Best defending defensemen all-time?

[mjhfb]

And that's what I have trouble reconciling. I watched a lot of 80s and 90s hockey. Bourque was terrific and no doubt one of the best defensemen of all time but I never thought, "Wow, Bourque really shut down that guy!"

I remember a lot of Bourque leading a rush up ice after retrieving the puck on a dump in. Or someone finding him in the slot for a shot, or Bourque ragging the puck in the opposition zone, or when a forechecker was coming after him in his own zone. I remember Sweeney and Wesley as the shutdown guys on those 90s Bruins teams.

Bourque was the shutdown guy in those years. He not only won the Norris 5 times he also was runner up 5 times. He knew how to play D and he always played against the best players.
I remember when he broke in the league he played against rookie Gretzky. On the bench Sather was trying to tell Gretzky something about another Bruin player and Gretzky said forget about him - we have to do something about that brick wall rookie D that skates like the wind out there.

 

[Davenport]

Thanks to the first Canada-Russia series in 1972, hockey fans had a chance to see - and appreciate - how good Bill White and Gary Bergman were defensively.

 

[67 others]

Doughty was the best defensively among star defencemen in the 2010s. He was/is a bit underrated by people trying to be smart (DUE Doughty lol!) and achieving the exact opposite. Would have scored more on most other teams, but also probably would have had a few more defensive issues.



You're right that people try to project Lidstrom backwards and wrongly say that he deserved Norris attention earlier than he received it, but I don't think it matters whether Lidstrom's defensive style would have been as effective in the 1980s. Lidstrom's best years were in the 2000s, he wasn't trying to win 1980s or early 1990s hockey games in the 2000s. If he needed to adjust his style, and I'm not exactly certain that he would have, I'm confident that a player that intelligent could have figured it out.

Bourque was the shutdown guy in those years. He not only won the Norris 5 times he also was runner up 5 times. He knew how to play D and he always played against the best players.
I remember when he broke in the league he played against rookie Gretzky. On the bench Sather was trying to tell Gretzky something about another Bruin player and Gretzky said forget about him - we have to do something about that brick wall rookie D that skates like the wind out there.

Not only that. But back when they still did the coaches polls, where coaches were only allowed to vote for players not on their team, Bourque was always in the "best defensive defenseman" mix. Often beating prime Chelios and Stevens.

When he nearly won 2 Hart trophies, folks were outscoring him by 60 to 90 points, and he was doing some amazing things that didn't involve scoring to get noticed. He also played against the most stacked defenseman field of all time in their primes while competing for those Norris trophies.

If his centers were named Yzerman, Fedorov and Draper instead of Janney, Linesman and Bob Sweeney, he probably would have added a few more cups to that trophy case.

Folks always go on about how integral Yzerman was to 3 cups when comparing his playoff resume to Sakic, or how amazing and clutch Fedorov was when comparing him to Gilmour. Those threads come up regularly and it's always a burnishing job on their playoff performances and how "we would never have won without Yzerman performance and leadership!"

Nobody has those discussions about Janney and Linesman lol. Transplant Janney and Linesman to the red wings, and I bet folks would then be talking about Draper's selke and how great Shanahan was instead of praising Janney and Linesman.

 

[ITM]

1. Orr
2. Robinson
3. Bourque
4. Stevens
5. Potvin
6. Konstantinov
7. Lidstrom

From the hockey I’ve watched, less so with Orr apart from rewatching him and considering his pantheon level stats - as much distance as there is between Orr and everyone else, there is between Robinson and everyone else.

Easily the most consistently dominant force as a defensemen whenever he played.

Vladimir Konstantinov would likely have risen higher but for his tragic accident. What a defenseman.

And yes, he was a better defensive defenseman than Lidstrom, longevity aside.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

Lidstrom's style in his early years wasn't ideal until goalie pads got bigger and standup style phased out. Folks always argue he deserved more Norris consideration his early years and I call that BS because I was there and know how it drove coaches crazy lol. It wasn't ideal until it was. That's not a hypothetical, that's a "we saw his style was not ideal in the early 90s"

No need to get so emotional over basic truths

Your trolling reveals the shaky foundations of your arguments.

Yes yes, sure you were there. I've been watching the Wings since Yzerman was named captain. I bet you couldn't even name who coached the Wings in the early 90s without looking it up.

Just because you believe the lies you tell yourself to put Bourque ahead of Lidstrom doesn't make them basic truths. Enjoy writing your fan fiction.

(And to be clear I think there is a case to be made for Bourque over Lids. But this hilarious scenario is not it)

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

You're right that people try to project Lidstrom backwards and wrongly say that he deserved Norris attention earlier than he received it, but I don't think it matters whether Lidstrom's defensive style would have been as effective in the 1980s. Lidstrom's best years were in the 2000s, he wasn't trying to win 1980s or early 1990s hockey games in the 2000s. If he needed to adjust his style, and I'm not exactly certain that he would have, I'm confident that a player that intelligent could have figured it out.

It depends on when someone is arguing that he deserved more Norris attention. There's this false narrative that he wasn't good defensively early in his career. Maybe not Norris worthy, but that does not equal bad.

Lidstrom was runner up for the Norris three times before finally winning it in 2001. As I said before, it was his play in the 1997 Cup run that really made his abilities wider known around the league. I do think he warranted some Norris attention prior to that but it's really only a matter of a few seasons, and that just wasn't going to happen when you have Coffey and Konstantinov on the team.

There's a strong correlation between people pushing the narrative Lidstrom was bad early in his career and their ranking Bourque higher than Lids.

 

[JackSlater]

It depends on when someone is arguing that he deserved more Norris attention. There's this false narrative that he wasn't good defensively early in his career. Maybe not Norris worthy, but that does not equal bad.

Lidstrom was runner up for the Norris three times before finally winning it in 2001. As I said before, it was his play in the 1997 Cup run that really made his abilities wider known around the league. I do think he warranted some Norris attention prior to that but it's really only a matter of a few seasons, and that just wasn't going to happen when you have Coffey and Konstantinov on the team.

There's a strong correlation between people pushing the narrative Lidstrom was bad early in his career and their ranking Bourque higher than Lids.

That's mildly more generous than I'd be. I'd say that Lidstrom was always good to great offensively, but he needed time to get to that level defensively. He was good in the sense that he was a legitimate top four defenceman right away, but his defence wasn't really a plus compared to the elite defencemen in the NHL. I do think that he was better defensively than people realized leading into the 1997 playoffs, as you suggest.

I see it more the other way around. People pushing Lidstrom want to make it seem like he should have been a Norris contender from the beginning (or near enough) like Bourque was, but that really isn't the case. Lidstrom shouldn't have been in any Norris discussion before 1996, and that's pretty much when he shows up in those conversations for the first time.

 

[norrisnick]

That's mildly more generous than I'd be. I'd say that Lidstrom was always good to great offensively, but he needed time to get to that level defensively. He was good in the sense that he was a legitimate top four defenceman right away, but his defence wasn't really a plus compared to the elite defencemen in the NHL. I do think that he was better defensively than people realized leading into the 1997 playoffs, as you suggest.

I see it more the other way around. People pushing Lidstrom want to make it seem like he should have been a Norris contender from the beginning (or near enough) like Bourque was, but that really isn't the case. Lidstrom shouldn't have been in any Norris discussion before 1996, and that's pretty much when he shows up in those conversations for the first time.

And yet Bourque somehow bypassed this voter neglect early in his career. It's fantasy to suggest he burst into the NHL as a teenager fully formed defensively.

 

[67 others]

Your trolling reveals the shaky foundations of your arguments.

Yes yes, sure you were there. I've been watching the Wings since Yzerman was named captain. I bet you couldn't even name who coached the Wings in the early 90s without looking it up.

Just because you believe the lies you tell yourself to put Bourque ahead of Lidstrom doesn't make them basic truths. Enjoy writing your fan fiction.

(And to be clear I think there is a case to be made for Bourque over Lids. But this hilarious scenario is not it)

At this juncture, I'd say your bias to your favorite team is clouding ya if you think I am trolling. Maybe you think you can more easily dismiss arguments by calling me a "Troll"... good luck with that buddy.

And yeah, I've been watching hockey since before Yzerman played in the NHL and I am a member of the SIHR and we discuss and have guest speakers for all sorts of things. Former wings GM Jimmy Devellano has spoken at SIHR meets as a guest speaker many times.

Some of the things Devellano spoke of would probably annoy you. Clearly this one regarding how some style's were not as effective prior to goalie pads inflating does.

His take on Yzerman's lack of a 200 foot game pre-Bowman would probably make you grind your teeth too if you are one of those who argues "he was always good defensively". He wasn't.

But he was just the wings GM. What would he know?

But let's make this easy.

Whose fault is this goal?
MacDonald? or Lidstrom?

Just for bonus fun, who gets the blame for this giveaway?

 

[Silky Johnson]

One thing I am going to bring up here that might get me flamed is that, as good as Orr was, who else has had the opportunity to play their entire career in a league made up predominantly of recent or current expanaion teams? The first expansion was in 1967. They added:
California
L.A.
Pittsburgh
Philly
St Louis.

The next was in 1970

Buffalo
Vancouver

In 1972

Islanders
Atlanta

1974
Washington
Kansas City

There was never a time in his career where his schedule wasn't loaded with teams he should have dominated. Granted, he did, but I don't think enough is said about how little of the rest of the league were serious competitors. With the exception of Philly none of those teams were very good before Orr left the game.

Edit: this comment is made on relation to the other greats we were referring to in the thread, obv. Everyone in the league was playing vs the same level of competition at the time.

Asked and Answered

So by those stats he is averaging 94 points and a +44 per 82 games play, against the top 1/3 of the league...that's pretty amazing.

Over the same time period Orr was 1.53 P/GP. Potvin was second at 1.08 and Park was third at 0.87.

Orr was also an average +82 over a 82 game span. Second was Robinson at +65 and S. Savard was 3rd at +53.

He put up insane point totals against the best competition and separated himself against from the competition as well as any defenseman.

Edit. He also won 8 Norris, 3 Hart, 2 Art Ross, 2 Conn Smyth and the Calder...

The first above paragraph is referring to his stats against the non-expansion teams only.

 

[67 others]

One thing I am going to bring up here that might get me flamed is that, as good as Orr was, who else has had the opportunity to play their entire career in a league made up predominantly of recent or current expanaion teams? The first expansion was in 1967. They added:
California
L.A.
Pittsburgh
Philly
St Louis.

The next was in 1970

Buffalo
Vancouver

In 1972

Islanders
Atlanta

1974
Washington
Kansas City

There was never a time in his career where his schedule wasn't loaded with teams he should have dominated. Granted, he did, but I don't think enough is said about how little of the rest of the league were serious competitors. With the exception of Philly none of those teams were very good before Orr left the game.

Edit: this comment is made on relation to the other greats we were referring to in the thread, obv. Everyone in the league was playing vs the same level of competition at the time.

You can always look at how he performed vs the top 4 teams in his conference in the league.

1970-71 he won the Hart and Norris. NYR, Montreal and Toronto were the top 3 teams in the East after the Bruins.

he just against those top 3 teams scored....
9 points in 6 games against the NYR
11 points in 6 games against Montreal
13 points in 6 games against Toronto

33 points in 18 games lol
that' actually better than his season average.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

At this juncture, I'd say your bias to your favorite team is clouding ya if you think I am trolling. Maybe you think you can more easily dismiss arguments by calling me a "Troll"... good luck with that buddy.

And yeah, I've been watching hockey since before Yzerman played in the NHL and I am a member of the SIHR and we discuss and have guest speakers for all sorts of things. Former wings GM Jimmy Devellano has spoken at SIHR meets as a guest speaker many times.

Some of the things Devellano spoke of would probably annoy you. Clearly this one regarding how some style's were not as effective prior to goalie pads inflating does.

His take on Yzerman's lack of a 200 foot game pre-Bowman would probably make you grind your teeth too if you are one of those who argues "he was always good defensively". He wasn't.

But he was just the wings GM. What would he know?

But let's make this easy.

Whose fault is this goal?
MacDonald? or Lidstrom?

Just for bonus fun, who gets the blame for this giveaway?

It’s not about my Wings bias. You literally said I was getting emotional over “basic truths.” That kind of bad faith argument isn’t really one I’m interested in engaging with.

Like I said, there’s a case to be made for bourque over Lidstrom but the hill you’re dying on about pad sizes and style of play is as creative as it is insane. Enjoy your fan fiction.

What's even more hilarious than you basing it on a single Umberger goal is that the sole comment from that clip is making the exact argument you did in that thread. So you're either plagiarizing a YT comment (unlikely) or (more likely) have been telling this tale you've constructed to anyone who would listen for some time now.

 

[GMR]

Aki Berg deserves honorable mention.

 

[JackSlater]

And yet Bourque somehow bypassed this voter neglect early in his career. It's fantasy to suggest he burst into the NHL as a teenager fully formed defensively.

Bourque was better earlier, but he also had a clearly weaker group of defencemen to compete against when it came to trophy voting. Trophies are trivia mostly.

 

[lextune]

Bourque was the shutdown guy in those years. He not only won the Norris 5 times he also was runner up 5 times. He knew how to play D and he always played against the best players.

Not only a five time winner, and a five time runner up (one of those runner up seasons was his 21st and final year), Bourque never finished lower than 7th in Norris voting in his entire 21 year career.

 

[Sweetpotato]

Chris Pronger or Larry Robinson

After that it's a mix of Lidstrom, Bourque, Orr, Chara and Potvin in whatever order floats your boat.

 

[pi314]

For me Lidstrom is the clear #1, he just made defending look so damn easy. Almost baffling to watch.

I second this.

I remember a play he made in the ‘08 finals.

Pens player skates up the ice and goes to dump it around the boards.

In one smooth motion, Lidstrom picked the puck out of mid air off the boards and then passed it up to his forward.

Still never seen anything like it.

I’ve seen 1000x players dump it in around the boards.

Only Lidstrom could stop that and turn it into offense.

The perfect defenseman.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Maybe it’s Eddie Shore.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

For me Lidstrom is the clear #1, he just made defending look so damn easy. Almost baffling to watch.

His game wasn't particularly flashy but his consistency shift to shift and game to game was other worldly.

 

[67 others]

It’s not about my Wings bias. You literally said I was getting emotional over “basic truths.” That kind of bad faith argument isn’t really one I’m interested in engaging with.

Like I said, there’s a case to be made for bourque over Lidstrom but the hill you’re dying on about pad sizes and style of play is as creative as it is insane. Enjoy your fan fiction.

I don't consider it any different than saying some 70's and 80's players would need to learn patience, dealing with the sprint of short shifts and how to defend the cycle game and long to short gap control rather than direct attack if playing in the 2000's.

It was just a matter of fact that you had to physically play the man more and close the gap to zero in a hurry because goalies were not covering as much net and gave up snapshot goals that would be stopped in the 2000s because of style and pad changes pretty regularly.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Maybe it’s Eddie Shore.

I don't think Shore (as great as he is) has much of a case. We've done a lot of research on the History forum and have found that Shore wasn't elite defensively at the start of his career. He became great later in his career, but I don't think he's good enough, or consistent enough, to be near the top of this type of list.

 

[67 others]

Bourque was better earlier, but he also had a clearly weaker group of defencemen to compete against when it came to trophy voting. Trophies are trivia mostly.

No love for Potvin, Robinson, Salming, Langway, Coffey, Howe?????

 

[67 others]

Not only a five time winner, and a five time runner up (one of those runner up seasons was his 21st and final year), Bourque never finished lower than 7th in Norris voting in his entire 21 year career.

6 time runner up(and a few of those were robbery as he should have won). Top 4 for the Norris 19 times lol

Aki Berg deserves honorable mention.

And Al Iafrate. Can't forget him

 

[Golden_Jet]

I don't think Shore (as great as he is) has much of a case. We've done a lot of research on the History forum and have found that Shore wasn't elite defensively at the start of his career. He became great later in his career, but I don't think he's good enough, or consistent enough, to be near the top of this type of list.

Ok thanks, make sense, I think he won his hart trophies in his 30’s.

 

[kihei]

Harvey
Robinson
Orr
Horton
Fetisov
Lidstrom
Bourque
Potvin
Stevens
Langway