HOH Top 100 List & Voting Record: God Bless Canada

[NOTENOUGHJTCGOALS]

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. Personally I think they were almost the same player who controlled games in a nearly identical way, although my perception is that Lidstrom made fewer mistakes than Bourque. Bourque put up better numbers, but at a time when scoring was much higher. I don't think there's than huge of a difference between Lidstrom in 05-06 and Bourque in 1989-90.

And again, even if Bourque was slightly better, that doesn't explain the 30-spot difference in your rankings. At worst, Lidstrom should be within 10 spots of Bourque.

He has Bourque at 11, Potvin at 17, Robinson at 23. Then Chelios Fetisov and Coffey come into play just before Lidstrom. There's no way he could cram 6 defensemen in the next 10 spots behind Bourque.

 

[MXD]

While I don't exactly agree with your ranking of Lidstrom, the fact that you ranked him 40th is pretty consequent with the reminder of your list.

(This said, I agree with you on the proposition that he wasn't, isn't and will never be Bourque. And you know how OFTEN I saw Bourque play...)

 

[norrisnick]

He has Bourque at 11, Potvin at 17, Robinson at 23. Then Chelios Fetisov and Coffey come into play just before Lidstrom. There's no way he could cram 6 defensemen in the next 10 spots behind Bourque.

I'm guessing that MS' argument is that Lidstrom should be ahead of a few (all) of those guys...

 

[Randall Graves*]

I'll bite.

I respect GBC's opinions as much as anyones, but where is Teemu Selanne?

A 73 goal rookie season, a record that may never be broken.
5 40 goal seasons.
in 1998 he had one of the best seasons of the 90's IMO, the major reason why is because of the Kariya hold out, he literally had no offensive talent around him, and what's he do? scores 52 goals...again with no help.
Is there a forward that's had more success post age 35? Joe Sakic is really the only one that gives him a run(deservedly he's in the top 50). 48 goals as a 36 year old? Absolutely unreal.

Remember Selanne has probably been robbed of another 50 to 100 goals just because of the Achilles injury he suffered in winnipeg and the major knee injury he played through for a year or two. Before that achilles in particular he was one of the few guys that could rival Bure in terms of that sheer explosiveness. Selanne has had himself MVP caliber seasons even though he's never won one. Also lets' not forget he's been very good in international competition, especially in the 2006 olympics.

Now i'm not saying he should be top 50 or whatever but injuries have robbed him from being at 600 to 650 goals and how much would that change perception? IMO quite a bit, this isn't a guy that just piled on stats with longevity, he's done it by being a dominant offensive player from 05 to 07 he was one of the top 10 scorers in the NHL...at 35+ and in that span he was 2nd or 3rd amongst western conference players which further illustrates just how good he has been.

 

[God Bless Canada]

Good question, Randall, and some good points, although arguing stats with me on an active player or a post-WHA merger gets you nowhere, because of my memory.

I'll agree with you on one thing: Selanne's season in 1997-98 was nothing short of incredible. I remember my Dad had him in his office pool that year, and Selanne was basically all our entry had going for us. (Dad didn't consult me for the draft that year). I actually thought he was better in 1997-98 than he was in his rookie year, simply because he had nothing to work with (except for 20-some-odd unforgettable games from Paul Kariya), and teams could key on him.

He probably wouldn't have hit the numbers you suggested in 1993-94. He had a sophomore jinx that year, and while anything would have likely been a sophomore jinx for Teemu, he was hovering around a point-per-game when he got hurt. Plus, the Jets were a total mess that year, and almost everyone except for Tkachuk was hurt by the end of the year. (Few remember that Zhamnov was leading the league in scoring at one point that year).

I do notice that all of your arguments are about regular season, except for one note on international play. Nothing on playoffs. And, as everyone who knows sports understands, the regular season is merely the qualifier for the playoffs. You play the 82-84 games from October to April to be playing, and playing at your best, in April, May and June. Selanne did not.

I probably value playoff performance more than anyone else. It's why I had guys like Max Bentley, Boom Boom Geoffrion and Teeder Kennedy so high. It's why I pushed so hard for Alex Delvecchio at the end of this thing.

Teemu Selanne's playoff record, for a player of his calibre, is incredibly underwhelming. He's a future HHOFer, but he'll be up there with Dionne and Gartner for the worst post-expansion playoff performers in the HHOF. His scoring clip increased once in his career: 2001-02. Inexcusable. Even in 2005-06 and 2006-07, he was not as effective in the playoffs as he was in the regular season. (Although he did come up with a big goal in Game 7 vs. Calgary in 2006).

I think it's great that Selanne was excellent in international play, but international play has nothing on the Stanley Cup playoffs. International play is on big ice that removes the physical dimension. The Stanley Cup is played on small ice, in games filled with emotion and intensity. More significantly, international play is a best-of-one, or in rare cases, a two-game total-goal series or a best of three. The Stanley Cup is a series of hockey's ultimate test of individual performance and team superiority: the best-of-seven. There's a world of difference between excellence on the international stage, and in the greatest event in sports.

If we're talking the top 100 (or 120) regular season performers of all-time, then I agree, Selanne deserves a spot. But we're not. We're talking about the greatest players. Playoffs count. A lot.

You can argue that Dionne's on my list, but Dionne's regular season portfolio trumps Selanne's (and 50-65 per cent of the players ahead of him. But Dionne was awful in the playoffs. That's why he's on the fringe of my top 50.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I think there's an important distinction between bias, and having a different, consistent interpretation of the facts.

For example I'd call GBC biased if he had Lidstrom 40th, but had Pronger and Niedermayer in 80th. In that case it would be obvious that he's using the quality of competition argument against Lidstrom, but not any of his peers. Clearly GBC hasn't done that -- he ranked Pronger lower than any other voter (see post#1) and has advocated hard against the inclusion of Niedermayer. He's also excluded very marginal defensemen like Blake and Zubov. He's consistently cited quality of competition (and inconsistency) as a major reason why he ranks these modern defensemen low relative to others.

I'm not saying that I'm in total agreement with GBC (I have Lidstrom, Pronger and Niedermayer all ranked higher than he does). GBC may have a somewhat lower opinion of modern defensemen than most of us, but it's resulted in a list that's internally consistent. Consistency is very tough for any voter to achieve and it shows that a lot of thought went into creating the list.

As an aside: for those who say that his quality of competition argument is biased against modern defensemen -- also keep in mind that he's consistently docked Pierre Pilote, from the 1950s, for earning 3 consecutive Norris trophies against weak competition, and dropped him behind Brad Park (0 Norris trophies, but stuck behind Bobby Orr). He's also argued against a few pre-'26 players (Denneny and Benedict in particular), again citing competition. If he's using the quality of competition argument against players from the 1910s, 1950s and 2000s, I'd hardly consider that a bias against modern players.

In short, GBC's list is internally consistent and his most "controversial" argument re lack of competiton is also used against players from 50 and 90 years ago. We can disagree with him, but I don't think it's fair to call him biased.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

A 73 goal rookie season, a record that may never be broken.

Oh, I don't know - I'll bet good money that someone gets 76 some day.

 

[FissionFire]

In short, GBC's list is internally consistent and his most "controversial" argument re lack of competiton is also used against players from 50 and 90 years ago. We can disagree with him, but I don't think it's fair to call him biased.

Quality of competition definitely isn't a bias on this list at all since he's very consistent as you mentioned. The only bias which may exist is the one I previously mentioned - it's very friendly on both the list and voting record for players from dynasty teams. While he may only have Keon ranked higher than anyone else, he ranked many of them 2nd highest so it's still very high. His voting record is extremely heavy on dynasty players as well. I understand the playoff argument, but I'd argue that it's being given an inordinate amount of emphasis, especially in the case of dynasty players. That's just my personal view, but in the end everyone has a different opinion so while the list is outstanding when applying his viewpoint I just feel that using a more "fair" (in my opinion) viewpoint to evaluate it makes it appear to have a bias.

 

[MS]

I think there's an important distinction between bias, and having a different, consistent interpretation of the facts.

For example I'd call GBC biased if he had Lidstrom 40th, but had Pronger and Niedermayer in 80th. In that case it would be obvious that he's using the quality of competition argument against Lidstrom, but not any of his peers. Clearly GBC hasn't done that -- he ranked Pronger lower than any other voter (see post#1) and has advocated hard against the inclusion of Niedermayer. He's also excluded very marginal defensemen like Blake and Zubov. He's consistently cited quality of competition (and inconsistency) as a major reason why he ranks these modern defensemen low relative to others.

I'm not saying that I'm in total agreement with GBC (I have Lidstrom, Pronger and Niedermayer all ranked higher than he does). GBC may have a somewhat lower opinion of modern defensemen than most of us, but it's resulted in a list that's internally consistent. Consistency is very tough for any voter to achieve and it shows that a lot of thought went into creating the list.

As an aside: for those who say that his quality of competition argument is biased against modern defensemen -- also keep in mind that he's consistently docked Pierre Pilote, from the 1950s, for earning 3 consecutive Norris trophies against weak competition, and dropped him behind Brad Park (0 Norris trophies, but stuck behind Bobby Orr). He's also argued against a few pre-'26 players (Denneny and Benedict in particular), again citing competition. If he's using the quality of competition argument against players from the 1910s, 1950s and 2000s, I'd hardly consider that a bias against modern players.

In short, GBC's list is internally consistent and his most "controversial" argument re lack of competiton is also used against players from 50 and 90 years ago. We can disagree with him, but I don't think it's fair to call him biased.

I agree that he's been consistent. But that doensn't mean he's been correct in his interpretation of the effects of quality of competition.

Essentially, he's rated Niklas Lidstrom as being dead even with Brad Park. Now, Brad Park was a great player, but that just isn't right to me.

Park had three truly elite seasons (1971-72, 1973-74, 1977-78) where he was healthy and played at a level which would have, in most years, won a Norris. He was also, unfortunately, very injury prone, and played more than 65 games only 3 times in 8 years between 1972 and 1980. Plus he had three other elite seasons where he was a little off,young, or injured, but still wound up runner-up for the Norris because of (gasp!) weak competition. But yes, all things being equal, Park should have won 2-3 Norrises.

Lidstrom, on the other hand, has put up 9 seasons - and counting - at that elite level to Park's 3 (at worst) to 6 (at best). Forgetting who actually won the Norris, Lidstrom has had substantially more elite seasons and a much better career than Park.

And that's not even getting into Lidstrom's 4 Cups/Conn Smythe vs. Park's 0 Cups.

When 'quality of competition' is the only reasoning for putting a guy with 6 Norrises/9 First-Team All-Star selections equal with a guy with 0/5, you're over-rating its impact substantially.

Teemu Selanne's playoff record, for a player of his calibre, is incredibly underwhelming. He's a future HHOFer, but he'll be up there with Dionne and Gartner for the worst post-expansion playoff performers in the HHOF. His scoring clip increased once in his career: 2001-02. Inexcusable. Even in 2005-06 and 2006-07, he was not as effective in the playoffs as he was in the regular season. (Although he did come up with a big goal in Game 7 vs. Calgary in 2006).

But it's the great player on a bad team issue.

When you're a star player on mediocre teams that are sneaking into the playoffs as the 7th/8th seed, you are fighting a huge uphill battle to accomplish anything. And we've seen this with almost every player in that situation. Dionne in LA. Francis in Hartford. Hawerchuk in Winnipeg.

When you're on a mediocre, one-line .500 team going against a powerhouse 105-point team, you're in tough. They have last change for the first two games of the series, and will throw the kitchen sink at you to shut you down because they know that's all they have to do to win. It's a hell of a lot easier to be a scoring-line player on a powerhouse team, know you have another scoring line to take the pressure off you, get to play weaker teams the first few rounds of the playoffs.

When players play for excellent teams and fail to deliver, I *really* hold it against them. Ratelle I've been vocal about, Keith Tkachuk falling on his face in St. Louis kills his HHOF chances in my eyes. But I have a hard time holding it against guys who just never played for a legitimate contending team in their prime years.

In Selanne's case, he scored 13 goals in 21 playoff games in his prime years of 1992-2000. 50-goal full-season pace. He did more than fine, and wasn't the reason his teams went nowhere. To do more than that with those teams against the opposition they were facing would have been super-human.

 

[FissionFire]

Honestly, I'd put Pavel Bure ahead of Teemu Selanne on the list. I just feel Bure was the better player and his prime was incredible.

 

[God Bless Canada]

I agree that he's been consistent. But that doensn't mean he's been correct in his interpretation of the effects of quality of competition.

Essentially, he's rated Niklas Lidstrom as being dead even with Brad Park. Now, Brad Park was a great player, but that just isn't right to me.

Park had three truly elite seasons (1971-72, 1973-74, 1977-78) where he was healthy and played at a level which would have, in most years, won a Norris. He was also, unfortunately, very injury prone, and played more than 65 games only 3 times in 8 years between 1972 and 1980. Plus he had three other elite seasons where he was a little off,young, or injured, but still wound up runner-up for the Norris because of (gasp!) weak competition. But yes, all things being equal, Park should have won 2-3 Norrises.

Lidstrom, on the other hand, has put up 9 seasons - and counting - at that elite level to Park's 3 (at worst) to 6 (at best). Forgetting who actually won the Norris, Lidstrom has had substantially more elite seasons and a much better career than Park.

And that's not even getting into Lidstrom's 4 Cups/Conn Smythe vs. Park's 0 Cups.

When 'quality of competition' is the only reasoning for putting a guy with 6 Norrises/9 First-Team All-Star selections equal with a guy with 0/5, you're over-rating its impact substantially.



But it's the great player on a bad team issue.

When you're a star player on mediocre teams that are sneaking into the playoffs as the 7th/8th seed, you are fighting a huge uphill battle to accomplish anything. And we've seen this with almost every player in that situation. Dionne in LA. Francis in Hartford. Hawerchuk in Winnipeg.

When you're on a mediocre, one-line .500 team going against a powerhouse 105-point team, you're in tough. They have last change for the first two games of the series, and will throw the kitchen sink at you to shut you down because they know that's all they have to do to win. It's a hell of a lot easier to be a scoring-line player on a powerhouse team, know you have another scoring line to take the pressure off you, get to play weaker teams the first few rounds of the playoffs.

When players play for excellent teams and fail to deliver, I *really* hold it against them. Ratelle I've been vocal about, Keith Tkachuk falling on his face in St. Louis kills his HHOF chances in my eyes. But I have a hard time holding it against guys who just never played for a legitimate contending team in their prime years.

In Selanne's case, he scored 13 goals in 21 playoff games in his prime years of 1992-2000. 50-goal full-season pace. He did more than fine, and wasn't the reason his teams went nowhere. To do more than that with those teams against the opposition they were facing would have been super-human.

Three elite seasons for Park? He was a five-time first-team all-star. Unless your name is Sandis Ozolinsch, a first-team all-star birth is elite. (Note: I never said Lidstrom's seasons weren't elite. Just questioned the calibre of competition).

Competition was still pretty good in some of Park's seasons in the early 70s. Beating guys like Laperriere, Brewer and Tremblay wasn't easy. (Brewer and Tremblay are two of the best not in the HHOF, and I would say both are at least on par with Niedermayer, and better than Blake). Even Bill White is pretty underrated. By the time 76 rolled around, he was going against Potvin, Robinson, Lapointe, Savard and Salming. Four of those defencemen cracked the top 100, the other, Lapointe, was in the top 120.

Park had to go up against an all-time top five defenceman every year of his career. He'd have won six of seven Norris Trophies playing in this decade, too.

As for the Cups thing, yeah, you're right, he didn't win one. And he's the best player to never win a Cup. And one of the best playoff performers to never win the Cup, too. He brought it in the post-season.

On the Selanne front: he just didn't bring it in the playoffs. A 21-game sampling is insufficient. Why don't you tell me that time in which he took his play to the next level once the hockey mattered most? Simple. He didn't. He earned his reputation as a playoff fader.

 

[Randall Graves*]

Good question, Randall, and some good points, although arguing stats with me on an active player or a post-WHA merger gets you nowhere, because of my memory.

I'll agree with you on one thing: Selanne's season in 1997-98 was nothing short of incredible. I remember my Dad had him in his office pool that year, and Selanne was basically all our entry had going for us. (Dad didn't consult me for the draft that year). I actually thought he was better in 1997-98 than he was in his rookie year, simply because he had nothing to work with (except for 20-some-odd unforgettable games from Paul Kariya), and teams could key on him.

He probably wouldn't have hit the numbers you suggested in 1993-94. He had a sophomore jinx that year, and while anything would have likely been a sophomore jinx for Teemu, he was hovering around a point-per-game when he got hurt. Plus, the Jets were a total mess that year, and almost everyone except for Tkachuk was hurt by the end of the year. (Few remember that Zhamnov was leading the league in scoring at one point that year).

Well if you remember his rookie season and the guy post injury, would you agree he lost a step? He was still fast, and still very talented but he went from Bure fast to just fast.

I do notice that all of your arguments are about regular season, except for one note on international play. Nothing on playoffs. And, as everyone who knows sports understands, the regular season is merely the qualifier for the playoffs. You play the 82-84 games from October to April to be playing, and playing at your best, in April, May and June. Selanne did not.

I probably value playoff performance more than anyone else. It's why I had guys like Max Bentley, Boom Boom Geoffrion and Teeder Kennedy so high. It's why I pushed so hard for Alex Delvecchio at the end of this thing.

I understand this and his playoff record isn't that great but how many teams has he been on that had real cup chances? Probably just the 06/07 ducks and he played well, not the best(Getzlaf) but his speed always made him dangerous, also playoff style especially in the west isn't tailored to his game of transition and speed. So you could say many of his points were hard earned, whereas a Getzlaf is used to mucking and grinding.

With the ducks especially he was never on a team built to win in the playoffs, it was always him and Kariya, that's it and the one shot they may have had to beat Detroit Kariya broke his ankle.

Teemu Selanne's playoff record, for a player of his calibre, is incredibly underwhelming. He's a future HHOFer, but he'll be up there with Dionne and Gartner for the worst post-expansion playoff performers in the HHOF. His scoring clip increased once in his career: 2001-02. Inexcusable. Even in 2005-06 and 2006-07, he was not as effective in the playoffs as he was in the regular season. (Although he did come up with a big goal in Game 7 vs. Calgary in 2006).

Well as I said before not many of his teams were particularly strong and anything he did near the lockout is hard for me, as a fan to hold against him because of how bad his knee was. Clearly it affected him as he was a totally different player post lockout.
the last 3 years in the playoffs he has 33 points which is half of his career total. He scored some huge goals, like the winner at Detroit, the winner at Calgary he also made the big play to Dustin Penner game 4 vs Ottawa. So I do think late in his career, he has come up big in key moments.

I think it's great that Selanne was excellent in international play, but international play has nothing on the Stanley Cup playoffs. International play is on big ice that removes the physical dimension. The Stanley Cup is played on small ice, in games filled with emotion and intensity. More significantly, international play is a best-of-one, or in rare cases, a two-game total-goal series or a best of three. The Stanley Cup is a series of hockey's ultimate test of individual performance and team superiority: the best-of-seven. There's a world of difference between excellence on the international stage, and in the greatest event in sports.

Well is this strictly about NHL performance? or a players all around career? To many europeans the gold medal is their stanley cup because they don't grow up in Russia, or Finland learning alot about the cup, they want to beat their rivals in international competition.

You can argue that Dionne's on my list, but Dionne's regular season portfolio trumps Selanne's (and 50-65 per cent of the players ahead of him. But Dionne was awful in the playoffs. That's why he's on the fringe of my top 50.

All I would argue is Selanne did not leach around to score, he has compiled his points by being an elite player for a long period of time, and we'd be talking about a career right now of 600-650 goals and 1400+ points and I do think they would change perception.

 

[Randall Graves*]

Three elite seasons for Park? He was a five-time first-team all-star. Unless your name is Sandis Ozolinsch, a first-team all-star birth is elite. (Note: I never said Lidstrom's seasons weren't elite. Just questioned the calibre of competition).

Competition was still pretty good in some of Park's seasons in the early 70s. Beating guys like Laperriere, Brewer and Tremblay wasn't easy. (Brewer and Tremblay are two of the best not in the HHOF, and I would say both are at least on par with Niedermayer, and better than Blake). Even Bill White is pretty underrated. By the time 76 rolled around, he was going against Potvin, Robinson, Lapointe, Savard and Salming. Four of those defencemen cracked the top 100, the other, Lapointe, was in the top 120.

Park had to go up against an all-time top five defenceman every year of his career. He'd have won six of seven Norris Trophies playing in this decade, too.

As for the Cups thing, yeah, you're right, he didn't win one. And he's the best player to never win a Cup. And one of the best playoff performers to never win the Cup, too. He brought it in the post-season.

On the Selanne front: he just didn't bring it in the playoffs. A 21-game sampling is insufficient. Why don't you tell me that time in which he took his play to the next level once the hockey mattered most? Simple. He didn't. He earned his reputation as a playoff fader.

Except Selanne was rarely ever on a top that was supposed to win, and in some cases his team was severly overmatched, and the only position in this sport that is the equalizer is the goalie. Would you expect Gretzky or any other great player to have the same success dragging around fringe NHL players? Selanne had one guy with the ducks and the one shot they may have had to give Detroit a run Kariya broke his ankle.

 

[MS]

Three elite seasons for Park? He was a five-time first-team all-star. Unless your name is Sandis Ozolinsch, a first-team all-star birth is elite. (Note: I never said Lidstrom's seasons weren't elite. Just questioned the calibre of competition).

I said 3-6. IMO there were three seasons where he was Norris-calibre. Lidstrom has had 9.

He had two seasons where he played ~50 games and still made the First All-Star Team despite missing 25-30 games. I don't really think those were 'Norris-Calibre' seasons, although the would have been if he'd stayed healthy - very hard to rate those years.

Competition was still pretty good in some of Park's seasons in the early 70s. Beating guys like Laperriere, Brewer and Tremblay wasn't easy. (Brewer and Tremblay are two of the best not in the HHOF, and I would say both are at least on par with Niedermayer, and better than Blake). Even Bill White is pretty underrated. By the time 76 rolled around, he was going against Potvin, Robinson, Lapointe, Savard and Salming. Four of those defencemen cracked the top 100, the other, Lapointe, was in the top 120.

Park had to go up against an all-time top five defenceman every year of his career. He'd have won six of seven Norris Trophies playing in this decade, too.

As for the Cups thing, yeah, you're right, he didn't win one. And he's the best player to never win a Cup. And one of the best playoff performers to never win the Cup, too. He brought it in the post-season.

Sorry, but competition past Orr and Park in the early 1970s was horrific. Far worse than today. Yeah, Brewer is under-rated (probably should be in the HHOF), but the fact that he could come back after a 5-year layoff and finish 3rd speaks volumes about how weak it was. White, Stapleton, and Laperriere aren't exactly all-time greats, either. Bob Baun and Jim Neilson finished top-5 in this period.

He wouldn't have won 6 of 7 because he couldn't stay healthy. And that counts, too.

I'd like to see a more detailed analysis of his playoff resume before saying he 'brought it'. Was he just putting up points against the LA Kings like Ratelle, or was he actually an elite player deeper into the playoffs? Certainly his playoff performances from 1971-73 with NYR (especially '71) don't look great compared to his regular-season performances, on the surface at least.

On the Selanne front: he just didn't bring it in the playoffs. A 21-game sampling is insufficient. Why don't you tell me that time in which he took his play to the next level once the hockey mattered most? Simple. He didn't. He earned his reputation as a playoff fader.

I agree 21 games isn't a great sample size. Certainly not enough to call him a 'fader' either. But 13 goals in 21 games playing for underdog teams is no reason for criticism.

The negative playoff reputation came after iffy peformances with San Jose, but by that time his knee was an issue and he was a 60-65 point player.

 

[Stonefly]

I said 3-6. IMO there were three seasons where he was Norris-calibre. Lidstrom has had 9.

From having watched it all, it was at least 6.

He had two seasons where he played ~50 games and still made the First All-Star Team despite missing 25-30 games. I don't really think those were 'Norris-Calibre' seasons, although the would have been if he'd stayed healthy - very hard to rate those years.

Not hard to rate at all if you saw it. You are seriously under rating Park here.

He wouldn't have won 6 of 7 because he couldn't stay healthy. And that counts, too.

I'd like to see a more detailed analysis of his playoff resume before saying he 'brought it'. Was he just putting up points against the LA Kings like Ratelle, or was he actually an elite player deeper into the playoffs? Certainly his playoff performances from 1971-73 with NYR (especially '71) don't look great compared to his regular-season performances, on the surface at least.

Park is the single largest factor in Boston doing as well as they did in the playoffs in the later 70's. The year Robinson won the Smythe Park was the other leading candidate. Had Boston won Park also would have won the Smythe. The lunch pail gang was nothing special. Park made them. Aside from Orr he is the smartest defenseman I've seen.

 

[Dark Shadows]

I said 3-6. IMO there were three seasons where he was Norris-calibre. Lidstrom has had 9.

He had two seasons where he played ~50 games and still made the First All-Star Team despite missing 25-30 games. I don't really think those were 'Norris-Calibre' seasons, although the would have been if he'd stayed healthy - very hard to rate those years.

Him making first team all stars while missing that many games was a testament to his skill. He was outscoring all other defensemen save Orr, despite missing those games.

Sorry, but competition past Orr and Park in the early 1970s was horrific. Far worse than today. Yeah, Brewer is under-rated (probably should be in the HHOF), but the fact that he could come back after a 5-year layoff and finish 3rd speaks volumes about how weak it was. White, Stapleton, and Laperriere aren't exactly all-time greats, either. Bob Baun and Jim Neilson finished top-5 in this period.

Look a little deeper. J.C tremblay and Guy Lapointe are certainly all time greats, and Laperierre was not bad himself. And of Course, we can't forget Orr. Park was routinely finishing ahead of ALL of them except Orr.

Even after Orr, the poor guy could not catch a break.

Borje Salming was certainly an all time great, as was Serge Savard. Not to mention Larry Robinson and Denis Potvin. 2 of His 6 runner up's were not to Orr, and all 6 were Norris worthy seasons.

I'd like to see a more detailed analysis of his playoff resume before saying he 'brought it'. Was he just putting up points against the LA Kings like Ratelle, or was he actually an elite player deeper into the playoffs? Certainly his playoff performances from 1971-73 with NYR (especially '71) don't look great compared to his regular-season performances, on the surface at least.

God, you must have a vendetta against the rangers right? First You mention Ratelle as the most overrated player ever, and now you are harping on park.

I agree 21 games isn't a great sample size. Certainly not enough to call him a 'fader' either. But 13 goals in 21 games playing for underdog teams is no reason for criticism.


The negative playoff reputation came after iffy peformances with San Jose, but by that time his knee was an issue and he was a 60-65 point player.

Now SELANNE is a bonefied playoff no show. And somehow you are defending him over Ratelle and Park?

I can accept the harping on Ratelle, but Park was a godlike defenseman. He was rock solid in his own end, and took care of his own end first. Loved throwing thunderous hip checks. Yet he was man in charge of the transition game wherever he played. His offense was stunning considering he took care of his business in his own end first.

 

[MS]

Him making first team all stars while missing that many games was a testament to his skill. He was outscoring all other defensemen save Orr, despite missing those games.

Yes, he was a great player. But if he's 2nd in Norris voting playing ~50 games, it was a weak year for defenders. Most other defenders of Park's class (Potvin, Robinson, Chelios, Coffey ... whoever) have had seasons where they missed 25-30 games, too, while playing at a similar level to what Park was. None of those guys even got a sniff in those years.

No matter who it is whether it's Park/Potvin/Robinson/Bourque/Chelios/Lidstrom, if you're a Norris finalist playing ~50 games, the competition really didn't measure up that year. If Lidstrom seriously contended for the Norris next year playing 55-60 games, I'd say exactly the same thing.

Look a little deeper. J.C tremblay and Guy Lapointe are certainly all time greats, and Laperierre was not bad himself. And of Course, we can't forget Orr. Park was routinely finishing ahead of ALL of them except Orr.

Even after Orr, the poor guy could not catch a break.

Borje Salming was certainly an all time great, as was Serge Savard. Not to mention Larry Robinson and Denis Potvin. 2 of His 6 runner up's were not to Orr, and all 6 were Norris worthy seasons.

Late 1970s was clearly one of the deepest periods ever. Big 3/Potvin/Salming/Park might be the best 6 defenders in their prime at once ever. Although, again, Park just couldn't stay healthy.

I was referring to early 1970s, specifically 1970-74. Guy Lapointe was very young and his best years were from 1974 onward. Laperriere was very good ... but not really a perennial Norris contender kind of guy. Tremblay had 2 elite seasons before bolting.

Aside from Orr, there really weren't many seasons turned in by anyone during the 1969-74 period that would have been Norris-calibre in an average year.

God, you must have a vendetta against the rangers right? First You mention Ratelle as the most overrated player ever, and now you are harping on park.

Now SELANNE is a bonefied playoff no show. And somehow you are defending him over Ratelle and Park?

I can accept the harping on Ratelle, but Park was a godlike defenseman. He was rock solid in his own end, and took care of his own end first. Loved throwing thunderous hip checks. Yet he was man in charge of the transition game wherever he played. His offense was stunning considering he took care of his business in his own end first.

The Park playoff comment was a bit of a stupid one. I know he was generally good in the playoffs. And I've seen enough games from him to know how good he was. I'm *definitely* not 'harping on Park' aside from claiming that he doesn't stack up to Lidstrom. Or to say that he doesn't get credit for 'what might have been' in seasons where he was hurt. Both things I think most would agree with.

I do have a bit of an issue with the 1967-74 Ranger teams. One of the biggest under-achieving groups ever in the post season. This team should have won a Cup. Elite goalie in Giacomin. Great blueline with Park/Seiling/Neilson. GAG line lighting it up, solid two-way players like Tkaczuk and Fairbairn supporting them. Were a dominant team for 6-7 years. And they were great in the regular season - .600 team for 6 straight years, three years up around .700. And for all that, they made one final. So, yeah, I do hold the players on that team fairly accountable for the lack of playoff success. And it wasn't like they were getting killed every year by Montreal/Boston ... 5 times in 8 years they lost in the playoffs to a team with a worse regular-season record.

As for Selanne ... no, I don't hold it against him too much. Like I said, I hold it against players who are on good teams that fail, not bad teams that fail. People were never saying, "Man, this really could have been Winnipeg/Anaheim's year ... but where was Selanne when it mattered?" He was good as could be expected given the teams around him and the competition they were facing.

Selanne's playoff performances with SJ are an issue, but he was playing with a degenerating knee and we can see from his hugely declining regular-season performances during that period that it was a significant problem.

 

[FissionFire]

I'm actually kind of disappointed that only two guys who didn't make my list got into the top 100 for Vote 2. Does that mean I did a good job of convincing others on the guys who were on my list? Or does it mean that I took the easy way out, going with the flow instead of looking for the diamond in the rough?

Considering all the debate that's been generated by your list, I'd say that you definitely didn't take the easy way out. You may have has only 22 players on your list not in the final Top 100 but the way you ranked them has certainly generated a buzz. I hope you aren't still disappointed.

 

[God Bless Canada]

Considering all the debate that's been generated by your list, I'd say that you definitely didn't take the easy way out. You may have has only 22 players on your list not in the final Top 100 but the way you ranked them has certainly generated a buzz. I hope you aren't still disappointed.

As I said before, I try to respond to everything. Worth responding to, at least. And I'm going to answer questions. (Dealing with politicians has left me frustrated with those who don't answer questions). And, in case you haven't noticed, I like to talk. Sometimes in a long-winded fashion.

I do find it ironic that arrbez and I had Lidstrom in pretty much the same spot for the exact same reason, but I'm the one who's doing all the debate.

 

[FissionFire]

The main difference between yourself and arrbez is that he ranks Lidstrom at the 9th defenseman, just ahead of Robinson and behind Kelly, Fetisov, and Chelios. The first two are understandable and the 3rd is highly questionable IMO but makes some sense when you take the fact that he's a Chicagoan into account.

Your list has Lidstrom as the 11th defenseman just ahead of Park and a big gap behind Robinson and also behind Fetisov, Kelly, Chelios, and Coffey. Again the Fetisov and Kelly rankings are certainly debatable and the Chelios ranking is highly debatable but when you have 74% gap (24-40) between Robinson and Lidstrom AND have Paul Coffey and Brad Park basically his equals (with Coffey slightly better on your list) that's definitely far more controversial. Based on the rankings for you list your view seems to be:

Orr

Shore
Harvey
Bourque

Potvin
Kelly
Robinson

Chelios
Fetisov
Coffey
Lidstrom
Park

I think it's that large gap between Lidstrom and Robinson that raises questions. arrbez certainly raises some questions putting Lidstrom in a grouping with Seibert and Robinson and implying there is a gap between that trio and Chelios, Fetisov, and Kelly. He did bote for Lidstrom at 30th in his final vote, but since players like Fetisov and Chelios didn't appear until after he stopped voting it's impossible to see if he changed his rankings or not although he did maintain Lidstrom over Robinson in that final vote, giving Lidstrom a vote for 30th (a 4 spot rise from his original list). Your voting shows that you never wavered from your lists ranking really, voting Robinson at 24th in his first round of eligibility and giving him the top vote each time thereafter, while never once voting for Lidstrom in any round. The final list had Lidstrom as the 7th D and 26th player, which isn't too far off from arrbez's 9th D and 30th player (according to his final vote). It does stand out alot from your 11th D and 40th player however, especially when you ranked one player (Coffey) ahead of his when the consensus was they weren't even close.

 

[God Bless Canada]

As I said before about Robinson, one of the reasons I rate him so highly is his uniqueness. We are talking about, potentially, a once in a lifetime defenceman. Pronger had the potential to be the next Robinson, but he wasn't. That big defenceman from Sweden in the 2009 draft (Hedman, I think it is) could be the next Robinson, but that's hard to say.

There has never been a defenceman like Robinson - a towering combination of size, skill, mobility, hockey sense and toughness. An all-round force who could change the complexion of a game, or even a series, with a goal or a hit. There's never been a defenceman that big capable of doing that much on a regular, consistent basis, and able to do it in the playoffs, too. He won a Conn Smythe in 78, and he would have been a worthy pick in 76.

It's not a popular choice, but when you look at all he brought to the table, it's a logical one.

 

[Fredrik_71]

What ********* it is claiming that the competition for a Dman today is weaker! Of course it isn't. But a fact is that the game today starts with the defence. Everyone is playing a tight game holding to the gameplan. There just isn't room for a dashing Orr/Coffey because most 5-5 goals come from turnarounds.

Don't downplay todays players because they have generally never been better!

/Cheers

 

[seventieslord]

You don't have to be a dashing Orr/Coffey type to get our attention. There is no top-100 player who is in their prime on defense, except for Lidstrom. It's true that he's winning his Norrises against, basically no one. The only reason Niedermayer and Pronger even have a shot is because they're at a prime age and Lidstrom is 37.

 

[Fredrik_71]

There are 30 teams in the NHL. Each team has a top-pair Dmen. That makes 60 top Dmen in the NHL. Last year Chris Pronger was 15th in points among Dmen. Bouwmeester was 24th. I'm not being a Homer about Lidstrom because I think Phaneuf is going to win the Norris next year, if he stays healthy. But I do think atleast 15 guys has a shot at winning the Norris.

The fact that Lidstrom has won 6 Norris is a tribute to his durability and his ability to rack up even strenght points. He is a machine. But I don't buy into the myth that the last decade was poor on Dmen. Its just a tighter game out there.

BTW, my all time favorite Dman that I've seen played is Footer

/Cheers

 

[God Bless Canada]

There are 30 teams in the NHL. Each team has a top-pair Dmen. That makes 60 top Dmen in the NHL. Last year Chris Pronger was 15th in points among Dmen. Bouwmeester was 24th. I'm not being a Homer about Lidstrom because I think Phaneuf is going to win the Norris next year, if he stays healthy. But I do think atleast 15 guys has a shot at winning the Norris.

The fact that Lidstrom has won 6 Norris is a tribute to his durability and his ability to rack up even strenght points. He is a machine. But I don't buy into the myth that the last decade was poor on Dmen. Its just a tighter game out there.

BTW, my all time favorite Dman that I've seen played is Footer

/Cheers

As I've said before, there's a lot of good, but not a lot of great. If you look at the drafts from 1994 to 2001, there are a lot of good defencemen, but only one who looks to have a legit shot of the HHOF. That would be Chara. From 1979 to 1982, there were six bonafide HHOF defencemen.

It shouldn't be hard for people to look at that and realize that something is amiss.

I think the defencemen drafted from 2002 and on are really going to show that multiple defencemen can really stand out. I see big things for Bouwmeester, Phaneuf, Staal, E. Johnson and Doughty. They're going to be sensational. And their success will prove that there was a legit gap in the pipeline. It happens.

Look at LW. Johnny Bucyk entered the league in 56. Bobby Hull and Frank Mahovlich came in the following year. We haven't had an all-time top 10 LW (maybe top 15) enter the league in 50 years. Shanahan's the closest. I've said that Ovechkin's the best LW to enter the league since the 50s, but that's partially a reflection of the state of LW.

Sports are cyclical. Sometimes you get some outstanding talent crammed into a few years. And other times, you go a long time without the big star, and fans are left clamouring for the next big thing.

I think Lidstrom will break Orr's record for Norris Trophies. Unless Pronger can bring it all together over the course of several seasons, or Bouwmeester, Chara and Phaneuf can close the gap, Lidstrom, with his smooth, efficient game that lends so well to longevity, will win the Norris Trophy for the next three to five years. But the question will remain: who did he beat? Nobody.