HOH Top 60 Defensemen of All-Time (Preliminary and General Discussion)

tjcurrie

Registered User
Aug 4, 2010
3,930
143
Gibbons, Alberta
Do you have a source for this? Usually Conn Smythe voting results are not made public (outside of the winner of course). Also, from what I remember and by most accounts of others I have heard, Modano and Belfour were the next two in line for the Conn Smythe

I do but I'll have to find it. Personally I would have given it to Belfour or Modano. Nieuwy was very deserving though, one of those years where a few guys could have walked away with it. But yeah give me a bit and I'll find it.
 
Last edited:

Dennis Bonvie

Registered User
Dec 29, 2007
29,207
17,565
Connecticut
There's lots of great info & analysis already in this thread.

However, I am a little disappointed that there are only 20 voters.

Is it a lack of responses or were many voters lists rejected?
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
There's lots of great info & analysis already in this thread.

However, I am a little disappointed that there are only 20 voters.

Is it a lack of responses or were many voters lists rejected?

There's a good chance we'll add another voter or two before the week is up. We'll likely end up with a similar rejection percentage as the past projects.

The original 2008 Top 100 list had 26 voters, and it makes sense that a more specialized list like this would have a few less. It would have been nice if everyone who voted for a more specialized list took the time to participate, but that didn't happen. Regardless, I think we have enough for a good sample of opinion. The only difference is that it's a bit more important for everyone to vote in round 2 whenever they can.

The 2009 update had more participants, but that one was a lot easier to make a Round 1 list for, as one could just base it off the 2008 list.

Edit: And look here, we now have 21.
 
Last edited:

plusandminus

Registered User
Mar 7, 2011
1,404
268
There's lots of great info & analysis already in this thread.

However, I am a little disappointed that there are only 20 voters.

Is it a lack of responses or were many voters lists rejected?

(I was relatively close to participate, but chose not to as I would want to participate "properly". There are some really knowledgeable guys participating, which should make the quality high. And for me it would require me to especially increase my knowledge about the pre 1970s, and with a full time job and some other commitments there just wasn't/isn't enough time to learn enough about the 1930s, 1940s, 1920s and so on. Probably my biggest contribution would have been to help European players and great non-NHL accomplishments to balance things a bit, as there is a risk of this being a very "North American" and/or "best NHL players ever, with a couple of Europeans thrown in" project. Some here appear nicely balanced, while others don't. I know some justify the domination of North American, and suppose it's up to everyone to decide how to do their ranking. Hope this paragraph isn't too off-topic, but I asked since I've participated in the discussions.)
 

Hardyvan123

tweet@HardyintheWack
Jul 4, 2010
17,552
24
Vancouver
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.

Ditto for me, not that my being a part or not a part would change anything but the prevailing view that the league has remained static or hasn't changed very much is going to show a clear bias to pre expansion players and hurt the overall credibility of the final list.

Too often something that happened in 1930 is being compared to something in 19190 or 2004 like the league was more or else the same. Top 5 finishes ect...
 

Rhiessan71

Just a Fool
Feb 17, 2003
11,618
24
Guelph, Ont
Visit site
Ditto for me, not that my being a part or not a part would change anything but the prevailing view that the league has remained static or hasn't changed very much is going to show a clear bias to pre expansion players and hurt the overall credibility of the final list.

Too often something that happened in 1930 is being compared to something in 19190 or 2004 like the league was more or else the same. Top 5 finishes ect...

Hardy...sooner or later man you're going to have to realise that we're not talking about average players here.
What we are talking about are players like Bourque and Lidstrom who saw multiple player changes, rules changes and system changes over their 20+ year careers and were still the best of the best year after year, decade after decade.

Your theories can and do apply to the average Joe to one degree or another but they get more holes blown in them than a Bruce Willis bad guy when it comes to applying them the Superstars.


Jagr will turn 40 before the end of this season and here he is, after not playing a single NHL game for 3 years, on pace for around 35 goals, 90 points and another top 10 scoring finish.
 
Last edited:

Dreakmur

Registered User
Mar 25, 2008
18,552
6,730
Orillia, Ontario
Ditto for me, not that my being a part or not a part would change anything but the prevailing view that the league has remained static or hasn't changed very much is going to show a clear bias to pre expansion players and hurt the overall credibility of the final list.

Too often something that happened in 1930 is being compared to something in 19190 or 2004 like the league was more or else the same. Top 5 finishes ect...

Everyone here understands that hockey has improved with every generation.

The point of this is to discuss who was best within their era - compared to their conteemporaries.
 

Hardyvan123

tweet@HardyintheWack
Jul 4, 2010
17,552
24
Vancouver
Hardy...sooner or later man you're going to have to realise that we're not talking about average players here.
What we are talking about are players like Bourque and Lidstrom who saw multiple player changes, rules changes and system changes over their 20+ year careers and were still the best of the best year after year, decade after decade.

Your theories can and do apply to the average Joe to one degree or another but they get more holes blown in them than a Bruce Willis bad guy when it comes to applying them the Superstars.


Jagr will turn 40 before the end of this season and here he is, after not playing a single NHL game for 3 years, on pace for around 35 goals, 90 points and another top 10 scoring finish.

No idea what Jagr has to do with anything on the Dman thread and let's not forget that he was able to handpick the team he went to and it's been 14 games so far for his 87 point pace.

Let's see how far it slides down as the season goes on.
 

Rhiessan71

Just a Fool
Feb 17, 2003
11,618
24
Guelph, Ont
Visit site
No idea what Jagr has to do with anything on the Dman thread and let's not forget that he was able to handpick the team he went to and it's been 14 games so far for his 87 point pace.

Let's see how far it slides down as the season goes on.

C'mon, it goes to the validity of the "Newer is always better/The game has changed" theories.

Those theories either quite simply don't apply or get much weight in regards to the majority of the players we are talking about here.
 

Hardyvan123

tweet@HardyintheWack
Jul 4, 2010
17,552
24
Vancouver
Everyone here understands that hockey has improved with every generation.

The point of this is to discuss who was best within their era - compared to their conteemporaries.

Actually that wasn't listed in the criteria but it has become clear in the last couple of days.

But since you bring it up how do you actually factor in the changes and the relative ease of dominating earlier compared to later?

I had this problem with my list comparing the 4 all star slots split over 25-30 Dman compared to the same 4 spots over 170 or so Dmen.

Of course this problem is less so for the absolute best but later on it will become a problem IMO.
 

Rhiessan71

Just a Fool
Feb 17, 2003
11,618
24
Guelph, Ont
Visit site
Actually that wasn't listed in the criteria but it has become clear in the last couple of days.

But since you bring it up how do you actually factor in the changes and the relative ease of dominating earlier compared to later?

I had this problem with my list comparing the 4 all star slots split over 25-30 Dman compared to the same 4 spots over 170 or so Dmen.

Of course this problem is less so for the absolute best but later on it will become a problem IMO.

This is true, you definitely have to also weigh the differing levels of competition that each player faced during their dominance.

Bourque's competition outweighs Lidstrom's and while Orr's d-man competition was indeed inferior to most, you also have to factor that Orr was whooping everyone's *****, not just other d-men.

Best player trumps best D-man ;)
 

Hardyvan123

tweet@HardyintheWack
Jul 4, 2010
17,552
24
Vancouver
C'mon, it goes to the validity of the "Newer is always better/The game has changed" theories.

Those theories either quite simply don't apply or get much weight in regards to the majority of the players we are talking about here.

I'll ask you once again where I actually say that the game is better now than before, you will have a hard time since I never do. I don't equate different with better as you seem to do.

The changes, yes I do focus on them as they seem to be overlooked, or downplayed, far too often in this section by some much like how the past is overlooked by younger posters on the regular boards but at the end of the day two wrongs don't make a right.

And yes I do fully understand that they don't get much weight to the players we are talking about here.
 

Rhiessan71

Just a Fool
Feb 17, 2003
11,618
24
Guelph, Ont
Visit site
I'll ask you once again where I actually say that the game is better now than before, you will have a hard time since I never do.

The changes, yes I do focus on them as they seem to be overlooked, or downplayed, far too often in this section by some much like how the past is overlooked by younger posters on the regular boards but at the end of the day two wrongs don't make a right.

And yes I do fully understand that they don't get much weight to the players we are talking about here.

Fair enough.
Surprisingly, I think we are coming close to middle ground here....










...and we can't have that can we?
You're still wrong!!! ;)
 

seventieslord

Student Of The Game
Mar 16, 2006
36,080
7,132
Regina, SK
Actually that wasn't listed in the criteria but it has become clear in the last couple of days.

That is actually the premise upon which discussion in this section is based. Read the sticky, and while you're doing that, can someone please post the oft-used FissionFire quote, please and thank you?
 

Hardyvan123

tweet@HardyintheWack
Jul 4, 2010
17,552
24
Vancouver
This is true, you definitely have to also weigh the differing levels of competition that each player faced during their dominance.

Bourque's competition outweighs Lidstrom's and while Orr's d-man competition was indeed inferior to most, you also have to factor that Orr was whooping everyone's *****, not just other d-men.

Best player trumps best D-man ;)

And the late 60's was the same as the early to mid 60"s, early 70's, 90's or 1930? The answer is yes they are all pretty much the same if we are focusing too much on how any player did against their contemperies without looking at the makeup and composition of the players and league they played in.

It's funny how such a high scoring era like the 80's has a high number of high end Dmen, maybe it has something to do with scoring stats I'm not sure how that perception works exactly.

I'll save the assumption that Orr is #1, it should at least be looked at, for someone else who is voting but we all know that the discussion will be a formality and probably quite short.
 

Hardyvan123

tweet@HardyintheWack
Jul 4, 2010
17,552
24
Vancouver
That is actually the premise upon which discussion in this section is based. Read the sticky, and while you're doing that, can someone please post the oft-used FissionFire quote, please and thank you?

I read the original post of the best Dman list of all time very carefully

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=974393

I'm well aware of the quote but it should be obvious that to focus too heavily on how any player did against their contemperies is going to run into problems once we get to Centers like Tony Hand.

Once again context is extremely important, or at least it should be.

Not to worry though as differing opinions as to the relevance and importance to the Fission Fire quote when comparing players from different eras won't interfere with the process.
 

Dreakmur

Registered User
Mar 25, 2008
18,552
6,730
Orillia, Ontario
But since you bring it up how do you actually factor in the changes and the relative ease of dominating earlier compared to later?

I look at each era in a global context, especially at the top end. Where a player ranks in the world is what I try to determine. Post-1990 is easy, since all the best are in the NHL. Pre-WW2 is easy too, since there weren't any good non-North Americans. From WW2 to 1990 is tricky.

In general, I view each era as about equal at the top end. The further down the depth chart, the better I view recent eras.

When comparing eras, the biggest thing I look for is reasons that the era would be stronger or weaker. 1910, for example, would be weaker because top level hockey was only partially professional, and many good players could make a better living doing something else. The late 1930s is another weak era, where the depression era kids couldn't play hockey and develop into NHLers. WW2 brought many NHLers over seas, so the league was weaker. Just a few examples....
 

seventieslord

Student Of The Game
Mar 16, 2006
36,080
7,132
Regina, SK
I'm well aware of the quote but it should be obvious that to focus too heavily on how any player did against their contemperies is going to run into problems once we get to Centers like Tony Hand.

You can't be serious. Tony Hand's contemporaries are the nhl stars of the last two decades. His peers are the players he competed against in England - guys with little to no chance at an NHL job, let alone stardom.

No one would ever be naive enough to even claim "Tony hand dominated his peers more than Vinny Prospal, therefore, he is better", let alone make such a statement in comparison to an actual dominant player.

You need to use "the best in the world at the time" as a comparison benchmark and consider that benchmark to have been relatively stable throughout history. Otherwise this breaks down. It becomes a question not of who was more dominant, but of who played more recently.
 

Hardyvan123

tweet@HardyintheWack
Jul 4, 2010
17,552
24
Vancouver
You can't be serious. Tony Hand's contemporaries are the nhl stars of the last two decades. His peers are the players he competed against in England - guys with little to no chance at an NHL job, let alone stardom.

No one would ever be naive enough to even claim "Tony hand dominated his peers more than Vinny Prospal, therefore, he is better", let alone make such a statement in comparison to an actual dominant player.

You need to use "the best in the world at the time" as a comparison benchmark and consider that benchmark to have been relatively stable throughout history. Otherwise this breaks down. It becomes a question not of who was more dominant, but of who played more recently.

Of course I wasn't being serious but to take guys like Shore and before, guys with little film and no one here saw and compare them with present or recent players with alot more info is very problem some as well.

The term "best in the world" means very different things in 1900, 30, 70, 92 and 2010.

My list got rejected for no pre expansion Europena guys, although I did have no NHL guys form the early 70's.

Someone is going to bring up later in the other thread some pre expansion Europen who has as much business being discussed as Tony Hand does in the Center discusion.

But at the end of the day the " final list" will have major shortcomings given the paremeters that was given to it, without notice on a nudge nudge wink wink this is the history section type of arguemnt and excludes others that put forward rejected lists (or those that knew the paraemters would lead to a narrow focus and didn't bother).

I suggest that for the next project that everryone know clearly that the criteria be spelled out clearly and that the "history bias" be out in the open.
 

overpass

Registered User
Jun 7, 2007
5,254
2,736
Of course I wasn't being serious but to take guys like Shore and before, guys with little film and no one here saw and compare them with present or recent players with alot more info is very problem some as well.

The term "best in the world" means very different things in 1900, 30, 70, 92 and 2010.

My list got rejected for no pre expansion Europena guys, although I did have no NHL guys form the early 70's.

Someone is going to bring up later in the other thread some pre expansion Europen who has as much business being discussed as Tony Hand does in the Center discusion.

But at the end of the day the " final list" will have major shortcomings given the paremeters that was given to it, without notice on a nudge nudge wink wink this is the history section type of arguemnt and excludes others that put forward rejected lists (or those that knew the paraemters would lead to a narrow focus and didn't bother).

I suggest that for the next project that everryone know clearly that the criteria be spelled out clearly and that the "history bias" be out in the open.

Hockey has been the most popular participation and spectator sport in Canada going back to 1920 or earlier. The best players in Canada have played in the NHL since 1926, and have for the most part played in one of two or three major leagues since 1910 or so. Ever since that time, the NHL has had continuity in terms of drawing the best talent from across Canada. The best players have had 10, 15, or 20 year careers, excelling through rule changes, equipment changes, and the resulting changes in tactics.

The addition of European and American talent has expanded the talent pool. Changes in player development and the randomness of the distribution of great players may have strengthened or weakened the player talent pool at various times. But that's a change in player quantity, not quality.

There is no reason to believe that the top talent of earlier eras was qualitatively different from today. Yes, there may have been fewer top players in quantity because there were fewer countries producing talent. But there is no reason that players who excelled in a highly competitive environment with the existing rules and equipment are automatically inferior to today's players who excel in a highly competitive environment with existing rules and equipment.

You say the term "best in the world" is very different from 1930 vs 1970. Over that time the game changed in terms of rules, equipment, transportation, team locations, etc. But how exactly were the best players in the world very different from 1930 to 1970?

Regarding the procedure for the project, the participants of the project want to recognize the best players of all eras. (Judging by the lists we have received, I think I'm safe in speaking for others and saying that.) This list has always been intended for participants who are interested in the history of the game. Including history before we were born, and history before there is existing video. If you aren't interested in the entire history of the game, that's fine. A lot of excellent posters in the history section stick to their areas of expertise when posting and don't post about all eras. But while the participants here may not all be hockey history experts, we're interested in the history of the game and we intend to do our best to fairly consider players from all eras.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Unfair

Of course I wasn't being serious but to take guys like Shore and before, guys with little film and no one here saw and compare them with present or recent players with alot more info is very problem some as well.

The term "best in the world" means very different things in 1900, 30, 70, 92 and 2010.

My list got rejected for no pre expansion Europena guys, although I did have no NHL guys form the early 70's.

Someone is going to bring up later in the other thread some pre expansion Europen who has as much business being discussed as Tony Hand does in the Center discusion.

But at the end of the day the " final list" will have major shortcomings given the paremeters that was given to it, without notice on a nudge nudge wink wink this is the history section type of arguemnt and excludes others that put forward rejected lists (or those that knew the paraemters would lead to a narrow focus and didn't bother).

I suggest that for the next project that everryone know clearly that the criteria be spelled out clearly and that the "history bias" be out in the open.

Your comments are rather unfair. They add a sour grapes tinge to the logic you present.

Will not comment on the list aspect as I value the privacy and integrity elements associated with each contributors list.

Film is a relatively new invention and it is not a requisite to explore various elements of history. As an example ingenuity in invention stands on its own whether it is filmed or not. Film is necessary to appreciate the ingenuity of a hook check as opposed to a sweep check and the consequences on the art of body checking. However what is requisite is understanding the techniques and attitudes about bodychecking today.

Pointless penalties are pointless penalties in 1930 or 2011 or at any point of hockey history. They are also pointless regardless of nationality or provenance. Same is true for other attributes - leadership, teamwork, coaching and so forth.

The basic issue raised by various non -participants reduces to simply wanting a debate framed by their terms, conditions and agendas. Others enjoy debating within a structured consensus.
 

Hardyvan123

tweet@HardyintheWack
Jul 4, 2010
17,552
24
Vancouver
Your comments are rather unfair. They add a sour grapes tinge to the logic you present.

Will not comment on the list aspect as I value the privacy and integrity elements associated with each contributors list.

Film is a relatively new invention and it is not a requisite to explore various elements of history. As an example ingenuity in invention stands on its own whether it is filmed or not. Film is necessary to appreciate the ingenuity of a hook check as opposed to a sweep check and the consequences on the art of body checking. However what is requisite is understanding the techniques and attitudes about bodychecking today.

Pointless penalties are pointless penalties in 1930 or 2011 or at any point of hockey history. They are also pointless regardless of nationality or provenance. Same is true for other attributes - leadership, teamwork, coaching and so forth.

The basic issue raised by various non -participants reduces to simply wanting a debate framed by their terms, conditions and agendas. Others enjoy debating within a structured consensus.


This is the crux of the matter as serious discussion considers differing points of view but alas Lord has spoken and the project is what it is.

DaninCaanda is a smarter cookie than me though as he recognized the process earlier. that's something that I'm sure R71 will agree with...lol
 
Last edited:

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->