Lidstrom vs. Harvey for #2 Dman of all time?

[Hardyvan123]

Muhammad Ali would definitely contradict your position as boxing from his era was much more competitive than from today. Tiger Woods also managed to stand out in the more competitive pro golf environment of the 00's.

Team level - Canada's performance at the WJCs during the last 20 - 25 years is a very high level of dominance relative to the competition levels. Detroit making the playoffs annually since 1990-91 and counting surpasses the string put together by any NHL dynasty teams from the O6 era or post expansion era into the early 1990's.That they did not win more SCs raises the following, weak team or weak competition issue. The strong team amongst strong competition question is not really there given the fact that they rarely had elite level goaltending.

Your position is open to some serious questions.

Most people in the history section would make a difference of making the playoffs and winning the cup inn terms of the use of dynasty. Detroit is a dynasty IMO but it's probably a minority opinion.

boxing in the heavyweight division has been a bit of a joke for a long period of time for various reasons and in gold yes Tiger had a level of dominance but I have heard several golf experts recently say that even the peak tiger would not dominate in 2011 like he did at his peak but honestly I don't know enough about golf except to pass on what I have heard.

As for the Nino and Eric Lindros examples you are comparing them against their piers(10-11 and early 90's) not the early 70's NHL I was giving and for the record Lindros was a dominant force in his 1st year in the NHL.

As for man strength versus teenager strength yes i agree but if we are talking about hockey and not Slapshot then the modern few jr teams would be extremely competitive against that Washington example I gave. they simple play a more team game , are defensively responsible and would have more speed than that Washington team and skillwise and strength wise the Washington team would not be able to compensate for those differences as small as they might be IMO.

 

[Hardyvan123]

No dude, talent is still talent and if today's coaching and training allows for players to better fulfill their talent, then Orr would be even better. Medical advances alone would make him a better player for pete's sake.

The level to which he would dominate is the only subjective part, not whether he would or not.
He would still be the best D-man in the league.

You always think I'm picking on you Casey but I'm not (Ok, the Casey thing is picking on you a little bit maybe ).
But you know, it's not that your theories don't have some basis but you always take them too far and blanket everything with it. It's almost like attacking the Russians in winter, you know deep down that it's not going to go well but just because other more notable men have failed in the past, you will accomplish what they couldn't. It seems you just can't help yourself.
Your weaker competition theory only goes so far. For one, if competition was so weak and the league so watered down then why wasn't there an even steeper separation between the top players. Why weren't they all dominating like Orr?
All you have to do is take some of Orr's competition and compare them to what came later. You can go Park, Robinson and Potvin and go right into Bourque and of course Bourque takes you right into today pretty much. I'm sorry but the gap is huge. You know what level those guys were to Orr and you know what level they are to Bourque.
Second, I would easily consider Potvin, Park, Robinson and Salming at the very least equal to if not better, not to mention by far more consistent than anyone Lidstrom has faced for his Norris's.

To the bolded part 1st, scoring in general went up after the 6-12 team expansion and we have numbers for various players to prove that. Of course the best player of that era is going to have the best numbers or best level of dominance. We have no argument on who the best player of that era was.

as for medical advances it would have prolonged Orr's career and his peak, not sure how it would have made him better unless the longer career is what you are getting at.

Also I do think that good players get better against better competition but how much better can a top level guy from that era, place Orr, Lafleur here could they really get? I think the increase would be small and the increased competition would erase all of it and then some.

Maybe as the devil has it says that after 30-40 years of not seeing another type of domination that Orr and Wayne and Mario had (to a degree) then some will look at the context of when guys played differently. but there is no doubt that some, even a majority will look at stats and guys against their piers and not take context into proper consideration.

 

[Rhiessan71]

To the bolded part 1st, scoring in general went up after the 6-12 team expansion and we have numbers for various players to prove that. Of course the best player of that era is going to have the best numbers or best level of dominance. We have no argument on who the best player of that era was.

as for medical advances it would have prolonged Orr's career and his peak, not sure how it would have made him better unless the longer career is what you are getting at.

Also I do think that good players get better against better competition but how much better can a top level guy from that era, place Orr, Lafleur here could they really get? I think the increase would be small and the increased competition would erase all of it and then some.

Maybe as the devil has it says that after 30-40 years of not seeing another type of domination that Orr and Wayne and Mario had (to a degree) then some will look at the context of when guys played differently. but there is no doubt that some, even a majority will look at stats and guys against their piers and not take context into proper consideration.

Well first off, Orr's knee issues were serious long before he retired and he had, by today's standards, a butcher job done on his one knee at age 20 in 1968. His other knee was already in bad shape by '72.
Either way, Orr skating on 2 good knee's through his prime would of made him even better period. There is no doubt on that.
It's not just about longevity.

Again about competition, I could almost understand your view on the top players if we were talking about a forward but we're not.
We're talking about a D-man blowing all other star forwards away. Just to be that far in front of everyone else as forward is pretty impressive but to do it as a d-man....that's just plain ridiculous.

Again though I notice you make no point to counter the era to era, player to player argument.
There is still no way to explain how the gap between Orr vs Park, Potvin, Robinson and Salming was so huge and yet the gap between them and Bourque (the best d-man, along with Lidstrom, in the last 30 years) is so small.

I'm sorry but at the end of the day your theories fall apart on both of these points.
Orr really was just THAT good.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Distinctions

Most people in the history section would make a difference of making the playoffs and winning the cup inn terms of the use of dynasty. Detroit is a dynasty IMO but it's probably a minority opinion.

boxing in the heavyweight division has been a bit of a joke for a long period of time for various reasons and in gold yes Tiger had a level of dominance but I have heard several golf experts recently say that even the peak tiger would not dominate in 2011 like he did at his peak but honestly I don't know enough about golf except to pass on what I have heard.

As for the Nino and Eric Lindros examples you are comparing them against their piers(10-11 and early 90's) not the early 70's NHL I was giving and for the record Lindros was a dominant force in his 1st year in the NHL.

As for man strength versus teenager strength yes i agree but if we are talking about hockey and not Slapshot then the modern few jr teams would be extremely competitive against that Washington example I gave. they simple play a more team game , are defensively responsible and would have more speed than that Washington team and skillwise and strength wise the Washington team would not be able to compensate for those differences as small as they might be IMO.

You have to make the playoffs to have a chance at winning the cup. Dynasty teams regardless of the definition usually cycle down regardless of era and unless the competition is weak will fall out of the playoffs when age and attrition catches up.

Lindros was not a dominant force his first year - he put up impressive numbers but used to get bounced around like a kid by the big defensemen - Langway, Stevens, Cote, Hatcher, Daneyko so the dominant part was not there. Again the Flyers did not make the playoffs his first two years. This is true for most 18-19 year olds out of junior regardless of era. Hull, Mahovlich, Orr, Lemieux, Crosby, they are just not ready physically to play against men when they are 18-19. No one played slapshot hockey against these players and they were not able to lead NHL teams with NHL players to a playoff spot.

The mental and physical edge would always be with the pros and not the juniors and that would be before we look at the accumulated hockey experience. Watch some of the summer scrimmages in your area to see the difference especially goalies and defensemen. Usually you will have a few juniors skating with the pros and the difference in strength should be apparent.

Even a bad Washington team had a core of 6-8 players who culd play at the NHL level on championship teams. Your typical junior team doues not have such a core.Your typical 20 year olds are back in junior simply because they cannot compete at the AHL/ECHL levels against men.Your drafted 19 year olds are not NHL ready, otherwise they would be in the NHL. Your undrafted 19 year olds are your future 20 year olds. Your draft eligibles unless exceptional are a few years away from the NHL. Your 16-17 year olds are kids. Don't expect such a collection to compete with men.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Well first off, Orr's knee issues were serious long before he retired and he had, by today's standards, a butcher job done on his one knee at age 20 in 1968. His other knee was already in bad shape by '72.
Either way, Orr skating on 2 good knee's through his prime would of made him even better period. There is no doubt on that.
It's not just about longevity.

Again about competition, I could almost understand your view on the top players if we were talking about a forward but we're not.
We're talking about a D-man blowing all other star forwards away. Just to be that far in front of everyone else as forward is pretty impressive but to do it as a d-man....that's just plain ridiculous.

Again though I notice you make no point to counter the era to era, player to player argument.
There is still no way to explain how the gap between Orr vs Park, Potvin, Robinson and Salming was so huge and yet the gap between them and Bourque (the best d-man, along with Lidstrom, in the last 30 years) is so small.

I'm sorry but at the end of the day your theories fall apart on both of these points.
Orr really was just THAT good.

Potvin was probably the best offensively minded for the Dmen in those times and unfortunately he wasn't eh same after 80 when he scored at a very high PPG rate.

that was 79-80 though not 74 and before so it's not a direct comp, players were coming back from the WHA and even trickling in from Europe at US colleges at this point.

The fact is that for all the talk about other Defensemen being weak for Lidstrom (in Norris voting), they were alot more weak for Orr, not that I buy into that argument anyways.

Orr also played more as a Rover, and almost no Dmen are allowed by their coaches to play that way now except maybe Green but we can see where that got Washington, and had the green light to go any time he wanted and played in a perfect storm situation in Boston, not diminishing him but that does account for some of the extra offense or points. Kinda like Coffey in Edmonton versus Pittsburgh and other teams.

There isn't a gap between Bourque and Lidstrom offensively in Nik's favor its the totality of his defense and the longevity of his career and his slightly below Bourque's level of offense that has him in the mix for number 1. defensively his defense is number 1 of all time in my books.

As for orr's knees guys can't have it both ways if his knees were so bad in 68 and 72 then why did he dominate more after that? Maybe the quality of the league was even worse than I thought.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Potvin was probably the best offensively minded for the Dmen in those times and unfortunately he wasn't eh same after 80 when he scored at a very high PPG rate.

that was 79-80 though not 74 and before so it's not a direct comp, the fact is that for all the talk about other Defensemen being weak for Lidstrom, they were alot more weaker fro Orr, not that I buy into that argument anyways.

Orr also played more as a rover and had the green light to go any time he wanted and played in a perfect storm situation in Boston, not diminishing him but that does account for some of the extra offense or points. Kinda like Coffey in Edmonton versus Pittsburgh and other teams.

There isn't a gap between Bourque and Lidstrom offensively in nik's favor its the totality of his defense and the longevity of his career and his slightly below Bourque's level of offense that has him in the mix for number 1. defensively his defense is number 1 of all time in my books.

As for orr's knees guys can't have it both ways if his knees were so bad in 68 and 72 then why did he dominate more after that? Maybe the quality of the league was even worse than I thought.

Absolutely love how you have no issue citing Orr for a strong team and perfect storm situation yet refuse to acknowledge the same for Lidstrom. Funny.

Also, you know that citing Lidstrom's logevity vs Bourque doesn't work very well eh. It would take Lidstrom another 2 seasons to catch Bourque

Why only mention Potvin? What about Park, Robinson and Salming?
Still better and if not better, they are at least far, far more consistent competition than what Lidstrom has seen in the last dozen years.
Sorry but these comparisons are more than valid my friend. Cherry picking just one of them is not going to make your case.

Potvin, Park and Robinson are all arguably in the top 10 D-men of all time with Salming in the top 15 or so.
Name one, just one top 10 D-man that Lidstrom has taken the Norris from other than a long past their prime Bourque or Chelios?

 

[Hardyvan123]

You have to make the playoffs to have a chance at winning the cup. Dynasty teams regardless of the definition usually cycle down regardless of era and unless the competition is weak will fall out of the playoffs when age and attrition catches up.

Lindros was not a dominant force his first year - he put up impressive numbers but used to get bounced around like a kid by the big defensemen - Langway, Stevens, Cote, Hatcher, Daneyko so the dominant part was not there. Again the Flyers did not make the playoffs his first two years. This is true for most 18-19 year olds out of junior regardless of era. Hull, Mahovlich, Orr, Lemieux, Crosby, they are just not ready physically to play against men when they are 18-19. No one played slapshot hockey against these players and they were not able to lead NHL teams with NHL players to a playoff spot.

The mental and physical edge would always be with the pros and not the juniors and that would be before we look at the accumulated hockey experience. Watch some of the summer scrimmages in your area to see the difference especially goalies and defensemen. Usually you will have a few juniors skating with the pros and the difference in strength should be apparent.

Even a bad Washington team had a core of 6-8 players who culd play at the NHL level on championship teams. Your typical junior team doues not have such a core.Your typical 20 year olds are back in junior simply because they cannot compete at the AHL/ECHL levels against men.Your drafted 19 year olds are not NHL ready, otherwise they would be in the NHL. Your undrafted 19 year olds are your future 20 year olds. Your draft eligibles unless exceptional are a few years away from the NHL. Your 16-17 year olds are kids. Don't expect such a collection to compete with men.

Lindros dished it out as much as he got that 1st year and was 26th in PPG, which includes a 1,1 and 13 game Neely and 39 game Sandstrom but was easily one of the top 15 players in the league when you consider his overall game that year.

And once again I am not talking about jr player in 93or today against current NHL's, I'm talking about the weakest team 35 years ago.

It seems by the nature of your responses that you are either ignoring the intent om comp or don't understand it.

I'm trying to show an example of how much the NHL has changed since then. Pound for pound and height for height up and down the lineup the Portland team or Giants team I gave in the example isn't giving up very much to those Washington players and that's before we put in the speed and team systems.

 

[The Perfect Human*]

Is Nick Lidstrom a Top-10 player of all time?

I'm struggling to come up with 10 players for whom after looking at the body of their careers, their accomplishments, awards, and "greatness" I can put past Lidstrom. Here's what I've got so far:

1) Gretzky
2) Orr
3) Lemieux
4) Howe
5) M. Richard
6) Bobby Hull

I don't know who else to put up there. Names like Harvey, Beliveau, Lafleur, and Mikita all deserve some consideration, but I don't know if their careers on a whole match Lidstrom's.

7 Norris Trophies (and counting)
4 Stanley Cups
1 Conn Smythe Trophy
1 Olympic Gold Medal

 

[The Winter Soldier]

I know Lidstrom is revered in some circles and I know people love that Norris Trophy argument, but I would say Scott Niedermayer was better than him and he only won 1 Norris. Perhaps it was NJ's systems that didn't allow him to better showcase his outstanding talents but there is no question if I were starting a team, I would go with Scotty, no one has a championship trophy case like this man. Won more often on every level in hockey than any player I can think of and who could forget the Olympics, anytime he stepped on the ice he was the best player. What more can you say.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Lidstrom was 17th on the HOH Top 100 in 2009 and since that time he has won another Norris trophy, 2 - 2nd team all stars and a 1st team all star.

He also topped 1000 points as a defenseman and went to the finals an additional time.

The problem is that virtually every player ahead of him is also a legendary player so they are hard to knock down from their perch.

I think it would make for an interesting debate for sure. It is hard to move up but he packed a lot into those extra three years too.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I know Lidstrom is revered in some circles and I know people love that Norris Trophy argument, but I would say Scott Niedermayer was better than him and he only won 1 Norris. Perhaps it was NJ's systems that didn't allow him to better showcase his outstanding talents but there is no question if I were starting a team, I would go with Scotty, no one has a championship trophy case like this man. Won more often on every level in hockey than any player I can think of and who could forget the Olympics, anytime he stepped on the ice he was the best player. What more can you say.

Last I checked, Lidstrom won a thing or two as well...

Scott Niedermayer has become the most overrated player of all-time, and that's unfortunate. Instead of debating his greatness versus that of comparable greats and portraying him in a good light, we have to drag him through the mud to show how absolutely ridiculous comparisons to Lidstrom and other top-10 all time d-men are.

 

[Famous Flames]

IMO Lidstrom is a top 10 player ... best player of his generation

 

[BluelineHammer]

I'm not that up on pre-80's hockey, but under the criteria that you listed, you somehow have to fit Messier on that list, as well as add Roy and Brodeur to the debate over the remaining spots (along with whoever I missed that would qualify pre-80's)

Messier: (#2 all time points, #7 all time goals, #3 all time assists)
6 Stanley Cups
2 Hart (Not easy considering he went up against Gretz and Lemieux all those years)
1 Conn Smythe
2 Pearson


Brodeur:
3 Stanley Cups
5 Jennings
4 Vezina
2 Olympic Gold


Roy:
4 Stanley Cups
3 Conn Smythe
5 Jennings
3 Vezina

I'm totally comfortable with Lidstrom as the #2 D-man of all time, and I would find a spot for him on that top 10 list.

 

[BraveCanadian]

You guys need to look at this:

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=669817

Lidstrom makes a good case the past three seasons for moving up, but that said, virtually every player in front of him is a fellow icon of the game.

 

[Epsilon]

I know Lidstrom is revered in some circles and I know people love that Norris Trophy argument, but I would say Scott Niedermayer was better than him and he only won 1 Norris. Perhaps it was NJ's systems that didn't allow him to better showcase his outstanding talents but there is no question if I were starting a team, I would go with Scotty, no one has a championship trophy case like this man. Won more often on every level in hockey than any player I can think of and who could forget the Olympics, anytime he stepped on the ice he was the best player. What more can you say.

Good lord.

The degree to which some people overstate the impact of Niedermayer having "won at every level" (some of which, such as the Memorial Cup, are practically irrelevant, and others are highly dependent on the fact that in international competitions he always got to play for by far the deepest team - Canada) is just mind boggling. It's actually one of the more trivial accomplishments out there that gets passed off as something significant, similar in that respect to Nieuwendyk's "3 Stanley Cups on 3 different teams".

 

[Epsilon]

Last I checked, Lidstrom won a thing or two as well...

Scott Niedermayer has become the most overrated player of all-time, and that's unfortunate. Instead of debating his greatness versus that of comparable greats and portraying him in a good light, we have to drag him through the mud to show how absolutely ridiculous comparisons to Lidstrom and other top-10 all time d-men are.

Agree with this post (other than Niedermayer being the most overrated of all-time; he's definite in the top 10 or so though in that regard). Some great players have gotten such an overblown reputation (especially among casual fans, or that player's fanboys) that it starts to sound like everyone is ripping on them, when in fact it's just a case of putting them back in their correct place in the pecking order.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Lidstrom was 17th on the HOH Top 100 in 2009 and since that time he has won another Norris trophy, 2 - 2nd team all stars and a 1st team all star.

He also topped 1000 points as a defenseman and went to the finals an additional time.

The problem is that virtually every player ahead of him is also a legendary player so they are hard to knock down from their perch.

I think it would make for an interesting debate for sure. It is hard to move up but he packed a lot into those extra three years too.

He makes my top 10 but to be fair I have a really hard time mixing in forwards, Dmen and Goalies, nevermind players that I have never seen play, and feel much more comfortable with 3 separate rankings and Lidstrom is in the mix for #1 overall on the back end for me.

 

[Barrie22]

Grets, lemiuex, orr, the rocket, roy, brodeur, bourque, messier, hull, howe. Nope not top 10. I am not saying those are actually my top 10, just who I think are ahead of lidstrom.

 

[Rhiessan71]

He makes my top 10 but to be fair I have a really hard time mixing in forwards, Dmen and Goalies, nevermind players that I have never seen play, and feel much more comfortable with 3 separate rankings and Lidstrom is in the mix for #1 overall on the back end for me.

Just to put this in perspective...

Pretty much everyone and their mother has Orr slotted in the top 3 of all-time, all positions included.
Most people would have Bourque in the top 10 ahead of Lidstrom.

Yet you have Lidstrom up for #1 D-man of all-time?

Not causing a ruckus here or anything, just getting this straight. Completely entitled to your opinion.

I know one thing though, I would be greatly interested in seeing your top 15-20 all-time list. I even promise I won't say a word about it or post any smilies either.

 

[Noldo]

Lidstrom was 17th on the HOH Top 100 in 2009 and since that time he has won another Norris trophy, 2 - 2nd team all stars and a 1st team all star.

He also topped 1000 points as a defenseman and went to the finals an additional time.

The problem is that virtually every player ahead of him is also a legendary player so they are hard to knock down from their perch.

I think it would make for an interesting debate for sure. It is hard to move up but he packed a lot into those extra three years too.

In the HOH Top 100 List Lidström was ranked as fifth best defenceman (Kelly's accomplishments include also his career as forward), the four players above him being:
Orr (2nd overall)
Harvey (6th)
Shore (8th)
Bourque (10th)

Practically any debate in favor of Lidström being top-10 of all players historically would require that his accomplishments would have propelled him to be at least 3rd or 4th best defenceman of all time - either surpassing Bouque or necessitating re-valuation of (most likely) Shore's career achievements, placing Shore below both Bourque and Lidström (which at least in my opinion are very close comparables).

 

[Hardyvan123]

Just to put this in perspective...

Pretty much everyone and their mother has Orr slotted in the top 3 of all-time, all positions included.
Most people would have Bourque in the top 10 ahead of Lidstrom.

Yet you have Lidstrom up for #1 D-man of all-time?

Not causing a ruckus here or anything, just getting this straight. Completely entitled to your opinion.

I know one thing though, I would be greatly interested in seeing your top 15-20 all-time list. I even promise I won't say a word about it or post any smilies either.

I'll have to make that top 15-20 list sometime but I will probably start with a top 25 list since 1970 (guys who played up until then) since i honestly have a hard time slotting guys like shore who I never saw play and the guys before him are even harder with the quality of reporting and records in terms of tape to watch and the rest of it makes it virtually impossible.

I'm also more of a longevity guy than pure peak so I will put that into my criteria and remarks on the matter as well.

Comments are welcome when I do it because we are here for discussion after all.

I have a week of holidays in late August so maybe I will have it done by then.

Lidstrom, Orr, Bourque, Potvin, Robinson, MacInnis are 6 Dmen that definitely make the post 1967 top 25 list.

Edit Chelios also makes that list.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

In the HOH Top 100 List Lidström was ranked as fifth best defenceman (Kelly's accomplishments include also his career as forward), the four players above him being:
Orr (2nd overall)
Harvey (6th)
Shore (8th)
Bourque (10th)

Practically any debate in favor of Lidström being top-10 of all players historically would require that his accomplishments would have propelled him to be at least 3rd or 4th best defenceman of all time - either surpassing Bouque or necessitating re-valuation of (most likely) Shore's career achievements, placing Shore below both Bourque and Lidström (which at least in my opinion are very close comparables).

That's the same as my list. However, I could totally accept Shore being placed below Bourque, and maybe Lidstrom ahead of him (Shore). I could not, personally, put Lidstrom ahead of Bourque though. Absolutely no way.

 

[livewell68]

Better career: Lidstrom vs Bourque

Who is better and who had the better career overall?

Can someone please delete this? I meant to make a Poll for this.

 

[weaponomega]

Bourque is my favorite player of all time. However, Lidstrom has had the better career. 7 Norris trophies to Bourques 5, a Conn Smythe and 4 Stanley cups. An amazing career.

However, Bourque is still the better player.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Oh boy, here we go again.


I go back and forth on who is the better individual player.

Lidstrom definitely has the better career resume.