Round 2, Vote 1 (HOH Top Defensemen)

[TheDevilMadeMe]

It IS a choice. If they have aspirations of playing in the NHL and making the big bucks sooner, they know they have to come over here.
I guarantee you Detroit would of paid to have Lidstrom come over and play in NA in '89 if he so desired but he didn't. I also guarantee you they did try to get him here sooner.
The NHL is the best of the best and has been for almost 25 years now.
Using this argument for say a prime Fetisov is one thing. It does not apply to Lidstrom or anyone else for that matter in the last couple decades.

Well, technically, I guess an 11 year old Lidstrom could have demanded his parents let him move to North America so he could develop on the smaller ice surface.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Team strength is a consideration as Montreal had Robinson, Savard and Lapointe, all of whom are probably on most top 80 lists.

Everyone has to filter out Robinson from the incredibly good team he was on.

Ditto for Shore, Lidstrom, Harvey and even Orr.

And it's not like Bourque was played for the Oakland seals or anything either.

Potvin is a unique case even more so than Orr in that he was the leading scorer and top player on his team from the get go for 4 years till Trottier arrived and its was 1A and 1B. that's part of the reason I have him rated quite high.

I....think...we're in agreement then as it looks like we are both saying that Bourque had the greatest mountain to climb in regards to team strength and support.


Of course it's never that easy as you decided to mention Orr which is completely false.
Orr was the reason those Bruin teams were so good, not even close to the other way around.

 

[charliolemieux]

I....think...we're in agreement then as it looks like we are both saying that Bourque had the greatest mountain to climb in regards to team strength and support.


Of course it's never that easy as you decided to mention Orr which is completely false.
Orr was the reason those Bruin teams were so good, not even close to the other way around.

Perhaps a question to ask is:
We all know how Mario v. Bourque(1-on-1) turned out.
Would Mario v. Orr have had the same result?

 

[Rhiessan71]

Well, technically, I guess an 11 year old Lidstrom could have demanded his parents let him move to North America so he could develop on the smaller ice surface.

Naw man, that's not my point though. He was drafted in '89 and could of come over that year but didn't.
He could of been playing for Detroit's farm team and got aquainted with the NA game much sooner, prolly even making the NHL a year, maybe even two sooner.
And he would of been an even better NHL player for it, knocking his adjustment period down by those extra years.

It's not like we haven't had 15-16 year euro's come over and play in the CHL either.
The option is always there.

Of course it's still more advantageous for making the NHL earlier to actually be born here but there are definitely options to greatly reduce that advantage.

 

[plusandminus]

It IS a choice. If they have aspirations of playing in the NHL and making the big bucks sooner, they know they have to come over here.
I guarantee you Detroit would of paid to have Lidstrom come over and play in NA in '89 if he so desired but he didn't. I also guarantee you they did try to get him here sooner.
The NHL is the best of the best and has been for almost 25 years now.
Using this argument for say a prime Fetisov is one thing. It does not apply to Lidstrom or anyone else for that matter in the last couple decades.

Many Europeans choose to stay an "extra" year or so in their domestic league. They may for example think that it will in the long run benefit their career. The domestic leagues in Europe aren't crap, they may actually be a great environment for a young player to continue develop in. For example, rather than moving to NHL to be a say top 3-5 defenceman on a team (or even have to do some playing in the minors), they may benefit by playing in their domestic league where they may be given more ice time, more responsibility, play more on special teams and in key situations (late in games, overtime). Hockey education is usually also good, as can be seen during junior tournaments where Canada and USA (who have lots of more players to choose from) are being seriously challenged. Another thing to consider might be school situation. Also, some aren't really ready to take the step to another continent, with another language and lifestyle.

No matter if Bourque "should be higher ranked" or not, I think you should try to be more respectful towards non-North American hockey.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Perhaps a question to ask is:
We all know how Mario v. Bourque(1-on-1) turned out.
Would Mario v. Orr have had the same result?

Hard to say. I know one thing though, Lemieux wouldn't of been able to pull away from Orr like he did with Bourque, not on his best day

 

[Rhiessan71]

I think you should try to be more respectful towards non-North American hockey.

It's not about being disrespectful. It's about about making the NHL. If that is their goal, which 99% of the time it is, then the sooner they get acquainted with the NA, the better.

I do agree it's a give and take thing. Staying and playing with men over there for a year might offset not adjusting to the NA rinks, game and number of games sooner but that's also arguable.
Staying two years, maybe that's good as well, again arguable but I think you're starting to cut into your adjustment period now.
Three years...no, you're 20-21 now and if the goal is the NHL, then you should be starting that adjustment.

I'm not trying to insult anyone or any league but you're trying to make the NHL not the Swedish Elite League.

 

[Theokritos]

It IS a choice. If they have aspirations of playing in the NHL and making the big bucks sooner, they know they have to come over here.
I guarantee you Detroit would of paid to have Lidstrom come over and play in NA in '89 if he so desired but he didn't. I also guarantee you they did try to get him here sooner.
The NHL is the best of the best and has been for almost 25 years now.
Using this argument for say a prime Fetisov is one thing. It does not apply to Lidstrom or anyone else for that matter in the last couple decades.

Wow. I rarely stumble over a really bad post in the HoH section. But this one makes me speechless. Narrow-minded, that's the only word that comes to my mind.

 

[Hardyvan123]

It IS a choice. If they have aspirations of playing in the NHL and making the big bucks sooner, they know they have to come over here.
I guarantee you Detroit would of paid to have Lidstrom come over and play in NA in '89 if he so desired but he didn't. I also guarantee you they did try to get him here sooner.
The NHL is the best of the best and has been for almost 25 years now.
Using this argument for say a prime Fetisov is one thing. It does not apply to Lidstrom or anyone else for that matter in the last couple decades.

Not entirely sure if Lidstrom was under a contractual obligation to played in Sweden or if other reasons came into play. |The bottom line is that he was an SEL all-star at the age of 20 and although some of the best Swedes were in NA not all of them were.

The bottom line is that Lidstrom wasn't that far off from where Bourque was at that age either.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Hard to say. I know one thing though, Lemieux wouldn't of been able to pull away from Orr like he did with Bourque, not on his best day

How do you know that?

Did Orr ever have a bad shift in your opinion?

Man the way you make him out to be I'm surprised that he didn't score on every freaking shift.

No doubt a healthy 32-34 year old Orr would have scored as much as Wayne too right? (you know in the 164-212 range).

Mario could make even the best defensive Dman look bad on occasion.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Yes

This is true but does it actually factor into the differences between any of the top 10 players being considered here?

There are bigger differences than this over time aren't there?

Yes across the board from Shore' PIMs and the resulting coincidentals putting the Bruins 2nd and 3rd dmen, ditto for Chelios, on the ice to the post 1985 dmen very rarely have to play in such situations - having the advantage of playing offense and defense with complete offensive and defensive support.

Harvey with his ability to manage the tempo and pace of the game brought advantages to his team as did Bobby Orr. Rarely used skill set for Bourque, Lidstrom or other present day defensemen.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Wow. I rarely stumble over a really bad post in the HoH section. But this one makes me speechless. Narrow-minded, that's the only word that comes to my mind.

Being politically correct was never my forte and if making the NHL is the goal then that's the way the cookie crumbles.
It requires a narrow-minded focus to make the NHL.

The bottom line is that Lidstrom wasn't that far off from where Bourque was at that age either.

Oh???
So winning the Calder and being an NHL FIRST TEAM ALLSTAR at age 19 is close by your reckoning?

 

[Canadiens1958]

It's not about being disrespectful. It's about about making the NHL. If that is their goal, which 99% of the time it is, then the sooner they get acquainted with the NA, the better.

I do agree it's a give and take thing. Staying and playing with men over there for a year might offset not adjusting to the NA rinks, game and number of games sooner but that's also arguable.
Staying two years, maybe that's good as well, again arguable but I think you're starting to cut into your adjustment period now.
Three years...no, you're 20-21 now and if the goal is the NHL, then you should be starting that adjustment.

I'm not trying to insult anyone or any league but you're trying to make the NHL not the Swedish Elite League.

In general or case specific? Three adjustments .Playing against men. Playing on NHL regulation rinks and playing for the specific NHL team.

First would be a wash, AHL or SEL. The second you are balancing playing on the size of the rink against the speed of the game. AHL speed on a regulation rink is far from NHL speed so you would still have a post AHL adjustment to make. Playing for a specific NHL team. Playing for the farm teams does not always translate to playing for the NHL team. AHL teams are / were not all regulation size. Some AHL teams are shared with another NHL team or AHL team owned players and farmed players. AHL coaching is not always an extension of the NHL team especially when shared.

Optimum choice would be after attending the first NHL training camp but contrat status does not always make this possible.

 

[Rhiessan71]

How do you know that?

Did Orr ever have a bad shift in your opinion?

Man the way you make him out to be I'm surprised that he didn't score on every freaking shift.

No doubt a healthy 32-34 year old Orr would have scored as much as Wayne too right? (you know in the 164-212 range).

Mario could make even the best defensive Dman look bad on occasion.

Err...slow down there sonny, I never said Lemieux wouldn't of been able to make Orr look bad, I said that is a hard call.
WHAT I was commenting to (and it should of been more than obvious) was that Mario was faster than Bourque but Orr was faster than Mario and he couldn't out skate Orr on his best day.

[mod edit]

 

[Rhiessan71]

In general or case specific? Three adjustments playing against men. Playing on NHL regulation rinks and playing for the specfifc NHL team.

First would be a wash, AHL or SEL. The second you are balancing playing on the size of the rink against the speed of the game. AHL speed on a regulation rink is far from NHL speed so you would still have a post AHL adjustment to make. Playing for a specific NHL team. Playing for the farm teams does not always translate to playing for the NHL team. AHL teams are / were not all regulation size. Some AHL teams are shared with another NHL team or AHL team owned players and farmed players. AHL coaching is not always an extension of the NHL team especially when shared.

Optimum choice would be after attending the first NHL training camp but contrat status does not always make this possible.

You forgot the number of games they play, basically double.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Stamina

You forgot the number of games they play, basically double.

Under the playing against men umbrella. Strength and stamina issue. Correct about the significant difference in the number of games but the lag starts showing after the first 10-12 games and its is not something that is readily adjustable in season - hard to bulk-up etc.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Perhaps a question to ask is:
We all know how Mario v. Bourque(1-on-1) turned out.
Would Mario v. Orr have had the same result?

Hard to say. I know one thing though, Lemieux wouldn't of been able to pull away from Orr like he did with Bourque, not on his best day

My bad as I really thought the original poster was referring to the infamous clip where he makes Bourque look well totally lost and gets by him rather easy and as I recall the clip there wasn't much speed involved on Bourque's part he stopped skating.

Pretty sure I wasn't the only guy that did that though.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Being politically correct was never my forte and if making the NHL is the goal then that's the way the cookie crumbles.
It requires a narrow-minded focus to make the NHL.






Oh???
So winning the Calder and being an NHL FIRST TEAM ALLSTAR at age 19 is close by your reckoning?

Well I for one don't put Lidstrom's rookie season that far off of Bourque's in terms of overall value and I'm not sure he got a ton better between that SEL season and his rookie one in Detroit.

Since you are always harping about the better competition that Bourque had compared to Lidstrom this is how they fared in points and their competition in their rookie seasons.




http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points

Maybe part of the problem with how you evaluate these 2 players is that you don't consider that Bourque's immediate competition pool as being one of the best Dmen in the league wasn't really all that great in 80 compared to the poll and depth of talent Lidstrom was being compared against.

for the record I think bourque had the better rookie season but it really wasn't leaps and bounds better than Lidstrom's.

As for playing striving to play in the NHL right away how are you going to treat Larry Robinson who spent time in the minors?

 

[Hardyvan123]

Yes across the board from Shore' PIMs and the resulting coincidentals putting the Bruins 2nd and 3rd dmen, ditto for Chelios, on the ice to the post 1985 dmen very rarely have to play in such situations - having the advantage of playing offense and defense with complete offensive and defensive support.

Harvey with his ability to manage the tempo and pace of the game brought advantages to his team as did Bobby Orr. Rarely used skill set for Bourque, Lidstrom or other present day defensemen.

I was actually referring to rule changes like the introduction of the red line, the clutch and grab era, rapid expansion and how it affected individual players against their peers within specific time frames but I would be more than happy to discuss the differences between eras since you brought it up.

 

[Theokritos]

Being politically correct was never my forte and if making the NHL is the goal then that's the way the cookie crumbles...

Your claim that making the NHL is the goal and nothing else - that claim is narrow-minded. Yes, the NHL is the best league in the world, granted. But believe it or not, there were players good enough to make the NHL talent-wise / better than many NHL players talent-wise who didn't get along too well with the rink size or the physicality or being so far from home or whatever. So they preferred to stay in Europe or decided to return to Europe. Your take on that: Those players missed the aim in life. My take: Their decision deprived the NHL of some serious talent.

 

[hcdt]

My opinion

Not going to vote as never submitted a list, but i have been following the discussion!
For me only Lidstrom or Bourque can be considered the best defender ever. But i think it in a way that which defender i would choose if i could see the future. I would without hesitation take Lidstrom or Bourque. Dont yet know which one but it would definately not be Orr. Less competition, way too short career (not even close to career value of the first 2 named). Even the fact that modern players are better than old players helps this conclusion.

But the main point is that i would never choose a player for 1/3 of the career if he woudnt be atleast 3 times better. No one can be 3 times better than the 2 mentioned before. Or then the one would neet to play a bit over 60 minutes per game (a bit hard if not alot of over times) and make points 3 times more (adjusted) and most importantly be able to defend against the TOP lines and have superior qualcomp while playing over 60 minutes per game... i find that extraordinarely hard to do.

One example is that would you choose a player that would be unhuman to completely different standard ever seen for ONE season (lets say 1 000 points and all possible awards and of course carrying team to SC virtually alone) instead of likes of Lidstrom who plays and contributes maybe upto 3 decades (brings in 4 SC´s and alot of revenue). Yes... consistency to bring in revenue to a franchise is VERY important and to be able to be cornerstone for a VERY long time is superiorly valuable for a team owner and i look this purely from that perspective.

No one will never be able to change my mind on this. Orr is far inferior to both of these players when taking into account the most important part.. which player to choose if you can see the future! Now what would be better than build your franchise to; Attack Gretzky, defence Lidstrom or Bourque, goaldending Roy. That is some serious career value in those guys

At the moment... i think Lidstrom and Bourque are even and that its maybe 50% likely that Lidstrom will surpass him before his career comes to an end.

 

[Pear Juice]

It IS a choice. If they have aspirations of playing in the NHL and making the big bucks sooner, they know they have to come over here.
I guarantee you Detroit would of paid to have Lidstrom come over and play in NA in '89 if he so desired but he didn't. I also guarantee you they did try to get him here sooner.
The NHL is the best of the best and has been for almost 25 years now.
Using this argument for say a prime Fetisov is one thing. It does not apply to Lidstrom or anyone else for that matter in the last couple decades.

Jesus Christ.

I have tons of issues with this kind of ignorance of hockey in Europe, but I'll try to keep with the most egregious parts:

1. Lidström's experience from playing those two extra seasons in his homeland by far outweighs any experience of a smaller rink that he'd get from playing in the AHL. Unless you think that an under-the-radar 19-year old prospect with 20 professional games under his belt would've cracked an NHL lineup. Even then it's questionable whether he gains more experience than he did over in Sweden. He played playoffs in front of a demanding crowd, was a regular season allstar, became a World Champion and played in the Canada Cup.

2. While the NHL would be the goal of Swedish players at the time, the SEL, along with the national team has value as well. The NHL just isn't as coveted in Sweden as it is in Canada. You continuously claim that the NHL is the only thing that matters in the world of hockey. I'm sorry to break it to you but that simply isn't true. Even today Swedish players who fail to make an NHL roster tend to go back to Sweden to play here instead. Being a top player in the SEL is definitely more prestiguous than to be a marginal player in the NHL. There are numerous gifted players who have played out almost their entire careers in the SEL. Many would prefer to be a home town star in the rather well-supported SEL than to be a career 4th liner/AHL player in Canada.

Are you aware of players such as Jörgen Jönsson, Johan Davidsson, Niklas Andersson, Fredrik Bremberg, Jonas Bergqvist, Ronnie Sundin, Magnus Johansson, Janne Larsson, Ove Molin, Anders 'Masken' Carlsson, Jonas Johnson, Magnus Wernblom, Mikael Håkansson. All of them have played around 600-800 games in the SEL, which on an NHL schedule would be 1000-1400 games. They are all much more highly regarded than e.g. Anders Eriksson who has his name on the Stanley Cup.

Playing in the SEL is not all about getting the experience necessary to play in the NHL. Playing in the SEL matters. It matters to the supporters and it matters to the players. We are not a developmental league. If you by any means doubt this please have a look at what happened in Gothenburg when Frölunda HC won their first Le Mat Trophy in 40 years (Youtube Link), that's a crowd of over 30,000 people celebrating their champions.

3. What other Swedish prospects entered the NHL at your proposed 18/19 years of age at the time? Peter Forsberg didn't. Markus Näslund didn't. Niklas Sundström didn't. Mikael Renberg didn't. Michael Nylander didn't. The extremely highly coveted first overall pick Mats Sundin, did join the Nordiques at 19½ years of age, after winning the SEL Championship, being voted the top young player of the SEL and winning a World Championship silver medal. It simply was not the norm for players at the time to cross the Atlantic at 18/19 years. You claim that the Red Wings would gladly pay Nicklas to play across the pond in 1989, when he was a SEL rookie who had played half a SEL season for a bottom-feeding team. Can you substantiate this claim, or is it just pure speculation?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Votes have been received from: Canadiens1958, Dennis Bonvie, Der Kaiser, Hardyvan123, Hockey Outsider, intylerwetrust, JaysCyYoung, MXD, overpass, pappyline, reckoning, TheDevilMadeMe, tony D, VanIslander

Still need votes from: BiLLY_ShOE1721, chaosrevolver, DaveG, Dreakmur, Epsilon, Hawkey Town 18, McNuts, seventieslord

There is no way I'm actually getting home at 5pm EST to start aggregating votes tomorrow, so you'll have a little longer, but don't send them in much later than 6.

 

[Epsilon]

I'll get my vote in this afternoon.

Sorry I didn't get to do the detailed comparison of Chelios and Robinson I mentioned, that a few people were hoping to see. I wanted to research it and write it up last night, so of course that ends up being the night the wi-fi network at my office is down. I didn't have the patience to work out that sort of post on my smartphone.

 

[plusandminus]

Sorry I didn't get to do the detailed comparison of Chelios and Robinson I mentioned, that a few people were hoping to see. I wanted to research it and write it up last night, so of course that ends up being the night the wi-fi network at my office is down. I didn't have the patience to work out that sort of post on my smartphone.

They'll likely be discussed in the next round anyway, so it may just be good that you save it for later.