- Status
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 31,007
- 13,924
Licklas Nidstrom
Registered User
Bourque by a razor thin margin. Maybe Ray gets rewarded for doing his thing while mostly being the focal point of other teams. Nik isn't far behind but he has worse competition and played on some stacked teams.
Teams that mind you owed a lot, sometimes most, of their success to Nik.
Teams that mind you owed a lot, sometimes most, of their success to Nik.
BraveCanadian
Registered User
- Jun 30, 2010
- 15,240
- 4,456
That seems about right.. they are too close to call for me.
Both of them have/had been so good for so long it is amazing.
Being a Habs fan my whole life it pains me to say Bourque. He always was one of my most respected players. You can't go wrong with either one, I find them quite comparable in many ways.
mrhockey193195
Registered User
I would take Bourque. Lidstrom has clearly been the most dominant defenseman of the past decade, and his accomplishments and accolades are on par with Bourque: however, I don't think you can discount the fact that Bourque had greater competition for his Norris Trophy wins, in Coffey, Leetch, MacInnis, Chelios, Stevens, Murphy, etc. Lidstrom's competition post 2000 primarily consisted of Pronger, Niedermayer, Chara, Boyle, amongst others.
To me, Bourque is the 4th greatest defenseman of all time (behind, obviously, Orr, Harvey and Shore). I have Lidstrom around 6th or 7th. I know I'm in the minority, but I rate Potvin for sure ahead of Lidstrom. I'm still up in the air about how to rank Lidstrom, Robinson, Kelly, and maybe Park for the 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th spots (I say maybe Park because I'm pretty convinced the other three are slightly superior, so Park should get the 9th spot on my list).
To me, Bourque is the 4th greatest defenseman of all time (behind, obviously, Orr, Harvey and Shore). I have Lidstrom around 6th or 7th. I know I'm in the minority, but I rate Potvin for sure ahead of Lidstrom. I'm still up in the air about how to rank Lidstrom, Robinson, Kelly, and maybe Park for the 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th spots (I say maybe Park because I'm pretty convinced the other three are slightly superior, so Park should get the 9th spot on my list).
Big Phil
Registered User
- Nov 2, 2003
- 31,703
- 4,156
I'm not sure if you are in the minority. I don't think you can really make a case that Lidstrom was better than Potvin in each of their peaks. If you saw both play, no doubt Potvin was the better player in his peak, you wouldn't pass him up as a GM if you saw both play live.
That being said he played "only" 15 years. Lidstrom has played about 20. Does the longevity put him over the top? That and the fact like Potvin he has just flat out won his whole career, even better. Lidstrom does get a break here or there too. There is no way he was a 2nd team all-star this year over Pronger but the voters chose this. So yeah he does get the nice guy vote like that example there. But he still didn't sustain his greatness quite as long as Bourque did. 19 year end all-star teams is absolutely impossible to beat and you have to give credit to Bourque for that. So Bourque beats him in longevity, peak value and as far as I am concerned all around game as well by a pinch.
Lidstrom is very close to Potvin, and that group as a whole is extremely close to Kelly and Robinson as well although most would still put the former higher. But by now there is little case a person can make that Coffey, Chelios, Park etc. were better. Since the lockout I think Lidstrom is clear from that pack for sure.
Frank the Tank
The Godfather
I would go with Bourque. But to say Lidstrom is overrated is one of the goofiest statements I've heard.
Lidstrom was always a better defender than potvin and he beats him in longevity. I rank red kelly above potvin too, i have potvin at 7.
RabbinsDuck
Registered User
Lidstrom and Howard were the only players keeping the Wings in the playoffs this year. Lidstrom was excellent. Stats showed and the players voted Lidstrom as the clear best defensive defenseman in the league. Do you really think the best defensive D in the game, while still managing to finish top 10 in points does not warrant a 2nd team all-star nod? Are we really placing this much weight on offense, from a defenseman?
The thought of the top offensive producing defenseman this past year as a top 10 defensive defenseman actually induces giggles.
Lidstrom is still a top defenseman in the league, years beyond when Potvin was retired. That is not career, that is prime. Potvin had a better peak, but Lidstrom decidedly beats him in prime and career.
Last edited:
I would go with Bourque. But to say Lidstrom is overrated is one of the goofiest statements I've heard.
I have to agree with tha later statment here, Lidstrom isn't flashy he's just anchored one of the best D corps for almost 20 years (18 to be exact).
I would take Lidstrom but it is really close.
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
Bourque and it's an easy choice.
Not saying it's not close but Bourque was a machine, 1600 points in 1600 games while playing solid defense...craziness.
Not saying it's not close but Bourque was a machine, 1600 points in 1600 games while playing solid defense...craziness.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Bourque for sure.
I think when ranking defensemen, a few things are certain:
1. Orr is #1.
2. Harvey and Shore are interchangeable at #2 and #3.
3. Bourque is #4.
4. Lidstrom is #5.
I think when ranking defensemen, a few things are certain:
1. Orr is #1.
2. Harvey and Shore are interchangeable at #2 and #3.
3. Bourque is #4.
4. Lidstrom is #5.
Okay I understand the legacy of Shore, not sure if anyone on these boards actaully saw him play but alot of this ranking is based on his 4 Harts it seems to me.
Aside from being a 6 team league (okay it was a 10 to 7 team league) during the time Shore played, what exactly was the criteria and evaluation in the Hart voting in those years and how did the voters change thier criteria over the years?
Somewhere along the way, the best defensive Dman lost out on being able to win the Hart and one of the top scorers usually gets it now. At a glance it appears that this change happened a couple of years after Shore's last Hart in the early 40's.
I wish I had the time but maybe we could look at how the voting patterns for the Hart has changed over the years and how we should treat that in our evalutions.
The granting of assists was eratic to say the least so offensive stats don't tell the whole story but to call a guy who played 14 years in the NHL and won only 2 Stanley Cups during that time might be an overstament to call for certain that he was better than Bourque and Lidstrom who excelled for a longer period of time at a high level.
During a quick check I also noticed that several of those Bruin teams had 7 HHOF on those teams which accounted for about half of all the games played by Bruin players during those particualr years.
Maybe all of those guys deserve to be in the Hall or maybe it was just easier to get into the Hall back in those days but for all of their talent to only have 2 cups seems to be a bit of an under achievment IMO.
I would slide Bourque and Lidstrom up on the list and Lidstrom isn't finished yet.
I know that this is going to cause a stir but maybe we can look at the eratic nature of the NHL during Shore's years and the different way voters have voted for the Hart over the years and ask if he truly was better than Borque or Lidstrom, which I don't think he was.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
It's not just his Harts; Shore was the best defenseman in the league at least 8 times as demonstrated by all-star voting.
As for offense, Shore was the best offensive defenseman of his time, he just also happened to be elite defensively, and physically fearsome. Don't let the raw numbers fool you.
Those Bruin teams were very strong, and Shore was easily their MVP - he played most of every game, of course he had something to do with their record. And a lot of their HHOFers that they had were of the weaker variety - Bobby Bauer, Woody Dumart, Cooney Weiland, Harry Oliver.
The biggest change in voting was that defensemen got their own trophy in 1954, and voters were immediately reluctant to give them Hart votes.
And what's this about it being a 7-10-team league? There's this guy in this section who thinks that matters, but he doesn't have a leg to stand on in that debate. Don't be like that guy.
ya i kinda figured that some bias was coming into play here.
The Hart voting patterns changed before 1954 with the Norris.
I do agree that some of the HHOF guys are of the weaker type but 2 Stanely cups in a 14 year career is what it is. I know that teams win cups but great players should be able to lead their teams to greatness more often IMO and yes it is way easier for a team to win a cup in a 7-10 team league than a 30 team league, something I think you might even agree with.
I also understand the size and stength and sheer intimidation that Shore caused as he was one of the larger players of his day and other players feared him.
There are some gaps in his leagacy though as for some reason he didn't win a Hart until he was 30 which was one of his last 2 "top offensive seasons. his 36 and 38 hart trophies where as a defensive dman as he totalled 19 and 17 points in those seasons.
Not sure we can say that he was the best offensive Dman during his 14 years as some of the top players played both at forward and D and that leads to the next point.
Let's face it there where not a ton of Dmen scoring a ton of points back then and scoring was very eratic as has been pointed out in the Morenz thread.
The league was hardly stable either with the flux in teams and wide differences in scroing from year to year with a smaller sample size of schedule. I will agree though that he was the best Dman of his era as we can't tell as much about Dmen from stats in his time as we can today.
It's those 4 Harts that come into question in my mind and it's not a given that he would have won 8 Norris trophies with his 7 1st team selections and 1 2nd, there where other good Dmen in the elague at the time as well.
That being said I would take the context and totality of both Lidstrom and Bourque over Shore and his 14 seasons and 2 Cups.
Last edited:
Shore was a revolutionary player, before him most defenseman would stay around center ice and not think about scoring. Shore would rush the puck up the ice looking to create scoring opportunities. When Orr came into the NHL, many compared Orr to Shore for their ability to rush the puck up the ice. Scoring in double digits in a 44 game season for a defenseman is remarkable, scoring in that period was lower than in the ‘dead puck’ era (except 1929-30).
But it wasn’t just scoring, Shore was the whole package, elite defensively, physically intimidating, a mean SOB who was hated everywhere but Boston. Shore is the reason why professional hockey succeeded in Boston. Why do you think many Bruins fans put so much importance on having a tough and physical team? Eddie Shore helped create the culture of that team when he arrived and it has stuck since then.
The present form of the sport took shape in the professional leagues, the NHL and the Pacific Coast League. Key innovations were 3 20-minute periods (1910), 6 players (1911), and a gradual relaxation of the stricture against the forward pass: allowed between blue lines (1918), within any of the 3 zones (1929-30), and across blue lines (1930-31). The red line was added in 1943-44. The result was a faster game and more team play. this is from http://thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0003794
Lets acknowledge that he was in the NHL at the rigth time and other dmen where doing the same.
I'm not saying that he wasn't the best Dman of his era but it was an eratic era and Lidstrom and Bourque are better players playing in a much better NHL for a longer period of time IMO and having the same imapct on their teams as shore did.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Yes, of course.
However, the playoff system screwed Shore and many other good players out of better playoff legacies. For 12 years, the reward for finishing first in your division was a date with the winner of the other division, in a 3-game series.
Who cares if he didn't win a Hart until he was 30? You could easily spin that to say how impressive it was that he won four Harts in his 30s.
And he was definitely still an offensive defenseman in 1936 and 1938, here are the defense scoring leaders for those seasons:
Ebbie Goodfellow* 23
Joe Jerwa 21
Babe Siebert* 21
Eddie Shore* 19
Red Horner* 24
Jimmy Fowler 22
Earl Seibert* 21
Babe Pratt* 19
Babe Siebert* 19
Eddie Shore* 17
Only King Clancy was in his league - no one else was close.
http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points
Ignore # 2, 4, and 6. Northcott was not a defenseman, nor was Georges Mantha. Hap Day's numbers include 3 years as a forward. Now look at how Shore paces the field of other defensemen, many of them at the top bonafide HHOF greats.
Some players don't show up here as they are listed as dual positions - Ebbie Goodfellow, Babe Siebert, and Dit Clapper being the biggest examples. However, if you manually separate out their seasons as defensemen, they were not as prolific offensively as Shore.
Besides, why get into this? Shore won the trophy as the MVP of the league - whether it was offense, defense, toughness, or a combination, he won and deserved them.
Shore was the leading vote-getter among defensemen 7 times once the ASTs were introduced. This is as good as a Norris trophy as all-star voting and norris voting have always been almost perfect mirror images of eachother.
Also, pre-all-star teams, Shore was 3rd in Hart voting in 1928 and 1929, so in all likelihood he was the league's best defenseman those years too. He's looking at probably 9 Norrises.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
explain.
Shore was the NHL's oldest player when he retired at 37 following a 16-year career in the top leagues. He played until 37 before it was cool.
- Status
