View Single Post
11-17-2012, 11:24 PM
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,553
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
I should narrow my phrasing a bit -- we make judgements based on what we value in a hockey player. Peak vs prime, offense vs defense, positioning vs hitting, qualities of leadership and integrity... those are values at the end of the day. All other things equal, we rely on our individual perspectives to sort out those messy questions that don't fall neatly into an equation. That messiness really bothers some people, and engages others.

We discussed this in detail during the first vote. While Lidstrom had an argument, it's simply not the case that he "probably" should have won it. He was leading the race at midseason and wasn't very good in the second half. Bure scooped it out from under him on merit.
Bure missed 19 games of the season in which he didn't do anything to help his team win.

Bure was hot down the stretch and had the "excitement" and "wow" factor. Lidstrom IMO contributed more in terms of offense and defense in helping his team to win but we all know how the vote went.

That bolded line is extremely generous. We're talking about a 26-team league, so "at least" top-20 would make Lidstrom a solid #1 defenseman in that league -- which he definitely was not.
I don't think that the statement I made was out of line, Lidstrom was the 15th highest scoring Dman over that time period.

He is playing top paring minutes both on the PP and PK during that time as well.

At least 3 guys ahead of him Brown, Iafrate and Galley are not far enough ahead of him offensively to make up the difference that Nick has on them in defense.

Sure there are some guys below him better defensively by a bit perhaps but nick is well situated to be considered as one of the best 20 Dmen in the league over that time period by what he did IMO.

Now, putting aside those nitpicks, I do think you laid out a strong case for Lidstrom in that post. Even if he wasn't super until around 1997, which is one of his only blemishes, you score some points against Harvey by showing that Lidstrom actually began his prime at around the same age and lasted longer as an elite player.

If Lidstrom had a longer elite career, and played against tougher competition for a significant part of his career (and yes, I agree that he did), then it's on Harvey to blow Lidstrom away with peak, right? And it seems clear enough from the voting you cited that Harvey has maybe a season or two advantage of being ludicrously far ahead of the pack. Factoring in the difference in era and team circumstances, I think it actually comes out looking good for Lidstrom here. At the least, it's really really close... a lot closer than the argument between him and "he who shall not be named".
If we look at it more closely Nick has 3 excellent playoffs before and inducing his age 27 season (95,96,97) and heck he wasn't half bad in 94 either when the Sharks upset the Red Wings.

Harveys big domination years, in terms of voting, actually come without Kelly in the mix and man his competition as a whole is worse than Lidstrom's in their Norris years as well.

The biggest missing piece in your analysis, perhaps something to tip the scales, would be playoff performances.

Nick is

1st in GP
2nd in points
5th in goals
1st in assists
1st in plus/minus

I didn't go into it into detail but that is how Nick ranks among all players including forwards during his time in the playoffs in the NHL from 92-12.

I could do a season by season breakdown but the overall totals are just absolutely stunning IMO, especially when you consider the type of defense he was playing as well.

I think that's a bridge too far, but he has a strong case to leapfrog Harvey into the #3 spot behind Orr and HWSNBN (on the logic that if HWSNBN is ahead of Lidstrom by consensus and Lidstrom jumps Harvey, HWSNBN must also be ahead of Harvey... but then again I would have put HWSNBN #2 in the first place).
We will agree to disagree on Orr, as I was the only guy who even went near there and actual voted for Orr as Lidstrom was still playing but I think that's a mistake because when one considers everything including the competition factor (and how it affects dominance) Orr simply falls short in that his career is too short to be number 1 IMO.

I'm a career guy so that might be the deciding factor in it.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote