NHL.com Best Dmen of the Expansion Era

[Bryce Newman]

Yikes.

Name a Defenseman with a more dominant playoffs than 94 Leetch.

HINT: You can't.

 

[Paperbagofglory]

Again, different Era buddy. Orr's league was 75% crap so of course he was going to dominate.

And by "peak" I wasn't referring to "3 year span".

I guess you get minus some points when you have to beat an expansion team in the finals?

 

[a mangy Meowth]

Name a Defenseman with a more dominant playoffs than 94 Leetch.

HINT: You can't.

Bobby Orr in 70, or 72. You pick.

There, I did it. Like I said, yikes.

 

[WF19]

Sweet Jesus... I mean, they got more-or-less the right group of players, but the ordering is just terrible.

Lidstrom over Bourque. I disagree but it’s defensible. Not worth quibbling over.

Coffey at #4, over Potvin. Coffey over Potvin.

Leetch and Niedermayer over the Chelios/MacInnis/Stevens trio. That just lacks coherence. There’s no measure of a defenseman that could make this make sense.

Larry Murphy over anybody born after 1977!?

This is just... a lot to take in.

Lidstrom is right where he should be. An argument can made made for him at #1

 

[Yozhik v tumane]

Lidstrom is right where he should be. An argument can made made for him at #1

Not any really great argument in my opinion, but probably not as ridiculous as Leetch scoring 2 points per game in a sweep against a team where the leading scorer had a point, and eleven points in seven while being a minus against the cinderella Canucks, or being the ninth highest scorer in the regular season, as more impressive peak performances than Orr’s.

 

[danincanada]

Rangers were down 2-1 so of course Leetch was taking some chances. Bure was probably the most dangerous player in the game at that time, no matter who was on the ice. Leetch was phenominal that playoff both ends of the ice and Pat Quinn, Canucks coach at the time, stated that not even Bobby Orr or Denis Potvin were as good at breaking up a play or steering the puck the other way. That is a far cry from your assessment of Leetch's defensive play.

GF/GA is a team statistic that's pretty irrelevant to the conversation. You're assuming that if Lidstrom were on those Ranger teams his GF wouldn't be a high but his GA would be better, when it's just as if not more than likely that his GA would be around the same as Leetch's was but his GF would be far less. During that time period, Leetch's defensive play was fantastic and his offense was signifigantly better than Lidstrom's was.

Also you saying Lidstrom played in a more "systematic" type of role only further demonstrates that he was more replaceable than a player like Leetch. He did his job well, but if you're playing within a system that's a lot easier to do than scoring 102 points in a season or scoring 34 points in one playoff year while playing great defense. Those achievements are historic. Lidstrom playing well within a system for many years is great and all, but it's not historic.

The fact is that Lidstrom never scored 102 points or 34 points in a playoff year because he couldn't. Not because he was playing within a system and just "didn't want to" as you're trying to imply. Leetch's defense at his best matched Lidstrom's but the difference is Leetch was able to also able to maintain a high octane offense at the same time. Lidstrom, as great and consistent as he was, was never able to do both at the same time on the level of prime Leetch.

But yeah, I get it. You have to keep knocking Leetch's defense because it's the only way to make a case for Lidstrom matching Leetch's peak. But there's plenty of documentation from NHL coaches and Leetch's peers from that time period though which prove that not only was Leetch's defense far from bad, it was actually very, very good. And with Leetch's insane offensive levels at that time, and it being established he played good defense too? Forget it. There really is no case for prime Lidstrom matching prime Leetch. There's no case for anyone matching Leetch's peak, aside from maybe Orr.

if you're still not convinced, ask yourself this: What would be easier? Leetch to go the Wings and play within a defensive system? Or Lidstrom to go to the Rangers and score 102 points in a season/score 34 points in one playoff year? Which one is more likely to achieve their goal? The obvious answer is it is far more likely Leetch would adapt and play well in Bowman's defensive system than it would be for Lidstrom to go to the Rangers and set records. Heck, Leetch was already playing very good defense in a non-defensive system. So I'm sure he'd transition just fine under Bowman.

Maybe Leetch wouldn't play as well as Lidstrom in that role, but he wouldn't need to in order for those Wing teams to still win. Lidstrom, however, would need to reach Leetch's skill level for a team such as the 94 Rangers or the 96 Team USA squad to win. And he would not be able to. This is the main crux of the argument for people who don't rank Lidstrom as high as you do, and it's a very legitimate argument.

Lidstrom did his job very well and I give him props for a fantastic career, but he was not as irreplaceable as prime Leetch, who was an exceptionally rare talent. I know you want to believe those Wing teams wouldn't have won without Lidstrom, and yes they'd need to find a good Defenseman to replace him. But it could be done. If those Wing teams could find a Defenseman who played at 75% Lidstrom levels, they'd still win cups.

But with Leetch? There was no replacing him. You couldn't. The teams he was on that won needed every ounce of his greatness to win. There was no "just find a good Defenseman to replace him and you're all set!" because that just wouldn't cut it.

Nobody in the league at that time could fill his skates, or do what he did. Nobody.

I haven't said anything terrible about Leetch's defensive play in his prime per se. I just pointed out that his approach to the game was much different than Lidstrom's and that would often result in more points but it often meant taking more chances and more GA. You seem to think that makes Leetch better overall for some reason but the results of their careers doesn't display that at all. It's quite clear who had a better career and who was the better player overall.

You don't understand the Red Wings and how they operated if you think they just plugged Lidstrom into a system. In fact, according to Bowman they actually designed their system around Nick:

Scotty Bowman, his coach from 1993-2002 who once called him the perfect player, attended the ring ceremony. The Red Wings, under Bowman, won Cups in 1997, '98 and 2002 with the left-wing lock system assistant coach Barry Smith learned while in Europe.

"It took a time for teams to really dissect (the left-wing lock)," Bowman said. "The real reason we did it was Nick patrolled the middle of the ice. ... Nick could cover both sides (of the ice). He could cover up for the forward, he could cover up for the defenseman.

"I never seen a defenseman that did what he did offensively and yet I don't remember how many times he ever got caught up the ice. His partners got caught sometimes but he was always back there. He was that kind of a defenseman."

Red Wings' Nicklas Lidstrom chuckles about 'Perfect Human' label as he prepares to enter Hall of Fame

You keep talking about Leetch in the '96 World Cup but Lidstrom scored the golden goal and helped Sweden win at the Olympics as well. It was quite the accomplishment for him and Sweden but just add it to the pile.

Everyone respects Leetch and what he accomplished in the early 90's. The hyperbole is a bit much though and I don't think anyone but you and maybe some other Rangers fans believe he hit a peak that no one else can touch. It simply wasn't long enough or dominant enough to pretend that.

 

[WF19]

Not any really great argument in my opinion, but probably not as ridiculous as Leetch scoring 2 points per game in a sweep against a team where the leading scorer had a point, and eleven points in seven while being a minus against the cinderella Canucks, or being the ninth highest scorer in the regular season, as more impressive peak performances than Orr’s.

No argument? 3 cups, 7 norris, and many others. The game from when Lids played to Orr was a drastic change. He was rarely hurt or even hit hard because he was just so smart and good with his stick. As far as defenders go not a single dman i would choose over him. At the very least there is an argument

 

[Bryce Newman]

Bobby Orr in 70, or 72. You pick.

There, I did it. Like I said, yikes.

I have no problem conceding anything to Orr but Leetch scored 34 points in 23 games against far better competition than Orr faced in 1970 or 1972 when literally 75% of the league was bad. Orr's best was 24 points in 1972. Less games played, but far weaker competition.

34 points and the Conn Smythe. "Yikes" indeed. Can't top it. And when you consider the pressure he was under with the Rangers 54 year drought, it becomes even more impressive.

 

[Yozhik v tumane]

No argument? 3 cups, 7 norris, and many others. The game from when Lids played to Orr was a drastic change. He was rarely hurt or even hit hard because he was just so smart and good with his stick. As far as defenders go not a single dman i would choose over him. At the very least there is an argument

Four cups even. But greater than Orr? I don’t think there’s a great argument for Lidström over Orr, whose peak dominance is rivaled only by Gretzky and Lemieux. I’m higher on Lidström than most, because I think he’s close to Bourque and I don’t know what to do with Eddie Shore, but I don’t live in the universe where Lidström beats Orr.

 

[Bryce Newman]

Not any really great argument in my opinion, but probably not as ridiculous as Leetch scoring 2 points per game in a sweep against a team where the leading scorer had a point, and eleven points in seven while being a minus against the cinderella Canucks, or being the ninth highest scorer in the regular season, as more impressive peak performances than Orr’s.

Orr's competition wasn't exactly the cream of the crop. Half the league was expansion teams and his infamous "leap" picture was against the expansion Blues in the Final.

Not trying to make a case that Leetch or anyone had a better career than Orr, but if you look hard enough you can downplay any performance. Fact is, 34 points and a Conn Smythe is still 34 points and a Conn Smythe no matter how you slice it.

Plus/minus numbers mean next to nothing to me. 2 players can both be plus 30 and yet one can be far better defensively than the other. It doesn't tell you much in terms of how well an individual player plays defensively, in my opinion.

 

[danincanada]

I have no problem conceding anything to Orr but Leetch scored 34 points in 23 games against far better competition than Orr faced in 1970 or 1972 when literally 75% of the league was bad. Orr's best was 24 points in 1972. Less games played, but far weaker competition.

34 points and the Conn Smythe. "Yikes" indeed. Can't top it. And when you consider the pressure he was under with the Rangers 54 year drought, it becomes even more impressive.

If this is the way it works then move over Bobby Orr, Al MacInnis is right after Leetch for 2nd place all-time for peak. 31 points in 22 playoff games and a Conn Smythe. Yikes is right! He also had lots of pressure on him to help bring a Cup to Calgary for the first time after watching the Oilers up the road win a bunch.

 

[Bryce Newman]

If this is the way it works then move over Bobby Orr, Al MacInnis is right after Leetch for 2nd place all-time for peak. 31 points in 22 playoff games and a Conn Smythe. Yikes is right! He also had lots of pressure on him to help bring a Cup to Calgary for the first time after watching the Oilers up the road win a bunch.

Yep, it is. That was maybe the 2nd best performance ever.

Not as good as Leetch's in 94, but better than any of Lidstrom's runs for sure.

 

[danincanada]

Four cups even. But greater than Orr? I don’t think there’s a great argument for Lidström over Orr, whose peak dominance is rivaled only by Gretzky and Lemieux. I’m higher on Lidström than most, because I think he’s close to Bourque and I don’t know what to do with Eddie Shore, but I don’t live in the universe where Lidström beats Orr.

I'm with you on this even though Lidstrom is "my guy". I think the competition for Orr was weaker overall but that doesn't mean there weren't great players back then, too. He lapped the field like no other defenseman and it doesn't take much to see that he had it all. Who wins a scoring title as a defenseman and tilts the ice like he did? Nobody.

It's a hockey tragedy that they didn't know how to deal with this knee injuries better so he could extend his career and face a young Gretzky. That would have been a real treat to watch. It wasn't his fault and there's a chance he was becoming am even better overall player in his late 20's so he's got my vote as #1.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Lidstrom is right where he should be. An argument can made made for him at #1

And an argument can be made for Bourque at #1. And Orr, obviously.

But at least there’s an argument. There’s no argument for some of this other stuff. Lidstrom is the least of the concerns here, that’s why I brushed it off.

 

[pbgoalie]

Lidstrom is right where he should be. An argument can made made for him at #1

I agree with your fist part completely

not the second

but watching Lidstrom against the Ducks for many years , the only thing I’d say is the only mistake would be to move him lower.

watching Orr against the Rangers all the time it’s just not fair how much better he was than every single player I have ever seen in my way too many years watching

 

[danincanada]

Yep, it is. That was maybe the 2nd best performance ever.

Not as good as Leetch's in 94, but better than any of Lidstrom's runs for sure.

It’s hard to argue with such a solid formula for assessment. The problem now is what about Coffey in the ‘85 playoffs when he scored 37 points in only 18 games? Sounds like Leetch will have to settle for 2nd place after all.

 

[Bryce Newman]

It’s hard to argue with such a solid formula for assessment. The problem now is what about Coffey in the ‘85 playoffs when he scored 37 points in only 18 games? Sounds like Leetch will have to settle for 2nd place after all.

Not really. That was the greatest team ever assembled and many of Coffey's points were directly attributed to Gretzky who was the greatest player in NHL history. Leetch had no such luxury and basically matched what Coffey did while also playing considerably better defense in the process, and winning the Conn Smythe. So Leetch's performance was easily better, although Coffey's is still up there. I'd put it 3rd behind Leetch and MacInnis because he also had a Smythe under his belt that run while scoring over 30 points.

 

[Do or Die]

One thing about this kind of debate......one can usually tell who actually saw Orr play.....and who did not.

 

[Bryce Newman]

One thing about this kind of debate......one can usually tell who actually saw Orr play.....and who did not.

That can be said about a lot of players though. Look at the poster on this thread who said "Leetch never hit anyone" then I showed him a highlight reel of Leetch open ice hip checks and he took off.

Orr was one of the greatest ever but I don't think it's unfair at all to say he and Lidstrom both benefitted from weak Era's. But if you dare say that around here people will jump down your throats.

 

[danincanada]

That can be said about a lot of players though. Look at the poster on this thread who said "Leetch never hit anyone" then I showed him a highlight reel of Leetch open ice hip checks and he took off.

Orr was one of the greatest ever but I don't think it's unfair at all to say he and Lidstrom both benefitted from weak Era's. But if you dare say that around here people will jump down your throats.

Orr dominating that much can’t just be chalked up to it being a weak era.

Lidstrom was only two years younger than Leetch so how could Leetch possibly avoid playing in the same “weak era”? It’s funny that only Lidstrom could benefit from it so much.

 

[Bryce Newman]

Orr dominating that much can’t just be chalked up to it being a weak era.

Lidstrom was only two years younger than Leetch so how could Leetch possibly avoid playing in the same “weak era”? It’s funny that only Lidstrom could benefit from it so much.

Correct. Both Lidstrom and Leetch played during the most competitive era (the 90s) and the weak era that followed (2000s). Leetch's accomplishments and hardware came in the strong era while Lidstroms came in the weak era playing for dominant teams. Lidstroms achievements began once the weak era started (after he turned 30) and after Leetch began playing for terrible teams.

 

[Boxscore]

Lidstrom is right where he should be. An argument can made made for him at #1

Orr was winning Harts, Art Rosses, the Norris, all while scoring 120+ points as a defenseman. An argument for Lidstrom at #1? Let's be civil.

 

[sandysan]

Lidstrom is right where he should be. An argument can made made for him at #1

An indefensible argument? Sure sure.
In the world of defensemen there is Bobby Orr then everyone else fighting for a distant second place.

The only argument is whether Orr is actually the best PLAYER to ever play. That's debatable.

But on defense? Yeah that issue is settled.

 

[Do or Die]

Other than leading the league in scoring, the ability to dominate in all 3 zones, being the best D-man, the best PP guy, and the best PK guy......hard to make a case for Orr.

 

[danincanada]

Correct. Both Lidstrom and Leetch played during the most competitive era (the 90s) and the weak era that followed (2000s). Leetch's accomplishments and hardware came in the strong era while Lidstroms came in the weak era playing for dominant teams. Lidstroms achievements began once the weak era started (after he turned 30) and after Leetch began playing for terrible teams.

It’s not that simple and if hardware and accomplishments mean so much, Leetch’s second Norris came in ‘97 when Bourque, Chelios, and MacInnis all had poor seasons by their standards so Konstantinov and Ozolinsh were the other finalists. This must also fall into your “weak era” for defenseman, too. Therefore, for you it must have little value like Lidstrom’s 7 Norris’ in the supposed “weak era” that would span from ‘97 until Lidstrom retired in 2012 at least. Of course the whole idea is ridiculous but I’ll play along.

Other than that, Leetch has a grand total of 1 Norris when Bourque and Chelios had great seasons, too. That and the one Conn Smythe. Hardly enough to pretend he dominated that era for defenseman. In fact, Bourque and Chelios won the rest of the Norris’ in that era, and usually on weaker teams than Leetch. Leetch only won his Norris and Conn Smythe when he was on stacked teams. That’s held against Lidstrom but it’s just fine for Leetch apparently, then he escapes all criticism when the team couldn’t make the playoffs under his watch. Gotcha.

Lidstrom won two Cups in the 90’s, should have won the Norris in ‘98 and came runner up for the Norris two more times after that to two great defenseman who had amazing seasons who weren’t named Leetch. Overall, he has a strong argument for best defenseman in the second half of the 90’s .

Top 3 scorers from ‘95 to ‘99-00:

Lidstrom 445 GP 339 PTS +110
Leetch 420 GP 335 PTS -16
Bourque 432 GP 332 PTS +16

Playoffs from the same time period:

Lidstrom 98 GP 74 PTS + 24
Bourque 41 GP 34 PTS -6
Leetch 36 GP 31 PTS -7