I think he is number 2, but I am a Wings fan so of course I do. I did like the Tippett quote they used one of my favorite on Lidstrom. But I have some problems with rest of their list. There is no way I put Ray Bourque outside of the top 5 even if I am completely angry and in the middle of the always mind-numbing Lidstrom vs. Bourque debate. Even just to upset somebody it doesn't make sense and cannot be done with a straight face.
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.
Maybe but I have no idea which Lindstrom you are sending back.
Still amazes me how often people do this, especially in threads where the correct spelling is in almost every post and at the top of the page. Sorry just a pet peeve as a Detroit fan, I am sure this kind of screw up is annoying with Bourque fans and his name as well. Also shows something about this source that they did it in an article while trying to show some sort of mastery on the subject, pretty bad.
I think some people either weren't around to see the likes of Bourque or Potvin and just want to put the player they grew up watching up there even though he doesn't belong there.
Lidstrom was a fantastic player, he is behind a few guys who played before him. I never saw Shore or Harvey play, but by everything I was told when I was younger, they are probably better than Lidstrom. Shore won the Hart trophy 4 times and by all accounts is one of the best players of all time.
Even if one places a significant amount of value in the fully-integrated era Lidstrom played in, and dominated (and by virtue of that line of argument one puts him ahead of Shore/Harvey), I've yet to see a convincing argument for Lidstrom over Bourque.
The first tier below Orr includes Harvey, Bourque, Lidstrom, Shore, and Potvin. I tend to put Bourque in the top spot among that "Below Orr" group. There's an argument to be made for any of those guys. I recommend taking a look at the research compiled on the HoH Board. The folks over there did an excellent job with their analysis.
__________________
Exhibit A as to how hockey doesn't matter on ESPN:
Last night an ESPN program was discussing how the Detroit Pistons needed a hero citing the heroes on the Detroit Tigers, Detroit Lions and no mention of the Detroit Red Wings. All this despite the Red Wings probably being the most succesful team in Detroit right now.
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.
You believe in time travel or just mean if he would have been born back then and started playing hockey? If it's the latter, dont you think he would have had to do with the training and other surroundings that where available then? If he had been born in sweden 1910 he probably would'nt have played hockey at all.
Of course the talent pool is bigger now, but that's another story that often is discussed in the History of Hockey-subforum here at HFBoards.
Last edited by Darth Yoda: 12-04-2012 at 11:36 AM.
i respect people opinion but to the person who said robinson should be ahead of lidstrom how is that possible since Scotty Bowman his coach thinks Serge Savard was better than Robinson?As for lidstrom I agree with the gentleman who you can't compare era's
Let's really take a close look at this list. Robinson is #5 ahead of Bourque and Potvin. If you want to put him there then at least come up with a reason why he's ranked there. The reason they had was because he has the highest plus/minus in NHL history. Period. No kidding. It isn't that Robinson couldn't control the pace of a game but they don't take into context how great of teams he played on. This will add to your plus/minus. They end with a ludicrous statement along the lines of: "Do you know how hard it is for a defensive defenseman to have the highest plus/minus of all-time?" Say what? Yes, Robinson was great defensively but he was also great offensively, do they even know this? I guess they never saw him rush the puck once by the looks of it.
Anyway, this isn't to knock Robinson, a top 10 guy himself but it also shows you the list has zero credibility. I've said this before that anyone who ever watched all of Bourque and Lidstrom's career should noticeably put Bourque higher. This isn't a knock on Lidstrom, but this is Ray Bourque we are talking about here, and the only clear advantage Lidstrom has over him is Cup wins and a little bit better of a playoff resume. Bourque is at least equal - and in some cases clearly better - in everything else.
Yeah, I agree the placing between Lidstrom/Bourque/Harvey/Shore isn't significant since they're all almost equally good, and you could put them in any order and probably still be right.
Even before using +/- as a justification for a ranking, even before seeing Ray Bourque (misspelling and all) at lower than #5, the use of the term "wracked up" is what put me off. (I believe the author was meaning to say racked up)
1. Bobby Orr
2. Nicklas Lidstrom
3. Raymond Bourque
4. Doug Harvey
5. Slava Fetisov
6. Eddie Shore
7. Red Kelly
8. Denis Potvin
9. Brad Park
10. Paul Coffey
To have Lidstrom at #2 and Bourque at #7 is . Bourque has a good argument for being ahead of Lidstrom(much better, in my opinion, than any argument Lidstrom has of being ahead of Bourque). That's just awful.
. Bourque has a good argument for being ahead of Lidstrom(much better, in my opinion, than any argument Lidstrom has of being ahead of Bourque). That's just awful.
