For instance. Go to the History section, look for the Eddie Shore thread that recently popped up and look at the amount of work they put into it. That is certainly a better approach than to say he is old/dead now and he played against crap opponents. Relative dominance is always the way to go to determine greatness. And everybody there will admit that there is a bias to players that they saw play.
Using your primary 'evidence'; dominance over peers,
wouldnt the guy dominating, say, 1 million other defensemen around the globe, be more dominate over his peers than a guy dominating, what, a few houndred canadians on a pond? (Shore)
Had Orr had a better body and played on that level for 20 years it would not be any question, but now it's just, he was great - but for such short time.
We just had this conversation in excruciating detail over a period of several weeks on the History board.
1. Orr - Anyone who doesn't have Orr in this position is fooling themselves. The only possible argument against him is that his career was cut short, but even in that short career he was by far the most successful and influential player at the position, ever. Period. "That was a long time ago" does not apply. We aren't talking about a guy who was just barely the best... we're talking about a guy who was lapping the field.
2-3. Harvey and Bourque - Personally I have Bourque #2 and Harvey #3, but the other order is perfectly justifiable and, I think, more common. Harvey is widely considered the greatest pre-Orr defenseman, which means be beat out 80+ years of competition for that title. Almost anything that can be said about Lidstrom can also be said equally about Harvey. Bourque had easily the greatest longetivity among defensemen, combined with perhaps the highest non-Orr prime from 1987-1994 and an incredibly high peak at the turn of the decade. Other than pure trophy-counting, there's not a strong enough argument for Lidstrom to enter this tier.
4. Lidstrom - I think we all know his credentials at this point. He has put some space between himself and the guys who come after -- Potvin, Kelly, Robinson -- largely on account of his post-lockout resurgence.
WILD CARD. Shore - People who take the time to look into Shore's career will understand why he is still ranked this highly after 80 years. It's not just nostalgia. He was legitimately dominant, at a level exceeded only by Orr, and during a time when contrary to popular belief the NHL was in fact very competitive. Shore was easily the best offensive and arguably the best defensive defenseman in the world, for a sustained period of time, and the cornerstone of one of the greatest defenses in history. He was massive in the playoffs. He was nearly as influential as Orr, redefining our concept of what a defenseman could accomplish. And for god's sake, he won four Hart trophies.
Depending on how you feel about Shore, Lidstrom goes in at either #4 or #5. At this stage in his career, it's unlikely that he moves any higher.
They all had the tools to be great in their time. Hockey is better today. Not just beacuse of the better equipement and better training. There are more of them today. And you always learn from the past.
In the late 19th century when soccer was kind of new, players pretty much only ran when they had the ball themselves, and otherwise they stood beside and watched the one with the ball, waiting for him to pass. At some time, probably by losing to a team that did run without the ball aswell, they learned how to be better soccerplayers and the game got better, and you couldnt dominate your peers simply by running. Next generation didnt have to think about that and could improve other areas and be overall better.
Apparently it's not allowed to criticize Orr's opponents or his injured-ending career.
Yet, Forsberg isn't seen as one of the great players because his career was cut short.
Forsberg is seen as a one-time Hart and Ross winner, 2-time Cup winner, 3-time First Team All Star. That's almost identical to Brett Hull and Joe Sakic, slightly better than Eric Lindros. It's quite fair to rank Forsberg with those guys in terms of career, with the understanding that he was more like Jagr on a per-game basis.
Orr is seen as a 2-time Cup winner, 2-time Ross and Smythe winner, 3-time Hart winner, 8-time Norris winner and 8-time First Team All Star. Orr had more Harts than all other post-WWII defensemen combined... scored 1/3rd more PPG than the next-best defenseman... set the Norris record by winning 8 in only 9 full seasons... is the only defenseman with multiple Smythes... and the only defenseman with a Ross. The only other player with a comparable resume', taking position into consideration, is Wayne Gretzky.
I'm not sure quite what point you were trying to make about Orr's injuries, but suffice it to say that he accomplished more than enough in his injury-shortened career to be considered #1 without any consideration of what he may have done healthy.
We just had this conversation in excruciating detail over a period of several weeks on the History board.
Yeah, excruciating detail but you guys set up your own parameters and completely ignore the growth of the game and how much more difficult it is to stand out now with so many more people playing the game today and an overall improved quality of hockey. This punishes Lidstrom every time you make those silly comparisons... just the way most of the posters in the HOH section want it.
The cross era comparisons over there are set up to favour players from the past who dealt with less competition in the hockey world...don't act like your lists are set in stone now.
...and an old Bruins fan wanting Orr and Bourque to go 1-2...how surprising! Makes me feel more comfortable knowing as a Red Wings fan that I'm not the only biased one.
Apparently it's not allowed to criticize Orr's opponents or his injured-ending career.
Yet, Forsberg isn't seen as one of the great players because his career was cut short.
Wonder what it will be for Crosby...
By all means. Orr was a great player.
Forsberg is probably the most talented "complete" player I have seen since Brian Trottier or Mark Messier. Were I starting a franchise, I think I would take a young Forsberg over any player playing today (even a young Jagr).
But Forsberg was merely great. Orr was legendary.
Orr had ~8 years of sheer dominance. A decade of dismantling of teams; a decade of reinventing the concept of a defenseman. The guy transcends the game.
By the same logic you could say that the fastest (100m) in 1960 is better than Usain Bolt since it was a bigger difference between him and his peers than it is between Usain and his - even though Usain Bolt would cross the finish line 15 metres before the guy from the 60s would - if they actually faced eachother exactly as they were during their respective peeks.
This thread WILL NOT become the "flash of the obvious" thread mentioned in the sticky thread here:
Any further derailment will lead to thread bans or worse. This includes responding to either of the posts above ("but I was just getting my point of view in!!!" ). This also includes if you claim not to see this official warning.
Yeah, excruciating detail but you guys set up your own parameters and completely ignore the growth of the game and how much more difficult it is to stand out now with so many more people playing the game today and an overall improved quality of hockey.
The problem is your definition of "standing out". Is it winning Norris trophies or the actual play on the ice?
If you try and analyze greatness by a how a player is on the ice (in absolute terms) then you have statistics as well as your own two eyes to make the judgement. Competition is irrelevant, or can be calculated for. Just as a I know that Denis Potvin was a great puck-mover, Lidstrom was unrivalled at playing the angles, and Bourque defined two-way dominance.
When looking at greatness by comparing how a player dominates his peers, it really isn't relevant to talk about how dominant Lidstrom was over the average NHLer. Yes, the average NHLer was better than the average NHLer during Orr's time (though the argument exists that fewer teams in the 70s balances out the larger player pool today). But we want to talk about the dominance of Lidstrom over the other great defensemen.
The same applies for trophy counting. Lidstrom is playing in one of the most diluted eras for great NHL defensemen in the history of the game. Just like players like Forsberg and Sakic had to play amongst a forwards corps that was one of the best of all time...
Quote:
This punishes Lidstrom every time you make those silly comparisons... just the way most of the posters in the HOH section want it.
There is no massive conspiracy against Lidstrom....
Quote:
The cross era comparisons over there are set up to favour players from the past who dealt with less competition in the hockey world...don't act like your lists are set in stone now.
Players like Bourque were playing ten years ago...is that "the past"?
Quote:
...and an old Bruins fan wanting Orr and Bourque to go 1-2...how surprising! Makes me feel more comfortable knowing as a Red Wings fan that I'm not the only biased one
I am not a Bruins fan, yet I have no trouble saying Orr and Bourque are 1,2.
I understand why it was moved onto the HOH boards, but if we confine these discussions to this board only, the knowledge isn't going to spread....
I didn't move the thread. However...
The point of these boards is not (necessarily) to prosthelytize. You can't force someone to read a thread and learn, and if you're relying on location in order to get people to read a thread, then that's a problem with the thread itself.
The point of these boards is not (necessarily) to prosthelytize. You can't force someone to read a thread and learn, and if you're relying on location in order to get people to read a thread, then that's a problem with the thread itself.
Content should drive what people want to read.
Fair enough. I do think that a discussion about Lidstrom's placement in the hockey world is not solely "history of hockey".
this just doesnt make sense..
the very gap between ray and lids is actually very narrow one. how come some dude nobody (voters) ever saw playing is suitable sitting right between?
shore might be the lost superman beating those both (which i dont believe) or then he shouldnt be part of top 5 discussion at all.
Using your primary 'evidence'; dominance over peers,
wouldnt the guy dominating, say, 1 million other defensemen around the globe, be more dominate over his peers than a guy dominating, what, a few houndred canadians on a pond? (Shore)
Im just using your logic here.
The best is the best. It doesn't matter how many players play hockey in the world - the NHL will have almost all of the best players. And the only relevant competition is the rest of the league you're in. I don't care if Vladimir Kozlovistan is putting up 400 goals per game in a junior F league in Mongolia. Shore played against the best in the world, and won four Hart trophies.
Quote:
You are fighting a battle you cant win here.
You might want to stop saying things like that if you want to be taken seriously.
Yeah, excruciating detail but you guys set up your own parameters and completely ignore the growth of the game and how much more difficult it is to stand out now with so many more people playing the game today and an overall improved quality of hockey. This punishes Lidstrom every time you make those silly comparisons... just the way most of the posters in the HOH section want it.
I find that comment rather disingenuous, considering you have been a very active part in these conversations. In particular, nobody set up special parameters for threads like "Lidstrom vs. Potvin" or "Lidstrom vs. Bourque", where the majority of the discussion took place. You were free to make your case openly at any time.
Quote:
The cross era comparisons over there are set up to favour players from the past who dealt with less competition in the hockey world...don't act like your lists are set in stone now.
I'd say they're pretty close to set in stone for anybody thinking reasonably on the subject.
Orr
Harvey/Bourque
Lidstrom
(wildcard-Shore)
That's about as close to unanimous as it's going to get in this sort of discussion. There are clear and convincing reasons to place each player in each position.
Quote:
...and an old Bruins fan wanting Orr and Bourque to go 1-2...how surprising! Makes me feel more comfortable knowing as a Red Wings fan that I'm not the only biased one.
So basically you're accusing me of childishly showing up here to pimp players from my favorite team. Classy.
I stated quite openly that I hold a minority view on that subject, and that there are perfectly reasonable arguments for Harvey over Bourque. I do not propose any conspiracy for why the opposite side is in the majority. I do, however, think we could have a knock-down, drag-out thread titled "Bourque vs. Harvey" at some point.
I find that comment rather disingenuous, considering you have been a very active part in these conversations. In particular, nobody set up special parameters for threads like "Lidstrom vs. Potvin" or "Lidstrom vs. Bourque", where the majority of the discussion took place. You were free to make your case openly at any time..
I've been in the conversations but all along I've said that comparing players across era's is impossible to do fairly and it gets ridiculous when the NHL it treated like it's been a static league since it's inception. I've made my case and people just want to ignore this part of the argument altogether, some as if it doesn't matter and some as if it doesn't even exist.
From just a few posts above:
Quote:
The best is the best. It doesn't matter how many players play hockey in the world - the NHL will have almost all of the best players. And the only relevant competition is the rest of the league you're in. I don't care if Vladimir Kozlovistan is putting up 400 goals per game in a junior F league in Mongolia. Shore played against the best in the world, and won four Hart trophies.
These are the type of parameters posters are using in these debates.
1) It doesn't matter the size of the talent pool, all eras of NHL history are equal.
2) No other league is considered "the best in the world" so it doesn't carry equal value to the NHL. Case closed.
These are not parameters for a truly fair comparison across eras.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey
I'd say they're pretty close to set in stone for anybody thinking reasonably on the subject.
Orr
Harvey/Bourque
Lidstrom
(wildcard-Shore)
That's about as close to unanimous as it's going to get in this sort of discussion. There are clear and convincing reasons to place each player in each position.
Lots of clear and convincing reasons to change up that list as well. The people on this HOH board don't carry as much weight as those actually involved in the game and I've heard they have a different list.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey
So basically you're accusing me of childishly showing up here to pimp players from my favorite team. Classy.
I stated quite openly that I hold a minority view on that subject, and that there are perfectly reasonable arguments for Harvey over Bourque. I do not propose any conspiracy for why the opposite side is in the majority. I do, however, think we could have a knock-down, drag-out thread titled "Bourque vs. Harvey" at some point.
We both know we are fans of certain teams so don't pretend it isn't a factor in which players we both pimp. It's not an accusation, it is a fact for both of us and it doesn't make us childish, we're just being fans.
