Epsilon
#basta
The fact that you are actually trying to compare those incidents indicates that you probably didn't see either of them.
Lidstrom Vs. Potvin
- Thread starter markrander87
- Start date
The fact that you are actually trying to compare those incidents indicates that you probably didn't see either of them.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Epsilon
#basta
Then your point is one of the most inane, non-sensible things I've ever read. Instead of talking in riddles, why don't you come out and say what you really want to:
"The Red Wings' players don't respect Lidstrom because he's a soft, wimpy Euro"
instead of trying to tap-dance around it.
Mothra
The Groovy Guru
Of guys from my lifetime, after Orr I would be hard pressed to think of anyone I would rather have on D than Potvin/Robinson. Id be tickled to death with Lidstrom but Id rather have Potvin, or Robinson for that matter.
HyeDray
Registered User
How many voting in this poll actually watch Denis Potvin play?
There is very little doubt in my mind. If there was no Bobby Orr, Dennis Potvin would have been the best defenseman. That is a quote shared by Bobby Clarke on the top 10 defenseman of all time. He too had Dennis ranked just behind Orr.
Lidstrom is a terrific hockey player. Please, dont misunderstand me. For his era — certainly in the top 2-3 defenseman. But Dennis Potvin was the complete and total package.
He was a top 1-2 stay at home defenseman as well as an top 1-2 puck moving defenseman during his time. Further, Dennis Potvin may have been the most physical minded defenseman of all time. Stevens and a few others certainly deserve to be in the same universe as Dennis Potvin, but Potvin, unlike Lidstrom, used his body as a battering ram. he did not just hit you, he put you through the boards, and into next month. He was not overly large, but he was very strong, very thick.
Where Lidstrom is far better is skating.
The NHL has changes significantly since Dennis laced 'em up. He may not be the force he was in this era — just like Lidstrom might not be the force he is in Potvin's era.
Overall — if I am building a hockey team, I start like the 1972 Islanders started. With Dennis Potvin.
There is very little doubt in my mind. If there was no Bobby Orr, Dennis Potvin would have been the best defenseman. That is a quote shared by Bobby Clarke on the top 10 defenseman of all time. He too had Dennis ranked just behind Orr.
Lidstrom is a terrific hockey player. Please, dont misunderstand me. For his era — certainly in the top 2-3 defenseman. But Dennis Potvin was the complete and total package.
He was a top 1-2 stay at home defenseman as well as an top 1-2 puck moving defenseman during his time. Further, Dennis Potvin may have been the most physical minded defenseman of all time. Stevens and a few others certainly deserve to be in the same universe as Dennis Potvin, but Potvin, unlike Lidstrom, used his body as a battering ram. he did not just hit you, he put you through the boards, and into next month. He was not overly large, but he was very strong, very thick.
Where Lidstrom is far better is skating.
The NHL has changes significantly since Dennis laced 'em up. He may not be the force he was in this era — just like Lidstrom might not be the force he is in Potvin's era.
Overall — if I am building a hockey team, I start like the 1972 Islanders started. With Dennis Potvin.
norrisnick
The best...
- Apr 14, 2005
- 31,209
- 16,532
You know that levels of insanity bit I talked about earlier? You've topped it...
You'd think the reactions of the Red Wings would give you some sort of indicator that the two incidents aren't even in the same planetary system. One was a conscious attack on a vulnerable player. The other happens a dozen times a shift, but happened to catch Nick in a sensitive area.
I'm curious as to how you have Lidstrom playing against not so great competition and Potvin playing against better competition? anything to back up these assertion?
Personally in general, most leagues get better over time and also the players playing in them get better as well with innovations, training and coaching methods getting better and a host of other reasons. The NHL as a whole is a tougher league to play in than the mid 70's league that Potvin played in IMO.
Potvin was a great player and Dman but Lidstrom is one of the all time greats and under appreciated IMO.
As the Devil Made Me pointed out Lidstrom is in the conversation for the best player over the last decade and I'm not sure Potvin was ever in the top 5 discussion in that regard , although I could make an argument that he deserved to be.
Picking who is better between Potvin and Lidstrom is very hard. Most admit that Potvin was great. Potvin I feel was under valued and had the unfortunate situation of being sandwiched between 3 of the best defenceman the game ever saw. He came into the league just as Orr was winding down his career but Orr was still the greatest. Even though after 75 Orr was not the same and could not do what he used to he was still Bobby Orr. Potvin was beating a lot of Orr's offensive resords when Paul Coffey came along and just started tearing up the league offensively. Now do not get me wrong Potvin was better then Coffey but not offensively. Then of course you had Ray Bourque who is all round better then Potvin and would eventually pass Coffey offensively. So by the early 90's it was always Bourque and Coffey and of course they were compared to Orr. It seemed a lot of people forgot about Potvin.
When Lidtsrom came into the league he was very good but not in the category of the other defenceman in the league. By the time Lidstrom was considered a premiere defenceman their were not too many great defenceman left in the NHL. Now that is not his fault he was just heads above the rest. He was just as good as the pure offensive Gonchar, and as great defensively as a Stevens. He could do it all.
Some have said at their peak or prime it is Potvin and career it is Lidstrom. It is hard to say that because as a whole Potvin's career is very good and Lidstrom's peak is not too shabby either
Offensively I think it is equal. I believe Potvin had the better shot. Lidstrom was a better passer. Lidstrom skates with the puck better but Potvin I feel positioned himself and could read the play better.
Defensively Once again I think it is equal. Potvin was more physical and better positionally however Lidstrom because of his foot speed was really hard to beat and had probably the most active stick for gettign in the way of passes then any one. Potvin was better at blocking shots and clearing the front of the net. However Lidstrom was able to use his foot speed to always be able to clear the puck from in front of the net against bigger stronger players and also is able to anticipate what the oppisition will do and be there to break up plays or make shooters pass instead of shooting.
Leadership. I think the edge has to go to Potvin. Potvin was a pure leader not that LIdstrom isn't one just that Potvin was much more and a model of leadership
Consistencey. Easily edge goes to Lidstrom it seems he has been playing at the same level since he started and rarely ever has a bad year and his age never seems to really affect him
Skill Edge to Lidstrom no offence to Potvin but physical skill Lidstrom is just more naturally gifted.
Physical toughness. Edge goes to Potvin easily because he hit and took alot of hits to make plays. Not that LIdstrom doesn't but Potvin is more of physical presence then Lidstrom
Regular season and Playoffs. I say it is even as well. Some will point to Lidstrom's norris trophies but in the 80's there were so many different defenceman that deserved it that sometimes it was a shame they could only give it to one. As far as playoffs once again both took their games to a higher level and did what ever it took to win and two of the greatest defenceman when it came to being able to play at an elite level both during a tough regular season and playoffs
In the end Lidstrom is better when it comes to consistency and skill and Potvin is better when it comes to Leadership and Physical toughness. Every other category I can think of is equal as far as I am concerned. The only thing I think that puts Potvin over on Lidstrom is that he won 4 cups in a row and went head to head with the Oilers winning once and losing once. The true last Dynasty in the NHL. Winning four cups in a row being on the team he was the captain of and winning 19 playoff series in a row a record that will never be broken puts him just a little bit ahead of Lidstrom.
If I was startign a team and I could start my team with either Lidstrom or Potvin it would be Potvin he is one of the best all round defenceman to ever play the game. Other then maybe Ray Bourque I have never seen a defenceman do as much as Potvin except for Orr of course.
When Lidtsrom came into the league he was very good but not in the category of the other defenceman in the league. By the time Lidstrom was considered a premiere defenceman their were not too many great defenceman left in the NHL. Now that is not his fault he was just heads above the rest. He was just as good as the pure offensive Gonchar, and as great defensively as a Stevens. He could do it all.
Some have said at their peak or prime it is Potvin and career it is Lidstrom. It is hard to say that because as a whole Potvin's career is very good and Lidstrom's peak is not too shabby either
Offensively I think it is equal. I believe Potvin had the better shot. Lidstrom was a better passer. Lidstrom skates with the puck better but Potvin I feel positioned himself and could read the play better.
Defensively Once again I think it is equal. Potvin was more physical and better positionally however Lidstrom because of his foot speed was really hard to beat and had probably the most active stick for gettign in the way of passes then any one. Potvin was better at blocking shots and clearing the front of the net. However Lidstrom was able to use his foot speed to always be able to clear the puck from in front of the net against bigger stronger players and also is able to anticipate what the oppisition will do and be there to break up plays or make shooters pass instead of shooting.
Leadership. I think the edge has to go to Potvin. Potvin was a pure leader not that LIdstrom isn't one just that Potvin was much more and a model of leadership
Consistencey. Easily edge goes to Lidstrom it seems he has been playing at the same level since he started and rarely ever has a bad year and his age never seems to really affect him
Skill Edge to Lidstrom no offence to Potvin but physical skill Lidstrom is just more naturally gifted.
Physical toughness. Edge goes to Potvin easily because he hit and took alot of hits to make plays. Not that LIdstrom doesn't but Potvin is more of physical presence then Lidstrom
Regular season and Playoffs. I say it is even as well. Some will point to Lidstrom's norris trophies but in the 80's there were so many different defenceman that deserved it that sometimes it was a shame they could only give it to one. As far as playoffs once again both took their games to a higher level and did what ever it took to win and two of the greatest defenceman when it came to being able to play at an elite level both during a tough regular season and playoffs
In the end Lidstrom is better when it comes to consistency and skill and Potvin is better when it comes to Leadership and Physical toughness. Every other category I can think of is equal as far as I am concerned. The only thing I think that puts Potvin over on Lidstrom is that he won 4 cups in a row and went head to head with the Oilers winning once and losing once. The true last Dynasty in the NHL. Winning four cups in a row being on the team he was the captain of and winning 19 playoff series in a row a record that will never be broken puts him just a little bit ahead of Lidstrom.
If I was startign a team and I could start my team with either Lidstrom or Potvin it would be Potvin he is one of the best all round defenceman to ever play the game. Other then maybe Ray Bourque I have never seen a defenceman do as much as Potvin except for Orr of course.
Trottier
Very Random
Not allowed to ask that question, just like you should not ask a poster if he ever played the game. It might hurt feelings.
The case for Lidstrom is very solid. Among those who saw both players, a notable percentage, no doubt, would side with Lidstrom, others Potvin.
Among those here who did not watch Potvin, you will likely not find a single person who would select him. Which, frankly, is understandable.
That said, some of the misrepresentations of the player and his times by those in the latter group are simply misguided and painfully cliche. If one does not possess a fully-informed opinion of a player, best to realize it. And it seems to me, a fully-informed opinion is comprised of both a solid grasp of statistical information (and the context in which they were compiled) and thorough first-hand observation of the player. Not simply one or the other.
So, in fact, your question is relevant. Not having witnessed a player does not by any means prohibit one from forming a worthwhile opinion about him...however, it is incomplete.
That line is extremely popular on the main board.
And, I'm not here to dispute it.
However, as a sage once said, you can only evaluate a player within the context of his times. And degrading the times of a player from a previous generation is a rather specious foundation for drawing a conclusion, IMO.
I mean, why then even bother with any comparisons between players from different decades? Based on that ideology, clearly, all modern day players are "superior".
PS - Perhaps I'm misinterpreting your words. You stated: "Potvin was a great player and Dman but Lidstrom is one of the all time greats...." (boldface added). Are you implying that Denis Potvin is not considered one of the all-time greats?
Yikes.
Last edited:
unknown33
Registered User
- Dec 8, 2009
- 3,942
- 150
Not hockey related.Is that what this is? Reads more like Freshman class-quality term papers on existentialism ("The Virtues of Luck 101").
Canadiens seems to deny the existance of luck in life.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Relative
Relative number of contemporaries that are definite HHOFers on defense vs low possibility HHOFers favours Potvin.
Tougher league to play in. More a function of the player's physical and mental skill set. In this regard Lidstrom is probably the best suited player for the lack of constants in the NHL and on any specific team during his careers. He quickly adapts physically and mentally to changing coaches, teammates, opponents , styles, rule changes, etc. Denis Potvin played in an era where stability was the ultimate team objective if it wanted to be successful. One GM, One coach building a team around an outstanding player augmenting each year until an elite core existed with a fairly regular support group. Repetition and familiarity until the ultimate goal is reached and repeated.
Lidstrom may be in the conversation as the best player over the last decade but other than Brodeur others lack longevity, continuity or performance. Potvin split two decades but in any ten year stretch there would be a larger pool of players amongst his contemporaries who would be in the discussion - Islander alone would contribute Trottier and Bossy, Canadiens would add Robinson, Lafleur plus there would be others - Salming, Clarke, Park without going to far.
The point is that if you consider that Potvin may not be in the Top 5 discussion yet he is being compared very closely to Lidstrom who is perceived as definitively in a Top 5 conversation 20 - 30 years later is cause for reflection about the relative strength of the NHL in each era. Perhaps the 1970's NHL was significantly stronger than posters wish to admit.
Relative number of contemporaries that are definite HHOFers on defense vs low possibility HHOFers favours Potvin.
Tougher league to play in. More a function of the player's physical and mental skill set. In this regard Lidstrom is probably the best suited player for the lack of constants in the NHL and on any specific team during his careers. He quickly adapts physically and mentally to changing coaches, teammates, opponents , styles, rule changes, etc. Denis Potvin played in an era where stability was the ultimate team objective if it wanted to be successful. One GM, One coach building a team around an outstanding player augmenting each year until an elite core existed with a fairly regular support group. Repetition and familiarity until the ultimate goal is reached and repeated.
Lidstrom may be in the conversation as the best player over the last decade but other than Brodeur others lack longevity, continuity or performance. Potvin split two decades but in any ten year stretch there would be a larger pool of players amongst his contemporaries who would be in the discussion - Islander alone would contribute Trottier and Bossy, Canadiens would add Robinson, Lafleur plus there would be others - Salming, Clarke, Park without going to far.
The point is that if you consider that Potvin may not be in the Top 5 discussion yet he is being compared very closely to Lidstrom who is perceived as definitively in a Top 5 conversation 20 - 30 years later is cause for reflection about the relative strength of the NHL in each era. Perhaps the 1970's NHL was significantly stronger than posters wish to admit.
It is hard for Potvin to be put in the same breath of the greatest players in one decade for two reasons.
1. His best seasons were in two seperate decades. Now if you take let's say 1975-1985 and talk about the top 5 players. How could he beat out players like Marcel Dionne, Wayne Gretzky, Guy Lafleur, Gilbert Perrault, Bryan Trottier, just for example
2. If you look at teh 70's only it would be hard pressed for Potvin to be considered in the top 5 for just the 70's with defenceman like Orr. Park, Robinson, Salming who some believed were better then him. In the 80's Raymond Bourque, Paul Coffey has a better decade and defenceman like Rod Langway and Doug Wilson has just as good as a decade as him. that is not including the forwards.
Not taking anything away from Lidtrom but Lidstrom is considered by some as the top 5 players over the last 10 years because a lot of the best players he was competing against were at the point of declining or just coming into thier own. I mean how many new players that have come into the league in the last 10 years are really equal in talent to the HHOF caliber players Potvin played against.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Use of Luck
No, just questioning the reliance on the luck excuse for all of lifes, misfortunes, tragedies and negatives.
In other words luck is the easy answer for those who do not wish to make an effort to get at the root of a situation and the follow-up effort to change.
In hockey it is much easier to attribute luck as the reason why a shot hits a goal post and stays out then to spend time practising your shot to increase your efficiency.
It is also much easier to attribute the similarities in success of a Potvin or a Lidstrom to luck than to do actual work analyzing why the team and player succeeded and putting it to use.
No, just questioning the reliance on the luck excuse for all of lifes, misfortunes, tragedies and negatives.
In other words luck is the easy answer for those who do not wish to make an effort to get at the root of a situation and the follow-up effort to change.
In hockey it is much easier to attribute luck as the reason why a shot hits a goal post and stays out then to spend time practising your shot to increase your efficiency.
It is also much easier to attribute the similarities in success of a Potvin or a Lidstrom to luck than to do actual work analyzing why the team and player succeeded and putting it to use.
Not allowed to ask that question, just like you should not ask a poster if he ever played the game. It might hurt feelings.
The case for Lidstrom is very solid. Among those who saw both players, a notable percentage, no doubt, would side with Lidstrom, others Potvin.
Among those here who did not watch Potvin, you will likely not find a single person who would select him. Which, frankly, is understandable.
That said, some of the misrepresentations of the player and his times by those in the latter group are simply misguided and painfully cliche. If one does not possess a fully-informed opinion of a player, best to realize it. And it seems to me, a fully-informed opinion is comprised of both a solid grasp of statistical information (and the context in which they were compiled) and thorough first-hand observation of the player. Not simply one or the other.
So, in fact, your question is relevant. Not having witnessed a player does not by any means prohibit one from forming a worthwhile opinion about him...however, it is incomplete.
That line is extremely popular on the main board.
And, I'm not here to dispute it.
However, as a sage once said, you can only evaluate a player within the context of his times. And degrading the times of a player from a previous generation is a rather specious foundation for drawing a conclusion, IMO.
I mean, why then even bother with any comparisons between players from different decades? Based on that ideology, clearly, all modern day players are "superior".
PS - Perhaps I'm misinterpreting your words. You stated: "Potvin was a great player and Dman but Lidstrom is one of the all time greats...." (boldface added). Are you implying that Denis Potvin is not considered one of the all-time greats?
Yikes.
Potvin isn't in the same class as Lidstrom as injuries shortened his career and he is a small step down a great Dman but Lidstrom will go down as one of the top 10 players of all time IMO.
and yes to a certain extent "all modern players are superior" that doesn't diminish what past players, especially the great ones have done but I do like to put things into context and that is something that not everyone in the history section does IMO.
Potvin was a great player but he also played in a time period when there was the WHA and some of those players could have played in the NHL. also Lidstrom has played in an NHL where other players from other leagues other than the 3 major junior leagues in Canada contribute a huge amount of talent to the NHL in his time period.
Players from Europe, and US college ranks make his dominance even more special IMO.
I watched Potvin play and to me he wasn't that far off from Orr as a player but when I take historical context into consideration and length and breadth of a guys career I would place Lidstrom, Orr, Potvin in that order of the best Dmen I have seen with my own eyes play.
To me historical context is really important, not just stats from the day or not taking into consideration the state of the NHL when any player played.
If one does not take these things into consideration no one will ever be better than guys like Orr, Shore and Potvin/Robinson ect... and to me that isn't the right way to examine these issues.
Well, you've always had one of the more inane opinions on here. Besides Orr, I don't think there's one defenseman other than perhaps Harvey who Lidstrom can't make a case against. The HHOF section does recognize a guy like Shore's era and puts his achievements into context. It happens constantly.
What seems to be more common is that a person will put down the achievements of past players, and extol the achievements of a Nicklas Lidstrom. The NHL has been blessed with Russians, Nordics, and Eastern Europeans. This of course without mentioning how the league has ballooned to 30 teams. Nick has points taken away because his Norris run has come at a time when the old favorites were retiring or getting old, but this is hardly damning. The era, as you mentioned, is different and while Nick's competition for top Defenseman may be thin, the lineups he is facing are not. He is assuredly one of the greatest defenseman (and players) of all time. So is Denis Potvin.
Greatness is measured against one's peers, but I'm sure you've heard that speech before. Penalizing a player for being born years before Nicklas Lidstrom is pointless and cheapens the debate.
What seems to be more common is that a person will put down the achievements of past players, and extol the achievements of a Nicklas Lidstrom. The NHL has been blessed with Russians, Nordics, and Eastern Europeans. This of course without mentioning how the league has ballooned to 30 teams. Nick has points taken away because his Norris run has come at a time when the old favorites were retiring or getting old, but this is hardly damning. The era, as you mentioned, is different and while Nick's competition for top Defenseman may be thin, the lineups he is facing are not. He is assuredly one of the greatest defenseman (and players) of all time. So is Denis Potvin.
Greatness is measured against one's peers, but I'm sure you've heard that speech before. Penalizing a player for being born years before Nicklas Lidstrom is pointless and cheapens the debate.
I don't penalize players born before Lidstrom and I don't over credit past players who played in different times either.
Some guys just don't face the facts the NHL as a whole was not as strong in 1967, 1973, 1980 ect as it is today and to give a guy too much credit for being better in one era against his peers and one guy less credit in a better league against his peers cheapens the arguments and debates here as well.
Rapid expansion and the WHA made the NHL weaker comparatively speaking pre 1979 to where it is today. Throw in the fact that Europe and Us Colleges were not producing the quality and quantity of players to the NHL in Potvin and Orr's time has to be taken into consideration when comparing all 3 players IMO.
When people say that players should be judged against their peers only then they make a great mistake IMO and make the assumption that the level and quality of competition remains the same through out time in the NHL and this simply is not the case.
Also one final note on HHOF and time periods, ie the number of Dmen in the Hall from Potvin's era. The HHOF like most other sports halls seems to give less value to recent players who play in larger leagues than past players where up to 7 or 8 guys from a team like the Boston Bruins during Shore's days are HHOF's and this is from a team that only won 2 cups in a period of 15 years or so with a 10-12 team league. (numbers might not be exact as I'm going off of memory here but you get the point).
The hall puts in around 3 to 4 players a year and obviously more Dmen % wise are getting in from the 70's than in today's time because there are more teams today (Lidstrom won his 1st Norris in a 30 team league and Potvin's best years were in a 17 team or less NHL) and to some people this might seem a dilution in talent or competition for Lidstrom but I think it is being over exaggerated by some posters here IMO.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
redbull said:
Maybe. But then you'd be assigning an absolutely massive amount of credit for a lot of team success to just one player, and I don't think anyone could truly believe that.
Last edited:
Actually Bill Gates attributes his success to luck as he had access to a computer at the university of Washington campus during the evening hours , when security was not as important in those days.
He would wake up at 2 in the morning and walk over the short distance to the campus where the computer was and go home before his parents woke up, if he had lived only a couple of miles away who knows what might have been or not been?
He even says that this chance of luck meeting with his opportunity made it possible for him to be the guy that he became.
Maybe we should not call it luck but surely opportunity and situation comes into play with certain players and how their careers pan out.
The most recent example is Martin St. Louis who made the most of his situation in Tampa Bay and was able to make a success of that opportunity.
Phil Esposito is another guy who comes to mind who was on a good to okay NHL track and blossomed into a "superstar" with the perfect situation in Boston and Bobby Orr as well.
Potvin was not the same player he was after the 79-80 season and was still an excellent player but not the great player that he was from 74-80 and is hands down the 2nd best defenseman in the 1st 6 years of his career and from ages 26 and under.
IMO, he probably would have become the 2nd best Dman of all time were it not fro these injuries but he did have them and to his credit was still a great player afterwords albeit not as good as Lidstrom all time.
interesting stuff here that I came across with the Hockey News top 100 of all time in 1998 which had Potvin at 27th and Ray Bourque at 5th.
They also had Coffey at 19 and Robinson at 25 both of whom should be behind Potvin IMO.
Biggest shock on the list was to see Bobby Hull at 12th and Gordie Howe at 16th which seems very odd to me. some anti WHA hangover for sure.
Mike Gartner at 95th is a stretch to me as well but he was a well liked guy and probably a friend of a lot of the voters as well.
Here is the list from 1998
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_100_Greatest_Hockey_Players
IMO, he probably would have become the 2nd best Dman of all time were it not fro these injuries but he did have them and to his credit was still a great player afterwords albeit not as good as Lidstrom all time.
interesting stuff here that I came across with the Hockey News top 100 of all time in 1998 which had Potvin at 27th and Ray Bourque at 5th.
They also had Coffey at 19 and Robinson at 25 both of whom should be behind Potvin IMO.
Biggest shock on the list was to see Bobby Hull at 12th and Gordie Howe at 16th which seems very odd to me. some anti WHA hangover for sure.
Mike Gartner at 95th is a stretch to me as well but he was a well liked guy and probably a friend of a lot of the voters as well.
Here is the list from 1998
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_100_Greatest_Hockey_Players
Last edited:
Hawkey Town 18
Registered User
Luck
The word "Luck" has been thrown around a lot in this thread, and I think most of the argument about it is due to a difference of opinion on the definiton.
Here are my thoughts...
Whatever your definition of "Luck" is, there are some things that happen during a hockey player's career that are completely out of his control...perhaps it is what other players his team drafts or who his coach is or to what level his team's ownership is committed to winning or whatever. The player has absolutely nothing to do with the specific decision being made. Sometimes these things go in the favor of the player, and sometimes they go against him. When other factors (that are MUCH more important) show that two players are extremely close to eachother in terms of value/ranking, is when these "things beyond their control" (call it Luck or whatever you will) can end up being a part of the deciding factor.
The way I look at it is...If two players are being debated heavily on this board, then by all more credible measures they have come to be seen relatively even, and, as unfortunate as it is, things like "Luck" have to start to come into the discussion.
(Please note: these comments are meant to be a generalization, and are not in any way supporting or opposing any discussions of "Luck" influencing the ranking of the 2 players being discussed in this thread)
The word "Luck" has been thrown around a lot in this thread, and I think most of the argument about it is due to a difference of opinion on the definiton.
Here are my thoughts...
Whatever your definition of "Luck" is, there are some things that happen during a hockey player's career that are completely out of his control...perhaps it is what other players his team drafts or who his coach is or to what level his team's ownership is committed to winning or whatever. The player has absolutely nothing to do with the specific decision being made. Sometimes these things go in the favor of the player, and sometimes they go against him. When other factors (that are MUCH more important) show that two players are extremely close to eachother in terms of value/ranking, is when these "things beyond their control" (call it Luck or whatever you will) can end up being a part of the deciding factor.
The way I look at it is...If two players are being debated heavily on this board, then by all more credible measures they have come to be seen relatively even, and, as unfortunate as it is, things like "Luck" have to start to come into the discussion.
(Please note: these comments are meant to be a generalization, and are not in any way supporting or opposing any discussions of "Luck" influencing the ranking of the 2 players being discussed in this thread)
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Huh?
1.Wayne Gretzky
2.Bobby Orr
3.Mario Lemieux[1]
4.Maurice Richard
5.Ray Bourque
6.Jean Beliveau
7.Patrick Roy
8.Guy Lafleur
9.Bobby Hull
10.Doug Harvey
11.Mark Messier
12.Bobby Hull
13.Martin Brodeur
14.Terry Sawchuk[2]
15.Jacques Plante
16.Gordie Howe
17.Phil Esposito
18.Howie Morenz
19.Paul Coffey
20.Jaromir Jagr[3]
21.Mike Bossy
22.Eddie Shore
23.Glenn Hall
24.Stan Mikita[4]
25.Larry Robinson
26.Ken Dryden
27.Denis Potvin
28.Ted Lindsay
29.Red Kelly
30.Bobby Clarke
31.Frank Mahovlich
32.Eric Lindros
33.Milt Schmidt
34.Henri Richard
35.Bryan Trottier
36.Dickie Moore
37.Bernie Geoffrion
38.Newsy Lalonde
39.Syl Apps
40.Bill Durnan
41.Charlie Conacher
42.Marcel Dionne
43.Steve Yzerman
44.Tony Esposito
45.Joe Malone
46.Chris Chelios[5]
47.Dit Clapper#
48.Tim Horton
49.Brett Hull
50.Bill Cook
51.Jari Kurri
52.Johnny Bucyk
53.George Hainsworth
54.Gilbert Perreault
55.Serge Savard
56.Dominik Hasek
57.Peter Stastny
58.Max Bentley
59.Brad Park
60.Nels Stewart
61.King Clancy
62.Darryl Sittler
63.Joe Sakic
64.Grant Fuhr
65.Bill Cowley
66.Busher Jackson
67.Ted Kennedy
68.Andy Bathgate
69.Pierre Pilote
70.Yvan Cournoyer
71.Bernie Parent
72.Turk Broda
73.Frank Boucher
74.Cy Denneny
75.Aurel Joliat
76.Toe Blake
77.Frank Brimsek
78.Elmer Lach
79.Dave Keon
80.Brian Leetch
81.Earl Seibert
82.Doug Bentley
83.Borje Salming
84.Georges Vezina
85.Charlie Gardiner
86.Clint Benedict
87.Billy Smith
88.Alex Delvecchio
89.Babe Dye
90.Lorne Chabot
91.Sid Abel
92.Bob Gainey
93.Johnny Bower
94.Sprague Cleghorn
95.Mike Gartner
96.Norm Ullman
97.Sweeney Schriner
98.Joe Primeau
99.Babe Pratt
100.Jack Stewart
101.Bill Gadsby
102.Frank Nighbor
This was not the THN list. It looks kinda like it, but Gordie was 3rd, not 16th. And Brodeur was not on it at all. Someone's been messing with Wikipedia.
Bobby Hull, the 9th AND 12th greatest player of all time!!
I think this is why we don't really use wikipedia for any sort of serious information.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
It looks like a used named Alaney2k edited it just today, and made these weird changes in the top-25 of the list. I have never edited wikipedia but I tried to make it go back to the way it was before he tampered with it, but I couldn't figure out how to do it, possibly because there had been a few other edits since then already. I'm sure someone else will do it.
Trottier
Very Random
As I said previously, if one considers all previous eras de facto inferior ("historical context"), then why even bother comparing players? Everyone today is superior. (Amusingly, I'm quite certain there are a sizable portion of "Born Yesterday" posters on the main board who readily subscribe to that mindset.)
My opinion: Nik Lidstrom is superior to Robert Gordon Orr like Alex Ovechkin is superior to Wayne Gretzky (and Mario Lemieux and...).
Which is to say, not in a million years.
Frankly, I'd wager that it is not even considered a topic worthy of consideration in most hockey circles.
Last edited:
I think this actually raises an interesting question. Hardyvan asserts that "all modern players are superior to a certain extent;" thus, he believes Lidstrom to be superior to Orr as well as Potvin, a position which definitely has a lot of opposition.
The question is how far does it go? Is Mike Green superior to Bobby Orr? Duncan Keith? Brent Seabrook? Shea Weber? Where is the line of demarcation between "all modern players are superior" and x y z modern player isn't actually superior?
Is Patrick Kane better than Gretzky? Henrik Sedin better than Beliveau? Mike Richards better that Bobby Clarke?
How far does it go before the "greatness and superiority" of modern players does not surpass players from the past eras?
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
GDT: HFBoards GDT: 11/14/2024 | 10 Games Tonight- Latest: Gaylord Q Tinkledink
