Round 2, Vote 7 (HOH Top Defensemen)

[tarheelhockey]

I wouldnt be so quick to assume Conacher was any better offensively than Rob Blake.

Interesting numbers. Like you, I'm surprised Blake comes out ahead... makes me appreciate his production a little more.

My only criticism is that keeping up with a prime Clancy seems like a taller order than keeping up with Gonchar and an aging Leetch.

 

[plusandminus]

What decade are we talking about with Lapointe? he was an NHL all-star 4 years out of 5.

Stewart has a 7 year range in his all star selections but in quite a weak era as well, although i'm not really sure how to take his 2 missed eyars due to the war into account entriely.

Nieds has an 11 year stretch of playing 23:19 or more from the stats on hockey reference.com and for quite good teams, not like the situation of Jaybo in Calgary.

Furthermore he has 10 years averaging over 26 mins per game and 202 playoff games in total for quite good teams as well.

There are 5 playoff years I don't have stats for but it's quite likely he averaged over 20 MPG those years as well.

Let's just skip the all star selections and do some direct Canadian on Canadian comparisons, something that's fair for pre 90 Dmen.

Nieds was considered good enough to be in the top 6dmen for Canada in 97, 05 Canada cups and the 02 and 10 Olympics, over a span of 13 years.

Maybe one can make the argument that he wasn't exactly in the top 6 every year of those 13 years and dipped a couple of times but he probably has a streak of 13 years in the top 10 for Canadian Dmen which is one of the reasons why he is #1 for me this round and probably could have gotten in a round or two earlier as well IMO.

Bilyaletdinov also was a top-6 defencemen for about 13 years.
http://www.eurohockey.net/players/show_player.cgi?serial=32603
Pervuchin/Pervukhin too:
http://www.eurohockey.net/players/show_player.cgi?serial=2160

Both accomplished that, on a national team about equally good as Canada. So, following your reasoning here, those two players should have a case as strong as Niedermayer?

And how about Kasatonov being top-2 during a 10+ year stretch?

 

[VanIslander]

Wow...

I'll say it again, but I'm totally flabbergasted that two guys that were the best D-Men of their era aren't even available for voting yet.

I totally agree. Though we may disagree about who one of those two guys is.

 

[VanIslander]

tarheelhockey has totally convinced me that Conacher > Lapointe in terms of ranking with respect to his own era. Anyone care to differ?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

tarheelhockey has totally convinced me that Conacher > Lapointe in terms of ranking with respect to his own era. Anyone care to differ?

Well yeah, but in the same way Rob Blake, Scott Niedermayer, and Zdeno Chara rank higher among their peers than Lapointe. The 70s was kind of a Golden age of defenseman. And despite much stronger competition, Lapointe got virtually the same awards recognition as Conacher.

Anyone have any theories why it took the veteran's committee to induct Conacher? Was he truly a borderline case or were there off-ice reasons for it?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Interesting numbers. Like you, I'm surprised Blake comes out ahead... makes me appreciate his production a little more.

My only criticism is that keeping up with a prime Clancy seems like a taller order than keeping up with Gonchar and an aging Leetch.

Eh, Clancy's last season as an All Star was 1934, so his prime didn't exactly overlap with Conacher.

Leetch led all NHL defensemen in scoring as late as 2001 - it was his defensive game that had fallen out from under him - his offensive game was still quite strong.

I don't think Gonchar is particularly weak competition of we are just talking about offense.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Eh, Clancy's last season as an All Star was 1934, so his prime didn't exactly overlap with Conacher.

Wut? Of course it did.

Conacher's career was 1925-37.
Clancy's career was 1921-37.

Conacher's ASTs were in 33, 34, 37.
Clancy's ASTs were in 31, 32, 33, 34.

Conacher's Hart voting came in 26, 29, 34 and 37.
Clancy's Hart voting came in 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 34.

Conacher's top-scoring seasons were in 27, 28, 32, 33, 34, 37.
Clancy's top-scoring seasons were in 25, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35.

There was only one season, 1937, where Conacher was a star and Clancy wasn't... but I wouldn't call that Conacher's prime as it was the last season of his career.

Leetch led all NHL defensemen in scoring as late as 2001 - it was his defensive game that had fallen out from under him - his offensive game was still quite strong

I don't think Gonchar is particularly weak competition of we are just talking about offense.

I just realized that the arbitrary 7-year timeframe begins with the lowest point total of Conacher's career. Also, in 1937 Clancy only played 6 games so that cutoff favors Conacher unfairly. It makes more sense to cut off those two seasons and just go with his 5 best seasons in direct competition with Clancy.

Looking at those years from 1932 to 1936, Conacher had 89 points to Clancy's 108 (82%) and Shore's 121 (74%). In Blake's best 5 years from 1998 to 2002, he had 257 points to Leetch's 265 (97%) and Lidstrom's 319 (81%). Also, Gonchar was higher-scoring than Clancy in adjusted points during that timeframe (49 points to 45). Ithink those numbers are a better representation of their primes and competition, particularly since Leetch is being held as Blake's career comparable the same way Clancy is to Conacher. They are, I think, decisively in Blake's favor as far as prime offense is concerned.

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

There is a problem with those career numbers, though. As noted above, Conacher's career has a very neat overlap with both Shore's and Clancy's. So it's pretty informative to say Conacher was the third-best offensive defenseman of that era, since his scoring totals can be held in direct comparison to the other two great defensemen who played during that exact timeframe.

The same isn't true of Blake and Leetch. Leetch retired 4 years before Blake, who piled another 140 points onto his record in Leetch's absence. In fact, if you only look at the years when both were in the league together, Blake ranks seventh in points behind Leetch, Lidstrom, MacInnis, Bourque, Zubov and Housley.

Also, it's noteworthy that Blake had a strong rookie season (1991) right before the rookie seasons of Lidstrom and Niedermayer (1992), and two seasons before Zubov (1993). If we look at scoring 1992-2010, suddenly Blake bumps back to fifth behind Lidstrom (70%), Leetch (91%), Zubov (95%), and Niedermayer (99%). Zubov drops to 88% if you only look at his career.

Reader's Digest version: Blake is the third-highest scoring defenseman of his career by happy accident of having been slightly younger than Leetch, and slightly older than Lidstrom and Niedermayer, and because Zubov retired early. He's more like the 5th-7th highest scoring defenseman of his cohort. He is farther behind Lidstrom than Conacher was from Shore, but closer to the others than Conacher was to Clancy.

I'm still impressed with Blake's numbers, though. He didn't get nearly as much attention as the rest of his cohort and was a helluva lot better defensively than Zubov.

 

[Epsilon]

The vote I submitted was a bit different than what I alluded to in the comments I made earlier, after I went back through the thread and read over some of the discussions again (and also after digesting all the more recent Kasatonov material). I felt like #1 and the top 4 this round were pretty easy and that it got really bunched up after that.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Wut? Of course it did.

Conacher's career was 1925-37.
Clancy's career was 1921-37.

Conacher's ASTs were in 33, 34, 37.
Clancy's ASTs were in 31, 32, 33, 34.

Conacher's Hart voting came in 26, 29, 34 and 37.
Clancy's Hart voting came in 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 34.

Conacher's top-scoring seasons were in 27, 28, 32, 33, 34, 37.
Clancy's top-scoring seasons were in 25, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35.

There was only one season, 1937, where Conacher was a star and Clancy wasn't... but I wouldn't call that Conacher's prime as it was the last season of his career.

It's spelled, "what." I guess I was unclear there.

Conacher's prime was definitely 1931-1937 though. Clancy probably peaked more in the late 1920s. In the late 1920s, Conacher was getting beaten out by Sylvio Mantha (not really known for his offense) and was barely ahead of Albert Leduc, a guy who was rarely in the starting lineup of his team.

Leetch was a 50+ point defenseman every season until the last lockout, so if we are just comparing offense, I think it's a fair comparison.

Looking at those years from 1932 to 1936, Conacher had 89 points to Clancy's 108 (82%) and Shore's 121 (74%). In Blake's best 5 years from 1998 to 2002, he had 257 points to Leetch's 265 (97%) and Lidstrom's 319 (81%). Also, Gonchar was higher-scoring than Clancy in adjusted points during that timeframe (49 points to 45). Ithink those numbers are a better representation of their primes and competition, particularly since Leetch is being held as Blake's career comparable the same way Clancy is to Conacher. They are, I think, decisively in Blake's favor as far as prime offense is concerned.

Thanks for taking the time to do this, I agree with your conclusion.

There is a problem with those career numbers, though. As noted above, Conacher's career has a very neat overlap with both Shore's and Clancy's. So it's pretty informative to say Conacher was the third-best offensive defenseman of that era, since his scoring totals can be held in direct comparison to the other two great defensemen who played during that exact timeframe.

Third best offensive defenseman post-forward pass. Fourth best offensive defenseman (under a guy not know for his offensive ability) pre forward pass.

Reader's Digest version: Blake is the third-highest scoring defenseman of his career by happy accident of having been slightly younger than Leetch, and slightly older than Lidstrom and Niedermayer, and because Zubov retired early. He's more like the 5th-7th highest scoring defenseman of his cohort. He is farther behind Lidstrom than Conacher was from Shore, but closer to the others than Conacher was to Clancy.

A better way to look at it is to see how far they were behind guys with more established value.

From 1992-2006, when Blake, Leetch, and Lidstrom were all in the league, Blake had 73 % of the offense of 1st place Lidstrom and 74% of the offense of 2nd place Leetch.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points

Over the course of Conacher's career (when he, Clancy and Shore were all in the league), Conacher had 77% of the offense of 1st place Shore and 80% of the offense of 2nd place Clancy.

Conacher looks marginally better offensively by this metric, until you realize it fails to take into account that Blake adjusted his game to becoming a very solid defensive defenseman (as any Sharks fan can attest) until the age of 40.

I think Blake had a 5 year prime stretch that Conacher can't touch. Conacher may have had more seasons as a star, Blake definitely had better overall longevity.

 

[tarheelhockey]

It's spelled, "what."

Thanks!

Conacher's prime was definitely 1931-1937 though. Clancy probably peaked more in the late 1920s.

From 1930-1934:
- Clancy has his 3 highest-scoring seasons and 5 of his top 8
- Clancy finished 3rd, 3rd, 4th in Hart voting, his top-3 career finishes. The other two years we have incomplete records.
- Clancy was a 1st or 2nd All-Star 4 times. Granted, we don't have records prior to then, but he didn't have any after '34.

By what measure are you saying Clancy was better prior to 1930-34? Especially in terms of offensive production?

At the same time:
- Conacher had 2 of his 3 top-scoring seasons and 3 of his top 6
- Conacher finished a career-high 2nd in Hart voting
- Conacher was a 1st or 2nd All-Star twice.

Prior to that period, Conacher was in New York where he was certainly a star already. One could even argue that he was already at peak performance in some of those years, but was playing on a dud team. He had a great swan song in 1937 but 1935 and 1936 were clearly at a lower level. As far as objective accomplishment is concerned, it's pretty easy to identify 1930-34 as his top seasons... exactly the same as Clancy.

Honestly, I don't really see how it could be argued that Clancy and Conacher didn't peak at the same time. The overlap could hardly be any neater, especially in terms of offensive statistics.

Third best offensive defenseman post-forward pass. Fourth best offensive defenseman (under a guy not know for his offensive ability) pre forward pass.

Assuming you're referring to Mantha, he and Conacher were dead even at PPG and Mantha always played on much higher-scoring teams (as in, scoring as much as 2x as many goals per season). Maybe you could argue it's closer than I would probably argue, but Conacher definitely wasn't behind Mantha.

An interesting side note here: earlier, it was asserted that Conacher relied on his size and slap shot, and was weak in the finesse elements of the game. Yet his best seasons came after the introduction of the forward pass, when transition became more important and the rushing-shooting style subsided. Granted, Conacher went to a slightly better team at the time -- but it would seem that something has to give here. Based on descriptions of his passing, I'd say his transition ability has been underrated.

A better way to look at it is to see how far they were behind guys with more established value.

From 1992-2006, when Blake, Leetch, and Lidstrom were all in the league, Blake had 73 % of the offense of 1st place Lidstrom and 74% of the offense of 2nd place Leetch.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points

I agree that this is a better way to look at it, but that link also reveals that Blake was behind 4 guys other than Lidstrom and Leetch. Granted he was a better defender than Zubov or Housley, but that doesn't really put him in a Conacher-like position with regards to offensive standing leaguewide.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Thanks!



From 1930-1934:
- Clancy has his 3 highest-scoring seasons and 5 of his top 8
- Clancy finished 3rd, 3rd, 4th in Hart voting, his top-3 career finishes. The other two years we have incomplete records.
- Clancy was a 1st or 2nd All-Star 4 times. Granted, we don't have records prior to then, but he didn't have any after '34.

By what measure are you saying Clancy was better prior to 1930-34? Especially in terms of offensive production?

Compared to his peers, Clancy was at least as good in the late 20s. Your own table shows that! Overall scoring exploded in 1930 after the forward pass was allowed. Clancy's 16 points in 1924 were good for 10th overall in the entire league!

Clancy was definitely still in his prime until 1934 (and was still productive offensively until 1935), but Conacher's offensive prime appears to be 1932-1937.

Prior to that period, Conacher was in New York where he was certainly a star already. One could even argue that he was already at peak performance in some of those years, but was playing on a dud team. He had a great swan song in 1937 but 1935 and 1936 were clearly at a lower level. As far as objective accomplishment is concerned, it's pretty easy to identify 1930-34 as his top seasons... exactly the same as Clancy.

In terms of offense, he was worse than Sylvio Mantha and barely better than spare defenseman Albert Leduc. I don't think Conacher was an impressive offensive defender at all before the forward pass was allowed, save for one season.

Honestly, I don't really see how it could be argued that Clancy and Conacher didn't peak at the same time. The overlap could hardly be any neater, especially in terms of offensive statistics.

1924-1935 vs. 1932-1937 isn't any more overlap than Leetch and Blake had if we are just looking at offensive seasons. Leetch led all defensemen in scoring as late as 2001 and was a 50 point man in 2004.

Assuming you're referring to Mantha, he and Conacher were dead even at PPG and Mantha always played on much higher-scoring teams (as in, scoring as much as 2x as many goals per season). Maybe you could argue it's closer than I would probably argue, but Conacher definitely wasn't behind Mantha.

What the hell? Mantha scored 67 points from 1926-30 and Conacher scored 51. I'd call that "definitely behind."

An interesting side note here: earlier, it was asserted that Conacher relied on his size and slap shot, and was weak in the finesse elements of the game. Yet his best seasons came after the introduction of the forward pass, when transition became much more important than simply rushing and firing the puck. Granted, Conacher went to a slightly better team at the time -- but it would seem that something has to give here. Based on descriptions of his passing, I'd say his transition ability has been underrated.

So why is his all-star record so weak compared to the other guys available for voting now? Why did the people who watched him play not deem him worthy of being enshrined into the Hall of Fame?

.
I agree that this is a better way to look at it, but that link also reveals that Blake was behind 4 guys other than Lidstrom and Leetch. Granted he was a better defender than Zubov or Housley, but that doesn't really put him in a Conacher-like position with regards to offensive standing leaguewide.

You rank defensemen this way across different league sizes, and pretty soon you'll decide that a defensive defenseman like Ching Johnson was better offensively than a modern guy like Housley or Blake because of his "rank." The fact is, there were not many offensive-defensemen when Conacher played. Comparing offensive rankings among defensemen between eras isn't useful, as there are so many offensive specialists in the current league who wouldn't exist in a time of fewer teams. Phil Housley? Sergei Zubov? Assuming they would be playign hockey at all (as non-Canadians), they would either have been converted to forward or kept in the AHL until they learned how to play defense. The percentage of the top scoring defenseman is a FAR superior method in terms of comparing defensemen from different eras (where league size and the role of defensemen changed).

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I asked it before, but I think it deserves more attention. Does anyone know of any off-ice reasons that could explain why Conacher was not enshrined into the HHOF by people who saw him play?

Tremblay and Brewer are the only elligible North Americans who have come up for vote so far not to have been enshrined and the reasons for that are obvious - they pissed off a lot of people by leaving the NHL in their primes to go play in other leagues.

Conacher was not enshrined into the HHOF until 1994, the only player up for voting so far who was enshrined by the Veteran's Committee. Does anyone know if there are any off-ice reasons he was held back? I know that Busher Jackson (a far superior player to Conacher) was held out of the HHOF for a long time because he was a party animal off-ice.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Compared to his peers, Clancy was at least as good in the late 20s. Overall scoring exploded in 1930 after the forward pass was allowed. Clancy's 16 points in 1924 were good for 10th overall in the entire league!

Ah, got it. I wasn't taking the league trend into account.

In terms of offense, he was worse than Sylvio Mantha and barely better than spare defenseman Albert Leduc. I don't think Conacher was an impressive offensive defender at all before the forward pass was allowed, save for one season.

How are you getting to that conclusion? In the pre-forward pass years he played, here are how Conacher, Mantha and Leduc stacked up:

1925-26 - Conacher 13, Leduc 13, Mantha 3
1926-27 - Conacher 17, Mantha 15, Leduc 7
1927-28 - Conacher 17 (league leader), Mantha 15, Leduc 13
1928-29 - Mantha 13, Leduc 11, Conacher 7
Total - Conacher 54, Mantha 46, Leduc 44

The only defensemen above Conacher in either gross or per-game scoring during this period are Clancy and Shore, and Conacher is as close (Shore) or closer (Clancy) to them as he is to either of Mantha and Leduc.

1923-1935 vs. 1932-1937 isn't any more overlap than Leetch and Blake had if we are just looking at offensive seasons. .

If you're willing to give Clancy a 12-year prime...

What the hell? Mantha scored 67 points from 1926-30 and Conacher scored 51. I'd call that "definitely behind."

I have to think you've run the wrong numbers or something.
http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points

Rk| Name|GP|G|A|P|PPG
1 |King Clancy |205| 55| 46| 101 | 0.49
2 |Eddie Shore| 164 |47| 38| 85| 0.52
3 |Sylvio Mantha| 208| 38 |32 |70 | 0.34
4 |Lionel Conacher| 191| 37| 27| 64 | 0.34
5 |Albert Leduc | 204 |38 |20| 58 | 0.28

And again, look at Mantha's team scoring vs. Conacher's.

Conacher's team scoring: 82, 82, 63, 53 TOTAL - 280
Mantha's team scoring: 79, 99, 116, 71 TOTAL - 365

C'mon, it's pretty clear that Mantha was not doing the things that Conacher had to do offensively.

So why is his all-star record so weak compared to the other guys available for voting now?

I think we've covered this ground already. I wouldn't consider All-Star voting from a handful of coaches or managers, with no record of the tally and who-knows-how-many corrupting influences, to be of such definitive importance.

Comparing offensive rankings among defensemen between eras isn't useful IMO, as there are so many offensive defensemen in the current league

This is true, but I think it's illustrative to know that during Conacher's career we had:

Clancy/Shore
*step down*
Conacher
*step down*
A number of other players including Mantha, the "Reds", Johnson, etc.

Whereas during Blake's full career we had:

Lidstrom
*step down*
Leetch/Blake/Zubov/Niedermayer/Gonchar/Ozolinsh?
*step down*
A number of other players including Pronger, Chelios, Schneider, Hamrlik, etc.

It's not so much about the "rank" as a number, but understanding where the player fits into the scheme of the league. I think these guys are fairly comparable offensively, and actually quite comparable overall for that matter.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

How are you getting to that conclusion? In the pre-forward pass years he played, here are how Conacher, Mantha and Leduc stacked up:

1925-26 - Conacher 13, Leduc 13, Mantha 3
1926-27 - Conacher 17, Mantha 15, Leduc 7
1927-28 - Conacher 17 (league leader), Mantha 15, Leduc 13
1928-29 - Mantha 13, Leduc 11, Conacher 7
Total - Conacher 54, Mantha 46, Leduc 44

Oh, I was looking at your table which included 1930, a horrible year for Conacher. I guess if you ignore Conacher's dark years (1930 and 1931) didn't exist, you can see that when he had his head in the game, he was better offensively than Mantha.

If you're willing to give Clancy a 12-year prime...

Clancy was 10th in overall points in 1924, so how can't you include it in his prime? I'm being generous to Conacher by counting 1935 as part of Clancy's prime.

Clancy was top 5 in NHL assists 3 times - 1924, 1927, and 1930. He was 10th in NHL goals in 1929.

I have to think you've run the wrong numbers or something.
http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points

Rk| Name|GP|G|A|P|PPG
1 |King Clancy |205| 55| 46| 101 | 0.49
2 |Eddie Shore| 164 |47| 38| 85| 0.52
3 |Sylvio Mantha| 208| 38 |32 |70 | 0.34
4 |Lionel Conacher| 191| 37| 27| 64 | 0.34
5 |Albert Leduc | 204 |38 |20| 58 | 0.28

And again, look at Mantha's team scoring vs. Conacher's.

Conacher's team scoring: 82, 82, 63, 53 TOTAL - 280
Mantha's team scoring: 79, 99, 116, 71 TOTAL - 365

Yeah, I was including 1930 because that's how you broke it down above. Lazy error on my part.

So exactly the same PPG and better offensive team for Mantha? Call it a small edge for Conacher pre-forward pass over Mantha.

I think we've covered this ground already. I wouldn't consider All-Star voting from a handful of coaches or managers, with no record of the tally and who-knows-how-many corrupting influences, to be of such definitive importance.

So consider the actual real life All-Star Teams, where Conacher only has 1 First Team and 2 Second Teams after 1930. And we know he was better offensively during this time than he was before 1930!

It's not so much about the "rank" as a number, but understanding where the player fits into the scheme of the league. I think these guys are fairly comparable offensively, and actually quite comparable overall for that matter.

Blake and Conacher? If that's what you mean, then we actually agree. I'm thinking they are very comparable as players.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Oh, I was looking at your table which included 1930, a horrible year for Conacher. I guess if you ignore Conacher's dark years (1930 and 1931) didn't exist, you can see that when he had his head in the game, he was better offensively than Mantha.

You don't need to ignore anything... Conacher's down years came altogether after the forward pass was introduced. Prior to that, which were his first 4 years in the league, he was better offensively than Mantha.

Clancy was 10th in overall points in 1924, so how can't you include it in his prime? I'm being generous to Conacher by counting 1935 as part of Clancy's prime.

To this point we have been talking about career peak, not prime... I take those to mean different things.

So consider the actual real life All-Star Teams, where Conacher only has 1 First Team and 2 Second Teams after 1930. And we know he was better offensively during this time than he was before 1930!

I'm not sure I understand what this has to do with his skillset...

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

To this point we have been talking about career peak, not prime... I take those to mean different things.

In that case their offensive peaks didn't overlap, as Clancy seems to have out up his best numbers vs the completion from 1927-1930.

I'm also not sure why it matters.

I'm not sure I understand what this has to do with his skillset...

It has to do with how good he was compared to his peers

 

[tarheelhockey]

In that case their offensive peaks didn't overlap, as Clancy seems to have out up his best numbers vs the completion from 1927-1930.

I would agree with that. Brings up an interesting question as to how Clancy handled the rule change, but that's for another thread.

It has to do with how good he was compared to his peers

I don't see a connection between his style/skillset and his All Star ranking. Maybe he was simply a better finesse player than a couple of sources (which are countered by other sources) gave him credit for in the ATD thread. That wouldn't change his awards.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I don't see a connection between his style/skillset and his All Star ranking. Maybe he was simply a better finesse player than a couple of sources (which are countered by other sources) gave him credit for in the ATD thread. That wouldn't change his awards.

You don't think that someone must have been missing from his game for him to only make the 1st Team once?

What sources are you talking about? The three sources that all confirm he was slow?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Blake & Niedermayer in 2001 playoffs:

Both players led their teams TOI per game.

Neidermayer at 23:53

Blake at 29:26

Also, Bourque had 28:32 and Foote 28:22 for Avs

Stevens 22:37 and Rafalski 22:02 for Devils

That's quite a difference.

Not sure what it means.

But I thought it was of interest.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Wow. I knew the Avs rode their stars hard in 2001 while the Devils distributed ice time more evenly (like Detroit has done), but that's ridiculous. They 2001 Avs are one of the few top-heavy teams to actually win the Cup.

 

[Johnny Engine]

Wow. I knew the Avs rode their stars hard in 2001 while the Devils distributed ice time more evenly (like Detroit has done), but that's ridiculous. They 2001 Avs are one of the few top-heavy teams to actually win the Cup.

Not following this closely enough to know if this is relevant, but the '07 Ducks fit this bill too, so it can be said that Niedermayer won a cup too on a team where he, Pronger and Beauchemin practically played whole games with the odd Sean O'Donnell cameo. (I'm exaggerating, yeah, but I think the Ducks leaned on their top 3 at least as much as Colorado did)

 

[plusandminus]

Having googled I just found some talk on a New Jersey discussion group (?), during the time Kasatonov and Fetisov played there.

They seemed highly regarded by the fans.

Here are words saying that Kasatonov early in 1991-92 was leading the whole league in +/-, with +15, 13 games into the season.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec..../1e7524b89b7a029?q=kasatonov#01e7524b89b7a029
Kasatonov had 6 pts in 13 games, while Fetisov had 8 in 12.
Kasatonov had no minus game (+/-) during his first 16 games of the season.

About half way through the 1991-92 season, Kasatonov had somewhat distanced Fetisov in the scoring (Kasatonov having scored more).
http://groups.google.com/group/rec....13bc6ef6dc?q=kasatonov+roger#e35fe013bc6ef6dc
Then something seem to have happened, as he only scored about 10 pts during the second half of the season, compared to about 30 during the first half.
http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/k/kasatal01/gamelog/1992/
http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/s/stevesc01/splits/1992/

Here's another one, telling about Fetisov's ability to make great breakaway passes
http://groups.google.com/group/rec....69ed7d4f8ce6a2a3?q=kasatonov#69ed7d4f8ce6a2a3

(There is a sticked thread here, where the first post tells how to search for old posts.)


A summary of Kasatonov's NHL career...

In Kasatonov's first NHL season, 1989-90, he arrived in early January, and started somewhat slowly statistically. But during his last 21 games of the regular season, he was +17 with 4+13=17 points. Pretty good, I think.
In the playoffs, he had 3 points and was -2, compared to the praised Fetisov who had 2 pts and was -5.

In the 1990-91 regular season, Kasatonov led the team with +23. Second best defenceman in +/- on team was Bruce Driver with +12. Fetisov was +5, and scored about half as many pts as Kasatonov, at half the pace Kasatonov had per game.
In the 1990-91 playoffs, Kasatonov had 4 pts in 7 games and was -1. Fetisov was 0 pts -3.

As said above, he started 1991-92 season by leading all defencemen after about 13-16 games, before turning into more mediocre +/- stats. He did well scoring wise half that season, until seemingly losing much of his productivity. Then he got traded and didn't seem to reach his previous heights again.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Fetisov was not very good in NJ. Kasatonov was a lot better - as the more conservative member of the pair, his game translated quite easily into North American hockey, despite being past his prime.

 

[tarheelhockey]

You don't think that someone must have been missing from his game for him to only make the 1st Team once?

I can't think of a single reason an All Star team should be used to make that kind of evaluation.

What sources are you talking about? The three sources that all confirm he was slow?

The first source is not a primary source; it appears to be a recap of the third source, his HHOF bio.

Neither of the 2 primary sources say he was slow. They say he lacked skating skill, which was stretched in the ATD thread to mean speed and agility. In this thread it has been surmised that he was bad in transition as well. I see no compelling reason to believe he was poor in transition based on the quotes provided, especially in light of primary quotes I've uncovered containing phrases like "tearing down the ice at top speed", "spectacular dash", "dashed through right wing". Those are not descriptions of a slow player. More likely, he was exactly what Red Storey called him -- awkward -- with an unorthodox technique and lacking agility.

We know he had "superb stick handling" and multiple sources testify to his "perfect" passing. It would appear he had at least moderately strong speed for his size. He got better, not worse, when forward passing was liberalized and transition games refined. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I see no reason to buy the theory he was a poor player in transition.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I can't think of a single reason an All Star team should be used to make that kind of evaluation.

Ching Johnson has a slightly better all-star record despite having an obvious flaw in his game - lack of offense. So yes, I think it's obvious Conacher had a flaw in his game.

Conacher was first in scoring among defensemen in 1937, but only a second team all star? I wonder why...

Neither of the 2 primary sources say he was slow. They say he lacked skating skill, which was stretched in the ATD thread to mean speed and agility.

What else could lacking skating skill mean? Especially when paired with the other source that called him a slow skater in the middle of an otherwise glowing article?

I've uncovered containing phrases like "tearing down the ice at top speed", "spectacular dash", "dashed through right wing". Those are not descriptions of a slow player.

Once again, you are pointing out a few trees while failing to see the forest. You can find those quotes about ANY player of the era, even notorious slugs like Nels Stewart. Before you could pass the puck forward, guess what the only way of advancing it was? Rushing the puck! Possibly past guys who are literally standing still so they can play the full 60 minutes.

This is a horrible method of player evaluation. Taking a few individual plays and thinking they embody a player's career? I'm sure I can dig up a few quotes about Phil Housley breaking up plays in his own zone. That does not make him a good defensive player.

More likely, he was exactly what Red Storey called him -- awkward -- with an unorthodox technique and lacking agility.

Lacking agility is a weakness in his game, is it not?

We know he had "superb stick handling" and multiple sources testify to his "perfect" passing. It would appear he had at least moderately strong speed for his size. He got better, not worse, when forward passing was liberalized and transition games refined. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I see no reason to buy the theory he was a poor player in transition.

well, he didn't have mediocre all-star recognition compared to other guys available now for no reason.