What happened to defencemen born 1975-1982?

[overpass]

Among defencemen born from 1975 up to and including 1982, only Zdeno Chara has ever finished in the top three for Norris voting in a season. (Chara has done so four times.)

Why did only one elite defenceman emerge from this age cohort that spans most of a decade?

 

[Zine]

For starters, these age groups correspond to a time when:

1. a lack of talent developed in Sweden because 'systems' were emphasized over creativity.
2. a lack of talent developed in Russia due to the hockey infrastructure nearly collapsing following Soviet disintegration.

 

[Big Phil]

I can see maybe why some of the Euros didn't churn out defensemen but what about Canada and the USA? Taking a look back, the drafts from 1993 to 2000 were just awful for defensemen overall (technically Pronger is a 1974 birthdate).

There was McCabe, Kaberle, Jovanovski, Ohlund, Timmonen, Sopel, Berard, Redden, Berg, Phillips, Brewer, Hannan, Campbell, Ference, Stuart, Regehr, Spacek, Markov, Jackman, Orpik.

These are pretty much the best ones. No Norris Trophies other than Chara. Just two 2nd team all-stars combined (McCabe and Campbell). I have no idea why it was such a bad era for defensemen. I mean, there are a lot of "serviceable" ones, but not really any game breakers there.

1999 alone, the first three picked were Branislav Mezei, Jeff Jillson and David Tanabe. And I remember them really pumping Tanabe up as a classic rushing defenseman.

Funny thing is, from 1994-1996 a defenseman was picked 1st overall. None have a prayer of making the HHOF, even if you combined their careers I don't like the odds either. In fact you have to go way back before you can find a defenseman chosen 1st overall that has made an impact. Johnson in 2006 has never impressed me. Hamrlik in 1992 was a bit better than everyone else. Kluzak in 1982? I'd have picked Stevens. Ramage in 1979? There's a long list of players I'd have picked over him. Certainly not HHOF caliber, not even close. Rick Green 1976? Greg Joly 1974?

Actually come to think of it, the only defenseman picked 1st overall in the draft that was a star was Potvin in 1973. Can't deny that. Orr would have been #1 overall in 1966 if the format that we know today existed then but as we have it, the chances of a defenseman who is picked 1st overall develop into a star is middling at best.

 

[Ishdul]

There were problems with those drafts in general, with 2 of the worst drafts in history (96 and 99) occurring and none that were especially strong in any area. Phillips is even a defensible pick in hindsight, with Briere being the clear best forward from that draft (#2 might be J.P. Dumont), absolutely NOTHING for goalies (Garon and Esche as the top 2) and only Chara and Kaberle as the standout defensemen, and basically none of the other top prospects who could have been argued ahead of Phillips panning out at all. Goalies in that period weren't great either. Luongo is the standout, Tim Thomas obviously became relevant extremely late and Ryan Miller, Kipper, Giguere, Vokoun, Nabokov and Theodore have all been pretty good but you could argue that there's no Hall of Famer among them. Forwards are better but in the end it's the Sedins, Thornton, Datsyuk, Iginla, Alfredsson, Hossa, Lecavalier, Zetterberg, Richards, Marleau and Savard. Considering how big a group that is, that's a pretty mediocre list. It seems odd to have Thornton as the best player for that long of a period.

In the end, I think the failings of individual guys (like Jovanovski and Berard who were supposed to be multiple Norris winners) helps to explain the failings of the group. Both guys had strong rookie years and they certainly don't fit the "you're not Bobby Orr" template. Jovanovski was being talked about as a future star for a long time but he just never developed the hockey sense to go along with his physical gifts. Berard had the big eye injury that he never was able to recover from. Outside of those 2 I don't think. There was some optimism with Derek Morris at one point but it was well into his career and nothing really came of it. Scott Hannan was getting a lot of hype in the 2003-2004 season as a prototypical Dead Puck Era defenseman but it was shortlived with the lockout and subsequent changes. Eric Brewer was seen as a defenseman of the future for about a decade and improbably turned that into some Team Canada appearances but never lived up to any of the expectations. Wade Redden was having a solid career before his collapse but I don't think he was on his way to winning any Norris trophies anyways. Tom Poti had some initial promise but quickly became a running joke who has, to his credit, put together a long career. Andrei Markov would probably be the #2 defensemen from this group if he could stay healthy. Brad Stuart was sloooooooowly coming along before becoming the main piece returned in the Thornton trade and never really recovered from that. Rusty Klesla has just been too hurt to ever really develop, and being in Columbus for the vast majority of his career probably didn't do him any favours either. Barret Jackman won the Calder as a defensive defenseman filling in for Pronger when he was hurt but missed most of the season the next year and never developed offensively (or defensively, really). Both McCabe and Kaberle only got Norris chatter when they were scoring over a point per game. I don't think there were any other guys who got a lot of "future Norris winner hype" and some of these guys were huge reaches to begin with (the way that every defenseman drafted in the top 10 these days gets Norris trophy talk from his home crowd). If you want to put a specific flaw in the scouting I would probably say that it was the emphasis of physical skills over all else but I think it's more than that. It's not like the smart, skilled defensemen did much breaking through at the lower ends of the draft, and you'd figure there'd still be some physical specimens who would've made it if that's just what they were going for.

 

[BSHH]

I can see maybe why some of the Euros didn't churn out defensemen but what about Canada and the USA? Taking a look back, the drafts from 1993 to 2000 were just awful for defensemen overall (technically Pronger is a 1974 birthdate).

There was McCabe, Kaberle, Jovanovski, Ohlund, Timmonen, Sopel, Berard, Redden, Berg, Phillips, Brewer, Hannan, Campbell, Ference, Stuart, Regehr, Spacek, Markov, Jackman, Orpik.

These are pretty much the best ones. No Norris Trophies other than Chara. Just two 2nd team all-stars combined (McCabe and Campbell). I have no idea why it was such a bad era for defensemen. I mean, there are a lot of "serviceable" ones, but not really any game breakers there. (...)

Visnowsky was drafted in 2000 and named 2nd team All-Star in 2011. Boyle was 2nd team All-Star in 2007, but got overlooked in the drafts (being shorter than 6'0 certainly did not help back then). Campbell currently plays a briliant season, which might garner him Norris consideration.

But of course you are right - there is a substantial lack of elite talent in this age group. This phenomenon might be even more noticible because before 1975 many brilliant defensemen had been born. I'd guess that this Lidström/Pronger/Niedermayer/Blake group will also outperform the current Weber/Keith/Doughty/Phaneuf group.

With regard to the critiria "Norris/AST consideration", we should also consider that the 1975-1982 cohort had to compete with older elite defensemen, who maintained a high performance level for a much longer time than earlier generations of defensemen. From 2001 on, Lidström, Bourque, Chelios, McInnis and Niedermayer all were named to the AST, while they were at least 40 years old, and thereby effectively blocked out younger players to some extent. However, this also is a consequence of the aformentioned lack of talented younger defensemen.

Gruß,
BSHH

 

[Levie]

There was McCabe, Kaberle, Jovanovski, Ohlund, Timmonen, Sopel, Berard, Redden, Berg, Phillips, Brewer, Hannan, Campbell, Ference, Stuart, Regehr, Spacek, Markov, Jackman, Orpik.

These are pretty much the best ones. No Norris Trophies other than Chara. Just two 2nd team all-stars combined (McCabe and Campbell). I have no idea why it was such a bad era for defensemen. I mean, there are a lot of "serviceable" ones, but not really any game breakers there.

Boyle was born in 76, so that makes 3 2nd team all-stars.

 

[begbeee]

Isn't it a good argument for Chara being the best D' of his generation ?

 

[Stephen]

1975-1982 seems to correspond to a pretty poor generation of NHLers, full stop, sandwiched between the great draft classes of the mid to late 80s culminating in the Lindros/Forsberg draft, and the increasingly star studded drafts after 2001. The era sandwiched between the 1992-1999 drafts were mostly poor or lacked truly elite talent or whatever promise was spoilt in some way. Compared to the 1984-1991 bracket with star forwards, you have Lemieux, Sakic, Sundin, Lindros, Forsberg, Modano, Turgeon, Fedorov, Shanahan, Bure, Mogilny, Selanne, Roenick, Jagr, Nolan, Tkachuk, Bondra, etc. What do we have from 1992-1999? Kariya, Thornton, Lecavalier, Koivu, Smyth, Elias? So inferior in all respects.

 

[Bank Shot]

What happened to the forwards? If you look through the drafts from the mid 90's there weren't exactly a tonne of amazing forwards being taken top five in the draft either.

I see Stefan just touched on the point. Terrible drafts all around. I think the reason may not have to do with hockey at all, but with demographics. If we look at a chart of Canadians by age in the population, we can see that people aged 30-35 and 35-40 are the smallest two demographics between the ages of 15-59.

So the group of hockey players born between roughly 1970 and 1980 was much smaller then the crop of player before them, and smaller then the group that came after. Perhaps the talent differential is just due to there being a big difference in the amount of eligible draftees in the time. Less potential players means less potential superstars.

 

[overpass]

Wow, some great responses here.

From a North American point of view, and looking at the big picture in society, I wonder if the general decline in unstructured play had an impact. During the 80s and 90s, parents started structuring their kids leisure activities a lot more. So you have a generation of kids who didn't have the thousands of hours on the outdoor rink to develop skills, and who were spending too much of their limited practice time learning systems.

The unstructured play hasn't come back, but the minor hockey system has probably adjusted and improved to compensate.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Size

Among defencemen born from 1975 up to and including 1982, only Zdeno Chara has ever finished in the top three for Norris voting in a season. (Chara has done so four times.)

Why did only one elite defenceman emerge from this age cohort that spans most of a decade?

To look at the 1993-2000 NHL Entry Drafts you have to consider the ten previous drafts where the two key players selected were Mario Lemieux and Eric Lindros - a mix of elite talent with size. This focused development on size. From youth hockey onwards in NA the mantra became you cannot teach size but you can teach talent. To a small extent they were correct. If you view Zdeno Chara's career, a project even when drafted he eventually became a viable defenseman because the competition consisted of other big defensemen who did not develop.

By the late 1990's it had became clear that size was not the end all it was seen to be and the emphasis in youth hockey turned back to developing talent regardless of size.

Today you are seeing many defensemen in the Brian Rafalski mold etc coming into the league, a trend that started in the early 2000's. It will take a few years to filter the old and complete the changeover.

 

[Big Phil]

I think even before the eye injury Berard was on the decline. Think about it, he has that brilliant 1996-'97 season where everyone assumes he's a future Norris winner. Then in 1997-'98 he gets off to a hot start where he has like 20 points in his first 20 games. Plays on the USA Olympic team and then a year later as a 21 year old supposed future Norris winner, he's traded. Yes, it was "Mad" Mike Milbury who unleashed him and that doesn't tell a lot, but why would you trade away such a future star?

In 1999-'00 he played in 64 games before the eye injury and had 3 goals and 30 points. That was it. Here is this rushing defenseman on a team (Toronto) that was favouring offensive creativity and he has 30 points? He wasn't among the best in the NHL, and probably never was. The eye injury just makes it look like a promising career was coming to a close.

After Toronto he played for 5 more teams. Another product of an era with remarkably terrible drafts

 

[SmellOfVictory]

What happened to the forwards? If you look through the drafts from the mid 90's there weren't exactly a tonne of amazing forwards being taken top five in the draft either.

I see Stefan just touched on the point. Terrible drafts all around. I think the reason may not have to do with hockey at all, but with demographics. If we look at a chart of Canadians by age in the population, we can see that people aged 30-35 and 35-40 are the smallest two demographics between the ages of 15-59.

So the group of hockey players born between roughly 1970 and 1980 was much smaller then the crop of player before them, and smaller then the group that came after. Perhaps the talent differential is just due to there being a big difference in the amount of eligible draftees in the time. Less potential players means less potential superstars.

Probably the best answer so far.

 

[NJrocket24]

Any connection to most of those players were trained in junior/started in the pros during the heart of the clutch and grab era. Could it be that foot speed was not a premium trait that teams looked for when drafting?

Many of those players have not made the jump to the new rules and have not played at their previous level.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Other Factors

Wow, some great responses here.

From a North American point of view, and looking at the big picture in society, I wonder if the general decline in unstructured play had an impact. During the 80s and 90s, parents started structuring their kids leisure activities a lot more. So you have a generation of kids who didn't have the thousands of hours on the outdoor rink to develop skills, and who were spending too much of their limited practice time learning systems.

The unstructured play hasn't come back, but the minor hockey system has probably adjusted and improved to compensate.

The outdoor rinks were not readily available in the USA. Warmer climate being a factor yet the previous generation produced Brian Leetch, Phil Housley, Chris Chelios, Reed Larson not a bad four to start a group.

Another consideration is that defensemen are now rushed from junior to the NHL since there is an overall lack of talent that would allow them to develop completely in junior until the age of twenty.

Previously the young defensemen - Potvin, Doug Wilson, and others would enter the NHL with a complete junior background, learning the game from the bottom up, developing offensive and defensive skills, leadership. They would rise from the 4-5th dman as a 16 year old to the team leader at age 20. Thecycle would then repeat in the NHL.

Today when an 18 year old is drafted it is based on pure unrefined talent. The yound dman is still two junior years short of building a complete game. If he matures in junior until the age of 20 then he has a good chance. But if he is rushed you see him overmatched physically, His development suffers.

 

[PearJuice*]

I agree that there is a noticeable drop in quality defenseman born from 1975 to the early 80s, but I think the same is true of forwards and goalies as well.

I agree with the previous poster who cited demographics as a primary reason for this phenomenon. And it's not just hockey either - if you look at almost any profession you will notice that the 30-37 age group is severely underrepresented in numbers.

Another poster alluded to the fact that players in the 30-37 age bracket "came of age" in an era when size was hugely overrated (no pun intended). I believe that many of the more skilled players under 6 feet tall were completely overlooked, and had no chance of making it. I wouldn't be surprised I many of these players would have been stars before the 90's (and I today's NHL).

 

[DisgruntledGoat*]

Was there not a change in the icing rule in the early 90s that was blamed by some for encouraging a safer, less run-and-gun style from defensemen?

I recall reading an article about this around 1996, but the specifics escape me.

 

[Crosbyfan]

I think even before the eye injury Berard was on the decline. Think about it, he has that brilliant 1996-'97 season where everyone assumes he's a future Norris winner. Then in 1997-'98 he gets off to a hot start where he has like 20 points in his first 20 games. Plays on the USA Olympic team and then a year later as a 21 year old supposed future Norris winner, he's traded. Yes, it was "Mad" Mike Milbury who unleashed him and that doesn't tell a lot, but why would you trade away such a future star?

In 1999-'00 he played in 64 games before the eye injury and had 3 goals and 30 points. That was it. Here is this rushing defenseman on a team (Toronto) that was favouring offensive creativity and he has 30 points? He wasn't among the best in the NHL, and probably never was. The eye injury just makes it look like a promising career was coming to a close.

After Toronto he played for 5 more teams. Another product of an era with remarkably terrible drafts

Hard to say how he would have done. I always thought it was remarkable that he could even play at the NHL level after that injury.

 

[Buffalowing1988]

I don't see Pronger being mentioned here. He was born in 1975 but he did seem to come of age much quicker than the other guys in his era and was getting strong minutes at 18. He's certainly going to wind up being a Hall of Famer.

 

[jkrx]

Was there not a change in the icing rule in the early 90s that was blamed by some for encouraging a safer, less run-and-gun style from defensemen?

I recall reading an article about this around 1996, but the specifics escape me.

No, it was the delayed off-side no longer being in effect when offending player(s) left the zone. Which made defensemen dump the puck. I remember Tverdovsky being furious about his coaches telling him to dump the puck and go change.

 

[overpass]

I don't see Pronger being mentioned here. He was born in 1975 but he did seem to come of age much quicker than the other guys in his era and was getting strong minutes at 18. He's certainly going to wind up being a Hall of Famer.

Pronger was born in October of 1974.

The age group I chose was basically players who were younger than Pronger and older than Duncan Keith (1983). Only Chara from that age group has been a Norris winner or finalist.

 

[jigglysquishy]

I hate bumping old threads, but I think this is relevant.

I'm gearing up for our top 100 d-men list and this time period really jumps out. Using a rolling 10-year-average, 1984 is my lowest year since the 1880s.

Using 1974 (Pronger, Gonchar) through 1985 (Weber, Suter, Burns) I only have three d-men in my top 100. Chara (1977), Markov (1978), and Keith (1983). Even edge cases like Byfuglien, Phaneuf, or Seabrook are all post-Keith.

Just look at the names from this 10-year birth cohort.

Ed Jovanoski (1994 draft)
Wade Redden (1995 draft) - 5th in Norris
Tomas Kaberle (1996 draft)
Chris Phillips (1996 draft)
Brian Campbell (1997 draft) - 5th in Norris
Eric Brewer (1997 draft)
Francois Beauchemin (1998 draft) - 4th in Norris
Robyn Regehr (1998 draft)
Lubomir Visnovsky (2000 draft) - 4th in Norris
Niklas Kronwall (2000 draft)
Dan Hamhuis (2001 draft)
Jay Bouwmeester (2002 draft)

An entire 10-year birth cohort had only two players (Chara, Keith) ever finish top 3 in Norris. Only four more players in that age bracket finished top 5.

If you put Keith as the edge, you end up with 1975-1982 birth years producing only one defencemen to ever finish top 3 in Norris.

 

[bobholly39]

I hate bumping old threads, but I think this is relevant.

I'm gearing up for our top 100 d-men list and this time period really jumps out. Using a rolling 10-year-average, 1984 is my lowest year since the 1880s.

Using 1974 (Pronger, Gonchar) through 1985 (Weber, Suter, Burns) I only have three d-men in my top 100. Chara (1977), Markov (1978), and Keith (1983). Even edge cases like Byfuglien, Phaneuf, or Seabrook are all post-Keith.

Just look at the names from this 10-year birth cohort.

Ed Jovanoski (1994 draft)
Wade Redden (1995 draft) - 5th in Norris
Tomas Kaberle (1996 draft)
Chris Phillips (1996 draft)
Brian Campbell (1997 draft) - 5th in Norris
Eric Brewer (1997 draft)
Francois Beauchemin (1998 draft) - 4th in Norris
Robyn Regehr (1998 draft)
Lubomir Visnovsky (2000 draft) - 4th in Norris
Niklas Kronwall (2000 draft)
Dan Hamhuis (2001 draft)
Jay Bouwmeester (2002 draft)

An entire 10-year birth cohort had only two players (Chara, Keith) ever finish top 3 in Norris. Only four more players in that age bracket finished top 5.

If you put Keith as the edge, you end up with 1975-1982 birth years producing only one defencemen to ever finish top 3 in Norris.

Out of curiosity, is the 7 or 10 year stretch before or after those years "all time great" level, to balance things out, or not even?

Not sure if you have that off hand or not.

 

[MadLuke]

Forwards of that age group were not particularly great either, we could 1-2 prospect turned out great (say Tverdovsky and Redden having strong career) to not see that much of a difference between the 2 group that need explaining.

If there is one possible why less D, that a generation that grew up while Gretzky then Lemieux dominated the league maybe ?

For the Norris itself for a while, say when they could have started to show up around 1998

Lidstrom/Pronger-old Bourque-Blake-Stevens-Chelios-MacInnins kept stealing them, they should have still get some and after those retired and became the old guard made it harder to the new one, but they had strong competition for a while.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Out of curiosity, is the 7 or 10 year stretch before or after those years "all time great" level, to balance things out, or not even?

Not sure if you have that off hand or not.

I'm roughly averaging 10 players per 10-year cohort (or roughly 100 players per year 1880-1999 with some peaks and valleys).

I'm at 10 per 10 years throughout the early/mid 70s.

For example, I'm at 10 per 10 in 1978

1969 - Rob Blake
1969 - Eric Desjardins
1970 - Nicklas Lidstrom
1970 - Sergei Zubov
1973- Scott Niedermayer
1973 - Brian Rafalski
1974 - Chris Pronger
1974 - Sergei Gonchar

So the period immediately before is roughly in alignment with historical norms.

Same with post

1985 - Shea Weber
1985 - Ryan Suter
1985 - Brent Burns
1987 - Kris Letang
1989 - Drew Doughty
1990 - Erik Karlsson
1990 - Victor Hedman
1990 - Roman Josi
1990 - Alex Pietrangelo

There is a sizeable influx of talent in 1985 births and 1990 births and later too in 1997/1998/1999 (Makar, Fox, Hughes, Werenski, McAvoy, Heiskanen).

1991-1996 is also light, but not nearly as much as 1975-1982