HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Round 2, Vote 9 (HOH Top Defensemen)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-15-2012, 07:48 PM
  #51
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,783
vCash: 500
How much should we weigh the season currently in progress? Chara has played very well (would almost certainly be an all-star and possibly the Norris winner if the season ended today).

It's not fair if we assume that Chara has another all-star calibre season (he could always get injured or fade down the stretch) but it's not fair to completely ignore it either. Any thoughts?

Hockey Outsider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-15-2012, 08:01 PM
  #52
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,558
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider View Post
How much should we weigh the season currently in progress? Chara has played very well (would almost certainly be an all-star and possibly the Norris winner if the season ended today).

It's not fair if we assume that Chara has another all-star calibre season (he could always get injured or fade down the stretch) but it's not fair to completely ignore it either. Any thoughts?
We can use what he has done in his career so far so we should probably take this season for what's it's worth so far.

I'm not counting the potential all star per say but IMO he is the clear frontrunner in this round without this season and I'm a huge career guy.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-15-2012, 08:01 PM
  #53
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,778
vCash: 500
Looking at Doug Wilson's Norris winning season in 1981-82.

He scored 39 goals. That's the fourth highest total ever by an NHL defenceman, behind only Paul Coffey x2 and Bobby Orr. Unlike Coffey and Orr, that 39 goal total was uncharacteristic of the rest of his career. He scored 12 goals in the previous season, 18 goals in the following season, and 23 goals was his second highest total (scored 8 years later.) Good numbers, but the 39 sticks out.

He took 325 shots (second highest total was 260) and had a 12.0 S% (second highest was 9.5). 24 goals came at EV, 14 on the PP, and 1 SH.

I checked his EV goals to see if he was playing a lot with Denis Savard (Chicago's best forward.) Doesn't look like it. 2 goals set up by Savard, 2 by Secord, 3 by Kerr, 3 by Gardner, 2 by Higgins, 2 by Lysiak, 2 by Preston, 2 by Mulvey, 1 by Marsh, and 4 unassisted. It's an even spread.

I guess it was just one of those years when everything came together for Wilson and his shot.

In the Norris voting, he received 29 of of 62 first place votes, so it wasn't a controversial selection. After Wilson, the voting was very spread out, with 6 players receiving at least 4 first place votes.

But consider the following numbers from the 1981-82 season: Many of the top defencemen failed to play a full season, which affected Wilson's competition for the Norris. He may still have won it - 39 goals is 39 goals - but his competition was weaker than it could have been.

Denis Potvin: 60 GP
Larry Robinson: 71 GP
Borje Salming: 69 GP
Ray Bourque: 65 GP
Barry Beck: 60 GP (I list him because he received 3 first place Norris votes and 10 top 3 votes.)

Defencemen who did play a full season and received significant Norris support: Paul Coffey, Craig Hartsburg (both high-scoring, offence-first d-men like Wilson), Brian Engblom and Rod Langway (partners on a great defensive pairing playing behind Robinson in Montreal, top two d-men in plus-minus that season.)

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-15-2012, 08:06 PM
  #54
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,783
vCash: 500
Here's a post I made around 2.5 years, comparing Blake and Wilson. My conclusion was that Blake and Wilson are virtually even (though Blake is slightly ahead). Since I wrote that post, Blake has added a bit to his legacy (he had a fairly good season in San Jose in 2009-10).

Just to clarify - I initially though that Wilson would be out of my top ten, and Blake would be in my top five for this round. I still plan on having Blake ahead of Wilson, but not sure I can justify such a big gap. Have I overrated Blake, or underrated Wilson? Or are they farther apart than my analysis below suggests?

====

I’ve often wondered why Rob Blake is considered by many to be a lock for the Hall of Fame, while Doug Wilson is at best considered a marginal candidate. I see them as virtually even.

Offense: qualitatively, I see little difference between the two of them. Both had heavy, accurate slapshots and were particularly dangerous on the powerplay. Quantitatively, Wilson is slightly ahead. During his best ten years (1981-1990), Wilson ranked 39th among all players in scoring while Blake (1997-2007) ranked 73rd. According to Pnep’s data, Wilson was twice in the top five in defenseman scoring (2nd & 3rd) while Blake was 3rd three times (though Wilson faced tougher competition).

Defense: Wilson was a smarter, more disciplined defender with better hockey sense. Blake, even at his peak, made bad decisions and sometimes took himself out of the play looking for a big hit and/or due to a stupid retaliatory penalty. Wilson played extensively on the PK (likely more than Blake).

Physical play: although Wilson was strong and never shied away from physical contact, Blake was definitely the more aggressive, and more powerful, hitter. On the other hand, Wilson took far fewer penalties (on a per-82 games basis, Wilson averaged 61 PIM vs 101 for Blake).

Playoffs: We all know that Blake was the player that put the Colorado Avalanche over the top in 2001. As great an accomplishment as this is, I still think Wilson was the better playoff performer. Wilson scored at a much higher rate in the postseason (69 pts per 82 games vs 44 pts for Blake), and was (IMO) better defensively. Blake never had to carry his team like Wilson did; eleven years into his career as a Hawk, Wilson had scored more than every teammate except Savard and was 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 6th in scoring during the four years Chicago advanced to the conference finals. I don't like to get into hypotheticals too much but I definitely could see Wilson winning a Cup playing with Roy, Sakic, Forsberg and Blake. I don't see Blake winning a Cup with Savard, Larmer and Bannerman.

International: Blake was a key part of Canada’s 2002 gold medal Olympic team. Wilson was an important part of the victorious 1984 Canada Cup team.

Consistency/longevity: Blake gets the edge here. He played roughly 150 more games than Wilson, and is still a solid defenseman at age 39; Wilson retired at age 35.

Norris: Wilson won the Norris trophy in 1982 and was also 3rd, 4th and 4th. Blake won the Norris trophy in 1998 and was also 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 8th. Given the quality of competition they faced (Bourque, Coffey, MacInnis vs Lidstrom, Pronger & ancient versions of Stevens & Chelios) I’d call this a draw.

Hart: Wilson has placed 7th and 9th in Hart voting. Blake was 10th once.

Conclusion: overall it's quite close. I think many people seem to push Blake for the HOF due to the Stanley Cup. However, they're nearly even as players and I'd argue that in terms of big game experience (playoffs & international) Wilson may actually be ahead. What do you think?


Last edited by Hockey Outsider: 01-15-2012 at 11:17 PM.
Hockey Outsider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2012, 01:16 PM
  #55
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,407
vCash: 500
I normally agree with your analyses but I have some issues with the Blake/Wilson comparison.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider View Post
Offense: qualitatively, I see little difference between the two of them. Both had heavy, accurate slapshots and were particularly dangerous on the powerplay. Quantitatively, Wilson is slightly ahead. During his best ten years (1981-1990), Wilson ranked 39th among all players in scoring while Blake (1997-2007) ranked 73rd. According to Pnep’s data, Wilson was twice in the top five in defenseman scoring (2nd & 3rd) while Blake was 3rd three times (though Wilson faced tougher competition).
I think rankings are useful when comparing top 5s or top 10s, but when you get farther down (39th for example), I think the rankings are affected too much by league depth and number of teams. So I'd rather use percentages.

During the 10 year stretch you indicated, Wilson's 618 points are 58% of 2nd place Peter Stastny's and 59% of 3rd place Jari Kurri's.

During Blake's 10 year stretch, Blake's 464 points are 55% of 2nd place Joe Sakic and 59% of 3rd place Teemu Selanne's.

I think they are basically equals offensively.

Quote:
Defense: Wilson was a smarter, more disciplined defender with better hockey sense. Blake, even at his peak, made bad decisions and sometimes took himself out of the play looking for a big hit and/or due to a stupid retaliatory penalty. Wilson played extensively on the PK (likely more than Blake).
Wilson may have been better defensively at even strength (I can't comment because I don't know his usage. I do know that Blake usually saw the tough matchups and did an average job with them). But according to the stats provided by overpass, Blake actually played quite a bit more on the PK than Wilson and his team had better results. Blake may have made poor decisions at even strength, but when he focused on using his size and strength to defend the front of the net on the PK, he excelled.

Quote:
Physical play: although Wilson was strong and never shied away from physical contact, Blake was definitely the more aggressive, and more powerful, hitter. On the other hand, Wilson took far fewer penalties (on a per-82 games basis, Wilson averaged 61 PIM vs 101 for Blake).
Agreed.

Quote:
Playoffs: We all know that Blake was the player that put the Colorado Avalanche over the top in 2001. As great an accomplishment as this is, I still think Wilson was the better playoff performer. Wilson scored at a much higher rate in the postseason (69 pts per 82 games vs 44 pts for Blake), and was (IMO) better defensively. Blake never had to carry his team like Wilson did; eleven years into his career as a Hawk, Wilson had scored more than every teammate except Savard and was 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 6th in scoring during the four years Chicago advanced to the conference finals. I don't like to get into hypotheticals too much but I definitely could see Wilson winning a Cup playing with Roy, Sakic, Forsberg and Blake. I don't see Blake winning a Cup with Savard, Larmer and Bannerman.
Without knowing how well Wilson did defensively, I can't comment on their overall performances. Blake was great at both ends in 2001, I can say that.

Quote:
International: Blake was a key part of Canada’s 2002 gold medal Olympic team. Wilson was an important part of the victorious 1984 Canada Cup team.
These accomplishments probably even out, but Blake was also named the best defenseman of the 1998 Olympics in Canada's losing cause. So I think he has to have the better international resume.

Quote:
Consistency/longevity: Blake gets the edge here. He played roughly 150 more games than Wilson, and is still a solid defenseman at age 39; Wilson retired at age 35
.

Agreed (well accept for the out of date part about Blake).

Quote:
Norris: Wilson won the Norris trophy in 1982 and was also 3rd, 4th and 4th. Blake won the Norris trophy in 1998 and was also 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 8th. Given the quality of competition they faced (Bourque, Coffey, MacInnis vs Lidstrom, Pronger & ancient versions of Stevens & Chelios) I’d call this a draw.
I disagree that Wilson had better competition. The early 80s was kind of a transition period between the great defensemen of the late 70s and the great defensemen of the late 80s/early 90s. As overpass showed, when Wilson won the Norris, most of the real competition was injured. I already showed Blake's (fairly strong) competition upthread - prime Lidstrom and Pronger, still very good versions of Stevens and Chelios, MacInnis who was past his offensive prime but was a better all-round player than ever. Wilson's Norris win is sandwiched between Randy Carlyle and Rod Langway. Here is Wilson's competition in the early 80s:

Year1st2nd3rd4th5thother
1979-80Larry RobinsonBorje SalmingJim SchoenfeldRay BourqueMark HoweWilson(8th)
1980-81Randy CarlyleDenis PotvinLarry RobinsonRay BourqueRod Langway 
1981-82Doug WilsonRay BourquePaul CoffeyCraig HartsburgLarry Robinson 
1982-83Rod LangwayMark HoweRay BourqueDoug WilsonPaul Coffey 
1983-84Rod LangwayPaul CoffeyRay BourqueDenis PotvinPhil Housley 
1984-85Paul CoffeyRay BourqueRod LangwayDoug WilsonScott Stevens 

Robinson's offense had left him and he was a bit injury prone, Salming's play declined rapidly after 1980, Potvin was injury-prone, Ray Bourque and Paul Coffey were good but not as good as they would later be. This allowed Randy Carlyle, Doug Wilson, and Rod Langway (twice) to win the Norris. IMO, this is clearly weaker competition than Blake faced

By Doug Wilson's resurgent 1990, competition was very strong. These were prime versions of Bourque and MacInnis:

1989-90Ray BourqueAl MacInnisDoug WilsonPaul CoffeyPhil Housley

By the late 80s, Wilson faced very strong competition, but the fact is that other than a one-year blip in 1990, his Norris record was compiled in the early 80s against much weaker competition. I think Blake's competition is slightly better because very few of those great defensemen were actually in their primes in the early 1980s.

Quote:
Hart: Wilson has placed 7th and 9th in Hart voting. Blake was 10th once.
I'm not sure how relevant this is - defensemen seem to have gotten slightly more consideration for the Hart in the 1980s than the late 90s/early 00s and Wilson got slightly more than Blake.

Quote:
Conclusion: overall it's quite close. I think many people seem to push Blake for the HOF due to the Stanley Cup. However, they're nearly even as players and I'd argue that in terms of big game experience (playoffs & international) Wilson may actually be ahead. What do you think?
Conclusion:

I think you did a good job showing they are fairly close (as are most players available now), but Blake is decidedly ahead, even if for no other reason but durability. But that durability has not only allowed Blake to compile more games played, but one additional elite season, as well, as evidenced by their Norris records:

Wilson: 1st, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 8th
Blake: 1st, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 8th

Three more advantages for Blake:
  • He was a more prolific penalty killer
  • He was much more physical
  • He is more accomplished in international hockey - both played well on winning teams (1984 and 2002) but Blake was also named Best Defenseman at the Olympics in 1998 in a losing cause.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 01-16-2012 at 04:01 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2012, 02:08 PM
  #56
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,407
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider View Post
How much should we weigh the season currently in progress? Chara has played very well (would almost certainly be an all-star and possibly the Norris winner if the season ended today).

It's not fair if we assume that Chara has another all-star calibre season (he could always get injured or fade down the stretch) but it's not fair to completely ignore it either. Any thoughts?
I would argue that we ALREADY didn't put much if any weight into Chara's current season. Pretend for a minute that he goes on to win the Norris and is good but not great in the playoffs. He'd be a two-time Norris winner with 3 additional finalist spots and a mixed record in the playoffs. What would be the justification for ranking such a player under Rod Langway?

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2012, 04:11 PM
  #57
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,326
vCash: 500
Not to interrupt too badly here but how come every time Langway's double Norris wins are mentioned, it's spoken of or used with the context that they were weak wins?

I don't get this. I mean weren't talking about a guy that not only played as good and imo even noticeably better defense than Lidstrom. He managed to shine in an offense first league that was the highest scoring years in history.

That would be the equivalent of a D-man scoring 40 goals and 100+ points in today's defense first league.

Sorry, I just don't get it. All this talk about Lidstrom's vaunted defense over and over only to then dismiss Langways' even more superior defense that he accomplished at a time when it was much harder to accomplish.


/end rant

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2012, 04:24 PM
  #58
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,407
vCash: 500
I'll admit that I didn't see Langway play, but I find it hard to believe that he was as good overall as prime Pronger and prime Lidstrom, the only guys who Blake finished behind in 2000.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 01-16-2012 at 04:31 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2012, 04:35 PM
  #59
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,063
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Not to interrupt too badly here but how come every time Langway's double Norris wins are mentioned, it's spoken of or used with the context that they were weak wins?

I don't get this. I mean weren't talking about a guy that not only played as good and imo even noticeably better defense than Lidstrom. He managed to shine in an offense first league that was the highest scoring years in history.

That would be the equivalent of a D-man scoring 40 goals and 100+ points in today's defense first league.

Sorry, I just don't get it. All this talk about Lidstrom's vaunted defense over and over only to then dismiss Langways' even more superior defense that he accomplished at a time when it was much harder to accomplish.


/end rant
It wasn't just that they were weak wins, they were completely undeserved wins.

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2012, 04:44 PM
  #60
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,326
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
It wasn't just that they were weak wins, they were completely undeserved wins.
According to who and with what justification?

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2012, 04:56 PM
  #61
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,407
vCash: 500
Unless the discussion of Rod Langway's Norrises is relevant to any of the 15 available candidates (and it can be loosely related, such as talking about the competition that Doug Wilson faced), please wrap up the discussion quickly, use a different thread (the Rod Langway vs. Mark Howe threads are good ones and the Langway vs. Chara thread could work too), or feel free to start a new one.

Thanks.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2012, 05:08 PM
  #62
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,326
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I'll admit that I didn't see Langway play, but I find it hard to believe that he was as good overall as prime Pronger and prime Lidstrom, the only guys who Blake finished behind in 2000.
What does as good overall have to do with anything?
Langway was never very good offensively but how is that different from Coffey at the other end of the spectrum?

Langway was dominant defensively when it was harder to dominate defensively than at any other time in history.

I mean you realise that Langway finished second to Gretzky for the Hart in '82.
Was a 1rst team all-star in '83 and '84, a second in '85.
And was a first team all-star in the '84 Canada Cup!

His nickname was the "Secretary of Defense" in Washington.

His first year in Washington, their goals against dropped from 338 to 283 and then down to 226 in his second year despite the Caps scoring almost the same total all three years.
Everyone to a man credits Langway with that improvement, not even slightly debated.

Show me another defensive first D-man that lacked any real offense that accomplished all this and looking him up from Overpass's stats, he came away with with a career R-on/R-off of 1.29-1.20.
I would be interested to see just his Washington numbers though.
But seriously, how many all defense only d-men end up on the + side of the R-on/R-off numbers. None even come close from what I could find.


Edit: Fair enough Devil, I'll start a new thread.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2012, 05:12 PM
  #63
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,407
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
What does as good overall have to do with anything?
Langway was never very good offensively but how is that different from Coffey at the other end of the spectrum?
When talking about the competition Doug Wilson faced for the Norris and comparing it to the competition Rob Blake faced for the Norris, how good overall the competition was means everything.

Quote:
Show me another defensive first D-man that lacked any real offense that accomplished all this and looking him up from Overpass's stats, he came away with with a career R-on/R-off of 1.29-1.20.
That's impressive, but I think Chara actually has more impressive ratios (though obviously not all from a defensive standpoint).

Chara is 1.20 on, 1.06 off, but that includes his unimpressive early years. Over the last decade, Chara is 1.42 on, 1.16 off, while usually playing the toughest defensive minutes of his teams (though likely not quite as tough as Langway's minutes).

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2012, 05:30 PM
  #64
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,326
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
That's impressive, but I think Chara actually has more impressive ratios (though obviously not all from a defensive standpoint).

Chara is 1.20 on, 1.06 off, but that includes his unimpressive early years. Over the last decade, Chara is 1.42 on, 1.16 off, while usually playing the toughest defensive minutes of his teams (though likely not quite as tough as Langway's minutes).

And that's the whole point isn't it. We're basically talking about a Hal Gill type d-man (that can skate though ) that was so good at defending and shutting people down that he garnered a first team all-star nod in a Canada Cup!
How good and how dominant do you have to be to garner that?


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 01-16-2012 at 05:39 PM.
Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2012, 05:45 PM
  #65
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 10,922
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I would argue that we ALREADY didn't put much if any weight into Chara's current season. Pretend for a minute that he goes on to win the Norris and is good but not great in the playoffs. He'd be a two-time Norris winner with 3 additional finalist spots and a mixed record in the playoffs. What would be the justification for ranking such a player under Rod Langway?
I would think we already know how good a player Chara is. At least to me nothing he has done this year has changed my mind.

As for Langway, I would just use the eyeball test. Though I realize not all of us can do that.

Dennis Bonvie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2012, 05:59 PM
  #66
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,407
vCash: 500
My point in bringing up Langway is that he is currently the lowest ranked multiple Norris winner at 29. And that includes all NHL-era "retro Norris" winners too. We're already past 40 with no Chara. If Chara wins the Norris this season, he'll be the lowest rated multiple winner by far.

So I do think we as a group already gave him basically no credit for his current season for him to drop below 40.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2012, 06:13 PM
  #67
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 10,922
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
My point in bringing up Langway is that he is currently the lowest ranked multiple Norris winner at 29. And that includes all NHL-era "retro Norris" winners too. We're already past 40 with no Chara. If Chara wins the Norris this season, he'll be the lowest rated multiple winner by far.

So I do think we as a group already gave him basically no credit for his current season for him to drop below 40.
Considering he hasn't won the Norris this year yet, I don't think we had much choice in the matter.

Dennis Bonvie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2012, 06:28 PM
  #68
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,407
vCash: 500
Carl Brewer

Quote:
Originally Posted by legendsofhockey
Nobody ever knew what Carl Brewer was going to do next. On the ice, he was a tough but agile defenseman who could stickhandle with a deceptive creativity. He had the ability to cross the opposing blue line and then pause, using dekes to ward off checkers, waiting for a teammate to get into the open for one of his feathery passes. In the defensive zone, he was adept at getting in an opponent's way, using clean tactics and not so clean tactics, such as cutting the palm out of his gloves to facilitate a sneaky kind of holding. Off the ice, he was a scholar and a freethinker who retired several times from hockey, only to turn up later playing on different teams or in different countries.
QUESTION: How do you guys think we should deal with Carl Brewer's missing years?

He was considered a "superstar" in the mid-60s.

Leafs won the Cup in 1962, 1963, and 1964. In 1961, 1962, and 1963 Brewer actually finished a little bit ahead of Tim Horton in both Norris and All-Star voting. Horton finished ahead in 1964 and 1965.

59-60: 9th in Norris voting
60-61: 6th in Norris voting
61-62: 4th in Norris voting, 2nd Team All Star
62-63: 2nd in Norris voting, 1st Team All Star
63-64: 9th in Norris voting
64-65: 6th in Norris voting, 2nd Team All Star

After 1965, Brewer abruptly quit the NHL:

Quote:
Originally Posted by legendsofhockey
During training camp in 1965, Brewer had an on ice disagreement with teammate Johnny Bower that continued into the dressing room. Imlach sent the defenseman home for a few days "to think about it." Brewer did think about it, and decided to retire from professional hockey. He would stay out of the NHL for four years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Pelletier
The tandem of Brewer and Baun was one of the best defense tandems the NHL has ever seen, and they always had the Leafs in contention for the Stanley Cup. The Leafs could win many Stanley Cups some believed. But Brewer did not share the same visions as the Leafs and their fans. He shocked the hockey world when he quit the Leafs in 1965, choosing to complete his bachelor of arts degree at the University of Toronto.

That was just the beginning of bizarre career moves, at least in the eyes of the hockey establishment and hockey fans. One of the best defensemen in the game just upped and left to the U of T. He would return to hockey though, struggling to regain his amateur status so he could skate with the Canadian national team for two years. He would then be a player-coach with Muskegon in the International Hockey League before accomplishing the same role with HIFK Helsinki and the Finnish national team! Imagine one of Canada's top defensemen quitting the NHL in the late 1960s to coach in Finland!

Somewhere along the line Brewer's pendulum of disenchantment swung back the other way, as he decided he needed to return to the evils of the NHL and all of his enemies that he once escaped.
Brewer's "time off"

Quote:
Originally Posted by wikipedia
In 1966 and 1967 he played with the Canadian National team, winning a bronze medal at the 1967 world hockey Championships. His brief stint in HIFK made such an impact on Finnish hockey that he was inducted to the Finnish Hockey Hall of Fame in 2003.
Brewer played in the 1967 World Championships and was named an All-Star (Alexander Ragulin of the USSR was the other All-Star. Vitaly Davydov of the USSR was named best defenseman by the Directorate).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Finnish Hockey Hall of Fame
Brewer led HIFK to the championship title as player-coach in 1968/69. This was his only season in Finland, but he left a permanent impact on HIFK, club known ever since for its gritty and physical style of play.
http://www.vapriikki.net/jaakiekkomu...d/brewer_e.htm

The Leafs would win the 1967 Cup without Brewer. An aging Marcel Pronvost replaced him

Brewer returned to the NHL in 1969-70 and was immediately an all-star:

69-70: 3rd in Norris voting, 2nd Team All Star

Then he started to suffer injury problems and declined.

Conclusion: I think the it's obvious that Brewer was capable of playing All-Star calibre hockey during his 4 year hiatus from the NHL. He was an All Star for several years before leaving, and was an All-Star his first season back. And he made quite an impact in the World Championships in 1967 and playing in Finland in 1969. But how much credit should we give him for the "missing years?"

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2012, 06:29 PM
  #69
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,778
vCash: 500
Is anyone thinking of voting for Harry Cameron yet?

I haven't researched Cameron in-depth. He was a great offensive defenceman of the NHA and early NHL. On the negative side, he had a relaxed attitude to practice and wasn't very coachable.

How good or bad was he defensively? I don't know, and it could swing his case quite a bit. His offensive record is worthy of consideration at this point.

It may be significant that he moved to forward later in his career while playing for Saskatoon in the WCHL. Or maybe not. At least it's unusual, in that most switches go in the opposite direction. Cameron was the (playing) coach who put himself at forward, btw.

Cameron, like Moose Johnson, wasn't named in the Maclean's all-star vote from 1925. George Boucher and Joe Simpson were. It's possible that voters were more inclined to vote for Boucher and Simpson because they were both stars in 1925. Johnson was retired and Cameron was past his peak, playing forward in the WCHL.

On the other hand, in the Trail of the Stanley Cup Charles L. Coleman named Cameron (and Johnson) as one of the star defencemen of his era, above Boucher.

Cameron played a major role in 3 Toronto Stanley Cup victories. It might be worth researching his contributions to those teams. I'll try to do so at some point.

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2012, 06:34 PM
  #70
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 10,922
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
QUESTION: How do you guys think we should deal with Carl Brewer's missing years?

He was considered a "superstar" in the mid-60s.

Leafs won the Cup in 1962, 1963, and 1964. In 1961, 1962, and 1963 Brewer actually finished a little bit ahead of Tim Horton in both Norris and All-Star voting. Horton finished ahead in 1964 and 1965.

59-60: 9th in Norris voting
60-61: 6th in Norris voting
61-62: 4th in Norris voting, 2nd Team All Star
62-63: 2nd in Norris voting, 1st Team All Star
63-64: 9th in Norris voting
64-65: 6th in Norris voting, 2nd Team All Star

After 1965, Brewer abruptly quit the NHL:





Brewer had quite the interesting list of accomplishments during his "time off."



Brewer played in the 1967 World Championships and was named an All-Star.



http://www.vapriikki.net/jaakiekkomu...d/brewer_e.htm

The Leafs would win the 1967 Cup without Brewer. An aging Marcel Pronvost replaced him

Brewer returned to the NHL in 1969-70 and was immediately an all-star:

69-70: 3rd in Norris voting, 2nd Team All Star

Then he started to suffer injury problems and declined.

Conclusion: I think the it's obvious that Brewer was capable of playing All-Star calibre hockey during his 4 year hiatus from the NHL. He was an All Star for several years before leaving, and was an All-Star his first season back. And he made quite an impact in the World Championships in 1967 and playing in Finland in 1969. But how much credit should we give him for the "missing years?"
I don't think he gets credit for the missing years, but right now he's still in my top 5. I just think he was that good.

Dennis Bonvie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2012, 06:34 PM
  #71
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,778
vCash: 500
Here's a question for the Moose Johnson supporters.

Does it bother you that so much of his case hangs on the word of one man (Mickey Ion?)

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2012, 06:41 PM
  #72
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,407
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
Here's a question for the Moose Johnson supporters.

Does it bother you that so much of his case hangs on the word of one man (Mickey Ion?)
Does Charles Coleman base Moose spot on his "pre-1926 all-star team" off of Mickey Ion's PCHA all-star teams? I think he probably largely did, but does anyone know for sure?

A big part of Johnson's case is that he is "the best defenseman in PCHA history." Is there anyone else who has a case there? Does Lester Patrick? Moose has a much better all-star record.... according to Mickey Ion who selected the teams.

I'm actually leaning towards Ebbie Goodfellow over Moose right now. Great peak in a consolidated NHL, good longevity as an elite player, key member of back to back Cup wins for Detroit in 1936 and 1937. I think Goodfellow has been an afterthought for a few rounds now (by myself included) because he came up a bit early. But his record looks very good now compared to who else is left.

Edit: There were people who voted Moose higher than I did last round. Curious to know what they think.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 01-16-2012 at 07:25 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2012, 06:49 PM
  #73
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,407
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
Is anyone thinking of voting for Harry Cameron yet?

I haven't researched Cameron in-depth. He was a great offensive defenceman of the NHA and early NHL. On the negative side, he had a relaxed attitude to practice and wasn't very coachable.

How good or bad was he defensively? I don't know, and it could swing his case quite a bit. His offensive record is worthy of consideration at this point.

It may be significant that he moved to forward later in his career while playing for Saskatoon in the WCHL. Or maybe not. At least it's unusual, in that most switches go in the opposite direction. Cameron was the (playing) coach who put himself at forward, btw.

Cameron, like Moose Johnson, wasn't named in the Maclean's all-star vote from 1925. George Boucher and Joe Simpson were. It's possible that voters were more inclined to vote for Boucher and Simpson because they were both stars in 1925. Johnson was retired and Cameron was past his peak, playing forward in the WCHL.

On the other hand, in the Trail of the Stanley Cup Charles L. Coleman named Cameron (and Johnson) as one of the star defencemen of his era, above Boucher.

Cameron played a major role in 3 Toronto Stanley Cup victories. It might be worth researching his contributions to those teams. I'll try to do so at some point.
I can never figure out who I like better between Boucher and Cameron. I ranked Boucher ahead on my submitted list, but have no idea why I did that. Sturminator did a good statistical comparison of Cameron, Boucher, and Cleghorn when he had Cameron in a past ATD. The conclusion was that the three are basically equals offensively. I'll try to dig it up at some point this week.

I agree with you that information on Cameron's defensive ability would go a long way towards justifying his position. We know he was an awful team player and completely uncoachable, but that doesn't mean he was bad defensively necessarily.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2012, 07:40 PM
  #74
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,778
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
QUESTION: How do you guys think we should deal with Carl Brewer's missing years?

He was considered a "superstar" in the mid-60s.

Leafs won the Cup in 1962, 1963, and 1964. In 1961, 1962, and 1963 Brewer actually finished a little bit ahead of Tim Horton in both Norris and All-Star voting. Horton finished ahead in 1964 and 1965.

59-60: 9th in Norris voting
60-61: 6th in Norris voting
61-62: 4th in Norris voting, 2nd Team All Star
62-63: 2nd in Norris voting, 1st Team All Star
63-64: 9th in Norris voting
64-65: 6th in Norris voting, 2nd Team All Star

After 1965, Brewer abruptly quit the NHL:





Brewer's "time off"



Brewer played in the 1967 World Championships and was named an All-Star (Alexander Ragulin of the USSR was the other All-Star. Vitaly Davydov of the USSR was named best defenseman by the Directorate).



http://www.vapriikki.net/jaakiekkomu...d/brewer_e.htm

The Leafs would win the 1967 Cup without Brewer. An aging Marcel Pronvost replaced him

Brewer returned to the NHL in 1969-70 and was immediately an all-star:

69-70: 3rd in Norris voting, 2nd Team All Star

Then he started to suffer injury problems and declined.

Conclusion: I think the it's obvious that Brewer was capable of playing All-Star calibre hockey during his 4 year hiatus from the NHL. He was an All Star for several years before leaving, and was an All-Star his first season back. And he made quite an impact in the World Championships in 1967 and playing in Finland in 1969. But how much credit should we give him for the "missing years?"
Brewer's a unique case. I haven't decided how to handle him. His peak looks very good this round.

I can't really blame him for leaving the Leafs. Imlach had it in for him. Frank Mahovlich would probably have been better off in terms of quality of life if he'd done the same.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I can never figure out who I like better between Boucher and Cameron. I ranked Boucher ahead on my submitted list, but have no idea why I did that. Sturminator did a good statistical comparison of Cameron, Boucher, and Cleghorn when he had Cameron in a past ATD. The conclusion was that the three are basically equals offensively. I'll try to dig it up at some point this week.
One thing to consider about Cameron vs Boucher - Boucher had Frank Nighbor in front of him for almost his whole career. That has to make it easier to play D.

Just like Lidstrom always had better centres than Bourque.

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2012, 11:00 PM
  #75
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 44,625
vCash: 1020
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
1934-35: Babe Siebert's first full season in Boston. This appears to be a transition year. Despite high point totals, Siebert was not an All-Star, indicating that he probably began the season at forward.
I only have access to a limited number of their game summaries that season, but here are the dates I can find, with Siebert's position and scoring noted:

Nov 8 - D, 0pt
Nov 17 - D, 1g
[Nov 25 - Described in the Chicago Daily Tribune as "a new defense man, Babe Siebert, switched from a left wing position"]
Nov 27 - D, 0pt
Dec 16 - D, 0pt
Dec 30 - D, 0pt
Jan 1 - D, 1a
Jan 5 - D, 0pt
Jan 22 - D, 1g
Jan 29 - D, 2a
Feb 3 - D, 0pt
Feb 10 - D, 1g 1a
Feb 24 - D, 0pt
Mar 5 - D, 0pt
Mar 14 - D, 0pt
Mar 17 - D, 1a

Total - 15 games, 3-5-8
Unaccounted for - 33 games, 3-13-16



While this doesn't definitively prove that Siebert never played forward in 34-35, I think it is very highly likely based on the above that he was a legitimate defenseman the entire season. His scoring pace in the games accounted-for suggests his totals were not inflated.

[This is where I make my standard argument against trying to make logically linear deductions from All Star ballots of the 1930s. The voters may very well have just been wrong.]

tarheelhockey 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 01:07 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2016 All Rights Reserved.