Round 2, Vote 3 (HOH Top Defensemen)

[tarheelhockey]

Great summary, overpass.

At this point I'm finding it easier to cross guys off from the bottom of the list, than to justify leapfrogging them ahead.

 

[plusandminus]

As I see it, I would rate like this (which probably changes constantly)...
Clancy clearly ahead of Cleghorn. Seibert in between them.
MacInnis >= Pronger, mostly due to longevity. Both > Stevens > Leetch.
Pilote and Horton near each other, probably with Pilote finishing higher.
Coffey > Park > Pilote>= Horton
I know about Coffey's weaknesses, but he surely created some history with his offensive accomplishments.

Currently: Coffey > Clancy > MacInnis Park Pronger Seibert Pilote Horton > Cleghorn Stevens > Leetch
Since I've been asked about Salming, I might have - perhaps laughable to some - placed Salming anywhere from ahead of Seibert to behind Leetch.

I still don't understand why Cleghorn should be top 5. People have doubts about Lidstrom, despite his 8 Norris', but to me there are lots of doubtful things regarding Cleghorn's greatness. He was supposedly the best defenceman, perhaps, in a time when NHL wasn't formed and the best players played in different leagues. He had a long career, in an era where I have shown that other players also did well in their mid-30s. He was considered extremely good offensively, despite the fact that when he went to the NHL he wasn't the best offensive defenceman (at least not according to scoring).

I also think that some of the focus on Cleghorn should be done on other contemporary players too. If you dig up old news articles about them, one might read about them too being the perhaps best defenceman in the World. If you compare their effect "with vs without" them, one might see other players improving their teams too. I would for example think there are at least 10 defenceman in this season's NHL, who by themselves might turn their team stats up by say .20 or so.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I also think that some of the focus on Cleghorn should be done on other contemporary players too. If you dig up old news articles about them, one might read about them too being the perhaps best defenceman in the World. If you compare their effect "with vs without" them, one might see other players improving their teams too. I would for example think there are at least 10 defenceman in this season's NHL, who by themselves might turn their team stats up by say .20 or so.

Well, there's only one way to find out...

 

[Dreakmur]

I still don't understand why Cleghorn should be top 5. People have doubts about Lidstrom, despite his 8 Norris', but to me there are lots of doubtful things regarding Cleghorn's greatness. He was supposedly the best defenceman, perhaps, in a time when NHL wasn't formed and the best players played in different leagues. He had a long career, in an era where I have shown that other players also did well in their mid-30s. He was considered extremely good offensively, despite the fact that when he went to the NHL he wasn't the best offensive defenceman (at least not according to scoring).

Basically, Cleghorn was clearly the best defenseman of all time until the mid 1930s. That's well over 1/3 of hockey's entire history.

Even in the NHL, when he was essentially past his prime, and after suffering an injury that should have forced his retirement, he was among the very best offensive defensemen. In the first 5 seasons of the NHL, one of which he missed entirely with the above injury, Cleghorn was behind only Harry Cameron in terms of offensive production.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

MacInnis >= Pronger, mostly due to longevity. Both > Stevens > Leetch.

If MacInnis is ahead of Pronger because of longevity, then why isn't Stevens also ahead of Pronger?

Pilote and Horton near each other, probably with Pilote finishing higher.

Why "probably?"

Currently: Coffey > Clancy > MacInnis Park Pronger Seibert Pilote Horton > Cleghorn Stevens > Leetch

Why such a huge difference between Stevens and MacInnis? Their careers spanned almost the exact same years. These are their Norris records:

MacInnis: 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 6th, 7th, 8th, 8th
Stevens: 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 4th, 5th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 7th, 10th

Virtually identical. MacInnis has the one win, but that's only because his best season was in 1999 after Bourque and Chelios had declined slightly (and Lidstrom hadn't fully emerged), while Stevens' best season was in 1994 when Bourque was having one of his best years. MacInnis has more top 3 finishes, Stevens has more top 5 and top 10 finishes.

Then consider:

• The Norris clearly favored defensemen with offensive production when these guys played.
• The Norris doesn't take into account playoff performances. Stevens was at least as good as MacInnis in the playoffs and probably a little better.

The preference for offense over defense from defensemen has reached epic proportions here.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

The preference for offense over defense from defensemen has reached epic proportions here.

Yet Pilote is ranked barely ahead of Horton. IMO that post is full of inconsistency. I can see the comparison of Al MacInnis is to Scott Stevens as Pierre Pilote is to Tim Horton, but I would have it skewed the opposite way. Pilote is higher above Horton than MacInnis is over Stevens (if he even is over him).

On top of that I have Pilote fairly easily as the best of the 4. I just don't see how the 4th-5th best player of his era could be better than the #1 player of his era, no matter how weak it is. He has Coffey ahead of MacInnis, and we already have Bourque, Chelios, and Fetisov ranked in earlier rounds. Not a single player that played their prime years during Pilote's prime is present on our list yet.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Yet Pilote is ranked barely ahead of Horton. IMO that post is full of inconsistency. I can see the comparison of Al MacInnis is to Scott Stevens as Pierre Pilote is to Tim Horton, but I would have it skewed the opposite way. Pilote is higher above Horton than MacInnis is over Stevens (if he even is over him).

Agree with bolded. Pilote's Norris record is much better than Horton's, while if MacInnis has an advantage over Stevens there, it is marginal at best.

The one counterargument I can see is if someone believes Horton's advantage over Pilote in the playoffs is larger than any advantage Stevens might hold over MacInnis, but as of now, I'm not convinced that it is larger at all.

On top of that I have Pilote fairly easily as the best of the 4. I just don't see how the 4th-5th best player of his era could be better than the #1 player of his era, no matter how weak it is. He has Coffey ahead of MacInnis, and we already have Bourque, Chelios, and Fetisov ranked in earlier rounds. Not a single player that played their prime years during Pilote's prime is present on our list yet.

The counterargument to this would be that after Bobby Orr, a higher percentage of talented players became defensemen.

Also, if we ever start ranking wingers, Pilote's era clearly has better left wings and right wings than (for example) Coffey's era.

(Then a counter-counterexample would be pointing out that Pilote once finished 8th in overall scoring, forwards included, and that he once led the SC winner in points, forwards included).

Edit: Not to pick on one poster, either. The stat-based HOH board has traditionally had a slight preference for offense over defense from defensemen, which is something I've disagreed with.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

The counterargument to this would be that after Bobby Orr, a higher percentage of talented players became defensemen.

Also, if we ever start ranking wingers, Pilote's era clearly has better left wings and right wings than (for example) Coffey's era.

Yes but would the 4th or 5th ranked winger in Pilote's era be considered better than the top ranked winger in Coffey's?

For RW's or wingers overall, no for sure, because you have Bossy and Kurri. LW's is closer, you're looking at Goulet and Robitaille...but is there any LW better than them after Hull, Mahovlich, and Bucyk?

 

[MXD]

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.

Offtopic, but...

Can that be held against Brewer and Baun?

 

[MXD]

Basically, Cleghorn was clearly the best defenseman of all time until the mid 1930s. That's well over 1/3 of hockey's entire history.

Even in the NHL, when he was essentially past his prime, and after suffering an injury that should have forced his retirement, he was among the very best offensive defensemen. In the first 5 seasons of the NHL, one of which he missed entirely with the above injury, Cleghorn was behind only Harry Cameron in terms of offensive production.

To be fair, he was probably the best defensemen when he passed Hod Stuart up until he was passed by Eddie Shore (and that's completely disregarding King Clancy). So, the very best, he was considered the best for, what, 20 years?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Yes but would the 4th or 5th ranked winger in Pilote's era be considered better than the top ranked winger in Coffey's?

For RW's or wingers overall, no for sure, because you have Bossy and Kurri. LW's is closer, you're looking at Goulet and Robitaille...but is there any LW better than them after Hull, Mahovlich, and Bucyk?

I see your point, but it should also be noted that players like Kurri (Europeans NHL superstars) didn't exist when Pilote played.

 

[Dreakmur]

To be fair, he was probably the best defensemen when he passed Hod Stuart up until he was passed by Eddie Shore (and that's completely disregarding King Clancy). So, the very best, he was considered the best for, what, 20 years?

But once he passes Stuart, he takes over those years.

 

[MXD]

That might be too late, but how do you think of JC Tremblay's departure to the WHA might have impacted on Brad Park's career in retrospective?

 

[Canadiens1958]

No

Offtopic, but...

Can that be held against Brewer and Baun?

Question of using the pairing best suited for the specific job at hand.Horton's strength was the key factor.

 

[MXD]

But once he passes Stuart, he takes over those years.

Fine then. I mean, I completely disagree, but at least the point was somewhat explained.

 

[MXD]

Question of using the pairing best suited for the specific job at hand.Horton's strength was the key factor.

Thanks for the timely reply. I mean, we aren't seriously looking at Brewer until a few rounds, but that somewhat sounded like something that would put Brewer at a disadvantage, relatively speaking.

 

[Canadiens1958]

No Impact

That might be too late, but how do you think of JC Tremblay's departure to the WHA might have impacted on Brad Park's career in retrospective?

No impact. If anything JC Tremblay going to the WHA allowed Larry Robinson to enter the NHL a bit earlier who surpassed Park by the late 1970's.

 

[tarheelhockey]

To be fair, he was probably the best defensemen when he passed Hod Stuart up until he was passed by Eddie Shore (and that's completely disregarding King Clancy). So, the very best, he was considered the best for, what, 20 years?

I think he was saying that Cleghorn was the best pre-Shore defenseman, therefore there is a period of 30-40 years where he can be called the best of the group to date.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

That might be too late, but how do you think of JC Tremblay's departure to the WHA might have impacted on Brad Park's career in retrospective?

Interesting question.

These are Park's All Star Teams:

1969-70 NHL NHL All-Star Team (1st)
1970-71 NHL NHL All-Star Team (2nd)
1971-72 NHL NHL All-Star Team (1st)
1972-73 NHL NHL All-Star Team (2nd)
1973-74 NHL NHL All-Star Team (1st)
1975-76 NHL NHL All-Star Team (1st)
1977-78 NHL NHL All-Star Team (1st)

In 1970-71, Park finished a distant second in Norris voting to Orr but lost the 1st Team All Star to Tremblay (who finished 3rd in Norris voting). It's not quite your question, but I don't think we can just assume Park would have won the norris that year without Orr.

But then in 71-72, Tremblay was not a factor in All-Star voting (Stapleton and White were the 2nd Teamers). Tremblay jumped to the WHA in 72-73 at the age of 34. I doubt it would have had much of an effect on Park if Tremblay stayed, but who knows?

(For what it's worht, in 72-73, Park only played 56 games, which let Lapointe sneak into the 1st Team spot).

Also note that while competition for the pre-1975 All Star teams was basically Bobby Orr and little else, competition for the post-1975 AS teams was insane.

 

[MXD]

Very good question.

These are Park's All Star Teams:

1969-70 NHL NHL All-Star Team (1st)
1970-71 NHL NHL All-Star Team (2nd)
1971-72 NHL NHL All-Star Team (1st)
1972-73 NHL NHL All-Star Team (2nd)
1973-74 NHL NHL All-Star Team (1st)
1975-76 NHL NHL All-Star Team (1st)
1977-78 NHL NHL All-Star Team (1st)

In 1970-71, Park finished a distant second in Norris voting to Orr but lost the 1st Team All Star to Tremblay (who finished 3rd in Norris voting).

But then in 71-72, Tremblay was not a factor in All-Star voting (Stapleton and White were the 2nd Teamers). Tremblay jumped to the WHA in 72-73 at the age of 34. I doubt it would have had much of an effect on Park if Tremblay stayed, but who knows?

(For what it's worht, in 72-73, Park only played 56 games, which let Lapointe sneak into the 1st Team spot).

Basically... extremely minimal at the very best. Tremblay was 33 when he moved to the WHA, didn't have for a lot of years in the NHL anyways.

 

[plusandminus]

When I finally post some kind of ranking, two persons almost makes fun of it. I suppose it was good that I didn't participate in this project, as it seems I would have destroyed it with my bad way of looking at players. Shame on us who aren't considered as elite as the majority of participants in the project.

If MacInnis is ahead of Pronger because of longevity, then why isn't Stevens also ahead of Pronger?

The longevity part was only between MacInnis and Pronger. I think those two are close, and put MacInnis ahead due to him playing more years at a high level. Of course that may change.
Longevity wasn't the reason I put Stevens below those two. I think all three are very close. It's just my impression that I find MacInnis and Pronger slightly ahead of Stevens. I know about Stevens defensive reputation and saw him play a number of times (just like I saw MacInnis and Pronger). Stevens was very good, and could dominate the play. But so I think Pronger could too. And MacInnis was in the last round here too, so obviously other than I ranked him ahead of Stevens.
Even if you think I'm underrating Stevens, do you still think I'm very wrong?

"Pilote and Horton near each other, probably with Pilote finishing higher."
Why "probably?"

Because I don't know for sure. I've learnt that Pilote was good offensively. But I've also learnt that Horton was good defensively, and overall, and that he - if I remember right - was good in the playoffs.
It sounds as if you think the gap is pretty big between the two?

Why such a huge difference between Stevens and MacInnis? Their careers spanned almost the exact same years. These are their Norris records:

MacInnis: 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 6th, 7th, 8th, 8th
Stevens: 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 4th, 5th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 7th, 10th

Virtually identical. MacInnis has the one win, but that's only because his best season was in 1999 after Bourque and Chelios had declined slightly (and Lidstrom hadn't fully emerged), while Stevens' best season was in 1994 when Bourque was having one of his best years. MacInnis has more top 3 finishes, Stevens has more top 5 and top 10 finishes.

But why do you say "huge" difference? To me it's a very small difference.
And again, wasn't MacInnis up in the last round, and if so some people must have rated him ahead of Stevens.

• The Norris clearly favored defensemen with offensive production when these guys played.
• The Norris doesn't take into account playoff performances. Stevens was at least as good as MacInnis in the playoffs and probably a little better.

Again, it seems as if you think Stevens should be clearly ahead of MacInnis.
I'm sorry if I'm underrating Stevens.

The preference for offense over defense from defensemen has reached epic proportions here.

That's not very nice to hear. Is it so controversial to have Coffey at number one in this group? He was very good offensively, and some here rate him as number 2nd alltime in that category. Of course I think it would be great with players being great both offensively and defensively. But despite Coffey's flaws, and that he got traded, I would think that he often was pretty useful for his teams. To me, a defenceman does not have to be elite in all categories. His team could use other defencemen for more defensive roles, and let him focus on what he was best on. Coffey and Stevens on the same team, might be very useful. And even if Coffey is likely far from Mario offensively, Mario was by many considered basically all offence too. I know Coffey as a defenceman is expected to be good at defence. (Sorry if my argumentation is bad.)

Yet Pilote is ranked barely ahead of Horton. IMO that post is full of inconsistency. I can see the comparison of Al MacInnis is to Scott Stevens as Pierre Pilote is to Tim Horton, but I would have it skewed the opposite way. Pilote is higher above Horton than MacInnis is over Stevens (if he even is over him).

So you think that MacInnis is above Stevens, and that Pilote is above Horton. Then what is so wrong with my post, where I wrote the same?

Why is my post full of inconsistency? Is it because TDMM wrote I prefered offence before defence? But isn't what you comment here a case where I actually do the opposite? But then I'm inconsistent for not categorically(?) rating players based purely on offensive skill? If so, I think you're a bit unfair.

On top of that I have Pilote fairly easily as the best of the 4. I just don't see how the 4th-5th best player of his era could be better than the #1 player of his era, no matter how weak it is. He has Coffey ahead of MacInnis, and we already have Bourque, Chelios, and Fetisov ranked in earlier rounds. Not a single player that played their prime years during Pilote's prime is present on our list yet.

The generation MacInnis was part of, was as it currently seems to me - and according to a (not huge) study I've done - the best ever for defencemen. Bourque obviously was the best. Regarding Chelios, I'm not sure he is much ahead of MacInnis. (Both were up in the last round, and if I remember right the difference between them in the voting wasn't huge. Edit: OK, it was big I now see.) On lists I've seen, Coffey is often ranked higher than in this project, and I wouldn't think it's too controversial to rank him ahead of Pilote.
Thus, one may end up with three guys ahead of Pilote. Then we have Fetisov, by most considered top-2 alltime among Europeans. Those guys, and other great players, did MacInnis have to compete with.
I simply didn't find Pilote's competition to look that strong. I may be wrong. It seems to me as if Pilote was sort of "in between" stronger competition. The opposite seems true for guys born around 1961-63, as can be seen - I think - in them strongly taking over at least the scoring stats (I know scoring isn't all, but anyway).
You think I'm very wrong, don't you?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Era

Agree with bolded. Pilote's Norris record is much better than Horton's, while if MacInnis has an advantage over Stevens there, it is marginal at best.

The one counterargument I can see is if someone believes Horton's advantage over Pilote in the playoffs is larger than any advantage Stevens might hold over MacInnis, but as of now, I'm not convinced that it is larger at all.



The counterargument to this would be that after Bobby Orr, a higher percentage of talented players became defensemen.

Also, if we ever start ranking wingers, Pilote's era clearly has better left wings and right wings than (for example) Coffey's era.

(Then a counter-counterexample would be pointing out that Pilote once finished 8th in overall scoring, forwards included, and that he once led the SC winner in points, forwards included).

Edit: Not to pick on one poster, either. The stat-based HOH board has traditionally had a slight preference for offense over defense from defensemen, which is something I've disagreed with.

Comes down to the weight playoff performance is given. Horton's perceived advantage stems from handling the key physical defensive assignment with Allan Stanley for 9 consecutive playoffs 1959-1967, especially during the Leafs four SC where he faced: Bathgate/B.Hull, Beliveau/Howe twice, Hull/Beliveau.

An analogy would be the positives that Lidstrom draws from one series vs Lindros(1997) or Stevens from one hit/series vs Lindros.

Likewise you have to look at Chicago's record and Pilote's performance vs the same big forwards. Other than 1961 Pilote and the Hawks had problems.

This is not reflected in the AST or Norris voting which is regular season based. So the voters in the project have to balance the regular season performance with the playoffs. Depends on the weight given to each and the importance of defense vs offense for a defenseman.

 

[Dreakmur]

Fine then. I mean, I completely disagree, but at least the point was somewhat explained.

You don't think Cleghorn was better than Stuart?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Perspective

You don't think Cleghorn was better than Stuart?

Interesting question.

As this project evolves I see my views shifting from the was better perspective to the deserves to be ranked higher than position. Especially true for pre Red Line defensemen where I see more questions being raised than answered.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Sprague Cleghorn

Sprague Cleghorn started his career as a forward then was moved to defense. Obvious question is why was he moved. Not sure there is enough time to explore this issue but it would give insight into coaching and strategies, personnel decisions,importance of positions, etc as such topics relate to the NHA era.

Also one must keep in mind that the small rosters of the era in the context of exhibition games would see players playing a second or multiple positions. Likewise during the era of the 60 minute players, fatigue or minor injury would result in temporary position changes.