Bobby Orr versus Nicklas Lidström

[Jacksoni 418]

Things are doom and gloom in Hockeytown but it was not so for a long time and we could use a nice history fallback to feel the sun again.

My question is simple: who, at this year of 2017 is the best defenseman that has ever put on a pair of hockey skates?

 

1. Bobby Orr

Bobby Orr played before my time but I have taken the time to study his readily available games. A supreme player who would outmatch Erik Karlsson by miles in my opinion. I have Never seen anyone like him, but his knees brought him down too early.

"He revolutionized the defensive position", "His speed and control was unmatched by any defender", "Always played with an edge".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k74iUt5bKNs&t=3s

 

2. Nicklas Lidström

Against Nicklas Lidström, stable, calm, almost always making the attacker look silly and so natural in taking away any attacking opportunity. Premier first pass, accurate slapshot. And the reason why I even dared making this comparison: durable, rarely injured. "The perfect human" as he was called.

"Cerebral reading ability", "Made poke checks look ridiculously easy, even natural against the absolute best players".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAsnpOT4Gz4

 

Who, in your mind, is the best defender of all of known time?

Edited January 9, 2017 by Jacksoni

[toby91_ca 620]

It's very hard to judge this without bias.  Ask anyone over 50 and they'll laugh and wonder why the question is even being asked.  There are more than a few that would place Orr as the best player of all time, not just the best defenseman.  I am too young to have ever seen Orr play live, but the highlights tell a pretty good story.  Other than that, going simply by stats and awards, its tough to argue.  Orr has won the Norris is every year he was eligible other than his rookie year in which he won the Calder.  I don't count his last 3 seasons as he only played 36 combined games over those seasons.  So, after winning the Calder, he went on to win the Norris 8 straight years before having to retire.  Combine that with 3 Hart trophies, 2 Art Ross trophies and 2 Conn Smythes.

The only argument perhaps is whether his shortened career opens the door.

I wonder what Don Cherry would say if you asked him

[Jacksoni 418]

8 minutes ago, toby91_ca said:

It's very hard to judge this without bias.  Ask anyone over 50 and they'll laugh and wonder why the question is even being asked.  There are more than a few that would place Orr as the best player of all time, not just the best defenseman.  I am too young to have ever seen Orr play live, but the highlights tell a pretty good story.  Other than that, going simply by stats and awards, its tough to argue.  Orr has won the Norris is every year he was eligible other than his rookie year in which he won the Calder.  I don't count his last 3 seasons as he only played 36 combined games over those seasons.  So, after winning the Calder, he went on to win the Norris 8 straight years before having to retire.  Combine that with 3 Hart trophies, 2 Art Ross trophies and 2 Conn Smythes.

The only argument perhaps is whether his shortened career opens the door.

I wonder what Don Cherry would say if you asked him

He would probably slap me on my jaw if he'd get away with it. I wouldn't even argue about it. But Bobby's knees did cripple him, too early. It is worth a debate on those grounds. All else considered, I bow to "grapes".

Perhaps to further detail this, who in the Long run meant most to his team? I won't reveal what I think ultimately until later in this thread, but just to add that perspective for any potential writer.

Edited January 9, 2017 by Jacksoni

[DickieDunn 2,571]

Lidstrom should have won at least 2 or 3 more Norris trophies.

It's too hard to compare players from different eras. I've always thought Shore Harvey Orr and Lidstrom are the 4 best ever in whatever order you put them in.

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk

[Wheelchairsuperhero 1,453]

Taking into account that I think Lidstrom probably should've received more Norris trophies than he did, and his amazing longevity combined with consistency, and I'd say him. Obviously that's an awfully biased opinion, and I've never had the privilege of watching Orr play, just seen the highlights.

[Echolalia 2,961]

Overall I think players today are better than previous generations.  There's way more resources available and expectations are much higher for players to be in peak physical condition, study the game, etc than in the past.  I think a prime Bobby Orr would struggle in today's NHL, but that's more a testament to how the league has changed than it is to Orr's skillset.  The guy was a revolutionary figure for the way defensemen play and was a generational talent.

[DickieDunn 2,571]

59 minutes ago, Echolalia said:

Overall I think players today are better than previous generations.  There's way more resources available and expectations are much higher for players to be in peak physical condition, study the game, etc than in the past.  I think a prime Bobby Orr would struggle in today's NHL, but that's more a testament to how the league has changed than it is to Orr's skillset.  The guy was a revolutionary figure for the way defensemen play and was a generational talent.

But if Orr, Howe, etc. were starting today they'd have the same benefits.  You have to look at how much they dominated their particular era.  Lidstrom was underappreciated for a long time because he wasn't flashy, didn't "punish" people physically, and was Swedish, but he arguably dominated his era just as much as Orr, Harvey, and Shore did theirs.

[Echolalia 2,961]

8 minutes ago, DickieDunn said:

But if Orr, Howe, etc. were starting today they'd have the same benefits.  You have to look at how much they dominated their particular era.  Lidstrom was underappreciated for a long time because he wasn't flashy, didn't "punish" people physically, and was Swedish, but he arguably dominated his era just as much as Orr, Harvey, and Shore did theirs.

There's no guarantee that they'd be successful in today's NHL even with the same benefits.  Maybe Orr doesn't have quite the work ethic that's needed to even get to the NHL let alone thrive in it.  Maybe his commitment to the game isn't as extreme as it needs to be to be successful today.  Maybe he isn't interested in getting strong enough to play today and following the strict diet and exercise regiments required of players today.  Maybe he wouldn't gel with how the game is coached and played today.  One of the biggest reasons Orr was so successful is that he made a living exploiting a weakness in the way the game was played back then, which no longer exists today.  Orr wouldn't be flabbergasting opposing coaches if he continuously joined the rush on breakouts (or led them), or acted as a fourth forward on a drive to the net if he did it today.  Those things aren't at all unusual to see today and the league has adapted accordingly.  So that niche that made him so successful to begin with is no longer there waiting for him to exploit it.  But all that imo is irrelevant because we're just talking hypotheticals now, and the reality is he played the game in a time where the dedication, technology, knowledge, physical requirements, etc were not as high as they are today and that put a limit on what he was capable of.  Its a limit that doesn't exist today (or more accurately its a limit that is significantly reduced today).  So if we're looking at the question of who is the best defensman to lace up the skates in this reality that we all live in, and not based on a hypothetical scenario where everything comes up Millhouse, Orr is a longshot IMO.  This reality didn't gift him with all the advancements in the game that we have today.  Not a knock on him at all.  But I personally don't think he's even close to the best defensman of all time, unless you define best of all time as "best of his generation" or "most significantly dominated his respective generation".  He has compelling arguments for both of those titles, but the much more generalized "best of all time" I don't think is close, even if its blasphemous or controversial to say.
 

[brett 1,029]

i never got to see orr play but lidstrom was the best in this era. so if its 2017 lidstrom for sure. im not just saying that cause im a wings fan. im sure he can still be a top dmen in the league right now. orr played in a slower less talented time. the game is so much faster and have so much more skilled players. 

[kickazz 5,459]

9/10 times this question is asked anywhere other than Letsgowings.com people will say Bobby Orr. Of course here, we're all homers for Lidstrom so we'll blindly say it's him. But you guys know me and I'm going to be real about it as much as I loved Lidstrom.... 

Nick Lidstrom didn't win his first Norris trophy till he was 30 years old and many of the amazing defenseman in the NHL (such as Coffey, Chelios, Borque, Leetch) were either retiring or well past their prime. Because of this, many Non-Red Wing fans have considered Lidstrom a tad bit overrated when it comes to using the "well he won 7 norris trophies" argument. Now before anyone gets offended, I'm not saying I agree with this. But it's just something I've read/heard over the years. Specifically I've heard the argument that "well Lidstrom couldn't win the Norris till the best defenseman retired and he was 30 when he was first able to do it". 

On the other hand, Bobby Orr won the Norris in his 2nd year and then like 8 years in a row after that. Bobby Orr revolutionized the game and had an impact that NO ONE has done or ever will do. Not even Lidstrom. 

Who is better? We can't really answer that. Bobby Orr was probably more skilled. Lidstrom was just a really smart player. His hockey IQ was second to none in his prime. But that doesn't mean Orr's wasn't either. 

Edited January 10, 2017 by kickazz

[BringBack19 110]

Back when Bobby Orr was still playing my boss went on this fly in destination fishing trip with his buddies. He was told one of their friends is bringing some guy that his wife's friend was married to, and he played hockey. He got on this bush plane and realized he was sitting next to Bobby Orr. My boss and the pilot were the only ones to realize who exactly he was. 

Therefore Lidstrom gets my vote...

Edited January 10, 2017 by BringBack19

[DickieDunn 2,571]

There's no guarantee that they'd be successful in today's NHL even with the same benefits.  Maybe Orr doesn't have quite the work ethic that's needed to even get to the NHL let alone thrive in it.  Maybe his commitment to the game isn't as extreme as it needs to be to be successful today.  Maybe he isn't interested in getting strong enough to play today and following the strict diet and exercise regiments required of players today.  Maybe he wouldn't gel with how the game is coached and played today.  One of the biggest reasons Orr was so successful is that he made a living exploiting a weakness in the way the game was played back then, which no longer exists today.  Orr wouldn't be flabbergasting opposing coaches if he continuously joined the rush on breakouts (or led them), or acted as a fourth forward on a drive to the net if he did it today.  Those things aren't at all unusual to see today and the league has adapted accordingly.  So that niche that made him so successful to begin with is no longer there waiting for him to exploit it.  But all that imo is irrelevant because we're just talking hypotheticals now, and the reality is he played the game in a time where the dedication, technology, knowledge, physical requirements, etc were not as high as they are today and that put a limit on what he was capable of.  Its a limit that doesn't exist today (or more accurately its a limit that is significantly reduced today).  So if we're looking at the question of who is the best defensman to lace up the skates in this reality that we all live in, and not based on a hypothetical scenario where everything comes up Millhouse, Orr is a longshot IMO.  This reality didn't gift him with all the advancements in the game that we have today.  Not a knock on him at all.  But I personally don't think he's even close to the best defensman of all time, unless you define best of all time as "best of his generation" or "most significantly dominated his respective generation".  He has compelling arguments for both of those titles, but the much more generalized "best of all time" I don't think is close, even if its blasphemous or controversial to say.
 

By that argument Howe, Bobby Hull, The Rocket and Pocket Rocket, etc. aren't as good as Toews, Ovechkin, and other modern stars.

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk

[kliq 3,763]

Did Orr play against the best of the best? Or when he played was is predominantly a North American league? 

[Echolalia 2,961]

13 minutes ago, DickieDunn said:

By that argument Howe, Bobby Hull, The Rocket and Pocket Rocket, etc. aren't as good as Toews, Ovechkin, and other modern stars.

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk
 

More or less I would agree with that

[DatsyukianDekes 2,428]

1 hour ago, kickazz said:

9/10 times this question is asked anywhere other than Letsgowings.com people will say Bobby Orr. Of course here, we're all homers for Lidstrom so we'll blindly say it's him. But you guys know me and I'm going to be real about it as much as I loved Lidstrom.... 

Nick Lidstrom didn't win his first Norris trophy till he was 30 years old and many of the amazing defenseman in the NHL (such as Coffey, Chelios, Borque, Leetch) were either retiring or well past their prime. Because of this, many Non-Red Wing fans have considered Lidstrom a tad bit overrated when it comes to using the "well he won 7 norris trophies" argument. Now before anyone gets offended, I'm not saying I agree with this. But it's just something I've read/heard over the years. Specifically I've heard the argument that "well Lidstrom couldn't win the Norris till the best defenseman retired and he was 30 when he was first able to do it". 

On the other hand, Bobby Orr won the Norris in his 2nd year and then like 8 years in a row after that. Bobby Orr revolutionized the game and had an impact that NO ONE has done or ever will do. Not even Lidstrom. 

Who is better? We can't really answer that. Bobby Orr was probably more skilled. Lidstrom was just a really smart player. His hockey IQ was second to none in his prime. But that doesn't mean Orr's wasn't either. 

This. Vote is for Orr.

[DickieDunn 2,571]

1 hour ago, Echolalia said:

More or less I would agree with that

[wings_fanatic 677]

Its a tough one given 2 different generstions and 2 very different kinds of players. 

My vote, biased as he is my favorite player of all time, goes to nick lidstrom. In my opinion there are many factors that go into this. Lidstrom won 7 norris trophies but he should have won 10. The longetivity and durability gives lidstrom another vote. We had 21 amazing years of lidstrom and each season he played nearly every game. While orr was no dount better offensively, lidstrom was the better all around dman. He consistently shut down top players, all the while helping lead the charge against them with his perfect outlet pass. In an era where it was much more difficult to score points, lidstrom still managed to get over 1000 points for a dman. Lastly, lidstrom was one of the smartest players i have ever seen. He knew plays that were developing and had an abilty to read and react to them before they even happened. 

Though it is close and extrememy hard to compare, nick lidstrom is in my opinion the best dman of all time. 

[kliq 3,763]

2 hours ago, kliq said:

Did Orr play against the best of the best? Or when he played was is predominantly a North American league? 

I'm going to assume that the European wave wasn't until the 80's/90's, so with that being said I have to give the edge to Lidstrom.

Lidstrom played against the best players in the world, not just some of them. He absolutely dominated which is evident with his 7 Norris trophies, and he did it for a lot longer (20 seasons to essentially 11). It may seem unfair to penalize Orr due to injuries, but when the debate is who is the best ever I have to take it into consideration. I would have to think as well, if all those European players of the 70/80's were playing in the NHL, Orr would have had greater competition and therefore not been as dominant during his peak. 

Either way, they were both great players and I have an absolutely tremendous respect level for both. 1A and 1B in my book. 

[Hockeymom1960 5,107]

7 hours ago, DickieDunn said:

Sorry but he's right

[LeftWinger 5,153]

Orr played when no defenseman even thought about playing like a forward. That's what he basically was, a forward playing on the blueline. Put Paul Coffey in his 80s prime back in that era and he has more accolades than Orr. He'll, it's the same as if you would put Fedorov in his prime on D in the 70s. In today's game, Orr would be great, but nowhere near as decorated. Plus, how many Cups was he responsible for?

[toby91_ca 620]

16 minutes ago, LeftWinger said:

Orr played when no defenseman even thought about playing like a forward. That's what he basically was, a forward playing on the blueline. Put Paul Coffey in his 80s prime back in that era and he has more accolades than Orr. He'll, it's the same as if you would put Fedorov in his prime on D in the 70s. In today's game, Orr would be great, but nowhere near as decorated. Plus, how many Cups was he responsible for?

Well, in his short career, his team won 2 cups and he was the MVP both times.

[kickazz 5,459]

I'll keep going with devil advocate side.

Orr was an MVP on his team for the cups they won. Lidstrom was an MVP once out of 4 cup wins. Some may argue that Lidstrom had the better team than Orr. 

Besides, in the 90s none of the Norris winners were European anyway, it was still Canadian/American talent that Lidstrom couldn't win the Norris against. 

If we use the argument that Orr played against lesser competition, then I wonder what you guys would think when comparing Gordie Howe to Mario Lemieux, then Alexander Ovechkin or Sidney Crosby?

How would you rank Howe to the more recent scoring leaders and MVPs? 

Edited January 10, 2017 by kickazz

[toby91_ca 620]

11 minutes ago, kickazz said:

I'll keep going with devil advocate side.

Orr was an MVP on his team for the cups they won. Lidstrom was an MVP once out of 4 cup wins. Some may argue that Lidstrom had the better team than Orr. 

Besides, in the 90s none of the Norris winners were European anyway, it was still Canadian/American talent that Lidstrom couldn't win the Norris against. 

If we use the argument that Orr played against lesser competition, then I wonder what you guys would think when comparing Gordie Howe to Mario Lemieux, then Alexander Ovechkin or Sidney Crosby?

How would you rank Howe to the more recent scoring leaders and MVPs? 

TSN did a mock top players of all time list not that long ago....spawned by Jagr getting close or passing Messier on the scoring list.  They had Jagr at 13th I believe, Ovechkin was 15th, Messier was around 11th, Crosby with 8th.

I know Gretzky was number 1 and I think Orr was 2 and Lemieux was 3, but can't remember that exactly.  I don't remember anything beyond that, but Howe was still there somewhere in the top 10.  I can't remember if Lidstrom was on the list, but I'm sure he was.

[kickazz 5,459]

Comparing Howe to someone like Mario Lemieux Wings fans would likely pick Howe.

Compring Orr to Lidstrom, Wings would pick Lidstrom.

That's my main point. We as fans have our biases, and will come up with ways to justify our choice. I know I do it. GUILTY!

Wasn't shocky2002 the poster that made the claim this summer that Yzerman, Fedorov, Datsyuk, Zetterberg were all better than Howe or something and we all went crazy? The justification used was how the era was different and it was easier in Howe's era and the latter players played with tougher competition. Yet many of us didn't like that reasoning. 

Edited January 10, 2017 by kickazz

[kickazz 5,459]

I voted Lidstrom btw. Can't really justify why other than fandom

Edited January 10, 2017 by kickazz