Round 2, Vote 7 (HOH Top Defensemen)

[Dreakmur]

I'm sure there are things that make no sense to every voter.

I think we may all need to be aware our indivdual lists are not the one's that are "correct".

When a guy who was arguably the best player in the world for nearly a decade isn't even available for voting in the top-40, something is wrong IMO.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

When a guy who was arguably the best player in the world for nearly a decade isn't even available for voting in the top-40, something is wrong IMO.

We're voting for spots 31-35. That particular mystery player may very well be available for voting in the top 40.

 

[Dreakmur]

We're voting for spots 31-35. That particular mystery player may very well be available for voting in the top 40.

Even so, he likely won't be in until the following round. Regardless, he should have been in a while ago.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Calm down guys, Phil Housley will get his chance in due time

 

[Hardyvan123]

When a guy who was arguably the best player in the world for nearly a decade isn't even available for voting in the top-40, something is wrong IMO.

You need to go back to the list and see that Bobby Orr went #1, I know there was very little discussion on it but no other Dman was even arguably the best player in the world for nearly a decade.

I'm pretty sure we all know the player in question but playing at the turn of the Century with other 20 teams spread out over 4 leagues, nevermind the amateur guys that weren't playing pro and playing until he was 27 it's debatable if he is even going to make the top 60 list at all IMO.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Some recent threads that are relevant:

Rob Blake - Where do you rank him among dmen in history contains a good comparison between Blake and Niedermayer. Post #3 (by me) is pretty funny considering the scope of the project we are working on now.

Larry Murphy vs. Rob Blake

Zdeno Chara vs. Rod Langway

 

[Hardyvan123]

Blake versus Murphy is a very tough one indeed.

I'm a huge career guy yet peak is very important as well and Blake's peak is quite a bit better, on the surface, than Murphy's.

When we adjust for era Murphy's totals and season highs are a bit better than Blake's but they do coem in Pittsburgh with a team that played total offense as well.

Murphy from 92-95 had 68,69,66 and 65 points adjusted. He also had 68 in 87 with Washington and 60 with Detroit in 98. Blake's 4 best seasons are 64,62,62 and 50.

Blake brought more to the table in terms of physical play and presence on the ice but does it outweigh Murphy's better production even at their peaks?

I'm inclined to take Blake at 1st blush because I think at his peak he was the better all around Dman but Murphy was very productive for a very long time both in the regular season and playoffs.

A tough call and they will be very close in this round of voting for me.

I think Nieds is a bit higher than these 2 guys but it's not a really huge gap at this stage of the rankings.

Chara probably ranks behind these 3, for now since we are only using up to the end of last year but there is no doubt that he has a very good shot to hit the high 20's when we do this project again after his career is over.

 

[Dreakmur]

You need to go back to the list and see that Bobby Orr went #1, I know there was very little discussion on it but no other Dman was even arguably the best player in the world for nearly a decade.

Hod Stuart was arguably the best player in the world for the majority of his career. From 1899-00 to his death in 1907, he was among the absolute elite of the sport.

People can talk about competition all they want, but best in the world trumps anything these current guys have done. None of these guys were even top-10 for more than a year or two, if they ever were that good.

I'm pretty sure we all know the player in question but playing at the turn of the Century with other 20 teams spread out over 4 leagues, nevermind the amateur guys that weren't playing pro and playing until he was 27 it's debatable if he is even going to make the top 60 list at all IMO.

The only pro league during his time was the IHL, which is why so many players went south of the border. The leagues in Canada were still officially ameteur. Like the WHA's effect on the NHL, the IHL basically forced the Canadian leagues to start paying their players.

He played in top level leagues for 9 seasons, and with the exception of his first season, he was dominant every one of those years.

If he's not in the top-60, this whole thing is a farce. Actually, the fact that he's not already in has already made me question how seriously people really took their submitted lists.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Chara probably ranks behind these 3, for now since we are only using up to the end of last year but there is no doubt that he has a very good shot to hit the high 20's when we do this project again after his career is over.

There's no rule that we can't use what has happened this year up to now. It did happen already after all. Even if you cut off Chara's career after the 2011 playoffs, I can't see how he hasn't passed Blake and especially Murphy by now.

IMO, Chara's closer to Jack Stewart and Scott Niedermayer than he is to Blake and Murphy by now. In fact, I'm seriously considering ranking Chara over Niedermayer at this point. I think Chara has already surpassed Niedermayer's regular season value by quite a bit. Niedermayer still has the playoffs advantage, but Chara closed a lot of that gap in 2011.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

IIRC, Ulf Samuelsson got the tougher defensive matchups for the Penguins during Larry Murphy's "prime" years. Murphy was used in a more offensive role. I also think that Murphy, as a great first-pass guy but poor skater, spent a lot of time on the ice with Mario Lemieux. If true, that would partially explain why his R-on/R-off ratio is so much better during the Pittsburgh mini-dynasty than other years.

Look at Chara's R-on/ R-off numbers and then consider that since Ottawa, he has usually gotten the toughest matchups. He certainly appears to have been bigger difference maker than Blake or Murphy. Niedermayer is tougher, since his R-off is generally Stevens or Pronger, but even so, his R-on isn't as good as Chara's prime R-on.

 

[canucks4ever]

I don't even think Larry Murphy is much better than a guy like Sergie Zubov. Sure zubov was one dimensonal at the beggining, but he got better defensively later on in his career. Zubov of 1994 and 2006 was probably just as good as murphy at his best.

 

[overpass]

Look at Chara's R-on/ R-off numbers and then consider that since Ottawa, he has usually gotten the toughest matchups.

Chara got the toughest matchups in his last year or two in Long Island too. He led his team in ES and SH minutes in both 99-00 and 00-01. I remember sitting next to the glass in early 2001 and watching him battle Alexei Yashin all game. He was -27 in back to back seasons in that role in NY, but probably had very little team support in his role in terms of structure and coaching. In Ottawa he was an immediate success, and only improved from there. He played with Wade Redden in his first season and Chris Phillips in the following seasons, always against the other team's best.

I think that proper structure and coaching have been very important for Chara. His top seven seasons in plus-minus have come while playing for Jacques Martin or Claude Julien. NHL coaches don't get much more structured/defensive than they do.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

WHY JACK STEWART MIGHT BE THE BEST DEFENSEMAN AVAILABLE

1. There is a good argument that his 1942-43 season is the best season by an available defenseman.

Prior to 1942-43, Black Jack Stewart had received a handful of All-Star votes on a few occasions, but in 1942-43 at the age of 25, he emerged as a star. He dominated All-Star voting during the regular season:

Total first-team voting points: Jack Stewart 20, Earl Seibert 12, Flash Hollett 9, Jack Crawford 7, Babe Pratt 3, Dit Clapper 1

He then went on to win the Stanley Cup as Detroit's #1 defenseman.

2. Stewart is the only defenseman to be an All Star both before and after the Red Line was introduced.

Stewart was unable to build off his spectacular 1942-43 season because he left the NHL to serve for two years during World War 2. Stewart returned in 1945-46 and had to adjust to a different style of game: The addition of the Red Line and the new ability of teams to pass forward between zones completely changed the way a defenseman would defend the transitions game. In Stewart's first season back, he was a 2nd Team All Star, and finished 5th in Hart voting (first among all defensemen).

3. Consistently an elite player in his prime

Stewart finished top 5 in All-Star voting every season he played from the ages of 25-32 before retiring due to injuries:

1942-43: 1st in All-Star voting
1943-44: Lost season to World War 2
1944-45: Lost season to World War 2
1945-46: 4th in All Star voting
1946-47: 3rd in All Star voting
1947-48: 2nd in All Star voting
1948-49: 2nd in All Star voting
1949-50: 5th in All Star voting

1949-50 would be Stewart's last full year of hockey and last season in Detroit. He ended his tenure in Detroit by winning his second Cup, this time as the hard-hitting stay at home partner to a young player named Red Kelly. He was 32 years old. He would have two injury-filled seasons in Chicago afterwards before calling it quits for good.

When he retired for the first time in 1951, the Edmonton Journal wrote:

His retirement would mark the end of one of the longest and most valuable careers in N.H.L. history.

4. Style of Play

Wikipedia has a good article on Black Jack Stewart, with a well-sourced description of his playing style:

During his career, Stewart was regarded as one of the hardest bodycheckers in the National Hockey League.[2] He was also carried the heaviest stick in the league, explaining that "I don't use it for scoring. I use it for breaking arms".[5] Stewart was known for his large grin when hitting opponents; teammate Ted Lindsay noted "when he had that smile, it was time for the opposition to look out".[10] He led the league with 73 penalty minutes in 1945–46 ,[5] and in the late 1940s, his rivalry with Milt Schmidt of the Boston Bruins was so intense that their physical interactions occasionally overshadowed the games themselves.[2]

Stewart hated his nickname of "Black Jack", believing it implied he was a dirty player. Hockey Hall of Fame defenceman King Clancy agreed he was not a dirty, but stated he was the "roughest son of a gun you'd ever want to meet."[9] His style of play resulted in numerous injuries; Stewart had dozens of scars and required over 200 stitches to close various cuts during his career. One year saw him play the entire season with a broken hand.[9]

Stewart showed good judgment as a defenceman, rarely taking himself out of position to throw a hit.[2] His coach in Detroit, Jack Adams, called Stewart "one of the best blueliners in the game",[2] and claimed he was the best defenceman in Red Wings history.[21] He was regarded as a good skater, able to clear the puck out of his zone and who rarely turned it over to the other team.[21]

Stewart explained how he got his nickname:

I bodychecked some fellow one night and when he woke up the next day in the hospital he asked who'd hit him with a blackjack

Here is a link to quotes posted about him by overpass.

 

[begbeee]

Chara got the toughest matchups in his last year or two in Long Island too. He led his team in ES and SH minutes in both 99-00 and 00-01. I remember sitting next to the glass in early 2001 and watching him battle Alexei Yashin all game. He was -27 in back to back seasons in that role in NY, but probably had very little team support in his role in terms of structure and coaching. In Ottawa he was an immediate success, and only improved from there. He played with Wade Redden in his first season and Chris Phillips in the following seasons, always against the other team's best.

I think that proper structure and coaching have been very important for Chara. His top seven seasons in plus-minus have come while playing for Jacques Martin or Claude Julien. NHL coaches don't get much more structured/defensive than they do.

Do you consider it as his pros or cons? It works both ways, doesnt it? Good coach suits style of play for the types of players he has, good player plays well in his role.

 

[Canadiens1958]

The Zdeno Chara Paradox

Chara is a very interesting case for me. Having watched him virtually every game he's played since coming to Boston, I can see how coaching, system, goaltending and teammates can change perception of a player. His first season under Dave Lewis as coach Chara was horrible. You could see that he had exceptional skills & strength but he was a turnover machine. Under Julien, with a system that everyone has bought into, Chara looks like a different player. He can be more agressive because of the defensive help he gets from his forwards and when he gets beat clean there is still Thomas or Rask in goal. Like many players already ahead of him on our list, he is now benefiting from his circumstances.

As for Carl Brewer, on my original list I had him one spot ahead Quackenbush.

Also think Blake, Kasatonov & Murphy will be near the bottom. But maybe I'll be persuaded to see things differently.

The Zdeno Chara paradox. - remove the system and supporting cast and what do you have? A big turnover machine with average skills - skating, passing, shooting - takes too long, that are enhanced by size and favourable rules.

Go back to the O6 era and the tall defensemen - Laperriere, Vasko, later Bill White were constrained by having to play with sticks that were too short for them - stick length was regulated, so they had to play somewhat hunched over. Today the sticks are longer so Chara can play fully balanced and extended.

Basically a talented Hal Gill.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

The Zdeno Chara paradox. - remove the system and supporting cast and what do you have? A big turnover machine with average skills - skating, passing, shooting - takes too long, that are enhanced by size and favourable rules.

Go back to the O6 era and the tall defensemen - Laperriere, Vasko, later Bill White were constrained by having to play with sticks that were too short for them - stick length was regulated, so they had to play somewhat hunched over. Today the sticks are longer so Chara can play fully balanced and extended.

Basically a talented Hal Gill.

If we're going to start punishing players for playing under good coaches and with good supporting casts, we should probably start with... every player who ever played for the Montreal Canadiens before the 1990s.

Then continue on to Rob Blake and Scott Niedermayer, both of whom were coached by Larry Robinson as young players (though I guess Blake did have a weak supporting cast much of his career).

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

If we're going to start punishing players for playing under good coaches and with good supporting casts, we should probably start with... every player who ever played for the Montreal Canadiens before the 1990s.

Good point.

Not to mention anyone playing for Scotty Bowman or Al Arbour.

I think Canadiens1958 overstates the case. Chara is not only well suited for the current Bruins but he's also the captain and has really grown into that role. I think he may be the most respected player on the team by his teammates and management.

 

[overpass]

Do you consider it as his pros or cons? It works both ways, doesnt it? Good coach suits style of play for the types of players he has, good player plays well in his role.

Yeah, it works both ways. I find it interesting more than meaningful. The value of coaching to defencemen seems to come up a lot in this project.

I think Chara is a very valuable player, but his skillset might be less transferable across teams and eras than some others. For example, Scott Niedermayer.

 

[begbeee]

Yeah, it works both ways. I find it interesting more than meaningful. The value of coaching to defencemen seems to come up a lot in this project.

I think Chara is a very valuable player, but his skillset might be less transferable across teams and eras than some others. For example, Scott Niedermayer.

Interesting point. I have to agree that skating is the most important part of the player's skillset. Even bellow average player can make it to the NHL if he is great skater (think...uhm.. Jeff Friesen maybe?).

Chara isn't great skater but doesnt this argument work for him because he is arguably the best defenseman in the era when speed kills everything?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Interesting point. I have to agree that skating is the most important part of the player's skillset. Even bellow average player can make it to the NHL if he is great skater (think...uhm.. Jeff Friesen maybe?).

Chara isn't great skater but doesnt this argument work for him because he is arguably the best defenseman in the era when speed kills everything?

Yeah, was there ever an era where speed was less important than the current one? And Chara seems to be doing just fine.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Interesting point. I have to agree that skating is the most important part of the player's skillset. Even bellow average player can make it to the NHL if he is great skater (think...uhm.. Jeff Friesen maybe?).

Chara isn't great skater but doesnt this argument work for him because he is arguably the best defenseman in the era when speed kills everything?

I really don't think this is true.

Friesen wasn't drafted 11th overall just because he was a great skater.

Skill and hockey sense get a player to the NHL level.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Hod Stuart was arguably the best player in the world for the majority of his career. From 1899-00 to his death in 1907, he was among the absolute elite of the sport.

People can talk about competition all they want, but best in the world trumps anything these current guys have done. None of these guys were even top-10 for more than a year or two, if they ever were that good.



The only pro league during his time was the IHL, which is why so many players went south of the border. The leagues in Canada were still officially ameteur. Like the WHA's effect on the NHL, the IHL basically forced the Canadian leagues to start paying their players.

He played in top level leagues for 9 seasons, and with the exception of his first season, he was dominant every one of those years.

If he's not in the top-60, this whole thing is a farce. Actually, the fact that he's not already in has already made me question how seriously people really took their submitted lists.

The competition level of the league is what prevents more current players from being the top player for close to a decade, which you claim for hod but I haven't read that anywhere.

Even if he was the best player in the "world" for say a period of 5 years the severe lack of competition and the dispersed nature of the top players still would make him a borderline top 60 of all time.

In his mid 20's he was known as one of the greatest players in the world , and most likely the best for a period before his death, how long it debatable,and most likely the best Dman but that point is extremely contentious.

Personally I really think that in any list there should be a separation of eras to some degree and the hockey being played in Hod's time was rule wise and even how the game was played entirely different than it has been for the most of my lifetime which is the last 45ish years.

Frankly to fairly compare Hod to current players isn't entirely fair IMO to anyone.

 

[Hardyvan123]

There's no rule that we can't use what has happened this year up to now. It did happen already after all. Even if you cut off Chara's career after the 2011 playoffs, I can't see how he hasn't passed Blake and especially Murphy by now.

IMO, Chara's closer to Jack Stewart and Scott Niedermayer than he is to Blake and Murphy by now. In fact, I'm seriously considering ranking Chara over Niedermayer at this point. I think Chara has already surpassed Niedermayer's regular season value by quite a bit. Niedermayer still has the playoffs advantage, but Chara closed a lot of that gap in 2011.

Thanks for the clarification on the 1st point, I was under a different impression but I'll take everything into consideration then even this season.

I think your 2nd point underscores how little there is to separate some of the guys available and maybe even some that aren't on the table yet.

 

[Epsilon]

I'm having a really hard time figuring out how to evaluate Larry Murphy's peak, especially in terms of the value of his Norris voting record. His 1992-93 season is clearly the most impressive from his context, where he's in the consensus top 3 and not far behind Bourque for 2nd after Chelios (and note that Murphy had more 1st place votes that year than Bourque). Is that year better value than Blake's Norris trophy season, or any of Chara's finishes? I'd be inclined to say yes.

His 4th place finish in 1993-94 looks good given that the only guys ahead of him are Coffey, Chelios, and Bourque, and that he's a clear 4th even given the constraints of that season's voting (the 5th and 6th place guys, Duchesne and Leetch, got no votes in the final round of voting, which suggests that Murphy didn't beat out a superior player from another conference due to the two-step voting system). Going back a year, his 1991-92 season looks good on paper and in the voting since he's right there with Scott Stevens for the final 2nd team all-star spot with a healthy number of votes. Well behind him in 6th place is Chris Chelios with only 4 total votes to Murphy's 19. So it looks like a legitimately strong top-5 finish (albeit one in a year where Phil Housley finished 3rd). It's hard to read a lot out of the results since Leetch so dominated the voting.

I'm not sure what to make of him getting a single 1st place vote and finishing 6th in 1997-98. Murphy looks like he's in the mix for the 5th-10th place positions with a bunch of guys after the clear top 3 (Blake, Lidstrom, Pronger) and Stevens in 4th. He finished with about the same number of votes as Bourque in 7th, although with a slightly different distribution that put him ahead. I'd say he can be comfortably called a top 10 defenseman for that season although any credit as a "3rd team all-star" or whatever might be pushing the limits of the meaningfulness for that designation. The 11th place finish in 1998-99 looks like an example of him getting lucky to get thrown a few high votes and finish in a mish-mash of players that put up okay numbers. When you finish behind Fredrick Olausson and an aging Phil Housley it doesn't say all that much.

Finally, going well back in time, we have his 3rd place finish in 1986-87. This was before my time so I can only draw inferences from the results. He's clearly in a "best-of-the-rest" situation given how Bourque dominated the voting and Mark Howe dominated the 2nd place voting. The guys he beat out for 3rd place include some big names (Robinson, Coffey, Stevens) but none of them had more than a smattering of the voting. It's interesting that in the years surrounding this one, until his peak with Pittsburgh in the early 1990s Murphy didn't pick up a single Norris vote of any kind (unless I'm mis-reading the results), not even a token 3rd place vote from a hometown writer or something. Was this year just a one-off fluke where he had a 20-point jump in scoring that got him noticed by the voters at the same time as a transition was taking place (from the Robinson/Potvin time period to the MacInnis/Stevens/Leetch time period)?

Sorry if this came off as overly critical of Murphy, which isn't necessarily my intention. I'm just finding it hard to put his record into context, especially against Niedermayer, Blake, and Chara (names that I think are going to populate the lower rungs of my list this time, which includes being left out of the top 10).

 

[Hardyvan123]

The Zdeno Chara paradox. - remove the system and supporting cast and what do you have? A big turnover machine with average skills - skating, passing, shooting - takes too long, that are enhanced by size and favourable rules.

Go back to the O6 era and the tall defensemen - Laperriere, Vasko, later Bill White were constrained by having to play with sticks that were too short for them - stick length was regulated, so they had to play somewhat hunched over. Today the sticks are longer so Chara can play fully balanced and extended.

Basically a talented Hal Gill.

Chara is much closer to Robinson and Pronger than Gill is to Chara among the big men being listed here.

Frankly Gill might make a top 600 Dman list of all time but to compare him to Chara is downright insulting if you think about it. really hard.