HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   The History of Hockey (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=126)
-   -   TotalProSports ranks Lidstrom the 2nd best defenseman of all time, behind Orr (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1301099)

Puckgenius* 12-03-2012 10:15 PM

TotalProSports ranks Lidstrom the 2nd best defenseman of all time, behind Orr
 
What you think?

http://www.totalprosports.com/2012/0...of-all-time/#5

The Nose 12-03-2012 10:17 PM

Agree.

Puckgenius* 12-03-2012 10:18 PM

I would still put Bourque ahead of him.

Banana Sandwiches 12-03-2012 10:20 PM

It's really tough to rank guys who played in much different eras (especially guys like Shore and Harvey).

#2 isn't ridiculous, but Potvin and Robinson were probably better.

Gobias Industries 12-03-2012 10:22 PM

Talk about his place in history on the History Board

I have him 3rd at best behind Bourque.

Wow, didn't even read the link. Why did you even post it?

They misspell "Bourque" in their headline and to have him 7th borders on scandalous, and putting Robinson ahead of him solely based on +/- is a joke.

ReginKarlssonLehner 12-03-2012 10:25 PM

Um, just the way it should be.

pdd 12-03-2012 10:28 PM

The list has zero credibility. It's completely 80's-centric, yet at the same time lacks the third-best defenseman from the 80s.

Everyone on the list except Orr, Shore, and Harvey played more than 50% of their career after 1980. Yet only two played 50% of their career after 1994. Seven of the defensemen on the list played in the 80s, leaving Orr, Harvey, Shore, and Lidstrom as the exceptions.

Based on the inclusions, you would think that Bourque, Coffey, Chelios, and Mark Howe (not included on the list) would be at the head of the class. Since the 80s are all that appear to matter.

WarriorOfGandhi 12-03-2012 11:26 PM

Orr
Karlsson

the rest

Sadekuuro 12-03-2012 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Banana Sandwiches (Post 56225415)
It's really tough to rank guys who played in much different eras (especially guys like Shore and Harvey).

#2 isn't ridiculous, but Potvin and Robinson were probably better.

Potvin had a higher peak, but it really depends how you view longevity and career value.

Robinson? No way.

Nose Face Killah 12-03-2012 11:33 PM

Orr''s number one, like it should be. Orr could do it all!

Regal 12-03-2012 11:40 PM

While it's hard to compare different eras, and different people have different views of how to compare longevity, peak and prime, I still have yet to see a good argument for Lidstrom over Bourque

Trap Jesus 12-03-2012 11:44 PM

Bjork at 7? C'mon, son.

pdd 12-03-2012 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regal (Post 56227593)
While it's hard to compare different eras, and different people have different views of how to compare longevity, peak and prime, I still have yet to see a good argument for Lidstrom over Bourque

Go to HoH, we're discussing the topic right now.

tarheelhockey 12-03-2012 11:56 PM

Yeah, that's a pretty horrible list.

I'm not even going to touch the low-hanging fruit here. On what logical basis could he rank Chelios behind MacInnis? Where could he possibly get the idea that Harvey didn't set up many goals (other than not knowing how to interpret his stats)? In what league does a defensive defenseman (Robinson, apparently) score 85 points? How is it even possible to have Shore at #4, Stevens at #11 and Kelly not on the list?

Pretty straightforward case of ranking players based on surface impressions of their trophy and stat counts.

Edit: and a typical case of "I've heard of these 3 guys who played before I was born, so no need to pretend I care about the rest of hockey history".

um 12-04-2012 12:41 AM

hahaha what an awful list. anyways you can order lidstrom, bourque, shore, and harvey any way you want and it would be fine with me

Legionnaire 12-04-2012 12:47 AM

He's not that high in my book. But whatever. Opinions, right? You know what they say they're like.

Edit: This would be a fun game...Name your age and what team you root for, and then how high you think Lidstrom should be. Interesting survey indeed.

Regal 12-04-2012 01:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eva unit zero (Post 56227733)
Go to HoH, we're discussing the topic right now.

I'm there a lot, and I've read most of the Lidstrom threads, I just don't see it. I think Bourque has him in both peak and longevity. They're close though, so I wouldn't normally nitpick someone with Lidstrom ahead, but when it's five spots, it's just ridiculous.

HolyShot* 12-04-2012 01:29 AM

I wonder where people would put doughty on that list. Right now in his career.

Legionnaire 12-04-2012 01:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hitman47 (Post 56229263)
I wonder where people would put doughty on that list. Right now in his career.

You've got to have played at least as many seasons as Orr did to even get in the conversation.

pdd 12-04-2012 01:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regal (Post 56229175)
I'm there a lot, and I've read most of the Lidstrom threads, I just don't see it. I think Bourque has him in both peak and longevity. They're close though, so I wouldn't normally nitpick someone with Lidstrom ahead, but when it's five spots, it's just ridiculous.

I agree, especially given the rest of the list. I personally have Bourque right behind Lidstrom.

Grannys 12-04-2012 01:50 AM

I think these "all time greatest" list are bit silly since its really hard for us to judge players against each other first, because way back in the day the game was clearly not as evolved as it is today and athletes were not on the same level, and second because most of us have no clue how these players were and are all basing our judgement on what we have heard, read of seen a few seconds of in black and white.

But the truth is that, you take someone like Lindstrom and send him back 50 years and he would dominate in ways no one back then could even imagine. Thats not to say a player back then was not amazing, its just the skill, athleticism, power etc. has evolved so much that you cant compare across eras like this.

pdd 12-04-2012 01:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hitman47 (Post 56229263)
I wonder where people would put doughty on that list. Right now in his career.

He didn't play the majority of his career between 1980 and 1994, so his chances of getting on that list are pretty slim. Does he have 7+ Norrises? No. Does he have 4 Harts? No.

Doughty would be, for me, MAYBE top five of his generation.

um 12-04-2012 01:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hitman47 (Post 56229263)
I wonder where people would put doughty on that list. Right now in his career.

maybe hes top 500, lets wait a few years

JAS 39 Gripen 12-04-2012 01:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Puckgenius (Post 56225227)

Where he should be

etherialone 12-04-2012 02:03 AM

If he isn't the best then he has to be considered at the least in the top 3 of all time.

Orr was special but he was also a visionary who played a style of D that the world hadn't really seen before or at least not by a player with his skill level.

Lidstrom was just as special imo but did it for so very much longer that you have to consider everything that he accomplished during his time as being so special as well.

To me, I have so many great memories of Orr but if I had to choose which I would rather have on my team it would be next to impossible, they are that close to my way of thinking.

Rare earth anyways.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:23 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.