ScottM Posted April 18, 2015 Share Posted April 18, 2015 In a world where scoring and spectacular saves are valued above all else, defensemen and their contributions to their teams are sometimes overlooked. While defensemen can certainly contribute on offense, a top shutdown blue-liner can be the among the most valuable players on his team. The following is my list of the top defenders of all time. There are others who could have made the list, and the rankings can certainly be debated, but here's my best shot at it. #10 Chris Chelios 1,651 NHL games; 3 Norris Trophies, 2-time Norris runner-up Only Gordie Howe played at an older age than Chelios. Playing until age 48, Chelios still played in a significant number of games as late as age 46. With a career plus-minus rating of +350, he contributed significantly in Montreal, Chicago, and Detroit. A capable enforcer, Chelios is 12th all time in penalty minutes. #9 Pierre Pilote 890 NHL games; 3 Norris Trophies, 3-time Norris runner-up Most of Pilote's career was played before plus-minus stats were kept, but his effectiveness on the ice is still obvious from his success as a Norris trophy candidate finishing in the top five eight times in a fourteen year career. Pilote was also an effective enforcer, once leading the league in penalty minutes. #8 Red Kelly 1,316 NHL games; 1 Norris Trophy, 2-time Norris runner-up To measure Red Kelly's career in Norris trophies would be very unfair, because much of his career was played before the introduction of the award. He was, however, the inaugural winner of the award. To see how great he was, we can look at the fact that he was a two time Hart Trophy runner-up. His career also shows that rough play isn't a requirement to be a good defender, as he won four Lady Byng Trophies. He was an outstanding all-around player and played forward effectively later in his career. #7 Larry Robinson 1,384 NHL games; 2 Norris Trophies, 1-time Norris runner-up Some dismiss plus-minus as a somewhat to completely useless, but a career +730 rating cannot be ignored. In 20 seasons, Robinson never had a minus rating. He also established himself as a two-way contributor, reaching double-digit goals on twelve occasions, twice eclipsing the 80 point mark. #6 Eddie Shore 550 NHL games; pre-Norris Trophy, 4 Hart trophies. No defenseman has ever won as many Hart Trophies as Eddie Shore. In fact, it wouldn’t be hard to make a case that he was not only the top defenseman of the 30’s but that he was the top player of the 30’s. The trophies certainly seem to agree with that. It was a very different era, but it’s hard to justify leaving Shore off of this list. #5 Denis Potvin 1,060 NHL games; 3 Norris trophies, 2-time Norris runner-up Potvin combined offensive abilities with a physical style of play and was an outstanding two-way player. Mike Bossy, Bryan Trottier, and Billy Smith get a lot of credit for the Islanders’ four Stanley Cups, and rightfully so, but I find it doubtful that they would have been so dominant without their star d-man. #4 Raymond Bourque 1,612 NHL games; 5 Norris trophies, 5-time Norris runner-up The all-time leading scorer among defensemen, Bourque is 11th all-time in career points. His trophy rack is impressive, winning the Norris five times, and in my personal opinion, he should have been awarded the Hart Trophy in 1990. Always a classy player, Bourque even gave up his #7 jersey in honor of Phil Esposito on the night Esposito’s jersey was retired. A great player and a fan favorite. #3 Doug Harvey 1,113 NHL games; 7 Norris Trophies, 1-time Norris runner-up Doug Harvey was the dominant defenseman of the mid-50’s through the early 60’s. He won seven of the first nine Norris trophies, and was well-deserving of such. Harvey never hit double-digit goals, but is a perfect example of a dominant stay at home defenseman. Saying he had no offensive impact would be unfair, however, as he was a stellar passer and helped set up his fair share of goals. When it comes to purely defensive play, Harvey is among the best of the best. #2 Nicklas Lidstrom 1,564 NHL games; 7 Norris Trophies, 3-time Norris runner-up Some things get better with age. So does Nick Lidstrom. Lidstrom’s first Norris Trophy win did not happen until he was 30 years old, but he was still winning them when he hit age 40. Lidstrom’s nickname, Mr. Perfect, begs the question, was there anything he couldn’t do well? Maybe, but I don’t know what it would be. He could shutdown the opponent’s star and chip in on offense when needed. Lidstrom was the full package. #1 Bobby Orr 657 NHL games; 8 Norris Trophies, 3 Hart Trophies, 2 Art Ross Trophies You expected someone else? What Bobby Orr accomplished in such a short career is unbelievable. Since the introduction of the Norris Trophy, he is the only defenseman to win multiple Hart Trophies. He has won more Norris Trophies than any other defenseman. He is the only defenseman to ever win the Art Ross Trophy – and he won it twice. Orr completely revolutionized the position of defense. He may be the best skater to ever lace up the boots, and his vision of the game is rivaled by few. Oh yeah, he wasn’t a shabby defender either. It wasn’t a hard choice to decide who belonged in the top spot on this list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JagerMeister Posted April 18, 2015 Share Posted April 18, 2015 Good list...i guess... But my top 4 would be 1. Orr2. Bourque3. Lidstrom4. Harvey Honestly, you have to take into account the fact that Lidstrom had much weaker Norris competition then Bourque during both of their primes. Lidstrom had his prime during the 2000s, his competition?Weber, Doughty,Niedermayer, Phaneuf ( ), Pronger, Gonchar, blake and a past his prime chelios. Ray Bourque during HIS prime had to deal with...Prime: Scott stevens, Al Macinnis, Chelios, Leetch, Coffey, and past their primes Larry robinson, Denis Potvin Please, go ahead and tell me who had the better competition.... And isnt it just a lovely coincidence that once Ray Bourque, and all those other superstar defenseman he competed with where either past their primes or already retired by the 2000s, thats when Lidstrom actually started winning any Norris trophies... Thats not all though, we have even more evidence Bourque is better!!! http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/b/bourqra01.html http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/l/lidstni01.html So, look at Ray Bourque's Norris and Hart finishes...compared to Lidstrom's Lets just say that Bourque's prime lasted almost his whole ******* career. ( always had norris votes throughout his entire godamn career and had much more top ten Hart and Norris finishes than Lidstrom) But knowing you, despite all this evidence, you wont refute it at all, you will just be a stubborn mule, and end up not changing your opinion.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted April 18, 2015 Author Share Posted April 18, 2015 Good list...i guess... But my top 4 would be 1. Orr2. Bourque3. Lidstrom4. Harvey Honestly, you have to take into account the fact that Lidstrom had much weaker Norris competition then Bourque during both of their primes. Lidstrom had his prime during the 2000s, his competition?Weber, Doughty,Niedermayer, Phaneuf ( ), Pronger, Gonchar, blake and a past his prime chelios. Ray Bourque during HIS prime had to deal with...Prime: Scott stevens, Al Macinnis, Chelios, Leetch, Coffey, and past their primes Larry robinson, Denis Potvin Please, go ahead and tell me who had the better competition.... And isnt it just a lovely coincidence that once Ray Bourque, and all those other superstar defenseman he competed with where either past their primes or already retired by the 2000s, thats when Lidstrom actually started winning any Norris trophies... Thats not all though, we have even more evidence Bourque is better!!! http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/b/bourqra01.html http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/l/lidstni01.html So, look at Ray Bourque's Norris and Hart finishes...compared to Lidstrom's Lets just say that Bourque's prime lasted almost his whole ****** career. ( always had norris votes throughout his entire godamn career and had much more top ten Hart and Norris finishes than Lidstrom) But knowing you, despite all this evidence, you wont refute it at all, you will just be a stubborn mule, and end up not changing your opinion.... Spots two through four were very close. This is another case where I won't really argue with putting those guys in any order. That said, while I did state that I think Bourque should have won the Hart in 1990, we all know (and have discussed the fact) that the Hart Trophy is too closely tied to offense in the voter's eyes. The fact that Lidstrom finished top-5 a couple of times despite being primarily a defensive defenseman speaks volumes. Like I said above, Lidstrom "chipped in" on offense. To be perfectly honest, outside of Doug Harvey, I can't really think of another guy I'd put in the same league as Lidstrom on defense. If I want a guy that will completely shut down the opponents' star player, I'm taking Lidstrom in a heartbeat (ask Eric Lindros). Also, I did my best to look at each guy's overall play rather than looking at who else was in the league at the same time. That said, I don't really agree with you about the lack of competition for Lidstrom. First, I'm not quite as sold as many people are on Paul Coffey. That Edmonton defense tended to leave Grant Fuhr out to dry. He was a great offensive player, but a bit iffy on defense. MacInnis is a similar, but not quite extreme case. I don't think he left a defensive weakness, but if he wasn't so well-known for winning those hardest shot contests, I think he'd still be regarded as very good, but not quite as great as he is currently viewed. I also look at Shea Weber in a similar light to Scott Stevens, in that, if he retires without winning a Norris, just like Stevens, people will puzzle over that.But I'll throw this in: If you want to talk about guys who were "past their prime," look at Lidstrom again. He was still winning Norris Trophies when he should have been past his prime. Bourque won his last Norris at 33 -- Lidstrom won four at age 35 or later. They're close. Very close. But I don't think it's anywhere near as clear-cut as you make it out to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JagerMeister Posted April 18, 2015 Share Posted April 18, 2015 Spots two through four were very close. This is another case where I won't really argue with putting those guys in any order. That said, while I did state that I think Bourque should have won the Hart in 1990, we all know (and have discussed the fact) that the Hart Trophy is too closely tied to offense in the voter's eyes. The fact that Lidstrom finished top-5 a couple of times despite being primarily a defensive defenseman speaks volumes. Like I said above, Lidstrom "chipped in" on offense. To be perfectly honest, outside of Doug Harvey, I can't really think of another guy I'd put in the same league as Lidstrom on defense. If I want a guy that will completely shut down the opponents' star player, I'm taking Lidstrom in a heartbeat (ask Eric Lindros). Also, I did my best to look at each guy's overall play rather than looking at who else was in the league at the same time. That said, I don't really agree with you about the lack of competition for Lidstrom. First, I'm not quite as sold as many people are on Paul Coffey. That Edmonton defense tended to leave Grant Fuhr out to dry. He was a great offensive player, but a bit iffy on defense. MacInnis is a similar, but not quite extreme case. I don't think he left a defensive weakness, but if he wasn't so well-known for winning those hardest shot contests, I think he'd still be regarded as very good, but not quite as great as he is currently viewed. I also look at Shea Weber in a similar light to Scott Stevens, in that, if he retires without winning a Norris, just like Stevens, people will puzzle over that.But I'll throw this in: If you want to talk about guys who were "past their prime," look at Lidstrom again. He was still winning Norris Trophies when he should have been past his prime. Bourque won his last Norris at 33 -- Lidstrom won four at age 35 or later. They're close. Very close. But I don't think it's anywhere near as clear-cut as you make it out to be.As far as im concerned, this isnt a list about top ten defensive defenseman now is it?You also have to look at who Ray Bourque was competing with for the Hart compared to Lidstrom, I dont think I need to point out who Bourque was competing for the Hart with compared to Lidstrom's competition.. Its not about lack of competition, Bourque just had...far more HHOF defenseman competing against him. Lidstrom had his prime during the 2000s, his competition?Keith, Weber, Doughty,Niedermayer, Phaneuf ( ), Pronger, Gonchar, blake and a past his prime chelios. Ray Bourque during HIS prime had to deal with...Prime: Scott stevens, Al Macinnis, Chelios, Leetch, Coffey, and past their primes Larry robinson, Denis Potvin You cant actually tell me with a straight face that Lidstrom had better competition....Prime Chelios is better than anyone Lidstrom has had to face against Even Scott Niedermayer could not win a Norris until all that competition Bourque faced was gone. And the fact that Ray Bourque was in the top 5 in Norris voting 13 times (thats including being a runner up for the Norris 5 times...) While Lidstrom was top 5 six times including his 3 runner ups to the Norris. And also for a 23 year career, Bourque had norris votes every time And regarding Paul Coffey, the fact is that he is the second best offensive defenseman to ever lace them up. So that should say something. He is still very hard competition. Btw, havent you noticed all these lists you make just end up with us debating for 2 pages, lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted April 18, 2015 Author Share Posted April 18, 2015 As far as im concerned, this isnt a list about top ten defensive defenseman now is it?You also have to look at who Ray Bourque was competing with for the Hart compared to Lidstrom, I dont think I need to point out who Bourque was competing for the Hart with compared to Lidstrom's competition.. Its not about lack of competition, Bourque just had...far more HHOF defenseman competing against him. Lidstrom had his prime during the 2000s, his competition?Keith, Weber, Doughty,Niedermayer, Phaneuf ( ), Pronger, Gonchar, blake and a past his prime chelios. Ray Bourque during HIS prime had to deal with...Prime: Scott stevens, Al Macinnis, Chelios, Leetch, Coffey, and past their primes Larry robinson, Denis Potvin You cant actually tell me with a straight face that Lidstrom had better competition....Chelios is better than anyone Lidstrom has had tio face with. Even Scott Niedermayer could not win a Norris until all that competition Bourque faced was gone. And the fact that Ray Bourque was in the top 5 in Norris voting 13 times (thats including being a runner up for the Norris 5 times...) While Lidstrom was top 5 six times including his 3 runner ups to the Norris. And also for a 23 year career, Bourque had norris votes every time And regarding Paul Coffey, the fact is that he is the second best offensive defenseman to ever lace them up. So that should say something. He is still very hard competition. It's not only about defense, no, but defense plays a really big role in it. That said, since we are talking about defensemen, I'm going to give defense a little more weight than offense. Again, Lidstrom is arguably the best ever there, so that has to be very strongly considered. As far as the Hall of Fame thing, Pronger will be there soon, and Weber and Keith have probably already done enough to get themselves there too. The problem with that argument is that too many of the players Lidstrom competed against are still active or very recently retired, because he himself retired only three years ago. Note that I didn't protest at all about your point regarding Bourque's longevity. That was spot on. As for Coffey, yes, he was great offensively, and he would have made a top 20 list, but he was questionable enough on defense to knock him down a few spots in my mind. Oh, btw, the top-5 comment about Lidstrom in my last post wasn't about Norris Trophies, it was about Hart trophies. Lidstrom wasn't the style of player that was going to be likely to rank very highly in Hart Trophy voting, and yet he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JagerMeister Posted April 18, 2015 Share Posted April 18, 2015 It's not only about defense, no, but defense plays a really big role in it. That said, since we are talking about defensemen, I'm going to give defense a little more weight than offense. Again, Lidstrom is arguably the best ever there, so that has to be very strongly considered. As far as the Hall of Fame thing, Pronger will be there soon, and Weber and Keith have probably already done enough to get themselves there too. The problem with that argument is that too many of the players Lidstrom competed against are still active or very recently retired, because he himself retired only three years ago. Note that I didn't protest at all about your point regarding Bourque's longevity. That was spot on. As for Coffey, yes, he was great offensively, and he would have made a top 20 list, but he was questionable enough on defense to knock him down a few spots in my mind. Oh, btw, the top-5 comment about Lidstrom in my last post wasn't about Norris Trophies, it was about Hart trophies. Lidstrom wasn't the style of player that was going to be likely to rank very highly in Hart Trophy voting, and yet he did.Yeah i know, but you have to take into consaideration who Lidstrom competed with for the Hart during the 2000s The reason that Bourque does not have as much top 5 Hart finishes is maybe due to the fact that his Hart competition was far tougher...During the 80s, a prime Gretzky, Lemieux, Roy, Savard, Stastny, Hawerchuk, Coffey, Messier, Yzerman90s , Gretzky, Lemieux, Jagr, Chelios, Hasek, Roy, Lindros, Selanne, Brodeur, Fedorov, Yzerman, Sakic Far better Hart competition than Lidstrom i would say. That would completely derail his chances of getting top 5 for the Hart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted April 18, 2015 Author Share Posted April 18, 2015 Yeah i know, but you have to take into consaideration who Lidstrom competed with for the Hart during the 2000s The reason that Bourque does not have as much top 5 Hart finishes is maybe due to the fact that his Hart competition was far tougher...During the 80s, a prime Gretzky, Lemieux, Roy, Savard, Stastny, Hawerchuk, Coffey, Messier, Yzerman90s , Gretzky, Lemieux, Jagr, Chelios, Hasek, Roy, Lindros, Selanne, Brodeur, Fedorov, Yzerman, Sakic Far better Hart competition than Lidstrom i would say. That would completely derail his chances of getting top 5 for the Hart. I tend to agree that the competition was tougher for Bourque, but the style of play still factors into it. To me, there's a wash between those two factors, which goes back to my saying how close the second through fourth slots were to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStraw Posted April 18, 2015 Share Posted April 18, 2015 @ScottM - pretty good list. I have to bring my "Brad Park is the Most Under Appreciated Defensemen Ever" campaign though- he's definitely top 10 for me. I'd put him above Chelios and maybe one or two of the guys that I never saw play. If Orr had never been born, Park probably has at least 4 Norris Trophies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted April 18, 2015 Author Share Posted April 18, 2015 @ScottM - pretty good list. I have to bring my "Brad Park is the Most Under Appreciated Defensemen Ever" campaign though- he's definitely top 10 for me. I'd put him above Chelios and maybe one or two of the guys that I never saw play. If Orr had never been born, Park probably has at least 4 Norris Trophies. I agree. Park would definitely have been in a top 15 list, and I agree that he's underrated. He was one of the tougher ones to know what to do with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.