Round 2, Vote 1 (HOH Top Defensemen)

[tony d]

The top 10 list is what I expected as well, I'd be interested to see where Shore will end up being ranked. The guy is considered by many one of the best early defensemen in NHL history and won 4 Hart Trophies which is something even Orr didn't do.

 

[seventieslord]

Neither of those are consensus opinions. I find HO's posts to be useful.

Poor wording, I guess. It was not meant as criticism of HO or downplaying his most appreciated efforts... and "the choir" is just me.

I think they are the two easiest comparisons to make and I think that once broken down the conclusions should be obvious even if the margins are not huge.

However, that does not mean that these 4 can't be feasibly ranked bourque/lidstrom/harvey/shore. So more persuasive arguments would be appreciated.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

i don't have anything to contribute right now, though i do hope to at later stages of this project.

for now i just want to say thank you to all of you for your hard work. this thread is a great read.

 

[danincanada]

Playoff Stats - Goals Per Game

Overlooking the following performers on 4 SC winning teams.

Tim Horton on the 1962-64,1967 Leafs,physical presence, helping limit consensus top 25 HOH forwards Gordie Howe, Bobby Hull, Stan Mikita, Jean Beliveau in at least 2 series each while generating a greater PPG offense than Lidstrom, 32pts in 48 games vs Lidstrom 56 pts in 87 games.

Larry Robinson 1976-79, physical presence - legal hit on Dornhoefer in 1976, contributing to limiting teams led by Clarke, Trottier, Park, Esposito while generating 54 pts in 58 games as opposed to aforementioned Lidstrom numbers.

Denis Potvin 1980-83, physical presence, contributing to limiting teams led by Clarke, Gretzky while generating 85 pts in 78 games vastly superior to Lidstrom.

Of course you are completely ignoring how difficult it was to produce offense in the playoffs during most of Lidstrom's playoff successes (era).

http://www.quanthockey.com/TS/TS_GoalsPerGame.php

Being a physical presence, or lack of, is as important when talking about Lidstrom as it was for Gretzky. Not being physical has actually prolonged his career and reduced PIMs so it should be seen as a positive factor.

Not one mention in any of these comparisons that Lidstrom is the only player who competed in the NHL with a full complement of international players for his whole career. No one else can boast that and it certainly increased the level of play in the league in the early 90's and cost him a Calder.

Great job overall though. Some very nice breakdowns of these players. Of course I just can't stomache that people still pretend the NHL has been some static league gathering from the same talent pool for the past 50+ years. That's why I'm just an observer in this.

 

[Pear Juice]

Eddie Shore is to me one of the most puzzling in this round. He has a Hart voting record that shatters that of any of the other players. He is probably the only one aside from Orr and Lidström (and possibly Harvey) who recieves widespread acclaim as the best player of a decade.

What bothers me is that I have read in several places that his style of play was so reckless that he'd not only instill fear and intimidation into the opposition but at times also was a negative prescence on his own team. That he'd take unnecessary penalties due to personal vendettas. That he'd upset teammates, knock out the local staff, crash his car, get on the wrong end of Art Ross (which isn't too surprising, tbh), etc. I get the impression that he really was a nasty guy, on as well as off the ice. Perhaps I shouldn't bother too much as his Hart voting record shows that it didn't bother the contemporary experts, but to me it just has this detrimental effect to his whole aura.

Any of you knowledgeable people on old time players probably have more detailed knowledge about this. I'd like to know if it's blown out of proportion?

As for his defensive play, is it correct that he was not among the leagues absolute elite. I understand the main reason for his value to the Bruins was his toughness and his trailblazing ability to join the offense, while providing very good but not stellar defensive play.

As a curious note, the Bruins won the Stanley Cup in 1929 and in 1939. At the beginning of Shore's time there just as he was about to hit his stride, and then again just at the end of his time in Boston.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Just want to let everyone know that I will not be a very active participant for the first couple votes because of heavy work obligations. I will do my best to read all posts before voting. Fortunately, as someone else commented, these top tier players have already been discussed heavily on this board in other threads.

Unless I see some strong new evidence, I have my mind set on what order I want to rank Bourque, Harvery, and Lidstrom in relation to each other. Eddie Shore is the big question mark for me here. He will for sure make my Top 5, but I don't know where, and I can see him being in any position 2-5.

EDIT: I would also like to hear comparisons of Fetisov/Robinson/Chelios, but I have a strong feeling those guys will still be around for the next vote, so the priority for me is Shore

 

[Canadiens1958]

Stanley Cup - Offensive Contribution

Of course you are completely ignoring how difficult it was to produce offense in the playoffs during most of Lidstrom's playoff successes (era).

http://www.quanthockey.com/TS/TS_GoalsPerGame.php

Being a physical presence, or lack of, is as important when talking about Lidstrom as it was for Gretzky. Not being physical has actually prolonged his career and reduced PIMs so it should be seen as a positive factor.

Not one mention in any of these comparisons that Lidstrom is the only player who competed in the NHL with a full complement of international players for his whole career. No one else can boast that and it certainly increased the level of play in the league in the early 90's and cost him a Calder.

Great job overall though. Some very nice breakdowns of these players. Of course I just can't stomache that people still pretend the NHL has been some static league gathering from the same talent pool for the past 50+ years. That's why I'm just an observer in this.

The issue is rather simple once we get beyond the rhetoric. How much did a specific defenseman contribute to a SC winning team's offence over a period of 4 or 5 successful SC runs. The provenance and composition of the league or players does not matter.

Data is presented in the following fashion:

Player / Total Points / Total team Goals / Percentage

Lidstrom 56 / 277 / 20.2% 1997,1998,2002,2008.
Harvey 40 / 182 / 21.97% , 1956-60.
Horton 32 / 145 / 22.07%,1962-64, 1967
J. C. Tremblay 52 / 234 / 22.22%, 1965,1966,1968,1969,1971.
D. Potvin 85 / 364 / 23.35%, 1980-83.
L. Robinson 54 / 219 / 24.65%, 1976-1979.

While the claim that Lidstrom's low PIMs allowed him more ice time is interesting, this additional ice time did not translate into a greater offensive contribution. A similar finesse defenseman J.C. Tremblay was more of a contributor, as was Tim Horton a physical presence. Both Horton and Tremblay are not considered as top 10 NHL defensemen All Time.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

The issue is rather simple once we get beyond the rhetoric. How much did a specific defenseman contribute to a SC winning team's offence over a period of 4 or 5 successful SC runs. The provenance and composition of the league or players does not matter.

Data is presented in the following fashion:

Player / Total Points / Total team Goals / Percentage

Lidstrom 56 / 277 / 20.2% 1997,1998,2002,2008.
Harvey 40 / 182 / 21.97% , 1956-60.
Horton 32 / 145 / 22.07%,1962-64, 1967
J. C. Tremblay 52 / 234 / 22.22%, 1965,1966,1968,1969,1971.
D. Potvin 85 / 364 / 23.35%, 1980-83.
L. Robinson 54 / 219 / 24.65%, 1976-1979.

While the claim that Lidstrom's low PIMs allowed him more ice time is interesting, this additional ice time did not translate into a greater offensive contribution. A similar finesse defenseman J.C. Tremblay was more of a contributor, as was Tim Horton a physical presence. Both Horton and Tremblay are not considered as top 10 NHL defensemen All Time.

I don't think you can compare offense like this across eras. In the last 15 years, especially, defensemen just aren't involved in offense like they used to be. It's why I always take the "Bourque was x% better offensively than Lidstrom" arguments with a grain of salt. In Bourque's era, you had Brian Leetch and Al MacInnis each with a top 10 finish in points. Even Gary Suter had a top 10 finish in assists.

You just don't see defensemen score as much today. Is it because defensemen today are less offensively skilled or because they take less part in the offense than they used to? IMO, it's a little of both.

 

[danincanada]

Thanks

The issue is rather simple once we get beyond the rhetoric. How much did a specific defenseman contribute to a SC winning team's offence over a period of 4 or 5 successful SC runs. The provenance and composition of the league or players does not matter.

Data is presented in the following fashion:

Player / Total Points / Total team Goals / Percentage

Lidstrom 56 / 277 / 20.2% 1997,1998,2002,2008.
Harvey 40 / 182 / 21.97% , 1956-60.
Horton 32 / 145 / 22.07%,1962-64, 1967
J. C. Tremblay 52 / 234 / 22.22%, 1965,1966,1968,1969,1971.
D. Potvin 85 / 364 / 23.35%, 1980-83.
L. Robinson 54 / 219 / 24.65%, 1976-1979.

While the claim that Lidstrom's low PIMs allowed him more ice time is interesting, this additional ice time did not translate into a greater offensive contribution. A similar finesse defenseman J.C. Tremblay was more of a contributor, as was Tim Horton a physical presence. Both Horton and Tremblay are not considered as top 10 NHL defensemen All Time.

Thank you, the numbers are much closer than originally shown due to scoring levels in each era which proves my point. It's not a landslide in favour of Potvin, etc as first shown. Considering Lidstrom's defensive capabilities and defense-first approach this bodes very well for him.

You can't even calculate how important not taking penalties is. Lidstrom's teams were on the PK less and he was available to play more due to this.

Of course the provenance and composition of the league or players does matter in this case. An NHL with only Canadians will logically not be as strong as an NHL with the best players from all over the world. We have the best of the best now whereas before the Russians came over we didn't. Go back further in time and it is reduced even more with a smaller talent pool feeding the league. That has to be factored in any discussion but it rarely is in these discussions - it's mind boggling.

 

[JaymzB]

I don't think you can compare offense like this across eras. In the last 15 years, especially, defensemen just aren't involved in offense like they used to be. It's why I always take the "Bourque was x% better offensively than Lidstrom" arguments with a grain of salt. In Bourque's era, you had Brian Leetch and Al MacInnis each with a top 10 finish in points. Even Gary Suter had a top 10 finish in assists.

You just don't see defensemen score as much today. Is it because defensemen today are less offensively skilled or because they take less part in the offense than they used to? IMO, it's a little of both.

Interestingly, the link provided previously shows that at least defenseman goal scoring has remained fairly steady over the past 40 years (actually, the defenseman goal % has been steadily increasing). Of course, this doesn’t count assists, but it’s interesting nonetheless.

Here is the link again: http://www.quanthockey.com/TS/TS_GoalsPerGame.php

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Here are some posts by pitseleh summarizing newspaper articles he found at his school library from the Washington Post and NY Times about Eddie Shore. They are from the 2008 Top 100 project

Frank Boucher on defensemen, when asked if Eddie Shore is the hardest man to slip by: "No, I wouldn't say so. Hitchman is harder to get by. Shore is a rusher. But for tackling you when you come in and blocking you away from that net, Hitchman is tougher. Not that Shore is easy, you know. No, sir. But fellows like Shore and Clancy catch the eye of the spectator when they buzz up and down the rink, while fellows like Hitchman and Sylvio Mantha can do great defensive work without attracting half as much notice."

Well, I just came across Mackenzie's defenseman article, and this is what he had to say (interestingly, he notes that it's very difficult to compare players from before the forward pass to after it because of the big changes in style of play):

- Eddie Shore and Sprague Cleghorn are the best all around defensemen he has seen. Both were steady blockers, better than average pasers and goal scoring threats every second they were on the ice. He goes on to talk about their glaring weakness as being penalty prone and how it has cost their teams games in the past. He also groups Eddie Gerard with these two, but as a cleaner version of them.

- He calls Hitchman and Ching Johnson the best defensive defensemen of his day. Nels Stewart on Hitchman: "I'd rather carry a puck through a picket fence than try to get past Hitchman". He says that "Johnson broke every rule in the book, using his tremendous strength to hold, maul, and smear up opposing plays." and that he always got away with it. He goes on to say that he never took advantage of his strength in a mean way but "if he did not break every hockey law he at least bent them all considerably".

Anyone with a subscription to the Post or Times is encouraged to provide citations to the original sources.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Interestingly, the link provided previously shows that at least defenseman goal scoring has remained fairly steady over the past 40 years (actually, the defenseman goal % has been steadily increasing). Of course, this doesn’t count assists, but it’s interesting nonetheless.

Here is the link again: http://www.quanthockey.com/TS/TS_GoalsPerGame.php

It is interesting. I would love to see someone do a similar analysis and include assists by defensemen, but that isn't going to happen by next Monday.

But on the other hand, you have Nicklas Lidstrom, the dominant offensive defenseman of the past decade+ who never finished top 20 in NHL scoring
.
http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points

 

[overpass]

Eddie Shore is to me one of the most puzzling in this round. He has a Hart voting record that shatters that of any of the other players. He is probably the only one aside from Orr and Lidström (and possibly Harvey) who recieves widespread acclaim as the best player of a decade.

What bothers me is that I have read in several places that his style of play was so reckless that he'd not only instill fear and intimidation into the opposition but at times also was a negative prescence on his own team. That he'd take unnecessary penalties due to personal vendettas. That he'd upset teammates, knock out the local staff, crash his car, get on the wrong end of Art Ross (which isn't too surprising, tbh), etc. I get the impression that he really was a nasty guy, on as well as off the ice. Perhaps I shouldn't bother too much as his Hart voting record shows that it didn't bother the contemporary experts, but to me it just has this detrimental effect to his whole aura.

Any of you knowledgeable people on old time players probably have more detailed knowledge about this. I'd like to know if it's blown out of proportion?

As for his defensive play, is it correct that he was not among the leagues absolute elite. I understand the main reason for his value to the Bruins was his toughness and his trailblazing ability to join the offense, while providing very good but not stellar defensive play.

As a curious note, the Bruins won the Stanley Cup in 1929 and in 1939. At the beginning of Shore's time there just as he was about to hit his stride, and then again just at the end of his time in Boston.

Shore was certainly a fascinating character.

Here's my take on him, formed mostly from Hiam's biography.

Shore was extremely proud and driven to excel at whatever he did. He was a loner with no close friends, but his teammates liked and respected him. Although he didn't always agree with his coaches, he was extremely frugal and hated to pay fines, so he didn't get too far out of line with his coach or with the league. When he did have an issue, it was because of his explosive temper (as in the Bailey incident). But he wasn't a Sprague Cleghorn who went out intending to maim the whole opposing team. I don't think his teammates or opponents would have considered him a nasty guy.

In terms of toughness, Shore could dish it out, but he probably took a lot more punishment than he gave. His defining characteristic may have been his ability to take a beating and keep coming. Again, he wasn't feared physically like a Cleghorn, more for being a great player.

In a way, his personality seems to have been almost the opposite of Doug Harvey, considering that both were great players.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Comparisons

I don't think you can compare offense like this across eras. In the last 15 years, especially, defensemen just aren't involved in offense like they used to be. It's why I always take the "Bourque was x% better offensively than Lidstrom" arguments with a grain of salt. In Bourque's era, you had Brian Leetch and Al MacInnis each with a top 10 finish in points. Even Gary Suter had a top 10 finish in assists.

You just don't see defensemen score as much today. Is it because defensemen today are less offensively skilled or because they take less part in the offense than they used to? IMO, it's a little of both.

Second bolded first. Going back to the start of the O6 era, roster composition has impacted defensemen the most. Example, in the O6 Era a team roster had 4 or 5 players capable of playing center, roughly the same as today. 4 or 5 defensemen, with 3 or 4 getting significant minutes. Today a game day roster usually sees 6 to 8 defensemen. Individually they will score less plus the 5 - 8 defenseman is relatively speaking somewhere in the 100 to 240 range in talent of defensemen league wide. Conversely in the O6 era you had roughly 30 dmen in the NHL who ranked amongst the top 40 dmen in all of hockey.

First bolded. That is why I looked at the best offensive dman on 4 - 5 time SC winners. What does a dman contribute offensively when it matters most. Even if we look at the last two SC finals, at the elite team level the dmen contribute offensively:

Ernhoff 12 points on a team total of 58 goals while missing 2 games. Seidenberg* 11 points on a team total 81 goals, Keith 17 points on a team total of 78 goals. Pronger 18 points on a team total of 76 points. 3 out of 4 easily topped 20%.

* = Boston is a bit of an anomaly because they dressed 7 dmen who played between 10:00 and 27:40 minutes each for 23-25 games.

 

[matnor]

It is interesting. I would love to see someone do a similar analysis and include assists by defensemen, but that isn't going to happen by next Monday.

But on the other hand, you have Nicklas Lidstrom, the dominant offensive defenseman of the past decade+ who never finished top 20 in NHL scoring
.
http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points

Don't be so sure about that...

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/62cd0

The link shows the share of goals, assists and points scored by defensemen throughout NHL history. As can be seen there was indeed a small drop in the share of assists scored by defensemen during the dead puck era. This can be seen more clearly on the following link:

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/387fb

As can be seen, there is a drop in defensemen assists share with roughly two percentage points or, expressed differently, defensemen assists went down with around six percent. Not a big difference, but something.

However, one possible explanation is that the role of the top defensemen has changed over time, for instance through ice time. To test for this I take the ratio of the 10th highest scoring defenseman (in points now, not assists!) over the 15th highest scoring forward (this deals with potential outliers, plus it leaves Bourque and Lidström largely unaffected since they mostly placed better than 10th in defensemen scoring. The numbers 15 and 10 are chosen to keep the 3/2 ratio between forwards and defensemen on the ice). I then get the following picture, post-expansion:

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/19a29

As can be seen, there is some evidence that top defensemen scoring went down in the middle of the 90s. I can not say whether that is because the top defensemen became relatively worse or because their role changed. However, if I use 30/20 instead of 15/10 I get a similar result so it doesn't seem like the result is just due to the top 5-10 defensemen being better during the 80s and early 90s.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Here are some excerpts from an interesting little article I found on Eddie Shore, printed about a week after he died. It talks about his temper costing his team, but also about how spectacular and valuable he was, despite his temper:

There are still a few things to be said about the late Eddie Shore, who is always bracketed with Doug Harvey and Bobby Orr as the three best ever to play the position.
...
It was said of him that he was a recruit with such great natural gifts that he was bound to make hockey history, but that he had another side, that of a naive eccentric whose next move was totally unpredictable
...
In a Boston-Toronto playoff game, one of the Leafs saw that Shore was angry and immediately said something to him about "lousy referees." That was enough for Shore. He wound up and drilled the puck at the official. He drew a 10-minute penalty and while he was off the Leafs scored enough goals to win the game and the series.

But despite his temper, he was for a long time the most valuable player in hockey. Other clubs coveted him and Lester Patrick, the New York Rangers' general manager, wanted Shore from the moment he lay eyes on him.
...
Shore had a zig-zag way of skating when he carried the puck. He said he developed it by placing chairs at intervals on the ice and weaving in and out between them. The effect was spectacular.

Defensemen did a great deal of bodychecking back then, and Shore was one of the hardest hitters of them all. The Boston fans loved it and the Bruins have tried to play that kind of hockey ever since.

The Montreal Gazette, March 22, 1985.

Note that Potvin was on his way out when this was written, so his full peak would be fresh in the minds of everyone - yet he isn't mentioned in the same breath as Orr, Harvey, or Shore.

Bourque, on the other hand, had yet to win his first Norris when this was written.

 

[Canadiens1958]

The Other Five

Brief look at the remaining five candidates in the top 10.

Chris Chelios
Very skilled with a complete tool box but as in any group of 10 someone has to tend towards the bottom for certain skills and Chris Chelios' skating and offensive skills have him drifting in that direction.
Temperment issues group him with Eddie Shore. Matured from off ice issues in Montreal.

Slava Fetisov
Until the 1985 car accident that claimed the life of his younger brother was at the same level as Ray Bourque.Complete tool box. Excelled at the World Junior, Olympic, Canada Cup and in other events against the world's best. Post accident,lost the slight jump, took some time adapting to the NHL.

Red Kelly
Finesse defenseman with a full range of offensive skills but somewhat difficult to evaluate. Second half of his career was spent as a center with Toronto. Spent time as a center with Detroit during parts of his career. Also the Red Wings favoured the dump and chase which reduced the the demands on Kelly's transition game. Was a very solid NHL coach.

Denis Potvin
Complete tool box.First defenseman that was a physical presence immediately out of junior. Leader offensively and defensively of an expansion team eventually taking them to four consecutive Stanley Cups.

Larry Robinson
Played one season on defence thru junior. Drafted as a project but quickly developed all the skill necessary to excel on defence. Key member of a dynasty team, 1976-79 Canadiens, matured well helping introduce many rookie defensemen to the NHL.Was a very solid NHL coach.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Don't be so sure about that...

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/62cd0

The link shows the share of goals, assists and points scored by defensemen throughout NHL history. As can be seen there was indeed a small drop in the share of assists scored by defensemen during the dead puck era. This can be seen more clearly on the following link:

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/387fb

As can be seen, there is a drop in defensemen assists share with roughly two percentage points or, expressed differently, defensemen assists went down with around six percent. Not a big difference, but something.

However, one possible explanation is that the role of the top defensemen has changed over time, for instance through ice time. To test for this I take the ratio of the 10th highest scoring defenseman (in points now, not assists!) over the 15th highest scoring forward (this deals with potential outliers, plus it leaves Bourque and Lidström largely unaffected since they mostly placed better than 10th in defensemen scoring. The numbers 15 and 10 are chosen to keep the 3/2 ratio between forwards and defensemen on the ice). I then get the following picture, post-expansion:

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/19a29

As can be seen, there is some evidence that top defensemen scoring went down in the middle of the 90s. I can not say whether that is because the top defensemen became relatively worse or because their role changed. However, if I use 30/20 instead of 15/10 I get a similar result so it doesn't seem like the result is just due to the top 5-10 defensemen being better during the 80s and early 90s.

Wow; the drop in assists by defensemen and later rise correspond perfectly to the beginning and end of what is traditionally considered the dead puck era.

 

[plusandminus]

Environment and era?

Being in the right environment and era

I think how a player suceeds depends on several factors, apart from "how good he is", like the team he plays in (chemistry, style of play, good or bad team), "era" ("dead puck", "run and gun", "dump and chase"), and environment (rink size, country/culture).

Some players seem to be able to succeed almost no matter what, while others appear more sensitive to being at a right place at a right time.
Is that something you as a voter consider?
Are the major top 5 candidates guys who likely would have succeeded basically no matter where or when?

Norris and AST finishes are often refered to here. Finishing high might for some players depend more on "being at the right environment/place/era at the right time", than it does for other players, who may not have reached the same peak but might have being very good "no matter where or when".

More difficult for Europeans

Remember that it is (or at least was) probably easier for North American defencemen, who play from a child on small rinks and in an North American atmosphere, to succeed at a young age in NHL. Lidstrom is being discussed here, and I think it would be fair to notice that he in his first years had to do some adjustments, while Bourque already had been in North American hockey for years before making his debut. (In recent years, it seems as if it's getting more and more easy for Europeans to adapt quickly.)

I still would like people here to experiment with the thought of how the North American players would (likely) have done when put under a different (European) environment. I think that would be fairer than just basing almost everything on hockey being equal to NHL hockey. (I know the problem is that it is hypothetical.)

How did the top players to in international play?

I know Salming and Brad Park did very well in international tournaments during the 1970s.
But I don't recall guys like Potvin and Robinson doing it. Maybe I have forgotten about it, or maybe they didn't even play?
Both Potvin and Robinson had their prime while playing for very strong teams, so it would be interesting to compare them in their prime to when playing in another environment (like for Canada).

 

[pappyline]

I know Salming and Brad Park did very well in international tournaments during the early 1980s.
But I don't recall guys like Potvin and Robinson doing it. Maybe I have forgotten about it, or maybe they didn't even play?
Both Potvin and Robinson had their prime while playing for very strong teams, so it would be interesting to compare them in their prime to when playing in another environment (like for Canada).

Potvin played extremely well for Canada in 1976. I think he might of lead in points (too lazy to check)

 

[plusandminus]

Potvin played extremely well for Canada in 1976. I think he might of lead in points (too lazy to check)

OK. (By the way, I wrote 1980s when I meant 1970s, just a writing error, but your answer cover it anyway.)

 

[Hockey Outsider]

1. The consensus seems to be that Bobby Orr is 1st overall. Does anybody disagree? Does anybody want to be the devil's advocate and try to argue that he shouldn't be first?

2. The consensus seems to be that (in chronological order) Shore, Harvey, Bourque and Lidstrom will fill spots 2-5. Does anybody want to argue that another blueliner deserves to be in the top five? Who would that be, and why? Which of those four deserves to be bumped out of the top five?

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

1. The consensus seems to be that Bobby Orr is 1st overall. Does anybody disagree? Does anybody want to be the devil's advocate and try to argue that he shouldn't be first?

2. The consensus seems to be that (in chronological order) Shore, Harvey, Bourque and Lidstrom will fill spots 2-5. Does anybody want to argue that another blueliner deserves to be in the top five? Who would that be, and why? Which of those four deserves to be bumped out of the top five?

I agree with both of these, and it would be pretty tough to convince me otherwise.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Denis Potvin

1. The consensus seems to be that Bobby Orr is 1st overall. Does anybody disagree? Does anybody want to be the devil's advocate and try to argue that he shouldn't be first?

2. The consensus seems to be that (in chronological order) Shore, Harvey, Bourque and Lidstrom will fill spots 2-5. Does anybody want to argue that another blueliner deserves to be in the top five? Who would that be, and why? Which of those four deserves to be bumped out of the top five?

Denis Potvin - consider the following.

-Like Bobby Orr and Ray Bourque won the Calder.
- All Star 6 0f his first 8 seasons against extremely strong competition.
- Won the Norris in his third season. Only Orr won it earlier - second season but Orr had much weaker competition.
- Only defenseman that was a physical presence in the NHL from day one out of junior. Allowing for the age difference, Orr and Bourque entered younger but were not physically imposing at the age of 20.
- Leader and cornerstone of an expansion team that became a dynasty in ten seasons. No other defenseman managed this.
- Dominant 1976 Canada Cup.
- Complete tool box.

Bump Shore or Lidstrom.

 

[overpass]

Regular season adjusted stats for post-1967 defencemen​

Career Stats

Player | Start | End | GP | EV% | R-ON | R-OFF | $ESP/S | $PPP/S | PP% | TmPP+ | SH% | TmSH+
Bobby Orr | 1968 | 1979 | 596 | 49% | 2.15 | 1.09 | 75 | 55 | 96% | 1.52 | 63% | 0.76
Larry Robinson | 1973 | 1992 | 1384 | 43% | 1.60 | 1.34 | 35 | 19 | 49% | 1.14 | 45% | 0.85
Denis Potvin | 1974 | 1988 | 1060 | 43% | 1.49 | 1.23 | 40 | 41 | 86% | 1.18 | 53% | 0.82
Ray Bourque | 1980 | 2001 | 1612 | 42% | 1.37 | 0.95 | 39 | 39 | 87% | 1.11 | 58% | 0.88
Chris Chelios | 1984 | 2010 | 1651 | 39% | 1.27 | 1.18 | 27 | 20 | 52% | 1.02 | 57% | 0.85
Vyacheslav Fetisov | 1990 | 1998 | 546 | 33% | 1.33 | 1.21 | 28 | 8 | 27% | 1.03 | 27% | 0.92
Nicklas Lidstrom | 1992 | 2011 | 1494 | 40% | 1.40 | 1.18 | 33 | 34 | 72% | 1.25 | 52% | 0.80

Prime Stats

Player | Start | End | GP | EV% | R-ON | R-OFF | $ESP/S | $PPP/S | PP% | TmPP+ | SH% | TmSH+
Bobby Orr | 1969 | 1975 | 514 | 50% | 2.21 | 1.10 | 80 | 56 | 96% | 1.59 | 67% | 0.74
Denis Potvin | 1976 | 1984 | 623 | 44% | 1.65 | 1.41 | 44 | 47 | 95% | 1.36 | 56% | 0.74
Larry Robinson | 1977 | 1986 | 731 | 48% | 1.66 | 1.35 | 40 | 28 | 66% | 1.20 | 58% | 0.83
Ray Bourque | 1982 | 1996 | 1081 | 43% | 1.47 | 0.93 | 44 | 39 | 89% | 1.09 | 58% | 0.84
Chris Chelios | 1988 | 1998 | 803 | 44% | 1.33 | 1.21 | 30 | 30 | 79% | 0.99 | 61% | 0.86
Nicklas Lidstrom | 1998 | 2008 | 801 | 42% | 1.42 | 1.18 | 36 | 38 | 78% | 1.27 | 61% | 0.78

Stats Glossary
EV%: The percentage of the team’s even-strength goals the player was on the ice for, on a per-game basis.

R-ON: The team’s GF/GA ratio while the player is on the ice at even strength.

R-OFF: The team’s GF/GA ratio while the player is off the ice at even strength.

$ESP/S: Even strength points per season, adjusted to a 200 ESG per team-season scoring level.

$PPP/S: Power play points per season, adjusted to a 70 PPG per team-season scoring level and a league-average number of power play opportunities.

PP%: The percentage of the team’s power play goals for which the player was on the ice.

TmPP+: The strength of the player’s team on the power play. 1.00 is average, higher is better.

SH%: The percentage of the team’s power play goals against for which the player was on the ice.

TmSH+: The strength of the player’s team on the penalty kill. 1.00 is average, lower is better.


What does it all mean?

These defencemen are all among the best of all time, so there aren't a lot of critical comments to make. Orr, Potvin, Bourque, and Lidstrom are the four modern defencemen who I think were elite in all situations, so it's fitting that they are all up for the vote now. Chelios and Robinson were a step down as offensive players, with Robinson providing more offence at even strength.

A note on the team-based stats - the lack of parity in the 1970s NHL made it easier to put up high numbers in these stats.

Bobby Orr was the best at everything. Ever. His even-strength impact was unparalleled, as the only player with a GF/GA ratio over 2 for his career. On the power play, he scored tons of points on a dominant Bruins power play, and he played the most minutes on a great Bruins penalty kill also. Even if you take a little air out of the numbers to adjust for the lack of parity in the 1970s NHL, he's an easy pick for best defenceman ever, and a serious contender for best player ever. Note that his career numbers do not include his rookie year in 66-67.

Denis Potvin was a great defenceman in all aspects of the game, and the numbers bear that out. Compared to these other defencemen? Even-strength numbers are behind Orr, Bourque, Robinson, and maybe Lidstrom, but ahead of Chelios. On the power play, he may have been the 2nd best of this group at his best (Bourque and Lidstrom might dispute that.) His penalty killing numbers are also great, but I can't really separate this group of d-men on the PK by the numbers - they were all great.

Larry Robinson had outstanding even-strength numbers first and foremost. His career +720 is excellent no matter how much you adjust it for team strength, and his even strength scoring was comparable to Bourque and Potvin (if well behind Orr.) His career special teams numbers are a bit lower because he started off on a loaded Habs team and played until he was the oldest player in the league. Looking at just his prime numbers, his PK numbers are up there with the rest of the group, but he was a step down on the power play.

Ray Bourque was great in all situations for a very long time. It was hard to select a prime for him, because he was outstanding for so long. His career even-strength plus-minus numbers are second only to Orr's after adjusting for team strength. He's another contender for 2nd best PP D-man behind Orr -in addition to the point production, he was outstanding at holding the blueline and preventing SH goals.

Chris Chelios probably fits better with the next group of players, in my opinion, because his offensive game was the worst of any defenceman here. But he was an outstanding defensive defenceman for a very long time, who also brought some pretty good offence in his prime. May have had the most defensive role of anyone here in terms of tough matchups and faceoff locations, which would hurt his plus-minus. You could argue he's as good as anyone here on the penalty kill.

Vyacheslav Fetisov is included here for the sake of completeness, but it's clear he was past his prime in the NHL.

Nicklas Lidstrom was also outstanding in all situations. His even-strength numbers are a step down from Bourque's. (Some might argue that's because the style of play changed to make it more difficult for offensive defencemen to shine.) During his prime, Detroit had the best power play and penalty kill in the league by quite a bit, and he was a major part of both.