Round 2, Vote 4 (2009 update)

[Canadiens1958]

1968 Norris Voting

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.

In the 1968 Norris voting after Bobby Orr defense was the prime consideration. Look at the scoring records for the following Ted Green, Gary Bergman and Bill White and compare them to the players who ranked 2nd thru 5th.

2.)J.C. Tremblay 4G 26A
3.)Tim Horton 4G 23A
4.)Jim Neilson 6G 29A
5.)J. Laperriere 4G 21A

Still cannot figure out Tremblay in the second slot - expansion voting.

As for "denied" Norris votes, I'm precluding the semantics game right now with a disclaimer that the following with better offensive numbers did not get nearly as many votes as the 2 - 5 slots.

Ted Green 7G 36A
Gary Bergman 13G 28A
Bill White 11G 27A

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

How convenient, the year where we don't have voting info beyond 5th place and don't have all-star voting.

And weren't you just saying voters were favouring Laperriere over Tremblay pre-1970?

Keep in mind who Ted Green's defence partner was that year, and he was 5th in all-star voting, Green and Pilote both beat Laperriere. Bill White was almost assuredly East Coast bias. Not sure about Bergman though, I'd need more data.

 

[lextune]

Dryden seems a little low to me on a few of the lists....

We all know about his absurd peak, (essentially his entire [short] career), his mind boggling record of 258 wins against only 57 losses with 46 shutouts. Nearly as many shutouts as losses, lol.

Eight seasons, six times an all star, the Calder, the Smythe and of course, backstopping the Habs to six Stanley Cup wins. Certainly the last four were on a powerhouse team, but no one in their right mind gave his '71 team a chance against the Bruins (one of the greatest teams of all time). He stole that series. Big time.

And don't forget that after winning the Cup in 72/73, he sat out the 73/74 season, and the Canadiens promptly gave up 56 more goals (up 30% from 184GA to 240GA) than the year before, and lost in the first round of the playoffs.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Brodeur's puckhandling and the negation of the soft dump-in

I'm on vacation and not in the mood to go on a long rant about Brodeur's unprecendented ability to keep shots against down, so I'll just make a few bullet points.

1) His puck handling ability changed the strategy of entire teams. Dump and chase teams like the Flyers had to adjust their offensive strategy, because they knew that any soft dump was coming right out.

2) Brodeur's ability to move the puck out of his zone by himself meant less wear and tear on his defensemen, is a big reason why they were rarely injured, and thus contributed to the strength of the defense in front of him.

From 94-03, Stevens missed 18 games total.
From 94-00 and 01-04 (removing his holdout), Niedermayer missed 38 games total.

The fact that Brodeur's puckhandling completely negated the soft dump in meant his dmen didn't have to take punishment in the corners, which made them less prone to injuries, which in turn made the defense in front of Brodeur better.

3) The negation of the soft dump in made Brodeur's defensemen able to hold the blue line with much more confidence.

4) The NHL changed the rules because they thought Brodeur's puckhandling was so good, that it was breaking the game! Yes, they never specifically said the trapezoid was because of Brodeur specifically, but everyone knows that if it wasn't for his tremendous success as a 3rd defenseman, they would have never made the rule. Without Brodeur's dominance, the puck moving ability of guys like Turco and Dipietro would be more of an interesting novelty.

The rule was Bobby Clarke's brainchild, and Clarke had been complaining about the way Brodeur negated dump ins for years. (Note point 1 again on the especially large effect Brodeur had on dump and chase teams like the Flyers). I know some around here try to diminish the effect of Brodeur's puck handling, but if it wasn't important, why would the NHL create a new rule to stop it? Gretzky is the only other individual player I can think of who "broke" the game so much that the NHL had to change the rules to stop him from doing so (the end of 4 on 4 for coincidental minors). They did it for the 50s Canadien powerplay, but that was a group of players.

Google "Brodeur Rule" for various links if you want support.

5) Relatedly, Brodeur is very aggressive with the pokecheck, which stops shots before they register on goal. Very different from a butterfly goalie who would tend to let the shots hit him, thus counting as a save.

 

[Canadiens1958]

1969 Norris Voting

How convenient, the year where we don't have voting info beyond 5th place and don't have all-star voting.

And weren't you just saying voters were favouring Laperriere over Tremblay pre-1970?

Keep in mind who Ted Green's defence partner was that year, and he was 5th in all-star voting, Green and Pilote both beat Laperriere. Bill White was almost assuredly East Coast bias. Not sure about Bergman though, I'd need more data.

BTW Orr missed 24 games during the 1968 season.

More of the same in the 1969 Norris voting when Pat Stapleton 6G 50A and Gary Bergman 7G 30A received less consideration than Al Arbour 1G 6A which paled even against teammate Barclay Plager's 4G 26A.

As for east coast bias. Fails to explain the 1968 Calder voting where the Kings Bill Flett received more votes than Bill White, also a King.

As for the consideration of Jacques Laperriere pre 1970 ahead of J.C. Tremblay, Laperriere was the only post WWII rookie defenseman voted to an All Star team so overall it is an accurate portrayal supported by the fact that Laperriere is a HHOFer while Tremblay is not.

 

[Dark Shadows]

How convenient, the year where we don't have voting info beyond 5th place and don't have all-star voting.

And weren't you just saying voters were favouring Laperriere over Tremblay pre-1970?

Keep in mind who Ted Green's defence partner was that year, and he was 5th in all-star voting, Green and Pilote both beat Laperriere. Bill White was almost assuredly East Coast bias. Not sure about Bergman though, I'd need more data.

How convenient. After addressing and debunking his Laperierre post, he ignored it as well, rather than admit he was wrong



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.

Park was getting Norris votes because he was the best behind Orr on both ends of the ice.

It had nothing to do with style and everything to do with Park being much better than guys like Laperierre. At no point between 1969-1974 was Laperierre better than Park even when only considering the defensive side of the game.

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.

 

[Dark Shadows]

BTW Orr missed 24 games during the 1968 season.

More of the same in the 1969 Norris voting when Pat Stapleton 6G 50A and Gary Bergman 7G 30A received less consideration than Al Arbour 1G 6A which paled even against teammate Barclay Plager's 4G 26A.

As for east coast bias. Fails to explain the 1968 Calder voting where the Kings Bill Flett received more votes than Bill White, also a King.

As for the consideration of Jacques Laperriere pre 1970 ahead of J.C. Tremblay, Laperriere was the only post WWII rookie defenseman voted to an All Star team so overall it is an accurate portrayal supported by the fact that Laperriere is a HHOFer while Tremblay is not.

Oh please. Pulling out an individual player who was 5th in Norris and saying "Look, he got more consideration and he was defensive" is a new low, even for you.

You could look at 1972-73 after your proposed timeframe and draw the exact same conclusion. Laperierre finished 5th in Norris voting over 30 people who scored much more than him.

Or Barry Ashbee in 73-74, who finished 4th in Norris voting, but 55th in defenseman scoring. White and Salming for that matter were 10th and 13th in defenseman scoring.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Defensive Side

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.

Strictly from a defensive side Jacques Laperriere led the NHL in +/- during the 1972-73 season with a +78 or + 47 better than Brad Park yet he did not get any defensive recognition. The position that he missed games is somewhat interesting given that Orr missed 24 games during the 1967-68 season while winning the Norris while Laperriere missed fewer games yet his year was not recognized.

As for the nonsense about the 1973-74 season that you keep spouting. You overlook one very important fact - Ken Dryden sat out the 1973-74 season leaving the Canadiens with a threesome of Wayne Thomas, Michel Larocque and Michel Plasse in goal:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/MTL/1974.html

All of the four HHOF quality defensemen - Laperriere, Lapointe, Robinson, Savard sacrificed offense for defense with a resulting drop or under performance in their PPG. Laperriere's was very minor app. .04 on his previous low. As for ice time, 1973-74 marked the first full season Larry Robinson played in the NHL and Serge Savard was fully recovered from two serious leg injuries so Scotty Bowman was able to make more efficient use of ice time for the defensemen.
Once Scotty Bowman explained his position Laperriere soldiered on. The key point is tha Laperriere was concerned about contributing his skills for the good of the team as the GAA was rising with inexperienced goaltending.

The PP was never an issue for Jacques Laperriere who had 10 PPG during a 12 season career.

Brad Park. Your attempts at Doug Harvey like comparisons do not jive with the 1969 playoffs when the Rangers were swept by the Canadiens and Brad Park had trouble adjusting to the varied forechecking schemes used by the Canadiens. Bobby Orr did a much better job of adjusting under similar circumstances.

Did a quick check of Parks first three seasons in the NHL and 11 of his 20 goals were power play goals and a suspect the assists would follow a similar pattern for the first three seasons.

J.C.Tremblay. The Nordiques offered $140,000 per season and Sam Pollock walked away just as he did in similar instances - most notable being Frank Mahovlich.

 

[ck26]

There's a serious lack of respect for Park going on here. There's no way he should be behind Chelios. In an Orr-less world, he's a 4-time Norris winner and 3-time runner-up.

By my count, both guys have 5 first- and 2 second-team post-season allstar selections. Park got 6 nods in 7 years (70-76, 78) and Chelios never came close to a streak like that (95-96-97 was the only time he strung together back-to-back seasons), but unless someone's game goes to **** in the years in between (Cheli's didn't), then I think it's more impressive that Chelios's 1st first-team nod (89) was 14 seasons before his last ('02). He had his ebbs and flows like anyone, but Cheli was among the league's elite for that long (arguably longer, starting before 1989). Chelios was essentially one of the best defensemen in hockey for as long as Park played.

The argument about peak value can be had (not that anyone who won multiple Norris trophies like Chelios did can be dismissed for not having a high peak), but for me, after I voted for Howe > Orr and as I will vote for Brodeur > Dryden, Chelios's career value sets him apart. On a personal note, Chris Chelios will also be the first American on this list, and that's something I want to see happen sooner rather than later.

 

[Howe Elbows 9]

This hasn't been posted yet, has it?

Hart voting:

Player |First |Second |Third |Fourth |Fifth | Total
Apps | |4 |1 | | |5
Brodeur | | |3 |2 |2 |7
Coffey | | | |2 | |2
Cook | |2 | | | |2
Dryden | |1 | |2 | |3
Geoffrion |1 | | | | |1
Park | | | | |3 |3
Robinson | | | | |1 |1
Sakic |1 | | | | |1
Schmidt |1 |1 | |2 |1 |5
Yzerman | | |1 |1 | |2

AST appearances:

Player |Pos. | Seasons | First AST |Second AST | Total
Apps |C |37-38 to 42-43 |2 |3 |5
Brodeur |G |96-97 to 07-08 |3 |4 |7
Chelios |D |88-89 to 01-02 |5 |2 |7
Coffey |D |81-82 to 94-95 |4 |4 |8
Cook |RW |30-31 to 33-34 |3 |1 |4
Dryden |G |71-72 to 78-79 |5 |1 |6
Geoffrion |RW |54-55 to 60-61 |1 |2 |3
Park |D |69-70 to 77-78 |5 |2 |7
Robinson |D |76-77 to 85-86 |3 |3 |6
Sakic |C |00-01 to 03-04 |3 | |3
Schmidt |C |39-40 to 51-52 |3 |1 |4
Yzerman |C |99-00 |1 | |1

Soviet MVP voting:

Player | First | Second | Third | Fourth | Fifth | Total
Fetisov | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 9
Kharlamov | 1 | 3 | | 2 | 2 | 8
Tretiak | 5 | 2 | 3 | | 2 | 12

 

[FissionFire]

Bit suprised that Sakic was never in the top 5 for Hart voting outside of his one season. Really didn't expect to see Yzerman with more top 5 finishes than Sakic.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Strictly from a defensive side Jacques Laperriere led the NHL in +/- during the 1972-73 season with a +78 or + 47 better than Brad Park yet he did not get any defensive recognition. The position that he missed games is somewhat interesting given that Orr missed 24 games during the 1967-68 season while winning the Norris while Laperriere missed fewer games yet his year was not recognized.

Not only is +/- A team statistic, but it is a statistic that is bolstered by transition game and team offense more so than defense. Playing with 2 of the best in the league, Savard and Lapointe didn't hurt, nor did the plethora of two way forwards than Montreal had in front of him. Laperierre did have a fantastic transition game, but he also had a +/- than Serge Savard in less games that year, yet not one person I know who watched them both would say he was better defensively.

None of Guy Lafleur, Steve Shutt or Pete Mahovlich were better defensively than Jacques Lemaire in 1974-75, but they all had a much better +/-.

He did Indeed have a much better team statistic +/- Than Brad Park, but he also brought far less of the offense and was not better defensively, nor was he even remotely close to as important to his team. He still finished very close to him in voting and was still recognized for his contributions defensively.

As for the nonsense about the 1973-74 season that you keep spouting. You overlook one very important fact - Ken Dryden sat out the 1973-74 season leaving the Canadiens with a threesome of Wayne Thomas, Michel Larocque and Michel Plasse in goal:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/MTL/1974.html

Not having Dryden had nothing to do with his unhappiness with Bowman leaving him 4th for duties behind the big 3, or why he was angry and telling them there was no reason to have him around if they did not use him more.

All of the four HHOF quality defensemen - Laperriere, Lapointe, Robinson, Savard sacrificed offense for defense with a resulting drop or under performance in their PPG. Laperriere's was very minor app. .04 on his previous low. As for ice time, 1973-74 marked the first full season Larry Robinson played in the NHL and Serge Savard was fully recovered from two serious leg injuries so Scotty Bowman was able to make more efficient use of ice time for the defensemen.
Once Scotty Bowman explained his position Laperriere soldiered on. The key point is tha Laperriere was concerned about contributing his skills for the good of the team as the GAA was rising with inexperienced goaltending.

According to the facts(Legends of Hockey, and numerous books), Laperierre did not have time to soldier on. He was struck with his injury days after having that discussion with Bowman.
Lapointe scored at a better PPG than he ever had before in that season. Robinson was a 2nd year player, but already was being ice more than Laperierre and was playing better defensively. Savard did indeed play more defensively that season than usual, and was the best of them all in that regard.

In any case, it is a moot point. Laperierre was not getting Norris recognition even before his injury in a season in which he was visibly being used as 4th option defenseman on his team.

The PP was never an issue for Jacques Laperriere who had 10 PPG during a 12 season career.

Maybe. Maybe not. Scoring goals was never his strong suit in any situation. He was a playmaker and transition game player.

Brad Park. Your attempts at Doug Harvey like comparisons do not jive with the 1969 playoffs when the Rangers were swept by the Canadiens and Brad Park had trouble adjusting to the varied forechecking schemes used by the Canadiens. Bobby Orr did a much better job of adjusting under similar circumstances.

Oh Good lord..........

Now you are attempting to detract from Brad Park based in his first playoff in a rookie season before he was getting those Norris votes?

That would be like me detracting from Laperierre for his 62-63 rookie playoff......

Park was one of the best positional defensive players in the league when he was getting his norris nominations, and his offense only got better.

Did a quick check of Parks first three seasons in the NHL and 11 of his 20 goals were power play goals and a suspect the assists would follow a similar pattern for the first three seasons.

And this means what? Park was always a great PP quarterback.

J.C.Tremblay. The Nordiques offered $140,000 per season and Sam Pollock walked away just as he did in similar instances - most notable being Frank Mahovlich.

Pollock was making true efforts to resign Tremblay, but would not match that price. I seriously doubt he would have matched it for a lesser older defenseman in Laperierre.

 

[God Bless Canada]

I think people really underrate Chelios around here. Don't know why. Maybe his personality (which isn't his strong suit) really puts people off. Or maybe there's something in his style of play that turns them off.

Reality is that he might be the most complete defenceman remaining, and probably the defenceman most capable of carrying a team on his back. He was a totally imposing, intimidating all-round force. You knew that when you played the Blackhawks from about 1990 to 1997, you were going to face Chris Chelios for 30 minutes a night. And it was going to be the most difficult assignment you'd have all year. He'd beat you with his skills. Or his toughness. Or his tremendous defensive ability.

His 2001-02 season was a surprise. It wasn't a fluke. Nothing Chelios does is a fluke. But prior to that season, he appeared to be winding down. He played 24 games in 2000-01. He was good, but not the dominant Chelios good of 1988-1997, in the three years prior. But he stayed healthy, he was in a good place in Detroit, and he responded with some of the best hockey of his life. Came damn close to winning a fourth Norris.

Do I think Park wins the Norris in 70, 72 or 74 if not for Orr? Probably. (His fourth first-team all-star nod came in 76, according to hockey-reference.com, when Orr was basically done). But you don't know that for certain. If not for Orr, the game doesn't change the way it did in the late 60s. Maybe the voters look for a defensive stalward in the voting. You can't assume that the votes shift to Park. You expect they would, and certainly I believe that Park was the best defenceman not named Orr from 1970 to 1975, and he should have won the Norris in 70, 72 and 74. But can I say that with absolute certainty? No.

And that's the pitfall of using awards as a criteria. You get a situation where you have an incredible player (Park) who can't win an award because he's matched up against easily the best player ever at his position.

As for competition, I think Chelios had the tougher competition in terms of depth. He didn't have to worry about Orr. But there was Bourque. And Coffey. MacInnis and Stevens too. Imagine if Fetisov wasn't trapped in the USSR.

I think Chelios was the better player. Not as offensively gifted as Park (although the numbers are closer than you might think), but tougher, meaner, more physical, better defensively, a better leader and a better competitor. (Chelios might be the best competitor in this round of voting, for what it's worth).

 

[God Bless Canada]

Bit suprised that Sakic was never in the top 5 for Hart voting outside of his one season. Really didn't expect to see Yzerman with more top 5 finishes than Sakic.

That's why I don't really put an emphasis on Hart Trophy voting. It's an MVP award, not a best player award. A guy like Sakic isn't going to do well in the MVP voting. Early in his career, he was a fabulous player on an atrocious Quebec team. And starting in 1995, he was a fabulous player on a deep, talented Quebec/Colorado team. In 2000-01, he was head and shoulders the best player in the world, and the only player who could have given him a run for the Hart (Mario) played half a season.

I probably would have given Sakic a top five vote for the Hart in 2003-04, when he was terrific, and in 2005-06, when he carried his team on his back to the playoffs. But the bottom line is that he wasn't a guy who would do well in Hart voting.

 

[pappyline]

Schmidt & Trottier

Is it just me or does anyone else see a lot of similarities between Schmidt & Trottier. Trottier is alrady in the top 30 and from the posts so far it looks like Schmidt will miss the top 40. Both were good both offensively & defensively. Schmidt was probably more hard nosed. Both won an AR & a hart. Both were known as great leaders. Sure trottier was on a teams that won more cups but that only means something to cup counters. It also has to be taken into account that Schmidt went off to WWII for 3 years in his prime. I really like Trottier but just can't understand why he should be 15+spots ahead of Schmidt. and yes, I did have schmidt as a top 30 guy & will be voting him #1 in this round.

 

[God Bless Canada]

Is it just me or does anyone else see a lot of similarities between Schmidt & Trottier. Trottier is alrady in the top 30 and from the posts so far it looks like Schmidt will miss the top 40. Both were good both offensively & defensively. Schmidt was probably more hard nosed. Both won an AR & a hart. Both were known as great leaders. Sure trottier was on a teams that won more cups but that only means something to cup counters. It also has to be taken into account that Schmidt went off to WWII for 3 years in his prime. I really like Trottier but just can't understand why he should be 15+spots ahead of Schmidt. and yes, I did have schmidt as a top 30 guy & will be voting him #1 in this round.

I had Schmidt and Trottier very close together on my master list. I believe both were between 26 and 30.

Schmidt was an incredible player. Tremendous hockey IQ. Thought the game at another level. I don't think he was quite as dangerous offensively as Trotts, but I would say he's better defensively - probably one of the top five defensive forwards we'll consider in this process. Physical and tough as nails, too. Probably a better leader than Trottier, too.

So just think it through, guys: he's such an outstanding defensive player, he's tough, and he's a great leader, and he has an Art Ross Trophy to his credit.

Not only should he be a no-brainer for this round, he should be a gimmie for the top five.

 

[Stonefly]

I think people really underrate Chelios around here. Don't know why. Maybe his personality (which isn't his strong suit) really puts people off. Or maybe there's something in his style of play that turns them off.

Reality is that he might be the most complete defenceman remaining, and probably the defenceman most capable of carrying a team on his back. He was a totally imposing, intimidating all-round force. You knew that when you played the Blackhawks from about 1990 to 1997, you were going to face Chris Chelios for 30 minutes a night. And it was going to be the most difficult assignment you'd have all year. He'd beat you with his skills. Or his toughness. Or his tremendous defensive ability.

His 2001-02 season was a surprise. It wasn't a fluke. Nothing Chelios does is a fluke. But prior to that season, he appeared to be winding down. He played 24 games in 2000-01. He was good, but not the dominant Chelios good of 1988-1997, in the three years prior. But he stayed healthy, he was in a good place in Detroit, and he responded with some of the best hockey of his life. Came damn close to winning a fourth Norris.

Do I think Park wins the Norris in 70, 72 or 74 if not for Orr? Probably. (His fourth first-team all-star nod came in 76, according to hockey-reference.com, when Orr was basically done). But you don't know that for certain. If not for Orr, the game doesn't change the way it did in the late 60s. Maybe the voters look for a defensive stalward in the voting. You can't assume that the votes shift to Park. You expect they would, and certainly I believe that Park was the best defenceman not named Orr from 1970 to 1975, and he should have won the Norris in 70, 72 and 74. But can I say that with absolute certainty? No.

And that's the pitfall of using awards as a criteria. You get a situation where you have an incredible player (Park) who can't win an award because he's matched up against easily the best player ever at his position.

As for competition, I think Chelios had the tougher competition in terms of depth. He didn't have to worry about Orr. But there was Bourque. And Coffey. MacInnis and Stevens too. Imagine if Fetisov wasn't trapped in the USSR.

I think Chelios was the better player. Not as offensively gifted as Park (although the numbers are closer than you might think), but tougher, meaner, more physical, better defensively, a better leader and a better competitor. (Chelios might be the best competitor in this round of voting, for what it's worth).

Please explain how you come to this conclusion. I watched them both and am actually a Chelios fan however he was not better than Park defensively or more physical, nor would I say he was tougher. The word you're looking for is "dirtier". Without a doubt Chelios was dirtier than Park. Chelios always had a hard time controlling himself and often took very selfish penalties. If you did something that rubbed him the wrong way you were going to pay but unlike others who would wait for the opportune time to make you pay Chelios usually retaliated immediately. There was a time I followed the Hawks closely, through the 80's and early 90's, and I have to tell you that Chelios was a very frustrating player to have on that team when they traded Savard for him. Especially in the playoffs. His lack of discipline was horrible. 91 playoffs, 6 GP, 46 PIM and a first round exit.

 

[lextune]

Is it just me or does anyone else see a lot of similarities between Schmidt & Trottier. Trottier is alrady in the top 30 and from the posts so far it looks like Schmidt will miss the top 40. Both were good both offensively & defensively. Schmidt was probably more hard nosed. Both won an AR & a hart. Both were known as great leaders. Sure trottier was on a teams that won more cups but that only means something to cup counters. It also has to be taken into account that Schmidt went off to WWII for 3 years in his prime. I really like Trottier but just can't understand why he should be 15+spots ahead of Schmidt. and yes, I did have schmidt as a top 30 guy & will be voting him #1 in this round.

My original list has Trotts at 29 and Milt at 30. I'll have to have Kharlamov first in this round, but after some hemming and hawing I am indeed going to have Milt 2nd....

My list as of tonight:

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

I have been quite busy with work this week and will be gone this weekend, so I haven't been posting very much in this Vote 4 debate but I have been reading all the posts.

 

[seventieslord]

As for "the numbers are closer than you might think", that is not correct. Park was frequently among the highest-scoring defensemen in the NHL. Chelios was 3rd among defensemen once and had a few more years closer to the bottom of the top-10.

 

[seventieslord]

My original list has Trotts at 29 and Milt at 30. I'll have to have Kharlamov first in this round, but after some hemming and hawing I am indeed going to have Milt 2nd....

My list as of tonight:

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

I have been quite busy with work this week and will be gone this weekend, so I haven't been posting very much in this Vote 4 debate but I have been reading all the posts.

Seriously! Go look at everything Bill Cook accomplished after joining the NHL at age 30.
Chelios and Coffey just didn't help a team as much as Park. The guy was better. Would you be ranking a four-time Norris winner 14th? That's exactly what he was if his career didn't overlap with Orr's.

 

[lextune]

I think Chelios was the better player. Not as offensively gifted as Park (although the numbers are closer than you might think), but tougher, meaner, more physical, better defensively, a better leader and a better competitor. (Chelios might be the best competitor in this round of voting, for what it's worth).

Please explain how you come to this conclusion. I watched them both and am actually a Chelios fan however he was not better than Park defensively or more physical, nor would I say he was tougher. The word you're looking for is "dirtier". Without a doubt Chelios was dirtier than Park.

I think Chelios is the better player as well. I pretty much agree with everything GBC posted.

 

[lextune]

Would you be ranking a four-time Norris winner 14th? That's exactly what he was if his career didn't overlap with Orr's.

One could say the same about Chelios and Coffey, if their careers didn't overlap with Langway and Bourque, (not to mention one another), and they still did manage to win three Norris' apiece.

Coffey, who I am not exactly a big fan of actually, was a wonder. He is without question the second most offensively gifted D-Man of all time, and one of the greatest pure skaters in hockey history, I can't see putting Park, (who, as a life-long B's fan, I loved dearly...once he became a Bruins that is), ahead of him.

Seriously! Go look at everything Bill Cook accomplished after joining the NHL at age 30.

I had Cook at 48 on my original list. He and Boucher obviously formed a brilliant line, (had Frank at 64 on my list and think he needs to move up a little actually), but that being said I feel like I have a pretty good idea of Cook's accomplishments....4 time all-star, five times in the top five for goals and points. It's just that things are getting crowded at this point, lol.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Second Best

Seriously! Go look at everything Bill Cook accomplished after joining the NHL at age 30.
Chelios and Coffey just didn't help a team as much as Park. The guy was better. Would you be ranking a four-time Norris winner 14th? That's exactly what he was if his career didn't overlap with Orr's.

But Brad Park's career did overlap with Bobby Orr and his teams did overlap with dynasty teams but so did the careers and teams of others who managed to overcome the obstacles and win Norris trophies and Stanley Cups while Brad Park did not and there comes a time when it is reasonable to ask why not.

So provide an explanation to the why not question and perhaps you may convince a few people.

 

[Stonefly]

By my count, both guys have 5 first- and 2 second-team post-season allstar selections. Park got 6 nods in 7 years (70-76, 78) and Chelios never came close to a streak like that (95-96-97 was the only time he strung together back-to-back seasons), but unless someone's game goes to **** in the years in between (Cheli's didn't), then I think it's more impressive that Chelios's 1st first-team nod (89) was 14 seasons before his last ('02). He had his ebbs and flows like anyone, but Cheli was among the league's elite for that long (arguably longer, starting before 1989). Chelios was essentially one of the best defensemen in hockey for as long as Park played.

The argument about peak value can be had (not that anyone who won multiple Norris trophies like Chelios did can be dismissed for not having a high peak), but for me, after I voted for Howe > Orr and as I will vote for Brodeur > Dryden, Chelios's career value sets him apart. On a personal note, Chris Chelios will also be the first American on this list, and that's something I want to see happen sooner rather than later.

Why do guys like Lafleur, Potvin and Trottier get passes for having relatively short careers, which was the norm for a lot of the players at that time and yet Park does not? Park played a hell of a lot of play off hockey which is the reason most commonly used to explain why the others dropped off quickly.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

But Brad Park's career did overlap with Bobby Orr and his teams did overlap with dynasty teams but so did the careers and teams of others who managed to overcome the obstacles and win Norris trophies and Stanley Cups while Brad Park did not and there comes a time when it is reasonable to ask why not.

So provide an explanation to the why not question and perhaps you may convince a few people.

I don't understand this comment. Between 1968 and 1975, nobody won the Norris trophy aside from Orr, unarguably the most dominant defenseman in history. I've shown (link) Park earned far more Norris consideration than any other player, aside from Orr, during his prime (which, in that post, I defined as 1970-74).

Why didn't Park win the Stanley Cup? Teams, not players, win Stanley Cups. Park was one of the best defensive defensemen of the 1970s and was 5th among all players in playoff scoring (source). On the strength of his exceptional offense and defense, I believe Park performed at an elite level during the playoffs.