Chris Chelios vs. Brad Park

[arrbez]

I came across this problem while making my pick in the All-Time Draft. I had to choose between the two of them, and I began to realize that there's almost nothing separating the two players. Eventually I chose Chelios because A) I'm a huge fan of his surly badassery, and B) because he's a cyborg who will play forever,and you just don't pass on the terminator.

So here's the breakdown:

-Both players have 5 first team allstar nominations, and 2 second teams.

-Both players faced extremely tough competition for the Norris in their primes (Orr, Potvin, Robinson, Salming, Lapointe, Savard vs. Bourque, Coffey, MacInnis, Leetch, Stevens, Murphy). 1970-1980 and 1987-1997 are the two best eras for defenders ever IMO.

-Both were guys who would put up 70+ points and play shut-down defense at their peaks, and both were excellent playoff performers with Smyth-calibre performances in losing causes (Park in '78, Chelios in '92).

-Chelios has 3 Norris trophies and 3 Stanley Cups to Park's 0, but Park may be one of the unluckiest players ever in both regards.

-Park was MVP of the Summit Series for Canada, while Chelios was a dominant international player for the USA for years, and years...and years, making the tournament all-star team in back-to-back Canada/World Cups, and captaining the national team on a number of occasions. BTW, why was Park not there for Canada in '76 or '81?

-While both were excellent at pretty much everything, Park was a more polished offensive player with the puck, while Chelios was a better down-and-dirty physical defender. It must be stressed though, that both could do it all.

So who was better?

Click to read more...

 

[Canadiens1958]

Brad Park

I came across this problem while making my pick in the All-Time Draft. I had to choose between the two of them, and I began to realize that there's almost nothing separating the two players. Eventually I chose Chelios because A) I'm a huge fan of his surly badassery, and B) because he's a cyborg who will play forever,and you just don't pass on the terminator.

So here's the breakdown:

-Both players have 5 first team allstar nominations, and 2 second teams.

-Both players faced extremely tough competition for the Norris in their primes (Orr, Potvin, Robinson, Salming, Lapointe, Savard vs. Bourque, Coffey, MacInnis, Leetch, Stevens, Murphy). 1970-1980 and 1987-1997 are the two best eras for defenders ever IMO.

-Both were guys who would put up 70+ points and play shut-down defense at their peaks, and both were excellent playoff performers with Smyth-calibre performances in losing causes (Park in '78, Chelios in '92).

-Chelios has 3 Norris trophies and 3 Stanley Cups to Park's 0, but Park may be one of the unluckiest players ever in both regards.

-Park was an integral member of the Summit Series for Canada, while Chelios was a dominant international player for the USA for years, and years...and years...

-While both were excellent at pretty much everything, Park was a more polished offensive player with the puck, while Chelios was a better down-and-dirty physical defender. It must be stressed though, that both could do it all.

So who was better?

Brad Park was a bit short of being a shutdown d-man. The zero Norris Trophies are a clear indication of his relative defensive skills.

 

[The Korean*]

Did Park play when Orr was in his primes?

 

[arrbez]

Brad Park was a bit short of being a shutdown d-man. The zero Norris Trophies are a clear indication of his relative defensive skills.

In fairness, he did spend many of his best years coming runner-up to Orr for the Norris, who nobody could hope to compare to. He came second to Potvin twice as well, who's peak was about as good as anyone's after Orr. That said, Chelios still had to beat out Ray Bourque and co. for his 3.

 

[arrbez]

Did Park play when Orr was in his primes?

Yeah, five of his 7 all-star team selections were prior to Orr's last healthy season in 1975. So in fairness to Park, the Norris was basically unwinnable until 1976. That said, he never won it after that point, and he was still in his late 20's.

 

[The Korean*]

Chelios was also in similar situation to be fair, of course he wasn't competing with Bobby Orr, but that of Leetch, Bourque, Coffey, etc...

 

[hfboardsuser]

I am participating in said ATD and have some bias in the matter, but while I agree Chelios has had the better career, Park has a slight edge in dominance offensively.

Here is where Park placed in scoring among defensemen on his team for his career from 1968-69 to 1984-85:

2nd
1st
1st
1st
1st
1st * Lead team
1st
1st * NYR/Bos
1st
1st
1st * Injured
5th * Injured
1st
2nd
3rd
2nd
2nd

Here's Chelios in comparison:

1st
2nd * Injured
3rd
1st
1st
2nd * Injured
1st
1st
1st
1st
1st
1st * Lead team
1st
2nd
1st * Det/Chi
8th * played only 24 games
2nd

After his 17th season, Chelios never broke 25 points and never won a major trophy. Coincidentally, Park retired after his 17th year.

There's no question Chelios gets the edge physically- he was an absolute force in his prime from '92 to '96. However, like Scott Stevens, Chelios has had two different careers. Park may have retired after 'only' 17 seasons, but he was just as dominant offensively from Day 1 to the end. It's simply incredible to me that the guy lead two different teams (and many different rosters) in scoring from the blueline for an entire decade.

 

[Stonefly]

Yeah, five of his 7 all-star team selections were prior to Orr's last healthy season in 1975. So in fairness to Park, the Norris was basically unwinnable until 1976. That said, he never won it after that point, and he was still in his late 20's.

Park by that point was also playing on bum knees. He's quite possibly the unluckiest player ever...

I'd take Park by the way. And I wouldn't think twice about it. He could do anything Chelios could do, even be a little mean when the situation called for it, but he was a smarter player than Chelios. He also wasn't prone to idiotic penalties at crucial times in a game like Chelios.

For the record I like Chelios. He is one of my all time favourites.

 

[arrbez]

I am participating in said ATD and have some bias in the matter, but while I agree Chelios has had the better career, Park has a slight edge in dominance offensively.

Here is where Park placed in scoring among defensemen on his team for his career from 1968-69 to 1984-85:

2nd
1st
1st
1st
1st
1st * Lead team
1st
1st * NYR/Bos
1st
1st
1st * Injured
5th * Injured
1st
2nd
3rd
2nd
2nd

Here's Chelios in comparison:

1st
2nd * Injured
3rd
1st
1st
2nd * Injured
1st
1st
1st
1st
1st
1st * Lead team
1st
2nd
1st * Det/Chi
8th * played only 24 games
2nd

After his 17th season, Chelios never broke 25 points and never won a major trophy. Coincidentally, Park retired after his 17th year.

There's no question Chelios gets the edge physically- he was an absolute force in his prime from '92 to '96. However, like Scott Stevens, Chelios has had two different careers. Park may have retired after 'only' 17 seasons, but he was just as dominant offensively from Day 1 to the end. It's simply incredible to me that the guy lead two different teams (and many different rosters) in scoring from the blueline for an entire decade.

I'm not sure I understand where you're going with this. Chelios was 38 after his 17th season, Park retired at age 36 after his. At age 36 Chelios had 42 points, and another first team allstar selection to come a few years later.

As for leading the team in points for defencemen...they both did it 11 times according to your numbers. I'm not sure it's a relevant stat, since it just depends on who else was on your team, but I don't really see how it shows a difference between the two guys anyways.

I think Park was better offensively, but I don't understand what these stats are supposed to show...

 

[Dark Shadows]

Brad Park was a bit short of being a shutdown d-man. The zero Norris Trophies are a clear indication of his relative defensive skills.

Brad Park was a wizard defensively and had one of the nastier hipchecks you will ever see.

I have them ranked within 2 spots of each other on my list, with Park in the lead. I have flip flopped on this in the past because it is so close. Offensively and Defensively, I consider them to be close to even.

Detracting from Park because of Zero Norris trophies is grossly unfair. Several of Park's best years would be Norris worthy or at least equal to Chelios' best years against his competition. I consider the mid 70's to early 90's to have been the toughest depth field for top defensemen, but no amount of depth competition compares to facing a prime Bobby Orr every single year. Park has 6 Norris Runner up's for a reason. His Runner up's were to Orr 4 times, and Denis Potvin twice, while also beating out guys for Runner up like Robinson, Salming, Savard, Lapointe, Tremblay, White, Stapleton......

And when he was runner up, it was usually by a very large vote margin over 3rd place.

The Honest truth is, I contest a few of Chelios' Norris trophies(Particularly 92-93). Bourque deserved it that year. Chicago had a good team that year, roughly equal to Boston, but Boston finished higher and played better. Bourque played better, had a better Goals against and goals for than Chelios, More points than Chelios, and Bourque took only 40 minutes of penalties vs Chelios' 282 minutes of Penalties that year. When you see that Grotesque number, the first thing you think is "Wow, probably a lot of fighting Majors", but Chelios was only involved in 5 fights that year.

When I compare Park's runner up years against Chelios' Norris win years, I see 2 years in which I say Park would have won a Norris over Chelios.

Anyways....

Here is a good breakdown from Hockey Outsider. It should be noted that he also voted for Chelios and Park 1 after another like many did.

No matter how you cut it, this is razor close.

I think that Brad Park is very underrated because he never won a Norris or Stanley Cup. In some sense, he was the unluckiest defensemen ever.

Norris trophies. Brad Park peaked when Bobby Orr was in his prime. I don't think that any defensemen in history, including Shore and Harvey, could have beaten Orr for the Norris. Still, Park was runner-up to Orr for the Norris four times in his career; I see this as being virtually equal to Park winning four Norris trophies against "normal" competition. It's worth mentioning that Park was far ahead of the 3rd place finishers every time he was runner-up to Orr: he beat the next best defensemen by 63%, 123%, 163% and a ridiculous 368% (nearly five-to-one ratio) in votes. In the seventies, there was Orr, then there was Park, then there was everyone else. In total, he was a Norris finalist (top three) seven times during his career. He earned a spot on 5 first and 2 second all-star teams.

Playoff performances. It's not Park's fault the Rangers never won the Cup. He was the 5th highest scoring playoff performer of the 1970s, the only defenseman to ever crack the top five for a decade. In 1978, he was just one point away from leading the playoffs in goals and points as the Bruins lost to the Habs dynasty in the Cup finals.

Park was named MVP at the 1972 Summit Series, a fact that is often forgotten given the heroics of Esposito and Henderson. Upon watching the DVD with all 8 games, I wasn't surprised. Park, like Lidstrom and Bourque, played a quiet, subtle game, but consistently dominated both ends of the ice.

Offense. This is another category where Park often finished second to Orr. He scored more than any other defenseman during the 1970s (aside from Orr) and cracked the top ten in assists three times despite facing very tough competition from several excellent playmaking forwards.

Hart consideration. Five top-ten Hart finishes and three top five finishes is excellent for his era.

Complete game. Park had one of the best hip-checks of all-time. He didn't have quite the mean streak that Chelios or Potvin had, but he always played hard and never got intimidated. He lost his speed quickly with age but was so good positionally that it was nearly impossible to get around him. Park also played extensively on the penalty kill. I don't like using plus/minus too much, but it's worth noting he led the team in that category three times, and was in the top three seven times.

 

[hfboardsuser]

I think Park was better offensively, but I don't understand what these stats are supposed to show...

That Park changed teams and transitioned between different teams/systems/players with little to no change to his game, and little to no change in how dominant he was offensively for ten straight years.

Park's run was only stopped by Bourque; if he had never been teammates with him, he may have gone from Season 2 of his career to Season 15 as the best offensive defenseman on whatever team he played for, and from 1 to 17 as the best defenseman period. Chelios, on the other hand, saw his numbers bounce around even with inferior teammates.

 

[Dark Shadows]

That Park changed teams and transitioned between different teams/systems/players with little to no change to his game, and little to no change in how dominant he was offensively for ten straight years.

Park's run was only stopped by Bourque; if he had never been teammates with him, he may have gone from Season 2 of his career to Season 15 as the best offensive defenseman on whatever team he played for, and from 1 to 17 as the best defenseman period. Chelios, on the other hand, saw his numbers bounce around even with inferior teammates.

The Year Bourque was a rookie, Park's knee was buggered anyways and he barely played. The run was over, one way or another. If not Ray Bourque, Dick Redmond would have dethroned him.

But in general, I agree with what you are trying to say

 

[arrbez]

By my count, Park was only runner-up to Orr 3 times, not 4 as the quote suggest. 1970, 1972, and 1974.

It gets convoluted here. While Park certainly buried the non-Orr competition in those years, and would have ended up with 3 Norris's in an Orr-less league, he wasn't beating out high-end guys like Potvin or Robinson, who peaked post-Orr. Out of the second-team allstars he beat in those years, Jacques Lapperiere in 1970 was the only Hall of Famer he beat out. The others are Carl Brewer (a guy some feel should be in), Pat Stapleton, Bill White (twice), and Barry Ashbee.

When Chelios won his Norris's the other 3 allstars were:

1989: Paul Coffey, Ray Bourque, Al MacInnis
1993: Ray Bourque, Larry Murphy, Al Iafrate
1996: Ray Bourque, Brian Leetch, Vladimir Konstantinov

Had there been no Bobby Orr, and Park won 3 Norris's in the early 70's, it would have been similar to Lidstrom of the last 5+ years. There were certainly some other excellent defenders he was beating, but no other all-time greats in their primes like Chelios was facing in the early 90's.

 

[arrbez]

That Park changed teams and transitioned between different teams/systems/players with little to no change to his game, and little to no change in how dominant he was offensively for ten straight years.

Park's run was only stopped by Bourque; if he had never been teammates with him, he may have gone from Season 2 of his career to Season 15 as the best offensive defenseman on whatever team he played for, and from 1 to 17 as the best defenseman period. Chelios, on the other hand, saw his numbers bounce around even with inferior teammates.

Again, I agree that Park was the better offensive player. But all this stats proves is that he was the best on his team...which is a small sample size. I mean, Brian Bradley led his team in scoring twice as many times as Ted Lindsay did. Clearly, this only shows the relative abilities of their team mates, not how good they themselves were as offensive hockey players. Compare them on the basis of where they placed overall in league scoring for defensemen, and I think the stats will be more useful. I think Phil Housley led his team in scoring 14 or 15 times, and they would have been consecutive if not for a season where he only played 20 games. That may be only second to Bourque...but so what?

 

[hfboardsuser]

Had there been no Bobby Orr, and Park won 3 Norris's in the early 70's, it would have been similar to Lidstrom of the last 5+ years.

Orr really does screw it up. Consider this: if you switched Park and Lidstrom, are they considered the same way?

 

[hfboardsuser]

But all this stats proves is that he was the best on his team...which is a small sample size. I mean, Brian Bradley led his team in scoring twice as many times as Ted Lindsay did. Clearly, this only shows the relative abilities of their team mates, not how good they themselves were as offensive hockey players.

Absolutely, comparing in terms of league scoring is the better metric, but that's been done and I wanted to bring something new to the table. I've never seen it broken out this way before.

The Bradley/Lindsay example is clearly an outlier, and I think you and I and every other intelligent reader knows that.

But if you do think it's too small/selective a sample size to yield proper results, how many players have done what Park did? (ie lead his team in scoring from his position for 10/10 years and 11/12 years)

 

[Dark Shadows]

By my count, Park was only runner-up to Orr 3 times, not 4 as the quote suggest. 1970, 1972, and 1974.

It gets convoluted here. While Park certainly buried the non-Orr competition in those years, and would have ended up with 3 Norris's in an Orr-less league, he wasn't beating out high-end guys like Potvin or Robinson, who peaked post-Orr. Out of the second-team allstars he beat in those years, Jacques Lapperiere in 1970 was the only Hall of Famer he beat out. The others are Carl Brewer (a guy some feel should be in), Pat Stapleton, Bill White (twice), and Barry Ashbee.

When Chelios won his Norris's the other 3 allstars were:

1989: Paul Coffey, Ray Bourque, Al MacInnis
1993: Ray Bourque, Larry Murphy, Al Iafrate
1996: Ray Bourque, Brian Leetch, Vladimir Konstantinov

Had there been no Bobby Orr, and Park won 3 Norris's in the early 70's, it would have been similar to Lidstrom of the last 5+ years. There were certainly some other excellent defenders he was beating, but no other all-time greats in their primes like Chelios was facing in the early 90's.

Redo your counts.

1969-70: NORRIS: (289)
1. Bobby Orr, Bos 180
2. Brad Park, NYR 58
3. Carl Brewer, Det 22
4. Jacques Laperriere, Mtl 18
5. Jim Neilson, NYR 11

1970-71: NORRIS: (343)
1. Bobby Orr, Bos 208
2. Brad Park, NYR 57
3. J.C. Tremblay, Mtl 35
4. Pat Stapleton, Chi 23
T5. Bob Baun, Tor 10
T5. Keith Magnuson, Chi 10

1971-72: NORRIS: (370)
1. Bobby Orr, Bos 204
2. Brad Park, NYR 117
3. Bill White, Chi 25
4. Pat Stapleton, Chi 16
5. J.C. Tremblay, Mtl 8

1973-74: NORRIS: (399)
1. Bobby Orr, Bos 236
2. Brad Park, NYR 98
3. Bill White, Chi 44
4. Barry Ashbee, Phi 11
5. Borje Salming, Tor 10

1975-76: NORRIS: (451)
1. Denis Potvin, NYI 237
2. Brad Park, NYR/Bos 96
3. Borje Salming, Tor 56
4. Guy Lapointe, Mtl 39
5. Serge Savard, Mtl 23

1977-78: NORRIS: (467)
1. Denis Potvin, NYI 155
2. Brad Park, Bos 135
3. Larry Robinson, Mtl 85
4. Borje Salming, Tor 84
5. Guy Lapointe, Mtl 8

 

[arrbez]

1970-71: NORRIS: (343)
1. Bobby Orr, Bos 208
2. Brad Park, NYR 57
3. J.C. Tremblay, Mtl 35
4. Pat Stapleton, Chi 23
T5. Bob Baun, Tor 10
T5. Keith Magnuson, Chi 10

hmmm...both hockey-reference.com and legendsofhockey.net lists Tremblay as the other 1st teamer in 1971, with Park on the second team. So this is probably what threw me off, if he came 2nd for Norris and 3rd for the allstar teams. A close one either way though, by the looks of it.

 

[arrbez]

Orr really does screw it up. Consider this: if you switched Park and Lidstrom, are they considered the same way?

Well, Park wouldn't have the 7 or whatever Lidstrom has, so many people wouldn't. But I personally would (and currently do) have Park, Lidstrom, and Chelios on the same tier. I think they're all of similar stature, and they present us with a great lesson on why just looking at trophies without taking competition into account is foolish. If Park and Chelios played their primes against Lidstrom's recent competition, they likely would have a closet full of Norris's too. If Lidstrom and Park played against Bourque, Coffey, and co. they would probably have a few wins. If Lidstrom and Chelios played their best years against Orr, they wouldn't have any Norris's. But this doesn't change how good each player is. It just goes to show how important it is to look beyond the hardware.

 

[dafoomie]

Brad Park, no doubt about it. He may be one of the most underrated players of all time, overshadowed by Orr in his peak and later by Potvin.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Well, Park wouldn't have the 7 or whatever Lidstrom has, so many people wouldn't. But I personally would (and currently do) have Park, Lidstrom, and Chelios on the same tier. I think they're all of similar stature, and they present us with a great lesson on why just looking at trophies without taking competition into account is foolish. If Park and Chelios played their primes against Lidstrom's recent competition, they likely would have a closet full of Norris's too. If Lidstrom and Park played against Bourque, Coffey, and co. they would probably have a few wins. If Lidstrom and Chelios played their best years against Orr, they wouldn't have any Norris's. But this doesn't change how good each player is. It just goes to show how important it is to look beyond the hardware.

Really? I rank Lidstrom ahead of them on another tier. Lidstrom is up with Potvin, Kelly and Robinson for me.

I think my top 12 is as so(Spaces intentional).

Orr

Shore
Harvey

Bourque

Lidstrom
Potvin
Kelly
Robinson

Fetisov
Park
Chelios
Coffey
Pilote

Fetisov has a peak up there with Bourque/Potvin, but his longevity/Consistency takes a big hit after age 30 so it drops him a notch.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Shut Down D-Men

Brad Park was a wizard defensively and had one of the nastier hipchecks you will ever see.

I have them ranked within 2 spots of each other on my list, with Park in the lead. I have flip flopped on this in the past because it is so close. Offensively and Defensively, I consider them to be close to even.

Detracting from Park because of Zero Norris trophies is grossly unfair. Several of Park's best years would be Norris worthy or at least equal to Chelios' best years against his competition. I consider the mid 70's to early 90's to have been the toughest depth field for top defensemen, but no amount of depth competition compares to facing a prime Bobby Orr every single year. Park has 6 Norris Runner up's for a reason. His Runner up's were to Orr 4 times, and Denis Potvin twice, while also beating out guys for Runner up like Robinson, Salming, Savard, Lapointe, Tremblay, White, Stapleton......

And when he was runner up, it was usually by a very large vote margin over 3rd place.

The Honest truth is, I contest a few of Chelios' Norris trophies(Particularly 92-93). Bourque deserved it that year. Chicago had a good team that year, roughly equal to Boston, but Boston finished higher and played better. Bourque played better, had a better Goals against and goals for than Chelios, More points than Chelios, and Bourque took only 40 minutes of penalties vs Chelios' 282 minutes of Penalties that year. When you see that Grotesque number, the first thing you think is "Wow, probably a lot of fighting Majors", but Chelios was only involved in 5 fights that year.

When I compare Park's runner up years against Chelios' Norris win years, I see 2 years in which I say Park would have won a Norris over Chelios.

Anyways....

Here is a good breakdown from Hockey Outsider. It should be noted that he also voted for Chelios and Park 1 after another like many did.

No matter how you cut it, this is razor close.

All well and good but the issue was shutdown d-men. Leo Boivin and Bob Baun had nasty hip checks but they were not shutdown d-men. Defensive wizard - in a Salming with more grit fashion perhaps.

Simple question - all players in their prime. Defending a one goal lead,less than a minute to go, even strength against a team with Gordie Howe in his prime which two d-men would you pick from amongst Orr, Park, Potvin, Robinson, Horton, Stevens, Chelios, Lidstrom, Bourque,Harvey to defend?

 

[arrbez]

Absolutely, comparing in terms of league scoring is the better metric, but that's been done and I wanted to bring something new to the table. I've never seen it broken out this way before.

The Bradley/Lindsay example is clearly an outlier, and I think you and I and every other intelligent reader knows that.

But if you do think it's too small/selective a sample size to yield proper results, how many players have done what Park did? (ie lead his team in scoring from his position for 10/10 years and 11/12 years)

My point is simply, that it doesn't matter how many times he led his team. It's inconsequential to his standing vs. the rest of the players in hockey, and therefore, not useful unless you're strictly comparing him to his teammates. If Ray Bourque was born 10 years earlier, Park may never have led Boston in scoring. But again I ask, so what? What would that mean? It just means that a better player in the league happened to be on his team, and not someone else's. It's a measure of a player's team, not the player. Judging them against the rest of the league (which I'm sure Park did fine against) is a far better metric to use, and the only one that really makes sense in this case.

He was the best offensive defenseman on the Bruins until Bourque came along. All this shows is that Park, at that point in his career, was better than guys like Mike Millbury and Rick Smith, and not as good as Ray Bourque. That is the only useful deduction we can make from this information. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[hfboardsuser]

My point is simply, that it doesn't matter how many times he led his team. It's inconsequential to his standing vs. the rest of the players in hockey, and therefore, not useful unless you're strictly comparing him to his teammates. If Ray Bourque was born 10 years earlier, Park may never have led Boston in scoring. But again I ask, so what? What would that mean? It just means that a better player in the league happened to be on his team, and not someone else's. It's a measure of a player's team, not the player. Judging them against the rest of the league (which I'm sure Park did fine against) is a far better metric to use.

He was the best offensive defenseman on the Bruins until Bourque came along. All this shows is that Park, at that point in his career, was better than guys like Mike Millbury and Rick Smith, and not as good as Ray Bourque. That is the only useful deduction we can make from this information. Nothing more, nothing less.

Again, if you think it's useless, find me other examples of players who did what Park did. I'd be surprised if the list was not mostly HOFers, and upper-tier ones at that.

 

[arrbez]

Simple question - all players in their prime. Defending a one goal lead,less than a minute to go, even strength against a team with Gordie Howe in his prime which two d-men would you pick from amongst Orr, Park, Potvin, Robinson, Horton, Stevens, Chelios, Lidstrom, Bourque,Harvey to defend?

Haha, that's certainly not a simple question...do you go with two strictly defensive bangers like Horton and Stevens, do you use the Lindros defense, playing keep-away with slick positional players like Lidstrom and Bourque, do you go for the offense-is-the-best-defense route with Orr and whomever, or do you go for guys somewhere in the middle like Robinson, Chelios, Potvin, etc...