Doug Jarvis

[jarek]

Hi guys, hopefully easy question here! Doug Jarvis was an absolutely marvelous defensive player from what I can tell but I am very surprised at the difficulty with which it is to find out anything else about how he played the game.

Was he a good skater? Physical? Etc.

Hoping people that watched him play can shed some light.

 

[JoVel]

Played 964 regular games without missing any due to an injury. That was something. I think he missed a few playoff games though.

 

[The Pale King]

I've seen several sources describe him as an excellent face-off man.

 

[jarek]

Played 964 regular games without missing any due to an injury. That was something. I think he missed a few playoff games though.

I've seen several sources describe him as an excellent face-off man.

Thanks! These are some of the most prominent things about him, yes.

I'm looking for information about the other parts of his game. His skating, his aggressiveness, his offensive instincts, etc.

I found one source calling him gritty, but the sheer lack of information regarding that and his general lack of PIMs suggest that wasn't a prominent part of his game: http://www.notinhalloffame.com/hockey/568-60-doug-jarvis

Another source saying he had good positioning and a high level of intensity: https://books.google.ca/books?id=Sd...Q4bhDoAQgfMAE#v=onepage&q=doug jarvis&f=false

 

[Theokritos]

It's always worth checking out the Historical Resources and Source Material sticky. One of the threads linked there is called Player Intangibles - resource and contains data from NHL coaches' and players' surveys. For example:

DOUG JARVIS

Best bodychecker | 4th | 1974
Best defensive forward | 1st | 1984
Best on faceoffs | 3rd | 1976
Best on faceoffs | 2nd | 1979
Best on faceoffs | 2nd | 1981
Best on faceoffs | 2nd | 1984
Best penalty killer | 4th | 1979
Best penalty killer | 1st | 1984

Being named one of the best bodychekers in the league in 1974 would seem to confirm he was a rather physical player.

 

[jarek]

It's always worth checking out the Historical Resources and Source Material sticky. One of the threads linked there is called Player Intangibles - resource and contains data from NHL coaches' and players' surveys. For example:



Being named one of the best bodychekers in the league in 1974 would seem to confirm he was a rather physical player.

I completely forgot about that resource.

Thanks!

 

[Canadiens1958]

It's always worth checking out the Historical Resources and Source Material sticky. One of the threads linked there is called Player Intangibles - resource and contains data from NHL coaches' and players' surveys. For example:



Being named one of the best bodychekers in the league in 1974 would seem to confirm he was a rather physical player.

And sometimes it is not worth much.

Doug Jarvis entered the NHL as a rookie at the start of the 1975-76 season:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/j/jarvido01.html

1974 refers to his junior assessment and the old definition of bodychecker, ability to leverage the opposing player out of the play and create an odd man situation going the other way. Jarvis was not physical in the modern sense.

 

[jarek]

And sometimes it is not worth much.

Doug Jarvis entered the NHL as a rookie at the start of the 1975-76 season:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/j/jarvido01.html

1974 refers to his junior assessment and the old definition of bodychecker, ability to leverage the opposing player out of the play and create an odd man situation going the other way. Jarvis was not physical in the modern sense.

Great, thanks!

 

[Theokritos]

And sometimes it is not worth much.

Doug Jarvis entered the NHL as a rookie at the start of the 1975-76 season:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/j/jarvido01.html

1974 refers to his junior assessment and the old definition of bodychecker, ability to leverage the opposing player out of the play and create an odd man situation going the other way. Jarvis was not physical in the modern sense.

Now I'm glad I wrote it "would seem to confirm".

But the poll was a NHL coaches' poll and it seems very dubious a junior player who would become a NHL rookie in autumn 1975 should be mentioned in a March 1974 poll at all. So what gives? Here's the answer: it's simply a mistake made over the course of compiling the information in the thread. Here's what the original thread on the 1974 poll says:

In an article written by Frank Orr of the Toronto Star, dated March 23rd, 1974, all of the NHL coaches were asked anonymously to submit their choices in various categories given by the Toronto Star. Each NHL head coach at the time participated.

Below I have listed the winners in each category. In brackets I have put the runner-ups in order of finish. Sometimes the article lists the runner-up only. Other times it goes a few players deep.

Best Bodychecker - Barclay Plager (Bob Plager, Brian Glennie, Doug Jarrett)

Doug Jarrett, not Doug Jarvis. Glad this thread served to uncover this mistake! It's going to get fixed.

 

[double5son10]

As the coaches' poll and others have alluded to Jarvis was one of the very best of his era in the faceoff dot, right there with Clarke and Mikita. He was very much a "thinking man's" defensive player, excellent positioning, smart about playing the angles and the man and had an active stick. He could throw the odd bodycheck but he wasn't particularly big and that wasn't his game. He was a very good skater. His face-off prowess, anticipation and skating made him an outstanding penalty killer. Unfortunately, like his linemate Gainey, Jarvis couldn't score. Though he was a heads up player, he wasn't a play-maker. His shot was almost non-existent and he wasn't much of a stickhandler. He got most of his meager points off the forecheck, by forcing turnovers.

 

[jarek]

As the coaches' poll and others have alluded to Jarvis was one of the very best of his era in the faceoff dot, right there with Clarke and Mikita. He was very much a "thinking man's" defensive player, excellent positioning, smart about playing the angles and the man and had an active stick. He could throw the odd bodycheck but he wasn't particularly big and that wasn't his game. He was a very good skater. His face-off prowess, anticipation and skating made him an outstanding penalty killer. Unfortunately, like his linemate Gainey, Jarvis couldn't score. Though he was a heads up player, he wasn't a play-maker. His shot was almost non-existent and he wasn't much of a stickhandler. He got most of his meager points off the forecheck, by forcing turnovers.

This is outstanding information, thanks!

So would it be appropriate to say Jarvis was tenacious, maybe even mildly aggressive along the boards, but his size limited his effectiveness against particularly bigger players?

Obviously he wasn't a big body checker and probably didn't hit much in general, but that isn't all there is to playing physically. Playing the body hard along the boards is very important to winning pucks along the boards.

 

[jarek]

I found another article that seems to confirm that he did indeed play a gritty style of game:

http://ourhistory.canadiens.com/player/Doug-Jarvis

Although there may be some hyperbole there as he did not "light the lamp on a regular basis".

 

[Canadiens1958]

In context when compared to other Canadiens centers.

Ralph Backstrom very lite. Without the skating or offensive skills,

Easily replaced by a much better defensive center once traded to Washington. The center was Guy Carbonneau.

Somewhat similar to Tomas Plekanec. Less offensive talent, better defensively. Neither was a banger but did neither was known to shy away. Above average skater, excellent balance, on ice awareness, ability to leverage bigger players.

Basically what at that time was known as a typical Peterborough Petes center. Most effective with the Canadiens when he played with Bob Gainey and Jim Roberts, all were Peterborough Petes Alumni. New the system the proper positioning for the three forwards and executed it perfectly. Gainey was the dominant physical force - able to physically dominate transitioning/first pass defencemen yet get back to cover the dangerous opposing RW. Roberts was the hustling defensive player, first retreating winger. Jarvis was the defensive center setting the geometry and the depth of the forecheck.Neither was much of a shooter, Jarvis and Roberts had wet ammo, Gainey had an excellent shot but no accuracy.

 

[double5son10]

So would it be appropriate to say Jarvis was tenacious, maybe even mildly aggressive along the boards, but his size limited his effectiveness against particularly bigger players?

Obviously he wasn't a big body checker and probably didn't hit much in general, but that isn't all there is to playing physically. Playing the body hard along the boards is very important to winning pucks along the boards.

.

Tenacious, but smartly so. Didn't take a lot of penalties. His high in PIM in a given season was 36, in his final full year, when, due to trade he played 82 games. Jarvis had a number of seasons under 20 minutes. He wouldn't cost you. Jarvis was fine along the boards. As I said he had an active stick and was good at angling the man. Was also good with his feet for board play. And of course board play in his day wasn't quite the rugby scrum it is now. Quicker whistles.

 

[ICM1970]

I remember reading somewhere that the Leafs originally had his NHL rights until kindly H Ballard allegedly said something to the effect of "I don't want that religious kid on my team" and thus Jarvis was left unprotected and Montreal ultimately ended up signing him.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Traded

I remember reading somewhere that the Leafs originally had his NHL rights until kindly H Ballard allegedly said something to the effect of "I don't want that religious kid on my team" and thus Jarvis was left unprotected and Montreal ultimately ended up signing him.

Traded from Toronto to Montréal for Greg Hubick.

 

[ICM1970]

Traded from Toronto to Montréal for Greg Hubick.

Thanks for the reminder, I recall that being one of the more dubious trades the Leafs made back then.

 

[jarek]

In context when compared to other Canadiens centers.

Ralph Backstrom very lite. Without the skating or offensive skills,

Easily replaced by a much better defensive center once traded to Washington. The center was Guy Carbonneau.

Somewhat similar to Tomas Plekanec. Less offensive talent, better defensively. Neither was a banger but did neither was known to shy away. Above average skater, excellent balance, on ice awareness, ability to leverage bigger players.

Basically what at that time was known as a typical Peterborough Petes center. Most effective with the Canadiens when he played with Bob Gainey and Jim Roberts, all were Peterborough Petes Alumni. New the system the proper positioning for the three forwards and executed it perfectly. Gainey was the dominant physical force - able to physically dominate transitioning/first pass defencemen yet get back to cover the dangerous opposing RW. Roberts was the hustling defensive player, first retreating winger. Jarvis was the defensive center setting the geometry and the depth of the forecheck.Neither was much of a shooter, Jarvis and Roberts had wet ammo, Gainey had an excellent shot but no accuracy.

Yes, it's certainly easy to replace a defensive guy if the replacement is one of the best defensive forwards of all time.

I read that the Habs didn't really want to part with Jarvis in that trade but Washington demanded him or something along those lines.

Regardless, thanks for shedding so much light on this! Looks like we've got a pretty good read on what Jarvis was all about!

 

[TANK200]

He played a lot of games in a row.

 

[Jumptheshark]

Hi guys, hopefully easy question here! Doug Jarvis was an absolutely marvelous defensive player from what I can tell but I am very surprised at the difficulty with which it is to find out anything else about how he played the game.

Was he a good skater? Physical? Etc.

Hoping people that watched him play can shed some light.

he played in all situations and often against the other teams best players. While not overly physical he was a very smart player

 

[Hockey Outsider]

But the poll was a NHL coaches' poll and it seems very dubious a junior player who would become a NHL rookie in autumn 1975 should be mentioned in a March 1974 poll at all. So what gives? Here's the answer: it's simply a mistake made over the course of compiling the information in the thread. Here's what the original thread on the 1974 poll says:

Doug Jarrett, not Doug Jarivs. Glad this thread served to uncover this mistake! It's going to get fixed.

Hard to imagine I made that post back in 2009! Thanks for the correction.

 

[Theokritos]

Hard to imagine I made that post back in 2009! Thanks for the correction.

Just for your information: it wasn't your mistake. The error crept in when new information was edited into your post in 2012.

 

[reckoning]

Thanks for the reminder, I recall that being one of the more dubious trades the Leafs made back then.

The trade is talked about in the Todd Denault book The Greatest Game. Jarvis had also been drafted by Houston in the WHA, and the Leafs were worried he would sign there instead (likely for much more money than Ballard was offering).

Shortly after the draft, Bowman and Roger Neilson happened to be at the same hockey school. Bowman was complimenting Neilson on how well ex-Petes Bob Gainey and Craig Ramsay had turned out in the NHL, and Neilson told him that Jarvis was his most valuable player in Peterborough, and that he felt he was already better on faceoffs than anyone in the NHL. On that recommendation, Bowman suggested to Pollock that they should talk to Toronto about acquiring him.

 

[Michael Farkas]

C1958 and others that saw both...how does he compare to Claude Provost would you say...? Ignoring the positional difference, for a moment if we can...

 

[Canadiens1958]

Comparison

C1958 and others that saw both...how does he compare to Claude Provost would you say...? Ignoring the positional difference, for a moment if we can...

Provost could have played with Jarvis and been more effective than Jim Roberts.

Jarvis was a smoother skater, Provost, if you watched the 1960 SCF video had a rather unique skating style that was effective.

Provost was much more physical, yet an honest player as evidenced by some of the Bobby Hull quotes about him. Jarvis had a better appreciation of the on ice geometry, especialy from the defensive perspective. Jarvis was more integral to the PK.

Both were strong, team first players.