HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Lidstrom: Can he catch Harvey?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-19-2010, 12:25 PM
  #51
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,190
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
How surprising, I put up the case for the argument elsewhere but will put it here again.

I think that a guy who played in the most competitive era of the NHL for 18 years ( and is the ebst Dman of that era IMO) and counting can be in the mix with Bobby (who was the best player in his era) who played 7 or 8 full superstar seasons in a much watered down league in the late 60's and early 70's.

But of course if you can't distinguish between the quality of play in the NHL in those different times I can understand your viewpoint for what it's worth.
Ahhh...I see, so you have no problem saying that Orr played against a weaker class than Lidstrom but when it's stated, rightfully so I might add, that Lidstrom played against a weaker class than Bourque, it's a bunch of BS. Gotcha

Tell ya what...how about you name the players that Lidstrom competed against and actually beat out that would be considered better than Park, Potvin, Clarke, Robinson, Lafleur and Dionne.

Also, remember, Orr did not just beat out those guys, he left them in the freakin dust.
When has Lidstrom ever left everyone, forwards included, in the dust where there wasn't even the slightest hint of doubt to the case?

Gimme a break man, like I said, you wanna prop Lids up with Bourque and Harvey, have at it, the argument is deserved.

Putting him up with the likes of Orr, Gretzky, Lemieux and Howe....just shows your ignorance.
Seriously, all I can do is shake my head incredulously.

By all means though, keep expressing that opinion, just be prepared to be hung by it absolutely.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-19-2010, 12:34 PM
  #52
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,609
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JackSlater View Post
They aren't close. Orr was by far the best player of his era, and was clearly the best player in the NHL for six straight seasons. Since his reign as the best player ended due to injury as opposed to a drop in play, it's reasonable to assume his dominance would have continued had he been healthier. You would be hard pressed to find even one season in which Lidstrom was clearly the best player in the world. The gap between Orr and Lidstrom at their best is just too big to make up for Lidstrom playing in a more competitive era. If you looked at career value alone then you could make a case for Lidstrom being more valuable over his whole career, but if we're talking about who was actually better there is no legitimate case.



Abdul Jabbar is different than Lidstrom because he was considered the best player in the world for a long time during his peak, while Lidstrom never was. I think you can make a strong case that Lidstrom had roughly the same value as Orr over the course of their respective careers... but I don't think that really impacts who was a better player given the spans in which that value was accumulated.
I agree that Orr was the best player in the league for a 6 year stretch, and get kind irritated when Bobby Clarke's 3 Harts get dragged out, it's either one or the other, not directed at you though.

I for one think that the way defense man are used and the rate of increase of competition and the lack of quality in the NHL during Orr's years combined with the length of careers is enough to put both in the discussion.

As for what Orr would have done, not sure we can take it into consideration, Potvin wasn't the same player after his injury at age 26 and Orr simply only had 36 games after his age 26 season.

Orr played in the perfect storm of a diluted talent pool in the NHL and was the best player on an offensive juggernaut in Boston in the late 60's and early 70's.

Even if Orr played today (and gave him healthy knees) there is no way he would dominate like he did in that diluted league as the way the game is played and the role of Dmen in particular is vastly different than back when he led the way for a more offense role for dman on that Boston team.

It is doubtful that any Dman will get serious consideration for a hart trophy anytime soon and can't recall the last time when someone did, will have to check Hart voting patterns.

Also as great as Orr and those Boston teams were they only have 2 Cups as well and under achieved in that department. Lidstrom has 4 in a tougher era to win cups and that should count for something in the argument.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-19-2010, 12:43 PM
  #53
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,190
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
I agree that Orr was the best player in the league for a 6 year stretch, and get kind irritated when Bobby Clarke's 3 Harts get dragged out, it's either one or the other, not directed at you though.

I for one think that the way defense man are used and the rate of increase of competition and the lack of quality in the NHL during Orr's years combined with the length of careers is enough to put both in the discussion.

As for what Orr would have done, not sure we can take it into consideration, Potvin wasn't the same player after his injury at age 26 and Orr simply only had 36 games after his age 26 season.

Orr played in the perfect storm of a diluted talent pool in the NHL and was the best player on an offensive juggernaut in Boston in the late 60's and early 70's.

Even if Orr played today (and gave him healthy knees) there is no way he would dominate like he did in that diluted league as the way the game is played and the role of Dmen in particular is vastly different than back when he led the way for a more offense role for dman on that Boston team.

It is doubtful that any Dman will get serious consideration for a hart trophy anytime soon and can't recall the last time when someone did, will have to check Hart voting patterns.

Also as great as Orr and those Boston teams were they only have 2 Cups as well and under achieved in that department. Lidstrom has 4 in a tougher era to win cups and that should count for something in the argument.
Your hypocrisy never ends it seems....

So after saying that Orr's competition was weaker than Lidstrom's, now you are trying to say that Orr's strength of team was a factor as well.
Hmmmm...now where have I heard those arguments before....Oh I remember now, it's the same arguments that Lidstrom supporters refuse to acknowledge for Bourque.

Enough already, now you're just pissing me off with your ignorance and hypocrisy, I'm pretty sure i'm not alone either.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-19-2010, 01:01 PM
  #54
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,609
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Ahhh...I see, so you have no problem saying that Orr played against a weaker class than Lidstrom but when it's stated, rightfully so I might add, that Lidstrom played against a weaker class than Bourque, it's a bunch of BS. Gotcha

Tell ya what...how about you name the players that Lidstrom competed against and actually beat out that would be considered better than Park, Potvin, Clarke, Robinson, Lafleur and Dionne.

Also, remember, Orr did not just beat out those guys, he left them in the freakin dust.
When has Lidstrom ever left everyone, forwards included, in the dust where there wasn't even the slightest hint of doubt to the case?

Gimme a break man, like I said, you wanna prop Lids up with Bourque and Harvey, have at it, the argument is deserved.

Putting him up with the likes of Orr, Gretzky, Lemieux and Howe....just shows your ignorance.
Seriously, all I can do is shake my head incredulously.

By all means though, keep expressing that opinion, just be prepared to be hung by it absolutely.
First I don't fully buy the argument that Bourque faced better competition for the Norris than Lidstrom did.

A lot of Bourque's competition looked better because of offensive stats and not necessarily the overall quality of play but other Dmen they competed against. Also the league quality and the quality of player is what I refer to more than the guys directly in the running for the Norris trophy.

Also of the guys you mentioned Potvin competed against Orr up to his age 22 season (with a lousy supporting cast), Lafluer was also 23 and only had one year of direct competition against Orr that was meaningful. Robinson was 23 in the only year they really directly competed as well.

Dionne was 23 and Clarke well is vastly over rated by some on this forum (with those 3 Harts being the main point of contention) IMO and Park really isn't as good as many make him out to be.

Hey but don't let the facts get in the way of your argument. Orr was a great player and the best in the league over a 8 year stretch but it was watered down and he also played in a perfect storm in the situation in Boston and the overall role of Dmen is sooo much different today than it was back then.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-19-2010, 01:04 PM
  #55
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
 
vadim sharifijanov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 9,366
vCash: 500
christ almighty (sorry don), what happened to this thread? why bother, R71?

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-19-2010, 01:09 PM
  #56
JackSlater
Registered User
 
JackSlater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,066
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
I agree that Orr was the best player in the league for a 6 year stretch, and get kind irritated when Bobby Clarke's 3 Harts get dragged out, it's either one or the other, not directed at you though.
Yeah I don't think anyone could reasonably argue that Clarke was ever a better player than Orr.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
I for one think that the way defense man are used and the rate of increase of competition and the lack of quality in the NHL during Orr's years combined with the length of careers is enough to put both in the discussion.

As for what Orr would have done, not sure we can take it into consideration, Potvin wasn't the same player after his injury at age 26 and Orr simply only had 36 games after his age 26 season.

Orr played in the perfect storm of a diluted talent pool in the NHL and was the best player on an offensive juggernaut in Boston in the late 60's and early 70's.

Even if Orr played today (and gave him healthy knees) there is no way he would dominate like he did in that diluted league as the way the game is played and the role of Dmen in particular is vastly different than back when he led the way for a more offense role for dman on that Boston team.

It is doubtful that any Dman will get serious consideration for a hart trophy anytime soon and can't recall the last time when someone did, will have to check Hart voting patterns.
Couldn't everything you've said also be said before Orr's career began... and he proceeded to go out and actually do those things, even though they seemed so unlikely before? As far as Boston being an offensive juggernaut... it's pretty clear why Boston was an offensive juggernaut; they had Bobby Orr. The other players benefitted from playing with him far more than the other way around. For their eras Lidstrom's teams were stronger without him than Orr's were without him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Also as great as Orr and those Boston teams were they only have 2 Cups as well and under achieved in that department. Lidstrom has 4 in a tougher era to win cups and that should count for something in the argument.
This argument has no merit. Even if we considered championships as a reflection of individuals, they have the same seasons to cups ratio, both teams were relative underachievers, and Orr was clearly a much more valuable player to his teams. Even this argument favours Orr pretty easily.


Last edited by JackSlater: 12-19-2010 at 01:16 PM.
JackSlater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-19-2010, 01:14 PM
  #57
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,190
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vadim sharifijanov View Post
christ almighty (sorry don), what happened to this thread? why bother, R71?
I dunno, you're right though.
I enjoy a good argument where both sides make valid points.
Crap like this though pisses me off and it's hard to not retort at not only the idiocy of it but also the embarrassment of it being posted in the History section.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-19-2010, 01:18 PM
  #58
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,979
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mco543 View Post
Lidstrom as the best defenseman ever really pushes peak vs career to the absolute extreme limit. Yes I can see an argument that Lidstrom could be ranked 1st ahead of Orr but I would never come out and say it. Lidstrom is really very similar to Kareem Abdul-Jabbar in that he was consistently great every year like Kareem was for like 19 years of his career.

Is 18 years of consistent high end play by Lidstrom worth more or better than 8 or so seasons of transcendent play from Orr?
Might as well rank Mark Messier over Mario Lemieux if you are ranking Lidstrom over Orr.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-19-2010, 01:45 PM
  #59
danincanada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,178
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Tell ya what...how about you name the players that Lidstrom competed against and actually beat out that would be considered better than Park, Potvin, Clarke, Robinson, Lafleur and Dionne.

Also, remember, Orr did not just beat out those guys, he left them in the freakin dust.
When has Lidstrom ever left everyone, forwards included, in the dust where there wasn't even the slightest hint of doubt to the case?
There are no Europeans on your list and we know why...because there were hardly any in the NHL back then. The league was made up of mostly Canadian players and the population of Canada was about 21,000,000 compared to almost 35,000,000 now.

It's impossible to know exactly how hockey becoming an international sport and the population boom factors into these era comparisons but I'd venture to say Lidstrom actually had tougher competition. Both in terms of natural ability (from a deeper pool) and sheers numbers of people competing with him worldwide.

danincanada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-19-2010, 02:08 PM
  #60
Mantha Poodoo
Playoff Beard
 
Mantha Poodoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,889
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsilon View Post
One thing I've noticed is that when a lot of hockey people are asked to comment on Lidstrom and the great defensemen in general (there's been some quotes given in this thread, also that recent ESPN article, plus I remember some from Pronger and others), there's a fairly consistent pattern that emerges:

-Everyone considers Orr the best ever, and in a class by himself (rightly so)
-Many have a hard time comparing Shore to "modern" defensemen (very understandable)
-Among non-Orr "modern" defensemen, Lidstrom is about as highly regarded as any of the others, but none are so revered as to really separate themselves from the pack that comprises the elite tier below Orr.
The funny part is, once someone is christened 'the best ever' at a position or in a game, that tends to be extremely hard to shake, even if there is merit for an argument. To do so would be to challenge a tradition and a standard and that's risky business in big media. In fact, the only time I can think of it happening in hockey is Howe -> Gretzky, and that was the perfect storm: a fantastically talented hockey player, in a high scoring and very open ended era to be able to amass tremendous, unapproachable records, the league was in the need of a 'perfect' player to market the game and thusly pushed him as the greatest even when he'd only had half the career of Howe. It was both possible due to the era and needed due to the state of the business.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not making a Howe over Gretzky argument here (even though one is certainly possible; however, I'd argue Orr over either of them if pressed). Rather, what I am pointing out is I don't think there's that obvious a line between Orr and the next 3 defensemen (my choice for such: Lidstrom, Harvey, Bourque), just like I don't feel that Gretzky vs Lemieux vs Howe is an easy choice, nor is Howe vs Richard, nor Richard vs Hull, etc etc. If someone wanted to make the argument for any of Lidstrom, Harvey, or Bourque, maybe even Shore for that matter, over Orr, I would certainly agree that it is debatable and that good cases can be presented for any of them. And unlike some others, I certainly wouldn't refer to someone as an 'idiot' for doing so (I would save such an opinion for the quality of their argument).

While I think I would side with Orr, because he simply dominated all over the ice (I think Lidstrom has been a better defensive performer, however I think the gap between Orr's offense and Lidstrom's offense is greater than the defensive gap; it's not as if Orr was a floater), I do think Lidstrom has the best available shot out of all the next d-men on the list. He's coming up on 41, still playing amazing hockey, and more than any other of the top 5ish d-men has something in droves which Orr did not: longevity.

Lindros and Forsberg could have been higher rated forwards if they had longevity, but they did not, partly due to style of play and partly because of misfortune. This argument is held against them and I'm not going to make an exception for Orr just because I think he was more of a badass hockey player. No matter his talent level, we can't make an assumption over what his career 'might' have been like; his body of work must be taken for what it is. He certainly was the most skilled defenseman of all time, the most dominant, but it takes more than just skill to be the 'best'. You still have to be able to use your tools, and the longer you can use those tools, the more of an impact you can have on the game, and the better (and such ability to do so is a skill in and of itself that must be taken into account). This is where Lidstrom, Bourque, and Harvey all have their strongest argument against Orr should someone want to make the case. As I said, I believe due to the fact that he's still going strong and a likely Norris contender at 41 (not to mention the bizarrely low number of game smissed over his career), I think out of that list, Lidstrom would make the strongest challenger.

Anyhow, I've said my piece on 'untouchable' players and how I believe such rigidity of thought to be poor practice. Of course, I'm not a member of the media so my paycheck isn't depending on my making of waves (or the lack thereof), so I'm arguably in a better position to state such, whether right, wrong, or somewhere in between.

Mantha Poodoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-19-2010, 02:10 PM
  #61
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,190
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
First I don't fully buy the argument that Bourque faced better competition for the Norris than Lidstrom did.
Doesn't matter if you "buy" it or not, it's a valid argument.
The fact that you don't "buy" it though only makes it look even worse when you use exactly the same premise for Lidstrom.

Also, I notice how you conveniently skipped over my point about team strength. That one kind of handcuffed ya eh

Quote:
A lot of Bourque's competition looked better because of offensive stats and not necessarily the overall quality of play but other Dmen they competed against. Also the league quality and the quality of player is what I refer to more than the guys directly in the running for the Norris trophy.
Bla bla bla....I will put a prime Coffey or Chelios year after year after year against anyone Lidstrom competed with year after year after year.

Quote:
Also of the guys you mentioned Potvin competed against Orr up to his age 22 season (with a lousy supporting cast), Lafluer was also 23 and only had one year of direct competition against Orr that was meaningful. Robinson was 23 in the only year they really directly competed as well.
Funny how you mention all these other players ages of 22 and 23 yet forget to mention that Orr had 3 Norris, a Hart, a Smythe and a freakin ART ROSS at 22.
Just funny.

Quote:
Dionne was 23 and Clarke well is vastly over rated by some on this forum (with those 3 Harts being the main point of contention) IMO and Park really isn't as good as many make him out to be.
Heh, yeah Park was totally overrated...for sure sonny

Quote:
Hey but don't let the facts get in the way of your argument. Orr was a great player and the best in the league over a 8 year stretch but it was watered down and he also played in a perfect storm in the situation in Boston and the overall role of Dmen is sooo much different today than it was back then.

Hahaha...yeah facts.
Yeah, lets follow your "facts" and say that Orr came into a perfect storm and that the D position has changed since then even though it was Orr himself and his play that actually created that storm, not other factors or we can also forget that the changes to the position as it's played today were actually caused by Orr himself.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry with you.
I think I will laugh because laughing at the innocent child that doesn't know any better is better than crying for the ignorant adult that should.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-19-2010, 02:21 PM
  #62
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,382
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wheeled Winger View Post
Lindros and Forsberg could have been higher rated forwards if they had longevity, but they did not, partly due to style of play and partly because of misfortune. This argument is held against them and I'm not going to make an exception for Orr just because I think he was more of a badass hockey player. No matter his talent level, we can't make an assumption over what his career 'might' have been like; his body of work must be taken for what it is.
There is no comparison between Orr and Lindros/Forsberg. Orr has more Hart trophies and Conn Smythes than both of them combined, and ties for them in Art Ross trophies.

If we judge Orr based solely on what he accomplish before he retired, we see that he has:

- Eight Norris trophies, all-time record
- Two Conn Smythe trophies (first among defensemen; only Roy has more)
- Two Art Ross trophies (first among defensemen; only eight forwards players have more)
- Three Hart trophies (second among defensemen; only Gretzky, Howe and Shore have more)
- Nine-time all-star (fourth among defensemen)
- MVP of major international tournament

On top of this, he was named the best defensive defenseman in the NHL, and was almost certainly the best offensive defenseman in history.

It's not like he was Forsberg or Lindros with one Hart season, and a bunch of injured-shortened years.

Even though he had a short career, Orr still accomplished significantly more than Bourque, Harvey, Lidstrom and Shore. That's why he's the greatest.

Hockey Outsider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-19-2010, 02:25 PM
  #63
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,190
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wheeled Winger View Post
Don't get me wrong, I'm not making a Howe over Gretzky argument here (even though one is certainly possible; however, I'd argue Orr over either of them if pressed). Rather, what I am pointing out is I don't think there's that obvious a line between Orr and the next 3 defensemen (my choice for such: Lidstrom, Harvey, Bourque), just like I don't feel that Gretzky vs Lemieux vs Howe is an easy choice, nor is Howe vs Richard, nor Richard vs Hull, etc etc. If someone wanted to make the argument for any of Lidstrom, Harvey, or Bourque, maybe even Shore for that matter, over Orr, I would certainly agree that it is debatable and that good cases can be presented for any of them. And unlike some others, I certainly wouldn't refer to someone as an 'idiot' for doing so (I would save such an opinion for the quality of their argument).
Overall a good post and you're right, maybe saying "don't be an idiot" might of been a little strong. Saying don't be ignorant would been more appropriate.
You do however, leave me a little confused.
You mention how, if pressed, you would put Orr above Howe and Gretzky for the best ever to play the game yet at the same time you lend credence for allowing Lidstrom above Orr.
In saying such, you are also inferring that Lidstrom should also be included with Gretzky, Lemieux and Howe.

No offense but that makes little sense to me, not to mention far fetched as hell.
Perhaps some elaboration would help.

Either way, I have no problem with reasonable arguments but when Lidstrom backers use the same arguments against Orr that they refuse to even acknowledge for Bourque....reasonable is not the word that comes to mind.


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 12-19-2010 at 02:34 PM.
Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-19-2010, 02:34 PM
  #64
Mantha Poodoo
Playoff Beard
 
Mantha Poodoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,889
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider View Post
There is no comparison between Orr and Lindros/Forsberg. Orr has more Hart trophies and Conn Smythes than both of them combined, and ties for them in Art Ross trophies.

If we judge Orr based solely on what he accomplish before he retired, we see that he has:

- Eight Norris trophies, all-time record
- Two Conn Smythe trophies (first among defensemen; only Roy has more)
- Two Art Ross trophies (first among defensemen; only eight forwards players have more)
- Three Hart trophies (second among defensemen; only Gretzky, Howe and Shore have more)
- Nine-time all-star (fourth among defensemen)
- MVP of major international tournament

On top of this, he was named the best defensive defenseman in the NHL, and was almost certainly the best offensive defenseman in history.

It's not like he was Forsberg or Lindros with one Hart season, and a bunch of injured-shortened years.

Even though he had a short career, Orr still accomplished significantly more than Bourque, Harvey, Lidstrom and Shore. That's why he's the greatest.
I'm not saying they do (so I'm sorry you wasted all that listing of accomplishments). I was using them as examples of players who would probably have been better rated on an 'all-time' list if they each had another 5 years of high level play to their name (I'm also not saying they would be top 10 players if they had both had full careers). But they didn't, and such is used against them in arguments. Likewise, such should be for Orr when talking about his nearest competition.

Gretzky is "The Great One". This is appropriate enough, an amazing player with an amazing career. But would he have "The Great One" legacy if his career had only spanned 5 years? Certainly, his body of work in his first 5 years was stunning and no doubt would have earned him a good spot on a top 100 list. However, he wasn't "The Great One" just because he was a talented and dominant player, he was a talented and dominant player who played for a long time, amassing tons of records and competing at a high level of play for many seasons. Clearly, he belongs in any top 5 list of skill. However, it's not skill alone that determines a player's position on a "top 100" or "top 10" list. Clearly, those lists take an entire body of work into account; Gretzky certainly has an impressive body of work that secures him a top 3 if not a number 1 spot on the vast majority of lists.

This is where I believe Orr's greatest 'weakness' to be on a top players list. It'd be very difficult to rank anyone else as the #1 skilled defenseman of all time, but due to body of work, there are a good couple of defensemen for whom could be made a decent argument as better all-time. It's no more cut and dry then the Howe vs Gretzky vs Lemieux argument.

For the record, if I were to arrange the 'top 4' on skill, it would probably be:

Orr
Lemieux
Gretzky
Howe

but for an 'all-time' list, it would be:

Gretzky
Howe
Orr
Lemieux

And on that latter list, I think an argument could be made that a defenseman or two are knocking on that door, with Lidstrom arguably having the best chance due to the amazing longevity and consistency of his career as well as the fact that he's still playing like the league's best d-man at almost 41.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Overall a good post and you're right, maybe saying "don't be an idiot" might of been a little strong. Saying don't be ignorant would been more appropriate.
You do however, leave me a little confused.
You mention how, if pressed, you would put Orr above Howe and Gretzky for the best ever to play the game yet at the same time you lend credence for allowing Lidstrom above Orr.
In saying such, you are also inferring that Lidstrom should also be included with Gretzky, Lemieux and Howe.

No offense but that makes little sense to me, not to mention far fetched as hell.
Perhaps some elaboration would help.

Either way, I have no problem with reasonable arguments but when Lidstrom backers use the same arguments against Orr that they refuse to even acknowledge for Bourque....reasonable is not the word that comes to mind.
I hope the above post helps alleviate your confusion. I make a distinction between being the most talented/skilled/dominant player and the ranking on an 'all-time' list, as such inevitably also takes career, longevity, and long-term impact into account, such as in my "Great One" example.


Last edited by Mantha Poodoo: 12-19-2010 at 02:40 PM. Reason: Clarity.
Mantha Poodoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-19-2010, 02:40 PM
  #65
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,190
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wheeled Winger View Post

For the record, if I were to give my top 5 on skill, it would probably be:

Orr
Lemieux
Gretzky
Howe

but for an 'all-time' list, it would be:

Gretzky
Howe
Orr
Lemieux

And on that latter list, I think an argument could be made that a defenseman or two are knocking on that door, with Lidstrom arguably having the best chance due to the amazing longevity and consistency of his career as well as the fact that he's still playing like the league's best d-man at almost 41.

The thing is though, those 4 were game breakers, were absolutely awesome to behold and known for accomplishing the impossible.

Can you honestly say that Lidstrom possessed the same level of game breaking, was that awesome to behold or has accomplished anything considered even close to impossible....I certainly can't.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-19-2010, 02:48 PM
  #66
Mantha Poodoo
Playoff Beard
 
Mantha Poodoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,889
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
The thing is though, those 4 were game breakers, were absolutely awesome to behold and known for accomplishing the impossible.

Can you honestly say that Lidstrom possessed the same level of game breaking, was that awesome to behold or has accomplished anything considered even close to impossible....I certainly can't.
They were.. and I can't, and I also don't, as you can see from my list. However, I also recognize the validity of an argument for Lidstrom (or Bourque, or Harvey) over Orr based on career and longevity (after all, no matter how awesome Orr was in his relatively short stint in Boston, it could be argued that the longevity of Bourque's career allowed him to have even more of an impact, or Lidstrom's tenure on the Wings), just like I must acknowledge that the Great One is the Great One due to his body of work... yes, he played in an era that helped him accumulate those stats, yes, he played on some damned good teams at times, yes, the league marketed the hell out of him... but the fact remains that he both had the talent to do so and did it. He was a perfect storm.

Again, even though I give the edge to Orr, I don't hold by the HF mantra that "it's not even close". Everything is close in the top 20.

Mantha Poodoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-19-2010, 02:58 PM
  #67
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,382
vCash: 500
There's been a lot of talk about the quality of competition Bourque and Lidstrom faced, but nobody has really taken a look at it in any detail.

I started by looking at each season where Bourque or Lidstrom placed in the top three in Norris trophy voting.

I then ranked the other two Norris finalists as belonging to one of three categories:

1. Top ten defenseman, in his prime
2. Average HOF defenseman, in his prime
3. Borderline HOF defenseman, in his prime
4. HOF defenseman, but clearly outside of prime
5. Non HOF defenseman

Bourque's competition

SeasonPlayerRanking
1982 Doug Wilson Borderline HOF defenseman, in his prime
1982 Paul Coffey Average HOF defenseman, in his prime
1983 Mark Howe Borderline HOF defenseman, in his prime
1983 Rod Langway Average HOF defenseman, in his prime
1984 Paul Coffey Average HOF defenseman, in his prime
1984 Rod Langway Average HOF defenseman, in his prime
1985 Paul Coffey Average HOF defenseman, in his prime
1985 Rod Langway Average HOF defenseman, in his prime
1987 Larry Murphy Average HOF defenseman, in his prime
1987 Mark Howe Borderline HOF defenseman, in his prime
1988 Gary Suter Non HOF defenseman
1988 Scott Stevens Average HOF defenseman, in his prime
1990 Al MacInnis Average HOF defenseman, in his prime
1990 Doug Wilson Borderline HOF defenseman, in his prime
1991 Al MacInnis Average HOF defenseman, in his prime
1991 Chris Chelios Top ten defenseman, in his prime
1992 Brian Leetch Average HOF defenseman, in his prime
1992 Phil Housley Non HOF defenseman
1993 Chris Chelios Top ten defenseman, in his prime
1993 Larry Murphy Average HOF defenseman, in his prime
1994 Al MacInnis Average HOF defenseman, in his prime
1994 Scott Stevens Average HOF defenseman, in his prime
1995 Chris Chelios Top ten defenseman, in his prime
1995 Paul Coffey Average HOF defenseman, in his prime
1996 Brian Leetch Average HOF defenseman, in his prime
1996 Chris Chelios Top ten defenseman, in his prime
1999 Al MacInnis Average HOF defenseman, in his prime
1999 Nicklas Lidstrom HOF defenseman, but clearly outside of prime
2001 Nicklas Lidstrom Top ten defenseman, in his prime
2001 Scott Stevens HOF defenseman, but clearly outside of prime

Lidstrom's competition

SeasonPlayerRanking
1999 Al MacInnis Average HOF defenseman, in his prime
2003 Al MacInnis HOF defenseman, but clearly outside of prime
2002 Chris Chelios HOF defenseman, but clearly outside of prime
1998 Chris Pronger Average HOF defenseman, in his prime
2000 Chris Pronger Average HOF defenseman, in his prime
2007 Chris Pronger Average HOF defenseman, in his prime
2003 Derian Hatcher Non HOF defenseman
2008 Dion Phaneuf Non HOF defenseman
2009 Mike Green Non HOF defenseman
1999 Ray Bourque HOF defenseman, but clearly outside of prime
2001 Ray Bourque HOF defenseman, but clearly outside of prime
1998 Rob Blake Average HOF defenseman, in his prime
2000 Rob Blake Average HOF defenseman, in his prime
2002 Rob Blake Average HOF defenseman, in his prime
2006 Scott Niedermayer Average HOF defenseman, in his prime
2007 Scott Niedermayer Average HOF defenseman, in his prime
2001 Scott Stevens HOF defenseman, but clearly outside of prime
2006 Sergei Zubov Non HOF defenseman
2008 Zdeno Chara Borderline HOF defenseman, in his prime
2009 Zdeno Chara Borderline HOF defenseman, in his prime

Comparison

Top ten defensemen. 17% of Bourque's competition; 0% of Lidstrom's

Chris Chelios is generally considered one of the top ten defensemen of all time. He was Bourque's toughest competition for the Norris trophy (Bourque finishing ahead in 1991; Chelios finished ahead in 1993, 1995, 1996). Lidstrom never faced a consensus top ten defenseman.

It's probably safe to say that tougher high-end competition cost Bourque at least one Norris (finished 2nd to prime Chelios both in 1993 and 1996, with the latter being one of the closest votes in history).

Average HOF defensemen. 57% of Bourque's competition; 45% of Lidstrom's

Bourque faced prime MacInnis (4 times), Coffey (4 times), Langway (3 times), Stevens (2 times), Leetch (2 times) and Murphy (2 times).

Lidstrom faced Pronger (3 times), Blake (3 times), Niedermayer (2 times) and MacInnis (1 time).

Bourque was contending with prime Hall of Fame calibre defensemen more often.

Borderline HOF defemsemen in their prime. 13% of Bourque's competition, 10% of Lidstrom.

Bourque faced Howe (2 times) and Wilson (2 times). I strongly feel that Howe should be in the Hall of Fame (he certainly had a prime better than many HOFers) but to be conservative I'll keep him in this category.

Lidstrom faced Chara (2 times).

Chara probably ranks somewhere between Wilson and Howe on the all-time list. This category is close to a draw.

HOF defensemen, but clearly outside prime. 7% of Bourque's competiton, 25% of Lidstrom's.

Bourque competed against Lidstrom in 1999 and a 36-year old Stevens in 2001. (Note that you can argue that Lidstrom was in his prime in 1999 - but that would only serve to strengthen the difficulty of Bourque's competition).

Lidstrom competed against a 36-year-old Stevens, 38-year old Bourque, a 39-year old MacInnis, a 40-year old Chelios, and a 40- year old Bourque.

Of course, Bourque, MacInnis, Chelios and Stevens were still great players in their late thirties / early forties but they were clearly not as good as they were in their prime. I think almost anyone who watched these defensemen play would agree. The aged version of these defensemen actually didn't deteriorate too far defensively, but they were clearly slower, less physical (except Stevens) and less likely to be a catalyst offensively.

Non HOF defensemen. 7% of Bourque's competiton, 20% of Lidstrom's.

Bourque competed against Gary Suter (1988) and Phil Housley (1992). I'm being conservative by keeping Housley in the lowest category, as a lot of people think that Housley is at least borderline.

Lidstrom competed against Derian Hatcher (2003), Sergei Zubov (2006), Dion Phaneuf (2008) and Mike Green (2009).

Phaneuf and Green could one day be considered Hall of Fame players but for now they are clearly in this category.

Overall

Bourque faced significant competition from a top-ten all-time defenseman in his prime, and faced more competition from solid HOF defensemen in their prime.

Lidstrom faced more competition from past their prime HOFers and non-HOFers.

I still think it's possible that you can argue that Lidstrom was a better player than Bourque. But I don't see how it's possible to argue that his competition was tougher.


Last edited by Hockey Outsider: 12-19-2010 at 03:06 PM.
Hockey Outsider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-19-2010, 03:07 PM
  #68
Mantha Poodoo
Playoff Beard
 
Mantha Poodoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,889
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider View Post
There's been a lot of talk about the quality of competition Bourque and Lidstrom faced, but nobody has really taken a look at it in any detail.

I started by looking at each season where Bourque or Lidstrom placed in the top three in Norris trophy voting.

I then ranked the other two Norris finalists as belonging to one of three categories:

1. Top ten defenseman, in his prime
2. Average HOF defenseman, in his prime
3. Borderline HOF defenseman, in his prime
4. HOF defenseman, but clearly outside of prime
5. Non HOF defenseman

Bourque's competition

SeasonPlayerRanking
1982 Doug Wilson Borderline HOF defenseman, in his prime
1982 Paul Coffey Average HOF defenseman, in his prime
1983 Mark Howe Borderline HOF defenseman, in his prime
1983 Rod Langway Average HOF defenseman, in his prime
1984 Paul Coffey Average HOF defenseman, in his prime
1984 Rod Langway Average HOF defenseman, in his prime
1985 Paul Coffey Average HOF defenseman, in his prime
1985 Rod Langway Average HOF defenseman, in his prime
1987 Larry Murphy Average HOF defenseman, in his prime
1987 Mark Howe Borderline HOF defenseman, in his prime
1988 Gary Suter Non HOF defenseman
1988 Scott Stevens Average HOF defenseman, in his prime
1990 Al MacInnis Average HOF defenseman, in his prime
1990 Doug Wilson Borderline HOF defenseman, in his prime
1991 Al MacInnis Average HOF defenseman, in his prime
1991 Chris Chelios Top ten defenseman, in his prime
1992 Brian Leetch Average HOF defenseman, in his prime
1992 Phil Housley Non HOF defenseman
1993 Chris Chelios Top ten defenseman, in his prime
1993 Larry Murphy Average HOF defenseman, in his prime
1994 Al MacInnis Average HOF defenseman, in his prime
1994 Scott Stevens Average HOF defenseman, in his prime
1995 Chris Chelios Top ten defenseman, in his prime
1995 Paul Coffey Average HOF defenseman, in his prime
1996 Brian Leetch Average HOF defenseman, in his prime
1996 Chris Chelios Top ten defenseman, in his prime
1999 Al MacInnis Average HOF defenseman, in his prime
1999 Nicklas Lidstrom HOF defenseman, but clearly outside of prime
2001 Nicklas Lidstrom Top ten defenseman, in his prime
2001 Scott Stevens HOF defenseman, but clearly outside of prime

Lidstrom's competition

SeasonPlayerRanking
1999 Al MacInnis Average HOF defenseman, in his prime
2003 Al MacInnis HOF defenseman, but clearly outside of prime
2002 Chris Chelios HOF defenseman, but clearly outside of prime
1998 Chris Pronger Average HOF defenseman, in his prime
2000 Chris Pronger Average HOF defenseman, in his prime
2007 Chris Pronger Average HOF defenseman, in his prime
2003 Derian Hatcher Non HOF defenseman
2008 Dion Phaneuf Non HOF defenseman
2009 Mike Green Non HOF defenseman
1999 Ray Bourque HOF defenseman, but clearly outside of prime
2001 Ray Bourque HOF defenseman, but clearly outside of prime
1998 Rob Blake Average HOF defenseman, in his prime
2000 Rob Blake Average HOF defenseman, in his prime
2002 Rob Blake Average HOF defenseman, in his prime
2006 Scott Niedermayer Average HOF defenseman, in his prime
2007 Scott Niedermayer Average HOF defenseman, in his prime
2001 Scott Stevens HOF defenseman, but clearly outside of prime
2006 Sergei Zubov Non HOF defenseman
2008 Zdeno Chara Borderline HOF defenseman, in his prime
2009 Zdeno Chara Borderline HOF defenseman, in his prime

Comparison

Top ten defensemen. 17% of Bourque's competition; 0% of Lidstrom's

Chris Chelios is generally considered one of the top ten defensemen of all time. He was Bourque's toughest competition for the Norris trophy (Bourque finishing ahead in 1991; Chelios finished ahead in 1993, 1995, 1996). Lidstrom never faced a consensus top ten defenseman.

Average HOF defensemen. 57% of Bourque's competition; 45% of Lidstrom's

Bourque faced prime MacInnis (4 times), Coffey (4 times), Langway (3 times), Stevens (2 times), Leetch (2 times) and Murphy (2 times).

Lidstrom faced Pronger (3 times), Blake (3 times), Niedermayer (2 times) and MacInnis (1 time).

Bourque was contending with prime Hall of Fame calibre defensemen more often.

Borderline HOF defemsemen in their prime. 13% of Bourque's competition, 10% of Lidstrom.

Bourque faced Howe (2 times) and Wilson (2 times). I strongly feel that Howe should be in the Hall of Fame (he certainly had a prime better than many HOFers) but to be conservative I'll keep him in this category.

Lidstrom faced Chara (2 times).

Chara probably ranks somewhere between Wilson and Howe on the all-time list. This category is close to a draw.

HOF defensemen, but clearly outside prime. 7% of Bourque's competiton, 25% of Lidstrom's.

Bourque competed against Lidstrom in 1999 and a 36-year old Stevens in 2001. (Note that you can argue that Lidstrom was in his prime in 1999 - that would only serve to strengthen the difficulty of Bourque's competition).

Lidstrom competed against a 36-year-old Stevens, 38-year old Bourque, a 39-year old MacInnis, a 40-year old Chelios, and a 40- year old Bourque.

Of course, Bourque, MacInnis, Chelios and Stevens were still great players in their late thirties / early forties but they were clearly not as good as they were in their prime. The aged version of these defensemen actually didn't deteriorate too far defensively, but they were clearly slower, less physical (except Stevens) and less likely to be a catalyst offensively.

Non HOF defensemen. 7% of Bourque's competiton, 20% of Lidstrom's.

Bourque competed against Gary Suter (1988) and Phil Housley (1992). I'm being conservative here as a lot of people think that Housley is at least borderline.

Lidstrom competed against Derian Hatcher (2003), Sergei Zubov (2006), Dion Phaneuf (2008) and Mike Green (2009).

Phaneuf and Green could one day be considered Hall of Fame players but for now they are clearly in this category.

Overall

Bourque faced significant competition from a top-ten all-time defenseman in his prime, and faced more competition from solid HOF defensemen in their prime.

Lidstrom faced more competition from past their prime HOFers and non-HOFers.

I still think it's possible that you can argue that Lidstrom was a better player than Bourque. But I don't see how it's possible to argue that his competition was tougher.
All in all, I hold the competition argument to be a wash. You can either say that Bourque faced tougher competition because his competition won more Norrises, or you can argue that guys like Pronger and Niedermayer were as good or better than any competition Bourque had, and the fact that they only have 1 Norris between them goes to show how much more dominant Lidstrom was over his competition than Bourque. There's no real way to tell; as such, I maintain that both players were consistently better than their competition on both ends of the ice for a significantly long period of time, and that they both have much, much better arguments for them than ultimately fruitless debates over competition.

Mantha Poodoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-19-2010, 03:19 PM
  #69
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,382
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wheeled Winger View Post
This is where I believe Orr's greatest 'weakness' to be on a top players list. It'd be very difficult to rank anyone else as the #1 skilled defenseman of all time, but due to body of work, there are a good couple of defensemen for whom could be made a decent argument as better all-time. It's no more cut and dry then the Howe vs Gretzky vs Lemieux argument.

For the record, if I were to arrange the 'top 4' on skill, it would probably be:

Orr
Lemieux
Gretzky
Howe

but for an 'all-time' list, it would be:

Gretzky
Howe
Orr
Lemieux
Okay, I think I misunderstood your post initially. I agree with those two lists. Orr is probably the best player of all-time but taking his entire body of work into account, I can't rank him higher than Gretzky and Howe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wheeled Winger View Post
And on that latter list, I think an argument could be made that a defenseman or two are knocking on that door, with Lidstrom arguably having the best chance due to the amazing longevity and consistency of his career as well as the fact that he's still playing like the league's best d-man at almost 41.
At the same time, a player's ability/peak/dominance is critical too. Ovechkin could retire tomorrow and he would still be considered a better goal-scorer than Gartner, even taking into account the that Gartner scored 400 more goals. Orr separated himself from the pack so much that no number of very good / Norris contender seasons can really push Bourque or Lidstrom up to Orr's level.

Hockey Outsider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-19-2010, 03:54 PM
  #70
arrbez
bad chi
 
arrbez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,610
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to arrbez
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wheeled Winger View Post
All in all, I hold the competition argument to be a wash. You can either say that Bourque faced tougher competition because his competition won more Norrises, or you can argue that guys like Pronger and Niedermayer were as good or better than any competition Bourque had, and the fact that they only have 1 Norris between them goes to show how much more dominant Lidstrom was over his competition than Bourque. There's no real way to tell; as such, I maintain that both players were consistently better than their competition on both ends of the ice for a significantly long period of time, and that they both have much, much better arguments for them than ultimately fruitless debates over competition.
I have to strongly disagree with that. I would argue Pronger was as good as the others based on peak, but he was inconsistent and injured for a lot of his prime. And I'm not sure how anyone could possibly argue Scott Niedermayer over Chelios, Coffey, Stevens, MacInnis, etc.

There's absolutely a way to tell. Look at how often these players were getting Norris and Allstar votes. There are 4 positions on the Allstar Teams for defenseman. Just because a player doesn't win the Norris in any given year, doesn't mean they didn't have a great season. There's plenty of recognition to go around for defensemen. And the defensemen of Bourque's era were consistently great, that's why they're in the Hall of Fame, where guys like Redden or Zubov won't be.

For instance, in 1994 the players to get Norris votes were:

Bourque, MacInnis, Stevens, Coffey, Leetch, Chelios, Murphy, Zubov and Ozolinsh coming off huge offensive seasons, and a young Nicklas Lidstrom.

That's 8 Hall of Famers, and two defensemen who score 89 points and 26 goals, respectively. When did Lidstrom ever face competition like that?

arrbez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-19-2010, 03:55 PM
  #71
SirKillalot
Registered User
 
SirKillalot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Norway
Country: Norway
Posts: 4,759
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanIslander View Post
Can he catch Harvey? First Lidstrom would have to catch Bourque, and having seen both play their entire careers, I'd say no way. Raymond was simply more DOMINANT, both SOLID. All the stats and trophies in the world don't change what your eyes show you. Of course, in terms of legacy for future generations, Lidstrom could reach Bourque if he won another Norris or two and throw in another Stanley Cup and Conn Smythe.
Been there, done that. Next

SirKillalot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-19-2010, 04:02 PM
  #72
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,609
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
I dunno, you're right though.
I enjoy a good argument where both sides make valid points.
Crap like this though pisses me off and it's hard to not retort at not only the idiocy of it but also the embarrassment of it being posted in the History section.
Maybe you can get over your elitist "history section" attitude and at least acknowledge the number of teams from 6-12-14-16 and the WHA diluting the talent pool during Orr's dominance in being a factor in that dominance.

Hey it's a valid argument backed up by some points and facts that bear some weight, you don't have to agree with it but at least make some valid points and leave your straw man at home eh?

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-19-2010, 04:04 PM
  #73
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,190
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wheeled Winger View Post
All in all, I hold the competition argument to be a wash. You can either say that Bourque faced tougher competition because his competition won more Norrises, or you can argue that guys like Pronger and Niedermayer were as good or better than any competition Bourque had, and the fact that they only have 1 Norris between them goes to show how much more dominant Lidstrom was over his competition than Bourque. There's no real way to tell; as such, I maintain that both players were consistently better than their competition on both ends of the ice for a significantly long period of time, and that they both have much, much better arguments for them than ultimately fruitless debates over competition.

It's not that Lids didn't ever have the same level of competition, it's that he didn't consistently have the same level of competition.
You can make the case that Pronger and maybe even Neids provided that high level of competition from time to time but none of them were consistent.
The consistency of Bourque's competition was of a higher level and that aspect is not debatable imo.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-19-2010, 04:12 PM
  #74
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,190
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Maybe you can get over your elitist "history section" attitude and at least acknowledge the number of teams from 6-12-14-16 and the WHA diluting the talent pool during Orr's dominance in being a factor in that dominance.

Hey it's a valid argument backed up by some points and facts that bear some weight, you don't have to agree with it but at least make some valid points and leave your straw man at home eh?
Dude...you can barely keep up with your argument for Lids over Bourque and Harvey yet now you're taking shots at Orr.

Finish your fight with the regiment before taking on the whole army son.

Like you do understand that by taking on Orr, you are also taking on Gretzky, Lemieux and Howe....good luck with that.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-19-2010, 04:13 PM
  #75
Mantha Poodoo
Playoff Beard
 
Mantha Poodoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,889
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arrbez View Post
I have to strongly disagree with that. I would argue Pronger was as good as the others based on peak, but he was inconsistent and injured for a lot of his prime. And I'm not sure how anyone could possibly argue Scott Niedermayer over Chelios, Coffey, Stevens, MacInnis, etc.

There's absolutely a way to tell. Look at how often these players were getting Norris and Allstar votes. There are 4 positions on the Allstar Teams for defenseman. Just because a player doesn't win the Norris in any given year, doesn't mean they didn't have a great season. There's plenty of recognition to go around for defensemen. And the defensemen of Bourque's era were consistently great, that's why they're in the Hall of Fame, where guys like Redden or Zubov won't be.

For instance, in 1994 the players to get Norris votes were:

Bourque, MacInnis, Stevens, Coffey, Leetch, Chelios, Murphy, Zubov and Ozolinsh coming off huge offensive seasons, and a young Nicklas Lidstrom.

That's 8 Hall of Famers, and two defensemen who score 89 points and 26 goals, respectively. When did Lidstrom ever face competition like that?
Perhaps his entire career. We can't be certain. You could garner from the all-star votes that parity and competition among the league was higher, and so to stand out like Lidstrom did was even more impressive than Bourque. You could also argue that there would be several hall of fame defenseman much higher on all-time lists if you remove Lidstrom from the equation, just because he dominated the competition so much that it made them look weak. Likewise, in regards to the lot of solid defensemen you posted above, you could point out that their HHOF credentials are partly due to the era they played in and the numbers said era helped to generate.

Or not. Perhaps because of the lack of parity in Bourque's time, they were always a few really good defenseman that stood out, and so winning a large number of Norrises when there were a few other really good guys contending because of big numbers is more impressive; the lack of parity put the top guys at the top and made it hard for any one of them to get Norris after Norris, and as such Bourque doing so was extremely impressive.

You see what I'm saying? I don't support either side of that argument. It's one of those things that goes round and round with plenty of circumstantial evidence for both sides but nothing clear. "Maybe Lidstrom doesn't win all those Norrises if he didn't have such weak competition" "Maybe his competition looked weak because he was that dominant" "Maybe Bourque would've had a couple more Norrises if he hadn't faced such tough competition" "Maybe that competition only looked tough because his high scoring era generated a lot of Hall of Fame skaters based on numbers rather than actual play". Yadda yadda. That tired stuff goes on and on, while there are quite frankly much better arguments that can be used in favor of either player.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
It's not that Lids didn't ever have the same level of competition, it's that he didn't consistently have the same level of competition.
You can make the case that Pronger and maybe even Neids provided that high level of competition from time to time but none of them were consistent.
Or maybe they were consistent, but Lidstrom was so consistently greater that it made them look inconsistent. Just for the sake of it, though, I'll throw out another name: Gonchar, who had a higher PPG than Lidstrom in the 00s. But really, this just leads into my next point...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
The consistency of Bourque's competition was of a higher level and that aspect is not debatable imo.
Ah, but it is, and forever and ever. See above post for my thoughts on that.

Debate and compare the players and their merits rather than trying to twist the uncertainties of circumstance into a destructive argument against the players.


Last edited by Mantha Poodoo: 12-19-2010 at 04:19 PM.
Mantha Poodoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:12 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.