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.

Larry Murphy

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-03-2010, 12:24 AM
  #26
foame
Registered User
 
foame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 254
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by finchster View Post
In 1997-98 I remember Murphy getting more or at least the same amount of penalty kill time as Lidstrom. The NHL did not keep TOI records then but Murphy was on the ice for the most power play goals against with 24, Lidstrom had 19 and Draper had 16. Generally more power play goals against simply means more time played on the penalty kill. Scotty Bowman thought enough of Murphy’s defensive abilities to make him the top defenseman on the penalty kill. Murphy’s play allowed Lidstrom to be more effective at even strength and on the power play instead of using all his energy on the penalty kill.

While someone would have to be a fool to argue Murphy was better than Lidstrom defensively, I think this small sample illustrates that Murphy was more than just a good power play guy with a long career as you describe him. Murphy certainly played an important role, a role Coffey could not provide.
97-98 is the first season they recorded TOI. Lidstrom played more minutes short-handed. It's available here: http://www.nhl.com/ice/playerstats.h...Name=timeOnIce

foame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2010, 12:27 AM
  #27
finchster
Registered User
 
finchster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Belgorod
Country: Russian Federation
Posts: 7,239
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to finchster
Quote:
Originally Posted by foame View Post
97-98 is the first season they recorded TOI. Lidstrom played more minutes short-handed. It's available here: http://www.nhl.com/ice/playerstats.h...Name=timeOnIce
My mistake, I usually check hockeyreference for stats and it did not list TOI. My apologies
(now that I look, he did average two seconds more than Lidstrom in the playoffs ).

finchster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2010, 12:28 AM
  #28
Blades of Glory
Troll Captain
 
Blades of Glory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 18,334
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust View Post
It is interesting to note that Bowman was in Detroit when Coffey was dealt for Shanahan, and shortly thereafter, they replace Coffey's vacancy on the blueline by acquiring Larry Murphy from Toronto for future considerations. The Wings couldn't win the Cup with Coffey and Lidstrom, but finally won it after acquiring Shanahan and Murphy.
In Edmonton, Coffey was actually a fairly solid defensive player who often raised his level of defensive play in big games, but by this point of his career, he was terrible. Bowman never liked players who shunned the defensive side of the game, and Coffey wasn't the only casualty of the Bowman mentality in Pittsburgh. Mark Recchi's defense slipped dramatically during the 1992 season, and after he made a silly comment about not caring about his +/-, he found himself sent off to Philadelphia for Rick Tocchet a few weeks after.

One thing I will say about Bowman is that no matter how much he hated Paul Coffey's style of play, he let Coffey do whatever he wanted when on the ice. And that does not happen very often in the Scotty Bowman system. The Red Wings reached the Cup Finals in 1995 because Paul Coffey and Sergei Fedorov simply skated around everything on the planet. Then of course, the Devils came up with the idea to block the middle of the ice, and that was that.

Blades of Glory is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2010, 12:35 AM
  #29
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,856
vCash: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mothra View Post
I seriously question anyone who would take Murphy over Mark Howe......spin me all the stats you want, Howe was a much better hockey player.

I feel that Murphy's role on those Cup teams could have been filled by several other players of his time. He was very fortunate to play for some of the teams he played for. A good player that understood his weakness.....not a HoFer IMO.

Just for the record....he was not only boo'd out of Toronto, he was boo'd out of DC as well.
Nobody with any idea what they are talking about would take him over Howe. But over Gonchar and Housley like your original comparison? Easily.

Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2010, 12:41 AM
  #30
MS
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 11,277
vCash: 500
Murphy is one of the weaker inductees, especially in terms of peak value, but he was a top-pairing defender for the better part of 20 years, and a core member of 4 Cup winners. And scored 1200+ points and set an NHL GP record for defenders along the way.

I don't have any issue with him being there.

_________

That said, the biggest knock against Murphy is who he was traded for. His Norris finishes seem a little out of place when compared against the fact that he was dealt for :

- Brian Engblom

- Bob Rouse (assuming Gartner for Ciccarelli was an even swap)

- Jim Johnson

- Dmitri Mironov

... and each trade was essentially in the prime of his career.

On one hand, you have his 8 top-8 Norris finishes. On the other hand, you have the fact that surrounding those Norris finishes he was continually dealt for players who were the definition of average #3-4 NHL defenders.

Tells you that he was a guy who was probably under-valued during his career, but also that his Norris finishes (like Gonchar) might be more a function of point-scoring than actually being a consistent top-5 NHL defender.

MS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2010, 12:48 AM
  #31
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,322
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
A couple of points here and they are both related. In recent years and during the time period that Murphy played a strong emphasis from the voters for the Norris trophy and all star nominations for Dmen was based on offensive production.

Through the entire time a lot of people were asking for a separate award for the best defensive Dman because a lot of good Dmen were going largely unnoticed.

For most teams the top PP paring on D gets the most ice time as well, so I'm not entirely sure on your point there either.

The biggest question to ask is "Was he ever the 4th, 5th, or 6th best player on any team that he played for that was a good team ie. .500 or better."

Maybe he was the 4th best on a couple of teams and that's a strong maybe.

Doesnt' sound like a hall of famer to me.

Except you're wrong. Murphy was relied on very heavily at even strength too. If I take only even strength time, his ice time placements on his team look like this:

1, 2, 4, 4, 3, 3, 1, 2, 4, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 4, 2, 3, 4, 3. An average of about 1/3 of a spot further down the depth chart than he is overall.

You say the top PP defenseman ends up with the most minutes? Tell that to Phil Housley, whose ES ice time rankings were:

2, 3, 6, 5, 1, 2, 3, 1, 1, 2, 1, 6, 1, 1, 6, 8, 4, 5, 8, 4, 6, an average of 1.5 spots further down the depth chart than Murphy. And he was on worse teams with much fewer star defensemen, meaning it was much more likely for him to rank higher in minutes.

Housley doesn't compare to Murphy.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2010, 01:17 AM
  #32
God Bless Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bentley reunion
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,780
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Larry Murphy is absolutely a HHOFer and it shouldn't even be close.

First of all, despite playing against the strongest class of defensemen in history, he was still a second team all-star three times. How many three-time all-star defensemen get denied the hall? Not too many.

Secondly, he had five seasons on top of those where he was in the top-8 in all-star voting for defensemen. So a total of 8 years where the voters considered him top-8 in the league.

He was a contributor to four Stanley Cups, a #2 three times (behind Coffey and Lidstrom) and a #1 the other time.

Forget all the games and the points, that kind of thing can make Housley look like a HHOFer, and we know he's not. But check this out: 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 4, 1, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3. That is Murphy's year-by-year ranking on his team in icetime (based on a formula used by someone in the hockey analysis yahoogroup). So in 16 of 25 years, Murphy was a top pairing defenseman. Not many players can boast that.

To take that further, in 21 years, there have been 20 instances of another defenseman on Murphy's team having a larger role than him. 16 of them can be accounted for by HHOFers - Lidstrom, Chelios, Langway, Coffey, and Stevens. The other 4 times were Mark Hardy for LA, in Murphy's 2nd and 3rd seasons, Kevin Hatcher in 1989, and Dave Ellett in 1996 - All pretty strong players themselves. Coaches aren't idiots. They use their best players the most often, because they want to win.

I would put Murphy in the hall without hesitation. Three all-star teams is a pretty strong case even before you dig deeper and see how consistently strong he was. The Toronto nonsense unfairly takes away from his lustre.
He was Pittsburgh's MVD (most valuable defenceman) in 1991 as well. Coffey missed time due to an eye injury from a high stick by Fetisov; Murphy stepped into the top role and was a stalwart. While Coffey & Bowman was never going to be a match made in heaven, I don't think they trade Coffey in 1992 if Murphy isn't there; and if they don't trade Coffey, I highly doubt Pittsburgh gets Tocchet and Kjell Samuelsson, which means that they don't change the complexion of the team, which means that they don't win the Cup.

A key role in back-to-back Cups with two different organizations. How many non-HHOFers can say that? Those who think that Murphy doesn't belong in the HHOF, think about it.

Those who understand the realities of hockey at the highest level understand why Murphy is in the HHOF.

God Bless Canada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2010, 01:36 AM
  #33
Scott1980
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 369
vCash: 500
Never could understand how he got booed out of Toronto. They got in a mid season slump and took it out on him!

Anyways, HOF IMHO!

Scott1980 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2010, 03:59 AM
  #34
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,225
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by finchster View Post
In 1997-98 I remember Murphy getting more or at least the same amount of penalty kill time as Lidstrom. The NHL did not keep TOI records then but Murphy was on the ice for the most power play goals against with 24, Lidstrom had 19 and Draper had 16. Generally more power play goals against simply means more time played on the penalty kill. Scotty Bowman thought enough of Murphy’s defensive abilities to make him the top defenseman on the penalty kill. Murphy’s play allowed Lidstrom to be more effective at even strength and on the power play instead of using all his energy on the penalty kill.

While someone would have to be a fool to argue Murphy was better than Lidstrom defensively, I think this small sample illustrates that Murphy was more than just a good power play guy with a long career as you describe him. Murphy certainly played an important role, a role Coffey could not provide.
Can you imagine Phil Housley playing regularly on the PK? This should really end the comparisons between Murphy and Housley.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2010, 06:35 AM
  #35
Padan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 507
vCash: 500
Wasn't Murphy getting booed out of Washington too because of his defensive lapses?

Padan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2010, 09:29 AM
  #36
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,867
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blades of Glory View Post
In Edmonton, Coffey was actually a fairly solid defensive player who often raised his level of defensive play in big games, but by this point of his career, he was terrible.
Terrible defensemen don't win Norris trophies.

Seriously.. or Mike Green would have a couple by now.

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2010, 10:49 AM
  #37
mrzeigler
Geno and Juss '13
 
mrzeigler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pittsburgh
Country: United States
Posts: 3,101
vCash: 500
Murphy is an example of a player excelling because of his brains. His play was exceedingly smart, and he had a natural talent on the power play.

He always took the correct angle with body positioning, he was fantastic at keeping the puck in the zone on the PP, he perfected flipping the puck up high to clear it — AKA the Murphy Dump —*which was a very effective countermeasure against the trap which prevailed during much of his career.


Last edited by mrzeigler: 09-03-2010 at 11:23 AM.
mrzeigler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2010, 11:41 AM
  #38
Mothra
Registered User
 
Mothra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 7,332
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shadows View Post
Nobody with any idea what they are talking about would take him over Howe. But over Gonchar and Housley like your original comparison? Easily.
Gonchar and Housley are just a couple names that popped into mind at that moment. The main point, Murphy isnt a HoFer IMO.

Gonchar could be argued to have been the best offensive defensman in the NHL at certain point in his career, Murphy can not claim that. For Housley, I just dont see a ton of difference other than Murphy played with some of the greatest players ever. If Murphy was better than Housley in his own end its not by much. I personally dont think he is/was better in his own end than Gonchar however.

Another name ive seen mentioned is Blake, who I would take every single day over Murphy without even a thought

Mothra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2010, 12:31 PM
  #39
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,856
vCash: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mothra View Post
Gonchar and Housley are just a couple names that popped into mind at that moment. The main point, Murphy isnt a HoFer IMO.
I would probably not call Murphy a hall of famer either. It is the hall of fame, not the hall of very good.

Quote:
Gonchar could be argued to have been the best offensive defensman in the NHL at certain point in his career, Murphy can not claim that. For Housley, I just dont see a ton of difference other than Murphy played with some of the greatest players ever. If Murphy was better than Housley in his own end its not by much. I personally dont think he is/was better in his own end than Gonchar however.
Yes, Gonchar was a prolific offensive defenseman. But he was abysmal in his own end until recent years. Not Phil Housley bad mind you, but definitely worse than Murphy

Murphy would have put those numbers up playing with anyone. He was a very good defenseman. Washington was not exactly the most offensively gifted team in the league at the time. In fact, Larry Murphy lead the team in scoring one year. If his numbers were so reliant on the players he played with, why did that happen? Why did he have his second highest career total in a year none of his forwards could even score over 73 points? He was a guy who could consistently put up between 60-80 points no matter who he was playing with.

And I must point this out. You are largely in the minority regarding your opinion on Murphy's defensive play. Coaches used him as a top Penalty killer on just about every team he played on except Washington. Most people here who have seen him play are praising him as a smart player defensively.

Murphy was far above Housley in his own end. Maybe you disagree, but you are in the extreme minority from those who watched both play. Housley was the kind of guy coaches would never put on the PK unless it was late game and they were down a goal. In his own end Housley would often literally just stand there and look like he had no idea what to do.

Quote:
Another name ive seen mentioned is Blake, who I would take every single day over Murphy without even a thought
Yes, most people would rate Blake ahead of Murphy too. Myself included.

But you said Gonchar and Housley, and Murphy was easily better than either of them.

Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2010, 01:05 PM
  #40
Mothra
Registered User
 
Mothra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 7,332
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shadows View Post

I would probably not call Murphy a hall of famer either. It is the hall of fame, not the hall of very good.


Yes, Gonchar was a prolific offensive defenseman. But he was abysmal in his own end until recent years. Not Phil Housley bad mind you, but definitely worse than Murphy


Gonchar was never "abysmal" in his own end.....and the reason I view Housley/Murphy around the same in that area is Murphy, for much of his early career.....was very forecheck-able and a turnover machine. It wasnt until Pit where he learned (or was coached/told) to just get rid of it. Having the forwards he had in Pit/Det made that a nice match.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shadows View Post
Murphy would have put those numbers up playing with anyone. He was a very good defenseman. Washington was not exactly the most offensively gifted team in the league at the time. In fact, Larry Murphy lead the team in scoring one year. If his numbers were so reliant on the players he played with, why did that happen? Why did he have his second highest career total in a year none of his forwards could even score over 73 points? He was a guy who could consistently put up between 60-80 points no matter who he was playing with.
Being a Washington fan from season one I know first hand his play in Washington. When you hear Cap fans "WOOP WOOP" Gonchar just know that started with Murphy.

He would have put up big numbers with most teams, yes. But to think playing with Pit/Det....those powerhouse teams didnt inflate that is a blindmans view. Of course it inflated them....

add to that, playing on those teams wins him Cups. Without Cups he isnt in. I disagree strongly that without Murphy those teams dont win (someone had said that about one of the Pit Cup teams). Yes, he played well....but as others have said, was he even a top 5 player on those teams? I cant say yes.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shadows View Post
And I must point this out. You are largely in the minority regarding your opinion on Murphy's defensive play. Coaches used him as a top Penalty killer on just about every team he played on except Washington. Most people here who have seen him play are praising him as a smart player defensively.
Green averages over 2 minutes a game on the PK....so I dont think you can just use that as a "he must have been good" arguement point. Again, just a name I thought of quickly so I'd like to avoid some long discussion about Green......I do agree that Murphy was smart....both on the ice and in general. He really seemed to learn what his limitations were and played away from them. He was in a perfect situation and did very well with that. Still doesnt make him a HoFer IMO

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shadows View Post

Yes, most people would rate Blake ahead of Murphy too. Myself included.

But you said Gonchar and Housley, and Murphy was easily better than either of them.
Im really not sure I would take Murphy over Gonchar.....and I dont see a whole lot of difference between Housley and Murphy other than situation.

Mothra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2010, 02:43 PM
  #41
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,856
vCash: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mothra View Post
Gonchar was never "abysmal" in his own end.....and the reason I view Housley/Murphy around the same in that area is Murphy, for much of his early career.....was very forecheck-able and a turnover machine. It wasnt until Pit where he learned (or was coached/told) to just get rid of it. Having the forwards he had in Pit/Det made that a nice match.
And having watched him play, I disagree



Quote:
Being a Washington fan from season one I know first hand his play in Washington. When you hear Cap fans "WOOP WOOP" Gonchar just know that started with Murphy.
Huge Rod Langway and Scott Stevens fan myself. Watched them whenever I could. As a side effect, I saw plenty of Murphy.

Quote:
He would have put up big numbers with most teams, yes. But to think playing with Pit/Det....those powerhouse teams didnt inflate that is a blindmans view. Of course it inflated them....
People already know my stance on this topic. I think players put up even better totals when they have to carry the team, as opposed to being another piece of a winning puzzle.

Murphy would have pout up those totals anywhere. His second best career total of all time came on a bad Washington team where forwards were struggling to put up 70 points. Murphy lead the team in scoring. A rare feat.

Quote:
add to that, playing on those teams wins him Cups. Without Cups he isnt in. I disagree strongly that without Murphy those teams dont win (someone had said that about one of the Pit Cup teams). Yes, he played well....but as others have said, was he even a top 5 player on those teams? I cant say yes.
And someone already made a very good case to the contrary.



Quote:
Green averages over 2 minutes a game on the PK....so I dont think you can just use that as a "he must have been good" arguement point. Again, just a name I thought of quickly so I'd like to avoid some long discussion about Green......I do agree that Murphy was smart....both on the ice and in general. He really seemed to learn what his limitations were and played away from them. He was in a perfect situation and did very well with that. Still doesnt make him a HoFer IMO
Green averages being 4th/5th defenseman in PK minutes per game on his team, playing only on the second PK pairing, and often, not even that. Murphy was averaging being his teams top PK unit. Large difference.


Quote:
Im really not sure I would take Murphy over Gonchar.....and I dont see a whole lot of difference between Housley and Murphy other than situation.
I take Murphy over Gonchar. I think most people would. Comments here certainly are widely supporting Murphy in opposition to your view.

Housley was among the worst defensemen of all time in his own end. Murphy was not. You coming here and trying to convince us he was bad in his own end is not going to change what we saw with our own eyes.

In any case, there are plenty of eyewitness accounts. Scotty Bowman praises Murphy's play both times he coached him and made him a top PKer both times. The greatest coach of all time doing that tells you something. Joe Pelletier wrote "Though he had good size, he never really played a physical game. He would bump his check off the puck rather than make strong takeouts. He relied on an heady stick checking defensive game that he excelled at due to his great hockey sense, ability to read the oncoming attack, and his flawless positioning. "

Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2010, 02:51 PM
  #42
NOTENOUGHBREWER
Registered User
 
NOTENOUGHBREWER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 8,618
vCash: 500
A guy I see mentioned getting quite a bit of hall of fame support (which personally I disagree with) is Zubov. Zubov's best couple of years were like Murphy every year. Good defensively and incredibly consistent offensively.

Most important defender on a cup winning team, a key defender in a few more. A guy who was never the best in the league at his position and arguably never even in the running for best defender. Based upon the standards for forwards I find it hard to argue Murphy shouldnt be in.

NOTENOUGHBREWER is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2010, 03:25 PM
  #43
God Bless Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bentley reunion
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,780
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mothra View Post
Gonchar was never "abysmal" in his own end.....and the reason I view Housley/Murphy around the same in that area is Murphy, for much of his early career.....was very forecheck-able and a turnover machine. It wasnt until Pit where he learned (or was coached/told) to just get rid of it. Having the forwards he had in Pit/Det made that a nice match.




Being a Washington fan from season one I know first hand his play in Washington. When you hear Cap fans "WOOP WOOP" Gonchar just know that started with Murphy.

He would have put up big numbers with most teams, yes. But to think playing with Pit/Det....those powerhouse teams didnt inflate that is a blindmans view. Of course it inflated them....

add to that, playing on those teams wins him Cups. Without Cups he isnt in. I disagree strongly that without Murphy those teams dont win (someone had said that about one of the Pit Cup teams). Yes, he played well....but as others have said, was he even a top 5 player on those teams? I cant say yes.




Green averages over 2 minutes a game on the PK....so I dont think you can just use that as a "he must have been good" arguement point. Again, just a name I thought of quickly so I'd like to avoid some long discussion about Green......I do agree that Murphy was smart....both on the ice and in general. He really seemed to learn what his limitations were and played away from them. He was in a perfect situation and did very well with that. Still doesnt make him a HoFer IMO



Im really not sure I would take Murphy over Gonchar.....and I dont see a whole lot of difference between Housley and Murphy other than situation.
If you think Gonchar was never abysmal in his own end, then you never saw Gonchar's last game. A truly putrid effort.

Pittsburgh wins the Cup in 1991 and 1992 without Murphy. Reality of hockey is that with the exception of the goalie, you should be able to take the team's best player, or even the best player in the league, out of the line-up, and they should be able to win. It's such a strong, team-oriented game where your success is based as much on your weakest link as your strongest suit. Mario won the Conn Smythe in 92, and don't get me wrong, Mario was fantastic that year. Pittsburgh still rallied to beat the Rangers in three straight without Mario. And Colorado won the Cup in 2001 even though they lost Forsberg for the final two rounds.

He still had three all-star nods and over 1,200 points, while playing fine two-way hockey, without the Cups. That's hard to ignore. He wasn't one-dimensional offence like Housley.

Playing on strong teams won him Cups. At the same time, those teams were strong, very strong, thanks in large part to Larry Murphy. He was a guy that championship teams wanted to have.

God Bless Canada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2010, 05:45 PM
  #44
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,679
vCash: 500
I got into a real good argument with some folks a few weeks ago in a poll pitting Murphy vs Suter in their primes and I took Suter without question.

For me, after watching Murphy his whole career I thought he was a very good puck moving dman, good PP QB but he was slow, very slow and a little below average defenisvely for the first half of his career.
It wasn't till he arrived in Detroit did his defensive game improve to acceptable levels under Bowman and in all honesty, it wasn't that Murphy didn't know where or how to play defense, it was mostly his poor foot speed that kept him from doing it.

Don't get me wrong here, I liked Murphy, he was what he was and while he was susceptible to being forechecked or pressured off the puck, the difference is that unlike the Housley's, Coffey's and Greens, Murphy didn't make bad plays/passes or decisions/pinches.
In other words, it was possible to take the puck away from him but he rarely gave it away on his own or made plays that would put his team in a bad position.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2010, 07:49 PM
  #45
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,867
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Don't get me wrong here, I liked Murphy, he was what he was and while he was susceptible to being forechecked or pressured off the puck, the difference is that unlike the Housley's, Coffey's and Greens, Murphy didn't make bad plays/passes or decisions/pinches.
In other words, it was possible to take the puck away from him but he rarely gave it away on his own or made plays that would put his team in a bad position.
He most certainly did.. especially when he was a #1.

The difference in Detroit was that they had defensive depth that gave him someone to play with and he was an outstanding 2-3 defenseman.

That being said for me Murphy/Suter is a tough call. Both were best when they were 2nd fiddle and that Big Mac and Suter powerplay in the late 80s with Calgary was scary.

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2010, 07:53 PM
  #46
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,679
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
He most certainly did.. especially when he was a #1.

The difference in Detroit was that they had defensive depth that gave him someone to play with and he was an outstanding 2-3 defenseman.
Let me re-phrase then...he didn't do it nearly as much as the others of his ilk

Quote:
That being said for me Murphy/Suter is a tough call. Both were best when they were 2nd fiddle and that Big Mac and Suter powerplay in the late 80s with Calgary was scary.
The poll in question was in their primes, not career and for me that was a no brainer.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2010, 08:06 PM
  #47
Mantha Poodoo
The Wheeled Winger
 
Mantha Poodoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,733
vCash: 500
tl;dr I think Murphy had enough good seasons, on enough teams, in enough years and playoffs and with high enough totals to get in on a combination of longevity, success, and talent. He wouldn't get in on any 1 or even any 2 of the 3, but all 3 taken into account, he is a low tier HoFer.

Mantha Poodoo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2010, 11:34 PM
  #48
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
 
vadim sharifijanov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,149
vCash: 500
rather than attribute murphy's success in detroit to lidstrom, i wonder what murphy's career would have looked like if the DPE never happened. i feel like when the game slowed down and guys were allowed to obstruct forecheckers, murphy's career was prolonged. he was already 35 when he was traded to the wings, slower than ever, and i think if it was today's game, he would have been run out of the league. instead, the slower pace of the game really seemed tailored to his abilities (decision making, positional play, moving the puck), while limiting his big weakness (footspeed).

without those last years in detroit, he still has two cups and 1,000 points. if it were my HOF, there wouldn't be a place for him, but i suspect that even if you take out the detroit years, he still probably makes the actual HHOF.

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2010, 02:11 AM
  #49
clefty
Crazy in the Coconut
 
clefty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Country: Fujairah
Posts: 14,887
vCash: 500
Tell you one thing about Larry Murphy, nearly every time he was traded, it was an extremely lopsided deal in favour of the team that got him.

- Traded from LA to Washington for Brian Engblom and Ken Houston
- Traded from Minnesota to Pittsburgh for Jim Johnson (and some bits and pieces)
- Traded from Pittsburgh to Toronto for Dmitri Mironov (shudder) and a 2nd round pick
- Traded from Toronto to Detroit for futures

If not for Washington getting Dino Ciccarelli for him, every one of his trades would have been heavily favored towards his new team.

clefty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2010, 03:28 AM
  #50
pluppe
Registered User
 
pluppe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 680
vCash: 500
I also think he belongs. not the greatest induction but a few people have to be the weakest ones and I think he fills that role very well.

I think his playoff success seals the deal. sure he was fortunate to play on those teams and I don´t think players should get to many bonus points for that but just as I think players who don´t win should be judged on how they performed, players who win should at least get that aswell.

and Murphy performed very vell. these are the playoffresults from 90-98.

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

Murphy is surrounded by some pretty big names (7:th overall) and leads all defenders by 19 points while being 3:rd in +/- for all players.

this together with being a very good regular season compiler I think he deserves it.

pluppe 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 05:38 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.