HOH Top 60 Defensemen List & Voting Record - hardyvan123

[EagleBelfour]

I don't mind Lidstrom at #1 at all. It depend on how you interpret the phrase 'best of all-time'.

Imagine you are a GM of a newly found franchise that needs to be operated for the next 25 years. Your goal is to have the best overall results after a quarter of a century. Knowing full well what you're going to get of all those all-time great defenceman, do you prefer:

Bobby Orr: 9 complete seasons, playing approximately 85% of your game.
Niklas Lidstrom: 20 complete seasons, playing approximately 95% of your game.
Raymond Bourque: 22 complete seasons, playing approximately 90% of your game
Doug Harvey: 16 complete seasons, playing approximately 90% of your game

etc ......

If we go by those standards, although Bobby Orr is head and shoulders above any defenceman who ever played the game, he could slide all the way back at #5.

 

[Theokritos]

Imagine you are a GM of a newly found franchise that needs to be operated for the next 25 years. Your goal is to have the best overall results after a quarter of a century. Knowing full well what you're going to get of all those all-time great defenceman, do you prefer:

(...)

If we go by those standards, although Bobby Orr is head and shoulders above any defenceman who ever played the game, he could slide all the way back at #5.

I agree that it's a matter of opinion. But in my opinion Bobby Orr at #5 is a good argument why you shouldn't interpret 'best of all-time' the way you do here.

 

[tombombadil]

i know I'm on in on this, but i have been following it. I don't know where Ohlund ranks, but he is definitely one of those guys you had to watch regularly to appreciate. He is easily the best Canucks' defenseman in history, not that that says a ton. But he was as reliable as they come defensively. Was good for 30+ points a year, dropped the gloves when the time was right, and could lay a hard hit on anyone. There isn't one thing about his game that was elite, but he also had no holes, whatsoever.

 

[tombombadil]

'not in on this' ****, it's late

 

[Pear Juice]

i know I'm on in on this, but i have been following it. I don't know where Ohlund ranks, but he is definitely one of those guys you had to watch regularly to appreciate. He is easily the best Canucks' defenseman in history, not that that says a ton. But he was as reliable as they come defensively. Was good for 30+ points a year, dropped the gloves when the time was right, and could lay a hard hit on anyone. There isn't one thing about his game that was elite, but he also had no holes, whatsoever.

I appreciate Öhlund for what he brings to the game. He is a good defensive defenseman, and yes, you'd have to watch him to appreciate him. But I am of the strong opinion that he doesn't belong on this kind of a list. Especially not if Lasse Björn, who played the exact same style (albeit a bit more physical) but won 10+ championships, is not on it before him.

 

[seventieslord]

i know I'm on in on this, but i have been following it. I don't know where Ohlund ranks, but he is definitely one of those guys you had to watch regularly to appreciate. He is easily the best Canucks' defenseman in history, not that that says a ton. But he was as reliable as they come defensively. Was good for 30+ points a year, dropped the gloves when the time was right, and could lay a hard hit on anyone. There isn't one thing about his game that was elite, but he also had no holes, whatsoever.

Yep, and the time was right 15 times in his career, or about once every 61 games. With a career 4-4-7 record, and wins against Erik Cole, Matt Stajan, Dan Cleary and Slava Kozlov.

 

[EagleBelfour]

I agree that it's a matter of opinion. But in my opinion Bobby Orr at #5 is a good argument why you shouldn't interpret 'best of all-time' the way you do here.

I agree I wouldn't consider this way the better one to rank the best of All-Time, but I feel it's the only way not to put Bobby Orr #1, so I feel it's even more weird to see Bobby Orr at #2 than Lidstrom at #1. You either have Orr #1, or no higher than #4.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I agree I wouldn't consider this way the better one to rank the best of All-Time, but I feel it's the only way not to put Bobby Orr #1, so I feel it's even more weird to see Bobby Orr at #2 than Lidstrom at #1. You either have Orr #1, or no higher than #4.

It's something to think about. I am a career guy after all.

It would have been extremely interesting to see what would have happened with Orr if he never gets injured.

Would it be possible that Orr only gets 2 cups even if he played longer with the Montreal and NYI dynasties?

 

[quoipourquoi]

It's something to think about. I am a career guy after all.

I know it's not the nature of our current set of lists, but I was curious as to what your personal Top Five looked like. Most of us have the same four names in any particular order (4, 9, 66, 99) and then one of about 15 different guys as #5 of all-time, but with you having broken up the big four, I was just wondering what your overall perspective looked like.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I know it's not the nature of our current set of lists, but I was curious as to what your personal Top Five looked like. Most of us have the same four names in any particular order (4, 9, 66, 99) and then one of about 15 different guys as #5 of all-time, but with you having broken up the big four, I was just wondering what your overall perspective looked like.

For the record I voted Orr #1 in the voting and will be more comfortable ranking Lidstrom when he is retired and we get more perspective.

Ranking the top 5 Dmen is hard enough but I have Wayne as number 1 and probably Howe as number 2 then it's really close.

Orr, Lemiuex, Beliveau, Hull, Lidstrom and Bourque are all in contention, it's not a set list in my mind.

If you put a gun to my head I would take Gretzky, Howe, Orr, Lemiuex and Beliveau but after the 1st two it's a bit open.

Dmen play more minutes and have more of an impact on their teams fortunes IMO.

In all honesty, and this isn't a copout, I like to rank players by position or at least G,D,F separately and also some consideration for eras pre WW2 (or pre NHL) it's pretty hard to treat everyone fairly given how the game has changed and the long length of the game as well.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Do you really think Randy Carlyle deserves to be ranked 41st?

 

[Hardyvan123]

Do you really think Randy Carlyle deserves to be ranked 41st?

In a word no he was ranked too high and should be around 60-80 on the list.

 

[kmad]

Rafalski and Carlyle ahead of Gadsby doesn't make a lick of sense to me.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I don't mind Lidstrom at #1 at all. It depend on how you interpret the phrase 'best of all-time'.

Imagine you are a GM of a newly found franchise that needs to be operated for the next 25 years. Your goal is to have the best overall results after a quarter of a century. Knowing full well what you're going to get of all those all-time great defenceman, do you prefer:

Bobby Orr: 9 complete seasons, playing approximately 85% of your game.
Niklas Lidstrom: 20 complete seasons, playing approximately 95% of your game.
Raymond Bourque: 22 complete seasons, playing approximately 90% of your game
Doug Harvey: 16 complete seasons, playing approximately 90% of your game

etc ......

If we go by those standards, although Bobby Orr is head and shoulders above any defenceman who ever played the game, he could slide all the way back at #5.

Except Bourque plays 19 of those 22 seasons at an all-star level, Lidstrom only 13.
"By those standards" Bourque is the run away leader by a mile.

It should also be noted that Orr was not only the best d-man for those seasons, he's also far and away the best player.
He is also by far the player on that list that gives you the best shot at a Cup and that is more important to a GM than how many years they can squeeze out of them.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Rafalski and Carlyle ahead of Gadsby doesn't make a lick of sense to me.

Carlyle in retrospect was too high on my original list and like i mentioned before Rafalski being named the best Dman in the 10 Olympics and playoff scoring rated pretty high with me at the particular moment I was making the list.

I also think Gadsby is ranked too high on our list, perhaps it's an ATD factor but I have a lower ranking of him than most in the project. I'm not even sure that he wasn't ranked too high either.

 

[Rob Scuderi]

Carlyle in retrospect was too high on my original list and like i mentioned before Rafalski being named the best Dman in the 10 Olympics and playoff scoring rated pretty high with me at the particular moment I was making the list.

I also think Gadsby is ranked too high on our list, perhaps it's an ATD factor but I have a lower ranking of him than most in the project. I'm not even sure that he wasn't ranked too high either.

What would ever make you suggest that a 7-time post-season all-star is somehow overrated? Aren't you the 'career' guy? Not to mention he was in competition with Doug Harvey and Red Kelly (when he played D). He was part of a two-for-two trade where he and Red Kelly were the best two pieces involved from each side. It's pretty obvious he was judged to be very valuable among his peers.

I really don't mean to condescend but when you're talking about things like one of the 'weakest' Norris wins and a singular Olympic all-star team and then singling out Gadsby it really seems you're being flippant at best.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I agree that it's a matter of opinion. But in my opinion Bobby Orr at #5 is a good argument why you shouldn't interpret 'best of all-time' the way you do here.

agreed , this is why peak has more weight than longevity , but longevity still has some weight in the balance.There's also longevity of peak.