Round 2, Vote 4 (HOH Top Defensemen)

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Dit Clapper

I decided that quoting old posts on pre-expansion defensemen is what I will do.

Quotes by hfboards posters are all from the two previous top 100 projects:

Dit Clapper: The first player in NHL history to play 20 seasons. Excelled at both forward and defence. A three-time first-team all-star at defence before the league's best went to war. A two-time all-star at RW (when Conacher and Cook were the competition) and would have earned a third selection in 1930 if all-star teams were around at that point. Three-time Cup champion. Excellent two-way forward who played a tough, physical game.

In ten years as a forward, he had just two top-ten scoring finishes, and one of them was in the fluky 1930 campaign (due to bizarre, one-time rule changes that were adjusted mid-season). He had two 2nd-team all-star spots and no Hart consideration. Not bad, of course, but this certainly isn't top-50 material.

As a defenseman, Clapper earned four all-star spots (three 1st, one 2nd) and two Hart nominations (2nd and 3rd place) in just eight full years. He was the #1 defenseman on two Cup-winning teams. That's a great resume, even if we take into account the fact that one of those all-star spots came during the talent-depleted war years, and that his competition was a bit weak by all-time standards. Clapper sounded like Bourque: great defensively, not overless aggressive, but he could play tough when needed.

Basically I agree with Nalyd's earlier point. Clapper's decade as a forward doesn't add very much to his legacy (relative to top 50 players).

A lot of Dit Clapper's case rests on his three consecutive first team all-star years from 38-39 to 40-41. It seems to me that his competition at defense in those years was relatively weak, with the defensive stars of the 1930s winding down their careers and a lack of young defensemen stepping up.

Here are a list of prominent NHL defensemen born in the 20-year period from 1903 to 1922 (HHOFers in bold).

1903 | King Clancy
1904 | Babe Siebert
1905 | Cy Wentworth
1907 | Dit Clapper
1907 | Ebbie Goodfellow
1908 | Georges Mantha
1909 | Art Coulter
1909 | Red Horner
1910 | Ott Heller
1910 | Tom Anderson
1911 | Earl Seibert
1912 | Flash Hollett
1914 | Bucko McDonald
1916 | Babe Pratt
1916 | Jack Crawford
1917 | Jack Stewart
1918 | Pat Egan
1919 | Wally Stanowski
1920 | Butch Bouchard
1921 | Ken Reardon
1921 | Glen Harmon
1922 | Bill Quackenbush
1922 | Bob Goldham

In the period from 1938 to 1941, the very strong group of defensemen born between 1907 and 1911 were turning 30 and generally winding down their careers. Among HHOFers, Goodfellow and Coulter were still playing well but would retire soon. Red Horner retired in 1940. Only Seibert was still in the middle of his prime.

After Seibert, only 2 defensemen born from 1912 to 1919 would make the HHOF, meaning that Clapper had very little competition from defensemen in their twenties. Neither Pratt nor Stewart would hit their stride until a couple of years later, so Clapper was basically competing against a group of defensemen that was past their best years, with little young talent coming up to replace them.

It should be noted that Dit Clapper was the first player for whom the Hockey Hall of Fame committee waived the mandatory waiting period.

The Player category has been in existence since the beginning of the Hall of Fame and the first players were inducted in 1945. Since then, 238 players have been inducted. For a person to be inducted to the Hockey Hall of Fame as a player, they must have been retired for a minimum of three years and must be nominated by an elected 18-person selection committee.[3] The waiting period was waived for ten players deemed exceptionally notable: Dit Clapper (1947), Maurice Richard (1961), Ted Lindsay (1966), Red Kelly (1969), Terry Sawchuk (1971), Jean Beliveau (1972), Gordie Howe (1972), Bobby Orr (1979), Mario Lemieux (1997) and Wayne Gretzky (1999).[9] Following Wayne Gretzky's retirement, it was announced that the waiting period would no longer be waived for any player except under "certain humanitarian circumstances".[2]

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Tim Horton

Not much was said about Tim Horton in previous projects. I feel that for a guy with a rep as a beast in the playoffs, his individual playoff performances could be better documented.

There's something to be said about being the best defenceman on the best defensive team in league history. A key part of four Cup champions. A six-time all-star. Few have done more to cement their reputation, from an individual perspective, so late in their career than Horton. Two-time first-team all-star, alongside Bobby Orr, in the late 60s. One of the best defensive defencemen ever, and one of the strongest players to ever play the game. Tremendous longevity - 15 years between his first and his sixth all-star selections. Numbers aren't impressive, but he wasn't encouraged to jump into the rush, either. Set a record for points in a playoff be a defenceman with 16 in 1962.

Tim Horton is generally over rated. I loved Horton. Who didn't? I think his phenomenal strength earns him extra points with people as does playing for Toronto.
He could out muscle pretty much anyone at the time. I suspect he would have been quite a bit better offensively if he had learned to skate with his head up. It was comical at times watching him skate the puck up ice. He looked a little like one of those bobble head dolls. Look at the puck, look up, look at the puck, look up...
He was great defensively but I think Pilote and Chelios should be ahead of him. I don't remember much of Pilote but my father says he was excellent. Smart defensively and offensively.

Note that Carl Brewer, not Tim Horton, was a 1st Team All Star in the regular seasons corresponding to the first two Cup wins of the dynasty. Tim Horton was a 1st Team All Star (and 2nd in Norris voting to Pilote) in the regular season corresponding to the third Cup win of the dynasty. All Star teams don't officially take playoffs into account, but there is often some kind of reputation factor from the previous season's playoffs involved.

These are Horton's All-Star Teams:

1953-54 NHL NHL All-Star Team (2nd)
1962-63 NHL NHL All-Star Team (2nd)
1963-64 NHL NHL All-Star Team (1st)
1966-67 NHL NHL All-Star Team (2nd)
1967-68 NHL NHL All-Star Team (1st)
1968-69 NHL NHL All-Star Team (1st)

Leafs won the Cup in 1962, 1963, 1964, and 1967.

Here's a description of Horton from "One on One with Tim Horton" from the HHOF site:

Horton was paired with Allan Stanley on defense through the sixties, and with Baun and Brewer as the other tandem, the Leafs had as formidable a defense as anyone in the NHL. In the case of Stanley and Horton, Allan was the more defensive-minded of the duo, while Tim had more offensive prowess. "Horton is typical of the new type of defenseman who must be equally adept on attack and defense," wrote Canadian Weekly in 1965. Toronto won the Stanley Cup three straight seasons between 1960 and 1963. Coach Punch Imlach commented, "I think Horton, more than any other one player, was the key to those glory days."

http://www.hhof.com/htmlSpotlight/spot_oneononep197702.shtml

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Earl Seibert

The following quotes are from previous Top 100 projects:

Since HO did such a great job with Benedict already, I'll do one for Seibert.

Sustained Longevity: Earl Seibert was an all-star for ten consecutive seasons. That type of peak is exclusive to the defensemen in the top-10 and is better than some of the defensemen already chosen, and even one who played during the same time period (Dit Clapper). In fact, I believe only Bourque and Harvey can lay claim to more consecutive selections to the all-star team. Seibert also played during what I consider to be one of the three strongest eras for defensemen. He also managed to finish top-5 for the Hart in both '34 and '45, showing the high level of play he was able to sustain.

Defensive Dominance: Seibert was known for being dominant defensively, as a tough SOB and an excellent shot-blocker. Many suggest that he was better than Shore defensively, though he wasn't as strong offensively or as flashy. He also had a reputation for playing the game hard but clean.

Some quotes about his defense/toughness:

"“Let’s put it this way, no one wanted any part of ‘Si’ in a fight. Even Eddie Shore (Boston) and Red Horner (Toronto) steered clear of him, and Shore and Horner were considered the toughest guys in the League at the time," said Johnson."

http://nyrangerslegends.blogspot.com/2007/04/earl-seibert.html

"Seibert was generally regarded as second only to Eddie Shore in terms of skill and rugged play, and Shore once confessed that Seibert was the only man he was afraid to fight. Defensively, Seibert was one of the best shot-blockers in the game, and he could move the puck just as quickly as anyone."

http://www.legendsofhockey.net:8080...?mem=p196303&type=Player&page=bio&list=#photo

"Seibert was a strong, fast skater, and intimidating force with his stick and body. He was also one of the better shot-blockers around...Earl owned excellent puck-handling skills and he was almost impossible to knock off his skates." - Ultimate Hockey

Underrated Offensive Ability: Despite his reputation for being an outstanding shut-down defender, Seibert actually had some offensive ability as well. Amongst defensemen, he finished top-5 in scoring 8 times during his career and he actually tied for the lead in goals on the Blackhawks when they won the Stanley Cup in 1938.

Unfortunately, it's tough to quantify the impact that his defense had on the game. But I think based upon his accomplishments, he easily belongs on the list at this point and probably belongs ahead of a couple of the defensemen already chosen.

it seems earl seibert was like a more consistent version of pronger--a huge, physically intimidating, stout defender who was capable of being his teams main scoring and puck-moving d-man, but was also not really dynamic.

it is interesting that converted forwards made the 1st AS team for six consecutive seasons. those are all the seasons seibert made the 2nd team.

'35: 1st
'36-'41: 2nd
'42: 1st
'43: 1st
'44: 1st

babe siebert, originally a LW, was 1st AS from '36-'38. also won the hart in '37.

ebbie goodfellow, originally a C, was 1st AS in '37 and '40, and 2nd AS in '36. won the hart in '40.

dit clapper was 1st AS from '39-'41, and 2nd AS in '44.

tom anderson was 1st AS in '42 and won the hart.



it could be that the level of competition during seibert's career was not as strong as it looks, but it may be instead that converted F's were favored in voting.
all of the converted F's were high scoring d-men. high scoring d-men generally did well in award and all star voting.

pratt, anderson, siebert, goodfellow and obviously shore all won the hart during earl seibert's career.

I somewhat disagree with the Pronger comparison - I agree that Seibert was much more consistent, but I think Pronger peaked higher - definitely in his 99-00 regular season, but probably in the playoffs, as well.

Here's a few Seibert links.....

EARL SEIBERT: MAYBE THE TOUGHEST OF HIS ERA

"Seibert's hulking presence must have made it easy for fans to spot him on the ice, although he wore a special piece of equipment that made it even easier for them. After suffering a serious concussion in Springfield, he permanently wore a helmet, making him the first NHLer to do so." Source

Earl Seibert

Haunted by the Ghost of Howie Morenz

Berlin blue-liner haunted by Morenz's death

The following information is from jarek's profile of Seibert in the last ATD:

Seibert was a strong, fast skater, an intimidating force with his stick and his body. He was also one of the better shot blockers around. Family friend Joe Pompel later said of Seibert, "He has an acceletation with his second step that no one could match and he was probably the fastest skater of the 1930s." Earl also owned excellent puck-handling skills and he was almost impossible to knock off his skates. ...

... Seibert was the biggest factor in Chicago's Cinderella Stanley Cup victory in 1938 ... Kings of the Ice elaborates: "The biggest reason we won," coach Bill Stewart asserted, "was that we had Earl Seibert on our defense. The big guy played about 55 minutes a game."

... Shore later said of the only man he was ever afraid to fight: "It's lucky he was a calm boy, because if he ever got mad, he'd have killed us all." ...

... Over six feet tall and almost 200 pounds, he was very fast and a superb checker both with his stick and his body. He was an excellent stickhandler ...

... He drew a lot of penalties but they were largely in the line of duty and he was not inclined to enter needless battles. ...

If and when a hockey "Hall of Fame" is established in Canada - one guy who would seem to richly deserve entry is Earl Seibert, currently starring on defense for Detroit Red Wings. The swashbuckling Seibert has a brilliant 14-year record in the National Hockey League behind him and experts claim he's every bit as good today as at any stage of his sparkling career. Earl is 33 years of age and, barring accidents, has many good years of hockey left in him. A deadly shot and noted as one of the most solid bodycheckers in the business, Seibert is among the few remaining defencemen who can carry the puck from end to end. He spurns modern methods of hurling the rubber into a corner and chasing it

(44-45 would be Seibert's last full season in the NHL, though he did play 18 games in 45-46)

 

[overpass]

Good work bringing up those old posts, TDMM.

(I had forgotten about my post on Clapper, heh.)

Part of the reason I think Seibert is tough to rate is that he played most of his career out of the spotlight in Chicago. There just doesn't seem to be as much material on the Blackhawks of that era as there is from other teams and cities. But from the information we do have, he'll certainly be in my top 5 this time around, and a contender for the top spot.

Clapper is hard to rate. Partly because his most outstanding feature was his longevity, but only a little over half of his career was played at defence, so it's hard to know how to rate him.

Jim Coleman, from the 1979 article I have quoted for Eddie Shore and Eddie Gerard, also rated Clapper as one of his top-10 players all time.

Aubrey "Dit" Clapper: The most versatile performer in the history of the NHL and the first to play 20 seasons in the league. For nine seasons he was one of the highest-scoring right wingers in the NHL, and, thereafter, he was the mainstay of the Boston defence for 11 more seasons.

Coleman emphasizes Clapper's versatility and longevity. How much credit should he get for those attributes in this project? They are certainly important attributes for hockey players to have.

 

[pappyline]

Thoughts

- Leetch still last.
- Absolutely awesome to see Stevens and Savard available simultaneously.
- Surprised Horton didn't get in.
- As far as D is concerned -- I really have problems to see how Dit Clapper can be available for voting. His AST records and career at defense pretty much screams "Ken Reardon-with-the-benefit-of-playing-during-the-WW-II". I had Clapper really close to Reardon in my original list.
- While I think there's no room for Vasiliev this round, but he's a very interesting entry that I had just below Gadsby in my list.

Clapper had 3 first AS selections at D before the top players went off to war. He certainly deserves to have support this round.

My tiers are:

tier1; Seibert, Gadsby, Clapper, Horton
tier 2: MacInnes, Salming, Stevens
tier 3:Leetch Pronger,Vasiliev

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Clapper had 3 first AS selections at D before the top players went off to war. He certainly deserves to have support this round.

My tiers are:

tier1; Seibert, Gadsby, Clapper, Horton
tier 2: MacInnes, Salming, Stevens
tier 3:Leetch, Pronger, Vasiliev

This is where the disagreements get fun. I had Gadsby and Leetch one spot away from each other on my submitted list (and I think I even had Leetch one spot ahead). Gadsby unarguably beats Leetch in longevity as an elite player, but I think Leetch's peak was definitely higher.

On the other hand, I think Pronger has Leetch beaten in both peak and longevity as an elite player by now. I'll post more on that later.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Bill Gadsby

Bill Gadsby is a guy that wasn't up last round who seems like he has a good chance to make the Top 5 this vote.

His Norris record stacks up against anyone that is still up for voting, and he had some very stiff competition with Harvey (runner-up to him twice) and for part of the time Kelly (one 3rd place finish is behind Harvey/Kelly)

Norris Record: 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4*, 5, 6

*one 4th place finish based on All-Star team voting before Norris existed


He doesn't have much to look at in the playoff department as he spent his prime years on some bad teams that either didn't make the playoffs or only lasted one round. He does have a 3 year stretch (57'-59') where he scored 10pts in 16 playoff games.


More info can be found here: Bill Gadsby

Note in the linked post that Gadsby placed Top 2 in defenseman scoring 8 times, and at the same time Stan Mikita names Gadsby as the defenseman who gave him the most trouble.


Would like to hear others' thoughts on Gadsby along with any more info

A few comments about Bill Gadsby that shoulc contribute to points made in posts and links:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/g/gadsbbi01.html

Gadsby was a regular in the NHL while still junior eligible. Played for weak teams - Chicago and New York who were also poorly coached with one exception - two seasons when Sid Abel was the Hawks player coach/coach - 1952-53 and 1953-54. These two seasons coincided with Gadsby`s first two AST selections.

Traded to the Rangers during the 1954-55 season, Gadsby continued his fine offensive play BUT the Rangers were somewhat of a dysfunctional organization. Defense tended to be haphazard and there was no organizational synergy from the junior system to the minors to the NHL team.

Gadsby continued to earn AST selections but was a level below Harvey/Kelly. The offensive numbers were attractive but without a supporting team defense in place the results were not supported with victories. Offensively Gadsby was excellent at supporting the rush or finding a lane from the point. Defensively he was one of the better shot blockers and a feared hitter. Devestating check on Tim Horton in January of 1956.

1958-59 season when Doug Harvey and Red Kelly were/played injured, saw Bill Gadsby have a great season offensively but the Rangers late season collapse, missing the playoffs probably cost him sufficient Norris consideration and Tom Johnson who had a career year was the surprise winner.

After the 1960-61 season Bill Gadsby was traded to Detroit where he was re-united with Sid Abel. He added a very solid veteran presence to the team helping young defensemen - Doug Barkley and Gary Bergman enter the NHL.

His last years with Detroit saw him get by on experience. His penalty minutes went up - too many misconducts.

In terms of longevity Bill Gadsby was at the top of the late 1940`s group of defensemen that entered the NHL. Talent wise he was a level below Doug Harvey and Red Kelly.Offensively he could produce attractive numbers if not subject to defensive responsibilities - Ranger days. Defenseively he would be closer to Allan Stanley than to Doug Harvey. Better skater, better open ice hitter but less reliable.

 

[pappyline]

Bill Gadsby is a guy that wasn't up last round who seems like he has a good chance to make the Top 5 this vote.

His Norris record stacks up against anyone that is still up for voting, and he had some very stiff competition with Harvey (runner-up to him twice) and for part of the time Kelly (one 3rd place finish is behind Harvey/Kelly)

Norris Record: 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4*, 5, 6

*one 4th place finish based on All-Star team voting before Norris existed


He doesn't have much to look at in the playoff department as he spent his prime years on some bad teams that either didn't make the playoffs or only lasted one round. He does have a 3 year stretch (57'-59') where he scored 10pts in 16 playoff games.


More info can be found here: Bill Gadsby

Note in the linked post that Gadsby placed Top 2 in defenseman scoring 8 times, and at the same time Stan Mikita names Gadsby as the defenseman who gave him the most trouble.


Would like to hear others' thoughts on Gadsby along with any more info

Good post and I hope everyone follows your links.

I did see Gadsby play and remember him quite well. Great passer, great defensively, could really hurt guys with his body checks. Was a leader. Appointed captain of the Blackhawks at a young age which was rare in those days.

His 46 assists in 58-59 was a record for Dmen until a guy named Orr came along.

I see his career as somewhat similiar to Park and think they should be rated close to each other. Neither won a cup and both spent their prime in the shadow of other great Dmen.

I also wonder why gadsby usually is rated below horton. If you look at their regular season records, gadsby is the better player. The only thing Horton has that gadsby doesn't is playoff opportunities in his prime years. Gadsby didn't get into the finals until his later years with Detroit and from what I remember he excelled.

I am leaning toward Gadsby as the #1 guy in this round.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Serge Savard

Overlooked facts about Serge Savard.

1969 playoffs Montreal vs Boston , outplayed Bobby Orr offensively ( 3G/4a vs 1G/4A) and defensively leading the Canadiens to the SC and winning the Conn Smythe.

1970 and 1971 injuries took away his speed and mobility you what you saw in the 1972 Summit Series and later was a defense first player.

1972 Summit Series. Savard had played against the Soviet Nationals in 1964 and 1965 with the Junior Canadiens and showed very well.

Throughout the 1970`s with the Scotty Bowman coached Canadiens Serge Savard had the tough defensive assignments.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Stevens and Savard

Overlooked facts about Serge Savard.

1969 playoffs Montreal vs Boston , outplayed Bobby Orr offensively ( 3G/4a vs 1G/4A) and defensively leading the Canadiens to the SC and winning the Conn Smythe.

1970 and 1971 injuries took away his speed and mobility you what you saw in the 1972 Summit Series and later was a defense first player.

1972 Summit Series. Savard had played against the Soviet Nationals in 1964 and 1965 with the Junior Canadiens and showed very well.

Throughout the 1970`s with the Scotty Bowman coached Canadiens Serge Savard had the tough defensive assignments.

I like Serge Savard, but I think it's a round or two early for him. I think Scott Stevens is just a better version of Savard - better all-star and Norris recognition (both against really tough competition), better peak season (93-94), better longevity, more important to his team.

Even if you think Scott Stevens' time in NJ as a defensive defenseman was equal to Savard's time in Montreal (I don't necessarily - Stevens still had the better peak season and was more important to his team), shouldn't Stevens' time in Washington as a hard hitting, mostly offensive defenseman (who finished 2nd in Norris voting in 1988) be enough to push him comfortably over the top?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Balance

I like Serge Savard, but I think it's a round or two early for him. I think Scott Stevens is just a better version of Savard - better all-star and Norris recognition (both against really tough competition), better peak season (93-94), better longevity, more important to his team.

Even if you think Scott Stevens' time in NJ as a defensive defenseman was equal to Savard's time in Montreal (I don't necessarily - Stevens still had the better peak season and was more important to his team), shouldn't Stevens' time in Washington as a hard hitting, mostly offensive defenseman (who finished 2nd in Norris voting in 1988) be enough to push him comfortably over the top?

Trying to provide balance and context. Pre injuries. Savard showed that he could play at a level comparable to Bobby Orr. No other defenseman in this round was at such a level.

Pre and post injury Serge Savard showed that he could play the game at the international level on the standard NHL rink and on the Olympic sized rinks in Europe.
Few of the defensemen under consideration this round were able to do likewise.

Importance to the team. 1970 - Serge Savard`s first major leg injury was followed by the Canadiens missing the playoffs.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'm quoting a post from the "results" thread, because my response includes players up for voting in this round.

- Earl Seibert finishing ahead of both Stevens and Chris Pronger was a bit of a total shocker for me. I thought that he was the clear-cut second worst name on the list at this point after Leetch. An elite defenceman whose post-season all-star voting record is immaculate, but who had the fortune to play most of his prime in the seasons following the declines and retirement of both Clancy and Shore (the two unquestioned top blueliners in the world). I also find it odd that he ranked ahead of both Pronger and Stevens because he was never at any point regarded as the best defenceman in hockey; Pronger in 2000 and Stevens in 1994 can make arguments for that but Seibert cannot.

See this thread on retro winners: http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?p=15235651

Seibert did finish 1st in overall All-Star voting among defensemen, narrowly over Hart Trophy winner Tom Anderson in 1941-42. He was also a close 2nd in All-Star voting among defensemen to Hart winner Babe Pratt in 1943-44. Of course, the names "Tom Anderson" and "Babe Pratt" tell you all you need to know about the level of competition in the early 1940s.

As for the comparisons with Stevens and Pronger, I agree that Seibert didn't peak as highly as either. He does have a definite advantage over Pronger in terms of longevity and consistency. Over Stevens? I guess you can say he combined offense and defense more than Stevens did, but IMO, ranking Seibert over Stevens seems a bit too much like "All Star Team counting" for my liking.

- Pierre Pilote seemed to be in most people's top five, a fact that somewhat surprised me. There were the numerous comparisons to Park and Horton in the just-completed round of discussions, but I thought that he might end up getting squeezed out due to the high level of competition and level of parity in this round. It was nice to see him making the cut. I am not surprised to see that his contemporary Horton, who was quite arguably the second best defenceman of Pilote's prime years, was a cut, but I hope that voters take into account his remarkable post-season performances, strong post-season voting record, and incredible durability and longevity into account in the next round of voting. I know that he'll likely be one of the guys to make my personal cut moving forward.

I'm trying to take it into account, but as I said, I find the information as to Horton's personal contribution to those teams a bit lacking. Either way, I don't see his playoff contributions to be particularly better than Stevens or Pronger in any way. And his Norris voting record isn't quite as good as Stevens or Pronger, despite facing generally weaker competition (than Stevens at least).

(All three of Stevens, Pronger, and Horton are very likely to be in my top 5, but as of now, I have Horton just a bit below the other two. Obviously I was in the minority in this opinion last round, however).

 

[overpass]

1970 and 1971 injuries took away his speed and mobility you what you saw in the 1972 Summit Series and later was a defense first player.

I thought Savard looked very mobile still in 1972, so that's high praise indeed.

BTW, I don't think Canada's record with Savard in the lineup was a co-incidence. Not that he was a huge difference-maker on his own, but his presence gave Canada three strong defensive pairs, which made a big difference. Game 1 was a mess of course, with only five defencemen. They were gassed after the first period, and Seiling and Awrey struggled in particular. In game 4, when Lapointe and Savard were out, Seiling and Awrey came back and had another bad game. Seiling was beaten for the winning goal in Game 5, and after that Seiling was done and Savard was back for good.

 

[JaysCyYoung]

Clapper had 3 first AS selections at D before the top players went off to war. He certainly deserves to have support this round.

My tiers are:

tier1; Seibert, Gadsby, Clapper, Horton
tier 2: MacInnes, Salming, Stevens
tier 3:Leetch Pronger,Vasiliev

My respective tiers for this round (before getting into the discussions) would be:

Tier 1: MacInnis, Stevens, Seibert, Horton
Tier 2: Pronger, Clapper, Gadsby,
Tier 3: Salming, Vasiliev, Leetch, Savard

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Norris Trophy Records

As always, remember that Norris voting doesn't take into account playoffs, and that competition needs to be kept in mind.

Also keep in mind that finishes lower than 5th or 6th place are often with only a handful of votes (I omitted seasons where the player only got 1 vote). And post-expansion, Norris voting is probably overly affected by offense.

There years in paratheses are the years during which the player received Norris consideration. I bolded top 5 finishes.

Bill Gadsby (53-54 to 65-66): 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 10th, 11th (plus one 4th place finish in AS voting pre-Norris)
Tim Horton (53-54 to 72-73): 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 4th, 4th, 5th, 6th, 6th, 9th, 9th, 12th
Serge Savard (72-73 to 78-79): 4th, 5th, 5th, 5th, 6th, 8th
Borje Salming (73-74 to 81-82): 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 4th, 5th, 10th, 14th
Scott Stevens (84-85 to 00-01): 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 4th, 5th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 7th, 10th
Al MacInnis (86-87 to 02-03): 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 6th, 7th, 8th, 8th
Brian Leetch (88-89 to 03-04): 1st, 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 5th, 8th, 11th, 11th
Chris Pronger (97-98 to 09-10): 1st, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 5th, 7th, 8th

Seibert and Clapper both played before the Norris and Vasiliev didn't play in the NHL.

 

[JaysCyYoung]

I like Serge Savard, but I think it's a round or two early for him. I think Scott Stevens is just a better version of Savard - better all-star and Norris recognition (both against really tough competition), better peak season (93-94), better longevity, more important to his team.

Pretty much my thoughts.

My impression is actually that Savard tends to be a bit overrated largely due to the 1970s Canadiens dynasty factor. I'm sure that he was an exceptional defenceman and every analyst and observer notes his importance to the cohesiveness and defensive ability of the Habs blue-line in those days, but I would think that such an elite, highly-regarded defenceman would have more of an impressive showing than just one post-season all-star selection (Second Team in 1979).

I honestly hope that I'm not falling prey to simply counting all-star collections to the exclusion of other important evaluation considerations, but I've always had the perception that Savard tends to be overrated in hockey circles. He appears to have been an elite defensive defenceman, a prolific shot-blocker, and incredibly adept at spurring Montreal's rush, but his offensive totals to me register as underwhelming. Would any Habs fans care to chime in on this element of Savard's candidacy? What were his splits in all situations? Was he used primarily on the power play? The penalty kill? In both areas? How was he at even strength? What were his defensive assignments normally like? On the surface to me it appears that he falls far below other 1970s era elite names such as Salming, Park, Orr (until 1975), Potvin, and even his own team-mates Robinson and Lapointe, when it comes to offensive production.

I have a hard time reconciling that with a mediocre Norris voting record relative to his competition in this round: 4, 5, 5, 5, 6, 8.

That's by far the worst Norris voting record amongst any player that has come up for voting thus far. Even if you consider Savard an elite defender (and he received a couple of top ten Hart votes in various seasons as well), I just cannot reconcile with the fact that he might have only been the third best defenceman on his own team. Personally-speaking, I think that Lapointe has an argument as being the better defender between the two looking at the available data.

Even if you think Scott Stevens' time in NJ as a defensive defenseman was equal to Savard's time in Montreal (I don't necessarily - Stevens still had the better peak season and was more important to his team), shouldn't Stevens' time in Washington as a hard hitting, mostly offensive defenseman (who finished 2nd in Norris voting in 1988) be enough to push him comfortably over the top?

Stevens' 1994 season with the Devils might be the best individual effort, aside from Pronger's Hart season in 2000, out of any defenceman included on the list for the current round of voting. No one else aside from Pronger can touch that peak, let alone Savard, whose best season probably wouldn't crack Stevens' top five campaigns.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Savard is sort of the opposite of Paul Coffey - one of the greatest all-time defensively, but underwhelming offensively. I'm guessing he suffered from media voting because of it.

 

[overpass]

Regular season adjusted stats for post-1967 defencemen​

Career Stats

Player | Start | End | GP | EV% | R-ON | R-OFF | $ESP | PPP | PP% | TmPP+ | SH% | TmSH+
Serge Savard | 1968 | 1983 | 1038 | 43% | 1.44 | 1.52 | 25 | 9 | 24% | 1.32 | 58% | 0.82
Borje Salming | 1974 | 1990 | 1148 | 43% | 1.14 | 0.82 | 31 | 22 | 62% | 0.98 | 55% | 1.09
Al MacInnis | 1982 | 2004 | 1416 | 38% | 1.41 | 1.12 | 32 | 42 | 86% | 1.18 | 39% | 0.93
Scott Stevens | 1983 | 2004 | 1635 | 42% | 1.31 | 1.19 | 31 | 14 | 40% | 0.94 | 56% | 0.88
Brian Leetch | 1988 | 2006 | 1205 | 45% | 1.06 | 0.97 | 36 | 39 | 87% | 1.12 | 50% | 1.03
Chris Pronger | 1994 | 2011 | 1154 | 39% | 1.22 | 0.99 | 27 | 29 | 67% | 1.12 | 54% | 0.91

Prime Stats

Player | Start | End | GP | EV% | R-ON | R-OFF | $ESP | PPP | PP% | TmPP+ | SH% | TmSH+
Serge Savard | 1970 | 1979 | 651 | 45% | 1.72 | 1.67 | 28 | 13 | 34% | 1.33 | 65% | 0.76
Borje Salming | 1976 | 1982 | 527 | 46% | 1.26 | 0.83 | 41 | 32 | 81% | 1.07 | 58% | 1.04
Al MacInnis | 1989 | 2003 | 1043 | 41% | 1.42 | 1.11 | 34 | 42 | 88% | 1.20 | 43% | 0.92
Brian Leetch | 1989 | 1997 | 632 | 45% | 1.20 | 1.06 | 40 | 41 | 91% | 1.18 | 51% | 0.95
Scott Stevens | 1988 | 2003 | 1212 | 42% | 1.34 | 1.20 | 31 | 14 | 38% | 0.93 | 63% | 0.89
Chris Pronger | 1998 | 2007 | 587 | 42% | 1.43 | 1.00 | 32 | 36 | 72% | 1.20 | 61% | 0.82

Stats Glossary
EV%: The percentage of the team’s even-strength goals the player was on the ice for, on a per-game basis.

R-ON: The team’s GF/GA ratio while the player is on the ice at even strength.

R-OFF: The team’s GF/GA ratio while the player is off the ice at even strength.

$ESP/S: Even strength points per season, adjusted to a 200 ESG per team-season scoring level.

$PPP/S: Power play points per season, adjusted to a 70 PPG per team-season scoring level and a league-average number of power play opportunities.

PP%: The percentage of the team’s power play goals for which the player was on the ice.

TmPP+: The strength of the player’s team on the power play. 1.00 is average, higher is better.

SH%: The percentage of the team’s power play goals against for which the player was on the ice.

TmSH+: The strength of the player’s team on the penalty kill. 1.00 is average, lower is better.


What does it all mean?
I have recycled my comments on returning players. The only new comments are on Serge Savard and Borje Salming.

A note on the team-based stats - the lack of parity in the 1970s NHL made it easier to put up high numbers in these stats.

Serge Savard is an interesting contrast with Borje Salming, in terms of team situation. Really, it's very difficult to compare them based on these numbers. Savard played on a dominant, all-time great team, and Salming played on probably the weakest teams of any candidate yet.

At even strength, Savard played big minutes and played the toughest defensive assignments. His team had outstanding results whether he was on or off the ice. He had a minor role on the power play, usually on the second unit (he was never on the ice for as many as half of his team's power play goals.) He was a great penalty killer, playing a major role on a great Montreal unit.

Borje Salming played on a weak team, but had excellent plus-minus numbers relative to his team. I wonder to what degree he and Ian Turnbull played the tough assignments, or if they were in more of an offensive role. Salming played a lot of minutes in all situations during his prime. His team results were below-average on both special teams, but it's hard to penalize him too much for that.

Savard and Salming's numbers both dropped off around 1980. This is more understandable for Savard, as he was 33 years old, had played a lot of playoff games, and had major knee injuries during his career. What about Salming? He was about 30 years old when his numbers (scoring and plus-minus) dropped off. Was it nagging injuries? Being forced to take on a more defensive role on a bad team? Tougher competition in the 1980s? Salming ended up playing until the age of 38, which was unusual at the time and is to his credit.

Note on Salming's prime years: I left out 1974 and 1975 because he played fewer minutes in those seasons (EV% of 39%, PP% of 46%, SH% of 57%.) But he was voted a second-team all-star in 1975, and was +38 in 1974, so you might choose to include those seasons in his prime.

Al MacInnis was an incredible power play weapon first and foremost. Arguably top-5 ever among all players in that aspect of the game. He has some gaudy plus-minus numbers as well, but notice that those came in a smaller role (as measured by EV%) than the rest of the d-men here. MacInnis probably saw his plus-minus boosted by playing in fewer shutdown matchup situations and in more offensive zone situations, compared to most other d-men here. His penalty killing numbers show that his defensive play was fine but not a strength when compared to the other players listed here. MacInnis also had great longevity, with two of the best age 35+ seasons ever in 98-99 and 02-03.

Scott Stevens developed into an outstanding defensive defenceman over his career. In the mid-90s, he moved into a defensive role, and New Jersey probably leveraged him in defensive situations more than any other defenceman ever. Hard matchups, hard minutes all the time. He still managed to post good plus-minus numbers relative to team. He also played a huge part in New Jersey's strong penalty kill. Stevens could still move the puck as a defensive defenceman, he just wasn't used on the power play or counted on for offence.

Player | Seasons | GP | EV% | R-ON | R-OFF | $ESP/S | PP% | TmPP+ | $PPP/S | SH% | TmSH+
Scott Stevens | 1985-94 | 756 | 45% | 1.28 | 1.17 | 37 | 61% | 0.94 | 24 | 49% | 0.94
Scott Stevens | 1995-03 | 686 | 40% | 1.35 | 1.22 | 27 | 22% | 0.94 | 6 | 71% | 0.86

Stevens' power play role all but disappeared in the "defensive" part of his career. His penalty killing role went from "typical first-unit d-man" to "historically high". Even strength GF and GA dropped a bit, possibly because he was playing a more defensive style (ESP dropped). His overall plus-minus ratios rose along with his team.

Brian Leetch was, like Coffey and MacInnis, an offensive defenceman. His plus-minus numbers are fairly poor compared to this level of defenceman. In his defence, he was probably asked to do more than he should have in New York, playing huge minutes in all situations without a lot of help on the back end. He's one of the group of players you could make a case for as the second best defenceman on the PP (behind Orr). Played big minutes on the penalty kill, with poor team results. Again, probably a case of being pushed into a bigger role than he was suited for, in my opinion.

Chris Pronger is my sleeper pick as a modern defenceman who was maybe better than you think. Very good on the power play. Excellent plus-minus numbers, while playing shutdown minutes in St Louis, Edmonton, and Philadelphia. (In Anaheim, Niedermayer and Beauchemin played the toughest minutes). His defensive partners at ES have been pretty ordinary over the years too, with the exception of the occasional shift with MacInnis or Niedermayer. Great penalty killer who was big, smart, mobile, and strong.

Pronger was at his best in the late 90s/early 00s, when he was the total package. Injuries in the early 00s slowed him down a bit, and he played a more conservative, defensive game at even strength in the past few years. He remains an excellent outlet passer and a strong power play presence. Pronger's biggest drawback? Injuries cost him a lot of regular season games in his prime.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Savard is sort of the opposite of Paul Coffey - one of the greatest all-time defensively, but underwhelming offensively. I'm guessing he suffered from media voting because of it.

Coffey is pretty clearly the 2nd best offensive defenseman of all time, while Savard was arguably the 2nd best defensive defenseman on his own team (along with Larry Robinson).

That said, I'm sure that Savard was underrated in Norris voting - probably more than any other defenseman all-time - as he was overshadowed in awards voting by the flashier (and better) Larry Robinson and the flashier (and arguably just as good) Guy Lapointe.

I'll let the older fans chime in, but it seems to me that most fans who watched hockey in the 70s prefer Savard to Lapointe. Savard's number was retired by Montreal, and Lapointe's wasn't. The THN panel that constructed their top 100 list included quite a few fans of 1970s hockey, and also included the Canadiens' own coach Scottie Bowman. That panel ranked Savard 81st all-time (among all players) and did not rank Lapointe in their top 100.

That all said, Savard doesn't have much of a chance of making my top 5. I have him below contemporary Borje Salming, and Borje is unlikely to make my top 5.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Brian Leetch[/B] was, like Coffey and MacInnis, an offensive defenceman. His plus-minus numbers are fairly poor compared to this level of defenceman. In his defence, he was probably asked to do more than he should have in New York, playing huge minutes in all situations without a lot of help on the back end. He's one of the group of players you could make a case for as the second best defenceman on the PP (behind Orr). Played big minutes on the penalty kill, with poor team results. Again, probably a case of being pushed into a bigger role than he was suited for, in my opinion.

What were the team PK results for Leetch before and after the Beukeboom injury? Not saying Jeff Beukeboom is an all-time great, but he covered for Leetch's one big weakness - lack of size and strength, and the Rangers never really got anyone to replace him (foolishly signing high-priced forward after high-priced forward, rather than getting Leetch any help on the back end).

 

[overpass]

What were the team PK results for Leetch before and after the Beukeboom injury? Not saying Jeff Beukeboom is an all-time great, but he covered for Leetch's one big weakness - lack of size and strength, and the Rangers never really got anyone to replace him (foolishly signing high-priced forward after high-priced forward, rather than getting Leetch any help on the back end).

Do you have a date for the Beukeboom injury?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Do you have a date for the Beukeboom injury?

November 19, 1998: Suffered eventual career-ending concussion in game vs. Los Angeles, November 19, 1998.

I might be remembering this wrong though, as Leetch's play seemed to tail off in 1997-98, the season before the Beukeboom injury.

To make things extra hard on you, is there a specific point when Leetch's defensive stats took a dive? Most of us who watched him play felt his defensive performance took a dive after 1996-97, and the Norris record backs that up:

88-89: 11th
90-91: 4th
91-92: 1st
93-94: 5th
95-96: 3rd
96-97: 1st
98-99: 8th
00-01: 5th (led the league in scoring among D, but not a post-season all star)
03-04: 11th

 

[overpass]

November 19, 1998: Suffered eventual career-ending concussion in game vs. Los Angeles, November 19, 1998.

I might be remembering this wrong though, as Leetch's play seemed to tail off in 1997-98, the season before the Beukeboom injury.

To make things extra hard on you, is there a specific point when Leetch's defensive stats took a dive? Most of us who watched him play felt his defensive performance took a dive after 1996-97, and the Norris record backs that up:

88-89: 11th
90-91: 4th
91-92: 1st
93-94: 5th
95-96: 3rd
96-97: 1st
98-99: 8th
00-01: 5th (led the league in scoring among D, but not a post-season all star)
03-04: 11th

Year | EV% | $ESGA/82 | SH% | TmSH+
1989 | 46% | 84 | 35% | 1.08
1990 | 43% | 81 | 33% | 1.08
1991 | 44% | 82 | 37% | 1.07
1992 | 46% | 81 | 42% | 0.71
1993 | 41% | 74 | 44% | 0.97
1994 | 46% | 74 | 67% | 0.69
1995 | 45% | 86 | 74% | 0.91
1996 | 42% | 67 | 64% | 1.11
1997 | 50% | 82 | 57% | 1.19
1998 | 51% | 120 | 49% | 1.17
1999 | 46% | 96 | 63% | 0.90
2000 | 50% | 118 | 47% | 1.09
2001 | 49% | 126 | 57% | 1.23
2002 | 42% | 84 | 56% | 1.33
2003 | 40% | 80 | 24% | 1.17
2004 | 40% | 81 | 48% | 1.24

I have to run so can't spend too much time on analysis or explanation.

But you can Leetch's GA went through the roof from 1998 to 2001. His team SH numbers were bad starting in 95/96. Looks like they may have cut back on his minutes after 2000-01, but you could check the actual TOI to verify that.

 

[canucks4ever]

Even Brian Leetch has more than 4-5 elite seasons and most players availabe for this round have far more than that.

My definition of an elite player is being a legit contender for the norris, not finishing 6-9th in voting.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

My definition of an elite player is being a legit contender for the norris, not finishing 6-9th in voting.

Leetch had 6 top 5 finishes in Norris voting, posted up thread.