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.

Norris Trophy Pilfering '98 vs '11

View Poll Results: Who was robbed more?
Lidstrom in '98 47 68.12%
Weber in '11 22 31.88%
Voters: 69. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-20-2012, 12:40 AM
  #51
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,385
vCash: 500
Some data to consider:

Personal even-strength GAA, 1998

defenseman TGA PPGA ESGA ESTOI ES GAA
stevens 71 30 41 1521 1.62
pronger 84 28 56 1721 1.95
nummine 84 38 46 1411 1.96
murphy 73 24 49 1466 2.01
hatcher 62 16 46 1340 2.06
bourque 87 26 61 1695 2.16
zubov 58 13 45 1220 2.21
lidstrom 75 19 56 1459 2.3
niedermayer 71 14 57 1375 2.49
chelios 112 38 74 1643 2.7
macinnis 78 17 61 1235 2.96
svehla 107 36 71 1364 3.12
blake 111 36 75 1427 3.15
leetch 120 25 95 1525 3.74

This shows the personal GAA for each defensemen at even strength (technically I haven't backed out any goals against that the defensemen were on the ice for while on the powerplay - not sure if this is material).

Personal PK GAA, 1998

defenseman TGA PPGA PKTOI PK GAA
lidstrom 75 19 338 3.37
hatcher 62 16 240 4
macinnis 78 17 239 4.27
murphy 73 24 321 4.49
niedermayer 71 14 187 4.49
stevens 71 30 367 4.9
leetch 120 25 305 4.92
zubov 58 13 146 5.34
pronger 84 28 298 5.64
bourque 87 26 273 5.71
chelios 112 38 374 6.1
blake 111 36 325 6.65
nummine 84 38 342 6.67
svehla 107 36 281 7.69

Lidstrom has almost as good a personal GAA while on the penalty kill compared to Blake at even strength! That has to be a big argument in Lidstrom's favour. Let's not blame the difference on goaltending either. At even strength, both teams had virtually the same save percentage (91.9% for LA, 91.7% for Detroit). The Kings' goalies actually have a better save percentage while on the penalty kill (88.7% for the Kings, 88.1% for the Wings). So the huge disparity in their GAAs can't be explained due to goaltending.

I'm results-oriented and it seems clear that Lidstrom was better at keeping the puck out of his team's net, at even-strength (Lidstrom was 27% more effective) and on the PK (49% more effective). As I showed above, the difference in the numbers can't be attributed to goaltending. Can someone make a case that the difference is explained due to their roles (did Blake consistently get tougher defensive assignments?) or teammates (it's clear that Lidstom played on a better team, but does this explain the disparity?)

I'll be honest, for a long time I've rejected the "Lidstrom was robbed of the 1998 Norris" position as revisionist nonsense. Now that I've done some digging, it's clear that Lidstrom has a legitimate claim - he led all defensemen in scoring, was extraordinary on the penalty kill, and played a lot (#5 ice time in the league) on an excellent team. Lidstrom's main weakness was even-strength defense (his personal GAA is mediocre despite playing on an excellent team), but I'm not sure if Blake makes up any ground in this category (it's clear that he falls behind statistically, but I'll keep an open mind in case someone can argue that Blake's teammates are so poor that, after taking the context into account, he actually performed at a higher level than Lidstrom defensively).

Does anybody else have other interpretations?


Last edited by Hockey Outsider: 11-20-2012 at 01:07 AM.
Hockey Outsider is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 12:55 AM
  #52
vadim sharifijanov
Rrbata
 
vadim sharifijanov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 9,665
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
Pronger was St.Louis' clear #1; MacInnis was second in ice time per game, just barely, ahead of Steve Duchesne.

Also, Stumpel and Murray up front and Norstrom on the blue line helped a great deal in the Kings making the playoffs. It wasn't JUST Blake, carrying some AHLers.

The top five defensemen IMHO in 1998: Lidstrom, Pronger, Bourque, Niedermayer, Stevens. I wouldn't even put Blake top-ten.

The top-six defensemen IMHO from 2011: Lidstrom, Chara, Enstrom, Suter, Keith, Weber
do you have icetime figures for '98? i don't have access to anything other than hockey-reference, which unfortunately doesn't have anything before '99. if so, i'd love to see LA's icetime numbers (as well as pronger/macinnis, niedermayer/stevens).

vadim sharifijanov is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 12:57 AM
  #53
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 33,790
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider View Post
Interested in hearing how others interpret this (which is something I intended to do myself, but it's too late and I'm too tired).
First glance, it seems pretty good at capturing the defensive abilities of the players as I remember them in 1998. Of course, it's hard to recall the finer distinctions after 14 years, but I'd say it's at least helpful for roughly putting things in perspective.

The one thing that jumps out at me is Zubov over Lidstrom. It seems a little early for Zubov as a defensive standout, but I guess the next season was the Stars' Cup run... was he really that good defensively at that point? I definitely didn't think so at the time, but it was only a few years removed from when he was just bad on d, and that reputation takes some time to wear off.

tarheelhockey is online now  
Old
11-20-2012, 01:12 AM
  #54
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,385
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
First glance, it seems pretty good at capturing the defensive abilities of the players as I remember them in 1998. Of course, it's hard to recall the finer distinctions after 14 years, but I'd say it's at least helpful for roughly putting things in perspective.

The one thing that jumps out at me is Zubov over Lidstrom. It seems a little early for Zubov as a defensive standout, but I guess the next season was the Stars' Cup run... was he really that good defensively at that point? I definitely didn't think so at the time, but it was only a few years removed from when he was just bad on d, and that reputation takes some time to wear off.
Roles should be taken into account - in 1998, Hatcher was significantly better than Zubov defensively but their ES GAAs are probably similar because Zubov got much tougher defensive assignments (so it's not an apples to apples comparison - both allowed around 2.10 goals per 60 minutes, but Hatcher did this against much tougher opponents (and equal goaltending) so it's clear that he's better defensively). Look at what happens to their PK GAAs (when pure defensive ability is critical) - Hatcher does roughly 25% better than his counterpart.

Of course, some of this could be randomness due to small sample sizes too.

Hockey Outsider is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 01:13 AM
  #55
vadim sharifijanov
Rrbata
 
vadim sharifijanov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 9,665
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
First glance, it seems pretty good at capturing the defensive abilities of the players as I remember them in 1998. Of course, it's hard to recall the finer distinctions after 14 years, but I'd say it's at least helpful for roughly putting things in perspective.

The one thing that jumps out at me is Zubov over Lidstrom. It seems a little early for Zubov as a defensive standout, but I guess the next season was the Stars' Cup run... was he really that good defensively at that point? I definitely didn't think so at the time, but it was only a few years removed from when he was just bad on d, and that reputation takes some time to wear off.
from the numbers, it looks like zubov and hatcher were ES partners that year. which is weird because my memory of the late 90s stars is that they always played on different pairings.


here are the ES plus/minus stats of the stars d that year, with goals for in the first column, goals against in the second. short handed goals for and against have not been taken out of those numbers, so it's not a straight ES plus/minus, but it's the closest i can do with the info i have at hand.

ludwig 45, 24 (80 games)
sydor 55, 38 (79 games)
matvichuk 52, 45 (74 games)
zubov 61, 45 (73 games)
hatcher 55, 46 (70 games)
chambers 41, 30 (57 games)
muni 15, 15 (40 games)

inconclusive who played with whom that year. my memory says hatcher and matvichuk, zubov with sydor (who seems to have been a bit sheltered at ES relative to the other three top four guys), ludwig with chambers. but those '98 stars memories are from the playoffs. totally weird to see the entire top four with almost identical ES goals for and goals against totals.

but if zubov did play with hatcher, that could explain zubov's defensive numbers.

vadim sharifijanov is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 01:25 AM
  #56
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,576
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vadim sharifijanov View Post
do you have icetime figures for '98? i don't have access to anything other than hockey-reference, which unfortunately doesn't have anything before '99. if so, i'd love to see LA's icetime numbers (as well as pronger/macinnis, niedermayer/stevens).
nhl.com has stats as far back as 97-98.

pdd is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 04:47 AM
  #57
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,235
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
nhl.com has stats as far back as 97-98.
See, that's what I want, figures going back to 91/92.

I am very interested to see Lidstrom TOI break downs from 91/92-92/93.
I have a real sneaking suspicion that McCrimmon, Chaisson, Howe and Konstantinov were doing a lot of the heavy lifting for Detroit those two seasons.

Rhiessan71 is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 08:25 AM
  #58
jack mullet
@jackmullethockey
 
jack mullet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Baxter, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 483
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
Also, Stumpel and Murray up front and Norstrom on the blue line helped a great deal in the Kings making the playoffs. It wasn't JUST Blake, carrying some AHLers.

The top five defensemen IMHO in 1998: Lidstrom, Pronger, Bourque, Niedermayer, Stevens. I wouldn't even put Blake top-ten.

The top-six defensemen IMHO from 2011: Lidstrom, Chara, Enstrom, Suter, Keith, Weber
yes, Stumpel and Murray helped, but lets not forget who Detroit had at the time...Yzerman, Shanahan, Murphy, Fedorov, etc...so this is really a moot point

you wouldn't put the Norris trophy winner in the top 10 that year? do you just not like Blake or something?

jack mullet is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 08:36 AM
  #59
jack mullet
@jackmullethockey
 
jack mullet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Baxter, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 483
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider View Post
Some data to consider:
Lidstrom has almost as good a personal GAA while on the penalty kill compared to Blake at even strength! That has to be a big argument in Lidstrom's favour. Let's not blame the difference on goaltending either. At even strength, both teams had virtually the same save percentage (91.9% for LA, 91.7% for Detroit). The Kings' goalies actually have a better save percentage while on the penalty kill (88.7% for the Kings, 88.1% for the Wings). So the huge disparity in their GAAs can't be explained due to goaltending.

I'm results-oriented and it seems clear that Lidstrom was better at keeping the puck out of his team's net, at even-strength (Lidstrom was 27% more effective) and on the PK (49% more effective). As I showed above, the difference in the numbers can't be attributed to goaltending. Can someone make a case that the difference is explained due to their roles (did Blake consistently get tougher defensive assignments?) or teammates (it's clear that Lidstom played on a better team, but does this explain the disparity?)

I'll be honest, for a long time I've rejected the "Lidstrom was robbed of the 1998 Norris" position as revisionist nonsense. Now that I've done some digging, it's clear that Lidstrom has a legitimate claim - he led all defensemen in scoring, was extraordinary on the penalty kill, and played a lot (#5 ice time in the league) on an excellent team. Lidstrom's main weakness was even-strength defense (his personal GAA is mediocre despite playing on an excellent team), but I'm not sure if Blake makes up any ground in this category (it's clear that he falls behind statistically, but I'll keep an open mind in case someone can argue that Blake's teammates are so poor that, after taking the context into account, he actually performed at a higher level than Lidstrom defensively).

Does anybody else have other interpretations?
how can you NOT bring up the goalies? Osgoods GAA was 2.21, Fiset was 2.71. LA also gave up over 300 more shots than Detroit did that year. the fact that your #1 D-man did as good as he did is pretty remarkable under those conditions.

i think Lidstrom had a case in 98, but ultimately the voters took into account the entire picture and chose Blake. he was not a bad choice.

jack mullet is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 08:50 AM
  #60
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,385
vCash: 500
Save percentage is a much better measure of goalie performance (though imperfect, obviously) compared to GAA. At ES and on the PK, LA's goalies stopped the shots they faced slightly more effectively than Detroit's - the difference in GAA is attributable to the fact that the Kings' skaters allowed more shots.

In other words - LA's skaters were much worse than Detroit's, but their goaltending was very similar. Does this make up for the fact that Lidstrom was on the ice for 27% and 49% fewer goals per hour (at ES and on the PK) than Blake? I don't know, I'd be interested if someone makes a case either way.

Hockey Outsider is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 08:51 AM
  #61
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,576
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider View Post
Roles should be taken into account - in 1998, Hatcher was significantly better than Zubov defensively but their ES GAAs are probably similar because Zubov got much tougher defensive assignments (so it's not an apples to apples comparison - both allowed around 2.10 goals per 60 minutes, but Hatcher did this against much tougher opponents (and equal goaltending) so it's clear that he's better defensively). Look at what happens to their PK GAAs (when pure defensive ability is critical) - Hatcher does roughly 25% better than his counterpart.

Of course, some of this could be randomness due to small sample sizes too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vadim sharifijanov View Post
ludwig 45, 24 (80 games)
sydor 55, 38 (79 games)
matvichuk 52, 45 (74 games)
zubov 61, 45 (73 games)
hatcher 55, 46 (70 games)
chambers 41, 30 (57 games)
muni 15, 15 (40 games)

inconclusive who played with whom that year. my memory says hatcher and matvichuk, zubov with sydor (who seems to have been a bit sheltered at ES relative to the other three top four guys), ludwig with chambers. but those '98 stars memories are from the playoffs. totally weird to see the entire top four with almost identical ES goals for and goals against totals.

but if zubov did play with hatcher, that could explain zubov's defensive numbers.
Or, there's the alternative that I can tell you is true from having watched the Stars many times live. Zubov was much better offensively and comparable defensively, and Matvichuk was better defensively than Hatcher. Hatcher may have played plenty, but he was at no time the best Stars defenseman (despite his Norris nom) and was as low as 4th depending on the year.

pdd is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 09:15 AM
  #62
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,576
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jack mullet View Post
yes, Stumpel and Murray helped, but lets not forget who Detroit had at the time...Yzerman, Shanahan, Murphy, Fedorov, etc...so this is really a moot point

you wouldn't put the Norris trophy winner in the top 10 that year? do you just not like Blake or something?
Blake was a one-way defenseman who finished 8th in defense scoring behind several better defensive defensemen (Lidstrom, Niedermayer, Zubov, Numminen) and in the same range as others who were equal/better defensively and/or elsewhere (Leetch, MacInnis, K.Hatcher, Berard, Mironov), or those who significantly outplayed Blake defensively (Pronger, Stevens, Chelios). Blake was good, but there were many better defenseman.

pdd is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 09:19 AM
  #63
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,576
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jack mullet View Post
how can you NOT bring up the goalies? Osgoods GAA was 2.21, Fiset was 2.71. LA also gave up over 300 more shots than Detroit did that year. the fact that your #1 D-man did as good as he did is pretty remarkable under those conditions.

i think Lidstrom had a case in 98, but ultimately the voters took into account the entire picture and chose Blake. he was not a bad choice.
Giving Blake the Norris in 1998 would be like giving it to Souray in 2009. A completely laughable joke of a selection.

pdd is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 10:52 AM
  #64
JackSlater
Registered User
 
JackSlater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,118
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
Pronger was St.Louis' clear #1; MacInnis was second in ice time per game, just barely, ahead of Steve Duchesne.
I disagree that Pronger was St. Louis' clear number one defenceman, and that definitely wasn't the perception at the time. Pronger was better than MacInnis that year, but it was more of a 1a 1b situation while Lidstrom was obviously the top in Detroit. The biggest factor is that, as I said, Pronger played behind MacInnis on the PP. That would have cost him quite a few easy points that would have made his case more appealing.

JackSlater is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 11:09 AM
  #65
danincanada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,221
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
See, that's what I want, figures going back to 91/92.

I am very interested to see Lidstrom TOI break downs from 91/92-92/93.
I have a real sneaking suspicion that McCrimmon, Chaisson, Howe and Konstantinov were doing a lot of the heavy lifting for Detroit those two seasons.
Lidstrom and McCrimmon were defense partners for his rookie season (91-92) and parts of his second season. From what I remember Konstantinov/Chaisson typically formed the other top 4 pairing.

Howe never played a full season with the Red Wings cause he was old and breaking down by that point. The other main defenders who played for Detroit in 91-92 were Rachine and Marsh and then Crossman, Vial, and Dollas all played at times due to injuries to Chaisson, Rachine, Howe and Marsh.

What are you trying to get at exactly? That Lidstrom didn't play a lot or that he didn't kill penalties early on? He was probably matched up against the other teams top players often because he was paired with McCrimmon.

Here are some of his goals from his rookie season. He jumps into the play a couple times. I thought he wasn't capable of that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPKA60HhtTs

danincanada is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 11:10 AM
  #66
danincanada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,221
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
Giving Blake the Norris in 1998 would be like giving it to Souray in 2009. A completely laughable joke of a selection.
Nah, you are underrating Blake a lot here. He was at least average defensively at worst. He just wasn't in Lidstrom's category defensively.

danincanada is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 11:44 AM
  #67
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,235
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
Giving Blake the Norris in 1998 would be like giving it to Souray in 2009. A completely laughable joke of a selection.
That is one of the most ridiculous things I have heard in this thread.


Quote:
Originally Posted by danincanada View Post
Lidstrom and McCrimmon were defense partners for his rookie season (91-92) and parts of his second season. From what I remember Konstantinov/Chaisson typically formed the other top 4 pairing.

Howe never played a full season with the Red Wings cause he was old and breaking down by that point. The other main defenders who played for Detroit in 91-92 were Rachine and Marsh and then Crossman, Vial, and Dollas all played at times due to injuries to Chaisson, Rachine, Howe and Marsh.

What are you trying to get at exactly? That Lidstrom didn't play a lot or that he didn't kill penalties early on? He was probably matched up against the other teams top players often because he was paired with McCrimmon.

Here are some of his goals from his rookie season. He jumps into the play a couple times. I thought he wasn't capable of that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPKA60HhtTs
Yeah because just pinching in from the blueline while your team already has the zone is what defines an offensive d-man. Lyle freaking Odelein did that too.

As far as how much weight I'm going to give your "probably's"...I'll wait for the numbers thanks.

Rhiessan71 is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 11:51 AM
  #68
struckbyaparkedcar
Zemgus Da Gawd
 
struckbyaparkedcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Upstate NY
Country: Cote DIvoire
Posts: 10,679
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Since a lot of advanced stats people have been de-emphasizing special teams play (wrongly IMO), it hurts someone like Blake
I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that defensemen who kill 5+ minutes of penalties a night just don't exist anymore, and that lens is getting used retroactively when it doesn't really apply. For example, Hal Gill led the entire NHL in PK time and didn't break four minutes in 2011. Francois Beauchemin is the only player in the past three years with over 50 games played and more than four minutes of SHTOI/G.

That's a drastically different landscape from when the Norris was going through St. Louis or Detroit pretty much exclusively, and all three of MacInnis, Pronger and Lidstrom were averaging 4-5 minutes shorthanded. Stevens too, although he was more of a gatekeeper than a contender once his offensive production dipped.

struckbyaparkedcar is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 12:07 PM
  #69
danincanada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,221
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Yeah because just pinching in from the blueline while your team already has the zone is what defines an offensive d-man. Lyle freaking Odelein did that too.

As far as how much weight I'm going to give your "probably's"...I'll wait for the numbers thanks.
Par for the course, nothing Lidstrom does is ever good enough for you. Bourque wasn't an end to end rush type of guy either. He jumped in at the right time and that's what Lidstrom did in this video too. Down play it all you want.

danincanada is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 12:19 PM
  #70
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,235
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by struckbyaparkedcar View Post
I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that defensemen who kill 5+ minutes of penalties a night just don't exist anymore, and that lens is getting used retroactively when it doesn't really apply. For example, Hal Gill led the entire NHL in PK time and didn't break four minutes in 2011. Francois Beauchemin is the only player in the past three years with over 50 games played and more than four minutes of SHTOI/G.

That's a drastically different landscape from when the Norris was going through St. Louis or Detroit pretty much exclusively, and all three of MacInnis, Pronger and Lidstrom were averaging 4-5 minutes shorthanded. Stevens too, although he was more of a gatekeeper than a contender once his offensive production dipped.

The main reason for this is that PP opportunities have steadily dropped since the 80's. There's simply a lot less PK time per game now.
Opportunities spiked pretty big for 2 seasons after the '05 LO but have since dropped well below even what they were before the LO.

Rhiessan71 is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 12:33 PM
  #71
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,235
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by danincanada View Post
Par for the course, nothing Lidstrom does is ever good enough for you. Bourque wasn't an end to end rush type of guy either. He jumped in at the right time and that's what Lidstrom did in this video too. Down play it all you want.
Of course Bourque wasn't an "end to end" guy. Karlsson isn't one either. They move the puck through the neutral zone either by carrying it or with give and goes. More often than not, all they do is gain the line, establish zone control and dish the puck off.
Coffey, Housley and Green were/are "end to end" rushing D-men.
They carry the puck in straight lines, go deep and will take it right behind the other teams net if they have to.
Both are still "rushing" d-men.

Either way, simply pinching off the blueline when your team has zone control does not make one an offensive D-man heh.
Even Skill0 does that when a lane opens up.

Rhiessan71 is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 01:02 PM
  #72
danincanada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,221
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Of course Bourque wasn't an "end to end" guy. Karlsson isn't one either. They move the puck through the neutral zone either by carrying it or with give and goes. More often than not, all they do is gain the line, establish zone control and dish the puck off.
Coffey, Housley and Green were/are "end to end" rushing D-men.
They carry the puck in straight lines, go deep and will take it right behind the other teams net if they have to.
Both are still "rushing" d-men.

Either way, simply pinching off the blueline when your team has zone control does not make one an offensive D-man heh.
Even Skill0 does that when a lane opens up.
As if Lidstrom didn't gain the line or dished the puck off after doing so. As you know, Lidstrom was often paired with an offensive minded defenseman (Murphy, Schneider, Rafalski) so he was the safety valve back there. The coaching staff seemed to make that work, didn't they?? The Red Wings, after all, had a tiny bit of success during Lidstrom's career. You might want to consider that. If he had always been paired with a defense first guy he could have and would have carried the puck more and been involved in the offense more. I don't have a problem with that though because I had fun watching the Red Wings have great regular seasons and win 4 cups while Lidstrom played. It's foolish of you to downplay this considering the amount of personal and team success Lidstrom had.

danincanada is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 01:17 PM
  #73
jkrx
Registered User
 
jkrx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,267
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
See, that's what I want, figures going back to 91/92.

I am very interested to see Lidstrom TOI break downs from 91/92-92/93.
I have a real sneaking suspicion that McCrimmon, Chaisson, Howe and Konstantinov were doing a lot of the heavy lifting for Detroit those two seasons.
Howe? apart from managing to play 60 games in '93, didnt play more than 44 the season after that and was gone. He wasnt even on the team in '92.

Lidström played with McCrimmon until around the Coffey trade. Chiasson played with Konstantinov.

jkrx is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 01:22 PM
  #74
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,235
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by danincanada View Post
As if Lidstrom didn't gain the line or dished the puck off after doing so. As you know, Lidstrom was often paired with an offensive minded defenseman (Murphy, Schneider, Rafalski) so he was the safety valve back there. The coaching staff seemed to make that work, didn't they?? The Red Wings, after all, had a tiny bit of success during Lidstrom's career. You might want to consider that. If he had always been paired with a defense first guy he could have and would have carried the puck more and been involved in the offense more. I don't have a problem with that though because I had fun watching the Red Wings have great regular seasons and win 4 cups while Lidstrom played. It's foolish of you to downplay this considering the amount of personal and team success Lidstrom had.
I'm not downplaying anything, I'm correcting for exaggeration.
Lids was a defesnive D-man that could QB a PP well.
He was NOT an offensive D-man.

Rhiessan71 is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 01:28 PM
  #75
struckbyaparkedcar
Zemgus Da Gawd
 
struckbyaparkedcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Upstate NY
Country: Cote DIvoire
Posts: 10,679
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
The main reason for this is that PP opportunities have steadily dropped since the 80's. There's simply a lot less PK time per game now.
Opportunities spiked pretty big for 2 seasons after the '05 LO but have since dropped well below even what they were before the LO.
For sure. But there also isn't that top-tier guy munching shutdown minutes with the Gills of the league that guys like MacInnis, Lidstrom, Pronger and Stevens represented.

struckbyaparkedcar is offline  
Closed Thread

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 05:14 PM.

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.