Jesus Christ, what are you looking for here? What did you think I meant by, "I find the national makeup of Lidstrom's list very interesting."? Did you think I wrote that sentence not expecting the reader to understand that there were 4 Europeans headlining the list before the first Canadian appeared, and that that is the interesting thing I was referring to? Do I need to go back and write a new sentence, "Note that there are 4 Europeans at the top of the list, because there were a lot of Europeans in the league after 1991!" to resolve this issue? I'm sorry, but after several long threads on this exact topic, I kind of assume the audience will notice things like Sergei Zubov not being a Canadian, rather than needing it analyzed for them.
Fetisov is worth noting, absolutely. I'll let you handle the task of showing statistically where he relates to Bourque. Remember to note that he is Russian, not Canadian.
First off, take a deep breath and calm down.
Secondly, I wasn't talking about Lidstrom's list here, I was talking about Bourque's so your outburst was not needed.
Exactly, you finally have it, that was my point. Fetisov and the Russians were worth noting but you didn't bother. It was an obvious omission when we see 3 Soviets in Lidstrom's list but none in Bourque's. Voila.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey
Yet those advantages don't play out in any kind of objectively-verifiable format. That's kind of weird.
Only 2 more Norris', a Conn Smythe and 3 more Cups. Unimportant stuff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey
Perhaps that's your perspective on how to rank players historically, but it's not mine.
I know, even though you've always only presented one-sided, pro-Bourque arguments and information in these debates that's just a coincidence. I'm not buying that and I highly doubt anyone else is either. Which side you and I are on is obvious and to deny it is just sad. Neither of us is going to change our opinions.
Funny how all of you are fighting about Points and Points pr. game when this is a defense-man ranking.
Lidstrom is only behind Orr on the ranking in my book. And that just beause Orr played in the 80's.
I haven't seen anyone with more trouble than trying to get past Lidstrom. Period.
Isn't it easier to prevent goals when you can obstruct anyone, when goalies have humongous pads, when no one takes risks, etc.
And one other thing, which is a bigger deal than it sounds at first -- it's a LOT easier to defend when you know your goalie will stop 99% of shots taken from the outside wing. From a positional standpoint, it makes all the difference in the world not to have to step out and challenge a slapshot from the sideboards. If that "easy" shot starts going in the net, as it did prior to the DPE, there really is no choice to just sit back and play conservatively.
Exactly, you finally have it, that was my point. Fetisov and the Russians were worth noting but you didn't bother. It was an obvious omission when we see 3 Soviets in Lidstrom's list but none in Bourque's. Voila.
So do you expect him to create stats for Fetisov and insert him into the argument? I don't think a CSKA to NHL conversion exists....
Quote:
Originally Posted by danincanada
I know, even though you've always only presented one-sided, pro-Bourque arguments and information in these debates that's just a coincidence. I'm not buying that and I highly doubt anyone else is either. Which side you and I are on is obvious and to deny it is just sad. Neither of us is going to change our opinions.
What nonsense is this?
What if we were talking about gravity, and you said, "you've always only presented one-sided, pro-gravity-exists arguments and information in these debates that's just a coincidence. I'm not buying that and I highly doubt anyone else is either".
Yeah, he's presenting the pro-Bourque arguments because that is what the facts point to.
Just because there is apparent disagreement on an issue does not been that both sides have validity to them....
Funny how all of you are fighting about Points and Points pr. game when this is a defense-man ranking.
Any measure of defense or defensive stats either shows Bourque and Lidstrom in a dead heat or Bourque with a slight advantage and offensively it's no contest sooo...
Quote:
Lidstrom is only behind Orr on the ranking in my book. And that just beause Orr played in the 80's.
So do you expect him to create stats for Fetisov and insert him into the argument? I don't think a CSKA to NHL conversion exists........
Obviously not but to avoid mentioning Fetisov when we see 3 Soviets after Lidstrom on his list is rather obvious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by superroyain10
What nonsense is this?
What if we were talking about gravity, and you said, "you've always only presented one-sided, pro-gravity-exists arguments and information in these debates that's just a coincidence. I'm not buying that and I highly doubt anyone else is either".
Yeah, he's presenting the pro-Bourque arguments because that is what the facts point to.
Just because there is apparent disagreement on an issue does not been that both sides have validity to them....
So Bourque is gravity and Lidstrom is the denial of gravity?
I'm not upset in real life, but rhetorically I'm at the point of exasperation from having the conversation stalled in a ditch on the side of the road. Instead of making points we're sitting here arguing over what points the other guy did or didn't intend to make. Enough already... make a point and let's go!
Quote:
Exactly, you finally have it, that was my point. Fetisov and the Russians were worth noting but you didn't bother. It was an obvious omission when we see 3 Soviets in Lidstrom's list but none in Bourque's. Voila.
Fetisov and who? Please name names.
Quote:
Only 2 more Norris', a Conn Smythe and 3 more Cups. Unimportant stuff.
You think those are objective measurements?
Quote:
I know, even though you've always only presented one-sided, pro-Bourque arguments and information in these debates that's just a coincidence. I'm not buying that and I highly doubt anyone else is either. Which side you and I are on is obvious and to deny it is just sad. Neither of us is going to change our opinions.
I'm not taking Bourque's side. I'm taking the side that is making a coherent proof of its position.
Occasionally I've drawn up evidence in Lidstrom's favor, such as here and here . I unconditionally praised his defense here. It's not like I'm unwilling to give him credit where it's due. But as I said earlier, it seems very clear to me at this point that a good number of people are putting Lidstrom over Bourque because they really don't have a strong grasp on defensemen in the 1980s (see: Orr played in the 80s, Coffey was just another offensive defenseman, etc) and don't seem to understand just what they're putting Lidstrom up against here. I can think of one person specifically who has a different rationale, which I disagree with, but is at least a valid argument.
You want to talk Lidstrom vs. Harvey, Lidstrom vs. Potvin, Lidstrom vs. Robinson, Lidstrom vs. Kelly... sure, I'll play along and probably have something to say on both sides of the argument. But this is one comparison where a lot of bull**** is being thrown at the wall and after about 100 pages combined, not much has stuck. So yeah, I'm going to end up making a lot of pro-Bourque posts in a thread like this.
Obviously not but to avoid mentioning Fetisov when we see 3 Soviets after Lidstrom on his list is rather obvious.
And just for the sake of argument, lets put him in as Bourque's equal offensively in the 80's. No one is going to make any argument worth a **** that would put him above Bourque or on par with Coffey or Orr.
So doesn't that just mean that Bourque's already superior competition only gets even more so.
And doesn't it also just mean that it would be one more player to put above Lidstrom offensively?
(I already do hold Fetisov ahead of Lidstrom offensively btw)
Quote:
So Bourque is gravity and Lidstrom is the denial of gravity?
Any measure of defense or defensive stats either shows Bourque and Lidstrom in a dead heat or Bourque with a slight advantage and offensively it's no contest sooo...
You mean the 60's and 70's right?
Yes 70's. Well mostly. 4 years in the 60's. Wrong button.
I'm going to make a very bold claim but I have the data to back it up. Lidstrom actually faced at least as much competition from Canadian defensemen as did Bourque, both over the course of his career, and in his prime.
There's no question that Lidstrom faced more competition from European defensemen, however it's also clear that Bourque played during the golden age of American defensemen. The data shows that although Bourque lacked in European competition (relative to Lidstrom), he made up for it since he played during the great age of American defensemen. But don't believe me, let the data do the talking.
Here are the Norris votes over both players' careers:
Norris votes - 1980 to 2001
Ray Bourque
901
Paul Coffey
394
Chris Chelios
346
Nicklas Lidstrom
297
Brian Leetch
278
Al MacInnis
267
Scott Stevens
229
Rod Langway
185
Chris Pronger
178
Mark Howe
173
Norris votes - 1992 to 2012
Nicklas Lidstrom
897
Ray Bourque
336
Zdeno Chara
335
Chris Chelios
323
Chris Pronger
289
Brian Leetch
273
Scott Niedermayer
238
Al MacInnis
215
Rob Blake
211
Scott Stevens
180
Note: to facilitate cross-season comparisons, all Norris votes are scaled to 100 points for a unanimous vote. For example, a blueliner who earns 900 out of 1,200 voting points in a single season would get 75 voting points.
The top ten defensemen during Bourque's era consist of five Canadians (Bourque, Coffey, MacInnis, Stevens, Pronger), four Americans (Chelios, Leetch, Langway, Howe) and one European (Lidstrom). Total percentage of these votes (excluding Bourque) going to Canadian defensemen = 46%.
The top ten defensemen during Lidstrom's era consist of six Canadians (Bourque, Pronger, Niedermayer, MacInnis, Blake, Stevens), two Americans (Chelios, Leetch) and two Europeans (Lidstrom, Chara). Total percentage of these votes (excluding Lidstrom) going to Canadian defensemen = 61%.
Yes, there were more Europeans in the league during Lidstrom's career, but in terms of top-end talent, Lidstrom actually played in an era when Canadians made up a larger proportion of the league's best defensemen! Key insight: Bourque played in an era with more elite American talent and that seems to have more than offset the fact that Lidstrom played in an era with more European talent.
Let's look at the competition during their best ten seasons (11 calendar year for Lidstrom since he lost 2004 to the lockout).
Norris votes - 1987 to 1996
Ray Bourque
618
Chris Chelios
304
Paul Coffey
164
Brian Leetch
157
Al MacInnis
152
Scott Stevens
133
Larry Murphy
70
Mark Howe
52
Phil Housley
44
Gary Suter
34
Norris votes - 1998 to 2008
Nicklas Lidstrom
731
Chris Pronger
275
Scott Niedermayer
236
Rob Blake
211
Al MacInnis
193
Zdeno Chara
133
Sergei Gonchar
112
Ray Bourque
82
Chris Chelios
80
Scott Stevens
61
The top ten defensemen during Bourque's prime consist of five Canadians (Bourque, Coffey, MacInnis, Stevens, Murphy), five Americans (Chelios, Leetch, Howe, Housley, Suter) and no Europeans. Total percentage of these votes (excluding Bourque) going to Canadian defensemen = 47%.
The top ten defensemen during Lidstrom's prime consists of six Canadians (Pronger, Niedermayer, Blake, MacInnis, Bourque, Stevens), one American (Chelios) and three Europeans (Lidstrom, Chara, Gonchar). Total percentage of these votes (excluding Lidstrom) going to Canadian defensemen = 77%.
Prime versus prime, Lidstrom actually faced more Canadian competitors than Bourque! It's by a significant margin too (77% of the Norris votes went to Canadians during Lidstrom's prime, compared to just 47% during Bourque's prime). This may seem counter-intuitive given that there were more Europeans during Lidstrom's - but this knee-jerk reaction ignores the fact that Bourque played during the golden age of American defensemen. American talent ebbs and flows, especially at the defenseman position, and Bourque played during an era when this talent flourished, and Lidstrom in a time when it didn't. Whatever extra competition Lidstrom faced from increased European presence in the NHL was offset by the decrease in American talent.
Also - when it comes to determining who faced tougher competition, I frankly don't care about players like Teppo Numminen, Andrei Markov, Fredrik Olausson, Sandis Ozolinsh (none of whom ever placed in the top five in Norris voting), and players like Sergei Zubov and Kimmo Timonen (who placed in the top five once each) are barely worth noting. The fact remains that just two other European defensemen placed in the top ten during Lidstrom's prime (Chara and Gonchar), and that doesn't offset the instense competition that Bourque faced from Americans.
Another interesting fact- Lidstrom was never "blocked" from winning a Norris trophy by non-Canadians. Why? Because, as I've previously showed, Canada still produced the majority of the NHL's best defensemen during Lidstrom's career (given that, with the exception of Chara and Gonchar, none of the European defensemen provided regular competition for the Norris trophy; and the previous generation of elite American blueliners had died off). In an "all Canadian" league, Lidstrom still would have won his extremely impressive and well-deserved seven Norris trophies. However, since Bourque competed against an historically great group of Americans, he's at a disadvantage:
1982: finished 2nd to an American (Wilson)
1983: finished 3rd to two Americans (Langway, Howe)
1992: finished 2nd to an American (Leetch)
1993: finished 2nd to an American (Chelios)
1996: finished 2nd to an American (Chelios)
2001: finished 2nd to a Swede (Lidstrom)
In addition to his five Norris trophies, Bourque would have won six more in a Canadian-only league. I'm not saying that we should treat Bourque as the equivalent of an eleven-time Norris trophy winner, but this should clearly highlight the high-end talent that Bourque faced from non-Canadians. Once again, I don't care about good players like Zubov and Numminen who never contended for the Norris trophy; I'm focusing on elite non-Canadians.
How do I reconcile this with the data that Tarheels provided? It's simple. Tarheels is a great poster and we agree on many things, but I think his method of analysis is flawed (sorry Tarheels). He was looking solely at points-per-game, which is an flawed way of analyzing the data. His tables show a lot of high-scoring, one-way defensemen like Zubov, Ozolinsh and Schneider, who, in total, placed in the top five in Norris voting just once. That doesn't tell me anything about who was actually considered the best defensemen in the league, which is why I think my method is more appropriate and informative.
Conclusion: the data shows that that Bourque faced more competition from non-Canadians than Lidstrom, both when looking at their primes and their entire careers. This occurred due to Bourque's career and prime coinciding with the golden age of American defensemen, which more than offset the increased European presence in the NHL during Lidstrom's era. To deny this conclusion, one must deny the validity of the Norris trophy data itself, which is the foundation of any claim that Lidstrom is better than Bourque.
Last edited by Hockey Outsider: 12-03-2012 at 01:38 PM.
Looking at the top 60 list sticky, how many d-men on that list could you put ahead of Bourque offensively? 3 or 4? Orr, Coffey and Potvin, that's about it. You could make arguments for Shore, Park, Fetisov and Kelly to be close with Bourque but I don't think Bourque finishes lower than 5th.
Now do the same for Lidstrom.
Orr
Coffey
Potvin
Bourque
Park
Kelly
Fetisov
Leetch
Murphy
MacInnis
Housley
Howe
And even before you slot Lidstrom in, you have to determine if he was actually better offensively than Harvey, Salming and Kasatonov.
Hell, you'd be lucky to get him slotted in the top 15 and not even remotely close to getting in the top 10.
Amazing what happens when it's not about going against Zubov, Niedermayer, Pronger, Chara and Blake eh
I'm going to make a very bold claim but I have the data to back it up. Lidstrom actually faced at least as much competition from Canadian defensemen as did Bourque, both over the course of his career, and in his prime.
There's no question that Lidstrom faced more competition from European defensemen, however it's also clear that Bourque played during the golden age of American defensemen. The data shows that although Bourque lacked in European competition (relative to Lidstrom), he made up for it since he played during the great age of American defensemen. But don't believe me, let the data do the talking.
Here are the Norris votes over both players' careers:
Norris votes - 1980 to 2001
Ray Bourque
901
Paul Coffey
394
Chris Chelios
346
Nicklas Lidstrom
297
Brian Leetch
278
Al MacInnis
267
Scott Stevens
229
Rod Langway
185
Chris Pronger
178
Mark Howe
173
Norris votes - 1992 to 2012
Nicklas Lidstrom
897
Ray Bourque
336
Zdeno Chara
335
Chris Chelios
323
Chris Pronger
289
Brian Leetch
273
Scott Niedermayer
238
Al MacInnis
215
Rob Blake
211
Scott Stevens
180
Note: to facilitate cross-season comparisons, all Norris votes are scaled to 100 points for a unanimous vote. For example, a blueliner who earns 900 out of 1,200 voting points in a single season would get 75 voting points.
The top ten defensemen during Bourque's era consist of five Canadians (Bourque, Coffey, MacInnis, Stevens, Pronger), four Americans (Chelios, Leetch, Langway, Howe) and one European (Lidstrom). Total percentage of these votes (excluding Bourque) going to Canadian defensemen = 46%.
The top ten defensemen during Lidstrom's era consist of six Canadians (Bourque, Pronger, Niedermayer, MacInnis, Blake, Stevens), two Americans (Chelios, Leetch) and two Europeans (Lidstrom, Chara). Total percentage of these votes (excluding Lidstrom) going to Canadian defensemen = 61%.
Yes, there were more Europeans in the league during Lidstrom's career, but in terms of top-end talent, Lidstrom actually played in an era when Canadians made up a larger proportion of the league's best defensemen! Key insight: Bourque played in an era with more elite American talent and that seems to have more than offset the fact that Lidstrom played in an era with more European talent.
Let's look at the competition during their best ten seasons (11 calendar year for Lidstrom since he lost 2004 to the lockout).
Norris votes - 1987 to 1996
Ray Bourque
618
Chris Chelios
304
Paul Coffey
164
Brian Leetch
157
Al MacInnis
152
Scott Stevens
133
Larry Murphy
70
Mark Howe
52
Phil Housley
44
Gary Suter
34
Norris votes - 1998 to 2008
Nicklas Lidstrom
731
Chris Pronger
275
Scott Niedermayer
236
Rob Blake
211
Al MacInnis
193
Zdeno Chara
133
Sergei Gonchar
112
Ray Bourque
82
Chris Chelios
80
Scott Stevens
61
The top ten defensemen during Bourque's prime consist of five Canadians (Bourque, Coffey, MacInnis, Stevens, Murphy), five Americans (Chelios, Leetch, Howe, Housley, Suter) and no Europeans. Total percentage of these votes (excluding Bourque) going to Canadian defensemen = 47%.
The top ten defensemen during Lidstrom's prime consists of six Canadians (Pronger, Niedermayer, Blake, MacInnis, Bourque, Stevens), one American (Chelios) and three Europeans (Lidstrom, Chara, Gonchar). Total percentage of these votes (excluding Lidstrom) going to Canadian defensemen = 77%.
Prime versus prime, Lidstrom actually faced more Canadian competitors than Bourque! It's by a significant margin too (77% of the Norris votes went to Canadians during Lidstrom's prime, compared to just 47% during Bourque's prime). This may seem counter-intuitive given that there were more Europeans during Lidstrom's - but this knee-jerk reaction ignores the fact that Bourque played during the golden age of American defensemen. American talent ebbs and flows, especially at the defenseman position, and Bourque played during an era when this talent flourished, and Lidstrom in a time when it didn't. Whatever extra competition Lidstrom faced from increased European presence in the NHL was offset by the decrease in American talent.
Also - when it comes to determining who faced tougher competition, I frankly don't care about players like Teppo Numminen, Andrei Markov, Fredrik Olausson, Sandis Ozolinsh (none of whom ever placed in the top five in Norris voting), and players like Sergei Zubov and Kimmo Timonen (who placed in the top five once each) are barely worth noting. The fact remains that just two other European defensemen placed in the top ten during Lidstrom's prime (Chara and Gonchar), and that doesn't offset the instense competition that Bourque faced from Americans.
Another interesting fact- Lidstrom was never "blocked" from winning a Norris trophy by non-Canadians. Why? Because, as I've previously showed, Canada still produced the majority of the NHL's best defensemen during Lidstrom's career (given that, with the exception of Chara and Gonchar, none of the European defensemen provided regular competition for the Norris trophy; and the previous generation of elite American blueliners had died off). In an "all Canadian" league, Lidstrom still would have won his extremely impressive and well-deserved seven Norris trophies. However, since Bourque competed against an historically great group of Americans, he's at a disadvantage:
1982: finished 2nd to an American (Wilson)
1983: finished 3rd to two Americans (Langway, Howe)
1992: finished 2nd to an American (Leetch)
1993: finished 2nd to an American (Chelios)
1996: finished 2nd to an American (Chelios)
2001: finished 2nd to a Swede (Lidstrom)
In addition to his five Norris trophies, Bourque would have won six more in a Canadian-only league. I'm not saying that we should treat Bourque as the equivalent of an eleven-time Norris trophy winner, but this should clearly highlight the high-end talent that Bourque faced from non-Canadians. Once again, I don't care about good players like Zubov and Numminen who never contended for the Norris trophy; I'm focusing on elite non-Canadians.
How do I reconcile this with the data that Tarheels provided? It's simple. Tarheels is a great poster and we agree on many things, but I think his method of analysis is flawed (sorry Tarheels). He was looking solely at points-per-game, which is an flawed way of analyzing the data. His tables show a lot of high-scoring, one-way defensemen like Zubov, Ozolinsh and Schneider, who, in total, placed in the top five in Norris voting just once. That doesn't tell me anything about who was actually considered the best defensemen in the league, which is why I think my method is more appropriate and informative.
Conclusion: the data shows that that Bourque faced more competition from non-Canadians than Lidstrom, both when looking at their primes and their entire careers. This occurred due to Bourque's career and prime coinciding with the golden age of American defensemen, which more than offset the increased European presence in the NHL during Lidstrom's era. To deny this conclusion, one must deny the validity of the Norris trophy data itself, which is the foundation of any claim that Lidstrom is better than Bourque.
Well done analysis. Another point to make is that in terms of competition, it should be clear that looking at the names on the list, Bourque faced very tough competition.
In tarheel's favor, he was only looking at offensive defensemen, and the lack of top offensive defenseman Canada produced.
Those stricly statistical comparisons for offense only will be what they will be. No one should take them too seriously but you should include the "outlier" or top guy no matter what. Why ignore that player when they did exist and thrived due to the style of play and league makeup at the time? Coffey wouldn't have been as impressive statistically had he played in a more defensive league in his prime and the same applies to Bourque. Subtracting Coffey from it because he dominates those stats too much just suites your agenda.
So do you think the quality of the number 1 player never changes all the time or do you think we should just ignore when the quality of the number 1 player changes? So a player who scores 75% of Wayne Gretzky in 1986 should be treated the same as a player who scores 75% of Daniel Sedin in 2011? Does that really make sense?
It's absolutely absurd to pretend Coffey wasn't any better than Lidstrom offensively, when Paul Coffey was outscoring a prime Steve Yzerman on a per-game basis over a large sample size.
How do I reconcile this with the data that Tarheels provided? It's simple. Tarheels is a great poster and we agree on many things, but I think his method of analysis is flawed (sorry Tarheels). He was looking solely at points-per-game, which is an flawed way of analyzing the data. His tables show a lot of high-scoring, one-way defensemen like Zubov, Ozolinsh and Schneider, who, in total, placed in the top five in Norris voting just once. That doesn't tell me anything about who was actually considered the best defensemen in the league, which is why I think my method is more appropriate and informative.
And I completely agree, no offense taken.
Just to clarify the purpose of my earlier analysis, those rankings were intended to illustrate elite competition on an offensive basis only.
One new thing I'll take away from this thread is that the growth of international talent is much less regular than I'd assumed, and that's not because I thought it was regular in the first place. The rise and fall of Americans, then Russians, then Czechs and Slovaks, and apparently some diminishing (and possibly a recent restoration?) of elite Canadian talent has profound implications for the talent supply in a given season. It would appear that Scandinavia is the only part of the world that has grown its talent base consistently over the time period we've been discussing. That's a far cry from some of the underlying, population-based assumptions we've made in past arguments about the talent supply.
Looking at the top 60 list sticky, how many d-men on that list could you put ahead of Bourque offensively? 3 or 4? Orr, Coffey and Potvin, that's about it. You could make arguments for Shore, Park, Fetisov and Kelly to be close with Bourque but I don't think Bourque finishes lower than 5th.
Now do the same for Lidstrom.
I put Red Kelly in a class by himself in 3rd if we are talking about offense.
Bourque can fight with Shore, Pilote, Potvin, and possibly Fetisov for 4th. I would lean towards Bourque probably though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71
Now do the same for Lidstrom.
Orr
Coffey
Potvin
Bourque
Park
Kelly
Fetisov
Leetch
Murphy
MacInnis
Housley
Howe
And even before you slot Lidstrom in, you have to determine if he was actually better offensively than Harvey, Salming and Kasatonov.
Hell, you'd be lucky to get him slotted in the top 15 and not even remotely close to getting in the top 10.
Amazing what happens when it's not about going against Zubov, Niedermayer, Pronger, Chara and Blake eh
I can't believe you're still trying to claim that Larry Murphy and Phil Housley were better offensively than Lidstrom. Not to mention Salming and Kasatonov who are easily behind.
Lidstrom can be a bit behind Bourque offensively without pretending that he's worse than Murphy and Housley...
Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 12-03-2012 at 02:27 PM.
So do you think the quality of the number 1 player never changes all the time or do you think we should just ignore when the quality of the number 1 player changes? So a player who scores 75% of Wayne Gretzky in 1986 should be treated the same as a player who scores 75% of Daniel Sedin in 2011? Does that really make sense?
It's absolutely absurd to pretend Coffey wasn't any better than Lidstrom offensively, when Paul Coffey was outscoring a prime Steve Yzerman on a per-game basis over a large sample size.
This was never my point. I just took offense with the analysis that told us to ignore Coffey altogether because he was so far ahead of Bourque and that the poster forgot all about the Soviets, specifically Fetisov. It made for a very pro-Bourque post, like usual.
Yet the denial of being biased emerged again even though Bourque was the posters favourite player. As a Red Wings fan I know I'm biased and I admit it but I have no time for people who also have an obvious bias but pretend they are above it. The constant pro-Bourque posts scream it out loud for everyone to hear. Just admit it because otherwise the whole debate seems disingenuous.
Looking at the top 60 list sticky, how many d-men on that list could you put ahead of Bourque offensively? 3 or 4? Orr, Coffey and Potvin, that's about it. You could make arguments for Shore, Park, Fetisov and Kelly to be close with Bourque but I don't think Bourque finishes lower than 5th.
Now do the same for Lidstrom.
Orr
Coffey
Potvin
Bourque
Park
Kelly
Fetisov
Leetch
Murphy
MacInnis
Housley
Howe
And even before you slot Lidstrom in, you have to determine if he was actually better offensively than Harvey, Salming and Kasatonov.
Hell, you'd be lucky to get him slotted in the top 15 and not even remotely close to getting in the top 10.
Amazing what happens when it's not about going against Zubov, Niedermayer, Pronger, Chara and Blake eh
All credibility re: Lidstrom down the drain with this post.
That's enough for me. I'll let the hockey world decide where Lidstrom stands. His legacy will certainly outlast this BS.
This was never my point. I just took offense with the analysis that told us to ignore Coffey altogether because he was so far ahead of Bourque and that the poster forgot all about the Soviets, specifically Fetisov. It made for a very pro-Bourque post, like usual.
Yet the denial of being biased emerged again even though Bourque was the posters favourite player. As a Red Wings fan I know I'm biased and I admit it but I have no time for people who also have an obvious bias but pretend they are above it. The constant pro-Bourque posts scream it out loud for everyone to hear. Just admit it because otherwise the whole debate seems disingenuous.
Then I don't understand your point. He thought it was more fair to compare everyone below Lidstrom to Lidstrom and everyone below Bourque to Bourque, rather than comparing everyone below Bourque to Coffey. And I agree with him, because I don't think Coffey is anything close to an equal comparison with Lidstrom offensively.
I agree with you that there are some bad anti-Lidstrom arguments made in these threads all the time (pretending that Larry Murphy was a better offensively player is only the latest), but there are bad pro-Lidstrom arguments as well - such as the arguments that Paul Coffey is not a historical outlier.
I'll rephrase what I said before - if you think Lidstrom is as good offensively as Paul Coffey, you are saying that he is almost as good offensively as prime Steve Yzerman.
In Paul Coffey's statistical prime (1983-84 to 1989-90), he scored 1.47 points per game. In Steve Yzerman's statistical prime (1987-88 to 1993-94), he scored 1.55 points per game.
Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 12-03-2012 at 02:33 PM.
I put Red Kelly in a class by himself in 3rd if we are talking about offense.
Bourque can fight with Shore, Pilote, Potvin, and possibly Fetisov for 4th. I would lean towards Bourque probably though.
That's fair. I knew it wouldn't be unanimous. That's why I said no lower than 5th.
Quote:
I can't believe you're still trying to claim that Larry Murphy and Phil Housley were better offensively than Lidstrom. Not to mention Salming and Kasatonov who are easily behind.
Lidstrom can be a bit behind Bourque offensively without pretending that he's worse than Murphy and Housley...
I don't know why that's so unbelievable? At least with Housley.
Housley was IMO better offensively than Lidstrom. He's not even close to being as good overall obviously but offensively he was up there. He's right there with MacInnis.
Even at 35 years old, smack dab in the middle of the worst DPE years, he was putting up 55 and 54 point seasons. Which btw is almost what a prime Lidstrom was averaging per season in the DPE years.
Murphy I'm flexible on but that would still be a debate. It's not clear cut in any event and both belong in the same "tier" IMO.
All credibility re: Lidstrom down the drain with this post.
That's enough for me. I'll let the hockey world decide where Lidstrom stands. His legacy will certainly outlast this BS.
Hey, that was just how I had them.
By all means, rank them your way, I even asked you to in the post.
Are you saying you're out because you truly believe I'm under ranking Lidstrom's offense or because you know if you do rank the same list, there is no chance in hell of getting him into the top 10?
I put Red Kelly in a class by himself in 3rd if we are talking about offense.
Bourque can fight with Shore, Pilote, Potvin, and possibly Fetisov for 4th. I would lean towards Bourque probably though.
I can't believe you're still trying to claim that Larry Murphy and Phil Housley were better offensively than Lidstrom. Not to mention Salming and Kasatonov who are easily behind.
Lidstrom can be a bit behind Bourque offensively without pretending that he's worse than Murphy and Housley...
To be fair, the only questionable guy on Rhiessen's list is Murphy. I would say that Lidstrom is ahead of Salming and Kasatonov handidly.
To be fair, the only questionable guy on Rhiessen's list is Murphy. I would say that Lidstrom is ahead of Salming and Kasatonov handidly.
Murphy isn't "questionable," it's flat out ridiculous.
Lidstrom is easily ahead of Housley statistically, as well. I get that one can make the argument that Housley would have scored more if he got more ice time and his terrible D was why he didn't get more ice time. But still, putting Housley ahead of Lidstrom offensively is "questionable" at best.
I also see no reason for the assumptions that Park, Fetisov, and Howe were better offensively than Lidstrom, either. Those are the ones that should be debatable, not freaking Salming and Kasatonov!
When Rheissan wonders why posters accuse him of being biased against Lidstrom, well... he certainly gave people a post to point at.
Murphy isn't "questionable," it's flat out ridiculous.
Lidstrom is easily ahead of Housley statistically, as well. I get that one can make the argument that Housley would have scored more if he got more ice time and his terrible D was why he didn't get more ice time. But still, putting Housley ahead of Lidstrom offensively is "questionable" at best.
I also see no reason for the assumptions that Park, Fetisov, and Howe were better offensively than Lidstrom, either. Those are the ones that should be debatable, not freaking Salming and Kasatonov!
When Rheissan wonders why posters accuse him of being biased against Lidstrom, well... he certainly gave people a post to point at.
Just my opinion, but I think Housley & Leetch were both better offensively than Bourque or Lidstrom.
Murphy isn't "questionable," it's flat out ridiculous.
Lidstrom is easily ahead of Housley statistically, as well. I get that one can make the argument that Housley would have scored more if he got more ice time and his terrible D was why he didn't get more ice time. But still, putting Housley ahead of Lidstrom offensively is "questionable" at best.
I also see no reason for the assumptions that Park, Fetisov, and Howe were better offensively than Lidstrom, either. Those are the ones that should be debatable, not freaking Salming and Kasatonov!
When Rheissan wonders why posters accuse him of being biased against Lidstrom, well... he certainly gave people a post to point at.
I think it depends on career value vs peak.
Salming had some great offensive seasons early in his career. Obviously he didn't continue that, but there are some arguments to be made.
For my book, in the NHL, I'd consider Park and Housley ahead of Lidstrom all time. I might add Pilote as well juding by other people's reports of him. But Lidstrom still falls well short of top 10 all time. Bourque is in my top-5 (just on offense).
