Let's Talk about... Larry Murphy

[Big Phil]

phil, you've said a lot about murphy's offensive numbers and doughty's offensive numbers. but what really set doughty apart was how good he was defensively. i said in another thread that he was LA's transition game, breaking up rushes and starting the counter-attack like clockwork. bourque has been thrown around as a comparison and i think that's a pretty big reach. but what '14 doughty reminded of most was '03 niedermayer.

i think '91 and '92 murphy, as far as i can remember, was very good as a puck mover. he was also really great on the PP though how much of that was playing on a high powered unit i can't say. doughty is excellent at getting shots through and holding the zone, but i don't think he was as good as murphy in terms of QBing for the other four guys on the ice. but again, how much of that was really mario directing traffic? i'm too young to remember the specifics, but as a PP guy in the QB or point guard sense, doughty isn't elite.

but defensively, i don't think murphy was in doughty's league as a guy who just separated guys from the puck with ease-- and not with brute force, just subtle angling and timing. murphy... i don't remember '91 and '92 murphy being '97 murphy defensively. i admit i was pretty young at the time, but i don't think murphy was near that level in his own end yet, and neither do i remember him playing that role on the team. in '92 at least, it was definitely the samuelssons carrying the lion's share of the defensive load, wasn't it?

i think it's been pretty clear in the last couple of weeks that doughty has become maybe my favourite player in the league to watch. and it's not the me-against-the-world rushes, it's his extraordinarily sound fundamentals. at his best, it's like watching a better ryan suter.

as for keith, yeah i think doughty is and has been better than keith.

The thing with Murphy is he did things very quietly. He is probably the best defenseman comparison to Ron Francis as a forward. Even defensively he was sound, not flashy, not overly physical either. Just a smart game all around. I'll give you an example of this. We all know Murphy was the greatest decoy of all-time in Game 3 of the 1987 Canada Cup. But how many remember that it was him who set up Gretzky to Lemieux in Game 2 as well for the winner?

Look, it's been a bit of a rollercoaster in the last few weeks. First Doughty isn't even a Norris finalist. Then he's the best defenseman in the NHL. Then he doesn't even win the Smythe. Which version is he? I like the kid, he plays in big games, but Keith is a guy who is going to win the Norris, and no one who watched the NHL regular season would disagree. But all of a sudden Keith is inferior to Doughty. Why? All that separated a great run from Keith and a great playoff run from Doughty was a weak overtime goal in Game 7. That's it. If Chicago wins that game and goes onto win the Cup we aren't even talking about Doughty as the best defenseman in the NHL. It's Keith. So I think we are getting a little too "heat of the moment" with Doughty at times. He is a fine defenseman, and for my money a future HHOFer. But Murphy WAS a HHOFer who also won Cups by doing a lot of what Doughty did, just steadier and less flashy. Maybe that's Murphy's downfall that he didn't have the flash to his game. But in my mind it doesn't hurt him either. He was responsible in every situation.

But in all honesty what is so wrong about being compared to a legit HHOFer like Murphy? Doughty supporters should be honoured in my opinion.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Uh what?

6 Norris trophies in 7 seasons is a pretty decent peak.

First off, Lidstrom does NOT win 6 Norris in 7 seasons during Murphy's peak years, not a chance!
And second, Lidstrom's legacy is based more on longevity of excellence not actual peak. There are many Dmen like Potvin, like MacInnis, like Leetch, like Coffey, like Pronger just to name a few, that would jump above Lidstrom if the criteria was peak only.

 

[CHIP72]

the "perfect storm" argument is disrespectful and dishonest. i'll give you that.

but you can't just discount hardy's point about murphy's inconsistency in the 80s. he started off gangbusters, got worse every year after until the kings gave up on him and traded him.

if we go by norris record, murphy is almost certainly third on the caps most years, behind langway and stevens.

and i don't know if it proves anything, because i didn't watch those teams, but hard not to note that the caps finally make it out of the patrick division after murphy and gartner leave and grittier guys in rouse and ciccarelli replace them.

i tend to think of murphy as the cujo of 80s/90s defensemen. below the pack of all-timers but longevity and a very solid, occasionally elite, prime puts him above everyone else.

The problem with this last paragraph (among some other things stated) is that both Murphy and Stevens were with the Caps for the exact same stretch plus an extra year for Stevens.
Second, the Caps didn't make it out of their division until 1998. Pretty much a decade after Murphy left.
Third, as you said, Murphy was the 3rd dman on that team behind Stevens and Langway. Once he was put in a first pairing role, he did quite well.

I just don't think it's as cut and dry as what's being made out. I mean neither Phil nor I are saying that Larry was better than he was, just that he wasn't as bad or as "lucky" as some are making out.

The Capitals were then promptly swept in the 1990 Wales Conference Finals by Boston, and they didn't advance to the Stanley Cup semifinals/conference finals for another 8 years after that. Additionally, 1989-90 was the Capitals' worst season in terms of regular season points between 1982-83 and 1995-96. I don't think the Capitals' 1990 season accomplishments were really all that great in the context of the team's history during that era.

Also, as was already noted, if Larry Murphy is going to be dinged for the Capitals' playoff failures in the mid-to-late 1980s, then Rod Langway and Scott Stevens (not to mention guys like Mike Gartner, Dale Hunter, and Bobby Carpenter) need to be dinged too. I don't think most people would say Langway and Stevens don't belong in the Hall of Fame because some of their teams failed in the playoffs a few times.

(Having said all of the above, it is perplexing, at least to me as a casual hockey fan, that the Caps didn't do better in the mid-to-late 1980s time frame. They did have some excellent teams in the regular season, particularly between 1983-84 and 1985-86, and had some really fine players during that time. I realize top few teams in the Patrick Division at that time were very strong, but still you'd think they would have broken through in the playoffs once or twice.)

 

[Hardyvan123]

First off, Lidstrom does NOT win 6 Norris in 7 seasons during Murphy's peak years, not a chance!
And second, Lidstrom's legacy is based more on longevity of excellence not actual peak. There are many Dmen like Potvin, like MacInnis, like Leetch, like Coffey, like Pronger just to name a few, that would jump above Lidstrom if the criteria was peak only.

Only Potvin has a 7 year peak like Lidstrom did, all of those other guys would fall short on the peak metric.

Go ahead and look it up.

The original post bringing up Lidstrom's peak to Murphy is simply ridiculous at best 6 Norris trophies in 7 years is an elite peak level.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Only Potvin has a 7 year peak like Lidstrom did, all of those other guys would fall short on the peak metric.

Go ahead and look it up.

The original post bringing up Lidstrom's peak to Murphy is simply ridiculous at best 6 Norris trophies in 7 years is an elite peak level.

In what regard?
In actual performance or because Lidstrom won 6 Norris in 7 years at the exact only time he possibly could have won them?
You would be hard pressed to show me a single season from 1984 until 1997 that you could seriously argue Lidstrom could have won the Norris over who actually did win it.
Showing me 6 Norris over that time frame or 6 in 7 years...not a chance in hell.

And performancewise, it's not just Potvin, Coffey has a higher peak, as does Leetch and MacInnis.

All I have to say is that Lidstrom won those 6 Norris in 7 years under ultimate perfect storm conditions

Either way, you can't use an argument against Murphy that can't be applied to anyone else, in this case, Lidstrom and expect it to have any credibility.

 

[Hardyvan123]

In what regard?
In actual performance or because Lidstrom won 6 Norris in 7 years at the exact only time he possibly could have won them?
You would be hard pressed to show me a single season from 1984 until 1997 that you could seriously argue Lidstrom could have won the Norris over who actually did win it.
Showing me 6 Norris over that time frame or 6 in 7 years...not a chance in hell.

Well Lidstrom would have been toddler and a teenager for most of that time period so probably not but lets deal in reality here.

6 Norris trophies in 7 years against not only the best Canadians but also every other nation providing top NHL talent. Take a look at those 6 Norris years and look at the non Canadian talent on the first and 2nd team all stars.

even if one buys the argument that part of the time period you mention has more high end defensive talent, the difference is rather small and your comp between Murphy and Lidstrom is really weak.

And performance wise, it's not just Potvin, Coffey has a higher peak, as does Leetch and MacInnis.

well that's for another thread but aside from Potvin each player has major holes in that claim.

All I have to say is that Lidstrom won those 6 Norris in 7 years under ultimate perfect storm conditions

Yes a perfect storm with all that non Canadian talent in the league...sure

Either way, you can't use an argument against Murphy that can't be applied to anyone else, in this case, Lidstrom and expect it to have any credibility.

The argument, about Murphy's peak was and is valid, about Lidstrom you could split up that 7 years in half and each 4 year period (there was a lockout so it's over 8 years ) would be HHOF worthy each having 3 straight Norris wins, not to mention some decent playoffs too.

 

[Big Phil]

6 Norris trophies in 7 years against not only the best Canadians but also every other nation providing top NHL talent. Take a look at those 6 Norris years and look at the non Canadian talent on the first and 2nd team all stars.

I think what he's trying to say is sort of throw the term back at you that you like to use around here a lot. The term is "perfect storm." Now, the NHL is the NHL. You are competing with the best players. I don't take that lightly as do few. It is never easy to win the Cup or win awards. Now, that being said, are there times where you would say there was a bit more of a lull in the competition? Yes there have been. Lidstrom won those Norrises fair and square but I think the point stands that going against a prime Bourque, Coffey, Chelios, MacInnis and Leetch would mean he has less. Heck, he lost a Norris in 1999 to MacInnis if that tells you anything. It doesn't take anything away from Lidstrom's Norris history. He won them. But it is a lot like Pierre Pilote. There was a bit of a lull for defensemen in the 1960s. At least top end ones. Harvey and Kelly were gone and Orr hadn't arrived yet. This was the time Pilote strung those Norrises together. It doesn't take anything away from him, because he was still the best d-man in the game, but in an all-time comparison it is important to note that trophy counting isn't always the be all and end all. Potvin won three during a pretty hard era to win them. Bourque "only" won 5. Coffey "only" won 3. Most people who saw Bourque and Lidstrom's careers don't hesitate to put Bourque above him. Yet if you were just blindly trophy counting you'd put Lidstrom ahead of him. Yet I think it is obvious that the number of Norris trophies for him goes down if he's in Bourque's generation.

And this was Murphy's generation too. So I am just saying that there are times when a player's Norris finishes don't always tell the whole story. They actually seemed to play better than what their finishes indicate. I think this is Murphy. Heck, Serge Savard only had one 2nd team all-star in his career.

Also, as was already noted, if Larry Murphy is going to be dinged for the Capitals' playoff failures in the mid-to-late 1980s, then Rod Langway and Scott Stevens (not to mention guys like Mike Gartner, Dale Hunter, and Bobby Carpenter) need to be dinged too. I don't think most people would say Langway and Stevens don't belong in the Hall of Fame because some of their teams failed in the playoffs a few times.

This is true. Stevens' playoff legend didn't really take off until New Jersey either. And even then I wouldn't say until 1994 or the first Cup in 1995. Three Cups in Jersey captained by Stevens will definitely take the sting off of some playoff failures in Washington and St. Louis. That being said we are judging a player by their whole career here right? Stevens may have had a so-called "perfect storm" going to New Jersey. Or did he? Or was HE part of that success? I always think its the latter in these situations. Why? Because he was integral to their success. Jersey wins 0 Cups without Stevens. Zero. Langway isn't known for carrying his team in the postseason either. Like Murphy, they were all on those failed Capitals teams. But just remember, at one point Pavel Datsyuk was criticized constantly for not being a playoff performer. He had some lowly postseasons. But since he's offset that from 2008 onwards do we hold it against him anymore? No. Let's just say he'd be an even bigger legend without those choking years, but it isn't as if he continued to be a perennial choker.

So the question begs..............without Murphy how do the Pens do? Who makes up for the 23 points in 1991? Not an injured Coffey, that's for sure. Ulf? No chance. The Pens would have had to have done something that gets done very remotely in the NHL landscape. Win a Cup without a star defenseman. So I think we should give Murphy his due instead of thinking he was just along for the ride.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

The thing with Murphy is he did things very quietly. He is probably the best defenseman comparison to Ron Francis as a forward. Even defensively he was sound, not flashy, not overly physical either. Just a smart game all around. I'll give you an example of this. We all know Murphy was the greatest decoy of all-time in Game 3 of the 1987 Canada Cup. But how many remember that it was him who set up Gretzky to Lemieux in Game 2 as well for the winner?

Look, it's been a bit of a rollercoaster in the last few weeks. First Doughty isn't even a Norris finalist. Then he's the best defenseman in the NHL. Then he doesn't even win the Smythe. Which version is he? I like the kid, he plays in big games, but Keith is a guy who is going to win the Norris, and no one who watched the NHL regular season would disagree. But all of a sudden Keith is inferior to Doughty. Why? All that separated a great run from Keith and a great playoff run from Doughty was a weak overtime goal in Game 7. That's it. If Chicago wins that game and goes onto win the Cup we aren't even talking about Doughty as the best defenseman in the NHL. It's Keith. So I think we are getting a little too "heat of the moment" with Doughty at times. He is a fine defenseman, and for my money a future HHOFer. But Murphy WAS a HHOFer who also won Cups by doing a lot of what Doughty did, just steadier and less flashy. Maybe that's Murphy's downfall that he didn't have the flash to his game. But in my mind it doesn't hurt him either. He was responsible in every situation.

But in all honesty what is so wrong about being compared to a legit HHOFer like Murphy? Doughty supporters should be honoured in my opinion.

i don't want to continue derailing this thread by talking about doughty, so this is the last i'll say about him and keith and murphy.

i agree with you that murphy was a quietly very efficient guy at his role in pittsburgh. it's just that his role wasn't, as far as i remember, simultaneously the number one puck mover and number one shutdown option. that's what doughty did. so i just don't think the comparison is a valid one.

as for keith, keith is a wonderful player. believe me, i've seen an awful lot of duncan keith and have cursed his name many many times. and for sure keith has had two complete, beginning-to-end dominant seasons, while doughty arguably hasn't had any. so yes, doughty is almost always very good but less often as excellent as keith. but when he's at the top of his game, such as the 2010 olympics, the 2012 playoffs, the 2014 olympics, and this last playoff run, among other stretches, i don't think there's a guy in the league that can do everything that he does as well as he does it all. keith is very good, but he's often too passive to be a top ten guy defensively. ryan suter would be the closest to doughty's completeness, in my opinion. i don't think it's getting caught up in the hype; i've been touting doughty since the first time i saw him play as a rookie. that kid sees the game on a level that no other d-man in the league does; even before he could impose his will on a game, you could see that he would soon.

and we can argue until the cows come home whether you'd rather have consistently-excellent-keith or less-consistent-but-almost-always-better-than-keith-when-it-counts-doughty. but that would be an even further digression. so i'll just end by saying that with all due respect to larry murphy, i think doughty has done more in his two cup runs than murphy did in his first two. that's factoring in toughness of ice time in all situations and importance to the team (and obviously, murphy isn't going to be the number one guy pittsburgh, but was he ever number two? number three?). obviously, if you weight their entire careers, murphy has a much longer resume.

 

[Big Phil]

i don't want to continue derailing this thread by talking about doughty, so this is the last i'll say about him and keith and murphy.

i agree with you that murphy was a quietly very efficient guy at his role in pittsburgh. it's just that his role wasn't, as far as i remember, simultaneously the number one puck mover and number one shutdown option. that's what doughty did. so i just don't think the comparison is a valid one.

as for keith, keith is a wonderful player. believe me, i've seen an awful lot of duncan keith and have cursed his name many many times. and for sure keith has had two complete, beginning-to-end dominant seasons, while doughty arguably hasn't had any. so yes, doughty is almost always very good but less often as excellent as keith. but when he's at the top of his game, such as the 2010 olympics, the 2012 playoffs, the 2014 olympics, and this last playoff run, among other stretches, i don't think there's a guy in the league that can do everything that he does as well as he does it all. keith is very good, but he's often too passive to be a top ten guy defensively. ryan suter would be the closest to doughty's completeness, in my opinion. i don't think it's getting caught up in the hype; i've been touting doughty since the first time i saw him play as a rookie. that kid sees the game on a level that no other d-man in the league does; even before he could impose his will on a game, you could see that he would soon.

and we can argue until the cows come home whether you'd rather have consistently-excellent-keith or less-consistent-but-almost-always-better-than-keith-when-it-counts-doughty. but that would be an even further digression. so i'll just end by saying that with all due respect to larry murphy, i think doughty has done more in his two cup runs than murphy did in his first two. that's factoring in toughness of ice time in all situations and importance to the team (and obviously, murphy isn't going to be the number one guy pittsburgh, but was he ever number two? number three?). obviously, if you weight their entire careers, murphy has a much longer resume.

Well, not with Mario of course. But it is worth noting that in two Cup runs Doughty didn't win the Conn Smythe either. I think it's fair to say it might be a little harder to penetrate the Penguins' forwards on the pecking order than the Kings' forwards. I don't know, we can go back and forth on this one, but there is no denying the importance of Murphy on those runs. He was vital. By far the Pens' best defenseman. I just brought up the Doughty comparison because like Murphy he was a two time Cup winner as a #1 d-man. Murphy did make less mistakes defensively I will say, and if Doughty can play like that more often then we aren't talking about this as a comparison anymore. It is just difficult for people to remember how Murphy was revered at one point. He was never going to stand out more than Bourque, Coffey, MacInnis or Leetch and Lidstrom was the better d-man by the time he got to Detroit. Sometimes I think he gets lost in the shuffle.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Well, not with Mario of course. But it is worth noting that in two Cup runs Doughty didn't win the Conn Smythe either. I think it's fair to say it might be a little harder to penetrate the Penguins' forwards on the pecking order than the Kings' forwards. I don't know, we can go back and forth on this one, but there is no denying the importance of Murphy on those runs. He was vital. By far the Pens' best defenseman. I just brought up the Doughty comparison because like Murphy he was a two time Cup winner as a #1 d-man. Murphy did make less mistakes defensively I will say, and if Doughty can play like that more often then we aren't talking about this as a comparison anymore. It is just difficult for people to remember how Murphy was revered at one point. He was never going to stand out more than Bourque, Coffey, MacInnis or Leetch and Lidstrom was the better d-man by the time he got to Detroit. Sometimes I think he gets lost in the shuffle.

Phil you are making too much of Murphy being the #1 dman on those 2 SC teams, we have plenty of evidence, ie his past before Pittsburg were his teams and Murphy really didn't do all that well in the playoffs.

Pittsburgh gave up very little for Murphy which kind of indicates his actual value at the time (to be fair he was better than his trade value though).

And sure he doesn't stand out in his era because he wasn't great just very good.

The comparison to Doughty stops after both of them are the #1 Dman on 2 SC winning teams though.

Doughty to the same age as Murphy has been the better Dman, heck even his career so far (overall) he has been better than Murphy at his peak IMO.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

i don't want to continue derailing this thread by talking about doughty, so this is the last i'll say about him and keith and murphy.

i agree with you that murphy was a quietly very efficient guy at his role in pittsburgh. it's just that his role wasn't, as far as i remember, simultaneously the number one puck mover and number one shutdown option. that's what doughty did. so i just don't think the comparison is a valid one.

as for keith, keith is a wonderful player. believe me, i've seen an awful lot of duncan keith and have cursed his name many many times. and for sure keith has had two complete, beginning-to-end dominant seasons, while doughty arguably hasn't had any. so yes, doughty is almost always very good but less often as excellent as keith. but when he's at the top of his game, such as the 2010 olympics, the 2012 playoffs, the 2014 olympics, and this last playoff run, among other stretches, i don't think there's a guy in the league that can do everything that he does as well as he does it all. keith is very good, but he's often too passive to be a top ten guy defensively. ryan suter would be the closest to doughty's completeness, in my opinion. i don't think it's getting caught up in the hype; i've been touting doughty since the first time i saw him play as a rookie. that kid sees the game on a level that no other d-man in the league does; even before he could impose his will on a game, you could see that he would soon.

and we can argue until the cows come home whether you'd rather have consistently-excellent-keith or less-consistent-but-almost-always-better-than-keith-when-it-counts-doughty. but that would be an even further digression. so i'll just end by saying that with all due respect to larry murphy, i think doughty has done more in his two cup runs than murphy did in his first two. that's factoring in toughness of ice time in all situations and importance to the team (and obviously, murphy isn't going to be the number one guy pittsburgh, but was he ever number two? number three?). obviously, if you weight their entire careers, murphy has a much longer resume.

The only thing I'll say on Doughty this thread - I agree with Big Phil that the hype is ridiculous and really largely dependent on Crawford letting in a fairly weak goal in OT. Nobody hypes him so much if his team doesn't make the finals.

That said, I agree with you that he was more important to his Cup winning teams than Larry Murphy was to any of his.

I agree that Murphy was the "#1" on those Pittsburgh teams (actually, Paul Coffey was really their #1 for the first Cup when healthy), but it was somewhat by default. And yes, Ulf Samuelsson took the toughest defensive assignments.

But perhaps, most importantly, while Murphy was probably the most important defenseman on the team, where did he stack up among the players? Mario was obviously first, and enough clips were posted about Barrasso at the time to make him an easy second. Then you have to think Ron Francis and Kevin Stevens were above Murphy. He was an important contributor, no doubt, but he wasn't in the conversation for the Conn Smythe at all, nor would he have been in the conversation for "best other than Mario."

 

[Big Phil]

The only thing I'll say on Doughty this thread - I agree with Big Phil that the hype is ridiculous and really largely dependent on Crawford letting in a fairly weak goal in OT. Nobody hypes him so much if his team doesn't make the finals.

That said, I agree with you that he was more important to his Cup winning teams than Larry Murphy was to any of his.

I agree that Murphy was the "#1" on those Pittsburgh teams (actually, Paul Coffey was really their #1 for the first Cup when healthy), but it was somewhat by default. And yes, Ulf Samuelsson took the toughest defensive assignments.

But perhaps, most importantly, while Murphy was probably the most important defenseman on the team, where did he stack up among the players? Mario was obviously first, and enough clips were posted about Barrasso at the time to make him an easy second. Then you have to think Ron Francis and Kevin Stevens were above Murphy. He was an important contributor, no doubt, but he wasn't in the conversation for the Conn Smythe at all, nor would he have been in the conversation for "best other than Mario."

Phil you are making too much of Murphy being the #1 dman on those 2 SC teams, we have plenty of evidence, ie his past before Pittsburg were his teams and Murphy really didn't do all that well in the playoffs.

Pittsburgh gave up very little for Murphy which kind of indicates his actual value at the time (to be fair he was better than his trade value though).

And sure he doesn't stand out in his era because he wasn't great just very good.

The comparison to Doughty stops after both of them are the #1 Dman on 2 SC winning teams though.

Doughty to the same age as Murphy has been the better Dman, heck even his career so far (overall) he has been better than Murphy at his peak IMO.

I honestly don't remember a whimper from anyone in 2004 when he was inducted in the HHOF first ballot. Isn't a lot of this stuff revisionist history? No, he did not have the same career or peak as Bourque, Coffey, Leetch, Stevens, MacInnis or Chelios. But you can't tell me that someone like Leetch or Stevens is the cut off from that era can you? There is some middle ground, there are players ahead of the non-HHOFers but still behind these ones. Howe, Langway come to mind. To me, Murphy is ahead of the Wilson/Housley type of crew.

Never mind Doughty at the same age, it is clear to me he is ahead of Murphy at that time. The comparison was just that he wasn't THAT much more important than Murphy on those Cup winning teams. No disrespect to the L.A. Kings, but I'm pretty sure we can agree those teams were deeper and harder to stand out than with L.A., no?