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

[molsonmuscle360]

I think Bourque probably had the better career since he was playing against some of the best players and d-men the league has ever seen. Lidstrom wouldn't have won nearly as many Norris' against that competition. But if I were coaching a young defenseman, I would probably show him a lot more tape of Lidstroms style of play.

 

[habsjunkie2*]

I would say I favored Bourque's game and still think he's the better player, but, depending on the voting criteria, I might have to vote Lidstrom. He has had the more overwhelming career and it's not all that close.

 

[habsjunkie2*]

I think Bourque probably had the better career since he was playing against some of the best players and d-men the league has ever seen. Lidstrom wouldn't have won nearly as many Norris' against that competition. But if I were coaching a young defenseman, I would probably show him a lot more tape of Lidstroms style of play.

7norris to 5
4cups to 1.

Even those who favour Bourque like myself would have a very difficult time arguing Bourque had the better career. It's simply not true. You're gonna need a little bit more than weaker competition arguments to discredit 4 cups and 7 norris trophies.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Lidstrom had by far the better teams and the weaker competition so he had the better career and received more hardware.

Bourque was the better player though.


(Did anyone truly expect me to state anything different )

 

[Infinite Vision*]

I don't really think you need any of the "weak competition" argument to make a case that Bourque was the better player throughout his career, prime, and especially peak.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Bourque should have a Hart trophy and Lidstrom has not been nominated. Not because of his team either, but because he has never been a top 3 player any given year. I actually think his chances of a Hart would be worse on worse teams, because his stats themselves would lead him to be seen as worse than he is now anyway.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Bourque should have a Hart trophy and Lidstrom has not been nominated. Not because of his team either, but because he has never been a top 3 player any given year. I actually think his chances of a Hart would be worse on worse teams, because his stats themselves would lead him to be seen as worse than he is now anyway.

Here is a pop quiz for you.. do you know how many defensemen finalists there have been for the Hart during Lidstrom's career?

 

[Rexor]

I don't want to offend anyone, but frankly, I think Lidström, as well as many other Red Wings/Swedish players, gets rather overrated around these boards.

The main problem I have with his proposed "Top 10 All-time" status is that he has never had a truly dominant season. Think Pronger in '99-00. And how about Jágr and Hašek, two other players from his generation? (Unlike so many people around here, I don't happen to be an expert on players who fought in WWII.) Their longevity is not worse and they had much more dominant peaks. Where would they rank if Lidström is being put in the top 10?

 

[The Winter Soldier]

I don't want to offend anyone, but frankly, I think Lidström, as well as many other Red Wings/Swedish players, gets rather overrated around these boards.

The main problem I have with his proposed "Top 10 All-time" status is that he has never had a truly dominant season. Think Pronger in '99-00. And how about Jágr and Hašek, two other players from his generation? (Unlike so many people around here, I don't happen to be an expert on players who fought in WWII.) Their longevity is not worse and they had much more dominant peaks. Where would they rank if Lidström is being put in the top 10?

Alot of people love longevity, points totals, and trophy's. I have seen Robinson, Bourque, Park, Potvin, and Neidermayer play and in his peak Lidstrom wasn't as dominant as any of them. Statswise Lidstrom is a good debating point, what he has done there would be hard to match by any d man, PP is part of hockey and he milked that part good. But he was not as dominant as the defencemen mentioned above from what I saw in 3 + decades of watching hockey. However I do commend his longevity but he is overrated on these forums.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I don't want to offend anyone, but frankly, I think Lidström, as well as many other Red Wings/Swedish players, gets rather overrated around these boards.

The main problem I have with his proposed "Top 10 All-time" status is that he has never had a truly dominant season. Think Pronger in '99-00. And how about Jágr and Hašek, two other players from his generation? (Unlike so many people around here, I don't happen to be an expert on players who fought in WWII.) Their longevity is not worse and they had much more dominant peaks. Where would they rank if Lidström is being put in the top 10?

Unfortunately the reality is we're really not talking about 10 spots here.
We're only really talking about 4 spots. The top 6 spots are taken and that aint going to be changing in the next few years or maybe not even the next few decades.

First off for me, I have Hasek, Harvey, Roy and Bourque all ahead of Lidstrom.

Maybe a case can be made to drop Shore out of the top 10, I said maybe but you still have Beliveau amongst others to deal with.

The very best I can put Lidstrom at is 14th and that's pushing Shore, Mikita and Morenz out.
And I'm not very comfortable pushing Morenz out so more likely, Lidstrom ends at 15th for me.

Do the same yourself....
Wayne Gretzky
Bobby Orr
Gordie Howe
Mario Lemieux
Bobby Hull
Doug Harvey
Jean Beliveau
Eddie Shore
Maurice Richard
Raymond Bourque
Howie Morenz
Dominik Hasek
Jacques Plante
Patrick Roy
Stan Mikita
Leonard "Red" Kelly

For Lidstrom to make the top 10 you need to find 7 players in that list that you consider Lidstrom ahead of....sorry, I can't even come close to doing that.

It's really hard, I mean I don't have an issue moving Lidstrom ahead of Kelly when doing the all-time D-man list because of of Kelly's time at forward but for overall, that doesn't matter now and Lidstrom falls short to him now imo.
Can you honestly put Lidstrom or even Bourque for that matter ahead of Hasek and Roy...I can't.


People are always saying how Lidstrom shouldn't be held back because he didn't have a large peek but in a list like this, without that big peek, you simply just don't belong. Sorry, that's just the honest truth of it.

 

[norrisnick]

Alot of people love longevity, points totals, and trophy's. I have seen Robinson, Bourque, Park, Potvin, and Neidermayer play and in his peak Lidstrom wasn't as dominant as any of them. Statswise Lidstrom is a good debating point, what he has done there would be hard to match by any d man, PP is part of hockey and he milked that part good. But he was not as dominant as the defencemen mentioned above from what I saw in 3 + decades of watching hockey. However I do commend his longevity but he is overrated on these forums.

The true problem is that people still don't realize how mind-bogglingly good Lidstrom was in his prime. He was for all intents and purposes perfect. Played every game, played half of every game, neutralized the oppositions' best forwards, jump started the Wings' offensive attack, ran the PP, killed penalties, out when trailing, out when leading, barely ever in the box, very very rarely made a mistake, etc...

And the kicker on top of all that is that Lidstrom's dominance really only showed if you were actively looking for it. He never did anything to draw attention or stand out. He just played his position perfectly for two decades. And even then it didn't really manifest until you realize he does it shift in shift out, game in game out, year in year out.

The players you listed played in a style that made you notice him. Lidstrom played in a style that kept himself and the forwards on the other side, very quiet.

 

[Rhiessan71]

The true problem is that people still don't realize how mind-bogglingly good Lidstrom was in his prime. He was for all intents and purposes perfect. Played every game, played half of every game, neutralized the oppositions' best forwards, jump started the Wings' offensive attack, ran the PP, killed penalties, out when trailing, out when leading, barely ever in the box, very very rarely made a mistake, etc...

And the kicker on top of all that is that Lidstrom's dominance really only showed if you were actively looking for it. He never did anything to draw attention or stand out. He just played his position perfectly for two decades. And even then it didn't really manifest until you realize he does it shift in shift out, game in game out, year in year out.

The players you listed played in a style that made you notice him. Lidstrom played in a style that kept himself and the forwards on the other side, very quiet.

Right but we're not talking about how Lidstrom stacked up to the rest of the league in 1996 now.
We're talking about how he stacks up to the top 15-20 players that ever played the game.
These are also players that dominated the league and while maybe not all for quite as long as Lidstrom and for more actually, most of them dominated to a much greater degree when they did.

 

[RECsGuy*]

Re: Lidstrom's detractors, it's a shame the Swede wasn't more physical and didn't have worse teammates (or did he play a big part in making them look good? ;-) ), because there's nothing else to criticize him for.

For a DEFENSEMAN to produce/succeed the way Nicklas has WITHOUT being known for the physicality/natural gifts associated with the other greats goes to show how out of this world his hockey IQ is, and that is infinitely more impressive than having Orr's stickhandling ability, Coffey's speed, Potvin's toughness, etc.

It's OK, though, b/c his legend will grow with each passing year of his forthcoming retirement.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Right but we're not talking about how Lidstrom stacked up to the rest of the league in 1996 now.
We're talking about how he stacks up to the top 15-20 players that ever played the game.
These are also players that dominated the league and while maybe not all for quite as long as Lidstrom and for more actually, most of them dominated to a much greater degree when they did.

Exactly. Even when you said you'd put him ahead of Shore, I bristled at the thought that consistent Norrises could overshadow consistent Harts.

 

[tarheelhockey]

For a DEFENSEMAN to produce/succeed the way Nicklas has WITHOUT being known for the physicality/natural gifts associated with the other greats goes to show how out of this world his hockey IQ is, and that is infinitely more impressive than having Orr's stickhandling ability, Coffey's speed, Potvin's toughness, etc.

Why is that more impressive? Hockey is an athletic activity; the purpose of ranking players is to compare their athletic performance. Intelligence is only one element of that performance.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Re: Lidstrom's detractors, it's a shame the Swede wasn't more physical and didn't have worse teammates (or did he play a big part in making them look good? ;-) ), because there's nothing else to criticize him for.

For a DEFENSEMAN to produce/succeed the way Nicklas has WITHOUT being known for the physicality/natural gifts associated with the other greats goes to show how out of this world his hockey IQ is, and that is infinitely more impressive than having Orr's stickhandling ability, Coffey's speed, Potvin's toughness, etc.

It's OK, though, b/c his legend will grow with each passing year of his forthcoming retirement.

Who the F is criticizing him???
By placing him the top 15 or so OF THE GREATEST PLAYERS TO EVER PLAY THE GAME we are doing anything but criticizing him.
Give your freakin head a shake man.
So what if most people can't place him in the top 10, he does get the consideration for it. Where is the damned insult here???
Seriously, ridiculous way to look at it.

...and dude...c'mon, Orr was about a hell of a lot more than just stickhandleing.
You mention hockey IQ and I'm sorry but both Gretzky and Orr were ahead of Lidstrom there.

 

[CarlWinslow]

Re: Lidstrom's detractors, it's a shame the Swede wasn't more physical and didn't have worse teammates (or did he play a big part in making them look good? ;-) ), because there's nothing else to criticize him for.

For a DEFENSEMAN to produce/succeed the way Nicklas has WITHOUT being known for the physicality/natural gifts associated with the other greats goes to show how out of this world his hockey IQ is, and that is infinitely more impressive than having Orr's stickhandling ability, Coffey's speed, Potvin's toughness, etc.

It's OK, though, b/c his legend will grow with each passing year of his forthcoming retirement.

Bobby Orr was all stickhandling ability?

 

[CarlWinslow]

The true problem is that people still don't realize how mind-bogglingly good Lidstrom was in his prime. He was for all intents and purposes perfect. Played every game, played half of every game, neutralized the oppositions' best forwards, jump started the Wings' offensive attack, ran the PP, killed penalties, out when trailing, out when leading, barely ever in the box, very very rarely made a mistake, etc...

And the kicker on top of all that is that Lidstrom's dominance really only showed if you were actively looking for it. He never did anything to draw attention or stand out. He just played his position perfectly for two decades. And even then it didn't really manifest until you realize he does it shift in shift out, game in game out, year in year out.

The players you listed played in a style that made you notice him. Lidstrom played in a style that kept himself and the forwards on the other side, very quiet.

See, and this is an illustration how you are off base IMO. We all understand how Lidstrom's game is subtle but great. I don't think anyone is selling him short in the sense that you spoke of.

I think we just watch the other guys we are placing on this list and come away more impressed. I get that Lidstrom has unreal hockey IQ. So did Orr, Bourque, Shore, Harvey etc. though.

 

[Reds4Life]

He's not top10. He is top 3 European player, but not top10 overall.

 

[RECsGuy*]

Bobby Orr was all stickhandling ability?

You and Rhiessan71 get a cyber punch in the neck. Where did i say that was all Orr was good at? Am I also insinuating Potvin was only tough? I pointed out a particularly impressive ability for 3 randoim legends as part of a larger argument. Try not to go an a tangent.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Pull back on the throttle, everyone.

 

[norrisnick]

See, and this is an illustration how you are off base IMO. We all understand how Lidstrom's game is subtle but great. I don't think anyone is selling him short in the sense that you spoke of.

I think we just watch the other guys we are placing on this list and come away more impressed. I get that Lidstrom has unreal hockey IQ. So did Orr, Bourque, Shore, Harvey etc. though.

Again... that's pretty much the point I'm trying to make. The other players are more visually impressive. That doesn't make them better or more dominant, IMO. Lidstrom's peak is very underrated. Especially around these parts where everyone is so quick to say, "Oh yes, Lidstrom was great for a long period of time but so and so was better at their peak." I disagree. Lidstrom's peak stacks up with any defenseman short of Orr you want to put up for debate. He was that good.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

I for one am not sure I'd rank Lidstrom ahead of Jagr and Jagr doesn't seem to be on a lot of top 10 lists.

I feel there might be on some people's part too much of an urge to have a certain number of D-men near the top and thus a tendency to elevate D-men a bit beyond what is their fair ranking.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

He honestly shouldn't be in the top 20. I think it's kind of odd that this question is even being asked. If it was based on pure prime, he wouldn't make the top 50 I bet.

 

[Rhiessan71]

He honestly shouldn't be in the top 20. I think it's kind of odd that this question is even being asked. If it was based on pure prime, he wouldn't make the top 50 I bet.

A valid point really. Some people don't even have Lidstrom ahead of Yzerman as the #2 Red Wing of all time.