Career Value Serge Savard or Rod Langway

[markrander87]

Who has more Career Value?

Click to read more...

 

[unknown33]

Rod Langway:

HHOF 4 years after retirement
1 Stanley cup
All-star: 1st, 2nd, 2nd
Norris: 1st, 1st, 4th, 4th, 5th
Hart: 2nd, 4th
Competition for Norris (HOH Top 100 List position): Howe, Bourque (#10), Wilson, Coffey (#46)
Noteworthy teammates (> 2 seasons):
Habs (4 seasons) Lafleur, Robinson, Shutt, Gainey
Caps (11 seasons) Scott Stevens, Mike Gartner, Larry Murphy

Scoring:
Regular Season GP 994 P 329
Playoffs GP 104 P 27

Serge Savard:

Conn Smythe
HHOF 3 years after retriment
8 Stanley cups
All-star: 2nd
Norris: 4th, 5th, 5th
Hart: 6th
Competition for Norris (HOH Top 100 List position): Orr (#2), Potvin (#18), Lapointe, Salming, Park (#42), Robinson (#31)
Noteworthy teammates (> 2 seasons):
Habs (15 seasons) Lafleur, Robinson, Shutt, Cournoyer, Dryden, Lapointe, Gainey, Laperriere

Scoring:
Regular Season GP 1040 P 439
Playoffs GP 130 P 68

By stats only it's to close too call imho.
I leave voting to those who saw them play both play.

 

[markrander87]

I think the big thing that takes away from Savard was not only the fact he was against defenceman like Orr, Park, and Salming, but he also played with top 100 talent dman Larry Robinson and Guy Lapointe.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Savard definitely faced better competition. Bourque hadn't yet hit legend status when Langway won his Norrises, whereas Savard competed directly against the primes of several all-time greats.

The main reason I rank Savard and Stevens over Langway as defensive defensemen is that the two of them were legendary playoff performers, while Langway was not.

 

[Big Phil]

Langway did a lot for Washington when he arrived. He was dominant in his own end and that is never lost on a board like this or to purists of the game. That being said he didn't lead some good Washington teams anywhere. A guy who trims down a team's goals against from 338 to 283 to 226 within two years should have helped them a bit more when it counted. And let's not penalize Savard either for the HHOFers he had on his team. Granted the Caps of the '80s weren't the '70s Habs but Langway had HHOF talent like Gartner and two d-men in Murphy and Stevens.

And Savard was more of a steady calming prescence. And while plus/minus is not the best thing in the world to use let's just examine this for a second: here are his best +/- years:

+79
+71
+70
+62
+46

Honestly that is just insane. The common denominator is Savard. Lafleur and Robinson were young pups in 1973 when that staggering +70 was done.

Langway's best are:

+66
+53

then a big drop off


Savard plain and simple was the ultimate winner who you won't see littered all over the record books but someone you had to watch

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

Savard is quite simply, the best defensive d-man I've seen. IMO the Savard I saw during the 4 cup dynasty was superior defensively to Langway's two Norris years.

PS, no disrespect to Langway, but IMO he never should have won those Norris Trophies. It was a backlash against offensive d-men and he benefitted. I've seen defensive d-men before and since who played stronger defensively than Langway those two years.

In addition, there were much better all-round d-men those years. Yes he was the best defensive d-man in the NHL those two years, but other guys played a much stronger all-round game and their offense more than made up for any advantage Langway had defensively.

 

[seventieslord]

Honestly, I like Langway. Savard was a great player, a cerebral defensve genius. But Langway won Norris trophies for his defensive work. He was a presence in hart voting. Savard never received hart votes and was a 2nd all-star team nominee once.

I am not surprised Savard is winning, but I am surprised that my vote just made it 9-1.

 

[VMBM]

Honestly, I like Langway. Savard was a great player, a cerebral defensve genius. But Langway won Norris trophies for his defensive work. He was a presence in hart voting. Savard never received hart votes and was a 2nd all-star team nominee once.

I am not surprised Savard is winning, but I am surprised that my vote just made it 9-1.

I think point was already made about how Savard had tougher competition - for starters, on his own team.

Anyway, I'm quite surprised too that it has been such a landslide thus far. Still, I definitely agree with the majority...

 

[Dark Shadows]

I think Langway, after Harvey, is the best defensive defenseman I have ever seen, with Savard 3rd.

Its hard to compare career value on 2 guys who played for such drastically different teams.

Phil,+/- is not only "not the best thing" to look at. In this case, it is terrible, and fully exposes why +/- is a team statistic.

Langway was not nearly as good with the Habs as he was when he took over and lead that Washington team, yet look at his numbers with the habs. A casual glance would make most people think his best years were with Montreal due to his huge +/- and career best point year, when in fact, they were not and it was the team that helped inflate those particular stats.

Langway's ability to go over to that Caps team, and almost will their GAA down himself, while being the guy who groomed Scott Stevens into what he became is a huge feat.

In his best years, I would take Langway. Career? Savard
The biggest career mark against Rod was his playoff record. He generally played phenomenal, but his teams floundered.

 

[struckbyaparkedcar]

Out of curiosity, in terms of all time great defensive seasons, how do people rank Langway's Hart runner-up year?

Langway's a guy who was way before my time but always interests me when I read about him.

 

[MS]

PS, no disrespect to Langway, but IMO he never should have won those Norris Trophies. It was a backlash against offensive d-men and he benefitted. I've seen defensive d-men before and since who played stronger defensively than Langway those two years.

Pretty much.

It was basically a backlash against the Norris Trophy becoming the 'Best Offensive Defender' trophy. Carlyle and Wilson had won it in 1981 and 1982 by scoring the most points of any defender. But the real problem was Paul Coffey - who was easily the most dynamic defender in the NHL in that time period, but whose poor defensive play offended traditionalists who didn't want to give him the Norris and didn't believe he fit the criteria of what it was 'supposed' to mean.

So the voters went the other way and gave it to Langway, to try and 'prove' it still meant something to be an old-school defensive defender.

In hindsight, it's absolutely ridiculous.

Take the 1983-84 season, and forget Paul Coffey ever existed.

Denis Potvin had one of the best years of his career that year, 85 points and +55. Langway somehow beats him with 33 points and a +14. And this is a mature Potvin, a top-10 all-time NHL defender at his peak defensively, so there's no bloody way Langway had enough of an advantage on Potvin defensively to make up for the 50+ extra points. It's a joke that Langway won. He simply was not the best defender in the NHL that season.

If you take away Langway's (undeserved) Norris Trophies, his career looks nearly identical to Brad McCrimmon's.

__________

It's fascinating to me that Potvin didn't win another Norris after 1979 despite being the best defender on the planet through 1984. Injured in 1980, outright jobbed in favour of Carlyle in 1981, injured just enough to take him out of contention in 1982 and 1983 (60 and 69 GP), lost in the Langway-Coffey battle in 1984 despite being the superior all-around player to both of them.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Early Washington

I think Langway, after Harvey, is the best defensive defenseman I have ever seen, with Savard 3rd.

Its hard to compare career value on 2 guys who played for such drastically different teams.

Phil,+/- is not only "not the best thing" to look at. In this case, it is terrible, and fully exposes why +/- is a team statistic.

Langway was not nearly as good with the Habs as he was when he took over and lead that Washington team, yet look at his numbers with the habs. A casual glance would make most people think his best years were with Montreal due to his huge +/- and career best point year, when in fact, they were not and it was the team that helped inflate those particular stats.

Langway's ability to go over to that Caps team, and almost will their GAA down himself, while being the guy who groomed Scott Stevens into what he became is a huge feat.

In his best years, I would take Langway. Career? Savard
The biggest career mark against Rod was his playoff record. He generally played phenomenal, but his teams floundered.

Perhaps during Langway's first five seasons with Washington.

Langway never developed the sense of on ice geometry or defensive vision that Harvey had. In this regard a number of his contemporaries were better - Fetisov, Bourque,Potvin,Chelios, Robinson.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I think Langway, after Harvey, is the best defensive defenseman I have ever seen, with Savard 3rd.

Its hard to compare career value on 2 guys who played for such drastically different teams.

Phil,+/- is not only "not the best thing" to look at. In this case, it is terrible, and fully exposes why +/- is a team statistic.

Langway was not nearly as good with the Habs as he was when he took over and lead that Washington team, yet look at his numbers with the habs. A casual glance would make most people think his best years were with Montreal due to his huge +/- and career best point year, when in fact, they were not and it was the team that helped inflate those particular stats.

Langway's ability to go over to that Caps team, and almost will their GAA down himself, while being the guy who groomed Scott Stevens into what he became is a huge feat.

In his best years, I would take Langway. Career? Savard
The biggest career mark against Rod was his playoff record. He generally played phenomenal, but his teams floundered.

Did Langway really groom Stevens though? Stevens was equally good offensively and defensively, but not elite at either until Jacques Lemaire and Larry Robinson got their hands on him in NJ.

 

[tony d]

Rod Langway

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

Honestly, I like Langway. Savard was a great player, a cerebral defensve genius. But Langway won Norris trophies for his defensive work. He was a presence in hart voting. Savard never received hart votes and was a 2nd all-star team nominee once.

I am not surprised Savard is winning, but I am surprised that my vote just made it 9-1.

Don't use the voting in the 70's as a knock on Savard.

Guy Lapointe faired better in all-star and Norris voting than Savard during the same era and no way in hell was he a better player than Serge Savard. Savard also went up against peak Orr, Park, Potvin, Salming and Robinson in Norris voting.

Like I stated earlier, Langway benifitted against a backlash against offensive d-men. Savard never got such a gift, although he deserved it more.

Like MS said, forget Coffey ever existed. Bourque and Potvin were head and shoulders better defensemen than Langway in 83-84. Mark Howe, Larry Robinson, Denis Potvin and Ray Bourque were better in 82-83. Any edge Langway had defensively, pales in comparison to those player's two way play.

To be honest on don't know what planet the voters were on when they voted for the Norris between 81 and 85. I don't think the best d-man one even once during that span. Potvin, Bourque and Howe really should have figured more in the results those years.

 

[BobRouse]

I think Langway, after Harvey, is the best defensive defenseman I have ever seen, with Savard 3rd.

Its hard to compare career value on 2 guys who played for such drastically different teams.

Phil,+/- is not only "not the best thing" to look at. In this case, it is terrible, and fully exposes why +/- is a team statistic.

Langway was not nearly as good with the Habs as he was when he took over and lead that Washington team, yet look at his numbers with the habs. A casual glance would make most people think his best years were with Montreal due to his huge +/- and career best point year, when in fact, they were not and it was the team that helped inflate those particular stats.

Langway's ability to go over to that Caps team, and almost will their GAA down himself, while being the guy who groomed Scott Stevens into what he became is a huge feat.

In his best years, I would take Langway. Career? Savard
The biggest career mark against Rod was his playoff record. He generally played phenomenal, but his teams floundered.

Langway was VERY good in the playoffs. The Caps had horrendous goaltending and offense for Gartner always dried up when the going got tough. Not to mention the Caps were in a very tough division (Isles, then Flyers, then Penguins)

They would have beaten the Devils in 88 if it was not for Verbeek's skate. That took a long term effect on Langway and he was never the same player after he got back from it. He was still relatively young when it happened. He still came back and scored a VERY important OT winner against the heavily favored Rangers in the 2nd round of the next year tho.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Langway's 2 Norris trophies were ridiculous.

Still drives me insane to think that Langway and Gartner are in the Hall and Howe and Propp are not.

Life on the line, there is no question which pair you'd rather have.

 

[GNick42]

Langway learned a lot tudoring under Savard and Robinson on Montreal those early years. Savard will to win was thru the roof. I voted for Savard

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Langway's 2 Norris trophies were ridiculous.

Still drives me insane to think that Langway and Gartner are in the Hall and Howe and Propp are not.

Life on the line, there is no question which pair you'd rather have.

i don't think langway's norrises are ridiculous. i agree that you can make a case for howe, as well as bourque, potvin, coffey, and a few others, but he was right up there.

i also agree and would take howe over langway, but they're not terribly far apart. let's say for the sake of argument that mccrimmond is basically 3/4 of the player langway was. if you gave langway a d partner who provided 3/4 of what howe did, i think those two pairings would be neck and neck.

propp vs. gartner, well yeah.

 

[MS]

Like MS said, forget Coffey ever existed. Bourque and Potvin were head and shoulders better defensemen than Langway in 83-84. Mark Howe, Larry Robinson, Denis Potvin and Ray Bourque were better in 82-83. Any edge Langway had defensively, pales in comparison to those player's two way play.

To be honest on don't know what planet the voters were on when they voted for the Norris between 81 and 85. I don't think the best d-man one even once during that span. Potvin, Bourque and Howe really should have figured more in the results those years.

Yeah, it really was a mess and highlights some of the problems with over-relying on awards when looking at HHOF credentials.

1981 Denis Potvin should have won, case closed. It shouldn't have been close. He was a couple points off being the highest-scoring defender in the league, and was on another planet defensively compared to the rest of the high-scoring guys. But the voters were sick of giving awards/Cups to Islanders at that point, and it seemed like a great story to have a Penguin in position to win a major award.

1982 they probably got right. Potvin was the best defender in the NHL that year, but he only played 60 games. Bourque finished 2nd in Norris voting, but only played in 65 games. When you look at total value, Doug Wilson scoring 39 goals (the 2nd-highest total ever at the time) in the weakest year for defenders in the 1980s was a justified winner.

1983 should have been Mark Howe. Langway ended up winning in a tight vote but, again, there's no way in hell he was better than Howe that year.

Here's a fact I bet most people don't know. The big thing on Langway was the 'impact' he had on Washington's defense and how it improved when he got there. But 1982-83 was the first year for both Langway and Howe with their new teams, and Philly improved substantially more defensively (74 goal improvement to 55) than Washington did. So even that argument doesn't work in his favour.

Howe was as good defensively as Langway and miles better overall.

1984 has been gone through pretty well. Langway was - at best - the 4th-best defender in the NHL that year after Potvin, Bourque, and Coffey.

In their rush not to give the award to Coffey, they tried to give it to the anti-Coffey rather than just giving it to the best all-around defender in the game. Which was probably Potvin that year, or maybe Bourque. In any case that year should have been one of the best 3-way races for the Norris ever, and Langway shouldn't have been one of the 3.

As I said above, if he finishes where he should have in Norris voting in 1983 and 1984, Langway's career looks no different to Brad McCrimmon or Mike Ramsey. One of the weakest selections to the HHOF. And the fact that Langway is in the HHOF and Howe isn't is just criminal.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

i don't think langway's norrises are ridiculous. i agree that you can make a case for howe, as well as bourque, potvin, coffey, and a few others, but he was right up there.

Absoluely ridiculous.

Langway may have been the best defenively of the group, but the gap on defense is so much smaller than the gap that all the other have on offense is ridiculous.

 

[Big Phil]

1982 they probably got right. Potvin was the best defender in the NHL that year, but he only played 60 games. Bourque finished 2nd in Norris voting, but only played in 65 games. When you look at total value, Doug Wilson scoring 39 goals (the 2nd-highest total ever at the time) in the weakest year for defenders in the 1980s was a justified winner.

Yeah I have no problem with Wilson winning it in 1982. Carlyle in '81 over Potvin? Yikes. Langway over Bourque, Potvin, Coffey those years. Hmmm. But Wilson was certainly the best in 1982. 39 goals as a defenseman is very hard to ignore combined with 85 points. It isn't as if Wilson was totally one dimensional either. To be honest, Wilson in the HHOF wouldn't be the worst thing in the world but I can see how he misses the cut

 

[jcorb58]

I am definately in the minority here but i think everyone sold Coffey short. He was such a great skater and passer that Slats never wanted him to play defence, that was Huddys job.

81/82 Oilers GA 295 Islanders 250 Islanders -45
Coffey points 89 Potvin 61 Coffey + 28 Adv NYL Def

82/83 Oilers GA 315 Islanders 226 Islanders - 89
Coffey points 96 Potvin 66 Coffey + 30 Huge Adv NYL Def

83/84 Oilers GA 314 Islanders 269 Islanders - 45
Coffey points 126 Potvin 66 Coffey + 60 Huge Adv Coffey offence

84/85 Oilers GA 298 Islanders 312 Oilers - 14
Coffey points 121 Potvin 85 Coffey + 36 Adv Coffey offence

85\86 Oilers GA 310 Islanders 284 Islanders -26
Coffey points 138 Potvin 68 Coffey + 70 Huge Adv Coffey offence

The last 3 years i would rather have Coffeys offence than Potvins steller defence. Alot can be said to the saying the best defence is a great offence. The Oilers were never known as a very defencive minded team while the Islanders had more than just Potvin contributing to their stingy goals against. Who would i rather have in their prime, easily Potvin but i just dont like the way Coffey was looked down apon while he was only doing what his coach wanted him to do.
In responce to the OPs question i picked Savard he was hugely under rated because of the guys he was up against for the major awards.

 

[canucks4ever]

I think langway's norris's were justified, making an impact on your team and playing the best defence should bring more value than 'points'. Saying someone was better because they scored more points is stupid, unless its a bobby orr situation where they blow the league out of the water.
He was the best defensive-dman of those years and the capitals saw a huge improvement in thiers goals allowed, therefore he was the most valuable defencemen.

 

[Big Phil]

I think langway's norris's were justified, making an impact on your team and playing the best defence should bring more value than 'points'. Saying someone was better because they scored more points is stupid, unless its a bobby orr situation where they blow the league out of the water.
He was the best defensive-dman of those years and the capitals saw a huge improvement in thiers goals allowed, therefore he was the most valuable defencemen.

I actually agree with you believe it or not ushvinder. Langway's impact was peerless among anyone not named Gretzky those two years IMO. I did imply in my other post that it wouldn't have been the worst thing to see Bourque win his first Norris those years either. Langway had some tough competition no doubt