HOH Top 60 Defensemen of All Time

[Epsilon]

I doubt it has much to do with the age of the users on the site but rather the process and what the site tracks in each comparison







Given how the point share system, that the site uses, is beneficial to long careers and winning players it's not all that surprising really.

I'm not sure where you are drawing that conclusion from. Just repeating something that tarheelhockey already posted:

The way it works: H-R's database spits out two names, and the user simply makes a binary choice between them. The players are ranked based on the number of matchups they "win". The fine details are here: http://www.hockey-reference.com/about/elo.html

Bottom line: this ranking is a good litmus test for general public understanding of this topic, as it relies almost entirely upon the user's ability to rank historic players "correctly"

I don't know what you mean by "point share system", when the rankings are being determined strictly by binary voting.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'm not sure where you are drawing that conclusion from. Just repeating something that tarheelhockey already posted:



I don't know what you mean by "point share system", when the rankings are being determined strictly by binary voting.

The initial rankings that determined what players would be compared were based off the faulty point shares formula. Then players could now up or down a certain amount based on voting, but during the comparisons, the point shares results are (or at least were) prominently displayed, so casual/ignorant fans probably had their voted affected by it

 

[Epsilon]

The initial rankings that determined what players would be compared were based off the faulty point shares formula. Then players could now up or down a certain amount based on voting, but during the comparisons, the point shares results are (or at least were) prominently displayed, so casual/ignorant fans probably had their voted affected by it

Thanks, that makes sense. I haven't participated in any of those votes because having seen the results I have no inclination to waste any time doing so.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Thanks, that makes sense. I haven't participated in any of those votes because having seen the results I have no inclination to waste any time doing so.

TDMM is right and seriously even if you think it's a waste of time, and to a large degree it is, trying it and then criticizing it makes it a more complete exercise.

It's also very NHL centric as only their NHL careers come up and there is no context given between players from different eras.

Playoff performance for instance isn't included.

The site overall is quite usefull despite this.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I don't see any point in that link, it's impossible to compare or do a top 60 of all time if we don't take into consideration the context of when players played, suggesting moving the discussion to an all encompassing thread is kinda pointless.

So what you're saying is that you believe that the posters that participated in this list were too stupid or too blind to take when a player played into consideration when the list was being done?

I think you should actually prove that this is as big of a factor as you like to make it out to be in the other thread first and THEN you could use it here.

But that's just my opinion.

 

[Hardyvan123]

So what you're saying is that you believe that the posters that participated in this list were too stupid or too blind to take when a player played into consideration when the list was being done?

I think you should actually prove that this is as big of a factor as you like to make it out to be in the other thread first and THEN you could use it here.

But that's just my opinion.

One of the posters and participants in this top 60 thread and project stated that he treated all eras as the same and there were quite a few that were involved in the ATD project that doesn't really seem to account for era but the ATD is structured more as a game, than a historical document or list, so maybe that perspective flowed over to the project, you would have to ask them about it.

I think the "historical" nature of the project made the outcome very predetermined with the way the actual lists went.

The Zubov, Vasiliev,Savard example is an indication of that and others have noted that the early 70's has a higher amount of players in the top 60 project than one might expect over a period of 100 years.

Part of the problem as I see it, is that we are still in the early stages of the fully integrated league, since around 95, and as more time passes we might get a different perspective on things. Or maybe not who knows.

One thing I do know it that it becomes increasingly more difficult to compare players that no one has ever seen play, like Hod Stuart to players that most everyone in the project has seen on multiple occasions, like Bourque or Lidstrom.

The top 60 project ended up with a consensus list that pretty much everyone would ahve slightly differently but it's a process worth doing and I look forward to the top C and wingers list as well and I will be more prepared for the next projects than I was for the Dman one..

I won't respond to the beginning of your post as it's probably more appropriate for a mod to do so.

 

[Rhiessan71]

The Zubov, Vasiliev,Savard example is an indication of that and others have noted that the early 70's has a higher amount of players in the top 60 project than one might expect over a period of 100 years.

All you have to do is prove that any of those guys from the 70's don't belong in the Top 60.
Considering 9 of them are in the top 40 let alone the top 60 and 4 of them are in the top 11, I say good luck to you.
Hitching your horse to Zubov for this argument doesn't help either. He barely gets into the top 20 offensively and I wouldn't put him in the top 120 defensively all-time.
So maybe he balances out enough to squeak into the top 70 but I certainly have no issue what so ever leaving him out of the top 60.

The amount of top talent at a certain position varies greatly through time.
There is no set amount that there should or shouldn't be at any given time.

Part of the problem as I see it, is that we are still in the early stages of the fully integrated league, since around 95, and as more time passes we might get a different perspective on things. Or maybe not who knows.

Again!!!
This integrated league of yours started in the 70's and was complete by '91 NOT '95!
What's more is that it was even more jam packed in '91 than it was in '95.
22 teams in '92
26 teams in '95

I ask you again, if the best talent was already in the league by '92, who filled those 100 or so spots that 4 more teams opened up, let alone the 200+ that 8 more teams did?
Aside from the draft, there was a miniscule amount of tier I players added. By FAAAAARRRR it was mostly Tier IV's and Tier III's with some Tier II's that were viewed as deficient in some way (bad skaters, too small, bad additude ect).

Make a list with all the undrafted Tier I players that came into the league after '90.
The only one that I can think of off the top of my head is Martin St. Louis.

 

[pdd]

Make a list with all the undrafted Tier I players that came into the league after '90.
The only one that I can think of off the top of my head is Martin St. Louis.

Brian Rafalski was a Norris contender...

 

[Rhiessan71]

Brian Rafalski was a Norris contender...

There's two so far.
A Canadian and a Yank I might add, which doesn't really help the whole Integrated League thing much

Although, I'm not sure I would include Rafalski as a Tier I, seems more of a Tier 2 to me and a single 9th place Norris finish doesn't exactly change my mind.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Post 1992

I ask you again, if the best talent was already in the league by '92, who filled those 100 or so spots that 4 more teams opened up, let alone the 200+ that 8 more teams did?
Aside from the draft, there was a miniscule amount of tier I players added. By FAAAAARRRR it was mostly Tier IV's and Tier III's with some Tier II's that were viewed as deficient in some way (bad skaters, too small, bad additude ect).

Make a list with all the undrafted Tier I players that came into the league after '90.
The only one that I can think of off the top of my head is Martin St. Louis.

Post 1992, the biggest contribution was made by players extending their career beyond the age of 35. This season alone you have 59 skaters:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...&c3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=age

and 13 goalies:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...&c3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=age

Also the number of drafted underage juniors and 20-22 year olds in the NHL is much higher today:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=age&order_by_asc=Y

Very few of these players are NHL ready. Most have their minutes managed, similar to Joe Thornton in the late 1990s only today there are a lot more such skaters.

Free agents had more of an impact pre 1992. Canada alone produced Tim Kerr, Dino Ciccarelli,Curtis Joseph, Ed Belfour, quick incomplete list.

 

[pdd]

There's two so far.
A Canadian and a Yank I might add, which doesn't really help the whole Integrated League thing much

Although, I'm not sure I would include Rafalski as a Tier I, seems more of a Tier 2 to me and a single 9th place Norris finish doesn't exactly change my mind.

Rafalski's Norris finishes:
9, 11, 14 with NJ; 9, 9, 12 with DET.

Also, this included 1 first-place Norris vote, four second-place Norris votes, and four first-team votes.

Not bad for a guy with an eight-year career who didn't start his career until 26. I think it's pretty hard to dispute the idea of the guy as a top-ten defenseman among guys he played with and against. Really shows how that in the 2000-2010 period the top defensemen were really concentrated in places; Stevens/Rafalski/Niedermayer, Pronger/MacInnis, Redden/Chara, and Lidstrom/Chelios; then after the lockout Niedermayer/Pronger, Lidstrom/Rafalski, Weber/Suter, Blake/Boyle, even Bouwmeester/Phaneuf for half a season.

 

[seventieslord]

One of the posters and participants in this top 60 thread and project stated that he treated all eras as the same

Why don't you just name the person whose words you are distorting?

 

[Hardyvan123]

Why don't you just name the person whose words you are distorting?

I didn't think it was necessary to do so and didn't take the time to search for the exact post.

If you think it is then I will do so because I remember it quite clearly.

Also just to clarify the ATD doesn't take era into context does it? It's my general impression, although I have never actually participated in it but have looked at it a bit.

Also there was some limited mention in the project that some guys look at era and context but looking at the discussions and arguments, and lack of general discussion of the topic during the project, it's hard to say that era was really taken into context all that much really.

It wasn't you that I was referring to BTW.

Note to mods, this post is in reference to a question form another poster who is a mod and not an attempt to highjack or derail the thread.

My comments are about the top 60 Dman project.

 

[seventieslord]

I didn't think it was necessary to do so and didn't take the time to search for the exact post.

If you think it is then I will do so because I remember it quite clearly.

Also just to clarify the ATD doesn't take era into context does it? It's my general impression, although I have never actually participated in it but have looked at it a bit.

Also there was some limited mention in the project that some guys look at era and context but looking at the discussions and arguments, and lack of general discussion of the topic during the project, it's hard to say that era was really taken into context all that much really.

It wasn't you that I was referring to BTW.

Note to mods, this post is in reference to a question form another poster who is a mod and not an attempt to highjack or derail the thread.

My comments are about the top 60 Dman project.

Like Rhiessan said, no one actually considers all eras equal in any sort of absolute sense, and very, very few consider them all equal in a relative sense, either.

You'll be delighted to know that, although I don't say so openly very often, I think if you time warped a prime Doug Harvey into today's world he would be an AHL player.

But that's not how I judge players in a historical context, and that is not how this section operates, either.

I don't automatically think that a player being xth best in 1950 means that it's the same as being xth best in 2000. Nor does anyone else in the ATD or the HOH discussions. The difference between you and most of us, is that you seem to want to take that "x" and multiply it by about 10 in order to appropriately judge 1950s (for example) rankings and achievements compared to modern day, whereas most of us have a factor that is somewhere in the 1.5-5 range. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Like Rhiessan said, no one actually considers all eras equal in any sort of absolute sense, and very, very few consider them all equal in a relative sense, either.

well judging by his posts it seems the former is more true than the latter but that besides the point here.

You'll be delighted to know that, although I don't say so openly very often, I think if you time warped a prime Doug Harvey into today's world he would be an AHL player.

Why would I be delighted to know that?

But that's not how I judge players in a historical context, and that is not how this section operates, either.

I'm fully aware of that and in agreement with it as well. I'll even further it and say that it's really difficult, for a variety of reasons but mostly due to entirely different sets of information, to compare pre WW2 players with players later in the Century and beyond.

I don't automatically think that a player being xth best in 1950 means that it's the same as being xth best in 2000. Nor does anyone else in the ATD or the HOH discussions. The difference between you and most of us, is that you seem to want to take that "x" and multiply it by about 10 in order to appropriately judge 1950s (for example) rankings and achievements compared to modern day, whereas most of us have a factor that is somewhere in the 1.5-5 range. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Where is the multiple of 10 come from?

I'm pretty consistent in my distinctions of teh differetn eras and the diffculty in treating them as quite similar or quite close.

1915 with many leagues is different than a post 1930 pretty much considalted NHL.

WW2 years, and Richards 50 in 50, is different than the late 40's and mid 60's.

Rapid expansion and the WHA makes for a vastly different league than say in 1965.

And finally and perhaps most importantly, or not to some, the large change and increase of the NHL talent pool, both in terms of quantity which seems to comes slightly quicker than the the quality of non Canadian NHLers which is the primary makeup of the NHL pre 1980.

I don't attach actual ratios or numbers to this as it's not an exact science and there are other variables at play as well.

But unless one thinks that Canadian talent has decreased by quite a bit, the top 10 Canadians in goals, assist and points that is the norm in the 70's, for example can probably be compared to the top 10 Canadians in the post 95ish era and throw in the other 10 non Canadians to make a top 20.

For example, assuming all things are equal (and they never are exactly) there is a top 10 points leaders for any given year in the 70's.

That list is comprised almost exclusively, and it might be exclusive going off memory here, of Canadian players.

Skip forward to most post 95 years and when we get to the 10th top scoring Canadian there are usually close to 10 non Canadian ahead of him. It's probably slightly less on aggregate post 95 but for the sake of this example let's say it's 10 and 10.

Wouldn't the 10 in the 70's be pretty similar to the 20 in the post 95?

The 10th Canadian surely can't be compared as exactly the same in both years can they or even really close?

A more specific example is for the Russian Dmen on the top 60 list and their NHL contemporaries, mostly in the 70's and 80's.

If they (Vasiliev (25th), Fetisov (8th) and Kastatonov (39th) had played in the NHL would guys like Savard, Lapointe ect... be rated as high?

Perhaps but it's doubtfull all 5 guys would be because they would be direct peers now. Maybe savard never gets a top 5 Norris vote or only 1 or 2 years, he would slip down probably.

This is what happens to later guys like Nieds and Zubov that play in a fully integrated league and become each others peers.

Peer to peer comparison after all is something that really comes up alot in the top 60 Dman project, and most likely for the top forwards as well.

 

[Rhiessan71]

well judging by his posts it seems the former is more true than the latter but that besides the point here.

Era's change, priorities required by players change and said players HAVE to be judged on what they did, when they did it, how they did it and who was capable/available to do it against.

I'm pretty consistent in my distinctions of teh differetn eras and the diffculty in treating them as quite similar or quite close.

Oh, reeeaaallly? Lets read on shall we...

1915 with many leagues is different than a post 1930 pretty much considalted NHL.

WW2 years, and Richards 50 in 50, is different than the late 40's and mid 60's.

Rapid expansion and the WHA makes for a vastly different league than say in 1965.

And finally and perhaps most importantly, or not to some, the large change and increase of the NHL talent pool, both in terms of quantity which seems to comes slightly quicker than the the quality of non Canadian NHLers which is the primary makeup of the NHL pre 1980.

I don't attach actual ratios or numbers to this as it's not an exact science and there are other variables at play as well.

But unless one thinks that Canadian talent has decreased by quite a bit, the top 10 Canadians in goals, assist and points that is the norm in the 70's, for example can probably be compared to the top 10 Canadians in the post 95ish era and throw in the other 10 non Canadians to make a top 20.

For example, assuming all things are equal (and they never are exactly) there is a top 10 points leaders for any given year in the 70's.

That list is comprised almost exclusively, and it might be exclusive going off memory here, of Canadian players.

Skip forward to most post 95 years and when we get to the 10th top scoring Canadian there are usually close to 10 non Canadian ahead of him. It's probably slightly less on aggregate post 95 but for the sake of this example let's say it's 10 and 10.

Wouldn't the 10 in the 70's be pretty similar to the 20 in the post 95?

The 10th Canadian surely can't be compared as exactly the same in both years can they or even really close?

A more specific example is for the Russian Dmen on the top 60 list and their NHL contemporaries, mostly in the 70's and 80's.

If they (Vasiliev (25th), Fetisov (8th) and Kastatonov (39th) had played in the NHL would guys like Savard, Lapointe ect... be rated as high?

Perhaps but it's doubtfull all 5 guys would be because they would be direct peers now. Maybe savard never gets a top 5 Norris vote or only 1 or 2 years, he would slip down probably.

It's times like these that I just think it's downright unfair of me to even engage you.

In a post, just the other freakin day for pete's sake, you made it quite clear that you don't even consider Fetisov or Kasatonov 70's D-men.
I saw where you were going from a mile away and made sure you specified why they weren't 70's D-men. I set the hook or in this case the foot and you just swallowed it whole my friend.
Savard's 4 top 5 Norris finishes came between '75-'79, Lapointe's between '72-'79.
If you don't even consider Fets and Kats 70's D-men, then how can you now say that they would have been "direct peers" to them and would/may have downgraded their reputation accordingly???

Consistent in your distinctions indeed.

This is what happens to later guys like Nieds and Zubov that play in a fully integrated league and become each others peers.

No it isn't!
We have plenty of comparables to both of these guys and NO ONE is going to confuse them with any of the following players...
Bourque
Chelios
Stevens
MacInnis
Leetch
Lidstrom

And how you can even bring up Nieds is ridiculous, he gets plenty of credit, hence his #33 ranking. Within 5 spots of Savard I might add which seems pretty damned right to me.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Era's change, priorities required by players change and said players HAVE to be judged on what they did, when they did it, how they did it and who was capable/available to do it against.

The part in bold often comes up, sometimes even in capital letters so it's easier to read, often as the "we can't punish the oldtimers..."


The point of the matter is that when groups of players are being compared with different sets of players and dynamics the context needs to be taken into account, the "we can't punish the oldtimers " line indicates a minimization if not outright dismissal of the context.

It's times like these that I just think it's downright unfair of me to even engage you.

?

Really?

In a post, just the other freakin day for pete's sake, you made it quite clear that you don't even consider Fetisov or Kasatonov 70's D-men.

Their peaks and primes aren't, Fetisov was good enough to be the top Dman at the WC as early as 78 and Vasiliev and Suchy as well as other iron curtain Dmen weren't in the NHL at the time.

I saw where you were going from a mile away and made sure you specified why they weren't 70's D-men. I set the hook or in this case the foot and you just swallowed it whole my friend.

Wow you should buy lottery tickets as I only thought of this post last night.

The point of the matter isn't that I get the specific seasons down exactly right, as it's subjective and since they didn't play in an integrated NHL we don't know how they ( the guys in Europe versus the not so deep NHL Dman pool)) would have stacked up against each other

Savard's 4 top 5 Norris finishes came between '75-'79, Lapointe's between '72-'79.
If you don't even consider Fets and Kats 70's D-men, then how can you now say that they would have been "direct peers" to them and would/may have downgraded their reputation accordingly???

Consistent in your distinctions indeed.

Okay then it's a young Fetisov and Kastatonov there affect is more in the 80's then. Vasliiev, Suchy, ect.. are the primary guys, at points in the 70's.

You seem to be hung up on dissecting the specific example instead of the overall principle here.

No it isn't!
We have plenty of comparables to both of these guys and NO ONE is going to confuse them with any of the following players...
Bourque
Chelios
Stevens
MacInnis
Leetch
Lidstrom

Yes and Chelios, Leetch and Lidstrom and others not mentioned are all guys who pre 80's NHLers wouldn't have to compete against to any large degree, Salming aside. Those 3 guys are part of the quality of the new talent stream right? Thus making a harder set of peers to be judged against potentially?

And how you can even bring up Nieds is ridiculous, he gets plenty of credit, hence his #33 ranking. Within 5 spots of Savard I might add which seems pretty damned right to me.

sure the placement is right to you with the metrics you use, and say that you account for but something is off. Nieds is the top scoring Canadian Dmen of his generation and if he had the benefit of earlier guys, ie. being judged against his Canadian peers, he would come out as the top teer of that group.

But we all know who he was judged against which is a different set of players.

The top 60 Dman project is done, hopefully the treatment of players in full context has more of the context focus instead of the more historical focus in the future forwards groups but I'm not hopefull.

 

[Rhiessan71]

My response is where it prolly should be, here...
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?p=63622381#post63622381

 

[sr edler]

Didn't participate in this project but Harry Cameron at 57 feels pretty low and Lionel Conacher at 35 pretty high. But oh well. Was Conacher seen as better offensively than Cameron was defensively?

 

[Say Hey Kid]

Imo Bill White is #61.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Didn't participate in this project but Harry Cameron at 57 feels pretty low and Lionel Conacher at 35 pretty high. But oh well. Was Conacher seen as better offensively than Cameron was defensively?

Lionel Conacher was definitely too high. Seeing him above his clearly superior contemporary Ching Johnson is the one ranking in this project that really doesn't stand up to scrutiny. A lot was made over the fact that Conacher was the third best offensive defenseman of his era behind Shore and Clancy. But he was as far behind Clancy, as he was ahead of Sylvio Mantha, and Mantha was definitely more highly regarded defensively than Conacher

Imo Bill White is #61.

In the final round of the project, I think there was a sense that White, Fern Flaman, and Harry Howell were pretty much equals and the best NHL-era defensemen left, and we couldn't figure out which was better. So a lot of us (me included) kind of just threw our last vote to Harvey Pulford.

Personally, I feel Duncan Keith has done enough by now to bump those guys down anyway.

 

[Say Hey Kid]

...Personally, I feel Duncan Keith has done enough by now to bump those guys down anyway.

You're not gonna get an argument from this Hawk's fan.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Like Kane on the winger list, Keith has to be getting very close if not already belonging to this list no?

Edit: Ah nevermind, I see TDMM made the argument even before the current run.if he was already worthy of bumping some guys down he might just keep rising on the list with it.I think Keith is playing the best hockey of his life, at 32 years old which is a good prime age for defensemen.

 

[Sonic Disturbance]

Like Kane on the winger list, Keith has to be getting very close if not already belonging to this list no?

Edit: Ah nevermind, I see TDMM made the argument even before the current run.if he was already worthy of bumping some guys down he might just keep rising on the list with it.I think Keith is playing the best hockey of his life, at 32 years old which is a good prime age for defensemen.

I'd have him in the late 30s, early 40s now and I see him around ~20 (Pronger territory) by the time he's done. Two Norrises, two cups (potentially three), two golds, should have already at least one Conn Smythe and is a lock for the Smythe this year if Chicago wins.

 

[Sprague Cleghorn]

You guys think Weber belongs in the top-60 by now?

IMO, I think he ends up somewhere in the 35-40 range when all is said and done.