Give us your top ten players of all time

[quoipourquoi]

Go back and read your silly playoff performers “project”. All the playoff successes Lidstrom had In his career and all several of the posters involved in that project could do is try to find negatives. It was pathetic and I’m expecting the same from the next project you’ll run into the ground.

That people will actually check production, on/off ratios, and matchups for context for a defenseman rather than default to platitudes? Yes, I expect a lot of that - both in projects and general discussion on HOH.

If a player’s record does not hold up as well under the same scrutiny to which other players are subjected, they tend to dip from the aggregate list to the final list. That isn’t out of the ordinary.

I thought Sergei Fedorov was better in the playoffs, and I don’t think Nicklas Lidstrom is a top-10 player. I think he’s Sakic/Brodeur level, not Messier/Harvey level.

You’re allowed to disagree, but this isn’t a forum for you to complain that no one is talking about Nicklas Lidstrom or that they’re not saying the things you want them to say about him when they are.

Did the Wings not win the Jennings because Lidstrom was overrated defensively or because Roy had an amazing season and one of his best?

Both, and here’s the thing: if a defenseman like Nicklas Lidstrom with a roster like that is not leading the team to GA titles (and in years like 2002, it wasn’t close) but great goaltending seasons in Buffalo, Calgary, Colorado, Minnesota, and Philadelphia are sneaking away with them in the 12 years between Detroit’s Jennings victories, then the effect of the defensive role Nicklas Lidstrom played probably is overrated historically relative to, say, Roman Cechmanek.

 

[Laineux]

Both, and here’s the thing: if a defenseman like Nicklas Lidstrom with a roster like that is not leading the team to GA titles (and in years like 2002, it wasn’t close) but great goaltending seasons in Buffalo, Calgary, Colorado, Minnesota, and Philadelphia are sneaking away with them in the 12 years between Detroit’s Jennings victories, then the effect of the defensive role Nicklas Lidstrom played probably is overrated historically relative to, say, Roman Cechmanek.

I am truly baffled that someone would use "goals against titles" as a way of evaluating a singular skater in hockey.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I rarely agree with @danincanada's posts, but I agree that the way Lidstrom was nitpicked to death in the playoffs project was embarassing.

But Lidstrom isn't all that relevant to a top 10 players of all-time list, is he?

 

[danincanada]

That people will actually check production, on/off ratios, and matchups for context for a defenseman rather than default to platitudes? Yes, I expect a lot of that - both in projects and general discussion on HOH.

If a player’s record does not hold up as well under the same scrutiny to which other players are subjected, they tend to dip from the aggregate list to the final list. That isn’t out of the ordinary.

I thought Sergei Fedorov was better in the playoffs, and I don’t think Nicklas Lidstrom is a top-10 player. I think he’s Sakic/Brodeur level, not Messier/Harvey level.

You’re allowed to disagree, but this isn’t a forum for you to complain that no one is talking about Nicklas Lidstrom or that they’re not saying the things you want them to say about him when they are.

Both, and here’s the thing: if a defenseman like Nicklas Lidstrom with a roster like that is not leading the team to GA titles (and in years like 2002, it wasn’t close) but great goaltending seasons in Buffalo, Calgary, Colorado, Minnesota, and Philadelphia are sneaking away with them in the 12 years between Detroit’s Jennings victories, then the effect of the defensive role Nicklas Lidstrom played probably is overrated historically relative to, say, Roman Cechmanek.

You missed responding to so many of my main points that I'm not going to bother responding to your post, other than this.

 

[danincanada]

I rarely agree with @danincanada's posts, but I agree that the way Lidstrom was nitpicked to death in the playoffs project was embarassing.

But Lidstrom isn't all that relevant to a top 10 players of all-time list, is he?

I'm usually so unreasonable, right?

I'm so silly, how could anyone question Harvey being in the top 10 instead of Lidstrom when they have nearly identical resumes except Lidstrom played in a far bigger hockey world where everything was bigger (and better), right? The answer you always provide is that Harvey dominated his fellow defenseman more in Norris voting and my response is always, but look at the competition each faced. The nearly all-Canadian NHL of his era is closer to Fetisov's domination of the RSL than the modern international NHL. I'll continue yelling that from the top of this mountain even if people continue to pretend it's not a reality. You guys can continue pretending half the best players of all time came from pre-baby boom Canada when we've gone over 50 years after that with a bigger sport producing more elite players, and specifically defenseman in this case, world wide. If Lidstrom doesn't belong how the heck does Harvey?

 

[danincanada]

I countered with a healthy Plante and an injured Harvey during 1958-59.

After neglecting Harvey's memorable 1960 playoff performance, +13 in 8 games - Lidstrom never passed + 12 while playing over 20 playoff games regularly, you raise Lou Fontinato?

Another one of your non-researched comments better left uncovered. Specifically, 1961-62 Lou Fontinato lead the NHL with a +55 in only 54 games. Nicklas Lidstrom in his complete career played many 80+ game seasons never topping +43. Yet Lidstrom had a much better offensive game than Fontinato and the Wings regularly scored as many or more goals than the 1961-62 Canadiens.

This is rather interesting since Toe Blake put in a different defensive system for the 1961-62 season that was continued thru the Bowman years who brought it to Detroit. Yet it seems that the numbers suggest that Lou Fontinato executed better than Nicklas Lidstrom ever did within the system? Maybe because of the goalies?

You still didn't actually deal with my last post but I didn't expect you to. Instead it's spin spin spin into a deeper rabbit hole.

What kind of warped example is this that Lidstrom is somehow overrated because he didn't hit Lou Fontinato's +55? Can you, or anyone here, imagine if Lidstrom was traded one for one for a non-AS physical defenseman who took his place on the roster and then proceeded to lead the league in +/-? This place would blow up with talk of Lidstrom being a product of his former team. Not so with your example, it means Lidstrom's not that great because he didn't hit that number in his career. He only finished top 3 in +/- five times in his career and was career + 511 including playoffs.

For the record, Lou went from -10 with the Rangers to +55 with the Habs and Harvey went from +16 with the Habs to -9 with the Rangers. Not that I read as much into it as you because +/- is cleary impacted heavily by the team you play on.

 

[Laineux]

+/- has demonstrably extremely poor predictive value for future success so it's hardly a stat that should be given any significant weight in debates. At least, over samples as tiny as a single season.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

i mean, i don't think its crazy to have Lidstrom in the top 10 but I wouldn't.

comparing recent skaters-

Crosby must be rated higher than Lidstrom.

Lidstrom is in the same range as Ovechkin (and Jagr).

To me, that makes it awfully hard to fit him in the top 10

edit: BTW, Harvey barely makes my top 10

 

[danincanada]

i mean, i don't think its crazy to have Lidstrom in the top 10 but I wouldn't.

comparing recent skaters-

Crosby must be rated higher than Lidstrom.

Lidstrom is in the same range as Ovechkin (and Jagr).

To me, that makes it awfully hard to fit him in the top 10

edit: BTW, Harvey barely makes my top 10

Fair enough. I can agree somewhat to that although I think I would have Lidstrom and Bourque both in my top 10 but Harvey would probably be an HM. I'd probably have Crosby above them as well even though there is some projection involved. It hurts me to have Roy and Crosby there but they do belong.

I've got Gretzky, Orr, Lemieux, Roy, and then Crosby, Lidstrom/Bourque, Howe, Beliveau all in the mix somewhere. Then maybe Jagr/Ovechkin (not a big fan of one-way wingers) and I have a feeling Makarov was even better than we realize. He would have tore apart the NHL in the 80's and was a good two-way winger as well. Hasek, Potvin/Fetisov peak my interest, too.

I don't know how anyone can have all of Richard, Hull, Harvey, etc. as well though. It's too many O6 players when we've had so many more great athletes since then and it's been a long time now. It just doesn't make sense and it's showing too much respect to those guys and not enough to what has come after. It's hard, and you guys are trying but I completely disagree with just going peer to peer because it doesn't work and it's not fair to the guys who face a fully integrated NHL with several sources of elite players. It's a balance of sheer greatness versus career value but context for the state of the league is very important.

 

[Canadiens1958]

I am truly baffled that someone would use "goals against titles" as a way of evaluating a singular skater in hockey.

Sure that Frank Selke Sr. and Sam Pollock who started the system of a team bonus for leading the league in team GAA would strongly disagree.

Leading the league in team goals against means the goals a team scores are worth more.

 

[Canadiens1958]

You still didn't actually deal with my last post but I didn't expect you to. Instead it's spin spin spin into a deeper rabbit hole.

What kind of warped example is this that Lidstrom is somehow overrated because he didn't hit Lou Fontinato's +55? Can you, or anyone here, imagine if Lidstrom was traded one for one for a non-AS physical defenseman who took his place on the roster and then proceeded to lead the league in +/-? This place would blow up with talk of Lidstrom being a product of his former team. Not so with your example, it means Lidstrom's not that great because he didn't hit that number in his career. He only finished top 3 in +/- five times in his career and was career + 511 including playoffs.

For the record, Lou went from -10 with the Rangers to +55 with the Habs and Harvey went from +16 with the Habs to -9 with the Rangers. Not that I read as much into it as you because +/- is cleary impacted heavily by the team you play on.

Forgetting to apportion GF and GA differential for both teams across the two seasons.

Also overlooking that Doug Harvey became the Rangers player-coach. Lidstrom in your scenario does not become a player-coach. Regardless Harvey lead the Ranger d-men with a -9 RS and +1 PO

 

[danincanada]

Forgetting to apportion GF and GA differential for both teams across the two seasons.

Also overlooking that Doug Harvey became the Rangers player-coach. Lindstrom in your scenario does not become a player-coach. Regardless Harvey lead the Ranger d-men with a -9 RS and +1 PO

I must apologize, not only did I overlook those two points but I also forgot to cover every base regarding your Lou Fontinato +/- example that really lead us nowhere.

 

[danincanada]

That people will actually check production, on/off ratios, and matchups for context for a defenseman rather than default to platitudes? Yes, I expect a lot of that - both in projects and general discussion on HOH.

If a player’s record does not hold up as well under the same scrutiny to which other players are subjected, they tend to dip from the aggregate list to the final list. That isn’t out of the ordinary.

I thought Sergei Fedorov was better in the playoffs, and I don’t think Nicklas Lidstrom is a top-10 player. I think he’s Sakic/Brodeur level, not Messier/Harvey level.

You’re allowed to disagree, but this isn’t a forum for you to complain that no one is talking about Nicklas Lidstrom or that they’re not saying the things you want them to say about him when they are.

Yeah, because you were really pushing for Fedorov in that project, right? I’m still scratching my head on how you convinced all those Habs fans to vote Forsberg so high. What even puts him above Fedorov when looking at their playoff careers? It must have been a pure PPG argument, ignoring everything else. I remember the huge point was that Forsberg lead scoring in ‘02 despite not making the finals, forgetting that if he actually came up with more than just 1 shot, no points, and a -2 in the last two games of his playoff he may have had a chance to make the finals. He was a great player and had a very nice playoff career but it was a pretty common trend in his career put up big points early in a series but then do little in the last games before his team was eliminated.

Fedorov was my favorite player growing up but Lidstrom had a better playoff career than he and Forsberg. There’s too much there for either to overcome. Then again, when I asked what you were actually looking for or to define “playoff performer” no one answered. That’s what made it such a special project.

The second part of your post is really not worthy of a response. It’s just cringe worthy and shows how far off base you are when it comes to talking about the actual impact Lidstrom had. Luckily, I’m not the only one who notices these things here.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Yeah, because you were really pushing for Fedorov in that project, right? I’m still scratching my head on how you convinced all those Habs fans to vote Forsberg so high.

Then again, when I asked what you were actually looking for or to define “playoff performer” no one answered. That’s what made it such a special project.

Luckily, I’m not the only one who notices these things here.

Seems like you do not read the various positions, otherwise you would not be asking the question.

"Playoff Performer" was clearly defined. Even so the phrase speaks for itself.

Great vision but no substance.

 

[danincanada]

Seems like you do not read the various positions, otherwise you would not be asking the question.

"Playoff Performer" was clearly defined. Even so the phrase speaks for itself.

Great vision but no substance.

Then display it with a link. The whole discussion is here in this section. And why didn’t you answer me at the time then? It was an honest question I asked at the time because the whole thing was a head scratcher and the voting often made it seem impossible that you guys were looking at overall playoff careers like you would for the other projects with full careers.

 

[PenguinSpeed]

i mean, i don't think its crazy to have Lidstrom in the top 10 but I wouldn't.

comparing recent skaters-

Crosby must be rated higher than Lidstrom.

Lidstrom is in the same range as Ovechkin (and Jagr).

To me, that makes it awfully hard to fit him in the top 10

edit: BTW, Harvey barely makes my top 10

-Id like to hear it. Jagr put up 95+ points 6 different times in the dead puck era. Most points by a winger all time, most game winning goals all time, 2nd all time in total points, 13X All Star, 5 Time Art Ross Winner, 3X Pearson winner, 1 Hart, 11th all time in era adjusted scoring, and he is playing at 46 years old. He also 5th all time in playoff scoring.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

-Id like to hear it. Jagr put up 95+ points 6 different times in the dead puck era. Most points by a winger all time, most game winning goals all time, 2nd all time in total points, 13X All Star, 5 Time Art Ross Winner, 3X Pearson winner, 1 Hart, 11th all time in era adjusted scoring, and he is playing at 46 years old. He also 5th all time in playoff scoring.

I almost didn't mentioned Jagr because I knew I'd get responses like this. Crosby vs Jagr has been gone over a million times on this forum, and IMO, Crosby is ahead at this point. Lidstrom vs Jagr is always close, but I prefer Lidstrom, and I understand why others prefer Jagr. Ovechkin vs Jagr was just discussed in the "where does Ovechkin rank?" thread.

To go through your points one at a time:

"Jagr put up 95+ points 6 different times in the dead puck era."
Not really - 1995-96 was a very much "live puck" season with a massive number of PPs. The DPE didn't start until 96-97 and didn't get really bad until 97-98. So Jagr put up 95+ points 4-5 times in the DPE, depending on when you define its start.

" Most points by a winger all time, "
He played far more seasons than any other post-expansion winger of remotely similar talent

"most game winning goals all time,
I mean... I guess its a small bonus for him

"2nd all time in total points"
Again - played forever postexpansion. Also note that Ron Francis is 5th...

13X All Star,
Who cares about the All-Star game?

5 Time Art Ross Winner
This one obviously matters, and its a big reason why Jagr ranks as high as he does, despite his flaws

3X Pearson winner,
Crosby and Ovechkin have 3 each, as well

1 Hart
You're actually doing Jagr a disservice by not mentioning his full Hart record

11th all time in era adjusted scoring
You mean a forward whose entire case rests on his point totals isn't even top 10 here?

and he is playing at 46 years old.
Don't care

He also 5th all time in playoff scoring.
Supports the idea that he was generally good in the playoffs, even as he never really put his team on his back

 

[Hockey Outsider]

11th all time in era adjusted scoring
You mean a forward whose entire case rests on his point totals isn't even top 10 here?

Agreed, that seems too low. The VsX method has Jagr 3rd all-time in points. Hockey-reference's adjusted scoring also has him 3rd. Both methods have their own flaws but I have a tough time seeing how Jagr would rank so low (relatively speaking) if you're just looked at era-adjusted points.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Fine, “try to prove it then” if that makes you happy. That’s what I meant. I know opinion is never fact but just stating a player looks more dominant still needs to be backed up by something more. As if someone can actually use the eye test when they played more than a generation apart with no overlap of competition whatsoever.

Yes, It does make me a little happier.

It sounds like you are saying that you can't tell if a player is great by actually seeing them play. Is that correct?

 

[danincanada]

Yes, It does make me a little happier.

It sounds like you are saying that you can't tell if a player is great by actually seeing them play. Is that correct?

Nope, I already answered your question in the post you quoted.

“...just stating a player looks more dominant still needs to be backed up by something more.”

How good did Datsyuk look to you during his peak? Aesthetically, he looked like one of the greatest players of all-time to me but no one is going to claim that because his actual accomplishments and career don’t back it up.

 

[danincanada]

And to add to that with something you may appreciate more. For all the statements that Harvey changed the game, controlled the play, and rushed the puck when it wasn’t as common for a defenseman. To me, both aesthetically and results-wise, it was more like he was fiddling with the lock until Orr came and battering-rammed the door down.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Nope, I already answered your question in the post you quoted.

“...just stating a player looks more dominant still needs to be backed up by something more.”

How good did Datsyuk look to you during his peak? Aesthetically, he looked like one of the greatest players of all-time to me but no one is going to claim that because his actual accomplishments and career don’t back it up.

Is anyone actually ranking players solely by the eye test? I think not.

 

[Nick Hansen]

If you're a thief competing only with your countrymen in lock-picking it is going to be easier to win the competition or receive high praise. Especially if lock-picking is an unknown thing in most other relevant countries.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

If you're a thief competing only with your countrymen in lock-picking it is going to be easier to win the competition or receive high praise. Especially if lock-picking is an unknown thing in most other relevant countries.

the percentage of your countrymen who practice lockpicking is also relevant.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Lemieux
Gretzky
Orr
Howe
Crosby
Top 5