NHL.com Best Dmen of the Expansion Era

[Tender Rip]

Guys like Potvin, Pronger, Stevens, Chelios, etc. literally scared some players to death.

This is literally not true.

In any case, if I want to win and can choose one D, I choose Lidas over everyone but Orr.

 

[Boxscore]

In any case, if I want to win and can choose one D, I choose Lidas over everyone but Orr.

I understand that, and you're not alone. Again, personal preference.

Either way, if we're being honest--after Orr--there are a handful of D who are so elite, you can't go wrong. At their best, guys like Bourque, Lidstrom, Potvin, Robinson, even Fetisov (Soviet prime) and Pronger were capable of dominating. I can see a legit case for any of them to suit up next to Orr on your top pairing.

 

[Tender Rip]

I understand that, and you're not alone. Again, personal preference.

Either way, if we're being honest--after Orr--there are a handful of D who are so elite, you can't go wrong. At their best, guys like Bourque, Lidstrom, Potvin, Robinson, even Fetisov (Soviet prime) and Pronger were capable of dominating. I can see a legit case for any of them to suit up next to Orr on your top pairing.

I agree. Its very close behind Orr and stylistic preference matters a lot.

 

[Bryce Newman]

Good luck with this, for some reason there's a huge group of people in this thread that think Coffey and Leetch were two way juggernauts with all time great level defensive skills to match their offensive skills. By the skill level bar being set for a list like this, neither of those guys could defend a lick. It doesn't mean they were or weren't bad defenders by the NHL bar, it's two different standards.

A complete exaggeration lol. Nobody said Leetch and Coffey were "defensive juggernauts". But for the offense they put up, they didn't need to be better than, lets say, Scott Stevens, to be ranked higher than him.

In other words, Stevens great defense is not enough for someone to say "Yeah I want him over Leetch and Coffey!" because he wasn't a game breaker in the sense that those 2 players were. You have a better chance of winning with prime Leetch or Coffey on your side than you do with prime Stevens. That's why they should be ranked higher, not because they were "juggernauts" on defense.

I know people who value good defense/big hits don't like to hear that, but it's the truth.

 

[John Mandalorian]

Super 16: Orr, Karlsson among best defensemen of expansion era

1. Orr
2. Lidstrom
3. Bourque
4. Robinson
5. Coffey
6. Potvin
7. Chelios
8. Leetch
9. Niedermayer
10. Park
11. MacInnis
12. Stevens
13. Pronger
14. Chara
15. Murphy
16. Karlsson

No Duncan Keith? Your list is laughable and your bias is deplorable!

 

[Bryce Newman]

Leetch was a fine offensive dynamo....but he did not hit anyone, did not defend below the circles well, did not stop on coming puck handlers

Total bunk. None of what you said is true. Leetch was very physical when he had to be and was a terrific 2-way defenseman. He had one of the best hip checks in the game at the time, was always stripping the puck from players and was very good at clearing the puck away from the crease to prevent rebound opportunities. It's really sad that some people believe the lie that Leetch was just a 1-dimensional player when nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[danincanada]

I don't necessarily see that. I mean, forget about physical play vs. technical defense in isolation for a moment--if Lidstrom is out of the line-up, your team is missing an elite, 25 minute, all purpose defense anchor--so, sure, there is going to be a huge disadvantage. But let's say, in his place, you put in Scott Stevens, Chris Pronger, or Chris Chelios in Lidstrom's absence--now you have that elite, top pair D who can log those minutes. Even though those players are true "physical beasts", there's a great chance the Wings have similar success. I don't think it has to do with style of play, when you're talking about a massive void.

However, where style of play does matter, at least for me, are by calculating the various ways certain players can impact a game and offer you chances to win. Guys like Potvin, Pronger, Stevens, Chelios, etc. literally scared some players to death. They also injured players, even knocking some out of series'. Not only do those type of players make the opposition uncomfortable, they also give their own team a jolt of confidence and swagger.

In game 1 of a 7 game series, Lidstrom is just trying to play mistake-free hockey and win the game. The other guys are trying to do that while also thinking how they can knock a couple impact players out of the lineup. In the case of Bourque, his offense was tremendous. Offensively, he was as dangerous as anyone not wearing 99 or 66 when he played. All about personal preference though, granted. But some fans are bullish and insist Lidstrom is 1 or 2 all-time with no discussion--I've never agreed with that stance.

You can rank any way you choose, but for me, we have the benefit of looking back at these guys whole careers now, why not do it? If you do that, only Bourque can challenge Lidstrom, and Orr gets special treatment because he lapped the whole field in his shortened career. None of the other guys you name have it. Not the combination of his 12 first team all-star nominations, playoff success, offense/defense combo, his consistency, durability, and ability to avoid putting his team down a man by taking a penalty. That’s why he’s regarded by most as being top 2 or 3 all-time.

I’m taking Lidstrom for your substitution example as well. His excellence was sustained longer than everyone other than Bourque. I wouldn’t want to substitute Lidstrom with any of those guys for a full career if my goal is winning over that time.

Lidstrom helped his team win 153 playoff games in his career, which is the most all-time. Two more than Roy and Messier and four more than Chelios. So, yeah, I have no problems taking him for a 7 game series over the physical guys who won less.

 

[Bryce Newman]

It doesn’t make a lot of sense to rave about Leetch so much and then claim Lidstrom only dominated and won 7 Norris’ due to weak competition when Leetch was only 2 years older than Lidstrom. The reality is Lidstrom completely out lasted Leetch career wise and that’s why he’s unanimously ranked higher than Leetch all-time.

Over the course of Lidstrom’s career his team won 2/3 of their games. Maybe not highlight material but he was extremely effective when it came to helping his team win over his 20 year career.

Yeah we know all about Lidstrom's longevity and how good he was technically. I still take prime Leetch over him any day. It's easy to "outlast" other players when you don't have to extend yourself or log massive minutes every night for years because your team is stacked. Put Lidstrom on those crappy Ranger teams from 1998-2004 and lets see how good he looks. You'd be disappointed, trust me. None of Lidstrom's 7 Norris wins came in the 90s which was the best era ever for Defensemen. They all came after the great Defensemen of the 80s/90s got old or retired.

Yeah, Lidstrom helped his team win and he was a great Defenseman. I have no problem with that. But turning that into "He's up there with Orr and Bourque!" is where I take issue. As another poster here said, replace Lidstrom with Potvin, Leetch, Chelios etc. and they still win the same amount of games. So I don't think you can use that as much of an "argument" for him being #2 or #3 all-time. He just doesn't pass the eye test to be ranked that high, sorry.

 

[chethejet]

Bourque was to me a very good D man but after watching Mario basically use him as a toy in the 1992 playoffs just had to question his real level. Mario could do that to anyone but that one play was a play one had to question just how good he really was.

 

[Fataldogg]

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.

I've always found Chelios and Stevens extremely overrated. I get it, people like tough defense man who can produce, but athletes like Stevens wouldn't even have a job in the NHL today, he would be constantly suspended. He took advantage of a system that allowed levels of physical aggression not allowed today. Don't get me wrong, I think both were all time greats, just overrated.

I also have Leetch and Niedermayer comfortably in front of MacInnis.

I have no problem with Leetch and Niedermayer being placed above them. Peak Brian Leetch is better than all of them, you're talking about a defense man who could score 100+ points in the regular season, and score 30+ points in the playoffs and win a Conn Smythe [outscoring legends like Mark Messier in the process].

Lists like these are always subjective.

 

[Fataldogg]

Niedermayer gets sooooo overrated by a lot of people. Some of these lists, man:

ADAM KIMELMAN
1. Bobby Orr; 2. Ray Bourque; 3. Larry Robinson; 4. Nicklas Lidstrom; 5. Scott Niedermayer; 6. Paul Coffey; 7. Brian Leetch; 8. Denis Potvin; 9. Scott Stevens; 10. Mark Howe; 11. Al MacInnis; 12. Sergei Zubov; 13. Larry Murphy; 14. Borje Salming; 15. Chris Chelios; 16. Phil Housley

TRACEY MYERS
1. Bobby Orr; 2. Ray Bourque; 3. Nicklas Lidstrom; 4. Paul Coffey; 5. Al MacInnis; 6. Scott Niedermayer; 7. Chris Chelios; 8. Phil Housley; 9. Larry Murphy; 10. Sergei Zubov; 11. Denis Potvin; 12. Brian Leetch; 13. Larry Robinson; 14. Scott Stevens; 15. Zdeno Chara; 16. Duncan Keith

Potvin at #8 and #11?

Hard to see him anywhere outside of the top-5. Only ones on this list I'd have in front of him are Orr, Lidstrom and Bourque.

 

[danincanada]

Yeah we know all about Lidstrom's longevity and how good he was technically. I still take prime Leetch over him any day. It's easy to "outlast" other players when you don't have to extend yourself or log massive minutes every night for years because your team is stacked. Put Lidstrom on those crappy Ranger teams from 1998-2004 and lets see how good he looks. You'd be disappointed, trust me. None of Lidstrom's 7 Norris wins came in the 90s which was the best era ever for Defensemen. They all came after the great Defensemen of the 80s/90s got old or retired.

Yeah, Lidstrom helped his team win and he was a great Defenseman. I have no problem with that. But turning that into "He's up there with Orr and Bourque!" is where I take issue. As another poster here said, replace Lidstrom with Potvin, Leetch, Chelios etc. and they still win the same amount of games. So I don't think you can use that as much of an "argument" for him being #2 or #3 all-time. He just doesn't pass the eye test to be ranked that high, sorry.

Lidstrom didn’t log massive minutes or extend himself? He only lead the whole league in ice-time in ‘01, ‘02, and ‘03 and lead in short handed ice-time in two of those and was second the other year. What on earth are you talking about?

Again, Leetch was only two years older than Lidstrom so why didn’t he feast on the weak competition, too?

Lidstrom helped his team win both the most regular season games (937) and most playoff games (153) in league history so that points to those other guys not actually being capable of helping their teams win as much as he actually did. Your “eye test” is highly subjective.

 

[Bryce Newman]

I've always found Chelios and Stevens extremely overrated. I get it, people like tough defense man who can produce, but athletes like Stevens wouldn't even have a job in the NHL today, he would be constantly suspended. He took advantage of a system that allowed levels of physical aggression not allowed today. Don't get me wrong, I think both were all time greats, just overrated.

I also have Leetch and Niedermayer comfortably in front of MacInnis.

I have no problem with Leetch and Niedermayer being placed above them. Peak Brian Leetch is better than all of them, you're talking about a defense man who could score 100+ points in the regular season, and score 30+ points in the playoffs and win a Conn Smythe [outscoring legends like Mark Messier in the process]

I have Leetch ahead of MacInnis too and many lists have Leetch as the greatest American born player ever, ahead of Chelios. I would concur with that assessment. Great point about Stevens. His entire game would be obsolete in today's NHL whereas Leetch would be thriving. He scored 79 points at the height of the dead puck era. Just imagine what he'd do in today's NHL. Much like Gretzky, Leetch was a player who would thrive in any era.

 

[Bryce Newman]

Lidstrom didn’t log massive minutes or extend himself? He only lead the whole league in ice-time in ‘01, ‘02, and ‘03 and lead in short handed ice-time in two of those and was second the other year. What on earth are you talking about?

Again, Leetch was only two years older than Lidstrom so why didn’t he feast on the weak competition, too?

Lidstrom helped his team win both the most regular season games (937) and most playoff games (153) in league history so that points to those other guys not actually being capable of helping their teams win as much as he actually did. Your “eye test” is highly subjective.

He didn't log minutes and extend himself was my point. Those Wing teams helped Lidstrom win as much as he helped them win, if not more so. He never had to change up his game because he was playing for a crappy team the way Leetch did. Eye test is always subjective. If you think Lidstrom was the 2nd greatest Dman ever that's your opinion and it's fine, I just don't see it when I watch him.

Hard for Leetch or anyone to "feast" on anything when you play for a beer league team the last 8 seasons of your career. But when Leetch and Lidstrom were both at their peak, Leetch was the better player.

 

[danincanada]

He didn't log minutes and extend himself was my point. Those Wing teams helped Lidstrom win as much as he helped them win, if not more so. He never had to change up his game because he was playing for a crappy team the way Leetch did. Eye test is always subjective. If you think Lidstrom was the 2nd greatest Dman ever that's your opinion and it's fine, I just don't see it when I watch him.

Hard for Leetch or anyone to "feast" on anything when you play for a beer league team the last 8 seasons of your career. But when Leetch and Lidstrom were both at their peak, Leetch was the better player.

Killing that many penalties and being your teams key matchup/shutdown defender should be extending and taxing on a player. Those are the toughest minutes one can play. Again, what are you talking about?

Lidstrom had lots of great teammates over the years but you are underestimating the stability having him brought to the organization. They went from 76 points and missing the playoffs to a 98 point team when he and Konstantinov arrived and they never really looked back until he retired.

Leetch played for the high salary Rangers, who had loads of talent over the years. He was there and it should have been his team, but when you’re a -36 and bleeding goals some seasons like he did you aren’t a stabilizing influence. It’s not all Leetch’s fault of course but he can’t just be excused for it either. Likewise, Lidstrom was no one man show but his team never fading badly under his watch speaks to how great he was.

 

[Bryce Newman]

I think it all depends on how much you value career vs. peak.

I also think some of the modern guys (specifically Karlsson & Doughty) are being underrated.

Larry Murphy at his peak was just not as good as Erik Karlsson and Drew Doughty at their peaks. But he had a much longer level of higher play than those guys. For me, unless it was a total one year thing I am always going to take the peak of a guys career when analyzing or doing a list like this.

Me too. That's why my lists are based more on peaks. I suppose I could have switched Karlsson and Murphy on my own list but it gets tougher to rate the lower you go on these. I don't judge entirely on peak but I would say I put around 70% stock into it, and 30% longevity. If we did a list just based 100% on "peak" my order would be a bit different.

But yeah, using my model of rating (around 70% based on peak) Lidstrom is not Top 5. I feel like I've been put in a bad spot though of having to crap on the guy. He was a great Defenseman. I'm just more like you. I go by peak, primarily. If a player was elite for 10 years, I prefer that over a guy who was very, very good for 20. To me, Lidstrom falls more into the latter category. Very consistent, reliable, great teammate etc. just never "super elite". If we put a lot of weight into longevity, Orr wouldn't consistently be ranked Number 1 on these lists.

 

[b in vancouver]

You love Lidstrom is so low but what is the reasoning for it? All metrics should have him top 2 or 3 here, such as all-star nominations, offensive stats, playoff career, and longevity.

Lidstrom literally was involved in winning more games, both regular season and playoffs, than any other player in league history. It wasn’t all about just being in a great situation either. Having the dominant defenseman of his era for his full 20 year career when he rarely took penalties, rarely missed games, rarely made mistakes, and always kept a level head is something us fans can’t fully appreciate. Some people weren’t as entertained and I get that but the effectiveness of his play shouldn’t be questioned and he’s either 2 or 3 with Bourque.

In reality I have him rated 4 or 5. (I just thought it was fun to see someone drop him) I think Bourque and Potvin have gotten under-rated over the years. Not saying your one, but as less people around remember watching them play their dominance fades. Happens with all players. I just think those two could do every Lids could, plus being hard as nails shutdown d-men that would win every puck battle. I try to shy away from Lidstrom conversations nowadays and more of an agree to disagree.

On a sidenote: I messed up my HMs in my other post - and I wouldn't know who to remove, but forgot Doughty, Keith and Hedman who could/should find their way onto that top 20.

 

[BoldNewLettuce]

Tie between Lidstrom and Pronger?

I think Prongers peak was more dominant and more decisive when it came to winning.

That Oilers year he was truly elite and he beat Lidstrom a few times.

LIDSTROM is the mistake free work horse though. By awards he is the best.

 

[Leafshater67]

Pronger should be top 3.

 

[Bryce Newman]

Killing that many penalties and being your teams key matchup/shutdown defender should be extending and taxing on a player. Those are the toughest minutes one can play. Again, what are you talking about?

Lidstrom had lots of great teammates over the years but you are underestimating the stability having him brought to the organization. They went from 76 points and missing the playoffs to a 98 point team when he and Konstantinov arrived and they never really looked back until he retired.

Leetch played for the high salary Rangers, who had loads of talent over the years. He was there and it should have been his team, but when you’re a -36 and bleeding goals some seasons like he did you aren’t a stabilizing influence. It’s not all Leetch’s fault of course but he can’t just be excused for it either. Likewise, Lidstrom was no one man show but his team never fading badly under his watch speaks to how great he was.

The only difference there would be if Lidstrom was on those AWFUL Ranger teams is that Lidstrom would be demanding a trade. Lidstrom's "stabalizing influence" wouldn't have done crap-all on those pathetic squads. The only thing Leetch can be faulted for is for being too loyal to a franchise that wasn't worthy of having him. He was playing with Tom Poti for God's sake.

Plus/Minus means crap. Garbage stat. Bourque was -27 in the playoffs the decade of the 90s (literally the worst in the entire NHL) and everyone still thinks he was great (rightfully so). All it tells you is how good the team you're on is. That's it. Lidstrom's plus/minus would also be awful on those 98-04 Ranger squads, lets not kid ourselves.

Bottom line is if Leetch was on those Wing teams that won cups instead of Lidstrom they'd still win. But replace Leetch with Lidstrom on the 94 Rangers and they don't get past the Devils, let alone win the cup. You rate Lidstrom higher because of longevity and that's cool but at their peaks, Leetch was the better player. Lidstrom was never capable of 94 Leetch levels.

 

[danincanada]

The only difference there would be if Lidstrom was on those AWFUL Ranger teams is that Lidstrom would be demanding a trade. Lidstrom's "stabalizing influence" wouldn't have done crap-all on those pathetic squads. The only thing Leetch can be faulted for is for being too loyal to a franchise that wasn't worthy of having him. He was playing with Tom Poti for God's sake.

Plus/Minus means crap. Garbage stat. Bourque was -27 in the playoffs the decade of the 90s (literally the worst in the entire NHL) and everyone still thinks he was great (rightfully so). All it tells you is how good the team you're on is. That's it. Lidstrom's plus/minus would also be awful on those 98-04 Ranger squads, lets not kid ourselves.

Bottom line is if Leetch was on those Wing teams that won cups instead of Lidstrom they'd still win. But replace Leetch with Lidstrom on the 94 Rangers and they don't get past the Devils, let alone win the cup. You rate Lidstrom higher because of longevity and that's cool but at their peaks, Leetch was the better player. Lidstrom was never capable of 94 Leetch levels.

You aren’t being realistic when it comes to the amount of goals against Leetch allowed while on the ice from ‘98 on. Was it because Beukeboom wasn’t his partner all the time anymore or what? I’m sorry but no one in their right minds should pretend you could just plug in Leetch for Lidstrom those years and the Wings would win just the same.

You also don’t realize how much of a defensive valve Lidstrom was for them. Bowman did though. Leetch allowed 157 GA in ‘00-01, which was by far tops in the league. That’s not all his teammates fault. When he had those dreadful +\- seasons he was near the bottom of the team in that stat as well so he wasn’t just a passenger on their awful teams, he was a big part of it.

Lidstrom was quiet and subtle but still won the Conn Smythe over Yzerman’s heroics, Hasek’s 6 shutouts, and Fedorov’s great two-way game in ‘02 so I think he peaked a lot higher than you realize. He won 3 Norris’ in a row around that time, too. I’d say that is an underrated peak.

 

[Bryce Newman]

You aren’t being realistic when it comes to the amount of goals against Leetch allowed while on the ice from ‘98 on. Was it because Beukeboom wasn’t his partner all the time anymore or what? I’m sorry but no one in their right minds should pretend you could just plug in Leetch for Lidstrom those years and the Wings would win just the same.

You also don’t realize how much of a defensive valve Lidstrom was for them. Bowman did though. Leetch allowed 157 GA in ‘00-01, which was by far tops in the league. That’s not all his teammates fault. When he had those dreadful +\- seasons he was near the bottom of the team in that stat as well so he wasn’t just a passenger on their awful teams, he was a big part of it.

Lidstrom was quiet and subtle but still won the Conn Smythe over Yzerman’s heroics, Hasek’s 6 shutouts, and Fedorov’s great two-way game in ‘02 so I think he peaked a lot higher than you realize. He won 3 Norris’ in a row around that time, too. I’d say that is an underrated peak.

Reason Leetch was -18 in 2001 was due to empty net and shorthanded goals against. There was a breakdown of that season on here by another poster I have to find, but it showed how the Rangers were a far better team with Leetch on the ice at even strength.

Odd that you would cite 2001 to criticize Leetch considering he lead the league in points for Defensemen and was fantastic the whole year. A remarkable feat considering how awful the team he played for was. Lidstrom wouldn't come anywhere near 79 points on the 2001 Rangers.

But since you're so into plus/minus we can at least agree that Leetch's Conn Smythe +19 and 34 points in the 94 playoffs was a remarkable feat that Lidstrom never came close to matching.

 

[MBH]

Potvin is too low. He has a legitimate argument for best prime/peak of all defensemen outside of Orr. Also I think Robinson is a bit overrated considering on what teams he played, a bit high on this list

Robinson is the best defenseman I ever saw.

 

[Eisen]

Niedermayer gets sooooo overrated by a lot of people. Some of these lists, man:

ADAM KIMELMAN
1. Bobby Orr; 2. Ray Bourque; 3. Larry Robinson; 4. Nicklas Lidstrom; 5. Scott Niedermayer; 6. Paul Coffey; 7. Brian Leetch; 8. Denis Potvin; 9. Scott Stevens; 10. Mark Howe; 11. Al MacInnis; 12. Sergei Zubov; 13. Larry Murphy; 14. Borje Salming; 15. Chris Chelios; 16. Phil Housley

TRACEY MYERS
1. Bobby Orr; 2. Ray Bourque; 3. Nicklas Lidstrom; 4. Paul Coffey; 5. Al MacInnis; 6. Scott Niedermayer; 7. Chris Chelios; 8. Phil Housley; 9. Larry Murphy; 10. Sergei Zubov; 11. Denis Potvin; 12. Brian Leetch; 13. Larry Robinson; 14. Scott Stevens; 15. Zdeno Chara; 16. Duncan Keith

Why anybody printed their list after reading it is beyond me. There is certainly room for discussion but someof the choices here are plain clueless. Like not even read about hockey, nevermind watching hockey bad choices. That they get paid for that is infuriating.

 

[Eisen]

Back when we did Top Goalies list on the history board, the late @Canadiens1958 voted Hasek #7, causing him to drop to #2 behind Patrick Roy. The result was a bitter 7-page thread full of allegations of bias, strategic voting, etc. It was a big ol' thing for weeks afterward.

Looking only at post-expansion goalies on that ballot, C58 listed Hasek #4 after Roy, Brodeur, and Dryden. The most controversial take of that entire project wasn't nearly as offensive as the Myers ballot above... which doesn't even list Dryden at all! She left Ken Dryden off the ballot behind Evgeni ****ing Nabokov! *throws a chair*

I remember reading that thread. I always liked C58's takes on hockey, even though they were sometimes controversial but that was absurd imho. Iirc, his main argument was that Hasek's poor rebound control inflated his numbers and made him look a lot better than he really was by giving him more shots against.