Lidstrom's place in history - ALL DISCUSSIONS OF LIDSTROM'S "ALL TIME RANKING" HERE

[TheDevilMadeMe]

First off, please see the top 60 defensemen of all time as determined by the community on this subforum that is stickied at the top of this board. Specifically, follow the link to "Round 2, Vote 1," the discussion behind the top 5 defensemen on the list.

If you still want to discuss Lidstrom vs Bourque, Harvey, Shore, Orr, Potvin, or anyone in history, this is the thread to do it in.

Click to read more...

 

[tarheelhockey]

Someday we will look back on this argument and laugh.

Someday

 

[Darth Joker]

I think that after Orr, there's a list of 4 or 5 defensemen that make up the First "After-Orr" Tier. Lidstrom is in that tier, along with Harvey, Bourque, Shore, and maybe Potvin.

I think that pretty reasonable arguments can be made for any conceivable ordering of them, although after reading through recent threads on this board, I'm:

1. Convinced that Bourque should be ahead of Lidstrom.

2. Inclined to think that Potvin is probably 6th, solidly ahead of the next tier but at the bottom of this first tier.


So the highest I'd put Lidstrom is 3rd, and the lowest I'd put him is 5th.

On an all-time list involving players of all positions, Lidstrom would be in my Top 20.

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

I think that after Orr, there's a list of 4 or 5 defensemen that make up the First "After-Orr" Tier. Lidstrom is in that tier, along with Harvey, Bourque, Shore, and maybe Potvin.

I think that pretty reasonable arguments can be made for any conceivable ordering of them, although after reading through recent threads on this board, I'm:

1. Convinced that Bourque should be ahead of Lidstrom.

2. Inclined to think that Potvin is probably 6th, solidly ahead of the next tier but at the bottom of this first tier.


So the highest I'd put Lidstrom is 3rd, and the lowest I'd put him is 5th.

On all-time list involving players of all positions, Lidstrom would be in my Top 20.

Potvin belongs in that tier. You might want to also consider Larry Robinson, Guy Lapointe, and Serge Savard.

 

[JackSlater]

This is the most ambitious thread of all time. Anyway, among defencemen I have him in the 3-5 range. I can't see arguments for Lidstrom over Orr or Bourque, Harvey is an interesting comparison and I would probably give him a slight edge over Shore. In a comparison of all players, it's hard to see Lidstrom lower than the top 25 or in the top 10.

 

[kmad]

Potvin belongs in that tier. You might want to also consider Larry Robinson, Guy Lapointe, and Serge Savard.

There are maybe 20 more before Savard and 10 more on top of that before Lapointe.

In my mind, Orr is #1, Harvey is #2, #3-6 are Bourque, Shore, Lidstrom and Potvin (in that order for me, but close to interchangeable).

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

There are maybe 20 more before Savard and 10 more on top of that before Lapointe.

In my mind, Orr is #1, Harvey is #2, #3-6 are Bourque, Shore, Lidstrom and Potvin (in that order for me, but close to interchangeable).

Do you know much about them? Or are you penalizing them for playing for the dynasty Habs?

 

[Hardyvan123]

The fact that it is necessary to have these conversations doesn't mean that there's not a clear cut answer.

Lidstrom has a hard core of supporters who are in every ranking thread, same as R71, pushing him as #1 or occasionally #2 all time. Their case essentially boils down to the Talent Pool Argument (which largely fails against Bourque but tends to eliminate Shore from the conversation) and the Career Value Argument (which fails against Bourque, seems to be a tie against Harvey, and arguably isn't entirely effective against Orr either). They tend not to want to talk about the Peak Value Argument, where Orr and Bourque have a decided advantage and Harvey is again in a dead heat.

The problem is that if Lidstrom can't make an effective case against Bourque on either peak or career value, and doesn't gain much ground in the talent pool conversation, then it should be very much an open-and-close debate between them. Yet it spins on and on, infringing on other debates, and I'll be damned if I can figure out why.

I refrained from responding the the all encompassing Lidstrom thread for now but will do so here since I'm probably the only one that even question Orr being number 1.

I have Bourque and Lidstrom very close, and can see the argument for either guy. I'm also a career guy but do consider peak, prime, career, playoffs heck everything I can think of and yes that includes the quality of competition in the peer versus peer arguments.

Bourque has more obvious appeal with more awards and better counting stats but some of that is the situation around him and not him in isolation.

There is some overlap in their careers but the really big push for non traditional feeder talent comes almost exactly when Lidstrom enters the NHL.

I also can see other hockey nations competing with Canada at the top level and therefore being closer to them (in top talent anyways so 20 guys at least but probably more that can play quite well at the NHL level).

I have posted on several times examples of the large increase of players from non traditional feeder systems in both terms of quantity and quality but obviously I need to make a more detailed argument as I'm not sure that many people have looked at it very closely at all.

This post should probably be moved to the Other Lidstrom one but my analysis on voting results versus Harvey and Lidstrom turned into a big sideshow of how guys felt about Lidstrom and existing beliefs rather than analysis of the data presented.

I feel very strongly that the voting data (without any consideration for the level and scope of competition) put Lidstrom clearly ahead but maybe R71 has it right and we are all getting too excited without actual NHL games going on and are getting frustrated here instead.

Edit: My bad TDMM I din't see your post before I posted this one, anyways I'm done with Lidstrom for now till I do my big research project on the non traditional feeder systems.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Potvin belongs in that tier. You might want to also consider Larry Robinson, Guy Lapointe, and Serge Savard.

It's a little unclear what you are saying here, do you consider Potvin to be on the same tier as Robinson and the other 2 guys?

3 different tiers here IMO.

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

It's a little unclear what you are saying here, do you consider Potvin to be on the same tier as Robinson and the other 2 guys?

3 different tiers here IMO.

I'm saying he belongs on the second tier behind Orr; and that Robinson, Savard, and Lapointe should be considered for that second tier as well.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I'm saying he belongs on the second tier behind Orr; and that Robinson, Savard, and Lapointe should be considered for that second tier as well.

Potvin behind Orr I can but it's close because I'm a career guy but even allowing Robinson to be in the lower end of the next tier with Potvin the other two guys don't belong unless you have the top 5 as 1 tier and everyone else in the top 60 as the next tier.

 

[Czech Your Math]

I'm saying he belongs on the second tier behind Orr; and that Robinson, Savard, and Lapointe should be considered for that second tier as well.

Personally, I think that Potvin and Robinson belong in that "next after Orr" tier. While Savard and Lapointe were excellent, I don't think they belong in that tier, and you would be lucky to find anyone else on HoH who would place them there (but I would guess many would put Potvin there and some Robinson).

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

Potvin behind Orr I can but it's close because I'm a career guy but even allowing Robinson to be in the lower end of the next tier with Potvin the other two guys don't belong unless you have the top 5 as 1 tier and everyone else in the top 60 as the next tier.

Basically there's Orr, then there's everybody else. Robinson, Lapointe, and Savard at the bottom end of the top-60? Please

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

Personally, I think that Potvin and Robinson belong in that "next after Orr" tier. While Savard and Lapointe were excellent, I don't think they belong in that tier, and you would be lucky to find anyone else on HoH who would place them there (but I would guess many would put Potvin there and some Robinson).

Mostly from the tendency of people to downgrade players who played on dynasty teams. Apparently it's better to be the sole ray of light on a bottom feeder than a great player on a great team.

 

[Czech Your Math]

Mostly from the tendency of people to downgrade players who played on dynasty teams. Apparently it's better to be the sole ray of light on a bottom feeder than a great player on a great team.

I can assure you that I've never seen a general bias against players on dynasty teams in the HoH forum. If anything, it's been my experience that there's more of a bias for such players on dynasties. People seem to value championships and playoff performance extraordinarily highly here. I tend to value playoff performance highly, but don't see championships as the most reliable indicator of an individual player's value.

I just don't think Savard or Lapointe were good enough for long enough. Realize that we're talking about a small tier (~3-7) of d-men who were the very best in history, aside from virtually unanimous consensus #1 Bobby Orr. That's quite an exclusive club, and expecting that more than one player from a single team/dynasty will be in that club is expecting quite a lot. I do think Robinson gets overlooked a bit due to his lack of offense, and perhaps the presence of Savard and Lapointe actually hurt his cause more than they help their own cases for that exclusive tier.

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

I can assure you that I've never seen a general bias against players on dynasty teams in the HoH forum. If anything, it's been my experience that there's more of a bias for such players on dynasties. People seem to value championships and playoff performance extraordinarily highly here. I tend to value playoff performance highly, but don't see championships as the most reliable indicator of an individual player's value.

I just don't think Savard or Lapointe were good enough for long enough. Realize that we're talking about a small tier (~3-7) of d-men who were the very best in history, aside from virtually unanimous consensus #1 Bobby Orr. That's quite an exclusive club, and expecting that more than one player from a single team/dynasty will be in that club is expecting quite a lot. I do think Robinson gets overlooked a bit due to his lack of offense, and perhaps the presence of Savard and Lapointe actually hurt his cause more than they help their own cases for that exclusive tier.

I've seen damn near every player for the dynasty Oilers (included Gretzky) get downgraded for playing on that team. I'm sure you've seen it: "Messier was only good because he played with Gretzky." "Gretzky was only good because he played Kurri." ect ect ect.

 

[Czech Your Math]

I've seen damn near every player for the dynasty Oilers (included Gretzky) get downgraded for playing on that team. I'm sure you've seen it: "Messier was only good because he played with Gretzky." "Gretzky was only good because he played Kurri." ect ect ect.

I've seen plenty of "Kurri was only good due to Gretzky", but not much "Gretzky was only good due to Kurri" (maybe I forget such nonsense). Personally, I think the biggest beneficiary may have been Anderson, as his HHOF induction was quite questionable IMO. There's a wide range of opinions on many players, but I don't think the Oilers are generally downgraded due to the team being a dynasty, and if anything it's probably the opposite. Fuhr is often given a pass on less than elite numbers, due to his clutch goaltending for a dynasty. Messier is given god-like status by many in large part due to his role in that dynasty (would he be ranked so highly if he only won a couple Cups? not a chance IMO). Some may criticize Kurri, but that's due to Gretzky, not so much the team's success. Coffey was a rather unique d-man, but his association with successful teams only helps him IMO.

Maybe you're sensitive to the opinions of a small minority, but I haven't seen anything close to a widespread bias against players on the Oilers dynasty or dynasties in general, at least not here. OTOH, not winning a championship and is a real detriment to a player's ranking on HoH (see Thornton, Luongo, etc.).

 

[struckbyaparkedcar]

Messier is given god-like status by many in large part due to his role in that dynasty (would he be ranked so highly if he only won a couple Cups? not a chance IMO).

He'd be the next guy I'd like to see a thread like this about, to be honest.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I would think that Savard and Lapointe might be expected to win a Norris Trophy before being lumped in with Harvey, Bourque, Lidstrom, Shore, or Potvin... or Larry Robinson.

 

[Big Phil]

Lidstrom is no better than #5 for me and the same players ahead of him are the same ones everyone else has. The only way someone puts Bourque behind Lidstrom on an all-time list is if they never saw Bourque play, simply put. If you want to get solely into Cup counting then this is where Lidstrom beats him but it ends there. Pretty much everything else about Bourque puts him higher than Lidstrom (peak value, longevity, physcial play, offense, more valuable to the team). Defense is more or less a tie and if you want to say Lidstrom is a slightly better playoff performer then fine. But this is a clear case for Bourque.

Potvin being 6th is more or less is own doing I think. He retired at 35 years old. Lidstrom left much of his legacy from 35-41 which helps him. Had Lidstrom retired at 35 years old he is noticeably behind Potvin, but he didn't so you can reward him for elite play after that age. Overall it is hard to put Potvin ahead of Lidstrom from a career standpoint. That being said, if you watch Potvin play the game in his prime and in those Cup winning years you realize he was the better defenseman than Lidstrom. So my take on this is:

Lidstrom better career, Potvin better peak and better at his best. Therefore overall you have to point to Lidstrom's longevity and give him the edge.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Basically there's Orr, then there's everybody else. Robinson, Lapointe, and Savard at the bottom end of the top-60? Please

Okay there is Orr, Potvin and Robinson are in the top 10 or at least Robinson is close, Savard and Lapointe are closer to 60 that the Potvin, there tend to get vastly upgraded for playing on dynasty teams IMO.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Okay there is Orr, Potvin and Robinson are in the top 10 or at least Robinson is close, Savard and Lapointe are closer to 60 that the Potvin, there tend to get vastly upgraded for playing on dynasty teams IMO.

Can you clarify what you're trying to say here, it's a little garbled.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Can you clarify what you're trying to say here, it's a little garbled.

Easy the OP had Potvin, robinson, Savard and Lapointe all on the same tier and Potvin is around 6, Robinson low teens and Savard and Lapointe are both closer to 60 IMO than there are to Potvin.

 

[Czech Your Math]

Easy the OP had Potvin, robinson, Savard and Lapointe all on the same tier and Potvin is around 6, Robinson low teens and Savard and Lapointe are both closer to 60 IMO than there are to Potvin.

I thought you said Robinson was borderline top 10?

 

[Hardyvan123]

I thought you said Robinson was borderline top 10?

by low teens I mean close to 10, there are arguments both for and against Larry being this high.

I can see what I said might look like 19 sorry bout that.