- Status
Evil Sather
YOU KILL THE JOE
How defensemen can be ranked ahead of other defensemen despite playing on TEAMS that consisted of like 8-15 guys blows my mind (Cleghorn, Goodfellow, etc.).
Harry Cameron in particular is insane to have 10 spots over guys like MacInnis, Chelios, and Leetch who dominated for 15+ years in a far more physical game.
I know most people overrate the newer guys and dismiss the older generation, but you go way in reverse. Hell forward passes weren't allowed in the neutral and defensive zones until 1927, and not completely until 1930. That's a radically huge change, you can't rate guys who played in the teens and 20s against everyone else. They played a different game.
Harry Cameron in particular is insane to have 10 spots over guys like MacInnis, Chelios, and Leetch who dominated for 15+ years in a far more physical game.
I know most people overrate the newer guys and dismiss the older generation, but you go way in reverse. Hell forward passes weren't allowed in the neutral and defensive zones until 1927, and not completely until 1930. That's a radically huge change, you can't rate guys who played in the teens and 20s against everyone else. They played a different game.
Sens Rule
Registered User
- Sep 22, 2005
- 21,251
- 74
silver_made said:
I'll defend Ogopogo on this. Somebody needs to include the players of the past in rankings of all time greats. Hockey didn't start in 1960 or 1990 as some posters seem to believe. I may not agree with some of Ogopogo's rankings but it is funny how other professional sports can include old time greats like Honus Wagner, Ty Cobb, Jim Thorpe, George Mikan. But in hockey if you rank Max Bentley, King Clancy, Eddie Shore, Howie Morenz, Lionel Conacher as an all time great your an idiot apparently. I might not rank some of the old time stars as highly as Ogopogo does but I'd still rank them. No body in baseball gets insulted for putting Babe Ruth or Ty Cobb high on every All-time list.
The thread is called 'How good is Lidstrom on the all-time D list?' Not how good is Lidstrom compared to the players of the past 30 years.
cup2006sensrule said:
Thing is, hockey has changed over the years much more than a sport like baseball has. It's changed not only tactically, but the role of each position is different.
It gets really difficult when you have to compare Lidstrom to players who played when you had 'rovers', or when goalies were penalized for dropping to their knees, or as Evil Sather pointed out, forward passes weren't allowed in the neutral and defensive zones. Heck, it wasn't until Orr came along that d-men were really considered part of the offense. Pre-1960 (one could even argue pre-1980) the role of the defensemen was ridiculously simplistic compared to what it is now.
I think it's similar to football in that football usually has modern-era and pre-modern era all-time teams - seeing that the game is so much different.
Higgy4
Registered User
Sens Rule
Registered User
- Sep 22, 2005
- 21,251
- 74
Zine said:
So Kelly and Harvey weren't part of their teams offence in the 1950's? And Potvin, Orr, The big 3 in Montreal, Salming and well defenceman on every team in the NHL in the 1970's weren't really considered part of the offence? Yes there was a huge change in 1980 and suddenly defenceman became part of the offence. That is one of the dumbest comments I have ever heard on these boards. You can make an argument that players from the 1900's and 1920's were playing a different game but to dismiss everyone from before 1960 or as some say (mostly those who were born after 1990) the 1980's.
The NHL has been essentially the same game since the mid 1940's. Aside form a few tweaks here and there it is exactly the same game and has the same rules from that point on so for 65 years or so. Before that hockey wasn't as different from today as you are implying.
Zine said:
Zine, any defenseman, any forward, any person is judged by how well he performs against his peers in his own context. There is no other way to compare any players - except in one isolated season. You HAVE TO compare how a player dominated his era. That is how the entire world is judged.
Based on that, my list is pretty accurate. That's how I see it.
Who cares about forward passes or rules, every player during the 1928-29 season had the same rules. How Eddie Shore dominated that era is far more impressive than how Nicklas Lidstrom has dominated his.
silver_made said:
You have a lot to learn. There is plenty of credible evidence out there. Being too lazy to look for it is why you are unaware of the legends of the NHL's early days?
Are you 15?
Lidstrom is in the Top 10 right now, and moving up a little each fantastic year he has. He is showing no signs of slowing down, and the only thing that could keep him from moving into the Top 5 is if he finally follows through on his threat to move back to Sweden after this season.
He is easily ahead of Brad Park.
My list would be:
1. Orr
2. Harvey
3. Bourque
4. Shore
5. Coffey
6. Robinson
7. Lidstrom
8. Chelios
9. Kelly
10. Potvin
He is easily ahead of Brad Park.
My list would be:
1. Orr
2. Harvey
3. Bourque
4. Shore
5. Coffey
6. Robinson
7. Lidstrom
8. Chelios
9. Kelly
10. Potvin
norrisnick
The best...
- Apr 14, 2005
- 29,091
- 13,543
jiggs 10 said:
As gawdy as his numbers were I wouldn't put Coffey ahead of anyone on that list (and likely behind a few more guys not on that list). Elite offensive talent is not an adequate counterargument for merely above average defensive talent when ranking defensemen. Otherwise I like it.
Flash Walken
Registered User
Chelios at 8?norrisnick said:
I mean, I hate chelios, but I can respect him as a player, and certainly his sustained level of play over such a long period of time is commendable, and he certainly was amazing during his prime (or so I've read), watching chelios play in chicago against my beloved flames was how I first began to have an appreciation for defensemen, at the ripe age of 7. Having said that...
Is Chelios better than Stevens?
Stevens has over 180 more games, more goals than chelios, but is 13 points behind in career regular season totals. Stevens also has more playoff games, but his offensive stats aren't as impressive as those of chelios. 3 Norris Trophy's for chelios to steven's 0, 1 conn smythe for steven to 0 for chelios. 3 Cups for Stevens, 2 for Chelios. The norris trophy's are presumably the most relevent to this discussion, and stand alone as impressive, but how much do Steven's aura about his physicality and the lingering impressions of his dominance in New Jersey over a 10 year period affect his position?
Is an argument that while he never won the norris simply because he happened to be playing around the same time as 3 top 10 defencemen all time, or is that more glaring that he never stood tall as the best in any particular season? Does the way the norris is voted cheapen it's value in these conversations?
Sens Rule
Registered User
- Sep 22, 2005
- 21,251
- 74
Flash Walken said:
Chelios or Stevens can't be measured in stats or trophies. The guys are just solid in every way and provide everything to their teams from when they were offensive dynamos early in their careers to becoming awesome in their prime in every way to being a shell of their former selves in many ways in their later years but still remaining very, very effective and even being considered among the best D-Men in the NHL.
8th spot or 9th or 10th is an awesome rating as an All-Time D-Man. I think I would pick Chelios over Stevens but there is little difference over their careers. I can't see how wither can rate higher than 7th. Orr and Shore were considered the best players in the world, something Stevens and Chelly never were. Harvey was clearly the best D-Man in the NHL for a 10 year stretch. Potvin and Bourque were contempory players of both and both, I think were better overall. Anyone else there could be a debate about whether Stevens or Chelly were better. Maybe Chelly and Stevens are only the 14th and 15th best D-Man or maybe they are 7 and 8. Either way they were stellar first ballot Hall of Famers and pretty equal with each other.
norrisnick
The best...
- Apr 14, 2005
- 29,091
- 13,543
Flash Walken said:
Yeah, I'd probably give Chelios the edge (ever so slightly) over Stevens. Stevens did have the misfortune of running into Bourque and Lidstrom in his best seasons, BUT so did Chelios a time or two beyond his Norris years.
/Stevens is probably the 1st or second guy I'd bump up to 10th with Coffey falling out of the list.
Serge Savard was better than Scott Stevens,who thanks to ESPN, has become the most overrated hockey player in the past 25 years.
cup2006sensrule said:
Excellent post! The baseball analogy is an excellent way to add to this on-going discussion.I think it's important if we are using the term "all-time" to respect what that means. Of course athletes get stronger ,faster,bigger etc. but we have to look at how dominant they were in their own time.
Last edited:
About Lidstrom, I think he's a little underrated at least on hf boards. He's a player that had flown under the radar for awhile and then had 6 years where he was strongly recognized.I don't think it was brought up yet but he has 6 years on the First All Star Team and 3 years as Norris Trophy runner up.I don't buy into their being no competition or Bourque and others being being past their prime. I think it's more a case of alot of very good players in that position and so it's harder to dominate. Lidstrom has always been instrumental in the success of the Red Wings and I think the ice time Bowman gave hin including over 50 minutes in the final game of a Stanley Cup is really one of the greatest testaments to that.
- Status
