Dennis Potvin vs. Larry Robinson

[Mothra]

The Hockey News recently released a list of the top 100 players all-time by position. Voted on by a panel of veteran hockey writers. Potvin was voted 6th best defenseman ever, Robinson was voted 8th best defensman ever. Best defenseman ever was Bobby Orr, Doug Harvey was voted 2nd best ever. Here are the top 10 -

1. Bobby Orr
2. Doug Harvey
3. Eddie Shore
4. Ray Bourque
5. Nicklas Lidstrom
6. Denis Potvin
7. Red Kelly
8. Larry Robinson
9. Paul Coffey
10. Chris Chelios

Scott Niedermayer was voted 16th, Chris Pronger was voted 20th.

Paul Coffey doesnt make my top 20

 

[JackSlater]

Potvin at his best was better than Robinson, and possibly any other defenceman ever excluding Orr. Robinson does not have anything close to a Bourque/Lidstrom longevity edge to put him over Potvin.

 

[markrander87]

Potvin at his best was better than Robinson, and possibly any other defenceman ever excluding Orr. Robinson does not have anything close to a Bourque/Lidstrom longevity edge to put him over Potvin.

That's a very strange arguement. First of all we aren't comparing Robinson to either Lidstrom or Bourque, and secondly Robinson has immense value in longevity. He is the only NHL player to have a positive plus minus rating and make the playoffs in 20 consecutive seasons.

 

[JackSlater]

That's a very strange arguement. First of all we aren't comparing Robinson to either Lidstrom or Bourque, and secondly Robinson has immense value in longevity. He is the only NHL player to have a positive plus minus rating and make the playoffs in 20 consecutive seasons.

In the context of the post, which was a whopping two sentences, it should be clear why they were brought up. I said that Potvin at his best was likely better than anyone other than Orr. Obviously that would include Lidstrom and Bourque. Since it is common knowledge that they are generally ranked ahead of Potvin, I hinted at the reason, which is that they have incredible longevity as elite players. Robinson's longevity is good but it is not to the level of Bourque and Lidstrom, two players who were also likely not as good as peak Potvin but passed him based on longevity, which is why I specifically listed them. I figured that would be easy enough to understand.

Anyway, with regard to Robinson's plus minus and playoffs, it should be fairly obvious that those accomplishments are mostly a function of the team and not necessarily Robinson's play. Robinson's longevity as an elite player is not particularly impressive compared to other historically great defencemen, and is barely better than Potvin. For instance, the gap between first and last all star teams is 9 years for Potvin and 9 years for Robinson.

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

Potvin at his best was better than Robinson, and possibly any other defenceman ever excluding Orr. Robinson does not have anything close to a Bourque/Lidstrom longevity edge to put him over Potvin.

Personally, I think Robinson's 76-77 season is the best I've ever seen by a defenseman. That was Robinson at his best and IMO it tops Potvin's best year, Bourque's best year, Pronger's best year and Chelios' best year. That said, Robinson's 2nd best year is a good dropoff from his peak year, even though he still won the Norris. I think Potvin had 2 other years almost as good as his 78-79 season. Same with Bourque and Chelios.

 

[FiveForDrawingBlood]

Paul Coffey doesnt make my top 20

He was a hell of a puck mover and skater. Outside of Orr the best offensive defenseman I ever seen. I'd have to have Coffey in top 20 defensemen of all time.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

In classic games I've watched with Robinson he really stood out among everyone not only defensively, but in terms of size and offensive skills. I actually think If I was forced to choose between them based on games I've seen I would have to pick Robinson. Their careers are close enough it could go either way.

 

[markrander87]

In the context of the post, which was a whopping two sentences, it should be clear why they were brought up. I said that Potvin at his best was likely better than anyone other than Orr. Obviously that would include Lidstrom and Bourque. Since it is common knowledge that they are generally ranked ahead of Potvin, I hinted at the reason, which is that they have incredible longevity as elite players. Robinson's longevity is good but it is not to the level of Bourque and Lidstrom, two players who were also likely not as good as peak Potvin but passed him based on longevity, which is why I specifically listed them. I figured that would be easy enough to understand.

Anyway, with regard to Robinson's plus minus and playoffs, it should be fairly obvious that those accomplishments are mostly a function of the team and not necessarily Robinson's play. Robinson's longevity as an elite player is not particularly impressive compared to other historically great defencemen, and is barely better than Potvin. For instance, the gap between first and last all star teams is 9 years for Potvin and 9 years for Robinson.

Typical statement in regards to Robinson. Taking away from his legacy because he played on "Elite teams". Take a look at the 84-85 for example http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/MTL/1985.html. Far from an elite team.

Let me ask you a question. Was it easier for Potvin to standout more because he was the only All-Star defenceman on his team? It's a serious question, im not trying to be arrogant. Perhaps Robinson did not see near as much PP time because Montreal had other capable D-man and wanted to Save Robinson for even-strength and PK ice-time.

 

[Mothra]

He was a hell of a puck mover and skater. Outside of Orr the best offensive defenseman I ever seen. I'd have to have Coffey in top 20 defensemen of all time.

There is a reason teams traded him, and kept/started winning Cups

 

[JackSlater]

Typical statement in regards to Robinson. Taking away from his legacy because he played on "Elite teams". Take a look at the 84-85 for example http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/MTL/1985.html. Far from an elite team.

I never said "elite team" at any point, since Robinson did not always play on elite teams. It should be fairly obvious that getting into the playoffs ever season is not an accomplishment for an individual. If Robinson had the misfortune of being drafted by a poor team he probably would have missed the playoffs in his early years before he was a great player. If Robinson had left Montreal for Quebec instead of Los Angeles he almost certainly misses the playoffs in his last few seasons. This would happen even if he played to the exact same level on those playoff bound teams. Wins are a team statistic, not an individual statistic. Plus minus is more impressive because it is not necessarily impacted by a smaller number of players, but the point still stands that if Robinson had been misfortunate enough to play on terrible teams his whole career he would have had a few minus years. In some seasons Robinson was just above 0, and in 1993 he was only +1. Put him on the worst team in the league and you would have to think that he is suddenly a minus, eve if he played to the exact same level.

Let me ask you a question. Was it easier for Potvin to standout more because he was the only All-Star defenceman on his team? It's a serious question, im not trying to be arrogant. Perhaps Robinson did not see near as much PP time because Montreal had other capable D-man and wanted to Save Robinson for even-strength and PK ice-time.

Yes Robinson likely stood out less due to having such strong defencemen on his own team. Powerplay time could be an issue, yes. I'm not sure how significant it is however, since Robinson was still first pairing in all situations. He did probably lose a bit of time due to Montreal's tremendous depth. You also have to consider the benefits he derived from the situation though. He was allowed to play with Savard at even strength in his best seasons, which would allow him more room offensively since Savard was so dominant defensively. This would probably also make him look good defensively since he had someone so good to cover any mistakes he may have made. On the powerplay he got to play with a better offensive defencemen than Potvin did in Lapointe, although to be fair this probably isn't a huge benefit considering he would have had to share the puck more than Potvin, and Potvin would have Trottier and Bossy on the PP anyway.

 

[markrander87]

I never said "elite team" at any point, since Robinson did not always play on elite teams. It should be fairly obvious that getting into the playoffs ever season is not an accomplishment for an individual. If Robinson had the misfortune of being drafted by a poor team he probably would have missed the playoffs in his early years before he was a great player. If Robinson had left Montreal for Quebec instead of Los Angeles he almost certainly misses the playoffs in his last few seasons. This would happen even if he played to the exact same level on those playoff bound teams. Wins are a team statistic, not an individual statistic. Plus minus is more impressive because it is not necessarily impacted by a smaller number of players, but the point still stands that if Robinson had been misfortunate enough to play on terrible teams his whole career he would have had a few minus years. In some seasons Robinson was just above 0, and in 1993 he was only +1. Put him on the worst team in the league and you would have to think that he is suddenly a minus, eve if he played to the exact same level.

All of the above is pure speculation. I took the time to bold your evidence.

Yes Robinson likely stood out less due to having such strong defencemen on his own team. Powerplay time could be an issue, yes. I'm not sure how significant it is however, since Robinson was still first pairing in all situations. He did probably lose a bit of time due to Montreal's tremendous depth

.

Let's everybody take this into consideration, im glad we can agree on something. It looked as though Robinson was not getting a fair shake with both ends of the elite team spectrum.

You also have to consider the benefits he derived from the situation though. He was allowed to play with Savard at even strength in his best seasons, which would allow him more room offensively since Savard was so dominant defensively. This would probably also make him look good defensively since he had someone so good to cover any mistakes he may have made. On the powerplay he got to play with a better offensive defencemen than Potvin did in Lapointe, although to be fair this probably isn't a huge benefit considering he would have had to share the puck more than Potvin, and Potvin would have Trottier and Bossy on the PP anyway.

Are you aware that Robinson was voted top defensive defenseman in the entire league over Savard (and Potvin) during the three times (1976,1979 and 1981) the poll was conducted?

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=680440

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Robinson wasn't the first option on the Montreal pp bc guy lapointe was better at it.

 

[markrander87]

Robinson wasn't the first option on the Montreal pp bc guy lapointe was better at it.

Do you have any verification of this?

Robinson developed into an offensive threat as well. He was a catalyst on the power plays as he was a strong puck carrier and brilliant passer

He's taken quite a few games I've seen and broken them open with an end-to-end rush" admired long time Boston Bruins defenseman Mike Milbury. "As far as I'm concerned, Larry's far and away the Canadiens' MVP."

-GHL

A MENTOR TO A GENERATION OF YOUNGER CANADIENS DEFENSEMEN, LARRY ROBINSON WAS ONE OF THE PREMIER OFFENSIVE BLUE-LINERS OF HIS TIME

-http://ourhistory.canadiens.com/player/Larry-Robinson


I'm not debatiing whether Lapointe was great offensively, I know he was. But Robinson has more than enough evidence as a great PP quarterback as well. Check out the link I provided for hardest shot.

It's obviously speculation on my part but it looks that saving Robinson for 5-5 and PK situations absolutely contributed ti him not receiving as much PP time as he could of had. Which inreturn will reduce in point totals.

The only way to solve this debate is to ask Scotty Bowman himself. (Good Luck with that.)

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Lapointe scored more points on the pp and is called 'the qb of montreal's pp' on his profiles.

 

[markrander87]

Lapointe scored more points on the pp and is called 'the qb of montreal's pp' on his profiles.

Again read my above post. This should not be a negative against Robinson, it is a good possibility he was given less PP time to have him available for 5-5 and shorthanded situations. Given the situation in Montreal, this looks like a very reasonable explanation. I am not taking anything away from Lapointe, but to look at Robinson individually you have to keep this into consideration.


Do people still feel Potvin and Robinson are on par defensively with the recent link of Robinson being voted better defensively by the coaches over Potvin during the prime of both of their careers?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Do you have evidence Robinson played less on the pp? My impression is that lapointe-savard was the top pk pair, Robinson-lapointe top pp and Robinson-savard top even strength. Lapointe over Robinson on the pk bc he wad already established there, and it balanced ice times better.

Overpass probably had the stats estimating their special teams usages

 

[markrander87]

Do you have evidence Robinson played less on the pp? My impression is that lapointe-savard was the top pk pair, Robinson-lapointe top pp and Robinson-savard top even strength. Lapointe over Robinson on the pk bc he wad already established there, and it balanced ice times better.

Overpass probably had the stats estimating their special teams usages

Yes, it would be very useful to obtain these stats. I'm basin his PP time off of what some GM's in the ATD have posted regarding him not playing that much on the PP. I vaguely remember a post from overpass showing Robinsons lack of PP points. Perhaps he can shed some light for this situation.

 

[JackSlater]

All of the above is pure speculation. I took the time to bold your evidence.

Of course it is speculation. Unless you have a time machine handy and the ability to convince some other team to draft Robinson, there is no way to collect definitive proof. If you honestly do not believe that making the playoffs and to a lesser degree plus minus are team statistics then you have incredibly poor reasoning skills. Answer this question as best you can: If Larry Robinson starts his NHL career with Minnesota in 1973 and plays with them until 1990 when he signs with Quebec, does he make the playoffs each season and is he a plus player every season, assuming that his level of play is just as it was in Montreal and Los Angeles?

Are you aware that Robinson was voted top defensive defenseman in the entire league over Savard (and Potvin) during the three times (1976,1979 and 1981) the poll was conducted?

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=680440

Yes I've seen that before, and I'm aware that Robinson was great defensively. That has nothing to do with what I said though. Playing with an elite defensive partner would allow Robinson to take more risks than he could otherwise, while also covering for more mistakes he did end up making than could otherwise be expected. There is no downside to Robinson playing with a defenceman like Savard.

 

[markrander87]

Of course it is speculation. Unless you have a time machine handy and the ability to convince some other team to draft Robinson, there is no way to collect definitive proof. If you honestly do not believe that making the playoffs and to a lesser degree plus minus are team statistics then you have incredibly poor reasoning skills. Answer this question as best you can: If Larry Robinson starts his NHL career with Minnesota in 1973 and plays with them until 1990 when he signs with Quebec, does he make the playoffs each season and is he a plus player every season, assuming that his level of play is just as it was in Montreal and Los Angeles?


.

I'm not sure, my time machine is broken. Since yours is in tip top shape:

Would Montreal have won those 6 cups without Robinson, im sure your well aware of how valuable he was to protect their smaller skilled forwards.

If he was playing with the North stars instead, would they have made the playoffs? Would goldsworthy and Hextall have had much better career numbers?

 

[JackSlater]

I'm not sure, my time machine is broken. Since yours is in tip top shape:

Would Montreal have won those 6 cups without Robinson, im sure your well aware of how valuable he was to protect their smaller skilled forwards.

If he was playing with the North stars instead, would they have made the playoffs? Would goldsworthy and Hextall have had much better career numbers?

Hmmm I suspect that your agenda is not allowing you to answer the question I asked, as the only logical answer contradicts your position. Anyway, regarding your first question I would say it is unlikely that they win each of those Cups. Robinson was their second best player for four of them, and even then the gap between he and Lafleur was not big.

As for the second question, I'm sure they would have made the playoffs at some point since they did that without Robinson in some years. They very likely miss the playoffs some of those years though, as I doubt for instance that in 1975 Robinson would have been worth the 30 points in the standings that Minnesota needed. Their goaltenders would have had better numbers certainly, but I don't know if they would have been significantly better.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Of course it is speculation. Unless you have a time machine handy and the ability to convince some other team to draft Robinson, there is no way to collect definitive proof. If you honestly do not believe that making the playoffs and to a lesser degree plus minus are team statistics then you have incredibly poor reasoning skills. Answer this question as best you can: If Larry Robinson starts his NHL career with Minnesota in 1973 and plays with them until 1990 when he signs with Quebec, does he make the playoffs each season and is he a plus player every season, assuming that his level of play is just as it was in Montreal and Los Angeles?



Yes I've seen that before, and I'm aware that Robinson was great defensively. That has nothing to do with what I said though. Playing with an elite defensive partner would allow Robinson to take more risks than he could otherwise, while also covering for more mistakes he did end up making than could otherwise be expected. There is no downside to Robinson playing with a defenceman like Savard.

This pretty much sums it up for me.

Stats like making the playoffs and plus/minus are just as much about team situations first rather than describing any particular player.

For the record I have Potvin in my top 5 of all time and Robinson is in the top 10 but closer to 10 IMO.

 

[canucks4ever]

I coonsider potvin on kelly and lidstrom's level, but with a shorter career. Robinson is more on chelios and park's level. Robinson was a well rounded and physical defenseman, but hes not really an elite shut down defensman and he's not a great offensive defenseman either. A solid two way defenseman.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I coonsider potvin on kelly and lidstrom's level, but with a shorter career. Robinson is more on chelios and park's level. Robinson was a well rounded and physical defenseman, but hes not really an elite shut down defensman and he's not a great offensive defenseman either. A solid two way defenseman.

Not an elite shut down defenseman? Ok...

 

[canucks4ever]

Not an elite shut down defenseman? Ok...

From the games i've seen from 1978-79 playoffs and 1981 canada cup, I would say he was good defensively and very physical. But to say hes an elite all time defender on harvey and lidstrom's level is wrong. Robinson is a two way defenseman, hes not a defensive defenceman.

 

[markrander87]

From the games i've seen from 1978-79 playoffs and 1981 canada cup, I would say he was good defensively and very physical. But to say hes an elite all time defender on harvey and lidstrom's level is wrong. Robinson is a two way defenseman, hes not a defensive defenceman.

did you not bother to read the post, proving he was voted best defensive defenseman 3 seperate years.