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

[The Macho King]

This is how Nicklas Lidstrom gets overrated. Being the best defenseman of that era means that he should be added to the list before Chris Pronger, Scott Niedermayer, Rob Blake, and Sergei Zubov. He will be. He was ahead of all of them on my list too.

But it doesn’t speak to his standing relative to his contemporaries Jaromir Jagr, Dominik Hasek, Joe Sakic, Martin Brodeur, and Peter Forsberg - who were also better than all of Chris Pronger, Scott Niedermayer, Rob Blake, and Sergei Zubov.

So consider where we all have Jaromir Jagr and Chris Pronger on our lists. There’s a pretty big spectrum of players between the two where we can say that being the best defenseman of his era and being worse than Jaromir Jagr are not in conflict.

I mean, I would guess that most people have Lids and Jagr pretty close to each other, and Hasek is going to be in a lot of player's top 10s. So... I don't really see the issue here? Vote 2 or 3 will sort out the majority of these issues.

 

[Sentinel]

I knock Lidstrom a bit from where you would expect based on his Norris record because I think his quality of competition was *very* low (not another top-50 player in competition for his Norris wins outside of his first which was a last season Bourque), but at the same time he was head and shoulders the best D of that era, and he deserves respect for that.

Just out of curiosity: how many defensemen in the Top 50 do you expect to be playing in the league st the same time? In my Top 50, I have 11 defensemen. The only ones who were each other's direct competition are Harvey / Kelly, Robinson / Potvin, and Bourque / Coffey / Chelios. Shore, Orr, Fetisov, Lidstrom had no peers in their era. Makes sense to me.

In the Top 120, however, I also have McInnis, Stevens, Niedermeyer, Pronger, and Keith as Lidstrom's company. Quite respectable.

 

[Canadiens1958]

All I was saying was that the goaltending behind him wasn't bad (and Rolson was hot as **** during his run in 06). I think I got sidetracked on tire pumping the Michelin Man as a result (which wasn't my intention).

Roloson and Leighton were capable goalies behind a defenceman who could dominate the slot. Pronger filled the role perfectly.

 

[The Macho King]

Just out of curiosity: how many defensemen in the Top 50 do you expect to be playing in the league st the same time? In my Top 50, I have 11 defensemen. The only ones who were each other's direct competition are Harvey / Kelly, Robinson / Potvin, and Bourque / Coffey / Chelios. Shore, Orr, Fetisov, Lidstrom had no peers in their era. Makes sense to me.

In the Top 120, however, I also have McInnis, Stevens, Niedermeyer, Pronger, and Keith as Lidstrom's company. Quite respectable.

You put MacInnis as a Lidstrom comparable instead of a Bourque comparable? That seems homerish to me - his 36-40 seasons are less indicative of his career than his entire career prior. Stevens, Nieds, Pronger - I'm not super high on any of them. Niedermayer and Stephens barely squeaked in my top 100, and I have Pronger in the low 70s. And Keith is at best a mid 90s player (I think I left him off my list in favor of Doughty for the last Dman spot).

Orr had Park as his main competition (who is a great Dman). Potvin had Robinson, Howe, and Park. Harvey had Kelly. Bourque's career was so long he had practically everybody. Fetisov - unique case because his most notable achievements are international and USSR, but his prime lines up with Bourque's.

I think the competition Lidstrom had *during his Norris-winning years* is easily the worst of the great NHL dmen. Partly this makes sense - it was a transition period pre-post lockout and Lidstrom's skillset worked well on either side while most players didn't. I still think - of the players who were *raised* in the post-lockout timeframe, we're seeing that what Lidstrom accomplished wasn't quite as notable as it felt at the time. Seeing Hedman, Karlsson, and Burns hitting 70+ points, and at least Hedman and EK doing it with good defensive games, and seeing how the role of Dmen changed with the absence of the red line and the general post-lockout changes - Lidstorm was in some ways revolutionary, but at the same time the past few years made me question whether he was truly special or just a little ahead of his time.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I mean, I would guess that most people have Lids and Jagr pretty close to each other, and Hasek is going to be in a lot of player's top 10s. So... I don't really see the issue here? Vote 2 or 3 will sort out the majority of these issues.

I’m sure most do, just as I’m sure most cannot articulate why they do without comparing Lidstrom to a field of defensemen instead of Jagr or Hasek or Sakic or Brodeur or Forsberg (again, players who were also all better than that same field of defensemen) directly.

Otherwise, we’re just taking the positional rankings and arbitrarily mixing them together without any regard to Brodeur’s 7-to-1 top-5 Hart voting edge in the exact same era against the exact same competition.

...

Still waiting to hear which years Lidstrom belonged on the Hart ballot from the Lidstrom-is-a-top-20-player crowd. In the past several years I’ve been asking that question, I think TDMM was the only one who ever answered it.

It’s not even a weird question; HFBoards routinely has mock awards voting for all of the trophies. So who would have named a defenseman top-3 for the Hart since 1990, and how often was it Lidstrom?

I give y’all SEVEN years that Mark Messier was better than Ray Bourque’s Norris competition, but I can’t get one person to even tell me when a defenseman was cheated out of a top-3 spot? I see how it is, Mike Farkas! You defenseman sympathizers are all take and no give!

 

[MXD]

Still waiting to hear which years Lidstrom belonged on the Hart ballot from the Lidstrom-is-a-top-20-player crowd. In the past several years I’ve been asking that question, I think TDMM was the only one who ever answered it.

It’s not even a weird question; HFBoards routinely has mock awards voting for all of the trophies. So who would have named a defenseman top-3 for the Hart since 1990, and how often was it Lidstrom?

I give y’all SEVEN years that Mark Messier was better than Ray Bourque’s Norris competition, but I can’t get one person to even tell me when a defenseman was cheated out of a top-3 spot? I see how it is, Mike Farkas! You defenseman sympathizers are all take and no give!

00-01; 05-06; 07-08

Mostly the last two. Should've been higher for 00-01 at the very least (and Luck Femieux)

 

[quoipourquoi]

00-01; 05-06; 07-08

Mostly the last two. Should've been higher for 00-01 at the very least (and Luck Femieux)

TDMM bumped Kiprusoff too. Cold-blooded. Personally, I like Elias’ production per ES/PP TOI if I’m picking alternates to the Lemieux anomaly. Since we’ve been talking about him, this is the year where Pronger had mid-season Hart buzz when the Blues surpassed the Avalanche in the standings (which they lost during his injury).

 

[BenchBrawl]

One reason to question Lidstrom's level of play is in a comparison against Denis Potvin.

Potvin played at a higher level than Lidstrom, but he's knocked down because on paper he has fewer seasons with RS accolades.But Potvin's longevity is also underrated by this, because while he wasn't winning the Norris in the dynasty years, he was still arguably the best defenseman in the NHL despite this.His main goal by that point was to win the Stanley Cups because the opportunity was there, not win the Norris.In that timeframe, it was he who was acting as the General of a hockey dynasty, clearly the highest hockey accomplishment you can achieve.

By taking this global view, Potvin's prime extended from 74-75 to 83-84, or 10 seasons, more than enough to push him over Lidstrom considering he was playing at a higher level.Then you have the leadership, the fact he was the cornerstone of the NYI transformation from a lottery team to a dynasty within a decade.

 

[The Macho King]

I’m sure most do, just as I’m sure most cannot articulate why they do without comparing Lidstrom to a field of defensemen instead of Jagr or Hasek or Sakic or Brodeur or Forsberg (again, players who were also all better than that same field of defensemen) directly.

Otherwise, we’re just taking the positional rankings and arbitrarily mixing them together without any regard to Brodeur’s 7-to-1 top-5 Hart voting edge in the exact same era against the exact same competition.

...

Still waiting to hear which years Lidstrom belonged on the Hart ballot from the Lidstrom-is-a-top-20-player crowd. In the past several years I’ve been asking that question, I think TDMM was the only one who ever answered it.

It’s not even a weird question; HFBoards routinely has mock awards voting for all of the trophies. So who would have named a defenseman top-3 for the Hart since 1990, and how often was it Lidstrom?

I give y’all SEVEN years that Mark Messier was better than Ray Bourque’s Norris competition, but I can’t get one person to even tell me when a defenseman was cheated out of a top-3 spot? I see how it is, Mike Farkas! You defenseman sympathizers are all take and no give!

Just a few off the top of my head - I think EK in 2012 has a good argument, especially considering Stamkos didn't make the playoffs despite scoring 60. Also EK in 2015, especially considering I think the two forwards (Ovi and Tavares) were rather weak inclusions. In 2017 I think any of Burns, EK, or Hedman could have been noms (with the caveat that Hedman ended up on a team 1 point out of the playoffs).

Part of the issue is you're asking me to go against what I've been bred to believe. For so long the Hart has been top point-getters among forwards as the top 3, with maybe a goalie thrown in there for fun here or there. I think there are a ton of years in Lidstrom's prime where if you put him in the top 3 for Norris voting no one bats an eye. If he's a finalist in 06 over Kiprusoff is there going to be rioting? Or 07 instead of one of Luongo or Brodeur? Or 08 over Iginla?

I guess that's what I'm getting at. We put a lot more value in the guys scoring the goals or the guys who you *see* stop the goals, and we miss all of the other shit happening on the ice. Hedman was Tampa's best player last season, despite Kucherov scoring 38 more points than him, and him being our 5th leading scorer (I think? Kucherov, Stamkos, Point, and Gourde I think outscored him). But to get Hart consideration, you pretty much *have* to have a PPG-type season as a Dman (with some exceptions). If Kucherov won the Hart last season no one would have had much of an issue with it, but he was easily the second most valuable player on our team, and that's bonkers to me.

 

[The Macho King]

One reason to question Lidstrom's level of play is in a comparison against Denis Potvin.

Potvin played at a higher level than Lidstrom, but he's knocked down because on paper he has fewer seasons with RS accolades.But Potvin's longevity is also underrated by this, because while he wasn't winning the Norris in the dynasty years, he was still arguably the best defenseman in the NHL despite this.His main goal by that point was to win the Stanley Cups because the opportunity was there, not win the Norris.In that timeframe, it was he who was acting as the General of a hockey dynasty, clearly the highest hockey accomplishment you can achieve.

By taking this global view, Potvin's prime extended from 74-75 to 83-84, or 10 seasons, more than enough to push him over Lidstrom considering he was playing at a higher level.Then you have the leadership, the fact he was the cornerstone of the NYI transformation from a lottery team to a dynasty within a decade.

I mean - I have Potvin higher than Lids, so I'm fine with all of this.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I mean - I have Potvin higher than Lids, so I'm fine with all of this.

Lidstrom is almost consensually ranked above Potvin in the last few years.

 

[MXD]

One reason to question Lidstrom's level of play is in a comparison against Denis Potvin.

Potvin played at a higher level than Lidstrom, but he's knocked down because on paper he has fewer seasons with RS accolades.But Potvin's longevity is also underrated by this, because while he wasn't winning the Norris in the dynasty years, he was still arguably the best defenseman in the NHL despite this.His main goal by that point was to win the Stanley Cups because the opportunity was there, not win the Norris.In that timeframe, it was he who was acting as the General of a hockey dynasty, clearly the highest hockey accomplishment you can achieve.

By taking this global view, Potvin's prime extended from 74-75 to 83-84, or 10 seasons, more than enough to push him over Lidstrom considering he was playing at a higher level.Then you have the leadership, the fact he was the cornerstone of the NYI transformation from a lottery team to a dynasty within a decade.

I'm pretty sure Lidstrom's goal was to win the Stanley Cup, too. The Norris is, pretty much, the result of his play... And Lidstrom was also the general of something of a dynasty as well!

 

[MXD]

Oh and I ranked Lidstrom a few spots of ahead of Potvin, both in the Top-20. I strongly suspect the argumentation In:Re Lidstrom will be all over the place.

 

[VanIslander]

TDMM bumped Kiprusoff too... Since we’ve been talking about him, this is the year where Pronger had mid-season Hart buzz when the Blues surpassed the Avalanche in the standings (which they lost during his injury).

I became a huge Kipper fan when he backstopped my Sharks in the 2001 first round playoff series against the Blues. Exceptional save after exceptional save, he kept San Jose in the series. The frustrating thing was either Pronger or MacInnis was always on the ice! They were dominant, 9 shifts out of 10 the clear best player on the ice was one of the duo. They controlled the games of that series. I was in awe (hated when St. Louis won the series though).

I was not at all surprised when Calgary traded for the Kipper. Flames scouts/management saw exactly what us fans saw that series.

 

[The Macho King]

Oh and I ranked Lidstrom a few spots of ahead of Potvin, both in the Top-20. I strongly suspect the argumentation In:Re Lidstrom will be all over the place.

I think they're like 4 spots apart for me (Potvin at like 18 and Lids at 21/22).

 

[BenchBrawl]

In the Top 120, however, I also have McInnis, Stevens, Niedermeyer, Pronger, and Keith as Lidstrom's company. Quite respectable.

No Chara?

 

[Sentinel]

Potvin... In that timeframe, it was he who was acting as the General of a hockey dynasty, clearly the highest hockey accomplishment you can achieve.

By taking this global view, Potvin's prime extended from 74-75 to 83-84, or 10 seasons, more than enough to push him over Lidstrom considering he was playing at a higher level.Then you have the leadership, the fact he was the cornerstone of the NYI transformation from a lottery team to a dynasty within a decade.

All of this squarely applies to Lidstrom. Maybe not a full scale dynasty, but a quasi-dynasty. With two distinctly different lineups. And Lidstrom was easily the best defenseman in the world over a decade.

 

[Sentinel]

No Chara?

Nope. Didn't make my list. Let him go for Thornton.

 

[Sentinel]

I mean - I have Potvin higher than Lids, so I'm fine with all of this.

This is a prime case of revisionism.

I'm starting to worry this project is gonna turn into hot take / full scale revisionism. Lidstrom should never be ranked below Potvin. Never. Norrises matter.

 

[BenchBrawl]

All of this squarely applies to Lidstrom. Maybe not a full scale dynasty, but a quasi-dynasty. With two distinctly different lineups. And Lidstrom was easily the best defenseman in the world over a decade.

In no way was Lidstrom Detroit's leader the same way Potvin was for the Islanders.

The main argument for ranking Potvin over Lidsrom is that he played at a higher level, which a lot of people agree with.

 

[The Macho King]

This is a prime case of revisionism.

I'm starting to worry this project is gonna turn into hot take / full scale revisionism. Lidstrom should never be ranked below Potvin. Never. Norrises matter.

He has a few of those, ya know. But if you're going to argue that trophy counting > all other analysis, I have issues with that.

 

[MXD]

This is a prime case of revisionism.

I'm starting to worry this project is gonna turn into hot take / full scale revisionism. Lidstrom should never be ranked below Potvin. Never. Norrises matter.

There's totally an argument for Potvin above Lidstrom, based mostly on peak and leadership (Potvin getting with the Islanders as they were still an expansion team absolutely matters).
I don't agree with it myself, mind you, but the argument exists.

And, well, we're ranking players, and Potvin is a possible case where one can argue that he's better as a player than as a D-Men, if that makes any sense, due to joining what was a very weak expansion team with no other leader or anything like that.

 

[VanIslander]

Who was the most important player to the Isles dynasty? I've heard a lot of Potvin answers when I was growing up.

 

[The Macho King]

Who was the most important player to the Isles dynasty? I've heard a lot of Potvin answers when I was growing up.

Either Potvin or Trottier. I guess some could argue Smith? I don't think anyone mentions Bossy but it's not an indefensible opinion or anything.

But I would guess Potvin gets a plurality if not the majority of the credit.

 

[MXD]

Who was the most important player to the Isles dynasty? I've heard a lot of Potvin answers when I was growing up.

I don't think I've heard any other answer to be honest.