HOH Top 60 Defensemen of All Time

[tarheelhockey]

Hedman not sure, but soon to be a lock. Tampa's collapse leaves a bad taste here.

The collapse makes it harder to get excited about him at this moment, but it's a pretty short-term thing compared to anything else we're looking at. It's not even Christmas yet, and AFAIK there are several players ahead of Hedman on Tampa's complaints list right now. It's kind of like that year when the Pens were underachieving horribly around this time of year... if we had taken a poll I'm sure there would have been complaints about Crosby and Malkin. Then they won the Cup and that season became an argument to move their ranking up.

In the wider lens, Hedman just turned 29 today (!) and already has a Norris and two 3rd places (or, a 1AS and two 2ASs). Three elite seasons and a total of maybe 5-6 years as a top-10 defenseman alrady makes him competitive with guys like Allan Stanley, Doug Wilson, Larry Murphy. If nothing else, I'd easily take him over Harvey Pulford at #60.

Another way to look at it... after Shea Weber (1985 birthday) we only see three* defensemen who clearly have all-time qualities: Doughty, Karlsson, Hedman. Once we get to 1994 we have Seth Jones, who is almost like a "Welcome to the Next Generation" sign to introduce a cohort which hasn't fully established itself yet. If nothing changes dramatically, this means we have 3 active older candidates (Chara, Keith, Weber), 3 prime-aged candidates (Doughty, Karlsson, Hedman), and we can assume an equal number of 3 from the younger generation. Total of 9. According to @Hockey Outsider's numbers posted here, 9 active list-worthy defensemen tracks nicely with what we should expect to see at a given point in history. It seems like Hedman is the guy to be that 3rd player from his generational cohort, maybe not quite as transcendent as the multi-Norris guys but solidy list-worthy in his own right.

* PK Subban looked like he belonged on that list, but the trajectory of his career isn't promising. Maybe he bounces back and makes it 4.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Another way to look at it... after Shea Weber (1985 birthday) we only see three* defensemen who clearly have all-time qualities: Doughty, Karlsson, Hedman. Once we get to 1994 we have Seth Jones, who is almost like a "Welcome to the Next Generation" sign to introduce a cohort which hasn't fully established itself yet. If nothing changes dramatically, this means we have 3 active older candidates (Chara, Keith, Weber), 3 prime-aged candidates (Doughty, Karlsson, Hedman), and we can assume an equal number of 3 from the younger generation. Total of 9. According to @Hockey Outsider's numbers posted here, 9 active list-worthy defensemen tracks nicely with what we should expect to see at a given point in history. It seems like Hedman is the guy to be that 3rd player from his generational cohort, maybe not quite as transcendent as the multi-Norris guys but solidy list-worthy in his own right.

* PK Subban looked like he belonged on that list, but the trajectory of his career isn't promising. Maybe he bounces back and makes it 4.

assuming brent burns doesn't count, because you said after weber, i would at least leave a light on for two guys from doughty/karlsson's draft: pietrangelo and john carlson. i'd say they have a chance if they can add à la larry murphy after 30 and both guys are looking like they might.

odd that between the 2003 and 2013 drafts, all the guys we're talking about were born between may of '89 and december '90.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I think I'll regret this post in pretty short order...because there are "better" players that will not make it. But I have a sense that Ryan Suter has a chance at it. Not right away...he might have to have some digestion take place for 10 years (a la Langway) or even 30 (a la Flaman)...but I think someone is gonna come along and go, "we didn't really appreciate this guy" and it's gonna be backed with, "the family is so intricately tied to the game and their contributions..." and all that...I see a scenario where he's a late add. I'm not putting money on it, but I'd listen to the odds given...

 

[tarheelhockey]

odd that between the 2003 and 2013 drafts, all the guys we're talking about were born between may of '89 and december '90.

I found that odd too. Something in the water?

 

[BenchBrawl]

The collapse makes it harder to get excited about him at this moment, but it's a pretty short-term thing compared to anything else we're looking at. It's not even Christmas yet, and AFAIK there are several players ahead of Hedman on Tampa's complaints list right now. It's kind of like that year when the Pens were underachieving horribly around this time of year... if we had taken a poll I'm sure there would have been complaints about Crosby and Malkin. Then they won the Cup and that season became an argument to move their ranking up.

In the wider lens, Hedman just turned 29 today (!) and already has a Norris and two 3rd places (or, a 1AS and two 2ASs). Three elite seasons and a total of maybe 5-6 years as a top-10 defenseman alrady makes him competitive with guys like Allan Stanley, Doug Wilson, Larry Murphy. If nothing else, I'd easily take him over Harvey Pulford at #60.

I agree with you, my comment was strictly about his current ranking. I said he was going to be a lock soon.

But will you guys leave Harvey Pulford alone?!

The fact he's included is one of my favorite things about the list. Respect given to the original defensive defenseman leader and winner—always an underrated role throughout history. Pulford was also a great all-around athlete throughout his life (always a good sign), up to apparently holding some squash title in his late-40s.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I agree with you, my comment was strictly about his current ranking. I said he was going to be a lock soon.

But will you guys leave Harvey Pulford alone?!

The fact he's included is one of my favorite things about the list. Respect given to the original defensive defenseman leader and winner—always an underrated role throughout history. Pulford was also a great all-around athlete throughout his life (always a good sign), up to apparently holding some squash title in his late-40s.

Harvey Pulford = Derian Hatcher (semi-educated opinion) and he mainly entered the list by default because Bill White = Harry Howell = Fern Flaman, and it felt wrong for one of them to make it and not the other two (factual recollection of our collective opinions)

 

[BenchBrawl]

Harvey Pulford = Derian Hatcher (semi-educated opinion) and he mainly entered the list by default because Bill White = Harry Howell = Fern Flaman, and it felt wrong for one of them to make it and not the other two (factual recollection of our collective opinions)

I see your point, a couple of thoughts:

1) Harvey Pulford was good-to-great at many sports; backfielder in football (won national championships), lacrosse (won national titles), boxing (won eastern canadian titles in two weight categories), rowing (won national and U.S. titles), squash (won local Ottawa titles in his late-40s) and obviously hockey (won Stanley Cup championships). This doesn't look like something Derian Hatcher would do at any point in time.

2) My knowledge of pre-1910 hockey is not as sharp as for 1910-1927, and I don't know if Pulford pioneered any skill in particular, but I intuitively give more credit to people who first did something. Pulford was a defensive defenseman and leader, played with the same club his entire career and won the SC multiple times. He is the original successful stay-at-home D, isn't he? Given that his era is all but ignored on this list (Hod Stuart is the only one), him being there make sense to me.

3) I'm a huge Derian Hatcher fan, and wouldn't blink seeing him on the list. His skillset was rare and I reject the thesis that he was just at the right place at the right time in the slow, physical dead puck era: granted it was a good era for him, but so would be most of hockey history. His skating and speed issues are overstated, at least for his time in Dallas. Even in Philadelphia he was still an excellent PKer and physical presence if nothing else. His impact in Dallas is underrated, both by reputation and his Norris record.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I see your point, a couple of thoughts:

1) Harvey Pulford was good-to-great at many sports; backfielder in football (won national championships), lacrosse (won national titles), boxing (won eastern canadian titles in two weight categories), rowing (won national and U.S. titles), squash (won local Ottawa titles in his late-40s) and obviously hockey (won Stanley Cup championships). This doesn't look like something Derian Hatcher would do at any point in time.

2) My knowledge of pre-1910 hockey is not as sharp as for 1910-1927, and I don't know if Pulford pioneered any skill in particular, but I intuitively give more credit to people who first did something. Pulford was a defensive defenseman and leader, played with the same club his entire career and won the SC multiple times. He is the original successful stay-at-home D, isn't he? Given that his era is all but ignored on this list (Hod Stuart is the only one), him being there make sense to me.

3) I'm a huge Derian Hatcher fan, and wouldn't blink seeing him on the list. His skillset was rare and I reject the thesis that he was just at the right place at the right time in the slow, physical dead puck era: granted it was a good era for him, but so would be most of hockey history. His skating and speed issues are overstated, at least for his time in Dallas. Even in Philadelphia he was still an excellent PKer and physical presence if nothing else.

IIRC, Hatcher was in the 70-80 range of my own list.

 

[BenchBrawl]

IIRC, Hatcher was in the 70-80 range of my own list.

Fair enough. That list is the oldest of the projects right? Would your ranking change today?

In any case I'd automatically rank Pulford over Hatcher based on meta considerations like era and pioneering.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Looking at the list right now, I have a strong intuition that the most underrated player is Harry Cameron (ignoring the actives like Chara). And yes I know about his uncoachability.

At his peak Cameron was the best D in the world. This was my impression reading newspapers anyway. I never got around to studying his career systematically though, still on my to-do list.

On another front, I don't see any difference between Guy Lapointe and George Boucher, yet 16 spots separate them.

Boucher's career arc is near-perfect; from a young positionally-versatile clutch player inside a stacked lineup, to a superstar two-way defenseman forming one of the greatest pairings of all-time with Eddie Gerard, to becoming the leader and captain of the team after Gerard's retirement and mentoring young defensemen like Hitchman and Clancy, adjusting his game to age and injuries and team needs in the process (Boucher's offense was not as needed once Clancy exploded), winning championships in all three phases with significant contributions in all of them, Boucher's career doesn't leave you wanting for more.

Like Lapointe, he played on a dynasty with other great defensemen, making him a natural comparable.

 

[The Macho King]

Doughty, Keith, Karlsson and Weber are locks to make the list, probably inside the Top 40.

Chara should get bumped up to around 20-25.

Hedman not sure, but soon to be a lock. Tampa's collapse leaves a bad taste here.

Edit:



^Basically this.

I'd point out that he played injured games 1 and 2 (missed the last ~4 games of the season with a concussion and came back when he clearly wasn't ready) and then sat out with a concussion in 3 and 4, so if anything that should help his case.

 

[Sentinel]

I found that odd too. Something in the water?

The fall of the Berlin Wall?

 

[Sentinel]

3) I'm a huge Derian Hatcher fan, and wouldn't blink seeing him on the list. His skillset was rare and I reject the thesis that he was just at the right place at the right time in the slow, physical dead puck era: granted it was a good era for him, but so would be most of hockey history. His skating and speed issues are overstated, at least for his time in Dallas. Even in Philadelphia he was still an excellent PKer and physical presence if nothing else. His impact in Dallas is underrated, both by reputation and his Norris record.

His "impact" in Detroit OTOH...

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

The fall of the Berlin Wall?

no definitely tiananmen square

 

[tarheelhockey]

I see your point, a couple of thoughts:

1) Harvey Pulford was good-to-great at many sports; backfielder in football (won national championships), lacrosse (won national titles), boxing (won eastern canadian titles in two weight categories), rowing (won national and U.S. titles), squash (won local Ottawa titles in his late-40s) and obviously hockey (won Stanley Cup championships). This doesn't look like something Derian Hatcher would do at any point in time.

2) My knowledge of pre-1910 hockey is not as sharp as for 1910-1927, and I don't know if Pulford pioneered any skill in particular, but I intuitively give more credit to people who first did something. Pulford was a defensive defenseman and leader, played with the same club his entire career and won the SC multiple times. He is the original successful stay-at-home D, isn't he? Given that his era is all but ignored on this list (Hod Stuart is the only one), him being there make sense to me.

3) I'm a huge Derian Hatcher fan, and wouldn't blink seeing him on the list. His skillset was rare and I reject the thesis that he was just at the right place at the right time in the slow, physical dead puck era: granted it was a good era for him, but so would be most of hockey history. His skating and speed issues are overstated, at least for his time in Dallas. Even in Philadelphia he was still an excellent PKer and physical presence if nothing else. His impact in Dallas is underrated, both by reputation and his Norris record.

Pulford pioneered physical hockey. He was the first (known) defenseman to make a tactic out of running at opponents, throwing them off their game with physicality. This was during a time period when the game was still played with strap-on skates/little padding/short sticks, and defensemen were mainly expected to lay back and swat pucks away with their sticks, so the prospect of someone deliberately throwing you to the ice was fairly novel (and dangerous). As a result, Pulford was probably the first defenseman to gain real notoriety.

I think this makes Pulford an interesting player, worth memorializing and discussing in contexts like these. I don’t see real evidence that he was a top-60 defenseman of all time, other than as a “builder” type figure.

 

[Ivo]

For what it's worth, in the HOH Top 100 hockey players list from 2018, Chara ranked 23rd among defensemen and Duncan Keith 25th. No other active Dman made the list, but Karlsson was available for the last vote which could see him ranked somewhere in the 28-31 range.

 

[BadgerBruce]

I think I'll regret this post in pretty short order...because there are "better" players that will not make it. But I have a sense that Ryan Suter has a chance at it. Not right away...he might have to have some digestion take place for 10 years (a la Langway) or even 30 (a la Flaman)...but I think someone is gonna come along and go, "we didn't really appreciate this guy" and it's gonna be backed with, "the family is so intricately tied to the game and their contributions..." and all that...I see a scenario where he's a late add. I'm not putting money on it, but I'd listen to the odds given...

Astute post.

I would be willing to make that wager, though I wouldn’t put down the family farm on it.

Like you, my best guess is that Suter will be one of those “look at those ice time figures!” guys who, at some point in the distant future, is “rediscovered” by someone with an agenda driven by those “family connections” you point out.

Such a strange game sometimes, one where actual performance over a career becomes a secondary rather than primary consideration.

 

[sr edler]

There's nothing suspect with R. Suter's performance, he's not worse than Weber in that regard, Weber though is the D version of J. Tavares, i.e. a high profile player with a game that lacks quintessential dynamic components, which is skating and to a lesser degree versatile playmaking. Weber made Kesler (a guy with nice skating) look like a world beater in the 2011 playoffs.

 

[ted2019]

For what it's worth, in the HOH Top 100 hockey players list from 2018, Chara ranked 23rd among defensemen and Duncan Keith 25th. No other active Dman made the list, but Karlsson was available for the last vote which could see him ranked somewhere in the 28-31 range.

To be fair, since he's been with the Sharks, he hasn't been as effective ( yes I know he had a severe injury) when having another #1 type defensemen on the team ( Brent Burns). I think that his recent play might hurt him in any sort of new proiection in any sort of new rankings.

 

[ted2019]

There's nothing suspect with R. Suter's performance, he's not worse than Weber in that regard, Weber though is the D version of J. Tavares, i.e. a high profile player with a game that lacks quintessential dynamic components, which is skating and to a lesser degree versatile playmaking. Weber made Kesler (a guy with nice skating) look like a world beater in the 2011 playoffs.

Whose better, Suter or Weber?

 

[sr edler]

I don't think there's much of a difference, they just have a bit different skillsets. I've mocked Weber's big sexy shot earlier but of course he's better than just a shot, he's solid, but I don't think it screams HHOFer about him. But with the standards of the HHOF it's possible to push these guys in. Not that I care about it though. If I built a team I would pick Suter, but we can call that a personal preference just to avoid more controversy.

 

[The Macho King]

Whose better, Suter or Weber?

Weber by 100 miles.

 

[Staniowski]

I think I'll regret this post in pretty short order...because there are "better" players that will not make it. But I have a sense that Ryan Suter has a chance at it. Not right away...he might have to have some digestion take place for 10 years (a la Langway) or even 30 (a la Flaman)...but I think someone is gonna come along and go, "we didn't really appreciate this guy" and it's gonna be backed with, "the family is so intricately tied to the game and their contributions..." and all that...I see a scenario where he's a late add. I'm not putting money on it, but I'd listen to the odds given...

If you're talking about the HHOF, Langway didn't wait 10 years. He was inducted in his 2nd year of eligibility, and probably would have been inducted in his 1st year in most years...

 

[BenchBrawl]

His "impact" in Detroit OTOH...

He suffered a knee injury right away didn't he? That slowed him down for the rest of his career. Not fair to judge him for his stint in Detroit.

Pulford pioneered physical hockey. He was the first (known) defenseman to make a tactic out of running at opponents, throwing them off their game with physicality. This was during a time period when the game was still played with strap-on skates/little padding/short sticks, and defensemen were mainly expected to lay back and swat pucks away with their sticks, so the prospect of someone deliberately throwing you to the ice was fairly novel (and dangerous). As a result, Pulford was probably the first defenseman to gain real notoriety.

I think this makes Pulford an interesting player, worth memorializing and discussing in contexts like these. I don’t see real evidence that he was a top-60 defenseman of all time, other than as a “builder” type figure.

Well introducing physical play is a huge contribution.

I guess it would depend on your definition of of what constitute a "top" defenseman.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Well introducing physical play is a huge contribution.

I guess it would depend on your definition of of what constitute a "top" defenseman.

Indeed, it's a matter of interpreting the purpose of the list. I like that the rules were deliberately left open for interpretation.