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?
Ok, that's kinda what I thought you were trying to say. Your last sentence was a little messed up in the previous post and I just wanted it to be clear.
The only time I have compared Ray to Nik directly it included fairly equal parts from both.
It's not right on as Bourque has one more year of prime in that than Lidstrom does but it's not bad.
BUT it also includes 3 years from Bourque that were easily his worst in the league.
I happen to think it's a decently fair comparison and one that actually happened that is not based on adjusted stats.
As far as Leetch goes, I don't know what the big deal is there. He is only 2 years older and entered the league a mere 3 years before Lidstrom.
Leetch definitely shows that it was indeed possible to come in and make a huge impact in the league at an early age.
It also shows, to me anyway, the difference between a Bourque/MacInnis/Leetch level of offensive prowess and a Lidstrom level of offensive prowess.
For me to ignore how far ahead Leetch was over Lidstrom early on would be the same as ignoring how far ahead Lidstrom was over Leetch or Potvin later on.
In a previous post, you went on how Lidstrom should receive all this credit for being better at 37-40 than Bourque was at 37-40.
I don't even argue against that fact. I just simply wonder under that criteria how the fact that Bourque was better than Lidstrom from 18-27 shouldn't also be a big factor.
I told you before, just pick your poison. I am willing to debate the two under any criteria you set.
No one knows. All we know is what did happen and that's what we have to go by.
While you accuse others of turning a blind eye on reality, you do the same. 1990s Red Wings WITHOUT Lidström > 1980s Bruins WITHOUT Bourque. That's for sure and not a "who knows".
While you accuse others of turning a blind eye on reality, you do the same. 1990s Red Wings WITHOUT Lidström > 1980s Bruins WITHOUT Bourque. That's for sure and not a "who knows".
Granted it's a tiny sample size but I'm pretty sure the Wings aren't a .500 team when Nick is out of the lineup.
Most of that came with the dreadful 08' Cup winning stretch when he missed time with the knee. Didn't miss a whole lot of games in the 90's if memory serves me correct.
I love it though when the his team was too good argument is applied to him. Well every player to a man, the front office and coaches on those teams always states he was the most important player on them and the one player they absolutely could not do without. So if they were so talented doesn't that speak volumes to just how good he is.
Granted it's a tiny sample size but I'm pretty sure the Wings aren't a .500 team when Nick is out of the lineup.
What about the second part of the comparison? Bruins without Bourque?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedWings19405
I love it though when the his team was too good argument is applied to him. Well every player to a man, the front office and coaches on those teams always states he was the most important player on them and the one player they absolutely could not do without. So if they were so talented doesn't that speak volumes to just how good he is.
Of course. But I'm not using the "his team was too good" argument anyway. I'm using arguing against the argument "Bourque didn't win a single Stanley Cup with the Bruins while Lidström won several with the Red Wings, so Lidström > Bourque". Which is a joke if you compare the 1980s Bruins (no disrespect) with the 1990s Red Wings.
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.
It's not oversimplified, it's downright ridiculous.
Best defensive defenseman to ever live and one of the most team valuable players in hockey history. That's all that matters to me. I don't care who scored more, this guy for 20 years has perfectly shut down hockey's absolute best players. With ease. But the old thing is always better than the new thing so it'll take 10-20 years after his retirement for us to really appreciate him. Y'know once his name becomes bigger than he ever was, like every other top 5 name on that list.
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.
The Avalanche were only upset in the first round twice in their division winning days. You cannot equate those upsets to those of the Red Wings, who lost to a team that trailed them by double-digits ten times with Lidstrom, and often in fewer than 7 games.
1996: Stanley Cup
1997: WCF Game 6
1998: 1st Round Game 7 (15 points)
1999: WCF Game 7
2000: WCF Game 7
2001: Stanley Cup
2002: WCF Game 7
2003: 1st Round Game 7 (10 points)
Quote:
Originally Posted by TDMM
Name a player from the last 20 years with a better playoff record.
1992-2003
Patrick Roy: 104-66 (.618), averaged 100 points per regular season
Nicklas Lidstrom: 93-63 (.596), averaged 107 points per regular season
Scott Stevens: 90-62 (.592), averaged 99 points per regular season
1992-2011
Nicklas Lidstrom: 154-106 (.592), averaged 108 points per regular season
Scott Niedermayer: 122-84 (.592), averaged 100 points per regular season
Of course. But I'm not using the "his team was too good" argument anyway. I'm using arguing against the argument "Bourque didn't win a single Stanley Cup with the Bruins while Lidström won several with the Red Wings, so Lidström > Bourque". Which is a joke if you compare the 1980s Bruins (no disrespect) with the 1990s Red Wings.
My argument has never been that simple and no one should only focus on cups obviously. Lidstrom proved time and time again that he was a true champion while helping the Red Wings win those cups though and his playoff performances speaks volumes. He also won more Norris' during the regular season than Bourque and played a near flawless game many here may never fully understand. On top of all of this I think he played in the most advanced and integrated version of the NHL we have seen so far.
That's why I think Lidstrom was the better player.
The Bourque camp has the all-star nominations, getting started earlier and providing more offense. I don't see this as overcoming how strong Lidstrom has helped make the Red Wings be for the last 15 to 20 years. Bowman didn't call him "just about the perfect player" for fun, he meant it, and I agree. For a span of about 10 years you knew, with extremely few exceptions, that Lidstrom was always going to make the right play, was not going to get beat defensively and was going to transition the team into offense. Just a complete rock back there that enabled the Red Wings to do what they've done. The flash and highlight reel plays weren't there but the effectiveness and value was second to none IMO.
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?
Wasn't Eddie Shore criticized less than a month ago despite Boston winning as many Cups as anyone in the era?
Come on. If you aren't knowledgeable about or interested hockey history, why are you posting in this section?
If I recall correctly I first posted in this thread on the NHL Talk board. How or why it ended up over here I don't know. It's not like this topic hasn't been done 100 times already.
I've watched and played hockey all my life and I do like watching vintage games on the NHL Network from time to time. I have also always enjoyed looking at stats and reading about players from the past. I just don't buy into a lot of what's being sold on this board.
Posting Rules: Unacceptable Conduct
1) Flaming: Do not post any messages that harass, insult (name calling), belittle, threaten or mock other members. Debates are fine, but critique the opinion, not the person. Personal attacks are not permitted.
Wasn't Eddie Shore criticized less than a month ago despite Boston winning as many Cups as anyone in the era?
He was criticized for taking bad penalties in the playoffs which hurt his team. Also, he had the best team in the league in the regular season by a wide margin and they didn't distinguish themselves in the playoffs quite as much (though I'm starting to think that goaltending and coaching had more to do with that than Shore). The Shore in the playoffs argument is a lot more subtle than you are making it out to be.
It is your opinion that the competition is bad at defence at the moment. I think after few decades your opinion will be in terribly small minority. They will consider this normal competition level for its time frame. You just always think players and competition to be a bit better when looking back... then everyone allready have all the accolades they will get.
I never said that trophy is everything but its a good indication that it was a very good year for a player. Some may for example argue that last Norris Lidstrom got was weak... maybe, but when you look the numbers in retroperspective it might be that it was as good or as bad trophy as someone else for example Shore might have won same day. They stats where not terrible for Lidstrom.
Its impossible for me to say if some of Shores Harts where "weak" but it might be.. if you would have followed it closely.
I would not say that the 80s where vastly superior in attack either when we will look at 00s. The game was different and it was easyer to score. We have phenomenal talent at the moment in NHL as well... Not saying 80s where bad tho.
80s are anyway something we all can remember and have a grasp of... 1920s are NOT.
Quote:
Originally Posted by superroyain10
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...
Lets think of for example banking which is my field.
If we would have 6 banks competing for talent from one nation or 32 banks competing for worldwide talent i am 100% sure the best 10% would be superior in the latter option.
It is however possible that there would be the super banker talent in one of those 6 banks... even 2 maybe... but to have better overall quality in those 6 banks.... No way.
Also then we need to rank the banks. We have good banks and bad banks. As we have seen in the financial turmoil.
In the one nation small world its much much easyer to be the best bank than in world wide scale. Then its much more easyer also to be considered best of all bankers in the field as your one of the "main" guys in the best of 6 banks...
To be one of the main guys in the best bank worldwide needs much more.
I dont understand how you dont see this?
How you dont see it that when just WATCHING the old games you see the overall amateur level of the game...
I am starting to get frustrated with you here
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey
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.
Fair enough. Let's just say that the Wings were a very heavy favorite to win that series, and certainly not to get swept.
Lets think of for example banking which is my field.
If we would have 6 banks competing for talent from one nation or 32 banks competing for worldwide talent i am 100% sure the best 10% would be superior in the latter option.
It is however possible that there would be the super banker talent in one of those 6 banks... even 2 maybe... but to have better overall quality in those 6 banks.... No way.
Also then we need to rank the banks. We have good banks and bad banks. As we have seen in the financial turmoil.
In the one nation small world its much much easyer to be the best bank than in world wide scale. Then its much more easyer also to be considered best of all bankers in the field as your one of the "main" guys in the best of 6 banks...
To be one of the main guys in the best bank worldwide needs much more.
I dont understand how you dont see this?
How you dont see it that when just WATCHING the old games you see the overall amateur level of the game...
I am starting to get frustrated with you here
Seriously? You're bringing up banking as a field that has improved with globalization?
Looking at the events of the past few years in the banking field is a great illustration of how progress is not inevitable.
This thread is like the cesspool of the History board:
-Tiresome, worn-out topic that's been done 100 times already? Check.
-Same arguments we've already seen ad nauseam being recycled? Check.
-Ridiculous and tedious "the world/human race/sport/etc. has evolved and is superior now" arguments that constantly ruin history threads? Check.
-Someone moaning about how crappy the thread is? Check.
Please keep this on topic to Nicklas Lidstrom's place in history. You can talk about talent pool level, but please keep it relevant to Nicklas Lidstrom. Generalized "players of today are better," "no they aren't" posts will be moved to the appropriate thread. Moving posts is irritating and irritated moderators tend to hand out thread bans. Consider this an official warning.
My argument has never been that simple and no one should only focus on cups obviously.
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.
