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.

Lidstrom's place in history - ALL DISCUSSIONS OF LIDSTROM'S "ALL TIME RANKING" HERE

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-27-2012, 09:26 PM
  #251
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,533
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RabbinsDuck View Post
This is where I just do not care about stats - I feel 100% confident, having seen close to almost every single game Lidstrom has played, in addition to a fair amount of league-wide hockey, as available to viewing, over the last thirty years, to say Lidstrom is easily the greatest defensive defenseman I have ever witnessed. I'll admit to not seeing a lot of Langway at his peak, but I feel quite rational believing Lidstrom is simply on another level than Bourque defensively, while admitting Bourque was on another level offensively.

2002 is a perfect example - I'd be shocked if you could find 1 in a 100 Red Wings fan (watching the majority of every Wings games (unlike the media))who thought Chelios was better that year than Lidstrom. It's laughable... Chelios was great, but Lidstrom was at that "perfect" play peak where as great as Chelios was, you always wanted to see Lidstrom in those critical situations, and that is fortunately how they were played.
Jiri Fischer disagrees. From the Detroit News, May 20, 2002:

Quote:
DETROIT -- Pity Peter Forsberg. Colorado's star forward has drawn the short straw, the undivided attention of Red Wings defenseman Chris Chelios in the Western Conference finals. "The first series, it was (Vancouver's Todd) Bertuzzi," said Jiri Fischer, who is paired with Chelios on the blue line in the playoffs. "The next series, it was (Pavol) Demitra, (Scott) Mellanby and (Keith) Tkachuk -- the whole first line for
http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/...ckval=GooglePM

That's as much of the article as I can read without paying for it, but barring a very unjournalistic plot twist it looks like the point of the article is that Chelios played some pretty important matchups for Detroit.

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 09:32 PM
  #252
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 3,204
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RabbinsDuck View Post
And you think Chelios was better? Seriously???
Yes. Super seriously.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 09:54 PM
  #253
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 32,472
vCash: 500
More articles:

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Detroit News 4/23/2002
Chelios certainly warrants the attention. He's a Norris Trophy favorite and could beat out teammate Nicklas Lidstrom for the award.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Detroit News 4/16/2002
But Chelios has rebounded with one of the best seasons of his career. He's a finalist for the Norris Trophy and could be considered the favorite.
Now, those are not endorsements for Chelios to win, but they certainly aren't dismissive of his chances. And I'd say the Detroit News sportswriting staff are likely Wings fans.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 10:02 PM
  #254
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,928
vCash: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
Jiri Fischer disagrees. From the Detroit News, May 20, 2002:



http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/...ckval=GooglePM

That's as much of the article as I can read without paying for it, but barring a very unjournalistic plot twist it looks like the point of the article is that Chelios played some pretty important matchups for Detroit.
I am so glad you found that article. It has always been an annoyance that when some of us pointed out Chelios being given the #1 defensive assignments that year and how Lidstrom was not the best Defensive Dman every year(Some years, Stevens definitely was better too), 15 Red wing fans would jump down my throat about how they "watched every game and Lidstrom always took the toughest guys" and how I was wrong and making things up to prop up Chelios and put down Lidstrom.

While I agree Lidstrom deserved that Norris without a shadow of a doubt(my opinion), I am glad to finally have someone dig up a news article that supports Chelios outstanding play, despite being past his prime and not quite the vicious force he was in past years.

Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 10:14 PM
  #255
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,068
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shadows View Post
I am so glad you found that article. It has always been an annoyance that when some of us pointed out Chelios being given the #1 defensive assignments that year and how Lidstrom was not the best Defensive Dman every year(Some years, Stevens definitely was better too), 15 Red wing fans would jump down my throat about how they "watched every game and Lidstrom always took the toughest guys" and how I was wrong and making things up to prop up Chelios and put down Lidstrom.

While I agree Lidstrom deserved that Norris without a shadow of a doubt(my opinion), I am glad to finally have someone dig up a news article that supports Chelios outstanding play, despite being past his prime and not quite the vicious force he was in past years.
It's almost like the cloud of revisionism is being lifted briefly eh

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 10:32 PM
  #256
RabbinsDuck
Registered User
 
RabbinsDuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Brighton, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 4,728
vCash: 500
Chelios was great, no arguments, it just was clear who was better and more integral, and to pretty much anyone else I knew. It honestly seems ridiculous that anyone could think Chelios was better that season if they actually watched a good portion of Wings games that year. Fan bases are usually right when it comes to their own. Atlanta fans laughed at the idea Byfuglien was better than Enstrom, and Nashville fans swore up and down Suter was underrated (as recent examples for fanbases knowing a bit more about their defensemen than stats or the media) - you might not catch that watching them play a handful or plus games a year and from the daily highlight reel.

And seriously, Lidstrom outproduced Chelios that year by 51% - even if you mistakenly believe Chelios was better than Lidstrom defensively that year - to offset that large of a degree in production? That's illogical.


Last edited by RabbinsDuck: 11-27-2012 at 10:38 PM.
RabbinsDuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 10:34 PM
  #257
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,338
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
Revisionism?!

Chris Chelios damn near won the Norris Trophy and took 28 first place votes to Lidstrom's 29. Saying that no one believed in 2002 that Chelios was the better player or that it was fairly obvious who was the best defenseman is a textbook example of revisionism!

It was a divided vote.

Seriously. How is this revisionism on my part?! You're acting like Lidstrom took 62 first place votes.
You are also assuming that all voters were actually voting on who they thought was the best Dman in the league.

We saw at the end of Lidstrom's career were he possibly got a reputation Norris due, in part, to people thinking he was in his last year or the end of the line.

It's not inconceivable that some of this was going on with Chelios in 02 is it?

And in my mind it's pretty clear, Lidstrom played more minutes overall, and in all situations, regardless if they are ES or on the PP.

He outscored Chelios and had just as difficult defensive assignments as well and had more impact on that Red Wings team in 02.

Heck even R71 thinks so, so it must be true right?

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 10:49 PM
  #258
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,068
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post

Heck even R71 thinks so, so it must be true right?
Hey, I really have nothing against Lidstrom and I have always been a fan of his superb positional play, consistency and longevity.
I wouldn't have him 4th all-time if I wasn't impressed but I have always felt that his big gap over his peers in the 2000's is greatly exaggerated by the futility and major inconsistency of those peers.
At the end of the day, I am just quite simply much more impressed with Orr, Bourque and Harvey.

If I truly had a bias in this, I certainly wouldn't be backing 2 players from a team that actually made me physically sick when they won the Cup 2 years ago. As a longtime Habs fan gong on like 35 years now, we have seen more of Bourque than anyone outside of Boston.
Nor would I have moved Lidstrom ahead of Potvin, who is still one of my favourite D-men of all time.


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 11-27-2012 at 10:54 PM.
Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 10:53 PM
  #259
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,213
vCash: 500
I wonder if memories of the 2002 playoffs are clouding the memories of the 2001-02 regular season. I remember Lidstrom being Detroit's undisputed #1 in all facets in 2002, but that seems to have only been the case in the playoffs.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 10:57 PM
  #260
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
No, I knew going in that Lidstrom's competition was weak and extremely inconsistent. I just didn't realise how truly weak and inconsistent it really was.
"Show me a list of what Lidstrom's competition looked like, so I can see how he wasn't as dominant as Bourque against worse players than Bourque faced."

*list posted*

"Oh, Lidstrom was far more dominant over his peers? Well, that's clearly because his peers were much worse players, and Lidstrom is still worse."

Also, Lidstrom's competition has lower totals in part because the 00-09 list only includes nine seasons.

Since there was a complaint about it being Lidstrom's prime, can we see these ranges:

1998-2008 for Lidstrom. (Lockout, remove one year)

1987-1996 for Bourque.

I think we can generally agree that those are each player's best ten-season runs.

Although really, we don't need a Norris share comparison here. In those stretches for Bourque and Lidstrom, here are lists of all defensemen with at least three appearances in the top eight or one top-three; in other words "elite" competition:

From 86-87 to 95-96:
Bourque 5x1st, 3x2nd, 3rd, 4th.
Chelios 3x1st, 2nd, 3rd, 2x6th, 7th, 11th
Coffey 1st, 2nd, 4th, 2x5th, 3x7th, 9th
Leetch 1st, 3rd, 4th, 2x5th, 2x11th

MacInnis 2x2nd, 2x3rd, 4th, 8th, 11th
Murphy 2x3rd, 2x4th, 5th, 7th, 14th

Stevens 2x2nd, 4th, 2x7th, 9th, 2x10th

Housley 3rd, 2x5th, 9th, 14th
Suter 3rd, 2x7th, 8th
Howe 2nd, 9th
Wilson 3rd, 12th
K.Hatcher 4th , 6th, 7th
Lidstrom 6th, 7th, 8th
Duchesne 2x5th, 7th

From 97-98 to 07-08:
Lidstrom 6x1st, 3x2nd, 6th
Pronger 1st, 2x3rd, 4th, 5th, 7th, 8th, 11th
Blake 1st, 2x3rd, 4th, 5th, 8th, 12th, 17th
Niedermayer 1st, 2x2nd, 5th, 10th, 12th, 13th

MacInnis 1st, 2nd, 7th, 2x8th

Bourque 2nd, 3rd, 7th, 8th

Gonchar 3x4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 9th, 15th
Chara 2x2nd, 4th, 7th, 20th
Stevens 3rd, 4th, 6th, 10th, 11th, 15th
Zubov 3rd, 2x8th, 3x9th, 13th, 2x17th
Chelios 2nd, 6th, 12th, 17th, 18th
D.Hatcher 3rd, 7th, 13th, 16th
Phaneuf 2nd, 6th, 8th

BOLD won a Norris
ITALICS were top-three multiple times
UNDERLINE were top five four or more times

I think this provides a more fair assessment of Lidstrom v. Bourque, and also provides some insight into Scott Stevens with regards to the recent Stevens vs. Pronger poll (as well as the idea that he was not getting Norris votes because he wasn't scoring).

Comparables:

Pronger vs. Chelios. Chelios actually won the Norris more. But Pronger probably deserved the 2007 Norris (in much the same way Lidstrom deserved the 1998 and very arguably the 1999 and 2009 Norrises). He certainly belonged ahead of Niedermayer. But we are going off of actual voting here, not "what should have been".
Advantage=Chelios (87-96)

Blake vs. Leetch. Not a comparision you'd normally hear. But they had pretty comparable finishes in Norris voting, and both were overwhelmingly offensive players whose defensive game was lacking compared to other top-pair defensemen.
Advantage=EVEN

Niedermayer vs. Coffey
Slick-skating offensive defenseman and Norris winner. That's the decription for both. Coffey's finishes are ever so slightly better. But Coffey had the issue of having a top season, and then comparably dropping off the map as far as the Norris was concerned. Niedermayer had a defined peak where he was one of the clear top four or five best defensemen that had to be included in Norris discussion. Coffey peaked in the early-mid 80s, o it's not represented well in this chart, but he certainly didn't have that kind of quality showing consistently during Bourque's prime. But he did, however, pot more high-level seasons with relation to his peers.
Advantage=EVEN

Gonchar vs. Murphy
Murphy obviously has the advantage for Norris finalist appearances. But Gonchar, who nabbed fourth-place three times, is ahead once you get down to top-six finishes.
Advantage=EVEN

Stevens vs. Stevens
Many people say that Stevens in the mid/late 90s and early 2000s Stevens was playing his best hockey. The Norris vote certainly does not bear that idea out; Stevens (98-04) is handily trounced by his younger self. Perhaps it is the "offensive bias" that many claim. But even so, would it be enough to make up the gap?
Advantage=Stevens (87-96)

MacInnis vs. MacInnis
In the 80s and early 90s, MacInnis was not as competent defensively but more productive offensively. He was also healthier. But overall, he was not as dominant as a player in genral, or in relation to his peers. Retiring in 2004, MacInnis played 7 seasons from 1997-98 to 2003-04; he missed 20+ games twice, and was top-eight in Norris voting five times. On top of that, the late 90s and 2000s are generally considered to be MacInnis playing his best hockey.
Advantage=MacInnis (98-04)

Chara vs. Housley
Not really a direct player-style comparison. But Chara pretty cleanly wins it on domination both of the game and of peers, despite having been a rookie in 1997-98.
Advantage=Chara

Zubov vs. Suter
Both players were solid two-way players who were pretty underrated during their careers. But I think it's pretty clear that Zubov is the winner, and handily.
Advantage=Zubov

K.Hatcher vs. D.Hatcher
***SIBLING RIVALRY***
Kevin doesn't show up as many times, but he clearly has the stronger prime in that he has more high finishes. Derian has his one-off finalist spot, but those who watched the games would tell you that Zubov was easily the Stars' best defenseman. Aide from that single year, Derian is looking pretty weak while Kevin has a solid career to fall back on.
Advantage:Kevin Hatcher

Bourque (98-01) vs. Lidstrom (92-96)
Bourque was a Norris finalist twice in four seasons at the end of his career, and top eight all four years. Lidstrom was top-eight three seasons of five, but never made the top-five.
Advantage=Bourque

Phaneuf vs. Wilson
Phaneuf was second in Norris voting in his third season (the last of Lidstrom's sample), after finishing 8th and 6th the previous two years. Doug Wilson played seven seasons during Bourque's sample, but only three saw him suit up for 52+ games; he finished 2nd to Bourque once, and 12th once.
Advantage=Phaneuf

So for these comparisons, the advantage falls to the latter group of defensemen. Obviously, Mark Howe and Steve Duchesne have not yet been included. The next two mot logical defensemen to include based on Norris finishes would be Eric Desjardins and Wade Redden.

Howe beats Desjardins as a comparable by actually having ever been a realistic Norris contender, but Redden win against Duchesne due to more consistent placement in the Norris voting (5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16)

So Lidstrom's competition was at worst comparable to Bourque's. And Lidstrom dominated it to a greater degree.

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 11:01 PM
  #261
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,338
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
It's almost like the cloud of revisionism is being lifted briefly eh
Your favorite new word here I see.

Maybe someone can go back and watch all of the games from those playoffs and do the breakdowns.

I recall Big Bert absolutely destroying Chelios with a hot early in that series but Chelios came back and played strong. I also recall Lidstrom being on the ice and doing his usual thing back then too.

In the 02 playoffs here is the breakdown

Even Strength

Lidstrom 20:24
Chelios 18:59

SH

Lidstrom 5:41
Chelios 5:25

PP

Lidstrom 5:04
Chelios 1:56

Overall

Lidstrom 31:10
Chelios 26:21

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 11:06 PM
  #262
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,068
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I wonder if memories of the 2002 playoffs are clouding the memories of the 2001-02 regular season. I remember Lidstrom being Detroit's undisputed #1 in all facets in 2002, but that seems to have only been the case in the playoffs.
I remember it the other way around.
I thought Lidstrom was clearly better than Chelios in the regular season but Chelios was almost his equal in importance in the PO's.
That's why I have no issue what so ever with Lidstrom's Norris in '02. He was IMO, the best or maybe the most consistent D-man in the league that year would be a better way of putting it, but I do have issue with his Conn that year.
At the same time though, I thought Lidstrom should have won the Conn in '08 over Zets so...I guess it evens out.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 11:11 PM
  #263
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,068
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Your favorite new word here I see.

Maybe someone can go back and watch all of the games from those playoffs and do the breakdowns.

I recall Big Bert absolutely destroying Chelios with a hot early in that series but Chelios came back and played strong. I also recall Lidstrom being on the ice and doing his usual thing back then too.

In the 02 playoffs here is the breakdown

Even Strength

Lidstrom 20:24
Chelios 18:59

SH

Lidstrom 5:41
Chelios 5:25

PP

Lidstrom 5:04
Chelios 1:56

Overall

Lidstrom 31:10
Chelios 26:21
Why in the hell are you repeating the TOI breakdowns from '02 that both me and Quoipourquoi had to post earlier in the thread to set you straight about them in the first place?

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 11:13 PM
  #264
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,802
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JackSlater View Post
I would love for you to point out where Lidstrom was getting "knocked around" there. It boggles my mind the way people can infer slights on Lidstrom from out of thin air.
Kind of like it boggles my mind how Bourque gets double credit for his team being relatively weaker in every one of these arguments.

Lidstrom usually gets penalized twice for his team being relatively stronger in every one of these arguments.

Usually it goes like this:

Bourque's team was soooo much better with him on the ice compared to when he was off AND we excuse that he didn't do as well in the playoffs or have success as his teams best player because his team was poor.

Meanwhile, Lidstrom didn't stand out as much as he should have on his stacked team and we also reduce all his accomplishments because of the stronger depth his teams had. Oh, and as always his competition wasn't as good for his individual trophies.. even though as was shown up thread he dominated that competition.

Most of the arguments used to try and tear down Lidstrom's accomplishments are very weak and at this point quite pedantic.

And I say this as a guy who has said before that I would pick Bourque if I had a gun to my head -- but really I think they were both amazing defensemen who had different styles of play mostly because of their respective team situations and the reining in of rushing defensemen in general over the more recent years.

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2012, 02:18 AM
  #265
OrrNumber4
Registered User
 
OrrNumber4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 7,429
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
"Show me a list of what Lidstrom's competition looked like, so I can see how he wasn't as dominant as Bourque against worse players than Bourque faced."

*list posted*

"Oh, Lidstrom was far more dominant over his peers? Well, that's clearly because his peers were much worse players, and Lidstrom is still worse."

Also, Lidstrom's competition has lower totals in part because the 00-09 list only includes nine seasons.

Since there was a complaint about it being Lidstrom's prime, can we see these ranges:

1998-2008 for Lidstrom. (Lockout, remove one year)

1987-1996 for Bourque.

I think we can generally agree that those are each player's best ten-season runs.

Although really, we don't need a Norris share comparison here. In those stretches for Bourque and Lidstrom, here are lists of all defensemen with at least three appearances in the top eight or one top-three; in other words "elite" competition:

From 86-87 to 95-96:
Bourque 5x1st, 3x2nd, 3rd, 4th.
Chelios 3x1st, 2nd, 3rd, 2x6th, 7th, 11th
Coffey 1st, 2nd, 4th, 2x5th, 3x7th, 9th
Leetch 1st, 3rd, 4th, 2x5th, 2x11th

MacInnis 2x2nd, 2x3rd, 4th, 8th, 11th
Murphy 2x3rd, 2x4th, 5th, 7th, 14th

Stevens 2x2nd, 4th, 2x7th, 9th, 2x10th

Housley 3rd, 2x5th, 9th, 14th
Suter 3rd, 2x7th, 8th
Howe 2nd, 9th
Wilson 3rd, 12th
K.Hatcher 4th , 6th, 7th
Lidstrom 6th, 7th, 8th
Duchesne 2x5th, 7th

From 97-98 to 07-08:
Lidstrom 6x1st, 3x2nd, 6th
Pronger 1st, 2x3rd, 4th, 5th, 7th, 8th, 11th
Blake 1st, 2x3rd, 4th, 5th, 8th, 12th, 17th
Niedermayer 1st, 2x2nd, 5th, 10th, 12th, 13th

MacInnis 1st, 2nd, 7th, 2x8th

Bourque 2nd, 3rd, 7th, 8th

Gonchar 3x4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 9th, 15th
Chara 2x2nd, 4th, 7th, 20th
Stevens 3rd, 4th, 6th, 10th, 11th, 15th
Zubov 3rd, 2x8th, 3x9th, 13th, 2x17th
Chelios 2nd, 6th, 12th, 17th, 18th
D.Hatcher 3rd, 7th, 13th, 16th
Phaneuf 2nd, 6th, 8th

BOLD won a Norris
ITALICS were top-three multiple times
UNDERLINE were top five four or more times

I think this provides a more fair assessment of Lidstrom v. Bourque, and also provides some insight into Scott Stevens with regards to the recent Stevens vs. Pronger poll (as well as the idea that he was not getting Norris votes because he wasn't scoring).

Comparables:

Pronger vs. Chelios. Chelios actually won the Norris more. But Pronger probably deserved the 2007 Norris (in much the same way Lidstrom deserved the 1998 and very arguably the 1999 and 2009 Norrises). He certainly belonged ahead of Niedermayer. But we are going off of actual voting here, not "what should have been".
Advantage=Chelios (87-96)

Blake vs. Leetch. Not a comparision you'd normally hear. But they had pretty comparable finishes in Norris voting, and both were overwhelmingly offensive players whose defensive game was lacking compared to other top-pair defensemen.
Advantage=EVEN

Niedermayer vs. Coffey
Slick-skating offensive defenseman and Norris winner. That's the decription for both. Coffey's finishes are ever so slightly better. But Coffey had the issue of having a top season, and then comparably dropping off the map as far as the Norris was concerned. Niedermayer had a defined peak where he was one of the clear top four or five best defensemen that had to be included in Norris discussion. Coffey peaked in the early-mid 80s, o it's not represented well in this chart, but he certainly didn't have that kind of quality showing consistently during Bourque's prime. But he did, however, pot more high-level seasons with relation to his peers.
Advantage=EVEN

Gonchar vs. Murphy
Murphy obviously has the advantage for Norris finalist appearances. But Gonchar, who nabbed fourth-place three times, is ahead once you get down to top-six finishes.
Advantage=EVEN

Stevens vs. Stevens
Many people say that Stevens in the mid/late 90s and early 2000s Stevens was playing his best hockey. The Norris vote certainly does not bear that idea out; Stevens (98-04) is handily trounced by his younger self. Perhaps it is the "offensive bias" that many claim. But even so, would it be enough to make up the gap?
Advantage=Stevens (87-96)

MacInnis vs. MacInnis
In the 80s and early 90s, MacInnis was not as competent defensively but more productive offensively. He was also healthier. But overall, he was not as dominant as a player in genral, or in relation to his peers. Retiring in 2004, MacInnis played 7 seasons from 1997-98 to 2003-04; he missed 20+ games twice, and was top-eight in Norris voting five times. On top of that, the late 90s and 2000s are generally considered to be MacInnis playing his best hockey.
Advantage=MacInnis (98-04)

Chara vs. Housley
Not really a direct player-style comparison. But Chara pretty cleanly wins it on domination both of the game and of peers, despite having been a rookie in 1997-98.
Advantage=Chara

Zubov vs. Suter
Both players were solid two-way players who were pretty underrated during their careers. But I think it's pretty clear that Zubov is the winner, and handily.
Advantage=Zubov

K.Hatcher vs. D.Hatcher
***SIBLING RIVALRY***
Kevin doesn't show up as many times, but he clearly has the stronger prime in that he has more high finishes. Derian has his one-off finalist spot, but those who watched the games would tell you that Zubov was easily the Stars' best defenseman. Aide from that single year, Derian is looking pretty weak while Kevin has a solid career to fall back on.
Advantage:Kevin Hatcher

Bourque (98-01) vs. Lidstrom (92-96)
Bourque was a Norris finalist twice in four seasons at the end of his career, and top eight all four years. Lidstrom was top-eight three seasons of five, but never made the top-five.
Advantage=Bourque

Phaneuf vs. Wilson
Phaneuf was second in Norris voting in his third season (the last of Lidstrom's sample), after finishing 8th and 6th the previous two years. Doug Wilson played seven seasons during Bourque's sample, but only three saw him suit up for 52+ games; he finished 2nd to Bourque once, and 12th once.
Advantage=Phaneuf

So for these comparisons, the advantage falls to the latter group of defensemen. Obviously, Mark Howe and Steve Duchesne have not yet been included. The next two mot logical defensemen to include based on Norris finishes would be Eric Desjardins and Wade Redden.

Howe beats Desjardins as a comparable by actually having ever been a realistic Norris contender, but Redden win against Duchesne due to more consistent placement in the Norris voting (5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16)

So Lidstrom's competition was at worst comparable to Bourque's. And Lidstrom dominated it to a greater degree.
Pointless, narrow, selective, inane babble.

OrrNumber4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2012, 02:29 AM
  #266
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,068
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by superroyain10 View Post
Pointless, narrow, selective, inane babble.
I have to agree.
I'm still trying to figure out how a prime Pronger, Niedermayer and Blake belong in the same conversation as a prime Coffey, Chelios and Leetch or how he believes that post 35 MacInnis and Stevens were better than pre 35 MacInnis and Stevens?
I mean granted, Mac was a better all around D-man in his later years but he wasn't a better D-man or a better player in general.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2012, 02:53 AM
  #267
Wrath
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,121
vCash: 500
After seeing Blake get crapped on in the (now closed) Norris pilfering thread I was surprised to see him put Leetch (this is early-mid 90s Leetch we're talking about...) and Blake on the same level. Two norrises to one, better end-year all-star team selections, and a dominant playoff run capped off with a cup and a smythe.

Wrath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2012, 04:08 AM
  #268
jkrx
Registered User
 
jkrx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,212
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I wonder if memories of the 2002 playoffs are clouding the memories of the 2001-02 regular season. I remember Lidstrom being Detroit's undisputed #1 in all facets in 2002, but that seems to have only been the case in the playoffs.
No, most knowledgeable Red Wings fans remember that Chelios took a good part of defensive load in 2002. Why its not coming out is because Rhiessan and company takes a really aggressive stance towards a player they claim to like.

jkrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2012, 07:16 AM
  #269
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 32,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
Kind of like it boggles my mind how Bourque gets double credit for his team being relatively weaker in every one of these arguments.

...

Usually it goes like this:

Bourque's team was soooo much better with him on the ice compared to when he was off AND we excuse that he didn't do as well in the playoffs or have success as his teams best player because his team was poor.
I'm not sure it's so much that Bourque gets double credit as that those arguments are each a different sub-heading under the banner of "reasons why we shouldn't judge Bourque based on team results".

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2012, 08:28 AM
  #270
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,802
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
I'm not sure it's so much that Bourque gets double credit as that those arguments are each a different sub-heading under the banner of "reasons why we shouldn't judge Bourque based on team results".
Which is all well and good except those same people that argue Bourque shouldn't be judged on that basis tend to turn around and try to make arguments to belittle Lidstrom's achievements on the basis that his team was generally pretty strong, or strangely that he didn't stand out as much from his stronger team - as I said.

Although I'd argue in Lidstrom's last Cup win the Wings were nothing like they were in 2002 for instance. I also think it is going to be interesting to see how the Wings are now that the common factor (Lidstrom) in all their team success has retired.

In any case all of this has been beaten to a pulp several threads ago.

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2012, 08:35 AM
  #271
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 3,204
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
And in my mind it's pretty clear, Lidstrom played more minutes overall, and in all situations, regardless if they are ES or on the PP.
By minutes, you mean that Lidstrom played 2 seconds more per game at ES and 11 seconds more per game at PK, with Chelios playing 15 more minutes overall at ES, right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jkrx View Post
No, most knowledgeable Red Wings fans remember that Chelios took a good part of defensive load in 2002. Why its not coming out is because Rhiessan and company takes a really aggressive stance towards a player they claim to like.
I'm getting pretty sick of Rhiessan and I being accused of bias. First of all, Rhiessan agrees that Lidstrom was the best defenseman that year. He's only trying to clear up just how much better, so as to weigh Lidstrom's competition to Bourque's. So it looks like he and I are in agreement (we're not) because we're both trying to show how Chris Chelios was used that season - something that Hardyvan has been colorfully portraying as inferior to Lidstrom's ES and PK time, when it is absolutely negligible.

Secondly, I've been biting my tongue for a while now about how all of the "aggressive stances" you talk about have to do with recent Detroit Red Wings players (Lidstrom, Yzerman, Fedorov, Osgood, Hasek). I've seen threads where people try to strip away a unanimous Hart Trophy from Mark Messier just to prop up Steve Yzerman (not to mention the recent Rob Blake fiasco, where he almost doubled-up on 1st Place votes), but somehow I'm the "aggressive" one for believing Chris Chelios was better than Nicklas Lidstrom in 2001-02, something that 45-53% of the voters believed as well?

If you want to advocate for Steve Yzerman as a Top-20 player or Chris Osgood as a HOFer, I'll be the first one in line, supporting the cause. When you enter my house, you have to literally pass under an Al the Octopus dangling from my ceiling. So may I ask again: Stop accusing us of bias, please? I hate Ed Belfour, not Nicklas Lidstrom.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2012, 09:10 AM
  #272
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 32,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
Which is all well and good except those same people that argue Bourque shouldn't be judged on that basis tend to turn around and try to make arguments to belittle Lidstrom's achievements on the basis that his team was generally pretty strong, or strangely that he didn't stand out as much from his stronger team - as I said.
Those arguments aren't occurring in a vacuum.

Typically it goes something like...

Premise: Lidstrom has a playoff advantage over Bourque.
Response: Bourque generally performed as well as Lidstrom, but had fewer opportunities due to team weakness.

Premise: Lidstrom was the most important player on a pseudo-dynasty.
Response: That may be true over a 15-year window, but in any given season he was usually surrounded by the strongest roster in the league. Bourque was THE key player when his teams had comparable levels of success.

Premise: Lidstrom has a greater legacy due to his trophy case, end of story.
Response: He had a starring role on a better team, but that doesn't make him a better individual player.

^ This isn't triple-counting in Bourque's favor. Each response addresses a specific argument that has been advanced (over and over) in Lidstrom's favor. It all falls under a general umbrella argument, which is that Bourque's personal achievements under his own individual circumstances are just slightly more impressive than Lidstrom's.

Quote:
Although I'd argue in Lidstrom's last Cup win the Wings were nothing like they were in 2002 for instance.
I agree with this and previous comments that the 2008 Cup went a long way to solidify Lidstrom's individual reputation, which is ironic since he didn't win the Smythe that time around. Generally his post-lockout career (minus the final season or two) elevated him from being in the 10-15 range to the clear-cut top 5, which is a huge jump for a player of that age. I think the irritation and resistance you're seeing is related to the fact that as of the lockout, he was definitely not regarded as even being in the conversation as a top-3 all time defenseman based on his peak ability. So having him make this purported leap from the 10-15 range to the 2-3 range based on late-career heroics is a bit fishy. It reminds me a whole lot of seeing Niedermayer on top-10 lists a few years ago.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2012, 09:17 AM
  #273
Hawkman
Moderator
 
Hawkman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,251
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Joker View Post
I think that after Orr, there's a list of 4 or 5 defensemen that make up the First "After-Orr" Tier. Lidstrom is in that tier, along with Harvey, Bourque, Shore, and maybe Potvin.

I think that pretty reasonable arguments can be made for any conceivable ordering of them, although after reading through recent threads on this board, I'm:

1. Convinced that Bourque should be ahead of Lidstrom.

2. Inclined to think that Potvin is probably 6th, solidly ahead of the next tier but at the bottom of this first tier.

So the highest I'd put Lidstrom is 3rd, and the lowest I'd put him is 5th.

On an all-time list involving players of all positions, Lidstrom would be in my Top 20.
This was the 3rd post in this topic and says it all for me, except I would put Lidstrom & Potvin in the top 11.

Hawkman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2012, 09:20 AM
  #274
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 3,204
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by God Made Me View Post
This was the 3rd post in this topic and says it all for me
To me, it looked like one of those logic puzzles from the LSAT.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2012, 10:38 AM
  #275
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by superroyain10 View Post
Pointless, narrow, selective, inane babble.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
I have to agree.
I'm still trying to figure out how a prime Pronger, Niedermayer and Blake belong in the same conversation as a prime Coffey, Chelios and Leetch or how he believes that post 35 MacInnis and Stevens were better than pre 35 MacInnis and Stevens?
I mean granted, Mac was a better all around D-man in his later years but he wasn't a better D-man or a better player in general.
If you would bother reading, I ranked young Stevens over old, despite the general argument being the reverse "old Stevens better than young, but he got screwed on All-Star and Norris votes."

And it's not Prime Coffey; Prime Coffey is early to mid 80s. He was past his prime, and had one good season where voters assume based on offense and reputation that he was the best defenseman on his team, but a lot of Wings fans didn't/don't necessarily consider him to even have been the best on his pairing (with Lidstrom). I feel Coffey was better than Lidtrom that year, but Lidstrom definitely deserved more credit than he received. That's the case with 95-96, when Coffey beat Lidstrom in voting, but Lidstrom realistically belonged on the second team (and Konstantinov on the first team). IMHO, it should have been 1-4-7 instead of 4-5-6 that year.

As for "old" MacInnis, he posted 4/5 top-ten Norris finishes in seasons missing fewer than 20 games, plus a top-ten finish missing more than 20 games. Only in his last two seasons (once missing 23 games) did "old" Mac fail to make the top ten. That's 5/7, which is a better rate than "young" Mac's 60% for top-ten finishes and 70% for top-eleven finishes. So he had a Norris, a 2nd place finish, and more top-ten finishes compared to years played. He was 6th in points by a defenseman, compared to 3rd in 87-96, but that's more than made up by his defensive game.

Stevens' obviously had a much bigger improvement in defensive play, but also a much bigger drop in offensive play. And it's certainly possible if affected his Norris voting. But I don't think it's realistic to argue that it affected it enough to suggest he would have had equal or better results than "young" Stevens; "old" Stevens received tons of praise and press as a great defenseman. He was certainly not underrated by any significant margin in the press.

pdd 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 10:43 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.