Let's Talk about... Larry Murphy

[The Panther]

I don't really think Murphy had "lousy" years in the 80s just because his stats fell down a couple of times. L.A. was a high-scoring team in the highest-scoring division (Smythe) and when he went to Washington he joined one of the lowest-scoring, most defence-first teams. It's only natural that his stats would reflect this. Maybe that first year in Washington was an off-year, but he quickly bounced back. In fact, in 1987, Murphy had 81 points and led the Capitals in scoring (this, when Gretzky had 183 points a year after having 215).

It's probably more illustrative to compare how Murphy did offensively within his own team to how another player (Housley) did.

But again, I think the key matter is that a player like Murphy was very effective even when he wasn't scoring. Whereas I don't think a player like Housley was.


But I agree with you about one thing -- I don't really understand why Murphy was traded several times. Perhaps he didn't get along easily with coaches...?

 

[Big Phil]

He was a guy who from a stylistic standpoint didn't stand out. But one skill he had was the ability to keep pucks in the offensive zone. Whether that was along the boards or batting them out of the air. It was based on his great hockey sense in my mind. He could see the ice well and had to because he wasn't a fast skater, but he was at least good enough from an operational standpoint, in other words, it never seemed to hold him back. Murphy was rarely out of position.

Also, one thing people say is that "Well, he's in the HHOF because of his 4 Cups". As if that's a bad thing anyway, but the truth is this is false. If he retired after the 1996 season and had two Cups in Pittsburgh to his name, even without the 5 years in Detroit he would be in the HHOF. Can you imagine if Murphy had a career from 1980-'96 and hadn't been inducted yet? He'd routinely be mentioned on here and it would be pretty universal that he should get in.

 

[Hardyvan123]

If you were to ask me who had a better shot from the point? Crisper accurate pillow soft tape to tape pass, skating, I would vote Lidstrom.

Pretty much this , although as you allude to in the next quote Muphy's strength was that he knew his strengths and weaknesses and didn't try to over extend himself.

However, Murphy had a good understanding of his strengths and weaknesses and played exactly the same sort of smart game in Detroit. The people you are passing to matter a lot in the transition game and that style was perfect for Detroit and its loaded two way forwards.

Exactly this and I think it's pretty clear that both the Pens and Wings benefited Murphy's legacy than the other way around, especially in the playoffs.

We have a very large body of work for Murphy up until his trade to the Pens, 10 seasons and 9 playoff years where he looked average at best.

Pretty sure that if one had asked Muphy's HHOF chances at that point there would have been a resounding not bloody likely.

We can debate at that point if Housely had a better shot, he probably did at that point but that's besides the matter here.

the thing is that with those Pens and wings team, they were simply loaded even before Murphy came on board and those teams were simply great enough to overcome a large role played by Murphy in terms of TOI with his passing and offensive talent.

We have a between year were he was the man in Toronto and he fails miserably without elite support.

If he is going to downgrade Murphy's performance because of how stacked the team was, then he has to apply the same measure to Lidstrom. Time and time again, he has detracted from Ray Bourque, who often lead his team in scoring, in favor of Lidstrom and refused to knowledge supporting cast played a role in Lidstrom's supporting offense game. Yet when Murphy comes up(Who played the same type of game), it is the first thing he does?

The thing is that Detroit was a mess before Lidstrom came on board.

Yes there were other players who contributed to the success of the Wings in the 90's and 00's but Lidstrom was a rock on the back end there and we all know how great he was in Norris voting and top Dmen scoring finishes ect... and the playoffs through his career.

What that has to do with Murphy is beyond me as it's pretty clear how his playoff scoring goes through the roof and stamps his ticket into the HHOF with the Pens and Wings.

There is little to no chance that he makes the HHOF without those 2 trades, Bourque despite lack of playoff success is probably a lock for the HHOF by the late 80's.

Lidstrom is well on track by the late 90's as well.

 

[Big Phil]

Exactly this and I think it's pretty clear that both the Pens and Wings benefited Murphy's legacy than the other way around, especially in the playoffs.

We have a very large body of work for Murphy up until his trade to the Pens, 10 seasons and 9 playoff years where he looked average at best.

Pretty sure that if one had asked Muphy's HHOF chances at that point there would have been a resounding not bloody likely.

In 2003 you wouldn't have thought Niedermayer gets in the HHOF either. Of all the positions, defensemen have the ability to age the best, I think. Murphy certainly did. So what if Murphy didn't have a great playoff run until 1991. I thought we are to judge the players on their WHOLE career. Ron Francis certainly did not stand out in the playoffs the 10 years in Hartford before the Pittsburgh trade. You'd never convince anyone he isn't a HHOFer, rightly so.

I just don't understand this though, Murphy had 23 points in 1991 with the Pens. The last two critical rounds with Boston and Minnesota (both times they were losing in the series) Murphy has a combined 18 points those two rounds. I'd like you to address how in the world Murphy wasn't a staple on those teams after that. Drew Doughty had 18 points in the entire 2014 playoffs. Murphy had them in the last two rounds. Scoring was higher in 1991 and blah, blah, blah, but even adjusting for it that is pretty incredible when the chips are down. They relied on him and he delivered. And even Ray Bourque would have taken a back seat to Mario Lemieux on those Pens teams.

So this idea that he just sort of got lucky is a load. He capitalized on a great opportunity. How many times have teams underacheived? Lots. You can't say that Larry Murphy should have won more Cups though. He won plenty.

We have a between year were he was the man in Toronto and he fails miserably without elite support.

Oh man, that was a year and a half. I'm a Leaf fan and even I think it was a disgrace that he was booed out of town. This was a dark time for Toronto fans as well. If we're going to judge him from a year and a half from his career when he was 36 years old I think it is out of line. Even so, one full year in Toronto in 1995-'96 he had 61 points. 1996-'97 he was traded to Detroit after 69 games and 39 points. That says a lot about Murphy that the worst part of his career is when he had 100 points for a team in under two seasons, isn't it?

 

[Hardyvan123]

In 2003 you wouldn't have thought Niedermayer gets in the HHOF either. Of all the positions, defensemen have the ability to age the best, I think. Murphy certainly did.

well after 03, his case was alot better with leading the SC devils in playoff scoring, than Murphy's at the same stage one would think, no where near a lock but HHOF loves playoff guys

So what if Murphy didn't have a great playoff run until 1991. I thought we are to judge the players on their WHOLE career. Ron Francis certainly did not stand out in the playoffs the 10 years in Hartford before the Pittsburgh trade. You'd never convince anyone he isn't a HHOFer, rightly so.

Well it matters, Murphy was basically Phil Housley like in the playoffs until he hits the Pens. Francis probably is hurt with his HHOF chances as he was the best player on a poor team but the Pens gave up a lot more to get Francis than they did Murphy, which tells you something about each players worth at the time.

I just don't understand this though, Murphy had 23 points in 1991 with the Pens. The last two critical rounds with Boston and Minnesota (both times they were losing in the series) Murphy has a combined 18 points those two rounds. I'd like you to address how in the world Murphy wasn't a staple on those teams after that.

In a word Mario, it's not hard concept.

Drew Doughty had 18 points in the entire 2014 playoffs. Murphy had them in the last two rounds. Scoring was higher in 1991 and blah, blah, blah, but even adjusting for it that is pretty incredible when the chips are down. They relied on him and he delivered. And even Ray Bourque would have taken a back seat to Mario Lemieux on those Pens teams.

sure Murphy had those points, thanks to Mario and the high flying Pens offense but seriously do you even remotely think he is in the same conversation as doughty (who has 2 Conn Smythe worthy seasons in the playoffs, even this last poor one at only 18 points)

So this idea that he just sort of got lucky is a load. He capitalized on a great opportunity. How many times have teams underacheived? Lots. You can't say that Larry Murphy should have won more Cups though. He won plenty.

Actually we have a huge amount of data that leans towards the idea that indeed he was lucky to get his 2 stints in Pittsburgh and with the Wings.

We have his entire career before the Pens, were he isn't anywhere close to a HHOF track and then the 2 years with the Leafs.

Think about this as well, the Wings gave up "future considerations" for Murphy from the Leafs.

The Pens gave up 2 throw in guys to get Murphy and another guy as well.

we know what Murphy did with these 2 perfect storm opportunities and he rightly so is in the HHOF (perhaps as a cutoff guy as mentioned before) but seriously if he doesn't basically get cut adrift for nothing by the Stars and Leafs he needs a ticket to get into the HHOF.

Oh man, that was a year and a half. I'm a Leaf fan and even I think it was a disgrace that he was booed out of town. This was a dark time for Toronto fans as well. If we're going to judge him from a year and a half from his career when he was 36 years old I think it is out of line. Even so, one full year in Toronto in 1995-'96 he had 61 points. 1996-'97 he was traded to Detroit after 69 games and 39 points. That says a lot about Murphy that the worst part of his career is when he had 100 points for a team in under two seasons, isn't it?

His playoffs for the Leafs that year was horrible and the Leafs basically let him go for nothing.

His time in the center of the universe was much like all of his career outside of the elite talent stops in Detroit and Pittsburg.

a very capable but limited guy in some senses who put up very good points (alot for Dmen were scoring very well back then too) and does very poorly in 10 post seasons aside from Detroit and Pittsburgh and for 4 different teams.

 

[Rhiessan71]

well after 03, his case was alot better with leading the SC devils in playoff scoring, than Murphy's at the same stage one would think, no where near a lock but HHOF loves playoff guys



Well it matters, Murphy was basically Phil Housley like in the playoffs until he hits the Pens. Francis probably is hurt with his HHOF chances as he was the best player on a poor team but the Pens gave up a lot more to get Francis than they did Murphy, which tells you something about each players worth at the time.



In a word Mario, it's not hard concept.




sure Murphy had those points, thanks to Mario and the high flying Pens offense but seriously do you even remotely think he is in the same conversation as doughty (who has 2 Conn Smythe worthy seasons in the playoffs, even this last poor one at only 18 points)



Actually we have a huge amount of data that leans towards the idea that indeed he was lucky to get his 2 stints in Pittsburgh and with the Wings.

We have his entire career before the Pens, were he isn't anywhere close to a HHOF track and then the 2 years with the Leafs.

Think about this as well, the Wings gave up "future considerations" for Murphy from the Leafs.

The Pens gave up 2 throw in guys to get Murphy and another guy as well.

we know what Murphy did with these 2 perfect storm opportunities and he rightly so is in the HHOF (perhaps as a cutoff guy as mentioned before) but seriously if he doesn't basically get cut adrift for nothing by the Stars and Leafs he needs a ticket to get into the HHOF.





His playoffs for the Leafs that year was horrible and the Leafs basically let him go for nothing.

His time in the center of the universe was much like all of his career outside of the elite talent stops in Detroit and Pittsburg.

a very capable but limited guy in some senses who put up very good points (alot for Dmen were scoring very well back then too) and does very poorly in 10 post seasons aside from Detroit and Pittsburgh and for 4 different teams.

Naw, Phil is right on the nose here. Murphy was one of the best ever at holding the zone. He had a great first pass and he played smart in both ends of the ice. The only disadvantage he had was his terrible foot speed.

And seriously Hardy...yet another perfect storm?
Whats that, like the 6th player now that you have cited as benefitting from a perfect storm?
C'mon now.

 

[Big Phil]

well after 03, his case was alot better with leading the SC devils in playoff scoring, than Murphy's at the same stage one would think, no where near a lock but HHOF loves playoff guys

Niedermayer at the end of 2003 had eleven seasons in the NHL just like Murphy after 1991. Murphy had that run in 1991. Niedermayer in 2003. Both had one second team all-star. Both were staples for Canada in major international tournaments. Murphy is picked on Team Canada 1987 and 1991. In 1987 we all know the defensemen that got cut. I would say Murphy was at least revered enough at that time to be on that team. Finished 3rd in Norris Voting in 1987. Finished 7th in 1980. Lots of work to do for sure but this was before his Cups.

Well it matters, Murphy was basically Phil Housley like in the playoffs until he hits the Pens. Francis probably is hurt with his HHOF chances as he was the best player on a poor team but the Pens gave up a lot more to get Francis than they did Murphy, which tells you something about each players worth at the time.

In a word Mario, it's not hard concept.

So why even bother giving anyone else credit if Mario is on the team then? Or in this case was it ALL Gretzky on the Oilers and was Coffey just an afterthought or was he a key part of that team? There were a lot of good players on those Pens teams. Lots. Because Mario was better and more important than all of them is insignificant. What is more important is how said player contributed to the team winning. No one can deny Murphy was vital on those 4 teams. I saw it. Most of us did. I guess the question can be asked is whether or not the Pens even win in 1991 without him. Coffey goes down to injury. This leaves the Pens with no legit #1 defenseman after Murphy. Historically it would surprise you how many Cup winning teams win a Cup without a #1 defenseman. Barely any. The 2006 Canes are the last one I can think of. You might need to go all the way back to the Flyers in 1975 for this one. So historically, the Pens NEEDED Murphy badly. And he certainly delivered.

sure Murphy had those points, thanks to Mario and the high flying Pens offense but seriously do you even remotely think he is in the same conversation as doughty (who has 2 Conn Smythe worthy seasons in the playoffs, even this last poor one at only 18 points)

I'm just giving you an example of how important he was. But in those back to back Cups wins in Pittsburgh, you could argue Murphy was at the same caliber as Doughty today. Heck, don't tell me you got caught up in the whole media love-in for Doughty as the "best player in the world". A great defenseman for sure, but he stood out the way Murphy did for Pittsburgh. I mean, 4 Cups by Murphy, three of them he leads the postseason in +/-. Eventually it just isn't a coincidence anymore. And it ties into what I saw with my eyes back then which was great two-way play by him.

This whole "perfect storm" thing is crazy though. Every situation you seem to think was a perfect storm. Have you ever thought what makes a HHOFer is that he creates his own destiny? As I said, historically the odds of winning a Cup without a stud d-man are remote. Look at recently: Doughty, Keith, Chara, Gonchar, Lidstrom, Pronger, Niedermayer, to an extent Boyle in 2004. And before that every year until you get to the 1975 Flyers.

Murphy had opportunities, but he made the most out of them. I can think of a ton of teams that had every reason to win the Cup but didn't. The 2004 Avs, the Pens every year since 2009, the Senators for about a decade................it goes on. Nothing matters on paper.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

I don't really think Murphy had "lousy" years in the 80s just because his stats fell down a couple of times. L.A. was a high-scoring team in the highest-scoring division (Smythe) and when he went to Washington he joined one of the lowest-scoring, most defence-first teams. It's only natural that his stats would reflect this. Maybe that first year in Washington was an off-year, but he quickly bounced back. In fact, in 1987, Murphy had 81 points and led the Capitals in scoring (this, when Gretzky had 183 points a year after having 215).

It's probably more illustrative to compare how Murphy did offensively within his own team to how another player (Housley) did.

But again, I think the key matter is that a player like Murphy was very effective even when he wasn't scoring. Whereas I don't think a player like Housley was.


But I agree with you about one thing -- I don't really understand why Murphy was traded several times. Perhaps he didn't get along easily with coaches...?

looks to me like he got traded during his two lousy 80s years.

 

[The Panther]

Some people on here have a distorted view that Murphy was only 'great' after he went to Pittsburgh.

This is totally wrong.

Murphy was #2 in voting for the Calder in Los Angeles, and in that season set the NHL record for assists and points by a rookie defenceman.

Think about that for a second -- if a rookie next year sets the all-time D-record for points and assists, people on this forum will be going on about how he's the new Doughty; i.e., the most hyped contemporary player. And y'all are dismissing Murphy's 80s' achievements like they were nothing.

Aside from maybe Langway (and in one season Bobby Carpenter), Murphy was probably the Capitals' number one player from 1983 to 1988 or whenever he was traded. He led the team in scoring in '87. He played on maybe the greatest team of all-time -- Team Canada in 1987.

These are all stellar achievements that people on here with short-memories are being disingenuous about. Murphy didn't need a "perfect storm" with Pittsburgh and Detroit to become great. He already was.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

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.

 

[Rhiessan71]

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.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

the caps made it to the wales final in 1990, which was stevens' last year there.

but yeah, i'm not arguing that murphy was a very good player, or a high end number one. on balance, i think we agree.

the doughty comparison suggested by phil i'd have to take issue with though. but i guess maybe you have to fight over the top hyperbole and "if i squint really hard maybe it looks a little close" arguments with the same.

 

[Copmuter*]

Murphy was MacInnis without the slapshot

 

[Rhiessan71]

the caps made it to the wales final in 1990, which was stevens' last year there.

but yeah, i'm not arguing that murphy was a very good player, or a high end number one. on balance, i think we agree.

the doughty comparison suggested by phil i'd have to take issue with though. but i guess maybe you have to fight over the top hyperbole and "if i squint really hard maybe it looks a little close" arguments with the same.

Yeah, I'm not sure I could put Murphy up with Doughty either but Im also not sure where exactly I have Doughty yet either.
I guess my toughest issue with Doughty is that I watch him make some of the same "mistakes" that Subban gets roasted for.
Both players tend to hang on to the puck too long, both take chances pretty equally and both have a habit of pulling themselves out of position to make a big hit.
Only differences between them IMO is that Doughty likes to jump down low more while PK tends to stay up near the line more with his better shot.
And Doughty is a little more focused in his own zone and PK is a better first/long passer.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Is Murphy a 1st ballot HHOF if he didn't play in the highest scoring era in NHL history?

Is Murphy a 1st ballot HHOF if he didn't get traded to the Red Wings late in his career, where he fit in nicely as a secondary player, winning those last 2 Cups?

I have my doubts

(Much better player than Phil Housley though. Only mentioning Phil because I saw the comparison up thread)

 

[Big Phil]

Is Murphy a 1st ballot HHOF if he didn't play in the highest scoring era in NHL history?

Is Murphy a 1st ballot HHOF if he didn't get traded to the Red Wings late in his career, where he fit in nicely as a secondary player, winning those last 2 Cups?

I have my doubts

(Much better player than Phil Housley though. Only mentioning Phil because I saw the comparison up thread)

I said this before, if he retired in 1996 just the season before he goes to Detroit, he is still a HHOFer. A first ballot? I don't know. But can you imagine the hand-wringing if Larry Murphy from 1980-'96 was NOT inducted into the HHOF by now? There would be a thread on it weekly. This is without his Detroit career. Yes, he would not be passed up overall.

the doughty comparison suggested by phil i'd have to take issue with though. but i guess maybe you have to fight over the top hyperbole and "if i squint really hard maybe it looks a little close" arguments with the same.

I said Doughty for just one reason though. Not their styles or anything but the importance they had on their two Cup runs. Murphy with his earlier ones on the Pens, Doughty with his two.

39 points in those two playoffs in 1991 and 1992 for Murphy combined

compared to

34 points in the two Cup winning years for Doughty combined

Offensively they are about the same. Doughty wouldn't have even been considered a Smythe candidate if he's on Mario Lemieux's team either though.

That's all I was comparing. Just in case people forget how important Murphy was to those two Cups. I would say he played as well as Doughty did. And we all know he played a more passive and less than exciting game than Doughty, but he was also more steady, solid and less of a risk. To me, I think those two are comparable in their Cup winning years.

 

[Hardyvan123]

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

Is the term perfect storm the problem or the analysis?

Surely there were reasons, aside from Murphy , why his playoff scoring and legacy ballooned with the Pens and wings right?

 

[Hardyvan123]

I said this before, if he retired in 1996 just the season before he goes to Detroit, he is still a HHOFer. A first ballot? I don't know. But can you imagine the hand-wringing if Larry Murphy from 1980-'96 was NOT inducted into the HHOF by now? There would be a thread on it weekly. This is without his Detroit career. Yes, he would not be passed up overall.

Not sure about this part but even then if he gets in it's because of the push he gets from thsoe 2 Pen runs.

Also if he retires after that horrible playoffs with Toronto would that have a lingering affect.

Something to go back and look at perhaps, although in the end it doesn't matter it's a hypothetical, he did play under great circumstances and get those last 2 SC's with the Wings.

I said Doughty for just one reason though. Not their styles or anything but the importance they had on their two Cup runs. Murphy with his earlier ones on the Pens, Doughty with his two.

39 points in those two playoffs in 1991 and 1992 for Murphy combined

compared to

34 points in the two Cup winning years for Doughty combined

Offensively they are about the same. Doughty wouldn't have even been considered a Smythe candidate if he's on Mario Lemieux's team either though.

That's all I was comparing. Just in case people forget how important Murphy was to those two Cups. I would say he played as well as Doughty did. And we all know he played a more passive and less than exciting game than Doughty, but he was also more steady, solid and less of a risk. To me, I think those two are comparable in their Cup winning years.

Actually they aren't even close to being the same in terms of actual value, raw stats yes, actual value for their offensive performance and how those stats translate not even close.

Here is Murphy and how he compares with all playoff performers over those 2 years.

You might notice the Mario affect on other Pen players, namely Stevens, Recchi and Tochett, not to mention Murphy and Jagr as well.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points

If you look at the PPG Murphy is 4 tied for 39th, mostly due to 32 players being at a PPG rate or better.

It's harder to get a quick link and read on the 2 Doughty years as they weren't consecutive but it's not rocket science to figure out that Doughty's 34 points have much more value offensively than Murphy's 39 in the 2 year sample for each player.

 

[Big Phil]

Actually they aren't even close to being the same in terms of actual value, raw stats yes, actual value for their offensive performance and how those stats translate not even close.

Here is Murphy and how he compares with all playoff performers over those 2 years.

You might notice the Mario affect on other Pen players, namely Stevens, Recchi and Tochett, not to mention Murphy and Jagr as well.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points

If you look at the PPG Murphy is 4 tied for 39th, mostly due to 32 players being at a PPG rate or better.

It's harder to get a quick link and read on the 2 Doughty years as they weren't consecutive but it's not rocket science to figure out that Doughty's 34 points have much more value offensively than Murphy's 39 in the 2 year sample for each player.

Let's face one thing, Doughty has been extremely overrated in the last few years. In the first three rounds of the playoffs was he better than Duncan Keith?

Murphy has three Pens who had more points than him in those two playoff rounds:
Lemieux 78, Stevens 61, Francis 44. All had more than Murphy at 39. Murphy doesn't win a Conn Smythe, but neither does Doughty. It is also worth mentioning that while I like Doughty's game, he made several high profile defensive errors. Murphy was more of a steady influence at that time.

The Kings players that outscored Doughty (34) in their two Cup runs:

Kopitar - 46
Williams - 40
Carter - 38
Brown - 34

So I don't see how this favours Doughty by any stretch of the imagination. Lemieux, Stevens and Francis carry more offensive weight than Kopitar, Williams, Carter and Brown don't you think? Yet Murphy was only narrowly outscored by Francis in those years.

I'm not sure if you are underrating Murphy during those runs or overrating Doughty. I personally watched both and think they both were major contributors. In recent years if you took Duncan Keith's two Cup runs with Chicago and placed them against either one of these guys it would be pretty much the same. I think you're forgetting that Murphy was the #1 defenseman on back to back winners.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

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.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Is the term perfect storm the problem or the analysis?

Surely there were reasons, aside from Murphy , why his playoff scoring and legacy ballooned with the Pens and wings right?

i'm not suggesting that murphy wasn't put in excellent situations to succeed. i don't think anyone else is either. what i am suggesting is that you can't put phil housley in the same situations and expect the same results. maybe if you put housley on those penguins and then those wings teams, he wins one or two cups. hell, those were great teams; maybe you still win all four. but in those same situations, housley wouldn't have excelled as much as murphy did. you wouldn't have played housley nearly the minutes johnson and bowman played murphy, nor in as many critical situations.

but i do agree with you that if murphy had stayed in minnesota, and then in toronto, he wouldn't have been a slam dunk hall of famer. i think he would have gotten in on his numbers, and maybe i would have taken issue with it, but he certainly wasn't one-dimensional like housley was, and his career certainly wasn't phil housley with four cups.

 

[Hardyvan123]

i'm not suggesting that murphy wasn't put in excellent situations to succeed. i don't think anyone else is either. what i am suggesting is that you can't put phil housley in the same situations and expect the same results. maybe if you put housley on those penguins and then those wings teams, he wins one or two cups. hell, those were great teams; maybe you still win all four. but in those same situations, housley wouldn't have excelled as much as murphy did. you wouldn't have played housley nearly the minutes johnson and bowman played murphy, nor in as many critical situations.

but i do agree with you that if murphy had stayed in minnesota, and then in toronto, he wouldn't have been a slam dunk hall of famer. i think he would have gotten in on his numbers, and maybe i would have taken issue with it, but he certainly wasn't one-dimensional like housley was, and his career certainly wasn't phil housley with four cups.

Maybe if Murphy stays on Minny he gets into the HHOF based strictly on numbers, not so sure but you are misreading me on Hosuley.

I never said that if you put Housley on Pittsburg that he becomes Murphy or that his legacy changes all that much at all (2 SC is different than 4 and Murphy was better both ways than Housley, heck who isn't eh?). The thing is that Housely was offensively better than Murphy was we don't need to read more into it than that, although it goes without being said that most any player is viewed more favorably with a SC or 2 than not having one. (Hint-wait for the top wingers list when, insert 2 way 06 guy here, a guy on multiple SC winning teams in a 6 team league will be vaulted over an individually superior Winger who played in larger league and had little or no team success.)

Murphy was great at putting up numbers and playing within his means but his Norris voting record is indicative of how important his playoff runs in Pittsburgh and Detroit are to his legacy.

Murphy was a very good player who stayed healthy and played very well for a long period of time but if we did a top 60 Dmen of all time in peak terms he would do worse than he did in the regular top 60 list.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Maybe if Murphy stays on Minny he gets into the HHOF based strictly on numbers, not so sure but you are misreading me on Hosuley.

I never said that if you put Housley on Pittsburg that he becomes Murphy or that his legacy changes all that much at all (2 SC is different than 4 and Murphy was better both ways than Housley, heck who isn't eh?). The thing is that Housely was offensively better than Murphy was we don't need to read more into it than that, although it goes without being said that most any player is viewed more favorably with a SC or 2 than not having one. (Hint-wait for the top wingers list when, insert 2 way 06 guy here, a guy on multiple SC winning teams in a 6 team league will be vaulted over an individually superior Winger who played in larger league and had little or no team success.)

Murphy was great at putting up numbers and playing within his means but his Norris voting record is indicative of how important his playoff runs in Pittsburgh and Detroit are to his legacy.

Murphy was a very good player who stayed healthy and played very well for a long period of time but if we did a top 60 Dmen of all time in peak terms he would do worse than he did in the regular top 60 list.

So would Lidstrom under those exact same criteria so what's your point???

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Maybe if Murphy stays on Minny he gets into the HHOF based strictly on numbers, not so sure but you are misreading me on Hosuley.

I never said that if you put Housley on Pittsburg that he becomes Murphy or that his legacy changes all that much at all (2 SC is different than 4 and Murphy was better both ways than Housley, heck who isn't eh?). The thing is that Housely was offensively better than Murphy was we don't need to read more into it than that, although it goes without being said that most any player is viewed more favorably with a SC or 2 than not having one. (Hint-wait for the top wingers list when, insert 2 way 06 guy here, a guy on multiple SC winning teams in a 6 team league will be vaulted over an individually superior Winger who played in larger league and had little or no team success.)

Murphy was great at putting up numbers and playing within his means but his Norris voting record is indicative of how important his playoff runs in Pittsburgh and Detroit are to his legacy.

Murphy was a very good player who stayed healthy and played very well for a long period of time but if we did a top 60 Dmen of all time in peak terms he would do worse than he did in the regular top 60 list.

i agree with all that. so maybe the problem was the term "perfect storm," then. felt to me like it dismissed murphy's career as being more about circumstance than what he did with those circumstances (in the sense that a non-playoff ace like housley could be slotted in for him, which is what i took issue with; but if that's not what you're saying, then yes we agree).

 

[Hardyvan123]

So would Lidstrom under those exact same criteria so what's your point???

Uh what?

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