Top-200 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 8

[ResilientBeast]

I was being hyperbolic. But I think Lapointe and Savard *kind of do*.

But you're not really making a point by being hyperbolic you just sound confused.

 

[Professor What]

According to you, but looking at the D already on the list Hedman wouldn't look out of place but it's not cut and dry like you say.

I had Stamkos, Hedman and Kucherov on my list....definitely too low I was in a rush.

I had them all way too low on my original list too (as in, to my shame, I'm likely to be the lowest on all of them), but I also think some of that becomes more obvious as the project progresses. But even then, no it's not a slam dunk that Hedman should be here, and since this is the first time that this particular project has been done, there are clearly going to be refinements that can be made later. The farther we go, the more I'm really understanding that this isn't the sort of thing that you get "right" on the first try, but if it increases knowledge, we still win.

 

[ted2019]

Laperriere won a Norris in the 06 era, finished 2nd another year. Top five 6 times. On five Cup winners.

At this point in the rankings he seems a good pick.

I find it a bit odd that Laperriere was a 5th place finish in 67/68, but didn't place at all the year after.
Laperriere's numbers were actually better in 68/69 and the competition for the award wasn't as good.

1967-68 Voting:

1	Bobby Orr	19	BOS	D	68	40	56	12	0	0	0	11	20	31	28	3.3	3.5	0	6.7
2	J.C. Tremblay	29	MTL	D	31	18.24	5	26	0	0	0	4	26	30	29	2	6.2	0	8.2
3	Tim Horton	38	TOR	D	30	17.65	22	8	0	0	0	4	23	27	20	1.8	5.6	0	7.3
4	Jim Neilson	27	NYR	D	26	15.29	0	26	0	0	0	6	29	35	27	2.8	5.5	0	8.2
5	Jacques Laperriere	26	MTL	D	15	8.82	3	12	0	0	0	4	21	25	23	1.5	5.7	0	7.2

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

1968-69 voting:

1	Bobby Orr	20	BOS	D	176	60.69	0	0	0	0	0	21	43	64	55	6.5	5.9	0	12.4
2	Tim Horton	39	TOR	D	48	16.55	0	0	0	0	0	11	29	40	14	3.3	5.1	0	8.3
3	Ted Green	28	BOS	D	27	9.31	0	0	0	0	0	8	38	46	11	3.7	2.8	0	6.5
4	Ted Harris	32	MTL	D	22	7.59	0	0	0	0	0	7	18	25	24	1.5	5.3	0	6.7
5	Al Arbour	36	STL	D	17	5.86	0	0	0	0	0	1	6	7	20	-0.6	5.9	0	5.3

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Jacques Laperriere stats:

		Scoring			Goals	Assists	Shots	Ice Time
Season	Age	Tm	Lg	GP	G	A	PTS	+/-	PIM	EV	PP	SH	GW	EV	PP	SH	S	S%	TOI	ATOI	Awards
1962-63	21	MTL	NHL	6	0	2	2	0	2	0	0	0	0	1	1	0	8	0
1963-64	22	MTL	NHL	65	2	28	30	25	102	0	1	1	1	14	13	1	196	1			AS-2,Calder-1,Norris-4
1964-65	23	MTL	NHL	67	5	22	27	-2	92	5	0	0	0	10	12	0	127	3.9			AS-1,Norris-2
1965-66	24	MTL	NHL	57	6	25	31	14	85	3	2	1	2	12	13	0	116	5.2			AS-1,Norris-1
1966-67	25	MTL	NHL	61	0	20	20	-17	48	0	0	0	0	12	8	0	109	0			Norris-8
1967-68	26	MTL	NHL	72	4	21	25	23	84	3	1	0	0	14	6	1	122	3.3			Norris-5
1968-69	27	MTL	NHL	69	5	26	31	36	45	5	0	0	1	19	7	0	166	3
1969-70	28	MTL	NHL	73	6	31	37	27	103	3	2	1	1	16	14	1	169	3.6			AS-2,Norris-4
1970-71	29	MTL	NHL	49	0	16	16	24	20	0	0	0	0	11	3	2	65	0
1971-72	30	MTL	NHL	73	3	25	28	34	50	1	2	0	0	19	3	3	97	3.1
1972-73	31	MTL	NHL	58	7	16	23	77	34	5	2	0	0	14	1	1	89	7.9			Norris-5
1973-74	32	MTL	NHL	42	2	10	12	15	14	1	0	1	0	7	3	0	60	3.3
Career		12 yrs	NHL	692	40	242	282	256	679	26	10	4	5	149	84	9	1324	3

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[quoipourquoi]

I have a really hard time placing him over Potvin, Fetisov, Bourque, maybe even Robinson for some of that window. Coffey is hard to evaluate against him but I struggle to say Langway was better per se. So that would put him somewhere between 4th-7th at peak for me

I don’t think I feel terribly differently, other than thinking Paul Coffey was for sure better too.

The thing with Langway is that it’s just so damn hard to ignore that Washington’s rank in GF and save percentage dropped from 1982 to 1983 and yet they gained 30 points in the standings because they cut their SA to that much of an extent that goal-scoring and goaltending (the things that have direct impact on the scoreboard) didn’t matter.

And then in 1984, the Capitals fall to 12th and 14th in GF and save percentage (worse than they did in 1982 or 1983), and they become a 101-point team that is 3 points back of the #1 spot in the Conference - all from shot prevention.

I’ll badmouth a defenseman all day on here, but the numbers are what they are; Rod Langway is legitimate.

It’s tough to say that it’s better than Ray Bourque or Paul Coffey though, because they’re two of the most talented players I’ve seen in my life. But this is measurable transformative performance, and being the 4th-7th best at a position in one time frame doesn’t mean that a player wouldn’t be the 1st-3rd best in another time frame.

To me, I think the effort to undercut Langway is a little too strong. Unless we’re trying to siphon off credit to Scott Stevens (not unjustifiably), I don’t care that Langway won Norris Trophies only because Carlyle and Wilson won Norris Trophies and there was a need to balance the scales. What happened in the standings for Washington in 1983 and 1984 is worth more than a Norris, so had he lost to Howe or Bourque or Coffey, or been ignored altogether like usual, I’m not going to think less of Langway’s seasons.

There’s a cap to the improvement a team can make from year-to-year, and subsequently a limit to how much voters are going to want to continue to credit strict defense - which is why I think Langway’s lack of voting support predated his actual decline in defensive performance. His numbers in the late-1980s suggest that he was still as good, but it might have taken Washington winning a President’s Trophy with below-average scoring and goaltending to sustain his voting support.

Someone like Adam Foote will make all five best-on-best tournaments for Canada from 1996-2006, but he’s not catching Norris votes, because voting for defensive defensemen so often depends on the narrative. When did Derian Hatcher catch votes? Only when Ed Belfour left and Dallas was somehow better.

After a certain point, Washington just didn’t have anything new going on. And in every way that I see people using voting trends to downplay Langway’s 1983-1985, it seems we’re allowing voting trends rather than GA numbers tell us that Langway was a far lesser player outside that time frame.

 

[Professor What]

The thing with Langway is that it’s just so damn hard to ignore that Washington’s rank in GF and save percentage dropped from 1982 to 1983 and yet they gained 30 points in the standings because they cut their SA to that much of an extent that goal-scoring and goaltending (the things that have direct impact on the scoreboard) didn’t matter.

And that's a perfect example of why Langway was a legitimate Hart candidate. Even if I pull him back a bit over the Norris dispute, that sort of value to a team can't be ignored either. One way I like to mentally frame an MVP race is by asking this question: Which player's absence, if he were removed from his team's roster, would be the most detrimental to the team? The more the player's absence would hurt the team, the stronger of a Hart candidate he is. Take Langway away from those Capitals, and they're going down the drain.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Honestly this list is so off the rails it doesn't matter anyway, but there are a ton of ineligible active players that deserve a look before some of the guys who have been going in just based on their resumes to date with zero projection.

If what you want to take away from this project is strictly a numbered list, you will likely be disappointed. This is our first attempt at this list, so just like cooking pancakes, the quality of the first one is going to be suspect.

But if one was looking to take away a better understanding of the eligible players, I don’t think we’re off the rails at all - despite having to look at 15 players at a time.


Can I ask that we make less comments about how the project sucks (that’s not specifically aimed at you either)? I’m like Oogie Boogie after he kidnapped Santa Claus - just trying to do the best I can.

 

[MXD]

I got laid off during the summer so was previously occupied and didn't do a list for this - believe I've mentioned that.

Still going to talk about it. Still going to critique the Habs third line LW getting credit for being the 120th best player of all time because their name is on the Cup six times.

Your issue seem to be team-specific rather than player-specific.

And yes, it makes no sense that Pavel Bure made that list before Victor Hedman was even eligible.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I was being hyperbolic. But I think Lapointe and Savard *kind of do*.

I could see Hedman over Savard.

And very comparable to Lapointe.

 

[DN28]

You literally said “Do you think Langway would win those 2 Norris Trophies if Cold War ended in 1977 and young Fetisov crossed over and started to play in NHL?” in response to ted2019 referencing Langway having two Norris Trophies.

So if you weren’t suggesting Langway would not have won the 1983 and 1984 Norris Trophies, I’m not sure why you said that.

Again, for 10th time now. I was putting Langway's wins into proper context.

I am suggesting Langway would have lost Norris to Fetisov in 1984. 1983 is a question mark.

Can't believe how the debate shifted. Instead of debating peak or prime Kasatonov vs. Langway. We are here discussing peak Fetisov vs. peak Langway vs. peak freaking Doug Wilson... Am I the crazy one here? Am I in the minority to think this is a nonsense debate?

If yes, I would recommend to you and others to remind yourselves:
a) results of the Red Army team vs. NHL teams, on smaller NA rinks, with NA refereeing.
b) to watch actual footage of Fetisov and compare his level of skills, skating, vision to that his NA competition at D.
c) to go back and find what NA press itself had to say about Fetisov in his prime and to find out how they felt about Fetisov vis-a-vis contemporary NA defensemen.

...which would put the 4th highest scoring Russian player at the fringes of the top-20. The median rank from the last 6 years is between 18th and 19th in scoring, which puts Fetisov in the range between Bourque’s 96 points and Potvin’s 85 points. And Langway had more Norris voting points than Bourque and Potvin combined.

So what does Fetisov bring to the table to differentiate himself from Bourque and Potvin - two also excellent defensive players who would have comparable offensive numbers to that year’s Fetisov (presuming Fetisov is still the 4th highest scoring Russian player when he’s not on the same team as the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd highest scoring Russian players)?


Yes.

How often are there four Russian players in the top-10 in scoring? 2009, but when else?

And given that there were 5 players on teams other than CSKA Moscow closer to Fetisov in scoring (49 points vs. 42-47 points) than Fetisov was to Makarov and Krutov (49 points vs. 73-57 points), I find it incredibly unrealistic that Fetisov would even be the 4th highest scoring Russian player if he was not on the same team as Makarov, Krutov, and Drozdetsky.

More likely, he would be merely one of the 7th, 8th, or 9th highest Russian scorers in 1984, which would make being a top-10 NHL scorer highly unlikely.

There’s just not enough of a buffer between Fetisov and the field to believe that he would be the 2009 Kovalchuk if he’s not playing with 1984’s Ovechkin, Malkin, and Datsyuk.

4th highest Soviet scorer domestically. Internationally, Fetisov was 3rd. 3rd highest Russian scorer - is it more likely for top 10 finish?

I am also far from the only who thinks Soviet hockey program peaked roughly in 1979-1984. If there is a space for one season where 4 Russians could have reached top 10, 1984 is one of them.

Depends on the awards race.

You’re highlighting two (the 1982 and 1984 Norris races) that I don’t think would be affected, because the best European Defensemen in 1982 were not going to score 30+ goals (Fetisov was ranked 48th in goals) and the best European Defensemen in 1984 seemed to have seasons more in line with Bourque and Potvin who, again, couldn’t catch Langway if they had pooled their votes.

Wilson was the 9th Defenseman to score 30 goals in a season. The other 8 also won the Norris Trophy. And Wilson hit 39, the 2nd highest total in history to that point.

So if we understand that from 1980s eyes that 30+ goals is a big deal - a slam dunk Norris selection - maybe the fact that Langway beat three different 30-goal defensemen to win the Norris Trophy in 1984 while also appearing on 74% of the 5-3-1 Hart ballots should be our giant flashing neon sign that Fetisov was not going to stop Langway from winning the 1984 Norris.

Instead of repeating those 1982, 1984 narratives for me, you could just respond to my argument. Let me ask you again:

Do you think award narratives would stay the same if Hasek, Jagr, Forsberg, Selanne, Bure, Lidstrom etc. were not playing in NHL in the 1990s?

Fundamentally, I am curious about one thing and I do hope you won't avoid answering this. Do you think the level of elite European talent was more or less equal to that of North America during 1970s-1980s? If yes, then it follows logically that in some years the World's best player at G, at D, at C, at W happened to be a Euro player instead of a Canadian/American one.

Right? Or do you think not a single European defenseman during 2 decades (1970-1990) was ever the best at his position? Not even Fetisov could have broken NA dominance in defensemen production?

Do you think European hockey truly developed only after 1990 when only then a majority of top Euro players started to play in NHL?

Given the competition in the NHL at the time....it's extremely unlikely that Kasatonov was the second best D in the world

Yes, early 1980s - known as the strongest competition ever for defensemen in the history of NHL with mighty Doug Wilson winning the Norris Trophy because 39 goals...

Got it.

 

[The Macho King]

Can I ask that we make less comments about how the project sucks (that’s not specifically aimed at you either)? I’m like Oogie Boogie after he kidnapped Santa Claus - just trying to do the best I can.

For the record, I don't think the project sucks at all and the discussions are absolutely a value add, so I'm sorry it came across this way. I have a long-seeded frustration with Habs placement vis a vis other players (this is a holdover from the top 100 list as well and even ATDs), but the nature of this project means the group determines the placement and I think that's fine - but every now and then I need to tilt at windmills when discussing it or else I'll go crazy.

Edit: Also I know I'm being a bit of a homer (although I care a lot more about Hedman being ignored so far than Stamkos ftr), but I think to the extent that stands out it's because if you're a Habs homer you get to wear the mantle of history to defend your opinions, but if it's an active player or someone from a non-traditional, non-premier franchise, you have a higher hill to climb to be respected.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Yes, early 1980s - known as the strongest competition ever for defensemen in the history of NHL with mighty Doug Wilson winning the Norris Trophy because 39 goals...

Got it.

1981-82 Norris voting
Ray Bourque, Paul Coffey, Larry Robinson, Denis Potvin, Borje Salming, Brad Park

So you're disagreeing that this is tough competition?

Edit: And Doug Wilson is a weird one to pick on, he picked up Norris and AST votes during the 80s including 2 more AST selections.

 

[Professor What]

Yes, early 1980s - known as the strongest competition ever for defensemen in the history of NHL with mighty Doug Wilson winning the Norris Trophy because 39 goals...

Got it.

Nobody here is centering their argument that the era was strong for defensemen around Doug Wilson, and honestly, as there have been multiple posts laying out who the strong competition at the time was, that's a horrible deflection.

 

[The Macho King]

I really don't get slagging 80s defensemen as a way to prop up *checks notes* Kasatonov?

It's an interesting period to be sure. The guys who dominated the late 70s all slowed down a bit (I maintain Potvin was still as good but set that aside), and the guys who would form the golden age of Dmen were all just beginning (but started strong almost uniformly). So I think a discussion of how that works is interesting, but it's interesting in the context of where to rank Fetisov. Kasatonov just... seems like an odd add at this point.

Even if Bourque wasn't peak Bourque he was still damn good. Mark Howe was around. Potvin was still great and winning Cups like crazy. Coffey was [unintelligible maybe a compliment but can't bring myself to type it out].

Also - I mean I don't think it's crazy that the second best Soviet Dman wouldn't be a top 5/10 NHL defender. Who is the second best Russian Dman in the league right now? Sergachev? Is he a top 10 D? Everyone would (rightly) say no. Hell, even the best Russian in the league is only borderline. I don't think we have to bend over backwards to admit Soviet players that have not distinguished themselves.

 

[ResilientBeast]

I really don't get slagging 80s defensemen as a way to prop up *checks notes* Kasatonov?

It's an interesting period to be sure. The guys who dominated the late 70s all slowed down a bit (I maintain Potvin was still as good but set that aside), and the guys who would form the golden age of Dmen were all just beginning (but started strong almost uniformly). So I think a discussion of how that works is interesting, but it's interesting in the context of where to rank Fetisov. Kasatonov just... seems like an odd add at this point.

It's wasting our time if I'm honest. Like I said earlier until I see Suchy and Popisil who this board ranked similarly to Kasatonov I have no time for him.

Fetisov winning Norris trophies over Langway means sweet f*** all for Kasatonov's standing. Kasatonov being the second best soviet defenceman in this time period doesn't mean much because I couldn't name the third one of the top my head confidently.

 

[quoipourquoi]

4th highest Soviet scorer domestically. Internationally, Fetisov was 3rd. 3rd highest Russian scorer - is it more likely for top 10 finish?

So a smaller sample size that is even more restrictive because there is only one top-line on the international team versus 12 teams having top-lines in the domestic league?

I think the domestic finish is more accurate in assessing the best offensive players - but still limited because Fetisov played with the top-3 scorers while the players directly behind him in the scoring race did not.

Instead of repeating those 1982, 1984 narratives for me, you could just respond to my argument. Let me ask you again:

Do you think award narratives would stay the same if Hasek, Jagr, Forsberg, Selanne, Bure, Lidstrom etc. were not playing in NHL in the 1990s?

Recognize that I answered your question: “Depends on the awards race.”

Saying that I don’t think a European Defenseman would win a specific trophy in two specific years is not dodging your gotcha question, but instead me keeping it focused on something not far removed from a relevant discussion point.

Sometimes European players don’t win. All of those players you named above were in the NHL in 1995-96 and yet the Hart, Norris, and Vezina nominees were all North American. It happens.

Fundamentally, I am curious about one thing and I do hope you won't avoid answering this. Do you think the level of elite European talent was more or less equal to that of North America during 1970s-1980s? If yes, then it follows logically that in some years the World's best player at G, at D, at C, at W happened to be a Euro player instead of a Canadian/American one.

Right? Or do you think not a single European defenseman during 2 decades (1970-1990) was ever the best at his position? Not even Fetisov could have broken NA dominance in defensemen production?

I don’t consider those to be an either/or. I also never said that a European Defenseman could never win a Norris between 1970-1990. I was critical of your “conservative estimate” that Fetisov would win three and specifically addressed the 1981-1984 time frame, since I figured 1982 and 1984 were two of those three.

Yes, early 1980s - known as the strongest competition ever for defensemen in the history of NHL with mighty Doug Wilson winning the Norris Trophy because 39 goals...

Got it.

Yeah, 39 goals is a lot. Like... a lot. Like... 2nd highest total at the time.

And perhaps it is worth ridicule with 2021 eyes, but I’m not wrong about voters in 1982 caring about it.

If all you have left is sarcasm, I’d just as soon not talk to you any more.

 

[overpass]

If yes, I would recommend to you and others to remind yourselves:
a) results of the Red Army team vs. NHL teams, on smaller NA rinks, with NA refereeing.
b) to watch actual footage of Fetisov and compare his level of skills, skating, vision to that his NA competition at D.
c) to go back and find what NA press itself had to say about Fetisov in his prime and to find out how they felt about Fetisov vis-a-vis contemporary NA defensemen.

It's never a bad idea to watch more of the 80s Soviet team or Red Army team, and I would suggest watching Kasatonov too. We all know he wasn't the best player in the Green Unit and he doesn't pop off the screen as much as some of the others, but I'm always impressed when I watch him. The only negative I would say is that he wasn't an offensive initiator at the level of Fetisov, but he did everything else really well. He was fully able to keep up with their quick-passing, free-flowing attack, he could score goals when pinching up in the attack, and he was very good and well-rounded defensively. You name it, he did it well-- 1-on-1, team defence, defending the rush, the cycle, in front of the net, in the corners, playing the man, the puck. I would say he was better than Fetisov defending down low around the net because he was stronger and used his body better.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

It's never a bad idea to watch more of the 80s Soviet team or Red Army team, and I would suggest watching Kasatonov too. We all know he wasn't the best player in the Green Unit and he doesn't pop off the screen as much as some of the others, but I'm always impressed when I watch him. The only negative I would say is that he wasn't an offensive initiator at the level of Fetisov, but he did everything else really well. He was fully able to keep up with their quick-passing, free-flowing attack, he could score goals when pinching up in the attack, and he was very good and well-rounded defensively. You name it, he did it well-- 1-on-1, team defence, defending the rush, the cycle, in front of the net, in the corners, playing the man, the puck. I would say he was better than Fetisov defending down low around the net because he was stronger and used his body better.

And in the NHL his offensive numbers are actually a little better than Fetisov's.

 

[tarheelhockey]

From a 1990 players' poll.

Submitted without comment

*stirs the pot*

 

[Professor What]

From a 1990 players' poll.

Submitted without comment

*stirs the pot*

Because...

Although...

 

[quoipourquoi]

From a 1990 players' poll.

Submitted without comment

*stirs the pot*

Way too serious response to a genuinely funny post:

Langway scored just one goal across 1989-90 and 1990-91 (not sure which month this poll was taken), but to his credit, the Capitals were 56-48-10 (86 point pace) with him in the lineup and 17-26-3 (64 point pace) without him in those two years.

He saw 62 ESGA across 114 games (43.5 GA per 80). We can’t tell his ES minutes obviously but on a per-game level, this is like what Lidstrom and Pronger did in their peak years. And all this despite Washington finishing 8th and 16th in save percentage.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I'm saying that he was a strong competitor for the Norris in what I personally believe was the era that overall play was probably at its highest level in history. And even if we say that he was fourth-best, is that really so bad when the competition is Gadsby, Horton, and Pilote? No, it's not. I'm not saying that there were a dozen top flight d-men in the era, because obviously there weren't, but the top of the pile was still quite strong.

I guess the top of the pile's always quite strong, isn't it? By definition?

What separates the 60s somewhat is that Pilote is no Shore, Harvey, Orr, Bourque, Lidstrom. Gadsby is no Seibert, Kelly, Robinson, Fetisov. As we go deeper it seems to flatten out... Horton, Brewer, Howell, Pronovost, Laperriere, Tremblay, Stapleton seems like ordinary generational depth to me. It's just that the 1-2 top dogs aren't as strong as the superstars we'd normally see in those positions.

I agree that this doesn't really tell us a lot about the Pronovost/Laperriere class of player. They're usually competing to be finalists, not to win the Norris... doesn't really matter whether they're up against Pilote or Orr, they're probably not gonna win anyway. Likewise we wouldn't normally see a Langway or Kasatonov win a Norris, nor would we see a Modano or Smith as 1AS. The only reason we have some guys in this round who are 1AS is because they're LWs and face a much shallower pool of talent for those honors.

So when I look at Laperriere's award record in this context, I'm mainly looking for 2-3-4 finishes on a regular basis. What does he have? 4-2-1-8-5-nil-4-nil-nil-5-nil. In two of those "nil" seasons he played fewer than 40 games so that's no surprise. So in 6/9 seasons he's performing at roughly the level I would be looking for, but slightly lower than I'd like to see in two of them. His Norris season, he's beating Pilote who was coming off 3 consecutive wins... that's pretty damn good, unless we have a reason to believe there's a fluke in the voting.

 

[Professor What]

I guess the top of the pile's always quite strong, isn't it? By definition?

What separates the 60s somewhat is that Pilote is no Shore, Harvey, Orr, Bourque, Lidstrom. Gadsby is no Seibert, Kelly, Robinson, Fetisov. As we go deeper it seems to flatten out... Horton, Brewer, Howell, Pronovost, Laperriere, Tremblay, Stapleton seems like ordinary generational depth to me. It's just that the 1-2 top dogs aren't as strong as the superstars we'd normally see in those positions.

I agree that this doesn't really tell us a lot about the Pronovost/Laperriere class of player. They're usually competing to be finalists, not to win the Norris... doesn't really matter whether they're up against Pilote or Orr, they're probably not gonna win anyway. Likewise we wouldn't normally see a Langway or Kasatonov win a Norris, nor would we see a Modano or Smith as 1AS. The only reason we have some guys in this round who are 1AS is because they're LWs and face a much shallower pool of talent for those honors.

So when I look at Laperriere's award record in this context, I'm mainly looking for 2-3-4 finishes on a regular basis. What does he have? 4-2-1-8-5-nil-4-nil-nil-5-nil. In two of those "nil" seasons he played fewer than 40 games so that's no surprise. So in 6/9 seasons he's performing at roughly the level I would be looking for, but slightly lower than I'd like to see in two of them. His Norris season, he's beating Pilote who was coming off 3 consecutive wins... that's pretty damn good, unless we have a reason to believe there's a fluke in the voting.

Probably not going to win, but Laperierre did pull it off once, and unless there's something I'm unaware of, I don't see a fluke there. It looks like a solid win. But would you agree with the assessment that that sort of player isn't just horribly out of place in the discussion here but just a tad too early for placement? That's what I felt to begin with, and I think I'm only getting more solidly entrenched there.

 

[overpass]

There’s one questionable aspect about Laperriere’s Norris win in 1965-66. It’s that he led in first half voting but not in second half voting, possibly because he was injured and missed 13 games at the end of the season.

It is to Laperriere’s credit that he won the first half voting very solidly, with Pierre Pilote second and Doug Barkley third. In the second half, even though Laperriere missed 13 games, there was no clear winner. Pat Stapleton and JC Tremblay had more second half votes than Laperriere but no first half votes.

Maybe the biggest reason nobody overtook Laperriere despite his injury is that almost every one of the Norris contenders also missed time. Pilote, Stapleton, Tremblay, and Stanley all missed 10-20 games too. (Edit: Stapleton wasn't injured but he spend the first month of the season in the minors after moving from Boston to Chicago.) Doug Barkley suffered a career-ending eye injury. Only Harry Howell played a full schedule.

I think this has to be one of the weakest Norris-winning seasons because of all the injuries, and because Laperriere didn’t play in the playoffs that season while Montreal won the Cup, led by his fellow defenceman J.C. Tremblay,

1965-66 Norris voting (first half-second half)
1. Jacques Laperriere, Mtl 89 (62-27)
2. Pierre Pilote, Chi 54 (42-12)
3. Pat Stapleton, Chi 40 (0-40)
4. J.C. Tremblay, Mtl 32 (0-32)
5. Doug Barkley, Det 30 (30-0)
6. Harry Howell, NYR 28 (9-19)
7. Allan Stanley, Tor 23 (2-21)
8. Matt Ravlich, Chi 6 (6-0)
T9. Tim Horton, Tor 5 (4-1)
T9. Terry Harper, Mtl 5 (0-5)
T11. Marcel Pronovost, Tor 4 (3-1)
T11. Bill Gadsby, Det 4 (0-4)
13. Ted Green, Bos 3 (3-0)
14. Jean-Guy Talbot, Mtl 1 (1-0)

Laperriere also led in first half voting in 1964-65, but Pilote passed him after the second half voting took place. He played 67 games so injuries were not a factor as far as I know. In the end it was a close vote between him and Pilote, and Laperriere was still second place in the second half voting, so he wasn’t far from having two Norris trophies.

1964-65 Norris voting (first half-second half)
1. Pierre Pilote, Chi 93 (32-61)
2. Jacques Laperriere, Mtl 78 (55-23)
3. Bill Gadsby, Det 40 (18-22)
4. Tim Horton, Tor 27 (15-12)
5. Marcel Pronovost, Det 20 (0-20)
6. Carl Brewer, TOR 19 (14-5)
7. Ted Green, BOS 17 (13-4)
8. Bob Baun, TOR 15 (5-10)
9. Harry Howell, NYR 12 (8-4)
T10. Doug Barkley, DET 1 (0-1)
T10. Elmer Vasko, CHI 1 (1-0)
T10. J.C. Tremblay, MTL 1 (1-0)

 

[tarheelhockey]

The other thing, given Laperriere's team situation, is vote-splitting which could impact the way he's rated among his peers. In a period of only 2-3 votes per ballot, being regarded as the best D on your team could be a pretty all-or-nothing proposition as far as award recognition was concerned (unless someone thought a single team had both of the best 2 defensemen in the league).

Here's how that impacted him throughout his career:

1964
Norris
4. Jacques Laperriere 6-19
5. Terry Harper 1-12

All-Star
4. Jacques Laperriere 6-37
7. Terry Harper 14-0
10. (tie) J.C. Tremblay and Jean-Guy Talbot 6-0

1965
Norris
2. Jacques Laperriere 55-23
11. J.C. Tremblay 1-0

All Star
2. Jacques Laperriere 84-26
11. J.C. Tremblay 2-9
18. Jean-Guy Talbot 1-0

1966
Norris
1. Jacques Laperriere 62-27
4. J.C. Tremblay 0-32
9. Terry Harper 0-5
14. Jean-Guy Talbot 1-0

All Star
1. Jacques Laperriere 84-35
5. J.C. Tremblay 10-58
14. Ted Harris 0-3
18. Terry Harper 0-1

1967
Norris
5. J.C. Tremblay 9-9
8. (tie) Jacques Laperriere and Terry Harper 5-0

All Star
5. J.C. Tremblay 8-31
6. Terry Harper 24-3
9. Jacques Laperriere 12-0

1968
Norris
2. J.C. Tremblay 5-26
5. Jacques Laperriere 3-12

All Star
3. J.C. Tremblay 14-38
7. Jacques Laperriere 7-21
16. Terry Harper 0-4

1969
Norris
4. Ted Harris

All Star
4. Ted Harris 67
8. J.C. Tremblay 18
10. Jacques Laperriere 11

1970
Norris
4. Jacques Laperriere

All Star
4. Jacques Laperriere 57
11. Serge Savard 9
17. Terry Harper 3

1971
Norris
3. J.C. Tremblay 35

All Star
2. J.C. Tremblay 121
13. Jacques Laperriere 5
17. (tie) Guy Lapointe, Terry Harper 1

1972
Norris
5. J.C. Tremblay 8

All Star
5. J.C. Tremblay 75
12. Guy Lapointe 6
20. Jacques Laperriere 1

1973
Norris
2. Guy Lapointe 58
5. Jacques Laperriere 25
6. Serge Savard 22

All Star
2. Guy Lapointe 125
5. Jacques Laperriere 97
6. Serge Savard 41

1974
Norris
6. Guy Lapointe 8
9. Jacques Laperriere 3
12. Serge Savard 1

All Star
5. Guy Lapointe 42
13. Jacques Laperriere 4
22. (tie) Serge Savard, Larry Robinson 1


Notes

- First, all of this checks out in terms of consistency between voter groups. There's no weird unexplainable discrepancy, though there are some interesting effects with Terry Harper in 1964 and 1967.

- It's clear that Laperriere was seen as The Man for the Habs' defensive corps from 1964 to 1967, and that it was still a debate between him and Tremblay as late as 1970. During this 6-year period, 5 of them involved the Habs finishing either 1st or 2nd; and in the playoffs they won 4 Cups with a Final. 1970 was the dropoff.

- If the voters had it right, Laperriere remained the second-best defenseman on the changing Habs from 1971-74, during which time they won 2 more Cups.

- Maybe the most interesting part of this whole thing, from a vote splitting perspective, is the 1965 and 1966 Hart balloting, which deserves a separate post which will be coming soon.

- Somebody really liked Terry Harper.

 

[Professor What]

There’s one questionable aspect about Laperriere’s Norris win in 1965-66. It’s that he led in first half voting but not in second half voting, possibly because he was injured and missed 13 games at the end of the season.

It is to Laperriere’s credit that he won the first half voting very solidly, with Pierre Pilote second and Doug Barkley third. In the second half, even though Laperriere missed 13 games, there was no clear winner. Pat Stapleton and JC Tremblay had more second half votes than Laperriere but no first half votes.

Maybe the biggest reason nobody overtook Laperriere despite his injury is that almost every one of the Norris contenders also missed time. Pilote, Stapleton, Tremblay, and Stanley all missed 10-20 games too. Doug Barkley suffered a career-ending eye injury. Only Harry Howell played a full schedule.

I think this has to be one of the weakest Norris-winning seasons because of all the injuries, and because Laperriere didn’t play in the playoffs that season while Montreal won the Cup, led by his fellow defenceman J.C. Tremblay,

1965-66 Norris voting (first half-second half)
1. Jacques Laperriere, Mtl 89 (62-27)
2. Pierre Pilote, Chi 54 (42-12)
3. Pat Stapleton, Chi 40 (0-40)
4. J.C. Tremblay, Mtl 32 (0-32)
5. Doug Barkley, Det 30 (30-0)
6. Harry Howell, NYR 28 (9-19)
7. Allan Stanley, Tor 23 (2-21)
8. Matt Ravlich, Chi 6 (6-0)
T9. Tim Horton, Tor 5 (4-1)
T9. Terry Harper, Mtl 5 (0-5)
T11. Marcel Pronovost, Tor 4 (3-1)
T11. Bill Gadsby, Det 4 (0-4)
13. Ted Green, Bos 3 (3-0)
14. Jean-Guy Talbot, Mtl 1 (1-0)

Laperriere also led in first half voting in 1964-65, but Pilote passed him after the second half voting took place. He played 67 games so injuries were not a factor as far as I know. In the end it was a close vote between him and Pilote, and Laperriere was still second place in the second half voting, so he wasn’t far from having two Norris trophies.

1964-65 Norris voting (first half-second half)
1. Pierre Pilote, Chi 93 (32-61)
2. Jacques Laperriere, Mtl 78 (55-23)
3. Bill Gadsby, Det 40 (18-22)
4. Tim Horton, Tor 27 (15-12)
5. Marcel Pronovost, Det 20 (0-20)
6. Carl Brewer, TOR 19 (14-5)
7. Ted Green, BOS 17 (13-4)
8. Bob Baun, TOR 15 (5-10)
9. Harry Howell, NYR 12 (8-4)
T10. Doug Barkley, DET 1 (0-1)
T10. Elmer Vasko, CHI 1 (1-0)
T10. J.C. Tremblay, MTL 1 (1-0)

Not saying there's not a point there about the injuries, but I'd still point out two things. First, the Norris is a regular season award, so his playoff absence shouldn't apply here. Secondly, it's not like he wasn't a strong vote getter in the second half. He had the third-highest number of votes there, and the two guys that got more got a goose egg in the first half. There was obviously a pretty big gap in the minds of the voters for the first half.