Bobby Orr versus Nicklas Lidström

[DickieDunn 2,571]

Coffey couldn't hold Orr's jock strap. Orr could defend if he needed to, he just never had to because he always had the puck.

The idea that older players somehow wouldn't want to put in the work and wouldn't benefit from modern training nutrition and equipment and absolutely dominate today is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Bias is one thing, but come on.

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk

[frankgrimes 1,836]

1. Orr
2. Perfect Human / Bourque
3. same
4. Coffey

[Echolalia 2,961]

59 minutes ago, DickieDunn said:

Coffey couldn't hold Orr's jock strap. Orr could defend if he needed to, he just never had to because he always had the puck.

The idea that older players somehow wouldn't want to put in the work and wouldn't benefit from modern training nutrition and equipment and absolutely dominate today is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Bias is one thing, but come on.

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk
 

Again, that bolded is largely due to a product of the era he played in and wouldn't be nearly so easy for him to recreate today.  Coaches know how to defend against offensive defensman now.  Consequently its not unrealistic to suggest he wouldn't be able to put up nearly the same numbers today as he did back then.

As for the second half, once again its irrelevant to the discussion.  The question isn't who, theoretically, would have been the best defensman in history had they had access to all the modern technologies, insights to the game, so on and so forth and still wasn't remotely hampered by the overall increase in skill level and knowledge of competition that happens with fast forwarding 40-50 years, the question is who is the best defensman of all time.  Period.  No qualifiers or "well if he had this or if that was different then maybe blah blah blah".  Thats not reality.  Thats DickieDunn fantasy land.

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

This isn't even close.  Orr is likely the second best hockey player of all-time and a player who changed the game.  One of only a few generational talents in hockey history.  One of the most important athletes in sports history.  

22 minutes ago, frankgrimes said:

1. Orr
2. Perfect Human / Bourque
3. same
4. Coffey

You rank Doug Harvey behind Paul "I'm not a forward" Coffey?

1 hour ago, kickazz said:

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. 

All of us here are Wings fans.  That's not a good excuse for picking Lidstrom.  This isn't a poll asking about who you like more.  

18 hours ago, Wheelchairsuperhero said:

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.

You could argue that his last Norris trophy and the one in 2003 should have gone to someone else (especially 2003).  It all evens out.  

[frankgrimes 1,836]

This isn't even close.  Orr is likely the second best hockey player of all-time and a player who changed the game.  One of only a few generational talents in hockey history.  One of the most important athletes in sports history.  
You could argue that his last Norris trophy and the one in 2003 should have gone to someone else (especially 2003).  It all evens out.  

Well as it's the case with the more offense focused defenseman a lot of them sometimes play like a fourth forward. I mean you could also say Coffey / Harvey.

[toby91_ca 620]

35 minutes ago, GMRwings1983 said:

You could argue that his last Norris trophy and the one in 2003 should have gone to someone else (especially 2003).  It all evens out.  

I was going to say the same thing.  The Norris, along with the Vezina tend to more subjective awards and more based on reputation and earning your stripes first.  Some years there are clear winners no matter how you look at it though.  One can argue that Lidstrom should have won earlier, but the same arguments can be made later on that he won some more on reputation and some of the younger talents not yet paying their dues.

[toby91_ca 620]

48 minutes ago, Echolalia said:

As for the second half, once again its irrelevant to the discussion.  The question isn't who, theoretically, would have been the best defensman in history had they had access to all the modern technologies, insights to the game, so on and so forth and still wasn't remotely hampered by the overall increase in skill level and knowledge of competition that happens with fast forwarding 40-50 years, the question is who is the best defensman of all time.  Period.  No qualifiers or "well if he had this or if that was different then maybe blah blah blah".  Thats not reality.  Thats DickieDunn fantasy land.

This doesn't make a lot of sense though, doesn't this mean we should never really have a discussion of best of all-time since the prior eras wouldn't really have a chance.  Does this mean Crosby is the best player of all-time?  Or is Gretzky still in the conversation since his domination against the rest of the league was so wide?

I think it's fair to discount some raw stats for eras, but you do need to factor in qualifiers.  I could say that it would be scary to see Crosby playing in the mid-80s against those goalies....but that's not fair...why would he have modern equipment while the goalies are still stuck with their 80s equipment?  I know the goalie position has evolved quite a bit beyond just equipment as well though.  Point being, you can look at 100pts in 1985 not meaning the same as 100pts today to compare a player, but the best way to assess "best of all time" is to assess how each stacks up against their competition at the time.

[puckbags 863]

I will always take Lidstrom in this argument. For one I didn't see Orr play. There is no argument that Orr was the greatest offensive d man off all time. The numbers don't lie.  One of my criteria is longevity.  Lids played 1564 regular season games. Orr played 657.  Lidstrom also played in an era of longer seasons, longer playoffs, olympics, all star games, world cups, extended pre seasons etc... and he did so with basically 0 serious injuries in his career. 94-95 was the only season Lidstrom played under 70 games. He played 80 games or more 14 times in his career in an era where the game was/is bigger and faster.  I think it's these 2 on the top and everyone else is a giant step down the ladder.  Good argument either way though 

[kipwinger 8,524]

Orr dazzles because of all the points he put up.  Lidstrom didn't play in an era of high scoring yet still DOMINATED offensively from the blue line during his time.  Additionally Lidstrom played elite defense.  He was better than Erik Karlsson offensively, and better than anyone defensely, something Orr didn't really do.  Orr was the first "defenseman who played like an extra forward".  All things considered, if I'm drafting for today's game I'm drafting Lidstrom.  I'd probably draft him in 1975 too.  He was just too good at everything to take a back seat to anyone.

Edit: Same logic I'd use to pick Crosby over Ovechkin in today's game.  Ovechkin is exponentially better than basically every other winger in NHL history.  Adjusted for era he's probably even better than that.  But Crosby is better in multiple facets of the game, which gives him the nod in my opinion.  Being better in many areas is more useful than being WAY better in one area.

Edited January 10, 2017 by kipwinger

[GoalieManPat 1,007]

Orr revolutionized the game. I love Lids but he comes in 2nd compared to Orr and thats nothing to be ashamed about. You can say that Orr never would have put up the same numbers in todays NHL but the same could be said about Gretzky and Howe. That doesn't make them any less great.

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

1 hour ago, frankgrimes said:

 

Well as it's the case with the more offense focused defenseman a lot of them sometimes play like a fourth forward. I mean you could also say Coffey / Harvey.

 

Coffey is not on Harvey's level.  Doug Harvey also revolutionized the game.  Maybe even more than Orr did.  Also, what about Eddie Shore?  

I know it's difficult to compare players across eras, but I doubt if I'd put Coffey in the top 10.  I have guys like MacInnis, Robinson, Potvin, Shore, and Chelios all ranked ahead of him.  Probably Fetisov too.   

47 minutes ago, puckbags said:

I will always take Lidstrom in this argument. For one I didn't see Orr play. There is no argument that Orr was the greatest offensive d man off all time. The numbers don't lie.  One of my criteria is longevity.  Lids played 1564 regular season games. Orr played 657.  Lidstrom also played in an era of longer seasons, longer playoffs, olympics, all star games, world cups, extended pre seasons etc... and he did so with basically 0 serious injuries in his career. 94-95 was the only season Lidstrom played under 70 games. He played 80 games or more 14 times in his career in an era where the game was/is bigger and faster.  I think it's these 2 on the top and everyone else is a giant step down the ladder.  Good argument either way though 

If we're looking at longevity, then Scott Niedermayer should be ranked ahead of Orr too.  You can't just look at longevity when ranking players like Lemieux or Bobby Orr.  These guys didn't play long careers, but played long enough to make a huge impact.  

Edited January 10, 2017 by GMRwings1983

[Echolalia 2,961]

47 minutes ago, toby91_ca said:

This doesn't make a lot of sense though, doesn't this mean we should never really have a discussion of best of all-time since the prior eras wouldn't really have a chance.  Does this mean Crosby is the best player of all-time?  Or is Gretzky still in the conversation since his domination against the rest of the league was so wide?

I think it's fair to discount some raw stats for eras, but you do need to factor in qualifiers.  I could say that it would be scary to see Crosby playing in the mid-80s against those goalies....but that's not fair...why would he have modern equipment while the goalies are still stuck with their 80s equipment?  I know the goalie position has evolved quite a bit beyond just equipment as well though.  Point being, you can look at 100pts in 1985 not meaning the same as 100pts today to compare a player, but the best way to assess "best of all time" is to assess how each stacks up against their competition at the time.

Thats entirely fine, but its a different debate.  Best of all time and who most handedly dominated their respective era are two different discussions.

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

12 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

Orr dazzles because of all the points he put up.  Lidstrom didn't play in an era of high scoring yet still DOMINATED offensively from the blue line during his time.  Additionally Lidstrom played elite defense.  He was better than Erik Karlsson offensively, and better than anyone defensely, something Orr didn't really do.  Orr was the first "defenseman who played like an extra forward".  All things considered, if I'm drafting for today's game I'm drafting Lidstrom.  I'd probably draft him in 1975 too.  He was just too good at everything to take a back seat to anyone.

Did Orr play in a high scoring era?  I know the 80's had a lot of scoring, but Orr didn't play then.  I can't imagine the 70's had more scoring than the early 90's, when Lidstrom came into the league.  

[puckbags 863]

6 minutes ago, GMRwings1983 said:

What about Eddie Shore?  

I know it's difficult to compare players across eras, but I doubt if I'd put Coffey in the top 10.  I have guys like MacInnis, Robinson, Potvin, Shore, and Chelios all ranked ahead of him.  Probably Fetisov too.   

If we're looking at longevity, then Scott Niedermayer should be ranked ahead of Orr too.  You can't just look at longevity when ranking players like Lemieux or Bobby Orr.  These guys didn't play long careers, but played long enough to make a huge impact.  

I said  one of my criteria was longevity, not the only criteria.  I also use that criteria when comparing Gretz to Lemieux.  

Edited January 10, 2017 by puckbags

[kipwinger 8,524]

2 minutes ago, GMRwings1983 said:

Did Orr play in a high scoring era?  I know the 80's had a lot of scoring, but Orr didn't play then.  I can't imagine the 70's had more scoring than the early 90's, when Lidstrom came into the league.  

In 1970-71, Orr's best statistical season, Phil Esposito scored 152 points, and had an astounding 550 shots.  That's unheard of in today's game.  Defensive systems and goalie evolution being what they are now (or in the 1990s), I don't think it's a stretch to say that it was easier to score in 1970 than it was when Lidstrom played.  4 of the top 5 winningest goalies in NHL history all played in Lidstrom's era.  That's not a fluke.

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

Just now, puckbags said:

I said it was one of my criteria was longevity, not the only criteria.  I also use that criteria when comparing Gretz to Lemieux.  

That's a good comparison between Gretzky vs. Lemieux.  I don't think it works in this debate.  Lidstrom was great for a long time, but Orr was better than great.  His numbers during his shortened career are spectacular.  He dominated the game like no other defenseman ever has.  He finished top 3 in points in six different seasons.  He led the league in assists five separate times.  There's a reason people overlook the longevity argument when comparing Orr to Lidstrom or Harvey.  

At the same time, the longevity argument does hurt Orr against Gretzky (for some reason, not against Lemieux though).   

[kipwinger 8,524]

8 minutes ago, GMRwings1983 said:

That's a good comparison between Gretzky vs. Lemieux.  I don't think it works in this debate.  Lidstrom was great for a long time, but Orr was better than great.  His numbers during his shortened career are spectacular.  He dominated the game like no other defenseman ever has.  He finished top 3 in points in six different seasons.  He led the league in assists five separate times.  There's a reason people overlook the longevity argument when comparing Orr to Lidstrom or Harvey.  

At the same time, the longevity argument does hurt Orr against Gretzky (for some reason, not against Lemieux though).   

That said, I don't think a guy that stayed healthy and played a lot of games at a really high level should be penalized for being healthy.  Would you rather have a guy who scored 1 point per game and played all 82, or a guy that scored 1.5 points per game but could only impact 62 games a season?  There's a tremendous amount of value in having great players on the ice as often as possible.  Statistically Orr is better in every offensive category.  There's no question.  But that doesn't do you any good when he's not playing.  Lidstrom was less good statistically, but he was always there factoring into the play night after night.  That's huge.

Edit: Which is why I break this discussion down to "who would I rather have" vs. "who was better statistically".  There's no debate if you're only discussing the latter.

Edited January 10, 2017 by kipwinger

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

1 minute ago, kipwinger said:

In 1970-71, Orr's best statistical season, Phil Esposito scored 152 points, and had an astounding 550 shots.  That's unheard of in today's game.  Defensive systems and goalie evolution being what they are now (or in the 1990s), I don't think it's a stretch to say that it was easier to score in 1970 than it was when Lidstrom played.  4 of the top 5 winningest goalies in NHL history all played in Lidstrom's era.  That's not a fluke.

Esposito was an outlier when it came to SOG.  Same with scoring.  He was a great player that often gets overlooked because of Orr.

I don't believe there was more scoring in the 70's, but I could be wrong.  Even if I'm wrong, if you adjust Orr's numbers, he'd still score more than Lidstrom and lead the league in scoring for his era.  Point is, he's a defenseman that led the league in scoring.  Era has nothing to do with that.  Era only influences exactly how many points the player scores.  Gretzky wouldn't score 237 points if you adjust his numbers for this era.  However, I bet he'd still score way more than anyone else and win the Art Ross trophy comfortably.    

BTW, Orr was by accounts, very good defensively also.  He's not just some guy that scored goals and didn't try in his own end, like Coffey or Leetch.  

[kipwinger 8,524]

1 minute ago, GMRwings1983 said:

Esposito was an outlier when it came to SOG.  Same with scoring.  He was a great player that often gets overlooked because of Orr.

I don't believe there was more scoring in the 70's, but I could be wrong.  Even if I'm wrong, if you adjust Orr's numbers, he'd still score more than Lidstrom and lead the league in scoring for his era.  Point is, he's a defenseman that led the league in scoring.  Era has nothing to do with that.  Era only influences exactly how many points the player scores.  Gretzky wouldn't score 237 points if you adjust his numbers for this era.  However, I bet he'd still score way more than anyone else and win the Art Ross trophy comfortably.    

BTW, Orr was by accounts, very good defensively also.  He's not just some guy that scored goals and didn't try in his own end, like Coffey or Leetch.  

You may be right here.  Admittedly, I didn't see him play.  But I've never heard his defensively game discussed in the same way that Lidstrom's was. So I'm largely going off that. 

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

Just now, kipwinger said:

That said, I don't think a guy that stayed healthy and played a lot of games at a really high level should be penalized for being healthy.  Would you rather have a guy who scored 1 point per game and played all 82, or a guy that scored 1.5 points per game but could only impact 62 games a season?  There's a tremendous amount of value in having great players on the ice as often as possible.  Statistically Orr is better in every offensive category.  There's no question.  But that doesn't do you any good when he's no playing.  Lidstrom was less good statistically, but he was always there factoring into the play night after night.  That's huge.

Hockey writers and experts don't penalize Lidstrom by ranking him behind Orr.  They just look at Orr's peak years and has impact on the NHL and his position by always ranking him so high.  It's not that they don't respect Lidstrom's longevity and ability to play a long time.  They just value Orr more because of how spectacular he was.  I've always felt that if Gretzky retired in 1988, he'd still be unanimously considered better than Gordie Howe.   

[DickieDunn 2,571]

2 hours ago, Echolalia said:

Again, that bolded is largely due to a product of the era he played in and wouldn't be nearly so easy for him to recreate today.  Coaches know how to defend against offensive defensman now.  Consequently its not unrealistic to suggest he wouldn't be able to put up nearly the same numbers today as he did back then.

As for the second half, once again its irrelevant to the discussion.  The question isn't who, theoretically, would have been the best defensman in history had they had access to all the modern technologies, insights to the game, so on and so forth and still wasn't remotely hampered by the overall increase in skill level and knowledge of competition that happens with fast forwarding 40-50 years, the question is who is the best defensman of all time.  Period.  No qualifiers or "well if he had this or if that was different then maybe blah blah blah".  Thats not reality.  Thats DickieDunn fantasy land.

Ignoring the way a player dominated against his peers and saying "well, modern players have more advantages so they're automatically better" is Echo fantasy land.  

[kipwinger 8,524]

10 minutes ago, GMRwings1983 said:

Hockey writers and experts don't penalize Lidstrom by ranking him behind Orr.  They just look at Orr's peak years and has impact on the NHL and his position by always ranking him so high.  It's not that they don't respect Lidstrom's longevity and ability to play a long time.  They just value Orr more because of how spectacular he was.  I've always felt that if Gretzky retired in 1988, he'd still be unanimously considered better than Gordie Howe.   

I'm not talking about hockey writers though.  I'm talking about me, if I were a GM, and which player I'd rather have.  And I think I'd rather have the "2nd" best defenseman of all time for 1,500 games than the "Best" defenseman for 650.  Lidstrom was still HUGELY impactful on a night by night basis, and you'd reap the benefits of that impact for more than twice as many games over his career. 

Edited January 10, 2017 by kipwinger

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

1 minute ago, kipwinger said:

I'm not talking about hockey writers though.  I'm talking about me, if I were a GM, and which player I'd rather have.  And I think I'd rather have the "2nd" best defenseman of all time for 1,500 games than the "Best" defenseman for 650.  Lidstrom was still HUNGELY impactful on a night by night basis, and you'd reap the benefits of that impact for more than twice as many games over his career. 

That's why you don't use All Caps.  Although, in Slapshot 2, they said Bobby Orr had the biggest one in NHL history.  

Edited January 10, 2017 by GMRwings1983

[kipwinger 8,524]

2 minutes ago, GMRwings1983 said:

That's why you don't use All Caps.  Although, in Slapshot 2, they said Bobby Orr had the biggest one in NHL history.  

Lol.  Got a little carried away with my Lidstrom love apparently. 

[toby91_ca 620]

28 minutes ago, Echolalia said:

Thats entirely fine, but its a different debate.  Best of all time and who most handedly dominated their respective era are two different discussions.

Well, that's your opinion, but I'm pretty sure most of the experts, when they consider who is the best of all time, are using the later as a way to measure and equate.  Otherwise, it's clear by watching video that Howe could not make an NHL roster in today's NHL, yet he's still up there on the all-time best list.