View Single Post
09-07-2011, 09:32 PM
Registered User
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,775
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post

ok on the GP. Secondary player? no, that was the year Portland was 5th in voting, so although that still placed him behind teammates Shore and Clapper, he was hardly a "secondary player" if his league-wide standing was that high.
I doubt Portland was as important as Milt Schmidt, Woody Dumart, Bobby Baeur, Roy Conacher, Bill Cowley, Eddie Shore, Dit Clapper, or Frank Brimsek. That's what I mean by "secondary player." He wasn't a key player but was likely more than a role player.

Absolutely, it's a great season. But was he really a top-4 d-man? Better than Pronger, for example?
Votes for the 2007-08 Norris:

5. Brian Campbell, S.J. 333 (1-18-16-31-24)
8. Chris Pronger, ANA 56 (0-2-5-5-2)

You might have a case if it were close, but it wasn't.

Just because Pronger had a better career doesn't mean he had a better season. I'm sure the 10 games he missed and the excessive penalties he took that year affected the vote totals.

Of course finishing 5th in voting for the Norris and 4th for the AS Teams only means that that's what the hockey writers who vote on the awards thought. But it's the same for every season and every award.

20th would be reasonable. He was still considered very suspect defensively at this time. Regardless, I said myself that this was better than any Gibbs season (which means I'm being pretty fair to you, acknowledging that the stuff from the 70s should be effectively doubled)
He was good enough defensively to lead the best team in the league in ice time.

1. Campbell in 2009 was not an ASG-caliber player, this was just a carryover from the previous season, which happens a lot. He was his own team's 3rd-best defenseman.
That's your opinion, not the opinion of the NHL GMs who selected him to play in the All Star game, or the several hockey writers who gave him votes for the All Star team.

Again, he was the #3 defenseman on his team because he wasn't as good as Duncan Keith and was the wrong type of player to play with Keith. Barry Gibbs would have been the #3 if he were in Campbell's place too.

2. Take a look at that 1973 ASG roster. All bonafide ATD top-2 pairing guys, plus Dallas Smith, a 3rd-pairing guy, plus Manery and Gibbs. Look at 2009. Chara, Bouwmeester, Kaberle, Komisarek, Markov, Streit, Boyle, Robidas, Souray, Campbell - that's, by my count, an all-time great, four 3rd pairing ATD players, three legit MLD players, one AAA guy, and one who won't get drafted.
Comparing the careers of guys who finished theirs and retired with guys who are still playing and still have much to add to their legacy? Awesome. The 2009 ASG roster would look a lot better if guys like Lidstrom and Pronger didn't skip it and the fans didn't vote Komisarek a starter. Campbell was one of a selection of guys picked by General Managers to play.

3. You're descending into dreakmur territory, getting a little too caught up with point totals here.
When there's no proof that Gibbs was any better than Campbell defensively at even strength, yeah, I'll look at points.

Campbell's lack of size keeps him from being good in front of the net, so yeah, Gibbs is a better PK option. Good thing we don't need Campbell on the PK.

no, five times. (3+2)

as opposed to twice #1 of a great team, three times #3 of good/great team, once #5 and PP specialist, otherwise a fringe player.
#1 of a great team > ( #3 of a great team / #1 of a mediocre team) > #5/PP specialist

Basically, you have no basis for claiming that Campbell's seasons in Chicago were any worse than Gibbs' best seasons. Gibbs would have been the #3 in Chicago too.

No, I just know that you think Zhitnik is a top-1000 player (as do I) and if Zhitnik was in this draft you'd surely consider him one of the top-10 defensemen here.
I don't necessarily think Zhitnik is a top 1000 player; really haven't thought about it. I definitely wouldn't think he was a top 10 defenseman at the MLD level - above average, sure, but not top 10. I already said that he was a lazy pick when I drafted him in the ATD as my spare - I needed someone who could competently play both special teams and was familiar with Zhitnik from drafting him before. I was well-aware that Brian Campbell was available and a superior player to Zhitnik, but Campbell can't very well kill penalties at the ATD level. Zhitnik can (as a spare only!)

He was a #3 defenseman! Let's clear the air here: where do you think Campbell truly ranked among all NHL defensemen in overall value delivered in the 2009 season?
I don't really care where he ranked in terms of value to his team - I care how good he was. Guy Lapointe was probably less valuable to his team than Gibbs was to his, but even Gibbs' mother would pick Lapointe if she wanted to win a hockey game.

Do you really think that Gibbs, even at his best, would have been anything but a #3 on Chicago?

dreak, is that you?

A #5 defenseman in total TOI (but first in PP TOI) capitalizes and scores 44 points and doesn't get a sniff of recognition as an elite player, and that's better than placing 11th or 13th in all-star voting in the 70s?
I was unaware of Campbell's lack of ice time at even strength in 2005-06. That was definitely not a better season than either of Gibbs' 2 best seasons. I would still take Campbell's 06-07, 07-08 and 08-09 over anything Gibbs did.

What's with all the Dreakmur references? Some would consider that flaming.

want to try again? It's a legitimate question about the differences between the leagues and it's worth looking into. How bad can the defenseman of a .500 team be in a league with poor parity? How good can the #3 defenseman of a good team be in a league with incredible parity? Where is the overlap? You seem to act like there isn't any but I think you know there is some.
Worse than at other times in history, considering all the best players were loaded on stacked teams like the Canadiens and Bruins. Gibbs joined the North Stars 2 seasons after they were an expansion team, then was traded to the Flames 2 seasons after they were an expansion team.

I think Gibbs is a fine #4, but considering how stacked these teams are otherwise defensively, he sticks out like a sore thumb.
wow, you're really milking that superfluous 16th, aren't you?
4 writers gave Brian Campbell votes in that "superfluous" season. That's more writers than gave Bob Armstrong votes in all but his best season, and you certainly don't see to think Armstrong's 2nd and 3rd best finishes in voting are "superfluous."
How many voting points did he have? I have Bouwmeester at 15th with 7 points. And do you think he deserved to be ahead of Seabrook?
Of course he didn't deserve to be ahead of Seabrook - they provided similar value to Chicago that regular season, but the Norris votes have been biased towards more offensive guys since at least the mid 80s. The 4 votes when combined with the fact that the NHL GMs selected him to play in the All Star game is evidence of a good season, nothing more.

Ok, first, why are points so important now all of a sudden? shouldn't we be concerned with overall value?
Offense is the main difference between Campbell and Gibbs at even strength. Gibbs is more physical too, which by itself isn't nearly as important as offense or defense.

And yes, a defensive stalwart is exactly what Gibbs was. He played a ton for bad (and slightly over average) teams and yes, he was clearly stretched too thinly by them, but that doesn't make him any worse.
Defensive stalwarts don't finish 1st, 2nd,* 7th in goals scored against their teams when they are on the ice.

*to a historical outlier

Do you think he really went from getting all-star votes in 1973, to being abysmal in 1974 - even though five years after that, he was still a #1 defenseman?
I don't think he was ever abysmal. I just don't think he's as good as you think he is. Gibbs clearly shouldn't have been a #1 defenseman in the seasons he had such high goals-against numbers - that is pretty clearcut evidence he was playing over his head!

"more than otherwise". I think that most people in the HOH section, for example, if asked, would not name Campbell among their own top-4 for the 2007 season.
I assume you mean 2007-08. Awards voting tends to take a little while to catch up to what a player actually did. IMO, Campbell could have finished higher than the 10th he finished in 2006-07 and lower than the 5th he finished in 2007-08.

*sigh*... no, not necessarily, but it's an indication at least. I realize there's gray area between "#1 on a .500 team in the 1970s but not an all-star" and "#3 on a good team in modern times" but you don't seem to be willing to work with me on this one, at all. Everything's just "not even close" at this point... regarding these two players, I fear your blinders are on.
And I fear your blinders are on, my friend. I just don't see how you can think Gibbs would see any more ice time than Campbell on the Chicago Blackhawks. And we both agree that Campbell's 2 seasons before he joined Chicago are much better than anything Gibbs did, right?

That is certainly up for debate.

Ehrhoff has never even had the TOI in one season, that Sargent averaged in his career!
Are we forgetting now how much higher average ice times in the early 80s were than today?

How did Sargent rank among his peers in ice time? I honestly don't know the answer to this one?

Did Sargent ever play on top 4s as good as Ehrhoff did in San Jose and Vancouver? I'm pretty sure he didn't.

true, but he was an outlier in this regard. And it wasn't him getting the tough matchups either, was it?
No, Ehrhoff definitely didn't get the tough matchups. I honestly thought he was never the same after the injury against San Jose, but I'm not sure.

If Ehrhoff having the worst plus minus on a team that almost won the Cup is bad, surely Campbell have the best plus minus on a Cup winner is good, right?

that's just being cheap.

In 76, the Kings won a round without him. In 77, they won a round with him.

In 1980 the Stars got to the semis without him, but it was acknowledged that he would have been a big help, and his 50 games of all-star caliber play were still a part of them even getting there and getting the matchups they did.

In 1981 the stars got to the finals, and he didn't play at all. sounds very similar to the year before, in other words, when did they have him in the lineup and tank? You didn't mention that in 1982 they tanked without him.
LOL, yeah it was definitely a cheap shot. Just pointing out that perhaps Sargent wasn't as vital to his team as his ice time estimates would indicate. We have a pretty good idea of how they did without him. Obviously, it's not his fault when they lost with him.

Surely you must be talking about 2008, when he was a #2. And they were a very good team. Yes, that is very good. I don't think it's as good as Sargent's three big seasons, or for that matter, Ehrhoff's two seasons as the #1 on a legit contender. Aside from three years, he was just a #4-5 PP specialist.
Yup, Ehrhoff has only had 3 noteworthy seasons in his career.

Of course, Sargent only had 3.5 noteworthy seasons himself.

And while Ehrhoff's time as a specialist doesn't add that much to his legacy, I'll take it over what Sargent was doing when not having noteworthy seasons: sitting out injured.

It's not anywhere near as crystal clear as you think it is, that Ehrhoff was a better player in '10 and '11 as Sargent was in 77, 78, 79, and 80. The dude just finally played over 23 minutes a game for the first time last year.
I'll take 77-80 games per season of Ehrhoff over the 52 games that Sargent played in 1979-80 quite easily.

only all-star voting supports this. I don't think that it passes the eye test.
Right, the "unbiased" seventieslord eyeball test.

we agree Doughty's best was better than Campbell's.
Of course.

last year was Doughty's 2nd-best. He was a #1 in all situations and was definitely a top-10 defensemen in the NHL, likely higher. All-star voting says Campbell was in 2008 - I don't think he was.
You've got to be the biggest Doughty fan on this site. No, I don't think he was top 10 in the NHL last season. Norris voting, All Star voting, and my eyes confirm that. It just took him too long to recover fully from the injury. I would definitely take Ehrhoff's 2010-11 over Doughty's

Campbell was a 2nd Team All Star in 2007-08 and finished 5th in Norris voting. Even if you think that's a little bit high for him, it's a huge stretch to say he was not top 10. The GM of Chicago certainly thought he was top 10 when he gave him that albatross contract after the season.

Or are you talking about 2006-07, when Campbell was 10th in Norris voting and was the #1 on the best team in the league?

So whichever season you think was Campbell's 2nd best, it was definitely better than Doughty's second best.

as a rookie Doughty was not a huge offensive threat but was already a legit #1. Campbell's 3rd-best year has him as a #3 on a cup-winning Chicago team. Individually, I take the Doughty season every time.
Individually, I'll take Campbell's 2008-09 season every time. He scored 52 points and was selected to play in the All Star game. Doughty was only the #1 on LA as a rookie because the team sucked.

naturally, his other three good post lockout years overtake Doughty in the end, but Doughty has peaked higher in his three years.
Doughty has the best single year peak, but it's only one season. His second best season was probably about as good as Campbell's 3rd best. I have no doubt that Doughty will have a better career than Campbell if he avoids injury - possibly much better. But he hasn't yet.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote