Here's an old post from 2011 where I argue that Chelios is a bit better than Robinson - blasphemy, I know.
Challenging the consensus: Chelios is (slightly) better than Robinson
Offense. A simplistic comparison would show that they scored virtually the same number of points despite Chelios playing an extra 267 games (which makes it look like Robinson is better). However, we need to take into account two important considerations - first, that Chelios played 391 games after age 40 (which drags down his per-game average) and that he spent a fair amount of time in the Dead Puck Era.
If we look at their performance through age 40 (Robinson's last season), we see that they scored the
same amount of points per game (0.69 each -
link). All things considered, this would be a point in Chelios' favour given that he never played on a team as stacked as the Canadiens dynasty, and given that he spent six of those seasons in the Dead Puck Era.
Despite Robinson playing in far more favourable situations (on arguably the greatest team of all-time and generally during a higher-scoring era), their offensive peaks are surprisingly similar (Robinson averaged 74 points over his best five seasons, Chelios averaged 69 points - not necessarily consecutive for either player). Given the context, I am considering this a draw.
Over Robinson's best five seasons (1977 to 1981), he was third in scoring among blueliners. Over Chelios's best five seasons (1993 to 1997) he was fifth.
Link 1.
Link 2. However, competition matters - if we look at the quality of players on each list, Chelios was facing off against seven actual or potential Hall of Fame defensemen (Bourque, Coffey, Leetch, Murphy, MacInnis, Zubov and Lidstrom) compared to just three for Robinson (Potvin, Salming and Park).
All things considered, I'd consider offense a draw.
Defense. These are two of the best shutdown blueliners of all-time. Robinson was named the best defensive defenseman in 1976, 1979 and 1981. Chelios was named the best defensive defenseman in 1993, and was runner-up to Bourque in 1994.
Link.
I feel that Robinson was somewhat better at even-strength (as he was better at reading plays and positioning himself appropriately), but Chelios was better on the penalty kill (I've never seen anybody better at clearing the crease). Chelios also logged absurd amounts of ice time on the penalty kill (leading the league in PK TOI per game in 1998 and 2001, at ages 36 and 39!)
Overall I'd call defensive play a draw.
Awards
Here's how Robinson fared in Norris voting (I'm only including seasons where they have at least 5% of the minimum votes to avoiding count a single third-place vote as "top ten" ranking):
1st: 1977, 1980
2nd: 1978 (Potvin)
3rd: 1978, 1981, 1986
5th: 1982
Here's how Chelios fared:
1st: 1989, 1993, 1996
2nd: 1995 (Coffey), 2002 (Lidstrom)
3rd: 1991
4th: 1997
6th: 2000
Despite peaking during the greatest era for top-end defenseman talent, Chelios won more Norris trophies and placed in the top two 5 times (compared to Robinson's 3 times). They have the same number of seasons in the top three and top five.
Chelios has more years as a first-team all-star (5-3) and more years as a first- or second-team all-star (7-6).
Both players got some scattered Hart votes during their career. Robinson earned more than 5% of the votes once (in 1977 with a 10% share), and Chelios never did so.
All things considered, Chelios gets the edge in this category.
Playoffs
Robinson won 6 Stanley Cups to Chelios's 3. Let's dig deeper than relying on the simplistic "Cup counting".
On a per-game basis, Robinson appears to have outscored Chelios (0.63 ppg compared to 0.54 ppg). However, Robinson retired at age 40 while Chelios played another 56 games in a purely defensive role, which skews his numbers down. If we stop at age 40, Chelios scored 136 points in 210 playoff games - 0.65 ppg. This means that Chelios, through age 40, scored more in the playoffs than Robinson, despite generally playing on weaker teams in a lower-scoring era, while being his equal defensively!
Robinson won the Conn Smythe in 1978, and deservedly so. This performance was a bit better than Chelios in 1992 (21 points in 18 games), but it's not by a huge margin.
Peak
I'm tempted to call it a draw. Both were elite shutdown blueliners. As I showed earlier, Robinson was about 7% more productive offensively over their best five seasons, but I think that's largely due to era and team considerations. Neither player had any serious Hart consideration. Robinson has a Smythe, but Chelios won more Norris trophies and had more first-team and total (first & second) all-star selections playing in a tougher era. This is a draw.
Longevity
Robinson had his last season as an elite player in 1986, at age 34 (when he won the Norris). That would give him an advantage against most blueliners, but not against Chelios. From age 34 onwards, Chelios won another Norris trophy, was runner-up to Lidstrom at age 40, and was also a second-team all-star at age 35.
It's important to emphasize that Chelios wasn't just hanging on, playing 15 minutes per game on a crappy expansion team. He logged enormous amounts of ice time while playing on one of the best and deepest teams in the NHL. Chelios was 2nd in total ice time (to Bourque) in 1998, 10th in 1999, 7th in 2000 and 15th in 2002 (covering ages 36 to 40).
I don't necessarily think that what Chelios did at age 44+ plus is all that relevant (playing 2nd or 3rd pairing minutes), but the fact that he was a first- or second-team all-star three times, and logged incredible ice time while playing on arguably the NHL's best team, from ages 34+, gives him a tremendous advantage over Robinson.
Intangibles
Physical play. Robinson was larger and stronger, but Chelios was more aggressive and had a nasty mean streak. Both were among the most intimidating players of their era. This is a draw.
Discipline. Robinson was remarkably disciplined (recording more than 50 PIM just three times in his career, with a career high of 76). In contrast, Chelios recorded 100+ PIM thirteen times, including three seasons with 200+ PIM. Robinson was significantly more disciplined.
Durability. Both players were very durable, especially considering the amount of ice time they played. From 1974 to 1987, Robinson played in 1,039 out of a possible 1,118 games (92.9%). From 1987 to 2000, Chelios played in 1,030 out of a possible 1,106 games (93.1%). They played essentially the same percentage of games over essentially the same length of time. What gives Chelios is edge is playing another 435 out of a possible 492 games (88.4%) from 2002 to 2008, ages 40 to 46!
Conclusion
In summary, Chelios has the following advantages:
- Norris trophy consideration
- all-star consideration
- longevity (decisive)
- durability
The following are draws:
- defensive play
- peak performance
- physical play
- offence
Robinson has the following advantages:
- discipline (decisive)
- number of Stanley Cups won
- a Conn Smythe
It's close and they're similar players, but Chelios should be ranked higher.
