Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Preliminary Discussion Thread (Revenge of Michael Myers)

[BenchBrawl]

I mean when did this Lidstrom over Jagr business start? Yeah, Jagr was one of the more balanced scorers - as much a threat as a goal scorer as his competition on RW (Bure and Selanne) while also having incredible puck possession and creativity, but actor Scott Wolf from “Party of Five” announced Lidstrom’s name instead of Lubomir Visnovsky’s, so...

This was never a thing in real time as far as I remember.

 

[MXD]

...The Lidstrom over Bure business also never started when both were playing either.
People are not necessarily looking at the game the right way.

 

[quoipourquoi]

...The Lidstrom over Bure business also never started when both were playing either.
People are not necessarily looking at the game the right way.

Kinda disagree on that one from 2000-onward. Jagr also didn’t have the injury issues of a Bure, Forsberg, Hasek, or Lindros that could serve as an equalizer for Lidstrom.

 

[Michael Farkas]

We're talking about what though? The perception of the majority of fans? There's a bias there towards quantitative and high-transaction players...Jagr was a big-assed, big-haired, heavy drinking, big money gambling, tax evading, playmaking winger that had wonderful hands and a goal scoring touch that few in his time could replicate...

Nicklas Lidstrom was a regular-assed, clean-cut, occasional-scotch, gambling is forbidden by the Bible (even insurance), paid-his-taxes-Jan-1st, defensively-sound, position player who made smart, efficient plays with the puck while dealing in a myriad of eras (firewagon -> dead puck -> nuNHL) and dealing with a myriad of lesser (as if they had a choice) partners - from the very offensive-minded and defensively suspect (Coffey, Schneider, Olausson) to the run-around-physicality (Konstantinov, Markov) to the plain untalented (Dandenault, Lilja)...and all this time helped bring three very different goalies to Stanley Cup glory (Vernon, Osgood, Hasek)...

For same reasons Marc-Edouard Vlasic doesn't get nearly enough credit or the same reason why Ryan Suter was the better of the Suter-Weber pairing for much of their time together but not everyone was paying close enough attention to realize it is the same reason why Nick Lidstrom really doesn't get enough credit for what he was able to do for as long as he was able to do it...

 

[MXD]

C'mon, Dandenault was an absolute speed demon. That was pretty much the only part of his skillset that was average-or-better, but still, and HOW THE /($(/$ did this guy spend 25+ minutes on the ice in the 02-03 playoffs? Okay, that's not on a /60 basis (he was probably closer to 22 minutes)., but still...

 

[MXD]

Kinda disagree on that one from 2000-onward. Jagr also didn’t have the injury issues of a Bure, Forsberg, Hasek, or Lindros that could serve as an equalizer for Lidstrom.

By then Bure was firmly stapled to the red line and played in a suspect market instead of a crazy market.

 

[quoipourquoi]

We're talking about what though? The perception of the majority of fans? There's a bias there towards quantitative and high-transaction players...Jagr was a big-assed, big-haired, heavy drinking, big money gambling, tax evading, playmaking winger that had wonderful hands and a goal scoring touch that few in his time could replicate...

Nicklas Lidstrom was a regular-assed, clean-cut, occasional-scotch, gambling is forbidden by the Bible (even insurance), paid-his-taxes-Jan-1st, defensively-sound, position player who made smart, efficient plays with the puck while dealing in a myriad of eras (firewagon -> dead puck -> nuNHL) and dealing with a myriad of lesser (as if they had a choice) partners - from the very offensive-minded and defensively suspect (Coffey, Schneider, Olausson) to the run-around-physicality (Konstantinov, Markov) to the plain untalented (Dandenault, Lilja)...and all this time helped bring three very different goalies to Stanley Cup glory (Vernon, Osgood, Hasek)...

For same reasons Marc-Edouard Vlasic doesn't get nearly enough credit or the same reason why Ryan Suter was the better of the Suter-Weber pairing for much of their time together but not everyone was paying close enough attention to realize it is the same reason why Nick Lidstrom really doesn't get enough credit for what he was able to do for as long as he was able to do it...

Strong disagreement on this one. Jagr wasn’t held as a top-3 player in 1995, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2006 (with legit arguments for 1996 and 1997 while behind teammate Mario Lemieux) because he was some colorful Peanut Butter magnate, nor was clean cut Wayne Gretzky ignored until he grew long hair and a beard in 1998 (though it might have been what put him over the edge in getting a Pearson nomination that year).

If we all count on our fingers how many times Jagr and Lidstrom would have been on our own personal 5-3-1 Hart ballots, we’d have to switch to toes or borrow from the other hand for Jagr. Being the best poke checker in a generation when sticks got lighter and lighter is not a replacement for Jagr’s puck control which probably involved magnets or Force abilities.

 

[Sentinel]

In that case, I'll admit they've fooled me.

It's easy to find examples of players who won an award and then won Cups soon after and reasonably suppose that they are content with the sequence of events. Afterall, they did eventually win the Cup, so why risk an alternate reality? But what about cases where they never won a Cup? Henrik Lundqvist lost in a shootout on the final day of the 2010 regular season to miss the playoffs by 1 point. The Flyers team that beat them and took that playoff spot almost won the Cup. I suspect Lundqvist would trade his Vezina Trophy for that one extra shot at a Cup that he (as of yet) never won.

If you so strongly value playoff appearances (or even Stanley Cup victories) over individual awards, then I hope you have Lidstrom twenty or more spots over Bourque.

 

[MXD]

... But Lidstrom would've been on much more Hart ballots had he dated Anna Kournikova.

 

[Sentinel]

Next best? You mean he was completely irrelevant rubbish in those seasons, I'm sure...

"Shake n' Bake!"

Rocket Richard Trophy = completely irrelevant rubbish? Am I reading this correctly?

 

[Michael Farkas]

If you so strongly value playoff appearances (or even Stanley Cup victories) over individual awards, then I hope you have Lidstrom twenty or more spots over Bourque.

Even when people are generally agreeing with you, you take it and throw it in the garbage haha

I don't take such a hard line approach on things because context is everything...everything exists on a spectrum...as such, Bourque and Lidstrom are back to back on my list...

 

[Michael Farkas]

Rocket Richard Trophy = completely irrelevant rubbish? Am I reading this correctly?

You are not.

 

[MXD]

Seriously, Andrei Markov was pretty much Niklas Lidstrom with average skating (and playoff issues) and he was underappreciated his whole career as well, not only league-wide but team-wide too. It's not rare to see players like that get underrated compared to forwards, even if they DO get their share of points because of their PP QB abilities.

 

[MXD]

And I do have Bourque and Lidstrom back to back on my list as well. Top-15.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Strong disagreement on this one. Jagr wasn’t held as a top-3 player in 1995, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2006 (with legit arguments for 1996 and 1997 while behind teammate Mario Lemieux) because he was some colorful Peanut Butter magnate, nor was clean cut Wayne Gretzky ignored until he grew long hair and a beard in 1998 (though it might have been what put him over the edge in getting a Pearson nomination that year).

I get it. But the flash element, the heavy transaction element is what attracts attention...Eddie Shore is a fine example...Maurice Richard is a fine example...Weber over Suter modern day is a fine example...Burns over Vlasic is a modern day example...

Big hit, big shot, big man...Lidstrom wasn't any of those things...his best attribute is captured by statistic...nor does the game stop and a red light go on when he's doing it right...


Now seems like a good time to say: Jagr is my all time favorite player. And contemporaneously, I believed he was the best player in the game from the Lemieux retirement to the 7/11/01 trade...

 

[VanIslander]

Now we have an Upper Deck metric. The company that plasters Crosby, McDavid, Price images on multiple products while mainly ignoring other worthy players.

Two Canadians and the Canadiens top star. Sounds like typical media hype.

 

[Sentinel]

I mean when did this Lidstrom over Jagr business start? Jagr was one of the more balanced scorers - as much a threat as a goal scorer as his competition on RW (Bure and Selanne) while also having incredible puck possession and creativity, but actor Scott Wolf from “Party of Five” announced Lidstrom’s name instead of Lubomir Visnovsky’s, so...

It's funny that you mention Jagr's puck possession and creativity, while these two attributes were Lidstrom's bread and butter. Few people in the world could rival Lidstrom in these areas of the game.

True, Lidstrom was hardly ever in the talks for "the best player in the world." I think it has to do with him missing one ingredient that everyone saw as integral in defenseman: physical play. Plus Jagr, Forsberg, Sakic, and Brodeur were just more flashy. There is no doubt in my mind Lidstrom was one of the best players in the world during his entire long-ass prime.

FWIW I have Jagr at #14 and Lidstrom at #15, as if specifically to address this concern of yours

 

[Michael Farkas]

Isn't it reasonable to say that Crosby and McDavid are the best and second best players in the game right now? And you can make a reasonable claim that Price is the league's best goalie from a talent perspective. Not that this is relevant...

 

[Michael Farkas]

It was Hasek that was flashy, it was Brodeur that wasn't...Brodeur was efficient with the plus of puck handling...

 

[ImporterExporter]

I dont like the generalizations you're making.

Just because Jagr and Ovechkin are "one way players" they cant be put above Lidstrom who you deem a more complete player?

Jagr has a case as the 5th best peak of all time. He was arguably the best player in the world for many consecutive years (vs none for Lidstrom?) - and his playoffs arent even bad as he is i believe 5th or so in all time points. Ovechkin also has merits - a very comparable resume to Hull and strong playoffs.

I think both players absolutely have a case above Lidstrom - and at the very least you should be more open minded about that comparison vs unilaterally discounting the possiblity as you seem to be doing.

There is nothing generalized about saying players like Jagr and Ovechkin are one way superstars. As I've aged and learned to appreciate the nuances of hockey more, I have gravitated towards ranking players who show a complete game a bit higher than those who largely ignored the responsibilities of the other half of ice. So if two players are very close, I'll usually go with the complete package.

Ovechkin outside of 1 full playoff run and another half run has nothing to note in the postseason. And let's not play the "team quality card". Ovechkin has been on 3 or 4 (IIRC) IIRC President trophy winning rosters. How much individual and team success did Jagr have when 66 wasn't around? As I've said, he had a series here or game there, but largely never put together a career defining run in April/May/June. Now with Jagr you can at least point to the fact that by the late 90's the Pens were starting to become pretty depleted.

Also, post Orr, defensemen have been at a severe disadvantage for Hart votes. Gretzky and Lemieux and the scoring boom that came with them made sure of that. So citing Lidstrom's lack of Hart wins/finalist nods doesn't do much for me. How many did Bourque win? Potvin?

Lidstrom's quality of length on defense is only matched (surpassed) by Bourque IMO and he's a pretty widely regarded top 10-12 player ever who doesn't even sniff Lidstrom in the postseason. I have Ray over Lidstrom because the quality at D was indeed better and he did manage to have the longest stretch of great to elite play of any Dman, ever IMO, certainly in the regular season.

People can't stand on the "Lidstrom played on great teams" with a straight face because most other elite Dmen all time also had that benefit for parts, if not the majority of their careers.

Yeah, some of the guys that have been brought up may have peaked a bit higher than Nick but most of them don't come close to producing the elite longevity that Lidstrom did, who managed to do it both in regular and postseason scenarios.

Lidstrom was an elite, 2 way shutdown Dman, for a long, long time. The only thing he lacked was the bashing physicality and I think that hurts him among certain hockey people which is sad to me and it shits on what he accomplished as a player. IMHO.

 

[Sentinel]

Seriously, Andrei Markov was pretty much Niklas Lidstrom with average skating (and playoff issues) and he was underappreciated his whole career as well, not only league-wide but team-wide too. It's not rare to see players like that get underrated compared to forwards, even if they DO get their share of points because of their PP QB abilities.

Just on this page alone Lidstrom was first compared to Markus Naslund, then to Andrei Markov. Just compare him to Brendan Smith already. Sheesh...

 

[VanIslander]

Note:

Once we start the next round we should let go of talking about our initial lists. This should be a learning experience more than a lobbying exercise.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Seriously, Andrei Markov was pretty much Niklas Lidstrom with average skating (and playoff issues) and he was underappreciated his whole career as well, not only league-wide but team-wide too. It's not rare to see players like that get underrated compared to forwards, even if they DO get their share of points because of their PP QB abilities.

Markov had the injury burden and stigma.

 

[MXD]

Isn't it reasonable to say that Crosby and McDavid are the best and second best players in the game right now?

It'd probably use "factual" instead of "reasonable".

 

[MXD]

Markov had the injury burden and stigma.

Before the injuries. I mean, I always cringed when Koivu and Kovalev were described as the best Canadiens player.