Round 2, Vote 4 (2009 update)

[Kyle McMahon]

Actually, I have'em in this order

- Fetisov
- Tretiak
- Kharlamov

For the record, Fetisov is a shoo-in for my top-10 in this round.

The thing with Richard is that there are some rationnal arguments for ranking him as high as 5th (and some stupid ones to rank him as high as 3rd). Kharlamov? Well, to a certain extent, he did win as much scoring titles than Richard. But he also won as much as Lindsay, who could obviously do much more on the ice. He also won as much as Trottier, and as much as a very slick two-way playmaking center that will be considered around rank 80th or so. (and the three guys had a longer career as well).

But Kharlamov was something of a 1-dimensionnal player playing in a league that I would describe as weaker than the NHL and the WHA (as a whole...). I'm not implying Richard was a complete player, but he definitely had more facets in his game than Kharlamov did, same thing could be said with Lindsay, Trottier and the aforementionned guy.

Actually, I have Mikhailov higher than many does here... probably. Might be another reason why I rank Kharlamov so low.

I'm not sure what you're implying here. That Richard was better than Kharlamov? I am in complete agreement. I also have no issue with Lindsay and Trottier being ranked above him, though it's a lot closer in those cases.

 

[MXD]

I'm not sure what you're implying here. That Richard was better than Kharlamov? I am in complete agreement. I also have no issue with Lindsay and Trottier being ranked above him, though it's a lot closer in those cases.

Actually, after reading that message again, I realized I don't really know what I was implying. Probably tried to squeeze three messages into one.

Probably something in the lines of : Why is Kharlamov slotted around Lindsay exactly while somebody could put up a semi-decent argument that he's closer to the likes of Elmer Lach?

(Don't worry, I'm not really implying that Kharlamov is in Lach's tier)

 

[Dark Shadows]

Actually, I have'em in this order

- Fetisov
- Tretiak
- Kharlamov

For the record, Fetisov is a shoo-in for my top-10 in this round.

The thing with Richard is that there are some rationnal arguments for ranking him as high as 5th (and some stupid ones to rank him as high as 3rd). Kharlamov? Well, to a certain extent, he did win as much scoring titles than Richard. But he also won as much as Lindsay, who could obviously do much more on the ice. He also won as much as Trottier, and as much as a very slick two-way playmaking center that will be considered around rank 80th or so. (and the three guys had a longer career as well).

But Kharlamov was something of a 1-dimensionnal player playing in a league that I would describe as weaker than the NHL and the WHA (as a whole...). I'm not implying Richard was a complete player, but he definitely had more facets in his game than Kharlamov did, same thing could be said with Lindsay, Trottier and the aforementionned guy.

Actually, I have Mikhailov higher than many does here... probably. Might be another reason why I rank Kharlamov so low.

Wait. What?

Kharlamov was a very good two way player.

 

[MXD]

Wait. What?

Kharlamov was a very good two way player.

Between the alleged 2-way play of Kharlamov and the toughness of a Lindsay, I'm taking Lindsay's toughness 10 times out of 10.

 

[FissionFire]

I think things are getting a little off-course. Ted Lindsay is already on the list and Dickie Moore isn't even an option yet. How do these comparisons help at all in comparing the players to those up for voting?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Simple

I think things are getting a little off-course. Ted Lindsay is already on the list and Dickie Moore isn't even an option yet. How do these comparisons help at all in comparing the players to those up for voting?

The Geoffrion / Moore comparison is within a team context and within the context of what they did after leaving a dynasty, illustrating why the gap between the two should be narrowed and the ranking reversed.

Lindsay being on the list serves as a standard for other left wingers that are in the process of being slotted behind him.

Also in this thread Bobby Orr and others on the list have been used as a barometer for those under consideration.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Really bogus use of numbers.

Comparing Brodeur to goalies with at least 200 games. Wow that's slightly more than 20 games per season. Let's compare his SV% against goalies that have played at least 70 games a season for at least 10 regular seasons. Who has the best SV%, GAA, then - only one answer Martin Brodeur.


As for leading in individual stats - that is not the objective of the game. The objective is team wins. The stats are byproducts.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/b/brodema01.html

Brodeur has played about 10 -15 more games per season than his contemporary stars like Hasek, Roy, etc Luongo is approaching Brodeur like numbers. So while Roy or Hasek might have slightly better individual stats because they are more rested. The team had to use the back-up goalie about 10 or 15 times more often during the season. Back-up goalies usually have weaker SV% and GAA numbers so there is a net disadvantage to playing them.

Ok... I'm willing to admit I am being unfair. Trying to work out a fair comparison...

But I still think SV% is the most telling individual stat of goalies.

SV% since 1999 of goalies whom have faced more than 4,000 shots (all starters):
http://www.hockey-reference.com/pp/...l=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=save_pct

Brodeur is tied for 12th.

 

[tommygunn]

Kharlamov will likely top my list this round as I consider him the top Russian. There are good arguments for others, but for now I will agree with Kharlamov's countrymen in calling him the best.

As I posted in the last round..

Russian media 'Athletes of the Century' survey results from 2000 have Tretiak ahead of Kharlamov.
- Top 10 Russian Athletes of the 20th Century: Tretiak 3rd, Kharlamov 5th.
- Top 10 World Athletes of the 20th Century: Tretiak 9th, Kharlamov DNP

* Top 10 Athletes Lists are based on the Sport Express Daily readers' feedback.

http://www.chidlovski.com/personal/1972/story/ru20vek.htm

 

[seventieslord]

Two bolded. Major difference between an Orr-less world and being told that you cannot vote for Orr.

In an Orr-less world the old defense / offense ratio for defensemen does not change so defensemen like Harry Howell, Jacques Laperriere, Gus Mortson - pre Norris days get recognition. Being told that you cannot vote for Orr still includes the Orr era shift in the defense / offense ratio so the offensive part gets a much higher consideration.
...

This changed when Bobby Orr arrived and offensive production from a defensemen started receiving much greater consideration. Note that J.C. Tremblay's AS nominations are after Bobby Orr made his mark.

Far too hypothetical. Like I said, it tells us nothing about who was actually more valuable and who dominated their peers the most.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Get Serious

Ok... I'm willing to admit I am being unfair. Trying to work out a fair comparison...

But I still think SV% is the most telling individual stat of goalies.

SV% since 1999 of goalies whom have faced more than 4,000 shots (all starters):
http://www.hockey-reference.com/pp/...l=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=save_pct

Brodeur is tied for 12th.

Actually you are being rather creatively unfair. 4,000 shots - wow.
That's less tha three seasons work for a starting goalie.

In the data that you provided there is a a very telling stat that you either conveniently or purposely overlooked - number of minutes played. Martin Brodeur leads his closest rival Roberto Luongo by over 10 600 minutes played over the same period of time, which translates to approximately 175 more games played then his closest rival. Brodeur has logged app 30% more playing time then his nearest contemporary.

SV% is more or less the most misused stat for goalies and least revealing stat for goalies. It masks weaknesses - see Jamie Storr SV% Paradox thread and totally ignores stamina when factored in against playing the back-up.

So please stop posting stats that support your anti-Brodeur bias.

 

[Dark Shadows]

#1 Valeri Kharlamov: Best Russian of all time, and I consider his peak to be in the Lafleur/Bossy level. I know others will disagree, but I made my case for him last round.

#2 Larry Robinson: My pick for 8th best defenseman of all time. The #1 defenseman on one of the greatest teams of all time, and a huge part of why they were great. Rock solid defensively, very dangerous threat 5 on 5 and on the powerplay. Conn Smythe and fantastic Norris trophy record against very tough competition.

#3 Joe Sakic: Fantastic two way performer with an excellent peak, and very long prime. Clutch playoff performer and best skater on 2 Cup winning teams.

#4 Steve Yzerman: Fantastic performer. One of the biggest offensive threats in his early years, turned one of the greatest two way players in the second half of his career. Terrific playoff performer. The inevitable Sakic vs Yzerman comparisons will come up here. I will generically refer you to Seventieslord's excellent write up on the two.

#5 Vladislav Tretiak: Greatest Soviet goalie of all time. And one of the greatest goalies period that I had the privilege to watch.

#6 Viacheslav Fetisov: Had a peak comparable to Ray Bourque and Denis Potvin at their best. Phenomenal on both ends of the ice. Shorter prime than them places him back a bit.

#7 Martin Brodeur: Phenomenal goalie. Very good peak, prime and longevity.

#8 Milt Schmidt: Tenacious two way forward(One of the best of all time). Missed 3 of his prime years due to WW2, but still has five top 5 Hart finishes.

#9 Brad Park: Been writing about him in his threads recently. I am sure you have all seen how much I praise him.

#10 Syl Apps Sr.: Initially, I feel I left him too low on my master. Jungosi posted a good comparison of him and Schmidt. Like Schmidt missing 3, he missed 2 years to the war. His peak may be slightly better than Schmidt's, but Schmidt has an advantage in longevity.

#11 Boom Boom Geoffrion: Terrific player. Great regular season, standout excellent playoffs. 2 Art Ross Trophies and a Hart Trophy.

#12 Chris Chelios: Very close to brad Park, but a step behind. Different breed of defenseman. People forget just how dominating and intimidating Chelios was in his prime. Very good offensively, standout defensively(He could shut down practically anyone). 3 Norris trophies against one of the toughest fields of all time.

My fingers are honestly tired of typing at this point and want to lie down for awhile. Ill finish the other 3 later.

#13 Bill Cook:

#14 Paul Coffey:

#15 Ken Dryden:

Top 10 Not yet added:
Frank Mahovlich
Joe Malone
Marcel Dionne
Anatoli Firsov
Bill Durnan
Pierre Pilote
Dit Clapper
Charlie Conacher
King Clancy
Peter Stastny

 

[lextune]

Yzerman has dominated offensively like few ever --

Of all players to ever play, he is 3rd for individual points in a single season (behind only Gretzky and Lemieux)
He has the 4th highest 3 seasons in NHL history (behind Gretzky, Lemieux and Esposito)
-- On much worse teams than the above

That last part is just not true. 8 out of his first 10 seasons (all of his 100+ point seasons) Yzerman was on playoff teams. Mario won the Art Ross with 168 points on a non-playoff team and only made the playoffs once in his first six seasons. His teams were absolute crap.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Fact based

Far too hypothetical. Like I said, it tells us nothing about who was actually more valuable and who dominated their peers the most.

Actually it is fact based.

Jacques Laperriere:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/l/laperja01.html

His raw numbers do not change much from season to season with a league leading +/- in 1972-73 but the perception of Norris and All Star voters changed re the offense / defense ratio and after 1970 Laperriere stopped getting serious consideration.

 

[lextune]

My first look at this round:

1. Valeri Kharlamov
2. Steve Yzerman
3. Joe Sakic
4. Viacheslav Fetisov
5. Ken Dryden
6. Larry Robinson
7. Milt Schmidt
8. Syl Apps Sr.
9. Chris Chelios
10. Vladislav Tretiak
11. Martin Brodeur
12. Bernard Geoffrion
13. Paul Coffey
14. Brad Park
15. Bill Cook

 

[Stonefly]

If Bobby Orr did not exist, this is Brad Park's norris voting record:

1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 8th, 9th.

A four-time Norris winner and three-time runner-up? That's what Lidstrom was just three years ago. At that time we were already calling him the #6 or 7 best defenseman of all-time. If Lidstrom had an Orr-caliber defenseman to compete against, he'd have had the same Norris record as Park, circa 2006.

Should the existence of Bobby Orr be the only thing preventing us from calling park what he truly is - the 8th or 9th-best defenseman of all-time?

He really had no flaws as a player. He was always one of the best offensive defensemen in the league, he was excellent defensively, dominant physically, dynamite in the playoffs despite never winning a cup, and he didn't experience the late career burnout that other 70s stars did - he was getting Norris and Hart votes well into the 1980s.

Nice to see! I'm glad some can keep things in perspective.
Chelios is not a better hockey player than Park. Robinson is closer. You will hear a lot of people praising these fella's but what you don't normally hear is how the both of them were prone to making mistakes at inopportune times. Savard covered up a lot of Robinson's gaffes. Chelios would make plays that used to make me shake my head. Park did not suffer from this. I've said it before and I'll say it again, Park is the smartest defenceman I have seen after Orr and Harvey and honestly I don't think much separates them in that regard.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Actually it is fact based.

Jacques Laperriere:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/l/laperja01.html

His raw numbers do not change much from season to season with a league leading +/- in 1972-73 but the perception of Norris and All Star voters changed re the offense / defense ratio and after 1970 Laperriere stopped getting serious consideration.

Misdirection.

Laperriere placed 4th for the Norris in 1969-70.
The following season 70-71, he missed 30 games(Many due to a Broken Wrist). Obviously he was not going to place for the Norris. had nothing to do with his style.

In 1971-72, his Partner Tremblay(Who was better on both ends of the ice that year) received more votes, as did Tandem Stapleton and White(Both defense first defensemen). At this point, Laperierre was considered the 3rd defenseman on the Habs behind Tremblay and Lapointe(4th when Serge Savard was playing).

In 1972-73, Laperierre missed over 20 games and still placed top 5 for the Norris. Bill White, another non-rushing defenseman, placed 3rd.

After that Laperierre faded in his last season, missing almost half of it.

The reason he stopped getting top Norris votes was not style. It was the fact that when he was not injured there were much better offensive players who were equal or near equal defensively.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Actually it is fact based.

Jacques Laperriere:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/l/laperja01.html

His raw numbers do not change much from season to season with a league leading +/- in 1972-73 but the perception of Norris and All Star voters changed re the offense / defense ratio and after 1970 Laperriere stopped getting serious consideration.

He missed 23 games that year. If he had played that way over 80 games, he would have placed over Bill White, who's game wasn't that dissimilar to Laperriere. Bill White was a stay at home d-man who was a 3 time 2nd team all-star after 1970.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Totally agree with this, although as I mentioned a while back in another thread, the one weird year is 1971, where Park beat out Tremblay for second in Norris voting, but then Tremblay was voted to the first all-star team ahead of Park. I have no clue what explains the disparity, but it makes me wonder whether Park definitely would've won had voters been forbidden from voting for Orr, or whether somehow Tremblay might've snagged it.

Interesting discussion whether Park would have won the Norris trophy had Orr not existed. It's important to consider the number of available votes that Park earned, relative to other Norris finalists. If Park was just barely finishing in second place, then perhaps Tremblay, White, etc, would have beat him in an Orr-free world.

Norris trophy finalists, 1970-1974

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

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

Total Norris votes, 1970-1074, adjusted to max 240 votes per year

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

Over this five year stretch, Park was extremely far ahead of every defenseman aside from Orr in Norris voting. It's unreasonable to suggest that if Orr didn't exist, the voters would suddenly start voting for someone else*. Had he not had the misfortune of facing off against one of the Big Four, Orr would have won four Norris trophies, which puts him on par with Robinson and Chelios.

* The one exception is 1971. I'm not sure why, but Park finished 2nd in Norris voting but 3rd in year-end all-star voting. My understanding is that the same sportswriters vote for the Norris and all-star teams so I don't know why their opinions would be inconsistent. Anyway, Park had huge margins of victory over 3rd place in the other years in this sample so I'm still confident in saying that, against normal competition, Park would have won the Norris three times (1970, 1972, 1974), and he would have been runner-up three times (1971, 1976, 19878) to go along with one third (1973) and a few low top tens (1975, 1979, 1981).

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Actually you are being rather creatively unfair. 4,000 shots - wow.
That's less tha three seasons work for a starting goalie.

In the data that you provided there is a a very telling stat that you either conveniently or purposely overlooked - number of minutes played. Martin Brodeur leads his closest rival Roberto Luongo by over 10 600 minutes played over the same period of time, which translates to approximately 175 more games played then his closest rival. Brodeur has logged app 30% more playing time then his nearest contemporary.

SV% is more or less the most misused stat for goalies and least revealing stat for goalies. It masks weaknesses - see Jamie Storr SV% Paradox thread and totally ignores stamina when factored in against playing the back-up.

So please stop posting stats that support your anti-Brodeur bias.

And his endurance, fortitude, endurance and constitution is why I would never consider him 12th in that time period, as his SV% might suggest. As well as his incontestable accomplishments, clutch play and sheer amount of flat-out wins.

By no means am I suggesting it is the end-all-be-all stat - I absolutely believe there are numerous other factors involved - but I do believe that one bears the most weight when measuring the individual performance of a goalie vs. his peers. It bothers me that Brodeur does not fare as well in that area, when compared to other elite goalies... just as it has when Red Wings fans start pushing Osgood as one of the top goalies in the league (his save percentage has always bothered me, and I am not convinced numerous other goalies would not have been capable of doing equally as well, if not better, in his place -- Brodeur is on another level, obviously, but I think they have both been helped in a large part by the teams they are on).

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Bill Cook - it's about time we recognize this guy for what he was - an offensively dominant, two-way force with excellent leadership skills. What he did after age 30 in the NHL was simply outstanding. Just a couple spots ahead of Charlie Conacher? Not this time!

I agree that Cook was a dominant and underrated power forward. However, what support do you have for him being a "two-way force"?

I'll admit I don't have a lot of evidence regarding Cook's defensive play, but what I do have suggests that he was not a great defensive player. Note the context of the quote below: it's from an article praising Gordie Howe for his defensively ability (and contrasting him with Cook).

Cook was a straight up and down player like Conacher. This Howe does everything from one end of the rink to the other and that's what makes him the greatest

The quote was from Hap Day in the February 2nd, 1953 edition of the Toronto Star.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Jacques Laperrier

Misdirection.

Laperriere placed 4th for the Norris in 1969-70.
The following season 70-71, he missed 30 games(Many due to a Broken Wrist). Obviously he was not going to place for the Norris. had nothing to do with his style.

In 1971-72, his Partner Tremblay(Who was better on both ends of the ice that year) received more votes, as did Tandem Stapleton and White(Both defense first defensemen). At this point, Laperierre was considered the 3rd defenseman on the Habs behind Tremblay and Lapointe(4th when Serge Savard was playing).

In 1972-73, Laperierre missed over 20 games and still placed top 5 for the Norris. Bill White, another non-rushing defenseman, placed 3rd.

After that Laperierre faded in his last season, missing almost half of it.

The reason he stopped getting top Norris votes was not style. It was the fact that when he was not injured there were much better offensive players who were equal or near equal defensively.

Actually Jacques Laperriere did not fade in his last season as you allege rather he suffered a career ending knee injury. See the transactions segment at the bottom:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/l/laperja01.html

In the Sam Pollock view of hockey and the team concept Laperriere was worth keeping while J.C. Tremblay was not when the WHA came calling. This is all that matters from a Montreal perspective.What reporters or others considered was not an issue.


Bill White - regardless of your characterization his offensive numbers were more attractive. Likewise Pat Stapleton.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/w/whitebi01.html

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/s/staplpa01.html

 

[seventieslord]

I agree that Cook was a dominant and underrated power forward. However, what support do you have for him being a "two-way force"?

I'll admit I don't have a lot of evidence regarding Cook's defensive play, but what I do have suggests that he was not a great defensive player. Note the context of the quote below: it's from an article praising Gordie Howe for his defensively ability (and contrasting him with Cook).



The quote was from Hap Day in the February 2nd, 1953 edition of the Toronto Star.

Actually, I'm pretty sure it's something I just picked up around here. Perhaps this is not correct. Some guys throw around the term "excellent two-way player" a little too liberally. However, his scoring stats, longevity and toughness are enough to keep him where I had him.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Actually Jacques Laperriere did not fade in his last season as you allege rather he suffered a career ending knee injury. See the transactions segment at the bottom:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/l/laperja01.html

In the Sam Pollock view of hockey and the team concept Laperriere was worth keeping while J.C. Tremblay was not when the WHA came calling. This is all that matters from a Montreal perspective.What reporters or others considered was not an issue.


Bill White - regardless of your characterization his offensive numbers were more attractive. Likewise Pat Stapleton.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/w/whitebi01.html

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/s/staplpa01.html

At no point in those 4 years was Laperierre better than Brad Park, nor did he deserve Norris votes over Brad Park even when you consider only the defensive side of the game.

It had nothing to do with style and everything to do with Park being much better.

Brad Park was not a rushing defenseman in his early years when he was runner up for the Norris twice with 37 and 44 points, and played a game much more similar to Doug Harvey. Cerebral defensive poise in controlling the pace of the game and transitioning offense up ice with brilliant passes. His rushing came later and elevated his game to new heights while not sacrificing defense.

Sam Pollock was trying hard to resign Tremblay when the WHA offered much more money, so he took it.

And Laperierre did indeed fade before his knee injury. It was well documented that he was displeased with the reduced role Bowman was giving him behind the big 3. Savard and Lapointe were playing all top PK minutes that year, while Robinson and Lapointe took all the top PP time and his 5 on 5 time was reduced. His numbers before his knee injury were at their lowest PPG ever, and he was telling Bowman " if things don't get better, it's no use for me to stay", while avoiding demanding a trade. It was of no consequence since he suffered his knee injury days after making that statement.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Norris Voting

Interesting discussion whether Park would have won the Norris trophy had Orr not existed. It's important to consider the number of available votes that Park earned, relative to other Norris finalists. If Park was just barely finishing in second place, then perhaps Tremblay, White, etc, would have beat him in an Orr-free world.

Norris trophy finalists, 1970-1974

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

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

Total Norris votes, 1970-1074, adjusted to max 240 votes per year

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

Over this five year stretch, Park was extremely far ahead of every defenseman aside from Orr in Norris voting. It's unreasonable to suggest that if Orr didn't exist, the voters would suddenly start voting for someone else*. Had he not had the misfortune of facing off against one of the Big Four, Orr would have won four Norris trophies, which puts him on par with Robinson and Chelios.

* The one exception is 1971. I'm not sure why, but Park finished 2nd in Norris voting but 3rd in year-end all-star voting. My understanding is that the same sportswriters vote for the Norris and all-star teams so I don't know why their opinions would be inconsistent. Anyway, Park had huge margins of victory over 3rd place in the other years in this sample so I'm still confident in saying that, against normal competition, Park would have won the Norris three times (1970, 1972, 1974), and he would have been runner-up three times (1971, 1976, 19878) to go along with one third (1973) and a few low top tens (1975, 1979, 1981).

Scroll down to the posts featuring the actual Norris Trophy voting information during the 1960's.

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=145895&page=5

!969 Norris behind Orr featured old traditional stay at home defensemen., 1967,1968 Tremblay makes a slight appearance but still you see the traditional defensive defensemen. 1966 is interesting for the second half voting goes towards Stapleton and Tremblay almost in recognition of the offensive trend shown by a junior phenom.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Scroll down to the posts featuring the actual Norris Trophy voting information during the 1960's.

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=145895&page=5

!969 Norris behind Orr featured old traditional stay at home defensemen., 1967,1968 Tremblay makes a slight appearance but still you see the traditional defensive defensemen. 1966 is interesting for the second half voting goes towards Stapleton and Tremblay almost in recognition of the offensive trend shown by a junior phenom.

You mean when Pilote was getting a lot of votes?

Look at defenceman scoring from 66 through 69 and tell me what high scoring defencemen were denied Norris votes?

Orr didn't change the way people voted, Orr changed the way other defenceman played and how coaches allowed their defencemen to play.