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

[overg]

Because we know that he can be a standout in a variety of environments (that weren’t necessarily the best places to generate the magic number for Norris votes: 60 points), whereas all we know regarding Nicklas Lidstrom is that on Sweden, he might lose some accolades to Kenny Jonsson, and that if you pair him with the wrong partner, 2003-04 happens. Detroit still won a President’s Trophy in that off-year, which tells you just how loaded they were.

There’s certainly a benefit to seeing a player do the same things in multiple systems. Pronger is more tested. That’s a plus.

There is a benefit to a player being so useful to a team that they never trade him or let him walk, and a benefit to a player showing team loyalty. St. Louis let Pronger go because of money, but also because he had a pretty spotty playoff record and had failed to get them over the hump. He walked out on Edmonton. Anaheim traded him when they went into rebuild mode.

And for that matter, Lidstrom did have great success in at least two different environments. The pre-cap, ultra loaded Wings, and the post-cap, far less star-studded Wings.* The '02 Cup champs looked nothing like the '08 Cup champs. Lidstrom was winning Norris trophies on both side of that change.

Finally, while Pronger had success in mutliple environments, Lidstrom had *more* success with his one team. Both in terms of team and individual success, Lidstrom trumps Pronger.


* Lidstrom also had some success in a third environment, being runner up for the Calder with the early 90's, high-flying Wings which played nothing like Bowman-led version of the team. But that doesn't really add much when comparing him to Pronger. I only bring it up to show that just because Lidstrom always played for Detroit, doesn't mean we didn't see him in a pretty wide variety of team-situations.

 

[ImporterExporter]

As always, I’ll ask: how many defensemen should have been nominated for either the Hart or Pearson/Lindsay since 1990? I want to know where the injustice is.

I’ll spot you 1995 Coffey (the leading Western Conference player in the 1995 split league), 2000 Pronger (he won), 2008 Lidstrom (4th), 2016 Karlsson (missed the playoffs), and 2017 Burns (nominated for the Lindsay).

We haven’t had a lot of defensemen in Hart consideration between Bourque and Karlsson because it hasn’t been warranted all that much. And that’s where we circle back to people putting a Lidstrom over a Jagr because it’s easier to win an award over Scott Niedermayer and Rob Blake than Joe Sakic and Teemu Selanne.

Perhaps you've already answered it for me.

I think the NHL and writers who vote on awards have long missed the boat in terms of value relative to the team and its successes.

Do you honestly think forwards should just automatically get the overwhelming majority of nominations when they play FAR LESS and in some instances don't help the team much in terms of defensive value. I sure as hell don't.

Consider this:

Listrom's Norris record is:
1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 6, 6.

Hart recored:
4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.

I don't buy the gap. At all. He's the best defender in the game many times over, with no real weakness offensively or defensively, played more minutes then anyone in hockey (ES and ST's btw) and somehow was only the 4th to 10th most valuable player in the league?

Not. A. Chance.

Lidstrom's career adjusted +/- is 253 well above Pronger's 175.

Lidstrom led all defensmen in scoring FIVE times with THREE runner up's. Pronger never did. And in no way was Pronger bridging the gap defensively. Not by any metric I've ever seen, nor by the eye test. Call them equals at their peaks, but Lidstrom literally made fewer mistakes in his own end then any defensemen I've seen in my lifetime.

 

[VanIslander]

I don't see how him being a mercenary should be to his credit because Lidstrom stayed on the same team his whole career.

Whether a player played in one city or five cities, neither way makes a lick of difference to this HOH project.

Unless you wanna marshall other evidence in addition to argue a specific player lacked teamwork and didn't fit in anywhere. (But Prongs was a leader and/or a captain everywhere he went.)

 

[Sentinel]

PIMs in itself is not an indicator of a liability. The sort of behavior that results in penalties can be a benefit. Chelios and Stevens are top-3 in career playoff PIMs for defensemen with 400+ each and I don't discount their effectiveness at all based on penalty totals; again, it's a marker of their style of play that is very effective.

Pronger likewise was effective with his physical play that at times crossed the line, often getting away with it, and throwing the opposition off their game. His nasty, dirty play and stickwork has a time and a place (just like with Cleghorn). Now, if Prongs sometimes made bad decisions about when to skirt the rulebook, that is another matter.

Lidstrom's relatively Lady Byng style is no less effective, just different. It's not better, at least not based on PIM stats for defensemen!

In my opinion it is. Lidstrom was simply too smart to put himself out of position, so he didn't have to make his team short-handed. Given that he was one of Detroit's PKers, it only adds to his value. Pronger's inability to stay out of the box (and away from suspensions) hindered his teams.

 

[VanIslander]

In my opinion it is. Lidstrom was simply too smart to put himself out of position, so he didn't have to make his team short-handed. Given that he was one of Detroit's PKers, it only adds to his value. Pronger's inability to stay out of the box (and away from suspensions) hindered his teams.

Then you will similarly find Chelios and Stevens to be playoff liabilities and discount them accordingly.

 

[BenchBrawl]

So, can any peer of Harvey, Kelly, Bourque, Potvin, Fetisov, Orr, Shore, Robinson, that isn't in the group himself, be debated as credibly against them (as far as level play, not accomplishments) as Pronger is against Lidstrom?

To be fair, could Pronger be argued against any of them in the same way? Or as in, is Lidstrom's level of play the lowest out of that group at their best?

 

[ResilientBeast]

So, can any peer of Harvey, Kelly, Bourque, Potvin, Fetisov, Orr, Shore, Robinson, that isn't in the group himself, be debated as credibly against them (as far as level play, not accomplishments) as Pronger is against Lidstrom?

To be fair, could Pronger be argued against any of them in the same way?

Wouldn't Kelly and Harvey be a good parallel to here?

 

[BenchBrawl]

Wouldn't Kelly and Harvey be a good parallel to here?

"that isn't in the group himself"

Regardless, pretty sure both of them peaked at a higher level than Lidstrom.

 

[MXD]

So, can any peer of Harvey, Kelly, Bourque, Potvin, Fetisov, Orr, Shore, Robinson, that isn't in the group himself, be debated as credibly against them (as far as level play, not accomplishments) as Pronger is against Lidstrom?

To be fair, could Pronger be argued against any of them in the same way? Or as in, is Lidstrom's level of play the lowest out of that group at their best?

Of all ******** people, Brian Leetch was CONSIDERED better than Raymond Bourque at some point. That probably said more about that consideration than about Brian Leetch.

 

[VanIslander]

So, can any peer of Harvey, Kelly, Bourque, Potvin, Fetisov, Orr, Shore, Robinson, that isn't in the group himself, be debated as credibly against them (as far as level play, not accomplishments) as Pronger is against Lidstrom?

Seibert against Shore. (I'll dig up stuff when we get there.)

 

[ResilientBeast]

"that isn't in the group himself"

Regardless, pretty sure both of them peaked at a higher level than Lidstrom.

I clearly haven't had enough coffee this morning.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Perhaps you've already answered it for me.

I think the NHL and writers who vote on awards have long missed the boat in terms of value relative to the team and its successes.

Do you honestly think forwards should just automatically get the overwhelming majority of nominations when they play FAR LESS and in some instances don't help the team much in terms of defensive value. I sure as hell don't.

Consider this:

Listrom's Norris record is:
1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 6, 6.

Hart recored:
4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.

I don't buy the gap. At all. He's the best defender in the game many times over, with no real weakness offensively or defensively, played more minutes then anyone in hockey (ES and ST's btw) and somehow was only the 4th to 10th most valuable player in the league?

Not. A. Chance.

Lidstrom's career adjusted +/- is 253 well above Pronger's 175.

Lidstrom led all defensmen in scoring FIVE times with THREE runner up's. Pronger never did. And in no way was Pronger bridging the gap defensively. Not by any metric I've ever seen, nor by the eye test. Call them equals at their peaks, but Lidstrom literally made fewer mistakes in his own end then any defensemen I've seen in my lifetime.

So are we agreeing that there shouldn’t have been a defenseman nominated for the Hart or Pearson in the last 28 years other than maybe 1995, 2000, 2008, 2016, 2017? Shoutout to 2003 Al MacInnis, but I don’t know that we’re any closer to getting Lidstrom a comparable Hart record to his contemporaries at other positions.

I could complain all day about how goaltenders should win more Hart Trophies, but if I don’t come up with seasons in which even I would have given them a vote on a 5-3-1 ballot, then my theory about an anti-goaltending voting conspiracy probably wouldn’t be a particularly convincing one.

I’ve read about bias against defensemen in Hart voting ever since Pronger gave people a reason to vote for one, and the closest I’ve come to believing it was Erik Karlsson when he missed the playoffs, but he was top-5 in voting the next year with a worse performance.


Seriously though: 5-3-1 ballot. When are you guys voting for Nicklas Lidstrom? A comparable amount of times as you would Markus Naslund or Jaromir Jagr?

 

[BenchBrawl]

Of all ******** people, Brian Leetch was CONSIDERED better than Raymond Bourque at some point.

I don't remember very well, but Leetch peaked after Bourque's prime (which is kindda buried inside his continuous excellence).So was Leetch considered better than Bourque EVER was, or just better at a specific moment?

 

[ResilientBeast]

Seriously though: 5-3-1 ballot. When are you guys voting for Nicklas Lidstrom? A comparable amount of times as you would Markus Naslund or Jaromir Jagr?

I think it's some BS from the writers since Goalies and Defensemen have their own award.

They should make a Norris/Vezina equivalent for forwards and then clarify that the Hart means "Most valuable"

 

[BenchBrawl]

I think it's some BS from the writers since Goalies and Defensemen have their own award.

They should make a Norris/Vezina equivalent for forwards and then clarify that the Hart means "Most valuable"

Agreed.The ambiguity in the biggest trophy's definition is a joke.

 

[VanIslander]

Of all ******** people, Brian Leetch was CONSIDERED better than Raymond Bourque at some point. That probably said more about that consideration than about Brian Leetch.

You really have a thing against Leetch.

Leetch had four all star seasons, two Norris trophies (his only two finalist seasons) and a Conn Smythe from 1992-97 ... which is impressive ... his 94 playoffs maybe putting him on a pedestal for a few months...

but this was still Bourque's prime time: five all star seasons and FIVE Norris finalist seasons (admittedly only one win) during the same 92-97 period!!!!!!

(Of course, Bourque went on afterwards to get two more all star Norris finalist seasons. But by then Leetch wasn't so great and wasn't being touted as 'one of' the best.)

 

[MXD]

I don't remember very well, but Leetch peaked after Bourque's prime (which is kindda buried inside his continuous excellence).So was Leetch considered better than Bourque EVER was, or just better at a specific moment?

Specific moment. I mean... Yeah, it's kinda sketchy bring this in relation to Bourque, as it's not like Bourque had a peak.

The point was that a player can be considered a better better than a strictly superior player. Doesn't mean he actually was better.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Specific moment. I mean... Yeah, it's kinda sketchy bring this in relation to Bourque, as it's not like Bourque had a peak.

The point was that a player can be considered a better better than a strictly superior player. Doesn't mean he actually was better.

Bourque certainly had a prime, in the late 80s (EDIT: well, from 86-87 to 93-94 could be his "prime" I guess if we extend it) .Peak I'm not sure I'd have to revisit.Maybe also Coffey could be thrown into the mix from the other side of Bourque's prime.

So yeah, if it's a specific moment, that's not what I was looking for.Pronger can be argued to having played at a higher level than Lidstrom EVER has, which is what I'm looking for here against the Top 9 group.I cannot call Lidstrom a "strictly" superior player, if he cannot play at the highest level of the other player.I can call his career strictly superior, so that's that.

EDIT: I guess my main aim here is to question Lidstrom's actual level of play against the other Top 10 defenseman of all-time.

 

[blogofmike]

Do you honestly think forwards should just automatically get the overwhelming majority of nominations when they play FAR LESS and in some instances don't help the team much in terms of defensive value. I sure as hell don't.

Yes.

How many GA are being prevented by the individual defender over created by the individual forward? One of the reasons I come in lower than most on Doug Harvey is that I don't see as much defensive value. Harvey has a great year in 1958? Awesome. Montreal allowed a stingy 158 GA. Harvey had an off year in 1959? Awesome. Montreal allowed a stingy 158 GA. A Norris-winning Harvey leaves the team? Awesome. Montreal allowed a stingy 166 GA, which is 22 less than they allowed with him in 1961, and their best GA year since 1959.​

 

[Michael Farkas]

So, can any peer of Harvey, Kelly, Bourque, Potvin, Fetisov, Orr, Shore, Robinson, that isn't in the group himself, be debated as credibly against them (as far as level play, not accomplishments) as Pronger is against Lidstrom?

To be fair, could Pronger be argued against any of them in the same way? Or as in, is Lidstrom's level of play the lowest out of that group at their best?

This is a little tainted. One of two reasons...

1. I don't think Pronger is that comparable to Lidstrom in the first place.
2. "Hey, except these really good players...can any not really good players challenge these really really good players for really really goodness?" is a rather interesting question...

But, I'll play along...Robinson to Potvin...Chelios to Bourque...Seibert to Shore as mentioned...


EDIT: Oops, didn't see Robinson in that group, apologies...

 

[The Macho King]

Roloson was a journeyman, and sure, he may have gotten hot...that happens...but he wasn't a reliable goaltender on the whole, nor was that team particularly good (as they failed to make the playoffs each of the next thousand years)...moreover, even with Conklin giving a game away and a career backup in Jussi Markkanen coming in, they still went 7.

Giguere was a meh goaltender with a poor glove, poor blocker, shoddy rebound control...a stop, drop and hope goaltender that needed a strong defense to handle his voluptuous rebounds because he couldn't feel pucks and he was lacking the strength and athleticism to combat his over-stuffed Oreo stylings...

Goaltending was the weak point of that team...

So a few points -

One - Roloson was a journeyman but he was posting almost .930 in those playoffs behind a not very good team. If the Oilers win, he would have been in the discussion (him or Pronger) for the Conn Smythe. He was also excellent for Tampa when he played for us in the playoffs, but that was like 7 years later so I understand why it doesn't rate. But he was a good playoff goaltender - he just didn't get a lot of shots to show it.

Giguere - there's some revisionism in play with your analysis there. He had 8 straight seasons of plus .910 goaltending (that ended the following year), was four times top ten in Vezina voting (including that season), and of course has a Smythe to his name. Additionally he was posting a .922 save percentage in those playoffs while allowing fewer than 2 goals a game. Now obviously a lot of that had to do with the strong defense (including the defensive forwards who were stellar) in front of him, but those aren't the numbers of a guy that got "dragged" anywhere.

And Leighton...

Yeah, he f***ing sucked.

 

[Michael Farkas]

So a few points -

One - Roloson was a journeyman but he was posting almost .930 in those playoffs behind a not very good team. If the Oilers win, he would have been in the discussion (him or Pronger) for the Conn Smythe. He was also excellent for Tampa when he played for us in the playoffs, but that was like 7 years later so I understand why it doesn't rate. But he was a good playoff goaltender - he just didn't get a lot of shots to show it.

Giguere - there's some revisionism in play with your analysis there. He had 8 straight seasons of plus .910 goaltending (that ended the following year), was four times top ten in Vezina voting (including that season), and of course has a Smythe to his name. Additionally he was posting a .922 save percentage in those playoffs while allowing fewer than 2 goals a game. Now obviously a lot of that had to do with the strong defense (including the defensive forwards who were stellar) in front of him, but those aren't the numbers of a guy that got "dragged" anywhere.

And Leighton...

Yeah, he ****ing sucked.

I get what you're saying. But I'm the last guy that you're going to find save pct. mattering for...the point is, those players may have been good in that moment, but the point is, they generally weren't good not in those moments...it's weird that all three of them had noteworthy playoffs (Giguere has 2003 as well, of course) with Pronger managing things for them...and then didn't do diddly-poo for all or nearly all of the rest of their careers...

 

[BenchBrawl]

This is a little tainted. One of two reasons...

1. I don't think Pronger is that comparable to Lidstrom in the first place.
2. "Hey, except these really good players...can any not really good players challenge these really really good players for really really goodness?" is a rather interesting question...

But, I'll play along...Robinson to Potvin...Chelios to Bourque...Seibert to Shore as mentioned...


EDIT: Oops, didn't see Robinson in that group, apologies...

If my method is too much of a massage, then too bad.But the main point I want clarified is this: Is Lidstrom's top level the least impressive out of that group? You can define "top level" as you wish, but Chris Pronger didn't just have the spike year, he also had all those deep runs where IMO he established he had a higher gear than Lidstrom, and those runs are obviously spreaded throughout many seasons.

 

[Michael Farkas]

If my method is too much of a massage, then too bad.But the main point I want clarified is this: Is Lidstrom's top level the least impressive out of that group? You can define "top level" as you wish

Harvey (may be blasphemous) or Fetisov...?

 

[Michael Farkas]

Yes.

How many GA are being prevented by the individual defender over created by the individual forward? One of the reasons I come in lower than most on Doug Harvey is that I don't see as much defensive value. Harvey has a great year in 1958? Awesome. Montreal allowed a stingy 158 GA. Harvey had an off year in 1959? Awesome. Montreal allowed a stingy 158 GA. A Norris-winning Harvey leaves the team? Awesome. Montreal allowed a stingy 166 GA, which is 22 less than they allowed with him in 1961, and their best GA year since 1959.​

1962. First and only 70 game season from Plante. First and only MVP from Plante. First 1st Team AS award for Plante since 1959.

Habs don't win a playoff series after Harvey leaves in 1961 until 1965.