Best Montréal defenseman in the last 30 years

[Nicko999]

Very much so.

I didn’t say Markov sucked. Really good offensive player. And the Canadiens were an offensively challenged shallow club. And yes, if you took Markov away, the club’s offense would sink. And Subban was only 22 at the time.

And take a look what happens to Markov in 2016. 39 in 67 with Subban. Then PK got hurt. Without Subban his points sink like a stone. 5 in 15 without Subban. Markov benefited a lot more playing with Subban's than the other way around.


And Subban would put up 59 points the very next year in Nashville on an offensively challenged club. He didn’t need Markov to do that.


Sure. But he was able to finish top 3 in Norris voting without him. And in Subban’s Norris season he was played mostly with Josh Georges.

In 2016, Markov was 37 years old. No one is denying PK was an awesome so of course his total would go down.

At 37, Subban would have been retired for 5 years! Puts things into context.

Not sure how anyone can say with a straight face Markov benefited more from playing with Subban than the other way around. Markov made a career of making bottom pair D-man like all star. Sheldon Souray, Mike Komisarek, Josh Gorges. Even Mathieu Schneider at age 40 had a big jump in production in 2009. You can take a guess why.

You are mistaken. And maybe this is where the disconnect is. 64 points in Markov’s time is radically different from getting 60 points in the 2010s.

Again, how did he do va his contemporaries? Offense was way down in the 2010s. 89 points won a scoring championship back then.

Subban fared much better vs his contemporaries than Markov did. That’s why his Norris voting is much higher.

Markov was great but he doesn’t have a case against PK. By every meaningful measure Subban was a better player.

Scoring vs contemporaries: Subban
Norris finishes: Subban
Analytics: Subban
Physical play: Subban
First pass: Markov
Rushing transition: Subban
Playoff/Clutch play: Subban

Highest scoring Habs in 2015 was Patches at 67 pts.

Highest scoring Habs in 2009 was Kovalev at 65 pts.

That 2015 team had more weapons with 4 players above 50 pts.

The 2009 was pretty much Markov and Kovalev. Koivu was the 3rd scorer at 50 pts but that was it.

We'll never agree on this so I will guess we'll agree to disagree. The poll itself is telling for me.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

In 2016, Markov was 37 years old. No one is denying PK was an awesome so of course his total would go down.

At 37, Subban would have been retired for 5 years! Puts things into context.

Not sure how anyone can say with a straight face Markov benefited more from playing with Subban than the other way around. Markov made a career of making bottom pair D-man like all star. Sheldon Souray, Mike Komisarek, Josh Gorges. Even Mathieu Schneider at age 40 had a big jump in production in 2009. You can take a guess why.

We can see it in the numbers. You've said that Subban only hit 60 because of Markov. He went to Nashville and hit 59 and when he did it, Markov's numbers cratered.

You've got things backwards.

Highest scoring Habs in 2015 was Patches at 67 pts.

Highest scoring Habs in 2009 was Kovalev at 65 pts.

That 2015 team had more weapons with 4 players above 50 pts.

The 2009 was pretty much Markov and Kovalev. Koivu was the 3rd scorer at 50 pts but that was it.

Again, Scoring in the mid 2010s was the lowest the league's ever been. Using raw numbers doesn't tell you anything. Relative numbers to other blueliners does.

We'll never agree on this so I will guess we'll agree to disagree. The poll itself is telling for me.

The poll tells me a lot more about those voting than the players at hand. Either these people didn't like Subban (there were many) or they simply don't understand the game or how to measure players. This poll can be 99-1, it doesn't matter.

Subban was objectively better by almost every measure. The only problem for him was injury. That shortened his career and he didn't last. Before that he was on a HOF trajectory - blue chip. Markov was never at that level.

 

[danisonfire]

Subban was the more naturally talented player. Markov made players around him better. Markov was the best for me. Markov on the power-play was a cheat code and his defense was also top notch. He overcame his size issues and learned how to use angles and his stick to separate elite players from the puck.

 

[MXD]

Subban was never the best defenceman in the league.

He won the Norris (and rightly so) in a shortened season with a lot of powerplay production.

Even at the time, I don’t think it was widely believed that he was the best blueliner in the NHL.

Anyway, I voted for Markov.

Kristopher Letang would've won the Norris had he played, like, 3 more games.

 

[Michael Farkas]

The playoffs are only one part of it.

Subban was a better player period. Better relative numbers, better Norris placement, amazing analytics, more physical, better defensively, better earlier in his career, more clutch player.

Markov was great but one dimensional. Amazing PP, amazing transition, amazing first pass. But Subban could do all of that while being one of the best rushing blueliners in the league. And Subban could dish out punishment and clear the crease.

Subban was a shoe in for the HOF before getting hurt. Markov was never at that level.

The playoffs just reinforce what should be pretty clear: Subban was an objectively better blueliner.

The evaluation here couldn't be more opposite/backwards from mine. Also, most scouts or hockey personnel I've ever talked to about these two players.

Subban was really inefficient as a player. The flash and all that was there, but he was much more flash than substance. I don't want to sewer him too much, but he's a prototypical sucker's bet...in that if you're not sharp at evaluating talent, Subban looks incredible...but when you really look at his game, it's really not what it appears to be.

Hell, I got duped earlier on myself...

Subban was the one dimensional guy, not Markov. Markov was the guy that could do it all, Subban was the guy that could do some stuff, sometimes. Markov is the objectively (and subjectively) better player and for a longer time. Much more adaptable too. Markov played very well across multiple eras. Subban came in in DPE 2.0 and did zero outside of it to the point that he was a liability as soon as the league started to speed up again...

A somewhat recent post talk about his inefficiencies and why his decline was so sudden here: PK Subban has retired - does he make the hall of fame, and where does he rank all-time?

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

The evaluation here couldn't be more opposite/backwards from mine. Also, most scouts or hockey personnel I've ever talked to about these two players.

Subban was really inefficient as a player. The flash and all that was there, but he was much more flash than substance. I don't want to sewer him too much, but he's a prototypical sucker's bet...in that if you're not sharp at evaluating talent, Subban looks incredible...but when you really look at his game, it's really not what it appears to be.

He was one of the best defensemen in the league. The numbers, the Norris voting, the playoffs... it all backs him up.

Hell, I got duped earlier on myself...

Subban was the one dimensional guy, not Markov. Markov was the guy that could do it all, Subban was the guy that could do some stuff, sometimes. Markov is the objectively (and subjectively) better player and for a longer time. Much more adaptable too. Markov played very well across multiple eras. Subban came in in DPE 2.0 and did zero outside of it to the point that he was a liability as soon as the league started to speed up again...

If you're talking about later Subban who was banged up? Sure. But that wasn't the guy who was in Montreal. THAT guy had incredible metrics and was a gamer. He had his flaws (hotdog who held on to the puck too long sometimes and had unforced errors) but overall he was a great blueliner who played his best when it mattered.

Markov was absolutely one dimensional. He wasn't physical at all. Couldn't clear the crease at all. Wasn't great in his own end and teams would target him by dumping it into his side and then they'd smash him in the boards.

He was an excellent transition defenseman, so on that front... yes he was good defensively. He could run a power play. He didn't really rush the puck it was all passing (and that's not a bad thing but he didn't have Subban's rushing game.)

If he was great defensively, he'd have placed higher in Norris voting. He wasn't. He was one dimensional. Great offensively, mediocre defense. Transitioning was where he shined. Getting the puck of the zone is a great skill and he had it in spades. But he was not Subban. Never.

A somewhat recent post talk about his inefficiencies and why his decline was so sudden here: PK Subban has retired - does he make the hall of fame, and where does he rank all-time?

I don't think Subban's a HOF player. He had HOF talent but not a HOF career. There's a difference. He got hurt and wasn't the same at the end of his career. My comments are purely on prime. Nobody would dispute that Markov was better later on.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I'm not gonna invest in this any further. We just don't view the game the same way...or even close to the same way haha

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

I'm not gonna invest in this any further. We just don't view the game the same way...or even close to the same way haha

I view it this way:

Numbers vs contemporaries
Norris voting
Analytics
Completeness of game
Playoff performance

It’s a clean sweep for Subban.

I think people look at 60 points and think it’s not a big deal. It was back then, esp on the teams he was on. Crosby was putting up 89 points back then.

I think Markov was great. Subban doesn’t blow him away but he’s objectively, factually better.

 

[Nicko999]

The poll tells me a lot more about those voting than the players at hand. Either these people didn't like Subban (there were many) or they simply don't understand the game or how to measure players. This poll can be 99-1, it doesn't matter.

Subban was objectively better by almost every measure. The only problem for him was injury. That shortened his career and he didn't last. Before that he was on a HOF trajectory - blue chip. Markov was never at that level.

He was not. More flashy and physicality gifted for sure which is why people like you think he was better. More skilled ad well. But that doesn't mean he was better. People that understand the game will tell you Marky was better.

The poll is an indication of that. For once a correct poll on HF.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

He was not. More flashy and physicality gifted for sure which is why people like you think he was better. More skilled ad well. But that doesn't mean he was better. People that understand the game will tell you Marky was better.

The numbers don't lie. Subban is better than Markov in analytics, relative points and Norris votes. He destroys him in the playoffs.

You can argue Tie Domi is better than Gretzky. You can say 'opinion' all you wish. But at the end of the day, there's no numbers to support it.

Same here. There's really no case for Markov over Subban other than he played later into his career as an effective defenseman.

The poll is an indication of that. For once a correct poll on HF.

See my comments above.

 

[Nicko999]

The numbers don't lie. Subban is better than Markov in analytics, relative points and Norris votes. He destroys him in the playoffs.

You can argue Tie Domi is better than Gretzky. You can say 'opinion' all you wish. But at the end of the day, there's no numbers to support it.

Same here. There's really no case for Markov over Subban other than he played later into his career as an effective defenseman.

See my comments above.

Yes numbers don't lie.

Markov: 572 pts in 990 games
Subban: 467 pts in 834 games

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Yes numbers don't lie.

Markov: 572 pts in 990 games
Subban: 467 pts in 834 games

Great.

Now do relative points. How did they do vs their contemporaries in their prime?

 

[JKG33]

Weber

 

[MXD]

Weber

...Yeah, no, there's absolutely no way Weber was better than Markov as a Hab.