Lidstrom - Stevens vs. Bourque - Pronger

[the overrated]

I've got to say, and I say this as a Boston fan, in the "Bourque vs. Lidstrom" debate I always take Boston & Detroit fans out of the equation. It seems that the most passionate, most declarative votes - in either direction - are made by people that support those teams.

Part of that is probably because those fans watched those players more, and more closely, than the fan of average teams. But a bigger part of it is just blatant biases.

So, yeah, I vote Bourque/Pronger. Bourque, IMPBO, is a little better than Lidstrom and Pronger is a little better than Stevens. All in all, though, the pairings are close enough that it's a very reasonable debate one way or the other. But as indicated above, I'd probably take my own vote out of the mix due to a potential pro-Boston bias.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Bourque vs Lidstrom

The discussion has shifted to a Bourque vs Lidstrom debate.

Will admit that I watched Ray Bourque play hockey since his pre-teen days, whereas my appreciation of Nicklas Lidstrom started when he came to North America.Watched Bobby Orr from his first year in the OHA and Harvey the 2/3 of his career. Harvey and Lidstrom benefited from the best coaching. Bourque may have been short changed a little bit at times in team support.

Overall Ray Bourque ranks just below Bobby Orr and Doug Harvey in terms of his understanding of on ice geometry and his ability to see the play seconds ahead. This gave Ray Bourque a slight advantage, especially offensively when it came to passing. Both Orr and Bourque tended to test their limits in the offensive zone while Harvey and Lidstrom rarely did. Nicklas Lidstrom's game is more anticipation and reaction. He is better at making the play come to him. The pro-active / re-active distinction.

From a defensive and offensive standpoint Harvey, Orr and Bourque had one quality that set them apart - every game that I saw them play produced something new or unexpected. With Harvey it was his ability to set the pace, adjust to all players and produce traps or nuances. With Orr it was the skating and offense. With Bourque it was the puck movement and on ice geometry. Nicklas Lidstrom does not have this novelty feature to his game BUT he has an exceptionally high degree of excellence in repetition within a framework of established success.

The main issue in the debate comes down to this. You have four great defensemen, remarkable talents. Orr having a good edge in terms of skating ability followed by Bourque / Harvey then Lidstrom.

However one of them refuses to use all the tools in the tool box.
Lidstrom does not have a physical game - by choice.

Limiting the discussion to Bourque / Lidstrom, since they were contemporaries for a significant number of seasons, in terms of most skills except physicality the scales balance. If physicality is a positive attribute for a defenseman then Ray Bourque gets a significant edge, otherwise a slight edge.

 

[JackSlater]

Hahahaahaha ofcourse if you are better, you are better. You should revise that sentence.

My sentence was fine. Bourque maintained his level as elite throughout his career, and thus his longevity is superior to Lidstrom's.

You have to take this in context with what we are talking about. As a defenseman D is your first priority. Bourques primary were defense but he was used primary as an offensive defenseman compared to Lidstrom.

As a defenceman your priority is to be as effective as you possibly can. Whether this is accomplished by playing like Langway or like Coffey is irrelevant. This is not significant either way, as Bourque was pretty much equal defensively to Lidstrom. He was not an offensive defenceman like a Coffey or a Leetch. Bourque was just an all around great defenceman who excelled in every area, including offence. I really doubt that you've seen Bourque play. How many games have you seen that features Bourque, particularly in his prime?

Yes there are some exceptions. Chelios got 1st all-star during career offensive years like in 89 and so did Stevens. That leaves Chara and Langway but for arguemnt sake we leave in those four. Those are the only four defensive stay at home defensemen over the last 40 years to make an 1st all star team.

Jackman? Don't bring up one hit wonders in an argument about Lidstrom and Bourque and stop taking things out of context. It's just... ... bad debate tactics you know.

Chelios also got 1st team all-star in 2002 with a whopping 39 points. Stevens was voted to the second team in years that he has 27 and 31 points respectively. Langway was getting first team spots in the 80s with point totals in the 30s. There are other primarily defensive players that received positions on all star teams in the last 40 years including Engblom, Stapleton, White, McCrimmon, Ashbee, Savard, Schoenfeld and arguably Howe. Clearly people are voted to the team not solely based on offensive contributions. Your argument that Lidstrom wasn't voted to the team because voters failed to appreciate his defensive contributions is not valid.

Jackman is within the context of this discussion since for some reason you brought up Lidstrom finishing second to Bure for the Calder as proof that he was elite. Jackman proves that this line of reasoning is foolish.

Worse teams? That argument seems to shift all the time. When the cup discussion comes up Bourque played for the most talented team not to win the cup but when comparing skills and team stats he played for a worse team. This is not directed at you as I dont know where you stand in this but I find it highly subjective to call the 80s Boston for a worse team than the 90s Detroit.

The 90s Detroit teams were miles better than those Boston teams. How many hall of fame players were on those Boston teams? Two, Bourque and Neely. How many were on those Detroit teams? Yzerman, Murphy, Coffey in the early years, and in the next few years Lidstrom, Fedorov, Shanahan. I'm not going to include Fetisov since he wasn't a great contributor to those teams. That's still three times the amount of hall of fame players, and those Detroit teams even had better supporting casts. In any event, those Bruins teams aren't anywhere near the most talented teams to not win the Cup. As others have said they were basically carried by Bourque to the finals in a way that Lidstrom never had to do with Detroit, not that I hold that against Lidstrom.

 

[Clown Baby*]

Yeah, but you should consider peak years, ie. Stevens best years were in NJ.

Alright. Then, we'll examine Scott Stevens' play with the New Jersey Devils from 1991 all the way up until retirement. But in order to compare Chris Pronger to Stevens, I think we can agree an equal number of seasons should be used to compare the two. Omitting the 2005 season in which the NHL canceled its season entirely, we're talking 1997 onwards.

Offensive Production
Scott Stevens
Regular Season Totals: 956gp 93g 337a 430pts +282
Playoff Totals: 153gp 17g 45a 62pts +33

Chris Pronger
Regular Season Totals: 902gp 135g 457a 592pts +208
Playoff Totals: 147gp 25g 82a 107pts +41

Awards and Accolades
Scott Stevens
2002-03 Stanley Cup
2000-01 NHL - Second All-Star Team
1999-00 Stanley Cup
1999-00 NHL - Conn Smythe Trophy (Playoffs' MVP)
1996-97 NHL - Second All-Star Team
1994-95 Stanley Cup
1993-94 NHL - First All-Star Team
1993-94 NHL - Alka-Seltzer Plus Award
1991-92 NHL - Second All-Star Team

Chris Pronger
2010 Olympic Gold Medal
2006-07 Stanley Cup
2006-07 NHL - Second All-Star Team
2003-04 NHL - Second All-Star Team
2002 Olympic Gold Medal
1999-00 NHL - Hart Trophy (MVP)
1999-00 NHL - James Norris Memorial Trophy (Defenseman of the Year)
1999-00 NHL - Bud Light Plus/Minus Award
1999-00 NHL - First All-Star Team
1997-98 NHL - Second All-Star Team
1997-98 NHL - Bud Light Plus/Minus Award

Norris Voting By Percentage

1992 Scott Stevens 44 345 12.80%
1993 Scott Stevens 1 250 0.40%
1994 Scott Stevens 195 270 72.20%
1996 Scott Stevens 9 540 1.70%
1997 Scott Stevens 171 540 31.70%
1998 Scott Stevens 84 540 15.60%
1999 Scott Stevens 55 560 9.80%
2000 Scott Stevens 9 580 1.60%
2001 Scott Stevens 203 620 32.70%
2002 Scott Stevens 5 620 0.80%
2003 Scott Stevens 5 620 0.80%

1998 Chris Pronger 316 540 58.50%
1999 Chris Pronger 107 560 19.10%
2000 Chris Pronger 565 580 97.40%
2001 Chris Pronger 14 620 2.30%
2004 Chris Pronger 345 1040 33.20%
2006 Chris Pronger 97 1290 7.50%
2007 Chris Pronger 608 1430 42.50%
2008 Chris Pronger 56 1340 4.20%

• To me, Stevens and Pronger are eerily similar in that they provided a wealth of leadership to whichever club employed their services. They played some of the best shutdown hockey we've seen played in the modern era of the NHL, and they always, always showed up in the post-season. The only difference, I maintain, is that Chris Pronger didn't need to sacrifice his offense to continue playing great defense. The gap between Bourque and Lidstrom just simplifies matters.

• As an aside, I'd like to point out the lack of success each club has experienced since Stevens retired, and Pronger has been traded. Martin Brodeur has to struggle to win even a single playoff series, let alone another Stanley Cup, and the teams Chris Pronger leaves behind fail to make the playoffs the very next season. It speaks volumes of each defensemen's on-ice worth.

 

[jkrx]

My sentence was fine. Bourque maintained his level as elite throughout his career, and thus his longevity is superior to Lidstrom's.

As a defenceman your priority is to be as effective as you possibly can. Whether this is accomplished by playing like Langway or like Coffey is irrelevant. This is not significant either way, as Bourque was pretty much equal defensively to Lidstrom. He was not an offensive defenceman like a Coffey or a Leetch. Bourque was just an all around great defenceman who excelled in every area, including offence. I really doubt that you've seen Bourque play. How many games have you seen that features Bourque, particularly in his prime?


Chelios also got 1st team all-star in 2002 with a whopping 39 points. Stevens was voted to the second team in years that he has 27 and 31 points respectively. Langway was getting first team spots in the 80s with point totals in the 80s. There are other primarily defensive players that received positions on all star teams in the last 40 years including Engblom, Stapleton, White, McCrimmon, Ashbee, Savard, Schoenfeld and arguably Howe. Clearly people are voted to the team not solely based on offensive contributions. Your argument that Lidstrom wasn't voted to the team because voters failed to appreciate his defensive contributions is not valid.

Jackman is within the context of this discussion since for some reason you brought up Lidstrom finishing second to Bure for the Calder as proof that he was elite. Jackman proves that this line of reasoning is foolish.



The 90s Detroit teams were miles better than those Boston teams. How many hall of fame players were on those Boston teams? Two, Bourque and Neely. How many were on those Detroit teams? Yzerman, Murphy, Coffey in the early years, and in the next few years Lidstrom, Fedorov, Shanahan. I'm not going to include Fetisov since he wasn't a great contributor to those teams. That's still three times the amount of hall of fame players, and those Detroit teams even had better supporting casts. In any event, those Bruins teams aren't anywhere near the most talented teams to not win the Cup. As others have said they were basically carried by Bourque to the finals in a way that Lidstrom never had to do with Detroit, not that I hold that against Lidstrom.

No your sentence was clumsy.

I watched Bourque play numerous times aswell as Lidstrom specially during the 80s. Bourque were fine defensivly but he was often caught out of position specially when he tried to rush up the puck. This rarely happend with Lidstrom. To say they are equals defensively is ridiculous. Bourque is not far from Lidstrom but he definitly not as good.

I was talking about 1st teams. 2nd team usually have a defensive defenseman. However most of them were physical defensemen you noticed. My point were that you didnt notice Lidstrom because he were the silent positioning kinda D.

I said that you I wouldnt call that team terrible. The bruins were a completly different team compared to Detroit and oh by the way... Coffey didnt exactly play like an HoFer in Detroit except for one season. Fetisov contributed more than Coffey. Bruins were typical "Grind you down getting our hands dirty"-team which explains lack of HoFers and Detroit were a "finnesse"-team.

 

[jkrx]

Alright. Then, we'll examine Scott Stevens' play with the New Jersey Devils from 1991 all the way up until retirement. But in order to compare Chris Pronger to Stevens, I think we can agree an equal number of seasons should be used to compare the two. Omitting the 2005 season in which the NHL canceled its season entirely, we're talking 1997 onwards.

Offensive Production
Scott Stevens
Regular Season Totals: 956gp 93g 337a 430pts +282
Playoff Totals: 153gp 17g 45a 62pts +33

Chris Pronger
Regular Season Totals: 902gp 135g 457a 592pts +208
Playoff Totals: 147gp 25g 82a 107pts +41

Awards and Accolades
Scott Stevens
2002-03 Stanley Cup
2000-01 NHL - Second All-Star Team
1999-00 Stanley Cup
1999-00 NHL - Conn Smythe Trophy (Playoffs' MVP)
1996-97 NHL - Second All-Star Team
1994-95 Stanley Cup
1993-94 NHL - First All-Star Team
1993-94 NHL - Alka-Seltzer Plus Award
1991-92 NHL - Second All-Star Team

Chris Pronger
2010 Olympic Gold Medal
2006-07 Stanley Cup
2006-07 NHL - Second All-Star Team
2003-04 NHL - Second All-Star Team
2002 Olympic Gold Medal
1999-00 NHL - Hart Trophy (MVP)
1999-00 NHL - James Norris Memorial Trophy (Defenseman of the Year)
1999-00 NHL - Bud Light Plus/Minus Award
1999-00 NHL - First All-Star Team
1997-98 NHL - Second All-Star Team
1997-98 NHL - Bud Light Plus/Minus Award

Norris Voting By Percentage

• To me, Stevens and Pronger are eerily similar in that they provided a wealth of leadership to whichever club employed their services. They played some of the best shutdown hockey we've seen played in the modern era of the NHL, and they always, always showed up in the post-season. The only difference, I maintain, is that Chris Pronger didn't need to sacrifice his offense to continue playing great defense. The gap between Bourque and Lidstrom just simplifies matters.

• As an aside, I'd like to point out the lack of success each club has experienced since Stevens retired, and Pronger has been traded. Martin Brodeur has to struggle to win even a single playoff series, let alone another Stanley Cup, and the teams Chris Pronger leaves behind fail to make the playoffs the very next season. It speaks volumes of each defensemen's on-ice worth.

So basically you comparing a guy in his prime to a guy after his prime... Good job.

 

[Moridin]

7 cups, 2 conn smythes vs 2 cups ?

I know which pair I go with.

 

[raleh]

I think you are underestimating Lidström in saying that he has the lowest value a step behind Pronger and Stevens.

I think a argument could be made but it would have to be very partial in it´s preference of hitting.

For the question I find it very good and hard to answer. On one hand you have so Hart trophy(ies?), highest scoring defenceman, team carriers, beastly offence. On the other so many cups, so much leadership, 480 playoff games, beastly defence, Conn Smythe Trophies.

I´m leaning towards Lids/Stevens but I´m also a huge Lidström homer so I don´t know if I would be fair. Let´s call it even.

Great discussion this and I have a question for you posters who had an easier task in following hockey in the 90-ies. Looking only at his offensive numbers and knowing his defensive impact the year before, would it have been crazy to give Lidström the Conn Smythe in 98


GP G A Pts +/− GWG
Lidström
22 6 13 19 12 2 27.51 min/game 8 pim

Yzerman
22 6 18 24 10 0 22.41 min/game 22 pim

Maybe Yzerman was the clear-cut winner but you could also guess that it was biased in his favor being the face of the franchise, captain and being before Lidström really broke through in everybodies eyes.

How do you that saw it see it?

Sorry, I guess I worded it poorly. I meant Bourque was a step up from Lidstrom and that's it. Lidstrom is certainly better than Stevens or Progner.

 

[lextune]

The discussion has shifted to a Bourque vs Lidstrom debate.

Will admit that I watched Ray Bourque play hockey since his pre-teen days, whereas my appreciation of Nicklas Lidstrom started when he came to North America.Watched Bobby Orr from his first year in the OHA and Harvey the 2/3 of his career. Harvey and Lidstrom benefited from the best coaching. Bourque may have been short changed a little bit at times in team support.

Overall Ray Bourque ranks just below Bobby Orr and Doug Harvey in terms of his understanding of on ice geometry and his ability to see the play seconds ahead. This gave Ray Bourque a slight advantage, especially offensively when it came to passing. Both Orr and Bourque tended to test their limits in the offensive zone while Harvey and Lidstrom rarely did. Nicklas Lidstrom's game is more anticipation and reaction. He is better at making the play come to him. The pro-active / re-active distinction.

From a defensive and offensive standpoint Harvey, Orr and Bourque had one quality that set them apart - every game that I saw them play produced something new or unexpected. With Harvey it was his ability to set the pace, adjust to all players and produce traps or nuances. With Orr it was the skating and offense. With Bourque it was the puck movement and on ice geometry. Nicklas Lidstrom does not have this novelty feature to his game BUT he has an exceptionally high degree of excellence in repetition within a framework of established success.

The main issue in the debate comes down to this. You have four great defensemen, remarkable talents. Orr having a good edge in terms of skating ability followed by Bourque / Harvey then Lidstrom.

However one of them refuses to use all the tools in the tool box.
Lidstrom does not have a physical game - by choice.

Limiting the discussion to Bourque / Lidstrom, since they were contemporaries for a significant number of seasons, in terms of most skills except physicality the scales balance. If physicality is a positive attribute for a defenseman then Ray Bourque gets a significant edge, otherwise a slight edge.

I agree with everything C1958 just said.....

.....there is a first time for everything I guess, lol.

 

[JackSlater]

No your sentence was clumsy.

I watched Bourque play numerous times aswell as Lidstrom specially during the 80s. Bourque were fine defensivly but he was often caught out of position specially when he tried to rush up the puck. This rarely happend with Lidstrom. To say they are equals defensively is ridiculous. Bourque is not far from Lidstrom but he definitly not as good.

To say that Bourque was often caught out of position is incorrect. Bourque was always one of the best defensive defencemen in the NHL, if not the best, for the duration of his career. He was out of position more often than Lidstrom, since he never goes out of position, but he made up for it the vast majority of the time. Being occasionally out of position also allowed him to contribute offensively more than Lidstrom did, while barely hurting his teams defensively. In this regard, perhaps Lidstrom's superior teams allowed him to stay in position at all times, a luxury that Bourque didn't have. This would also have padded his offensive numbers to some degree.

I was talking about 1st teams. 2nd team usually have a defensive defenseman. However most of them were physical defensemen you noticed. My point were that you didnt notice Lidstrom because he were the silent positioning kinda D.

Ah you've changed your point to suit your argument. I've shown that there are plenty of defensive defencemen that get positions on the all-star teams. I'm also cofident that the people that vote for those positions are more qualified than you or I to judge Lidstrom's defensive contributions. They didn't put him on the teams and he didn't deserve it at the time either.

I said that you I wouldnt call that team terrible. The bruins were a completly different team compared to Detroit and oh by the way... Coffey didnt exactly play like an HoFer in Detroit except for one season. Fetisov contributed more than Coffey. Bruins were typical "Grind you down getting our hands dirty"-team which explains lack of HoFers and Detroit were a "finnesse"-team.

Actually you said that you wouldn't necessarily call those Boston teams worse than the 90s Detroit teams, which is absurd. As far as the difference in styles, the Bruins didn't lack hall of famers because of the style they played, they played that style because they lacked hall of fame quality players. As far as Coffey, he wasn't at his Oilers best in Detroit but he was still among the best defencemen in the NHL. He was still at a respectable hall of fame level at the time and certainly did contribute more than Fetisov did with the Wings.

While Bourque is better than Lidstrom the gap ultimately isn't that large, particularly if we are only considering their primes, which is the case in this thread. If you think that is ridiculous to state that Bourque and Lidstrom are relatively equal in terms of defensive play and that the 80s Bruins teams were as good as the 90s Red Wing teams then there isn't going to be any convincing you that Bourque is the better player.

 

[Fugu]

The discussion has shifted to a Bourque vs Lidstrom debate.

Will admit that I watched Ray Bourque play hockey since his pre-teen days, whereas my appreciation of Nicklas Lidstrom started when he came to North America.Watched Bobby Orr from his first year in the OHA and Harvey the 2/3 of his career. Harvey and Lidstrom benefited from the best coaching. Bourque may have been short changed a little bit at times in team support.

Overall Ray Bourque ranks just below Bobby Orr and Doug Harvey in terms of his understanding of on ice geometry and his ability to see the play seconds ahead. This gave Ray Bourque a slight advantage, especially offensively when it came to passing. Both Orr and Bourque tended to test their limits in the offensive zone while Harvey and Lidstrom rarely did. Nicklas Lidstrom's game is more anticipation and reaction. He is better at making the play come to him. The pro-active / re-active distinction.

From a defensive and offensive standpoint Harvey, Orr and Bourque had one quality that set them apart - every game that I saw them play produced something new or unexpected. With Harvey it was his ability to set the pace, adjust to all players and produce traps or nuances. With Orr it was the skating and offense. With Bourque it was the puck movement and on ice geometry. Nicklas Lidstrom does not have this novelty feature to his game BUT he has an exceptionally high degree of excellence in repetition within a framework of established success.

The main issue in the debate comes down to this. You have four great defensemen, remarkable talents. Orr having a good edge in terms of skating ability followed by Bourque / Harvey then Lidstrom.

However one of them refuses to use all the tools in the tool box.
Lidstrom does not have a physical game - by choice.

Limiting the discussion to Bourque / Lidstrom, since they were contemporaries for a significant number of seasons, in terms of most skills except physicality the scales balance. If physicality is a positive attribute for a defenseman then Ray Bourque gets a significant edge, otherwise a slight edge.

Seeing that there's little to distinguish the two in terms of objective stats, there should be no edge for physical play. Each achieved great things using their own respective styles, so why give an edge for something that favors perhaps the method by which one guy did achieve his results?

This is what I mean by moving goal posts.


I see this as the North American bias rearing it's head again (and I'm an American, btw.)

At no one in particular:

What happened to the longevity argument, with regard to Orr, as some have used that as a criterion here for ranking other defensmen?

 

[Fugu]

That's an interesting question, and it deserves an answer.

I don't see league size as a major issue since 1980 - expansion in the 1990s was matched by an influx of Europeans. Similarly, while average shift length has dropped, the average distribution of ice time up and down the lineup has changed little since 1980, as that was about the time that coaches settled into the modern standard of playing four lines, six defencemen, and playing defencemen on the points on the power play. So in the context of Bourque vs Lidstrom, I don't think those matter a lot.

But it is a fair question as to whether the style of play has affected their results. I think it's likely that the pre-lockout clutch-and-grab era limited the impact of puck-moving defencemen. How do you take that into impact when evaluating Lidstrom? Just keep in in mind, I guess. I think Bourque was better (based on the numbers, I didn't see most of Bourque's prime), but I'm open to the idea that Lidstrom may have been better, because it is difficult to make cross-era comparisons.

I agree that if you're talking about the 1970s and earlier, it gets more complicated. I think the biggest issue is the concentration of talent on a few teams for much of the league's history, but the factors you mentioned also make it hard to compare players. In the end I like to ask: How much did the player dominate in his era and situation? and How easy was it to dominate in his era and situation? and evaluate from there. You can't put players in a vacuum to compare them.

I always figured Bourque was better because his plus-minus was better (currently +528 to +432) despite playing on worse teams than Lidstrom. The gap is bigger in my adjusted plus-minus system, which adjusts for scoring level (boosting Lidstrom's numbers) and team strength (boosting Bourque's numbers). Through 2009, Bourque is ahead +577 to +267. Admittedly, there may be an era effect to these numbers in terms of how easy it was for defencemen to impact the game.

But here's a strong case for Lidstrom, based on the numbers. I calculated stats called TmPP+ and TmPK+. They calculate how strong the special teams that a given player played on were. The average for both stats is 1. Higher is better for TmPP+, and lower is better for TmPK+. The scale is a percentage one, where a TmPP+ of 1.20 means that the team was 20% better than league average.

Here are the five highest players in TmPP+ among players with sufficient power play time since 1980 (since the 1970s were so unbalanced on a team level). I added Bourque's numbers to the bottom.

Nicklas Lidstrom | 16.6 | 71% | 1.26
Denis Potvin | 7.4 | 79% | 1.21
Mike Bossy | 7.5 | 72% | 1.20
Bryan Trottier | 12.1 | 48% | 1.19
Al Macinnis | 17.7 | 87% | 1.18
Ray Bourque | 20.3 | 88% | 1.11

And the five best players in TmPK+ since 1980, plus Bourque:

Player | Seasons | SH% | TmPK+
Nicklas Lidstrom | 16.6 | 53% | 0.79
Bill Hajt | 6.2 | 68% | 0.79
Dave Poulin | 9.2 | 50% | 0.79
Steve Yzerman | 19.0 | 35% | 0.81
Kevin Lowe | 15.9 | 36% | 0.81
Ray Bourque | 20.3 | 58% | 0.88

Granted, these are team numbers, and Lidstrom has played with a lot of talent. But it's pretty impressive that his teams have been the best on the power play and on the penalty kill of all players since 1980, and he's logged a lot of time on both units.

Thank you for the very well considered response and analysis in these two posts.


I'll still stick to Lids-Stevens. Seven Cups betwixt the two is pretty impressive, and I think they were a substantial part of the success their teams had consistently. To win once is incredible in and of itself, but the multiple appearances and championships should tip the scale in their favor. Holland said it best once in discussing Lidstrom's career and accomplishments. The one common denominator to all four Cups (and almost five last year) for the Wings was Nick Lidstrom. He believes that Lidstrom was the single biggest factor in their success.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

To say that Bourque was often caught out of position is incorrect. Bourque was always one of the best defensive defencemen in the NHL, if not the best, for the duration of his career. He was out of position more often than Lidstrom, since he never goes out of position, but he made up for it the vast majority of the time. Being occasionally out of position also allowed him to contribute offensively more than Lidstrom did, while barely hurting his teams defensively. In this regard, perhaps Lidstrom's superior teams allowed him to stay in position at all times, a luxury that Bourque didn't have. This would also have padded his offensive numbers to some degree.
.

But that's the thing. When you're talking about the elite of the elite, there is a significant difference between "never being out of position" and "almost never being out of position."

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

What happened to the longevity argument, with regard to Orr, as some have used that as a criterion here for ranking other defensmen?

Oh come on. Orr was so much better than any other defenseman in history when he played, the fact that he only played at a high level for 8 years is irrelevant. It's relevant when comparing him to other guys who dominated at a similar level - Gretzky and Howe, and is why I rank Orr 3rd behind them - but it's irrelevant when comparing him to defensemen who were much less dominant.

When you have two defensemen with similar peak value (Bourque and Lidstrom), then longevity does matter a lot. And yes, I realize that I am in the minority for saying that the two do have similar peak value.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

So basically you comparing a guy in his prime to a guy after his prime... Good job.

Stevens was at his best in New Jersey, other than perhaps the one season in St. Louis.

He put up much better offensive numbers while in Washington, but he didn't have close to the same impact he had later in his career. When he played in Washington, he would often run out of position to try and make a big hit, he was also a serious hot head, and it wasn't all that difficult to get him off his game with some aggitation.

Not that it's a knock, but Stevens picked up a bunch of his points in Washington, on the PP, when he was stationed in front of the net, he was never the PP QB lik eth eother 3 defenseman mentioned.

 

[tony d]

Lidstrom and Stevens for me.

 

[Canadiens1958]

No North American Bias

Seeing that there's little to distinguish the two in terms of objective stats, there should be no edge for physical play. Each achieved great things using their own respective styles, so why give an edge for something that favors perhaps the method by which one guy did achieve his results?

This is what I mean by moving goal posts.


I see this as the North American bias rearing it's head again (and I'm an American, btw.)

At no one in particular:

What happened to the longevity argument, with regard to Orr, as some have used that as a criterion here for ranking other defensmen?

The issue of a North American bias regarding physicality is rather interesting. The same critique could and has been made about North American defensemen, specifically Bill Quackenbush, Red Kelly, J.C. Tremblay amongst the upper levels of NHL defensemen.

Likewise European defensemen have been praised for their physical play - Ulf Samuelsson, Konstantinov, Fetisov, Kasparitis amongst a fairly long list.

Demonstrably there is no bias about physical play. There is a realization that defense requires a level of physical implication by players. There is also a realization that players can be physical without running up a high penalty total in fact certain physical defensemen managed rather modest penalty totals - Serge Savard, Pat Stapleton amongst many.

The goal posts have not been moved. It is still a level rink but there is also a realization that a player cannot be selective about the tools he uses on the ice. There is a basic obligation to teammates to perform all aspects of the game.

The goalie deserves protection and support from all five teammates on the ice, not four. The forwards paying a physical price to enter the offensive zone or establish position in the slot have to be supported with the knowledge that the other team's forwards will pay the same or greater price at the other end.

While it is true that each player may have achieved greatness using their own style it is also fair to look at the limitations of each style and making choices based on the limitations.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Oh come on. Orr was so much better than any other defenseman in history when he played, the fact that he only played at a high level for 8 years is irrelevant. It's relevant when comparing him to other guys who dominated at a similar level - Gretzky and Howe, and is why I rank Orr 3rd behind them - but it's irrelevant when comparing him to defensemen who were much less dominant.

When you have two defensemen with similar peak value (Bourque and Lidstrom), then longevity does matter a lot. And yes, I realize that I am in the minority for saying that the two do have similar peak value.

Yeah, Orr is pretty exempt (though it does make a difference when comparing to the likes of Gretzky and Howe).

I do believe Bourque's and Lidstrom's longevity (of elite play) is enough to bump them over Kelly and Potvin.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

I would never equate Pronger's physicality as on par with Stevens'...

Pronger is/was more out of control than Stevens, and more often harmed his team through suspensions and penalties than Stevens. Stevens was also far more intimidating, IMO. In Pronger's case, the physicality is not that much of a positive.

 

[JackSlater]

But that's the thing. When you're talking about the elite of the elite, there is a significant difference between "never being out of position" and "almost never being out of position."

Possibly, but I was only referring to positional play. Clearly there is more to defensive play than positional play. Lidstrom clearly has Bourque beaten in this regard, not that Bourque is a slouch. There are other aspects where Bourque has Lidstrom beaten defensively though, such as play along the boards or in front of the net. Combining all aspects of defensive play and I consider the two to be basically equal.

 

[Fugu]

The issue of a North American bias regarding physicality is rather interesting. The same critique could and has been made about North American defensemen, specifically Bill Quackenbush, Red Kelly, J.C. Tremblay amongst the upper levels of NHL defensemen.

Likewise European defensemen have been praised for their physical play - Ulf Samuelsson, Konstantinov, Fetisov, Kasparitis amongst a fairly long list.

Demonstrably there is no bias about physical play. There is a realization that defense requires a level of physical implication by players. There is also a realization that players can be physical without running up a high penalty total in fact certain physical defensemen managed rather modest penalty totals - Serge Savard, Pat Stapleton amongst many.

The goal posts have not been moved. It is still a level rink but there is also a realization that a player cannot be selective about the tools he uses on the ice. There is a basic obligation to teammates to perform all aspects of the game.

The goalie deserves protection and support from all five teammates on the ice, not four. The forwards paying a physical price to enter the offensive zone or establish position in the slot have to be supported with the knowledge that the other team's forwards will pay the same or greater price at the other end.

While it is true that each player may have achieved greatness using their own style it is also fair to look at the limitations of each style and making choices based on the limitations.

Yet Lidstrom is not a very physical defenseman but has achieved as much, if not more, than the majority of the guys with "all the tools" according to your perception of the tools needed to do an acceptable job.

I think you're letting personal preferences seep into an argument that's supposed to look at achievements. What is Lidstrom's resume missing then?

Is there a realization that players can be great defensemen without your physical play prerequisite? Perhaps I'm not understanding what you're trying to say, hence the bolded section, but this appears to slant quality of defense in the direction of physicality. I'm saying it's not always required, per Lidstrom's accomplishments, but that perhaps more players who indeed have excelled have indeed been physical.

 

[jkrx]

The issue of a North American bias regarding physicality is rather interesting. The same critique could and has been made about North American defensemen, specifically Bill Quackenbush, Red Kelly, J.C. Tremblay amongst the upper levels of NHL defensemen.

Likewise European defensemen have been praised for their physical play - Ulf Samuelsson, Konstantinov, Fetisov, Kasparitis amongst a fairly long list.

Demonstrably there is no bias about physical play. There is a realization that defense requires a level of physical implication by players. There is also a realization that players can be physical without running up a high penalty total in fact certain physical defensemen managed rather modest penalty totals - Serge Savard, Pat Stapleton amongst many.

The goal posts have not been moved. It is still a level rink but there is also a realization that a player cannot be selective about the tools he uses on the ice. There is a basic obligation to teammates to perform all aspects of the game.

The goalie deserves protection and support from all five teammates on the ice, not four. The forwards paying a physical price to enter the offensive zone or establish position in the slot have to be supported with the knowledge that the other team's forwards will pay the same or greater price at the other end.

While it is true that each player may have achieved greatness using their own style it is also fair to look at the limitations of each style and making choices based on the limitations.

Tho those player got to be known as dirty ********, atleast Samuelsson and Kaspar. Fetisov increased his reputation with Detroit.

When Canadians do dirty stuff, its often called physical play and "a good canadian boy without a visor" but if a similiar play is done by a euro its often "cowardly" or "typical [insert nationality] move".

Ofcourse there is exceptions on both "sides".

 

[Fugu]

Oh come on. Orr was so much better than any other defenseman in history when he played, the fact that he only played at a high level for 8 years is irrelevant. It's relevant when comparing him to other guys who dominated at a similar level - Gretzky and Howe, and is why I rank Orr 3rd behind them - but it's irrelevant when comparing him to defensemen who were much less dominant.

When you have two defensemen with similar peak value (Bourque and Lidstrom), then longevity does matter a lot. And yes, I realize that I am in the minority for saying that the two do have similar peak value.

I'm just trying to use the same goal posts for everyone concerned. I'm being the devil's advocate as I do think Orr belongs in a separate category by himself.

Limit it to eight years then for all the other "greats." I mean, people are compiling career long stats, but then picking and choosing peak years, however it is they define peak (and its not age), etc., etc.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Seeing that there's little to distinguish the two in terms of objective stats, there should be no edge for physical play. Each achieved great things using their own respective styles, so why give an edge for something that favors perhaps the method by which one guy did achieve his results?

Strongly agree -- Physical play can be a plus for defensemen, but should not be a stand alone attribute with much weight at all.

If player A stops 8 out of 10 offensive plays by hitting and playing physically and...

Player B stops 9 out 10 plays with poke checks and playing positionally

I am going to pick player B 100% of the time. The fact he probably spends a lot less time in the penalty box is quite honestly more than enough reward to compensate for the intimidation advantage of Player A.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Responsibilities

Yet Lidstrom is not a very physical defenseman but has achieved as much, if not more, than the majority of the guys with "all the tools" according to your perception of the tools needed to do an acceptable job.

I think you're letting personal preferences seep into an argument that's supposed to look at achievements. What is Lidstrom's resume missing then?

Is there a realization that players can be great defensemen without your physical play prerequisite? Perhaps I'm not understanding what you're trying to say, hence the bolded section, but this appears to slant quality of defense in the direction of physicality. I'm saying it's not always required, per Lidstrom's accomplishments, but that perhaps more players who indeed have excelled have indeed been physical.

Let's leave defensemen out of the discussion for a moment.

Hockey players have various skills and preference. Yet when playing the game, a hockey player cannot take a "It's not my job." or a " I don't do that." approach to circumstances.

A forward who happens to be the last player back has to make an effort at playing defense. Stepping aside and waiting for someone else to do the job is simply not acceptable.

Bringing this full circle to playing defense. Sometimes the position demands a physical approach, A player cannot simply pass the buck to his partner or hope for a change of pairings. It is simply his moment to step-up and fill the role. Can a defenseman refuse to block shots? Sure but this choice is part of his legacy. Can a defenseman insist on playing dirty and out of control? Sure but it is part of his legacy. Just like the lack of physicality is part of his legacy.

Sure he may be accepted by his teammates and fans for all his other contributions but it is realistic to acknowledge his complete legacy.