HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-29-2012, 10:03 PM
  #326
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,081
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Joker View Post
Thank you. I tried to be as even-handed as possible with that post.

For me, Bourque has a clear offense edge on Lidstrom. In 1995-96, in his mid-30s and around the start of the Dead Puck Era, Ray Bourque scored 20 goals and 82 points in 82 games for the Boston Bruins.

Largely for that reason, I'm inclined to think that his 80s and early 90s stats, while probably slightly inflated by the hockey of the era, isn't that far off from what he would have produced in the most modern era.

In other words, I think that Bourque would have racked up several 20 goal and Point-Per-Game seasons even if his career had started when Lidstrom's did. [/B]

Lidstrom himself had one 20 goal season, and one PPG season, throughout his entire career. His offensive numbers are still excellent, of course, but I think it's clear that Bourque is a solid notch or two above Lidstrom on offense alone. And even if we agree that Lidstrom has an edge on defense, I don't think it's enough to make up Bourque's offense edge.
to the bolded part, here is a list of all Dmen who scored over >8 PPG in a season for over 40 games in any season since 92

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...oints_per_game

Notice that only Mike Green hits the top 20 after 96 (which after scoring dipped quite a bit) with 12th and 19th.

Here is the same lsit of all dman seasons with a PPG rate of over >* from 97-12.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...oints_per_game

That's right in 15 seasons since 97 exactly 3 times has any dman hit over a PPG and only 34 in total have hit over .8 PPG

One might notice that no Dman, of the lsit of 34, took over 300 shots in seasons post 97 either.

Only 3 Dmen in total over those last 15 seasons too more than 300 shots. buff, Blake and Mac scoring .65, .74,.76 PPG

that page of top 100 shots by dman is here, the 100th takes 202

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...order_by=shots



Bourque pre 97 has 10 seasons where he has 300 plus shots.

From 80-96 there were 23 dmen who took more than 300 shots in a season and the 1st page (of 100 Dmen) stops at 232 shots

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...order_by=shots

Sure Bourque probably gets a PPG pace a couple of times if his career starts in 92 along with Lidstrom but people here are really forgetting the changing role and use of Dmen that happened in the clutch and grab era and beyond.

Hardyvan123 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2012, 11:49 PM
  #327
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
to the bolded part, here is a list of all Dmen who scored over >8 PPG in a season for over 40 games in any season since 92

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...oints_per_game

Notice that only Mike Green hits the top 20 after 96 (which after scoring dipped quite a bit) with 12th and 19th.

Here is the same lsit of all dman seasons with a PPG rate of over >* from 97-12.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...oints_per_game

That's right in 15 seasons since 97 exactly 3 times has any dman hit over a PPG and only 34 in total have hit over .8 PPG

One might notice that no Dman, of the lsit of 34, took over 300 shots in seasons post 97 either.

Only 3 Dmen in total over those last 15 seasons too more than 300 shots. buff, Blake and Mac scoring .65, .74,.76 PPG

that page of top 100 shots by dman is here, the 100th takes 202

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...order_by=shots



Bourque pre 97 has 10 seasons where he has 300 plus shots.

From 80-96 there were 23 dmen who took more than 300 shots in a season and the 1st page (of 100 Dmen) stops at 232 shots

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...order_by=shots

Sure Bourque probably gets a PPG pace a couple of times if his career starts in 92 along with Lidstrom but people here are really forgetting the changing role and use of Dmen that happened in the clutch and grab era and beyond.
And as I have said before, it's a nice theory and one that was more plausible prior to last season.
Unfortunately, every year that Karlsson has like last season will put another hole it until it sinks to the bottom.
What we'll be left with is the "other" explanation. Namely, that we simply haven't had D-men offensively talented enough to do it.

Time will tell.

I for one am extremely happy that Karlsson won the Norris last year. Nothing against Weber, I love the guy but Karlsson winning it gives me hope that other teams will see this and also let their D-men open things up a bit more.
I am sick and tired of all this no risk, no reward, playing not to lose crap that's been going on for the last decade+.
I'd much rather watch the Karlsson's, Subban's and Letang's any day of the week and twice on Sunday!


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 11-29-2012 at 11:55 PM.
Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 01:36 AM
  #328
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
And as I have said before, it's a nice theory and one that was more plausible prior to last season.
Unfortunately, every year that Karlsson has like last season will put another hole it until it sinks to the bottom.
What we'll be left with is the "other" explanation. Namely, that we simply haven't had D-men offensively talented enough to do it.

Time will tell.

I for one am extremely happy that Karlsson won the Norris last year. Nothing against Weber, I love the guy but Karlsson winning it gives me hope that other teams will see this and also let their D-men open things up a bit more.
I am sick and tired of all this no risk, no reward, playing not to lose crap that's been going on for the last decade+.
I'd much rather watch the Karlsson's, Subban's and Letang's any day of the week and twice on Sunday!
So in other words, you're saying Lidstrom wasn't good enough offenively to play the style Karlsson played last year, because he didn't play it? Instead of acknowledging that Lidstrom was a defensive monster capable of shutting ANYONE down, even players like Lindros who couldn't be shut down by "unbeatable" defensive defensemen like Stevens?

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 03:31 AM
  #329
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 31,718
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
Lidstrom was a defensive monster capable of shutting ANYONE down, even players like Lindros who couldn't be shut down by "unbeatable" defensive defensemen like Stevens?
Obligatory note that Lidstrom did not shut down Lindros all by himself.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 03:34 AM
  #330
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
So in other words, you're saying Lidstrom wasn't good enough offenively to play the style Karlsson played last year, because he didn't play it? Instead of acknowledging that Lidstrom was a defensive monster capable of shutting ANYONE down, even players like Lindros who couldn't be shut down by "unbeatable" defensive defensemen like Stevens?

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
I'm not even sure what you're trying to say here to be honest.

I'll try and answer what I think you're trying to say.
First off, I have never said anything remotely bad about Lidstrom's defense ever. I just said I'm sick of the ultra conservative play, playing not to lose crap that's been the norm in the NHL for more than a decade now.
Second, Lidstrom did not shut down Lindros by himself, he had a lot of help. It was a full line effort and that's a fact!
Third, Stevens didn't just shut Lindros down, he knocked him right out of the playoffs.
Fourth, no IMO, Lidstrom was not capable of playing Karlsson's or Bourque's style. He didn't have puck possession skills that those two guys have/had and Lidstrom NEVER showed in 20 years that he was capable of producing offense at even strength at that kind of level.
You're welcome to try and prove otherwise.

Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 05:06 AM
  #331
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,973
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
So in other words, you're saying Lidstrom wasn't good enough offenively to play the style Karlsson played last year, because he didn't play it? Instead of acknowledging that Lidstrom was a defensive monster capable of shutting ANYONE down, even players like Lindros who couldn't be shut down by "unbeatable" defensive defensemen like Stevens?

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
The Devils and Flyers were in the same division, and Lindros scored at a significantly lower rate against the Devils, with Scott Stevens being the primary reason. No, Lindros wasn't embarrassed like he was in the 1997 finals, but he consistently took a hit to his production against Stevens, including the 1995 ECFs.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 07:10 AM
  #332
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 31,718
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
No, Lindros wasn't embarrassed like he was in the 1997 finals, but he consistently took a hit
Edited for brevity

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 07:33 AM
  #333
jkrx
Registered User
 
jkrx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,188
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
I'm not even sure what you're trying to say here to be honest.

I'll try and answer what I think you're trying to say.
First off, I have never said anything remotely bad about Lidstrom's defense ever. I just said I'm sick of the ultra conservative play, playing not to lose crap that's been the norm in the NHL for more than a decade now.
Second, Lidstrom did not shut down Lindros by himself, he had a lot of help. It was a full line effort and that's a fact!
Third, Stevens didn't just shut Lindros down, he knocked him right out of the playoffs.
Fourth, no IMO, Lidstrom was not capable of playing Karlsson's or Bourque's style. He didn't have puck possession skills that those two guys have/had and Lidstrom NEVER showed in 20 years that he was capable of producing offense at even strength at that kind of level.
You're welcome to try and prove otherwise.
Both Stevens and Lidströms primary objectives in the playoffs were to shutdown Lindros.

But no, Lidström didnt have puck possession skills like those two.



Just look how clumsy he is. Pure luck it even went in.

Sorry but Lidström was used differently than Bourque and Karlsson. That is what makes the difference. Im sorry you think conservative hockey is boring but that is not Lidströms fault nor is it Niedermeyers or Gonchars fault. Thats just the way defensemen were used in the NHL during DPE (and pre-Orr but you dont dissmiss Harvey for some reason).

jkrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 08:03 AM
  #334
Gobias Industries
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Gobias Industries's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,350
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Bourque also found the fountain of youth, well the situation in Colorado, that helped him get his all star berth which was his 2nd (99) since 96.

Had Bourque not signed with Colorado, it's highly unlikely that anyone would remember his age 40 season as anything but his last IMO.

Full credit to him in thriving in that ideal situation but for all of the talk of Lidstroms stacked teams we should keep Bourques scenery and buck against his downward trend in perspective.
I see this information proving an entirely different point. The change in scenery is reflective of how being surrounded by talent can benefit one's career.

What if Bourque had been traded to a team like Colorado when he was 25? Would we have seen a similar boost?

Gobias Industries is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 10:56 AM
  #335
JackSlater
Registered User
 
JackSlater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,818
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Bourque also found the fountain of youth, well the situation in Colorado, that helped him get his all star berth which was his 2nd (99) since 96.

Had Bourque not signed with Colorado, it's highly unlikely that anyone would remember his age 40 season as anything but his last IMO.

Full credit to him in thriving in that ideal situation but for all of the talk of Lidstroms stacked teams we should keep Bourques scenery and buck against his downward trend in perspective.
Do you not think that we should give the same treatment to Lidstrom, who instead of being traded to a team loaded with talent basically always played on one?

JackSlater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 11:03 AM
  #336
Thesensation19
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,365
vCash: 500
Lidstrom is in my top 20 players... easily and depending on the situation he would be my top pick of an all time draft.

Thesensation19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 12:40 PM
  #337
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkrx View Post
Both Stevens and Lidströms primary objectives in the playoffs were to shutdown Lindros.

But no, Lidström didnt have puck possession skills like those two.



Just look how clumsy he is. Pure luck it even went in.

Sorry but Lidström was used differently than Bourque and Karlsson. That is what makes the difference. Im sorry you think conservative hockey is boring but that is not Lidströms fault nor is it Niedermeyers or Gonchars fault. Thats just the way defensemen were used in the NHL during DPE (and pre-Orr but you dont dissmiss Harvey for some reason).
No, the difference is that Bourque and Karlsson were/are different players.
I could try and dig up the clip of Lyle Odelein going coast to coast and scoring a goal while getting a hat trick but I don't think it's actually necessary.

Puck possession is not what you seem to think it is. It's not about how well you can pinch off the blueline and take a pass inside the opposing zone or how well you can control with the man advantage. It's about controlling the puck for the entire ice at any time. It's serves as both an offensive and defensive weapon. Controlling the puck while the other teams best players are on the ice is a lot more effective than simply defending against them, no matter how good you are at it.
It's also not about what Coffey, Housley and Green did/do, carrying the puck for the sole purpose of creating a scoring chance every time.
True puck possession isn't about sacrificing defense for offense, it's about balance.
Go watch how the Russians played in the 70's and 80's. Their whole game was puck possession.
I don't mind conservative hockey, I watched and enjoyed plenty of it with my Habs in the old Adams division over the years. I prefer it in fact to the all out firewagon hockey that was being played in the Smythe division.
There's a difference between playing conservative but still playing to win and playing conservative, playing not to lose.

You need to do some more research on Harvey and how he played. He was all about control, both defensively and offensively in ALL zones. Karlsson doesn't have the defensive control of a Harvey, a Lidstrom or a Bourque, not yet anyway. He does however, have a lot of the same neutral and offensive zone puck control that Bourque and Harvey had. Lidstrom has never had that except on during a PP and that's not remotely the same thing.

It's never been about Lidstrom not being talented, he is. It's about not having the the skills and especially the instincts that Orr, Bourque and Harvey had and Karlsson has just begun to showcase.

The league/coaches over the last 15 years haven't limited D-men like Bourque and Harvey from playing their style. It/they have limited D-men like Coffey and Housley from playing their style, namely, not allowing the sacrificing of defense for offense.
Stop confusing the defensively suspect offensive playstyle of a lot of D-men in the 80's and early 90's with what Bourque did. Bourque was not the same as Housley just like Karlsson is not the same as Green.
And Lidstrom is like none of them. He's more like MacInnis or Chelios. Better defensively than Mac (not as good as a PP QB though) and obviously a hell of a lot less aggressive and physical as Chelios.


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 11-30-2012 at 01:01 PM.
Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 12:50 PM
  #338
JackSlater
Registered User
 
JackSlater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,818
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thesensation19 View Post
Lidstrom is in my top 20 players... easily and depending on the situation he would be my top pick of an all time draft.
What situation would see Lidstrom go first?

JackSlater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 02:59 PM
  #339
bluesfan94
#BackesforSelke
 
bluesfan94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: St. Louis
Country: United States
Posts: 6,321
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JackSlater View Post
What situation would see Lidstrom go first?
Swedish players only?

bluesfan94 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 03:04 PM
  #340
thom
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,953
vCash: 500
Lidstrom is in top 20 maybe top 10 when you win 7 norris and help lead your team to stanley cups.Plus he was one of the greatest europeans to captain a team.The arguement is how high you put him and what other factors would hurt him or elevate him?

thom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 03:18 PM
  #341
OrrNumber4
Registered User
 
OrrNumber4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 7,398
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thom View Post
Lidstrom is in top 20 maybe top 10 when you win 7 norris and help lead your team to stanley cups.Plus he was one of the greatest europeans to captain a team.The arguement is how high you put him and what other factors would hurt him or elevate him?
What hurts him is his competition on that top ten list.

OrrNumber4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 03:28 PM
  #342
thom
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,953
vCash: 500
It's a tough one a lot of factors involved in where to position a player.You could be right I don't know.Maybe a coach would like a more physical player and would have to decide if Lidstrom has other qualities that would help instead.Again its tough for me not to put him high because of his 7 norris trophy's.System of play is also a factor some coaches want their players to have a set of skills that will fit the coaches style of play

thom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 03:50 PM
  #343
redbull
Expect more
 
redbull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,605
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
No, the difference is that Bourque and Karlsson were/are different players.
I could try and dig up the clip of Lyle Odelein going coast to coast and scoring a goal while getting a hat trick but I don't think it's actually necessary.

Puck possession is not what you seem to think it is. It's not about how well you can pinch off the blueline and take a pass inside the opposing zone or how well you can control with the man advantage. It's about controlling the puck for the entire ice at any time. It's serves as both an offensive and defensive weapon. Controlling the puck while the other teams best players are on the ice is a lot more effective than simply defending against them, no matter how good you are at it.
It's also not about what Coffey, Housley and Green did/do, carrying the puck for the sole purpose of creating a scoring chance every time.
True puck possession isn't about sacrificing defense for offense, it's about balance.
Go watch how the Russians played in the 70's and 80's. Their whole game was puck possession.
I don't mind conservative hockey, I watched and enjoyed plenty of it with my Habs in the old Adams division over the years. I prefer it in fact to the all out firewagon hockey that was being played in the Smythe division.
There's a difference between playing conservative but still playing to win and playing conservative, playing not to lose.

You need to do some more research on Harvey and how he played. He was all about control, both defensively and offensively in ALL zones. Karlsson doesn't have the defensive control of a Harvey, a Lidstrom or a Bourque, not yet anyway. He does however, have a lot of the same neutral and offensive zone puck control that Bourque and Harvey had. Lidstrom has never had that except on during a PP and that's not remotely the same thing.

It's never been about Lidstrom not being talented, he is. It's about not having the the skills and especially the instincts that Orr, Bourque and Harvey had and Karlsson has just begun to showcase.

The league/coaches over the last 15 years haven't limited D-men like Bourque and Harvey from playing their style. It/they have limited D-men like Coffey and Housley from playing their style, namely, not allowing the sacrificing of defense for offense.
Stop confusing the defensively suspect offensive playstyle of a lot of D-men in the 80's and early 90's with what Bourque did. Bourque was not the same as Housley just like Karlsson is not the same as Green.
And Lidstrom is like none of them. He's more like MacInnis or Chelios. Better defensively than Mac (not as good as a PP QB though) and obviously a hell of a lot less aggressive and physical as Chelios.
This is an excellent post, one of the best descriptions of Lidstrom's game, strengths and difference among other styles of other defensemen.

Lidstrom was simply not a player who could/would lead a rush to generate offense 5on5 or control the play like some other great dmen all time. I have seen Doug Harvey play 2-3 times on video (obviously) and he was impressive from a "controlling the game" aspect. Orr did the same. Most recently, Potvin, Bourque did that extremely well in a way that did NOT compromise defense.

Lidstrom was a great defenseman because of how good he was, for how long, and how he managed to be effective no matter the game situation. Can't take that away from him, he's rare and special because of it. But eye test in how a player can dominate a game, break up plays and generate offense, especially 5on5, Lidstrom isn't close to some of the all time greats IMO.

redbull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 05:10 PM
  #344
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 7,646
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
Obligatory note that Lidstrom did not shut down Lindros all by himself.
Yes, I do get a kick out of the line of thought that somehow a defenseman shadows a forward and shuts him down without any help.

Lets put Lidstrom, Stevens, Bourque, Chelios, you name it, on the Hartford Whalers and see how well any of them shut down Eric Lindros in his prime.

Dennis Bonvie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 08:03 PM
  #345
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,081
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gobias Industries View Post
I see this information proving an entirely different point. The change in scenery is reflective of how being surrounded by talent can benefit one's career.

What if Bourque had been traded to a team like Colorado when he was 25? Would we have seen a similar boost?
Well at least then we wouldn't always hear the old "he played on bad teams argument" that gets blown out of proportion here a lot.

I was just noting how their 40 year old seasons were preceded differently at the back end of their careers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JackSlater View Post
Do you not think that we should give the same treatment to Lidstrom, who instead of being traded to a team loaded with talent basically always played on one?
Sure we should treat guys equally but is it incorrect to say that before that season Ray was in a serious decline?

Not that there is anything wrong with that of course at that age.

Playing on better or worse teams have their advantages and disadvantages as far as
sticking out and R-on, R-off, scoring and individual accomplishments as well.

I'm actually planning an in depth look and year by year comparison between Ray and Lidstrom (who are my 1 and 2 all time on the Dman list).

Not sure when I will get around to it though but I really think we need to compare these guys in depth year by year in a nice and slow manner...god knows it hasn't been done yet....

The 1st one will be titled Ray in 80 compared to Nick in 92.

Hardyvan123 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 09:02 PM
  #346
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Well at least then we wouldn't always hear the old "he played on bad teams argument" that gets blown out of proportion here a lot.

I was just noting how their 40 year old seasons were preceded differently at the back end of their careers.
That prolly has something to with Bourque being in his 22nd season at 40 while Lidstrom was only in his 18th.

Suffice to say, I'm looking forward to your year by year analysis.
Especially when Bourque's 20th season goes up against Lidstrom's 20th.

Suffice to say, Bourque was better in his 20th, 21st AND 22nd season than Lidstrom was in his 20th.

Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 09:04 PM
  #347
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,973
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
That prolly has something to with Bourque being in his 22nd season at 40 while Lidstrom was only in his 18th.

Suffice to say, I'm looking forward to your year by year analysis.
Especially when Bourque's 20th season goes up against Lidstrom's 20th.

Suffice to say, Bourque was better in his 20th, 21st AND 22nd season than Lidstrom was in his 20th.
I'm failing to see how the age those two were when they entered the NHL has any bearing on how they performed when they were 40 years old.

Bourque should get credit for being a star at a younger age than Lidstrom; there's no need to give him double credit by comparing his age 36 season to Lidstrom's age 40 season.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 09:09 PM
  #348
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I'm failing to see how the age those two were when they entered the NHL has any bearing on how they performed when they were 40 years old.
You really don't think that 3 more years of NHL wear and tear wouldn't have had an effect?

You're kidding yourself Devil

I really don't know how you want to do it then.
At the end of the day you have Bourque's first 4-5 seasons being clearly better than Lidstrom first 4-5 seasons and at the end you have Bourque playing 2 more seasons total.

Any way I look at it, there's a 5-7 year gap between them.
I dunno, I'll leave it up to you then, by seasons or by age, pick one. I'm not picky.


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 11-30-2012 at 09:15 PM.
Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 09:12 PM
  #349
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,973
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
You really don't think that 3 more years of NHL wear and tear wouldn't have had an effect?

You're kidding yourself Devil
No more than all the extra playoff games that Lidstrom played.

It's not like Lidstrom wasn't playing hockey anywhere from the ages of 18-20.

Lidstrom was better than Bourque after the age of 35. I don't know why you are trying to take that away from him.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 09:20 PM
  #350
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
No more than all the extra playoff games that Lidstrom played.

It's not like Lidstrom wasn't playing hockey anywhere from the ages of 18-20.

Lidstrom was better than Bourque after the age of 35. I don't know why you are trying to take that away from him.
Not taking anything away from Lidstrom. I didn't pick it by season, Hardy did with preview of '92 vs '80. I just ran with it.
You want to do it by age instead, go for it.
There's a 5-7 year gap either way.

I said it before and I'll say it again, just pick your poison. I'm good to go with either.

Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:58 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.