View Single Post
11-20-2012, 11:54 PM
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,365
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
What I would expect if Lidstrom was that much more effective than Bourque, is that Lidstrom's on ice numbers would be well ahead of Bourque's. Instead they are almost equal.
That means that despite Lidstrom having that superior supporting cast around him, Bourque was just as effective as Lidstrom with much, much less support.
We may have been over this before but you certainly didn't understand what it meant then either.
The on ice off ice isn't a perfect measurement, as recall there were some other great players that had surprisingly weaker numbers than one would expect.

Was it overpass that presented these numbers? Something to go back and look at again.

There are other number floating around out there as well like adjusted plus/minus, hockey share points and the hockey prospectus one as well. Not sure if all of those capture playoff games as well, in which Lidstrom has an advantage IMO.

You're kidding right? You seriously believe it's not easier to play defense at even strength when your team is playing as a 5man unit using much stricter defensive systems in both the defensive zone and neutral zones?
My bad I misread that and thought you were talking about his offensive, which in a previous post you claimed that Lidstrom wasn't an offensive Dman but rather a "defensive one who could QB a PP well."

It's not only inaccurate but a contradiction, why would any coach put a defensive Dman on the ice as the PP QB if he wasn't offensive.

Perhaps you are working on a different notion of what an offensive Dman does.

Still alot of what happens on defense isn't measurable and not sure what you mean about 5 man units. The Red wings certainly were not a Tikinov coached team.

You realise Harvey won a Norris with those NYR's right?
Yes I do, and not the most outstanding field of all time ever if you look at it really closely.

Pilote is 2nd despite missing 11 games , but with Hull emerging as a scoring threat his assist totals look very impressive for 62.

Talbot has his career year with 47 points sandwiched between 31 and 25, replacing Harvey as the top offensive threat (on the back end) on that great Habs team.

Brewer is 23 and great on d but provides little offense.

Mohns scores well but is never really in contention for the best Dman in the league ever.

Evans makes an appearance tied for 5th spot in a career year and an average career at that.

Tim Horton doesn't gain traction for actually being in the running for the Norris until the next season, perhaps the voters missed him and/or Brewer took away some of his possible votes, not sure.

There were NINE expansion teams added to the league during Lidstrom's career! Almost all of them during his prime.[/QUOTE]

And you don't think that the increase in talent from the US, Europe and BC and the maritime is enough to make up for this?

Just to compare Nick started with 22 teams in 92nad reaches 30 in 01.

Orr plays
1 season with 6 teams,
then 3 with 12,
2 more with 14, (WHA appears along with these 2 teams as well)
2 with 16 and 1 with 18

the increase in players from other non traditional feeders araes is very small here.

Like I said, I will do an in depth look at it from Havey to Lidstrom when I have some time as it will take many hours to do.

Really? Lets count how many top 20 All-time D-men Harvey faced and beat out in their primes compared to how many Lidstrom faced and beat out in their primes.
What top 20 are you talking about?

Harvey is a clear 2nd to Kelly (7th) for a couple of years and is in direct compitition and beats him in 3 years, it seems that voters were treating Kelly as a forward by then.

Pilote (14) is 8th in norris voting in 58
4th in 60
4th in 61
2nd in 62

Horton (17) is 6th in 55 (no votes listed)
10th in 60
6th in 61
5th in 62

Gadsby (21) is 2nd in 56
4th in 57
2nd in 58
6th in 60
10th in 61

These guys played against Lidstrom, not going to bother listing finishes as I have done so elsewhere and will just list years played

3 Bourque 79-01
10 Chelios 83-10
13 Coffey 80-01
18 MacInnis 81-04
19 Stevens 82-04
20 Pronger 94-12

You should take a serious look at that list, noting the ages and what part of their careers they were in for the players each beat before answering.[/QUOTE]

It looks like Lidstrom fared better once again here but it depends on how you define prime, earlier you stated that 9 teams were added into the NHL and to quote "almost all of them in their prime."

Hardyvan123 is offline