HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Round 2, Vote 3 (HOH Top Defensemen)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-22-2011, 12:30 PM
  #76
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,961
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nik jr View Post
if europeans and americans are removed from norris voting, bourque would have won 10 norris ('83, '87, '88, '90, '91, '92, '93, '94, '96, '01), and been a finalist in every season in his career, except '81 (4th), '98 (6th) and '00 (4th).
.
Interesting stuff. Where were you in Round 2, Vote 1?

I did something similar, only removing Europeans and found that Scott Niedermayer is the only player seriously affected, as he goes from 1 to 3 straight Norrises (but still not much of note outside those three seasons).

I didn't realize how big the affect of Americans was, but probably should have. Seems like the cause of the "best competition ever" that Bourque faced is the golden age of American defensemen (Langway and Howe followed by Chelios and Leetch. Housley if you want to count him). Without those guys, his competition would be much closer to historical norms.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2011, 12:36 PM
  #77
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,961
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JaysCyYoung View Post
I know it's difficult to judge defensive play given that none of us on here (presumably - unless we've got some geriatrics in the house!) saw Cleghorn or Clancy or Seibert play in the primes of their careers (Canadiens1958 would have seen Horton and Pilote for sure), but how would you guys rank the eleven nominees from an offensive and defensive standpoint? I know it's just roughly-speaking but I'm curious to see the diversity of responses and it might help us collect our thoughts.

Offensively

Paul Coffey
Pierre Pilote
Al MacInnis
Sprague Cleghorn
Brian Leetch
Francis "King" Clancy
Brad Park
Earl Seibert
Chris Pronger
Scott Stevens
Tim Horton

Defensively

Tim Horton
Scott Stevens
Chris Pronger
Francis "King" Clancy
Sprague Cleghorn
Pierre Pilote
Earl Seibert
Brad Park
Al MacInnis
Paul Coffey
Brian Leetch
King Clancy was better offensively than Cleghorn. I think he was probably the second best offensive defenseman to ever play (after Shore) until Kelly came around. I'll post more on that later.

Leetch was definitely better defensively than Coffey, at least in his prime. I don't think it was particularly close either.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2011, 12:45 PM
  #78
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,961
vCash: 500
King Clancy's offensive dominance

Clancy may have been the best offensive defenseman in the world prior to the forward pass (edit: Probably 2nd to Shore when you factor in Shore's WHL days):

Defenseman points 1923-24 to 1928-29 (NHL only)

King Clancy 98
George Boucher 84
Sylvio Mantha 55
Lionel Conacher 54
Eddie Shore 54
Sprague Cleghorn 53
Albert Leduc 44

Defenseman points per game (min 100 games)

King Clancy 0.46
Eddie Shore 0.44
George Boucher 0.40
Lionel Conacher 0.36
Sprague Cleghorn 0.33
Bert Corbeau 0.28

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...rder_by=points

I think points per game is a better indicator here, as Eddie Shore spent the beginning of this time frame in the WHL before that league folded.

Edit: From 1926-27 to 1928-29 (after Shore joined the NHL), he actually did slightly outscore Clancy -0.44 to 0.39. Regardless, Clancy was the 2nd best offensive defenseman after Shore of the era

1929-30 was a weird transition year when scoring spiked. Clancy outscored 2nd place Shore 40-31 here.

Clancy was 2nd only to Shore offensively in the first few years after the forward pass was allowed.

Defenseman points 1930-31 to 1933-34

Eddie Shore 100
King Clancy 83
Lionel Conacher 74
Red Horner 60
George Owen 55

Defenseman points per game (minimum 50 games)

Eddie Shore 0.60
King Clancy 0.50
George Owen 0.48
Lionel Conacher 0.42
Red Horner 0.35


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 11-23-2011 at 09:56 AM.
TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2011, 12:47 PM
  #79
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 31,712
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Sprague Cleghorn. Ottawa Senators got rid of him and went from being the most penalized team in the league to being the least penalized yet managed to win SCs. Obviously they did not become soft. Simply ice time was put to better use. A controlled Cleghorn with the Canadiens contributed to SCs.
Huh? For one thing he played a major role in two Cups with Ottawa before that trade... so clearly he wasn't holding them back. It was around that time that the league tried to force him to play in Hamilton in order to increase parity... again, clearly he was not seen as a liability. In his first post-trade Cup season, he was so rough that the Sens petitioned to have him and Coutu suspended for intentionally injuring their players. The following season he set a career high in PIM on the way to a Stanley Cup Final.

I see no evidence in the record that Cleghorn softened up in Montreal, nor that he was inconsistent in his ability to lead his teams to success.

Quote:
Chris Chelios was on three SC winning teams.1986 in Montreal before his penalty minutes skyrocketed and his off ice issues became distractions. Canadiens moved him to Chicago and within three seasons won an SC with Brisebois contributing a bit. No SC in Chicago just high PIMs. In Detroit 2002 and 2008 SCs after his PIMs came down.
This ignores that he took the Hawks to the '92 Finals where they simply ran into Lemieux and his Pens, a better hockey team. Chelios led his team in assists and led all players in +/- that spring. And that was a club with Mike Peluso over 400 PIM, Steve Smith over 300 PIM, Chelios and Stu Grimson in the mid-200s and Bryan Marchment as the big softie of the bunch.

Again, times change. It reeks of era bias to use PIM totals to compare Chelios' playoff success in 2008, when Downey's 116 PIM was way higher than anyone else on the team, to what he did on the '92 Hawks.

Quote:
Chris Pronger led the 2006 Oilers to the finals and won with the SC with the 2007 Ducks post lockout with stricter rule applications.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...prongch01.html

These two seasons also produced his lowest PIM/Game numbers during the regular season until that point. He finally got the message and since 2007 has contributed more by staying on the ice.
You realize Pronger was suspended twice in the last 2 rounds of that Cup run, right?

tarheelhockey is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2011, 12:59 PM
  #80
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,511
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Defenseman points 1923-24 to 1928-29

King Clancy 98
George Boucher 84
Sylvio Mantha 55
Lionel Conacher 54
Eddie Shore 54
Sprague Cleghorn 53
Albert Leduc 44

Defenseman points per game (min 100 games)

King Clancy 0.46
Eddie Shore 0.44
George Boucher 0.40
Lionel Conacher 0.36
Sprague Cleghorn 0.33
Bert Corbeau 0.28
NHL stats only?

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2011, 01:10 PM
  #81
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,961
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
NHL stats only?
Good point. Those are NHL stats only. That's why Shore is much closer on a "per game" level than on a total level - he was in the WHL until 1926-27.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2011, 01:23 PM
  #82
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,961
vCash: 500
Posts on Clancy from the 2008 Top 100 Project:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider View Post
King Clancy has my vote for a few reasons.

- Offensive dominance. Clancy was an aggressive defenseman who often joined the rush. His playmaking skills are demonstrated by the fact that he finished in the top five in assists three times, in an era where offensive defensemen were rare. From 1922-1937 (the span of Clancy's career) he ranked first in scoring among all defensemen and 12th in scoring overall. Only Eddie Shore scored more points-per-game during that span. Clancy was the league's highest-scoring defenseman in 1930 & 1934; he was runner-up in 1924, 1925, 1927 & 1929.

- Outstanding defense. I read a newspaper article from the Globe & Mail (April 20, 1933) stating that Clancy was better defensively than Eddie Shore, and was as good as Lionel Hitchman and Ching Johnson in his own zone.

- Toughness/durability. Although Clancy was only 5'7", 155 lbs, he was still a fierce competitor and did not get pushed around. He placed in the top ten in PIM six times and missed no more than one game in 13 of his 16 seasons. Clancy's biographer, Brian MacFarlane, claims that Clancy started "thousands" of fights without ever winning one; while 1K is obviously an exaggeration, it shows that Clancy stood up for his teammates and never backed down.

- Awards. Clancy was a five-time Hart finalist, which is the best record among all players eligible for voting now. He earned a spot on four all-star teams... keep in mind that all-star teams were not created nine years into his career. Clancy had three seasons where he was nominated for the Hart, prior to when all-star teams were created (1927, 1929, 1930). Therefore I think it's reasonable to consider Clancy the equivalent of a seven-time all-star.

- Playoff performance. King Clancy was the #1 defenseman on three Stanley Cup winning teams. He wasn't just in the right place at the right time-- he was a key reason that the Toronto franchise became a winner in the 1930s. When Clancy was traded to the Leafs in 1931, Toronto had missed the playoffs two of the past three years. After his arrival, they made it to the Cup final in two of the next three years, winning the Stanley Cup once.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pitseleh View Post
For what it's worth, I posted this quote that was in the NY Times before:

Frank Boucher on defensemen, when asked if Eddie Shore is the hardest man to slip by: "No, I wouldn't say so. Hitchman is harder to get by. Shore is a rusher. But for tackling you when you come in and blocking you away from that net, Hitchman is tougher. Not that Shore is easy, you know. No, sir. But fellows like Shore and Clancy catch the eye of the spectator when they buzz up and down the rink, while fellows like Hitchman and Sylvio Mantha can do great defensive work without attracting half as much notice."

As for Clancy versus Clapper, I'd take Clancy personally. Clancy is arguably a top-5 offensive defenseman all-time and had a more dynamic peak but was also quite strong in his own end. Clapper's record as a defenseman is quite strong but not as strong as Clancy's, IMO, and I don't think his years as a forward are strong enough to put him ahead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider View Post
I checked the quote. The Globe is actually quoting Baz O'Meara of the Montreal Daily Star (so hometown bias would not apply here). The exact quote is:

"Shore is not as sound a defense man as Johnson, his own partner, Hitchman or Clancy defensively. He excels them all at rushing however... He never had the terrific turn of speed that Clancy possessed four or five years ago, but he had greater physical strength..."
Note that the second quote is from 32-33 when Shore was in the middle of his first Hart winning season, but Clancy was already well-established as an elite player.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2011, 01:29 PM
  #83
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,961
vCash: 500
Earl Seibert

From the 2008 Top 100 list:

Quote:
Originally Posted by pitseleh View Post
Since HO did such a great job with Benedict already, I'll do one for Seibert.

Sustained Longevity: Earl Seibert was an all-star for ten consecutive seasons. That type of peak is exclusive to the defensemen in the top-10 and is better than some of the defensemen already chosen, and even one who played during the same time period (Dit Clapper). In fact, I believe only Bourque and Harvey can lay claim to more consecutive selections to the all-star team. Seibert also played during what I consider to be one of the three strongest eras for defensemen. He also managed to finish top-5 for the Hart in both '34 and '45, showing the high level of play he was able to sustain.

Defensive Dominance: Seibert was known for being dominant defensively, as a tough SOB and an excellent shot-blocker. Many suggest that he was better than Shore defensively, though he wasn't as strong offensively or as flashy. He also had a reputation for playing the game hard but clean.

Some quotes about his defense/toughness:

"“Let’s put it this way, no one wanted any part of ‘Si’ in a fight. Even Eddie Shore (Boston) and Red Horner (Toronto) steered clear of him, and Shore and Horner were considered the toughest guys in the League at the time," said Johnson."

http://nyrangerslegends.blogspot.com...l-seibert.html

"Seibert was generally regarded as second only to Eddie Shore in terms of skill and rugged play, and Shore once confessed that Seibert was the only man he was afraid to fight. Defensively, Seibert was one of the best shot-blockers in the game, and he could move the puck just as quickly as anyone."

http://www.legendsofhockey.net:8080/...io&list=#photo

"Seibert was a strong, fast skater, and intimidating force with his stick and body. He was also one of the better shot-blockers around...Earl owned excellent puck-handling skills and he was almost impossible to knock off his skates." - Ultimate Hockey

Underrated Offensive Ability: Despite his reputation for being an outstanding shut-down defender, Seibert actually had some offensive ability as well. Amongst defensemen, he finished top-5 in scoring 8 times during his career and he actually tied for the lead in goals on the Blackhawks when they won the Stanley Cup in 1938.

Unfortunately, it's tough to quantify the impact that his defense had on the game.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2011, 01:34 PM
  #84
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,961
vCash: 500
Sprague Cleghorn

From the 2008 Top 100 project

Quote:
Originally Posted by nik jr
some arguments for cleghorn:


he was generally considered the best or among the best d-men before eddie shore.

Hockey Outsider reported from newspapers from the '30s:
Quote:
The consensus was that Shore is roughly on the same level as Hod Stuart, Sprague Cleghorn, Cyclone Taylor, etc., as one of the greatest defensemen ever. Keep in mind that this was written before Shore won three more Hart trophies.
pitseleh reported a similar thing from old papers, citing '20s-'30s hockey writer red mackenzie:

Quote:
Well, I just came across Mackenzie's defenseman article, and this is what he had to say (interestingly, he notes that it's very difficult to compare players from before the forward pass to after it because of the big changes in style of play):

- Eddie Shore and Sprague Cleghorn are the best all around defensemen he has seen. Both were steady blockers, better than average pasers and goal scoring threats every second they were on the ice. He goes on to talk about their glaring weakness as being penalty prone and how it has cost their teams games in the past.
charles coleman, author of "trail of the stanley cup," picked cleghorn and ernie johnson as the 2 best d-men from 1893-1926.
johnson was a star in the PCHA.


cleghorn played his best seasons before the hart trophy was awarded, but he was a close runner up in '24 and '26.

he scored a point per game in 6 seasons, and scored over a goal per game in '15. he was also the 1st NHL d-man to lead his team in scoring ('22).

he was a brilliant skater who learned from cyclone taylor.

if the norris had existed, it would be a safe bet that he'd have won several.


cleghorn was also a very dirty player. i once read a bit of a book by king clancy, where clancy described an enraged cleghorn skating around butt-ending every opposition player in the ribs.
when ottawa traded him, he got revenge by injuring 4 ottawa players the next time he played against them.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2011, 01:39 PM
  #85
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,961
vCash: 500
Why King Clancy is better than Earl Seibert

Hart record

Since both defensemen played in an era when defensemen got serious Hart consideration, but most of Clancy's prime was before the All Star teams, maybe this is the best way to compare them.

italics indicate a pre-consolidation year when only half the world's talent was in the NHL
King Clancy = 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 5th 8th, 8th
Earl Seibert = 4th, 4th

Note that we are missing full results for two seasons in the middle of Clancy's prime. He was 5th in Hart votes in 1928-29, 4th in 1929-30, 3rd in 1930-31. In 1931-32, we only have the top 4 vote getters. In 1932-33, we only have the top 3 vote getters. Clancy was 3rd in Hart voting again in 1933-34.

Note also that we only have the top 5 for most of Seibert's career. Even so, Clancy blows Seibert away with top 5 finishes.

Not only is Clancy's Hart record stronger on his face, but competition from forwards was much higher in the late 20s/early 30s than in the Depression-influenced league of the late 30s/early 40s that Seibert played against. One of Seibert's two 4th place finishes was in 1933-34, when Clancy finished 3rd. The other was in 1943-44, a year weakened greatly by World War 2.

All Star Teams

These look like they favor Seibert at first glance, but that's because Clancy was 27 years old when the NHL announced their first official All Star Teams.

Clancy has 2 1st Team All Stars and 2 2nd Team All Stars in the 1930-31 to 1933-34 period when the league was very strong, before he declined himself (at age 31, a normal age for players to decline in that violent period).

Seibert only has 1 1st Team (in 1934-35) before the league talent seriously declined in the 1940s (he has three straight in 1941-42, 1942-43, and 1943-44). In 41-42, he beat out Pat Egan and Bucko McDonald for the 1st Team. In 42-43, he beat out Jack Crawford and Flash Hollett. In 43-44, he beat out a very young Butch Bouchard and a very old Dit Clapper.

Seibert has a boatload of 2nd Teams, but over who?

It should be noted that we have an "unofficial All Star team from 1927-28." This unofficial team counts Right D and Left D as strictly seperate. Clancy was the 2nd Team Right D behind Eddie Shore. (Source)

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2011, 02:39 PM
  #86
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,742
vCash: 500
Penalties II

Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
Huh? For one thing he played a major role in two Cups with Ottawa before that trade... so clearly he wasn't holding them back. It was around that time that the league tried to force him to play in Hamilton in order to increase parity... again, clearly he was not seen as a liability. In his first post-trade Cup season, he was so rough that the Sens petitioned to have him and Coutu suspended for intentionally injuring their players. The following season he set a career high in PIM on the way to a Stanley Cup Final.

I see no evidence in the record that Cleghorn softened up in Montreal, nor that he was inconsistent in his ability to lead his teams to success.



This ignores that he took the Hawks to the '92 Finals where they simply ran into Lemieux and his Pens, a better hockey team. Chelios led his team in assists and led all players in +/- that spring. And that was a club with Mike Peluso over 400 PIM, Steve Smith over 300 PIM, Chelios and Stu Grimson in the mid-200s and Bryan Marchment as the big softie of the bunch.

Again, times change. It reeks of era bias to use PIM totals to compare Chelios' playoff success in 2008, when Downey's 116 PIM was way higher than anyone else on the team, to what he did on the '92 Hawks.



You realize Pronger was suspended twice in the last 2 rounds of that Cup run, right?
Cleghorn - one of his Ottawa seasons was limited to three regular season games. Even though Punch Broadbent was hurt for more than half the season the Senators continued on their winning ways just as they did in 1923. With the Canadiens Cleghorn's PIMS dropped to 34 and 45 during his two middle season when they returned to 89 minutes his last year he was moved out.

Chris Chelios. 1992 should be looked in the context of 1991 when the Hawks were upset by a weak North Star team coached by Bob Gainey who refused to play the Hawks game. Net result in 6 games Chris Chelios was penalized for 46 minutes. The Hawks in 6 games gave up 15 PP goals. Whether Chelios was on the ice or in the box did not matter. At least Keenan and Chelios learned a bit from 1991. !992 going to the finals saw Chelios get 37 PIMs in 18 games. Doubt that a more explicit example is possible for Chris Chelios.1991 is verifiable via HSP.


No era bias. A 2 minute minor is a two minute minor regardless of era, requiring the same expenditure in energy to kill. The benefits in killing fewer of them were evident in 1992 as opposed to 1991.

Chris Pronger. Yes he was suspended. We are discussing penalties. Suspensions do not have to be killed off playing a man short nor is the team down a roster spot. Plus the coach has advance warning and can plan around a suspension before the game starts. Penalties do not come with advance warning, have to be killed while short a man, you cannot replace the roster spot. So while Chris Pronger was dumb to get suspended at his age, it did not cause unexpected in game hardships for the team.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2011, 04:27 PM
  #87
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 31,712
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Cleghorn - one of his Ottawa seasons was limited to three regular season games.
This is irrelevant, as he returned to the team for the Cup run (which was the standard you introduced). In 5 games, Cleghorn picked up 36 PIM and his team won the Cup. Whatever he was doing to earn those 7 minutes a game, it didn't cause his team not to win games.


Quote:
With the Canadiens Cleghorn's PIMS dropped to 34 and 45 during his two middle season when they returned to 89 minutes his last year he was moved out.
They named Coutu his successor as captain, suggesting that "cleaning up their act" had nothing to do with that move.

Quote:
Chris Chelios. 1992 should be looked in the context of 1991 when the Hawks were upset by a weak North Star team coached by Bob Gainey who refused to play the Hawks game. Net result in 6 games Chris Chelios was penalized for 46 minutes. The Hawks in 6 games gave up 15 PP goals. Whether Chelios was on the ice or in the box did not matter. At least Keenan and Chelios learned a bit from 1991. !992 going to the finals saw Chelios get 37 PIMs in 18 games. Doubt that a more explicit example is possible for Chris Chelios.1991 is verifiable via HSP.
Just looked through the 1991 box scores and found 3 non-coincidental minors in 6 games for Chelios -- I believe he had 30 PIM in that series which occurred late in games where the result was no longer in question. Not a good example of a guy sinking his entire team with penalties.

Furthermore, in the 1992 series against the Pens he had only 1 minor penalty combined in games 1, 2 and 4. He had 17 PIM in game 3 but I don't know what happened there; either way, he was hardly putting his team out of the playoffs with his behavior. They were simply getting the crap kicked out of them regardless.


Quote:
No era bias. A 2 minute minor is a two minute minor regardless of era, requiring the same expenditure in energy to kill.
Of course, that's not entirely true as the rules regarding them have changed.

Quote:
Chris Pronger. Yes he was suspended. We are discussing penalties.
Hang on, you said that the "Basic issue is that non-productive activities perpetuate non-productive activities in hockey." What is less productive than being suspended?


To be completely honest, you have 3 bad examples here and it's not making the point you want it to make. Unless you want to bring up a specific example of these guys hurting their teams with penalties, it's not relevant to ranking them.

tarheelhockey is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2011, 04:39 PM
  #88
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 20,385
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Gus Mortson was an ideal veteran to break-in a rookie/young defenseman but was gone by the time Pilote was established. Vasko brought size but not a solid alternative to moving the puck up ice when pressure was put on Pilote. Granted Vasko was the best choice of available Hawk defensemen.
But were they paired together? They were both on the Hawks roster for at least one season.

I mean... Mortsen was clearly not a Top-5 D in the league, but there were certainly worst alternatives..

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2011, 04:53 PM
  #89
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 20,385
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JaysCyYoung View Post
I know it's difficult to judge defensive play given that none of us on here (presumably - unless we've got some geriatrics in the house!) saw Cleghorn or Clancy or Seibert play in the primes of their careers (Canadiens1958 would have seen Horton and Pilote for sure), but how would you guys rank the eleven nominees from an offensive and defensive standpoint? I know it's just roughly-speaking but I'm curious to see the diversity of responses and it might help us collect our thoughts.

Offensively

Paul Coffey
Pierre Pilote
Al MacInnis
Sprague Cleghorn
Brian Leetch
Francis "King" Clancy
Brad Park
Earl Seibert
Chris Pronger
Scott Stevens
Tim Horton

Defensively

Tim Horton
Scott Stevens
Chris Pronger
Francis "King" Clancy
Sprague Cleghorn
Pierre Pilote
Earl Seibert
Brad Park
Al MacInnis
Paul Coffey
Brian Leetch
Offensively, I'd have Clancy just a bit above Cleghorn, and both above Leetch. Extremely close too call in both cases regarding MacInnis. Seibert over Pronger is discutable, IMO.

Defensively, I'd have Seibert up there, right between Horton and Stevens (at least, if ALL of Stevens career is considered). I'd have Leetch above Coffey as well. My gut feeling would be Park above Pilote, but some guys here can tackle this subject better than I would. Pappy, C1958?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
King Clancy's offensive dominance

Clancy was the best offensive defenseman in the world prior to the forward pass:

Defenseman points 1923-24 to 1928-29 (NHL only)

King Clancy 98
George Boucher 84
Sylvio Mantha 55
Lionel Conacher 54
Eddie Shore 54
Sprague Cleghorn 53
Albert Leduc 44

Defenseman points per game (min 100 games)

King Clancy 0.46
Eddie Shore 0.44
George Boucher 0.40
Lionel Conacher 0.36
Sprague Cleghorn 0.33
Bert Corbeau 0.28
I doubt this was your point, but for the sake of fairness, I would mention that this period includes only the very end of Cleghorn's career and that Cleghorn's result here shouldn't be evidence that he was a worst offensive player than, let's say, Lionel Conacher.

The point regarding Clancy is entirely valid, but this table shouldn't be used to compare him with Cleghorn.

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2011, 05:28 PM
  #90
plusandminus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 800
vCash: 500
I'm looking at scoring stats for Cleghorn, using my own database with data from 1917 (originally from hockeydb). I know scoring isn't everything.

I have not memorized everything written here as it is new to me.

What is so special about Cleghorn offensively? He only have one scoring title (everything I say here is defencemen only), and in total one goal scoring title and one assist title. A contemporary Harry Cameron seem far more dominating with 4 scoring wins in 5 years, which might have become more if he hadn't left for WCHL.
Cameron seem, according to hockeyreference, to have been defenceman only, and he is age wise just one year younger than Cleghorn.
After Cameron left NHL, an aging Cleghorn only managed to finish 5, 3, 8, 16, 21 or so in the scoring.

George Boucher also seemed to score more than Cleghorn, winning scoring title twice and finishing top 3 six consecutive seasons (compared to Cleghorns five in six seasons).

King Clancy outscored Cleghorn from age 20 (Cleghorn was then 33). Clancy won three scoring titles, including one where he led in both goals and assists.

"Offensive threat whenever he was on the ice" or what I read here quoted about Cleghorn. But he wasn't even the defenceman scoring most points?

Am I missing something? Was Cleghorn outstanding before age 27 and before NHL came to be?

Cleghorn, however his first name is pronounced, - apart from sounding to be the most vicious and brutal player ever - looks like nothing very special. (Probably far below guys Salming, Suchy, Svedberg).

(I looked at Dit Clapper too, and he don't look very special either. Probably at least five or so Europeans not rankable yet who should deserve to be better. So far only two Europeans in the top 21(!) of the big list. I'm sure if there would be a more even representation of participators, there might be at least twice as many already.)

plusandminus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2011, 05:29 PM
  #91
pappyline
Registered User
 
pappyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Mass/formerly Ont
Country: United States
Posts: 4,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
But were they paired together? They were both on the Hawks roster for at least one season.

I mean... Mortsen was clearly not a Top-5 D in the league, but there were certainly worst alternatives..
The first full season for both Pilote & Vasko was 56-57 and I think that they were a pairing from the start. Mortson was still there in 55-56, 56-57 and 57-58. Pilote was there for 20 games in 55-56 & may have played with Mortson at that time. Just slightly before my time.

pappyline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2011, 05:40 PM
  #92
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,511
vCash: 500
Almost nothing has been said about Tim Horton so far, and I think he should be considered seriously this round.

HF poster and longtime hockey fan Peter9 recently lamented the fact that nobody wanted to discuss or seemed to appreciate Horton. I hope he isn't reading this thread, because he will be disappointed once again.

I'll make one comment to start. Horton's point totals may underestimate his offensive abilities. Punch Imlach's Leafs didn't emphasize the power play or having the five best players out as much as other teams, like Montreal and Chicago. In general, Toronto's PP scoring was spread around and Horton didn't score much on the PP. On another team or in another era, Horton may have been given more opportunity to use his hard slapshot. Or maybe, like Scott Stevens in New Jersey, he would have been used in a defensive role.

Horton is also similar to Stevens in that both were arguably the most important players on dynasty teams.

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2011, 05:57 PM
  #93
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,742
vCash: 500
Details

Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
This is irrelevant, as he returned to the team for the Cup run (which was the standard you introduced). In 5 games, Cleghorn picked up 36 PIM and his team won the Cup. Whatever he was doing to earn those 7 minutes a game, it didn't cause his team not to win games.




They named Coutu his successor as captain, suggesting that "cleaning up their act" had nothing to do with that move.



Just looked through the 1991 box scores and found 3 non-coincidental minors in 6 games for Chelios -- I believe he had 30 PIM in that series which occurred late in games where the result was no longer in question. Not a good example of a guy sinking his entire team with penalties.

Furthermore, in the 1992 series against the Pens he had only 1 minor penalty combined in games 1, 2 and 4. He had 17 PIM in game 3 but I don't know what happened there; either way, he was hardly putting his team out of the playoffs with his behavior. They were simply getting the crap kicked out of them regardless.




Of course, that's not entirely true as the rules regarding them have changed.



Hang on, you said that the "Basic issue is that non-productive activities perpetuate non-productive activities in hockey." What is less productive than being suspended?


To be completely honest, you have 3 bad examples here and it's not making the point you want it to make. Unless you want to bring up a specific example of these guys hurting their teams with penalties, it's not relevant to ranking them.
Sprague Cleghorn. Sounds like you are referring to the 1921 SC Final against Vancouver. Last period of the last game. Cleghorn basically lost it and almost snatched defeat from the jaws of victory:

http://www.flyershistory.com/cgi-bin....cgi?O19210007

28 minutes were in one game / 24 in the last period. After the 1921 playoffs Cleghorn was gone from Ottawa for good.

To be fair during the 1924 and 1925 SC Playoffs/Finals that the Canadiens won Sprague Cleghorn offered a very docile yet efficient performance. But to be equally fair both Cleghorns were gone from the Canadiens to start the next season - Odie to Pittsburgh, Sprague to Boston. Billy Coutu replaced Sprague Cleghorn as captain. True but who would you suggest as a replacement? The rest of the team was quite young. Young captains were not part of the era.

Chris Chelios. Point is at two levels. Chelios being penalized and Chelios on the PK.In 1991. Trust there is agreement that allowing 15 PP goals against in 6 games is rather terrible team PK, that Chelios was a part of. Total of 47 PIM in six games even given a favourable spin of late of coincidental misconducts still comes down to a simple truism when combined with the PK. The teams best player - Chelios, was not their best player in the specific 1991 series against Minnesota. Coaching is about creating circumstances that allow your best players to be the best players. Massive failure all around in 1991. From Keenan for not being astute to Chelios, a veteran player for being suckered.

Chris Pronger. Being suspended for one game , twice during a playoff year is not productive but it is manageable. Minor injuries that cause a player to miss a game here and there during a playoff year are also manageable but not productive. Neither has a negative ripple effect. Penalties do have a negative ripple effect as evidenced in 1991. The overlooked point in Pronger's situation is that the Ducks WON both of the games for which he was suspended yet Pronger played in all five of the games the Ducks lost during the Stanley Cup run in 2007. Once a team figures out they can win without you, its just a matter of time and Pronger was traded to Philly when an attractive deal came along.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2011, 06:31 PM
  #94
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,742
vCash: 500
Tim Horton

Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
Almost nothing has been said about Tim Horton so far, and I think he should be considered seriously this round.

HF poster and longtime hockey fan Peter9 recently lamented the fact that nobody wanted to discuss or seemed to appreciate Horton. I hope he isn't reading this thread, because he will be disappointed once again.

I'll make one comment to start. Horton's point totals may underestimate his offensive abilities. Punch Imlach's Leafs didn't emphasize the power play or having the five best players out as much as other teams, like Montreal and Chicago. In general, Toronto's PP scoring was spread around and Horton didn't score much on the PP. On another team or in another era, Horton may have been given more opportunity to use his hard slapshot. Or maybe, like Scott Stevens in New Jersey, he would have been used in a defensive role.

Horton is also similar to Stevens in that both were arguably the most important players on dynasty teams.
Tim Horton was a rushing defenseman when he started his NHL career but a devestating hit by Bill Gadsby on a rush in January 1956 limited his rushing after he came back from a broken leg and fractured jaw. Like Serge Savard later, Horton rushed very selectively after returning from the injuries.

Horton had offensive skills - see his 1962 playoff performance:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...hortoti01.html

Toss-up whether Horton or Pierre Pilote -1961 had the most impressive single playoff offensive performance amongst pre expansion defensemen. Both participated in 40% of their teams goals and both would have been worthy Conn Smythe winners.

The main issues with Tim Horton are the following. Paired with Allan Stanley for most of nine seasons they were arguably the most balanced pairing in hockey history. As part of the of the 1960s Maple Leaf dynasty, Tim Horton was part of a group of defensemen featuring Allan Stanley, Carl Brewer, Bobby Baun,with Kent Douglas, Larry Hillman, Al Arbour in the wings. The Leafs performance and that of Tim Horton improved significantly starting with the 1958-59 season when Johnny Bower - one of the best at communicating with his defensemen, took over as the number one goalie.Allan Stanley joined the team in a trade with Boston while Carl Brewer joined the team from junior.

Weighing the contribution from Tim Horton to the Maple Leaf defense against the contribution of the aforementioned to the sudden upward spike in Horton's career is a challenge.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2011, 06:57 PM
  #95
plusandminus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 800
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Tim Horton was a rushing defenseman when he started his NHL career but a devestating hit by Bill Gadsby on a rush in January 1956 limited his rushing after he came back from a broken leg and fractured jaw. Like Serge Savard later, Horton rushed very selectively after returning from the injuries.
The mentioned hit in 1956 don't seem to have affected Horton's scoring finishes among defencemen? His offensive stats seem very similar before compared to after.
Anyway, among defencemen he never finished top 2 in scoring, but on the other hand had 11 finishes in places 3-6 (10 of them after the 1955-56 season where he missed half the season).
Once he led the league defencemen in goals scored. He's got 11 top 6 finishes there too.
Red Kelly, Gadsby, Harvey, Pilote seemed to dominate the scoring of the 1950s and 1960s. (Probably no news to you guys, but I mention it anyway.)

I remember a recent thread about Horton where some wrote fondly about him, as him being a very stable, reliable and good overall defenceman. (Maybe not as good as Salming, but anyway.)

plusandminus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2011, 07:04 PM
  #96
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,742
vCash: 500
Earl Seibert

Wish to make a point. Earl Seibert earned 10 consecutive AST selections, mainly 2nd team. However he was traded from the Rangers to the Hawks after his first team AST selection in 1935 and earned the remaining nine on a team that rarely finished with a winning record, only twice during his stay.

Ten consecutive AST selections is increadible especially on a weak team where the player has very little support from teammates,coaches, management and ownership.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2011, 07:07 PM
  #97
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,383
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
Almost nothing has been said about Tim Horton so far, and I think he should be considered seriously this round.

HF poster and longtime hockey fan Peter9 recently lamented the fact that nobody wanted to discuss or seemed to appreciate Horton. I hope he isn't reading this thread, because he will be disappointed once again.

I'll make one comment to start. Horton's point totals may underestimate his offensive abilities. Punch Imlach's Leafs didn't emphasize the power play or having the five best players out as much as other teams, like Montreal and Chicago. In general, Toronto's PP scoring was spread around and Horton didn't score much on the PP. On another team or in another era, Horton may have been given more opportunity to use his hard slapshot. Or maybe, like Scott Stevens in New Jersey, he would have been used in a defensive role.

Horton is also similar to Stevens in that both were arguably the most important players on dynasty teams.
Horton is fairly underrated offensively.

He was very strong defensively for sure but was good offensively as well. The totals from those days by defensemen just don't look as good to us these days.

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2011, 07:30 PM
  #98
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,079
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkey Town 18 View Post
More context is needed in regard to the discussion of penalties. Was it a fighting major or coincidental? At what point in the game was the penalty taken? If it is late in the 3rd with a big score discrepancy giving the other team a power play has a much lower effect on the result of the game than if it's a tie game late in the 3rd or right at the beginning of a game. Taking a penalty to "send a message" late in the regular season when playoff seeds have already been locked in against a potential playoff rival may be worth it. Regular season vs. Playoffs is probably the most important...At a quick glance Chelios' PIM's per game go down in the playoffs while Pronger's go up (a more in depth look may be necessary, i.e. season by season or PIM totals in losing series).

Many of these cannot be accounted for, some can. I unfortunately do not have the time to look at playoff PIM's, but it might be worth someone's time to do so.
This came up last time and unless there is specific evidence that any players PIM's excessively punished his team ie. made them lose instead of win and the counterweight of intimidation and lack of courage of opposing forwards to go to the net is established then I think PIM's is such a small piece of any players career or impact that we might as well talk about that players personality or something that has extremely little impact on a players career..

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2011, 07:49 PM
  #99
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,079
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
King Clancy was better offensively than Cleghorn. I think he was probably the second best offensive defenseman to ever play (after Shore) until Kelly came around. I'll post more on that later.

Leetch was definitely better defensively than Coffey, at least in his prime. I don't think it was particularly close either.
This stuck out in my mind too, perhaps some of us remembering him after his injuries when he probably stuck around too long and was given too large of a workload given the erosion of his skills.

In the 95 Hockey new yearbook's top 40 they have him 5th after Mario, Doug Gilmour, Federov and Roy.

In his writeup this is written, "comparisons to Bobby Orr flowed freely during the playoffs. but those who played against Orr said that Leetch is much better defensively."

Other Dmen in the top 40 are

9 Scott Stevens
11 Chris Chelios
13 Ray Bourque
19 Al MacInnis
34 Kevin Hatcher
35 Rob Blake
39 Sergei Zubov

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2011, 08:02 PM
  #100
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,742
vCash: 500
Evidence

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
This came up last time and unless there is specific evidence that any players PIM's excessively punished his team ie. made them lose instead of win and the counterweight of intimidation and lack of courage of opposing forwards to go to the net is established then I think PIM's is such a small piece of any players career or impact that we might as well talk about that players personality or something that has extremely little impact on a players career..
1965 playoff Stan Mikita spent way too much time in the penalty box - two GWGs were scored by the opposition while he was in the penalty box. Not where you want your #1 center to be. Within two seasons he was a Lady Byng winner.

Aaron Rome's hit on Nathan Horton. Game 3 of the finals accomplished what? Certainly did not help the Canucks win. Rather it rallied the Bruins. So much for intimidation or sending a message.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:17 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.