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

[OrrNumber4]

Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe

I see 6 post-expansion defensemen a clear step up from Lidstrom offensively: Orr, Coffey, Bourque, Potvin, MacInnis, and Leetch. That's it.

Among pre-expansion defensemen, Kelly was definitely better offensively. Pilote probably was. You can make a case for Shore and Gadsby.

I don't think it's out of the bounds of reason to have Lidstrom on the fringe of the top 10 offensive defensemen of all time, though he probably wouldn't make my cut.

What about king Clancy? I am sure this has been discussed before.

[Rhiessan71]

Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe

God, some posters here just can't help but give Bourque as much extra credit as they can throw at him, while simultaneously taking away from Lidstrom. Bourque's teams were weaker than Lidstrom or Potvin's. Bourque also played 89% of his team's PPs in his prime, and 87% over his career. Lidstrom played 78% of his team's PPs in his prime, and 72% over his career. That is not a small difference.

I think Bourque was definitely a better even strength producer than Lidstrom (he also took more chances). But I don't think it's clear at all that he was better on the powerplay.

Devil...you know that those PP%'s are not how much of their team's PP time they played, it's the % of their teams PP goals that they were on the ice for.

PP%: The percentage of the team’s power play goals for which the player was on the ice.

TmPP+: The strength of the player’s team on the power play. 1.00 is average, higher is better.

SH%: The percentage of the team’s power play goals against for which the player was on the ice.

TmSH+: The strength of the player’s team on the penalty kill. 1.00 is average, lower is better.

I have a feeling you may want to re-evaluate some of your points based on this correction

[OrrNumber4]

Alright, new table. This is like before, except with two new columns. One takes the sum of the points, and divides by PP strength. The other takes the sum of the ES points + the PP points/PP strength. This is supposed to be a way of compensating for team strength. So in the first calculation we are making the assumption that the strength of the PP reflects on the strength of the team.

career:

Player	Start	End	GP	EV%	R-ON	R-OFF	$ESP/S	$PPP/S	Adj. Total	Adj PP Total	PP%	TmPP+	SH%	TmSH+
Bobby Orr	1968	1979	596	49%	2.15	1.09	75	55	86	111	96%	1.52	63%	0.76
Paul Coffey	1981	2001	1409	43%	1.23	1.21	46	35	72	77	78%	1.13	28%	0.82
Ray Bourque	1980	2001	1612	42%	1.37	0.95	39	39	70	74	87%	1.11	58%	0.88
Denis Potvin	1974	1988	1060	43%	1.49	1.23	40	41	69	75	86%	1.18	53%	0.82
Brian Leetch	1988	2006	1205	45%	1.06	0.97	36	39	67	71	87%	1.12	50%	1.03
Phil Housley	1983	2003	1495	38%	1.06	0.97	35	33	67	68	84%	1.01	11%	0.95
Al MacInnis	1982	2004	1416	38%	1.41	1.12	32	42	63	68	86%	1.18	39%	0.93
Brad Park	1969	1985	1115	42%	1.4	1.2	36	32	59	64	80%	1.16	43%	0.84
Sergei Zubov	1993	2009	1068	42%	1.25	1.13	33	34	59	63	82%	1.14	33%	0.86
Larry Murphy	1981	2001	1615	39%	1.2	1.02	34	25	56	58	65%	1.05	32%	0.92
Scott Niedermayer	1992	2010	1263	39%	1.25	1.22	31	26	55	56	64%	1.04	40%	0.94
Nicklas Lidstrom	1992	2011	1494	40%	1.4	1.18	33	34	54	60	72%	1.25	52%	0.8
Borje Salming	1974	1990	1148	43%	1.14	0.82	31	22	54	53	62%	0.98	55%	1.09
Rob Blake	1990	2010	1270	37%	1.03	1.03	30	26	54	55	66%	1.04	50%	1
Chris Pronger	1994	2011	1154	39%	1.22	0.99	27	29	50	53	67%	1.12	54%	0.91
Scott Stevens	1983	2004	1635	42%	1.31	1.19	31	14	48	46	40%	0.94	56%	0.88
Larry Robinson	1973	1992	1384	43%	1.6	1.34	35	19	47	52	49%	1.14	45%	0.85
Chris Chelios	1984	2010	1651	39%	1.27	1.18	27	20	46	47	52%	1.02	57%	0.85
Guy Lapointe	1969	1984	884	42%	1.41	1.66	31	28	46	53	64%	1.29	52%	0.76
J.C. Tremblay	1968	1972	358	45%	1.37	1.33	32	22	41	49	69%	1.31	64%	0.85
Zdeno Chara	1998	2011	928	40%	1.16	1.04	24	17	39	40	42%	1.05	52%	0.95
Jacques Laperriere	1968	1973	435	47%	1.53	1.31	26	9	29	33	35%	1.22	73%	0.84
Serge Savard	1968	1983	1038	43%	1.44	1.52	25	9	26	32	24%	1.32	58%	0.82
Rod Langway	1979	1993	994	35%	1.29	1.2	20	3	23	23	10%	1.02	53%	0.83

Prime:

Player	Start	End	GP	EV%	R-ON	R-OFF	$ESP/S	$PPP/S	Adj. Total	Adj PP Total	PP%	TmPP+	SH%	TmSH+
Bobby Orr	1969	1975	514	50%	2.21	1.1	80	56	86	115	96%	1.59	67%	0.74
Paul Coffey	1982	1987	458	45%	1.47	1.39	60	38	82	92	83%	1.19	34%	0.69
Ray Bourque	1982	1996	1081	43%	1.47	0.93	44	39	76	80	89%	1.09	58%	0.84
Phil Housley	1987	1996	686	42%	1.07	0.95	41	35	74	75	87%	1.03	16%	0.98
Rob Blake	1998	2002	362	43%	1.11	1.08	40	32	73	72	79%	0.99	54%	0.99
Brian Leetch	1989	1997	632	45%	1.2	1.06	40	41	69	75	91%	1.18	51%	0.95
Borje Salming	1976	1982	527	46%	1.26	0.83	41	32	68	71	81%	1.07	58%	1.04
Denis Potvin	1976	1984	623	44%	1.65	1.41	44	47	67	79	95%	1.36	56%	0.74
Brad Park	1970	1978	613	47%	1.53	1.26	46	35	66	74	84%	1.23	49%	0.82
Larry Murphy	1992	1995	292	45%	1.38	1.05	45	28	66	70	80%	1.11	45%	0.94
Al MacInnis	1989	2003	1043	41%	1.42	1.11	34	42	63	69	88%	1.2	43%	0.92
Scott Niedermayer	2004	2007	242	39%	1.27	1.22	37	33	62	66	79%	1.13	47%	0.9
Chris Chelios	1988	1998	803	44%	1.33	1.21	30	30	61	60	79%	0.99	61%	0.86
Nicklas Lidstrom	1998	2008	801	42%	1.42	1.18	36	38	58	66	78%	1.27	61%	0.78
Larry Robinson	1977	1986	731	48%	1.66	1.35	40	28	57	63	66%	1.2	58%	0.83
Chris Pronger	1998	2007	587	42%	1.43	1	32	36	57	62	72%	1.2	61%	0.82
Sergei Zubov	1998	2007	705	41%	1.25	1.16	29	35	56	60	84%	1.14	41%	0.85
Guy Lapointe	1973	1979	499	46%	1.67	1.88	40	34	56	66	75%	1.32	68%	0.74
Zdeno Chara	2003	2011	622	41%	1.38	1.13	30	25	52	54	60%	1.05	53%	0.89
Scott Stevens	1988	2003	1212	42%	1.34	1.2	31	14	48	46	38%	0.93	63%	0.89
J.C. Tremblay	1968	1972	358	45%	1.37	1.33	32	22	41	49	69%	1.31	64%	0.85
Serge Savard	1970	1979	651	45%	1.72	1.67	28	13	31	38	34%	1.33	65%	0.76
Jacques Laperriere	1968	1973	393	47%	1.56	1.31	26	9	28	33	36%	1.23	75%	0.83
Rod Langway	1981	1989	673	38%	1.35	1.21	22	4	26	26	14%	0.99	57%	0.85

Don't think that sorting by total adjustment is fair to Lidstrom, but there it is...

[BraveCanadian]

Originally Posted by superroyain10

This is supposed to be a way of compensating for team strength. So in the first calculation we are making the assumption that the strength of the PP reflects on the strength of the team.

Here we go with more unit stats used to adjust measurements of individual performance.

Where is the number for how much of the PP strength each of these guys was responsible for? I'm not seeing that..

[OrrNumber4]

Sorted by adjusted PP totals (So only the powerplay numbers get divided by the team strength factor).

Career:

Player	Start	End	GP	EV%	R-ON	R-OFF	$ESP/S	$PPP/S	Adj. Total	Adj PP Total	PP%	TmPP+	SH%	TmSH+
Bobby Orr	1968	1979	596	49%	2.15	1.09	75	55	86	111	96%	1.52	63%	0.76
Paul Coffey	1981	2001	1409	43%	1.23	1.21	46	35	72	77	78%	1.13	28%	0.82
Denis Potvin	1974	1988	1060	43%	1.49	1.23	40	41	69	75	86%	1.18	53%	0.82
Ray Bourque	1980	2001	1612	42%	1.37	0.95	39	39	70	74	87%	1.11	58%	0.88
Brian Leetch	1988	2006	1205	45%	1.06	0.97	36	39	67	71	87%	1.12	50%	1.03
Phil Housley	1983	2003	1495	38%	1.06	0.97	35	33	67	68	84%	1.01	11%	0.95
Al MacInnis	1982	2004	1416	38%	1.41	1.12	32	42	63	68	86%	1.18	39%	0.93
Brad Park	1969	1985	1115	42%	1.4	1.2	36	32	59	64	80%	1.16	43%	0.84
Sergei Zubov	1993	2009	1068	42%	1.25	1.13	33	34	59	63	82%	1.14	33%	0.86
Nicklas Lidstrom	1992	2011	1494	40%	1.4	1.18	33	34	54	60	72%	1.25	52%	0.8
Larry Murphy	1981	2001	1615	39%	1.2	1.02	34	25	56	58	65%	1.05	32%	0.92
Scott Niedermayer	1992	2010	1263	39%	1.25	1.22	31	26	55	56	64%	1.04	40%	0.94
Rob Blake	1990	2010	1270	37%	1.03	1.03	30	26	54	55	66%	1.04	50%	1
Borje Salming	1974	1990	1148	43%	1.14	0.82	31	22	54	53	62%	0.98	55%	1.09
Chris Pronger	1994	2011	1154	39%	1.22	0.99	27	29	50	53	67%	1.12	54%	0.91
Guy Lapointe	1969	1984	884	42%	1.41	1.66	31	28	46	53	64%	1.29	52%	0.76
Larry Robinson	1973	1992	1384	43%	1.6	1.34	35	19	47	52	49%	1.14	45%	0.85
J.C. Tremblay	1968	1972	358	45%	1.37	1.33	32	22	41	49	69%	1.31	64%	0.85
Chris Chelios	1984	2010	1651	39%	1.27	1.18	27	20	46	47	52%	1.02	57%	0.85
Scott Stevens	1983	2004	1635	42%	1.31	1.19	31	14	48	46	40%	0.94	56%	0.88
Zdeno Chara	1998	2011	928	40%	1.16	1.04	24	17	39	40	42%	1.05	52%	0.95
Jacques Laperriere	1968	1973	435	47%	1.53	1.31	26	9	29	33	35%	1.22	73%	0.84
Serge Savard	1968	1983	1038	43%	1.44	1.52	25	9	26	32	24%	1.32	58%	0.82
Rod Langway	1979	1993	994	35%	1.29	1.2	20	3	23	23	10%	1.02	53%	0.83

Prime:

Player	Start	End	GP	EV%	R-ON	R-OFF	$ESP/S	$PPP/S	Adj. Total	Adj PP Total	PP%	TmPP+	SH%	TmSH+
Bobby Orr	1969	1975	514	50%	2.21	1.1	80	56	86	115	96%	1.59	67%	0.74
Paul Coffey	1982	1987	458	45%	1.47	1.39	60	38	82	92	83%	1.19	34%	0.69
Ray Bourque	1982	1996	1081	43%	1.47	0.93	44	39	76	80	89%	1.09	58%	0.84
Denis Potvin	1976	1984	623	44%	1.65	1.41	44	47	67	79	95%	1.36	56%	0.74
Phil Housley	1987	1996	686	42%	1.07	0.95	41	35	74	75	87%	1.03	16%	0.98
Brian Leetch	1989	1997	632	45%	1.2	1.06	40	41	69	75	91%	1.18	51%	0.95
Brad Park	1970	1978	613	47%	1.53	1.26	46	35	66	74	84%	1.23	49%	0.82
Rob Blake	1998	2002	362	43%	1.11	1.08	40	32	73	72	79%	0.99	54%	0.99
Borje Salming	1976	1982	527	46%	1.26	0.83	41	32	68	71	81%	1.07	58%	1.04
Larry Murphy	1992	1995	292	45%	1.38	1.05	45	28	66	70	80%	1.11	45%	0.94
Al MacInnis	1989	2003	1043	41%	1.42	1.11	34	42	63	69	88%	1.2	43%	0.92
Scott Niedermayer	2004	2007	242	39%	1.27	1.22	37	33	62	66	79%	1.13	47%	0.9
Nicklas Lidstrom	1998	2008	801	42%	1.42	1.18	36	38	58	66	78%	1.27	61%	0.78
Guy Lapointe	1973	1979	499	46%	1.67	1.88	40	34	56	66	75%	1.32	68%	0.74
Larry Robinson	1977	1986	731	48%	1.66	1.35	40	28	57	63	66%	1.2	58%	0.83
Chris Pronger	1998	2007	587	42%	1.43	1	32	36	57	62	72%	1.2	61%	0.82
Chris Chelios	1988	1998	803	44%	1.33	1.21	30	30	61	60	79%	0.99	61%	0.86
Sergei Zubov	1998	2007	705	41%	1.25	1.16	29	35	56	60	84%	1.14	41%	0.85
Zdeno Chara	2003	2011	622	41%	1.38	1.13	30	25	52	54	60%	1.05	53%	0.89
J.C. Tremblay	1968	1972	358	45%	1.37	1.33	32	22	41	49	69%	1.31	64%	0.85
Scott Stevens	1988	2003	1212	42%	1.34	1.2	31	14	48	46	38%	0.93	63%	0.89
Serge Savard	1970	1979	651	45%	1.72	1.67	28	13	31	38	34%	1.33	65%	0.76
Jacques Laperriere	1968	1973	393	47%	1.56	1.31	26	9	28	33	36%	1.23	75%	0.83
Rod Langway	1981	1989	673	38%	1.35	1.21	22	4	26	26	14%	0.99	57%	0.85

I think this is a better way of measuring the players' offensive worths.

Career wise, I think this is fair to Lidstrom. Doing this on a per-game basis hurts himi. For example, I do not think Zubov was as good as Lidstrom offensively. However, we also have to include Fetisov....so Lidstrom is around 10/11 post-expansion.

Prime, Lidstrom gets hurt, no question. But I disagree with the primes here. No problem with most of them, but Blake, Murphy, Niedermayer, and Lapointe have very small primes. This is not fair to Lidstrom.

Again, it is interesting to note in any case. Murphy's numbers hint at the idea that given equal teammates to Lidstrom, he could produce just as much. For a 4 year stretch, I would argue that Niedermayer was as good as Lidstrom ever was offensively. So too was Blake. But that is too short a stretch.

[OrrNumber4]

Originally Posted by BraveCanadian

Here we go with more unit stats used to adjust measurements of individual performance.

Where is the number for how much of the PP strength each of these guys was responsible for? I'm not seeing that..

Hmm...well, PP% shows how much of their team's powerplay scoring they were in on. But that would hurt players like Lidstrom even more. He was a smaller contribution to his team's strong PP than a player like Potvin.

[BraveCanadian]

Originally Posted by superroyain10

Hmm...well, PP% shows how much of their team's powerplay scoring they were in on. But that would hurt players like Lidstrom even more. He was a smaller contribution to his team's strong PP than a player like Potvin.

So, in other words, Lidstrom would get penalized for his team, again. How many times is that now?

Secondly, if he was a smaller contribution to his team's strong PP, why are his points being divided by a powerplay strength he supposedly wasn't as responsible for?

[OrrNumber4]

Originally Posted by BraveCanadian

So, in other words, Lidstrom would get penalized for his team, again. How many times is that now?

Secondly, if he was a smaller contribution to his team's strong PP, why are his points being divided by a powerplay strength he supposedly wasn't as responsible for?

Yeah, I know Lidstrom gets penalized again, which is why I didn't make that calculation.

On your second point:

A player can be less responsible for the strength of the specials teams, but can still benefit statistically from it.

Player A scores 100 points on the PP. His team gets 200. That is 50%.
Player B scores 75 points on the PP. His team gets 125. That is 60%.

Player A had a smaller contribution to his teams powerplay, but got more absolute PP points anyways. Player A is less responsible for the "strength" of his team's powerplay than player B. This is of course making the assumption that the contribution can be linearly followed, even though diminishing gains definitely exists.

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Any metric that would purport to say that Chris Chelios was better offensively than Nicklas Lidstrom should be thrown in the rubbish on sight.

Especially when the reason is that the formula used actually considers it a major negative that the powerplays Lidstrom quarterbacked for over a decade were consistently strong.

In other words, Lidstrom is a worse offensive player than Chelios because he consistently QBed better PPs than Chris.

I thought Habs fans were a lot more reasonable using the reverse argument - Andre Markov was arguably the best PP QB in the league for a spell because of how strong the PP was when he was healthy.

[Rhiessan71]

Originally Posted by BraveCanadian

So, in other words, Lidstrom would get penalized for his team, again. How many times is that now?

Actually all it means is what he said, that Potvin was more directly responsible for his teams PP success than Lidstrom was for his.
Which, for me, certainly matches the eye test.

Secondly, if he was a smaller contribution to his team's strong PP, why are his points being divided by a powerplay strength he supposedly wasn't as responsible for?

I think you have a point here and this happens far too often when someone tries to make "simple" mathematical equations to explain things.
There's too much info missing IMO which makes such an equation extremely subjective.
It's like using Adjusted Stats at face value as an answer when it doesn't even include Era Tier scoring rate changes, Era PP rate changes or Era rule changes just to name a few.

It's usually better in cases like this when you just present the data and let people figure it out themselves.
You can't get players down to "one number" any where close to the level you can in Baseball. Hockey simply just doesn't have any where close to the same mass amount of data available needed to make such equations accurate enough to be considered creditable.

Like in Hockey, one could find stats on Faceoff wins, Faceoff wins by zone and on special teams but in baseball you would also have stats on whether said player was facing a left handed or right handed player, which linesman or referee was dropping the puck, how many Faceoffs he won cleanly, a % of which direction he won it in, what period it was in, the time of day and what # of shift he was one vs what shift the opposing player was on and may even include said players time of arrival at the rink that day lol

[DisgruntledGoat]

Originally Posted by BraveCanadian

So, in other words, Lidstrom would get penalized for his team, again. How many times is that now?

Coffey and Orr get penalized for team.

Coffey, Orr and Bourque are all penalized for era.

Why is it somehow sacrilegious to apply the same standards to Lidstrom- who played on dominant, defensivley-sound teams?

Between 1994 and 2010 (Lidstrom's career, essentially), the Selke went to Wing forwards seven times.

His defensive prowess should be as suspect as any 80s era puck-rushing D's offense.

[OrrNumber4]

Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe

Any metric that would purport to say that Chris Chelios was better offensively than Nicklas Lidstrom should be thrown in the rubbish on sight.

Right, which is what I did. That measure corrects too strongly for team strength:

Another way of looking at it is making the assumption that for every era, every PP goal had 2.8 points associated with it (one goal, 1.8 assists). Divide the PP% contribution by that much, and then subtract that number from the team strength. This gives players credit for their own contributions to a strong PP.

These results show that the top offensive defensemen were more or less-the-same in terms of contributions on the PP. Orr is the huge outlier. Macinnis, Potvin, and Leetch pfollow. Then you have Lidstrom, Zubov, Tremblay, and PArk, followed by Housley and Coffey.

Especially when the reason is that the formula used actually considers it a major negative that the powerplays Lidstrom quarterbacked for over a decade were consistently strong.

The above should fix that.

In other words, Lidstrom is a worse offensive player than Chelios because he consistently QBed better PPs than Chris.

The stat you are looking at is a prime comparison, not a peak comparison. Also, like I said, it definitely over-corrects for team strength. It even brings Orr down to human levels.

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Originally Posted by superroyain10

Salming was at 41 for his peak. Which adds some validity to the arguement that Salming was superior to Lidstrom offensively when both were at their best. Surely one can imagine someone who only saw Salming during his prime making this claim...

Looks like a lot of your numbers were off....

Originally Posted by superroyain10

What is particularly interesting about this list is how players like Pronger and Salming fare despite not having played on the best teams vs. players like Lidstrom and Robinson, who almost always were on incredibly dominant teams.

Here are the numbers side by side (prime). You had a bunch of the numbers wrong.

Originally Posted by superroyain10

Check again. Your salming numbers were off...

So by "a lot" and "a bunch," you mean I had Salming's even strength number wrong (I accidentally doubled counted his PP number).

Thought I did something egregious there at first.

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Originally Posted by superroyain10

What about king Clancy? I am sure this has been discussed before.

I used to think Clancy was a candidate for the top 10 offensive defensemen of all-time, but I found his numbers in the defenseman project less impressive than I expected. He was the 2nd best offensive defenseman of his generation, way ahead of 3rd place, but he was also way behind 1st place Shore. Shore is much farther ahead of Clancy than any of Bourque/MacInnis/Leetch/Potvin are ahead of Lidstrom. And I just don't think the evidence points to Shore being significantly better offensively than Bourque/MacInnis/Leetch/Potvin.

On the other hand, Clancy was very well-rounded when I had previously thought of him as offense-first.

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Originally Posted by Rhiessan71

Devil...you know that those PP%'s are not how much of their team's PP time they played, it's the % of their teams PP goals that they were on the ice for.



I have a feeling you may want to re-evaluate some of your points based on this correction

% of goals on ice for and against have been used as a proxy for ice time and the correlation is very good. I just took it for granted that they could be used like that in this instance.

We have ice time figures starting in 1997-98, so we have 4 years when both Bourque and Lidstrom were in the league to compare their PP% according to overpass against their actual % of icetime on the PP. If the correlation is very strong for all 4 years, I would assume it would hold for their entire careers.

I don't have time to do it now though.

[TheDevilMadeMe]

In my opinion, the quarterback of a powerplay is the single most important player for the success of the powerplay and should, if anything, get credit for the strength of his powerplay. He certainly shouldn't be punished for quarterbacking a strong powerplay.

[Rhiessan71]

Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe

% of goals on ice for and against have been used as a proxy for ice time and the correlation is very good. I just took it for granted that they could be used like that in this instance.

We have ice time figures starting in 1997-98, so we have 4 years when both Bourque and Lidstrom were in the league to compare their PP% according to overpass against their actual % of icetime on the PP. If the correlation is very strong for all 4 years, I would assume it would hold for their entire careers.

I don't have time to do it now though.

Maybe but a % of PP time can be extremely subjective on its own.
The more successful one is, the higher the % of PP time he will have as obviously, the majority of PP's end when a goal is scored right

What site has total team PP time?
NHL .com only goes back to 02/03.

[BraveCanadian]

Originally Posted by superroyain10

Yeah, I know Lidstrom gets penalized again, which is why I didn't make that calculation.

It is already built into the divisor that you used.

On your second point:

A player can be less responsible for the strength of the specials teams, but can still benefit statistically from it.

Player A scores 100 points on the PP. His team gets 200. That is 50%.
Player B scores 75 points on the PP. His team gets 125. That is 60%.

Player A had a smaller contribution to his teams powerplay, but got more absolute PP points anyways. Player A is less responsible for the "strength" of his team's powerplay than player B. This is of course making the assumption that the contribution can be linearly followed, even though diminishing gains definitely exists.

Player A may have been just as good or even better on the powerplay than Player B.

It just depends on whether it was a second unit scoring the majority of the other goals or other players on his unit.

Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe

Any metric that would purport to say that Chris Chelios was better offensively than Nicklas Lidstrom should be thrown in the rubbish on sight.

Especially when the reason is that the formula used actually considers it a major negative that the powerplays Lidstrom quarterbacked for over a decade were consistently strong.

In other words, Lidstrom is a worse offensive player than Chelios because he consistently QBed better PPs than Chris.

I thought Habs fans were a lot more reasonable using the reverse argument - Andre Markov was arguably the best PP QB in the league for a spell because of how strong the PP was when he was healthy.

Right. I was trying to lead a horse to water but I guess you're even more sick of this than I am hahaha.. and I'm pretty sure both of us would pick Bourque, but someone has to stand up for Lidstrom too.

Originally Posted by Rhiessan71

Actually all it means is what he said, that Potvin was more directly responsible for his teams PP success than Lidstrom was for his.
Which, for me, certainly matches the eye test.

That might be what your eye tells you but it isn't what the number tells you -- at least not without further research.

It is a percentage of a unit stat being used to describe an individual's play. ie. it MAY be pointing in the right direction but that is about it.

I think you have a point here and this happens far too often when someone tries to make "simple" mathematical equations to explain things.
There's too much info missing IMO which makes such an equation extremely subjective.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by DisgruntledGoat

Coffey and Orr get penalized for team.

Coffey, Orr and Bourque are all penalized for era.

Why is it somehow sacrilegious to apply the same standards to Lidstrom- who played on dominant, defensivley-sound teams?

Between 1994 and 2010 (Lidstrom's career, essentially), the Selke went to Wing forwards seven times.

His defensive prowess should be as suspect as any 80s era puck-rushing D's offense.

Lidstrom was the common factor across that entire time.

None of the Selke winners that you think call into question his defense were there the whole time.

Add to this Hollands post-lockout idea that goaltending was the position that had the easiest replacement value and I think you're barking up the wrong tree altogether.

I mean, you did see Nicklas Lidstrom play?

Originally Posted by superroyain10

Right, which is what I did. That measure corrects too strongly for team strength:

Another way of looking at it is making the assumption that for every era, every PP goal had 2.8 points associated with it (one goal, 1.8 assists). Divide the PP% contribution by that much, and then subtract that number from the team strength. This gives players credit for their own contributions to a strong PP.

These results show that the top offensive defensemen were more or less-the-same in terms of contributions on the PP. Orr is the huge outlier. Macinnis, Potvin, and Leetch pfollow. Then you have Lidstrom, Zubov, Tremblay, and PArk, followed by Housley and Coffey.



The above should fix that.

The stat you are looking at is a prime comparison, not a peak comparison. Also, like I said, it definitely over-corrects for team strength. It even brings Orr down to human levels.

So now that it looks absurd lets massage it just right to still show what we want but not look absurd?

Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe

In my opinion, the quarterback of a powerplay is the single most important player for the success of the powerplay and should, if anything, get credit for the strength of his powerplay. He certainly shouldn't be punished for quarterbacking a strong powerplay.

I would agree. Sometimes the powerplay quarterback is a forward in the absence of a good puck moving defenseman too.

I know Mario Lemieux commented in one of the articles I found about Paul Coffey in the most recent all time draft that having Coffey on the team was a big difference in their powerplay for example. He claimed it made his job much easier.

[OrrNumber4]

Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe

In my opinion, the quarterback of a powerplay is the single most important player for the success of the powerplay and should, if anything, get credit for the strength of his powerplay. He certainly shouldn't be punished for quarterbacking a strong powerplay.

Alright, maybe this helps.

Assuming that throughout the eras, it has been 2.8 points per goal (1 goal and 1.8 assists per goal), what we have below are:

PPP/game
PP% contribution by the player
PP% adjusted for total scoring (/2.8)
Team PP strength
Player's contribution to the PP strength
PP strength of team if replaced by average player.

Career
Player	$PPP/S	PP%	PP% adj.	TmPP+	Player PP Contr.	PP% w/o player
Bobby Orr	55	96%	34%	1.52	0.52	1.2
Denis Potvin	41	86%	31%	1.18	0.36	1.02
Al MacInnis	42	86%	31%	1.18	0.36	1.02
Brian Leetch	39	87%	31%	1.12	0.35	0.97
Ray Bourque	39	87%	31%	1.11	0.34	0.97
Brad Park	32	80%	29%	1.16	0.33	1.03
Sergei Zubov	34	82%	29%	1.14	0.33	1.01
Nicklas Lidstrom	34	72%	26%	1.25	0.32	1.13
J.C. Tremblay	22	69%	25%	1.31	0.32	1.19
Paul Coffey	35	78%	28%	1.13	0.31	1.02
Phil Housley	33	84%	30%	1.01	0.3	0.91
Guy Lapointe	28	64%	23%	1.29	0.29	1.2
Chris Pronger	29	67%	24%	1.12	0.27	1.05
Rob Blake	26	66%	24%	1.04	0.25	0.99
Larry Murphy	25	65%	23%	1.05	0.24	1.01
Scott Niedermayer	26	64%	23%	1.04	0.24	1
Borje Salming	22	62%	22%	0.98	0.22	0.96
Larry Robinson	19	49%	18%	1.14	0.2	1.14
Chris Chelios	20	52%	19%	1.02	0.19	1.03
Zdeno Chara	17	42%	15%	1.05	0.16	1.09
Jacques Laperriere	9	35%	13%	1.22	0.15	1.27
Scott Stevens	14	40%	14%	0.94	0.13	1.01
Serge Savard	9	24%	9%	1.32	0.11	1.41
Rod Langway	3	10%	4%	1.02	0.04	1.18
Prime
Player	$PPP/S	PP%	PP% adj.	TmPP+	Player PP Contr.	PP% w/o player
Bobby Orr	56	96%	34%	1.59	0.55	1.24
Denis Potvin	47	95%	34%	1.36	0.46	1.1
Brian Leetch	41	91%	33%	1.18	0.38	1
Al MacInnis	42	88%	31%	1.2	0.38	1.02
Brad Park	35	84%	30%	1.23	0.37	1.06
Paul Coffey	38	83%	30%	1.19	0.35	1.04
Ray Bourque	39	89%	32%	1.09	0.35	0.94
Nicklas Lidstrom	38	78%	28%	1.27	0.35	1.12
Guy Lapointe	34	75%	27%	1.32	0.35	1.17
Sergei Zubov	35	84%	30%	1.14	0.34	1
Phil Housley	35	87%	31%	1.03	0.32	0.91
Larry Murphy	28	80%	29%	1.11	0.32	0.99
Scott Niedermayer	33	79%	28%	1.13	0.32	1.01
J.C. Tremblay	22	69%	25%	1.31	0.32	1.19
Borje Salming	32	81%	29%	1.07	0.31	0.96
Chris Pronger	36	72%	26%	1.2	0.31	1.09
Rob Blake	32	79%	28%	0.99	0.28	0.91
Chris Chelios	30	79%	28%	0.99	0.28	0.91
Larry Robinson	28	66%	24%	1.2	0.28	1.12
Zdeno Chara	25	60%	21%	1.05	0.23	1.02
Serge Savard	13	34%	12%	1.33	0.16	1.37
Jacques Laperriere	9	36%	13%	1.23	0.16	1.27
Scott Stevens	14	38%	14%	0.93	0.13	1
Rod Langway	4	14%	5%	0.99	0.05	1.14

[OrrNumber4]

It is already built into the divisor that you used.

Missing the point. I tried to apply strength of the PP to strength of the team overall, which clearly was a bad idea. The results show that.

Player A may have been just as good or even better on the powerplay than Player B.
It just depends on whether it was a second unit scoring the majority of the other goals or other players on his unit.

That is true. But we are mostly comparing players who play the same role...#1 D-men getting top minutes and top PP time. Out of the guys we are talking about, only Housley doesn't really fit this category.

[OrrNumber4]

Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe

% of goals on ice for and against have been used as a proxy for ice time and the correlation is very good. I just took it for granted that they could be used like that in this instance.

We have ice time figures starting in 1997-98, so we have 4 years when both Bourque and Lidstrom were in the league to compare their PP% according to overpass against their actual % of icetime on the PP. If the correlation is very strong for all 4 years, I would assume it would hold for their entire careers.

I don't have time to do it now though.

Looks like you might have a very good point. Bourque got a lot more PP time than Lidstrom from that span; over a minute less year-to-year. So it looks like Lidstrom contributing less to the PP can be at least partially attributed to him being out there less.

However, in terms of raw totals (PP/game), Lidstrom has to take a hit as well, as his team's PP was clearly more productive, even when he was off the ice.

Another interesting stat: If you the ratio of Lidstrom PP% to Bourque, and then take the ratio of Bourque's team strength to Lidstroms, they pretty much negate each other.

[BraveCanadian]

Originally Posted by superroyain10

Missing the point. I tried to apply strength of the PP to strength of the team overall, which clearly was a bad idea. The results show that.

Right. That *was* the point.

That is true. But we are mostly comparing players who play the same role...#1 D-men getting top minutes and top PP time. Out of the guys we are talking about, only Housley doesn't really fit this category.

At a high level, sure.

Bourque was a huge workhorse for his teams, particularly on the PP, though.

However:

Season	Name	Minutes	PP Points
97-98	Bourque	494	30
98-99	Bourque	543	39
99-00	Bourque	468	37
00-01	Bourque	402	33
Totals		1907	139

So over the four year period where we have stats (mind you this includes one very down year by Bourque and is the end of his career), Bourque registers a point on the powerplay roughly every 13.7 minutes of powerplay time.

Season	Name	Minutes	PP Points
97-98	Lidstrom	382	33
98-99	Lidstrom	432	29
99-00	Lidstrom	363	31
00-01	Lidstrom	446	43
Totals		1623	136

Meanwhile Lidstrom produces almost the same in almost 300 less PP minutes (5 full games of PP time) or a rate of a point every 11.93 minutes of PP time.

(Hopefully I copied this stuff right, I'm at work right now so I don't have the time)

[BraveCanadian]

Originally Posted by superroyain10

Looks like you might have a very good point. Bourque got a lot more PP time than Lidstrom from that span; over a minute less year-to-year. So it looks like Lidstrom contributing less to the PP can be at least partially attributed to him being out there less.

However, in terms of raw totals (PP/game), Lidstrom has to take a hit as well, as his team's PP was clearly more productive, even when he was off the ice.

Explain to me again how Lidstrom's team helped his totals WHILE HE WAS ON THE BENCH.

[Rhiessan71]

Originally Posted by BraveCanadian

Right. That *was* the point.




At a high level, sure.

Bourque was a huge workhorse for his teams, particularly on the PP, though.

However:


So over the four year period where we have stats (mind you this includes one very down year by Bourque and is the end of his career), Bourque registers a point on the powerplay roughly every 13.7 minutes of powerplay time.


Meanwhile Lidstrom produces almost the same in almost 300 less PP minutes (5 full games of PP time) or a rate of a point every 11.93 minutes of PP time.

(Hopefully I copied this stuff right, I'm at work right now so I don't have the time)

Need some context for those numbers yet though. Need to know total team PP minutes and the effectiveness of their PP's when they were not on the ice.

And I know you mentioned this but it should be more emphasized that it's a twilight of his career Bourque being compared to a middle of his prime Lidstrom.

Perhaps comparing Lidstrom's last 4 season to Bourque's last 4 would be better and would also eliminate most of the strength of team arguments against Lidstrom as well. Detroit in the last 3 seasons is obviously not on a level with the mid 90's-mid 2000's Detroit teams.

[Rhiessan71]

Originally Posted by BraveCanadian

Explain to me again how Lidstrom's team helped his totals WHILE HE WAS ON THE BENCH.

It shows how strong their PP was without him and gives us an idea of how much Lidstrom improved or reduced its effectiveness.