Lidstrom Vs. Potvin

[Maupin Fan]

But steroid use for pitchers is not comparable.

Hitters hit the ball much farther due to steroids. They also improve hand to eye coordination. Pitchers didn't throw much harder or increase the break on their pitches. The steroids simply helped them to recover from injury and improved their stamina. Roger Clemmens benefitted from steroids by being able to be in peak condition again at an older age. They didn't affect is actual pitching performance.

Though if Bonds had his same career drug free, there would at least be an argument for him being the greatest baseball player ever. Not a great one, but he would be the only one close to the Babe.

I'll take Ty Cobb over either Bonds.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Lidstrom was no.1 defenseman on all those Cup teams. When Lidstrom entered league there was still clear bias against European players, it took shutting down the biggest and best Canadian in the league in Eric Lindros to get Lidstrom SOME recognition. He had around 60 points and elite defense ever since he entered the league.
The Cup winning team in 08 featured no HHOF defensemen save for Lidstrom and Chelios, who played few minutes a game and did not even play all games ( I think he played 0 games in the finals).

And it is not like Potvin had Bossy or Trottier or Smith or Goring (without whom Isles won squat) on all those Cup teams, right?

Lidstrom was (and still is) THE defensive foundation of the Red Wings for his entire career.

Lidstrom was getting proper recognition from the day he entered the league. He merely did not develop into the same player he later became. Even in 1997, he was not the same Lidstrom as he was in 2000. People have this mistaken idea that Lidstrom was as good defensively or offensively early in his career as he was later. He wasn't. He was one of my favorite players from the get go, and I watched him develop from the moment he stepped into the league. The only thing he did not get proper recognition for in his first 6 years or so was the Calder trophy.

And Potvin was the defensive foundation for all of those Isles teams, and their #1 defenseman on that Dynasty for all of their cups.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Yeah but lidstrom is kinda lucky that Potvin kept getting injured. I mean if Denis Potvin played the full 1980 season and scored 106 points like he was on pace too, it would be really hard to argue Lidstrom is better. Hell, in 1982 and 1983 Potvin probably gets all star team selections if he didnt miss 20 games.

why is Lidstrom lucky for not getting injured. and ya sure if Potvin had never been injured in his 15 year career I would put him ahead of Lidstrom, but he did get injured and wasn't the same offense force that he was before even in a higher scoring era. (early 80's)

 

[Hardyvan123]

Correct about Bonds. Though he was a HOFer (3 time MVP) before the drug use, he wasn't going to be considered the best ever without his late career "awakening". Funny thing is, baseball may be the only sport that had its greatest player come from its earliest years. Hard to top the Babe, especially when you consider he was a premier pitcher before he tore the league apart offensively.

Manning's questionable too, for the reasons you stated. I would think a case could be made for many QBs as best ever (Unitas, Marino, Montana, Tarkenton, Fouts, Baugh, Elway,etc.)

Hasek's the best to me also.

Jordon was indeed the best.

The babe was not the best as he never played with any of the negro all stars. It would be the equivalent today of NA players only playing in the NHL without anyone from Europe.

the babe was the best home run hotter of his day and one of the best white players but his throne as the best of all time needs to have a huge asterisk beside it IMO.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Take the baseball talk to the baseball forum.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Lidstrom was getting proper recognition from the day he entered the league. He merely did not develop into the same player he later became. Even in 1997, he was not the same Lidstrom as he was in 2000. People have this mistaken idea that Lidstrom was as good defensively or offensively early in his career as he was later. He wasn't. He was one of my favorite players from the get go, and I watched him develop from the moment he stepped into the league. The only thing he did not get proper recognition for in his first 6 years or so was the Calder trophy.

And Potvin was the defensive foundation for all of those Isles teams, and their #1 defenseman on that Dynasty for all of their cups.

In 97 Lidstrom was a damn fine Dman and the rock on D for that cup win. He admittedly didn't have the great start to his career that Potvin did but his longevity and durability while playing at an extremely high level is unmatched on the back end in NHL history period.

There are also 2 sides to every coin, Potvin was able to be the star on his team early on due to the lack of talent on the Islanders at that time. We should not give undue credit or take away credit from players due to their respective situations and circumstances on their teams.

 

[Reds4Life]

Lidstrom was getting proper recognition from the day he entered the league. He merely did not develop into the same player he later became. Even in 1997, he was not the same Lidstrom as he was in 2000. People have this mistaken idea that Lidstrom was as good defensively or offensively early in his career as he was later. He wasn't. He was one of my favorite players from the get go, and I watched him develop from the moment he stepped into the league. The only thing he did not get proper recognition for in his first 6 years or so was the Calder trophy.

Obviously he was not in his prime in 97, but he got far less recognition than he deserved.

And Potvin was the defensive foundation for all of those Isles teams, and their #1 defenseman on that Dynasty for all of their cups.

Lidstrom is the same for the Red Wings. Only, he did it for longer.

 

[Trottier]

There are also 2 sides to every coin, Potvin was able to be the star on his team early on due to the lack of talent on the Islanders at that time. We should not give undue credit or take away credit from players due to their respective situations and circumstances on their teams.

You violate the premise of sentence #2 in sentence #1.

Here's a few points to be considered.

Isles in 1972 set the record for NHL futility.

In 1973, Denis Potvin came on board, as did Al Arbour. In that season, the team cut its Goals Against by 100 exactly.

In its third season, it was one game away from the Stanley Cup Finals...with a roster of 21 year old Denis Potvin and, per your comment above, a "lack of talent".

Those facts, in and of themselves, do not answer this larger question. However they do add some context to Denis Potvin's impact and role. He was much, much more than a star on a modest team.

Put more bluntly, there is just one side to that coin, no ambiguity, whatsoever. The results speak clearly.

***

You'll notice I've attempted not a single negative word about Nik Lidstrom this entire thread. For there is nothing negative for me to say. However, the latter-day spin about Potvin is simply inaccurate, in some cases.

 

[Dark Shadows]

In 97 Lidstrom was a damn fine Dman and the rock on D for that cup win. He admittedly didn't have the great start to his career that Potvin did but his longevity and durability while playing at an extremely high level is unmatched on the back end in NHL history period.

Not true. Durability maybe. The longevity title belongs to Bourque since he did have the great start to his career to go along with long career.

There are also 2 sides to every coin, Potvin was able to be the star on his team early on due to the lack of talent on the Islanders at that time. We should not give undue credit or take away credit from players due to their respective situations and circumstances on their teams.

Potvin would have been a superstar no matter who was on his team. He proved that well enough.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Obviously he was not in his prime in 97, but he got far less recognition than he deserved.

He was ranked top 6 in Norris voting in 96 and 97 while splitting votes with other defensemen on his own team(Which took away from all of them), so I would say he was getting the credit he deserved. He certainly did not deserve to win it in those years.

You can make a case that he deserved to be ahead of some of the offense first or defense first guys who beat him out in ranking, but that is something that is hardly exclusive to Lidstrom. Many great defensemen have had to put up with being ranked behind one dimensional guys they were better than.

Lidstrom is the same for the Red Wings. Only, he did it for longer.

Which is why I rank Lidstrom slightly ahead. If your eyes read anything but insults when doing player comparisons, you might have noticed that.

Potvin's peak was easily superior. While Lidstrom's longevity is easily superior, and he sustained the longevity at a high level.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Don't think it comes down to this at all. Please don't try to establish this comment as a fact. Its the opinion of many that Potvin was as good or better defensively.

This one seems to be coming down to the usual better career vs. better player. If you're gauging careers, its hard to argue against Lidstrom. Better player is more debatable but those arguing for Potvin (myself included) feel he was.

IMO, Lidstrom is easily the greatest defensive defenseman since I began really paying attention to hockey in the early 80s. It's tough to gauge, and I usually do not like to rely solely on my own personal observations, however:

Lidstrom's +/- is much more impressive than Potvin. Lidstrom leads the entire NHL by large margins in +/- by numerous 5-10 year stretches; and in fact, throughout his career from 1992 - current, he is an amazing +431 over Scott Stevens at +282 and Jagr at +279. Potvin is not nearly as impressive, typically behind Trottier on his own team in +/- and well behind Larry Robinson. Over the course of his career (74-88) he is 4th with +442 behind Trottier +460, Gretzky +551 and Robinson +674.

On an annual basis, Lidstrom also destroys Potvin in terms of league finishes in +/-

Potvin
2, 5, 6

Lidstrom
2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 7

Potvin was not considered the best defenseive defenseman during his time; Lidstrom is. Robinson, Burrows, Salming and Savard are all typically listed before Potvin as "best defensive defenseman" in players' and coaches' polls. Later in his career he is well behind Langway, Ramsey and Morrow. Lidstrom shows up in the first coaches' poll for defensive defenseman in 1994 and starting in the late 90s until literally this past year is voted as the best defensive defenseman pretty much every single year.

Defensive Pairings -- Teams rotated defenseman more in the 70s and 80s than today, but Potvin was often paired with defense-first players like Ken Morrow and Gord Lane -- Lidstrom has played the majority of his prime years with offense-first players like Coffey, Murphy, Schneider and Rafaski. Lidstrom primarily had the majority of the shutdown roles in his pairings, while Potvin was given a lot more freedom - whether to jump up into the play or go for a big hit.

All of this brings credibility to what my eyes tell me -- Lidstrom is a definite notch above Potvin defensively.
His defense was better at its peak, and he maintained an elite, top of the league defensive game for many more years than Potvin.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Not true. Durability maybe. The longevity title belongs to Bourque since he did have the great start to his career to go along with long career.


Potvin would have been a superstar no matter who was on his team. He proved that well enough.

Yes I agree that he would have been a superstar on any team and frankly I think that he might have been pretty close to were Orr was on a talent basis as well.

I also agree with your next post when you say,

"Potvin's peak was easily superior. While Lidstrom's longevity is easily superior, and he sustained the longevity at a high level."

All in all it comes down to whether one takes more importance on Potvin's peak or Lidstroms long stretch at an extremely high level.

These 2 guys should be on almost everyone's top 10 if not top 5 list for best Dmen ever.

 

[Dark Shadows]

IMO, Lidstrom is easily the greatest defensive defenseman since I began really paying attention to hockey in the early 80s. It's tough to gauge, and I usually do not like to rely solely on my own personal observations, however.

I consider Lidstrom to be in my top 4-5 all time defensively from those I have seen, definitely behind Harvey, Savard and Langway, and a few others fighting for that 4-5 spot.

Lidstrom's +/- is much more impressive than Potvin. Lidstrom leads the entire NHL by large margins in +/- by numerous 5-10 year stretches; and in fact, throughout his career from 1992 - current, he is an amazing +431 over Scott Stevens at +282 and Jagr at +279. Potvin is not nearly as impressive, typically behind Trottier on his own team in +/- and well behind Larry Robinson. Over the course of his career (74-88) he is 4th with +442 behind Trottier +460, Gretzky +551 and Robinson +674.

I know I have said this before, but could care less for the +/- statistic.

Potvin was not considered the best defenseive defenseman during his time; Lidstrom is. Robinson, Burrows, Salming and Savard are all typically listed before Potvin as "best defensive defenseman" in players' and coaches' polls. Later in his career he is well behind Langway, Ramsey and Morrow. Lidstrom shows up in the first coaches' poll for defensive defenseman in 1994 and starting in the late 90s until literally this past year is voted as the best defensive defenseman pretty much every single year.

Potvin was considered among the top defensive defensemen in his time, and Lidstrom has not been the best every single year. There were plenty of years in which I would have given Stevens that title. A few years Konstantinov, Chelios and Bourque beat Lidstrom out in that category, as well as a few others who had standout years.

People like to tout that he has always been the best defensively. Consistently in the top yes. Best every year? No.

When he shows up in that 94 Coaches poll, he got a single vote out of 20 coaches. Let's not try to make it out to be more than is was.

Defensive Pairings -- Teams rotated defenseman more in the 70s and 80s than today, but Potvin was often paired with defense-first players like Ken Morrow and Gord Lane -- Lidstrom has played the majority of his prime years with offense-first players like Coffey, Murphy, Schneider and Rafaski. Lidstrom primarily had the majority of the shutdown roles in his pairings, while Potvin was given a lot more freedom - whether to jump up into the play or go for a big hit.

Lidstrom's style, even when he was the best offensive defenseman on his team, was to be a supporting offense transition game player.

All of this brings credibility to what my eyes tell me -- Lidstrom is a definite notch above Potvin defensively.
His defense was better at its peak, and he maintained an elite, top of the league defensive game for many more years than Potvin.

This, I agree with. Nobody is questioning his longevity. However, Potvin brought other intangibles to the board which were discussed earlier and superior offense. The offensive gap is larger than the defensive gap. Peak is Potvin, easily.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Yes I agree that he would have been a superstar on any team and frankly I think that he might have been pretty close to were Orr was on a talent basis as well.

I also agree with your next post when you say,

"Potvin's peak was easily superior. While Lidstrom's longevity is easily superior, and he sustained the longevity at a high level."

All in all it comes down to whether one takes more importance on Potvin's peak or Lidstroms long stretch at an extremely high level.

These 2 guys should be on almost everyone's top 10 if not top 5 list for best Dmen ever.

I have it as
#5 Lidstrom
#6 Potvin

 

[Hardyvan123]

Not true. Durability maybe. The longevity title belongs to Bourque since he did have the great start to his career to go along with long career. [QUOTE/]

Lidstrom's start to his career is pretty close to were Bourque's was like as well if we take into account adjustments for the season they played in.

Bourque had slightly better offensive numbers than Lidstrom and earlier selections to all star teams but this is in part IMO that Lidstroms game was under appreciated outside of Detroit until Detroit won their 1st cup.

 

[canucks4ever]

Not true. Durability maybe. The longevity title belongs to Bourque since he did have the great start to his career to go along with long career. [QUOTE/]

Lidstrom's start to his career is pretty close to were Bourque's was like as well if we take into account adjustments for the season they played in.

Bourque had slightly better offensive numbers than Lidstrom and earlier selections to all star teams but this is in part IMO that Lidstroms game was under appreciated outside of Detroit until Detroit won their 1st cup.

I agree man, Lidstrom should have been at least a 2nd team all star in 1997. There was no way sandis ozolinsh deserved it, he put up 8 more points but was garbage defesnively.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I have it as
#5 Lidstrom
#6 Potvin

I have both guys over Bourque and up there just behind Bobby Orr, although arguments can made made that these 2 guys are closer to Orr than many people equate here on this forum.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Norris finishes
Lidstrom: 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 6, 6, 6, 8
Potvin: 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 4, 8, 10

Post-season All-Star Selections:
Lidstrom: 9 1st Team Selections; 2 2nd Team and 1st Team All-Rookie
Potvin: 5 1st Team; 2 2nd Team

The difference between Lidstrom and Potvin is a 3-Time Norris winner and a 4-Time 1st Team All-Star --- IE. Denis Potvin

Lidstrom's offense is also underrated - he is not as far behind Potvin offensively as many seem to think.

Scoring vs. other defensemen:
Lidstrom: 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 5
Potvin: 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9

Adjusted Points gives us:

Potvin
Lidstrom

86
85
85
79
77
76
75
72
69
67
67
67
66
65
64
63
61
59
58
54
54
53
52
51
46
45
44
44
43
35
35
33

Potvin has 3 years less than 10% better than Lidstrom's best, and then from there Lidstrom beats him on a year-by-year basis.
Lidstrom also lost 1 1/2 years to lockouts.

 

[Dark Shadows]

I have both guys over Bourque and up there just behind Bobby Orr, although arguments can made made that these 2 guys are closer to Orr than many people equate here on this forum.

I find it strange to have either of them over Bourque.

Bourque's peak is comparable to Potvin's(I could flip flop here), and his consistency + longevity is the best of any defenseman ever.

Nobody is close to Orr peakwise.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Lidstrom's start to his career is pretty close to were Bourque's was like as well if we take into account adjustments for the season they played in.

Bourque had slightly better offensive numbers than Lidstrom and earlier selections to all star teams but this is in part IMO that Lidstroms game was under appreciated outside of Detroit until Detroit won their 1st cup.

No. Bourque started out his first season as Runner up for the Norris trophy, and continued being a finalist for the duration of his career.

Lidstrom was just not on that level when he first started his career, for reasons I already went over. His defensive game did not begin to peak until 96-97, nor did his offensive game.

 

[Trottier]

Potvin was considered among the top defensive defensemen in his time....

Thank you for debunking yet another Potvin misrepresentation (read: lie) on this very page and the absurd innudendo that he was supported by "defensive" partners.

As you well remember, from before he entered the league well into his career, Potvin was considered the de facto heir to Orr, the "next Bobby Orr". He obviously could not achieve that threshold - no one ever has or will - and to be sure, some of it was HF variety hyperbole. But this idea that the Salmings and Langways, let alone Mike Ramseys of the world should even be mentioned in the same sentence as Potvin - on either side of the puck - is a joke.

They were superior defensively in the same way that Mike Green is a "superior" offensive player to Lidstrom. Which is to say: untrue.

***

And now, of course, the "adjusted points" line. Translation: "we automatically subtract points that were earned by specific players in previous eras....to "prove" the superiority of our modern day heroes."

So, follow the ongoing spin: yesterday, it was asserted as "fact" that Lidstrom was superior defensively...today we manipulate offensive stats to prove his superiority in that aspect of the game.

Irony in all of this is that a great case can and has been made for Lidstrom over Potvin, by the non-propagandists.

 

[Hardyvan123]

No. Bourque started out his first season as Runner up for the Norris trophy, and continued being a finalist for the duration of his career.

Lidstrom was just not on that level when he first started his career, for reasons I already went over. His defensive game did not begin to peak until 96-97, nor did his offensive game.

I know that Potvin was injured during the year Robinson won the Norris with Bourque 2nd but don't recall it being a really strong year in terms of competition either.

Also Lidstrom was the best or one of the best all around Dmen on his team in Detroit from the start. Other guys were more flashy or had reputations (and a lot of the voting is based on reputations IMO)
when i get more time I'll dig out the guys both Bourque and Lidstrom were competing with from the start of their careers.

And yes Orr did have the highest peak of any Dman of all time and it will never be repeated but he also took full advantage of playing in an ever expanding NHL and the perfect situation for him in Boston.

Don't get me wrong he is number 1 in my books even with that but the gap overall between him and Potvin and Lidstrom just isn't as big as some guys make it out to be either.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Thank you for debunking yet another Potvin misrepresentation on this very page and the innudendo that he was supported by "defensive" partners.

As you well remember, from before he entered the league well into his career, Potvin was considered the de facto heir to Orr, the "next Bobby Orr". He obviously could not achieve that threshold - no one ever has or will - and to be sure, some of it was HF variety hyperbole. But this idea that the Salmings and Langways, let alone Mike Ramseys of the world should even be mentioned in the same sentence as Potvin - on either side of the puck - is a joke.

Yep, they were superior defensively....in the same way that Mike Green is a "superior" offensive player than Lidstrom. Which is to say: BS.

Both Orr and Potvin were considered the best offensive defensmen of their time - neither was considered the best defensive defenseman. Near the top - yes - but not the best.

 

[Trottier]

Both Orr and Potvin were considered the best offensive defensmen of their time - neither was considered the best defensive defenseman. Near the top - yes - but not the best.

Both were considered unquestionably the best dmen of their respective eras. And in an era of superb peers at the position, regardless of the what the "all previous eras were inferior!" experts wish to spew.

Look, it is fruitless to try to poke holes in Potvin's game or career, just as it is silly trying to do same to Lidstrom's.

But feel free to keep trying.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

IMO, Lidstrom is easily the greatest defensive defenseman since I began really paying attention to hockey in the early 80s. It's tough to gauge, and I usually do not like to rely solely on my own personal observations, however:

Lidstrom's +/- is much more impressive than Potvin. Lidstrom leads the entire NHL by large margins in +/- by numerous 5-10 year stretches; and in fact, throughout his career from 1992 - current, he is an amazing +431 over Scott Stevens at +282 and Jagr at +279. Potvin is not nearly as impressive, typically behind Trottier on his own team in +/- and well behind Larry Robinson. Over the course of his career (74-88) he is 4th with +442 behind Trottier +460, Gretzky +551 and Robinson +674.

On an annual basis, Lidstrom also destroys Potvin in terms of league finishes in +/-

Potvin
2, 5, 6

Lidstrom
2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 7

Potvin was not considered the best defenseive defenseman during his time; Lidstrom is. Robinson, Burrows, Salming and Savard are all typically listed before Potvin as "best defensive defenseman" in players' and coaches' polls. Later in his career he is well behind Langway, Ramsey and Morrow. Lidstrom shows up in the first coaches' poll for defensive defenseman in 1994 and starting in the late 90s until literally this past year is voted as the best defensive defenseman pretty much every single year.

Defensive Pairings -- Teams rotated defenseman more in the 70s and 80s than today, but Potvin was often paired with defense-first players like Ken Morrow and Gord Lane -- Lidstrom has played the majority of his prime years with offense-first players like Coffey, Murphy, Schneider and Rafaski. Lidstrom primarily had the majority of the shutdown roles in his pairings, while Potvin was given a lot more freedom - whether to jump up into the play or go for a big hit.

All of this brings credibility to what my eyes tell me -- Lidstrom is a definite notch above Potvin defensively.
His defense was better at its peak, and he maintained an elite, top of the league defensive game for many more years than Potvin.

From what I recall, I believe Potvin was paired with Stefan Persson most of the time from 1978 on. And calling Gord Lane a defense first defensemen is kind of a joke because he had zero offensive ability. Pretty much a 6th dman that was known more for his fighting than his defensive play. Besides, he didn't play for the Islanders until the 80-81 season and I don't recall seeing much of him on the ice with Potvin.