Round 2, Vote 8 (HOH Top Defensemen)

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Remaining defensemen with 3 First Team All-Stars

After Jack Stewart and Scott Niedermayer got voted in, there are only three of these guys left.

Ching Johnson - 1st Team (1928, 1932, 1933), 2nd Team (1931, 1934)
Babe Siebert - 1st Team (1936, 1937, 1938)
Butch Bouchard - 1st Team (1945, 1946, 1947), 2nd Team (1944)

I think it's still too early for Butch Bouchard - I think his awards are largely a product of World War 2.

Babe Siebert is not available to vote yet. I think he probably has the best peak as a defenseman of anyone remaining, but I understand why he's not available yet - before his late career peak as a defenseman, he spent the majority of his career as a forward. He'll probably be controversial when he appears.

Ching Johnson, however, has none of these concerns. His competition was fairly strong - Eddie Shore, King Clancy, Lionel Conacher, Sylvio Mantha, Lionel Hitchman, a few years of Sprague Cleghorn and Herb Gardiner. And as far as I know, he never played anything but D.

• Want to know why Clancy was only a 2nd Team All Star in 1932 and 1933? Because Ching Johnson beat him out. According to the thread on hfboards, the league wasn't doing the LD/RD divide these years, which would mean Johnson flat out beat Clancy.
• Eddie Shore was the other 1st Teamer all three seasons during which Ching was a 1st Teamer.
• Ching's 1932 seasons is particularly impressive - he had 1 fewer 1st place vote than Shore, but 2 more 2nd place votes. Ching also finished 2nd in Hart voting to Howie Morenz, despite only scoring 13 points, while his teammate Bill Cook finished 4th in overall scoring with 48 points. This might be the finest season from a defensive standpoint of anyone left.
• In 1931, the 1st Teamers were Shore and Clancy. Ching Johnson finished just a few votes behind Sylvio Mantha, as both got on the 2nd Team.
• In 1934, Johnson finished behind only King Clancy and Lionel Conacher's career season. Clancy had 21 1st place votes, 8 2nd place votes. Conacher had 20 1st place votes, 10 2nd place votes. Ching Johnson was right behind with 7 1st place votes and 20 2nd place votes. Eddie Shore, who missed significant time was 4th with 10 1st place and 8 2nd place botes.

Conclusion: Ching Johnson probably has the best NHL all-star record of anyone left (though Chara would tie him with a 1st Team this season).

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

By the way, if anyone still has lingering doubts about using 1928 as a 1st Team All Star for Ching Johnson, realize that we've known about the existence of these teams for awhile. George Hay's LOH bio mentions that he was selected All Star LW in 1927, and Roy Worter's hockey card apparently lists All Star teams for 4 straight years in the late 20s. It was only recently that we finally got a full one - unfortunately 1928 is the only full one we were able to find.

And the Hart voting backs up what the unofficial all star team said - Eddie Shore finished 1st in voting among D for both the Hart and the all-star team and Ching Johnson finished 2nd in voting for both in 1928.

I really want to get my hands on the unofficial 1930 All-Star Team. We have limited Hart data for that year (only 2 defensemen).

 

[seventieslord]

Remaining defensemen with 3 First Team All-Stars

After Jack Stewart and Scott Niedermayer got voted in, there are only three of these guys left.

Ching Johnson - 1st Team (1928, 1932, 1933), 2nd Team (1931, 1934)
Babe Siebert - 1st Team (1936, 1937, 1938)
Butch Bouchard - 1st Team (1945, 1946, 1947), 2nd Team (1944)

I think it's still too early for Butch Bouchard - I think his awards are largely a product of World War 2.

Babe Siebert is not available to vote yet. I think he probably has the best peak as a defenseman of anyone remaining, but I understand why he's not available yet - before his late career peak as a defenseman, he spent the majority of his career as a forward. He'll probably be controversial when he appears.

Ching Johnson, however, has none of these concerns. His competition was fairly strong - Eddie Shore, King Clancy, Lionel Conacher, Sylvio Mantha, Lionel Hitchman, a few years of Sprague Cleghorn and Herb Gardiner. And as far as I know, he never played D.

So he was like Bryan Berard?

By the way, if anyone still has lingering doubts about using 1928 as a 1st Team All Star for Ching Johnson...

At this point, you shouldn't have to be wasting your time talking about this.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

So he was like Bryan Berard.

Ha, oops. Edited the post.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Ching Johnson

Ivan "Ching" Johnson​

STYLE = HARD HITITNG, SHUTDOWN DEFENSEMAN

It was his physical play and his charismatic leadership that made Ching one of the most valuable rearguards of his time.

During his playing days, Johnson was considered one of the hardest bodycheckers ever to play the game. More significantly, he perfected the technique of nullifying the opposition by clutching and grabbing them as discreetly as possible - a pragmatic defensive strategy for the wily but slow-footed rearguard.

Things were a lot less PC in the 1920s....

First nicknamed "Ivan the Terrible", Johnson later earned the nickname "Ching" when fans of the defencemen would shout "Ching, Ching Chinaman" to support him.[5] Though he was of Irish descent, he was called "Chinaman", then "Chink" and finally "Ching" as he was considered to have an Asian looking face.[2] His physical style of defence made him immensely popular with fans, and he was often seen with a wide grin any time made or received contact during a game.[6]

CHING WAS A KEY PLAYER ON THE RANGERS' FIRST TWO CUP TEAMS

The burly Johnson spent 11 productive years with the Blueshirts and was part of the team's first two Stanley Cup triumphs in 1928 and 1933. Johnson and Abel's blanket defensive coverage was particularly evident during the 1928 finals against the Montreal Maroons, a low-scoring series in which the teams combined to score only 11 goals in five games.

Following the 1931-32 season, Johnson was runner-up to Canadiens superstar Howie Morenz in the voting for the Hart Trophy. The next year he and defense partner Earl Seibert aided the Rangers in their Stanley Cup victory over the Toronto Maple Leafs. Johnson played his hard-hitting game to perfection during the playoffs and scored the key first goal in the Blueshirts' 2-0 win over Detroit in game one of the semifinals. The Rangers sagged somewhat in the second match but held on for a 4-3 win. Johnson's supreme defensive work was considered to be the key factor in the club's not having to play a third and deciding contest. In the finals, the Rangers' speed was too much for the Maple Leafs. When Toronto did venture into New York territory, Johnson and Seibert controlled the play. Johnson would knock the Maple Leafs forwards off the puck, then send it over to his swifter partner to launch the next counterattack.

EARLY YEARS

Ching, like Lionel Conacher, got a late start to hockey. He was an accomplished football and lacrosse player as a youth, then spent 3 years fighting in the trenches in France for the Canadian Expeditionary Force during World War I. He came back to Winnipeg in 1919 and picked up hockey. After being named an All-Star at defense in the US Amateur Hockey Association in 1924 and 1926, the Rangers signed Ching as a free agent, and he quickly became a star.

• According to the NY Times (accessed via wikipedia), fans voted Ching Johnson the most valuable player for either of the two New York teams in 1927-28 (the year the NHL GMs selected him a 1st Team All Star on the unofficial team).

Game 1 of the 1928 finals:

The two Cooks, with their flashy style, and the crafty Frank Boucher, continue as prime favorites here. But Ching Johnson, 220 pounder on the Ranger defence, is still the local "hate." Johnson plays a clean, robust game. He received as many spills as he handed out last night, particularly when he ran into Dunc Munro and was crashed to the delight of Maroon devotees.

Game 2 of the 1928 finals:

Montreal fans still hold Ching Johnson, the big Ranger guard, as their chief "hate." But Johnson plays a game that is much more to the book than the cross-checking style of Taffy Abel, who has a hard time keeping his stick down to the proper level.

Game 3 of the 1928 finals:

Red Dutton took the final penalty of the match for chopping at Ching Johnson, Montreal fandom's chief "hate." Dutton objected to Johnson's ubiquitous elbows.
....
The crowd were shrieking for penalties against Ching Johnson, whose style of bringing up the elbow around the face practically every time he bodies an opponent was not to the liking of Maroon supporters.

It would appear that in the late 20s, hitting players with your stick was a penalty, but elbowing them in the face was not penalized.

Ching Johnson had an injury-plagued 1928-29, held out at the beginning of 29-30 and suffered more injuries that season. So I doubt we are missing out of all-star recognition for him either of those years. By 1930-31, he was back in form, finishing a 2nd Team All Star:

Ching Johnson is probably the most talked of player in hockey. He is a veritable dynamo on the ice, carries more scars than the average and is always tearing in for more.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=RKtlAAAAIBAJ&sjid=xIgNAAAAIBAJ&pg=1663,152122&&hl=en

CHING JOHNSON’S 1931-32 SEASON WAS EXTREMELY IMPRESSIVE

Ching finished 2nd in Hart voting, only 1 point behind Howie Morenz. http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=DG8vAAAAIBAJ&sjid=NdsFAAAAIBAJ&pg=5504,3568097

Ching received more total votes for the all-star team than any other player at any position:

Massive framed Ching Johnson, who took up hockey as an after-thought, stands out today as the most highly-regarded player in the National Hockey League. In qualifying for a defense position on the Canadian Press All-Star Team, the big guard of the New York Rangers was named oftener on the sports writers' ballots than any other player.
...
Johnson was a football and lacrosse player when he went to France a decade and a half ago, but when he returned from overseas, he sought a thrill in hockey.
...
His chance in the "big time" came with the Rangers in 1926 and he has been a mainstay of the blueshirt defense ever since. He has been a pillar of strength to Lester Patrick's crew in five National league eliminations.

Good-natured Ching is one of the most battle-scarred hockeyists. Seldom does he take advantage of his weight and gigantic strength but he plays with all his fighting hart and seldom comes out of a game without a cut, bruise, or fracture.

The article then talks about how "extreme bad" luck plagued Johnson in 1929 and 1930, due to injuries.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...AAAIBAJ&pg=2016,256081&dq=ching+johnson&hl=en

Bolded quote sounds extremely impressive, but I think it is probably referring to the fact that he got more votes for the All-Star Team than any other player at any position. Shows how seriously the hockey media took the All-Star Teams though.

PRAISE FROM CONTEMPORARIES:

The following three quotes were all used during Vote 1 to show that Eddie Shore was not the best defensive defenseman of his era:

Well, I just came across Mackenzie's defenseman article, and this is what he had to say (interestingly, he notes that it's very difficult to compare players from before the forward pass to after it because of the big changes in style of play):

- Eddie Shore and Sprague Cleghorn are the best all around defensemen he has seen. Both were steady blockers, better than average pasers and goal scoring threats every second they were on the ice. He goes on to talk about their glaring weakness as being penalty prone and how it has cost their teams games in the past. He also groups Eddie Gerard with these two, but as a cleaner version of them.

- He calls Hitchman and Ching Johnson the best defensive defensemen of his day. Nels Stewart on Hitchman: "I'd rather carry a puck through a picket fence than try to get past Hitchman". He says that "Johnson broke every rule in the book, using his tremendous strength to hold, maul, and smear up opposing plays." and that he always got away with it. He goes on to say that he never took advantage of his strength in a mean way but "if he did not break every hockey law he at least bent them all considerably".

Eddie Shore was not even regarded as the best defensive player of his era. Although he was known as a good offensive player, even during his absolute peak (1933), contemporaries thought that there were several other defensemen in the league who were superior defensively (ie King Clancy, Lionel Hitchman, Ching Johnson). Source: Globe & Mail, April 20, 1933

No, I wouldn't say so. Hitchman is harder to get by. Shore is a rusher. But for tackling you when you come in and blocking you away from that net, Hitchman is tougher. Not that Shore is easy, you know. No, sir. But fellows like Shore and Clancy catch the eye of the spectator when they buzz up and down the rink, while fellows like Hitchman and Sylvio Mantha can do great defensive work without attracting half as much notice.

All three sources mention Lionel Hitchman by name. However, note that that he was Shore's stay-at-home partner, so he'd be the first one anyone would think of when comparing Shore to anyone. Sylvio Mantha and King Clancy get mentioned positively once each, while Ching Johnson is mentioned by name by the first two sources. Indeed, the only one who doesn't mention Ching Johnson by name is Frank Boucher, who was specifically asked who was the hardest to slip by - Ching was Boucher's teammate, so of course he wasn't trying to slip by Ching. In fact, in 1962 a 60 year old Frank Boucher gave his "all-time" team of players he played with or against and listed his former teammate:

Boucher tapped for his all-time, all-star team goalie Chuck Gardiner of the Chicago Black Hawks, defensemen Eddie Shore of the Boston Bruins and Ching Johnson of the Rangers, center Frank Nighbor of Ottawa, left winger Aurel Joliat of the Montreal Canadiens and right wing Bill Cook.

I think it's safe to say that there wasn't anyone better in his own zone than Ching Johnson during this era.

(Credit to nik jr for the quotes from the 1928 finals)

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Ching Johnson vs Lionel Conacher

Ching played from 1926-27 to 1937-38. Conacher played from 1925-26 to 1936-37. These are as close to contemporaries as you can find in this project.

Official All Star Teams = Advantage Johnson

Johnson = First Team (1932, 1933), Second Team (1931, 1934)
Conacher = First Team (1934), Second Team (1933, 1937)

All Star Teams including Unofficial and Reconstructed before 1931 = Advantage Johnson

Johnson = First Team (1928, 1932, 1933), Second Team (1931, 1934)
Conacher = First Team (1934), Second Team (1926, 1929, 1933, 1937)

1928 is the only full Unofficial All Star Team we have. Conacher's 1926 and 1929 nods are rough estimates based off Hart data. But he finished far enough behind the leaders every season where I think it's unlikely he would have picked up any additional 1st Team nods.

Offense = Advantage Conacher

Conacher was clearly the third best offensive defenseman of his era, showed last round. Ching Johnson had a great season offensively in 1928, but by the early 30s had become more of a pure defensive guy.

Defense = Advantage Johnson

See the quotes posted above. When contemporaries talked about defensemen better defensively than Shore, Ching Johnson's name appeared prominently. Conacher's did not.

Also, Ching was one voting point away from winning the 1934 Hart trophy, despite having a teammate (Bill Cook) finished 4th in overall scoring in the NHL. And it's safe to say that Ching's 13 points were not what almost won him the Hart Trophy.

Hall of Fame consideration = Advantage Johnson

Johnson was inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame in 1958. He was one of the first 46 players inducted into the Hall, which doesn't sound that impressive until you realize that most of the early inductees were early era players. These are the first post-consolidation players to be inducted:

1945: Charlie Gardiner, Howie Morenz
1947: Dit Clapper, Aurele Joliat, Eddie Shore
1950: none
1952: Bill Cook
1958: Frank Boucher, King Clancy, Alec Connell, Red Dutton, Herb Gardiner, George Hay, Ching Johnson

Ching was one of the first 13 inductees into the Hall who peaked after the 1926 consolidation.

Depending on what you think of the HHOF Committee, this may or may not be important to you. (It should be noted that defenseman Red Dutton did not exactly get a lot of consideration for this project).

Conclusion: Lionel Conacher put up much better offensive numbers than Ching Johnson, but people who saw them play seem to have regarded Johnson more highly as a hockey player. Lionel Conacher was added to our list last round; Ching Johnson deserves to quickly follow him and be added this round.

 

[MXD]

Rob Blake
Emile "Butch" Bouchard
Georges "Buck" Boucher
Carl Brewer
Zdeno Chara
Ebbie Goodfellow
Ernest "Moose" Johnson
Ivan "Ching" Johnson
Tom Johnson
Alexei Kasatonov
Jacques Laperriere
Larry Murphy
Hod Stuart
Jan Suchy
J.C. Tremblay

Please note that you are voting for your top 10 of the 15 available candidates.

Personnal notes on the new crop :

Hod Stuart was the best player not up yet for voting on my list since... A LONG time. Basically, since Mark Howe was made available. The only player left at this point with a claim at being the best player - not only D-Men, but player as well - in the world at a given point.

I had Boucher quite high as well (Top-30, but quite a few ranks below Stuart). Boucher's candidature had two flaws that I haven't though of, however : played some forward, and his game just doesn't translate well in every era. Not sure he was "bad" defensively -- he still had something of a career when his numbers dropped -- but he wasn't, say, Ching Johnson.

Ching? Well, the best case for him is probably competition -- the guy had to go against Shore and Clancy (though Clancy was getting older, but still), plus Conacher. Good longevity as well, though I wouldn't necessarily qualify his longevity as elite, but he remained a key player for a while. Downside? His game don't translate that well in every era (as far as peak is concerned), but he doesn't scream "wouldn't have a place in the NHL" either. Actually, it's his eliteness and very good-ness that wouldn't necessarily translate. I ranked him below Lionel Conacher in my original list, and frankly, I'm not sure I did the right thing there.

Moose? Solid record and longevity. Star in the West. However, I think it's important to remember that he didn't play D until 11-12 (or 10-11 or 12-13?)...? Whatever -- his 11-goal performance during the SC finals didn't come as a D-Men. I see him as the ultimate borderline candidate in this round (but had play D for his 10 first seasons, he would probably have been a lock for first or second place... or more likely, would already have been in). His longevity is absolutely ridiculous : in a time were careers were notoriously short, he basically pulled a Chelios and retired at 40-something, though his last season in a top-league came at 36, which was... rather old (Pitre played until 39, but he was a freak who drank champagne between periods, and had to be moved to D later on, while Moose was already playing D).

Tom? A bit similar to his former partner Jacques Laperriere, really. The advantage Laperriere had in size and safeness, Johnson had it in general toughness and badassery. A bit similar to Butch Bouchard, in that, except for one year (I reckon it's 2 or 3 for Bouchard), played the bulk of his career as a no. 2 D-Men. Came up for voting at the right time, but he's far from a lock in my Top-10 and won't make the Top-5.

Suchy? Awesome player... for a while. Had decent competition on the international stage (Svedberg and Ragulin -- while not in yet, they're certainly candidates to make it at some point). His game would probably translate extremely well to every era, and that's probably his biggest plus. Flipside? Not only an extremely short peak, but also an extremely short part of his career where we could say that he played at a decent level. Certainly compares disadvantageously to Kasatonov (better, longer, competition) and, by extension, to Stuart (Stuart was the best hockey player on the planet, and it's safe to say Suchy was never such at any point during his career... even though both guys played in an era where competition was considered shoddy).

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Personnal notes on the new crop :

Hod Stuart was the best player not up yet for voting on my list since... A LONG time. Basically, since Mark Howe was made available. The only player left at this point with a claim at being the best player - not only D-Men, but player as well - in the world at a given point.

I think I listed Stuart right behind Leetch/Gadsby/Salming when I put together my Round 1 list. I do understand why other people wouldn't have him that high though - the level of hockey before World War I was definitely less than it would later be. Most of the earlier arguments against Cleghorn's competition that I disagreed with actually are true about Stuart's competition. That said, Hod's definitely in the running for me this round (though after seeing just how good Ching was in 1931-32, he's looking awfully tempting for #1 this round).

Ching? Well, the best case for him is probably competition -- the guy had to go against Shore and Clancy (though Clancy was getting older, but still), plus Conacher. Good longevity as well, though I wouldn't necessarily qualify his longevity as elite, but he remained a key player for a while. Downside? His game don't translate that well in every era (as far as peak is concerned), but he doesn't scream "wouldn't have a place in the NHL" either. Actually, it's his eliteness and very good-ness that wouldn't necessarily translate. I ranked him below Lionel Conacher in my original list, and frankly, I'm not sure I did the right thing there.

I used to buy the argument that gigantic but slowish defensive defensemen couldn't necessarily dominate in every era, but I think that ship has sailed. If Zdeno Chara can dominate defensively in the post-lockout era where speed is king, why couldn't Ching Johnson? Chara was smart and adapted his game to the new rules. Ching was also a smart player - notice all the references to how he bent all the rules just as much as he could get away with. Was Rod Langway that fast?

Moose? Solid record and longevity. Star in the West. However, I think it's important to remember that he didn't play D until 11-12 (or 10-11 or 12-13?)...? Whatever -- his 11-goal performance during the SC finals didn't come as a D-Men. I see him as the ultimate borderline candidate in this round (but had play D for his 10 first seasons, he would probably have been a lock for first or second place... or more likely, would already have been in). His longevity is absolutely ridiculous : in a time were careers were notoriously short, he basically pulled a Chelios and retired at 40-something, though his last season in a top-league came at 36, which was... rather old (Pitre played until 39, but he was a freak who drank champagne between periods, and had to be moved to D later on, while Moose was already playing D).

Hmmm, does anyone have a full listing of when Moose starting playing D? He's a strange one - high scoring forward becomes a pure shutdown defenseman - usually the coverted forwards became more two-way defensemen.

Suchy? Awesome player... for a while. Had decent competition on the international stage (Svedberg and Ragulin -- while not in yet, they're certainly candidates to make it at some point). His game would probably translate extremely well to every era, and that's probably his biggest plus. Flipside? Not only an extremely short peak, but also an extremely short part of his career where we could say that he played at a decent level. Certainly compares disadvantageously to Kasatonov (better, longer, competition) and, by extension, to Stuart (Stuart was the best hockey player on the planet, and it's safe to say Suchy was never such at any point during his career... even though both guys played in an era where competition was considered shoddy).

Yeah, Suchy's short time on top is the biggest negative for him IMO. If he even had 6 years on top, I'd probably consider him about on part with Hod Stuart. But he didn't. I remember Sturminator posted awhile back that after Suchy got out of prison, he returned to hockey and actually put up great stats but didn't get any kind of awards recognition. Sturm argued it probably had little to do with Suchy's quality as a player, but was because nobody wanted to vote for someone who almost killed a family by driving drunk. I'll try to dig up the post later (the missing search function will make it more difficult).

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Ching Johnson vs Lionel Conacher

Ching played from 1926-27 to 1937-38. Conacher played from 1925-26 to 1936-37. These are as close to contemporaries as you can find in this project.

Official All Star Teams = Advantage Johnson

Johnson = First Team (1932, 1933), Second Team (1931, 1934)
Conacher = First Team (1934), Second Team (1933, 1937)

All Star Teams including Unofficial and Reconstructed before 1931 = Advantage Johnson

Johnson = First Team (1928, 1932, 1933), Second Team (1931, 1934)
Conacher = First Team (1934), Second Team (1926, 1929, 1933, 1937)

1928 is the only full Unofficial All Star Team we have. Conacher's 1926 and 1929 nods are rough estimates based off Hart data. But he finished far enough behind the leaders every season where I think it's unlikely he would have picked up any additional 1st Team nods.

Offense = Advantage Conacher

Conacher was clearly the third best offensive defenseman of his era, showed last round. Ching Johnson had a great season offensively in 1928, but by the early 30s had become more of a pure defensive guy.

Defense = Advantage Johnson

See the quotes posted above. When contemporaries talked about defensemen better defensively than Shore, Ching Johnson's name appeared prominently. Conacher's did not.

Also, Ching was one voting point away from winning the 1934 Hart trophy, despite having a teammate (Bill Cook) finished 4th in overall scoring in the NHL. And it's safe to say that Ching's 13 points were not what almost won him the Hart Trophy.

Hall of Fame consideration = Advantage Johnson

Johnson was inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame in 1958. He was one of the first 46 players inducted into the Hall, which doesn't sound that impressive until you realize that most of the early inductees were early era players. These are the first post-consolidation players to be inducted:

1945: Charlie Gardiner, Howie Morenz
1947: Dit Clapper, Aurele Joliat, Eddie Shore
1950: none
1952: Bill Cook
1958: Frank Boucher, King Clancy, Alec Connell, Red Dutton, Herb Gardiner, George Hay, Ching Johnson

Ching was one of the first 13 inductees into the Hall who peaked after the 1926 consolidation.

Depending on what you think of the HHOF Committee, this may or may not be important to you. (It should be noted that defenseman Red Dutton did not exactly get a lot of consideration for this project).

Conclusion: Lionel Conacher put up much better offensive numbers than Ching Johnson, but people who saw them play seem to have regarded Johnson more highly as a hockey player. Lionel Conacher was added to our list last round; Ching Johnson deserves to quickly follow him and be added this round.

Forgot one advantage other than offense that Conacher had over Johnson - Hart voting. He was was 2nd twice. Johnson was 2nd once and 5th once. There is a caveat though - Johnson played on the same team as Bill Cook and Frank Boucher (both arguably top 50 all-time players), so it would have been harder for him to be "most valuable" to the extent the Hart trophy measures that. Indeed, one of the times Conacher finished runner up for the Hart, he was only a 2nd Team All Star. (Also, for what it's worth, Johnson's 2nd place finish in Hart voting was closer than either of Conacher's).

My conclusion would be the same either way - Ching Johnson should quickly follow Lionel Conacher and be voted in this round.

 

[seventieslord]

I'm voting a couple of big Johnsons #1 and 2 this round, I'm pretty sure.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Is it just me or does a guy ahve to be an absolute superstar for a decade to make the top 35 on this list?

For all the talk about earlier guys getting "punished" isn't the same true for more recent guys like Chara?

Maybe Stuart belongs on the top 60 list, maybe he doesn't but being the "best player in the world" in the 1st decade of the century when hockey was at its infancy and maybe several thousand people played it in the world period is a bit of a stretch over a guy like Chara who was the best Dman in the world with a heck of a lot more competition as well.

I can honestly see some guys putting him 1st this round and other leaving him out altogether. He might make my top 10 but top 5 is extremely doubt full given the total picture of his career.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Is it just me or does a guy ahve to be an absolute superstar for a decade to make the top 35 on this list?
For all the talk about earlier guys getting "punished" isn't the same true for more recent guys like Chara?

Maybe Stuart belongs on the top 60 list, maybe he doesn't but being the "best player in the world" in the 1st decade of the century when hockey was at its infancy and maybe several thousand people played it in the world period is a bit of a stretch over a guy like Chara who was the best Dman in the world with a heck of a lot more competition as well.

I can honestly see some guys putting him 1st this round and other leaving him out altogether. He might make my top 10 but top 5 is extremely doubt full given the total picture of his career.

The guy that's number 1 on this list wasn't even that.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Competive hockey was around since at least the 1880s and the Stanley Cup was first awarded in 1893. So the sport wasn't THAT undeveloped when Stuart played (1902 to 1907).

I'm seeing Ching Johnson as the cream of the crop here when it comes to NHL players, with Chara, Tremblay and Laperriere right behind. I'd love to get the pair of 60s Canadiens in, but it might be tough with so many deserving non-NHL stars (Moose Johnson, Kasatonov, probably Hod Stuart).

I can't wait for overpass to post his stats, I'm predicting that Chara will look obscenely good compared to the rest of the post-expansion NHLers available.

 

[MXD]

From TDDM

I used to buy the argument that gigantic but slowish defensive defensemen couldn't necessarily dominate in every era, but I think that ship has sailed. If Zdeno Chara can dominate defensively in the post-lockout era where speed is king, why couldn't Ching Johnson? Chara was smart and adapted his game to the new rules. Ching was also a smart player - notice all the references to how he bent all the rules just as much as he could get away with. Was Rod Langway that fast?

Answering this :

Ching? Well, the best case for him is probably competition -- the guy had to go against Shore and Clancy (though Clancy was getting older, but still), plus Conacher. Good longevity as well, though I wouldn't necessarily qualify his longevity as elite, but he remained a key player for a while. Downside? His game don't translate that well in every era (as far as peak is concerned), but he doesn't scream "wouldn't have a place in the NHL" either. Actually, it's his eliteness and very good-ness that wouldn't necessarily translate. I ranked him below Lionel Conacher in my original list, and frankly, I'm not sure I did the right thing there.

Chara, Langway had some qualities that Johnson just didn't had (mainly, a shot for Chara, and while Langway wasn't that quick, he was probably relatively quicker than Johnson relative to their competition, and Langway's eliteness is very tied to context he played in as well. Chara also had an comparative range advantage on Johnson (...Ching) which really helps him. Fun to note that while C. Johnson is oft-considered a big player, he played quite a few seasons with partners who were bigger and taller than he was (Abel, Seibert, and probably Jerwa)

Again, not saying Johnson would be a 7th D, but I just don't think he be the 3rd best D-Men in a league made with, say, Bourque and McInnis with Lidstrom and Stevens on the flanks. Of course, it doesn't take away what he did, and that I do think he had a better career in an all-time perspective than, say, Larry Murphy.

 

[overpass]

Note: None of the five new players up for voting have played in the post-expansion NHL. I have removed those players who were added to the list in the last round, and have not changed my commentary on available players.

I have added a new table - Peak stats, to reflect the fact that Blake and Murphy had identifiable 4-5 year peaks, and to compare their numbers to Chara over their best ~600 games and best ~300 games, so it's an apples to apples comparison.

I have also run Chara's 2011-12 numbers and added them in. Through 38 Boston games and 36 GP by Chara.

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+
Jacques Laperriere | 1968 | 1973 | 435 | 47% | 1.53 | 1.31 | 26 | 9 | 35% | 1.22 | 73% | 0.84
J.C. Tremblay | 1968 | 1972 | 358 | 45% | 1.37 | 1.33 | 32 | 22 | 69% | 1.31 | 64% | 0.85
Larry Murphy | 1981 | 2001 | 1615 | 39% | 1.20 | 1.02 | 34 | 25 | 65% | 1.05 | 32% | 0.92
Rob Blake | 1990 | 2010 | 1270 | 37% | 1.03 | 1.03 | 30 | 26 | 66% | 1.04 | 50% | 1.00
Zdeno Chara | 1998 | 2012 | 964 | 40% | 1.20 | 1.06 | 25 | 18 | 42% | 1.06 | 53% | 0.94

Prime Stats

Player | Start | End | GP | EV% | R-ON | R-OFF | $ESP | $PPP | PP% | TmPP+ | SH% | TmSH+
Jacques Laperriere | 1968 | 1973 | 393 | 47% | 1.56 | 1.31 | 26 | 9 | 36% | 1.23 | 75% | 0.83
J.C. Tremblay | 1968 | 1972 | 358 | 45% | 1.37 | 1.33 | 32 | 22 | 69% | 1.31 | 64% | 0.85
Larry Murphy | 1987 | 1995 | 687 | 42% | 1.26 | 1.02 | 37 | 27 | 74% | 1.03 | 29% | 0.94
Rob Blake | 1998 | 2004| 515 | 41% | 1.18 | 1.14 | 37 | 31 | 78% | 1.04 | 52% | 1.01
Zdeno Chara | 2003 | 2012 | 658 | 41% | 1.42 | 1.16 | 30 | 25 | 60% | 1.06 | 54% | 0.89

Peak Stats

Player | Start | End | GP | EV% | R-ON | R-OFF | $ESP | $PPP | PP% | TmPP+ | SH% | TmSH+
Jacques Laperriere | 1968 | 1973 | 393 | 47% | 1.56 | 1.31 | 26 | 9 | 36% | 1.23 | 75% | 0.83
J.C. Tremblay | 1968 | 1972 | 358 | 45% | 1.37 | 1.33 | 32 | 22 | 69% | 1.31 | 64% | 0.85
Larry Murphy | 1992 | 1995 | 292 | 45% | 1.38 | 1.05 | 45 | 28 | 80% | 1.11 | 45% | 0.94
Rob Blake | 1998 | 2002| 362 | 43% | 1.11 | 1.08 | 40 | 32 | 79% | 0.99 | 54% | 0.99
Zdeno Chara | 2008 | 2012 | 354 | 41% | 1.50 | 1.13 | 32 | 29 | 67% | 1.04 | 53% | 0.86

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?

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. EV% tended to be higher pre-1980, when teams went to 6 defencemen.

Jacques Laperriere and Jean-Claude Tremblay both starred before the NHL expanded in 1967-68, so these numbers don't capture their full careers or primes.

Based on what we have, Laperriere's numbers were slightly better than Tremblay's at even strength. Much of that comes from his 1972-73 season, when he posted a +78. (I assume he played with Savard, who was +70.) Both Laperriere and Tremblay played on the penalty kill, but Laperriere played more. In fact, Laperriere played a ton on the penalty kill. Keep in mind that was a little more common in the 1970s as compared to 1980 or later.

On the power play, Laperriere was on the second unit, and Tremblay played on the first unit and was more effective.

Tremblay broke out offensively in 1970-71 at age 32. The progression of his power play numbers are interesting.

Year|PPP
1960-61 | 1
1961-62 | 1
1962-63 | 1
1963-64 | 3
1964-65 | 4
1965-66 | 10
1966-67 | 15
1967-68 | 12
1968-69 | 10
1969-70 | 12
1970-71 | 33
1971-72 | 28

He didn't play big minutes on the power play until 1970-71. And what happened when he finally did? Montreal went 24.8% and 27.1% on the power play in those seasons.

Season | Tremblay PPP | Montreal PP
1968-69 | 10 | 17.7%
1969-70 | 12 | 20.3%
1970-71 | 33 | 24.8%
1971-72 | 28 | 27.1%
1972-73 | 0 | 21.8%
1973-74 | 0 | 20.1%

Since I've done all this analysis on Tremblay's power play performance, I should also note that Montreal's penalty kill really dropped off in performance during Laperriere's injury-plagued final season, and also the following season after he retired.

Larry Murphy was a good to very good defenceman for a very long time.

I've used his four years in Pittsburgh as his prime, because he played his biggest minutes there, on the first unit penalty kill and at even strength, and scored the most points there. Could be a combination of team situation and peak performance. But he was a star defender outside of those years too - picked for Canada Cups, all-star games, etc.

Murphy was typically a first-unit power play defenceman, but not a top-tier power play quarterback in usage or production. He played on the second unit penalty kill, or not on the PK at all. His plus-minus numbers relative to team were consistently good over his career. But it doesn't look like he was playing big minutes, and I suspect he wasn't playing the toughest minutes either. The exception would be with Detroit, when he was paired with Nicklas Lidstrom at the end of his career.

Rob Blake was a #1 defenceman for most of his long career. He was strong both offensively and defensively.

Blake's plus-minus numbers are unimpressive. There were mitigating circumstances, as he spent most of his career playing against the other team's top lines. But part of it was probably because his strengths lay in the offensive and defensive zones, not in transition.

On the power play, he was more of a shooter than a playmaker, scoring a lot of power play goals over his career. He was also a strong contributor on the penalty kill, putting his strength, physicality, and defensive skills to good use.

Zdeno Chara had a unique development path. He started off as a big slug on the bottom pairing of a terrible team. After a couple of years, he developed into a good penalty killer and defender who could use his size, but with no offensive touch. After being traded to the Senators, he quickly became a top-pairing defenceman, developed his offensive game, and became one of the best shutdown defenceman in the league. And after going to Boston, he became a Norris trophy winner, perennial contender, captain of a Cup-winning team, and is currently arguably the best defenceman in the league.

Over the last decade, he has consistently played the toughest minutes on his teams at even strength, against top lines and starting in the defensive zone a lot. His teams still come out ahead in those situations, as his plus-minus numbers have been very good.

He has been a solid contributor on the power play, whether using his shot from the point or his size in front of the net. But, as Boston fans have seen, he is not an offensive catalyst or quarterback on the PP, more of a supporting piece.

He has been among the best penalty killers in the league, playing big minutes on consistently strong units.

 

[overpass]

In 1925, MacLean's magazine in Canada published an "All-Star, All-Time, Canadian Hockey Team" which "represents the opinions of sporting editors and other critics throughout the Dominion."

The list is summarized here. Of interest to our project are the results at the defence position.

First team: Sprague Cleghorn, Hod Stuart
Second team: Eddie Gerard, George Boucher
Third team: Joe Simpson, Lester Patrick and Art Ross (tie)

Moose Johnson was not listed. Although the newspaper article I linked, a Regina newspaper, noted that few Western stars were represented, so it's possible that Johnson and his fellow Westerners were not given their due.

We can see that Hod Stuart was well remembered. He was also part of the inaugural HHOF class of 1945.

It's worth considering that Stuart's high ranking may have been in part because of the practice of the time of remembering the dead ahead of the living. (This is the opposite of what we see today - remember the campaign to induct Pat Burns before he passed away.) Every member of the HHOF class of 1945 was deceased. Scotty Davidson, along with Stuart, was named to the first team in Maclean's 1925 piece. Davidson was a star player for only a few years before he volunteered to fight in Europe and died in action at age 23. At the very least it seems that the people involved in making the 1925 list were more focused on peak quality than career value.

George Boucher was at or just past his peak in 1925. He was beginning to have knee/leg troubles and slow down a bit, but his peak season of 1923-24 was still fresh in everyone's mind. And evidently he was highly regarded.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Maybe Stuart belongs on the top 60 list, maybe he doesn't but being the "best player in the world" in the 1st decade of the century when hockey was at its infancy and maybe several thousand people played it in the world period is a bit of a stretch over a guy like Chara who was the best Dman in the world with a heck of a lot more competition as well.

This is where I like to ask the question: how good would a player from that era have to be, to make your cut? I mean, Stuart was arguably the best hockey player from a cohort of at least 20 years. What more could he have done? Was he lacking something specific and achievable?

I asked this question about Bouchard yesterday and am coming to the conclusion that he would have needed to be a clear-cut voting leader and statistically much more important to his team. It's not just that the era was weak, but that his performance didn't truly distinguish him within that weak era.

I can honestly see some guys putting him 1st this round and other leaving him out altogether. He might make my top 10 but top 5 is extremely doubt full given the total picture of his career.

What do you mean by "total picture"? The competition angle or something else?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Lester Patrick, who helped found the PCHA and competed as a player there, must have been very familier with Moose Johnson, the star PCHA defenseman. He appeared to prefer Hod Stuart too.

In a 1925 article Patrick was asked to select his all-time all-star team. Here's what he said:

"My opinion is based on consistency of players over a period of years, and the fact that men selected possessed nearly all the fundamentals of an ideal player - physique, stamina, courage, speed, stick-handling, goal-getting ability, skill in passing, proper temperament and, above all, hockey brains."

Patrick selected Hughie Lehman in goal, Sprague Cleghorn and Hod Stuart on defence, and up front he chose Tom Phillips, Arthur Farrell and Fred "Cyclone" Taylor.

One major caveat: As Patrick admits, he places a high value on "hockey brains." One of his three forwards was Arthur Farrell, as well (better?) known for writing what I think was the first popular book on hockey strategy as he was for what he did on the ice.

(And once again note that Patrick apparently preferred Stuart to Gerard too. But like overpass says, it's hard to tell how much of that is nostalgia for the player who died in the middle of his prime).

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

This is where I like to ask the question: how good would a player from that era have to be, to make your cut? I mean, Stuart was arguably the best hockey player from a cohort of at least 20 years. What more could he have done? Was he lacking something specific and achievable?

I have read a lot of articles from the period over the past year, and you can find references to four players being called the "best player in the world." Frank McGee, the all-round center for the Ottawa Silver Seven. Tommy Phillips, the lightning-fast two-way left wing who played in western Ontario. Russell Bowie, the amateur rover/center who was the best goal scorer of the era. And Hod Stuart, the all-round defenseman.

So when you say Stuart was arguably the best player in the world, you are really saying he was one of the best 4 overall players in the world in an era where there wasn't much depth of talent.

That said, Stuart was clearly the best offensive defenseman of his era, and great defensively as well (Ultimate Hockey called him both the best offensive defenseman and the best defensive defenseman of the decade, and while I find that book a highly questionable source, Stuart's defensive acumen is backed up by first hand newspaper reports).

Here's Dreakmur's profile of Hod Stuart: http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=30991681&postcount=61. It contains some fluff as do most ATD profiles (Hod's bother Bruce thought Hod was the best player in the world... yeah, unbiased source there). But the newspaper clippings in the second half of the profile give a great account of his style of play and how highly regarded he was. My favorite is definitely this one from 1905: "Hod Stuart has been barred from the International Hockey League, the western contingent claiming he won too many championships and that he is too rough. He is one of the best hockey players on this continent."

 

[Pear Juice]

This has gotten blown out of proportion. It's not like Svedberg refused the award, he was just an extremely humble person. If you read interviews with him he always finds a way to credit the team even if it's obvious from the scoresheet that he did all the work.

Considering the great reputation Svedberg got from his performances in the WCs I see no reason to doubt that he actually was the best defenceman when he got the award.

I'd say this is a correct description of what happened. Svedberg won the award and that's that. He was a very humble and kind person, but Svedberg very likely was the better hockey player in that tournament. Suchy ended up 2nd, which isn't all too shoddy considering Svedberg played the hockey of his life in that tournament.

 

[Hardyvan123]

This is where I like to ask the question: how good would a player from that era have to be, to make your cut? I mean, Stuart was arguably the best hockey player from a cohort of at least 20 years. What more could he have done? Was he lacking something specific and achievable?

I asked this question about Bouchard yesterday and am coming to the conclusion that he would have needed to be a clear-cut voting leader and statistically much more important to his team. It's not just that the era was weak, but that his performance didn't truly distinguish him within that weak era.



What do you mean by "total picture"? The competition angle or something else?

I think we have to take into account the infancy of the game of hockey in the early part of the century in which Stuart played. I'm reading up on him as much as possible but even the accounts of him being the best player in the world, do we have an accurate timeframe for that? Quotes like that were often thrown around and we can't take them with the exact same meaning as say today when there are many more players and countires playing hockey at an extremely high level.

No doubt it's a balancing, act but to take "the best player in the world " label from that time and attribute it to today when a guy like Chara wasn't that is unfair to the latter day player as his bar has been raised sinificantly.

I'm not sure how other voters are treating Hod but for a guy who played till he was 27 or 28 (off the top of my head) in the first decade of the 20th century is going to be hard to comapre to a guy playing in the same decade in the 21st century.

Nevermind the level of competiton but the way the game was played was entirely different than it later became.

At the end of the day context is extremely important to evalute these players in a fair manner.

Whcih reminds me how much did Suchy play with offensive hitting on the interantional stage, did his play change before and after, and what were the exact rules in the tournaments and leagues he played in?

His size 5'8" 170 lbs also would have been a problem translating to the NHL game as well I would think.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I have read a lot of articles from the period over the past year, and you can find references to four players being called the "best player in the world." Frank McGee, the all-round center for the Ottawa Silver Seven. Tommy Phillips, the lightning-fast two-way left wing who played in western Ontario. Russell Bowie, the amateur rover/center who was the best goal scorer of the era. And Hod Stuart, the all-round defenseman.

Along these lines, this article from 1912 specifically addresses the issue of "greatest player ever" and names half a dozen candidates including Stuart, who is the only defenseman mentioned. You've probably already read it, but it's worthy anyone's time who is interested in the question of just how good Stuart was relative to the other turn-of-the-century players.

I think we have to take into account the infancy of the game of hockey in the early part of the century in which Stuart played. I'm reading up on him as much as possible but even the accounts of him being the best player in the world, do we have an accurate timeframe for that? Quotes like that were often thrown around and we can't take them with the exact same meaning as say today when there are many more players and countires playing hockey at an extremely high level.

No doubt it's a balancing, act but to take "the best player in the world " label from that time and attribute it to today when a guy like Chara wasn't that is unfair to the latter day player as his bar has been raised sinificantly.

You have a good point here and I would love to get a good handle on this before it comes time to vote. Clearly the level of historical awareness is different today than it was in 1912. That makes it awfully tough to take labels and reputations at face value.

That said, I think it's significant that both contemporary sources AND the reviews of later decades often called Hod the best hockey player of all time. It would be much different if the label changed over time, but it would seem that credible sources recognized him as special at the time he played and many held that opinion as they saw Malone, Morenz and Shore cycle through the league.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Note: None of the five new players up for voting have played in the post-expansion NHL. I have removed those players who were added to the list in the last round, and have not changed my commentary on available players.

I have added a new table - Peak stats, to reflect the fact that Blake and Murphy had identifiable 4-5 year peaks, and to compare their numbers to Chara over their best ~600 games and best ~300 games, so it's an apples to apples comparison.

I have also run Chara's 2011-12 numbers and added them in. Through 38 Boston games and 36 GP by Chara.

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+
Jacques Laperriere | 1968 | 1973 | 435 | 47% | 1.53 | 1.31 | 26 | 9 | 35% | 1.22 | 73% | 0.84
J.C. Tremblay | 1968 | 1972 | 358 | 45% | 1.37 | 1.33 | 32 | 22 | 69% | 1.31 | 64% | 0.85
Larry Murphy | 1981 | 2001 | 1615 | 39% | 1.20 | 1.02 | 34 | 25 | 65% | 1.05 | 32% | 0.92
Rob Blake | 1990 | 2010 | 1270 | 37% | 1.03 | 1.03 | 30 | 26 | 66% | 1.04 | 50% | 1.00
Zdeno Chara | 1998 | 2012 | 964 | 40% | 1.20 | 1.06 | 25 | 18 | 42% | 1.06 | 53% | 0.94

Prime Stats

Player | Start | End | GP | EV% | R-ON | R-OFF | $ESP | $PPP | PP% | TmPP+ | SH% | TmSH+
Jacques Laperriere | 1968 | 1973 | 393 | 47% | 1.56 | 1.31 | 26 | 9 | 36% | 1.23 | 75% | 0.83
J.C. Tremblay | 1968 | 1972 | 358 | 45% | 1.37 | 1.33 | 32 | 22 | 69% | 1.31 | 64% | 0.85
Larry Murphy | 1987 | 1995 | 687 | 42% | 1.26 | 1.02 | 37 | 27 | 74% | 1.03 | 29% | 0.94
Rob Blake | 1998 | 2004| 515 | 41% | 1.18 | 1.14 | 37 | 31 | 78% | 1.04 | 52% | 1.01
Zdeno Chara | 2003 | 2012 | 658 | 41% | 1.42 | 1.16 | 30 | 25 | 60% | 1.06 | 54% | 0.89

Peak Stats

Player | Start | End | GP | EV% | R-ON | R-OFF | $ESP | $PPP | PP% | TmPP+ | SH% | TmSH+
Jacques Laperriere | 1968 | 1973 | 393 | 47% | 1.56 | 1.31 | 26 | 9 | 36% | 1.23 | 75% | 0.83
J.C. Tremblay | 1968 | 1972 | 358 | 45% | 1.37 | 1.33 | 32 | 22 | 69% | 1.31 | 64% | 0.85
Larry Murphy | 1992 | 1995 | 292 | 45% | 1.38 | 1.05 | 45 | 28 | 80% | 1.11 | 45% | 0.94
Rob Blake | 1998 | 2002| 362 | 43% | 1.11 | 1.08 | 40 | 32 | 79% | 0.99 | 54% | 0.99
Zdeno Chara | 2008 | 2012 | 354 | 41% | 1.50 | 1.13 | 32 | 29 | 67% | 1.04 | 53% | 0.86

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.

Chara's on-ice ratio of 1.50 means that since 2008, his team has scored 3 goals for every 2 that it allows when he is on the ice. In an era of ever increasing parity, that's outstanding. And then consider that he regularly faces the toughest quality of opposition of anyone on his team, and among the toughest quality of opposition in the league - yet his team still outscores the opponent's best 3-2 with Chara on the ice. And his team's goals for/against against ratio, while still good with him off the ice, is quite a bit worse than it is with him on the ice.

And it's not like he was bad before 2008. Chara's ratio since 2004 (when he was first a Norris finalist) is almost as good, and this is all while generally getting the toughest defensive assignments on his team.

Combined with his superior All-Star and Norris records (in my mind, more impressive than anyone available but Ching Johnson), I think the big Slovakian is a must-add this round.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Zdeno Chara

More on Chara: One thing that really impresses me about Chara is that the NHL completely changed the rules during the last lockout in a way that should have really hurt big, slow, defensemen, yet Chara barely missed a beat.

2003-04: The last year before the lockout. Chara builds off his strong 2002-03 season to emerge as a superstar in his own right, finishing second in Norris voting to Scott Niedermayer. The story down the stretch was: Niedermayer's offensive advantage vs. Chara's defensive advantage. The writers went with the guy who put up better numbers. But Chara was great this season - the prototypical shut down defenseman of the dead puck "bigger is better" clutch-and-grab era - and it certainly wasn't becasue of his goaltender (Patrick Lalime).

The NHL changed the rules during the lockout in a way that should have really hurt Chara. Clutch and grab was gone and speed became king. Yet Chara barely missed a beat.

2005-06: Chara finished 4th in Norris voting behind a rejuvenated Nicklas Lidstrom, Scott Niedermayer, and (by far) the best season of Sergei Zubov's career.

2006-07: The one and only bad season of this stretch for Chara. He signed a huge contract and was expected to immediately turn around a dynfunctional Boston team, and failed to deliver. He wasn't awful - but he certainly wasn't up to the standards of what a star defenseman should be.

2007-08: Chara rebounds big time, finishing 3rd in Norris voting behind Nicklas Lidstrom (who blows everyone away with 127 out of 134 first place votes) and Dion Phaneuf's powerplay-driven season.

2008-09: Chara wins the Norris over Mike Green and Nicklas Lidstrom. There's a good case that Lidstrom "deserved" this Norris, but that shouldn't take away from Chara's season.

2009-10: Chara finishes 8th in Norris voting. Slight set back, right? I would argue that Chara may have been just as good at even strength as the previous year, while his PP performance is what dropped off.

In 2008-09, Chara had 20 even strength points and was +23
In 2009-10, Chara had 27 even strength points and was +19

But on the PP:
In 2008-09, Chara had 28 PP points, including 11 PPG
In 2009-10, Chara had 16 PP points, including only 4 PPG

2010-11: Chara finishes 3rd in Norris voting, despite a weak presence on the PP. He again scores 27 even strength points (to go along with a league-leading +33) but only scores 15 points on the PP (though 8 of them are PPGs).

2011-12 (to date): Chara has been strong at both even strength and on the PP. He has 13 even strength points and 12 PP points in 36 games, along with an outstanding +27 (first among defensemen, 3rd behind 2 forwards on his own team) while taking the toughest defensive assignments. Not that the polls section of hfboards is littered with the best hockey minds, but it should be noted that Chara is the runaway winner in the "midseason Norris" poll being conducted: http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=1072871

And remember: Everything Chara has done after the last lockout has been done with a skillset that would appear to be even better suited to other eras.

 

[overpass]

More on Chara: One thing that really impresses me about Chara is that the NHL completely changed the rules during the last lockout in a way that should have really hurt big, slow, defensemen, yet Chara barely missed a beat.

2003-04: The last year before the lockout. Chara builds off his strong 2002-03 season to emerge as a superstar in his own right, finishing second in Norris voting to Scott Niedermayer. The story down the stretch was: Niedermayer's offensive advantage vs. Chara's defensive advantage. The writers went with the guy who put up better numbers. But Chara was great this season - the prototypical shut down defenseman of the dead puck "bigger is better" clutch-and-grab era - and it certainly wasn't becasue of his goaltender (Patrick Lalime).

The NHL changed the rules during the lockout in a way that should have really hurt Chara. Clutch and grab was gone and speed became king. Yet Chara barely missed a beat.

2005-06: Chara finished 4th in Norris voting behind a rejuvenated Nicklas Lidstrom, Scott Niedermayer, and (by far) the best season of Sergei Zubov's career.

2006-07: The one and only bad season of this stretch for Chara. He signed a huge contract and was expected to immediately turn around a dynfunctional Boston team, and failed to deliver. He wasn't awful - but he certainly wasn't up to the standards of what a star defenseman should be.

2007-08: Chara rebounds big time, finishing 3rd in Norris voting behind Nicklas Lidstrom (who blows everyone away with 127 out of 134 first place votes) and Dion Phaneuf's powerplay-driven season.

2008-09: Chara wins the Norris over Mike Green and Nicklas Lidstrom. There's a good case that Lidstrom "deserved" this Norris, but that shouldn't take away from Chara's season.

2009-10: Chara finishes 8th in Norris voting. Slight set back, right? I would argue that Chara may have been just as good at even strength as the previous year, while his PP performance is what dropped off.

In 2008-09, Chara had 20 even strength points and was +23
In 2009-10, Chara had 27 even strength points and was +19

But on the PP:
In 2008-09, Chara had 28 PP points, including 11 PPG
In 2009-10, Chara had 16 PP points, including only 4 PPG

2010-11: Chara finishes 3rd in Norris voting, despite a weak presence on the PP. He again scores 27 even strength points (to go along with a league-leading +33) but only scores 15 points on the PP (though 8 of them are PPGs).

2011-12 (to date): Chara has been strong at both even strength and on the PP. He has 13 even strength points and 12 PP points in 36 games, along with an outstanding +27 (first among defensemen, 3rd behind 2 forwards on his own team) while taking the toughest defensive assignments. Not that the polls section of hfboards is littered with the best hockey minds, but it should be noted that Chara is the runaway winner in the "midseason Norris" poll being conducted: http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=1072871

And remember: Everything Chara has done after the last lockout has been done with a skillset that would appear to be even better suited to other eras.

Good summary of Chara's regular season performance.

At one point, Chara had a reputation as a poor playoff performer. iMO, much of his poor performance was because he played through injuries. In 2006, he broke his hand on Eric Cairns' face with a month to go in the regular season. He came back before the playoffs, but had some trouble handling the puck still. In 2008, he injured his shoulder with a month to go in the season. It visibly hampered him in the playoffs, and he had surgery for a torn labrum after the season.

2011 obviously gave a major boost playoff reputation.

Chara's superior PP performance in 2008-09 as compared to later seasons may have something to do with 2008-09 having been Marc Savard's last full season. Boston has missed Savard on the power play, as they haven't really had anyone to replace him as the main playmaker. Chara is a complementary player on the PP, he needs someone else to be the quarterback/playmaker.