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
11-23-2012, 01:11 AM
  #151
RabbinsDuck
Registered User
 
RabbinsDuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Brighton, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 4,743
vCash: 500
Basically Lidstrom was a 130 pt forward coming in 2nd for the Selke. Weber was a 100 pt player coming in 3rd for the Selke and Chara a 90 pt player first in Selke voting. Visnosvsky was the 140 pt Art Ross winner w/ little to no Selke votes. Simply no way anyone was "robbed" of the Norris that year.


Last edited by RabbinsDuck: 11-23-2012 at 01:55 AM.
RabbinsDuck is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 01:36 AM
  #152
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,373
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by newfy View Post
Disagree, you make it a point to make threads to argue against Lidstrom a lot. It might be baiting people in or it might just be you not noticing that you have a bias against Lidstrom.

A prime example is how you replied to my post calling you biased but didnt actually comment on any of the good factual points I made in the post because they point to Lidstrom being the deserving winner of that Norris. If you werent biased against Lidstrom, you would have agreed with those points and saw that Lidstrom didnt steal anything and was just as deserving (if not more) than Weber for that Norris.
If you read other posts you will see that I answered every one of your points in one post or another. I simply didn't feel like repeating myself to you directly just because you can't be bothered to read them.

Rhiessan71 is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 01:47 AM
  #153
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 41,877
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by struckbyaparkedcar View Post

Vis was every bit as deserving as the finalists, and calling him an offensive specialist really underrates his contributions to that Ducks team, especially before the Beauchemin trade when he and Lydman were literally the only two top four defenseman on the team with any type of track record. He played in the same role as Karlsson did last season, shutdown ES minutes, with extra ES/PP time in lieu of shutdown minutes. Granted, he didn't blow the league away at ES scoring-wise the way EK did, but given the weakness of the field, I really think what killed Lubo was a lack of track record compared to the competition, rather than anything that happened on the ice.
Visnevsky outscored Lidstrom 68-62 in 2010-11, while playing a much less defensive role. I really don't see a good argument for Visnevsky over Lidstrom in 2010-11

TheDevilMadeMe is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 01:50 AM
  #154
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 41,877
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by newfy View Post
Disagree, you make it a point to make threads to argue against Lidstrom a lot. It might be baiting people in or it might just be you not noticing that you have a bias against Lidstrom.

A prime example is how you replied to my post calling you biased but didnt actually comment on any of the good factual points I made in the post because they point to Lidstrom being the deserving winner of that Norris. If you werent biased against Lidstrom, you would have agreed with those points and saw that Lidstrom didnt steal anything and was just as deserving (if not more) than Weber for that Norris.
So he's biased because he disagrees with you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
If you read other posts you will see that I answered every one of your points in one post or another. I simply didn't feel like repeating myself to you directly just because you can't be bothered to read them.
Is it really necessary to accuse him of not reading your posts?

_________________________

I realize that debates can get heated but I have never seen the History of Hockey board as hostile as it's been for the last month or so and it has to stop.

And I apologize for singling the two of you out; this is becoming a board-wide problem and these were just really easy posts to point to.

We are all here because of a love for hockey history, right?

TheDevilMadeMe is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 02:05 AM
  #155
struckbyaparkedcar
Zemgus Da Gawd
 
struckbyaparkedcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Upstate NY
Country: Cote DIvoire
Posts: 10,961
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Visnevsky outscored Lidstrom 68-62 in 2010-11, while playing a much less defensive role. I really don't see a good argument for Visnevsky over Lidstrom in 2010-11
That's really not true. While Lydman was the Ducks' best defensive blueliner, Visnovsky was paired with him since the beginning of the season and they comprised Anaheim's shutdown pairing for the entire year. Defensemen cast in offensive roles usually don't start 45% of shifts in their own zone. The real difference in role was that Vis didn't PK and Lidstrom did, although considering how completely awful the rest of Anaheim's defense was at even strength, I don't exactly blame Carlyle for doing so.

Edit- the argument is that Vis had a tremendous role at both ends ES-wise for Anaheim, led defensemen in scoring, and was a huge part of a Ducks team not expected to do much of anything after losing Niedermayer and ended up making the playoffs.


Last edited by struckbyaparkedcar: 11-23-2012 at 02:22 AM.
struckbyaparkedcar is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 02:14 AM
  #156
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 41,877
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by struckbyaparkedcar View Post
That's really not true. While Lydman was the Ducks' best defensive blueliner, Visnovsky was paired with him since the beginning of the season and they comprised Anaheim's shutdown pairing for the entire year. Defensemen cast in offensive roles usually don't start 45% of shifts in their own zone. The real difference in role was that Vis didn't PK and Lidstrom did, although considering how completely awful the rest of Anaheim's defense was at even strength, I don't exactly blame Carlyle for doing so.
Vishnevsky also had less defensive responsibilities than his partner at even strength, while Lidstrom had more defensive responsibilities than his partner, Brian Rafalski.

That's the thing with Lidstrom - most defensemen who put up high point totals do it playing next to a guy who covers for him defensively. Lidstrom put up his point totals while being the guy who covers for his partner.

I do think Lidstrom was weaker in 2010-11 than he was even in 2009-10, but he wasn't competing against his past self, he was competing against the very weak field of 2010-11.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 02:45 AM
  #157
struckbyaparkedcar
Zemgus Da Gawd
 
struckbyaparkedcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Upstate NY
Country: Cote DIvoire
Posts: 10,961
vCash: 500
Fair. I give Vis a lot of credit for his workload because of how piss-poor Anaheim's defense was behind his pairing, especially for the first 2/3rds of the season. Carlyle put a lot of pressure at both ends on his best players, and has been doing so since they lost their depth from 2007.

I'm still not convinced Lubo should've won, but he absolutely deserved to see the Finals, with a "slightly above average' Chara season serving as the gatekeeper, rather than just being cast aside as "another offensive defenseman who isn't Mike Green," because he was much, much more than that to the Ducks in 2011.

struckbyaparkedcar is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 04:16 AM
  #158
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,373
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Is it really necessary to accuse him of not reading your posts?
Not really necessary, no.

Quote:
I realize that debates can get heated but I have never seen the History of Hockey board as hostile as it's been for the last month or so and it has to stop.

And I apologize for singling the two of you out; this is becoming a board-wide problem and these were just really easy posts to point to.

We are all here because of a love for hockey history, right?
Yeah, I'm definitely guilty of it lately.
I really need the season to start soon but I'll tone it back in the mean time.

Rhiessan71 is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 06:02 AM
  #159
Master_Of_Districts
Registered User
 
Master_Of_Districts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Black Ruthenia
Country: Belarus
Posts: 1,745
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
I'm not trying to prove that Chelios was better than Lidstrom. I'm showing that half of the voters thought Chelios was better Lidstrom.

I'm not analyzing their play at all.
My mistake then.

Master_Of_Districts is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 09:02 AM
  #160
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 35,450
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by struckbyaparkedcar View Post
And I think Thomas/Chara was as 50-50 a symbiotic relationship as a defenseman and goalie could have. Nobody fit Thomas' aggressive style like Chara and his crease clearing, and visa versa.
If that were the case, there should be a significant gap in Thomas' numbers when Chara was on the ice compared to other defensemen. I wonder how much of that is possible to calculate.

tarheelhockey is online now  
Old
11-23-2012, 09:19 AM
  #161
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,485
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RabbinsDuck View Post
Overall Points is more important than ES, PK, and PP points, in the game of hockey, where all play a significant role.

I guess I am at a loss for words for arguing against someone who devalues the PP, typically a huge and integral part of every single game, as much as you do (in this specific instance, though not nearly as much as you do for other players).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Oh yeah?
Why don't you go ahead and show me where I have done this for another player.
Good luck with that and you better damned well have your ducks in a row statwise when you start naming names my friend.



And I repeat...
"I don't rank MacInnis very high offensively all-time either because he predominantly just a PP scorer.
Basically, if your team stays out of the box, you all but cripple Lidstrom's and MacInnis' ability to produce offense."
Perhaps it's the focus on Lidstrom's PP points and seldom a mention of other guys PP like Lemieux and Espostio just 2 examples off the top of my head.

I think some of the guys here are going overboard on calling you a Lidstrom hater but the amount of effort you put into downplaying a guy you hold 4th overall at his position is inconsistent because you don't put in half the effort of doing so for the 4th guy at the 4 other positions combined.

This observation is quite clear in many of your posts.

Hardyvan123 is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 12:28 PM
  #162
struckbyaparkedcar
Zemgus Da Gawd
 
struckbyaparkedcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Upstate NY
Country: Cote DIvoire
Posts: 10,961
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
If that were the case, there should be a significant gap in Thomas' numbers when Chara was on the ice compared to other defensemen. I wonder how much of that is possible to calculate.
Eh. You'd also have to take into account the fact that when Chara is off the ice, so are opponent's top offensive players (most of the time, anyway), and the rest of the Boston defense was more than capable of clearing the crease against easier matchups, especially with Boychuk replacing Sieds on the top pairing with Z during the regular season.

Really, a Boston blueline that was exceptional at collapsing around Thomas and clearing out offensive players hunting for rebounds with big, strong guys like Chara, Sieds, Boychuk and McQuaid had great synergy with Thomas' aggressiveness. The point of the post you quoted was Thomas, Chara and the Bruins' system all benefited equally from each other, rather than any one being the product of the other, which is what TDMM hinted at.

struckbyaparkedcar is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 12:45 PM
  #163
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,373
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Perhaps it's the focus on Lidstrom's PP points and seldom a mention of other guys PP like Lemieux and Espostio just 2 examples off the top of my head.

I think some of the guys here are going overboard on calling you a Lidstrom hater but the amount of effort you put into downplaying a guy you hold 4th overall at his position is inconsistent because you don't put in half the effort of doing so for the 4th guy at the 4 other positions combined.

This observation is quite clear in many of your posts.
That's most likely to do with no one constantly trying to put the 4th guy at the other 4 positions at #1 or #2.
I don't see anyone trying to put Morez or Mikita ahead of Gretzky or Lemieux at C or Mahovlich head of Hull or Lindsay at LW or Jagr ahead of Richard and Howe at RW.
Yet here we are all the time with people trying to put Lidstrom over Orr and Harvey. Especially when no one can even make a solid case for Lidstrom over Bourque that isn't shot full of holes in 2 minutes.
Again, I'm NOT biased against Lidstrom, I'm just biased against people that ARE biased for Lidstrom!

Why would I denote Mario for his PP points? It's not like he didn't dominate at even strength as well.
Did you know that with just his ES points, he would be tied for 53rd on the total PpG list and that his 926ESP would put him 91rst on the total points list? Only 40.7% of Mario's points were on the PP.
Mario had 926 ESP in 915 games, that's 1.01 ESPpG or 83ES/82 GP.
http://www.mynhltraderumors.com/nhl-...verage-career/

So that would prolly be why I don't worry about Mario too much and I have no idea where the Espo thing is coming from.


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 11-23-2012 at 01:01 PM.
Rhiessan71 is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 12:56 PM
  #164
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 35,450
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by struckbyaparkedcar View Post
Eh. You'd also have to take into account the fact that when Chara is off the ice, so are opponent's top offensive players
True.

Quote:
Really, a Boston blueline that was exceptional at collapsing around Thomas and clearing out offensive players hunting for rebounds with big, strong guys like Chara, Sieds, Boychuk and McQuaid had great synergy with Thomas' aggressiveness.
Also true.

Quote:
Thomas, Chara and the Bruins' system all benefited equally from each other, rather than any one being the product of the other
Truth hat trick!

tarheelhockey is online now  
Old
11-23-2012, 12:58 PM
  #165
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 41,877
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Not really necessary, no.



Yeah, I'm definitely guilty of it lately.
I really need the season to start soon but I'll tone it back in the mean time.
Yeah, we really need the season to start already. I've found myself having to go back and edit some of my own posts to tone it down.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 01:56 PM
  #166
danincanada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,324
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Yet here we are all the time with people trying to put Lidstrom over Orr and Harvey. Especially when no one can even make a solid case for Lidstrom over Bourque that isn't shot full of holes in 2 minutes.
Again, I'm NOT biased against Lidstrom, I'm just biased against people that ARE biased for Lidstrom!
Obviously it's not as clear cut as you and some others in the history section feel it is or should be. Otherwise, there wouldn't be a thousand Lidstrom/Bourque debates on here and even you have previously stated that it's close. Afterall, we are talking about an all-time list here.

To now state that it's so easy to make the case for Bourque as if Lidstrom doesn't have a case is simply not true. It's subjective and depends on what someone values, whether it be offense, defense, playoff performances, helping their team win Cups, a lack of a fully integrated league, etc.

The same applies for Harvey, and even Orr has question marks if you look at actual career value and are a "career guy". I still don't understand what you guys used to rank Harvey over Lidstrom considering the difference in the makeup of the "NHL" between their eras. I've assumed it values "coming first" greatly and barely, if at all, considered the talent pool the league was drawing from. Is there a formula for this that I'm missing because it seems very vague when people are questioned about it.

danincanada is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 02:07 PM
  #167
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 41,877
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by danincanada View Post

The same applies for Harvey, and even Orr has question marks if you look at actual career value and are a "career guy". I still don't understand what you guys used to rank Harvey over Lidstrom considering the difference in the makeup of the "NHL" between their eras. I've assumed it values "coming first" greatly and barely, if at all, considered the talent pool the league was drawing from. Is there a formula for this that I'm missing because it seems very vague when people are questioned about it.
We consider the talent pool. It's just that most of us here disagree with you on both how the talent pool has changed and how the change in the talent pool affects competition at the top.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 02:47 PM
  #168
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Angband via Utumno
Posts: 3,351
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
We consider the talent pool. It's just that most of us here disagree with you on both how the talent pool has changed and how the change in the talent pool affects competition at the top.
Or the fact that while sure, the talent pool has grown, but the NHL has expanded along with it so that the average team's talent level is relatively constant. Sure there was a big influx of European players in the '90s but at the same time the league added nine teams so it's essentially a wash.

Morgoth Bauglir is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 02:48 PM
  #169
danincanada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,324
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
We consider the talent pool. It's just that most of us here disagree with you on both how the talent pool has changed and how the change in the talent pool affects competition at the top.
We certainly disagree on that. I'll continue to think you guys are severely underestimating both how much the talent pool has grown and it's affect on all levels of competition in the NHL.

Lidstrom himself is a prime example of this and proves how much things have changed. No one would have believed a Swede would be the best defenseman in hockey back in Shore's time and no one would have believed a Slovenian (Kopitar) would be the top scorer on a Cup team even 20 years ago.

Originally, I assumed you guys realized you can't accurately compare players across eras so you just left out the talent pool issue so you could continue with the "fantasy league" type atmosphere here. The problem started when I realized people actually deny it altogether or downplay it and seem to really believe this is the case. It just reeks of denial and people who deny what should be obvious scare me, lol.

danincanada is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 03:00 PM
  #170
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 35,450
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by danincanada View Post
Obviously it's not as clear cut as you and some others in the history section feel it is or should be. Otherwise, there wouldn't be a thousand Lidstrom/Bourque debates on here and even you have previously stated that it's close.
The fact that it is necessary to have these conversations doesn't mean that there's not a clear cut answer.

Lidstrom has a hard core of supporters who are in every ranking thread, same as R71, pushing him as #1 or occasionally #2 all time. Their case essentially boils down to the Talent Pool Argument (which largely fails against Bourque but tends to eliminate Shore from the conversation) and the Career Value Argument (which fails against Bourque, seems to be a tie against Harvey, and arguably isn't entirely effective against Orr either). They tend not to want to talk about the Peak Value Argument, where Orr and Bourque have a decided advantage and Harvey is again in a dead heat.

The problem is that if Lidstrom can't make an effective case against Bourque on either peak or career value, and doesn't gain much ground in the talent pool conversation, then it should be very much an open-and-close debate between them. Yet it spins on and on, infringing on other debates, and I'll be damned if I can figure out why.

tarheelhockey is online now  
Old
11-23-2012, 03:01 PM
  #171
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Angband via Utumno
Posts: 3,351
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by danincanada View Post
We certainly disagree on that. I'll continue to think you guys are severely underestimating both how much the talent pool has grown and it's affect on all levels of competition in the NHL.

Lidstrom himself is a prime example of this and proves how much things have changed. No one would have believed a Swede would be the best defenseman in hockey back in Shore's time and no one would have believed a Slovenian (Kopitar) would be the top scorer on a Cup team even 20 years ago.

Originally, I assumed you guys realized you can't accurately compare players across eras so you just left out the talent pool issue so you could continue with the "fantasy league" type atmosphere here. The problem started when I realized people actually deny it altogether or downplay it and seem to really believe this is the case. It just reeks of denial and people who deny what should be obvious scare me, lol.
A quick question: If you don't think that players can be compared across eras why on Earth would you be posting in the History Section? Comparing players regardless of eras is the bread and butter of any history discussion so it doesn't make any sense to me that someone who disparages such comparisons would want to engage in that kind of discussion.

Morgoth Bauglir is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 03:15 PM
  #172
danincanada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,324
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
A quick question: If you don't think that players can be compared across eras why on Earth would you be posting in the History Section? Comparing players regardless of eras is the bread and butter of any history discussion so it doesn't make any sense to me that someone who disparages such comparisons would want to engage in that kind of discussion.
You can still discuss the history of hockey (players, teams, it's growth, etc.) without the comparisons.

I've been a fan all my life and even watch games from before I was born so I do have a great interest in hockey's history.

Go ahead and compare if you want - that's your choice - all I'm saying is don't take yourself too seriously or pretend it's being done scientifically or fairly because that's impossible. The different eras didn't share the same ice and they were also dealing with different talent pools, equipment, training, etc. It's really just opinions and the opinions here favour past players because it is the "History of Hockey" section, while many on the main board favour current players.

danincanada is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 03:34 PM
  #173
danincanada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,324
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
The fact that it is necessary to have these conversations doesn't mean that there's not a clear cut answer.

Lidstrom has a hard core of supporters who are in every ranking thread, same as R71, pushing him as #1 or occasionally #2 all time. Their case essentially boils down to the Talent Pool Argument (which largely fails against Bourque but tends to eliminate Shore from the conversation) and the Career Value Argument (which fails against Bourque, seems to be a tie against Harvey, and arguably isn't entirely effective against Orr either). They tend not to want to talk about the Peak Value Argument, where Orr and Bourque have a decided advantage and Harvey is again in a dead heat.

The problem is that if Lidstrom can't make an effective case against Bourque on either peak or career value, and doesn't gain much ground in the talent pool conversation, then it should be very much an open-and-close debate between them. Yet it spins on and on, infringing on other debates, and I'll be damned if I can figure out why.
I admit it's difficult to compare Lidstrom and Bourque fairly considering the teams they played for but I also don't see how it's a given that Bourque had greater career value when Lidstrom's teams won as much as they did, both for season and playoff play, while Bourque's teams didn't fair nearly as well. It's a team game but Lidstrom was still that # 1 defenseman and core player on a quasi (modern day) dynasty to go along with his 7 Norris'.

I also don't know why people think it's a given that Bourque wins on peak when Lidstrom won a Norris, Conn Smythe and Cup in one hockey year (2001-2002) and was arguably the best player in the world that year (Forsberg barely played) when Bourque never accomplished this. Even if you say, "well, Bourque didn't have an opportunity like that" he still didn't accomplish this and no coulda, woulda, shoulda's will ever change that.

When we get into Shore, Harvey and Orr there is a sliding scale for the talent pool argument. A lot of the arguments on here for the older player often boils down to rote-like thought that is repeated and accepted among the main posters and the seen as fact. It should be questioned and not just once.

danincanada is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 05:06 PM
  #174
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 35,450
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by danincanada View Post
I also don't know why people think it's a given that Bourque wins on peak when Lidstrom won a Norris, Conn Smythe and Cup in one hockey year (2001-2002) and was arguably the best player in the world that year (Forsberg barely played) when Bourque never accomplished this.
The most immediate point that jumps to mind is that Bourque did win the Norris and lead his team to the 1990 Final, in the context that he was by far the best player on an otherwise ordinary team. If his team wins the Cup against steep odds, there really wouldn't have even been a need for a Smythe vote. We broke down his performance in that series in a previous thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by me
Also, while I am FAR from a proponent of +/-, Bourque's massive TOI combined with his impressive +/- in that Finals series really tells a story.

Game 1 - Bruins lose 3-2, Bourque +2 on 2 goals.
Game 2 - Bruins lose 7-2, Bourque even with a goal and an assist.
Game 3 - Bruins win 2-1, Bourque +1.
Game 4 - Bruins lose 5-1, Bourque -3.
Game 5 - Bruins lose 4-1, Bourque -1 with an assist (and he would have been even, but was on the other side of the ice when Anderson undressed Sweeney 1-on-1)

Series total: Bruins lose 20-8, Bourque -1 with 5 points.

And just to top it off, Bourque led the Bruins in shots with 27 in the 5 games. The next highest were Neely with 24 and Propp with... 12.
I mean, c'mon, what more could the man possibly have done beyond being the best offensive and defensive player on the ice? And bear in mind that this was the same season that he really WAS "robbed" not of the Norris, but the Hart Trophy.

Putting Lidstrom's 2002 over Bourque's 1990 is basically saying Lidstrom did a better job getting drafted.

tarheelhockey is online now  
Old
11-23-2012, 05:23 PM
  #175
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,373
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
The fact that it is necessary to have these conversations doesn't mean that there's not a clear cut answer.

Lidstrom has a hard core of supporters who are in every ranking thread, same as R71, pushing him as #1 or occasionally #2 all time. Their case essentially boils down to the Talent Pool Argument (which largely fails against Bourque but tends to eliminate Shore from the conversation) and the Career Value Argument (which fails against Bourque, seems to be a tie against Harvey, and arguably isn't entirely effective against Orr either). They tend not to want to talk about the Peak Value Argument, where Orr and Bourque have a decided advantage and Harvey is again in a dead heat.

The problem is that if Lidstrom can't make an effective case against Bourque on either peak or career value, and doesn't gain much ground in the talent pool conversation, then it should be very much an open-and-close debate between them. Yet it spins on and on, infringing on other debates, and I'll be damned if I can figure out why.
Bingo!
Hardcore Lidstromites bring up the same arguments over and over and over again. No matter how fast or how strongly they are shot down, 2 days, 2 weeks, 2 months later, it's starts all over again.
All I can think of most of the time is the actual definition for insanity, doing the exact same thing over and over again, expecting a different result.

Quote:
Originally Posted by danincanada View Post
I admit it's difficult to compare Lidstrom and Bourque fairly considering the teams they played for but I also don't see how it's a given that Bourque had greater career value when Lidstrom's teams won as much as they did, both for season and playoff play, while Bourque's teams didn't fair nearly as well. It's a team game but Lidstrom was still that # 1 defenseman and core player on a quasi (modern day) dynasty to go along with his 7 Norris'.

I also don't know why people think it's a given that Bourque wins on peak when Lidstrom won a Norris, Conn Smythe and Cup in one hockey year (2001-2002) and was arguably the best player in the world that year (Forsberg barely played) when Bourque never accomplished this. Even if you say, "well, Bourque didn't have an opportunity like that" he still didn't accomplish this and no coulda, woulda, shoulda's will ever change that.
Bourque wins peak on two fronts, height and length.
Height: He was for up the Hart on numerous occasions, he had multiple top 10 league scoring finishes while also being considered one of the best defensive D-men in the league and because he made the majority of his average and worse Bruin teams into good to very good teams when he was on the ice.
Length: 22 year career, 19 All-Star nods to which I believe the only player with more is Gordie Howe.

You say here that you consider Lidstrom the best player in the world in '02 and you even add it's because Forsberg barely player.
Bourque was going up against a prime Gretzky and Lemieux for that title in the 80's and 90's and going up against 13 straight years of full on (no quasi stuff) Dynasty teams from '80-'92.
Sorry dude but Lidstrom wouldn't come close to being the best player in the world then either and he's doesn't have a single Cup ring or Conn Smythe if he's playing for Detroit or Boston during that time either.


Quote:
When we get into Shore, Harvey and Orr there is a sliding scale for the talent pool argument. A lot of the arguments on here for the older player often boils down to rote-like thought that is repeated and accepted among the main posters and the seen as fact. It should be questioned and not just once.
There is no sliding scale for Harvey. I showed in another post how Harvey went up against and beat more top 20 all time D-men in their primes than Lidstrom has.
With Orr it's even simpler, he wasn't just the best d-man in the league, he was far and away the best PLAYER in the league.
His peer to peer record and his team stats when he was on the ice and off the ice are just freakin ridiculous! THAT is a no brainer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
Putting Lidstrom's 2002 over Bourque's 1990 is basically saying Lidstrom did a better job getting drafted.
Boom!


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 11-23-2012 at 05:32 PM.
Rhiessan71 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 08:43 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.