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
Notices

The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Lidstrom the first top-20 (skaters) to retire since Bourque?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-12-2012, 12:55 PM
  #301
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,404
vCash: 500
Leetch during his peak
seasonR-onR-offEV%PP%TmPP+SH%TmSH+
19891.230.9346%86%0.8335%1.08
19900.801.0243%70%1.2133%1.08
19911.101.0744%96%1.2637%1.07
19921.401.2246%98%1.0942%0.71
19931.291.0041%100%0.8444%0.97
19941.281.0546%90%1.3867%0.68
19950.980.9645%95%1.2374%0.91
19961.321.3342%92%1.1464%1.11
19971.380.9550%94%1.5357%1.19

Leetch missed more than half the games in 1993. I'm not sure if there's a rounding issue in overpass's spreadsheet or not, but I find it hard to believe that Leetch played every minute of every PP in the 38 games he played in 1993.

Apparently Leetch didn't become a big time PKer until the Rangers Cup year. Remember, the lower the number the better for TeamSH

Leetch played 90%+ of the PP every season from 1991 until 1999. He played 89% of the PP in 2001, when he led NHL defensemen in points.

Here are MacInnis' numbers from 1986-2003

Calgary
seasonR-onR-offEV%PP%TmPP+SH%TmSH+
19862.01 1.0029%86%1.1430%1.05
19871.411.0337%75%1.1655%1.03
19881.19 1.4033%70%1.4733%0.85
19891.67 1.7943%84%1.2845%0.83
19901.31 1.3040%96%1.4632%1.00
19911.81 1.1237%94%1.3140%0.87
19921.31 0.9636%91%1.1352%1.21
19931.47 1.0937%97%1.0230%0.83
19941.83 1.0440%86%1.2131%1.01

St Louis
seasonR-onR-offEV%PP%TmPP+SH%TmSH+
19951.96 1.4438%83%1.0242%1.11
19961.10 0.7141%81%0.9751%0.97
19971.07 0.9648%82%0.9737%1.05
19981.08 1.2842%86%1.2740%0.81
19991.63 0.7843%98%1.4047%0.76
20001.61 1.4036%90%1.2338%0.61
20011.67 1.0942%98%1.1854%0.76
20021.09 1.4041%76%1.1452%0.99
20031.40 0.9644%82%1.3053%1.08

Pronger was MacInnis' teammate from 1996-2003, but Pronger missed 31 games in 2001 and missed almost all of 2003 with injuries.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 06-12-2012 at 01:45 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2012, 01:17 PM
  #302
danincanada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,745
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
There's more to it than that though.
Context my friend.
For years, the Wings, one of the top regular season teams, had been let down by their goaltending in the playoffs.
Acquiring Vernon was supposed to finally give them the stability and ability to make the key saves to get them over the hump.
Vernon did that and no one and I mean no one disagreed with his Conn at the time.
He took them to the Cup in his first season with them, was injured the second and won the Cup in his third.
His play against Roy and the Av's alone that year might of been enough but he also played extremely well vs the Blue's going toe to toe with Fuhr in a very tight series.

Anyone sitting back in their "armchair" now, 15 years later, disputing Vernon's Conn is either ignorant of or forgetful of what the situation and currents were around those Detroit teams leading up to the '97 Cup.
Everyone saw what happened the year before when they were forced to rely on Osgood. It was still very fresh in everyone's mind.
Vernon joined the Red Wings in '94-'95 so I don't know what you're talking about. It's not like he was the final piece added before the '97 run. If they awarded him the Conn Smythe for the reasons you are saying then it was a ridiculous decision. It's supposed to go to the most valuable player of the playoffs, not for some flawed reason you're stating. People have and will dispute his Conn Smythe because there were other deserving players on that team. Vernon didn't carry them to a Cup, he had an amazing team in front of him.

btw, was Vernon injured for the '96 playoffs? I don't recall that being the case and I don't see any injuries listed here either. I seem to remember Osgood outplaying him so Bowman went with Ozzy.

Quote:
Injured hip, March 2, 1988.
Suffered back spasms, February 1989.
Suffered back spasms; missed ten games, March 1990.
Suffered lacerated forehead; missed five games, October 25, 1992.
Suffered from the flu; missed two games, November 15, 1993.
Twisted knee; missed fourteen games, December 30, 1993.
Suffered pulled right groin; missed twelve games, December 29, 1995.
Suffered from the flu; missed three games, October 23, 1996.
Injured knee; missed three games, March 12, 1997.
Injured groin; missed six games, March 1, 1999.
Suffered from the flu; missed two games, December 19, 1999.
Suffered concussion; missed two games, December 22, 2000.
http://www.hockeygoalies.org/bio/vernon.html

danincanada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2012, 01:33 PM
  #303
hcdt
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 69
vCash: 500
He was a defensive first D-man that was a pretty good PP QB.

That sentence, at least the end of it just seems not to really discribe Lidstrom. Pretty good.... whatever



Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Slagging him? What are we talking about here offense, defense, longevity, consistency, peak height or peak length?

Offense: I don't think that highly of his offense amongst the best and I rank him clearly in the bottom half of top 20-25 D-men all-time in that regard.

Defense: Easily amongst the top 3 all-time.

Longevity: If not for Bourque, he would prolly be #1 in this category.

Consistency: Same deal, only Bourque tops him IMO.

Peak height: Defensively, among the very best. Offensively, I have him even lower in this than I do for overall offense.

Peak length: Once again, I really only have Bourque ahead.

So where am I slagging him exactly? That because I rate his offense as the weakest part of his game in the context against the best ever?
He was a defensive first D-man that was a pretty good PP QB.
He took almost no risk offensively and gets no rewards on that front. He does get rewards from me for it defensively though.





How about instead of just looking at Lidstrom's time frame for those years, you look at all the players I listed and weigh their advantages and disadvantages over those years as well.
It's a hell of a lot more fair than you're making out.

And again, Lidstrom's peak has very little to do with an improving offense. It never really changed significantly. It was and has always been his defensive play that determined his peak.
Lidstrom's offense appears better than it was in the 2000's due to lack of quality, consistent competition in that regard. Not because it improved by much.

Look, Leetch was clearly not the same player offensively after the 96/97 season. Bad teams and injuries slowed him down bigtime yet he was still able to keep pace with Lidstrom offensively up to the lockout.
And what about MacInnis, who was clearly in the twilight of his career offensively at 35+ years old...

MacInnis 97/98-03/04 .75 PpG (427/320)
Lidstrom 97/98-03/04 .74 PpG (565/419)
Leetch 97/98-03/04 .70 PpG (495/346)
Just for context, here's Gonchar over the same time frame...
Gonchar 97/98-03/04 .69 PpG (503/347)

Doesn't that tell you something that a very reduced and disadvantaged Leetch as well as 35-40 year old MacInnis could keep pace with a prime Lidstrom offensively? It should.

And please spare me the MacInnis was a better overall player in his late 30's than he was earlier in his career argument. That may even be true but he was NOT a better offensive player.




Heh, yeah because the seasons leading up to and after the lockout don't suffer from similar differing scoring levels right?

hcdt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2012, 01:49 PM
  #304
vadim sharifijanov
ugh
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 14,071
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Leetch during his peak
seasonR-onR-offEV%PP%TmPP+SH%TmSH+
19891.230.9346%86%0.8335%1.08
19900.801.0243%70%1.2133%1.08
19911.101.0744%96%1.2637%1.07
19921.401.2246%98%1.0942%0.71
19931.291.0041%100%0.8444%0.97
19941.281.0546%90%1.3867%0.68
19950.980.9645%95%1.2374%0.91
19961.321.3342%92%1.1464%1.11
19971.380.9550%94%1.5357%1.19

Leetch missed more than half the games in 1993. I'm not sure if there's a rounding issue in overpass's spreadsheet or not, but I find it hard to believe that Leetch played every minute of every PP in the 38 games he played in 1993.

Apparently Leetch didn't become a big time PKer until the Rangers Cup year. Remember, the lower the number the better for TeamSH

Leetch played 90%+ of the PP every season from 1991 until 1999. He played 89% of the PP in 2001, when he led NHL defensemen in points.

Here are MacInnis' numbers from 1986-2003

Calgary
seasonR-onR-offEV%PP%TmPP+SH%TmSH+
19862.01 1.0029%86%1.1430%1.05
19871.411.0337%75%1.1655%1.03
19881.19 1.4033%70%1.4733%0.85
19891.67 1.7943%84%1.2845%0.83
19901.31 1.3040%96%1.4632%1.00
19911.81 1.1237%94%1.3140%0.87
19921.31 0.9636%91%1.1352%1.21
19931.47 1.0937%97%1.0230%0.83
19941.83 1.0440%86%1.2131%1.01

St Louis
seasonR-onR-offEV%PP%TmPP+SH%TmSH+
19951.96 1.4438%83%1.0242%1.11
19961.10 0.7141%81%0.9751%0.97
19971.07 0.9648%82%0.9737%1.05
19981.08 1.2842%86%1.2740%0.81
19991.63 0.7843%98%1.4047%0.76
20001.61 1.4036%90%1.2338%0.61
20011.67 1.0942%98%1.1854%0.76
20021.09 1.4041%76%1.1452%0.99
20031.40 0.9644%82%1.3053%1.08

Pronger was MacInnis' teammate from 1996-2003, but Pronger missed 31 games in 2001 and missed almost all of 2003 with injuries.
wow, those are ridiculous PP icetime figures for leetch. though i guess when your only other competent PP defenseman is patrick/zubov, who else are you going to put there?

i'd be curious about overall icetime numbers if such a thing exists. seems from the numbers like leetch was playing chelios/bourque minutes, which i don't think al did in calgary. wouldn't make sense with suter, mccrimmon, macoun, and ramage also there.

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2012, 02:28 PM
  #305
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,821
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Leetch missed more than half the games in 1993. I'm not sure if there's a rounding issue in overpass's spreadsheet or not, but I find it hard to believe that Leetch played every minute of every PP in the 38 games he played in 1993.
The numbers are intended to be on a per-game basis. (Player PPGF/TeamPPGF) / (PlayerGP/TeamGP)

Leetch played less than half his team's games and was on the ice for more than half his team's power play goals. If I didn't cap the number at 100% it would be 108% or something like that. It would be more correct to look at the game logs and see how many power play goals the Rangers scored in the games Leetch played, but that's too time-consuming to bother for a general calculation. (Although it might be interesting to look at the 1992-93 Rangers with and without Leetch on the power play and in general.)

Leetch's 1992-93 season is the most extreme example of the trouble with the per-game calculation for difference-makers on the power play.

Also, a note about the EV% numbers. As they are based on on-ice goals for and against, they may represent style of play as well as ice time. I would expect an offensively minded defenceman like Leetch should have a higher EV% than a more defensive defender in the same ice time. But even so it appears that Leetch got a lot of ice time in the early-mid 90s - we know he did in the late 90s when they tracked ice time.

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2012, 03:16 PM
  #306
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,404
vCash: 500
Lidstrom saw significantly less time on the PP than comparable defensemen

All numbers are the estimated percentage of a team's PP that the defenseman played per game in a given season (min 20 games), based on overpass's spreadsheet, ordered from most usage to least:

Lidstrom: 83, 82, 80, 80, 79, 79, 79, 78, 78, 75, 74, 74, 73, 70, 69, 64, 56, 53, 45

Bourque: 100, 97, 95, 95, 94, 93, 92, 92, 90, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 83, 83, 83, 82, 81, 75, 72, 65
MacInnis: 100, 98, 98, 97, 96, 94, 92, 91, 90, 86, 86, 86, 84, 83, 82, 82, 81, 76, 75, 70
Leetch: 100, 99, 98, 96, 96, 95, 94, 92, 90, 89, 86, 84, 79, 70, 70, 69, 61
Gonchar: 100, 99, 96, 95, 95, 93, 90, 88, 87, 84, 77, 73, 56, 43, 31, 7
Zubov: 100, 94, 92, 90, 89, 88, 88, 82, 82, 78, 77, 77, 73, 71, 49

If anyone wants to see any other modern defensemen, I can add them. I choose the five I did because those are the five who I saw being compared most to Lidstrom from an offensive standpoint.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2012, 03:32 PM
  #307
toob
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 731
vCash: 500
I honestly dont see how anyone can say that the 97 and 02 Conn Smythes should have had a clear/easy winner. 98 and 08 are the unanimous picks.

In 97 you had Shanahan, Yzerman, Fedorov, Vernon, Lidstrom, and Konstantinov all getting talk. It was that wide open. I would have removed Konstantinov and added Murphy but those are your top 7 and a close top 7. People who now say Fedorov clearly are obv missing how ordinary or even at times bad Fedorov looked early in the playoffs. Likely it is a boxscore pick and if so consider that 97 has the smallest margin of scoring lead in all the recent Wings cups. In 96 he also wasnt scoring much but at least he played great D whereas in 97 even the D wasnt there. He was in Bowman's doghouse and not unfairly in this particular situation. At the time Feds was called a choker (unfairly) basically due to 96 and this continued early in 97. Fedorov is a very defensible pick but that was his worst playoff of the 3 cup runs and not anything standing out from the rest of the Wings in 97. Anit-russian bias? There was a TON of love for Konstantinov in 97 even though Lids and Murphy were arguably better.

I wouldnt have picked Vernon either - I was partial to Shanahan because of the noticeable impact he had especially compared to who he was replacing and also Yzerman admittedly partly due to sentimental reasons but also partly because he was clearly a much better player than his stats indicated especially on D (watch game 4 again and see how many times Yzerman could have scored if not for bad breaks). Still Vernon was NOT a bad choice. Remember the 15 save 3rd period in Colorado - the highlight of the series where he in general outplayed Roy?

In 02 if anything Fedorov has a great case to win. There were Yzerman, Fedorov, Lidstrom, Hasek, and maybe Hull who were candidates. Fedorov enabled Yzerman not to be a liability in the later rounds and really picked it up as Yzerman slowed down. He was the best Wing in the most important series against Colorado (and Yzerman was the best Wing in the second most important series against Vancouver - the center ice goal in game 3 may have been a highlight but it doesnt reflect the series in general). I lean toward Stevie because of what he did playing hurt and also getting the best out of Feds but for strictly on-ice performance Fedorov has at least a good case anyone. Maybe the safe pick was Lidstrom who was most consistent more notable in the finals whereas Yzerman mostly disappeared except for in game 5 and Fedorov was also quiet but i would take Feds and Stevie as the two best Wings. Lids would be a close but clear step down.

Also concerning anti-Euro bias first of all if anything in 02 it was pro-Yzerman sentiment. Cherry has always loved Stevie and always used to defend him in the mid 90s when they said he wasnt a winner. Add to that the Olympic run that had just happened. I doubt there was a cabal deviously plotting to screw another Euro using Yzerman as a tool towards that goal. The fact is ppl did think Yzerman was the best Red Wing that playoff. Shanahan was pretty clear on that point (he called Forsberg the best player but Yzerman the best Wing). If he wasnt injured and could play better defense while scoring more it would likely not have been close but as it was he still was right up there.

toob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2012, 03:39 PM
  #308
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by toob View Post
I honestly dont see how anyone can say that the 97 and 02 Conn Smythes should have had a clear/easy winner. 98 and 08 are the unanimous picks.

In 97 you had Shanahan, Yzerman, Fedorov, Vernon, Lidstrom, and Konstantinov all getting talk. It was that wide open. I would have removed Konstantinov and added Murphy but those are your top 7 and a close top 7. People who now say Fedorov clearly are obv missing how ordinary or even at times bad Fedorov looked early in the playoffs. Likely it is a boxscore pick and if so consider that 97 has the smallest margin of scoring lead in all the recent Wings cups. In 96 he also wasnt scoring much but at least he played great D whereas in 97 even the D wasnt there. He was in Bowman's doghouse and not unfairly in this particular situation. At the time Feds was called a choker (unfairly) basically due to 96 and this continued early in 97. Fedorov is a very defensible pick but that was his worst playoff of the 3 cup runs and not anything standing out from the rest of the Wings in 97.
Nope. I watched most of the Wings playoff games in 1997 at the time and was very surprised Vernon won at the time. I thought Fedorov was the best Wings forward as both ends of the ice. Was Feds in Bowman's doghouse in the playoffs, or just the regular season?

I also thought Lidstrom was a very close second to Yzerman in 1998 - he did score 19 points (only 5 fewer than Yzerman) while playing excellent D. And yes, I watched most of the 1998 playoffs, too.

Quote:
Also concerning anti-Euro bias first of all if anything in 02 it was pro-Yzerman sentiment. Cherry has always loved Stevie and always used to defend him in the mid 90s when they said he wasnt a winner. Add to that the Olympic run that had just happened. I doubt there was a cabal deviously plotting to screw another Euro using Yzerman as a tool towards that goal. The fact is ppl did think Yzerman was the best Red Wing that playoff. Shanahan was pretty clear on that point (he called Forsberg the best player but Yzerman the best Wing). If he wasnt injured and could play better defense while scoring more it would likely not have been close but as it was he still was right up there.
And Cherry hated Europeans and told everyone who would listen you couldn't win in the playoffs with Europeans leading the way.

Anyway, your post was a very interesting read; you obviously remember the Wings' runs well.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2012, 03:40 PM
  #309
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,423
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Lidstrom saw significantly less time on the PP than comparable defensemen

All numbers are the estimated percentage of a team's PP that the defenseman played per game in a given season (min 20 games), based on overpass's spreadsheet, ordered from most usage to least:

Lidstrom: 83, 82, 80, 80, 79, 79, 79, 78, 78, 75, 74, 74, 73, 70, 69, 64, 56, 53, 45

Bourque: 100, 97, 95, 95, 94, 93, 92, 92, 90, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 83, 83, 83, 82, 81, 75, 72, 65
MacInnis: 100, 98, 98, 97, 96, 94, 92, 91, 90, 86, 86, 86, 84, 83, 82, 82, 81, 76, 75, 70
Leetch: 100, 99, 98, 96, 96, 95, 94, 92, 90, 89, 86, 84, 79, 70, 70, 69, 61
Gonchar: 100, 99, 96, 95, 95, 93, 90, 88, 87, 84, 77, 73, 56, 43, 31, 7
Zubov: 100, 94, 92, 90, 89, 88, 88, 82, 82, 78, 77, 77, 73, 71, 49

If anyone wants to see any other modern defensemen, I can add them. I choose the five I did because those are the five who I saw being compared most to Lidstrom from an offensive standpoint.
I'm not sure what you're trying to show here Devil?
You also do realise that someone who is more proficient at producing points on the PP is going to have a larger % of their teams PP minutes, as when they score/assist/initiate a PP goal, the PP ends and no second unit comes out to take their place.

It could be argued that Lidstrom's unit failed to convert and gave way to the second unit more often than those run by MacInnis, Leetch and Bourque.

Either way, using just these numbers and rankings do not provide enough info to form a complete conclusion.


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 06-12-2012 at 03:46 PM.
Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2012, 03:42 PM
  #310
Epsilon
#TeamHolland
 
Epsilon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: South Cackalacky
Posts: 50,950
vCash: 500
Shocking that maybe the biggest Yzerman fanboy on this board thinks he should have won 3 Conn Smythes.

Yzerman winning in 1997 would have been one of the worst decisions in the history of the award had it happened, "captain sentimentality" at its worst. It would have been similar to Niedermayer winning in 2007 except the 1997 Wings had stronger candidates than the 2007 Ducks.

Epsilon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2012, 03:43 PM
  #311
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
I'm not sure what you're trying to show here Devil?
That Lidstrom received less PP time than the defensemen he is being compared with.

Was it because of Detroit's greater depth or Lidstrom's defense-first role? Perhaps a little of both.

Quote:
You also do realise that someone who is more proficient at producing points on the PP is going to have a larger % of their teams PP minutes, as when they score/assist/initiate a PP goal, the PP ends and no second unit comes out to take their place.
Of course I realize that.

Quote:
It could be argued that Lidstrom's unit failed to convert and gave way to the second unit more often than those run by MacInnis and Bourque.
And that would be a poor argument, considering Detroit was always among the best PP teams in the league during Lidstrom's entire time there.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2012, 03:50 PM
  #312
toob
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 731
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Nope. I watched most of the Wings playoff games in 1997 at the time and was very surprised Vernon won at the time. I thought Fedorov was the best Wings forward as both ends of the ice. Was Feds in Bowman's doghouse in the playoffs, or just the regular season?
He was made to play D for long stretches of the first series.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
And Cherry hated Europeans and told everyone who would listen you couldn't win in the playoffs with Europeans leading the way.
Yeah but was it his hate of Euros or his love of Yzerman the reason why he showed Yzerman clips from the Vancouver series on HNIC to promote him for the Conn Smythe?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsilon View Post
Shocking that maybe the biggest Yzerman fanboy on this board thinks he should have won 3 Conn Smythes.

Yzerman winning in 1997 would have been one of the worst decisions in the history of the award had it happened, "captain sentimentality" at its worst. It would have been similar to Niedermayer winning in 2007 except the 1997 Wings had stronger candidates than the 2007 Ducks.
Somebody's gotta give Yzerman the love he deserves in a thread like this. Also it isnt just me as Yzerman could have very easily won those 3 Conn Smythes anyway (im not a voter).

toob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2012, 04:13 PM
  #313
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,423
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
That Lidstrom received less PP time than the defensemen he is being compared with.

Was it because of Detroit's greater depth or Lidstrom's defense-first role? Perhaps a little of both.
Actually I meant, what are you trying to say as in what does this have to do with his offense.
I don't think anyone has argued that Lidstrom wasn't a good to very good PP QB in his prime.
I don't even think he was that far behind Bourque in that regard. He was however a step and more behind Leetch, Coffey and especially MacInnis.

It was what Coffey, Bourque and Leetch produced at even strength that separated them from Lidstrom as truly offensive D-men.
MacInnis and Lidstrom were very similar IMO at producing even strength offense but Mac was quite clearly the superior PP QB.

Hell, I think Lidstrom runs a better PP than Karlsson does atm but there's no way in hell I would call Lidstrom the better offensive player.
Yes I know it's still early for Karlsson but he has already shown better natural offensive instincts than Lidstom ever did.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2012, 04:37 PM
  #314
vadim sharifijanov
ugh
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 14,071
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Actually I meant, what are you trying to say as in what does this have to do with his offense.
I don't think anyone has argued that Lidstrom wasn't a good to very good PP QB in his prime.
I don't even think he was that far behind Bourque in that regard. He was however a step and more behind Leetch, Coffey and especially MacInnis.

It was what Coffey, Bourque and Leetch produced at even strength that separated them from Lidstrom as truly offensive D-men.
MacInnis and Lidstrom were very similar IMO at producing even strength offense but Mac was quite clearly the superior PP QB.

Hell, I think Lidstrom runs a better PP than Karlsson does atm but there's no way in hell I would call Lidstrom the better offensive player.
Yes I know it's still early for Karlsson but he has already shown better natural offensive instincts than Lidstom ever did.
to me, bourque was the second best i ever saw, after macinnis. nobody kept the puck in the zone as consistently as ray did and his wrist shot was always on target, low and heavy.

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2012, 04:42 PM
  #315
quoipourquoi
Moderator
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 5,640
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by toob View Post
I would have removed Konstantinov and added Murphy but those are your top 7 and a close top 7.
Absolutely agree on Murphy. I think he was top three with Vernon and Fedorov.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2012, 05:33 PM
  #316
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,423
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vadim sharifijanov View Post
to me, bourque was the second best i ever saw, after macinnis. nobody kept the puck in the zone as consistently as ray did and his wrist shot was always on target, low and heavy.
Oh I won't debate that Bourque could hold the line better and had a better shot than Lidstrom but I still don't feel there was very large gap between their abilities to run a PP.
Side note: The best I ever saw at strictly holding the line, even better than MacInnis, was Larry Murphy. I've been saying that for years.


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 06-12-2012 at 05:57 PM.
Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2012, 05:45 PM
  #317
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
Absolutely agree on Murphy. I think he was top three with Vernon and Fedorov.
I thought Lidstrom was doing the tougher defensive lifting for that pairing. I don't think Murphy was dominant enough defensively nor do I thin k Lidstrom did enough offensively to be a serious candidate in 1997

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2012, 05:59 PM
  #318
vadim sharifijanov
ugh
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 14,071
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Oh I won't debate that Bourque could hold the line better and had a better shot than Lidstrom but I still don't feel there was very large gap between their abilities to run a PP.
Side note: The best I ever saw at holding the line, even better than MacInnis, was Larry Murphy. I've been saying that for years.
i was more objecting to bourque being ranked behind coffey and leetch for pp prowess. lidstrom was, similar to bourque, like clockwork on the point. puck always went where it needed to go, and guys like shanny, homer, and later franzen got it where they wanted. i'd put him in the second tier with those other guys, after chopper and bourque.

murphy i'll have to go back and watch. i never noticed him being outstanding at that, but holding the line is one of the great artforms of being a defenseman that i love to watch. in his prime, i loved watching sami salo on the pp.

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2012, 06:18 PM
  #319
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,423
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vadim sharifijanov View Post
i was more objecting to bourque being ranked behind coffey and leetch for pp prowess. lidstrom was, similar to bourque, like clockwork on the point. puck always went where it needed to go, and guys like shanny, homer, and later franzen got it where they wanted. i'd put him in the second tier with those other guys, after chopper and bourque.
Fair enough. I just don't think Bourque reached the same level that Mac and Leetch reached on the PP. You're prolly right about Coffey though. He was more about being as active as possible than actually QBing.

Quote:
murphy i'll have to go back and watch. i never noticed him being outstanding at that, but holding the line is one of the great artforms of being a defenseman that i love to watch. in his prime, i loved watching sami salo on the pp.
Heh, the main reason Murphy became so good at it was because he was slower than molasses.
He basically had a choice of either bailing extremely early so he could be in a good enough defensive position or he could hold the line with desperation almost every time.
Obviously if he wanted to continue to get PP time he had to get good at the latter

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2012, 06:32 PM
  #320
vadim sharifijanov
ugh
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 14,071
vCash: 500
from what i remember about the dynasty oilers (admittedly not a lot), they were devastating on the rush where coffey, gretzky, et al. would put the extra space to great use. but in a conventional offensive zone PP set, coffey was "just" very good, not outstanding.

also, i seem to recall reading that the oilers were statistically more dominant 4 on 4 than on the PP. can that seriously be true? if so, it would speak to coffey's incredible gifts in transition far outshining his QB skills.

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2012, 06:38 PM
  #321
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,423
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vadim sharifijanov View Post
from what i remember about the dynasty oilers (admittedly not a lot), they were devastating on the rush where coffey, gretzky, et al. would put the extra space to great use. but in a conventional offensive zone PP set, coffey was "just" very good, not outstanding.

also, i seem to recall reading that the oilers were statistically more dominant 4 on 4 than on the PP. can that seriously be true? if so, it would speak to coffey's incredible gifts in transition far outshining his QB skills.
True enough that the league changed the rules because of it

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2012, 06:59 PM
  #322
danincanada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,745
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by toob View Post
He was made to play D for long stretches of the first series.
I don't think Fedorov ever played D come playoff time, other than on the PP. He did play it paired with Murphy for a few games near the end of the '96-'97 season. An example was the classic "brawl" game against the Avs on March 26th, 1997.

People liked to say that Fedorov was being punished by Bowman or in his doghouse when he played D but I don't think that was the case. It was an interesting experiment and it changed things up so maybe Bowman wanted to keep him on his toes. Fedorov certainly wasn't in Bowman's "doghouse" once the playoffs started. Their relationship never seemed to be that bad and that whole team was ultra motivated to win that year.

danincanada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2012, 02:21 PM
  #323
Sentinel
Registered User
 
Sentinel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 5,051
vCash: 500
Fedorov played the first two games of the 1997 playoffs on defense. Then he was moved back to his natural position, centering Homer and Koz.

Sentinel 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 05:07 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2016 All Rights Reserved.