I'm wondering how you'd rate Nick Lidstrom among all d-men that has ever played.
I've been looking at his stats and he does have one season that he ended up on a -, although it as only a -2.
Is he the best, top 5, top 10 or perhaps even lower rated by you?
I can't really be objective since I love him not only as a player but his personality makes me rate him even higher then I probably should.
Take into account his leadership and well everything when you rate him.
Id rate him top 5 of all d-men that ever played, most likely number 2 after Orr.
Not that I really want to bother with this discussion outside of the History board, but I do find it mildly amusing that the first thing you discussed in the topic was a stat as irrelevant as +/-.
In my opinion lidstrom is only rated so high because he's stayed at such a high level for so long. He's not physically imposing, and while excellent I just couldn't put him in the almost best ever category. If we're talking overall career, well then he's better than orr.
If you were asking who I take for a playoff run, both playing at their highest level I'd take pronger over lidstrom.
In my opinion lidstrom is only rated so high because he's stayed at such a high level for so long. He's not physically imposing, and while excellent I just couldn't put him in the almost best ever category. If we're talking overall career, well then he's better than orr.
If you were asking who I take for a playoff run, both playing at their highest level I'd take pronger over lidstrom.
...You sure?
Would like to hear an explanation for this one. Longevity, sure, but what else?
__________________
If you're telekinetic and you know it, clap my hands!
As far as I have seen, I would rank him right after Bourque but close.
All-time, certainly top 5. Orr is definitely #1. Never saw Harvey or Shore but based on reputation, Harvey at #2, Bourque #3, Shore #4, and Lidstrom at #5. Not really fair to leave out old timers, especially considering how dominant they were in there eras.
In my opinion lidstrom is only rated so high because he's stayed at such a high level for so long. He's not physically imposing, and while excellent I just couldn't put him in the almost best ever category. If we're talking overall career, well then he's better than orr.
If you were asking who I take for a playoff run, both playing at their highest level I'd take pronger over lidstrom.
From my lifetime, the only defencemen I thought were comparable were Denis Potvin and Ray Bourque.
It would be hard to compare him to Doug Harvey, Eddie Shore and Red Kelly (half of career) because of different eras. Also hard to compare to Slava Fetisov where the bulk of his prime was in Russia
Bobby Orr is still a cut above I think.
So definitely top 10, arguably top 5, as high as 2.
As far as I have seen, I would rank him right after Bourque but close.
All-time, certainly top 5. Orr is definitely #1. Never saw Harvey or Shore but based on reputation, Harvey at #2, Bourque #3, Shore #4, and Lidstrom at #5. Not really fair to leave out old timers, especially considering how dominant they were in there eras.
No matter where he's rated, comparing modern era players with the Harvey's and Shore's generation players is difficult.
Well but he paved the way for Karlsson to come into the league so in that sense it's kind of like he changed the game forever.
I don't know. I'd probably rank him under Orr but there always end up being arguments about the difference in professionalism when it comes to league-wide training standards between the NHL then and today, and the fact that it was pre-European influx.
Dunno enough about Harvey to comment on him.
OP -- not that it doesn't bear discussion now but there have definitely been some pretty intense debates about this in the past. If the search button is working you could probably find a lot.
I'd rank him 3, 4, or 5. Possibly 2nd, but probably not. You could arrange Bourque, Lidstrom, Harvey, or Shore 2-5 without being wrong really. Margin is so small.
