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
12-01-2012, 12:35 PM
  #376
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 31,743
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Darn points are points aren't they?
I do think we are starting to split hairs excessively here. At this point I doubt very much that we are going to discover something about these players' offense that we didn't already know.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2012, 12:38 PM
  #377
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 tarheelhockey View Post
Thanks for finding and posting these.

I think the content of these videos pretty clearly shows Lidstrom's ability to change the game defensively. Sort of a black hole who swallows up offense any time it comes near. Chara has a similar effect on opponents, but more as a result of his reach and his ability to just snuff skaters out physically, as opposed to Lidstrom's positioning and incredible athletic coordination.

On the other hand, the limited offensive style R71 is talking about is also evident, particularly in the second video. Lidstrom has a really high hockey IQ and rarely makes a bad pass, and that is demonstrated clearly by a variety of smart, subtle passes. He plays extremely well within the system, and you see that on nearly every single highlight. We also see that there's a well positioned teammate at the end of those passes, ready to receive the puck on the tape and transition to the next step. The plays are effective not just because of Lidstrom, but also because of a high level of team support and coordination. You can see it right there in the video... none of those plays end with a scrub fumbling the puck and turning it over, which would be a common sight on most teams. And as a result of that style, we really don't see Lidstrom making the creative skill plays which characterize the offensive games of not just Bourque, but also Potvin and Leetch and Zubov among others.

Now, there's an argument to be made that Lidstrom doesn't make those types of plays because he doesn't have to, end of story. Fair enough. But it still leaves an offensive gap between him and others, not unlike the players who were cogs in the Soviet machine.
Yeah, it's really easy to see Lidstrom's game in those vids.
You can see just how easy he makes defense look.
But you can also see that he does not play a puck possession game nor does he do much with puck outside of the defensive zone.

Watch 5 minutes of Bourque or Karlsson and the differences are as plain as the nose on your face.
Then watch some footage of the Russian teams in the 70's/80's or even the Russian Five in Detroit in the 90's.
Pure puck possession and you see pretty quickly who's game fits more into that style, Lidstrom's or Bourque's and Karlsson's.

Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2012, 12:48 PM
  #378
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,084
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Did Bourque abandon defense to produce offense like Coffey or Housley? No, he did not!
If he did, you don't think he would have scored even more points? (That's a rhetorical question btw.)
How is he going to play more offensive?

He wasn't taking all of those shots from behind his blueline was he?

His role was already that of having the green light any time he wanted to join the offensive.

The fact that he was better than Paul or Phil defensively doesn't mean anything one way or another.

Lidstrom's role was more defensive 1st and that gap is larger than you are willing to admit here but that's neither here or there because defense can't be measured as well as offense can.



Quote:
It's not a sudden obsession.
What's harder? Scoring when playing against an equal amount of opposing players while playing with any combination of players from lines 1-4 or scoring when you have more players on the ice than the opposition and you are playing with the best offensive players from your team?
(Again, that's a rhetorical question.)
What's harder? Scoring after 96 is definitely much harder than 80-95.

Once again you are comparing Bourque who played offensive any time he wanted to Lidstrom who played a much more conservative game and often with more offensive minded D partners who weren't top notch defensively.


Quote:
And again, Lidstrom's ES production is higher during the last 7 seasons than his career average.
Might say something about his role, the era of post lockout hockey ect, doesn't say anything about his skill level or lack of it.

In 1612 games Ray took 6206 shots=3.85 SPG
In 1564 shots Nick took 3875 shots= 2.48 SPG

Part of this is because Ray had the better offensive skill set. Other parts of this are the era that Ray played in (much more high scoring and looser defensively, never mind the changes in goal tending) and their specific roles on their teams as well.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2012, 01:09 PM
  #379
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
How is he going to play more offensive?

He wasn't taking all of those shots from behind his blueline was he?

His role was already that of having the green light any time he wanted to join the offensive.

The fact that he was better than Paul or Phil defensively doesn't mean anything one way or another.

Lidstrom's role was more defensive 1st and that gap is larger than you are willing to admit here but that's neither here or there because defense can't be measured as well as offense can.
Bourque may have had the green light any time he wanted but he certainly didn't act on it all the time.
If the Bruins were up a goal or two, Bourque was playing the exact same role that Lidstrom played. Unlike Coffey or Housley who would still be attacking whether their team is up 1 goal or 6.

And again, Bourque didn't just blindly rush up the ice, he controlled the flow and the puck and attacked strategically.


Quote:
What's harder? Scoring after 96 is definitely much harder than 80-95.

Once again you are comparing Bourque who played offensive any time he wanted to Lidstrom who played a much more conservative game and often with more offensive minded D partners who weren't top notch defensively.




Might say something about his role, the era of post lockout hockey ect, doesn't say anything about his skill level or lack of it.

In 1612 games Ray took 6206 shots=3.85 SPG
In 1564 shots Nick took 3875 shots= 2.48 SPG

Part of this is because Ray had the better offensive skill set. Other parts of this are the era that Ray played in (much more high scoring and looser defensively, never mind the changes in goal tending) and their specific roles on their teams as well.
Bourque definitely had the better offensive skill set and he had a phenomenal puck possession game that Lidstrom didn't.
His puck possession game alone bridges most of any perceived gap in their relative defensive play.
Controlling the puck while the other teams best players are on the ice is much more effective than defending against them over and over.

You can talk roles until you're blue in the face but again, for every season that Karlsson puts in like his last, that argument loses credibility.
Again, as I said earlier, it's never been about limiting D-men that play a style like Bourque or Karlsson. It's been about limiting D-men that play a style like Coffey or Housley.
It's actually a very short list of D-men that can/could play a balanced style that would be acceptable in today's game.
Karlsson's name is obviously on that list now and Bourque would always be on that list. Lidstrom's is NOT.

You keep including Bourque amongst the offensive first, defensively sacrificing D-men of the 80's/90's and that's complete ********!

Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2012, 02:13 PM
  #380
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
We've already discussed defensive partners, where R71 seemed to try and make the argument that Bourque was effectively playing with third-pairing partners while Lidstrom's partners were always top-level defensemen, and that Bourque playing with such talented forwards as Barry Pederson, Rick Middleton, Craig Janney, Jozef Stumpel, Adam Oates, Cam Neely, Joe Juneau, and Jason Allison had zero bearing on his offensive totals.
What's this try crap?
The differences in teammate and D partner strength between the two was conclusive beyond a shadow of a doubt.

All you could do in that debate was cherry pick Lidstrom's one season paired with Stuart.

Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2012, 03:13 PM
  #381
Wrath
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,028
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
We've already discussed defensive partners, where R71 seemed to try and make the argument that Bourque was effectively playing with third-pairing partners while Lidstrom's partners were always top-level defensemen, and that Bourque playing with such talented forwards as Barry Pederson, Rick Middleton, Craig Janney, Jozef Stumpel, Adam Oates, Cam Neely, Joe Juneau, and Jason Allison had zero bearing on his offensive totals.

And adjusted stats are flawed. But combined with the fact that Lidstrom led all defensemen more often than Bourque did, and poted quite significant totals while playing a far more defensive game, shows that he was definitely an offensively capable defenseman. And if that's not enough, 1993-94 where Lidstrom actually outscored a NORRIS-WINNING Bourque at ES should make it clear.
Wait so... you just used adjusted stats to try and say Lidstrom was "on par" or even better than Bourque at offense, then R71 gives you a graph of adjusted point totals, now you say adjusted stats are flawed....

Make up your mind.

Lidstrom led scoring for defensemen more times than Bourque, but Bourque also had higher league scoring finishes (y'know, with forwards and all) than Lidstrom. It's really hard to make the argument that Lidstrom is the better offensive defenseman. The better offensive defenseman for his era (of defenseman, not including.... forwards)? Sure.

Wrath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2012, 03:36 PM
  #382
danincanada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,038
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Bourque definitely had the better offensive skill set and he had a phenomenal puck possession game that Lidstrom didn't.
His puck possession game alone bridges most of any perceived gap in their relative defensive play.
Controlling the puck while the other teams best players are on the ice is much more effective than defending against them over and over.
Huh?? You claim to have watched a lot of Red Wings games during Lidstrom's career. I'll take your word for it but I don't have a clue how you came up with this. Do you really think that Lidstrom was constantly just trying to defend defend defend? The same player who was a master of breaking up plays and turning it the other way with an intelligent pass to a teammate. The same team that usually applied the pressure during his career instead of sitting back. The same team that regularly out shot the opposition by large margins, even during most of the playoff series when they got upset, never mind the ones they won.

You mention the great Soviet teams and their puck possession. You must realize that Bowman put together the Russian 5 and from then on the Red Wings have been a puck possession team. Babcock came in and used a similar style of play and it's been referenced a million times over the years. The Detroit Red Wings, PUCK POSSESSION TEAM. Lidstrom's been a huge part of both eras obviously - this last "era" (after the lockout and post Yzerman) was essentially Lidstrom's team and they built it around him. It was about keeping the puck away from the other team and in order to do that individual players and the team as a whole must be able to control and possess the puck, and not blindly give it away. Lidstrom was amazing at this as Bowman has noted multiple times.

First it's all about ES points, as if that's all that matters. Now Lidstrom wasn't a "puck possession" guy. Grasping at straws is what most people would call those two arguments.

danincanada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2012, 03:44 PM
  #383
newfy
Registered User
 
newfy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 5,619
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
What's this try crap?
The differences in teammate and D partner strength between the two was conclusive beyond a shadow of a doubt.

All you could do in that debate was cherry pick Lidstrom's one season paired with Stuart.
I hate getting into this with you, but why have you always said Lidstroms strength of team is a positive for him but then talk about Borques offense as the reason he was clearly better? Bourque on a great team like Lidstrom would not be given all the prime offensive time and be relied on so heavily. Sure he would have still taken a tonne of minutes but they would have been more evenly distributed with the likes of Konstantinov, Murphy, Coffey, Chelios etc. Being on bad teams can help offense as much as it hurts it.

It shows how Bourque was used in Colorado. Yeah he was older but he still was played behind other players in some situations and wasnt the go to guy at all times like he was in Boston.

newfy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2012, 03:46 PM
  #384
Wrath
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,028
vCash: 500
Bourque also was clearly in decline and he put up his best offensive season in 3(?) years upon coming to Colorado.

I think R71's argument is that in a vacuum (no teams) Bourque's offensive ability>Lidstrom's offensive ability.


I mean, I agree with you overall, but I think it still depends on the team. On a stacked team Coffey still had absurd scoring finishes.

Wrath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2012, 03:53 PM
  #385
thom
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,953
vCash: 500
That's where coaching style comes in a coach like Bowman when he was with montreal hated high scoring games.He liked 4 to 2 games and would position his players and give them the ice time that was appropriate.Sather would win games 7 to 5 and cared little about the defensive game in regular season

thom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2012, 04:02 PM
  #386
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,390
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by newfy View Post
I hate getting into this with you, but why have you always said Lidstroms strength of team is a positive for him but then talk about Borques offense as the reason he was clearly better? Bourque on a great team like Lidstrom would not be given all the prime offensive time and be relied on so heavily. Sure he would have still taken a tonne of minutes but they would have been more evenly distributed with the likes of Konstantinov, Murphy, Coffey, Chelios etc. Being on bad teams can help offense as much as it hurts it.

It shows how Bourque was used in Colorado. Yeah he was older but he still was played behind other players in some situations and wasnt the go to guy at all times like he was in Boston.
I touched on this before but apparently I was being unreasonable about the obvious double standard.

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2012, 04:07 PM
  #387
steve141
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 523
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
Thanks for finding and posting these.

I think the content of these videos pretty clearly shows Lidstrom's ability to change the game defensively. Sort of a black hole who swallows up offense any time it comes near. Chara has a similar effect on opponents, but more as a result of his reach and his ability to just snuff skaters out physically, as opposed to Lidstrom's positioning and incredible athletic coordination.
Here's another great highlight video showing how Lidstrom uses positioning and his stick to defend 2-on-1:s.


steve141 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2012, 04:15 PM
  #388
danincanada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,038
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by newfy View Post
I hate getting into this with you, but why have you always said Lidstroms strength of team is a positive for him but then talk about Borques offense as the reason he was clearly better? Bourque on a great team like Lidstrom would not be given all the prime offensive time and be relied on so heavily. Sure he would have still taken a tonne of minutes but they would have been more evenly distributed with the likes of Konstantinov, Murphy, Coffey, Chelios etc. Being on bad teams can help offense as much as it hurts it.

It shows how Bourque was used in Colorado. Yeah he was older but he still was played behind other players in some situations and wasnt the go to guy at all times like he was in Boston.
Exactly. With the Bruins, Bourque got a lot more time on the PP than Lidstrom ever did. This wasn't because Lidstrom wasn't a great PP player but because there were other options on the Red Wings. Over a full season, this is huge:

PP TOI/GAME

'97-98 Bourque 6:01 Lidstrom 4:46
'98-99 Bourque 6:42 Lidstrom 5:20
'99-00 Bourque 5:56 Lidstrom 4:29
'00-01 Bourque 5:01 Lidstrom 5:26 (Ray's full season with the Avs)

Just imagine the amount of PP time Bourque received in his prime years with the Bruins. Lidstrom rarely got to play any more than half of the PP cause there was always another unit.

This doesn't just apply to Lidstrom either, the Red Wings teams for the past 20 years have been all about having two separate PP units. It has hurt Datsyuk's offensive numbers as well, while the Crosby's and Ovechkin's generally got a lot more PP time. What Datsyuk did offensively in '08-09 with far less PP time than "the big 3" was amazing. I think he would have won the scoring title and Hart if he was given the same PP time as they got that year.

danincanada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2012, 04:47 PM
  #389
steve141
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 523
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
But you can also see that he [Lidstrom] does not play a puck possession game nor does he do much with puck outside of the defensive zone.
This is simply wrong. I'm not sure what definition of puck possession gme you are using, but it traditionally denotes a playing style where you strive to keep the puck in your team's possession as much as possible. Lidstrom's game was all about puck possession.

Now, Bourque was clearly a better offensive player than Lidstrom. He was a better offensive skater, a better puck-handler, a better shooter. But I'm also very sure that he lost the puck more often than Lidstrom. Not because he wasn't a great stickhandler, but because he took more risks than Lidstrom.

Lidstrom's trademark was the safe, reliable D-to-D passing. He positioned himself so far back in the defensive zone, that he was basically always open to receive a pass from his team mates. When he got hold of the puck he almost never coughed it up. This is one of the most common observations made by team mates and other commentators.

Are you now telling us that what we have been hearing about Lidstrom's safe, reliable puck possesion style during all these years is false? If so, please explain why your view differs from most other observers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Watch 5 minutes of Bourque or Karlsson and the differences are as plain as the nose on your face.
During the previous season Karlsson had the best year of his career (so far), while Lidstrom's play was below his usual standard. Lidstrom still had 23 giveaways to Karlsson's 84. I don't understand how anybody can claim that Karlsson's game was more of a puck possession game.

steve141 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2012, 05:33 PM
  #390
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 danincanada View Post
Exactly. With the Bruins, Bourque got a lot more time on the PP than Lidstrom ever did. This wasn't because Lidstrom wasn't a great PP player but because there were other options on the Red Wings. Over a full season, this is huge:

PP TOI/GAME

'97-98 Bourque 6:01 Lidstrom 4:46
'98-99 Bourque 6:42 Lidstrom 5:20
'99-00 Bourque 5:56 Lidstrom 4:29
'00-01 Bourque 5:01 Lidstrom 5:26 (Ray's full season with the Avs)

Just imagine the amount of PP time Bourque received in his prime years with the Bruins. Lidstrom rarely got to play any more than half of the PP cause there was always another unit.

This doesn't just apply to Lidstrom either, the Red Wings teams for the past 20 years have been all about having two separate PP units. It has hurt Datsyuk's offensive numbers as well, while the Crosby's and Ovechkin's generally got a lot more PP time. What Datsyuk did offensively in '08-09 with far less PP time than "the big 3" was amazing. I think he would have won the scoring title and Hart if he was given the same PP time as they got that year.
While this goes to the fact that Bourque averaged 0.47 PP points/game to Lidstrom's 0.37 PP points/game.

But unfortunately it does absolutely nothing to explain Bourque's 0.51 ES points/game to Lidstrom's 0.35 ES points/game.

Quote:
Originally Posted by steve141 View Post
This is simply wrong. I'm not sure what definition of puck possession gme you are using, but it traditionally denotes a playing style where you strive to keep the puck in your team's possession as much as possible. Lidstrom's game was all about puck possession.

Now, Bourque was clearly a better offensive player than Lidstrom. He was a better offensive skater, a better puck-handler, a better shooter. But I'm also very sure that he lost the puck more often than Lidstrom. Not because he wasn't a great stickhandler, but because he took more risks than Lidstrom.

Lidstrom's trademark was the safe, reliable D-to-D passing. He positioned himself so far back in the defensive zone, that he was basically always open to receive a pass from his team mates. When he got hold of the puck he almost never coughed it up. This is one of the most common observations made by team mates and other commentators.

Are you now telling us that what we have been hearing about Lidstrom's safe, reliable puck possesion style during all these years is false? If so, please explain why your view differs from most other observers.



During the previous season Karlsson had the best year of his career (so far), while Lidstrom's play was below his usual standard. Lidstrom still had 23 giveaways to Karlsson's 84. I don't understand how anybody can claim that Karlsson's game was more of a puck possession game.
You have to have the puck to have it taken away.

Watch the film, you can see the difference in the way they play.
I don't know what else to say, either you understand the difference or you don't.

I really don't understand how one could watch film of the 70's/80's Russians play or the Russian 5 in 90's Detroit and then see any resemblance to the game Lidstrom played.
Tell me, if Lidstrom was so capable of playing that way, why didn't Bowman use him for it after Konstaninov's accident?


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 12-01-2012 at 06:01 PM.
Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2012, 05:53 PM
  #391
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 BraveCanadian View Post
I touched on this before but apparently I was being unreasonable about the obvious double standard.
Well what do you want here?
Lidstrom gets a lot of individual credit for his TEAM success and that team success weighs on the rankings.

Just tell me where you want Lidstrom's strength of team over the years to factor vs Bourque's strength of team?

Did playing with a virtual all-star team all those years help his Cup totals?
Did it increase his offensive production at both even strength and on the power play by having all those top players to pass to and pass to him?
Did it allow him to concentrate more on defense because he had guys out there that he could rely on to put the puck in the other net?

What part of Lidstrom's game didn't benefit or get amplified by his team advantages?

No one gets upset when Harvey's or Potvin's team strength advantage is brought up. Why is it just when Lidstrom's team strength is mentioned that it's a big deal all of a sudden?


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 12-01-2012 at 06:04 PM.
Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2012, 07:35 PM
  #392
KEEROLE Vatanen
Failures Of Fenwick
 
KEEROLE Vatanen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 16,607
vCash: 500
Bourque was a top 5 offensive player of his ERA, not just defensemen, can we say the same about Lidstrom?

I'm not sure why some people are so intent to put Lidstrom at or above Bourque, Lidstrom has played on loaded teams for almost 20 straight seasons and i'd suggest that may have slightly inflated his overall point totals

KEEROLE Vatanen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2012, 08:29 PM
  #393
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,001
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OccupySheen View Post
Bourque was a top 5 offensive player of his ERA, not just defensemen, can we say the same about Lidstrom?

I'm not sure why some people are so intent to put Lidstrom at or above Bourque, Lidstrom has played on loaded teams for almost 20 straight seasons and i'd suggest that may have slightly inflated his overall point totals
Strongly disagree. He wasn't even the best offensive defenseman of his era; that was Paul Coffey.

Then you have forwards like Gretzky, Lemieux, Messier, Yzerman, etc.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2012, 08:47 PM
  #394
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
Strongly disagree. He wasn't even the best offensive defenseman of his era; that was Paul Coffey.

Then you have forwards like Gretzky, Lemieux, Messier, Yzerman, etc.
Top 10ish would be more accurate IMO.

Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2012, 08:49 PM
  #395
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,084
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OccupySheen View Post
Bourque was a top 5 offensive player of his ERA, not just defensemen, can we say the same about Lidstrom?

I'm not sure why some people are so intent to put Lidstrom at or above Bourque, Lidstrom has played on loaded teams for almost 20 straight seasons and i'd suggest that may have slightly inflated his overall point totals
Exactly what metric are you using?

Lidstrom was 7th in points against all of his peers from 92-12

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...rder_by=points

Bourque was 5th

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...rder_by=points


I was actually surprised to see both guys so high actually.

But then again Dmen generally age much better than scoring forwards do, don't they?

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2012, 09:07 PM
  #396
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
Exactly what metric are you using?

Lidstrom was 7th in points against all of his peers from 92-12

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...rder_by=points

Bourque was 5th

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...rder_by=points


I was actually surprised to see both guys so high actually.

But then again Dmen generally age much better than scoring forwards do, don't they?
You can't really just do it by points. Not too many guys played 20 and 22 seasons. Of course they are both going to be high on the lists.

Points per game would prolly be a better overall and fairer metric IMO or at least provide some better context.
I mean if you do the same for goals for Mike Gartner, he's #2 only to Gretzky over his career sooo....

Points/game
From 79/80-00/01 players who played at least 400 games, Bourque was tied for 51rst.
From 91/92-11/12 players who played at least 400 games, Lidstrom was tied for 119th.


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 12-01-2012 at 09:13 PM.
Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2012, 10:16 PM
  #397
OrrNumber4
Registered User
 
OrrNumber4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 7,398
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
Lidstrom led the league in offense more times than Bourque did, and adjusted stats during their long primes put him right on par or only with Bourque for production.

So if we're going with "Chara is very good" then we have to go with "Lidstrom is comparable/just barely behind Bourque" as far as offense is concerned.

And that argument pretty much ends any hope for Bourque to be better than Lidstrom, unless you want to push the "physical play is better than effective defense" angle, because Lidstrom held a significant defensive edge.
No, Lidstrom did not have a significant defensive edge. How this keeps getting brought up, I don't know.

OrrNumber4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2012, 11:07 PM
  #398
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,084
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by superroyain10 View Post
No, Lidstrom did not have a significant defensive edge. How this keeps getting brought up, I don't know.
The problem with his defensive edge is that it's harder to prove than with offense that has stats to back it up but seriously does anyone have Ray being better defensively than Lidstrom?


Last edited by Hardyvan123: 12-01-2012 at 11:22 PM.
Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2012, 11:21 PM
  #399
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
The problem with his defensive edge is that it's ahrder to prove than with offense that has stats to back it up but seriously does anyone have Ray being better defensively than Lidstrom?
I don't think anyone takes issue with anyone saying that they think Lidstrom had the edge defensively over Bourque.
It's the "significantly" part that causes the problem.

Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2012, 11:48 PM
  #400
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pacific NW
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,209
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
The problem with his defensive edge is that it's harder to prove than with offense that has stats to back it up but seriously does anyone have Ray being better defensively than Lidstrom?
Contextually, yes. It depends on the situation, who's on the ice, who your
facing. In certain situations, Id have Bourque out there; others, Lidstrom. If
I had to cut one of them from the same team, only room for one, bye bye Nicky.

Killion is offline   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 04:49 AM.

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.