Round 2, Vote 4 (2009 update)

[Dark Shadows]

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

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) so Park performed at an elite level during the playoffs.

I don't understand it either, but he has been implying that if not for Orr, Defense only guys like Laperierre would be getting consideration over Park, and he has strongly been implying that Park was NOT one of the best defensive defensemen(Which he most certainly was)

 

[Stonefly]

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.

There isn't another defenceman that has played the game that would win a Norris while competing for it against Orr. So there goes the first half of Park's career. After that his knees were quite damaged and it was clear he lacked the mobility he used to possess and that mobility would no doubt have helped him compete for the Norris against Potvin and Robinson. Cherry asked him to modify his game and stay back, less risk taking and he willingly did so to help his team win. The Bruins managed two trips to the finals against one of the greatest dynasties and were outcoached and lost. Park cannot be faulted for his performances in those years. In fact in 78 he and Robinson were the two front runners for the Conn Smythe award going into that final game. Canadiens win, Robinson wins Smythe.
You've mentioned in other posts that Orr had to endure under bad coaching. Park had to as well.

 

[Epsilon]

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.

Keep in mind I say this as someone who views Brad Park very highly and probably would have him higher than 14th, although not necessarily ahead of Chelios and Coffey (I think they are all pretty close).

The first problem with your argument is that "what ifs" cannot be given full value because they are just that, hypotheticals rather than things that actually happened. But even in the event that we do give value to this assertion, Park's 4 virtual Norris trophies are then won against some of very weak fields. Among the 12 other top 5 finishers in the the Norris trophy voting over those 4 seasons (not counting Orr and Park of course) there are a grand total of 2 Hall of Famers: Jacques Laperriere (once) and Borje Salming (once). Certainly there are some other good players, but if we are going to assign contextual value to Norris trophies (as has been argued frequently in other discussions), then are Park's fake 4 against Bill White, Keith Magnuson, J.C. Tremblay, etc. really more impressive than the 3 each that Chelios and Coffey received?

 

[foame]

Updated listing of Norris finalists

PLAYER | FIRST | SECOND | THIRD | FOURTH | FIFTH | TOTAL
Paul Coffey | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 11
Larry Robinson | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 8
Chris Chelios | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 7
Brad Park | 0 | 6 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 7

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=550541

 

[Jungosi]

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 did a stastistical comparition of Trottier, Sakic and Schmidt. Schmidt of course brought many things to the table that can't measured in statistics but Trottier brought almost the same. Maybe the analysis can help you to see why I consider Trottier (and Sakic for that matter) slightly better than Schmidt.

A brief comparition between Milt Schmidt, Bryan Trottier and Joe Sakic

I'll compare Schmidt vs. the other two seperate and willl do Sakic vs. Trottier just for fun.

Offense, Regular Season

Goal-scoring

Sakic : 2, 2, 3, 6, 6, 6, 11
Schmidt : 2, 6, 9, 12, 13
Trottier : 5, 5, 8, 14

vs, Sakic

Schmidt : 9, 12, 13
Sakic : 2, 3, 6, 6, 11

vs. Trottier

Schmidt : 2, 6, 9, 12, 13
Trottier : 5, 5, 8, 14

Sakic vs. Trottier

Sakic : 2, 2, 3, 6, 6, 6, 11
Trottier : 5, 5, 8, 14


So we can see that Sakic is by far the best goal scorer of these three. Schmidt trumps Trottier by a good margin so he has a point there.

Playmaking

Sakic : 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 11, 12
Schmidt : 1, 3, 4, 4, 12, 13, 13
Trottier : 1, 1, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 8, 13

vs. Sakic

Schmidt : 1, 13, 13
Sakic : 3, 5, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 11

vs. Trottier

Schmidt : 3, 4, 12, 13,
Trottier : 1, 5, 5, 5, 5, 8

Sakic vs. Trottier

Sakic : 3, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 11, 12
Trottier : 1, 1, 5, 5, 13

Trottier is the best playmaker of the bunch followed closely by Joe Sakic and a bit further behind them Mr. Schmidt.


Points scored

Sakic : 2, 2, 3, 4 ,5, 5, 6, 6, 8, 10, 14
Schmidt : 1, 4, 4, 10, 10, 12
Trottier : 1, 2, 5, 6 ,8, 10, 12, 14

so vs. Sakic after the elimination

Schmidt : 1, 4, 10, 12
Sakic : 2, 2, 3, 5, 5, 6, 6, 8, 14

vs. Trottier

Schmidt : 4, 4, 10,
Trottier : 2, 5, 6, 8, 14

Sakic vs. Trottier

Sakic : 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Trottier : 1, 12

Sakic might lack the scoring title but he is by far the most consitent producer still boasting 8 top-10 finishes and 5 top-10 finishes respectively.


Longevity of regular season offense:

Sakic : Top-10 in goals over a span of 14 seasons.
Schmidt : Top-10 in goals over a span of 9 seasons.
Trottier : Top-10 in goals over the span of 5 seasons.

Sakic : Top-10 in assists over a span of 15 seasons.
Schmidt : Top-10 in assists over a span of 9 seasons.
Trottier : Top-10 in assists over a span of 12 seasons.

Sakic : Top-10 in points over a span of 17 seasons
Schmidt : Top-10 in points over a span of 10 seasons.
Trottier : Top-10 in points over a span of 7 seasons.

Sakic : Top-5 in goals over a span of 6 seasons
Schmidt : Top-5 in goals over a span of 1 season.
Trottier : Top-5 in goals over a span of 5 seasons.

Sakic : Top-5 in assists over a span of 10 seasons
Schmidt : Top-5 in assists over a span of 8 seasons.
Trottier : Top-5 in assists over a span of 10 Seasons.

Sakic : Top-5 in points over a span of 10 seasons
Schmidt : Top-5 in points over a span of 9 seasons.
Trottier : Top-5 in points over a span of 4 seasons.

While Sakic really owns this department we can see Schmidt's longevity. He ties Trottier with 3.


Offense, Playoffs

I'll only use the top-10 finishes here , else it would be a bit unbalanced.
Note : This isn't 100% valid I think. Playoff scoring was slightly different during Schmidt's time as well as there was a smaller sample size. I'll do it anyway to give you a impression.

Goal-scoring :

Sakic : 1, 1, 2, 8, 10, 10 Schmidt : 2, 4, 5, 7, 8
Trottier : 1, 4, 6, 9, 9

vs. Sakic

Sakic : 1, 1, 10, 10
Schmidt : 4, 5, 7

vs. Trottier

Schmidt : 2, 4, 5, 7
Trottier : 1, 9, 9

Sakic vs. Trottier

Sakic : 1, 2, 8, 10, 10
Trottier : 4, 6, 9, 9

Milt Schmidt is actually a pretty good playoff goal scorer. While Sakic is still #1 due to his two top finishes Schmidt isn't that far behind. Trottier isn't bad either but he didn't do much outside of the dynasty years.

Playmaking :

Sakic : 1, 2, 3, 4, 8
Schmidt : 2, 3, 4, 9
Trottier : 1, 1, 2, 7

vs. Sakic

Sakic : 1, 8
Schmidt : 9

vs. Trottier

Schmidt : 3, 4, 9
Trottier : 1, 1, 7

Sakic vs. Trottier :

Sakic : 3, 4, 8
Trottier : 1, 7

Schmidt comes out third while Sakic and Trottier are really close for #1. Sakic has one more but Trottier has a first place.

Point scored

Sakic : 1, 1, 2, 3, 4
Schmidt : 1, 4, 6, 8
Trottier : 1, 1, 2, 10

vs. Sakic

Sakic : 1, 2, 3
Schmidt : 6, 8

vs. Trottier

Schmidt : 4, 6, 8
Trottier : 1, 2, 10

Sakic vs. Trottier

Sakic : 3, 4
Trottier : 10

It is proven yet again that Joe Sakic is one of the best playoff performers ever. Trottier and Schmidt both fantastic performers themselves a struggling for #2 but I am inclined to give the nod to Trottier. It is pretty close though.

Leading team in playoff goals or points:

Sakic : Sakic led his team in playoff goals 7 times, and points 8 times.
Schmidt : Schmidt led his team in playoff goals once and point 5 times.
Trottier : Trottier led his team in playoff goals 3 times and points 3 times.

To be fair here : Neither Schmidt nor Sakic had someone remotely close to Potvin and Bossy on their respective teams so his numbers are to be taken with a grain of salt. Sakic still comes out on top while I all things considered have Schmidt at #3.

Clutch play:

I do not have the numbers for Schmidt but I think everyone agrees when I give Sakic the #1 by default.

Clean play :

I don't think you can compare this category cross-era. From what I have seen from Sakic he would have hardly gotten any penalties back then I think. Trottier's numbers certainly would drop a bit too. I think in general you can see that these 3 all played a fairly clean game what is especially great in Trottier's and Schmidt case because these two added a physical dimension that Sakic lacked.

Awards :

Overview :

Sakic : Hart Trophy , 3 times a first team all-star , Conn Smythe
Schmidt : Art Ross , Hart Trophy , 3 times a first team all-star , 1 time a second team all-star , retro-Conn Smythe
Trottier : Art Ross , Hart Trophy , 2 times a first team all-star , 2 times a second team all-star , Conn Smythe

Hart Trohpy Voting Record .(Top-5 only)

Sakic : 1
Schmidt : 1,2,4,4,5
Trottier : 1,2,2,3,5


Trottier takes the victory here. Schmidt takes a close second place and Sakic comes out as a distant third. You have to keep in mind two things though : The different voting criteria and the Gretzky-effect. Trottier would've gotten another Hart Trophy.

All-Star Selections :

Sakic : 1,1,1
Trottier : 1,1,2,2
Milt Schmidt : 1,1,1,2

I think we can call this a three-way tie. Trottier faced the deepest crop of centers ever and Sakic also got his share of competition while Schmidt faced a slightly lesser competition especially pre-war.


I'll now compare the placements in the respective categories to give you a short summary of the statistical part.
RS,scoring :

Goals : #1 Sakic , #2 Schmidt , #3 Trottier
Playmaking : #1 Trottier , #2 Sakic , #3 Schmidt
Points : #1 Sakic , #2 Trottier , #3 Schmidt

RS,consistency :

Top-10 : #1 Sakic , #2 Schmidt , #3 Trottier
Top-5 : #1 Sakic , #2 Trottier , #3 Schmidt

PO,scoring :

Goals : #1 Sakic , #2 Schmidt , #3 Trottier
Playmaking : #1 Sakic/Trottier , #3 Schmidt
Points : #1 Sakic , #2 Trottier , #3 Schmidt

PO, Team :

Goals : #1 Sakic , #2 Trottier , #3 Schmidt
Points : #1 Sakic , #2 Schmidt , #3 Trottier

Awards :

Hart : #1 Trottier , #2 Schmidt , #3 Sakic
All-Star : #1 Trottier/Schmidt/Sakic

Number of #1 finishes :

Sakic : 10
Trottier : 4
Schmidt : 1

Head to Head :

Trottier vs. Schmidt

Trottier wins : RS playmaking, RS points, Top-5 consistency, PO playmaking, PO points, PO team goals, Hart record
Schmidt wins : RS goal scoring, RS Top-10 consistency, PO goal scoring, PO team points

-------------------------

Conclusion : Interesting enough Sakic is the best scorer of those 3 by a healthy margin. This is again only a stastistical comparition. Schmidt had the worst supporting cast aside from the Kraut Line while Trottier had the best by far. All of them are considered two-way players but from what I have gathered you can probably put them into the following categories :

Good : Sakic
Great : Trottier
Great/Awesome : Schmidt

All of them were considered great leaders. Trottier and Schmidt brought a physical dimension that Sakic lacked a bit what of course no means that Sakic was soft. Sakic represented a different kind of player that fitted better into the new millenium. You also always have to consider that Schmidt was robbed off some his best years due to the war which is really sad and I'd love to give him credit for those years but it is impossible.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Keep in mind I say this as someone who views Brad Park very highly and probably would have him higher than 14th, although not necessarily ahead of Chelios and Coffey (I think they are all pretty close).

The first problem with your argument is that "what ifs" cannot be given full value because they are just that, hypotheticals rather than things that actually happened. But even in the event that we do give value to this assertion, Park's 4 virtual Norris trophies are then won against some of very weak fields. Among the 12 other top 5 finishers in the the Norris trophy voting over those 4 seasons (not counting Orr and Park of course) there are a grand total of 2 Hall of Famers: Jacques Laperriere (once) and Borje Salming (once). Certainly there are some other good players, but if we are going to assign contextual value to Norris trophies (as has been argued frequently in other discussions), then are Park's fake 4 against Bill White, Keith Magnuson, J.C. Tremblay, etc. really more impressive than the 3 each that Chelios and Coffey received?

The way I see it. You could put any defenseman in the history of the game up against Orr's 8 season run and they would lose. Irrespective of the hypothetical amount of Norris trophies he would have won without Orr in the picture.....

By my eyes, Park's best 3 seasons were equal to or slightly better than Chelios' best 3 seasons, and his playoffs were slightly better. They both have roughly the same amount of superstar caliber season.

Coffey is a completely different case altogether as he played like a 4th forward rather than a defenseman, and he is hard to compare to other more two way defensemen. Some love his offensive brilliance and are willing to overlook or make excuses for his lesser defensive play, others are not. His playoffs are a different story as well. He is one of those players who was expendable to most teams. They always won cups after he left.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Connecting the Dots

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.

Taking your 1968-75 period first. Orr won all the Norris Trophies BUT only two Stanley Cups, other teams and players won six yet Brad Park was never a member of one of the teams.

After 1975 Brad Park was in his prime, on a team that went to two Stanley Cup finals, barely missing a third yet did not win a Stanley Cup.

As for the Norris Trophy , after 1975 when defensemen, other than Orr, started winning the trophy, Brad Park did not. Effectively those previously below him surpassed Brad Park in the eyes of the voters despite the following advantages - being traded to a better team, playing within a better defensive structure than he had with the Rangers. Granted he missed time due to injuries but so did Orr and other defensemen.

Effectively you have a very nice and attractive paper career with numbers that are not reflected by on ice results. Explain why.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Before and After Orr

I don't understand it either, but he has been implying that if not for Orr, Defense only guys like Laperierre would be getting consideration over Park, and he has strongly been implying that Park was NOT one of the best defensive defensemen(Which he most certainly was)

Before Orr and until 1970 the defense aspect carried alot more weight. Given ample opportunity no one has contradicted this.

Since Orr or more so in the years following Bobby Orr's retirement there has been talk about a second award recognizing the defensive attributes of defensemen.

Read my comments in the next post.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Finally

There isn't another defenceman that has played the game that would win a Norris while competing for it against Orr. So there goes the first half of Park's career. After that his knees were quite damaged and it was clear he lacked the mobility he used to possess and that mobility would no doubt have helped him compete for the Norris against Potvin and Robinson. Cherry asked him to modify his game and stay back, less risk taking and he willingly did so to help his team win. The Bruins managed two trips to the finals against one of the greatest dynasties and were outcoached and lost. Park cannot be faulted for his performances in those years. In fact in 78 he and Robinson were the two front runners for the Conn Smythe award going into that final game. Canadiens win, Robinson wins Smythe.
You've mentioned in other posts that Orr had to endure under bad coaching. Park had to as well.

Finally an appreciation of coaching. Switch Bowman and Cherry. Which team wins the Stanley Cup between 1977 and 1979?

Yet this does not fully answer the question. Jacques Lemaire and Scott Stevens produced a drastic change in style that was not injury related that yielded very strong individual and team results.

Joe Sakic overcame horrific coaching - Graham James in junior and some of the early Nordiques coaches to lead his team to championships while winning individual awards with at best average to average plus NHL coaching.

Somewhere in all of this the player has some responsibility.

 

[FissionFire]

Before Orr and until 1970 the defense aspect carried alot more weight. Given ample opportunity no one has contradicted this.

Since Orr or more so in the years following Bobby Orr's retirement there has been talk about a second award recognizing the defensive attributes of defensemen.

Read my comments in the next post.

Yet even after Orr purely defensive defensemen have garnered Norris and even Hart consideration. Rod Langway, Scott Stevens, and Vladimir Konstantinov are three examples that come to mind without looking over the voting results. Maybe the voters valued offense a little more after Orr but it's not like it became their primary focus. Dominating defensive players are still recognized.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Purely Defensive Defensemen

Yet even after Orr purely defensive defensemen have garnered Norris and even Hart consideration. Rod Langway, Scott Stevens, and Vladimir Konstantinov are three examples that come to mind without looking over the voting results. Maybe the voters valued offense a little more after Orr but it's not like it became their primary focus. Dominating defensive players are still recognized.

The three you mention were not purely defensive defensemen but defensemen with with significant offensive upside that chose to forgo offense for the benefit of the team. This swayed voters.

Langway, Stevens and Konstantinov produced significant offense at various times of their careers.

Previous to Bobby Orr and up to 1970, defensemen like Gus Mortson, Fern Flaman, Terry Harper, Ted Harris, Arnie Brown, Al Arbour, Bob Goldham to name a few would get recognition for their purely defensive contributions.

Today the defensemen like Adam Foote, Willie Mitchell and their contemporaries did not get the same level of recognition yet their value is just as great to a team as was the value of defensive defensemen pre 1970.

 

[God Bless Canada]

The way I see it. You could put any defenseman in the history of the game up against Orr's 8 season run and they would lose. Irrespective of the hypothetical amount of Norris trophies he would have won without Orr in the picture.....

By my eyes, Park's best 3 seasons were equal to or slightly better than Chelios' best 3 seasons, and his playoffs were slightly better. They both have roughly the same amount of superstar caliber season.

Coffey is a completely different case altogether as he played like a 4th forward rather than a defenseman, and he is hard to compare to other more two way defensemen. Some love his offensive brilliance and are willing to overlook or make excuses for his lesser defensive play, others are not. His playoffs are a different story as well. He is one of those players who was expendable to most teams. They always won cups after he left.

Edmonton, Pittsburgh and Detroit won Cups after trading him because of what they got for him, not because they traded him.

*Edmonton received Craig Simpson in return. Simpson scored 50 goals for Edmonton in 88 and tied for the post-season scoring lead in 1990. He was a fantastic player before his back went out on him.

*Pittsburgh dealt Coffey to LA in a three-way trade with Philly. The return from Philly was Rick Tocchet and Kjell Samuelsson. That trade changed the Pens complexion, it added toughness and passion that was lacking, it the direction of the team that season, and it injected life into the club. It was the turning point in their year.

*Detroit dealt Coffey and Primeau to Hartford for Brenden Shanahan. Shanahan wasn't the last piece for the Detroit club (Larry Murphy was), but Shanny was the missing piece. Detroit needed the big bull power winger who could score goals and dominate physically. At that time, Shanny was the premier power forward in the sport.

LA did trade Coffey to Detroit, got little in return, and advanced to the Stanley Cup final. The return was Jimmy Carson (who was junk after he went to LA) and Gary Shuchuk (junk with the exception of a very big goal in double OT against Vancouver in Game 5). But what the Coffey trade allowed was that LA could elevate their three young defencemen: Zhitnik, Blake and Sydor. The 1993 playoffs were Blake's breakthrough. He was fantastic. Zhitnik played the best hockey of his life. And Sydor was terrific, too. (For what it's worth, Coffey tied Theo Fleury for the scoring lead in the first round of the 1993 playoffs).

 

[FissionFire]

The three you mention were not purely defensive defensemen but defensemen with with significant offensive upside that chose to forgo offense for the benefit of the team. This swayed voters.

Langway, Stevens and Konstantinov produced significant offense at various times of their careers.

Previous to Bobby Orr and up to 1970, defensemen like Gus Mortson, Fern Flaman, Terry Harper, Ted Harris, Arnie Brown, Al Arbour, Bob Goldham to name a few would get recognition for their purely defensive contributions.

Today the defensemen like Adam Foote, Willie Mitchell and their contemporaries did not get the same level of recognition yet their value is just as great to a team as was the value of defensive defensemen pre 1970.

Exactly what do you define as "significant offense"?

In Langway's highest scoring season he was only 31st in defenseman scoring and tied for 25th in defenseman goals. He never placed higher in either goals or points amongst defenseman before or after. I don't really consider that producing "significant offense".

Konstantinov really boggles the mind. When exactly did he ever show high-end NHL caliber offense? His best season was his final season when he climbed all the way to a tie for 20th in defenseman scoring, his best finish ever. He never even had a 40 point scoring season in a time when the top scoring defenseman would put up 50-70 points each year. Please show me when Konstantinov EVER showed any top-end offensive ability, I'd really love to see it because I watched every single game of his career here in Detroit and I never saw it (please don't insult me by trying to offer his 15 lockout games in the 2nd tier German league).

Stevens I will concede as he finished in the top 10 scoring for defenseman a few times. However, the fact that he didn't get serious Norris consideration until after he gave up his offense to focus into a one-dimensional defense player kinda blows your "Orr made voters care only about offense" theory out of the water. Why didn't Stevens earn more Norris votes when he was a top scoring defenseman if offense was the main voting bias post-Orr?

Foote and Mitchell don't get consideration not because of their scoring, but because they simply don't dominate games with their play. They are nasty, physical guys who aren't fun to play against but they are not the defensive walls guys like Langway, Konstantinov, or Stevens were. Dominant players earn votes, whether they are dominant offensively or defensively.

 

[overpass]

Please show me when Konstantinov EVER showed any top-end offensive ability, I'd really love to see it because I watched every single game of his career here in Detroit and I never saw it (please don't insult me by trying to offer his 15 lockout games in the 2nd tier German league).

I don't disagree with your overall point, but since you asked, Konstantinov was 3rd among defensemen in even-strength scoring in 1996-97, behind only Leetch and Zubov, and ahead of Ozolinsh, Bourque, Lidstrom, and others. He was the only one of the top 10 defensemen in EV scoring that didn't get significant power play time, so this held back his overall scoring numbers.

 

[Canadiens Fan]

Taking your 1968-75 period first. Orr won all the Norris Trophies BUT only two Stanley Cups, other teams and players won six yet Brad Park was never a member of one of the teams.

A slightly unfair comparision. During this time period Jacques Laperriere won 4 Stanley Cups, does that make him a better d'man than Park during this period ??? Perhaps it speaks more to him playing for the Canadiens. Is there any doubt that if Park had played for the Habs he would have more Cups than Orr ??

So basically we're penalizing him for not playing with the Canadiens, Bruins, and Flyers ?? Does the fact that Moose Dupont has two Stanley Cup rings make him a better defenseman than Park ??

Effectively you have a very nice and attractive paper career with numbers that are not reflected by on ice results. Explain why.

Does the Summit Series not count ??

It hasn't been mentioned here either but he was named as the best defensemen in the 1972 Summit Series and the co-most valuable player of game eight. I would call that a pretty impressive on ice result.

 

[FissionFire]

I don't disagree with your overall point, but since you asked, Konstantinov was 3rd among defensemen in even-strength scoring in 1996-97, behind only Leetch and Zubov, and ahead of Ozolinsh, Bourque, Lidstrom, and others. He was the only one of the top 10 defensemen in EV scoring that didn't get significant power play time, so this held back his overall scoring numbers.

That was less a factor of Konstantinov creating offense as it was teams inability to adjust to the "new" style the Russian 5 brought. Teams simply weren't ready to deal with the excessive back-passing and weaving they brought. Konstantinov was by far the weak link on offense of that group. Fetisov was the QB on defense of that unit.

 

[ck26]

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.

I'm not "not giving Park a pass" ... I'm praising Chelios for riddiculous run of dominant play, something even more remarkable when you consider a) what a workhorse he was for the Chicago part of his career and b) how many playoff games he's played. That's part of the reason I voted Howe over Orr, and so it only seems fair that I keep that criteria in mind when I need to seperate players whose achievements are very similar and whose relative dominance is as well.

And why are any of those three on your "short career" list? Lafleur played 16 seasons (some of which were injury-shortened), Potvin was a horse for 14 and Trotts played 18!

 

[Stonefly]

I'm not "not giving Park a pass" ... I'm praising Chelios for riddiculous run of dominant play, something even more remarkable when you consider a) what a workhorse he was for the Chicago part of his career and b) how many playoff games he's played. That's part of the reason I voted Howe over Orr, and so it only seems fair that I keep that criteria in mind when I need to seperate players whose achievements are very similar and whose relative dominance is as well.

And why are any of those three on your "short career" list? Lafleur played 16 seasons (some of which were injury-shortened), Potvin was a horse for 14 and Trotts played 18!

Fair enough. Good to see you are consistent.

The short career comment was in reference to a thread a little while back about why certain players faded quickly and that they tended to be from a certain era. I believe those three were in that thread.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Significant Offence

Exactly what do you define as "significant offense"?

In Langway's highest scoring season he was only 31st in defenseman scoring and tied for 25th in defenseman goals. He never placed higher in either goals or points amongst defenseman before or after. I don't really consider that producing "significant offense".

Konstantinov really boggles the mind. When exactly did he ever show high-end NHL caliber offense? His best season was his final season when he climbed all the way to a tie for 20th in defenseman scoring, his best finish ever. He never even had a 40 point scoring season in a time when the top scoring defenseman would put up 50-70 points each year. Please show me when Konstantinov EVER showed any top-end offensive ability, I'd really love to see it because I watched every single game of his career here in Detroit and I never saw it (please don't insult me by trying to offer his 15 lockout games in the 2nd tier German league).

Stevens I will concede as he finished in the top 10 scoring for defenseman a few times. However, the fact that he didn't get serious Norris consideration until after he gave up his offense to focus into a one-dimensional defense player kinda blows your "Orr made voters care only about offense" theory out of the water. Why didn't Stevens earn more Norris votes when he was a top scoring defenseman if offense was the main voting bias post-Orr?

Foote and Mitchell don't get consideration not because of their scoring, but because they simply don't dominate games with their play. They are nasty, physical guys who aren't fun to play against but they are not the defensive walls guys like Langway, Konstantinov, or Stevens were. Dominant players earn votes, whether they are dominant offensively or defensively.

For a defenseman, especially those who are not on the power play
"significant offense" would be > 30 points per season.

Langway averaged 40 points per season his three full seasons with the Montreal Canadiens before the trade to Washington.

Konstantinov was the 3rd/4th offensive option behind Coffey, Lidstrom and Fetisov, yet managed almost .4PPG with a couple of 10 + goal seasons.When your 3rd/4th best offensive option from the defense is putting up more points over the course of a season, than the 3rd or 4th liners on your team that is significant offense.
Especially if he is providing great defense.

Stevens was viewed as being inferior to Langway by the voters of the era. One of those illogical quirks similar to Kevin Lowe being viewed negatively compared to Coffey.

Foote and Mitchell are do not have the flash to their defensive game that draws attention.

 

[Canadiens1958]

If.................

A slightly unfair comparision. During this time period Jacques Laperriere won 4 Stanley Cups, does that make him a better d'man than Park during this period ??? Perhaps it speaks more to him playing for the Canadiens. Is there any doubt that if Park had played for the Habs he would have more Cups than Orr ??

So basically we're penalizing him for not playing with the Canadiens, Bruins, and Flyers ?? Does the fact that Moose Dupont has two Stanley Cup rings make him a better defenseman than Park ??



Does the Summit Series not count ??

It hasn't been mentioned here either but he was named as the best defensemen in the 1972 Summit Series and the co-most valuable player of game eight. I would call that a pretty impressive on ice result.

The 1972 Summit Series just illustrates that Brad Park is pegged about right. He out performed the defensemen that are ranked below him. Anything less would be a disappointment.

On the other hand Brad Park missed the 1976 Canada Cup and there was no negative impact to Team Canada like there was in 1972 when Bobby Orr missed the Summit Series.

Actually Brad Park did play for the Bruins post 1975 with the same results. Bruins with Orr lost to the Canadiens, Bruins with Park lost to the Canadiens. Telling point being that in 1971 when the Bruins were upset in seven games Bobby Orr had 5 goals and 7 assists:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/o/orrbo01.html

whereas in the 17 playoff games between the Bruins and Canadiens, 1977, 1978, 1979 Brad Park did not approach such levels. Will do a more detailed breakdown later.

 

[Dark Shadows]

The three you mention were not purely defensive defensemen but defensemen with with significant offensive upside that chose to forgo offense for the benefit of the team. This swayed voters.

Langway, Stevens and Konstantinov produced significant offense at various times of their careers.

Previous to Bobby Orr and up to 1970, defensemen like Gus Mortson, Fern Flaman, Terry Harper, Ted Harris, Arnie Brown, Al Arbour, Bob Goldham to name a few would get recognition for their purely defensive contributions.

Today the defensemen like Adam Foote, Willie Mitchell and their contemporaries did not get the same level of recognition yet their value is just as great to a team as was the value of defensive defensemen pre 1970.

I don't see how this applies to Park. He was one of the very best defensive defensemen in the league while providing the high end offense. A cerebral positional stalwart who rarely was caught out of position, was physical, and had a phenomenal transition game.

Finally an appreciation of coaching. Switch Bowman and Cherry. Which team wins the Stanley Cup between 1977 and 1979?

Yet this does not fully answer the question. Jacques Lemaire and Scott Stevens produced a drastic change in style that was not injury related that yielded very strong individual and team results.

Joe Sakic overcame horrific coaching - Graham James in junior and some of the early Nordiques coaches to lead his team to championships while winning individual awards with at best average to average plus NHL coaching.

Somewhere in all of this the player has some responsibility.

Not Park's fault. En route to the finals in 72, Park effectively shut down Cournoyer's line, while providing great transition game and was the #1 Puck moving defenseman in that series, outplaying both Lapointe and Tremblay, beating a deeper(And better coached since you mention it) Montreal team in 6.

He then went on to do the same to Hull and the Hawks , sweeping them in round 2 and then help get the Rangers all the way to game 6 against a very dominant and deep Bruins team.

His run in 78 was even better. Conn Smythe caliber, team carrying performance, getting them all the way to game 6 of the finals against a vastly deeper, superior dynasty team.

And those are merely 2 of his many great performances.

Are you really going to hold him accountable for being swept by the Dynasty Habs in the 77 finals? After he was the only NYR player to truly show up, playing great offense and defense and playing a very disciplined game?

Edmonton, Pittsburgh and Detroit won Cups after trading him because of what they got for him, not because they traded him.

*Edmonton received Craig Simpson in return. Simpson scored 50 goals for Edmonton in 88 and tied for the post-season scoring lead in 1990. He was a fantastic player before his back went out on him.

*Pittsburgh dealt Coffey to LA in a three-way trade with Philly. The return from Philly was Rick Tocchet and Kjell Samuelsson. That trade changed the Pens complexion, it added toughness and passion that was lacking, it the direction of the team that season, and it injected life into the club. It was the turning point in their year.

*Detroit dealt Coffey and Primeau to Hartford for Brenden Shanahan. Shanahan wasn't the last piece for the Detroit club (Larry Murphy was), but Shanny was the missing piece. Detroit needed the big bull power winger who could score goals and dominate physically. At that time, Shanny was the premier power forward in the sport.

LA did trade Coffey to Detroit, got little in return, and advanced to the Stanley Cup final. The return was Jimmy Carson (who was junk after he went to LA) and Gary Shuchuk (junk with the exception of a very big goal in double OT against Vancouver in Game 5). But what the Coffey trade allowed was that LA could elevate their three young defencemen: Zhitnik, Blake and Sydor. The 1993 playoffs were Blake's breakthrough. He was fantastic. Zhitnik played the best hockey of his life. And Sydor was terrific, too. (For what it's worth, Coffey tied Theo Fleury for the scoring lead in the first round of the 1993 playoffs).

I can appreciate your point. They certainly did get some good players for him. But I still believe he was less valuable in the playoffs than he could have been.

In his final cup win with the Oilers, he played below what I expect from a guy demanding more money.

The Penguins first Cup win was showcasing Murphy as their #1 defenseman. Not Coffey's fault as he was injured in the first, but they plowed right along without him. It was enough for them to realize they could win without him and ship him.

Detroit and particularly Bowman could not wait to get rid of him. Bowman absolutely tore Coffey apart in the media, regarding his lack of defensive acumen, and Bowman implied that he was a reason they were losing, not winning.

That was less a factor of Konstantinov creating offense as it was teams inability to adjust to the "new" style the Russian 5 brought. Teams simply weren't ready to deal with the excessive back-passing and weaving they brought. Konstantinov was by far the weak link on offense of that group. Fetisov was the QB on defense of that unit.

I usually agree with you, but in this case, I think Konstantinov is being a bit underrated.

He was a fantastic transition game defenseman(Which I consider a big part of offense), and he had a great shot and terrific passes. good skating, mobile.

He certainly was a defense first defenseman. But could have been more offensively if given the icetime and PP time.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

For a defenseman, especially those who are not on the power play
"significant offense" would be > 30 points per season.

Langway averaged 40 points per season his three full seasons with the Montreal Canadiens before the trade to Washington.

But > 30 was not a significant total in the high-flying early 80's. Grant Fuhr, a goaltender, had 14 points one year. Langway's dominant shut-down defense was the reason for his Norris trophies. In Langway's two Norris years, Paul Coffey out-pointed him 222-65. Clearly Langway's modest offensive totals had little to do with Norris wins.

Overall, I would agree that scoring totals became more important to the voters in the post-Orr era, and I've been convinced by others here that expansion also played a big role. The writers were only seeing some of the top d-men come to town once or twice, as opposed to seven times during the original six era. They had to rely more on stats to cast their ballots, and of course defensive ability doesn't show up on the scoresheet.

Stevens was viewed as being inferior to Langway by the voters of the era. One of those illogical quirks similar to Kevin Lowe being viewed negatively compared to Coffey.

This is besides the point, but are you actually implying that Kevin Lowe was a better player than Paul Coffey?

Taking your 1968-75 period first. Orr won all the Norris Trophies BUT only two Stanley Cups, other teams and players won six yet Brad Park was never a member of one of the teams.

So it's Park's fault that the Rangers didn't trade him to the Habs so he could cash in on Cups? Unless you can point to an instance where Park's team should have won the Cup, but didn't because of his poor play, I fail to see how this argument holds water.

After 1975 Brad Park was in his prime, on a team that went to two Stanley Cup finals, barely missing a third yet did not win a Stanley Cup.

They didn't win a Cup because they were almost hopelessly overmatched by that Montreal team. That a team featuring an anonymous defense (aside from Park), with a past-his-prime Ratelle, and guys like O'Reilly and Shmautz as their best offensive players even came close against what many consider the best team ever, is rather impressive. (As an aside, not sure why Cherry gets a rough ride around here, what more could he have gotten from that group?)

Effectively you have a very nice and attractive paper career with numbers that are not reflected by on ice results. Explain why.

Saying they are not reflected by on-ice results is really just a fancy term for Cup-counting in this instance. Park might be the best playoff performer ever without a Cup. His contributions to winning far exceed that of the vast majority of the guys who do have a ring on their finger.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

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

The problem is, Cook accomplished remarkably little before age 30 for a player with his resume.

Pre-NHL, Cook had three elite seasons in the WCHL, and a fourth one that was pretty decent. So he was an elite player from about age 27-37, which is unusual, but shouldn't be treated any differently than being elite from age 20-30 (not that I think you were implying this).

I like Cook, but I don't think I can put him above any of the four centermen or Kharlamov amongst the forwards available in this round.

I will probably have all four of those centers in my top ten, but the order is going to be a tough choice after Sakic. I think he's just a shade above the other three. I see him and Apps as equal for peak value, but Joe's longevity gives him the advantage there. I see his peak as superior to Schmidt's. Him and Yzerman are close of course, but Joe got just a little more done in the playoffs IMO, even though he has one fewer Cup.

Schimdt is easily the best defensive player of this group, and he needs to be because he is the least accomplished offensively. Of all the greats, perhaps none lost as much quality time to the war as Schmidt did though. Don't forget, Milt left for war during the 41-42 season, likely costing him a top-five points finish in that season in addition to the other three fully missed years. Boston went 4-6-1 after the Kraut line departed, and fell to third place, narrowly being edged out by the Rangers and Leafs. Boston would probably have been Cup favorites had Schmidt and his linemates finished out the season.

Schmidt was away from the NHL between the ages of 24-27; in essence he probably missed what would have been his peak. The question is, how much credit can we give for years that weren't actually played, even if it was for war service as opposed to injury?

And of course, who could beat a team of five Milt Schmidt's with Red Storey's grandmother in goal?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Quick Comments

But > 30 was not a significant total in the high-flying early 80's. Grant Fuhr, a goaltender, had 14 points one year. Langway's dominant shut-down defense was the reason for his Norris trophies. In Langway's two Norris years, Paul Coffey out-pointed him 222-65. Clearly Langway's modest offensive totals had little to do with Norris wins.

Overall, I would agree that scoring totals became more important to the voters in the post-Orr era, and I've been convinced by others here that expansion also played a big role. The writers were only seeing some of the top d-men come to town once or twice, as opposed to seven times during the original six era. They had to rely more on stats to cast their ballots, and of course defensive ability doesn't show up on the scoresheet.



This is besides the point, but are you actually implying that Kevin Lowe was a better player than Paul Coffey?



So it's Park's fault that the Rangers didn't trade him to the Habs so he could cash in on Cups? Unless you can point to an instance where Park's team should have won the Cup, but didn't because of his poor play, I fail to see how this argument holds water.



They didn't win a Cup because they were almost hopelessly overmatched by that Montreal team. That a team featuring an anonymous defense (aside from Park), with a past-his-prime Ratelle, and guys like O'Reilly and Shmautz as their best offensive players even came close against what many consider the best team ever, is rather impressive. (As an aside, not sure why Cherry gets a rough ride around here, what more could he have gotten from that group?)



Saying they are not reflected by on-ice results is really just a fancy term for Cup-counting in this instance. Park might be the best playoff performer ever without a Cup. His contributions to winning far exceed that of the vast majority of the guys who do have a ring on their finger.

> 30 points. Unfortunately I am not looking at an era but team contribution and 30+ points from the 3rd/4th defenseman is production that is superior to the Martin Lapointe, Kris Draper, Kirk Maltby type 3rd or 4th liners. Such production with a strong defensive upside is significant and very valuable. The game is not played to rank within an era.

Writers voting. Overlook an important factor. The shift from two votes a season (mid and end) to one vote a season - end. The first produced many change of opinion results. Rather evident if you look at HO's Norris share data.

Kevin Lowe was the counterpoint to Coffey's offense on the Oilers yet his defense because Coffey and the Oilers were seen as offensive machines is under-appreciated. Similar to Langway's offense with the Capitals and previously with the Canadiens.

The 1977-79 Bruins. The team that Don Cherry brags about having ten, 20 goal scorers in a season. Curious how you managed to forget Rick Middleton from the Bruins team.

As for Don Cherry. There is an expectation that an NHL coach can count better than a five or six year old and can get the proper number of players on the ice at crucial times. Failing to do so there is an expectation that a coach would protect his team's vulnerable side in a late game PK situation and in overtime. The tying and winning goals were both the result of mistakes on the Bruins left wing that should not happen in youth hockey.

 

[overpass]

The problem is, Cook accomplished remarkably little before age 30 for a player with his resume.

Pre-NHL, Cook had three elite seasons in the WCHL, and a fourth one that was pretty decent. So he was an elite player from about age 27-37, which is unusual, but shouldn't be treated any differently than being elite from age 20-30 (not that I think you were implying this).

I like Cook, but I don't think I can put him above any of the four centermen or Kharlamov amongst the forwards available in this round.

I will probably have all four of those centers in my top ten, but the order is going to be a tough choice after Sakic. I think he's just a shade above the other three. I see him and Apps as equal for peak value, but Joe's longevity gives him the advantage there. I see his peak as superior to Schmidt's. Him and Yzerman are close of course, but Joe got just a little more done in the playoffs IMO, even though he has one fewer Cup.

Schimdt is easily the best defensive player of this group, and he needs to be because he is the least accomplished offensively. Of all the greats, perhaps none lost as much quality time to the war as Schmidt did though. Don't forget, Milt left for war during the 41-42 season, likely costing him a top-five points finish in that season in addition to the other three fully missed years. Boston went 4-6-1 after the Kraut line departed, and fell to third place, narrowly being edged out by the Rangers and Leafs. Boston would probably have been Cup favorites had Schmidt and his linemates finished out the season.

Schmidt was away from the NHL between the ages of 24-27; in essence he probably missed what would have been his peak. The question is, how much credit can we give for years that weren't actually played, even if it was for war service as opposed to injury?

And of course, who could beat a team of five Milt Schmidt's with Red Storey's grandmother in goal?

There's an interesting discussion here about career lengths for players from earlier eras. Cook, Apps, and Schmidt all lack longevity compared to modern players, of whom Sakic is a good example. How much should they be dinged for that, and how much was a product of their time?

Cook just didn't break into top-level hockey until he was 26. Part of that was because he served in the war, which ended when he was 22. Part was because he spent some years in Kingston and Sault-Ste-Marie in lower leagues. I have no idea how good Cook was in those years, but it's very possible that he was NHL/WCHL calibre, as the talent market for players was far less efficient than it was today. In any case, Sakic or other modern day players would never be in that situation, so to some degree Cook's late start is a product of his time.

Apps lost two years to the war, and retired at the age of 33 while he was still a star to pursue other interests. Unlike today, a business career was a reasonable alternative to a hockey career, and apparently Apps was ready to move on. Again, you'd never see that from a modern-day hockey player, where salaries are far higher and hockey players don't fight wars.

Schmidt lost three and a half prime seasons to the war - something that no modern-day player would have to deal with.

I'm sure everyone has considered these issues to some degree, and they are separate and don't have to be dealt with in the same way. However, I think that it's not reasonable to hold players from the WWII era and earlier to the same standards of career length. Maybe you don't want to give what-if credit to Cook, Apps, or Schmidt, and that's fine. But at least realize that a ten year career at the highest level in those days was a very respectable length, and perhaps equivalent to a fifteen year career today, given the differing situations.

Personally, I vote mostly on a player's prime, so I don't have a problem with Cook or Apps, and Schmidt is difficult only because he lost what could have been his best years. But more-career oriented voters may wish to consider these questions.

(I'm not aiming this specifically at you, Kyle, just using your post as a jumping-off point.)