How good was Larry Murphy?

Tweed

Registered User
Jun 25, 2006
4,025
1,203
I honestly forgot about 87 when I initially posted that, but his 3rd place finish there was so far behind the leaders

1987:

PlacePlayerAgeTmPosVotesVote%1st2nd3rd4th5thGAPTS+/-OPSDPSGPSPS
1Ray Bourque26BOSD26698.525220237295447.26.40.013.6
2Mark Howe31PHID13750.741426154358574.16.50.010.5
3Larry Murphy25WSHD3111.480516235881256.15.70.011.9
4Larry Robinson35MTLD124.44026133750243.25.70.09.0
5Paul Coffey25EDMD103.70105175067135.02.60.07.
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
1993 is a lot closer, but in retrospect, it sure looks like being the #1 on Mario Lemieux's team helped him:

PlacePlayerAgeTmPosVotesVote%1st2nd3rd4th5thGAPTS+/-OPSDPSGPSPS
1Chris Chelios31CHID20180.4033106155873144.86.30.011.1
2Ray Bourque32BOSD9738.8061910196382385.96.30.012.2
3Larry Murphy31PITD9337.2091115226385456.26.20.012.4
4Kevin Hatcher26WSHD176.80052344579-76.64.00.010.6
5Phil Housley28WIND166.40125187997-146.82.90.09.8
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

I don't agree or disagree with you. I was just surprised to hear that he wasn't close to being a Norris level defenseman (based on what you said), so I looked it up and came across The Panther's post from years ago. Thought I'd just relay it back to you to see if you feel differently. I think if I had to weigh in on it... I'd say 7x nominated, especially those 3rds, would be enough to say he was close. But there's "close" as in "just edged out" and then there's "close" as in "in the conversation"... and I'm assuming you view "close" as the former.

So for all intents and purposes, I'm just pushing the ball forward and tossing it back into your court, for the sake of the conversation. Again, no personal opinion here, and don't agree or disagree with you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WingsFan95

decma

Registered User
Feb 6, 2013
743
375
I don't remember Murphy being considered a good defensive defenseman in the 80s. Maybe that changed after his stints in Pit and especially Det, but during his 20s I think he was considered a good offensive d-man who was somewhat one dimensional.

And in terms of his offense, I don't think we was considered elite. That is, he was a cut below Coffey, Bourque, Wilson, MacInnis, and Housley, and probably also Howe, Reinhart, and Potvin.
His production was more in line with Babych, Larson, Robinson, and Carlyle.

Murphy certainly had longevity, and the success of Pit and Det during his time there certainly helped his reputation.

Re his trade from LA, I think we need to keep his scoring numbers in context. After his rookie season (which coincided with the Triple Crown's best season), his LA numbers were good but not spectacular.

In 81/82 and 82/83, he was "only" 11th among d-men in ppg (behind Coffey, Bourque, Wilson, Potvin, Carlyle, Reinhart, Hartsburg, Babych, Robinson, and Larson, and just ahead of Ruotsalainen).

Combine that with the perception that he wasn't bringing anything else to the table, his slow start to 83/84, the salary dispute (and Murphy's request to be traded), Engblom's defensive reputation, Houston's decent scoring numbers (he had 47 goals in the two seasons prior to the trade - compared with 36 for Murphy), and the fact that LA was going nowhere and felt the need to make changes, and I don't think the trade was that surprising at the time.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: vadim sharifijanov

frisco

Some people claim that there's a woman to blame...
Sep 14, 2017
3,553
2,643
Northern Hemisphere
Murphy was obviously tremendously effective. The problem is he didn't look like a great player to the casual fan. Slowish. Not a physical guy. Didn't rush the puck with any real flair. No booming shots. From an "eye test" perspective, he failed. I guess that's what Leafs fans "saw" in him. Guys are obviously going to be enamored by the Pavel Bure or Paul Coffey types but there are many ways to be productive.

My Best-Carey
 

Thenameless

Registered User
Apr 29, 2014
3,854
1,788
He seemed to do well for me in hockey pools, so I have a bit of a good vibe when it comes to Larry Murphy. Just one of those quiet, unassuming guys that gets the job done. A player that you can win with.
 

82Ninety42011

Registered User
Jul 2, 2011
7,527
5,456
Abbotsford BC
He was a positionally sound player with a great first pass. He wasn't flashy but very consistent and blessed to play with some great teams like Wings and Pens however he put up numbers everywhere he played. His skating from what I recall would be his worst asset was slow if im recalling right.
 

wetcoast

Registered User
Nov 20, 2018
22,247
10,126
I don't remember Murphy being considered a good defensive defenseman in the 80s. Maybe that changed after his stints in Pit and especially Det, but during his 20s I think he was considered a good offensive d-man who was somewhat one dimensional.

And in terms of his offense, I don't think we was considered elite. That is, he was a cut below Coffey, Bourque, Wilson, MacInnis, and Housley, and probably also Howe, Reinhart, and Potvin.
His production was more in line with Babych, Larson, Robinson, and Carlyle.

Murphy certainly had longevity, and the success of Pit and Det during his time there certainly helped his reputation.

Re his trade from LA, I think we need to keep his scoring numbers in context. After his rookie season (which coincided with the Triple Crown's best season), his LA numbers were good but not spectacular.

In 81/82 and 82/83, he was "only" 11th among d-men in ppg (behind Coffey, Bourque, Wilson, Potvin, Carlyle, Reinhart, Hartsburg, Babych, Robinson, and Larson, and just ahead of Ruotsalainen).

I'm not big on comps but Murphy is basically a longer version of Carlyle on some great teams after the age of 29 to make it into a HHOF career.

Combine that with the perception that he wasn't bringing anything else to the table, his slow start to 83/84, the salary dispute (and Murphy's request to be traded), Engblom's defensive reputation, Houston's decent scoring numbers (he had 47 goals in the two seasons prior to the trade - compared with 36 for Murphy), and the fact that LA was going nowhere and felt the need to make changes, and I don't think the trade was that surprising at the time.
 

wetcoast

Registered User
Nov 20, 2018
22,247
10,126
This article from the very reputable Gann Matsuda lays it out pretty nicely: One Of The Most Lopsided Trades In NHL History Involved The LA Kings And Larry Murphy

“He was such a laid back person, and that’s the way he played,” said former Kings left wing Charlie Simmer, a member of the famed Triple Crown Line with Marcel Dionne and Dave Taylor. “He was misunderstood. He was a bigger guy, and that was the era of fighting, the Broad Street Bullies [Philadelphia Flyers] and the Big, Bad Bruins [Boston Bruins].”


“They were always trying to get him into that type of mode, but that’s not him,” added Simmer, who played with Murphy throughout the time Murphy was with the Kings. “His game, as we saw through his whole career, was a point-getting, calm defenseman. He didn’t change, other than he just got better and better with confidence and experience.”


Rather than adapt their coaching style and tactics to the players on the roster, MacDonald, and especially Perry, stubbornly and foolishly forced their players into a particular mold and style of play, which included more hitting and fighting. This proved to be a huge mistake, especially with a player of Murphy’s caliber."

TLDR is that Coach Bob Berry, who recognized that Murphy was a great possession d-man was fired, and his replacement looked at anyone taller than 6'0 and expected them to goon it up. This is a recurring theme amongst terrible coaches, regardless of era, in this case Parker McDonald (who sounds more like a b-rate board game company than a coach, but I digress). He was a solid enough player, just very stuck in the old-school mentality.

Great article about Murphy.

I found this tidbit quite interesting about his trade From Toronto to Detroit.

“Timing is everything,” said Murphy. “The interesting thing was when I got traded from Toronto to Detroit, I had a no-trade clause. I wasn’t aware of anything going on, but I got the call at 2:45 PM, and I had a clause in my contract stating that I had to waive the no-trade clause by 3:00 PM [Eastern time on the day of the trade deadline] in order for them to make the deal.”
“What if I was off somewhere, without access to a phone? The deal would never have happened,” added Murphy. “I think about that all the time. It would’ve been a huge, missed opportunity for me, but it worked out well. I had a good run in Detroit. Fate made the difference there.”

Does Murphy make the HHOF without those 2 SC with Detroit?
 
  • Like
Reactions: overg

The Panther

Registered User
Mar 25, 2014
19,114
15,573
Tokyo, Japan
I don't remember Murphy being considered a good defensive defenseman in the 80s. Maybe that changed after his stints in Pit and especially Det, but during his 20s I think he was considered a good offensive d-man who was somewhat one dimensional.
Well, he was good enough to play for Team Canada on one of the greatest teams of all-time at Canada Cup '87. In 1986-87, he leds the Caps in scoring and had the best plus/minus on the team. I don't know what's "one dimensional" about that. Washington was the League's best defensive team in the 80s, with Murphy, Langway, and Stevens manning the blue-line. Murphy was the most balanced of those three, at the time.
And in terms of his offense, I don't think we was considered elite.
Again, he led a good NHL team in scoring in 1987. He had 76 points as a rookie (!). If he wasn't considered offensively elite, it's only because his game was so well-balanced on both offense and defence. Really, he was a slightly lesser Ray Bourque.
 

decma

Registered User
Feb 6, 2013
743
375
Well, he was good enough to play for Team Canada on one of the greatest teams of all-time at Canada Cup '87.

I hesitate to use Canada Cup selections as a measure of whether a guy was elite. Selection is often dependent on circumstance (Reinhart, Wilson, and Lowe being injured, and Robinson skipping out) and coaching whims (MacInnis being cut).

Moreover, Rochefort, Crossman, and Patrick also made Canada's 87 team, but I think you would agree they were not elite.

Lastly, he did not make the 84 team, and I do not believe he was even invited to camp. Huddy, Gregg, Marios, and Patrick were among the d-men who were.


In 1986-87, he leds the Caps in scoring and had the best plus/minus on the team. I don't know what's "one dimensional" about that. Washington was the League's best defensive team in the 80s, with Murphy, Langway, and Stevens manning the blue-line. Murphy was the most balanced of those three, at the time.

Again, he led a good NHL team in scoring in 1987. He had 76 points as a rookie (!). If he wasn't considered offensively elite, it's only because his game was so well-balanced on both offense and defence. Really, he was a slightly lesser Ray Bourque.

I think leading a team in scoring is also largely dependent on circumstances such as the quality of forwards on that team. E.g., Norm McIver, Mark Streit, Nik Kronwall, and Dick Tarnstrom also led their teams in scoring, but I don't think they were elite offensively.

His rookie year was outstanding, but over a longer period - such as the decade - he was the 9th best d-man in PPG. Well behind the elites and barely above guys like Larson and Babych.

Re whether he was considered one-dimensional, I think the quotations with respect to the trade to Washington support that. Conversely, I have not seen any quotations praising his defensive abilities in the 80s.

Re his plus/minus, yes, it was good in 86/87. But it was poor in other years. Over the decade, his plus minus was not that good compared to d-men like the ones I listed above.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tarantula

seventieslord

Student Of The Game
Mar 16, 2006
36,080
7,132
Regina, SK
, Houston's decent scoring numbers (he had 47 goals in the two seasons prior to the trade

Houston was a forward.

with Murphy, Langway, and Stevens manning the blue-line. Murphy was the most balanced of those three, at the time

Ok, I know that Stevens in the 80s wasn't at the level he'd eventually reach, but come on, there's no way Murphy was ever better defensively then him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BenchBrawl

seventieslord

Student Of The Game
Mar 16, 2006
36,080
7,132
Regina, SK
I didn't say he was better overall; I said he was the most balanced.

Although Stevens was cut at Canada Cup '87...
Yes, you said more balanced, and both were defensemen who scored a lot of points. The implication had to be that Murphy was about as good defensively as he was offensively, and Stevens wasn't.
 

The Panther

Registered User
Mar 25, 2014
19,114
15,573
Tokyo, Japan
The implication had to be that Murphy was about as good defensively as he was offensively, and Stevens wasn't.
Yes, that is what I think.

I don't think it's right to say that Murphy wasn't as elite offensively as Coffey or Leetch or whoever, and then doubly criticize him for not being as elite defensively as Stevens or Langway. In fact, it is probably rarer to get the Dman who is near-elite at both, like Murphy. Stevens became that later in his career, but I don't think he was offensively strong until several years after Murphy.
 

Iron Mike Sharpe

Registered User
Dec 6, 2017
945
1,118
You're right. I recalled that Houston split time b/w forward and D, but no doubt the majority of his time those seasons was at wing.

I don't remember him ever playing D in the NHL. He was converted from D to wing by the Flames in their 1975 training camp, and spent his entire NHL career on the wing. Decent forecheker who played in the dirty spots, as I recall. One of those handful of anomalous guys who was listed as a D upon entry into the NHL, and spent the rest of his career listed in guide books, hockey cards, etc. as D when he was actually a winger.
 
  • Like
Reactions: seventieslord

Big Phil

Registered User
Nov 2, 2003
31,703
4,144
Legit and deserving first ballot HHOF defenseman. He entered the same year as Bourque and Coffey. No, he was not on their level and is a step down and if there is a defenseman who is basically the Ron Francis of his craft it is him. Longevity, always good, didn't peak as high as others, but always good and contributed to championships.

None other than Mike Keenan thought he was good enough for the 1987 and 1991 Canada Cups. Murphy definitely belonged. Was a #1 defenseman on back to back Cups in Pittsburgh (although Coffey was there for the first one). Was a key piece with the Wings back to back Cups.

His Norris voting had some gaps in it, but it still shows he was considered to be elite in some years. Killed penalties his entire career. Wasn't overly physical but smart. I don't know how he managed to do this but he was excellent at batting pucks down and keeping them in at the offensive blue line. Not a fast skater, but smart and could lead a rush. Not a liability like Housley or someone like that.
 

vadim sharifijanov

Registered User
Oct 10, 2007
28,590
15,949
if there is a defenseman who is basically the Ron Francis of his craft it is him. Longevity, always good, didn't peak as high as others, but always good and contributed to championships.

i think ron francis is too high of a bar for murphy. defenseman version of mark recchi?
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->