Top 10 defensemen of all-time?

[Canadiens1958]

Bourque's longest lasting partner was Don Sweeney, a lefty who played the left side.

He also played with Wesley, McLaren and Gill when all were rookies (all lefties). Played with Milbury for awhile, another lefty who rarely played the right side. Spent time with Jim Wiemer (lefty) and Allan Pedersen (lefty).

The thing is, Bourque played with so many assorted rookies, journeymen and stiffs that it was hard to tell which side he was playing because he was covering so much for his partners.

This left side/right side argument is completely bogus. A forced scenario to fit an obvious agenda.

By the way, I have never claimed nor voted for Bourque over Harvey. Or Shore, for that matter.

Totally overlooking.

That initially AST voting LD and RD as distinct positions requiring distinct apptitudes.

That Lidstrom's Norris streak started with the arrival of Chris Chelios a RHS/RD who anchored the RD position allowing Lidstrom the luxury of playing his stronger side LD.

That in the last 10 years or so, the value and importance of RHS defencmen has risen

 

[Johnny Engine]

Totaly overlooking.

That initially AST voting LD and RD as distinct positions requiring distinct apptitudes.

Are you saying that post season all star team voting used to choose an honoree at each of the LD and RD positions, for each of the first and second all star teams? Care to provide any evidence of that, and what years that would be in effect?
And if you're not saying that, what is that sentence supposed to say?

That in the last 10 years or so, the value and importance of RHS defencmen has risen

That's good point, and definitely something perceivable from the fan perspective - to the point where left and right defensemen often are less transferable than wingers. For example, this year's Leafs have used regular wingers Marleau, Komarov and Brown (and extra man Leivo) on both sides, but none of their starting six defensemen. (IIRC only call-up Travis Dermott has played both sides outside of spontaneous mix and match shifts)

 

[Canadiens1958]

Are you saying that post season all star team voting used to choose an honoree at each of the LD and RD positions, for each of the first and second all star teams? Care to provide any evidence of that, and what years that would be in effect?
And if you're not saying that, what is that sentence supposed to say?

That's good point, and definitely something perceivable from the fan perspective - to the point where left and right defensemen often are less transferable than wingers. For example, this year's Leafs have used regular wingers Marleau, Komarov and Brown (and extra man Leivo) on both sides, but none of their starting six defensemen. (IIRC only call-up Travis Dermott has played both sides outside of spontaneous mix and match shifts)

Here you go 1930-31 thru 1942-43 NHL seasons listing the votes per LD and RD with the exception of 1931-32 which may be a reporting or transcription error.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/posts/103881043/

 

[Johnny Engine]

Here you go 1930-31 thru 1942-43 NHL seasons listing the votes per LD and RD with the exception of 1931-32 which may be a reporting or transcription error.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/posts/103881043/

The amount of overlap between the positions is interesting - might point to a gap between the intent and the execution of separating the sides.

 

[Canadiens1958]

The amount of overlap between the positions is interesting - might point to a gap between the intent and the execution of separating the sides.

Original salary cap reduced rosters in the early 1930s so teams would play with three d-men rotations dropping a forward capable of playing defence back as necessary. Voting reflects the relative abilities playing RD and LD, especially when the RHS v LHS question is considered

 

[danincanada]

Totally overlooking.

That initially AST voting LD and RD as distinct positions requiring distinct apptitudes.

That Lidstrom's Norris streak started with the arrival of Chris Chelios a RHS/RD who anchored the RD position allowing Lidstrom the luxury of playing his stronger side LD.

That in the last 10 years or so, the value and importance of RHS defencmen has risen

You've completely made this up. First off, Lidstrom and Chelios were rarely regular partners, if at all. They often played together in critical defensive situations or on the PK though. Lidstrom was playing the left side with Larry Murphy on the right regularly from when Murphy arrived near the '97 trade deadline basically until he retired in '01. Chelios arrived near the '99 trade deadline and during Lidsrom's first Norris winning season in '01 Chelios only played 24 games due to injury so the start of his Norris streak had little to do with Chelios being on the team at all. Lidstrom should have won the Norris in '98 before Chelios ever donned a Red Wings jersey anyways, and by '03 Chelios, who was 41, started to decline.

Trying to separate Harvey from Lidstrom and Bourque due to somehow being more versatile in this way is silly and probably not even true. Those level of defenseman can handle any situation. Some coaches, like Bowman, prefer to have LD-RD pairings for obvious reasons so that's what they do.

Two years later, coach Scotty Bowman arrived in Detroit to find Lidstrom well on his way to being a special player in the NHL. Dave Lewis, his assistant coach, handled the defense.

“The only thing we did was move him to the left side,” said Bowman, who originally had Lidstrom paired with Paul Coffey as a right defenseman.

“Not that it made a lot of difference. Those kinds of defensemen can play both sides.”

I do recall Lidstrom playing the right side with Coffey but I seem to remember is still occurring at times when Bowman was there, too. Coffey and Bergevin were often a pairing in '96 even though they were both LHS.

What Bowman realized he had with Lidstrom was something rare in the NHL, at least for defensemen: a player he could build a gameplan around.

This happens frequently with goaltenders – the proverbial “building from the net out” mindset. It also happens in other sports like the NFL, as defensive schemes are drawn up around, say, a dominant middle linebacker.

In that regard, think of Nicklas Lidstrom as Mike Singletary (excuse the comparison, Detroit Lions fans). The Red Wings took the left wing lock from Europe, imported the defensive system to the NHL and knew that Lidstrom would be out there for 28 minutes a night as its backbone.

“It took a while for teams to really dissect it. The real reason we did it was because Nick patrolled the middle of the ice. He had a forward on his left at all times, and the right wing was his partner. We always allowed the right winger to pinch in along the boards, and Nick could cover both sides when he did – for the forward or for the defenseman,” said Bowman.

“I’ve never seen a defenseman that did what he did offensively, and yet didn’t get caught up ice. His partners would get caught sometimes, but he was always back there.”

In Bowman's eyes it was more about Lidstrom playing the middle of the ice anyways and they built their defensive system around his ability to do this.

Nicklas Lidstrom, Chris Pronger: Two polar opposites, one Hall of Fame

 

[Canadiens1958]

You've completely made this up. First off, Lidstrom and Chelios were rarely regular partners, if at all. They often played together in critical defensive situations or on the PK though. Lidstrom was playing the left side with Larry Murphy on the right regularly from when Murphy arrived near the '97 trade deadline basically until he retired in '01. Chelios arrived near the '99 trade deadline and during Lidsrom's first Norris winning season in '01 Chelios only played 24 games due to injury so the start of his Norris streak had little to do with Chelios being on the team at all. Lidstrom should have won the Norris in '98 before Chelios ever donned a Red Wings jersey anyways, and by '03 Chelios, who was 41, started to decline.

Trying to separate Harvey from Lidstrom and Bourque due to somehow being more versatile in this way is silly and probably not even true. Those level of defenseman can handle any situation. Some coaches, like Bowman, prefer to have LD-RD pairings for obvious reasons so that's what they do.



I do recall Lidstrom playing the right side with Coffey but I seem to remember is still occurring at times when Bowman was there, too. Coffey and Bergevin were often a pairing in '96 even though they were both LHS.



In Bowman's eyes it was more about Lidstrom playing the middle of the ice anyways and they built their defensive system around his ability to do this.

Nicklas Lidstrom, Chris Pronger: Two polar opposites, one Hall of Fame

Never claimed they were partners. Anchored simply means that for virtually the complete 60 minute game one of the two would be on the ice, so the Red Wings had stability and a defensive starting point.

 

[overg]

Two years later, coach Scotty Bowman arrived in Detroit to find Lidstrom well on his way to being a special player in the NHL. Dave Lewis, his assistant coach, handled the defense.

“The only thing we did was move him to the left side,” said Bowman, who originally had Lidstrom paired with Paul Coffey as a right defenseman.

“Not that it made a lot of difference. Those kinds of defensemen can play both sides.”

Phew. Now that my memory has been validated that Lidstrom did indeed play RD while Coffey was there, I can add that at least part of the reason he did that was that he was great at feeding the puck cross ice for Coffey to one-time. I'm sure the reverse would have worked out okay too, but at least in those early years, I think Coffey's one timer was generally seen as more dangerous. He was such a great skater and terror on the rush, I think his shot from the blue line sometimes goes under-appreciated.

Of course, for someone like Bowman, I suspect their relative strengths on a particular side of the ice while on defense had more to do with the decision than their offensive upsides. Still the memory of Lidstrom feeding Coffey was actually what made me recall that Lidstrom played the other side of the ice in those days, so thought I'd point it out.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Phew. Now that my memory has been validated that Lidstrom did indeed play RD while Coffey was there, I can add that at least part of the reason he did that was that he was great at feeding the puck cross ice for Coffey to one-time. I'm sure the reverse would have worked out okay too, but at least in those early years, I think Coffey's one timer was generally seen as more dangerous.

In my mind, it seems extremely awkward for a left-handed RD to feed a left-handed LD for a one-timer. That might actually be the worst possible arrangement for trying to get the shot off cleanly.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Someone understands. Even more awkward for a RHS at RD, which is why on the PP they flip. Similarly counter-clockwise. This is basically the weakness in the 1-3-1, feeds have to be made on diagonals which if broken-up, misplayed, etc create,

Harvey on the Canadiens PP played the left point but was not poised to shoot, likewise J.C. Tremblay later. Both turned facing the net and the right point creating optimal passing and defensive positioning.

The Bourque video upthread clearly illustrated the awkwardness a LHS experiences on certain PP situations.

 

[danincanada]

Never claimed they were partners. Anchored simply means that for virtually the complete 60 minute game one of the two would be on the ice, so the Red Wings had stability and a defensive starting point.

You could have two great LHS defenders on the same team and virtually have one of them on the ice at all times as well by playing them on different pairings. Why does it matter that Chelios was a RHS? I guess if you're concerned about an elite RW or LW the match up would be easier if you were comfortable with either of these defenders but that's about it.

In between the Konstantinov accident and acquiring Chelios was the '98 Cup run, where Bowman opted for these pairings the majority of the time:

LD - RD

Lidstrom (LHS) - Murphy (RHS)
Fetisov (LHS) - Eriksson (LHS)
Macoun (LHS)- Rouse (RHS)

Lidstrom (and Murphy) did not have an "anchor" in the second or third pairing because Fetisov was far past his prime and the rest were not top pairing defenseman. They did just fine.

Note: Bowman must have really soured on Dmitri Mironov because he was a RHS and Russian so it's hard to imaging why Anders Eriksson beat him out for playing time but it happened. I don't recall him being injured.

 

[danincanada]

In my mind, it seems extremely awkward for a left-handed RD to feed a left-handed LD for a one-timer. That might actually be the worst possible arrangement for trying to get the shot off cleanly.

You're right. My recollection is that Lidstrom was usually the shooter on the PP, not Coffey, and I recall Lidstrom one-timing it from the right side. They were usually paired together on the PP together in Detroit and this is how they usually set up. Coffey, and later Fedorov, were very good at putting the puck on a tee for Lidstrom.

 

[Canadiens1958]

You could have two great LHS defenders on the same team and virtually have one of them on the ice at all times as well by playing them on different pairings. Why does it matter that Chelios was a RHS? I guess if you're concerned about an elite RW or LW the match up would be easier if you were comfortable with either of these defenders but that's about it.

In between the Konstantinov accident and acquiring Chelios was the '98 Cup run, where Bowman opted for these pairings the majority of the time:

LD - RD

Lidstrom (LHS) - Murphy (RHS)
Fetisov (LHS) - Eriksson (LHS)
Macoun (LHS)- Rouse (RHS)

Lidstrom (and Murphy) did not have an "anchor" in the second or third pairing because Fetisov was far past his prime and the rest were not top pairing defenseman. They did just fine.

Note: Bowman must have really soured on Dmitri Mironov because he was a RHS and Russian so it's hard to imaging why Anders Eriksson beat him out for playing time but it happened. I don't recall him being injured.

Ideal pairing is LHS/LD and RHS/ RD most efficient for puck movement, taking away passing and shooting lanes, protecting the middle when skating backwards - both sticks are to the inside naturally. Also easier, quicker and safer turn going after rebounds towards the corner.

Dmitri Mironov was a hockey nomad, teams usually soured on him plus he was opting for free agency.

Fetisov was definitely an anchor even at his advanced age and Macoun on the 3rd pairing was elite amongst 3rd pairings of the time and a RHS Rouse was perfect.

Comparing Fetisov to Lidstrom in terms of being on the ice for Goals against, big edge to Fetisov 34 vs 75, even adjusting for GP 52 vs 80 Fetisov is well ahead. Conversely Dmitri Mironov in 11 games was on the ice for 12 goals against. Easy to understand why Bowman soured on him and the Wings let him sign elsewhere as a free agent. Eriksson on the other hand was on the ice for 41 goals against in 66 games.

 

[overg]

You're right. My recollection is that Lidstrom was usually the shooter on the PP, not Coffey, and I recall Lidstrom one-timing it from the right side. They were usually paired together on the PP together in Detroit and this is how they usually set up. Coffey, and later Fedorov, were very good at putting the puck on a tee for Lidstrom.

Entirely possible I had that backward. What both of you say certainly calls my memory into question.

 

[danincanada]

Ideal pairing is LHS/LD and RHS/ RD most efficient for puck movement, taking away passing and shooting lanes, protecting the middle when skating backwards - both sticks are to the inside naturally. Also easier, quicker and safer turn going after rebounds towards the corner.

Dmitri Mironov was a hockey nomad, teams usually soured on him plus he was opting for free agency.

Fetisov was definitely an anchor even at his advanced age and Macoun on the 3rd pairing was elite amongst 3rd pairings of the time and a RHS Rouse was perfect.

Comparing Fetisov to Lidstrom in terms of being on the ice for Goals against, big edge to Fetisov 34 vs 75, even adjusting for GP 52 vs 80 Fetisov is well ahead. Conversely Dmitri Mironov in 11 games was on the ice for 12 goals against. Easy to understand why Bowman soured on him and the Wings let him sign elsewhere as a free agent. Eriksson on the other hand was on the ice for 41 goals against in 66 games.

You've got to know better than this. Using raw GA without also viewing ice-time and the roles they played on the team is foolish.

In the playoffs Fetisov was 5th in ice-time among their regular 6 D with 15:22 per game with only his partner Eriksson getting less at 12:45 per game and neither were killing penalties but got PP time. Both Rouse and Macoun got more ice-time overall and killed penalties. If we go by ice-time alone it was actually Rouse/Macoun who were the 2nd pairing and you've already stated Macoun was a great 3rd pairing guy. I've never heard of an "anchor" on defense only playing 3rd pairing minutes like Fetisov did. Like I said before, they had Lidstrom-Murphy and then no other true top 4 defenders on that team, just bottom pairing guys or specialists - at least in the eyes of Bowman. Not that their performances weren't admirable because they were, especially with the ages Fetisov and Macoun were at and what Fetisov had been through the last year.

Even with the Mironov/Eriksson comparison, Mironov played much more and killed penalties in his brief time. Raw GA numbers don't take this into context. Bowman certainly had a part of bringing him in near the deadline so he probably anticipated playing him with Fetisov but it didn't come to fruition.

 

[Canadiens1958]

You've got to know better than this. Using raw GA without also viewing ice-time and the roles they played on the team is foolish.

In the playoffs Fetisov was 5th in ice-time among their regular 6 D with 15:22 per game with only his partner Eriksson getting less at 12:45 per game and neither were killing penalties but got PP time. Both Rouse and Macoun got more ice-time overall and killed penalties. If we go by ice-time alone it was actually Rouse/Macoun who were the 2nd pairing and you've already stated Macoun was a great 3rd pairing guy. I've never heard of an "anchor" on defense only playing 3rd pairing minutes like Fetisov did. Like I said before, they had Lidstrom-Murphy and then no other true top 4 defenders on that team, just bottom pairing guys or specialists - at least in the eyes of Bowman. Not that their performances weren't admirable because they were, especially with the ages Fetisov and Macoun were at and what Fetisov had been through the last year.

Even with the Mironov/Eriksson comparison, Mironov played much more and killed penalties in his brief time. Raw GA numbers don't take this into context. Bowman certainly had a part of bringing him in near the deadline so he probably anticipated playing him with Fetisov but it didn't come to fruition.

Mironov hardly played in the 98 playoffs. Suggest looking at injuries and health as Eriksson and Fetisov missed games in the playoffs as well.

 

[danincanada]

Mironov hardly played in the 98 playoffs. Suggest looking at injuries and health as Eriksson and Fetisov missed games in the playoffs as well.

I know Mironov only dressed for 7 games in those playoffs and only in the first 2 rounds, which was why I was wondering if Bowman preferred Eriksson over him or if he was injured. I didn't recall an injury.

He's listed in the "Worst" deadline moves category but that doesn't mean he didn't have an injury:

Red Wings' best and worst NHL trade deadline moves of last 20 years

Bowman actually dressed 7 D at times early on in that run. Fetisov only missed 1 game in the 2nd round and Eriksson missed 4 over the course of the first 2 rounds, which were games where Mironov did dress.

So Bowman had 3 defenders on his roster from the Leafs corps from the '93 and '94 playoff runs. Rouse, Macoun, and Mironov.

 

[frisco]

Noticed Pilote has not really been discussed. Three Norris trophies and 8 All-Star nods. Might he be better than say Robinson or Chelios overall?

My Best-Carey

 

[BenchBrawl]

Noticed Pilote has not really been discussed. Three Norris trophies and 8 All-Star nods. Might he be better than say Robinson or Chelios overall?

My Best-Carey

I don't see it, especially not Robinson.Pilote had relatively weak competition.

 

[Epsilon]

Pilote is definitely top 20 but I don't realistically see room for him in the top 10.

 

[Big Phil]

Noticed Pilote has not really been discussed. Three Norris trophies and 8 All-Star nods. Might he be better than say Robinson or Chelios overall?

My Best-Carey

Very decorated defenseman. It might have something to do with the fact that Pilote was winning those Norrises in the 1960s at a time when Harvey and Kelly were done and Orr hadn't arrived yet. Tim Horton is perhaps a top 25 defenseman of all-time, but if he is your only competition for the Norris chances are you are winning some.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Very decorated defenseman. It might have something to do with the fact that Pilote was winning those Norrises in the 1960s at a time when Harvey and Kelly were done and Orr hadn't arrived yet. Tim Horton is perhaps a top 25 defenseman of all-time, but if he is your only competition for the Norris chances are you are winning some.

True. Not to mention Pilote's playoff record looks a bit hit ot miss.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

ALL Chicago players of that era (except for the Great Bobby Hull, who seemed to possess the antibodies for the malady) had hit-or-miss (mostly miss) playoff records.

How much that should be held personally against Pierre Pilote is something that might merit further study. For my part, I'd be disinclined to put black marks onto Pilote's report-card for succumbing to a similar pathology to the one that felled- well- most of the rest of the squad...

 

[Canadiens1958]

ALL Chicago players of that era (except for the Great Bobby Hull, who seemed to possess the antibodies for the malady) had hit-or-miss (mostly miss) playoff records.

How much that should be held personally against Pierre Pilote is something that might merit further study. For my part, I'd be disinclined to put black marks onto Pilote's report-card for succumbing to a similar pathology to the one that felled- well- most of the rest of the squad...

Pilote's issue was Gordie Howe's size over the course of a seven game playoff series and to a lesser extent Beliveau and Mahovlich.
Especially tough if two seven game series against two big men were consecutive as they tended to be in the sixties.

 

[blogofmike]

It seems Chicago gave up a ton of PPGA in the playoffs from 1962-68:

Tm	GP	PPGA	PPGA/GP
Chicago	62	69	1.11
Toronto	58	42	0.72
Montreal	64	41	0.64
Detroit	44	33	0.75
NY Rangers	16	12	0.75
St. Louis	18	12	0.67
Minnesota	14	8	0.57
Philadelphia	7	4	0.57
Los Angeles	7	4	0.57
Boston	4	3	0.75

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Counting 1961 (when they won) it's a still high 77 PPGA in 74 games. Pilote wasn't often a highly used PK guy judging from the +/- data (18 PPGA from 62-68, mostly in 62 and 67). While keeping Pilote off of the PK may have been because of his size, Beliveau wasn't highly effective at ES (when Pilote was more likely to be out) until Pilote's last year in Chicago. The only real standout against Chicago at even strength was the fairly normal-sized Norm Ullman (24 ESP in 26 GP).

Whether it was from taking a bunch of penalties or simply not being able to kill them, PPGA seems to be a contributing factor in Chicago's inability to win in the playoffs after 1961.