I normally agree with your analyses but I have some issues with the Blake/Wilson comparison.
Offense: qualitatively, I see little difference between the two of them. Both had heavy, accurate slapshots and were particularly dangerous on the powerplay. Quantitatively, Wilson is slightly ahead. During his best ten years (1981-1990), Wilson ranked 39th among all players in scoring while Blake (1997-2007) ranked 73rd. According to Pnep’s
data, Wilson was twice in the top five in defenseman scoring (2nd & 3rd) while Blake was 3rd three times (though Wilson faced tougher competition).
I think rankings are useful when comparing top 5s or top 10s, but when you get farther down (39th for example), I think the rankings are affected too much by league depth and number of teams. So I'd rather use percentages.
During the 10 year stretch you indicated, Wilson's 618 points are 58% of 2nd place Peter Stastny's and 59% of 3rd place Jari Kurri's.
During Blake's 10 year stretch, Blake's 464 points are 55% of 2nd place Joe Sakic and 59% of 3rd place Teemu Selanne's.
I think they are basically equals offensively.
Defense: Wilson was a smarter, more disciplined defender with better hockey sense. Blake, even at his peak, made bad decisions and sometimes took himself out of the play looking for a big hit and/or due to a stupid retaliatory penalty. Wilson played extensively on the PK (likely more than Blake).
Wilson may have been better defensively at even strength (I can't comment because I don't know his usage. I do know that Blake usually saw the tough matchups and did an average job with them). But according to the stats provided by overpass, Blake actually played quite a bit more on the PK than Wilson and his team had better results. Blake may have made poor decisions at even strength, but when he focused on using his size and strength to defend the front of the net on the PK, he excelled.
Physical play: although Wilson was strong and never shied away from physical contact, Blake was definitely the more aggressive, and more powerful, hitter. On the other hand, Wilson took far fewer penalties (on a per-82 games basis, Wilson averaged 61 PIM vs 101 for Blake).
Agreed.
Playoffs: We all know that Blake was the player that put the Colorado Avalanche over the top in 2001. As great an accomplishment as this is, I still think Wilson was the better playoff performer. Wilson scored at a much higher rate in the postseason (69 pts per 82 games vs 44 pts for Blake), and was (IMO) better defensively. Blake never had to carry his team like Wilson did; eleven years into his career as a Hawk, Wilson had scored more than every teammate except Savard and was 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 6th in scoring during the four years Chicago advanced to the conference finals. I don't like to get into hypotheticals too much but I definitely could see Wilson winning a Cup playing with Roy, Sakic, Forsberg and Blake. I don't see Blake winning a Cup with Savard, Larmer and Bannerman.
Without knowing how well Wilson did defensively, I can't comment on their overall performances. Blake was great at both ends in 2001, I can say that.
International: Blake was a key part of Canada’s 2002 gold medal Olympic team. Wilson was an important part of the victorious 1984 Canada Cup team.
These accomplishments probably even out, but Blake was also named the best defenseman of the 1998 Olympics in Canada's losing cause. So I think he has to have the better international resume.
Consistency/longevity: Blake gets the edge here. He played roughly 150 more games than Wilson, and is still a solid defenseman at age 39; Wilson retired at age 35
.
Agreed (well accept for the out of date part about Blake).
Norris: Wilson won the Norris trophy in 1982 and was also 3rd, 4th and 4th. Blake won the Norris trophy in 1998 and was also 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 8th. Given the quality of competition they faced (Bourque, Coffey, MacInnis vs Lidstrom, Pronger & ancient versions of Stevens & Chelios) I’d call this a draw.
I
disagree that Wilson had better competition. The early 80s was kind of a transition period between the great defensemen of the late 70s and the great defensemen of the late 80s/early 90s. As overpass showed, when Wilson won the Norris, most of the real competition was injured. I already showed Blake's (fairly strong) competition upthread - prime Lidstrom and Pronger, still very good versions of Stevens and Chelios, MacInnis who was past his offensive prime but was a better all-round player than ever. Wilson's Norris win is sandwiched between Randy Carlyle and Rod Langway. Here is Wilson's competition in the early 80s:
Year|1st|2nd|3rd|4th|5th|other
1979-80|Larry Robinson|Borje Salming|Jim Schoenfeld|Ray Bourque|Mark Howe|
Wilson
(8th)
1980-81|Randy Carlyle|Denis Potvin|Larry Robinson|Ray Bourque|Rod Langway|
1981-82|
Doug Wilson
|Ray Bourque|Paul Coffey|Craig Hartsburg|Larry Robinson|
1982-83|Rod Langway|Mark Howe|Ray Bourque|
Doug Wilson
|Paul Coffey|
1983-84|Rod Langway|Paul Coffey|Ray Bourque|Denis Potvin|Phil Housley|
1984-85|Paul Coffey|Ray Bourque|Rod Langway|
Doug Wilson
|Scott Stevens|
Robinson's offense had left him and he was a bit injury prone, Salming's play declined rapidly after 1980, Potvin was injury-prone, Ray Bourque and Paul Coffey were good but not as good as they would later be. This allowed Randy Carlyle, Doug Wilson, and Rod Langway (twice) to win the Norris. IMO, this is clearly weaker competition than Blake faced
By Doug Wilson's resurgent 1990, competition was very strong. These were prime versions of Bourque and MacInnis:
1989-90|Ray Bourque|Al MacInnis|
Doug Wilson
|Paul Coffey|Phil Housley
By the late 80s, Wilson faced very strong competition, but the fact is that other than a one-year blip in 1990, his Norris record was compiled in the early 80s against much weaker competition. I think Blake's competition is slightly better because very few of those great defensemen were actually in their primes in the early 1980s.
Hart: Wilson has placed 7th and 9th in Hart voting. Blake was 10th once.
I'm not sure how relevant this is - defensemen seem to have gotten slightly more consideration for the Hart in the 1980s than the late 90s/early 00s and Wilson got slightly more than Blake.
Conclusion: overall it's quite close. I think many people seem to push Blake for the HOF due to the Stanley Cup. However, they're nearly even as players and I'd argue that in terms of big game experience (playoffs & international) Wilson may actually be ahead. What do you think?
Conclusion:
I think you did a good job showing they are fairly close (as are most players available now), but Blake is decidedly ahead, even if for no other reason but durability. But that durability has not only allowed Blake to compile more games played, but one additional elite season, as well, as evidenced by their Norris records:
Wilson: 1st, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 8th
Blake: 1st, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 8th
Three more advantages for Blake:
- He was a more prolific penalty killer
- He was much more physical
- He is more accomplished in international hockey - both played well on winning teams (1984 and 2002) but Blake was also named Best Defenseman at the Olympics in 1998 in a losing cause.
) that was so good at defending and shutting people down that he garnered a first team all-star nod in a Canada Cup!
