Sergei Zubov

[Hobnobs]

I have mixed feelings on Zubov.

On the one hand, I agree that his Norris trophy record isn't impressive. (He finished higher than 8th, twice in a long career). Is it possible that he was shortchanged when it came to the Norris? Maybe, but I don't think so. The voters often gravitate towards defensemen with big point totals, and Zubov was one of the highest scoring defensemen of his era. He also played for some high profile teams (the 1994 Rangers, the 1996 Pens, and the 1999/00 Stars).

He was excellent in 2006 - perhaps the best defenseman in the regular season (after Lidstrom, of course). It's not difficult to imagine that some people incorrectly project backwards, and assume that he always played at that level. (The same thing happened with Scott Niedermayer or "playoff warrior" Keith Primeau).

On the other hand - there's more to player evaluation than how someone ranked in Norris voting. Zubov played a lot of minutes on some very good teams. From 1998 to 2007, Zubov was 2nd in the entire league in ES TOI, 1st in PP TOI, and 24th in PK TOI. (Obviously he was stronger offensively than defensively, but he wasn't getting anywhere close to Phil Housley, or even Sergei Gonchar, deployment). And he wasn't racking up crazy ice time playing on bad teams (I keep picking on Alexei Zhitnik when making this point). Dallas was the #2 team in the NHL during this period.

The counter-argument to that counter-argument is Zubov wasn't the key driver of Dallas's success. The Stars were much strong defensively than offensively (they had the lowest GAA during that period vs only T-10th highest goals per game). Therefore one could argue that Belfour, Hatcher, Lehtinen and Modano really drove the team's success. I know that plus/minus is only a vague approximation, but it's telling that Hatcher had better plus/minus than Zubov during their years in Dallas (despite playing fewer games, being way less talented offensively, and taking the tougher matchups).

A question - if Zubov is in the Hall, why isn't Gonchar? It's not a perfect comparison (Gonchar was a better goal-scorer, Zubov a better passer - and he put up his numbers in a defensive system). But they were two of the top offensive defensemen of their era. Both were the #1/2 defenseman on three Stanley Cup finalists. Zubov was better defensively, but not by a huge margin. Gonchar did significantly better in terms of Norris voting (six years in 7th place or better).

The reason I've softened on Zubov is because earning that many minutes, year after year, on such a consistently strong team, is very impressive. I wouldn't have voted for him, but I don't find Zubov's induction offensive (the way that I do with Lowe, Housley or Boivin).

I'd say Zubov was extremely important to the Stars as without him they are a team that has trouble getting the puck up the ice and generating any offense at all. In raw totals over the span of 97-04 he was the second best offensive player on that team and both in raw numbers and PPG he was by far the best offensive defenseman on that team.

Gonchar might very well get in. We'll see.

 

[MadLuke]

Zubov won 2 cups to Gonchar 1 (both were really big piece on their teams), for how many of the Hall voters seem to think, that could be a really big difference.

Not fair Gonchar was also the 30 minutes guy on those 1998 Caps and not beating those Red Wings (a team for which Larionov-Shanahan-Fetisov were like the #10 players... someone perfectly able to be a ppg scorer outside the DPE like Kozlov having 4th line ice time) with that team is virtually meaningless for sure, but winning is winning and fair enough when it come to the Hall of Fame and not Hall of best players.

 

[seventieslord]

Zubov won 2 cups to Gonchar 1 (both were really big piece on their teams), for how many of the Hall voters seem to think, that could be a really big difference.

Not fair Gonchar was also the 30 minutes guy on those 1998 Caps and not beating those Red Wings (a team for which Larionov-Shanahan-Fetisov were like the #10 players... someone perfectly able to be a ppg scorer outside the DPE like Kozlov having 4th line ice time) with that team is virtually meaningless for sure, but winning is winning and fair enough when it come to the Hall of Fame and not Hall of best players.

Gonchar's TOI with the caps was actually a lot lower than one would think.

I remember pointing out a long time ago, they over their full careers, Zubov played significantly more minutes per game for significantly better teams overall.

I have no problem with a Hall of Fame that has zubov in and gonchar out.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Maybe my memory fails me, but I recall Gonchar being a bigger mess defensively in his younger days than Zubov. Mature Gonchar was really good defensively (last into a corner, but effective otherwise), but his first handful of years I thought were rather iffy...

 

[Sentinel]

Yeah, I don't know what's going on either. Like, Zubov isn't elite because of little nooks and crannies in Norris voting. But yet, he wants Chelios post-98 who finished top 5, what, one time in the 500 years he played after '98...and it's unclear, maybe wanted Sydor too?

I guess maybe he only watched Red Wings games and Zubov was bad against the Wings...? A quick look at his splits show that he was a heavy minus against the Wings.

I love how nobody addresses the obvious thing that he was better than 8th best defenseman (as in "barely scratching the top 10) in the league for only two seasons. "Nooks and crannies"..

You are correct, in the RS I only watched Dallas play Red Wings and Zubov was far from elite in those games.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I mean, how isn't it "nooks and crannies"? The gap between your reality (which is delivered to you by writers who also didn't watch him hardly at all I guess) and the reality of Norris voting - season by season - being the direct equivalent of who exactly, in order, were the best d-men in the game is too much to overcome from a process point of view.

In 1994, he finished 4th (which to you is perhaps parade worthy?), but at 15 voting points - it was a pretty negligible sum. He was on just 1 out of every 5 ballots, even.

His 12th place finish in 1996, well, he's two votes away from being 8th - which may or not be a meaningful number to you...it feels like it is, for some reason, but it seems to be a moving bar used to bar Zubov from "elite".

In 1998, he finished t-9th, but was effectively on the same amount of ballots as his 4th place finish in '94. So, one season is "elite" and the other is not because one year had two runaway winners and '98 had a more open field? How does Bourque (for instance) having an amazing year make Zubov a better d-man?

I'm not even on Zubov's side for this...it's this "rationale" that is just belligerently awful...like, I don't mind eyeballing it and going, "heh, that's a little weak..." but to have it be the crux of one's decision making like this is really bad, it's illogical. And the funny part is that it leaves no room for any conversation either, which is funny because you're asking for it...

In this passive, child-like internet way, "I love how nobody addresses the obvious thing...[down ballot Norris voting, by year]..."

And it's like, where should we go that? There's not many choices here...
A) "Uhhh...you're reading it incorrectly" (which isn't true)
B) "They were wrong." (which you won't believe because you think that Derian Hatcher was better than him, despite those same writers telling you that he was far, far worse)

How do you want it to be addressed exactly?

It's not an addressable point. It's just a thing that happened, and then if you have interest in the game itself, you dig into it and figure out how that data point factors in.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Maybe my memory fails me, but I recall Gonchar being a bigger mess defensively in his younger days than Zubov. Mature Gonchar was really good defensively (last into a corner, but effective otherwise), but his first handful of years I thought were rather iffy...

Completely agreed. Gonchar was high risk, high reward for most of his career. He really improved in Pittsburgh. My perception is Zubov became responsible defensively (not great, but solid) much earlier in his career.

Gonchar's TOI with the caps was actually a lot lower than one would think.

I remember pointing out a long time ago, they over their full careers, Zubov played significantly more minutes per game for significantly better teams overall.

I have no problem with a Hall of Fame that has zubov in and gonchar out.

Looking at 1998 (the first year we have official TOI data) to 2003 (Gonchar's last year in Washington), they're remarkably similar in ES TOI (17:39 per game for Zubov vs 17:30 for Gonchar). The two biggest arguments in favour for Zubov are he was entrusted with far more PK duties (2:30 per game vs exactly 1 minute), and he did this on better teams (Dallas was #2 in the NHL during this period and Washington was 9th).

The stars have around +-120 in special teams during their tenure (i.e scored about 60 goals on the pk and got scored 60 goals against them in the PP), Hatcher probably got way less of those PP minus and Zubov a little less of those PK bonus.

Played fewer game but in term of EV ice time Hatcher had a little more and not that big of a gap (enough that for which season did Hatcher missed game vs played could be a factor, if their EV +- is not in favor of Zubov like it could very well be, not sure if there a way to easily check that).

In the playoff Zubov lead the Stars +/-, with +25 vs +1 for Hatcher.

I looked at overpass's spreadsheet (which attempts to back out SH goals). Combining that with the NHL's official TOI data, both Zubov and Hatcher had nearly identical ES GAA's during their time in Dallas (Hatcher's is minimally lower, but surely within any margin for error).

The pro-Zubov way to spin this - he appears to have matched Hatcher's defensive impact at ES. He was clearly more productive offensively, and logged a ton of minutes on a very good powerplay (which Hatcher essentially didn't contribute to).

The anti-Zubov way to spin this - Hatcher faced tougher matches, so the fact that their GAA's are close probably suggests that Hatcher was much better defensively. Plus, Hatcher logged far more ice time on an excellent PK. And even though Zubov was better offensively, the difference in their ES production is a lot smaller than I thought (most of the gap is from PP production).

I always considered Hatcher and Zubov as a "fire and ice" pair (using "pair" loosely as they usually didn't play together). Both were, for the most part, towards the bottom of the top 10 defensemen during their primes. Neither would have been an ideal #1 defenseman on a Stanley Cup contender on their own, but they complemented each other's weaknesses perfectly. I think Hatcher was marginally more impactful during their time in Dallas (I'll admit I didn't realize the gap in plus/minus in the playoffs was anywhere near that large).

Hatcher didn't accomplish much outside of those peak years in Dallas, while Zubov had a few other strong years (1994, 2006, and maybe 1996 and 2007). I think that explains why Zubov is in the Hall (even if he's a borderline case) and Hatcher isn't - he was more impactful for longer. (Hatcher - huge, aggressive, and not a great skater - struggled to adapt after the lockout, while the rule changes allowed Zubov to flourish).

 

[RR44]

His 94 season was amazing from an offensive standpoint, but he was pretty bad in his own zone at the time and really didn't become a two-way guy until he went to Dallas. I don't know why you think that playing for Dallas contibuted to him being underrated - they were a regular Cup contender. Unless you mean because Derian Hatcher was considered the better defenseman when they played together.

I actually do agree that I would take Zubov over Niedermayer before Niedermayer's breakout in 2003.

The disrespect Niedermayer gets on this forum is head scratching

 

[Boxscore]

Feel like I am really not following...
Are many people have teams constantly build around significantly better first line center than freaking Nathan MacKinnon or speaking about an other player ?

Yeah, I'm confused as well, lmao. Perhaps I misread the quote and I'm confusing matters. But my point about MacKinnon was to reinforce the sentiment that "individual awards don't tell the full story of a player" (which I agree!) I mean, how many individual awards does Nate MacKinnon have? Yet look at this...

2023-24 - (on pace for) 81gp: 50g, 88a, 139pts.
2022-23 - 71gp: 42g, 69a, 111pts.
2021-22 - 65gp: 32g, 56a, 88pts.
2020-21 - 48gp: 20g, 45a, 65pts.
2019-20 - 69gp: 35g, 58a, 93pts.
2018-19 - 82gp: 41g, 58a, 99pts.
2017-18 - 74gp: 39g, 58a, 97pts.

That's a consistently elite 1.4 points-per-game pace over that span (116pts. over 82gp average). Then you factor in that he's a world-class top line centerman who was a key contributor to a Stanley Cup championship. He's also as competitive and dedicated as anyone in the business. Additionally, he has given his club a hometown discount twice during contract negotiations.

Point being, MacKinnon is the exact type of dynamic franchise player any GM would love to build around... and his individual award cabinet is meh.

 

[Stephen]

Random fact, but Sergei Zubov was drafted with the compensatory pick the Rangers received for Quebec signing Guy Lafleur away in 1989-90.

Still, looking back at around 1995, it's unbelievable the Rangers traded a 25 year old defenseman who led their Cup winning team in scoring in 1994 for a return of Luc Robitaille and Ulf Samuelsson (while also packaging Petr Nedved out the door). At the time that time, for all the Rangers knew he could have been Russian Brian Leetch.

 

[CharlestownChiefsESC]

Random fact, but Sergei Zubov was drafted with the compensatory pick the Rangers received for Quebec signing Guy Lafleur away in 1989-90.

Still, looking back at around 1995, it's unbelievable the Rangers traded a 25 year old defenseman who led their Cup winning team in scoring in 1994 for a return of Luc Robitaille and Ulf Samuelsson (while also packaging Petr Nedved out the door). At the time that time, for all the Rangers knew he could have been Russian Brian Leetch.

Trade addressed 2 needs. They were pushed around by the Pens in 95 and they felt Samuelsson could make them tougher. Other need was a forward as they knew Larmer was retiring and passed line 1 they didn't have much.

 

[Run the Gauntlet]

Random fact, but Sergei Zubov was drafted with the compensatory pick the Rangers received for Quebec signing Guy Lafleur away in 1989-90.

Still, looking back at around 1995, it's unbelievable the Rangers traded a 25 year old defenseman who led their Cup winning team in scoring in 1994 for a return of Luc Robitaille and Ulf Samuelsson (while also packaging Petr Nedved out the door). At the time that time, for all the Rangers knew he could have been Russian Brian Leetch.

Ranger management partly blamed him for the team getting swept by the Flyers in the 1995 playoffs.
So they got rid of a PP phenom, which was what Zubov was and a speedy Nedved for two slow older guys.

 

[MS]

Yeah, I'm confused as well, lmao. Perhaps I misread the quote and I'm confusing matters. But my point about MacKinnon was to reinforce the sentiment that "individual awards don't tell the full story of a player" (which I agree!) I mean, how many individual awards does Nate MacKinnon have? Yet look at this...

2023-24 - (on pace for) 81gp: 50g, 88a, 139pts.
2022-23 - 71gp: 42g, 69a, 111pts.
2021-22 - 65gp: 32g, 56a, 88pts.
2020-21 - 48gp: 20g, 45a, 65pts.
2019-20 - 69gp: 35g, 58a, 93pts.
2018-19 - 82gp: 41g, 58a, 99pts.
2017-18 - 74gp: 39g, 58a, 97pts.

That's a consistently elite 1.4 points-per-game pace over that span (116pts. over 82gp average). Then you factor in that he's a world-class top line centerman who was a key contributor to a Stanley Cup championship. He's also as competitive and dedicated as anyone in the business. Additionally, he has given his club a hometown discount twice during contract negotiations.

Point being, MacKinnon is the exact type of dynamic franchise player any GM would love to build around... and his individual award cabinet is meh.

This MacKinnon comparison is a bit bizarre. There's a big difference between 'hasn't won many trophies' and 'not even close to winning trophies'.

Once this season's voting is complete, Nathan MacKinnon will have been top-6 in Hart voting 6 times in the last 7 years. He'll have been a Hart finalist 4 times in those 7 years. He's clearly been an absolutely dominant player who was one of the top couple players in the NHL for an extended period and has been recognized as such by award voters ... even if he hasn't actually finished 1st in Hart voting or beat out McDavid for an Art Ross.

This is absolutely nothing like Sergei Zubov who had one season in his entire career which was recognized as elite. Like, if you take the The Hockey News Top 50 Player rankings for the length of his career I highly doubt he pops up in the top 5 defenders in the league once until 2006 when he's 36 years old. And I'm guessing there aren't many seasons where he'd have been in the top 10 either. *

Derian Hatcher was the #1D in terms of TOI on those Stars teams (especially considering 'real' defensive TOI at ES/SH) and Hatcher and Zubov's ES production was nearly identical from 1997-2003.

Prior to that 05-06 season a 'Zubov HHOF?' thread here would have been received only marginally better than the one here recently for Jeff Skinner. Then he has one huge season and people acted like he had been this Norris-level D for the previous decade+ ... and he simply wasn't.

* If someone has a THN archive subscription I'd be incredibly curious what Zubov's actual ratings on that list were year over year.

 

[MadLuke]

Derian Hatcher was the #1D in terms of TOI on those Stars teams

When they won the cup they played pretty much the same:

k	Player	Age	Pos	GP	G	A	PTS	+/-	PIM	EV	PP	SH	GW	EV	PP	SH	S	S%	TOI	ATOI ▼
1	Ed Belfour*	33	G	23	0	0	0	0	4	0	0	0					0		1544	67:07
2	Sergei Zubov*	28	D	23	1	12	13	13	4	1	0	0	0				46	2.2	696	30:16
3	Derian Hatcher	26	D	18	1	6	7	4	24	1	0	0	0				28	3.6	524	29:06
4	Mike Modano*	28	C	23	5	18	23	6	16	3	1	1	1				83	6.0	567	24:40
5	Richard Matvichuk	25	D	22	1	5	6	4	20	1	0	0	0				26	3.8	499	22:40

There is a bit of a trick, hatcher played more EV minutes and scoring a not so much lower pace per game, but by 60 minutes of ev play it a good advantage Zubov

Since 97-98 (when ice time start) to 02/03
Zubov: 130/(8329/60) = .936
Hatcher: 117/(8752.5/60) = .8

Ice time per game: both at 25:30 a game in total.

This MacKinnon comparison is a bit bizarre

It was not a comparison with Zubov, it was just an example of player that is much more than is individidual award (none outside rather low ranked Byng-Calder)

 

[MS]

When they won the cup they played pretty much the same:

k	Player	Age	Pos	GP	G	A	PTS	+/-	PIM	EV	PP	SH	GW	EV	PP	SH	S	S%	TOI	ATOI ▼
1	Ed Belfour*	33	G	23	0	0	0	0	4	0	0	0					0		1544	67:07
2	Sergei Zubov*	28	D	23	1	12	13	13	4	1	0	0	0				46	2.2	696	30:16
3	Derian Hatcher	26	D	18	1	6	7	4	24	1	0	0	0				28	3.6	524	29:06
4	Mike Modano*	28	C	23	5	18	23	6	16	3	1	1	1				83	6.0	567	24:40
5	Richard Matvichuk	25	D	22	1	5	6	4	20	1	0	0	0				26	3.8	499	22:40

There is a bit of a trick, hatcher played more EV minutes and scoring a not so much lower pace per game, but by 60 minutes of ev play it a good advantage Zubov

Since 97-98 (when ice time start) to 02/03
Zubov: 130/(8329/60) = .936
Hatcher: 117/(8752.5/60) = .8

Ice time per game: both at 25:30 a game in total.

In the regular runs through defensive pairings (ES + SH) Hatcher consistently played heavier, more high-leverage minutes than Zubov year after year.

It was not a comparison with Zubov, it was just an example of player that is much more than is individidual award (none outside rather low ranked Byng-Calder)

The complaint against Zubov wasn't that he didn't win awards, it's that (outside of one year very late in his career) he wasn't even close.

Nobody says that Brad Park or Mark Howe shouldn't be in the HHOF because he didn't win a Norris because everyone understands that those were very obviously top-5 defenders in the NHL for an extended period of time. And Nathan MacKinnon's Hart voting should tell you pretty clearly that he's an absolutely elite player regardless of whether he's won that award.

There is no parallel to a guy like Zubov there.

 

[Felidae]

This MacKinnon comparison is a bit bizarre. There's a big difference between 'hasn't won many trophies' and 'not even close to winning trophies'.

Once this season's voting is complete, Nathan MacKinnon will have been top-6 in Hart voting 6 times in the last 7 years. He'll have been a Hart finalist 4 times in those 7 years. He's clearly been an absolutely dominant player who was one of the top couple players in the NHL for an extended period and has been recognized as such by award voters ... even if he hasn't actually finished 1st in Hart voting or beat out McDavid for an Art Ross.

This is absolutely nothing like Sergei Zubov who had one season in his entire career which was recognized as elite. Like, if you take the The Hockey News Top 50 Player rankings for the length of his career I highly doubt he pops up in the top 5 defenders in the league once until 2006 when he's 36 years old. And I'm guessing there aren't many seasons where he'd have been in the top 10 either. *

Derian Hatcher was the #1D in terms of TOI on those Stars teams (especially considering 'real' defensive TOI at ES/SH) and Hatcher and Zubov's ES production was nearly identical from 1997-2003.

Prior to that 05-06 season a 'Zubov HHOF?' thread here would have been received only marginally better than the one here recently for Jeff Skinner. Then he has one huge season and people acted like he had been this Norris-level D for the previous decade+ ... and he simply wasn't.

* If someone has a THN archive subscription I'd be incredibly curious what Zubov's actual ratings on that list were year over year.

I was with you up until you said a Zubov HHOF thread would only be received marginally better than a Skinner one..

The gap between Zubov and Skinner when it comes to award voting and ability as players is even bigger than the gap between Zubov and Mackinnon.

Skinner has never received a vote for a single major award. Zubov has multiple seasons where you can consider him a top 10 defenseman (albeit on the lower end) which aligns with his Norris record.

Skinner has never been a top 20 forward in the league, probably not even top 30.

 

[Hobnobs]

This MacKinnon comparison is a bit bizarre. There's a big difference between 'hasn't won many trophies' and 'not even close to winning trophies'.

Once this season's voting is complete, Nathan MacKinnon will have been top-6 in Hart voting 6 times in the last 7 years. He'll have been a Hart finalist 4 times in those 7 years. He's clearly been an absolutely dominant player who was one of the top couple players in the NHL for an extended period and has been recognized as such by award voters ... even if he hasn't actually finished 1st in Hart voting or beat out McDavid for an Art Ross.

This is absolutely nothing like Sergei Zubov who had one season in his entire career which was recognized as elite. Like, if you take the The Hockey News Top 50 Player rankings for the length of his career I highly doubt he pops up in the top 5 defenders in the league once until 2006 when he's 36 years old. And I'm guessing there aren't many seasons where he'd have been in the top 10 either. *

Derian Hatcher was the #1D in terms of TOI on those Stars teams (especially considering 'real' defensive TOI at ES/SH) and Hatcher and Zubov's ES production was nearly identical from 1997-2003.

Prior to that 05-06 season a 'Zubov HHOF?' thread here would have been received only marginally better than the one here recently for Jeff Skinner. Then he has one huge season and people acted like he had been this Norris-level D for the previous decade+ ... and he simply wasn't.

* If someone has a THN archive subscription I'd be incredibly curious what Zubov's actual ratings on that list were year over year.

TLDR: Real defensemen doesn't quarterback a PP!

 

[Michael Farkas]

* If someone has a THN archive subscription I'd be incredibly curious what Zubov's actual ratings on that list were year over year.

I also don't agree with the Skinner/Zubov deal.

Compiled in good faith...

1998: #48 (11th d-man)
1999: #37 ((8th d-man)
2000: #26 (6th d-man, Bourque 24, Niedermayer 25 - so he's very close to being top 4)
2001: #41 (7th d-man)
2002: N/A
2003: 38th (9th d-man)
2004: N/A
2006: #42 (9th d-man)

 

[seventieslord]

I also don't agree with the Skinner/Zubov deal.

Compiled in good faith...

1998: #48 (11th d-man)
1999: #37 ((8th d-man)
2000: #26 (6th d-man, Bourque 24, Niedermayer 25 - so he's very close to being top 4)
2001: #41 (7th d-man)
2002: N/A
2003: 38th (9th d-man)
2004: N/A
2006: #42 (9th d-man)

Thanks for saving me the work.

 

[MS]

I was with you up until you said a Zubov HHOF thread would only be received marginally better than a Skinner one..

The gap between Zubov and Skinner when it comes to award voting and ability as players is even bigger than the gap between Zubov and Mackinnon.

Skinner has never received a vote for a single major award. Zubov has multiple seasons where you can consider him a top 10 defenseman (albeit on the lower end) which aligns with his Norris record.

Skinner has never been a top 20 forward in the league, probably not even top 30.

Zubov is obviously better than Skinner but that wasn't what I was trying to say.

Just like how that Skinner thread was a 100% 'NO!' if you had posted here in 2005 - when Zubov was 35 years old and his career was mostly complete - that a guy who was a 0x AS, 0x Norris finalist and had 1x in his career higher than 8th in Norris voting (and that time was obviously a voting blunder, at that) who was barely ahead of Gary Galley in career points (27th all-time) should be in the HHOF?

Also 100% no.

Then he had one really good season and somehow his perception did a complete 180 and he was a 'likely HHOFer'.

TLDR: Real defensemen doesn't quarterback a PP!

Well, yeah.

But actually PP minutes aren’t ‘real’ defensive minutes in the modern era. Like, basically the entire NHL now uses a forward playing D on the PP all the time. You have MA Bergerons who are #6Ds who play more PP minutes than the other 5 guys on their team combined. It’s a specialized thing and it doesn’t really have anything to do with your regular run through a defensive rotation.

ES + PK minutes are your regular defensive pairing rotations. Combine those and you’ll get a pretty good read on how a coach ranks his D and what the hierarchy for that team is. And your obvious 1D types will still virtually always lead the team in that metric, too.

If you just use raw TOI to rank the defenders on a team you’ll consistently be overrating Tyson Barries and underrating Chris Tanevs in terms of where they fit on that team and how they’re used by the coaching staff.

I also don't agree with the Skinner/Zubov deal.

Compiled in good faith...

1998: #48 (11th d-man)
1999: #37 ((8th d-man)
2000: #26 (6th d-man, Bourque 24, Niedermayer 25 - so he's very close to being top 4)
2001: #41 (7th d-man)
2002: N/A
2003: 38th (9th d-man)
2004: N/A
2006: #42 (9th d-man)

… and that’s pretty close to what I expected.

A guy who was virtually never considered a top-5 defender in the league and was probably generally thought to be in the 8-12 range.

And when it comes to making the HHOF … that makes him a fairly considerable outlier.

His Norris voting profile before that 05-06 season was basically identical to Kevin Lowe, who almost everyone thinks was a godawful induction.

 

[MadLuke]

should be in the HHOF?

Also 100% no.

It seem to me that there is 2 conversation.

Or I am not sure how 100% of the people in a thread being so obviously wrong would mean ?

Should a player like Zubov be in the HHoF that we want (that say do not let Dave Andreychuk, Housley, Doug Wilson or Mike Gartner in) vs with the precedent and how the HHOF work (that let in 3 players or so a year, sometime more) should Zubov considered above the bar that was set.

Should the HHOF have higher standard than Sergei Zubov would be a different question.

 

[Hobnobs]

Well, yeah.

But actually PP minutes aren’t ‘real’ defensive minutes in the modern era. Like, basically the entire NHL now uses a forward playing D on the PP all the time. You have MA Bergerons who are #6Ds who play more PP minutes than the other 5 guys on their team combined. It’s a specialized thing and it doesn’t really have anything to do with your regular run through a defensive rotation.

ES + PK minutes are your regular defensive pairing rotations. Combine those and you’ll get a pretty good read on how a coach ranks his D and what the hierarchy for that team is. And your obvious 1D types will still virtually always lead the team in that metric, too.

If you just use raw TOI to rank the defenders on a team you’ll consistently be overrating Tyson Barries and underrating Chris Tanevs in terms of where they fit on that team and how they’re used by the coaching staff.

Zubov is neither of those players. He was second to Hatcher in ES minutes and played on the secondary PK. Not some sheltered all out offense d-man.

Zubov was a workhorse but you demand that he should average 4-5 minutes on the PP, 3-5 minutes killing penalties on the first PK unit while playing 20 mins at ES. Which is an insane criteria for judging how good a defenseman is.

 

[MS]

It seem to me that there is 2 conversation.

Or I am not sure how 100% of the people in a thread being so obviously wrong would mean ?

Should a player like Zubov be in the HHoF that we want (that say do not let Dave Andreychuk, Housley, Doug Wilson or Mike Gartner in say) vs with the precedent and how the HHOF work (that let in 3 players or so a year, sometime more) should Zubov considered above the bar that was set.

Should the HHOF have higher standard than Sergei Zubov would be a different question.

I never get into 'should the HHOF standards be different' arguments.

My argument is that Zubov was clearly nowhere close to being a HHOFer in 2005 by the existing standards and that even with his nice finish he's an *extremely* marginal selection when you look at his Norris voting history relative to the established bar.

Doug Wilson had 1,3,4,4 Norris finishes (surrounded by a lot of injuries that hurt his voting record) and was generally considered in/around the top 5 defenders in the NHL for most of the 1981-1990 period. And he had to wait 25 years to get in.

Even Phil Housley had 4 top-5 Norris finishes and nobody likes that induction.

Outside of Kevin Lowe - an obviously bad selection - Zubov at 3,4,8,8,9 has the worst Norris voting record of any HHOF D in the modern era. And it's not like he was a defensive D who got ripped off in the voting because he didn't get PP time. He was the sort of player that voters generally favoured (see Gonchar) and in fact had a clearly BS result in his favour in 1994 when he somehow finished ahead of Leetch and Chelios.

Zubov is neither of those players. He was second to Hatcher in ES minutes and played on the secondary PK. Not some sheltered all out offense d-man.

Zubov was a workhorse but you demand that he should average 4-5 minutes on the PP, 3-5 minutes killing penalties on the first PK unit while playing 20 mins at ES. Which is an insane criteria for judging how good a defenseman is.

I'm not saying that Zubov is the same as those players.

I'm just saying that he was the #2 defender on those teams with Hatcher soaking up the #1 minutes and Hatcher-Matvichuk generally as the high-leverage pairing. And that has to be considered. And it was considered by award voters at the time.

Hatcher also generally had the higher TOI even including PP minutes.

 

[MadLuke]

he's an *extremely* marginal selection

Yes, I feel everyone would agree that he is in the lowest end of where the bar is set (by the Kevin Lowe of the world).

Doug Wilson and Housley never won the cup, which is a giant factor for voters, Wilson play 30 minutes a night on a Ken Hitchcock cup winner, win an olympic gold medal, feeling change.

Hatcher also generally had the higher TOI even including PP minutes.

Zubov vs hatcher

98: 24:09 vs 24:18
99: 24:01 vs 24:44
00: 25:46 vs 26:01
01: 26:25 vs 25:28
02: 26:46 vs 26:28
03: 25:50 vs 25:51

RS avg: 25:30 vs 25:28
playoff avg: 28:47 vs 27:48

Hatcher never really had an higher TOI, virtually both the same every year, outside the playoff where Zubov endup playing a minute more in average, maybe because PP being something that you can do more in multiple overtime scenario.

 

[MS]

Yes, I feel everyone would agree that he is in the lowest end of where the bar is set (by the Kevin Lowe of the world).

Doug Wilson and Housley never won the cup, which is a giant factor for voters, Wilson play 30 minutes a night on a Ken Hitchcock cup winner, win an olympic gold medal, feeling change.



Zubov vs hatcher

98: 24:09 vs 24:18
99: 24:01 vs 24:44
00: 25:46 vs 26:01
01: 26:25 vs 25:28
02: 26:46 vs 26:28
03: 25:50 vs 25:51

RS avg: 25:30 vs 25:28
playoff avg: 28:47 vs 27:48

Hatcher never really had an higher TOI, virtually both the same every year, outside the playoff where Zubov endup playing a minute more in average, maybe because PP being something that you can do more in multiple overtime scenario.

I certainly didn't get that sense reading through the responses in this thread. I was pretty much the only person calling him a marginal selection.

Is John Carlson a HHOFer?

- better Norris/AS voting record (2,4,5,10,10 with a 1st + 2nd Team AS)
- also has a Cup (and had 20 points in that run)
- nearly identical career numbers
- similar TOI numbers relative to era (fewer guys play 25+ minutes now than in the DPE)