensive play from the blueline. Terrific longevity - while expansion may have helped him play to 44, he was a legitimate #1/elite defenceman until the age of 40.

Cons: Norris/All-star voting totals aren't as impressive as they could be, especially in an era with few elite offensive defencemen.

Brian Leetch

Pros: Outstanding offensive player. Great Conn Smythe playoff performance in 1994. Won two Norris trophies against tough competition. Was his team's best player for most of his career, and played big minutes in all situations.

Cons: Average defensively, and weaker than all/almost all other defencemen up for voting. His teams missed the playoffs for seven consecutive years. His performance dropped off in the second half of his career, especially defensively.

Al MacInnis

Pros: Extremely dangerous in the offensive zone and on the power play, one of the most valuable players ever in that situation. Excellent longevity, with an all-time great season at age 39, and consistently very good to excellent performance over 15 years. Great Conn Smythe playoff performance in 1989.

Cons: Started off as a defensive liability. While he developed into a better defender over his career, he was never elite defensively. Often didn't draw the shutdown minutes or first-unit penalty killing duties. Had injury problems and early playoff exits in much of his prime in the 1990s.

Brad Park

Pros: Great all-around defenceman, with no weaknesses. Was hands-down the second best defenceman of his era, behind only Bobby Orr, and would have won several Norris trophies were it not for Orr. Strong playoff performances.

Cons: Other than Orr, his competition at defence was relatively weak. Knee injuries slowed him later in his career and limited his longevity. Never won a Stanley Cup.

Pierre Pilote

Pros: Great offensive defenceman, best of his era. Norris trophy record is strong. Good reputation for defence and toughness. Great playoff performance in 1961.

Cons: Late developer, which limited his longevity. Top-level competition for Norris trophies may have been a little weak. Black Hawks underachieved in the playoffs, raising questions about Pilote's playoff performance.

Chris Pronger

Pros: Great all-around defenceman, who could impact the game at both ends. Played huge minutes in his prime in all situations. Outstanding peak, winning Hart trophy in an era where defencemen were rarely considered. Excellent playoff performances later in his career, with several great playoff runs. Played for multiple teams, made all of them better. While he had injuries in regular season, rarely missed playoff games.

Cons: Injury issues - missed a lot of regular season games. Had discipline issues earlier in his career. Norris/all-star record is OK, but he had relatively weak competition, because the NHL stopped developing great defencemen after he entered the league. (OTOH, his Norris/AS record would be better if not for injuries/missed games, so don't double-count the negatives) Why did he play for several teams?

Earl Seibert

Pros: 10 straight postseason all-star selections. Great size and toughness, combined with discipline and mobility - like an early Larry Robinson. Strong offensively and defensively.

Cons: Was he ever the best defenceman in hockey? Peak may be lacking compared to some others this round, although I admit I'm having a hard time getting a handle on him. Some of his later AS selections came against weaker competition.

Scott Stevens

Pros: Most important player on a dynasty, and among the best playoff performers of his era. Completely changed his game to fit the needs of his team. Great defensive defenceman, maybe the best in the league for a few years. Outstanding longevity. Combined physical intimidation and great defensive play with discipline, at least later in his career.

Cons: His offensive peak and defensive peak were mostly separate - in his later years as a defensive star, he didn't have the high point totals he had earlier in his career. (1993-94 was where they mostly co-incided, and it was a great season, but he wasn't quite at his defensive peak yet.) Never won a Norris trophy.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

I'm having the same problem as MXD - having a lot of trouble separating the 11-19 defencemen for this vote.

I've gone through the pros and cons of each candidate, so I might as well post them here.

King Clancy

Pros: Consistently finished high in Hart voting. Best defenceman in hockey for a few years before Eddie Shore emerged. Made a major impact on Toronto (positive) and Ottawa (negative) when he was traded. Very good scoring stats, and his defensive play was praised by contemporaries. Great team player and leader, with a single-minded focus on winning.

Cons: Rarely placed on all-time teams (possibly overshadowed by contemporary Shore.)

Sprague Cleghorn

Pros: Played for a very long time at a high level - over 20 years total, and over 15 years as an elite defenceman. Frequently mentioned as the best defenceman in hockey earlier in his career, and had strong finishes in Hart voting later in his career. Had a big positive impact on every team he played for. Offensive numbers and reputation were very good, and he was probably even better defensively. Years later, many people remembered him as the best or among the best defenceman from hockey's early years.

Cons: Competition level - hockey was still developing to some degree, and the best players were in 2-3 different leagues. His violent play could have a negative effect on his own team at times, and he may have had his own agenda in looking to inflict punishment on opponents.

Paul Coffey

Pros: Magnificent offensive player - 2nd best scoring defenceman ever. Major contributor to a dynasty. Major contributor to Gretzky and Lemieux's high-scoring seasons. Strong Norris trophy record. Played a major role in multiple Canada Cups.

Cons: Defensive play was questionable, although he probably improved on that in big games during his peak. Later in his career, he was just poor defensively - plus-minus was bad in regular season and playoffs. Traded away several times in the second half of his career, and his teams frequently continued to win or had even more success after he left. Needed to play in a system optimized to his strengths, and was probably in the absolute best situation for him in Edmonton.

Tim Horton

Pros: Traditionally rated very highly - THN had him 42nd on their Top 100 list in 1997. Arguably the biggest contributor to a dynasty and the best playoff performer. Excellent defensively, and good offensively in an era and on a team that did not encourage offensive play from the blueline. Terrific longevity - while expansion may have helped him play to 44, he was a legitimate #1/elite defenceman until the age of 40.

Cons: Norris/All-star voting totals aren't as impressive as they could be, especially in an era with few elite offensive defencemen.

Brian Leetch

Pros: Outstanding offensive player. Great Conn Smythe playoff performance in 1994. Won two Norris trophies against tough competition. Was his team's best player for most of his career, and played big minutes in all situations.

Cons: Average defensively, and weaker than all/almost all other defencemen up for voting. His teams missed the playoffs for seven consecutive years. His performance dropped off in the second half of his career, especially defensively.

Al MacInnis

Pros: Extremely dangerous in the offensive zone and on the power play, one of the most valuable players ever in that situation. Excellent longevity, with an all-time great season at age 39, and consistently very good to excellent performance over 15 years. Great Conn Smythe playoff performance in 1989.

Cons: Started off as a defensive liability. While he developed into a better defender over his career, he was never elite defensively. Often didn't draw the shutdown minutes or first-unit penalty killing duties. Had injury problems and early playoff exits in much of his prime in the 1990s.

Brad Park

Pros: Great all-around defenceman, with no weaknesses. Was hands-down the second best defenceman of his era, behind only Bobby Orr, and would have won several Norris trophies were it not for Orr. Strong playoff performances.

Cons: Other than Orr, his competition at defence was relatively weak. Knee injuries slowed him later in his career and limited his longevity. Never won a Stanley Cup.

Pierre Pilote

Pros: Great offensive defenceman, best of his era. Norris trophy record is strong. Good reputation for defence and toughness. Great playoff performance in 1961.

Cons: Late developer, which limited his longevity. Top-level competition for Norris trophies may have been a little weak. Black Hawks underachieved in the playoffs, raising questions about Pilote's playoff performance.

Chris Pronger

Pros: Great all-around defenceman, who could impact the game at both ends. Played huge minutes in his prime in all situations. Outstanding peak, winning Hart trophy in an era where defencemen were rarely considered. Excellent playoff performances later in his career, with several great playoff runs. Played for multiple teams, made all of them better. While he had injuries in regular season, rarely missed playoff games.

Cons: Injury issues - missed a lot of regular season games. Had discipline issues earlier in his career. Norris/all-star record is OK, but he had relatively weak competition, because the NHL stopped developing great defencemen after he entered the league. (OTOH, his Norris/AS record would be better if not for injuries/missed games, so don't double-count the negatives) Why did he play for several teams?

Earl Seibert

Pros: 10 straight postseason all-star selections. Great size and toughness, combined with discipline and mobility - like an early Larry Robinson. Strong offensively and defensively.

Cons: Was he ever the best defenceman in hockey? Peak may be lacking compared to some others this round, although I admit I'm having a hard time getting a handle on him. Some of his later AS selections came against weaker competition.

Scott Stevens

Pros: Most important player on a dynasty, and among the best playoff performers of his era. Completely changed his game to fit the needs of his team. Great defensive defenceman, maybe the best in the league for a few years. Outstanding longevity. Combined physical intimidation and great defensive play with discipline, at least later in his career.

Cons: His offensive peak and defensive peak were mostly separate - in his later years as a defensive star, he didn't have the high point totals he had earlier in his career. (1993-94 was where they mostly co-incided, and it was a great season, but he wasn't quite at his defensive peak yet.) Never won a Norris trophy.

Nice post, personally I am finding myself ranking the players that were the clear cut best defensemen in hockey for a few years highest. In random order, this would include Clancy, Park (Orr doesn't count), Pilote, and possibly Cleghorn (multiple leagues make it hard to be 100% sure). I know some eras are stronger/weaker than others, but when 2 or more peers of a player have already been ranked ahead as is the case with some of the other players, and not a single player has been listed from another era I think the guys like the ones I mentioned above need to go first.