Most important position on a team

[ReggieDunlop68]

Messier was the third best player on the 94 team.

Who were the first 2?

 

[Machinehead]

Who were the first 2?

Leetch, obviously, and Zubov.

Messier had a better career than Zubov, no question, but Zubov had a couple of better seasons in the mid-90's.

The point is, using the '94 Rangers as an example of goaltending > center is a non-starter because it's not taking into account that they had one of most stacked defenses of all-time.

It's also a bad example because, as you alluded to, we won the Cup with Messier in hindsight, and Hasek never did during the same era.

 

[Edge]

Leetch, obviously, and Zubov.

Messier had a better career than Zubov, no question, but Zubov had a couple of better seasons in the mid-90's.

The point is, using the '94 Rangers as an example of goaltending > center is a non-starter because it's not taking into account that they had one of most stacked defenses of all-time.

It's also a bad example because, as you alluded to, we won the Cup with Messier in hindsight, and Hasek never did during the same era.

Leetch yes.

Zubov, well...

I think my memory of Zubov's time with the Rangers is a little different.

 

[Machinehead]

Leetch yes.

Zubov, well...

I think my memory of Zubov's time with the Rangers is a little different.

In '94 and '95 he was a top 5 defenseman.

Nine defenseman in NHL history have hit 89 points.

 

[Edge]

In '94 and '95 he was a top 5 defenseman.

Nine defenseman in NHL history have hit 89 points.

He was a very good point producer and tremendous on the powerplay. An excellent offensive player.

Not sure anyone at that time considered him a top 5 defenseman.

 

[Machinehead]

He was a very good point producer and tremendous on the powerplay. An excellent offensive player.

Not sure anyone at that time considered him a top 5 defenseman.

The Norris voters did, for one.

Not to say they haven't been wrong a bunch of times, but it's factually incorrect to say nobody did.

 

[Edge]

The Norris voters did, for one.

Not to say they haven't been wrong a bunch of times, but it's factually incorrect to say nobody did.

I don't particuarly consider the Norris voting to be an indication of a defenseman being considered among the top 5 in his position. For example, the exclusion of defensive defenseman has long been a point of contention, and was so in those days.

But throwing that out the window for a second and playing along, he finished fourth in voting in 94 and didn't finish in the voting in 95.

So what average would you assign to for the two years in question?

 

[Machinehead]

I don't particuarly consider the Norris voting to be an indication of a defenseman being considered among the top 5 in his position. For example, the exclusion of defensive defenseman has long been a point of contention, and was so in those days.

Scott Stevens has five top-5 finishes and in three of those, he had less than 30 points.

Again, just incorrect.

But throwing that out the window for a second and playing along, he finished fourth in voting in 94 and didn't finish in the voting in 95.

So what average would you assign to for the two years in question?

Who cares about average? You said nobody did, which not correct.

 

[Edge]

Scott Stevens has five top-5 finishes and in three of those, he had less than 30 points.

Again, just incorrect.



Who cares about average? You said nobody did, which not correct.

The exclusion of, or at the very least the overlooking of defensive defenseman is a well-documented issue with the Norris trophy. Has been for years. There's simply no denying that.

Re: a top five vote in a single Norris vote. That does not a top 5 defenseman make. Could someone have considered him a top 5 defenseman? Sure, I'm sure we can dig up someone, somewhere who thought he was top 5. Don't think that's quite what we were talking about though.

With regards to average, I was trying to understand your point.

You said he was top 5 in 1994 and 1995. So even if I abandon my previous argument and go with your approach, he was fourth and not ranked at at all in the two years you cited. So I'm merely trying to determine how that makes him top 5 over a two year span.

 

[Machinehead]

The exclusion of, or at the very least the overlooking of defensive defenseman is a well-documented issue with the Norris trophy. Has been for years. There's simply no denying that.

Re: a top five vote in a single Norris vote. That does not a top 5 defenseman make. Could someone have considered him a top 5 defenseman? Sure, I'm sure we can dig up someone, somewhere who thought he was top 5. Don't think that's quite what we were talking about though.

With regards to average, I was trying to understand your point.

You said he was top 5 in 1994 and 1995. So even if I abandon my previous argument and go with your approach, he was fourth and not ranked at at all in the two years you cited. So I'm merely trying to determine how that makes him top 5 over a two year span.

He was a PPG two-way D. 26 minutes a game. What five guys were doing better than that during those two years?

I know you'll make it out like he couldn't play defense, but again, he was a 26 minute per game player on Dallas and the #1 defenseman on a Cup team and a SCF team the following year. Best defensive team in the West during that era. Apparently he was ok at defense.

 

[Machinehead]

Also I'm not sure how we're still pretending defensive defenseman are overlooked in Norris voting. You blew off my point that Stevens had five top-5 finishes. Stevens couldn't find the other team's net on a map.

Drew Doughty had 51 points the year he won the Norris. Erik Karlsson had 56 at even strength.

 

[Say Hey Kid]

He was a PPG two-way D. 26 minutes a game. What five guys were doing better than that during those two years?

I know you'll make it out like he couldn't play defense, but again, he was a 26 minute per game player on Dallas and the #1 defenseman on a Cup team and a SCF team the following year. Best defensive team in the West during that era. Apparently he was ok at defense.

Agreed. He has more points than forwards Bertuzzi, Demitra, and Kehoe. He played in 3 all-star games and is a career +148. He was a good player. I know what the replies to this will be, but I'm out.

 

[Edge]

He was a PPG two-way D. 26 minutes a game. What five guys were doing better than that during those two years?

I know you'll make it out like he couldn't play defense, but again, he was a 26 minute per game player on Dallas and the #1 defenseman on a Cup team and a SCF team the following year. Best defensive team in the West during that era. Apparently he was ok at defense.

No one is denying he wasn't an excellent player.

But I'm still trying to determine how you figure he was a top 5 defenseman. You mentioned two years, and cited the Norris trophy, but I'm not understanding the math on a fourth and a did not place.

If I take his Norris averages in the 90s, starting in 93-94 and ending in 99-00, I come up with average of 10th based on six times he finished with votes. And that excludes a season in which he didn't place.

Using the Norris methodology, Bourque, Leetch, Lidstrom, Stevens averaged better,

Chelios averaged about the same, with more appearances. An older Paul Coffey a little worse, with less appearances. Larry Murphy averaged slightly better, but with less appearances. Pronger averaged higher, but with less appearances.

Other guys had some overlap and did better just outside of the time period in question, but I've focused on just the 90s for the sake of this conversation.

So going off nothing but Norris voting, he's definitely in the mix for top 10 for the time period, which seemed to be about where he averaged from season to season. It also coincides with AS voting, in which he averages around 10 as well.

So if nothing else, he remarkably ranked around the 10th mark with an impressive degree of consistency. But pushing into that top 5 takes a pretty good degree of flexibility --- both for the era and in a given season.

 

[Machinehead]

No one is denying he wasn't an excellent player.

But I'm still trying to determine how you figure he was a top 5 defenseman. You mentioned two years, and cited the Norris trophy, but I'm not understanding the math on a fourth and a did not place.

If I take his Norris averages in the 90s, starting in 93-94 and ending in 99-00, I come up with average of 10th based on six times he finished with votes. And that excludes a season in which he didn't place.

Using the Norris methodology, Bourque, Leetch, Lidstrom, Stevens averaged better,

Chelios averaged about the same, with more appearances. An older Paul Coffey a little worse, with less appearances. Larry Murphy averaged slightly better, but with less appearances. Pronger averaged higher, but with less appearances.

Other guys had some overlap and did better just outside of the time period in question, but I've focused on just the 90s for the sake of this conversation.

So going off nothing but Norris voting, he's definitely in the mix for top 10 for the time period, which seemed to be about where he averaged from season to season. It also coincides with AS voting, in which he averages around 10 as well.

So if nothing else, he remarkably ranked around the 10th mark with an impressive degree of consistency. But pushing into that top 5 takes a pretty good degree of flexibility --- both for the era and in a given season.

I'm not going off of Norris voting.

You said nobody considered him to be that good and my response was that apparently somebody did in 1994. Other than that, my opinion has nothing to do with the Norris trophy.

 

[Edge]

Also I'm not sure how we're still pretending defensive defenseman are overlooked in Norris voting. You blew off my point that Stevens had five top-5 finishes. Stevens couldn't find the other team's net on a map.

Drew Doughty had 51 points the year he won the Norris. Erik Karlsson had 56 at even strength.

Didn't blow it off at all. When talking about the 90s especially, you didn't see much love for defensive defenseman. Was it unheard of? No. But looking at the voting, Stevens was certainly more the exception than the rule, especially when you got the top half of the voting.

Drew Doughty and Erik Karlsson are a completely different era and still considered among the top offensive defenseman of their eras.

 

[Edge]

I'm not going off of Norris voting.

You said nobody considered him to be that good and my response was that apparently somebody did in 1994. Other than that, my opinion has nothing to do with the Norris trophy.

And I once again disagree with your opinion.

It wasn't reflected in the views of the time. It wasn't reflected in Norris or AS voting.

You're entitled to your opinion, but there's at least an equally compelling argument against it.

Right now, your argument comes down to one fourth place Norris vote in 1994 and your opinion.

 

[Edge]

BTW, none of this is to imply Zubov didn't have a hell of a run in the mid to late 90s.

I was curious and found he posted 384 points from 93-94 to 99-00.

Doing a quick search, here's how he looks next to some of the other offensive leaning or notable defenseman that played during the same time period from a strictly points perspective. There's oviously no denying his offensive production was in good company to say the least.

Leetch - 414

Bourque - 423

Housley - 381

Murphy - 406

Ozolinsh - 400

Lidstrom - 395

Coffey - 374

Chelios - 366

 

[Nopuckluck]

Leetch, obviously, and Zubov.

Messier had a better career than Zubov, no question, but Zubov had a couple of better seasons in the mid-90's.

The point is, using the '94 Rangers as an example of goaltending > center is a non-starter because it's not taking into account that they had one of most stacked defenses of all-time.

It's also a bad example because, as you alluded to, we won the Cup with Messier in hindsight, and Hasek never did during the same era.

Holy shit dude!!! You could make an argument for Leetch but Zubov? I lived Zubov. Tremendous offensive D for a couple of years but.......BETTER THAN MESSIER AND A TOP 5D MAN IN THE NHL! What are you smoking? He wasn’t even top 4 defensively on his own team. Holy shit

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

BTW, none of this is to imply Zubov didn't have a hell of a run in the mid to late 90s.

I was curious and found he posted 384 points from 93-94 to 99-00.

Doing a quick search, here's how he looks next to some of the other offensive leaning or notable defenseman that played during the same time period from a strictly points perspective. There's oviously no denying his offensive production was in good company to say the least.

Leetch - 414

Bourque - 423

Housley - 381

Murphy - 406

Ozolinsh - 400

Lidstrom - 395

Coffey - 374

Chelios - 366

Oh just tell him off and stop being so diplomatic.

If Zubov played 2 careers, he would have about the same points Borque and Coffey had in 1 career respectively

And yes , Zubov did round out his D side later in his career, but he wasn’t even close to any player on that list in their primes in 2 way play let alone points.

Also, Zubov was a big fat blond toe call from leaving him with only the 94 cup.


I mean even Coffey was traded a bunch of times when he became more of a one zone threat.

 

[Edge]

Oh just tell him off and stop being so diplomatic.

If Zubov played 2 careers, he would have about the same points Borque and Coffey had in 1 career respectively

And yes , Zubov did round out his D side later in his career, but he wasn’t even close to any player on that list in their primes in 2 way play let alone points.

Also, Zubov was a big fat blond toe call from leaving him with only the 94 cup.


I mean even Coffey was traded a bunch of times when he became more of a one zone threat.

Lol.

Here’s the thing, I think Zubov was probably one of those guys who season to season hovered around the 10-12 mark in the league. Some guys came and went, some had bigger peaks, etc. But Zubov was pretty consistent for a very long period of time.

Before I had this conversation I probably would’ve said Zubov was probably about 10 or 11 in the era. The fact that some of the different votes have him in that range isn’t necessarily concrete proof, but it’s also not a coincidence either. I think his averages were more or less how he was viewed around the league. It made me chuckle a little because I went in with the range in mind, before I ever looked at some of the voting. I wasn’t quite expecting it to be that reflective.

I think the difference in opinion between MH and I comes down to two factors:

1. MH probably has Zubov a little higher overall than I do. Maybe as much as 5th compared to 10th/11th, maybe even less.

2. I tend to view Zubov’s time with the Rangers to be a little less idealistic. I remember the defense, consistency, training and mental focus to be a little more suspect. I view him as more of a specialist with this team. Granted he was a hell of a specialist for the Rangers, but he arguably wasn’t a guy drawing the tough assignments and his deployment was definitely sheltered to avoid playing into his shortcomings —which seem to be glossed over because the trade for him didn’t pan out. For me though, that’s a whole seperate conversation.

Between the chain smoking, the anxiety and the defense, I don’t think most people would’ve quite predicted the career for Zubov that he had. That’s also a pretty good indication of why the Rangers weren’t the only team to ship him off after a relatively short period of time.

To Zubov’s credit he had a great career. But I do tend to push back against certain narratives from the mid-90s when I feel there are certain key points and contextual elements that are missing.

But I don’t necessarily think MH and I are oceans apart.

 

[Synergy27]

You blew off my point that Stevens had five top-5 finishes. Stevens couldn't find the other team's net on a map.

Scott Stevens had 78 points in 93-94 and was essentially a 60 point defenseman (aka, really good offensively) for his entire career before that. Not sure if it was age, league conditions, or Lemaire that curbed that post 95 (he was 0.5ppg in the lockout year as well), but I don't think it's a stretch that his former offensive dominance helped him become that outlier defense first guy that got Norris consideration.

Not the point though, I know, although I do think your opinion about Zubov being the second best player on the Cup team is pretty hipster, especially if you're talking playoffs. He's third or fourth though, right there with my hipster vote for Steve Larmer.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

Lol.

Here’s the thing, I think Zubov was probably one of those guys who season to season hovered around the 10-12 mark in the league. Some guys came and went, some had bigger peaks, etc. But Zubov was pretty consistent for a very long period of time.

Before I had this conversation I probably would’ve said Zubov was probably about 10 or 11 in the era. The fact that some of the different votes have him in that range isn’t necessarily concrete proof, but it’s also not a coincidence either. I think his averages were more or less how he was viewed around the league. It made me chuckle a little because I went in with the range in mind, before I ever looked at some of the voting. I wasn’t quite expecting it to be that reflective.

I think the difference in opinion between MH and I comes down to two factors:

1. MH probably has Zubov a little higher overall than I do. Maybe as much as 5th compared to 10th/11th, maybe even less.

2. I tend to view Zubov’s time with the Rangers to be a little less idealistic. I remember the defense, consistency, training and mental focus to be a little more suspect. I view him as more of a specialist with this team. Granted he was a hell of a specialist for the Rangers, but he arguably wasn’t a guy drawing the tough assignments and his deployment was definitely sheltered to avoid playing into his shortcomings —which seem to be glossed over because the trade for him didn’t pan out. For me though, that’s a whole seperate conversation.

Between the chain smoking, the anxiety and the defense, I don’t think most people would’ve quite predicted the career for Zubov that he had. That’s also a pretty good indication of why the Rangers weren’t the only team to ship him off after a relatively short period of time.

To Zubov’s credit he had a great career. But I do tend to push back against certain narratives from the mid-90s when I feel there are certain key points and contextual elements that are missing.

But I don’t necessarily think MH and I are oceans apart.

Yeah the context is way off.

Nothing against Zubov.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

Scott Stevens had 78 points in 93-94 and was essentially a 60 point defenseman (aka, really good offensively) for his entire career before that. Not sure if it was age, league conditions, or Lemaire that curbed that post 95 (he was 0.5ppg in the lockout year as well), but I don't think it's a stretch that his former offensive dominance helped him become that outlier defense first guy that got Norris consideration.

Not the point though, I know, although I do think your opinion about Zubov being the second best player on the Cup team is pretty hipster, especially if you're talking playoffs. He's third or fourth though, right there with my hipster vote for Steve Larmer.

The Devils playstyle had a huge change after 94. The Devils actually had more regular season goals for than us with only the Red Wings scoring more [?].

The notion of Zubov being the second most important was way more wrong than hip.

I in no way think it was a dope, groovy, or a dank idea, and it was certainly less than all that and a bag of chips. Way, way less than PHAT too.

Larmer is a goood pick. f***ed the team when he didn’t want to play anymore , but I respect him because he gave up money to not be a has-been.

 

[Synergy27]

The Devils playstyle had a huge change after 94. The Devils actually had more regular season goals for than us with only the Red Wings scoring more [?].

The notion of Zubov being the second most important was way more wrong than hip.

I in no way think it was a dope, groovy, or a dank idea, and it was certainly less than all that and a bag of chips. Way, way less than PHAT too.

Larmer is a goood pick. ****ed the team when he didn’t want to play anymore , but I respect him because he gave up money to not be a has-been.

I am happy to have provided the setup for you to come in and knock em down like this. But just to clarify, my use of the word "hipster" here doesn't mean "cool", it means "I'm smarter than all of you dummies and don't subscribe to what the mainstream wants me to think".

Regarding Larmer, if you go back and watch the video of the clock winding down in Game 7 of the 94 Finals, watch what Steve was doing. He had his man pinned to the boards for a couple of seconds after the final buzzer went. The dude was as complete a player as there ever was.

And slapshots on penalty shots equal MVP to me anyway.

 

[Nopuckluck]

I am happy to have provided the setup for you to come in and knock em down like this. But just to clarify, my use of the word "hipster" here doesn't mean "cool", it means "I'm smarter than all of you dummies and don't subscribe to what the mainstream wants me to think".

Regarding Larmer, if you go back and watch the video of the clock winding down in Game 7 of the 94 Finals, watch what Steve was doing. He had his man pinned to the boards for a couple of seconds after the final buzzer went. The dude was as complete a player as there ever was.

And slapshots on penalty shots equal MVP to me anyway.

Loved Larmer. Great old school hockey player. I remember the slap shot on the penalty shot. It was a 5-1 Rangers win and it was also in his return to Chicago. Place gave him a standing O.

Dude was a legend. I know a guy who worked
Security at the garden during Larmers year. He was stationed down by the benches. He knows for a FACT Larmer boozed during games. Had Vidka and juice mixed in his own water bottle. Guy was a legend