HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
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
12-02-2012, 10:45 PM
  #451
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,335
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
I'm re-watching the 1996 WCF. Interesting note: Mike Emrick and John Davidson keep making it a point to mention that Scotty Bowman was matching Paul Coffey specifically against Joe Sakic, because he was the only one who could keep up with Sakic. Every time Sakic comes out on a line change, one of the Red Wings defenseman skates to the bench for Coffey to come out as well.
Impossible, as we all know around here, Coffey was a complete trainwreck and defensive liability.

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2012, 10:46 PM
  #452
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
While his body was pretty broken down by the onset of the DPE, I think he was affected more by that McCarty hit that knocked him out with a concussion in '97 than any other single event along the way. Also keep in mind that after his last healthy season ('95/96), he played for something like 5 different teams over the next 6 seasons (onset of the DPE), and they weren't always strong teams like he enjoyed in Edmonton, Pittsburgh, Detroit, and even L.A., I suppose.
Carolina wasn't strong, but that didn't top Sean Hill from putting up better offensive numbers and getting Norris votes.

Philadelphia went to the Finals.

2000-01 is the only season in Coffey's career that neither he nor a teammate received Norris votes. 1998-99 is the only season where he did not receive Norris votes and no end-of-season teammate did, but that is due to Chicago selling off both Coffey and Chelios (who did receive votes).

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2012, 11:05 PM
  #453
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,880
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
Sorry, the 90% number I was thinking of was North Americans.
Actually, you tried to say 95%
The number of NA players in the NHL in 1991 was 90.6%
In 2012 that number was only down to 77.5%

Not really down that much considering the addition of 9 more teams or a 43% increase.

Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2012, 11:12 PM
  #454
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 21,421
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
Carolina wasn't strong, but that didn't top Sean Hill from putting up better offensive numbers and getting Norris votes.
Slightly better numbers, and Coffey was 38.

Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
Philadelphia went to the Finals.
And Coffey was still decently productive that year... when he played.

Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
2000-01 is the only season in Coffey's career that neither he nor a teammate received Norris votes. 1998-99 is the only season where he did not receive Norris votes and no end-of-season teammate did, but that is due to Chicago selling off both Coffey and Chelios (who did receive votes).
Good trivia.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2012, 11:13 PM
  #455
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,801
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
Carolina wasn't strong, but that didn't top Sean Hill from putting up better offensive numbers and getting Norris votes.

Philadelphia went to the Finals.

2000-01 is the only season in Coffey's career that neither he nor a teammate received Norris votes. 1998-99 is the only season where he did not receive Norris votes and no end-of-season teammate did, but that is due to Chicago selling off both Coffey and Chelios (who did receive votes).
Sean Hill received 1 vote for the Norris in his entire career - a 4th place vote in 1999-00. He received 2 votes for "third team" all star that same year - the only 2 votes for the Postseason All Star teams he ever received

I'm not sure what this has to do with Lidstrom though.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2012, 08:44 AM
  #456
danincanada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,018
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
Well, the thing is... Coffey DID handily outscore Lidstrom during their shared time in the league. The gap is 11%, not a small margin, and that includes a lot of garbage time at the end of Coffey's career. Do I hold that against Lidstrom? No.

Here's what happens when you refuse to exclude outliers:

- Steve Yzerman only scored at 63% of the leading pace during his career. That is a little less than Eric Staal. Staal > Yzerman.

- Brad Park scored at only 53% of the pace of the dman leader during his career. That's a little less than Jaro Spacek. Spacek > Park.

And so forth.

I would hope that you look at those conclusions and immediately recognize that the problem is that we are judging the field of competition against an outlying standard. The same thing happens to any defenseman (other than Orr) when compared to Coffey. We're talking about a guy who wrecked the curve, so why would we use him to set the curve? The common sense thing is to exclude Coffey from the curve, and weight both charts according to the guys we're actually trying to measure.

Or, to put it more succinctly, a prime Coffey would have utterly dominated Lidstrom in PPG too, so there's nothing to be gained by including him.
Those stricly statistical comparisons for offense only will be what they will be. No one should take them too seriously but you should include the "outlier" or top guy no matter what. Why ignore that player when they did exist and thrived due to the style of play and league makeup at the time? Coffey wouldn't have been as impressive statistically had he played in a more defensive league in his prime and the same applies to Bourque. Subtracting Coffey from it because he dominates those stats too much just suites your agenda.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
This comment simply reveals that you didn't read my observations. I specifically noted this fact, and pointed out that the strange thing isn't the presence of Europeans but the absence of North Americans as elite scorers. That is also telling, and you know why.
You are missing the point. On Bourque's list there are no Russians because they weren't in the NHL for the first half of his career, as you know. Where would Fetisov and other Russians be on that list if the 80's' NHL was like today and they could freely come over? Afterall, Russia was the other hockey power back then and gave Canada fits in best on best tournaments. We'll never know but you skipped that altogether with your pro-Bourque painted brush.

I realize what you're trying to say with regards to a lack of Canadians in Lidstrom's list. Since a Swede and 3 dmen from the former Soviet Union lead the way offensively it must mean Canada wasn't producing elite offensive defenseman. While this is probably partially true you also must note that the offensive guys like Coffey and Housley fell off a cliff offensively once the DPE reared it's face in '96-97. To say it was only due to their age is ignoring the affect the DPE had on offensive minded defenseman. There were still Canadian dmen with great offensive skills but it was harder to put up the numbers that appeared in the past. Say what you want about Niedermayer but if he played in the 80's his career would look far more impressive because of the run and gun play and weak goaltending. He had the skating ability, offensive instincts and offensive skills to put up big numbers in the 80's.

Again, the fact that there are 3 former Soviet players in Lidstrom's list and none in Bourque's list says a lot for both lists. They are notably missing from Bourque's list because these are NHL only lists of course and the league was a lesser league without players from that hockey power.


Last edited by danincanada: 12-03-2012 at 08:49 AM.
danincanada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2012, 08:57 AM
  #457
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Actually, you tried to say 95%
The number of NA players in the NHL in 1991 was 90.6%
In 2012 that number was only down to 77.5%

Not really down that much considering the addition of 9 more teams or a 43% increase.
No, but this discussion does beg the question:

Did Canada/North America go a generation without producing elite defense talent, or was European talent just that much better?

Konstantinov, Ozolinsh, Blake, Lidstrom, Pronger, Niedermayer all broke through to the AS teams by 1997-98. Desjardins, Gonchar, D.Hatcher would all make appearances before the last of the previous generation (Al MacInnis) had left the top tier. That group is more than half North American. If we go one season further, we can add Chara and McCabe. One more gets us Zubov, finally making an appearance. Next added? Dan Boyle. Lubomir Visnovsky would be the last defenseman added from Nick's generation during his career. If we boil this down to "who would have been the All-Stars if you take just Lidstrom and the top three/four NA", we can add Redden.

Konstantinov, Hatcher, were primarily defensive defensemen. Pronger, Chara, Zubov, Desjardins and Redden were high-level two-way defensemen. Gonchar, Ozolinsh, Blake, McCabe, and Visnovsky were/are offensive defensemen. So Bourque's main competition, who he lost three Norrises each to, was Paul Coffey and Chris Chelios. Coffey was an offensive defenseman with a very specific set of defensive abilities. Chelios was a much more well rounded defenseman, but didn't have the high-end offense. After that there's Scott Stevens, who spent much of his career as sort of a higher-end Phaneuf-style player with good scoring and spotty defense before tightening up defensively and losing most of his offense. Al MacInnis was primarily offensive in those days, also before tightening down defensively. There's Larry Murphy and Phil Housley, again offensive. Mark Howe might be the only high-level defenseman Bourque played against in his prime other than Chelios who actually played a two-way game.

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2012, 09:01 AM
  #458
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Sean Hill received 1 vote for the Norris in his entire career - a 4th place vote in 1999-00. He received 2 votes for "third team" all star that same year - the only 2 votes for the Postseason All Star teams he ever received

I'm not sure what this has to do with Lidstrom though.
It was from the "justify what world Coffey might score less than Lidstrom -> Coffey and Lidstrom in the DPE -> Coffey washed up and/or weak teams -> Not so and here's why!"

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2012, 09:04 AM
  #459
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,880
vCash: 500
Can someone explain to me how Housley still being 7th in D-man scoring from 96/97-02/03 (age 32-39), being about equal to Gonchar, is considered "falling off the map"?

Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2012, 09:16 AM
  #460
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,880
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
It was from the "justify what world Coffey might score less than Lidstrom -> Coffey and Lidstrom in the DPE -> Coffey washed up and/or weak teams -> Not so and here's why!"
Unfortunately, the Coffey that was being discussed was the PRIME Coffey that Bourque competed with. Not the washed up post age 35 Coffey that only averaged about 49 games a season.

And I'm sorry but Lidstrom at any time in his career, at any time in NHL history would be capable of outscoring a PRIME Coffey or even coming remotely close to doing so.

I mean seriously, in just the 231 games Coffey played with the Wings, he outscored Lidstrom 239 to 190 and Lidstrom played 61 more games.
Coffey - 1.03 PpG
Lidstrom - 0.65 PpG


Yeah...outscoring Lidstrom by almost 60% certainly qualifies as "It's not even remotely close"!

Honestly, every post you waste arguing this drops your credibility another notch.


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 12-03-2012 at 09:26 AM.
Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2012, 09:25 AM
  #461
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 31,497
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by danincanada View Post
Those stricly statistical comparisons for offense only will be what they will be. No one should take them too seriously but you should include the "outlier" or top guy no matter what. Why ignore that player when they did exist and thrived due to the style of play and league makeup at the time? Coffey wouldn't have been as impressive statistically had he played in a more defensive league in his prime and the same applies to Bourque. Subtracting Coffey from it because he dominates those stats too much just suites your agenda.

Go back and look at the chart. Coffey is right there.


Quote:
You are missing the point. On Bourque's list there are no Russians because they weren't in the NHL for the first half of his career, as you know. Where would Fetisov and other Russians be on that list if the 80's' NHL was like today and they could freely come over? Afterall, Russia was the other hockey power back then and gave Canada fits in best on best tournaments. We'll never know but you skipped that altogether with your pro-Bourque painted brush.
I thought it was obvious enough when I said "I find the nationalities in Lidstrom's list interesting" that I didn't need to spell out exactly who those nationalities were. I jumped past that to what I considered a relatively less beaten-to-death point about the lack of a Canadian representative at the top.


Quote:
I realize what you're trying to say with regards to a lack of Canadians in Lidstrom's list.
I'm not sure that the message is getting through, seeing as it isn't really being discussed.

From 1980-01, we had an offensive-defenseman landscape dominated by Coffey, Bourque, MacInnis and Housley. From 1992-12 the best Canadian offensive defenseman is Blake, a clear and large step down from all of the previous group.

Now, you can certainly make an argument that prime Housley wouldn't exist in the DPE. That still leaves Bourque, MacInnis and Coffey who would absolutely have been elite offensive players in any era. Bourque and MacInnis can point to their real-life track records from their twilight years. Prime-aged Coffey, even if he couldn't rush the puck as much, is simply too dominant at a historic level that you can brush him off as an 80s phenomenon. Also, the timing of the list is a little awkward but you can throw in Leetch as another North American who played a DPE-friendly offensive game at a much higher level than Blake.

Now, we know that it wasn't impossible for defensemen to play an offensively-inclined game during Lidstrom's era, because we have three Russians who did it. We know that Blake/Niedermayer are not on a level with Coffey/Bourque/MacInnis/Leetch as offensive engines, at least I would certainly hope that anybody who followed hockey before about 2002 would agree with that.

So the question lingers, and it is a legitimate and very relevant thing to ask -- why didn't Canada produce a top-tier offensive defenseman during Lidstrom's generation? And as a next step, what does that mean for our perception of Lidstrom and Zubov as the co-offensive leaders of that generation?

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2012, 09:54 AM
  #462
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 31,497
vCash: 500
And just to be clear about Blake's place in the pecking order, before we go off into crazy-tangent-land with him too...

Below is a list of top dman PPG from the time that Blake and Bourque shared in the league. Before you look at the results, consider the timing of these numbers. We are viewing 4 of Blake's top 5 seasons while excluding 4 of his worst 6... meanwhile we are viewing only 2 of Bourque's top 7 seasons while including all of his bottom 5 seasons.

In other words, if someone ran this "shared time" list to try and prove something about Blake's offensive prowess, we would reject it out-of-hand as a bunch of slanted, biased, cherry-picked pro-Blake rubbish.

Just keep that point in mind when you see the results.

Leetch - 782GP, 719 points, 0.92 PPG
Bourque - 818GP, 739 points, 0.90 PPG
MacInnis - 734GP, 653 points, 0.89 PPG
Coffey - 676GP, 579 points, 0.86PPG
[9 more players]
Blake - 671GP, 439 points, 0.65 PPG


Let's go for broke and only look at 1997-2001... when scoring dropped, Blake won his Norris and Bourque was in his "win one for Ray" old man phase.

Bourque - 0.69
Blake - 0.66

Why not throw 2002 into the pile, just to make it work for Blake as much as possible by measuring only his peak years against only Bourque's worst years.

Bourque - 0.69
Blake - 0.68


Hopefully that makes it clear enough that having Blake as the top Canadian offensive producer of a generation is a definite, indisputable step down from Bourque. And that should be acknowledged in all this talk about talent pipelines.


Last edited by tarheelhockey: 12-03-2012 at 10:03 AM.
tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2012, 10:07 AM
  #463
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
So the question lingers, and it is a legitimate and very relevant thing to ask -- why didn't Canada produce a top-tier offensive defenseman during Lidstrom's generation? And as a next step, what does that mean for our perception of Lidstrom and Zubov as the co-offensive leaders of that generation?
Well, if you were to adjust for league scoring, Bourque's numbers come out a little bit better overall. Enough to account for Lidstrom's defensive advantage? I don't think so.

Of course, we all know that Karlsson will make this discussion moot anyway.

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2012, 10:27 AM
  #464
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,578
vCash: 500
This debate is really going nowhere.

You're stuck to your preconceived notions that Bourque was several rungs better and that Lidstrom faced far worse competition. I'm convinced that Lidstrom was better.

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2012, 10:33 AM
  #465
danincanada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,018
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
Go back and look at the chart. Coffey is right there.
Sure, he's there and then in your analysis you state that we should exclude him because he's too far ahead of Bourque. Then you state that Bourque is in "his own tier" even though he's actually second and MacInnis and Housley should be in that tier after Coffey with him. Like I said, it suites your agenda to simply push Coffey aside and pretend Bourque is at the top.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
- Ok, the meat and potatoes of what this analysis is all about. Excluding Coffey as an all-time outlier, we can clearly see that Bourque was in his own tier of offensive production. In fact, so are the next two guys in MacInnis and Housley, each a clear step down from the other. When we get down to the Howe/Suter/Murphy cluster, we dip below 80% of Bourque's productivity. Chelios is not too far behind those guys, but then it's a large step down to the next level and it's fair to say Babych and Stevens were not considered offensively elite most of the time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
I thought it was obvious enough when I said "I find the nationalities in Lidstrom's list interesting" that I didn't need to spell out exactly who those nationalities were. I jumped past that to what I considered a relatively less beaten-to-death point about the lack of a Canadian representative at the top.
Once again, you focus on this but not that lack of Soviets in Bourque's list. You don't seem to even want to mention or consider it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
I'm not sure that the message is getting through, seeing as it isn't really being discussed.

From 1980-01, we had an offensive-defenseman landscape dominated by Coffey, Bourque, MacInnis and Housley. From 1992-12 the best Canadian offensive defenseman is Blake, a clear and large step down from all of the previous group.

Now, you can certainly make an argument that prime Housley wouldn't exist in the DPE. That still leaves Bourque, MacInnis and Coffey who would absolutely have been elite offensive players in any era. Bourque and MacInnis can point to their real-life track records from their twilight years. Prime-aged Coffey, even if he couldn't rush the puck as much, is simply too dominant at a historic level that you can brush him off as an 80s phenomenon. Also, the timing of the list is a little awkward but you can throw in Leetch as another North American who played a DPE-friendly offensive game at a much higher level than Blake.

Now, we know that it wasn't impossible for defensemen to play an offensively-inclined game during Lidstrom's era, because we have three Russians who did it. We know that Blake/Niedermayer are not on a level with Coffey/Bourque/MacInnis/Leetch as offensive engines, at least I would certainly hope that anybody who followed hockey before about 2002 would agree with that.

So the question lingers, and it is a legitimate and very relevant thing to ask -- why didn't Canada produce a top-tier offensive defenseman during Lidstrom's generation? And as a next step, what does that mean for our perception of Lidstrom and Zubov as the co-offensive leaders of that generation?
Actually, we don't know how Niedermayer would do if he entered the NHL when it was a more offensive league on a more run and gun style team. He certainly had the skills to do more and if he had started his career 10 or 15 years earlier he would probably be seen much differently. I hated his guts as a player but at his best he would be a dominant player in any era.

Zubov is the same player who lead the '93-94 Rangers team in scoring, including outscoring an offensive prime Leetch. I don't think it's so hard to believe that he would be near the top of any era of offensive defenseman. He had a great skill set and there's no shame in him being up there with Lidstrom in a pure offensive comparison.

danincanada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2012, 10:33 AM
  #466
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 31,497
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
This debate is really going nowhere.

You're stuck to your preconceived notions that Bourque was several rungs better and that Lidstrom faced far worse competition. I'm convinced that Lidstrom was better.
Fair enough.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2012, 10:59 AM
  #467
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 31,497
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by danincanada View Post
Sure, he's there and then in your analysis you state that we should exclude him because he's too far ahead of Bourque. Then you state that Bourque is in "his own tier" even though he's actually second and MacInnis and Housley should be in that tier after Coffey with him. Like I said, it suites your agenda to simply push Coffey aside and pretend Bourque is at the top.
Ok, but you keep saying I ignored Coffey or pushed him aside. I didn't do that; he's on the list, and acknowledged in the commentary.

Frankly, I took it for granted that a knowledgeable group of forumers would know better than to peg a whole generation of defensemen to Coffey as the basis for a percentage analysis. That's nonsense, for reasons detailed above. Doesn't mean I'm ignoring him; I'm putting him in his rightful spot as arguably THE offensive outlier among all defensemen in history, along with Orr.

Aside from that, I don't see how MacInnis and Housley are in Bourque's tier any more than Gonchar and Ozolinsh are on Lidstrom's tier. I mean, if the numbers don't make that completely clear then I'm not sure what else I can do to illustrate it.


Quote:
Once again, you focus on this but not that lack of Soviets in Bourque's list. You don't seem to even want to mention or consider it.
What else is there to say about it that hasn't been said already? Yes, Soviets entered the league and played well during the 1990s. Again, read the chart. It's right there in black and white, confirming what we already knew about the Soviet influence from a hundred conversations here.


Quote:
Actually, we don't know how Niedermayer would do if he entered the NHL when it was a more offensive league on a more run and gun style team. He certainly had the skills to do more and if he had started his career 10 or 15 years earlier he would probably be seen much differently. I hated his guts as a player but at his best he would be a dominant player in any era.
Perhaps, he certainly had the raw talent, but his career numbers and the eye test certainly don't indicate that he elevated his game to anywhere near the level of Bourque or Lidstrom. Even in 2006, with scoring at pre-DPE levels and Nieds in his golden prime, he was tied for 8th in dman scoring with Gonchar and Redden. And he wasn't that old, only 32. Three of the guys ahead of him, including Lidstrom and Zubov, were older.

It's hard for me to see Niedermayer as having a much greater career in another era, for the simple reason that he didn't really perform THAT well under the circumstances he was given outside of a couple of big seasons.

Quote:
Zubov is the same player who lead the '93-94 Rangers team in scoring, including outscoring an offensive prime Leetch. I don't think it's so hard to believe that he would be near the top of any era of offensive defenseman. He had a great skill set and there's no shame in him being up there with Lidstrom in a pure offensive comparison.
I agree. There's nothing wrong with Zubov or being on his level. But it's a step down from Bourque, as we can once again easily see by their production while in the league together.

Bourque - 0.85
Zubov - 0.76

And that is slanted against Bourque for the same reasons as the Blake comparison. Compare them age-by-age and they're really not close.

One way we could frame this whole offensive thing is: if Lidstrom were on Bourque's level or even all that close, wouldn't he have blown away Zubov by numbers comparable to what we see above?

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2012, 11:52 AM
  #468
danincanada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,018
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
What else is there to say about it that hasn't been said already? Yes, Soviets entered the league and played well during the 1990s. Again, read the chart. It's right there in black and white, confirming what we already knew about the Soviet influence from a hundred conversations here.
You didn't even acknowledge this in your analysis. You avoided it altogether and proclaimed that Bourque set himself apart from his peers offensively more than Lidstrom without a mention of Fetisov and other Russians potentially being in the conversation on Bourque's list. It's just an NHL list when the other hockey power wasn't even involved. It didn't suite your argument so you left that factor out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
One way we could frame this whole offensive thing is: if Lidstrom were on Bourque's level or even all that close, wouldn't he have blown away Zubov by numbers comparable to what we see above?
Lidstrom was essentially a stay at home defenseman with great offensive skills so of course Bourque is seen as better offensively. It doesn't matter to me because Lidstrom's defense and clutch shut down performances in the playoffs trumps the offensive edge Bourque has. He's got intangibles that can't be seen in purely offense statistical comparisons.

There was a clutch factor he displayed in all 4 cup runs that Bourque falls short in. I don't know about you, but the playoffs should carry much more weight than regular season play. The Red Wings had lots of great regular seasons but it meant nothing and I was always disappointed when they failed to win the Cup. I'm sure most players and people in the game feel that same way.

You're a Bourque fan and I'm a Red Wings fan so our views aren't going to change about these two players. Lidstrom's legacy is greater and I think he will go down in history as the better player and I'm certainly not alone in that regard.

danincanada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2012, 12:00 PM
  #469
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,880
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by danincanada View Post
Lidstrom was essentially a stay at home defenseman with great offensive skills

Lidstrom was essentially a standout stay at home defenseman that could QB a PP pretty well.


*Fixed*

Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2012, 12:27 PM
  #470
danincanada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,018
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Lidstrom was essentially a standout stay at home defenseman that could QB a PP pretty well.


*Fixed*
You can phrase it however you want, and I woudn't expect anything less than downplaying Lidstrom from you.

Any way you look at it, 1,325 NHL points by a defenseman who is arguably the greatest shut down player ever, who played in a low scoring and fully integrated era is extremely impressive and far exceeds "pretty well" by any definition.

Bowman doesn't share your thoughts on him being a powerplay specialist either:

Quote:
He was uncanny in how he was able to play the point, at even strength or on the power play. He knew always when to keep the puck in, when to come up against the boards and keep it in. One of the first things I always look for in a defenseman is how they are able to play at the offensive point. Drew Doughty has caught my eye in that way now, and the kid in Ottawa, Karlsson, is so adept at creating chances at the point. Lidstrom, Bourque they created so many chances from the point. But he took care of the puck so well too. He made so few mistakes. Its going to be strange to watch Detroit without him.
http://blogs.denverpost.com/avs/2012...73870849609375

danincanada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2012, 12:29 PM
  #471
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 31,497
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by danincanada View Post
You didn't even acknowledge this in your analysis. You avoided it altogether and proclaimed that Bourque set himself apart from his peers offensively more than Lidstrom without a mention of Fetisov and other Russians potentially being in the conversation on Bourque's list. It's just an NHL list when the other hockey power wasn't even involved. It didn't suite your argument so you left that factor out.
Jesus Christ, what are you looking for here? What did you think I meant by, "I find the national makeup of Lidstrom's list very interesting."? Did you think I wrote that sentence not expecting the reader to understand that there were 4 Europeans headlining the list before the first Canadian appeared, and that that is the interesting thing I was referring to? Do I need to go back and write a new sentence, "Note that there are 4 Europeans at the top of the list, because there were a lot of Europeans in the league after 1991!" to resolve this issue? I'm sorry, but after several long threads on this exact topic, I kind of assume the audience will notice things like Sergei Zubov not being a Canadian, rather than needing it analyzed for them.

Fetisov is worth noting, absolutely. I'll let you handle the task of showing statistically where he relates to Bourque. Remember to note that he is Russian, not Canadian.



Quote:
Lidstrom was essentially a stay at home defenseman with great offensive skills so of course Bourque is seen as better offensively.
There's no "seen as" to it. Bourque was better offensively, period. There is no way you can twist and spin the numbers to regurgitate a different response. We tried, it didn't work.

Quote:
It doesn't matter to me because Lidstrom's defense and clutch shut down performances in the playoffs trumps the offensive edge Bourque has. He's got intangibles that can't be seen in purely offense statistical comparisons.
Yet those advantages don't play out in any kind of objectively-verifiable format. That's kind of weird.

Quote:
You're a Bourque fan and I'm a Red Wings fan so our views aren't going to change about these two players.
Perhaps that's your perspective on how to rank players historically, but it's not mine.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2012, 12:33 PM
  #472
thom
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,951
vCash: 500
That's what impresses me about Lidstrom he rarely makes a mistake.And when the game is on the line he makes the correct read in defending a play ot he makes a great pass under pressure.But the most impressive is his mental capacity meaning his hockey smarts very few players have ever had that

thom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2012, 12:39 PM
  #473
OrrNumber4
Registered User
 
OrrNumber4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 7,358
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
What stats are those?

For scoring stats are much more clear in the form of goals and assists.

For defensive stats R-on, R-off is an indicator but is less definitive than scoring stats are.
Overpass did a study on this.

It isn't perfect, as it doesn't really factor in the team/style (for example, Niedermayer looks so good defensively because he played for the Devils), but it is fairly telling.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
There are some guys doing advanced statistics that measure defense as well but as far as I know they only work back to the early 00's as they do not have all of the data to do a proper evaluation of earlier seasons.
All the way back to 1968.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
At the end of the day we have 3 very important things to consider when comparing Ray and Nick

1) offensive production
2) defensive play
3) playoffs

Ray is clearly the better offensive player but it's important to note that he had a more offensive role and played almost his entire career when Dmen had the green light to jump up in the play as well.
Rhiesen nails you on this point.

Why do you punish Bourque for playing in a more offensive era while not similarly criticizing Lidstrom for playing in a more defensive era? Isn't it easier to prevent goals when you can obstruct anyone, when goalies have humongous pads, when no one takes risks, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Nick was more conservative but was still the dominant offensive Dman of his 20 year era.
Hardly. Unless you include players that didn't play that entire 20-year span.

Hell, it has been mentione dhow Karlsson just put together an offensive season that Lidstrom NEVER had in his entire career.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Defensive play is more subjective than can be found in stats. this is probably were most people diverge in the difference and gap, or lack of it, between the 2 guys.
So what you are saying is that everyone agrees that Bourque was clearly more dominant that Lidstrom offensively, but there is more debate over the defensive prowess?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
It's kind of ironic though that Harvey doesn't get nearly the same "he played on great teams treatment" that Nick does but that's another matter.
Of course Harvey does. It is just that people don't often compare Harvey to these players. Lidstrom vs. Bourque is the famous argument. Harvey gets compared to Kelly, Shore, etc.

OrrNumber4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2012, 12:43 PM
  #474
SirKillalot
Registered User
 
SirKillalot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Norway
Country: Norway
Posts: 4,744
vCash: 390
Funny how all of you are fighting about Points and Points pr. game when this is a defense-man ranking.

Lidstrom is only behind Orr on the ranking in my book. And that just beause Orr played in the 80's.

I haven't seen anyone with more trouble than trying to get past Lidstrom. Period.

And He's got 4 Cups to Bourque's 1.

SirKillalot is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2012, 12:44 PM
  #475
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,880
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Bourque
79/80 GP-80 P-65 ES-36 PP-27 SH-2 ES/G-0.45(55%) PP/G-0.34(42%)
80/81 GP-67 P-56 ES-31 PP-24 SH-1 ES/G-0.46(55%) PP/G-0.36(43%)
81/82 GP-65 P-66 ES-38 PP-25 SH-3 ES/G-0.58(58%) PP/G-0.38(38%)
82/83 GP-65 P-73 ES-42 PP-29 SH-2 ES/G-0.65(52%) PP/G-0.45(40%)
83/84 GP-78 P-96 ES-53 PP-39 SH-4 ES/G-0.68(55%) PP/G-0.50(41%)
84/85 GP-73 P-86 ES-47 PP-35 SH-4 ES/G-0.64(55%) PP/G-0.48(41%)
85/86 GP-74 P-77 ES-30 PP-44 SH-3 ES/G-0.41(39%) PP/G-0.59(57%)
86/87 GP-78 P-95 ES-59 PP-33 SH-3 ES/G-0.76(62%) PP/G-0.42(35%)
87/88 GP-78 P-81 ES-46 PP-34 SH-1 ES/G-0.59(57%) PP/G-0.44(42%)
88/89 GP-60 P-61 ES-34 PP-27 SH-0 ES/G-0.57(56%) PP/G-0.45(44%)
89/90 GP-76 P-84 ES-37 PP-47 SH-0 ES/G-0.49(44%) PP/G-0.62(56%)
90/91 GP-76 P-94 ES-49 PP-45 SH-0 ES/G-0.65(52%) PP/G-0.59(48%)
91/92 GP-80 P-81 ES-45 PP-35 SH-1 ES/G-0.56(56%) PP/G-0.44(43%)
92/93 GP-78 P-82 ES-36 PP-41 SH-5 ES/G-0.46(44%) PP/G-0.53(50%)
93/94 GP-72 P-91 ES-34 PP-52 SH-5 ES/G-0.47(37%) PP/G-0.72(57%)
94/95 GP-46 P-43 ES-14 PP-29 SH-0 ES/G-0.30(33%) PP/G-0.63(67%)
95/96 GP-82 P-82 ES-42 PP-38 SH-2 ES/G-0.51(51%) PP/G-0.46(46%)
96/97 GP-62 P-50 ES-33 PP-17 SH-6 ES/G-0.53(66%) PP/G-0.27(34%)
97/98 GP-82 P-48 ES-16 PP-30 SH-2 ES/G-0.20(33%) PP/G-0.37(63%)
98/99 GP-81 P-57 ES-16 PP-40 SH-1 ES/G-0.20(28%) PP/G-0.49(70%)
99/00 GP-79 P-52 ES-15 PP-37 SH-0 ES/G-0.19(29%) PP/G-0.47(71%)
00/01 GP-80 P-59 ES-24 PP-33 SH-2 ES/G-0.30(41%) PP/G-0.41(56%)
(Shared seasons in bold)

Lidstrom
91/92 GP-80 P-60 ES-28 PP-31 SH-1 ES/G-0.35(47%) PP/G-0.39(52%)
92/93 GP-84 P-41 ES-17 PP-20 SH-4 ES/G-0.20(41%) PP/G-0.24(49%)
93/94 GP-84 P-56 ES-36 PP-18 SH-2 ES/G-0.43(64%) PP/G-0.21(32%)
94/95 GP-43 P-26 ES-15 PP-11 SH-0 ES/G-0.35(58%) PP/G-0.26(42%)
95/96 GP-81 P-67 ES-29 PP-37 SH-1 ES/G-0.36(43%) PP/G-0.46(55%)
96/97 GP-79 P-57 ES-26 PP-30 SH-1 ES/G-0.33(46%) PP/G-0.38(53%)
97/98 GP-80 P-59 ES-23 PP-33 SH-3 ES/G-0.29(39%) PP/G-0.41(56%)
98/99 GP-81 P-57 ES-24 PP-29 SH-4 ES/G-0.30(42%) PP/G-0.36(51%)
99/00 GP-81 P-73 ES-37 PP-31 SH-5 ES/G-0.46(51%) PP/G-0.38(42%)
00/01 GP-82 P-71 ES-27 PP-43 SH-1 ES/G-0.33(38%) PP/G-0.52(61%)

01/02 GP-78 P-59 ES-29 PP-30 SH-0 ES/G-0.37(49%) PP/G-0.38(51%)
02/03 GP-82 P-62 ES-30 PP-30 SH-2 ES/G-0.37(48%) PP/G-0.37(48%)
03/04 GP-81 P-38 ES-14 PP-21 SH-3 ES/G-0.17(37%) PP/G-0.26(55%)
05/06 GP-80 P-80 ES-30 PP-50 SH-0 ES/G-0.38(38%) PP/G-0.63(63%)
06/07 GP-80 P-62 ES-26 PP-33 SH-3 ES/G-0.33(42%) PP/G-0.41(53%)
07/08 GP-76 P-70 ES-35 PP-34 SH-1 ES/G-0.46(50%) PP/G-0.45(49%)
08/09 GP-78 P-59 ES-25 PP-33 SH-1 ES/G-0.32(42%) PP/G-0.42(56%)
09/10 GP-82 P-49 ES-26 PP-20 SH-3 ES/G-0.32(53%) PP/G-0.24(41%)
10/11 GP-82 P-62 ES-22 PP-39 SH-1 ES/G-0.27(35%) PP/G-0.48(63%)
11/12 GP-70 P-34 ES-17 PP-17 SH-0 ES/G-0.24(50%) PP/G-0.24(50%)



Karlsson
09/10 GP-60 P-26 ES-16 PP-10 SH-0 ES/G-0.27(62%) PP/G-0.17(38%)
10/11 GP-75 P-45 ES-23 PP-21 SH-1 ES/G-0.31(51%) PP/G-0.28(47%)
11/12 GP-81 P-78 ES-50 PP-28 SH-0 ES/G-0.62(64%) PP/G-0.35(36%)


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 12-03-2012 at 10:13 PM.
Rhiessan71 is online now   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 04:08 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.