At least in this thread your argument was simply 1) "the NHL is so much better nowadays" and 2) "Lidström led the Wings to the Cup, Bourque didn't lead anyone to the Cup".
As for the "advanced, integrated version of the NHL":
~1960: circa 18,000,000 Canadians ≙ 100 %
~2010: circa 34,000,000 Canadians ≙ 189 %
~1960: 6 NHL teams ≙ 100 %
~2010: 30 NHL teams ≙ 500 %
Canada's increased population would only make up for 189% = 11.34 NHL teams. Premise: The percentage of talented Canadians who strive to become NHL players has remained constant since 1960. I'm not so sure about that as I tend to think the supply of other sports and the possibilities of making a career in a sport other than hockey have increased since 1960. Which would rather hurt hockey.
The Americans and Europeans would (at least) have to make up for the remaining 311% = 18.66 teams (maybe even more). A steep number. Sure, the non-Canadian hockey nations have grown too since 1960, but I can't see them producing more hockey players in total than Canada or more NHL talent in total than Canada. Which they would have to do: Canadians 11 teams, non-Canadians 19 teams (at least!). But even if they actually matched this number, the 2010 NHL would not be ahead of the 1960 NHL in terms of talent level, but just on par.
Don't get me wrong: Feel free to make an argument for the superiority of the 2010 NHL, but don't act like it's absurd and laughable to rate the O6 NHL higher.
It's not just the raw numbers at play here but increased numbers of players and talent streams form the US and Europe and other less traditional provinces as well.
Let's take my home province of BC 334 players born in BC have played in the NHL, 175 since 92 the 1st year Lidstrom was in the NHL and only 16 players pre expansion in 67.
This is before we get to a state like California which saw it's 1st NHL player in 73 and 17 since 92.
It's pretty hard to argue that the overall talent level of the league is less now than it was in the 06 era unless there was a drop in talent form Ontario and Quebec and the prairie provinces which were the main sources for NHL talent back then because there sure was alot of talent from the newer more productive feeder systems.
I mean it's pretty obvious that the Soviets got quite a bit better in the later 60's and even more so in the 70's and 80's , at least in top level talent, how is it that many ignore or discount the overall increase in the NHL talent level and that's before accounting for more systematic play which greatly enhanced defensive play and systems?
This is a pretty good point. However, I don't think it is quite linear with the star talents.
Like a government or a company, when you get larger, you also get more inefficiency in the system. In hockey, for example, the growth of the game has led to a rigidity in development that creates good role-players but stifles the creativity that superstars are made of. Hockey development has become a business...and it is more profitable to cater to the average shmuck than the true talents. The ability to think the game well is essential to be a star in the NHL; modern development stresses being a robot over being creative.
Some proof of this, for example; look at the dearth of puck-moving defensemen in this league. Some teams do not even have one. Yet back when the league was full of 21-teams, in a diluted era, it seemed like there were more puck-movers/team.
This simply doesn't pass the eye test though in terms of skill, many current NHL Dmen are very skilled and a combination of coaching strategy and increased and more competitive pressure and checking by opposition teams have made many Dmen a "clear the zone and don't make a mistake guy" instead of the more free flowing lesser checking 70's and 80's.
Heck I watch plenty of WHL games and the Demn in that league are extremely "skilled and talented" it just doesn't necessarily translate in stats in a lesser scoring league.
Lets be honest. Lidstrom's a solid defenceman, but the only reason he put up anywhere near the points he did is because of the skill level of the forwards in front of him.
__________________
Every post comes with the Nalyd Psycho Seal of Approval.
Lets be honest. Lidstrom's a solid defenceman, but the only reason he put up anywhere near the points he did is because of the skill level of the forwards in front of him.
I'm open to correction if I've missed something in that line of thinking. Integrated league + more people = better players = these players have an automatic edge in rankings
What's missing?
I think the phrase more possible or more likely might be used to describe one who subscribes to the above point of view, absolutes in subjective things are quite impossible.
In a way you are quite correct. The timeframe is not just 20 years. Its a analogically sliding timeframe but getting huge drop until we reach Shore as the evidence is so slim from that time.
But as i said... its POSSIBLE that there has been a super talent back then and i cant prove the otherway around, but i think i have stronger evidence in Lidstroms and Bourques behalf than anyway has for Shore and even Harvey.
What is the flaw in logic btw? If you think of probablilityes?
Anyway this ends the discussion in a manner that no one should ever say its clear and evidently proven that Harvey or Shore where better than Bourque or Lidstrom.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey
At the end of the day, someone who believes that players of the past 20 years automatically have an edge (nice convenient timeframe, btw) is pretty much settled on putting Lidstrom at the top of the list. There's no argument to be made against logic that closes the issue in that manner. We may as well move on with the conversation.
Lets be honest. Lidstrom's a solid defenceman, but the only reason he put up anywhere near the points he did is because of the skill level of the forwards in front of him.
I would think that the Detroit forwards in the last 7-8 years have not been that great.. They are solid attackers with Datsyk having special abilities but i think that the Detroit system and the team chemistry and good management is a big part too. And the system is largely based on transition game which Lidstrom excels.. but its not even good idea to start a discussion with you as you have such point of view...
Topics like this seem to be less about Lidstrom or any other player and more about the conquest to create microarguments and then post walls of text in an attempt to "win" them. How many of us were actually around to witness any of this history? Unless this entire board is full of senior citizens I doubt many of us know anything outside of the sugar coated reputation a lot of these old players have developed.
Maybe only is a bit harsh. He makes solid passes and doesn't panic when pressured to make them. But Having Yzerman, Fedorov and Datsyuk be the guys he passes to, and the guys who do the heavy lifting moving the puck up the ice certainly pads his stats.
Maybe only is a bit harsh. He makes solid passes and doesn't panic when pressured to make them. But Having Yzerman, Fedorov and Datsyuk be the guys he passes to, and the guys who do the heavy lifting moving the puck up the ice certainly pads his stats.
Same could be said about Doug Harvey too though, right?
It's not just the raw numbers at play here but increased numbers of players and talent streams form the US and Europe and other less traditional provinces as well.
...
It's pretty hard to argue that the overall talent level of the league is less now than it was in the 06 era unless there was a drop in talent form Ontario and Quebec and the prairie provinces which were the main sources for NHL talent back then because there sure was alot of talent from the newer more productive feeder systems.
Breakdown by provinces is a very good approach. I'm going to have to look into that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by danincanada
Not only that but these immigrants are having kids who play hockey as well. Subban, Kadri, Lucic, etc are not names that are common among 4th and 5th generation Canadians.
Or Josip Šakić. Pardon, Joe Sakic of course.
The question is: is the percentage of immigrant kids who play hockey as high as the percentage of non-immigrant kids or is it lower?
Quote:
Originally Posted by danincanada
Right now Canada has approximately 550,000 registered players, the US has just over 500,000 and Europe has another 500,000. Even if Canada's output hasn't increased since the 60's then we'd still have nearly tripled the talent pool since then due to the US and Europe.
Sou you've got 1,550,000 registered hockey players. The relation is:
Canada 550,000 players ≙ 35.5 %
USA 500,000 players ≙ 32.25 %
Europe 500,000 players ≙ 32.25 %
Then look at the numbers of players (I only looked into skaters, not goalies) in the NHL so far this season: 855 players. The relation is:
Canada 458 players ≙ 53.6 %
USA 207 players ≙ 24.2 %
Europeans 190 players ≙ 22.2 %
Americans and Europeans are nearly on par, just like they should be according to your registered players numbers. But they don't provide the 32.25% ≙ 275.7 NHL players each should provide. Canadians on the other hand shouldn't provide more than 35.5% ≙ 303 NHL players. There are 155 Canadian NHL players too much and the same amount of Non-Canadian NHL players is missing! Why is that?
My guess:
The actual number of hockey talents or NHL talents produced in the USA and in Europe is considerably lower than the registered players numbers suggest. It's closer to ~23% each (relative to Canada's ~54%). Conclusion: You are overrating the size of the Non-Canadian talent pool.
Another possible explanation:
Canadians are overrepresented in the NHL. Which would mean the NHL is not that good at taking advantage of the global talent pool. Conclusion: You are overrating the effect the increased global talent pool has on the NHL talent level.
Maybe only is a bit harsh. He makes solid passes and doesn't panic when pressured to make them. But Having Yzerman, Fedorov and Datsyuk be the guys he passes to, and the guys who do the heavy lifting moving the puck up the ice certainly pads his stats.
Isn't that the case for any defenseman? It's very rare for a D to carry the offense.
This simply doesn't pass the eye test though in terms of skill, many current NHL Dmen are very skilled and a combination of coaching strategy and increased and more competitive pressure and checking by opposition teams have made many Dmen a "clear the zone and don't make a mistake guy" instead of the more free flowing lesser checking 70's and 80's.
Heck I watch plenty of WHL games and the Demn in that league are extremely "skilled and talented" it just doesn't necessarily translate in stats in a lesser scoring league.
So how do you explain what that 21 year old kid Karlsson is doing right now? He is currently producing at level, especially at even strength, that Lidstrom never achieved considering that scoring is lower this season than it was in '06.
How's that work for your "eye test"?
The reality is that no matter how hard you can shoot (Chara) or how fast you can skate (Bouwmeester) or how good of a stickhandler you are (Subban), it doesn't matter if you don't have the hockey IQ and more importantly, the instincts to take advantage of those abilities.
Bourque's uncanny and at times almost superhuman ability to make passes and get his shot on net through forests of guys for example. You can't teach that.
You can't train instinct into someone, you can only attempt to train instinct OUT of someone. Unfortunately, the latter is mostly what happens today at rather young ages.
It's no secret that I consider Lidstrom in the 3nd tier of offensive D-men (1rst tier being Orr and Coffey) behind the Bourque's, Potvin's, Leetch's and MacInnis'.
Karlsson is IMO proving this right now by doing what he's doing.
Showing that there is indeed still another offensive level for D-men.
The level we used to see from the Bourque's and Leetch's on a regular basis.
Karlsson is starting to slowly bring down the false ceiling that has been manufactured around Lidstrom's offense.
A false ceiling created from the lack of 2nd tier offensive D-men over the last decade to show us different. Especially ones that produce well at even strength.
Don't get me wrong, Karlsson has a long way to go to truly get that kind of recognition but right now he's doing what no one since Leetch and Bourque have done.
Quite frankly, I'm cheering for the kid because he's proving what myself and a lot of others have been saying for years and what's more, prolly the best part, is that no one can accuse me of it being Canadian bias
Last edited by Rhiessan71: 02-24-2012 at 08:00 AM.
Lid's comes from the same province as our family in Sweden, I`m a huge fan, but can`t put him in the same boat as Bourque. Lid`s has been very good for a long time but I just don`t think his peak performance was high enough to put him any better than around 10th all time.
So how do you explain what that 21 year old kid Karlsson is doing right now? He is currently producing at level, especially at even strength, that Lidstrom never achieved considering that scoring is lower this season than it was in '06.
How's that work for your "eye test"?
The reality is that no matter how hard you can shoot (Chara) or how fast you can skate (Bouwmeester) or how good of a stickhandler you are (Subban), it doesn't matter if you don't have the hockey IQ and more importantly, the instincts to take advantage of those abilities.
Bourque's uncanny and at times almost superhuman ability to make passes and get his shot on net through forests of guys for example. You can't teach that.
You can't train instinct into someone, you can only attempt to train instinct OUT of someone. Unfortunately, the latter is mostly what happens today at rather young ages.
It's no secret that I consider Lidstrom in the 3nd tier of offensive D-men (1rst tier being Orr and Coffey) behind the Bourque's, Potvin's, Leetch's and MacInnis'.
Karlsson is IMO proving this right now by doing what he's doing.
Showing that there is indeed still another offensive level for D-men.
The level we used to see from the Bourque's and Leetch's on a regular basis.
Karlsson is starting to slowly bring down the false ceiling that has been manufactured around Lidstrom's offense.
A false ceiling created from the lack of 2nd tier offensive D-men over the last decade to show us different. Especially ones that produce well at even strength.
Don't get me wrong, Karlsson has a long way to go to truly get that kind of recognition but right now he's doing what no one since Leetch and Bourque have done.
Quite frankly, I'm cheering for the kid because he's proving what myself and a lot of others have been saying for years and what's more, prolly the best part, is that no one can accuse me of it being Canadian bias
There is no false ceiling, it's pretty clear that most Dmen, even the skilled ones, don't have the green light on offense like most skilled Dmen of the past 30 years had.
Green and Karlsson are the two exceptions and both have a long ways to prove that they have complete games, although Eric is closer his size is always going to limit his effectiveness defensively.
Eric is a great little player, especially in fantasy circles, but let's wait a bit before we start talking about him in any Lidstrom debates shall we.
Another possible explanation:
Canadians are overrepresented in the NHL. Which would mean the NHL is not that good at taking advantage of the global talent pool. Conclusion: You are overrating the effect the increased global talent pool has on the NHL talent level.
This is because most GM's are still old fashioned and picks size over skills at most days. There is a reason for why Detroit got Zetterberg and Datsyuk late. Because GM's :
There is no false ceiling, it's pretty clear that most Dmen, even the skilled ones, don't have the green light on offense like most skilled Dmen of the past 30 years had.
Green and Karlsson are the two exceptions and both have a long ways to prove that they have complete games, although Eric is closer his size is always going to limit his effectiveness defensively.
Eric is a great little player, especially in fantasy circles, but let's wait a bit before we start talking about him in any Lidstrom debates shall we.
Karlsson and Green are nothing alike. Have you even seen Karlsson play much? Green is run and gun, north/south all the time. Karlsson plays a lot more like Bourque did, more east/west. Give and goes, smart passing and he even maneuvers along the blueline and is patient with his shot like Bourque and Karlsson is already miles ahead of Green defensively.
And you honestly believe that those are the only two d-men in the entire league that have a green light...that's ridiculous.
You're right though, as I also said, it's still early but the longer he keeps it up, the more perspective we will have on where Lidstrom truly belongs on the offensive scale.
Same could be said about Doug Harvey too though, right?
Absolutely. I think Harvey gets more mileage than he deserves out of being on the best team ever. I'm firm in my conviction that Shore was the second most gifted defenceman ever. Whether his mental state undermined his ability or not is open to debate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eisen
Isn't that the case for any defenseman? It's very rare for a D to carry the offense.
For "a D" maybe, but for an elite defenceman? No. Orr, Bourque, Shore, Coffey, Potvin, Kelly, Robinson, Park, Leetch, Clancy and more were all driving forces behind their teams offence. Lidstrom is not. And so when looking at the best defencemen of all time, we should temper Lidstrom's offensive finishes amongst his peer defencemen because A) In the second half of his career there were no elite offensive defencemen to compete against. That he was a peer of Mike Green and Sergei Gonchar should be damning, not praise worthy. B) Because his offensive totals benefit from the quality of offensively skilled teammates, specifically ones tailor made to complement him, skilled skating and puck carrying centres that can create off the rush and the system employed by the team.
Lidstrom simply has advantages over his peers that make his raw numbers look better than then actually are. He is not and was not a driving force behind his teams offence and that ought to be factored into who his total game is/was perceived.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe
It is rare, but it's something Eddie Shore and Raymond Bourque were more involved in than Harvey or Lidstrom.
On the other hand, I think the more conservative game that Harvey and Lidstrom played made them that much more effective in their own zones.
Of course, there is always a trade-off for defencemen with offence and defence. This is why I think Bourque deserves more love. He was a much more of an offensive leader than Lidstrom, but he only sacrificed a little bit of defence to achieve that.
For "a D" maybe, but for an elite defenceman? No. Orr, Bourque, Shore, Coffey, Potvin, Kelly, Robinson, Park, Leetch, Clancy and more were all driving forces behind their teams offence. Lidstrom is not. And so when looking at the best defencemen of all time, we should temper Lidstrom's offensive finishes amongst his peer defencemen because A) In the second half of his career there were no elite offensive defencemen to compete against. That he was a peer of Mike Green and Sergei Gonchar should be damning, not praise worthy. B) Because his offensive totals benefit from the quality of offensively skilled teammates, specifically ones tailor made to complement him, skilled skating and puck carrying centres that can create off the rush and the system employed by the team.
Lidstrom simply has advantages over his peers that make his raw numbers look better than then actually are. He is not and was not a driving force behind his teams offence and that ought to be factored into who his total game is/was perceived.
I agree that Lidstrom has never been a driving force behind his team`s offence.
If you've seen the Ottawa Senators and Erik Karlsson play this season, that's what it looks like when a defenceman is a driving force behind his team's offence. Yes, it's still possible today, even in this age of parity, systems, and expanded talent pools...
I agree that Lidstrom has never been a driving force behind his team`s offence.
If you've seen the Ottawa Senators and Erik Karlsson play this season, that's what it looks like when a defenceman is a driving force behind his team's offence. Yes, it's still possible today, even in this age of parity, systems, and expanded talent pools...
But if the Senators were loaded with forward talent, maybe Karlsson plays more like Lidstrom?
Absolutely. I think Harvey gets more mileage than he deserves out of being on the best team ever.
I have a suspicion that this is the case as well, and have been waiting for us to really get down to brass tacks about Harvey's reputation.
IMO, this is where Lidstrom has the best chance of passing Harvey rather than the population stuff. Both these guys were in a similar position as the point man on the best team of their generation, but Harvey's team was arguably quite a bit better. To what extent do team accomplishments bleed over to Harvey's reputation and inflate his placement in all-time rankings?
I'm not 100% convinced that Harvey is overrated for this reason, but I'm about 50% suspicious and would like to put him to the test.
But if the Senators were loaded with forward talent, maybe Karlsson plays more like Lidstrom?
Karlsson might play a little more conservatively, but his skating and distribution ability is so good I don't think he would change a lot. He can create offence from anywhere in the rink when he gets the puck on his stick.
Right now Ottawa is 6th in GF in the NHL. And their forward group is Jason Spezza, who is a legitimately elite star forward, an aging Daniel Alfredsson who can still score against easy matchups, and a bunch of so-so players and kids. But when Karlsson is on the ice everybody skates like crazy in transition, crashes the net in the offensive zone, etc, because they know Karlsson is going to get them the puck and they get great chances. It's like the effect of a great point guard in basketball - everyone starts running and going to the net because they know they're going to get the ball.
Lidstrom has always been very efficient coming out of his own end but he's never been a total game-changer in that way.
I'm running on a bit about Karlsson...but the way he's playing shows that it is still possible for a defenceman to drive a team's offence and be among the very short list of elite offensive players in the league. Systems, schmystems.
