Defensemen who were the greatest players in the world when they played

[bobholly39]

Theodore and Sedin weren't even the best players. They just (arguably) had the best season.

That's what he's saying. He's saying Pronger can also be argued to have had the best season, as can be argued with Hall 2 years ago...doesn't make any of those the best players in the world though.

I think the easy answer to this thread is Orr and Shore.

Some of the other answers in this thread are weird. 51-54 was Howe - I don't care how good Kelly was, he still wasn't the best.
I also don't think Lidstrom was ever there. There was always someone (Jagr, Hasek, Forsberg, Lemieux, Thornton, Ovechkin, Crosby) seen as better.

 

[Big Phil]

Orr and Shore. Harvey maybe in the 1950s? Hard to say that too though. You had Howe, Richard and then Beliveau to contend with. I honestly don't know if there is a chance for anyone else in the decades of the 1950s, 1960s, 1980s. Only once Lemieux left in 1997 did the debate open up again and even then it was a forward like Jagr, Kariya, Lindros, etc. The 1970s was there a season or two you'd pick Potvin? Perhaps. But there was Orr right up until 1975 and then Lafleur more or less the rest of the way.

I honestly think it was just Orr and Shore. The 1940s you didn't have that stellar defenseman that would have been ahead of Richard, Lach, Apps, etc. Even Pronger in 2000 you still pick Jagr's great year over his, or at the very least we all knew Jagr was still better than Pronger.

 

[seventieslord]

That's what he's saying. He's saying Pronger can also be argued to have had the best season, as can be argued with Hall 2 years ago...doesn't make any of those the best players in the world though.

I think the easy answer to this thread is Orr and Shore.

Some of the other answers in this thread are weird. 51-54 was Howe - I don't care how good Kelly was, he still wasn't the best.
I also don't think Lidstrom was ever there. There was always someone (Jagr, Hasek, Forsberg, Lemieux, Thornton, Ovechkin, Crosby) seen as better.

I know, I was agreeing with him, while taking it even further.

 

[Dreakmur]

I just can't get how big of a swing there is from the regular season to the playoffs with Shore. I think he dropped to where he should be moving forward.

With so few playoff games during most of his career, I think it’s hard to confidently say whether he had a drop or not. The numbers look a lot worse on a per game average, but he still lead defensemen in playoff scoring a pile of times.

 

[ImporterExporter]

With so few playoff games during most of his career, I think it’s hard to confidently say whether he had a drop or not. The numbers look a lot worse on a per game average, but he still lead defensemen in playoff scoring a pile of times.

He also spent a ridiculous amount of time in the box in the playoffs. What good is Shore if he's stewing the sin bin? Boston underachieve multiple times. Points are nice, but I'm less interested in looking at singular stat to justify a positive outlook on this particular player. Especially when we're talking about points and a defensemen.

I've continued to sour on Shore for multiple reasons. His big awards record, especially in the mid 1930's is overrated given the downturn in top end talent, especially at the D position. But, I just don't see any way to ignore the fact that Shore's impact in the playoffs was far less than it was in the regular season. Boston disappointed more than they didn't and I personally believe Shore was a big reason for it.

 

[Dreakmur]

He also spent a ridiculous amount of time in the box in the playoffs. What good is Shore if he's stewing the sin bin? Boston underachieve multiple times. Points are nice, but I'm less interested in looking at singular stat to justify a positive outlook on this particular player. Especially when we're talking about points and a defensemen.

I've continued to sour on Shore for multiple reasons. His big awards record, especially in the mid 1930's is overrated given the downturn in top end talent, especially at the D position. But, I just don't see any way to ignore the fact that Shore's impact in the playoffs was far less than it was in the regular season. Boston disappointed more than they didn't and I personally believe Shore was a big reason for it.

Oh, there's no doubt Boston was disappointing in the play-offs.

Those high PIM totals are very likely due to the other team targeting Shore as the main driver of the Boston team. At that time, it was pretty common belief that if you stop Shore, you stop Boston. He was too good to stop on the ice, so the best thing to do was draw him into a fight and take him off the ice.

Does that mean he lacked discipline? For sure. Does that make him a lesser player? Maybe a little.

In an era where the top players had to fight their own battles, I'm not sure there was an real alternative.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Here's a dumb one (dumber still when you see where I had him on my Round 1 list for the Top 100), was there ever a noteworthy time where King Clancy was the best, hmm, maybe not best - most effective - player in the game, do we think...?

 

[VanIslander]

King Clancy in 1934 was 3rd in a close 3-way Hart race with Joliat and L. Conacher. There were certainly hockey minds who may have thought him the greatest at that moment.

Two years earlier he scored a playoff game winner in a Stanley Cup winning playoffs and the year before he had significant Hart votes behind the flashy duo of Morenz and Shore.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Here's a dumb one (dumber still when you see where I had him on my Round 1 list for the Top 100), was there ever a noteworthy time where King Clancy was the best, hmm, maybe not best - most effective - player in the game, do we think...?

I just think the gap in time between peak Nighbor and peak Morenz was too small for Clancy to sneak in there.

That said, the fates of Ottawa and Toronto sure changed drastically when Clancy was traded.

Still, I would like to see some evidence that any contemporaries thought of him as a candidate for best player in the world, and I just haven't seen that.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Oh, there's no doubt Boston was disappointing in the play-offs.

Those high PIM totals are very likely due to the other team targeting Shore as the main driver of the Boston team. At that time, it was pretty common belief that if you stop Shore, you stop Boston. He was too good to stop on the ice, so the best thing to do was draw him into a fight and take him off the ice.

Does that mean he lacked discipline? For sure. Does that make him a lesser player? Maybe a little.

In an era where the top players had to fight their own battles, I'm not sure there was an real alternative.

Agree with all of this. I do think Shore needs to have some of the blame for Boston's playoff failures - but, going back to the HOH Top 100 players, I think we already took this into account, and it is indeed the only rational reason for Shore to fall out of the top 10 players of all-time.

But Shore alone shouldn't shoulder the blame. Certainly Art Ross and Tiny Thompson need to shoulder their share of the blame.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

granted i just learned about him two weeks ago but from @ImporterExporter ’s hod stuart atd bio—

Originally Posted by Utimate Hockey Biography
With the Montreal Wanderers, the team that went on to win the 1907 ECHA title, Stuart came through big-time. Instead of anchoring himself to the blue-line, he rushed the puck with remarkable ease and fluidity. With his help, the Redbands were able to regain the Cup from the Kenora Thistles. At the time, Stuart was being called the “greatest hockey player in the world,” although he would not have long to savor the praise.

Originally Posted by The Pittsburgh Press September 13, 1905
The presence of Hod Stuart in this city has occasioned much comment. The big fellow who on short notice developed a winning team last year is considered to be the greatest exponent of the Canadian pastime who ever put on a skate; in fact he is as valuable to a team fortuante in having him on their lineup as three ordinary good players.

Originally Posted by The Pittsburgh Press January 17, 1906
Spittal referred to Hod Stuart, the local’s famous cover-point, as undoubtedly the greatest hockey player who ever donned skates.

Originally Posted by The Montreal Star – December 4, 1906
Two weeks ago, the Star announced that Hod Stuart, considered the greatest hockey player in the world, was going to play with the Wanderers.

Originally Posted by The Pittsburgh Press December 17, 1906
Is the Pittsburgh International Hockey League team to lose its wonderful leader, Hod Stuart, the greatest hockey player in the world?

Originally Posted by the Pittsburgh Post Gazette - January 28, 1933
It was there that Hod Stuart, still called by historians, the greatest hockey player who ever lived, flashed his stuff, in the pioneer days....

 

[quoipourquoi]

Don't think Pronger was ever even top 2.

I disagree in two different blocks of his career.

He had pretty strong Hart buzz in 2000-01 until he was injured by a teammate around Christmas. He had the Blues in 1st place once again, only for Colorado to pass them in his absence.

Blues w/ Pronger: 34-11-6
Blues w/o Pronger: 9-11-11

And then if you look at his 2005-06 and 2006-07 seasons in which both of his first-years with new teams saw him have incredibly strong GA numbers, two Finals appearances, and some strong offensive numbers in both playoffs and the 2006-07 regular season (where again he had strong Hart buzz and a team in 1st place until an injury derailed both), he may well have reached that status again.

Ducks w/ Pronger: 42-13-11
Ducks w/o Pronger: 6-7-3


If I’m asked who the best player in the world is at Christmas 2000 or Christmas 2006, I’d say Chris Pronger. Six months later? It gets harder to put him ahead of all of Sakic, Lemieux, and Forsberg in June 2001, but I still might take him in a coin flip with Crosby in June 2007.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

When Hod Stuart played, the best hockey players were split across various leagues, and I've seen all of Frank McGee, Hod Stuart, Tommy Phillips, and Russell Bowie called the best in the world by various sources. Stuart's absolute peak may not have overlapped with McGee's much at all, but it sure overlapped with Bowie. (The exact timeline of those 4 has been posted elsewhere; on my phone now, so I'm not going to look it up).

 

[solidmotion]

Here's a dumb one (dumber still when you see where I had him on my Round 1 list for the Top 100), was there ever a noteworthy time where King Clancy was the best, hmm, maybe not best - most effective - player in the game, do we think...?

if there is a distinction to be made between "best" and "most effective" then a lot of defensemen warrant consideration in the latter category. in relatively recent memory, peak lidstrom, pronger, chara... stevens? keith?... might have been the most effective players in the game in terms of overall effect. hard to argue they were "better" than the elite offensive players of the time though.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Lidstrom, maybe. I'll pass easily on the notion of Chara, Stevens and Keith...Pronger - if true, ever - would be for too short of a time to really be interesting...

 

[JackSlater]

I don't think that it was ever really Lidstrom. The early 2000s were a very weak time and Lidstrom was great, but I think that a fair majority perceived Forsberg as the greatest player in hockey.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I don't think that it was ever really Lidstrom. The early 2000s were a very weak time and Lidstrom was great, but I think that a fair majority perceived Forsberg as the greatest player in hockey.

I think most of the player polls shake out this way too, with Forsberg rated as the best player in the world. When viewed over a longer stretch of years (typically 2000-2009), you might say that Lidstrom had the best consecutive block - though Sakic and Brodeur might be right with him.

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

Lidstrom, maybe. I'll pass easily on the notion of Chara, Stevens and Keith...Pronger - if true, ever - would be for too short of a time to really be interesting...

I disagree on Pronger. I think you could argue he was the best player in 99-00 (though I actually think it was Jagr, but the argument and Hart trophy are there). However, I think the cup finals runs of 06 and 10 he was unequivocally the best player in hockey for each run.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Right, too short...

 

[tony d]

Eddie Shore during his time fits into this.

 

[Albatros]

I don't think players like Harvey and Pronger and Fetisov were ever -- as the OP specified -- "considered the best player in the world at the time". Like, if you'd polled players / fans / media at the time of those players' peaks/primes, I don't think they'd ever have won the poll.

If this is strictly about Canada then probably not, but in Europe Fetisov would have been near consensus choice at the time.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Eddie Shore is a top-10 all time player whom we voted 14th best.

Disappointing, but we had worse voting results (Cyclone 33rd, Seibert friggin' 61st? Gadsby 90th).

...Orr third.

 

[DannyGallivan]

If this is strictly about Canada then probably not, but in Europe Fetisov would have been near consensus choice at the time.

For best player in Europe, yes.

 

[Albatros]

There was no North American player that would have been rated higher at the time.

 

[Sprague Cleghorn]

Mike Grant