View Single Post
11-18-2012, 05:12 PM
Just a Fool
Rhiessan71's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,602
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
I understand human nature but if Bure started the way he finished and had the same stats but faded down the stretch the voters would have treated him differently.

I just happen to think that guys should be judged on everything they do and Bure didn't do anything for 19 games that season and what he did do wasn't enough to beat Lidstrom IMO but then again the voters aren't really factoring in defensive play either.

If you want to call my observation and opinions whining fair enough it does let everyone know the type of guy you are.
Heh, we had a huge discussion on this previously where your opinion didn't fare well. Starting it again from scratch might not be whining per-sey but it's a lot like trying to run a race over again after you finished last in it the first time.

Wait Hod Stuart was an innovator or was it Shore or Clancy or Orr?

Yes you are right i give very little credit for being 1st chronologically because it really doesn't mean all that much in the big scheme of things.

It certainly means a heck of a lot less than the level of competition that the innovators played in compared to the fully integrated NHL that is being ignored or downplayed by many here.

No people have a mystic and perception of the legend that doesn't look at the low quality of play in the NHL during that time and more people seem to be peak and prime oriented than career oriented as well. Maybe this will change over time but who knows.

Everyone knows your feeling on Bourque so I won't even bother going there again.
Not just my feelings my friend, not by a long shot. And for someone that puts so much stock into career over peak and prime, I find it highly suspect that you can continue to rate Lidstrom ahead of Bourque.
You bring up career in every single Lidstrom vs Orr or Lidstrom vs Harvey conversation as the deciding factor.
Yet you get to Bourque and what do you have?
Bourque's 22 years, 19 as an All-star vs Lidstrom's 20 years, 13 as an All-star.
Bourque has the longer and overall better career. Bourque has both height of and length of both prime and peak.
Offensively, it's really not close between the two. They are both good-very good PP QB's but Bourque's offense at even strength is night and day to Lidstrom's.
Defensively, strictly speaking in the defensive zone, Lidstrom has the edge but overall...Bourque's ability to control the entire ice and his puck possession (which is a part of playing defense btw) again, is night and Day.

And playoffs, I think Bourque was MORE dominant that Lidstrom ever was in the playoffs. Bourque had a hell of a lot more to do with the Bruins winning in the playoffs than Lidstrom had to do with the Wings winning.
Look at all the stats of those Bruin teams when Bourque was on the ice and when he wasn't. It's ridiculous.

So you'll have to excuse me if I take your opinion with a grain of salt when your criteria and the weight you give that criteria doesn't remain the same.
Or, to put it a better way, you are doing what you like to accuse me of doing..."moving the goal posts"

Even without looking at the differences in the level of competition it's pretty darn clear that Lidstrom has the better peak, prime, carrier and is a monster in the playoffs.
I don't see a lot of difference between their peaks and primes. Career...Lidstrom only played 2 more seasons than Harvey and playoffs...seriously, Harvey anchored teams to 10 straight Final appearances, 11 overall and won 6 Cups.

Can you demonstrate how Harveys "puck possession and full ice game control" adds to what he did statistically?
Watch some of his games, you will take note of how he controlled the tempo and pace of the game. And anchoring the defense of all those Cup teams kinda speaks for itself.

Why does it take until age 27 to make an all star team for him then, did he not have it before?

In the years 51,52,53 Kelly is the unanimous top choice for Dmen in all star voting and in 54 beats Harvey by a different voting system for the Norris

Kelly 162
Harvey 57
Gadsby 38
Tim Horton 26

In 55 when Harvey was 30 he starts his Norris run, in part I think to Voters treating Kelly as a forward or did Kelly just drop off the map?
I'm sorry, I guess I missed the part where Lidstrom was named an All-star prior to age 28.

Your focus on non measurable things, while we are talking about those we have Lidstroms defensive prowess from 92-12, distracts us from what we can measure and what I ahve shown in my posts.
Oh look, you're looking for another kick at the can again. We have been through this at length. There were newspaper articles brought out showing that Lidstrom's defense in the first half of the 90's was NOT what it became later on. Multiple Detroit writers were having trouble differentiating between Lidstrom's defensive play and Coffey's for pete's sake. I mean even I think those writers were exaggerating a bit but still, there's no way in hell that mistake could be made after '97/'98. He simply wasn't the pillar of defense then you're trying to make him to be.
You continue to try and to portray the Lidstrom we all saw from '98-'09 onto the Lidstrom we all saw from '91-'97 and '10-'12.
It's pure revisionism!

Lidstrom is clearly ahead of Harvey all time and that's before we even factor in the level of competition as well.
Not clear at all. The only edge you have presented that seems clearly in Lidstrom's corner, is playoff games played.
Now considering that Harvey played in 10 straight many more playoff games do you think that would be worth in today's 4 round format? 100-150?

Last edited by Rhiessan71: 11-18-2012 at 05:35 PM.
Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote