How did Rod Langway win the Norris trophy?

[TANK200]

I have always found it hard to understand how Rod Langway won the Norris trophy in 1983 and 1984, particularly the latter.

In 1982-83, Langway had a total of 32 points and a +/- rating of 0. What was it that made the voters decide that such a clearly one-dimensional player was better than Mark Howe in that season (67 points, +47)? Or even Potvin, Bourque (73 points, +49) or Coffey? Three of the players I mentioned clearly outperformed Langway offensively, and were certainly not considered poor in their own end of the rink. The other, Paul Coffey, tallied 96 points that year.

Same idea in 1983-84. Langway had 35 points and was a +14. That season, Coffey tallied 126 points including 40 goals: by far the most since Orr. Bourque was no slouch himself, scoring 96 points and recording a +/- of 51. Again, Potvin could be thrown into the mix, as he recorded 85 points and a +55.

Some of the players that Langway was beating out for his Norris trophies were far superior to him offensively and also had reputations for being outstanding defensive players. What was it that happenned in these years. Did members of the media all blindly jump on the bandwagon when they saw that the Capitals as a team improved greatly after Langway's arrival? Were they on some sort of crazy drugs? Perhaps both?

Your thoughts...

 

[re5piration]

Five words: Defense.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

He never should have won either award.

 

[BM67]

In 82-83 Montreal gave up 63 more GA than the year before, when they had Langway, and Washington gave up 55 fewer than the year before while improving 29 points in the standings and making the playoffs for the first time in franchise history.

He also received far more Hart votes than any other defensemen both years.

 

[MXD]

In 82-83 Montreal gave up 63 more GA than the year before, when they had Langway, and Washington gave up 55 fewer than the year before while improving 29 points in the standings and making the playoffs for the first time in franchise history.

He also received far more Hart votes than any other defensemen both years.

While Langway's loss was probably extremely bad the Habs, one has to remember that the Habs had two journeyman goalies who never really that consistent.

 

[Dark Shadows]

He was a level above and beyond just about everyone at the time defensively. He was not only a norris winner, but a Hart Runner up to Gretzky as well.

In 1982-83

His presence on that Bottom feeding Washington team turned them into a solid playoff team. Their goaltending was subpar(Both were sent into obscurity outside of their years with Langway in front of them)

Their defense corps outside of Langway/Engblom was weak.

Engblom was also solid, but nowhere near as effective as Langway and Scott Stevens in his first year was nothing special outside of being a physical big hitter who was decent on both ends, but often put himself out of position going for the big hit. He improved much the next year, but was still not the Norris candidate he later became.

Timo Blomqvist was a nobody in the NHL. Randy Holt was a bruiser, not a defenseman. Greg Theberge was a minor leaguer given a shot because they had few puck movers.

You really had to see Langway in his prime. I have been unsuccessful at copying to Digital and uploading some of my Capitals games from that era. But Langway was a beast. He attacked like a wild man and had size and reach and stickwork that made offensive players pull their hair out in frustration. He was also a great leader who demanded excellence from himself and all others around him....or else.

He was 90% responsible for the sudden turnaround in Washington. Engblom and Jarvis also were a big help, but Langway was the key and it was visible for all to see if you saw that team before and after he was there and just how dominant defensively he was.

1983-84 I believe Langway did not deserve it(Although he deserved to be a finalist). Runner up Coffey also did not deserve it. Bourque deserved it that year.

Another thing to remember is how much the media was yapping about "old time" defensemen not winning the award anymore, and how instead of being given to great defensive players, its being given to great offensive D players.

Much like the Yapping going on regarding "Defensemen not getting hart consideration anymore" the year Pronger won it.

 

[TANK200]

In 82-83 Montreal gave up 63 more GA than the year before, when they had Langway, and Washington gave up 55 fewer than the year before while improving 29 points in the standings and making the playoffs for the first time in franchise history.

He also received far more Hart votes than any other defensemen both years.

Those are the statistics that are always brought up when discussing Langway, and while remarkable, they need to be viewed in context. In the same trade that sent Langway from Montreal to Washington, Doug Jarvis and Brian Engblom were also shipped to the Capitals. As Thornton_19 mentioned, Langway and Engblom were the two key defensemen on that Washington team. Doug Jarvis was one of the best defensive forwards in the league, and was recognized with a Selke trophy in his second year in Washington. Significant changes in goals against totals could only be expected when three very solid defensive players are shipped from one team to another.

In addition to these three players, Scott Stevens also began his career in the 1982-82 season. Although unremarkable in his first couple of seasons, he was still an upgrade over what little there was on the team before. Furthermore, Bryan Murray was hired as the Capitals coach starting in 1982-83, and won the Jack Adams award in 1984.

In summary, while Langway was without question an outstanding defensive defenseman, he cannot be given all the credit for the dramatic changes in goals against totals for the Canadiens and the Capitals. I find that he often is given too much credit, and believe that this is the most likely reason for him winning either trophy.




Also Thornton_19,

I agree that Langway was undoubtably the best defensive player in the league at the time, but I don't think that the difference between him and the rest of the field was large enough to overcome the offensive upside of some other very good defensemen in Bourque and Potvin. I would say that him being a second team all-star in either season would have been very reasonable, but cannot see how he could have been awared the Norris trophy in either.

 

[Canadiens1958]

With Langway

While Langway's loss was probably extremely bad the Habs, one has to remember that the Habs had two journeyman goalies who never really that consistent.

They had journeymen goalies the last year Langway was with Montreal.

 

[Canadiens1958]

The Full Picture

Those are the statistics that are always brought up when discussing Langway, and while remarkable, they need to be viewed in context. In the same trade that sent Langway from Montreal to Washington, Doug Jarvis and Brian Engblom were also shipped to the Capitals. As Thornton_19 mentioned, Langway and Engblom were the two key defensemen on that Washington team. Doug Jarvis was one of the best defensive forwards in the league, and was recognized with a Selke trophy in his second year in Washington. Significant changes in goals against totals could only be expected when three very solid defensive players are shipped from one team to another.

In addition to these three players, Scott Stevens also began his career in the 1982-82 season. Although unremarkable in his first couple of seasons, he was still an upgrade over what little there was on the team before. Furthermore, Bryan Murray was hired as the Capitals coach starting in 1982-83, and won the Jack Adams award in 1984.

In summary, while Langway was without question an outstanding defensive defenseman, he cannot be given all the credit for the dramatic changes in goals against totals for the Canadiens and the Capitals. I find that he often is given too much credit, and believe that this is the most likely reason for him winning either trophy.




Also Thornton_19,

I agree that Langway was undoubtably the best defensive player in the league at the time, but I don't think that the difference between him and the rest of the field was large enough to overcome the offensive upside of some other very good defensemen in Bourque and Potvin. I would say that him being a second team all-star in either season would have been very reasonable, but cannot see how he could have been awared the Norris trophy in either.

The Canadiens received Rick Green and Ryan Walter in return - two underrated players who were very responsible defensively and contributed to the 1986 Stanley Cup victory. Also a young Guy Carbonneau who replaced Doug Jarvis on the checking line was ready.The Gainey/Carbonneau/Nilan line was a solid contributor as well.

Langway won the Norris trophy both years because of the perception that he was a greater difference maker on the Caps than Potvin, Bourque, Coffey were on their respective teams. He made the players around him significantly better. Another way of looking at the issue is that the addition of Langway MADE Washington a difficult team to play against.

 

[Big Phil]

Langway was good those two years and it's a perfect example of how stats aren't the whole picture. It's how you play the game as well.

That being said there is a school of thought that in '81 and '82 the voters went out of their way to pick a defenseman who was high scoring (Carlyle, Wilson) while doing the complete opposite the next two years with Langway. So while I hate to take anything away from those defenseman there are clearly some others who arguably should have won it ahead of them. Potvin in '81 was robbed of the Norris. Bourque might have been your best bet in '84 not Coffey despite popular opinion. You see the same thing with the Selke once in a while too. The voters become jaded and like to swing in one direction and then do a 180 the next year.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Carlyle and Wilson

Langway was good those two years and it's a perfect example of how stats aren't the whole picture. It's how you play the game as well.

That being said there is a school of thought that in '81 and '82 the voters went out of their way to pick a defenseman who was high scoring (Carlyle, Wilson) while doing the complete opposite the next two years with Langway. So while I hate to take anything away from those defenseman there are clearly some others who arguably should have won it ahead of them. Potvin in '81 was robbed of the Norris. Bourque might have been your best bet in '84 not Coffey despite popular opinion. You see the same thing with the Selke once in a while too. The voters become jaded and like to swing in one direction and then do a 180 the next year.

Both Randy Carlyle and Doug Wilson won the Norris for seasons where they had career years offensively and defensively that they were unable to sustain over many seasons.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

In 82-83 Montreal gave up 63 more GA than the year before, when they had Langway, and Washington gave up 55 fewer than the year before while improving 29 points in the standings and making the playoffs for the first time in franchise history.

Interesting. Did not know that.

 

[MXD]

They had journeymen goalies the last year Langway was with Montreal.

That's why I mentionned something about consistency.

 

[lextune]

How did Rod Langway win the Norris trophy?

He played defense.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I have always found it hard to understand how Rod Langway won the Norris trophy in 1983 and 1984, particularly the latter.

In 1982-83, Langway had a total of 32 points and a +/- rating of 0. What was it that made the voters decide that such a clearly one-dimensional player was better than Mark Howe in that season (67 points, +47)? Or even Potvin, Bourque (73 points, +49) or Coffey? Three of the players I mentioned clearly outperformed Langway offensively, and were certainly not considered poor in their own end of the rink. The other, Paul Coffey, tallied 96 points that year.

Same idea in 1983-84. Langway had 35 points and was a +14. That season, Coffey tallied 126 points including 40 goals: by far the most since Orr. Bourque was no slouch himself, scoring 96 points and recording a +/- of 51. Again, Potvin could be thrown into the mix, as he recorded 85 points and a +55.

Some of the players that Langway was beating out for his Norris trophies were far superior to him offensively and also had reputations for being outstanding defensive players. What was it that happenned in these years. Did members of the media all blindly jump on the bandwagon when they saw that the Capitals as a team improved greatly after Langway's arrival? Were they on some sort of crazy drugs? Perhaps both?

Your thoughts...

The voters saw him play.

As I recall there wasn't a lot of controversy over him winning either. To me he was the only non-goalie to dominate a game from the defensive end. In those years it seemed like he played about 40 minutes a night.

 

[overpass]

Those are the statistics that are always brought up when discussing Langway, and while remarkable, they need to be viewed in context. In the same trade that sent Langway from Montreal to Washington, Doug Jarvis and Brian Engblom were also shipped to the Capitals. As Thornton_19 mentioned, Langway and Engblom were the two key defensemen on that Washington team. Doug Jarvis was one of the best defensive forwards in the league, and was recognized with a Selke trophy in his second year in Washington. Significant changes in goals against totals could only be expected when three very solid defensive players are shipped from one team to another.

In addition to these three players, Scott Stevens also began his career in the 1982-82 season. Although unremarkable in his first couple of seasons, he was still an upgrade over what little there was on the team before. Furthermore, Bryan Murray was hired as the Capitals coach starting in 1982-83, and won the Jack Adams award in 1984.

In summary, while Langway was without question an outstanding defensive defenseman, he cannot be given all the credit for the dramatic changes in goals against totals for the Canadiens and the Capitals. I find that he often is given too much credit, and believe that this is the most likely reason for him winning either trophy.

I ran some numbers to compare Washington before Langway arrived and after. They seem to fit here, so I'll post them.

I'll compare Washington's numbers in the 2 year period before Langway arrived to the 2 year period after Langway arrived. Rick Green was the Capitals #1 defenceman before Langway arrived, played a similar defensive role, and left in the trade, so I'll compare Green's numbers to Langway's.

Washington in 1980-81 and 1981-82

Player | ESGF | ESGA | +/- | Ratio
Rick Green | 146 | 172 | -26 | 0.85
NoGreen | 276 | 308 | -32 | 0.90

Washington in 1982-83 and 1983-84

Player | ESGF | ESGA | +/- | Ratio
Rod Langway | 187 | 175 | 12 | 1.07
NoLangway | 266 | 200 | 67 | 1.33

Langway's on-ice numbers are better than Green's. His +/- was higher by 38 over 2 years. However, the team improved to an even greater degree with their #1 defenceman off the ice. There are two possible reasons for this improvement.

A: The forwards and goalie were responsible for the improvement, and Langway's apparent advantage over Green is an illusion.

B: The rest of the defence corps improved to the same degree that Langway improved over Green.

Given Langway's reputation, I'd guess that the second reason explains most of the off-ice improvement. Even so, most of Washington's improvement at even strength took place with the rest of their defence corps on the ice, not from Langway.

One area that Langway certainly improved was the penalty kill. In the two years before he arrived, the Caps allowed 150 PPGA. In his first two years in Washington, they allowed 92 PPGA. This is a huge impact, and clearly Langway's defensive ability shone through in a purely defensive situation.

On the other hand, I think his overall impact is overrated. He was better than Green at even-strength, but not by a huge amount. This may be because his offensive game cost his team goals, even as his defensive game prevented the other team from scoring. While he was very highly regarded at the time, it's possible that his average offensive skills weren't given proper weight by observers alongside his great defensive play. I agree with TANK200; Langway's impact is overrated and he should have been a 2nd team all-star at best.

Edit: fixed Langway's off-ice numbers

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

It's worth noting that Langway would have drawn the toughest assignments night in and night out.

 

[overpass]

It's worth noting that Langway would have drawn the toughest assignments night in and night out.

Yes, I agree. That's an important point to note when analyzing on-ice numbers, and that's why I compared him to Green in my analysis above. My assumption was that Green played the role that Langway later filled: a #1 defenceman who plays against the opponents best players, is on the ice for big defensive zone draws, etc.

It's very possible that Langway faced tougher competition, but when you're talking about two players who each play the same role and play 25-30 minutes a night, it's unlikely that it's a big difference.

I'll add that Green was on the ice for 2.44 even-strength goals per game, and Langway was on the ice for 2.26 even-strength goals per game in these time periods. That suggests that the ice time they played wasn't too different, even allowing for Langway being better defensively and possibly worse offensively.

Given the numbers, I simply can't see how Langway could have been a difference maker at even-strength in the class of a Ray Bourque, Mark Howe, or Paul Coffey. Even if he made a huge difference on the penalty kill, the other three likely matched those contributions on the power play while also killing penalties. He was an excellent defensive defenceman, yes, but not the best in overall impact.

 

[TheMistyStranger]

This sort of thing really makes me wish there were separate awards for best defensive defenseman and best offensive defenseman.