Round 2, Vote 1 (HOH Top Defensemen)

[Pear Juice]

Instead of that 12345 system, why not just simplify it and compare playoff GP? You win your series, you get to play more games.

The point I was trying to make is that when evaluating playoff team performance over a long period of time, a finals appearance is much more valuable than a first round appearance. Bourque has played many playoff games as he's made the playoffs nearly every year of his long and illustrious career. Ray Bourque has slightly more playoff GP than Wayne Gretzky. I don't think there's any doubt as to who had the greatest team success.

Anyhow, the point wasn't really to make a serious analysis of their playoff performances, I just reacted to how this data was presented. There is undoubtedly a very large difference in playoff performance between the Wings and Bruins.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I would tend to agree with you but part of the problem is that later, ie. more recent players have to be the best against their peers given the over riding criteria of this project. In order to top past players like Robinson or Shore a guy has to have a great peak, prime and career and Chelios much to his testament had a great career but doesn't have the peak to crack into the top 5. Heck some people might not have Lidstrom in their top 5 so that would explain why Chelios wouldn't be either.

The biggest problem is that Chelios trophy case isn't large enough to unseed other guys from the top 5.

I'm a huge career guy, and maybe factor that more than any other voter, and I couldn't honestly put him in my top 5 either.

A slight twist of fate and 1 or 2 Conn Smythe trophies and maybe we are having a different discussion here.

So how does this play into your view of Orr?

 

[Hardyvan123]

So how does this play into your view of Orr?

I've mentioned it on numerous threads before that if one looks heavily at career and takes into account the nature of the NHL during Orr's time, then others, mainly Lidstrom are in contention for #1 with Orr.

Quite simply there was more than talent going in Orr's favour when he played and people sometimes get fixated on his scoring prowess and stats and don't take in the entire context of the times.

I actually read a quote last night saying that Park was the better defender and I don't honestly remember Park being the best defender in the league at the time.

Here is the quote from "Kings of Ice: A history of world Hockey"

In comparing Orr and Park "Park is a tremendous defensman. He moves the puck well, he rushes it and he is sound defensively," Detroit Red Wings general manager Ned Harkness said. "He's a great one. By comparison Orr is more offensive-minded. But Brad defensively, is sounder than Orr. Park turns well and is good around the net."


This quote appears to have been said around 1972 and the summit series.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Look, maybe I am being a little too bullheaded or putting too much weight to Lidstrom's team strength and competition over the years.

However, why is it that these same arguments can be bandied about and accepted so freely in regards to Orr, Potvin, Robinson and Harvey?

How many times has Orr's competition been mentioned? His team strength and state of the league at the time, seriously?
Or Robinson's incredible +/- finishes and defensive play passed over because he played for that Dynasty Habs teams in the 70's.

So yeah, maybe I am going too hard on it all but most of it is out of sheer frustration dealing with so many people with their heads in the sand, pot calling the kettle black and using double standards.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Why Doug Harvey is the Second Best Defenseman of All-Time

Why do many of us rank Doug Harvey the second best defenseman of all-time? If you count the number of elite seasons a player had, he falls below several of the defensemen listed here. But then so does Bobby Orr.

(Much of the information presented is courtesy of EagleBelfour's bio)

I. He is often considered the best defensive defenseman of all time

-He is rated the top defensive defenseman of all-time in the book Hockey's 100 by Stan Fischler

-Rated the best defensive defenseman of the 1950s by Ultimate Hockey

The first key to Doug's success was he was a flawless defender. Doug was so superb in one on one defensive battles that he would routinely steal the puck off the attacker as though he were picking cherries. He would rarely be beaten, and his teammates knew it.

-Several older posters on the HOH board have said that Harvey is the best defensive defenseman they have ever seen. (I'd find specific quotes, but the search function is broken. I know Dark Shadows is one of them, though).

II. By all accounts, he is second only to Bobby Orr in his ability to control the pace of a hockey game in all three zones. (And some believe he was Orr's equal in this)

Harvey controlled the game like Orr did, but where Orr controlled it by carrying the puck, by acting as a forward, Harvey would slow the pace down, then pick it up. He could control the game and was the epitome of the brilliant general on the blueline.

Dick Irvin very quickly discovered Harvey's greatest skill – the ability to control the temp of a game. Methodically, Doug carried the puck, at his own speed, surveying the ice landscape before he committed to any play. At first, it drove his coach and teammates to distraction, until they learned that there was method to Harvey's madness – the other team couldn't score if Doug controlled the puck.

Doug Harvey was the first defenseman in NHL history who ''quarterbacked'' his team. Playing from the blueline, Harvey would orchestrate the Canadiens’ style of ''fire wagon hockey'' with his ability to frame accurate passes. Not only was his passing a sight to behold but he could control game as he pleased.

Doug Harvey was the best defenseman in hockey during his heydays, and he ranks among the greatest of all time. He could check, block shots, rush the puck, stickhandle, and pass, but what made him truly unique was the way he could combine his skills to control the pace of the game.

Harvey was the Habs’ general, directing play, controlling pace, passing with uncanny accuracy, and busting the head of anyone who got in the way of him or his teammates.

Even more impressive was Doug's ability with the puck. He would rarely simply dump the puck out of the zone. He would be able to gain control of the puck and never give it up. At first he would drive fans and coaches crazy, as he wandered in front of the net with fore-checkers zooming in, but more often than not he would remain calm, and in an unhurried fashion spot a streaking forward with a pinpoint pass. Because of t his uncanny ability Montreal's superstar forwards could afford stay high and loosen up on their backchecking duties.
...

Unlike a Bobby Orr or Paul Coffey, Doug wouldn't rush the puck out of his own zone. His thinking was the puck can move faster than any player on the ice, so why not utilize that as a tactic? He had this unique ability to draw in a forechecker which would then open up more ice for his teammates. [...] Harvey would plant a perfect pass to one of his forwards, creating an odd-man rush. In doing so, Harvey controlled the game perhaps better than any player in history. More often than not he would rag the puck to slow the game down, but he also knew exactly when to catch the other team by surprise with a perfectly placed pass into an open lane.

Doug Harvey is perhaps the greatest all-around defenseman of all time. He was not as offensively gifted as Bobby Orr but controlled in much the same degree if only a contrasting style. He was not as hard hitting as Eddie Shore, but he was known as one of the most physical yet clean defenders of his time.

His masterful stickhandling allowed him to control the puck for as long as he wished. It was often to the dismay of fans, coaches and opponents, who watched helplessly as the defenseman took chances that others dared not take, rarely being caught out of position or making a costly mistake.

When, inevitably, Harvey got hold of the puck, opponents feared his passing touch and peeled back. The Canadiens' forwards, secure in the knowledge that Harvey would be beaten very rarely, were afforded the luxury of hanging higher in the defensive zone or even lurking in neutral ice. Harvey's natural skills bought him more room and, unimpeded by forecheckers (Harvey would quickly lose anyone who challenged him), he was free to bring the puck up ice. "He was like a big glider moving with the puck," remembered television analyst Howie Meeker, a veteran of the Harvey era. "He controlled the play so well, his forwards could cheat."

'And of course Harvey, we always thought that without Harvey on that team we could beat Montreal because he really was controlling the puck back on that blueline. He'd pick it up and take his time, get it out, move it out, get the guy in the open and throw it to him and away they'd go. To me, he was one of the greatest defenceman to ever play

All I know is that the son of a gun came out of nowhere to become the biggest thorn in the side of the Leafs in our glory days. He was an early Bobby Orr, except he did it at semi-slow motion. You always knew what was coming - you could see it happening - but you couldn't do anything about it

Doug played defense in a rocking chair

III. Was Harvey (like Lidstrom) slow to be recognized due to his style of play?

Defenseman Doug Harvey was so laconic, so calmly sure of himself, that he executed plays of extreme complexity with consummate ease. Lacking the Flamboyance of Eddie Shore or other Hall of Fame defensemen, Harvey was slow to receive the recognition he deserved. "Often, Harvey's cool was mistaken for disinterest," said author John Greenfield. "Actually it was the result of an always calculating concentration."

No player put my heart in my mouth as often as Doug. But I learned to swallow in silence. His style was casual, but it worked. He made few mistakes, and, ninety-nine percent of the time correctly anticipated the play or pass.

Who's Who in Hockey

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Look, maybe I am being a little too bullheaded or putting too much weight to Lidstrom's team strength and competition over the years.

However, why is it that these same arguments can be bandied about and accepted so freely in regards to Orr, Potvin, Robinson and Harvey?

How many times has Orr's competition been mentioned? His team strength and state of the league at the time, seriously?
Or Robinson's incredible +/- finishes and defensive play passed over because he played for that Dynasty Habs teams in the 70's.

So yeah, maybe I am going too hard on it all but most of it is out of sheer frustration dealing with so many people with their heads in the sand, pot calling the kettle black and using double standards.

Less often than Lidstrom's, from what I've seen.

 

[Rhiessan71]

That's some good stuff there Devil, nice finds.

Definitely makes it hard to take Harvey out of the 2 spot.

 

[pappyline]

I actually read a quote last night saying that Park was the better defender and I don't honestly remember Park being the best defender in the league at the time.

Here is the quote from "Kings of Ice: A history of world Hockey"

In comparing Orr and Park "Park is a tremendous defensman. He moves the puck well, he rushes it and he is sound defensively," Detroit Red Wings general manager Ned Harkness said. "He's a great one. By comparison Orr is more offensive-minded. But Brad defensively, is sounder than Orr. Park turns well and is good around the net."


This quote appears to have been said around 1972 and the summit series.

You got to look at your sources a little closer. Harkness was a screwball who was a complete disaster as an NHL coach and GM. A quote from him hardly helps your cause.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Less often than Lidstrom's, from what I've seen.

Maybe but it's also denied tooth and nail a hell of a lot more.
Most people DO accept that guys like Robinson, Potvin and Harvey were helped out overall by their teams. Lidstrom pendants do NOT seem ready to accept it, resulting in long, sometimes exaggerated arguments because of it.

I know I wouldn't push it so hard if there wasn't such a wall of denial.

 

[Hardyvan123]

You got to look at your sources a little closer. Harkness was a screwball who was a complete disaster as an NHL coach and GM. A quote from him hardly helps your cause.

Look I don't know Harkness from Hardy but Jim Coleman left Harvey off of his top 10 list and no one blinked twice.

I put it out there because all too often a reputation is built and people don't dig very deeply.

Another commentator commented on Brian Leetch's defensive play during the rangers cup run and mentioned than Orr never was as good. was that commentator wrong or are 2 different people looking at the same thing differently?

The basic problem with relying on quotes for all players is that different people see different things and this is true of players playing today as well.

 

[pappyline]

Look I don't know Harkness from Hardy but Jim Coleman left Harvey off of his top 10 list and no one blinked twice.

I put it out there because all too often a reputation is built and people don't dig very deeply.

Another commentator commented on Brian Leetch's defensive play during the rangers cup run and mentioned than Orr never was as good. was that commentator wrong or are 2 different people looking at the same thing differently?

The basic problem with relying on quotes for all players is that different people see different things and this is true of players playing today as well.

Yep and that is why you need to be very careful about throwing quotes out there. Especially if you never heard of the person making it. Surprised you never heard of Harkness. i thought you were old enough to have been around when he was destroying the RedWings. Think the saying at the time was something like "The darkness of Harkness"

 

[Rhiessan71]

Just following up on the team strength and competition levels of Orr vs Lidstrom.

As far as Orr's competition goes, I'm just going to refer back to post #410 in this thread where Hockey Outsider laid it out very nicely.

With Lidstrom, if people can't see that Bourque competing against not only the primes of Chelios, Stevens, Coffey, MacInnis and Leetch but also the incredible consistency of that group is harder than going against most of those guys in their twilight years, along with the good but never great Neids, the hugely inconsistent pair of Pronger and Chara. Then finally having to face the recently arrived Keith and Weber, then they never will and it's once again just a wall of denial IMO.

As far as team strength with Orr...that strength came from Orr and definitely wasn't the other way around.
Going back to Overpass's thread here: http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=591548&highlight=adjusted++

Looking at the R-on/R-off numbers of Orr vs his teammates it becomes overwhelmingly clear that Orr made that team what it was. Orr's numbers are absolutely ridiculous and the majority of his teammates numbers show that the team actually had a better GF to GA ratio when they were on the bench heh.
With the exception of the few like Esposito who actually managed to at least stay about even.

The data on this is clear and undeniable and neither argument holds much water in regards to Orr.

The state of the league is a better argument but even it loses a lot of ground because of the scale Orr competed on. He was head and shoulders above and beat everyone, not just other D-men.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Just following up on the team strength and competition levels of Orr vs Lidstrom.

As far as Orr's competition goes, I'm just going to refer back to post #410 in this thread where Hockey Outsider laid it out very nicely.

With Lidstrom, if people can't see that Bourque competing against not only the primes of Chelios, Stevens, Coffey, MacInnis and Leetch but also the incredible consistency of that group is harder than going against most of those guys in their twilight years, along with the good but never great Neids, the hugely inconsistent pair of Pronger and Chara. Then finally having to face the recently arrived Keith and Weber, then they never will and it's once again just a wall of denial IMO.

As far as team strength with Orr...that strength came from Orr and definitely wasn't the other way around.
Going back to Overpass's thread here: http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=591548&highlight=adjusted++

Looking at the R-on/R-off numbers of Orr vs his teammates it becomes overwhelmingly clear that Orr made that team what it was. Orr's numbers are absolutely ridiculous and the majority of his teammates numbers show that the team actually had a better GF to GA ratio when they were on the bench heh.
With the exception of the few like Esposito who actually managed to at least stay about even.

The data on this is clear and undeniable and neither argument holds much water in regards to Orr.

I agree with your bigger point, but disagree with bolded. Niedermayer's peak was incredibly short, but I would say that for a mere 3 seasons surrounding the last lockout, Niedermayer was an all-time great in both the regular season and playoffs.

I think you're overstating Chara's consistency issues too.

Edit: This is semi-offtopic, but I think it's related to the competition that Lidstrom faced.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I agree with your bigger point, but disagree with bolded. Niedermayer's peak was incredibly short, but I would say that for a mere 3 seasons surrounding the last lockout, Niedermayer was an all-time great in both the regular season and playoffs.

I think you're overstating Chara's consistency issues too.

I like Neids and do think he is somewhat underrated but he's still a borderline all-time great overall. He juuust sneaks into my top 20 list.
Either way his 3 years, as you put it, barely scratches the surface for competition value compared to what Chelios and Stevens, for example, did for a decade and more straight.

With Chara, for consistency, I kinda lumped him in with Pronger there, which you're right, is not fair. He has been more consistent than Pronger but still inconsistent none the less.

When Bourque lost a step, there were guys there like Lidstrom, Blake, Leetch and Pronger to take over.
Lidstrom loses a step and....*crickets*

At the end of the day though, IMO Bourque has non-Norris winning years that are better than some of Lidstrom's winning years and even Lidstrom's best years would only compete with one, maybe two of Bourque's Norris wins.

I break it down like this:

Career length - Bourque 22 > 20
Offense - Bourque
Defense - Lidstrom
Overall play - Bourque
Peak length - Bourque 15 years > 10 years
Peak height - Bourque
Playoff value - Lidstrom 4 Cups > 1 Cup
Competition - Bourque
Team strength - Lidstrom
International play - Tough one but I have to be fair here and go with Lidstrom due to Bourque's team strength
Individual Hardware - I call it about even, two 2nd place Hart finishes (Pretty much DID win one of them) 5 Norris and a Calder vs 7 Norris and a Conn Smythe


That's how I see it

 

[plusandminus]

Career length - Bourque 22 > 20
Offense - Bourque
Defense - Lidstrom
Overall play - Bourque
Peak length - Bourque 15 years > 10 years
Peak height - Bourque
Playoff value - Lidstrom 4 Cups > 1 Cup
Competition - Bourque
Team strength - Lidstrom
International play - Tough one but I have to be fair here and go with Lidstrom due to Bourque's team strength
Individual Hardware - I call it about even, two 2nd place Hart finishes (Pretty much DID win one of them) 5 Norris and a Calder vs 7 Norris and a Conn Smythe

Don't forget there is a world outside of NHL, and that North American players often are able to start in the NHL at earlier age than Europeans. Plus that Lidstrom missed a season due to the last lockout (it may in the long run don't matter but anyway).

Not 10 years of peak. He's been an All Star selection 12 times (during 13 seasons or 14 years).

Regarding international play, I asked about that in post #424 (in a response to a TDMM post) but so far no one have responded.
So I try to ask again... How did/do you guys look upon Bourque during his 3 Canada Cups? Was he dominant in all three? Was he great both offensively and defensively? Did he feel/appear like what might be expected by a constant Norris candidate?

 

[Hardyvan123]

Maybe but it's also denied tooth and nail a hell of a lot more.
Most people DO accept that guys like Robinson, Potvin and Harvey were helped out overall by their teams. Lidstrom pendants do NOT seem ready to accept it, resulting in long, sometimes exaggerated arguments because of it.

I know I wouldn't push it so hard if there wasn't such a wall of denial.

All players must be considered when they played both with and against and where they played, especially when talking about overseas players.

Once again all we can judge players on is what they actually did on the ice in the games they actually played in and then give it background context of the above listed factors.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Don't forget there is a world outside of NHL, and that North American players often are able to start in the NHL at earlier age than Europeans.

That's their choice though. Lidstrom gets no bonus points for waiting, nor does Bourque get punished for not.

Plus that Lidstrom missed a season due to the last lockout (it may in the long run don't matter but anyway).

Yep, that will depend on what he does next season.

Not 10 years of peak. He's been an All Star selection 12 times (during 13 seasons or 14 years).

Hard to go by All-star selections as Bourque buries Lidstrom on that front.
I tried to be fairer and counted Lidstrom's peak from about '98 to '08 and Bourque's from about '82 to '96.
I guess 15-11 would be more accurate.

Regarding international play, I asked about that in post #424 (in a response to a TDMM post) but so far no one have responded.
So I try to ask again... How did/do you guys look upon Bourque during his 3 Canada Cups? Was he dominant in all three? Was he great both offensively and defensively? Did he feel/appear like what might be expected by a constant Norris candidate?

Oh definitely he was. He had Coffey there so he didn't have to push the offense and take chances like he did in Boston. He was able to settle down in a great 2 way role, played the most minutes and was IMO our best D-men in every tourny he played in.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Coincidental Penalties

Voters should remember that coincidental penalties did not produce five on five hockey until the Gretzky/Oiler rule was introduced.

Defensemen had different responsibilities playing 4 on 4 and 3 on 3. Reduced and changing lanes, defensive systems, etc were different under such circumstances. Recent dmen rarely play 4 on 4 or 3 on 3.

 

[Rhiessan71]

All players must be considered when they played both with and against and where they played, especially when talking about overseas players.

Once again all we can judge players on is what they actually did on the ice in the games they actually played in and then give it background context of the above listed factors.

Ummm...you'll have to be a little clearer on what point you're trying to make here as I'm not sure exactly what it has to do with the accepting of team strength as a factor with Big Bird, Potvin and Harvey but apparently not with Lidstrom.
That was my point.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

That's their choice though. Lidstrom gets no bonus points for waiting, nor does Bourque get punished for not.

It really isn't the choice of European players to be born in nations that play a slightly different brand of hockey than in North America. This is the "best defensemen in history," not "best NHL defensemen in history." Obviously, NHL accomplishments will form the vast majority of the resumes of NHL players here, but I do think it's reasonable to expect a bit of an adjustment period for Europeans.

Oh definitely he was. He had Coffey there so he didn't have to push the offense and take chances like he did in Boston. He was able to settle down in a great 2 way role, played the most minutes and was IMO our best D-men in every tourny he played in.

The All Star voters don't necessarily agree.

Ray Bourque played in 4 major tournaments for Canada.

In the 1981 Canada Cup, no Canadian defenseman placed on the All-Star team. All stars were Alexei Kasatonov of the USSR and Arnold Kadlec (who?) of Czechoslovakia

In the 1984 Canada Cup, all stars were Paul Coffey of Canada and Rod Langway of USA

In the 1987 Canada Cup, all stars were Ray Bourque of Canada and Slava Fetisov or USSR.

In the 1998 Olympics, Rob Blake of Canada was selected the best defenseman.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Voters should remember that coincidental penalties did not produce five on five hockey until the Gretzky/Oiler rule was introduced.

Defensemen had different responsibilities playing 4 on 4 and 3 on 3. Reduced and changing lanes, defensive systems, etc were different under such circumstances. Recent dmen rarely play 4 on 4 or 3 on 3.

Don't forget the removal of the tag up offside rule from 86-96 either.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Yep and that is why you need to be very careful about throwing quotes out there. Especially if you never heard of the person making it. Surprised you never heard of Harkness. i thought you were old enough to have been around when he was destroying the RedWings. Think the saying at the time was something like "The darkness of Harkness"

Let me explain, i know of Harkness but don't know him well enough to know how his bias works.

Everyone has a bias and that's something we overlook.

Even when bowman was asked who the best defenseman was, Orr or Lidstrom, there is some differences on what was actually asked and what bowman actually answered.

Too often all quotes from the past even more so are just reaffirmations or already existing ideas and it's very tough to say how much actual thought and analysis goes into the quote or asking of the question.

ask most people who are close to hockey and name the all time top 10 they will put shore into the equation, just because they always see him on the lists and heard it from other people, do many of them even bother to go back and look at the statistics? Sadly there is little actual game tape of him playing (I've never seen any myself).

Even for Orr they look at the stats and go wow must be best ever and they don't actually look at the differences in the league makeup and composition between him and Harvey for instance.

There is no doubt that both Shore and Orr are among the all time greats but all to often the myth gets perpetuated more than looking at every part of the contextual times they played in and that must be does when comparing players from different eras.

And just so that there is no misunderstanding I'm not talking about the evolution of the game in terms of comparing these players but rather the different peer contexts that each player is judged in.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Voters should remember that coincidental penalties did not produce five on five hockey until the Gretzky/Oiler rule was introduced.

Defensemen had different responsibilities playing 4 on 4 and 3 on 3. Reduced and changing lanes, defensive systems, etc were different under such circumstances. Recent dmen rarely play 4 on 4 or 3 on 3.

This is true but does it actually factor into the differences between any of the top 10 players being considered here?

There are bigger differences than this over time aren't there?

 

[Rhiessan71]

It really isn't the choice of European players to be born in nations that play a slightly different brand of hockey than in North America. This is the "best defensemen in history," not "best NHL defensemen in history." Obviously, NHL accomplishments will form the vast majority of the resumes of NHL players here, but I do think it's reasonable to expect a bit of an adjustment period for Europeans.

It IS a choice. If they have aspirations of playing in the NHL and making the big bucks sooner, they know they have to come over here.
I guarantee you Detroit would of paid to have Lidstrom come over and play in NA in '89 if he so desired but he didn't. I also guarantee you they did try to get him here sooner.
The NHL is the best of the best and has been for almost 25 years now.
Using this argument for say a prime Fetisov is one thing. It does not apply to Lidstrom or anyone else for that matter in the last couple decades.

The All Star voters don't necessarily agree.

Ray Bourque played in 4 major tournaments for Canada.

In the 1981 Canada Cup, no Canadian defenseman placed on the All-Star team. All stars were Alexei Kasatonov of the USSR and Arnold Kadlec (who?) of Czechoslovakia

Bourque was only 21 and injured to boot.

In the 1984 Canada Cup, all stars were Paul Coffey of Canada and Rod Langway of USA

Coffey got the limelight for his offense, Langway for his defense. Bourque was both and Canada's most solid defender.

In the 1987 Canada Cup, all stars were Ray Bourque of Canada and Slava Fetisov or USSR.

Exactly as it should of been.

In the 1998 Olympics, Rob Blake of Canada was selected the best defenseman.

Bourque is now 38, still played a ton of minutes and even outscored Blake. Could of gone either way IMO.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Ummm...you'll have to be a little clearer on what point you're trying to make here as I'm not sure exactly what it has to do with the accepting of team strength as a factor with Big Bird, Potvin and Harvey but apparently not with Lidstrom.
That was my point.

Team strength is a consideration as Montreal had Robinson, Savard and Lapointe, all of whom are probably on most top 80 lists.

Everyone has to filter out Robinson from the incredibly good team he was on.

Ditto for Shore, Lidstrom, Harvey and even Orr.

And it's not like Bourque was played for the Oakland seals or anything either.

Potvin is a unique case even more so than Orr in that he was the leading scorer and top player on his team from the get go for 4 years till Trottier arrived and its was 1A and 1B. that's part of the reason I have him rated quite high.