Shore, Harvey, Bourque, Potvin, and Kelly

[Elvis P]

Rank these defensemen from 1-5 and justify your rankings.

Click to read more...

 

[Dark Shadows]

In Order from first to last:

Shore: 4 Hart trophies. Scoring like mad in a time when Defensemen could not score. The guy was the total package. Leader, physical monster, Defensive Demon, and could score. Violent, tough and aggressive; would have probably won 7 or 8 Norrises had they been around when he played


Harvey: Scoring like he did before his time was remarkable. Above all else, he was nearly Perfect Defensively. Arguably the best defensive player and penalty killer ever; slowed the game to a crawl or sped it up with great breakout passes as needed; won 7 Norris trophies in 8 years; 5-time Hart finalist; 11-time all-star

Bourque: The best example of consistent excellence on the blueline; won 5 Norrises; despite not winning the Cup with Boston, he was an excellent outstanding playoff performer; people severely underrate how tough and aggressive Bourque was in his prime. Bourque had a higher peak value than anyone since Orr (his 1990 season was probably the best by a defenseman in the past 30 years) and has more longevity (he was first, second or third for the Norris in FIFTEEN different seasons and was a 19-time all-star. 2 time Hart Runner up(One was stolen by Messier and Edmonton Journalists who intentionally left Bourque off the Ballot. lost by 1 point)


Potvin: Excellent defensive player; a tough, aggressive checker and fighter; excellent goal-scoring and playmaking; captained the Islanders to four Stanley Cups; won 3 Norrises. 8-time all-star and 2-time Hart finalist. Not Quite as great as Bourque


Kelly: Four time Hart finalist. Excellent defensive player, although a little passive. Great playmaker. Played half his career as a Center though.

 

[Elvis P]

Nice post, Mr Thornton. Can I call you Joe? Agreed on all ranks.

 

[Sens Rule]

In Order from first to last:

Shore: 4 Hart trophies. Scoring like mad in a time when Defensemen could not score. The guy was the total package. Leader, physical monster, Defensive Demon, and could score. Violent, tough and aggressive; would have probably won 7 or 8 Norrises had they been around when he played


Harvey: Scoring like he did before his time was remarkable. Above all else, he was nearly Perfect Defensively. Arguably the best defensive player and penalty killer ever; slowed the game to a crawl or sped it up with great breakout passes as needed; won 7 Norris trophies in 8 years; 5-time Hart finalist; 11-time all-star

Bourque: The best example of consistent excellence on the blueline; won 5 Norrises; despite not winning the Cup with Boston, he was an excellent outstanding playoff performer; people severely underrate how tough and aggressive Bourque was in his prime. Bourque had a higher peak value than anyone since Orr (his 1990 season was probably the best by a defenseman in the past 30 years) and has more longevity (he was first, second or third for the Norris in FIFTEEN different seasons and was a 19-time all-star. 2 time Hart Runner up(One was stolen by Messier and Edmonton Journalists who intentionally left Bourque off the Ballot. lost by 1 point)


Potvin: Excellent defensive player; a tough, aggressive checker and fighter; excellent goal-scoring and playmaking; captained the Islanders to four Stanley Cups; won 3 Norrises. 8-time all-star and 2-time Hart finalist. Not Quite as great as Bourque


Kelly: Four time Hart finalist. Excellent defensive player, although a little passive. Great playmaker. Played half his career as a Center though.

I'd agree with your entire post.... And for the inevitable Lidstrom addition.. he would be above Kelly and below Potvin if he was on this list.

 

[FissionFire]

I'd agree with your entire post.... And for the inevitable Lidstrom addition.. he would be above Kelly and below Potvin if he was on this list.

He's still got time to climb the lists. At least 2 more years beyond this one.

Just out of curiosity, have there ever been a more durable player over such a long span as him? I think 2/3 of the games he's "missed" in his career were simply to give him a night off before the playoffs.

 

[Big Phil]

Harvey
Shore
Bourque
Potvin
Kelly

Harvey is more often than not considered the #2 defenseman of all time, and nothing against Shore but its hard to keep him away from that honour. I know Shore won 4 Hart Trophies (more than Orr) but the 7 Cups is what puts Harvey over the top. When we think of him we think of possibly the most well rounded defenseman of all time. He had no weakness.

Shore was great too I wont deny that but he couldnt control a game quite the way Harvey could? Not saying he couldnt but Shore gets a lot of credit for being a cheap shot artist and his legacy has strengthened that way too. Put it this way, I dont think Shore makes the '50s Habs any better. On the flip side I think Harvey puts the '29-30 Bruins over the top.

Bourque was a first or second team all-star 19 times. Only Howe has more. Which makes it kind of humorous that people put Lidstrom in his class. Bourque was a first team all-star in his rookie year and he continued that trend for years. His one Cup hurts him a bit but the fact is Boston was good for many many years and he was the fixture on the blueline.

Potvin had a sickening all around game. He hurt you in so many ways. His wrist shot was like a bullet. He hit players into space and he was as strong as an ox. With all due respect to Coffey, Bourque and Lidstrom I think the best season a defenseman has had in the last 30 years comes from Potvin in '79. He hit 101 points and was only the 2nd defenseman to do that at that time. And the Islanders took a little bit of a dive in the regular season when he was out for about 50 games, look it up, their point totals are way down. Oh yeah and he captained 4 straight Cup champions (only Maurice Richard can claim that as well. Cournoyer was injured for two of the Habs '70s championships so he wasnt "officially" captain on the ice)

Kelly right there with the best. He's more like in the same mold as Robinson or Lidstrom. Nothing wrong with that. He quietly did his job and did it well. He is the last defenseman to win the Byng back in '54. That was the first Norris trophy and he would have won more than one if a guy named Harvey wasnt kicking around. Kelly was neck and neck with Harvey for many years

 

[pitseleh]

I agree with what Thornton_19 says as well, though I tend to flip flop on Harvey and Shore every couple of months.

Shore was better offensively while Harvey was stronger defensively. Really, just pick your poison.

 

[Elvis P]

I'd agree with your entire post.... And for the inevitable Lidstrom addition.. he would be above Kelly and below Potvin if he was on this list.

I love Lidstrom, but I'd take Orr, the guys on this list, and Robinson before him.

 

[Sens Rule]

I love Lidstrom, but I'd take Orr, the guys on this list, and Robinson before him.

So would I..... I just said he was 5th of 6th on THIS list.... I'd still take Chelios over Lidstrom....

But I agree with an above poster... he still has time to grow. Bourque to me is still quite a bit ahead of Lidstrom. And Chelios, Roibnson and Potvin too. But if Lidstrom keeps it up for 2 or 3 or 4 more years as a top D-Man in the NHL maybe he leapfrogs all of those guys.

 

[Dark Shadows]

So would I..... I just said he was 5th of 6th on THIS list.... I'd still take Chelios over Lidstrom....

But I agree with an above poster... he still has time to grow. Bourque to me is still quite a bit ahead of Lidstrom. And Chelios, Robinson and Potvin too. But if Lidstrom keeps it up for 2 or 3 or 4 more years as a top D-Man in the NHL maybe he leapfrogs all of those guys.

Lidstrom's big strength career wise is his longevity, Consistency and Durability. I have him as 6th/7th Tied with Robinson all time. However, as far as "peaks" go, Lidstrom is not 6th/7th. Park, Fetisov, and Chelios all come in ahead of him there.

Lidstrom may be able to leapfrog Potvin before his career is over. 3 more Norris trophies or a Hart should do it. The reason it takes so many is, well, we all know Lidstrom's Norris trophies are from a diluted defensemen talent field. If he had begun his career in 1980, he would be lucky to have 2-3 Norris trophies by this point. If Bourque or Potvin had begun their career in Lidstrom's place in 91-92, does anyone doubt that they would have around 9-10 Norris trophies by now?

Much of the competition was growing older by this point. While some Dmen stay consistent, most lose it by 37. Bourque was 40, Macinnis was hitting 40, Chelios was hitting 40, Stevens was hitting 38, Leetch had passed his prime and started a downhill slide.....Yet all of these guys were still top challengers for the norris because few consistent youngsters had picked up the slack. Pronger was inconsistant at this point, as was a younger Blake, and Niedermayer had not hit his prime till 03. Pronger is the king of inconsistent. He will have an enormous year, then disappear from Norris candidacy for years, then return......

The old Norris voting since 2001:
2000-2001
NORRIS: Nicklas Lidstrom, DET 600 (56-5-1-0-0); Ray Bourque, COL 251 (4-16-12-10-9); Scott Stevens, N.J. 203 (1-15-14-4-6)
2001-2002
NORRIS: Nicklas Lidstrom, Det 472 (29-20-7-2-1); Chris Chelios, Det 431 (28-10-13-4-4); Rob Blake, Col 321 (4-19-22-12-2)
2002-2003
NORRIS: Nicklas Lidstrom 560 (42-20-0-0-0); Al MacInnis 486 (20-38-4-0-0); Derian Hatcher 142 (0-1-21-9-3)
2003-2004: Nieds lucked out this year. Lidstrom had an off year.
NORRIS: Scott Niedermayer, NJD 872 (72-13-10-3-2); Zdeno Chara, OTT 563 (19-36-16-11-8); Chris Pronger, STL 345 (7-19-16-17-11); Bryan McCabe, TOR 189 (1-12-10-10-15); Adrian Aucoin, NYI 166 (2-3-12-16-17); Nicklas Lidstrom, DET 165 (1-6-10-19-6)
2005-2006: But Lidstrom got it back then some this season.
NORRIS: Nicklas Lidstrom, DET 1,152 (91-28-8-2-0)
2. Scott Niedermayer, ANA 817 (29-57-16-15-3)
3. Sergei Zubov, DAL 464 (0-21-42-31-14)
4. Zdeno Chara, OTT 430 (5-14-35-30-17)
2006-2007
2006-2007: Pronger had a lock on his second one before he broke his foot. He was on pace for 75 points and a +43. He was on fire. Bad luck.
Pts. 1st-2nd-3rd-4th-5th
1. Nicklas Lidstrom, DET 1217 (87-44-5-4-2)
2. Scott Niedermayer, ANA 1024 (46-62-22-6-2)
3. Chris Pronger, ANA 608 (6-25-55-28-14)
4. Dan Boyle, T.B. 219 (1-5-21-19-12)

I still love how Chelios, Bourque and MaCinnis were challenging for the Norris into their 40's. When they were in their primes, they also had to contend with Coffey scoring a ton, Leetch in his prime was sick, Stevens in his prime came runner up to Bourque twice.....

Sigh. I miss seeing great defensemen all over the NHL....

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

Shore - The only one who can lay claim to being the best hockey player on the planet for a significant portion of his career.

Harvey - Possibly the best player on the greatest dynasty ever. Should have won some Hart trophies, but voters tended to vote for high scoring forwards during his era. May also have been a victim of a Hab vote split during his best years costing him Harts.

Potvin - At his best, he was better than Bourque. Put him ahead of Bourque for this reason, plus he added an element of meaness to his game that Bourque lacked.

Bourque - Probably the most consistent of the five, and he was better for a longer period of time, but IMO his peak wasn't at the same level as the other three. Outside of the year he almost won MVP, Bourque was never as good as Potvin was during his 3 Norris years. Basically putting him ahead of Potvin would be akin to putting Dionne ahead of Lafleur. Dionne was better for longer, but Lafleur at his best was far better.

Kelly - Really good, but was consistently outplayed by Harvey during the same era. The other four are arguable when it comes to their ranking, but IMO Kelly is a notch below.

 

[Sens Rule]

The old Norris voting since 2001:
2000-2001
NORRIS: Nicklas Lidstrom, DET 600 (56-5-1-0-0); Ray Bourque, COL 251 (4-16-12-10-9); Scott Stevens, N.J. 203 (1-15-14-4-6)

To me this is the issue. Bourque on Colorado for 1 1/3 years was still very good.. but he was a mere shadow of 1988, 1990, 1991 or even 1984 or 1982 Bourque. And yet he still finished second in Norris voting and was a first team all-star the year he retired. Comparing the 2001 Bourque to the late 80's early 90's Bourque that was debatably the best player in the world at times and who was 2nd in Hart voting twice is crazy.

Bourque waited quite awhile to get his first Norris.... and he was better in many of those non-Norris years than many Norris winners.

Potvin would have a few more Norris's if he wasn't up against Orr... Park would have one if not for Orr... and later Potvin.

I am not the biggest Lidstrom fan.. but he actually I think keeps getting better... he is the best D-Man in the NHL now and for several years. I think he can climb the all-time lists if he keeps it up... and he shows no signs at all of slowing down.

Still he is no Chelios on the Hawks or Bourque at his best or Potvin at his best. But he is the best now and he is on a great team he helps win Cups. To me it is about the Cups at this point. 1 or 2 more Wings Cups when Lidstrom is the best player... he equals and surpasses Robinson and Potvin.. and possibly even Bourque but that is several years from now.. if it ever happens.

 

[Pnut]

Shore - The only one who can lay claim to being the best hockey player on the planet for a significant portion of his career.

Harvey - Possibly the best player on the greatest dynasty ever. Should have won some Hart trophies, but voters tended to vote for high scoring forwards during his era. May also have been a victim of a Hab vote split during his best years costing him Harts.

Potvin - At his best, he was better than Bourque. Put him ahead of Bourque for this reason, plus he added an element of meaness to his game that Bourque lacked.

Bourque - Probably the most consistent of the five, and he was better for a longer period of time, but IMO his peak wasn't at the same level as the other three. Outside of the year he almost won MVP, Bourque was never as good as Potvin was during his 3 Norris years. Basically putting him ahead of Potvin would be akin to putting Dionne ahead of Lafleur. Dionne was better for longer, but Lafleur at his best was far better.

Kelly - Really good, but was consistently outplayed by Harvey during the same era. The other four are arguable when it comes to their ranking, but IMO Kelly is a notch below.

I agree whole hardedly except some technicallities
Eddie Shore was the best at his position not all around it is very difficult to compare defensemen to fowards and goalies because of different statistical catagories
Very good point on Potvin that he had the meanesss that Bourqued lacked, although that season that he was traded to the Avs and in those playoffs he was a mean mamba jamba.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Shore - The only one who can lay claim to being the best hockey player on the planet for a significant portion of his career.

Harvey - Possibly the best player on the greatest dynasty ever. Should have won some Hart trophies, but voters tended to vote for high scoring forwards during his era. May also have been a victim of a Hab vote split during his best years costing him Harts.

Potvin - At his best, he was better than Bourque. Put him ahead of Bourque for this reason, plus he added an element of meaness to his game that Bourque lacked.

Bourque - Probably the most consistent of the five, and he was better for a longer period of time, but IMO his peak wasn't at the same level as the other three. Outside of the year he almost won MVP, Bourque was never as good as Potvin was during his 3 Norris years. Basically putting him ahead of Potvin would be akin to putting Dionne ahead of Lafleur. Dionne was better for longer, but Lafleur at his best was far better.

Kelly - Really good, but was consistently outplayed by Harvey during the same era. The other four are arguable when it comes to their ranking, but IMO Kelly is a notch below.

I disagree. Bourque's 1990 season was the best of either Potvin or Bourque's peaks. The Dionne comparison is very far from the truth. Potvin's best year was not better than Bourque in 1990. Potvin had a Dynasty of hall of fame players to play with, while Bourque had teams he personally took the extra mile that lacked the star power.

Replace either player on their respective teams, and the outcomes are close to the same. Bourque wins 4 cups while Potvin tries to carry a one line Bruins squad on his back. Their playoff numbers are close to even.

Potvin did indeed have a meaner streak than Bourque(Caused him injury woes for his troubles), However, he also had double the amount of penalty minutes, while Bourque played a hybrid of "bend don't break" poke checking and used his physicality as well when the situation called for it. He was one of the best defensive defensemen of his time, as well as the best offensive defenseman outside of Paul Coffey in his time.

Also, Longevity and consistency play a big part in judging careers(Lidstrom is higher on the list than others with better peaks because of this). Potvin's Career was cut shorter for a reason. His style of play. The rough game takes a toll on the body. Bourque's style, while just as effective defensively, let him play like an iron man for 22 years vs Potvin's 15.

But hey, Opinions are opinions. I respect yours

The best case scenario here is to call them a very close call, almost a tie for what they brought to the table.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Just out of curiosity, have there ever been a more durable player over such a long span as him? I think 2/3 of the games he's "missed" in his career were simply to give him a night off before the playoffs.

Games played / game on the schedule, 10 years into a career:

Player|Season|Actual GP|Max GP|Percentage
Doug Jarvis | 1985 | 800 | 800 | 100
Murray Murdoch | 1936 | 460 | 460 | 100
Tony Leswick | 1955 | 648 | 650 | 99.7
Rod Brind'Amour | 1999 | 778 | 784 | 99.2
Dale Hawerchuk | 1991 | 793 | 800 | 99.1
Frank Boucher | 1935 | 432 | 436 | 99.1
Vincent Damphousse | 1996 | 770 | 778 | 99
Red Kelly | 1957 | 673 | 680 | 99
Tony Amonte | 2001 | 779 | 788 | 98.9
Sylvio Mantha | 1933 | 401 | 406 | 98.8
Bill Cook | 1936 | 454 | 460 | 98.7
Paul Thompson | 1936 | 453 | 460 | 98.5
Nicklas Lidstrom | 2001 | 775 | 788 | 98.4
Ralph "Cooney" Weiland | 1939 | 460 | 468 | 98.3
Harry Oliver | 1936 | 452 | 460 | 98.3
Larry Murphy | 1990 | 785 | 800 | 98.1
Marcel Dionne | 1981 | 779 | 794 | 98.1
Bobby Clarke | 1979 | 773 | 788 | 98.1
Luc Robitaille | 1996 | 763 | 778 | 98.1
King Clancy | 1931 | 351 | 358 | 98
Jeff Friesen | 2004 | 770 | 786 | 98

Fifteen years in:

Player|Season|Actual GP|Max GP|Percentage
Nicklas Lidstrom | 2007 | 1176 | 1198 | 98.2
King Clancy | 1936 | 587 | 598 | 98.2
Harry Howell | 1967 | 1030 | 1050 | 98.1
Aurel Joliat | 1937 | 610 | 622 | 98.1
Tony Amonte | 2007 | 1174 | 1198 | 98
Larry Murphy | 1995 | 1152 | 1176 | 98
Reg Noble | 1932 | 483 | 494 | 97.8
Marcel Dionne | 1986 | 1163 | 1194 | 97.4
Norm Ullman | 1970 | 1037 | 1068 | 97.1
Mike Gartner | 1994 | 1170 | 1208 | 96.9
Mats Sundin | 2006 | 1156 | 1196 | 96.7
Dale Hawerchuk | 1996 | 1137 | 1178 | 96.5
Bobby Clarke | 1984 | 1144 | 1188 | 96.3
Red Kelly | 1962 | 991 | 1030 | 96.2
Gordie Howe | 1961 | 980 | 1020 | 96.1
Dave Keon | 1975 | 1062 | 1110 | 95.7
Bobby Hull | 1972 | 1036 | 1084 | 95.6
Vincent Damphousse | 2001 | 1132 | 1188 | 95.3
Harold "Mush" March | 1943 | 676 | 710 | 95.2
Doug Gilmour | 1998 | 1125 | 1182 | 95.2
Ted Lindsay | 1959 | 931 | 980 | 95

I won't post the full list for twenty years in, but Larry Murphy (98.2%), Gordie Howe (97.0%) and Norm Ullman (96.6%) are in the lead.

Note that I didn't account for "false starts" to a career, so, for example, Chris Chelios' 12 (of a possible 80 games) in 1984 counts against him.

 

[norrisnick]

Not that I expect many of the other to have done so, but Lidstrom has never missed a playoff game.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Not that I expect many of the other to have done so, but Lidstrom has never missed a playoff game.

Lidstrom is still on the outside looking in when it comes to the top 5 defensemen of all time.

He is still in the "Robinson/Park/Kelly" area in the top 10. Not top 5 all time.

3 more Norris trophies and a Hart runner up might propel Lidstrom past Potvin, but his Norris trophies are so weak in regards to others.

 

[FissionFire]

Lidstrom is very hard to really guage because at 38 he's basically still in his peak. Most of the greats had a span of several years where they were clearly at their best. The Lidstrom of 2008 plays at the same level that the Lidstrom on 1995 did. He just seems to have had a low peak relative to his peers but probably the longest peak of any of them. His style of play doesn't rely on being physical or especially fast so even as his body starts to decline his positioning and intelligence are as sharp as ever so he just doesn't degrade. Sometimes I think he could play another 10 years if he wanted to and still be at about the same level he is now. He probably wouldn't keep winning awards simply because some others will invariably have started peaking by then.

Lidstrom is still on the outside looking in when it comes to the top 5 defensemen of all time.

He is still in the "Robinson/Park/Kelly" area in the top 10. Not top 5 all time.

3 more Norris trophies and a Hart runner up might propel Lidstrom past Potvin, but his Norris trophies are so weak in regards to others.

I doubt he ever gets Hart consideration. He's the top defenseman scorer in the NHL, unquestioned best player on the top team, and has an NHL-best +/- which is more than double the closest defenseman on his team and 33% higher than 2nd place on his team yet the only Wing ever mentioned in Hart talk is Zetterberg. I honestly think Lidstrom would have to score 100pts to get consideration with his quiet, below-the-radar, dominating playstyle.

 

[pitseleh]

Lidstrom is very hard to really guage because at 38 he's basically still in his peak. Most of the greats had a span of several years where they were clearly at their best. The Lidstrom of 2008 plays at the same level that the Lidstrom on 1995 did. He just seems to have had a low peak relative to his peers but probably the longest peak of any of them. His style of play doesn't rely on being physical or especially fast so even as his body starts to decline his positioning and intelligence are as sharp as ever so he just doesn't degrade. Sometimes I think he could play another 10 years if he wanted to and still be at about the same level he is now. He probably wouldn't keep winning awards simply because some others will invariably have started peaking by then.

Bourque's 17 straight seasons as a post-season All-Star is pretty damn impressive too.

I doubt he ever gets Hart consideration. He's the top defenseman scorer in the NHL, unquestioned best player on the top team, and has an NHL-best +/- which is more than double the closest defenseman on his team and 33% higher than 2nd place on his team yet the only Wing ever mentioned in Hart talk is Zetterberg. I honestly think Lidstrom would have to score 100pts to get consideration with his quiet, below-the-radar, dominating playstyle.

Add to that it's next to impossible for defensemen to get Hart consideration.

It's a tough situation though - on one hand, winning Norris trophies against weak competition does hurt his resume, but at the same time it's unfair to penalize him for not having the opportunity to play against better players.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Bourque's 17 straight seasons as a post-season All-Star is pretty damn impressive too.

Not to mention he technically did win a Hart trophy, and he was top 3 for the Norris in 15 different seasons.

Another difference with Lidstrom is he peaked a little later. He hit his prime around 97. His offensive numbers are also a little inflated from playing with the most stacked team of his generation.

Add to that it's next to impossible for defensemen to get Hart consideration.

It's a tough situation though - on one hand, winning Norris trophies against weak competition does hurt his resume, but at the same time it's unfair to penalize him for not having the opportunity to play against better players.

I was surprised when Pronger won the Hart trophy the year the blues won the presidents trophy, and he was not even near top 10 in scoring.
I was more surprised when Pronger dropped of the face of the planet in Norris voting in the following years. In his defense, he probably would have won last season if not for breaking his foot.

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

I disagree. Bourque's 1990 season was the best of either Potvin or Bourque's peaks. The Dionne comparison is very far from the truth. Potvin's best year was not better than Bourque in 1990. Potvin had a Dynasty of hall of fame players to play with, while Bourque had teams he personally took the extra mile that lacked the star power.

Personally, I think Potvin was better in 1978 and 1979 than Bourque in 1991(his almost MVP year). A case could also be made for 1976. As good defensively and better offensively, plus more physical. He averaged over +60 in those two years.

Replace either player on their respective teams, and the outcomes are close to the same. Bourque wins 4 cups while Potvin tries to carry a one line Bruins squad on his back. Their playoff numbers are close to even.

Potvin's playoff numbers are slightly better on a PPG basis, but I agree, the Isles still win the 4 cups with Bourque. Just because I think Potvin is better, doesn't mean I don't think Bourque was also almost as good and IMO they are extremely close. Pretty much at least 95% of the player I thought Potvin was.

Potvin did indeed have a meaner streak than Bourque(Caused him injury woes for his troubles), However, he also had double the amount of penalty minutes, while Bourque played a hybrid of "bend don't break" poke checking and used his physicality as well when the situation called for it. He was one of the best defensive defensemen of his time, as well as the best offensive defenseman outside of Paul Coffey in his time.

Also, Longevity and consistency play a big part in judging careers(Lidstrom is higher on the list than others with better peaks because of this). Potvin's Career was cut shorter for a reason. His style of play. The rough game takes a toll on the body. Bourque's style, while just as effective defensively, let him play like an iron man for 22 years vs Potvin's 15.

Potvin was still an excellent player when he retired. Never understood why he chose to quit. He pretty much played a full season in his last year and was still as good or better than many of his comtemporaries were at 35 such as Robinson.

But hey, Opinions are opinions. I respect yours

The best case scenario here is to call them a very close call, almost a tie for what they brought to the table.

Agreed, I think it's very close between the two. Very arguable as to who was better.

 

[Sens Rule]

Lidstrom is very hard to really guage because at 38 he's basically still in his peak. Most of the greats had a span of several years where they were clearly at their best. The Lidstrom of 2008 plays at the same level that the Lidstrom on 1995 did. He just seems to have had a low peak relative to his peers but probably the longest peak of any of them. His style of play doesn't rely on being physical or especially fast so even as his body starts to decline his positioning and intelligence are as sharp as ever so he just doesn't degrade. Sometimes I think he could play another 10 years if he wanted to and still be at about the same level he is now. He probably wouldn't keep winning awards simply because some others will invariably have started peaking by then.



I doubt he ever gets Hart consideration. He's the top defenseman scorer in the NHL, unquestioned best player on the top team, and has an NHL-best +/- which is more than double the closest defenseman on his team and 33% higher than 2nd place on his team yet the only Wing ever mentioned in Hart talk is Zetterberg. I honestly think Lidstrom would have to score 100pts to get consideration with his quiet, below-the-radar, dominating playstyle.

It is not really that fair that proably Datsyuk and Zetterberg will get more Hart consideration as Detroit finshes first overall this season... To me he is obviously the most important Wing. He may not be the most valuable in the NHL but it is close and he is the most valuable player on the best team.

 

[reckoning]

I doubt he ever gets Hart consideration. He's the top defenseman scorer in the NHL, unquestioned best player on the top team, and has an NHL-best +/- which is more than double the closest defenseman on his team and 33% higher than 2nd place on his team yet the only Wing ever mentioned in Hart talk is Zetterberg. I honestly think Lidstrom would have to score 100pts to get consideration with his quiet, below-the-radar, dominating playstyle.

Since 1990, here's all the defencemen that have finished top 5 in Hart balloting:

`90: Bourque 2nd
`91: Bourque 4th
`95: Coffey 4th
`00: Pronger 1st

That's it. That's all. Defencemen have only received 4 of the possible 85 spots in that span. Lidstrom, MacInnis, Leetch and Niedermayer have never finshed top 5 in Hart voting, but Turgeon, Yashin, Nolan and Bertuzzi all have.

That means either a) there's no good defencemen anymore or b) the writers are ignoring them. I believe it's theory b)

 

[Dark Shadows]

Personally, I think Potvin was better in 1978 and 1979 than Bourque in 1991(his almost MVP year). A case could also be made for 1976. As good defensively and better offensively, plus more physical. He averaged over +60 in those two years.



Potvin's playoff numbers are slightly better on a PPG basis, but I agree, the Isles still win the 4 cups with Bourque. Just because I think Potvin is better, doesn't mean I don't think Bourque was also almost as good and IMO they are extremely close. Pretty much at least 95% of the player I thought Potvin was.




Potvin was still an excellent player when he retired. Never understood why he chose to quit. He pretty much played a full season in his last year and was still as good or better than many of his comtemporaries were at 35 such as Robinson.



Agreed, I think it's very close between the two. Very arguable as to who was better.

Good post. Ill just answer the part I bolded. His injuries over the years had hampered him. He was playing in pain much of the time, and still was great. His playing style led to this. He decided he did not like the way he was progressing(His very words) and decided to hang them up rather than fade away.

 

[God Bless Canada]

Since 1990, here's all the defencemen that have finished top 5 in Hart balloting:

`90: Bourque 2nd
`91: Bourque 4th
`95: Coffey 4th
`00: Pronger 1st

That's it. That's all. Defencemen have only received 4 of the possible 85 spots in that span. Lidstrom, MacInnis, Leetch and Niedermayer have never finshed top 5 in Hart voting, but Turgeon, Yashin, Nolan and Bertuzzi all have.

That means either a) there's no good defencemen anymore or b) the writers are ignoring them. I believe it's theory b)

I think the voters are way too stats happy. Back in the O6 days, voters watched a player at least 14 times a year. Now, a voter out east might see a Niedermayer or a Pronger five times a year. You can't evaluate a guy's worth based on stats alone, moreso for defencemen than forwards.