Both the Oilers and Ducks almost won it all those years. Do you remember that part? It took Roloson going down for your Canes to beat them. Otherwise Edmonton probably wins the cup.
This post belongs right with R71's post where he proclaimed "Lidstrom only won 4 cups" as if he was a failure for not winning more. He's got as many cup rings as Orr and Lemieux combined.
Orr gets blasted from time to time for not winning more Cups. Shore got picked apart for it in the most recent thread. It's pretty much the only thing you have to say about Bourque. This is not a new concept that was introduced to attack Lidstrom.
Again, you need to be prepared to take the good with the bad if you're going to keep bringing this stuff up. Cup counting is important, or it isn't. You don't get to make it important for Lidstrom vs Bourque but brush it away for Lidstrom vs Harvey.
Quote:
Originally Posted by danincanada
It's not really about Bourque/Lidstrom. You can't call a team horrendous for making it to the finals and losing or losing to an eventual cup finalist that caught lightning in a bottle.
Did you watch the 1995 Finals? The Wings got pounded into the dirt by a 5th seed with a top line of Neal Broten, John MacLean and Stephane Richer. Whether it happened in the first round or the Finals is irrelevant -- that was a monumental playoff collapse, one in a string of similar failures prior to 1997.
You have argued in the past that Lidstrom was an elite player for Detroit prior to 1997, which I don't buy. But if I did buy it, I'd want you to explain why he gets a free pass for his -6 in those four games.
It might be interest to you on a personal level to know that I was cheering hard for the Red Wings in the '95 Finals. I'm not bashing them out of spite, I'm telling you straight-up that they were not good in that series at all.
Quote:
I sense a deep hatred for the Red Wings in many of your posts.
You mean name the team with a better playoff record don't you?
Yes, that's what we were talking about. Seems awfully strange to slag Lidstrom because his team didn't have more success, when they were more successful than any other team of the era.
Quote:
Suits me? Are we not talking about Lidstrom's place in history and how he compares to the other greats?
Hey, Harvey was also a late bloomer, not really establishing himself until his mid-late 20's as well. Also winning a Norris as late as 38 and almost another at 39.
I've said it many times before, I have Harvey ahead of both Bourque and Lidstrom because of his contribution to the game.
He re-wrote the book for the modern d-man.
Against the other top D-men Lidstrom's late blooming hurts him but against most of them, he makes up for it by playing better later in his career than they did in the later parts of their careers. Potvin for example.
But then we once again arrive at Bourque who edges Lidstrom in peak, peak length and total seasons to boot.
And the Lidstrom we're seeing now is past the point where his play is going to make up any more ground on Bourque.
Yes, you apparently change your views on Lidstrom's early years post by post depending on which way you can use it to make him look worse.
In some posts, you criticize him for taking a long time to become an elite player, which is fair. But in other posts (like the one in this thread), you use those exact same early years and them directly to the best defensemen in the league at the time.
That is how i see it and i do know that with that logic it is possible that Harvey or Shore where better than the modern players.
However i find competition today to confirm to me the level of achievement a throphy is. Its just superior compered to old times.
Its maybe unfair as the player might have been just as good or better when he got the throphy.
This is why i must give some edge to modern players and as such only logical conclusion is to consider Lidstrom or Bourque to be the best because they have both impressive thorphy case (They have been excellent against the competition they have), they have very long service to their respective clubs at very high level. I cant see any fault in eitherones game at all. I dont see for example any negative in Lidstroms non physicality because he does his job on an excellent manner. Bourque is anyway modern enough to be compared to Lidstrom...
Lets say... Why would i gamble and choose ancient Shore over an very well proven and known and visually investigated Lidstrom ? If my life would depeand which one would excel as defender in a bubble (Now lets not think the time when this bubble would exist) where they would play against eachothers i would take Lidstrom over Shore without ANY doubt whatsoever.
This is just logic and likelihood that the evidences are stronger.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey
First, thank you for elaborating on this point of view so as to make a real case for it. I want to be sure I'm getting this right.
a) It's possible (and very likely) that natural talent exists in a more or less static supply relative to population size.
b) It's possible (and very likely) that phenomenal, generational talent is a random occurrence that can occur anywhere, any time. It is not tied to the supply of overall talent.
c) Changes in the overall supply of talent due to population flux can lead to inconsistencies in the degree to which generational players of different eras are able to gain recognition.
d) Conclusion: modern generational players have the edge because they are more likely to deserve their accolades against a larger pool of overall talent.
Is that a fair representation of the "competition argument"? I'm not setting anything up as a strawman here, just a straightforward question to try and establish a baseline for future posts.
I don't think we had even gotten that far into the conversation yet. Danincanada's argument was that, straightforwardly, Harvey faced a lower level of competition than Lidstrom. That's what I was responding to.
We need to get into the quality of their own teams to be certain. Perhaps adding a couple more columns to the chart, showing their team's playoff ranking and top players?
Depends on who you're facing in those series. I'd rather face the 8th, 7th, 6th and 5th seeds than just the 1st and 2nd.
Keep that in mind when you rail on Bourque's playoff record. His teams lost to the eventual Cup winner 8 times and the losing finalist another 6 times.
Would you like to go through those 14 seasons one at a time, listing reasons why they shouldn't be held against him?
Last edited by hcdt: 02-22-2012 at 03:47 PM.
Reason: typos...
Orr gets blasted from time to time for not winning more Cups. Shore got picked apart for it in the most recent thread. It's pretty much the only thing you have to say about Bourque. This is not a new concept that was introduced to attack Lidstrom.
Again, you need to be prepared to take the good with the bad if you're going to keep bringing this stuff up. Cup counting is important, or it isn't. You don't get to make it important for Lidstrom vs Bourque but brush it away for Lidstrom vs Harvey.
Winning the Cup is important and I never brushed it away when it came to Harvey. I just find it extremely difficult to compare Lidstrom with Harvey cause they played in completely different eras. Back in the O6 you had a 1/6 chance of winning the cup so it's not like we are talking about a level playing field here. Lots can happen with 4 rounds and 16 teams making the playoffs in a 30 team league.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey
Did you watch the 1995 Finals? The Wings got pounded into the dirt by a 5th seed with a top line of Neal Broten, John MacLean and Stephane Richer. Whether it happened in the first round or the Finals is irrelevant -- that was a monumental playoff collapse, one in a string of similar failures prior to 1997.
You have argued in the past that Lidstrom was an elite player for Detroit prior to 1997, which I don't buy. But if I did buy it, I'd want you to explain why he gets a free pass for his -6 in those four games.
It might be interest to you on a personal level to know that I was cheering hard for the Red Wings in the '95 Finals. I'm not bashing them out of spite, I'm telling you straight-up that they were not good in that series at all.
Uh, making it through 3 rounds first is relevant because it's not easy to do.
I do remember that series and of course the Red Wings were not good in the finals - that was obvious. It was a shortended season and the Devils were a hungrier and better prepared team. It doesn't matter where they finished in the regular season standings, that team was built and determined to win come playoff time. They lost to the cup winning Rangers the year before and this drove them to be ready the next year. I've seen it happen before and after, such as the '08 Red Wings who felt they should have got to the finals in '07. That loss catapulted them into the next season and they were a very determined and hungry team and no one was going to stop them.
Lidstrom doesn't get a free pass for being as ineffective as his teammates in the '95 finals. It was a learning experience though and look what he and his team have done since. He was 24 or 25 and got to see how not to play defense by watching Coffey in the finals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey
Why do you keep bringing it down to this level?
Sorry, hard to resist when someone keeps denying they have any bias when they clearly do.
Winning the Cup is important and I never brushed it away when it came to Harvey. I just find it extremely difficult to compare Lidstrom with Harvey cause they played in completely different eras. Back in the O6 you had a 1/6 chance of winning the cup so it's not like we are talking about a level playing field here. Lots can happen with 4 rounds and 16 teams making the playoffs in a 30 team league.
Uh, making it through 3 rounds first is relevant because it's not easy to do.
I do remember that series and of course the Red Wings were not good in the finals - that was obvious. It was a shortended season and the Devils were a hungrier and better prepared team. It doesn't matter where they finished in the regular season standings, that team was built and determined to win come playoff time. They lost to the cup winning Rangers the year before and this drove them to be ready the next year. I've seen it happen before and after, such as the '08 Red Wings who felt they should have got to the finals in '07. That loss catapulted them into the next season and they were a very determined and hungry team and no one was going to stop them.
Lidstrom doesn't get a free pass for being as ineffective as his teammates in the '95 finals. It was a learning experience though and look what he and his team have done since. He was 24 or 25 and got to see how not to play defense by watching Coffey in the finals.
Sorry, hard to resist when someone keeps denying they have any bias when they clearly do.
It is interesting that he keeps coming back with calmness, facts, and numbers where all you come back with is some very weak evidence, no answers to his questions, and screaming accusations of bias....
That is how i see it and i do know that with that logic it is possible that Harvey or Shore where better than the modern players.
However i find competition today to confirm to me the level of achievement a throphy is. Its just superior compered to old times.
Its maybe unfair as the player might have been just as good or better when he got the throphy.
This is why i must give some edge to modern players and as such only logical conclusion is to consider Lidstrom or Bourque to be the best because they have both impressive thorphy case (They have been excellent against the competition they have), they have very long service to their respective clubs at very high level. I cant see any fault in eitherones game at all. I dont see for example any negative in Lidstroms non physicality because he does his job on an excellent manner. Bourque is anyway modern enough to be compared to Lidstrom...
Lets say... Why would i gamble and choose ancient Shore over an very well proven and known and visually investigated Lidstrom ? If my life would depeand which one would excel as defender in a bubble (Now lets not think the time when this bubble would exist) where they would play against eachothers i would take Lidstrom over Shore without ANY doubt whatsoever.
This is just logic and likelihood that the evidences are stronger.
I think one problem I would have heavily with this is the idea that a trophy case = great player.
That isn't the case. A great player is a great player regardless of the trophies he won. In any case, when it comes to "dominance" over peers, especially statistics and trophy-placement, you don't look at the average NHLer. You look at the top players competing for the trophy at that time.
For example, forwards in the 80s and early 90s had to compete with Gretzky, Lemieux, and Jagr. Vastly superior to any time in NHL history. Lidstrom had to compete with 41-year-old Bourques and MacInnisis, and an inconsistent Chris Pronger; clearly one of the weakest fields in NHL history. By comparison, Harvey had Red Kelly, better than ANY of Lidstrom competition. Then you add Gadsby, Pilote, Johnson...
Treating the 1995 Devils as a traditional 5th seed is not being fair to them or the teams they beat. They had basically the exact same roster as the team that was the 2nd best team in the entire NHL in 1994 - plus a more mature Martin Brodeur. They were only a 5th seed because of the lockout - Scott Stevens had a contract squabble at the beginning of the 1995 season and struggled to return to form. So the team started the season with a single slump - but in the lockout shortened season, a single slump was much harder to recover from. I have no doubt that the team would have been a top 4 seed and possibly higher had the season lasted the full 82 games. That was a significantly better team than the 2003 Cup winners IMO.
(Of course, they might not have won the Cup if the season were 82 games long as Jacques Lemaire had a talent for burning his teams out in the regular season).
Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 02-22-2012 at 04:41 PM.
Winning the Cup is important and I never brushed it away when it came to Harvey. I just find it extremely difficult to compare Lidstrom with Harvey cause they played in completely different eras. Back in the O6 you had a 1/6 chance of winning the cup so it's not like we are talking about a level playing field here. Lots can happen with 4 rounds and 16 teams making the playoffs in a 30 team league.
So you acknowledge it's not entirely about the number of Cups, then? That context comes first -- context largely in terms of number and quality of opportunities to win.
Here's the thing: I'm willing to "adust" Harvey's Cup and Norris totals to account for the circumstances under which he won them. What I'm not willing to do is apply that principle selectively. If you want to say it's all about winning, fine -- Lidstrom falls short of Harvey for that reason. If you want to say that context matters and it's more about how players perform in their situation, fine -- Lidstrom's sole advantage over Bourque disappears. Pick one.
You can't have it both ways.
Quote:
Uh, making it through 3 rounds first is relevant because it's not easy to do.
Detroit had a 12-2 playoff record entering that round, facing the 8, 7 and 4 seeds. Didn't seem too tough on them at the time, which you can verify by the overwhelming expectation that they would coast over the Devils as well.
Tearing through 3 rounds of tissue paper doesn't make a Finals choke any less egregious.
Quote:
Lidstrom doesn't get a free pass for being as ineffective as his teammates in the '95 finals. It was a learning experience though and look what he and his team have done since. He was 24 or 25 and got to see how not to play defense by watching Coffey in the finals.
Even in saying that, you're blaming his teammates for his failure. Either Lidstrom is accountable for the overall result, or his individual performance needs to be pulled apart from the whole. Which is it?
Quote:
Sorry, hard to resist when someone keeps denying they have any bias when they clearly do.
Please feel free at any time to point out biased statements where they occur.
So you acknowledge it's not entirely about the number of Cups, then? That context comes first -- context largely in terms of number and quality of opportunities to win.
Here's the thing: I'm willing to "adust" Harvey's Cup and Norris totals to account for the circumstances under which he won them. What I'm not willing to do is apply that principle selectively. If you want to say it's all about winning, fine -- Lidstrom falls short of Harvey for that reason. If you want to say that context matters and it's more about how players perform in their situation, fine -- Lidstrom's sole advantage over Bourque disappears. Pick one.
You can't have it both ways.
I think danincanada's views on older players are misguided too, but I think this is a false choice. Both Harvey and Lidstrom had as much team success as any player in their respective eras did; Bourque did not. There are good reasons to rank Bourque over Lidstrom, but strictly looking at contribution to team success, I place Lidstrom right up there with Harvey.
That is how i see it and i do know that with that logic it is possible that Harvey or Shore where better than the modern players.
However i find competition today to confirm to me the level of achievement a throphy is. Its just superior compered to old times.
Its maybe unfair as the player might have been just as good or better when he got the throphy.
In addition to what superroyain10 said above, I would also point out that the size of the league is a critical factor.
300 million hockey players squeezed into a 30-team league = 10 million potential players per team.
100 million hockey players squeezed into a 6-team league = 16.6 million potential players per team.
With the numbers above, 3 times as many elite players with 5 times more opportunity actually leads to a lower level of competition. And that is exactly what happened in the time between Harvey's retirement and Lidstrom''s prime.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe
Treating the 1995 Devils as a traditional 5th seed is not being fair to them or the teams they beat.
Fair enough. Let's just say that the Wings were a very heavy favorite to win that series, and certainly not to get swept.
Yes, you apparently change your views on Lidstrom's early years post by post depending on which way you can use it to make him look worse.
In some posts, you criticize him for taking a long time to become an elite player, which is fair. But in other posts (like the one in this thread), you use those exact same early years and them directly to the best defensemen in the league at the time.
You'll have to re-type that last part so I understand exactly what you're trying to say.
In addition to what superroyain10 said above, I would also point out that the size of the league is a critical factor.
300 million hockey players squeezed into a 30-team league = 10 million potential players per team.
100 million hockey players squeezed into a 6-team league = 16.6 million potential players per team.
With the numbers above, 3 times as many elite players with 5 times more opportunity actually leads to a lower level of competition. And that is exactly what happened in the time between Harvey's retirement and Lidstrom''s prime.
Where did these numbers come from? 100 million hockey players in the O6 hahahaha
I think danincanada's views on older players are misguided too, but I think this is a false choice. Both Harvey and Lidstrom had as much team success as any player in their respective eras did; Bourque did not. There are good reasons to rank Bourque over Lidstrom, but strictly looking at contribution to team success, I place Lidstrom right up there with Harvey.
Strictly looking at contribution to team success, Harvey is quite easily ahead of Lidstrom. 6 Cup rings to 4.
If we want to bore deeper and talk about the strength of teams, strength of opposition, etc (which is certainly the right way to go), then it isn't acceptable to turn around and say Lidstrom is ahead of Bourque 4 Cup rings to 1, end of story. That's the choice. Either we go with strict Cup count for all 3 players, or we use mitigating circumstances for all 3.
Until I wrote that paragraph, it hadn't crossed my mind that the Cup gap between Lidstrom-Bourque is only 1 more than the Cup gap between Harvey-Lidstrom.
I made them up out of the dark recesses of my mind.
Feel free to supply the real figures.
The population of Canada between 42-67 was 12 million to 20 million.
Your guess is as good as mine how many of them were hockey players but in any case, since the league was almost all Canadian.. that is what you are drawing from for the most part.
The rest of your post is just name dropping. They are a bunch of hockey "legends" but in reality we don't know if any of them could even make the NHL based on their natural abilities if they were around today. We really don't. What we do know is that the NHL back then was almost entirely made up of Canadians, hence less competition when compared to today.
It's equally valid to say we don't know if any of the hockey "legends" of today could make the NHL in 1960. Come on. If you aren't knowledgeable about or interested hockey history, why are you posting in this section?
The population of Canada between 42-67 was 12 million to 20 million.
Your guess is as good as mine how many of them were hockey players but in any case, since the league was almost all Canadian.. that is what you are drawing from for the most part.
Tangent time.
Harvey's cohort of competitors was born when Canada's population was roughly 10m -- half of whom were male. I think it's fair to say that the entire male population of Canada were within the realm of the NHL's talent pool at some point in life. The league was conveniently all-Canadian, so we can just divide 5 million by 6 by 18 to estimate 46,000 Canadian males per NHL roster spot during Harvey's generation.
(this is of course oversimplified. Population replacement was greater than 1:1, some guys don't like hockey, etc)
Lidstrom's cohort of competitors includes:
Russia - roughly 60m males, adjusted to exclude some Siberian areas which have never produced NHL talent.
Canada - roughly 11m males
Sweden - roughly 4m males
Finland - roughly 2m males
Czechoslovakia - roughly 7m males
United States - in this cohort, it's basically the "M states" plus New York, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Illinois. Combined, that's around 30m males. HOWEVER, in fairness we also need to subtract from the US numbers because let's face it, the number of boys playing hockey is New York is not close to half its population. I'd say the real US figure is probably closer to 10m.
Other - of course there are any number of small national programs in various "non-hockey" places. Let's add 5m as a catch-all.
For the sake of making the math easier, let's say 100m total. That errs on the side of a larger number. Divide by 30, and again by 23, and you get around 145,000 potential players per NHL roster spot. That's a ratio of 3:1 over Harvey's cohort.
If we're going to talk about growth in the sport from Harvey to Lidstrom, 3:1 seems reasonable to me.
Strictly looking at contribution to team success, Harvey is quite easily ahead of Lidstrom. 6 Cup rings to 4.
If we want to bore deeper and talk about the strength of teams, strength of opposition, etc (which is certainly the right way to go), then it isn't acceptable to turn around and say Lidstrom is ahead of Bourque 4 Cup rings to 1, end of story. That's the choice. Either we go with strict Cup count for all 3 players, or we use mitigating circumstances for all 3.
Until I wrote that paragraph, it hadn't crossed my mind that the Cup gap between Lidstrom-Bourque is only 1 more than the Cup gap between Harvey-Lidstrom.
You're way too smart for this. I think Cup counting is a poor way to evaluate players, but if you're going to do it, Lidstrom's record is just as impressive as Harvey's when you consider the difference between a 30 team and a 6 team league and the fact that from 1945 to 1990, the NHL averaged 2 dynasties per decade, while we haven't had any since.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71
You'll have to re-type that last part so I understand exactly what you're trying to say.
In other posts, you repeatedly bring up the fact that Lidstrom was not an elite hockey player before 1996 or 1997 or so. And you're right.
But then why do you think it's a fair comparison to compare pre-prime Lidstrom to prime Bourque (or Leetch) as you've done?
You're way too smart for this. I think Cup counting is a poor way to evaluate players, but if you're going to do it, Lidstrom's record is just as impressive as Harvey's when you consider the difference between a 30 team and a 6 team league and the fact that from 1945 to 1990, the NHL averaged 2 dynasties per decade, while we haven't had any since.
Cup counting means counting Cups, right? It's not like there's some "adjusted Cups" stat in play here. Danincanada wants to count the rings.
The fact that the Wings choked away numerous golden opportunities at 6 has nothing to do with the size of the league.
The fact that the Wings choked away numerous golden opportunities at 6 has nothing to do with the size of the league.
I realize that there are some poor arguments made by pro-Lidstrom posters, but take a step back from the heat of battle. Do you really think that the Wings should be criticized for "only" winning 4 Cups, when that's more than any other team has won since the dynasty Oilers?
Also, the Devils and Avalanche also had a lot of embarrassing losses. I don't think it's possible to completely avoid early round playoff upsets in this era of the NHL.
And Harvey's Habs won 6 Cups in 8 years. Lidstrom's Wings won 4 in 12. Those runs are not equal at face value, not even if you want to adjust for era. The Habs dynasty was greater than the recent Wings mini-dynasty.
