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

[quoipourquoi]

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.

Being on a quasi-dynasty with two distinctly different lineups and being the best player in his position for over a decade and a $1.50 will buy Martin Brodeur a cup of coffee too...

 

[The Macho King]

Being on a quasi-dynasty with two distinctly different lineups and being the best player in his position for over a decade and a $1.50 will buy Martin Brodeur a cup of coffee too...

I'm loving this schtick right now.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I think it's reasonable to have Potvin over Lidstrom (I don't), I think it's reasonable to have Lidstrom over Potvin (I do). I think it's unreasonable to say "this guy has more Norrises, case closed." That's not something reasonable, that's a "hot take", if you will...

Why did I rank Lidstrom over Potvin? (And we're splitting hairs here, we're talking about my 9 vs. 13) - I think Lidstrom was more talented overall and I think he played in tougher eras than Potvin...the NHL from 1980 to 1984 or 85 is not great hockey. Doesn't mean great players can't come from there, doesn't mean I put an asterisk on anything...but if I'm breaking a tie, I'm looking there...

 

[Canadiens1958]

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.

Really? Norris Trophies matter?

Well Norris winners like Johnson, Laperriere, Howell, Carlyle, Wilson, Langway(two time winner), Blake will get let or no consideration while non- Norris winners - Horton, Park, Savard, Mark Howe, Lapointe, Salming, others in the Norris era will be seriously considered.

Revisionism seems to originate at your end.

 

[BenchBrawl]

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.

This is weird as hell, but I totally get it.

 

[K Fleur]

Being on a quasi-dynasty with two distinctly different lineups and being the best player in his position for over a decade and a $1.50 will buy Martin Brodeur a cup of coffee too...

I’m hoping there were/are people “bold” enough to place Brodeur above Lidstrom. That’s a discussion that needs to happen.

Despite general perception being contrary, I think they’re about as even as it gets.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I’m hoping there were/are people “bold” enough to place Brodeur above Lidstrom. That’s a discussion that needs to happen.

Despite general perception being contrary, I think they’re about as even as it gets.

I did, one spot ahead exactly.

 

[VanIslander]

Lidstrom should never be ranked below Potvin. Never. Norrises matter.

Potvin won three Norris trophies before the dynasty. But he was also 2nd in Norris voting to Bobby Orr!! Potvin was twice a finalist to Larry Robinson and came up 2nd another time. ******* That's seven (7) times a Norris trophy finalist, against arguably tougher competition than Lidstrom faced.

It is not revisionist to claim a player from one era was greater than one from another.

Trophy counting should be the beginning of research, not the end of it.

 

[The Macho King]

I’m hoping there were/are people “bold” enough to place Brodeur above Lidstrom. That’s a discussion that needs to happen.

Despite general perception being contrary, I think they’re about as even as it gets.

I'm looking forward to the discussion. There's a few players I'm kind of looking forward to having my mind changed on, and Brodeur is probably foremost among them. I'm also looking forward to pushing Chelios pretty hard, because he's a guy that I think can get the short end of the stick when he has a super-impressive resume.

 

[blogofmike]

I’m hoping there were/are people “bold” enough to place Brodeur above Lidstrom. That’s a discussion that needs to happen.

Despite general perception being contrary, I think they’re about as even as it gets.

I did in Round 1. Open to either in Round 2.

 

[seventieslord]

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

I suppose we could compare his hart Trophy voting to those of Mike bossy and Bryan trottier, because that's totally fair...

 

[quoipourquoi]

So we’re launching on Monday. The aggregate is done, and the 32 of you who submitted lists are in (though we may be joined by an unknown 33rd participant shortly). Big thanks to those of you who made adjustments for forgotten players, and helping to keep our aggregate tight. 114 players will be discussed, but Roy McGiffin is not one of them, so if you were expecting a celebratory fruit platter on Monday, you better pack a lunch.

Let’s do this!

 

[VanIslander]

"the unknown 33rd"... what a great title that'd be...

 

[overg]

"the unknown 33rd"... what a great title that'd be...

I hope it's Scotty Bowman. That'd be neat.

 

[Sentinel]

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.

You don't think Lidstrom was a leader? First European to captain his team to a Stanley Cup?

 

[Sentinel]

Really? Norris Trophies matter?

Well Norris winners like Johnson, Laperriere, Howell, Carlyle, Wilson, Langway(two time winner), Blake will get let or no consideration while non- Norris winners - Horton, Park, Savard, Mark Howe, Lapointe, Salming, others in the Norris era will be seriously considered.

Revisionism seems to originate at your end.

Given that Lidstrom has more Norrises than all those people you listed COMBINED... No revisionism here!

 

[Sentinel]

Potvin won three Norris trophies before the dynasty. But he was also 2nd in Norris voting to Bobby Orr!! Potvin was twice a finalist to Larry Robinson and came up 2nd another time. ******* That's seven (7) times a Norris trophy finalist, against arguably tougher competition than Lidstrom faced.

It is not revisionist to claim a player from one era was greater than one from another.

Trophy counting should be the beginning of research, not the end of it.

Lidstrom is second to Orr in the NUMBER of Norrises... plus three times runner-up.

I am OK with Potvin having the higher peak. I'm not OK with ranking him over Lidstrom overall. Neither are most hockey historians.

 

[BenchBrawl]

You don't think Lidstrom was a leader? First European to captain his team to a Stanley Cup?

Strawman

Saying Potvin has an edge in leadership doesn't imply Lidstrom isn't a leader.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Given that Lidstrom has more Norrises than all those people you listed COMBINED... No revisionism here!

You do not want to venture down that line of reasoning.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Lidstrom is second to Orr in the NUMBER of Norrises... plus three times runner-up.

I am OK with Potvin having the higher peak. I'm not OK with ranking him over Lidstrom overall. Neither are most hockey historians.

Harvey also has 7 Norris Trophy wins. Plus the Norris was introduced for the 1953-54 season. Lidstrom had a chance at the Norris throughout his career.

 

[MXD]

You don't think Lidstrom was a leader? First European to captain his team to a Stanley Cup?

There aren't that many absolutes, but "Lidstrom taking a backseat to Denis Potvin as far as leadership is concerned" is definitely one of these. And that's absolutely no slight to Lidstrom.

If we're talking about leadership from the D, I don't even think there's possibly an argument to be made for someone else than Potvin. I don't exactly know why Potvin's name is so rarely mentionned amongst the greatest leaders of all-time. Positionnal bias, again? There's Beliveau up there, but after that...

 

[The Macho King]

Is spite an acceptable criteria for changing rankings?

 

[BenchBrawl]

There aren't that many absolutes, but "Lidstrom taking a backseat to Denis Potvin as far as leadership is concerned" is definitely one of these. And that's absolutely no slight to Lidstrom.

If we're talking about leadership from the D, I don't even think there's possibly an argument to be made for someone else than Potvin. I don't exactly know why Potvin's name is so rarely mentionned amongst the greatest leaders of all-time. Positionnal bias, again? There's Beliveau up there, but after that...

Actually, Eddie Gerard has a pretty solid case to be at least equal to Potvin in that department.He too captained a dynasty and the testimonies concerning his leadership were very strong.

After these two I think I'd give it to Scott Stevens maybe?

 

[MXD]

Actually, Eddie Gerard have a pretty solid case as at least as good a leader as Potvin.He too captained a dynasty and the testimonies concerning his leadership were very strong.

... Gerard joined a decent team though.
Potvin joined a goddawful team.

 

[BenchBrawl]

... Gerard joined a decent team though.
Potvin joined a goddawful team.

Gerard was even coach of the team at some point.He joined a decent team but it took years before they turned into a dynasty, and under his watch plenty of strong young players emerged, like Georges Boucher and King Clancy.

In any case Gerard is one of the greatest leader ever.