Round 2, Vote 3 (HOH Top Defensemen)

[JaysCyYoung]

Just some general thoughts on each aforementioned candidate in this round:

Francis "King" Clancy - One of the most competitive players of his age, never backing down from a challenge no matter how daunting. Revered as an incredible leader and the missing piece of the Leafs 1932 Stanley Cup championship team. Also won titles in 1923 and 1927 while starring for the borderline dynasty Ottawa Senators. Led defencemen in scoring in 1930 and 1934 and in defensive point shares in 1922 and 1934. A First All-Star Team selection in 1931 and 1934, and would have been in 1930 (the all-star teams were created the next season). Finished in the top three in MVP voting on three occasions and top five on five occasions. A remarkably durable player who led the league in games played seven separate seasons; considered arguably the second best defenceman of his era behind Eddie Shore. Few in the game's history have ever played bigger than Clancy's 5'7, 155 pound frame.

Sprague Cleghorn - One of the first true star defencemen of the post-consolidation period in the NHL. Both revered and reviled by teammates and opponents alike for his legendary temper and willingness to engage in fisticuffs and physical play. Set the tone for two Montreal Canadiens championship teams in 1924 and 1925 after already winning a pair for Ottawa in 1920 and 1921. A gifted offensive defenceman who scored at least 15 goals on four occasions and terrified opposing goaltenders with his offensive talent and penchant for risk-taking on his side of the puck, Cleghorn's antics on the ice often overshadowed his talent and production: he was once suspended for attacking fellow period star Lionel Hitchman in the post-season and suspended by his club's very own owner "Leo Dandurand, who described his player's actions as 'befitting an animal.'" At the time of his retirement only Harry Cameron had scored more goals amongst defencemen.

Paul Coffey - Regarded by many as the game's most pre-eminent offensive defenceman in history, surpassed only by the indomitable Bobby Orr. Scored 100 points or more in a season on five separate occasions and captured three Norris Trophies as top defenceman, while being named to four First All-Star Teams and four Second All-Star Teams. Only Ray Bourque has more career goals and points than Coffey amongst defencemen (396 and 1531). Scored 135 career power play goals, but also could be used on the penalty kill to generate offence as his 20 career short-handed markers attest. Was criticised extensively for his defensive play, which was often considered suspect despite a career +294 rating. Captured four Stanley Cups but was also dealt away from three different organizations only to see them win the title the very next season (Edmonton - 1988, Pittsburgh - 1992, and Detroit - 1997). Outstanding international resume bolstered by three consecutive Canada Cup wins in 1984, 1987, and 1991, during which he scored 24 points in 25 games. Posted 7 assists in 8 games in silver medal effort during 1996 World Cup of Hockey.

Tim Horton - One of the most dominant defence-first players in NHL history. Renowned for his unmatched strength and likened to a bear, even as he played into an advanced age while continuing to perform at a high level. Only Chris Chelios is his equal in terms of performance past age forty; Horton played 282 games after hitting the milestone. Finished a runner-up to the Norris Trophy three times and won four Stanley Cups as the anchor of the 1960s dynasty Maple Leafs teams revered blue-line. Durability illustrated by leading the league in games played seven times and appearing in 1,446 career contests, a record at the time of his retirement. Only Harry Howell was within 100 games of Horton (now eighth on the all-time games played list by a defenceman) upon both players' respective retirements. Legends of Hockey noted that "though it would be impossible to prove, the case could be made that Tim Horton was the strongest man ever to lace up skates in the National Hockey League." Deceptively quiet on-ice general who was named to three First All-Star Teams and would likely have two Norris Trophies were it not for Bobby Orr.

Brian Leetch - Incredibly gifted offensive weapon who is just one of eight blueliners all-time to hit the 1,000 point mark. Won two Norris Trophies and hit the century mark in points during his first season as league's top defenceman in 1992. Renown for his ability to skate the puck out of danger and spur the rush with authority. An elite passer who logged 781 assists and was a primary catalyst in ending the Rangers fifty four year Stanley Cup drought in 1994; led that post-season in both assists and points with 34, being awarded the Conn Smythe Trophy as MVP, the first American player so honoured in the award's 29 year history. Career 0.85 PPG mark in the regular-season but his 97 points in 95 games give him a post-season mark of 1.02 PPG. Criticised throughout his career for being prone to lapses in judgement in the defensive zone and for not playing tough enough in front of the net. Lacks a lengthy prime of just seven seasons of elite play (1990-1997) compared to some of the other names on the list. Arguably not a "definable" player.

Al MacInnis - As mentioned by other posters already, probably one of the pre-eminent five greatest PP specialists of all-time. Possessed possibly the most dangerous point shot in NHL history and recognized for his remarkable play into his late 30s. Arguably had his best season at age 39 in 2003, a year in which he finished second in Norris Trophy voting and led all defencemen in points, a feat that he would accomplish in 1991 and 1999 as well. Won Norris Trophy as league's top defenceman in 1999 and his 166 career PP goals are second only to Ray Bourque all-time for a defenceman. A four-time First Team All-Star who elevated his performance in the post-season; like Leetch he was a Conn Smythe Trophy recipient in 1989 for leading the Flames to their first Stanley Cup triumph as a result of leading post-season in assists and points with 24 assists and 31 points in just 22 games. His 1,232 points from the back-end ranks third all-time and his 160 points in 177 playoff games (0.90) is just as good as his regular-season PPG average (0.90). Solid international resume with 1991 Canada Cup triumph and 2002 Olympic gold medal career highlights.

Brad Park - As Legends of Hockey correctly points out "in just about any other era, Brad Park would have been considered the best defenseman of his generation." Overshadowed by Bobby Orr and a weak list of contemporary challengers for defensive excellence. Nonetheless, plied his trade to the tune of five First All-Star Team selections and six Norris Trophy runner-ups, a bridesmaid record heretofore unmatched in NHL history due to Orr's greatness. Played well for Team Canada during the 1972 Summit Series against the Soviet Union with five points in eight games. May have developed an unfair reputation as not being a winner due to his propensity for finishing in second-place (his teams lost in the Stanley Cup Finals in 1972, 1977, and 1978) in addition to his lack of any singularly defining attributes. Was good at everything but arguably not great at any particular facet of the game. Solid as they came and a prodigious point producer whose 896 points rank him thirteenth all-time amongst defencemen - second when he retired. Reputation as solid defensive player upheld by a career +358 rating, which is fifteenth all-time amongst all skaters.

Pierre Pilote - One of the most quietly efficient players of his time. Won three consecutive Norris Trophies from 1964-66, a period in which there was a lack of upper-echelon defenders plying their trade in the NHL. Nonetheless, this late-bloomer, who led the league in scoring by a defenceman in five different seasons, was an invaluable component of the dominant Chicago teams of the 1960s. A key component of the 1961 Black Hawks Stanley Cup championship-winning squad, with a league-leading 12 assists and 15 points during the playoffs, a performance that likely would have won him a Conn Smythe when the award was first awarded four years later. Not simply a push-over Francophone on defence, Pilote is reported to once have knocked out both of the Richard Brothers in a game against Montreal, and blocked shots and broke up scoring plays with vigour. Pete, as he was known to teammates and friends, also led the league in assists by a defenceman six times.

Chris Pronger - One of the most dominant physical forces of his era. Standing 6'6 and weighing around 230 pounds, Pronger exemplified the drive to go big in the 1990s. His exceptional size was punctuated by superb mobility and the ability to quarterback the power play flawlessly. Led the league in plus minus in 1998 and 2000 while also becoming the first blueliner since Bobby Orr to be named league MVP in the latter campaign. Injuries decimated a large swathe of his prime years, including seasons in 2001 and 2007 when he likely would have captured the Norris Trophy before going down to injury. Won 2000 Norris in addition to the aforementioned Hart that season for a President's Trophy-winning Blues squad. Considered one of the best playoff performers of his time; led eighth place Oilers to knock off the first three seeds in the Western Conference during unprecedented miracle run in 2006 for which he likely would have been named Conn Smythe winner had team won game seven against Carolina. Captured Stanley Cup with Anaheim next season in 2007 and also came just short in the Finals against Chicago with Philadelphia in 2010. A mainstay on the national team: four-time Olympian who captured gold medals with Team Canada in 2002 and 2010 - also won World Junior gold in 1993 and World Championship gold in 1997. Numerous suspensions and injuries during his prime have tainted an otherwise sterling career. Posted almost 700 points while playing most of career in the Dead Puck Era, but nonetheless not as offensively dominant as other names on list.

Earl Seibert - Decorated defenceman who must have looked like a tower of power to opponents during his prime at 6'2 and close to 200 pounds. Renown for his incredibly tough approach to the game and skill at playing effective defence, his serious attitude and attention to detail made him a yearly fixture on the NHL All-Star Team. He was named to the squad every season between 1935 and 1944, four times on the First Team. Legends of Hockey notes of his on-ice demeanour and remarkably abrasive attitude towards opponents: "Seibert was generally regarded as second only to Eddie Shore in terms of skill and rugged play, and Shore once confessed that Seibert was the only man he was afraid to fight." Won two Stanley Cup championships; one with New York in 1933 and one with Chicago in 1938, but was hampered by playing during a weak period of time in the league's history talent-wise on the blue-line (much like Park after him).

Scott Stevens - Few players in any professional sport have ever had such an interesting career trajectory as Stevens. During the 1980s he was one of the league's premier offensive rearguards, scoring sixty or more points on four separate occasions. Upon arriving in New Jersey however, Stevens transformed his game entirely, becoming one of the most dominant predominantly defensive players in league history. Recognized for his on-ice intimidation and unmatched bodychecking ability; few players had the ability to strike fear into the heart of opponents like Stevens. A three-time Stanley Cup champion and a four time Finalist, Stevens was awarded the 2000 Conn Smythe Award entirely on the back of his defensive excellence. While he never captured the Norris Trophy, Stevens was an agonizingly close runner-up to Ray Bourqe in 1994 when he scored a career-high 78 points and led the NHL in plus-minus. Career 908 points are twelfth all-time by a rearguard and his remarkable +393 rating ranks him eleventh amongst all skaters. A five-time NHL All-Star Team selection, twice to the First Team, Stevens embodied all of the traits that make a defenceman great. He is hurt by his lack of individual hardware beyond the 2000 Conn Smythe, but is supported by the fact that he had the misfortune to ply his trade during arguably the greatest peak of defensive talent in NHL history.

 

[nik jr]

For guys post 80 I hope to get a chance and do a "Canadian Norris" voting records as players from the original 6 were almost exclusively Canadian. This might give us a bit more context especially with guys like Pilote in a Canadian apples versus apples look.

if europeans and americans are removed from norris voting, bourque would have won 10 norris ('83, '87, '88, '90, '91, '92, '93, '94, '96, '01), and been a finalist in every season in his career, except '81 (4th), '98 (6th) and '00 (4th).

bourque would probably have a lot of support for best d-man ever.

possibly more than 10, since norris voting sometimes split for offensive vs defensive d-men, and removing players like langway and chelios could produce more votes for bourque when coffey and/or macinnis would be bourque's main competitors.

players like potvin and robinson could also have done better in early '80s in this scenario.


coffey would have 5 norris ('84, '85, '86, '89, '95), and 4 other times as a finalist ('82, '83, '91, '96).



actual voting would be very unpredictable, though, since removing europeans and americans would have large effects on every team. NHL would also most likely have less teams.

That seems to be canon today, but when I read articles from the era, it seems that Cleghorn vs. Eddie Gerard was not an open and shut case. Of course, there could have been bias against Cleghorn because of the way he played.

agree

could also be partly b/c cleghorn played for several different teams, whereas gerard was considered a consummate team player and a great captain.

i have read many more articles about senators than wanderers or canadiens, though, and reports from 1910s are more difficult to find.

gerard's career on D was much shorter than cleghorn's, though. retired early, and played F early in his career.

See here's a place where either the stats are hiding something, or my eyeball test/memory is wrong or fading, because I seem to remember Chris Pronger getting abused frequently in the playoffs pre-lockout, especially on some of those big time Blues flameouts. I'd welcome someone either confirming that or setting me straight.

imo, pronger was criticized too much for STL's losses.

What do you guys make of Earl Seibert and his spectacular ten straight all-star team selections? He is the only defenseman to accompish that aside from Harvey. What's troubling is that 3 of his 4 1st team selections came during the war.

I find this fascinating. It's very rare to read about the tenacious defenders of the early era that they play a tough, but clean game. It is mentioned in his Legends of Hockey profile that he played a mature game, suggesting again that his defensive play was not as reckless as e.g. Shore.

I haven't looked it up as I have to head for work soon, but I have a feeling this is rather young for a 'key player' for his era right? Or for any era for that matter...

seibert was a fast skater, very big, had good offensive numbers and played on PP. i wonder what his weaknesses were.

several converted F's (clapper, siebert, goodfellow) took 1st AS spots before him, which looks bad for seibert. i read a column from '42 that said wally stanowski was a flash in the pan, and was overrated in '41 by writers.

 

[plusandminus]

i'm curious to hear from a blues fan if there are any here: we canucks fans remember the macinnis who used to kill us in calgary and we think that if macinnis were healthy, he could have stopped the bleeding and the blues wouldn't have lost those last three games. what would a blues fan, having seen all of those playoff series from the pronger/macinnis/tkachuk/demitra years say?

My advice is that you make a post in the St Louis forum and ask them. I have done that (posting in team specific forum to ask about their look upon things), with good responses.
(I usually link to the discussion here that raised the question, but in this case it might result in lots of Blues fans lobbying for their former players. )

 

[plusandminus]

Since his name likely will be written here now and then, how is "Sprague Cleghorn" being pronounced?

Sprayg? Spragg?? Spraggé???
Clegghorn? Cleeghorn??

 

[Dreakmur]

Since his name likely will be written here now and then, how is "Sprague Cleghorn" being pronounced?

Sprayg? Spragg?? Spraggé???
Clegghorn? Cleeghorn??

Assuming it is pronounced the way it is written.... Sprayg Cleg-horn

 

[Canadiens1958]

Overview

A few general comments before looking at specifics.

There has to be a greater distinction between the expected toughness that a defenseman is expected to contribute and gratuitous violence. Likewise viewing excessive PIM totals in the context of an ability to kill penalties is a non-starter.

Commonality is that neither gratuitous violence nor excessive PIMs contribute a great deal to winning. Just a lot of wasted effort that does not produce positive results.

Analogies would be arguing that someone is great at finding their way out of the woods when lost or is great at putting out fires. Well not getting lost in the woods and fire prevention skills are more important and valuable.

King Clancy Played for the great Ottawa Senators(tail end) and the thirties Maple Leafs, a team that underperformed. Key question, was Clancy ever viewed as a veteran presence on the Leafs? Key acquisition vs veteran presence.

Sprague Cleghorn Star presence or sideshow? Early twenties Senators got rid of him, saw the team PIMs drop and still won the SC.

Paul Coffey Offensively talented but failed to realize that not all teams were the Gretzky Oilers. Failure to adapt or mature his game has to be addressed.

Tim Horton Part of the most balanced pairing in hockey history for most of nine seasons with Allan Stanley. Both were ideal within the Leafs system.

Brian Leetch Very impressive offensively when not injured.Defensive game did not come along with time as expected.

Al MacInnis Defensive game developed especially after he lefy Calgary. Played in Small markets so exposure was an issue at times.

Brad Park Accept the Bobby Orr Lite mantra and Park is better than he was. Bill Gadsby was viewed as Doug Harvey or Red Kelly Lite yet during the 1958-59 season when Harvey and Kelly were injured, Tom Johnson snuck in to win the Norris despite Gadsby tying his own record for points in a season by a defenseman.

Pierre Pilote Three Norris Trophies provide a solid picture. Point has been made about weak competition. Disagree, as the era tended to strong and balanced defensive pairings. Two considerations - inconsistent, 1961 playoffs was outstanding defensively and offensively with 15 points in 12 games, involved in 40% of the Hawk goals but this represents 25% of his playoff career production. Could be attacked on defense because he was vulnerable, LHS playing RD and lacked a strong partner.

Chris Pronger Played on five teams, still active. Crosses the line between toughness and excess. Seems to have a hard time finding appropriate partners to form an elite pairing.

Earl Seibert Spent most of his career on weak Chicago teams. Lacked exposure. Contributed to winning when the opportunity was presented. 1938 Hawk SC.

Scott Stevens Best example of a defenseman accepting changing roles with teams as the years go by and as hockey changes. Matured very well. Recognized the opportunities for hitting that the trap and the dead puck era presented better than any other defenseman.

 

[MXD]

Seibert is hard for me to figure out. The big problem is figuring out the LD and RD business that was going on for most of his career.

Was he regularly finishing behind only Eddie Shore in all star voting? Or was he regularly getting beaten out by converted forwards like Babe Siebert and Ebbie Goodfellow? I have no idea.

His gaudy all-star record makes it clear that he has among the greatest longevity as an elite player available. But his lack of 1st Teams and lack of Hart consideration makes me think he peak wasn't quite as dominant.

He's a step below Clancy IMO, but i can't say much past that.

The problem with Seibert is that he ran either in Shore, Clapper, or a bunch of guys who won the Hart (except Tom Anderson).

Pierre Pilote Three Norris Trophies provide a solid picture. Point has been made about weak competition. Disagree, as the era tended to strong and balanced defensive pairings. Two considerations - inconsistent, 1961 playoffs was outstanding defensively and offensively with 15 points in 12 games, involved in 40% of the Hawk goals but this represents 25% of his playoff career production. Could be attacked on defense because he was vulnerable, LHS playing RD and lacked a strong partner.

Ehh.... Who were his partners? Mortsen, then Vasko, then... (?????).

 

[Pear Juice]

Since his name likely will be written here now and then, how is "Sprague Cleghorn" being pronounced?

Sprayg? Spragg?? Spraggé???
Clegghorn? Cleeghorn??

Wikipedia: Sprague is a surname of English origin, from the northern Middle English Spragge, either a personal name or a byname meaning "lively", a metathesized and voiced form of Spark, a Northern English surname from the Old Norse byname or personal name Sparkr ‘sprightly’, ‘vivacious’.

Given the above definition his surname is most likely pronounced Spragg (quiet e on the end). I love how even the meaning of the name aludes to his way of playing hockey.

 

[Dreakmur]

Wikipedia: Sprague is a surname of English origin, from the northern Middle English Spragge, either a personal name or a byname meaning "lively", a metathesized and voiced form of Spark, a Northern English surname from the Old Norse byname or personal name Sparkr ‘sprightly’, ‘vivacious’.

Given the above definition his surname is most likely pronounced Spragg (quiet e on the end). I love how even the meaning of the name aludes to his way of playing hockey.

That's how an english speaking person would pronounce it. If a french speaking person was pronouncing it as it's written, it would be Sprayg.

Guess it's still up in the air

 

[overpass]

Time at Forward

Sprague Cleghorn and King Clancy both broke into top level hockey as forwards. But they soon moved to defence and spent their careers there. I'm not aware of them moving to forward in their primes.

Tim Horton filled in at RW for a 10 game stretch in the 60s because of injuries, and scored 8 goals.

Scott Stevens had one season where he scored 16 PPG, a career high. That is because he played in front of the net on the power play that season.

Despite what you may have heard about him, Paul Coffey did not play forward.

 

[Pear Juice]

That's how an english speaking person would pronounce it. If a french speaking person was pronouncing it as it's written, it would be Sprayg.

Guess it's still up in the air

Sure of that? Maybe you're a native french speaker and I come off like total ****, but from the french I took in school I would pronounce it something like Czech capital Prague (Pra:g) but with a very short 'a'-sound.

This is an entertaining off-topic. I had no idea Sprague was derived from Old Norse and literally means Sparky.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Partners

The problem with Seibert is that he ran either in Shore, Clapper, or a bunch of guys who won the Hart (except Tom Anderson).



Ehh.... Who were his partners? Mortsen, then Vasko, then... (?????).

Gus Mortson was an ideal veteran to break-in a rookie/young defenseman but was gone by the time Pilote was established. Vasko brought size but not a solid alternative to moving the puck up ice when pressure was put on Pilote. Granted Vasko was the best choice of available Hawk defensemen.

 

[tarheelhockey]

There has to be a greater distinction between the expected toughness that a defenseman is expected to contribute and gratuitous violence. Likewise viewing excessive PIM totals in the context of an ability to kill penalties is a non-starter.

Commonality is that neither gratuitous violence nor excessive PIMs contribute a great deal to winning. Just a lot of wasted effort that does not produce positive results.

Analogies would be arguing that someone is great at finding their way out of the woods when lost or is great at putting out fires. Well not getting lost in the woods and fire prevention skills are more important and valuable.

At the same time, violence levels have changed as hockey culture develops. We should strive to minimize our 2011 biases when viewing players from other eras.

Personally, I'm willing to penalize Pronger for his 8-game suspension for stomping on an opponent's leg because that behavior is completely out of line with the standards of the era. I'm less eager to punish Chelios for being among the nastier customers of the pre-instigator period, Stevens for arguably exploiting players' vulnerabilities to cause injury, or Cleghorn for being one of many early-era players to invite police attention. To the best of my knowledge, none of their reputations as players seemed to suffer as a result of their intimidation factor (their reputation as human beings is something different). If anything, all 4 of these guys are reputed to have given their teams a competitive edge in terms of what opposing players could expect to get away with. But those expectations of what one might get away with in their absence changed fairly dramatically over time, from stick fights (Cleghorn) to bench-clearings (Chelios) to hard slashes (Stevens) to simply being an agitating pain in the *** (Pronger)

 

[Canadiens1958]

Points

At the same time, violence levels have changed as hockey culture develops. We should strive to minimize our 2011 biases when viewing players from other eras.

Personally, I'm willing to penalize Pronger for his 8-game suspension for stomping on an opponent's leg because that behavior is completely out of line with the standards of the era. I'm less eager to punish Chelios for being among the nastier customers of the pre-instigator period, Stevens for arguably exploiting players' vulnerabilities to cause injury, or Cleghorn for being one of many early-era players to invite police attention. To the best of my knowledge, none of their reputations as players seemed to suffer as a result of their intimidation factor (their reputation as human beings is something different). If anything, all 4 of these guys are reputed to have given their teams a competitive edge in terms of what opposing players could expect to get away with. But those expectations of what one might get away with in their absence changed fairly dramatically over time, from stick fights (Cleghorn) to bench-clearings (Chelios) to hard slashes (Stevens) to simply being an agitating pain in the *** (Pronger)

A couple of points worth emphasizing.

Era bias regarding violence? From the standpoint of the victim or the team that tolerates the perps activity there is not bias by era. Just the constant battle between what the perp can get away with and the consequences to the victim. Then you have the anticipated benefit or reward found in the outcome - winning. Regardless of era, winning inevitably falls short. Yes the Flyers won twice but compared to the Canadiens who won five times around their two wins they underachieved.

What one can get away with. A spin on they won't call all the penalties approach to the game. Point is dedicating the same time to playing the game right is more beneficial to a player and team than trying to find an edge that is rarely if ever there. Evidenced Maurice Richard, team results before and after Toe Blake.

Basic issue is that non-productive activities perpetuate non-productive activities in hockey. Example the data that shows that Chris Chelios was better than the vast majority of defensemen at killing penalties. So what? How many games is a team going to win playing shorthanded? PK disrupts line rotations, offensive synergy, reduces offensive time, fatigue sets in, short list of negatives. Doing it better than others is fine. Doing it as little as necessary is better.

 

[plusandminus]

Sure of that? Maybe you're a native french speaker and I come off like total ****, but from the french I took in school I would pronounce it something like Czech capital Prague (Pra:g) but with a very short 'a'-sound.

This is an entertaining off-topic. I had no idea Sprague was derived from Old Norse and literally means Sparky.

I don't think your french from school is necessarily appliable as I've been taught "Canadian French" is a bit different. We for example may expect Lemieux to rhyme with Montreux, but it doesn't. Rather it's pronounced Lemjew (as in jewish people). Many dont' know this. I learnt from some sort of language expert on TV, who explained that Canadians have their own way of pronouncing names, including those of hockey players.
Before that, I thought it was the English speaking people that pronounced Lemieux (or Messier) wrongly. But instead I had to myself starting saying Lemjew, which still sounds strange to me. (English speaking people are usually ignorant when it comes to pronouncing non-English names, as if they don't even try. The commentators just say it the English way, instead of asking those who know.)
(Off topic, many Russian names get distorted in English, like saying "Fedorov" instead of like "Fyodorov", "Semenov" instead of "Semyonov", etc.)

If someone knows how to pronounce Sprague Cleghorn, please let us know (as I "say" his name every time I read it).

Maybe hearing people pronouncing his name wrongly was what made him so violent.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Era bias regarding violence? From the standpoint of the victim or the team that tolerates the perps activity there is not bias by era.

Of course there is. Things which were commonly accepted as part of the game in various other eras are no longer tolerated. I'm not sure how you could argue otherwise.

Also, the use of the word "victim" here is questionable. I think we've both seen enough hockey to know that a guy who is being singled out for an act of retaliation is usually not a "victim" in the normal sense of the word.

Yes the Flyers won twice but compared to the Canadiens who won five times around their two wins they underachieved.

Kind of an unfair comparison, don't you think? I'm sure the Flyers would have loved to ice an All Star team every year, but they were stuck with underachievers like Bobby Clarke.

Point is dedicating the same time to playing the game right is more beneficial to a player and team than trying to find an edge that is rarely if ever there.

True, but kind of moot when applied to the early era. The fact of the matter is that the game was violent back then. People were killed on the ice at times. Nobody was going to review game film to find out what happened during a brawl. There was value, significant value, to being the biggest and the baddest.

Basic issue is that non-productive activities perpetuate non-productive activities in hockey. Example the data that shows that Chris Chelios was better than the vast majority of defensemen at killing penalties. So what? How many games is a team going to win playing shorthanded? PK disrupts line rotations, offensive synergy, reduces offensive time, fatigue sets in, short list of negatives. Doing it better than others is fine. Doing it as little as necessary is better.

This doesn't compute. I'd rather have Chris Chelios on my team than Patrice Brisebois. The individual ability to kill penalties effectively is much more valuable than simply not taking penalties.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Points II

Of course there is. Things which were commonly accepted as part of the game in various other eras are no longer tolerated. I'm not sure how you could argue otherwise.

Also, the use of the word "victim" here is questionable. I think we've both seen enough hockey to know that a guy who is being singled out for an act of retaliation is usually not a "victim" in the normal sense of the word.



Kind of an unfair comparison, don't you think? I'm sure the Flyers would have loved to ice an All Star team every year, but they were stuck with underachievers like Bobby Clarke.



True, but kind of moot when applied to the early era. The fact of the matter is that the game was violent back then. People were killed on the ice at times. Nobody was going to review game film to find out what happened during a brawl. There was value, significant value, to being the biggest and the baddest.



This doesn't compute. I'd rather have Chris Chelios on my team than Patrice Brisebois. The individual ability to kill penalties effectively is much more valuable than simply not taking penalties.

Retaliation - the phantom excuse, no penalty was called so I/we had to retaliate. Bailey/Shore - Shore's excuse basically comes down to mistaken identity. Also I have yet to see a net benefit to anyone involved in the incident. not the players, not the teams not the league, not hockey, certainly not Ace Bailey.

There are plenty of opportunities to take the number and get the message across when it will be best understood. The need for immediate retaliation is far from evident especially when everyone is looking.

Flyers. Question of taking shortcuts. Islanders would have loved to ice a championship team - they did it the hard way and were more successful. Inevitably shortcuts are not very successful.

Chelios/Brisebois. Having Chelios on a team had its advantages unless he was in the penalty box at which point the team had to scramble to manage.

Anytime a hockey player deviates from what he does best there is a competitive cost to the team. True since the dawn of hockey and other sports. Get him to focus on fighting or any other activity that makes him a less effective hockey player and an advantage is gained.

 

[JaysCyYoung]

At the same time, violence levels have changed as hockey culture develops. We should strive to minimize our 2011 biases when viewing players from other eras.

In all fairness though, when it came to Cleghorn there were indications that he crossed the line, era biases notwithstanding. Otherwise his team's very own owner would not have addressed him as an "animal" for his reckless behaviour and suspended him at one point. He was one of the star players on Ottawa after all. To cross the line during a period in which gratuitous violence was much more commonplace in hockey than in contemporary times is indicative of much more than us simply being modern 2011 pantywaists. If Cleghorn's contemporaries thought his actions often were excessively violent that should be a knock against him in my opinion, and era bias has nothing to do with the judgement.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Example the data that shows that Chris Chelios was better than the vast majority of defensemen at killing penalties. So what? How many games is a team going to win playing shorthanded? PK disrupts line rotations, offensive synergy, reduces offensive time, fatigue sets in, short list of negatives. Doing it better than others is fine. Doing it as little as necessary is better.

Very true. I guess that is why they call it a penalty.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Retaliation - the phantom excuse, no penalty was called so I/we had to retaliate.

Again, the norms of what is acceptable in the game of hockey have changed with time. There was a time when things were less... subtle... than making the officials an excuse for retaliation. Coutu's lifetime ban came from following Art Ross's direct orders as coach. If the other team's coach orders someone to hurt you, and he's coming at you with his stick up, what are you going to do? Appeal to decency?

There are plenty of opportunities to take the number and get the message across when it will be best understood. The need for immediate retaliation is far from evident especially when everyone is looking.

Not sure how this would be in dispute.

Flyers. Question of taking shortcuts. Islanders would have loved to ice a championship team - they did it the hard way and were more successful. Inevitably shortcuts are not very successful.

You're saying the Flyers weren't very successful at their style?

Chelios/Brisebois. Having Chelios on a team had its advantages unless he was in the penalty box at which point the team had to scramble to manage.

Any team would stand a better chance with Chelios leading a highly effective PK unit and occasionally having to kill one without him, than simply not having him at all.

Anytime a hockey player deviates from what he does best there is a competitive cost to the team. True since the dawn of hockey and other sports. Get him to focus on fighting or any other activity that makes him a less effective hockey player and an advantage is gained.

And that is one of the reasons that soft teams always get obliterated in the playoffs. Players who are able to play both a skill game and a rough game are going to have an advantage over pure-skill players.

I'd much rather talk about the specific events in Chelios/Pronger/Cleghorn's careers which would constitute a disadvantage to their teams at important moments, than argue over a theory that violent players are less valuable by definition.

 

[Epsilon]

I'd much rather talk about the specific events in Chelios/Pronger/Cleghorn's careers which would constitute a disadvantage to their teams at important moments, than argue over a theory that violent players are less valuable by definition.

A good such example for Pronger would be during a playoff game when he got frustrated, went for a dirty hit on Yzerman, mis-judged it, and blew out his knee in the process.

 

[tarheelhockey]

In all fairness though, when it came to Cleghorn there were indications that he crossed the line, era biases notwithstanding. Otherwise his team's very own owner would not have addressed him as an "animal" for his reckless behaviour and suspended him at one point. He was one of the star players on Ottawa after all. To cross the line during a period in which gratuitous violence was much more commonplace in hockey than in contemporary times is indicative of much more than us simply being modern 2011 pantywaists. If Cleghorn's contemporaries thought his actions often were excessively violent that should be a knock against him in my opinion, and era bias has nothing to do with the judgement.

Fair enough, but I think the magnitude of the knock against him still needs to be taken in the context of the era. There were plenty of guys who acted like "animals" at that time... Montreal acquired Cleghorn and Coutu in a single trade. And won the Cup two years later over an Ottawa team that complained about Montreal's roughness.

Cleghorn was certainly one of the most vicious, and there is a perfectly valid argument that he wasn't well regarded by his management for his lack of self-control... I'm just saying, a stick fight in 1920 isn't the same thing as a stick fight in 1970, which isn't the same thing as a stick fight in 2010. We can rightly condemn them all, but there are definitely degrees involved in terms of how far across the line they were. Today's lifetime ban was yesterday's $50 fine and a chat with the police.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Penalties

More context is needed in regard to the discussion of penalties. Was it a fighting major or coincidental? At what point in the game was the penalty taken? If it is late in the 3rd with a big score discrepancy giving the other team a power play has a much lower effect on the result of the game than if it's a tie game late in the 3rd or right at the beginning of a game. Taking a penalty to "send a message" late in the regular season when playoff seeds have already been locked in against a potential playoff rival may be worth it. Regular season vs. Playoffs is probably the most important...At a quick glance Chelios' PIM's per game go down in the playoffs while Pronger's go up (a more in depth look may be necessary, i.e. season by season or PIM totals in losing series).

Many of these cannot be accounted for, some can. I unfortunately do not have the time to look at playoff PIM's, but it might be worth someone's time to do so.

 

[JaysCyYoung]

I know it's difficult to judge defensive play given that none of us on here (presumably - unless we've got some geriatrics in the house!) saw Cleghorn or Clancy or Seibert play in the primes of their careers (Canadiens1958 would have seen Horton and Pilote for sure), but how would you guys rank the eleven nominees from an offensive and defensive standpoint? I know it's just roughly-speaking but I'm curious to see the diversity of responses and it might help us collect our thoughts.

Offensively

Paul Coffey
Pierre Pilote
Al MacInnis
Sprague Cleghorn
Brian Leetch
Francis "King" Clancy
Brad Park
Earl Seibert
Chris Pronger
Scott Stevens
Tim Horton

Defensively

Tim Horton
Scott Stevens
Chris Pronger
Francis "King" Clancy
Sprague Cleghorn
Pierre Pilote
Earl Seibert
Brad Park
Al MacInnis
Paul Coffey
Brian Leetch

 

[Canadiens1958]

Penalties

Any team would stand a better chance with Chelios leading a highly effective PK unit and occasionally having to kill one without him, than simply not having him at all.



And that is one of the reasons that soft teams always get obliterated in the playoffs. Players who are able to play both a skill game and a rough game are going to have an advantage over pure-skill players.

I'd much rather talk about the specific events in Chelios/Pronger/Cleghorn's careers which would constitute a disadvantage to their teams at important moments, than argue over a theory that violent players are less valuable by definition.

Actual results do not support your position.

Sprague Cleghorn. Ottawa Senators got rid of him and went from being the most penalized team in the league to being the least penalized yet managed to win SCs. Obviously they did not become soft. Simply ice time was put to better use. A controlled Cleghorn with the Canadiens contributed to SCs.

Chris Chelios was on three SC winning teams.1986 in Montreal before his penalty minutes skyrocketed and his off ice issues became distractions. Canadiens moved him to Chicago and within three seasons won an SC with Brisebois contributing a bit. No SC in Chicago just high PIMs. In Detroit 2002 and 2008 SCs after his PIMs came down.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/c/chelich01.html

Chris Pronger led the 2006 Oilers to the finals and won with the SC with the 2007 Ducks post lockout with stricter rule applications.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/p/prongch01.html

These two seasons also produced his lowest PIM/Game numbers during the regular season until that point. He finally got the message and since 2007 has contributed more by staying on the ice.

Effectively sending a message does not mean having to repeat it over and over. It should be clear the first time. Players like Earl Seibert-no one wanted to fight him, Doug Harvey, Larry Robinson always had messages understood promptly without having to repeat.