HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Round 2, Vote 2 (2009 update)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-03-2009, 10:41 PM
  #26
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 20,834
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommygunn View Post
As far as I'm concerned, Morenz should be everybody's #1 for this round.. and if he's not I'm interested in why you feel that way and who you place higher?
Well, everybody from round 1 is better than Morenz. 3 are goalies, one is Stan Mikita (better defensive player, better playmaker, more "consistent prime" -- Morenz had IMO the two best years, but could follow up with an average season, had to beat both Hull and Beliveau for the Hart/Art Ross --- not to mention that Howe was still a threat --- made average players better more than Morenz, and while it's tough to blame Morenz for centering a Top-100 player, we can certainly give a boost to Mikita for it....), and the other is, IMO, Denis Potvin. People tend to see Potvin's prime as the cup years, but he basically played defense like the old Scott Stevens while bringing similar offense to Red Kelly (prime) for 10 years. And Potvin's playoffs credentials are probably the 2nd best amongst remaining players, after only Roy.

Then comes Morenz. Definitely a shoo-in for this round, like every Round 1 castoffs.

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2009, 10:50 PM
  #27
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,984
vCash: 500
Nope

Quote:
Originally Posted by FissionFire View Post
You are blaming a 36 year old Lidstrom on a bad-angle goal that a competent goalie should stop? Doesn't that seem a little extreme? I'm sure if you go through game footage of Bourque, Harvey, Orr, or anyone else you can find plenty of mistakes even more egregioius.
Nope simply praising the great Niklas Lidstrom for providing educational material that coaches throughout North America
and elsewhere in the hockey playing world to illustrate what happens when a defenseman refuses to play physical against an average player.

As for competent goalies.

PartI. Jim Henry was beat by Maurice Richard on a similar move, 1953 Finals, because Bill Quackenbush did not get physical. Larry Robinson did the samething to Gerry Cheevers in the 1978 playoffs because the defenseman did not get physical.

PartII. Goalies are competent because average defensemen from bantam on up do not get beat by such a move from an average player.The play should have died at least three times before a scoring chance was possible.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2009, 10:52 PM
  #28
God Bless Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bentley reunion
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,790
vCash: 500
Here's why I'll vote for Morenz No. 1 in this round (and to me, it's without question): nobody in this round had a bigger impact on the game.

He really was hockey's first superstar - the right guy (an explosive, aggressive, scintillating dynamo who could do it all) in the right place (Montreal) at the right time (he was at his best after the last Western league folded, and the NHL became the show). He drew people to the game. Plante's great. Lafleur's great. Roy's great. But their impact on the game is not Morenz' impact. (Plante's the only one who comes close). When you look at Morenz both on and off the ice, I think he's a no-brainer for No. 1 in this round.

God Bless Canada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2009, 10:52 PM
  #29
ushvinder
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,432
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Mikita does have a great peak. That's why he's a Top 20 player of all time. But he wasn't a gamebreaker in quite the same way Lafleur was.

And I'm talking about the period between Orr and Gretzky - Lafleur was the best player in the league even if he didn't win the Hart every year.
Why was he the best, Bobby Clarke was better than him in 1976. Produced the same amount of offence while playing shutdown defence hockey. I will take the guy that is elite both ways than a one dimensional Lafluer.

Jagr gets punished for his negatives, but Lafluer doesnt get punished for his terrible smoking habits, being a headache for coaches and basically quitting after the dynasty was over. Everyone just loves Lafluer.

ushvinder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2009, 10:55 PM
  #30
ushvinder
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,432
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless Canada View Post
Here's why I'll vote for Morenz No. 1 in this round (and to me, it's without question): nobody in this round had a bigger impact on the game.

He really was hockey's first superstar - the right guy (an explosive, aggressive, scintillating dynamo who could do it all) in the right place (Montreal) at the right time (he was at his best after the last Western league folded, and the NHL became the show). He drew people to the game. Plante's great. Lafleur's great. Roy's great. But their impact on the game is not Morenz' impact. (Plante's the only one who comes close). When you look at Morenz both on and off the ice, I think he's a no-brainer for No. 1 in this round.
Really fred cyclone taylor wasnt a superstar? Even though he won numeruos scoring titles and made the nha teams look like idiotsa during the playoffs. Morenz is overrated, Cyclone Taylor is just unfortuante that he couldnt play his prime years during the post 26 era.

ushvinder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2009, 10:57 PM
  #31
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 20,834
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ushvinder View Post

Jagr gets punished for his negatives, but Lafluer doesnt get punished for his terrible smoking habits, being a headache for coaches and basically quitting after the dynasty was over. Everyone just loves Lafluer.
Geez, if you're to address off-ice issues, at least, address the relevant ones, unless Yvon Lambert told you that Lafleur created a rift in the dressing room because Doug Risebrough was allergic to smoke, or caused Bill Nyrop's retirement because he wouldn't stop botching on his right forearm...

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2009, 11:01 PM
  #32
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 20,834
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ushvinder View Post
Why was he the best, Bobby Clarke was better than him in 1976. Produced the same amount of offence while playing shutdown defence hockey. I will take the guy that is elite both ways than a one dimensional Lafluer.

Jagr gets punished for his negatives, but Lafluer doesnt get punished for his terrible smoking habits, being a headache for coaches and basically quitting after the dynasty was over. Everyone just loves Lafluer.
Over the long run (Orr / Gretz), Lafleur was the best player. I mean, I don't think somebody doesn't consider Pierre Pilote the best D-Men between Harvey and Orr because Lappy won some Norris in between.

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2009, 11:55 PM
  #33
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,176
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
1 : There are many ways to interpret Messier's career. One of them is that : frankly, except for physical play, was he that much better than Henri Richard? I just think he wasn't, and while Richard was a great player, I don't think he should get consideration before Top-40. Messier was a wee bit better, meaning that he shouldn't get any consideration before Top-25. IMO.
Last I'll say about Messier since he's not up for voting and I don't want to annoy FF. But he won two Hart trophies against tough competition and was second once to healthy Mario Lemieux. He was also quite a bit better offensively than H Richard in the playoffs.
Quote:
4 : FF basically answered what I would.
This is about Lindsay, and it just bothers me that we might have 4 of the top 20 players from the Detroit dynasty. 1/5 of the top 20 players of all time played for Detroit in the 50s? I'm less comfortable about that than the even higher representation of the 50s Canadiens at the top of the list, because:

1) the 50s Canadiens dominated their opponents in a way never seen before or since. 5 straight Cups without needing a game 7. The early 50s Wings were more of a "normal" dynasty in terms of on-ice results, and yet they are going to get 4 of the top 20 players of all time on the list?

2) In general, the Detroit stars did not perform as well outside the dynasty as they did during the dynasty years. Red Kelly is the exception I believe (correct me if I'm wrong), which is why I am likely to vote him in this round.

Honestly, what does Lindsay have over someone like Yzerman? Even more leadership and tough (dirty?) play? Leadership and tough play weren't enough to get Messier on the list. Lindsay had his one really good season without Howe, but Yzerman had one really freakishly good season too.

Quote:
5 : I don't think Lidstrom should be a lock to make the Top-15 (not any better than any guy mentionned in round 1), but I think he did enough to be considered a late-entry in this round (see, 19-20). He's behind Kelly in my books... But I think it's enough to get him in.
Well, I have him ahead of Potvin and Kelly, so he has to go Top 15.


Quote:
I know it kinda sucks, but Clarke simply achieved more while playing in the best professionnal league.
Yeah, I understand why Clarke is ahead of Kharlamov. But Clarke is portrayed as some kind of unstoppable defensive machine, and yet he was completely owned by Kharlamov until the incident. It's not the only reason I don't have him in my top 20 (the main would be more due to his lack of offense, especially in the playoffs, compared to other guys who are up), but it is noteworthy.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 08-04-2009 at 12:03 AM.
TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2009, 12:54 AM
  #34
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,984
vCash: 500
Your Points...............

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Last I'll say about Messier since he's not up for voting and I don't want to annoy FF. But he won two Hart trophies against tough competition and was second once to healthy Mario Lemieux. He was also quite a bit better offensively than H Richard in the playoffs.


This is about Lindsay, and it just bothers me that we might have 4 of the top 20 players from the Detroit dynasty. 1/5 of the top 20 players of all time played for Detroit in the 50s? I'm less comfortable about that than the even higher representation of the 50s Canadiens at the top of the list, because:

1) the 50s Canadiens dominated their opponents in a way never seen before or since. 5 straight Cups without needing a game 7. The early 50s Wings were more of a "normal" dynasty in terms of on-ice results, and yet they are going to get 4 of the top 20 players of all time on the list?

2) In general, the Detroit stars did not perform as well outside the dynasty as they did during the dynasty years. Red Kelly is the exception I believe (correct me if I'm wrong), which is why I am likely to vote him in this round.

Honestly, what does Lindsay have over someone like Yzerman? Even more leadership and tough (dirty?) play? Leadership and tough play weren't enough to get Messier on the list. Lindsay had his one really good season without Howe, but Yzerman had one really freakishly good season too.



Well, I have him ahead of Potvin and Kelly, so he has to go Top 15.




Yeah, I understand why Clarke is ahead of Kharlamov. But Clarke is portrayed as some kind of unstoppable defensive machine, and yet he was completely owned by Kharlamov until the incident. It's not the only reason I don't have him in my top 20 (the main would be more due to his lack of offense, especially in the playoffs, compared to other guys who are up), but it is noteworthy.
You raise some interesting points.

There are flaws in the debating and voting structure. For instance the issue of defensive abilities of centers is precluded from head to head debate by the structure of the discussion and voting. Bobby Clarke, Dave Keon, Stan Mikita, Henri Richard, Bryan Trottier cannot be compared head to head.

Your Lindsay point is valid because he is placed on an island. Not possible to compare him against LWs like Dickie Moore or Johnny Bucyk. Different styles but all filled the important role of a #1 LW.

Likewise a Messier / Phil Esposito comparison would have merit within the context of this discussion.

Fail to see your Clarke / Kharlamov analogy. Center is not defensively responsible for wingers. That Clarke did what others were seemingly not willing to do reflects on his character or lack off, whichever view you take.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2009, 01:13 AM
  #35
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,984
vCash: 500
Fred "Cyclone" Taylor

Quote:
Originally Posted by ushvinder View Post
Really fred cyclone taylor wasnt a superstar? Even though he won numeruos scoring titles and made the nha teams look like idiotsa during the playoffs. Morenz is overrated, Cyclone Taylor is just unfortuante that he couldnt play his prime years during the post 26 era.
Fred "Cyclone" Taylor was mainly a defenseman / rover(seven man hockey) who moved up to center later in his career. His main contribution to hockey was his ability to skate backwards which defined how the defensemen of all future eras had to play the game.

His scoring is rather pedestrian by the standards of his era. 194 goals in 186 regular season games. Joe Malone and Newsy Lalonde had slightly better goals per game stats but none compared to Russell Bowie, 234 goals in 80 games or Frank McGee 71 goals in 23 games.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2009, 01:25 AM
  #36
NOTENOUGHBREWER
Registered User
 
NOTENOUGHBREWER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 8,673
vCash: 500
It looks like from the eligible list that Bourque snuck into the top 10, I assume at 10th overall.

So we have now 4 defenders, 3 centres, 3 wingers. Not yet a goalie.

I had Roy Hasek and Bourque in that order for my 10, 11, and 12 so

11) Roy
12) Hasek

Next I had Morenz, but looking back at things I am not seeing a huge gap between Mikita and Morenz. The most common argument I'm seeing is that Morenz was the games "first superstar". However Morenz popularity off the ice, I think on the ice the two are neck and neck. Mikita has a slew of awards over Morenz, but Morenz in his ranking of best player of the first half of the century leads me to believe there is much more to him than what you'll see on the stats page. Mikita naturally didnt come up much in the first debate as he was clearly out of the top 10. Morenz did get some attention, but not much. I'm interested in some of the views of the more knowledgable guys on this one.

After those two I have Esposito as my 15th. Probably a very unpopular opinion, but I think you can make a very good argument for him being the 5th best offensive player of all time. Also led the playoffs in scoring 3 different times so he showed up when it mattered. Also was good defensively and a great leader. He has a reputation from some as being a product of Orr, but he was Canada's best in 72. Also as a Ranger he put up 5 more straight PPG seasons despite being into his mid and late 30's, when most of his contemporaries were retiring. I think he's become one of those tarnished legacy players who if they had retired earlier would be remembered in a much better light.





Also, anyone think they look alike?

NOTENOUGHBREWER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2009, 01:54 AM
  #37
Howe Elbows 9
Registered User
 
Howe Elbows 9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Gävle, Sweden
Posts: 2,530
vCash: 590
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post

Niklas Lidstrom

If he had some Ulf in him definite top 10.
You're cracking me up.

You and I aren't going to agree on much in this project. Well, we both think Red Kelly was amazing, so that's one thing we agree on. You're free to have your opinion, of course, I'm just saying that your opinion differs on many points from mine (as well as the view of the general public).

Here's what I'm thinking:

11. Morenz
12. Hasek
13. Mikita
14. Roy
15. Lidström
16-18. Clarke/Kelly/Potvin
19-20. Lafleur/Plante

Howe Elbows 9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2009, 02:06 AM
  #38
Reds4Life
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Reds4Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Czech Republic
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,517
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
My Top 7 :
...

7. Dominik Hasek
More negatives than anyone on this list but Jagr, but his numbers are just too good to drop any lower.
More negatives? How come? Some media rumors do not mean anything. If I were to belive everything media tell me then 99% of celebrities in my country are totally fu*ked up people. Hasek was/is a weird guy. So was Roy.

Also, the Lidstrom hate (not from you Devil) is ridiculous and funny at the same time. Gotta love biased canadians.

Reds4Life is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2009, 03:53 AM
  #39
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
 
Nalyd Psycho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: No Bandwagon
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,767
vCash: 500
My list, I hate this part, the top 20 should be all generational talents, but, sadly, isn't yet. Go Ovechkin, Crosby and Malkin!

1. Dominic Hasek: Inimitable generational talent. IMO, the definitive player of the dead puck era. Dominated games at a level no one else left could. Injuries at critical points of his career do hamper him, but not much at this point IMO.

2. Patrick Roy: Best big game player on the board, possibly ever. One stat alone explains my position. 151 playoff wins, second place is 98 wins. Having more than 50% more wins then second place is unreal statistical dominance.

3/4. Howie Morenz or Stan Mikita: A trademark peak vs longevity battle. At his best, Morenz was the NHL's 1st superstar and was irreplaceable in growing the sport in America. But, his dominance was inconsistent and ended young. Mikita on the other hand, was a peer of Hull, Howe and Beliveau for a decade. But, not able to prove himself better than them. But, they are all off the board now, so, he doesn't have to be better. Was a top notch player for probably twice as many years as Morenz, but, never changed the game. I'm torn.

5. Jacques Plante: Revolutionary goalie. Winner. Not a dominant force. But, he changed the game and won. Do you need more?

6. Niklas Lidstrom: The only player in NHL history who can invisibly dominate games. The second most efficient player ever. (After Gretzky) Critiquing his career on one bad play is as absurd as the Vote for Rory attack ads, and deserves no further comment.

7. Denis Potvin: The line between Potvin and Lidstrom is razor thin and much the same as Morenz vs Mikita. Potvin was better, Lidstrom did it longer. But, I've made up my mind here.

8. Red Kelly: The first non-generational talent IMO. But, his versatility excuses that. The more research I do, the more I can't explain Kelly over Cyclone Taylor, but, that's an argument for another day. His complete lack of flaws makes me comfortable listing him here.

9. Phil Esposito: He produced. Yes, there are questions about how much Orr helped. But his Hart votes over Orr help. I want to have him lower. But, he won some cups, had some great runs. And produced at an all-time great level.

10. Glenn Hall: His playoff resume is underrated. He failed to improve more than he faltered. And seeing as he is the 1st or 2nd best regular season goalie (Hasek is the disputer.) I fail to see that as a major problem.

11. Jaromir Jagr: This is where Hart shares begin to influence my research and voting. He's 4th, ahead of Hull, Beliveau and Richard. Now, it isn't a perfect measure, but, it says a lot. As does 5 scoring titles. 5 players have done that, 3 are top 4 all-time, there's only so much you can punish a player for being a moody ***** when he backs it up like that.

12. Terry Sawchuk: Now we really start to get into how a player hurts his team through their actions. If he had never touched a bottle, we may well be talking about whether or not he's better than Mario. But, he did touch the bottle. Often. He hurt himself. He hurt his team. He chose to undercut one of the greatest careers ever. But. He was still able to be phenomenal early in his career and he was able to remain good for an amazing length of time.

13. Bobby Clarke: It's worth noting that he peaked after '72 and definitely struggled more against very quick players. But. He was a leader, a warrior, a shutdown artist and a great playmaker. He's also the worst goal scoring forward in the top 50, possibly even the top 100.

14. Ted Lindsay: Once again I'll bring up Hart shares. A forward. his whole peak in the frame of the analysis. Doesn't even appear in the top 50. His Hart votes: 4th, 6th and 10th. And we're calling him a top 20 player of all time? I'm sorry. I've got a problem with that.

15. Guy Lafleur: How is Jagr punished for his mood swings and Lafleur not punished for his party lifestyle? In three years: 232gp 162g 224a 386pts. Gets drunk, speeds, crashes his car. The next three years: 185gp 81g 149a 230pts. That is how personality hurts a team. His goal scoring was literally halved by the choices he as an individual made. If we are to punish players for how they acted as a human being and how those actions hurt their teams ability to succeed. We start by punishing Guy Lafleur. He should be below Bill Cook.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Fred "Cyclone" Taylor was mainly a defenseman / rover(seven man hockey) who moved up to center later in his career. His main contribution to hockey was his ability to skate backwards which defined how the defensemen of all future eras had to play the game.

His scoring is rather pedestrian by the standards of his era. 194 goals in 186 regular season games. Joe Malone and Newsy Lalonde had slightly better goals per game stats but none compared to Russell Bowie, 234 goals in 80 games or Frank McGee 71 goals in 23 games.
Bowie and McGee is a different era. That shattered non-pro league era meant a lot of weak teams for stars to rip apart. Where as Taylor, Lalonde and Malone played in the split league era where there was 7-10 major pro teams in the world, so, talent was more concentrated.

His contributions to the game are endless:
1. Introduced skating backwards
2. First puck rushing defenceman
3. Legitimized pro hockey in Western Canada.
4. First hockey player to utilize his hockey talent to set himself up financially for life. (In his first major pro contract, it stipulated in the contract that Ottawa provided him with a lifetime position in the Canadian government, he worked for Immegrations Canada until he was 66 years old. He then became disputably the highest paid athlete in the world when he signed with the Renfrew Millionaires.

And most importantly of all:

5. The first playmaker. He was the first player to really utilize passing to create offence. Because passing rules made passing in hockey more or less like passing in rugby, most star players would explore all options before passing the puck. Taylor was the first player to make setting up a teammate one of his major scoring options. As evidenced by having more than 80% more assists per game then any other players once the PCHA started recording assists.

__________________
Every post comes with the Nalyd Psycho Seal of Approval.

Last edited by Nalyd Psycho: 08-04-2009 at 05:35 AM.
Nalyd Psycho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2009, 06:15 AM
  #40
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 20,834
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post


This is about Lindsay, and it just bothers me that we might have 4 of the top 20 players from the Detroit dynasty. 1/5 of the top 20 players of all time played for Detroit in the 50s? I'm less comfortable about that than the even higher representation of the 50s Canadiens at the top of the list, because:

1) the 50s Canadiens dominated their opponents in a way never seen before or since. 5 straight Cups without needing a game 7. The early 50s Wings were more of a "normal" dynasty in terms of on-ice results, and yet they are going to get 4 of the top 20 players of all time on the list?

Yeah, I understand why Clarke is ahead of Kharlamov. But Clarke is portrayed as some kind of unstoppable defensive machine, and yet he was completely owned by Kharlamov until the incident. It's not the only reason I don't have him in my top 20 (the main would be more due to his lack of offense, especially in the playoffs, compared to other guys who are up), but it is noteworthy.
1 : The more I think about it, the more Lindsay probabl ends up just outside of my top-20... I was just explaining what made Lindsay ahead of Moore by +- 25 ranks.
As for the Wings... What makes the Habs the better team is that the reminder of their D's were just better than Detroit D's... same thing for forwards.

2 : You got to remember that Clarke was quite young... And Kharlamov wasn't lighting the scoreboard either.

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2009, 07:17 AM
  #41
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,984
vCash: 500
Phil Esposito

Quote:
Originally Posted by NOTENOUGHBREWER View Post
It looks like from the eligible list that Bourque snuck into the top 10, I assume at 10th overall.

So we have now 4 defenders, 3 centres, 3 wingers. Not yet a goalie.

I had Roy Hasek and Bourque in that order for my 10, 11, and 12 so

11) Roy
12) Hasek

Next I had Morenz, but looking back at things I am not seeing a huge gap between Mikita and Morenz. The most common argument I'm seeing is that Morenz was the games "first superstar". However Morenz popularity off the ice, I think on the ice the two are neck and neck. Mikita has a slew of awards over Morenz, but Morenz in his ranking of best player of the first half of the century leads me to believe there is much more to him than what you'll see on the stats page. Mikita naturally didnt come up much in the first debate as he was clearly out of the top 10. Morenz did get some attention, but not much. I'm interested in some of the views of the more knowledgable guys on this one.

After those two I have Esposito as my 15th. Probably a very unpopular opinion, but I think you can make a very good argument for him being the 5th best offensive player of all time. Also led the playoffs in scoring 3 different times so he showed up when it mattered. Also was good defensively and a great leader. He has a reputation from some as being a product of Orr, but he was Canada's best in 72. Also as a Ranger he put up 5 more straight PPG seasons despite being into his mid and late 30's, when most of his contemporaries were retiring. I think he's become one of those tarnished legacy players who if they had retired earlier would be remembered in a much better light.





Also, anyone think they look alike?
What really hurts Phil Esposito is the comparison to Jean Ratelle after the Bruins/Rangers trade. Their scoring stats washed but Ratelle went deeper in the playoffs and had a very strong +/-, +131 while Esposito had a very weak +/-, in fact with the NY Rangers it was -116.

Phil Esposito
http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...esposph01.html

Jean Ratelle
http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...esposph01.html

Phil Esposito ,good defensively???????????????

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2009, 07:41 AM
  #42
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,984
vCash: 500
Niklas Lidstrom

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reds4Life View Post
More negatives? How come? Some media rumors do not mean anything. If I were to belive everything media tell me then 99% of celebrities in my country are totally fu*ked up people. Hasek was/is a weird guy. So was Roy.

Also, the Lidstrom hate (not from you Devil) is ridiculous and funny at the same time. Gotta love biased canadians.
There are videos and there are statistics.

Consider the portrayal of Niklas Lidstrom as this great superior defenseman in a statistical light, given that he has played for a team that was constantly elite, always made the playoffs, had more than his share of HOF teammates and above average coaching - Scotty Bowman and Mike Babcock.

Note his career +/- is +409 with a career best +43.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...lidstni01.html

Looking at others:
Bobby Orr:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/o/orrbo01.html
Career +597, only season UNDER +43 when injured.Fewer games

Denis Potvin

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...potvide01.html

Career +460, fewer games including a start with a team one year removed from expansion, three season better than +43.

Larry Robinson

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...robinla01.html

Career +720, including a +120 season with seven better than +43.

Mark Howe
Not in the HHOF but a career +400 with at least three +43 seasons.

Simple numerical meritocracy. Lidstrom's numbers do not carry the day, in fact they suffer quite a bit. Once you get beyond the smoke and mirrors of Lidstrom's career the substance is not as impressive as it should be.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2009, 07:49 AM
  #43
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
 
Nalyd Psycho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: No Bandwagon
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,767
vCash: 500
+/- at face value is statistical snake oil.

Another way of looking at it is top ten finishes. (Needless to say, Orr kills everyone, but, comparing d-men to Orr is unfair.)
Potvin: 2nd, 5th and 6th
Robinson: 1st, 2nd, 4th, 6th, 6th and 7th
Lidstrom: 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd and 7th

Looks a lot different in that light, no?

But even then, I wouldn't put much into plus minus...

Nalyd Psycho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2009, 08:18 AM
  #44
Reds4Life
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Reds4Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Czech Republic
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,517
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
There are videos and there are statistics.

Consider the portrayal of Niklas Lidstrom as this great superior defenseman in a statistical light, given that he has played for a team that was constantly elite, always made the playoffs, had more than his share of HOF teammates and above average coaching - Scotty Bowman and Mike Babcock.

Note his career +/- is +409 with a career best +43.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...lidstni01.html

Looking at others:
Bobby Orr:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/o/orrbo01.html
Career +597, only season UNDER +43 when injured.Fewer games

Denis Potvin

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...potvide01.html

Career +460, fewer games including a start with a team one year removed from expansion, three season better than +43.

Larry Robinson

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...robinla01.html

Career +720, including a +120 season with seven better than +43.

Mark Howe
Not in the HHOF but a career +400 with at least three +43 seasons.

Simple numerical meritocracy. Lidstrom's numbers do not carry the day, in fact they suffer quite a bit. Once you get beyond the smoke and mirrors of Lidstrom's career the substance is not as impressive as it should be.
See? Posts like this make you look biased. First of all, Lidstrom is THE reason Red Wings were elite (or close to) in last 15 years.
Second, you compare Robinson's +/-, who was NOT the best player on his dynasty team and Potvin's /-, who was imho the best Islander with Lidstrom's +/- .. guess what? Different eras. Different teams. Different rules. Different game. But anyways, if you put those numbers into perspective, Lidstrom is, again, better than those two guys.
Third, Lidstrom's lack of physical game is actually a plus. Only tough-guys-lovers like you, GBC and maybe few other cannot see that.

Reds4Life is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2009, 08:20 AM
  #45
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,984
vCash: 500
Your Claims

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nalyd Psycho View Post
My list, I hate this part, the top 20 should be all generational talents, but, sadly, isn't yet. Go Ovechkin, Crosby and Malkin!

1. Dominic Hasek: Inimitable generational talent. IMO, the definitive player of the dead puck era. Dominated games at a level no one else left could. Injuries at critical points of his career do hamper him, but not much at this point IMO.

2. Patrick Roy: Best big game player on the board, possibly ever. One stat alone explains my position. 151 playoff wins, second place is 98 wins. Having more than 50% more wins then second place is unreal statistical dominance.

3/4. Howie Morenz or Stan Mikita: A trademark peak vs longevity battle. At his best, Morenz was the NHL's 1st superstar and was irreplaceable in growing the sport in America. But, his dominance was inconsistent and ended young. Mikita on the other hand, was a peer of Hull, Howe and Beliveau for a decade. But, not able to prove himself better than them. But, they are all off the board now, so, he doesn't have to be better. Was a top notch player for probably twice as many years as Morenz, but, never changed the game. I'm torn.

5. Jacques Plante: Revolutionary goalie. Winner. Not a dominant force. But, he changed the game and won. Do you need more?

6. Niklas Lidstrom: The only player in NHL history who can invisibly dominate games. The second most efficient player ever. (After Gretzky) Critiquing his career on one bad play is as absurd as the Vote for Rory attack ads, and deserves no further comment.

7. Denis Potvin: The line between Potvin and Lidstrom is razor thin and much the same as Morenz vs Mikita. Potvin was better, Lidstrom did it longer. But, I've made up my mind here.

8. Red Kelly: The first non-generational talent IMO. But, his versatility excuses that. The more research I do, the more I can't explain Kelly over Cyclone Taylor, but, that's an argument for another day. His complete lack of flaws makes me comfortable listing him here.

9. Phil Esposito: He produced. Yes, there are questions about how much Orr helped. But his Hart votes over Orr help. I want to have him lower. But, he won some cups, had some great runs. And produced at an all-time great level.

10. Glenn Hall: His playoff resume is underrated. He failed to improve more than he faltered. And seeing as he is the 1st or 2nd best regular season goalie (Hasek is the disputer.) I fail to see that as a major problem.

11. Jaromir Jagr: This is where Hart shares begin to influence my research and voting. He's 4th, ahead of Hull, Beliveau and Richard. Now, it isn't a perfect measure, but, it says a lot. As does 5 scoring titles. 5 players have done that, 3 are top 4 all-time, there's only so much you can punish a player for being a moody ***** when he backs it up like that.

12. Terry Sawchuk: Now we really start to get into how a player hurts his team through their actions. If he had never touched a bottle, we may well be talking about whether or not he's better than Mario. But, he did touch the bottle. Often. He hurt himself. He hurt his team. He chose to undercut one of the greatest careers ever. But. He was still able to be phenomenal early in his career and he was able to remain good for an amazing length of time.

13. Bobby Clarke: It's worth noting that he peaked after '72 and definitely struggled more against very quick players. But. He was a leader, a warrior, a shutdown artist and a great playmaker. He's also the worst goal scoring forward in the top 50, possibly even the top 100.

14. Ted Lindsay: Once again I'll bring up Hart shares. A forward. his whole peak in the frame of the analysis. Doesn't even appear in the top 50. His Hart votes: 4th, 6th and 10th. And we're calling him a top 20 player of all time? I'm sorry. I've got a problem with that.

15. Guy Lafleur: How is Jagr punished for his mood swings and Lafleur not punished for his party lifestyle? In three years: 232gp 162g 224a 386pts. Gets drunk, speeds, crashes his car. The next three years: 185gp 81g 149a 230pts. That is how personality hurts a team. His goal scoring was literally halved by the choices he as an individual made. If we are to punish players for how they acted as a human being and how those actions hurt their teams ability to succeed. We start by punishing Guy Lafleur. He should be below Bill Cook.


Bowie and McGee is a different era. That shattered non-pro league era meant a lot of weak teams for stars to rip apart. Where as Taylor, Lalonde and Malone played in the split league era where there was 7-10 major pro teams in the world, so, talent was more concentrated.

His contributions to the game are endless:
1. Introduced skating backwards
2. First puck rushing defenceman
3. Legitimized pro hockey in Western Canada.
4. First hockey player to utilize his hockey talent to set himself up financially for life. (In his first major pro contract, it stipulated in the contract that Ottawa provided him with a lifetime position in the Canadian government, he worked for Immegrations Canada until he was 66 years old. He then became disputably the highest paid athlete in the world when he signed with the Renfrew Millionaires.

And most importantly of all:

5. The first playmaker. He was the first player to really utilize passing to create offence. Because passing rules made passing in hockey more or less like passing in rugby, most star players would explore all options before passing the puck. Taylor was the first player to make setting up a teammate one of his major scoring options. As evidenced by having more than 80% more assists per game then any other players once the PCHA started recording assists.
The Lidstrom claim is disputed with visible +/- comparisons, previous post.

Roy / Hasek. Roy's 151 playoff wins somehow gets trumped by Hasek's 65, Yet Roy had a better playoff winning % by app. 5%.

Cyclone Taylor. Playmaker? Care to step up with evidence?

http://hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/leagu...048921921.html

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/p...y.php?pid=5319

1920-21 season does not support your claim.Career wise? Do you appreciate how many unrecorded assists from the pre 1920-21 era have to be added to Cyclone Taylor's record to reach your alleged 80%?

Cyclone Taylor was a forward originally who like Bobby Orr 50 years later was moved back to defense because he was to fast for his teammates and playing him on defense/rover created difficulties for the opposition. This was done with others from the era as well, Moose Johnson,etc.

No Patricks, no PCHA.

.


Last edited by Canadiens1958: 08-04-2009 at 09:08 AM. Reason: wording
Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2009, 08:29 AM
  #46
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,984
vCash: 500
Hilarious

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reds4Life View Post
See? Posts like this make you look biased. First of all, Lidstrom is THE reason Red Wings were elite (or close to) in last 15 years.
Second, you compare Robinson's +/-, who was NOT the best player on his dynasty team and Potvin's /-, who was imho the best Islander with Lidstrom's +/- .. guess what? Different eras. Different teams. Different rules. Different game. But anyways, if you put those numbers into perspective, Lidstrom is, again, better than those two guys.
Third, Lidstrom's lack of physical game is actually a plus. Only tough-guys-lovers like you, GBC and maybe few other cannot see that.
Red Wings were elite because of Scotty Bowman, Steve Yzerman, and a host of other HHOF quality players.

Have spoken out against the needless actions of the Sprague Cleghorn, EddIe Shore, Maurice Richard nature in numerous posts so your point is rather empty.

When is a lack of a physical game a plus? When a Patrick Sharp spears you with impunity?

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2009, 08:30 AM
  #47
Der Kaiser
Registered User
 
Der Kaiser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Gothenburg, SWE
Country: Sweden
Posts: 800
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
There are videos and there are statistics.

Consider the portrayal of Niklas Lidstrom as this great superior defenseman in a statistical light, given that he has played for a team that was constantly elite, always made the playoffs, had more than his share of HOF teammates and above average coaching - Scotty Bowman and Mike Babcock.

Note his career +/- is +409 with a career best +43.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...lidstni01.html

Looking at others:
Bobby Orr:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/o/orrbo01.html
Career +597, only season UNDER +43 when injured.Fewer games

Denis Potvin

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...potvide01.html

Career +460, fewer games including a start with a team one year removed from expansion, three season better than +43.

Larry Robinson

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...robinla01.html

Career +720, including a +120 season with seven better than +43.

Mark Howe
Not in the HHOF but a career +400 with at least three +43 seasons.

Simple numerical meritocracy. Lidstrom's numbers do not carry the day, in fact they suffer quite a bit. Once you get beyond the smoke and mirrors of Lidstrom's career the substance is not as impressive as it should be.
Got to admit that I didn't expect you to bring that up, extremely selective statistics. If anything should be considered smoke and mirrors arguing it is using raw +/- statistics to compare individual players of different teams and different eras. It should be used to notice differences between players on the same team, not as a tool to rank all-time defenders. It is way too much dependant teammates and what game situations players are used in.

Also, if you absolutely want to use it as an individual statistic, Consider also the fact that the +/- levels during the 70s/80s were double those that we see today. Given the high amount of scoring, a big win was bigger in the 70s/80s that during Lidströms prime, the 2000s. From 1970-71 to 1986-87 none of the league leaders had below +/- 60 (average 82.3). From 1987 and onward the league leader has never had above +/- 60 (average 45.8). Hence, Lidströms numbers are actually significantly better than Potvins when put into context. Still this proves nor disproves nothing. It is a team statistic.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/leaders/plus_minus_yearly.html

Der Kaiser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2009, 08:34 AM
  #48
Reds4Life
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Reds4Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Czech Republic
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,517
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Red Wings were elite because of Scotty Bowman, Steve Yzerman, and a host of other HHOF quality players.
Lidstrom is better player than Yzerman. By a lot. Other HHOF quality plaers? Who besides Fedorov and old versions of Fetisov, Hull, Robitaille, Chelios and Hasek? Wings are not even close to Islanders or Habs dynasties.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Have spoken out against the needless actions of the Sprague Cleghorn, EddIe Shore, Maurice Richard nature in numerous posts so your point is rather empty
Your post "If he had some Ulf in him definite top 10." is totally empty, ridiculous and stupid at the same time. Eddie Shore and Cleghorn were players with little to no self control and I would love to see how would they play under current rules. I personally do not see how is Shore better than Harvey, Bourque, Potvin, Lidstrom or Kelly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
When is a lack of a physical game a plus? When a Patrick Sharp spears you with impunity?
Nice one. So Lidstrom should have give him a two hander to the head..to prove how tough he is?
Lidstrom never went out of position to hit somebody, never took stupid penalties by being reckless. His way of play allowed him to stay healthy and play almost every game he could.

Reds4Life is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2009, 08:40 AM
  #49
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,984
vCash: 500
Smoke and Mirrors

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nalyd Psycho View Post
+/- at face value is statistical snake oil.

Another way of looking at it is top ten finishes. (Needless to say, Orr kills everyone, but, comparing d-men to Orr is unfair.)
Potvin: 2nd, 5th and 6th
Robinson: 1st, 2nd, 4th, 6th, 6th and 7th
Lidstrom: 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd and 7th

Looks a lot different in that light, no?

But even then, I wouldn't put much into plus minus...
Now you are assuming that goals do not matter. Forget the rankings which is a blatant attempt at smoke and mirrors.

Bottom line is that Larry Robinson at even strength was on the ice for a + 309 differential in goals over Niklas Lidstrom. This is huge.Contributes greatly to winning.

Just like Patrick Roy WON app 160 more regular season games and 86 more playoff games(2.36 times as much 151 vs 65) over his career when compared to Dominik Hasek.

Bottom line is "Which team won?" and Lidstrom and Hasek fall short with contributing reasons cited.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2009, 08:42 AM
  #50
Reds4Life
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Reds4Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Czech Republic
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,517
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Now you are assuming that goals do not matter. Forget the rankings which is a blatant attempt at smoke and mirrors.

Bottom line is that Larry Robinson at even strength was on the ice for a + 309 differential in goals over Niklas Lidstrom. This is huge.Contributes greatly to winning.

Just like Patrick Roy WON app 160 more regular season games and 86 more playoff games(2.36 times as much 151 vs 65) over his career when compared to Dominik Hasek.

Bottom line is "Which team won?" and Lidstrom and Hasek fall short with contributing reasons cited.



How could FF accept you into HOH Top 100 project is beyond me.

Reds4Life is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:17 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.